January 15, 2025 — Beverage Licensing Authority Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Okay. And chair. Do you mind just reading the call to order into the record? One more time. Absolutely call to order the beverage. Licensing authority. Hearing for January 15, th 2,025 at 3 Pm. Thank you so much. We're going to start with the rules of decorum here. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy, for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project community engagement process can be found on our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[1:06] Participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online, and the chat function, or in this case the Q. And a function should only be used for technical questions to staff, and it should not be used for public comment. All right. Next I will do the roll call if you'll just speak your presence aloud. Chair, Matt Califano. Your telephone. I'm present. Thank you. Member Absalom. Member Absalom Present. Thank you. Vice chair. Carr will be here in about 30 min. Member Haggerty. Member Haggerty, Present. Thank you. And Member Roberts. Member Roberts, present. Thank you so much. I'm gonna suggest that we move the approval of the minutes to agenda. Item 10 at the end of the hearing, so that Member Carr can make a vote on that, because there will be quorum unless Member Carr is here.

[2:15] So I'll go ahead and move to agenda, hearing agenda issues from the licensing clerk. I have one thing to go over with you. And we could talk about it more when we get there. But city licensing is going to request a continuance on agenda. Item 7. Because petitioning was not able to be submitted in time for the packet, and there was a few other application documents that were missing on that one. So we'll be asking for a continuance on that. And that's the only agenda issue I have for now. So I will move to agenda. Item 2, which is matters from boulder, police department and officer wreck is here. Good afternoon, officer. Rec. Boulder, Pd, I don't have a ton this month, which is probably a good thing the students were gone. So we didn't get a ton of calls. Just update

[3:06] with our fake ids close to 1,800. Sorry my cameras not focusing very well. Almost 1,800 ids for last year, but they are still coming in. We've had 9 so far this year. But what is starting to become pretty alarming is that I think I had my youngest individual with a fake id, and that individual was 16 and used it multiple times. So we gotta. We're gonna have to get a handle on that. And so we're trying to come up with some creative ways. on how that's gonna look. I think one of the things I'd really like to find out is who the individuals are who are creating and making these ids see if we can figure out a way to go after that. That's probably going to be way bigger than me. But at least, if we can get an idea of where they're getting them from. That might be a little bit of a start, but that to me was very alarming, and that individual did end up in the hospital. So just giving you guys a heads up that it's becoming younger and younger and more along with so

[4:16] very scary to me. And I think that is about all. I have any questions for me. There any questions from the Board? Thank you. Not seeing any. Alright. Well, thank you again for all that you do, Officer Rick. Hopefully. Thank you. We'll move on to agenda. Item, 3 matters from responsible association of retailers and Mandy. There's someone, or there's a partners in the attendees. Do you think that could be. That would be heather. Yeah, if you could admit her. She is the director of all of partners, and I would just like her to address. This group? Just so. You hear everything from her, and can ask both of us any questions that anybody has.

[5:05] No problem. She's coming in, and I will hand it over to you guys. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for adding me. My name is Heather, best guard. I'm the director of the Partners organization which houses the rar program serving Boulder County, Larimer County and Northern Weld County. As you all may have learned at the last bla meeting. It was, I think the day before. Maybe Nathan Dewey, our Rar director, is no longer an employee with the Partners organization. Mandy Voles, who also is a part of the responsible association of Retailers, but has been focused on Larimer County. Is working with me to kind of meet with all the folks who are involved in Boulder understand the rar work that was happening in Boulder and the specific relationships there in Boulder. So I've been emailing with lots of different people and having different meetings to try and

[6:07] get up to speed on the boulder activities. I believe that Mandy gave a little bit of an update at the last meeting, but wanted to reiterate my understanding of the current situation with Ra in boulder and share with you all what we understand we're able to do as the responsible association of retailers and what we cannot do, and I believe that Mandy can help me fill in blanks if I miss things, and some of you can probably help me fill in blanks quite honestly. But also I think that John Valley is here somewhere in the maybe listening in on this. I know he has some insight as well. but long story short, the State of Colorado has now the responsible vendor trainer certification. That is a process that you have to apply for as a trainer in the substance retailer industry.

[7:03] Mandy submitted an application to be certified as a trainer back in July. There have been multiple communications to the State. Since then. We have been told that they are backlogged. They are short staffed. They will get to it when they get to it. But that currently our application is pending. My understanding is that we're not alone in that, that there are lots of trainers out there who have submitted applications and are waiting on that certification, but that certification is now required in order for us to get any tests, whether those be tips, tests, or serve safe tests actually graded, and certification certificates given to the employees who train with us. So just maybe to over clarify. Mandy is certified through the Tips organization and through the servesafe organization as a trainer. She's done all the things she needs to do. What we don't have is the certification from the State as a responsible vendor trainer. My understanding is that the bla is requiring that certification

[8:10] for any employees of retailer establishments who are being trained. They have to have those certificates, and I understand that wanted to let you all know that we currently can't provide those certificates, not for lack of trying. And we know members need them. I can say that we're able to train people and do it effectively and using the material. That you know, is required by tips and serve safe. But we're we're kind of handcuffed right now until we have certification from the State to be able to provide certificates. We are getting emails from members about that. I know you all have. probably some considerations there as well to decide how you feel about that, and what you'd like us to do moving forward. But I'd like to to partner with you all on that, to serve the members to the best of my ability. So

[9:00] what questions can I answer? What holes, what things did I miss. I highly doubt this. But did they give you the state led? Did they give you any sort of a timeline. No, they did not. There any other questions? Should I ask? Could I ask a question of you all, just to help in my understanding, as I continue to to get up to speed on this. What we have heard from our Larimer County folks is that the State vendor certification giving certificates to employees who are trained by somebody who's able to to train tips and serve safe is not required in Larimer County. They don't seem to care so much about that, but my understanding is that in Boulder County it is required. I still need clarification on Weld County. But can you help me understand

[10:01] who makes that decision? Is it a county individual decision. Or do you think Larimer County is confused, and they have to require it, or any any comments on that that help me. You can help me understand. I guess I would defer to Caitlin on this. But we we're only speaking for the city right now. Not necessarily. The county. But, Caitlin, do you know about that requirement? Can you really quick? Can you repeat your question? So I fully understand. Thank you. Yeah. So there is a responsible vendor trainer certification that is required for us to be able to submit test results to the State from tips and serve safe trainings, and for the people who we train to receive certificates. Hmm. My understanding is that that is required by you all in Boulder, that that folks have those certificates.

[11:03] We're hearing that in Larimer County that is not required. It's preferred, but it is not required. And I'm wondering who makes that call. Is it a county decision? So the requirement for training is in the bla rules of procedure. Okay. For the city of Boulder. So that's where that requirement is coming from. Where that decision was made. Wonderful! And typically their process is to make changes to that or additions, or whatever at their retreat, which happens after board recruitment in the spring. So that's usually in like the summer that they can make changes wonderful. Thank you. Yeah. So I guess with that information. And in the midst of this transition I what I would ask you all to consider is.

[12:00] we would love to be able to give you all a list of folks who are certified by the State as state vendor approved people. And and we don't have that. We're actually not aware of anybody who has achieved that certification yet. We also would love for retailers to be responsibly trained. And I do believe we have a trainer and Mandy who can do that very well? Who is certified by the Tips organization and serve safe? Is there a process in which exception can be made for X period of time. Are there alternative solutions? So that when members are emailing, asking for training. we can try and work with them on that. So I guess that's what I would wonder if you could consider. I think one of the biggest issues we face with this now is our timing requirement for this training to be completed, which is 60 days. Yep. And I'm wondering if potentially there's some sort of emergency order we could put in place right now where we suspend that for, say, 3 months or a set amount of time.

[13:09] Just given the current situation. Because I I know this isn't just Boulder County that this is affecting. This is affecting several people across the State. So it's a state thing, and we really have no control on it. So I'm wondering if there is any potential for a kind of an emergency suspension of our rules. In that case. Meaning employees would just put off being trained until that there were people that were certified. Well. That they would. Like a suspension of the bla rules re requiring that 60 day. Kind of a thing, I think, is what he's getting at there. And I think that we kind of not not we. But it was a little bit discussed last time about the potential of something like that, and it sounded like there needed to be another meeting or some sort of something needed to happen in order for that to happen. If it was decided that that was how we wanted to proceed.

[14:08] And so we're we're just looking for guidance on, you know. We, we want to continue helping, and we are trying so hard to continue helping and we're just running into this blockade. And I don't, you know, with the State arguing with the city seems kind of weird, and we we don't know how to proceed. And we don't want our the people that we work with to get in trouble because they are trying. I you know I can give. You know, people that are members that I want to. I want to get my people trained. But I'm telling them I officially cannot. I can submit the test that they give me to the tips or the serve safe organizations. And I just get an email back that says you're not officially a Colorado certified trainer. So that's that's how it actually plays out. So I can submit the test. But then they're lost.

[15:04] So these people are essentially paying for something, and then they don't get a certification because I can't. I can't do anything about it. I'm out of hold. And so we're looking to you all to figure out. How do we deal with that? The State is blocking us right now. Oh, this is member absolute speaking. Thank you. I know you're going through a transition right now. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay? Yeah. My understanding around the state rules that's happening is that there's a specific training going around Colorado rules and also federal and State laws that the State led is requiring trainers, specific trainers to go through the Colorado rules. And the list on the led website is a list of actual trainers, people who are trained to do so. which I think obviously along the guidelines of the bla rules.

[16:01] we have always done 60 days, and we always wanted people to do in person training right? Because that and correct me. If I'm wrong. In Larimer County you have a record of not having any compliance failures. So. Well, I've I've heard that it's way different than our jurisdiction here. Sure. Okay. Because boulder is a wildly different jurisdiction. In terms of the complexity of where we are and the, you know, there's so many licenses lined up. So my question, I guess to you is that if we were to make an emergency change like chair Calapano mentioned, which I agree with. We need to amend the rules for the moment, to make sure that operators can train people. What is? What is the ask here? What what is? What do you? What can what can you be presented with? You are a trainer, right? Are you on the State led list. No, I am trying to get on the led. You are in the process.

[17:01] They won't look at my application yet. And I. I know that obviously tips and service safe are having problems with reaching out to clients with certifications. Once the testing goes through and like you, said John Bollier, you said is, gonna speak here today. I think that's someone you could really reach out to understand this process. That being said, I would side with Chair Calafano, saying, we can talk about how the rules can work for operators right now. The led is giving you a list of people who actually can train. And that's a very short list. And that's not viable for our community. So I I'd actually open that up to other board members to try to understand what we would be willing to think about looking at the Vla. Rules around timing and approved training vendors. And I I don't want to. I'm sorry to interrupt. I would love to hear from others as well. Is John. Does John happen to be in the

[18:04] waiting queue. Yeah, I was just about to inform the board, so Mr. Belly does have his hand raised. It would be up to the board if they would like me to, I can either allow him to come into the meeting as a panelist and have him turn his camera on, and he'd be part of the rar discussion or however, you guys want to see fit, or I can have him do public comment later. Whatever you guys. I'd make a motion to have John be a part of this discussion. Personally, if that's a miserable thing. I don't think it needs a motion. I think just whatever you guys decide. Personally. Thank you. To hear from him as well. Right now. I think that would just. It's it's appropriate right now. Well, he and I are in a in a phone tag game, and I think we're on the same page. But I don't want to speak for him, so that would be wonderful. Great. If the rest of the board is cool. With that I will go. Okay. Great. Mr. Probably I'm promoting you to panelists. So you should be able to turn your camera on and unmute yourself and all that good stuff.

[19:03] perfect. Can you guys hear me? Yes. All right. not exactly sure how to turn on the camera, but I think you only need to hear me. So Hi! Everybody my name is John Ballliott. I've been a responsible vendor trainer for 17, going on 18 years. I've trained over 50,000 individuals in the State of Colorado. So we're on the same page, I think. With what heather is talking about. I'm running into the same roadblocks. It's just waiting to get it approved. I have a line by line. Comparison for to become a responsible vendor trainer. It's it's based off of Colorado. I think it's 47 6 0, 5. I'm just. I'm just waiting, and I'm in the same boat. They am to just get that final approval. In the meantime I'm still just teaching serve safe, as is what the State is actually looking for, what? What the communication, direct communication with the person approving these has told me is that what they were running into is, nobody was actually teaching Colorado law. They were just teaching these national programs.

[20:09] For some reason they don't want to be able to teach to the national programs which cover all the core material and just have a Colorado supplement. They do, indeed, as Mike just said, want to have individual trainers approved as individual trainers, with whatever criteria they submit. There's a couple of things to that. Anybody could do whatever they want as long as they're covering the Colorado material. The State may or may not approve them. The benefit of using the national programs is all that core information is proven. It was put into place, approved by doctors all the effects of alcohol, those things that you teach. I think the State is reevaluating that, and they may allow eventually, for there to be a Colorado supplement. But they're not there, and they do have this backlog of individual trainers they are approving. So we're in the same boat. With that I am the same as Ra.

[21:00] But if you look at the state approved list as it stands today, there are 11 people. I went through this earlier. So I could present this to you guys today, you have 2 that are out of state that are only approved for virtual ones in South Dakota ones in Florida. I don't know how effective a training that is. 3 of them are city or police department specific. One is in Frederick. One is in Greeley, one is in vail. I don't see Boulder benefiting from that. You have one license specific who owns a larger liquor store and is simply doing in store trainings, has no desire to teach the public or work with any restaurants, nor do they have any benefit of training restaurants. They are a. They are a liquor store. one of these people. So you're that leaves you with 5 left people. One is in Newcastle. one is in Fraser. One is in Colorado Springs. and then you have the representative from the Colorado Restaurant Association teaching serve safe, which I'll come back to in a second and one in Johnstown. That is the extent of your approved trainers as we speak

[22:04] so, and the thing about the Colorado restaurant person. Her name is Maureen Mcnara. She's a colleague and a friend. She was supposed to be the guinea, the guinea pig for serve safe. She went through applying all of the serve save core criteria and material. And then she had a Colorado supplement. She was approved. But now that they're looking at this because they don't want to approve these nationally recognized programs. She's under review, and they're probably going to pull it, as I understand it, speaking with the State. So you're down to these 11 trainers, 5 of which are even remotely viable to do these trainings for every single of you know, whatever you guys are up to now, 280 licensees in the city of Boulder. So you know, it's a real detriment. It puts extreme limits on what the licensees ability to do anything. So my recommendation. I think maybe in the short term, I'm agreeing with this concept of maybe giving an emergency situation to change the rules.

[23:01] Or you guys could look at certifying programs yourself. I understand it's in in the bylaws that you follow the State's requirements. but you have no idea how anyone, what we we would call a fly by night trainer just doing whatever they want. These these people might not be getting that approved core information that they need that the national providers provide. The State really wants to have this this state material being taught. I think that's easily done with a supplement. That's why I've gone ahead and gone through their process to be approved as an Rvt. Trainer as well. But I'm in the same boat again. I'm waiting for this to happen, but there's no way. These 5 trainers in Newcastle, Fraser, Colorado Springs, Johnstown, in Denver, are going to take care of your licensees, and that's the simple fact of the matter. And unless you guys change your rules, or you find some kind of middle ground with the state, this is only going to get worse. It's not going to get better. So that's kind of my 2 cents in a in a short synopsis.

[24:07] and I'm happy to answer any questions. If you have so. Thank you, John, for coming. This member ask. I just wanted to defer to chair Calapano and Caitlin about. What are the steps around a change. Emergency change in rules for the moment. I will actually defer to Roberto on that one. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. So when it comes to emergency issues, our bla rules of procedure. Contemplate that. You can take emergency action when you believe that there are grounds or reasonable grounds to believe that it is an issue of public health. safety, or welfare? So you would need to make that finding

[25:02] in this situation, if not, then 2 things are required. notice and an opportunity to be heard. So somebody can make the motion. Put it on the next hearing to see if there is any opposition so that the opportunity to be heard to see if there's any opposition to the abatement of that time period. Then you can. You can vote on it. I would say this chair, Califano, and I would say that I could see an argument for public safety being that they're not getting these trainings that you know, facilitate in the safe service safe and responsible service of alcohol. So I could see that as a public a public safety concern.

[26:01] I would 100 agree with that. That's what I was thinking just that these people are now being employed and not getting any training potentially because can't certify them. So why should I train them? That's crazy. Right? So essentially, what we can do is we can train them. And I can say I am certified, and maybe John and and other people can say, I am certified by these entities to train these people. However, Colorado has not certified be, but maybe this will suffice for the emergency situation, you know. Can we? Can we offer just a letter that says I did certify these people my myself. I don't know if that's an option. Chair chair. Caulfano. Once, you guys start discussing this. So I provided you some information. Once you start discussing this, you you cannot re-engage with the public. so you can certainly consider and and make that determination. If you, as the authority believes it, falls under that. And that's certainly your prerogative. Just make sure that you're not taking any additional information at this time.

[27:10] Okay, so this will be just closed to the 5 board members right now. Correct. How does the rest of the Board feel about the Public Safety concern? That I mentioned with regards to training. I'll start the discussion because I kind of got into it. But I 100% agree with share. Califano's public safety concern. It makes total sense, and I understand I would like to hear that training was done by a trusted trainer based on what we know about trainers in our community. Because this is our community. The State of Colorado is obviously backlogging. All these people are trying to become trainers. I think it's our obligation to our community to look into how we can

[28:00] quantify training in the sense right with trainers that we trust as a group and say, Hey, for an emergency rule. Right now, we make a decision to say we can accept certain trainings on the, you know, on the word of people who are making these actual classes happen because they need to happen. That's a huge public safety concern to me. Does that open the door for like legal action? Right? Somebody has an accident. Then they can like trace it back and be like, well, this person wasn't. and like, go down that road like I wanted wanna protect Mandy. Speak to that, but I don't believe that there's any like legal culpability around training like that in terms of criminal law. Can I. I appreciate that. Again. But I also have not heard of. Ma'am. Like that. You can't talk anymore. You're not. You can't speak.

[29:02] So Member Roberts to to your concern anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason a civil lawsuit, and allege that there was not sufficient training. certainly a defense that there wasn't available training. Is there? But again, you know. somebody over serves, and and it's a close call there there can always be a lawsuit. Whether there's liability is a totally different situation. Hmm! I see. Thank you. This is Member Haggerty. Yeah, I'm I'm kinda in agreement with the earlier statements from the board. It it does seem like it is a public health issue and

[30:01] to mike's mike's point earlier, too, about, you know, really focusing on this affecting our community. And I think that's what the boards here for is is the city of Boulder and the community within it. So I think we, I think we do really have a responsibility here to kind of think, what? What can we do to you know, really in in engage, and you know what kind of remedy. Can we make available. I like the idea of Chair Califano's proposal of it like a time boxed exception, like the 3 month, or something that way. We put an expiration date, and so we make sure to revisit it and make sure things are moving, and check in and see how that training is going? Should we approve something in the interim. Remember, Absalom, I don't want to speak for you. But was I hearing you correctly in that?

[31:01] You were potentially looking at the board under the emergency order, allowing for, like previously trained trainers for tips or surf, safe to still be accepted at this time, even though the State has not certified them. Well, I'm unsure about how we can rely on the State in terms of the what we're dealing with, right in terms of what's approved by the State at this point. So I I I wasn't you can speak for me because you're way smarter than me, anyway. But that being said I was at a it's it's hard for us to not allow operators to do training. And then look at the state listed approved like approval. List of how many people there are. and as we can hear from trainers here in this meeting, it's it's difficult to get on that list. And I, I just. My concern is for the community, for operators to be able to operate, and us as an authority to do our job to ensure

[32:04] operators operating responsibly. So I guess my suggestion wasn't around the fact that other people can do. I I think that there should be a process in this emergency order of saying, Hey. yes, prove to the board like. When a licensee comes before us, they prove that the trainer has whatever credentials they have as a trainer. Right? So we can go through it case by case. Because right now we cannot base our decisions on what's going on with state. because it's just too difficult, for, as you can see, trainers here on this call. they they can't even get on the list. So that is handcuffing our community from having viable businesses. It's also handcuffed me from understanding. We have to make sure that policies are in place, that we can make sure that when someone presents to the board. They say their credentials around training

[33:00] for this emergency period, and then the rules can go back to the rules once we understand. But right now, case by case we should look at trainers and license establishments and go case by case is my suggestion. I don't have like an actual metric for this. I don't I? I have no idea how to do this is a unique set of circumstances. Our rules state one thing. but the rules don't apply right now in this situation. So that's why I was asking for a little bit more insight from the Board here, and members of the authority to kind of go on this idea of like we can go and say, Hey, I want to see your credentials as a trainer. Show us the records of training happening with this Licensee specific case by case until we can figure out what's happening and make the rules match what is best for our community. Yeah, I'm kind of looking at it from a standpoint of the actual, you know, licensee holders, and that they're they're getting these new hires, but if they're not getting the training, then they can't serve alcohol, and they kind of devout. Don't want to say devalues, but they're not able to do what the full scope of their job might entail.

[34:08] And so in that. and not to hurt the establishments for any issues that the State's having with backlogging. I I agree with you, and that you know these were previously certified trainers, and the State made it a rule change that it is impeding their ability to train these individuals. So if we were accepting it before. I think temporarily in this emergency order. we could accept that training. Now, however, I don't. Oh, I see what you're getting at now. I'm sorry about that. I I didn't understand what you're getting at earlier, but now I do understand what you're getting at. Yeah, so that they could. Because I, you know, I want these establishments to still be able to use their license and have their employees serve alcohol, but they I don't want them doing it without any training.

[35:00] and that's the public safety is that you know. if if we have these trainers, and they can't do it anymore. And these individuals aren't getting that proper training. I wouldn't want them serving. But at the same time that impedes that establishment. So that's something that I would consider putting in the emergency order. But I don't know how the rest of the board feels. Member Haggerty. No, I'm I'm certainly in favor of doing something like that. Absolutely. Alright. So I guess I'll make a motion for an emergency health or an emergency order based on public safety. for training and service of alcohol for a 3 month suspension of our rules

[36:05] regarding the training that the State has now mandated with certified trainers, and allowing these previously certified trainers to still provide this training to new licensees in this 3 month time period. This is a member hassle my like to amend that motion if I could, and say, and I'll go to Roberto on this just. It doesn't necessarily need to be people who have already been approved. I would like to just see trainers explain to us, with their type of training. the ex. If we have to see a licensee before our authority, I would like to see the trainer and have them present what they do, because right now, if we're suspending the rules around approved trainings, I'd like to just speak to the trainers would be my suggestion. and that would give you not only the people who have been previously approved but previously approved. Excuse me, but also trainers that can come in and say, This is the class that's approved by the State of Colorado and under the laws

[37:13] of the State of Colorado. That would be my only, and then that it wouldn't have to be just pre approved trainers that we would just allow people to come in and say, this is the training program that I do. and and be able to present that to the board, so we can see what kind of training is happening. Case by case specific, as I said earlier, would be my only addendum for that I'll leave that to the board. Can I please make one suggestion to the chair, and that is that that the authority break this up into 2 parts. If there is going to be a motion, I suggest the 1st motion. Be that you move, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an issue

[38:01] that public health safety or welfare requires emergency action because of X, once you make that finding, then then you can discuss what that's gonna look like. Great. So, Member Califano would make a motion that there is evidence for a public health concern regarding training of new employees for licensees for safe and responsible service of alcohol that has been brought on by changes in policy, by the State that is impeding this training to be reasonably conducted in a reasonable amount of time. Bever Absom would second that motion. All right, all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Never asked them why.

[39:00] Member Haggerty, A. Member Karl Wilbstain. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright. So that has passed. Now. discussion for what we would do under these emergency orders, and I would make a motion to put a timeline of 3 months after this is approved. Because, Roberto, we're gonna have to have the approval hearing next month. Correct. Correct. Great. So if this is approved next month it would be a 3 month suspension of our rules and allowing I know, Mike, you changed this, but allowing previously approved responsible service trainers to still be allowed to conduct those trainings. and yeah, that would be my motion.

[40:03] Yeah, with that motion, like I said I would. Just what I would ask is that when we say what trainers we will accept. my only addition to that motion would say, I would like to have an opportunity to speak to the trainer if a legacy were to be presented before the board. Is that reasonable, Roberto, to ask that. You guys are the deciders of reasonableness. I. I have a question regarding that. Would that be for every show cause, new license and license, renewal, agenda items. Yeah, any type, any type of licensing issue that requires proof of training. I would like to understand who the trainer is if we are going to suspend our rules. That's my only thing about it, Matt. You know I you know we can say previously approved trainers. But do we have a list of those you know. The rules kind of gets a little weird. So what I'm saying to other members of the authority is

[41:06] when we have a a requisite to say who is training. The trainer should be able to present the training materials that they've presented to the licensee applying. That's all. That's my suggestion to, you know, instead of saying, Oh, previously. And I like that. And I respect that. But I'm saying, if anyone's doing training in our community. I think that now that we've suspended this rule around what we already have approved in our rules, let's say I'd like to speak to the trainer about what's happening in the training. that's all that. That was my suggestion. I don't know how to really put that into a motion. Again. I'd I'd defer to the other members of the authority on how he would like to proceed. Anybody have any comments. Just member. Haggerty. Yeah, I I think.

[42:02] Member epsilon, that's super valid point. My my only question would be, is that would that be communicated to the applicants. you know, or just making sure that you know, when they do appear. that they they know ahead of time that, you know we'll we'll be asking for this right? So that's the only thing that I wanna be, you know. cognizant of. But other than that, I think it's it's good. Well, it makes sense around the rules, you know, if you look at the rules, we have these specific rules, so licensees should have the opportunity to know what we're actually asking of them. And I agree with that. I'm I'm not sure the answer to that. I know, trusted vendor. I know trusted training. I know so many amazing trainers in this community that I've been through for many years, and I. I respect what it goes through. You know what trainers go through to do this, and it's a huge responsibility in our community. But now, if we suspend the rules around what we've already put into it.

[43:03] We want to make sure that we're transparent, and whatever we decide today, I believe this is true will be produced to the public. and maybe licensing could also help us out with discussing that with licenses. Was just gonna chime in here. Would it be helpful to understand how we check training as a requirement for all of the applications that you guys don't see. So basically, when we most of the time, we're checking our training requirement when it comes to renewals. And you obviously don't see the vast majority of renewals. Because not very many of them go to hearing. So we, the licenses, are responsible for submitting their training documents to us with their renewals annually, and at that time is where we check if the training is compliant in all aspects, so if they have every person that they list as a person who sells or serves alcohol. If they have their appropriate training, and if that trainer is certified, state certified, and if that trainer and if the training was done in person.

[44:15] which is also a part of the rules, so that's how we check that. So we check that with their annual renewals. If it's a transfer like an administrative transfer that you guys don't see. And then it's essentially the same process. Those would really be the only applications that are processed administratively that require training. Sometimes someone might submit training for like something like a manager registration or something, but it's not required. M. So that's how we check everything that comes in that is processed administratively and not put in front of you. So the only applications that you would see that would go in front of you would be new modifications and

[45:02] your renewal hearings, and then any show causes and stuff like that. So the vast majority of renewals you wouldn't see and let me know if you have any questions. Are you verifying the trainer based on like the card. Yeah. So they're required to actually submit their like tips cards. And really, unless I mean, I would imagine that there's some times when maybe, like the actual trainer isn't mentioned on there. But if the training is still in compliant is still in compliance, then we would accept that So all of the licenses are aware, you know, based on the rules that that has to. They have to be state certified trainers at this time. That's part of their renewal, like paperwork, that they get annually.

[46:02] Because correct me if I'm wrong. Someone from the board or Caitlin if if the State hasn't certified them as a certified trainer. They're not going to be getting the cards. So we're we're gonna just have to be taking them on. Good faith. Excuse me, I had to interrupt. I I think one of the issues that we've actually heard from Nathan Dewey in the past and members of starting to remember it when you were working. We were with tips. They were not able to get the cards back. They went to a virtual situation. So I think the problem now is that we're not the the certification process. Matt is just getting a little bit muddied, and it's getting a little corporate. And to me that's why my suggestion was, let's talk to the trainer, if we need to see like I think licensing has every right to go through the rules based on what we have right now. But if we have to go to show calls, or we do have to see proof of training.

[47:05] I would personally like to speak to the trainer about what's going on. And that's all I'm saying, as if we're going to suspend these rules and these specific training programs, we should have an opportunity to understand for the community how people are being trained. And that was the point I was getting at. I just don't know. I don't know how to get there. I I know this is a lot of red tape stuff with the State, and it's a bummer that we can't just go by the the rules letter along this. But it it seems like we can't, because we can't go off of our list anymore, because the corporations that are running these things cannot send those certifications in a timely manner to licensing. So we can't even see it. So how else can we prove this one was trained other than speaking to the trainer themselves, or just getting an email from the trainer. for that matter. That's just my 1, 2 on that.

[48:02] So I think that may put a lot of work on the city in terms of when they notify these establishments, that they have a show cause, or that they need to appear before the board. For whatever reason we're gonna have to change. The we're requiring that whoever trained their employees be present. Is that what I'm hearing. Well, just like we ask anyone who petitions a community about needs and desires. We ask for them to be present. I think it's very similar in that sense. And again, I I don't want to put that onus on anyone. I think this is a very unique situation. We had rules set up based on certain systems that were working. They're not working right now. And operators need to get this sort of training happening which is so essential to our community and what we do as an authority. So I I'm I'm kind of just throwing it out there. I'm I'm I'm trying to come with ideas, Matt. I'm I don't know what to say right now, because we suspend the rules. And then what do we do about who gets accepted through, and I don't want to make any work for the city. They do great work for us.

[49:08] so thank you, Caitlin, for everything you do. I'm just saying I I don't know the answer. I just wanna have some more insight from other members of the authority to understand that we can't go off a list of trainers right now to accept training because they're not getting certifications email, even email to them. So at that point, what do we do as an authority to ensure that the people of our community who are serving alcohol are getting proper training. That's the question I'm asking to you. My suggestion was maybe speak to a trainer if we do have to prove training. That was my suggestion. I don't have the answer. I just want to have a discussion about it. Real quick. I had a motion on the table. Was there a second for that motion by any chance not seeing it? Oh, go ahead. Could you repeat it? My motion was just that we put with the 3 month. If it's approved. The 3 month suspension on our rules that we allow previously certified trainers to continue their training of employees.

[50:13] But it yeah. Was there a second for that at all? I just hope. Have a hassle. You're trying question, Justin, or do I need to second it? And then I can ask I guess my. Question 1st here. Okay? So my clarifying question is, we're saying previously approved trainers. Is that like here in the city of Boulder? Because where Mandy might like, does she fall into that category for us? For these rules is what I'm trying to understand, like pre approved from what county like? How does that work. I would just say, if they were previously certified to administer the in-person tips. Training.

[51:01] Then I will second your motion. Well, just to be clear, based on the programs that were certified to the State right in terms of. And our rules tips and serve safe. We're on our rules, right? Correct or on our correct. Okay? So I I just would like to clarify that. Make sure. That's clear. If we're going to accept these trainings in the in the emergency period. Whatever was accepted previous to the new role and state. So remember, California would change his motion to say that whatever trainers were certified to give Colorado State approved trainings previously would still be allowed to in this 3 month period. Is there a second to this amended motion? Never ask one second. We have a 1st and a second, all in favor. Say, aye, Member Califano, aye.

[52:00] Number absolute 9. Member Haggerty. I. President Abstain. Member member Roberts. Aye. All right, so we will vote on this at the next hearing. In February. And then Roberto, if I can just clarify for the record. So the next hearing, because we made this motion, the next hearing, we will schedule a public hearing for this item. Okay. Yeah, so that the public has an opportunity to be heard and and speaking for or against. The proposition. Perfect. Thank you. Alright. Is there anything else for agenda? Item, 3. Matters from responsible association of retailers?

[53:07] All right. I will move on to agenda. Item 4, which is general public comments for future beverage, licensing authority hearings. If anyone who is present at this hearing has would like to give public comment on something that is not included on the agenda. Please go ahead and raise your hand if you're calling, and I believe you can click Star 3, and that will raise your hand. I'm seeing none. So I will move on to Agenda. Item 5, which is public hearing and consideration of a renewal application filed on November 8, th 2024, from Sherpa. Holdings, 2 0 1 5 Llc. Dba Fuji restaurant and Bar 2 0 1 8 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3 0 2 pam of D. Sherpa, 100 owner and registered manager with a premise business mailing address for a hotel restaurant type, liquor license. If you're here to speak on this matter, please go ahead and raise your hand, and I will let you in.

[54:06] I see Mr. Sherpa's here perfect. and while Mister Sherpa is admitted into the Panelists view. I will let the board know that this application is approved by sales, tax, and occupation tax at this time. Hello! Hello! Hey! Can you guys hear me. Mr. Sherpa? Will anyone else be appearing with you today? No, it's just me. Okay, great I'm just gonna go ahead and swear you in, and then I will hand it over to the board if you'll just say, say your name, and spell your name for the record, and give an address. Cool. Yeah. 1st name is Pemba, PEMB. A last name is Sherpa, SHER. PA. And the business address is 2018 Broadway boulder.

[55:03] Thank you so much, and if you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give before the beverage? Licensing authority are true and correct? Yes, correct. And do you swear or affirm that this premise has been posted for at least 10 days prior to today's hearing? Yes. Thank you so much. I'll hand it over to the board. Cool. Great Mr. Sherpa, since you're not represented by Council today, I'm going to go ahead and read the proceedings into the record. Okay. This is a public hearing before the beverage licensing authority of the city of Boulder to determine whether or not the application of Sherpa's Sherpa Holdings, Llc. Doing business as Fuji restaurant for a renewal of a hotel restaurant type. Liquor license shall be granted or denied. This hearing is conducted pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado and the rules of the beverage licensing authority of the city of Boulder.

[56:01] The purpose of this hearing is to receive information, data, and testimony by interested parties. In order to enable this authority to make the findings, and to reach the conclusions required to be made by State law as to whether or not the license shall be renewed. Interested parties are the applicant residents of the neighborhood, affected by the licensee as previously determined by the authority and owners and managers of a business located within the neighborhood. This hearing shall be limited to the question of whether or not there is good cause not to renew the license as set forth in the notice. Hearing, dated January 15, th 2,015. A record is being made of these proceedings. Those who desire to be heard shall identify themselves by stating their name, spelling their last name, and stating their pertinent address. They shall also be sworn in by the Board Secretary. Is there any conflict of interest or ex parte communication from any of the Board members? Member Califano? No. Or Absalom? No. Member card, no.

[57:01] Tegrity, no. Amber Roberts, no. Great. And is there anyone in the attendees list that wishes to speak to this agenda? Item, if you could please raise your hand. not seeing any all right, Mr. Sherpa, you may proceed. Yes. so yeah. So I was. I failed to apply for a renewal of the liquor license. On the day I was supposed to because with my newborn baby I just have too much work here and there with growing up family and then working, and then so I mess up the deadline but I was fortunate enough to remember and then apply again. So yeah, here. Great. Thank you for that. Are there any questions from the board? I guess my only question is, what what have you put in place since then, to prevent this from happening in the future.

[58:08] So I have my accountant who does my sales tax filing? And does bookkeeping ask him to you know do the renewal moving forward, so I know, so I don't forget it. Great. Thank you for that. Are there any other questions from the board not seeing any? Alright, Mr. Sherpa, is there anything else you'd like to present to us. No, that's it. But yeah, if you guys can approve it and I'll make sure that this doesn't happen again. But yeah, thank you. Guys. Right. At this time we will close for deliberation. Is there a motion.

[59:05] Member, Carl will make a motion to approve the renewal. Member. Member. Roberts, you go ahead. Member, Roberts will second the motion to approve. Great, all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Remember absolutely. In the car. Aye. Remember, Haggerty, I. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright renewal approved. Thank you, Mr. Sherpa. Well, thanks so much, guys, you guys have a good one. Thank you. Caitlin. Did you want to jump back to agenda? Item. what was it? 2 B. Or 2? A approval of the minutes. I was just gonna tackle that at the end. If that's okay. Perfect works for me. And yes, I'm so sorry I didn't put this on the record because you guys were in the middle of your discussion. But member car is here and did join at 3 27. So

[60:06] alright, we will move on to actually let me get everyone where they're supposed to be real quick. Excuse me. Am I set to leave or. Yes. Oh, here you go! Alright. Perfect, we will move on to agenda. Item 6, which is public hearing and consideration of an application filed on October 30, th 2024, from El Taco, Imperial de Texcala, Llc. Dba el Taco, Imperial de Texcala, 2, 8, 5, 0 Iris Avenue suite, H. Boulder, Colorado, 8. 0. 3. 0. 1 Margarita, valet Castrone, 100 owner, sole member and registered manager with the premises. Business mailing address for a new hotel, restaurant type, liquor license. If you are here to speak on this matter. Please go ahead and raise your hand. and I will let you in. I see there are some phone call listeners. I believe you can click Star 3 to raise your hand.

[61:18] I'm not seeing any handrades if you're here to speak on agenda. Item 6, which is a new hotel restaurant for El Taco, Imperial de Tex. Carla, please raise your hand so I can let you in. I see that there is someone named Margarita and the attendees. if you are here to speak on this matter. can you raise your hand or I can?

[62:08] I'm just gonna I'm gonna check in with some of the attendees here. I'm I'm just gonna ask some of the attendees to unmute here to see if they are here to talk on this matter. So if you are phone number ending in 2, 2, 5, 8, if you can unmute and just confirm whether or not you're here to speak on this matter. And then I'm also gonna ask phone number 9 2, 9, 1 to unmute and confirm. If you're here to speak on this matter, or a different matter.

[63:13] I'm not hearing anything from anyone. 17209399291: My mom's the one who owns the restaurant, but I'm not sure if she's still on the call, and I'm so I was supposed to help translate in case she needed translating. Okay, great. So I don't see. I see there's a Vanessa that's on the call. Is that someone who is gonna be. 17209399291: That's me. Actually, I'm not sure if I I don't know why I'm still joined. I was on the phone. Okay? So you don't have camera capability. Oh, that one went away.

[64:01] Is there camera capabilities. 17209399291: Yes, let me try and rejoin. Okay. okay? So I see there's a Margarita. And that person would like to speak. Is that true? 17209399291: Yes, that should be one. Okay, here we go. Now we have a hand raised. 17209399291: Okay, it's gonna prompt you to join as a panelist. And you'll just want to accept that.

[65:05] Okay, great. And I see that Margarita has been entered into the Panelists view. So if you could turn your camera on and unmute yourself. Hello! Hi! There! We can hear you. Can you turn your camera on by chance? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Hi, Margarita. Hi! This is Tangarita customer.

[66:02] And Margarita. Is anyone else going to be appearing with you today? Is my daughter is on the phone. Okay. And it sounds like your daughter would be possibly doing interpreting like interpreting if needed. Thank you. Okay. Is your daughter? A certified interpreter. No, no. Okay, so for these purposes, we can only accept certified interpreters in the hearing. Okay, so what we can do is we can proceed, and then, if at any time you feel like you do want to request an interpreter, then we can talk about that. At that time. Okay. Is that okay? I can speak little bit English, so I hope you can stand.

[67:04] Yeah, no, you're doing great. We'll understand. Okay, if you will just say your name and spell your name for the record. Okay. My name is Margarita Castefone. MART. A, RITA, CASD, REJO, n. Thank you and your address. 2850, Iris Avenue, sweet, 8. Perfect, and that's in Boulder, Colorado. Yes. Awesome if you will go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to give are true and correct? Yes. And do you swear or affirm that the premises has been posted for 10 days prior to today's hearing?

[68:01] Yes. Okay, perfect. I will hand it over to the board. Great, and since you're not represented by counsel or an attorney, I'm going to go ahead and read the rules of proceedings into the record. Okay. This is a public hearing before the beverage licensing authority of the city of Boulder to determine whether or not the application of El Taco, Imperial, Llc. Doing business as El Taco Imperial for a renewal of a or I'm sorry. Not a renewal for a new hotel restaurant type. Liquor license shall be granted or denied. This hearing is conducted pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, and the rules of the beverage. Licensing authority of the city of Boulder. The purpose of this hearing is to receive information, data, and testimony by interested parties, in order to be, or to enable this authority to make the findings, and to reach the conclusions required to be made by State law as to whether or not the license applied for shall issue.

[69:14] Interested parties are the applicant residents of the neighborhood under consideration, and the owners and managers of a business located in the neighborhood under consideration for purposes of determining who is an interested party at this hearing. The neighborhood under consideration is the neighborhood previously defined by the authority. the authority shall make a final determination of the affected neighborhood. Prior to determining whether the license shall be issued. Any interested party may speak to the question of neighborhood designation, as well as other information relevant to the granting or denial of the application. A record is being made of these proceedings. Those who desire to be heard shall identify themselves by stating their name, spelling their last name, and stating their pertinent address. They shall also be sworn in by our board. Secretary.

[70:09] Is there any conflict of interest or ex parte communication from any of the Board members. Member Califano. No. Remember Absalom, no. Member, card, now. Member Haggerty, no. Member Roberts, No. Great. And is there anyone in the attendees that wishes to speak to this agenda? Item, if you could? Please raise your hand. Don't believe we're seeing any. All right, Margarita, are you ready to proceed. Yep. All right. Go ahead. Okay, I did apply for the liquor license because I have a Mexican restaurant and I have a couple of customers. They ask for, like margaritas or beer.

[71:00] So we have, like a lot of customers, ask for the liquor. and I, when I collect the signatures, like all the people the one we asked for the signatures. They all happy to see if I can have liquid and the press button. So it's why I applied for that. And this way, my increment, my sales tool and I have it's a Mexican restaurant. So we just want to start with beer and margaritas for the customers, because sometimes they came and eat, and they asked for like couple beers or margaritas. So that's why applied for the legal license.

[72:06] Great. Thank you for that. Is there any question from the Board members. Hey, Margarita, could you talk to us a little bit about your training policies for around small sales for your employees? Yeah, I tried to get like, get my employees. but I I tried to find someone can give me like me and my employees like training for the liquor sales. But I guess working on the to get that training for me and my employees.

[73:04] So you're looking for someone to do training. Yeah. I just wanna wait until I can get to see if you can approve the license so I can get like me and my employees get a all together. Get the training. I don't. I don't believe you have to be approved in order to do the training. Maybe we can. I don't know. Is that accurate? No. No typically, we do like to see training done prior to approving an application or in the works.

[74:01] But right now it seems that there's been no training. Is that correct? That was my understanding, and that's why I was trying to confirm if and inform, that training can and should be taking place already. Oh, yeah, I just have a couple I know, like little bit about the alcohol, because I have a friend. She have a restaurant, so I know, like little bit to how can I? For the alcohol and and I have like 4 years on the restaurant working on the restaurant. So I have like little bit experience. This is member apps on here. Margarita.

[75:02] Hey? Sorry, Mike? I just wanted to ask you. You're in the same space that was in a restaurant that existed already, right? The same restaurant with that when you took over the restaurant, did you have a discussion with the previous owners about how they operated the liquor license. No, no, I never I never the owners. The one is, I think, the last one is Cilantro's. I believe, but I. Know the license. I know that that exact space that you're in has already been licensed for alcohol service. Yes. I'm wondering when you took over the space especially you talk to them about how how they run their their operation, how they run alcohol. Serve margaritas and beer. Have you spoken to anyone about that?

[76:00] No, no. no, I never! I don't know the people. The one is because when when I move to, when I get the restaurant is no one. The space is empty. Yeah, I don't know who is the people, the one work the race out or anything. Oh, I see it's another. There's another restaurant in that complex there. I'm just looking at. It's a different restaurant. Well, Margarita, we need to have some more training here around. I see your alcohol policy, but a plan for training is what I think Member Roberts is looking for here. would you have a plan on how you're going to train your employees around alcohol service? Yeah, I just tried to find someone. But I guess I I just wanna wait and make sure until I see if I can get the license so I can get the training for my employees.

[77:02] I think we need to see some training before that. You know a plan for training before you get your license. So the idea is that you think about how you're going to train? I see in your application how many employees you plan on having. You're able to train those people before you apply to serve alcohol, because you want to have this community needs responsible training. So. Yeah, 1 1 of the my employees. I don't think he she had the the training, but she know more about me, and she told me like little bit about how she can serve because she she's working before on the It's like bartender, so she know more. So she's the one try to help me to. How can I serve with alcohol?

[78:01] But I try to to train in my employees to. So your person that works has worked in bartending. Maybe you can have her help. You come up with more of an idea of what training looks like here with the rules in the city of Boulder and have her help, you train and build a culture around responsible alcohol service before we move on this, I would just suggest you think about that and think about training before we move forward. I have no other questions. Okay. rear. Who's here? Responsible association of retailers is an excellent resource for you, Margarita, that you can use, and they can help you put together that training as well as your training policy. Your policy, looks a little light in terms of alcohol service.

[79:00] I think it could be more robust. It could be more inclusive of several things, specifically signs, specific signs of intoxication, things like that. So people know what they're looking for. But I would highly suggest getting in touch with the responsible association of retailers. And we can get someone here to give you that contact information as well. Okay. But they can help you put together that and make it more robust, and then have a plan in place for training your staff. Okay. Are there any other questions from the Board? Yes, I have a question here. So, Margarita, I'm looking here at Number 4. On the application, and it says, have you applied for an occupation load from the Boulder fire department, and it says, you have not yet. So are you. Are you planning to do that? For safety reasons, or what? What is the the plan? There.

[80:04] I don't understand plain email. on your application. There's a question. Number 4, it says. Have you applied for an occupation load for the interior and exterior space from the Boulder fire department. and the answer that was written there was says, we have not. So I'm just curious if you've done that since, or if you plan to apply for that occupation load from the Boulder fire department. I think in the application I put like inside and outside. Yeah, I do see a seating capacity. 50 inside, 24 outside. Did you have fire, Marshal? Have to come out and look at your space. How did you get to that capacity.

[81:00] Like outside is like for 24 people. Yeah. How did you get to that number. Because when I I have like couple tables outside so, but like on this time, we only use that once inside. But the the one outside. I just come because I have a couple tables. So it's why I count 24 people. And and you did the same for the inside. Also. Yeah. Yeah, I have the tables. So each table have, like 4 chairs in 6 chairs. So it's why I I make up 50. Hey? This is a question, I guess, for Caitlin and

[82:02] do. Do they have all the necessary approvals to operate? I I'm not sure if that's requirement from the Boulder Fire department first.st Yes, so That was probably that question was probably honestly an oversight on my part when I was reviewing the application, because applicants are required to go through zoning before they even can submit their license, their application for their new license. So this application was approved by zoning, and that occupancy and all that comes from zoning which I would imagine includes, and I don't. Unfortunately, the city licensing doesn't know a ton about the zoning process, but I would imagine that their occupancy and all of that is based on whatever is in code, and all that, so as far as what their occupancy is that is approved by zoning. That is, has already been through that process. But that's a great question, and I will get that corrected before we submit for final approval.

[83:10] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have no further questions. Any other questions from the board. Alright, not seeing any. Margarita. Is there anything else that you wanted to present to us today? No, I guess. I just want to know you if you can like. You guys approve the license, and I can. I can have time to find the training for my employees. Okay. But there was nothing else you wanted to present to us. no, I just wants to let you know like, when I get the signature. So everybody wants to

[84:08] get like couple beers so come and meet, and so in. I think it's all. Great. So at this point we will close for deliberation. Is there a motion. This is Member Absalom speaking. I would make a motion to approve the license. But pending proof of training I don't know how we would make amendment to that motion. Maybe Roberto can help me, but maybe some other members of the authority could chime in. I think the only thing that is holding me back from saying yes to this approval is, there's no proof of training or a plan to do so. So. Member Epsilon. What would that proof of training look like, and to whom, that is to say.

[85:06] document? And would that go to licensing? And then they. I would say I would make a motion to approve this License pending a before our hearing next month. Proof of training coming up so. Oh, so you're saying. That she would have to wait and then come back for another hearing. I'm saying that she could have. I'm saying that I would approve the license. And then then. pending proof of training to continue to have. That license is what I'm saying. I don't know if that works legally, but. Well, I'm just trying to to clarify, so that the the other. I'm saying I would approve the I would approve the license to get the thing to get the business started, and then we would need to see proof of training come. The February hearing is what I'm saying.

[86:09] Oh, does that not make sense. Never absolutely conditional approval. I guess you're saying. Yeah, you've done. You. You've done that before. And you had the the applicant return because you wanted to see I don't remember what the specifics were. But you've done this before. Do do you. I do, and I I think I would. I would recall that and do the same thing. I'd like to see. This applicant will become a licensee, but will have to appear before the beverages. License authority in February to prove training. Prove what Chair Califano said around expanding. You know I would add that to the motion. But I again I defer to the authority here on that. That's where I'm thinking. Yep. Number 7.

[87:00] Okay. Yeah. So I believe we did a continuance with that applicant and so we did not approve it, but we did do a continuance, and then, when he came back, he had kind of his ducks in a row. I believe that's what you're referring to. Okay? So that so then it wouldn't actually be an approval with conditions. It would be a denial of that. And then we would feel bad. Come back! I again, I defer to the authority other members. What do you guys think. I don't think it would necessarily be a denial. I think it would just be a continuance to next month. For reconsideration, based on proof of, or a plan in place of training and for consistency purposes, with what we did. With the last instance that this happened, I would make a motion to continue this to next month with

[88:01] the licensee, or the applicant rather coming before us with proof of training, or a plan therein to have that training as well as a more robust alcohol service policy. Member Absom would second. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. For Absalom. I. Member car. I. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Alright. So, Margarita, we didn't approve the license. We just continued this till next month, so you'll be required to come before us again next month with your application, and we are asking that you come with a plan in place for training your employees or proof of training that's been done in the next month. and A more robust or more inclusive alcohol service policy for your employees. And again, I would just make a suggestion to contact Rar, and they can really help you with that.

[89:11] Okay. So if no way can I get the license? And you can guys give me time to training my employees. So it actually works the other way around. You really should have your employees trained before you come before the board with the license. So that's that's kind of where this is leading. So we're we're not approving the license at this time, but we are going to reconsider next month when you come before the board again. In that hearing. Okay. Alright, yeah, get in touch with them. They should be able to really help you out. Okay. Margarita. I will send you an email with that contact information. And then I can also give you a call tomorrow to talk about the new dates for February.

[90:01] Okay. Cool. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thank you. I also wanted to call out that someone named Aj. Put a a comment in that. They said they would like to volunteer tier to help this applicant develop their policies and requirements. So perhaps I'm not sure who Aj. Is, but you could help connect Aj with Margarita. Yeah, anyone who is interested in that can send an email to licensing online at Boulder, colorado.gov. that's licensing online at boulder, colorado.gov, that email address can be found on our website as well. Boulder, colorado.org. I'm sorry.gov is our website. Thank you for Zena. Okay? And then, Margarita. that is it. So we're gonna move on. So I'm gonna move you back to the attendees. Okay.

[91:03] Okay. Okay, thank you. Oh, gosh, my. I moved member car back to the attendees. I apologize to the member car. Okay, there we go. Okay. Next, we have agenda. Item 7, which is public hearing and consideration of an application filed on November 18, th 2024, from Nepal House, Llc. Dba Nepal house in cuisine 4, 7, 2, 0 table mesa drive, C. 100 boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0. 5, Topton, Llama, 85% owner president and proposed registered manager and vice president and 15% owner with a premise business mailing address for a new hotel restaurant type, liquor license.

[92:02] city licensing is requesting a continuance of this item. due to no filed petitioning. And then there were a few other missing application documents. Kristen Teague is the licensing person on this application, but that is what she is requesting from the board. Alright. So Member Califano would make a motion to continue this agenda item to next month, based on incomplete application materials. Member. Carl would second that motion. All in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. A razzle, my. The car. I. Integrity. I. Member Roberts. Aye. Thank you so much. We'll move on to agenda. Item 8 matters from Deputy City attorney.

[93:05] Good afternoon. Everyone nothing from me. Thank you. I do, however, have to log off here shortly. And Are there any questions that you anticipated later on in this hearing does not appear so. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks, Roberto. Okay. I will move on to agenda. Item 9, which is matters from licensing clerk. We have 2 boundary settings. The 1st one is for Ferky's indoor Golf, Inc. Dba. The Birdie Factory, 2, 5, 2 0, Arapaho Avenue, boulder, Colorado, 8 0. 3 0. 2. This is for a new entertainment side flicker license, and I will share my screen so you can see the map here.

[94:18] I do have some suggested boundaries for this one, and this is the boundaries are from Flower Child, which is right here right next to it, and those are Pearl on the north. Marine extended on the South 30th Street on the east and 20th Street on the west. weird. Member apps will make a motion to approve the boundaries. Member Haggerty, second. All in favor, say I, member Califano way. Never asked on my. In the car, ride.

[95:00] Never haggered a guy. Member Albertai. Caitlin, what's going in there again. It's it's called the Birdie Factory, and it's an entertainment type liquor license. Sabrina, this is actually her 1st full liquor license. So she's the owner of this one. I don't know too much about it, because I haven't looked at the application, really, but it sounds like it's kind of like games and a bar, and that kind of stuff. Interesting. All right. Not to be uncouth here. Do they call Member Haggerty the Birdie Factory when he's on the golf? Course. I'm not sure. Yeah, he. No, I think they they have a virtual golf thing going on there. I believe. Yeah. Yeah, it's like a virtual golf thing like Tiger Woods. Has this whole thing going on around virtual golf. Oh, interesting. all right. And then there's 1 more for boundary settings. This is for Mr. Oso. Boulder, Llc. Dba. Mr. Oso. Boulder 1, 2 5, 3, Pleasant Street, unit 101 boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3, 0 2 for a new hotel restaurant type, liquor license. And I took the suggested boundaries from this everyday store here, and that is Arapahoe on the north, Baseline on the south.

[96:19] 20th Street extended on the east and city limits on the west. Member, Califano would move to approve. Remember, Carl Psychopath, that motion. All in favor. Say, aye, member, California. The razzle. Am I. In regard. Member, Haggerty, yeah. Member Roberts. Aye. Perfect. Thank you so much. yeah, we have no transfers for January, no breweries, wineries, or distilleries for January. You have your special event permits list that was

[97:02] approved. In the last month the liquor license renewal sent list board recruitment is closing soon, and then we will start the interviews on that. I don't have an application number, I believe. Oh, let me just double check. So I did get an email about this. Yeah, this is never asked them here. I know I agreed to stay in my seat until it was filled, but I was wondering what's going on with the application process. I know it ends the end of this month, right? Yes. it does. And then we have some interviews in mid-february. It looks like I haven't seen the applications. I'm not sure if Lisa has seen them yet, but I haven't seen the application, so I don't know how many. But there are. You are there we are! Have your seat up and Member California seat up so we will miss you. Huge loss. Would love.

[98:01] Well what my suggestion was around my own. Well, Matthew has served way longer than I have. But, I would love to. I'll connect you, Caitlin separately around like who's applying. Just make sure that we don't have empty seats. I'm happy to continue to serve if if that needs to be until we get some people in there. So. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, I will let you all know at February, hearing for sure what that looks like. Great. And then on that topic I wanted to introduce you all to Elisa Darrow. She is our new licensing manager. So person Changaris is is leaving the city to spend time with her family, and so you probably won't see her again. She is working like very minimally part time to get Elisa settled and trained, and stuff like that. But she did tell me that she sends her regards, and she loved working with you all, and that she'll miss you dearly, and I want to introduce you to Elisa. Lisa. If you want to say anything, go for it.

[99:06] Oh, thanks, Caitlin, can everyone hear me? Great? Yeah, so like, Caitlin said Kristen, has been so gracious to stay on and kind of. Let me pick her brain for the month of January, and trying to soak up everything I can. Just so, you know, I do have previous Government experience. I've been working in government for 17 years. I previously was in the city clerk's office in Longmont, an assistant town manager. I was the deputy city clerk in Boulder for a while, and then I was a town clerk for the town of Berthod, and I also spent some time at the State. I'm really excited to be back in Boulder. It's an awesome organization, and I'm really excited to get to work with all of you. Welcome! Thank you. Alisa! Does this say? It is what it is behind you? Yes, thank God! Thank God! Thank God!

[100:05] Thanks, Alisa. Scaling. I will move on to agenda. Item 13, which is management chair and members of the authority. I'm gonna scoop back up to the top of the meeting, and I am going to reopen up approval of beverage licensing authority. Minutes from December 18, th 2024. Since Member Car is present. Now. Oh, Member Carr will make a motion to approve those events. My browser only had one edit. It was at the end of it. If we made a motion to adjourn it said 5 to none instead of 3 to none. There's only 3 of us in attendance. So it was 3 to 0. Thank you so much. Minor adjustment. Only thing I saw but wanted to mention that but I will second member cars motion with that adjustment. All right, all in favor. Say, aye, member, Califano will abstain.

[101:00] Remember Absalom, I. Member car. I. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts will abstain. Alright! Minutes approved. Thank you so much. And then we had members of car have a presentation. It sounds like a discussion for you all, and I believe, member car. I think I saw an email from you that you would like to present. Yeah, we we can. We can present we. We really just had a a conversation that we wanted to, you know. Bring up and me and a member absolute been talking about for the last couple of months. Here. So just to kind of set the stage here. We had a public comment. I think it was back in August from Mr. Jerking, who is the owner of Hazel's beverage world, and he had some concerns around. Allowing. you know, grocery stores to move from. You know, malt beverages to full strength. Alcohol, he cited, you know, issues that are well documented within the State, where independent liquor stores have been closing, due to beer and wine being available within grocery stores, and

[102:15] you know he he had concerns around like the needs and desires, petitions. You know how they're only done for changing storage and license premises, and mostly for modifications. Right? So his his thought was, you know, hey? He'd like us to be able to put forth to city council some suggestions on how to better you know, protect independent liquor stores, but also to protect against undue concentrations, and and to ensure that we ensure that there aren't too many people, too many alcohol stores selling, you know full full strength. Alcohol! Member. I was some, did I? Did I summarize that fairly. Yeah, I was just checking some of our notes. I'm I'm not sure if we added this document that we put together to

[103:03] is this in the packet? Can other members see. It. It's not do. Do you want me to share the screen? Yeah, we can share the screen. Or I, I just like for the other members of the authority to see this, because, you know, we took this on as a a community concern. And it's really interesting, as you get into some of the thoughts around how jurisdictions can deal with this and you know we had meetings with Roberto. We had meetings with Bruce. and we really wanted the whole like strength of the authority to think about how this kind of works does everyone in the authority remember how we went from 3 to alcohol to full strength beer, and then from full strength beer to wine. I think. Member chair Califano will remember mostly because we only saw modifications of how they put out specific. We didn't. Those actual transitions and license like when it came to changing of licenses. We didn't see much of them unless

[104:07] it was a matter of changing the way that actual alcohol was stored or presented on the license premise. So I hope that Michael will be able to share this with you. But it's a really intriguing concept. I don't know how much legal power we have around this. But I did do a lot of research around it. The link here on the the Montrose article was really intriguing to me. So hopefully we can share that with all the members. But the presentation around this is really. do we wanna come up with a what our message is as members of the licensing authority to city council about what could change on the state level in terms of how the law will change

[105:03] and people will large. What do? What do they call them, Mike? It's like a box. Formula, I think, yeah, in the stores. Yeah. Formula stores? Right? Like, so, yeah. yeah, I guess the question will be like, you know, how do we as an authority, make a recommendation as a group to to our city council and our city government as to how we think as stewards of responsible alcohol service in our community. How do we approach this? And and Bruce from Hazel's has brought this up? And we wanted to present some of the stuff that we gave to you. So yeah, love to hear from you guys about it. And and thank you so much to vice chair car. He's he's been on it and I've been doing some research on it. So I'd love to hear kind of maybe your thoughts as members of the authority of how this, maybe how this went. And the other thing is, how can we do it within the purview of the law?

[106:05] And just wanna add on to that. So I think there's there's 2 parts of this one, which is, how can we make suggestions to our city council into you know what they are doing and lobbying for at the state level? That's that's 1 area. But also, what can we do within our, you know, municipality. And so, just as you know, thinking about this, like what other municipalities have done right? You know. we know that there's a statewide requirement for between alcohol, real retail alcohol stores of 1,500 feet. But in my research, I understand that doesn't apply to grocery stores. So you know, thinking about, could we enact that? As a you know, Council resolution within the city of Boulder, for example, you know, could we increase the space between. You know, schools and parks. Colorado Springs is a thousand State requires 500. Could we increase it to a thousand feet, or greater right to preserve.

[107:01] you know, quality of life in certain areas and neighborhoods. You know. As far as I'm aware, we don't have a licensing cap, but a number of cities in this, in the State of Colorado, do and you know, some of the justifications for those that I read were again public safety over saturation of licenses, neighborhood impacts, and the balance between community well-being and availability of alcohol. So thinking about how we handle that and then just kind of you know, finally, around public input that's required. Right? That's required on a state level. But can we modify the questions that we ask on that question? Answer. From what control do we have for that? And can we, you know, make it more apparent and clear? If it is a you know a formula formula store that's applying for a liquor license. you know, and and much like. There's like a almost a blue book. You know that the Blue Book when we have, you know, voter. you know, initiatives that we have to vote on. Can we put some sort of you know, statement or something on the question answer form, so that people who are signing this are fully aware of what they're signing on to. So those are just some of the areas and things that we thought about. But you know, really wanted to open this up to the the rest of the authority again. And

[108:15] you know, for one understand? Is this something the rest of the authority thinks that we should be taking up, and we should should be spending time on and then 2? If so, you know about you know. What what should we be doing about that. Member. Aggerty. this. Yeah, this is great thanks for putting this together. Both of you. Great great document. I I would love to review it. And then, you know, maybe some action items like what? As a as an authority, what? What can we come to the Council with, is it? You know, recommendations on a few specific items? and you know where you know essentially, where, where can where can we take like a a document like this? And can we? How do we like fine, tune it? And then what? How do we, you know, move it to the next stage? It would be my question.

[109:10] so I don't. I don't know what like. Next steps would be like, you know, identifying a few areas we'd want to discuss further, and then talk about presenting to the Council or just got having this as a living document, or where where we kind of see this exercise, how how we see it! Kind of going forward would be a question of mine. Well, I think one of the 1st things that we should probably understand is like, does the rest of the authority think that this is something that's salient to our job and something that we want to prioritize. And even, you know. think about putting forth to council. I think that's maybe where we want to start, because that's where you know Member Absom and I took this on as like a subcommittee to do some research on it. Really present what we've found, and you know our our suggestions, you know, to the rest of the authority. But, you know, before we move forward, we want to make sure that everyone else is in alignment, that this is something we should focus on.

[110:06] Yeah. And this is member. Ask them here, just around the what what the ask is or what the thing is. We have a citizen coming to our board asking about this? Right? So I think when you think about it that way, you have someone who has presented public comment before our Board has submitted written comments to our board. I think we there's an obligatory nature to this that we have to respond to it. The ask is to. And just to be clear, the ask is that the bla brings something to city council about how we, as a licensing authority around alcohol. address the issues with changes and licensing. That's the ask from the citizen of our community. And that's that's all you know to me. And you know, Member Car and I have been going back and forth around this about what you know, what it really means, but it really is. It's a citizen.

[111:09] a a business owner, coming to us, and if we can't address that. what are we doing anyway? So let's let's. I'd like to hear from the rest of the authority of, and not to diminish anyone else but Member Califano, the longstanding chair. Here, what do you think about this. Well, one thing we need to consider is that this. none of this change would be retroactive. It would all be moving forward, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the establishments that had this change in license type administratively. Happen it's it's already happened. So. I don't know if putting in some new things. new requirements or restrictions. I I'm I'm just not sure how beneficial that would be. In addition, while we are saying that, yeah, we did have one person come before us, and you know, ask this of us.

[112:08] I. There could be people out there that are are for this, you know, in liquor, in grocery stores and establishments that had their license changed. So I would honestly, before we went before city council. I would kind of want some more public comment, and if we can get more on one side or the other, I think that gives us a direction that you know the our constituents want us to go in. Yeah, that makes sense. And again, the conservative citizen is asking for a statement from the bla to be presented to city Council. That's why this document says, what's the ask? All this is information like the ask of us is, what do we recommend as a group? And this law hasn't passed yet. So it's just one of those things where I agree with Member Califano. I I think this needs to be more of a public discussion. This is.

[113:06] This is about our community and we can talk about the laws and other jurisdictions all day. But this is bolder, and how are the citizens of our community feel, and that's what we're here doing. Sure, Member Clark, and resonate on that. Yeah. Yeah. And and just to to clarify this. You know, remember, Carol, we're we're talking about a potential, a preempting of a potential change. Where state legislature would be able to change. You know, grocery stores, maybe with some malt beverages to full strength alcohol. Right? So because right now they can't sell liquor, they can only sell beer and wine. And so this is a, you know preemption that that this member of the community has asked us to consider. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. I I would still say that I would want more public opinion on this. From a more

[114:06] rather than just one individual. I do understand this individual's concerns. Given the nature of the fact that they're in the industry. However, I I would like to hear more from the public if they're for or against this. this change that's coming that could potentially be coming up and go from there. I think that we just put it in a a notification when it goes in the paper that this is what we're discussing. I don't know if there's maybe you know, rar can get the word out, too, so that more people know about it. But yeah, that that's my recommendation is the next step is to put this on an agenda and have it as public input. Yeah, I agree. I agree, we want more public input as well. Like, I, definitely, we definitely want to hear from more liquor license establishments on, you know, both sides of the issue.

[115:02] So just a point of clarification. You know, bringing this for public comment and specifically asking about some of the under the what can be done? Sections? Just opening that for for feedback. or like, are we kind of refining this more before we're opening it up for public feedback? I I the way I see it, it would be that we wouldn't necessarily prescribe any. What would. What could be done at this point it would be more of a a conversation around. Does the community see this as an issue? Generally. And you know what are the views on on both sides of this issue for for us to even decide that whether we start to take any action to one way or another right? And remember Absalom. The rest of the authority do. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think I think whoever cars making all the right points, it's like the ask here is to consider something that is already going through the Colorado Senate, you know. There, there, I mean, I don't know how much experience you have with State Legislature, but bills are proposed very quickly. And you know, so to chair California's point, yeah, we want to make sure that all the public has the opportunity to do that. That being said.

[116:18] there's public comment available to every single person, every single hearing. So if you have a concerned citizen coming out and saying these things, we have every not just right. We have a responsibility to address these concerns because of our what we are in our community. So that being said, I think we need to start to weigh those all the things that are happening around this issue. And I, I really encourage you. And I don't know if this is okay, that we can share this document with everyone on the board. just so everyone can see this document. It's a Google Doc. So everyone can share it. And it's not. Nothing's pressing. It's just facts. It's just links to articles

[117:00] and some research. That Member Carr and I have done. But I think the real question is the ask from the community member is, what do we think? And what can we present to city council? I think Chair Califano says, let's get some more public comment. Let's go through the steps. We have the ask. Let's get the comments. Let's come together as a group and discuss it after we hear more from our community. because these are all municipal jurisdictions we're looking at in some of these. So I guess the question really is how we come to as a group. What do we think about these comments? And I agree with Member Califano. Let's just get some more. Just more of the the members of our community involved. That's where I stand. I would ask Member Roberts what her thoughts are.

[118:00] I always love love, community feedback, help, make decisions. So it sounds like, you know, the the authorities in alignment that we want to put this as a an agenda item. You know, and something for for the community to discuss and bring their perspectives to us. And and, you know, solicit feedback. So I will make a motion. You know, network. I'll make a motion that we we put the A A public comment period on the agenda to discuss the potential of State legislature, changing off premise beverage to full strength, alcohol, licenses, and how the community builder should approach that that change.

[119:05] T fifties. Is there a specific month that you would want that on. Yeah, I would say, let's let's do it sooner than later. Let's do it for February. Member absent with the second, that for February circle back on this. and I'd also, if I can amend it, make sure that this document is available not only to members of the authority to the public as well. No problem. Thank you. All right, all in favor. Say, aye, member Califano. Aye. Never asked a lot. Member car. I. Member Haggerty AI. Member Roberts. Aye. Great Caitlin, I will. I will share this with you afterwards to make sure that you can just distribute it. As we talked via email. You know, you can add as an exhibit to this packet.

[120:01] Yep, yep, that's no problem. so question for you guys. And Roberto is not here so I can get his intake or his input on it if we need to. But would you be willing to accept like written public comment as well, so I could like send this I could. I'll let our licensees know that this is something that the bla I know that this is how Clap has done it before, but I could let the licensees know that this is something that the bla is going to discuss, and that they can submit written public comment, or they can come and give public comment. That's kind of been our process with these types of matters with Collab. This is something that cloud does a lot. So I was kind of thinking of just kind of mimicking how we do that. If you guys are okay with that. Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay, cool sounds good. So I will work on sending something out to all of our licenses. But this is something that you're gonna discuss.

[121:08] Thank you. And that is it for our agenda. Great? Is there a motion to adjourn. I don't wanna make a move. I will make a motion. But I want to say one more thing. Sorry to hold you guys up one more minute. But I did. Wanna go back to the training component that happened early on and I think, thank you. Chair Talifano, for guiding us through that. This is a hairy situation. In our community. And I'm concerned about it in a lot of ways. because we have these lists of trainers. And all this I I might ask of members of the authorities to think about this and do some research around what's happening in the community around you. and it's it's a nightmare for people to get trained, and we have very stringent rules and very rightfully stringent rules in our community. But please look into this as a group.

[122:09] because it's it's hard for this proof of training and the whole vendor, the whole responsible vendor training thing at the state level. If you have you gone to the State led website, it's it's hard to navigate. It's not really well done, and I know there's a lot of stuff going on there. So my request of the authorities to please think about that, and maybe do some research as this will be an issue moving forward for sure. And I appreciate all your time, but something that I'd like for you guys to think about as we go into next month. and that's it, and I'll make a motion to adjourn. I remember Carl will second that motion. All in favor. Say, I remember Califano way. Remember, absolute. Member Haggerty. I. Member Roberts. Aye.

[123:02] We are adjourned at 5 0. 5 Pm. Perfect. Thank you guys so much. Thank you. Guys. Thanks. Everyone. Bye.