Council - Regular Meeting

Ordinance number 260001 proposes amendments to section 5.04.010 and 5.04.020 of the Riverton Municipal Code related to alcoholic beverage licensing specifically addressing the definition of a commercial kitchen and clarifying conditions under which an individual under the age of 21 may enter or remain in licensed establishments. The ordinance was presented to the council on first reading on January 6th and approved for on first reading with a recommendation to clarify the definition of commercial kitchen uh removing age related language which we have done. Then on January 20th, the council heard the ordinance on second reading and elected to table further consideration in order to allow time for additional input prior to taking action. This work session is intended to provide an opportunity for the city council to re receive feedback um from liquor license holders and members of the public. Um following the council's decision to table the ordinance on second reading, liquor license were all notified of this meeting this evening and seeking input as it considers whether or not how to move forward with the proposed ordinance. uh licences and members of the public were encouraged to contact council and city staff in advance of the work session should they have any questions regarding any proposed amendments or materials related to u the council. So currently um we're looking at title 5.010 010 where staff has included a uh definition for a commercial kitchen which means a food preparation area equipped and permitted pursuant to applicable state and local regulations including facilities for cooking, refrigeration and sanitation which is open and actively used for the preparation of service and meals to the public. So that's been included in the general definition section of the code. Um the second change that we uh made to

the code or the proposed changes is section 5.04.020 where uh the current code reads that the establishment is operating a restaurant with a commercial kitchen where the primary source of revenue from the operation is from the sale of food and not from the sale of alcoholic or malt beverages. Uh the proposed change would read that the establishment operates an open commercial kitchen and actively serves food from said kitchen or the establishment provide shows a breakdown of gross sales from a profit and loss statement audited by a recognized public accountant. So, we're really what we're trying to accomplish here is that there's a clear distinction that the majority of the purchases from the sale of food were either purchased from a um an entity with an open commercial kitchen or the entity can prove that 60% or more of their sales was uh generated from something other than alcohol. And then another change that we that we are proposing is to section 5.0420 0420 and it's item it's a creation of a new item G and I I want to clarify a little bit about the way that our code currently reads versus what the proposed changes would be. Give me just one second. Okay. So currently our code reads except as provided in this section no lency or agent employer employee or server thereof shall knowingly permit a person under the age of 21 to enter or remain in the licensed building where alcoholic or malt beverages are dispensed in an establishment that provides adult entertainment and or is primarily for on premises consumption where the primary source of revenue from the operation is from the sale of alcoholic beverages. is. And then we've also um included some information that clarifies that no

person under persons under the age of 21 permitted to enter or retain remain in a licensed premise pursuant to subsection F1 and F2 shall not be seated nor be permitted to remain at the bar or designated dispensing areas. Remain in designated dining areas or other areas specifically designed for the sale or consumption of non-alcoholic related products. shall be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian if the person is a minor under the age of 18 and shall vacate the license premise before or at 10:00 p.m. And then persons under the age of 21 shall not be permitted to enter or remain in a licensed premises pursuant to section F once an establishment ends food service from its regular menu, ceases to operate its commercial kitchen, or no longer satisfies the revenue requirements of subsection F2. So really, we're not we're not requesting to change um the current code as much as we're seeking more clarification on whether or not we're allowing minors into our bars. And with that, I would stand for any questions that you may have as you move further through your discussion.

Okay. So just so everybody's clear, we sort of stopped the third, you know, the three reading process so that we could get more input from the liquor license holders and make sure this is what they feel is a feasible thing for them and their businesses. And then we of course want to make sure we're everybody's following the rules and knows what they are. Um, this does not apply to anything other than retail liquor license holders that serve on premise. So, a a package liquor store, this doesn't apply. Somebody that has a restaurant liquor license or a bar and grill liquor license, this is not what we're talking about. We're talking a pure retail on premise sales license. Okay. And so I would love to get you guys' input and I guess we don't have a huge crowd here, but let's try to keep our comments distinct and address them to the chair and keep them around five minutes and we'll listen to to what you guys have to say and then we can discuss some things and you can give us more comments if needed. So floor is yours. Hi, I'm Raphael Deleg with River City Rendezvous and I would just go over what I said last time looking at the uh ordinance the way it was. You know, I found issue with the fact that someone under the age of 21, excuse me, under the age of 18 would have to be with the parent or legal guard, our guardian. And the thing I pointed out is that how would I determine who a parent is? And how could I know who a legal guardian is? You know, as I mentioned, the

police, they can run a license plate. They can find warrants. They can see a court order. But there's no registry really of legal guardians that I know of that I, as a private citizen in a business, could access to know that. And in a complant check, how would I know other than what the person says? Now, if you look at the state statute on this, it does make references to a parent and legal guardian in certain circumstances, but it never defines how it's going to be implemented. And it was like the time I came in, I talked about a hearing and a hearing officer and the cost. It's mentioned, but it's never defined how you find the hearing officer or what the cost was. And we went over that. So, that's my two principal things. The other side of it is is that a bar and grill license and a and a restaurant license are defined by state statute that they have to sell food 60 40%. There's different reporting requirements on a restaurant. They have to point out I mean when they go for their license renewal that 60% was food and 40% was uh beverages adult beverages. A bar and grill has three alcoholic beverages, food, and entertainment or other sales. So they can actually have a certain percentage of alcohol and against that sales of food and other products that they sell. So it it defines it a little differently. A retail liquor license right from Jump Street is 21 only to enter from my reading of it. And as I understood from what uh Miss Harris said the other day when she read her uh her account from the statutes that the licency authority is allowed to add certain more requirements or certain things to a license but they can't remove things from it. So for instance

you cannot take a bar and grill license and say we're not going to go 6040. We'll do 50/50. It's good enough. No. That's that's in law. You can't do that. In a retail liquor license, you have to be 21 to enter. Now, if you want to bring in young people that are under 21, I don't know if you have the authority first to do it. Second of all, why would you put on a 6040 when that's really only for restaurants and bars itself? And from what I understand, and I wish the person was here to discuss it, the person who initiated this said that they wanted to increase their business by having families and other things at their events. and that's fine and they're willing to take on the other, you know, the increased supervision and management of that, but they said they couldn't do 6040 or at least they couldn't guarantee it would be that way. So they, so this ordinance was passed or excuse me, it was formulated with the idea that we would let these family units in, but we still want to put a 6040 on it when this when this one business in particular said they couldn't meet that. And then when you looked at the ordinance, it said that it went back one year. So that meant any new business would have to wait one year before they could even start to implement this if it was passed. And the current business probably couldn't do it either. The other side of it was this. People under 21 are still allowed to enter a bar that has a commercial kitchen that's operating up until 10 p.m. But they have to vacate when that ends. So that means people from 18 to tw one day shy of 21 can go there. And the reality is is that you know if I was 21 and I was taking my 18-year-old girlfriend, she would bring her friends and we would be there in a bar. Now there is a distinction between a bar and grill and a restaurant. Normally there's separation. Everyone goes there with a

different understanding. But I'm not really that fond of, you know, fond of having uh just high school graduates that just turned 18 in a bar. Yeah, there's a differentiation between a lot of men and women's relationships, different ages. And I'm not saying any un rude or improper salacious going to happen there, but do we want that kind of exposure for these young people at that time? So for those reasons, the only three questions I'd ask you, what do you want to do? Well, why do you want to do it? And are you okay with the consequences that come from that decision? Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody any questions for Mr. Delgado? I do. Mr. Delgado, in and this is an aha gotcha. Do you have a commercial kitchen in any of your establishments? I have one that's in the former bombers, but we don't intend to operate that initially.

And in the event that you choose not to allow this in one of your establishments, um, but another establishment would allow it, how could that affect your business or your your ability? H how could that affect you? Well, you know, the thing is with u with a nightclub business looking under a bar and grill, if you had a commercial kitchen and you had a component that was food, then you had the alcohol portion of it, but you had entertainment where you're paying, you know, cover in tickets. Tickets could easily be 60 70% of your sales just to cover talent costs. And so all these other ones would be reduced. What I don't like about it is is that if it gets passed in the way it is and then later on I wanted to proceed along this how would I deal with the issue of parents and adult guardian how would I deal with the issue of 18 to 20 one day shy of 21 in my place so I'm looking at it from a future point of view that I think it's uh to my point of view not necessary necessarily you know I would never denigrate another person's business or their ideas because everybody body has a chance to run their own business. They have their own risk. They do what they want to do as long as it's lawful. So, I would never, you know, say no to somebody's idea. But for me and for what I see as being the problems with the ordinance, it's just too problematic for to proceed on it.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, Mr. Smith.

Uh, Tyler Smith, Livestock Liquors. Couple years ago, there was some confusion with a place that's no longer in business that was across the street from where we are. I had some minors come in with people that rolled enough to drink. They went sat down. They were under the assumption since they could do it across the street up until 10 p.m. that they could do it at my facility. I don't have a commercial kitchen. I have no skin in this game. I don't have a kitchen. I'll never have a kitchen. That's a headache that

Yeah. Um there does need to be some clarification in the laws. I agree with that. Because there was minor thinking that it was okay to come into a bar, strictly bar, and say, "Well, we're not drinking. We're his DD." Well, I appreciate that you're the DD, but unfortunately, the law states that you have to be 21 to be in my facility.

And I will keep it that way. I mean, by law, I can't even let my children in there to use the bathroom. But on the other hand, say I'm in there buying package, I can bring my minor in there to use the restroom. So, there's there's a lot of discrepancies there that I just like to see it cleaned up a little bit. You know, I'm I'm agreeing with you guys on clarity. You know, um the ordinance that just passed clarity. I appreciate the clarity. You know, there is this is what's going to happen. And I hope on this situation that we can come to a middle ground where everyone's happy. You know, say, you know, full retail liquor license, it's 21 plus cut and dry bar and grill license. You can have your minor in there till 10 p.m. shut down when the kitchen shuts down. You know, there's states across the country that have laws that way that 60% of everything has to be food sales to even own a bar a liquor license.

I don't know if state of Wyoming is to that point yet. Eventually, it might be. You never know. Yeah. But that's where I'm at. I I just want some clarity, you know, and I I hope that we can all come to a middle ground. I'm gonna stick to 21 plus. That's it. You have don't have ID. Bye-bye. Don't care how old you are. So, thank you guys for doing that. Anybody got any question for Mr. Smith? Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? Your honor. Can I provide a point of clarification for the record? Yes, sir.

Um, as it relates to state statute and the regulations for a retail license, it is silent on whether or not persons under the age of 21 are able to enter a premises that operates under a retail license. So, statute's very clear that someone under the age of 21 cannot consume or be in possession of alcohol except under certain conditions. One is their parent is there or if it's a church related issue. Um but the statute is silent currently um on whether or not someone can enter uh a premises that has a retail license under the age of 21. That being said, our ordinance does restrict that currently as Miss Harris outlined and it states that if your primary source of revenue is related to the sale of alcohol and it's for primarily on premises consumption, no one under the age of 21 can enter. So that's the the current bar that is set by our code even though it's it's somewhat silent on

So so our ordinance is more restrictive than the state statute. Correct. Okay. Which is okay. That's correct.

Less restrictive. Yeah. And then uh as it relates to the restriction our code currently puts on, it does provide the exceptions or exemptions that we've covered. And um I believe your um direction from the October work session was to provide uh maybe better language to clarify those exceptions. And I think Miss Harris has done that um as it relates to a commercial kitchen, as it relates to time, as it relates to location. and and that's where we could seek further clarification and direction from you. Um I know as far as the the staff goes, we'll follow your direction and if from this work session you choose that under no circumstance you want people under the age of 21 in a retail facility, we can write the ordinance that way. Or if you do want people under the age of 21, we want clarification as to what exceptions you want to keep. So we can write that in for the next meeting. Miss Cox. Hi,

Lindseay Cox. I wasn't coming with any questions. I just was really coming to listen to the conversation and, you know, since we're first we're just starting, I just want to be on the ball and know what I'm supposed to be doing. Although, he did bring up a good point. Um, since we're starting a new business, we won't have any of that information. Does that affect us? Do we have to have a preliminary uh timeline before we know what our percentages are? Right now, we're not thinking we're going to be mostly alcohol. It's just a side thing, but I just wondered that just kind of brought up that question to me. So, I thought I'd ask

Sar, do you know how the state's interpreting that? Well, I'm reading our our code and based on your proposed business plan that you had presented, um, you would already qualify under the current Riverton Municipal Code to be able to conduct your business as you are. And and I'll read it. It's a little bit long, but it's it's clear. So it says except as provided in this section, no license ee and it goes on agent employee shall knowingly permit a person under the age of 21 to enter or remain in the licensed building where alcoholic or malt beverages are dispensed in an establishment that provides adult entertainment or is primarily for on premise consumption where the primary source of revenue is from the sale of alcohol. So currently, if your primary source of revenue is not from alcohol, you're it that particular scenario is already included and covered in our current code and staff did not propose any changes to that in the proposed ordinance. Does that answer your question?

It does. I just when he said it as like we had the year to determine that, I'm like, wait, I have to be in business for a year to tell you before. It's just, you know, feel like there's just different hoops that you're jumping through backwards sometimes. So I'm like, make sure that we know what we're doing before we jump through the first. It's the chicken or the egg scen. You can't prove you're going to serve that much until you've already served. Exactly. Right. So I just wanted to make sure I So your your business plan says you're going to be 60% food. Well, it's going to be 60% retail and additional, you know, the out will be there, but most the mo majority of the revenue is going to be from this the fly shop. So right. So in go ahead. I'm sorry. I did not mean to touch.

You're fine. Well, and I think this brings up an important point. I think you as a council needed to decide if um the proposed section F2 is even necessary. Now, now from the work session, it it was determined that it was because Miss Cox had come up and and brought up very good points and you had given us direction that we should take into account businesses that want to have a retail license, but also sell something other than food and not be a restaurant. So, other retail items.

And so, that's why uh the current proposal for F2 was written. Um the language as it relates to uh 12 months of operation and and having a recognized public accountant indicate that 6040 ratio was actually mirrored from the restaurant license language. I think Mr. Delado brought up a good point. Miss Cox brought up a good point about whether or not a lency would have to prove that before they could operate or if they could operate for a year and prove that. Yeah. because a beginning an entrylevel business like yours doesn't have a way to prove that. So that they use plan for

I believe when when staff wrote this the idea was to allow them to operate and then show us after 12 months and then if they weren't compliant then they would have so I wonder if we shouldn't think about adding something that on a new license or you know business plan define that a little clearer so that we say okay a new business or somebody taking over the license that can be on their expected and then they would have to the trick is a year from now if you came back for a renewed liquor license and you were 42 and a2% liquor you wouldn't qualify right as I as I understand it

would we be just needing to re-evaluate maybe our hours and that sort of thing and our I mean right now as it is we've got it sectioned off in preparation of the whatifs but I mean I just wonder if we would be granted that opportunity to readjust if we this is a a little out of what we're talking about, but where you guys are going to be actually brewing Yeah. product. Does that change her license? The We'll also have a commercial kitchen because we're brewing. So, we we have that also. So, does the manufacturer part fall into the retail or is that a separate thing?

Your honor, she's they are actually going to be producing me which falls under the definition of a winery permit. So, it would be essentially the same as a liquor, a retail liquor. Okay.

But I I suppose getting back to the point, um, our our current ordinance as it runs right now includes the language that Miss Harris brought up about, um, primarily used for on premise consumption. Then there's another primarily, and that's primarily revenue from the sale of alcohol. That's when the um restrictions of no one under 21 kick in. So if you're there to consume alcohol on site primarily and then the or the business or organization makes most of their money from alcohol then no one under 21 comes in. So that's why it begs the question of whether or not F the current proposed F2 is necessary or even if the current F1 as written is necessary.

I believe um and I'm just making an assumption current ordinance F1 talks about a restaurant being the first checkpoint and it talks about the primary source of revenue being from food. I think it's just a clarification point, but begs the question if it's even necessary. If you've already defined in your ordinance that it if it doesn't have a primary threshold for alcohol, then it doesn't apply already. So, there might be some redundancy and clarity that you might want to seek there. And it might be better to say that alcohol sales are no more than 40% of the total as opposed to other things are 60%. Because then we would not be defining the other. And again, I'm just shooting from the hip here

just out of for in her case. Okay. If she's going to be selling flies and fishing rods and a sandwich and some alcohol, don't you want to add all the other things and say that alcohol can no be no more than 40%. As opposed to saying restaurant has to be 60, which that means the fly rods and the flies don't count towards the 60. Did you just say business total revenue as 40% and 60% instead of defining the retail which is sort of defining primary

is I think what maybe we're trying to do but your honor I actually okay

so just out of curiosity and I this could be a flat no I don't know trying to accommodate because if if we're looking at this is really affecting two businesses and an upcoming open one is what we're really looking at. Rather than changing it across the board for every license holder that may in the future change it, can we just develop a special permit that they can obtain yearly that says we grant this business and this business the opportunity to I mean include your percentages however you you think that needs to be divided, but just have them obtain ain a special permit in their situations rather than changing the rules for everybody and creating more confusion. Is that something that could be looked at? Your honor, I it's something we can explore and bring back to you.

Just trying to accommodate your needs and another business's needs and support them in in their efforts to do whatever it is they or however they want to run their business. but also protecting those that don't want to do that. They don't have to get the permit. They don't have to serve and they can run their business however they choose. But in the event that you have less than 40% sales or 40% and below and it's just another option to your business, just get a special permit through the city and you're able to do it and not change any ordinances. Well, I'll be here for the conversation. I appreciate you guys talking. Like I said, I just want to be on the right page going forward so we know what we should be doing.

Thank you. And and Rebecca and Tim, chime in if you have something to say. I apologize. I should Thank you. No, your honor. I I do have an idea for some of that. um when we get to the conversation when we when we close the public session I do have an idea for for some language some verbiage that might help there. So,

your honor, if I may, we also have a third lency that could potentially be impacted by the decisions that are made on this. And believe it or not, it's the Hampton Inn because they have a retail liquor license as well, but they don't have a bar area. They have a man they host manager receptions. And that would be another situation where they could potentially fall under the which we know they would be perfectly eligible for, but that at least uh 60% of their sales has to be from food or other source of revenue, which for them it would be the the renting of their room. So, but I just I didn't want that one to fall through the cracks as you're talking about who all is going to be impacted by that.

I didn't think about them. And then we've got another in town that has what I'd call a full-blown restaurant next to a full-blown bar running under one retail license. And I don't think they would have any problem with the 6040 thing, but to me it affects their ability to maybe hire under 21 people to work on the restaurant side even though, you know, the people from the bar are bringing drinks across and the people from the restaurant are taking food to to the bar.

So that makes it a little tricky, too. Now, when the kitchen shut down, if we left it the way it's saying, which is the under 21 can be there as long as the kitchen is open, that would fit that scenario the best. Um, to me, really, they're more of a bar and grill than they are a retail liquor license holder, but they have a retail license, and so we have to figure out a way to So, again, there's no cut and dried stamp easy way to do it. But

feel like that business in particular needs to apply for an actual restaurant license rather than a retail license. I know that's costly. Um but the way that they're operating dictates that it's I mean is the bar portion of that open beyond the restaurant? I'm not sure. I don't do your honor if I may. I actually drove by today and it said that their restaurant closes at 10:00 and their bar closes at 11:00. So, they do stay open a little bit later, longer.

Another caveat to that one that I I also looked into thinking maybe perhaps a bar and grill license would be better for them is that they do sell package um they sell their package beer out there. So, that's what they need that retail license for. So, yeah, there are a lot of retail on premise consumption bars that also sell package like Mr. Smith. And so you got to be careful there, too. So again, there's no cut and dried easy answer for everything or our job would be so easy. Rebecca, you said you had more comments.

Um, yeah. Are we to is the public session over or?

Yep. We Well, we don't have anybody else that's standing here wanting to talk. Okay, good. Yeah, like one of the things I thought about is instead of a 60% revenue test, you know, I was doing some research this week on this. Um, we could do what's called a low burden attest uh attestation. So, probably Mia understands this better than I do. um where they basically attest to the fact that um like they're obeying what we say um is what I'm reading online. So it's like self-certification under the per penalty of law that that um they're meeting our threshold. So that's one of the ideas um that I was looking up online. So that's because like part of our wording here is getting to um is putting a lot of like pressure and um you know enforcement certification on the bar owners and you know council member Bailey and I especially we were like really concerned about all that um at the last meeting and so I thought you know taking some of that burden off would be you know that they're attesting to that that they're meeting that. And another one of the thing that I looked at was that we could change the wording to a licency shall not knowingly permit an underage person to remain in a prohibited area. you know, um things like that take the enforcement off of the bar owner um without, you know, it's not putting more work on them, but it's still a um you know, putting the law in place. Uh so anyway, so those are some ideas. I've got a few more, too, but we could just

talk about those couple ones first. So when you're saying Mr. area. You're talking about having a se a segregated seating area for people under 21. That's not or is that what

that No, that's not the one I'm just talking about like so one of the first things is like you know they have to check every person that comes in. Are you under eight? Are you under 21? Are you under 21? So instead of like actually saying um the I guess here's the part I want to change the guarantee compliance um we have in there that they're guar going to guarantee compliance. So I think that maybe we should change that to a licency shall not knowingly permit an underage person. um because making our bar owners like guaranteeing that compliance makes them the law enforcement and I think that that's wrong. So I think that we should reword the guarantee compliance um to a lency shall not knowingly permit um and I actually have no idea what part I'm talking about. So Kyle or man better help me out here. they should not knowingly permit anyone under 21 to purchase alcohol

um to remain in a prohibited area to to write so to write that in there. So instead of the guarantee compliance, we should put knowingly permit. Um because I think that the guaranteeing compliance puts a little bit more pressure of enforcement where it shouldn't be. Does that make sense?

Your honor, go ahead. I definitely appreciate the the comments there. And I thought I'd bring up that um the current ordinance does state that um except as provided in the section, no lency, agent or employee or server thereof shall unknowingly permit any person under the age of 21. Oh, it does say that. Okay. there. So that might meet comment and concern

and as Mia and I are listening to your feedback and also the the feedback of the individuals here. Um if the concern centers on the ratio of 6040 it is possible that you as a council don't even include that you could remove the proposed F2 altogether and then the ordinance would simply state if you operate a business that has adult entertainment that serves alcohol or operates a business that is primarily supported by the sale of alcohol and on premises consumption. No one under the age of 21 comes in unless you have a open commercial kitchen that's operating. And then the other language would apply, the proposed language where if you have that commercial kitchen, you can allow persons under the age of 21 into the establishment so long as they are not seated at the bar. Um, it does state uh it being a designated area other than um the sale or consumption of alcohol. It does reference the parent or legal guardian 10:00 component. And then also under H, it states that as soon as the commercial kitchen stops service, whether it's uh 6 pm or 10 p.m., people have to leave as soon as it stops.

Right? So that's something you could consider if the ratio split for uh revenue outside of the sale of alcohol is getting this ordinance more convoluted than necessary. Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um, I guess I'm I'm just going back to I don't feel like we have anybody that has spoken to the council that is a liquor license holder has spoken in favor and maybe I'm wrong, but we've got the other council members. I don't I have not heard from any of our count from any of our liquor license holders that they're in favor of this. So, I guess my question is, is there any reason if if we just wanted to have the clarity, which we've been talking about and wanting, um, if we were wanting to have the clarity here, is there any reason we can't just completely get rid of F1 and F2 and just have it be F and F3, which is the clubs are exempt, you know, listed above. F4, which is of course establishments that operate primarily for off- premises consumption have to have it separate, right? And just say no license or agent, employee or server thereof shall knowingly permit any person under the age of 21 years to enter or remain. I I mean I I've I've not heard any of our liquor license holders that have been saying they want this. Am I wrong? No, I agree with you, Tim.

Well, I guess Miss Cox was talking about her business, which will be, you know, fishing stuff and food and selling of their meat and stuff that they create. So, that would not

put under 21 year old people in their building. No, because if you just have F and you get rid of F1 and F2, she would fall under if it's not primarily for on premises consumption, her her she's saying her primary source of revenue is not going to be from the sale of alcoholic or malt beverages. Correct. So if you just have F and you get rid of one of two, her business could continue as it's proposed.

Okay. So, and we define primarily as over 50%. So, do we need to define primary there? I guess

we could do that and I guess that would be something we could discuss. But I guess just as I'm looking at this, the only thing I've heard from the license holders is they don't really love the idea of one or two. And we could just get rid of that and say if it's primarily, it's primarily. And then we could talk about what primarily means and how that's determined. But F2 has that heartburn because of the 12 months, right? So if you get rid of F2, it's just primarily their primary businesses comes from consumption. You could word that to primary alcohol consumption or dispensing or right. So that

in Linds's case, it's she's not planning on it primary business serving alcohol. In the other one that I mentioned, I think they're primarily restaurant with a bar attached, not a bar with a restaurant attached. And then there's another one in town that I don't think gets anywhere close to being primary food. So that would that would be the one that wouldn't allow people under 21, right? Does that make sense? Just so I'm clear.

So 21 or under would still be restricted from going into an establishment where the primary source of income is alcohol. Correct. and that would remain the same. But if the primary source of your revenue is generated 60% or more or whatever the the larger amount is something else, you can permit them in until 10:00. And then the rules would fall in with the kitchen has to be open, etc., etc. And that way, we're not changing any or we're actually getting rid of F1 and F2. We're cleaning it up quite a bit. Less details. Well, I think you'd actually get rid of G.

Okay. You'd get rid of F1 and F2. You'd get rid of G and and you'd get rid of H2. So, we would be getting rid of that exception with the commercial kitchen and everything. So, we'd be getting rid of F1, F2, G, and H. All we would be doing is operating under F and F3 which has the exemption for clubs and those are in line with state statute. Well, state statute kind of leaves it up to us but Oh, you're saying the club? Yeah, Councilman Carr. Thank you.

I love that idea. Mayor, go for Okay. And and I hope I'm not grossly oversimplifying this, but it seems like we're wrestling over deciding between a restaurant that happens to sell liquor versus a bar that happens to sell food. Yes, that's really what it I don't want people or minors in an establishment that primarily focuses on selling alcohol. Right. I agree with you on that.

And I think And I like simple very much. When we have to get out a flowchart to make our way through a regulation or an ordinance, it gets extremely difficult for not only us to enforce, but the the business owners that are affected, the patrons that are frequenting the establishment. So, I I would say the more simple that we can make this while still not allowing minors to go into establishments that focus primarily on alcohol sales done. And if the removal of it, it just seems like we're bending over backwards to figure out a problem none of us want. I just feel like if food's going to be served and alcohol is served then then there needs to be the appropriate licensing for that rather than changing our ordinances. I think we need to apply for the the appropriate licensing

if yeah that's perfect. If you want to be a restaurant If you want to be a restaurant or a bar and grill get that license if you don't I just think it would simplify it. it would solve the problem we have with our code right now where there's this vague exception that we're not really sure, you know, we discussed it and and all of that and I think it would be consistent with what the liquor license holders are telling us. Mhm.

So, I I think it's something that we ought to consider when we get back to our our reading that maybe ju just simplify this a little bit more than we've been. Okay. Yeah. Sir, if you were to uh follow Mayor Hancock's idea getting rid of section G, that deals with the issue of parent and legal guardian. And I think that's important because again I could apply to that

when uh council member brothers said person could attest to something that's the standard that's fine with me. I just ask you're a parent to leave a guardian that's good enough. I did my part but I just like to make certain that that's in this ordinance so that it doesn't call fall back on me later. Yeah that's cleaner. I agree.

Well and I think that's been the complaint. I when Mr. Delgado was talking about this. I thought he was talking about the difficulty for the officers and I hadn't put together the difficulty for him as a license holder. If an officer comes in, his fear is, if I'm understanding correctly, there's going to be a minor there. And the officer is going to say, "Well, this isn't the person's parent." And the officer has that ability to, you know, look it up, get the main names table, that kind of thing, and be able to establish that, whereas he does not. Right. So,

I follow the the frustration. Now, I was just thinking he was talking about the difficulty for an officer, but his difficulty as a license holder to figure that out. I understand. Yeah. I I think it ends up being both because, you know, you take a bar full of people and the waitress is running around like a chicken with their head cut off and then they're supposed to figure out is that their parent or their boy older boyfriend or whatever. you know, you need to go there. If you're 21 or not, done. Yeah. Unless you're a restaurant, you know, again, primarily food, then you're allowed. If you're primarily a bar, you're not with that.

Does that give staff information to scratch all over that thing?

Your honor, I think so. And we really appreciate this discussion. Um, few points of clarification. Obviously, you're going to make a motion today, but we can get your consensus. Um, and then also when you bring this back from the table, it'll you'll pick it up as it was previously presented and then you'll have opportunity to make amendments at the upcoming meeting. But just to ensure we're clear so we can support you during that meeting. The uh consensus that I'm hearing is uh the ordinance moving forward will only have paragraph F. It will remove F1, F2, keep the current F3, keep the current F4, and have everything else removed. In so doing, what you're uh stating is if your primary source of revenue is related to on premises consumption or alcohol, then no one under the age of 21 may enter. Period.

Correct. However, if your primary source of revenue is something else like a hotel, but you sell alcohol, people under 21 are allowed. So, Argo, the the um license holder who brought this forward several months ago, um would not be able to allow persons under 21 into their establishment unless they could uh prove somehow that the primary source of revenue for their establishment was not related to on premises alcohol consumption. And I guess the the question Miss Harris may have is what's our requirement to have that liquor license? He prove that in in the instance our officers go into um an establishment who by this uh new proposal restricts people under the age of 21 and enforces that. If the establishment then comes back and says, "Well, wait. I I actually have the primary sales from something else. How would you like that to be shown?

Yes, Councilman Carr. One thought that I had was or one question that I had written down too was on the 60% the 6040. I I really think we should define that to to be the previous fiscal year of the establishment because they're going to go under an audit, right? and and it can be whatever their fiscal year is. It doesn't have to match ours, but it has to be an audit for one full fiscal year or as presented in their business plan or something because that would cover the brand new new business, the brand new one.

They don't know. I mean, they're going to know, but they may not be able to prove that through clearly through an audit. But if it was for that full fiscal year because then that takes care of the the ticket sales issue, you know, yeah, you could have an event that bumps you up well past the 6040, but we're not going hour to hour, dayto day through a whole previous 12 months or something like that. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you, your honor. So, I let me use a hypothetical. So, Butterfield Bar is open and um my primary business as it appears is the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption. And for some reason or another, I have people under the age of 21 in. And the enforcement is applied as it's currently written. And I say, well, hold on a second. Butterfield Bar actually has the majority of its sales from something else. And I wanted to contest that. um enforcement. How would you like me to do that if at all? If maybe that's something for the

Could we build that into our yearly licensing process that they will supply us with proof of that or a business plan state on a new license, a business plan stating that they would so that we have some kind of attestment if that's the right word. So that they're basically Okay,

saying that they do that and then they would have to present it again next year when their license gets renewed. And then PD would have a list of here's the ones that are bars that actually sell more food than more other things than you know of the full retail licenses. Here's the ones that have attested that they sell X food, you know, x% other things than alcohol. I like that except it they they should be doing that anyway to make sure that we have the correct license. They they well they have to be right now they don't have to attest to the the primary alcohol or primarily other items.

Right. I get that. I'm just saying it would be helpful during our renewal every year to say, "Okay, they did 7020, 30, 40, whatever." And and that gives us an idea if they're actually operating under the correct license. And I, your honor, oh, go ahead. I'm just wondering, could that be maybe provided by a profit and loss statement by a certified accountant or something like that? I I think for proprietary type information, I don't know that we want it out at a public meeting, but I think they could have a a letter from their accounting firm saying this business did x%

other items and x% alcohol or something like that so that we're not giving out trade secrets and you know Tyler decides he's going to get in the food business because Joe was over here doing you know making all this money. Right. You're on. I also think we need probably need to make that voluntary because again we're talking about a very small percentage of the retail liquor license holders. Some of them don't want to have to go through an audit process to prove because they're not doing Yeah. But we should say if you are on the razor's edge, you want be able to that's what you want to call it. Apply this exemption.

Yeah. We're giving them a an exemption for the 21-year-old entrance into their business. But you then you have to prove that right to us, which is this statement they're going to give us them or their accountant or something. Your honor, I I feel kind of like Miss Johnson. If if that's built into the licensing process, someone if Mr. delegado wants to do this. He's done that footwork and provided that verification, right? And I'm just saying we don't have to put the burden on someone that doesn't want to do that in the first place.

No, it would be the assumption that if you have a retail liquor license for on premise sales and you don't attest to the food sales, then you are not and you can't have anybody under 21. Doesn't matter, right? I also think that that that should be that should be clarified at the beginning of the year at the the the license renewal, not halfway through the year. You say, "Okay, I've met 40% now. I'm going to start serving in the middle of all that." They got to which boat they're going to cross the river. It should be done yearly with a certified accountant's verification that their sales are what they should be and that they're operating under the correct licensing. Right. And we're approving the correct licensing. Yeah. Tim,

Rebecca, you good with that? Um, yeah. I just worry about the burden being on the bar owners as long as um I'd like to hear from them kind of and make sure that they're good with that. I guess they'll have two more readings to Yeah. And we'll have some chance to beat this up more.

I'm pretty happy with it. So, your honor, just to um make sure we're bailing this appropriately to the question of enforcement, really what you're hoping is on the front end at the time of application, a retail license holder will have an opportunity to say, um, I plan on, um, having people under 21 here because the primary source of my revenue is not alcohol. So, on the front end, they'll make that attestation so that it's not complicated on the back end where in my hypothetical situation if I get cited at my bar and then I protest after the fact but I never disclose that I wanted to have that type of business. Yeah, I hear you. Okay.

We're differentiating between the business that comes in and says I want an alcohol license because I might increase my sales versus the business that comes in with a business plan that needs a liquor license because that's their entire business plan. Okay, fair enough. So, you're comfortable? Good. Anybody else with any comments? Tim, Rebecca? Yep. That's good. Thank you. I hope I didn't throw too much of a monkey wrench into things, but I I think it'd make the enforcement easier and worthwhile to talk about at our second reading.

Keep it simple is better. So, Anyone else have any comments? I told my wife we'd be here for a couple hours. Could you keep going? I did. I'll move. Could you move? I'll move to adjourn. If nothing else, nobody objects. We're adjourned. Perfect.