* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER NOTE. YOU OKAY THERE? YEAH, I'M GOOD. ALRIGHT, GOOD. UM, NOTE FOR THE RECORD, ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ARE PRESIDENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR. AND AS ALWAYS, WE BEGIN OUR MEETINGS WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SO IF YOU'RE WILLING AND ABLE, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US. ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR ALL. SO WE'LL BE IN WITH THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. AND FOR THAT I WILL ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MS. SWIN, TO [A. Announcement of Public Hearing Procedures] ANNOUNCE THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES. AN INDIVIDUAL REQUESTING TO BE HEARD ON A MATTER RELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR. BEFORE ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL, UPON RISING TO SPEAK, THE SPEAKER MUST IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF AND FURNISH A HOME OR BUSINESS ADDRESS. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY COMMENTS OR REMARKS, THE COUNCIL WILL ALLOW THE PROPONENTS A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK IN APPLICATION. OPPONENTS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. COMMENTS ARE ACCEPTED FIRST FROM THE APPLICANT, FOLLOWED BY PERSON SPEAKING IN FAVOR. AND THEN FROM THOSE IN OPPOSITION UPON CONCLUSION OF ANY OPPOSING COMMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS, THE MAYOR WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO OFFER REBUTTAL IF ANY TIME IS REMAINING IN THE ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES. THANK YOU, MS. SWIN. [B. Fiscal Year 2027 Budget and Millage Rate Levy SECOND PUBLIC HEARING] FIRST ITEM ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2027. BUDGET MILLAGE RATE LEVY. THIS IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING DIRECTOR HARRIS, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR ON THIS ITEM. TURN IT ON. THAT ONE. GOOD. HERE WE GO. UH, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. UM, IT'S NOT EVEN AFTERNOON, WHATEVER IT IS. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. GOOD MORNING. STILL, THAT'S THE MOST I'M GONNA SAY 'CAUSE THIS IS A CURING ITEM, A SECOND OF THREE. AND, UH, GENERALLY WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING STATE LAW TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AND ASK QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET. SO I HAVE NO ACTUAL FORMAL PRESENTATION AND THERE'S NO VOTE AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES SINCE NO JUDGE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS ON THIS ITEM? NO, SIR, WE DO NOT. HOWEVER, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD THIS TIME. NOW'S YOUR CHANCE TO DO SO. I DO NOT SEE ANYONE COME FORWARD. SO, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNSEL? MAYOR, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. WE'LL, UH, TAKE THIS UP AGAIN AT THE SIX 30 MEETING. MY APOLOGIES. THANK YOU FOR STRAIGHTENING ME OUT ON THAT ITEM. SO [A. Nauti Dog, LLC d/b/a Sunset Alpharetta - Alcohol License Violation Decision Appeal Hearing Hearing of an appeal of the Hearing Officer's Decision by Nauti Dog, LLC d/b/a Sunset Alpharetta.] WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. NEW BUSINESS PORTION OF THIS SA OR THIS MORNING'S MEETING IS NAUGHTY DOG, L-L-C-D-B-A SUNSET ALPHARETTA ALCOHOL LICENSE VIOLATION DECISION APPEARING HEARING APPEAL, HEARING HUSKY. THANKS MAYOR. I'M GONNA START THIS REAL QUICK 'CAUSE I'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE OF, UH, INTERESTING LOOKS OVER HERE AS TO WHY WE ARE SEATED THE WAY WE ARE. UM, SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING TODAY, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS, IS REPRESENTING YOU ALL AS COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER. UM, AND THAT'S WHY I SWAP THE TWO FOLKS FOR TODAY BECAUSE TECHNICALLY GRACE REPRESENTS THE CITY STAFF. TODAY WE ARE UNREPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN THIS MATTER, IN THIS HEARING BEFORE YOU ALL, YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. UM, AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT AS THIS GOES FORWARD. THAT'S WHY THE SEATING HAS CHANGED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND THIS HEARING ONLY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT BACK OVER TO THE CLERK WHO'S PREPARED WITH SOME COMMENTS AND REMARKS AS WE OPEN UP THIS HEARING. YES, I'M GONNA JUST INTRODUCE THE ITEM AND TALK THROUGH PROCEDURE A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO AS YOU MAY KNOW, THIS MATTER IS BEFORE YOU NOW AS THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINAL DECISION, UM, UH, THAT WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 21ST, NAUGHTY DOG, LLC SUNSET, ALPHARETTA TIMELY FILED THEIR APPEAL. AND SO THAT IS WHAT THIS HEARING IS. UM, YOU WILL BE HEARING ORAL ARGUMENT FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR NAUGHTY DOG SUNSET ALPHARETTA. THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT PERMITTED OTHER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE RECORD, WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKETS. YOU WILL BASE YOUR DECISION ON WHAT YOU HEAR TODAY, WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD. AND FOLLOWING PRESENTATION. YOU CAN EITHER SUSTAIN, OVERRULE, OR MODIFY THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE HEARING OFFICER IN LIEU OF SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. [00:05:01] YOU MAY IMPOSE A FINE UPON THE LICENSEE NOT TO EXCEED A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION OCCURRING. THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND THE APPELLANT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK A WRIT OF CURI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FINAL ACTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, THE FINAL ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE REDUCED TO A WRITTEN ORDER SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. THE ORIGINAL OF THE MAYOR'S ORDER SHALL BE FILED ON THE REC, SORRY, FILED IN THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AND A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT. SO NOW I INVITE CAL PASS COUNCIL FOR NAUGHTY DOG. THANK YOU. UM, MAYOR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT'S A, IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE. IT'S ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUILDING AND IT'S, IT'S BEAUTIFUL. I, I WORK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND I REPRESENT NAUGHTY DOG GRILL, LLC, WHO YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW AS SUNSET JUST DOWN THE STREET. THEY ARE, UM, THEY WERE CITED IN EARLY 2026 FOR FAILURE TO PAY EXCISE TAXES AND FOR A VIOLATION OF, OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE FOR DASH 47. UM, THE EXCISE TAX TAX ISSUE WAS RESOLVED THROUGH PAYMENT BY MY CLIENT. SO THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUE THAT'S BEING APPEALED BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER MY CLIENT, WHETHER THE HEARING OFFICER CORRECTLY, FOUND THAT THE CITY ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MY CLIENT VIOLATED FOUR DASH 47. SO, UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, IF, IF I MAY I HAVE A COPY OF THAT ORDINANCE, IF I MAY PASS IT OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR? YEAH. OKAY. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. UM, THE CITY PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY CALLED SUNSET AND WAS ASKED IF THEY COULD ORDER FOOD. AND THE RESPONSE WAS, LET ME CHECK IF THE KITCHEN'S OPEN. THE KITCHEN WILL BE CLOSING IN AN HOUR, WHICH IS BEFORE SUNSET WAS SET TO CLOSE. RIGHT? SO THEY WERE GONNA, THEY WERE GONNA PURPORTEDLY THE KITCHEN WAS GONNA CLOSE BEFORE THE BUSINESS DID. AND SECONDLY, THERE'S, UM, EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF AN OFFICER'S, UM, BODY CAM FOOTAGE SHOWING THAT THE KITCHEN WAS DARK WHEN THEY WENT IN LATER, THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY, ANY EMPLOYEES OR LIGHTS ON THE KITCHEN. AND SO I WANNA START TODAY. UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'M GONNA BE FAIRLY BRIEF, UM, IN RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME, BUT I WANNA START WITH AN ADMISSION. I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE DID SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MY CLIENT WAS NOT PREPARED TO MAKE FOOD AT A TIME THAT IT WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. AND THAT'S WHAT, UM, THE HEARING OFFICER RELIED ON IN MAKING HIS DECISION THAT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY WEREN'T READY TO MAKE FOOD. WHEN, WHEN THE, UM, WHEN THE OFFICER WENT IN AND UNDER, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOUR FOUR DASH 27 A ONE, I BELIEVE, AND I GAVE YOU ALL MY COPIES, IT REQUIRES BASICALLY IN THE LAST SENTENCE THAT SUNSET BE PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. SO NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE THERE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT SUNSET BE PREPARED TO MAKE FOOD. IT REQUIRES SUNSET. BE PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT CITY ORDINANCES, THE, THE PUBLIC IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THOSE ORDINANCES BASED ON THEIR PLAIN MEANING. THE CITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE ANY WAY THAT THEY WANT TO SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AND IF THE CITY MEANT YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO MAKE FOOD AT EVERY HOUR THAT YOU'RE OPEN, THEY COULD HAVE PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD IS WHAT IT SAYS. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW RESTAURANTS WORK. MOST ITEMS ARE HOT ITEMS PREPARED WHEN YOU ORDER THEM, BUT THERE'S OTHER ITEMS LIKE SALADS, UM, DESSERTS THAT CAN BE PRE-MADE, PUT IN A REFRIGERATOR AND SERVED WITHOUT ANY COOK, WITHOUT ANY, UH, OVEN BEING TURNED ON. NO STOVE, NOTHING. THE EVIDENCE HERE DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT SUNSET WASN'T PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY ASKED, HEY, IS THERE ANY, WHAT FOOD ITEMS CAN I GET? AND THEY SAID NOTHING. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY EVEN ACTUALLY ORDERED FOOD. SO THE CRUX OF TODAY'S ARGUMENT BY MY CLIENT IS THAT BASED ON THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE CITY HAS NOT PROVEN AND DID NOT PROVE BELOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MY CLIENT WASN'T PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. NOW, THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THIS STATUTE OR THIS ORDINANCE THAT, THAT SAY, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DO. NONE OF THE OTHER ONES ARE IN QUESTION. MY CLIENT HAD THE APPROPRIATE KITCHEN EQUIPMENT, FOLLOWED ALL OF THE OTHER, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION A ONE. THE ISSUE [00:10:01] WAS PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. AND OUR POSITION IS THAT THE, THE HEARING OFFICER BELOW MADE HIS OWN INTERPRETATION THAT THAT MEANT PREPARED TO MAKE FOOD AND EVIDENCE. PROBABLY DID SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MY CLIENT WASN'T PREPARED TO MAKE FOOD AT AN HOUR, THAT IT WAS SERVING ALCOHOL. BUT IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T ESTABLISH AT ALL THAT MY CLIENT WASN'T PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD. I PUT IN THE APPEAL IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THIS COUNSEL, VARIOUS MENU ITEMS THAT ARE ON MY CLIENT'S MENU THAT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED ANY KITCHEN STAFF AND WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED ANY OVEN OR LIGHTS ON IN THE KITCHEN, SIMPLY A BAR, A BAR BACK, OR A BARTENDER OR A WAITER COULD GO BACK AND GET THESE ITEMS. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY ORDERED THEM AND WAS REFUSED. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT, IT MAY SEEM TECHNICAL, BUT IT'S REALITY FOR MY CLIENT. MY CLIENT DOES SERVE ITEMS, DID HAVE ITEMS IN THE REFRIGERATOR THAT IT'S PREPARED TO SERVE. AND SO, UM, ESSENTIALLY OUR POSITION IS THAT THE EVIDENCE BELOW DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING, UM, OF THE HEARING OFFICER. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE QUESTIONS, BUT HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UH, GOOD TO SEE YOU MR. PASKE. THANK YOU FOR, UH, SHOWING UP HERE TODAY. UM, UM, I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR ARGUMENT. I'M, I'M INTERESTED ALMOST FROM A MOOT COURT POINT OF VIEW TO SEE HOW FAR THIS GOES. YEAH. UM, UH, UNDER YOUR INTERPRETATION ARE PEANUTS FOOD? YES, ABSOLUTELY. IF, IF A IF A RESTAURANT OR A BAR HAS A BOWL OF PEANUTS ON THE BAR, DOES THAT SATISFY WELL, UNDER YOUR, UNDER YOUR HYPOTHETICAL THIS, THIS FOOD ISN'T BEING SERVED, SO, SO NO, UH, PEANUTS OR POPCORN THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO, TO PATRONS WOULD NOT BE FOOD THAT'S PREPARED TO SERVE. SO, NO. AND IF I'M SITTING AT THE TABLE AT CENTRAL CITY TAVERN OR WHERE, WHO HAS IT THAT SERVES POPCORN? IF SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY I SAY I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE A BOWL OF POPCORN THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE, IS THAT, WOULD THAT QUALIFY? IF IT'S SERVED UNDER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE, AS LONG AS THAT THAT BUSINESS WAS PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD, THEN YES, THAT WOULD QUALIFY. AND AS YOU INTERPRET THIS STATUTE, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY EDIBLE FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION THAT IS BROUGHT TO A CUSTOMER WOULD THEN MEET, MEET YOUR INTERPRETATION, WOULD MEET THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE. YES. IN MY OPINION, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN DORITO? UM, TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST, JUST, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SPEAK MUCH ABOUT THE EXERCISE TAX THAT WAS PAID. COULD, COULD YOU, COULD YOU, UM, ADVISE US ON HOW MUCH EXCISE TAX WAS NOT PAID AND THEN HOW LONG WAS IT BEFORE YOUR CLIENT REMITTED PAYMENT TO THE CITY? CANDIDLY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. UM, BECAUSE THAT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW THE, I CAN SAY THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS A MECHANISM THAT REQUIRES THE PENALTY. AND THE ORDINANCE PROCEDURE IS THAT AS LONG AS IT'S PAID AND, AND THE CITY ACCEPTED PAYMENT, THAT THAT IS RESOLVED. AND THE HEARING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN HIS ORDER BELOW. OKAY. ONE OTHER QUESTION, UH, REGARDING, UM, SECTION FOUR DASH FOUR SEVEN. IT TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING OUTSIDE OF HOTEL OR MOTEL, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 40, 50% FOOD CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES. UM, UH, HA HAS SUNSET MET THAT DESPITE THE KITCHEN LIGHTS BEING TURNED OFF? AND SO THERE'S NO ALLEGATION FROM THE CITY THERE, THERE WAS NO, UM, CLAIM OR CITATION, UM, RELATING TO AN ALLEGATION THAT THEY HAVE MET THAT. AND CERTAINLY I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, THAT THAT 50% IS, IS ACROSS A PERIOD OF TIME IN ANY GIVEN HOUR, YOUR ALCOHOL SALES MIGHT EXCEED. BUT I'M AWARE, I'D SAY OVERALL, OVERALL, HAVE THEY CONSISTENTLY MET THAT NOT BEING AN OPERATOR OF THE BUSINESS? I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN TODAY, BUT I CAN SAY THAT THERE'S BEEN NO SUGGESTION OR NO CITATION FROM THE CITY THAT MY CLIENT HASN'T MET THAT REQUIREMENT. AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO, TO FILE EVIDENCE OF OUR FOOD SALES AND ALCOHOL SALES ASSOCIATED WITH PAYING THOSE TAXES. SO, UM, MY POSITION WOULD BE, I HATE TO BE DIFFICULT, BUT FIRST THAT, THAT'S NOT FOR US TODAY. BUT I'M AWARE OF NO VIOLATION OF THAT ORDINANCE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT OR ALLEGATION OF, OF A VIOLATION. THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASK THE QUESTION, 'CAUSE I I BELIEVE IT'S [00:15:01] RELEVANT, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I I AGREE. I MEAN FROM A LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, BUT IF WE HAVE AN OWNER THAT REQUIRES 50% FOOD SALES, UH, ON, ON ON ANY PREMISE, UH, THAT THAT HAS A LIQUOR LICENSE, UM, IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE, UH, I'M SURE, UH, UH, THE CITATION THAT WAS GIVEN, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE 50% AS YOU OUTLINED, UM, IT IS RELEVANT. 'CAUSE THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A BASIS TO ISSUE OR A CITATION KNOWING THAT THE KITCHEN LIGHTS WERE OUT AND THE GOVERNMENTS WERE OFF OR WHATEVER. UM, SO, SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION BECAUSE I I DO THINK IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE MEETING THAT OR EXCEEDING IT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THE KITCHEN LIGHTS ARE ON OR OFF, IT KIND OF BECOMES ALMOST A MOOT POINT IN MY EYES. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE CITY'S POSITION ON THIS IS, IS TECHNICAL, WHICH IS WHY OUR RESPONSE IS TECHNICAL IS IN THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE THAT THE KITCHEN BE PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD IN EVERY HOUR, THAT IT'S OPEN FOR BUSINESS. SO EVEN IF YOU'RE SELLING A TON OF FOOD AND VERY LITTLE ALCOHOL, AND THEN ONE HOUR BEFORE YOU CLOSE YOU, YOU STOP SERVING FOOD, BUT YOU CONTINUE TO SERVE ALCOHOL, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE UNDER THE PLANE. YOU KNOW, IF I'M ASKING FOR, FOR THIS COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THE PLAIN MEETING AND THE NATURAL MEANING OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE NATURAL MEANING IS THAT EVEN IF YOUR FOOD SALES DOMINATE YOUR ALCOHOL SALES, YOU STILL HAVE TO SERVE FOOD EVERY HOUR THAT YOU'RE OPEN. RIGHT? AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE AS IS, IS THIS BUSINESS STILL MEETING THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS? AND MY POSITION ON THAT WOULD BE YES, THE CITY CERTAINLY WOULD'VE CITED MY CLIENT FOR THAT VIOLATION AS WELL, HAD IT COMMITTED THAT VIOLATION. EVEN ARGUABLY THEY INSTEAD, UM, BROUGHT THE VIOLATION THAT, HEY, DURING THIS ONE TIME THAT WE WENT IN AT NIGHT, YOUR KITCHEN LIGHTS WERE OFF. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT THE CITATION IS. AND, AND MY ARGUMENT TO THE COUNCIL IS JUST THAT BASED ON THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE PREPARED TO SERVE FOOD, NOT NECESSARILY COOK FOOD. SO HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR CLIENT BASICALLY NOT HAVE A, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT TERM WOULD BE. UM, UH, UH, A FULL SERVICE KITCHEN AVAILABLE WHERE THERE'S ACTUALLY STAFF THERE TO PREPARE FOOD, EVEN EVEN ADVANCED PREPARE FOOD TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT PROPERLY ON THE PLATES AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. I MEAN, HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN? SO BE BEFORE THIS CITATION THAT THERE ALREADY WERE PREPARING FOOD SALADS, LIKE TYPES OF FOODS THAT COULD BE ORDERED AFTER THE KITCHEN STAFF IS DISMISSED. BUT SINCE THEN, MY CLIENT HAS INTRODUCED A LATE NIGHT MENU THAT I WOULDN'T, UM, NORMALLY BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE, BUT THAT WAS IN THE, THE COURT'S OR IN THE HEARING OFFICER'S ORDER. MY CLIENT HAS, UH, PUBLISHED A LATE NIGHT MENU THAT INCLUDES SOME COOKED FOODS AS WELL THAT ARE SIMPLE FRIED FOODS THAT BAR BACKS CAN PREPARE. AND SO IT'S IN OUR POSITION, IT'S, THERE'S NEVER A TIME THAT MY CLIENT IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS THAT IT'S NOT PREPARED TO, TO SERVE FOOD. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HEES. HELLO. I'M BACK. YOU, YOU, YOU ALMOST ANSWERED MY, UH, EXACT QUESTION WITH THE, YOUR LAST STATEMENT. UH, IT'S THE INTENTION OF, UH, SUNSET GRILL TO SERVE FOOD WHILE THEY'RE OPEN AT EVERY HOUR, NOT GONNA TURN DOWN FREE MONEY. AND IF THE QUESTION IS ASKED, DO YOU SERVE FOOD LATE? THE ANSWER WOULD BE THE THE ANSWER SHOULD BE YES. OKAY. THE ANSWER SHOULD BE YES. SO, UM, WHETHER IT'S PART OF THIS HEARING OR WHATEVER OUR, UH, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS, UM, I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOUR CLIENT ON THEIR WEBSITE WHERE IT SAYS, DO YOU SERVE FOOD LATE? SAYS, WELL, LATE NIGHT FOOD AVAILABILITY CAN VARY BY NIGHT. YOU KNOW? YES. WOULD BE A GREAT ANSWER. UH, BECAUSE GETTING ALL THIS CLEANED UP, UH, THIS NOW WOULD SEEM TO BE THE TIME TO DO THAT. YES. AND IT'S UNDER THE FAQS ON THE, ON THE WEBSITE. CERTAINLY THAT'S WORTH UPDATING. I KNOW MY CLIENT PUBLISHES THE LATE NIGHT MENU ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, BUT YES, CERTAINLY THE WEBSITE SHOULD BE UP UPDATED AS WELL BASED ON AVAILABILITY. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, UM, I THINK THIS WAS PRETTY WELL INTRODUCED BY MS. STACEY AT THE BEGINNING. UM, BUT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER TO UPHOLD OR MODIFY OR OVERRULE THE HEARING OFFICER'S SUSPENSION OF THE LICENSE. SO WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER IMPOSED WAS A THREE DAY SUSPENSION OF THE LICENSE, [00:20:01] AND YOU CAN EITHER UPHOLD THAT IF YOU FIND THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, YOU CAN UPHOLD THAT. UM, THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY ALLOWS YOU TO CONVERT TO A MONETARY FINE, OR YOU CAN REDUCE, OR ALTOGETHER OVER OVERRULE THAT SUSPENSION. AND THAT WOULD JUST TAKE THE, THE FORM OF A MOTION A SECOND AND DELIBERATION AND A VOTE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE. IS THERE ANYONE ON COUNCIL WHO WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A MOTION OR DISCUSSION? COUNCILWOMAN REEFS, WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS BEFORE MOTION. DO A MOTION FIRST. WELL, WE CAN DISCUSS SINCE WE'RE IN A HEARING. SO IF WE PREFER TO LEAD WITH A MOTION, I'M FINE WITH THAT, BUT I DIDN'T DISCUSS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, SIR. MR. MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THIS EVENING TO THIS AFTERNOON, THIS MORNING, UH, TO OVERRULE THE, THE FINDINGS AND UPHOLD THE APPEAL. I, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I I I'M MAKING A MOTION TO UPHOLD HIS APPEAL. OH, UPHOLD HIS ARGUMENT. YES. TO DO AWAY WITH THE . YES. I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. UM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMING OUT. UM, YEAH, I, I THINK, UH, WE CAN CALL THE LOOP ALL DAY LONG, BUT I SAID I, I THINK IN NOT BEING A LAWYER FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THE WAY YOU PRESENTED IT AND FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSED IT, AND HAVING BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS, UM, I WOULD AGREE. I AGREE THAT, THAT FOOD, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT FOOD WASN'T AVAILABLE, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. SO THAT'S MY POINT, COUNCILMAN. HES AND ECHOING, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM, UM, UH, MS. MR. PASKY, THE, UH, THE BRIEF, THEY, THEY HAD ME WHEN IT SAYS THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY CUSTOMER WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN FOOD SERVICE OR THAT PREPARED FOOD WAS ACTUALLY UNAVAILABLE. SO, UM, I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ON THIS. UM, UH, IF, IF WE HAVE SOMETHING IN MIND IN OUR STATUTE, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH STAFF AT SOME LATER TIME TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO REWORD THIS, THE, THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE. BUT, UM, UH, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, UH, I, I AGREE WITH THE, UH, SENSE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD AT THIS TIME, SINCE WE'RE BLESSED TO BE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER IN THE MORNING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT I'M VERY FRUSTRATED ABOUT THE LACK OF RESPECT FOR OUR ALCOHOL ORDINANCES. AND SO I CAN THINK OF THIS BEING THE THIRD CASE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WHERE A RESTAURATEUR OR BARTENDER DID NOT PAY THEIR EXCISE TAXES TO THE CITY OF ALPHARETTA AND CONTINUED TO DO THAT FOR MONTHS BEFORE WE HAD TO SPEND TAXPAYER MONEY TO CONVENE THESE EVENTS, TO HIRE ATTORNEYS, TO REPRESENT US, TO DO AN ACCOUNTING, TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED OUR ORDINANCES. AND SO I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COMMUNITY, REVISE OUR ORDINANCES TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND VERY PUNITIVE IF THERE ARE BAD ACTORS IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR RESIDENTS. SO, UH, I JUST WANT TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS THE THIRD STRIKE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. AND IT'S THREE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND DIFFERENT RESTAURATEURS. SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY MAKE IT CLEAR TO OUR HOSTS IN THIS CITY THAT OUR ORDINANCES NEED TO BE OPA. AND IF IT ISN'T PROHIBITIVE ENOUGH TO RECTIFY THESE SITUATIONS, WE NEED TO MAKE IT PROHIBITIVE ENOUGH. SO THAT'S ALL I WOULD SAY ON THE TOPIC. THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE VOTE YES. AND IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW, [6. EXECUTIVE SESSION (IF NECESSARY)] I DO BELIEVE THAT WE MAY NEED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS THAT THE CASE, MR. LOG BLOOM? I'D LIKE TO GET [00:25:01] IT KNOCKED OUT. IF WE CAN. WE DO A LITIGATION AND REAL ESTATE WOULD BE THE TWO TOPICS? YES, PLEASE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? MOTION TO ADJOURN. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HYDE, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DRIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TURNING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, PLEASE VOTE YES. RECESS. IT'S EARLY. I'LL PRACTICE BY THIS EVENING. THERE YOU GO. IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. SO WE'LL RETURN SHORTLY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONVENE? SO MOVED. HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN REEVES, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRADY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECONVENING, PLEASE VOTE YES. AND IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. WE HAVE RECONVENED. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DRISCOLL TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN REEVES IN DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNING, PLEASE VOTE YES. SUSPENSEFUL. AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL TONIGHT. WE WILL ADJOURN. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.