1

A regular meeting of the Beer Board was held July 19, 2011 at 6:00pm in the Board Chambers at Town Hall, 500 Poplar View Parkway. The following members of the Board were present: Richard Stewart (Vice Chairman), Hampton Parr, Terry Cochran, Kim Perry and Gregory Cotton. Walter Crews (Chairman) arrived late. Absent was Scott Brack. Also present were Town Administrator James Lewellen, Assistant to the Town Administrator Josh Suddath, Town Clerk Lynn Carmack, Town Prosecutor Mark McDaniel, Collierville Police Detective Mike Ciesliga and Collierville Police Detective Smith. INVOCATION Mr. Cotton gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Stewart led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Suddath stated that Vice Chairman Stewart had agreed to stand in for Chairman Crews until his arrival. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – JUNE 21, 2011 Mr. Cotton made a motion, seconded by Mr. Cochran, to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2011 Beer Board Meeting. Roll Call: Parr – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes, Stewart – yes, Cotton – yes. Motion approved. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE – FUNQUEST FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC LOCATED AT 440 HIGHWAY 72, STE# 101 Mr. Suddath stated that Mr. Tommy Hart, owner of Funquest Family Entertainment, LLC, was present to make his case before the Beer Board. Mr. Tommy Hart stated that he was asking for a continuance for the reason that their case had been continued in court. Mr. Hart also stated that Mr. McDaniel is rendering an opinion on their defense and thought that this was unusual. He stated that he does acknowledge that this Board is separate from the court system and that they are two different activities, but obviously they are connected in at least some way. Mr. Hart stated that Funquest had a private party going on, and that the Corps of Engineers were in their facility at the time that the Officers and the cooperating individual arrived. At this time, Town Prosecutor Mark McDaniel objected to Mr. Hart’s statements, stating that it appeared that Mr. Hart was beginning to give testimony about what he believed the proof would be in this hearing, which Mr. McDaniel believed to be improper. Mr. McDaniel stated that if Mr. Hart had a legal ground to request a continuance, Mr. Hart should state it and allow the Town an opportunity to respond. Mr. Hart stated that, not being an attorney, he did not know how to respond to the request. Mr. Stewart stated that what the Board is looking for is for Mr. Hart to give the reason that he would like a continuance.

2

Mr. Hart stated that he contends that there was a private party going on, and their policy in having private parties is to check out everyone in the group. Mr. McDaniel again objected to Mr. Hart again offering testimony as to what the proof would be in the hearing before this Board on whether or not a violation took place. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town opposes the request for continuance. Mr. Hart stated that they contend that no crime was committed, and stated that would be their defense. Mr. Stewart asked if any Board members had any questions for Mr. Hart. Mr. Cochran asked Mr. Hart if he had any legal ground for a request for a continuance. Mr. Hart stated that he guessed that there has been no proof presented that there are violations because it’s been continued in court. Mr. Cochran asked if he acknowledged that the court proceedings are separate apart from this Beer Board proceeding. Mr. Hart stated that he had already acknowledged this previously, and does understand that. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. McDaniel is he had any further comments at this time. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Hart if he had any further comments. Mr. Hart stated that he did not, and that he would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Stewart asked if there were any questions or discussion items from the Board. Mr. Stewart called for a motion to continue Mr. Hart’s case either beyond August 23rd, 2011, or to continue it tonight. Mr. Cochran made motion, with no second, to continue the hearing for Funquest Family Entertainment LLC Beer Board violations tonight. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Town Prosecutor Mr. McDaniel interjected to clarify what the request is before the Board in this case. Funquest Family Entertainment has requested a continuance. It is for the Board to determine whether to grant this continuance or deny it. If it is denied, then the Town is prepared to go forward with the hearing tonight on whether a Beer Board violation took place or not. Mr. McDaniel stated that the only motion before the Board is Mr. Hart’s request for a continuance. Mr. Stewart called for a motion, with the clarification made by Mr. McDaniel, to deny Mr. Hart’s request for a continuance of the Beer Board violation hearing for Funquest Family Entertainment LLC. Mr. Cochran made motion, seconded by Mr. Cotton, to deny Mr. Hart’s request for a continuance of Funquest Family Entertainment LLC Beer Board violation hearing. Mr. Hart’s request for a continuance is denied. ROLL CALL: Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – abstain, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes. Motion approved.

3

HEARINGS ON A VIOLATION OF THE COLLIERVILLE BEER ORDINANCE (TITLE XI, CHAPTER 116) REGARDING THE SALE TO OR CONSUMPTION BY ANY PERSON UNDER TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS OF AGE [SECTION 116.37 (M)]: Mr. Suddath stated that the next portion of this meeting will be the violation hearings wherein the evidence against the alleged violators will be heard. There are a few points for the Beer Board to know and the audience to remember as they move forward with these proceedings. The rights granted to the Beer Board by the Beer Ordinance are as follows: The Beer Board is granted the right to revoke or suspend the violator’s beer permit if they are found guilty of selling to an underage person. After deciding upon a suspension period, the Beer Board may offer the permit holder the option of paying a civil penalty if the Beer Board decides to do so. If it decides to levy a civil penalty in lieu of a suspension or revocation, the Beer Board may levy a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each offense of allowing sales to minors. In addition, for each additional violation of the Town’s Beer Ordinance, the Beer Board may levy a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for every other offense, including those offenses wherein employees do not have their Town beer ID. Mr. Suddath stated that this next part is for the benefit of the audience. If the Beer Board levies a civil penalty tonight, the beer permit holder has seven days to pay it, or the suspension that was initially levied is automatically imposed. This means that all civil penalties levied here tonight must be paid in full by the close of business next Tuesday, July 26, 2011. A certified letter will be sent out tomorrow, July 20, 2011, to each of the people who are found guilty of selling to underage individuals. If the Beer Board decides to suspend or revoke a beer permit, the penalty will become effective the 15th day following the hearing. This means if someone’s permit is suspended or revoked, that suspension or revocation will become effective Tuesday, August 2, 2011, at 12:01 am. Again, certified letters will be sent out tomorrow, July 20, 2011, to that effect. With his introduction completed, Mr. Suddath turned the meeting over to the Town Prosecutor Mark McDaniel to proceed with the violation hearings. Mr. McDaniel began by stating that there are a number of matters before the Board tonight, all dealing with alleged violators of the Collierville Beer Ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would like to identify a representative from each one of the establishments to make sure that there is someone here from each one. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would also like to determine from each establishment whether or not there is an admission to the violation or whether they are contesting the violation. He stated that he would like to handle the admissions to violations first, and leave the contested matters to the end of the board meeting in order to get as many people through this as soon as possible and be able to leave. Mr. McDaniel called on each one the establishments and asked what their representation was.

1. Funquest Family Entertainment LLC – Tommy Hart - Owner 2. Longhorn Steakhouse – Attorney James Curry; restaurant manager William Banks 3. Newk’s Collierville – Dan Garrett - Owner; Dwayne Gable - General Manager 4. Carrabba’s Italian Grille – Daniel Cataldi - General Manager 5. Huey’s Collierville – Lauren McHugh - President; Ashley Boggs Williams; Samantha Boggs Dean;

William Stine - General Manager; Hollis Ranson - Assistant Manager

4

6. Ichiban Buffet – He Xin Chen – Manager, Co-owner & Waitress; ??????? 7. Mary’s German Restaurant – Klaus Nowak – Owner; translator Mark Arostic ??? 8. Milano’s Pizza – Nick Daniele - Owner 9. New Que Huong – Attorney Randall Pierce; Tuyen Lee

Mr. Suddath stated that, at this time, Beer Board Chairman Mr. Walter Crews arrived. Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Suddath that he would like to transfer his temporary chairmanship over to Mr. Crews. Mr. Stewart stated for the record that he is transferring his temporary chairmanship of this meeting over to Mr. Crews at this time. Mr. McDaniel addressed the Beer Board and stated that there is a representative here for each of the establishments on the agenda tonight. There are two of these establishments that have been identified as making admissions or admitting to violations. LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE – 3581 HOUSTON LEVEE ROAD Longhorn Steakhouse is one of these two establishments. Mr. McDaniel asked that their representatives, Attorney James Curry and his client, restaurant Manager William Banks, step forward. Mr. McDaniel stated that the proof would show that on June 6, 2011, the Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class I On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that date, a cooperating individual working with the Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered the Longhorn Steakhouse and ordered and received a beer from the server at the restaurant. The server did check the identification of the confidential informant before serving the beer. Collierville Police Detective Smith witnessed this transaction, and the server was issued a misdemeanor citation for selling beer to a minor. Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Curry indicated that Longhorn Steakhouse, through their representatives, have appeared to stipulate that there is a factual basis for this violation. Mr. Curry stated that this is an accurate statement. Mr. Curry also stated that he would appreciate an opportunity to explain, and at least inform the Beer Board, what steps Longhorn Steakhouse has taken and what steps they do take in regards to alcohol, and their policy on minors, if that is appropriate. Mr. McDaniel passed around to the Board members a photocopy of the driver’s license used by the confidential informant, as there may be questions as it relates to the identification that was checked. This is the identification that was used for each location going before the Board tonight. The identification clearly shows that the license holder is under 21 years of age. Mr. Curry stated that he was with the restaurant manager, William Banks. He has worked in the restaurant industry since he was 16 years old, and has been with Longhorn Steakhouse for a long time. He was here in front of the Board in 2007-2008 when he was awarded a license to sell beer. Mr. Curry stated that Longhorn Steakhouse had a previous ordinance violation episode two or three years ago, and are back here today. The company is not happy about this. Mr. Curry stated that when you are employed at Longhorn Steakhouse, you do receive an alcohol service policy, as well as the Darden Restaurants responsible alcohol service policy. Every employee, be it a manager or a dishwasher, is required to review these policies, and are also all required to go through an

5

orientation where alcohol service policy is stressed. The servers and the bartenders have to take a test and watch a video specifically on responsible alcohol service. This information is also in their orientation handbook with a chapter or two on alcohol service policy. Mr. Curry offered to the Board to view the training material that all employees receive. Mr. Curry assured the Beer Board that Longhorn Steakhouse is very serious about this, and that they do not like having to hire attorneys to come to these type hearings and to be fined. Longhorn Steakhouse tries to do all they can to prevent these type things from occurring. Mr. Curry stated that in this particular instance, the server that did this had all this education and took all the tests. There is actually a bold print on each cash register that shows the date and year that someone has to be in order to get an alcoholic beverage. There are also signs posted. For whatever reason, this employee failed to follow these rules and regulations. This employee was fired on the spot, and he was also charged. Mr. Curry asked if the Board would consider that, even though Longhorn Steakhouse takes it very serious, there is some human error that takes place unfortunately. Mr. Curry stated that Longhorn Steakhouse knows that they are ultimately responsible for their employees, and they’ll take whatever responsibility comes with that, and they’ll whatever penalty as well. Mr. Curry also stated that the restaurant has books at the bar or in the back that have all the licenses from every state so they can check if a license is valid from that particular state. Mr. Curry stated that he and Mr. Banks are open for any questions, concerns or comments from the Board members. Mr. Curry asked that the Board in their ultimate decision to consider a civil penalty as opposed to some type of suspension based on what they have heard and seen. Mr. Stewart commented to Mr. Banks about the “Serve Safe” test, an 80-question test that Longhorn Steakhouse gives to test their employees. He asked if they put into the test a way to identify if someone is 21 years old or not. The drivers’ licenses for an underage driver in Tennessee clearly states when a person will turn 21 years old, and there is no math involved in determining this. The server who was charged even looked at the driver’s license. Mr. Banks stated the employee told him that he calculated the date, even though the driver’s license stated that the person was under 21 years of age, but he had 1992 stuck in his head. It was a careless error on his part and he knew he made a fatal mistake as far as his career was concerned the second it happened. There is just not an excuse for it. The employees do five hours worth of ABC training in addition to what Longhorn Steakhouse requires. Mr. Stewart asked if in the “Serve Safe” training that Longhorn Steakhouse has for its employees, it includes how to read the driver’s license and how it directly states when a person turns 21 years of age. Mr. Banks stated that in the ABC course, they go over this in detail, as some states don’t list this on the driver’s license. Mr. Banks stated that it wasn’t intentional on the employee’s part; he did it out of carelessness. He knows that he made a mistake and it cost him his job. Mr. Banks also stated that it would be handled the same for anyone else who did this, management included. They would be fired. That’s how serious Longhorn Steakhouse takes this. Mr. Parr asked Mr. Banks what additional training or meetings have happened with his current employees since this incident occurred on June 6th, 2011, to further train the employees. Mr. Banks stated that on June 18th, they had an “all team” meeting on Saturday morning at 9am, something they have approximately once a quarter. The responsible alcohol serving video was shown again to all the staff. The employees were again made aware of all the policies, state laws and procedures, everything that the city and state require. They were asked to sign off on the responsible alcohol service policy, even if they had already done so previously.

6

With no further questions, Mr. McDaniel stated that at this point there has been admission to the violation, so it is now up to the Board to determine what the appropriate penalty will be for this violation. He stated that the Board members were free to discuss what the penalty should be, and to make a motion for what is decided upon for the penalty. Mr. McDaniel stated also that the Town’s position on it is that since there is a prior violation, the Town recommends a 30-day suspension or a $2,500 civil penalty, in lieu of a 30-day suspension. The Town’s position is a little different for an establishment that checks an ID and human error occurs as opposed to an establishment that doesn’t even check. What benefit the Town would give is that they did check the ID, but the ID states in red “under 21 until November 20th, 2013” just as clear as can be. Human error can be very costly and has put Longhorn Steakhouse in trouble as a result of this human error. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s recommendation is a 30-day suspension or a $2,500 civil penalty, in lieu of the 30-day suspension. Mr. Crews asked if this penalty would be with the consideration of their method of checking. Mr. McDaniel agreed. Mr. Crews asked if a lesser penalty is decided upon, what it would equate to in days or dollars. Mr. McDaniel stated that on a first offense, a $1,500 fee is assessed in lieu of a 14-day suspension. The Town is recommending a little more than double the suspension time and not quite double the civil penalty. It’s the maximum civil penalty being assessed, but the suspension time can be greater than 30 days if decided upon. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is the Town’s attempt to be consistent with past practices. Mr. Stewart addressed Chairman Crews and stated that Longhorn Steakhouse is making a strong effort to abide by the law, and that there are instances of human error, which is what seems to have happened here, and with their strong efforts to correct the problem, he is for the civil penalty of $2,500 in lieu of a 30-day suspension. Mr. Cotton stated that he did not have a problem with the $2,500 civil penalty amount, but because of the efforts that Longhorn Steakhouse is demonstrating, maybe a 20-day suspension period would be more appropriate. That would certainly be more than a first-time offense, but not as heavy as a full thirty days. Further discussion ensued amongst the Board Members regarding the amount of the civil penalty to be levied. Mr. Cotton made motion, seconded by Mr. Parr, that with the second violation by Longhorn Steakhouse, located at 3581 Houston Levee Road, upon their admission of the violation, that they receive a civil penalty of $2,000 in lieu of a 20-day suspension. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. NEW QUE HUONG – 942 WEST HIGHWAY 72, SUITE 5 Mr. McDaniel stated that attorney Randall Pierce is here representing New Que Huong, and their owner, Ms. Tuyen Le, is present.

7

Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Pierce had indicated to the Town that New Que Huong has entered an admission to the violation. The proof would show that on June 9th, 2011, that the Collierville Police Department conducted this same undercover sting investigation with this same confidential informant of the Class I On-premise Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. This cooperating individual, who was 19 years of age, entered New Que Huong, ordered and received a beer from an employee, Huy Le. The employee did check the identification before serving the beer. The transaction was witnessed by Officer Smith, of the Collierville Police Department. The server was issued a citation for selling the beer. There is also another violation. Apparently, Mr. Lee had applied for registration with Collierville Beer Board and was issued an ID in August 2009, but he never picked it up. So, subsequently the Beer Board ID application was voided and destroyed by Town staff after unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Mr. Le. So, this is a second violation for the Board to consider. There have been no previous violations by New Que Huong since the permit was issued in March of 2009. Mr. Pierce addressed the Board and stated that he is here on behalf of the owner, Ms. Le. Mr. Pierce stated that while Ms. Le regrets that this happened, business is bad enough as it is and hard enough without drawing attention to yourself this way. He stated that they both realize that this violation is one of strict liability, and so she admits that it did occur and that it did happen. This was a family member who was attempting to help in the restaurant at the time. He is no longer there. Mr. Pierce stated that there is more to this than that, but stated that he didn’t think that it would add to this hearing. He stated that they do admit that the violation took place. Mr. McDaniel stated that based upon the stipulation, the Town would recommend, because she has had no previous violations, that there be a 7-day suspension of her beer permit. In speaking with her attorney, alcohol sales are not a significant part of their livelihood, but the Town does believe that a brief period of suspension should take place. This should be the same for the other violation with the beer permit application for the employee not being registered. The Town would likewise recommend a 7-day suspension concurrently with the other violation. So, there are two total violations, but the total cumulative effect would be a 7-day suspension. Mr. Crews asked for any discussion or questions from the Board members. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Pierce what has been done since this violation has occurred to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Mr. Pierce stated that there haven’t been any problems with anyone except for this one individual, who is a family member. Mr. Pierce stated that there are circumstances with this individual that he would prefer not to discuss, but he is no longer working there. The best thing to do is for the employee not to work there at all. Mr. Stewart asked if this has been reinforced with the other employees there that are serving alcohol. Mr. Pierce stated that they’ve never had a problem with that before. He stated that he understood the point that Mr. Stewart was making. Mr. Pierce stated that Ms. Le will continue to reinforce it with the other employees. He stated that it is a family business with Ms. Lee and her daughter, and another one. Mr. Pierce stated that would make sure that Ms. Le understands what needs to be done.

8

Mr. Stewart stated that he recognizes that the ID was checked, but the employee didn’t read it. He stated that the point he is making is that the ID needs to be read, not just looked at. Mrs. Perry asked if the employee is no longer with the restaurant. Mr. Pierce stated that this person is not there anymore. Mr. Parr asked if Mr. Pierce agreed that alcohol is not a big part of this particular business. Mr. Pierce stated that he agreed with this, and that was the representation that they made and he stands by it. Mr. Stewart stated that he is in agreement with the Town that this is their first violation and they did attempt to look at the ID. The 7-day suspension for selling beer to a minor is appropriate, and also the 7-suspension is appropriate as well for the employee not being registered with the Collierville Beer Board is appropriate. Mr. Cotton stated that he concurred with Mr. Stewart, but that he was hearing that there seemed to be a lot more to this situation that does not relate in any way to the selling of alcohol. Mr. Stewart made motion, seconded by Mr. Crews, that New Que Huong restaurant, located at 942 West Highway 72, Suite 5, receive a 7-day suspension for beer sales to a minor, and also a 7-day suspension for the employee not being registered with the Beer Board. These suspensions are to run concurrently for a total of seven days suspension. With no further discussion, Mr. Crews called for the vote. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. NEWK’S COLLIERVILLE – 3680 SOUTH HOUSTON LEVEE, SUITE 106 Mr. McDaniel stated that Dan Garrett, owner, and Dwayne Gable, General Manager, represent Newk’s Collierville, and have indicated that there is an admission in this matter to the violation. The factual basis would be on the same date, June 6, 2011; the Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting operation of Class 1 On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that date, the same cooperating individual, previously alluded to, was working with the Collierville Police Department, was 19 years of age, entered Newk’s Collierville, ordered and received a beer. The employee did check the ID of the CI (cooperating individual) before the beer was served. Officer Smith did witness the transaction, and did cite the server with a misdemeanor citation for selling the beer to the minor. Mr. McDaniel stated that is what the proof would be, and Newk’s Collierville has indicated that they have stipulated admission to it. Mr. McDaniel then turned the matter over to the representatives of Newk’s Collierville to offer what information they wish to have the Board consider. Mr. Garrett asked the Board to consider the circumstances under which this happened. Mr. Gable stated that basically they have four managers that actually serve alcohol. None of the hourly associates serve alcohol. The managers have all been through the ABC courses, and also Town of Collierville permits, and in doing so, it was just a careless mistake by this manager. This manager has since

9

lost their job, and assumed that this manager is being prosecuted criminally. Mr. Gable stated that they have the systems in place. This employee just decided to “go rouge” one day. Mr. Crews stated that he noticed that this is the third violation. He asked Mr. Gable what they are doing differently than they did the first and second time. Mr. Gable stated that he was under the impression that this was the second violation. It was confirmed by Board members that it is the third ordinance violation. Mr. Gable stated that the managers are the only ones that are selling alcohol. A manager’s card has to be swiped in order to sell alcohol on the POS system (Point of Sale). With that being said, they are investing time and classes with the managers, going through ABC classes, going through the beer permit ordinance, and also going through “serve safe”. Other than that, they are having weekly manager meetings and staying on top of it. They have cut down on the number of people actually touching the beer to four people, as opposed to almost sixty employees. It’s in the hands of the managers now. Mr. Stewart asked if a considerable amount of their revenue was based on alcohol sales. Mr. Gable stated that it is not. Mr. Cochran asked what percentage of their revenue was in alcohol sales. Mr. Gable stated that it was less than one percent. Mr. Cotton asked if he understood correctly that a sale of an alcoholic beverage cannot even be made without a manager card in possession. Mr. Garrett stated that each manager has one card and there are no duplicates. Mr. Crews asked what happened that night in this instance. Mr. Garrett that the manager just made a mistake and swiped the card anyway. Mr. Gable stated that he took over this store in December 2010 and put all checks and balances in place. They got with Miller and hung a wall calendar up that shows the specific day, date and year to be able to serve in our view at the front counter. Mr. Gable stated that they had everything in place even before this incident. The employee just had a lapse in judgment. Mr. Crews asked what the status of this employee is. Mr. Gable stated that he has been terminated. Mr. Parr asked if the termination was immediate. Mr. Gable stated that he was terminated immediately. Mr. McDaniel stated Newk’s Collierville had two previous violations, but they both occurred at the same time. They are two separate incidents. The violations were selling beer to a minor and having an employee serve beer without being registered with the Beer Board. Mr. McDaniel didn’t want any confusion about the fact that they have not been before the Board twice before, they’ve been before the Board once before on two violations. Mr. Gable stated that on this circumstance, the manager that actually did the selling was registered with the Town of Collierville and also had an ABC license. He was more than capable and educated enough to be able to make the decision and he just lost it. Mr. Stewart stated that his concern is that the manager did check the ID, but just like the previous cases, it is written on the ID when the person will become 21 years of age, and it is just being ignored. This manager has lot of education, but it is not doing him a lot of good. The concern is, even though it is the second incident, it is the third violation that Newk’s Collierville has had. Mr. Garrett stated he understood this.

10

Mr. Stewart addressed the other members of the Board stating that he thought this suspension was warranted. Mr. Cotton inquired with Mr. Stewart if his recommendation was the suspension and a civil penalty in lieu of that, or a straight suspension. Mr. Stewart stated that he recommended going straight to a suspension due to this incident being Newk’s Collierville’s third violation. If it was the second, he would have considered a cash penalty in lieu of a suspension, but the third violation makes it very serious. Mr. McDaniel stated that his recommendation would be a $2,500 civil penalty in lieu of a 30-day suspension. This is what the Town would recommend. Mr. McDaniel stated, in regards to Mr. Stewart’s recommendation, this is to remain consistent with the Town’s position with Longhorn Steakhouse. Mr. Stewart stated that he understood. Mr. Cotton asked of Newk’s Collierville’s representatives as to when the manager card system was initiated. Mr. Garrett stated that it was initiated during the first offense. Mr. Stewart stated that he thought it was initiated when the beer permit was acquired. Mr. Garrett confirmed that it was, along with system of checks and balances. Mr. Crews stated that during the first offense, the computers were down. Mr. Gable confirmed that he thought that this was the case with the first offense. Mr. Crews asked about the managers not relying solely on the computers and checking the ID themselves. Mr. Gable confirmed that the managers are the only ones who actually touch the beer and they are the only ones with the manager cards. Mr. Cotton asked the representatives from Newk’s Collierville what penalty they would prefer. Mr. Gable stated that they would rather the 30-day suspension. Mr. Stewart made motion, seconded by Mr. Cotton, to levy a $2,500 civil penalty in lieu of a 30-day suspension for Newk’s Collierville, at 3680 South Houston Levee Road, for selling beer to a minor. Mr. Gable asked to make a statement. Mr. Crews stated that he could. Mr. Gable stated that their alcohol sales are not even $2,500 a year, and that this is a huge fine. Mr. Stewart stated that it was also their third violation. Mr. Gable stated that he completely understood. Mr. Cotton stated that he thought there may be a misunderstanding with what penalty is being given. He stated that the way that it has always been done is if you do not take the 30-day suspension, the $2,500 is paid. Mr. Stewart stated that, in his motion, he was not giving a choice for one or the other penalty, it was for levying both. Mr. McDaniel interjected that the term “in lieu of” means that a choice is to be given. He also stated that the ordinance provides that the beer permit can be suspended for “x” number of days, “or” a civil penalty of up to $2,500 can be paid “in lieu of” that suspension. The suspension is the penalty, but the violator has the option, if the Board gives them the option, to pay a civil penalty. The violator can choose the suspension and not pay the civil penalty and the Board’s judgment will have been rendered. Mr. Crews verified that the representatives for Newk’s Collierville chose the suspension. This was confirmed the Board members and the representatives from Newk’s Collierville, Mr. Gable and Mr. Garrett.

11

Mr. Gable stated that they would prefer the suspension to show the severity of the violation to their management team. Mr. Cotton stated that the motion had already been made and seconded. Mr. Crews requested Mr. Suddath to call for the vote. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. CARRABBA’S ITALIAN GRILL, LLC – 4600 MERCHANTS PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 141 Mr. McDaniel asked the representative for Carrabba’s Italian Grill to identify himself to the Board. Mr. Daniel Cataldi stated that he is proprietor for Carrabba’s Italian Grill. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is an admission for a violation on June 6th, 2011. Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class 1 On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that same date, the cooperating individual working with the Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered Carrabba’s Italian Grill, ordered and received a beer from employee Deborah Scrivener. The server did check the identification of the CI (cooperating individual) before serving the beer. Detective Smith witnessed the transaction and the server was issued a misdemeanor citation for selling the beer to the minor. This is in violation of Collierville Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. There has been an indicated admission to the violation, and a representative is here to speak on behalf of Carrabba’s Italian Grill. Mr. Suddath interjected that there was also an additional violation in that the server, Ms. Scrivener, did not have her beer ID with her. Mr. McDaniel thanked Mr. Suddath, and stated that an additional violation was that Mrs. Scrivener, the server, did not have her beer ID with her. She had applied for registration, but had not received her beer ID at the time that this sale was made. That is, in an addition, a violation of the Collierville Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. Mr. Cataldi stated that, like everyone else here has stated, they have all the systems in place. They have the “sure serve”, calendars are up everywhere, and they talk about this every single day before each of the shifts. Mr. Cataldi stated that he was actually not in town when this violation happened. He was at a funeral in North Carolina. Mr. Cataldi stated that in speaking on the beer permit part, they do admit to that. Ms. Scrivener did bring in the receipt for the beer permit, and Mr. Cataldi’s assistant took this as the beer permit. Ms. Scrivener had just gotten promoted from hostess to bartender, and he mistakenly thought that this receipt was the actual beer permit and it could be used as such. They have corrected this and talked to all the other managers and informed them that the receipt is not an acceptable form of a beer permit. Mr. Cataldi stated that as for checking the ID, Ms. Scrivener made a mistake and she has been terminated. She was let go right after it happened. He was called while out of town and told them that she would have to be terminated immediately. Since then, they have had an all-store meeting every single day. They do “check-

12

ins” and make sure that everyone knows what the date is on the ID cards to be of age. Mr. Cataldi stated that it was an accident. Mr. Parr asked what the date on the receipt was for when Ms. Scrivener applied for a beer permit. Mr. Cataldi stated that Ms. Scrivener applied for the beer permit on May 27, 2011, which was nine days before the incident. Ms. Scrivener was a 5-year employee and there since they opened as a hostess. This is a big loss for the restaurant as she was actually his administrative assistant and paid all the bills. Mr. Cataldi stated that she absolutely did not do this on purpose. Mr. Cataldi stated that he knows what Mr. Stewart is going to ask about the driver license having the date listed right on the card. Mr. Cataldi stated that the first thing he asked Ms. Scrivener after this happened was about the ID having the “under 21 years of age” date listed right on the ID. He also stated that they had been given a heads-up by Bonefish Grille that the Police were out and doing this undercover sting investigation. He stated that Ms. Scrivener was aware of this and he asked her how she could not know when they were given a heads up in advance about this occurring. Mr. Cataldi stated that is when he told Ms. Scrivener that he had to let her go. Mr. Cataldi stated that he couldn’t answer the question and didn’t know how Ms. Scrivener didn’t see the under 21 years of age listed on the ID. Mr. Stewart stated that someone had even called this business and told them that the Police were conducting this investigation around Town. Mr. Cataldi stated that they did and commented that how many people get a second chance with knowing that it was happening. Mr. Cataldi stated that, even if they didn’t know this investigation was happening, they still encourage checking ID’s. He stated that to this day, it dumbfounds him. She is a really good friend and also works for his wife. Mr. Crews asked what the Town’s position would be on this violation. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is the second violation for Carrabba’s Italian Grill. Their first violation occurred in December 6th, 2007. The Town would recommend $2,500 civil penalty fine in lieu of a 30-day suspension. Mr. Stewart asked if this penalty was for the selling of beer to a minor. Mr. McDaniel stated that is was. Mr. McDaniel stated that as far as the beer permit registration was concerned, the Town would recommend either a 30-day concurrent suspension on that matter or a $500 civil penalty. Mr. Cataldi stated that the last offense occurred prior to him being there and it was under the previous partner in the restaurant. The previous partner was let go shortly after that violation, but not just because of that. There were issues with other decisions that were being made in the restaurant. Since Mr. Cataldi has been there, there have been no other offenses. Mr. Parr asked what the normal turn-around time is for when a Beer ID is applied for and when it is issued. Mr. Suddath stated that in reading over these cases that have taken as long a time, in general, the turn-around time is about five business days. He stated that he did not know if perhaps there was a problem with their background check or what the issue was with this particular case, but the Town tries to get the beer permit ID’s turned around in five business days. There are issues that do come up sometimes along the way.

13

Mr. Cotton made motion, seconded by Mr. Stewart, that upon the admission of the violations of Collierville Beer Ordinances, to levy Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC, located at 4600 Merchants Park Circle, Suite 141, a $2,500 civil penalty in lieu of a 30-day suspension for the violation of selling beer to a minor, and also, the Board accepts the Town’s recommendation to levy a $500 civil penalty in lieu of a 30-day suspension, for the Beer ID issue. These suspensions are to run concurrently. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – no, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. HUEY’S COLLIERVILLE – 2130 POPLAR AVENUE, SUITE 101 Mr. McDaniel asked if this would be an admission or denial. It was stated that it would be an admission. Mr. McDaniel stated that there are a number of individuals here representing Huey’s Collierville. It is a stipulation of admission that on June 6th, 2011, Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class I On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that day, the cooperating individual working with the Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered Huey’s Collierville, ordered and received a beer from employee Carmen Harwood. The server did check the identification of the CI (cooperating individual) before serving the beer. Detective Smith witnessed the transaction and the server was issued a misdemeanor citation for selling the beer to the minor. Mr. McDaniel stated that it was also determined that Ms. Harwood had never been registered with the Collierville Beer Board. After further investigation, it was determined that she had registered with the Collierville Beer Board in 2002 under the name of Carmen Maxey. Neither Ms. Harwood nor her employer could produce the relevant Beer ID to the investigating officer, which is a violation of the Collierville Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance Section 116.44(b). Mr. McDaniel stated that his understanding is that she did have a beer permit, but she could not produce it. Her inability to produce it was the second violation of the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated that Huey’s Collierville has admitted to these violations, and will now turn the matter over to the representatives of Huey’s Collierville. He asked that the representatives identify themselves to the Board before they speak. Ms. Lauren Watts McHugh, president of Huey’s, stated that she also had with her Samantha Boggs Dean, Ashley Boggs Williams, and two of their managers William Stine, the General Manager and Hollis Ranson, the Assistant Manager. Ms. McHugh distributed a packet to the Board members in case there is a question about anything. It contains documentation. Ms. McHugh stated that the first thing that she would like to address is that Ms. Carmen Harwood had applied for a beer permit in 2002 and was actually working at another Huey’s and ended up only being at that store for about a week. She never came back into Collierville to work at the Collierville store. This is the reason why the beer permit was never picked up. That is not to say that she should not have picked it up when she started work at the Collierville store in May. Ms. McHugh stated that Ms. Harwood was under the impression that she had 60 days to pick up the permit. Ms. McHugh stated that is the management’s fault. Ms. McHugh stated that the General Manager, Mr. Stine, had said that there was some confusion with that issue.

14

Ms. McHugh stated that the most important thing that she wanted to say is that this is very embarrassing to be here and they she was very sorry that it happened. She stated that they take alcohol awareness very, very seriously. In fact, there are seven Huey’s restaurants, and at the Huey’s Collierville location, the employees are required to card everyone, no matter how old they are. If the patron is 100 years old, they have to be carded. That’s how serious we take the matter. Some of the other things that they do at the restaurant is they have posted calendars and signs. Ms. McHugh passed around an example copy of what is posted. Ms. McHugh stated that the policy manual for Huey’s clearly states the importance of proper ID. While it is required that employees sign an alcohol awareness acknowledgement form, which is part of their employee packet, the issue of carding is discussed on a regular basis. They have all-staff employee meetings at least three or four times a year. This is something that they routinely address. She stated that Huey’s has a zero tolerance for this. Ms. McHugh stated that Ms. Harwood has been with Huey’s Collierville for several years, she is married and has two little children, and she was fired immediately as soon as they found out about the violation. Ms. Harwood was very embarrassed and personally took responsibility for what she had done, and actually called all three managers to apologize. Ms. McHugh stated that they also have signs at the door that stated that Huey’s Collierville cards everyone and that they must have an ID to be served alcohol. She also stated that they have “secret shoppers” and there is a copy of the report in the packet that she distributed to the Board. Ms. McHugh stated that they actually send people in that are secret shoppers and they are asked to order an alcoholic beverage to be sure that the employees are carding. Ms. McHugh stated that while here in these hearings and listening throughout, where she feels they could do something differently than what they have been doing is to do a better job of posting the under 21 years of age driver license and what they look like to help the employees with one more step in acknowledging and recognizing those ID’s that are for under age. She stated that they have those calendars and she cannot explain how someone could miss this when it’s very clear about what the date is that alcohol cannot be served to that is younger than that date. She stated that they are very sorry and humbly requesting that there would be a civil penalty instead of a suspension for them. Mr. Stewart asked if what was being said is that Ms. Harwood had a beer permit, but that she just didn’t have it with her. Ms. McHugh stated that it was. Ms. McHugh added that Ms. Harwood has also appeared in court with the Town of Collierville and it has been expunged from her record, and a copy of that is also in the packet distributed earlier. She didn’t know if that would have any bearing on the matter. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s position is that this would have no bearing on this matter. He stated that he met with Mr. Nearn today, who is the Town prosecutor in this matter. Mr. Nearn did tell Mr. McDaniel that he chose, as a matter of discretion, because this woman had no prior criminal record, had two small children and presented a very sympathic case to him, not based upon the facts, but based on her personal circumstances, that he made some disposition that did result in a dismissal. It had nothing to do with the facts of the case. Mr. Crews asked Mr. McDaniel what the Town’s position is on this matter. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town would recommend, with there being no previous violations on behalf of Huey’s Collierville, a civil penalty of $1,500 in lieu of a 14-day suspension. Mr. Crews inquired with Mr. McDaniel as to the Town’s position on the employee not having a beer permit. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town would recommend a $1,000 civil penalty fine on the sale to a minor, and

15

a $500 civil penalty fine on the beer permit registration matter in lieu of a 14-day suspension concurrently on each. Mr. Crews confirmed that the total is $1,500. Mr. McDaniel stated that it was. Mr. Crews called for any discussion. Mr. Stewart stated that he is okay with the Town’s position. He stated that with the number of people that showed up from Huey’s Collierville, it shows a very sincere effort to see that it doesn’t happen again. Mr. Stewart stated to please impress upon the servers that it is so easy to read the driver license and that there is no math included and that the server just needs to look at the license and it tells the date. He also stated that it concerns him about the comment made about the confusion over the employee having the permit or not. He hoped that Huey’s Collierville puts into place something where it is ensured that each employee has their beer permit. Ms. McHugh agreed. Mr. Parr informed Ms. McHugh that with so many different Huey’s in the metropolitan area, even if someone has a beer permit for Huey’s in Memphis, it does not apply to the Huey’s in Collierville. Ms. McHugh stated that she understood. Mr. Parr stated that if the employee transfers to the Collierville restaurant, they will need to get a Collierville beer permit. Ms. McHugh understood this as well. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town wants the record to be clear that the Town gets no pleasure out of “kicking” our business owners around. That is not the purpose of this endeavor at all. But, the Town does want the business owners that have a permit issued by this Board to sell alcohol be aware of the fact that the Town has to take very strict and punitive measures when these violations take place. It’s nothing personal, but if the Town does not do anything as a Town, then shame on the Town. The Town has to protect the community. The Town does not want to get in the way of a business making a living and the Town wants the businesses to make a good living, and the Town wants people to come and eat at the restaurants and patronize the establishments, but the Town wants the rules followed while that is taking place. Mr. Cotton stated that Huey’s Collierville should be commended for having the secret shoppers and doing their own “sting” on themselves. Other Board members agreed. Ms. McHugh thanked the Board. Mr. Cochran made motion, seconded by Mr. Parr, to levy Huey’s Collierville a civil penalty fine of $1,000 for selling beer to a minor and a $500 civil penalty fine for not having a beer permit in lieu of a 14-day suspension. Mr. McDaniel confirmed with Mr. Cochran that the 14-day suspensions would be concurrent. Mr. Cochran stated that the 14-day suspensions would be concurrent. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. Ms. McHugh thanked the Board. MILANO’S PIZZA OF COLLIERVILLE – 4680 MERCHANTS PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 218 Mr. McDaniel introduced to the Board Nick Daniele, owner representing Milano’s Pizza of Collierville. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele if this was an admission or a denial. Mr. Daniele stated that this was an admission. Mr. McDaniel stated that this was an admission to a violation that occurred on June 6th, 2011, when Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class 1 On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that date, a Cooperating Individual (CI), 19 years of age, working with Collierville Police Department, entered Milano’s Pizza of Collierville, ordered and received a

16

beer from employee Jamie Ortega. The server did check identification before serving the beer, Detective Smith witnessed the transaction. The server was issued a misdemeanor citation for the sale. It was further determined that Mr. Ortega had never been registered with the Collierville Beer Board. This would, likewise, be a violation. Milano’s Pizza of Collierville is indicating that they are admitting to the violations, and Mr. Daniele is here to address the Board at this time. Mr. Daniele stated that he really didn’t know what to say, and that it was inexcusable and that they are sorry. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele if Mr. Ortega was still employed. Mr. Daniele stated that he was not. Mr. McDaniel asked if Mr. Ortega was terminated. Mr. Daniele stated that he was. Mr. McDaniel asked when Mr. Ortega was terminated. Mr. Daniele stated that he gave Mr. Ortega two weeks to find a new job. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele what steps are taken at Milano’s Pizza of Collierville as far as training is concerned on the serving of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Daniele stated that there is only one person allowed to serve beer at this location. That person is Mr. Daniele’s wife, and she was off that day. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele what he had to say about Mr. Ortega never having been registered with the Collierville Board. Mr. Daniele stated that he didn’t know that, and also again stated that his wife was the only one allowed to serve alcohol at that location. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele that he was aware that his wife was not present at that location that day. Mr. Daniele stated that he did. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Daniele what safeguards have been taken now as it relates to the sale of beer at his establishment when his wife is not present. Mr. Daniele stated that they will not serve beer on the days his wife is not present. Mr. Daniele stated that they would take the suspension. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Daniele that if his wife is not there and people come in to eat and so forth, they are not sold beer. Mr. Daniele stated that they are not sold beer. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Daniele who gave Mr. Ortega permission that day to sell the beer. Mr. Daniele stated that he guessed it was his wife, or Mr. Ortega assumed he was allowed to sell beer. Mr. Cochran asked Mr. Daniele if neither he nor wife are present, what is going to prohibit the employees from selling beer. Mr. Daniele stated that his wife is always there. She works six days a week and is only off on Sundays. Mr. Daniele stated that he works on Sundays. Mrs. Perry asked if Mr. Daniele sold beer on Sundays. Mr. Daniele stated that he does not sell beer on Sundays. Mr. Cotton stated that he may have misunderstood, and said that he understood that Mr. Daniele’s wife was not there when this took place because she was off. Mr. Daniele stated “exactly” and that she was off on that day. Mr. Daniele stated that his wife took a vacation. Mrs. Perry asked if there was a provision in place for his wife to take future vacations. Mr. Daniele stated that they will make provisions to cover his wife taking future vacations. Mrs. Perry asked what provisions will be made. Mr. Daniele stated that they will not sell beer when his wife is not there. Mrs. Perry asked Mr. Daniele how he will communicate this to his customers. Mr. Daniele stated that he will tell them that they are not selling beer today. This is what he does. Mr. Daniele stated that they do not sell that much beer at all, about a case a week maybe.

17

Mr. Cotton asked Mr. Daniele if the server in this situation, Mr. Ortega, represented to him or his wife that he had a permit. Mr. Daniele stated that Mr. Ortega had a Memphis permit of some kind. This is what MR. Ortega told him, and Mr. Daniele believes Mr. Ortega told the Collierville Police Officer this as well. Mr. Cotton asked Mr. Daniele if he was aware that beer permits were needed, and that he was made aware of this when he was here before the Board to get his permit, and that other certifications and registrations outside of Collierville did not work here. Mr. Daniele stated that his wife did provide this, but that they had people quit, and they decided that she would be the only one to serve beer. He stated again that they do not sell that much beer at all. Mr. Daniele stated that they would take the suspension. Mr. Crews asked how long the employee had worked for them. Mr. Daniele stated that the employee had worked for them for about three or four months. Mr. Daniele stated that he normally does not work there. Mr. Cochran asked if only his wife manages the place. Mr. Daniele stated that she did. Mr. Crews asked Mr. Daniele if his wife spoke English very well. Mr. Daniele stated that she did. Mr. Crews asked if she was able to communicate to the customers that come in that only she can serve them beer. Mr. Daniele stated “yes sir”. Mr. Crews asked if there were other employees there. Mr. Daniele stated that there is another one, but that he does not serve. He stated that his wife has some part-time helpers, kids. Mr. Cochran asked if Mr. Daniele’s wife is registered with the Collierville Beer Board. Mr. Daniele stated that she is. Mr. Crews asked Mr. Suddath if he was aware of Mr. Daniele’s wife’s registration with the Collierville Beer Board. Mr. Suddath stated that he believes that she is and will double-check this. Mr. Daniele stated that his wife’s name is Lori Daniele. Mr. Crews asked Mr. McDaniel what the Town’s position is in this matter. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town recommends a 14-day suspension in lieu of a $1,000 civil penalty. Mr. Cotton reminded Mr. McDaniel of the second violation not having a beer permit. Mr. McDaniel thanked Mr. Cotton. Mr. McDaniel stated that with the second provision, the Town recommends a 14-day concurrent suspension in lieu of a $500 civil penalty. Mr. Parr stated to Mr. Daniele to not take this the wrong way, but stated that he did not get the impression that Mr. Daniele is taking this as seriously as some of the other offenders who have come up here today. Mr. Daniele stated that he actually does, but he has no excuses. There is no excuse for this happening. He is 19 years old. Mr. Daniele stated that he was angry. Mr. Parr stated that the emphasis needs to be on the training from the top down, and since Mr. Daniele is the top, he needs to make sure everyone beneath him understands what is required. Mr. Daniele stated that he agreed. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Daniele if he had done any training. Mr. Daniele stated that he has been serving beer for 30 years, that he has never served to any minors, that he cards everyone, that he has a place out on Winchester, and that he never served to anyone under age. Mr. Daniele stated that he takes this real seriously. He stated that he has had people try to buy under age.

18

Mr. Stewart made motion, seconded by Mr. Cochran, to assess Milano’s Pizza of Collierville a penalty of $1,000 civil penalty in lieu of a 14-day suspension for selling beer to a minor, and also a $500 civil penalty in lieu of a 14-day suspension for the employee not being registered with the Town Beer Board. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. Mr. Crews asked Mr. Daniele if he understood the penalty. Mr. Daniele stated that he did. ICHIBAN BUFFET – 265 MARKET BOULEVARD, SUITE 104 Mr. McDaniel asked the representatives for Ichiban Buffett to introduce themselves. He Xin Chen stated that she is manager, co-owner and waitress. Mr. McDaniel stated on June 6th, 2011, when Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class I On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that date, a Cooperating Individual (CI) working with Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered Ichiban Buffet, ordered and received a beer from employee Chin Yan. The server did check identification before serving the beer. Detective Smith witnessed the transaction. The server was issued a misdemeanor citation for the sale. On further investigation, it was determined that Ms. Yan had applied for registration with the Collierville Beer Board, but had not received her beer ID at the time of the sale. So, this would be a second violation for the Board to consider this evening. They are admitting to these violations, and their representative, Ms. Chen, is now prepared to address the Board. Ms. Chen stated that she and Ms. Yan both usually work together, and she is not selling the beer. On that night, Ms. Chen stated that she was taking a phone call and Ms. Yan thought that this customer was a local regular customer that comes all the time. This person was someone else, but Ms. Yan was trying to help Ms. Chen by taking care of this customer. Ms. Chen stated that she knew Ms. Yan was not allowed to do this, but when she found out, it was too late after she got off the phone. The Police were already coming back. Mr. Crews asked Ms. Chen if he could repeat back to her what she had stated and to let him know if he missed something. Mr. Crews asked Ms. Chen if she sold the beer normally. The second representative from Ichiban Buffet stated that Ms. Chen does sell the beer and she has a permit. Mr. Crews stated that because she was on the phone, another employee that did not have a permit sold the beer and did not notice that the person buying the beer was under the age of 21. Ms. Chen stated that Ms. Yan thought that this person was a customer that came in all the time. This person was another person. Mrs. Perry clarified that Ms. Yan thought that this person was a regular customer. Mr. Stewart confirmed with Ms. Chen that Ms. Yan thought that this customer that was served was somebody else that came in on a regular basis. Ms. Chen agreed. Mr. Stewart stated that Ms. Yan did check the ID. Ms. Chen stated that she did check the ID and she did not do a good job of it. The second representative from Ichiban Buffet stated that one more thing that she wanted to say is that Ms. Yan had never seen an under 21 ID, and that is why. Ms. Yan had told them that she had never seen an under 21 ID before, even though it takes common sense to see the different way it is on it. She never saw it. Mrs. Perry asked to confirm that Ms. Yan had applied for a beer permit. Mr. Suddath stated that he had checked with the Finance Department and that she had applied for a beer permit. It was pending at the time,

19

but it hadn’t gone through yet. So she technically wasn’t registered with the Beer Board and it hadn’t picked up yet. Mr. Cochran asked if Mr. Suddath had a copy here of the beer permit application for Ms. Yan. Mr. Suddath stated that he did not, but it was not an abnormally long turn-around time, it was within a week. The beer investigation occurred a few days after Ms. Yan applied in the Finance Department. Mr. Stewart asked when she was going to train Ms. Yan if she had never seen a license before. The second representative stated that when she started working there, she was bussing tables and not a waitress. She also stated that they were trying to train her, and that they had a meeting about once a week on Sunday nights. Ms. Chen stated that the meeting was, of course, in Chinese. She stated that it was repeated again and again that they were not allowed to do this and do that. The second representative stated that she is not there all the time, but Ms. Chen is there all the time. The second representative stated that Ms. Yan said that she was trying to be nice and help out Ms. Chen because she was busy up front taking money over the phone. The second representative stated that she didn’t know why she was doing this. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s position would be $1,000 civil penalty in lieu of a 14-day suspension for the sale of alcohol to a minor and a $500 civil penalty in lieu of a 14-day concurrent suspension on the non-registration violation. These are the first violations for Ichiban Buffett. Mr. Crews called for discussion from the Board. Members of the Board stated that they agreed with the Town’s position. Mr. Cochran made motion, seconded by Mrs. Perry, to fine Ichiban Buffet, located at 265 Market Blvd., Suite 104, $1,000 for selling beer to a minor, and $500 for selling beer without a beer ID in lieu of a 14-day suspension to be served concurrently. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. Mr. Crews asked if Ms. Chen and Ichiban Buffet’s second representative understood the penalty. They both stated that they did and thanked the Board. Mr. Crews stated that they could check with Mr. McDaniel on the penalty. Mr. McDaniel stated that they could speak with Mr. Suddath on that. MARY’S GERMAN RESTAURANT – 2140 WEST POPLAR AVENUE, SUITE 102 Mr. McDaniel stated that there are representatives from Mary’s German Restaurant, located at 2140 West Poplar Avenue, Suite 102. He stated that they have indicated that there would be an admission and that there was a violation that occurred on June 6th, 2011, when Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class I On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. On that date, a cooperating individual (CI), working with the Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered Mary’s German Restaurant and ordered and received a beer from an employee, identified as David Roberts. Server did check the identification of the confidential informant before serving the beer. Detective Smith witnessed the transaction and the server was issued a misdemeanor citation for selling the beer to the minor. Further investigation indicated that Mr. Roberts had never been registered with the Collierville Beer Board. This is an additional violation. There has been an indication that there is an

20

admission to the sale of the alcohol and there may be a denial on the unregistered sale by Mr. Roberts, but Mr. McDaniel stated that he would have to get clarification from Mary’s German Restaurant. Mr. McDaniel asked that the representatives address the Board on that at this time. Mr. Klaus Nowak apologized that his English is not so good. Mr. Mark Arostic introduced himself and stated that he is acting as a translator for the owner of Mary’s German Restaurant. Mr. Arostic stated that they stipulated to the serving beer to a minor and that it occurred, but the additional citation that Mr. Roberts was a server was incorrect. And, in fact, on the Police citation, it did note that David Roberts did not serve the beer. Mr. Roberts is the one that did check the ID. It is very clear in the restaurant with their six employees that only people with beer permits are allowed to serve the beer. It is also their responsibility to verify the age of the person that they are serving the beer. What happened in that case was that Mr. Roberts did check the ID and he let the server, know that the customer ordered a beer. The server saw that the individual looked under age and asked Mr. Roberts if he had checked the ID. Mr. Roberts told the server that he did. The server had also actually observed Mr. Roberts taking the order, so she had seen him check the ID as well. So, the server was the one that served the beer, under the assumption that everything was legit. It has been made clear to all of the staff with beer permits that it is their responsibility to validate the age. So, now what is happening is rather than relying on the person taking the order, if they have any question about it, they will check the ID themselves. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town would like to clarify this. He asked if Mr. David Roberts is a beer permit holder or not. Mr. Arostic stated that he is not. Mr. McDaniel clarified that Mr. Roberts checked the ID, but he is not someone that is authorized to actually serve. Mr. Arostic confirmed this. Mr. McDaniel asked if the server, Lorena Rostic, is someone who is registered to serve. Mr. Arostic stated that she is, and that when she was hired, they made it very clear to her that she was not allowed to serve any beer until she actually had the ID card, not the receipt, but the card. It is that way with all new employees. Mary’s German Restaurant takes this very seriously. Mr. Arostic stated that he has personally observed this in the restaurant. They do not say one thing and do another. It is very strict and that only people with beer serving permits are allowed to actually serve the beer. Since the incident, they have reiterated the importance of that. They are drafting up an employee handbook. Again with them being a very small organization with only six employees, they hadn’t had one yet. They are going to address the beer serving issue. The employee handbook will not be anything different from what they have told the employees in person. Mr. Arostic relayed a comment made by Mr. Nowak that if a person appears to be under 40 years of age, they check the ID. Mr. Stewart clarified that the lady, server Lorena Rostic, served the beer, but she did not check the ID, but she asked the other gentleman, Mr. Roberts, if he had checked the ID and he had told that he did. Mr. Arostic stated that this was correct. Mr. Stewart confirmed that Mr. Roberts was not authorized. Mr. Arostic confirmed that Mr. Roberts is not authorized to server beer. Mr. Parr asked if Mr. Roberts is still employed at the restaurant. Mr. Arostic stated that he is. Mr. Parr asked Mr. Nowak if they had a liquor license. Mr. Nowak stated that they did not. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s position on this would be, as to the sale of alcohol to a minor, a $1,000 civil penalty in lieu of a 14-day suspension, and on the unregistered sale, a $500 civil penalty in a lieu of a 14-day concurrent suspension.

21

Mr. Arostic stated that he wanted to add that the case against Mr. Roberts was dismissed. Mr. Cochran inquired about this. Mr. Arostic stated that Mr. Roberts was charged with having served beer and that case was dismissed. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s position on that would be that both servers participated in the sale and service of this beer. One could not have occurred without the other. Because the server, who is registered, relied upon someone who is not registered to check the ID, that detrimental reliance would be something that the permit holder has to be held accountable. Mr. McDaniel stated that one cannot say that, as a permit holder, they are not responsible because the person who checked the ID is not registered, but the person who actually served the beer is registered. But, the person who served the beer relied upon bad information from the person who checked the ID. Mr. McDaniel stated that he does not believe that, as a Board and as a Town, we should be able to separate one from the other. It takes both of them for the act to take place. Mr. Arostic stated that the restaurant recognizes that and that is again why they emphasize to the people with beer permits, the one that is physically serving the beer, that is their obligation to make sure that the person is of legal age, which includes themselves checking the ID. Again, this was a new server and she relied on another, which was a mistake. They have re-emphasized that it is up to the server to validate and physically check the ID for the age. Mr. Cotton clarified that the actual server did not check the ID. Mr. Arostic stated that she did not, but did recognize that the customer looked under age, so she validated it, albeit incorrectly, by asking Mr. Roberts if he checked the ID and relying upon his assertion that this gentleman was 21 years of age. That was their mistake and that is why the restaurant is again clarifying with the employees that the server is obligated. Mrs. Perry asked if both employees are still employed by the restaurant. Mr. Arostic confirmed that they are. The restaurant has a very small staff and letting one-third of their employees go would be difficult. Mr. Cochran asked how many of the six employees employed by the restaurant have beer ID’s now. Mr. Nowak relayed to Mr. Arostic who stated that there are three employees with beer ID’s. Mr. Cochran stated to Mr. Nowak that when he came before the Board in January to get his beer permit, he had stated at that time that he personally would be the only person that would serve beer. Mr. Cochran asked what has changed since that time. Through Mr. Arostic, his interpreter, Mr. Nowak stated that he was the only one who had a permit at that time when they started in January. Mr. Arostic stated that Mr. Nowak would like for all his employees to have beer permits. When Mr. Nowak came before the Board in January, he had stated that he would be the only one serving beer because he was the only one that had a beer permit at that time. Mr. Arostic stated he personally observed again that the restaurant is strict and takes this very serious and there is no cavalier attitude about any of it at all. Mr. Parr stated that Mary’s German Restaurant tried to buy an Oktoberfest Dark. Mr. Parr asked who makes the Oktoberfest. Mr. Arostic asked Mr. Nowak. Mr. Arostic asked Mr. Parr is there was something underlying with the question asked or a concern. Mr. Parr stated that there could be, but stated that he didn’t want to get them in any more trouble than they already are in. Mr. Parr asked if they were sure that this was a less than 5% alcohol beer.

22

Mr. McDaniel stated that he had no idea. Mr. McDaniel stated that if this is an issue that needs to be investigated, the Police Department can definitely look into that and try to make a determination if a violation has taken place. Mr. Suddath stated that in general, for them to be able to purchase the Oktoberfest beer from the distributor, they would have to show that they have a liquor license through the State of Tennessee, because they would be selling alcoholic beverages which are above that 5% threshold. Mr. Crews asked if the revenue of the restaurant dependent upon the sale of alcohol. Mr. Nowak spoke with his interpreter, Mr. Arostic. Mr. Arostic stated that with it being a German restaurant, so people expect to have beer, but it is about 10% of the revenue. Mr. Crews called for any further discussion from the Board member or any discussion regarding the Town’s position. Mr. McDaniel stated he had no comment. Mr. Cotton stated that he was troubled by the person who was actually serving the beer didn’t take the ID, and this confusion of who did what and where and when. He stated that the situation bothers him a bit. Mr. Parr asked if there was something in the statue that actually defines the service of a beer. Mr. McDaniel stated that, in trying to look beyond what occurred in the criminal court, he thought that it was unlawful to sell alcohol to a minor. So, he thought the Town prosecutor determined that there may be some proof problems as to whether or not Mr. Roberts actually made the sale. He checked the ID, but he didn’t actually serve. In a criminal case, you have to meet each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a criminal case tonight, this is a civil matter. The burden of proof in a civil matter is by a preponderance of the evidence. It’s just a tipping of the scales. If the Town tips the scales just ever so slightly in their favor, then the burden of proof has been met. The scales have to be perfectly even for the Town not to approve in their case, or tilted in favor of Mary’s German Restaurant. The Town believes in a civil matter when this server relied upon another employee of the company checking an ID, that server basically relied to the detriment of the permit holder on bad information. Mr. McDaniel stated that if he was a server and he asked another employee if they checked the ID and this other employee says that they did. This other employee may or may not have checked the ID. That could be used as some type of defense civilly to say that nothing wrong had been done because the server did not check the ID, they just served the beer and they are registered. Mr. McDaniel stated that he is not saying that it is being done intentionally, but that should not be a convenient door out of this violation. Mr. Parr stated that the second violation is for Mr. Roberts not having a beer permit and that this is what he has an issue with. Mr. Roberts did not have a beer permit, but he did not serve the beer. The person that served the beer to the minor did have a beer permit. Mr. McDaniel agreed with that. Mr. Roberts has never been registered with the Collierville Beer Board. Mr. McDaniel asked for the Beer Ordinances to read the pertinent language, which the ordinance is 116.37R. The ordinance states in part “its shall be unlawful to allow persons other than employees registered with the Beer Board to be left in charge of a beer establishment or sell or serve beer to customers”. The question then becomes whether or not Mr. Roberts was left in charge of a beer establishment. He was left in charge to the extent that they relied upon him to check the ID. The Town’s position would be that because he did that, it would meet that prong of this ordinance violation. Mr. Roberts didn’t sell it, or did he sell it. Mr. Roberts checked the ID and that was required to be done for the purposes of the sale. He didn’t serve; there is no question that he did not serve it. But, the ordinance says that it makes it a violation to be left in charge of, or sell, or serve. So, the Town believes that the Town is carried that burden by greater weight of evidence.

23

Mr. Crews inquired whether because Mr. Roberts took that order, he sold it and that he didn’t accept the order. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town’s position is that he checked the ID, he accepted the order, so he was left in charge to make the decision as to whether or not that sale should be made. He approved the sale and allowed the server to complete the sale. Mr. Crews asked who accepted the money for the sale. Mr. Arostic stated that the beer permit holder, Lorena Rostic, accepted the money. Mr. Crews called for any further discussion. Mr. Arostic asked if Mr. Nowak could say something else to the Board if permitted. After a brief discussion between Mr. Nowak and his interpreter, Mr. Arostic, Mr. Arostic then stated that they had no further comment. Mr. Nowak apologized. Mr. Crews asked if anyone had any other suggestion other than the Town’s position. Mr. Cotton stated that he is still not comfortable with the Town’s position on the second violation. Mr. Cotton added that he agrees with the Town’s position on the initial violation of selling to a minor. He stated that he is not uncomfortable with a concurrent suspension for the second violation, but not sure about the civil penalty fine part of it. Mr. Cotton stated that he cannot say that he disagrees with having a suspension attached to it, but just not comfortable with the fine part of it. Mr. Crews clarified with Mr. Cotton that he would prefer a suspension as opposed to a fine. Mr. Cotton stated that he would prefer that the Board move along the lines of a recommendation of $1,000 in lieu of a 14-day suspension on the violation of selling beer to a minor, but on the second violation with the permit issue, just a 14-day suspension concurrent with the 14-day suspension on the selling to a minor. That last one without a dollar amount. Mr. Crews stated that at the same time, does Mr. Roberts have some responsibility because he took the order. He took the sale. He didn’t serve it, but he took the sale. He took the order which is the same as making the sale. Mr. Cotton stated that is where his problem is with the issue. Mr. Cochran stated that making a sale does not necessarily mean that a payment has been made. He stated that he sells merchandise every day, but does not get paid for it for 30 days. Mrs. Perry stated that she agrees with Mr. Cotton on just the 14-day suspension on the second violation with the permit issue. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would like to point out just for the Board’s consideration that he is concerned that if the Board sets even a concurrent suspension and do not give him an opportunity to pay a civil penalty in lieu thereof, then he will have a 14-day suspension period. Mr. Cotton stated that Mr. McDaniel is doing a better job of articulating what he was saying. Mr. Cotton stated that he thought they could just impose the 14-day suspension. Mr. McDaniel stated that for there to be a suspension, there has to be a civil penalty in lieu thereof, or there is going to be a suspension. Mr. Cotton stated that he understood, but stated that the fine be a nominal amount. He stated that he would make it a $50 fine in lieu of a 14-day suspension. Mr. Cotton made motion, seconded by Mr. Parr, that based on the admission of the owner of Mary’s German Restaurant, located at 2140 West Poplar Avenue, Suite 102, here in Collierville, admitting that they sold a

24

beer to an underage individual, that the Board accepts the Town’s recommendation of $1,000 civil penalty fine in lieu of a 14-day suspension. On the second violation of the unregistered employee making the sale, the Board assesses a $50 civil penalty fine in lieu of a 14-day suspension to run concurrently with the 14-day suspension on the sale to a minor charge. Mr. Crews asked for any further discussion. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – no, Parr – yes, Cotton – yes, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. FUNQUEST FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC – 440 HIGHWAY 72, SUITE 101 Mr. McDaniel stated to the Beer Board Chairman, Mr. Crews, that the final matter before the Board is the violation regarding Funquest Family Entertainment. Mr. Hart is present. He previously indicated that Funquest Family Entertainment was entering a not guilty or not admitting to the violation. Mr. McDaniel confirmed with Mr. Hart that this was correct. Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure that he said that. Mr. McDaniel stated that he thought he heard Mr. Hart state that Funquest was not guilty of this violation. Mr. Hart stated that he did not, but that he was trying to explain what had transpired that day. Mr. McDaniel stated that the purposes of this hearing tonight is if he is, on behalf of Funquest Family Entertainment, admitting to the violation for unlawful sale to a minor in violation of the Collierville Beer Board ordinances on June 9th, 2011. Mr. Hart stated that he was. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is an admission. Mr. McDaniel stated that on June 9th, 2011, the Collierville Police Department conducted an undercover sting investigation of Class I On-premises Beer Permit Holders in the Town of Collierville. A Cooperating Individual (CI) working with the Collierville Police Department, who was 19 years of age, entered Funquest Family Entertainment, ordered and received a beer from a server at the restaurant. The server did not check the identification of the confidential informant before serving the beer. Detective Smith witnessed the transaction and the server was issued a misdemeanor citation for selling the beer to the minor. Mr. Hart, on behalf of Funquest Family Entertainment has indicated that there is an admission to that violation and is here to speak to the Board at this time. Mr. Hart stated that he will answer some of the questions that have come up. He stated that the manager at Funquest Family Entertainment, Mr. Nick Holman, is the one that served the beer. Mr. Holman called Mr. Hart about five minutes after this took place and offered his resignation. Mr. Hart stated that he asked Mr. Holman a lot of questions and did not accept his resignation because of what had transpired. Mr. Hart further stated that, as a result of what happened, they have reviewed their policies relative to private parties. At that time, the Corps of Engineers had the bowl-side leased for a private party. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Hart to explain to the Board, as they may not be familiar, what it means when he says the “bowl-side” of Funquest and explain what the difference is. Mr. Hart gladly agreed to do so. Mr. Hart stated that they have two operating entities there, the “skate” side and the “bowl” side. The bowl-side is the only side that has a beer and also a liquor license.

25

Mr. Hart went on to say that the Corps of Engineers were having their private party. Coincidently, this is when the sting investigation people showed up, at the end of this party. Mr. Hart stated that they obviously cannot lock the doors for private parties because of fire codes. So, the Police Officer and the 19 year old came in. Under their private party rules, they check all individuals there initially when the party starts rather than continually having to check them as they come up. They had already carded everybody in the building, and new which ones. When these two then came in, Mr. Holman assumed, incorrectly obviously, that they were part of the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Hart stated that they have signage that they have put up normally that say they are closed because of the private party, but the doors are open. So, those are the circumstances that brought this incident out. Mr. Hart stated that he realizes that this is an unusual set of circumstances and this is where the Board gets to play Solomon. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Hart if everyone at this private party was over the age of 21. Mr. Hart stated they were not. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Hart how there was any differentiation made between those who were over 21 and those who were not. Mr. Hart stated that he could not really answer that right now. Mr. Hart stated that he believed, that under the code, they have to serve beer in clear containers. Mr. McDaniel stated that his question was if they got their hand stamped with a red stamp or did they get a wrist band. Mr. Hart stated that their normal procedures are to use wrist bands. Mr. McDaniel asked that for this private party, were wrist bands being used. Mr. Hart stated that he could not answer that because he did not have the facts, and apologized for that. Mr. McDaniel asked, for the sake of discussion, if wrist bands had been issued to the over 21 year old people, then the manager would have clearly been able to see whether or not this person that was being served had a wrist band. Mr. Hart stated that this was correct, if that was the circumstances. Mr. Cochran asked if in their private parties, they normally use wristbands. Mr. Hart stated that he really could not answer that. Mr. Hart also stated that he has asked as a result of this. He has asked his managers. In addition to Mr. Holman, they also have four what they call “managers on duty” that also have beer cards. Mr. Hart has asked them to review Funquest’s procedure relative to private parties because it obviously created a situation that none of them wanted. Mr. Hart stated that it seems like every time it is discussed, somebody else comes up with another loophole that is there in trying to find how it is all done. Mr. Parr asked Mr. Hart how many people were at the private party. Mr. Hart stated that he believed that they were approaching two hundred. Mr. Parr stated that it looks like it has been almost four years since they have had a violation, and asked what Mr. Hart what they have done during that time to ensure that they have not had a violation. Mr. Hart stated that all of their people when they apply for the beer card, they also go through the ABC program as well. He stated that it is, like with every establishment, and realistically, you have to continually remind people. Because when there is a rush, there is more of a challenge. He stated that they just have to stop, slow down and do your job. Mr. McDaniel stated that Detective Smith has asked for him to point out to the Board that at the time this transaction took place, that only Detective Smith and the confidential informant were in the bar area at that time. They were the only two individuals in the bar area at the time that this sale was made. Mr. Stewart stated that he has gone into Mr. Hart’s establishment many times and has bowled in a league there. For the past six months, people in that league have been buying beer and they do not have wrist bands. Mr. Stewart thought that this was strange because it has been happening on a very consistent basis. There

26

were not any wrist bands for a long period of time. He asked if Mr. Hart could explain why. Mr. Stewart further asked if it was still a policy to put wrist bands on people. Mr. Hart stated that he could not answer that, and stated that he appreciated Mr. Stewart’s business. Mr. Stewart asked if it is their policy to put on wrist bands when they ID someone. Mr. Hart stated that this is supposed to be the procedure. Mr. Hart stated that he is not trying to be evasive, he is just trying to be truthful. Mr. Stewart stated that he was checking if this was still their procedure. Mr. Crews asked what percentage of their revenue depends on the sale of beer. Mr. Hart stated that it is in the range of 1-1/2% to 2 %. Mr. Hart stated that, relative to their permit, they are kind of unusual in that under the Town’s code, there is no provision for an establishment like theirs. And for those who have frequented there, the bar area is enclosed. It is not like all the rest of them in Collierville. Mr. Hart stated that they were required by this Board’s predecessors eleven years ago to enclose that and segregate it from the concourses. Subsequent to that, about three or four years later, the Town relaxed that and allowed them to serve on the concourse. This is the reason that it is enclosed the way it is as there was an earlier requirement from the Town. Mr. Suddath addressed the members of the Board and informed them of the verbiage of the Town’s Beer Ordinance relative to food and alcohol sales. The ordinance requires establishments to report their revenues as a percentage, and no more than 30% of revenues can come from the sale of beer. The rest has to come from food. Mr. Suddath stated that, like Mr. Hart stated, his establishment is a very abnormal establishment in that his revenues come from bowling for the most part and that cannot be included in that 70/30 percentage. Mr. Hart stated that it is food and alcohol, not ancillary type income. Mr. Crews asked if there were any other questions. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Town would recommend, because there has been a previous violation that actually included two violations that occurred at the same time in December of 2007, almost four years ago, a $2,500 civil penalty in lieu of a 30-day suspension. Mr. Crews asked for opinions from the Board on this recommendation. Mr. Parr asked Mr. Hart when they received penalty last time, if they paid the fine or if they served the suspension. Mr. Hart stated that the previous penalty was also under an unusual set of circumstances in that they had previously, for three years prior to that, leased the entire facility with a company called Shoemaker. He stated that they had just come back in when the other event had happened. He stated that this was no excuse, it is just that his people were having to re-learn the procedures because a lot of them were not employees of the prior proprietor. Mr. Parr again asked if they had paid the fine or served the suspension for the previous violations. Mr. Hart stated that he really did not recall. Mr. Hart stated that to speculate, they probably in this instance would have gone with the suspension as opposed to the fine, but stated that he would have to go back and look. Mr. Hart stated that one of his concerns is if they have other private parties that are scheduled in the next month, and although they have a liquor license, he still has to be conscious of the interest of his customers. Mr. Crews asked for any further motions to be considered.

27

Mr. Parr stated that the fact that it has been almost four years since they have had a violation is something to consider. Other businesses here tonight have had violations only a year ago. Mr. Crews stated that it has been four years, but it is also their third violation. With some of the other businesses, it is their second violation. The first occurrence was selling beer and someone without an ID. Mr. Crews suggested making a recommendation of a $2,000 fine and 20 days suspension. Members of the Board were agreeable to this. Mr. Parr made motion, seconded by Mr. Stewart, that the violation of the Collierville Beer Ordinance by Funquest Family Entertainment, located at 440 Highway 72, Suite 101, that the Board imposes a $2,000 civil penalty in lieu of a 20-day suspension. Mr. Crews asked for any further comments from the Town. Mr. McDaniel stated there were none, and to submit it. ROLL CALL: Crews – yes, Stewart – yes, Parr – yes, Cotton – abstain, Perry – yes, Cochran – yes.

Motion approved. Mr. Crews asked Mr. Hart if he understood the penalty. Mr. Hart stated that he did understand and thanked the Board. Mr. McDaniel stated to the Board that this concludes the matters that the Town has as it relates to violators before the Board tonight. Mr. Crews thanked Mr. McDaniel. Mr. Suddath stated that he wanted to make note to the Beer Board that there is quite a bit of confusion out there amongst the beer permit holders about what they have to do with their employees as far as the Town’s requirements for beer ID’s. He also stated that he is working on a one-page letter issuing guidelines to them. Mr. Suddath stated that he will send out a copy to each of the Board members tomorrow and that a mail-out will be completed to the 59 beer permit holders and make sure everyone is aware of what is reqired. This will help to get the information out there because there may be a lot of misinformation as far as waiting periods or grace periods, and the like, that do not exist in the ordinances for Collierville. Mr. Crews stated that his opinion is that the Town has done a good job of getting the word out there and the Board tells the establishments every time they come here. There is also their own networking that goes on between establishments when the sting investigation is going on around Town. Mr. Suddath stated that there is lot of turn-over in that industry, so sometimes the thread gets lost. Mr. Crews agreed. Mr. Crews asked the Board if there was anything else to discuss. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Crews adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:15pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Walter Crews, Chairman Josh Suddath, Assistant to Administrator