Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-21 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes HiloCOUNTY OF HAWAI`I DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2025 HANAMA PLACE 75-5706 KUAKINI HIGHWAY, SUITE 107 KAI LUA-KONA, HAWAI `I I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Sidney Fuke at 10:00 A.M., in the Department of Liquor Control, Kona Meeting Room, Hanama Place, 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 107, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The following were present and constituted a quorum: Board Members: Sidney Fuke, Chair Dawn Raymond, Vice Chair Ceci Davenport, Board Member Michael Hughes, Board Member Absent and Excused: None Others Present: Gerald Takase, Director Brandon Gonzalez, Administrative Officer Dakota `Cody' Frenz, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Department/Prosecutor) Sinclair Salas Ferguson, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Board) Stacie Waltjen, Licensing Officer Zoeann Bertelmann, Licensing Technician Hau`oli Sayles, Board Secretary Fuke: Thank you all for coming, as a reminder if you have any electronic equipment, please put that on silent or off. I'd like to begin also by introducing our Board Members, again my name is Sidney Fuke, I'm Chair of the Board, and beginning with my immediate left Board Member. Raymond: Dawn Raymond. Hughes: Mike Hughes. Takase: Gerald Takase. Gonzalez: Brandon Gonzalez. Bertelmann: Zoe Bertelmann. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Waltjen: Stacie Waltjen. Fuke: And to my immediate right. Salas Ferguson: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas Ferguson. Davenport: Board Member Ceci Davenport. Sayles: Board Secretary Hau`oli Sayles. Fuke: Now you know all of the players in the room. II. Approval of Minutes (10:01 AM) Fuke: Okay, first of all, we have the minutes of Decembers 19, 2024, circulated via email on April 21, 2025. Could I have a motion to approve the minutes as circulated? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: I'll second it. Board Member Raymond moved to approve the December 19, 2024, meeting minutes as circulated; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion on the minutes? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: It's carried. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 2 OF 25 III. Hearings (10:01 AM) 1. CASE NO. 2025-001 (10:01 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Kailua-Kona Restaurants, Inc., dba Pancho and Lefty's Cantina & Restaurante, located at the Kona Marketplace 11, 75-5725 Ali`i Drive, Unit No. B-201, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for an employee consumed liquor while on duty in the licensed premises. REPRESENTED LICENSEE: Terry Wigzell, Owner Fuke: We have the licensee here, could you please state your name and your position? Wigzell: Terry Wigzell, President. Fuke: Thank you, Mr. Wigzell, for being here. I'd like to now call upon the Deputy Corporation Counsel to read the complaint. Frenz: Yes, good morning, Deputy Corporation Counsel Cody Frenz on behalf of the Liquor Control Department. On or about the 22nd day of November 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, an employee of Licensee, Kailua-Kona Restaurants, Inc., dba Pancho and Lefty's Cantina & Restaurante, specifically Nicole TOBIAS, consumed liquor while on duty in the licensed premises, in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control, the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Chair Fuke, this is an informal hearing, the licensee who is present today, did in fact select Alternative 11, admitting to the allegation and waiving its right to a hearing and appeal in this case, but did request an informal hearing so that he could present the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation. Fuke: Thank you very much. As much as the licensee has plead to the allegation, may I have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the charge? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2025-001 in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for an employee, Nicole TOBIAS, consuming liquor while on duty in the licensed premises; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 3 OF 25 Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the licensee be found in violation of the charge, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion was unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So, prior to assessing the penalty, you may proceed with your presentation of the circumstances surrounding the violation. Wigzell: First of all, I'd like to apologize to the Liquor Commission, the Director, you know just for what happened. We had a meeting with the employees, and they've been advised in lieu of saying you know, "Can I help you?", saying now and they're getting off work and has a drink, say, "I'll find somebody to help you." She thought she was just doing the customer a favor, she didn't know it was by offering to get them a seat. But she knows better now, and all the staff has been trained and gone over all this, and we realize how important it is, and we're sorry it happened, it shouldn't have happened, and it won't happen again. Fuke: Thank you very much, Mr. Wigzell. Okay, any of the Board Members have questions of Mr. Wigzell? Davenport: I have a question actually, I noticed that Ms. Velazquez's liquor card expired back in April of 2024. To date, that's almost a year and five months ago, why is that? Wigzell: I'm not sure, I don't know, I think she had it renewed, but I think they all have their liquor cards and their food handler's cards and all those renewed. Davenport: Who's in charge of that? Wigzell: Esmeralda would be. Davenport: So, are you certain that she's had it renewed or are you unsure? Wigzell: I didn't know it was expired, I'll find that out today, but I'm pretty sure that everything was up to date. But she did have meetings with all of the employees, each individual employee, and the wait staff. Davenport: It also indicates here that the security cameras were not operational for several years, is that standard practice? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 4 OF 25 Wigzell: We just never, we got them and I don't know why they just never worked, we just had a real issue with installing them and we've never really had any problems. We close down early so we don't have late night, we don't have you know problems with the bar, we close the bar early. So, everybody goes home, we don't have any problems or issues, and so I think we never, nothing's really ever came up that we needed them. Davenport: I think it might be in your best interest to at least if you're going to have them, to have them operational. I don't think the time of day matters whether you think you may or may not encounter an issue at your bar. Wigzell: Okay, sure we can take care of that. Davenport: I mean, is it also commonplace for others to order drinks for your employees, because your bartender here states that he serves so many drinks, he doesn't know who they're going to. So, if Ms. Velazquez is saying that she did not order the drink, then who ordered the drink? Wigzell: Well, that I don't know, but I know that the restaurant part is away from the bar, so the bartender wouldn't know who ordered the drink. The waitress comes up to him and has a ticket and says we need this and puts it down and he makes the drink. It is up to the waitress out in the restaurant to check ID's (identifications) and confirm that they're old enough and the bartender does his own inside the bar. Davenport: Right, yeah again, I don't think distance between where the hostess is and where the bar is, I don't think distance matters, it's who is taking responsibility for serving this drink while an employee is on duty. So, are you saying now it's the waitresses, the wait staff, or are you saying it's Ms. Velazquez? Wigzell: Well, I guess I'm not sure what you're asking me. Davenport: Well, I want to know who's taking responsibility for her having a drink, if she's saying she did not order it, if the bartender is saying he just serves drinks and he doesn't know who they're going to, and then you're saying, well the wait staff makes sure that ID (identification) is shown. So, I just want to know who is taking responsibility for serving her this drink while she's on duty. Wigzell: Who served her the drink? Davenport: Yes, I presume it's the wait staff since Ms. Velazquez says she didn't go up to the bar. Wigzell: Sure, yeah well I'm really not sure, all I know is this, Esmeralda was sitting down with them, with the bartender, with the waitresses, and explained to them, you know you're not allowed to do that, that can't happen, you know you can't do that. He said, okay. I think he was just a lack of judgement or whatever it be because we're pretty careful with IDs (identifications) and minors and so forth, and people that've consumed alcohol, we've never had any problems, we've had a liquor license here for what, 30 years. Davenport: Thank you. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 5 OF 25 Wigzell: But, they've all been you know, I guess reeducated on what happened, and so that should never happen again. Fuke: Any further questions? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I have just a few just to follow-up, my understanding in response to you know the comments that were made was like as far as the security cameras, I don't believe that it is a requirement, but it's kind of like more for your protection. Wigzell: That's kind of my thought too. Fuke: Yeah okay, so please understand that the Board is not mandating you to have the cameras operational. Wigzell: Sure, yeah I understand and I think that's a good point, I understand. Fuke: Okay, I guess this is directed to the staff unless maybe Ms. Frenz, you want to talk about it, whether there were any prior violations? Frenz: Yes, I will be, unless you'd like that now, Chair? Fuke: No, I'll defer to you. Any further questions or comments? Hughes: One question just so I understand, I read through the report, so Ms. Tobias, so she was off -duty or on -duty when she had the drink? Wigzell: She was getting off duty, I wasn't there, so as I understood, she got off, she was off officially in two minutes, it was 8:58 p.m. at 9:00 p.m. She was getting her paperwork done at the end of the night and getting ready for it, I think she asked the waitress to tell the bartender she was getting off work and you know again, I wasn't there. I saw the drink on the table but nobody's ever said that she was drinking it or saw her drink it or whatever. Hughes: So, she had a drink, she was there and then somebody walks in and she's like, "Oh, can I seat you?" Wigzell: Yes, she thought she was getting off work, she was kind of standing behind the counter, thought the gentleman was by himself, she thought she was doing him a favor, hell you want a table for one? And she was about to get off work and the waitress was in the front, that way the customer didn't have to wait to sit down, but she understands now. Hughes: I understand, okay thank you. Wigzell: Yeah, thank you. Fuke: Just to add to that based on the photo, the drink was there so I don't think the inspector actually saw her drinking it, but the drink was on the table. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 6 OF 25 Wigzell: Sure, yeah I saw that. Yeah, I have no problem, you know the inspectors have always been good and fair with us. But anyways, we're very sorry it happened, it won't happen again. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Frenz, could you please provide the Department's recommendation for penalty? Frenz: Yes, Chair, and I appreciate the clarification because it was going to be something was going to clarify as well, that there appeared to be a potential disconnect. So, I'm glad it's been clarified, and I think that the licensee has indicated by way of his stipulation here, Alternative II, and his commentary this morning that they're reeducated on the mistake that occurred. You know, if you're on duty, you're on duty, which I think is the point, right? And I think that the licensee understands that that's been thoroughly flushed out and clarified here today because the employee was in fact on duty at the time that the drink was already prepared for her, whether she consumed it or not is yet to be known. With that in mind and that clarification, the Department is seeking a $500.00 fine in this case, it would be payable within 30 days. That fine recommendation is in line with previous violations of the same nature. They have had their license for quite some time, while they have had other violations, they haven't had any violations within the last 5 years, a similar violation of this nature, it's been over 20 years since that has occurred. So, as he indicated here today in taking responsibility, they generally do well in this department so to speak, and I'm sure that this indiscretion and this misstep won't occur again. So, that is the Department's recommendation, $500.00 fine within 30 days. Fuke: Okay, Mr. Wigzell, you've heard the recommended fine, you have any comments to that? Wigzell: Well, I would just like to, the horse at the mercy of the of the Board is you know, times have been kind of tough and kind of slow and I just, I guess I'm just not sure the penalty fits the crime or whatever, but I just like to ask if there could be any leeway on the monetary fine? Fuke: Okay, any comments from the Board on the fine? Davenport: I'm actually in favor of a little bit of leeway, I mean you've been in business for a long time, it seems as though you know you mind your P 's and Q 's. You know things happen, and we're not all in control of everybody else 's actions, so I think a little bit of leeway would be nice. Wigzell: Thank you. Fuke: Any other comments? Hughes: I'd agree with the Ceci. We're talking two minutes of somebody that wasn't clear on the rule. There should be a penalty though because there was a violation, but you do have a good track record and a long history, so I'm in favor of some type of a reduction. Wigzell: Thank you. Raymond: Chair, can I ask for clarification from the Department? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 7 OF 25 Fuke: Sure. Raymond: So the $500.00 is the recommended penalty, how did the $500.00 amount, guess, how was it figured? Gonzalez: Going back to 2012, there's been 10 other violations of this nature for other licensees, the fines have ranged from $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. And some of those cases, a $2,000.00 fine was suspended with $1,500.00 suspension, so it's $500.00. The most recent one you guys may recall from December, Kalikala Cuisine was a $500.00 fine. So that's where the Department came with the recommendation to be consistent with this conduct. The licensees are clear that there's no drinking while on duty, it is a question on the exam for the liquor card, and it's clear to all the workers, and it's made clear to them. In answer to Board Member Davenport's question about the General Manager and their liquor card, the Department does give some leeway for expired cards so that they have time to renew it, you know we've given up to like two weeks to 30 days, as long as they're signed up for a class to renew it. In this case, there's like four Velasquez 's on the list, okay so we're talking about Esmeralda, she was a Person in Active Charge and on their list but as of the most recent list of April 23rd, 2025, this year, she is not listed, she's not renewed, that was your question. So, rather than make Mr. Wigzell go look for it, we just checked our departmental records. Raymond: Thank you. Gonzalez: So, if you guys are contemplating taking into account the circumstances and the current conditions for businesses, this Board has the authority I think to suspend the portion of the fine. Fuke: Thank you very much for those clarifications, any further comments among the Board Members? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I just have this comment you know like, I see the photo and then I was wondering like two minutes prior to her you know, her time being you know like up and she could have easily stated that no, it's not hers cause you know, I don't think the inspector actually, unlike the other violation, you know actually saw actual physical consumption. So, I see that as a little bit like self -reporting you know in a sense like you know, she was very honest enough to say, yeah, that was mine, I had ordered it, I thought it was pau hang, you know that kind of stuff. So, agree that there are some mitigating situations, so I would concur with the sum reduction. Wigzell: Thank you. Frenz: Chair if I may just briefly, I do agree that it's within this Board's authority and powers to consider suspension and you're free to impose whatever you believe to be appropriate since this isn't a mandated per rule sanction. I just caution you and or ask you to consider what you do here carries across to everyone else, right? So, if somebody is not having a difficult time, is your discretion then going to be that you have to pay the entire fine with no suspension? So, just ask you what you do for one theoretically applies to all. So, consider whether or not the facts and circumstances are such that require and or you believe compassion requires a partial suspension, and if it does and that's fine, I'm not taking a position either way. Just remember MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 8 OF 25 that what you do here would and should apply to all others, so keep that in mind when you decide. Fuke: Good advice, I think that from my point of view you know, we're looking at mitigation and I think there are some mitigating circumstance. So, while we probably would have to be very mindful of precedence, I think our role is just trying to see whether there are any mitigation, and not necessarily the fact that my business is suffering. To me, that in and of itself personally is not really enough mitigation, but if there are other circumstances surrounding that, that can justify mitigations in our own mind and I think, I think that there is some mitigation. So, that's kind of my take on it, but I agree that you know we have to be mindful of subsequent cases. Frenz: So, is that fair to say then Chair, that you're considering a potential motion to mitigate the Department's recommended fine based on the employees taking responsibility, which would be different than a hardship because you don't really have that information before you at this time other than that statement, so is that the mitigation that you're considering? Fuke: Correct. Thank you very much for articulating it very well. Frenz: Okay, just making the record. Fuke: So Ceci do you have any suggestion as far as what the amount should be? Davenport: Well I did have something in mind in the beginning, but once you know, if you start looking at precedent and if it was, you know Brandon saying it's you know $1,000.00 to $2,000.00, he goes down to you know, down to $1,500.00, $500.00, things like that, I don't know if I would downgrade that too much just because of what may come before the Board in the future. You know, and this seems to be on the very, very low end of what the Department you know, the fees and fines that the Department has handed out you know in the past. Raymond: Can I just make a comment? I think this reminds me of you know December 's meeting and how we had very much dialogue for another client's case. And after listening to our Administrative Officer and Ms. Frenz, I do sit uneasy with lowering stuff because I guess to me, and I'm a teacher so we try to teach our kids the same thing, a rule is a rule, and when you break it, there has to be you know what I mean, a penalty. And hearing the numbers that were already dropped for like cases, I think this would be the recommended number to me, and if maybe because times are hard, deferring payments to total $500.00, maybe that could be another resolution. But I think I'm siding more where the Department is recommending the $500.00. Thank you. Salas Ferguson: And can I say something Chair, for you guys to add to this discussion, so the Department's fine, they recommend to fine, you guys have the ultimate authority to set that fine, you're not bound by what's been done in the past, you guys can change course. If you want to lower the standards or raise the standards, that's completely up to you guys. I'd recommend you know always thinking about that, always thinking about what's fair and what's been done in the past, but not making that restrict you going forward across the board. You can consider each case, the facts presented in each case individually, and you know vote accordingly to what you guys want to do. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 9 OF 25 Fuke: Well, we've had excellent counsel from my right and my left and the front. We haven't heard from you yet, Board Member Hughes, so what are your thoughts? Hughes: Well, my original thought was, it's a pretty stiff penalty for a small infraction, but after listening to everyone, I've sort of changed my mind a little bit and I think that the original fine of $500.00 is sufficient, I'm going to go with the original fine. Fuke: Okay. Board Member Raymond, you know you had suggested like a so-called payment plan, you have any payment plan in mind? Raymond: Oh, I don't know, I mean I would then maybe go back to the Department and if you guys had a plan, what would be like if the total was $500.00, what would be a suggested or a reasonable amount within so many months? I don't know. Fuke: What's been the normal practice you know when there's a violation and there's a fine, you give them like 30 days within which to pay? Gonzalez: Yeah, but there have been payment plans where they pay so much a month as long as they can complete it within the license year. There's also the other option that you guys have been discussing about, imposing the full $500.00 recommended, remember the recommendation that we make is so that we put it on the record. Our penalty that we're imposing is not arbitrary or capricious, there's some thought, there's consistency with how we can do that amount, right? Like your Counsel has said, you're not bound to it. So, the other option too is to impose a $500.00 fine but suspend a portion of it, on the condition that they make the payment within a certain period of time and that there's no other violations of that rule type for the next year. So that's kind of like incentive and a carrot, it lessens some of the financial hardship that might have immediate impact on them, and it spaces it out, and then it also acts as a, from a teacher perspective, as this thing hanging out there like oh, if I get in trouble again, then the suspended part is gonna kick in, right? But we've had success with that approach as well, so those are some of the main options that you guys have, I hope that answers your question, Chair. Fuke: Not quite because like usually the suspension or the deferment is like, if it's $500.00, and say we agree on a $250.00 assessment to be paid over "X" amount of time, provided that there's no violation occurring within a wide period of time. You know but like in this case here, if we're going to go with the full on $500.00, then there's no suspension, we're talking about the so-called payment plan that's amicable you know to the licensee. Hughes: I'll make a motion and then we can discuss. Gonzalez: Well and then at that point though, you might want to take input from the licensee, their ability to pay, that might be a factor in your decision making as well, I know the Board has done that in the past. Frenz: And he was trying to raise his hand earlier to speak. Wigzell: Well how about this, make a deal and pay $250.00 bucks Monday? May be done with it. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 10 OF 25 Fuke: Thank you very much for your comment, Mr. Wigzell. I have one more question, like so if the Department, because it's the Department's recommendation, is the $500.00 already like a suspended amount or just a fixed amount? Frenz: It's fixed. Fuke: It's fixed amount, correct? Frenz: But I think what Mr. Gonzalez was saying is that you have the authority and the ability to suspend a portion of the recommended $500.00 if you want to, provided there are no similar law violations, you know within a prescribed period of time. Fuke: Okay. Takase: We came up with $500.00, looking at what's taken place in the past and trying to be mindful that you know, all of our decisions will be reported you know, but kind of being mindful of what happened in the past, that's how we came up with the $500.00. If the Board chooses to suspend portions of it because you feel that you know, there's mitigating factors and you know, Mr. Wigzell has been a long-time licensee now, you know that's fine with us, we will still show at least we had $500.00. And that's what Brandon is talking about from our standpoint, we're trying to be fair across the board with everybody but you know, it does come to you folks you know, if it didn't then there's really no need for it, you know the Board really. So, you guys add kind of like the human element, you're taking into account each situation, so you know whatever you folks decide we're okay with that, I guess. Fuke: Okay just before hearing your motion, I guess like in terms of, in my mind the mitigation is like you know, the drink was over there, she was almost done work, this is unlike another situation where we had, where the so-called licensee was walking around drinking his glass of wine you know along the way. So, I think that's a little bit more egregious you know than this particular situation, so that's why I'm a little bit you know, whether the initial fine was like $1,000.00 or $2,000.00, and in this case it's like $500.00, you know the recommended, I'm kind of a little bit more inclined to you know give some consideration for that. You know, so even if it were like a $2,000.00 assessment, I would have you know, my mindset is like okay, just given the nature and the gravity of the violation you know, does it really deserve to be you know like, getting the maximum penalty that has been recommended? You know, and in my mind I don't think so. Raymond: So clarification, Chair. I understand what you just said, so this is $500.00 now, are you saying that we should say maybe like okay, $250.00 and then suspend the other $250.00? So that if there is any violation within the next year, then add on the other half of the penalty? Fuke: Plus the new one. Raymond: Okay, I can live with that. Fuke: And it doesn't necessarily have to be $250.00, it could even be like suspend $50.00, you know maybe $25.00. But I think just in terms of concept, I think there's some mitigation and so some amount of mitigation should be considered. What that amount is you know, think it's up to the Board to decide. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 11 OF 25 Hughes: Okay, so Dawn's reading my mind here or something but my motion is that they get a $250.00 fine paid in 30 days, and if there's no violations in the next year of some similar violation then the other $250.00 would be waived. Salas Ferguson: So that's a motion for a $500.00 fine with $250.00 suspended for a year, is that the typical suspension period, one year? Takase: Yes. Salas Ferguson: Okay. Takase: That's correct. Frenz: Provided, no similar law violations. Fuke: That's the motion, is there a second? Raymond: I will second that. Board Member Hughes moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2025-001, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00), with TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($250.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 5-4(B) within that period and that TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($250.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion on the motion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So, you understand, Mr. Wigzell, that you have to pay $250.00 that you're fined, and if there's any similar violation within the next year, then you must pay the balance? Wigzell: Yes I do. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 12 OF 25 Fuke: You have any questions? Wigzell: No. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Wigzell. Wigzell: That's it? Thank you. Takase: You'll get a written order from us. Gonzalez: Yeah we'll drop it off at the restaurant. Wigzell: Okay good, well thank you very much. 2. CASE NO. 2025-002 (10:33 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Hawaiian Ola Brewing Corporation, dba Ola Brew Co., located at 74-5598 Luhia Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on violation of Rule 3-1(U) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to prevent its vendor from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area. REPRESENTED LICENSEE: Na`ehalani Breeland, President, Fuke: And we have Ms. Na`ehalani Breeland, President, representing the licensee. Ms. Frenz, could you please read the Complaint? Frenz: Yes, on or about the 23rd day of November 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Hawaiian Ola Brewing Corporation, dba Ola Brew Co., failed to prevent its vendor from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area, in violation of Rule 3-1(U) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Chair, in this case, this is an informal hearing, the licensee selected Alternative II, admitting to the allegation, waiving its right to a hearing and appeal, but requested the informal hearing so that she can present facts and circumstances regarding the incident. Fuke: Thank you very much, Ms. Frenz. The licensee has pleaded to the allegation, may have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the charge? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 13 OF 25 Board Member Raymond moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2025-002 in violation of Rule 3-1(U) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to prevent its vendor from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion among the Board Members? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor? The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Ms. Breeland, prior to assessing the penalty, you may proceed with your circumstances surrounding the violation. Breeland: Yes, so at the shows that we put on, we always have vendors that come in. The first thing that I do is you know, go around when they're all setting up, making sure that they know the regulation and making sure that they're aware that they're not allowed to drink because they're working, right? And in this particular case during this time, I'm always kind of running around making sure everything else is okay, but I was informed by one of the liquor investigators that that had happened. And since they have not been invited back, so this particular vendor, so we've done two shows since then, and you know there hasn't been this issue before, I believe what happened was they brought in alcohol in a backpack. So, the next thing that we now do is check their bags that they have, you know. It was definitely something that I didn't anticipate happening because we've had you know, I feel like at our shows and just with our business, there's a lot of mutual respect that happens but this obviously was not the case in this situation. So, yeah so we have done our due diligence in complying with the laws, all of our staff knows these rules, and again because you know we have staff, and then security at these shows. All of our staff was definitely busy in their stations, right and not in that vendor station. And, what I've done since is with the security that we hire, you know in our meeting before as we always do, have a meeting before the show, really punctuate their job, and you know like if there's anything going on like that, they're able to escort people out. And you know yeah, so I really apologize because I think like working with the Liquor Commission for the last 8 years, it's always been a pleasure. And I think they know and I hope they know that you know, it's always my first goal and like I really take that kuleana seriously, that you know I want to keep everybody safe and everybody in compliance. And so, this is kind of like a really big bummer for me, that night in general so yeah. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 14 OF 25 Fuke: Thank you very much, Ms. Breeland. Any comments or questions of the licensee? Davenport: I do, when you have your security briefing, what specifically do you tell these security guards? Breeland: So, when we are going through the security briefing, we talk about wristbands, like the colors and what they mean, we talk about their positioning, and where they should be, so we normally have about 8 to 10 security guards. There's three up top so one at the very front door, one at the stairs, and then one at the entrance of the show. That particular night, it was a little bit, there was a lot going on because a couple of our vendors, our food truck who we like to have at our shows so that people can eat as well you know, was late and so we were opening the doors late. That was the first time that had ever happened, so we had our doors still open, and there were quite a few people that were like wanting to get into the show, but we didn't have our doors open yet, right? But the food truck had to go through the entrance, right? So, they couldn't come in the back way or anything, but during that time we're talking about you know age, we're talking about safety, we're talking about their authority to you know, tell people to or like escort people out if they need to. Talking about definitely underage drinking, looking for like always looking at wrists, and all of our staff is in that meeting as well. So, looking at the wristbands and really just making sure that everybody's safe you know. I think in that particular event, there were two new security guards, and so that may have contributed as well. I also do want to say that you know, there were a few things that happened that night and again, I was really disappointed with everything that happened, and since then we had two shows. And Stefan the Investigator, he did come up after both of those shows saying like hey, you guys really turned things around, and I appreciate that. So, I appreciated that acknowledgment because again, like I do take these things seriously. Fuke: Any questions? Davenport: So it seems as though reading this report, the Investigator approached one security guard questioning him about a minor, and the security guard said, I don't know if have the authority to ask for identification, I mean to me that's you know, that's very elementary. Breeland: Yes, I completely agree, and I think I'm almost certain that was one of the new security guards, which we've had the same group of security that's been doing our shows for eight years, and so they all know, right? They're very attentive and yeah, I was surprised to read that as well to be honest, and not just read it but in going over everything with Stefan the next day, I was surprised. Davenport: So, in reading this report I've come up with six different occasions when there was no security around, how many people were in attendance that night? Breeland: I believe there were about 600 people. Davenport: Eight security for 600 people? Breeland: And generally, there were nine that night, but generally it's 100 per security guard. So, we had more guards for 600 people. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 15 OF 25 Davenport: And there's no roaming security, which was also brought up in this report. Breeland: There is roaming security, so we have the top 3, so we have the one at the front door, the one at the stairs, and then the one at the entrance, and then there's two that are right next to the stage, so on either side of the stage, and then the other four are roaming. Davenport: Okay, because the investigator here, and I quote, "I also informed her, you, that it was harder and that there was no roaming security to assist me." So, it's tough to see what 600 people are doing when you have nine security guards in designated areas, you know. Breeland: Yeah, I understand, there definitely were roaming security though, it's unfortunate that they weren't there when he needed them right then, but there are always roaming security. And during that initial meeting, we always talk about placement, so we talk about you know this person's going to be here, this person's going to be here, this person is going to be here, these two people are going to be up at the stage, and then these four people or these five people, depending on how many people, how many security we have will be roaming, so that's always talked about too. Davenport: I mean, Ola Brew was founded in 2010, correct? Breeland: No, in 2017 we opened. Davenport: Is that right? Breeland: So, Hawaiian Ola, which is a non-alcoholic beverage company was founded in 2010. Davenport: In 2010, okay, and how many events have you had so far since 2017? Breeland: We do at least, I would say average three a year, sometimes four a year, so not all the time, but we've had enough you know. Davenport: So that's 24 to 32 events you've had in eight years. It seems to me, if I were an owner, you're the owner and co-founder, if I were in your position, that would be paramount to me is to make sure minors aren't drinking, that there's not an 8-1 0-year-old child sitting at a table with band members with different types of alcohol on the table, that's a big liability, a huge liability. Breeland: I completely agree and that was again, the same way that we haven't invited that vendor back, we will never invite that band back either. And, that was a decision that I made that night you know, because there was so much, it wasn't just that they had brought in their own alcohol, it was that they were escorting, they were you know they were bringing minors back there. And generally, like we don't say there's no minors back there because sometimes it's people's kids, you know. But, in this case it was absolutely not okay, and again like I said you know, talking to Stephan the next day, I was like this type of thing has never happened in any of the other shows that we've done, and has never happened in our tap room you know, or in our taproom in Hilo. So, it was really unfortunate, like of all the things it was kind of like the worst things that could have happened all in one time, or for me at least, and I was you know, was happy nobody got hurt, I was happy everybody was safe, but at the same time I took it very seriously. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 16 OF 25 Davenport: Yeah I mean especially when you have a band member putting their hands on the shoulder of the investigator, I mean things like that with alcohol can escalate very, very, quickly. And so that investigator is putting himself in a situation that is unknown, you know and he's one person, so hopefully things will be better. Breeland: I agree with everything that you're saying so yeah, thank you for that. Fuke: Any other comments, questions? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I just have two others, you know like just reading the investigators report, in your mind like if you see like you mentioned about the Crown Royal bottle, you know by inference like, do you think that there was some illegal consumption on that? Breeland: Oh yeah, or I mean like I don't know who was drinking it, so I'm not sure but we would have never said, "Oh yeah, bring that in," you know. If I saw that, I would have taken it and poured it out, so and again, if any of my staff had been back there to see that, we would have confiscated it. Fuke: And then what about like you know, the guys who were standing in line with the Ola Brew cup, and then they just kind of like dumped it out, so what is your impression on that? Breeland: Yeah, and they dumped it out? Davenport: Yeah, they dumped it out in a planter. Fuke: I mean, the inference is that like it was beer just being consumed you know, outside of the designated area. Breeland: Yeah, so that part, that was before the show started and that was again, when we were waiting for this food truck to come, right? And, people were getting antsy and wanting to come in, so normally what happens is during that time you know, people start to line up but down the street. But because we didn't have our barricades up, because we kept it open to have the food truck come in, there were a lot of people that were just swarming, and I saw that photo of myself, too, and with these guys right behind me with cups and I'm like, "Oh my God." And that was definitely, you know there was a lot going on at that moment, and I'm pretty sure because I remember that moment, and I remember seeing them, and I remember saying, "You guys can't be here, and I will take your drinks." And then I think they got upset, and we're like fine, we'll just throw it in the you know Davenport: Right, because she wanted you to refund for the drink that he poured out, right? Breeland: Yeah, which I did, but you know yeah, there was a lot going on in that moment, but yeah, thank you so much. Fuke: Thank you very much, Ms. Breeland for the clarification. Any more questions? Davenport: Can we talk about your video, your closed circuit system that I guess was not operational? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 17 OF 25 Breeland: So, it was in operation, like if I were watching the security camera at the time, I would have seen everything. At that time, it wasn't recording so unfortunately when I went back to look at the footage, I realized that it wasn't actually recording and so we got that fixed. Davenport: Okay, yeah because I would think that would be in your best interest to have that up and running, especially if you have very expensive inventory or whatever is being stored there, yes. Breeland: Absolutely, yes. Fuke: Okay, Ms. Frenz, could you please read the Department's recommendation and going through any prior violations if applicable. Frenz: Yes, Chair, so the Department is seeking a $250.00 fine, with $100.00 suspended for a one year period, provided no similar law violations. This licensee has no prior violations of any sort, like at all, none. And the licensee has taken responsibilities here today, and has already addressed the Board 's questions, so there's a lot going on with this one, but that is the Department's position. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Frenz. Ms. Breeland, you want to comment on the Department's recommended penalty? Breeland: Well, I appreciate you guys understanding and taking into the account that this is the only violation that we've ever had, and I know that the things that happened that night were very serious and I take them very seriously, and so I yeah, I appreciate that, thank you. Fuke: Thank you very much, Ms. Breeland. Is there a motion on the penalty? Raymond: So moved. Fuke: So, it's been moved that the Department's recommendation of $250.00 be imposed on the licensee, with $100.00 suspended for one year, any second? Hughes: I'll second that. Board Member Raymond moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2025-002, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($250.00), with ONE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 3-1(U) within that period and that ONE HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($150.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 18 OF 25 Fuke: I have only this one comment, I think that you're very lucky that the Department is looking favorably on the penalty, you know like as was mentioned when you have concerts like that, it can quickly escalate to something very nasty, and you know I'm glad to know that you have taken corrective action. The other thing too is like, I was asking you those two other questions about you know, the liquor bottle being on the table, and the two other guys just kind of dumping the drink, and you know like, conceivably those could have been other charges too, but then the Department chose not to make those charges, and so you ended up with only one, essentially. So, I think there's some benefit behind that, but having said that, any further discussion on the penalty with the $100.00 suspended? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: Okay, if not all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed? There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: The Department will send you the written order. 3. CASE NO. 2025-003 (10:54 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Da Poke Shack, Limited Liability Company, dba Da Poke Shack, located at the Bali Kai Condos, 76-6246 Ali`i Drive, Unit 101, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on violation of Rule 3-6(A)(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to submit an Initial Gross Liquor Sales Report by the deadline of January 31, 2025. REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT SHOW UP: Albert Vasconcelles, Co-owner Fuke: Is Mr. Vasconcelles here? Sayles: No. Fuke: Was he notified of this meeting? Gonzalez: Yes. Fuke: Okay, so he chose not to attend, then. So, Ms. Frenz, could you please read the Complaint and Accusation? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 19 OF 25 Frenz: Yes, Chair. On or about the 31st day of January 2025, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Da Poke Shack, Limited Liability Company, dba Da Poke Shack, failed to submit an Initial Gross Liquor Sales Report by the deadline of January 31, 2025, in violation of Rule 3-6(A)(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Chair, this is an informal hearing, Licensee selected Alternative 11, admitting to the allegation waiving its right to a hearing and appeal, but requesting the informal hearing to present the circumstances surrounding the violation, albeit failed to attend today, Chair. Fuke: Thank you very much. Was there any effort made to contact the applicant to see whether he was, the licensee rather, to see whether he was coming or not today? Takase: I believe so. Fuke: So, his only contact was through mail or e-mail about this meeting? Takase: No, he was personally served by the Investigator. Fuke: Oh, okay. Frenz: And just to clarify, he's the one who selected, the licensee is the one who selects Alternative II knowing this would be his opportunity. Fuke: He plead guilty, okay thank you very much. Sayles: I spoke to him on the phone as well. Fuke: Oh, you did? Sayles: Yes. Fuke: Okay. Sayles: On the day that he submitted his answer, which was August 12, 1 spoke to him and reminded him about the meeting. Fuke: Got it, thank you very much. Apparently, he was aware of today's meeting and he chose not to attend. Sayles: I think so. Fuke: So, may I have a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 20 OF 25 Board Member Raymond moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2025-003 in violation of Rule 3-6(A)(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to submit an Initial Gross Liquor Sales Report by the deadline of January 31, 2025; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So, Ms. Frenz, could you please provide the Department's recommendation? Frenz: Yes, Chair, in this case the Department is seeking a $200.00 fine payable within 30 days of the decision and order. This is their second violation within three years of the exact same rule. The fine is set however by Rule 1.12. Fuke: Okay, may I have a motion on the penalty of $200.00? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2025-003, that the Licensee be assessed a fine pursuant to Rule 1.12, in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($200.00), to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the $200.00 penalty be imposed, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I just have a question, is the report still outstanding or he filed it? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 21 OF 25 Takase: Still outstanding, and he's missed his next deadline so, you'll get another case shortly. But by the rule, these are the kind of minor violations, so for a second, $200.00, on and on so. Fuke: And then, so the next report is due in January 2026? Takase: No, it was due July 31 St, which he missed that so. Davenport: And then you know, in the report it says in 32 days, he was reminded 14-16 times to please get the report in, the report is due, where is your report? You know by e-mail, phone calls, not just to him but to his accountant, and then to another e-mail address, so it's not like he doesn't know. Takase: So, I think his wife called us this last time and she said they fired their accountant, and she's trying to gather it all together now, so she'll hopefully have it in shortly, I think was her response. Fuke: Is this kind of violation common? Takase: Kind of, you know most of them just, I mean this one we've kind of given him a lot of time, and so I would say it's a little more than just common. You know, a lot of them missed their deadline you know, even though we remind all of them, I think fairly well you know, usually they get at least three notices from us. But you know, we'll have probably a dozen every reporting time that don't make it. If they contact us ahead of time and let us know, you know they're having problems or this and that, we usually will give an extension, but in this one, we really had no contact with him. Fuke: Thank you very much, any further discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: A Decision and Order will be served, which will be payable within 30 days of its receipt. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 22 OF 25 IV. Unfinished Business (11:00 AM) Fuke: There is no Unfinished Business. V. New Business (11:00 AM) Fuke: There is no New Business. Salas Ferguson: So, can I make a comment on the agenda, so in the future unless there's specifically something on the agenda for unfinished business or new business, we got to delete those. Per UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act), we cannot have just a blanket unfinished business or a blanket new business, unless there's something, just take those off the agenda. Thank you. VI. Announcements (11:01 AM) Meetings of the Liquor Adjudication Board September 18, 20259 10:00 A.M., Location To Be Determined. October 16, 2025, 10:00 A.M., Location, To Be Determined. Takase: We may have one more meeting for you guys before the December meeting but for sure we'll have a meeting in December. Fuke: Okay. Gonzalez: It depends on how many cases, you know how we try and consolidate the cases for efficiency, and then everybody's schedules in the fall gets kind of full, too. Takase: Yes, so I'm going to schedule it in Hilo and we will have a dinner that night, so if you guys can make arrangements. Fuke: Okay, the other item on the announcement is the NABCA (National Alcohol Beverage Control Association) Symposium, any report on that? Gonzalez: So, we filed a report with the Liquor Commission because I attended the legal symposium that's held every year in DC (District Columbia), it gathers the liquor industry attorneys, liquor industry officials, all the government regulators from the federal level, to the state level, and to the county levels. The biggest topics this year are hemp -infused beverages taking the place of alcohol beverages, there's a push to try and get alcohol beverages infused with hemp, but the TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau) would not allow it, and the other industry updates like ready to drink cocktails in the can, and how the alcohol content is so high that there's a lot of issues happening to customers that drink a can and they don't realize it has more than 14% ABV (Alcohol by Volume), and then they get drunk off of just drinking half of it. There's been people getting alcohol poisoning and sickness and stuff, those are the highlights. And we have the full report available for you folks, Hau`oli can e-mail that to you guys if it wasn't already provided. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 23 OF 25 Fuke: It was provided, thank you. Gonzalez: Okay good, thanks. Any questions, though? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: The other item is the NCSLA (National Conference of State Liquor Administrators) Annual Meeting. Takase: Yes, so we submitted a report to you folks, I think Ceci, Mike, and David Greenwell were able to attend in Maui. And then finally, I guess it was transmitted to you folks but as part of our audit, we had to come up with the travel policy, which we are following I guess, but we're still kind of working through that. We've been given further restrictions by the Department of Finance, which we are negotiating with them over, so I think all of you saw that I sent out a notice for the State Conference in October, so you folks are all invited. The Finance Director along with the Managing Director have come back and restricted us to only sending half of the Board and Commission members. So, I think I have a plan for it, we'll see how it works out. Most of you have indicated whether you can or cannot go, so maybe I just won't press it, and think we'll be okay on the numbers. So, you can at least pencil it in if you can, and I think we'll be able to accommodate all of you for that. Davenport: And that's October 19t" to the 22nd, is that right? Takase: Yes. So, September and October, no, so maybe November, and if to November, we might just push it off to December, the meeting. Gonzalez: To help with your planning, we don't have cases ready for September or October. Fuke: Okay, possibly November? Gonzalez: And if we're going to do November, we'll probably push it to December anyway, like the Director said. Fuke: Any comments from Board members for the Department? There was no further discussion by Board Members. VII. Adjournment (11:08 AM) Fuke: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to adjourn the meeting; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 24 OF 25 Fuke: Discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All in favor say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. The motion was carried unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 AM. Gerald Takase Director The August 21, 2025, Liquor Adjudication Board meeting minutes were approved as circulated, via email on October 1, 2025, by the Liquor Adjudication Board of the County of Hawaii on December 4, 2025. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025 - KONA PAGE 25 OF 25