Expected ordinance vote: Monday, September 28, 2026 · Council meeting: 6 p.m. · City Hall Show up. Speak against the cutoff.
SAVE
MONTEVALLOOUR TOWN. OUR FUTURE.

MONTEVALLO, ALABAMA

Earlier last call.
Fewer local options.
What else do we lose?

A birthday night out. A familiar place to meet friends. A shift that helps pay the bills. Montevallo’s proposed midnight cutoff puts more than two hours of drink sales at stake—for residents, students age 21 and over, and the businesses we depend on.

Make your voice heard What’s at stake

The proposal would end on-premise alcohol sales at midnight; venues could remain open. The concern is what happens to those places—and their customers—when sales stop.

WATCH THE PAST MEETING · SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

Hear the discussion
for yourself.

Montevallo City Council
September 14, 2026 · 2h 6m

Watch directly on Facebook ↗

Video opens in a popup so you can keep your place. If Facebook blocks playback, use the popup’s new-tab link.

Search the meeting transcript ↓ Review ChatGPT’s meeting analysis ↓

Downtown Montevallo · February 2012 photograph by Rivers Langley / SaveRivers · CC BY-SA 3.0. Resized, displayed cropped with a color overlay; adapted image under the same license. No photographer endorsement implied.

Support local livelihoods Put evidence first Make safety a shared effort

01 / KNOW WHAT’S ON THE TABLE

Two hours.
A bigger conversation.

City Council is considering an earlier end to on-premise alcohol sales. Here’s what has been reported—and what still needs to be made clear.

PROPOSED HOURS
2AM12AM

Earlier last call for bars & restaurants

On-premise sales would end at midnight. Businesses could stay open; take-home alcohol sales could continue until 2 a.m. Sunday morning sales hours would also expand.

Read the local reporting ↗

EXPECTED VOTE / MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28

Show up.
Oppose the cutoff.

Monday, September 28, 2026 · 6 p.m.
City Hall · 541 Main Street, Montevallo
Work session: 5:30 p.m.

The September 14 transcript points to the next council meeting for the ordinance vote. September 28 follows the city’s regular meeting schedule; the vote remains expected until confirmed on the agenda.

Plan to attend and speak up ↗

30:14 · Next-meeting discussion · 1:51:36 · First reading; no vote that night
City meeting schedule · Check the September 28 agenda

PAST MEETING / SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

Proposed Ordinance 09142026-222

The September 14, 2026 council meeting has already taken place. Its agenda listed amendments to Chapter 16, Article III, sections 16-59(e) and (f), covering on-premise and off-premise alcohol-sales hours.

Ordinance text now available: We transcribed the unsigned image supplied by the site owner. It is not an authenticated city-issued copy. The printed September 28, 2026 adoption date and blank signature lines do not establish that it has passed.

Read the past September 14 agenda (PDF) ↗Request the official draft by email ↗

Opens a draft to Steve Gilbert, city clerk. Nothing is sent by this website. About the clerk’s records role · Verify the clerk’s contact details.

Read the full text transcribed from the image

Transcribed from an unsigned image supplied by the site owner. Not an authenticated city-issued copy or evidence of adoption. The image prints September 28, 2026 as the adoption date; its signature lines are blank. Line breaks and typography have been normalized; apparent source numbering and punctuation are retained. Bracketed signature descriptions are editorial.

ORDINANCE NO. 09142026 - 222

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16-59
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTEVALLO, ALABAMA, REGARDING
PUBLIC CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES - HOURS OF SALES

WHEREAS, The City of Montevallo under authority granted by the State of Alabama Code 1975, § 11-47-112., et. seq., granting the power of municipalities to adopt ordinances to promote temperance and to suppress intemperance,

WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is necessary, advisable and in the best interest of the City to regulate the hours of sales of alcoholic beverages within the corporate limits of the City of Montevallo at duly licensed restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. and at retail sales outlets.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Montevallo, Alabama as follows:

Chapter 16 Article III – PUBLIC CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION, SECTION 16 – 59 is hereby amended as follows

Article III, Section 16 - 59 – (e)

The hours of sales for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be as follows Monday – Saturday from 6:00 AM until 12:00 AM (Midnight) and Sunday from 10:00 AM until 12:00 AM (Midnight)}

Article III, Section 16 - 59 – (f)

The hours for off premise sales of alcoholic beverages shall be as follows – Monday – Saturday from 6:00 AM until 2:00 AM and Sunday from 10:00 AM until 2:00 AM.

Section 22-141. Severability

Each section and provision of this ordinance is hereby declared to be an independent section or provision. If any section or provision shall be declared void, invalid, or unconstitutional, the remaining sections or provisions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect.

This Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and advertisement as provided by law.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ATTEST                                      APPROVED:

[Blank signature line]                      [Blank signature line]
Steve Gilbert, City Clerk                   Rusty Nix, Mayor

Download ordinance transcription (TXT) ↓

A note on the record: The supplied image sets on-premise sales at 6 a.m.–midnight Monday–Saturday and 10 a.m.–midnight Sunday; off-premise sales at 6 a.m.–2 a.m. Monday–Saturday and 10 a.m.–2 a.m. Sunday. It states that the ordinance becomes effective upon passage and advertisement as provided by law. The September 14 agenda is a separate record of the past meeting. We still need the city’s official draft and any amendments to confirm this is the version under consideration.

02 / WHAT OUR TOWN COULD LOSE

A night out here.
A livelihood here.
A reason to stay here.

This affects everyone who lives, works, or spends an evening here. We oppose the blanket cutoff because these consequences deserve answers before a vote—not after businesses and residents have to live with them.

The response should fit the wrongdoing.

As far as we know, the establishment at the center of this discussion has not been criminally charged or convicted in connection with the incident. We have not independently verified its complete court or licensing record. Allegations about what individuals did should not be presented as a finding that the business broke the law.

At the September 14 meeting, the police discussion described arrests and cases awaiting adjudication. Those individuals face the legal process and have the right to contest the allegations. An arrest is not a conviction, and we should not claim that punishment has already been imposed. Hear that discussion around 1:16:31 ↗

Why should residents who have broken no law lose a lawful option “for their own safety”? A blanket midnight cutoff would also restrict responsible adults and businesses following the rules. From their perspective, it can feel like being punished for someone else’s conduct.

If a business is genuinely failing its legal responsibilities, address that business’s license. Where proven violations warrant it, pursue suspension or revocation of the business license through the proper legal process, with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Alcohol-license enforcement should go through the appropriate licensing authority. That is a targeted response to demonstrated misconduct—not a reason to end late-night alcohol sales for every responsible adult and compliant business in town. We are not asserting that grounds to revoke this establishment’s license have been established.

Public safety matters. So does a response that makes sense. Council should explain why enforcing existing rules against actual violations is insufficient, how this particular cutoff addresses the incident, and why the burden on people who did nothing wrong is justified. The question is whether the proposed response is proportionate and supported by evidence.

Compare targeted alternatives ↗
01

Where do legal-age students go next?

Students age 21 and over would lose the option to buy a drink after midnight in a local bar or restaurant with staff on site. Could more gatherings move to private settings without that oversight? A sales cutoff does not make the desire to socialize disappear.

What would change Potential displacement · not a measured outcome
02

Second shift deserves a night out, too.

For residents finishing a second shift near midnight, the evening may only just be starting. The cutoff would remove the option to buy an after-work drink at a local bar or restaurant—even though venues could stay open. Workers on later schedules deserve consideration alongside people who finish at five. Whether it’s an after-work catch-up or a birthday celebration, residents have a stake in local nightlife.

Consider workers’ schedules Access concern · local worker impact not yet measured
03

Could this mean more DUIs—or fatalities?

If people travel elsewhere to continue a night out, what happens to driving distances and impaired-driving risk? Council should examine local travel patterns and late-night ride options before changing the rules. Increased harm is a risk to investigate, not an established outcome.

The distance between a night out and home Safety question · not a prediction
04

Where is the due diligence?

Residents deserve more than anecdotes to evaluate a town-wide restriction. What incident patterns, economic impacts, and alternatives were assessed? We have not located a published local impact analysis in the materials reviewed. Council should put its analysis in the public record.

Crime data & its limits Analysis not located · full record not verified
05

What message are we sending businesses?

Owners plan, invest, and hire around the ability to operate. A broad restriction without a demonstrated comparison of alternatives risks undermining confidence in the city as a business partner. Show what has been tried—and why it was insufficient.

Compare targeted alternatives Concern about the city’s approach
06

Who absorbs the lost sales and shifts?

Owners warning about economic harm deserve a substantive response. Fewer selling hours could affect revenue, tips, staffing, and orders from suppliers. Hear their concerns, gather their numbers, and publish how those costs factor into the decision.

Business context Potential impact · losses not yet quantified
07

Will visitors spend their evenings elsewhere?

A night out can connect dinner, entertainment, and an overnight stay. Could an earlier last call send some celebrations—and their spending—to another town? Assess the effect on tourism and neighboring businesses before narrowing what downtown offers.

Tourism & local connections Visitor impact · not a forecast
08

What if the result is an empty storefront?

For a business operating on thin margins, lost sales could matter well beyond midnight. Could this restriction contribute to a closure? An empty building would affect workers, neighbors, and downtown’s appeal. Council should examine business viability before taking that risk.

Examine downtown business impacts Closure risk · no specific closure predicted

Not everyone’s workday ends at five.

A worker finishing at 11 p.m. would have only an hour before the proposed cutoff; someone finishing at midnight would have none. Travel and getting ready can narrow that window further. For adults age 21 and over, this is a question of access to an ordinary social activity on a different schedule.

Include second-shift workers in the impact assessment. Ask local workers and employers about shift-ending times, demand for staffed gathering places, transport options, and spending after work. Hear from manufacturing, healthcare, hospitality, retail, and other workers on late schedules. We have not measured how many local workers would be affected, and the proposal would restrict alcohol sales rather than prohibit gathering.

If one business bears the burden, is this fair—and legally defensible?

If only one existing business regularly sells alcohol after midnight, a rule written for everyone could still impose its immediate costs on that one business. Even if lawful, that can create the appearance of targeting a local owner. Council should identify who would be affected and explain the public-safety basis for the rule. We have not verified that only one business would be affected.

Ask before the vote: Has the city attorney reviewed the actual wording, exemptions, treatment of comparable businesses, and enforcement plan? Can council explain its legal basis publicly and address potential litigation costs? A concentrated burden deserves an explanation; it does not by itself establish that the ordinance is unlawful.

Make council answer the local questions.

Before cutting late-night sales, council should show how the proposal addresses documented local problems, what it could cost workers and businesses, and why narrower enforcement would not be enough.

Reject the blanket midnight cutoff and build a safety plan with the residents, workers, and businesses who would live with its consequences.

Ask council to reject the cutoff ↗

DRINKING, DRIVING & THE WAY HOME

At 2 a.m.,
distance matters.

A public-safety decision should consider the whole night—including how people get home when their plans fall apart.

If the bar you choose is half an hour away, getting there and back usually means a vehicle. The farther away it is, the bigger the commitment you may be asking of a designated driver—and the harder it can feel to call someone at 2 a.m. when you realize you should not drive.

Close to home, you may have more people to turn to: a sober friend, a trusted neighbor, or bar staff who can help you arrange a safe ride. Familiar people nearby can make asking for help feel more manageable. Those options still need a plan; being local does not make impaired driving safe.

Now picture being 30 minutes from home. For someone coming from your neighborhood, picking you up and bringing you back could mean an hour on the road. That is a much bigger favor to ask of someone who is already in bed. You should still make that call. But council should consider whether sending a night out farther away could make that call harder to make—or harder for someone to answer.

Tragedy can begin with a couple of bad decisions: drinking more than planned, hesitating to ask for help, then deciding to drive. Alcohol can impair the judgment needed to recognize the danger. We should make the safe choice easier to reach, even after someone has made a mistake.

Ask council: If some residents take their nights out to another town, what sober transportation and backup options will they actually have? Study travel distances, late-night ride availability, and ways for venues, neighbors, and the university to help people get home safely.

A risk to examine, not a forecast: We have not established that this ordinance would increase DUIs or deaths. Council should examine local travel distances, ride availability, and the risk of shifting nights out to other towns. Review crash data.

03 / A BETTER CONVERSATION

Try targeted solutions.
Show why they aren’t enough.

Before imposing a town-wide restriction, council should explain which alternatives it has tried, what happened, and why a broader cutoff is necessary. These options deserve a public comparison.

Focus enforcement

Evaluate enforcement of underage-sales, open-container, disorder, and noise rules where problems occur.

Plan safer nights

Bring residents, venues, police, and the university together on transport, queues, staffing, and event plans.

Measure and review

Set a baseline, publish outcomes, and schedule a public review of any intervention, including unintended effects.

04 / THIS IS YOUR TOWN, TOO

Don’t leave your
voice out of the room.

Ask council to reject the midnight cutoff and work with residents, workers, and businesses on a transparent, targeted safety plan.

01 / WRITE TO COUNCIL

Start with a thoughtful message.

Open email draft ↗

Nothing is sent by this website. Review recipients and wording in your email app.

Find your individual council member ↗

Find your district: 2020 council district map (PDF) ↗

Council members by district
Council memberDistrictEmail
David King1dking@cityofmontevallo.com
Lelia Mitchell2lmitchell@cityofmontevallo.com
Kenneth Dukes3kdukes@cityofmontevallo.com
Brandelyn Nelson4bnelson@cityofmontevallo.com
Alyssa Green5agreen@cityofmontevallo.com
02 / SIGN THE PETITION

Add your name. Make our voices count.

Urge Montevallo City Council to reject the proposed midnight cutoff and work with the community on a targeted safety plan.

Sign the petition on Change.org ↗
03 / SHOW UP SEPTEMBER 28

Be there for the expected vote.

Monday, September 28, 2026
Council meeting: 6 p.m. · Work session: 5:30 p.m.
City Hall · 541 Main Street, Montevallo

Ask council to vote against the midnight cutoff. Bring your experience as a resident, worker, or business owner and prepare a short, respectful statement about what is at stake.

The transcript points to the next council meeting; this date and time follow the city’s regular schedule. Confirm the ordinance is on the September 28 agenda and ask about public-comment procedures before attending.

Check upcoming meeting information ↗Call City Hall: (205) 665-2555 ↗
04 / BRING YOUR EXPERIENCE

Make the impact concrete.

Business owners: bring hourly revenue and staffing estimates. Workers: explain potential shift and tip changes. Residents: describe specific concerns and practical solutions.

IN THE LOCAL NEWS

See how local news
is covering the proposal.

Read and watch the original reporting. These links lead to the publishers’ own coverage; inclusion does not imply an endorsement of this campaign.

A SECOND LOOK AT THE RECORD

What does ChatGPT say
about the meeting?

Unsupported allegations. Signs of prejudgment. Police statements that challenge the stated rationale. The analysis identifies potential problems in how council reached its proposed response—not simply a disagreement about closing time.

The table below presents the process concerns identified in an AI-assisted review of the supplied transcript, with qualifications added for clarity. Its central criticism is that allegations about an identifiable business were used to justify a broad restriction before supporting evidence was established in the public discussion. That is an interpretation of the meeting, not a finding of illegality. The analysis relies on an edited working transcript with uncertain speaker labels. Listen before quoting or drawing conclusions. Each timestamp opens the recording in a popup, starting 10 seconds earlier.

September 14, 2026 meeting · AI-assisted analysis · Times refer to the original recording.
Concern raised by the analysisWhat to examine in the meetingWhat council should explain
The “duck” remark: a warning sign of prejudgment

The supplied transcript attributes this statement to Kenneth Dukes:

“if it quack like a duck, nine times out of 10, it’s a duck. And I hear a lot of quackings when it comes to this.”

In context, he is discussing the establishment’s responsibility. The analysis treats this as a sign that suspicion was hardening into a conclusion before a violation had been established in the public record.

23:15 · Duck analogy and business responsibility		Was council still weighing the evidence, or defending a conclusion already reached? Read alongside the mayor’s incident account and the liability arguments, this raises a concern about apparent prejudgment across the discussion. It does not establish any member’s private intentions or prove that several members had irrevocably decided. Ask each member what evidence could change their position.
“Not targeting” does not answer the practical concern

The analysis finds the mayor’s denial of targeting seriously undermined by the discussion: officials focused on one incident and an identifiable establishment, while public speakers described one business bearing the immediate burden. Not naming a business does not answer whether it is the practical target.

56:13 · Mayor’s explanation1:06:14 · Public comment		Which businesses currently sell after midnight, and what neutral criteria justify the restriction? The transcript alone does not verify that only one business is affected or establish unlawful targeting.
Accusations entered the record without identified supporting findings

The transcript attributes to Kenneth Dukes remarks that staff were doing nothing and that anyone “contributing to the delinquency of minors” should not have a business in Montevallo. The analysis identifies a move from safety concerns toward an accusation of unlawful conduct, without an identified ABC citation, documented sale to a minor, or adjudicated violation presented to support it.

10:48 · Staff and underage drinking23:15 · Further remarks		Identify the evidence supporting the accusation and distinguish observations, inferences, and established violations. Evidence not presented in this discussion is not necessarily nonexistent—but the public should not be asked to treat an allegation as a finding.
Serious claims were used before their support was made clear

The mayor’s opening account includes fights, a gun, open containers, arrests, and lost scholarships, while also describing a pending investigation. The analysis criticizes the use of these claims to justify a substantial restriction before their supporting evidence was placed before the public. The scholarship claim, in particular, needs verification rather than repetition.

06:27 · Incident account09:11 · Student consequences		Which details are supported by incident reports or other releasable records? Claims about weapons or lost scholarships should not be repeated as independently verified facts based on this discussion alone.
The chief’s account weakens the asserted connection

The chief’s remarks, as transcribed, describe DUIs involving people arriving from elsewhere, multiple sources of alcohol, and not all ten underage arrestees coming from the establishment. The analysis says these points substantially undercut the assumption that misconduct at this business—and its late sales hours—explains the problem. Council should reconcile that conflicting information before relying on the assumption.

1:20:25 · DUIs from elsewhere1:22:07 · Where people came from1:26:56 · Staffing discussion		Publish local incident times, locations, alcohol-source evidence, and staffing needs. Compare the cutoff with focused enforcement and transportation options. These remarks alone do not prove that a cutoff would help or hurt safety.
“Too drunk to lie” is not corroboration

The transcript attributes “They’re too drunk to lie” and “We know where they get it from” to the chief, followed by a refusal to debate the source. The analysis identifies a concrete evidence problem: intoxicated people’s statements can be investigative leads, but confidence in those statements is not a substitute for corroboration.

1:30:15 · Source attribution		What supporting evidence exists, and were allegations referred to the appropriate enforcement agency? An investigative lead is not the same as a completed finding against a business.
Liability concerns were presented as pressure to act

Remarks about the city being sued, having “bigger money,” and needing to do something give the proposed restriction a sense of legal inevitability. The analysis criticizes that reasoning: concern about liability does not itself establish why this particular cutoff is required or preferable to alternatives.

13:27 · Liability discussion1:03:59 · Further liability concerns		Ask for the public legal basis for the proposed response and the alternatives considered, while recognizing that some legal advice may be privileged. The transcript does not establish that adopting this ordinance is legally mandatory.
Policy-making and license enforcement are different decisions

The meeting discusses ABC enforcement and possible license consequences. ChatGPT distinguishes a general rule for everyone from action against a particular operator for proven violations.

26:32 · ABC discussion30:14 · License consequences		Clarify city versus state authority and applicable notice, hearing, and evidence requirements. A prospective ordinance does not automatically require the same process as an individual license proceeding; a lack of charges does not by itself invalidate a general rule.
Were less restrictive alternatives and community costs weighed?

The discussion includes compromise proposals, residents’ late-night needs, second-shift workers, and tourism. These provide concrete alternatives and costs to weigh alongside the safety concerns.

28:27 · Alternatives59:55 · Second-shift workers1:59:21 · Tourism discussion		Compare narrower enforcement, business cooperation, safe rides, and a review period against a blanket cutoff. Explain the expected benefit, economic costs, and how success would be measured.

Council owes the community answers. Ask for documented incidents, a clear explanation of who bears the costs, and a public comparison with narrower enforcement. These process concerns support our demand for accountability; they do not establish a constitutional violation or grounds for a lawsuit.

Which records would help answer these questions?
  • Releasable incident and arrest reports, calls for service, dispatch records, and video, with times and locations.
  • Evidence connecting alcohol sources to specific incidents, plus any ABC referrals, investigations, or findings that can be released.
  • Ordinance drafts, an inventory of affected businesses, and any safety or economic impact analysis.
  • Releasable city, university, and ABC communications about the response and alternatives. Requests should allow for lawful privacy protections and privilege.

PAST MEETING / SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

Find the words.
Hear the context.

Read the supplied transcript in recording order. Select a timestamp to load the video up to 10 seconds before that passage. Search by words, speaker, and topic.

The audio is the source of truth. This ChatGPT-generated, edited working transcript was supplied by the site owner. It replaces the earlier automatic captions. Wording, names, timestamps, and topic assignments may contain errors and have not been independently verified against the recording. Speaker labels follow the supplied document; shared or uncertain labels do not identify who said each sentence. This is not official minutes or a certified verbatim transcript. Check the original audio before quoting.

Speaker selections include shared passages naming that person; unidentified remarks may be omitted. Search, speaker selection, and the topic toggle work together. Clear search clears only the words; choose “All speakers” to reset the speaker filter. Timestamp links keep the original recording times.

The full transcript is available to download below.

    Full transcript (TXT) ↓Supplied topic transcript (Markdown) ↓Earlier automatic captions (SRT archive) ↓September 14 agenda (PDF) ↗Meeting minutes & updates ↗

    05 / FOLLOW THE SOURCES

    Sources for the case
    against the cutoff.

    Selected sources for our campaign to reject the midnight cutoff: the proposal, local business context, and records needed to challenge the city’s rationale. Source limitations distinguish documented facts from impacts still to be measured.

    LOCAL REPORTING · SEPT 14, 2026

    What the proposal would change

    WBRC reports the sales-hour changes and the mayor’s account of an August 21 disturbance.

    Read with care: Reporting and attributed statements, not the ordinance text or an incident dataset.

    CITY OF MONTEVALLO · PRIMARY SOURCE

    Current code & recent ordinances

    The city links its code and more recent adopted changes.

    Read with care: The city warns that the codified version may lag recent ordinances. A proposal is not an adopted law.

    ALABAMA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

    Reported crime & agency data

    Start with ALEA’s reports and the state crime dashboard to establish reporting periods and agency coverage.

    Missing locally: A verified incident-by-hour analysis. ALEA cautions against direct city comparisons using reported totals.

    NHTSA · FEDERAL DATA

    Fatal crashes & roadway deaths

    FARS provides data for examining fatal crashes by place, time, and recorded circumstances.

    Missing locally: A checked Montevallo extract. Fatal crashes exclude nonfatal harm, and small counts fluctuate.

    ALABAMA TOURISM DEPARTMENT

    Tourism spending & employment

    Economic impact reports offer context for the visitor economy. The hub lists the 2025 report alongside prior years.

    Read with care: State or county visitor spending is not revenue attributable to Montevallo’s late-night sales.

    MONTEVALLO MAIN STREET · PRIMARY SOURCE

    Downtown businesses & partnerships

    Market studies, annual reports, and the city’s public-private downtown program connect businesses, tourism, and community investment.

    Missing locally: Verified sales, wage, supplier, and tax impacts of the proposed cutoff. Inclusion is not an endorsement.

    CITY OF MONTEVALLO · BUSINESS DIRECTORY

    The local dining economy

    The city’s dining directory includes venues with published late-night hours, including The Dive Bar & Grill.

    Read with care: Verify hours directly. A directory listing does not establish losses or a business’s position on the proposal.

    What should the city publish before a vote?

    Ask the clerk and council for the following, with personal information removed where appropriate:

    • The full proposed ordinance, amendments, effective date, and comparison with current rules.
    • Three to five years of calls for service, verified incidents, and enforcement activity by hour and location, including reporting gaps.
    • Crash and injury data with geography, alcohol involvement, and time of day clearly defined.
    • An anonymized business survey of hourly sales, staffing, tips, supplier spending, and likely operating changes.
    • The expected safety benefit, implementation costs, alternatives considered, and a public evaluation plan.

    A missing dataset is an unanswered question, not evidence of zero harm. Publish counts and appropriate denominators before calling something a “rate.”

    A safer town. A thriving downtown.
    We should work toward both.

    Be part of the conversation ↗