What happened: After nine months of back and forth, the Midland City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday, Jan. 13, to remove special security restrictions placed on Hot Shots bar downtown. Council directed staff to restart the bar’s alcohol permit process without added conditions, ending a requirement that forced the business to hire private security guards on weekends.

Why it matters: The Hot Shots case illustrates how the absence of clear, citywide standards can turn a single complaint into months of piecemeal regulation. Council imposed security requirements before defining what success would look like, relied on inconsistent incident data to evaluate compliance, and only later asked staff to develop a broader framework. Months later, that framework still does not exist.

Catch up quick: Hot Shots first appeared before council on April 22 after the city discovered the bar had unknowingly operated without a valid alcohol permit since 2017. A single objection from neighboring BTA Oil Producers triggered a supermajority vote, requiring six of the seven council members to approve the permit, rather than the usual four.

Councilman John Burkholder and Councilwoman Robin Poole argued sworn peace officers were necessary, pushing for daily coverage. Councilman Jack Ladd objected, saying it was unfair to impose peace officer costs when nearby bars had more police calls. Councilmen John Norman and Brian Stubbs agreed with Ladd and supported approval without requiring security.

Mayor Lori Blong proposed a compromise using security guards, while Councilwoman Amy Burkes said she could not support approval without some form of security. With the bar unable to reopen without approval, council ultimately adopted a compromise requiring peace officers on Friday and Saturday nights only. The permit included a mandatory seven-month review.

Go deeper: In May, council deferred the second reading after Burkholder’s absence created a risk the item could fail to reach the supermajority threshold. When the item returned in June, Norman introduced an amendment replacing peace officers with security guards.

Councilwoman Amy Burkes acknowledged she had supported peace officers in April but said she was now open to security guards, adding a 60-day review to the existing seven-month review. Burkholder supported the change to align Hot Shots’ conditions with those imposed on another nearby bar. Council approved the amended ordinance unanimously. Councilwoman Robin Poole abstained, citing her husband’s employment with BTA Oil Producers.

Yes, but: At the August 60-day review, staff said incident levels remained essentially unchanged and acknowledged it was “not really clear that the security guards make a difference,” while citing an unreported weeknight incident. Poole argued that problems extended beyond weekends. Ladd pushed back, warning against relying on anecdotal enforcement.

Poole moved to restart the SUD process with daily peace officer requirements, seconded by Burkholder. Council approved the restart but reversed course in September, unanimously rejecting expanded restrictions and directing staff to develop a citywide bar safety framework that still does not exist.

The big picture: At Tuesday’s seven-month review, staff confirmed Hot Shots complied with all requirements and reported 20 incidents over seven months, averaging 2.8 per month, but said they could not prove whether security caused the drop. Owner David Chin disputed the count, saying it included calls tied to unrelated activity or times when the bar was closed.

The bottom line: Council framed the vote as a course correction toward consistency and fairness. Blong said restrictions should ease when data improves, while Ladd argued the city should not “essentially tax” one business when other bars operate without similar conditions.  Burkholder said the goal was never to shut down a locally owned business, and Stubbs described the process as a learning experience for council and city staff.

Norman moved to restart the SUD process without special conditions. Ladd seconded. Council approved the motion 6–0. Poole was not in attendance.