The Baymont Hotel's ownership and legal counsel appealed the license revocation, acknowledging past failures and proposing a conditional license with new management, operational reforms, and city oversight. Owner Jazz Singh told the council: "I assure you like I mean you give us one chance and we will run a very clean organization." However, the council remained skeptical.

City staff painted a damning picture of the hotel's track record. According to staff member Mr. Kursky, "The Baymont Hotel has been the subject of continuing concerns involving management practices, public safety, police calls for service, disturbances, criminal activity, fire and life safety concerns and repeated demands upon city's resources." Staff highlighted a particularly egregious incident where the hotel held an unauthorized "lock-in" event that drew gang threats and widespread ordinance violations—despite police warnings against it. Mr. Reynolds noted that "the police department had told them that that was not a good idea" but "the management decided that they went ahead and were going to do it anyway."

Council members expressed strong concerns about whether the hotel's management could be trusted to reform. Mr. Whiting was the sole dissenter, voting to allow a conditional license rather than full revocation. The 4-1 vote to uphold the revocation was moved by Mr. Lara and seconded by Councilmember Contrarus.

Earlier in the meeting, the council unanimously approved a separate appeal involving a dog daycare business at 1424 Primrose Lane. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals had overturned staff's initial denial of the home occupation permit, finding the applicant met all ordinance requirements and had no prior verified complaints. The council voted 5-0 to affirm that decision, with Mayor Layman noting that enforcement mechanisms exist: if violations occur, code enforcement can investigate and the board can revoke the license if necessary.