The Appleton Common Council met 06/16/2021. The bulk of the meeting was taken up with discussion around the liquor license renewal for Core’s Lounge which was the only item separated out. They actually had to separate it out twice–first as part of a collection of license renewals and then again from that list of renewals.
In some respects, much of the meeting was a rehash of the Safety and Licensing Committee meeting in which the issues with the bar were raised. As a result, this is not going to be a straight play-by-play recap but rather a more general overview with points ordered for readability and not necessarily in the order they happened in the meeting.
The two women who live on Washington Street in the neighborhood behind the bar, appeared before the Council just as they appeared before the Safety and Licensing Committee. If I understood correctly, it also sounded like there was a third neighbor present who did not speak. The two women who spoke reiterated the problems they have been experiencing with loud bass music emanating from the bar until 2 in the morning, how those issues had stopped briefly last year after the owner was issued their 2020 license renewal, how those issued had also paused during the Covid-19 Lockdown, how the resolution they thought they had reached with the bar owner last year had not stuck, and how they really wanted a permanent solution to be reached that would allow everyone to get along and have a quiet neighborhood back. They explained that the bar would spike the music and then lower it down again so that, by the time the police arrive after receiving a complaint, it didn’t rise to a level for which a citation could be issued. They really tried to convey to the Council how badly their sleep and quality of life were being affected and begged the Council to do something instead of allowing this to go on for another year.
I had wondered if the owner or manager of Core’s Lounge would appear and present their side of things, but they did not, nor did they need to because as was established at the Safety and Licensing Committee meeting, due to timing issues the City was procedurally bound to approve the license renewal unless they wanted to open themselves up to legal action they would not have a viable defense against.
As Attorney Behrens explained, one of the challenges is that once a license has been granted, the licensee holds a property interest in that license and under Chapter 125 of Wisconsin’s State Statutes a hearing process is required for a non-renewal or revocation. Due to the timing of committee and Council meetings in June and the fact the license was expiring on June 30th, there was not enough time to issue the proper notices and conduct a non-renewal hearing before the end of the month. He said that Attorney Glad and some police officers were looking at some different ways to approach this situation. He also noted that citizens have the ability to initiate a revocation or suspension hearing. So, although non-renewal was not an option at this point, there were other options available and some internal efforts being worked on to look at creative solutions to this ongoing complaint.
Police Chief Thomas said that the police department had been working on this issue for well over a year. They’ve had officers assigned out in that neighborhood at night with their windows open and the car turned off to listen for noise. They have body cam video, after complaints have come in, of officers walking up to the back of the business to see how close they can get before they hear the noise. They have not been able to issue any citations.
He said they were preparing a report of all the calls for service at that address over the last year and a half that will include the notes from reports of each incident, the number of complaints they’ve received, the number of complainants, and how many times officers have been there. He thought the report would end up being two inches thick. They will be presenting that to the Safety and Licensing Committee at a future meeting.
There was frustration expressed over the fact that the Council’s hands were essentially tied. According to City Clerk Kami Lynch, the city has an ordinance that encourages applicants to submit their alcohol license renewals in April. In fact, the city offers them a discount to do so, but licenses don’t actually expire until June 30th. Although Core’s Lounge’s renewal application was submitted “late” in that it was not submitted in April, it was not submitted so late as to miss the June 30th cut off date. Both Alderpersons Kristin Alfheim (District 11) and Michael Smith (District 10) expressed a desire to somehow change city policies so that this timing issue is not encountered in the future, but Mayor Woodford did not allow discussion to stray far down that path because the item on the agenda was the license renewal—not the timing issues with the license renewal.
If one were to look at issues that exacerbate or highlight ideological differences between Council members vs issues that result in strong consensus between Council members, this definitely seemed to me to be one that was on the consensus end of things.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) was frustrated that this issue had not been resolved. It had come up in front of the Council last year, and, at that time, he had voted to renew their license with the expectation that the bar owner would make a good-faith effort to improve the situation. He had expected that if they didn’t do that, the Council would have some tools to respond to that at renewal time, but they now found themselves in a position where they didn’t. He recognized that they had to be careful in their vote so as not to put the city in a bad position, but he also said that they needed to find a solution to this problem.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) agreed with him, and said that she would grudgingly vote to approve the renewal because of the legal issues, but she also wanted some follow up and to delve into the police reports and actions on the bar.
Alderperson Smith said that because he was the alderperson for the district this neighborhood was in, he wanted to support his constituents who had asked him for help and send a message to the bar owner that they needed to get serious about being a part of the neighborhood like they said they wanted to be. To that end, although he understood that statutorily the city had to approve the license, he was going to vote no on the license approval.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) was frustrated that a year had gone by and yet it was clear nothing had changed. He didn’t want to keep telling the same thing over and over to the people in the neighborhood who had come to them last year and then again this year seeking help. He realized legally there was probably nothing they could do, but, like Alderperson Smith, he was going to vote against the renewal.
Alderperson Smith did stress that he was voting no for very specific reasons because he was the Alderperson of the district and that he wanted the Council to be careful with the vote and not put the city in legal jeopardy.
When the vote was finally taken it passed 11-2 with Alderpersons Siebers and Smith voting no and Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) abstaining.
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=853495&GUID=F144F40C-9EC0-4CE9-B983-31B769C4DF1D&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply