The Safety and Licensing Committee met 05/08/2024. They had 4 demerit point violation appearances on their agenda. Two of them were from Valley Mobil on Oneida Street and Northland Ave Citgo for having gambling machines in a licensed establishment, and two of them were from Walmart on Calumet and Aldi on Kensington for selling alcohol to underaged people.
Both the Valley Mobil owner and the Citgo manager had received hand delivered letters providing them notice that in 30 days the city was going to more strictly start enforcing the state law banning gambling machines in establishments that sell alcohol. Neither of the proprietors removed the machines in a timely manner and both of them ended up being cited and convicted for having gambling machines on site. Those convictions carried with them 150 demerit points on their alcohol licenses which will require a suspension of between 10 and 90 days and also puts them within 50 demerit points of having their licenses revoked.
Neither Walmart nor Aldi sent a representative to the meeting. Walmart contact the city ahead of time and let them know they didn’t have anyone available to attend this meeting, and their appearance was put off until the meeting on 05/22. Aldi, on the other hand, simply did not send anyone.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
During the meeting, Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin told the committee that state law enforcement authorities had approached Appleton as well as other cities throughout the state about stepping up enforcement of rules against permitting gambling or games of chance in establishments licensed to sell alcohol. As part of that enforcement push, the city sent out letters to licensees in the city giving them 30 days’ notice that these rules were going to be more strictly enforced and asking them remove any machines that they had ahead of time. The letter explicitly told them about the 150 demerit points that would be assessed for this violation.
Police Chief Polly Olson told the committee that rather than mailing the letters, the city decided to hand deliver them so that they could ensure that each letter actually made it to somebody at the business rather than potentially getting lost in the mail.
Todd of Valley Mobil told the committee that the Police Department had hand delivered a letter that clearly stated the establishment had 30 days to remove the gambling machines. But he thought it was odd that the letter was hand delivered rather than mailed and that it did not include a date on it.
He ended up not removing his gambling machines because they were very profitable and kept people in the store at night which improved safety in the store. Additionally, “the rumor on the street” was that the City of Appleton had gotten into a disagreement with another establishment in the city over its gambling machines and that the owner of that store had threatened to sue which had prompted the city to issue a blanked letter to all businesses in the city warning them against having gambling machines. He said he did not realize the city was going to actually follow through on enforcement, so he continued to operate the machines until he received a citation at which point he immediately shut them down and removed them. When he was given the citation, he asked the police officer if it would affect his liquor license points to which he says the police officer told him it would not.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) had the following exchange with Todd:
Alderperson Doran: I just want to clarify; you mentioned you received the letter that was hand delivered by the police department and understood that there was a 30-day timeline associated with it to remove the machines? But you’re saying you didn’t actually remove them until that time period had elapsed and then they came back, and you were cited? Correct?
Todd: That’s correct.
Alderperson Doran: Okay. I guess I’m just curious, your thought process there in not removing them until you were cited. Did you not understand that the—was the letter not clear, I guess, that you had to remove them? Or…?
Todd: No, the letter was clear. I guess I thought it was the city creating cover to satisfy that other disagreement with that other operator. I didn’t realize they were really going to follow through.
[It pretty much seemed like the “Waiting for Guffman” version of a Perry Mason moment.]
The manager of the Citgo on Northland attended the meeting along with a translator because he did not speak English fluently. He had also received a letter and had also been confused by the lack of a date on the letter. Unlike Todd, he had taken some steps to remove the machines ahead of time; however they were owned by a third-party vendor. He reached out to that vendor and told them they needed to take the machines, but the vendor did not come and get them until the day the police issued a citation, several hours after the police came and went. Although they had not removed the machines, they had turned them off when they received the letter. Although he would need to review the law to be certain, Attorney Buruin’s recollection was that simply having the machines on the premises was a violation.
The manager indicated that the machines had been removed and he had paid the fine; however, he wanted the points to be removed from his license. [My understanding is that is not something the committee or Council could do. Once a license holder pleads guilty by paying the fine, the matter is over and demerit points must be issued. If a license holder wants to avoid demerit points they would need to work something out in court that does not entail pleading guilty to a violation that results in 150 demerit points.]
Alderperson Doran had the following exchange with them regarding the lack of a date on the letter:
Alderperson Doran: I guess, did you or would you assume that the day you received the letter would wouldn’t—if not seeing a specific date it had to be out by would you assume that that would start a clock so to speak of 30 days?
Translator For Manager of Northland Ave Citgo: I’m not sure, but you can say that is correct.
Alderperson Doran: Okay. Did you at any point reach out to the city or police department for clarification on that if you weren’t sure?
Translator For Manager of Northland Ave Citgo: No. The owner was actually out of the country, and he—he was out of the city, actually. And he wasn’t sure what to do, who whom to contact. He deal—he did inform the owner, and he said, “Yeah, I will take care of it.” But somehow, he is a family emergency. So he had to leave the state.
Alderperson Doran: Okay. Was there someone else running the business in in his absence that maybe could have reached out?
Translator For Manager of Northland Ave Citgo: He is the manager.
Alderperson Doran: Okay. And did you reach out to the city at all or the police department for clarification?
Translator For Manager of Northland Ave Citgo: No, he did not.
[I don’t know how much more effort the city could have taken to hand hold these business owners through this process and try to give them fair warning ahead of time that this enforcement action was going to be taken and that they needed to remove the machines. I found it surprising that people could still be confused after receiving a hand-delivered letter that explicitly stated more rigorous enforcement was going to start in 30 days and that a violation would entail 150 demerit points. I also found it surprising that they didn’t call the police department and ask for clarification.
Holding any kind of professional or retail license involves responsibility. You’re responsible to stay on top of the regulations associated with that license and continually work to remain in compliance with the restrictions surrounding that license. I guess we see what happens when a license holder doesn’t do that.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1162736&GUID=EEAA1200-1026-4342-A325-AADF0F6D25C3
One thought on “Safety And Licensing Committee Discusses Alcohol License Violations With Two Businesses – Each Business Received 150 Demerit Points For Having Gambling Machines On The Premises”