The Safety and Licensing Committee met 07/10/2024. The first 50 minutes of the meeting was taken up with discussion and a vote on the request to not renew the alcohol license for the Corner Pub.
The business has been inoperable for a year after a water pipe in the rental unit above the bar burst and caused significant damage. On 05/30/2023 the Appleton Health Department inspected the building and noted several issues that would need to be addressed. Additionally, they noted that several city departments would need to approve repairs before the business could reopen. Kim, the owner, was informed that she had a deadline of 05/30/2024 to get the bar reopened if she wanted to maintain her alcohol license. An inspection on 05/30/2024 demonstrated that issues were not taken care of and the business was not ready to reopened, so, per city policy, she faced the non-renewal of her license.
This was first discussed during the 06/26/2024 committee meeting at which she told the committee that the work had been completed but the inspection had not taken place yet. She indicated that she had been fighting cancer for the last year as an explanation as to why the work was not done sooner. The committee ended up voting to hold the item for 2 weeks to provide her an opportunity to get an inspection done and confirm that the work had been completed and the business could reopen.
Although she told the committee on 06/26/2024 that the work had been completed and they just needed an inspection, she did not contact the city until 07/02/2024 to schedule that inspection. Multiple staff members were on vacation because of the 4th of July holiday, so the inspection was not able to take place until 07/08/2024. Per a memo to the committee, during that inspection, “Staff found multiple violations still existing at the property.” They go on to list some of those issues and then conclude, “Based on the condition of the property and the multiple violations that still exist, staff does not support the renewal of the liquor license.”
At the 07/10/2024 meeting, Kim asked for a 60-day extension to allow her to complete the work, the committee ended up voting 3-2 in favor of not renewing the license.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Unfortunately, I cannot give overview of Kim’s reasons as to why she believed she should be granted a 60-day extension because the microphone was either not working or turned off and none of her words were picked up. From what I could gather, it sounded like she believed some of the items raised by the 07/08/2024 inspection were new and not issues that she had been told about back in 2023. Additionally, during the 06/26/2024 committee meeting, she had told the committee she had been fighting cancer, so I would assume she probably also brought up her health issues during this meeting as well.
Alderpersons Denise Fenton (District 6) and Alex Schultz (District 9) were the two alderpersons in favor of granting Kim the 60-day extension. Alderperson Fenton explained, “I understand that it’s been a year, but I also am sympathetic to the extraordinary circumstances that have been faced by the owners of the business, and albeit a year had passed, but it appears that, you know, they hired an electrician, they got the proper permits, they had all the electrical work done […] before this inspection. And then on the July 8 inspection, there were some other things.” She thought most of the outstanding issues raised by the 07/08 inspection were things that would not be difficult to rectify.
Alderperson Schultz was concerned that Kim may not have been told about some of the issues at the bar until the 07/08/2024 inspection. He asked her, “I guess over the course of a year, did you know that you had to manage these things? Gas furnace enclosure, the two-hour firewall rating, door to furnace room must be an hour and a half fire rated? Were these things known to you for the past year? I guess that’s my question because if they weren’t and you just discovered this, I can’t—I can’t honestly understand why we would say, “Well, that’s your fault,” if you weren’t made aware of these things previously. And again, I have no documentation from the staff or what’s been provided within it, to show me that this was communicated. So, I’m asking you was this communicated to you, and did you understand that these were deficiencies?”
Given that her microphone was not on, I don’t know what Kim’s answer was, but it seemed like she indicated that some of the issues raised were new.
Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin explained that the initial inspection report in 2023 outlined the need to get approval from multiple departments before the business could reopen. He went on to say that it looked like there were some small issues related to the electrical work that had been done which were new but the other issues had been previously noted and had been long-standing.
Alderpersons Chris Croatt (District 14) and Chad Doran (District 15) were in favor of not giving her an extension and having the license non-renew. Alderperson Croatt pointed out that the intention of holding the item for 2 weeks was to give Kim a chance to complete the work and get it inspected. Alderperson Doran echoed that saying, “these are not necessarily new issues and the owners have had time to, you know, had the year plus the extension given by committee to get these issues addressed. Committee was told these items were all addressed, gave the additional time to get the inspection scheduled, and now, we’re hearing that these issues haven’t been addressed and the owners are asking more time. I think that that sort of clock has run out in my opinion.”
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) seemed a little on the fence. He was concerned about the possibility that Kim had not been given all the information up front last year about the repairs that needed to be made to the building. But it also bothered him that she had waited a long time to do the work and that even though she had told the committee at the 06/26/2024 meeting that the work had all been completed she had not immediately called the city to schedule an inspection after the committee gave her two more weeks to get that done. He explained to her, “If I knew I was going to lose my business, and I heard from an alderperson that that you need to call Inspections to set up and inspections because that was the problem, I would have been on it the next day. Of course, that’s me. I know you have, you know, issues but…”
Initially, Alderperson Doran made a motion to support the non-renewal. This was voted down by a vote of 2-3 with Alderperson Siebers voting with Alderpersons Fenton and Schultz. But then when Alderperson Fenton made a motion to grant a 60-day extension, that also was voted down 2-3 with Alderpersons Siebers voting with Alderperson Croatt and Doran.
Eventually, Alderperson Doran made another motion to not renew the license. He explained his position, thusly, “I think the biggest takeaway I keep coming back to from this is, despite the owner’s claims of not maybe understanding what they needed to take care of, not understanding the rules of operating a business, to me, is not a valid excuse to continue granting a license, especially for something as important or impactful in a community as having a liquor license. It doesn’t give me a lot of faith, I guess, that if we—if they have had this much time to accomplish the things that needed to be done, and yet still aren’t understanding what needed to be done, and have not been maybe in communication with staff to properly address those issues. It gives me some pause about giving them the opportunity to operate a business like that.”
There was further discussion about whether or not the issues that needed to be corrected in order for the business to reopen had been provided to Kim in a timely manner. The two reports that were included in the agenda packet were not necessarily all-inclusive and comprehensive documents but were just generated by the Health Department.
Additionally, Fire Battalion Chief Derek Henson discussed the inspection that was performed over a month ago on 05/30/2024. He told the committee, “On that inspection report it does list from 5/30 of 2024 that there are multiple breaches in the firewall inside the business, and we walked them through that. I was present for that inspection. We walked them through all of those breaches in the firewall, including the ceiling. Part of the issue that—is the water took down all of the drywall and plaster that was in the business. So, both the sidewalls and the ceiling had been stripped to studs. So that was the breaches in the firewall we had talked about. So, on the inspection on the eighth of this week the drywall had been put back in place, but it had not yet been taped and mudded so it was not a complete fire barrier yet, and that’s why that violation still remains open.”
This time the motion to not renew the license passed by a vote of 3-2 with Alderperson Siebers voting with Alderpersons Croatt and Doran; however, he indicated that he wanted to get a specific list of the items flagged during the inspections prior to the Common Council meeting. “If not, I just may refer it back.”
During the meeting there was discussion about whether or not Kim would be able to get a new license if she lost this one. It was confirmed by Clerk Lynch that if she lost her current license, she would still be able to apply for a new one as soon as her business was reopened. She would not be subject to a waiting period the way she would be if her license was revoked rather than simply non-renewed. However, Clerk Lynch said that if a couple months went by, it would be very unlikely that a regular license would be available in which case Kim would have to get a reserve license which had an initial fee of $10,600.
[Well, I have some thoughts on this. I do think the committee made the right decision in the end, but it bothers me somewhat that two alderpersons opposed it.
Many people have health problems and still manage to run their businesses competently. Kim has had over a year to get these issues sorted out and it sounds like she waited until the very last minute to start working on them. That doesn’t seem responsible. Given that alcohol licenses are in short supply in Appleton, granting her an extension seems like it would negatively impact a more responsible business owner who would now not be able to get a license because she is holding on to this one even though she is not using it. Asking another business owner to pay the price for her irresponsible business choices seems inappropriate. It also seems like it would not benefit the taxpayers of Appleton to keep a license in the hands of someone who is not using it when it could be going to someone who can more competently run a business.
I can to some degree appreciate the concern regarding whether or not the various departments were clear in the information that they provided regarding what needed to be fixed in the building. However, I would point out that that is one of the reasons why one should complete the work in a timely manner and get inspections completed early rather than waiting until the very end of the 1-year period you have been given to complete work. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the inspectors to walk through what sounds like a very messed up building once and be able to provide an exhaustive list of everything that needs to be completed. Inspectors are human and it’s possible for them to miss things, particularly when there are many things that are wrong. Again, that is why one should do the work as soon as possible and get it reinspected in a timely manner so that if something was missed the first time and is only caught on the second time through there is still time to correct it. Additionally, just because work has been done doesn’t mean that work has been done correctly, and one should always leave open the possibility that the inspector will come through and find your work not up to par.
I think it would be problematic to give an extension in this situation based on the reasoning that the first inspection report did not list all the issues…unless the alderpersons follow that up with a substantive effort to revamp and update the way inspections are conducted by the city. Because the way the Corner Pub was inspected is, no doubt, the way every other building in the city is inspected, and if there was something so defective about that inspection process that alderpersons believe it warrants giving redress to this specific property owner then the entire process should be updated so that property owners in general no longer have to labor under a defective inspections process. Perhaps communication from inspectors really was poor and unclear, but if that was the case it is not unique to this situation and should be addressed across the board for everyone.
Finally, I also think its problematic for the government to set up rules and then not apply those rules uniformly. Rather than granting grace to one person, perhaps it would be better to look at the rules as a whole and determine if they need to be changed in some way, so that grace can be provided to everyone not just the individuals who have managed to gain favor with government officials.
Kim comes across as a not particularly competent business person. She doesn’t seem to know how to handle basic aspects of running her bar. She waited until the last moment to start tackling a very extensive remodeling process, and she seemed lackadaisical in the way she communicated with the city about the things she needed to do to maintain her business. The one point of sympathy seems to be that she has had health issues. But, is the city supposed to start applying the rules differently to any business owner because they have health issues? Or is it just this specific business owner? And if so, why is she different than any other business owner who is struggling with health issues? It seems like if the committee had granted an extension, they would have just been opening themselves up to more of that in the future.
Having said all that, I do understand that when people are struggling, they sometimes need grace, but I don’t know that the appropriate entity to give that grace is the government who would be showing that grace at the cost of another business owner who would be blocked from getting the license Kim continued to hold. A more appropriate source to receive help from would be from friends and family and kindhearted neighbors.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1205543&GUID=FE100A47-5EDD-4A0A-90A4-C78453D84F01
Be the first to reply