Corner Pub License Non-Renewal Referred Back To Safety And Licensing Committee For Further Discussion

The Common Council met 07/17/2024. One of the items on the agenda was the non-renewal of the alcohol license for the Corner Pub. This item was discussed at two previous Safety and Licensing Committee meetings, and the committee ended up voting 3-2 to recommend the license not be renewed because it has not been used for over 12 months since May of 2023 when the establishment experienced widespread damage caused by a burst water pipe. However, two of the committee members were in favor of granting the license holder a 60-day extension in order to provide further time for the license holder to complete necessary repairs and receive approval to reopen the business.

At the Common Council Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) requested that the item be referred back to committee for further discussion and another vote.

I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:

Kim, the owner of the bar, and her daughter-in-law both attended the Common Council meeting and spoke during the public participation portion of the meeting.

Kim requested a 60-day extension so that they could complete repairs to the bar and reopen it. She said that a letter from the city was taped to their door on Friday telling them that they needed to get contractors for all the work. Additionally, the inspectors had found an issue with the furnace, and she brought in photographs that she indicated showed that the furnace met specifications. She finished up by saying, “[W]e have gained some progress on the work that needs to get done. It is not complete. We’re doing the best we can. We just need that time.”

Her daughter-in-law also spoke. She said her in-laws owned the Corner Pub. Her mother-in-law had been battling stage four cancer, and her father-in-law had been sick off and on. The family had also experienced five deaths. “We have done everything we possibly can in the timely manner that we’ve tried to get done, with as much as been going on with the family. So, I would just like to ask all of you to take that into consideration when you’re looking at this for us to ask for that two-month extension or a six-week extension time.”

The item was not discussed by the Council because Alderperson Wolff asked for it to be referred back to the committee for further discussion there. When asked what the reason for the refer back was he said, “Just based on the date they were told that they had to have a professional install, and I feel like there’s some information missing and maybe miscommunication, but this has been a good tenant. So, I think that they, they deserve a little more time to talk about it, and try to figure it out.”

Nobody objected to the refer back.

Also of note, although it was not discussed, Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin had submitted a follow-up memo to the Council providing more detail on the inspection history for the bar. This was presumably prompted by concerns raised during the Safety and Licensing Committee meeting that the owner had not been provided a clear list of issues that needed to be corrected.

Per Attorney Buruin’s memo, the building experienced significant damage prior to 05/30/2023 due to a broken water pipe. On 05/30/2025 the Health Department conducted an inspection and determined that significant repairs would need to happen before the business could reopen; however, “A specific list of code violations and necessary repairs were not provided because no inspections were requested or therefore carried out beyond that conducted by the Health Department. As noted in the Health Department’s inspection report, the ‘Bar needs to be essentially put back together and have all departments sign off prior to reopening.’”

The owner was given a deadline of 05/30/2024 to complete the repairs and reopen the business in order to maintain her license.

Per Attorney Buruin, “The work that needed to be completed required obtaining appropriate permits. It is the request for these permits that notifies the Inspections Department of the need for the kind of inspections that were necessary in this case. My understanding is that no permits for any of the necessary repairs were requested until June 6, 2024, after the May 30 deadline to reopen and avoid the license being considered abandoned.”

He summarizes the information thusly, “the applicant in this matter was provided with information needed to comply with the City’s requirements and was given significant time to do so. It is only as the deadline for abandonment passed that recognizable progress began to be made on bringing the property into compliance with the City’s code.”

He then concludes the memo by stating, “It does not appear that the delays in progress or in the providing of information to the applicant in this matter were the result of any action or inaction on the part of the involved departments. Assertions that the relevant departments failed to timely inspect or provide inspection results are not factually supported and should not be treated as a basis for a finding of good cause to extend the deadline for abandonment. Should the Council find good cause based upon information supported by the record, it may exercise its discretion as it sees fit.”

[It is worth noting that, because this item was referred back to the Safety and Licensing Committee, the owner will have already functionally been given a 60-day extension to the 05/30/2024 deadline given that the item won’t be voted on by the Common Council until 07/31/2024 at the earliest.

Also, given the way the repairs are being carried out, it kind of sounds like there is no insurance available to cover the repairs. Although it’s a minor point in the grand scheme of things, I am curious why this business has experienced catastrophic damage to its property but it seems there’s no insurance to help defray any of the associated costs of that.]

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1195552&GUID=6AD3FC8C-F8F6-4FDC-9380-7B3D282B8B3F