The Safety and Licensing Committee met 01/22/2025. The largest portion of the meeting was taken up with a discussion about how to proceed with the alcohol license application for Delaire’s.
Concerns have been raised that the owner, David Boulanger, plans to operate illegal gambling machines on the premises. While these plans are unverified and have been denied by Mr. Boulanger, he tried to open an illegal gambling lounge in Grafton, a person working on his business told the salon owner next door that the business was going to offer gambling, Mr. Boulanger’s brother-in-law runs a business in West Bend that advertises gambling machines and this business is one that Mr. Boulanger has pointed to as a model for board game lounge he plans to open in Appleton, and when people in Appleton started voicing concerns about the prospect of Delaire’s offering illegal gambling, Mr. Boulanger hired an attorney who has specific knowledge of the loopholes in Wisconsin’s laws regarding gambling.
Although some discussion was had about placing restrictions on the alcohol license, the committee ended up voting unanimously to recommend it for approval without any modifications to the terms associated with the license. It was then referred back to the committee for further work and discussion by the Common Council.
The committee talked about placing a restriction on the license that would open the owner up for revocation if he was found to be operating on the premises not only gambling machines but even gaming machines that did not pay out, but they ended up voting to hold the item until the 02/12/2025 committee meeting. The main reasons for doing this was because the individual who had been captured on camera telling the next door business owner that Delaire’s was going to operate as a gambling lounge was finally identified and the committee wanted to give time to the Police Department to interview him and report back on their findings.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
During the 01/08/2025 committee meeting, there had been some discussion about restricting the hours the business could operate. Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin told the committee that after researching the issue he determined that the city was statutorily not allowed to place additional restrictions on a business’ open hours.
He also informed the committee that the person who had been captured on video telling the next door business owner that the business was going to have gambling on the premises had been identified. The police officer who was investigating the case had been off duty earlier in the week, but he would be back the next day and would be able to interview the individual if the committee desired that.
Mr. Boulanger’s attorney, Emil Ovbiagele, was stuck in traffic and was not able to make it to the meeting. He did speak briefly over the phone. He told the committee that the concerns about gambling on the premises were not widespread concerns but instead came from just one individual, the business owner next door. He told the committee, “I listened to the [01/15/2025 Common Council] hearing. A lot of comments that I just believe were sort of inappropriate were made, and it seems like a one person, a one person firing squad on some level.”
He went on to say, “[W]hen this was sent back, it was sent back to add a stipulation that there will be no gambling machines. That’s the law, and if that’s the stipulation, we’re willing to agree to it.”
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) expressed a desire to place a stipulation on the license that no gaming machines could be operated on the premises, not only gambling machines but also amusement games that did not result in a payout.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was not a member of the committee but was in attendance expressed concerned about not treating alcohol license applicants fairly and equally. “As a government entity, how are we to, like, preemptively assume that something bad is going to occur on this particular site? I don’t—I don’t feel like that is a way that a government should operate. We shouldn’t just assume that something bad is going to happen so we should restrict this particular license.”
Attorney Buruin did not think that, legally, concerns about equal treatment were a concern in this situation. “The committee and the Council have a large amount of discretion to consider relevant information. And I want to be clear—I want to clarify here that this whole discussion was precipitated by information that was brought to the committee and the Council’s attention. So, I don’t think there’s any issue with addressing it, with mulling it over, and with considering it. Ultimately, what’s done with that information is down to the body’s discretion. So, I’m not trying to say anything with that, but I’m, I am from a legal standpoint not concerned about this being a treatments and an equal treatment situation, because it is based on information specific to this case.”
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) was not a member of the committee but was in attendance. He was in favor of denying the license outright. “I don’t think the Grafton situation is something that can be easily ignored, and I think that a contractor who was working on behalf of the applicant just happened to mention a business model that more aligned to that. I don’t think that’s something that somebody comes up with randomly, and I think for this committee and our Council to approve this without any conditions whatsoever, is really to suspend belief if not just straight up common sense. I think there’s enough here to just straight up say no—say “We don’t trust you. […] I can’t fathom this committee or this Council suspending these links, these observations, this data, this evidence, and just saying, like, ‘Well, I’m sure things will just work out.’ Because, yeah, we don’t have to be the ones that deal with it, but there are employees of the city that will have to deal with the consequences if we’re wrong and we offer this license.”
Alderperson Hartzheim disagreed saying, “I see and understand the paper trail that seems to come along with this applicant, but I still feel as though we are making a preemptive assumption”. She felt the situation could be handled by the Police Department conducting regular checks of the business. She also noted that the Municipal Code assessed 150 demerit points against licensed establishments found to have gambling machines on the premises. A single violation would result in a temporary suspension and only 50 demerit points more would result in revocation.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) put forth a motion to approve the license with the added stipulation that no gaming machines be on the premises. The minutes of the meeting say that the motion was to have no “gambling” machines on the premises. It was a little confusing as to what she meant because she used the term “gaming machines” which would have encompassed both gambling and non-gambling amusement devises, but then she indicated she didn’t want to ban something like pinball machines. The committee ended up voting down the motion by a 2-3 vote.
The committee then went on to vote 5-0 to hold the item until the 02/12/2025 committee meeting in order to give time to the Police Department to interview the person who was captured on camera telling the next door business owner that Delaire’s was going to feature gambling on the premises.
[I was taken aback by the way Mr. Ovbiagele spoke about Jamie Pappenfuss, the owner of Violet Social Club Salon which is next door to Delaire’s. Yes, she spoke at the Common Council meeting on 01/16/2025 and voiced her opposition to granting the license. She spoke as was her legal right and voiced concerns that seem reasonable for her to hold given that she was told, on camera, by someone working on the Delaire’s space that gambling was going take place on the premises. Trying to paint her as a one person firing squad, seemed disrespectful and in poor taste to me.
I also question the idea that the discrepancies, the connections to gambling, and the video of a person working on the Delaire’s space telling the business owner next door that gambling was planned should all be ignored and the license should just be issued as if none of these things had been raised. What is the point of even having a licensing process if the committee and Council don’t take these sorts of issues into consideration and just approve all licenses regardless of concerns?
The Council will never have more control over this situation than they do now prior to the issuance of the license. Although one may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boulanger is planning to operate gambling machines on the premises, I do think a preponderance of the evidence points in that direction, and the committee and Council would be well within their discretionary rights to deny the license outright, or, barring that, to place additional stipulations on it.
In this case, I think it would be very reasonable to place a stipulation on the license indicating that it will be subject to revocation actions if gambling activities are found to be taking place on the premises (be those activities through gambling devices or payouts associated with the board games he plans to offer). This is not a situation where he is a business owner who is not clear on the law and for whom revocation might not make sense after only one violation. Rather, Mr. Boulanger has been made amply aware of the law and the city’s expectations, so any violation would come from a place of complete knowledge of intentionality for which revocation as a first response seems more that warranted.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1237593&GUID=34546250-9397-40C9-977A-B4FFF07828D5
Be the first to reply