Damakant Jayshi
Wausau’s Public Health and Safety Committee on Monday refused to extend a liquor license for Campus Pub, which has been closed since late June.
According to the City Clerk’s office, the license for Campus Pub was renewed but not issued after the Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue placed a hold for an outstanding debt. In her memo to the committee, Deputy Clerk Mary Goede wrote that Wisconsin statutes “prohibit issuance of a retailer’s license to any person having any indebtedness for intoxicating liquor to any wholesale permittee of more than 30 days standing.”
The business owes $7,765.71 to Badger Liquor Co, Inc. city officials say. There is also delinquent personal property tax owed to the city, according to city’s documents. The Wausau Police Department closed the pub on June 30.
Kevin Steinke, owner of Campus Pub, 110 W. Campus Dr., requested the extension but did not appear before the committee on Monday. Assistant City Attorney Tara Alfonso said Steinke had the opportunity to address the committee and request a 90-day extension under city ordinance.
City officials say they heard nothing from Steinke for months after the pub closed. A certified letter sent by the city was returned and his phone numbers were disconnected, Deputy Clerk Goede said. But Steinke finally contacted the office last month, requesting an extension for the liquor license. He told the officials the economy was tough and he wanted to sell his business.
“The city only has a limited amount of liquor licenses available under state law to provide to business who wish to sell alcohol,” Alfonso told Wausau Pilot & Review
Goede said that they told Steinke to attend the Public Health and Safety Committee and show that he could reopen the business in 90 days and clearly show that he had a buyer, “not that he just wants to sell it.” She also they told Steinke that the business wasn’t very valuable to him if there was no license.
Committee Chair Lisa Rasmussen said licenses are not property and that there is no automatic guarantee that the new buyer can get the license held by the old owner.
“You can’t sell the license with the business,” she told her colleagues on the committee. “Even if they do find a buyer, that buyer needs to come in and meet with the subcommittee and this committee and to show that they have the wherewithal to competently run the operation.” The PHS subcommittee reviews license requests.
A license revocation process would kick in if a complaint is filed. Alfonso said that any resident of the city can file a complaint, “alleging among various possibilities, that a person has violated the state alcohol laws or a municipal regulation relating to alcohol.” Typically, it is a police officer who is a city resident filing such complaint, the assistant attorney said. The municipality then issues a summons to the licensee asking them to attend the PHS Committee for a hearing to show cause why a license should not be suspended or revoked.
On Monday, Goede told the committee that Steinke had been informed that once the revocation process begins and the license is revoked, it would result in a hold on that location for six months and no one can have license during the period. The owner himself cannot have a liquor license for 12 months for that establishment.
“It would be better for him to surrender his license than to go through the revocation process and that’s what we want and that’s what we were trying to tell him in the certified letter,” Goede told the committee. The certified letter was part of a certified mail – to Steinke – that came back to the Clerk’s Office, undelivered.
Rasmussen said she had hoped the owner would appear before the committee and share his plans and not just perpetually sit on the liquor license while the business remained closed.
Committee member Lou Larson asked the deputy clerk if others had expressed interest to get the license and operate the business. Goede said she has been receiving calls.
Committee members Larson and Doug Diny said there was no sense for the committee to grant an extension since the owner failed to turn up. Diny cited a past decision made by the committee in a similar situation.
Committee members reasoned that an owner cannot perpetually hold the liquor license without running the actual business. The decision was unanimous.
