CITY OF HUDSON SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2010

Meeting called to order by Mayor Dean Knudson in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Mayor Knudson and Alderpersons Randy Morrissette, Mary Yacoub, Lori Bernard, Lee Wyland, Scot O’Malley, Alan Burchill.

OTHERS PRESENT: Devin Willi, Catherine Munkittrick, Tom Jacobson, Mike Waterman, Police Chief Marty Jensen, Sgt. Glen Hartman, Randy Hanson, Gordon Conard, John Mingo, Rob Knefelkamp, Ben Wasmund, Sharon Horne-Ellstrom, Greg Ellstrom, Brian Ellstrom, Bob Misenko, Bill Radosevich, Pete Foster, Laura Foster, Brian Bistodeau, Jenny Olson, Jerry Washburn, Jacqueline Geiger, Paul Kremer, Court Reporter Terry Stacken, and many others.

Evidentiary hearing pursuant to Wis. Stats. §125.12(2) regarding complaints filed by John Mingo, Robert and Ruth Misenko, and Jerry Washburn regarding alcohol beverage licensee, Sharon Horne-Ellstrom LLC, alleging that Ellie’s on Main violates Wisconsin Statutes regarding maintaining a disorderly house: Mayor Knudson announced an evidentiary hearing was being held pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes §125.12(2) regarding complaints filed by John Mingo, Robert and Ruth Misenko, and Jerry Washburn concerning alcohol beverage licensee Sharon Horne-Ellstrom LLC, alleging that Ellie’s on Main violates Wisconsin Statutes regarding maintaining a disorderly house.

Mayor Knudson stated the meeting was a quasi-judicial hearing and asked the City Attorney to provide information about the meeting procedures. Ms. Munkittrick stated it was a public hearing and the public could attend and observe, but they would not participate. The parties involved have attorneys representing them, witness testimony would be heard, and cross examination of the witnesses would be allowed. She stated witnesses would be called by the respective parties. After the close of evidence presentations, each side could present a brief closing statement.

Clerk Korson verified that the summons and attached complaints were served on the licensee. The attorneys introduced themselves; Tom Jacobson stated he represented the official complainants: John Mingo, Robert Misenko, and Jerry Washburn. He stated he also represented other complainants John Bender, Jacqueline Geiger, and Pete Foster. Mike Waterman introduced himself and stated he represented the licensee, Sharon Horne-Ellstrom.

Attorney Jacobson presented opening comments about the effects Ellie’s on Main has on the nearby residents and business owners. He cited examples of disturbing noise levels, loud music, vulgar and profane language, vulgar behavior, vomiting and urination, littering, and fighting or threatening behavior that have occurred at the establishment. He emphasized the seriousness of the situation and stated the police have been called numerous times to Ellie’s on Main. He stated business owners and residents have made significant investments in their properties, and the business (Ellie’s on Main) is causing them serious economic concerns.

Attorney Waterman’s opening comments included information about the need to define a disorderly house; he noted he could only find one example in the law books from many decades ago. He stated, according to law, the definition of a disorderly house is a house where the inhabitants are behaving so badly that it would constitute a public nuisance. He defined public nuisance as something that is recognized by Wisconsin law as being something such as a condition or activity that substantially or unduly interferes with the use of the public place or activities of the entire community. It would be dealing with serious problems; more than a petty annoyance or disturbance, more than a complaint.

Attorney Waterman stated the Statute ranks a disorderly house as operating a bar with other unsavory activities: illegal activities such as operating a bar without the proper qualifications, one that has controlled substances present, or having an operator that has been convicted of trafficking drugs -- some of the most serious things a bar owner could do. He went on to describe witness testimony that would be presented. Two witnesses would be Chief Jensen and Sergeant Hartman to speak about law enforcement’s perspective. Other witnesses would offer explanations about what was going on inside the establishment, the role and training of staff, security/cameras, bouncers, and what was done about situations.

Attorney Waterman also stated some of the complaints concerned things that happened after bar closing and after patrons have left the control of Ellie’s on Main. He stated that after the evidence was presented, he believed the conclusion would be that Ellie’s on Main runs a clean operation with a good, safe environment, and that the vast majority of their customers behave themselves and are law abiding, respectable citizens. He believed it wasn’t grounds for Council to take any action against the licensee.

Complainant witnesses presented testimony: Jerry Washburn, 424½ Second Street, was sworn in by the Clerk. Testimony was given regarding noise complaints, the level and tone, problems he has encountered, harassing behavior by patrons believed to be from Ellie’s on Main, and the need for police intervention. Exhibit 5, his written complaint, was presented by Attorney Jacobson as evidence. Mr. Washburn confirmed the information he presented at the hearing was true and correct.

Attorney Waterman cross-examined the witness and questioned the length of time Mr. Washburn lived at his current address. Mr. Washburn responded 1½ years and that he was aware of the business across the street when he moved in. Attorney Waterman asked if Mr. Washburn had ever spoken to the management of Ellie’s on Main regarding his complaints; Mr. Washburn responded, no, that he felt it would not be fruitful. Attorney Waterman asked if he had witnessed people vomiting, and if they had come from Ellie’s. Mr. Washburn stated he had seen people vomiting and strongly believed they had come from Ellie’s and had been drinking there.

Mayor Knudson stated Council was allowed to ask fact-based questions (who, what, where, when, or why) of the witnesses if they wished.

Jacqueline Geiger, 412½ Second Street, was sworn in by the Clerk. She testified that she has lived there for 3½ years and the (undesirable) behavior has gotten worse and she has called the police numerous times about events. Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 12 were shown; she explained the photographs. She stated the effect the establishment had on her life involved disruption to her daily life, loss of sleep, and the inability to have overnight guests. She expressed it was disheartening to have that type of behavior in the City of Hudson, and noted that type of behavior did not happen before Ellie’s on Main opened for business. She stated her statement of complaint (Exhibit 6) was accurate and true.

Ms. Geiger was cross examined by Attorney Waterman. She confirmed she had witnessed public urination on many occasions. He asked for clarification that she believed it was patrons or former patrons of Ellie’s who were urinating and/or vomiting, and that it was happening outside the bar; she agreed.

John Mingo, 112 Locust Street, was sworn in by the Clerk. His testimony included information about the length of time he has lived at his residence and that he has experienced problems related to the Ellie’s on Main business. He noted he had only made one phone call to the Police Department and it was on the first day the deck (at Ellie’s) was open for business. He stated when he called the establishment that night there was no answer, or the next day when he called again, and he did not receive a call back from anyone.

Information was shared about music on the deck coming from an open door to the bar, and by speakers since June 4th. Mr. Mingo testified about litter on his property, witnessing public urination (he acknowledged there are other bars that have similar problems), and verbal incidents regarding inappropriate language. He questioned whether there was the presence of a licensed operator on the deck. Exhibit 1, minutes of the City Council meeting from September 8, 2009, were shared. He stated he was taking measures to install noise blocking features and this was an expense to him. He stated Exhibit 4, his complaint, was true and accurate.

Cross examination was held. Attorney Waterman asked for clarification that the biggest concern was the noise level; Mr. Mingo stated it was not the noise as much as the vulgar language. Additional comments were made regarding the bar’s ability to control patrons, First Amendment rights, the cup that was found on his property, and the standards of the City.

Mayor Knudson asked for Mr. Mingo to refresh his memory regarding the meeting he said they had. He questioned if he had told Mr. Mingo anything other than what was in the meeting minutes from September 8th. He stated he understood from the meeting that there was not to be music on the deck and that the steps would not be used as an entrance or exit to the deck.

Robert Misenko, 918 Eleventh Street, was sworn in by the Clerk. He stated his concerns included incidents regarding urination, vomiting, litter, and felt it was due to patrons coming from Ellie’s on Main. He noted that at his previous business location nearby, they experienced the same kinds of behavior for the past eight years, as well as property damage and loss of merchandise. He stated his main concern was that it was happening again. He asked what was happening to the downtown area to gain control over the public traffic. He noted everyone wants to have a good neighbor; one that they can have confidence in, who will enforce behavior of its clientele, and protect the people and businesses and people on the street.

Mr. Waterman asked if his complaints related to just Ellie’s on Main or also other areas. Mr. Miskeno stated that in his letter of September 2009 he was referring to some specific bars in downtown, and Ellie’s was included.

Pete Foster, 323 Galahad Road, North Hudson, WI was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Foster testified he is the owner and operator of Barker’s Bar and Grill and a partner in San Pedro Café. He described the location of the establishments and stated he has worked at the locations long before the Ellie’s on Main establishment opened at their location. He also stated there have been substantial changes since Ellie’s opened, and cited examples of urination, vomiting, litter, vulgar language, and an incident where he believed a patron from Ellie’s head-butted his front window. He cited a specific example of a bar fight within the past 90 days, that had occurred during the dinner hour. He shared information about the incident and stated he was not happy that his customers had to witness it.

Exhibits 15 through 29 were presented; Mr. Foster explained the photographs and stated he felt the incidents were regular and consistent occurrences since February of 2008. Additional information was shared about previous businesses that have occupied the same address as Ellie’s on Main, and that he never had any issues with any of them in the past 14 years. He stated he was afraid of the path we’re going down relating to the overall environment and vitality of downtown Hudson, its businesses, and residents. He expressed concern for the many people who have spent energy, effort, and resources improving the scope of the downtown area, to make it the type of historic river town that we can be proud of, and one that will help promote tourism in the area.

Mr. Foster stated he was not worried about competition from Ellie’s on Main; the clientele is completely different, and his focus was on serving food, not liquor. He pointed out percentage numbers regarding food and liquor sales.

The history of problems in downtown Hudson many years ago was noted. Mr. Foster stated it was not his intent to see people become unemployed or to take away their livelihood, but he was concerned about the sub-par standards he felt were happening at Ellie’s. Mr. Foster stated exhibit 2, his statement, was accurate.

Cross examination was held. Attorney Waterman asked Mr. Foster to clarify information about the photographs that were taken and presented in exhibits 15-29. Mr. Foster also stated he had a videotape of someone throwing up on the sidewalk in front of his business. He shared additional information about a specific day when there was a serious fight inside Ellie’s on Main on a Saturday afternoon.

Mayor Knudson asked Mr. Foster if he felt the subject of the hearing was promoting of and catering to excess drinking and drunkenness. Mr. Foster stated he did believe that was the case and based his opinion on the (drink) specials he knows they are offering and the price point of the specials. He acknowledged he was a licensed operator and explained his definition of what excessive drinking or drunkenness would be. Mayor Knudson spoke about the charges of disorderly house and asked about the relationship between the consumption of alcohol, or over-consumption of alcohol, and the creation of a disorderly house; would the noise still be a problem if there was no alcohol there? Mr. Foster stated he felt the noise and vomiting would not be happening if there was no alcohol there. Additional discussion was held regarding the required training for licensed operators.

Additional cross examination was held. Attorney Jacobson asked Mr. Foster about the creation of a disorderly house and if he believed the evidence and testimony indicated the establishment was a disorderly house. Mr. Foster stated that he did absolutely believe that. Additional opinions about the responsibilities of licensed operators were shared.

Witnesses called by the respondent: Police Chief Marty Jensen was sworn in by the Clerk. Chief Jensen stated he had been a Police Officer in Hudson just over 23 years and that he had dealings with the owner/operator at Ellie’s on Main bar. Information was shared about the number of disturbances at Ellie’s compared to the other establishments in the downtown area. Chief Jensen stated his research showed there were 69 calls for service to Ellie’s or their address (used as a landmark), between January 1, 2008 through June 7, 2010, and this was the third highest place with calls for service. He noted it was one of the busiest establishments downtown, and one of the busiest after 11:00 p.m. Chief Jensen stated he was not alarmed by the total number of calls for service, but that the disorderly conduct calls or fight calls were cause for concern. He noted the numbers were nearly the same for some other establishments. He further explained that of the 69 calls for service, 28 were regarding disorderly conduct or disturbances and 7 were calls concerning fights. The origin of the calls to the police was noted.

Additional information was shared about subjects the Police Department has discussed with the owner/manager/staff of Ellie’s, that there has not been any resistance working them, and that he has not attempted to use the on-line video feature offered by the bar. The bar has allowed use of tapes by the Police Department, if requested.

In response to questions from Attorney Waterman about handling cases of drunkenness, enforcement, underage citations, noise, illegal activities, or after hours violations, Chief Jensen responded that he was not aware of any problems regarding cooperation (or lack of cooperation) or citations being issued to Ellie’s on Main. Chief Jensen also responded that an establishment does not have control over the patrons after they leave the bar. Testimony was heard regarding public urination and vomiting; Chief Jensen stated the incidents were not isolated to Ellie’s customers.

Cross-examination included information that EMS calls were not included in the number of calls to Ellie’s establishment, and that there were not always enough police officers available to control things taking place downtown. A question about the number of customers or volume of customers compared to the number of calls was raised; Chief Jensen stated his report did not take that into account.

Chief Jensen acknowledged that people are not allowed to have drinks on the sidewalk, and that littering, noise, and nuisance disturbances could be considered disorderly conduct. He also stated he had not spoken to Ellie’s establishment about the presence (or lack of presence) of licensed operators on the deck, keeping the front door open allowing noise to come out, littering, or excessive noise coming from the deck.

In additional cross examination by Attorney Waterman, he asked if Chief Jensen was aware of any disorderly activities regularly occurring inside Ellie’s. Chief Jensen he stated that he was not, other than the calls they received. He also stated he was not aware that the owners or operators were doing anything to promote disorderly behavior, and that, in his opinion, Ellie’s on Main was no more disorderly than other businesses in the downtown, according to the statistics.

Alderperson Bernard asked for clarification about the number and type of police calls received. Chief Jensen stated the number was high, but not the highest, and they were equal to one other business. She also asked questions about the surveillance cameras and monitoring them. Chief Jensen stated the cameras could be accessed from the Internet, with authorization, and that they were not tied directly to Dispatch.

Mayor Knudson asked about the request for expansion (of the serving area) of the liquor license and if the premises description included a gate at the back stairs; Chief Jensen stated he believed there was to be a gate at the top of the stairs. Mayor Knudson asked if it was the responsibility of the licensee to control the activities on the deck, and Chief Jensen responded that it would be their responsibility to control that access, and mainly make sure underage people were not coming on to the deck. He stated the Police Department asked the downtown liquor license establishments to try to control their patrons and monitor that they are not taking liquor off the premises.

Police Sergeant Glen Hartman was sworn in by the Clerk. His testimony included information about responding to a medical call to the establishment; that he has watched the surveillance cameras from his office; that he felt the cameras would allow for law enforcement to respond more quickly; that he knew Mr. Ellstrom was trying to add additional cameras in an effort to help assist with control; and that he was not sure if the cameras had the ability to record. Additional information was shared regarding the number and type of calls to the establishment and that he felt calls were low compared to other places. Sergeant Hartman shared information about officers doing “walk throughs” downtown, and that they focus their efforts downtown during bar closing times. He also testified that intoxicated persons, public urination, and vomiting occurred before Ellie’s on Main opened for business, and has been consistent during his employment with the City.

Cross-examination of Sergeant Hartman was held. Mr. Jacobson questioned Sergeant Hartman about the addition of speakers on the deck; he stated he was not aware of any specific complaints, but added he has not worked as a night Patrol Sergeant for the past two years. He also reported he has not looked at the surveillance cameras for two years.

Questions were posed about previous tenants at the location and whether or not there has been an increase in complaints since the address became Ellie’s. Sergeant Hartman stated there used to be many bars downtown that are now restaurants. He stated the Police Department has not done any comparisons between when the location was a restaurant versus Ellie’s on Main.

Attorney Waterman asked additional questions of Sergeant Hartman regarding shift changes and efforts of the police force downtown. He responded that he feels he has a good understanding of what’s happening downtown. He stated he was not aware of any information to suggest there was a disorderly house at Ellie’s.

Alderperson O’Malley asked Sergeant Hartman to clarify some statements regarding the number of police calls to Ellie’s. Sgt. Hartman stated he did not have actual report numbers, but from his experience when he worked nights, he was familiar with the number of calls to downtown establishments. Alderperson O’Malley asked if during the past two years, the time period in question, had Sergeant Hartman worked downtown at night; he answered no.

Mayor Knudson asked Sergeant Hartman about the surveillance camera and if a record is created; he stated he did not know if it records. Clarification was requested on whether the use of the cameras at Ellie’s was beneficial in prosecution; Sergeant Hartman stated he was not aware of any recordings from Ellie’s being used in prosecution or used by the Police Department.

Information about a conversation Sergeant Hartman had with Mr. Ellstrom on the number of bouncers they have was questioned. Sergeant Hartman said that Mr. Ellstrom told him he was increasing the number to six, but he did not witness the amount, and the information could be considered “heresay”. Alderperson Wyland asked if Mr. Ellstrom told him why he was increasing the number of bouncers to six. Sergeant Hartman responded that he believed that Mr. Ellstrom was going above and beyond, and was trying to control potential situations at the business.

Greg Ellstrom was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Ellstrom shared information about the age of the crowd at Ellie’s on Main, noted they don’t get busy until later in the night, and stated that they don’t serve food. He indicated that about the number of people present on a busy night was approximately 130 to 200. Additional information about the number, duties, and rational for having a certain number of bouncers was shared. He stated the bouncers are responsible to clean up inside and outside of the bar.

The need for bartenders and bouncers to take the Responsible Beverage Server’s class and have a background check done, as part of the operator’s license procedures, was noted. Mr. Ellstrom stated that staff does not drink while working. He said it was his understanding that the camera could be used to monitor activities, and that a bouncer was present during busy times.

Additional information regarding the cameras was shared. Mr. Ellstrom explained that it was a recording camera and that activities can be viewed from remote locations by people who have authorization. He noted that a 40-inch TV screen was mounted for bartenders to use to monitor the deck as well.

Lengthy testimony was given regarding drink prices, an activity called beer pong, and music/speakers on the deck, fights at the bar, and complaints. Mr. Ellstrom also shared that there was at least one police squad car that monitors his establishment from across the street and that they patrol the back alley.

Cross examination of Mr. Ellstrom was held. Attorney Jacobson asked for additional information about when bouncers are present and if Mr. Ellstrom recalled an incident that occurred during a beer pong event that was mentioned in Mr. Foster’s testimony. Mr. Ellstrom shared information about the bouncer’s schedules and stated he was not aware of a beer pong tournament incident or having a conversation with Mr. Foster in the past 2½ years. Information about placement of the security camera was requested. Mr. Ellstrom stated it covered a portion of the sidewalk and to the next property, in both directions, from his building. Mr. Ellstrom stated the doors are opened if there is a cool breeze, buses and taxis pick up people in front of the establishment, and there is a little profanity from patrons.

Alderperson O’Malley stated he went to Ellie’s on Main two or three weeks ago to look at the screen/monitor and asked if it showed the back stairway of the deck and asked if Mr. Ellstrom remembered calling him later that evening. Mr. Ellstrom stated the monitor does show the stairway and remembered placing a call to Mr. O’Malley’s residence later that evening. Mr. Ellstrom stated the conversation included information that his employees told him Mr. O’Malley was harassing them about having a licensed operator on the deck, and it was his understanding, from a previous Council meeting, that if no alcohol was being served on the deck, a licensed bartender did not need to be present since the bartenders were going back and forth and they have use of the camera. He went on to say, he did not want Mr. O’Malley to harass his bartenders, he was not welcome in his bar, and the next time he saw him in his bar he would prosecute him for trespassing.

Alderperson Wyland asked if any employees tell the patrons to be quiet after they leave the bar and are on the sidewalk in front of the building. Mayor Knudson questioned a statement Mr. Ellstrom made about if someone had been over served and were drunk, and would that be a situation where they became drunk while they were at his establishment. Mr. Ellstrom explained there are sometimes people who were not allowed into his establishment because they were already drunk; he explained how difficult it is sometimes to be aware of the level of drunkenness in people. Mayor Knudson also requested additional information about beer pong. He questioned if the prizes are a financial reward for winning and if it is a legal activity in the establishment. Mr. Ellstrom stated it was a financial reward and, as far as he was aware, it was a legal activity as long as the bar does not profit from the activity.

Attorney Jacobson asked if they have $5.00 all you can drink nights at the establishment. Mr. Ellstrom stated they do for ladies on Wednesday nights.

Mayor Knudson asked if there were any other witnesses, none were called. City Attorney Munkittrick stated evidence was closed and there would be no further witnesses. Attorney Jacobson requested permission to ask Mr. Foster two more questions. Attorney Waterman stated he did not wish for any rebuttal. MOTION by O’Malley, second by Bernard to allow one round of rebuttals for each attorney. Ayes (4); Noes: (2) Burchill and Yacoub. MOTION CARRIED.

Attorney Jacobson asked Mr. Foster about the beer pong incident again. Mr. Foster clarified and stated the person who was injured and used his restroom was during last year’s event. Mr. Foster stated that during the event this year, 60 to 90 days ago, that he had specifically asked Brian Ellstrom why he was breaking up a fight, and where the bouncers were. He told him the bouncers were not scheduled until later. Mr. Foster said the next day Mr. Brian Ellstrom came to him and changed his story; he then said the bouncer did not show up for work.

Brian Ellstrom was sworn in by the Clerk. Attorney Waterman asked Mr. Brian Ellstrom about the beer pong incident referred to by Mr. Foster. Mr. Brian Ellstrom stated he had a conversation with Mr. Foster about the confrontation in front of the establishment, and Mr. Foster made a comment about staffing. He stated he was working on constructing the deck but wasn’t familiar with staffing, and also stated there was no conversation the next day. He stated he talked to Mr. Foster the day of the incident and also tried to clear up some other issues they might need to work on in the future. Mr. Brian Ellstrom also commented on Mr. Mingo’s issues and stated he believed he was not asked to call him back.

Brief closing statements were presented by both sides. MOTION by O’Malley, second by Bernard to close the hearing. All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED at 10:42 p.m.

Convene into Closed Session pursuant to §19.85(1)(a) to deliberate concerning quasi-judicial hearing before the Common Council regarding the complaints filed by Mingo, Misenko, and Washburn against alcohol beverage licensee, Sharon Horne-Ellstrom, LLC, and pursuant to §19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal counsel regarding litigation in which the City of Hudson Common Council is likely to become involved regarding these proceedings and the complaints described in paragraph 3: Mayor Knudson announced Closed Session was being held pursuant to Wis. Stat. 19.85(1)(g) to deliberate concerning quasi-judicial hearing before the Common Council regarding the complaints filed by Mingo, Misenko, and Washburn against alcohol beverage licensee, Sharon Horne-Ellstrom, LLC and pursuant to 19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal counsel regarding litigation in which the City of Hudson is likely to become involved regarding these proceedings and the complaints described in paragraph 3. MOTION by O’Malley, second by Yacoub to convene into Closed Session as announced by Mayor Knudson. All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED at 10:44 p.m. Council members left the Council Chambers and convened in Mayor Knudson’s office, Room 210.

Reconvene into open session for possible decision on the foregoing written sworn complaints describing in paragraph 3: Council members returned to the Council Chambers. MOTION by Burchill, second by Yacoub to reconvene into open session. All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED at 12:05 a.m.

Consideration and possible decision on Sharon Horne Ellstrom LLC application for renewal of alcoholic beverage license for 2010-2011 license year, for Ellie’s on Main: Mayor Knudson called for a motion, none were given. City Attorney Catherine Munkittrick advised that a decision was needed to find whether this was a disorderly house and to decide whether to revoke or suspend the license. MOTION by O’Malley, second by Bernard to find that (Ellie’s on Main) is a disorderly house and to suspend the license for ten days.

Discussion was held regarding the reasons and positions of the Council members. O’Malley stated he believed the testimony bore out that there was drunkenness, and he did not believe there were any false statements given by any of the complainants. Mayor Knudson asked if he was relying on the definition of disorderly house based on the Cudahy vs. DeLuca case. O’Malley stated he believed the establishment was a nuisance and it robbed the neighbors of the quiet enjoyment of their residence. Wyland stated he believed the establishment was out of order, that issues needed to be resolved, and order needed to be brought back to the situation. The question was called. Vote taken by show of hands. Ayes (2) O’Malley and Bernard; Noes (4) Morrissette, Yacoub, Wyland, Burchill, MOTION FAILED.

MOTION by Morrissette, to not call Ellie’s on Main a disorderly house citing the Cudahay vs. DeLuca case, and on the basis of testimony by the Police Chief that this house was not any more out of the ordinary than any other establishments downtown. Brief discussion was held regarding whether the motion was in order; Mayor Knudson ruled the motion was in order; he called for a second three times, none were given. MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.

MOTION RENEWED by Morrissette, second by Burchill to find the establishment not a disorderly house based on the definition in Cudahay vs. DeLuca, and the Police Chief’s testimony. City Attorney Catherine Munkittrick advised that the Council members could provide their thoughts for supporting, or not supporting, their feelings whether it was or was not a disorderly house.

Burchill noted how well the establishment has been working with the Police Department and that they have not had any after-hours violations or underage drinking tickets. Yacoub agreed with Burchill. O’Malley stated he would vote for a 90-day suspension. Wyland stated he felt they were not being good neighbors, at this point, and should be; he also believed that the revocation question was a separate issue. Bernard believed it was a house of disorder and concurred with O’Malley that they should have more than a 10-day suspension. Bernard also stated she would compromise on that if another stipulation was placed on their renewal license. Vote taken; Ayes (4); Noes (2) Bernard and O’Malley - MOTION CARRIED.

MOTION by O’Malley, second by Yacoub to renew the liquor license (for Sharon Horne Ellstrom LLC d/b/a Ellie’s on Main for the 2010-2011 license year), with the following restrictions: no music is allowed on the deck, no alcohol may be served or consumed on the deck, doors (front and back) and windows must remain closed. MOTION AMENDED by O’Malley, second by Yacoub, to also include that a bouncer must be present at all times when customers are on the deck. Some Alderpersons stated the reasons they were in favor of adding the restrictions to the license. Alderperson Bernard noted her disappointed that an agreement could not be reached regarding suspension of the license and stated she would be voting “no” on the motion. Ayes (5); Noes (1) Bernard. MOTION CARRIED.

Convene into Closed Session pursuant to Wis. Stats. §19.85 (1)(e) to consider negotiating strategy regarding purchase offer and/or possible selling strategy for property located at 701 Second Street: Mayor Knudson announced Closed Session was being held pursuant to Wis. Stats. §19.85 (1)(e) to consider negotiating strategy regarding the purchase offer and/or possible selling strategy for property located at 701 Second Street. MOTION by Burchill, second by O’Malley to convene into Closed Session as announced by Mayor Knudson. All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED at 12:20 a.m.

Reconvene into open session for possible action regarding purchase offer or selling strategy for sale of 701 Second Street: MOTION by Morrissette, second by Yacoub to reconvene into open session for possible action regarding the purchase offer or selling strategy for sale of 701 Second Street. All ayes (6), MOTION CARRIED.

MOTION by Morrissette, second by O’Malley to accept the purchase offer dated June 14, 2010, including revised Addendum A, contingent on Joint Library Board approval of the sale. Roll call vote taken; All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Morrissette, second by O’Malley to adjourn the meeting. All ayes (6) MOTION CARRIED at 12:31 a.m.

Nancy J. Korson, City Clerk

 I hereby certify that the City Clerk has submitted the foregoing minutes to me, and I hereby by my signature approve said minutes and all acts of the Common Council as set forth therein.

Dean R. Knudson, Mayor