Common Council - Regular Meeting

Is everything else working?

I call to order the meeting of our Common Council for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026. Clerk?

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. We have 11 members in the room, all the branches on the way, and 11 members in Civic Clerk.

All right. Thank you, Clerk. Now, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, and then you can be seated for our invocation.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Like I said, you can be seated. We're just going to do a moment of quiet contemplation. Thank you. Now on to approval of the minutes. Motion to approve, made by Alda Presley, seconded by Alda Ritterbush. Any changes? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed nay. You guys have it. The minutes are approved from our previous two meetings. Approval of the agenda. Motion to approve made by Alder Dilley. Seconded by Alder Eck. Any amendments here or changes? Seeing none. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. And the agenda has been approved. A few items here on the report by the mayor. So I just wanted to thank everybody for the 4th of July celebration, especially city staff. but also community members who came together for a celebration during the day. And then of course the fireworks, Things went off without a hitch really, as far as I know, and just went really smoothly. So particularly appreciate public safety presence as always, but also parks and DPW and really just the entire city I think did a fantastic job partnering with a lot of community organizations on Broadway in particular, but so many others also played a role in some of the programming earlier in the day. Thanks to Michael for coordinating much of that, but a great community celebration and a lot of things to go around for that. Also just wanted to mention again, I mentioned this, I think, at our last council meeting, then we had a rain out, but we've got City Night over at Joanne's on Thursday at 730. So Blue Ribbons baseball game, city employees, welcome community members, welcome. And I think first responders are being featured and honored at the game. So inviting everybody to come down and celebrate some baseball and appreciate our city employees. Last but definitely not least, I want to congratulate the newest member of the senior staff team here at the City of Green Bay. The only other person maybe that gets his name mispronounced more often than me, Chief Ray Featon. I love it. And I just proved the point, but Chief Rafe Eaton. So congratulations to you. We're really lucky to have you joining the team, leading the department. And as you know, you've got a big supportive fan club here in our council and coming from all the rest of us. So congratulations and thanks for taking the mantle. And with that, we'll go to announcements from the council. Announcements. Yes, Alder to leave.

I just wanted to make an announcement. Grooves on the Green this Friday from 6 to 8 over at Badger Park off Badger Street. Zoom in the Sonics and come get some food truck food and enjoy some live music.

Excellent. Thanks, Alder. There's Alder Presley.

The Green Bay Fringe Festival is going to be taking place next week, the 16th through the 19th at several downtown locations. Look it up at gbfringe.com. It's the third one. People coming from all over the country to do weird art in our city.

Very cool. Thanks, Alder. Any other announcements? All right. We'll move on to appointments. Motion on the new appointment to approve made from Alder Proffitt and then Alder DeLee. With the second, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it. That appointment has been made. Reappointments?

Motion.

Motion to approve. Made by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder Hinkfess. Discussion here? Seeing none. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And those reappointments are made. We're now on to ordinances. Second reading for adoption.

Motion to suspend the rules.

Alder Prophet makes a motion to suspend the rules. Take up these items with one roll call vote. Seconded by Alder Lee. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The rules are suspended.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt, made by Alder Prophet, seconded by Alder DeLee. Any discussion here? Seeing none, we will use the board.

You may vote.

And those are adopted 12-0. INS Committee. Motion to approve, made by Alder DeLee.

Second.

Second by Alder Eck. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Protection and Policy Committee.

Second.

Motion to approve, made by Alder Prophet. Second by Alder Presley. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Green Bay Police Department granting operator licenses. Motion to approve. Made by Alder DeLee. Seconded by Alder Rearbush. Abstentions or names to be handled separately. Alder Prophet.

I'd like to abstain from myself.

Very good. Alder Presley. Very good. Any others? Hearing none others, all in favor of approving the remainder of the report, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Planning Commission.

I'll show approval.

Motion to approve by Alder Prophet.

Second.

Second by Alder Hutchison. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Finance Committee. Motion to approve by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder Orlowski. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Park Committee. Motion to approve by Alder DeLee. Seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. That report has been approved. Traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian commission. Motion to approve by Alder Proffitt. Seconded by Alder DeLee. Items here for separate consideration.

One and three.

One and three. Any others? Hearing none others, all in favor of approving the remainder of the report, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. If the ayes have it, that report has been approved with the exception of items one and three. On item one, Alder Hancus.

I'd like to refer both back to committee. I was unable to attend the traffic and bike and I have additional information. So if we could just refer those two items back to committee for the 720 meeting, I would appreciate it.

Is that a motion to suspend the rules and take up these items with one roll call vote? Yes, it is. One vote. Alder Hinkley suspends the rules. Seconds that motion, take up these items with a single vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Rules are suspended. Motion to refer back. Alder Hank, this makes motion to refer both items one and three back to committee. Seconded by Alder Shelton. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And those items are referred back. We are on to a couple informational items. The building report and the municipal court report are both in your packet from June, 2026 and resolutions. Alder Profit makes a motion to suspend the rules. Take up these items with one vote. Seconded by Alder DeLee. All in favor will say aye. Opposed nay. If you guys have it, the rules are suspended. Motion to adopt. Made by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder Profit. Discussion on that? Seeing none, we'll use the board. And this is to adopt our resolutions. And those are adopted unanimously. Ordinance is first reading. Motion to suspend the rules, take up the items of the phone roll call vote, made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Hinkfess. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. The rules are suspended.

Motion to advance.

Motion to advance by Alder Proffitt, seconded by Alder Presley. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. And those ordinances are advanced to a second and final reading. So this brings us to our quasi-judicial hearing for non-renewal of liquor license. It's for the non-renewal of a Class B liquor license at Jamrock 700 Bodart Street. Attorney Cochart on that item?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. So the goal of the Green Bay Common Council is to provide and conduct a hearing that is fair in form, appearance, and substance. This is a non-renewal for an alcohol license. The non-renewal is provided for under Green Bay Municipal Code 4-9F, non-renewal. We're here to consider the information and evidence presented by the parties to determine if the grounds for non-renewal have been met or not, and either grant or deny this appeal. First, I need to just do a check for conflicts of counsel, and then... The staff presentation will go first. Each party will have approximately 10 minutes. The parties will be sworn in. Council can also open up the floor for public comment. It's not always customary to do so in quasi-official hearings, but if you so choose to do so, you may. And just consider, keep in mind, it's important to consider only the information that's relevant to the underlying arguments, evidence provided by the parties. We'll allow for a couple, approximately three minutes of any final arguments. Of course, council can ask any questions of the parties at any time and certainly of other staff as needed. And then it'll be, we can close the floor and do any deliberation necessary, council. So first, as I said, it's the goal of the Green Bay Common Council providing productive hearing that is fair and informed appearance and substance to ensure that this hearing satisfies these goals. Will each elder of the Common Council please confirm the following for this appeal by stating I confirm. I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you. And I have not received any communication from any person or party about this matter. Thank you. And I understand Attorney Mays is representing the city's case in this matter and can proceed. Start chair. And then again, then Mr. The applicant after.

Sounds good. Attorney Mays.

All right. Good evening, counsel.

Attorney Mays, I would like to swear you.

Oh. So, Attorney Mays, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

I do. I do. All right, so this is the third time that a non-renewal for Jamrock has come before Council. In the two prior iterations, there was no notice of intent to non-renew issued by Council, which is why you've never heard from me before on this matter. This is an opportunity for me to provide the basis through which the Green Bay Police Department made their recommendation to non-renew this liquor license in the interest of public safety and good order. So for the grounds for a non-renewal on a liquor license are laid out in Section 4-9 of our Municipal Code, subsection B. There are three different sections that I think apply here. So as information is being presented, the grounds through which this non-renewal applies, can happen is through, if there is evidence of activity by any licensee that directly interferes with police officers or otherwise violates the law in a manner substantially related to the operation of the licensed facility, that's subsection B2. Subsection B6 is any violation of general statutory restrictions pertaining to licensed premises and operations as prescribed by Wisconsin statutes chapter 125 and chapter four of our municipal code. And then sub B8 includes any violations of any restriction, stipulation, or agreement entered with the city or signed in consideration of a license issued under this chapter, so chapter four, or Wisconsin statutes chapter 125. So the primary reason why this recommendation for non-renewal has come up before is one extremely egregious incident that happened on January 27th of 2024. I will save that one for the end while I go through some of the other calls for service that have occurred at 700 Bodard Street. So just looking at general context, there was a correction meeting that was held on March 28th of 2024. So this is our opportunity as the police department and the law department to sit down with the licensee and say, hey, we've got some concerns about what's going on with the business. We've had these calls for service. We have concerns. What steps are you willing to take to remedy these issues? And the correction plan that was submitted is included in the materials in the agenda packet. And based on the handout that was presented by the licensee, it appears that their position is that they fully complied with that correction plan. Some of the noteworthy sections in that plan, which was in force for a year after that correction meeting, they indicated that security cameras shall be sufficiently light sensitive and provide sufficient resolution to produce easily discernible images. There were promises to attend community alternative policing strategy meetings, to reach out to the local alder and other community groups to address any issues of the operation of the business. There were general things about noise abatement, but there really weren't steps proposed that would address the issues that we were seeing of alleged underage drinkers, disorderly house type situations, connections with drug activity on the premises. So it was a plan that conformed with the ordinance and met the requirements, but really didn't address the issues that we were seeing at the business. And going through the other incidents that were specifically called out in the notice of non-renewal letter that I included police reports from in the agenda packet. So on June 16th of 2024, there was a minor disturbance outside of the bar premises, male, male, female physical disturbance. That one is from a couple of years ago. It's a physical disturbance that happened on premises. So that one could be considered. On May 26th of 2025, there was a call that was dispatched. There was a 20-person physical disturbance on officer arrival. Related parties scattered. One person yelled, police, run. There was one male that was resistive with the officer. He was cited for possession of drug paraphernalia. Marijuana was located on him. A verbal warning and a written warning were issued as a result of that incident. So those are issues that happened before the current license year. And I think that they're worth bringing up. because the police department has remained consistent with its recommendation to non-renew this license. Looking at this particular license here, on July 1st, so the first day of the license here, there was a disturbance inside the bar, which then turned physical outside the bar, which goes towards a disorderly house, argument or situation. Notable though, nobody from the bar called to request police assistance. It was a bystander who called the police. On October 1st of 2025, there was a drug task force call that the Green Bay Police Department assisted with. And there was a male party inside the bar who arranged selling cocaine inside the bar to a confidential informant. There were transactions of 0.93 grams and 1.53 grams of cocaine, which were turned over to law enforcement, and there was a party charged as a result of that call. On November 7th of last year, there was a physical disturbance between two males. One male approached officers as they were responding to the disturbance. There was another male who was walking away from officers, ducked behind another address on Bodart Street, and located where that male ducked off of Bodart Street were another two bags of, or three bags of cocaine. That individual was arrested for intent to deliver cocaine. The other male was arrested for resisting officers, resisting or obstructing. Then in December of last year, the Department of Revenue, the State Department of Revenue received a complaint from someone who admittedly had gone to Jamrock and underage drink on her own and had called the special agent at the Department of Revenue in order to report that she had seen other underage individuals being served at Jamrock. In response, the community police officers requested data from the ID card scanners at the bar as well as for video surveillance to be turned over to try to identify the 19-year-old who was allegedly on premises. And the video was of an insufficient quality to properly identify the alleged underage drinker. But as a result of that, police were informed that Jamrock was not using an ID scanner and they did not turn over video as requested within five days. Subsequently, the forensics team through the police department was able to extract video from their surveillance system. But the stipulation agreement says that the business is supposed to turn over any surveillance video within five days of demand. And it has to be in a readily readable format. So the obligation is on the business owner to turn this over within five days and they failed to do so. So they had two stipulation agreement violations as a result of that call. Then community police did a follow-up two months later. So that call was on, that incident happened on December 19th. There was a follow-up on February 25th. There was still no working ID scanner at the business. So the licensee was cited for violation of stipulation agreement. Going back to the 2024 major incident. This was an incident in which the licensee observed an intoxicated person outside his bar around 3, 3.30 in the morning, so well after bar close. This individual allegedly had a prior bar tab that was unresolved and The licensee, Mr. Report O'Neill, invited this individual into the business. That's a violation of Chapter 125. Inviting people off the street to come into a bar at 3, 3.30 in the morning is a violation of 125. Then, to try to diffuse the tension, Mr. O'Neill served this individual a shot. In Green Bay, when you have an intoxicated individual, adding more alcohol is rarely the solution.

I think the time has expired for the presentation.

I would ask that the chair allow me to play the surveillance video. It's roughly five minutes of video footage. And the video more or less speaks for itself regarding this incident. So this is the licensee behind the bar and the individual who's being pulled over the bar is the man who is invited in from outside the bar. At this point, two bar employees are leaving the bar area and they are going to hide in the bathroom. This is the camera angle from where those two employees had been standing. This is the camera angle from the far end of the bar where Mr. Neal goes back into his office, retrieves a firearm and returns to the office to turn off the lights. Mr. Neal currently has the firearm in his right hand behind his back. At this point, Mr. Neal drops the firearm. This camera angle shows Mr. Neal falling on top of the patron and punching him 10 to 13 times. And this camera angles overhead from where the punches were thrown. Mr. Neal picks up his firearm, arranges the chairs, and police are not called. On that note, I would ask the council to not renew this individual's liquor license. Thank you, Attorney Mays.

Total of 15 minutes.

If the appellant, Mr. Neal, would like to offer testimony.

or if you have representation. Swear again. And our clerk will swear you both in.

Hi, Mr. Neal, say thank you and then I'll . Mr. Neal, do you affirm or swear that the testimony you will give is that you're about to give will be the truth? Yes.

Yes.

Attorney Heather Richmond, R-I-C-H-M-O-N-D. Attorney Richmond, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give? I do. I'll start.

I guess the first thing we'll start with is the last incident that we saw the video for. First, that was from 2024. The license was renewed in the 24-25 and 25-26 years. That case has since been dismissed. The 2024 case is no longer pending against Mr. Neal. That Statement regarding the patron being invited in to have a shot, I think is a hearsay statement. That's an alleged statement. There was no cooperation of that statement. No one to back that up. That was the person that you saw fighting in the videos statement to police. I think the video shows Mr. Neal defending himself. I think that the video shows an altercation taking place, Mr. Neal attempting to deescalate the altercation. He was attempting to get the individual to step out of the bar and leave, and that's when the firearm had come out. He did not, as the individual, claim to police pistol whip him, otherwise we would have certainly seen that on the video. There was a lot of misinformation that was given in that instance. And I think the issue of the fight or altercation that did take place was something that if it was going to be an issue should have been addressed in the 24-25 year or the 25-26 at very least year while that case was still pending. Do you have anything else you wanted to say about that incident?

he said that the reason why I went to get my, the reason why I went to go get something to protect myself was because he saves a killer from Chicago and he kills niggas for less than 20 bucks. So with everyone that's in the bar, my bartenders and my friend, I feel the need to protect myself, but I did not do the things that he said I did. I did not shot him or hit him with a gun or point a gun at him. I was just taking precaution to protect myself because of the way he presents himself and says, I don't know him like that.

And there was no evidence obtained that showed that there was a shot fired off inside the bar. There was a correction meeting from the 3-28-24 date. And that did address 13 calls that were prior calls at the bar at that time. And at the correction meeting, there were issues that were addressed as far as cameras and scanners and things like that. And a plan was put into place that was followed. The disturbance that's listed on 6-16 of 24, again, the license was renewed in the 24 year and the 25 year. With this disturbance, I'm not sure why it's coming up again, but that instance on the 616-24 disturbance, the individuals were no trespassed. So Mr. Neal did what he needed to do. He told those people they were not welcome back there again, do not come to the bar, and he put a no trespass on the individuals. The disturbance on 52625 again from prior year. This was a physical altercation that was going on outside the bar. There's several bars right in the same vicinity. There's one directly next door to Mr. O'Neill's establishment. There was no cooperation that these individuals had been in the bar prior and gone outside to have a mass brawl. It was something that was taking place outside and Mr. O'Neill should not be held responsible for that. The July 1st of 2025 incident, that one was a male-female disturbance. Those patrons were removed from the bar and they were no trespassed. Um, the one individual, I believe resides somewhere behind the bar. So he lives in the vicinity and he was no, he was not originally no trespassed, even though Mr. Neal asked him to be no trespass. He was not served with that. No trespass, but Mr. Neal did ask for him to be no trespass because he did not want the problems in the bar. The next item, the drug activity, the DTF call. It states there that these transactions were taking place in front of the bar. Mr. Neal can't control what's taking place outside of the bar. He can control what's going on inside the bar, absolutely, and he needs to be cognizant and in control of what's going on in the bar. These transactions didn't take place in the bar. He can't control what's going on outside. Therefore, we don't believe that those should be counted against Mr. Neal. The disturbance on 11-7-25, the mail-mail disturbance, That was the male that was supposed to have been no trespassed. He, again, lives behind the bar and is out in the vicinity of the area. And just because that individual is in the area doesn't mean he's at the bar. He's not at the bar. He's not welcome in the bar. The violations of the stipulation agreement. There's several issues with that. First, these ID scanners. Mr. Neal does have the ID scanners. He did have the ID scanners when this violation occurred, but they were on an app on the bartender and the bouncers phones. Apparently that was a recommendation by one of the law enforcement officers when Mr. Neal asked about recommendations of where to get scanners. One of the officers informed him about this app that does the scanning. So he did comply and got this app for himself, the bartenders and the bouncer. And that app had been broken, I believe, or was down, the service was down.

Yeah, I subscribed to the app, but the payment did not go through because I changed my debit card for that one. But then I corrected the next time I saw this, I corrected the next day. So the next time the officers came in, I had it on my phone and I showed it to them and they said they described the qualities they want in a scanner and the app add that same qualities and they okayed it.

As far as the licensee not providing video footage within five days for the agreement, there was a text message with one of the Green Bay police officers about, you're welcome to come pick up the video anytime it's ready. And the video was not picked up by that officer. Mr. Neal was under the impression that that officer was coming to pick up the video. So he did what he was supposed to do under the agreement. He made that video available to the officers within five days as the agreement had stated. The video footage, it says is poor quality and unable to verify original underage complaint. Mr. Neal has no information regarding the underage complaints. The scanners were up and working except for that short period of time where there was the issue. He does not serve underage patrons and the bouncer at the door stops people and asks for IDs at the door. There were stipulation, two violations that were issued, or I believe there were three violations that were issued based on the violation of the stipulation agreement. And was that one with the noise complaint? There was also a noise complaint that was issued against Mr. Neal for heavy noise violations based on his camera footage, which we all just saw the camera footage. There is no volume on the camera. So I'm not sure how there was even a noise complaint issued, but that one was dismissed subsequently. But he did pay. Now the two violations are now paid for the violations of the stipulation agreement. And the last thing is liquor law violations 225-26. The officer conducted the... bar check with the working ID scanner not obtained, that's when the payment was down, correct? So it was just for that short period of time when it was discovered that the software or the application on the phones was not working. And then that was quickly remedied when it was discovered that it was a debit card issue. I think Big issue here is we heard about the 13 calls in 2024, but how many calls were there in 2025? We don't know that because there were very few. And so far in 2026, even fewer, if any. Were there any?

There's less than a handful.

Less than a handful. And most of that is outside, again, where there are several bars down the street that are open as well and closed. They're not being held accountable for what's going on outside in the streets. It's only Mr. Neal that is. And not to call out any specific establishments, but another facility on Bodark Street 607 had 19 police calls during the calendar year. Um, seven 18 had 19 police calls during the 25, 26 year, um, down the streets, a short distance at 1100 main streets. There were 34 police calls. And those were other than security alarm calls involving warrants, thefts, disturbances. Um, and those liquor license have not been in jeopardy. It's only Mr. Neil being targeted for some reason. There's another bar at 201 North Washington Street, less than 0.7 miles from Jamrock. 69 police calls and their liquor license is not in jeopardy. So with Mr. Neal having just a handful of police calls when he can't control anything outside of his facility and he does control what goes on inside his facility and he has been compliant with the police, that just seems very unfair and almost targeted to target him for non-renewal. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. So at this time, if a council has any questions, certainly for either parties, or if you so choose again, it's not a requirement to allow for public comment, but council obviously has a choice to do so to allow it. If you do again with the understanding that the information to consider is that related to the violations and the information provided by the parties. So public comment, if you choose any questions to either of the parties and then following that each would have a couple of minutes to conclude.

Any questions for the parties from Council?

You can obviously ask them later, too, just for clarification.

Just two questions for Mr. Neal or the attorney. With the incident we saw the video of two questions from that. First, why didn't you call the police after that? And second, why were the lights turned off?

So at night times, when I got the lights on, sometimes my camera flickers. I had receiver problems at that time. So sometimes my camera flickers in the light. And so I turned the lights off. And I didn't want the people outside to be drawn to create more problems than what was going on. Because originally he was trying to, there was altercation with him and other people. And I didn't want that to escalate anywhere else.

Okay, thank you. And then why did you not call the police immediately after?

I actually left the park right away. Because like I said, he said that he's a killer from Chicago and he killed niggas for less than 20 bucks. So I took my staff and my lady out of there and I tried to go hide myself. I was trying to get away from that problem. Instead of, you know, because I think he had lived right down the road. So I just wanted to get away from that. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Alder Grant and then Alder Sheldon.

Thank you. How long did he spend in the bar before that happened?

Before that happened? He was at the bar next door causing trouble. And I know the guy. And then the owner of that bar over there, she's a female, so she asked me to help. Help him, you know. So I went to help her. So I went over there and talked to him. And it wasn't bar closed. There was still bar time. So I got him out of that incident, take him out of that problematic environment, which I thought I could control because I knew the guy. And then tell him, come over by me and I'll buy him a drink. This was way before bar closed or anything. So that's how he ended up in my bar. He was fighting at another bar.

But that bar or that video was from four in the morning. So he was there from prior to bar close.

I wanted to give him a ride home. OK, so but I have to wait till my bartender still would clean up the bar and batched out and stuff like that.

OK, thanks.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on Alder Presley's question. Thanks for being here. So you mentioned not calling the police because you wanted to get out of there. Can you just take us through your mindset when you stopped and picked up the tools?

I was terrified. And I was terrified. And I was panicked. I had a couple other people that I was responsible for. And like I said, I don't know what he was capable of. You know, like you said, he's, you know, like, I'm from Jamaica and criminals are murderers or whatever you call them. You never know what their next movie is going to be.

Well, and I think you could tell from the video there was quite a size difference between Mr. Neal and the other party.

And for someone to see someone else with a gun and try to push him in a corner or try to jump on him right away, it's like he has no fear. He doesn't care about anything else. So I just wanted to take myself out of that area. Right.

I'm asking a follow-up question, though. I totally get that. So you're in a distressed kind of mindset. Why did you stop and pick up like four stools on the way out? You stopped and picked up like four stools.

Because the gun was on the floor and I was out of breath. So I tried to pick up the gun and try to breathe because I was out of breath while I'm moving the chairs. Because I want to see that I'm out of breath to think I'm weak.

Well, my guess is there was probably a lot of adrenaline still going on.

So I wasn't like thinking clearly at the time. It was a flight of, you know, flight mode. get away from the incident and stuff like that.

Thanks, Alder. Any other questions? Thank you, Mayor.

So when did the gun go off?

The gun? There was no gunshot there. I didn't fire any gunshot at him. So when the gun fell on the floor, it's a CM9. So when the gun fell on the floor, when I picked it up, everybody was gone. And when I was leaving, I realized that the gun, when I tried to unload the gun, there was a bullet that was... It's stuck in the chamber. So I couldn't get it out. So I was trying to, I was fighting with the gun. There was nobody there and I was fighting with the gun like this and it wouldn't move. So I did this and that's when the gun, the bullet dropped in the slot and it went off on the floor. But there was no gunshot fired at anyone. It was just, and that's one of the flaws with a CM9. If you look it up, the bullet gets stuck in the chamber.

So had he left the bar?

Yes.

Then the gun went off and then you straightened out the stools between there?

No, no, no. So I picked up the gun, straightened the stools out, put a gun in the back. I'm not paying attention to it. And then he left. My bar's in the left, so my lady's using the bathroom. I'm getting ready to go. That's what I'm noticing. That was that case. And I tried to, because I'm not going to drive with a loaded weapon. So I took the magazine out, and then I noticed that that bullet was crooked in the chamber. And that's what I tried to do. I couldn't get it out.

Okay. Well, it just sounded like you said you were trying to get out, and that's why you didn't call the police.

No, yeah, I was trying to get out.

Sounds like quite a bit went on after the investigation.

No, he was gone, but I'm not going to go outside while he's outside. I'm waiting until he disappears so that I can see him for me to be able to leave the building to get away. Because I'm thinking of getting away. So I don't want him to be out there for me to run into him, for him to do whatever he's got to do. His car was outside. I don't know what he's got in there. You know, and he's, according to him and who he is, I don't know what he's capable of, hiding around a corner or something like that. So I wanted the path to be clear for me to escape from this guy that I'm terrified of.

I mean, it could be, it could have been much worse if the gun went off while you were in the altercation.

But that's why I was trying to get rid of the gun over the tape, over behind the counter when he jumped on my back. And he tried to take the gun from me, so I was trying to put it over the counter.

Because it was behind your back while you were talking to him.

And then he pushed me up to the corner, and then I tried to reach over the counter to put the gun down, and that's when he was pushing me over there.

Okay, thank you. Thanks, Alder. I think Alder Prophet's question has been addressed, Alder DeLee.

Thanks for coming. Um, you know, before watching the video and before, you know, the gun hit the floor and you were punching and he had you against the lottery machines, uh, the beginning of the video, there's obviously no sound, but you reach across the bar and grab him by the neck and pull him. Okay. His jacket and pull him towards you. So in an altercation where you're involving an individual that's already intoxicated and getting escalated why did you feel the need to get physically with him to drag him across the bar because at that point in the video it didn't show him getting physical with you yeah there was more to to that video footage before he got that to that point so what was took off with the counter the twenty dollars off the counter

And that's when I was arguing with him. That's when he said he had ordered the drinks before the bar closed. And I just kept it. I thought he was going to come back and pay for it tomorrow, but it was there. So I put $20 on the counter. And that's when he took it up and said he's not paying for his drink. These bitches don't pay for their shit. And those are the exact words. Excuse my language. And he took it up and put it back in his jacket. So that's what I wrote. And before that, he said, that's why I said he killed niggas for less than 20 bucks because of the $20 that he took off the counter. And that's why I reached up for his jacket because he put it in his jacket.

Okay.

All right, Alder Hinkes.

Can I do a quick question to Lacey at this time?

Sure, maybe we'll just check and see if there are any other questions. from Mr. O'Neill or his attorney, Mr. Morgan, Alden Morgan.

You mentioned you've known this gentleman in the past quite a bit. Knowing him, what led you to believe that he was some kind of enforcer that would in fact harm or kill people?

So when you say you know bar people, you don't really know them. They're just repeated customers for you. That's my job to make them feel familiar. And, um, I've heard his story outside of that, but I never fear him because I thought that I was close to him more than that. But when he repeated it in my face in a deadly manner, it kind of triggered that fear.

And do you have someone that's a reliable person that told you some of this stuff? The people that you had heard this from before, is this just bar talk? Or do you have some reliable person that may have told you this?

It was the individual that was making the statements.

That night. But you knew him in the past. I heard that in the past.

Yes. And that is a hit man in Chicago.

And that people told you that?

He said prior to that. But I said before, because I was close to him, I never feared him until he threw that in my face.

Okay.

Thank you. Anything else for Mr. Neal? Alder Hutchinson?

We're spending a lot of time with what happened in 2024 and we approved his license. So, and the case was dismissed. So legally, I mean, we saw the video and it's concerning, but what I saw was a drunk individual and an owner wrestling. Okay. It wasn't necessarily caused by the owner. It was caused by the situation. What I deem valuable is what just happened in this previous year. And one of the main things is this scanner. And it didn't work because you didn't have the payment.

Yeah, so I have a bar app on the phone. And the officer came in December, I think. And I wasn't there. And I think that's when I got the ticket. But my bouncer, we have it on the phone. I had one on the phone. So then what I did, I made sure I had them download the app and subscribe to the app so that it could be multiple phones that carried this.

Okay. And do you have it on your phone?

Yes.

You have it on your phone right now?

Yes. My phone is right there.

Okay. And it's up and active. Okay. That's it right there. Care if I come over there? Sure. I might as well take a look at it because that's a major contention. I understand.

Okay, thank you. And then I showed it to the officer the second time we had the encounter and he made sure that it had the qualities that they required from an ID scanner. And they said yes, it was okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything else for Mr. Neal?

Yes. Just wondering on the timing of just want to figure out why the license was renewed. When was the case dismissed? I guess, what's the timeline? The incident happened. Maybe they gave you the benefit of the doubt. It happened.

This happened in 2024, February, right? 2024, February, I think. The license year of that year, I got renewed. The case was still pending at the time. So they didn't use the case against me at the time. Then the next year was this. I comply with everything that a police department in the city recommended. I was on an abatement plan for a year. I completed that. And then I, the next year, I didn't have an abatement plan. And I came in and they recommended an aisle and we came here, explained the situation and I got approved again. This case was dismissed a few months ago in April. In April, it was dismissed in April.

Okay. Well, that kind of makes the timeline seem right for, you know, granting and not holding this necessarily against you. Right. I think attorney Mays will have some comments on whether or not this is a dismissal or not. Okay. And I guess the one last question I had was with the scanner, was that a stipulation of the correction meeting to have a scanner working at all times? I see further down this list, it's not a requirement. for state law, but was that a stipulation in your correction meeting? From the correctional meeting that you had? Was that a stipulation that you had to have a working scanner? Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the appellant? Yeah. All right, I think we're good with questions for you all. Question for Attorney Mays, and then we'll go to Alder Hinkvis with a question for Attorney Kochart. On this question of case dismissal, could you weigh in on that?

Yeah. So the DA's office had a witness availability issue. case was scheduled for trial in April. And because there was a witness that was unavailable, the DA's office dismissed, but they refiled. So the incident from January 27th, 2024, the same charges is currently pending. It's 26 CF 674. So the matter is still pending. And the reason why the license had been granted in previous years was because counsel was waiting for closure on whether he would be convicted or not in the criminal case. But this is a licensing decision, and it doesn't rely on the criminal case in order to make the licensing decision. This year, counsel voted to non-renew, and that's why we're having the evidentiary hearing today.

Thanks, attorney. Alder Hinkless?

Question for Attorney Kochart, because I've been on the council, so this case has come before us multiple times. And I'm kind of going back where Alder Hutchinson was going. When we issue a license for a specific year, in issuing that license for that year, then we go to the following year and we deny it for something that happened two years ago. Since we issued that license, I don't remember issuing it pending results. But there has been improvements made. And I would agree with Alder Hutchinson as far as the reader and that sort of thing. So if I were to get a license and it gets renewed, I'm assuming everything starts over. Correct? Correct.

Yeah.

Good night.

We genuinely appreciate having you all in the audience, but there's no room for reactions to any comments that we have here. So if that continues, we'll have to clear the room. So please just refrain from reacting to comments. Attorney Klobuchar.

clarification on your last question it isn't there isn't um a portion of the ordinance that prohibits you from considering anything that happened prior to the previous licensing year in many cases it's a totality of the circumstances in one year you might have but one violation the next it's three these are renewal decisions which are administrative As was mentioned before, council has authority over these licensing licenses. It's not a criminal matter. The threshold is not the same. You have the ability to consider the information, determine whether there are violations of any of the 10 grounds, whether it's an activity by the licensee that violates the law and endangers what you believe to be the public health and safety of the city. Again, it's an administrative action. you can consider the totality of the circumstances when granting these licenses at any time. This is not a revocation. Every year, staff makes recommendations for all licenses in the City of Green Bay and whether we should issue them. The Police Department and others have felt in each of the past several years that this license shouldn't be issued for the reasons that were presented, and they're again asking the same. In the previous, just for clarification, I think this in the previous matters, there was no approval to issue a notice, so we haven't previously had a quadrennial hearing, I believe, as Attorney Mays said before, so there wasn't a consideration of evidence.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a few questions of our chief, please. When you get a liquor license, I may have to refer this to the clerk. Isn't there something in there about having a reader, ID reader? all the time in a city license?

Chief is.

Okay, and then Chief also I'd like to know, I assume you did a background or someone might have ran the victim in the incident from January of 24. Was there anything to lead you to believe that this gentleman was a dangerous person or that he has reputation as spoken of here as an enforcer?

So for your first question, Alder, the license scanner is a pretty common stipulation agreement requirement. And especially in cases like this where we have a problem with an establishment, we'll almost always include that in the remediation plan. And in this case, you know, there's a difference between what we ask of bars to get a license in the first place versus when we have identified a problem at one. And in this case, the license plate or the excuse me, the. The ID scanner was intended to address something that had been identified as a problem. As far as the victim in this case, I, you know, I'm sure someone ran him. I did not. But just having read through the reports, I don't see anything about. enforcers or Chicago or anything like that. But there's nothing about that in the record and nothing alleged at the time of the incident that he had said anything.

Do we have anything to prove that there was a discharge of the weapon that night? Any evidence or anything?

Yes. We had an officer who found, I believe, four or five, five bullet fragments on the floor, I believe, and placed those into evidence.

Do we have any information as to where the bullet may have went other than the fragments?

I'm just looking at this. The report references the officer looking for bullet fragments and locating multiple fragments at what they believe to be a place where the bullet ricocheted off the floor. So it looks like it probably struck the floor at some point or a bullet struck the floor.

That's it for now. Thank you.

I'll grant them profit.

Also a question for Chief Davis. In the police report, does it specify when they originally filed the report, when the gun, because I thought when this came before us two years ago that it was noted that the gun fell out of the pocket, but now he's saying that he was clearing the chamber. On the actual police report, how is it recorded?

So just from perusing this here, what it looks like is we had one statement from the victim that he heard the gun go off. And then we, Mr. Neal did not give a statement and so did not tell our officers what happened at the time that this came to their attention. I believe there were a couple other witness statements that were taken. So for those, this was kind of convoluted here, so. And it looks like Mr. Neal initially said that he would give a statement and then decided against it later. And I don't know how much of this is in the record, but there's some discussion with the officers about from the victim's perspective of what he says happened. He says that he, Mr. Neal grabbed a pistol and possibly fired a shot off. And this person was not sure whether the shot was fired at him or just that a shot was fired. And he believed he was actually hit with the weapon, which is not consistent with the video.

Okay. So again, that has, that situation has been brought up in 2024, but since the remediation plan, ultimately the ID scanner not working, what, I guess, what are the main, most recent things that you would recommend on renewal for?

I think it's a collection of things. I mean, I think if you look taken in total, at least since the beginning of 2024 and, and, Attorney Mays has gone over all of the specifics that our recommendation was based on, but I think taken in total, it's our staff's assessment, and I agree with it, that there is considerable risk involved in continuing to renew this establishment, and this is consistent with recommendations we've made every time their license has come up since this happened, and nothing really that I'm seeing changes that.

And certainly, you know, I'm hearing here tonight. Okay. I just wanted to ask as a comment was made about the, a lot of incidents happening outside of the establishment versus incidences inside of the establishment. So I just wanted to clarify if there was some, you know, more, something more targeted inside the establishment.

It just, whatever, what is in the record, I think speaks for itself.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

All the profits.

I have a few, um, starting with chief Davis here to just, there's been a lot of testimony, a lot of conversation, a lot of back and forth. It's been nearly an hour for at least the second time that we've sat through something similar. So. You gotta help me wrap my mind around some of these. Um, so kind of piggybacking off of what elder grant just said, when PD is dispatched to calls that are happening outside of establishments, especially in, um, it's in my district. So I know 700 boat art, there's plenty of establishments in that area. How do you choose what establishment the call? ends up getting, quote unquote, pinned on, for lack of a better term? How is that determined?

Well, I think it's a case-specific analysis. So one thing I would ask is, was it the establishment that called about a problem in front of their bar? Well, we would expect them to, and so that might be a good thing. Were the people involved in the disturbance associated with the establishment? Had they been drinking there? Is there evidence that there's over-service going on and that that that the establishment somehow contributed to the problem.

Okay. And then just kind of wanting to look and talk about, you know, these calls versus other establishments that have a lot of police calls as well. What is kind of the difference when it comes to PD's recommendation for non-renewal with some of the other establishments that we see high call volume with as well?

Well, the fact that a licensed premise has calls doesn't necessarily mean that, number one, that they are contributing to the problem. They might be calling to abate the problem. We've seen some evidence in this case that maybe things are going on in this establishment where we aren't called. For example, we had video of a fight involving a firearm where we were not called by the establishment. We found out about it through other means. So, or... You know, we bring owners of bars in all the time for abatement discussions, and a lot of times it depends on how much they engage in that process, and then how well are they sticking to the terms of any stipulation agreement that comes out of that discussion. And so it really is a case-specific analysis, and it's not a matter of sort of comparing how many calls are at one establishment or another. What kind of calls are they? Are they calls for theft for cars broken into in the parking lot or are they calls for you know fights after closing time with people drinking in the establishment and a firearm involved that's a lot more significant than than some of the other calls that we get and thank you that kind of naturally brings me to my last question for you before i grab attorney um coach art um is there any more recent correction or abatement meetings that have happened

Post 3-28-24, which is one of the ones that I was looking at here. Has there been any more recent meetings or correction plans?

I would have to defer to Attorney Mays on that because she's involved directly in those and I don't usually attend those.

Okay. This correction meeting was the first correction meeting that we had after the ordinance changed. There have been no individual meetings requested by Mr. Neal or held with him to the best of my knowledge. So we had that initial correction meeting. And then this license here, we've seen five incidents.

Yep. Um, thank you. And then my last one, I promise, um, for attorney co-chart. So just again, want to reiterate and clarify the previous two licensing years, the recommendation was non-renewal from PD. However, is it correct that we reversed that decision at council? And that is why we've never had evidence presented before tonight.

Yeah, I would just clarify the reverse the decision, because if you recall from our previous council meeting, it was this item was on as a notice of non renewal to approve the notice, which then goes out to the applicants and they have an opportunity to file this request for a hearing. So the previous decisions were no at the notice. So not necessarily reversing the decision. It was just the recommended recommendation. to provide a notice of non-renewal was not granted by council. So we didn't move on to the hearing, which is what we're having tonight. If that's just for clarification on the reversal, it was just the request to provide a notice wasn't approved.

So we approved. Instead of approving a non-renewal, we approved a renewal the previous two license years at council.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. Any other questions before we do rebuttals? Any other questions before we go, Alder Morgan?

One other question, either to the clerk or to the chief. When we do have these stipulations that say they must have an ID card meter, do we have something that says what they have to have? Is it a machine they have to have, or is just an app on a phone okay for this?

I'm going to defer that to the chief. Chief Davis?

Either one of those would be acceptable. We don't tell them what kind of license or Freudian thing. I keep using the wrong term. What kind of ID scanner they need to have. Just something that works to scan IDs, whether that's an app on your phone, some kind of physical machine, immaterial to us, but it needs to work.

Thank you.

Yeah, Aldergrand.

One last question. I'm just looking at the details of these calls. In 2025, in October, it looks like the controlled substance was in front of the bar, so outside of the bar. Is that correct? In October, I don't know who can confirm that.

Do you have the case number for that by any chance?

Yes, 25-249653, October 1st, 2025. It does state the mail party was inside of the bar to arrange selling controlled substances in front of the bar. So does that mean outside of the bar?

That's what it looks like to me, yes.

Okay. And then the following occurrence occurred. incident on November 7th, where two males are resisting arrest. There was a physical altercation. Was that inside the establishment?

Pulling that report up now.

And I can give you the number if you need. I have it. Okay. Sorry.

This is a pretty big report, so I may need a minute to get you the answer to that. Like when the officers got there, This was happening outside. Police got there. Someone turned back towards the bar and screamed, cops, run. This was not someone who was involved in the disturbance.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any questions? In other words, we'll go to rebuttals. We'll go to Mr. Neal and his attorney. There are any rebuttals, anything you'd like to add before council deliberates?

I would just like to reiterate that Mr. Neal does the best he can to control what happens inside the establishment that he is responsible for, but all of this excess outside of the establishment. And like I said, there's one directly next door and then a couple of doors down. He can't be held accountable for things that are happening outside of the establishment. Do you have anything else you want to say? That's all. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony.

Yeah, there was some discussion about whether the firearm actually went off for the January 2024 incident. There were bullet fragments found and one of the Staff members also reported in her statement hearing the gun discharge. On the October 1st of 2025 incident, in his prepared document for you to review, Mr. Neal indicates that that individual was no trespass and that he knew that he was no trespass. So when someone's entering the bar at midnight and they've been no trespass, This sounds like an issue that an ID scanner could help address. I'm not sure why this individual was allowed into the bar if he had already been no trespassed. I think that it's also important to look at the difference between call volume and call severity. You saw with your own eyes what Mr. Neal did back in January of 2024. Ultimately, it's your decision whether this is the type of behavior that you want people running a licensed alcohol establishment to be exhibiting and whether this is the type of behavior that you are condoning and supporting to ensure the safety, the health and safety of our community. There have been five incidents this liquor licensee year alone. When you look at the totality of the circumstances, I think there's a very strong argument for non-renewal here. I've been looking at liquor license cases for a little over eight years now for the city. And this is the most egregious behavior I've seen from a liquor license holder. And I would strongly urge you to not renew this liquor license. Thank you.

Yeah, elder profit for returning days.

Just clarification. When you say there's been five calls this licensing year already, the licensing year renewed on July 1st, 2026, right? It's been six days. Is that what you're referencing?

Okay. Because this renewal is looking, it's based on the license from 25 to 26. So in that liquor license year, there have been five calls. incidents that have impacted the police department's decision to not renew.

Okay, thank you. I was confused. I was like, didn't it restart? I was like, six days. That's a high volume. Thank you.

Yeah, and I found the answer to your earlier question, Alder. One of the officers at the disturbance made contact with the staff at Jamrock and was informed by the staff that at least a male and female who were involved in the disturbance outside, had been in the bar, and that they both got up and left. The male came in, sat by himself, and the female came back, appeared to be upset, and the officer was told that it looked like this female wanted to fight with the male as she was heading straight toward him, but bar staff interjected, and told both to leave, and then they both went out of the bar. Does not look like police were called at that point.

Any additional questions for attorney Mays?

All right.

All right. Entertain discussion from our counsel, motions, et cetera. I'll direct.

Thank you, Mayor. And I know that we talked about that it was in January of 2024. I think myself, speaking for myself, we didn't know the, we knew it was a pending case. So waiting for the outcome. We didn't see that video before. That's something new. And it's disturbing. I was looking through the police report and the testimony from Ricardo's girlfriend, Jessica, says in here that while in the bathroom, she heard a gunshot, which does not match up to what Mr. Neal had said, that it was after everybody was gone. Because she said when she came out of the bathroom, Let's see. That Kenny Mack was on the floor. I don't believe he was moving. And Ricardo was throwing water on Kenny Mack twice. So it's not matching up with the testimony. And when I hear that, when I see that, I feel like it's hard to understand. You know, completely believe the testimony if it's not matching up with other testimony that was given like right after the incident. So that makes it difficult. I will, I have to say, um, that I don't feel like there's been, um, accepting of accountability by Mr. Neal, like there it's kind of more excuses coming and no accountability. for actions that have happened, that's my feeling about it. So I would recommend denial.

Thanks, Alder. Additional comments, Alder Grant?

Thank you. I think... What we need to keep in consideration is we did remediation. There was a plan in place. You know, some things that are sticking out to me is I think intentions are good, but follow-up isn't happening. We have no trespassing orders put on people, but they're being allowed into the bar. An ID scanner in one of the reports said the ID scanner had broke a month prior. He stated he had ordered a new one. When asked him when he ordered it, he stated he had ordered it that day. He was aware that part of his agreement was to have a working ID scanner. So I think I understand that we allowed renewal. I also know in this council, we believe in second chances and an opportunity to fix things. So I don't want people to judge it based off of things that we've allowed in the past because We do want to see businesses succeed. We want to see good come of this. But when we're not seeing follow-up happening and those second chances actually being followed through, we have a tough decision to make. I've been on this council where we didn't renew licenses for an establishment and it's not easy. These are people's livelihoods. I get that. But clerk, how many people or how many licenses do we have available right now for people?

So... As of today, we have, I believe, three available Class B liquor. So all the other licenses, Class A beer, Class A liquor, Class B beer are not on a quota. but class B liquor is on a quota. And I believe we have three available.

And remind me, are those, those are more expensive, correct? No, no.

The reserve licenses are more expensive, but they're just the, the class B liquor is a quota. So the state had imposed a quota on the number of class B liquor licenses we could issue 30 years ago. And so, um, That's why they're in hot supply. They're highly demanded because there's a quota.

Sure. So in the past, we've had zero licenses available. We have establishments waiting to get licenses. So, you know, when we offer up second chances and someone's waiting a month knowing that this is a stipulation, are they taking this seriously? And is the follow up actually occurring? And again, I believe he has been in tensions with no trespass orders. But why are these people being allowed into the establishment then? So I think we have to keep in mind that the follow-through needs to happen, and I'm not sure we're seeing that here. Thank you.

Other comments? Alder Morgan.

Going back to some of that and what Alder Hutchison's comments were, first of all, we have to realize the value of a Green Bay Tavern license. We have people that are trying to get the reserved ones and are spending... You know, thousands and thousands of dollars just to get that. And I worked in the tavern history for five years. I knew then the value of keeping my bar open and not having the police trying to shut me down. If we would add ID scanners there, and I saw that on December 25, it wasn't working. And then again, on February of 26, it wasn't working. I would have gone out and found something better. You can't always trust an app. The other thing I didn't like is when they were asked for their video footage, they weren't supplying it in the five days that is part of the stipulation. So they're in fact violating the rules of their stipulation and be like violating any other laws. As far as this gentleman that was the victim, the enforcer, I've had to work with two actual enforcers, one with the Cosa Nostra and another one, another Chicago gang. If I saw them out in social, I went the other way. I didn't invite them in two hours after bar closing. I didn't invite them in to have a drink if I already knew they were inebriated. Those are things that as a bar owner, you know you can't do. And then having a discharge, I've carried concealed now for 52 years. 38 and a half of them were driving a squad car, and I still carried then, and I still carry today whenever I feel I need it. I've never had an unwanted discharge in fights, in battles with combatants. I asked the gentleman that owns this bar when we had the first hearing, Do you have a permit? I believe he said he had a concealed permit. I don't know if it was Wisconsin or what. I asked him what training he had. He had no training. I go every September, and I get certified by the Sheriff's Department. I qualify with the officers so that if I have a gun on me anywhere, I know how to handle it. I know what not to do. I wouldn't carry it into my barn. in a situation where I thought someone was drinking and I may have had something myself. So I think he's just totally given up on what a proprietor of a licensed establishment should be doing to keep his license. So I will second Alder X proposal.

I don't think that was a formal motion, but I appreciate your comments. Additional comments or motions?

Yeah, five disturbances over a year. I mean, but they're all big. And I understand the attorney's point. They're all outside in an area where there's a lot going on outside on that block. I myself have had programs canceled because I did my credit card ran out. I mean, they so I had to go back and do that. So when he said that I all that's happened to me. So it this balancing act is So interesting because they're very, the five are pretty high magnitude disturbances, yet they all seem to be outside. It's not like the owner's directly involved with either starting these or implementing these or doing these things. It's always someone coming in and doing it. As a matter of fact, when the fight, between the couple started, they stopped the fight and had them go outside. So I don't know what else you can do except call the police. So I don't know. I'm just sitting here. The The magnitude is very high, but again, I just, I'm having an issue, especially after seeing the video, of pinning everything on the owner of this establishment, when it's always been something coming in and causing the grievance. So that's where I'm sitting right now. So the older prophet, that was it.

So we've had this discussion at least twice. I watched back and I was a part of the discussion back in 2024. I'm going to make some of the similar comments that I made back then. So this incident, it's much different now seeing video footage, in my opinion. The video speaks for itself. And I bring myself back to when I was a bartender at an establishment right next door to a license that got revoked. pre my time on council for some of these similar reasons of the type of disturbances that would break out. Watching the video, if I was the bartender that was in that establishment and that was what happened, rather than just picking up the phone and calling 911, I would feel unsafe. And that's what I said two years ago. But two years ago, I was in favor of letting the court system settle this. And here we are two and a half years later, post this disturbance. It had been dismissed. Charges have been refiled. License has been renewed time and time again, at least two years. But now we're seeing something different in the video footage. And again, I would not feel safe as a bartender at that establishment, given that there was anyone in the establishment after hours that is a huge red flag that was never allowed when i worked and that was a huge cause of disturbances in the past and it makes me wonder if that's leading to some of the more recent disturbances as well um i am not in favor of of granting this license um that video footage i think spoke volumes to me tonight thank you mr mayor

I think on the point of us renewing it in the past, I think this council has in the past intended to not want to make decisions. So we would wait for the court to sort it out. I think we've reached a point now where we do have to make a decision on this and we can't wait any longer. I do want to reframe it, though. It can feel sort of punitive, removing a liquor license, but it's not a punishment. It is a privilege that is granted to people. They have to pay. They have to prove themselves that they... can hold this license for their establishment and operate in a way that is safe for our community and benefits our community, we have to have really high standards on this. It's alcohol. It is a substance, a mind-altering substance that can lead to great harm. So we have to have high standards. And when something like what happened in 2024 happened, You know, it seems like there was a lot of nuance to that issue. I don't know exactly what happened, but what bothers me is that a remediation and abatement plan was put into place and not all of those places, not all of those pieces were met, especially looking at the license scanner. So, I mean, already having sort of this egregious incident and then after that being asked, okay, you've had this mistake, you've had this issue, but we're going to now, in order to keep your license, hold you to an even higher standard. you need to meet that standard. And I don't think they've met that standard. So it's not punitive. It's just a matter of risk assessment and risk abatement at this point. If they're not able to meet the high standards we place on them, can we trust an incident like this isn't going to happen in the future? And not even, you know, something to the severe of the standard, but just somebody being served underage and getting into an accident. There are risks that can happen here, and we need to be aware of those risks when we're dealing out licenses like this. So I would be in favor of the non-renewal, the denial of the appeal.

Thanks, Alder. Alder, I think Grant.

I'd like to make a motion to deny the appeal.

Alder makes a motion to deny the appeal. Seconded by Alder Morgan. Is there comments on that motion?

Thank you, Mayor.

I think one of the biggest things, I'm going to piggyback off of all their profit, but one of the biggest things out of all of these issues that we've seen through this whole report is there was zero accountability for anything that happened. When the gun was discharged, the bullet jammed and apparently it went off. Um, when he reached across the bar to grab the apron by the neck, the guy had pulled his $20 back, but there was no, there's no accountability on like, I shouldn't have done that. Or why didn't you call the police? Well, my, my emotions were ramped up and I didn't call the police. So there's, you look at all these altercations that have happened, which are substantial. Um, the sale of cocaine, uh, it happened outside. You know, there's no accountability for the issues that have gone on. And then you look at the plan that was put in place with PD and things were not followed. I just can't support it.

Thanks, Alder. Additional comments, Alder Grant?

Just a really quick point I forgot to make. Again, my decision is purely based off of what Mr. Neal can control. Remediation happened in March of 24th. In December of 25, he already had a scanner that hadn't been working for a month. And one thing I missed on that when I initially spoke is he then called the officer back to ask for recommendations. So did he order us ID scanner? He's asking for recommendations when he said he ordered one that day. Um, if you fast forward then to February, he still doesn't have a working ID scanner. So that's over a two month span of not having an ID scanner. Again, what are things that Mr. Neal can control? Those are things he can control. And the incident in 2024, I don't want to dismiss the fact that he had someone in after the bar was closed. It was four in the morning. That's not allowed. Thank you.

Anything else on this motion? We have a motion to deny in a second. All in favor will say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And that motion succeeds to deny the appeal from Mr. Neal. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Made by Alder Coffin. Seconded by Alder Eck. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. You guys have it. We're adjourned.