Madison council declines to renew Red Rooster liquor and entertainment licenses after December fatal crash

The Madison Common Council voted to accept the Alcohol License Review Committee—s findings and not renew the Class B combination alcohol beverage license and the city entertainment license held by Red Rooster Madison LLC after the licensee admitted facts in a complaint tied to a December crash that resulted in a death.

The council—s action on June 3 followed a presentation by Assistant City Attorney McReynolds and testimony from the licensee, Timothy Payne, and the city—s alcohol enforcement attorney. The motion, made by President Vittiver and seconded, directed the council to "adopt the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the ALRC" and to "not renew the Class B combination alcohol beverage license and City of Madison entertainment license of Red Rooster Madison LLC as recommended by the ALRC." The council recorded no objections and the motion passed.

Why it matters: Council members and city enforcement framed the decision as a public-safety measure tied to documented overservice, after-hours service and the presence of unlicensed staff on the night that preceded a fatal crash. Assistant City Attorney McReynolds told the council the ALRC took the respondent—s admissions as true and recommended nonrenewal. City enforcement said the incident represented "gross mismanagement" and a disregard for public safety.

Assistant City Attorney McReynolds summarized the ALRC report and its recommendation that the council find certain complaint counts true. McReynolds said some allegations were denied by the respondent and not considered by the ALRC, while the respondent admitted other counts including serving alcohol after hours, having patrons on the premises after hours, overserving an intoxicated person and operating without an on-site person with a valid operator—s license. McReynolds said the ALRC concluded those admissions supported nonrenewal.

Timothy Payne, who identified himself as the owner of the Red Rooster, told the council he "cannot deny the facts of this case," said his former general manager ran the business and that the manager—s actions led to a party and later a fatal crash. Payne said he had retrained staff since the incident, reviewed rules, increased camera checks and described the venue as "a venue first and a bar second." He told the council that removing the license would force the business to close because alcohol sales provide a significant share of revenue.

City alcohol enforcement attorney (identified in the record as the city—s alcohol enforcement attorney) said in 25 years of reviewing reports this case "was the first time in those 25 years that reading a report shocked my conscience," describing multiple ordinance and statute violations and the presence of intoxicated people who left the premises and were later involved in a high-speed collision that killed someone. The enforcement attorney contrasted nonrenewal with revocation, noting nonrenewal does not bar a future application.

Council members who spoke framed the vote around responsibility and public safety. Alder Evers said there are "consequences" and noted the role of liquor licenses in supporting live music but said the responsibility to prevent harm is paramount. Alder Figueroa Cole said her "decision not to renew the license was based solely on the complaint against Rooster's license holder and his admission of guilt" and encouraged Payne to use the period out of operation to reset and return with improvements. Alder Revere and others urged the owner to use city resources to operate a dry entertainment venue if desired.

Formal action and next steps: The council adopted the ALRC—s findings and recommendation to nonrenew the licenses. The city attorney made clear nonrenewal differs from revocation: nonrenewal does not carry a 12-month bar on reissuance. The enforcement attorney explained that if the owner reapplies, the Alcohol License Review Committee could impose conditions and the council could consider additional conditions at that time.

The council—s decision leaves the entertainment portion of the business intact only if alcohol is later approved; otherwise, the venue could operate as a dry entertainment space. The licensee may reapply; the ALRC and Department of Alcohol Beverage Control inspections will be part of any future review.