All right.

It is six o'clock, so we will call to order the Monday, February 23rd, 2026 meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee.

All members of the committee are present, so we have a quorum.

Is anyone would anyone here like to make a public comment?

There is no one in the uh audience.

Whatever.

There's no one out there, so I don't think anybody wants to make public comment.

Moving on to approval of minutes from our February 9th meeting.

Do any members of the committee object to the minutes as they are presented?

Seeing no objections, we will consider the minutes approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to invited bartender applications.

First up, we have Sarah Elizabeth Evans for the Q Club.

Sarah does not appear to be here.

And we didn't uh take any action last meeting, so we will also hold this application over to the next meeting.

Moving on, we have Lupita Roque Roke.

Um who is also not here.

Um so let's hold that one over to the next meeting.

Also, yeah, Brian.

I just want to tell you that for both of those applicants, I didn't see anything in their records that would uh prevent them from being issued a license.

Everything that's substantially related is far enough in the past that I think it's uh I think it was eight and nine years for those.

So I didn't have any objection.

Uh the most recent offenses for the second uh applicant that you mentioned indicate that she's a terrible driver, but uh we really can't hold that against her as far as an operating license goes.

Um Sarah Evans does appear to not be the best driver I've ever seen, but uh most are related to traffic, not uh well I yeah, and now that you mention it, um I think she self-reported a recent OWI, but it didn't show up on the police check.

So I would imagine she would not report that if it weren't so.

So yeah, we probably better follow up on that.

That was yeah, actually, I think one of the questions from last time we met was how she came up with something we didn't know about.

Yeah, and if that is the case, then certainly I would object to that in the strongest possible terms.

Um I know there was a question posed before the meeting started.

What a the BAC is right, which is done at the hospital level.

Oh, I it was over 0.08.

I don't know, it doesn't matter.

Once it's over zero eight, it's an impermissible blood alcohol content.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to let you know that in case I'm not at the uh meeting where you finally take these up for action.

Okay, thank you, Brian.

Yeah, we'll we'll see if they show up to the next meeting.

Um just to kind of keep them to the standard.

We try to keep most people too.

Um yeah, Steve, go ahead.

So will this be on the comma council agenda then?

No.

Uh or okay, we'll hold them both over to the next coin meeting.

Um so we will move on to other applications.

Um any concerns from the clerk's office about either of these applications?

Extension of premise.

I assume that's something we do yearly.

Correct.

It's their annual uh St.

Patrick's Day celebration plans.

So no concerns from the clerk's office.

Yep, and then also Magellans for a sidewalk cafe.

Again, assume this is uh same as every year.

Okay, perfect.

Correct.

I just have one quick question because I know that this has come up in the past with Magellans.

Um, do we have notes from engineering specifically related to attaching stuff to the sidewalks and and whatnot?

Any notes would be included on the emails just because I don't have them in front of me, but with the application itself that Paul has.

Yeah.

But I do believe it's just the ones that are verbatim for all applications.

Sure.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

No complaints in the packet, but they do have to follow the rules per code.

So I can make the motion.

Yep.

I will make the motion to approve uh Magellan's extension of premises and sidewalk cafe as presented.

All right.

We have a motion to approve, second it by Alder Person Halvin's laban seconded by Alder Person Van Trieste for approval of Magellans, extension of premises and Magellans for the sidewalk cafe.

And you can vote when it's before you venture.

Hey, there we go.

Thank you for your patience.

Just utilizing that as a teaching moment.

Okay.

There's not a lot of people in attendance, so we have the time.

Thank you.

Oh, I said I said yes on the screen, but aye.

And that is approved unanimously.

All right, moving on.

Discussion recommendation referral from Alder Person Van Trieste to consider additional authority granted by recently passed state legislation regarding towing vehicles in reckless driving offenses.

Brian, do you want to talk about this one?

Sure.

I handed out uh memos that my assistant uh Michael Radovich put together.

Um you'll note the date on it is back uh in early November, so you can tell we've been working on this for a while.

There's been quite a bit of discussion both within our office and uh with the PD.

Um we've kind of gone full circle on our conclusions on this, and the final recommendation is to go ahead and adopt the state statute pretty much as is as presented in that ordinance that Michael had prepared.

However, uh we have not heard from everybody that might chime in on this yet.

Um so I this is certainly ripe for you to go ahead and read the memo and the draft ordinance and uh make your notes and pose your questions and comments and so on, but it's uh certainly not ready for any action this evening.

But it's uh it's a tool that the legislature has provided to us, and we think it's a good idea to take advantage of it if it's there.

Um I mean, what has can you fill us in briefly on what has been the discussion between your office and PD?

Is it how enforceable this is or no?

It's not the enforceability of the most of the discussion had to do with the severity of the remedy, really.

Uh there is also some discussion about where we're going to put cars.

Um if they're towed.

Uh we know that the thrust behind this legislation was coming from the city of Milwaukee, where they have a much more severe problem with reckless driving than we do here.

And so the remedy for this, the the towing immediately, an impoundment of the vehicle, seems like a pretty severe punishment right off the bat.

Um so we had some discussion about that, and as I say, we kind of came full circle and decided that yeah, let's let's go ahead.

Uh there's obviously discretion on the part of police officers as to uh just how far they want to push it and what remedies they want to exercise at the scene, depending upon the circumstances and the severity of the offense.

Should by other departments uh such as the city administrator, and I don't believe that we got a final commentary from him or uh possibly the mayor.

So that's why I'm recommending that we don't do anything tonight with this other than just consider it and uh read the memo and familiarize yourselves with the the premises of it.

Thanks, Brian.

Um Steve, this was your uh your referral.

Do you have any commentary?

Um before we get to questions.

Yeah, just for the record, uh you know, because it is uh now state uh uh state statute that we can do this, I think it it'd behoove us to uh move this forward when we get a chance.

Uh maybe with the new mayor, I know the the city administrator is on board with this as far as I can tell.

And uh I'd I'd like to kind of nip this one in the bud.

Uh there's there's a whole lot of things going on uh even over in my district that could warrant some reckless driving charges.

And uh with that I'll I'll uh keep keep the rest of my thoughts to myself uh let this process pan out a little bit better.

Thank you.

Uh Alicia, go ahead.

I did have one question.

Um and Brian, you may not be able to answer this, maybe more of a question for PD.

Um if somebody is, say, for instance, pulled over for an OWI situation, um, are there vehicles typically impounded?

I'm just trying to think of like a similar scenario where something like this might occur.

Um not impounded in the sense that they're hauled away and locked up.

But uh certainly they don't let the person drive their vehicle home.

But I I don't think it goes to the level of uh, you know, in in impoundment.

Sure.

Okay.

Yeah, I was just kind of curious, especially I mean, kind of timely with the incident over the weekend, so I was curious how that would that feels like it meets the criteria in the memo.

So thank you.

Yeah, it it takes uh one of the things that the memo explains is that it's a pretty serious situation to be charged with reckless.

I mean, you it's got to be a pretty egregious situation.

It's not just weaving across the center line, it's putting people's lives at risk.

Plowing into the city hall sign?

Well, I it looked like a pretty solid hit.

The driver's life might have been endangered.

Well, if a person had been standing in between that car and the sign, that's what I think.

As I was out there looking at the damage this afternoon, I was looking over my shoulder.

Yeah.

Um I don't expect you to have this data handy, but I'm just curious.

Do you know how many reckless driving citations PD's issued in the last year or so?

I don't.

Okay.

Figure that was a long shot.

But would we be able to get that information?

I know we're not make taking any action tonight, but that might be something useful to have.

Sure.

Yeah, that I'm sure that that's readily available.

Um general comment I would have is that no matter how many tools you've got in the toolkit, uh the enforcement, um, the the emphasis by the police department on traffic and uh, you know, uh making that decision uh that we're going to crack down on bad driving behavior in the city is the most important first step.

The tools come in after that.

Okay, I have one more question.

Sorry, he didn't recognize me.

Okay.

Um so I did notice that there is um a subsection here regarding stolen vehicles.

Um if a vehicle is stolen and then it is driven recklessly, impounded, and is identified as stolen.

Is there any way for us to recoup our costs?

Would that then the cost of the impoundment be added to the costs that the offender would then pay back to the city?

Um I guess I'm just trying to make sure this isn't gonna cost us more than then it's worth, I guess.

Yeah, I think that the way it runs right now, now I don't know this for sure.

But I believe that when we use elders for towing an impoundment, that you don't get the car out until you pay elders.

I don't think that's a city expense, but again, I might be that might not be correct.

Well, that's where I guess I was concerned because that makes sense if you're paying elders, but if it's a stolen vehicle, the rightful owner should be able to just get their car back.

But then there is still a payment to be owed to elders for the cost of towing an impounding vehicle.

Um so then I guess where does that cost fall?

Is that gonna fall on the city to pay that, or is that gonna be something that we can put that fine on that?

That's going to be a uh part of the restitution claim, uh criminal restitution claim.

That's what I would think.

I just wanted to make sure, and I don't know if that needs to be spelled out further.

Um, it wouldn't.

Um I would add though that many times when we're dealing with offenders like this, uh we're not real successful in getting restitution paid, but certainly the the court orders the judgment for restitution.

Sure.

Thank you for the clarification.

Go ahead, Steve.

Uh Brian, this is back to you.

Uh section one sub uh B and sub-C.

The one uh sub B is stolen vehicles, the other one's disposition of vehicles, and one has 60 days on it uh if it's not uh uncle if it's unclaimed for more than 60 days on the stolen and on the dispos uh disposition of the vehicle after the impoundment.

Um it's a 90-day unclaimed, so maybe we want to align that you know, to have it the same period of time.

Just my thought.

Yeah, good thought.

Um my only comment on that, and again, I don't know all the details on this.

Michael Radovich prepared the memo and is the guy who is really the most knowledgeable on the topic right now.

But uh it depends upon how far we can vary from the state statute.

Um if it allows us to to vary those numbers, we can sure look at that.

But if it's a matter of just adopting it wholesale or not, um I would imagine we can do that, but I don't want to commit to a firm answer right now.

Fair enough.

Um I I guess my dumb question is like what happens today if if the police pull someone over for reckless driving?

Do they say don't do that again?

See you later with a ticket?

I mean, I would I guess I had kind of assumed if we stop someone for reckless driving, it either ends in an accident, hopefully not.

Um, or they would at least arrest them.

Yeah, well, I think you probably are on to the the correct point there that it's going to be coupled with some other offense, an OWI or or something.

Um I would imagine that uh if we were to make it a municipal code violation, uh then all we have is the ability to issue a citation for a forfeiture.

That's the most we can do at the civil level at the at the municipal court level.

Uh if the police opt instead to charge with a state offense, uh then depending upon the level of severity, um, there are different, you know, it may just be a misdemeanor, it may rise to the level of a felony depending upon the circumstances, and there will probably be other offenses tied to it, or there certainly could be.

So and if it was the uh an offense that would prohibit somebody from driving, an OWI, for instance, then certainly they're not going to drive away.

Uh if it isn't, uh I imagine there could be lesser charges where yeah, they would get a citation be told to be a little more careful and sent on their way.

It really depends upon the circumstances.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Um any other questions from anybody while we have this in front of us.

So, Brian, your recommendation is we hold off on this until your office can do a little more sure.

And what I'd like you to do is to to read up on that, and when this comes up on the agenda again at the next meeting, I will have Michael here to answer more knowledgeably than I can.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, that was gonna be kind of my next ask.

Is Michael gonna come in and talk to us about it?

So would we also be able to get somebody from the police department?

I think that might be helpful.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think this uh the ineffectiveness of this discussion stems from my failure to look at the ONL agenda on Friday and to be able to make plans far enough in advance so that we could have an intelligent discussion tonight.

So that's all on me.

No worries, Alicia said she didn't have to be able to do that.

I didn't read the updated agenda either.

So it's all right.

Um it gives us an opportunity to think about it for two weeks until we uh until we do anything.

So we will hold this uh discussion over to the next meeting also.

Um so then moving on, communications, Brian.

Anything from your office?

Molly, Kelly Clerk's office?

No.

All right.

Uh that being said, we are adjourned at 621.

So thank you, everybody.