Give me one second here.

Um, it is 601, so we will call to order the Monday, March 9th meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee.

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

Uh moving on to public comment.

Anyone public comment?

Chief.

No, no, no, no.

Okay.

Maybe they hear it.

Okay.

All right.

Uh moving on from public comment since no one else is in the uh gallery.

Approval of minutes.

Anyone have any concerns with the uh objections to the minutes as they're presented?

Seeing none, we will consider the minutes approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to licenses, um invited bartenders.

Uh we only have one person on the list.

Um, sorry, let me pull it up so I get it correct.

Um we only have Sarah Evans on the list.

Um she has not attended, but based on her history and the time period uh between when uh a few things were on her record, and uh you know enough time has passed between that and now so I will make a motion to approve the uh bartender's license for Sarah Evans and I'll second.

Okay, so we have a motion to approve the operator's license for Sarah Evans uh motion by myself, seconded by all the person Halvin's laban.

You can vote when it's before you vote.

And we're doing some training here, so this might take a minute that passes unanimously.

My computer now needs a restart.

Moving on to our next agenda item.

Uh we have other applications.

Um want to make a motion on these, we can approve them all at once.

Yeah, I will make the motion to approve the applications for discount smokes and spirits, class A beer and liquor retail for the story LLC extension of premises, the steaming cup sidewalk cafe, and tofties table sidewalk cafe.

I'll second.

All right, perfect.

We have a motion to approve by Alder Person Halvin's laban, seconded by Alder Person Manion.

The uh licenses for discount smokes and spirits, class A beer and liquor retail for the story LLC extension of premises, the steaming cup sidewalk cafe, and Tofty's table sidewalk cafe.

You can vote when it's before you.

Uh moving on, discussion recommendation, adoption of Wisconsin statute 349.115 into municipal code regarding the impounding of vehicles used in reckless driving.

Uh Brian Michael, yes, good evening.

Uh assistant city attorney Michael Radovich.

Uh, my office did get a referral regarding uh adopting the statute into our code.

The statute had been amended by the state legislature recently, making some changes.

Uh so I submitted a memorandum to the council.

I'm happy to discuss any questions that you may have.

How soon can we implement this?

I was reading in the newspaper about uh a couple other incidences and other communities.

So as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Well, I mean it would be this is the first reading tonight.

There'll be a second reading at the next council meeting, and they will have uh the option at that point to suspend the rule requiring the third reading.

And uh ordinance changes or or ordinances are effective the day after they are published.

So as soon as we can get it published in the Freeman, the next day is when it will actually take effect and can be enforced.

Any other questions from anybody?

We made Michael stay late to present to us, so I am happy to do so, and I guess I will let you guys know uh there is a minor error in subsection 7A, so that will be slightly different next meeting.

Uh it will read something along the lines of the city shall return the vehicle when they when all costs and towing and storage is paid.

So I do apologize for that.

I wouldn't call it an error, but we are going to add language in there that kind of restates the obvious that if the payment is made, then the car will be returned.

It's just language to put an affirmative duty on the city to return the car if everything is paid, which I think is implied.

You can read between the lines, but we're going to make it explicit.

Okay.

Chief, do you have or Chief?

Do you have any perspectives on this concerns?

I do I fully support it.

I think it's gonna say otherwise I'm gonna have to repeat it, so it's easier if you just come up and no, I truly believe that reckless driving is a public safety threat.

Uh not only to our residents, um pedestrians, motorists, um, and I think this ordinance is gonna help keep our residents uh and our public safer.

Um it's a tool that we can use, uh keep people accountable.

Uh and I fully uh support it.

Alicia, go ahead.

This is probably more a question for you because I know I asked you, Brian, uh, when we talked about this a couple weeks ago.

Um, so I view reckless driving as as kind of a similar offense to say a DUI, right?

In both instances, you are theoretically endangering public safety.

Um so if you're dangerous, if you're driving dangerously, you're you're driving dangerously, um, regardless of what you've consumed that day.

Uh so my question was to Brian, and I don't know if we had a full answer on this.

When someone uh gets a DUI, that vehicle that they were driving, is that also impounded?

It depends on the severity of the uh DUI because sometimes uh if there's a ragus where it's left in a safe place, something else can come pick it up other than the driver.

Um, but I will say this if you have a serious um OWR DUI or reckless driver, uh, and we can clearly show that uh that vehicle itself is uh is a future threat to the public as well.

We're gonna impound it.

Gotcha.

Uh that that's what I said is each situation is unique, uh, but it provides a another advantage or tool force multiplier for our officers to make those decisions.

Excellent.

Thank you for that clarification.

Steve, go ahead.

Okay, Chief.

Uh do we have body cameras in our city?

We do.

Oh, we do.

Okay.

Wasn't aware of that.

I'm thankful for it.

Oh, they we too.

You gotta do the tour, Steve.

He's new.

Chief, um, just kind of curious: how does this work operationally?

Um when we when we impound a vehicle, like I don't believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we don't really have an impound lot that the PD manages themselves.

So is this all done through like a third-party contract or a towing company?

Could you just elaborate on maybe we have multiple towing companies um that uh will assist us, but if we have a more severe reckless driver, we have a place where we can store those vehicles as well.

But uh those are normally um vehicles that are involved in uh fatalities or serious death.

We usually store those by uh our lot.

The other ones uh our partnering tolling companies will store them.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Sorry, I thought of one more question that I don't know if we got a complete answer on because I think we were kind of waiting on you to be here as well, Chief.

Um, so in the situation where a vehicle is stolen and then is then used for a reckless driving incident is then impounded, and the rightful owner of this vehicle comes forward and they want their vehicle, those those costs for impounding that vehicle then would fall on the city.

Is that accurate?

Well, I don't know if they'd fall in the city.

I think what would happen is it'd be hopefully waived.

Um I'll say this.

If we have a stolen vehicle, we're gonna do everything in our power to identify it before we impound it.

Sure.

Let's say we do impone it and we do find out that the vehicle was stolen and we have an owner, we're gonna do everything in our power to help uh help.

And I would assume like we would pay costs.

Yeah, and I would assume that the the offender would kind of have those costs put onto them, whatever costs there would be.

Um, but I also know that the likelihood of us always recovering those is probably lower, and you guys might be able to speak to that more.

Um, but I'm just trying to think of like costs to the city generally.

I mean, I know they can't get their car out, but if it's a stolen vehicle, obviously we have to return it to the owner.

Um, I'm just kind of wondering how do we recover any costs for towing for um storage, whether it's with our partners or with ourselves.

Um just kind of trying to figure out what that's that's gonna look like.

I'm generally supportive of this, just wondering about logistics.

Uh there would be potential for uh restitution or a civil claim against any reckless driver if there are severe, you know, costs incurred by the city.

Uh but like the chief said, the duty is on the police department to return the vehicle to if it's stolen to the owner free of charge.

Excellent.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Um along that line, uh, probably more for Michael and Brian.

Is this something?

I mean, it says we're going to recover costs, right?

Is there gonna be I guess it says fine two?

So is this something that would end up in our table of fee schedule?

Yeah, thank you.

It should be there already.

Understand that this we already have the ability to do this.

What this does, what this uh amended statute does is it just kind of enhances the already existing remedy by allowing us to impound the vehicle, even if it's not the owner of the vehicle that's driving, and even if it isn't a subsequent offense.

It just kind of uh strengthens the existing law.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification on that.

Yeah, I suppose you're right, it is that because there's certainly more to it than just towing it, right?

It's court duty and stuff like that.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Anyone want to make a motion?

Somebody who asked for it to be implemented as soon as possible.

Yeah, I want my name on it.

Uh for I'll make a motion to approve.

Here might say I make a motion to approve ID number 26-03071 adoption of Wisconsin statute and the municipal code regarding the impounding of vehicles used in reckless driving.

And I'll second that.

All right.

Uh we have a motion to approve by Alder Person Ventriester, seconded by Alderperson Lemke on adoption of Wisconsin statute 349.115 into municipal code regarding impounding of vehicles used in reckless driving.

I assume with the uh short modification as stated by Michael to Section 71A, but we can clarify that at council.

So you can vote what is before you.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chief.

Have a good night.

Thanks, Michael.

We didn't exactly give you a hard time there, did we?

But all right, moving on.

Discussion and recommendation on AB 105 for raised grain for tribute Tuesday for June 9th, July 14th, August 11th, September 1st from 530 to 9.30.

Um Brian, this is just correct me if I'm wrong.

This is one of those that we just kind of have to say, okay, this is between raised grain and the state.

The state issues the permit, but they it requires municipal approval before they will issue the permit.

And we can put a couple of conditions on this.

The main one being whether or not we allow them to sell products that are produced by other than raised grain.

Um I don't recommend that we put those kinds of restrictions on it.

I think that we want them to be able to sell any products.

Um particularly if they want to sell non-alcoholic alternatives to beer.

Well, you know, we wouldn't we really wouldn't want to restrict that.

So I wouldn't recommend that we put any restrictions on it uh other than it's from 5 30 to 9 30.

Um other possibilities for restrictions are we could say to them, and you may have seen this.

I dropped a little package on you on Friday that you may have looked at already.

Some of the revisions in chapter 9 include a new section on FSR.

Um we could also say to them that everything that they sell has to be consumed on premises, and it's not for carry out.

Um I don't think that that's ever going to be a problem at Tribute Tuesday or any of the other events where they're coming.

It's always been tailored specifically to you know, handing cups from tappers right to people that are there at the event.

But that is something that we could add.

But I I would recommend just approving this.

My only question would be I think they have to do a separate AB 105 for each one of those dates, don't they, Molly?

That I'm not sure of.

Well, we can easily follow up on that, and if uh if they do, then we'll we'll need a separate AB 105 for each one of those, but it's essentially the same application three times, four times.

Do we have to clarify that in our motion?

Well, you could add a clarification that if a separate AB 105 is required for each one, that as long as the terms are identical for each that you approve all of them and author authorize the clerk to sign off on all of them.

Okay.

Thanks, Brian.

Go ahead.

I will make the motion to approve um the city signing off on the AB 105 as presented, and any additional AB 105s as long as the terms are identical for the tribute Tuesday events where raised grain brewing company will be selling their beverages.

And I will second that.

All right.

Uh we have a motion by Alder Person Helvin's labin, seconded by Alder Person Lemke for approval of AB 105 for raised grain for tribute Tuesday on June 9th, July 14th, August 11th, September 1st from 530 to 9:30, pending that we don't need an extra application for each, and if we do, the clerk can approve that as is.

Yes.

And I'll right away say yes because things aren't working.

Yeah, spinner of death.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Uh moving on discussion recommended discussion and recommendation on AB 105 for raised grain for Guitar Town Music Festival on June 13th from eight.

Noon, 12 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

Any questions from anybody, Alicia?

No.

But please.

I will make the motion to uh approve the AB 105 application for raised grain brewing company for Guitar Town Music Festival on June 13th Dean Lemke second.

All right, motion to approve AB 105 for raised grain for Guitar Town Music Festival on June 13th from noon till eight.

Motion by Elder Person Helbins Laban, seconded by Elder Person Lemke.

Dean Lunke, yes.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

Moving on.

Uh communications, Brad, Michael.

Molly, Kelly, Clerk's office.

Nothing from us.

All right.

There's nothing else.

We are adjourned at 621.

Thanks, everybody.

Oh, if we might have to say