Ready?

All right.

All right.

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

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

First up, public comment.

Anyone here for public comment?

All right.

Looks like nobody is here for public comment.

So we'll move on to approval of the minutes.

Do any members of the committee have any concerns with the minutes of the meeting from March 9th as they were presented in the packet?

No, no.

All right.

Seeing no concerns, we will consider those approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to invited bartender applications.

First up, uh David Dufeck.

David.

Evening.

How are you doing?

Good, how are you?

Great.

So you're David?

Yes.

And this is your agent?

Yes.

Could you introduce yourself?

Dan Totalovich.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for Mr.

Dufeck?

Have you ever held a bartender's license in?

I have.

You have just not in the last two years?

Not yeah, I let it.

I've had one for probably the past 15 years, and I've never had to come in front of this until now.

Okay.

So thank you.

Yep.

Any questions from anybody?

Go ahead, Alicia.

I see a liquor law violation on here from 2003.

Can you just expand on what that was for and what was going on there?

Uh I was 18 years old and I got pulled over while I was drinking.

That was 20 some years ago.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the committee?

Okay.

Given that I'll spare everyone from your age, but you are uh you're old enough, and despite the offenses, it has been a long time.

And actually, before I say that, you are aware of his past.

Okay, perfect.

It's been a while, so it's worth uh worth bringing up.

Um I'll make a motion to approve your application uh for David Dufek.

So Alicia.

And I'm sorry if I outed your age by asking my question, but I will second.

That's perfectly fine.

All right, so we have a motion to approve the application for David Dufeck.

Motion by myself, seconded by Elder Person Helvin's Laban.

You can vote when it's before you.

Holman's Laban aye.

And tries to say aye.

Wait, none.

We're good.

Just waiting.

Somebody hasn't voted yet.

Alderman Manion.

No, Manion.

I clicked yes.

Okay.

Okay, just double checking.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, there we go.

Fine.

Um that passes unanimously.

So this um this will go to our next common council meeting uh held on April 9th.

Um it was unanimous, so it'll be on our consent agenda.

It's been a long time since you've had the offenses.

You're welcome to show up in case one of the other members has a question.

Anyone from the council can pull it off of consent and we have to talk about it.

But it has been a long time, so probably in pretty good shape.

So awesome.

After that, you'll receive a call from the clerk's office.

All right, sounds good.

So thanks for coming in.

Thanks.

Uh moving on, we have Jessica Patz.

Come on up, Jessica.

You're Jessica?

Yes.

And your agent.

I am actually her supervisor.

Okay.

Um, the agent couldn't make it, so she asked me to come.

Okay, thank you.

And could you state your name, please?

Ebramiat.

Okay, thank you.

Um, have you ever had your bartender's license before?

Yes.

Okay, just not in the last two years?

No.

In Wisconsin?

Yes.

Okay.

Um it says on your application you have not completed the responsible beverage server.

I turned in the circuit effect hit with her.

Okay, I'm just what's written on the paper.

So okay, I was gonna say they regardless of what decision we make, they will not issue uh license until that's completed.

But then we can bring that over.

That's no problem.

She have a copy of it.

Um they'll call you if they need it.

It's just it says no on the application.

So any questions from any members of the committee?

No.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Go ahead, Alicia.

Yeah, I'll make the motion to approve um the operator's license for Jeff Jessica Pats.

Tell tell the microphone that we have a motion to approve the uh bartender application for Jessica Patz, motion by Alder Person Halvin's laban seconded by Alder Person Van Trieste.

You can vote when it's before you.

Halvin Sleben, aye.

All right, that excuse me.

Uh that's approved unanimously.

Um same thing.

It'll be at the next council meeting, which is April 9th.

It was unanimous, so it'll be on consent.

This is not liquor related, so I can't imagine any committee members would complain, but you're welcome to show up in case someone asks a question.

So you'll be contacted by the clerk's office afterwards.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh moving on, we have Lupita Roque, which I'm guessing is not Alex.

Uh let's see.

Does anyone want to make a motion?

Eight years.

Okay, go ahead, Alicia.

Um, yeah, I I see that she's not here, but I also am looking at um the record listed, and there's a single offense from eight years ago.

So I'll make the motion to approve uh the application for Lapita Roque for an operator's license.

Um all right, I will so we have a I'll make a motion.

Sorry.

There's a motion.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Um I will second the motion to approve given that it has been eight years um since the single offense.

Um so we have a motion to approve the bartender license for Lupita roque.

Uh motion by Alder Person Halvin's laban seconded by myself.

You can vote when it's before you.

Halvin Sleeven aye.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Uh next up we have Anthony Zukoskis who does not appear to be here.

Um I'm gonna recommend we hold this one over until the next meeting, given the uh recency of the offense.

So moving on to invited other applications, sorry, second here.

Make sure I know what I'm looking at before I start talking again.

Okay, yeah.

All right, we have a single um item on here.

Were there any concerns from the clerk's office or any other folks about this?

Um yes, so the reason that that applicant was invited is because they have failed compliance compliance checks from PD the last two years, um, and both of the years compliance checks are included with the application.

Okay.

Um in that case, I will recommend we hold that one over until they can attend and explain.

So moving on, if I can get this paper clip resolved.

Um we have other applications, and there's a whole bunch of them.

Does anyone uh is clerk's office have any concerns on any of these applications?

No concerns.

Thank you.

Ryan, any concerns from the attorney's office?

No.

Okay.

Anybody?

Alicia.

I have a quick question.

Um, because I did notice on the agenda that the that it's other applications, but the applying for license isn't listed.

So I wasn't sure what these licenses are for.

I was just a little confused.

Nope.

Nope.

Understandable.

Um, so for sure, Watch Circle there is um a renewal for secondhand dealer license.

Um, let's see here.

Walk Shaw Old Car Club.

It's their temporary class B for their annual car show that they have in Frame Park.

Um, Quick Trip and Walgreens were change of agent applications, and then I can double check on the other two real quick.

Thank you.

Brian, is that an issue for us since it's not correct?

So Waukeshaw Hospitality LLC was um the extension of premises for the angle side, and then just have to cafe.

And then sidewalk cafe for Spring City Wine House.

Apologies about that.

Um, Brian, any concerns that that wasn't technically on the agenda.

Uh no, because that's the way we've always done it.

Um, you know, my opinion has always been that we should be more specific on the agendas.

We really do need to give public notice of just what exactly is being considered by the committee.

Uh why don't we address this on the uh council agenda?

You can make your recommendation, and then uh let's let's maybe put a new practice into uh effect for the council agenda.

Don't we normally have it on this cover sheet though?

It normally does list what the application is.

Well, is that something that's made public?

Is that published?

Yeah, that's attached to the uh it just looks different this time.

So normally it'll say like in the applying for license, it'll normally say that it's for an extension premises or sidewalk cafe.

It just for this, this is the first time I've ever seen it blank, so that's why I I asked the question.

Okay, so this document is attached.

Is attached to the agenda.

Yes.

Okay.

And what does it say?

It says the name of the business, thank you, and then the agent.

Normally it would say what they're applying for, whether it's extension of premise, change of agent.

This time it just happens to not well, it gives notice to the public that these entities are here for some license.

So I think it at least gives fair warning.

I don't know that it's really material what kind of license or material enough.

So I think this this works.

If anybody had any concerns, it would be about the businesses or the individuals getting a license.

And uh they are identified here, and apparently it was published.

So thanks, Brian.

I think we're okay.

What I would like to see is the agenda itself be more specific.

But if if there's a complete attachment, then uh then that works.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I can make a motion if you give me that.

Oh, yeah.

Let me uh there and I scribbled down what they all were so you can uh I can handle it, read through that too.

That's not even that bad.

All right, I will make the motion to approve the following licenses.

Waukesha Hospitality for extension of premises, watch circle as a secondhand dealer, Spring City Winehouse Sidewalk Cafe, Waukesha Old Car Club Class B temporary license, quick trip change of agent, and Walgreens change of agents.

Thank you.

Any more I'll second all of those.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion to approve Waukeshaw Hospitality LLC extension of premise, watch circle, secondhand dealer, Spring City Winehouse LLC, Sidewalk Cafe, Waukesha Old Car Club, uh Class B temporary license, um quick trip, change of agent, Walgreens, change of agent, uh motion by Alder Person Halvin's labens, seconded by Alder Person Lemke.

You can vote when that's before you.

Halvin Sleeben Aye.

Entry as the air and that passes unanimously.

So moving on, uh discussion and recommendation, review and possible action on update to municipal code 13.055, residential solid waste and recyclables collection.

Sorry, go ahead.

Good evening.

Alex Damien, Director of Public Works.

I'll just give a brief overview.

So we took this to the Board of Public Works a couple meetings ago.

There was some discussion.

No changes were made to the original draft that was proposed.

Since you have everything over available in your packet there, but if there's any questions after she's through, happy to uh go through those.

Additionally, uh attorney running uh just notified us of uh one item that we are gonna want to probably change as well.

So we'll we'll let you know on that once we get to there.

So turn it over to Anne.

There so most of the updates made were just to reflect the change of the contractor for the city crib side service as well as kind of address some of the uh changes with the solid waste fee that went in place this year.

Um so the main things that were added was we defined dwelling unit, dwelling unit was previously referenced in the ordinance, but we just did not have a definition for that.

Um and that's important for that solid waste charge.

And then we changed uh I guess we added a section for special eligibility rules.

So previously we had a non-eligible property could become an eligible property, but not the other way around.

Um two examples that came up recently after the special charge was the women's center on East Avenue.

Um they are technically an eligible property, but they do receive a private dumpster service.

So there was a request if they could be, I guess, removed from city service because of that.

Um another one is a property owned by the housing authority where they have two adjacent properties that share a parking lot structure in the back where they have a dumpster and once again don't have the space for those additional garbage and recycling carts because it would be eight per property.

It's quite a few.

Uh so they do use that dumpster currently, and they asked if they could be also released from that that special charge obligation.

Um most of the other updates made were just to reflect, like I said, the changes with the contractor, including like cart ownership and times of collection and things like that, but none of the changes impact the service that is being received by the residents.

There's a lot of uh red on the red line version, but most of it is just for moving items around to better reflect the organization of the document.

And then the thing that attorney running brought up was um at the end of the document under the new section eight.

There we go.

So it's a scavenging prohibited section.

Um, this is currently in conflict with a different city ordinance.

So we would like to strike this to section out of the ordinance change.

Okay.

Any questions from anybody?

Alicia, go ahead.

I have a quick question, and it's not necessarily specific to the the redlining, um, but I I recently had a question from a constituent, so I figured I would just ask you since it is included in this ordinance, um, the four are the more than four um dwelling units.

Um, what is the what is the rationale behind that?

And is there any way for uh a property to opt in uh in any way, I guess.

Um besides the it's been that way for a long time.

Um it probably has to deal with um the amounts of space available for carts and things like that.

So once you get over the four units, it gets difficult to serve them the way that our contracted services services them, and they're better off served by a dumpster typically.

Okay.

So there's a cutoff point, and that's where the cutoff is.

And that's written into the contract itself with Johns, correct?

Okay.

Correct.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I had a question from my constituent.

Why did the city what was rationale behind the city moving from waste management to Johns?

The contract with waste management expired, and we went out to RFP, and um John's was the lowest price qualified bidder moving forward.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any other questions relevant to the municipal ordinance changes?

You did well, Emma.

Nobody's got any questions.

Steve, Dan.

Make motion?

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, I will uh make the motion to approve the changes as presented uh to the ordinance section 13.055 of the municipal code.

I'll sign with that.

All right.

Um we have a motion made by Alder Person Helvin's labed by Alder Person Manion to approve the updates to 13.055 residential solid waste and recyclables collection as presented.

Are we removing that section that they talked about?

I said as presented.

Brian, how specific do I need to be in terms of removing section eight?

Well, we probably ought to talk about that a little bit.

Uh recently I started working on a revision to the junk business ordinance, which is section eight point oh two of the code, which has to do with licensing junk dealers, junk collectors and junk dealers.

Um that was at the request of uh an alderman who is not on this committee.

And in the course of reviewing 8.02, found that there is subsection 11, which I did not previously know was lurking in there, and uh I it's almost hidden because it really shouldn't be in that section.

It doesn't have anything to do with licensing junk dealers, but what it says is uh it's titled pickup of junk from terraces, and uh this has been in the code since 1991.

Any person can pick up collect junk or refuse left on terraces for collection as long as it's between 8 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

And as long as it's done responsibly and neatly and doesn't make a mess.

Um that's paraphrasing it a lot.

Um in section 13.055, um, it's new subsection eight in the uh the new draft.

It says that uh scavenging is prohibited.

No persons other than the owner or occupant that place the items for collection may take possession of such items.

So we've got a direct head-on conflict between the two that has to be resolved, obviously.

The easiest solution to that right now is simply to delete subsection eight out of the new draft and uh and simply rely on the provision that's been on the books since 1991, which apparently has been working okay because I don't recall ever seeing a citation come through for a violation of that.

Um what I would like to see ideally down the road is for that to be removed out of the junk business ordinance because it really doesn't have anything to do with licensing junk dealers.

Uh that's that's an entirely different uh thing that's uh the concerns there are very different.

The concerns there are making sure that junk dealers are not acting as fencing operations for stolen goods primarily.

It's to have them registered with the city.

So ultimately what we can do is move that section out of there and maybe put it into 1305, but at least put it into a place where you'd be able to find it if you were looking through our code.

So that's a suggestion that we have is uh that we delete that section uh titled subsection eight scavenging prohibited from this draft altogether.

And I would add too that the original thought behind that section was not to prohibit scavenging, it was to establish who has title to the materials until they're collected.

So if there's any question about anything being uh any ownership related issues, this would make it clear that the ownership remains title remains in the person that placed it there until it's taken.

So it really wasn't initially proposed to address scavenging, but it ended up that way.

Um and as you can see, there are a lot of changes in here.

I would add to what Emma had said that quite a bit of changes also had to do with the adoption of the fee because the fee is based upon dwelling units, whereas previously the provision of service was based upon eligible properties.

So we had to kind of separate out the definition of dwelling unit from eligible properties to uh to make it work with the new fee.

Um other than that, it's a lot of rearranging to make things in a more logical order, and uh just various tune-ups here and there.

It looks like a lot because it's a big and complicated ordinance with a lot of interrelated moving parts.

So, as you know, any time you have an ordinance like that and you make a change here, it's gonna have a cascading effect, and there will be changes elsewhere.

So that's what we were dealing with when we we drafted this.

But we think that this uh makes 13055 more in line with the reality of the way things are actually being done out there under the new Johns contract, under the fee and just a couple of other tune-ups that were just based on our experience over the last few years.

Okay.

I saw most of the red and assumed that was you having reorganized.

So glad my assumption paid off.

Would it be one second?

Um would it be the end of the world if we left section eight in, even if it is contradictory a little bit to what is in the other section of the code?

Because I mean, if if we're trying to establish title and it's gonna end up saying that scavenging is prohibited.

I mean, I know it's contradictory, but is it the end of the world if they're contradictory for a while?

It's not something we want.

Um as I pointed out in our discussion before the meeting start started, if somebody were cited and wanted to fight it, it was to the level that they hired an attorney.

Uh this is something that a defense attorney would pick up on.

We can't have contradictory ordinances out there.

Uh it is important that we be consistent because we want if citations are issued, we want them to stand.

Um, and just because we want to look like our code is coherent and cohesive and doesn't contain contradictory provisions.

Um the issue of title and scavenging, I think probably does not rise to the level where it it's a major concern that needs to be addressed.

If it becomes that, we can address it.

Um I was also telling Alex and Emma about the many many times that I have benefited as a property owner in Waukeshaw from people scavenging off of the curb in front of my house.

And it just happened yesterday, as a matter of fact, when I took our old washing machine out and put a new one in and rolled that old one out onto the curb, and it was about 20 minutes later that a guy showed up to pick it up.

I had planned to make arrangements with Johns to pay the fee and have it taken away and never got the chance to do it.

And I've actually benefited from that many times.

And I you know, as long as it's done responsibly in the way that 802 requires, I think it's probably an overall good thing for the city.

Um it saves people from having to pay a 40 dollar fee from having the stuff hauled away.

Uh it provides a little bit of income for somebody that apparently needs it and wants to work hard to get it because this guy lifted a 250-pound washing machine into the trunk of his car, so I feel like he really earned whatever he got for it.

Um it's I think the way to address it right now is probably better just to delete it out of 13.055.

We can give it some more thought down the road, but it's you know, it's probably not a bad thing to allow scavenging as long as it's done responsibly.

I was gonna say, could we just take the last sentence out of it?

Because that's the one that really says nobody could take it.

It's just the first sentence just establishes that the property owner still owns it.

Well, in fact, if you look at the notes that I have in front of me here, that's exactly what I did.

Um we could change the title of that section to title or ownership of waste materials, something like that.

But as I say, I don't know that that's really a real crucial thing to address.

It's an issue that would probably arise rarely, if ever, and can probably be addressed as it arises.

I mean, certainly there is law out there already that establishes the ownership of property.

There's plenty of property law on the books.

Uh so yeah, we could do that, but I don't know that we really need to.

Um it's well, it's easier just to delete the whole thing.

Okay.

But we could address it in the way you suggested, yes.

Okay, yeah.

I uh being that I proposed the original motion, I would amend my motion to say that we uh that I would like to approve this as presented, except striking the new section eight and renumbering of the following sections accordingly, if that's accepted by the seconder.

I uh I'm fine with that.

I would like to make a comment though.

Go ahead.

Um this isn't a new section that was added to this draft ordinance.

Right.

This has been on the books since 2015.

Whenever we're gonna do that.

We've been in, I just looked it up.

It was repeal and recreated in 2015.

So we've been in contradiction for 11 years.

Yes, we have counting.

So I I respect the fact that we shouldn't have that contradiction in there, but I wanted to point that out that this isn't something that's proposed as something new that was caught.

This is something that has been there for a while and obviously hasn't been either problematic or hasn't been getting enforced.

That's right.

And it's in a section where you wouldn't expect it to be because it's not related to the main purpose of the section.

And looking at the title of that section 8.02, you wouldn't guess that it's in there.

Uh and I would say too, that this happens from time to time that we find these kinds of things in the code.

Um there are inconsistencies in there, there are uh things that have crept in, you know, the gradual change of a section here, a section there over the years, uh just naturally results in those kinds of things, and it's very difficult to go back, particularly when our code existed only in PDF form.

Uh it's very difficult to search through the entire code to identify any potential contradictions out there.

I mean, that's you'd have to have somebody doing that full time.

So when we find these things, we address them.

Well, well, I can lay as much blame on myself as anybody because I was on the ordinance and license committee in 2015 when this ordinance was created.

Yeah.

But not in 91 when the other one got created.

No, not in 91.

Um, so uh as I understand, we're uh there is a motion to approve uh the ordinance as it was presented, with the exception of removing section eight scavenging prohibited and then renumbering.

Correct, Alicia?

Okay.

Motion by older person havens labeled seconded by Alder Person Manion.

Vote, please when it's before you.

Halvin Slavin Aye.

Or abstain and don't vote.

Yeah.

Vote or don't.

Team Lemki.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

So thank you, Emma.

Alex.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh moving on, communications, Brian.

Anything from the attorney's office.

Well, I just wanted to make one note that I had sent out, I don't know, a week and a half ago or so, a uh draft of some proposed revisions to chapter nine.

Uh some of them are the result of Act 73 that was passed a year and a half or so ago, and it's taken effect in phases.

Uh some of them are just changes that we think should be made, but I would request that that be put on the agenda for consideration and that we uh we at least talk about those changes and hopefully we would put them all into effect.

We're recommending them.

But for now, I just threw them out there uh with a memo for discussion.

But it is something that we would like to see happen.

Okay, perfect.

Thanks, Brian.

Um Clerk's office, Kelly anything?

Nothing from the clerks.

All right.

Um with that we are adjourned at 635.

Thank you, everybody.