All right.

It is six o'clock, so we will call to order the Monday, June 22nd, 2026 meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee.

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

Is anyone here for public comment?

All right.

Nobody's moving, so we will move on from public comment.

Approval of minutes.

Does anyone have any objections to the minutes as they're presented in the packet?

Hearing no objections, we will consider those approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to invited bartender applications.

First up, we have Sherry Anderson.

Is Sherry here?

Here come on up.

So you're Sherry?

Yes, I'm Sherry.

Okay, and you are?

I'm Brandy Coakley, the owner of Backstreet Pub and Grail, her employer.

Okay, perfect.

That was really what I was going for.

It's just your name on the record.

So and who you were.

So Kelly, did we I there's no uh police report attached to this?

Did we do one for all of them?

All of them did.

Um I am unsure as to why some transferred over and some did not.

Okay.

Okay, just curious.

Um so you have held a bartender's license in the last two years?

Yes.

Uh Walkish somewhere else, or uh just Waka Shah.

Okay.

Um, okay, so I assume this came.

Okay.

I think I I caught up.

Thank you.

Um you had a uh DUI last year?

Uh February.

Yeah, okay.

Yep.

Um your only one, nothing else.

Yes.

Okay.

Um were you working at the bar then?

At the time, no.

Oh, okay.

Were you aware?

Yes.

Okay.

No concerns since or how long have you been working there?

Uh total since 2008.

Okay.

But you weren't working.

No, I was playing a curbage tournament.

She was currently employed at that time at Backstreet, but she was not drinking at Back Street.

That's what we're getting there.

It's Monday.

So it's Monday, and I was on vacation last week, so I'm still uh coming back from things.

Uh do any members of the committee have any questions for Ms.

Anderson?

No one.

All right.

Um, I don't either.

It's it's one.

Uh so in my opinion, this isn't uh isn't uh a problem, I guess I'll say.

Um it's one.

It's only one.

It was recent, but you've been a bartender for a long time.

So I'll make a motion to approve the operator's license for Sherry Anderson.

Second.

All right.

We have a second.

Um so we have a motion to approve license by Sherry Anderson.

Um motion by myself, second by Jesus, sorry, Eric.

What's your last name?

Helgested, thank you.

I knew it had an H in there, but um again, it's Monday and I was on vacation last week.

So that's my excuse.

Well, you can approve it when it's or vote when it's before you, please.

And hopefully I just need Doreen's Wigderson I was gonna say.

All right, we're having uh none of our monitors are working up here.

Can everyone out in the gallery see what the vote was?

No, all right.

We're having all sorts of problems then.

Kelly, can you tell me what happened?

Can you see the vote?

I also cannot see the vote.

Oh, is that okay?

Um do I have to call everybody by name or kicking?

Can we just go down the line?

Or by name.

Technology is great, huh?

It is a Monday.

Okay.

Um Alderman Wignerson.

Aye.

Alderman Manion.

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Wateska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgitstad.

Aye.

Okay.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

Um.

So that will go on.

Um that'll go under our common council meeting scheduled on July 7th.

Um, it'll be on our consent agenda, so we very likely won't even discuss it.

Um you're welcome to show up if you like, but I don't believe you have to given the the time.

So then you'll receive a call from the clerk's office afterwards.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

All right, moving on.

We have Jay Tyler Gross.

Is Jay Tyler in here?

Come on up.

All right.

Jay?

Yep.

And you are?

Uh Stephen Zilly.

Agent.

Or owner or yep.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um, so you worked at a bartender previously?

This different place or yeah.

Okay.

How long have you had a bartender's license?

Uh I think mod expired for the village in either 2004 or 20, 24, or 2025.

But how long were you?

Uh have you been a bartender?

Oh, I've been bartended since I've been 18.

Okay.

So that's yeah.

I can do some math, that's okay.

I try not to, well, you're not old, so I don't have to worry about aid shaming.

I try not to age shame people when we're up here.

So uh do any members of the committee have any questions?

Okay.

How long has uh Jay been employed with you?

It's gonna be a year in July.

Okay.

All right.

Um I make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve his um license for Jay.

Thank you.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Alder Person Wiggerson, seconded by Alder Person Manion.

Uh Kelly, I assume you'll have to.

Unless things are working on here.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I'm not getting the vote prompt.

So Wignerson is aye.

Okay, then we can do it manually.

Okay.

I did it once.

All righty, so Wiggerson.

Aye.

Um Alderman Mannion?

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Wateska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestadt.

Aye.

All right.

That is approved.

Unanimously.

So that'll go on our on consent agenda for the next meeting, July 7th.

Uh, you're welcome to show up if you like.

Um, I think it's unlikely that you're required to be there.

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

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a nice night.

Uh Mariah.

Mariah here.

Rishkovich would be the uh Polish pronunciation of it.

But okay.

Uh is Mariah here.

Guessing not.

Is that a third time?

Yeah, that is.

Um Brian, can I ask your opinion here?

Um the only thing on this person's record is uh theft.

Retail theft.

Amended disorderly conduct.

I don't is that uh if you're looking for my opinion, I uh have already marked this one okay.

Okay.

I think that's uh it's kind of hard to say the disorderly conduct is substantially related considering the the work that they do.

Yeah, so yeah, I don't have any objection to that.

Thanks, Brent.

Uh yeah, just I thought the same thing.

I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

Um I'll make a motion to approve Mariah Grishkovich's uh operator's license.

I'll second.

Okay.

Motion by myself, second by Alder Person Manion.

I assume we'll do a roll call vote.

All right.

Alderman Wignerson.

Yes.

Alderman Mann.

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Witeska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad.

Aye.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

Uh we'll just keep moving on here.

David Schubert.

David here.

Come on up.

Evening.

So David and you are?

My name is Cesar Durantes.

I'm Club 400 owner.

Okay.

Thank you.

Have you ever been a bartender before, David?

Actually, I'm not a bartender.

I'm a kitchen manager.

I just got my license just for in case of emergency if somebody didn't show up, that type of thing.

So I technically am not bartender.

Okay.

But you've never held a bartender's license before?

I've I have a bartender's license, but I've just but technically my my main job is kitchen manager.

Okay.

I've only used it every now and then when someone doesn't show up kind of thing.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So how long have you held a bartender's license?

Like how long have you been?

Two years.

Okay.

Oh, so okay.

This is a renewal because of.

Um the uh the OWI on your record that didn't occur at work?

No.

No.

Okay.

Um questions from the committee.

No questions.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

I'll second it.

All right.

Motion to approve by Alder Person Helgestad, seconded by Alder Person Wiggerson.

Alderman Mannion.

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Wateska?

Aye.

And then Helgestad.

Orderen.

Yeah, that's gone through.

Yeah, you did you want to get Doreen and I on the record?

I think.

I mean it'd be weird to make a motion and then not vote for it, but I was gonna say.

But I still think we're supposed to.

Yes.

Yeah, we are still supposed to.

Okay.

Alderman Wigderson.

Yes.

And that guy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um passes unanimously.

Okay.

Next council meeting is July 7th.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have Joshua Schumacher?

And everybody made it in today.

Not everybody's having a Monday.

Hello.

Evening.

Hi there.

So Joshua and I am Jeff Rock teacher, the agent.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um I don't have any concerns.

This is we're looking at stuff that's old.

Almost nine years.

An OWI from 2002.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Does anybody have any questions?

Because I was gonna just gonna make a motion to approve.

I second.

I'm sorry, who's seconded?

Jim Everton.

Evert.

Um, so we have a motion, a second.

I do have um well, no, never mind.

I'm good.

So roll call.

Okay, let's vote.

All right.

Alderman Wiggerson.

I'm a yes.

Alderman Mann.

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Witeska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad.

Aye.

All right.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you for coming in.

That'll be on coming in.

Thank you.

That'll be on our council meeting on July 7th.

If you're interested in coming, otherwise you'll be contacted by the clerk's office afterwards.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Have a great night.

All right.

Moving on.

We have give me a second here.

We have other applications.

Not too many.

Um Kelly, were there any concerns on any of these?

None from the clerks.

None from PD or anything.

Not that I am aware of.

Okay.

Anybody want to make a motion to approve these all at once?

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the uninvited uh other applications as presented on our agenda.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion to approve.

Um I'll read them off here since I guess it's should probably reference it.

Um motion to approve Joey's slice of walkie-shaw class B beer and liquor combo speedway number 4120, uh cigarette retail speedway number 4119, class A beer insider, speedway number 4120 is early testing today.

Uh Class A beer and Cider, Walkish Iron and Metal Junk Dealer, uh Starship Video and Games, secondhand jewelry dealer, and Latin American Fiesta Temporary Class B.

Um motion by Alder Person Manion, seconded by Helgested.

Alder Person Helga said that's right.

I wasn't sure for which one of you wasn't.

Sorry.

Yes.

Yes.

Aye.

Alder Mount Latesca.

Aye.

Alder Mount Helgested.

Aye.

All right.

Passes unanimously.

Moving on.

Uh discussion and recommendation.

Proposal to amend municipal code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto municipal lot 13.

Um, Brian, any do you want to talk about it?

Well, this is Mr.

Everett's proposal, so I think it's appropriate for him to introduce the idea.

Okay, so what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow Maddie's bar downtown to have the same rights as far as the extension of premises that the bars on Main Street have that are attached to the clock tower parking lot.

And uh there's that small little lot.

What is it 13 3 13?

Three uh 13.

It's lot 13.

It's it's about a 20-car uh parking lot.

It's right, it's it's right next to uh Walgreens.

And uh they they want to they want to use the extension for Friday night live and for the uh the use of for fundraising and stuff, they'd be getting the the licenses like everything else.

It's just they want to be able to do what the bars on Main Street are doing right.

They wouldn't even really be able to participate in Friday Night Live, would they?

They're not within the footprint, yeah.

So do a clarifying question along that line, they'd be putting in their own per uh permit request for that on their own.

They would have to close the parking lot and get a special event permit.

Yeah, right.

Right, same thing in order to be able to extend premises onto the parking lot.

Yeah, and we're strictly looking at just Friday night live dates.

Is that correct?

Are they strictly looking at Friday night live dates for the accessible Friday night live dates and uh like for the fundraising?

They've got I know they mentioned they've got one fundraiser in August, I believe.

So they'd be they'd be pulling something for that.

It's sure it's probably on a weekend, I think.

I also would like to ask um, because with the street closure permit for Friday night live, the Dora does not extend to that location, correct?

That's right, but if the ex if the premises, the licensed premises were extended onto the parking lot, that would allow open intoxicants by virtue of it being within the licensed premises.

The the Dora is to allow it beyond licensed premises and on public streets.

The extension of premises would allow them to have it either in the bar or in the parking lot.

Okay, but they can leave that area.

That's my yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Got it.

A question on the permit side of things, that application process.

Um would there have to be further revisions to that permitting to that permit application or anything else to you know if we uh uh adopt this?

Um I mean obviously I would imagine they'd be subject to the same questions and requirements that we have for other extensions of premise and things.

Um so it wouldn't change that, but is there anything else we need to modify in the permit process?

I don't believe so.

I think the same uh the all of the requirements are already in place.

The only change that's being made here is to treat lot 13 the same way that lot three is.

Okay.

Um but it would still require a uh public right-of-way closing and special event application, and of course there's a lot of requirements that go along with that as far as uh proving that you have adequate uh sanitation and and so on.

Right.

Uh they would have to comply with the uh boundary requirements.

Um I thought that for the benefit of the newer members of the committee who may not have been around back when the uh when 9.115 was originally created or the uh street closure or special event ordinances were created, which is about 10 years ago now.

Um the concerns at the time uh about prohibiting licensed premises being on public property have to do with the fact that first of all it interferes with public parking, takes away public parking places.

Um secondly, there were concerns expressed at the time about using public property, which is taxpayer funded and taxpayer maintained for the benefit of private profit.

Um then also there was a concern about you know, where do you draw the line?

Um at the time, the House of Guinness had already had a tradition of having their St.

Paddy's Day party in the parking lot behind.

So when that came up, I was I I think there was a lot of sentiment on the common council at the time.

Well, well, we're not gonna yank the rug out from under that.

So that's why the exception was created for the clock tower lot.

Um, but the uh it was uh not expanded beyond that because of the concerns that I already mentioned.

And correct me if I'm wrong, that's my recollection of the uh kind of an uh very summarized form of what the discussions were at the time as as a member who was sitting on the ONL committee ten years ago when that went through, I think that's very accurate, Brian.

That's my recollection as well.

Same yeah, go ahead.

Brian, I mean I ask you because you're I I guess have there been just broader discussions within City Hall that may have occurred with regards to this, um, particularly like from public works as to were they in support of it objection, have they weighed in at all?

No, I haven't heard anything from anybody else on this at all.

Excuse me.

Um I'm not aware that there's been any other discussion among uh other departments or committees about this.

Okay.

Our concern, I guess uh the discussion that we've had in my department is about where do you draw the line, where's the stopping point?

Um if we use the House of Guinness as the example, then you know I don't know that we want to open up every parking lot in the city and or every street for that matter, to becoming a part of a private licensed premises, but um you can understand why Matty's is making the request because they see just Kitty Corner across the intersection, it's happening over there.

Um personally, I think all of the concerns that were raised 10 years ago in the discussion are still valid.

Does this require the same this change?

Does this require the reading at the council multiple times before it's changed or yes, yep.

Any ordinance that amends the code somehow requires three ratings.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure.

Yep.

Are there any other does anybody know?

I don't know.

Um are there any other events in that in lot three besides the Patty's Day?

Yes.

There are.

Yes.

Other bars that uh who open up onto that lot, like Magellan's.

Um I know that they have uh closed a portion of that parking lot, put up a tent out there.

So it's being used by other bars there.

Uh I think it's for the most part, it's in conjunction with Friday Night Live.

I think they do it on the nights of Friday Night Live and open up on both ends.

Thank you.

Um I don't know, for what it's worth, I I'm concerned about this, but I can't think of a reason that we shouldn't do it other than concern.

It it seems a little unfair that we give it to people who are lucky enough to be in that lot and not the others.

Um not saying I've fully made up my mind, but I I don't I don't see how we tell one bar they can't do it when we let others.

You know, the only thing I can say that I was also thinking about this was the parking situation, you know.

But then again, they are applying and making that business decision that they're okay with losing effectively access to that parking to their benefits.

You know, they have to weigh that you know decision themselves, and you know, that's it's right there next to their business.

But if they want to close it and have an event, that is their you know, that's part of their decision making.

So the transit center is also very close.

There's other, you know, they could make a you know, they could reach out to one of the other property owners nearby as well.

Um that's up to them to figure out.

Um, but there are options available, but they'll have to, as this specific business in this you know, case would have to figure that out, I think.

I think it's worth remembering too that the extension of the licensed premises is a separate issue from the closure of the lot.

Um so the it kind of follows on naturally that you're going to lose the parking spaces if you allow an extension of premises onto the lot, but it's really a separate issue.

You can close the lot for a special event without extending the premises onto it.

You just would not be able to have alcohol out there.

Correct.

So I don't know if it's a difference with much of a distinction, but it's uh it they are separate issues.

So I guess in that, you know, and it let's take that as an example.

You know, the neighboring businesses doesn't serve alcohol that's next door to them.

Their next door neighbor could similarly apply to close a lot if they wanted to have an event, they just wouldn't have alcohol, for example.

Right.

Are you talking about the Walgreens?

I'm talking about the beauty salon that's next door.

Oh, the beauty salon.

I suppose Walgreens could an adjacent property.

Are they not?

Is there is there a separation?

I wouldn't say there is a separation.

It has to be an adjacent property by the rules we have established that would apply for that, correct, Brian.

I didn't mean to get that far in the weeds, but I was just trying to you know come you know, say what's I don't recall exactly, but I don't think so.

I thought we did the I I thought we did that with the street closure ordinance where it had to be either adjacent adjacent property, someone on that frontage, or it had to come through the alder of the district specifically.

I don't know that we did that specifically with the parking lot, but yeah, if we didn't, we should probably think about that because I shouldn't have the power to just close a municipal parking lot because I want to.

Well, right.

That that was a big part of the discussion at the time.

I I guess I'll just my concern with it is more along the lines of safety.

Um just because of how open that parking lot is, and without seeing an exact footprint of what you know their extension would look like.

There's, you know, the entrance off the street is pretty, you know, it's you come into that parking lot directly off the street, kind of from either either side off St.

Paul or Madison.

Um whereas when I think about like where they usually put the the tent in the clock tower lot for like St.

Patrick's Day, you're kind of more removed.

So what I would not want to see is that lot be closed and a car plow into an event that's happening in there.

So I you know, if I were to consider approving this, I would want to see probably the whole parking lot closed off in order to allow it.

Kind of like what we do with street closures and extensions onto the street, where that parking lot is completely out of service during whatever event they're applying for, and that whatever barriers are in place are substantial to prevent and to clearly mark um that that parking lot is closed.

So that's like some kind of substantial barricade in my mind, not some you know, plastic chain rope on a couple of buckets across there where someone can just plow through that.

That's that's my thought behind it.

Um that would be what I would come be comfortable with, you know, having to have in place before I would even consider approving this.

I'm gonna speak up if that's okay, Paul.

Um I was sitting on my hands over here, beaming to say things.

It it is m slightly better than when all those were two-way when they were all one-way streets to get to Walgreens or other those businesses, people would cut through all the time.

Oh, that lights red, I'm gonna cut through.

It was like a so that's it's a lot less, but it's also a lot more because when you're coming downhill, sometimes you get that arrow, sometimes you not.

You may go go short and then go through that lot to get to the side street.

So uh thank you, Alderman, for bringing that up.

And uh I was thinking the same thing, but kept quiet.

Thank you.

I'm gonna leave it at that.

So then my question would be are we building that into the ordinance?

I my I think you know, if if Maddie's, I mean, if we approve this, obviously the extension of premise and their footprint is gonna have to be approved by us anyway.

So are we building the ordinance to include with this particular lot that they have to have like what you're saying, like a you know, or do we have to have language that says that if we're considering this for a specific lot that has open access to the street, as that one does, then it's required that you provide whatever kind of more secure barricades, considering how that lot is laid out.

I guess I'm trying to no the ordinance is is for the city.

Maddie's is would be just applying to have an extension of premise in that lot.

So I guess I'm trying to determine is the ordinance the issue, or the fact that Maddie's wants to do the extension of premise.

And am I making am I making sense?

Do you know what I'm trying to say?

Or do we craft the ordinance so that that's all right because it we're adding this lot that it's specific to that lot, then Maddie's makes the extension of premise.

I guess is that's what I'm trying to.

I guess I was gonna because I was gonna say something similar to what you just brought up is that as part of the existing application process, they have to submit a plan for the layout and everything else, if I'm not mistaken, and in part of that is also how then they're going to the executive's approve goes around to the different city departments as far as I'm aware, gets approved by like say public works and whatnot.

Um, they've got to have that as part of their plan.

Am I am I right, Brian?

Or am I incorrect on that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, and I think the answer to all of these questions is probably contained in the special event and street closing ordinances.

6.17 and 6.18.

So it's already it's already in there.

The the barricade requirements are all in there.

Okay, yeah.

So here's what I'm gonna say.

I don't have a problem granting or I don't have a problem being in approval of this change.

I do understand their positioning, they're right there.

We have precedent where we've allotted of we have allowed it for lot three.

So as it's written, I personally don't have any problem extending that out, knowing that they would come forward with the plan, and it's built into the special events ordinances already as far as what's required.

So that's how I view it.

I you know they are very close to downtown.

I am sure that they get traffic from Friday Night Live to their business, which is why they're requesting this.

Jimmy, you would have to probably confirm that since they are since you've spoken to them.

So I'm assuming that they see an increase in business from Friday Night Live, which is where this request is coming from.

So I don't necessarily have a problem making this change.

And of course, any other change for any other public lots going forward.

Um it doesn't make an automatic shoe in because I guess I'm looking at the proximity of this lot to the other lot.

It's very close, right?

Right across pretty much kitty corner.

Right.

So that's where I'm saying that I'm okay with this considering the location, and it's close to Friday Night Live.

They have they have traffic that comes from Friday Night Live, so I'm not against this, knowing that we have built in other ordinances regarding the barricades, and of course, they would have to present their extension of premise where we could question what their outline and footprint look like.

That's my thought.

As far as the parking situation, you know, being that's it's proximity to other parking resources, especially with the transit ramp right there.

I think that alleves alleviates a lot of that concern.

You know, with lot three, I think most of the time we don't always close that entire lot.

So that's kind of helped that case too.

So um, I don't have much concern with this change.

I don't know if someone wants to make a I was just gonna ask.

I'm going to make a motion to approve the changes to this um this ordinance.

Let me get the correct language so that I can um give it to you.

So I'm gonna make a motion to approve the proposal to amend municipal code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto municipal lot 13.

I second all right.

Uh we have a motion to recommend approval of the changes to municipal code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto municipal lot 13.

I'm gonna ask what just Brian, one more question before we vote.

Um I was trying to flip through the red line ordinance.

Um is there a limitation in the number of times that they can do that throughout the year?

I don't I think there is, but I don't uh I don't have a specific I think I again going back to the street closure.

I think we did put a caveat in there, but I don't know if we caveated that out for the downtown business district because we made a lot of exceptions with Friday Night Live in mind, and I don't know if I guess the reason I ask is are we opening?

I I don't think Matty's would ever do this, but are we opening ourselves up to a situation where they could just decide to close that municipal lot permanently?

No I I couldn't see I mean I think it kind of continued.

I think it's the same discussion with or 180 days a year.

Or uh we will have that question answered when it comes up at council.

Okay, if you're going to move it to council tonight, thanks.

Yep.

Um call.

Alderman Wigderson Umma, yes.

Holding a manion yes, Alderman Evert.

Yes, Alderman Latesca.

I alderman Heg Helgastead.

I think that's valid.

Um all right, that passes unanimously.

So we'll be talking about that soon in the council.

Uh communic moving on, communications, Brian.

Anything from City Attorney's Office?

No.

Kelly, anything from the clerk's office?

None.

All right.

Umless anyone has anything else, we are adjourned at 6 40.