All right.

It is six o'clock.

So we will call to order the Monday, July 13th, 2026, meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee.

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

Is anybody here for public comment?

All right.

Seeing nobody, we will move on to approval of the minutes.

Actually, the first time that's happening.

I noticed under the first item under licenses under invited bartender applications.

It looked like there was like the vote was recorded twice.

And for some reason, Miss Doreen is listed as absent, but I'm pretty sure she was here.

Yeah, I think that was a technical difficulty.

Whether or not maybe we can correct that and uh straighten that out before they're published.

Okay.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

So we will hold those minutes pending the correction.

Um so moving on to invited bartender applications.

Um first up we have Jennifer Begren.

Jennifer, are you here?

Okay, come on up.

Is that your agent with you?

Yes.

Okay, come on up, please.

Okay, so you're Jennifer, could you state your name, please?

For the record?

Corina Wage, X Street Pop and Grove.

Okay, thank you.

So this is just a renewal.

Um just got your application in late or I did it that unfortunately the day before it was due, so it was due in June 1st.

So I did it May 30, 30th, 31st.

Okay.

Okay, well, yeah, it's just it's in here as a renewal.

So um how long have you been a bartender?

Uh five years, I believe.

Four or five years.

Okay.

All at uh backstreet or uh Pewki as well, too.

So kind of around.

Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

All right, Doreen.

Dan.

All right.

Um I don't have any concerns.

I mean, if you've been on a bartender this long, um obviously serving a minor is a fairly serious thing, so let's make sure it doesn't happen again.

But once once in in five years, I think everyone makes mistakes.

So um I'll make a motion to approve um the bartender's license for Jennifer Bergrin.

Second.

Second from Alderperson Evert.

And committee members can vote once before you.

Yeah, nothing's coming up here, so Watuska Ian I as well.

Sorry, system issues.

Oh good.

I think this is two meetings in a row.

Okay, and that has passed unanimously.

Passed unanimously.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Um, so that was um approved by us that we'll go to our common council meeting um next week on the 21st.

Um, you're welcome to be here if you want.

Um it's unlikely we'll need you given what this is.

And then you'll be contacted by the clerk's office afterwards the next day.

Perfect.

So any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming.

You're welcome.

Absolutely.

Um moving on.

Do we have Kelly?

Oh boy.

Privati.

Privity.

We'll go with that.

All right.

Come on up.

Majellens.

Where is Magellans?

It's on the main street.

Nice tie, sir.

Thanks, Justin.

Uh so Kelly, and could you state your name?

Uh Danataliano Magellans 370.

Okay, thank you.

Wow, this is an old one.

Um, another renewal, you were just late.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh how long you've been uh Barton?

Since 2016.

Okay.

Ten years.

Uh how long at Magellan's?

Um I started there in 2016, actually, my first ever partaking.

Okay.

All right.

Uh any committee members have any questions?

I do not.

I'm good.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay.

I'll second.

All right.

Um, so we have a motion to approve by Alder Person Halgastead, seconded by Alder Person Manion.

And uh Wateska, I, assuming our system still isn't working.

Oh, now it's working.

All right.

Don't mind me.

Where did it go?

Where'd it come from?

Uh this is crazy.

Oh, you're good.

Uh oh, yeah.

There you go.

There we are.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh Iric's assuming.

Yep.

And that has also passed unanimously.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

I was gonna say our monitors aren't showing anything.

So um, same as the last person.

Uh approved unanimously, it'll go on our consent agenda.

Hey, there it is.

Um meeting is July 21st.

You'll hear back after we're the 22nd, right?

Uh, assuming there are no issues.

You're welcome to come, but not required.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Have a nice.

Well, I know some of you, but yeah.

Keep the good work up.

Thank you.

Take nice.

Have a nice night.

All right.

Uh Andrew Redman.

Is Andrew here.

Evening, Andrew.

Evening.

Matthew Fitzgerald, director of operations from Chili's.

Uh liquor agent as well.

I'm sorry.

I'm the liquor agent.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

No problem.

Uh okay, first time applicants.

So you've never been a bartender before.

I've only trained under a licensed bartenders at Chili's.

Okay.

Okay.

And how long have you been doing that?

Uh I think for less than a month now.

Okay.

Um I guess the the question, I mean, you look like you're 20?

Just turned 20.

Yes, sir.

So you have an underage drinking ticket.

Uh I mean, I guess.

I mean, how I guess I'll phrase it to the agent.

How comfortable are you that you know he's gonna be uh responsible server?

Uh he's been serving us for us for a while.

I feel really good about giving him the promotion.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Um any questions from the committee members?

You're gonna watch the uh you're gonna watch the the IDs?

Oh yeah, I've already practiced and denied plenty of people.

Good man.

Dan, Doreen, questions.

Okay.

Um yeah, I mean, like I said, uh look I don't think this is that serious of a deal, right?

It's uh an underage drinking ticket, right?

So um I'll make a motion to approve the operator's license for Andrew Redman.

Second.

There you go.

All right.

Uh motion by myself, seconded by Alder Person Halgastead was the first one to say second, so we'll say by him.

And things are working, so passes unanimously.

Um so same story.

This one will go to council next week, next Tuesday, the 21st.

Um it'll be on our consent agenda, so it's likely we won't talk about it.

Um I don't know how the rest of the council is gonna feel about a 20-year-old with an underage drinking ticket being a bartender.

Um actually might be worthwhile for you guys to show up.

Sure.

Right, just in case I try to read the room a little bit in terms of how our the current council thinks about those.

And this is one I could see some people having a concern with, so it might be worthwhile.

Um certainly don't have to.

You can do whatever you like, but uh you said next Tuesday at what time?

Tuesday at six six o'clock this room.

It's covered right away in the beginning of the meeting.

Okay, not really well, yeah.

If it's approved, it'll be approved right away at the beginning of the meeting because our consent agenda is right away.

Otherwise, you might have to wait a little while.

If if they pull it off of consent, I mean you'll know pretty quick.

Okay, right.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh Parwinder Singh, you're next.

Hello.

Hi.

Hi.

And you are?

Okay, one at a time.

Sorry.

I am agent for Nurinda.

Okay, and your name?

Narinda Singsa.

Okay, thank you.

We just want it on the record, sir.

For anybody listening or watching later.

Sorry, sir.

Question, Dan.

Sorry, thank you.

Um last year.

Do any members of the committee have any questions?

Yeah.

Um, how long has Carminder worked for you?

Sir, as a last time he's a little bit of hair as my little brother.

He's in New York to with me.

Okay.

And uh he's no right now, just uh his last uh application apply for bartender and just happen.

He just uh happening is a little bit of with me working.

I'm good to restroom, and that happened uh that kind, but uh he know more work.

Is I asking for him your first learn and exam and then his back here is uh with a wife he would last week is to come to here with me.

His learn applic apply for license okay learning permit, and then I give it me start for training.

Okay, right.

No, he's training with me.

Okay.

Questions from anybody?

No.

All right.

Um given that this is a single violation.

Um I'm comfortable personally, I'm comfortable with this, uh, even though it was very recent.

Um so I'll make a motion to approve the application for Parwinder Singh.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion by myself, seconded by Alder Person Wigderson.

You can vote, and that's before you all right.

That is approved unanimously.

Um I told the other folks.

Um this will be on our consent agenda next Tuesday.

You might want to come.

This is a fairly recent offense.

Um the committee doesn't have an issue, but someone on the council might.

So you may want to be here in case the council wants to ask questions.

Uh it's totally up to you.

You do not have to.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to other applications.

Um none of these were invite.

No, none of these were invited.

I assume based on nothing that relates to alcohol or violence.

Does anybody have any concerns with any of these?

Otherwise, we could have a motion to approve all at once, I believe.

Should be okay.

I second.

Okay.

Since you guys were lazy and didn't read them off, I will.

Um we have a motion by Alder Person Algastead, seconded by Alder Person Evert to approve the bartender operator licenses for Van Haddon, Brianna.

Oh boy, Jarigwai.

Sorry, Brianna.

Timothy Kitterath, Jenna Ray Morris, Christy Pruis.

Prius Christy Prius.

Yes.

Uh and you can vote when that's before you.

All right, that is approved unanimously.

I think I did things out of order, didn't I?

Just a little.

I was reading, I was going through my packet, not the other stuff.

Oh, sorry about that.

All right, now we're moving on to other applications.

That was previously other bartender applications.

So sorry, it's Monday.

Um Kelly, Katie, any concerns from anyone on these uh other applications.

None from the clerks.

Okay, thank you.

Um anyone want to make a motion to approve all of these.

I approve as written.

To make a make a motion to approve approve.

All right, as written.

All right.

I'll second the motion.

All right.

We have a again, you all were lazy and didn't read this, but uh we have a motion to approve by all other person ever, seconded by elder person manion.

Hop in shop number 19 class B beer and liquor combo, Puff and Pump, Class A, Cider, beer and cider 12400, extension of premises, interface security systems, LLC, private alarm system, Saint Mary Catholic Parish, special class B retail license Dolgan Corp, LLC, uh successor, change of agent, and best cab taxi cab company.

And you can vote when that's before you.

All right, moving right along.

Discussion recommendation.

Um memo for issuance of applications.

So everybody should have a letter in the packet.

Um that you can open up.

I'll talk through it.

So going back for I'll just I'll give some history and then if Katie wants to chime in, she can uh provide any comments.

So um going back for I will say probably two years now.

Um we've had discussions about how we approve bartenders' licenses, um, and kind of just the way ONL meetings work, how long we spend here, um is it the most efficient use of everybody's time?

Um do we need to invite the people we invite?

You know, should we just give give the clerk's office more authority to uh to approve licenses?

So um so there's two real parts to this.

First, um I don't think this is uh quite a recommendation, but I'm open to discussion if anybody has any concerns.

But um I would propose that we cut the ONL meetings down to once a month, um, being only with the only meeting being the second uh Monday at 6 p.m.

Uh similar.

So this meeting every month, um, and we would cancel the fourth week of the month um for every month except May and June, because that is extension season.

So um given, you know, as as we wrote out in this letter, right?

Um we would have been out of here three minutes ago.

So 15 minutes, right?

Um I don't know about everybody else.

It takes me about 15 minutes to get here uh longer if there's a train.

Um and some of that is construction, but whatever.

Um so again, you know, and we have you know, Kelly, Molly, whoever stay in for overtime or at least flex time uh when they're here, so keeping them for an hour and a half for a 15-minute meeting probably isn't the most um effective use of time.

So I guess does anybody have any concerns or discussion on changing the scheduling of our meetings going forward?

You said May and May and June will be the May and June.

We would still have two meetings per month.

Very yeah, okay.

So the rest of the months we would have one.

Um we obviously also have the flexibility as we've done in the past.

We can schedule ad hoc meetings if something comes up that we need to address quickly.

Um and we can always occasionally we'll send items directly to the council meeting, right?

If there's also something urgent that that doesn't allow for for the time to run through committee, obviously we want to limit that, but you know, again, based on how these meetings have run for two years.

I I personally don't have a challenge there.

So anyone during it look like you might yeah, I I just have a comment.

I think that this is really smart because um if you if any of you attended the leadership meeting that Tony had at the end of June, this is the kind of thing that the speaker was speaking about, like being more streamlined and um more effective leadership.

So I am totally in favor of this.

I think um it makes sense.

It's very similar to the way finance works, where finance you know cancels a lot of their meetings during the year, but we're really busy during budget season, and I think that this is just a really smart way of doing it.

Great.

Anyone else?

Go ahead, Eric.

I think as long as we have that kind of escape method and lack of a better term, I should say, but where if there's something timely where we need something to come to us for approval or for the council and that, I think as long as we have that in place, which obviously we do, um, that was really my one thought that I had, but as long as we have that, I'm I'm pretty satisfied with this, and I agree.

Just letting staff be you know, use their time more efficiently, us as a obviously a body here, be more efficient, I think is a positive.

It's a deposit, and plus it's speeds up, I think time for applicants too.

And you know, why not be you know better more efficient with their time too?

Yep.

Okay.

Uh Jim, Dan, any comments.

I I don't have a problem with that.

I've been doing this a while, and I think of my 12 or 13 years, I think I've been on ONL, probably eight or nine of those years.

Um, so I've you know, seen a lot of changes in the procedures that we've done over the years from you know having to read every every operator's license and invite pretty much every operator's license to a big streamline of what has been approved, you know, able to be approved through review in the clerk's office versus coming to us.

So um, I think this is an extension of that or a logical next step of that.

Um the one thing that I kind of was a little bit questioning of just because it's been a point of focus over the years, and something that we've kind of had to I guess examine closely over the years is with extensions, and the one thing I'd kind of would like to push back on a little bit is extensions of premise for like new businesses or where they haven't done them in the past.

That's one I think we probably should think about whether we want to have a little bit more review around that.

I know we've gotten into a habit where we haven't been inviting every extension because there's a ton of extensions where they do it annually, or you know, they're the the maps and the way they operate isn't changing, and we've been doing those kind of as a matter of course, but with ones that aren't in that situation, I'd kind of like to see those come to the committee for full review until they have established a pattern of doing it over and over.

But that was the one thing that kind of popped into my head because it has been such a point of emphasis and something where we have done, you know, had to kind of put some parameters around that or make them aware of you know what the rules really are.

So that's my comment.

Okay, well, we will come back to that because that's the the next part.

But uh, so I think we can move forward with the one meeting a month, right?

Um, I was told we don't actually need to vote on that.

Um that's just kind of a procedural deal that we wanted to just have a discussion about.

So um so yeah, first part, so once a month, except for May and June, we're good.

Um the next part gets into some of what uh Dan was talking about.

So the rest of this letter, um the immediate next section, right?

Issuance of licenses within the city clerk's office.

Um this basically covers well, I guess we laid it out a little off, but um for a whole bunch of things extension of premises, class B junk peddler, special class B junk peddler dealer, second hand article, jewelry dealers, successor of agent, amusement, game devices, private alarms, taxi cabs, taxi driver.

Um basically if the police department doesn't have any if the police department recommends approval, um the clerk's office would issue the license right away.

If they recommend denial, it would come to us for review.

Um sidewalk cafe, um basically they'll just issue them if the departments don't have any concerns, right?

If if no one has any concerns, um that was Dan's point of some concern there, and I'd be curious if anybody else has concern.

Um can I pause for a sec?

Yeah, sure.

Just related to that.

So I on specifically sidewalk cafes, I mean a lot of that is downtown.

Have and I'm asking to the clerk's office, have we denied, and I guess to this body too, because since I'm relatively new again, have we denied a sidewalk permits in recent history?

We have not denied any to my knowledge.

Okay, that's kind of what we thought.

We'll recommend amendments before it comes to ONL.

Um, and if the departments recommend an amendment, we communicate that to the applicant.

Okay.

Before it moves forward.

I mean again, this is still gonna go through that full review from all the multiple departments.

That process part is not changing at all.

So I'm very comfortable with that.

Okay.

And since you'll be the one getting yelled at.

One of the two of us.

The two of you actually both of you are here.

Yeah.

All right, we got both downtown folks here.

I forgot all about that.

Um so, anyways, that's the sidewalk cafe changes that we're recommending.

Um, the next sections lay out the current process for uh new and renewal licenses.

Um, and then after that, uh, we get into what the changes that are being recommended.

So this is this is mine and Katie's first pass on what we think we should do.

Again, the goal here is kind of to streamline, right?

Um, I'll take today as an example, right?

We had four people in.

I'm personally don't really think we had to have them here based on what had happened based on why they were here.

So um just to talk through this, right?

Um operator licenses for strongly related offenses, right?

Um they will in the clerk's office will invite the applicant to come in uh and their agent if they have multiple strongly related offenses, which are all listed in the next section, probably could have made that more clear, but it's OWI, PAC, um serving underage, serving intoxicated, sober server violations, and then any other alcohol related offenses, as stated in Wisconsin statutes chapter 125 or our municipal code chapter 9.

Um so multiple of those offenses within five years.

Uh homicide or injury by intoxicated use of motor vehicle or any single occurrence of crimes is defined in the state statutes, chapters 940 and 948, which are violent crimes and crimes against children.

So multiple alcohol related offenses, summarizing, right?

Multiple alcohol related offenses within five years, or basically harm violence, um would be invited to the meeting.

Um the next level down, it would be an application review only, it would come in, but they would not be invited.

Um that is if they have an offense within five years of the application date for basically alcohol related issues.

Um moving on to the next section, less strongly related, right?

These are things that are um not substantially.

I guess I shouldn't say that because Brian will probably yell at me, but these are things that are other, I'll say uh violations that are not related to alcohol or violence, like uh possession manufacture, delivery, use of control substances, concealed carry of a firearm without a permit, embezzlement, fraud theft, robbery, uh, credit card fraud, as a couple of examples, uh, or gambling, you know, violations of Wisconsin statutes chapter 945.

So those um how did we word this?

If none of them have been repeated over five years, then they would issue the license.

If there are multiple infractions within five years, they would forward it to us um without in without inviting the applicant.

Should have practiced this in the mirror before it came.

Um so those are all new licenses.

I don't I'll just keep going and we can uh come back to any section if anyone has any concerns.

Um for renewal licenses, um the changes would be very similar.

Um if anyone's renewing a bartender license and they have multiple alcohol related offenses, homicide or injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle or any occurrence uh against Wisconsin statutes chapter 940 and 948, they would be invited along with their agent to come in front of us.

Um for just other strongly related offenses, uh which is basically the rest of the alcohol related ones.

Um we would send it would get sent to us for review only, would not invite the applicants, um less strongly related, again, similar, right?

Single offense um would get issued.

Uh multiple offenses would come before the committee.

Um review only, no application, uh no one present.

Um point to note if they make a uh if they fail to list a strongly related or less strongly related offense on their initial application, uh the clerk's office sends them an email notifying them, and they have a 20 dollar reapply fee.

If they fail to list all offenses, it would get sent to uh ordinance and licensing for review.

Um anyone with just the next bullet, anyone with just traffic violations, uh the clerk's office would be allowed to issue um issue that license.

And then just kind of my last comment on this.

Um whatever we discuss and decide tonight.

Um the uh well, I mean, we don't have to, but this will need to be written into our municipal code if we want to move forward with this.

Um so the ask, I guess, for consideration from myself and from the clerk's office would be to um make a motion to the city attorney's office to um revise our municipal code to codify these rules into our municipal code.

So that's my speech.

Katie, anything you would like to add?

I talked long enough.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

So has I guess has the city attorney's office or the city attorney in particular, I guess, seen this memo and provided any guidance or uh feedback.

Um I can comment on that.

Um Brian did has seen this.

He has commented, as you would expect from Brian.

Um I would say Brian's preference, and and I don't want to speak for him, so if he's watching, I apologize, but I'm gonna do my best to paraphrase.

Um Brian would prefer that we be completely black and white in terms of these things get licenses, these do not.

Um and there is no gray area.

Um there is no coming before the committee to basically we don't do anything, right?

We don't choose whether anybody gets a license or not.

It's it's purely objective.

Um, which I I understand Brian's um well, I don't I shouldn't say I understand his reasoning.

I understand a reasoning for that.

Um I'm not entirely sure of what Brian's reasoning is.

Um my personal thought on that is you know, there is more to it than just defining, hey, if you had a DUI in the last two years, you don't get license, right?

I think that's rather unfair, um, or it would take such a complex amount of talking about that we'd, you know, I think the clerk's office would need a an expansive flow chart of well, if you're you know, is it fair?

Again, just kind of my opinion, right?

Um someone who has a DUI in the last two years when they're 21 or 23 versus someone who's 65.

To me, those are very different levels of risk.

So I I think strictly codifying it does probably become a little too complex, in my opinion.

Um so I I do like the idea of of us still having some decision-making ability of who is a good who is responsible enough to adolescents.

So that's Brian's response, as best I can say.

I I would just add to that.

Um I know there are members of the council who would support or have said that they would support a black and white guideline there as well.

So I don't know that any of those members are sitting on this committee currently, but I I know that's been a again.

I've been doing this a while.

It's been a discussion point many times over the years, and I I know there are current members of the council who would support seeing that as well.

So it's probably worth considering as part of this discussion if we're going to be rewriting and recodifying some of the guidelines that this committee works under.

Anyone else?

Do what I do, just turn on the microphone and start talking.

Well, where you go.

Oh no, I might regret that.

Um with all due respect to the city attorney, and I know he's not here to speak for himself, but um, I just think that sitting here, I've been one year prior to this, and then this is my second term on ONL, and I just feel like a lot of these that we pass are I you know, I do sometimes in a majority of the time we're talking like well over 95%.

It's just kind of like, why were you even brought in?

So I I with all due respect to the black and white, and I do respect and I know which council members you're thinking of.

Um I also have to say that when we have consent agenda, no one is really speaking about anybody that we're approving.

So I would have to say that you know, that um I'm okay with the way that this looks.

I do agree with you that any new extensions of premises, because I do feel that we have to look at what they're bringing through.

I mean, I know that it goes through a check, right?

We have engineering looking at them and the Plipedi and that kind of stuff too, and I certainly respect their recommendations, but I do think um any new extension of premises that are not like a renewal do need to come through to us.

I think that all of us together can be really critical as to how that looks, but um I'm I'm okay with with this.

Um, you know, and and I think we should move forward.

I I it does bug me that I come in here and you know, you're you got people that almost feel as if they are being dragged before this committee and they're they're scared, right?

You know, I mean that one woman, the the last meeting of the one before that, she was crying at the podium, and we ended we approved her.

She to me it was like, why did she even come in?

Because I think the infraction was outside of the time frame, and she wouldn't have even had this been in place, she would have never even had to come in here.

Um and I just think that just eliminates a lot of that.

Um so yeah, I'm totally in favor of this.

That's just the way I like it.

And again, I'll do respect to Brian.

I also understand that he's a lawyer, right?

And they like their black and white.

But um, so I I do I do like this.

Just looking at what we've been approving and what's been coming in, um, and just relieving some of the stress from some of these people who are just trying to, you know, make a living um doing these things, and you know, let's just face it.

If we have a s I I look at it this way, if we said no to every single person that came in here with all the in with the things that we've seen, uh we wouldn't have anybody tending bar.

And you know what I mean?

It's the truth.

People make mistakes, and you have to give them an opportunity to um, you know, get their life back in order.

So that was a lot, sorry.

Nope, I appreciate the comments.

Um that's what I was asking for.

I want to hear what everyone's thinking.

So Eric, go ahead.

Yeah, I've I was thinking back to my previous time on this body, you know, kind of like Dan, you know, we've gone through I think a lot of different iterations of this body and how much review and discussion we go over these applications and such.

You know, sometimes, you know, we very cleanly and quickly just say, yep, you're approved, yep, you're approved, and we go through very quickly.

Other times I've been on this body, um, again, that's been a while, but I remember times where we've really questioned people and really investigated, investigated them almost.

You know, asking, you know, what are you doing to not have this happen again?

You know, tell us more, tell us more.

Um at the end of the day, I think this is a good step.

I think this again, as I kind of indicated earlier, that this makes I think the process more predictable for everybody.

Um it makes our makes everybody's life a little bit easier.

Um, I do like that we have a little a bit of discretion.

I also just think kind of I think what Brian's looking for in a way is that we want to make sure that we're being fair and we're being consistent, and that we're, you know, if we're gonna bring someone forward to us, you know, we're asking good questions, and you know, if we're gonna do that, let's have it with a purpose in a way.

Um I'm not asking for us to you know cross-examine these people and you know, really dig through what happened with them.

I don't think that's our purpose uh necessarily, but you know, I want to be again mindful.

If we're gonna go through that, let's you know, be again consistent and mindful.

So I don't mean to repeat myself, but thank you.

Thank you.

Um Jim, anything you want to say?

You don't have to.

Don't feel like you have to.

I just I just feel that uh people make mistakes, and uh let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You know, that being said, I mean somebody who's habitually bad that that would be one thing, but some of these people, i.e.

tonight, last time we were here, you know, uh we're talking, we're talking months to years ago.

When when do you let it go?

I mean, okay, so somebody here was a little young, they had uh what was it, an underage, I think, tonight or something again.

Uh do you remember when you were 20 years old?

Do you remember?

I mean, again, I don't want to say that on the record.

But my point is is that you know people deserve a second chance.

I of all people know what a second chance is like, you know, I got one, and I am grateful for that, and I do believe that others deserve that too.

But if you've got you know, if you've got six drunk drivings or you got uh uh you know, uh beating your kid or whatever, you know, time after time after time, then yeah, that's something to bring up and you know scrutinize, but for things that uh happen you know, once in a blue moon, hey okay.

Um so it sounds like we are all in favor of this.

Um I have a question.

Yes, go ahead.

So I just have one question.

So if we have to rewrite municipal code, does that require three readings?

Yes, okay.

Yes, they require one.

I'm just gonna tell you right now that I know that there's probably gonna be some people on the council aren't gonna like it, but I'm gonna tell you right now that I have no point in saying, well, where are you at every consent agenda pulling applications out then?

Yeah.

Truth.

Because that's really what I have to say.

There's nobody here.

And in that council, they don't say anything.

So that's fine.

We can go ahead and read it.

I'm hoping I'll tell you what, too, when it gets to the second reading, I'm gonna move to avoid the third, just putting it on the record.

Uh go ahead, Eric.

Uh you know, as I was kind of thinking through just the applications we had tonight.

Um, you know, a lot of what we have written in front of us, the other proposed changes focuses on alcohol.

One of the applications or one of the applicants we had tonight had uh tobacco related.

Uh, would that still kind of follow the same structure as this?

Is that the intents?

Um that would be, I believe, a violation of either um Wisconsin Statute 125 or municipal code chapter 9.

Okay.

I think so.

So that it would come for review to us without being invited.

So, for example, that person would still come here for review for us to talk to them.

Okay, no.

Or the application would come to us for review, they would not be invited.

Okay.

So that's where I was trying to figure that out.

So appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yep.

Yeah, again, I mean, trying to save people the stress of having to come in and defend themselves.

I think so.

I think that's the one thing is just having them come in here and have to have all your dirty laundry put out on public in a public forum.

I mean, that's embarrassing for anybody.

Yeah, you know.

I've tried to tone that down a little bit.

So would so in the case that they're not invited, but they're still being reviewed by us.

I guess procedurally, would we then have the I mean, if it came to a question that the applicant or their agent would be best suited to answer, would they then be invite, you know, would we have the opportunity to hold it and then invite them.

And I guess the reason I'm asking that or pointing that out is you know, when we go to a structure of you know, meeting once a month, 10 months out of the year, we could potentially be delaying their licensure by you know two months before or two and a half months by the time it gets through this committee and you know, council approval.

So I guess I again I'm not opposed to that.

If that's the process, that's the process, and it you know, it is what it is, but I guess I'm just pointing out that that could delay someone's approval much more significantly than it does now, or if we're so I guess that's a question and a comment kind of in one, and I feel like Katie's got an answer for me.

I think like Allerman Witeska said earlier, we can always do a special meeting before council.

We can invite the applicant to council and put it under report.

Um typically I if one has the question, multiple have the same question, so we can work around the time frame.

So we can work around the time frame.

Um okay, so that being said, um the ask is to make a motion for this.

So um I'm actually gonna amend this a little bit based on um some of the feedback from tonight and um some of Brian's feedback, which he was a valid point.

So um I gotta think about how to say this before I say it.

Um I will make a motion to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance um as described in the memo.

Um with the following updates.

Um first that uh new sidewalk cafe permits um continue to come to the ONL committee for review, um renewals or repeats uh with no changes can go uh with the other reviews.

Um extension of premise.

Uh sorry, extension of premise, not sidewalk cafe.

I wrote it next to sidewalk cafe and that's sorry, that's probably from my meeting to talk about.

Um yes, thank you.

So extension of premise, not sidewalk cafe.

Um thank you for clarifying that.

Um the second one is that we need to clarify um traffic offenses, because as Brian rightly pointed out, um OWI is a traffic offense, so we need to clarify alcohol related traffic events are alcohol related and and are not gonna be auto-approved.

So that's my motion.

I hope that made sense.

I'll call I'll second that motion.

All right, so we have a motion to approve uh motion to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance for review.

Um and a second motion by myself, seconded by Alder Person Wigderson, and you can vote when that's before you.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

So moving on, communications.

Anything from the clerk's office.

None.

Yes, you can ask a question.

Um where are we at with e-scooter e-bike ordinance?

I guess when I made the motion to send it back to committee, I would have expected to see it at committee by now.

So I'm curious what if there's any update.

Um I can too.

Okay.

Um whoever wants to answer.

I can share some of what I know.

Why not what I know, and then um so my understanding is that um the city attorney and the PD are trying to work out the items that they want to see before they bring a recommendation to the committee rather than us having us um pound it out.

So um because they're very they're very different, so they're working on their recommendations, and then once they have something that they're all in, you know, that they're okay with, then it'll come forward.

Yep, unless you've heard differently, Paul.

Nope, that was the same.

That was the discussion I had with Tony was we need we need uh PD and the city attorney's office to be on the same page.

Um, because they're one's gonna be responsible for writing the ordinance and one's gonna be responsible for enforcing they're in a much better position than us to say this is what we recommend.

So do we know when we expect them to get on that same page?

That I do not know.

Um I I only ask because I know it's a hot button issue, it's gotten press already, it's gonna continue to be a hot button issue and get press.

I'm sure you know others on the council are getting calls and questions about it.

So I guess I'm I'm just curious where it's at.

Yeah, I I was my monthly meeting with Tony and the mayor was today, but we had to cancel it because Tony was busy, so we're not meeting until Wednesday.

So I don't uh have an update, so a good question.

Okay.

All right.

If there's nothing else, we are adjourned at 6 49.

Look at us.

We spent 49 minutes in a meeting.