City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm not trying to force her.

I know Mario. Everything but the school. Teachers are back. It's mainstream.

And then I'll...

It should be stuff that goes on. It's great. It's great. It's great. It's great. It's great. It's great. It's great.

Good evening, everyone. Can you confirm you can hear me?

Wonderful. Every time Beth comes and talks, she sends me a note ahead of time so I can take the minutes better. So I appreciate that. And they get another one. Yep. Today they were putting the crane in, and they were putting the walls up, and once they get the crane going, it's basically all they're going to work on. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. They got it down. If you get up close to it, you'll see it all. Where are we going? Oh, it was fine. Very directed. But that's probably. It seems like it's going to be. Productive.

We will call to order the regular meeting of the Batavia City Council for Monday, July 20th, 2026. Our first order of business on the agenda is an invocation to be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you'd bear with me, I'm going to do a brief invocation. Maybe we should all rise. Tonight, Batavia finds itself in a very thankful position. We are honoring some police officers who have done extraordinary, dynamic, and dangerous work in the betterment of our community, and we are ever thankful for having such dedicated employees among us. As a community, we are ever thankful for the many areas of activity that we now have going, everything from a farmer's market to a very active Batavia High School campus with a variety of activities going on. So Batavia is becoming quite a place for people to want to live. And that's evident by all the new houses that are now being built in Batavia. So we're just thankful for the good position Batavia is in. And we just ask that the world around us and ourselves, that we do everything that we can to make this a friendly, loving and caring community. And that in the world around us and in the future, that we make Batavia a very cautious and religious and safe place for everyone to proudly call their home. Amen. Alderman Malay, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Certainly.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

That's for item three, the roll call.

Garazza? Here. Lancy?

Here.

Beck? Here. Malay?

Here.

Malone?

Here.

Wolf?

Here.

Solfa? Here. Barron? Here. Lehman? Absent. Lohman? Here. Pieper? Here. Fehrenbach? Here. Anderson? Absent. White?

Here.

Thank you. 12 present, 2 absent.

So we have the necessary qualms to conduct business. I am going to suggest, as chairman, that we move item, let's find it here, 9.2, which is the proclamation for the Batavia Police Department issuance of valor award THAT WE MOVE THAT TO RIGHT AFTER I GET THROUGH SPEAKING, AND THAT I WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THAT REASON AND THAT REASON ONLY, INCLUDING A NUMBER OF SMALL CHILDREN. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO KIND OF DO THIS AND SPECIFICALLY HONOR THOSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE HONORING. AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE OLDMAN-BARRON, WOULD YOU LEAD US AND READ THE PROCLAMATION?

DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION?

We need to make a motion. Somebody care to make that motion? I'll move. Second. Motion and second.

New roll call.

I'm sorry, who made the motion? Salfa. Salfa, thank you. Salfa. Aye. Barron. Aye. Lohman. Aye. Pieper. Aye. Fehrenbach. Aye. Anderson. Absent, White?

Aye. Thank you.

Verraza?

Aye.

Lancy?

Aye.

Beck? Aye. Malay?

Aye.

Malone?

Aye.

Wolfe? Aye. 12 present, 2 absent, 12 yes, no, no, 2 absent.

Motion to amend the agenda is approved. I will then ask Chief Bowers, did you want to make some opening remarks or you want to have us read that?

I'd like to just introduce this agenda item, if I could, before she reads it.

Alderman Barron will read it, then.

Thank you. I'd also like to call before the council Officer Saad, Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Wharton, and Officer Bueller, if they could join me up here, please. While they're joining me up here, almost a year ago, the peace and quiet of our community was shattered by a horrifically violent act that put the lives of our officers, citizens, and innocent children at risk. In the aftermath of that incident, the immediate focus turned towards a lengthy and complex criminal investigation, independent third party reviews of the incident, and on healing as a department and as a community. Equally important though to this review of the incident is recognizing those who put their lives on the line in service to this community. And so while recognition for the officers involved in this critical incident on August 16th, 2025 is long overdue, I'm exceptionally proud to have this opportunity to recognize the service of the officers who responded to this incident. Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Lorden, Officer Saad and Officer Buehler heroically put their lives in harm's way in order to protect innocent children and citizens. And while most of our community know about the shooting that transpired last August, I believe there are many who still don't fully grasp the severity of the incident, the grave and imminent danger faced by our officers, or the actions they took that undoubtedly saved lives. On Saturday, August 16th, 2025, Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Lorden, Officer Saad, and Officer Buehler responded to 1211 East Wilson Street for a welfare check involving a suicidal subject who was reported to be cutting himself with children present. As officers arrived, the scene quickly became chaotic, and the children of the suicidal subject were reasonably believed to be in imminent danger based on the nature of the call, the noncompliance of the resident, and the terrified screaming coming from inside the apartment. Due to the exigent circumstances, officers attempted to breach the door and rescue the distressed occupants of the apartment, but those attempts were unsuccessful. Sergeant Langston went to her squad to get breaching tools, but her attention quickly shifted as a child appeared on the balcony of the apartment. The child was able to jump from the second floor balcony, and Sergeant Langston and Officer Saad gathered the child and retreated to an area of cover. Sergeant Langston spoke with a child who was covered in blood and obtained crucial information from him that the subject inside was armed with an AR-15 rifle. Meanwhile, Sergeant Lorden held the hallway alone in a tactical position while awaiting breaching equipment to make entry into the apartment. Due to the escalating nature of the situation, he also simultaneously requested and coordinated additional law enforcement resources upon learning of the presence of an AR-15 rifle. The second child appeared on the balcony and, in spite of the knowledge that the resident was armed with an AR-15 rifle, Sergeant Langston again left cover and approached the balcony to recover the child, whose escape attempt was unfortunately defeated by the resident who pulled the child back into the apartment. Sergeant Lorden, utilizing his training and experience, astutely heard the distinct sound of a rifle being loaded and charged and shared that critical information with other responding officers. In response, Sergeant Langston returned to the hallway to back up Sergeant Lorden and assist in securing the hallway. Officer Buehler responded as the situation escalated, relayed crucial information to responding officers, and took a tactical position on the perimeter of the building to prevent the suspect's escape. He also directed citizens to shelter in their homes as circumstances intensified. In light of the facts and circumstances, Sergeant Lorden authorized the use of Pepperball, a non-lethal chemical irritant. Officer Saad deployed Pepperball into the apartment from the parking lot in an attempt to disorient the suicidal subject and afford the remaining child an opportunity to escape. The child quickly succeeded in escaping the apartment by jumping from the balcony where he was gathered by Officer Saad, who took custody of the two children and led them to an area of cover behind a Batavia Police Department squad car. Almost immediately, the subject in the apartment began to fire his AR-15 at officers and in the direction of his children and other innocent bystanders. Officer Saad returned fire as well as continued to utilize pepper ball in order to prevent the resident from getting to the balcony and to limit the resident's ability to target individuals with his rifle. While being fired upon, Officer Saad remained incredibly calm and continued to protect and reassure the children by directing them to shelter behind a vehicle until finding an opportunity to escape to a nearby building. Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Lorden, and Officer Buehler maintained tactical positions, set up a perimeter, and requested and coordinated with additional law enforcement resources to assist with the critical incident. Gunfire from the subject persisted for over seven minutes with upwards of 70 rounds being fired. THE INCIDENT ULTIMATELY ENDED WITH THE SUBJECT TAKING HIS OWN LIFE, ALTHOUGH OFFICERS CONTINUED TO COORDINATE RESPONSE AND RESOURCES UNTIL THE SUBJECT WAS FOUND DECEASED BY THE REGIONAL SWAT TEAM AN HOUR LATER. There's no doubt the actions of Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Lorden, Officer Saad, and Officer Buehler saved lives and prevented an even greater tragedy by limiting the offender's ability to take effective shots and by keeping innocent children and civilians away from the line of fire. And so it's my great honor to recognize these officers with the prestigious Batavia Police Department Valor Award. And I encourage council to approve the proclamation in recognition of the sacrifices made by these officers. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Chief. And we are indeed grateful and appreciative of the four officers for what you did and the great way that you handled it. I guess I would sum it up by saying you made Batavia very proud, and you made Batavia very safe. And you did your job at the highest level of possible conflict, and you overcame it and really saved everybody that was involved. And we are very proud of you for that action. Alderman Marin, do you want to read the proclamation from the City Council?

Yes, my honor. Proclamation. Whereas the Batavia Police Department issues the Valor Award for acts of exceptional bravery, which places a member at intimate risk of serious bodily harm and death. And whereas the recipients of a Valor Award demonstrates exceptional courage in the face of grave danger. And whereas the Valor Award is the highest honor bestowed on a department member by the Batavia Police Department. And whereas on August 16th, 2025, several Batavia police officers, including Sergeant Michelle Langston, Sergeant Brian Lorden, Officer David Saad, and Officer Alexander Buehler responded to the call for service that quickly became chaotic and put responding officers and the community in serious and intimate danger. And whereas the Batavia police officers dispatched to this incident acted swiftly and heroically, despite being fired upon from a subject armed with an AR-15 rifle, who fired upwards of 70 rounds of ammunition in a shooting that spanned over seven minutes. And whereas there is no doubt the actions of Sergeant Langston, Sergeant Lorden, Officer Saad, and Officer Buehler saved lives and prevented an even greater tragedy by impairing the offender's ability to take effective shots and by keeping innocent children and civilians away from the line of fire. Now, therefore, I, Jeffrey D. Schalke, Mayor of City of Batavia, Illinois, do hereby proclaim that Sergeant Brian Lorden, Sergeant Michelle Langston, Officer David Saad, and Officer Alexander Buehler will be issued the Batavia Police Department Valor Award in recognition of its selfless service and exceptional courage in the face of grave danger on August 16th, 2025. I motion we move to accept the proclamation as read. Second.

Barron? Aye. Lowman? Aye. Pieper?

Aye.

Fehrenbach?

Aye.

White? Aye. Thank you. Barraza? Aye. Lancy?

Aye.

Beck? Aye. Malay?

Aye.

Malone?

Aye.

Wolff?

Aye.

Solva? Aye. 12 yes, no no, two absent.

Yes.

David is so very proud of you. Thank you. Thank you.

I thank the council for doing that. I think we had all the small children and everything and that was to put it at the end of the agenda would have been NOT THE WAY TO DO SO. WE GOT IT DONE RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MOVING THEN TO ITEM NUMBER 5, WHICH ARE MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THIS EVENING? I GUESS NOT. OKAY, MOVING TO ITEM 6, ITEMS TO REMOVE, ADDED, OR CHANGED. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING THEY WANT?

WE DO NEED TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ONGOING LITIGATION.

ignore that until tomorrow.

No, until tonight. After this meeting. It was to be placed on the agenda and filed.

Item. Oh yeah, yes. Sorry.

Your Honor, the consent agenda reads as follows. Accept and place on file building report June, 2026. Approval. Payroll fund totals for 7-17-2026 in the amount of $1,203,293.36. The accounts payable total for July 20th council meeting in the amount of $3,801,246.40. City council minutes July 6th, 2026. Approval, executive session minutes, June 15th, 2026 for personnel. Resolution 2026-75-R, authorizing execution of contract with RKG Associates for 2026 Economic Development Strategic Plan. Resolution 2026-78-R, accepting additional grants of easement for Woodland Hills Electric Undergrounding. Resolution 2026-79-R, authorizing payment for Microsoft Enterprise Services. Resolution 2026-43-R, authorizing the creation of downtown Batavia enhancement grant program. Resolution 2026-77-R, authorizing change order number seven with IHC for phase 2A wastewater treatment plant. Ordinance 2026-28, annexing properties on Deer Path Road. Ordinance 2026-30, approval of the certificate of appropriateness for building demolition at 330 to 338 Webster Street. I move that we approve the consent agenda as read.

Motion and second to approve the consent agenda. Does anybody in the council have any particular question about the consent agenda that you'd like to ask?

I don't have a question, just a quick comment to highlight that I'm excited about the downtown enhancement grant. And just to kind of amplify that for anybody watching at home, we have this great opportunity for businesses to apply, get some funding and really try to improve their storefronts facade facing improvements. So I think it's worth sort of highlighting that for anybody who's following along at home.

Anybody else? Okay, I guess we call the roll.

Aaron?

Aye.

Lohman?

Aye. Pieper? Aye. Derenbach?

Yes.

White?

Aye.

Hengqiu? Barraza? Aye. Lancy? Aye. Beck? Aye. Malay?

Aye.

Malone?

Aye.

Wolff?

Aye.

Salfa? Aye. Levin, yes. No, no. Two absent, one recusal.

All right, motion's approved. Okay, moving then to item number eight, which is Batavia Main Street. And we have the executive director here to talk to us.

Hi, thanks so much for having me. I'm actually gonna start off with our downtown design grant. That was something that we implemented to help the beautification efforts of the downtown district. We received 12 applications. And from that, that was a total of just over $53,000 in request for, different beautification efforts. We had $10,000 allotted for this year and we gave, we've awarded six businesses different grants. Some are full, some are partial. We're not going to announce those until they roll out. So as they finish the products, projects, we'll go ahead and we'll talk to you about those. And then we had Main Street America come in and visit. Joy Cotero, who used to be the Batavia Executive Director, now works as a Senior Program Officer. And Gustavo, he is the Director of Entrepreneurial and Small Business Support. We had them come in for our biannual review. We really wanted to do this while we're in the Recast Leader program just to have their eyes look at the program so we can kind of have benchmarks of before and after the program when they come back in 2027. But we did tours of vacant properties, including those on North Island, the ones in Batavia Plaza, the old greenology space, the North River Street, and we also toured the boardwalk shops. And part of the things that we talked about with them is retail readiness, and that would be making it easier for businesses to move and do business in Batavia. We're working more on property owner resources. They talked to us about auditing the grant experience through the city. So what that would be would be us walking through the grant process, the city's grant process, so we have a better understanding so we can better support the businesses. And then we're trying to work on a formalized boardwalk to brick and mortar system. We just got their formal report last Friday. So after Cocktails in the Park, we'll delve into that a little bit more and we'll share more with you for that. And then Recast Leaders, we're in the interview portion. We've interviewed five property owners so far, interviewed four small-scale manufacturing businesses. We have some other interviews coming up. We have until mid-August to finish those. And then once that's done, we will meet with Alana, who is the head of the program, to begin the implementation process. It's just been a really nice opportunity to talk to people about something different and hear what they have to say. So it's been a really good and interesting project. We also had boo-boo days a couple weekends ago. Just some of the marketing that we did. We had paid e-blast that was funded through the Illinois Main Street Grant. We sent it to 10,000 people. It had 1,400 opens. And with that, it had 300 clicks, which is actually pretty good for us. We sent it out to our own. It had a 43% open rate, but 71% clicks. The businesses had reported that they had nice sales that weekend. So we were happy to continue and try and grow that promotion. And then finally, Cocktails in the Park is this weekend. It looks like weather's going to be great. So tickets are still on sale at downtownbatavia.com. So hope to see you there. So that's all I have. Does anybody have any questions for me?

Any questions for Main Street?

All right.

How has the recast things been going in terms of what sort of businesses have you been talking to? What do they do?

A lot of the businesses are businesses like we've talked to some soap makers, some more of your traditional artisan type vendors. But we're also taking the recast model but talking to businesses that may not necessarily be manufacturing but that are going through the incubator program. So we have been working with them. Several of the current board workshop people are interested in going into brick and mortar. It's just been an interesting process. Again, it's just something different to talk to people about. And we're just learning more about what they need. Again, they need these small spaces. So it's a struggle because we just don't have them. But we're working on it. OK. Very good. All right. Thank you.

Questions? Thank you.

THANK YOU FOR A GREAT JOB.

THANKS.

SO WE NOW MOVE TO 9.1, APPROVAL OF BID OPENINGS FOR CHABINAUT TRAIL LOT. SCOTT DUNING.

Thank you. This is a surplus piece of land located just east of 706 Shabana. This was a piece of land that during a recent variance we talked to the adjacent owner about it and see if they were interested in acquiring the property. It really doesn't do us any good for us owning it. We would retain an easement for utilities and drainage. This is like any of the other properties we've sold, so this is one that we're doing through the THE THREE NOTIFICATION PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS US TO GO LESS THAN THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE ADVERTISED FOR OUR BIDS. THE BID DEADLINE WAS JULY 8 AND WE RECEIVED ONE BID AND TONIGHT I HAVE TO OPEN THAT BID FOR YOU. And the one bid we have is from Julie Gonzalez and Kelly Diceland, and it is for $10, which is the minimum amount that is in the bid advertisement. So we will take this, make sure that it complies with all the requirements, and then we'll put this back in front of you for approval. Thank you. So there is to that, huh? That's it. Thank you.

Okay, 9.2, we already took care of that one at the very beginning of the meeting by moving it to the beginning. I HAVE HERE THAT TONY MOLLE, ALTERMAN MOLLE, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AT ALL?

NO, SOMETHING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN, MOVING TO 9.3, APPROVAL OF AMERICA 250 ART INSTALLATION DESIGN. ABBY?

YES. SO THE FINAL DESIGNS ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA FOR OUR AMERICA 250 A LIVING COMMUNITY STORY MURAL PROJECT. IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THIS WAS A PROJECT FUNDED BY THE ILLINOIS ARTS COUNCIL AMERICA 250 CREATIVE ACCELERATOR FUND. IT WILL BE ON THE POLICE STATION WINDOWS JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL HERE OVERLOOKING THE FLAG DAY MONUMENT. We selected Marty Ganesh, who is a Batavia High School graduate and also one of the muralists for the Art of the Fox just on the other side of City Hall, the beautiful great blue heron that's over there. The mural series will highlight how the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are expressed in the everyday lives of Batavia residents. And there they are up on screen too. I'm on the Batavia Public Art Initiative Committee, so is Lori. And the murals themselves were designed in partnership with Kate Garrett at the Batavia Historical, I'm sorry, the Depot Museum. So a lot of accuracy and a lot of very cool Batavia history has been baked into the final designs. And we're happy to take any questions if people have any questions or comments before we approve them. Yeah.

What's the sort of anticipated timeline for having them? PAINTED AND INSTALLED AND READY TO GO.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT MAY HAVE SHIFTED, BUT IT'S LATER THIS SUMMER.

A GRAND OPENING, RIBBON CUTTING, EARLY SEPTEMBER?

SEPTEMBER 12TH, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT.

A question about the drawing. The drawing that's on the farthest south of the building, the Fermilab one, it looks really dark in this image. Is it going to be that dark when it's on the wall?

It is a really pretty night sky. And the close-up image, and these are just, you know, renderings, the close-up image that I was able to see on its own, there's a lot of detail and a lot of really pretty. There's a family sitting there looking out over... pond there, yeah, the Milky Way, and that's supposed to represent Batavia's future with the kiddos in there. And so, yes, when you're looking at it, I think it'll be brighter. I'm not an artist. It's hard to see the details.

Well, these are AI renderings, right?

Yes.

I would just say I was very pleased when I got to look at these a few days back as to all the history that had been incorporated within them. and that there was probably more to come. So I appreciate everything you've done there because I think we are going to have a historical display right here on the river in the downtown next to City Hall and then scattering itself out throughout the entire downtown that may be one of the best in the Chicagoland area. So I just appreciate all that is because we certainly do have a very proud history here of things that have happened and things that have been made and we really do have a moment of something that we should be very proud of and we're doing, we are taking steps to exercise that. Do you have any motions or anything you want to make?

Yes, I move we approve the America 250 art installation design.

Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion? Clerk call the roll.

Beck?

Aye. Malay? Aye. Malone?

Aye.

Wolff?

Aye.

Zolfa? Aye. Barron? Aye. Lohman? Pieper? Aye. Fehrenbach?

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Thank you. Barraza? Aye. Lancey? Aye. 12 yes, no no, 2 absent.

Motion is approved. Okay, moving then to City Council updates. Administrator's report, Laura.

Thank you, Mayor. Last week on Wednesday, we had the first meeting of the IRP Task Force, and everyone was there. They elected Max Weiss and Ian Johnstone to be the co-chairs, and I will be the recording secretary for IRP. those meetings going forward and then we reviewed the task forces charter and Max had put together a suggested format for our discussions of each section of the IRP and the group approved that framework moving forward and so at our next meeting we'll be reviewing the first section and working toward preparing the report indicated and the task force charter. Lori drafted web page content logo and a brochure for the City of Batavia development enhancement grants. And the application form will be created by Community and Economic Development in our LLAMA system. So we're moving forward very quickly on marketing those opportunities to our local businesses. The Roll Smart social media reels that were connected in conjunction with educating the community about the new e-mobility regulations that we have put in place, those have been viewed 156,000 times. That's a record for us. Through social media comments on the videos, we're able to identify maybe refining our message to further explain the ordinance and clarify what the rules are. We are really proud that we worked with a BHS incubator program to help produce those videos. And so they wanted some feedback on what we think of them. So if you haven't seen them, please take a look and provide Lori with your thoughts so that she can share that with them. And right now we're working with the police department to produce videos on safety and the enforcement component of those ordinances. In human resources, they organized two groups of employees to be able to participate in the Peace Out Bridge mural painting event that's happening at the Callahan Community Center. So employees will, for years to come, be able to know that they were a part of that mural coming to life. And in FIRE, they held an orientation for eight new paid-on-call recruits who will be attending the FIRE Academy on July 16th. And the police administration completed five total internal interviews for an opening in the investigations division. Officer John Kale was selected to fill the vacancy, and he'll be attending the necessary training over the next six months for his transition into this new role. We know he'll do a great job, and with that, the department thanks Detective Austin Robinson for his service to the Investigations Unit over the last several years. Also want to give a shout out to the police department for hosting a very successful cones with a cop event on Thursday, July 16th. We thought with the heat that we wouldn't draw as big of a crowd, but it turns out people really wanted some ice cream. And it was really nice. It affords the community members the opportunity to meet with police officers in a relaxed setting and get to know them that way. So those events are usually really well attended. The last one was hard to believe. The last one was Coco, wasn't it? Was that or did you do coffee? Twice this summer? Yeah. So these are fun events that the police department has brought to us, and it really goes toward that improving engagement with our community that is a central part of our strategic action plan. So thank you very much. And that's all I have tonight, unless anybody has any questions for me.

All right. Thank you very much. We have other business from the council? For the mayor's report, I'm going to be very short.

I have had a lot of people talk to me in the last couple weeks because of all the stuff that has just been covered that's been going on, and I've attended many of those events myself. And I hear what I would describe as an ongoing flow of constant reviews of how positive people are saying downtown Batavia is looking and they're working along the river and bringing things back and renovating and Very nice comments. And the only negative thing I've heard was from one of the members of the longtime windmill group that we have in town. And he's dismayed because the city hasn't put a new windmill vane up out here in the circle that goes around. We got one windmill stand there, but we have no vane on it. Apparently it blew off in a weather situation. And so I assured them I will talk to those involved in that and see if the city can find a new one to buy to put up there and put us back in full windmill status. But that was the only comment or complaint that I heard from a negative measure about what we were doing here. So I've got several different groups from the region that are wanting to come in. We've got the Kane County is having a luncheon meeting here this coming week on Thursday, I believe it is. And they wanted to use the council chambers because, number one, Batavia is central to Kane County, but it's also a very fashionable and easy to run place with the speakers and the light and the podiums and the desks and everything. So we're getting a lot of compliments from others that want to come in here and use it because they see how nice it is. So I'm proud of what the city council has done and supporting all this to be taken care of because you certainly gave a new feel to Batavia that is working very positively. So that's the end of my report. Somebody make any other questions? If not, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn the regular meeting.

I'll move. Do we have a regular or executive session? No, that's next. Next. That's right. Motion and second to adjourn.

Second. Second. Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye. Meeting's adjourned now.

We're going to go into a, we'll take a two minute recess.

What are we calling this?

It's a special meeting.

Okay. 715 are immediately following the city council meeting.

I don't want to talk about it. There are nine of them, I don't care.

I've had one person since we started the gaming company.

Barraza? Here.

Lancy? Here. Thank you. Beck? Here. Malay? Here. Malone?

Here.

Wolff?

Here.

Salfa?

Here.

Barron? Here. Lehman? Absent. Lohman? Here. Piefer? Here. Fehrenbach?

Here.

Anderson? Absent. White? Here. Thank you. 12 present, 2 absent.

All right. Second one up is a reminder, please speak into the microphone for the BATV recording. Item three is items removed, added, or changed. We do need to add ongoing litigation to our executive session that we're going to have. So if I get a motion and a second on that. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, we'll add that to executive session. Anything from the public for anything that's not on the agenda?

Anybody back there hiding?

Okay. Regular agenda. OKAY. YOU CAN HAVE THIS ONE.

SOUNDS GOOD. SO WE HAD A DISCUSSION A FEW MONTHS BACK AND VOTED 9-3 TO BRING A CONVERSATION FORWARD ABOUT SOME LIMITATIONS TO OUR GAMING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU TO DREW FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR US TO CONSIDER. THERE'S A COUPLE GAPS IN THERE FOR US TO DISCUSS TONIGHT. THREE MAIN AREAS THAT I SAW THAT I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH ONE AT A TIME AND THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR ANY OTHER CHANGES OR SUBSTITUTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE THREE AREAS I SAW WAS DISCUSSION OF A CAP, DISCUSSION OF SEPARATION FROM DIFFERENT LAND USES, AND THEN HOW OFFENDERS OR REPEAT OFFENDERS TO OUR ORDINANCE SHOULD BE HANDLED. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH ONE AT A TIME, IF THAT'S OKAY. THE FIRST ONE TALKS ABOUT A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF VIDEO GAMING LICENSES. THE ORDINANCE PROPOSES RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 13 TOTAL AND EIGHT IN OUR DOWNTOWN. CORRECT. IT PROPOSES 14 CITYWIDE, NINE IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE. district. Curious to know people's thoughts on that. I would love to see it just capped exactly where we are and not allow any more growth. But I'll open it up that and see what people say. It would be great. So I want to take them one at a time so that we're giving it very specific notes to staff on how to amend the ordinance moving forward. Tim right there.

Yeah, I mean, my stance hasn't changed much on this other than let me just clarify that I am totally down with looking at where these machines are, what kind of signage they have, all that good stuff. I'm okay with maybe a number in a certain area, but I think to cap them anywhere I think is a dangerous move or precedent. I just think if... you know, we need to maybe do away with the gaming in town altogether, if that's going to be the case. Cause I just don't know where we draw the line on, on what that business looks like that we tell no. And then they point at, you know, it's like the exclusive group where someone's got to, you know, close up shop or die off in order for anyone else to get a gaming machine here. I think that that opens up a whole other Pandora's box, but yeah, Things within our power to not proliferate quote-unquote gaming in the town, because I don't think that's the vibe we're going for. But I do think that this is a supplemental income for these business owners that they do have the benefit of in other towns. I know there's one locally that does not allow it. There's a whole... CONVERSATION AROUND THAT AS WELL AS WHAT KIND OF BUSINESSES THEY'VE LOST BECAUSE OF THAT AND CLIENTELE THEY'VE LOST BECAUSE OF THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK STICKING TO THE TOPIC, I THINK AN ALL-OUT LIMIT I THINK IS A REALLY TOUCHY SUBJECT. I THINK PUTTING LIMITS AROUND WHERE THEY CAN BE IS SOMETHING I THINK IS WORTH EXPLORING.

So you're more interested in then the conversation about the separation? Because when you say number in a certain area, do you mean the physical proximity, like where they are in a restaurant or where they are in town?

Yeah, wherever the council's discussion goes there, I'm willing to have that discussion. I just think saying, hey, we have 13 or this 14th coming in and then we're done, it's like, well, wait a minute, I'm the 15th guy. What's the difference between 14 and 15? And then it just becomes this slippery slope of... But I don't think we've run into that issue quite yet where we have this overflow of people wanting to, you know, have machines here. I think it's really the businesses in town that kind of like businesses like them and other towns have them. And so, you know, they're they're. getting them if they can or you know and it's it is a some people don't play the machines but it is an edge for a certain crowd absolutely put people will not go to places that have machines people will not go to places that don't have machines you know so you get you kind of have both and I think our town has both I think we need to cater to both I think we've allowed it for an extended period of time and so we need to continue to allow it while not, again, allowing it to take over our town, proliferate like we've seen other towns have. I think we do a really good job of making them wait a year and making sure that this doesn't turn into a gambling parlor because those are the worst. So, yeah, those are kind of my thoughts on that.

So no one camps. We'll come back to you on separation. Okay. Is that your hand up too? Yeah.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE REASON THE 14 AND 9 WAS

one pending uh which what business is pending so um geneva winery has been uh working on an application they did get theirs um their items together uh they've been working with them for a bit on getting that all together so they're the um you know so they've applied for conditional use uh for gaming so that's where we wanted at least to have that number in place Just to hit on one point that, you know, Alder Lancy had mentioned, you know, the thought process with putting the cap in place would be that the city council could ultimately raise or lower that cap as you saw fit. So it wouldn't necessarily be a hard limitation unless the city council chose not to raise that cap in the future.

My understanding is by putting the cap in place, it gives us control. Control that we don't necessarily have right now.

Yeah, the thought process, with the conditional use, there's kind of a presumption that provided you meet any conditions of approval, and if there's any items that are found that might cause incompatibility and you've remedied them with conditions, there's kind of the presumption that the city council is kind of obligated to approve that. By having a cap in place for licenses themselves, it becomes more of a council decision, and you can evaluate YOU KNOW, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME SORT OF PROCESS AT STAFF LEVEL OF EVALUATING AND VETTING THAT BEFORE IT GETS TO YOU, BUT YOU WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE APPLICATIONS AND DETERMINE IF YOU FEEL IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NO OTHER LOCATION REQUIREMENTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN THIS LOCATION? HAVE THEY SHOWN, HAVE THEY JUSTIFIED THAT you know that this you know whatever criteria there might be uh you know have they met that and the council can determine affirmatively yes or no uh and with a lot more uh of your own decision making versus um you know just have they met the findings or have they met uh the standards in place for conditional use yeah and that's and that's why i'm in favor that we we put caps in place they can be adjusted it's not taken away from anyone it's given us control and i think this body should have the control

like it at the 14 and 9 or?

I would say with Geneva Winery in the process already, I think it's appropriate that the 14 and 9 be the number.

Okay, sounds good. I can just go around the table if anybody wants to jump in. You good?

Yeah, sure. So I echo a lot of what Tony just shared. I like the sort of control aspect that comes from this. One thing that I found alarming about the last application was the misunderstanding that the state had on what was actually occurring, right, that you measured from the altar, not from where actual services and instruction were occurring. And that's something we know because we're the local folks. That's why I was alarmed by that. So that's really one reason why I'm in support of this. It's also a land use issue at the end of the day. Main Street spoke with us just a moment ago. They mentioned that there's sort of a lack of small move-in ready spaces. And I think if we can sort of allow for opportunities in our downtown where businesses that are successful in the boardwalk can move in have places where they can thrive as opposed to businesses that can only survive through a video gambling um you know i i hear the cry my business will fail without it well that doesn't actually give me much confidence to approve it that actually tells me that we're kind of helping businesses that otherwise wouldn't survive stay afloat so those are the reasons why i'm in favor of it um if we're just talking caps right now i think 14 9 makes a lot of sense um i could be talked into more or less either way but i think the cap concept makes a lot of sense and having a downtown cap um in particular because that's the area that we're most focused on that's the part that we're really um been putting a lot of time effort and energy into

Yeah, I think everybody knows my position on this one. I see this as micromanaging. I mean, Alderman Lancey actually used the term proliferate and proliferation. I have not seen a proliferation of video gaming in this town. I mean, we're at 13 right now, maybe 14. There's tons of establishments that could have had it that choose not to. And I think we've discussed this over and over and over. And so we're going one topic at a time. I do not support putting limits on the amount.

Okay.

I would say no to limits on it. I think we allow the market to determine that, whether it's the business owner or the public that determines that, that's on them. To me, this just is another thing that we allow businesses to do. We've done it and we have our own ordinances so that we can control it better than the state can. i.e. the fact that they don't know where different things are in different buildings. That's the state. So they have all their own problems. We can try to do the things we would like to see done at our own level, I think is a good thing. But I don't see a need for a CAP or you're going to be in here every time, just like we used to be with liquor licenses. if we needed one more we had to increase it every time we had to have an extra step for the city council to go through to approve a liquor license for somebody that just wanted one in the business because they didn't own the business before or they wanted to restart a business in a building that had one before we had to go through that process have a new number of liquor licenses and then approve it for them so i just think it's another thing we don't need to touch

Yeah, I am not in favor of this. I see this as a tool for business owners to make that decision on whether or not they want to have this to help support their business. Some of them have used it, yes, as to get started, but they have now become self-sustained with the business's their business where they're not dependent upon it. They have used this as a tool to provide specials to attract people in the downtown area. Our biggest restaurant in the area is busy because of these specials that they are able to provide and residents come for it. And on top of that With how busy that place is, they're able to provide health insurance to their employees. They're able to provide a retirement plan for them to contribute to. So this is a tool for the business owner. I think there's better ways for us within the ordinance or within our requirements. So we're not having to micromanage this. I do worry that if we put a cap and it's dependent upon us to do a cap, we may get caught up, why did you raise it for this person and not this person? And it's just similar to the conditional use. And then I kind of look at what is the problem we're trying to solve here? You know, ask yourself, what are we trying to solve here? And what we hear from Main Street is we don't have enough foot traffic in our downtown area. We've done the retail, but what's really going to bring people to the downtown area is restaurants. And right now, we don't have those locations. We don't have those built out for somebody to come in, and that's a big investment for them to make to our community. And so if we want to have a vibrant downtown, we need to have the restaurants that people will come to and stay there and eat at. So I think that we're really knocking down, we're continuously talking about this and i think that there are other things that we need to be focused on to help make our downtown vibrant and to bring the people downtown and i think that that is what the real issue with our community is is not having enough foot traffic and that's because of the lack of restaurants

A LOT TO CONSIDER, AND FOR ME, I'M LEANING ON WHAT I'VE HEARD OVERWHELMINGLY FROM THE COMMUNITY IN MY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. THE MAJORITY ARE IN FAVOR OF LIMITS AND DON'T WANT TO SEE MORE GAMING. THEY'D LIKE TO SEE LESS. SO FOR ME, I AM IN FAVOR OF CAPS. I LIKE THAT WE HAVE CONTROL. AND AS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, BY OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE HERE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE CAP. IT'S NOT A HARD NO. WE'RE NOT BANNING IT. AND ALTER PERSON SOFA, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE'RE NOT AT THAT MANY NOW. So in my eyes, doing this cap isn't really hurting anything because we still have the ability to increase it if we want to allow another business to have it. So that's where I stand on caps. Question?

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF A BUSINESS DID CLOSE THAT HAD THIS ESTABLISHMENT AND THUS WE HAD ONE BELOW THE CAP, WOULD WE STILL HAVE DISCRETION IF A NEW BUSINESS CAME IN OR WOULD THAT BE A BUY RIGHT SITUATION?

NEW SPEAKER SO IF THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT Typically, I think when, you know, Al may recall when it was by liquor license, basically if that cap had not been, the cap number had not been reduced, technically there is a license that's available for somebody else to step up. I think in the past practice when there was a cap for liquor license, basically as soon as the city was aware that a location was closed on the next city council agenda, if there would be a reduction cap or, you know, a reduction to the cap ordinance, to basically to get that back to so that there would not be an excess license available.

AS FOR MY OWN POSITION, KNOWING THAT, I THINK A CAP IS A REASONABLE WAY TO SORT OF ENFORCE CITY COUNCIL'S DESIRES ON THIS TOPIC, WHETHER THAT COUNCIL MIGHT BE AT THAT TIME IN FACT AND THUS BE A REGULAR PROCESS THROUGH THIS. I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO SEE MORE BUSINESS VITALITY DOWNTOWN. I ALSO DO THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE OF A CRUTCH THAN A REAL HELP TOWARDS PROVIDING LOCAL BUSINESSES. All that being said, I admit I am in favor of restricting the video gambling just because I think it's something that a lot of people in our town are really proud of, especially. And I think it does have a lot of negative societal effects. A lot of places have instituted it. There have been studies showing it has increased crime rates in those areas. that it can have an adverse effect on the impoverished. Is there a moral argument to be made here to reduce it over time? Obviously, whether people subscribe for or against that is up to people's discretion, as well as the topic of individual freedom. But I am in favor of the cap as stated.

Yeah, you know, the cool part about this is that, you know, we had gambling for, what, 10 years now, or just about there? We already have 14 places, which I think, and we're just about built out, right? So it's not something where we're saying gambling's going away. Gambling's here. It took off like wildfire. I think when this vote originally happened, I don't think anyone really thought there'd be 14 places. having gambling in a relatively short period of time. So I am for a cap, knowing that there's 14 opportunities on the table for a business to have gambling. Businesses close all the time. It doesn't mean the license goes away. Also, you know, things have changed. We're next to a major casino now, right? Where I sit right now, if I look two miles in every direction, there's 1,200 video gaming machines, right? If we look at communities that are next to a casino, you know, 20 years or two decades after that casino opens, guess what? There's a lot of overflow gambling that flows into those communities, right? I did a survey of suburbs of major you know you know around casinos and you know the story wasn't too good right so so I think we do need some sort of protection that says hey we are gonna this is how big the footprint is going to be and that's it there is an issue around grandfathering right as I currently read it the issue was the belief was that if gammon or gammon coach house or JT's were to close the potential those properties as they currently stand no longer becomes gambling eligible That is a problem for those business owners. We actually have one on the phone right now, Jeremy over at JT's. So we'll give him a chance to speak once we're done. When we look at a small business, their retirement plan is selling that business. That's their retirement plan completely. and not being able to have gambling at a establishment which previously had gambling prior to the sale reduces the value greatly, right? So that's the one caveat that kind of surfaced pretty quickly here. And I will say, although I've heard, although I agree with most of the comments that have been made on both sides of the fence, this is a closer topic as far as people's opinion than we would think, right? I think gambling is, you know, if we're honest, we have 14 establishments, right? However, I do believe that given that we were next to a large casino, given that we already have 14 establishments, given that we're just about built out, as big as we're going to get, and given that 14, in my opinion, is a lot of establishments, I think I'm absolutely okay with the caps, assuming we can tackle this grandfathering issue.

I think we'll circle back to the grandfathering issue, because that's an impact by the SEPARATION IN THE SETBACKS, SO LET'S GET TO THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT ROUND, IF THAT'S OKAY.

SURE, I COULD ELABORATE ON THE SETBACKS, BUT I'LL DO THAT IN THAT PART.

OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD OTHERWISE?

I AM GOOD. WE DO HAVE JEREMY ON THE LINE, THOUGH.

OKAY, BUT THAT'S A SETBACK THING, SO WE'LL GET TO IT TO THE NEXT POINT. CAN I GO TO BOB ON THE CAPS ISSUE?

If you're there, Bob, I'll, uh, I'll chime in on the caps issue. I would prefer to address this via the caps over the other methods. I think the cap being something we can raise or lower is a, and it's at the discretion of the city council. It allows us to look at things like the setbacks and be able to make judgments that are not black and white. Um, and I like that discretion. So for that reason, I'm a yes on the cap.

I am more in agreement with Alderman Wolf in that I think the market will decide this, so I'm not in favor of caps at this time.

I'm in with, I already said that I'm in favor of the caps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 yeses. 1, 2, 3, 4... five no's check my math feel good about that okay seven to five on the caps at the 14 and nine okay to the next one um should we should we enact any sort of separation so Very grateful for the colorful maps, Drew, that were added to the memo. And I know he's got a few more to maybe show us here today. Since this was such an issue with the last one that we approved debating whether or not 75 feet equaled 50 feet and whatnot, having our own separation from certain uses on our books, again, takes that power away from the state. to interpret how things feel. So if we've got a map out there, folks just know ahead of time, you are outside of the boundaries. So currently the state law is around schools and churches, right? And then we have added daycares, which I think should count as schools or like a Mill Creek, which is very much a school up till first or second grade, churches, schools, PARKS, LIBRARIES, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT VARIOUS MAPS. DO YOU WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT MAPS?

SURE. IN TERMS OF WHAT WE AT LEAST THREW ON THE MAP AND AT LEAST PUT IN THE MEMO FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, WE KIND OF JUST REFLECTED WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CANNABIS REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL ITEMS. SPECIFIC TO JT'S, THAT WOULD ONLY BE WITHIN IF WE CONSIDERED LIKE DAY CARES BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID MILL CREEK WOULD DEPENDING ON HOW BIG OF A BUFFER YOU PUT ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD IMPACT THEM. THE OTHER PROPERTY RIGHT NOW I JUST HAVE CHURCHES IDENTIFIED ALONG WITH 100 FOOT BUFFER WHICH I THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE WE WERE CONSIDERING OR WOULD SUGGEST IS HAVING at least implementing our own 100 foot buffer from property lines for schools or you know schools which would under the state act uh is elementary middle school high schools uh they that's what they use public and private uh so and as well as religious institutions uh so if um WE PUT IN OUR OWN CAP, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE AT THE VERY MINIMUM YOU COULD NOT BE ON A PROPERTY THAT ADJOINS THAT USE. THAT MIGHT GIVE US A LITTLE, EVEN THAT WOULD PROBABLY GIVE US A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT EFFECTIVELY THE STATE APPLIED IN THE SITUATION WITH GAMON COACH HOUSE SPECIFICALLY. But we did put together a map, and I can go ahead and click on the extra layers, at least just with 100 foot for discussion points. Like I said, library is not under state act, but that is one we use for cannabis use. so i'll turn that one on uh park districts would have a significant impact in uh you know just with the amount of holdings that the park district has especially if you don't limit it to say specifically playgrounds or something like that which um you know for like um uh other buffers we use for like say um sex offenders or other uses you know they're sometimes very tailored uh requirements uh so you know broadly the park district is a big land holder in the downtown area so you know that would be a significant change um school districts really the only in terms of school district owned facility within the downtown area. Again, if there's some other stuff like out down in other parts of the area, but that's kind of been the focus of our discussion just because of how many we have. The school district really only has the education building or the school board building, which really would not be included. It is marked on the map and just because it was a school district holding. For other schools, that really is other properties further out, you know, if I zoomed out to other parts of the town, the community. Preschool, if, you know, again, that would be something that would vary from the state's requirements if we implemented that. downtown Mill Creek and I can zoom in on that but within a hundred foot buffer would it would apply to JT's would be the one that would be impacted by that and I think I just turned on layers to turn them off. AND THEN, YEAH, SO THAT WOULD BE THE LAST OF THOSE, AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, IF WE KIND OF IMPLEMENTED WHAT WE'VE USED FOR OTHER ITEMS. I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST USING AT LEAST SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, NOT NECESSARILY DAYCARES OR LIBRARY OR PARKS, BUT IT WOULD BE SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AT LEAST PROBABLY LIKE 100 FOOT. I DO HAVE OTHER BUFFERS OF 250 AND 500 TO TURN THOSE ON AND OFF IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT I TURNED ON THE 100-FOOT BUFFERS AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR INITIAL CONVERSATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO ITEMS TO DECIDE. IF WE'RE GOOD WITH 100 FEET. And if we like staff's recommendation of the schools, churches, public and private, and then the issue of grandfathering. So there are the two, I think there's actually three, maybe it's with park districts. So at parks too, if people want to talk about parks and whether or not they want to include the park district buildings, because parks then includes somebody over there, bulldogs.

And I believe that is the only one because Rosati's is outside of If you apply it that it touches the property line, it would probably be Rosati's as well. Okay.

So then something I was considering in looking at the dots that would be part of those overlaps would be for those that have put in the investment in these gaming machines, assuming they'd be able to sell the business with them, that we allow one sale. And then the next property owner knows that, you will not be able to. If you change hands, if you lose your license for any reason, then the new law goes into effect. So one sale only and then the grandfathering stops, if that makes sense. That's what I would propose. But I'll go around the table. Again, Max, do you have a question?

I would add a technical question because we do have things like a restructuring of the business with the same people. It's something we deal with liquor licenses occasionally. Just something to think about how you would want to handle that. Like a business technically sold to an LLC that's the same people and it's like corporate restructuring. We do issue a new liquor license and it's just an administrative process that we do. Just something to think about how you would want to handle that.

One other thing in relation to that, for zoning, if this were a true zoning issue, we do allow for continuation of a non-conforming use. But if the use is lapsed for a year or longer, then you cannot renew that. So that would be another way of grandfathering. So if somebody sold JTs and they were going to within a month or two or six months, then they could reuse that. But otherwise, if it goes for a year or longer, then it would lapse.

I can go around the table this way. I started with you. You start with Robin.

Okay, so just to clarify, so if we were to authorize one sale, so we'll use again JT's as an example. So if somebody buys his business, they are allowed to continue with that liquor license. But they're going into that purchase knowing that they have a sale in their future at some point that they would want to do and that their future sale is significantly diminished. value so it I think it kind of bleeds out of the current sale so I just was okay I just want to make sure I understood that that's how that works yeah okay but they at least get the present value of having it if they so choose to have it and so it is not it's not we totally without value but it's just not as much value okay but that at least keeps our lines consistent too do you want to go go around table that way

Just going to mess up all my notes here.

Yeah, I think, you know, again, I don't have a ton to say here other than I couldn't agree more with Robin. I mean, I don't think that changes anything. Actually, I think that puts you right back in the same boat you were in from a person-to-person sale perspective. That person coming in to buy the business is still going to lowball the price due to the fact that, you know, there's that stipulation when they need to go sell. I mean, that diminishes the value of the property. It is what it is.

What were the other?

Otherwise, 100-foot setback from schools, parks, churches.

I like, you know, I like, again, without going overboard, I think the cannabis one around the library, you know, obviously that might get a little crazy with this, but I think, you know, minus the park district, I think schools and churches is a good setback, and I think 100 feet is good. I mean, that's not... ABNORMAL BY ANY MEANS. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THERE?

NEW SPEAKER I SHOULD POINT OUT IF THERE WAS A 100-FOOT LIBRARY BUFFER AND IT'S MEASURED TO THE PARCEL LINES, THEN THE PARCEL THAT WE HAVE THREE BUSINESSES ON WOULD BE IMPACTED, WHICH IS EAST CHINA, THE OVERFLOW AND

And I, you know, the other thing that keeps popping up is, you know, or folks have said is taking back control or taking control. I think we're talking about the state taking control from the state. I hope that's what we're talking about, but let's just remember who we're actually, I mean, the state granted everyone the control to go do this. So now we are eliminating that, you know, so we're, we're taking control from the people, not the state. I just want that to be clear.

And can I make my notes crystal clear on your position too? You are okay with the 100 foot setback from schools and churches, but like a permanent grandfathering?

Yeah, permanent, yeah.

And just for the record, yes, I agree with what Alderman Lancey just agreed to. But I have a question about is there an appeal process? So I'm definitely in support of not being in the situation we were in with Gammon where there was no clarity around what we're measuring from and how we're measuring it. But if somebody disagreed with the city's measurement, do they have the ability to appeal that to the state? Do we know that?

They wouldn't have the ability to appeal it to the state, no.

That would be a local decision.

Yeah, just checking. Bob?

You're going the wrong way around the table.

I mixed it up. You are correct.

Sorry, it was slow to unmute. As I stated, I like the cap better than the distance limits. I would like to use the states as a guideline, as a starting point, but then still use the cap as a way of doing this. I think as you go 150, you go 250, you go 500, you make all these different rules, you're just making it harder and harder and harder, when really I think what we want is a little bit of discretion. So I'm a no on these additional distance rules.

All right, Jim?

Yeah, my take on it is grandfather means grandfather, been grandfathered forever. Otherwise, you end up in the same situation with somebody else later. And keep in mind, business is closed, right? I mean, there's always this intention of, you know, hey, just because something is the way it is in 2026, it's going to be that way in 2036. I guarantee you that's not the case. So that being said, you know, yeah, all in favor of state setbacks, whether it's the state or something that we do, I really no preference either way. The gammon situation was unfortunate, right? So we definitely don't want to do that again. But again, if something's going to be grandfathered, it's got to be grandfathered forever. Stuff does change. Nothing's permanent.

Yes, if permanent grandfathering. Dustin?

I'm also in favor of the setbacks. I think What was it? Schools, churches, library is a good way to do it. Honestly, keeping it in line with the cannabis dispensary ordinance seems reasonable in terms of having a bit of a uniformity of logic throughout our codes. I would, in regards to grandfathering, I would state that while I do see the logic of the additional sale of the business impacting the initial sale, A lot of the value of gaming, gambling in these establishments is in the yearly operational income of it. Honestly, we've seen how much each of these are making, and that would be guaranteed by the next sale, and I think that would be the primary motivator for that sale. So I'd be fine with the one additional sale option. Other than that, though, I think this is reasonably sensible. adding parks would be maybe ambitious, but I think that looking at this map, that it's also a very convoluted situation, which would probably lead to a lot of issues. I would be curious about seeing if playgrounds specifically could be used, but if that adds complexity, especially defining a playground, I can pass. I think, like I said, keeping in line with the cannabis dispensary ordinance makes the most sense to me.

Alice? I would have to agree with keeping in line with the cannabis DISPENSARY GUIDELINES AS WELL. YOU CAN PUT ME DOWN AS A YES FOR SETBACKS. THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT IS 100 FEET, CORRECT?

NEW SPEAKER YES. NEW SPEAKER I'M SORRY.

NEW SPEAKER I'M OKAY WITH THAT NUMBER. FOR SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AND I WAS ALSO THINKING THE LIBRARY TOO BECAUSE A LOT OF CHILDREN GO THERE. But if that's the make or break one, I could give that one up. And for the grandfathering, as we're talking about this, you know, we've mentioned if we did the 100-foot setback from the library that JTs and Gammon and those areas would be affected, but they wouldn't because if we agree with the grandfathering, they wouldn't be affected, correct?

If we do the library, then we're impacting Riverside, Overflow, and East China Inn, in addition to Gammon and JT's already being impacted by the schools and churches. So library is the one that flips the other three. But if they're grandfathered? If they're grandfathered, yes. Everybody's fine. Nobody's changing. And then, yeah, the question is, do we grandfather once or do we grandfather forever?

YEAH, I LIKE THE IDEA OF GRANDFATHERING ONCE. I CAN SEE THE PROS AND CONS. YOU CAN PUT ME DOWN FOR THE ONE TIME TRANSFER.

Yeah, I'm not in favor of any sort of setback. I think it's arbitrary. We've already put into the ordinance no advertisement on the outside. So how is a kid going to know that there's gambling going on inside? There might be other ways of working with business owners where we say, hey, maybe we need to shield some things from that to get rid of the advertisement, but we've already put that into our ordinance. Trying to sit there and say we can't put it around a church, it makes no sense. There's no, what's the reasoning behind that? You know, what are we affecting? It's the state law. Okay, well. then maybe keep it with that. But I think the whole setback thing is just crazy. I mean, you can walk down the street into a store and somebody's standing outside smoking. You know, how are we going to prevent that from a child seeing somebody smoking? Think we're just causing too many issues. We're trying to control too many things and again. This is a decision for a business owner I know there's been talk about how there's potential for mischief and crime I've not seen that on any of the reports That our police are going to these establishments and breaking up fights over gambling machines I see more of that being taken care of at homes. So I think that we're, again, we're really trying to address an issue that's a non-issue. So no for limits and yes for grandfathering indefinitely.

That'd be a yes on the grandfathering and not just once, but... on the property as it is. This way we'd grandfather anything else. As far as the setbacks, I think we should just stick with what the state requirements are. And that way it's a level playing field for anybody, whether they're looking at North Aurora, Batavia, whatever town that they want to go into, they know what the setbacks are because it's the state regulations.

And so when you say the state regulations, you're just talking public schools and churches, so not- Schools and churches. But that would not include Mill Creek? So moving the private side of it. Schools, public schools and churches.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT REAL QUICK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STATE LAW, IT WOULD INCLUDE MILL CREEK BECAUSE MILL CREEK DOES KINDERGARTEN FIRST GRADE AT THAT LOCATION. I THINK PRIVATE SCHOOLS STILL COUNT, DON'T THEY?

IT'S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, I THINK THE STATE ACT SAYS ELEMENTARY, NOW, AND I BELIEVE IT'S BY LICENSE, IF THEY ARE LICENSED. elementary school, and I'm just not, I'm not 100% on what that, if there's a nuance between elementary and first grade, or kindergarten and first grade versus a licensed elementary school. I don't know if there's a in-between step, for lack of a better word, on that type of licensing and registration. So I'm not 100% sure if the state currently would include Mill Creek or not. Thank you for letting me jump on for that clarifying question.

All right, Silva?

I'm a no. I think the state already has regulations in place. I don't know why we're trying to micromanage again, something that's already been regulated. And as Alderman Wolf said, if we just go by what the state says, then everybody's going to be the same in terms of the different communities. And so the level playing field. And then I don't know why we are cutting off this grant. I mean, if we're going to even have to talk about grandfathering, why are we cutting it off at one? It has to be indefinite. Some an absolute no as to anything that the state does not require. Other than what the state requires, I think we're micromanaging and we don't need to do that. The state's already got the regulations in place.

Kevin? Yeah, so I'm in favor of the setbacks, and specifically I'm in favor of the clarity that this adds to the state. The challenge we ran into, again, was that the state defined 100 feet as 75 feet. They did not measure like everything was less than 100 feet yet somehow they figured it was 100 feet so that's why i think this helps so yeah i i'm in favor of 100 feet i think that's the right number and i think providing that clarity to businesses like where are you measuring from um i'm sure gammon would have liked to save the money they paid the lawyer on appeal if it's clear as day you know they know then they don't have to go hire attorneys and do appeals and and waste money SO FOR THAT REASON I DO LIKE THE 100 FEET. I DON'T LIKE THE PARK DISTRICT BEING INCLUDED PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF HOW SORT OF SERPENTINE strange their property ownership is that sort of river walk area down you know the other side of river street on the river i guess that's park district property so i guess that then kind of catches you know yeah right there yeah so that would make um geneva winery which doesn't yet have their license but we anticipate may bulldog also be included um yeah and the library inclusion i'm indifferent to i could be persuaded for or against on that i guess a clarifying question are we thinking property line to property line or property line to building or property line to rental unit The simplest way would be property line to property line.

I think that's how we would enact that because absent surveys and things like that, like of actual, like the corner of the lease space, it would be very difficult or it would require an applicant to go out and hire a surveyor, kind of like Gammon did, to verify that, which would then be an additional cost.

that would lead me towards sort of um not including the library but again i'm not strong on that position that's a maybe uh so no to the park including parkland um library whatever i also uh as for grandfathering um one sale makes some sense to me i would so that'd be sort of my first preference though i also do like the idea of the continuous use kind of idea um so that would be sort of a de facto uh grant you know grandfathering, so long as they can kind of keep the business going and thriving, they get to keep it. And once the business then is no longer viable, and it shuts down, it would go away. So sort of the continuous use of variants that Scott had shared with us would be sort of my second preference there. Are those the three issues? Yeah.

I would say I like the setbacks mirroring cannabis, which is by property line.

It's by property line. And I should say we've been saying it's mirroring the cannabis. But cannabis, I believe, is 500 feet. But the category, I think, is what everybody's been referring to.

Yeah, I'm in favor of the 100 feet property line, property line. The situation with Gammon House and the Congregational Church, You know, clearly there was hair splitting there and 75 feet is not 100 feet. I'm sorry. So I think the clarity for that is a definite advantage. And also the, you know, there are churches, it's very common in churches to host gambler anonymous meetings. I think it makes it more appropriate that there be, you know, 100 foot barriers from a church to, And then, oh, the grandfather. I absolutely hear the idea that the grandfather, and if it's just one sale, you know, the value's lost for the next person. Okay, I get that. But I do like the, you know, what Scott brought up, the timeframe piece to that. But what about, so let's say a, business that has video gaming, the business fails and closes. I mean, it sits there for six months, a year, nothing happens. Do we want them marketing this potential business or property to come in here and set up, you know, is that gonna invite a gambling hall or, you know, what do we call them? In cafes. Yeah, the gaming cafe. So if we had a time limit in there, that could that could protect us from that. So the property doesn't necessarily, if we could frame it like it's grandfathered, if it's in continuous business, or relatively continuous business, if the business is, you know, a restaurant that has some gaming machines, and someone comes in and The owner of it sells it to another entity and they continue it as a restaurant with gaming. That's fine. I'm okay with continuous grandfathering for that. But if a business closes because it failed and it sits there, do we really want that to be marketed as, hey, we can sell you a gaming cafe?

That is currently not allowed under the current statute. So that would be a change to allow that.

So we have to sell the business, correct?

That's correct. We only allow the transfer of the license if it's sold to someone who intends to continue the business much in the same structure that it was prior so it has to operate as a restaurant with gambling can't go from a restaurant and bar with gambling to a cafe a gambling cafe under the current ordinance there could be a business plan that has a very weak restaurant and the whole purpose of it is to

be able to use the gaming machines.

One of the things that we're thinking about also is if we're going to impose limits, we're looking at changing the zoning classifications because right now it's a conditional use. If we have this control via the caps, we would look to go and amend the zoning code so that it no longer requires a conditional use, but we could also then create a use for gaming cafes specifically in the zoning code and basically prohibit it in most places other than maybe a conditional use of the general industrial and have some real difficult conditions that they have if we do that. So it would allow us to have some level of control of it and then we wouldn't have to worry about the one-year issue.

And if I also may, in terms of sale, one thing to think about is we do occasionally get, so for example, I think last or two years ago, Crosstown sold from one owner to another. They didn't change anything about the business. How would council want that to be counted under the code? Is that under that one sale? Is that somehow different when it's essentially continuing operation of the same business and just transferring owner? Same name, same DBA, et cetera. That's something to think about as well.

I would say in that regard, that's kind of the whole point we're talking about with JTs. I mean, if you're selling the business, a portion of the business and the revenues from the business are coming from those gaming machines. So, you know, to Dustin's point, yeah, that's part of why they're buying the business, right? That's part of what it is. But I could see if someone, no, if, you know, change owners, but they're going to change their business model. They're going to change the name. They're going to change, you know. That, I think, is a different story. And we need to look at that and and just, you know, say, OK, is this to your point? But I think that's where some of our other ordinances come into play that we already have is like you got to you got to wait a year. I think at that in that regard, if you're you know, if you're buying the establishment and then you're going to completely change it. No, you need to now prove to us that that establishment can survive the year without the gaming versus the establishment you just bought that we have historical data saying that it has survived that long. So that would be my call there. I mean, again, that's, it is, we've opened, call it the state, call it the U.S., call it whoever, we've opened this can of worms. So now it's like these things are in these establishments, they're gaining money. It's a part of the sale, no matter how you look at it.

And we've had zero instances of where we have allowed the transfer of a license, that it becomes a different kind of business.

Yeah.

Yeah, I would expect so.

Just to clarify here, it's about sale of the business. So if Business X has a restaurant and gaming in their business, business fails. They don't own the building they've been leasing in. Business closes. They don't sell the actual business, but someone else comes along in that same building, rents that space. they're not eligible to grant, okay, got it.

Okay, so I'm looking at my notes here, and I see three hard nos, two yes ifs, the grandfathering is permanent, and then the rest were yeses, but some of them had some nuance to them. So, I'M A LITTLE TORN ON WHERE TO GO WITH THAT ONE. I'M CURIOUS FROM A FEW FOLKS, I MEAN IF WE'RE, SO I'M LOOKING ALSO AT THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION TOO. SO THERE ARE FOLKS THAT WENT FROM A NO ON CAPS TO A YES IF ON THIS AND VICE VERSA. SO TRYING TO FIND A PACKAGE OF THINGS THAT WILL GET PASSED THROUGH EVERYONE.

Abby, if I may? One of the things to think about is kind of what I was talking about with the zoning, grandfathering. If you're struggling with, you know, you want to have the setbacks, but if you're struggling with, you know, what the continuation is, maybe what you consider is the lapsing, and that that way allows for kind of a hybrid of both of the things that people are talking about, you could continually have the license be renewed as long as it doesn't lapse for more than a year. If it lapses for a year and it's in the setback zone, then you can't renew it. that might be the in-between.

I'm looking at you, Jim, on whether or not that would be

Well, you know, it's funny. We basically have an example of this, right? That's kind of how JT started, right? Full moon, the owner unfortunately passed and the business did shut down. It was shut down for a year. Almost a year, not quite. Almost a year, not quite. So those situations do happen. And he and Jeremy, the liquor license did not transfer, right? He had to actually apply for it again.

Yeah, they did. Correct. We issued a new liquor license to them as a new business.

Yeah, so we have an example, right? And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that situation to happen again, and the same rules should apply, right? Now, given the whole grandfather thing, you know, here's the thing. We started this without any of this stuff in place. That's why we're here, right? I mean, we just kind of horse out of the barn, go crazy, right? 14 establishments. I don't think anyone thought there'd be 14 establishments when this Ordinance first passed that I remember maybe I could be I could be wrong on that right so so we know there's an appetite There's a public appetite for it right we have a state statue which says point-blank you you will not be you know with a hundred feet of the altar and for a church right these I agree it should be the property line okay so however you know that was the law when we approved gamut it was you know and there was some quibble there right so my point is it's entirely reasonable to say hey if a year has lapsed and this thing has not sold or what have you then the grandfather rules do apply right I think that's very reasonable Although I will say, I feel like Jeremy's gonna have an opinion on this and he's on the call. Do you want him to speak?

Yeah, can I follow up with Bob real quick? I'm super sorry, Bob, to put you on the spot too, but because you were a yes on the limits, but not on the distance, is there some distance that you would, you know, if we were just to mirror what the state says, but we put in the property line to property line instead of like altar to bar tap or whatever it was, You know, would something like that be something you could vote yes on?

I do feel very put on the spot. I'm sorry. No, no, that's totally all right. I don't necessarily see a need to do that, which is why I was a no. If we are having caps, we will be reviewing as a city council so we can just use the state guidelines. And if we feel it is from property line, and we don't like it we have that discretion that was the whole point of that discussion so that's why i'm a yes on the caps but a no on the additional this many feet from this line from this facility uh type discussion thank you for clarifying for me um yeah do we jeremy if you're there and available do you want to unmute and share your thoughts

Yeah, I'd love to. Is my coming through okay?

Yep, you're good.

Perfect. So I appreciate you guys letting me chime in here because it seems like our name's getting thrown around a lot because of our location next to Mill Creek. I'd remind you guys that if the grandfathering and the way you guys have things set up right now was something different jt's probably would never have been in batavia um if something was different than what you guys had set up um you know the chances are we probably wouldn't have went in um so just a little food for thought that i think the way you guys have things set up um may not be a bad thing um The grandfathering is a tough pill to swallow only based on the logic of putting a business up for sale for $500,000, let's say. And somebody goes in and buys it for $500,000. But now all of a sudden, the minute they take ownership, their business is only worth $350,000. Because going forward, they don't have that revenue stream going towards their bottom line should they choose to sell. I think it's a really good point that Jim made is a lot of small businesses, which is besides McDonald's, I would say, in the downtown area, those are your main businesses. You are all small businesses. And I know from personal experience that small businesses don't always have the opportunity to take advantage of retirement plans, 401ks, things of that nature. They rely on what we would consider a nest egg. trying to build the value of their business to as high as possible so that when it comes time to sell, I rely on that sale as money for my retirement or a good chunk of it. So to limit it to one sale... just doesn't i mean from from my logic and i could be thinking of it differently but i'm i'm in a position where it will 100 affect me at one point in time i will eventually sell that business when i'm too old to run a bar and restaurant anymore it's just how it goes um So down the line, it will affect me. And I would think that diminishing the value of the business after it's sold one time basically just deters anybody from wanting to buy it. Because more than likely, if they're buying a small business, they're going to be in the same boat I'm in right now. They're going to be running that business. with the mindset to eventually sell it down the road and use that money as retirement income because they own a small business. They're not a Fortune 500 company. So from my perspective, I think the whole limiting and all that kind of stuff, I can't weigh in on. I mean, ultimately, you guys are going to choose what you want. you know, what you, what you want to do. And, and that's not really the main thing that, that affects me or, or our business. Um, it's, it's that, uh, it's, it's that limiting the value of my business. Should I choose to sell based on, um, whether or not I'm in proximity to something. Cause I mean, you guys, I believe we're developing and I don't, I mean, we're developing the place or the whole property across the street from me. Um, Mill Creek may not even be in operation in five years, right? But it doesn't mean that if you guys change the guidelines and we have a daycare go in there or something of that nature, that in five or six or seven years, this all comes back again. And I'm in the boat now where I'm not going to be grandfathered in because there's a daycare that decided to open up 10 years after I've already been in operation. So I take that into thought also. But yeah, I mean, other than that, in terms of video gaming, I think the whole idea of video gaming causing some type of issues within the community with regards to crime and stuff like that, I think it falls on the people that operate the business, to be honest with you. I don't think just because video gaming is there that you have... that you're proliferating or you're expanding some type of fighting issue in a bar. I think it falls on how you operate your business. I've never had a fight in my bar, contrary to what was there previously. I've never had any issue. And that's because I run my business the way that it should be run. And you're there. And you manage it the correct way. And you make sure that anything that might happen is taken care of well in advance. I don't think just because I had video gaming, I feel like over four years, I haven't had an issue. So I wouldn't think that... I would think... video game would have already caused an issue in my establishment with regards to fighting or something like that by now, ultimately. So I think those are my points without just rambling on continuously. That's kind of my whole mindset around the ideas of the grandfathering in. I work very, very hard. We invested a significant amount of money in Batavia into that building, into our business. We worked very hard at it. And I think it shows based on our reputation in Batavia, video gaming does allow us to help out in the community, to sponsor kids' baseballs, teams, softball teams, do charitable events. I do St. Jude fundraisers every single winter. We've donated $20,000, I think, so far to St. Jude's in the past three years. um you know a lot of that a lot of that is is is made possible because i can keep my margins a little bit lower because i have a secondary source of income coming in right i mean you can go to geneva and get a 25 30 burger um they don't have gaming they need to make their money a different way they have high rents they have this and they have that um With us, we have a secondary source of income. It gives us a little flexibility. And I think that drives people to Batavia by keeping those costs low and keeping us different than your $25, $30 burgers in our surrounding neighborhoods. So I think that's it.

Thank you.

Bob has his hand up, by the way.

Who does? Okay, Bob.

Hey, Jeremy, thank you for jumping on and giving us a little flavor. I'm going to put you on the spot, though, as well, much like Alderperson Beck put me on the spot. It's your Carroll Stream and your Lombard locations. Do you have aiming at those locations? Yes, sir. Is there similar requirements to what we are talking about? I'm just curious more than anything.

I am not familiar with anything. Carroll Streams, I believe Carroll Streams is just whatever the state does. There are no additional local guidelines with regards to that. And I believe my Lombard location, I'm not governed by Lombard. I'm governed by unincorporated DuPage County. so um unincorporated dupage county i believe governs the same way the the state does and i actually just went through an issue maybe about a year and a half ago where there was a mosque that was developed just east of 355 and they actually gave me some issues with renewing my gaming license because my property line fell within 100 feet of the mosque, even though I had been operating for... 15 years before that mosque was ever in existence. So they realized what the issue was. And I, you know, part of my language, I raised hell. Um, and, uh, they, they adopted an amendment. It was an overlook. They never, they basically created that, that grandfathering in, whereas as you know, I know you can look up the exact language. I think it's in there, but I mean, We are grandfathered in. That location, that address is grandfathered in for as long as it's there. And they are very lax when it comes to video gaming. Batavia seems to be thinking about it a little bit more than the other municipalities.

Thanks for the extra color.

Thank you. Good question. All right. So what I see is that we've got a clear majority on enacting the cap at 14 and nine. Not consensus on the setbacks. Would anyone disagree? Okay. Yeah.

You said clear majority?

We're missing two people.

I think it was what, seven and five?

Seven and five. So yes, if those two people come in, then we've at least got the seven people.

I would say those two cancel each other out, but that's my thought. I wanted to say something before I forget about it on the setbacks, but the grandfathering side. I think that term brought up a good thing to think about is this would be like if we were allowing someone to sell their business restaurant with a liquor license. and we say okay you can sell it once as a restaurant with a liquor license but the next person can't sell the liquor license because we're not going to do that we have a cap on our liquor licenses so we're not going to allow that after this because it's only grandfathered for one sale. I think that just limits that possibility of the value of that business that was built with that as a component of that business. So, I mean, to me, if we're going to have grandfathering, we have grandfathering, and that's all we do with it. We don't limit it. Because if we limit it, we're just saying you can't have it.

Yeah, I think, Jeremy, thank you for speaking to us. And I think it kind of convinced me. I said before that I was on the fence about sort of one transfer. I think that that sort of pushed me over the edge. I think so long as it's a continual use, as long as they don't sort of shut down, and that a from what i heard from our owner operator perspective is that kind of resolves the issue of what we're talking about here for him as an owner operator so long as he's able to continue that operation use and then sell it when the time comes the issue is somewhat resolved especially if a school moves in next door after you've opened up which we're not sort of envisioning you'd have to shut down, you'd be grandfathered in. And so long as that grandfathering continues while it's in continuous use, again, that kind of seems to address the issue that I heard shared now. And so I think I'm switching to sort of affirm, I think that, I think as Scott shared it, I'm going to get the terminology wrong here, but sort of continual use, you know, the continual variance use, continual use and whatever thing, as long as you're doing it before.

It's like a docket forming use under zoning where it's allowed to continue until it ceases for a year, and then after that, you can't do it. Yeah.

That still only gets us six yeses on that point, as opposed to the seven on the other. So do we split it up and take them as separate ordinances so that we can get push one thing forward or take our chances with the other two and have an ordinance that has both the setbacks and the caps, but I don't think we would push that forward.

I don't think that would go to vote right now.

I'll just make note that I think if we put caps in place, you know, they're absolutely... And Alderman White was mentioning discretion. I mean, it's what, just... Arbitrary discretion or are we gonna have a list of criteria that you know? I mean, I just don't like the guy and so I'm gonna say no I mean is that is that that sounds like Chicago to me, but You know making the box who start making the box smaller, right? Yeah, so I mean I just think if we're gonna put caps in which it sounds like we're marching 86 towards that we need to we need to at least talk about What we're grading people on as they come in and ask us, because I want to be able to say yes or no based off of data rather than my feeling. That's not what we're here. We're not here to pull the strings of capitalism, in my opinion, and we can let that play out. You know what it is?

I'm looking at now and we're not the only community to have hard caps, right? So Downers Grove has a cap of 20 Establishments this citywide and they're 50,000 people, right? Elgin in Aurora have a caps on the number of terminals total as those establishments is actually a number of terminals So any other community then, you know total total probation obviously Geneva, but also Naperville, right? So we're not the only one who's taking this approach to the stuff So I mean So maybe we can look at some prior work and see what Downers Grove did and all that stuff. I mean, that's something to think about as well. At 14, for a town of 27,000 people, I think 14 establishments is a lot. Market has called for it. Yes, St. Charles.

That's 20.

20.

Establishments?

St. Charles.

St. Charles is much bigger than us, though.

Yeah, Kevin, how does he end up? Not that much.

I mean, the objective criteria is 100 feet from property line to property line, is what I was going to say. Like, that's a pretty good objective criteria.

Alice, and then Scott. Just a question, Abby. Can you clarify what you heard us say? Because I was hearing a lot of us say that we were for grandfathering. So I just want to make sure what direction we're giving staff.

Okay. So I have... TIM, YES, WITH PERMANENT GRANDFATHERING. TONY, YES. YES ON GRANDFATHERING, TOO?

FOREVER? YEAH.

OKAY. SAME WITH KEVIN. NO FOR SELF-A. ALLEN, JEN. ALICE, YES FOR GRANDFATHERING.

OKAY.

I WOULD SAY YES TO GRANDFATHERING. NOT JUST ONCE. IT'S GOT TO BE IF IT'S A GRANDFATHER OR GRANDFATHER.

I STILL MARKED YOU IN RED BECAUSE IF IT'S A COMBINED ORDINANCE, YOU ALREADY SAID NO ON THE CAP. This was on just, I was kind of reminding them.

Does the grandfathering only apply if you're putting in the distance limitations? Yes, the grandfathering only applies to the distance. So if you're against the limitations, then you're probably against the grandfathering as well.

With the state, I mean, since there's a state.

And then Jim, yes, or I'm sorry, Dustin, Dustin, yes, and yes with the grandfathering too?

Yes.

Okay, so it kind of sounds like we're kind of split down the middle.

So I would like to see this move next to the next step to go to council. And maybe some people's minds will change. I don't know, maybe speaking to the community more, doing more outreach can help us figure out where we'd like to go with this. Because that would be the next step, right?

Yeah, it would be. I mean, so that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 here that are yes on the grandfathering. But if combined with a cap, then we lose three of those votes, which is why I was separating it out.

Yeah. I would strongly suggest separating caps from the distance and the permanent grandfathering.

Because I don't.

Yes, Scott, sorry, I didn't mean to forget you.

That's okay. We could certainly separate it into separate ordinances for each issue because it might be, you know, easier just to say, okay, we're going to do this one and this one and that one, and maybe some will work and some won't, who knows. But as for the caps themselves, you know, consider it like a liquor license cap, the communities that do have it and that I've worked in communities that did, you have discretion to just say yes or no. It's not a matter of the operator per se. If you're judging it based on that, then no. But if you're just saying, we like 15, and we want to make it 16, and you're just making a decision on that, you have that ability, in my opinion, to have that level of discretion.

What's kind of the legal risk there? None?

I don't, I mean, I'm not the city attorney, so I can't say that, but I can tell you that the other communities I've worked in, they did it and there were no issues, and sometimes they just said, no, we're not going to raise the cap.

Okay, that's interesting. Yeah, Tim.

They just said, no, we're not going to raise the cap, and they don't have to give that person any reason. No. Liquor license is discretionary. I'll just remind everyone, we're trying to be more business friendly here in Batavia.

Yeah, but I'll repeat what I said last time we discussed this, is that we need to be looking at our, and I'm talking about the downtown, because I actually am really focused only on the downtown. We need to look at the health of the ecosystem. not the health of individual business owners. I think we here represent the community as a whole, and we can't base decisions based on the health and wellbeing of one or two individuals. And I would also say to the comments about market driven decisions here that when a business needs gaming to stay open, that is the market sending that restaurant A MESSAGE, TOO. AND SO, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER OPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO TURN TO. THERE'S SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WITH ALL SORTS OF FREE RESOURCES TO OPEN PEOPLE'S BOOKS, TO LOOK AT MARKETING, TO LOOK AT LEGAL, TO LOOK AT HR, AND HELP PEOPLE PIECE TOGETHER A MORE VIABLE BUSINESS. AND THEY DO THAT FOR FREE, AND THEY'RE WONDERFUL. AND MAIN STREET HAS GRANTS, AND MAIN STREET HAS PROMOTIONS, AND THE CHAMBER HAS SUPPORT. And so if a business proved to me that they went through a lot of channels to try and support and meet the market and meet the market demand before they came and asked for gaming, I might be more inclined to let them have that boost. But that is where I see the market speaking the most. And Sulfa, I see your hand up.

Yeah, I just don't want to hear it. complaints about empty storefronts your business is not coming in here or anything like that when this is specifically putting a restriction on on businesses so that's that's my comment is you get what you're asking for and jen

Thank you. I'm just a little concerned about the comment regarding that businesses are using this to stay afloat. From the businesses that I've seen, they're not using it to stay afloat. They're using it as secondary income to provide things to the community and to also their business. They may use it to start with. But they're not asking us for grants like some of these small businesses are to do things to their business. They're using this money to build their business and to make things look nice and to run their business. I've not seen one where they're crutched on that. So if there's some actual data that can be provided, I'd be really interested in seeing that.

I think we've heard it from actual applicants at the podium that say, we need this.

To get started.

No, not to get started. Established businesses that are using it to stay in business. We have heard that, and we've used those arguments here at this table. I would rather them have gaming than to go out of business.

Do we know right at this point if that's what they're doing? Because that's what the comment made, that they're staying afloat. Whether they said that to get started versus what's going on now, where's that data coming from?

Yeah, no, I was just going to say I'll agree with Alderman Barron because there's no possible way, and especially in today's world, operating costs, rent, these things aren't coming anywhere close to keeping them afloat. This is 100% supplemental. We just heard it from Jeremy. He's like, you want to see $30 burgers? We'll give you $30 burgers. And that's exactly the type of stuff that, honestly, we can't afford to have in Batavia right now. We need to be driving more people into our downtown. And again, I get this idea that we don't want the image, the proliferation, the whatever you want to call it. And I think we've done a really good job of that. And just from a signage perspective. And I think from there, I don't know. You know, how much more we can do and be fair at the same time across the board. I think at some point, and no, you can't judge everything that we're doing here in this room based off of a couple business owners. It's not about that. This is about market research. Do we want to be an inclusive community or an exclusive community? Because exclusive are the towns that don't allow gaming. I'll just put it that way.

I regularly go out of town. for $30 burgers because I'm looking for a different product that is not offered here because we look like a town that can't support businesses. We can't support restaurants. I absolutely disagree with that.

That is an absolutely flat-out wrong statement. Why are people going to Geneva to buy $30 burgers when they get a $15 burger here? It's because it's a product that people want. Video gambling doesn't enter in that establishment. They're providing a desired product. That's market economics right there.

Okay, by that note then, if somebody were to open a $30 burger place here with no gaming machines, then they should be successful. I would hope so. Because there's obviously a market for that. So then, I mean, and I think there's room for variety. I think that people want different things, and the same people want different things on different days. I think there's room for a burger place with $7 burgers and a gaming machine, and also a $30 burger place with no gaming machines. But if... If we're going to say that there's a market for that and people want that and they don't come to Batavia because they can't find that here, somebody would be doing that if they could make money doing that here. And maybe they can, and I hope they do. But I don't know that the geographic lines are that strongly drawn on that.

Regarding, I mean, Jeremy just said it. I mean, gambling is supplemental income, right?

I don't think anyone's living or dying based on their gambling revenue.

And I don't know if it's possible because, quite frankly, I look at the reports and there's not enough money there to support a business, right? Because the income they get is quantifiable and it's public, right? So if you look at what they make and you look at what their business costs are, there's no way they're running their business on gambling. That being said, I think the whole... the whole concept that a business in Batavia with only five terminals is supporting itself on gambling is a misnomer and it's confusing this conversation because you're not going to get enough revenue off five terminals, especially in a town of 27,000 people, which already has 14 establishments. You're not going to get the traffic coming in constantly to support your business, right? So I think it's a waste of time to kind of focus on that part of it. That's just my take on that whole thing.

YEAH, SORT OF AGREE WITH YOU, JIM, THERE. WE DON'T KNOW THEIR BOOKS. WE DON'T SEE WHAT'S INSIDE THERE. THE TWO LICENSES THAT CAME UP SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. THEY SAID IF YOU TURN THIS DOWN, WE'LL GO OUT OF BUSINESS, VERBATIM. YOU CAN CHECK. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THEY SAID. SO IT'S HARD FOR I believe business owners when they speak to me. But that's beside the point, Jim. You're absolutely correct. We do have kind of an upscale burger place in town, The Goat. It's delicious. It's wonderful. It does a really good job. It has no machines. And what's the nice thing about what we're considering here today is that we still get gaming establishments, right? We can put a cap on it. We can have the places where people can go and be in an environment where they can gamble and they can drink and they can engage in that activity and we are creating space for other types of establishments as well. So I think we're getting stuck in this binary conversation. Like, yes, it's good. No, it's bad. But guess what? We can have it all. If we put some caps on it, we can have it all. The problem is when we don't have caps on it, the creep begins to come in. We begin to have valuable storefront spaces taken up and our opportunities for small businesses to move in and thrive diminish right um we again i'm going to go back to what main street has shared with us it's that they're having trouble finding spaces for small businesses to move into and a lot of that space is being taken up by places with video gambling you might think it's not a crutch the research disagrees university of illinois study university of howard study were the two i was able to pull up just now There's also studies that show that it lowers the property values nearby, but we're going to allow it. We're going to have some of those opportunities. People will get to do what they want to do. We have a pretty good ordinance here that's threading the needle between those of us, us, you know, pearl clutchers are saying, oh, gambling so bad from people who say, got to let the market do whatever they want. we both, compromise is what this is about. So I see an ordinance here that compromises, does the hard work of governance and allows us to support our community. So that's why I think the cap is like a good way to do this. We get a little bit of everything.

Robin, and then let's talk about the offenses.

Just to clarify, I think what Main Street regularly communicates is the biggest barrier for some of these small businesses, such as the ones at the Boardwalk Shop for establishing in downtown Batavia, is there is a huge lack of small, affordable, move-in ready spaces for them. So I don't know that there is a, if we look at the 14 licenses, they are taking up the type of space that is actually lacking. That is a building owner, property owner issue in this town. So just a clarifying point.

Square footage on the ones that have been approved have been a pretty small square footage, I would point out. But again, neither here nor there. We can have it all. We can have it all.

In what way, and maybe this is just, you know, I guess I'm still somewhat new, three years, whatever. In what way would a cap kind of change things from the way we do it today in terms of don't most of these applications, if not all of them, come in front of us anyway? So I don't know what the cap does.

A couple things. A couple things, if I may. The condition used for us. We're just not.

Let's hear from Scott.

Conditional use process is obviously a lot more complicated and expensive for any applicant to go through. It takes three months to get through the process. And you have to find, there are specific findings that you have to have in order to grant or not grant a conditional use. The presumption, though, is that it is an allowable use, and unless they don't meet certain criteria, you have to grant it. In this case, with a cap, it's going to be completely discretionary, subject to the city attorney's review, but that you would be able to just say yes or no. We want to increase the number, not whether this applicant is who we want or not, but whether or not it makes sense for us to increase the number from 14 to 15 or whatever the number might be.

And so the ordinance would remove conditional use. If we went with a cap, it would no longer be a conditional use.

We would have to go back and amend the zoning code. So there's a process we'll have to go to amend the code. So it'd be a little bit of a delay where that happens because of the process.

So then applicants wouldn't necessarily come to us each time. They would. be denied at the door, or would we still get every single application?

We would be bringing forward to you the request to increase or decrease the numbers, and then there would be an application that would go through the normal vetting process through police and community development to make sure it meets the setbacks or whatever other criteria there are in the licensing requirement. And then if that happens, then that's it.

All right, can we talk about the other piece in this ordinance, which is how repeat offenders should be handled? So if there's something within our existing ordinance or anything new that we put in, the draft ordinance suggests revoking a license after three or more violations in three years. What do people feel about that? Do we need something new?

Have we had repeat violations at license holders?

That data wasn't in there, so I'm not sure. I was going to follow up on this.

I'd like to hear that before I'd say anything about changing it.

I believe we've had a couple of establishments fail twice on our compliance checks.

How often are we doing? Sorry. That's okay.

And so what's being proposed right now, we have no guidance whatsoever on they could fail a thousand times and we don't have any guidance on revoking the license.

I'm not sure about that answer to that question. I'd need to research it first.

Okay. But that would be coming from the state, not from our own ordinances.

No, it may come from our own ordinances. Ordinarily with any licensure, um, we have a, um, for lack of better word, progressive discipline, where the penalties escalate and to the point where at a certain point, then the license can be revoked for violations. I just don't know exactly what those criteria are on the video gaming side versus the liquor license side.

I was going to say, who oversees that? Would it be liquor commissioner or is it, how would that?

Likely. The liquor commissioner has the authority to suspend or revoke a license currently.

But the criteria for doing so is sort of at discretion of the liquor commissioner? That's correct. Yeah, it's discretionary.

We do have a historical fine structure built in for all of our compliance checks. We offer the business a plea agreement where they can plead guilty to the offense and accept the offered fine amount for both liquor, tobacco, or video gaming violations. We have established historical fine structures based on advice from legal counsel.

okay yeah it's just hard to know if three is the right number kind of not knowing what what it's up against like what we're doing at the moment um you know that i i do think a stick needs to be kind of big on this one though too because you know we want to make sure they comply right we want the the punishment to be such that they they hop to it right knowing that that's there but not knowing what the what the current

situation is it makes it tough to know if three is the right number and and so on true i think this is modeled after west dundee correct the number of violations yeah west dundee has adopted a similar provision i offhand i don't remember if they did over three years or a longer period um that i would have to go back and double check but that that was kind of We saw that as an example that we thought we could replicate here. And this would also, I think, with the proposed language, the thought is also it's either gaming or liquor violations in some combination. Whereas I think right now, if there is some regulation, it might only be one set of violations over the other.

So I would love to also see that data and not to add more work or to have a third ordinance to be brought to us, but to have a third ordinance brought to us that maybe gives based on the data after we've seen it, we've seen the existing criteria that's in our liquor license come back with what you think is the most appropriate for how many violations over how many years. And then we'll have everything in front of us to chew on. But then Jim, then Tim.

Yeah, so a question really for the mayor. I've been here for, what, about 23 years. Have we ever revoked somebody's liquor license? I mean, we're talking like it's a common occurrence.

Well, we've had some serious conversations, and most of the time when it got that bad, the license decided it was going to sell itself to somebody else and get out of town. My early years here, this place, Batavia was pretty wide open as far as loosey-goosey on licenses and no consternation of employment of trying to control anything or anything else. So that was one of the things I ran from Aaron in 1981 was we need to bring this thing under control. And we did. And one of the things that we did was is that we said that the beginning fine from the liquor commissioner would be $500. And then based on whatever other issues were out there, we would maybe add to that fine. And so I had a couple that we We laid the fine on them. And so we had a little bit of a pot of money at the end of a couple of years. I want to say maybe it was $2,000 that we had gathered from the fines. And then Batavia High School came in one day and said that they wanted to do something called a post-prom party. and they wanted to have a party that would be after the prom and everybody, because there used to be everybody went to the prom and then went out and did something crazy or whatever have you, but they wanted to have a nice party. So Dick Burry was then owner of Funway and Dick Burry agreed to have an all night party at Funway and he would give, he would buy food and we would give it to anybody that went. And then they could bowl and they could dance and they could do all the stuff you did at Funway for no price whatsoever. And that was very successful. So at the end of the day, as I remember the first couple of years, we gave or paid Burrieth or gave him, like council voted on it, like $1,000 or $2,000 out of that fund to pay for the post-prom party. And that's what we did with the money we had gotten from the fines of the thing. But I really think, I haven't said it, I just sat here and listened to this conversation. I really think it's imperative that we do keep some control over this thing and that there is, at the end of the day, some type of a fine or something that will lay onto them that that's what you really got to do. And how many we got, you know, we have people come in and say, I'd like to come, and I think we may be talking to a couple right now that are talking about going out on Randall Road and building. And one of the questions they may have is, can we get a liquor license? Or, you know, what's the deal with that? So, I mean, this is not a question that's dead in the water. We're having open discussions with it right now. And, you know, I think it's, we've had a nice discussion here. I think it's been run very well, but I certainly think that we need to maintain local control And however you want to split that up, but the local control should be done and there should be a fine level behind it that whoever the liquor commissioner is can impose that on them and just kind of let them know that, hey, you're going to get funny here. We're going to lay it on you.

SO I HAVE THE STATUTE IN FRONT OF ME THAT TALKS ABOUT THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND, REVOKE, AND FINE. AND THE VIDEO GAMING STATUTE SAYS REFER BACK TO THE LIQUOR CODE AND THEY WILL USE THE SAME PROCESS. IN HERE, THE LOCAL LIQUOR COMMISSIONER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE OR FINE It doesn't matter how many instances so that if the first instance is a very serious instance, the liquor commissioner has the authority to revoke that license and we don't have to wait until three occurrences happen. within one year. So you may want to think about that, that if we specify how many violations and what the penalty level will be for each successive violation, it kind of takes away the authority of the liquor commissioner to take the measure that's appropriate for what the egregiousness of the offense was.

And just to add on to that.

Wait, wait. I had already called on Jim. Sorry. Can Jim go next? Sorry, Tim.

Tim and Jim. Tim. Yeah, no, I think we can do both. I think we can have... Because the liquor commissioner, I mean, no one's taking the power away from the mayor. The mayor can do what the mayor wants to do. I think we're just putting in place, if it does come to those three, or proposed to put in place, I think a three-strike rule is legit. And within three years now, I was going to ask Chief, what kind of violations are we seeing? Because I think, hey, the ropes aren't far enough back from the machines is different than, hey, your cameras haven't been recording for two days. Which is also a state violation, so.

Correct. Primarily the goal of our compliance checks is to ensure there's no underage access to machines, to liquor, to tobacco products. So we send youth participants into these establishments and then see if they're able to acquire these age-restricted products.

Okay. In that case, I mean, yeah, they need to be, that's why there's cameras. That's why there should be someone watching them. Underage people is unacceptable in there, and I'm absolutely for some sort of strict penalty for that. And if we have to go, I don't know exactly what the breakdown was on the liquor license, but if we have to go on above and beyond that, I mean, that is part of... You know, this is like, you know, a bad analogy, whatever, but it's like having a mini gun store in the back of your thing. Like, it's a big deal, right? Like, you can't just, if we're going to allow these, it needs to be taken seriously. And I don't think, you know, just like we do in a bar or in a liquor store or whatever, we need to enforce that no kids are in there and make sure that the owners are held accountable or the, yeah, either business or building owner or both or whatever.

But just to clarify, it is regardless of the level of the seriousness of whatever the violation is. So if the third thing is that one side of the rope is missing, that's a you're getting your license revoked.

Yeah, I think that we should open that up for discussion, right? I mean, again, I think we can stipulate there on something. And again, maybe we end up walking away from this and just saying, hey, that gets a little too complicated. Harry and we're just going to leave it up to the mayor on on his discretion which you know trustworthy mayor now hopefully we always do but you know you just never know so like part of me gets a little squirrely on that one too but um you know that's the way it is today so it just it kind of is what it is but uh yeah that's my two cents

AND THEN MAX.

YEAH, I'D RECOMMEND JUST GIVING THIS WHOLE THING TO THE LIQUOR COMMISSIONER AT THEIR DISCRETION FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. FIRST OFF, YOU'RE GOING TO LAUGH. I WAS THE KID THAT USED TO SEND THEM FOR THE COMPLIANCE CHECKS. Yeah, and they even sent me as an overgrown 18-year-old, right? And trust me, every time, like boom, boom, boom, right? The point is, from my perspective, it didn't look like a major violation, right? And I could very easily see somebody quite unintentionally, a business getting just caught up in a mix like this, whether the rope wasn't there or the, you know, did they send an overgrown 18-year-old to order a beer or something? You know, next thing you know, we lost a good business, right? So I'd rather just give it a case-by-case basis, discretion of the Liquor Commissioner.

Excellent, Kevin.

One other thing to consider is that within the liquor commissioner's power, it's not just related to things like underage drinking or other things. It is, I believe, any code in our books that they're violating or otherwise, or if it's a threat to public health or safety, there's some considerations in there as well. So one of the things that we're starting to do on the liquor side is on unpaid taxes. We're going to be making, you know, starting August 1st, we're going to start taking action against business who have not file taxes for an extended amount of time with the goal of them obviously paying their taxes. But there are consequences to those things if we continue to not see bills paid or taxes paid. That's an example of where the mayor can use that authority. So it's something that with that discretion, I think when we do see violations, when we do see things like underage gambling or otherwise, there's conversations that happen between the mayor, the police department, the business owner, Laura and I will occasionally have conversations if we notice things that are going wrong, if all the people are bringing up concerns. So there's that ability to both have those conversations, but really back it up with a, the mayor can send out a notice and say, I'm dragging you in for a public hearing. You know, we're going to talk through this and we can suspend it, we can revoke it. And that's all explained through the liquor code as well. If you lose your liquor license, you also lose your ability to do gaming as well. So that's something that's to be considered as well.

I like all that very much.

Go ahead. Yeah, agree with all that. That makes a whole lot of sense to me. Also what Alderman Lancey shared too, we do have a good mayor now. We have a trustworthy mayor who seems to take it very seriously. We may not in the future. And so it's not the violation that gives me pause. It's the response to the violation, right? Do they take it seriously when they're caught or do they say, okay, I'll pay my fine and then go back to business as usual? That's kind of what i am looking at there and it feels like we currently have a system that allows for escalating punitive action i guess the question i would then have is sort of as a hedge against an um you know unfaithful liquor commissioner um do we have just a threshold not where they lose their license but maybe where then it either comes before council or something of that sort sort of you know on your eighth violation you now got to stand up there and the police chief is going to read off the things your business did and was fined for right it kind of gives sort of that that check if things are egregious right not three not five but something more um that's kind of where my mind's going is that hedge against kind of okay and um with you know respect to the mayor 500 isn't what it used to be right 500 today is like okay yeah sure like that's a that's a wednesday afternoon at the slots um

and so maybe that's a good check for us on occasion if someone's really bad there's a way to to move in brainstorming here i would just make the observation that with the cooperation that we have in the good police department we have i think there's an understanding by all the license holders in this town that you better behave yourself and don't go off here crazy someplace because if you do police department is going to get it and then they're going to hand it off to me and I'm going to do something to you you're not going to like. And so we've had a pretty good run here recently in the last couple of years. We haven't had a lot of people in the bars serving the minor or anything else. If there's anything in there, our guys catch it and then they let me know and then I may call them over here and read the riot act to them and tell them, well, you need to make a $500 donation or I'll call it a fine or whatever the number would be and just kind of get them. So they know that if they play any game here, they're going to get hauled in and it's going to not be without some specific penalty that's going to be laid on them. And there's been a couple of times when I've shut the places down for two or three days. I think one of them, I shut down for a whole week one time because there was some bad stuff going on. So the word got out that, hey, we had a bar on Batavia Avenue and we had one on East Russell Street that were very problematic. And the ownerships in both of them had left after they saw what was going on and they didn't want to be in this atmosphere anymore. And, you know, then we... You know, we've had good people move into the liquor business in town. I would call them good people because they knew what the rules were. They knew how to sell liquor, how to distribute it, etc., etc., And we never had any problems with them. And that's the way we like to keep it. But they all knew that if you got stepped off the line here and got yourself into trouble, there was this wasn't over with instantly. There was going to be the police department and then it's going to be the mayor and then it's going to be liquor commissioner finding. And so that's what everybody works and lives under here.

I just wanted to say within the last couple of years, we've really seen this process work well with a local business who had a number of violations and we called them in and heard them out and they seemed inclined to, you know, they had the motivation. to cooperate. And we entered into what is basically a last chance agreement with this business. And we saw the behavior significantly improve since then. And they are very sure of how serious we are about holding their feet to the fire and following the rules. So it's a process that's already working very well.

One last question that I have for you, Chief, actually, and then would love to hear your comments too, is if we're doing compliance checks on underage stuff, that's great. Are we going to start doing compliance checks on things like cameras, ropes, signage, sight lines as well? And will that be incorporated into future data?

So we, you know, egregious violations of those natures would be noted during a compliance check. Our investigators that are involved in these compliance checks know what to look for, and they're looking for egregious violations. Now, I mean, if a rope is two feet one way, and it should be, you know, wherever, like we're not, You know, we might work with the business owner and say, hey, this needs to be located here. This partition isn't sufficient for the purposes of our ordinance, and we'll work with them and get that sort of thing squared away. But certainly if there are egregious violations, I can tell you the – the hemp-derived THC ordinance. We've recently done compliance checks on that and looking to see are any of these packaging that are marketed towards children in here. We're looking for other things other than just sales to persons under 21 years of age. So there are certainly other things that we're considering when we're engaged in these compliance checks. But primarily the violations that we see when we're doing the compliance checks is sales to minors. I guess the other thing I was going to say was just to second Laura's statement about the business that we had that meeting with. They even accepted some training from our department. We trained their staff on proper checking for IDs and things like that to try to mitigate some of the issues that we had seen at that business.

So what I'm hearing, and somebody can disagree if I didn't capture it, coming back with an ordinance, if staff's analysis deems it necessary at this point. Now that we've had the quick review of our current language, we know roughly how many violations that we're seeing. We're okay with that. And maybe that results in no ordinance on that part. Anybody disagree?

Leave that alone.

Leave it alone for now. All right, so I like Robin's suggestion on coming back with two separate ordinances then, one on the 9-14 split, another on the 100-foot setbacks from schools and churches. I didn't hear enough support, I don't think, from park district properties or from libraries. So parks, or I'm sorry, schools and churches, 100-foot setback and a separate ordinance, grandfathering, permanent grandfathering in for those that are noncompliant today. I capture any, or I miss anything?

By permanent grandfathering, are we talking about that they would always be able to be there, or are we talking about if there's a lapse for a year?

I didn't mark it down. Everybody okay if it's a lapse for a year?

I would say it would be continuous use grandfather. I mean, to me, that's one of the ways to try to keep the business there, to try to keep a functional business, employing people and being part of the economy, is to give them the opportunity to have the ability to do what's been done there. Hang on for another year while you try to find someone who wants to take it over for you. Yeah.

Better crew, better program. That's similar to what happened to JTs, because JTs was prior to the conditional use requirements. And so during that lapse period, there was that risk that they would have lost the license and they had to go through a process again. So if we do it that way, then that would be similar to that.

Thank you. Thank you for standing up there the whole time, too.

Mm-hmm.

And it's only 9.32. Thank you for keeping us on the straight and narrow on this, too. That's a tough discussion, so thanks for keeping us kind of pointed in the right direction.

Thank you for letting me put you on the spot. Okay, so are we done with that, then?

We'll wait for the two ordinance to come back and vote on them.

Any new project status in the last I think that I didn't talk about at the City Council meeting was in reviewing the page on the council committees it was noted that Sarah Vogel singer is still the co-chair or not the co-chair, the vice president of the city services committee. And so I guess the first question I would ask is if somebody who currently has a committee assignment, because you will be more senior than the other people that I mentioned, if there is anyone who wants to change their committee assignment to be the vice chair of city services.

THOUGH WHAT THAT SPECIFIC COMMITTEE COVERS?

YES. IT IS PUBLIC WORKS, POLICE AND FIRE.

PUBLIC SAFETY.

PUBLIC SAFETY.

POLICE FIRE. CITY PROPERTY.

CITY PROPERTY, YEAH. Okay, hearing none, then the Robin Barraza is the next most senior person with she, December 4th of 2023 was her appointment. And would you like that appointment, Robin? Or yes? Okay. Okay. And is that an okay way to do this as there's like one vacancy, we'll just look to the next most senior people? Okay, thank you very much, that's all I had.

Okay, anybody have any other business? Hearing none, I need a motion to go into executive session for purchase of real estate and ongoing litigation.

Second.

Motion and a second.

And white.

And white. We can vote.

And lucky Kate, we'd have to kick you out of the room again. Again? Boy, howdy.

Oh, she's so disappointed.

Listen, this actually makes the rest of this much harder if I'm not here. Thank you. Barraza?

Here.

Oh, sorry. I should have started. Aye.

Aye. Sorry.

Thank you. Lancey, I should start with you. I'm sorry. Beck? Aye. Malay? Aye. Malone? Aye. Wolf?

No. Salfa? Aye.

Aaron?

Aye.

Lehman is absent. Lohman? Aye. Pieper? Aye.