Common Council - Regular Meeting

Brouwer. Here. Baumann. Here. Westmoreland. Cox. Jackson. Zamoripa. Here. Taylor. Moore. Bergalis. Spiker.

Here.

Dmitryevich. Here. Stamper. Here. Mister president. Present. 15 members are present.

15 present. I would ask the common counsel to please rise. It was a year ago today that we lost our colleague and friend, Jonathan Brostoff. He is missed. Even if the good work he began goes on in many ways, I would remind everyone in this room and everyone watching that the world is better with you in it.

You are cared about and seen. And if you need help, please seek it. The nationwide suicide and crisis hotline number is 988. It is available 247. I would ask that the common counsel to observe a moment of silence in honor of his memory.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to be followed by a moment of silent meditation.

I pledge allegiance the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and fraud.

Thank you. Are there any corrections to the Common Council Journal of proceedings for the regular meeting of 10/14/2025?

There are no corrections to the journal.

There being no corrections, the minutes of this meeting stand approved. Will the city clerk please inform the common council of any commendations or condolences to be acknowledged at this time.

File one, communication from the city clerk relating to various commendatory and condolatory resolutions to be acknowledged and affirmed by the common council. One, resolution congratulating the Milwaukee Brewers on their outstanding 2025 season and playoff run. Two, resolution congratulating the United Migrant Opportunity Services Incorporated on the celebration of its sixtieth anniversary. Three, resolution congratulating Rise and Grind Cafe on the occasion of its tenth anniversary. Four, resolution recognize recognizing Anna Baez for her contributions to the community and to the Milwaukee Public Schools.

Five, resolution expressing condolences to the family and friends of Guadalupe Escobedo. Six, resolution expressing condolences to the family and friends of Alfredo Mercado Sanchez. Seven, resolution honoring the life and legacy of Jeffrey Duke Rufus. Eight, resolution congratulating Anna Garcia Ashley on her retirement from the Gamaleo Foundation. Nine, resolution congratulating Marie Grabovsky on her retirement from the office of the city treasurer.

10, resolution congratulating John Fisher on his retirement from the Milwaukee Fire Department. 11, resolution congratulate congratulating Nancy Jandron on her retirement from Milwaukee Public Schools. 12, resolution congratulating Daniel Walk on his retirement Welk on his retirement from the Milwaukee Water Works. 13, resolutions congratulating the following of their retirements from the Milwaukee Health Department. Richard Wojciechowski, Jean Fortuneard.

14, congratulating the following of their retirements from the Milwaukee Police Department. Sean Lesenjack, David Thompson.

Are there any objections to the foregoing commendations and condolences? If anyone wishes to be added as a co sponsor to any of their commendations or condolences, please pull out the form on your desk and submit it before the close of workday. We will now take up the reports of the standing committees. Alderg person Jocasta Samaripa will now present the report of the License Committee.

Item two, the Common Council File 251041. The licenses committee recommends motion relating to the recommendation of the licenses committee relating to licenses. Included in the file are the following recommendations. Approval with a thirty two day suspension held in advance of the food dealer license for Rosemary Walker based upon the preponderance of the evidence in the automatic testimony that demonstrates the operation results in excessive littering for the premise located at 9230 West Capitol Drive doing business as Little Caesars number three one four the fifth Aldermanic District. Written objections have been filed.

Approval with a ten day suspension of the food dealer food peddler licenses for Ignacio C Madrigal Villa Gomez. Based upon the preponderance of the evidence in the police report that demonstrates that the operation results in a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public for the purchase of stolen goods for the premise located at 1207 West Lincoln Avenue doing business as Yarraghas Food in the 12th Aldermanic District. Written objections have been filed.

Have the members of the common council read the report and recommendations of the license committee as well as any objections filed in these matters? Roll call, please.

Alderman Pratt. Chambers. Aye. Brower. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cox. Aye. Jackson. Zamoripa. Aye. Kahler. Moore? Aye. Bergelis? Aye. Spiker? Aye. Dmitryevich? Aye. Stamper? Aye. Mister president? Aye.

15 ayes. 15 ayes. Are any of the following other councils present? And if so, do they wish to address the common council? Rose Marie Walker.

Pardon me? Okay. Let the record reflect that they will not be appearing. Ignacio Madrigal Yehlomes. Alder Woman Samaripo moves that the common council resolve itself into the committee of the whole for the purpose of taking testimony in these matters. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Both sides are limited to five minutes and must confine the remarks to the report and the recommendations of the committee. Counselor, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Town and Council. My name is Mike Maiselman. I represent the applicant. We have been working with the local alderman and we have made some commitments.

One of those commitments is that we're going to hire a manager who's going to be obtaining a license. So it's a licensed manager. We will also be attending the police meetings that they have once a month to ensure that we're in the loop of what's going on and we can engage them when we have some issues. We will also be working with and joining the Lincoln Village Business Association to ensure that we're a good neighbor and working with them and have them on our radar and they're on our radar. I was going to go into a number of other details.

He has 15 employees who will be out of work for ten days. He has four kids, eight year old, a 22 year old. And with that, we would request that his license be renewed with a warning. Any questions?

Any questions by committee members? Thank you. Thank you. We'll now hear from the City Attorney's Office.

Travis Gresham appearing on behalf of the City Attorney.

You have before you the findings of fact and

conclusions of law related to this matter along with the recommendations of the licensing committee. Happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you. All the room in Samaripa now moves that the committee of the whole rises and hearing no objection so ordered. Are there any motions With respect to these matters, chair calls on Alderman Samaripa. The floor is yours.

I have a motion related to Gallegadas.

Please.

It's now appropriate. See. Alright. Mister chair, I move to remove the suspension of the food dealer and food peddler licenses of Ignacio Madrigal Via Gomez from Yaya Garas Food LLC for the premises located at 1207 West Lincoln Avenue doing business as in the 12th Aldermanic District.

Thank you, all the person. Somebody, but are there any objections to that motion? Any objections?

There's one.

I'm sorry.

I believe Alderman Berglis.

I don't see your light on. Alderman Berglis? Objection. Okay. Let the record reflect Alderman Berglis' objection.

The motion passes. Hearing no further discussion, I would ask for a vote of the common council members to adopt the recommendations of the license committee as contained in file number 251041. Will the clerk please call the roll.

Alderman Pratt. Chambers. Aye. Baughman. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cox. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Zamripa. Aye. Taylor. Aye. Moore. Aye. Regalis. Aye. Spiker. Aye. Dimitriovich. Aye. Stamper. Aye. Mister president? Aye.

15 ayes. 15 ayes. Will the clerk please identify the next item before the common council?

Next item is item number three, file number 250913. Motion relating to the revocation of the class b tavern, public entertainment premise, food dealer, and sidewalk dining license for Rajik Baines, agent for a one Water Street LLC for the premise located at 618 North Water Street doing business as Element Lounge in the 4th Aldermanic District. Included in the reports the following recommendation, revocation of the class b tavern, public entertainment premise, food dealer, and sidewalk dining licenses based upon the preponderance of the evidence in the police report, Aldermanic testimony, licensee and staff testimony, and other evidence presented at the hearing, and what was included in the notice that demonstrates the operation results in a threat to health, safety, and welfare of the public for the loitering and disturbance of the peace for the premise located at 618 North Water Street DBA Element Lounge in the 4th Aldermanic District. Written objections have been filed.

Have the members of the Common Council read the report and the recommendations of the License Committee as well as the objections filed in this matter? Roll call, please.

Alderwoman Pratt. Aye. Chambers. Aye. Brower. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cogs. Aye. Jackson. Zamoriba? Aye. Taylor? Aye. Moore? Aye. Bergalis? Aye. Spiker? Aye. Dmitryevich? Aye. Stamper? Aye. Mister president?

Aye. 15 ayes. 15 ayes. Are any of the following or their councils present? And if so, do they wish to address the common counsel? Chair Baines? Alderwoman Samaripo moves that the common counsel resolve itself into the committee of the whole for the purpose of taking testimony in these matters. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Councilor, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister president and common council members. My name is Mike Maestelman. I represent mister Baines. First, I'd like to acknowledge and my client would like to acknowledge the tragic loss of life that took place a few months ago here. We're here to support the safety and welfare and make a helpless solution, not make excuses.

The problems at this location, as many of you have been around for a while, have been going on for over twenty years, I believe. The new owner, my client, purchased the venue back on June. He's the first person in over twenty years to take real corrective measures to address these issues. And he intended from day one to convert this to a sports bar. The reason why there were continue a nightclub dancing and promoters at the time of the shooting was because there were the previous owner had entered into a number of contracts that if we didn't honor, we could be sued for.

We legally obligated to honor those contracts. However, my client is putting his money where his mouth is. He recently filed an amended plan of operation eliminating DJs, eliminating dancing, eliminating promoters, eliminating the nightclub model, and implementing the sports bar model. He's already invested significant capital to improve the safety of and operations of the facility and will continue to invest substantial funds into security, training, rebranding and safety. We also have to do that to to make it into the sports bar that we'd like to.

We're be doing what the previous owner never did before. The drive by shooting was an external act of violence. There have been no violations in the establishment since my client has taken over. Closing the building won't prevent this type of crime from occurring or improving safety. The closure of the business is counterproductive.

Vegan buildings attract more crime loitering in danger. A well managed business with lighting, camera, security, and safer for the neighborhood. Oglob jobs will be at risk also. He's willing to accept accountability for what has happened. He's open to reasonable conditions, working with the Milwaukee Police Department and the local bid.

I didn't visit Milwaukee and others that came down and expressed their opinion at the licensing hearing. He would agree to accept the suspension. And in closing, we would request fairness and a chance to prove that this new model works and judge his performance going forward now based upon the past owners and their conduct. Again, he's eliminated all of the all of the requests as part of his pep, which has never been done before there. And I think that that shows that he's willing to make this into the sports bar that he's always wanted to make in into. I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Any questions by committee members? Alder member Gellis?

Thank you, mister president. Attorney Meiselman, do you contend that your the efforts your client made were sufficient to protect the health, welfare, safety of the public?

At the time of the shooting or just generally speaking?

You stated that the your client moved into the building and made significant investments in the facility. Right. Do you contend that those efforts were sufficient to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public?

Yes. There's only so much you can do, unfortunately. Again, I've been up in front of this council many times. There are more guns in America than our people. Right? This is a drive by shooting. It could have happened anywhere. The shooters were looking for a particular individual. They said that when they drove by. We have it on video. We found you, and then they shot him. Again, this could have happened anywhere. There was nothing that anybody could have done other than maybe code red being present. And I know they're they're they're stretched very thin, but typically they're across the street monitoring what's going on there.

So the efforts that your client made were sufficient, but you're going to do more?

We're going to do more as far as additional security in and around the facility. More cameras, better camera system, allowing MPD to use fuses to tie in to see exactly what's going on live. Again, there's only so much you can do.

Alright. Thank you, mister president.

Chair recognizes alder mister Stamper.

I didn't Mike, I didn't hear what you said about eliminating something. What did you say you eliminated?

Okay. My client is eliminating or the past over the past twenty years, what they've had as part of their PAP license are DJs, dancing, promoters. It's been a nightclub model. They're wiping all of that off. They've amended their plan of operation and they are taking out DJs. They're removing dancing. They're removing promoters, and they're implementing a sports bar now. That's never been done here before ever. And that goes like, the proof is in the pudding regarding that. Once we've removed those, we can't get them back.

And what age did you what age are you implementing?

The same age as it's always been. I believe it's 21 and up.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, mister president. Chair recognizes alderman Spiker.

Thank you, mister president. Mister attorney, is it your testimony that this is false, if it were not for element being there, the individual wouldn't have been present in that location at that night? Not looking to draw anything from that. Just wondering whether you acknowledge that to be true.

Okay. Use the word false and true. I think I know where

you're going with it, though.

Say again?

What I think your question is, is would it have happened if it was closed? Of course not. They were looking for a specific individual.

Yes, that wasn't the question. Question is Element were not having whatever activities they were having that night, would that individual have been there? That doesn't necessarily imply responsibility, but it's a precondition for it.

I understand. Well, that would be kind of a conjecture I can't say, but the reason that those people were there, I believe he was participating as a promoter or he was going be performing there.

So that sounds like he wouldn't have been there had it not been for the element being there in the events of that night which drew him there. Again, that doesn't mean responsibility necessarily, but it's surely but if not for which? Of course not. And you're saying that in the future a similarly placed individual would not be drawn to that place because the PEP is so radically changed that they would have no reason to be there?

Well, I'm not saying who is going to show up and who's not going to show up, okay? But we're not going to have DJs. We're not going to have promoters. And there were DJs and promoters at that time and I believe the person who was shot was part of that, right? And so I hope I'm answering your question.

Yes. So you're saying if somebody like this shows up in the future there, it's kind of as a regular attendee as opposed to part of the show. Exactly.

So it wouldn't be public eliminating

the show.

Exactly. It wouldn't be public knowledge that there's somebody promoting or DJing there because that's not gonna be taking place. I believe that's why the shooters knew this individual was gonna be there because it was promoted that he was gonna be there.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Chambers.

Thank you,

mister president. Is this the perfect time to provide commentary in a relative motion or shall I wait until after the fact? Because I have a bit to say about this? I can wait. It's fine.

Yep. Gotta

wait. You should probably wait for the committee to rest.

Sounds good.

Chair recognizes alderwoman Moore.

I have a quick question and this may not be for the attorney. Do we know if other clubs on water have been closed or recommended recommended for closure as a result of a shooting?

Oh, yeah. Well, I I

can just with my knowledge of reading the newspaper and from colleagues up here, I'm not aware of it. I would direct that maybe to a local alderman, Alderman Baumann, or maybe mister Cooney from the

license Thank you. Thank you, counselor.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Baumann. Yeah, I can speak

for the record because I've been in office twenty one years. I've been in business twenty years.

Microphone, please.

And out of the twenty license years, they have received discipline 13 of those years, including in 2008, a forty five day suspension 2000 suspension, 2010, a ten day, twenty day suspension, 2013, a ninety day suspension. In many, I believe in 2013, the ninety day suspension was given in lieu of an effort to non renew them. And that was a hotly contested matter. So in in almost all of those instances, they did involve shootings. Absolutely including a sixty day suspension in 2021 when there was a shooting of patrons involving patrons about 50 feet away from the front door in Water Street.

And that was a sixty day suspension. So there's been no revocations. But I recall when the police testified about Water Street disorder in September I think it was. And the inspector of police who was present was asked a question by the committee, the police safety committee. What's your biggest problem on Water Street? And they said Element Bar. Without hesitation, none of the others come close. Again, this revocation action was undertaken by the Milwaukee Police Department based on their experience, based on their records, and based on their knowledge. And I support it. And I've supported it all along.

In many instances of these renewals, I did recommend non renewal and my advice was not taken and they remained open and there were subsequent issues. Okay. And they resolved an additional discipline in the subsequent in the following year and following years. So yes, there have been shootings.

Alderman Baumann? Yes. It was an answer to Alderman Moore's question. I think you should like Alderman Chambers wait. Very

good. So we

rise as a committee of the whole. Fair enough. Alderman Chambers?

At this point, can I get a question for the city attorney or shall I wait for the

Well, he'll be up next? Anything else for for a council here for Element? Okay. Thank you. Ole Miss Stamper?

Yeah. What is the experience of these operators as far as clubs in Milwaukee?

They are originally from Brooklyn. They've been here, I believe, a few years and they are opening up a few other establishments in the area. They have financial backing and a pretty good reputation from everything that they operate. They also operate some gas stations and whatnot. And when I say they, I don't mean the previous owners like some people have said they, right? These are the people that have been operating since June 1. They doesn't refer to them as the people that have been operating since the last twenty years as might have been said.

Right. But the current operators, do they have any club experience?

Right.

My understanding is that, yes, they do. And I can get you that information afterwards. I apologize. I don't have it with me. But I know that they have all their business in the city.

We're close.

I would need to ask my client.

I'm sorry. Don't All have any right. Thanks.

Chair recognizes Alderman Spiker.

Thank you, Mr. President. So for clarification, the laundry list going back twenty years, was that under this ownership or other ownership?

Oh, it's a very good question because it was painted as if they

Direct answer is fine.

It was other ownership.

Other ownership. Was this ownership or is this ownership affiliated in any meaningful way with prior ownership?

Not at all. Other than there was a holdover of one of the employees that was here before just as a transition, but he's no longer working at Element anymore.

So your testimony is there's no connection of current ownership with previous ownership. And the question I didn't ask but you answered was whether any employees have transferred over. They did, but that is in the past now that relationship has ceased.

Let me make a clarification. I'm talking more about like ownership management. There was one person that was managing for ever and he was there for the transition as part of the sale, right? They needed to have somebody that had some idea of how to had some history there. We might and I believe we probably have some employees that have still been there.

Okay.

But they're sort

drained. So

if we are looking at the upper level of the organization, ownership is new unrelated to older ownership. Management is now new, had been some tie with the old to establish some sort of continuity, but that has ended.

Exactly. That person was working there while the older contracts that the prior owner entered into, but now those are done.

And last question, was that person working there when the shooting occurred? Yes. Okay. And he is no longer there?

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Brower. Yeah, I was

just going to actually ask that question about that employee who also testified at the license committee meeting, but that question has been answered. Just want to make sure that was clear.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Stamper.

Just for clarification, they rent that spot. They don't own the building. Correct? Correct. Alright. Alright. So they're renters of the owners, and owners are the affiliation with the previous and the past.

The owners of the building are are are not affiliated with the the owners of the of

The previous Yeah. The previous owners of the club, just the renters of the club. Right. Everybody's been renting there. Gotcha.

Okay. Thank you. Thank chair recognizes alderperson Samaripa.

President, as you know, I'm chairperson of the committee and I I I just feel compelled to clarify something I I thought the attorney I heard the attorney say because we had the manager come and testify at the revocation hearing. What was his name again?

Nick. Nick.

Nick is fine for now.

Yeah.

Nick managed for a number of years under previous ownership as was indicated. Later when this agent came on board and made a commitment to the Alder for the district that he would be sure to change things up and make sure that things were operated safely and in a better way and make changes overall. He continued to move forward with Nick managing the business, correct?

Nick was on until all of the contracts that the previous owner had entered into expired and now he's gone.

Nick was on. He was not fired. He he was not any real change made to the business, and Nick was still there when the individual was murdered.

Yeah. Yeah. And, again, I don't I don't know what we could have done. Unfortunately, for a drive by shooting.

Mhmm.

Whether Nick was there, I could assure you this. If Nick was not there, the shooting would have still occurred. I can assure you that if there were MPD frequenting the club at the time, the drive by shirting would still have occurred. This is an epidemic.

And when did Nick leave?

Well, shortly right after the last hearing because our contracts are all done with the prior owner. And their other lawyer advised them that if they canceled those contracts, they could be sued. The contracts that the former owner entered into.

But they could complete those contracts without Nick at the helm?

Well, they wanted to have many times when a company buys another company or people buy another company, whether they have the prior owner stay on as consultant for a period of time is not unusual at all. And we were operating still under the old model because we had people that retained us and contracted with us for the services of the old model, dancing, DJs, promoters, which we were licensed to do at the time and we couldn't undo that.

I just want to clarify that you're coming to us saying you're going to finally change the protocols, change the program, change the setup here so that it'll be better. And I just I want to note that you said that once before. You said that to the alder for the district before with this agent that it was going to be better, that things were going to change, that he wasn't going to have the same folks in place. And that didn't happen then. So I I think that it's not going to happen now.

Well, I mean, okay. The question was answered.

Anything else? You. Chair recognizes Elder Smith. Thank

you, Mr. President. So if that is a legitimate concern is whether the manager would keep their word or the agent would keep their word and whether the ownership would ensure that he does so. I guess the one thing that's different here is you are basically proposing to have your pep eliminated. Is there something or not eliminated, but the DJ promotion, the nightclub aspects, is that in the file? Or is that a proposal that this body not approve those?

Very good question. Very good question. We've already changed our operation. We filed that amendment to remove DJs, dancing, promoters last week. We can't do that anymore. We've given up that right.

And I guess for our city well, I'll I'll wait and ask our city attorney for verification, but thank you.

You're welcome. This is the longest time I've been up here before. Anybody?

No.

Thank you very much.

Assistant city attorney Gresham.

Assistant city attorney Travis Gresham, you have before you

the findings of fact and

conclusions of law related to this matter along with the recommendations of the licensing committee. I haven't answered any questions at this time. I think there were a number of them. Guess I'll wait.

Chair recognizes questions for our assistant city attorney. Mister president. All over the chambers.

Thank you, mister president. What timeline for, this revocation can we factor into our decision? Is it the totality of it or are they from the time where the gentleman applied for it when he took over for the new licenses until current?

Yes. So there are the timeline is not necessarily defined only in so much as normally what we would say is the licensing year. That doesn't necessarily hold with regard to continuation of management as managers are kind of a continuity or through line and that kind of goes to whether or not the establishment can be well run, safely run, etcetera. So the ability of a manager, the ability of ownership groups is generally seen as something that can kind of I guess permeate through those licensing years as it is a continuity. So the chain of events throughout each one of these licensing years as kind of I guess explicitly understood as kind of following that management group or that manager could be understood as kind of within the scope of your consideration or deliberation.

I would say that understanding that this council and body has acted with regard to single instances of shootings to close individual businesses, this is not, I guess, outside of the scope or outside of the general course of business to move to revoke based single instance.

So would this be considered a new management group or would it be considered existing management?

So that is alleged in the complaint that the perpetuation of the management have actually perpetuated the problems. So the issue was consistent.

There's one more question I got. I just draw a blank. Sorry. Yeah. I know. Thank you. That's my only question for right now. Probably got another one before you leave, but I'm trying to think of it. So I'm not gonna hold you

hold you up.

Chair recognizes alderman Baumann. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. There's been reference to contracts. Were any contracts entered into the record at the revocation hearing?

I didn't see any. And as far as individual business associations or affiliations or obligations, Generally speaking, those are not necessarily entered. Sometimes they are, but again

Well, is the linchpin of the applicant's argument now is that the only reason they continued with the same business plan and business model was because they had these contracts with promoters that prevented them from revising their business plan consistent with what they told me when I met with them. It's a linchpin of their argument. So you've never reviewed these contracts to determine their enforceability, what exactly they required?

I've never seen them and nor would the city attorney's office opine on enforceability even to this body as a contract between two separate or third party businesses in the city of Milwaukee.

So the existence of these contracts is not part of the record, was never made part of the record. It's a new fact that's being asserted after the action of

the committee? Correct. Yes. Okay.

The plan of operation that they had in place prior to their recent amendments was essentially the same plan of operation that the previous ownership had in place. Is that fair to say?

I can't speak to the exact nature or kind of differences between the two, but I would assume that it was relatively similar. I think in you would have the experience as to having reviewed both of those, but I believe that they are relatively similar.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Spiker. Here in the queue, Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions, I guess. One relating to the nature of the contracts, I guess. Say either they are law of excluded middle, there is either the contracts there are contracts in place or they are not.

If they are, that creates contractual relation between the ownership and those with whom they're contracting. If there isn't, there is no such relationship. It's only in the former case that they would be bound in some way you would think to continue that relationship. However, Mr. Attorney, if their PEP is changed in the ways attested to, then whether there is a contract existing or not, they cannot legally have a DJ, have patrons dancing, have the nightclub environment. Is that not true?

Correct. So and I think in separating them in time effectively, perpetuation of the PEP and this is probably arguing for the other side of it, but the perpetuation of the PEP was again understood to be because of the existence of these contracts unknown as spotty or unknown to this body and I guess removal of the PEP I guess foretells that there are no continuing contracts

for My point though is say there is, that's not on this body. That is something they will have to resolve legally then. They still will not be able to operate as a nightclub with patrons dancing, promoters, DJs and the rest whether there's a contract there or not. That will be entirely on them and not on us.

And even further, broader than that, even though there possibly were existing contracts when the change happened, that's again not on this body at all. Those are between two separate businesses. So the continuation or perpetuation of the license onto a new person with the same management is not a requirement of this body. It's not something that we have to do. We don't have to license because there are contracts in place.

Of course. And the second question is, the attorney attested or averted that there was a PEP change in place on record. Can you confirm that that is true in the nature of the change that is now in place and so what's before us?

I can't testify to that. Haven't received that. I'm not the licensing division. The licensing division would be the testifying or the I guess agency authorized to testify on that. So I have not reviewed or looked at that. So something I can't testify to.

And I'm just asking because I'm missing it in the record if it's in there, but that's kind of the crucial thing. I don't want to take anybody's word for anything. So we need it I would think we would need something from the license division saying yes, this proposed change has actually been implemented. Right? Otherwise how are we going to make a determination?

On faith and guess forthrightness of the previous testifying attorney.

Oh. No, I'm not going on that. I want something in the record reflecting that what he is saying is accurate. Is there a way we can secure that?

That would be procedural by I would assume some motion of this body to retrieve that. But again, I don't know if that's a feasible thing within this

The head of the license division could hand you something and it could become part of the record. Could not that happen?

He could and he's nodding at me now.

All right. Let it be so. Thank you.

Sure recognizes the Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, miss thank you. Thank you, mister president. Attorney Gresham, when the license when the new licensee apply, was the previous premise included in the record at the new time at the time of the licensing?

Previous premise report? Yep. That's a PA 33 that's generated for the hearing. I don't know if it was included in the specific packet that would have gone excuse me.

What

So when the light when the new owner took over this establishment, was previous premise included in this new packet when he took over the ownership of Element?

In the which packet? I

Either packet. When he first came in for licensing, when they when we when we approved his initial licensing to take over and even the previous premise at this revocation hearing.

You're asking if they read it into the record?

Correct. When he

applied the new applicant applied for the new license?

Correct. That I don't know. I

That's something we can bring the licensing manager up for.

I mean, the inclusion in the revocation packet is kind of a different question. You're asking about

the Well, reason why I bring that question up is my colleague brought up past history with his establishment. If the previous premise were read in, he can use that. If it wasn't, he can't.

So Red Inn versus use and utility in the thing are different. So being Red Inn is the license year? The

He's bright. He brought up the history of this establishment from 2000 and from 02/1966 or whatever year he opened into current from the previous suspensions past years and everything of nature. This gentleman took over in June. If the previous premise report from the previous owner was read and accepted into the apartment when he first initially applied for the the the ownership change, fair game. So, you know, that that's within his right. But if it wasn't, why are we talking about things that happened in the past when he was not there?

It came up via testimony and it also came up via admission from the the opposing party or the party open for revocation. And it was also a continuity of the the ownership or the the management. That was the, I guess, the in the complaint, that was what was used to bring in those other instances. But the primary complaint was really as to the drive by shooting that occurred.

But the purpose but the purpose of the police breaking up the revocation was his past history prior to the the testimony of whatever was heard at the revocation?

The complaint was mainly focused on the two instances the the two shootings that occurred.

If I'm not mistaken, the police brought up a previous history too, didn't they? They did. Prior to the testimony?

They did. But the idea that it was primary or the reason for it, it was not found.

Okay. Thank

you. Any other questions for counsel? Thank you, sir.

As to Alder Spiker's consideration, am now being passed the new application amendment. This is dated tentwenty ninetwenty twenty five. There looks to be a change that comports with the testimony given prior. Specifically? We have

removal of disc jockeys, live bands, battle of the bands and up to 15 concerts, patrons dancing, dancing by performers, comedy acts, magic shows, poetry readings, use of outside promoters, and then they would like to add three pool tables.

Was there a removal of you said the removal of the promoters was in there as well? Yes.

We would like to remove disc jockeys, live bands, battle of the bands, up to 15 concerts, patrons dancing, dancing by performers, comedy acts, magic shows, poetry readings, use of outside promoters, and

then we would like to add three pool tables.

Okay. Use of outside promoters is one of the things that

they are

asking you. For

Chair recognizes Alderman Burgales.

Thank you, Mr. President. Is there a change in hours in that application?

One second.

There is not.

So, they still want to be open until 02:30?

I believe so.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Any other questions? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Alderson Samaripa moves that the Committee of the Whole rise. Chair recognizes Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. President. I figured this is the time to make my comment.

Hold on. Let me finish. Hearing no objections, so ordered. The chair recognizes all them in chambers.

Thank you, mister president. And and I and I wanna preface by saying

You're gonna make a motion?

I will make a motion.

Okay. So let me let let me be clear that if there are any motions respect to these matters, Alderman Chambers, the floor is yours.

Thank you, mister president. In respect to my colleague, I respect that opinion that I sit on the the committee with. I just have several reservations and several troubles with the decision to shut this down. You know, first and foremost, I've been a huge critic of the co red that Milwaukee police have enforced downtown for their responsible entertainment district. And at that day of the unfortunate passing of Antoine Tweedy Hogans, there was at least 12 officers and multiple squads literally five blocks away from this location, Buried or buried away, walking around Old World 3rd Street and and Water Street.

To attorney Mason at this point, had it been at least one car, one one squad car there, nine times out 10, that shouldn't probably not happen. I'm speculating on that, but that that that is what they're if we hear the people who are in strong support of the coal red being downtown because they pay property taxes, these owners on the other side of Water pay pretty much the same amount of property tax in there. Why are they not being just as protected as other establishments? And it really behooves me that the bid director, the CEO of Visit Milwaukee, that all these people wanna come and testify in the opposition of an establishment that focuses on black and brown establishments. And then the police want to set precedent by setting a closure for a shooting that didn't, a, didn't happen in in the the establishment.

Well, I'm talking about the parking lot shooting. And b, that the patriots wasn't even in there for the drive by shooting to happen. Now the unfortunate incident, people were there at the people that were shot was a patron of element, but the the perpetrators was not. I can recall back a situation that happened in my district on Fond Du Lac where an establishment ejected a gentleman out the club, did what they proposed to do. The gentleman got into the club, hit a u-turn, and then proceeded to shoot the area up, subsequently killing one of the security guards.

Now that, I can either, a, put that on the establishment right there because they was patrons of the club, or b, don't. I I I just I I don't I think we're getting too willy nilly with trying to shut down. Like, places are gonna have issues. Brothers had issues quite frequently within Water Street, and they had the nerve to go and try to have someone talk to the police sergeant to talk to my colleague from the fourth and other representatives on their committee to try to remove the suspension. Like, it's just the gall of these individuals down here is just it bothers the hell out of me. And in respect to this situation,

now do I think they need to

be punished? Yes. Because they're starting off in a bad foot. But subsequently closing them down, I'm just I'm not with it. I'm going to make the motion to send this back to committee, and y'all can either vote it up or down. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Brower.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I think I owe it to my colleagues to kind of explain some of my thinking on this. I was a no vote on the revocation at the committee. I just wanna offer some of my thinking on this. I I think it might worth exploring and and supporting Alderman Chamber's motion. I intend to vote yes on that. But I just wanna offer some of my thinking here. Obviously, what happened, there was two separate shootings that were brought as evidenced by the Milwaukee Police Department and the city attorney's office.

The first one being a shooting that occurred in late June in the Chase Parking Ramp, just south of the Chase Tower. So across the street and down a little bit, from the bar in question by the shooting did occur by patrons at the bar, but it was almost an hour or if right around an hour after the bar had closed and they were basically having a party out of a car in the ramp, which, you know, shouldn't be happening. I think we need to apply some scrutiny to the operator of that parking ramp as well for failing to engage any sort of security measure to stop that kind of stuff from happening. That is on the property owner of that ramp to secure and maintain their facility at all hours of the day if that ramp is open all hours of the day for people to stop them from doing that. So I don't I'm a little more hesitant and one of the reasons I cast the no vote on the revocation was because I was just not totally brought into thinking it was entirely the fault of Element, the two shootings that occurred.

The second one in question at the July where OG Twizy died was from everything I can see absolutely tragic, but also no evidence has been presented yet by the police department or the city attorney's office that it's was directly related to element. There, you know, the detective testified at the hearing that there has not been a arrest made or a criminal complaint filed against anyone. And maybe that's changed in the days since the hearing. I haven't been following the case that closely, and if there is police colleagues, me know. But I don't believe that that is something that's related to that.

So that's why I cast a no vote just to inform my colleagues. I think it might be worth reconsidering the matter of committee and I'll be supporting Alderman Chambers motion. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Baumann.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would urge my colleagues to support the committee recommendation on revocation. What we're seeing today is the legal equivalent of a hail Mary pass. And that hail Mary pass is frankly based on facts not in evidence. The linchpin of their argument is we had these contracts. We couldn't get out of them. We had to hold these promotion events. We had to hold Frickin Fest or whatever it was called on June 15 when the first shooting took place, fifteen days after they opened. We had no choice except none of those contracts have

been put into the record.

We've had no opportunity to determine what exactly those contracts required, who was bound by those contracts. We have no information regarding these contracts. We do not even know if contracts exist other than the unsworn testimony of their attorney present here today. That's why we have hearings, quasi judicial hearings. So evidence can be introduced, can be analyzed, and can be subject to cross examination.

None of that has taken place regarding these contracts. So it's basically a Hail Mary pass that somehow that's going to confuse us and induce us to let these people off the mat because they are on the mat. And now they're changing their plan of operations. That's what they told me when they met with me probably a year ago now before they ultimately took over on 06/01/2025. We're going to be different, new format, new operation, no promotions, their plan of operations and their application was essentially the same as the former establishment's plan of operations.

And again, forty five days of their taking within fifteen days of their taking over, they have shooting number one. Within forty days of their taking over, they have shooting number two, and there's two homicides. It was the same operation. Why? Because that's what makes money. It was their business plan to maximize their income, that and was the business plan that had been present at that location for the last twenty years. That was the whole point. So credibility is critical. I don't believe there's going to be any changes.

I don't believe there are

going be any changes for any length of time. It will revert back to what it was. I remember some years ago we had a sports bar that was going to be located at Old World 3rd Street and sure they opened up all right as a sports bar. They never put any TVs in. And within six months of opening, there were three homicides on Old World 3rd Street.

We didn't even have to revoke their license because they surrendered it. So credibility is a key thing. Yes, they're going to say anything, do anything, promise anything today because they have that Hail Mary in the air and they're trying to line up their receivers in the end zone and they hope somebody is going to bounce that ball into the friendly side and they're going to get up off the mat. The committee did a thorough job. Alderman Zambaropa is exactly correct regarding credibility and promises after the fact. And so stick with the committee recommendation. They did a thorough job, and this license should be revoked. Thank you.

Chair recognizes the Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, mister president. To that and and and again, I I respect my he he is well versed on what's going on in his district and everything of that nature, but I just think if we're gonna stick to the facts, the facts is none of these events happened in this establishment. If that's the case, then we're gonna the shooting that happened in front of Lowcountry during the Bucks playoff series, we're gonna put it on Lowcountry or we're put it on Water Street Brewery? Are we gonna put the shootings over there and and and tap on them? Or are we gonna blame Bodega or Element for the street takeover that happened right there on the front of Water in Wisconsin?

Things have to stick. Plain and simple. If it happened in there, it happened in there, but this did not. Now I can say they're going on the wrong foot. I would I would 100% agree with my colleague on that, saying they're starting off on the wrong foot, and hopefully that these changes is going to be for the better. But honestly, I just, in good conscience, cannot support closing down the establishment for something that did not happen in their establishment. Do as you want. My motion is there.

And we can go from there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair recognizes Alderman Berglis.

Thank you very much for our colleague. What is the intent of sending this back to the committee?

I mean, the intent to send it back to the committee is to have a fresher, I guess, a better look as far as let them have introduced the new details. But I'm more inclined to giving them suspension in lieu of sending it back to committee. I just don't support closing it. So I can actually with that

I don't know what new information we'd hear at committee when we sat and listened to testimony for four hours.

I agree. I understand. I was still in the building when y'all was doing that, and congrats to doing that. But, you know, I think a couple of things that factor in me. One, I would definitely want to know what the previous premise report read into that file when we first initially approved the new owner's license because if we're going off regardless, I understand what attorney Gresham mentioned but for my opinion, that matters huge for me in that.

And in the top of that, if they did not go, if they had contractual obligations to make, even though, yes, it was not in part our responsibility to work with that, that still plays a huge factor into me as well. So I'm just one vote. And again, I respect your y'all decision and y'all time for putting in for four hours and making the decision that y'all make. You know, I just do otherwise and I'm exercising my right to do this and we can go from there.

Thank you for the answer. Thank you, Mr. President. President,

will withdraw my motion and make another motion for a thirty day suspension.

Okay. On that motion, Alderman Spiker.

Okay. So we have

a new

motion now?

Yes, there's a new motion now. Okay. So, yes, I was not going be in favor of sending back to committee for the reasons Alder Bergl has hinted at is what is new to learn there. Maybe the contractual stuff is salient, maybe it's not because the PEP is obviously different. I, too, am reluctant to second guess the local Alder given his breadth of knowledge, given his experience with the district, given his experience seeing so many of these seemingly novel things having happened multiple times.

On the other hand, I was curious, I guess, if we don't support Code Red, we want those folks who are downtown elsewhere. Here is a clear case in point where it seems like they are desirable down here. So the reason I mentioned Code Red is this is relevant to all of us because what happens downtown takes tremendous resources. And as the able downtown Alder will tell us, that's okay because they generate tremendous resources as well, which I agree with. But in this instance, it seems like the PEP is on record as radically changing.

If we vote to revoke, which is not before us but could be if this fails, we essentially say no to this previous owner or current owner and their sports bar idea. And I get that Alder Baumann is arguing we've seen this before, not for the twenty years, but there was an establishment that tried the sports bar idea. In the interest of making downtown less code red worthy, I think a sports bar would be a great improvement over a nightclub. But there has to be some cost to my colleague's point, there has to be some suspension to say not wipe the slate clean and say oh we get a free pass because we've changed our PEP. So I won't be supporting a thirty day suspension.

However, I would support a sixty day suspension and if my colleagues don't support that, I'll advance a ninety day suspension. But I think revocation puts us back in the same boat of okay, somebody's going to come in and they're going to ask for a nightclub and maybe we get a sports bar, but that's what's being proposed by them now. So thank you.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Brower.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I was actually going to move to substitute the motion on the floor for a 60 suspension.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Chambers.

I will support I will support that, Dixie Dane.

Thank you.

Okay. So is there any more discussion? Chair recognizes Alderman Bergelis.

Just to be clear, that would be one or twelve days of suspension for every hour we were in committee. Thank you.

Time will spin.

I will ask the city clerk, what's the rule on the vote on this?

Article five, section two of the common council procedure and rules indicates that if there is a motion to reverse the decision of the license committee with respect to an alcohol beverage premise where the vote of the committee was four to one or unanimous. It does require a three quarter majority of the council, 12 votes to adopt.

Right. Includes the motion for sixty day

Yes. The recommendation this is a reversal even with the suspension of the recommendation of the committee.

So there's 12 votes needed to for the motion to pass. Okay. Chair recognizes all the women in front.

With what Alderman Burg Ellis just said, I'll also add that that is a fifteen day suspension for every person that was shot there.

Any further discussion? Motion before us is a sixty day suspension in lieu of the committee's recommendation. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Pratt.

No.

Chambers. Aye. Brower. Aye. Baumann. No. Westmoreland. No. Cox? No. Jackson? Samripa? No. Taylor? No. Boor? Aye. Bergalis? No. Spiker? Aye. Dmitryevich? No. Stamper? No. Mister president? No. Four ayes, 11 no.

Four ayes, 11 no. Motion fails. Chair recognizes Alderman Chambers.

Make a motion for a ninety day suspension, mister president. Thank you.

Motion before us is a ninety day suspension. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Aldwoman Pratt?

No.

Chambers? Aye. Brower? Aye. Baumann? Move. Westmoreland? No. Cogs? No. Jackson? No. Zamripa? No. Taylor? No. Moore? Aye. Bergalis? No. Spiker? No. Dimitriavich? No. Stamper? No. Mister president? No.

Three ayes, 12 nos. Three ayes, 12 no. Motion fails.

Mr. President.

Chair recognizes Alderman Spiker.

I'd ask for separate action on the item before us so we can address the revocation separately from the other committee recommendations.

This is a separate file. Objection. This already is a separate file.

It's a separate file? Alright. Then we got it.

Any other motions in respect to these matters? Hearing none, I would ask for a vote of the common council members to adopt the recommendations of the license committee as attained in file number 250913. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Alderman Pratt.

Mister president, point of information to clarify and remedy my stupidity. So even though your verbiage indicated sounded to me like it was the whole file, we're still just considering this one?

It's an accidental plural.

What? Okay.

All right.

Thank

you. Okay. What? Repeat that. It's a what?

He's making a joke. It's only one. Only one mic.

Thank It's only one you. Will the clerk please call the roll?

On the adoption of file number 250913, Alderman Pratt. Aye. Chambers. No. Brower. No. Bergalis. No. Oh, forgive me. Baumann. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland? Aye. Cox? Aye. Jackson? Aye. Zamripa? Aye. Taylor? Aye. Moore? No. Bergalis?

Aye.

Spiker?

No.

Dimitrijevic? Aye. Stamper? Aye. Mr. President. Aye. 11 ayes. Four noes.

11 ayes. Four noes. The committee report is adopted. Okay. Alderwoman Malele A. Cox will now present the report of the Public Works Committee.

The public works committee recommends adoption of four, resolution relating to acceptance, application, and expense application, acceptance, and expenditure of the 2026 State of Wisconsin Recycling Aid Grant. Five, resolution authorizing city entry into green infrastructure funding agreement and conservation easements with Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Milwaukee Public Schools for Milwaukee Public Schools properties in the third, fifth, sixth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Aldermanic Districts. Six, resolution authorizing the commissioner of public works to execute an amendment to the intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District for the purpose of delegating responsibilities for the design and construction phases of the North 30th Street corridor phase two stormwater West Basin project. Seventh, resolution authorizing the proper city officials to execute quick claim deed q c D2941 conveying a storm sewer to the historic Patterson Place LLC in the 1st Aldermanic District. Eight, resolution authorizing the commissioner of public works to execute project agreements titled state municipal agreement for congestion mitigation and air quality projects with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and to set up design and engineering at a total estimated cost of $310,900 with an estimated city of Milwaukee share of $62,180 and a grantor share of $248,720 for one project.

Nine, resolution authorizing the city controller to transfer funds to the previously established projects for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the City of Milwaukee for cost participation for the construction of traffic signal improvement projects with a total estimated cost for the projects of $0. 10, substitute resolution approving levying of assessments and construction of assessable public improvements projects at various locations and appropriating funds for these purposes. With the city cost of these projects approved by this resolution estimated to be $85,000 for a total estimated cost of $105,000. 11, substitute resolution determining it necessary to make various public improvements at various locations and appropriating funds for these purposes. With the city engineering cost estimated to be $859,000 for a total estimated cost of these projects being $19,421,000.

12, substitute resolution approving construction of non assessable public improvements at various locations and appropriating funds for these purposes. With the city construction cost estimated to be $2,179,000 for total estimated cost of these projects being $3,241,000.13, resolution to deferring payment of a special assessment and appropriating funds for this purpose 14, resolution providing for continuance of deferred payment of assessments for worthy indigent resident property owners and appropriating funds for these purposes. With the 2025 city cost of being $546.54 with a ten year total for deferred properties being $7390.52.15, resolution authorizing the Commissioner of Public Works to execute change orders to Milwaukee Metropolitan District green infrastructure grant funding agreements for projects at various locations in the city of Milwaukee. 16, resolution extending the active streets for businesses program. The Public Works Committee recommends confirmation of 17, reappointment of Claiborne Benson to the citizen advisory committee on the naming of public buildings, facilities, and streets by the mayor.

18, appointment of Benjamin Timm to serve as municipal port director by the mayor. The public works committee recommends placing on file 19 communication from the Department of Public Works relating to the feasibility of dedicated sidewalk replacement crews.

Is there any further discussion of the committee report? Hearing none, Alderman Collins moves for approval of the remainder of the Public Works Committee. Will the clerk please call a row?

Alderman Pratt. Aye. Chambers. Aye. Broward. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cogs.

Aye.

Jackson. Aye. Zamoripa. Aye. Taylor. Moore. Aye. Bergelis. Aye. Stamper. Spiker. Jeez. Spiker, please. I'm I'm

I'm

sorry.

Report of the finance and personnel committee.

The Finance and Personnel Committee recommends adoption of 20 resolution relating to application acceptance and funding of a state and local cybersecurity grant from the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs Division of Emergency Management.

Is there any further discussion of

the committee

report? Hearing none, Alderman Bugelis moves for adoption and the recommendations of the Finance and Personnel Committee. Will the clerk please call

the roll.

Alderman Pratt? Aye. Chambers? Brower. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cox. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Zamarinpa. Aye. Taylor. Aye. Bohr. Aye. Bergellis. Aye. Spiker? Aye. Stamper? Aye. Mr. President? Aye. 14 ayes, one excused.

14 ayes, one excused. Alderman DeAndre Jackson will now present the report of the excuse me. 14 s one decision committee report is adopted. Alderman DeAndre Jackson will now present the report of the judiciary and legislation committee.

The judiciary and legislation committee recommends adoption of 21, substitute resolution relating to claim of Jake Corning. 22, substitute resolution relating to the claim of Pam Fenderbar and Tom Bamberger. 23, substitute resolution relating to the claim of Lucretia Jenkins. 24, substitute resolution relating to legislative bills. 25, substitute resolution relative to legislative bills.

26, resolution canceling real estate taxes levied against certain parcels bearing tax key numbers on the 2024 tax roll plus interest applicable to the date of repayment if appropriate. 27, resolution authorizing settlement to the lawsuit entitled Brian Holbrook senior versus the city of Milwaukee and others. The judiciary and legislation committee recommends placing on file 28, resolution relating to the claim of Prime Financial Credit Union. 29, resolution relating to the claim of Kelvin Hill, Morhonda Hill, Kelvin Williams, and Markeisha Smiley. And the judiciary and legislation committee recommends disallowance in a definite postponement of items 30 through 33 claims against the city.

Chairman recognizes Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, mister president. And consistent with my vote in

the committee, we vote no for item number 22.

Let the record reflect. Alderman Chambers, no on item 22, file two four zero five six two. Any other discussion? Chair recognizes Alderman Bergelis.

Thank you, mister president. No on '22.

Let the record reflect no on '20 '2 for Alderman Bergelis. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Alderman Jackson moves for adoption of the recommendations of the judiciary and legislation committee with the clerk.

Please call the roll. Alderman Pratt.

Aye.

Chambers. Aye. Brower. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Westmoreland. Aye. Cogs. Aye. Jackson. Zamoriba. Aye. Taylor. Aye. Moore. Aye. Bergelis. Aye. Spiker. Aye. Dmitryevich. Aye. Stanford. Aye. Mr. President?

Aye. 15 ayes. 15 ayes. Alderman Scott Spiker will now present the report of the Public Safety and Health Committee.

The public safety and health committee recommends passage of 34. An ordinance relating to parking controls, 35. An ordinance relating to traffic controls, 36. A substitute ordinance relating to the impounding of vehicles used in reckless driving offenses. The committee recommends of 37.

Substitute resolution directing the commissioner of public works to modernize and streamline the process for signing up for payment plans for parking citations. 38, substitute resolution amending common council file number two five zero three five nine relative to acceptance of funding of the twenty twenty five women's infants and children's known as WIC breastfeeding peer counseling grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The committee recommends confirmation of 39 appointment of captain Aaron Chistachio to the Milwaukee Commission on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by the Police Chief. The committee recommends placing on file item 40, communication from the Fire and Police Commission relating to standard operating procedures. And 41, communication from the Fire and Police Commission relating to standard operating procedures.

The chair recognizes Alderman Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. President.

I move to replace substitute one of file number 251072 with the attached proposed substitute. I further move for passage of the file as substitute. Thank you. Okay.

Any objection to the substitute amendment? Hearing none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Alderman Baumann.

Yeah. Thank you, mister president. I move to take file number 250028.

I'm sorry, point of order. There was a motion to have a file before us and passage, I thought, both. I thought that was a two stager because I'd like to speak to it.

You asking for separate action on this?

I wanted to speak to the substitute and allow the sponsors who were on the original to come over to the sub.

Okay. Then you could you could just make that motion then. Come over.

Okay. And I'd also like to say something on the file.

And you're talking about the the substitute amendment by Alderman Westmore? Yes. Okay. Alderman Baldwin, can we hold off a second then on yours? All right. Alderman Spiker?

Yes. So just clarifying that the only changes that have been made here were the ones kind of the city attorney wanted to make sure we were right and tight on. This is adding that the officers may at their discretion impound these vehicles so they still have the discretion. Of course, that can change with SOPs. And also at the time of issuing the citation are making the arrest for the offenses when any towing would take place, so you couldn't do it after the fact. So just confirming that that is those are the two substantive changes?

Yes. Clarify. Change number one clarifies that police officers have the discretion to impound vehicles. They are not required to under the ordinance. Change two specifies that police officers can only impound vehicles when they are sighting or arresting someone for reckless driving, not after the fact.

Thank you. Then I would like to be added to I guess for the city clerk, if one was on the original amendment, you one needs to ask Anu to be on the sub.

Unless you ask to. Yeah. Unless you ask to come off, you're going to be

You're going to be on. Okay. I didn't know that was a thing. So I just wanted to praise Alderman Westmoreland for his work on this. He, as I mentioned at committee, this was he realized the original version we had passed under my urging had loopholes which people were literally driving through. He had advocated for action at the state to close those loopholes, and we governor signed that for four days ago and now we're to the stage of the enabling legislation. So I just wanted to highlight and appreciate his leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Cox.

Just a question maybe for the author. In other situations where police are authorized to tow, is it also the discretion of the officer generally, or is there another mechanism to which, the decision is made?

I read it as it is up to the officer up to their discretion, and and also too, I wanna point out that there is a reckless driving definition that they use. So it's not, you know, if you're passing on the right at 35 miles an hour, that's that's not reckless driving. So there's a definition that that they use when using that discretion.

I'm still searching for an answer. I I just in my mind, I would just want this to be consistent with other legislation. So I I just I don't know if, generally the officer themselves is given a discretion for the towing or not.

And I do wanna point out that that at officer's discretion was added last minute at at the state level prior to them voting on this. It's not something that that I asked for. So, my plan is to collect data over the next year and at that point, use that data to determine if we should be lobbying to remove that at officers' discretion?

Would you be in objection to adding them?

Adding what?

What you just said.

The reporting requirement.

I don't understand.

That it is your goal to collect data over the next year and blah blah blah.

Yep.

Well, how would we go about doing that, mister?

It has to be in writing.

Would you mind holding this for a moment so that that could be added?

So what do you what do you want? Do you want it to be I

want what you just said to be added.

To be added. Okay. Yeah.

How many votes was that? Okay. Okay. Okay. For the record, the city clerk infers me that that be an uncodified provision to the ordinance. What? Okay.

So Mister president? Alderman Spiker. Could you say that last point again? I didn't hear it. What does that mean?

Say that again. Okay. So it's needed to have in writing? I guess I got one clarification. Regardless of whether this is consistent, it's kind of doesn't it's not up to us.

The city attorney's office told us to be in strict conformity. This verbiage about discretion of the officer was required. It's my understanding and I'm sure a city attorney will text me in moments, but with state laws in general, the officer has discretion. The individual police departments can put further restrictions on how they exercise that discretion through SOPs, but in general, a sworn officer of the state can exercise discretion in the implementation of the laws for which they cite and arrest people. That's my understanding at least. Thank you.

Okay. We're gonna hold this item then? Do we need to reconsider this to hold it? Okay. Alright. We'll return back to this item. Alderman Baumann, until this amendment is is written out, do you wanna proceed with your motion?

Yes. I will, I move to take file two five zero zero two eight from the Public Safety and Health Committee. I also move to replace substitute one of file two five zero zero two eight with the attached proposed substitute. I further move passage of the ordinance as submitted. If I could speak to the matter.

Sure. I think there's a couple things we have to do procedurally. So with you doing that motion, I'd ask, madam clerk have the requirements of this of this four two one of the Milwaukee City Charter been satisfied with respect to this file? The answer is yes. The motion is in order. Is there any discussion? Will the city clerk

Mister Yes. Yes. Yes. We got a what is the motion?

I'm sorry. Alderman Baumann? Yeah. I'll I'll explain what's

going on here. Basically, back in late winter of this year, we were approached I was approached and all the women more as well was approached by representatives, in fact, executive director of MADEC, which is the Milwaukee Area Domestic Control Commission, regarding some issues they had with our current ordinance, Chapter 78, that were allowing various loopholes and situations to fall between the cracks involving some pretty egregious cases of animal breeding, dog breeding, and situations of that kind, which would put MATIC to great expense, an entity which we finance I might add. So this does directly affect Milwaukee and Milwaukee taxpayers. And so we put together some proposed changes and LRB worked up at the original version of this legislation. And we had a hearing back in April and there were some concerns expressed by Department of Neighborhood Services because they are ultimately the implementing agent for Chapter 78 even though MADEC is the sort of frontline, the ultimate responsibility for enforcement of Chapter 78 is Department of Neighborhood Services through the Domestic Control Commission.

And so we put together some modifications, consulted with Department of Neighborhood Services, So we were able to put together an ordinance that was that they were comfortable with in terms of enforcement strategy, terms of the cost of enforcement, in terms of their ability to enforce it. And the result is this substitute that's before us. I know the Public Safety Committee has been heavily involved with fire department issues and police issues over the last really three, four months quite understandably. And so we've been unable to get the matter scheduled. Maddock tells us that they're in great need of some of these changes.

And so we thought the best solution was to take it from committee and just proceed with a vote before counsel today. And Alderman Moore can speak to this matter as well. She's been intricately involved with the drafting of this legislation and working with D and S. So D and S endorses this, and I think we're good to go at this point.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Dmitryovich. Chair recognizes Alderman Spiker.

Thank you, Mr. President. So this is highly unorthodox. This is an attempt to go around the committee route. I understand why the attempt is being made because we have heard this item once.

It was an unmitigated disaster. If anybody wants to roll back the tape, Maddock, head the of whom I have tremendous respect for, she truly is doing God's work, couldn't explain the need for this ordinance. Since that time, there's been meetings with Maddock and D and S. Somebody else came to the table when we had the unmitigated disaster of a hearing which was the Humane Society or whatever we're calling them, and they were opposed, strongly opposed. There were considerations made that this is going to have a disparate impact on folks of modest means, that basically to be a pet owner now you are going to have to have the funds available to do all the things required like microchip your pet and the rest with no funding source to provide that poor working class people have any funds to do that.

So basically it's saying if you are below a certain level of poverty, you do not get to have a pet, at least not legally. That is a huge change and that is one for which if there ever was a reason for an office of equity and inclusion, a statement relating to this would seem to be essential. So I know in previous hearings we discussed when an equity statement was needed. If that is to be more than a convenient tool pulled out when needed, we should apply it in all similar cases. This is a paradigmatic case of a similar case.

So I definitely think we need to hear it at committee, need both an equity impact statement to see how this would affect communities relating to different economic strata And we also need a fiscal note, which has also been a standard that this body has established, is DNS originally wasn't in favor of this because they thought it was an unfunded mandate on their time. And I know Alderman Baumann had contested that, but we should have a fiscal note to hear this about what the economic impact would be because somebody has to do this work. And then lastly, this is a file so complex that I suggest it be broken up into pieces and I think the authors are trying to do that here. But one piece that I pointed out in committee that has not been addressed at all in this is if you have four animals, rabbits, dogs, or cats in any combination, right now you don't need an animal fancier permit, but if this passes it goes down to three. So bye bye Fido.

If you have that fourth animal, it seems like you have to get them a separate home. And if that's not the case, I guess that's something for a committee to discuss because I'm not seeing it in the plain letter of the text. So for all those reasons, this is why you don't pull things out of committee and go around the process. The committee, have myself and four extremely capable members who are happy to dive into the details of this, which I've never been shy to do, and try to get a better product for recommendation before the full council when that time comes. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Alderman Demetrevich.

Thank you, Mr. President, and apologies for missing my turn. Could I please ask unanimous consent, I'm going to pause this, to be added in the affirmative vote of both public works and finance and personnel. I also wanted to wish my positive vote for the Port Director and congratulate him. I had to step out for a phone call. Please record me as yes for both those reports.

So ordered. Chair recognizes Alderman Taylor.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. I'm 100% in agreement with Alderman Spiker. I think there needs to be a little more work done on this because we don't want to price people out from having pets because pets are extremely important to many persons' well-being for their mental and emotional health. And so we don't wanna price them out by making them have to pay so much money and all of these fees.

There is a lot in this that I agree with, but there are some things that I think we can take out, like microchipping is not something that is needed for a pet's health, but vaccination is. So there are a number of items in here that says that the animal has to be microchipped and that cost is going to the owner. So that's one. There's several others of no person in a multiple dwelling shall be granted an animal fancier permit. There shall be no more than one animal fancier permit issued to any qualified dwelling.

That's not to me, a little bit unfair. So I'm just using those as examples to say that there are some things that that I would think would be taken out to create that equity as Alderman Spiker had mentioned. In addition to that, if the effort was to break this up into pieces, a little more manageable pieces, I think that that should be done as well. I think there is a place for the idea of tethering and having some guardrails in place for that. And I think that that should be something that's separated from the other part so that we can look at that in detail and come up with something that's a little more precise because this one has a lot in it, but some of it can stay and some of it may not really be necessary to the safety and care and well-being of the animal that is kept outdoors.

But I think that there should be a few of these guardrails in place. So I would say that this definitely needs to be broken into parts and possibly taken back to committee for a little more review.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Cox.

The sponsors, is there a reason for the timeliness? Like is there urgency or yeah. Is there urgency with this?

Alderman Bowman?

Not that would preclude a decision today versus a decision in one cycle.

Thank you.

Okay. And I might add to Alderwoman Taylor's executive, you are already prohibited for having more than one animal in a multiunit building.

I mean,

that's current law. So if that's a problem, we have bigger problems. I I just want this to be heard. If there if there's a commitment to hear this at the next cycle, I'm fine.

Okay. I I think that if there's a consensus for that, I think we should just you can withdraw the motion then and we could

I I will concede this is complicated mainly because we have an existing ordinance which is actually very interesting to read and there's a lot of requirements in here which already place financial burdens on on people. Yep. Which I think is perfectly legitimate frankly because we're dealing with living things here and there should be some obligations and responsibilities that often translate into expense. And I don't know that that's unreasonable. There's no constitutional right to own an animal. There's constitutional rights to other things

Right.

But not to own another living thing.

Okay.

So, yes, I think in reading chapter 78, I think people will be quite surprised as to what's already and prohibited.

Okay. So with that said, is there a consensus just to withdraw your motion? This will go back to committee and the chair to schedule it?

I'm not committing to nothing regarding that unless there's an equity statement and a fiscal statement. And it is definitely improper to have no public testimony on this and to pass this today. We have had zero public testimony. So I'm not committing to that. I will work with the statuses.

Point of order here. Okay. Are you gonna withdraw your motion, alderman Baumann?

Well, not if it's that could reschedule. We're right back where we started. I'll have another motion the next cycle.

Okay. So Or we move with the steering rule. That's the other solution. Okay.

Here we go.

Are okay and over to Alex?

Are we just over to Alex? Are you going to move forward with your are you going to stick with your motion then to take it out of committee?

Unless we have a gentleman's agreement that will be heard.

Mr. President, on the gentleman's agreement? Yes. Alderman Baumann is the dean of the body. I have nothing but respect from him. I'm happy to work with him. But there are requirements that I will insist on, namely that there'll be a fiscal note and an equity impact statement and that there will be an opportunity done for public testimony. The Humane Society I said at the original hearing should be at the table. They have not been engaged in this process. That should happen as are telling me they have not been engaged

in this process. All right. Right now we have a motion to take out a committee so let's stick to that. Chair recognizes Alder Woman Moore.

Thank you so much Mr. President. I just want to provide a little bit of context to this. I have residents in my district that are I mean, I have one in particular, probably a couple in particular that have been dealing with us changing and having more stringent laws, particularly with individuals that are breeding animals. And in a few of my neighborhoods, our residents have been attacked by our residents that have not taken these sorts of matters very seriously.

And so I'm here to I I just want it to be scheduled. I have folks that have emailed me constantly asking where is this? When is it gonna be taken up? We have folks that are more than willing to testify, but it has to be scheduled. I'm not telling anyone that they can't have a pet, but if you're gonna have three or four animals, you have to be responsible and there has to be ordinances in place to protect the livelihood of people that live next door to someone that have multiple animals that are not being responsible for them.

No one is saying that no one can have an animal or no one can have a pet. That's not what we're saying. What we're talking about are the numbers. If you cannot afford to have four or five pets, then guess what? And and you can't afford to have them microchipped or vaccinated, guess what? You probably shouldn't have four or five. We're trying to do our best to listen to the residents in our community to keep them safe. Have a pet. Can afford one? Have one.

But have them do the right things by making sure that they're vaccinated. This is only a snippet. This ordinance was so large that we had to literally break this down into phases. I I wanna say we're probably at three phases with the extent of this ordinance. We're trying to at least start the process to make sure that we're doing something that is fair, that it that brings safety to the to residents that live next door to somebody that is a pet owner and that is not a responsible responsible pet owner.

This is what we're talking about right now. So I'm just asking my colleague, can we please get this scheduled? Because my phone calls are not stopping and my emails are not stopping and people and my residents that live next door to these folks that are not responsible are still being villainized. And I need we need to get something done, and I'm asking, let's get this scheduled. Thank you, mister president.

Chair recognizes alderman Bourgos.

Thank you, mister president. I'm looking forward to having a robust discussion about this in committee because the amendments that were made since this was in committee previously did not address any of my concerns about the original version. So I am looking forward to asking why and figuring out why concerns about tethering were not addressed. I was really looking forward to this being discussed in committee and will not support the motion to hear it now. Thank you.

Chair recognizes, Alderman Westmoreland.

Different topic. I can wait. I can wait.

Okay. Chair recognizes Alderman Stanford.

Yes. I'm interested in being part of this discussion. Alderman Moore is correct. Matter of fact, if you hit doors on the fifteenth, you might encounter two or three pit bulls at any time.

So

we need to enforce what's on the books or come up with new ways to regulate this animal situation. So I I'm not clear on pulling out of of today's motion, but

Okay.

Wait a minute, Perez. I'm trying to figure out why it wasn't scheduled. And if it hasn't been scheduled, I'm open to a discussion now or in committee because this is serious, and I'm glad my colleagues have brought this forward. So if it's not being scheduled in committee, then we do need to discuss this now. Okay.

Chair recognizes Alderman Baumann. No. I'm good. Chair recognizes Alderman Spiker.

Happy to work with colleagues. Again, the three requirements for scheduling for me were the would be the ones that I thought were in place for scheduling files that affected the public significantly that we know what the cost would be, the fiscal note, that we know whether there would be a disparate impact on the legislation passing. So office of equity and inclusion would need to weigh in. As long as we have those two things and a commitment to involving the Humane Society, I have no problem scheduling this. Happy to do so. But those standards have been set and I intend to enforce them. So thank you.

Chair Recognize, Alderman Baumann. Yeah, the

fiscal note I think is fine. Equity inclusion, is that required for all ordinances that we pass now?

Supposed to be.

Sometime, most of the time.

Supposed to be.

And I don't know that that office is even functioning. There's there's no head anymore. Mean, if that's a requirement, then this will never be heard.

Any ordinance that has penalty provisions has to be has to have a equity statement to it, impact statement.

We don't control that. I don't know how we can ensure that they do that. So they have the ability to stop any legislation ever moving forward by just not acting. Is that what we're saying? Mr.

President, on that?

Chair recognizes, Alderman Spiker.

My understanding is that the equity statement that has to accompany legislation that costs money as it were doesn't necessarily have to be an equity statement by the Office of Equity and Inclusion because budget office has filled in those little notes kind of formulaically saying what the equity impact would be. And I think it can be if that's true then, I think it can be a rule by committee. So in my committee, my idea would be if something is going to affect the populace in general on an item of great importance, we should examine whether there would be a disparate impact. And the Office of Equity and Inclusion, if it has a purpose, would seem to be looking at that differential economic impact that it could have on people. So not saying it's a rule for this council, but when we discussed the habitual parking violator ordinance, a bunch of folks considered that something worthy of considering with respect to that ordinance.

So it seems like if it's appropriate there, would be totally appropriate It's just something we should do. And my eyes were open to that. So I thank my colleagues for it. Thank you.

LRB has done some equity impact statements too. Chair recognizes Aldo Wommecox.

This question is for the clerk's office. Can things be scheduled if three members of a committee request it?

Yes. Thank you. Chair recognizes Elder Woman Moore.

Thank you so much. I just needed a little bit more clarity around the equity impact statement. So it would really be centered around, again, it's not having a pet. So the equity impact statement would be individuals in our community that wants to have three or more pets. The the equity am I hearing that correctly from my colleague?

Mr. President, I have a very simple answer. The ordinance would change the proposed ordinance would change the current ordinance. Those changes will have an impact. Whether those impacts affect poor working class, middle class, well off folks differently is an item that would be examined by such an impact statement. Does this hit poor people harder than it does well off people? So that applies to everything in the ordinance that changes under it.

Mr. President.

Yes. Will never get hurt.

Thank you so much. And again, I want folks to understand that if you currently have and and we talked about that with DNS. If you currently have four pets or however many pets per ordinance, this we're not telling you to get rid of Fido because of the change in this ordinance. We're talking about, you know, newly, you know, folks that want to have or gain additional animals. Again, this is this is about pets.

It's not about people. And so I I I wanna push back on that because you were by law, you don't have to have a pet. Just like you don't have to have kids. You don't have to have an animal. That's a choice that people get to make.

And I just want people to understand that, like, we're trying to do the best that we can to support residents that are continuously being victimized, folks that just walk down the streets by our service workers that whether they're take you know, getting our our city workers that may be getting our garbage, our folks that are delivering the mail. Like, these are the things that we have to deal with as a city. And I'm not again, we're not here trying to take anybody's rights away. We just want people to be responsible. So I'm not even sure how long this equity impact statement would take for us to move to because I I I need this scheduled.

I I have too much heat from residents, and I I need this scheduled I I need this scheduled right away. Should've been scheduled yesterday, but I'm looking for this to be scheduled. So I don't know how quickly the department as far as our equity department can move, but if that's one of the things, I I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that in order to get this scheduled. I need this scheduled.

Okay. Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Demetraevich.

Thank you so much. I understand and support that urgency. Just for the record, I never actually did receive the equity report on the parking violators and that went in effect November 1. I do think that this council should look at how we request and receive those types of reports in one manner. To me, it's a little bit like when we ask for legal advice from the Office of City Attorney, it can be used, right, in positive way or in a way to slow things down and that is not how we should treat matters of such great equity value.

So we'll be talking about this during the budget. The budget, Mr. Chair, actually looked at that position and that office, but I just couldn't let this talk go forward unless because maybe that was on like hour seven of the budget day on Friday, but there was a positive vote to create a little bit more independence in that office. So I just think we should ask ourselves what do we expect out of that office, how do we expect to receive studies and analysis. Often legislative reference bureau is providing a lot.

But it's such an important matter. It should be treated in a priority and not as a way to speed things up or slow things down. Like I said, I never did get that study for the habitual parking violators. And that went in effect on November 1. So thank you.

I'm sure I recognize all of them in chambers.

Thank you, mister president. Just want to inform my colleague, there is a three there is a three committee member rule if the chair is being reluctant to schedule something that they can do that. Okay.

So noted. Alderman Baumann.

I was just gonna mention, I mean, this this and the city clerk recall refresh my memory. Equity statements aren't mandatory to move legislation forward.

Right.

We may do it, but we may not. We have not restricted ourselves to the point where the Office of Equity Inclusion can in effect hold up any ordinance that we ever wanna pass in the future by simply not weighing in.

Okay. Well, I think we've had robust discussion. Let's move forward. We have a motion to take out a committee. So let's do a roll call on that. If it fails, it goes back to committee. We have three members on the committee that wanna see it scheduled, and I believe they'll make that happen. So let's do that.

Mister

president. Oh. Yes, sir.

What is this vote for?

This is this is the vote to take this out of committee. I'll get back to you when we're done with this. No. Take it.

Out of committee?

To to take it

Out of committee.

Out of committee and pass it today. Yes. We'll have to do two things. If it passes, getting it out of committee, then we take a vote to move forward. What's been proposed or the motion after that. If it fails, taking it out of committee, it goes back to committee and we have three members from public safety that are eager to hear it. Alderman Baumann?

Yeah. In light of the discussion we've had and the understanding everyone has, I'll withdraw the motion.

Okay. So the motion the motion's withdrawn. Okay.

It was a good discussion.

Let's talk it to

him. Alright.

Let's move forward then. Okay.

Chair recognizes Alderman Westmoreland. Different topic. Different topic.

I can wait. Just don't forget about me.

No. No. It's you. This is this is your your time.

Thank you. I move to amend substitute two of file number two five one zero seven two by adding the following provision. Part five, it is the intent of the common counsel to review the enforcement of this ordinance twelve months after its effective date.

Okay. So any objection to the amended substitute to for the file?

Doctor. Todd?

I'm sorry. Sorry, everyone. This

is for you. I

move to amend substitute two of file number two five one zero seven two by adding the following provision. Part five, it is the intent of the common counsel to review the enforcement of this ordinance twelve months after its effective date.

That's fine.

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay. So on the on the amended substitute, any objections? Hearing none. And then now we're gonna move for passage of that of that substituted. Any directions to that? Okay. Great.

Okay. Great.

Alderman Scott Spiker will now, I'm sorry. Since there's no further discussion of the committee report, Alderman Spiker moves for adoption the Public Safety and Health Committee. Will the clerk please Alderman Chambers?

He was

doing Oh.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Public Safety and Health, Aldwoman Pratt.