Common Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. What you just pointed out. I might be a little lost on this one.

Recording in progress.

Good evening. I'd like to welcome Pastor Mikey Holmes from Hope Church to come up and give a benediction. Invocation, sorry. Invocation.

All right.

We're reading from The book of James, Jesus' younger brother. James says this, it says, If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. Open us in prayer. Heavenly Father, we come before you today with gratitude for the gift of community and the opportunity to gather today in service of the people of this city. Thank you for the men and women who have accepted the responsibility of leadership. Public service is not always easy, and it requires wisdom, patience, sacrifice, and willingness to make difficult decisions. And so, Lord, we thank you for their commitment to the well-being of our community. Lord, today we ask for your guidance upon this council. Give us wisdom beyond their understanding. Help us see clearly the needs of those that we represent and they represent to make decisions to promote justice, peace, and the common good. Give us discernment when faced with complex challenges and courage when difficult decisions must be made. Lord, tonight we pray for unity. Though there may be different perspectives and opinions around this room, remind us that a healthy community It's built when people listen well, treat each other with respect, and work together toward a shared future. Lord, we pray for the people of our city. Bless the families, our schools, our businesses, our first responders, our healthcare workers, our churches, and the so many organizations that serve every neighbor every single day. Strengthen us. Strengthen those who are struggling. Encourage those who are weary. and provide for those who are financially in hardship, loneliness, illness, and uncertainty. Lord, we also want to pray for the young people of our community. May they grow up in a community where they are safe, supported, and given opportunity to flourish. Help us leave a legacy that future generations will be grateful to inherit. As the scripture says, Lord, that any of us that lacks wisdom, let us ask you and you give generously. Lord, I pray for every person in here tonight that as we move through the night lord that in the in the moments that wisdom is needed lord that we return to you and ask you for it and that you give generously may this meeting be marked with wisdom respect and productive discussion lord we pray all this in your name amen amen thank you mr holmes see you friday night at the square okay

I'm looking at the extra first responders we have in the room today. And if it's okay, I'll take a moment of silence. We had one of our Dodge County officers that was attacked recently and looks like we'll come out just safe. If it's okay, just take a moment of silence and reflect on the daily duties that our responders and how they put their selves in harm's way every day. Thank you. I'd like to call tonight's Common Council meeting to order on Tuesday, June 16th. 7.06 p.m. Take a roll, please.

Davis? Lampe?

Here.

Berg?

Here.

Natecky?

Here.

Blanke? Here. Smith?

Here.

Arnett?

Here.

Haas? Here. Moldenhauer?

Okay. Can you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

All right. First in the agenda is the minutes of council meeting held June 2nd.

Mr. Smith? I'd make a motion to approve the minutes of June 2nd.

Okay, motion by Smith, second by Berg. Okay, questions, comments on that? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Next, we have comments and suggestions from citizens present. In other words, the public who wish to address the council shall register their request in writing with the city clerk prior to speaking. Speakers shall be permitted up to three minutes for their comments. Please state your name and address when you come up.

Cara Pugh.

Good evening. I'm here to advocate for the temporary DORA, which should be on your agenda packet for tonight. Um, I'm the owner of Local Waters. Uh, well, first of all, my address is N8535, Husesford Road, Watertown, Wisconsin. Um, I am the owner of Local Waters, and for the last four years, I've brought to you the Blacktoberfest event that we shut down Third Street for. Four years of successful outdoor music, adult beverages. We've brought in multiple food carts that were approved by our local health department, and it is just reflecting upon our German heritage today. And it's a great time. It's been a great event. I think we had up to 4,000 people there last year, and I believe we donated like $3,000 to the Humane Society because of that effort. I'm here to speak today because due to the current ordinances in place, it's very challenging as a small business owner to create the Blacktoberfest event. And we've done it successfully though. We've combined with the draftee seller, We operate under my liquor license. I hire a draftee seller, and then I can provide a great event. However, tonight you guys have an opportunity to look at that ordinance and work on allowing two licensed establishments to have adult beverages in an enclosed area. We're doing this at Benzene Square. We've done so successfully for now, I believe, three summers. And I'm asking for you to consider to do this for the business owners of downtown Watertown. If you go to communities in the area, Oconomowoc has a permanent DORA. Fort Atkinson has a permanent DORA. Lichtenholz has a permanent DORA. Jefferson has a permanent DORA. I'm asking you for you to consider to add a temporary DORA to the city of Watertown. I think all of us do things socially outside of Watertown. I really, I really ask that you go to cities like Oconomowoc, Fort Atkinson, Lake Mills and walk around and see what's happening on a Saturday afternoon. And there's citizens walking around our downtown. Fortunately, because of Benzene Square, we have some activity going on between Benzene Square and Mullins, maybe even now the Rafa Bowl place. But I wouldn't say there's a lot of activity going on downtown Watertown. This is supposed to be the heart of your business. It's called the Central Business District for a reason. So I'm asking you to please grant us business owners the opportunity to attract more outside dollars to the city of Watertown and create business in the heart of our city. uh i don't know i we've i just want to say we've had zero issues um i ask if you have concerns about the dora concept for you to reach out to your police leadership because i've been commended every year for the lack of issues we've had at ardora two years ago the ambulance did need to come because one i think 72 year old gentleman had a diabetic issue nothing related to alcohol it's just that it was warm out he came to hear a polka band and he got tired um but i just want to say this is a temporary door is not a free-for-all it would be something that you could work with the city business owners with and it could be an extension of your intentions and the good intentions of our city businesses so please consider passing the door tonight thank you mrs pew

Okay.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Blanke. I'd like to make a motion to move item eight, actually items eight B, C and D to after item 12 F so that both of our closed sessions may be consecutive.

Eight B, C and D. Yes. Okay.

I'll second his motion.

Okay. First and second. Okay. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Planky. I would like to make a motion to move a second item agenda.

Okay.

Due to the individual being here this evening, move item 12C. Okay. To immediately follow our new business. Okay.

Okay.

Which now leaves only one item there. Okay. 12C after 8A, if I'm correct. Okay. That's a motion by Blanke. Second by Berg. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. All right. I'll move on to reports. We have the Finance Committee Minutes from May 11th, Licensing Board Minutes from May 13th, Planning Commission from May 26th, Site Plan Review Minutes of May 26th, Finance Minutes from May 26th, Downtown Main Street Reconstruction Task Force from May 26th, Parks, Recreation, Forestry from June 1st, and Public Safety and Welfare from June 3rd. Mr. Berg, go ahead.

Mr. Mayor, I want to just make a comment on on the Public Safety and Welfare Committee meeting from June 3rd. I'm disappointed in the committee going ahead and recommending advancing an ordinance to the council when they had one of the two, one of the council members not there, Alderperson Blanke, and you had another Alderperson that voted against it. It obviously looked to be, it passed by a two to one vote, but I'm I'm disappointed that they, in the context of that type, and there was a lot of people there at that meeting that apparently showed support and against the proposed ordinance. So it seemed like they should have allowed for a full board before taking that type of action. But it is what it is, I guess. I'm just commenting on that. But the second topic is, if I could, on the downtown Main Street Reconstruction Task Force for May 26th. I follow that topic because I got people that I know that are in business downtown and they like to know what's going on with regard to the eventual 2028 Main Street reconstruction. And they have attended, one or two of them. They do benefit from attendance and going there. The minutes imply that they don't feel this task force has a continuing role or purpose. And I'm I'm seeing that they are gonna confirm and discuss it further on the 30th of this month, but I hope they see the logic and the benefit of having a group like this that meets periodically on that topic for people to attend and make comments related to the reconstruction of our downtown when it happens. So I'll try to go to that meeting on the 30th, but I hope those, including older person, Arnett, that are on the committee, that they give thought to giving it a continuing role during this project.

Just Mr. Berger, so you know that the idea is to change it and have something different with even more people involved. So it's not going away, it'll just be changed. Just, you know, that's the idea. But it'll be up to the committee to decide on the next meeting. Okay. So rest assured it's not going away. Just change it and make it better.

All right. Good. Good to hear. Okay.

Anything else on reports? Okay. We're on the communication recommendations. We have employee recognitions. 35 years for Danielle Schultz from Wastewater. 25 years, oh, hold off on that one. 15 years for Pedro Gallegos from the Fire Department. Five years for Danika Solage from the Police Department. And we've got 25 years for our Battalion Chief Chad Buttsine. And your entire sea ship crew is here.

This is awkward.

All right, tonight is my honor to recognize Battalion Chief Chad Butzien for 25 years of full-time service within the fire department. Before becoming full-time of our department, Chad served two years as a paid-on-call firefighter here in Watertown. Combined with his nearly 30 years of service with Waterloo Fire, where he currently serves as fire chief, Chad has dedicated almost three decades of his life to officially serving others through the fire service. Over the course of his career in Watertown, Chad has served in nearly every rank within the department. He has witnessed tremendous changes in technology, much to his dismay, training, equipment, and personnel. Yet he has remained grounded on the core values that have always defined the fire service, high expectations, a commitment to community, and service. Chad was recently selected as Firefighter of the Year by the Watertown American Legion and went on to earn both regional and state Firefighter of the Year honors, and he is currently being considered for National Firefighter of the Year through the American Legion. The awards recognize what Chad has accomplished, but those who started their career in Watertown know that his real impact is in the people he has helped to develop and train. They're all in the front row. They've all had that in second row. Chad oversees our new hire academy and probationary firefighter program. He coordinates the training and evaluates the monthly practical and written assessments that each firefighter completes during their first year. Over the years, he has helped shape the careers of many firefighters who now serve in this community every single day. His commitment to their success ensures that the next generation of firefighters is prepared to carry this profession forward and continue serving Watertown at the highest level. The result is a lasting legacy that extends far beyond his own service. His influence can be seen in the many firefighters he has trained, mentored, and helped develop throughout the career that serve Watertown and far beyond. On behalf of the City of Watertown and the Fire Department and the community we serve, congratulating you on 25 years of full-time service. Thank you for your dedication. Oh, I'm sorry. That was an awkward pause. Thank you for your dedication and the impact you've made on the countless firefighters and citizens along the way. And Chad, while we're celebrating 25 years tonight, I think it's safe to say that we're looking forward to seeing what you can accomplish in your next 25 years. All right, now you can clap. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chad.

Thank you.

It's always C shift, right? Every time at the fire station, C-Ship's always on duty. Today, he sprayed me with a hose. Literally. Small one, though, for the vehicles. Thank you. Next, under new business, we have review and take action committee appointments. Mr. Molenhauer?

Motion that their appointments be confirmed.

Okay, a motion by Molenhauer. My pen's right out here.

Mr. Smith. Mr. Mayor, I would request a separate vote on two of your appointments to the library board, Mr. Coles and Ms. Chandler.

Okay, we got a motion.

It's not a motion, it's just a request.

We can do it, we can do it. Okay, we'll do that then. Okay, I got a motion by Molenhauer to approve. Is that also a...

I'll second.

Okay, I second very much. Okay, a request, so we'll take the Coles and Chandler up first then.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Lampe?

Mr. Mayor, what are we voting on?

Sorry, we're voting first on Moldenhauer. I'm sorry, at Coles and Chandler are up first, so this is a first vote.

Together or separate, right?

These two, I believe, together. Coles and Chandler together.

That would be acceptable to vote on them together. I just wanted to separate that vote from the rest of the appointments.

Okay. Any more questions? Do we need a motion to actually advance them?

Well, we had a motion to separate. Well, we had a motion and a second to bring this up, and we had a request to put them separate. Need more? Have a second on that? Okay. Will anybody willing to second Mr. Smith's request then?

That doesn't require a second. It's each of these, just because all of these appointments are set forth on a singular piece of paper, they're all individual appointments and each merit an individual vote. And that's the specific request I made.

So I think from a motion perspective, I would make a motion to appoint Coles and Chandler to the library board. Would that fit the intent of what you're trying to do?

Well, they've all been appointed and generally the way that it would proceed if a separate vote's requested for any particular portion of that multiple appointed sheet would be to take those that were together as a singular vote and then the others separate.

So you'll do all of them except Coles and Chandler?

It doesn't matter where we do it. I was going to do Coles and Chandler first, but.

Right. So, so if you look, I mean, if we do appointments normally, we have a motion normally to approve the sheet of appointments, right? So I think your request was to split that into two motions.

The motion was to bring all of these nominations to the floor. I just asked a separate vote for those two particular appointments. They can be separate or they can be together. It's fine. Allie, I'll defer to you. Is there a better vote?

Okay. Thank you.

The point of order though, I do recall as a council member where we have had a separate vote and we did take separate votes and they went up or down based on the separate vote we had. So I don't see it being unusual. It has happened before.

Okay, so our Rule 12 under Chapter 114 says any alder may demand an aye or nay vote on any matter. It will be recorded on the confirmation of appointments. The vote shall be in... yes or no. The rules are silent on this.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Arnett.

From a parliamentary procedure perspective, I think the clearest way would be to have a motion to divide the question to separate the two items that have been requested into a separate question. And I will make that motion.

Do we need to act on the original one?

This is essentially an amendment to the... You're making an amendment to it? It's essentially an amendment. It's a different way of doing it. You divide the question.

Okay. Why don't you make your motion, which one you want?

make a motion to divide the question by having the library appointments for Coles and Chandler and a separate question.

Okay. Do we have a motion? Second. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So on those two appointments.

First, the motion to divide needs to be approved, and then we can proceed with two votes, one on everybody but those two, and the other vote on the remaining two.

Okay, we'll take a roll on this. This is just to divide them then. Motion by Arnett originally.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Lampe?

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Ntuk? Aye. Blanke? Aye. Smith? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, so now we'll take the vote. We'll do all appointments except for Coles and Chandler. That's the motion. Okay, we'll go the other way then. So all the appointments except for those two, we'll do that vote first. We need a second.

But that's already been taken. There was a motion in the second, the original motion, the motion to divide, then splits that parent into two children that both already have a supporting motion now.

Okay. This is on the other four, actually five, I guess, of Mr. Schmidt too. So on the other five appointments right now, I'll take that vote. Okay. I guess it'd be a Moldenhauer first.

Moldenhauer? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke? Aye. Ntuky? Aye. Lanky? Aye. Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Next part then on the two remaining library board spots.

Do we take comments on this? Okay, go ahead Mr. Lampe. I'm just curious what the point of splitting them out is. This is pretty unusual.

Okay. Anything else? Okay. All right, Megan. Can I start with Moldenhauer again? Yes.

I believe so, yes. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Now I don't have to be the weed commissioner anymore. Okay, I believe with Mr. Blanke's motion before I move this on to nine, Ms. Lane's business. We have the payroll summary from May 13th. Oh, I'm sorry. 12C, correct? That's what you asked for, right, Mr. Blanke? 12C, Exhibit 9876, Resolution to Accept Improvements through Final Completion for Rock River Ridge Phase 1 Subdivision. Sponsored by myself and the Planning Commission. Yes, Mr. Blanke.

I make a motion for Resolution 9876.

Okay, motion by Blanke. Second. Second by Berg. Okay. Okay. Questions, comments on it? Okay. All right, Megan.

Blankey. Aye. Smith.

Aye.

Arnett.

Aye.

Haas. Aye. Moldenhauer.

Aye.

Lampe.

Aye.

Burke.

Aye.

Natecky. Aye. Motion carried.

Oops. Thank you. You might know what's here. Okay. Now, Ms. Lane's business. We have a... Payroll summary from May 13th through May 26th. Paid invoices report from May 2026. Cash investments on May 31st. I think I'll move on.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, next in our licenses, review and take action application for temporary class B beer licenses from Watertown Main Street program. Brian Kahn's agent for the summer concert series at Benson Family Town Square at 1 West Main Street on July 19th, 2026 during hours of 12 p.m. till 3.30 p.m. and September 12th, 2026 during hours of 5 till 9.30 p.m. Mr. Lampe. I would move to approve. All right. Motion by Lampe. Second. Second by Nataki. Okay, hang on that.

Okay.

Oh, I can. Okay.

All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you.

All right, next B, review and take action application for a change of agent from Jory's Incorporated DBA, Lindbergh's by the River, located at 1413 Oconomowoc Avenue, from the late Josephine Lindbergh to David Saxby for licensing year ending June 30th, 2026. Motion by Blanke.

Second.

Second by Haas. Okay. Okay, questions, comments on B?

Commissioner Lampe. The memo to this one included kind of an unusual clause, I thought, regarding the successor agent and the verification of the corporation. basically existing beyond the death. Is there a question on this or is there a rush on this?

They need to prove that they are legally allowed to operate Jory's Inc.

So this is just basically taking a potential barrier off the table once they get that far.

For their current license, they need to update the agent because the current agent has passed away.

Okay. Is that like the only change? I mean, we're okay with the corporation and everything else?

Yes. If they can prove that they legally have the authority to run the business.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Okay. All is fair. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right. C. Review and take action application for Class B Mall Liquor License from Divitz LLC, DBA Divitz Golf Bar, Richard Ellerson Agent located at 644 South Church Street for licensing year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Mr. Lampe. I would move to approve. All right. Motion by Lampe.

Mayor, we have conditions on that.

Oh, I'm sorry. Additions listed. Should be.

There's a separate memo under that agenda item.

I'm looking for it. So with page 99, Mr. Lampe, you want to list those two and then we should be good. Do you want to change your motion?

I would like to modify that upon two conditions, successful completion of all required city inspections and approval of the required conditional use permit. Okay.

We have a motion by Lampe. Second. Second by blankie. Okay. Okay. This will be Mr. Berg's favorite spot. Okay. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed? Thank you.

Okay, D, review and take action renewals of Class A liquor licenses, Class A malt licenses, Class A combination malt and liquor licenses, Class B malt licenses, Class B combination malt and liquor licenses, and Class C wine licenses. Exhibit A for licensing year July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. Quite a list there under D. Mr. Molnar.

Mr. Mayor, I so move.

Okay. Motion by Molenhauer. Second by Lampe. Okay.

Questions, comments on that one? Mr. Mayor? Yes, Mr. Blanke. Thank you to Alder Arnett for clarifying some rules of parliamentary procedure. I'd like to make a motion to divide the question and consider Watertown Bowl Inc. both locations separately.

Okay. A motion by Blanke. Second. Second by Lampe. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, that's to keep them separate. So let's do it this way. Let's take a... You want to... You want to do it at the end? Or you want to take a roll? I can do it at the end. Okay. Let's do the... First let's do the both bowling alleys first, okay? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? And abstentions?

Abstain.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next we'll take the rest of the list. We already passed the two bowling alleys, so all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. So you learned something new today, Mr. Blank, you're right. Good. Okay.

I think we all did. Jot that one down.

Review and take action on renewals of Class A combination of mountain liquor licenses. Class B malt licenses and Class B combination malt liquor licenses, Exhibit B, that have missing outstanding licensing requirements for licensing year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Move approval. Okay, motion with Blanke.

I'm going to look at Mr. Arnett right now.

Okay, Mr. Molenhauer? The second Mr. Molenhauer? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay, questions, comments on E?

Can the approval state that the conditions need to be?

Mr. Blank, yeah, what are the conditions? Let's list them.

There's multiple, so we can just go abroad that they complete.

Mr. Blank, do you wish to?

I'll amend my motion to approval with conditions as identified by the city clerk.

Are you okay with that, Mr. Molnar? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right. Questions, comments on E? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Next, F, review and take action renewals of secondhand article jewelry licenses Exhibit C for licensing year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Move approval. I'll share blank E. Second. Second by Haas. She beat you to it, Mr. Lampe. Thank goodness. Okay, questions, comments on F? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. Next, we've got ordinances. Making sure we did that right. Okay, we have A, ordinance 26-16, ordinance to amend a portion of section 500-5, one-way streets and alleys, sponsored by Alder Davis from the Public Safety and Welfare Committee on its first reading. Mr. Lampe. I would move to approve. Yeah, motion by Lampe.

I'll second.

Second by Benteke. Okay, questions, comments on that? Mr. Blanke.

So I know I've brought this up before. and I will bring it up again. I have an issue with the piecemealing of our one-way streets. At some point, we need to make a decision. Do we want one-way streets or don't we? Having streets two-way for one block and then going into a one-way street is confusing and dangerous. So changing this one especially, this is... An intersection people are used to a street has always gone this direction for most of our lives, if not all, and now to simply change it for one block. I think we're going to see a lot of issues with that in the first few months. I know we put in signage. I know we do all of the public outreach and identifiers in the world, but my preference would be to change the entire street to two way. My preference would be to change all of our public streets to two ways, but stop taking chunks and pieces out of streets and making them two-way and making the city more confusing for visitors.

Mr. Lampy, go ahead. I do want to acknowledge Alder Blanke's feedback on that. I think that that's a question that we should probably renew with engineering. I would love an answer to that question, whether it goes back to public safety or whatnot. I think the overall decision in terms of whether we feel comfortable moving toward the two-way streets rather than the one-way street was discussed previously and that we were, but I do have I do sort of echo the question in terms of the viability of, as you say, piecemealing these things. The one other clarification I think on this particular ordinance, this one is not the one block. This one is actually the western up to market and it leaves the, it's not market to main. So that is a separate piecemeal section. I read it incorrectly. That actually makes it worse, not better. So, to echo your sentiments, I guess I would like a clarification from engineering again about why we are looking at these 1Z, 2Zs rather than essentially saying we're going to implement this plan in 2020 whatever.

This is the one by Hardee's, right? Yes, it is. It's already one way. Mr. Arnett, go ahead.

I'm sorry. I'm looking at the ordinance here and it says... The one-way section is amended to be from Western now only to Market Street, whereas before it was from Western to Main. So it is, in fact, doing exactly what Alderblankie said, which is making one block no longer one way.

I concur and retract my previous comment.

That one's being fully reconstructed and be widened. And it's also, Market Street is being... already done most of it to Forest Street this year. So it's prep for when Main Street's done. Mr. Mayor? Yeah, Mr. Blanke.

I believe it was either towards the end of last year or early this year, a presentation was made to Public Works from Engineering on the viability of conversion to two-way traffic on our streets. And I believe there was only two blocks total of the one-way streets where we would have to eliminate a parking lane on one side. Otherwise, all of the streets are wide enough to maintain parking on both sides and go to two-way streets by engineering standards. I see that City Engineer Andrew Beyer is online. And perhaps he could provide some clarity. I hate putting him on the spot, but.

I'm happy to speak on this one. So the decision point here tonight is for that one block of South 8th between Market and Main to convert to two way traffic. With the full reconstruction, we are widening the roadway to accommodate two ways of travel with parking on one side of the street. the thought is to get a decision so we can mark and sign appropriately when it is ready to open to traffic. It is a larger discussion on converting the remaining portion of 8th Street and one way as a whole to two way traffic. But Alderblank, to your point, you're correct that for the study, the majority of existing one way streets can be converted to two way traffic safely to engineering standards. But we we figured that was a larger discussion to be had. and the decision tonight is to mark and sign this block appropriately. The one block would be consistent with other blocks off of Main Street. The one block between Main and Market is a pattern on other roadways where it converts to one way beyond that further cell.

Thank you, Mr. Byer. Okay. Anything else on A? Even the discussion is sometimes confusing too, right? Okay. All right, nothing. We'll take a vote on it then. Okay, Megan.

Lampe. Berkey. Berg. Sorry. That was a combination of Berg and Blankey. Natecky.

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Can you maybe summarize again what we're voting on as far as changing it to a two-way?

The block from Main Street to Market by Hardee's, it's being fully reconstructed and will be wider. So it is, that's been one-way years. So it's to change that block to being two-way.

No. No.

Blanky?

No.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas?

No.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

I have a tie.

Are we sure?

Yes, no, no, no.

It's 4-4-4.

That's correct, it's 4-4.

I vote yes.

Motion carried.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of which way I'd vote on that one, so I didn't think that would be my first vote.

Okay, that was A, correct, yes.

Okay, B, Ordinance 2617, ordinance to create a portion of section 500-3 stop intersection sponsored by Alder Davis from the Public Safety and Welfare Committee on its first reading.

Mr. Lampe. I would so move.

Okay. Motion by Lampe.

Second.

Okay. Second by Haas. Okay. Questions, comments on B on 2617?

Mr. Lampe. This is a companion ordinance, if you will, to the one that we just passed, and it does provide a safety mechanism since we are going to change how that street works.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lampe. Mr. Blanke.

Although I was opposed or still am opposed to the ordinance passing, If we do convert this, not doing this would be foolish. So I will be in favor of this.

Okay, anything else? Okay, Megan.

Lampe.

Aye.

Burke. Aye. Ntukie. Aye. Blanke. Aye. Smith.

Aye.

Arnett. Aye. Hess. Aye. Moldenhauer. Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Next on the C, Ordinance 26-18, Ordinance to create a portion of Chapter 500-9, F2, Parking Prohibited in Specified Places, High Profile Vehicle Parking, sponsored by Alder Davis and the Public Safety and Welfare Committee, also on its first reading. It's on page 109. Mr. Lampe. So moved. Okay. Keep it going, Mr. Lampe. It's Serena Rowe. I'll second. Second by Blanke. Okay. Okay. Questions, comments on Ordinance 2618?

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Berg. Just to ask, what is high-profile vehicle parking? Maybe I should know that, but I'm not clear what that phrase implies. large vehicles like buses.

I suppose semi-trucks or something. I think in this case it was buses that were from Correct Mr. Lamp. Buses are usually parked there.

Right. The intent of this ordinance, and there were a few other options that we had looked at here, essentially was to make sure that the buses that arrived at Washington Park essentially did not take up all of the space along the north side of the park while they kept their engines running. Most buses typically moved down the next street and basically parked behind essentially the edge of the field. This was basically to encourage some buses to keep going and just basically park down where buses usually park without having to put a lot of additional signage and pieces in.

Okay. Mr. Blanke, go ahead. And just to follow up on that, what Alder Lampie said, this is one of those, there was a handshake agreement with organizations in the past, but as with all handshake agreements, there's turnover and the handshake is no longer there because only one side of it's there. So this is just to put something in place for the residents of that area to make sure the buses are parking in an appropriate area.

Okay. Anything else? Okay, Megan.

Lampy. Aye. Berg. Aye. Latecky. Aye. Blankey.

Aye.

Smith.

Aye.

Arnett.

Aye.

Haas. Aye. Moldenhauer. Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, I'll take an entertaining motion to put... You want to go ahead and make that D, E, F, and G together?

Yes. Um... The next four ordinances are all here from the licensing board. They all deal with a very similar topic. And there's been a request by the chairperson of public safety to have each of them referred back to public safety for consideration. So rather than doing these one by one and seeking not to cut off any discussion prior to the referral motion. What I'm suggesting is that we move proposed ordinances 2619, 20, 21, and 22 to the floor together, and then at an appropriate time a referral motion can be made, but discussion could still be had. So anyway, if the chair would rule that appropriate, I would make a motion to bring each of these four to the floor together.

We've got a motion, which I'm fine with, and a motion by Smith to move all four, D, E, F, and G, together at the same time. Yes. Second. Second by, okay, motion by Smith, second by Arnett. Thank you. Does it read off all four?

Okay.

All right. Next, D, Ordinance 26-19, Ordinance to Amend Section 220-3, Classes of Licenses and Fees of the City of Watertown General Ordinances. Ordinance 26-20, Ordinance to Amend Section 220-9F, Regulation of License Premises and Licenses of the City of Watertown General Ordinances. Ordinance 26-21, Ordinance to Repeal and Recreate Section 420-8, Outdoor Open Container Entertainment Event Permit. The City of Watertown General Ordinances relating to Temporary Downtown Outdoor Refreshment Areas, T. Dora. And G. Ordinance 26-22, Ordinance to Amend Section 410-52, Possession of Alcohol Beverages on Public Ways of the City of Watertown General Ordinances. All four sponsored by myself and the Licensing Board on its first reading. Mr. Blanke.

I'll move approval for the four ordinances listed.

Okay.

We got a motion by Blanke.

I apologize. I think we need, we need, do we need a vote on all four going together or are we just doing that?

They're all on the floor.

At the same time.

Properly now for discussion.

Next two you can discuss. All four at the same time? You can discuss all four at the same time. Okay.

We got a motion by Blanke?

No. They're already on the floor. That's what.

Oh, okay. Gotcha. Okay. Smith, motion. Okay. Sorry, I'm used to seeing the motion after I read it.

Okay.

Mr. Lampe, go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was seconding the motion as well. That hasn't happened yet. No, do we?

We don't need it.

So do we have to do this four different times? I was just trying to keep the option of discussion open, and then I was going to make a collective referral motion to public safety. In other words, rather than doing them one by one. If there's not discussion, I can simplify this and make the referral motion now.

I was hoping that all eight of you were in here to have any before you make that motion, Mr. Smith, but if there's any questions or comments from anybody first.

I have a question specifically on a referral motion. Is that debatable?

Yes, the referral motion itself would be debatable. So perhaps the best thing now for me to do would be I would like to refer each of these four

proposed ordinances to the Public Safety and Welfare Commission a committee to review so technically we have a motion to approve right now by Blanke seconded by Lampe you should take a vote on that okay unless that's what I was okay

Referral motion takes precedent over that, so my motion would be in order for all four.

It would, but you have made the motion, and then we have a second on the referral motion.

Yes, we have.

So all four together. Now we've got a motion.

I'll withdraw my second on the approval.

And I will withdraw my approval motion.

Okay, so now we can discuss all four.

We need a second on the referral, don't we?

We got a motion. We had a motion by Smith, second by Arnett to bring all four forward at the same time. Do we need a vote on those four?

No, you already did.

Mr. Mayor, you have a motion on the table, I'm sorry, on the floor right now for referral. That motion still lacks a second.

Okay, motion by Smith.

I'll second it.

I will. Second by Berg. Okay.

That is a debatable motion, and it is the precedential motion on the floor right now.

My only question, if I can, is to ask, it sounds like there's a, is there a time sensitivity to taking action, and by sending it back to committee, is that impacting on the plans of those that are wanting this kind of cooperation?

Yeah, because we have a big event that's going to happen during Riverfest weekend, and that's going to be in about six weeks. So yeah, just time sensitive.

Mr. Mayor? Yeah, Mr. Blanke. So as I understand the city code, well, I guess my question would be first, this is regarding licensing, correct? The Tidora is a form of license. as i understand city code licensing falls under the purview of licensing board not public safety it is specifically spelled out in our city code that the licensing board has oversight for ordinances on licenses and for clarification purposes um

Currently, we have it is called an open outdoor container entertainment event permit. The proposed changes are looking to eliminate that permit and replace it with the T door. So that would be why licensing considered this in addition to its purview over alcohol related items, why it went to licensing initially.

Right. But as I understand, licensing would be the one who has the authority over this, not public safety. City code.

Yes, we do not have a code section that sets out the specific duties of the public safety commission.

So, based on that, we're sending this to another committee for review that doesn't have the authority to review it under our code. So I think we're adding a layer of bureaucracy that doesn't need to be there by sending it to that committee.

I have two questions. One for the city attorney. Was this ordinance drafted to make to keep it as much in line with the provisions of, let's say, a special event permit as much as possible?

Yes, the special event is what controls when the Tdora is in effect. Many communities will talk about a permanent DORA. That's not what the proposal is. It is all run through and part of the special event process.

Okay. My second question actually is for Alder Smith. Can you share more of the communication that Alder Davis provided in terms of why she wanted it pulled back to public safety?

Well, I didn't get into it in detail and certainly not in regard to each of these individually, but collectively, it was the chairperson's view that these should be reviewed by the council standing committee and would be received from the licensing board with their recommendation and then reviewed from the perspective of the broader standing committee's oversight. Seemed reasonable to me, so I am making that motion in her behalf.

This has a question for city attorney. So you said this would be replacing the other special events ordinance not special not special event.

We are leaving special event as is it is a separate provision that allows for consumption of alcohol during your special event. It's long it's called the open outdoor container entertainment event permit.

Okay, and so this proposed ordinance, would this one cover events outside of downtown?

No, it would not. It is only within the location set forth in that particular TDORA.

So then those businesses would apply for a separate license if they wanted to do something similar? Businesses outside of this area?

I guess they would apply for a special event permit and then, um, they would have the opportunity to apply for the necessary liquor license for that, for that event, if that makes sense. This is a little bit unique just because it is located within our downtown area.

Thank you.

Mr. Lampe. I am torn on this one because, again, I do think there is a case to be made because public safety does look at the special event ordinance changes and those do flow through the committee to look at those from time to time. On the other hand, I fully trust the city attorney's ability to align those ordinances and come up with a reasonable accommodation that has been looked at by the licensing committee, which ultimately is going to make a lot of decisions in terms of what can or cannot be done in specific instances. In general, you guys probably know that I'm a huge fan of this DORA proposal. It's every year that October comes up or Oktoberfest comes up, I've been noting that that's a preview of what a DORA is going to look like and how it's going to function when we finally get to them. Our downtown planning documents have specific areas mapped out in terms of where DORAs would potentially have have an effect and where they should be. And just in terms of being able to add vitality to the downtown, this is something that goes all the way back to, you know, frankly, my wife's work when she was, you know, main street director and trying to move things through. And we've had other council people, particularly from, district four and whatnot, been working on this for years. So this is a nice chance to be able to see what we can do downtown with an event that's hosted by a lot of our key contributors down there and essentially show that this is something safe.

Right. Raise my hand. I had safety is July 1st, next meeting, so I already told Ms. Davis she can put that as an agenda topic. So whatever you guys do, we can still discuss that safety. This is the first reading only, so whatever you want to do with this, your call. Anybody else have a question on the motion to send back to safety? Mr. Berg?

My concern is that I think there's already a track record of accomplishment on the part of this event for the last four years or so, and it's done well. So, you know, I think Alderperson Blanke has made good points about really who should have primary authority over what we're voting on here. And I understand with what you're telling me on July 1st that we're going to have public safety, take a look and that would be fine. I think they should take a look at it in the context of us, hopefully approving this tonight. So I would be, I'd be opposed. Oh, I guess I could be in favor of going to public safety, but I'd like, I'd like a first reading to occur tonight and be voted on.

Mr. Blanke. Just one last point on precedent about this needing to go through one of the standing committees. We have items come out of our park, rec and forestry committee, whether they be resolutions or ordinances routinely. It's not unusual for one of the non-standing committees to forward an ordinance or resolution to council for approval.

Mr. Smith, go ahead.

That's been an issue of discussion over many, many years. Rather than just to get into that, I'm trying to answer Alderman Lampe's question. Relevant from the communication I had from Alderperson Davis is, this has not come before public safety for review, referring to all four. The proposed code relies heavily on the special event code to activate the TDORA. There are serious public safety concerns which should be reviewed. I'm certainly not the expert on this, but it seemed reasonable. I talked to the mayor. There was time before it became important for it to be on the books. My suspicion, although I'll wait to see what the final recommendation would be, is to support all of this. I just think that it is a reasonable request and so I intend to support the referral back to public safety.