Ordinance & License Committee - Regular Meeting

all right it is six o'clock so we will call to order the monday june 22nd 2026 meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee all members of the committee are present so we do have a quorum uh is anyone here for public comment all right nobody's moving so we will move on from public comment um Approval of minutes does anyone have any objections to the minutes as they're presented in the packet? Hearing no objections we will consider those approved by unanimous consent Moving on to invited bartender applications First up we have Sherry Anderson is Sherry here. I Come on up. So you're Sherry?

Yes, I'm Sherry.

Okay, and you are?

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

Okay, perfect. That was really what I was going for. It's just your name on the record, and who you were. Kelly, there's no police report attached to this. Did we do one for...

All of them did. I am unsure as to why some transferred over and some did not.

Okay. Okay, just curious. So you have held a bartender's license in the last two years?

Yes.

Waukesha or somewhere else?

Just Waukesha.

Okay. Okay, so I assume this came Okay, I think I caught up, thank you. So you had a DUI last year?

February. Yeah, okay.

Yeah. You're only one, nothing else?

Yes.

Okay. Were you working at the bar then?

At the time, no.

Oh, okay. Were you aware of that? Yes. Okay. No concerns since, or how long have you been working there?

Uh, total since 2008. Okay.

But you weren't working?

No, I was playing a garbage tournament. She was currently employed at that time at Backstreet, but she was not drinking at Backstreet.

We're getting there. It's Monday, so. It's Monday and I was on vacation last week, so I'm still coming back from things. Do any members of the committee have any questions for Ms. Anderson? No one? All right. I don't either. It's one. So in my opinion, this isn't a problem, I guess I'll say. It's one. It's only one. It was recent, but you've been a bartender for a long time. So I'll make a motion to approve the operator's license for Sherry Anderson. Second. All right. We have a second. So we have a motion to approve, licensed by Sherry Anderson, motion by myself, second by, Jesus, sorry, Eric, what's your last name? Helgastead, thank you. I knew it had an H in there, but again, it's Monday and I was on vacation last week, so that's my excuse. Well, you can approve or vote when it's before you, please. Hopefully I just need Doreen's Wigderson aye All right, we're having a None of our monitors are working up here Can everyone out in the gallery see what the vote was? No All right. We're having all sorts of problems then Kelly, can you tell me what happened? Can you see the vote?

I also cannot see the vote.

What was that? OK. Do I have to call everybody by name or can we just go down the line? Technology is great. It is a Monday.

Okay. Alderman Wignerson? Aye. Alderman Mannion?

Yes.

Alderman Everett?

Aye.

Alderman Leteska?

Aye.

Alderman Helgetstad?

Aye.

Okay.

All right, that passes unanimously. So that will go on. That'll go under our Common Council meeting scheduled on July 7th. It'll be on our consent agenda, so we very likely won't even discuss it. You're welcome to show up if you like, but I don't believe you have to, given the time.

Okay.

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks.

All right, moving on. We have Jay Tyler Gross. Is Jay Tyler in here? Come on up. All right. Jay? Yep. You are? Steven Zilli. Agent or owner? Yep. Okay. Perfect. So you worked at a bartender previously, this different place?

Yeah.

Okay. How long have you had a bartender's license?

I think mine expired for the village in either 2004 or 2024 or 2025.

But how long have you been a bartender?

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

Okay. So that's, yeah.

A couple years.

I can do some math. That's okay. A couple years. I try not to, well, you're not old, so I don't have to worry about age shaming you. I try not to age shame people when we're up here. Do any members of the committee have any questions? How long has Jay been employed with you? It's going to be a year in July. Okay.

All right. I make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve his license for Jay. Thank you. I'll second.

All right. We have a motion to approve by Alderperson Wigderson, seconded by Alderperson Mannion. Kelly, I assume you'll have to, unless things are working on here. Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I'm not getting the wrong prompt. So Wigderson is aye.

Okay, then we can do it manually. Okay.

I did it once.

Alrighty, so Wigderson? Aye. Alderman Manion?

Yes.

Alderman Everett?

Aye.

Alderman Wateska?

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad? Aye.

All right. That is approved unanimously. So that'll go on our consent agenda for the next meeting, July 7th. You're welcome to show up if you like. I think it's unlikely that you're required to be there. So then you'll be contacted by the clerk's office.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice night.

Mariah, Mariah here? Ryszkiewicz would be the Polish pronunciation of it, but is Mariah here? Guessing not.

Is that a third time?

Yeah, that is. Brian, can I ask your opinion here? The only thing on this person's record is a theft, retail theft, amended disorderly conduct. I don't, is that a...

If you're looking for my opinion, I have already marked this one okay. I think that's... It's kind of hard to say that disorderly conduct is substantially related considering the work that they do. So yeah, I don't have any objection to that.

Thanks, Brent. Yeah, I thought the same thing. I just wanted to get your opinion on it. I'll make a motion to approve Mariah Grishkovich's operator's license.

I'll second.

OK, motion by myself, second by Alderperson Manion. I assume we'll do a roll call vote.

All right, Alderman Wignerson.

Yes.

Alderman Manion.

Yes.

Alderman Evert.

Aye.

Alderman Wateska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad.

Aye. All right, that passes unanimously. We'll just keep moving on here. David Schubert. David here, come on up. Good evening. So David and you are? My name is Cesar Durantes. I'm Club 400 owner. Okay, thank you.

have you been a bartender before david actually i'm not a bartender i'm a kitchen manager i just got my license just in case of emergency if somebody didn't show up that type of thing so i technically am not a bartender okay but you've never held a bartender's license before i've had i've had a bartender's license but i just but technically my my main job is kitchen manager okay I've only used it every now and then, when someone doesn't show up kind of thing.

Yeah, okay. So how long have you held a bartender's license?

Two years.

Okay. Oh, so okay, this is a renewal because of, yeah, well, there's. And the OWI on your record, that didn't occur at work?

No.

No, okay. Okay. Any questions from the committee?

No questions.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second it.

All right. Motion to approve by Alderperson Helgestad, seconded by Alderperson Wignerson.

Alderman Mannion?

Yes.

Alderman Evert?

Aye.

Alderman Wateska? Aye. And then Helgestad.

Or Doreen? Did you want to get Doreen and I on the record?

I think so.

You're good. I mean, it'd be weird to make a motion and then not vote for it.

But I was going to say.

But I still think we're supposed to. Yes.

Yeah, we are still supposed to.

OK. Alderman Wigderson.

Yes.

Thank you, all right Passes unanimously next council meeting is July 7th. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you All right. Do we have Joshua Shoemaker? And everybody made it in today Not everybody's having a Monday.

Hello.

Evening.

Hi there.

So Joshua and... I am Jeff Rockteacher, the agent. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

I don't have any concerns. We're looking at stuff that's old. Almost 9 years. And why from 2002? Is that correct? Yes. Does anybody have any questions? Because I was going to just going to make a motion to approve.

I second.

I'm sorry, who second in Jim Everett?

Um? Okay, so we have a motion in a second. I do have, well, no, never mind. I'm good. Roll call.

Okay, let's vote. All right. Alderman Wigderson? I'm a yes. Alderman Mannion?

Yes.

Alderman Everett?

Aye.

Alderman Witeska?

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad? Aye.

Alright passes unanimously. Thank you for coming in. That'll be on again. Thank you. It'll be on our Council meeting on July 7th. If you're interested in coming, otherwise you'll be contacted by the clerk's office afterwards. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thanks have a great night.

Alright, moving on we have. Give me a second here. We have other applications. Not too many. Kelly, were there any concerns on any of these?

None from the clerks.

None from PD or anything?

Not that I am aware of. OK.

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

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

Second. All right, we have a motion to approve I'll read them off here since I should probably reference it. Motion to approve Joey's Slice of Waukesha Class B Beer and Liquor Combo, Speedway number 4120, Cigarette Retail. Speedway number 4119, Class A Beer and Cider. Speedway number 4120, this is really testing me today, Class A Beer and Cider. Waukesha Iron and Metal Junk Dealer, Starship Video and Games Secondhand Jewelry Dealer, and Latin American Fiesta Temporary Class B. Motion by Alderperson Mannion, seconded by? Helgastead. Alderperson Helgastead. That was right. I wasn't sure which one of you it was.

Sorry. Alderman Wigderson? Yes. Alderman Mannion?

Yes.

Alderman Evert?

Aye.

Alderman Wateska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad.

Aye. All right. Passes unanimously. Moving on. Discussion and recommendation. Proposal to amend Municipal Code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto Municipal Lot 13. Brian, do you want to?

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

So what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow Maddie's Bar downtown to have the same rights as far as the extension of premises that the bars on Main Street have that are attached to the clock tower parking lot. And there's that small little lot, what is it, three, 13? Three? 13. It's lot 13. It's about a 20-car parking lot. It's right next to Walgreens. And they want to use the extension for Friday Night Live and for the use of, for fundraising and stuff. They'd be getting the licenses like everything else, it's just they want to be able to do what the bars on Main Street are doing.

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

They're not within the footprint.

Yeah.

So to a clarifying question along that line, they'd be putting in their own permit request for that on their own?

They would have to close the parking lot and get a special event permit. Yeah, right. Same thing. Yep. In order to be able to extend premises onto the parking lot.

Yep.

And we're strictly looking at just Friday Night Live dates? Is that correct? Are they strictly looking at Friday Night Live dates for the exception?

Friday Night Live dates and for the fundraising. I know they mentioned they've got one fundraiser in August, I believe. So they'd be pulling something for that. I'm sure it's probably on a weekend, I think.

I also would like to ask, because with the street closure permit for Friday Night Live, the DORA does not extend to that location, correct?

That's right, but if the premises, the licensed premises were extended onto the parking lot, that would allow open intoxicants by virtue of it being within the licensed premises. The DORA is to allow it beyond licensed premises and on public streets.

The extension of crevices will allow them to have it either in the bar or in the parking lot. Okay. But they didn't leave that. That's my.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Got it.

A question on the permit side of things that application process. Would there have to be further revisions to that permit application or anything else if we adopt this? I mean, obviously I would imagine they'd be subject to the same questions and requirements that we have for other extensions of premise and things. So I wouldn't change that, but is there anything else we need to modify in the permit process?

I don't believe so. I think the same, all of the requirements are already in place. The only change that's being made here is to treat lot 13 the same way that lot three is. Okay. But it would still require public right-of-way closing and special event application. And of course, there's a lot of requirements that go along with that as far as proving that you have adequate sanitation and so on. They would have to comply with the boundary requirements I thought that for the benefit of the newer members of the committee who may not have been around back when 9.115 was originally created or the street closure or special event ordinances were created, which is about 10 years ago now. The concerns at the time about prohibiting licensed premises being on public property have to do with the fact that, first of all, it interferes with public parking, takes away public parking places. Secondly, there were concerns expressed at the time about using public property, which is taxpayer funded and taxpayer maintained for the benefit of private profit. And then also there was a concern about where do you draw the line? At the time, the House of Guinness had already had a tradition of having their St. Patty's Day party in the parking lot behind. So when that came up, I think there was a lot of sentiment on the Common Council at the time, well, we're not gonna yank the rug out from under that. So that's why the exception was created for the clock tower lot. But it was not expanded beyond that because of the concerns that I already mentioned. And correct me if I'm wrong, that's my recollection of the kind of in a very summarized form of what the discussions were at the time.

As a member who was sitting on the ONL committee 10 years ago when that went through, I think that's very accurate, Brian. That's my recollection as well. Same. yeah go ahead brian i'm going to ask you because you're i guess have there been just broader discussions within city hall that may have occurred with regards to this um particularly like from public works as to were they in support of it objection have they weighed in at all

No, I haven't heard anything from anybody else on this at all. Excuse me. I'm not aware that there's been any other discussion among other departments or committees about this. Our concern, I guess, the discussion that we've had in my department is about where do you draw the line? Where's the stopping point? If we use the House of Guinness as the example, then, you know, I don't know that we want to open up every parking lot in the city or every street for that matter to becoming a part of a private licensed premises, but you can understand why Maddie's is making the request because they see just kitty corner across the intersection, it's happening over there. Personally, I think all of the concerns that were raised 10 years ago in the discussion are still valid.

Does this require the same, this change, does this require the reading at the council multiple times before it's changed? Yes.

Any ordinance that amends the code somehow requires three readings.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure.

Yep.

Are there any other, does anybody know? I don't know. Are there any other events in lot three besides the Paddy's Day? Yes. There are?

Yes.

Other bars who open up onto that lot, like Magellan's, I know that they have closed a portion of that parking lot, put up a tent out there. So it's being used by other bars there. I think it's, for the most part, it's in conjunction with Friday Night Live. I think they do it on the nights of Friday Night Live and open up on both ends.

Thank you. I don't know, for what it's worth, I'm concerned about this, but I can't think of a reason that we shouldn't do it other than concern. It seems a little unfair that we give it to people who are lucky enough to be in that lot and not the others. I'm not saying I fully made up my mind, but I don't see how we tell one bar they can't do it when we let others.

The only thing I can say that I was also thinking about this was the parking situation. But then again, they are applying and making that business decision that they're okay with losing effectively access to that parking to their benefit. They have to weigh that decision themselves, and it's right there next to their business. But if they want to close it and have an event, that's part of their decision-making. The transit center is also very close. There's other, you know, they could make a, you know, they could reach out to one of the other property owners nearby as well. That's up to them to figure out. But there are options available, but they'll have to, as this specific business in this case, would have to figure that out, I think.

I think it's worth remembering too that the extension of the licensed premises is a separate issue from the closure of the lot. So it kind of follows on naturally that you're going to lose the parking spaces if you allow an extension of premises onto the lot, but it's really a separate issue. You can close the lot for a special event without extending the premises onto it. You just would not be able to have alcohol out there. So I don't know if it's a difference with much of a distinction, but they are separate issues.

So I guess in that, you know, and let's take that as an example. You know, the neighboring businesses doesn't serve alcohol that's next door to them. Their next door neighbor could similarly apply to close a lot if they wanted to have an event. They just wouldn't have alcohol, for example. Right.

Are you talking about the Walgreens?

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

Oh, the beauty salon.

I suppose Walgreens could.

No.

Are they not? Is there a separation? I would say there is a separation.

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

I didn't mean to get that far in the weeds, but I was just trying to say.

I don't recall exactly, but I don't think so.

I thought we did that with the street closure ordinance where it had to be either adjacent property, someone on that frontage, or it had to come through the alder of the district specifically. I don't know that we did that specifically with the parking lot, but if we didn't, we should probably think about that because I shouldn't have the power to just close a municipal parking lot because I want to.

Well, right. That was a big part of the discussion at the time.

I guess I'll just my my concern with it is more along the lines of safety. Um, just because of how open that parking lot is, and without seeing an exact footprint of what their extension would look like. There's, you know. The entrance off the street is. Pretty, you know, it's. You come into that parking lot directly off the street, kind of from either either side off St Paul or or Madison. Um. Whereas, when I think about, like, where they usually put the tent in the clock tower lot for, like, St Patrick's day, you're kind of more removed. So what I would. Not want to see is that lot be closed and a car plow into. An event that's happening in there, so I. You know, if I were to consider approving this. I would want to see probably the whole parking lot closed off. In order to allow it kind of like what we do with street closures and extensions onto the street. Where that parking lot is completely out of service during whatever event they're applying for and that whatever. Barriers are in place are substantial to prevent. And to clearly mark that that parking lot is closed. So that's like, some kind of substantial barricade in my mind, not some. You know, plastic chain rope on a couple of buckets across there where someone can just plow through that. That's that's my thought behind it. That would be what I would be comfortable with. You know, having to have in place before I would even consider approving this.

I'm going to speak up if that's okay, Paul, I was sitting on my hands over here. Beaming to say things it is slightly better than when all those were 2 ways when they were all 1 way streets to get to Walgreens or other those businesses. People would cut through all the time. Oh that lights red. I'm gonna cut through it was like a so that it's a lot less But it's also a lot more because when you're coming downhill sometimes you get that arrow sometimes you not you may Go go short and then go through that lot to get to the side street. So Thank you Aldermanian for bringing that up and I was thinking the same thing but kept quiet. Thank you It needs to be a better barricade just to I'm gonna leave it at that.

So then my question would be, are we building that into the ordinance? I think, you know, if Maddie's, I mean, if we approve this, obviously the extension of premise and their footprint is going to have to be approved by us anyway. So are we building the ordinance to include with this particular lot that they have to have like what you're saying, like a, you know, or do we have to have language that says that if we're considering this for a specific lot that has open access to the street, as that one does, then it's required that you provide whatever kind of more secure barricades, considering how that lot is laid out. I guess I'm trying to make, the ordinance is for the city. Maddie's would be just applying to have an extension of premise in that lot. So I guess I'm trying to determine, is the ordinance the issue or the fact that Maddie's wants to do the extension of premise? Am I making sense? Do you know what I'm trying to say? Or do we craft the ordinance so that that's all right, because we're adding this lot, that it's specific to that lot, then Maddie's makes the extension of premise. I guess that's what I'm trying to...

I guess I was gonna, because I was gonna say something somewhat to what you just brought up is that, as part of the existing application process, they have to submit a plan for the layout and everything else, if I'm not mistaken. And part of that is also how then they're going to, the exec gets approved, goes around to the different city departments, as far as I'm aware, gets approved by, say, Public Works and whatnot. They've gotta have that as part of their plan. Am I right, Brian, or am I incorrect on that? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, and I think the answer to all of these questions is probably contained in the special event and street closing ordinances, 6.17 and 6.18.

Yeah, it's already in there.

The barricade requirements are all in there.

So here's what I'm gonna say. I don't have a problem granting, or I don't have a problem being in approval of this change. I do understand their positioning. They're right there. We have precedent where we have allowed it for lot three. So, as it's written, I personally don't have any problem extending that out, knowing that. That they would come forward with the plan, and it's built into the special events. Ordinances already as far as what's required so that's. How I view it, I, you know, they are very close to downtown. I am sure that they get traffic from Friday night live to their business, which is why they're requesting this. Jimmy, you would have to probably confirm that since they are spoken to them. So I'm assuming that they see an increase in business from Friday night live, which is where this request is coming from. So I don't necessarily have a problem making this change. And, of course, any other change for any other public lots going forward, it doesn't make an automatic shoe-in because I guess I'm looking at the proximity of this lot to the other lot. It's very close, right? Right across pretty much Kitty Corner. So that's where I'm saying that I'm okay with this, considering the location. And it's close to Friday Night Live. They have traffic that comes from Friday Night Live. So I'm not against this, knowing that we have built in other ordinances regarding the barricades. and of course they would have to present their extension of premise where we could question what their outline and footprint look like. That's my thought.

As far as the parking situation, being that it's proximity to other parking resources, especially with the transit ramp right there, I think that alleviates a lot of that concern. With lot three, I think most of the time we don't always close that entire lot, so that's kind of helped that case too. So I don't have much concern with this change.

If someone wants to make, I was just going to ask, I'm going to make a motion to approve the changes to this this ordinance. Let me get the correct language so that I can. Give it to you so I'm going to make a motion to approve the proposal to amend municipal code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto municipal at 13.

I second.

All right. We have a motion to recommend approval of the changes to Municipal Code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of licensed premises onto Municipal Lot 13.

I'm going to ask Brian one more question before we vote. I was trying to flip through the red line ordinance. Is there a limitation in the number of times that they can do that throughout the year?

I don't... I think there is, but I don't have a specific...

I think... Again, going back to the street closure, I think we did put a caveat in there, but I don't know if we caveat that out for the downtown business district, because we made a lot of exceptions. With Friday night live in in mind, and I don't know if. guess the reason i ask is are we opening i don't think maddie's would ever do this but are we opening ourselves up to a situation where they could just decide to close that municipal lot permanently i i couldn't see that i mean i think it kind of continued i think it's the same discussion with yeah Or 180 days a year or we will.

We will have that question answered, but when it comes up at Council, OK, if you're going to move it to Council tonight, thanks.

Um? Local.

Alderman Wigderson. I mean yes. Alderman Mannion.

Yes.

Alderman Everett.

Yes.

Alderman Leteska.

Aye.

Alderman Helgestad.

Aye.

That's valid. All right. Passes unanimously, so we'll be talking about that soon in the Council. Moving on, communications. Brian, anything from City Attorney's Office? No. Kelly, anything from the Clerk's Office?

None.

All right. Unless anyone has anything else, we are adjourned at 6.40.