Ordinance & License Committee - Regular Meeting

all right it is six o'clock so we will call to order the monday july 13 2026 meeting of the ordinance and licensing committee all members of the committee are present so we have a quorum is anybody here for public comment All right. Seeing nobody, we will move on to approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any issue with the minutes from our 22nd of June meeting as they're presented? Actually, the first time that's happened.

I noticed under the first item under licenses under invited bartender applications. It looked like there was like the vote was recorded twice. And for some reason, Miss Doreen is listed as absent, but I'm pretty sure she was here. Yeah, I think that was a technical difficulty. So whether or not maybe we can correct that and straighten that out before they're published.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right, so we will hold those minutes pending the correction So moving on to invited bartender applications First up we have Jennifer Beggren Jennifer you here Okay, come on up. Is that your agent with you? Okay, come on up, please Okay, so you're Jennifer, could you state your name, please, for the record?

Karina Wage, Backstreet Pub and Grill.

Okay, thank you. So this is just a renewal. You just got your application in late, or?

I did it, unfortunately, the day before it was due, so it was due June 1st, so I did it May 30th, 31st. Okay.

Okay, well, yeah, it's just it's in here as a renewal. So how long have you been a bartender?

Five years, I believe, four or five years.

Okay, all at Backstreet or?

Pewaukee as well, too, so kind of around.

Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Eric, Doreen, Dan? All right. I don't have any concerns. I mean, if you've been a bartender this long, obviously serving a minor is a fairly serious thing. So let's make sure it doesn't happen again. But once in five years, I think everyone makes mistakes. So I'll make a motion to approve the bartender's license for Jennifer Berggrin. Second. Second from Alderperson Everett. And committee members can vote when it's before you.

Wigderson is aye.

Everett, aye.

Yeah, nothing's coming up here, so Wetuska, aye.

Mannion, aye as well.

Sorry, system issues.

Oh, good.

Okay, and that has passed unanimously past unanimously, yes, thank you Okay, so that was Approved by us, that will go to our Common Council meeting next week on the 21st. You're welcome to be here if you want. It's unlikely we'll need you, given what this is. And then you'll be contacted by the clerk's office afterwards, the next day.

Awesome.

Perfect. Any questions?

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. You're welcome. Absolutely.

Moving on, do we have Kelly? Oh, boy. Privedi? Privedi? We'll go with that. All right. Come on up.

Magellan's.

Where is Magellan's?

Nice tie, sir. Thanks. So Kelly, and could you state your name?

Dan Italiano, Magellan's 370.

Thank you. Well, this is an old one. So another renewal, you were just late? Yep. Getting in? Okay. How long have you been bartending?

Since 2016.

Okay. 10 years. How long at Magellan's?

I started there in 2016, actually, my first ever bartending gig.

Okay. All right. Any committee members have any questions? I do not. I'm good. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. I'll second. All right. So we have a motion to approve by Alderperson Halgastead, seconded by Alderperson Mannion, and Witeska, aye, assuming our system still isn't working.

Oh, now it's working.

All right. Don't mind me.

Where did it go?

Where'd it come from? This is crazy.

Oh, you're good.

And that has also passed unanimously, yeah, thank you.

I was gonna say our monitors aren't showing anything so Same as the last person approved unanimously. It'll go on our consent agenda. Hey, there it is. I Meeting is July 21st. You'll hear back after the 22nd, assuming there are no issues. You're welcome to come, but not required. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Have a nice night.

I know some of you, but keep the good work up. Thank you.

Have a nice night. All right. Andrew Redman. Is Andrew here? Evening, Andrew.

Matthew Fitzgerald, Director of Operations from Chili's. I'm the liquor agent as well.

I'm sorry? I'm the liquor agent. Oh, OK. No problem. OK, first time applicant. So you've never been a bartender before?

I've only trained under licensed bartenders at Chili's. OK. And how long have you been doing that? I think for less than a month now.

OK. I guess the question, I mean, you look like you're 20, just turned 20. Yes, sir. So you have an underage drinking ticket. I mean, I guess, I'm not really sure how to phrase this question. I mean, how, I guess I'll phrase it to the agent. How comfortable are you that, you know, he's going to be a responsible server? He's been serving us for a while. I feel really good about giving him the promotion. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Any questions from the committee members?

You're going to watch the IDs? Oh, yeah.

I've already practiced and denied plenty of people.

Good man.

Dan, Doreen, questions? Okay. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I... I don't think this is that serious of a deal, right? It's an underage drinking ticket, right? So I'll make a motion to approve the operator's license for Andrew Redman. Second. There you go. All right. Motion by myself, seconded by Alderperson Talgastad was the first one to say second, so we'll say by him. Things are working, so... All right, that passes unanimously. So same story. This one will go to council next week, next Tuesday, the 21st. It'll be on our consent agenda, so it's likely we won't talk about it. I don't know how the rest of the council is going to feel about a 20-year-old with an underage drinking ticket being a bartender. Actually might be worthwhile for you guys to show up, right? Just in case. i try to read the room a little bit in terms of how our current council thinks about things and this is one i could see some people having a concern with so it might be worthwhile um you certainly don't have to you can do whatever you like but uh you said next tuesday at what time tuesday six six o'clock this room and it's covered

Okay.

Well, not really. Well, yeah. If it's approved, it'll be approved right away at the beginning of the meeting because our consent agenda is right away. Otherwise, you might have to wait a little while. If they pull it off a consent, I mean, you'll know pretty quick. Okay.

Sounds good. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Parwinder Singh, you're next. And you are?

Okay, one at a time, sorry.

Okay, and your name?

Okay, thank you.

We just want it on the record, sir, for anybody listening or watching later. Sorry, I'm thinking. Do any members of the committee have any questions? How long has Harvinder worked for you?

Sir, last time he's a little bit here is my little brother. He's in New York with me. Okay. And he's right now just his last application apply for bartender. It just happened. It just happened. He's a little bit with me working. I go to restroom. And that happened, that kind. But he no more work. I asking for him, you first learn and the exam. And then he's back here with wife. Last week he come to here with me. He apply for license, learning permit. And then he with me start for training. Right now he's training with me.

Okay. Questions from anybody? All right. Given that this is a single violation, I'm comfortable, personally, I'm comfortable with this, even though it was very recent. So I'll make a motion to approve the application for Parwinder Singh. All right, thank you. So we have a motion by myself, seconded by Alderperson Wigderson. You can vote when that's before you. All right, that is approved unanimously. Same thing I told the other folks. This will be on our consent agenda next Tuesday. You might want to come. This is a fairly recent offense. The committee doesn't have an issue, but someone on the council might. So you may want to be here in case the council wants to ask questions. It's totally up to you. You do not have to. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright moving on to other applications None of these were invite no none of these were invited I assume based on Nothing that relates to alcohol or violence Does anybody have any concerns with any of these I Otherwise, we could have a motion to approve all at once, I believe. Should be okay.

I make a motion to approve, as presented.

I second. Okay. Since you guys were lazy and didn't read them off, I will. We have a motion by Alderperson Talgastad, seconded by Alderperson Evert, to approve the bartender operator licenses for Van Hadden, Brianna, oh boy, Jorg... Sorry, Brianna. Timothy Kitterath, Jenna Rae Morris, Christy Pruess. Pruess, Christy Pruess, yes. And you can vote when that's before you. All right, that is approved unanimously. I think I did things out of order, didn't I? Just a little. I was going through my packet, not the other stuff. Well, sorry about that. All right, now we're moving on to other applications. That was previously other bartender applications. Sorry, it's Monday. Kelly, Katie, any concerns from anyone on these other applications?

None from the clerks.

Okay, thank you. Anyone want to make a motion to approve all of these? I approve as written. to make a motion to approve as written. All right. I'll second the motion. All right. Again, you all were lazy and didn't read this. But we have a motion to approve by Alderperson Everett, seconded by Alderperson Manion. Hop in shop number 19, class B, beer and liquor combo, puff and pump, class A, cider. beer and cider club 400 extension of premises interface security systems llc private alarm system saint mary catholic parish special class b retail license dolgan corp llc successor change of agent and best cab taxi cab company and you can vote when that's before you Passes unanimously all right moving right along discussion recommendation Memo for issuance of applications, so everybody should have a letter in the packet and That you can open up, I'll talk through it. So, um, going back for just, I'll give some history and then if Katie wants to chime in, she can provide any comments. So, um, going back for. I will say probably 2 years now. Um. We've had discussions about how we approve bartender's licenses and kind of just the way O&L meetings work, how long we spend here. Is it the most efficient use of everybody's time? Do we need to invite the people we invite? Should we just give the clerk's office more authority to approve licenses? So there's two real parts to this. I don't think this is quite a recommendation, but I'm open to discussion if anybody has any concerns. I would propose that we cut the ONL meetings down to once a month, with the only meeting being the second Monday at 6 p.m., similar, so this meeting every month. And we would cancel the fourth week of the month for every month except May and June, because that is extension season. So given, as we wrote out in this letter, we would have been out of here three minutes ago, so 15 minutes, right? I don't know about everybody else. It takes me about 15 minutes to get here longer if there's a train. And some of that is construction, but whatever. So again, and we have Kelly, Molly, whoever stay in for overtime or at least flex time when they're here. So keeping them for an hour and a half for a 15 minute meeting probably isn't the most effective use of time. So I guess does anybody have any concerns or discussion on changing the scheduling of our meetings going forward? You said me and. May and June will be the May and June. We would still have two meetings per month. Very yeah, OK, so the rest of the months we would have one. We obviously also have the flexibility as we've done in the past. We can schedule ad hoc meetings if something comes up that we need to address quickly. And we can always, occasionally, we'll send items directly to the council meeting, right? If there's also something urgent that doesn't allow for the time to run through committee. Obviously, we want to limit that. But again, based on how these meetings have run for two years, I personally don't have a challenge there. Yeah, I just have a comment.

I think that this is really smart because if any of you attended the leadership meeting that Tony had at the end of June, this is the kind of thing that the speaker was speaking about, like being more streamlined and more effective leadership. So I am totally in favor of this. I think it makes sense. It's very similar to the way finance works, where finance, you know, cancels a lot of their meetings during the year, but we're really busy during budget season. And I think that this is just a really smart way of doing it. Great.

Anyone else?

Go ahead, Eric.

I think as long as we have that kind of escape method, and lack of a better term, I should say, but where if there's something timely where we need something to come to us for approval or for the council and that, I think as long as we have that in place, which obviously we do, that was really my one thought that I had, but as long as we have that, I'm pretty satisfied with this, and I agree. just letting staff use their time more efficiently, us as obviously a body here, be more efficient, I think is a positive, it's a net positive. And plus it speeds up, I think, time for applicants too. And why not be better, more efficient with their time too?

Yep. Okay. Jim, Dan, any comments?

I don't have a problem with that. Been doing this a while and I think of my 12 or 13 years. I think I've been on ONL Probably eight or nine of those years so I've you know seen a lot of changes in the procedures that we've done over the years from you know having to read a Every every operators license and invite pretty much every operators license to a big streamline of what has been approved, you know able to be approved. Through review in the clerk's office versus coming to us, so I think this is an extension of that or a logical next step of that. The one thing that I kind of. was a little bit questioning of just because it's been a point of focus over the years and something that we've kind of had to I guess examine closely over the years is with extensions and the one thing I kind of would like to push back on a little bit is extensions of premise for like new New businesses, or where they haven't done them in the past. That's 1, I think we probably should think about whether we want to. Have a little bit more review around that. I know we've gotten into a habit where we haven't been inviting every extension because there's a ton of extensions where they do it annually or, you know, they're the. the maps and the way they operate isn't changing and we've been doing those kind of as a matter of course but with ones that aren't in that situation i'd kind of like to see those come to the committee for full review until they have established a pattern of doing it over and over but that was the one thing that kind of popped into my head because it has been such a point of emphasis and something where we have done you know had to kind of put some parameters around that or make them aware of what the rules really are. So that's my comment.

OK. Well, we will come back to that, because that's the next part. So I think we can move forward with the one meeting a month. I was told we don't actually need to vote on that. That's just kind of a procedural deal that we wanted to just have a discussion about. So yeah, first part, so once a month, except for May and June, we're good. The next part gets into some of what Dan was talking about. So the rest of this letter, the immediate next section, issuance of licenses within the city clerk's office, this basically covers, well, I guess we laid it out a little off. For a whole bunch of things, extension of premises, class B junk peddler, special class B junk peddler, dealer, secondhand, article, jewelry dealer, successor of agent, amusement, game devices, private alarms, taxi cabs, taxi driver. Basically, if the police department recommends approval, the clerk's office would approve. would issue the license right away. If they recommend denial, it would come to us for review. Sidewalk Cafe, basically they'll just issue them if the departments don't have any concerns. If no one has any concerns, that was Dan's point of some concern there, and I'd be curious if anybody else has concern.

Can I pause for a sec? Yeah, sure. Just related to that. So on specifically sidewalk cafes, I mean, a lot of that is downtown. And I'm asking to the clerk's office, have we denied, and I guess to this body too, since I'm relatively new again, have we denied a sidewalk permit in recent history?

We've not denied any to my knowledge.

Okay, that's kind of what I thought.

We usually will recommend amendments before it comes to O&L. And if the departments recommend an amendment, we communicate that to the applicant before it moves forward.

I mean, again, this is still going to go through that full review from all the multiple departments. That process part is not changing at all. So I'm very comfortable with that.

Okay. And since you'll be the one getting yelled at... One of the two of us. One of the two of you.

Well, actually, both of you are here.

Yeah. All right, we got both downtown folks here. I forgot all about that. So anyways, that's the sidewalk cafe changes that we're recommending. The next section's layout. the current process for new and renewal licenses. And then after that, we get into what the changes that are being recommended. So this is mine and Katie's first pass on what we think we should do. Again, the goal here is kind of to streamline, right? I'll take today as an example, right? We had four people in. I personally don't really think we had to have them here based on why they were here. So just to talk through this, right? new operator licenses for strongly related offenses right um they will in the clerk's office will invite the applicant to come in and their agent if they have multiple strongly related offenses which are all listed in the next section probably could have made that more clear but it's owi pac um serving underage serving intoxicated silver server violations and then any other alcohol related offenses as stated in Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 125 or our Municipal Code Chapter 9. So multiple of those offenses within five years Homicide or injury by intoxicated use of motor vehicle or any single occurrence of crimes is defined in the state statutes chapters 940 and 948 which are Violent crimes and crimes against children So multiple alcohol related offenses summarizing right multiple alcohol related offenses within five years or basically harm violence Would be they would be invited to the meeting and Next level down It would be an application review only it would come in but they would not be invited That is if they have an offense within five years of the application date for basically alcohol related issues If they are less so moving on to the next section less strongly related right these are things that are Not substantially. I guess I shouldn't say that because Brian will probably yell at me. But these are things that are other, I'll say, violations that are not related to alcohol or violence, like possession, manufacture, delivery, use of controlled substances, concealed carry of a firearm without a permit, embezzlement, fraud, theft, robbery, credit card fraud, as a couple of examples, or gambling, violations of Wisconsin statutes, Chapter 945. So those... How did we word this? If none of them have been repeated over five years, then they would issue the license. If there are multiple infractions within five years, they would forward it to us without inviting the applicant. I should have practiced this in the mirror before I came. So those are all new licenses. I'll just keep going and we can come back to any section if anyone has any concerns. For renewal licenses, the changes would be very similar. If anyone's renewing a bartender license and they have multiple alcohol related offenses, homicide or injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle or any occurrence, against Wisconsin statutes chapter 940 and 948, they would be invited along with their agent to come in front of us. For just other strongly related offenses, which is basically the rest of the alcohol-related ones, it would get sent to us for review only, would not invite the applicants. Less strongly related, again, similar, right? Single offense would get issued. Multiple offenses would come before the committee. Review only, no one present. One point to note, if they fail to list a strongly related or less strongly related offense on their initial application, the clerk's office sends them an email notifying them, and they have a $20 reapply fee. On the next application, if they fail to list all offenses, it would get sent to Ordinance and Licensing for review. Anyone with just, the next bullet, anyone with just traffic violations, the clerk's office would be allowed to issue that license. And then just kind of my last comment on this. whatever we discuss and decide tonight um the uh well i mean we don't have to but this will need to be written into our municipal code if we want to move forward with this um so the ask i guess for consideration from myself and from the clerk's office would be to make a motion to the city attorney's office to revise our municipal code to codify these rules into our municipal code. That's my speech. Katie, anything you would like to add? I talked long enough. Go ahead.

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

I can comment on that. Brian did, has seen this. He has commented, as you would expect from Brian. I would say Brian's preference, and I don't wanna speak for him, so if he's watching, I apologize, but I'm gonna do my best to paraphrase. Brian would prefer that we be completely black and white in terms of these things get licenses, these do not. And there is no gray area. There is no coming before the committee to, basically we don't do anything, right? We don't choose whether anybody gets a license or not. It's purely objective, which I understand Brian's Well, I shouldn't say I understand his reasoning. I understand a reasoning for that. I'm not entirely sure what Brian's reasoning is. My personal thought on that is there is more to it than just defining, hey, if you had a DUI in the last two years, you don't get a license. I think that's rather unfair, or it would take such a complex amount of talking about that I think the clerk's office would need a an expansive flow chart of, well, if you're, you know, is it fair, again, just kind of my opinion, right? Someone who has a DUI in the last two years when they're 21 or 23 versus someone who's 65. To me, those are very different levels of risk. So I think strictly codifying it does probably become a little too complex, in my opinion. So I do like the idea of us still having Some decision-making ability of who is a good who is responsible enough That's Brian's response as best I can I would just add to that I know there are members of the council who would support or have said that they would support a

a black and white guideline there as well so i don't know that any of those members are sitting on this committee currently but i i know that's been a again i've been doing this a while it's been a discussion point many times over the years and i i know there are current members of the council who would support seeing that as well so it's probably worth considering as part of this discussion if we're going to be rewriting and recodifying some of the guidelines that this committee works under.

Anyone else? Doreen?

do what i do just turn on the microphone and start talking here we go oh no i might regret that um with all due respect to the city attorney and i know he's not here to speak for himself but I just think that sitting here, I've been one year prior to this, and then this is my second term on O&L, and I just feel like a lot of these that we pass are, you know, I do sometimes, in a majority of the time, we're talking like well over 95%. It's just kind of like, why were you even brought in? So with all due respect to the black and white, and I do respect and I know which council members you're thinking of, I also have to say that when we have consent agenda, no one is really speaking about anybody that we're approving. so i would have to say that you know that um i'm okay with the way that this looks i do agree with you that any new extensions of preferences because i do feel that we have to look at what they're bringing through i mean i know that it goes through a check right we have engineering looking at them in the pd and that kind of stuff too And I certainly respect their recommendations. But I do think any new extension of premises that are not like a renewal do need to come through to us. I think that all of us together can be really critical as to how that looks. But I'm OK with this. And I think we should move forward. It does bug me that I come in here and you've got people that almost feel as if they are being dragged before This committee and they're they're scared, right? You know, I mean, that one woman, the last meeting of the one before that she was crying at the podium and we we approved her to me. It was like, why did she even come in? Because I think the infraction was outside of the timeframe and she wouldn't have even had this been in place. She would have never even had to come in here. And I just think that just eliminates a lot of that. So, yeah, I'm totally in favor of this. That's just the way I like it. And again, I'll do respect to Brian. I also understand that he's a lawyer, right? And they like their black and white, but so I do. I do like this just looking at what we've been approving and what's been coming in and just relieving some of the stress from some of these people who are just trying to. You know, make a living. doing these things and you know let's just face it if we have a I look at it this way if we said no to every single person that came in here with all the things that we've seen we wouldn't have anybody tending bar and you know what I mean it's the truth people make mistakes and you have to give them an opportunity to to you know get their life back in order so

Nope, I appreciate the comments. That's what I was asking for. I want to hear what everyone's thinking. So Eric, go ahead.

Yeah, I was thinking back to my previous time on this body, you know, and kind of like Dan, you know, we've gone through, I think, a lot of different iterations of this body and how much review and discussion we go over these applications and such. You know, sometimes, you know, we very cleanly and quickly just say, yep, you're approved, yep, you're approved, and we go through very quickly. Other times, I've been on this body, again, it's been a while, but I remember times where we've really question people and really invest, you know, kind of, you know, lack of a better term, investigated them almost. You know, asking, you know, what are you doing to not have this happen again? You know, tell us more, tell us more. At the end of the day, I think this is a good step. I think this, again, as I kind of indicated earlier, this makes, I think, the process more predictable for everybody. It makes our, it makes everybody's life a little bit easier. I do like that we have a little, a bit of discretion. I also just think, kind of I think what Brian's looking for in a way is that we want to make sure that we're being fair and we're being consistent and that we're if we're gonna bring someone forward to us, we're asking good questions, and if we're gonna do that, let's have it with a purpose in a way. I'm not asking for us to cross-examine these people and really dig through what happened with them. I don't think that's our purpose necessarily, but I wanna be, again, mindful. If we're gonna go through that, let's be, again, consistent and mindful. So I don't mean to repeat myself, but thank you.

Thank you. Jim, anything you want to say? You don't have to. I don't feel like you have to.

I just feel that people make mistakes and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That being said, somebody who is habitually bad That would be one thing. But some of these people, i.e. tonight, last time we were here, you know, we're talking months to years ago. When do you let it go? I mean, okay, so somebody here was a little young. They had, what was it, an underage, I think, tonight or something. Again, do you remember when you were 20 years old? Do you remember? I mean, again, I don't want to say that on the record, but my point is, is that, you know. People people deserve a 2nd chance. I of all people know what a 2nd chance is like. You know, I got one and I am grateful for that. And I do believe that others deserve that too. But if you've got, you know, if you've got six drunk drivings or you got, you know, beating your kid or whatever, you know, time after time after time, then yeah, that's something to bring up and, you know, scrutinize. But for things that happen, you know, once in a blue moon, hey.

Okay. So it sounds like we are all in favor of this. I have a question. Yes, go ahead.

So I just have one question. So if we have to rewrite municipal code, does that require three readings?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, they require one.

I'm just going to tell you right now that I know that there's probably going to be some people on the council who aren't going to like it, but I'm going to tell you right now that I have no point in saying, well, where are you at every consent agenda pulling applications out then? truth because that's really what i have to say there's nobody here and and that council they don't say anything so that's fine we can go ahead and read it i'm hoping i'll tell you what too when it gets to the second reading i'm gonna move to avoid the third just putting it on the record uh go ahead eric

You know, as I was kind of thinking through just the applications we had tonight, you know, a lot of what we have written in front of us, you know, the proposed changes focuses on alcohol. One of the applications, or one of the applicants we had tonight had tobacco related. Would that still kind of follow the same structure as this? Is that the intent?

That would be, I believe, a violation of either Wisconsin Statute 125 or Municipal Code Chapter 9.

Okay.

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

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

No. Or the application would come to us for review. They would not be invited.

Okay. So that's where I was trying to figure that out. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yep.

Yeah, again, I mean trying to save people the stress of having to come in and defend themselves I Think that's the one thing is just having them come in here and have to have all your dirty laundry put out on public In a public forum.

I mean that's embarrassing for anybody Yeah, I've tried to tone that down a little bit

So in the case that they're not invited, but they're still being reviewed by us, I guess procedurally, would we then have the... I mean, if it came to a question that the applicant or their agent would be best suited to answer, would they then be invite... Would we have the opportunity to hold it And then invite them. And I guess the reason I'm asking that are pointing that out is, you know, when we go to a structure of, you know, meeting once a month. 10 months out of the year, we could potentially be delaying their licensure by, you know. 2 months before 2 and a half months by the time it gets through this committee. And, you know, council approval, so I guess again, I'm not. Opposed to that if that's the process, that's the process and it, you know. It is what it is, but I guess I'm just pointing out that that could delay. Someone's approval much more significantly than it does now, or if we're. So. I guess that's a question and a comment kind of in one, and I feel like Katie's got an answer for me.

I think like Alderman Witeska said earlier, we can always do a special meeting before council. We can invite the applicant to council and put it under report. Typically, if one has the question, multiple have the same question, so we can work around the time frame.

Okay, so that being said, the ask is to make a motion for this. So I'm actually going to amend this a little bit based on some of the feedback from tonight and some of Brian's feedback, which was a valid point. So I got to think about how to say this before I say it. I will make a motion to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance as described in the memo with the following updates. First, that new sidewalk cafe permits continue to come to the O&L committee for review. Renewals or repeats with no changes can go with the other reviews.

Wasn't it?

Sorry, extension of premise, not sidewalk cafe. I wrote it next to sidewalk cafe. Yes, thank you. So extension of premise, not sidewalk cafe. Thank you for clarifying that. The second one is that we need to clarify traffic offenses, because as Brian rightly pointed out, OWI is a traffic offense. So we need to clarify alcohol-related traffic events are alcohol-related and are not going to be auto-approved. So that's my motion. I hope that made sense.

I'll second that motion.

All right, so we have a motion to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance for review. And a second motion by myself, seconded by Alderperson Wigderson. And you can vote when that's before you. All right, and that passes unanimously. So moving on communications, anything from the clerk's office?

None.

Yes, you can ask a question.

Where are we at with the scooter e-bike ordinance? I guess when I made the motion to send it back to committee, I would have expected to see it at committee by now. So I'm curious what if there's an update that I can to whoever wants to answer.

I can share some what I know. Why not? What I know. And then so my understanding is that The city attorney and the PD are trying to work out the items that they want to see before they bring a recommendation to the committee, rather than us having us pound it out. Because they're very different, so they're working on their recommendations. And then once they have something that they're okay with, then it'll come forward.

Unless you've heard differently Paul. No, that was the same. That was the discussion I had with Tony was we need We need a PD and the city attorney's office to be on the same page because they're One's gonna be responsible for writing the ordinance and one's gonna be responsible for enforcing. They're in a much better position than us to say This is what we recommend.

Do we know when we expect them to get on that same page? I That I do not know, I only ask because I know it's a hot button issue. It's gotten press already. It's going to continue to be a hot button issue and get press. I'm sure. you know, others on the council are getting calls and questions about it. So I guess I'm just curious where it's at.

Yeah, I was, my monthly meeting with Tony and the mayor was today, but we had to cancel it because Tony was busy. So we're not meeting until Wednesday. So I don't have an update. So a good question. All right, if there's nothing else, we are adjourned at 6.49. Look at us, we spent 49 minutes in a meeting.