A shorter, meeting, still went til 11:23.
GETTING STARTED
Started late as usual. Meeting started at 6:40. [Hint, there’s one way to make the meetings shorter, if that’s one of the goals. I wonder if that time is counted in the bet between the Mayor and City Attorney?] There’s about 30 members of the public. Everyone present except Sanborn who was excused, but not notified.
Bruer moves to suspend the rules suspended at the beginning of every meeting. No objections.
HONORING RESOLUTION
1. 14238 Commending the Madison Memorial Spartan Boys Swimming and Diving
Team on winning the 2009 State WIAA Division 1 Title.
Moved by Clear, seconded by Bruer? Resolution is read by the Mayor. Only one person from the team here, able to get out of work and other athletic responsibilities. Coach says thanks, people clap. Congrats.
2. 14851 Commending Richard (Dick) Grasmick for his contributions to the City of
Madison on the occasion of his retirement as Director of Information
Technology.
Bruer moves adoption. No second? Resolution is read. Grasmick introduces wife. Thanks council for support at budget time. Thanks the Mayor. Compton speaks and thanks him for his help in the middle of the night. [Not clear what that was about.] Mayor thanks Grasmick and says we’ll miss him but thanks him for creating a strong team.
153. 14945 Supporting “Walk on the Child’s Side” 10th Anniversary Rally and March and
encouraging the citizens of Madison to support and participate in the “Walk on
the Child’s Side” 10th Anniversary Rally and March.
No objection to take it out of order. Mayor reads the resolution.
Arlene Silveira speaks, stressing the strong school system is central to a strong community. Broken state funding system is strangling the system and its ability to support the kids. Need a school funding system that works. Support the resolution. Essential to public schools and thanks people who supported referendum November, if the referendum had not passed, we would be in terrible shape as a school district, fortunately, no additional dramatic cuts, and thanks people.
Thomas Mertz thanks the council for the resolution and for moving it up, as people are reeling from state budget news, good time to call attention to the support needed for strong funding.
Compton asks to be sponsor, Verveer asks everyone be added as a sponsor, no objection.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Bruer says he doesn’t have any, seems confused, Mayor says they have one, Bruer says he’s looking at Skidmore. Skidmore talks about item 3 (Petition dated April 27, 2009 from Cherokee Park, Inc. re: direct annexation from the Town of Westport to the City of Madison) and says it is referred to Plan Commission and Common Council.
EARLY PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Breanna Moorland – #78 – Madison Turners – The yound woman talks about gymnastics and classes and how fun it is and what she had learned. How it is good to do gymnastics.
Bonnie Cullick – Mom for Beanna, asked for early comment cuz Breanna has class tomorrow. Mom says they should keep tax exempt status, becuase Branna needs it to maitain a healthy weight. Comments that she says she sees some yawns by council members, and moves on. Talks about public schools and the pressures on them, says kids don’t get exercise the way they used to. Playgrounds difficult because of weather, that parks aren’t always safe (talks about recent stranger abduction). Says Turners has skilled instructors, that follow good practices. She says that the for-profits were flashy clubs and not places of instruction and she sees a difference in Madison Turners,[(She is over her time, keeps talking Mayor doesn’t say anything or ask for extension of her time], says she realizes that people understand that everyone is into economics and teh current economy. She says
1. Turners is different than for-profit gyms, what you from this organization far outweighs the taxes the city would get if they pursue taxes.
2. Instructors, equipment, etc are superior.
3. Gain in taxes would not outweigh good that is done by the organization, even tho budgets are tight, it won’t be overcome by taking a test case to court that might go either way. If you decide to tax Madison Turners, it could cause other non-profits to be taxed. Says husband works at Wendy’s and not much is profit after the expenses are paid and trying to nickle and dime each other is not a way to get everyone out of the bag with the current economic situtation. Says Turners provide a valuable and unreplicated experience. Wants us to all get out of the bag together.
CONSENT AGENDA
Everything approved with recommendation on the agenda with the following changes:
#50 (Report from the Mayor submitting the affirmative action status of boards,
commissions and committees.) – Refer to next CC meeting
#117 (Approving the City’s Substantial Amendment to the Community and Neighborhood Development Consolidated One Year Action Plan (2008); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the amendment as a condition for receiving HUD Community Development Block Grant – Recovery Program funds, and amend the Adopted CDBG Operating budget to recognize $534,096 in federal revenues and commensurate expenditure authority and authorizing the CDBG Office to issue Requests for Proposals (RFP) for provision of services.) – Adopt
#122 (THIRD SUBSTITUTE – Creating 38.07(15) of the Madison General Ordinances to prohibit the sale of beer or malt liquor in amounts less than the amount contained in a six pack of bottles or cans, intoxicating liquor in amounts of two hundred (200) milliliters or less in volume, malt based flavored coolers in less than a four pack, and the sale of fortified wines for consumption off premises.) – refer to the 12/2 CC meeting
Separations for discussion on:
46 – Report of the Mayor submitting citizen committee appointments (introduced
5-19-2009; action 6-2-2009).
75 – Creating Section 8.32 of the Madison General Ordinances to create policies and procedures for removal of personal property from public lands.
76 – Foley & Lardner, LLP attorney for Greentree Glen, LLC, c/o Midwest Affordable Housing Corp., 1560 East Blackthorne Pl., Whitefish Bay, WI – unlawful taxation – $71,922.54 plus interest.
77 – Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. for Presbyterian Student Center Foundation, 439 East Campus Mall, Madison – unlawful taxation – $238,565 plus interest.
78 – Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C., for Madison Turners, Inc., 3001 S. Stoughton Rd., Madison – unlawful taxation – $24,686.50 plus interest.
118 – Adopting Phase 1 of the Shady Wood Neighborhood Development Plan as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, and authorizing the City’s application to amend the Central Urban Service Area to include the Phase 1 development staging area identified in the plan.
Thuy says she votes no on 47 (Report of the Mayor submitting citizen committee appointments (introduced 6-2-2009; action 6-16-2009)). and 48 (Report of the Mayor submitting Alder committee appointments.)
RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING
HALLOWEEN ITEMS
4 (To SUSPEND the handcrafted goods, personally prepared food vending restrictions and INVALIDATE Mall/Concourse vending licenses from 6:00 p.m., October 31, 2009 to 3:00 a.m., November 1, 2009 in the areas specified in the Street Use Permit Frank Productions, Inc. will obtain for Freakfest 2009) & 5 (Authorizing Frank Productions, Inc., as organizing group for FREAKFEST 2009, EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to select vendors, salespersons, vending sites and performers for the duration of this special event, 6:00 p.m. October 31, 2009 to 3:00 a.m. November 1, 2009, within the perimeter of the area, defined in the Street Use Permit for the event.) [These were referred at the last meeting at the request of Manaici, but there was no discussion, no changes, no explanation] The items passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
ALCOHOL LICENSES
Items 6 – 27 moved and asked to recess 28 (Separated Liquor License Renewal, Liquor Baron LLC • dba Liquor Baron, 2929 E Washington Ave • Agent: Jeremiah Hopwood, Class A Beer, Class A Liquor, Aldermanic District 15 (Alder Palm) • Police Sector 603
Separation requested by Alder Palm.) [I swear that was what was said, but then they referred #8 to the next meeting as well, so I hope I didn’t confuse that.]
Bob Worm registered on 21 (Public Hearing – New License, Prosit-To-You • dba Up North • 80% alcohol, 20% food, 524 E Wilson • Agent: Robert Worm • Estimated Capacity: 185, Class B Combination Liquor & Beer, Aldermanic District 06 (Alder Rummel) • Police Sector 406 • Density Area) & 22 (Public Hearing – New License, Prosit-To-You Inc • dba Come Back In • 60% alcohol, 40% food, 508 E Wilson • Agent: Robert Worm • Estimated Capacity: 260, Class B Combination Liquor & Beer, Aldermanic District 06 (Alder Rummel) • Police Sector 406 • Density Area) in support, avail to answer questions.
Bruer says #8 (Public Hearing – New License, R&T Enterprises LLC • dba JT Whitney’s Pub & Brewery • 35% alcohol, 65%, food, 5% Other, 674 S Whitney Way • Agent: Richard Becker • Estimated Capacity: 410, Class B Combination Liquor & Beer & Wholesaler, Aldermanic District 19 (Alder Clear) • Police Sector 113) referred to next meeting.
RENEWAL LICENSES
Items 28 -36 & 158 – 160
Verveer makes corrections, says clerk has email that had actual recommendations that are different than the report and they all have it on their desks. In short he says they need to correct:
#32 – Stadium Bar- beer garden reduced 5% to 120 patrons
#33– Visions – employees and dancers must maintain absolute sobriety
#35 – editorial corrections in the omnibus renewal, requested not to repeat them by his colleagues so he doesn’t. [I don’t know how members of the public are supposed to know what the changes are. But you know, time is more important than transparency and informing the public.]
28 – 36 are adopted. 158 – 160 separated for discussion.
NON-RENEWAL LICENSES
RAM HEAD, JOHNNY O’S, MADISON AVENUE
PUBLIC COMMENT
39 – Richard Lyshek – Ram Head, 30 day suspension is ok, but not happy, bad procedure but reasonable outcome. He says what is far more important is the “search and destroy” mission of the central policing team. He says his bar is just collateral damage. He says he’s been working downtown since ’88. He describes the relationship that the police are promoting downtown between them and the students as adversarial and poisonous. He talks about students that are handcuffed and humiliated in last few years. He asks if the council is getting the returns they got expected by the policy decision to crack down on underage drinkers? He says he thinks it will result in more students drinking in unregulated areas, more houseparties where there are more problems with safety and things like rape. He asks if this is a wise use of police resources. He says that the goals of reducing drunk driving isn’t being helped as 99% of the people walk. He says they aren’t reducing incidents of disorderly conduct because underage kids less likely to cause trouble. Says might be increasing revenue, but he says detectives say that the relationship issues between students and police make their jobs harder because people won’t come forward and beat cops say they need to be addressing more important issues downtown. Says the CPT fosters fear, hatred and alienation. He asks if people are thinking about the unforseen consequences.
No questions from alders. [Someone wanted to talk, Mayor wouldn’t let them. Verveer explains to people that there is a process they need to follow, it appeared 3 or 4 people tried to fill out forms, but they were never subsequently called on to speak, perhaps they just got frustrated and left?]
Verveer makes motion on 37 – 39.
DISCUSSION
Eagon – Thanks police for being proactive on safety issues, but agrees to disagree on best practices and priorities on underage drinking. Says the targeting does merit some serious discussion. Frustrated with the process. Not included in discussions with staff and police abbout major issues going on in his district and would like to be included in future discussions with non-renewals. He says there is selective targeting in which bars are checked. Says State had a deeply rooted drinking culture, applauds Kathleen Falk and others for trying to address that issue. But he says that targeting underage drinking doesn’t get to the root issues. Says there needs to be a higher focus on assault and burglary. Says underagers in bars least likely to get into trouble. Says police have legitimate safety issues in bars and they should address those issues. He says if renewal efforts are expected to cut back on underage drinking, that’s not going to happen. The efforts are misplaced. 19 & 20 year olds will drink one way or the other and that they are safer in regulated establishments, with fire codes and servers who are licensed than in crowded basements and dorm rooms that are not safe. Worried about how targeting will impact relationship between students and cops. Students reluctant to call police for fear of being arrested even if someone is seriousy sick. Or when uninvited guest gets violent or steals. He asks if these are the right choices. He says no, but they are inconvenient truths about how young people act. Fear of calling is so contrarty to what taught, but it is what happens. He says they need to work with bars and students to find a way to address the issues. Alcohol and safety issues are serious and seriously complex, need to have discussion on priorities and get to the root of the issues. [He had a pre-written statement and it was much more eloquent than I captured here.]
Schumacher gave a general response. He explains that this was the non-renewal process, but none of the establishments were non-renewed. Only 30 day suspensions. Underage issues were taken under consideration and the fact that there were not more serious punishments shows that they weighed the issues. Says non-renewal was the process, but outcome was suspension. Says police only go into those places that are most serious pattern of not enforcing the laws. Says all bars have underage people and that it would take all the police resources to address them all, and they only go after the worst. Thinks operator and owner in this case don’t think that underage drinking is a problem.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
[Hold on, this gets rocky . . . ]
Kerr – question for staff on Johnny O’s stipulated agreement, number 38. She tries to ask about the rooftop capacity approved by staff. She is concerned that the rooftop garden was approved with a gazebo and capacity was 99, the gazebo was removed and capacity still at 99 but could hold more. She’s trying to ask some questions about all that. Staff tried to explain that capacity of 99 not on the license and so when police check capacity, there isn’t a capacity stated on the license so they’re now putting it on the license. Kerr tries to clarify what staff is saying, as it is confusing. Kerr says stipulated agreement is confusing. Staff tries to explain again that apparently there was some snafu about the capacity. Kerr asks how we can license something that is the source of the issues if the architect and building inspector hasn’t looked at it. Bruer talking and distracting Kerr and sort of just takes over [unfortunately, cuz now it gets really bad].
Bruer rambles and eventually gets to the questions interspersed with discussions and history lessons. Asks if there is an ordinance provision that requires ALRC approvals before changes are made to the premises? City Attorney Zilavny says only requires it to come back if it requires a capacity change. Seems to think they didn’t ask to remove the gazebo inappropriately. Bruer says that every room or area had a capacity limit when he was on ALRC, right? Zilavny can’t answer the question. Bruer asks if there was a capacity of 99 or above if that drove fire code and restroom issues, if go above 99 then more requirements, so shouldn’t they be asking about those other issues. Zilavny says yes, and that is why they are having the capacity reestablished. She says it is generally known the capacity is 99, its just not on the license and not posted. Bruer tried to ask another question, Jenifer stares at Bruer, doesn’t answer, Mayor says City Attorney Brist is here to answer questions as well. Brist says when roof garden was added, a capacity was placed on the roofgarden, didn’t increase the capacity to the establishment, this agreement would re-evaluate the capacity and come back to ALRC. Clerks records on older establishments don’t have capacities established. But he says that Building Inspection doesn’t place capacities on rooms, but on establishments. Bruer giving a history lesson about how to establish capacities floor by floor. Bruer concerned that stipulation and if there is a party tomorrow what the liabilities to the city might be. He thinks before you would grant this they should provide a timeline for the stipulation [but he never offers that motion]. Says there is a serious health and safety concern if they don’t regulate these capacities more. Asks Brist if they will be looking at all the establishments to pay attention to public safety issues. Brist agrees. Says confusion is if it is 386 (original capacity) + 99 (rooftop capacity) or a total of 386. Says it could change based on what the architect says. Capacity for each floor was important. Problem is in warm weather when everyone wants to be on the roof. They have person with clicker to track the number of people on the roof. Bruer talks about structural integrity issues. Jeopardy of it collapsing as they have seen in other campuses. Brist says that they are relying on BI and Fire to decide. Same issue in other establishments with a balcony. Bruer asks about load bearing stats on establishments? Brist reiterates that BI issues the permit based on the codes and it is based on bathrooms, floor space etc, not load bearing calculations. Brist says ALRC can’t expand beyond limits BI imposes, but they can limit it further. Bruer asks for report to the council. [Again, never made a motion] He says he’d be surprised if they are getting beyond state code, not looking at structure – cuz it takes alot of energy and effort to make that happen. Says he’s “overkilling this for a reason”. He talks more about city liability. Says we were one of the few of universities that didn’t have anything happen with overcapacities in aging buildings.
He’s finally done and the Mayor says “Ok – the horse is dead”
BACK TO DISCUSSION
Rummel. Alarmed by Eagon’s comment that he was not informed about these serious issues in his district. Hopes that these kind of serious situations have the alders involved. She talks about the role of the Central policing team and says it also came to her attention, would like to follow up on best practices and how the are targeting the bars they check for underage drinkers. She says in her case that it was the band that was playing that triggered the attention of the bar. Would like to have a larger discussion on how these actions are taken.
Verveer says he has some random comments. Agrees with Kerr and Bruer and wants to add one more voice to the litany and wants to make sure the beer garden was approved, with specific capacity. If read the non-renewal complaint, several of the allegations are about rooftop behavior and over capacity. Explains why ALRC supported the stipulation because improvements were made, most of disturubing behaviors in the beginning when it first opened. Now there is no glass, staff always up there, so supported the stipulation. Talks about the global issues of capacities, says Plominski can chime in at length about how trying to deal with capacity numbers. Problem is that agencies have different capacity numbers, confusing, laborious task to figure out the right number, but are working on the establishments that are most concern. KK just had changes to their capacities. A dozen or so bars have concerns with capacities in rooms. Says Johnny O’s language suggested by the police department, so police signed off on this agreement. Verveer also thanks Eagon for his fine words. Schumachers words good as well. Both are the facts. There was a time when drinking age was debated on the council floor. Says it is still policy that it shouldn’t be 21, but 18 or 19. Was on city legislative agenda for quite some time. Says central district policy was that not young people were not cited if cooperated if underaged. The goal was to confiscate the fake IDs. He says if people admitted it, coughted up the id they weren’t cited. Not the policy since CPT, and that they are giving the more expensive citation instead of the lesser one that is available. Thinks it would be a great topic for the Public safety Review Board to discuss. Apologizes if police don’t think that it is appropriate for policy makers to discuss this. Says he’s frustrated that 2 of 3 suspensions involves live music and bands. Explains that the city is trying to encourage it. Saddened that two of three licenses provide live entertainment. Personally urges to support of the stipulations, says they are well reasoned and negotiated recommendations. 2 stipulations, agreed upon with police department and the third was based on the hearing, not unanimous, but overwhelming ALRC support.
Kerr speaks and notes aloud that she should never cede the mic to alder Bruer because she never got it back. Kerr doesn’t support any of these. Puts aside issue of underage drinking. Appreciates Eagon and Verveer comments, but troubled by serious health and safety issues. She talks about issues in complaint where at Madison Ave, unconscious woman that police were trying to assist and the aggressive crowd interfered with ability to help the woman. She says there are 50 – 60 pages of this. Throwing things off roof top, lit cigarettes, urinating off rooftop, 17 officers have to clear a full bar fight. Has issues in her district where she can’t get police attention and that these establishments shouldn’t have a liquor license. She says stipulated agreements aren’t fair to taxpayers, don’t support health and safety of patrons. They are costly and dangerous for the people who are there. 70 pages of very bad behavior. She’s a parent, what if this was her kid who couldn’t get help.
Bidar-Sielaff – passes.
Adopt 37 – 39 – voice vote, Kerr asked to be recorded as voting no, Skimore and Pham-Remmele also asked to be recorded as voting no.
ROBERT SIEGER – GRID IRON
158 – 160 – Verveer has motion, he explains 158 was the most contentious, and wants to refer to June 17 ALRC meeting. Verveer believes and city attorneys will tell us that because of state statute the license will be renewed by operation of law. Explains that this needs to be acted on by June 15 or they will be in violation of state statute. He knows Kerr feels strongly about it. Had a quick conversation with Seeger, he says he’d withdraw his renewal and ask for a new license. But nothing in writing.
Kerr says this is very perplexing to her and at some point asks how they can license dirt. Asks question of Brist about why the license wasn’t “cancelled” at the last ALRC if the premises is demolished. He says that ordinance says if license not used, city would have to follow a procedure and have a non-renewal hearing process. All that happened was that it was separated to put conditions on it. She asked why they did not pursue non-renewal, he says no one requested it at the right time. He says that this is exactly the same as procedure they used with Madhatters at U Square. He explained they renewed the license more than once and they came back twice to get a new premise. So, following exactly the same procedure. Not uncommon to renew and then seek change in premise. He explained that they still need to approve change in premise. Conditions can be placed at that time. Kerr asks if it city policy or operation does not seek a cancellation or non-renewal. He says yes, that is the process. He says there is no such thing as cancellation in chapter 125? He says there is only nonrenewal, revocation, or suspension. Kerr asks him to explain what happened at ALRC, wasn’t there a discussion of non-renewal? He says it was not noticed as non-renewal, only separated for discussion for conditions. He explains that there need to be specific notices, ALRC couldn’t have a non-renewal because of notices.
Schumacher – clarifies that there is a narrow window of time to do the non-renewal, but he clarifies that suspension or revocation can happen any time.
Bruer – asks if it is also correct that ordinances allow for alder or citizen to petition for non-renewal? Then he asks about dirt in the ground how we have license for it? Says in the past we have done cancellations. He says with limited number of licenses [again, where’s the question?] he is concerned. Says if closed for 15 days they may cancel, says that there can be a cancellation hearing. ALRC would have heard it in the past. So, he would think that theoretically, Kerr could request police to look and then look 15 days later and then she could sponsor an action before the council. Brist says yes, alder or citizen can do that. Can file a complaint, but could have to pay for the costs of the proceding if they lose. Non-renewal process in narrow window. Practice is that only the police do it and done through the city attorney. Bruer clarifies that alder could work with police and attorney to pull out the cancellation process? Brist says not to use the “cancellation”, but to use non-renewal, revocation or suspension. “Cancellation” language was there, but it was removed because not allowed by state statute. But, 15 day rule is still there. Brist says it can come back to the body after a hearing.
Schumacher – question of Attorney May or Joel Plant – given that there is alot of frustration about this process, could you articulate what the office is working on right now, in regard to a meeting that they had last week. May says that attorney, police, alcohol policy coordinator, clerk, mayor’s office and Schumacher are putting together new procedures [I thought he said new procedures, but then he made it sound like it was just an explanation of the procedures], so it is clear to license holders and council. They will have an alcohol regulation 101 booklet. Valuable tool, but needs clear procedure.
Kerr – Understands that if she’s dead she can’t get a drivers license, how can you give a license to a construciton site or piece of dirt? She requested separation – there was a decision made, and she was not consulted. This could happen to any alder, and you could be called by your constituents that are upset. She says “we care about this”. She asks to what degree are we prosecuting these offenses. Do we have an understanding to what degree they are prosecuting these offenses? She says that whatever is being worked on by Schumacher and Mayor’s office has to include a report on calls for services and prosecution of licenses. She’s very frustrated, glad Schumacher is working on it, but bars consume alot of police resources and we should be keeping track.
Rummel – Reminds them about ordinance that was passed if don’t pick up license in 2 years it is revoked. She talks about the building in her district that is now the Bayou, frustration grew and grew over that situation and that is why the 2 year rule was adopted. She says that might not be solution for this situation, but that is also on the books as a tool.
Schumacher – trying to give Kerr some comfort [but she’s not even in the room at this point], there is a next opportunity, the owner will maintain the license and has to come back for change of premises. There could be a revocation hearing at that time. Says they still can persue a revocation any time of the year. While looks hopeless right now, there are other opportunities down the road.
Verveer – elaborate on Schumacher’s comment. Impress that hands are tied and that license will be renewed no matter what. Wanted to make it clear for Kerr [still not in the room] and the neighborhood that they know and will not forget strained relationship between license holder and neighborhood – he has not been a good neighbor – but emphasizes, that new hotel can’t be licensed until further actions of ALRC and the Council. There are also conditions on the PUD [zoning] about alcohol. Says whether new license or not, agrees absurd to have a license for dirt, strongly urges license holder to apply for new license. However, no matter how it is done, ALRC and council will be able to vote up or down on the license. Operation of law requires them to renew the license, there will be plenty more kicks at the cat or the can.
159 – Move to adopt, with language on addendum to the addendum on package size.
160 – Move to adopt, no report, place on file without prejudice. Explains that applicant has withdrawn and he has it in writing.
will be back with the rest of the public hearings and the separated items.
