So intrigued by a very, very vague agenda, I attended the meeting. It just got more and more confusing as the meeting went on and got even worse after the meeting when Verveer explained what was really going on . . . the more I asked, the worse it got . . . i.e. lots of [BK comments sprinkled throughout] and a little rant at the end.
I thought I was going to a meeting of the “Alcohol License Review Subcommittee on Downtown Alcohol Issues and Ordinances“.
I thought the most obnoxious part of it was the vague agenda that read:
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
1. Discussion of 2009 annual review of density plan
2. Downtown Ordinances
3. Downtown Alcohol Issues
ADJOURNMENT
I should note, the agenda included a typical disclaimer of “A possible quorum of the Alcohol License Review Committee may be in attendance.”
It also noted that the contact information for the meeting was listed as “Contact Katherine Plominski in the Mayor’s Office at (608) 266-4611.”
This will all become important as the meeting unfolds. So here it is!
The meeting starts off with Katherine Plominski (City’s Alcohol Coordinator – non-voting member of the ALRC) announcing she is chairing the meeting [Red flag number one: Why is the Mayor’s staff chairing a committee? Alders can’t and while the ordinance doesn’t say that the Mayor’s staff can’t, it seems equally inappropriate. We have a strong policy position of having our residents of the city who volunteer on these committees, chair these committees.] She asks the people in the room to introduce themselves, including the non-registered people sitting in the audience. [Red flag #2: She starts with me and says “Brenda introduced yourself” and I was kind of taken aback as I’m not supposed to address city committees for a year after I’m off the council – at least not representing anyone for pay or volunteer. Because I’m involved in so many groups, its hard for me to talk without being accused of representing someone. So I have refrained from doing so. So I just laughed and said “Hi, I’m Brenda”. At the time, I didn’t understand why she was asking us to introduce ourselves and had I known, I would have explained that I was just an observer.]
The people sitting at the table and the audience introduce themselves. [There are 13 people in the room not sitting at the table and then several people sitting at the table who I assumed were the committee members so I only wrote down their names as we went around the room.] Sitting at the table were at the beginning of the meeting were:
Marsh Shapiro – a non-voting member of the ALRC and he takes the time to note that he is the Tavern League representative and he hopes no one mixes that up.
[You know what dude, either you believe in what you’re saying and stand behind it, or you don’t and you should resign. You’re representing a group and you need to take responsibility for that. You can’t escape responsibility for the positions you take by blaming it on the group you represent.]
Dawn Crim – Non-voting member of the ALRC
Mark Woulf – Non-voting member of the ALRC
Mary Carbine – Staff/lobbyist for Downtown Business Improvement District (BID)
Susan Schmitz – Staff/lobbyist for Downtown Madison Inc.
Dan Cornelius – Also on the BID Board
Rick Petri – Says he’s representing the BID Board – also former city attorney turned lobbyist for the alcohol industry
Pam Dean – The only actual member of the ALRC in the room.
[Red flag #3. I couldn’t figure out, at the time, why the committee was so unbalanced. It seemed odd, but more and more we see committees dominated by business interests, so I wasn’t too surprised, tho disturbed. I’m sorry I didn’t write down who else was in the room, but Hawk (owner of Hawks on State St., probably obvious), Curt Brink (perhaps equally obvious, owner of the Brink on E Wash.), Ron -oh shit, how do you spell his name – Trachtenberg (one of the two biggest lobbyists for the alcohol industry claiming not to be representing anyone at the meeting and loudly announcing that after the meeting, for my benefit – or perhaps, actually the benefit of my readers.) and Mary Schauf (Central District Police Captain) actively participated in the meeting. Red flag #4: Why were these non-members participating so freely – there never was an explanation of how the meeting was going to work and I thought they were just using an open public format as we did in the TIF and other committees.]
THE REPORT
Plominski starts out by reviewing the draft of the Annual Review of the Alcohol Beverage License Density Plan. [There are, of course, not enough copies. Someone gets some additional copies made after a little confusion.]
Plominski sort of goes through the sections, reading headers for each area but noting that in #3 they went back and some of the info is modified from past reports, it is now even more accurate. Additionally, they added data from 2006. They also separated calls for service for Mifflin St. Blockparty and Halloween and she notes they make up a very small number of calls. No significant shift in those events. She notes that #4 will have more maps this year. She notes that the houseparty data doesn’t support all the discussion about increased bar raids and house party raids, the data is actually down from last year.
Bean asks what the reference to “INSECT” means. [That made me giggle, totally reasonable question! Lady bugs? Butterflies? Spiders?] Plominski says it refers to police sectors. [I believe it is supposed to say “In Sector” or something, but its clearly a draft.]
Plominski says that the specific requirements of the report are listed in the ordinance.
Petri says that it would have been nice to have the 6 page document to review prior to the meeting. Plominski says it is fresh off the press in the last few hours.
Hawk asks why in 2006 the total calls is lower and the numbers go up in 2007 and 2008 after the ordinance is enacted. Plominski says that the population has actually grown in that time and she’d like to get the population increase in the report.
Bean asks if there more awareness. Plominski points out category 28 is liquor license violations and that could be a result of more aggressive enforcement.
Carbine says on page 2 & 3 the report would be easier to understand if you explained the numbers in the chart not after in the notes. She also wants to know what the overall citywide crime comparative is for that period. Plominski asks Schauf to address that, she says she’d like to review the data and get additional information. Plominski asks for Schauf’s response to be mailed to her in the next two weeks.
Bean asks why liquor law violations decrease in 2008 and 2009. They note this is full year data as the Ordinance went into effect in October. Why numbers have been reduced in 28 to almost half? Schauf speculated that is might have to do with Mifflin and Halloween violations being removed, but needs to study the data before she comments further. Plominski explains that before Schuaf got there she had told the group that those were actually very few of the violations. Schuaf says she’d need to review the report. Plominski says she’d like to hear Shauf’s thoughts once she has time to review the data.
Cornelius notes that the ALDP (alcohol license density plan) was supposed to limit the number of licenses. He asks what is the correlation between drop in crime an number of licenses. Plominski says that will be added later, but won’t get to the impact of the ALDP.
Hawk asks about awareness and enforcement and how that could have impacted the data. He notes they don’t need an ALDP to do the awareness and enforcement.
Carbine asks if the geographic limits of the ALDP corresponds with police sectors. Plominski says no, its essentially Blair to Park St and lake to lake.
Carbine asks how the data relates to property assessment and asks if they will do that mapping. She says the BID has suggested ways to measure the long term economic impact of the area. She says they should also look at sales tax data in that area. She says that their board had responded to the preliminary presentation on the plan that they got, so they made suggestions about the report. [Hmmmm . . . I thought it was hot off the presses, what kind of a briefing did they get on the report? And when?] She says the BID board would like to see the ordinance amended and she lists things they think should be in the report.
– Compare crime in the density zone to the overall crime in the city.
– They should compare look at the capacity in the bars downtown not number of licenses. She seems to be saying that the larger the capacity of the bar the more problems. Plominski says they can map that.
– They should look at the sales tax data or economic value of assessment of the properties in the area.
– There were concerns about why house party violations were included. Plominski says she went back and made sure that the house party data was not included.
– They wanted football game related tickers separated like Halloween and Mifflin St. Block Party.
Plominski asks what sales tax records are public records.
Shapiro says that tax is built into the alcohol, and with the food ticket it is tacked on. Not sure how you can get the true figure but it all has to be submitted to the state.
Hawk says technically every month you do sales tax, but hard to figure that out – accountant figures out food and drink at the end of the year.
Carbine says ok to have alcohol and food sales data combined reviewed.
Plominski asks if they can get that data.
Brink says no.
Trachtenberg [shit, I hope I spelled that right! It’s funny, of all the people’s names I’ve spelled wrong – and I’m sorry to all those who I have, just let me know how to spell it and I’ll try to get it right – only Wiggie – not Wiggy – and Ronald were offended and obnoxious about it.]) says amount paid is public but the return is not, but he can explain it to Plominski tomorrow after he goes home and talks to his wife who works for the state.
Carbine asks Trachtenberg if there is a number for an area as opposed to looking at each business. He says he’ll call his wife and ask.
Carbine asks if they can get revenue for a certain type of business in the area. Trachtenberg says he’ll ask his wife.
Shapiro asks why that data is relevant?
Petri says the economic impact of the plan was supposed to be measured and they are grasping at straws to find a way to measure that. He says development might be impacted adversely in the area as an example. He says the rental value of vacant spaces could be driven down.
Bean says that they need comparative data from before and after the ordinance was passed.
Petri says that there is a problem with economic data as you can’t get the causality you have to make some assumptions and conclusions about what the data means.
Bean says alcohol sales revenue and crime correlations will tell us something. If there are more sales and more crime that means something. But, what are you getting at with the question. Do you want to know the economic impact as it relates to crime? Someone says no, they just want generic information.
Hawk says more alcohol, more crime is what proponents claim. There is a possibility that it has an adverse economic impact. A good restaurant owner isn’t going to take the chance of losing their liquor licenses if have 40% sales of food, not 50%.
Cornelius says that there are lots of variables, but you could take one area that would have developed before the density plan.
Carbine says an analysis of the economic impact is required in the ordinance, you have to measure something. Vacancy rate and business mix would be one way, but the BID isn’t like a mall where you have to report your sales to the owner. She says in other states, BIDs can have tax status. They don’t have the means to track it.
Shapiro points out that malls get a percentage of the sales in their rent.
Brink asks for map of sectors. Brink says that alcohol is regulated more than any other business in the city. Your liquor bills have to be paid and your sales tax has to be paid or you lose your license. He says if you look at sales tax records you need to look at all the businesses on State St. He says it creates a competitive disadvantage if you ask for information others don’t have to provide.
Crim says the city should determine the analysis.
They ask the what the intent of the council was. Plominski says two alders added this report in at the last minute. They ask me if I did it. I just shrugged. I didn’t think so but honestly didn’t remember and shouldn’t be addressing a committee about something I had control over . . . and I voted on this ordinance. I had to check the amendment and saw it was Solomon and so then I had to check the the minutes (page 6) to find out who the second alder was. It was a meeting that went til 3:30 am and I had just gotten back from Austin City limits and everything was kind of a blur by that point. I may have helped Solomon, who sat behind me and we often collaborated, draft that, but I’m not sure.]
Here’s what the minutes said for those who are too last to click on the link:
A motion was made by Ald. Solomon, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Adopt the following amendment : add the following sentence to 10: “This annual review will be due November 1st of each year and include the following: 1) The number of license applications for each license type filed with the City Clerk for establishments both within the density plan area & the areas immediately adjacent. 2) The number of license applications for each license type granted by the Common Council for establishments both within the density plan area & the areas immediately adjacent. 3) The frequency of alcohol related crime & disorder, both within the density plan area and in the areas immediately adjacent. 4) The correlation between alcohol license density and the occurence of alcohol related crime & disorder. 5) An analysis of the economic impact of the ordinance over the previous year. 6) An analysis of the campus house party situation including, but not limited to the number of house parties broken up by the police & number of sexual assaults reported and number of violent crimes reported.” The motion passed by acclamation.
A motion was made by Ald. Solomon, seconded by Ald. Konkel, to Adopt the following amendment : change the sunset date in 11. from four (4) years to three (3) years. The motion passed by acclamation.
A motion was made by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ald. Sanborn, to Adopt the following amendment : strike “c. Exceptional Circumstance. ii. An establishment providing live music in a tavern environment is not considered an exceptional circumstance.”
The motion passed by acclamation.
[Shit, I thought I voted against it, but without a roll call that doesn’t get recorded and even when you asked to be noted as voting no, it doesn’t always end up in the minutes and since the minutes aren’t approved by the council, there is no way to get a chance to review them and make corrections.]
Plominski says she asked the assessor for information but wasn’t sure she could get what they wanted.
Crim says that this report shouldn’t be so difficult to compile that they can’t get it done.
THE FUTURE OF THE ORDINANCE
Plominski says they need to talk about the future of the ordinance including needed adjustments, sunset and repeal. They need to decide if they want to modify it or just have it go away. She,of course, wants to start with possible adjustments. No one says anything, so she says that she gets a lot of calls about “one in, one out”. She says when one bar leaves, the new bars don’t necessarily want to go into the same space and they might have found better space elsewhere.
Shapiro says that the intent was to try to let the alcohol licenses go in and out by attrition.
Crim said the intent was also to free up licenses to be available throughout the city and not have such a density and to try to get more retail downtown. Crim says ongoing concern was that it was to impact capacity and density – can’t just look at type of license.
Carbine says they know a lot about the business mix and how hard it is to rent in the area. After investing in a build out, to abandon that for another style of business creates a problem. The time period that is put in there of one year is important- it can take years to find an appropriate tenant with appropriate credit to make it work for them. One year turn over not unusual. You can wish more retail will come in, but not reality of economy and retail. The internet is the competition and not how it works any more. Don’t have population and income density to attract large retailers that can fill the spaces. Overall trend in the area is a slight decrease in retail and increase in food and drink. Limiting bars will not necessarily create more retail.
Plominski asks if BID is or is not supportive of one in, one out. She says they misunderstood what she meant. Would they support allowing more than a year? No, not in the same space is the issue.
Shaipro asks what you say to them when they call. She says they can’t do that. They don’t want to go into the same space.
Carbine says they’ll ask the board what their position is on that. She thinks board would be supportive.
Hawk says Ramshead has been a bar forever, to think that something else will go in there is not realistic. Pub or Mondays the same is true, if there the bar was there more than 10 years it will likely be a bar unless an Old Navy type business goes in. Nitty Gritty has been a bar forever so not feasible to think something else will go in there. Ramshead is just going to sit there, still 70% liquor and still a bar. No natural attrition – its just going to be a bar.
Shapiro says he thought anything that goes in there would have to be 50% food, Plominski says no.
Bean says she thought they were here today to talk about changes to the ordinance.
I missed a little bit here.
Petri says “one in and one out” is a good modification, but he says he wants to ask what kind of a downtown do we want. Downtowns by their nature are different, until the culture changes, food and drink will be an integral part to what makes it a downtown – supports investments we have made. Meeting place to socialize, including food and drink.
Shapiro says don’t forget about University.
Plominski says that he’s talking about the big picture and changing the culture but we need to talk about specific changes to the ordinance. Petri presses on, he says pressure from neighborhood association who have concerns is what started this, but in reaction to that is satisfied by letting the ALRC and Council exercise disrection.
Plomisnki tries to cut him off, he preses on. She says he is on category 3, repeal. She is looking for specific adjustements now.
Plominski talkes about the bowling alley exception they passed, if they have 33% alcohol.
Shapiro says never heard it. Plominski says passed. Members says they referred it and it didn’t pass.
Hawk says that numbers are arbitrary. Arbitrary numbers just means they sell more “t-shirts”. Numbers are arbitrary and not reducing crime.
Plominski asks if the police have any recommendations for adjustments, it seems to be working for them. Shauf doesn’t immediately say anything. Plominski says taht the restaurants that are bars at night are a problem for officers she talks to. Schauf says that the police department supported it and that it gets to some of the goals, very interested in the discussions, some positives, but not ready to weigh in. She says that alot depends upon the owner.
Plominiski says that most corporate chain restaurants are 80% food.
Hawk says good if you want chains downtown.
Carbine says these are independent bars in small spaces and that isn’t a good index – it won’t be appropriate for comparison. Carbine is in favor of repeal but in favor of adjustments to allow more innovative entertainment opportunties. She says they can’t be more specific until someone proposes it – ex bowling – the market is innovative. Downtown should be the center of innovation. One exception, but what if a bowling concept is 40%.
Plominski says that what she is hearing is that the section should be more flexible and deliberately vague, open to discretion.
Woulf says that one of the general ideas was to reduce alcohol related crimes, so that is why are campus house parties and citations in there. Says if look at overall crimes and take out Halloween and Mifflin have to take out house parties.
Shapiro agrees it is skewed.
Bean says the numbers should still be included.
Plominski says she will try to go through them individually to make sure the data is clear.
Verveer has entered the building. That makes two ALRC members in the room. Plominski explains what they are discussing to Verveer.
Petri suggest expanding the 365 requirement.
Schmitz says Crim talked about the goals of the ordinance and reducing capacity/density. So reducing the number of people in the downtown, the number late at night, this is where the this conflicts with the work of the DHC (Downtown Hospitality Committee). She says we need more people downtown to have a healthy vital nighttime community doing all kinds of things, not just verical drinking.
Plominski says to look at the drafters analysis of the plan, but can’t speak for Crim.
Petri says that he thinks that if there is a 10,000 capacity, they want to reduce it to 9,000 or 8,000 in all establishments with any kind of alcohol license.
Schmitz says they wouldn’t support that. She says they are looking at it being so strict that they are not allowing the basic market actions to take place. Should be open enough that someone with a good business plan will come to Madison.
Kathryn says economy is poor and they want to expand the 365 restriction. She says other density plans have 500 feet requirement.
Shapiro says that was part of the original discussion. They also looked a having capacity requirements within the block, feet restrictions and alot of other variables.
Tractenberg says he lives on far west side, comes downtown to eat and drink and go for a walk. Need to look at streets by zones, are you in the middle of a neighborhood or on a commercial streets, there should be more density there. Lower the number of licensed establishments and that is contrary to what we want. Not just economy, Anthropology would have been good for state st, they went to Hilldale. That is what belongs down here. When talk about density need to look at the neighborhood. Retail trade is not just he economy but trend since 1950.
Woulf says that a feet proximity, the geography of the area prohibits it. It would bump people outside the area.
Trachtenberg says when he was an alder the approved 5 new licenses one night, Delanies complained and asked where it will stop. Trachtenberg says natural economics dictate that you will reach a point where no one else will come in due to the economic factors.
Shapiro says that the pie is the same size, the slices just get smaller, when have more coming in, then everyone is fighting for survival, deeper cuts on food and alcohol (discounting) which is what they didn’t want. He brings up the price fixing lawsuit – wants to encourage businesses – we won’t have all bars on both sides of the street, says they wouldn’t survive.
Plominski says that is contested.
Hawk says that the well run ones will survive. If city of Madison would have done what they did this year earlier we would have been better off. He says he got raided for their first time in 7 years. They are trying to attract people to live downtown yet make capacity less – those two things are against each other. More crimes happen when people are crushed into bars – adding capacity to prevent fights would make sense. From his own personal business perspective, it makes no sense to get rid of the ALDP because his bar became worth more money when it passed, but he’s against it for the betterment of the downtown. He says we will attract more young professionals, you can’t keep taking away places and expect young professionals to stay here. Enforcement was what was needed. Bust me and everyone else, we deserve to get busted but that is how you separate the place that is run well and those that are not. That will cause the natural attrition. Ramshead couldn’t survive if didn’t have underagers in the bar. Ticket me if I have problems, ok, that is how natural attrition happens. He says they don’t say that I can’t have a jean store next to jean store.
Plominski says alcohol is regulated, there is a 3 tier system, so not same commodity as jeans. Many places don’t allow free market to control the system.
Cornelius says this ordinance was set up to stabilize the situation. He says they needed enforcement and patrolling the side streets, but also remembers that Verveer said that we didn’t want State Street to turn into Bourbon St. That resonated with alot of people, this isn’t just about State St – this is Blair to Park and that is different. If you want to redevelop areas, you can’t have the same standards.
Plominski says she hears that they should decrease the boundaries.
Trachtenberg says to zone it, different rules in different zones.
Shapiro says already zoned. There are certain areas you can’t have commercial in residential.
Trachtenberg says different rules for different areas not just different zoning requirements.
Brink says that density plan has prevented certain areas from developing and caused them to be blank. When did tour of downtown, if look on the street where the Ivory is, you would have several other music places there. If 1500 – 2000 sq foot place won’t try to meet food requirements. Frequency can’t expand capacity because not 50% food.
Plominski says that is a bathroom issue.
Brink says 701 E Washingtong (Brass Ring, High Noon and Brink) would not be allowed one block to the west. Brink says used to be $30 tickets for parking on the street cuz workers were afraid, now it is different. Extra capacity could make a difference. To bring adults 25+. No way to get people to invest.
Plominski asks about repeal or sunset.
Hawk says that ALRC always had the power to deny a liquor license. They wouldn’t allow a hip hop club. This is the exceptional role, that is what ALRC could already do.
Plominski agrees discretion has always been there. Legal was involved and supported the density plan cuz not individuals who could allege discrimination were a concern and this way everyone is equal.
Hawk says that ALRC as a body didn’t have the guidelines and just decided on their gut. Don’t want to open up to lawsuits, but ALRC has to have standards that they apply equally. He says he got favoritism, he got to stay open an extra hour because of a connection there. Those were the Tim Bruer days and he benefitted from things being unequal. The same night his license was approved, another guy had to close at midnight. He notes that its a good think he banks at Park Bank because that is how he got his exception. He says they should look at the business plan and decide if there is no way it is going to be a bona fide restaurant.
Bean asks why she is hearing two different things, hearing no one will come downtown and start a business and also that everyone want to come here.
They says there are people out there who don’t know what they are doing. Bad operator will say yes to anything, a good operator will look at it and say that is not going to happen.
Trachtenberg says that most small businesses fail in first year or two, liquor or not. He talks about a small business that failed that everyone thought would fail. Says liquor licenses is a legislative act, council makes decision and courts won’t double guess the legislature. They talk about a court case in Milwaukee where a black bar owner went to court. He says council can do what they want.
Plominski says R Place on Park also filed a suit. She says of criteria we could elimiate some of that potential.
Carbine says we need metrics beyond criteria, not legislative policy.
Verveer gets in the last work and says he is surprised by the turn out and hopes it is the beginning of the discussion. He glad to see the dialog between the Downtown Hospitality Council and downtown bar owners and ALRC. After the DHC presentation, hopes this new subcommittee – despite his tardiness – hopes and expects good things out of the subcommittee. He says this likely won’t be a debate about whether or not to kill ALDO a year early, but his concern is that commercial brokers and landlords are concerned that the current ordinance does not allow them to open a business that he feels will be unique. Not a tavern, but different twists and angles – bowling is latest example. He says he convinced Schumacher to amend ALDO for the first time. He says the numbers in the ordinance might not be right and he found a location where he can open, hope to unanimously grant the license, so hopes the annual review and look specifically at ALDO in the last year – doesn’t see political support to repeal if sunset in a year. More constructive to amend it in its last year on the books. Don’t want to throw cold water on the unique businesses. Other examples was live music venue, gourmet grocery and tavern, brew and view. Hopes that subcommittee can meet on a regular basis. And go through the ordinance line by line and hear from the industry. Where in ALDO is a reason why you can’t open a business. Wants Petri and Trachtenberg to help them with that.
Plominski is getting nervous and cutting people off so she can leave for some meeting. She says we need to have the room locked by 5:30 [Seriously? Why? That just sounds like bullshit.]
There was only one voting member of ALRC for most of the meeting until Verveer got there. So they were concerned about that. They say the next meeting might not be until December.
Bean says if they can be flexible, they will be solving alot of the things we discussed today.
OK, NOW, MY RANT
After the meeting, I ask Verveer who is on the committee and kicks off a discussion, interrupted as Plominski is kicking us out of the room, that goes something like this.
Konkel: Who’s on this committee?
Verveer: We don’t appoint member of the committee, we just notice the meeting and whoever can show up does.
Konkel: How do you know if there is quorum?
Verveer: He smiles. Tells me to ask Plominski.
Konkel: I ask again.
Verveer: The city attorney’s office said it was ok.
Konkel: Seriously? No way, this isn’t legal. How can you do this.
Verveer: Still smiling . . .Catherine, come here and talk to Brenda, tell her how we can notice the meeting.
Plominski: She explains what they do, but not how it is legal.
Konkel to Verveer: No wonder this committee seemed so lopsided. I was wondering why they didn’t just vote to repeal and get it over with. Who supports this ordinance staying in place.
Verveer: Mostly no one that was at the meeting.
Konkel: I’m still blown away, I thought the agenda was awful cuz I didn’t know what the meeting was, but I didn’t realize it was that bad. How’d all those people know what was going to be talked about at the meeting and who decided who sat at the table.
Verveer: This was a joint meeting between the Downtown Hospitality Council and the ALRC.
Konkel: What? That isn’t what was noticed.
Verveer: More smiling.
Konkel: Gives shit to Verveer for allowing this to happen this way and grumbles that this is now going to be a very long blog post.
How in the hell can what they are doing be legal?
p.s. In case it wasn’t clear, Verveer was smiling because he was looking forward to reading my blog! 🙂
