the hour of 6:30. Having arrived, I will call to order the common council meeting of Tuesday, July 1st, 2025, and ask the clerk to please call the role. Alder Lankella, here. Alder Lela is present. Alder Knox, present. Alder Knox is present. Alder Madison here. Alder Madison is present. Alder Martinez Rutherford present. Alder Martinez Rutherford is present. Alder Matthews here. Alder Matthews is present. Alder Mayor here. Alder Mayor is present. Alder O'Brien here. Alder O'Brien is present. Alder Okovich present. Alder Okovich is present. Alder Pritchette here. Alder Pritchette is present. Alder Tishler here. Alder Tishler is present. Alder Vier. Alder Veier is present. Alder Vidver. Alder Vidiver is present. Alder Duncan here. Alder Duncan is present. Alder Evers. Alder Evers is present. Alder Field here. Alder Field is present. Alder Figuro Cole here. Alder Figuro Cole is present. Alder Glenn here. Alder Glenn is present. Alder Gavinder. Alder Gavenderin is present. Alder Yugare here. Alder Yugare is present. Alder Harrington McKini. Alder Harrington McKenna is present. Madame Mayor, we have quorum. Thank you. As usual, I'll remind us that we're here to do the business of the people of Madison and ask that we do that with grace and kindness and that we remain refrain from using profanity in our remarks regardless of our role in this meeting. Our first item is an honoring resolution. Item one, legisar 88795, celebrating July 2025 as disability pride month. To read the resolution, I'll turn first to Alder Glenn. All right. Am I on? Okay. Whereas Disability Pride Month has occurred in July each year since 1990 when the American with Disabilities Act, the landmark legislation that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities was passed. And whereas disability pride is celebrated throughout the month of July to recognize people with disabilities and the many ways disability people contribute to our communities. And whereas disability pride month has its own flag created by Anne McGill, a woman with disability. And whereas each of the symbols on the flag hold a different significance for the disability community with the black field representing people with disabilities who have lost their lives to illness, negligence, suicide, and other causes, and the other colors signifying different types of disabilities. Red for physical, yellow for cognitive and intellectual, white for invisible and undiagnosed, blue for mental and green for sensory perception disabilities. And whereas disability pride recognizes disability as a natural part of the human experience and highlights that all bodies and minds have access to needs and value. Whereas disability pride recognizes the need for continued work to create equitable and inclusive environments for all, including people with various disabilities. And whereas disability pride month encourages us to celebrate the talents and contributions of disabled people while reaffirming our commitment to continue to create systems and structures that work for all. And whereas disability pride is a reminder that representation and celebration of diverse identities is necessary in fostering a more inclusive world. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Madison mayor and common council recognize and celebrate July 2025 as disability pride month. Thank you. We'll take that as moved by Alder Glend and seconded by Alder Martinez Rutherford. And we have with us to accept the resolution two people uh Nikki Vanderm and Denise Jess. Aler if you would come forward and present [Music] awesome. Great. Where are we looking? Right here. Yep. Got it. Thank you. I just want to thank um the mayor and the council for allowing this opportunity and allowing the disability pride flag to fly over Madison for the first time ever. I feel in this time of struggle that many of us are going through with the federal government, it's nice to know we have a home here. Thank you. Hi everybody. It's great to be here. Not in October, but in July this time around. Um, you'll see me in October, too. Um, Denise Jess, Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired and proud member of the city's transportation commission. This is a huge honor to have our flag um flying over the skies of Madison and over the municipal building. One of the first or maybe the first city in the United States to fly the disability pride flag. It does my heart a world of good to know that we live in a city that strives to uplift the inherent worth of every person who lives and visits here. We've got a long way to go in establishing true authentic access um inclusion and equity and we are on the right road. So I look forward to working with you all to continue um creating a legacy of equity in the city of Madison. Thanks so much for today. Thank you. Thank you both. Uh it's been moved and seconded. Is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor? Seeing no objection, we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of item one. And that will take us to disclosures and recusals. Are there any disclosures or recusals on items on tonight's agenda? Alder Tishler. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just finished eating. Sorry. Um, uh, item three, legendar 87841. I have to recuse myself from that. Thank you, Alder. We'll note you as that. Are there any other disclosures or recusals on tonight's agenda? Alderfield. Uh, similarly on item three, um, I will recuse myself from the vote on that item. I'm a UWB Madison employee. Um, in addition, oh, that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Matthews. Um, I'm just disclosing that I'm a WMadison employee, but I my that will not impact my decision on this item and item three. Thank you, Alder. Alder mayor, I am also a W employee and this will not affect my decision. Thank you, Alder. Are there any other disclosures or recusals on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, then we'll move to the presentation of the consent agenda. President Bidder. A consent agenda is moved with the recommended action listed for each item on the agenda except items that have registrants wishing to speak. Items that alders have or items that have alders have separated out for discussion and debate purposes. This document lists supermajority items, agenda items with recommendations different from the agenda, items for exclusion, items introduced from the floor, and agenda items with corrections. Agenda items that are supermajority items. Item 73, legislative file 88734, approving the ready for reuse loan agreements between the city of Madison and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, between the city of Madison and Conway at Huxley LLC, and between the city of Madison and Roth Street 1 Limited Partnership and Roth Street 2 Limited Partnership for the purpose of assisting in the remediation of contaminated soil at Huxley yards in and around 905 Huxley Street, 103 Huxley Street, and 1846 Commercial A, and amending in the 2025 economic redevelopment division operating budget to accept and loan the funds. This is in district 12. Agenda items with recommendations different from the agenda. Item 67, legislative file 886, excuse me, 88464, adopting the 20 20 six common council meeting dates. The uh mo motion is to adopt um the recommended dates. Um item number 74 is a substitute supporting Madison uh sorry item 88751 substituting substitute is supporting Madison Metro section 5339B and 5339C low or no emission grant applications to federal transit administration for hybrid electric 40ft buses equipment and charging infrastructure for the electrification of select routes. Um the Federal Transit Administration request is for 26 million instead of 20 million. Um excluded items. Item 18, legislative file 83669, the second substitute amending section 38059F of the Madison General ordinances related to ge geographic limitations on class A and class B license applications considered by the common council after adoption of this ordinance for purposes of regulating density of such alcohol beverage licenses their registrance. And item 77 amend item uh legisar 85327 amending section 5.20 of the Madison general ordinances to modify the police civilian oversight board appointment process. There are registrants items introduced from the floor. Legislative file number 88894 amending the 2025 engineering major streets adopted capital budget to transfer 80,000 of existing geo budget authority from engineering major streets to planning for the percent for art aggregate fund related to the John Nolan drive street reconstruction project in districts 4 and 13 and that will go to finance committee on the 15th of this month and council that can't be right they are not on the same date they are they are oh they are I'm sorry that's right because we rescheduled it finance committee on the 15th and common council on the 15th. Thank you. Um and there are no items with corrections. Right. Are there any additional items that alders would like to have excluded from the consent agenda at this time? Alder Pitchett. Yes. Item number 85327. Other what um agenda number is that? 877. Item 77 will be excluded because it has registrance. And let make sure I have it right. Item number 88734. And what agenda item is that? Uh, what's 73? It's already It's 73. 73. 73. Alder Ginder, it's item number 73. It's already taken off the agenda. Okay, good. Uh, it's a super majority. It's not off the consent. So, item 73, 88734. Yes. Right. Thank you, Alder. Any additional items? Thank you, Alder. All right. Are there any other items that alers would like to have excluded from the consent agenda at this time? Seeing none, let's go through that one more time. Um, uh, items with recommendations different from the agenda. On item 67, we have the recommendation from the floor. On item 74, there's a substitute. We'll be excluding items 18, 73, and 77. We have one introduction from the floor. Anything additional. All right. So then a motion please on the consent agenda. Moved and seconded to adopt the consent agenda. Is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor? Seeing no objection then we'll proceed. And that will take us to public comment. Our first item with registrants wishing to speak is item 18. Uh we have one registrant wishing to speak, Dana Peliban of Fitsburg, Wisconsin. Do we have Dana? Mayor, I don't see Dana, but there is a phone number that I'm not sure it's not showing up as registered either. Can you try that phone number, please? Yes. Okay. If the person who is online via phone, if you are Dana, you should be able to unmute yourself with the star six. I move this agenda item. Okay. Thank you very much. Um we have no other registrance on item 18. Um so we'll move on then to item 77 which is amending section 5.20 of the Madison general ordinances to modify the police civilian oversight board appointment process. We have one registrant wishing to speak Jacob Winkler of district 15. Do we have Jacob? Mayor, I don't see Jacob online either. I do see we have two phone numbers. Um, and can we try either of them? [Music] I unmuted the 14. Okay. Yep. Are you Jacob 414? [Music] If not, hi, I'm just listening in. Okay. And then we have an iPhone. Oh, but it looks like that person either put their name in or disconnected. Um, okay. Well, with neither of our registrants here, I have no other registrants wishing to speak. On item 18, there is uh one registrant available to answer questions. Uh Alder Viver, Madame Mayor, is it possible to um suspend public comment and um bring it back in 15 minutes? It's highly irregular, Alder. Highly irregular. Um, I mean, if you want to put it to your colleagues, you can, but I we've never done it before. She's on her way and is not here. Meeting starts at 6:30. All right. So, uh, we'll move on then to item 18. Uh on item 18, I'm asked to start with a brief staff presentations. I believe we have staff both from the attorney's office and from public health here. Um so I don't know if there's a preference. I see uh from public health. I believe we're starting with Ariel Smith. Um, and then I'm not sure who from the And it'll be attorney Hos. Okay. Uh, Miss Smith, please go ahead. All right. Thank you. Um, I also have our staff member and, uh, substance use prevention harm reduction manager, Julia Olsen, here with me as well to present. Um, so, thank you everyone. Good evening. Um we're here to speak to you today about the health and safety impacts of alcohol in Madison. Um with a particular focus on alcohol outlet density um and the proliferation of class A and class B licenses. Um we recognize that council is already engaged in some thoughtful discussion about how these um how the alcohol licenses intersect with public health and safety and economic development. So, our goal this evening is just to provide um a public health perspective and lens um to support your ongoing discussions around alcohol density and licensing decisions. Um and so with that, I'm going to hand it over to Julia who does have some slides to present if possible. If not, we can speak verbally to this. We'll work on those slides. I should be able to um get you that just a minute, but if you want to start talking, that'd be good. Absolutely. Um so, as I mentioned, um we're here to talk a little bit about the health and safety impacts of alcohol. And so, from a public health perspective, we know that excessive alcohol use is categorically a public health and safety issue. Um, and so here at the health department, we have a dedicated team that works on understanding and analyzing those issues within both the city of Madison and Dne County at large. Thank you, Julia. Can you go to the next slide for me, please? Excellent. And so we are here today, as I mentioned, to talk a little bit about some of the data that our team has collected um to cultivate that understanding of both the density of class A and class B licenses in the city as well as some of the impacts and maybe um consequences that we see as a part of having the density that we have currently in the city. And with that, I will hand it over to Julia. Hi, thank you Ariel. Um, as Ariel mentioned, tonight we are going to be talking a little bit more about um, some of the health and safety impacts related to alcohol. Um, with this map wanted to show that in Wisconsin um, we have a bit of a reputation uh, for having a culture of heavy alcohol use. And the data largely supports that this perception is true. Um, every county in Wisconsin is higher than the national average uh for adults who report excessive drinking. So, in an environment where alcohol and drinking to excess is generally seen as normal and it's fairly accessible, um, it can be easy to lose sight of some of the potential harms and health impacts alcohol can pose to health and safety of individuals and the community. So to level set alcohol is a depressant and so like other depressants it slows down our body's systems um in small amounts you know depression or excuse me depressants can cause feelings of relaxation and calm um can make people feel a little bit more bold or talkative or less anxious. But as consumption increases uh we see different effects on the body such as increased heart rate, blood pressure and then some of our decision-m capabilities, reaction time and memory can also be impacted. Now alcohol consumption and the effects it has on the body impacts everybody differently. Uh there's a difference between the amount of alcohol, when it's consumed, uh body type, weight. So I could consume the same amount of alcohol as Ariel and be impacted very very differently in terms of again those impacts to my decision-m my reaction time. Um typically we think of some of the more immediate impacts when we're thinking of um health impacts due to alcohol. So we're thinking of falls. We may be thinking of car accidents or injury. Um, we may be thinking of someone who uh drinks in excess and experiences a blackout or alcohol poisoning. But there are more long-term impacts that are also seen uh due to excessive alcohol use and contributing to things like breast cancer, esophageal cancer, liver disease, heart disease, and sometimes dependence on alcohol. So, we know that alcohol consumption even at low levels can bring health risks. Um, but most of the alcohol-related harms we see come from heavy drinking or continued heavy consumption over time. Um, so let's just take a look at what this looks like locally for us here in Dayne County and in Madison. Uh, so I just wanted to define some of these terms real quick. Excessive drinking. When we say that, we usually mean drinking um alcohol in a way that exceeds recommended limits uh or it causes harm to the person who is drinking or to others around them. So that includes binge drinking. So binge drinking is consuming a large amount of alcohol in a very short amount of time. Uh there was a report put out in 2019 by the population health institute looking at the burden of binge drinking in Wisconsin. And so for Dne County, they calculated that um there is a pretty high economic cost when it comes to binge drinking. Um so again with with binge drinking we see you know during this time period uh many alcohol-related deaths uh quite a few over 5,000 alcohol-related hospitalizations, motor vehicle crashes and then there's the economic cost of folks um then entering treatment services or going through long-term uh recovery. When we talk about excessive drinking, again, it's it's talking about people drinking beyond uh recommended health guidelines. And so, this does, in addition to binge drinking and heavy drinking, also include uh people who are under 21 uh consuming alcohol. And again, we're we're concerned about that because of the impacts it has to young people whose brains are still developing. um and also any alcohol consumption by a pregnant person uh due to impacts on the potential you know development of the baby and the child. So as I mentioned before we we tend to think of of things like motor vehicle accidents when we think of what is the impact of alcohol locally. So, this map you're seeing, just to tell everybody what the colors uh represent in the dots on the map, these are alcohol-related crashes in the city of Madison from January of 2024 through May of 2025. So, we have close to 350 incidents represented on this map. Um, red are fatal injuries um where the person did not survive. So, there are four listed here. Orange uh are more serious injur injuries. um yellow were minor injuries and blue are situations where there were possible injuries. Green is also no apparent injury. Um I wanted to make sure that you know we're calling out that alcohol related um motor vehicle crashes did have a period of kind of leveling off between 2020 2022. uh when we were in the middle of the COVID pandemic, many people were kind of consuming alcohol at home. They weren't traveling outside. Um car travel was reduced. So, we did see a reduction in DUIs in the county at large over that time period. Um so, those are people who were driving impaired and stopped by police, but we are starting to see that number go up from preandemic levels uh from the data we have in 2023. And again, just to go back to that kind of time period during COVID, um, to give people a better idea of how much alcohol contributed to motor vehicle accidents or fatal injuries in the county at large, 25% of all motor vehicle crashes and fatal injuries during that time period um were alcoholrelated. So, let's also talk about um death and fatalities due to alcohol. Um alcoholrelated deaths have been increasing in Dayne County for several years. Uh again, we talked about some of the impacts that COVID had on uh motor vehicle accidents and DUI. Uh but I think one of the really important things to call out is that during that same time period during COVID, we saw retail sales of alcohol in general increase statewide um and nationally. We saw consumption patterns increase. People may have changed the way they were where they were consuming alcohol, but we saw consumption increase. And prior to CO, we were already seeing deaths due to alcohol um increase. And again, they have continued to increase and haven't returned to prepandemic levels. Um, and we're also seeing alcohol being present uh as well during overdose situations. So, I mentioned before that alcohol is a depressant. It slows down our body's systems. Uh, one of our systems that it does slow down is breathing. So, again, consuming a lot of alcohol can impact somebody's ability to breathe. And when you mix alcohol with other drugs, uh those effects can be compounded and can be fatal for people. So during that time period of 2020 to 2023 in Dayne County, 24% of all of our overdose deaths in the county um also listed alcohol as a con contributing factor to the overdose death. We don't have 2024 data complete yet. It's still provisional. Um but again we are seeing a similar pattern and things holding steady and slight increases uh with alcohol related fatalities. So just to go a little deeper on what are some of the economic costs again this is from that report I talked about earlier where we were estimating some of the costs related to uh heavy drinking and binge drinking in particular. Um, and it was estimated that the costs of binge drinking uh to Dne County was upwards of $398 million annually. Um, and those costs are figured out when you look at things like health care costs, um, loss productivity, criminal justice involvement, and the money that it takes for the government systems like police, fire, EMS, uh, to respond to alcoholrelated incidents, whether it be property damage, whether it be a disorderly conduct or, uh, again a crash. Another factor that we look at when we think about what is kind of the burden, the impact and the cost. Um, as I mentioned before, we we are particularly interested in uh the impact alcohol use has on young people. Um, and particularly people who are still uh under 21, in their early 20s, teenagers, kids who are in that time period where you know their brains are still developing. um any amount of alcohol use and especially excessive and longerterm alcohol use can have permanent impacts on the brain. And so when we look at what is the impact to young people, we one measure we have to look at is underage drinking and alcohol citations. So this data is just for uh Madison. So, it's a combination of data from both UW police and from um MPD's central district community policing team. So, these were citations in in 2024. Well, February 2024 to January of 2025 um for citations for underage drinking um usually associated with like bars, taverns, or other uh alcohol retailers who were serving to minors. Um we don't currently have an alcohol retailer compliance program. So again we don't have more data that we can provide in uh this space but we do look at underage drinking because typically we will see that the younger folks engage in drinking um the more likely they are to develop riskier or harmful drinking patterns as they age. So why are we concerned with alcohol um and substances in public health? So a public health approach to substance use uh we are working to reduce the impacts of substance use on individuals and communities and we do that through looking at uh individual social and environmental factors and using a number of strategies. Um there is never a singular cause of any one challenge that a person or a community experiences and so there's no singular solution. Uh we employ a number of approaches across sectors and with partners to try to reduce the impacts of substance use on individuals and communities. So some examples would include prevention. So in prevention we are trying to delay and prevent the onset of use. um we're trying to stop any challenges or risky behavior before it starts. And this could be anything from, you know, again, uh increased parental involvement or uh education programs for youth in schools um or things that carry on across the life course. Awareness and education. We make people aware of uh responsible drinking messages, the impact that alcohol has so they can make better decisions about use. Um we work towards policy systems and environmental change. So again, this can be how we issue licenses. It can be requirements for IDs. It can be um where alcohol retailers can be located. uh it can also include things like um age restrictions. So there are a number of things that can fall in this policy system and environment lens. But it's really about trying to create um the environment that we want to create that either uh that shows what our norms are related to alcohol use. Uh there are harm reduction strategies where we know people are engaging in use and we want to give them the tools and skills and resources to be able to do that in a less risky and safer way. So this might include um having uh impaired driving prevention and safe ride programs. Also providing linkages to care through screening and referrals to treatment uh and other supportive services and through reducing stigma. So when we uh are trying to support folks who may have developed a dependence on alcohol um to get the care and support they need but doing that in a way that we are uh supporting everybody's recovery and wellness journey however they define it and we're reducing the stigma related to seeking help care and supports. Uh, one of the strategies that we talked about was uh, policy systems and environmental change. And so I know this has come up a lot. So just wanted to provide a little bit more information about alcohol outlet density uh, and what that can do for communities. So, it is a public health strategy where we try to use zoning or licensing or other authorities to regulate what alcohol outlet density looks like in an effort to reduce excessive drinking, have fewer calls for service, nuisance complaints, and then lower rates of things like violence, injury, falls, death, or other long-term health impacts. So with alcohol outlet density again it is it is what we're saying is that it's it's using policy to re reduce alcohol retailers in a given area. Um and the reason this is used um many times it's to try to prevent uh adolescent alcohol consumption. Uh there's a lot of data and information that supports a 10% increase in overall alcohol outlet density produces a 17% increase in the odds that a young person would drink alcohol in the next year. Um but it's not just as simple as saying here's a moratorum on uh how many alcohol retailers can be in a certain certain area. There's many many different levels to alcohol outlet density that can be considered or used as a strategy. Um, one is a geographic restriction which is just limiting the number of alcohol outlets in a specific area. Um, so that could be any way that geography is defined. Could be a block group, it could be a neighborhood, it could be a city, it could be a county. Um, population level restrictions are when we are limiting the number of alcohol outlets per population. So we would say for every 400 people we can only have two retailers. Um so it's a way that we would try to put a uh a cap essentially based on the number of people that live in an area. Commercial restrictions again it's putting a cap on the total of percentage of retailers in a certain area or business district that can sell alcohol. And then another method is time and space restrictions. So this is where we would say limit a location or limit operating hours. Um and again these are things that can be used time and space restrictions to protect things that we would deem to be sensitive land use. Um and typically you see those as like parks or schools uh or places where we see clustering of outlets and we may put like a minimum distance uh requirement between alcohol outlets. Um, one other piece of information I wanted to talk about in terms of a strategy that we use also to address um, excessive alcohol use or uh, risky alcohol behaviors is is looking at uh, retailer practices and server practices. So there is a project called place of last drink or pled. Um, this is essentially an initiative where we're looking at information and patterns of alcohol use that led to law enforcement calls for service. So again, this is uh think of a DUI, an impaired driving. Somebody gets pulled over for impaired driving. Uh as much as we can, we collect information about uh where they've been, where are they coming from, to identify any uh concerning patterns and over serving. Um we use this information to help us understand are there any license holders that we may need to have additional conversations with? Again, it's not uh an effort to uh put any blame on one particular person or business. It's about working in tandem with a business to uh address training and education, server training, and to even sometimes let them know that uh someone who was pulled over for a DUI uh says that they consumed most of their alcohol at that license holders establishment because they may not even know that. There are limitations to the data. This is something we're working with MPD to improve and we hope to use in the future again to um work more in partnership with alcohol retailers to address any problematic behaviors or consequences we're seeing. But we do have um we do have options within our local setting to be able to regulate density. Um the state does permit us to do that and permits local governments to regulate density and set the alcohol environment that we would like to see um and how we would like to move through licensing processes. So the statute that you see in front of you is is essentially the state statute. Um this is the current limitation that all municipal bodies who uh issue alcohol licenses are beholden to. Um and essentially this this restricts by location class A and class B uh licenses within 300 ft um of the main entrance of a public or parochial school, tribal school, um hospital, church um unless that prohibition is waved by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality. So for us that would be our alcohol licensing review committee. Um there are many municipalities who uh have this policy also written into their local ordinances. The alcohol um policy project, the Wisconsin alcohol policy pro project hasn't done a full mapping yet um and cataloging of all of the municipal policies that exist. So there's some that are missing, but um we do know of at least 21 municipalities that include this language in their specific u municipal ordinances. They also sometimes um add additional things to it. So they may have uh moratoriums. They may have um um be trying to address an overconentration of license holders. Um or like for example the city of Jainsville, they Jainsville expanded the language to include daycare centers and youth entertainment centers. So again, there is local control and ability to um modify or I would say add on to the language within local statutes. Um so one other thing that I wanted to show is some current licensing maps just to get a better understanding of where licenses currently are. So, this map, and again, it may be hard for for people to see on the screen, um, shows us where our current class A licenses are. And the next map shows us where our class A and class B. So, we're looking at both kind of on premises and off- premises sales um, would be located. So, our B licenses are the blue dot and the green license. The green dots represent class A licenses. And one of the things you would see um in the light gray are spots where um there would be restrictions or a vote would be needed to issue um new licenses due to that 300 ft radius prohibition um that currently exists and I think you're going to be having some more discussion about tonight. Uh, so to just give you again kind of a number because I know it's hard to see on here. The class B licenses currently w sits at 510 and our class A licenses just to go back so you can visualize it on this map um there are 134 uh class A licenses currently when this map was made. Um, so that is the extent of our presentation and I'm sure there will be some questions as we move forward through the night. Thank you. Let's um pause for questions for public health before we go to the attorney if there are any at this time. Seeing none, then Attorney Hos. Sorry. Uh thank thank you. Um I don't have a lot to add to public health's um presentation and uh I I thought maybe I would just walk through what the proposed amendments are. I also was not at the ALRC discussion on this and certainly the the uh sponsor can can weigh in, but this the proposed ordinance would add some locations to define this geographic restriction. So currently the ordinance does not allow either class A or class B licenses uh when the proposed location is less than 300 ft from the entrance to a public or parochial school, hospital, church or public library. This proposed ordinance would add well would change the term church to place of worship and also add to that list any entity that has a primary purpose of providing services to unhosted unhoused individuals uh mental health treatment facility or another class A or class B license. Um and but that restriction can be waved expressly by a majority vote of the council which is uh essentially a majority vote of the council is required to um approve any license. But this ordinance says it would need to be purposely and expressly waved which I would take to mean that maybe there would be a notation in the ALRC uh recommendation that this um prohibition be waved. Um there are some exceptions uh which are consistent with the exceptions in the statute uh including premises that had a license on June 30th, 1947 um or premises that are covered by license prior to um any of these uh types of locations being established. So if the um if the premises that is proposed to be uh licensed is there prior to um a church, school, etc. being there would not apply. Also would not apply to um uh a restaurant within 300 ft of of any of those um other locations. Um I I I guess one other note, I know that, you know, the city's had some history of discussing density restrictions. Um there is uh of course our zoning ordinance which has the alcohol overlay district already. Um, I would say that, you know, we're the city is probably on more sound legal footing by having um a a policy that applies generally rather than trying to deny individual licenses based on an argument that um that there's too much density or too many uh outlets to sell alcohol in a specific location for a v variety of reasons because I think For one, you you get into some consistency problems if if that's the justification for uh denying one license um and you have other establishments that are um already located or proposed to be located and are approved which are in a similarly situated um situation. Um the the last thing I would say I guess on behalf of the the clerk's office and deputy clerk uh Verbick I think is also available to answer questions. I was not at the LRC meeting as I mentioned. Um I I my understanding is that there was a little discussion about the administration of this. I'm not sure if the administration of this is all worked out yet as far as uh I I see the the maps that public health presented which would be helpful but as far as um you know how how do we pin down do you know if there if a uh applicant falls in this uh restricted category somebody has to go out I presume a measure or we use GIS data or I'm not sure how much discussion there was about that administration to identify which addresses um would fall under this restriction. Um so just wanted to raise that and again as I said deputy clerk Verbick might have more to add on that. Thank you Hos. Alder Knox questions. Yeah my questions were for staff. I'm sorry my uh button was not um functioning at the time. Go ahead. Um I had a few questions. Um one had to do with um the staff you talked about alcohol-related accidents and I just wanted to know if you can define was alcoholrelated um any alcohol related to those accidents or were they alcohol that was above the legal limit? Can you provide some perspective on that, please? I think that's for public health. Yes. Yep. I will pass that to Julia. I believe it's any alcohol related. Yes, she's I think she's not. So, that would be any alcohol related. Correct. Any alcohol that was present. Okay. And my next question had to do with you talked a little bit about approaches of prevention awareness and I think uh policy system. Um so would you say that a better the best approach to addressing this problem of excessive drinking and alcoholism will be education, treatment and enforcement? I just want your perspective on that. Sure, I'll speak first. Yes. I think from a public health approach, um, education, treatment, enforcement, and also, you know, any policy systems and environmental changes that we can put into motion from a health department standpoint are always going to be supportive of excessive alcohol use. Um I think it's important for us to remember that yes um you know we can always provide those educational opportunities or treatment services um to individuals but if uh we really want to get to the root causes of the problem we have to start looking at the policies systems and especially environment uh which is related to the item today that impact um the ability for access and um a culture around alcohol use. Okay. Um, so are you aware of any studies that might suggest that prohibition of alcohol use could actually increase the alcohol use in that area? I am not familiar with any specific studies that have been done on prohibition of alcohol use um in the large population setting. I know that some studies have been done with microcosm populations that have seen um prohibition leading to more uh consequential outcomes of alcohol use just because you're stifling the ability to access it. Uh we see that with a lot of things, you know, uh within the health department. We talk about that a lot with substance use, for example, in the wider sense. So, um but I'm not familiar with a larger population study. No. Okay. I I was just curious about that and I don't know what you mean by microcosm but one example would be you know I've mentioned to uh before that my parents come from what used to be a dry county in Kentucky and clearly the alcoholism and alcohol use rates were very high compared to I grew up in Milwaukee which is another place that probably we used to has a um a bar on every corner and a church on every other corner, so to speak. So, I'm just curious if there are studies out there that would suggest when you try to restrict or prohibit alcohol that you might actually have the opposite effect. And maybe it's this is a this was a dry county. Now they call it a um a moist county, you know. Um they've allowed certain amount of alcohol, you know, sales and consumption in restaurants and I think one city in that county, but I'm just curious about has public health looked at some of that research out there. We have not. Um but that's something we could do and get back to you, Alder. Uh, thank you. I appreciate it. Of course. Thank you, Alder. Alder Oakitz, questions. Yeah, thank you, mayor. Um, I have uh one question for public health and then one for the attorney, and I'll start with public health. Um, do you have any data on total volume of alcohol sold in an area? And to back up what I what I mean by that is uh you could have a class B license that is 100% alcohol, 0% food, but has very low sales. You could have a cluster of restaurants that are 10% alcohol. Um, do we have any audit information uh from licenses when they when they apply to determine like the total volume of alcohol attributed to that license and can we graph that geographically? That might actually be a question for the clerk's office alder if you're asking what is presented in their license application. Okay, I'll follow up with the clerk. Well, let's we have um Deputy Clerk Verbbeck on the line. Jim, do do you have the answer to the elers's question? Yes, we do have that uh information documented in the licensing system. [Music] Okay. Um I'll follow up with you about getting that. Uh and then my other question is for attorney Hos. Um, and I think the answer is no. But does the city have any ability to tax alcohol um in any way? Uh, um, not any additional tax um, other than what the state imposes. Okay. Thank you. [Music] Thank you, Alder. Alder Madison, questions? Oh, yeah. Thank you, uh, mayor. for public health. I just I wanted to ask are there any current strategies to deal with some of the unintended consequences of the proliferation of alcohol available for example in spaces like the Darbo area for example? So like is public health employing any strategies to just deal with some of the negative impacts in certain areas of the city? Good question. I think we're working at this point to cultivate strategies. We pivoted um about 2 years ago now um to focus on some alcohol-related issues in the city and the county. Um and for the past 2 years we've spent a lot of the time just digging through the data and trying to understand both the density challenges as well as some of the unintended consequences. We have not started to map specific areas of concern just yet uh that's on our horizon. Um but you know, we're hoping to start identifying that so that we can start working with community- based organizations and just community in general to start cultivating those um those strategies to start to address this. But apart from what we see from alcohol-related crashes, which some work does happen through the traffic safety commission um that we are also a part of and looks at this work, uh we have not started to individually dive into that just yet. just just so cuz I'm all the not all the way caffeinated just to make sure I understand right now those strategies do not exist you all are wanting to work in that direction but is there a timeline cuz my brain is like processoriented so it's just like okay there isn't anything now but are you saying this time next year we'll be there or or what are you saying for timeline I would say timeline wise we're looking to start I would say diving into this work meeting with partners and creating the strategies next year. Um, so I can't guarantee that we'll have strategies necessarily by this time next year, but by some point next year, we're hoping to have some of those strategies out into the community and starting the work. And then just based on your brilliance and an expertise, how long does something like this take to go from ideiation to community organizing to assembling all the work the data and then you know I would imagine you're going to come up with some recommendations in a couple years or so hopefully sooner but then those recommendations also have to become policy right so just to go from ideiation to policy change implementing policy change if you had to just take a guess based on your brilliant and you know work with public health. How long does does a public health agency normally get that far? Yeah, I would say yes when given the time. Um I would say from a strictly policy perspective, usually from start to finish, you're looking at 5 to 10 years. Um that being said, um one of the things we're really intentional about is that there are policy systems, environmental, and I will also say cultural change that can be done on differing timelines, right? Policy in my expertise kind of sometimes takes the longest. Um but there are some systems and environmental changes that we tend to focus on that allow for some immediate strategies and action in the meantime. Um, so those are probably what we would focus on first uh while moving the policy track along just because it takes a little bit longer. Thank you. One last question because I know how brilliant you are. So uh the city, we all know that the city has um red line folks like we all you know most folks know that but when you think about like red lining and an abundance of alcohol in a very small geographic area. So, for example, not a lot of access to fresh food, uh, multiple payday loan stores, for example, a lot of fast food places, multiple alcohol licenses establishments, and those do those kinds of pockets of the city tend to match up with areas where folks of color have been sort of pushed into over decades. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I just want to be sure I wasn't losing my mind there. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Matthews, questions. Um, yeah, I had a question, one for public health and then one for other staff. Um, for public health, when you mentioned the reports of accidents involving alcohol, was that just the drivers or if it were like a pedestrian that was hit, if they were under the influence of alcohol, would that have been part of that report or would that be separate? That would have also been a part of that report. um doesn't matter if um it was on the driver's side or the um pedestrian in this example. Any alcohol related any alcohol that's found to be related to the incident is included. Okay, great. Um, and then my question for other staff is would this only apply to the first time that someone's applying for the alcohol license or is it also assessed at every renewal? I believe the intent well it's when a new application is is filed. That's when the assessment is done. Yes. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder mayor. Um, so based off that, attorney H. Um, so renewals would not be counted under this. Is that right? Correct. Um, what about transfers to new ownership of the same business? Um, I do not believe it's intended to apply. Is that correct? Yes. Oh, yes. The sponsor is confirming that is the intent. What about new businesses at existing locations? New lic. New licenses at a new it would apply to new licenses at new locations. Okay. And would it have any impact on um temporary permits that are issued for street use or parks? No. Parks? No. No. Okay. And then also could you um define entities serving unhoused individuals or is that definition in this that we just didn't find? I mean the only thing the ordinance states is an entity with the primary purpose of providing services to unhosted individuals. So that's all the language that we have to go on that's in the orders. But is that just is that supposed to mean shelters? Could it mean offices where people go to get services? It seems sort of vague. Well, that might be a question for the sponsor. Okay. I mean, I think as written, it's vague. Um, the council could I mean, if you choose to adopt this, you could choose to amend that language to be more specific, or you could leave it to staff to interpret. And my guess is they would figure it out, but they might heir on the side of more inclusive rather than not. I mean, it I mean, it's up to the council to decide what what you tell staff in the language of the ordinances. And then my last question here is uh regarding that the the council could still purposely and expressly wave that would that I mean you mentioned that during the ALRC they might not note that they still approve these. So would this actually have an effect or would we end up just approving everything? Well anyway um I certainly ALRC members could weigh in. I don't know if currently I don't know if this has been you know invoked for the existing restrictions and if it's been specifically called out but to me by inserting purposely and expressly waved by majority vote of the council. Um to me that shows an intent that the council needs to be aware that they're not only approving the license but they are providing an exception to this restriction. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Lancella. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so the ALRC's um are reviewing all of these licenses currently, right? So, the there is a system in place right now. Is there any data that shows how many being um denied or accepted and any association with the just trying to see is there where is the uh gap there? Is there any hole that we are trying to fill here that is is there a data related to it being accepted and then having more deaths in as soon as the licenses are allowed any data available for that? Uh uh we certainly would know how many applications are um are not approved or not recommended for approval. I'm not aware that we have any data that would tie it to locations um and whether or not whether we'd have any data about the number of applications that would fall under these uh situations. It's just trying to understand if this will solve means if there is a solution actually trying to stop that. It's some kind of gap in between right so without the data so just trying to understand things thanks thank you alder Alder Harrington McKenna questions mayor um there was in the presentation um a talk of um partnerships being formed to help the concentration or the dens density. My question is is that where are we or where is the health department in the formation of these community partnerships? And just to pivot from the alers, Alder Madison's question um in terms of the timeline, I want to make sure that I understand what's what's in place and the projected timeline to relate to the density that you're talking about. My that's my first question and I'll wait for that answer before I give you my second. So to clarify the question, Alder, you're asking for confirmation of the timeline again. Is that correct? Partnerships that you talked about that will work with within the the framework of diversity. What what what are these partnerships in place now? And again to designate your projected timeline for having these in place. Yes. So right now we don't have the partnerships in place. Um we've taken the last two years to examine the data and kind of better understand the landscape of alcohol alcohol policy density and its effects on the city and the county. Um and so our phase two as I would call it is kicking off early next year. And that's when we're going to start looking for partners to engage within this work, working with communities, especially those that we see who have some of the higher density and burden um within the data that we've been that we've been able to collect for the past 2 years to start working on those strategies together. So right now the timeline uh that we're looking at I would say would be more like quarter two of next year to kick off that work. My second question is um related to your answer. Um will that involve or has that involved when we look at equity and density and we put we couple those things together what is the um the determination of how equity will be affected in these designated areas? So, I'm asking, will that be a part of the decision-making process? Would you speak to that in terms of how that can negatively impact uh small businesses equity? And so, I'm kind of um that's a general question, but I'm sure that you can capture it and uh give me a response. Sure. So, I I can speak to it based on the work that we are currently doing in the health department. Um, you know, equity is at the center of everything that we that we do. Um, and so we work really hard and the team works incredibly hard to ensure that we are balancing both equity perspectives with this issue, which are both supporting individuals in their right to choose what is right for them while also understanding from a public health perspective that the policy systems and environments that we support and build have direct correlational impacts to people's ability to be healthy and to make health like the easy choice. Um, and so both of those things can be true, but it takes a lot of work to make them true. Um, and so that's what our team really does do in addition to understanding, as Alder Madison mentioned earlier, the historical context of redlinining and some other societal impacts that have um, to be frank, been designed um, to impact and create desperate uh, conditions in specific communities. right here in Madison, specifically the black community. And so when we are looking to engage in this work, um this is why, you know, this is a little preemptive, but we are really trying to be intentional in our approach and understanding um not trying to penalize individuals, but really trying to create supportive public health systems, environments, and again coupling policy with that. um to allow for people to have the choice um and ideally have the environments that would support them in being healthy with their choices. Final question. Thank you very much. It was uh for your answer. And so in that discussion and what's before us tonight are as policy makers, are we ready to number one um look at health perspectives, density health perspectives perspectives and the impact on minority businesses related to that. So that's a that's a lot of things that we're talking about, but are we at this point to make those policy decisions with not having a a clearer um grasp of how it's impacting or improving the health in those areas, but also how it will impact the potential businesses that might grow out of those areas. And I'll be complete after you answer this, Alder. I think um I I want to confirm one thing from public health and then I'm going to suggest that we ask somebody from the office of business resources to answer your question about small businesses, but just for public health if you could confirm that the work that you're doing is independent of this ordinance amendment and will continue regardless of whether or not it passes tonight. Yes, that would be correct, mayor. Thank you. And then we have Siron Oak from the Office of Business Resources here as well. Um, and Siron, I wonder if you're able to speak to the alers's question on impacts on small and minority owned businesses. [Music] There you are. Here we go. Hi. Thank you. Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, Alder, I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question? I just want to make sure I understand it correctly so I could answer. Madame Mayor did a wonderful job in in framing that and so I'm going to ask Madame Mayor to frame that for me. Did I get away from it? Yeah, Alder, I'd be happy to. I I think the alder there is is um asking about the balance between um the public health impacts of restricting the density of alcohol licenses which public health has spoken to already um and then trying to balance that against any potential impacts positive or negative on small businesses and particularly businesses owned by people of color in Madison. Yeah, it's um that's an excellent question, Alder. Um a lot of I think there's still a lot of um data that would need to be collected on the impact of small businesses still um especially businesses of color um you know historically marginalized um entrepreneurs. Um so I would say that we would probably still need to um gather more data. Um but historically we know that when policies are in place um the unintended consequence could negatively impact those who have been historically marginalized because they haven't had the history or maybe experience to navigate government systems. Um so that that's something that we need to to look at before we implement um certain policies that could impact small businesses. Um and I think Alder Madison mentioned the history of redlinining. um these unintended consequences could really impact these smaller businesses that you know maybe um don't understand the system. Maybe English is their second language for example. Uh even the current alcohol um process just the licensings right now we've had to assist a lot of folks whose English is their second language trying to understand um how to navigate that system. Um so I think there's a lot of data that we still need to to look into. So, so I'm sorry if I don't quite fully answer your question, but hopefully that gives you a little insight. Thank you, Son, and thank you, Alder. I have no other alders in the queue for questions. So, oh, Alder Pritchette, questions. Yes, I want to go back to Can you pull your mic down a little bit so people can hear you better? There you go. Thank you. I want to go back to something that was stated early on in the presentation. You just speak into the mic. I need to lean back. Can you hear me now? Okay. uh early on in your presentation you mentioned uh underage drinking you know as being problematic and you also mentioned that education was something that was kind of missing. So questions that I have then are related primarily to whether or not you have actually um looked at or addressed education and then uh if you did uh what were some of the outcomes with respect to a decrease in the amount of alcohol consumption amongst the youngsters. Now I say that primarily because uh when I was young and stupid. Uh I was an entrepreneur. I I went to school in a dry county. I made booze. I sold booze. Okay. And it was very very lucrative for me. Now I said all of that. trust that the statute of limitations is expired. But I'm just being honest. I said all of that to say this as well. Uh currently I hold a license to sell alcohol uh at the University of Wisconsin Madison at the fieldhouse as well as at the Cole Center. And I also sell alcohol at uh Brockfest and you'll see me in September at um uh Taste of Madison at the wine place. Now, as I said, I have a license to sell and having that license, there are things there responsibilities that I as a license holder uh hold dear and dear to me. But I also believe too in the value of education. Uh as they say, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance. So I do believe that if we do take some time to begin to look at how do we go about educating especially educating our youth uh regarding um the horrors of alcohol uh alcohol consumption. You mentioned bench drinking, how many drinks per week, how many drinks over the course of a period of a few hours, those kinds of things. NPR did a lovely program just last week regarding uh alcohol. So what I'm asking is this, have you given education a chance? Have you looked at some of the areas uh and someone mentioned uh Darbo uh how do you go about educating and then empowering our youth letting them know you know this is what happens you know when alcohol is consumed over long or extended periods of time very important I can say I know what happens because I've seen it uh what happens to people in terms of you know blood coming out all over the place okay in terms of looking at one's liver looking at the color change in terms of the jaundice etc etc I've seen it I witness it on a daily basis so educating people then becomes very very important and when we neglect to educate but then we decide we're going to legislate that creates some problems so I'm saying let's begin to think about how do we best go about educating people alder could we get the question answered Yes. Thank you, Ariel. Yes. Thanks, Mayor. Um, so as I mentioned before, right, we are just starting to embark on what this work will look like in the department. Um, education and within a prevention context is absolutely at the forefront of our minds. Um, I will say as somebody who is not um native to Wisconsin, um when I moved here, the drinking culture was a little bit of a shock for me coming from Pennsylvania. And so recognizing how cultural it is um to Wisconsin in general and also to Madison and Dane County is an important acknowledgement that our team is making. Um but also having education and knowledge about what is one drink, what does it look like to over consume, what are the consequences of um consistent overconumption are really important. And so that's all things that our team is taking into consideration. So absolutely education will be at the forefront. you know, it's not something we specifically have started yet, but there are organizations that have some historical precedents um where they've talked about alcohol. Um, Safe Communities is one of our partners that has done a lot with the traffic safety commission and addressing alcohol and uh alcohol-related crashes for example. Um, and we've, you know, been a part of that work in the past, but we haven't had a fully robust, I would say, educational structure in place, but we are planning to. Um, that being said, I do also just want to mention, right, that education is just kind of one component of our strategy. We're looking to deploy a comprehensive strategy that addresses all the things I've talked about so far um and that Julia talked about in her presentation um around the education, the policy, the systems, the environment, uh the treatment opportunities um and how we also try to make some cultural shifts for safety. Um, so all of that will be included in the work that we move forward. You know, one other thing too, you know, in some neighborhoods, and I'm familiar with some where the local barer is a safe place. It it has to be a question for staff. We'll get to discussion in a minute. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Matthews, additional questions. Yeah. Um, I wanted to clarify um which parts like which of these classifications are already under state law that like we're only adding a few to that, right? Um, and it's the treatment facilities, I think, and then the um unhoused services and proximity and then the proximity that's only three. Um, and then with that for the treatment facilities, can you clarify what would be considered a treatment facility? Because I did look in the chapter and it I I'm still not sure like would it be just hospitals that have impatient treatment? Would it be every doctor's office where you could be having like checkups on, you know, your ongoing issues? Um, hold on. Uh, I'll have to just check some language in the statutes quickly. Other is this your question for the attorney? It is. Okay. We'll wait then. Um, there are um, let me just look quickly here. See if there's another definition. Okay. So there are two definitions um in chapter 51 of treatment facility or pertaining to treatment facilities. Uh one definition says treatment facility is any publicly or privately operating facility uh providing treatment of alcoholic, drug dependent, mentally ill or developmentally disabled persons including but not limited to inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, community support programs and rehabilitation programs. Um there is a definition of approved treatment facilities that just incorporates that uh those facilities that are approved by by the state for those services. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Attorney Hos, you mentioned something about how that ALRC refusing a permit in some kind of arbitrary manner is potentially more problematic in terms of the law visi. Could you explain what you mean by that? Because one of the arguments against this ordinance change is that we already have the ALRC and they could shoot something down at will essentially decide that there's there are too many establishments on this block or whatever. What is the problem with the current system and how might this add a level of protection and from a legal standpoint? Sure. Thanks for the question. You know, we've discussed previously with previous councils that if if the council wants to uh deny uh an application or license for alcohol establishment, it needs to be based on public health safety, public health safety and welfare. Um and we need to specify, you know, what reasons are related to that. Now it is possible I I suppose to deny based on some um rationale that there are already uh you know a number of alcohol establishments or licenses in the area. I think the complication with that is if you use if the council uses that rationale in one instance but does not use it across the board then that tends to look more arbitrary to a court that might review the decision. Um and so if the council is inclined to, you know, to go with that kind of approach and expand the these restrictions um related to density, I think the council is on safer legal ground to have it in a in an ordinance that applies generally to all applicants and it's not sort of on an ad hoc basis with the ALRC pointing out density in one situation. and not in another. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Madison, additional questions? Yes, this time for attorney Hos. Um, just piggybacking on Alder um the former, you know, previous Alder's question. Um, the conversation around Oops, I'm tired y'all. But anyways, my for real question. Here we go. thinking about your answer to this question about what the ALRC can do around you know using public health for example in our last term when we were talking about this and uh you know listened to and sat through a couple ALRC meetings it didn't appear that those conversations were happening and the conversations were sort of now or new to start happening during our last term not to say that they never did it but at minimum what I took away from the conversation at one of those meetings was that these were not conversations that were really happening So, I'm just now curious, has there has anyone collected the number of LRC or alcohol licenses denied for like a public health reason or is there a summary of discussions about public? For example, when we talked about a certain part of the city last term that there was no history, no discussion about the ALRC taking into consideration like the public health of that immediate area surrounding this new license. So, I didn't believe that it had been happening. So, I'm just curious, is there like a list of convers a list of um licenses denied because they took into consideration, you know, what's already in the, you know, immediate area. Yeah. Um I can speak to part of maybe not specifics about what ALRC does. I I know that in the past we have had situations in front of council before the council where we did raise a concern about um justifying the reasons for denial. I can remember recall at least one instance I think where uh a matter was reconsidered to make sure that the reasons on the record you know did justify uh rejection. Um, as far as, you know, documented data about the number or the ALRC conversation, um, I would have to rely on either one of the members of the ALRC or possibly Deputy Clerk Verbick. Perhaps Deputy Clerk Burbick, if you could just speak to how common or uncommon it is to deny a license application, that might give some context here. Yeah, I would say we yeah, I would say we probably average about one denial a year and I would say the vast majority denials are for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, whether that's density or otherwise. Uh it's sometimes not really stated in motions, but it's part of the discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Knox, additional questions. Yeah, for attorney hos, go ahead. Um, I'm trying to frame this question. Um, attorney hos, would you say that for I don't know, probably years, the alcohol review commission has been making these alcohol license decision. Um um not necessarily um looking at the this state law that was brought up at our last meeting. That's one of these what old prohibition 1947 policies. Would you say that we've been on solid grounds and probably every other municipality for that matter making these alcohol license decisions uh rel uh irrespective of this this law? I'm not sure I completely follow your question. I I don't I don't know that there's been any issue or problem with the ALRC. Yeah. Yeah. And that's sort of my point. It hasn't been an issue until it was brought up at our last meeting that what the state laws uh requirements were and then adding additional um city prohibitions based on this last version of of this policy. So I'm I guess my question is generally we haven't had a problem that you're aware of of going to file of state law and making decisions from by the alcohol licens and review committee. Would you say that? Yeah. Yeah. Yes, I would agree with that. And I think that um you know the the new proposed language about expressly waving the restriction I mean to me that's a heightened requirement. um the existing language, you know, um maybe doesn't require such an express waiver by the council as it would with the proposed language. So, I would agree that there has not been an issue as far as the, you know, appropriateness or legality of the ALRC's recommendations. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder mayor, additional questions? Uh is a question for the sponsor appropriate now? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. But it will be soon because I have no other alders in the queue with questions for staff. So then um President Vidver, a motion on item 18, please move to adopt. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded to adopt. Now, it is appropriate to discuss and or ask questions of each other if they choose to respond. But, uh, President Vider, would you like to speak to the motion, please? I would love to. Thank you. Um, so hopefully everybody had the chance to read my blog post from yesterday. I know it was rather long um but it really did try to lay out um both the conception behind the proposed ordinance um and really the seriousness of this topic. Um you know alcohol is a drug and as policymakers we do treat it as one. We require licenses to sell it and we restrict the age of use. And yet Wisconsin leads the nation in binge drinking and Madison is the number four on the drunkest cities in the nation. It's not exactly a high ranking I want for Madison. Um and if you remember the place of last drink data that was presented by uh public health the average blood alcohol level was8 when legal driving limit is 08. that was the average that meant people were higher than that. So this this really is a serious issue and that's why the goal of myself and my um colleagues who are sponsors on this wanted to bring it forward um as an just as an example of how different Madison is in regards to alcohol. Um uh Director Smith talked about that in her own um experience. I just want to share the note that I received after I posted my blog. I am an ER physician who recently moved from New England and anecdotally I can say the number of alcoholrelated emergencies is disturbingly higher here relative to where I was practicing in Vermont. So with the sheer presence of alcohol availability and Wisconsin culture towards it, that means our responsibility to policy setting is even greater for this issue. I do not discount the very hard work of the ALRC. They absolutely do great work. Um but I do think we have to recognize their limitations. It's a non-expert panel of individuals making decisions often with incomplete information. Whether we're talking about um MPD information, um you know, they do background checks on people. Those aren't perfect. Um, they also have information about general calls for service to the area, but again, that's going to be dependent on who is making the calls, so it's necessarily going to be subjective. Um, neighborhood associations don't exist throughout the entire city. That's why we went to area level plans because we had an inequity in neighborhood associations being able to put forward plans. So that means there's not always a neighborhood association available to comment on a license. Similarly, not every alder is going to be interested in this. Some of them are going to be active and concerned about the issue and some may be less so. And so we're always going to have that subjectivity. Um and and the alders do make recommendations to ALRC which um they tell me they take quite seriously. So that creates an inherent inequity in how licenses are considered. Um, the clerk did say that they currently don't have the capacity to be able to show the 300 foot license or 300 ft of the existing ordinance. Planning has that capacity because they created the map. So, um, I think it's feasible that we can get that capacity in the clerk's office. Um, but right now the information that the clerk's office is providing to the ALRC is is I would consider it incomplete. And I do think that's something we can change and we can do that without ordinance. But it's something to recognize that that is the context under which ALRC is currently making recommendations um and resulting it's resulting forwarding its recommendations to council. So, um, we talked a lot about businesses. Um, and I do want to, um, there was a resjalice of the original version of this, um, ordinance, which is very, very different looking now than it was originally. Um, but I think it still holds because it does say the ordinance does not limit the issuance of an alcohol license in specific neighborhoods or areas. It limits the issuance near sensitive locations. So, uh, and in this case now other, um, licenses. These types of businesses can be located anywhere in the city. So, if they're not located in low-income communities or those that have more communities of color, it's difficult to see how there would be a disproportionate impact on those groups unless those groups are also challenged with other issues um, in terms of uh, outlet density etc. This is a truly subtle change. Um, and I see my colleague has introduced a change that would make it even more subtle. Um, but one thing that we haven't talked about is just the distance of 300 ft. It's a football field. I timed it. It takes a minute and a half to walk. So, we're really not talking about much. Um, but it is something and it's something to be able to indicate to the community that we do take this issue seriously and that we really want to make sure that we have a healthy community, not just in our businesses, but also in our population and how they access what is a drug. Um, and it also, as attorney Hos mentioned, provides that expressly um, and purposefully clause. And that really came up from some of our discussions recently where, you know, we had a court finding against the council that we had not expressly and purposefully identified information in our deliberations. And so this again sets that standard just to make sure we really know what we're talking about when we're doing this work. Now, um, numerous studies have been done to show that when alcohol is more readily accessible, we have more binge drinking, drinking, impaired driving, violence, underage consumption, etc. Um, and so controlling that density is a way to reduce harm. As an analogy, when people live in food swamps, those are areas with a high density of fast food, ice cream, etc., we don't blame the people who live there for higher than average rates of diabetes and hypertension. Instead, we work to change zoning and bring in healthy retail to provide alternative options in their environment. That's an evidence-based public health approach to reducing cardiovascular disease risk, and it should be the same for alcohol. So, I'm going to conclude with a story because I know stories matter more than anything to people and what they think about. We had a family living a few doors down from us, a mom, a dad, and their son. The mom was a professor at the UW. The family seemed happy. The son was often playing outside with other neighbor kids. At some point, we realized the dad and son had moved out. Seeing the dad elsewhere in the community, we asked what was happening. He re relayed that the mom had recently lost her father and had turned to alcohol for soloulless. He had left her and gained custody of their son. Not long after that, I saw the mom walking down the sidewalk weaving in the middle of the day. Was she coming back from the bar that's four blocks away? Or did she just pick up additional alcohol at the liquor store three blocks away or the gas station that's two blocks in the other direction? Would she have embied that much if we didn't have such easy access to alcohol within just a few blocks? I don't know. After losing her job, she did ultimately get treatment and stayed sober. But she had done so much damage to her liver, she died. She was only 53. Those are the stories I don't want to have happen anymore. And that's what this is behind this. We really want to make sure that we are creating conditions that allow people to choose healthy actions, healthy approaches to their lives. This isn't going to fix everything for sure. It is a small step. If you don't want Madison to be the fourth drunkest city in the in America, I hope that you'll vote with me in taking this small change. Thank you, Alder. Alder Evers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'd like to offer an amendment. I've sent the amendment to everyone uh to the clerk and to the mayor. The amendment strikes the language about um providing services to unhouse individuals or treatment facility uh in the areas uh in the ordinance change that those are mentioned and I I used the striketh through function and sent it to everyone so you could see it and um if I can get a second on it I can speak to it. There's a motion. Is there a second? There's a second. Yes. Thank you. Well, first of all, I want to compliment President Vidver for her efforts in this regard. Critics out there who say that this is a solution in search of a problem certainly, I think, would want to retract their words after hearing the presentation from public health. We have a problem in Wisconsin. We have a problem in our city. Um that's that's clearly evident and this and the social costs of our heavy alcohol use and the pro the prevalence of so many outlets where one can purchase alcohol either for on-site consumption or for later on off premises consumption is dramatic. These consequences add up. Um similarly uh I would also suggest that we're not talking about prohibition. We're talking about what the attorney said is actually a more effective and legal way to regulate, which would be uh from a standpoint of measured density, a geographic um measurement that would apply to the whole city. But then why am I making my amendment? Uh I do think there's some vagueness and confusion about the terms of an uh entity with the primary purpose of providing services to unhoused individuals and also a treatment facility. And I also am against it because I think in some ways it's unnecessarily paternalistic. I myself have been in recovery for a rather long time. I got sober at 511 North Carol Street within close proximity to State Street. I can tell you now that if you're determined to get clean and you're working on it, it doesn't matter if there's a bar down the street because you can always if there weren't a bar down the street, there's a grocery store down the street or you or friends can supply it. That is not the issue. So a treatment facility or a facility that serves unhoused individuals, that's not the issue. The issue is really density. The re the issue is really enough is enough. The issue is having a legal mechanism that's more enforcable that protects us. Has nothing to do with prohibition. By the way, one order has suggested that we're talking about prohibition. We're not. We're talking about consequences that fall disproportionately upon lowincome areas of our city as well. We know that there's higher incidence of substance use disorder and tobacco use disorder in lower income neighborhoods. So the resi analysis of this should be clear. We want to minimize impact across the city wherever it falls. But I'd ask that you would consider striking these two clauses. but leaving in that the one about another class A or class B license because that and that alone really is the key addition that I think we need to embrace and support here. I um have nothing else to say but if if there are some questions I uh among my colleagues I'm glad to address them. Thank you. Thank you Alder. The matter before us then is the Evers amendment. Alder Madison, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Thank you, Alder. Alder Knox, do you wish to speak to the amendment? No. Um, so seeing no discussion on the amendment, it's been moved and seconded, is there objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor? Yes. We'll have a roll call then. on the amendment only which is to strike language related to uh unh uh facilities that serve unhoused people and treatment facilities. All those in favor I those opposed no as your name is called and the clerk will please call the role. Alder Len Kella I. Alder Lella I. Alder Knox I. Alder Knox I. Alder Madison I. Alder Madison I. Alder Martinez Rutherford. I. Alder Martinez Rutherford. I Alder Matthews. I. Alder Matthews. I aler mayor. No. Alder Mayor. No. Alder O'Brien. I. Alder O'Brien. I. Alder Ohich. No. Alder Ohich. No. Alder Pritchette. No. Alder Pritchette. No. Alder Tishler. No. Alder Tishler. No. Alder Vier. Hi. Alder Vier. I Alder Vidiver. Hi. Alder Vidiver. I Alder Duncan. No. Alder Duncan. No. Alder Evers. Hi. Alder Evers. I Alder Field. No. Alder Field. No. Alder Figuro Cole. Alder Figurero Cole. No. Alder Glenn. I. Alder Glenn. I. Alder Gender. Alder Gender. No. Alder Yugare. No. Alder Yugare. No. Alder Harrington McKini. No. Alder Harrington McKenna. No. We have 10 eyes and 10 nos. With 10 eyes and 10 nos, the amendment fails. We're back to the main question. Uh, Alder Madison. Thank you, Mayor. So, um, I just want to share a couple things that I wrote down to keep me on track. So, as policy makers, we must not solely just look at business development when considering alcohol licensing. We got a couple emails from the uh Chamber of Commerce. I have not yet gotten an email to my questions around policies to deal with some of the unintended consequences of our policy decisions. So, I will absolutely come back and add that later through email. But while we absolutely want to support small businesses, especially those owned by folks of color, um we must literally consider the long-term systemic impact of our decisions on the neighborhoods surrounding some of these establishments. In Madison, we see clear examples of uneven development and the ongoing effects of historical red lining. Right? We don't need to pretend here. We know that certain neighborhoods across the city, often lower income, and mostly black and brown residents are oversaturated with fast food restaurants, liquor stores, payday lenders, and even plenty of access to illegal drugs. These same communities often lack access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food, community gathering spaces that are well resourced, and open evenings and weekends. Uh some of us are talking about that even in our this year's budget planning. They lack adequate investment in staffing and mental health supports. They lack uh meaningful responses sometimes from elected officials such as ourselves. They lack systems designed to serve the immediate area. And we just heard that public health does not yet have a strategy. So meanwhile, wealthier neighborhoods that some of us, not me, represent benefit from greater investments in green space and consistent access to wellunded community service. And again, let's be honest here. We all know that some of the stores that exist in some areas will never be allowed to exist in other areas. So employees working in some of these highdensity alcohol areas in our city, they're increasingly being asked to function as de facto security guards, such as at some of our local public libraries. They have to be crisis responders and deal with everything from intoxication to overdoses task far beyond the scope of their jobs. At the same time, the residents in the immediate areas in some parts of our city are left to navigate the fallout. There's increased policing needs, their safety concerns, and their social and economic stability. So, from a public health perspective, this pattern is not coincidental. Public health confirmed earlier tonight that historical red lining in Madison strongly aligns with today's patterns of neighborhood vulnerability, including areas with concentrated alcohol licensing. Even more troubling, there is no again public health strategy right now to deal with it. And when a strategy does exist, it can take 5 to 10 years just to develop policy recommendations and even longer to implement those recommendations. So we have to ask ourselves as policy makers, are we repeating or deepening the impacts of redlinining through our policy decisions? Are we oversaturating some neighborhoods with alcohol access while restricting it in others? How do we proactively support small business growth and community health and safety and well-being? And ask ourselves what will be the negative impacts of our decisions, not just those made by previous alders. So, we have to be a bit more holistic and equity informed in our thinking about alcohol licensing going forward. One that acknowledges and deals with the harm of prior policies and proactively invest in res reversing it. So, we have to uh not really like sit back and we have to be a bit more urgent in resolving some of these things. And I think that certain parts of our city need to be restored from the negative impacts of previous policy makers and some of us who have been here prior to this current term. So, we get to benefit from our positive policies that really improve pe people's lives, but we also need to think about how sometimes we make policy decisions that burden some people's lives. So, just be mindful of that. However you vote, I'm not gonna take it personal. I just want you to know that we make decisions that impact folks. And there are folks, especially just using my district as the example, there are folks in my district who have been impacted negatively for decades based on policy decisions made by this council, previous councils, but you know, in Madison and the county. So, just be mindful of that. That's all, mayor. Sorry. Thank you, Alder Alder Knox. Thank you. Um, I guess I want to uh emphasize that I believe this proposal will have a negative impact on small family and immigrant businesses. Having been on alcohol review previously and more recently, um I've noticed that there's been quite a bit of businesses that have received alcohol licensing from our um diverse immigrant community. So something like this will have a potential negative impact on on those family, mostly family businesses. I also believe that this policy will have um little effective impact on the issue of excessive drinking and alcoholism. While the number of alcohol establishments at large does have a correlation with alcohol use, it's not the cause of alcoholism. You know, everybody has to individually kind of address that issue in terms of do they drink responsibly? Does it become an addiction that they have to deal with? And I don't think that this uh legislation will will solve that problem. um this proposal or or the similar ones even before it um have been rejected on two occasions by the alcohol license review committee overwhelmingly rejected I should say and recently placed on file without prejudice. Um originally it stated that the proposal was designed to eliminate or reduce new liquor liquor stores. Then it kind of morphed from there and um the alcohol review committee which I served on previously not this last time that it was um rejected realize that there are multiple outlets that sell alcohol from big box stores to grocery stores and other establishment. Um, flipping what Alder Tag said, I would say that if people want to get a drink, they'll be able to find ways to do that, too. So, we know that that is the case. And I think this latest version is even more comprehensively restrictive than the original version that seems to target poor and minority neighborhoods um than the previous proposal. And while alcohol use uh is a problem in all communities, also poor and minority communities, and it does exist. There's no secret that residents in these communities are are the victims of the highest level of health disparities of any community um across the board and for a variety of reasons um which some people have shared has to do with assets and a whole lot of other reasons. I remind the council that the mission of the alcohol license review committee, which ruled on this two times, includes to serve the city's residents and businesses. And its purpose is to promote responsible alcohol selling and improve the service delivery of that. And I really think that the alcohol review committee is one of those committees that really does its due diligence in trying to meet that mission and and that purpose. Um and when we make those decisions, um they they do consider the neighborhood and how much that um person that's requesting that license will impact that neighborhood. We also get input from the alders regarding that after they meet with their community and also we get feedback from the police department. So I really do believe unlike some people believe that they are diligently making tough decisions relative to that neighborhood. Are they um medical scientists or experts? No. But I don't think they they are required to do that to be that. Um there are again there are higher levels of disparities for the poor and persons of color for many reasons. Post-traumatic stress, access to treatment, and historic poverty, just to name a few things. I believe a better approach to this problem is additional education, treatment, and enforcement. there's no need to add more bureaucratic policies where it's not needed. And and since um people like to have stories, I don't I don't normally have stories. Um um I'm from Milwaukee. I I have a lot of stories, but I'll tell you this. A lot of the taverns, bars, and liquor stores that I experienced in the neighborhoods I grew up with sponsored sporting uh uh teams, cilians. They supported people raising money to go to college. and if there were any kind of um need for individuals in our neighborhood, they supported and sponsored those things, too. Um I I I have a friend whose family owned a liquor store and because of that, he was able to graduate from Marquette University and be and get a business degree. So don't assume that um these establishments are only trying to make money from their customers. They support the community in my experience in many ways. And and I loved um Audifer's analogy. She kept repeating which is true that alcohol is a drug. Well, I I I kind of it kind of hit me because I'm I'm a diabetic, so I don't drink alcohol. But here's an analogy. While sugar is not officially classified as a drug, it has drug like characteristics similar to alcohol, nicotine, and other illegal drugs. So, what's our next step? Um, we probably have a lot of obesity in this town. Are we going to start regulating sugar? Because some people over consume that versus people who are just being responsible drinkers. Um I think we need to think about this overreach and that's what I consider this to be. Um, and I really just want to end by just saying that I think I encourage my colleagues to vote no. I think the alcohol review um, licensing review committee is doing their due diligence and doing what they're supposed to be doing in managing the number of liquor licenses in communities. and I think they can do that job adequately well. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder mayor. Uh thank you, Madame Mayor. A question for the sponsors if they wish to answer. Why 300 ft? Why not 30? Why not 3,000? What's the significance significance of 300? Thank you, Alder. Is there objection to allowing the sponsor to jump the queue? Seeing no objection, Alder Viver, uh 300 feet is in the existing ordinance. So, um that comes directly from state law. So, state law, uh requires a 300 foot distance from schools, houses of worship, uh and hospitals and the city ordinance added libraries. So, that is already on the books for the city. Um so, just maintaining that 300t distance um with adding the other uh sensitive sites and the other licenses. Yeah. But why why 300? I mean I would want to defend that number. Is is there is there she answered your question. If if you wish to speak to it, you can get back in the queue. Okay. Thank you. Alderfield. Thank you, mayor. I wanted to explain that my involvement in this proposal comes from the fact that I'm concerned about alcohol license density near some sensitive sites that this motion proposes to add um to the existing geographic limits that we found in state law and then have added as a city. Um, I have many such sites in and around my district on the east side, some of which are near license holding properties and some of which are not currently. And I once found myself in the position of opposing an application to remove an important standard license condition at an address where MPD had raised concerns about elevated calls for service related to disturbances. At the time, two ALRC members voiced that they were struggling with the lack of written standards or procedure that they could use to judge my request to deny based on those concerns. I'm very sympathetic to the difficulty of that. So, I'm interested in filling that gap using objective written standards and a coherent policy that is more transparent to prospective license applicants than the current subjective opinion of the local alder if and when they decide to weigh in. And I'll just note that we have heard a version of this concern from a legal perspective described by Attorney Hos earlier. So, that's why I'm going to vote in favor of this proposal. For those on my colleagues who don't like the current form of the proposal, I'm also interested to know if there's another model of preventing alcohol license density or concentration by sensitive sites that you might prefer or be able to support instead. One possibility could be a new alcohol overlay district modeled on one that we already use downtown, for example. Limiting new licenses in an area such as a section of East Washington Avenue where there are many such licenses already and sensitive sites nearby. This is an area that my colleagues who were on the council last summer will remember as being the scene of another controversial license request that had neighboring residents, neighboring businesses, and even the employees of Hawthorne Library across the street turning out to a council meeting to ask this body to deny that license because of the alcohol-related behaviors and unsafe conditions that they had been dealing with there around the 2700 block. With all of this in mind, I hope you would consider either this proposal or if not uh that you'd consider being involved in an alternative way to approach this issue via policy. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Gender Rajin. Thank you, Madame Mayor. I wasn't initially going to speak on this um but over my time on council, I think what I've realized, especially with my district, is if people want alcohol, they tend to find a way to find alcohol. Um, and maybe that's just more specific with where I live, but in my district specifically, those alternatives to finding alcohol tend to be much less safer than the bars. Uh, bartenders in the downtown area, they tend to be trained on identifying fake IDs. They know the signs of when someone might be in an unsafe situation, and they definitely usually have training on how to handle a situation if someone is being sexually assaulted or harassed. And if they don't have any of those, at the very least they tend to have cameras, which bars tend to have. The alternative in my district tends to be not bars, which are frat houses or house parties, which tend to put people in much um more unsafe situations. I understand that in the city we do have an alcohol problem. I personally do agree with that, but I'm worried that if we try to limit bars, which I consider to be safer than several of the other alternatives in my district, then this ordinance feels like the wrong decision to me. I think we do need to I agree with Alder Pritchette. We do need to focus on more education. Um, and if we want to address the alcohol problem in this city, then we have to explore more creative ideas. I appreciate, for example, the Madison Police Department for working with me last summer to create an amnesty policy that even if someone who is underage is drunk and intoxicated, they can initiate a call for help or a friend of theirs can initiate a call for help. And as long as they cooperate with the police, they will get medical attention before anything else. That way, they're not walking away with the citation on their permanent record. they're walking away with some flyers on how to get help. Um, a referral to the university on rehabilitation programs and they get got the medical help that they need. I think that is how we address our alcohol problem. I don't think by limiting safer areas. I think that just poses more of a problem for me. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Yugare. Thank you, Mayor. Um, let me first confess that as someone from a family uh riddled with alcohol abuse disorder, as someone whose first job uh paying job was as an EMT for a rural ambulance service, uh sometimes literally scraping uh humanity off the pavement after an alcoholrelated accident that I know uh that this is a public health problem that's uh more daunting than I know how to address. So let me get on more comfortable ground and look at this as a business issue. We want to support small businesses, small family businesses in this town. And one of the things that we can do to promote small business is to provide more certainty in the process to gaining all of the approvals that are necessary to launch that business, including regulatory approval. What I see in this ordinance is the creation of greater certainty. right now. Uh if you put a file a license, you're eventually going to get before the ALRC, which does a great job. Uh but there's a great unknown on this density issue. It's it's a little bit like, oh, I'm probably going to hit something here that not everybody knows, but there's a famous famous thought experiment in quantum mechanics. Um that box that Dr. Schroiger put his cat in and nobody knows if it's going to live or die or if it has died until you open the box. It's more complicated than that, but that's what it is. And that's what we've got right now. uh with this lack of certainty and objectivity with regard to consideration of density, an applicant doesn't know if that application is alive or dead until we open the box at the ALRC. I think we'll actually help small business in this town by creating this greater certainty. I'm going to vote for this measure. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Elder Glenn, did I just shut it off? Oh, no. Okay. Hi. Um, so, um, I spoke on this at ALRC and I, uh, wasn't going to speak tonight because it's all on record and people can look at what I feel. But as I'm listening to people, I feel like there's pieces that have been left out around self-determination. people's choice to choose. As someone who has 23 years, I'm an alcoholic. I've been sober for 23 years. I didn't get sober when I went to treatment and someone put me in treatment. I didn't get sober when I got a drunk driving. I got sober on a morning when I woke up and I didn't want to do it anymore. And that was my pure self-determination. It wasn't when I was in trouble with the carceral system. As someone who's worked incarcereral systems, running AODA and mental health support groups, and also works for public health, I will not be voting for this. I watched men make it out of fruit when they wanted alcohol inside of a carceral system. I watched people make it with anything that they could when they wanted it. This for me is about restriction and it is a form of prohibition for choice and it's also a prohibition for a law we already have. We have a law maybe the ALRC needs to do better with enacting the state law. The other parts that were just voted down that I also don't agree with. As someone who's worked with those who have struggled with housing, I do not agree with having that language. The idea that because I don't have housing, I can't make a choice on what I do not sit right with me when it was in there before. And it definitely doesn't sit right with me now. as we all know class B license this also doesn't address so a class B license can also you can purchase alcohol you can so if it's not the liquor store with a class A you can go and purchase wine and beer from a bar when you want to so that's another reason I would my biggest reason I just want to say is that there are 510 class B's and only 134 class A's. I don't think class A is the problem. So self-determination is why I why I will be voting no. Thanks. Thank you, Alder Alder Harrington McKenna. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um um this week I attended a um a candlelight vigil for gun violence and it was called enough is enough. And we still have no central overall control of of gun violence and injury and all of those things that are associated with that. I also attended a school board meeting where black and brown children had to walk the school along a very dangerous street and had to cross that street but still they have to walk to school. Um, I grew up in a family and this is really touching me. Um, that was an alcoholic family and to grow up in that environment at my age when I think about it, it still triggers me. There is a problem with drinking. I I but I don't believe that this um recommendation this change will make a significant difference. Policy should be implemented when there is a clear need to guide decisions, achieve desired outcomes or address a specific issue or risk. And although public health has cited great reasons for alcohol outlet density, there are no community partners that are currently in place. There is no timeline that is currently applicable about when these timelines, these partnerships would be in place. And I just feel that this is premature. And for us as policy makers, I don't think that it is wellbased. We acknowledge that we do have a problem, but I don't think that this what is before us really will move us to change what we're facing in terms of alcohol and the assump the consumption of alcohol. I think that um the ARC is in place and as my colleague said um that perhaps they do need to do a better job, but it is in place. It provides checks and balances. It has a process that's all in already in place and I do not think that this is um is something that I will be voting for. I will be voting no and not supporting this change. Thank you, Alder. Alder Matthews. Um, so I um District 12 includes one side of the strip of East Washington that has the uh two liquor stores that were kind of reignited this issue last year. Um uh and at that time I was the pres uh co-chair of my neighborhood association. the you know we heard from the existing business owner you know um extreme concern uh which right that's not our place to but just concern at having basically the same kind of offerings open up directly next door to them when they did you know put their livelihood into this location. Um, we also did have the new business owner come to our association meeting. Um, they didn't ask us for a letter of support. They just told us about it. And then we, um, you know, people at the meeting gave comment. We didn't offer a letter of support. We didn't offer a letter against. Um, but we decided to stay neutral. Um, and even at that meeting, it it they kind of had the idea or they kind of made it clear that they were like, "We're here to check this box so that we can say we came here um for our ALRC." Uh, and so, and you know, that's fine. There was also a public meeting which was much less well attended um and where the business owner um kind of inflated the amount of support that it was described at our meeting. People had there were you know one or two people that were like it's Wisconsin of like let's have another liquor store who cares or like you know um and there were people who still weren't very comfortable with it. Um, but that support from the neighborhood was mentioned at that meeting, that public meeting. It was also mentioned as kind of a heavily deciding factor in approving it at the common council meeting as well. Um and that is again not to say that any one person or one entity did anything wrong but just it is not quite as simple as you know a ton of applications go to ALRC every time like to expect them to put in the work to cross cross reference you know what actually happened at the neighborhood meeting and the minutes or this that and the other thing like that's that's a lot to ask them to do. I don't know that we should be expecting that, but things can get missed. Um, I also would say across the street, um, there are two other class A license holders, I think, in that stretch between Milwaukee Street and the that Taco Bell on East Washington. Um the the language of the ordinance mentioned there are 131 class A I think 134 that's pretty similar. That's um 3% of the total of the whole city class A licenses. There's no reason why a a period of the city that small should necessarily have that much um like that large of a percentage thinking again of the whole city. Um and it again the 300 ft isn't even that restrictive. um it would, you know, they they could still have probably two or three more in this stretch of East Washington and still meet that. Um but I am concerned some about the language of the treatment centers and the homeless services providers. Um I agree with what some other folks have said that like it's not right. the density really is the issue here and people are going to get alcohol if they want to get alcohol. Um, but that also that goes both ways, right? If you are a business owner, you just need to have your business a couple more feet away than it may have been before to fit in that 300. Um, and I'm sorry I'm being pretty scattered. Um, I don't know what I how I want to vote on this because again, I think there are potential unintended consequences by the vagueness of the treatment centers and the um, homeless services providers. And I I also don't think it's appropriate to put that restriction on homeless services providers when those are people who have some of the least um you know have less access to be getting around to somewhere that is further away. Um I and you know they have a right as anyone does. Um, so yeah, I I don't know how I'm going to vote, but I I do think that the density is a big problem and um that same stretch. You've probably driven down it if not, you know, it it does have the check cashing places, the payday loans. Um, I've commuted to jobs all across the city um for many years and that stretch of just from the Milwaukee Street to the Taco Bell has some of the most jaywalking that I've seen like dangerous jaywalking like diagonal across the middle of the whole thing. Um, you know, I've I've commuted from the west side down university. I've commuted on campus. I've commuted from further down Eastwash. And I I know that's anecdotal, but that is something that I've only seen on that strip driving throughout all of Madison. So, um I I would definitely support other options. Uh I know that was something that was asked, but I I just I have concerns about the vagueness. Oh, also the um one of the questions that was going to bring up other unintended consequences was um I think answered by the fact that it is only new applications in a new location. I think that should be good. But thank you. Thank you, Elder Alder Figuro. Thank you, Mayor. Um so I'm going to make it real quick. I'm going to repeat everything that has been said and I happen to um agree with most everything that my colleagues have um brought up um especially with the statement from Elder Madison at the same time with the statement from Alder Knox. Um I do um however I I do feel that this is not a change that is going to improve or the improve the um help us help small businesses. We had someone here from community development a few an hour or so ago explaining to us that we have no data associated to this ordinance how that's going to impact our small businesses on the city. So to me, that's really where I still hang up on this ordinance, the um possibility that people will not be able to compete um in a way that is equitable, fair um and where where they get hit with these with these changes. However, to other fields um um ask for what else can we do? I I do have a long list of that and I'm not going to go through the entire list but I'm going to start with what is what exactly is public health role in the ARC and I know the answer to that because I I had done my research plenty like I worked on this for a year trying to understand what the ARC role is and what are the moving pieces there. The role is to go and check in to make sure that we have food safety in our restaurants. For the most part, I feel and I strongly um believe that the role of public health should be as strong as the role that we give MPD on that on that committee. They should be part of the discussion. They should be able to voice the concerns um one application at a time. um the police data that we receive, not going to go deep into that. So, I'll be here all night, but that report needs to be re-imaged in a way that will allow the committee to make um smarter decisions and us elders to be able to track the problems in our in our districts. That doesn't happen today. That report does not help us do that. And the data just if you guys are curious you can check any ARC um meeting agenda and you'll find the reports at the end don't bother not going to tell you much but that data can be the image for anyone that is non-English speaker we should have a not even for them because I mean my belief is when we help the people at the bottom everyone benefits from it. So, I've been working on changes to improve the ARC for I don't know the last four years and and some of them I have seen them I seen them being implemented but um from that lens of helping people that are that don't speak English which we have seen and a big amount of them coming through the air see more than any other times. I mean I have been following this committee for years even before before I became an elder. We see a lot of women of color coming here asking for a license. So, what we should what we should really do as elders is create a position that supports and to support them to navigate the ARC and the and the alcohol um state policies. They don't have that. I don't have a lot of um liquor licenses on my district, but I do end up supporting a lot of non-speaking pe speaking I'm going to say just Spanish speaking people because I don't speak any other language from all of your districts. I have touched many of the districts already on the city. We don't have that person that can actually provide that that direct support. Um, so if we have someone that is dedicated to do that, dedicated to educate the applicants on how to to run their business, that that will actually help. And we need again, we also need a system that we need to update our systems so it's easier for people to access the information. It's easier for elders to access the information. It's easier for applicants to apply online, for example, to have data that we can easily report on. We don't have any of that today. So I I mean it's it's easy for it will be easier for me to blame um the the the results of the issues here or to try to control people's you know access to alcohol. That will be kind of an easier way for me. To me I personally feel and again this is something that I've been working on and I welcome anyone that wants to jump on the wagon. We should improve our own processes before we make changes here. So if you're going to come to me with with this change and I've been saying I have been very clear how does this impact small businesses then give me the data that shows how this is not going to impact small businesses but yet we cannot even get the data because we don't have the system in place to collect it. So that's what I am with this ordinance. So I will not be supporting it specifically for that. Not because I don't believe on the data, not because I don't believe on on other um on on all of your input, but we don't have enough information to see the how this is going to impact the people that depends whose livelihood depends on the sale of alcohol in the city. Thank you. Thank you, other mayor, for the second time. So, we already have a very robust alcohol licensing review process and the alcohol license review committee and the common council. We saw the teeth of this recently with a ruling on the Red Rooster. Um, and to tie the hands of the ALRC with the arbitrary measure of 300 ft away from certain properties will just further complicate things. And it is arbitrary. The only justification I heard was that uh someone in the state decades ago picked it out of thin air, this number. But what I'm more concerned about is the protectionist aspect that this is going to cause. So in my district, all my business areas where I have entertainment and and restaurants and bars are all covered by the no-go zone. Much of the downtown and state street also covered by this. And it's very common for a business to not make it. Another one to come along, not in the same location all the time, often next door, elsewhere. And they wouldn't be able to do this in this under this ordinance. Um, I also have uh in my district recently the Atwood Music Hall opened uh 600 person venue. They would not have been able to open under this ordinance because they're too close to existing locations. Um, and I think that what you see over time is that those existing bars will not have to benefit or actually will not have to be challenged by competition. Uh, they'll be very safe in where they are and those licenses may end up being more valuable in the future for transfer since no one else will be able to get one. Um, our city is growing. Uh, we expect another 100,000 people in the next 25 years. I haven't seen data with the number of licenses next to the number of population over time. I would expect both to grow. Um, and uh, think I had anything else here. It's just that I I just feel like this is a blunt tool that's worse than a solution in search of a problem. It's a solution that's going to create more problems. So, I can't possibly support this. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Okowitz. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I want to thank the other alders for their comments. I won't spend too much time. I struggle with this because, uh, a big portion of my a large portion of the businesses in my district are on State Street. They rely on alcohol sales to help stay open, but we are all aware that there are issues with alcohol sales and especially in the State Street area and that can cause issues. Um I'm not totally convinced that density is the issue. Um, I tried getting at this with my earlier question about total volume, but uh, different places can sell alcohol and it it's just very different environments based on the price price point or the um, the environment of the area or, you know, any number of factors that that can impact how alcohol sales in that area are going to filter out into the public and affect drunk driving or uh, gun violence. or any of the other issues. Um, I would support an overlay uh in a in a smaller area especially to see how this is going to impact um areas of the city, what the process is going to be. Um I I know there were some basic procedural questions about how's the um how's the clerk going to be able to determine what's within a 300t area and working with planning on that. Um, I agree with Alder Figurole. I don't think ALRC has the right tools to address these issues. Um, it I don't think the Red Rooster is an example in support of the ALRC doing what it needs to be doing. That was the city attorney primarily. Um, and it was many months after the accident happened. We had the applicant come and tell us that he still didn't know that um his bartender didn't have an operator's license until a few weeks before the common council meeting, which is um disturbing. I I would also support solutions like having PHMDC on ALRC um and having some expertise in terms of public health on the ALRC. Thank you, Alder. Elder Pritchette, just a couple of things. Um, you you I appreciate exactly what uh Alder Glenn and uh Alder Iver said. I really heard you and you were speaking primarily about self-determination. I also believe too that if density is really a problem, perhaps perhaps at some point in time we could encourage those who are in those high in uh density areas to begin to look at diversifying their business. Meaning, if you're selling, your business is primarily alcohol, perhaps you can begin to include other things in there. Okay? Diversify. I know I've had to diversify. People go fishing, they only fish for trout and they come home with nothing. You got to diversify. So I'm saying to you then that if an area is really really you know loaded you know with uh alcohol establishments perhaps diversification is one way to begin to address that. And when you do that, then you will invite not only different clientele coming in, but you also decrease the amount of alcohol that you're selling. So diversify. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder River. Thank you, Mayor. This is one of those uh rare pieces of legislation where it sounds like almost every colleague is weighing in with their thoughts and I found the discussion to be quite interesting and helpful frankly. Uh as a longtime member of the ALRC, it's interesting to hear the different perspectives of our committee and its work um from our from the various perspectives that have been shared. Um, let me begin by expressing my extreme uh appreciation uh to the sponsor uh the council president. For those that don't know, she has been working on this for years, literally years. I look back in my calendar to see when we first had a sit down conversation about this and it was about 2 years ago, a little over two years ago. uh and she had been working on this before that meeting. Uh so that's that's number one. Um as you see in the legislative history for this matter, this was introduced well over a year ago and it's re been revised many times both uh as visible in legisar and and not in in uh legisar. Um, I do want to say also at the outset that the drafter's analysis, frankly, can be a little confusing and some of the conversation that we've had this evening has been inaccurate. I don't want to call out specifics, but uh just want to draw my colleagues attention, mayor, to the third paragraph of the drafter's analysis that begins the second substitute because there has been some discussion tonight that is not um relate uh accurately to what actually is the motion before us, which is the second substitute. Um, for those that attended the ALRC meeting, uh, where this was discussed most recently, uh, or might have watched the recording of it, this was a very difficult vote for me to take. Um, I ended up voting at the ALRC in support of the proposal. And I did so in large part um out of a sign of respect for all of the hard work that the sponsor has put into this, including accepting my recommendations as to what probably is the only thing I could support. Um uh which is largely uh what you see in the second substitute. Not entirely to be sure. This isn't my work. This is the sponsor's uh work. Um but but that is largely why I supported this at the at the ALRC. And as I said at that meeting, I'm very conflicted on this and I continue to be conflicted. First of all, I don't think that if we adopt this, the sky is falling. I don't think it will have uh that dramatic an impact one way or the other. Uh I say that because as you all have heard and can read uh this prohibition can be waved by a majority vote of this body. Every license that we grant including several tonight on the consent motion is by a simple majority vote. And this or this ordinance has been on the books for literally generations. Uh as has the underlying state statute I guess 1947. uh as is still stated in the ordinance uh here in Madison, that prohibition, by the way, this prohibition, by the way, has been largely ignored by those of us that are in city hall today and our predecessors. Um, one thing that's I've often found to be uh curious, but I inherited this practice when I came here a long time ago, is that no one pays attention to this prohibition. I've actually asked the ALRC legal council at our last meeting at her convenience to please research for us what other municipalities do as it relates to this provision of chapter 125 of the statutes. Um because it's curious to me that we've always ignored it. I mean literally ignored it. And by the way, that language that says quote wave by a majority vote of the common council or in the statute it says governing body which is what we are as a municipal governing body. uh is directly in the law and has been in the law I presume from the very beginning. Uh and and this statute hasn't been amended to my knowledge any time recently. Um the legislature, some of you might know uh very dramatically rewrote chapter 125 of the statutes and this provision was not touched. So I I have a feeling it really doesn't have much of an impact around the state um one way or the other. Just a guess, but it would be curious to have that information. Um, I frankly think we do a pretty good job on the ALRC. And that's why in all the years I've been here that I can count on probably only a couple hands the number of um, license applications that have been debated on the council floor. I often tell people that 99.9% of the recommendations of the ALRC and every single thing the ALRC does, with very minor exceptions, have to be approved by the common council. We don't have the independent authority that some might think we have, but the reality is is that councils um past and present have accepted our recommendations in large part. I would like to think because they they have faith and confidence in the work that we do. uh and most of us on the committee, I would like to think every one of us on the committee takes that responsibility extremely seriously and tries to do our homework to the best of our ability. I will say I'll put in a public service announcement and I've said it many times individually and when I have the opportunity, it is invaluable to us when the alder of the district gives their input on pending matters before our committee. Sometimes uh um we have great input and sometimes no input and it really would be wonderful to have the former and not the latter and I realize we're all extremely busy as as I well know. Um but if colleagues could give input to even one of your three colleagues that serve on the committee individually or collectively more appropriately through the city clerk's office and the licensing uh email to the clerk's office. It really is helpful. I can't overstate how helpful that is for us. Um the input that we receive not only from you on the council but through other stakeholders is also very valuable. Neighborhood associations um local police uh commanders, neighbors among others is very valuable and it will continue to be valuable. It would be um hypocritical of me to say that I don't support limiting density because I was one of the sponsors of the um 2000's era alcohol license density ordinance that covers much of the greater state street area and continues to this day as the alcohol overlay district codified in chapter 28 or zoning code. as was already mentioned. Uh I think that that is an appropriate vehicle, a very appropriate vehicle and one that is has tremendous I think uh legal standing and has proven the test of time. So I would encourage colleagues whether this is adopted or not tonight or for that matter in the future in a different form that if if you have concerns about particular geographic areas in your respective districts, please seriously consider um the a conversation about an alcohol overlay district. I'm happy to speak to anybody about that. uh when we were going through that debate over the gas station uh changing ownership on East Washington Avenue that has been mentioned a few times tonight. Uh that that was a clear example of an area that I think um in all respects warrants an alcohol overlay district. Uh and one that would have been helpful in that case. Again, not in chapter 38, the alcohol licensing ordinances, but in chapter 28, the zoning code. Uh, and again, we have a model with the downtown alcohol overlay district. You can make as many exceptions as you want in an alcohol overlay district. Restaurants being a big one. Entertainment venues is another one in the case of State Street area. Uh, and they can be tailored individually. So again, whether this is successful or not tonight, I think that it's an appropriate um course of action for folks to seriously consider. As it relates to this proposal, I have concerns that although you're approaching 9 minutes, thank you. Um that the office of the city clerk doesn't have the resources to um address this if it's adopted tonight. Uh, I know that they don't today have those resources to figure out what's within 300 ft of um an application to the front entrance of one of these types of um uses. Uh, and I would be much more comfortable if we waited until we had that clear directive that that information is indeed available. And then lastly, so that's one concern. Lastly, I do think that although I'm sure the vast majority of our applicants, and I completely agree that so many of our applicants are immigrants and folks whose English is not their first language, uh, which is one of the reasons why I've enjoyed serving on this committee for as long as I have, is helping those folks realize their dreams. But I do have a concern that those that actually do read the ordinance, if this is adopted, will think, well, I don't have a chance to be approved if I'm have another alcohol license establishment on the same block as I do uh as I would like to open. And by the way, as I read the ordinance, it does apply to to businesses that are being sold to being purchased. Those are technically new licenses. Those aren't transfers. transfers are when a current license holder physically moves from address to address. So, for those reasons, although I'm very conflicted and with apologies to the sponsor, uh, and for all the tremendous work that the president put into this, um, and notwithstanding my vote at the committee for this, I will be voting no tonight on this proposal at this time. Thank you. Call the question. Thank you, Alder. U, we have one left in the queue. Call a question. There's a motion to call the question. Alder Knox, will you withdraw or should we go to a vote? Alder Knox will withdraw. All right, the question is called. It's before us. All those in favor, I. Those opposed, no. As your name is called and the clerk will please call the role. Alder Lankella, no. Alder Lancella, no. Alder Knox, no. Alder Knox, no. Alder Madison. Hi. Alder Madison. I Alder Martinez Rutherford. Will you come back to me, please? We'll come back. Alder Matthews, will you come back to me? We'll come back. Alder Mayor, no. Alder Mayor, no. Alder O'Brien, no. Alder O'Brien, no. Alder Ohich, no. Alder Ohich, no. Alder Pritchette, no. Alder Bridgetette, no. Alder Tishler. Alder Tishler. No. Alder Vier. No. Alder Vier. No. Alder Vidiver. Hi. Alder Vidiver. I. Alder Duncan. No. Alder Duncan. No. Alder Evers. No. Alder Evers. No. Alder Field. Alder Field. I. Alder Figureroa Cole. No. Alder Figureroa Cole. No. Alder Glenn. Alder Glenn. No. Alder Ginderin. Alderinder. No. Alder Yugare. Hi. Alder Yugare. I Alder Harrington McKini. No. Alder Harrington McKini. No. Alder Martinez Rutherford. No. Alder Martinez Rutherford. No. Alder Matthews. No. Alder Matthews. No. We have four eyes and 16 nos. Four eyes. The motion fails. And I'm going to ask us to stand informal while I have President Vidder take the chair. Oh, Alder Vidver, I was just going to ask for a 10-minute recess and then Is there any objection to a 10-minute recess? Seeing no objection, we are in recess for 10 minutes. That takes us to 9:26. Hello. Vive's proposal goes down 16 to four. Bam. Bam. folks. I'm calling us back to order, please. We do have quorum in the room. The clerk will please call the role. Alder Lancella. Alder Lancella present. Alder Knox. Yes, I'm present. Alder Knox present. Alder Madison. Alder Madison present. Alder Martinez Rutherford. Alder Martinez Rutherford present. Alder Matthews. Alder Matthews present. Alder Mayor here. Alder Mayor present. Alder O'Brien. Alder O'Brien present. Alder Okovich present. Alder Okovich present. Alder Pritchette here. Alder Pritchette present. Alder Tishler here. Alder Titler present. Alder Vier here. Alder Vivier present. Alder Vidver here. Alder Viver present. Alder Duncan here. Alder Duncan present. Alder Evers here. Alder Evers present. Alder Field Alder Field present. Alder Figurero Cole here. Alder Figurero present. Alder Glenn here. Alder Glenn present. Alder Gender Rajin. Alder Gender Rajin present. Alder Yugare here. Alder Yugare present. Alder Harrington McKenna present. Alder Harrington McKenna present. Acting president we have quorum. All right. Um just a reminder we have two items left on the agenda and we do have two members of the body who have a 4:30 a.m. flight. So um if you could please think about um your comments and questions accordingly. We will move to item 73, legislative file uh 88734. We begin with a motion. Second. Thank you. And questions for staff. Questions for staff? No questions for staff. Uh then discussion. question. Alder Pritchette, you had asked for this item to be um excluded. Is okay. Let me get back to this. No, that's not the one. You You did not wish to exclude this item. Okay. Uh then on item 73, um is there any objection to a unanimous vote in favor of item 73? Approve. Yes, it was a motion to approve ready approving the ready to re for reuse loan agreements and it was seconded. Is there an objection to a unanimous vote in favor of this item? Seeing no objection, the item is approved. We will move on to item 77. Uh thank you. Uh do we have questions for staff on item 77? Sorry. Sorry, Alder Figaroko. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, so I sent um to your mailbox earlier today a um an ask to revert to leave the ordinance the way it is with the exception of two changes that I highlighted in the email. The first change is the um moving the logistics or the process of seeking the applications and creating the file um to pass on to the council leadership and the mayor's office to do the to do the um recommendations to council. So today that's the way it the way it is done today is the office of the independent monitor is doing that job. it is not us or the mayor or the civil rights office. So for that first change, I'm just trying to ensure that we have the ordinance matching our existing process. And then the second change, so there's no changes. I want to also clarify that doesn't make any changes to the makeup of the um to the um inclusion of the organizations. um how that process how the appointment process works that is totally that will stay the same. We are just changing who manages the seeking of the applications. And then the second change is removing that line about priority should be given to organizations with budgets under $1 million that the ordinance has so much information already um to ensure that we have an inclusive um selection and diverse selection of individuals to be in this committee. Um if you look at the list that we have in there, most of those organizations are already over a million dollars um budget. So, it is redundant and I I don't think it's necessary. So, I really hope that you guys have um support those two small changes. If you have any questions, please let me know. So, Alder Figuro Cole, is that a motion to end? Sorry, I should have I should have done that. Okay. So, the motion is to make the two changes um on the language that I sent you in the email. Excellent. All right. So, the motion on the floor is the amended version of the item. Uh, go ahead, attorney. I think just to clarify, um, Alder Fle accur accurately described her amendment, but it would also since we have the original language, it it would also include reversing all of the changes, additions, and deletions that were in the original proposal. the end result would be what she described, but I think procedurally because it's a floor amendment, we have to amend that existing language um that was inserted into the original proposal. So, does that make sense? Not entirely. Okay. So, we we have first of all, we're going to we'll have two votes. One is the floor amendment currently or I should say uh the original ordinance proposal had a number of additions and strikethroughs of the existing ordinance. And so the intent of this amendment is to remove all of those changes essentially revert back to what's in the ordinance now with just the two changes that the sponsor um proposed. the language about the independent monitor and removing the language about giving priority to organizations that um have a annual budget of $1 million or less. Those would be the only two changes made if both of these um votes succeed. So, first would be a vote on the amendment to create what will be the finished product of the existing ordinance with the two proposed changes. Then there will be a vote to adopt that if the first vote passes. Alder Figer, did you want to speak to the amendment any more than you already have? Nope. Great. Sorry. I I That's quite all right. That's okay. Uh then I'm going to go to Alder Madison. Thank you, Alder. Um, I I guess I have a question for whomever the attorney was at the last PCB meeting because um they recommended us to place it on file and I'm curious now did this part of the discussion come up potentially at that meeting? um like with did they also potentially discuss some of this because I'm I am hesitant to you know support anything that specifically that they're not in agreement with or haven't had an opportunity to discuss. So this is the floor. Yep. This is a floor amendment like all right. So as with any ordinance proposal can make amendments on the floor. This proposal was not discussed at the COB meeting and it was ultimately I'm not sure that I'm not sure that the attorney recommended placing on file. Maybe he recommended it based on what the board said they wanted to do, but of course ultimately it was the board's recommendation to place it on a file. Yep. Thank you. So just to clarify cuz it's late this part of the it's just a floor amendment which I understand but that they did not have that discussion about these two you know reverting back and adding these two changes and at least in our notes it says the PCOB recommended to place on file with prejudice. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Uh Alder Harrington McKenna. Nope. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Alder Pritchette. you you're ahead. Yeah. A major concern that I have is is uh looking at independence, you know, who and what strategy, you know, what's in place to decide who will be or who will not be, you know, on this on on oversight. Who is in charge of that? meaning who makes the decision concerning the composition of the oversight group. Ultimately, um the appointments are made by the mayor and in some cases the council. The council then votes on all of the appointments. So this this would affect simply the process of getting those names to the council to confirm the appointments and currently the ordinance states that the council and the mayor are to collect the applications. So this ordinance would change that responsibility to the independent monitor. Of course when the um board was originally created there was no independent monitor. So at that point it was decided that that work would be done by the the mayor's office and the council office principally the common council office shephered that whole process. Now there is an independent monitor in place who is the executive secretary to the board. Um, so I think the intent of the ordinance is that is the staff to the board and that that person should be responsible for collecting the applications that get forwarded to the mayor and the council um to decide who developed the application. That was the process that was done when the board was originally created. I think it was work between the council office uh mostly the council office Karen would that be correct? uh did a lot of all of the administrative leg work including creating an application form because if it's supposed to be independent, you know, would it be fair to say, you know, that you should have voices from those outside of rather than from those inside? Well, this only this this is really as I understand it really only the administrative task of the independent monitor being responsible for contacting the organizations and inviting them to make applications. It's up to the organizations that are designated to decide who they nominate. So those are outside voices. [Music] Okay. Alder Harrington McKenna. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, I have a question um to the attorney. Um, does this change the organizations that were on the original list of organizations to submit members? No. So that those that organizational structure will still be in place. Is that correct? Right. And and the ordinance does say that that list is supposed to be updated um or or the the board and the opportunity have a chance an opportunity to update or change that list. Uh it's either I think it's every two years and the opportunity to change that list every two years will be made by the independent monitor. No, the board can make a recommendation to the council, but this this ordinance does not affect that process at all. Okay. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear is is that the same organizations will still remain the same organizations that will make their recommendation to the body unless that unless changed by the council. Thank you, Alder Knox. Yeah, I guess I wanted a little clarification. I know there's more other sections, but so these changes will occur. Um, is there are there other applicants that can apply to be nominated besides these uh nominees from these nine groups? Yes, there are um at large uh nomine nominations as well. people can selfnominate or okay so that's what the reference is to where if they don't nominate anyone the mayor and the council share appoint from a pool of eligible applicants so there are these other eligible applicants that are able to be uh confirmed correct or okay I I was just trying to I didn't know if that was in another section but okay thank you Alder Matthews Um, sorry, I'll be brief. Um so it seems the only change that could be related to the independence of the board uh is the separation of or sorry replacing mayor and common counsel with office of the independent monitor which would appear to be giving the monitor more independence not less. I would agree, but again, it's really an administrative process. Well, yeah, they already are doing it that way. Just all the concerns I've heard are them getting less. Alder Harrington McKenna for the second time. Clarification is is that um um and let me put it out there and you'll let me know if it's correct or not. Um, in terms of having um, agencies submit names, was there a a challenge with with quorum and having the agencies support indivi or recommend individuals to serve on that body? Was there a quorum challenge with these specific agencies as they stand? Um, it's a good question. Although my understanding is that was what initially led to the board actually looking at this ordinance was because they were having difficulty in some cases um having a quorum or getting enough nominations submitted from the organizations. The board, as my understanding, feels that that issue has been largely resolved and that they've been having better um communications with the organizations to um to be able to get those nominations in and they feel like that that issue that originally, you know, caught their attention has been resolved largely and they've articulated that those issues have been resolved. Right. Alder Madison. Uh, thank you. I know for again, but is there anybody from the PCOB or OIM's office potentially online or available, especially the is cuz it seems like there's some um different thoughts about the $1 million piece. No one's there. Not not unless somebody from the tech team tells me that there is. I I don't see them on my screen. Right. It would only be I believe the independent Rob monitor Robin CPPley or Greg Colombiac and I don't see them on the screen. I do not see them in attendance. Um Alder Knox, is your hand up from before or did you have another question? Okay, thank you. Uh, Alder Evers. Uh, well, just speaking to the this amendment, it's my understanding the the reason why the stipulation about the budgets under 1 million and that several of the participating organizations that are currently nominating have budgets over 1 million. And so if perhaps that's a result of inflation, but um several of our nonprofits who are currently contributing to uh nom nominees and I believe that's why the order made this amendment that this actually makes it easier for the current process to proceed. So it's not meant to overrule the interest and concerns of the PCO. It's actually to make things easier. Alder mayor, um I'm not quite sure to ask this, but uh the original um the original item had a lot of opposition from the community. The amendment seems pretty decent to me on the surface, but should something like this normally go back to that committee? I don't know who to ask that to just like what precedent there is for this kind of thing. That's up to the council. There can be a re-referral back if the council wishes. It's not required to though. Alder Madison. Oh, someone is asking you for the phone number. I'm sorry. To call in. It doesn't look like that it's allowing them to register online again for it. Do you mean staff? Yes. I can send the phone number if you provide an email. All right. What is your email? Cuz he's texting me about this million dollar thing. I'm telling y'all don't not want If we could ask um the tech facilitator to send invites to Robin CPPley and Greg Gumbbeck, that would be help. I'll send it to them just in case. Um and in the meantime we will go to Alder Figurero. Thank you um President V. So I just want to um respond to mayor's question. This um if you look at the legisar file that has the presentation all of those changes were discussed um at the board multiple times. It's been going around since um December. On the last meeting, I specifically asked why why that those these particular changes were not taken into consideration since we already doing that as a process and there wasn't really any definite um explanation of that. Um as part of being part of leadership the past two years, we have had to deal with the lack of quorum. we had to deal with the um process to get um applicants which again the OIM is doing already and their office is doing already and then um review the review the applicants then to bring them to council. So the changes are to be in um to match the existing process. So we are not we're not out there. I mean nothing stops you from go and finding people that you may want to get them interested and passing that to the OM but it's their role to do that. So that is happening already today. I have Oh, Alder Pritchette. Would it would it be burdensome to get a copy of the original language and then what is being changed? Alder Pritchette, it's in Legistar. Yeah. It's in Yeah. So, legisar has the um what was what the uh PCOB voted to place on file and then Alder Vigorok sent by email her amendment. Send by email. Uh okay, Alder Evers. Given the late date, I would move that we re-refer this to uh PCO or if someone can give me the date, the late time, let's let's take it back to PCOB. Let them see let them discuss if they're okay with this and and Okay, Alder Evers, are you giving us a date to refer to PCOB and when's the next PCO meeting? somebody tell me and then back to council. I know that it's a drag to drag this out longer and longer, but I'm it's late and I'm thinking about my colleagues who need to catch a plane at 4:30 in the morning or get up to catch one. So, just be at the next. Okay. So, the motion is to move it to the next PCO. Sorry. August 20th and then the following council meeting would be se September or something. I can't remember sixth or 7th or something like that. It's the first meeting. Okay. So, it's to move to the next PCOB meeting in August and the first common council meeting in September. Do I have a second for re-referral? Alder Madison seconded. Okay. I saw Alder Harrington McKini also. All right. So now the discussion is on re-referral. Uh Alder Harrington McKini, would you like to speak to the re-referral? No. Okay. Alder Figuro Cole, would you like to speak to the re-referral? Yes. Thank you. So again, this this ordinance has been um routed multiple times and I'm still I don't I don't understand I don't see any new outcome on this and again we are not following the ordinance as as stated and I don't see the reason like Alturn has was saying earlier at the time of the ordinance we didn't have an OM and the OM is already doing the work so I don't see there was no explanation from the committee on why that was excl that wasn't changed. So I don't see the need to send this back to a body that probably I I mean I get it there are new people on the body maybe they don't understand the process I'm not clear but we are following a process um that is not matching the ordinance and we should put this responsibility on the OIM and they're doing a fine job doing that so I don't see why we need to re referral this so I will be voting no for that. Okay, Alder Ginder Rajin on the re-referral. Thank you, madame acting president, I think. Um, this still the president. I'm just acting chair. That's what it is. There we go. Thank you. Uh um so this ordinance was first introduced on September 19th of 2024 and from my understanding it's going to be re referred so it can come back September of 2025. That is one year. In that one year it has been referred to the PCOB four times already. And this will be the fifth time. If we talk about council efficiency, here's a prime example of inefficiency. We have seen that the PCOB has met has failed to meet for quorum at least three times. It has heard this at least twice just looking at this agenda in front of us. I don't know if I can support this referral with the confidence that one they will meet and two we will learn anything different than we have this time. So please vote no. Thank you. Alder Madison on the re-referral. Um, just give me 3 seconds. Okay. So, when we met, so I am absolutely going to support the re-referral. Um, if it's not, you know, and I also want to point out that Greg is here. So, if it I definitely had questions for staff to clear up something. So, it would be good to be able to still ask those questions. But I am also um going to say no because we last November during budget season we had a long conversation about the OIM the PCOB and we asked for some very specific things. We asked for reporting we asked for qu we asked for all these things. They are now meeting they have had quorum. So it's unfair to point out these three meetings that they did not have quorum before that November meeting. They have been meeting and having quorum and doing the work that we've asked them to do. at minimum, we have not even given them a year to see if they're meeting the the things that we pointed out in November. And as a as a black woman and we're talking about a group where it's predominately folks of color, for us to come here and then change something, it starts feeling like we're not holding ourselves up to I don't like this high standard and how we and how we work with this group. So, I'm supporting the re-referral only because I believe that we should give them an opportunity to do what it is that they agreed to do. And there seems to be some miscommunication or misunderstandings about what happened at that meeting. That's why I would like for Greg to clear up some things at minimum so we can vote with an accurate retelling of the last meeting and what the PCOB has asked for. And in my reading of our agenda, it says they recommended to be placed on file. So it sounds like they had quum and they met to have that discussion. Attorney Hos, did you want to Well, I'm not sure what the So I do want to part of it is they they did I I did confirm that they voted to place in a file. Exactly. If there are questions because of the motion on the floor, if there's going to be questions for staff, it should be related to the referral. Uh if if you need confirmation, you can certainly ask. Yep. So, I guess a question for staff is is there the likeliness that there will be quorum to have the discussion again because they've had a recent history of having quorum to have the discussion. Is that a question for Greg? Staff Greg, you know, whomever can answer the question. Greg is looks like Greg is here now. Sure. Greg, are you able to unmute? Yes. Um um I hadn't planned to speak. I I apologize. Um um yes, there's been no problem. Um since the um new members were appointed, there's been no problem with achieving quorum. Um quorum has been achieved at every um PCB meeting as well as every PCB training. So, I wouldn't expect that to be a problem. Thank you. Okay. I have no other alders in the queue on the issue of re-referral. I'm anticipating the need for a roll call. So, if the clerk could please call the role on the issue of re-referral. Want to make sure everybody knows what you're voting on. Just the issue of re-referral. Back to the PCO. Alder Lankella. Yes. Alder Lankella. I. Alder Knox. No. Alder Knox. No. Alder Madison. Hi. Alder Madison I. Alder Martinez Rutherford. No. Alder Martinez Rutherford. No. Alder Matthews. I. Alder Matthews. I. Alder Mayor. Hi. Alder Mayor. I. Alder O'Brien. I. Alder O'Brien. I. Alder Okovich. Alder Okovich. I. Alder Pritchette. I. Alder Pritchette. I. Alder Tishler. I. Alder Tishler. I. Alder Vervier. I Alder Vir I Alder Duncan I Alder Duncan I Alder Evers Alder Evers I Alder Field I Alder Field I Alder Figurero Cole no Alder Figurero Cole no Alder Glenn Hi. Alder Glenn I. Alder Ginder Rajan. No. Alder Ginderian. No. Alder Yugare I. Alder I. Alder Harrington McKini. I Alder Harrington McKenna. I We have 15 eyes and four nos. So that item is re-referred and so that concludes it. Is that correct? I just want to make sure. Yes. Okay. So that concludes the business of the evening. Alder Lancella, your turn. Second. I'll assuming unopposed uh I will assume a unanimous vote in favor unless someone signals otherwise. We are adjourned. Have a great trip.