 call older Decker. You're muted Dean. Yeah. All right. Older Feldy. Older Acley. Here. Older Donahue. Older Donahue is not here. Unexcused. All right. For those in the room, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay. Minutes from our last meeting for March 10th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from our meeting? Motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. Second. There's been a motion in second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of approving the minutes please state aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone approve? Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Okay. Older Donahue is now in the meeting. General Ordnance number 3.1. General Ordnance number 4221. An ordinance repealing and recreating various sections of Article 3 of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code entitled Electrical. Turn it over to Chad. Thank you, Chair. So this is as stated some electrical code changes that have been required by the state of Wisconsin and I have brought Joe, the Joe Folger, the electrical inspector with me today. So if you have any other detailed questions that I'm unable to answer, he'll be able to take those up. But basically we went through a recertification process in 2019 with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services to continue to do electrical inspections in the city and do the permitting of those. And as part of those requirements, part of those that approval, the state came back with a letter in December of 2019 that stated that we needed to change our code to not be more restrictive than state statute. So the five things that are outlined is emergency work notification requirements contradicted the states of those had to be addressed in the electrical code. Clarification of permit expiration requirements. The city may not require a permit or an inspection for any installation repair maintenance of electrical wiring within an existing industrial facility or manufacturing facility. No permit shall be required for electrical work not requiring a service inspection where cost of materials is less than $500. And then the last one that it modifies the code to allow licensed individuals to complete electrical work because our code currently only allows licensed electrical contractors. So the five changes have been incorporated into the code to be to be compliance with the state and to continue permitting and licensing. This is a revenue generator for the city under our revenues. It's about $100,000. That's part of the building inspection budget. So it's very important to us to continue to do electrical inspections and prove in this ordinance would keep us going. All right. Any questions from committee members? Any motions? I make a motion to approve. Motion Seconded. Seconded by Barb. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That's approved. Thanks, Chad. 3.2. R.O. number 168-2021 by the city clerk submitting a communication from visit Sheboygan regarding request to the Common Council for the Sheboygan Concerts and Freedom Fest events. Chad? So this is a dual referral and those of you that were at public works last night heard the same conversation, but this is to work with visit Sheboygan to help do the Freedom Fest the 4th of July celebration, which will be held this year on July 3rd. And then to do concerts at phone parks. So as part of the tourism fund budgeting, we budget over time dollars for police, fire and DPW services related to these events and to cover those costs as a tourism expense versus a general fund expense and that so each year these as we move forward visit Sheboygan needs the assistance of the other city departments to pull the stuff off. So this is the request to do so. There was some questions last night about sponsorships and all of our sponsors are still on board for this year and we intend to we're hoping that the majority of the population will be vaccinated sometime in June and that this event can continue because we've heard a lot of a lot of people that want to start getting back to some normalcy. And so the plan is to still implement social distancing and the other COVID protocols, but to try to pull this event off to just kind of kick off the summer and and at least you know have the fireworks and those types of things. So there's a number of things that needs to be in play and the reason we're moving forward with this now is just to get everything lined up if this is gonna be a goal because of the coordination it takes to pull off these two events. Marilyn? Thanks for that report Chad. I had just first of all I have a comment. If anyone thinks that social distancing is going to be a possibility on the 3rd of July I suggest we all think again. There's no social distancing now that I generally see and people are not at all concerned about well I shouldn't say that. Let's just say that if our COVID levels are approximately what they are now it certainly won't be a safe event but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Does all the money that supports this Chad come from room tax money? I guess I just didn't understand where number one what the budget is and number two how much it costs? So no it does not. So we have the city has an event management application agreement with Visit Sheboyan to do these two events on the city's behalf. The funding for these events comes from sponsorship from Planko at $50,000. The 4th of July fireworks are covered by Festival Foods and the parade is covered by Wisconsin Bank and Trust. So the event is covered 100% with sponsorship dollars the only thing that room tax pays for is some marketing expenses to promote the event. And police and public works? That comes out those expenses come out of the tourism fund and we budget for it each year based on our 30% room tax. Okay thank you. Any further discussion? So since this is just a communication the correct motion would be to file the RO. Motion by Mary Lynn second by Dean. Any further discussion? Seeing none all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you. All right 3.3 discussion on possible action regarding requests of alcohol beverage license number 3451 Toby Carson for an extension under the city's continuation ordinance. City Attorney do you want this one or? Yeah I'll start. I assume Mr. Corson is is physically present there in the council chambers. So this is an applicant who will be making a presentation to you requesting an extension. So he is in violation of the city's continuation of business ordinance which would normally result in the license being pulled and then becoming available to for example one of the applicants who didn't get the license two weeks ago. In this particular case you are able under our ordinance to grant a one-time extension of the continuation of business and you could do that based on his presentation. You consider all the same sort of factors that that you consider. If you do not approve of the extension then you would make a motion to deny the extension or both the license for failure to follow the ordinance and the license just becomes available to anybody, including what you'll hear I expect is that he has a buyer for this property. And that wants to just wants to run a bar in the same place. And that person would then just be thrown into the pool with everyone else if you do grant it then the proper motion would be to grant the extension and then the license would would remain unavailable and the new owner potentially would then be able to apply and in fact they've already made application for the license. Although technically they can't really they couldn't really apply until until you approve this extension. Well there's nobody present in the council chambers well except for Julie and Kathy and Scott myself so. So, Ryan. Yes, Alder Donahue. So, Chuck, I had some foundational questions thinking the gentleman was in the audience. I didn't get much out of his letter. Can you tell us what place this is and how long the extension would go for and if there really is a real sale to somebody new? So the extension is for how long you would want to grant it, although no longer than the end of the license here. So that the maximum amount of time you would be able to give it June 30th. The as far as there are real sale it is our understanding that there is that that that some that there was that there is a new owner potentially looking and maybe even bought the underlying property, but obviously you can't sell a liquor license. And that person has actually applied for the license, although again, technically they really wasn't a valid application until you until you would approve this because there's no otherwise there's no license to apply for. But we do believe that the person does actually exist as far as what their plans are. I don't know. This is the old Julie to remind me of the name of the Tavern on Michigan Avenue. Blondies. Yeah. Permission to speak. This is Irma Valdez. Hi Irma. What's your relationship on this topic? I actually bought the Blondies bar. So I will be opening as soon as we get everything up to code. We did have the building inspectors come in. So there's a couple of things that we need to work on. And you know, hopefully if we can get the license transferred, then we can open that up as a bar. Okay. Any questions for Irma at all then while she's online? Well, I would have a couple. Okay. Hold her down here. Go for it. Ms. Valdez, this is Mary Lynn Donahue. So I guess I am interested in you haven't accepted offer. We I've already bought it. It's been transferred. The deed and everything has been transferred. Okay. All right. So you are actually the new owner. Correct. Okay. And you're planning to open without. I mean, it would be nice to have the license, but you can still sell beer. It's my understanding and such and you would still go ahead and open. Yeah. I mean, yeah, we would. Okay. All right. So then my question goes back to Chuck. Chuck, if there is actually a sale of this property, where does that leave us exactly? So it's a little complicated. I think if if we were to say technically there, technically, you could make the argument that there is no person available to make the request for the extension because it is the previous license holder who still has the license. And if they no longer have a premise because they've sold out from under themselves, technically, we potentially have a problem. However, we don't usually enforce these things that strictly. It is sort of disappointing that Mr. Corson's not here to actually make the presentation. But I suppose you could argue that Ms. Valdez is doing so on his behalf because she's in the end, the one who's going to receive the benefit of it. I think there was another question, perhaps that you asked that I haven't answered yet. Well, and let me just switch back to Ms. Valdez. Was there anything in the offer to purchase or the transfer documents that made that made the sale contingent on the license being extended? Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah, I was not aware of that. In the sale, it said transfer of alcohol license that was indicated in the sale. It wasn't until after the fact that we realized that because it had been closed over six months that there was something that he was not, you know, he was not doing something correctly or it expired or something like that. Okay. Well, I guess my thought on this and Chuck, I'm just interested in is that, you know, there was a, I mean, I don't know what if, who if any lawyers were involved in this and whether they have malpractice coverage, but it seems to me there was something of a reliance by Ms. Valdez on getting the license, which might have some impact on how I'm thinking about this. I mean, so she bought what she assumed to be a going business that would sell hard liquor. That is correct. That is correct. That was my impression. You're muted, Chuck. I think it's hard to say that that is the case. Obviously liquor licenses can't be transferred as part of a sale. So, you know, even that part of the sale documents would have been even if the license was valid, you still have to approve any transfer of the license. And I think there is a common misconception that you can sell a, in fact, I see real estate listings for taverns all the time that say license included with sale. Well, obviously that's just legally not true, but people sort of believe that. I will say that you have, as a committee, while you're not required to, you have typically always just simply allowed in situations where there is being a transfer, you've allowed that to occur as long as they're legally able to get the license and have not considered the other factors related to number of licenses. This one's a little more complicated by the fact that the license was no longer valid, but it is certainly, you have every ability to grant the extension of Mr. Corson now so that he can then sign the documentation to transfer the license over to her and then approve the license, which is actually on the agenda if you approve it today. All right, so what I'm hearing at least, I don't know how fellow committee members feel, but I'm thinking the equities here, I mean, getting a new business off the ground is dicey under the best of circumstances. So I would like Ms. Valdez's business to succeed. So it seems to me the proper motion then, Chuck, would be to grant the extension until June 30th with the thought at that point that the extension would be maybe contingent on Mr. Corson transfer. Well, you said he can't transfer the license. So he's filled out the paperwork to do it, but it can't actually happen until you approve it. So if you were to approve today the extension to the end of June, basically what would happen is then a little later in the meeting, you'll approve that transfer. And then that extension grant that you've given to Mr. Corson would transfer to Ms. Valdez and she just need to open before June 30th. Okay, I don't see any reason to wait until June 30th. I mean, if the sale has already been made. Well, you need to make the extension to a given date because she inherits that. If you would make until tomorrow and she doesn't open tomorrow, then she's got a problem. She's still inherits continuation problem. Okay, I see Dean has a question. So I'll shut up for a while. My question would be to Ms. Valdez. When do you anticipate opening? When does it sound like you will be opening? We were thinking August because like I said mentioned before there's some things that are not up to code but we need to get fixed and update it before we can open. Does that have any limitations? That's what you told me. You have the ability to grant the extension to June 30th. If she doesn't open by June 30th, she won't be able to get the license for July 1st and then it would become available and everybody would, everybody, including her would have the opportunity to apply for it at a later date. Okay. Alder Feldy. Do we typically just do one extension for our owners? We're giving her tell June 30th. Could you come back at that time and say I just need two more weeks? I mean, is that allowed or is that it? Just this is it, June 30th. Yeah, there's two issues here. One is that the ordinance is written in such a way to grant a single extension through a date certain or you can pick a number of days. The other issue that you have here is that the end of the license year comes on June 30th. You can't extend the license past its expiration date. So the June 30th date really is sort of a drop dead date as long as she's able to open one day legally by June 30th, then she would be no longer in violation as long as she doesn't shut down again for six months. Okay. Thank you, Chuck. Well, I guess this is another question for Chuck. So if she opens, like you said, for one day in June, then what would her requirements be if she's still in the midst of remodeling but she was able to at least get her tavern open to a point where she could have it open for a couple of days in June, a couple of days in July, and then finish up her remodeling, open it fully in August. Would that be legal under our statutes? Technically, yes. I'm not sure that practically, whether that, how well that works because she'd have to have all the permits to be able to open inspection or have to clear her. But let's say she is able to get all of sort of the legal requirements out of the way before June 30th, open for a week or open even for a night, as long as she serves alcohol on that night, she could shut down again for up to six months in order to sort of do more cosmetic changes if that's what she wanted to do. So my question would be Ms. Valdes, do you understand? Do you understand what that, how this is working? Yes, I do understand. And that is something you think you can handle or not handle, but that works for you? Yes, it does. Well, then I would move to extend the license till June 30th. Oh, second. Okay, there's been a motion by Don Huse, second by Valdes. Ms. Valdes, do you have any additional questions for us at all while we have you? No, I do not. Okay, sounds good. Well, thank you for attending the meeting today. Any further discussion? Thank you. From committee members? No. No, all right then. Seeing none, all those in favor of granting the extension, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye, that's approved. Thank you. Okay, 3.4, RO number 169, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2021, December 31st, 2021, April 14th, 2022 and June 30th, 2022. Looks like the recommendations. Yeah, we are recommending granting all of the licenses on the RO, two of the two changes of premises do have some contingencies that you have to obtain street festival permits, but we can vote to grant. I'll make a motion to grant. Second. Motion by Barb, second by Betty. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Next meeting is April 14th, seeing that we've exhausted the agenda, is there so much such motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. There's been a motion second to adjourn. All those in favor of adjourning, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.