 We'll start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we'll do roll call. Alderperson Decker. Here. Alderperson Feldy. Alderperson Ackley. Here. Alderperson Donahue. Here. Great, we have a quorum, everyone is here. All right, moving along. We'll approve the minutes from our April 29th meeting. Is there such motion to approve? Motion to approve. There's been a motion by Alder Decker. Is there a second? Second. There's second by Alderperson Feldy. Any discussion on the minutes from our previous meeting? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes, please state aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved. All right, 3.1, general ordinance number four, 2021, a direct referral and ordinance amending various sections to the municipal code. So as to update them to conform with the state statutes and to temporary reduced fees for various licenses related to serving or fermented malt beverages and intoxicating liquors to the minimum required by state statute and temporary waving fees for sidewalk cafes, all reductions and fees to be applicable for the licensing year that includes July 1st, 2020. Who wants the, Chuck, you wanna kind of give a brief statement to start this one off? Yeah, just briefly, there are seven sections. There are seven sections to the ordinance. Is it on? Yeah, okay. The first reduces the fee for a Class B beer license from $100 to $10 for this current license year. It also eliminates proration then for the year since prorating $10 is not really worth it. Section two, add some caveats to limitations on Class B premises that have been added to the state statutes recently, basically some additional exceptions there. Section three eliminates the program that allows a grant to mitigate the impact of the fee for reserve license applications. That program is no longer allowed in Wisconsin and we never eliminated it out of our code. So this does that. Section four reduces the fee for a Class B liquor license from $500 to $50, which is the minimum for this current license year. We keep the proration in effect because it's required. Section five reduces the fee for a Class C wine license from $100 to $10 for the current license year. Eliminates proration for this year only just as we did with the Class B. Section six adds two newly created statutory exceptions to the underage on premises rule. They keep adding things so we got to keep adding them and now is as good a time as any to do that. Section seven eliminates the fee for a sidewalk cafe permit for this year. There's no minimum, it's our own fee so it just simply eliminates the fee for this year. I did note in my notes to you that these changes do are probably going to result, if you approve them, would result in the refund, in the refund of a good number of fees that have already been paid. Meredith or Julie can probably tell you a little bit more about the impact of that. It would also decrease revenues to the clerk's office, obviously. And then the other issue that's come up is that a number of applicants for the small business grant program that Chad's department is running, that new program, a lot of those folks have requested funds through that program to pay those fees. So there's a little bit of a cross-pollination going on there. Now I don't think we granted, I don't think the ones that we granted so far actually included those fees. So, one did, so we may have to, have we paid that person out yet? Okay. Okay, so we may have to change the check or ask them for a refund or something, but. Okay. I'm sure a lot of folks have questions. Meredith, do you wanna speak on this a little bit? I guess, just in terms of the impact that this would have on your budget, and I know we're going into presidential election year, and just curious to kind of know what kind of the numbers and what the revenues would look like. And then if you could speak on the refunds and what that would look like and what that process would be. How many people have paid in full? Not many. The refunds, we, when we sent out the applications, we encouraged them to pay the 27 and that's not refundable. Okay. Because that's the publication fee and the background check. So, that $27 would be theirs to renew the license as well. If you, there's 112 licenses that are the Class B and the Class C, so that's $600. So if you reduce those to 60, that's the $540 that you would reduce our revenues for 112 of them. And then for the Class B beer, that cuts that revenue about 2,100. So about 60,000. Any questions for Meredith at all from anyone? Meredith, is this, is this running in line with what other municipalities are doing with their licenses because of the establishments being closed for weeks now? I have not heard of other municipalities that are cutting the complete fees, Chuck. Have you heard? I have heard of some that have. Okay. And some who have chosen not to. Okay. So it's kind of a balance. Have they either done all or nothing or parts or? That I don't know. I know there are a few municipalities that did cut them down to the minimum. I know that because there was some discussion among the municipal attorneys in the state about this and the discussion was, well, what's the minimum? What's the maximum? And can you go anywhere in between? And of course you can. So, but what the city's decided to do in those cases, I don't know. Yeah, I see these are the municipalities that either lowered or eliminated licensing fees. Two rivers, town of Phillips, city of Green Bay to Pier Howard, La Crosse, Delvin, Little Shoot, Reedsburg, Milwaukee, South Milwaukee, Superior, Altoona, Mandovi, New Holstein, Muskego, Summoner. Ryan, could you speak into your microphone a little louder? Sorry. Did you want me to repeat? I just listed some cities off. Okay, no, it's fine. Okay. Do you want me to repeat them or you could? Okay. My question is, could we write this so that a business would need to request the reduction with the thought that not everyone, I mean, I know all businesses are hurting, but there may be some who wouldn't request it. So we can't have a program where the fee is reduced where it doesn't apply to everyone in the class. What you can do is have a program, basically a program like chat already has where people can apply to get funds to pay the fee. So in essence, the fee would stay at where it is and the city program would pay the fee. The issue of course is the chat's program, many of the bars would qualify for that, but not all of them would. Is Chad in the room? He is. You're big. Chad, I'm just interested. I know that the small business grant program has been very popular. Do you have any money left? Yes, well, we awarded two applications last week. We're meeting tomorrow and gonna be taking up another eight applications. So when I totaled it up, we've spent about 100,000 of the 420,000 that's available. So if there is business owners, bar owners out there that are struggling and haven't received any other funding programs, we definitely still have room to fund those programs. Those companies are businesses. So you've only gotten 10 applications? We've gotten 20, 22 applications, but they're not all complete. So we're still working with the owners to get complete applications. Could we provide something, the 51,000 is quite a hit. Could we provide something? No, probably, my lips are moving while I'm thinking, but that if there were five or fewer employees rather than apply for the license pro-ration or reduction, they would, we'd ask them to apply for the small business grant instead for that amount. Yeah, again, the issue is we can't reduce the fees for some and not others. So we either reduce the fees or we don't. If we don't, we can have programs that we would need to fund like Chad's program. You can create other programs, I suppose too, but then people would have to qualify under those programs. Got it, got it. Is it possible to pro-rate? I'm sorry, is it possible to reduce, not to reduce it to the lowest amount possible, but a middle ground? Yes. So instead of losing 60,000, we would lose 30,000? Yeah, to maybe reduce it to halfway between the max and the minimum or something, yeah. Any number, any number between the minimum and the maximum, which we currently charge the maximum and this ordinance brings it to the minimum. So any number in between is acceptable. Okay. I'll have Chad go first, then Dean, then the mayor. My question is, so I understand the idea of trying to help these businesses. We also have a lot of contracting businesses in the city that pay licensing fees for contractor licensing for employee licensing and we're hearing already from them. Well, what about us? Because we're a business as well. So I think as you deliberate over this, you need to take into consideration that this affects other licensings that the city does as well. And I'm afraid if we just do it for one group, we're gonna have other groups coming forward and saying, well, what about us? So just a comment. Thanks, Chad, I appreciate that. Okay. My question's for Chad, actually. Sorry, don't go on. That's why I was trying to catch it before. How many of those 20 are taverns? Of the 20 that you have, are they mostly taverns? A lot of them were taverns. I don't wanna say the number, but I would say a good, probably half of them were taverns. Okay, okay. Mike? I guess in the calls and emails I received, I have a handful of people who are asking about a discount on a license for a bar. I know none of the bar owners would probably say no if we offered it, but I haven't gotten that big of a response that we should lower the license fees from when you consider we have over 100 licenses that are out there. I really think that we've created a mentality or the US government has with the way they're dealing with the coronavirus that let's just give things back to people and unfortunately, we don't have a treasury that can keep on printing money. We've got a limited amount of money and our clerk's budget has already been hit hard by the elections and it looks like it's gonna be hit hard again by some of the other elections by changing their practices. And I really think we should concentrate on, amongst several of us, we wanted to bring some life back to the downtown and I think should concentrate on the premise rules for extension of premise so they can use a parking lot or other land that they own and extend their premises outside so they can still have social distancing and accommodate more people and then also reducing the sidewalk cafe permit. These people are willing to put some money in to build these things so that people are gonna feel comfortable. It's gonna take a little bit of an investment and I can see where we can roll down the prices on those to nothing and just give them basically the permission to do that if they properly fill out their application and implement it. I think what we're doing, if we do those two things, I think we're accomplishing a lot and we're really giving up new revenue that we don't have right now. There's just a couple of merchants right now that have cafe licenses and if a lot of people start doing it, we could develop a new source of revenue for the future if they like it and wanna continue it but I really think that we should eliminate the idea of reducing these fees on the different licenses that have been suggested in these documents and amend this, take those items out and then approve the rest of them along with the extension of premise rules and the sidewalk cafe permits. And if you wanna do a little bit, I could see giving them 20% off but I really think we should just leave them where they are and if we wanna roll out another program to help them out with that for the ones that request it, that's another way to look at it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further questions from anybody? Ryan? Yes, Marilyn. Friday morning, some of us from the city and the Chamber of Commerce are hosting a virtual meeting for business owners who may be in the process of rethinking or thinking about reopening and restoring their business. We're kind of excited about this opportunity to hear what business owners are thinking and wanting and how they're approaching what their thoughts are on approaching reopening and so forth. Law and license fees may be part of that or it may not based on what the mayor said but I think that the reduction of fees is at this particular point, it might address one small part but will lead to a fair reduction of income and may hamper our flexibility in providing relief in other areas to businesses. So I think it's an admirable idea. It may, I think it's just too early. So the parts that do need to be, and I don't get too much of my screen here but whatever sections of the proposed ordinance that are not monetarily impactful, I think we could go ahead and approve or we could just solve the whole resolution until we have a better sense from our business owners what they're thinking. And I would defer to Chuck as to maybe the best way to process this. Yeah, so depending on how you wanna handle it, Mayor Mike's suggestion would eliminate sections one, four and five. If you also eliminate the reduction in the sidewalk cafe permit, that would also eliminate section seven. But yeah, so that would be how you might do that is to move to amend, to eliminate sections one, four and five and maybe seven. If, let me know, Chuck, if this would be possible. Could we? Say that again. Is time of the essence with respect to the other sections two, three and six? No, we could do that at any time. I think maybe just an easier way of handling all of this would be just a motion to hold. At least for a couple of weeks, just to see where we're at. Maybe hold until mid June, I'm not sure the precise form of a motion to hold with the specific date. If I need to do that, Chuck, or if I can just. No. Yeah, you can do a motion to hold and Alderman Sorensen as the chair of the committee kind of controls the agenda and decides when it gets put back on. So while I think it has some merit, I think it's just premature and therefore I move to hold the resolution. All right, there's been a motion to hold. Is there a second? Second, that he actually. All right, there's been a second by Alderperson Ackley. Any discussion? Mr. Mayor. Alderperson Goldie. Oh, hang on, Barb, Mike's gonna speak quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really like the idea of approving what you can out of this and including six and seven in there because you're gonna have merchants right now that wanna get those extension or premise things set up. They wanna put tents in their yards. They wanna put parklets in and it would be nice to know that we can give them those things without no fees. Otherwise, we're gonna start saying, well, if you wanna do this, this is what you have to pay. And again, we're trying to liven up downtown and other areas and allow these merchants to spread their customers out a little bit more so that they can still be successful in business. So I would really hope that you wouldn't hold this and you would eliminate one, four and five from this and amend it to pass the rest. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Barb. The question is probably more for Chuck or Meredith. Are some of these licenses due by the end of June and are we kind of crunching that deadline for them then too? Yes, so the licenses all run out June 30th and they need to apply in sufficient time so that we can meet to approve them before then. So there is a timeframe on that. Meredith did give them till May 15th as a deadline to apply. I think we have a little bit of room beyond that. And then the sidewalk cafe permits actually, that's an April to April year, although I don't know how many people have applied for their sidewalk cafe permits yet for this year since it's been cold and people can't really gather. So it would have to be on the council agenda on the 15th if you were going to change the fees because it would have to be paid for by the end of June to have their renewals by July 1st, if that makes sense. Thank you. I do have a comment too. I'm going to vote against holding this. I do agree with the mayor's statement as well. I would, if we voted not to hold this, I would make another motion or recommend another motion to strike or either hold sections one, four and five from this ordinance and then still pass sections two, three, six and seven. So I'll be voting against holding this. Well, I can withdraw my motion. I mean, if that is clear enough, I think it's a little precipitous, but I withdraw my motion if the seconder is willing to withdraw as well. I am willing to withdraw. Okay, thank you. Exactly. Betty, Mary Lynn has withdrawn her motion and Betty has withdrawn her second. So we're still just in general discussion on this general ordinance. Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to pass with sections one, four and five eliminated. We need to make a motion first to approve the ordinance and then a second, and then we can make the amendments to that. So if you want to... So was there already a motion to approve the ordinance? No. No, just animals. So yeah, make a motion to approve the ordinance and then we'll do an amendment motion. Make a motion to approve the ordinance. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, Barb is seconded. And then the appropriate motion would be to amend to strike sections one, four and five if that's what you want to do. Okay, I would like to make a motion to amend to strike sections one, four and five from the ordinance. All right, there's been an amendment made to strike sections one, four and five and there's been a second by Alderperson Donahue. Any discussion on the amendment that is being made? I guess my question is we could always revisit these items. You can revisit the items. The issue will be, you know, the timing of it all and they'll already have paid the fees. Okay. I'll just make my concern is where are we gonna find the money to fund Meredith's if we do this and that's my biggest concern. Her department can't take a $60,000. This year especially, I can't take that anytime but I think this year would even be very important for us to do that. So we're gonna make two motions here. So we're gonna vote on the amendment first and then we'll vote on the general ordinance. So all those in favor of amending the ordinance to strike sections one, four and five, please state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. So those items have been amended and removed. So now we're back on the main motion as amended for sections two, three, six and seven. Any discussion on the content that is still remaining in the general ordinance? Seeing none. All those in favor of approving the ordinance as amended? Please state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That motion is approved. Okay. Thanks for folks for attending and commenting on that. Section or item number 3.2 resolution number 1920-21, a resolution authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a contract with Mike Cain and Construction Incorporated and replace the roof at the Sheboygan Fire Department station two. Bernie, chief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members committee. On a surface it sounds like we're gonna take off some shingles and nail on some shingles. It's quite a bit more involved than that. The project is to essentially take a flat roof which is failing and replace it with a pitched roof which will do many things for us. Most of all, take care of the failing elements that are supporting the flat roof. Flat roofs generally are not a good answer in Wisconsin. There's a couple of structures up on the roof. There's four actually that provide light into the building called Clara Story Windows. And those structures are actually constructed of concrete block and full depth face brick as a result the weight of those on the wooden structural members that support the roof. Five years ago we determined through an engineer that did an inspection that the number of those members were failing and that's how the project got going. Project, as I said, it's been in the works for about five years. We through a number of different issues that came up during that time with funding it got put off a little bit. It's now time to get it taken care of. We put it all for bids, received four bids. Lowest responsive bid was for mechanic construction for $315,500. We have $319,700 in the budget. So we are able to proceed forward at this time and get it taken care of. And that should take care of the issue for at least 30 years at which time we'll have to look at shingles, but I won't be here. That's what you think, Bernie. So cool. Any questions for Bernie? Just have one comment. I like the idea of going from a flat roof to a slope. I deal with flat roofs all the time and they are not conducive to this weather around here. Sounds good. There's been a motion to approve by older person Donahue. Is there a second? Second. Second by Dean. Any further discussion or comments? Seeing none. All those in favor of approving the resolution, please state aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That's approved. Thank you. Thank you. 3.3, RO number 4, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2021. So we are requesting that you hold the following licenses. These are all Class B liquor licenses and we're asking that you hold the license of Applebee's, the Fountain Park Lodge, Harry's Diner, Harry's Prohibition Bistro, Il Retrovo, the Duke of Devon, the Endzone and Trattoria Stefano. All of those, there's just some additional work that needs to be done on those. There's, I anticipate they will all be approved the next go around. All the other licenses may be granted. All right. Is there such motion to approve the licenses and hold the aforementioned establishments? There's been a motion by older person Donahue and a second by older person Feldy. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Those licenses are approved and some are held. 3.4, RO number 5, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2021. In June 30th, 2022. So most of the licenses we're suggesting that you grant, we are asking that four licenses be held and I'll give you the reasons for those holds. We're suggesting that you hold the new license application of Shelly A. Jesky. She's ineligible for the license, so we'll have to have, we'll work with her and if we have to, we'll have a hearing. The other one is for Kevin C. Klein, he also is ineligible for the license, so we'll work with him and have a hearing if necessary. And then two renewals that we're asking to be, have held and those are just to finish background checks that weren't able to get completed and those are Richard J. Peterman and Glenn J. Wilkie. I anticipate those will be granted the next go-around. All right, is there such motion to prove the licenses and hold the aforementioned individuals? There's been a motion by elder person Donahue. Second. Second by elder person Decker. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, oh, Mary Lynn. Just real quickly, what is the club designation check? So a club license is a license for, that it is literally that a club and so they don't serve the general public, they only serve the members of the club. As a result, the fee is significantly lower and the amount of work that we have to do in the background is less, but there are a few things that we do have to do. Thank you. All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed, chair votes aye. That is approved. All right, our next meeting will be May 27th. Seeing that we've exhausted the agenda, is there such motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. There's been a motion by elder person Decker. Second. And a second by elder person Feldy. All those in favor of adjourning, please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed, chair votes aye. We are adjourned at 432. Thank you everybody.