 Elder person Ackley. I see you. Sorry, I didn't have my mic on, I'm here. Okay. All other person sorts into here. For those in the chamber, would you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? To apply for the United States of America in choosing a republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from our previous meeting? There's been a motion in second. Any discussion on the minutes from our previous meeting? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. The minutes are approved. Moving right along, 3.1, general ordinance number 432021, a direct referral in ordinance regulating the rental and operation of electric scooters in the city of Sheboygan. I'll turn this over to city assistant city attorney Thomas Cameron. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? So this is an ordinance in short that will allow electric scooters to be rented in the city. It stems out of bird scooters approaching the city and expressing an interest in operating their electric scooter rental business within the city. And this would provide very clear rules and regulations both for the operation of those scooters and for the rental of that, creating a business license that bird or anyone else who is interested in renting scooters in the city could pursue and if they meet the requirements obtain. I'm happy to get into sort of as much detail or as little detail as the committee would like. I know that Chad was very involved in the conversations with bird on sort of a mechanics perspective. So I'm certainly happy to defer to him when it comes to that. And I believe someone from bird was expected to be on the call as well. Good afternoon. Yes, I am here. I'm Michael Cavado, the territory manager for the central office of Northwest region. All right, Michael, did you wanna take the floor? Do you wanna introduce yourself and share your thoughts on this item? Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. As I mentioned earlier, I'm Mike Cavado with the bird located at 406 Broadway, you know, number 369 in Santa Monica, California. We are extremely excited to work with the city of Sheboyan and have a lot of enthusiasm about hopefully introducing shared scooters to the city. I believe that the ordinance that has been created by the assistant city attorney has been incredibly fair. There are only a few minor points that I would love to suggest in terms of consideration for the council and moving forward in order to ensure that there is a smooth process and adherence to every letter within the proposed ordinance. Would it be appropriate at this time to raise these? Yeah, if you just wanna, I think we'd probably just jump into then, if you just wanna share some points or thoughts of concern that you do have. Yes, absolutely. I believe there is a restriction in terms of allowing the scooters to operate on any street that is above 25 miles per hour. Most cities allow for either 35 or 40 miles per hour as the cap within those. As Sheboyan has a handful of streets that potentially might exceed that, I think it might be beneficial to allow for a little bit of a buffer further and carve out enabling electric scooters to operate on streets regardless of speed limit if there is a dedicated bike lane. Would likely be useful. Sheboyan has some very robust cycling infrastructure and compared to a lot of North American cities, being able to utilize those for the sake of the shared electric scooters could be very advantageous for residents and visitors. The additional point that I would raise is, I apologize, my notes are slightly small here. The additional point that I would raise is with respect to the insurance clause, there is a specification requesting that the insurer carrier notify in the event of any kind of material change, cancellation, non-renewal. This is more administrative in nature as we are present in approximately 100 cities within the United States alone. It's very challenging to make any kind of one-off as it would be for any of the large experience providers having the onus be on the provider to make any kind of commentary that reports notify the city within 14, 30 days, whatever timeline in order to ensure that there is communication of any kind of change would be much appreciated. Allows things to be a bit easier on the administrative side and certainly doesn't preclude us from being able to operate based off of some of the limitations that we have due to our size. Finally, I believe that the indemnification clause allows the assistant city attorney and the city attorney to make any kind of adjustments there. In general, I believe you'll find within, sorry, on a case-by-case basis to finish that thought. In general, I think you'll find that most ordinances, operating agreements, et cetera, do have a carve-out for willfulness conduct and negligence. I think we would much appreciate that could be included as well. Beyond that, I believe everything within the ordinance as proposed is, as I mentioned, very fair. It's readily apparent that quite a bit of research and thought has been put into it. All right, thank you for that. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Sorry. Oh, yep. I apologize, the delay in the audio. I was saying, thank you. Yep, you're welcome. Do any elders or city staff have any questions for Michael while he's on here still? I guess I just have one comment on the 25. I would say that I would like to continue with the 25-mile-an-hour roadways. I wouldn't feel comfortable with, say, like a tailored drive with one of these scooters on. I just think that there's bike paths along there. I think if there's a bike path, fine, and it's okay, but I don't think that, like, having it on a 35-mile-an-hour road would be prudent, so. Oh, Chief? Chief. My question for Michael would be whether his recommendation about the change in the roads, the speed limit on the roads, would be related to any analysis they've done of the city of Sheboygan or whether it's just based on the way it's operating in other cities? Primarily the latter, admittedly, with respect to Sheboygan specifically, I know there are a handful of larger roads that do happen above 25-mile-per-hour limit that likely will be used as primary commuter channels. My understanding is there's also a handful of roads that are over 25-miles-per-hour that have bike lanes. My comment would be to enable a carve out more than anything else to enable the use of the shared scooters within those bike lanes, regardless of the speed limit on the road, which I believe the ordinance, unfortunately, at this point in time, does not allow for. So then my comments to the committee would be that in providing input to the drafting of the ordinance, one thing that we looked at was creating language that makes it easy for the consumer really to understand and then follow. And so thinking about this, first of all, the vast majority, probably 95% or so of the roads in Sheboygan have a speed limit of 25-miles-per-hour. And so rather than saying no scooters west of Kohler Memorial Drive, west of 19th Street, and so forth and so forth, it's easier and uniform to say 25-miles-per-hour. Then if you look at those roads where that doesn't apply, so that would be one example I would provide. If you're going west on Erie and you get to Kohler Memorial at 19th, it turns to 35-miles-per-hour. There is no bicycle lane west of there, but there is a bike path that begins there. And so what we're trying to do is, I don't want to say force, but it's the word that I'm going to use, encourage those that have scooters not to leave the roadway there and to go onto the path. Taylor Drive would be the same example that I would provide. The speed limit is over 25, but beginning at Kohler Memorial there, there's a path that goes all the way along Taylor Drive onto the south side of the city. And so we would prefer that those on scooters would use that path rather than operate in the roadway there. And by leaving it the way that it is, it would encourage that. There's also an interurban trail that goes from North Avenue past the central city along Kelleyumet Drive where there are no bike lanes. And so again, if we would encourage people to use that trail that was built for purposes such as this, it would be advantageous to both the city and the consumers that would be using them. Thanks, Chief. Mayor Sorgins, and if I may, I actually agree with Chief Domigalski. I forgive me if I've mispronounced your last name. I, seeing the analysis there, I would tend to agree. I think that is a better option. Holder-Feldi would say. Okay, I've kind of watched this in Milwaukee and I know that they have a problem with people dropping those scooters. Barb, can you move your mic closer? Oh, sorry. They have a problem with them. If it's red, push again. Hang on, hang on, hang on. There it is, okay. They have a problem with them. The scooters being left, you know, hit their middle. So what are we gonna do to make sure that that's not gonna become a problem? I think there's several pieces to that. One of them starts with Byrd's education of consumers of what the expectation is and that's something that they've represented is part of their process, is trying to educate consumers. The second piece is using geofencing and other technologies so that your trip can't stop if you're in an inappropriate location. And the third piece, if and when scooters do end up in places where they shouldn't, is any scooter company that is renting scooters under this mechanism, they have an obligation to move a scooter within a certain amount of time upon receiving notice that it has been improperly parked. And if they don't move it within that time period, then the city can move it and can charge the cost of moving it to the scooter company. So can you give me an example of the time? You know, what's the time that they put on it? So it's three hours, three, essentially three hours from receiving notice. So it's not immediate, but does require them to move promptly. Thank you. Other? Alder, Donahue? Thank you. I didn't see any requirement for wearing a helmet in the ordinance, did I miss it? As currently written, it does not have a helmet requirement. Okay. And to the gentleman in California, Mr. Lovato, do you and other municipalities operate with the helmet requirements for your riders? Alderperson, Donahue, in I would say the overwhelming majority of cities that we do operate, there is not a helmet requirement. Having said that, it is something we actively encourage our riders to do so through in-app education when they create a new account. They do go through a safety tutorial where they're advised that they should be wearing a helmet. Further to that, all of our marketing material does include individuals wearing helmets that is always prevalent front and center. Finally, we are one of the few companies to offer a product feature that we call helmet selfies. If a rider will take a photograph of themselves at the end of their ride, wearing a helmet, they do receive a credit to their next ride. This further encourages use. Having said that, what I would say is ultimately it is up to the rider to decide whether they do wear a helmet and per state regulation, there is no requirement at this state. Okay, thank you. I had another question for Thomas. I've never seen an indemnification agreement that's not, well, typically they're mutual, but why is it that you are asking for authority to negotiate the terms of the indemnification provision? I mean, is that going to be an issue or I mean, typically we just get that out on the table and have it written into the contract? Yeah, I think to Mr. Kovato's point, I think there, when we're dealing with these national companies, there is some amount of back and forth that may well be appropriate and wanting to make sure that if we're hung up on a word or wanting to make sure that we're compliant with state law, that we're able to adjust that as time goes on. Okay, all right, I guess that makes sense. And I'm going to presume that, Mr. Kovato, you've reviewed the ordinance and you're not seeing any trouble with the indemnification clause. I think we do have one adjustment we would like to make to the indemnification clause that provides an exception for any willfulness, conduct or negligence on the part of the city, which I believe would be standard language within just about any legal agreement. Right, right, and you did mention that. And so Thomas, my question is, is that what you're going to be negotiating? I think it's things of that sort. And I think that that is consistent with ensuring that the indemnification clause is consistent with state law. Okay. And that it does adequately, ultimately protect the city. My own view, you probably ought to get that nailed before the ordinance gets passed, but you know, whatever. Otherwise, I think having been scared by electric scooters in Milwaukee, like boom, all of a sudden there they are. The thought of one going more than 25 miles an hour is pretty terrifying to me. So I'm glad that we can kind of reach an agreement that, and if I were a biker on a bike path, and even at 25 miles an hour, I mean, I can get that going downhill, but that's about it. So, I mean, it's a slower mode of transportation, but clearly to my mind, I would not be comfortable with anything over 25. Thanks. I, any other questions? Yeah. Mr. Crafato, just would you be having then personnel in Sheboygan to handle, to maintain your scooters and things like that? How would that exactly work? That is correct. I believe the individual who'd be overseeing the management of the city may potentially not be located within Sheboygan, but part of our operational model includes partnering with local individuals whose sole responsibility is managing the day-to-day field operations. To be clear, this is not a gig economy. These are individuals who are logistics providers. These are individuals who every single day engage in the deployment rebalancing, which is just a fancy work for moving the scooters around, routine maintenance and recharging of the scooters. What that means is Sheboygan can confidently turn to us and know that there is somebody within city limits who will be engaging in all of these and be extremely responsive. Further, it allows Bird to give an opportunity to create primary economic benefit as the average take home for these individuals is a little over $70,000 a year. And does that kind of fall in? So I think it's section 118-485 on page four, subsection two, section two with the 50 mile requirement. Does that fall under that, then if they would have those people here? Yeah, so the idea behind that is that there'd be someone in charge who is at least local-ish who the city can contact and is the main point of contact. A 50 mile radius seemed like a reasonable starting point for that. Because I'm just thinking, does that, how do you measure that point? Milwaukee, is that even close enough? Is that 50 miles? Does that get you that kind of radius? Even if they're like, say on the south side of Milwaukee, I don't know, just making sure that we have that flexibility in terms of how their company operates. So, just was- Sorry, Mayor Sorensen, if I may suggest something, I believe 50 miles, the individual who technically would fall under the title of operations manager might not necessarily be within that radius, but that does not mean that there will not be people within the limits of Sheboygan that certainly will be extremely responsive. If Mr. Cameron, you would be willing to make adjustments, enabling the language to read something along the lines of having a primary point of contact that the city may turn to without any proximity requirement, it might make things a bit easier. So I guess just the general sense of the committee, it seems like there's some small tweaky things that need to be adjusted, just based on the conversation today. I don't know if you'd wanna, I mean, we have several options. We can go through this line by line to make amendments and adjustments, or we can refer back to the attorney's office to make some recommendations and changes. Just kind of wanted to get a sense of what the committee's thinking. So, oh, okay, stop. I just think, Thomas, I appreciate your viewpoint on this, but it seems silly to recommend this to the council unless it's a final product, because then it comes back. And I guess my question for Mr. Covado is whether or not there's a, I mean, I understand, scooter season, hopefully. You see here in Wisconsin, we had snow this morning. So just to- Just a little bit, not a lot. Just to put in perspective, you don't need to have things on the ground by the end of April. But so I guess my sense of it is, is that before it's voted on as an ordinance, it ought to be a finished product. And so, Thomas, Mr. Covado, what do you think? We're City Administrator Wolff. Give me a minute. Thank you. I guess I just wanted to kind of point a few things out. I think, I'm speaking for myself here, I think part of the problem that we have when is the fact that we have an opportunity that's working with our city attorney, and we're bringing this forward so that some of the disagreements that the opportunity has with our city attorney is really, you know, Thomas is bringing things forward saying, this is where he sees it, and we need the committee to basically agree or disagree and see if that recommendation is something that we see as a constraint. So I don't wanna see us have to go line by line, but I think the spirit of it is if, you know, we've got a great city attorney and assistant city attorney, but sometimes they get locked in the weeds. I guess what I'm asking the committee is to kind of look at it and say, okay, do we agree on the 25 mile an hour? Okay, next. Do we agree that we have a problem with the insurance? I don't, you know, maybe not next. Do we have a problem with the 50 miles? I don't see that as an issue because if there's somebody local, it doesn't matter who you're calling and where they're sitting, right? We live in a world where they could be sitting in India for all we know. The point is as long as if you've got verbiage in the contract that says within three hours it's being addressed, it doesn't matter who you're calling and where they're sitting. It's the person that's actually dealing with it. So I guess, you know, to Mary Lynn's point, I would love to see contracts and ordinances coming to you guys. Done, but I think that realistically we're gonna have, we need assistance from the committee to help us to identify the recommendations that the city attorney's office is making. Do you guys see the same concerns or are we flexible enough to make some adjustments and move forward? To me, this is a great opportunity for the city and you know, we just need your guidance. Thank you. I just wanna add too, I think just in terms of how we're moving forward on this, I wanna make sure that, we offer the flexibility and support for this company to start up here. I'm personally excited for this to come to Sheboygan. I've utilized scooters like this all over the world and in my travels and stuff. So I'm excited and Mike, I appreciate you guys looking at Sheboygan setting up shop here. I'm excited and a lot of other folks are excited too. And just wanna make sure we get it right. I think that this is important because some cities that haven't gotten right, we've seen the results and it's a headache for everybody. So I agree with Administrator Wolfe as well. Alder Donahue, are you just waving at me or? Yeah, I like to wave at you. Okay. You know, while you're still an Alder and all that stuff. Well, you as well. Yeah. We're gonna miss it. So as long as we're agreed on the 25 miles an hour, it's the old perfection being the enemy of the good. As long as we're not gonna have a lot of futzing and dutsying about the mutual indemnification, it just seems to me that we can just go ahead. And I mean, I think the ordinance is extensive. I assume other municipalities are using somewhat similar ordinances. And as Alder Felde said, the Milwaukee rollout was pretty rugged, but I think it eventually got worked out. And so I think we're not going to be able to guarantee that everything is perfect, but with the sense of giving our rather cumbersome process of referring and referring back and whatever, I would just suggest that we take care of this today. And accordingly, I would move to recommend that we adopt the ordinance as written. There's been a motion to adopt. Is there a second? I'll second. Multiple seconds. Dean, I think I've got that first. Any further discussion on the ordinance from anybody? Alder's, Michael, staff. Okay, and, okay, seeing no more conversations or discussion, all those in favor of approving the ordinance, please state aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. All approved. Thank you, everyone, for your time on this one. And Michael, thank you so much for setting up shop in Sheboygan and hopefully we'll have a great rollout here. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the time. We're very excited. I hope you have a great afternoon. Thank you. Okay. Mozing along here, 3.2, RO number five dash 20 dash 21 submitting various license applications, individuals for the period ending June 30th, 2021, June 30th, 22 beverage operating license new application number for Shelley, Jing, Jing C. Like it's just, just key, just key. I would move that we refer this to the LHPS committee of the new council. There you go. There's been a motion second to refer to the new council. Anyone opposed or any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That's referred to the new council. 3.3, RO number 76, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2022, beverage operating license application number 3355. I would move that we refer this to the LHPS committee of the new council. Motion by Don Hughes, second by Decker to refer to the new LHPS committee of the new council. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That's been referred. 3.4, RO number 98, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2022, change of premise application for application number 3381 for Myers, still? Okay. Referring to the Don Hughes. Thomas, this has come back and back and back. Can you just give us an update on where we're at with this if it's going to resolve? Yeah, so I believe we are still waiting on Meyer to update their map. So is there a time limit for that or can we just keep hanging on? I think that the position we're taking is we can keep hanging on. Okay. Is there a motion to keep hanging on? So moved. Second. There's been a motion in second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. If you want to oppose, chair votes aye. 3.5, RO number 117, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending December 31st, 2021, June 30th, 2022, taxicab license application number 3441. All right, this is a hearing for denial. Mr. Felton is not present. So. He is Lieutenant Stelter on the line. Okay. So how do we proceed? I think we were, if we can hang on for a brief moment. Yep, please stand by. All right, we're going to move along to the next item and we'll just come back to it. 3.6, RO number 173, 2021, submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30th, 2021, December 31st, 2021, April 14th, 2022, June 30th, 2022. Okay. So staff recommendations are holding the taxicab license applications of the Oscar Bueno Jr. and Lindsay C. Wood for denial. Staff recommends granting the taxicab license applications of, okay, Mariela Arameda, Rosalina Montez with warnings and recommend holding the Class B liquor license application of Stefano Soul Food Market, LLC, because they need to make a small change to their application. Staff recommends granting all remaining applications and the RO needs to be referred to the LHPS committee of the new, to the new LHPS committee of the new council. Is there a motion to accept staff recommendations for this RO? Okay, a motion by Dean, second by Donahue. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Hi. Hi. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. Do we have an updater? Thomas, if I could just ask on the Darren Felton matter, if we, because of his failure to appear, don't we have authority to deny with a provision to reopen if there's good cause or something to that effect? I think you, you, I mean, it seems to me that, well, I don't know. I think because the basis of staff's recommendation relates to his criminal history and how that interacts with the licensed activity, I think putting that on the record has value. I believe Lieutenant Stelter should be arriving and or joining any moment. Oh, okay, never mind. All right, we'll have a brief recess then. Mr. Chair, I believe we are ready to proceed. All right, we'll jump back to 3.5 for denial hearing. Lieutenant Stelter, take it away. So we are, we are here today on the denial hearing on Mr. Felton's taxi cab driver's license application. Ms. Lieutenant Stelter, are you generally familiar with the taxi cab driver's license application Mr. Felton submitted? Generally, yes. And did that license application reveal a 1997 felony conviction for possession with intent to deliver THC? Yes. Can you explain how that conviction is substantially related to being a taxi cab driver? Yeah, with my experience with drug investigations related to supervising the multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement group and being an investigator in our street crimes unit in the city and also supervising the street crimes unit as a sergeant. We have gathered credible intel where taxi cab drivers used that line of work to deliver drugs. And are you aware of other instances in which Mr. Felton has been convicted for drug-related offenses? I'll get into the specifics. Yes? Are you familiar with his 1995 felony conviction for attempted possession with intent to deliver cocaine base? Yes. Are you familiar with his 1997 felony conviction for manufacture or delivery of cocaine second offense? Yes. Are you familiar with his 2016 misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia? Yes. And are these convictions related to being a taxi cab driver in the same way is his 1997 felony conviction that we talked about just a minute ago? Yes. Switching gears, are you familiar with Mr. Felton's 2002 felony conviction for a hit and run injury? Yes. And for the sake of a complete record, how is that conviction related to being a taxi cab driver? Well, you know, give someone a city taxi cab license. It's a liability. That type of driving behavior, hit and run, not taking responsibility for the initial accident sticking around to report it to police. And then causing injury is not something I think you want to take on as a liability. Based on your knowledge of these convictions, what is your recommendation about Mr. Felton's taxi cab driver's license application that be denied? Holder, Donahue? Since Mr. Felton isn't here, I'm going to be comfortable with denying the license. I will say in general that referring to convictions that are almost 25 years old, to me is not building a sufficient record. The 2016 possession of drug paraphernalia. Again, Mr. Felton is not here, so that is on him. One of these days, the state will make marijuana legal. And in most instances, possession of marijuana, not with intent to deliver, is either a county ordinance or can be amended to a county ordinance. So on its own, that I just, and you won't have to deal with me after today, so you don't. We have a council meeting on Monday now. Well, at least in this committee, causing trouble. But I would just suggest for the future that you really need to have more current, I understand if you were applying in 1998 or 2000 or even 2005, I might have a serious issue, but it's a quarter of a century later. So we just need to, I think, take that into account. The fact that the gentleman's not here, well, that's on him. And so in the hit and run, again, it's quite an old conviction. It is a serious matter. And if he were here to give us more details, maybe we might have been persuaded that there was a reason for what happened or whatever. But I just wanted to say my piece on that. So. Thanks, Alder Donahue. Does anyone have else questions or motions that they'd like to make? Alder Decker? I'm gonna make a motion to deny. I do agree with Alder Donahue, as far as the statement about the, if this gentleman was here to defend himself and give maybe some perspective on what's in the denial, but without that, I think we have to deny. There's been a motion to deny. In a second, any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please stay die. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye. That's denied. Okay. Next meeting will be determined. We've exhausted the agenda. Is there such motion to adjourn? Seeing a die. Motion to adjourn, seeing a die. There's been a motion in second. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of adjourning, please stay die. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. We're adjourned at 442.