By Kim McDarison
Amendments within a proposed multipart alcohol consumption and nuisance ordinance met with varying outcomes during Tuesday’s Fort Atkinson City Council meeting.
Each of four amendments were scheduled for a third reading Tuesday. Council typically adopts ordinances and amendments that change them after a third reading.
During Tuesday’s meeting, an amendment to city code, making it unlawful for any license holder to permit any person to leave the licensed premise with an open container of alcohol, passed a third reading, with council voting in favor of moving the item to its next meeting, scheduled for July 20, at which time it will undergo a fourth reading before again returning for consideration of approval.
Council members voted 4-1 in favor of a fourth reading, with Councilman Brandon Housley casting the dissenting vote.
A second piece of the multipart ordinance — proposing an amendment to city code making it unlawful to possess an open alcohol container on any public street, sidewalk or public right-of-way unless an appropriate permit or license has been granted by the city council — was tabled until further notice. The measure received unanimous approval from council, with the body citing a desire to allow city staff more time to better understand potential outcomes associated with the proposed change.
Two other amendments within the ordinance — one developed to curb disorderly conduct by making it unlawful for any person to defecate or urinate outside of a designated facility, and another making it unlawful to drink or possess alcohol in a city park when closed unless permitted through an authorized event — each passed a third reading and were adopted into law.
During discussion, several council members noted that they had received communications from area business owners and residents pertaining to at least two of the proposals.
Discussion focused on language prohibiting bar and tavern patrons from leaving a licensed premise with open intoxicants, and the prohibition of open intoxicants on city streets and sidewalks.
Open intoxicants leaving a licensed premise
During the discussion Housley asked: “So let’s say you had a drink at the legion, would you have to stay on their patio?”
City Clerk Michelle Ebbert said she could address the question from a licensure standpoint: “So if you are purchasing a drink at the legion, and you are staying on their premise description — the premise description is where alcohol can be sold, stored and consumed — so if you buy a drink and you stay on their property … you’ll be ok with that. The second you leave a property, that’s where that issue stands of having an open intox … You cannot leave their property.”
City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire said the requirements, as outlined by Ebbert and within the proposed amendment, are “already state statute.”
A benefit, she said, is that the proposed ordinance would allow violations to be enforced locally.
Fort Atkinson Police Chief Adrian Bump said: “Right now the police department has the ability to enforce this law at a state level, which means that if we were to take law enforcement action against a location, it would be a state offense and not an ordinance violation. It would actually be a criminal forfeiture or it could be a misdemeanor. It would go through the circuit court. If we adopt this ordinance, that gives the local municipal court the ability to handle and oversee that violation.”
Without a city ordinance, he said, “we would have to go through the district attorney (and) through circuit court for a violation. That’s our only option.”
The change would make violations a local enforcement matter, he said.
A local ordinance, he said, “allows our officers better discretion and it’s less of a penalty against the business. It’s better for the business to have an ordinance violation than to have a criminal violation.”
Councilwoman Megan Hartwick said she had been contacted by members of the public with comments about the proposed ordinance.
“It is by far the most public feedback and the most public comments that I have received on anything in certainly my short tenure here on the city council,” she said.
“Knowing that we at least potentially have an option, I would like to see this be something that we get a little bit more information on and more feedback on before our council would choose to make a vote on this,” she added.
Hartwick said she wanted “more clarification” and a “better understanding” of potential impacts, especially for bar owners.
Said Bump: “The best way to describe it is the potential impact to them is that instead of being charged criminally, and being charged through the circuit court, they, if (they) violated this law, and an officer chose to take legal action against them — because officers use discretion — they would be issued a local ordinance citation which would be a fine, and they would be allowed to go to municipal court in our city before our municipal judge to contest the citation.”
Without the ordinance, Bump said, the violation becomes a state matter and is handled criminally through the circuit court rather than civilly through the municipal court.
He described the local option as “better for our bar owners.”
Hartwick asked: “How many of these state offenses have bars in Fort Atkinson received in the last year?”
Bump responded, saying “zero.”
With no offenses identified last year, Hartwick questioned whether the situation was of concern.
Said Bump: “Not that there isn’t a problem. There is an extreme issue. We have people leaving establishments every single night.
“We are not taking enforcement action against our businesses because we are a local police department that takes pride in our businesses, and the last thing we want to do is hold criminal charges against (owners). So we could continue to do nothing and see no strong benefit to improving the quality of life in the city, and the chronic nuisance issues we’re seeing, or we can be a little bit more hard-nosed and start taking criminal action against our bars and our bartenders and our bar owners. And that’s what we don’t want to do.”
Bump said officers talk with bar owners when they see concerning behavior and warn them, but, he added: “You can only warn someone so many times before it just becomes a joke.”
Bump described the new ordinance as a motivational tool to help curb nuisance behavior. The community has some “great” business owners that depend on the sale of alcohol, but, he added, if the owners could not be motivated, “then things will just not get better.”
Councilman Bruce Johnson said, in his experience, the public did not often bring concerns to council members. In light of comments, he said, he believed more time to better understand the issues would be merited.
Hartwick said business owners who had spoken with her said they were concerned that a new ordinance would bring a “push” to punish them. They also voiced concern, she said, about their ability to monitor their customers so they could accurately account for who might be leaving their premise with open alcohol containers.
Bump emphasized the importance of adopting all four of the amendments being presented.
“They all work together,” he said.
“We would never go after a situation by only coming up with one solution or one angle to address it,” he added.
He stressed his confidence in his officers’ ability to use discretion when applying law enforcement tools, and noted a need to cultivate what he described as continued good relationships between business owners and the police department.
Bump said a new state law, making legal the sale of sealed containers of alcohol at bars and taverns, would not be affected by the proposed ordinance.
Open intoxicants on city streets and sidewalks
During discussion about an amendment prohibiting open intoxicants on city streets and sidewalks, Councilman Mason Becker said he received feedback from community members, adding: “I did get a sense that many members of the public were a little more hesitant on this point, as I would, frankly, say I am.
“From a sense of personal freedom standpoint, I have a hard time saying we should prohibit somebody from say leaving their house and going for a walk on the sidewalk with an open can of beer.”
Hartwick, too, said she received comments from members of the public.
Expressing their concerns, she said: “It seems like an overregulation and it would punish a lot of people for perhaps the misbehavior or misconduct of the few.”
Council President Chris Scherer asked Bump if there was a specific part of the city that caused him concern.
Bump cited the city’s downtown district and Riverwalk as the most common places where the ordinance could be most beneficial.
Becker said he was aware of “a recognized problem” in the Riverwalk area.
Becker said alcohol consumption was already prohibited in two parks in the city.
“I could see crafting something to perhaps prohibit consumption on the Riverwalk,” he said.
“Covering the whole city with this, when I don’t get the sense that it’s a huge problem or something that residents of the city are necessarily asking for, I have to be a little bit more cautious with this,” Becker said.
Said Johnson: “I guess I’d like to make sure we keep distinguishing between are we chasing disorderly conduct or are we chasing a beer … I know a lot of fisherman, there are a lot of people who like to fish on that river (Rock River). Are they not going to be able to have a beer and sit next to their fishing pole?”
“If we pass the ordinance, it would be citywide, streets and sidewalks,” Bump said.
Scherer asked Bump about concerns and benefits associated with defining a district in which the ordinance might apply.
Bump said if the district was well defined, “so it was black and white,” he did not think it would be a hindrance for law enforcement.
Hartwick said she believed the districting concept would be “very worthwhile to explore.”
Council opted to table the proposed ordinance to allow for further exploration by city staff of options.
A story, with comments made relating to the second reading of the amendments, is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/multipart-alcohol-consumption-public-nuisance-ordinance-moves-toward-approval/.
A story, with comments made relating to the first reading of the amendments, is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/first-reading-approved-for-proposed-multipart-intoxicant-consumption-ordinance/.
This post has already been read 2132 times!
