By Kim McDarison
The Fort Atkinson City Council Tuesday approved a first reading of a proposed ordinance that would establish new regulations relating to the consumption of alcohol in and around establishments offering on-premise consumption, such as bars and restaurants, and in public places.
The changes come in four proposed amendments made to city code.
Fort Atkinson Police Chief Adrian Bump noted during the meeting that the proposed amendments are designed to make positive changes across the community and specifically in the downtown district.
In a memo to council, Bump wrote: “One way to determine needs as related to ordinances is to look to the officers on the street who utilize and apply local ordinances in the completion of their work.”
He continued: “While identifying trends and problems, officers in our city have continually brought forward issues specifically related to their inability to reduce public intoxication and open intoxicants, and the associated misbehaviors, through existing ordinance enforcement. Likewise, officers desire to reduce the number of open intoxicants on our streets that are coming from inside our bars, (and) from people who travel to our parks and Riverwalk as a drinking destination.”
Bump said the updates proposed in the ordinance are focused on reducing disorderly subjects, public intoxication, loud noise complaints, public urination, littering, property damage and fighting, which, he wrote in his memo, “have begun to plague our community’s downtown, parks and even our cherished Riverwalk.”
He said the proposed changes also would improve the “overall perception of safety” for those coming to enjoy assets within the city.
Bump enumerated changes within city code, which, he said, would work together to address the issues commonly encountered by officers.
Council listened to each change, voting to approve each item independently. All four of the items received unanimous first-reading approval. Ordinances and amendments that change them in the city of Fort Atkinson are subject to three readings unless council opts to suspend its rules and waive additional readings.
Proposed regulations that received first-reading approval include:
• 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.
• An amendment to city code making it unlawful, with a possible citation for disorderly conduct, for any person to defecate or urinate outside of a designated facility.
- 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.
- An amendment making it unlawful to drink or possess alcohol in a city park between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. unless permitted through approval of an authorized event.
During the discussion, Bump suggested there might be a need for urgency associated with approving language making public defecation and urination illegal, suggesting that suspending the rules and waiving a second and third reading might be applicable.
City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire noted that the amended language was set up within a single ordinance as a single action item. The clause relating to public defecation and urination, however, could be isolated and brought back independently for individualized consideration at council’s next meeting, she said. The process would include passing the amendment’s first reading and then suspending the rules during a second reading and waiving a third reading.
Bump, noting his desire to not further complicate the process, said he thought the amended language could continue with the process in the form it was presented.
During discussion, several council members asked questions about how new regulations might affect various members of the community.
Bump said language within the new regulations was designed “to give officers the ability to try to increase the quality of life … and also give them the ability to apply discretion with better ordinances in place related to issues we’re seeing related to alcohol and intoxication.”
Addressing language regulating bar and restaurant owners, he said, language is meant to “get some buy-in and support from our local establishments that serve alcohol — getting them on board and making sure that they have a vested interest in reducing the alcohol that leaves their facilities and enters onto our streets. It’s a real key part in making change.”
Councilwoman Megan Hartwick asked if fines for offenses related to alcohol leaving a bar or restaurant would fall upon the establishment’s owner.
Bump said the first proposed amendment focuses on the establishment’s owner, adding: “this would cover and try to motivate the establishment, the bar, the restaurant, to help prevent alcohol that’s open from entering onto the streets. In order to really make a difference, we need to have something that motivates them to also play the role that they play in this entire process.”
Said Hartwick: “My only hesitation on that would be — I mean, no bars, at least that I know of, or very few, have any staff actually at their doors. I guess I worry about how much staff oversight these bars have when they are busy to be able to even know whether or not an individual is walking out their front door with a bottle or something in hand. I fear that that would be something that would come back to or hurt them without them necessarily knowing or having that much control over it.”
Bump responded by noting that state laws prohibiting patrons from leaving establishments with open intoxicants already exist. The language in the city ordinance would reinforce the state law and serve as a “tiered approach” within the community.
“We don’t have ordinances in a lot of these areas, that’s why we are looking for this update. The other thing that’s important to remember is that with the proper laws and ordinances in place, it allows our officers the ability to apply discretion as appropriate to gain the response that we’re looking for. Just because you have a law in place or an ordinance in place doesn’t mean that an officer must or shall make an arrest or write a ticket. Our officers have discretion and they have to apply that discretion thoroughly and evenly in a way that gets the results we want. That could be through presence and visibility, it could be through doorbell warnings, or up to a citation. But if you don’t have those laws in place, you take all of that off the table and leave us with no options whatsoever,” Bump said.
Councilman Mason Becker asked LeMire if any members of the community had come forward suggesting that such language would impact their business.
LeMire said they had not, but she added: “this is currently a state law. You can’t allow an open intoxicant to leave the premise. It is currently the responsibility of the license holder.”
Council President Chris Scherer said the amendments had been discussed during a recent meeting of the city’s Ordinance Committee.
“We felt that it was pretty reasonable that our city falls in line with most every other city where if you are leaving an establishment, you see a sign that says ‘no drinks permitted beyond this point.’ We felt that it was reasonable to codify this,” Scherer said.
Bump stressed that all the amendments being proposed were meant to work together.
“The goal is not to find a way to trick our establishments and find a way to fine them. It’s a total process where we can work together and work to make improvements because we have the right ordinances in place,” Bump said.
Councilman Bruce Johnson asked if bar owners with reoccurring violations would be given an opportunity for discussion about the problem.
“Definitely. Our goal is to make positive change and if we see any location that has continuing violations in the area we are going to fix that, and address that, and get them back in line with having a positive location for people to go. It does allow us an opportunity to motivate them to make positive change,” Bump said.
Johnson asked about repercussions associated with citizens with violations.
Bump noted that a separate amendment would address that issue.
“We have very good establishment operators in Fort Atkinson and I think we need to look nearby. I know the city of Whitewater right now has a certain establishment that is actually looking at having their license temporarily suspended because they’ve had so many issues with patrons getting overly intoxicated and things like that, so I think you’ve got some good reminders that there are additional steps a city can take if it would be necessary in the future,” Becker said.
During discussion about the second proposed amendment, Bump said the city lacked appropriate language relating to public defecation and urination. The new language would give officers the ability to take action.
“It is something our officers deal with consistently throughout the year,” he said.
Bump said he believed most people might think the city already had an ordinance addressing public defecation and urination, but Fort Atkinson does not, and, he said, it never has.
During discussion about the third element of the proposal, holding citizens with open intoxicants accountable, LeMire noted that the proposed amendment does make an exception when the city has approved a special event permit.
During discussion about the fourth element, alcohol consumption in city parks, Bump said, proposed language sought to eliminate behaviors related to alcohol consumption after dark.
Said Bump: “We don’t have anything that covers open intoxicants or consumption of alcohol in our city parks. One thing I’ve noticed the last couple years is within our parks we are having some issues in the midnight hours when the park is closed that are related to alcohol consumption.”
Bump said he recently researched other communities to see what they were doing and found, he said, “that it might be appropriate, I feel it is appropriate, for us to move forward with an ordinance that would not allow open intoxicants and consumption of alcohol in our parks after 10 p.m., after the park closes, and during its time of closure between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., unless it is permitted through a special, authorized event.
“Not too much good happens in a dark park,” he said, adding that he wanted officers to have an ability to monitor parks, especially, he said, in light of what he described as “chronic behaviors.”
Johnson asked about the Fort Atkinson Generals baseball team and its schedule of events. He wondered if their events were over by 10 p.m.
Bump said he didn’t know how late their events ran, but they would be authorized under a special event permit.
Hartwick said she thought parks were open until midnight.
Bump said he was unsure.
Hartwick suggested it might be easier to enforce a rule that coincided with park closure.
Bump said 10 p.m. remained in his mind a good time to disallow the activity.
“We want to reduce the drinking and the issues that are going on in the park after dark is the main issue, especially when there is not an event or an approved situation going on in the park,” Bump said.
LeMire said staff would provide additional information about park hours in time for the next reading of the ordinance.
This post has already been read 2300 times!
