| 7/18/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. King, to Refer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 7/20/2006 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| 7/20/2006 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| 7/26/2006 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Fiscal Note Pending to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 7/26/2006 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 3/13/2007 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Skidmore, seconded by Scott, to Refer to the Attorney's Office Pasha asked how prospective tenants will learn of this ordinance and will it be part of the lease? Jennifer Zilavy of the City Attorney's Office responded that most of the behaviors in this ordinance are already those for which one can be arrested, but there will also be an educational component for both tenants and landlords. Landlords can add to the standard state lease as they see fit. The ordinance is to hold landlords accountable for the activities on their properties. King asked if there was case law on #3 - Zilavy said there was some. He also asked about #21 - violations of minimum housing codes - Zilavy replied that the police department has guidelines with discretionary enforcement. Health, safety and welfare of citizens is the concern. There is a trust that the Police Department and Building Inspection Unit will not go after landlords on trivial issues (wrong light bulbs for example). Scott asked if this ordinance was modelled after another community's. Lt. Strasburg and Zilavy stated they had used those of Appleton, Wausau and Green Bay and also looked at Milwaukee and Beloit. Scott was very much in favour of this type of ordinance but had several concerns with the wording of the proposed ordinance. Would it be more correct to have a body outside of the Police Department before whom complaints are brought since the police will be ones also doing the enforcement? Perhaps a Nuisance Abatement Board? The current appeal board has no experience in this subject. There are three options for "punishment" in the current ordinance: fine, cost recovery and injunctive relief (shut down establishment). Does the cost recovery really belong in this category? Moen wondered about the cost of enforcement - how much the tracking of this system compilation of statistics would cost. Captain Klubertanz replied that the system is already streamlined with accounting and would simply be a matter of looking at the report to get officers' names and how much time was involved, then taking those hours times their hourly wage. Accounting Division estimated about a ten minute process for them so minimal time would be needed. Strasburg added that a very small number actually go the enforcement level. Assistant Police Chief Davenport said that in the overall process this was a "last resort" and would follow the in-between steps first. The focus is on changing the bad practices of the few bad apples. Statistics are now gathered from Records Section and once a prescribed level of violations is reached, the landlord is contacted and asked to come in to discuss a plan of action to correct problems. Some don't respond - this ordinance would solve that problem. It is significant that landlords are supporting this measure. Scott felt that the current proposed ordinance puts the city in the position of micro-managing. Pasha asked if there was the potential for liability exposure for the city. At this point Skidmore moved and King seconded for the purpose of discussion, to adopt the ordinance. After further discussion and consideration of the issues raised, it was felt that the item should be tabled for a future meeting. The concept is supported but needs updated with some drafting changes in the details. This would require a referral back to the City Attorney's Office for fine tuning. Skidmore/King withdrew their earlier move to approve. Members were encouraged to forward their comments/concerns to Jennifer Zilavy in the City Attorney's Office. The clear focus is on behavior which is good - ordinance just needs some modifications. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(6:0) |
| 4/3/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form due on 4/4/2007. | |
| Notes: Substitute. |
| 4/3/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| 4/10/2007 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Skidmore, seconded by Bell, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - REPORT OF OFFICER Jennifer Zilavy of the City Attorney's Office had incorporated last month's suggestions in the Substitute Ordinance. A friendly amendment was made and approved to add SS 961.42 as part of this ordinance. Police staff felt that this ordinance would have minimal implementation - only for the few landlords who refuse to work with the police to correct problems. It has not been made to create an adversarial relationship with landlords - just as a tool to use with those few who refuse to cooperate with police. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: Second Substitute. |
| 4/11/2007 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES)
to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 4/11/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| Notes: 2nd Substittute. |
| 4/11/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| 4/11/2007 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES)
to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 4/17/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made to Refer to the EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION, due back on June 5, 2007. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: Due back at the 6/5/07 Common Council Meeting. |
| 5/10/2007 | EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION | Strasburg gave a handout "What the Ordinance Says" (attached to file minutes) that outlines the main points of the Ordinance. He discussed how the Madison Police Department (MPD) process currently works. The MPD always tries to communicate with the owner(s) of a property. It is only after they have unsuccessfully tried all possible options that it would resort to the steps outlined in this Ordinance. Research into other cities that have a similar Ordinance shows that it is very rare that an owner does not respond to an initial contact from the respective police department. There is a fine/penalty in the Ordinance and a mechanism to have the owner pay for police services.
Alder Sanborn added that residents on the South West side feel they are beginning to lose their neighborhood and this Ordinance is designed to help them get it back.
A question was asked about the EOC Executive Committee's thoughts on this Ordinance. The issues mentioned: why no Sunset Provision; lack of a record-keeping mechanism and the issue of how would domestic abuse situations be handled.
Assistant City Attorney Zilavy pointed out that since the EOC Executive Committee had seen the Ordinance, it had been reworked to address the Domestic Abuse concern. Zilavy then read language that was being put into the Ordinance: [Sec. 968.075, Wis. Stats., defines "domestic abuse" very broadly. Therefore, in reaching a determination that a premises is a Chronic Nuisance Premises, activities that are "domestic abuse" incidents pursuant to Sec. 968.075, Stats., shall not be included as nuisance activities unless the incidents have been reviewed by the Chief of Police and the Office of the City Attorney and a determination is made that, based upon the specific facts of each incident, the activities should be deemed nuisance activities under subdivision 1(c).]
Various Commissioners asked the following questions:
Can Building Inspection refer a landlord directly to the City Attorney's office for violations or must the MPD always be involved? It was stated that Building Inspection could send violators directly to the City Attorney depending on the circumstances.
Does the MPD and/or City Attorney have discretion in assessing fines against the property owner? It was indicated that there would not be a penalty against property owners who are working with the City to remedy the problems. The City's policy is to educate first and enforce second.
What can landlords do besides simply evict tenants who are causing a problem? How does this Ordinance create a sustainable solution? While evictions could result, it is not the intent of the Ordinance. MPD has a list of suggested actions that landlords could take with the aim being to make the landlord more responsive and take care of the problem. Evictions themselves are not always bad as they help make people accountable. It was added that MPD generally finds 2 types of landlords: 1) absentee landlords and 2) new landlords. The MPD currently has some success with new landlords. With absentee landlords, the MPD generally needs to have a face-to-face meeting and make them more accountable for their property. The ultimate goal is to get a plan to resolve any on-going issues with the property. Building Inspection / MPD must accept any plan proposed by the property owner. There was a suggestion that MPD's plan criteria be added to the Ordinance.
Other general questions indicated that education of the landlord and tenant is very important. Also there may be cases, depending on the individual circumstances, where MPD wants the tenant involved with the landlord in formulating a plan. MPD pointed out that the Ordinance would not apply to most properties. One officer indicated in his area over the last 18 months the Ordinance would have applied to only 3 units.
There was a concern regarding a portion of the Ordinance 1(d) "Person associated with" and specifically the implied "hanging out" language and the possible race implications of that language.--that some neighbors may call the MPD when they see people of color "hanging out" near a building. It was pointed out that "hanging out" is not a nuisance crime and that the Ordinance clearly indicates that there must be some connection to a particular unit or building, so it would not apply to individuals who happened to be near a particular building with no connection to that building. Also the threshold to find "probable cause" is very high.
Commissioner Holmes-Hope indicated that he is aware of a similar Ordinance in New Jersey that was supported by the community and feels this is a good proposed ordinance.
There was a concern because the Ordinance does not say what happens if the plan does not work. The MPD currently has an informal process. If owners are working hard and the situation is still not fixed it is partly the responsibility of the MPD to help resolve the situation; and MPD will continue working with that property owner.
A brief discussion was held regarding the Retaliation portion of the Ordinance, to whom it applies and how it is applied. A concern was raised using the following example: Tenant A complains regarding Tenant B and it is actually Tenant B's child/grandchild or that child/grandchild's friend who is causing the problem and not Tenant B. While Tenant A is protected under the Retaliation portion of the Ordinance there is no protection for Tenant B. It was indicated that each situation is different and must be resolved through a plan. One officer commented on a similar situation and how MPD got other services involved to help Tenant B with the situation.
There was a question regarding a sunset provision with a reporting requirement to measure whether this Ordinance is effective. While MPD could support a sunset provision, it must be far enough in the future to be able to measure effectiveness and the reporting requirements cannot be so labor intensive that MPD has to hire another employee just to put the report together.
Alder/ Commissioner Solomon indicated that he plans on attending the Common Council discussion on this Ordinance on May 22, 2007 and that other Commissioners can contact him with questions ahead of time and he will try to get them addressed at that meeting.
| |
| Notes: Rerefer. Ragland spoke on behalf of Alder Bruer, who was at another meeting and unable to attend. Ragland informed the Commission that on May 22, 2007, a Common Council Discussion on the proposed Chronic Nuisance Premises ordinance will be held at 5:30 in Room 120, Madison Municipal Building, and is open to the public. Following this meeting, the Ordinance will be tweaked. Ragland asked that the Commission not take final action tonight.
|
| 6/5/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Konkel, to Rerefer to the EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 6/14/2007 | EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION | A motion was made by Morrison, seconded by Howe, to Table until the third substitute is ready for action by the Commission The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: A third substitute ordinance was being prepared, but is not yet available for discussion.
Ald. Brenda Konkel spoke regarding the proposal. She stated that there are many things about the proposal that are bothersome. Separation of the Building Inspection and Police Department portions of the ordinance has been recommended. Issues of concern include the definition of premises, currently the same number of calls triggers the ordinance regardless of the number of units. The current version allows too much Police Department discretion in this regard. Konkel is also concerned with how this proposal inter-relates with the arrest and conviction record protections found in the Equal Opportunities Ordinance, particularly relative to screening of tenants. The list of offenses is long and broad. There are misdemeanors for lesser offenses that trigger the ordinance, while felony charges for more serious offenses do not. She specifically mentioned the "person associated with" an apartment as too vague. The protections relative to retaliatory eviction are unclear and discretionary and belong in Chapter 32. Incidents involving domestic violence are at the discretion of the City Attorney and the Police Department. Employee training by the Police Department should also include the staff of the Equal Opportunities Division. While the ordinance now includes a sunset provision, no reports are required to be submitted.
It was noted that the ordinance is not ready for action. It was requested that staff prepare information for the Executive Committee on how the Equal Opportunities Ordinance relates to the proposal relative to arrest record protections. |
| 9/12/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| Notes: 3rd Substitute. |
| 9/12/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | (see detail of amendments below). | Pass
(18:2) |
| Notes: 16 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak; 4 Registrant(s) in opposition wishing to speak; 2 Registrant(s) neither in support nor opposition wishing to speak; 25 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak; 4 Registrant(s) in opposition not wishing to speak. |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | . The following amendments passed by a unanimous voice vote: 1) add "and the courtesy copy to the Alder at the Common Council office or by electronic mail." in Section 3 (a).
2) Section 12 (a) was amended and now states "The Chief of Police shall submit an interim report to the Common Council by September 1, 2008, and a final report to the Common Council by September 1, 2009, indicating the following:".
3) Section 12 (b) was amended and now states "(b) The Department of Civil Rights shall submit an interim report to the Common Council by September 1, 2008, and a final report to the Common Council by September 1, 2009, indicating whether that Department had referrals for violation of Fair Housing Laws contained in Chapter 39 or any other elements of the Equal Opportunity Ordinance that were directly related to the application of this ordinance to a Premises."
| |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | . The following amendments failed by a voice vote: 1) Strike "Is a Premises which has generated three (3) or more calls for police services that have resulted in Enforcement Action for Nuisance Activities on three (3) separate days within a ninety (90) day period." in Section 2 (a)(1).
2) Strike "lodging houses, hotels, motels and tourist rooming houses" in Section 2, Definitions.
| |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | : "or periodic tenancy" in Section (6)(a). This amendment was withdrawn. | |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | Refer to the EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION | Fail
(8:12) |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | Move the Previous Question | Fail
(9:11) |
| 9/18/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | Divide the Question | Fail
(4:16) |
| Notes: Consider the Building Inspection portion of the ordinance separately. |
| 9/21/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |