| 7/12/2006 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| 7/12/2006 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| 7/12/2006 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Fiscal Note Pending to the Attorney's Office Completed on 7/12/2006 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 7/12/2006 | Attorney's Office | Referred for Introduction | |
| Notes: Public Safety Review Board |
| 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 |
| 8/8/2006 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Smith, seconded by Bell, to Rerefer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD Steve Brist, Assistant City Attorney, prepared this proposed ordinance for Ald Bruer due to problems in alder's area. Is a very limited ordinance - gives a tool to address problems that may occur - a small proposal to address small part of the problem - "additional arrow in the quill of alternatives." There have been lots of police calls to these "off the main drag" small older motels which are no longer frequently by tourists but are instead rented by the hour (sometimes a room twice in one day) to more undesirable persons whose actions may be things like drugs, prostitution, etc. The Police Department can provide address data later once specifications are known. Questions were asked about how the police would know this ordinance was being violated? How about a more comprehensive ordinance (Chula Vista CA model)? It was learned that the State of WI licenses these establishments so they have the pre-emptive power to control; thus the City is looking at behavioral actions as opposed to licensing restrictions. This would allow prosecution as a "nuisance." City Attorney's Office was given a copy of Chula Vista CA publication, "Disorder at Budget Motels", by Mike Scott and will check with them on some information-sharing. This is a chronic, not emergency, problem so that time can be allowed for police and Board to discuss and analysis the problem before action on the ordinance. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(6:0) |
| 4/3/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| Notes: Substitute. |
| 4/3/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/11/2007 | |
| 4/11/2007 | 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: Fruit |
| 4/17/2007 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | Refer to the BOARD OF HEALTH FOR MADISON AND DANE COUNTY Completed on 8/16/2007 | |
| 5/8/2007 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Skidmore, seconded by Pasha, to Rerefer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD Jennifer Zilavy of City Attorney's Office explained that this would add a registration requirement and limit how often a room can be rented in a particular time frame. Hotels/motels currently keep records but not to this specific requirement. Managers of these businesses want something in writing (law/ordinance) their staff can point use to empower them to not rent a room. South Police District Captain Jim Wheeler stated that this would be a tool to use if things starting going backwards. Pasha stated that the ordinance looked very different that what was first received, but wondered about the reference to being enforced by Public Health. Moen also noted that licensing for hotels/motels was through Health Department and that much of the enforcement was established on "reasonable belief" which was problematic. She also voiced concern over how great a problem is this and how large a burden would it place on hotel/motel owners. Zilavy explained that the ordinance is under public safety, not health and she had only discovered the public health enforcement recommendation at the meeting. Scott noted that Chula Vista CA had just adopted a similar law when this was first presented to the PSRB and related materials were given to the City Attorney's Office for review but apparently this fell through the cracks - an attempt will be made to locate the documents. PSRB found the measure, as it is written now, to be confusing and unclear. They do not have adequate information to act on the measure. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(7:0) |
| 8/16/2007 | BOARD OF HEALTH FOR MADISON AND DANE COUNTY | Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 1/8/2008 | Pass
(4:1) |
| 9/17/2007 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | Jennifer Zilavy of the City Attorney's Office, related that she had taken a close look at a similar provision in Chula Vista - what, how and why it was done there. Theirs is more extensive than Madison needs now. They had about 4,000 calls for service related to this problem but ours is much less and basically involves 4 motels in the City of Madison (1 East, 1 West and 2 South). They are looking at the policy of Probation & Parole in placing people in these facilities and how this impacts problems at the establishments. The City/County Health Department is also involved and is asking for a provision whereby they can bill back to the City Police Department staff time charges when they respond to a call at these facilities which is not part of their routine caseload. PSRB members wondered if this billing procedure was something new - if so, it could undermine their needed input since it would add red tape to the process and Police may not be want to call out Health if they are going to be billed for extra services. Could Health Dept Direction Tom Schlenker come to a meeting to give input? Or Tommye Schneider? Also sponsor, Ald Tim Bruer? How does Police Chief Wray feel about this? Why would police call upon health? To inspect the condition of a room, if meeting standards. Much of the inspection power of hotels, motels, etc. is the responsibility of the public health authority. Probation & Parole people living there are not the target - it is the local use of rooms for illegal activities which is why the ordinance calls for a limited hour rental restriction. Currently these establishments basically generate their own rules and some rent however a client asks just to make money. Does the registration requirement overrule State Statute? No, state law doesn't preempt. State issues permits - City might not be able to initiate a permit system. In addition to state license, health department inspects food and drink licensed establishments; the Planning Commission would also be involved in issuing a permit. When the normal level of police calls to these motels exceeds that norm, it costs them more: could a system be set up like that? Police calls for service are not huge and such a system would be cumbersome for what is needed now. This proposed ordinance is narrowly tailored for City's current needs. Would like input from alder and health department at future meeting. There was also concern that the registration requirements, if new, would create a burden on all motels. If find it is not being done, what does the current administrative code require? Ms. Zilavy said state wording is sparse. PSRB asked about the definition of "peace officer" - police, sheriff, Dept of Corrections? Could be confusing for motel owner. The provision of "refusal of accommodation" - is this new? Yes, none of this is currently on the books. "Reasonably believe" - by the owner that the premises are being used for unlawful purposes - could result in discrimination. Under (6) (a) 2 - "and" - yes, the person must exhibit signs of intoxication or drug influence AND be disorderly. | Pass |
| 1/8/2008 | PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Judge, seconded by Pasha, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER .
Additional recommendation: Amend Ordinance to include the Police Department as an enforcement body. J. Zilavy of the City Attorney's Office stated that nothing in this ordinance is in conflict with State Statute, and that this impacts no ore than 20 motels at most city-wide. Prostitution (where rooms are rented by the hour with no accountability of who is renting the room) is one of the main reasons this ordinance was proposed. An increase in registration requirements would be part of the ordinance but this is for ALL motels/hotels, most of whom already do a more extensive registration. It was an oversight that the Police Department was not added as an enforcement official and a corrected/amended version of the ordinance will be prepared. This ordinance brings all of these establishments up to the same compliance level. Captain Wheeler stated that this ordinance would provide a very needed tool for police in dealing with problems/crimes at some of these establishments - as in the recent homicide at one of the motels in his police district.
Pasha was concerned about the budgetary impact but it was explained that the majority of the enforcement work will fall to the Police Department. Judge went through the budget process and agreed. Joel Plant, Mayoral Aide, stated that the fiscal note from the Comptroller's Office on this ordinance is $20,000 which is always given as a high estimate - and this would be for all 50 hotels/motels in the City. Additionally, city agencies routinely do many inter-departmental billings every year as needed.
Dr. Schlenker, Director of the City/County Health Department, spoke on the role of the Health Department. They have the regulatory and licensing power and inspect these establishments on a regular basis, checking for health hazards (plumbing, cleanliness etc.) - this is routine business. Health has agreed to work with Police, as needed, on "problem" establishments. If the scope of their work done is beyond Health's routine business, all invovled entities have established an agreement whereby Police will reimburse Health for services rendered. It is not expected that this be the norm since Police will have enforcement powers if the Ordinance is passed, but as this is an open-ended agreement and Health does have the ultimate power of pulling a license, it was felt prudent to have a mutually agreed-upon understanding in place.
The motion passed byvoice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: Amend Ordinance to include the Police Department as an enforcement body. J. Zilavy of the City Attorney's Office stated that nothing in this ordinance is in conflict with State Statute, and that this impacts no ore than 20 motels at most city-wide. Prostitution (where rooms are rented by the hour with no accountability of who is renting the room) is one of the main reasons this ordinance was proposed. An increase in registration requirements would be part of the ordinance but this is for ALL motels/hotels, most of whom already do a more extensive registration. It was an oversight that the Police Department was not added as an enforcement official and a corrected/amended version of the ordinance will be prepared. This ordinance brings all of these establishments up to the same compliance level. Captain Wheeler stated that this ordinance would provide a very needed tool for police in dealing with problems/crimes at some of these establishments - as in the recent homicide at one of the motels in his police district. |
| 1/22/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Refer to a future Meeting to Adopt to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on 2/5/2008. The motion passed by voice vote/other.
1 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak. | Pass |
| Notes: 1 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak.
Adopt at the 2/5/08 Common Council Meeting. |
| 2/5/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Refer to a future Meeting to Adopt to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on 2/26/2008. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: Adopt at the 2/26/08 Common Council Meeting. |
| 2/26/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ald. Bruer, to Adopt With Amendment(s) as follows: in Section (2)(a), strike "photo, current address and date of birth" and replace with "name"; in Section (2)(b), "card" and replace with "record"; in Section (2)(c), strike "in" in the first sentence and replace with "on" and strike "register" and replace with "registration record"; in Section (2)(d), strike "on" in the first sentence and replace with "to" and change "register" to "registration record"; add to Section (6)(a) "6. An individual who does not provide the registration information as required by Section (2)(a)."; add to Section (7) "or any transient person without a permanent place of residence" after "permanent place of residence." The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: |