Hiya, Neighbors! How about this cool-down we’re having already this early in September? Oy. I do not like it as I wish summer to be extended for a while yet. But since it’s cooler today, perhaps you’re indoors, waiting for something new to read. Well, wait no more. Your Full Council Meeting Week alderman blog post is here for you!
- From the Safety and Licensing Committee: During last week’s meeting of this committee, the applicant for a bartender’s license with a battery conviction on his record addressed the committee and asked why this renewal of his bartender’s license was denied automatically when the battery conviction was previous to a current bartender’s license from the city that he’s been working under all this time. That came as a surprise to us all as a license should never have been granted. This seems to have been a previous clerical error on the part of the city. But it sure makes for a messy situation for this renewal. The committee cannot legally grant this license per state statutes; but the applicant has been using a granted license up to this point. Yikes.
- Also from the Safety and Licensing Committee: After this full council meeting, we can all expect a change to the policy for Fire Pit Permits in the city. The current policy of these permits all expiring on December 31 without any proration of the annual fee will end and all new fire pit permits issued will be valid for 365 days from the date of issue. This, I believe, is a positive move as more folks will likely get these permits knowing that they won’t lose money if they wait to get a permit until later in a calendar year.
- From the Community Development Committee: As was mentioned in last week’s post, a buyer of a city-owned Southpoint Commerce Park lot has agreed in a counter-offer from the City not to use this property for a data center. Since the buyer has already agreed to these term, I have no issue with approving the offer and counter offer for the city to sell this lot. But I still take issue with the city proactively pushing for buyers to agree to these terms without the city having predetermined definitions of “large” data centers, etc. (which is currently in the works with a relatively new resolution that has not yet been discussed at committee level). This feels a lot like restrictions on private property rights that are not currently called out in municipal code or by other written and approved rules/policies. What are your thoughts on this? (Note: There is a closed session notice for this item as it may require sensitive real estate negotiation discussions. But the likelihood of that is low.)
So as was mentioned above, this seems to be a bit of a light week as far as city business. But if there is anything above that is of concern to you or if anything else city-government-related comes up, please reach out to me and let me know. I’m always interested in your feedback!

