April 17, 2023 at 10:51 a.m.
Council struggles with snow appeal, supports fire chief in inspection debate
Jim Davis, owner of Porkies II on Rives Street, rose during the public comment portion of the meeting to take exception to the fire department's recent inspection of the building where his business is located.
He also took issue with visits from members of the Rhinelander Police Department.
Also addressing the council last Monday night was Mike Skubal who was contesting a $150 ticket he received for not shoveling snow off of his sidewalk in a timely manner.
(Full disclosure: Skubal was a columnist for The Daily News, the predecessor of The River News).
Both men's comments triggered extended discussions, one of which ended abruptly when city attorney Steve Sorenson advised the council it could not take action on Skubal's appeal of a fine for failing to clear his sidewalk within 24 hours of a snow event.
Skubal explained that he's under doctor's orders not to shovel snow and pays a young man to do the shoveling for him. The snow event in question was the 10.5 inches of snow that fell between March 11-13. Skubal stated he was out of town during that time and returned on March 19.
After receiving a ticket from the city on March 20, he said he contacted the young man and his employee told him the sidewalk was shoveled on March 17.
Several of the alderpersons reacted to Skubal's remarks with concerns.
City Council president Eileen Daniel wanted to know if the city inspector has a route he takes to see if the sidewalks have been cleared following snow events.
She noted that the sidewalks in her neighborhood were "bad for months" and doubted that anyone had received a ticket.
Mayor Kris Hanus clarified that it's a "complaint-based" system for the most part.
"It seems like catch as catch can," Daniel responded, noting that she has concerns about the city relying on a system based on neighbors complaining about each other's behavior.
Alderperson Carrie Mikalauski interjected to note that the city has to enforce its ordinances or they have no weight.
"I just want to remind council that we have ordinances for a reason and if we continue to try to make special arrangements for every person who gets cited for not following ordinances, it's going to continually be a revolving door," she said.
Alderman Tom Barnett suggested the council "revisit" the snow shoveling policy.
He told the group he recently received a "frantic" phone call from an elderly resident who was "terrified" of getting in trouble with the city over snow shoveling. He explained that he is bothered by the idea that residents are scared of the city.
"When you have residents that are literally calling up an alderperson terrified that the city is going to come and harass them, that bothers me a lot," he said.
Alderman David Holt noted that everyone experiences instances where a snowfall comes at a very inconvenient time and in his estimation there is a difference between an isolated incident and habitual behavior.
"I do know we have ordinances for a reason, we have rules for a reason, but justice also takes some degree of discretion as well," he argued.
Alderman Steven Jopek indicated he has a concern about proper notification and argued that a complaint-based system "rewards the complainers."
Mikalauski interjected again to stress that failure to clear sidewalks can result in serious injuries.
"This is a public safety issue," she said. "It's not us picking on any particular resident."
After the discussion continued for several more minutes, city attorney Steve Sorenson intervened.
"You, as a council, have no ability to take away that fine," he announced, explaining that he was under the impression that the topic was to be discussion only and no action was contemplated.
"There's nothing in this ordinance that would permit you to change an ordinance after the fact," he continued. "Those laws are unconstitutional. You can't do ex post facto (retroactive) laws. You cannot take away this fine."
He went on to advise Skubal that the appropriate course of action would be to contest the fine in circuit court.
"What he can do is not pay the fine. Then he can go to circuit court because that's the procedure we have in the United States of America on how if you don't like a fine that has been imposed against you," the attorney explained. "Do you understand what you're doing as a council? You're suggesting that the police department every time somebody gets a ticket for speeding they can come here to you as a council as say I don't like how you enforce (the law)."
"You have to uniformly enforce the law," he added.
Sorenson's remarks left Jopek with questions as to why the matter was included on the agenda in the first place.
"I don't understand why this is even coming to the council if it's none of our business?" he asked.
City administrator Patrick Reagan stated he was instructed to place the matter on the agenda
"Obviously, a mistake was made," Reagan said. "Mr. Sorenson has taught me a lesson here today like I think he's taught a lot of people on this dais."
Sorenson himself conceded that he probably should have caught the errant agenda item prior to the meeting. He then suggested the council move on to other matters.
As it turned out, the next agenda item was related to fire inspections. That topic was prompted by the concerns expressed by Davis. During public comment, Davis stated his business was recently visited by firefighters conducting a routine fire inspection.
He indicated that the owner of the building has every intention of fixing all of the issues pointed out by the firefighters but he wanted to know how much time he had to complete the work. He also suggested the inspection and abatement orders were prompted by the March 28 fire at the Dinky Diner on Thayer Street.
"When the fire department man was there all I kept hearing out of him when he came was, we had a big fire down at Dinky Diner so we're going to change the world. That's what he told me as the owner," Davis said.
For his part, Rhinelander Fire Chief Brian Tonnancour explained that inspections of all businesses that hold liquor licenses are conducted during the month of March. He noted that he personally inspected the business in question after the crew that first visited the establishment came to him with concerns.
He was adamant that the inspections are not meant to harass business owners but are necessary in order to ensure the safety of the patrons who enter the business on a nightly basis as well as firefighters in the event there is an emergency.
"We have people in and out of these bars at all hours or any of these establishments within the city at all hours," he noted. "My job as the fire chief is to make sure that anybody that goes into that bar comes out of the bar or establishment alive and safe and that I never have to send a firefighter in there and worry that they might not come out of there alive or safe because of the fire deficiencies that are within those buildings."
He noted that abatements must be completed in a timely manner and cannot wait, as an emergency can happen at any time.
After Tonnancour's remarks, Davis asked permission to address the council again. He reiterated that the concerns about the building he is renting will be fixed but it won't happen "overnight."
He made reference to new bars in the city, as well as existing establishments that have been recently remodeled, and suggested he might take the city to court.
"I'm not happy with the treatment I got, OK," he said. "If I have to go to court over the whole thing, I will. And I will get the things fixed. My landlord told me he'll make sure it's done."
Alderman Tom Barnett attempted to explain that such inspections are part of running a business.
"The chief of the fire department, I hold him in high regard," Barnett said. "I know he cares about people. I know he cares about the well-being of people."
"There's no prejudice here, there's not anything that the fire chief was doing wrong," he added, noting that he is a business owner himself and his establishment is routinely inspected. "It's for the safety of people," he said.
"I don't think he's using Dinky Diner's fire as a way to enforce things that shouldn't be enforced," Barnett continued. "I think he's using it as an eye-opener to businesses."
"I put my full faith in our fire chief," he added. "If he says there's a hazard there, I believe him."
The discussion ended after alderman Holt mentioned his experiences with inspections, as the owner of a local business, and joined Barnett in expressing "full faith and confidence" in Tonnancour.
In response to a followup question from the River News, Tonnancour said it is ultimately the responsibility of the building's owner to ensure compliance with building maintenance and fire safety deficiencies.
He also noted that he very much appreciated the "vote of confidence" from the council.
To watch the full discussions related to the snow removal and fire inspection agenda items, visit www.hodagtv.com.
Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.