Safety And Licensing Committee Receives Public Feedback On Proposed Video Surveillance Ordinance And Changes To Required Food Truck Closing Time

The Safety and Licensing Committee met 02/28/2024. The main item of discussion during that meeting was the public safety ordinance changes that had been proposed by the Police Department.

The Police would like to create an ordinance that would require all bars and restaurants that serve alcohol to install surveillance cameras at the entrances and exits of their establishments, to maintain those recordings for a minimum of 30 days, and to turn over any footage to the police within 8 hours of a request.

In addition to the creation of that ordinance, the Police would like to update the existing ordinance governing food trucks in the Central Business District, requiring them to close at midnight instead of 4AM (the currently required closing hour). The Police Department believes this change would reduce violence and disturbances that happen around bar closing time when inebriated people gather along the sidewalk to purchase food from the food trucks.

This item appeared as an information item, so no action was taken on it during the meeting; however, the committee did spend around 30 minutes discussing it (as I previously recapped), and members of the public also spent around 30 minutes providing feedback as well. The public comment portion of the meeting is the focus of this post.

I’ve prepared a transcript of the comments for download:

Outside of Jennifer Stephany of Appleton Downtown Inc, who indicated that the representatives of Class B establishments whom she had spoken to had not been particularly concerned about the surveillance camera ordinance, everyone who spoke on the surveillance camera ordinance was opposed to it.

Regarding the changes to the food truck ordinance, everyone, including Jennifer Stephany of ADI, opposed requiring food trucks to close at midnight and at a minimum wanted the closing time to be extended to 1 or 2AM if not remain unchanged at 4AM.

SURVEILLANCE CAMERA ORDINANCE FEEDBACK

Ms. Stephany of ADI indicated that the Class B license holders she had spoken with all had cameras already installed, so they were not concerned about cameras per se. The business owners, however, did have questions as to whether the ordinance would require them to install cameras on the exterior of their buildings or the interiors.

Ben, the taproom manager at McFleshman’s understood the safety aspects of cameras, but he pointed out the establishments where recent incidents took place already had cameras which didn’t stop the incidents from happening. Additionally, he was concerned about allowing government overreach on small business, particularly in light of what the government did to small businesses during Covid. He thought 30% of small businesses ended up being lost because of government imposed rules during Covid.

Ria was concerned the proposed ordinance was reactionary in nature and believed research showed security cameras were ineffective at curbing the types of crimes this ordinance was aimed at. She also had several questions including:

• What would the parameters be for the police to request surveillance footage?
• If a business had surveillance cameras beyond what was required by the ordinance would they also be required to hand over footage from those cameras? [I thought that was a really good and interesting question.]
• If a business was making a good faith effort to adhere to the camera rules but still ended up experiencing a technological glitch and did not have footage the police requested, would they still face the penalties outlined in the proposal?

Mitchell felt that the ordinance as proposed was opened to abuse. He had a couple of questions:

• What would stop rogue members of the police from using surveillance data inappropriately?
• How much would the surveillance systems cost and had in been considered how that cost would impact the businesses?

He also did not believe the cameras would deter crime and believed people would end up getting used to the cameras and carry on as normal.

Lily moved to Appleton after spending many years in Washington D.C. which she characterized as the “most heavily surveilled city in the United States” and “one of the most surveilled cities in the world” not counting cities in China. Based on research data and personal experience, she believed newly installed surveillance cameras only temporarily impacted crime. Additionally, she was worried about the impact on privacy rights and the lack of accountability that came from bypassing the warrant system.

Patrick was worried about the impact of the costs of the cameras would have on businesses. He was also concerned that there was no process to appeal punishments if a business experienced a technical glitch and could not hand over requested footage. He believed bypassing the warrant system set a bad precedent that would result in unchecked surveillance and was worried that it would be used to target oppressed communities. Finally, he also questioned the premise that increased surveillance would deter crime.

Rosemary felt that the proposed ordinance was “not building community, but building upon threats, further creating a divide between small businesses and the people that live here, and our police force.” She reiterated the point made by others that this would not decrease safety incidents in Appleton. She did not think Appleton should be penalizing small businesses.

Lauren believed that research indicated surveillance did not deter crime. She also pointed out that it was unlikely inebriated people would take into account that they were under surveillance before they committed a crime. She said some studies had found that the impact of surveillance cameras on crime rates decreased over time and the ordinance would not be effective after a couple years. She also opposed police being able to bypass the warrant process.

Mary echoed the concerns voiced by previous speakers.

FOOD TRUCK ORDNANCE FEEDBACK

Ms. Stephany of ADI said that 20 years ago they had worked very hard with the Common Council to be allowed to have food trucks on College Avenue. A few food trucks currently operated brick and mortar stores in addition to their trucks. There was concern that having food trucks shut down at midnight would result in people being funneled to a few brick-and-mortar establishments which could exasperate the current safety issues. She wondered if a compromise might be made allowing food trucks to stay open until 1AM or 1:30AM.

Ben, the taproom manager at McFleshman’s, was planning to launch his own food truck establishment called Cheeseheads. His business plan was designed around being able to stay open until 2 or 3AM. Shutting food trucks down at midnight would impede his business model and would end up benefiting brick and mortar franchises.

Max was a seasonal food truck employee and felt the ordinance change was reactive and would just hurt small businesses without fixing the problem. He believed it would simply result in more people going to brick and mortar establishments.

Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) commented briefly after public comments were finished and said,” I want to just correct something. I’ve had some experience with the police in the last several months because I’ve had an issue in my district related to violence, and I’m going to tell everybody here from my experience, this police department goes out of its way to establish a positive working relationship with the people—with businesses. And in this case, you know, there was at least two or three discussions with businesses related to cameras related to the issue downtown. So, I just want to go on record and state that this police department goes out of its way to create a positive working environment with the people downtown—with all businesses.”

Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) agreed with Alderperson Siebers but also appreciated the thoughtful feedback provided by the members of the public which he believed had given the committee much to consider.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1147939&GUID=221E9008-B6FE-4479-B5DD-1E54225D1D57