Green Bay Common Council Meeting - October 20, 2026

The Green Bay Common Council met on October 20, 2026, for a regular meeting. Key items included recognition of a Hall of Fame inductee, an award for the city's comprehensive plan, and extensive public testimony and debate on a proposed vacant commercial property registration and fee ordinance (Ordinance 2426). The meeting also handled routine approvals from multiple committees and advanced several ordinances.

Consent Calendar

• Report of the Redevelopment Authority was approved.
• Improvement in Services committee report approved with items handled separately.
• Protection and Policy committee report approved except for item 2 (vacant property ordinance).
• Agreement Police Department granting operator licenses approved.
• Plan Commission report approved with exception of item 1 (rezoning for a car lot), which was eventually approved after public testimony.
• Finance, Park, Personnel committee reports approved.
• Informational annual report on tax increment districts received.
• Resolutions adopted unanimously via suspension of rules.
• Ordinances first reading: two items advanced to second reading; one item (related to item 2) held over to next council meeting.
• Committee of the Whole item approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Steve Schneider (2031 Ledgehaven Court, De Pere): Opposed ordinance 2426. He owns 22 parcels in Green Bay, paying about $240,000/year in property taxes, with all buildings over 100 years old. He argued the ordinance could have a reverse effect, citing office vacancy rates in communities with such ordinances (e.g., Bayside 22%, Delavan 21.9%) versus those without (Green Bay 13.5%, Appleton 12.7%). He raised concerns about definitions (e.g., business condominiums), historical buildings, and access to capital. He noted that the Vic Theater and 1015 Main Street would be affected but that he has invested in maintenance.
• Dane Lisecki (2034 Farland, Executive Director of Grow Green Bay): Opposed the ordinance as drafted but supported the registration concept. He argued the fee penalizes vacancy, not neglect, and the flat fee disproportionately burdens small owners (e.g., $4,000 fee is 1.6% of a $250,000 building vs. <0.1% of a $5 million building). He raised legal concerns under Wisconsin Statute 66.0628 requiring fees to relate to services. He proposed amendments: keep registry free, charge fees only for uncorrected code violations, protect buyers and pre-development owners, and require a citywide report after two years.
• Jared Fink (Goldfinch Management, 2611 Libel Street, Allouez): Opposed the measure, stating it would turn investors away and hurt small businesses. He cited examples like the building across from The Shipyard (which took years to develop) and the city-owned Shower and Schumacher building that sat vacant for 15-20 years. He argued that the ordinance could encourage out-of-town investors to bulldoze properties.
• John Vanderleist (1625 Vernon Court, former alder and current county supervisor): Opposed the ordinance, stating Green Bay is not a blighted city like Detroit. He owns 25,000 sq ft commercial space (22,000 sq ft rented) and believes existing inspection and nuisance ordinances are sufficient. He recommended receiving and placing the ordinance on file.
• Rick Vanderleist (2240 O'Connor Road, president of Apartment Association of Northeast Wisconsin and Fox Valley Apartment Association): Opposed the ordinance. He stated the ordinance originated from a single problem property (402 Delson Street) which already had existing enforcement tools. He argued the fee is a tax, citing a Wisconsin Supreme Court case (Buchanan). He raised concerns about mixed-use properties, fee shifting to new owners, and that the fee does not change behavior of neglectful owners.
• Jennifer Sunstrom (Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, W612 Aerotech Drive, Appleton): Strongly opposed the ordinance. She stated the city already has tools for nuisance properties, and the ordinance penalizes vacancy rather than neglect, which is a natural market condition. She argued escalating fines do not create tenants and would discourage investment. She emphasized private property rights concerns.
• Anne Lays (no address given): Spoke in favor of rezoning a property for a car lot, to avoid having a vacant commercial property.

Discussion Items

• Recognition and Awards: The Go Big Green Bay 2050 Comprehensive Plan received the Planning Excellence Award from the American Planning Association Wisconsin chapter. Staff and community were thanked for their work.
• Vacant Commercial Property Ordinance (2426): This item dominated the meeting. Alder Presley, the sponsor, explained the ordinance is intended to address vacant commercial properties that generate extra city costs (police, fire, inspections). Assistant Chief Deltima of the Fire Department noted that the fire department already inspects all buildings annually and tracks vacancies, and they are improving data sharing with Building Inspection. Alder Presley presented two amendments: (1) removing the 12-month cap on the exemption for properties actively listed for sale or lease, and (2) changing the transfer of ownership provision so that unpaid fees from a previous owner do not transfer to a new owner in an arm's-length transaction, unless there is common ownership. Both amendments were adopted unanimously. Several alders expressed concerns about the ordinance: Alder Grant questioned what problem is being solved and noted that nuisance issues are not limited to vacant properties; Alder Morgan stated the city has enough ordinances and this would create more work for staff; Alder Hinckfus emphasized the progress made in being developer-friendly and argued for using incentives rather than penalties; Alder Hutchison felt the ordinance as drafted did not distinguish between good and bad actors and supported sending it back to staff; Alder DeLee and DeBaker echoed concerns about the fee structure and wanting to refine the ordinance. Alder Shelton defended the ordinance, arguing it incentivizes productive use, and said the amendments had addressed many concerns. Alder Profitonline supported moving forward, noting that the registry could help connect owners with city resources.

Key Outcomes

• Amendments Adopted: Two amendments to Ordinance 2426 were approved: removing the 12-month cap on the exemption for actively listing a property, and allowing unpaid fees to stay with the previous owner in an arm's-length sale, except in cases of common ownership.
• Motion to Approve as Amended: Failed, 5-7.
• Motion to Deny: Failed, 5-7.
• Motion to Refer Back to Committee: Passed. The vacant property ordinance was referred back to the Protection and Policy Committee for further work.
• Rezoning for Car Lot: Approved after a public speaker spoke in favor.
• Other Items: All routine committee reports, resolutions, and ordinance readings were approved as listed under Consent Calendar.