Green Bay Common Council Meeting (October 21, 2026)

The Green Bay Common Council convened on October 21, 2026. The meeting included a report from the mayor on early voting, recognition of a comprehensive plan award, and extensive public testimony and council debate regarding a proposed Vacant Property Ordinance. After a series of votes, the ordinance was referred back to the Protection and Policy Committee.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes and Agenda were approved.
• Reports were approved from the Redevelopment Authority, Improvement and Services Committee, Protection and Policy Committee (with item 2 handled separately), Police Department licensing, Finance Committee, Parks Committee, and Personnel Committee.
• A Plan Commission rezoning item was approved after a public hearing.
• Resolutions regarding tax increment districts were adopted.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Steve Schneider (Property owner, 22 parcels): Opposed the Vacant Property Ordinance. He argued the escalating fee acts as a disincentive for redevelopment of historic properties. He presented research suggesting higher vacancy rates in Wisconsin cities with similar ordinances (e.g., Bayside, Delavan) compared to those without (e.g., Green Bay, Appleton). He raised concerns about how the ordinance defines a parcel versus a building and its impact on long-term property assembly projects like the Vic Theatre redevelopment.
• Dane Lisecki (Grow Green Bay): Opposed the ordinance as drafted but supported a mandatory free registry. He argued the fee structure punishes vacancy rather than neglect, disproportionately impacts small property owners, and raises legal questions under Wisconsin Statute 66.0628 regarding fees needing a reasonable relationship to the service provided. He proposed amendments to charge escalating fees only for uncorrected code or safety violations.
• Jared Fink (Goldfinch Management): Opposed. He stated the ordinance would turn away investors and harm small businesses, citing the prolonged development timeline of the Shipyard neighborhood as an example of why long-term property holding is sometimes necessary for community growth.
• John Vanderleas (Business owner, former Alder): Opposed. He argued Green Bay is not a blighted city and already possesses adequate property maintenance and nuisance enforcement tools to address specific problem properties without a new citywide registry.
• Rick Vanderleas (Apartment Association of NE Wisconsin & Fox Valley): Opposed. He emphasized legal concerns under Wisconsin Statute 66.0628, citing the Buchanan case. He highlighted the lack of clarity for mixed-use properties and argued the city already has legal authority to handle 'demolition by neglect'. He contended that charging for vacancy penalizes legitimate economic delays.
• Jennifer Sundstrom (Realtors Association of NE Wisconsin): Strongly opposed. She argued commercial vacancies are a natural market reality, not misconduct. She asserted the ordinance creates an intrusion on private property rights, discourages investment, and does not solve the underlying nuisance issue, which existing codes already address.

Discussion Items

• Vacant Commercial Building Ordinance: The core debate centered on whether vacancy itself or the physical neglect of properties should be the target of fees.
  • Supporting View (Alders Presley, Shelton): Argued vacant properties inherently impose higher costs for city services. They framed the fee as cost recovery for a class of property generating disproportionate calls for service. They stated the adopted amendments significantly narrowed the ordinance's impact to address habitual problems while protecting owners actively marketing their properties.
  • Opposing View (Alders Morgan, Grant, Hinkfus, Hutchison, Eck, Delee, Debaker, Ritterbush): A broad majority expressed concern that the ordinance conflates vacancy with neglect. Many argued it sends an anti-business message and adds regulatory burdens without effectively targeting specific nuisance properties. Alders Grant and Morgan advocated for amending existing nuisance ordinances instead. Alder Hutchison stated he could not support a system that punishes good actors who maintain their properties while vacant.
  • Amendments: Alder Presley successfully moved two amendments: 1) removing the 12-month limit on the exemption for properties actively and in good faith listed for sale or lease, and 2) protecting new owners in arm's-length transactions from inheriting the previous owner's unpaid registration fees.
• Plan Commission Item (Rezoning): A hearing was held on a request to rezone a property at 434 Mission Road to allow for a car lot business. Anne Lays spoke in support.

Key Outcomes

• Vacant Property Ordinance (Item 2 of Protection & Policy): The motion to approve the item as amended failed (5-7). A subsequent motion to deny the item also failed (5-7). The item was then referred back to the Protection and Policy Committee by a majority vote.
• Rezoning: The Plan Commission item to rezone a property on Mission Road was approved.
• Ordinances First Reading: Several ordinances were advanced to a second and final reading. One item was held over to the next council meeting.