If alders could please take their seats.

Can you turn that off if I can grab the air?

Just want to do a sound check.

Can people hear okay?

Okay.

One, two, three, one, five.

Nine.

Good evening, everyone.

The hour of six o'clock having arrived on the 7th of October 2025.

It is my honor to call to order the City of Racine Common Council.

Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

If you could please join me as you are able in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegations to see the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

No, I do not.

Okay.

Then at this time, President Horton, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes or council proceedings from September 16th, 2025.

There's a motion to approve it, seconded by Alder Mack.

Any discussion on said minutes?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

That motion carries.

We do have uh two proclamations that I will read uh into the record this evening.

The first of which is uh World Mental Health Day.

It's a proclamation from the City of Racine, and it reads whereas World Mental Health Day established in 1992 by the World Federation for Mental Health and supported by the World Health Organization shines a global spotlight on mental health challenges and the urgent need for improved care, understanding and support.

And whereas the theme of World Mental Health Day 2025 is it is time to prioritize mental health in the workplace, calls attention to the millions who spend most of their waking hours at work and emphasizes the importance of creating mentally healthy work environments.

And whereas poor mental health is the leading cause of lost work days with work-related stress, burnout, discrimination, and lack of support undermining confidence, productivity, and overall quality of life.

And whereas the City of Racine recognizes that all residents, organizations, and institutions share the responsibility to raise awareness, reduce stigma, and advocate for equitable access to mental health care and support of workplaces.

Now, therefore, I, Corey Mason, mayor of the City of Racine do hereby proclaim October 10th, 2025 as World Mental Health Day in the City of Racine, and encourage all residents to foster a culture of understanding, compassion, and support for mental health and well-being in every workplace and community.

Signed this day, October 2025.

The other proclamation we have is for Digital Inclusion Week.

Our MIS department has done a lot of work in the space, and I want to acknowledge that before I read this proclamation, which reads, whereas broadband services are essential infrastructure for the 21st century and play an important role in providing access to knowledge and opportunities from communities locally and around the world.

And whereas digital equity ensures all individuals and communities have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in our society, democracy, and economy, and is necessary for civic and cultural participation, lifelong learning, and access to essential services.

Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for broadband infrastructure and digital equity across the city, as 27 and a half percent of residents do not subscribe to broadband or internet service at home, and approximately 10% of households rely solely on mobile data plans.

Now therefore, I Corey Mason, mayor of the city of Racine do hereby proclaim October 6th through 10th, 2025 as digital inclusion week in the city of Racine, and ask the people of Racine to join me in raising awareness of digital equity and broadband access issues and to do all we can to close the digital divide signed this day, 2025.

Moving on then to public comments, uh I will ask the clerk to read the procedures before we begin.

The public comment segment is an opportunity for citizens to speak directly to the common council.

Speakers will limit their remarks to three minutes.

There shall be no dialogue or interaction between the speaker and elected officials or staff.

Time is the time is not intended to be a debate or discussion.

The common council shall not hear personal complaints or attacks against any city employee or elected official or any matter related to an individual claim citation, appeal, or lawsuit.

Profane, disruptive, threatening, or conduct that otherwise impedes the safe, orderly, and effective conduct of the common council meeting is equally unacceptable during the public comment period as it is during all other portions of city meetings.

Candidates for public office may not use this opportunity to campaign for office.

Speakers during the public comment period shall follow all rules of the common council and rulings of the chair, including a decision to terminate the remarks if the speaker does not adhere to these rules.

Public comment shall be limited to ideas or concerns regarding the city of Racine.

We encourage you to submit any detailed concerns in writing to the city clerk's office or your aldermen, where they can be properly documented and directed for response.

There will be two speakers this evening.

The first is Lisa Baelloin at 2313 Olive Street.

Just ma'am, before you start, I just want to let everyone know you get three minutes uh to to speak.

After your three minutes, the microphones are turned off.

That's not a reflection on anything you're saying.

Just everybody gets three minutes to say their piece.

Ma'am, please begin.

How do you push them on?

The microphone's on.

It is on.

It is on.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Lisa Baudwan, and I'm a child abuse survivor coach.

I've spoken several times now here at the Racine Common Council, which in all honesty, I'm not sure what this address leads to, as far as my documented involvement when it comes to after my commentaries.

As a Racine citizen, no matter who I am, in relation to the topics I speak about here at the Common Council or at Unified School District, along with anyone else, we should get an invite into the conversation when there's an interest.

So I'd like to suggest to the city to create a better tracking system for public speakers like me.

As an experienced database programmer, I've attached an outline to help you with this if you'd like for free.

The other topic I'm here on is for water safety, which I've become aware of some of the updates to share with you.

According to reporter Racine County I Grant Ritchie, he's been told by Stacey Tapp, who's the chief of Racine Unified's communication and community engagement that Racine Unified is developing a K-12 water safety initiative and in conversation with community partnerships and local expertise to help with this endeavor, which we are all greatly pleased.

I also know last month a new sw no swim zone sign was posted at Carrie Hogal Park along with the Donut Buoy up on the grass.

On that subject, myself, along with others, would like to see water safety test drills being done with these types of devices to see their effectiveness at saving lives.

And unfortunately, about a week ago, there was still a swim at your own risk sign at Persian Park boat launch, which I encourage the I encourage the council to replace with a no swim zone sign as soon as possible.

I also touched base last week with Paul Woodward, who's the head of the newly formed swim volunteers of Racine and suggested volunteer categories, for example, swim relations in caps for volunteers who would be noted as family members of anyone having a water incident, and we'll talk to them in the future about the ideas of swim spotters who'd be people trained in CPR and first aid, watching over no swim zones, and where there are no lifeguards on duty.

For instance, had there been a spotter just the other day on October 3rd, where a Racine man at the North Beach floated out into the water on a flotation device and needed to be rescued, that might have been prevented had there been a spotter there.

With all the commonality of all this focus being that, at least with the research I've done so far, many near-death water accidents is often a good Samaritan that's come to saving lives in water accidents because the fact is it only takes a moment for a person to get in a tragic situation at our lakefront, our pools, even our bathtubs.

So, as for me, I'm creating water safety protocol videos for my Lisa's chat room YouTube channel to help shed awareness to anyone who's interested, especially parents on the proactive side of water safety to create parenting playbooks of their own, but I will continue to research and advocate on water safety overall.

I thank the mayor, the common council, and the cities of Racine, citizens of Racine for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Angel Rodriguez.

Hello.

You hear me?

We can hear you.

Please proceed.

All right.

Um good afternoon, everyone.

Um, my name is Angel Rodriguez.

Uh, I'm a PIO public affairs specialist with the small business administration, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, and um I'm here uh to let you all know and share that uh I recently have been deployed in the area to work with several counties that are under the Presidential Disaster Declaration.

Uh and we have some uh resources that uh we'd like to share with um key stakeholders, so I'm gonna be conducting outreach and you know uh as a PIO.

My my one of my roles is to communicate, right, to share and to amplify our recovery programs.

Uh SBA uh not only uh help small businesses, we help in times of disasters, homeowners, we help renters, uh we help private nonprofits, and businesses of all sizes, and uh very important face-based organizations.

So every time there's a disaster, depending if it's a presidential or an agency one or a uh rural, we get as PIOs uh deployed to promote our program.

Not everybody knows that SBA is there to help, you know.

So we help in the sense of low interest disaster loans, uh, which they have different um access to uh capital.

There's a economic injury disaster loan, which right now under Racine is am I pronouncing that well, Racine County?

Um business owners, um, old nonprofits can uh go through the process and uh apply for uh these benefits.

It's uh it's uh information that I think it's very important uh to share, especially when uh the short time I've been here.

I've seen the growth of a microeconomy in downtown, and there are young entrepreneurs and new uh business uh owners that probably this information uh will be very valuable.

Uh maybe their business had uh stop while the uh events of the uh AGUS, the floods, that's why you know we're here.

There's a declaration under that.

So uh I'm gonna be here.

Uh I'm gonna share more information.

I want to thank you all for uh giving me the the opportunity and um again Angel Rodriguez, uh AJ, uh SBA, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, here to help.

Thank you.

This concludes the public comment segment.

We'll now move on to the section of the agenda where we go to communications introduced to council, uh land.

Would you like to make a motion on the referrals to your committee?

I'd like to make a motion to rem to refer these following items to the finance and personnel committee.

Item 0980-25, permission to apply for 2025 BGA Office of Justice Programs Community-based violence intervention and prevention and initiative grant.

Item 0981-25 requesting permission to accept recurring funding of 24,456 from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the 2026 consolidated led contract.

Item 0982 to request permission to accept recurring funding from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the 2025-2026 consolidated Wisconsin Well Women Program Grant Agreements.

Item 0983-25, permission to accept recurring funding from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the 2025-2026 consolidated preventative health and health services block grant.

Item 0984-25, permission to accept recurring funds from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the 2025-2026 consolidated immunization contract.

Permission to accept recurring funding from the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services Consolidated Contract for the Communicable Disease Control and Prevention Program.

Item 0987-25 permission to accept recurring funding from the state of Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Item 0988-25 to enter grant contract accept funding from the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection for the 2026 Clean Sweep Unwanted Prescription Drug Collection Grant Contra.

Item 0989-25.

Permission to enter into a contract agreement with the state of Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the Wisconsin TB Dispensary Program.

Item 0991-25.

Permission to accept two-year funding from the state of Wisconsin for of Health Services Bureau of Communicable Disease for the Integrated HIV Prevention Continuation Grant.

Item 0992-25.

Permission to accept the recurring funding from the state of Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the Mike Johnson HIV Life Care and Early Intervention Services Grant.

Item 0993-25 permission to accept recurring funding of 48,760 from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for the 2026 consolidated maternal child health block grant.

Item 0995-25.

Permission to accept recurring funding from the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services Consolidated Contract for the Public Health Emergency Preparedness BIOT Focus A Planning.

Item 0994-25 requesting permission to increase contract 2023 205 with on point inside LLC for website design services.

Item 1012-25, submitting the claim of Deontay Coney for consideration for disallowance.

Item 1013-25 submitting the claim of Nicole Robinson.

Requesting permission to present the dental insurance renewal through MetLife.

Item 1017-25 requesting commissions to purchase canine Draco, a 15-month-old Belgian Melanoy, and Jenny, a 15-month-old Belgian Millinois for $10,000 each.

Item 1031-25 requesting permission to enter into an agreement and accept recurring funding of $21,000 from the state of Wisconsin of Health Services for the HIB Prevention Partner Services Agreement.

Item 1033-25 requesting permission to enter into an agreement and accept recurring funding from the state of Wisconsin of Health Services for the HIV Prevention Partner Services Agreement.

Second by Alder Pabone.

All those in favor of the referrals, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

Moving on to Alder Mack.

Alder Mack, would you like to make a motion regarding the referrals to your committee?

I'd like to refer the following items to the public works and services committee.

Item 0973-25 communications submitting the assessment rates established for 2026 public hearings for 2027.

Construction of Portland Cement Concrete Paving and Curb and Gutter.

Item 0974-25 Communications submitting brood results for recycling services transfer station.

Item 0975-25 communications submitting good results for landfill services transfer station.

Items 1019-25 communication on behalf of Hope City Church requesting permission to close 11th Street from Wisconsin Avenue to North Mean on Saturday, November 1st from 3 to 8 p.m.

And on Sunday, November 2nd from 7 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

for their community outreach event.

Item 0 1028-25 communication submitting a professional services agreement between the City of Racine and RE Smith Inc.

in the not to exceed amount of 100,000 dollars.

Second.

It's a second to refer these items to public works and services.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed that motion carries.

Alder Widener, would you like to make a motion regarding the items referred to your committee?

Oh items to the public safety and licensing committee.

The motion is second on these items.

Read the items.

First item is 0970.

Communication submitting a new application for a class C wine license for Mangia Payne LLC located at 2310 South Green Bay Road.

Dana Mardin agent, 14th district, item 0979, communication submitting a new application for a class A.

Retail fermented malt beverage license for Nervi Inc.

City Food Mart located at 2300 17th Street.

Yes, Patel Agent, third district.

Item Z 1011 communication submitting application for a premise description change for the new cafe box me LLC DBA located at 600 Main Street Alan Francisco Lozano Lopez Agent First District.

Item 1022 communication on behalf of the public safety and licensing committee requesting the appearance of Donna Pashan agent for honors Racine LLC located at 1330 Washington Avenue to discuss the potential non-renewal of the liquor license due to the absence of an active Wisconsin seller's permit number.

Item 1023 communication on behalf of the public safety and licensing committee requesting the appearance of DeAndre Mayfield.

Agent for the main project cafe located at 1014 State Street to discuss the potential non-renewal of the liquor license due to the absence of an active Wisconsin sellers permit.

Item 1024 communication requesting the appearance of Marco Lazarevic, agent for Cafana LLC, Marcos Neighborhood Bar located at 3001 Douglas Avenue, pursuant to a formal expression of concern and also requesting consideration of rescinding the formal expression of concern, 7th district.

Item 1025 communication on behalf of the public safety and licensing committee requesting the appearance of Kevin Dubiak, agent of a dubious bar.

Duby's beer joint located at 3701 Durand Avenue, pursuant to a formal expression of concern and also requesting consideration of rescinding the formal expression of concern.

I believe this is the 14th district.

Communication on behalf of the City of Racine Police Department for the licensed premise report.

Item 1027 communication requesting any consideration of any formal expression of concerns or other actions pursuant to the police report.

Motion has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of the referrals, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

We'll now move on to committee reports.

We will start with uh finance and personnel.

Alder Land, did you have any items requested for super consideration?

No, your honor, I do not.

Then without objection, this report will be placed on the consent agenda.

We'll move on next to public works and services.

Um Alder Mack, did you have any requests for separate consideration?

I do not.

Then without objection, these items will be placed on the consent agenda.

Uh moving on to public safety and licensing.

Alder Widener, did you have any items for separate consideration?

Thank you.

I do.

Thank you.

I do not.

Then without objection, these items will be placed on the consent agenda.

Moving on to the community development block grant advisory report.

Uh we have received a request from Alder Widener to have uh each of these items up for separate consideration.

Consideration.

Alder Horton, would you read the first item?

All right, first item 07 uh 0757-25 communication sponsored by Mayor Mason submitting the renewal and approval, the proposed allocation of the fiscal year 2025 community development block grant and urgent emergency solution grant uh funds recommendation that the CWG advisory board recommends approval of the proposed allocation, fiscal year 2025 CDBG and the SG funds are detailed in the attached table and authorized staff to include these allocations to the uh the fiscal year 2025 annual action plans submission to hood.

Recommendation that the CDBG advisory board recommends approval of the proposed allocation fiscal year 2025 CDBG and the SG funds are detailed in the attached table and authorized staff to include these allocations to the uh the fiscal year 2025 annual action plans submission to HUD.

All funding agreement and obligations shall be deferred until HUD has provided written approval of the AAP.

I think that is would you like to make a motion?

Uh move to approve.

So motion to approve this item.

Is there a second seconded by I'm sorry I didn't hear who seconded?

Alder Mack.

I'm sorry.

Um discussion on the item.

Alder Weiner, did you want to speak?

I would thank you.

Uh the reason I asked to have all the items on the CDBG and the CDA committee reports to be read and voted on separately is because none of these items had been referred via the council to committee as what happens with the standing committee recommendation.

So the public is really not aware of the actions that are being taken in committee unless they are quick enough to find the agenda that's submitted on Friday for meetings that meet on next Monday.

So I think it's important that the public understand what it is we've uh considered in committee and how the council intends to vote on those.

On this particular item, which is the allocation of the CDBG and the ESG uh funding that we receive from HUD, um, I do have some concerns that I do want to convey to anyone that might be interested.

Uh uh we may not be aware that the HUD has allocated 1.7 million dollars to the City of Racine again for 2025, and the allocations that are in the committee report that we're to vote on only um only convey about 700,000 of that.

There's about a million dollars that is not included in the report, and I don't know if the director of city development wants to address that.

Uh the items that are missing that I know had been discussed in committee was the 658,000 that would be allocated to the neighborhood enhancement division and another 35,000 or 350,000 or so to the uh Department of City Development for administration of the um HUD dollars, well CDBG dollars.

So I don't know if uh the director would like to speak to that.

Director Williams, did you want to provide some context to this item?

Okay, um Alderwater, thank you for your question.

Um a little bit confused by your question.

What are you asking specifically, please?

So in the list that had previously been provided to the CDBG committee, it included the allocation that would go to the neighborhood enhancement division, which I if I might my memory serves me was around 658,000.

And then there was another 358 plus dollars that were awarded to the Department of City Development for administration of the HUD dollars, the CDBG dollars.

That is not in the report that I have in front of me that was attached to this item.

Maybe stated another way, Director Williams.

There's a I think she's asking about the global funding that we get from HUD in CDBG space versus this annual action plan that relates to the ESG piece of it.

So if you can make the distinction between this piece of it and the broader funds that we get from HUD.

And if I mischaracterizing your question, Alder Weidner, please feel free to correct me.

I think you pretty well summed it up.

Okay, but I think the director still looks confused.

So the document that is in the packet that comes with the committee report only covers $612,231 for the allocations that go to the different CDBG applicants.

So the total amount that is being allocated is $1.7 million.

What is missing from this document is the allocation that goes to the neighborhood enforcement division and the allocation that goes to the Department of City Development, which would bring the entire total up to the 1.7-ish million that we received.

Alder Wagner, um, we start our process in April, May of each year.

As soon as we receive a notice of award from HUD, um we have public meetings.

We set these public meetings, we advertise these public meetings to get public input on how we allocate the dollars.

We've been doing this for quite some time.

Um we set um information in the newspapers as well as on our social media to make the public aware that these dollars are available.

Um from that public input, we get a list of priorities, and we have certain buckets that uh we have to um put the dollars into.

Yes, one of those buckets is administrative.

Um, of course, we would like to pay ourselves first for our staff and their time.

That's one of the buckets that's in there.

Uh, the another bucket that you were referring to, I believe is bucket number five.

That's um code enforcement um bucket.

Um has um been funded.

Um I gave you numbers earlier this year from 2022, detailing the amount of budget allocated to NED each year.

That's for the pay for the staff and code.

Um prior to me coming here, we did the same thing in Madison County, Illinois.

We allocated funds for code enforcement.

Now, the um you are a member of the um community development block grant, and we reviewed all that information.

Unfortunately, that what you're asking for, I don't have in front of me either, but um uh Alder Widener, that information was shared with you as well as committee members on how the funds were allocated.

Now, the reason why what you have in front of you right now is we delayed or deferred this item uh at your request um to come back because you were upset with the public input or the lack thereof, according to you.

And we provided that information.

Unfortunately, I do not have how the funds are allocated from different buckets.

Um my memory is not that great, but we provided that information I'll be more than happy to provide you a complete analysis of what was provided to you at the community development block grant meeting uh to show you where all the funds are going.

Yes, we do get 1.7 million dollars, and we have accounted for every cent of that.

Director Williams, could you clarify further the item before us is to deal with the bucket as you call it of CG C D BG funds and the ones that are related to ESG funds?

It's not a an annual action plan for our global CDBG spending, it's it's an action plan for this portion of it.

Can you make that distinction a little bit clearer, please?

Oh, okay.

Uh I uh I will try.

Um we have separate buckets for ESG.

We have separate buckets for home as well as community development block grant.

I'm getting confused, Alder Widener, when you put everything together.

Um I'm I'm sorry, I I just don't understand your question because that was laid out to you in the committee how the fund but different buckets are whitener.

Thank you.

I'm looking at the document for just the CDBG, not ESG, not home, just the CDBG, and the total amount that we are approving to be allocated is not the total 1.7 million dollars, it's only 612.

So I'm wondering if the committee recommended to fund with the CDBG dollars the 658,000 for the neighborhood enhancement division and the 350 some thousand for city development.

I'm not begrudging and I'm not upset.

I'm asking a question.

Is something missing from this document, or will there be another CDBG committee meeting where we will then take up what I thought we had already taken up in committee?

That those two allocations to your department.

Outer White Whitener, we provided that information.

I do not have that in front of me right now.

We're uh one of the things that you wanted to defer was the allocation to um outside organizations.

Um, and you you delayed that right there, so I'm not prepared to talk about anything else.

I'm not talking about outside organizations, all the outside organizations are included in the document that is provided with this committee report.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I guess uh he's just not understanding.

So if we approve this amount, we still have 1.1 million dollars from CDBG that needs to be allocated, I believe, before the end of the year.

I don't know if that has to be done before the end of the year.

I don't know that that that's there, there are dollars that have timeliness issues.

I don't know that the allocation is required before the end of the year.

Okay.

So but I I would just say so it seems Alderweiner, you want to know about the money that's not part of this motion, right?

But I don't know that that's what this motion is intended to address.

It's intended to deal with this section of CDBG and ESG funds.

Well, that's what I'm trying to ascertain.

Is it something that's missing or something that yet has to be dealt with?

Because I thought that the CDBG committee was provided an entire packet of all the dollars in the CDBG that totaled 1.7 million dollars.

So that's what had been presented to the CDBG committee, and I thought that that's what the CDBG committee had voted on was that allocation.

So the two big ticket items that go to the Department of City Development are not included in this document.

So that is what I was asking about.

Where are those two items?

Director Wyoming should be included in this report in this document.

I cannot answer that question.

I don't know.

Okay.

What is she asking?

I'm sorry.

I don't know how I can be any more plain.

There's two items that are missing that were discussed and approved in the CDBG committee.

That was the 658,000 for the neighborhood enhancement division and the 350 some thousand for city development for the administration of the CDBG dollars.

We never separated those dollars out.

There was just one, and we showed all the funds being allocated.

Um was before you I believe it was last month.

We approved the annual action plan, and now we're uh um just uh approving the specific dollar amount of trying to understand the the back and forth, and I'm gonna try to summarize if possible.

I don't have the supporting documents in front of me.

Okay.

Um was it about 1.7 million dollar total for CDBG?

That's correct.

And so the document before us that we're approving are those buckets excluding the neighborhood enhancement division and the program support, correct?

Yes, okay.

And I think I don't want to speak for Alderman Weidner, but I think what she's asking for does the committee and the council need to also approve that allocation to neighborhood enforcement and for support.

Well, it's my understanding these items were pulled at the request of all the widener, and that's why that's what you just have in front of you right now.

Everything else was already approved.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Any further discussion on Widener?

Uh, yes, there is actually.

I'm sorry, you know, that I'm gonna take up the committee's time, but I think this is very important that the council understands how the C D BG committee now operates.

The CDBG committee members no longer get the applications unless they make a special request for those.

It's the city development department that reviews all the applications and makes a recommendation to the committee, and then the committee votes on that rather than the committee themselves looking at the applications and having the applicants speak to the C D BG committee about you know what they've done in the past with their C D BG money, what they intend to do with what they're asking for.

So we don't we don't interface with with any of that anymore.

We just go by what the staff recommendation is.

The staff also is able to eliminate any applications for different reasons, and there were three applicants that were eliminated that I want the council to be aware of because I think it has a huge impact on uh individual organisations that we the city have relied on for many years.

For number one, uh the Racine Neighborhood Watch had requested dollars uh, and they were their application was uh not considered because they had received 25,000 dollars from the Department of Community Safety when we allocated money some months ago.

If you recall that money that we allocated was for a specific program, it was for them for Recene Neighborhood Watch to start the mediation service that they have been advertising.

So now they are denied the regular CDBG money that they had received in the past because they received this money that was earmarked for a special program, and that that worries me.

The other uh item that says United Community Center, um, they were denied the application was not reviewed by the committee, it was denied by the staff because the organizational board composition does not meet local representation expectations.

We are allocating in when we agree to this 195,000 dollars to WIBIC, and WIBIC has no local representation.

So we're treating different organizations differently, and that bothers me.

The other is focus on community.

We have relied on focus on community for a long time.

They've expanded the kind of services that they provide, and what it says is prevention not prioritized in the ESG strategy, and it received $50,000 from the Department of Community Safety in that last go around when they when that department had to dual out money.

It was never my understanding that those organizations that we allocated Department of Community Safety dollars to that that would eliminate their ability to also apply for and receive CDBG money that they have traditionally received in the past.

So I have concerns about that.

So with all that being said, um, you know, unless there's other discussion, we're free to vote on it, but I cannot uh agree to support uh the CDB allocation because for one, I think it's incomplete, and that's not what I understood in committee, and because we really we the committee had no voice really in all those applications that were denied by the staff.

So therefore I will be voting against um this allocation.

Thank you.

So just for the purposes of process, I do want to, and I know you missed the last meeting where where this was all debated, Alder Widener, but I do want to make sure that the council fully understands what dynamics were given there.

So there's more applicants for the limited dollars that we have.

A factor that was considered and presented to the committee and adopted by the committee was when applicants applied, if they had recently received funding from another city source compared to other worthy applicants that had not received any funding from alternate city sources, that was considered.

But um, you know, it is always a difficult process.

The reason the committee is set up is to frankly avoid a back and forth on the floor of the council in terms of which is a favored uh community organization versus another, and review empirically and score them, which the staff did, which ultimately the C D BG advisory committee is free to adopt or modify or reject, and then ultimately make a recommendation to you all based on that work.

Alder Jorgensen.

Just have a question on that.

So was the C D B G uh Committee, were they given the criteria of how staff ranked it?

I know that when we've done rankings before, um it's it's not like it's a mysterious black box that staff has been pretty outward of here's kind of the criteria of how we rated it, and here's where everyone fell.

So was the committee made aware of how that was, or or was this truly they had no idea how it was being done.

Yeah, we we were presented with a spreadsheet of what recommendations were made, what the other funding sources were, and then for ones that weren't considered at all, there may have been a specific reason why that didn't work, past performance and failure to comply and other things, but we were given context for all of those things.

We also aligned the uh request with the goals and objectives of the public input.

And all of that was was given to the committee as well, right?

That's correct.

Um because I I that that's the part where I'm getting hung up on this, I guess, is it it sounds like all of this was was provided to the committee.

Um so I I guess that's where I think some people may be getting lost on on how we're here when it sounds like it's it's it's not some mystery or um confusion uh on you know how this was rated.

It sounds like the the ratings were given to the committee with the reasoning behind it.

And all the committee uh members receive a packet of um the applications and at the last meeting we discussed those items.

So uh our job is to make the possible impossible possible with the limited funds we have available, and I believe we did the best job based on the objectives that the public input gave us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it, um Mayor.

Director, I just have a quick question.

Um if I were one of the individuals that um supported Ottawa Widener's decision and decided to not vote for this.

Could you tell me if the three that had been denied or whatever denied or or just not um a part of the the ones that were accepted, but they had been in the past.

If we do accept those three, what organizations were there any new organizations that received money, or would that pull money from organizations that had received it in the past?

I hope I'm being clear.

You're very clear.

And I thank you for the the question.

Again, when we get our initial allotment of dollars, and we survey the public.

We have public input.

Our job is to match the what the community wants with the dollars that we have available.

Now the ones were that were denied, as the mayor has indicated, they were funded maybe from another internal source.

And and or they did not meet the objectives for funding because of the priorities given.

Like the second one.

Yeah, right.

So again, they're all good organizations.

And again, I'm going back from memory.

There may have been one or two new, but again, we need we're looking for a couple of items.

Not only do they match the priorities for the for the year, and two, um, and again, I'm not inferring that they have had performance issues in the past, but we have to weigh everything because again, we are on the clock that these funds have to be out the door and utilized so that we can report at the following year.

So, no, we're not doing anything for expediency, but we're doing things to make sure they are aligned with the priorities given to us by public input.

Thank you so much, Director.

I really appreciate it.

Sometimes we think that um things that are equal are equitable, and that's not necessarily the case.

Um there are, I mean, if there were organizations that have received money, what would be equitable would be for organizations that have received no money but were qualified to um be a part of this.

I think that they should have some type of priority, and the fact that the committee was provided this information um because you needed to quickly make a decision and come together in a consensus that was equitable.

I really do think that um that is fair, and I'll be voting for this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was just gonna let it rest, but I I I guess I have to address this.

I'm gonna read off what the allocations will be.

Now remember, 1.7 million was allocated in HUD money.

What we're not addressing is the $658,000 for the neighborhood enhancement or the 20% of the seven 1.7 million that will go to the uh Department of City Development for admin cost.

What what we are allocating is a very small remainder.

Here's what's what here's what we're allocating.

Housing resource asked for 67,500, they're getting that amount.

Great Lakes Neighborhood uh conservation court corp asked for 66,000.

Uh this is a year-round training program for young adults and homeless veterans.

They asked for 66, they're getting 20.

Parks and recreation did not submit any applications, but they are being awarded two allocations.

One is for extended hours at the Bryan Center, and the other is for main gallery.

Um that total is a little over 100,000 dollars.

One one is 37,500, the other is 65,681.

Recent literacy counsel, they asked for 30,000, they're getting 15,420.

Receding vocational ministry asked for these are assists previously incarcerated, receiving residents in transition back into the community, they asked for 63,700, they're getting 15,000.

Safe haven, which is homeless individuals uh for young people.

They asked for 70, they got 20.

Women's resource center, we all know what that is.

They asked for 62, they've got 20.

So what this document really is is what our priorities.

Our priorities now seem to be that the city of Rascine will itself receive the lion's share of funding to pay for wages and benefits.

I'm not asking anyone to vote any certain way.

I just can't support this.

Um I pay my property taxes and I pay into the state, and the state gives the city money to pay for wages and benefits.

I think the CDBG dollars should go to those organizations that serve the public that in our city that has great needs, and I think they're the ones that are getting sort shortchanged.

So thank you.

Granicass is not working again tonight, so we won't be voting electronically.

So we will do roll call votes this evening.

Alder Pete, you're the first vote of the evening.

And when the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete.

Alder Land.

Alder Perez.

No.

Alder Harman.

Alder Pavone.

Alder Frazier.

Alder Townsend.

Alder Davis.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jurgensen.

Alderman Weidener.

Alder Horton.

Alder Escada.

No.

Alder Allen.

Nine ayes.

Five no's motion carries.

Uh Alder Horton, would you please read the next item?

All right, next item.

Uh 0996.

There's two fire communications sponsored by Mayor Mason to reallocate 400,000 of the community development block grant, available loan funds.

AL lab to support the city arraying clean sweep initiative.

Uh recommendation is to approve the proposed allocation for 400,000 for CDBG ALF accounts to support the clean sweep initiative as presented.

Moves approved.

Discussion.

Thank you.

I'm going to speak on this item as well.

Um this is something rather new.

We haven't done this in the past, where we are funding several properties on one street with CDBG money for uh property improvements that has they have not yet even applied for.

So somebody made a determination that we're gonna focus our attention on the 1300 block of Franklin uh center and how street.

Um so we're gonna take 400,000 from the CDBG money, and we're gonna pay for deck ramp windows, siding, kitchen cabinets, and flooring at 1308 Franklin Street.

We are gonna pay for a wit uh window siding and fence at 1328 Franklin, 1320 Franklin will receive porch siding and windows, 1311 Franklin will see receive siding, garage roof, 1321 center, we'll get front steps and a fence, 1335 Franklin, we'll get front porch steps, sidewalk and paint, and 1301 Franklin Street, uh front straps and railing and 1333 Howell Street, uh porch and siding.

So my question for who's ever responsible for the clean sweep is how did these items come before us?

Uh were these people that applied for these things when the city was out there doing a clean sweep and we looked at their property and said, Hey, maybe you want to think about getting new porch and kitchen cabinets.

How did that how did that come about?

So I'll direct your question to uh Director Williams.

Uh the city clerk has also been assisting with the clean sweep program.

She wants to add anything.

I didn't invite her to do so as well, Director Williams.

I will uh defer to uh the clerk in regard to how uh we picked this area.

Uh we'll go from there.

I'll think not the area, these addresses, not the area, these addresses.

Yeah, sure.

So the addresses all except for one are actually people who have applied.

So I'm not sure where you got that they haven't applied.

There have been multiple knocks on the doors within the area at 14th on How Center and Franklin Street.

These are the people who have responded, except for one property whose house is in extreme disrepair, who would still need to meet the qualifications and submit the application before they were given any grant funding.

Okay, thank you.

I can tell you where I got the information about the application.

I got it from the ABM, what the ABM says we're seeing clean sweep initiative and future home repair loan program applications.

So I assume that the list of applications following that sentence were for these.

Sure.

So and hopefully I can answer this.

Again, this is not my normal field, so I'm gonna give it a try, and hopefully Walt can step in if I'm wrong.

The idea is to move the funding into an account that will be allocated and able to be used for those clean sweep properties.

However, I believe that line is in the ABM because any leftover funding would still be available through regular CDBG grants that no one has yet applied for.

Okay, then being that the uh uh director of city development brought it up.

How was this particular neighborhood determined to be the one for a clean sweep?

Sure.

So this is the mayor's clean sweep, which was approved through the budget, so it came down through administration.

Okay, so we allocated uh somehow in our budget for 2025 a hundred thousand dollars for uh to pay for staffing or for whatever for the clean sweep initiative for two different neighborhoods.

Can we expect to see another ABM like this for properties in the second clean sweep that was done, or is that or that 400,000 is gonna cover the addresses that sure?

So this the 400,000 that's in here is a to cover the properties listed on here, which is the second clean sweep.

Um, the second one approved in the budget.

The first one happened in July, and we did not use any funding from the CDBG account.

Was that your question?

I want to make sure I'm answering it precisely.

Pretty pretty close.

Okay, and then my my last question on this is I believe it is something new that we would give landlord-owned properties forgivable grants.

So is that something new that for CDBG?

Not have enough information on the historic facts of C D BG.

I know that all of the properties on here except for one are homeowner owned.

So only one property listed on here is um is an actual landlord, the rest are for homeowners.

I like I said, I do not have the expertise in CDBG to be able to answer that.

Then the director of city development should be able to answer that.

We're pulling from several pots of money.

Uh some of those pots of money are restricted.

Um from yes, you are um the clerk is correct.

Um, it has to be owner occupied, but we have other pots of money that are are unrestricted, so that's the way we're funding the one.

So would they unrestricted, then we can give forgivable grants to landlords.

The purpose of the program is to improve the neighborhood.

Okay, I can't.

Um, we want to do whatever is possible, um, as indicated uh and that's in a sheet in front of you.

Um we're trying to save these homes.

Alderman Widener, I might be able to assist there if the director is so is okay with it.

Some of the funding pots that you're seeing being moved into this $400,000 allocation already came from associated landlord buckets of CDBG funding.

So they came from rental buckets, is my understanding of it.

That's correct.

So some of the funds were for homeowners, some of the funds were for landlords, and they were all being pulled together to be able to be allocated to Clean Sweep, and then whatever's left over to other C D BG funded projects.

So on C D BG, I did not see a bucket that was uh earmarked for landlords.

I mean, when there are one in here on the ABM on the very first page, it does say account number two zero four one nine multifamily.

So that would be one that would have been something that was already landlord-owned that's being rolled in there.

So some of that funding was already allocated for landlords.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Alder Jorgensen.

I guess I just have a process on this because we're we're hearing some information, and then it seems to be not at all the case.

Um, you know, if these people didn't apply, it sounds like we're hearing they did apply.

These are all things that typically are done in committee, right?

Yes.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't like you know these discussions weren't allowed in committee or there wasn't anything that was preventing these questions from being asked because they're good questions, but I just it I think it's kind of um it feels unusual that they've come to the the council now where you know it's being stated that they didn't apply and and something as simple as yes, they they did except for one, but they're still gonna have to meet the criteria.

So I I just wanted to make sure procedurally that there this wasn't being there was no prevention from having these dealt with in committee.

It's just they're happening here now.

That's correct.

Thank you.

The queue is empty.

When the clerk calls your name, please vote.

Oh, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete.

Alder Land, Alder Perez, Alder Harman, Alder Pabone, Alder Frazier, Alder Townsend, Alder Davis, Alder Mack, Alder Jorgensen, Alderman Weidener, Alder Horton, Alder Skada, Alder Allen.

No figure could change.

Alder Allen.

If you had yourself for getting submitted to the case.

This is Trump's doctor.

Thank you.

Um Alder Horton, would you read the next item, please?

Next item.

0997-25.

Communication sponsored by Mayor Mason requesting additional non-federal revolving loan loan funds of $5,800 for 1644 South Memorial Drive.

Recommendation is to approve and use $5,800 in non-federal funds for the change order of 1644 South Memorial Drive.

Move to approve.

Any further discussion on this item?

Alder Widener.

Thank you.

I believe this is the second time there is an ask before this council to provide additional funding to 1644 Memorial Drive.

And I think even in the original amount that was allocated for this project, we exceeded what HUD allows for a single family home.

So I'm wondering what not only what the total is cost for this home at 1644 Memorial Drive.

Uh not only what the total is, but if HUD is going to have any concern about us using other funding when they allocated the most allowable for building a home with this footprint director Williams.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

This is for 1644 Memorial.

Correct.

And the reason for the additional funds are that's the one I didn't pull.

I thought I pulled that.

I apologize.

That's okay.

You can send me the information tomorrow.

Or I can check recheck the ABM.

Okay.

And if I'm not in threat of losing anything, and again, um I I don't remember the reason.

Okay.

Uh standing up here right now.

Why?

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion on this item?

See none when the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Land.

Alder Perez.

Alder Harman.

Alder Pabone.

Alder Frasier.

Alder Townsend.

Excuse me.

Alder Davis.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jorgensen.

Alderman Weidner.

Alder Horton.

Alder Ascada.

Alder Allen.

Aye.

Thirteen ayes, one no.

Motion carries.

Alder Horton, would you read the final item?

All right, final item.

0998-25 communications sponsored by Mirror Mason.

Authorizing acceptance and the execution of a contract with Terror Venture Advisors LLC for relocation service for 1644 Packer Avenue rehab project.

Move to approve.

There's a motion and a second to approve this item, Alder Weidener.

Thank you.

I have a question for the city attorney in regards to the process for which we are now hiring Terra Venture for relocation expenses for 1644 Packard.

This question came up when it was first proposed to this council to purchase this one of the last boarding homes in the city ever seen.

At the time we first discussed it, we were told first by the director of city development that the building was vacant.

And then the city or the mayor uh stated no it was not.

Now we learned that there are several tenants to that home, and we are gonna pay Terra Venture 20,000 to put together a relocation plan, which is something that I believe was supposed to have been done prior to the city making an offer to purchase 1644 Packard.

Am I not correct?

Statute anticipates relocation plans will be completed before offers to purchase are made, yes.

Before uh offers to purchase.

So have we already submitted offer to purchase at 1644 Packard?

I I believe so.

Yes, we have.

We closed on the property on August 15th.

Alder Widener, uh, as I indicated, when we uh initially uh approached the realtor for their acquisition of this property, I was informed there were no tenants upon the um offer that was made to the realtor for the purchase of property.

We learned that there were two people living at the property upon closing.

Um we learned that there were more.

Um we have leased uh since August 15th.

We have signed leases with three tenants uh that are existing there, so there are only three.

One is ready to move out.

He has already found a space.

Uh we'll be waiting um within days.

Another couple is interested in buying one of our homes that we're building, and another one may not be eligible because of non-payment of their lease payment.

So we indicate we asked for up to 52,000 uh to anticipate any unforeseen costs.

Um these are single bedroom units that can probably put in the back of uh a vehicle.

It will not cost up to the amount uh that we are um uh um required to provide for these individuals.

Um so moving forward.

Um again, all the leases have been signed.

Uh at least one tenant is moving out, another one uh possibly uh eviction, the notice was served today, and so we may be only building with one tenant moving forward.

But again, we gave you the worst case scenario.

Did I think that correct?

A notice of eviction was served on one of these tenants.

I'll refer your question to the city attorney.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Uh I I want to be sure I heard the director of city development uh correctly when he said that there was a notice of eviction served to one of the tenants at 1644 Packard.

For down payment of their lease we're going through the process, they have a chance, it possibly may not occur.

Okay.

I don't need to answer, but I'm I I do want to make a statement.

Um, I am not concerned about what we are paying Terra Venture.

This is something that should have come to the council before we even made an offer to purchase that we were gonna pay Terra Venture to have a relocation plan for the individuals that lived at that property.

I am not concerned about what we're gonna pay uh the tenants for relocation.

I am concerned about their long-term well-being because if they are choosing to live in a boarding house and we have no more boarding houses, I don't know what they're gonna be able to afford once their real little bit of relocation money runs out.

So I am concerned about their long-term safe uh well-being.

What I am most concerned about is that we should know that the relocation of any property that this city intends to purchase, whether it's the city or the CDA, however, you want to term term it, when there are renters in there, when there are tenants, when it's a business, when there are tenants of a business, we have to have a relocation plan in place prior to even considering making an offer on purchasing that property.

So the next time something like this happens, and I'm sure it's gonna happen maybe even tonight.

Um we have to have a relocation plan in place before the city approves moving forward with purchasing a property.

So that really is what my concern is is that we do things uh according to the state's state law, and that did not happen in this case, and that can't continue to happen.

Any further discussion on this item seeing none when the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete, Alder Land, Alder Perez, Honor Harmon, Honor Paboon, Elder Frazier, Elder Townsend, Alder Davis, Alder Mack, Aldo Jorgensen, Alderman Weidner, aye, Alder Horton, Alder Skada, Alder Allen.

Aye.

Fourteen ayes, zero no's the motion carries.

The motion carries.

Moving on to the community development report, Alder Escada.

We've had uh all items requested for separate consideration.

Would you please read the first item?

Communication from the assistant director of the city development to resolution 2518 related to the property owned by Rivers End Marina LLC located at 90 right chart court for potential acquisition of the community development authority of the city of Racine for blight elimination and redevelopment.

And the CDA will acquire such property, notwithstanding that is not an existing redevelopment area.

Alder Skater, would you like to make a motion to approve?

I would like to make a motion to approve this item.

There's a motion and a second to approve this item.

Any discussion?

Alder Widener.

Thank you.

I am going to speak against this item.

Uh the city already owns a marina.

And I don't know that the marina that is attached to what is known as the Walker site can be considered blighted.

Um we have owned not only the Walker site but machinery roll, which does contain a marina that the city purchased and is still sitting vacant.

I don't think we have the wherewithals to purchase yet another marina.

And in this um approval for the CDA to acquire this marina, we have no idea not only what the possible cost would be or where the funds are going to come from.

We are giving the CDA carte blanche to purchase yet another property that will sit forever, like Machinery Row did, like Walker site does, like the Jacobson site has, like the Bell City on Memorial Drive.

I mean, I the list goes on and on.

We cannot continue to purchase property, and whether you call it the CDA or the city, we are purchasing the property.

We cannot continue to do this until we divest ourselves of some of the properties that we already own.

So I'm speaking uh strongly against giving the CDA permission to move forward with this project, unless somebody can tell me that we have a developer that is going to come in and develop the walker site, like what I see up on Highway 100 in the lake front.

Uh that's the only reason I could even consider giving the CDA permission, but I don't believe that there is any such developer willing to do that.

We will yet own another piece of property under the guise that while it's on the water, we need to have it.

Um we can't continue to do this.

And if I am not uh incorrect, that property uh currently pays property tax to the city of Racine, correct?

It's not owned by the city right now, it's privately owned.

So if it's privately owned, it pays property tax, and I can't even begin to fathom what the value of a marina would be.

But here we are again gonna reduce uh uh property tax uh to it and like I've said so many times, we are moving more and more of the burden of property taxes to fewer and fewer shoulders.

We cannot continue to do this, and I hope at some point this body will say enough and wait until we've divested ourselves before we purchase more property and take more property off the property tax roll.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do just want to clarify the parcel we're talking about is not buying the entirety of the marina, it is the parcel that is attached to the marina, that is to the to the north of Riker Court.

So to acquire an entire marina would indeed be a thing.

This is a a smaller parcel of land that is geographically attached to the walker site that uh is blighted and is a hindrance to the redevelopment of that walker site.

The intention for the CDA is to put that into one parcel before we market it because it's seen as uh a hindrance to our ability to uh actively market and redevelop that site.

Alder Jorgensen.

Well, I think you may have just answered my question because I I just wanted to address it sounded like there was said that there's no plan or there no one's aware of a plan, but it does sound like there may be a plan of where we're not just buying it to sit on it.

It sounds like it would be part of the walker site as it's attached or adjacent to it.

That's correct.

That's correct.

We are in the process of uh developing our RFQ.

Uh developers have told us that that site we commonly refer to as the boat graveyard.

However, boats are housed there without titles and various various conditions of um not repairable.

And if we're marketing when we are marketing the walker site as a higher end um on the lake, uh it would make it more um appetizing for a developer to look at the entire rectangle and not have to look at um uh an eye sort more or less.

So essentially we're cleaning it up, making it more marketable for a future developer.

Yes, we have talked to several developers that they indicated yes, that would be great if you could acquire that before we do.

So again, uh our our schedule is to have RFQ out and to market the site.

Thank you.

So it's so to kind of summar summarize here.

It's it's not where we're buying property to buy a property.

It sounds like we were trying to redevelop a site now that's uh adjacent to a place that you reference is known as the boat graveyard.

Yes.

Uh I don't know about you, but if I was a developer, I don't know if uh a property that I'd be looking to redevelop uh that's next to the boat graveyard would be high on my list.

So it sounds like the the idea here is we want to redevelop the the Walker property, we're going to uh acquire the boat graveyard, not but not the whole marina, right?

That's correct.

The boat graveyard.

Uh and uh clean it up uh so that when we uh redevelop the walker property, this can go along with it.

It'll be one one site.

Um and so with that it sounds like there is a plan because you know I my my ears perk up anytime there's we're buying I hear we're buying things with no plan or the not possibility of a plan.

Um but it does sound like this is well thought out and there is a plan behind it.

So with that, I that would put my concerns to rest.

My department approached the owners um back in 2023, um measured their appetite to sell the land, and now it is before you in 2025.

So we put the bug in earlier because we knew that it will be a detriment to developing that entire site.

Thank you.

So there's the boat graveyard.

I'm assuming there's boats in there.

Yes, there are boats in there.

There are some are untitled.

We do not know the owner.

Um the marina does not own know the owner, but the owner is um making sure that those things are um are not there when we take title of the the land.

Um with them making sure that they're not there.

Does this come back with the chart with um a request from the city to pay them for moving that since we will be purchasing that?

No, this is on the obligation of the owner.

Okay.

And you speak you mentioned the walker site.

So are you hinting that there is a plan coming forth soon, or this is just talk of if maybe this may help with this development?

It will help with this development, it will make the site more marketable.

Are there not other sites throughout racing that are more public facing that could be purchased by the CDA that you know are instead of these boat graveyard?

I'm trying to I'm trying to understand besides the developers saying, if you did this, what is the benefit from the city taking on this um this prop this plot, this property, without a developer actually saying, I will.

We're we're we're doing a lot of dreaming and ifs and whiffs.

You you bring up a very good point, Alder Davis.

Again, we're just trying to make it more marketable.

Uh the again, we refer to this as a boat graveyard.

Uh in certain people's eyes, it will be an eyesore.

And if you're doing a multi-million dollar development, you do not want to be looking down at that right there.

Again, another eyesore is another person's treasure.

Uh the owner has indicated that they really have no use for it.

Uh again, this is detached from the marina that's on the opposite side of the street, and is willing to do part with it.

Now, the your other question, Alder Davis is a very good question.

Um, yes, there are numerous places throughout the city of Racine that offer access uh that offer uh opportunity for redevelopment or development.

However, at this particular site, uh that we have a way of paying for it that though there's a already a TID established that we're gonna pull from that TID to pay for the purchase of this property once that um we are given the ability to negotiate a price for it, but not all sites throughout the city, we have a revenue source to pay for.

So, yes, there are other opportunities.

We'll be looking for those opportunities, and no, as uh I indicated in the last two years on that our objective is to acquire, remediate, redevelop, and sell within 18 months.

I hear what Alder Whitner has said.

I hear what the other auditors have said.

We do not want it to be the owners of property because as it was just brought up, it goes off the tax roll.

And I am and I say this to them blue in the face.

18 months, I've hopefully to have a developer in line that will come by and redevelop the property.

Hopes and wish and dreams.

I'm sorry, no, I just said hopes, wishes, and dreams.

And we but we don't know the cost.

It'll be $30 to acquire it, the recording fee, but we won't know the cost that we'll be pulling from these TIDs to get it ready nice and pretty for someone else.

We were turning this trash into treasure for someone else.

The CDA has to authorize me the ability to negotiate at that time, then we'll have a price.

Okay.

I just want to state that having a hard time understanding.

Alder Pavone.

Thank you, um, Mr.

Mayor.

So for the director here, is the CDA not allowed to enter into negotiations and negotiations until something like this is approved, or can they start talking about prices with the owner beforehand before it becomes before the council?

We have an ideal, but again, that information has to be taken back to the CDA committee.

Okay.

So 2023, they were approached these owners, correct?

Yes, we approached them when I first got here and uh inquired about is there a possibility?

Do you need this property?

No, this is not part of our long-term plan.

Heck, we don't even know what who owns the boats are out there.

So, what that did was inspire them to start digging around to find out whose boats those are on that property.

And it has not been a very uh successful adventure.

They have done a magnificent job of clearing it up.

We toured this um the area last Friday and noticed that there were less boats there now than there were six months ago.

So that we are seeing some improvements.

We did do an EPA study, a phase one, it came back clean.

Um, so we we feel confident that if we do acquire it, we're not acquiring another problem.

Okay, but as stated by you, these owners have an appetite um for selling this property, they don't really have a use for it.

Uh, but we were not able to agree on a price before coming before council.

That would be brought back.

Yeah, okay.

I'm just gonna ask, it's a really good question that you're asking Alder Pavone.

I'm just gonna ask the city attorney just to comment on the process here because there's an initially before we can actually make an offer, you all have to authorize their ability to do it.

Um, then they can enter into negotiation, but we wouldn't want to necessarily talk about price or what we would pay for it or or what have you until we negotiated a contract and brought it back.

So I'm just gonna ask the city attorney to speak briefly on on what that process is like for everybody's edification.

So you may know this, but the community development authority is a legally separate entity from the city of Racine.

It's what's known as an independent body politic.

And community development authorities, redevelopment authorities were originally established to um take actions that municipal governments in Wisconsin are not allowed to do.

The city of Racine as a government is not allowed to own property that would be then redeveloped.

A community development authority is allowed to own property that could be redeveloped.

So the only way this can be developed with some governmental activity is if the city's community development authority owns it.

Community development authorities are only allowed to act in two places.

One is where there's an existing redevelopment area defined already by the common council, and we have a number of those around the city.

This is not one of those.

The second way is if there's a three-step process where it goes through the community development authority to hold a public hearing, make a determination of blight, and then come to the common council and ask the common council for authority to act in this particular place that is not within a redevelopment plan area already.

So, and then assuming the common council would authorize the community development authority to act in this place where there is already a formal finding of blight having occurred under the law, then the community development authority would be allowed to go and negotiate.

But so far the common council has not authorized the community development authority to do anything there yet, which is why they're asking.

But they don't get to tell the community authority what to do when they get there.

So it is on the community development authority to negotiate the purchase, assuming the common council tells them they may act in that space.

Okay.

And the CDA gets the uh funds to act upon these agreements from where CDA has funding.

Uh Director Williams probably has a better idea how much they have, but there is funding that the CDA has.

And sometimes the city gives the CDA money to act.

That's true.

So your question is for the CDA, uh, is it budget allocation to the borrow?

We're borrowing from TIDs.

How are we getting this money to purchase these properties?

Again, we're looking at a TID to fund the purchase of that of this property.

I believe it's TIT 9, if I'm not mistaken.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh a couple questions for the director of city development.

Does the neighborhood enhancement division have the authority to uh tell the owner of the property to remove what you call uh abandoned bolts, junk bolts?

Can they leave?

Call it the boat graveyard.

If those bolts are not licensed or properly tagged, does the neighborhood enforcement division have the authority to tell the property owner to remove the blight?

The city development has made the owner aware that if we are going to consider the purchase of that property, those boats need to be removed by the developer or their owner of the property, not by the city.

Okay.

And then my other question is have you had a discussions with a developer regarding developing the walker site?

We've had numerous um developers over the years who have approached us in regards to the walker site.

Um we have not moved on any of those because there were issues with their either their funding or their concept.

That's why we are going to be developing, and we're in the process of developing an RFQ for this entire site, and to make the developers aware of what we're looking for.

And so again, we'll be making an evaluation after we get that those items out.

So do you have a written plan, like a comprehensive plan as to what you intend to do with the Walker site when that property is incorporated into that property?

Of course, we're always looking for highest and best use.

And in that site, uh, I don't think I'm out of line to say we want the highest and best use.

We want density on that on that site.

Um so uh when we are in the midst of developing or finalizing RFQ, it will have those elements saying this is what our expectations are.

Can you fulfill this?

Now we've seen um at least two um proposals for this site since I've been here since 2023.

They all have some pluses and some minuses.

Uh however, we felt, because we were told if you could acquire that piece, that would just make it much more marketable.

We could do this XYZ on that.

So again, um, yes, another man's eyesore is another person's um treasure.

Um the owner has agreed to sell the property, uh, and because they have no use of it, and it forced that person to actually find out who the owners are and dispose of those boats.

So another question for you is would the uh developer have the ability to purchase that property from the city or for the CDA?

From the current owner.

Would the developer because in that way that property would remain on the property tax rules, correct?

Yes, we're trying to make it a very good question, but we're trying to make it uh more uh appetizing for a developer to come in and say, look, we have a piece of land, 11 plus acres right on the lakefront, and we could do the XYZ with it.

Utilities are already there, you do not have to negotiate with another owner.

We have everything in place that you can plug and play.

Okay, and my last question for you is um the last time I was made aware of what the CDA received from the outlying communities for the shared revenue from the sewer water agreement was around two million a year.

Would we not use that fund?

Because that's explicitly what that shared revenue fund is for is to for development.

Would not we be using that money to purchase that property rather than using again poor TID 9.

I will refer the um the answer to that question to Director Fisher.

Uh so let me just what we have before us is whether or not the CDA has the authority to enter into a negotiation.

Something would have to come back if an agreement was reached.

But I just want to be really clear what is before us right now isn't that we are buying it, we are giving CDA the authority to enter into negotiations to see if they may buy it.

So getting ahead of like what kit it might come from or what funding source it might be is really premature here.

What what you have before you is the permission that the CDA needs to receive from this council to determine if they can even negotiate about purchasing it.

That's what's before us today, not what the price will be, not what the funding source will be, not which developer will get to do it, just whether or not the CDA can act to acquire the property and move forward from there.

So I just want to clarify that piece of it.

Well, thank you for that, Mayor.

But what I see before us is what we're acting on tonight is exactly this.

October 7, 2025, the common council consideration of a resolution that includes the following findings that a comprehensive development plan is not necessary to determine the need for the acquisition of real real estate by the CDA, that a comprehensive redevelopment plan is not necessary to determine the need for the uses of the property after acquisition by the CDA.

That number three is that a comprehensive redevelopment plan is not necessary to determine the relation the relation of the acquisition to other property redevelopments of the CDA.

So we are doing more than just giving the CDA the authority to negotiate just so you know that.

And we're also, it's already already lined up here.

What we're gonna do.

October 20th, we're gonna negotiate and put potentially acquire the property.

October 27th, we're gonna use TID funds for the acquisition.

November 4th, we're gonna authorize the use of TID funds for the acquisition.

So what we're voting on tonight is all of the above, all the things I just stated.

So you have your hand raised Allen, the floor is yours.

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't sure I heard you call my name or not.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so I've been listening, and I do understand what we have in front of us.

I think that it's always helpful if if the person that is called upon to answer the questions has much information as can be provided, and in other words, be a little bit more prepared to answer some questions.

Because the only definitive answer that I heard was that within 18 months, the property was going to be hopefully marketed and sold.

But you say that without saying that you have a definitive list of people that you are already thinking about presenting this property to.

You are able to go back two years to people who express an interest, but you're not able to give an answer, even if it's just a possibility of people who you've been considering that you'll present this property to, but you are able to say where you want to get the funds from and how you want to negotiate and why you think this is going to be a benefit for us.

So I would just say that in the future try anticipating please some of the questions that you might be asked because it helps us, especially me, right?

I have to speak for myself, make a proper vote because I'm getting as much information as possible, especially if we know that that property and the condition that it has been in and what you've been talking about for two years, we should probably be able to have a little bit more information tonight to make you know a vote and be positive and happy about how we're pushing the needle forward for that space.

Thank you.

I just want to thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I just wanted to uh get clarification here, if I could.

Um when you were just describing that we're just giving permission for the CDA to enter into potential negotiations to purchase this property.

Uh, when the we have we have come to a price on that, does that come back before this body for final approval?

I'll refer your question to the city attorney.

The community development authority would negotiate the price.

The question that the council would be able to uh ask to would be asked is if the council will authorize the use of TID funds for the acquisition based upon the price negotiated by this CDA.

So it's not going to come to the common council to negotiate the price or to approve the negotiation just to approve the funding for it.

So essentially the CDA determines the price that they're willing to pay, and in conjunction with that, the current owner, they agree upon a price.

Then that comes back to us not necessarily to approve that price, but to approve the allocation of the TID funds to cover set price.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I think it'd be helpful if you'd be able to just kind of describe what we're doing here because I've heard a couple times now, you know.

Well, where's the the full plan?

There's no plan, it's it's hopes and dreams.

But the point of what's going on here is that we're taking a property that's maybe not marketable, and we're trying to get it to a marketable state, which it sounds like on the Walker property you've been working on.

And one of the things that through your negotiations, maybe with some other potential developers, it's been hinted at that one way to make this more marketable would be to clean up the boat graveyard and make it a part of the site.

Uh do I do I have that right or you're on pinpoint accurate?

You're absolutely correct.

That that's essentially what it is right here.

We're trying to make a uh entire site more marketable.

And so I think that's because uh through the discussion tonight, and it's been a long one on this item.

It sounds like all we're really doing with this item is giving the CDA the authority to go negotiate something that it sounds like is very evidence and based in fact that developers are telling us the Walker site has this potential problem, especially because it sounds like we've received potential proposals for it, but it didn't really meet what we were maybe looking for.

And when we were trying to talk about maybe what we did want to do, then this came up of well, if that's what you're looking for, you'll need to get this taken care of.

You're absolutely correct.

So I I guess that's where I'm still struggling to see the side of you know, we're banking on hopes and dreams.

This is this is more of than hopes and dreams.

This is evidence-based factual findings of developers are telling us that this is something that they would like to see to make it more marketable for them to do the type of plan that we're looking for.

Again, I couldn't put it more succinctly than you would you just did right there.

Uh you look at the entire 11 acres.

That is a beautiful asset that the city has.

Um this has been said as one of our largest assets for marketable for read redevelopment.

So this will just be the INCONA cake.

We'll take out all reservations.

We have it right there.

Um, according to our zoning, we could put uh uh a large number of units, housing units on that piece of property right there.

And we're trying to maximize that again, highest and best use.

Absolutely, and so I you know, I thank you so much.

I think that I think it's been helpful to kind of clarify it as well as to this is kind of typical for how these go.

We typically aren't having the CDA go and purchase things with an agreement already done and on the table.

This is more of we're doing the the legwork ahead of time to get this out of the way so that then we can go do the RFQ, like you had said, once we have the at the appropriate time, we will share uh with council if a developer comes forward.

Again, we're our purpose here right now tonight is to uh combine the property, make it more appealing to a future developer.

We just want to pull it together.

Um we've seen um when we first approached the owner, I believe there was 46 um 50 46 to 50 boats on that property.

When we went past there this past Friday, I counted only nine boats remaining on the property.

And that was a Harker Lean effort by the owner to remove those boats to make the make it more marketable for us because we're not going to be involved in the disposition of those boats right there.

So that was commitment on the owner.

The owner uh was part of the pew purchase, had no use for it.

Uh they have the marina lease by another local company.

Uh they were not putting more boats on the boat graveyard.

Uh, this was of no use for them, so uh it solves a couple of problems.

It gets rid of an eyesore, it packages the uh site to a something that we could market, and we feel very good about that going.

So uh it's not our hopes and dreams.

We're trying to make our put our best foot forward, then tell our developer we have everything, we're ready to go.

We're we're plug and play, more or less.

Without waiting to negotiate with an owner, uh without waiting to negotiate with uh with third parties, they have it right there, and I think this is in the best interest so that we could present a um project proposal to a developer that will be well received.

Thank you.

And and I think you know, to to try to put a nice bow on it, uh, I think you know the the term Marita and marina complicates it, and you know, the the the waterfront to to kind of boil it down to at its core, it's it's no different than if in a neighborhood or in an area of the city there were two non-buildable lots, or there was a non-buildable lot because it had access issues, you know, frontage access, or whatever it is.

Some developers are unable to do that.

Uh you know, it's not attractive for them to develop.

The idea is the CDA would come in, purchase that, and then correct whatever was uh preventing that property from being attractive to developers.

So maybe they're fixing the frontage issue by buying another non-buildable lot to now fix the frontage issue, whatever it is.

The idea is that the CDA is kind of stepping in to put their thumb on the scale to make that property more marketable and attractive to have a developer come forward and say, Yeah, I do want to do that.

There's nothing stopping a developer from coming in and buying all of the non-buildable lots together and doing it on their own.

But if you're a developer and you're looking at what's the the quickest and fastest way to um run your business, you're not necessarily going to be looking at cobbling together all of the properties.

You're going to be checking where it's you know.

Already done, it's already plug and play.

Yes.

Right, which is something that the city has long struggled with because when you look at where we are, we're landlocked, we don't have green a lot of greenfield sites, really and greenfield sites.

And so we have to do things like put our thumb on the scale of a site that needs redevelopment as opposed to um you know leaving it where it is now, where um you know a property developer will go, I can do this, or I can go out to where there are turnkey greenfield sites where I can just develop it.

And so hopefully the idea here is we'll let you go negotiate um to hopefully get the property acquired um and put your thumb on the scale to have it redeveloped.

Again, this takes time.

Again, it started two years ago.

I think it was the first month I was here.

We had a conversation with the owner.

Yeah, no, not really of no use for us.

And again, we get a call earlier this year.

Um, do you want to consider purchasing this property?

And that's the way it worked.

So, no, we do not have a plan in place.

Um again, we know that it would be more mark more marketable.

So, clean site.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, we with with that.

I I think that that really um, you know, makes it as clear as it's going to get for something like this, because if there was a guarantee that it'd be built on tomorrow, a developer would probably be already doing it.

Right.

Alder Townsend.

Um personally, I understand why people are using caution with this because it sounds like we do have developers that have been interested in the past, and that site hasn't been the reason they haven't done it, they just haven't gotten approval because they're not apartments.

Um I feel like this is gonna turn into every other project where we're going to buy it.

Then they're gonna have to oh the soil is bad because there's boats and they're not all sail boats, so that means there's engines in them, and they have all been sitting there in the graveyard.

And I feel like it would make more sense to keep this on the tax roll.

And if we hit a point where there is an actual serious developer who says we have to figure something out with this property, then I think that that's something that we can revisit.

But as of right now, with the way it all sits, I mean, we've had developers interested.

We didn't necessarily like their plan with it, but it sounded like that was what killed it and uh that property.

So if they're willing to sell it, I've I guess I just don't see why we shouldn't middleman that.

Alder Townsend, um, great question.

Um in the development uh arena, time is money, and we're trying to decrease one more way to decrease a person saying no to develop to developing the site.

Number two, we have done a uh environmental assessment.

We are getting uh a good piece of land.

Uh so it's no there will be no um surprises if we require the land.

So we're in a good spot.

Um again, uh just yeah, you're gonna get one of my stories now.

Um we delayed a project because um uh issues with it, but this is not here in the city we're seeing.

Um, and by the time they got around to doing the project, the prices still increased dramatically.

And so they had to go to a wood building instead.

But again, that was not here, but time is money issue, and this eliminates that issue right there.

If you have everything available ready to go, it makes that property much more marketable.

I see your point, but time is money.

I understand what you mean with time is money, but it doesn't seem like I I just again it doesn't seem like anybody is holding back on that property because of the bolt graveyard that the owners are willing to sell and part with to the developer as well.

So I I just don't personally I just think it should stay on the tax rule until there is a developer that comes along, and if that is a problem, then I feel like we can cross that bridge then.

But if it's clear that the owner of it now is willing to part with it, then I don't necessarily see that being if we don't have any current interest and it's not actively delaying anything, then the uh mountainous assessment on an unencumbered piece of land, uh I do not have that um pricing in front of me.

Um but if it was a develop it if it was have a facility on it, it would be worth that much more.

So I I'm not going to say that it's nominal, but um but the the value of the land is not significant on the tax roll.

So it's worth more if there's a building on it.

Is that we're but are we putting a building on it?

I'm sorry?

Would we be putting a building on it?

No, we would not be putting this will be a private development that will be taxable.

Yeah.

So the the fiscal value.

If a developer is interested in as of right now, there is no developer though, so this is still we want to lop it in with a piece of land, and yeah, eventually there may be a building on it, but it's gonna sit empty for how long until we can find an appropriate developer that finds and fills all the wishes.

And that could be I mean, how long has that site been vacant now?

We we do not know.

Uh I I gave you our principle, meaning going forward, our goal is not to acquire something that we cannot remediate, redevelop, and resell within 18 months.

That be a housing site 2509, 16th Street is the prime example.

We acquire that from the church.

And uh, as I went past today, I I see that the demolition has already started.

The builder is already lined up, ready to go.

So as soon as that building is taken down, we'll hope we will we are sure that development will continue to occur on that site.

So again, uh, in order for me to come back in front of this body, I need to have some principles regarding that you trust me to point that with eight if in the 18 months or at a reasonable time period.

We've had buildings from 2007 on Washington, and there is no possibility of a development agreement moving forward.

That irks me just as much as it irks you.

And I do not want to be in that situation.

So what I'm saying is I acknowledge your point in regarding to purchasing of the a property and it's sitting.

Uh however, uh since since I've been here, our goal is to get it off, move it off, put it in private hands and in the developer's hands.

This helps makes it easier.

What if you say you have a butt?

But what if uh a developer's ready to go and the owner is not available to negotiate to get this passed through, and months occur, weeks occur.

That's the uncertainty of the development process.

What we're trying to do is eliminate that uncertainty so that when we do have a bird in hand, we can keep continuing to move forward.

There will be no impediments on our part.

Uh I just have a question for the city attorney, just clarification.

I know we're kind of going back and forth.

Can you just re-explain very briefly our role?

So if we were to approve the negotiation to take place, the CDA comes back to this body to tell us what they negotiated on, and then we can approve or deny the use of those funds.

Is that correct?

Essentially, so the common council would be authorizing the community development authority to exercise its authority on this property.

Then the community development authority can decide to purchase his property, for example, which is what they've said they'd like to do.

In this case, the community development authority seems to be anticipating that it will need the common council to authorize TID funding, but in other cases the community development has enough money to purchase a property, so they don't ask for funding.

But that's what they're telling you would happen next.

So tonight, the action that's being asked is to authorize the community development authority to exercise its authority on this particular parcel of land.

Thank you.

See no further discussion on the item.

When the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete.

Outer land.

Alder Prez.

Alder Harman.

No.

Altur Pabone.

Alder Frazier.

Alder Townsend.

Other Davis.

Alder Matt.

Alder Jorgensen.

Alderman Weidner.

Alder Horton.

Alder Skada.

Alder Allen.

Six eyes, seven no's.

Motion fails.

Alders Gator, would you read the next item, please?

Items 1004.

Um submitting change order number two to contract 2024 175, demolition of seven two five Lake Avenue, uh C D BG.

Motion to approve.

Is there any discussion on this item?

Seeing none, when the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete.

Honor Land.

Alder Prez.

Alder Harmon.

Alder Papone.

Alder Frazier.

Alder Townsend.

Other Davis.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jorgensen.

Alderman Weidner.

Alder Horton.

Alder Skata.

Alder Allen.

13 ayes, one no.

Motion carries.

Alders Gator, would you read the next item, please?

Item number 100625.

Consideration of resolution 2521.

Neighborhood tax incremental district infrastructure funding policy.

Move to approve.

So motion and a second to approve this item.

Discussion on the item, Alder Widener.

Thank you.

Um I'll be speaking profusely to this item.

Um, and just to make some of the newer members of the council aware of uh these TIDs, neighborhood TIDs are something rather new to the city of Racine.

I believe they started in 2019, maybe 2020.

Um my district has two plus TIDs in it in the sixth district.

And the uh the briefing that we were provided regarding the changes that the mayor is requesting to the neighborhood TIDS is quite alarming to me.

Uh, and I'll give you the reason why.

I'm just gonna use for example TID 27 from the executive summary, and except for the numbers, all of the neighborhood TIDs have an executive summary that reads very similar to to this.

The only thing that's different is the numbers, and that is the and it's in regards to the estimated total project expenditures.

The city anticipates making total expenditures of approximately 13.63 million dollars to undertake the projects listed in this plan.

Project costs include uh 9.49 million in funding for residential homeowner repair and renovation loans and home homeowner uh incentives.

Want to tell you what that is.

Up until this past year, the uh incentives were there was a 50-50 match for enhancement to your property, and then there was a 910 grant uh for uh improvements, which included if you had code and code violations, but you did not have to have code violations in order to qualify for up to a ten thousand dollar grant to make improvements on your property.

This last year, without the council knowing that changed.

So we no longer were offering the enhancement grants, even though it was part of the original plan that the council approved.

The other thing is for the code enforcement type, the 910 grants, what changed was rather than everyone within the TID that pays into this pot of money to draw the grants out of now it's those that are in the focused area.

So people that live and pay taxes outside of whoever deems the focus area to be, they can apply for, but they could are almost guaranteed not to be eligible to receive one of those grants that they pay into the pot of the money for.

So that change was out was made without the council being made aware.

It was made by the CDA because how this whole process worked to create these neighborhood TIDs is the mayor goes to the standing joint board of review, asks for another TID, the plan commission has a public hearing, the majority of people spoke, and I was at those TID public hearings, and the majority of public spoke against creation of these neighborhood TIDs.

Um, but the council went ahead and passed them anyway.

So now we're proposing to make dramatic changes.

So another part of this is, and I've been yipping about it ever since the creation, is that according to the plan, 25% of the funds that is allocated from these TIDs was to go for public facility improvements, which include resurfacing of existing roadway surfaces, which could include alleys if the council so chose, curb and gutter repair, installation of ADA compliant crosswalk ramps, installation replacement or repair of stormwater or sanitary sewers, and installation repair of broadband internet infrastructure.

So that's what the 25% of infrastructure improvements was designated in each one of the five neighborhood TIDs.

Now we are going to be voting on making substantial changes to how the 25%, and I'm not talking chum change.

You know, of the five uh TIDs, we probably are raising five million every year.

And that five million from the neighborhood TIDS is five million dollars in tax dollars that is not going into the general fund of any of the taxing bodies, not into the city of Racine, not into Unified, not in the county, not into gateway.

So that's why you see increases in your uh assessed value of property, and even though the mill rate goes down, you're seeing the substantial increases of your property tax and the fees to cover the loss from that five million that's now going into these neighborhood TIDs.

So, what now is being proposed by the CDA, which we gave the authority, they get to make the changes in in this case we get to approve it.

So this is what's changing.

So out of that 25%, which was supposed to go for public infrastructure.

Now we're gonna do purchase renovation, acquisition of blinded and/or strategic property for sale and/or abandoned properties because they become ISOur.

So it's to improve public safety by eliminating blight and reducing opportunities, preserving housing stock to make it a bait on safe living conditions, increased property values and tax revenue, signal investment and competence.

And here's what really alarms me because we just voted on this in CDBG.

Now we're gonna take some of that 25% and do a clean sweep program.

So the clean sweep cleans up facilities within the right-of-way and the private properties along with it.

Work includes alleyway cleanups, removing brush and bulky weights, something we we do in all of our neighborhoods, trimming trees, something we do in all of our neighborhoods, mowing yards and vacant lots, repairing sidewalk streets, installing smoke detectors, and private property improvements in the project area.

Decorative lighting, uh consistent with the redevelopment or historic district, costs related to installation or relocation of utilities and and then the broadband broadband um broadband.

So what concerns me is we are appropriating money for something that was not in what we the council agreed to.

Um and this is gonna have a huge impact.

And I know many of us who have alleys that also have a TID have asked year after year for allocation from the public infrastructure for maintenance and improvement in our alleyways.

That is not included.

And the rationale for why uh improvement in the alley isn't uh included is because it's not fair because there are some neighborhoods that are not in a TID that have alleys and they would not have the ability to have their alleys maintained.

Well, I say bunk to that because we are paying double then for tree maintenance for bulky waste pickup from our alleys uh because now we're taking from what we pay into the general fund for those items, and we're also gonna pay again out of the pot of money that comes on the TID.

So I think that the CDA the recommendation should have to go to a standing committee so that it can be fully vetted so that the full council has an understanding how these neighborhood TIDs are being dramatically changed in comparison to what was originally proposed.

So and remember, we just voted 400,000 out of the C D BG funds for one clean sweep.

Now, how much are we gonna take out of these neighborhood TIDs that was intended for public infrastructure for these neighborhood clean sweeps?

Um I see this as just another grab, like I saw with what the CDBG, where the majority of money from C D B G is going to pay salary and benefits.

Now we're gonna utilize these TID dollars in the same way that we have abused the CDBG.

So I'm hoping my colleagues will at least, if you can't vote against it, at least entertain a motion to defer this item or refer it to a uh standing to the committee of the whole for a fuller and more robust discussion on the changes that are being proposed for these neighborhood TIDs.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion to defer the motion to refer the item to the committee of the whole, so maybe by Alder Widener, seconded by Alder Mack.

Umder Weiner, do you want to speak further to your motion?

No, I think uh the committee of the whole is a perfect place to have a fuller, more robust.

I know it's a long night uh in mostly you know because of me, but there was a lot that took place in the C D BG and the CDA that I believe needed to be fully vetted for this body and also for the public.

So I'm hoping that we could have a fuller discussion before we approve making these changes to the TID.

I don't see why there'd be any hurry for these changes to be made until it is more fully vetted by the full uh committee of the whole and the common council.

So I guess I just want to clarify there.

I heard that the do a state of the neighborhood enhancement program wasn't operating this past year.

Is that true?

I mean, I can refer your question to Oliver Jurgensen, but yes, lots of home repair and home enhancement TID grants went out this year.

I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but uh millions of dollars in 10,000 dollar repair enhancement grants went out this year.

And so both both programs, there was no changes done by staff making either program not I I will refer your question to Director Williams to confirm that.

No, no, no, further changes to the program of at the last budget meeting, we did have an additional staff member.

Uh again, the number eludes me, but I report almost on a weekly basis how much money we're pushing out the door.

Uh we have exceeded expectations, and when I get my budget uh address regarding uh how many loans we made and how many grants we were distributed, I will share that information at that time.

But we exceeded last year's totals.

Because I I just uh we got a little confused there because it was you know staff was making changes without the council's approval, but it sounds like it's been operating how it is operating as well uh at the last um budget, it was requested that city development develop a policy towards infrastructure.

Operating as well, uh at the last um budget, it was requested that city development develop a policy towards infrastructure.

This is the policy.

It is your prerogative to send us back to the committee of the whole to have a more robust uh the conversation.

Yeah, I thank you.

And so I guess with that, you know, I the committee of the whole, I I I view as um you know an option, but in my mind, there's a committee that handles finance, uh, which this is a financial um uh discussion tax agreemental um uh TIFF uh tax internal financing district.

So I would move to uh make an amendment to refer this to the uh finance and personnel committee, which once again to state all alders are able to go to.

Um there's no restrictions, everyone's uh a member of it, just not a voting member, um, but it'd be coming back here where we could all vote on it.

So I would move to uh amend the motion to send it to finance and personnel.

There's a motion and a second to amend the referral from the committee of the whole to instead refer it to the the finance and personnel committee.

Otherwise, are you at a point of order?

Uh this would be for uh the city attorney on which a motion takes precedent.

Do we first have to vote on the referral to the committee of the whole before because I'm not accepting it's not an amendment if you're sending uh my motion to a different committee than the one that I moved to send it to?

That's not an amendment.

That's another whole separate motion.

A motion to refer is amendable.

Okay, so that's under Robert's rules.

That's clarified.

So there's a there's a main motion to send it to committee of the whole, an amendment that is in order has been made to send it to finance and personnel uh instead.

It was made by Alder Jorgensen and I believe seconded by Alder Pete.

So what is before us is an amendment to the motion to refer to send it to finance and personnel.

Would anyone like to discuss that particular piece of it?

Alder Mack.

Thank you.

I still support the original motion to refer to City to the uh committee of the whole while the finance committee does deal with the financial issues.

Um I think this has broader implication than just the financial aspect of it.

This is something that each of the aldermen have a vested interest in, and this is something that um you know, looking at how large the finance committee agenda is for uh at least the referrals for the next committee, they got a lot of items packed in there, and will this actually be given the um due diligence that it needs by sending it to the committee of the whole versus the finance committee, it allows us to have a much longer uh perhaps presentation and then discussion if needed on it before coming back to the council.

Um the reality is uh the recommendation is still one that the community development authority made, and that's I'm assuming what we would be voting on the next time it comes before us by sending it to the committee of the whole, it would get staff time to prepare and anticipate questions.

It would give us time to delve deeper, and it puts um each of the alderman if uh need be um the ability to vote on this item if it would come to that in a committee of the whole versus um by going to the finance committee.

Only five of our fellow colleagues uh would be voting on this.

So I'm gonna be voting against sending it to the finance committee in lieu of uh going directly to the committee of the whole.

And once again, I think um the committee of the whole gives us a better opportunity to vet this and to um to get our questions answered and have a robust discussion if need be.

Thank you.

Alder Papoon.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh just to clarify, because this has a fiscal note on it, right?

Would this have to go between finance uh two finance personnel anyway?

I'll refer your question to the city clerk.

I mean, unless I've abandoning things when I read the ordinance, anything that has a fiscal note should go before finance and personnel.

I can double check and pull up the ordinance for you.

I don't think it list infrastructure specifically, how though the ordinances does allude to the fact that financial matters should be before finance and personnel.

But if you get to me just a moment, I can look up that ordinance for you.

Okay, thank you.

Alder Jorgensen's next in the queue.

Yeah, I'll talk to that as well.

Um I I get where Alder Pabone is going with this.

If we we have standing committees for a reason, um at this point, uh, if if we want to send everything to the committee of the whole, we can just get rid of all the committees and have everything come before the entire council uh and have it voted on before the whole council every time because one really important uh note on how this works goes to the finance and personnel, uh as it was alluded to in the ordinance that financial matters are supposed to go to finance and personnel, which tax incremental financing district financial matter, finance and personnel would discuss it.

All of us are welcome.

Uh anyone, no one's excluded from going.

Um while not everyone's able to vote on it in committee.

Um that's okay, just wait.

There's more.

It'll come back to the council where everyone is able to vote on it uh here.

So everyone would still be voting on it, uh, whether it goes to finance and personnel or goes to committee of the whole.

Uh, I think the intention here, at least from my standpoint, uh, is to send them to the the um standing committee that really in its charter is intended for what the item is, and in this case, tax incremental financing district, I believe would go to the finance and personnel committee.

Thank you.

If this item should have gone to the finance and personnel committee, it would have gone to the finance committee.

Instead, it came directly from the CDA to the common council, which means it is an item for the common council to take up, therefore, it's more appropriate if this is to be discussed at a fuller degree, the appropriate committee for that would be the committee of the whole, and this is not a financial item.

This is a policy change, not in how much money is getting allocated, it's how that money is getting spent, and it's not a matter of the finance and personnel, it's a matter of the common council having a voice in how the the policy for uh expenditures for the the TID districts, and I just need to clarify something while I'm at it with the director of city development, uh comment that he made that um that this year more grants than ever before were handed out.

So if the director could come up, I want him to affirm the statements that he made that more grants were given out.

Could that be because now we have five districts uh that are operational rather than three or four?

I do not have the analysis of that right there.

I do know the raw numbers were larger than the previous year.

Okay, so then I want I want it clarified so I thoroughly understand that when I was contacted by a constituent who applied for an enhancement grant that was not within a focused area, that when they were told by city development staff that we were not giving out enhancement grants, the 50-50 grant, or we were focusing on focused neighborhoods that have more code violations.

That that individual that contacted me was an error, and when I contacted city development to affirm what my constituent was told that that is not correct.

I don't know the particular of that situation right there.

So that'll speak more than there was no change to enhancement grants.

Okay, I am speaking against referring this to finance and personnel.

This is an item that should be discussed by the full council, particularly those that have uh neighborhood TIDs in their districts, meaning that I have two and a half TIDs in mind.

I would prefer to see this item go for a fuller discussion before the whole body rather than a hostile committee at finance and personnel.

Thank you.

So what we have before us is an amendment to the motion to refer this item to finance and personnel, just to clarify.

If you think the item should go to finance and personnel, vote aye.

If you do not vote no, please vote when the clerk calls your name, vote as you wish.

Oh, sorry.

Alder Pete.

No.

Alder Land.

Alder Prez.

No.

Alder Harmon.

Yes.

Alder Babone.

Alder Frazier.

Alder Townsend.

No.

Alder Davis.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jurgensen.

Alderman Widener.

Alder Horton.

Alder Escada.

Alder Allen.

Yes.

Can't be right.

Three eyes, 11 no's.

Motion to refer it to finance and personnel, or the amendment to the motion to refer to finance and personnel has passed.

We are now back to the main motion to refer it to the committee of the whole.

So we have before to that amendment has failed.

So we are now back to the main motion made by Alder Widener and seconded by Alder Mack to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole.

When the clerk calls your name.

Oh, Alder Jorgensen.

Point of information on this.

So this was, you know, it's come up a lot tonight of you know the this was done by the CDA and the council had no input.

Can is it possible that we can get a list uh have it read into the record on who is part of the CDA?

Because I I just want to make sure that you know, and when it's it's it makes it sound like it's totally separate from the council.

None of us are are on it, it's it's totally its own thing.

Is it possible just get the the names of those read quick before we take a vote on what I what committee we go to?

No, that would be John non Germain to the vote in front of us.

If we want to get that information somewhere else, we can.

But what we have before us is a vote on referring an item to committees.

It's really what we we need to vote on.

If the if we want to have future discussion on that, we can.

If you want to know who the CDA members are, uh Alder Esgada and I both serve on the CDA as do other community members, Alder Shakur.

I'm sorry, former Alder Shakur's the chair of the CDA, but in terms of what we have before us now, it's a vote on whether or not to refer this item to the committee of the whole.

And I guess the reason that I viewed it as germane is it we're sending it to the committee of the whole for the whole council to have input on it because it's been uh alluded to that there is no council input, but just based on that statement right there, it sounds like Alder Escada and yourself are on it.

So right off the bat, there's already two alders that are on it, so it's it's not operating separately from the councillors uh there's there's multiple elected officials on it.

So I guess uh I'll be voting no uh on this um because you know I I just it seems like we we have a um propensity to sending everything to the committee of the whole, which you know I I get the idea behind it, but we also have council meetings uh where as we've proven tonight, alders can ask many questions during the council meetings.

Uh and so the difference between uh uh committee of the whole meeting and a um uh city council meeting gets a bit blurred when you look at it strictly through that lens, versus the reason we have standing committees uh are um where we have staff regularly available for it uh that are ready to go with those questions.

We're now going to basically be recreating a finance and personnel committee at a committee of the whole meeting, so I'll be voting no on uh on doing so.

Alder Mack.

I don't believe we're gonna be recreating a finance and uh personnel committee meeting by bringing this to the committee of the whole.

What I see is an opportunity for Alderman to do a deeper dive into the policy changes that are recommended by the CDA.

I really don't anticipate the committee of the whole taking official action except um referring it back to the council for final approval, but it will give us an opportunity to ask the questions.

We've seen on numerous occasions tonight where um the staff and I'm not putting staff down here, but staff did not anticipate some of the questions that came about and wasn't necessarily prepared to be able to answer the type of questions that came about.

It would give us opportunity then as alderman to give staff a heads up of the questions that we may have so that they are adequately prepared, and there are other people besides Mr.

Williams that work on these issues and probably uh subject matter experts where he oversees the department.

I don't expect him to be a subject matter expert on each of these subjects that are coming up before us, and it would allow him then to bring staff along and to allow us to see what the major changes are to the policy that was first established in the budget last year when we uh allocated 20 per 25 percent be used for public infrastructure type uh of projects there.

So I don't see where having a week or two delay having it come to the committee of the whole.

The committee of the whole is a useful tool to disseminate information to the entire council in one sitting and to allow us to be able to ask questions while we can ask questions at the council meeting, it isn't necessarily the most conducive environment for that.

We should be ready to vote yes or no, and when an item is like this one, where we're not ready to vote yes or no, then sometimes the best thing to do is to defer or refer it so that it is properly vetted and it doesn't uh I I've seen items be rejected because there were just too many questions, and that isn't necessarily good policy um either.

So this is giving us that opportunity to vet it.

Thank you.

Alder Allen on the motion to refer.

Okay, thank you.

So I I heard what Alder Georgeson said earlier about the reason why we have standing committees, and I I 100% agree.

However, on this particular item, I do believe that our finance and personnel committee meeting would turn into a committee of the whole um by default, because I suspect that all of us have an interest in this topic, and so all of us would attend, and so we would end up so more or less having a committee of the whole.

So we may as well just do that on this one.

And then for what Alder Mac said, I agree.

There were some questions that were presented to staff that they were not able to answer, although I am of the mindset that some questions should be anticipated and should always be available.

But that I digress.

No further discussion on the referral of this item to the committee of the whole.

When the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.

Alder Pete, Alder Land, Alder Prez, Alder Harman, Alder Paboon, Alder Frazier, Alder Townsend, Alder Davis, Alder Mack, Alder Jorgensen, Alderman Weidner, Alder Horton, Alder Skada, Alder Allen.

Aye.

That would be 12 ayes and two no's motion carries.

That item has been referred to the committee of the whole.

Final item, Alder Horton is uh an appointment by my office.

Uh item 100, I mean 1030-25 communications sponsored by Mayor Mason submitting the following appointments.

Rocco DMARC to the community development and block grant uh advisory board for the term expiring April 30th of 2027.

Move to approve.

Motion and a second to prove this item.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The motion carries Alder Mack.

We're down to oh no.

I sorry, I got a little ahead of okay.

Um we move now on to the consent agenda.

Alder Horton, would you like to make a motion on the consent agenda?

There's a motion to approve, seconded by Alder Townsend, I think.

Did I get that right?

Oh Alder Frazier, my apologies.

All those in favor of the consent agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay.

That motion carries.

We now move on to common council announcements.

Announcements are limited to recognition of city residents and employees, memorials and non-political community events.

Discussion of matters related to government business is prohibited.

Uh Alder Mack.

Now we can do announcements.

Thank you.

Um, this past Sunday, my family and I took part in the ALS walk up in Milwaukee.

Oh.

Afterwards, um, we all went to the VA hospital where my brother-in-law was being treated for complications due to ALS.

It was also his 59th birthday, not quite the birthday he probably wanted, but he's still with us.

So I I'd like to wish uh Carlos a happy birthday um from the floor of the council.

I'd like to also congratulate my two grandsons, Kai and Tanner, who both in the same month uh were named star students in their class.

So proud grandpa moment there, and I thought it was neat that they both, as brothers, uh got it in the same month.

So uh congratulations, boys.

I'm proud of you.

Alder Harmon.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate it.

I would like to say happy birthday to the love of my life and my princess and joy, Nora Harman, who turns 10 years old this year.

She turns double digits, and I just want to say happy birthday, Nora.

Happy birthday.

Alder Townsend.

So every as everyone knows, there's been a lot of stuff going on with water safety.

Um a new water safety initiative, swimmer scene will be hosting its program introduction and listening session at the library in the community room on October 28th from 5 30 to 7 30 p.m.

Come share your ideas, connect with everybody, and I uh I hope to see you there.

And I hope everyone who had homecoming had fun and Alder Jorgensen.

Uh thank you.

I first off want to just give a um uh I'm not sick, my voice is uh uh a little worse for wear today.

Um I was cheering for the the brewers uh this past week and so I've thrown out my voice, but I I view for a good cause.

Uh anytime I think the the Milwaukee Brewers can be winning playoff games, especially against the Cubs.

A good day in my book.

Um, but what I wanted uh to bring up today was uh on Thursday, October 16th at 6 p.m.

at uh the Caesar Chavez Community Center, uh I'll be holding uh a listening session for uh 5th district residents um and encourage all 5th district residents uh who want to hear uh a bit of what what I've been working on as well as what the council's been up to um I'll be sharing that as well as really looking for your ideas and input uh for what you'd like to see in the district as well as we're going into budget season, so really just an opportunity to have a great conversation and encourage all those to come on down and look forward to having a good time.

Alder Pavone.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um we had a friend that celebrated a birthday October 5th, so happy birthday to Scott.

We went to sticky rice downtown.

Excellent food.

I'd encourage everyone to go if they can.

Um also in my district at the intersection of Douglas and Three Mile, there is, I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there's a Wendy's now that is going to be there.

They are holding a hiring event uh not just today, but the 8th through the 12th, and there are specific times for that.

So if anyone's interested to know someone, they can certainly either visit my page or contact me, and I'm be more than happy to give them the times that that is happening.

So good things happening.

Alder Davis Thank you.

Just want to send some birthday shouts out, shout outs.

One to my bonus diet, and then it's that one to my godmother.

And then I like to mention that October is domestic violence awareness month as well as breast cancer awareness month.

That is all the Frazier.

Yeah, I just wanted to echo that.

Uh, my mom is a breast cancer survivor.

So uh I salute her and all women and men who uh are surviving this this cancer.

So I just wanted to highlight that thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Quickly, I just want to just a point of correction.

Uh I did uh from the clerk said that uh Alder Kelly did uh email me, but I've been having trouble with email, so uh she did email saying she would be absent.

Uh duly noted for the record.

Alder Pavone's second announcement.

I forgot.

I just shout out to my wife because uh budget season's coming up and she's picking up a lot of the slack that I won't be home to do.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, thank you.

Um I was at the same walk you were at.

I have a close family member who also has ALS, and so there was a crew of Masons and Mickelsons and Poulsons that were all walking there for our family member.

Um it it's a good cause, and I'm glad to have you mention it.

Um the other thing I just wanted to mention um, you know, when we do these council meetings, we're often away for family events that we'd like to attend.

Uh, one of those events tonight was my daughter's swim meet, where she got her best time in 53.

So congratulations, Eleanor, on achieving your best time in the 50 free.

Uh, and with that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

The motion and several motions and seconds to adjourn.

All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye.

Opposed.

We are adjourned.