I know you say that.

How are you?

What do you think?

How are you?

Yes.

I do not find one second.

Let me bring back to all the rates.

We ask you guys to be seated so we can start, please.

Thank you.

Uh today is Thursday, October thirtieth.

Uh and we are going to uh start our twenty twenty-six bud budget public hearing and ordinance discussion.

So at this time we will have uh uh cultural.

Sorry, Alder Lamb has asked to be excused, Alder Kelly, Alder Harmon.

We will start we're gonna start our uh our uh public our public hearing for the twenty twenty-six proposed budget.

Uh uh City City administrator.

Yes, uh thank you, President Horton.

Um, I need to just take a brief pause at the beginning of the meeting so that we can refresh ourselves on the requirements of the Wisconsin open meetings law.

It has come to my attention that there have been conversations outside of scheduled council meetings or committee meetings uh to further discuss the budget.

It is important for all of our members to keep your discussions to regularly scheduled noticed public meetings that when we're having discussions outside of those regularly scheduled meetings, the public does not have notice of those meetings or an opportunity to uh listen or to appeal to the body.

I think it's a part of the integrity of the system, and moreover, it is part of Wisconsin law, it's not an optional law.

Um I know that we've been briefed on this before.

You're all briefed on this when you're onboarded uh as a member of this body.

You're you hear about this when you attend legal municipalities meetings, but nonetheless, I think that we need a reminder of that.

So I would like to ask the city attorney to provide us with a refresher on the requirements of the Wisconsin open records and open meetings law.

Thank you.

I think Alderman Whitener has a question.

Could you take you to your button for me?

Is this noticed on our agenda?

This admonishment by the city administrator and city attorney.

It is it is not.

They were in the queue.

He was in the queue, and I just selected him in the queue.

It's not on the agenda.

So at this time, we will at this time then I will call for a point of order if it's not on the agenda.

My point of order is if it's not on the agenda, we can't have this discussion.

I think that given the fact that we're talking about a violation of the Wisconsin law which may result in this city and body.

Okay, not to hear something.

First, I'd like a ruling on my order, you're not recognized by the chair.

When you call a point of order, you don't need to be recognized.

No, you don't.

No, you don't.

We're gonna have the the city attorney to speak in so that we can move forward.

Well, first, I'd like a ruling on my point of order from the parliamentarian.

If it is not noticed on the agenda, is it appropriate to have the discussion?

We have the city attorney to ask.

Okay.

Under the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, there is a prohibition against meetings of governmental bodies that are not noticed publicly.

There are other aspects of the law, but a governmental body means any state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, it's a variety of other lists, and of course, that would include the common council, any committee of the common council, and any board authority or commission of the city of Racine.

A meeting is defined as the convening of members of a governmental body for the purpose of exercising responsibilities, authorities, powers, or duties delegated to or vested in the body.

So broadly we could say as to the city of Racine, that would be city business.

But if you did that, you absolutely would not violate the open meetings law.

But if there are several members of the common council, and this law says eight or more, so more than one half of the common council, or three or more uh members of any standing committee or any other uh a majority of any other board authority or commission that is presumed under the law to be for the purpose of uh exercising the responsibilities of that body and such a meeting that is not publicly noticed would be illegal.

I also note that if there is a conversation that goes on by email or by phone uh in sufficient numbers to constitute either a quorum or a negative quorum of any body that is also potentially a violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

I think thank you.

I would like to clarify for those uh aldermen that you might be trying to scare the bejeber out, bachebers out of, if three or more members of a standing committee should meet to discuss business other than the business that would take place in that particular standing committee.

Is that a walking quorum or is that a violation?

Well, uh just let me say a walking quorum has a specific meaning, meaning of for instance, two people talk to each other, and then one of those talks to another person, and one talks to another, so it's walking.

Um as I said, the law says that if one half or more of the members of a governmental body are present, the meeting is rebuttably presumed to be for the purpose of exercising the responsibility, authority, power, or duties delegated in the body.

The term does not include any social or chance gathering or conference, which is not intended to avoid the Wisconsin open meetings law.

So a meeting of five aldermen is less than half.

Does that have to be publicly noticed they're not five members of the same committee?

It potentially could constitute a quorum.

There are certain circumstances constitute a negative, but there are certain circumstances where a three-quarters vote of the common council is required to pass something.

That's 12.

Therefore, five members of the common council could meet and agree, in theory, to vote against whatever that thing is, therefore defeat the measure.

That would also be what's known as an illegal negative form.

So, how many members of a council does it take to pass a budget?

Eight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderham.

Thank you, Chair.

I just have a quick question.

Um attorney, could you explain the three or more members of a standing committee?

Because committee of the whole is considered a standing committee.

So if three or more people from members of the committee of the whole, what were you saying about three or more?

I apologize.

That's my only clarification that I need.

Thank you.

Three of any of those committees will constitute a majority of that committee.

All right, at this time we've start our public hearing.

Uh and I would turn it over to the uh city clerk.

Sure.

The first speaker this evening is James Pavlovsky at 1107, Romain App.

Good evening.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

A few weeks ago, I attended uh the documentary at the Golden Rondell.

Body Politic.

If you haven't had a chance to see it, it's well worth it.

It's about a program from Baltimore that was successful in reducing crime, followed by a panel discussion with John Tate the second from the city.

Maurice Horton represented the county and just uh Jesse Matoyer from the Racine Police Department.

The panel is very informative and took questions from the audience.

Racines, much needed violence intervention and prevention initiative has resulted in a 52% decrease in shots fired, and a 21% decrease in non-fatal shootings here in Racine.

It uses a group violence intervention to stop retaliation risks.

And let those who might retaliate know that there are consequences if they do.

It's a deterrent intervention.

This program is proactive.

We don't need reactive thoughts and prayers after violence.

We need to prevent it from happening in our city.

How could anyone be opposed to saving lives?

Please support the city recent Department of Community Safety and listen initiative.

Thank you.

I'm an old recent native.

I've been here a long time, and I've been invested in by my city in a number of different ways, and I come to speak about a program that I believe is doing the same for a lot of the people.

As Mr.

Pablovski just talked about the violence prevention program that we have in our city here, the Office of Community Safety, powerful program.

One of the best investments we can have when it comes to this measure.

One of the things I always try to highlight is that when we talk about investing in community safety, that entails investing in the people that we want that safety for.

It also means to invest with them.

This is not a and it never has been a power over conversation.

It's always been about power with.

Can you bring your mic down a little for me?

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry about that.

That part came easy.

But what I had to learn was how to be a patient with my mother with the kids' mothers.

That's where where the growth really came in.

It took time for me to understand that being a father isn't just about showing up for kids, but also how communicate with the people that's raising, raising and witten.

When I first started the program, I didn't have much patience.

I used to react fast to people to situations to the system.

I felt unheard, like my side never mattered, but the team at CVI showed me a different way.

They told me how to slow down, how to listen, talk before listen before I talk, and how to handle frustration without losing control.

Patience came along.

Patience came from learning.

Learning to breathe, to ask questions instead of making assumptions, and to trust the change that's taking time.

Now when I get frustrated, I'll talk it out instead of shutting down or lashing out.

That's something I never used to do.

What I really changed was me realizing that I am her now because I learned how to communicate better, and when I talk to my case manager or deal with court or child services, I don't come, I don't come in angry.

I come in focus, and people respond to that.

They listen.

My relationship with my kids got better too.

I spent real time with them now, not just being around, but being present.

We talk more, I listen more, and they see the growth in me.

This program helped me build that.

I gave I get it gave me structure, patience, and support when I didn't have much either.

I'm thankful because it just now helped.

It's just not helping me, and it's helping my family heal too.

I asked the council to keep supporting the program of CVI.

There's a lot of men out there like me who just need the right guidance, and some of us to believe that they can do better.

This program made me feel seeing her and capable of changing for real.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Diane Lang at 2908 Ruby Av.

Good evening, and uh thanks to each of you for your public service as elected officials.

It's a lot of work.

I appreciate you.

I'm speaking in favor tonight of the Department of Community Safety's violent prevention program.

Uh you'll be deliberating on it and voting on it next week.

Part of stopping intentional harm in our community is healing pain.

Hurt people hurt people.

I have lived and worked in Racine for 50 years.

That includes two years as an alder person and 14 years as a county board supervisor, plus nine years for the city of Racine as a public health nurse.

I love Racine.

Yet violence has long been recognized as a public health issue nationally, not just in Racine.

I've attended too many funerals of young lives cut short and too many vigils where it's necessary to try to support families during the really difficult times of a loss.

Intentional violence is not limited to our city, but we have amazing people working at reducing violence in our city.

They even hand out cool t-shirts like the one I'm wearing when you show up at their events.

Recently, I attended a healing program or could um organized by our department of community safety's violence prevention, and it was over at Solomon's Porch.

It's a great little venue right across from Chubby's on High Street.

It was developed by this program, and they brought in all these mental health experts, multi-diverse, multi-ages, ethnicity, racial people that were there.

And they talked to us about resources and they divided us into small groups, and we got to hear powerful stories from people who have been hurt by violence.

Young men crying because of what they suffered as children, and regretful of what they went on to do.

So anyway, to wrap it up, I just want to say this is a powerful program.

They've organized numerous events in our community, very impactful.

Please support this program.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Susan Hip, and I worked at Case High School for about 40 years.

First I was a special ed teacher, and then I was a counselor.

Our counseling to student ratio was about one to 300.

So you can imagine how many teams I've served over those years.

There are many kids I will never forget for lots of reasons, but the ones I struggle with are the ones who are impacted by the awful situations that really are no fault of their own.

Family violence, neighborhood violence, and the very constant threat of violence.

It's not a good state to be in to be a good student.

These kids had a hard time focusing, a hard time getting along with other kids at school, and a hard time getting along with their teachers, even a hard time getting out of bed to come to school.

Anything we can do as a community to lessen the violence is important to our community's kids, and then of course to all of us.

So please include the violence prevention program in the budget.

Thanks.

The next speaker is Pete Notec, 3812 St.

Clair Street.

Good evening.

I thank the City of Racine for joining efforts to help fill the void caused by federal non-payment of SNAP benefits.

It is important to support collaboration involving community organizations such as food banks and local government that address basic human needs.

This is a beautiful expression of community and caring for people in times of need.

I'm here to take talk about other ways that the city government and organizations can help our community.

I'm asking that you continue to support the city of Racine's community-based violence intervention and prevention initiative.

I believe information from the Department of Community Safety provides ample justification for budgetary support.

Violence prevention is the humane thing to do.

Waiting for violence to occur and then going through the criminal justice process is expensive, requires enormous manpower, and is ultimately detrimental to individuals and society.

I understand there's a recent history of police officer shortage in Racine and under staffing and overcrowding at the county jail.

To address these problems, the best remedy is to address the root causes of violence so that patterns of violence are interrupted.

It is the direct benefit of taxpayers that we fund prevention efforts at needed levels.

Investing now saves us all from far greater costs, both human and financial.

Please fund the city of Racine's community-based violence intervention and prevention initiative.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jessica McPhail, 3703 and a half Rio Vista.

Good evening.

I'm here to also support the violence prevention program.

I think you've had a lot of good information about it.

I think the most important reason for supporting this program is that these folks are our neighbors, and we're supposed to take care of our neighbors.

We're supposed to love our neighbors.

That's why we're put here, I think, on this earth.

And when violence happens, it happens to us, maybe not physically or mentally, but it's our neighbor.

And the way to prevent that is to interrupt that pattern wherever we can.

I think they're doing great work, and I thank you for your attention to this.

Thank you for serving.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jamie Alvarado.

If you could please state your address when you come up.

And it's so municipal ID is a secure photo ID issued by a local community, which gives people access that they do not have, such as access to government buildings, hospitals, open bank accounts, and enter school buildings.

It has been implemented in many cities, including Baltimore, New York, Detroit, Milwaukee.

Many have done feasibility studies, and that has looked at uh implementation, scope, costs, and community benefits, and all with favorable uh outcomes.

The City of Milwaukee did one, City of Columbus did one that costed 10,000.

It was implemented by the Franklin University in 2019, and it shows all the benefits.

50 to 70,000 people struggle in getting uh state issue ID found in Columbus.

And in all states, many people cannot get formal state ID because of the challenges and barriers, especially to non-drivers.

Most of the population include the homeless, the elderly, immigrants, victims of domestic violence, and the youth over 14 years of age.

The demand for municipal ID is enormous, and the benefits are enormous.

Many cities look at benefit look at benefits with the cards, such as connecting residents with public services, and can serve multiple purposes, such as a library, museum, transit, and discounts give discounts to using the zoo or the museum or what have you.

Another is public safety.

Most um uh law enforcement agencies or city uh uh police want when they when they come across a person, they want to know who they're talking to.

They want to make sure that the person they're talking to is the right person and they live where they live, such as a victim of a crime, such as uh if you commit a uh uh ordinance and a citation needs to be issued, or if you're um uh if you're um accused of a crime.

So it's important that we identify ourselves.

It makes it easy for law enforcement, and it's a big public safety um remedy.

So thank you.

The next speaker is Diana Valencia at 3913 Ruby Av.

Good evening, everybody, and I appreciate the time that you're giving me.

Um, you heard what uh the municipality is all about as a resident born and raised here.

I need to know who my neighbor is.

So please continue moving this forward and support the municipalities.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Alejandra Ramirez at 2008 Racine Street.

Hi, my name is Alejandra Ramirez.

Um I'm here also um for the municipal ID.

Um work as a caregiver, and some other caregivers um are undocumented, or you know, they also need the ID just to you know, present whether it's um going on medical appointments or um just going out with the residents.

Um so I would appreciate if you guys did.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Maria Morales at 9 52 North Memorial Drive.

I apologize.

She had to go to the emergency direction town.

That's okay.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Carl Hubbard at 1306 Hayes Ad.

Good evening.

Thank you for listening to all of what's being said here tonight.

Um, my name is Carl Hubbard.

I reside at 1306 Hayes Avenue in Racine.

I am not a native of Racine unless you count my 60 years of residence here.

Um asking for you to consider supporting the community violence intervention program.

It is a very useful tool.

It supports the work, outstanding work already being done by the officers who staff our community um cop houses.

Uh, this is yet another tool and resource to help reduce the violence and crime that plagues our city just like it plagues every other city in the country.

We are doing a better job, I would I would suggest than most cities.

Um, as some of you know, I serve as uh a member of Racine's Police and Fire Commission in my seventh year of doing that now.

I see the statistics.

I see that they're going down.

I recognize the really outstanding work that our leadership in the police department has been doing to bring crime down.

Um that's a trend that I hope we would all like to see continue to diminish.

So please think carefully about everything that you have heard here tonight from community residents wanting you to support this program and vote accordingly.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Joe Cushing at 4045 Sheridan Road.

Thank you.

Why is it that we often ignore investment on prevention and pay more later for correction?

Today, Racine has a program in place to reduce crime in our at-risk community.

This program has been effective in cities throughout the country, and it's working in Racine.

It is breaking the cycle of violence in our at-risk youth through identification, mentoring, replacing summer inactivity with meaningful work and positive contact with police.

These are effective methods, and if it identified persons do not respond, more severe steps can be taken.

I would like to speak of the program leader, John Tate.

I have followed John's career for many years from Alderman, candidate for state assembly to head of the state parole board.

John took a non-functioning parole board and made it work as it was designed.

Persons incarcerated who deserve parole were given a second chance.

In a few years, John was head.

The board voted to parole over 60 individuals.

Unfortunately, John was dismissed as head for political reasons, despite making the board work correctly.

A year or so later, I attended a meeting in the of a Milwaukee organization called the community.

They work with persons released from prison to help them transition to life outside.

I wish the whole of Wisconsin could have witnessed this meeting I went to.

At least 30 of the paroled people testified in person or by videotape to thank John for their new lives.

But I wonder how much better would it have been to have helped these individuals before they got into trouble.

So I request of you, City Council members, you have a program in place.

You have good leadership and support from the community.

Vote to continue this program and take pride that you invested in the youth of Racine.

Thank you.

I'm a little short, so uh good evening, everyone.

My name is Fernanda Jimenez Hau.

I'm a community organizer with Voces de la Frontera and undocumented immigrant protected on the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA.

Um, but I'm most importantly, I am a proud Racine resident.

I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the immigrant community in favor of keeping the municipal IDs in the budget.

First, I want to say, first I want to say thank you.

Thank you to the city of Racine, thank you to our leaders, and thank you to our organizers for including the municipal IDs in the budget.

This is more than just a line item for us, it is a lifeline for many in our immigrant community.

As someone who understands firsthand the challenges of being undocumented and the things that we face every single day, I want to express how deeply meaningful this step is for us.

For too long, members of our immigrant community, people who contribute to Racine's economy, culture, and spirit have lived without access to something as simple and essential as an identification.

While I am fortunate enough to have a form of ID through a program called DACA, there are thousands of immigrants like my parents and like my friends who are not that fortunate.

Without an ID, everyday tasks that most people take for granted, like opening a bank account, picking up prescriptions, or proving your identity to law enforcement become enormous barriers.

We know the fear this creates.

A study from the University of Illinois of Chicago found that 70% of undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crimes.

And this is because they fear contact with law enforcement without having identification.

When people are afraid to seek help or identify themselves, our entire community become less safe.

Municipal IDs directly help bridge that gap.

They create a pathway for trust, safety, and belonging.

By keeping municipal IDs in the budget, Racine is saying we see you, you matter, and you belong here.

This investment builds a stronger, safer, and more united city.

We've seen it work in Milwaukee, where municipal IDs have allowed people to feel more secure and confident in their daily lives.

Racine deserves that sense of safety and dignity for all of its residents.

So again, thank you for taking this step forward for equity and inclusion.

I urge you to continue supporting and protecting this program and the budget because for many families in our city, this isn't just about an ID, it's about being seen, it's about being safe and being part of the community that we all call home.

So thank you very much.

The next speaker.

So I urge you to invest in this and in the budget and keep this going.

And uh strive for a safe Racine community.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Michael Frontier, 1127 Lake Av.

Good evening, and thank you for serving our beloved community.

I was just uh thrilled to see the Red Apple School take shape.

What a gift that is to our city.

Instead of bussing kids out, kids will come to get a great education in the core of our city.

That's a tremendous step forward, along with the health care center.

We are on the cutting edge and responding to uh tremendous needs in our community.

As a member of the RIC education task force, we had the opportunity to have John come and speak to us, John Tate, and I was struck by many elements, but one was getting rid of guns.

And I want to talk about domestic violence.

I was on a uh Zoom call yesterday with this.

This is domestic violence abuse month.

Getting guns out of homes is critical.

Uh the federal money to support this has been cut by 70 percent.

Hot lines, and the biggest uh predictor of uh what happens in domestic violence through gun in the home.

I talked to John today, and all our domestic violence uh mortalities involve the gun in Racine.

Uh across the state, we have 110 deaths a year.

That's one almost every three and a half days.

Black women are 20 percent more likely to suffer in this uh terrible struggle we're facing.

Shelters are strained, leaving more people likely to be killed, sadly.

People with guns are 12 times more likely to be involved in gun violence.

This is an urban and rural problem.

Staff losses have hurt the hot lines, and we're living in a gun lobby friendly state.

Where it's access to our arms is uh very easy, there's no waiting period.

We are one of the worst states in the country for domestic violence.

Every time we get a gun out of a home or out of the community, we're protecting lives.

Finally, we're not an island, as my uh surgery says, we are one county, and we are we need to work together right now because the state underfunds uh adjudication, uh attorneys to work with our uh incarcerated, we're spending far more money in policing in Racine County than we need to.

We're sitting on seven billion dollars in medicine that could help people get adjudicated and get out of jail.

Consequently, 60 percent of our county budget goes to policing.

16 percent goes to health and human services, last in the state.

Most counties spend 33 percent of their budget on health and human service.

So we're in this environment where the city has to think on its feet.

We have to be creative, and programs like this are certainly addressed that.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

This is the end of the sign-up sheet for the public hearing.

All right.

I do have summaries of the uh county budget here for interested uh elders.

May I give that to somebody?

Thank you.

This is a summary of the green book, which compares all the counties each.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone else uh here for public hearing?

All right.

Please state your name and address, please.

Hey, uh, I'm Giovanna Liu, 1701 West 6th Street.

So I wrote down what I was gonna say because I wanted to stay focused in this work.

Um, I'm one of the people that gets the first calls about violence in this city.

That's in my unpaid volunteer work, and it can get pretty uh traumatic and emotional.

So I wrote this down because this is very personal for me.

Um, in 2023, we saw so many homicides that um we are still traumatized from it.

And what the city of Racine did was came up with this awesome program, something that other cities are already uh doing great at providing.

So um, I come standing full support of the City of Racine Department of Community Safety Office of Violence Prevention and the leadership of John Tate II.

Uh, what this department represents for all of us is hope and not just hope, but hope with structure.

Um, their work doesn't just react to violence.

We have other departments for that.

It helps prevent it.

Um, it builds much needed trust between the city and the people like me and you who call racine home, and through partnerships and youth engagement and trauma-enforced strategies, they've reached more families long before a tragedy could reach them.

The results that we see are viable, they're visible.

I'm sorry, there's fewer conflicts escalating.

We got more young people finding purpose and programs, and neighborhoods that are reclaiming peace finally after so much turmoil.

We can afford we cannot afford to cut programs that are working.

Um violence prevention is not a luxury, it's a lifeline, guys.

So I encourage you to please please continue to invest in this department because every dollar spent here saves lives in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I thought I'd seen a couple more hands.

Is that it?

Oh, come on up.

State your name and address, please.

Uh my name is uh Bobby Ayala, 720 Shoop Street.

Thank you, uh Racine Board.

Thank you, everybody's here.

My name is Bobby Jesse.

I work in harm reduction as a peer advocate manager for Pro Se, a statewide nonprofit organization that peer advocates for individuals that are in supervision and probation.

Locally in Racine, there's a list of nonprofit organizations that I volunteer for along the same avenue.

As a peer sports specialist, I assist individuals returning back to society from incarceration.

I help with education, job, mental health, housing, and many other things.

I've talked to students from UW Madison to our own high school students here in May C.

Just this morning.

I was uh discussing going in and talking with middle schoolers at risk middle schoolers.

I woke up this morning at 6 o'clock to take a young man that was unable to get a job when I met him because he believed being on possession, being on probation for possession of a firearm.

He wasn't worthy.

So we took him to a second job we achieved, a livable wage at Kenosha Beef.

On a ride back this morning, we talked about how much he's saving, the cars he wants, and car insurance.

He's excited to get his driver's license on the 10th when he goes for his road test.

When shooting happens, violence happens in racine.

I listen to the streets to protect myself and the peers I work with.

I'm what you called deep in the trenches.

So we're here to talk about violent prevention and racine.

So let's talk about racine and violence.

Um, and I hope I don't offend anybody, but this is my story.

I was born and raised racine.

As a child, I have been stabbed, I have been shot, I have my face sliced open.

A trail of blood was left from pick and save at Rapids to Hordeck High School's gray office.

My blood literally in these streets.

At 11 years old, my ma died.

The very uh the first day I went to school, I watched a challenger lift off live in the classroom.

The next day, a boy told a mama joke, and I punched him.

At 11 years old, I was introduced to the criminal justice system.

At first, everything went well.

My social worker looked like me, and we could relate, but then he was transferred.

And I got a social worker that didn't look like me that told me, I don't know what to do with you.

Let's put you in this drug program.

So I went to a drug program, never did a drug in my life.

After the second meeting, the drug counselor informed me that if I brought a friend from the same group to his house, we could do drugs.

I never went back.

I got in trouble for that.

As a child, I slipped through every crack in the system, a system that should have protected me.

A few years later, my dad died, and I just wanted to die and go to heaven with my parents.

So I chose a path.

In my mind, it made sense that I would choose the streets and die there.

That same year, two girls were shot and killed as innocent bystanders of gang-related violence.

In one case, I knew the shooter.

He was a year older than me.

In the other case was my cousin DJ.

We drove bikes to State Street that day.

That night, she died on that corner on 6th Street on that church steps.

I made my decision to harm innocent people.

I am a ripple event to all those people.

I choose that path that eight-month window.

There was harm, there was hurt.

Finally, there was tragedy.

A ripple effect of harm through my city and the people that were involved.

As a child, I was waving to adult Wisconsin State prison system.

I was sentenced to 60 years.

I did 27.

I've been out five, I've been doing this work for four.

During my incarceration, after my mind fully developed, I chose education.

I chose rehabilitation.

And I chose to be a positive force when I came home to racine.

So I stand in front of this board as an expert in the cycle of violence in racine.

My lived experience says so.

That they could look into a face similar to theirs and know they could succeed.

An expert in this violence cycle that we live through to please keep funding this program and this office.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else for uh public hearing?

Go on once.

Going twice.

All right, thank you guys.

At this time, public hearing is now closed.

We will we will move to the continuation of our discussion on proposed ordinances.

So I I know last week we we started with the uh ordinances and uh a few of them was uh pretty much deferred to this week, and so I would like to, you know, uh give an opportunity, go ordinance by ordinance or give an opportunity to speak on the ordinance that you got uh that people wanted to discuss.

Uh, I see automatic in the queue.

Go ahead, Automat.

Thank you.

I had three questions before we get into the robust discussion on these ordinances.

Um I'm sure uh Director Fisher is probably the person uh most apt to answer.

The first question is if we do not pass the ordinances with the budget, what is the fiscal impact on the budget itself?

Director Fisher.

Sure, thank you for that.

So it depends individually on the ordinances themselves.

So each one of the ordinances have I would say um minimal fiscal impact in terms of potential fees.

Um I think the last one on the list, the ordinance relating to community safety, would have a budgetary impact.

All right, thank you.

The second question is um, well, actually, you kind of answered it.

Uh, if we would choose to separate out the ordinances, um we pass them before year end.

I'm assuming the fees would still then be implemented, uh as they would be in the budget.

That would be correct.

And then the last question, and I'm not sure who the correct person is for this.

What if any is the urgency to pass the ordinances with the budget?

Um, to the mayor.

Okay.

Oh, great.

Thanks.

I'll I'll try to answer your question.

If people want to move to the ordinance tab that's in the budget book, if you have it in front of you, it does have sort of a table of contents in terms of of what is there, um, fees and fines when they're proposed to go into the budget book.

There's a whole section of them.

Uh, when there's uh money allocated to a department to do a program, such as the municipal ID that we heard about tonight, there's money affiliated with that.

If we simply appropriated the money, there'd be no programming or direction on how exactly to implement those funds.

The other thing I would say is um you know this is the eighth year that we put um ordinance language in the budget.

This is not something new.

Uh, when you have fees or policy things that directly relate to staffing or how an agency or department is funded, they are embedded into the DNA of a budget.

It you can remain silent on those things and spend uh extra months going through it, but as this um as members of this body have previously stated, um, they don't want to see ordinances that affect the entire community go through the standing committees.

They think they should go through the committee of the whole.

Well, we are in the committee of the whole.

Uh these items have been explained, they have been drafted, they are in your budget.

This is the opportunity to have the questions in addition to the time that we spent last week.

Uh, but these are important items.

Um, having a five thousand dollar fee uh that's in the budget for illegal dumping, but not definitions or directions under what criteria uh those uh that fee is implemented, uh, would be difficult.

The only thing it would do is make it harder for us to implement those changes before the end of the year.

Um these are important parts of the budget and how we want to lay it out and give it frame and direction.

These budgetary items don't exist in a vacuum.

There is direction and policy that go around them.

Um so I would urge uh the council to look at that agenda, and I can certainly just run through them.

The first thing on and tax gating hemp derived uh products that has a fine related to it, the towing license suspension and rates that's directly related to rates that we are putting in there to give us parity with the surrounding communities so that when there are snowstorms, uh we actually have towing companies that want to participate in the city.

Again, that's a fiscal matter, but it also has policy that goes with it.

Uh the open burning at the request of the fire department does have fines and fees that go along with it.

Fees and fines without instructions on when and how we enforce those fees and fines, uh, makes it very difficult uh to intervene with hotel and motel occupancy.

Again, there's fines under the circumstances when that comes into play.

The adult family homes on the certificate of occupancy uh requirement and uh how we regulate community living arrangements under state law, which requires a process to be adopted and fines and fees and licensure that can be impacted.

That also has a budget piece to it.

NOMO MAY has uh is sunsetting the pilot indefinitely uh and uh has uh has the fee removed altogether, uh, but it does have a budgetary item in as much that we purchase the the yard signs.

Um property maintenance code, uh which is uh an important feature of neighborhood infortance in and making sure that we're doing something to address the blight in community.

There are substantial fines that are in this budget to address those things.

Passing a budget with those fines and fees and the schedule to do it with no definition of when we would enforce those new fines and fees uh would would be a problem.

City identification problem it uh card that does have a cost that is attributed to uh the clerk's office.

It will take some time to figure out exactly how the policy wraps around that, but there is an ordinance written that puts the guidelines in place on the terms and conditions under which we would do that program.

Parades processions and open air meeting permits.

We have uh five different parades and four different rules on how we uh do permits uh and and fees for parades.

This attempts to set a universal fee and have a standard in place on how and when we authorize those instead of the ad hoc uh case by case basis that we've been using.

It's directly related to the fees that exist there.

The Civic Center Commission dissolution uh in practice, the reality is that's been covered by the Parks Department and Parks Rec and Cultural Services Board for some time, and and says as much in the contract that this board approved.

Uh, this is in some ways um getting uh get acknowledging that that that that activity and function has been put under the umbrella of the parks recreation cultural services per the contract we have with the operator who operates that for us.

Um the civic uh the department of community safety funding, uh there is money in here in this budget to fund the community safety department.

Uh however, there is an ordinance that was adopted last year that says we cannot do that.

So we cannot fund if it the will of this body, and I hope it is, is to continue the department of community safety.

This ordinance would need to be repealed and addressed with different language in order to continue the work of that department.

All of these have a nexus, and and there is simply just not the case that when you put these things in place that they don't have policy that are attached to them.

That is why they are in the budget because there is a nexus on all of those things.

Thank you.

I seem to recall that last year.

I'm not sure if it was all the ordinances, um, but I know that there were several ordinances that appeared in the budget book that instead of being dealt during this period, came to public work the public works committee, and we dealt with those and sent them back in a timely manner before years end.

Um they're driven by policy decisions, and I think the appropriate place um when you look at um there's certain committees that have subject matter uh expertise in in dealing with those subjects, that these items should go to the standing committees uh appear on the next agenda so that this isn't a long drawn-out process and everything is settled before a year in.

So I'd like to make a motion that we send all but the last item to the standing committees the appropriate standing committee.

Yeah, okay.

So there's a motion and a second to send uh them back to the uh standing committee, right?

I do have a I had a couple people uh in the queue.

Uh and I think it was Auto Popone, and I don't know if he's talking, I'm gonna be talking on the same uh subject.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I can speak to that motion.

I think at this point, um, should we decide to defer to those committees, then they're gonna end up coming back before the council for debate anyway.

So I think in the most logical and time-saving manner is to discuss those ordinances now if that is what this body chooses to do, because all the standing committees are made up of members of this committee that are here right now.

So if we send it out to them, then the the debate, and then a month later comes back before council.

If anyone has an issue with it, they're gonna debate it again there.

So I think in the in the uh spirit of time saving, but also allowing us to have the debate as a body just once.

Um I would I would not be in favor of the motion.

Auto jargons.

Thank you.

I uh I think I'm gonna have to go make an appointment with my uh chiropractor at this point because I think I'm getting whiplash uh from the political footballs that are getting thrown back and forth, it seems just maybe a month ago.

There was a discussion of how we don't want to send a proposal for a change to the TID program to finance and personnel because it should go to the committee of the whole, it affects the whole city, all the alders should have input.

In fact, I believe the maker of the motion was one of those prominent voices pushing that narrative.

And now we flash forward to now of now.

We believe that we have committees for a reason, they should go to the committees first, let's send them there.

And I'm having a hard time keeping up.

Uh is it is this week one week where we do want everything to go to the committee of the whole or we don't.

I I'm just I'm a little lost uh in that.

Maybe I'm I'm new and I don't know the the politics behind it, but it sure seems to be that there's uh you know quite a lot of uh political motivation behind this that I just don't get.

Um, I I'm someone who usually uh is in big favor of sending things to go to committee.

However, um, you know, these are being pitched as part of the budget.

Uh we just heard an explanation where all of those there's a there is a reason put forward uh of you know what's the impact to the budget, uh especially the last one, and I know that's been carved out.

However, there's there's other ones that do have uh you know large uh items that really relate to it, whether it's uh the littering, illegal dumping, there's some policy change along with the fee changes, and so I I guess to use some uh the words of my colleague, uh I guess a few weeks ago before something changed.

The committee of the whole is a way that all of the alders can give input at one time, we can debate it as a whole body.

Uh and really I think the the phrase was something of it's it's one of the few tools we have where we can talk together and disperse information amongst the whole uh uh committee.

And if I'm wrong, uh I would encourage the Alder from the fourth to clarify what he'd said last time, and I'd love to know how we change to get to today.

Um so I'm looking forward to hearing the explanation behind that.

Uh and if anyone knows any good chiropractors, I'm probably gonna need it because I'm having a hard time keeping up.

Hold on a wagon.

I support the notion of sending all the ordinances to a standing committee, including the last one, and but I would like to go through each one of these ordinances individually and send them to the appropriate standing committee for uh to be properly vetted.

When we received the budget book on the 20th, I believe it was of the month that included all these orders changes.

We've never had any kind of real discussion about the changes in the ordinance.

If you look at just one of the ordinance, the briefing for the property maintenance code, this is almost 60 pages of a narrative in this ordinance.

We have no idea what's changed, and I don't I don't want to spend this whole night uh talking on just one ordinance.

Uh so I would uh ask the maker of the motion if he would um his motion to include that we go through each one of these individual ordinances and uh um refer them to the appropriate standing committee to be taken up next week prior to voting on the budget.

I think I don't have a problem with how don't I what am I one minute city well done in a couple of ways the maker of the motion can withdraw the motion, remake the motion, or somebody else could propose an amendment to the motion that's already been made.

All right, I have I have a couple I have a couple people to in the queue.

Uh and then we'll we'll we'll go to that and then add uh Alder Allen.

So as uh a couple of our members have already stated, we are sitting in in common and committee of the whole, and we are going to waste a lot of time dividing this conversation up between our standing committees.

While we're all sitting here, we stayed five hours the other night through uh our meeting for our budget overview.

Now, when I before I was sworn in, I made a comment that said I was not interested in spending an excessive amount of time over conversations as Alder Georges said or stated that were politically motivated.

However, I will stay and have a conversation about things that are going to uh support Racing being a sustainable city.

And uh while we are all here, we are all here able to uh have that conversation together and discuss it.

And and no, we don't need to separate the conversation for community safety.

We can have that all right here too.

Um we have heard some very eloquent statements regarding that particular service.

Uh everyone has had this book.

You've some of us have even gone back 25 years.

I'm being facetious, only slightly to compare to this year's budget to budgets that have been proposed in the past.

So we should all be very well versed on what has been proposed to us, and we can have a robust conversation about it.

No need to drag this out past tonight.

Buckle up, Buttercup, and let's get ready to do the work.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I don't want to belabor the issue.

I agree with majority of the alders that have already spoken.

Um I know that each of us were allowed an opportunity to sit down with the mayor and to discuss the budget and ask any questions.

I know that all of us received the budget book before now, and has had the opportunity over these last few weeks to look at the budget and bring up any questions that you had during our discussion about this earlier.

I know that I was one of the individuals, one of the auditors that brought up ordinances during the time that we were doing this because it saved time to discuss all issues that were of importance to you at the time.

And I remember also saying that I would like for us to kind of not spend a lot of time here to do this, and the response was we are alders, we are paid to be here, and so however long it takes us to be here to handle this, we should do it.

I agree that if we are going to discuss each item tonight, that we vote on it because every committee chair is here tonight, and every committee member would meet a quorum if each committee was here.

So we have the people to do it.

Let's take care of it and do what we were voted to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I haven't heard one question answered, and I respect the opinion opinion of all of my colleagues.

But why can't we finish it tonight?

I have thoroughly, and I might be the oldest person in the chamber with two jobs, but I have thoroughly gone through every item in here, and I see no reason why the committee of the whole can't uh solve the issues if we have a debate on some items.

Uh the mayor eloquently pointed out that there was some we do have some leverage in this.

So please explain to me why we can't do it tonight.

I will be in support of finishing tonight.

Thank you.

Order Matt.

Thank you.

I'm sorry to hear that the alderman of the fifth needs to see a chiropractor.

I do have some names I could refer you to.

I have no agenda on this council.

I'm not a part of a political party.

I'm not seeking higher office.

I don't have aspirations for that.

I'm here to serve my community.

I don't appreciate the insults.

The TID discussion, that was an item that appeared on our agenda.

It was ready to be voted on, but there were questions about it.

I pushed to have it sent to the committee of the whole so that we could get any questions answered and have that discussion.

And I clearly stated that the reason I didn't think it needed to go to the finance committee was that we weren't going to be passing it.

That wasn't the purpose of sending it to the committee of the whole.

This is buried in a budget book.

And so when we discuss it during the committee meeting, there's the opportunity then for them to have input.

Stronger legislation happens when we have civic involvement and engagement.

If we are going to deal with these tonight, I would like a full explanation from each department that's responsible for it.

So that we know what's in there.

But I'll tell you when these items appear on an agenda for a committee meeting, and there's something of interest, people come out, people call.

Okay, so I guess we're going to play that game tonight.

When you all really want the community to know, you guys work your Facebooks like magic.

Excuse me, I'm speaking as in general, just as you were.

So let's not gaslight people who can tune in and hear us having our conversations now, as they do often, can also hear us discuss this.

We're going to be here for a while.

So anyone who wants to come down and hear us talk about this, they're still welcome to come down and hear us talk about this.

Only to bring that right on back to the committee of the whole again.

The committee of the whole is a standing committee, so we are pretty much.

Okay, I am the chairperson for my committee, so I am able to.

Maybe not.

No.

No.

No, I just got really dizzy after the parameters.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I just ate those nuts and it'll be a good idea.

Yeah, can we make take a break?

But you do remember which is giving them out of the first time.

So how long is it going to be cutting first?

All right.

We're gonna we're gonna ask you guys to please be seated if you can.

I don't have a charge card thank you, thank you.

All right.

Oh wow.

Several people in the queue.

Okay.

We're gonna we're going to uh resume.

We had a few, we had a few people in the queue, but they're still in motion on the floor from Alder Matt.

Uh and I I'm gonna go to this Alder Jurgensen.

Thank you.

Um I guess I wanted to clarify uh I'm sorry, did you just say or I wanted to remind the chair that this is your second time speaking to the motion.

Okay.

Um so anyways, after that.

Um little confused uh when it was stated that they weren't listed as uh the amendment or the uh the ordinances weren't listed um on an agenda.

Could I ask the clerk a question?

I believe the quote was something along the lines of when it's a line item on an agenda that's different.

People read that.

And it it is on the agenda.

I just is a point of information piece more so for folks watching at home.

We're not discussing something that's not on the agenda.

This isn't something that is in there.

I mean, it's I I just wanted to have the the clerk clarify.

Was it as I see it on this one?

It looks like it's on page two.

Every ordinance that is proposed is listed on a line.

Was this on this one or was this on I will have the I will have the clerk come on, but I I would I would like to at least, you know, let's stay let's stay, you know, on our discussion, focus on our discussion.

I will have the I will have the clerk come on, but I I would I would like to at least, you know, let's stay, let's stay, you know, on our discussion, focus on our discussion.

Uh next week next week we will have the amendments and the debate next week on what's going on.

But if we can please just stay, you know, focus on what we have at hand, whether we are going to continue to talk about each ordinance, or are we gonna are we gonna send the ordinance to the standing committee?

So I would I would just ask our auditions to to be mindful of what what we're doing here, and so we'll have the clerk to come talk.

Yep, you're on the thank you.

So, yes, the ordinances is listed within the actual verbiage subject line of the item as well as each ordinance ABM and ordinance draft verbiage itself is listed as an attachment on item 10725.

Thank you so much.

Just uh I I really appreciate you clarifying that because when I heard, you know, when it's on uh on agenda people read it, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't losing my mind that I I did in fact read it on the agenda.

Um I also wanted to kind of just really put it in perspective as well, too.

So in one night, we discussed uh this amount.

We had asked questions to each director.

Uh we'd gone through this amount in one night.

Tonight we're talking about this much of the budget.

So I that's another one where I I am also still kind of getting a little confused on how we were able to ask questions on the much larger portion of this binder.

But on this one, there's just too much in there.

Uh I also heard that there'd be potential experts at like specific committee meetings that aren't here tonight.

I and I don't know if this is directed towards the the clerk or the mayor.

Do we have uh somebody from each um I'm sorry, did you continue uh I'll go to I heard uh heard it said tonight that there was there'd be uh specific experts at committees, uh and so I just wanted to make sure that we we had somebody from each uh um department that's able to answer any questions on any of the proposed ordinances.

So I don't know if that's to the mayor to the clerk, but I just want to make sure that we have we we do have all the staff here to write there.

There's no one that's missing tonight that would be at a committee meeting.

Well, you're directing your question to auto attorney.

Maybe the mayor, maybe the administrator, I mean I think the administrator would probably be the correct person.

The question to the the city administrator would be do we in fact have staff that can talk to all of the ordinances that are proposed tonight?

Uh so that there's there is no reason where we couldn't do it tonight.

There'd be somebody special at a committee meeting.

The department heads have all been asked to be here for tonight's budget um uh meeting.

So they are here and can testify.

Thank you.

I uh appreciate you clarifying that as well too.

Uh and so you know, I with that.

I I mean I'm I'm ready to stay as long as it takes.

We've heard about how the the committee of the whole is where the whole council can talk together, and for those who are in favor of of sending it to the committees, uh, but still have a lot of questions.

I guess if this motion does go forward, I look forward to seeing you at all of the committee meetings to ask all of those questions there that we probably could ask tonight.

Auto Kelly.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just a couple of uh points I wanted to make.

Um I look back in the budget books, and I didn't really see a massive amount of the ordinance um being put in our budget books until about 2020.

So, yes, this is a committee of the whole, but it also is the budget, and as a fellow finance person, I like to focus on the numbers, which is what I think our whole purpose is here because the numbers are more important than the legislation.

Um also the legislation is some of it is some of the aldermen, but they clearly do not say they're from the aldermen, they say they're from the mayor.

So, you know, I think I would be in favor of moving these to uh appropriate committees or a separate committee of the whole, whatever it is, but this we should be focusing on the numbers.

We've been at this for an hour and 45 minutes almost, and we haven't even moved the needle a single inch.

So I would ask politely that we just move this forward and get going, whether we're talking about it tonight or not talking about it tonight.

Let's just get this thing going.

Thank you.

I'll put all no uh harm.

Thank you, Chair.

You are I agree.

I'm ready to vote.

I'm ready for us to move forward.

Um question.

All right, Alder Wagner.

Thank you.

For those that are new to the council or have been here just since April of 2025.

Prior to April 2025, the standing, the committee of the whole was not a standing committee.

The reason it is a standing committee now is because of an ordinance that was pushed by Alderman Caprillion and myself.

And the reason we push for the committee of the whole to be a standing committee is the committee of the whole had taken up business, and we were told by the mayor's office that this had to go to a standing committee.

So we waited for two months for him to call an executive committee.

That's why we changed the ordinance to make the committee of the whole a standing committee.

So prior to all the previous budgets, when there was a lump sum of ordinances in it, it never went to a standing committee because the committee of the whole was not a standing committee at that time.

So the ordinance itself was violated.

So there is a separation of powers between the common council and the mayor's office, which is the executive branch.

We create the legislation, the executive branch enforces it.

Now what we have is the executive branch creating all the ordinances and then giving it to us with the budget.

Totally inappropriate.

And it had never happened prior to 2019 that I'm aware of, because I have my proposed budget book from 2019, and there is not one single ordinance in that book.

So this started in 2020.

The other thing I want to remind the council of what I've had to go through in order to get an ordinance even discussed by this body.

Evidently, the mayor doesn't have to go through the same protocol.

So if I want to introduce an ordinance, I first have to submit a communication to the mayor and the city attorney.

Wait for the city attorney to draft an ordinance, he brings it back to the requester, which would be that alderman, then the alderman submits a communication to the common council for the common council to refer that ordinance to an executive or to a uh a standing committee.

Now you recall that I did that back in April when I submitted an ordinance making a request.

Seconded by the Alder 9 to send it to the executive committee.

That did not go to the executive committee until September 3rd.

On September 3rd, the ordinance that I had discussed over a year ago with the city attorney on September 3rd was deferred.

In that executive committee, the mayor said he would call another executive committee so we could take up the ordinance that he that was deferred, and here we are, October 30th, and the ordinance that I started working on over a year ago is still sitting in limbo somewhere.

But at the same time, the mayor could introduce a budget and introduce uh over a dozen ordinances without the council ever being aware that those out those ordinances were being discussed by anyone.

They didn't have to be referred by the council.

So I don't know why the 15 of us are here, unless it's just a rubber stamp and be a bobblehead for whatever it is the mayor is proposing.

These ordinances belong going to the appropriate standing committees.

The first half a dozen belong at public safety and licensing, at least.

So I hope that we will uphold the the uh motion made by Alder Mack and seconded, will get referred to the appropriate standing committees that can be taken care of when we adopt the budget.

None of these ordinances are gonna have a huge impact on the budget.

Not until we've got our amendments in, and not until we pass a budget.

Will any of these ordinances have any effect on the budget, the proposed budget?

And just one last thing.

This budget is the mayor's proposed budget.

Okay.

It's our job to make it better and pass it.

Because once we pass this budget, it's not the mayor's budget anymore.

We are the ones that are going to be held accountable by the people that elect us for how much property tax they are going to be paying for this budget.

So with that, I'm hoping that the majority of this council will uh agree to send these ordinances to a standing committee to which they belong.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Audible Paul.

Thank you, President Horton.

So I just have a clarification question for the city attorney.

Um so if the um current motion on the floor fails and we decide to take up each of these ordinances separately, would we be voting to just approve them, or are we voting?

Are we just talking about them?

And then the amendments will come the following week.

Could you just clarify that for me?

Perplexing, isn't it?

Yeah.

Um, the I guess there's a couple of ways.

Recommend to the common council that an ordinance or all the ordinances be adopted.

Okay.

Or it could all wait until uh the committee of the whole votes on the entire budget package.

That's all in one agenda item, um, which is at this moment scheduled for next Wednesday.

So you it's possible to do what's called dividing the vote.

Take up individual pieces if that's what you wanted to do.

So it could go either way.

Would a member have to introduce a motion to either approve as they are or put them apart uh separately approved or as part of the budget.

Well, again, it could go either way.

So I mean uh just the the work is that's first on the list, and I'm just saying it because it's first in the list is age restriction on sale of intoxicating hemp derived products.

If somebody liked the ordinance the way it was, or there was discussion about amending it tonight, and there was a motion to recommend approval of that ordinance.

That's what called dividing the question, taking a piece out or several pieces out.

It could be done tonight, or the committee could wait and do it all together next week.

Okay, thank you.

I know we've had a lot of discussion about whether to debate the debate on the ordinances or just send them to the separate committees to then debate to send them back to the common council to then debate again.

Um at this point, I think it's most appropriate to take them up, and the simple reason is if we refer these to the standing committees that we are all a part of separately, right?

We all know that.

These department heads would have to come to those committee meetings as well in order to answer questions, unless we're emailing them beforehand.

So we already have them here.

We have the experts, we have the people that run the departments day in, day out.

So let's take the time and utilize it wisely instead of spending another hour and 20 minutes debating on a debate.

Take up the ordinance one by one.

And guess what?

Someone doesn't like it when we go to common council to approve the approval.

We can call for separate consideration if you really wanted to.

All we're doing is just running in circles here.

I would rather have this a robust discussion about these ordinances than a discussion about the discussion for the ordinances.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like for us to do our job while we are here right now, and to discuss this and move forward.

I don't want to meet again and to have an auditor spend 15 minutes about a history lesson of how things were when she was an auditor back in 2019.

What I would like for us to do is the work of 2025 while we are here, because each time we set this aside, taxpayers are spending money for every last person who is here in overtime.

We are spending money every time we are in this building, and the purpose of us is to do our job and to not waste taxpayers' money.

I would like for us to consider this, get it done, and move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I have a clarification question.

Um mostly to the attorney's office.

Uh, to clarify, we can work with each item or vote each item separately and refer other items to a standing committee.

Is that correct?

This committee could deal with each proposed ordinance together or individually or in some other combination if it chose.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

You have uh the drawing motion at this point is powers for this discussion on way through the line.

All right.

All right, so uh we're gonna start start out with the uh we're gonna start with the first ordinance here.

Uh it is um oh go ahead.

Go ahead.

First of all, I don't think the seconder has agreed to withdrawing the motion.

That is true.

All right, it was the seconder.

Yep.

Okay.

Now I would like to make a motion.

I would like to uh remit ordinance number 0013-25, H restrictions on sale of an intoxicating hemp derived products to the appropriate standing committee, which is public safety and licensing.

Second all right, motion and second.

Got a motion and a second on the first item 0013-25.

Alder Fraser, Alder Townsend, Alder Mack, Alder Jorgensen, no Alder Widener, aye.

Alder Escada, Alder Pete, no, Alder Prez.

Aye.

Alder Kelly.

Aye.

Alder Harman.

No.

Alder Papone.

That's six ayes, five no's.

Would the chair like to vote?

Uh no.

That's six six motion fails.

No, but did you say no?

You didn't want to vote, or did no waste.

No, no is my answer.

No, it's my vote.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wait.

Uh the point.

The chair is.

I'm sorry, Alderman Weiner, I got this.

Thank you.

Okay.

I just want to clarification.

So it was six five, and then the chair was asked to vote.

Is that correct?

It is my understanding under Roberts Rules that the chair is only allowed to vote in the case of a tie.

Is that correct?

I will pass to the city attorney.

The chair can vote to break a time or to create a tie.

Okay.

Chair has.

I just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

You still on the poll?

Still on.

Oh, you off.

Okay.

All right.

So there's a tie.

Yeah.

So what is that mean?

So it fails.

Motion fails first.

So tie goes to who?

So it is not being referred, therefore it would stay with the budget item.

Okay.

I have another motion to make.

I move to remit ordinance number 0014-25 towing license suspensions to the public safety and licensing for which it belongs.

No.

Is there a second?

Motion fails.

Yeah, motion fails.

My next I my next motion would be I would move to send ordinance number 0015 towing rates to the public safety and licensing committee for which it belongs.

Yep, I'm ready.

Alder Frazier.

Alder Townsend.

Excuse.

Alder Mack.

Aye.

Alder Jorgensen.

No.

Alderman Weidener.

Aye.

Alder Escada.

Aye.

Alder Pete.

Aye.

Alder Prez.

Aye.

Alder Kelly.

Alder Harman.

No.

Alder Papone.

Six eyes.

Four no's.

Could you put it in the road back?

Alder Pete is asking to reject the phone.

Set it in under P.

We were voting on I want to say it's the tolling license.

How do I could you could repeat that that ordinance again?

It's about the tolling as uh tolling license suspension, I think it is.

Or the one above that no beat.

0014-25.

No.

Yeah.

The five.

Yeah, I'll let this I'll let the city clerk clarify.

Sure.

The motion on the floor was to refer item 001525 towing rates to the public safety and licensing committee.

Thank you.

Okay, that one's going.

He had already voted aye, so it's 6-4.

Six.

Six call it up.

Yeah.

All right.

Six eyes, four no's.

So that would be referred to uh public safety.

That I don't that I that ordinance would be uh referred to public licensing.

I would like to make a motion to send ordinance 0016-25 open burning to public safety and licensing.

Alder Alder Frasier Alder Townsend Alder Mack Alder Jorgensen Alderman Widener, aye, Alder Escada, Alder Pete, Alder Perez, Alder Kelly, Alder Harmon, Alder Pavone, six ayes, five no's.

Would the chair like to vote?

No.

Chair votes no, that's six six motion fails.

You I'd like to make a motion to send ordinance zero zero one seven-two five hotel and motel occupancy limits to the public safety and licensing committee for which it belongs.

Ready?

You're fast.

I'm getting there.

Alder Frazier.

No.

Alder Townsend.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jorgensen.

No.

Alderman Weitner.

Aye.

Alder Escada.

Aye.

Alder Pete.

No.

Alder Prez.

Alder Kelly.

Alder Harmon.

Alder Pavone.

6-5.

Would the chair like to vote?

No.

Chair votes no.

6-6.

Motion fails.

I would like to make a motion, but I first need to confer with the city attorney as to the appropriate committee for ordinances 0018-25 and 0019.

These are absolutely brand new ordinances, and I don't know what committee they would fall under.

If it would be public works, finance and personnel, or public safety and licensing.

My assumption is public safety and licensing.

Well, I don't where it should go is really at the discretion of the maker of the motion or the committee where it's proposed to go to.

Okay, thank you.

Move I would make a motion to send ordinance 0018-25 to about adult family home certification of occupancy to public safety and licensing.

There's a motion and a second.

You can take them all individually, or maybe go through to order what you go through all these motions and then take them together.

So how would we how would we go as a body to take them individually if it's a continuous motion?

I think it's I think it's up to you to decide that.

So if you want to let her courts are going to make it motions for each individual ordinance to committee, I think you can do that.

But if she makes motion that fails, you would say, well, let's talk about that ordinance right now.

It's probably gonna be going first.

All right.

Okay.

So Alder Pavone, your question's a good one.

The agenda that was laid out, the process that was laid out for the council uh and adopted by this council in June was that this was uh the week that we would ask department has their questions about the budget in the entirety of which the ordinance is a part.

Um tonight was in uh carryover from a motion made at the end of the last council meeting where the feeling was that there needed to be more discussion on the ordinances, so if people had questions, the departments are here to do that.

Broadly speaking, though, about the budget in its entirety, uh in parts or in whole, budgets that can be proposed to um or amendments that can be proposed to the budget are due to the um the finance department by the end of the day tomorrow.

Some of those ordinances could be, or some of those amendments could be to change or modify some of the um uh ordinance language or fee language or fine language or any other departmental language that was there.

The intention this week is this was our opportunity to hear from the public and ask department heads questions.

It was not intended that we were going to spend tonight on referring items to different committees and debating how to debate about this process.

So it's entirely up to the council if they want to deviate from that process.

But the idea was we were gonna get questions answered tonight um and then offer amendments no later than Friday, take those up next Wednesday as a group, so you could vote these up or down if you wanted to next Wednesday or or any other amendments you might propose, and then final passage of the budget at a special meeting next Thursday.

So that's the process that's that's been laid out.

I don't know if that helps answer your questions or not.

Um to a point, I'm just so we would have to motion to take up these items individually, and if they fail to be referred to a committee to then discuss them at that time.

Is that correct?

That's the way I'm hearing this.

Yeah.

Failed to go to committee, then we would have that discussion.

Right, but I'm saying instead of going line by line, if one fails to go to a committee, we just discuss it then move.

Yeah, we can discuss the new but we would need a motion first.

Is that correct?

You don't need a motion to discuss tonight.

Okay, so that's what I just want to clarify on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not gonna waste any more time of this body's time going through these one by one.

I do want to clarify something that the mayor just said, that any amendments that we mis wish to make to these ordinances that we are discussing tonight are due by five o'clock tomorrow afternoon to the finance department.

Did I understand that correctly?

So we not only have to submit all of our amendments for the budget, we also have to understand these ordinances to the degree where we're we're willing to behind the scenes make amendments to these to these ordinances.

Is that correct?

The department has so my understanding is that all amendments are due by the end of day tomorrow, and that the discussion on the ordinance ordinances originally took place last week, I believe on Thursday, when departments were asking questions.

However, there was still more debate, so the council decided to move forward with discussion to this evening's meeting, was my understanding of it.

Did that answer your question?

It answers my question, and it also ought to scare the bejebers out of this body.

That our discussion is taking place tonight on these ordinances, and we're not only going to have to put our or our amendments together for the budget, we also have to do it for all of these ordinances.

Thank you, sir.

This question is really directed at the city attorney.

We've had this discussion before during budget processes for several years.

Unless this body uh agrees to a specific date and time for uh amendments to be in, we have a right to change them up to the day of voting.

Is that correct, Your Honor?

Well, this year the common council passed a resolution setting off specific dates for each of the action on resolution 05-25, which the council passed on June 17th by an 11 to 3 to 1 providing for all these particular dates.

So that doesn't deny the right of the of us to do any changes anyway along the process, even to the day of the elect of the voting for the particular uh budget, is that correct?

Well, uh this year, because the council passed a resolution specifying each of these steps to occur on a certain date, that would be a procedural rule adopted by the common council for this budget process.

And if the council wants to do something different, the rules would have to be suspended, which would require a vote, and because this is would be a procedural rule regarding finance issues broadly budget, would have to be approved by a three-quarters vote.

So you're saying that if you juxtapose uh the current policy with a resolution that we're not allowed to make amendments at the day of voting, or to introduce a new thought.

The council adopted this procedure for these days, and if the council wants to change it, it can by a motion to suspend the rules.

If that passed the council by the appropriate level, then the council could change the dates and the steps that it's already approved.

Well, I don't think that maybe I'm explaining it the way you're understanding it.

I get the deadlines and everything.

But as alders, we have the right to make any amendment at any time if the body agrees to it.

Is that correct?

This is a particular circumstance because the council adopted a procedure by resolution for this budget process.

It hadn't done it in a prior year.

So yeah, the council could, even though there was specific dates provided, the council could uh move to amend at some other time.

The council, I believe it the chair will have to rule of whatever meeting it is, the chair would have to decide that it that would have to rule on a motion to suspend the rules, and again, it would require to pass by a three-quarters vote per city ordinance.

So the council chooses not to not to amend the rules at that time or to change them, then we're not allowed to make any motions except say yes or no to what's being proposed?

No, the budget amendments are by the resolution of the council adopted to be submitted by the close of business tomorrow, and then the committee of the whole on Wednesday, November 5th, will debate those amendments and vote on those amendments.

So that opportunity exists to uh address potential changes to the budget that's been proposed.

Okay, thank you.

So we so far we've got we've gotten down to uh uh ordinance number 0017-25 hotel and motel occupancy limits.

Oh state your question, but I got it on.

My question for the city city attorney is by state statute, by what date does this body have to pass a budget?

Notwithstanding whatever we pass back in June, right?

As far as dates to meet and discuss deliberate, submit amendments.

Right.

There's not a specific date in the state statutes, but by city ordinance, budget has to be approved by November 20th.

By when?

November 20.

So November 20th.

So we could still we have got the 20 days in November to thoroughly go through this budget and the ordinances.

We can amend what what the ordinance that or what the resolution regarding the dates at which we're gonna meet regarding the budget and the ordinances were there a motion to suspend the rules this council imposed upon itself and that motion was successful, then yes, the council could change the dates and the steps and all those.

That's true.

Okay.

All right.

So we had we had a we had a motion on the floor to send the following item.

I want to say 0018-25 uh certificate of occupancy to PSL.

Any other discussion on that item?

You want to you want to withdraw?

Okay.

Okay.

Sure.

Okay.

So the second or you have to ask the second or if the second went throws.

If the second or uh I just want to if the second or would withdraw the motion.

Auto.

Okay.

All right.

So tonight the next the next item, the the next ordinance we have is uh ordinance zero zero one nine-two five, and that is the review of the family.

I do not have any more I'm sorry.

Oh, tight, let me turn you on.

Go ahead.

If the alderman of the six is not going to be making any more motions to refer to committee because of the pattern that has emerged, then I think the appropriate thing, Mr.

Chairman, would be go to ordinance zero zero one three-25, and let's start at the top with an overview of what that ordinance is, and then open it up for questions.

Yes.

All right, so back to the top.

Ordinance uh ordinance number 0013-25 age restriction on intoxicating hemp um products.

Any discussion on that on that item?

Automatic.

I uh I know nothing about marijuana or intoxicating hemp derived products.

I have uh colleague who invested in a hemp farm, and uh he is I don't know what they do with that hemp if they make rope or if they make fabric or if it goes towards um I've heard it like essential oils and things like that.

So a couple questions.

Is this a brand new ordinance?

And two um is hemp currently hemp products currently legal to purchase in Racine by minors.

Um what is what is the purpose of this, and then I may want to follow up on that.

Thank you.

All right, the city attorney city attorney.

Uh I was going to suggest that it might be helpful if the city attorney would read the brief description of each of these plants.

Yeah, he's on.

I was saying city attorney.

The brief overview is that this ordinance would prohibit the sale or provision of intoxicating hemp derived cannabinoids, uh, such as Delta 8 and Delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol THC to individuals under the age of 21 while in allowing non-intoxicating hemp products like uh CBD to remain accessible that distinguishes intoxicating from non-intoxicating hemp products and establishes penalties for violation.

Briefly, the the hemp plant and marijuana plant are the same plant, cannabis, but the difference is that hemp has a lower level of uh Delta 9 THC, which is the psychoactive uh chemical that's in marijuana, but there are products that are made from hemp, there's drinks and uh other kinds of things that are sold, and they're they're legal to sell, they're legal to possess for miners right now in the city of Racine in the state of Wisconsin.

Um it's only been within the last few years that the state and or municipalities could actually regulate hemp intoxicating hemp products.

So Delta 8 and Delta 10 THC have some intoxicating properties, but not the same level as Delta 9, which is the uh chemical in marijuana.

This ordinance would prohibit anybody from selling or providing, i.e.

giving intoxicating hemp products to a miner.

Doesn't necessarily prevent the miner from possessing it, but it prevents somebody from selling it to a minor, and if that person uh someone under 21, by the way, not under 18, some under 21.

If there is a violation, if somebody sells or gives an intoxicating hemp product to someone under 21, the potential forfeiture is up to $3,000 in the bond amount that would be written on a citation, so they'd be cited by the police department.

Uh it would be $1,500.

They could pay that and not go to court, or they could choose to plead not guilty and go to the municipal court and deal with it that way.

How did this ordinance come about?

Was it something that it says here that the mayor is the one that requested the ordinance?

Was there a reason why this was requested?

Is this something that other municipalities are doing, or did we identify an actual problem here in uh Racine?

And then I'd like to also follow up.

I mean, I I don't want to speak for an elected official, but we have we did get a few requests for this, including from the mayor, and this is something that other municipalities uh have been enacting in the city of Wisconsin.

And do we know if it was because there's currently a problem with that?

I assume the concern is that intoxicating products are being sold to people under 21.

So that's that's the issue.

And then and then my last question, um, because uh one of the arguments was that these all have fiscal impacts, and that's why it's here.

What is the fiscal part of this ordinance that impacts the budget and how much of an impact does it have?

Thank you.

I can say it would impose a forfeiture.

Um somebody else may better answer what impact it would be, but it would depend on the number of citations that are written.

I suppose the hope is nobody sells these to people under 21, and therefore no citations would be written.

But were there citations and somebody was convicted, they would pay a forfeiture up to of up to three thousand dollars.

Audicelli on this ordinance.

Thank you.

Um actually I was one of the requesters for this ordinance.

Um the conversation first stemmed from speaking with some of the Milwaukee Aldermen when we were at the league municipalities.

We also attended one of the sessions that had this very conversation about hemp derived products and some of the issues that you know the different municipalities are seeing.

Uh we spend an egregious amount of time on PSL talking about vape and the problems that we are seeing in our community currently.

Um, unfortunately, that is now hit my own child school where it's a huge problem, and not just regular vape, but THC vape.

There's uh I talk with the sheriff's office.

There are people that are in these schools that buy them in mass quantity and they sell them to the kids.

So it's really unfortunate that our community is um being uh affected by this.

So the conversation that I had had with this alderman from Milwaukee, he had basically stated that they are having the same similar issues with some of their vape shops and some of the THC drinks that you know you could buy.

You can even buy the gummies, and those are not age restricted, so a kid can go into the store and just buy a bag of these gummies.

Um it's kind of I guess maybe a back doorway into kind of the regulating of these different products, uh, maybe weeding out some of the bad actors.

Um I am fully uh in support of this, whether it's tonight, tomorrow night, whatever night it is, but um I am certainly in favor of this.

I mean, we got to get this under control.

A lot of the conversations again at the PSNL.

We've been trying to find different avenues, whether it's through um, you know, talking to the city development or police station or whatever it is, but you know, we got to get ahead of it before you know it gets too far along.

So thank you.

Honorable Reyes.

Yeah, just by the definition alone in the title, we can see that it's intoxicating.

We know that it's gonna be around, and we're trying to prevent it from spreading, but why uh bond amount is that from an arrest?

Or is the city making any money on this?

Are we um going to regulate what is sold and get a profit from it in the process of this?

Could this be part of the ordinance as well?

Yeah, but city return.

Uh no to most of your question, it's like beer, we don't regulate beer, but we do participate in preventing that from being sold to people under 21.

Um the bond amount, it's not there's not a rest, it'd be a citation that's written.

So it's not an arrest because the bond is what three thousand dollars or fifteen hundred potential forfeiture amount is three thousand dollars.

The bond amount, what that means is and this uh similar provision to this is all over the ordinances in um uh in uh just sort of disciplinary ordinances, prohibitions.

Please talk until Mike's area.

I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Um this kind of thing exists all over the ordinances for violations that are laid out by the city of Racine Code.

That's the amount that the officer would be directed by this council to put on the citation, $1,500.

If they pay $1,500, they don't have to go to court.

And they essentially are pleading not guilty by default.

Um but if they or pleading guilty by default, excuse me.

Not again.

Pleading no contest by default by paying this amount of money and just not showing up to court.

However, somebody could plead not guilty and go to court and dispute the citation, and then there may or may not be a conviction and a forfeiture opposed.

Doesn't this contradict what we passed in the couple of years ago where we only would charge one dollar?

We found you with a certain amount of THC of marijuana.

I don't know if it contradicts these are different substances.

THC and marijuana are different.

I mean, somebody could go to uh a gas station or a liquor store and buy THC infused beverages by marijuana at your local liquor store.

Okay.

Honor Pope.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so just to clarify, I mean, if you look at the bottom of page three for this, it says any person charged with a violation of this article may pay a deposit of up to $1,500 plus clock cost in lieu of a court appearance, and then on the back of that says forfeiture, any person found in violation of this article shall forfeit not more than $3,000.

So that is the money that is in there.

Second thing, um, I want to commend Alder Kelly on the work that she did and the resources that she tapped into in order to help this ordinance become uh a part of our our local laws here because sitting on PSNL, I can tell you that it is uh a very, very big problem.

Even my nieces that go to jurisdict, they they say these people have the you know the vape pens, and these are kids not much older than than they are.

So I think this is a good step in the right direction.

I would also like to ask in the process of uh of the comments for this.

Can we ask to be a co-sponsor of said ordinance?

Yes.

Now I don't want to speak for um Alderman Kelly, but I know that she was originally working on this, so I think it's appropriate for her to be, but I would also like to be um issued as a co-sponsor on this without objection.

Okay, order P.

Well, first of all, I'll follow up on what I'll just say that I'd also like to be a co-sponsor of this ordinance.

Uh uh most of the things that I would say have already been said, unfortunately, uh for me being last, but uh I heard the same conversation at the league of municipalities, and I salute the Alderman respond that originally wrote the bill because I heard some very gruesome stories that I won't repeat about what happened to babies with gummies up there.

I talked to the main sponsor from Milwaukee of the bill, and I think the forepitcher will help uh cover the cost of administering uh this uh law or ordinances, and over overall, I think it's a good thing.

I've seen we've had kids in the bathroom where I've worked at in the school system that we had to have escorted out because they've made bad choices but what we're talking about, and they're springing up as we all know, almost on every available corner.

Thank you.

Or Jurgerson for the first part, uh Alder Pabone took the the words out of my mouth of you know a lot of alders had put work in this, and so you know, anyone uh especially in Alder Kelly, I know she has been talking to us, and we talked about this a few weeks ago.

Um, so I I'd hope to you know see if she would.

I once again I can't talk for her, but I would encourage her to go on as a co-sponsor because I I can tell you right now I I talked to her a few weeks ago about this.

Um but as a new parent, um, this is something that is uh on my mind, especially when you you read and learn about you know what happens with gummies, especially when they get to school.

Um, you know, this isn't this isn't CBD, this isn't, and I think sometimes they're they're conflated together, and so I think the goal behind this is to try to draw a line that there is a difference between getting a C B D bomb that you rub on your knee if it's acting up uh and an intoxicating substance.

Uh and so I I'm in full support of making sure that line is very thick um and very clear.

Oh yeah, it's a question posed about where did this come from?

For from my office, it came from a couple places a conversation with the mayor of Milwaukee, but then also a plea that I got from the school board president about vaping happening in school, and was there something we could do, and this seems we've been preempted in a lot of ways by the state in our authority to do a lot of the stuff, but this does seem one of the um avenues to be able to do that throughout that alders at the league municipalities um are enthusiastic that attended the legal municipalities are also now enthusiastic about it, but overall it it is an issue uh as a parent with three kids uh in schools uh that we hear about happening.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I definitely would like to commend Alder Kelly and the mayor and all others who um participated in this ordinance.

I would um respectfully ask to also be added as a co-sponsor as a licensed addiction counselor.

I completely understand the impact of intoxicating drugs on um our youth.

Um their development isn't able to um handle um intoxicating um entities like these and products like this, so I definitely support it, and I really like the backdoor approach before it gets so big, let's start trying to make some um some remedies for this situation.

So thank you.

I'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Only thing I'll say um without repeating the same thing as a school resource officer, I've issued many citations for kids who have possessed vapes, uh, whether they're regular vape pins or vape pens with THC.

So this is a real problem.

Thanks.

All right, thank you.

I see no nobody else in the queue.

Um at this time, we will go to the next ordinance, which is 0014-25 tone license suspension.

Okay.

Uh the brief summary of this is this proposed ordinance clarifies the authority of the chief of police to specify corrective actions required before lifting towing license suspensions and expands the discretion of the public safety and licensing committee to review violations.

It allows the committee to hold hearings and consider suspension or revocation after any violation rather than waiting for three violations, thereby strengthening oversight of towing companies and consumer protections.

I can go further.

So I I guess I'd like to hear from the chief of police on this ordinance to see you know what precipitated this change.

Make it worth your while be here, Chief.

Could you please hit the mental button?

All right.

All right, uh, thank you for having me here.

Uh whether it's eight o'clock or eleven o'clock, I'm here for the city for the people overseeing.

Whether it's eight o'clock or eleven o'clock, I'm here for this uh citizens.

Right.

So uh sleepless nights, stomach acid and stress.

Anyway, uh there was some that what started with this is this past uh summer where there was a towing company that was towed a vehicle and was holding hostage property of that particular owner of that vehicle.

Uh we worked with the city attorney on this, so I was able to suspend that person temporarily until they remedied that particular giving the property back.

Uh they wanted a ex extra extraordinary fine for it.

Uh eventually got worked out, we suspend them temporarily, and uh they're back with us now.

This is now going to give you a little more authority with the PSNL where you guys are able to hold meetings on it on those type of violations.

Okay, so Chief, I'm wondering why you would not have come to the uh committee of public safety and licensing on on a change like this.

Why why is this in the budget?

So this is what came up in the budget uh this uh as part of the number of ordinances.

This is just one of them that came up in our in our budget uh planning process.

So the public safety and licensing committee will have to conduct the hearings and whatnot.

They may they can I believe it says they may conduct hearings on this.

I I I I read I I know what I'm just surprised that if this was an issue why it waited until the budget time, if this is something that happened past summer, why it was not something taken up to the public safety and licensing, and rather it's uh put in with part of the budget.

So that was just my question.

Okay.

Thank you, Chief.

You're welcome.

All right, thanks.

Oh, well, automatic.

Oh my god.

Uh couple questions.

One is uh uh a procedural one for attorney let me the attached um ordinance changes that we have here.

Are are those brand new or are those modified?

Because one of the issues sometimes is we get a what looks like a clean copy with proposed on it, but there are lines that have been struck out, new lines added, and so is that completely new, or is this a clean copy of something that's been redacted?

Or if I'm looking for the right term, I'm not an attorney, so I got you.

Well, there is an existing section 22-840, which is suspension revocational license, but this would um uh um completely supplant the existing ordinance.

So all this language would be new.

Some of it is similar to what exists, but this would be new language to replace an existing ordinance.

So what's different in this is um the hearing part potentially but before public safety and licensing and is it um a revocation uh a revocation hearing right now?

We can't revoke a license or uh uh right now the princip the principal difference with regard to the hearings is the committee has to wait until there's three violations now.

This would change it to the committee could decide if it's one violation, perhaps a serious violation, to hold a hearing.

Okay.

But with regard to what the chief can do, this just um tightens up the chief's ability to suspend the license for towing companies for a series of violations.

Um you see documentation, vehicles, equipment, facilities, personnel, and assuming those are corrected, then the chief can immediately reinstate a license if they're corrected, and if the chief were to decide not to reinstate a license for whatever reason, that decision could be appealed then to the public safety and licensing committee.

Okay.

Um I'm not here advocating for tolling companies.

I know that um sometimes when we have these ordinances that have an impact on a particular group, um there's concern uh and and I get it.

Um were the tolling companies aware that this ordinance change uh was proposed.

Did they have any input on it?

I'm assuming the good ones are probably yes, this is needed.

The bad ones are like no, you know, I don't like that.

But uh was there any discussion with the tolling companies?

Has there been any input?

There has been discussions with the tolling companies, and that which kind of leads to the next uh ordinance that's on here too, and it had a lot to do with the with the rates to make a more I would say more competitive, we're able to get more towing companies to work with us.

Uh so we brought up those rates towards what the county, what the rates of county had, so uh county has a lot more towing companies, obviously they have a lot more room, but uh and I know there's some limitations how far you can be from the city of Racine, but uh it was just put our rates were increased so they'd be uh they were mirrored at the county's rate so they can come and work in the city of Racine.

Yeah, and uh I looked at that one, that's one that I'm not gonna have any questions on.

The uh but when working with the tolling companies to look at rates that were competitive or acceptable, um you did go over this with them then.

This we well we went with uh uh myself and uh Dan Nelson, who is my uh traffic investor, it was put a lot of time into this with the towing companies on how we we wanted to increase rates to make them uh competitive rates with the county so that way they all charge the same, no matter if you're the county gets you or if the writ scene city gets you, and they're all on a list to go by order, and they're all get paid the same way, or they have the towing fees are all the same for all all the companies, every one of those fees are and what I'm referring to is more the the the penalty part of uh non-performance or poor performance at this ordinance address.

They're well aware of that.

Absolutely.

And did they provide any input when you were going through that process?

Well, they they always have input.

The one of the things they complained about is that our rates were so low, that's why we had a hard time getting any towing companies to come work with us, and that's why they may overcharge on one on my storage fees or holding your property and things of that nature.

So that's how they go hand in hand then.

That's right.

Okay, thank you.

Autobo.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um just for us to c some context if any of my other colleagues are looking at just that front page, the bottom last two sentences of that first paragraph, um, let you know why this is happening, and then the last paragraph there explains what changes as far as the public safety and licensing committee authority goes.

So I think this is a um a great step forward, and um I'm in full support of it.

So I thank you, Chief, for all the work.

I know this was not an easy thing to get together.

Uh a lot of questions, a lot of interviews, but uh appreciate the work your part your department does.

Auditor.

Thank you.

Uh so just to make sure that you know, one I have it right and and my colleagues do, and the folks at home watching.

This is you know, the the situation where this would come up is you're driving down main street and your your car dies, you get pulled over.

Uh friendly police officer comes behind you and says, Hey, and do you gotta get your car to a shop or get it taken somewhere?

Uh I say yes, I'm not gonna be able to fix it on the side of the road here.

Um police officer would ask something along the lines of do you have a preference of a tow company or do you want us to help get one out here for you?

People could still get their private towes if you use the case.

Yeah, they can still choose it if they want to.

This is more of you know, take it, right?

Yeah, I'm out of town, maybe I don't know anyone locally, or you know, or just really don't care, just want to you know get a recommendation, and that's I think the part where this comes in is even though we may not be giving a formal recommendation of endorsing them, but by calling them, I think a lot of folks would take that as that, that we wouldn't ever call somebody uh to come out and do this if they're kind of doing nefarious fees or crazy fees that we're gonna kind of set them up for this.

Um so I think that's that's where this ordinance really hopes to step in.

That if we're calling somebody out, we're we're kind of making sure that there is a um minimum expectation of what you're gonna get and and what you get behind it is kind of the the goal of the case.

Correct.

And I think that's very clear.

Um I think that it it makes it easier for folks in the city and those who are from outside of the city um to know that if if they do take somebody from the the emergency um rotation list that there's at least some standards we're putting behind it and that we feel confident we can enforce those.

Thank you.

There's no nobody else in the queue.

Um for uh towing license and suspension.

Our next item, thanks to you.

Our next item is uh tolling rates.

Any any uh questions for uh summary?

Yep.

I'm gonna have him to give the uh the summary uh the city attorney.

Uh this proposed ordinances updates the city of Racine's towing rate schedule to align with current market conditions and inflationary cost increases since the last revision, which was in February of 2023, based on consultation with other municipalities and with towing companies, the revised rates.

Let me be clear, these rates are charged to individuals in need of towing services, not the city of Rcine.

Ensure that maximum allowable charges more accurately reflect present-day towing service costs, and let me just re-emphasize these fees, set the maximum amount that can be charged by a towing company when they're called in to tow a vehicle in the city of Racine.

All right.

But by setting a maximum, that's offering the consumer up some protection as well.

Am I correct?

Correct.

It also makes towing for the towing companies makes towing vehicles for the city upon the city's request more attractive because the city rates were lower than other area municipalities before now.

Okay, thank you.

Aud Wagner.

Thank you.

On page 11, under city vehicle towes, can you explain other than the 40 dollar increase?

Um what that means for tow storage of any vehicles, and then any add-ons related to towing and storage of city vehicles.

Can you clarify what that means?

Well, those are if a vehicle owned by the city actually needs to be towed.

So that sets the rates, and if there's additional things that a towing company may charge, um they were saying they would charge us 80% of the rate that's charged in these other categories.

So would that now be 80% of the 200 or 80 percent of the 160?

Well, that would be something in addition to the basic tow.

The 160 dollars is the basic tow.

There may be other things that needs to be done, a crash wrap or standby time or some of the other things that are listed in the rest of the rate chart.

Does this also set a maximum rate for what towing companies can charge people who they're storing their vehicles on their property?

Yes, storage fees are set as well.

Is that the 200 dollars per no?

It's uh cars uh pickups, motorcycles for outside storage is eighty dollars a day, and inside storage is a hundred dollars a day based on this schedule.

And that's for the citizens the maximum that they have to pay, or is that for city vehicles?

Right.

So that has not increased.

Um right now it's in the existing ordinance, it's 40 dollars a day for outside and fifty dollars a day for inside, so it's doubled.

Okay, is there anything in this language other than that fee increase that has changed under the proposed?

No, these are just the changes of fees.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

I don't see any other nobody else in the queue.

Our next item is 0016-25 open burning.

So this proposed ordinance consolidates and updates the city of Racine's regulations on open burning into a single uniform section of the municipal code prohibiting opening open burning within city limits except under specific controlled circumstances.

It allows limited exceptions for cooking, training, and recreational fires, as well as bonfire or open burning permits issued by the fire prevention bureau with associated fees as set by the common council.

Auto proposed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I um did work with the um fire department on this particular ordinance.

And if if I could, I would like to ask the fire chief to come up.

Thank you.

Oh, perfect, thank you.

And just speak to how this helps um the our fire department do their job and how it's um kind of simplifies what used to be so complicated.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So this is an ordinance that's been in place for many many years and has not been touched for probably 20 years.

And all we're simply trying to do is make it easy for the citizens to follow and our firefighters when they respond.

And really, what we looked at changing was the recreational fire pit piece.

Um a lot of people would um make their own or get stuff that wasn't legal, they would burn things they shouldn't.

So we simply um made it very clear on the size of the container how if they want to make one, what they need to do.

We required a lid to be on it so that we don't get any fugitive embers, possibly starting fires, because we've seen that happen.

Um we also enforce that it needs to be 10 feet away from any structure or lot line.

Um, we talk about using clean um wood, not burning leaves or burning oil or tires.

Um we talk about hazards when not not to you know have a fire, such as high winds or ozone alerts or dry conditions, and we also have a time which is three to eleven because we did have a lot of people burning late into the night, and that would bother some of the their neighbors.

Keeping an eye on your fire, staying with it until it's extinguished, having the garden hose nearby just in case something happens, and then not disposing any of the burned wood until 48 hours after the fire, because we have had fires when people were trying to clean up afterwards, and all of a sudden the garage is on fire.

So that's really all we were trying to do is clean it up and make it easy for everybody.

So thank you for that question.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, with the with the passage of this with the budget, is this something that you know, as part of you know like a community service, the the fire department might stop out at like a home store?

Because I I feel like when I've walked through uh a home store, I have seen plenty of things that don't fit the description here.

You know, the the ring with no cap on it, it's maybe 12 inches high.

Is that something that you know with this change they may stop by, and maybe there's like a pamphlet they can leave of hey, if you haven't ever seen residents that stop by the store looking for this, you know, it's not up to them necessarily to tell them what to buy, but it's a resource just so that somebody maybe doesn't buy something that doesn't meet the requirements.

Thank you for the question.

Uh we'll we will do our best to inform people.

We do have a public education officer that's continually talking to people at public events and you know, educating people.

We Home Depot does have an event every year that we're at, so we'll do our best to inform people.

And when we do get calls for those, we generally make that a you know, learning moment for them.

And we're not looking to get anybody you know in trouble or anything like that.

So yeah, thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you for your work on this.

That uh makes a lot of sense, and uh I appreciate we have somebody already out there who's making the case to let people know about this, and they'll be uh busy with the new change that hopefully makes it easier for folks to understand what the requirements are.

Auto back uh just a comment and then a question.

Uh once again, if we're getting something that has been modified, it would really be helpful to have the strikeouts and inserts uh of the new language so that we can put it side by side.

I find that to be helpful and easier to um see where changes are.

Um the question then is um I I'm trying to figure out how this well, there's a fee um attached to this.

If the main component of this is changing the the or modifying the fire pit rule uh rules to to make it easier for the uh residents out there, why was this something that needed to be placed in the budget book?

Um why couldn't this have been uh submitted at any other time of the year?

So I I guess that's my my question.

It it doesn't it's doesn't seem like something that really needed to go in in a budget book.

It's something that the committee could have taken up at any at any point.

So I can talk to that a little bit, and if I miss anything, maybe the city attorney will fill the meet fill in.

But um, we started working on this in the beginning of the year.

We had a lot of meetings with the senior city attorney, senior assistant city attorney, and with the fire prevention bureau as well.

And it took time, everybody's schedule, and we were also uh reaching out to the surrounding fire department to see what they did just so we could be in line and do it similar.

Um we started that process and then the common council changed the rules, so we did apply the way we're supposed to.

Alder Pabon hoping helped me with that, and then we just got placed in the queue.

So we were just in hold and you know, and we were working on it as it came up.

So and then now we're here, so I'm happy that we're here.

And maybe it doesn't seem important it is to us, though it really does help the community.

So thank you.

All right, don't see any anyone else in the queue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh the next the next item is uh 0017-25 hotel and motel occupancy limits.

Any discussion on this ordinance?

This proposed ordinance would clarify that hotel and motel occupancy is limited to 29 days within any 90-day period at a single facility, regardless of room changes and mandates that all guests be accurately listed in the registry.

Uh these updates strengthen enforcement against long-term stays, disguised as short-term rentals, and align local regulations with forthcoming state rule changes under Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Trade and Consumer Protection while we're remaining equally or more stringent.

And let me just emphasize one thing.

Currently, um somebody could stay 29 days in a hotel room and then move to another hotel room in the same building and stay for another 29 days and so on, which really again turns this into a long-term more of a long-term stay.

This would say that you you can't change rooms.

It's 29 days, and then you've got to move to, I guess, a different hotel.

Um that all guests have to act actually be registered with the hotel as opposed to the principal occupant of the room being registered and other people being allowed to stay in the room without being registered.

Auto, you know, we have a lot of homelessness and people who want to come live in our town but don't necessarily want to buy a hundred thousand dollar condo.

Um, why the limit to 29 days?

Is that a state rule?

That doesn't make any sense.

If you have the money and you want to stay there, why can't you stay there for as long as you want?

Well, that's not what hotels and motels are intended to be for.

They're for transients by law.

Transients and people that are coming to stay for a little while and move on somewhere else.

I get that.

So would that put a uh long-term uh hotel that houses people long term in jeopardy of having to have them move every month to a different hotel?

Or live on the street, or what what would they do?

Well, this would require to say that someone can only stay for 29 days if they're gonna stay for the yeah.

But can they just go to another hotel and stay for 29 days?

Right.

Yeah, right.

We also have direct to biologics if you want to want more clear, you know, probably some more information.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

So um the other opportunity is that closer to the mic, please.

The other opportunity is that some of the hotels and hotels have our extended stay, right?

Um, and they can get a uh permit from the city for that.

So if that's um within the framework of their operational, um, then we can do that as well.

So that would be in violation of this particular ordinance to get a because they got a permit.

Yep.

So they can extend the 29 days if they get a permit.

Yep, they can get a conditional use permit.

Okay, well, this still doesn't make any sense to me in the sense that um okay, we can't let you do stay more than 29 days and and register you, but if you get a permit and you pay our fee, that's okay.

But they have to also meet all the regulations for an extended stay.

So it has to have a kitchenette and it's gonna have several other factors within the property or within the unit to be able to do that.

Most of the hotels, it's the the premise of this, and again, this is coming through the state, and we've been waiting for it for quite a while, and it's finally here.

Um, but the opportunity is that when you check in as a guest, you will be maintaining your status as a guest and not a resident.

So when you stay 29 days and you move to another room and move to another room and move to another room, you're actually can um um identify that as your residence um where you stay.

So do you have in order to be able to vote?

You have to be a resident for 30 days, so you keep having to move to another hotel so you can't be a resident.

Um, but again, this the hotel is for those individuals that are transient.

Um for this 29 day stay is for individuals that have you know have come from somewhere um else and are coming in to visit the city of Racine.

So if we get an uh disaster, local disaster, and we get people from all over come help us.

And it takes more than a month to get everything back in order.

They can't legally do that unless they change hotels on the 29th day.

Yeah, they would have to on 29 days, they would have to.

And again, this is following with um as an agent of the state, um, and as um uh the city attorney you mentioned with the agriculture trade and commissioner, that that's that's part of this overall plan that will be for the state of Wisconsin.

So we'll say what that is the overall plan for the state of Wisconsin as an agent.

Yeah, so it won't be just for the city of Racine, we're adopting this.

So we're just trying to keep up with what the law says, and what we're mandated to do, but also to make sure that again, as you check in as a guest, you stay as a guest and you don't become a resident in a hotel room that doesn't have a kitchen ed, doesn't have enough facility for you or your family or your animals, um, that again it's a it's a transient come and go, not stay permanently.

Okay, okay.

All right, on the back.

You answered my question with the extended stay because with uh the major construction projects going on, some of these uh technical specialists in construction that come in are here for a very long time, but they live you know, hundreds or thousands of miles away.

So that answers that question.

Um I I think what Alderman, I don't want to speak for on what he was alluding to though, is there are people in this community, and this is probably why this is um in effect that are semi-homeless and end up staying at some of these very cheap motels, hotels longer than 30 days because they have no other place to stay.

Um and they are city residents, but they're kind of I guess in this limbo because they they don't have a home or or a residence.

My question though is um how does this it's put in the budget book here?

How does this pertain to the budget itself?

Why the necessity to have this in the budget book versus having it come through separately?

Yeah, it's uh part of it has to do with timing.

Um, you know, we've been waiting, as I mentioned, for years for the state to be able to update and be able to move forward with this, and all of a sudden they did.

And um, um, and so the timing was appropriate for this.

Right on was this something they had to go through the Board of Health first?

Um, did they see it or doesn't the Board of Health have purview over something like this?

Yeah, as as an agent of the state, um, this is part of our responsibility to implement it.

So if it had gone to a standing committee, where would it have probably gone to?

Um that's a good question.

That's a very good question.

Um, I guess it would be up to this body to make that decision.

Um public safety and licensing, perhaps.

Okay, all right.

I just for my own edification, thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Donna Kay.

This is an important issue in my district, and has been for 25 years.

Yep, I was gonna say so.

A couple things though.

I know there's been real difficulty in enforcing these kind of ordinances, and so I'm wondering how you're gonna do that.

Yeah, well, um currently, you know, or before all of this, um they could go 29 days, go to another room, 29 days go to another room, and there was nothing specific in there that said that every person who was in the room needed to register.

So you they would pick one person and then four people would move another room or six people or eight people or whatever it was.

So it was very difficult for us to determine looking at the roster, exactly who was in the room, how many people were in the room, and how many days they stayed because they would move.

So and then they would rotate people.

So you're gonna have someone from your staff randomly check on these and go over their books to see if they have everybody listed?

Yes, so for these type of facilities, we have an annual inspection every year that they need to go through, and then we um once we have the report completed, generally speaking, there are reinspections that have to be completed, and so then we would check on that at that time as well.

And then we also are complaint driven.

So if someone gives us a call and says, look, you know, there's six people in this room and there's only one person, or you know, one person that's registered, then we go out and take a peek again.

Does that also include uh children being recorded as tenants of that room?

Yeah, so we would know how many people are in that room.

Okay.

So then you said that uh if they had to have an extended stay, they would have to get an occupancy permit.

Did you mean the hotel itself or the individual staying more than 29 days?

No, the the entire operation.

They would have to come forth for a special permit, and um they would have to show us that they meet the qualifications of what that would be for an extended stay.

So I totally support what you're doing, but then there are instances, for example, someone in the uh 13th district had a house fire nine months ago and they've been staying in an extended stay hotel for the last nine months.

So an extended stay hotel would have to have meet particular criteria to be considered extended stay?

Yeah, generally they only have um so many rooms that are extended stay, and one of the the primary things is they've got a kitchen at so that the person when they're staying there, um there's enough room and enough beds for everyone, um, but at the same point they can cook there and it's an appropriate facility to be able to do that.

So, do we have any hotels, motels in the city of Racine that are qualified to be an extended state?

No, I don't believe so.

I can double check on that for you, but I do not believe so.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I I'm sitting here asking Alder Kill Kelly all these questions.

I said, let me just ask Daddy.

All right, so these hotels are they privately owned?

Um versus yes, they're well they're yeah, small business owned hotels, yes.

Okay.

They also they have the right to refuse service after 29 days, right?

Yes, okay.

And based off of their business plan, they can also extend it and provide additional services also, right?

They can do that.

What I'm saying is it already seems like we have something in place to get rid of people after 29 days.

It's called denial of service.

If the business does not want to deny them service after 29 days, they're taking on that decision to move their customers to another room.

Who are we to go in and then try to regulate a small business operation business plan that benefits them financially because if they didn't want them, they're either gonna get an extended state, which defeats the purpose of all of this, there or deny them service.

I'm not understanding how we can.

So that's why I'm so I'm like so confused.

No, no, you're doing good.

I know I understand.

It's kind of light, and I understand.

So again, we're an agent of the state of Wisconsin, and the um the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection are making changes to what we and how we do business and how they would do business.

So currently it's 29 days, you go to another room.

29 days you can go to another room and you can make a residence there versus being a guest.

They are changing for the state of Wisconsin.

This um part of um ATCP 72 saying that you know you can only stay the 90 days in the facility.

So it's a it's a state change, it's not necessarily we're we're adapting it.

Um it's not necessarily only for the city of Racine.

Thank you.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, how it came about that it it became a state.

Yes, okay.

All right.

Honor George.

Thank you.

Um similar to what we kind of heard from the fire department of when they when they would go to a call for you know, uh a fire pit that maybe doesn't meet the code, they're there more for educating the resident to try to make sure that they they go and do the right thing and get in compliance.

In something like this, you know, I I completely understand um Alder Perez's um concerns of you know, there's folks who maybe have are having housing issues um and are in a really awful circumstance.

If there was, you know, your department if they did come and they found folks living there out of compliance with this ordinance.

Are they prepared of the resources that they can try to help them get connected with?

Um, you know, so it's not just you can't stay here, you gotta go.

Instead, it would be you know, you're not able to stay here, but let us help try and find you you know, some resources you can get in kind of get in contact with.

Yeah, so we we have housing resources that we hand out on a regular basis to the individuals that we work with.

So um, and we've helped before as far as making phone calls, allowing them to use the computer, allowing them to use the telephone, and um have interaction with those um different community resources, and and I think that's kind of the the other point of this too, is staying in a you know potentially very small hotel room lacking the ability to cook or or you know um feed yourself other than you know pre-cooked food, is really not um uh a good place to be at.

And so that's that's one of the drivers behind this is you know that there's a reason that this isn't something that should be going on because then you know there's there's dangers that come with that, um, and it uh it all adds up to um the potential the resident in a in a really awful position.

So with with hearing that you guys are able to connect them to resources and and kind of help lift them out of that situation, I I feel like that also is one more component to this, that it's not just a um, you know, go search the hotel and find folks who are living there and kick them on the street.

There is a component with housing vouchers, it sounded like and getting them connected to resources.

And and let me clarify, so there's limited resources for individuals that are homeless.

I mean, that's just the bottom line.

You know, most communities across the country are having issues and have for a period of time with finding enough revenue, enough resources for those individuals that need permanent housing.

So that that's an issue here, just as it would is with anyone else.

And I don't want to um um overextend or even oversimplify the problem because it is significant, um, but at the same time, within these um organizations within the management structure within their uh business model, it is for the transient individuals.

So, and as you mentioned, um there's no stove, there's no kitchen, and there's no microwave, there's no refrigerator, there's none of that to be able to sustain themselves.

So then what happens is then you get hot plates in there and you get candles in there, and you get smoking in there, you get other things that are jeopardizing that the living situation of the guests that are next door, and or the facility overall.

So um again, I don't want to overextend and but I don't want to oversimplify either.

Yeah, absolutely.

No, I completely understand you.

This this doesn't solve homelessness and you know, absolutely, but it's it's one more tool in that, and just most importantly, I just wanted to make sure that there was the compassion side to the department that we you know it sounds like you you're already there of you know you you're not just gonna turn someone away and say good luck, you'll you'll your department will absolutely do their best to try to get them connected with you know another option and and try to help them as much as you can.

Thank you.

Yeah, auto progress.

So just trying to understand it just a little bit better.

So I had a quick question.

So if the hotel lets someone stay there for more than 29 days, they get a fine.

Um no, we would uh take a look at the roster, we would have conversation with them, we'd make ensure that they had everyone that was in that room that was identified there, and let them know that the 29 days were up and that individual needed to leave the facility.

So there's no penalty.

Well, if we went back the second time, if you take a look at our fee schedule, some of the things that we're recommending are re-inspection fees, and we already have one and two, and now we're recommending three.

So as we go back, then the price increases.

So if they fail to if the uh residents fail to register everyone in the room, do they get fight?

I'm sorry, say that one more time.

If the people that are in the room are not registered, do they get fine or do those hotel get told to fix it up?

The hotel.

Okay.

Yeah, no, the occupants would not, or the guests would not receive a fine.

Okay, thank you.

Autodesk.

Yeah, so I understand the point that we're coming from with this and everything, but I do find it concerning that we don't have extended stays, and so I don't know how like people who are here are just gonna have to bounce hotels, I guess.

But as someone that's in the industry, it is really hard to there's it's it's impossible to stay up on who's going into every room.

It's just impossible.

So I think that if and I mean we have people fill out their reg cards, all that detail, but uh I think that if people are going to lie to the hotel about who's in there, I mean, unless the hotel staff is gonna go in there and randomly open the door up and ID everybody.

I don't necessarily think it's fair that I think there needs to be a middle ground with that because I don't know how the hotels are going to just stay on top of that to a T.

Yeah, and it's it is their responsibility.

I mean, those registers are to be accurate, they are to reflect the number of people in case, for instance, if there was a fire in the building, they need to know who's in the building and who got out of the building.

Um, they also need to know um for the room size.

So if the room is only slated for four individuals and there's eight individuals that are living there, um again, then that would be two rooms, and they would have to make some decisions as a management level.

So it is their responsibility to ensure that they know who's in their property.

And I understand that, but I don't understand like what someone can check in and then go out to their car and prop the door open and let all their friends in, and there's no way for you to know that.

Yeah.

I mean, if you get a noise complaint and you know that there's more people than that in there, then yeah, that's and you don't take care of it, then yeah, you should.

But I just want to make sure that we're making it completely fair because I don't want to I don't want to punish businesses, and especially if there's not really other options for people like I understand, you know, it's not an ideal living situation to be in a small hotel room for 30 days.

It's not I couldn't imagine, but if their only option is that they're not having anywhere, seems like a better option again.

The the the extended stays are meant for extended stays.

These are hotel rooms that again, there's no microwave, there's no refrigerator, there's there's no way to cook the meals, um, you know, and and a lot of times within these situations, then they deny housekeeping.

So then you have garbage piling up, you've got um infestations, you've got cockroaches, you've got bed bugs, um, because they don't get in there and they don't clean on a regular basis.

So um by having individuals stay, you know, for extended extended, um, they they they're residents, they're no longer guests, so um the the establishment is acting as a short-term rental, which they're not.

Um, so these are to help protect um those individuals that are coming in, and with a clear understanding that these are guests and not residents.

So it's it's for the the value of the property, the maintenance and the upkeep, but also for the understanding for those individuals that are coming into the property um that they're guests and they're not residents.

And how many extended stay permits does Racine have out right now?

Yeah, I want to say that of the four hotels we have, I don't believe any of them have extended state, but I need to check on that.

At the same point, there are extended chain uh extended stays down um Washington Avenue.

So in some of those uh facilities.

Thank you.

Yeah, but I'll double check on that.

Audible ballot.

So I know that you said for instances where they have people that may want to stay 29 days uh over 29 days, then they would get a permit, correct?

Well, they would have to again um in order to get um um the uh conditional permit, there's certain things we would have to meet, which would be one in particular is there has to be a kitchenette.

They have to be able to cook the meals within the room.

Okay, do we know the cost for that permit?

Oh the top of my head, I do not.

Okay.

So are we were you said I unless I'm incorrect here, but um did you say they were doing this to get in compliance with this the state of Wisconsin's rules?

Yes.

Okay.

So is this um a law in the state statute that dictates this, or is this like a a guideline?

This is um part of us being an agent of the state um to work environmental health and to enforce the state regulations and mandates.

Okay, so we are mandated then by law as an agent of the state to follow what the state's guidelines are.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

So we couldn't, and this is probably for the city attorney here.

Um we could not propose any amendments here for any extenuating circumstances or or whatnot if this is dictated by state policy, is that correct?

Right, it's part of the state administrative code.

Okay.

That delineate between transient hotels and motels and extended stay facilities.

So the whole place would have to be built out as an extended state facility.

It's not like somebody would stay 40 days and they can get a permit for that one person to stay.

The facility has to be an extended state facility.

And whether we have them in the city or not, the zoning code anticipates that these transient hotels and motels will exist, and they're not gonna be long-term residences under the city zoning code.

Okay, so for some reason we did it approve this ordinance.

Would we be in violation of this of state law?

Um, but there are enforcement problems with people staying on far longer than the city anticipated people would stay when allowing a hotel or a motel to be put into the city.

So this would help with the health department's ability to enforce the existing intent of the law by clarifying it's not just 29 days any, I mean it's 29 days anywhere in the facility, not that you stay in one room for 29 days and then move to another for 29 days.

And by the way, the 29 days is because the law anticipates stays of less than 30 days.

So that's why 29 days is there.

Okay, I'm just trying to think that process through in my head because if they're mandated by the state guideline as an agent of the state, then they would have to follow that.

So if we didn't approve this, they couldn't follow that.

So would that be a fine for the city?

Would that be what would happen there?

Well, I mean, uh the health department may not get certified as an agent of the state were that to come up.

But the issue is that state law also anticipates motels and hotels will be for stays of less than 30 days, unless it's specifically an extended stay hotel that's built for that specific purpose of being an extended stay hotel.

Okay, but you said it's possible that if we're not in compliance with this, that the health department would not be certified as a state uh an agent.

I I've never researched that, honestly, um, because I know this health department's extremely meticulous about those things, but I imagine that's the possibility is the it it could be enforcement problems because the state sees the health department as not doing what it's supposed to do.

Okay.

I'm I'm not giving a hard time just kind of walking that through uh in my head because there are some good points on both sides that there are sometimes extenuating circumstances um that would would come up that would this would be an issue whether either they get that um permit if they meet the regular qualifications, or those other those people have to kind of uh go elsewhere.

So from what I hear being it's not something that we can necessarily change the wording in here if I'm correct.

I think I followed you, and I think the answer is yes.

Okay, thank you.

I only have one question.

How long are the residents supposed to be from that hotel before they can come back?

So 29 days in, 24 hours out, 29 days back in.

That is a very good question.

Um city attorney, can you help me out with that one?

I'm trying to find definitions.

It says, oh, I'm sorry, excess of 29 days within a 90-day period.

29 within a 90.

No.

Yeah.

All right.

That's it.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Auto.

Thank you, sir.

Um your department is super busy all the time.

And I you just said that there's four hotel motels.

Um, when are you going to define time to inspect books and inspect rooms and all that kind of stuff?

Um, we currently do that.

So that's part of your a thousand job duties that you have to do?

Yeah, we currently do that.

We inspect the rooms, we inspect the rasters, um, the linens, the garbage, um, um, um, pest control, lighting, carpeting, flooring, whirlpools.

So that's just gonna be your normal what you now do anyway.

Yes.

Okay.

So my friend had uh bed and breakfast, and he just texted me.

Says that apply to me as well.

That's a different facility.

This is for those and um those facilities that are for um transient um stays, bed and breakfast includes breakfast.

Um, that's a completely different separate thing.

So there's nothing in the works for that.

Um, not that I'm aware of.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Minister.

Nobody has been accused, so we're gonna take the other the following two together.

We have uh these both are uh adult group homes, 0018 25 certificate for occupancy for adult uh family homes, and then 001925 review of adult family homes and community so these relate to adult family homes, and let me just make sure we have a common understanding of what an adult family home is.

Adult family homes are uh they're in private residences, they're in areas that are zoned residential, this is by state law, and that provide care and maintenance above the level of room and board, but not including nursing home care, which is provided in a private residence by the care provider whose primary domicile is this residence for three or four adults or more adults if all the adults are siblings, each of whom has a developmental disability.

So it's principally three or four adults that reside in this and need again a level of care beyond room and board, but not including nursing care.

So there are two uh separate ordinances that deal with these issues.

The first proposed ordinance 0018-25 requires adult family homes in the city of Rsine to obtain a certificate of occupancy to ensure compliance with local building codes and resident safety, and it establishes a 2500-foot spacing restriction from other adult family homes or community living arrangements.

Homes serving only individuals who qualify as handicapped or disabled under federal law are exempt from the 2500-foot spacing rule, which it ensures consistency with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act.

And let me just comment on one thing.

This makes a fundamental change to how the Racine Code of Ordinances sees adult family homes.

As we speak today, if somebody turns their home into an adult family home, it's just a change of a current style of residence to another style of residence.

This change would be considered to be a use, a change of use under the our code of ordinances, thereby requiring an occupant a certificate of occupancy in order to change that use from just somebody's private residence to an adult family home.

So that's what this would do.

It would require a conditional use permit for an adult family home, um, and it would require all existing adult family homes to obtain a certificate of occupancy.

And let me just talk the 2500 foot spacing says that generally they can't be closer than 2500 feet to each other, but there is a federal court ruling that has said because of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Protection Act.

If all the residences, all the residents of the adult family home are disabled or handicapped under federal law, then that 2500 foot distance may not be applied because that would be considered discriminatory under these laws.

So that's the first ordinance.

The second ordinance proposed ordinance 0019-25 establishes a formal process for the common council to review adult family homes and community living arrangements to assess their impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and those are specific terms of art, public health, safety, and welfare that exist in the law, while ensuring compliance with federal disability and fair housing protections.

It would create a preliminary review by the Planning Heritage and Design Commission, provides opportunities for determining whether reasonable accommodation exists, and outlines procedures for potential common council hearings consistent with federal state law.

Let me point something out.

By state statute, if there is going to be a hearing as to whether or not an adult family home has a negative effect on public health, safety, and welfare, it must be conducted by the common council, not by a committee, not by a standing committee, by the common council.

And as you understand, there are a number of adult family homes.

If there were a number of problems, the common council would be conducting a number of hearings.

So this provides a procedure for a review by Planning Heritage and Design Commission.

If there are complaints, it's a complaint-driven process.

If there are complaints, PHDC would consider it, they would review it, provide an opportunity for determining whether there is a reasonable accommodation that can be applied to the adult family home.

And if in fact a reasonable accommodation can't be applied, or some other sort of settlement can't occur, then it could be referred to the common council for potential hearing, and that hearing could include potentially such things as ceasing operations or requiring what is essentially a conditional use permit for the adult family home, but that can only occur if there are problems and there are a hearing by the common council.

Thank you.

I think these are really important ordinances, and they deserve to have uh hearing on their own before this body.

Um probably going to rush it through tonight.

There's so many questions that I would have, even though I'm full support of this, but I do wonder a couple things.

So we do we have any record of the adult group homes that we currently have in the city of Racine?

And I I apologize, I don't mean to be pedantic.

These are adult family homes, they are very specific thing, adult family homes in the statute.

And I understand we do know, I think maybe not a hundred percent, but we do know pretty well how many adult family homes and where they are in the city.

Maybe you said this and I missed it.

What is the differential between an adult group home and an adult family home?

I don't recall, let me pull the statute up here, that an adult group home is an actual thing.

But there are a number of different sort of sort of facilities that are similar.

And and I will say there is one called a group home, but it's not an adult criminal.

So an adult family home, again, it's four three or four adults who need more care than a room and board, but not to the level of a nursing home.

There's a community-based residential facility where there are five or more adults who are not related to the operator or administrator and who do not require care above intermediate level nursing care where they reside.

Um community-based residential facilities provides no more than three hours of nursing care per week per resident.

So let me just go back, adult family home.

There's no nursing care.

Community-based residential facility, there's up to three hours of care, and it's three to four adults in adult family home, five or more adults in a community-based residential facility.

There's also a community living arrangement for children, that again is specifically for children, sometimes known as a group home.

There's foster homes.

Is that included in this ordinance?

No, this just really just relates to adult family homes.

Well, shouldn't we also because I see there's a growing number of group homes that are for minors?

There is space in the statutes for the city to act with regard to adult family homes that doesn't exist with regard to these others in the same way.

So the city would not be able to give an occupancy permit to a family home for youth or juveniles.

Today I'm not prepared to answer those questions in depth about the other kinds.

But we have heard a lot of concerns about adult family homes.

When we've heard what the concerns are, we identified them as being adult family homes, and that's what this is intended to address.

Well, I believe I may have a juvenile group home across the street from me.

Again, these are adult family homes is a particular and different sort of business than the others because it's in just a typical residents.

Well, so is this.

Whether they need to be stand expanded, that may be a discussion.

So do these two ordinances that you're introducing right now, where is their budgetary item in the fees or in the budget?

I have to look at the fee schedule on it, but while I'm talking a little bit, the finance occupancy permit twenty.

But there would be certificate of occupancy that would create have fees.

And we don't know how many, so there might be four, so we might get a hundred dollars in the budget, and maybe not.

How many there are?

Um I don't know.

Well, my point to this is these are important ordinances that I think the full council would support.

Um, but I think there's more nuances to that that we're really not going to be taken able to take up tonight and be able to give any kind of amendments to these ordinance by five o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

So an or ordinances like these really should not be part of the budget.

They deserve more attention than what we're able to give tonight and by five o'clock tomorrow.

So that's my point.

And I don't really see it as a budget item.

I mean, we have a hundred and two million dollar budget, and we're gonna worry about a couple hundred bucks that we might collect in occupancy to not give ordinances that should be fully vetted by this body, the attention they they merit.

Under pressure.

Um I am uh I actually my mom and I we own and operate a juvenile group home.

Uh and on the north side of racing.

Um I don't want to get too deep into the we we offer in the comparisons between the licenses for adult group homes and juvenile group homes or family homes, whatever verbiage you want to use.

I will say that for juveniles, the licensing that the state uses is far more stricter than with adult.

I think the language in our binder is adult family homes.

Um state does routine checks on juvenile group homes.

Uh we're constantly inspected to make sure that we're up to code.

Uh I do know being in adult family homes and responding to adult family homes from the police side uh that the um level of care is not um conducive to the needs of the residents in that home.

Uh like Arthur Widener said, I think we all do agree that this two items are very, very, very important.

I think that this will put a lot of onus on the owners of these facilities and having the planning heritage design committee take the complaints, and then those complaints come before the common council.

I think uh though that will offer the city good check and balances to monitor this.

I do have a clarifying question for the city attorney.

Um so for the adult family homes that we have in the city.

If this ordinance was to pass, um do the adult family homes that we have in the city have to get in, they have to get into compliance with um this ordinance?

Yes, they would have to obtain a certificate of occupancy.

Uh and then forgive my ignorance, how long would it take?

How long what is the time frame that they would have to get into compliance?

Uh I don't know that I have that answer.

Somebody from city development might somebody not that I'm allowed to call on them.

All right.

Just in general, um, it depends on the condition, you know, of the home.

If the place is falling apart, there's gonna be more issues to getting the occupancy, but if the place is up to code, it's as easy as going to customer service, having an inspection scheduled, and those usually happen within about a week.

Right.

So then who's making the determination whether or not the facility is up to code?

Our building inspectors do all the occupancies.

There's electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, and our building inspectors go out and take a look at the place and determine if all the codes are met.

Okay, so then will there be a set schedule for um the ordinance passes or would the budget passes and these go into effect?

Will there be a set schedule for the building inspectors to inspect these these facilities?

It's by appointment, so people call it you know, based on demand.

If there's not a lot on the schedule, it's really up to the you know the owner if they're available, and it's that, so there's not like a set schedule, but if the owner is willing and working with the building division, they usually occur within about a week.

All right, and then what happens if uh owner because that I hate to say this as an elected official.

Um I do know a lot of shady people who would duck and dodge.

So as far as checks and balances, is there anyone or any entity um that's gonna ensure that these people get into compliance?

That's why I'm asking about the time frame.

Yeah, so we would do that.

Um if people people move into buildings, whether they don't know, don't you know, weren't aware or whatever, without an occupancy permit, they can remedy that after the fact.

Um so we do police that uh within city development uh to make sure people come into compliance.

Okay, all right, thank you.

All right, honor parent.

Thanks, sir.

My d my questions uh directed at the city attorney trying to understand some of the definitions that you said I made up I may have misheard them, but did you say that juvenile group homes were not permitted in the city?

I did not say that.

What did you say about juvenile group homes?

Just said they're a different, they're different from adult family homes.

Okay, so let's say I have um four group homes, adult group homes in the city, and I want to make them regular homes and sell them, but then I want to take my four group home people and put them in like uh structure that's similar to an apartment building that's off the ground.

Would that be permitted?

That goes up like three floors or something.

There have to be sufficient bedrooms.

Yeah, it's there'd be four dependent rooms.

I can't think of a reason off the top of my head why they could not in a residence, right?

So it would it would have to go through the planning and heritage committee, correct?

Well, they'd have to get a certificate of occupancy through the building department.

It's only if there's a complaint about them that planning heritage and design commission would get involved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Widener started out on uh where I was going with this, trying to understand the difference between an adult family home and a community-based residential facility.

So thank you for clarifying that.

Um if I'm hearing this correctly, the community-based residential facility is not regulated through this, it's just an adult family, even though they're both in homes in neighborhoods.

Well, that's correct.

Community-based residential facilities are something different than adult family homes.

It's a higher level of care and more um more adults, and I would imagine the facility is somewhat bigger.

And do we have a list of adult family homes and community-based residential facilities in the city?

Because I've had questions and I've tried to get answers whether or not particular addresses were or were not, and uh it's I've had difficult time trying to get it to get an answer to that.

I think the assistant director of city development has that answer.

Usually what I'm told is it's regulated by the state, not by us, and they are, and we're trying to step into the area the city could regulate.

All right, we have the director coming up.

Yeah, so actually, if you go to the state's website, um, and I can send this link to council if you're interested.

I downloaded the directory just because people asked about it.

Um they go by mailing address, so there's about 200 with the received mailing address, some of those just based on the street I know are in Mount Pleasant.

So just for a general ballpark about how many we're talking, 200 is what the state has.

Um that doesn't mean people are that are licensed, people may just uh try to operate one, and but we would use this list to be able to find that and have them get occupancy permits, and then as part of that require them to go to the state to get the proper licensing as well.

And and we cannot regulate community-based residential facilities.

Is that correct?

We do regulate them through the zoning ordinance in terms of where they locate, it's based on the number of people in terms of what zone district they're allowed.

The main difference aside from the care is the number of people, adult family homes are four or less.

The C BRFs become five or more under the state license.

So if I have an old home in my district that has five bedrooms, and they could potentially be a C BRF, is what you're saying.

Yeah, we'd have to look at the specifics of it, but there's potentially a path for that, yeah.

And the how did this come about?

Have the adult family home operators been involved in this process, or is this gonna come as a complete shock to them when the budget gets passed, and all of a sudden your departments reaching out?

Um I think some of them may have a decent idea.

Um, certainly police and fire would be able to speak more to it, but there's a lot of calls for you know, a person fell or something like that.

It's becoming a burden on some of the services.

So I think for some of the operators, um, it may be a surprise that you know this is happening um for the better operators, but for the ones that are certainly you know, frequent flyers with PD and fire, um, this isn't going to be a surprise to them at all.

And a lot of those folks, you know, our licensed status are gonna have to be required to come in and get the occupancy permit, and then we'll have a better gauge on um you know which ones are out there and um the problems they're creating.

We have I've spoken to several members of this body about the issues they're creating in neighborhoods, they're not really um you know performing as well as they shouldn't, is what we intend.

So I think this will help curve a lot of that.

Okay, just uh a comment, and I'm sure I'll get rebuttal on it, but uh this is the type of ordinance that I think if it had gone to a standing committee, it would have appeared not as an ordinance with an attachment, but it would have spelled out uh ordinance 0018-25 certificate of occupancy for adult family homes.

It would have been highlighted like that in the newspaper in the little public notice that we're required to purchase um this is an important change.

Don't get me wrong, and I think it will make it easier for us as aldermen when we get questions when we get concerns about um adult family homes.

What I would for the ones that I've had questions on, um, generally not a problem, but when you know, three grown adults move into a home in the middle of a residential neighborhood that previously didn't have an adult family home, the neighbors get a little concerned, they call, they want to know what's going on, who you know, who's running it, that sort of thing.

All answers that I'm not able to provide.

But this is a type of ordinance too that I think that um the adult family homes that are impacted by it should have been made aware of.

I I have to assume there's some sort of association or group of operators out there.

Um I'm not saying that we send a letter to each one of them and let them know, hey, this is there, but if this was handled separately and not buried within the budget, maybe the the newspaper would have um written article or the Racine County I or WRJN about this because it does seem to be a significant um a significant ordinance, and so um I'm not against it.

I fully support it, but it's just um I I think uh one that we would have a much more robust discussion about if the hour wasn't so late, and like I said, I'm willing to stick around and but last year we had aldermen starting to leave after you know a certain time, and I don't know if um everyone's if we're gonna have a quorum at 1230 this morning.

So anyway, that's my comment.

Honor drivers.

So I uh I guess I want to dig into the comment on if the operators were noticed and that kind of a piece.

So I it sounds because you you started out saying, well, they're not necessarily noticed, but then you ended the comment of you know they're definitely aware of it.

Uh would you be able to just kind of drill in a little bit more of the the surprise component to this?

Yeah, so city development uh staff have sent letters to multiple people that operate group homes or adult family homes, I should clarify adult family homes, um letting them know that you know an occupancy permit is required throughout the course of the year.

There's several that we noticed from doubling the state registry and comparing it with other permits that we had that weren't in compliance with our local requirements.

So at one point, um, all the current ones had um almost been notified.

We I think we're only about 20 or so short.

We'd been sending them out in groups to not overwhelm the building staff.

And so if first off, thank you.

Um, second, you know, when we we started out tonight, um, there was the the discussion of you know we should move all of them, uh, and then we were just going in order of trying to move them one at a time without really any debate behind it.

I'm not opposed to to providing any additional um conversation or or you know look into it, um you know, and I'd be open to you know hearing uh a proposal of of what that would do.

I I just think this is so important.

I don't want to remove it and set it aside and have it be forgotten about.

And so if there is a proposal to ensure that this gets, you know, uh what someone views is you know more time or however that would look like, I'd be definitely open to hearing it.

I just want to make sure that it doesn't get lost because this came up numerous times when I've been out in the district talking to folks.

Um I feel like this is one of those those top five top ten things that keeps coming up uh where you know there is a there's a group family home, um, the residents are concerned about it, maybe there have been issues, uh and so the idea that there's a place for those um concerns to go now, I I think is really intriguing and hopefully would alleviate a lot of those residents' concerns.

So once again, uh you know, not opposed to giving it more time or or more uh input, but I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost because this is this is so so important.

Uh and I'm I'm very thankful that we have something before us to hopefully try to address this issue because I'm sure um you know I know I've been inundated with it.

I'm sure your office has probably gotten uh quite a number of calls uh on this see the head nod of yes, and so I I am very thankful that there's something coming forward to try to address this.

Thank you.

I have several questions, and I'm not sure who they're for.

I think the first one would be for the city.

I'm sorry, could you push it again for me?

Uh my first question probably is for the city attorney who drafted this.

I want to know if there are other cities or municipalities that have similar ordinances regarding conditional use.

And I know that because whether it's a CBRF or adult group home, that they are regulated by the state, either certified or licensed by the state.

So do we really have any say as to what these homes look like?

Well, I think there's several questions in there.

I think we're cutting edge in regulating this, but we are confident that we are allowed to regulate this with regard to the occupancy permits.

There are some provisions and in state law, this 2500 uh foot limitation that the federal courts have ruled on that we have to live with.

Um but as far as the certificates of occupancy, yes, absolutely.

This is a use it's termed from a just a regular residence into a kind of a commercial property, and therefore it's a change of use.

Or if it changes from one adult family home operator to another, that would be a change of use.

Um the uh other ordinance with regard to review of um adult family homes actually does is contemplated by state statute, but again, it requires hearings to be conducted by the common council, which seemed fairly onerous to be a regular thing, so we tried to find a process to get there to not necessarily need hearings on every single one that is identified as a problem.

So why why would be the plan commission that the complaints would go to and not to uh standing committee?

That was just I mean, honestly, it was the administration's suggestion because that is a body that has a particular expertise in real estate generally.

I mean, that's what it's defined for, planning heritage design.

Um that's my understanding of reason, but that's why it was chosen.

Okay, and then uh I just need some clarity clarity on the the language on page 23 when it talks about the proposed legislation.

Legislation requires homes to obtain a certificate of occupancy to ensure compliance with local building codes.

I get all that, but is that gonna be in conflict with the state statutes?

No.

Okay.

And then it says the legislation is retroactive but exempts any existing license or certified provider of an adult family home from the certificate of occupancy fee requirement for a year or longer at the discretion of the chief building inspector to be compliant with this legislation.

I don't think that's what we're saying.

If somebody's been operating and the and the certificate of occupancy requirement didn't exist before we we want to make a certificate of occupancy, we want them to have a certificate of occupancy, but it doesn't seem fair or right to charge them since they've been already uh operating sort of this retroactive application of a fee.

Doesn't make sense.

So am I incorrect?

Is the fee not $25 for occupancy permit?

The current fee is $250, and then in the budget it's proposed for $275 just due to the you know the time and logistics of doing it.

But the current fee is $250.

Oh, where did I get the $25?

Is that because it's for more than six months or yeah, the uh a full-time one, like if you get it and never move out, you could be there forever for $250.

We do have shorter duration ones, but that's the fee if you're just gonna be there permanently.

Okay, and then with that occupancy, would you be checking in on them annually or only oh that that's Scott can probably explain better than me as the writer of it, but the the ordinance explains the process for how that would occur.

We could, but it wouldn't be something that's scheduled that we do unless we follow the if this ordinance is adopted.

So do we know how many um of these will pay the fee in 2026?

Do we know are we gonna get a dozen that are gonna crop up?

It's gonna be I think it'll probably be more than that.

That means the state has the list.

We know the universe is around 200 that the state thinks are there through our investigations.

We found people that haven't, you know, licensed with the state, they've gotten that and then come to us for a permit later.

So I I can't give you an exact number of how many it'll be, but I think it'll be more than a dozen.

But those for new ones, because it's only going to apply to the new ones, correct?

Correct.

The fee part would only apply to people that want to start one after the date of the ordinance retroactively.

Um I couldn't give you a number.

We'd have to go back and see who's got one and who doesn't.

Yeah, and I guess uh and not to belabor the point, but this really is not a budget item, and I think it is so important to really understand what we're doing and to do it right, especially because as the attorney says, we're kind of uh blazing a trail here on this, and we want to be sure that we're not going to be sued by either the state or the federal government on something like this.

And I think it is so important to really understand what we're doing and to do it right, especially because as the attorney says, we're kind of uh blazing a trail here on this, and we want to be sure that we're not going to be sued by either the state or the federal government on something like this.

Although I it I think it's important.

I've had issues not so much with the residents of adult group homes, but the employees of the adult group homes for the last 25 years.

So I'm glad to see this happen because I've always been told that we cannot regulate adult group homes in any way.

So that's why I never initiated any legislation because that's what I understood.

And I guess that's why I'm taking it so personal to say that I don't think this is a budget item, and I really think to do it right, we should not be doing it as part of the budget process.

I've got my weeks mixed up.

There's no council.

Okay.

All right.

Whatever you say.

I'm off my soapbox.

Okay.

Uh oh, thank you.

I was almost asleep over here.

Uh may I ask him a question or actually make a statement.

Um, yeah, so uh I'm actually really excited to see this.

Um, as you know, I've had many, many a conversation with you about the group homes.

Um it's I've had some major issues in my area, and one of them uh had an affected an entire block of uh people that I had to go door to door to address some of these issues, and to be told that you know they can pop up in the middle of the night, there's no regulation, they don't have to send a notice out to notify anybody.

So it is concerning when you do have some bad apples out there that uh don't comply and do the right thing.

Um with that being said, I know that our fire department is also affected, and the PD and the sheriff's office with these um bad actors because you know they're having to go quite frequently, and I know that they can I don't want to speak for them, but you know, I've talked to them and had conversations about they show up and they don't have the right medical charts and all of those things, so you know there's a lot of um bad consequences with that.

Um I actually did uh have a presentation that the Health and Human Services came and did at the public safety and licensing committee that told what the differential was, told about what you know we can do, what we can't do, who the contacts are, and I believe there was a committee or something that was formed with the city and the county that um helps regulate or you know helps kind of tie the two entities together, I guess is what I'm saying.

So I'm happy to see this full 100%.

That's kind of all I had to say.

So thank you for all of our conversations on this previously.

You're welcome.

How do I have another question, not sure who it's for, but I know that every year the fire department does an inspection of all the commercial buildings in the city and they par they charge a pretty substantial fee.

And I'm wondering because these adult group homes really are a commercial business, why they would not be included in a fire inspection.

And not only for these adult group homes, but also all the in-home child care businesses that are running out of people's homes.

There's so much to this child care facilities.

We're not on to talk about tonight.

Um these they are businesses, but they're not businesses in the same way that like a retail business is and they're they're residences, so they don't have the same kind of fire code requirements, and I don't want to overstep Jeffle.

They're really residences that are operated as adult family homes as opposed to a different kind of regular business that we might think about, maybe Jeff has something.

So because they are residential homes for individuals that have disabilities.

I would think all the other things.

Under the law, adult family homes have to be treated like the same way as a residence like that any of us would live in, assuming we live, you know, with a couple other family members or whatever, that's the main reason that you know they don't get that inspection, they got to be treated under the law.

Same thing with the locational requirements for so many years we couldn't do anything about this until you know now it's from a zoning perspective, they've got to be treated the same way as like a house that any of us live in based on some ADA cases and things at the federal level.

That's why there's no you know, inspection.

So if that changes in your house gets inspected by the fire department, these could absolutely be inspected.

But until that happens, we're gonna be where we're at.

And I think these two are the best things in tandem to help us start addressing some of the problems.

Thanks, Jeff.

Thank you.

So we are gonna go to our next the next item is 0020-25 littering, legal dumping and incentivized reporting.

So this uh ordinance uh zero proposed order 002025 uh littering illegal dumping and incentivized reporting, and let me answer Alder Mac's question before he asks it.

This would repeal completely the existing litting littering ordinance and replace it completely with this new language.

Um so it uh updates and consolidates the city's ordinances on littering and illegal dumping by modernizing definitions, distinguishing violations based on the volume of waste, and setting up penalties of up to a thousand dollars for littering and five thousand dollars for illegal dumping, and those have two different definitions in the ordinance.

It also would establish a reward program offering up to a thousand dollars for individuals who provide information leading to enforcement action against illegal dumping.

Um, and let me just say the difference is littering uh means the depositing or discharging of solid waste in an amount less than a 20-gallon container on or along a highway in any waters of the city on any ice of any waters of the city or any other public or private property, and the differences is illegal dumping is an amount equal to or greater than a 20-gallon container.

Um again, it sets uh penalties if there's a citation uh issued.

Um the uh potential forfeiture would be a thousand dollars for littering with a five hundred dollar bond amount, and the illegal dumping would be five thousand dollars for the first offense, and uh seventy, five hundred dollars for second and subsequent offense, again with a twenty five hundred dollar bond amount, and then this incentive program reads that the director of city development or designee may issue a monetary reward in an amount up to one thousand dollars that is payable to the person who provides his or her identification, so they have to identify themselves, file a report with the police department under this section that contributes to an enforcement action for the illegal dumping violation, and again, the payment of the reward is not contingent upon the outcome of any litigation or enforcement action with regard to the illegal dumping.

So, this incentive only relates to illegal dumping, not simple littering, but it exists by this proposed ordinance.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that.

I most definitely support um this ordinance.

I live in a district um where many residents are calling me about large amounts of trash being dumped in areas um in alleys, but specifically in my district, it's on Republican um Republic Avenue and Lathrop over there.

And many residents are supporting this.

They do believe that there are just certain um individuals that leave large amounts um of trash, it's unattractive, it's an eyesore, it causes issues for DPW to have to clean up their short staffed.

Um I love this two-pronged um approach to it, where the ones that are doing the illegal dumping is getting fined, but also the ones that report it are receiving a thousand dollar reward um for individuals that are caught.

I think that this is something that is going to help with the beautification of racing, but also just overall making sure that um responsible people take care of what they need to take care of.

So thank you.

Auto Frazier.

Sorry, I was run down my question.

Um also uh like Otto Harman.

I get countless phone calls and emails about this.

I guess I do have a question.

Um, maybe it's for city development.

I don't know who wants to take it, or maybe, yeah, I think it's for city development.

I'm gonna ask anyways.

Um for the incentive program, um is it just the person making the report and being willing to go on record with the police department and then they get this, they get the $1,000, or like what other checks and malanists, because I can 100% see people taking advantage of that.

Um how are we verifying this?

Because if that's the case, there are creative people that will go outside, dump stuff, and then call the make a report.

I'm just speaking for the creative people because that was me, that would be me like 10 years ago.

Well, uh the tenure old or 10 years ago you would have to report it to the today you because it has to be reported to the police department.

Right.

Uh and the police department would conduct an investigation, and it's not a thousand dollar reward that there had been dumping, it's identifying the person who did the dumping or something that can lead to an enforcement action.

So, you know, there may be cameras, they may actually have seen what it is, and the police will conduct whatever investigation they conduct, and then it would have to lead then to an enforcement action, which I think principally would mean a citation is issued to the person.

Okay.

Um I think I'm good for right now.

Couple questions.

Um why would we be deleting the or repealing the other three roles, which would be the littering, the commercial waste, and the failure to remove accident debris.

Why would we be removing those?

Well, it's replacing the entire um current littering article, and all those are somewhat older terms, and this completely um subsumes all that.

So this would include commercial waste, it would include accident debris, it would include anything that is solid waste, which is a very broad category, and then it's either littering if it's you know a relatively small amount less than a 20-gallon container, it's illegal dumping if it's more than a 20-gallon container worth of stuff.

But there is illegal dumping and then there is littering.

So if people litter but it doesn't meet the threshold of being dumping, there should still be some consequence for littering because I think there is.

Okay, and then kind of piggybacking on what Alderman Frazier is saying, I have several neighborhoods that actually have the Hatfields and McCoys or extended families from the Hatfields and McCoys, and I can see exactly what he described happening when the Hatfield will dump, and then he will identify himself and the McCoy or the Hatfield.

Give all the the description of what was dumped.

And what evidence are we gonna have?

Are we gonna require um so that we don't have people making allegations about illegal dumping when there's no other evidence except what this person says that they saw?

Well, again, the police department will conduct an investigation, and uh, you know, chief is here, but they have a standard for determining whether or not a citation would be issued, and um can they be fooled?

I don't know that, but will somebody lie to them?

I guess that's possible.

Um but if it goes to court, uh the judge would have to be convinced by clear satisfactory uh evidence that convinces the judge to a reasonable degree that the person actually committed the violation.

It's not just you know, Mr.

Hatfield said Mr.

McCoy did it, and therefore, you know, there's a forfeiture imposed and a thousand dollars paid out.

So Mr.

McCoy would have to be convicted before Mr.

Hatfield would get the reward, correct?

Well, the the way this is written is it doesn't it the reward is not contingent upon the outcome of any litigation uh related to the dumping?

You know, you can foresee a circumstance where you know we're convinced Mr.

McCoy actually did the dumping, but for some reason it can't be proven in court or there's some issue.

Um but uh there it has to lead to an enforcement action, which is by and large going to be a citation is issued.

Okay, do we have a line item in the budget that determines how much we um expect to find people and how much we expect to pay out people?

Is there a line item in the budget?

I think there's the fines and forfeitures line item generally that all enforcement actions, all citations issued by the police department and prosecuted through the municipal court fall into uh I unfortunately Kathleen locked in both the administrator.

I don't I don't think there's a separate one just for illegal dumping.

Okay and littering.

I think you thank you, Chair.

Um more comments, I guess.

I I don't oppose this arguments.

I think it's uh much needed.

I just question um the enforcement part of it and how many people are actually going to get caught um illegally dumping after the fact, considering that most of this happens in the dark at night, and um and so it comes back to the budget impact on this is I think negligible.

And uh the question I've asked on many of these is why is this here in the budget book?

Why couldn't this have come at any other time but now to be discussed and vetted and um brought forth to the council separately?

So I don't know who wants to answer that.

I don't know.

I mean the administration makes the decisions about what uh proposed ordinances to include in the budget agenda item.

Thank you.

Um yeah, on this one, um this is another one that I if I had to put top five, top ten that continue to come up.

Um this one continuously uh is up there.

Um as far as you know people turn in their neighbors, I mean the the police department is still gonna conduct an investigation.

Um as well as you know, there's no money making scheme here because the the fine that would be levied is like up to five thousand dollars, but the the reward is a thousand.

So if if someone's planning on making some money, uh the math on that one is is really not gonna add up to get yourself caught dumping uh with a five thousand dollar fine to get a thousand dollar reward.

Um so I feel like that once again really isn't uh a concern there either.

Um I'm very excited about this coming up because you know, time and time again, I feel like we've I I've I know I've heard from residents of you know there's got to be a change, there's got to be something that's done with this because especially those folks who are on alleys, they seem to get hit with this the worst, whether it's um you know somebody moving out uh or as a lot of them have said, it's not even any of the people folks who live on that alley, people are coming from somewhere else dumping it and leaving.

So um in increasing the fine that you get levied with it as well as um trying to incentivize folks to to catch those people and turn them in so that they'd be able to have the police department do their investigation and hopefully result from uh fine and somebody getting caught all thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would like to direct my question to the city attorney.

Um could you just define for me what an enforcement action entails for city ordinances that typically means a citation is issued that would be prosecuted by my office in municipal court?

Okay, so it could potentially leave I'm sorry to interrupt you, it could potentially be a criminal violation if there's other things along with it.

But something like a citation have to be issued or an arrest made, something like that.

Right, and then the charges are issued through the district attorney's office and prosecuted by the district attorney.

The reason I ask him, please correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a um portion in here that says if the information provided contributes to an enforcement action for the illegal dumping violations, so a citation and/or an arrest, unless I'm incorrect, then the director of city development may issue a reward in an amount up to 1,000 dollars.

So doesn't that kind of have a safeguard there for us where we would need a citation issued or an arrest made in order for that one thousand dollar reward to be issued?

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's my request right now.

Thank you.

Please return back to their seat.

All orders please return back to your seat, please.

Yep.

So um we we left off with nobody else in the queue, so the next the next ordinance is going to be zero zero two one dash two five.

No more may we'll have the uh city attorney to read just a summary of that.

This one's really an easy one.

This proposed uh ordinance permanently establishes the city of Racine's no more May program that creates an annual exemption from the six-inch noxious weed height requirement during the month of May.

It's the same ordinance that existed before, but unlike the prior pilot program, this proposed ordinance removes the sunset clause.

Uh and removes a registration fee allowing property owners to participate without fee each year.

So it's the same ordinance we had before, no fee, no sunset.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just I um helped sponsor this legislation.

I know this came out of a conversation we had earlier this year that all both Alderman White and Alderman uh Jorgensen said that they would like to be a co-sponsor on.

So I think this is great.

And if uh either of them want to jump on as a co-sponsor, that'd be a great as well.

All right, thank you.

Um my wife would kill me if I didn't sign on to this, so I would like to be added as a co-sponsor also to this.

Um thank you.

On a way are we talking about no mobile?

Yes.

Oh, wonderful, wonderful.

So I think this item is kind of budget neutral, if I understand correctly, you come in, you pay a fee to have approval to not cut your grass in May, and you get a sign.

So it really is not a budget item.

Oh I'm gonna have the uh city clerk so speak to that.

Oh, yeah.

So this item actually would have to go along with the budget, or at least before the beginning of the year.

There is money within the Department of Customer Service to not only pay for the signs, but it also removes the fee, so it removes the income from the signs that we had previously had.

So it would be an increase in work supplies under the Department of Customer Service.

Sorry, I missed that when I was admiring the food in the vending machine.

Sorry, yes, I missed all that.

All right, no one else is in the queue.

Uh we'll go to the next uh ordinance 0022-25 property maintenance code.

So moving from one of the shortest to one of the long or the longest.

Um this proposed ordinance comprehensively comprehensively revises the city of Racine's property maintenance standard by creating a new chapter 19 modeled on the international main property maintenance code with adaptations based upon those that are currently employed by City of Kenosha property maintenance code and existing city of Rosene Code provisions.

It establishes updated definitions, administrative procedures, inspection programs, safety standards, tenant responsibility requirements to better protect uh health safety and welfare while promoting consistency and enforceability across the city's housing and property regulations.

Um let me say this ordinance proposed ordinance does creates a lot that's new but incorporates a lot that already exists and moves it into this chapter.

So if you were to look at the agenda briefing memorandum, which I understand is essentially a table of contents, um it moves things like the building code, the plumbing code, the electrical code into this so definition, scope and administration, general requirements, exterior premises, interior structure, and so on.

That's new all the way until we get to Article 8, which is the third page of the agenda briefing memorandum, rental empowerment and neighborhood tenant services.

That's the rents ordinances that already exist in the city of Rcine.

So the residential rental property management, the residential rental and commercial property registration program, the properties pending foreclosure registration program, the residential rental inspection program, um, eviction or retaliation prohibited that all currently exists as written in this ordinance, currently exists in the city ordinances, and then it adds update unsafe structures and equipment, and then finally, and perhaps most importantly in some ways this vacant uh buildings which would require that vacant buildings be registered with the city.

Uh the owner of the building is required to register the property, uh, authorize the city access to the property, there's maintenance standards that are required, there's residential fee or res registration fee that's required.

Um reinspection, and there's a uh standards that are set forth and how the property is maintained, and then if uh the property owner does not register and maintain the vacant property, then there are potential penalties, which would be enforced through municipal court citations, so failure to register would be uh up to a five thousand dollar forfeiture, failure to provide access to property would be up to a two thousand dollar forfeiture, and failure to meet standards would be up to a two thousand dollar forfeiture.

And then if the property owner does not register and maintain the vacant property, then there are potential penalties, which would be enforced through municipal court citations, so failure to register would be up to a $5,000 forfeiture, failure to provide access to property would be up to a $2,000 forfeiture, and failure to meet standards would be up to a $2,000 forfeiture.

So while it's long, a lot of it currently exists in the ordinances.

And then this is again, I should emphasize based on the current international property maintenance code, which is an industry standard property maintenance code that's been incorporated into this set of ordinances.

I think that this is uh one of the um ordinances that I'm actually pretty excited about.

I have a lot of vacant buildings in my district, and I think this ordinance again forces accountability on these um uh absentee landlords that have these buildings and residents and these houses that are doing absolutely nothing with them to do something with them, otherwise they get penalized by the city.

So I think that this is really good, and I'm excited about it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions about the rents program.

I'm on page 7 about the minimum acceptable practices for the owner of any residential or residential property, they'll shall manage the property in accordance with the minimum acceptable management practices that are described.

So there's some things that I don't know how they can control.

So for example, um removed from the president's uh premises, solid waste, abandoned nuisance or junk vehicles, and other nuisances prior to action by the city.

So would not the tenant be responsible for their own abandoned or junked vehicles and their own solid waste.

Um I'm gonna apologize.

I'm on page 77.

Yeah, I have different page numbers than you.

19.802.

802?

Correct.

And it may be that I'm hoping somebody from city development deals with a little more often than I do.

Um, but between the landlord and the tenant, there should be a you know, a sort of an uh contractual relationship between the two that requires things for the tenant to do and the landlord to do, but ultimately the landlord is responsible for the property.

I I understand that, and I also understand that there are protections for the tenants as far as what a landlord or a property owner can do as far as behaviors of their tenant.

Um I do support the ordinance, but I I recall last year when the rents program was brand new, it was just incorporated as part of the budget, so there was no real discussion.

We all just rubber stamped it and let's go home for the night.

But I think there now that we've had the rents, especially the rents ordinance in place for the last year.

I think we've been hearing from both sides of those that are most impacted by the rents program.

Um I hear from responsible landlords about how difficult it is to deal with the city and especially when they have issues with uh tenants that either the tenants or their visitors serve as a problem.

Um when it says the minimum acceptable practices, I don't know how a landlord can prevent trespassing or prowling on the present on the premises.

The the landlord doesn't live there, so if a tenant has somebody that's prowling around their property, I don't know how the landlord would be able to prevent that.

And because there are very severe fines at forfeitures for you know violation of the rents code, I I just think we needed to have more here from both sides, because when this rents program or ordinance was developed, it did not take in the consideration of both sides.

So I don't know how they can prohibit and eliminate uh uh ongoing illegal activities if they don't know that the tenant is participating in the whether they're absentee from out of town or out of state or out of the country.

When a tenant rents a property, they have control of that property, they have control of their own behavior.

A landlord is not going to necessarily know what kind of behavior is taking place in that home.

So for them to be penalized for activity that they're not undertaking, um, just causes causes me concerned.

So we have the suspension of duty to pay rent.

I mean, to me, this the rents ordinance is so one-sided, it does not take into consideration that there are two parties involved with in that tenant landlord agreement.

And I'm afraid the rents program takes a position that the landlord is always the bad guy.

So I would have liked to see this ordinance ordinance have more consideration of both sides of the equation.

So and I don't know why it's a part of the budget, except I see that there are some substantial increases or additional of new substantial fees that people will be paying for uh what we call uh ghost houses or zombie houses, vacant houses that um tired of lost my train of thought.

You don't have to call the MT.

I'm okay.

Just lost my train thought.

All right.

Because I've been working since 6 30 this morning.

It so I just want to clarify the rents ordinance was passed not last year but several years ago and did have substantial input from the local landlords association, which we met with several times when that ordinance was first crafted.

So I just want to make sure that we're not rewriting history in that.

I know you had a meeting with the landlords last night, and they clearly raised some concerns about rents, but that had a long conversation uh with the landlords when we devised the rents ordinance.

The rents ordinance has been working well since we did it.

This provides additional tools that I think are much needed.

I think when we hear from residents that are worried about people squatting illegally in properties and and destroying those properties or doing illegal activities and properties, um the the property owners do have a responsibility on the activity that that happens in in their properties and do have a responsibility to know what's going on in the properties and to keep the the houses and the buildings in an in a state of good repair.

Um those are these are some of the biggest complaints that that we get on an ongoing basis, and we've been looking for additional tools to do a better job of uh making our neighborhood safe and healthy for everyone to live in.

Uh, because when these properties um fall into disrepair or have those kind of activities happening to them, uh it's not only bad for that house, it's uh it's bad for the entire neighborhood, and that can have uh real impacts more broadly.

So the the rents ordinance is what it is.

Uh, there's nothing new there except that it's incorporated into this, but again, when that was crafted, it was done with substantial input with the landlords association.

They didn't like everything about it, but they had input and they were consulting.

All right.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, being that this is the body that is to generate ordinances and also responsible for amending ordinances, when there's a meeting like that with the landlords, it would be nice if the alderman would be at least notified and maybe included in that so we could actually hear both sides so that when we are looking at these ordinances, we we've heard ourselves from both sides rather than just uh the ordinance that's in front of us.

It's something to consider in the future.

Thank you, sir.

Uh like more unless a comment, I think it's uh a great uh ordinance to have because of what uh many comments that have already been made, but when it we look at it from a budgetary point of view, when I look at protecting the health, safety, and welfare of my constituents or their neighbors, I think that's very important because if you have some of these empty houses or abandoned houses, squatters, what have you, it does increase the calls for service and what have you, as we already know from the building that we just uh toured down down the street or on Lake Avenue.

So I think it's a good idea.

There was a question about the I I don't expect it to be uh answered tonight, but the question about absentee owners, and I raise that because I have a situation in my district right now where an absentee owner has had several uh problems, and one of my constituents, or it's several of them are very concerned about it, and at this point, uh the new tenant is trying to put up a uh uh business that they they don't have a license for or permit, and of course the neighbors don't want it, but uh it's an ongoing problem with this house with this absentee owner, and I think he should be held responsible, but again, he lives several states away.

Thank you.

Automatic once again, this is one of those ordinances if there's a lot of meat to it, has uh broad impact, and Congress is often accused of passing legislation in the middle of the night, and people aren't aware of it and that sort of thing.

And yes, uh, it says on our agenda that we will be discussing ordinances and fee schedules as attached, blah blah blah.

But um this is something that if it would have gone to a standing committee probably would have generated um some public discussion.

Um the mayor met with the landlords, and that's great, and I encourage that sort of thing.

But something like this if typically draws people on both sides to come out and to um to have input.

Went up to Madison yesterday to testify at a public hearing for a Senate bill, and there was a large group of people that were opposed and a large group of people that were for it, and it was democracy in action, and um the mayor said he met with the landlords last night, the night before we're discussing this.

Um I guess my question for the mayor is uh did you go over these changes with the landlords last night when you met with them and what was their response or reaction?

And are we gonna have them show up the night we pass the budget or or make amendments to the budget to speak um in public comment?

Mayor Mason.

Yeah, to be clear, I I did not meet with the landlords tonight last night.

I was referring to Alder Wynner's discussion with the landlords, the discussion around rents when it was first put in place, which is no different than current law that's in here that's being referenced when that was put together four or five years ago, that was done with substantial consultation with um the landlords association at that time, just to clarify the timing on that time.

I um I agree.

I think the vacant building portion of it will be great.

Uh I just have some questions.

So, like for the part regarding some of this says no occupant shall keep and it's referenced like on page 76, the occupant of a dwelling unit shall dispose of solid waste.

So then on 77, it also says uh circling back to the management practices that they should remove from the premises the solid waste.

How do you how are the occupants going to be held accountable compared to the landlords, or will it just fall on the landlords if the occupants aren't holding up their end of the deal?

Well, both bear some responsibility.

So ultimately it becomes the landlord's ultimate responsibility, but the tenant also does have a responsibility.

But if it says like section 1970, the occupation their end of it, that means uh owner is gonna be the one getting the fine for it, even though I specifically says the occupant.

Well, I mean, that's certainly possible because as with the discussion with Alder Winer, there are some um issues that the tenant landlord is required to do.

So I understand that, but I'm just curious for the parts uh mentioned specifically the occupant and not the owner.

Yeah.

I'll be honest, I can't answer right now as to how enforcement has been done of those two provisions relative to each other.

Um I don't know whether anybody from city development is able to do that because that's a really specific function of a part of their department.

So I I can try to get you an answer to that, but I just don't know off the top of my head today.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm uh very excited about the uh vacant buildings portion of this.

Um I feel like time and time again, you know, folks drive around the city, they look at a building that's in terrible shape and they go, how is it how is it allowed to get like that?

Well, why uh how was it able to get this bad?

And so what this does is it gives us the the tools to do that.

It gives a funding source so that we can do these inspections.

We're able to go ahead and um keep better tabs on these vacant buildings, know where they are, owners are.

Um so just all around it it's giving the the city the tools and resources to be able to um uh enforce uh and and stay on top of these buildings because you know I I think we can all agree that once once it gets so bad to a certain point, it's really not saveable anymore, and it's it's truly terrible because Racine has so many beautiful, wonderful historic buildings um that uh unfortunately get to a uh a state of disrepair that's not able to be um brought back again.

Um I just hope that this is you know, and I'll be watching this that would that we do use it now that we've got the tools.

I I I think there's no excuse uh and that my hope is that we get on top of it right away.

Otherwise I thought you said Alderman Mack.

Um I have a question uh regarding uh division three section nineteen one zero zero one.

This is in regards to the foreclosure registration program.

Is that new?

Because everything on here says proposed, so my guess is all of this is brand new.

Well, the whole the whole big ordinance is proposed, but that section that you're looking at currently exists in the ordinances.

This does currently exist.

So the mortgagee and is that the lender they are aware that they have to register their foreclosure with the city of Racine, and then they have to comply with all these things.

Yes.

They're they're already aware of that.

Yep.

Is there a fee involved with this?

Uh no, you're uh because I didn't see it in here.

I I don't recall off the top of my head.

Let me so I I guess I need to know what is yes, there is.

There's a fee for registering property pending foreclosure, and then it's defined by the common council.

Oh, what do we define that as somebody else knows what the fee schedule looks like better than I do we know what I we define?

Does anybody know what we defined that as I mean I got the fees here?

Would I find that under city development or transit department or someone from city development is walking up?

Yeah, attorney Lutney's correct.

There is in the existing fee schedule.

If you go under city development, there's a neighborhood enhancement division, there is a foreclosure registration per property.

Um so and we do collect fees for that currently.

Uh people do pay that the mortgage ease through the properties foreclosed on there where that is a fee we collect.

Okay, thank you for that.

And thanks for being here, Jeff.

I know it's late.

I'm sorry, but some of this I really um you're good.

Um, but but this is important.

So I did not know that we had an ordinance that said that if somebody's in foreclosure that that property has to be reported by the mortgagee.

I don't even know what a mortgage e is.

Yeah, there's a list pendants, the technical court process.

Scott could probably explain it better, but of the people that register for closed properties, the banks that you know they don't want to be in a violation of city policy or rules, they're actually quite good at registering those.

Those are probably the higher um you know, compliance rate would be from banks and mortgage ease when there's a foreclosure.

They do it almost instantly.

Okay, do you know when was this originally adopted?

That I have to go back and look.

I don't have that off the top of my head.

It's not it's not the last, it's not in the last year, it's been a couple of years, but I can give you the exact data.

It looks like 2019.

2019.

Okay.

Just from what I'm seeing in the code of ordinances online.

So that's when we didn't get the ordinances with the budget book.

Okay.

All right, I don't have any other questions.

Thanks, Jeff.

You're welcome.

Right.

Owner back.

Uhtor Lutney, is it possible to get um a strikeout copy of this so that we can compare what was there and what's new.

It's not something you have to recreate, I'm assuming.

Yeah, and it's gonna be whole swaths of the ordinances that are just replaced by sort of updated versions and then big chunks that are the same as exist today.

So yeah, okay.

It might help as we go forward into discussions next week to uh help clarify and um I know I'll I'll say it tonight, and it'll probably be forgotten by next year, but uh would really be helpful in the budget or whenever we have an ordinance that comes before any of our committees to um have that for comparison's sake.

Sometimes it might be just be a little strike out of one thing, but we get you know 10 pages that say proposed, and then it looks like it's all brand new to us.

Well, to some of us makes a well to me.

Thank you.

Right, thank you.

Uh next ordinance uh 0023-25 works and apprenticeship requirements let me so um this is uh an important but probably not a very large change.

If you'll see the ordinance itself is very short and just adds the definition of subcontractor uh principally, but what the summary says is that uh this proposed ordinance amends the Racine Works Program.

I'm gonna do an aside for those of you that don't know the Racine Works Program is an ordinance that requires this is an overgeneralization, but when there's public works contracts, construction contracts, water utility contracts of a certain amount, which I think is 200,000 dollars, uh maybe 100,000, but in any event, significant contracts that the city is letting there's a requirement that what are known as eligible city recent residents be um work up to 20 percent, generally 20 percent of the hours of that contract.

So this gets um Racine residents involved in contracts that the city is paying for.

Um the requirements is that the contractor participate in a class A apprenticeship program, which is has a very specific meaning in this world.

Um so an apprenticeship program in the ordinance as it exists now means a class A apprenticeship program that is currently approved by the U.S.

Department of Labor or a state apprenticeship agency and has graduated apprentices to journey person status for three years, and there's some additional language there, but this requires the contractors that are awarded contracts that are subject to the Racine Works program, actually are training um Racine residents and others to build into these higher level better paying jobs.

There's a hole that currently exists in the ordinance, and that is with respect to subcontractors.

So going on to the overview, amends the Racine Works program to explicitly require that subcontractors participate in a qualifying U.S.

Department of Labor approved or state recognized uh apprenticeship program as is required of the prime contractors, um, and it defines a subcontractor uh within the code and prohibits contractors from hiring subcontractor, a subcontractor that doesn't meet the same apprenticeship participation program.

So subcontractor under the change means an individual or business entity that is hired by a contractor to perform specific tasks or complete a portion of a larger contract and that participates in an apprenticeship program as defined in this section.

No contractor may hire a subcontractor that does not participate in an apprenticeship program as defined in this section to perform tasks or complete a portion of a larger contract under a qualifying contract.

So it's just that one paragraph that's getting added.

Auto Wagner was in the queue first.

Yeah.

Auto's in a queue, yeah.

I thought I thought you still had the floor.

Well, no, you were in there first.

Do you want the floor?

Okay, I do have some questions.

I uh um so when we talk about contractors, we have a contract, somebody that goes around and cuts all the grass at all the uh abandoned properties, the city-owned properties, and that's probably a contract that exceeds in bulk uh the 200,000.

Do they have to have apprenticeship programs?

And I apologize, I I double spoke earlier.

It's a hundred thousand contract, a hundred thousand dollars.

Qualifying contract meets a contract and is in an amount greater than one hundred thousand dollars and paid by city source funds, city public works contracts or water utility funds for water utility contracts and and so on.

Um so the requirement is that if there is an apprenticeship program and somebody's um has been awarded a qualifying contract, then they have to participate in an apprenticeship program.

Okay, thank you.

I see the commissioner of public works is here, and I'd like to hear from him regarding not only how this program works, but what effect it's gonna have on bidding contracts and what cost that's gonna have adding to the contracts that we have, if he wouldn't mind coming up and speaking to this.

Thank you for staying John and So is your question specifically regarding what it's going to do to well.

My overarching question is has the the this program, the Racine Works program, had an effect on the public works department to bid jobs and to have enough qualifying contractors bidding on those jobs to start with.

No, it hasn't affected that.

They have to go through pre-qualification and part of pre-qualification as it's currently written, is that the contractor has participate in a class A apprenticeship program.

Okay, among other things that are required in the pre-quall.

And it's it's set up as more or less pass fail and a point system.

So that's one of those items if they don't participate, then they're disqualified from bidding.

Now it specifically mentions the contractor.

So it doesn't specifically specifically, yes.

So the contractors already have to participate.

Yeah, we mean the city enters in a contract to enter into a contract with the contractor, not a subcontractor.

Okay, but the subcontractors now will also have to have an apprentice program.

So what the spirit is of this ordinance change would do would require that their subcontractors participate in a class A apprenticeship program.

Well, how will that affect?

Do you think it's gonna have the impact?

And I guess what I'm thinking of, John, is that we we let out those contracts for sidewalk replacement, and then somebody does a sidewalk replacement, then they get a subcontractor, they'll come in and fill in the dirt and plant the grass and do all that.

Correct?

Correct, their subcontractors on nearly every public works contract, correct.

So those subcra contractors that are now doing that portion of the contract will also have to have an apprenticeship program?

That's correct.

To fill in the dirt and plant the grass seeds that there would be Yeah, I mean it's subcontractor, it's it's not just you know simple work like that.

I mean a prime contractor could be a paving contractor, and a subcontractor could be an electrical contractor.

So I'll see that again, but a subcontractor would be what?

So I don't want to simplify what a subcontractor is.

Yeah.

I mean, we can let a two million dollar paving contract and you know, a couple hundred thousand of it or half a million could be for electrical or something, street lighting traffic signals, what have you.

They're technically a subcontractor.

So it would require, you know, again, those electricians that they hire to do that type of work to be part of a class A apprenticeship program.

But yeah, it'd be any and all subcontractors that have to participate.

Okay, so uh so we'll use electricians as an example.

So you have a million-dollar job, a quarter million of it goes to a subcontractor that is an electrician, and he already has an apprentice and a journeyman and whatever.

He's gonna have to still have a program to bring on more apprentices.

He will have to participate in a class A apprenticeship program.

Okay, what does it mean to participate?

Well, we're not the enforcement agency for Racine Works.

Who is that would be the finance department through purchasing?

We are simply writing the pre-quall and requiring that that is what the common council, this body has decided to do.

They did this 20 years ago and they started as Racine First, then it turned into Racine Works.

Um, you know, if there's residency that the common council wants to see, if there's apprenticeship, if those are the things that this body wants to see put into public works contracts, we just facilitate that.

We don't enforce any of those requirements of Racine Works.

We used to when it was Racine First, this is when it was introduced 20 years ago.

Um, and uh then it got moved over to finance quite a while ago to do the enforcement.

So we make sure that they're pre-qualified, okay, and then once they do that, for example, they have to submit all the documentation to finance to say, yeah, these folks they're uh Racine residents, they provide a 20% or more of the you know labor hours on the project.

You know, the sub or the prime contractor is part of a class A.

And if they don't, you know, then there's penalties that are associated with that.

And I mean, you even go further if if they're not doing that, um, or they can't find a subcontractor, they're gonna probably wind up um having to put on the pre-qual that they can't, then they're disqualified, you know, then they'll just be disqualified from bidding.

And I suppose if they do it, you know, um, and they're be they're being untruthful.

I assume this body could then take action to you know disbar a contractor if they were being untruthful in their in their prequal form.

But we don't enforce it, that's done by the finance department.

Okay, so how does the finance department then enforce that for the contractors and then we'll enforce for the subcontractors?

Sure, good question.

So, right now for the contractors, the contractors are required to send payroll reports monthly to the finance department, those are reviewed on those payroll reports, it lists all of the workers, their addresses, that type of thing.

We see whether they're certified, not certified, that type of thing, and we keep a running percentage going on that monthly basis.

As we go through the contract, um, you know, as the contract progresses, I'm sorry, it's late.

Um, you know, we check in with the contractors.

Hey, you look like you might be falling out behind, or hey, you're doing a good job, that type of thing.

So that is all done out of the purchasing department as is written in the ordinance.

Thank you.

I'm not gonna ask.

All right, help me understand this.

Uh let's say there's a road project, and the last piece of it is a landscape company has to come in and fix all the public right-of-way grass and and that would be subcontracted out, I'm assuming, correct?

Yeah, it all depends on the contract.

You know, some do all the work most of them have subcontracts.

Yeah, let's assume it's subcontractor.

So that landscaping crew has to have apprentices.

If if they are listed as a subcontractor, so when bid documents are submitted, you know, they're got to be pre-qualified.

So I think in the pre-quall forms, and I discussed this with the city attorney over an email, that I think we'll have to modify the pre-quall form slightly to include and subcontractors must participate in a class A apprenticeship program.

So when they bid on the contract and they bid electronically, we get those documents.

They're also required to submit a list of subcontractors.

So they have to put that in there.

So that is what will be passed on to the purchasing agent to say, you know, here's the list of subcontractors that are working on this, and then you know, finance will you know, vet that to make sure that those subcontractors are participating in a class A apprenticeship program.

So this Racine Works program, is it any contract or is it a contract over a certain amount of dollars?

It's any public works contract, it includes the utility as well.

Um anything with n if it's federally funded, you know, then it does not apply.

Um, but yes, and it's anything over 100,000 dollars.

That was changed with the ordinance changed Racine Works program two years ago, I believe, or a couple years ago.

Anything over 100,000.

Yeah, it used to be 200, it was lower to 100,000, used to be 15%, this is several years, now it's 20%.

So those are the things that have been approved by this common council.

So if if you had contracts smaller than that, um it wouldn't preclude like a local Racine business from trying to apply for one of those contracts, they wouldn't have to jump through those hoops if let's say it was a $20,000 concrete project.

No, if it's uh if it's uh estimated at at under 100,000, then when we bid out these projects publicly, we do it electronically now, it clearly states on there this is or this is not okay, a Racine Works program project.

So that's how we advertise that.

So they know, and it's based on that obviously that engineering estimate that we'll put out there because we don't know what the bids are until they come in.

Now that's uh what we're trying to set with our engineers' estimates on whether they fall you know in that category or not in that category.

Thank thank you for your patience with uh the questioning.

Um were the contractors made aware of this change.

Uh I have not made that anybody aware of this.

If this gets approved by this body, it will become part of the pre-quall form.

And they get they qualified annually.

So it's we're coming up on the end of the construction year as they want to start bidding on products for 2026.

Again, they'll fill up their pre-qualification forms.

It's it's this is just a small part of it.

Everything else they have to submit their financial wherewithal to do the work, their bonding capacity, and all those things get all checked, and this is just one part of that check to be pre-qualified to do the job.

Do you think this could be a hindrance for them finding subcontractors?

I mean it it it may, it it may not.

I mean, I I guess 20 years ago, probably it was thought that Racine First would be, you know, a hindrance, but you know, these are contractors, they want to do the work.

Um, you know, doing government work is good work, you get paid, you know, uh as opposed sometimes it's private development.

So uh I think they're gonna find the partners out there um that they can you know be successful and in securing bids and get the work and uh and get paid.

And it it's enforced pretty tight on the on the other end by by finance department.

We don't release final payment to any contractor until they have signed off and said they've met the program or they met it partially and we're gonna uh impose a small penalty, or they didn't do anything and we're imposing the maximum penalty, and then that also adds up in a subsequent pre-call form.

It is the question is asked, you know, did you fail to comply with Racine Works?

And that goes on there as another thing that we look at in the tally and say, Oh, they they didn't make pre-qualification because they didn't uh abide by Racine Works.

So I see that this has no um fiscal note and budgetary impact.

So I'm wondering why you didn't bring this to the public works committee uh either prior or after the the budget is passed.

It it wasn't generated by public works all the back.

Okay.

This this uh this change it was generated.

That's why I think uh Kathleen do you have a comment on why it didn't go through a committee or anything?

Yeah, no.

So would this have gone through public works or finance committee?

Then if finance committee is the one that uh generally interesting.

So I can add some context to this.

That's all right.

Um so this came about, so we're much like the last ordinance.

I feel like we're debating an ordinance that's been in place for several years already, as opposed to the small change that we're making to the ordinance, but be that as it may, um, both the original ordinance and the change that's being made here came in consultation with the Southeast Wisconsin Building Trades and the Southeast Wisconsin Contractors Association who actually pointed out the loophole to us who said if you want to make more progress on having a successful Racine Works project in terms of the percentage of people, you should really close this loophole on subcontractors because what some people bid on contracts and say I'm gonna I'm gonna be the general contractor and I'm gonna subcontract everything, right?

So you might have a five million dollar job that has nothing included on it.

You might have somebody like a contractor that does half the work and sums out half of it.

But the point of Racine works is to make sure that the people of Racine who are paying for these jobs also have an opportunity to work on them and get into the construction trades as a good middle class job that pays wages and benefits and has skills.

So all we're doing with what's actually before us tonight is closing the loophole on the subcontractors, uh which frankly was an oversight when it was initially drafted.

Uh but the reason we're we're doing that tonight is is actually because the contractors noticed it and suggested that we make the change.

It's a minor change that they believe will lead to more success in the program and lead to more people here getting access to good paying jobs.

Thank you.

I just wanted to emphasize that the whole idea from what I'm seeing is recogni uh U.S.

Department of Labor recognize apprenticeship programs.

I hear the word contract, subcontractor, but unless they fall on the apprenticeship, the guidelines of apprenticeship program, it doesn't really matter what the size of the contract is or anything else.

So it's about the uh apprenticeship portion of that we're simply adding to subcontractors, which I think is a great idea.

Thank you.

I keep hearing all this Mac.

It's not Mac this time.

Otherwise, it's kind of late, but uh I got you.

Go ahead.

So I guess it's kind of a philosophical question, or maybe you can tell me if there's been a trend over the last 20 years or in particular the last couple years, if these programs have reduced the numbers of qualified contractors that can bid on the jobs regardless of the size for the city of Racine, or has this kind of boxed out some of the smaller contractors that may not have the wherewithals to have an apprenticeship program?

I mean I mean it it could.

I mean, clearly um, you know, contractors, I think probably the residency thing is probably more of a difficult thing for some contractors if they're not from the area, if they have to come from far away.

Um yeah, it it does present difficulties, I'm sure, but they they seem to overcome them because these contractors want to bid on the job.

I don't think we've been in a position where you know we haven't had a a qualified contractor bid on the job.

Sometimes, as you've seen if you've been on public works services committee, you know, sometimes on some contracts we may only have one bidder or two bidders, you know, and is that a product of some of these things?

It could be.

Um, but we have engineers' estimates, and uh we believe that uh and the contractors don't know if they're the only bidder on the project because they're open electronic at the same time and they don't know who you know they they don't know who has submitted bids.

So um yeah, it seems to be that programs like this would make it very difficult for young businesses to start in that field when they're competing against someone that has the kind of assets and wherewithals that like an Oaks would or some of the other larger companies, some that smaller business that would have the capabilities, but they don't quite have the assets that others more seasoned uh companies would have.

So I wonder if trying to solve one issue is actually creating a uh difficulty for you, you know.

You picture a young Samazarian when he's first starting out in business, would he be able to compete against the big guys, whoever they might be.

I'm just using that for an example, to grow into what eventually grows into if he's got these kind of hurdles.

So could we be hurting some residents of the city of Racine that are trying to uh grow, start and build and grow a business because they don't have the early capabilities to comply with some of the requirements that we have.

So and the last question, John, is the public works department does their own bidding on jobs, correct?

That does it go through um what you're doing.

It's a combination.

Um, some work that if it's smaller, then we go through finance the purchasing agent for other types of smaller type contracts.

So I mean, they still are competitively bid, if you will.

They may go out as an official notice administered by the finance department if it's a project, so we need like a 70,000 dollar project.

That's still as competitively bid, but it's done through purchasing, you know.

So we're we're you know, or I should say under 50,000.

Um over 50,000 is the threshold where we have to bid it out.

So it's it's competitively a bid, but you know, the contractors, you know, they adapt to whatever um the municipality is putting out there for bid requirements, and um, you know, it they change over time.

So thanks, Jen.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, you know, it was brought up tonight of is this preventing small businesses in the city of Racine.

Uh a lot of folks would say this is helping small businesses in the city of Racine.

A key point there is the city of Racine.

There's a residency requirement to this, uh, and this is closing a loophole that prevents uh that would prevent um a business from outside of the area who doesn't have local residents working for them coming in um as a subcontractor, and then when it's all done packing everything up and leaving, all the while not having hired somebody locally, uh not giving uh potentially somebody a chance who is here part of our economy uh to participate in this.

So the idea that this is going to box out local folks with a residency requirement, I I'm I'm having a hard time connecting that of we're we're gonna box people out for locally trying to start it up by adding a residency requirement.

If anything, it's going to help those folks immensely.

Um, and in this case, up and down the bed, whether they're um the would be the general contractor would be a subcontractor.

Just kind of building off of that.

So when we have a company come in and do the work and they subcontract most of it, or even part of it, um I guess what I'm trying to figure out is this ordinance adding the requirement for the apprenticeship to the subcontractors, or is it adding the the percentage of labor requirement to the subcontractors, if that makes sense?

No, the percentage of of labor is on the contract in and of itself.

So this is requiring that the subcontractors participate in a class A apprenticeship program.

Um at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you know 20% is made from everybody participating on the job or just the prime or a little bit of the prime and one subcontractor, that is the aggregate, and that's how they determine that through the certified payrolls if they have to submit with the affidavits of you know where these employees uh live.

So that doesn't it doesn't change that at all.

Okay, so they were already required, even if they subcontracted the entire thing to have 20% of that be.

So this is just for the okay, thank you.

Yep, you're welcome.

All right, uh next next item uh is 0024-25 city identification card program.

And this is an entirely new ordinance, nothing covering this at all exists within the ordinances now.

This proposed ordinance uh ordinance would establish a city of Racine identification card program to permit residents to obtain an official city issued identification card that verifies identity and residency for accessing local programs, services, and activities would be administered by the Department of Public of Customer Service.

The program sets verification standards and includes a fee to be determined by the common council, and it expressly excludes use of this identification card for voting or for purchasing age-restricted products, and I can just briefly go through it.

Um there's some uh definitions, um, but there would be an application for identification card that requires proof of identity, and there's I don't know, 30, 35 different ways that somebody could prove their identity.

There's proof of residence that would be required.

There's about 10 or 12 of those different ways.

Um it would be accepted by city departments when identity, city identity or residency is required, then a city department would be authorized to accept it.

Um it would not apply, just to be clear when a federal or state statute or regulation requires a different kind of proof of identity, that kind of thing.

Um, and again, you couldn't use this to uh uh prove identity for voting or for buying beer or something like that.

Thank you.

Um I have a number of questions regarding this.

And I'm not opposed to it.

I just have questions.

I don't want anyone to infer that otherwise.

The first of all, how how did, and I don't know if the clerk is the right person.

How did how did this come about?

What was the impetus for this?

That's my first question.

This came about from advocacy from some of the people you heard testify here tonight about wanting to see in a municipal ID program similar to what they have in Milwaukee by local activists from Lulac and uh and VOCs and some other organizations that were represented here, just and also just every day ordinary citizens advocating for a program like this in anticipation of what might perhaps be another question to have there is money allocated into the clerk's office to implement the program, um, which if you're wondering like what the budgetary nexus is.

Um actually that wasn't going to be a question on this one.

Okay.

Um, but but that's where it came from.

Community advocates asking for it and asking for something similar to what they have in Milwaukee and many other cities, which I won't rehash the testimony we heard here tonight.

I thought the community advocates did a good job articulating where it came from, but it largely those people that we saw tonight that advocated uh for it.

Thank you.

Um I I realize that this one has a budgetary impact because uh I'm assuming equipment has to be ordered, cards are not cheap by had an ID program going in my previous life for first responders, so well aware of um the time commitment, the cost, the ongoing cost to it.

Uh the one of the speakers talked about the difficulty that undocumented immigrants have uh to getting a state ID.

Are they ineligible for a state ID?

I'm trying to um understand what some of those barriers might be.

Thank you, Alder Mack.

I'll attempt to answer your question.

So I do not know the state's requirement other than receiving my own driver's license.

I know that they have do have voting only identifications through the DMV.

I'm not aware of anything that would allow for someone who isn't eligible to receive a voting only or a driver's license to have any other way of receiving an ID that I'm aware of.

They might be out there.

Okay, which leads me to a couple of the questions.

One is I notice that um it clearly states in the ordinance that this cannot be used for voting, for purchasing alcohol, for some other things.

Is there going to be a disclaimer on the ID someplace?

Because if I was the owner of a store, I'm assuming it's a government-issued ID and must be valid.

Uh, and a lot of a lot of places that require an ID, as long as it's a government-issued ID, it's valid, but this appears not to be valid for some items.

So a mock of the identification, the actual card look has not been finalized or even started yet from the department until the budget passes.

Um, however, it would be something that I would also advocate for just for ease for election officials.

And as I'm looking at um the application, many of the proof of identity are things that motor vehicle requires.

Um, there has to be two proofs, but it doesn't appear that um one of those is uh has to be something with a photo on, is that correct?

I would pass that to the city attorney who drafted the actual language.

And I think the concern is there may be some people that aren't able to obtain an identification of some sort with a photograph on it.

Which brings me to the question, how do we prevent somebody from committing fraud and coming in with um papers that state their so-and-so, but they might be somebody else.

And this is not this is not pointed towards any ethnic group, it it what's stopping a caucasian 17-year-old kid from coming in with papers that state he's John Black and he's 21 years old.

That sounds yeah, thank you for the question.

So I would assume that we would mock it up in some sort of format that's also relative to voting, where it's you know, for if you're definitely confined, you're not required to show photo ID, but the onus is on you legally, right?

And there needs to be some sort of repercussion if you're there found in fraud of that statement.

So that would be something we would draft up an application with the city attorney's office.

Like I said, nothing has been drafted yet until we're aware of if the funding is even approved to move forward.

And probably for the city attorney, is there a liability to us issuing a photo ID card?

Um this is not an uncommon thing.

There are lots of municipalities around the country that have them.

Um I imagine we well, there's no way to find I was gonna say, imagine we'd sign a way, have a waiver that has to get signed.

Can't waive away all potential liability, but we do our best to limit it.

I'm not seeing big problems, but maybe they'd be there.

So and then uh I guess my last comment or question, and it's a sensitive one, um, is considering the current political state.

It was brought up that this would be something that undocumented immigrants need.

My fear is that um this could be a tool to identify um people potentially that uh might be questioned later.

Trying to be sensitive in the way I I I say that.

Uh has any thought been put into that because I'm assuming that any government law enforcement agency could request that and we couldn't withhold it from them.

So thank you for the question.

The city attorney's office um handles the open record, so I would pass to them because I assume that's what you're asking about, right?

Is if the information would be eligible under the open records law.

But I don't imagine that we would ask about legal resident status or citizenship status.

So that would not necessarily be part of the record.

All right, honor Thomson.

Yeah, just kind of piggybacking off of Alder Mac here is so is this gonna be something where we're gonna have like a system that keeps track of all this, or is this gonna be something where all right, you brought your your documents in or whatever, we're gonna print you one out and off you go.

So thank you for the question, Audit Townsend.

So the Department of Customer Service does save applications.

This will have to have some sort of waiver, so therefore we will have to have some sort of record of which ones have been issued.

All right, yeah, I was just interested because I feel like it especially if the youth uh start using them, it would just be interesting um to like if the if there was data attached to it, if like community centers and stuff could also use them, so you could get better data from some of the things, but then also leaning off of what Aldermack said, making sure that we're not setting people up for Mary.

I'm Alder Mack and Alder Townsend.

I want to um compliment you both for the thoughtfulness of your question.

It's one of the first questions I had when the advocates approached about this.

Um, when communities do this, they don't necessarily keep records of or create lists of who has them and who doesn't.

They they verify that the request made to create an ID are valid.

Um, but much like the library doesn't release information to the government on what books you check out, uh it could be devised in a similar way.

And there need to get real care and thought about that though as we create the program.

But those are really you're both asking one of the first questions I had when the advocates asked for it.

I presume, given uh the community members who are advocating it are well aware of those concerns, uh, and nonetheless, it is is one of the things that they feel very strongly about having as an asset in this community.

But you're you're both asking very important questions.

I spoke to some of the people that were here, and I was very surprised at some of the responses I got from them.

One of them was they've already broken the law coming into this country, we want to make sure they don't continue to break the laws.

And I'm like, well, how does that a city ID card do that?

And they really didn't have an answer for it.

They looked at it more like an identification that they could use to um ambulate around the city.

So my question to us, and like Alderman uh Max said, the sensitivity of this is very important because we have a large Hispanic community, 27%, for example.

And a lot of it she told me was still undocumented here.

And I was uh Diana was the one that said it.

And I was very surprised because I thought that had really gone down quite a bit, but she said, no, there's still quite a bit in the city of Racine.

Do we want to be partners in perpetuating a crime?

And do we if we're gonna take pictures and the mayor just said some people don't keep actually keep records of what they are, um would that put us at some liability because we're uh adding to a criminal element?

And people say, well, humans aren't criminal, they're allowed, no, they're not.

But coming into a country without the proper authorization does make it uh unlawful, okay?

I'm all for helping people.

I myself am an immigrant, um, but I came legally, and I waited 18 years before I could get my citizenship.

So I'm I'm concerned that in our effort to help people, and I even advocated for driver cars during the campaign because I want to know who they are in case there's an emergency.

And she said that too.

No, well, you know, we'll have like contact information on there.

If something happens to us, then we'll know who to contact because if they don't have any documentation, how do we know who they are?

How are we gonna identify them?

We just said we don't we might have a picture, but they're not that might not really be the same person, and if we don't have fingerprint or DNA evidence, we can't really say it's them either.

And would the federal government be able to subpoena the information we have?

If we're not keeping records, then I don't think we're we're doing our due diligence.

Okay, I think we have to figure out a way where um including this, that we can support the people that are here illegally or undocumented, but still help them towards documentation.

We now know the standards the federal government has set out.

We need to encourage them to go back home so they can come back legally.

I mean, it's it's a crisis, I get that.

But I think that if we continue to pursue this line of thinking, I I'm concerned, I want them to be able to be identified.

I don't have a problem with that, especially for emergencies.

You have a heart attack, you're in a car, you crash, you know, get injured.

How do we know who you are?

And that was one of the things that I advocated for because from a safety perspective for them, we want to know how to get them help.

But even Diana mentioned, you know, well, um we don't want to keep committing crimes.

We we entered illegally, but we don't want to keep continuing.

I said, why do you need it?

Why do you why are you going on?

And her comment was, well, we did one thing wrong, we don't want to continue to do other things wrong.

And I'm thinking, well, that's a little mixed up in the logic there, I in my opinion.

Um, like I said, I waited 18 years before I could become a U.S.

citizen.

So, and I was I entered the United States legally, but I want to be able to help them.

So they're all biblically, you know, the the stranger, that's not what the Bible says if you understand it from the Greek.

Okay.

So that's a non, and I do have a minor in New Testament Greek, so I can kind of explain it a little bit.

Granted, I got it 40 years ago, so I may not be able to explain it too well.

But this is my concern.

You know, we're law-abiding citizens, we're we're citizens, we are um respectful of our country, and even though we okay, let me personalize, even though I may not agree with many of the decisions we make here, we made them together.

And that's part of the function of a community.

That's part of a function of um a shared responsibility for our community.

All right.

So I don't fight the things that I don't like.

I enforce them, I don't encourage them, but I I couldn't I'm I follow them because that's what we voted on.

And I think in our democracy, it's important to follow what the law and the rule of law is.

So I'm I get it, they want to be able to ambulate around the city and not be harassed, but they're gonna be harassed because they're gonna say, oh, you got a city ID?

Oh, are you an illegal?

I mean, you know, come on.

Are we allowed to ask that?

I don't know.

But the to me they'll say, Oh, they must be undocumented because they have a city ID.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the city would sponsor something like this.

You know, it's been said in the community that and uh throughout the state, when we've gone to conferences, the people ask me this, um, hey, is uh Racine a sanctuary city?

I said, No, I don't think we are.

We don't propose that, at least not in public.

So what are we doing?

We're betraying our laws of the United States of America.

We're betraying our the very people that want this ID because they want this ID to a person who may not be fully informed, they're gonna say, hey, they're here illegally, look, they have a city ID, they don't have a real ID, they don't have a driver's license.

And it said on the proposal that they would get pictures, yeah, but is it their real name?

How do we know?

You know, they can produce any other items like that.

I've seen it happen.

And I've questioned items that I've seen as a police officer, and I'm like, this doesn't even look real, bro.

You know, where'd you get this?

Well, go to the line.

Yeah, okay.

Well, don't do that anymore.

So I'm half concerned with the whole proposal of this ordinance.

The mayor said that he's been advocated, or they were advocating to him, and it's an act of compassion.

I totally get it, I understand it, but I think it's wrong for us as a city to support breaking the laws of the United States of America.

Okay, I'm gonna stop now.

Autowagon.

Thank you.

Um I just have a question, uh a couple really.

Um in here it says that this is for uh individuals to be able to participate in programs and activities from the city and local businesses.

I'm not sure what activities from the city of Racine requires identification.

Do we have to have ID to go and do a community center?

Do we have to do that?

So this particular question I passed the city administration.

Yeah, that's one of the things I think we want to discover or explore if the ordinance gets passed is you know, certainly as people come and go to different events or want to enroll in different programs or sign up for uh different activities with the city is city ID would be another way that you could uh have a way to participate in that.

Um I don't know if it's um radically different than you know if you're a member of the Y and have a Y ID card to do it.

The other thing I just want to mention from uh Alder Prenez's comment is this is not uh I'll get a city ID if we do this ordinance.

I think lots of people will get cities IDs if we do this.

Uh this is not an ID program uh for undocumented, nor does it confer residency status or um or you know, citizen status onto anybody.

So I think it's really important that we're not calling it something that it's not or ascribing to it something that it doesn't do.

But I think as we look at what other communities do in terms of other services that they're able to provide by having a municipal ID, that's one of the things we'll explore uh if this moves forward to to see how we might incorporate the work that we do here with um with the facilities that are available in the programs that are available in the city.

It's another way that people could engage in those programs potentially, but the ordinances it's written gives us time to to explore those things and uh and come to determination on that before we roll it out.

Well, I'm not sure what city activities or business activities requires an ID.

Um city attorney's gone, um, but I'm I'm wondering if an undocumented individual is able to get an ID from the state to prove their identity, whether they are documented or not.

Do we know?

Because I if you cannot get an ID from the state, if you have to be a legal resident of the city or of the state of the United States, can the city give something that the state won't give because they're not citizens or legal residents?

I I don't know.

So I think that's an important question.

And the last thing I'll say is I've had a driver's license now, and I'm not gonna say how many years, but now to renew my driver's license, I have to prove that I'm a U.S.

citizen.