If Alders and members of the public could please take their seats, we are about to begin.

If Alders and members of the public could take their seats, we are about to begin.

Well, good evening, everyone.

The hour of six o'clock having arrived on this 21st of July 2026, it is my honor to call to order the City of Racine Common Council.

First order of business is to ask all of you to rise as you are able and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

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

I moved to approve.

Multiple seconds.

Any discussion on said minutes.

See none.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

We do have Alder Kelly joining us remotely tonight, so just procedural.

That means we will be doing verbal roll call votes this evening.

We'll move on to the proclamation.

We do have one proclamation this evening, uh, which is anticipation of national night out.

Uh just from a scheduling reminder, uh, reminder everyone, we are meeting on August 5th, uh, a Wednesday, the first Tuesday of or the first week of August because National Night Out is on Tuesday, August the 4th.

So we usually meet on Tuesdays.

Obviously, that particular week we will be meeting a Wednesday.

And we have a proclamation here uh in anticipation of this, and it reads whereas uh proclamation 5219 issued by President Ronald Reagan pursuant to Senate joint resolution 298 in July 1984.

Um declared uh I'm sorry, this is the wrong this is the wrong item on the agenda.

I apologize.

It's the wrong proclamation.

We will read the National Night Proclamation at uh the actual event on August the 4th.

Let's move on then to public comments.

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

Speakers will be limit their remarks to three minutes.

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

This time is not intended to be a debate or discussion.

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

Profane, destructive, threatening, or conduct that otherwise impellates impedes the safety or lead or effective conduct of the common council meeting is equally unacceptable during the public comment period, as it is during all other portions of city meetings.

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

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

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

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

There will be 13 speakers this evening.

First one will be Tyler Richards from 1821 Superior Street.

And now you may begin.

So I think that would be pretty beneficial.

Not only that, the Johnson Leopold family has done so much for the community.

The Kaiser family is known for doing a lot for uh public courses in Wisconsin as well as throughout the nation.

Uh keeping it affordable, but also making it a high-end wannabe place to golf.

I think it would bring in a lot of a lot of potential.

Thank you all very much for hearing me out.

Second speaker tonight will be Wendy Coy from 2319 West High Street.

Hi, my name is Wendy Coey.

I am here to speak about some of the public safety and tavern situations.

Other owners and myself have gotten together to discuss a few situations between our establishments and the city.

I've been watching her going to public safety and licensing meetings for the last 10 to 12 years.

The board is always changing, and so are the opinions, which is not necessary, so are the opinions, which is necessarily not a bad thing.

The problem is there are no guidelines for us or the board that are put in place.

We are trying to follow the city ordinances and state laws as we know and understand them.

The public safety and licensing board spends eight minutes of training when the board switches.

Eight minutes of training is not enough to hold our livelihood in your hands.

Five years ago, we were told to police what was going on outside and around our establishments.

Two years ago, when a tavern owner was shot, we were told not to, but instead to call the police if there was a problem due to we are not trained to handle all situations.

We are also told if the establishment owner or if the employees call or ask for help or assistance, it would not be whole against us as long as complete cooperation was given to police.

Now it seems we are being asked again to police our businesses.

All we are asking for is a list of guidelines for us and anyone who may end up on the public safety and licensing board, for there is no confusion on either side about what is expected, and no more inconsistency.

A few of the tavern owners would like to meet up with a few of you, if possible, to have a meeting at some time.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Our next speaker will be Jeff Newbon from 1145 Main Street.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the council.

Thank you for this opportunity to be with you.

Um, for those of you who are on the executive committee, you heard me last week, so with apologies to all of you.

This is for everyone who wasn't here at that time.

I'm a fourth generation resident of the city of Racine, and I come here to express my strong support for the proposal to move forward with Shoop Park.

Shoop is a wonderful asset for our community.

It has very extensive deferred maintenance, as you know, and will probably hear tonight.

Under this proposal for no cost to city residents, and I am one of them, as is my family.

Um, this is an opportunity to greatly enhance that asset with a fabulous investment of 10 million dollars.

This work will be done extremely well.

The plans are impressive, but most importantly, the Leopold Johnson group will do this right because everything they do, they do well.

Every Johnson Leopold project is done with excellence, with beauty, and with integrity.

And from a multi-generational perspective.

The Johns have been investing as commun in this community for six generations with another generation now on the way.

They have always invested with a multi-generational perspective.

They're not this will not solve all of our city's problems, but it will avoid 1.8 million dollars in expense to the city, which the city does not have the resources to invest.

Greatly enhance the property to the tune of 10 million dollars, generate new revenue to the city itself, bring significant new money to the city from restaurants, hotels, and visitors who will come to now utilize this beautiful asset even more than they do now, which will then create jobs and which we would otherwise not receive.

I've been walking at this site and enjoying it since our children were little, and I have to say we would go there with my mom, my daughter Greta and her sisters, and my mom would have to sit up on the bluff and watch us, which she enjoyed, but she couldn't climb over the trees and all the obstacles that have accumulated over the years.

So I can't wait to walk on this beach and on this site on these paths with Greta's new six-week-old daughter when I'm of the age when I won't be able to climb over trees and stumps and other obstacles.

So I look forward to the opportunity that we have before us.

Thank you for the your service on the council and for your hopefully your support for this proposal.

Next speaker will be Don Horn, 6317 Taylor App.

Hello, my name is Don Horn.

And I'm here tonight just to talk a little bit about public safety and licensing.

I want to thank Alder Kelly for proposing to review the loitering ordinance.

I'm hoping that what I have to say starts here.

This is our livelihood.

So we would like some more them to get more education.

I hope that after review of the I hope that after reviews are made, that tickets are actually going to be cited to those people that are loitering and causing our businesses stress.

That's on the public safety and licensing board.

He has done a lot for our businesses as far as giving us details outcomes and then also evidence.

And lately our um social media has been, I feel, affecting the decisions that are made, and I hope that changes.

And so does the bias.

Good evening.

Dr.

Shoop had plenty of history in routine.

Back in 1917, Dr.

Shoop donated 52 acres along the shore of Lake Michigan to the people of Racine to be used as a public park in punishment forever.

And two park should not become a larger golf course.

And he's going to take green space and more parking at the Retain Lighthouse, which is important to have that green space for the Retain Lighthouse.

I'm sure Dr.

Shoop would not approve a private investors using the land.

He donated as a public park to make a profit.

So not only will golf be taking up every square inch of shoot.

Their plan they want to enroll the lighthouse ground.

Dr.

Shoop gave the land to everyone, and he signed a deed.

And um, it says that the land should be used as a public park, and it doesn't say anywhere about golf course.

And one other thing, uh, the city council.

In agreement, um, you signed a 10-year lease with uh members of the Johnson family.

The agreement calls for a 10 million uh new clubhouse installing um a 10-year lease, um, which they will donate two million offset of construction, and I think that's a bribe.

Yeah, because uh why I think it's a bribe because um because uh they want you to vote for this, so I hope you vote no for the people in the community vote no.

Next speaker will be Melissa Warner, three for three week gap.

Good evening, counsel.

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you once again.

You have a hard decision to make tonight.

It's hard because you can't see the future.

None of us can.

And this decision will have consequences far into the future.

We can't know whether Racine youth will think a caddy school is a good idea.

We cannot know how far away people will come, and in fact, golfers will come.

You can't know that.

We can project it, we can think about it, but we can't know it.

We want more certainty than is available.

However, there are some things I know, or at least I think I know.

First, the bluff along our lakefront is built mostly of glacial debris and very susceptible to erosion.

Two, water levels in Lake Michigan vary sometimes by a lot, and they will be much higher than they are now at some time.

The storms we get seem to be increasing in fury and intensity and frequency.

What does all of that mean?

It means there will be a storm that will take out the bluff.

So your decision is more sooner or later than yes or no.

Do we know when?

Of course not.

Now, can another thing I think I know?

The industry and manufacturing that we had in Racine is not coming back in anything like the level it was when we moved here some 45 years ago.

What can take its place?

Tourism.

I don't have the data, but I'll bet you visit Racine does on what tourism is already bringing into Racine.

And we are ideally suited as a tourist vacation hotspot.

We have the lake, the beach, the marinas, the zoo, good theater, music, lots of music, and museums, a thriving art community.

But this project is an opportunity to add something that is uniquely Racine and not found elsewhere in our area.

So if I were sitting in your seat tonight, I would grit my teeth and vote yes.

Next speaker will be Mary Gardiola, 5100 Charles Street.

Hello.

I hope you had a chance to read it.

There's so much more detail.

I just want to cover just what was on the top of my head.

Um if this proposal passes as written, we will be left with a sand dune-style golf course, a large pudding green, cafe and parking lot to include a rough surface walking path, and trail open to the public.

The plan simply would not include any public park space for our community to use for various other park interests.

My point is that we can have a park and a park for a park for parkgoers and a world-class golf course for the golfers as well.

We don't need to have one or just the other.

There are too many open ends still existing to move forward.

But putting a delay on the current proposal we have here today, taking a pause to consider and reconsider, including both groups of interest, makes the most sense of the changes that will be happening going forward.

I'm asking you to please paw on the vote.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Michael Burke, 1232, Florence Avenue.

Hi.

As president of Hoy Audubon Society, I must voice our opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Shoop Park Golf Course as we understand it.

Birds are in steep decline in the US and Canada.

Nearly three billion breeding adults gone since 1970, according to Cornell University, the absolute experts on North American birds.

Shoe Park has been a place where they find safe harbor.

Frankly, it has been very challenging for us to clearly grasp what will happen to Shoop if the redevelopment is approved.

On one hand, I and a few other Hoy board members have heard some encouraging things from members of the redevelopment team.

However, the pretty pictures we see of their vision leaves us with the impression that Shoop could become a very barren place, at least closest to the lake, where big changes would do the most harm to birds.

Windpoint and Shoop are so critical to birds because the area lies along a major north-south migratory route, because Wind Point is a promontory, it is a natural place for migrating birds to stop, rest, and refuel during their journey.

There are very few dark, relatively safe areas for birds to stop along that migratory route, but that area is a premier one.

Shoe provides the underbrush, the cover right along the lake that migrating birds need to avoid predation.

The farther they fly without being able to rest and find nourishment, the more are likely to perish along the way.

With Shoot Park's location and rich natural habitat, more than 270 bird species have been identified at Shoop and Wind Point, making the area one of the very top areas for birds in our entire state.

For those reasons and more, Hoy Audubon Society opposes the redevelopment plan as proposed.

The Wisconsin Ornithological Society has just weighed in on the Dunes Golf Course Plan as well in a letter that begins, quote, we urge the city of Racine and project planners to prevert preserve Shoe Park Golf courses, natural shoreline, mature trees, and bird habitat while using targeted bird-friendly management practices to address safety, erosion, lighting, and course maintenance needs.

Still quoting removing large numbers of trees would cause significant harm to the habitat used by migrating birds.

During migration, birds need cover of trees, shrubs, and brush to rest, hide from predators, and find food.

I encourage planners to find the WSO's letter containing numerous suggestions for ways that birds and golfers could coexist on its website.

I will end by adding my own opinion that the redevelopment proposal has some merits.

But I believe there would be many ways to accomplish these with less impact on Shoop's natural environments.

If approved, I plead with the developers to proceed with some moderation and with utmost respect for SHUP's benefits for birds and wildlife.

Thanks.

Hello.

I personally think it's also a deed violation.

If someone gave you a gift, are you going to then give it to someone else?

The park was donated to the people, so it should stay for the people.

If that makes sense.

So if you want us to trust you, you have to show us that we can trust you by doing the right thing, which is leaving the shoreline as it is, but giving the golf course the opportunity to be renovated.

And if they decide to take, I just don't think that like you can restore the shoreline, but don't think that you can take parts of other land.

Restore the clubhouse, do what's on that land, but don't think you're gonna touch the park, because that's off limits.

Thank you.

Next speaker will be Phil Politti.

One five five two two seventy-third Street Kenosha.

Good evening.

My name is Phil Palletti, and I'm the executive director of the Cadia Leadership Academy of Southeast Wisconsin.

Our mission is to develop outstanding young men and women into excellent and exceptional students and to qualify these students for the Evans Scholarship.

For the committee members that aren't familiar with that, the Evans Scholarship is the largest privately funded college scholarship program in the world.

Currently, there are 1,300 students in college with a full four-year tuition and housing scholarship at 28 different universities.

Here in Wisconsin, uh Evans has a present presence at University of Wisconsin Madison and also Marquette University.

And our goal partnering with the SHUP project is to use SHUP as a training ground for middle school students to get them trained up and graduate into full-scale caddy programs in the area.

Currently, we have a program at Meadowbrook Country Club in Racine, and since 2021, we've had nine students pictured here receive the full Evans scholarship.

Most of those students have gone on to the University of Wisconsin.

They live in the Evans Scholarship House with other students who have cadied.

These students were awarded the scholarships based on their outstanding academics, their caddy record, and a demonstrated family financial need.

We target recruit students who have excellent academics, but are I would uh say at risk.

Um since I started this program, I founded this program in 2014.

We got real serious uh with it in about 2019, and since then we've had 32 of our students receive this scholarship.

Just to give you an idea of the kind of impact it can have on these young people, if they were to go to Marquette University and pay full force, uh that scholarship is worth $320,000 over four years.

The value of an Evan scholarship at University of Wisconsin is about 150,000.

So we look to use SHUP as an opportunity to find these students, recruit them, train them, and get them in the pipeline for the Evans Scholarship.

It's been one of the it is the most successful scholarship program in the country, and partnering uh with the folks, uh the Leopold, the Johnson family, uh, to provide this opportunity to have true to truly life-changing opportunities for these young people.

So I urge you with all my heart and for the benefits of the young middle school uh students in Racine, please approve this project so we can use it as a platform uh to change these young people's lives.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Christine Kern, 4115 Light House Drive.

Uh hi, my name is Christy Kern, and thank you for letting me speak.

I'm actually reading for Abigail King information that she sent to the council.

So um the concern here is not that Shoot Park should be left exactly as it is, it shouldn't.

The bluff is eroding, the buildings are past their service life, and the grounds have been neglected.

The concern is the specific decision in front of you tonight, a 50 year private lease approved before the science, the permits, the deed questions have been answered.

This vote commits a park before any permit exists, your own briefing memorandum states that the developer will be required to obtain approvals for the city planning heritage and design commission, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, and all other legally required authorizations.

In plain terms, none of these approvals exist yet.

The Department of Public Works report says the same of the shoreline, final approval of the revetment plans rests with the DNR and the Army Corps.

Final approval of the revetment plans rests with the DNR and the Army Corps.

If you are you are being asked to sign a 50-year commitment first and to learn whether it is even permittable second.

If those permits are later denied or heavily conditioned, the city is already bound.

On the wetlands, the state has already ruled against this project on November 14, 2025, the Wisconsin DNR denied the developer's request to treat six of the site's wetlands as artificial.

The DNR found that all six carry a natural wetland history predating 1991 and remain protected under state law.

That is not a hurdle.

The applicant has cleared.

It is one the state has already raised.

The plan still speaks of managing the existing wetland and regrading the course into Dune and Prairie.

Any impact to those confirmed wetlands now requires full individual permitting, including proof that harm was avoided and that real alternatives were studied.

That analysis has not been placed before you.

The word restoration does not match the plan.

The project is presented as environmental restoration, but it calls for the select clearing of golf course trees, more than half a mile of engineered stone revetment and rip-rap along the Lake Michigan shoreline and the regrading of landform into Dune and Fescue course.

Wind Point and Shoot Park are a recognized birding area, as we've heard.

And that this would be altered.

The developer's own reputation as described in this presentation rests on choosing remarkable natural settings and letting the land lead the design.

Armoring a living shoreline and rock and clearing mature canopy is the opposite of that philosophy.

It is fair to ask why the plan contradicts the very branded offer to justify it.

The 1917 deed question should be answered first.

We're really asking that you delay the vote and think about this for a while.

There's too much of our next speaker tonight will be Greg Manke for Spruce Woods.

I'm actually here to speak in favor of the shoot park development.

I've played Shoe Park many times over the years and have always wondered how we could have this beautiful piece of land on Lake Michigan with this iconic lighthouse, but have this subpar golf course that's always been poorly maintained and for those reasons underused.

It has so much potential.

I go by shoot most every day, either walking or driving, and rarely see more than a few golfers here and there.

This will give a people a reason to come to Racine.

And when they're here, maybe they will stay at our downtown hotel or eat at a restaurant or stop at a bakery and pick up a Kringle or two, and then go home and tell their friends how nice it was.

Give them the reason to come.

I think as a resident to pay $24 to play on a beautiful golf course that two hours north would cost $500, that would be a gift to local golfers.

I think people will be amazed at how beautiful it is when it's finished and what a gem it will be for our city.

I'm just asking you to think of moving forward and not backwards.

I think if we pass up this opportunity, we will be moving backwards.

Shoop has never been utilized to its potential by the city, and there's no reason to believe that it can be in the future.

I believe this project will benefit our entire community moving forward, and I ask that you vote in favor.

So thank you for listening.

Oops.

Oops.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the Common Council and distinguished guests, my name is Karen Johnson, and I stand before you today not just as a resident, but as someone whose families go back generations in Racine.

To you, Mr.

Mayor, and to the alderman, I am here to offer some ideas that I think will offer a compromise with the Lighthouse Dunes.

Mayor, and to the Alderman, I am here to offer some ideas that I think will offer a compromise with the Lighthouse Dunes through the chair to the developer present today.

Like you, I have deep roots in the community and a connection.

My father, Bud Nelson knew your parents very well, and my grandfather and great grandfather built the Johnson Wanks Tower for your grandfather.

As a lifelong Racinian, I do appreciate the many things your family has done to give back to this community.

In regards to the new venture, Lighthouse Students, I do do believe on its surface, it can and will be a wonderful asset and will bring a lot of new people to our village.

But I don't think it should be at the expense of other important things that will be taken away.

First of all, our 3,000 foot wild shoreline is home to a critical migratory flyway with over 270 bird species recorded.

Hoy Audubon and Wisconsin Society for Ornithology are the leading voices in the preservation of these critical habitats.

They both have scientific evidence that migratory birds cannot survive in a prairie dune habitat.

Moving the sanctuary across the street won't work because the birds need everything on the shore.

I hope you will compromise your plans and install a living shoreline into your plans as they suggest.

I do have a letter that the Wisconsin Society of Ornithology asks that I deliver to the council and to Helen and Craig today.

Second, on the subject of discount fees, I am certain that this was an oversight on your part, but written into the proposal is a statement that only City of Racine residents will receive discounts.

I just found out that Wind Point will too.

I would hope that the lighthouse students develop different tiers of discounts so that all Racine residents can enjoy the benefits of the course.

Of course, charge as much as you want to out-of-towners, but make it affordable for our residents.

Again, thank you to everyone who's worked very hard, save the trees, Hoy Audubon and the Wisconsin Society of Ornithology, and to the Johnson Leopold family for listening to our ideas and hopefully including them into our plan.

Thank you.

And the last speaker for today will be Kevin Zelver, five Cedarwood.

Good evening.

I'm uh Kevin Zlavore, lifetime Racine Resident, and now uh living in the Wind Point area adjacent to uh the Shoop uh golf course, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the proposal and its passage.

Um I won't pull out my prepared remarks only because it would be somewhat repetitive, but I do think that uh first of all, very impressed by the engagement on both sides, and well, any project has pros and cons.

Um is my uh judgment that the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.

Um we do have a great, great piece of land there.

Um I have done homework uh on the Kaiser Group and looked at some of the other projects that have done, um, all of which have you know been done with respect to the communities and honoring the wishes uh of those communities and have been generally rated very, very high and productive.

We do need to move forward.

We have a declining um infrastructure at Shoops, and I do think it would be great for the community advancement.

I've also used uh some of the caddies at Meadowbrook.

I know the program.

Um I've helped advance some of the people that the Evans Scholarship.

I know what an impact it has on people's lives.

Um, and so there's a lot of again.

When I look back at the pros and cons, uh is much much more positive, and and I think it's gonna be a great way to advance our community, put us on the map and allow us to move forward uh together.

So thank you for your time.

This concludes the public comment section.

Thank you.

We'll then move on to a presentation by the Leopold Johnson Golf Group.

Uh, many of you were here to uh see the presentation on at executive committee, so we've asked uh the Johnson Leopold group to maybe give an abbreviated uh presentation that they did last time and then offer the opportunity for alders who are there or not there to ask any additional questions they might have.

So if you'd like to come up to the to the Diaz, Greg.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

Um thank you uh very much for listening to what we have to say.

Um it obviously is a very uh it's a topic that there are people that have a high level of interest in.

Uh I will keep my remarks much shorter than I did uh previously.

Um as I as I sit here, um I think I want I want everybody to appreciate what we're trying to do.

Um this is something that we're not doing to make a profit.

We never will make a profit.

I think it was uh Alderman Mack that that asked at the executive committee meeting, you know, what when will you get your 10 million dollars back?

And I think my answer was never.

We will never get it back.

Um this is something that Helen and I drive by this course, except there's construction going on right now, um, but we drive by twice a day.

And I I can tell you if you drive by, you cannot see the lake.

We drive on the lighthouse drive, we cannot see the lake.

It is it is overgrown with bushes and trees that are invasive trees.

Um I I understand um the concern that a lot of people have.

Um I think what I would what I would merely ask is when we're referred to as developers, we are we are not developers, all right.

We are we're trying to do this because we are a generational family.

We will always be in this city.

This is our home.

This is where our kids all work now, and they're getting involved in you know what our family companies and they understand that you do things sometimes because it's the right thing to do.

Um and uh and this is one of those things.

I I think it's gonna be an awesome thing for us to do.

And when I use the term investment, I'm talking about investing in that property to bring it back to where it should be.

It is iconic.

And the one of the very first people who recognize that was a gentleman named Mike Kaiser.

And I have spoken a number of times, and certainly with the mayor, um, about the Kaiser group.

They are they are they care about the environment, they care about the communities that they do golf courses in.

They care about the trees and the birds, and and they care about golf, and they care about having an unbelievable experience.

So that's who the Kaisers are.

Um when I was first aware of the Kaiser Group, I I knew them because I've been to a number of their golf courses, but I didn't really know them.

Okay.

So I investigated, and someone gave me a book that was written by um the elder Mr.

Kaiser, the patriarch of the Kaiser family, who started the family golf course, the family business.

And he is a spectacular human being who cares more about what goes on in the communities that they do business and how they treat their employees and how they treat their customers.

And it kind of reminded me of another person that lived in this community and passed away about 15 years ago.

And so when I met the son, Mike Kaiser, um we he was great.

He we spent so much time on the shoe property walking every single well, it wasn't walking, I've had four hip replacements, so I was in a golf cart.

And but we went all around to see it and to understand what it could be, and he had the vision for this property, and the vision is to make this one of the top nine-hole golf courses in America.

And he should know because he's got the actually in the world, he's got number three right now, a nine-hole course that is number three on the list.

And um, and he said he'll never be one or two because those are they're there for a reason.

He said, but maybe you'll give me four because you'll never be three either.

And um, you know, it's you know, this is a project that that uh Helen and I are, you know, we want to do it, you know.

We're not doing we don't throw money away, all right.

We you just don't do that.

And um uh we we do care about our environment, and you you mentioned the I'm sorry I couldn't help, but you know, you mentioned the uh ornithology department at Cornell, and it's it was built by the Johnson family.

So it is the uh Imogene Johnson ornithology uh building at Cornell.

you know we want to do it you know we're not doing we don't throw money away all right we we you just don't do that and um uh we we do care about our environment and you you mentioned the i i'm sorry i couldn't help but you know you mentioned the uh ornithology department at cornell and it's it was built by the Johnson family so it is the uh Imogene Johnson ornithology uh building at Cornell so um Helen has a little bit of the bird lovers and the tree and I think that's awesome so I can I can assure you you will be represented at the table and uh and of course as you well know because you spent a couple hours with uh Jens Jensen walking the property we've hired Jen so some of you may recognize that name he's a very iconic um Racinian uh that did most of the parks that we have in our city um and this is his grandson that now is carrying on the ecological uh environmental um uh business that his grandfather started so what so what we want to winter into is uh is a 50 year agreement and well you see well that sounds like a long time and for some people it is a long time for us it's not we know our family's gonna be here in 50 years and and our you know our kids are going to be in this community and they're gonna be involved and uh you know 50 years is just you know it's just 50 years so um but there are outs I mean if we aren't performing like we should be performing um you know maybe your children will be the mayor and we'll call my grandkids in and you know they'll have a conversation and and I only say that uh because I I want you to feel comfortable that we will do the right thing I want to say all the time but we'll we're gonna do it most of the time all right so so I just uh you know rather than getting into everything and all the details I just I think it was even more important at least make me feel better and Helen as well um that uh that I wanted to share with you that we are listeners we will we will listen in fact there was a gentleman here last week at the executive committee meeting he was a kayaker I talked with him afterwards and we're working on a way that he can you know that kayakers that want to bring their kayaks in can access down to the lake and they we're put a little parking spot if we could get the city to maybe to help us to say for kayakers only we'll probably put the sign up anyway you know in hopes that it'll it'll it'll be understood that is for kayakers to take their kayaks down so I'm saying that we're gonna listen to you and that's kind of the you know that's that's who we are so um I did a little bit different format rather than kind of go over all the issues and things going on which I'm more than happy to discuss anything going on in the uh in the lease uh but I wanted you more than anything I wanted to share with you who we are and you know it it this is a very important project for us we have a few questions uh Alder Jordenson thank you so you it answered most of my questions last week but in talking with residents um they they like the idea that uh it would be matching Johnson Park uh after the two years of 24 dollars is up and they they thought that was a great idea um they did have a question and I didn't have the answer so I I wanted to ask you they were worried that caddies would be mandatory that um that they would have to pay the caddy fee and do a caddy even if they just wanted to go do it for the 24 dollars and without a caddy is absolutely no caddies are not uh there was never any thought process that we had that would have caddies as a um as a requirement to play golf though you can walk you can take your pool caddy we or pool cart uh we will not have electric carts or gas carts um so it's it's still a walking course thank you so much that was caddies are free i i that's right that's well there we go just for anyone who didn't hear that it wasn't with the microphone but the the caddies will be free themselves so not even on uh uh issue of cost then i need to keep the conversation between the presenter and the alders and not have commentary from our members of the public okay please continue well in hearing that that the the caddies are free and they're not required that that satisfies my question of that some residents brought up of cost it sounds like that's been taken care of as well so it would just be the 24 dollars for two years and then after that it would be the the highest price for um nine holes at Johnson nine at nine holes right perfect thank you so much yeah elder davis thank you one item that's come up a few times is about the restoration of the shoreline where are you at in the process with the DNR to ensure that they will grant you permission to move forward with that part of it.

One item that's come up a few times is about the restoration of the shoreline.

Where are you at in the process with the DNR to ensure that they will grant you permission to move forward with that part of it?

Okay.

The request to do all of the rocks on the shoreline will actually the request will come from the city because the city will continue to own this property.

So it will always be the city's property.

But we have had conversations with the DNR and the Corps of Engers.

So we know the people.

One of the questions that I that I heard before was was gosh, why did we go to the DNR, the Corps of Engineers, you know, all these people.

But the final lease agreement is subject to those approvals occurring.

So if we don't get DNR approval and they say no, you can't do it, then we would have to come back and say, okay, as you know, we're not gonna do the shoreline because we weren't able to.

Um but the lease will be subject to getting those approvals.

Thank you.

You answer my follow-up question as well.

Okay.

Alan.

Thank you.

And thank you for coming and speaking with us again.

At the last meeting, I expressed uh interest in connecting with students for future, and I'm very excited to hear the piece about the scholarships.

I'm very aware of that program.

I'm also hyper aware of how much it costs to go to Marquette.

That is where my personal law journey is taking me.

So wish I was a golfer.

Uh also with the restoration, I am a member of the citizens climate lobby.

My law professor focuses his uh law law interest in environment.

So I'm very focused and aware of all of the pros and cons that go into whether or not we address what is happening at Shoe Park, including the shoreline, uh the necessity to uh replenish our trees and remove the trees that are uh not healthy right now.

I know that it sounds painful, but uh if people could imagine the one rotten apple in the barrel uh for an analogy, uh leaving those trees there would have the opposite uh effect instead of saving any of our ecosystem or environment, it would have the exact opposite.

So I am very happy that you are coming in and and uh donating time and energy and money and putting uh the family values into that your family has into the shoe park.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I don't know if you're the right person to answer this.

There were uh there was a comment that uh the DNR denied a wetland permit back in November.

Is that something you had applied for or something?

Okay, I I'm not I'm not aware of it.

Uh okay.

But again, we will need we will need to get those permits and and in order for all of this to actually occur.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Leopold?

Alder Weiss.

Um, I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to ask it because I've had a lot of people mention it.

Um I'm under the assumption that Wind Point Caledonia, those are all going to be received discounts because their driver's license says we're seen.

So I'm assuming that's how you would assess the city of Recene resident when they come in to golf.

We will make the determination based on what their driver's license says.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions or comments?

See none.

Thank you, Mr.

Leopold.

Uh, the other presentations that we've had.

Oh, do you want to say anything in closing?

No.

Okay.

Um, the other presentations we had it in this, uh, we've had Commissioner Rooney present to us twice.

He's not here this evening, but he did send out his comments uh to all of you again today.

Uh he made an assessment about whether or not the proposed plans in his estimate would do the work of um uh protecting the shoreline into the future, uh, which it was his assessment that it is.

Uh, we also do have uh Director Kepnick from Parks Recreation and Cultural Services here as well.

Uh we can ask him to give an abbreviated presentation regarding the trees and the shoreline.

Uh and again, I think this will be a more abbreviated version because I think some of you have heard this at least once, some of you twice, some of you this will be the first time you'll be hearing some of his comments.

But if there were additional questions uh for him regarding uh that space, uh, you'd have the ability to ask those questions now.

Mr.

Kepnick.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh as noted, uh, for some of you, this is the fourth time you've heard me, so I'm kind of recycling the same information, so I'm gonna keep it brief.

Um, this is the process that I went through when I first heard about this project so that I could uh better understand it for my own needs.

Um the first thing I did was research the area and I determined that uh windpoint and shoe park is in fact a recognized birding area.

Uh you heard some information before showing there are over 270 species that have been documented in the area.

Um I also then looked into what type of habitat those birds use and basically broke it down into four major habitat groupings.

Uh there's the open water and the lake habitat, the shoreline beach habitat, open land and meadow habitat, and then trees and woodland habitat.

So this was just an acknowledgement that uh shoreline work won't necessarily uh impact every type of habitat that's present.

Um I broke this project down into two pieces, one being that shoreline stabilization and bluff resiliency, and then the golf course redevelopment separately because these have different environmental considerations and are for different purposes.

Uh the shoreline bluff work I determined was a resiliency and an infrastructure issue dating back to the January 2020 storm with the record high water levels and a lack of uh shoreland ice.

There was some bluff damage along the area, entire trees were lost into the lake, and at this point, the unstable areas are uh the damage is exacerbating simply due to the fact that the trees are contributing to it rather than uh preventing it.

Uh the tree and shrub removal along the bluff is tied to the repair work.

Essentially, in order to repair the and stabilize the bluff, we need to have access by equipment.

There need to be changes made, and trees need to be removed as part of that project.

Uh I then looked into the tree canopy on the course itself.

Um, as the former city forester, I have access to our GIS-based tree inventory consisting of 40,000 public tree sites and all their uh attributes.

Uh so I did a query of that uh the golf course, the trees that are on the golf course.

Determine that the majority of the species are silver maple, green ash, white ash, Norway maple, and honey locust.

Uh take it back, actually, 40% of the species are made up of those uh those five.

Um, and then in addition, 55 of 184 trees on the course were under 10 inches in diameter.

Uh that's important because the smaller trees provide less benefit than the large mature trees.

And then lastly, uh looking at those common trees on the property, several of them do have management and ecological limitations.

Norway maple is one of those species that's present.

It is uh considered uh undesirable, recognized by the DNR as a species with invasive tendencies and the ability to spread into natural areas.

Some communities have gone so far as to ban that species.

We have not yet hear ash, uh there were the green ash and white ash on the course, and they provided canopy historically, but because they are highly vulnerable to emerald ash borer and they require ongoing pesticide treatment, they do not present long-term uh habitat.

Silver maple does support uh a reasonable amount of insect activity compared to some of the other species, but silver makeup is a short-lived and uh prone to decay and storm damage, which limits its long-term reliability.

And then last honey locust is a native species, uh, but we can't compare to some of the higher value species that supports relatively low insect diversity.

Any questions for Director Kepnick?

See none, thank you very much.

We now move on to communications introduced to council.

Um, would you like to make a motion regarding items to be referred to finance and personnel?

I would like to refer the filing following item to the finance and personnel committee.

Item 0659-26 communications sponsored by Mayor Mason requesting to allow the mayor and the clerk to enter into a development agreement with the CDA and Numenome regarding the Geezy School property located at 5120 Bird Avenue.

So motion and a second to refer these items to finance and personnel.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

Alder Harman, would you like to make a motion regarding the items to public works and services?

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion to refer the following items to public works and safety.

I mean public works and services.

Item 063626 communications sponsored by Alder Allen to discuss household items that are no longer picked up at um at the Pearl Street and Transfer Station.

Item 063726 communications sponsored by Alder Widener, requesting a four-way stop to be placed at the intersection of Carmel Avenue and Graham Street.

Item 063826 communications sponsored by myself.

Submitting agenda two to contract 2025 187 for state municipal financial agreement regarding the bridge over the Root River.

Item 0662-26 communications sponsored by Mayor Mason.

Requesting permission to close Main Street from State Street to 7th Street, 6th Street from Lake Avenue to Grand Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue from 4th Street to 7th Street for party on the pavement on September 19th, 2026.

Item 0646-26 communications sponsored by myself, submitting change order number two to contract 2025 181, racing uptown green infrastructure project, AW Oaks and Sun Incorporated Contractor.

Item 064726 communications sponsored by myself, submitting final payment for contract 2025 181, Racing Uptown Green Infrastructure Project, AW Oaks and Sun Incorporated Contractor.

Item 0664-26 Communications sponsored by Alder Jorgensen requesting to allow the farmers market to place signs below the welcome to racing signs at the city entrances.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

We'll now move on to uh Alder Pete and ask him to do uh make a motion on referring the items to public services and our public safety and licensing.

I would like referred the following items to the public safety and license committee.

I'm like motion to do that.

Uh item number 64826 communication sponsored by myself for the license premise report.

Item 64926 communications sponsored by myself requesting any consideration and informal expression of concern or other actions pursuant to the police report.

Item 65026 communications sponsored by myself, requesting the appearance or Ariana Romeris for a new operator's license.

Item 065126 communications sponsored by myself for an application for a massage establishment license, sunflower therapy, LLC, DBA Sunflower Spa, which is located at 906 State Street, Zoe Daizu.

Owner, District 1.

Item 65226, communications sponsored by Alder Kelly for discussion and possible action on the lawyering ordinance, fee schedule and possible signage with RPD and the attorney's office.

Item 65326 communications sponsored by myself, submitting a new application for a Class B retail permitted malt beverage and intoxicating liquor license for Morold's Hospitality Group DBA Morinos.

Little Italy, which is located at 1238 Lakes of Avenue, Logan Marino Agent, 13th District.

Item 65426 communications sponsored by myself.

Item 654 26 Communications sponsored by myself, submitting a change of agent application for a Class B retail and fermented malt beverage and intoxication liquor license for Bureau's LLC DBA Bureau's LLC, located at 2116th Street, how Howard Brown Junior Agent First District.

Item 655 26 communications sponsored by myself, submitting a new application for a Class C wine license for Bureau's LLCDBARO T Room, which is located 2096 Street, Howard Brown Junior agent.

Item 065626 communication sponsored by myself, submitting a new application for a retail fermented malt beverage and intoxicating liquor license for La Esque Esquita LL C D B A La Esquita located at 2005 Taylor Avenue.

Raymond Vidales Agent 3rd District.

Item 65826 communication sponsored by myself, submitting an application for a secondhand article dealer license, SALT Commons, LLC DBA Salt Commons LLC located at 2224 Northwestern Avenue, Unit 308.

Item 066026 communications sponsored by myself, submitting a new application for a Class B retail fermented malt beverage and intoxicating liquor license for best duo inc, DBA Danny's Grocery and Lounge located 1950 Taylor Avenue.

Dixie Patel Agent Levant District.

Item 66126 communications sponsored by myself, submitting a new application for a cigarette tobacco and electronic vape device retail license for Moses Market, LLC DBA, Moses Market, which is located at 1949 Racine Street, Side of Heat Agent 2nd District.

There's a motion and a second to refer these items to public safety and licensing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

That motion carries.

And is that a referral to the executive committee?

Alder Jorgensen.

Would you like to make a motion regarding this item?

Uh yes.

I would move to refer item 0665-26.

Communications sponsored by Mayor Mason presenting proposed ordinance 004-26 immigration and for immigration enforcement.

So motion and a second to refer this item.

Alder Wagner.

Thank you.

I would make a motion to receive and file this communication of ordinance number 0004-26.

We put state about this.

So I will make um I'm sorry, I just unmuted and apologize.

I can't be there.

Um I'd like to second that just for discussion's sake, please.

The motion has been seconded to receive and file.

Just you do have some background noise in the the space that you're in.

Um so just wanted to let you know that.

Um, and then we will look for your hand if you want to participate.

Uh, moving forward.

There's a motion to receive in file this item.

Uh, we will be voting um electronically.

Um, or we will not be voting electronically today, just so people know.

Alderwyner, would you like to speak further to your motion?

I would, thank you very much.

This motion is not a statement about immigration, it is a statement about legal exposure, fiscal responsibility, and what this body actually has the authority to do.

Start with our own city attorney's memorandum.

It tells us in writing the that enforcement of this ordinance may be limited, and that communities passing similar message uh measures have done so knowing that they may be unenforceable.

When our own council recommends approval, and that caveat is attached.

This council should hear it as a warning that it is.

The Department of Justice has filed 27 lawsuits against more than 20 jurisdictions over ordinances like this one, in particular section 63-5.

The mask provision is precisely the piece being struck down.

A federal judge blocked Philadelphia's for uh version, the Ninth Circuit blocked California's, and right now, 30 miles up the road, Milwaukee is in a standoff with the Justice Department over an identical mask ban, a federal demand letter, and a deadline that has already passed, and a lawsuit almost certainly coming.

A federal demand letter and a deadline that has already passed and a lawsuit almost certainly coming.

If Milwaukee's ordinance cannot survive, ours won't either.

We would not be taking a stand.

We would be joining a fight that already is being lost at our taxpayers' expense.

Second, much of this ordinance regulates business that is not ours.

Immigration detainers are directed to jails, and the city of Racine does not operate a jail.

Any one of our officers, anyone of our officers' arrest is booked into the Racine County jail under the authority of the county sheriff, an independently elected constitutional offer officer over whom this council has no power whatsoever.

The legislature understands this.

The bill the governor vetoed this spring targeted county sheriffs, not city council.

The detainer provisions before us regulates something that the city does not do.

The third, what remains largely uh restates discretion we already have.

No federal law requires Racine to spend its resources on civil immigration enforcement today.

We do not need this ordinance and the litigation that comes with it to keep doing what we already are free to do.

And finally, and most importantly, consider what this vote actually asks of us.

It forces every member of this body and every resident watching into a for or against CAP uh camp on federal immigration policy over provisions that are unenforceable, that govern the county's business, or that changed nothing about how the city operates.

That is the worst trade a council can make.

Maximum division for minimal effect.

And we make it while facing a projected operational deficit in 2027.

Receiving and filing accepts this communication into the record, respects the concerns that motivate it, and protects the taxpayers of the city of Racine from paying into litigation a question other cities are already losing.

I ask for your support to receive and file this ordinance.

Thank you.

Please vote as you wish.

Aye.

Alder Harman?

No.

Alder Pabone?

No.

Alder Frazier?

No.

Alder Davis.

Alder Mack.

Alder Jurgensen?

No.

Alder Weiner?

Aye.

Alder Horton?

No.

Alder Hodges?

No.

Alder Allen?

No.

Alder Pete?

No.

Alder Land?

No.

Alder Demark.

No.

Motion to receive and file fails.

But what is now before us is the motion to refer this item to the executive committee.

All those in favor of referring it to the executive committee, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes appear to have it.

We will now move on to committee reports.

Taking the unusual step of moving executive committee item to the to the front of the calendar for action today, given the interest on the shoe park issue.

I assume you have at least one request for separate consideration on the items before the executive committee today.

I didn't receive any officially.

If there's anyone who would be requesting it, I guess now would be the time when nothing came beforehand.

So I'm seeing Alder Weiner nod her head that she'd like separate consideration.

And so if you would read the item for separate consideration, um which one is she requesting?

Alder White.

The recommendation from the executive committee was to approve.

Is there a second from Alder Pabone?

Uh Alder Jorgensen, would you like to speak to the motion?

Uh yeah, I mean, it was very very lengthy meeting.

Um I I won't try to rehash uh everything from it, but since we're polling it out for a separate consideration, it's been something that I've had many, many discussions with residents on.

Uh I've had many discussions with non-residents, quite a few of them as well.

Uh, and one thing that I I think is really coming through with this is it's really not perfect for anybody.

I mean, one of the comments that was made uh in the in the committee, actually, by uh um Mr.

Leopold was that he wasn't super thrilled that it was tied to a course that he didn't own uh or manage uh uh the rates for, and that would be putting it out of their control, and it made him a little uncomfortable.

I know there's some city residents who are uncomfortable with this moving forward.

However, when you really boil it down to what it is, uh, is this an opportunity to get out of the hole that's been dug here?

The clubhouse uh is in desperate need of replacement.

Uh we continue to hear over and over and over again of things that aren't working, the irrigation system.

I received an email today from someone who worked there who wanted to tell me that they're currently hand watering large portions of the course to keep it going.

Um as you can imagine, that's probably not the most sustainable uh practice for a golf course.

Uh he uh went on and on about how all of the the things of him working there and being there for many years has led to him being in favor of it.

He actually shared some concerns that he had, but he had full trust in the Leopold Johnson group to do what they say they're going to do and make sure that it's truly a gem for the community.

Uh and I believe that they've really earned that trust.

They've done many projects in the community.

It's okay to be nervous, and it's okay to want to make sure that we hold them accountable to it, and we've heard tonight that they they welcome that accountability, that they know what they're getting into, they want to make sure that what they're doing is going to be right.

Because if we do nothing, uh that's the most important part I think out of this.

If we do nothing, we're going to lose large portions of it.

We received uh a report in 2020 detailing that.

The question raised was raised tonight of why didn't we do this before?

Uh why wasn't this done previously?

Why wasn't there discussion on it?

There was, it maybe didn't reach the level of media attention that this has, but there was a report that was done.

We received information that if we don't do bluff stabilization, that the bluff is potentially going to fall into the lake.

Uh, and so the idea that there's nothing that we could do if we just sit tight.

The further that goes along, we actually had one of the other things that I think is important is our city forester and uh director of parks, or former city forester, excuse me, and director of parks made the comment that it's been brought up about doing a living shoreline, but the erosion has progressed so far at this point that that really isn't an option for the vast majority of it.

And I fear that if we continue to do nothing, how much more will be lost, or how much more of a drastic option are we going to have to do in the future as it continues to deteriorate?

Because the other question that's been brought up is if we do, you know, maybe we vote this down and we'll fund it somewhere else.

I can confidently say the city does not have money to fund this ourselves.

Uh and this is something that I also can't imagine, uh being that we hear all the time about the the cost of property taxes.

Can't imagine that the average resident is okay with funding this through property tax increases to repair a park that's not even in the city limits.

So all of that's to say before before us today is an opportunity to really start a partnership on moving this park forward.

There's going to be many, many conversations in the future about with the Hoy Awadon Society, with the Leopold Johnsons and others to make sure that this truly works for everybody.

We heard it tonight, everyone's got a seat at the table on this uh around the trees and the birds.

And so I really view that this is something that in the future uh really has the opportunity to to truly define our area and what we want it to be known as.

Uh the last thing I'll leave you with on where I got to here because it was no easy decision to make for me, was I got to thinking of bringing my daughter to this park.

And what do I want to show uh of what that I did on my time on the council?

Do I want to show her where there used to be a clubhouse, but we did nothing and it deteriorated and it's gone, and there's no clubhouse there now.

Do I want to bring her to uh a uh a potential mudslide spot where there used to be a bluff here, used to be able to walk out close to the lake.

That's all gone now.

There's no there's no longer a bluff there.

Do I want to bring her to uh areas on the beach where you can't really access them anymore because so many down trees have continued to pile up, it's inaccessible.

Uh or do I want to bring her to a place that, as we've heard tonight, clubhouse is welcome to anybody.

Grab a cup of coffee, come out there and sit at the picnic tables, enjoy the lakeshore, go to the new public beach that is totally public, open to everybody.

It sounds like potential uh kayak launch point now as well.

Um go along the new walking trail.

Uh I think that's the future that I I want to have when I bring my daughter of what we did on the council together.

It's an opportunity for for growth and redevelopment and preservation as opposed to getting caught up in how it used to be or what it should have been, which results in a lot of these things having deteriorated uh beyond repair.

And so I think this is our opportunity tonight to move start forward and go along the long track of repairing and restoring this beautiful area.

Thank you.

Alder Weiner.

Thank you.

I asked that that this item be pulled out for separate consideration because I thought about the courage that it took for the board members in Wind Point to make a unanimous public vote on this uh agreement, this uh arrangement.

And I think that we uh this city council should have the opportunity to have our voices be heard.

My watch.

It's timing me.

Um heard in our vote when we vote on this item.

I thought it was much uh worthy, not just being passed along to the consent agenda, rather a separate vote.

And I also wanted to take an opportunity to thank the Leopold Johnson family for their generous, generous offer to uh replenish our beloved shoot park and a golf course out there, and having uh spent over 50 years out in that area.

Um, I know how much it needs the work to be done, and I know that we have uh not had the resources to put into it, and we appreciate the gift that you are giving the city of Racine.

We also appreciate and want to thank you for your very generous gift of 1.9 million as a contribution toward the Lincoln King Center and the annual gift of 25,000.

It was very, very generous for you to offer to do that for the city of Racine, and we are very grateful for that.

And I wanted the opportunity to say that.

So that is the reason why I wanted this called up so we can vote separate on this item and show our support for this generous gift.

Um we have two other members in the queue.

I do know we we did have several people uh ask the city attorney uh to make comment on uh whether or not uh this having a golf course was uh in it in accordance with the deed that we received from uh Mr.

Shoop more than a century ago uh to have a golf course on that space.

So if it uh unless there are any objections, I'll ask the city attorney to render uh that opinion now, just for information as we move into the conversation.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm addressing the specific part of uh Dr.

Shoop's deed that requires that the property shall forever be held, maintained, and improved by the city for public park purposes.

So the issue is not really whether Shoe Park would continue to remain a public park, of course it would.

The real question is whether a publicly accessible municipal golf course is a legitimate public park use.

And in my opinion, based upon the law, the answer clearly is yes.

Ultimately, though, whether uh the proposed use is a legitimate public park use is the decision for the common council and only the common council to make.

For nearly a hundred years, shoe park has included a golf course throughout that time.

The property has remained a public park owned by the city of Racine.

This proposal does not change that fundamental character.

It does not sell the land, it does not remove the land from the park system, it does not convert the property into a private country club.

It continues a long-standing public recreational use while creating an opportunity to approve improve the facility through private investment rather than taxpayer dollars.

Wisconsin law has long recognized that municipalities may acquire, develop, maintain, and improve parks and recreational facilities for the benefit of their residents.

Our statutes do not treat recreation as something separate from park purposes.

Recreation is one of the principal reasons parks exist.

That has that understanding has guided Wisconsin municipalities for many generations.

Courts in other Midwestern states have reached the same conclusion.

They recognize that public park purposes are not limited to passive green space, but include facilities devoted to public recreation, including municipal golf courses.

As one court observed, the public golf course serves the same public recreational purpose as other park facilities.

Another recognized that municipalities may include golf courses within public parks because they provide recreational opportunities for the public.

That reasoning is entirely consistent with how parks have developed in Wisconsin.

The Racine, the Racine Park system also reflects that understanding.

Racine's parks contain baseball diamonds, football fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, pickleball courts, and 1,800 foot square foot skate park, a splash pad, dog parks, and two other golf courses.

Every one of those facilities occupies parkland.

Everyone is designed for a particular recreational activity.

I'd recommend that you set aside any argument that some people make that this proposal that opponents to this proposal will seek redress from the attorney general or the courts.

It's my opinion that any such claim would not be successful.

Some have expressed concerns that this proposal somehow privatizes shoot park.

Respectfully, I uh characterize, I find that characterization inaccurate.

Municipalities routinely contract with private entities to operate public facilities throughout Wisconsin, across the country and in the city or seen private companies manage concession stands, campgrounds, restaurants, municipal golf courses located on public land.

Contracting for professional management does not transfer ownership or alter the public character of the property.

The city retains title, the city establishes the terms of the lease, the city retains oversight and enforcement authority, and most importantly, the land continues to serve the public.

The city will continue to own Shoot Park.

The golf course will remain open to every member of the public.

It will not become a private club.

It will not be restricted to members or invited guests.

Racine residents will receive discounted green fees, reinforcing that this is a city municipal recreational facility intended to benefit the community.

Any claim that resident discounts uh violate the concept of a public park is plainly incorrect.

Municipal resident, non-resident fee differentials are common throughout Wisconsin and nationally.

Frankly, this common council in its annual budget has approved differing fees for residents and non-residents for kickball, softball, pickleball, basketball, boat launch, soccer and baseball field rental, and the purchase of graves, among other things.

The operator will redesign and improve the course at its own expense and then manage it on the city's behalf, much as a private management company has done for years.

Shoot Park will remain a public park called Shoot Park.

Its golf course will remain a public course.

The public will continue to join the property just as it has for nearly a century.

This proposal preserves that tradition while improving the facility.

Whether to accept this proposal, it's an issue for the common council.

As a legal issue and 38 years of practicing law, more than half of which has been represented in the city of Racine.

I've rarely seen a clearer case.

Approving this proposal is consistent with Dr.

Shoop's gift to the city.

Thank you.

Elder Pavone, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So I've I've heard a lot, I've had a lot of constituents reach out both for and against, and I've heard a lot of the issues, but I've also heard a lot of those issues addressed here.

Forrester has indicated that what is currently there is not conducive to keeping said things there.

Erosion means to erode.

So it means goes away.

So if we do nothing like we have been for the past longer than I've been alive, it's going to continue to do what it's doing.

So this plan gives us a path and opportunity forward without having the city taxpayers be on the on the dime for that because we've we've seen that.

We we spend what a hundred thousand dollars a year currently to maintain that area.

It's not enough.

It won't it will never be enough because we don't have the money to redo the infrastructure that's there.

We don't have the money to stabilize the shoreline.

We don't have the money to maintain the park, and anyone who's played that can tell you.

There is something to be said because you know the Johnson family has been in this community forever, generations upon generations upon generations.

And for them to partner with Leopold Group and to come to the city when they could have gone to Caldonia, Milwaukee, Oak Creek, anywhere else, really, and said, Hey, well, you want 10 million dollars?

We'll give you we'll give you 10 million dollars to do this.

They decided to do that here, just like they have their world headquarters for their company here, just like they've invested throughout the centuries.

Yeah, centuries here.

So when they come to you and they say, hey, we'll give you 10 million dollars, we're gonna do it.

We'll do this here.

We'll also give you another one time one plus million dollars for your Lincoln King Center, and then we'll give you 25,000 a year toward that purpose over the course of 50 years.

It's another 1.25 million dollars.

I don't have that.

I don't have that lying on my couch or anything.

I mean, I know we get a wealthy salary here as as alders, but none of us have that.

But for them to think about, hey, you know what, this is an issue.

How could we fix this?

But one of the key things here I think people need to just give more light to and understand is that they have been receptive.

They have held the listening sessions, they have come before this council before different committees several times, all open to the public to receive input, and they're gonna continue to do that just like they have for all of it ever for the city.

So I think there are a lot of concerns that were raised, but that would be exacerbated by doing nothing and continuing it to let it be what it is now.

And so we we also have to, it's not about it's they're not out of town developers that are coming in from Madison or Utah or somewhere, you know.

They they have their roots here, they've proven their commitment to the community, and I think that should be worth something.

So I am in favor of this motion.

Thank you.

I'll repeat.

Uh thank you.

Uh, as in the executive uh committee meeting, I find myself uh coming behind some excellent comments from my uh fellow colleagues.

So I'll keep it brief and say that after I was out at the park uh this past Sunday, and uh I saw for myself firsthand, and uh I want to thank the uh Johnson group for making the offer.

I will be supporting it, but as uh all the speakers before me who already pointed out, uh the pros out at weigh the cons were or we're going to just take a negative set up a perspective and leave do nothing or or we're gonna move forward.

But more but on the other side of that, I took an opportunity to speak to some of the park goers, and they express most of the same sentiments that we've here heard here tonight as well as at the executive committee meeting.

And I feel confident that those questions and concerns will be addressed, and that uh as we move forward.

I think uh we're doing the best making a decision.

Uh if we are elect to go accept it, uh I think we'll give give them a gift to generations uh to come.

Thank you.

There are no other members of the council in the queue to speak on this item.

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

Yes.

Aye, Alder Frazier, Alder Weiss, Holder Davis, Alder Mack, Alder Jorgensen, Alder Weiner.

Elder Horton?

Aye, Alder Hodges, Alder Allen, Elder Pete, Alder Land.

Aye, Alderman DeMair.

Aye.

There are 15 ayes and zero no's.

It is passed unanimously.

Moving on to finance and personnel.

Uh Alder Land, did you have any items for separate consideration?

Yes, Your Honor.

I have one item.

Item 0610-26.

Communications sponsored by myself, requesting approval to enter into a three-year contract with Passport Labs to move away from the old coin meters and transition to a fully plat digital platform for parking payments and enforcement.

The recommendation of the committee was that the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute and sign the contract with Passport Labs Inc.

to implement and maintain their system.

Fiscal note, this is a three-year contract with the total cost of $24,255 for implementation.

This includes a one-time cost of 12,255 for hardware and equipment and a 12,000 dollar annually for system licensing.

The funds are available.

An MIS account 70113-5780 for fiscal year 2026 and recurring system licensing for subsequent years will be appropriated during the annual budget processes.

Move to approve.

Yeah.

Why don't we just hold for just one minute to let the enthusiasm in the hallway move down just a little bit so we can hear not only what's in the chamber but and not what's outside the chamber?

Alder Frazier, please continue.

I'd like to make a motion to refer this back to the committee.

Um back to finance and personnel.

Is this is there a second on referring the item back?

Alder Widener.

Alder Fraser, would you like to speak to your motion to refer back to the committee?

Yes.

So I'm not against this.

I think that there are some outstanding questions that have to be answered.

I've met with my business own owners in my district over the last uh three weeks that I've been back, and they've expressed concerns about how this will be implemented.

Uh where I think the bigger question is going to be where are these going to be placed?

Uh several business owners expressed concerns of elderly people not being able to uh use these systems, uh namely an app.

Um, so what's the work around for that?

Uh the location of these uh I don't know what to call them, the boxes for people to use and some other questions.

But I think sending this back to the committee allows those questions to be uh answered.

It allows some of my business owners in the downtown area who this pretty much affects uh to come to the meeting uh and really voice their concerns to see if some answers can be to see if answers to their questions uh will will be had.

So that's my motion.

Alder Widner.

Thank you.

I do have a question for the police chief.

I support this motion, but I am also wondering if this should also go to public works and services committee because of uh some of the comments that from the discussion that I had with the police chief.

Um if you could state your question, we'll ask the police chief to approach the Diaz.

I would just point out we are in the midst of a motion to refer the item back, not to debate the item.

So uh if it's a procedural question on that, I think that would be fine.

But I think what we have before us is a motion to refer the item back.

Chief Ramirez.

Good morning.

The question is, it's a little bit after the morning.

Oh, good afternoon.

Sorry, I'm here all the time, so it doesn't matter.

The question is this was referred by you to finance committee because of what your role will be in this, but there's also another role to this project that falls under another department, or am I incorrect?

That's correct.

My role is the parking enforcement piece, it's a software upgrade for us to issue citations uh if there's any changes to the citation procedure, where this court did time changes, things like that for us.

It's a software upgrade for us.

Uh, whether there are kiosk apps, it's uh that falls on a different department.

So I think what the concern is is moving away from the parking meters to just an app or kiosk is creating some angst for individuals.

So I would ask you, Chief, is it appropriate for this to go back to the finance committee or should it possibly go to public works?

Okay, I would leave that up to the the uh the council member here is on which committee it goes to, but for us it's just a software upgrade on the parking enforcement piece, whether how it gets paid, whether it's through a kiosk QR code, Chaos MX of coins.

That's uh I think a question for the other department to answer.

If you'd like to refer your question to the finance director, we could potentially uh ask it again, but again, referrals typically done uh for a number of reasons, particularly contracts that we enter into and the financial impact of it.

Yes, thank you for that.

Um, I think it's a very valid question.

I just want to clarify a couple of things.

So the changes associated with the public work side of this and kiosk and ABM and going away from parking meters, that actually went to public works and services in the fall of 2025.

So in October of 2025, this common council approved a change in that process.

It was actually under item 0924-25.

But having said that, the chief was absolutely right in what he said.

What's before you tonight in finance and personnel is just a software upgrade.

We already use passport as a software as you see out in the community.

This is a software upgrade to allow the police department to use that software versus what was a homegrown software for enforcement so that we're using the same software citywide.

That's why it went to finance and personnel for this particular thing.

The operational piece of kiosks, no kiosk, that type of thing, that would be more public works in the implementation of the program.

Thank you for that.

And that clarifies things a lot.

So I would ask the maker of the motion if he would consider withdrawing the motion and submitting a separate motion belongs to the body it does.

Therefore, appropriate uh jointly refer it.

I don't know that you can amend the motion before us to a joint referral.

I think you'd have to make this motion first, and then if it failed, you can make a subsequent motion after it.

But we have right now is uh an item for for referral to a particular committee.

Alder Weiner, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

So I would withdraw my second.

Can I withdraw my second back?

I don't believe that you can withdraw the second.

Okay, well, then I'm gonna speak against the the motion that I seconded, and the reason for that I think the appropriate action would be is to vote down, sending this back to finance for the reasons that were stated by the chief of police and our finance director, and then later have a separate communication to the public works committee in regards to the concerns that many of us had heard from people in regards to how are they gonna pay for their parking Alder Druggins.

So I'm I'm failing to understand why we wouldn't want to if there's questions on the item, the item itself is specific to finance and personnel.

If we want to talk about the operation of it, it was mentioned tonight of maybe we do a separate item.

You can you can do both.

You can put in a communication to talk about the operation component of it, but the software upgrade piece to it is does have financial implications behind it.

And so you can you can move this forward, you can send it back.

Um, I'm in favor of sending it back if the the alder from the first, you know, I received an email from one of his uh a business owner in his community.

Uh they they were not able to come to the the first meeting.

If there's additional comments that would like to be made at a finance and personnel committee uh to discuss it there around this specific item, I think that's more than enough, uh more more than a good place to do it.

There's a uh there was one resident that did come and speak on it.

We heard her concerns, the committee uh discussed it as well when we were talking about the uh the software that we're using and the cost of the software and what the software is supposed to do.

That's what the item before us is all related to the software.

The the actual operation of it was a separate item that was already taken up previously.

So to hold up this software for something that I guess somebody missed when it was discussed last year for the actual operation of it.

Uh I would throw caution to it.

Um, mainly because one of the big implications of this uh and why this is uh such an important piece of software is this isn't just parking meters, this is also how tickets are written for parking.

There's been discussions around uh one of the things we talked about actually in committee on it is this software allows the future for a potential ordinance change that supports progressive parking tickets of if you have one, it's one price.

If you write up six in a week, it's a separate price for once you get to the higher amounts.

So the piece of software, if we want to send it back to discuss it, absolutely, but if we're sending it back to talk about a different topic that was done last year with a totally different item, I'm just failing to see how that that makes sense.

Um so if we want to send it back, have a discussion with residents around the software component, all for it.

Um but if it sounds like there's maybe another alder that wants to submit a new communication to talk about what was done in 2025, that would be a separate item.

Alder Davis.

Okay.

Oh thank you.

I originally uh came here prepared to make um the same motion after receiving numerous calls from residents in my district.

Um I don't get a lot of calls, but this one seemed to have triggered um some interest, and then also um a business owner that has businesses in both the downtown area and in my district, although my district isn't affected by metered parking.

Um we do approve things that impact other districts as aldermen.

Um I also thought the idea of jointly referring it to another committee might be appropriate because while there's the financial piece to this, and that's what I voted on based on the information given last week.

However, what people are saying is maybe this is a time with the parking meters becoming obsolete because they can't be fixed.

That we have a broader discussion on whether or not this is a time to get rid of metered parking.

So sending it back to the finance committee for more detail on the software.

If we got rid of metered parking, is the software still needed for the other pieces of parking, or is it a different program?

I think would be appropriate, but I still think maybe now is the time before we invest in kiosk and all that other stuff.

Whether or not this is a time to get rid of metered parking and Racine.

Other municipalities have done it, others um maintain it.

And what is the right fit for Racine?

This kind of came about.

Uh I'm sure there's a number of business owners that feel they have a stake in it.

There's residents that feel they have a stake in it, and now I'm torn whether or not to vote no on the motion to refer it back to finance committee so that it can be jointly referred to public works so that a policy discussion could take place there.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm going to speak in favor of just referring it back to finance because I distinct distinctly remember having a conversation very similar to this.

And even having it brought up on, I wasn't on public works and services when this originally came, but I I'm on it now, and I know we had a conversation with Commissioner Rooney about this, and he did say eventually we would have a kiosk for people that don't can't get the app because that was a concern.

Several of my colleagues that are here now brought up then was that that would be a concern.

However, I do think if other authors still feel there's more to the conversation, then we can put a referral into the next public works and services committee to talk about this specific thing with the commissioner, even though this has already been sort of hashed out.

So I'm not in favor of a dual referral, I'm in favor of just this referral back to finance and personnel as it pertains to the software.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just quick question either for the finance director or the police chief regarding if there's a timeline required for this contract.

Please state your question, and while she's in transit, hopefully she can so my question is is it gonna interrupt the contract time timeliness if we refer back to committee?

Um so no, not necessarily.

Um it was uh envisioned within 2026 for this already to be in operation, it's why it was approved by public works and services in 2025.

Um it took us a little while to make sure that the police department was properly equipped with the equipment that they needed to implement passport, which is why we're so late in the year.

So we're already about six months behind.

Um however, I understand the concerns obviously that have been addressed.

I do want to mention just one thing.

If a discussion is going to be had about eliminating parking meters, that is a very very heavily fiscal decision.

So I want to be really careful if we're talking about taking this back to public works and services.

That item and that type of implementation or taking away parking meters would be about a 450,000 dollar item.

Okay, we receive about 450,000 a year in revenue from parking meters alone.

That would just go boom.

That pays for parking structures, it pays for parking lots being repaved, it pays for public infrastructure that we have no other funding source to pay for.

So again, it is it's definitely two departments or three at this particular instance.

I just want us to be really really careful about having that level of discussion about a very, very heavily fiscal item only at public works and services.

Can I just clarify with the finance director?

I I don't I don't perceive that the discussion was to remove parking meters.

Well, he brought and Alder brought it up and I I understand that there are a lot of people out there right now saying those types of things and you know referring to other communities because of it.

It just those types of conversations again have an extreme fiscal impact that I would prefer to discuss at finance and personnel because it is a huge fiscal impact.

Can I just I just want to bring us back to the item that's actually before us, however, uh despite you know discussions that Alder Mack on this brought up like is the software upgrade suddenly lead to an existential revisiting of all things related to parking and parking related fees?

Apparently, in this window it has.

However, as several people have said, if someone wants to put in a communication to revisit the entire uh regime that we use on parking and parking fees, that would be a separate matter to be communicated with on a separate item.

But what we have before us is a motion to refer this particular software upgrade uh to back to finance and personnel to clarify some related issues.

Um so uh Alder Hodges, do you have the floor?

Yeah, I think I just need clarification as far as um which departments should be involved.

Um, my main question is um I think more of the operational standpoint.

Um, what is the rollout strategy?

Um I want to understand the educational components for elders um who may not know how to use this technology.

Um also I believe in the proposal we are considering removing um coin meters in its entirety.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Alder Alder Max points well taken.

So um so Alder Hodges, this would be a great question if the motion to refer back failed and we were having the general debate on the floor of the council here today, or if the motion to refer would be successful, the time to bring it up will be when it's back at finance and personnel, or assuming it would come back to the full council.

But what's before us right now is a motion to refer the item back to the committee.

Uh not to short circuit the the debate on it, but the the motion is to refer the item to a committee to answer and clarify those questions in a in a more deliberate way that I think gives more people at least one, potentially two additional venues to answer those questions.

I don't I don't mean to cut off your questions, they're good questions, but Alder Mack's point of order is well taken.

Any other discussion on the motion before us, which just as a reminder is to refer this item back to finance and personnel.

See none when the clerk calls your name.

The motion before us is to refer this item back to finance and personnel.

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

Elder Kelly.

Aye, Alder Harmon?

Yes, Alder Babon.

Aye, Alder Frazier, Alder Weiss.

Alder Jorgensen.

Aye.

Alder Weiner.

Alder Horton.

Alder Hodges, Alder Allen?

Alder Pete?

Elder Land.

Aye.

Alder D Mark.

Aye.

The motion referred to finance and personnel has passed unanimously.

Uh Alder Land, did you have any other requests for separate consideration on the items on your committee report?

I do not.

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

And we will move on to Alder Harmon for the public works and services committee report.

Did you have any items for separate consideration?

Then without objection, the public works and services committee report will be placed onto the consent agenda, and then we will move on to public safety and licensing, where I believe Alder Pete had one item for separate consideration.

Alder Pete, would you please read that item?

Yes, item numbers 60626 communication sponsored by myself requesting the appearance of Natasha Evans agent for select 627 located at 1111 Wharton Avenue pursuant to a formal expression of concern and also requesting consideration of rescinding the formal expression of concern based on the committee report move to approve.

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

Um repeat, did you want to speak further to meet?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry, Alder Kelly, I did not see your virtual hand raised there.

Alder Kelly, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um as the maker of the motion at the committee, um I also, you know, I've had a lot of people reach out to me, constituents, uh, business owners, uh, since our public safety and licensing meeting last week.

And um, in good faith, I cannot support uh the decision that I made or we made at uh the committee level.

Um you know, I think the right thing is to um receive and file or however uh the city attorney is um advising us, but I'm I'm I'm not gonna support uh the committee's decision at this point.

Uh so I'm just gonna ask the city attorney to comment on where we are procedurally here because we do have a a motion that was made to approve the item, but the maker of the motion uh is now saying that he's against it, and Alder Kelly is asking what the appropriate motion might be, whether it's to receive and file or some other thing.

Uh so I'd ask the city attorney to comment on procedurally what's the appropriate stance here.

Well, I mean, right now the motion is to approve unless Alder Kelly wants to make an amended motion to receive or file.

I will say the discussion with a few alders I've had about this wouldn't have had it received and filed, it would have had it referred to the city attorney's office for uh consideration of further disciplinary proceedings as exists pursuant to receive ordinance 627 B 1, but it's the council's decision to make Kelly.

Did you hear that?

Yes, so if I'm understanding you correctly, I could make a motion to have this uh move to the attorney's office.

You you could if I could if you don't mind, Alder Kelly.

Can I have the city attorney repeat uh the potential motion that he uh stated before?

And if you want to be the maker of that motion, that would be appropriate at this time.

Sure.

Okay.

So the motion would be to refer the licensee to the city attorney's office for consideration of further disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by Racine Ordinances, uh so moved.

Alder Kelly has made that motion and been seconded by Alder Pete.

Um Alder Kelly, would you like to speak any further to this motion?

Uh you know, I went I went back a little bit in the archives, and you know, the original license came before us January of 2024, and a couple of the items that really stick out to me is um in the license application.

It stated that you know that this would um uh be a betterment for the city overseeing residents.

Um I have not yet seen that happen.

Um, the um lack of uh working with our police officers who are dispatched there quite often is very concerning to me, and this has been going on for quite some time now.

Um, you know, like I said, the application was January of 2024, so we've kind of been going round and round with this.

So um I think this is the right direction that we need to be headed.

Thank you, Alder Kelly.

Uh Alder Davis.

Thank you.

Um tonight I want to speak about something that's bigger than licensing.

It's bigger than one establishment, bigger than one incident, and I'd like to talk about community accountability.

Every time an incident occurs at one of our local establishments, the conversation quickly becomes what should the owner have done?

Now that's a fair question.

But I believe it's in an incomplete question.

We should also be asking what responsibility belongs to the patrons.

What responsibility belongs to law enforcement?

What responsibility belongs to us as a community?

Because accountability doesn't just begin and end with a business owner.

Business owners have responsibility.

Law enforcement has responsibilities.

City leaders have responsibilities.

Patrons have responsibilities too.

If an individual chooses violence, if someone carries a weapon, if someone starts a fight, if someone refuses to walk away, those are personal decisions.

Accountability should fall follow the person who made that choice.

Too often we ask business owners to answer for decisions they did not make.

That doesn't mean owners shouldn't be held accountable.

When they fail to meet the obligations, they absolutely should.

But it also means that we cannot ignore the role individual choices play in creating safe and unsafe environments.

Every person, every person deserves to enjoy a night out and return home safely.

Every person that includes the customer, the bartender, the DJ, the security guard, the server, the business owner, and the police officers responding to the call.

And neighbors who simply want peace in their community.

Every single one of them deserves to make it home safely.

These places are places where people celebrate their birthdays, where old friends reconnect, where families gather, where music is shared, where entrepreneurs invest their dreams.

Many of these owners have poured years of hard work, sacrifice, and hope it's building something positive for our community.

If we truly want to support local businesses, support must be more than showing up.

Support means protecting them, protecting them with our choices, protecting them with our words, protecting them by walking away instead of escalating.

Protecting them by looking out for one another, because one moment, one poor decision, one unnecessary act of violence can change someone's life forever.

Not because someone is watching, but because we choose to be.

I recognize this particular business from my time on public safety and licensing.

And I think the sergeant there that provides the licensed premise report does a fantastic job of explaining what is going on.

What just because you have a call for service does not mean it necessarily would count against you in a way that is negative because sometimes it's the bartenders calling for a disruptive patron, what have you, and that's what the committee considers.

I do think that we're talking about accountability, and I think the police department does a great job of responding to these.

Are there ordinances and whatnot that could be enforced better absolutely?

But that is a conversation that's being preferred, actually, uh, to have that conversation.

And I think accountability isn't is a nice word, but it needs to apply to all.

And in that point, I do agree with Alder Davis that yes, this particular establishment is at this point where I believe this is just justified, but there are some other establishments that are to that point as well.

So we need to apply that equally in my opinion.

I'm no longer on the committee, but um I can express my opinion as an alder.

And I am in support of this because this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's the same way as we ask a citizens to take accountability for speeding, right?

It's a behavior problem.

It's changing the behavior, it's understanding that you are part of this giant um ecosystem that supports our local community, and you have to do your part.

People don't, but that's what the police department is there for to enforce the laws.

And if they're not, then that's a separate conversation we need to be having.

But if we've already given business owners the opportunities, the resources, and they've already had good neighbors' meetings, or if they've already utilized some of these resources, and there are particular few establishments that are always on that premise report because it is an issue.

So it's not everyone.

So there is something unique to those situations where we've given them the resources and the tools.

It's up to them to utilize, and now we're at the point where I believe we have exhausted that.

We've done our due diligence, and it's up for them to deal with the city attorney's office to come up with an understanding.

So I will support it to send it to the city attorney's office.

Thank you.

Alder Weiss.

Um, I just wanted to say that I'm in support of Alder Kelly's motion to refer it.

Um, obviously, I'm a newer member of the committee, so I didn't have some of the background that was later shared from previous years.

Um basically for me, it came down to two establishments that were called in.

Um, one took ownership, one didn't.

Um, one talked about collaborating with the police, uh, the cop house downtown.

One talked about being on site during these times that they knew were troublesome being in the establishment to to be a presence, putting things in place to try to curb some of the behavior.

And I just really felt like the other just talked about not even being there, um, what are bartenders are telling her, and also just the blocking the law enforcement when they are coming in to try to respond to calls.

Um I know that we've had some public speakers tonight, and we've had some discussion at committee about consistency.

That is definitely something that I want to be a part of.

I want to be a part of fairness, I want to be a part of consistency.

And when I left the meeting, I felt like the the consequence for these two establishments didn't feel fair.

I felt like one was really collaborating and working.

I also agree that the conversations about loitering and what we can do to support when they're implementing strategies and people are continuing to just stay in the area.

Um, I really appreciate those conversations too, how we can support those business owners, but I also feel that just the one establishment didn't seem to take the ownership or even just be in the vicinity when things are happening.

And so I would support Alder Kelly's motion.

Alder Frazier.

Um I have a question for the city attorney.

Please take your question.

Um this gets referred to your office.

Can you just uh explain what the next steps are so that we're all on the same page of what the next steps could possibly look like?

Sure.

Formally, um, it's referred for uh potential disciplinary proceedings, and uh again the formal process would be um for a complaint initiated by my office or it can be a score complaint from um other people uh that gets filed with the city clerk's office and it proceeds potentially to a due process hearing.

A due process hearing, it frankly would uh be to consider whether or not to uh revoke the alcohol beverage license.

And as you've heard me talk about all of you, um alcohol beverage licenses once they are approved, once they're granted are a property right, they're a constitutional right piece of property that people have, and they cannot be non-renewed or revoked without process.

That's why there is a due process board.

So just because that process is initiated does not mean necessarily that a due process hearing will take place with the mind of um having the license revoked.

Um, quite frankly, more often there's probably some sort of negotiations that take place in an attempt to settle uh whatever the issues are, and we certainly would involve the police department.

Um, if there's other, and I'm just making this up right now, if there's building colour violations or health department violations, those departments would be involved in what as well.

Um sometimes there's you know suggestion of more security or more cameras or changing of hours or any number of things, whatever we might come up with, and it's attorney popplin that generally handles these things in my office, would go back then to the public safety and licensing consider uh committee for consideration.

If that committee didn't like whatever that was, they either tell us to go try again, or I suppose potentially say we're not gonna be happy with anything, just move forward with the due process hearing.

Um, but again, that that becomes a matter of prosecutorial discretion essentially in the city attorney's office to to then move forward to that hearing.

And there is a due process board, of course, you know that the city has.

Uh and then my follow-up question uh this is kind of putting the cart before the horse, but I think it's important to ask is if there is some type of agreement that's reached, are there checks and balances in place for that business?

There are conditions, you know, compliance conditions generally speaking.

There could be um, and again, I'm just making this up.

I don't know if it exists in this case, but there could be requirements of of inspections, certainly there are the requirements of cooperation with police and other city authorities.

So there would be uh um a requirement to comply with whatever the agreement is, and failure to comply with the agreement, then could result in immediately being sent to a due process hearing.

Okay, um, I have a question for the chief.

Sorry to make you walk.

Um so while you walk, I know you can hear me.

Um, so um I'd just like to get your feedback on this particular issue, just so again, there is full disclosure, and we're all on the same page and hearing the same information.

Uh what when it comes to certain establishments that causes our attention, obviously public safety is our number one concern.

Uh, what we do is on the reports that we give to the license a public safety and license committee are factual incidents that happen, and then we leave it up to the committee to vote to continue.

Then sometimes it does get referred to the city attorney's office uh for what it just spoke about, but uh uh when we spend a lot of resources in certain places, uh especially when it comes to violence or disorderly conduct or gatherings that people don't want to move.

It there's a lot of resources that go into it.

We still got to protect the city with uh 15 square miles, it's a lot.

So they demand that this particular location demands our resources.

We've had some uh some extreme violence over there, and we had uh a young lady get killed just for doing a TikTok meeting.

We had a shooting a couple weeks ago over the weekend with two people got got into it, they know each other and decide to bring out firearms, and we've had other shootings prior to that.

Okay, um so here's here's my take.

Uh I everything that author Davis said 100% accurate.

Um we have that there's a a balance that we have to have, and so I'm struggling because it is my district, um, because I want to be supportive and um a voice for everyone in my district.

Uh, however, the accountability piece as Auditor Pabone hit on uh is major.

Um with this, we don't know what's gonna happen next if this motion passes by Arthur Kelly.

Um I do think that this is an appropriate step.

Um considering you know, it was initially agreed to go to a good neighbors meeting.

I think this puts a little bit more onus on the business owner, a little bit more pressure to rectify some of the issues.

Um so I will support this motion uh in hopes that we can come to some sort of agreement and in addition to what Arthur Davis could eloquently put out, have a broader conversation about support for these businesses uh and holding these um uh I don't know what you call them, but the people the participants or the people who attend these these businesses holding them accountable.

Um I think that that's a broader conversation.

Thank you.

We do have four more people in the queue.

Again, if you you were more than welcome to offer your comments on the item, but if you feel like the comments have already been made, uh we could also move the conversation along.

Alder Mack, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh on my prior um tenure with the council, I spent eight of my ten years on public safety and licensing, uh, chaired that committee for a couple years, and became very familiar with uh bars that were frequent flyers, um, and yet there are bars out there that you never hear from, and so one has to ask the question, why is that?

Alderman Davis raises some good questions, those are questions we asked back 20 years ago with some of the issues that we were seeing because it is like a stool.

You have the business owner is one leg, the the patrons are another leg, the community or law enforcement's at third leg.

We'd see a hundred people spill out onto Sixth Street, and all the police department, you know, the the question was raised why aren't you citing the unruly patrons?

And quite frankly, law enforcement had all they could do just to try to maintain order and move them along.

I would have loved to have seen law enforcement write, you know, hundreds of citations, and you know, that two-pronged approach there, but it wasn't feasible.

So we trust the committee to do the heavy lifting to ask the serious questions to make the right decisions is kind of unusual that we are seeing a um issue like this brought forth on the floor of the council for a um for action that is contrary to what the committee saw.

And it it I did a quick glance and uh the fact that this bar appears to be a frequent flyer.

This is not the first time they appeared.

I looked at what happened, and it doesn't appear that this is a situation where the patrons are necessarily driving the action in two cases.

You had uh bartenders or or staff that were preventing law enforcement from coming in, that there were patrons in there.

I don't know if it was after hours, I don't have that level of detail, but the fact that one you have an unlicensed bartender and the owner has gone home, that's unacceptable.

Two, um, you have the doors locked and you have patrons in there, uh, that's unacceptable.

And I think the prudent action is to refer to the city attorney's office for further action, and hopefully it's a wake-up call for the bar.

I was a big advocate 20 years ago in negotiating settlements with taverns that were having problems, coming up with a solution and holding them accountable for that to see if it it helped.

There was a bar in Alderman Wideners district, I believe, uh Cackle Jacks, and we were coming pretty close to shutting them down, and they I think got the message and implemented some things that prevented problems like underage patrons, you know, through buying equipment that uh helped the process.

So uh I support sending it to the city attorney's office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I will agree with Alder and Mac.

It is uh unusual that the committee makes one decision and then we are asked to uh consider a different direction.

I think uh also with Alder Townsend.

I'm I'm sorry.

Uh I also agree with the consistency and the accountability piece, and I would like to see the committee uh work really uh intentionally to put together uh a relationship with the businesses and um divide design a um a partnership of consistency about what the expectations are.

Do how do they uh rise above the what the patrons are possibly going to do, such as bring in weapons or uh you know, other things that patrons would do in that space but would be held accountable for what about the policing that they're supposed to do or not do all the questions that they have and have had over the past years.

Uh come up with something that does not change from one committee of one year to the next that can travel, and then maybe also we need to uh consider what actual training looks like for that particular committee.

I appreciate the uh attorney's uh definition of what would happen going forward.

So as Alderman Frazier said, uh being able to support the businesses and what they want to be able to accomplish down in his district is important.

I would like to think that we are not going to put the foot on the gas and just say that they have to close uh right now, that they're going to lose their license, uh, that we would put in place uh some directives that they would have to respond to, and then uh see how we hold them accountability through that probationary time, and then that would also coincide with the initiative of the committee to start working on that uh list of requirements and requisites that all of the businesses would need to respond to and then bring that information to the full committee.

Alder Horton.

Thank you, Ms.

Uh I I too would be in support of that uh of this uh going forward.

Uh public safety is important.

Uh we've had multiple shoes throughout this city.

Uh we've had people shot and people killed in the city, and they have not all been bar-related, but some have.

And so I think that uh this would not be the first bar uh that has to go through this process.

I also sat on PSL for about three years myself.

And there were a time that we had a bar on Douglas that had 200 people taken over the street in Douglas, and we had the entire force out there to make sure that everybody was uh out of the street and everybody got home safe.

Uh the other part of it is that once we did, umce we got to this process.

Uh the owner themselves said, hey, we're gonna close for 60 days, and they was working directly with the chief.

And so basically, you know, this is just a wake-up call and not saying that this bar would close or the other license will be taken, but it's just the procedures that's gonna put in place for uh the uh the owner to be successful.

Thank you.

The queue is exhausted.

Uh, I'm gonna ask the city attorney to restate the motion before we go to a vote.

The motion uh was to refer the licensee to the city attorney's office for consideration of further disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by Racino ordinance.

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

Aye, Alder Harman, Alder Pavone, Halder Frazier, Alder Weiss, Alder Davis, Alder Mack, Holder Jorgensen, Halder Weiner, Alder Horton, Alder Hodges, Halder Allen, Halder Pete, Alder Land, Alder DeMark.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Um Pete, did you have any other items for separate consideration?

No, I do not.

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

And we'll finally go to the office of the mayor report.

Uh Alder Jorgensen, did you have any requests for separate consideration on these appointments?

I did not have it.

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

And we will move to the consent agenda.

Uh President Jorgensen, would you like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I move to approve the consent agenda.

There's a motion to approve the consent agenda with multiple seconds.

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

Aye.

Opposed to that motion carries.

We are on to announcements.

Uh Alder Pavone.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I just want to say uh thank you to my colleagues and also to a lot of my constituents, members of the city that have reached out uh during this time, difficult time for my family.

Um, RPD, I mean, just everything has been it's been really supportive, so I we really appreciate that.

Also, um I decided at the last council meeting we have a ton of July birthdays in my family.

I'm not gonna rehash that.

They got their moment in the spotlight, so it'll be fine.

But I do want to say I had a chance to visit Salmonorama uh one of their days, and it was fantastic.

My nieces had a lot of fun.

My wife and I we got to tour uh the Veterans Outreach had one of their veterans' tiny homes there, so it was really interesting to see.

Um, and they had a lot of great you know, raffles and vendors, just a lot of really great stuff, also that kind of goes hand in hand with the farmers market that's down there still going strong, doing really great things.

If you haven't been, please stop by and then uh Sam and Wills on Three Mile and Um Douglas at the intersection there.

We we had a chance to go there.

Great food, great staff, great service.

They're just doing really well on that side, so kudos to them.

Thank you.

Alder DeMark.

I just want to remind everyone that I hope everyone uh could come out to um Italian Fest at Roma Lodge.

Um, and usually it's a good time out there.

Uh the other thing is the recent uh news that just came out um about the recent suicide um over by the lake.

Um there's been a lot of issues with mental health across the country, not only in uh the city we're seeing, and um if you ever feel like you are um just anyone that's watching, if you ever feel like you're down, if you ever feel like you're in that that road, there is help.

Um all you gotta do is just dial 988.

That's the hotline, and uh they're really helpful.

Thank you, Alder DeMarc.

Alder Mac.

Thank you.

I need to give a shout out to my wife.

Um her brother has ALS, and for the almost the last year, she's been helping to take care of him on Saturday and Sundays.

Uh goes over there, helps put them to bed.

Um, it's a five, six hour process.

And so she decided that she was going to take a CNA class to just uh help gain some skills as she's helping him.

So uh I'd like to congratulate her on completing the uh class, passing her first um step in getting state certification, and this Friday she goes for her uh final um practical exam or whatever it is for state licensing.

So um give a shout out uh to her for taking that initiative, and I guess it means that when I reach uh that point of needing help, she'll be able to help me.

So I'm getting older, you know.

So anyway, uh congratulations, Amy.

Alder Allen.

Thank you.

First, I'm going to publicly apologize to Alder Davis.

I'm so sorry.

Dad a brain burp when I was speaking earlier.

Called her referred to her by the wrong name, so I do apologize for that.

Uh I want everyone to mark their calendars for Friday, July 31st.

Uh, we are going to have our first hey neighbor, it's family day at Lockwood Park.

We are going to be showing the movie Lilo and Stitch.

The hours are 6 until 9:30.

So the movie will actually start at sunset.

You can bring your own grill and snacks.

There will be uh some food trucks over there, and then and some music.

So we're looking for a lot of fun for our community.

Of course, anyone is welcome to come.

Also, mark your calendar for August the 8th.

It will be another hey neighbor.

It's family day event at Lockwood Park.

It will be the first uh back to school event at the park.

And so we're looking forward to that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Alder Land.

Yes, I would like to echo Alder Pabone's um sentiment about the farmers market.

The farmers market at Festival Park is really fantastic, and I try to get there every week now since I finally went.

And there's different things there, and it's a really really good farmers market.

I think they're gonna have pickle fest this weekend.

So if you like pickles, they're gonna have special pickle recipes and pickle tasting, but it's a great farmers market.

Alder Davis.

Thank you.

Mark your calendars for July 30th.

Main gallery is having their auction.

I always have to make sure I mention about Maine Gallery.

It's um their gallery and auction will take place at the branch July 30th at 6 p.m.

There will be student art gallery, a silent art auction, photography, and videography, creative writing, some.

I I had a chance to get a little peep at some of the work that the youth were working on while I was at John Bryant Center, and put some money in your pockets, or have your cash apps or your Venmos open so that you can auction put participate in the auction and support these main gallery youth.

That's all.

Thank you.

So our main gallery program is a long-standing program.

The city is funded.

It is one of the few places in the country where students are actually paid as a summer job to create art over the summer.

So it's a long-standing tradition that we've had in this community, and it's a really great program.

I'd encourage everyone to get to the to the art show.

It's a it's a great event.

My apologies.

I've never done this before.

I forgot to mention that this Thursday at noon, my wife will be performing at music and more at First Presbyterian Downtown Racine.

So if you don't have anything going on at lunchtime, come out and see Amy and the rum boogie band.

Um they have some great tunes that they've been rehearsing, including a very gritty version of Sweet Dreams by the Eurythmics and uh Ella Fritzgerald's Whitney Houston.

So should be uh fun time for all.

I see no other uh members of the council in the queue.

Alder Jorgensen at this time I entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

Multiple seconds to adjourn.

All those in favor of German, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

We are adjourned.