Our 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 part of our 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 allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I will not ask the council president
if there are any absences, since everyone
is in attendance this evening.
But I will ask the council president,
if he would like to make a motion to approve the minutes
or record proceedings for July 7, 2026.
I move to approve.
Motion to approve.
Multiple seconds.
Any discussion on said minutes?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
That motion carries.
We do have Alder Kelley joining us remotely tonight,
so just procedure of that means we
will be doing verbal roll call votes this evening.
We'll move on to proclamation.
We do have one proclamation this evening,
which is anticipation of National Night Out.
Just from a scheduling reminder,
reminder everyone, we are meeting on August 5th,
the first week of August, because National Night Out
is on Tuesday, August 4th.
So we usually meet on Tuesdays.
Obviously, that particular week, we will be meeting on Wednesday.
And we have a proclamation here in anticipation of this.
And it reads, whereas, proclamation 5219,
issued by President Ronald Reagan,
pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 298 in July 1984,
declared, oh, I'm sorry, this is the wrong item on the agenda.
I apologize, this is the wrong proclamation.
We will read the National Night Proclamation
at the actual event on August 4th.
Let's move on then to public comments.
The public comment segment is opportunity for citizens
to speak directly to the comment section.
Speakers will 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 individual claim,
citation, appeal, or lawsuit, profane, destructive,
threatening, or conduct that otherwise impelate
and pizza safety, 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 comment council in rulings of the chair,
including decisions to terminate the remarks
if the speaker does not adhere to these rules.
Public comments shall be limited to ideals or concerns
regarding the city we're seeing.
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 directly for response.
There will be 13 speakers this evening.
First one will be Tyler Richards from 1821 Superior Street.
This is the first speakers coming up.
Just know there is a three minute clock
that will come down on the screen here.
And when that three minutes is up,
the microphones are turned off.
That is not a commentary or reflection
of anything you're saying,
where there is an effort to treat everyone equally,
everyone gets up to three minutes to say their piece.
So soon we get the clock up and now you may begin.
Hello, my name is Taylor Richards, 1821 Superior Street.
Thank you all for hearing me today.
I'd just like to show my support
for the Shoe Renovation Project.
I think in the grand scheme of things,
it would be a benefit not only to the community,
but to wildlife as well, with the wetland restoration
and the shoreline protection.
I think it's really, you got to look
at the big picture for it.
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 public courses in Wisconsin,
as well as throughout the nation.
Keeping it affordable, but also making it a high end
want to be placed to golf.
I think it would bring in a lot of potential.
Thank you all very much for hearing me out.
Second speaker today will be Wendy Kuo from 2319,
West High Street.
Hi, my name is Wendy Kuo.
I am here to speak about some of the public safety
and tavern situations.
I own a couple of the taverns in the city of Racine.
Other owners and myself have gotten together
to discuss a few situations
between our establishments and the city.
I've been watching or ongoing,
I've been watching or 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, so are the opinions,
which is necessarily not a bad thing.
The problem is there are no guard lines 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 helper assistance,
it would not be hold 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 the few of you, if possible,
who have a meeting at some time.
Thank you, I appreciate your time.
Our next speaker will be Jeff Neubon from 1145 Main Street.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the council.
Thank you for this opportunity to be with you.
For those of you who are on the executive committee,
you heard me last week,
who have apologies to all of you.
This is for everyone who wasn't here at that time.
I'm a fourth generation resident to 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 we'll probably hear tonight.
Under this proposal for no cost to city residents
and I am one of them, as is my family.
This is an opportunity to greatly enhance that asset
with a fabulous investment of $10 million.
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 Johnsons have been investing in this community
for six generations with another generation now on the way.
They have always invested with a multi-generational
perspective, this will not solve all of our city's problems
but it will avoid $1.8 million 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,
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 your service on the council
and for your, hopefully your support for this proposal.
Next speaker will be Don Horne, 6317 Taylor Ave.
Hello, my name is Don Horne 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 think that's going to be great.
I'm hoping that what I have to say starts here.
We appreciate public safety and licensing so much
in what they do for us.
We would like to see more consistency
in what the decisions are that we are held to,
the standards, this is our livelihood.
We're being held accountable for knowing all the ordinances
for our businesses and we would like to see them the same.
So we would like some more, them did 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.
We haven't seen that in the past.
So we're really looking forward to that.
We appreciate the police liaisons
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.
I'm sad to say that lately,
I've been watching public safety and licensing
for about four or five years.
And lately, our social media has been,
I feel, affecting the decisions that are made.
And I hope that changes.
Let's see where my hands are.
So tonight, I just, I'm hoping that it starts here
with common counsel to hold everybody, not only us,
but also the alderman that sit on the board
for public safety and licensing,
and hopefully the inconsistencies stop,
and so does the bias.
I know the owner too.
Next speaker will be Colin R.
Next speaker will be Colin McKinley, 724 Crabtree.
I'm leaving.
Dr. Shoop had plenty history in Racine.
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 part in Poon unity forever.
And two parts should not become a larger golf course.
Johnson, Leopold, and Caser Group.
Their plan is harmful to the environment.
Because it's going to cut down all the trees on the shoreline.
And it's going to take green space
and more parking at the Racine Lighthouse,
which is important to have that green space
for the Racine Lighthouse.
I'm sure Dr. Shoop would not approve
a private investor using the land he donated
as a public part to make a profit.
So not only will golf be taking up every square inch of shoe,
their plan, they want to enroach the lighthouse ground.
Dr. Shoop gave the land to everyone,
and he signed a deed.
And it says that the land should be used as a public park.
And it does it says anywhere about a golf course.
And one other thing, the City Council, in agreement,
you signed a 10 year lease with members of the Johnson family.
The agreement calls for a 10 million new clubhouse
installing a 10 year lease,
which they will donate 2 million offset of construction.
And I think that's a bribe.
Because why I think it's a bribe?
Because 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,
3-3-3, late gap.
Good evening, council.
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.
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 in to 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 sent you all an email earlier today.
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.
If this proposal passes as written, we will be left with a sand dune style golf course,
a large putting 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 park goers
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 pause on the vote.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Michael Burke, 1232, Florence Avenue.
Hi.
As president of Hoi Audubon Society, I must voice our opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of Shoe Park Golf Course as we understand it.
Birds are in steep decline in the U.S. and Canada.
Nearly 3 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 Shoe if the redevelopment is approved.
On one hand, I and a few other 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 Shoe could become a very barren place.
At least closest to the lake, where big changes would do the most harm to birds.
Windpoints and Shoe Park are so critical to birds because the area lies along
a major north-south migratory route.
Because windpoint 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 Shoe Park's location and rich natural habitat,
more than 270 bird species have been identified at Shoe and Windpoint,
making the area one of the very top areas for birds in our entire state.
For those reasons and more, Hui 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 preserve Shoe Park golf course's 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 Shoe's natural environments.
If approved, I plead with the developers to proceed with some moderation and with utmost respect for Shoe's benefits for birds in wildlife. Thanks.
Our next speaker is Fantasia Edwards, 332621st Street.
Hello. I'm here to discuss the proposal for the Shoe Park.
I personally think that there can be both golfers and birds in leaving wildlife as it is.
I believe that if it's done in good faith, the private investors will donate to the golf course,
but then they also will donate to the city to ensure that the coastline, the shoreline is restored to its natural habitat or left as it is.
I think that, I'm going to nervous.
I personally think it's also a deep 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.
Also, how does the golf course present day contribute to the community?
That's food for thought.
Also, I wanted to know if we're really concerned about the shoreline and wildlife, how come now it's a discussion?
How come it wasn't a discussion beforehand when the people came in to donate the money?
If that makes sense, why would everyone say, yes, renovate it, but how come everyone cares now about the shoreline and the dunes and the birds, unless it's something personal gain?
If your job is to be for the people, you need to listen to them, and this will also instill trust that we can trust you with our lands and the safety of our city.
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 given the golf course, the opportunity to be renovated.
If they decide to take, I just don't think that 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 going to touch the park, because that's off limits.
Thank you.
Next speaker will be Phil Politi, 15522, 73rd Street, Kenosha.
Good evening. My name is Phil Politi, and I'm the executive director of the Caddy and 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 Evan Scholarship.
For the committee members that aren't familiar with that, the Evan 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, Evan's has a presence at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and also Marquette University.
And our goal, partnering with the SHU project, is to use SHU 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 received the full Evan Scholarship.
Most of those students have gone on to the University of Wisconsin. They live in the Evan Scholarship House with other students who have caddied.
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 I would say at risk.
Since I started this program, I founded this program in 2014. We got real serious 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 they can have on these young people, if they were to go to Marquette University and pay full force, that scholarship is worth $320,000 over four years.
The value of an Evan Scholarship at University of Wisconsin is about $150,000.
We look to use SHUP as an opportunity to find these students, recruit them, train them, and get them in the pipeline for the Evan Scholarship.
It is the most successful scholarship program in the country, and partnering with the folks, the Leopold, the Johnson family, to provide this opportunity to truly life-changing opportunities for these young people.
I urge you with all my heart and for the benefits of the young middle school students in Racine, please approve this project so we can use it as a platform to change these young people's lives.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Christine Kern, 4115 Leopold House Drive.
Hi, my name is Christine Kern, and thank you for letting me speak. I'm actually reading for Abigail King information that she sent to the council.
So, the concern here is not that SHUP Park should be left exactly as it is, it shouldn't.
The bluff is eroding, the buildings are a passer 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 of 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.
If you are being asked to sign a 50-year commitment first and to learn whether it is even permitable 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 sites 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.
Windplain and Shoe Park are a recognized birding area as we have heard.
This would be altered.
The developer's own reputation is described in this presentation,
which is a very important process on choosing remarkable natural settings and letting the land lead the design,
armoring a living shoreline in rock and clearing mature campy is the opposite of that philosophy.
It is fair to ask why the plan contradicts the very brand it offered 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.
Thank you so much.
Our next speaker tonight will be Greg Mankie for Spruce Wood.
Good evening.
I'm Greg Mankie.
Thanks for allowing me to speak.
I'm a lifelong Racine and 20-year wind point resident.
I'm actually here to speak in favor of the Shoe 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 Shoe most every day either walking or driving and rarely see more than a few golfers here and there.
I believe in the Johnson Leopold family and what they've already done for the city of Racine speaks for itself.
I don't believe the developers will be reckless.
I believe they will take people's concerns seriously.
I have personally met Craig Halton from the Kaiser group.
I've listened to him speak and believe he and they are genuine and will do a fantastic job as they have on their many other projects.
I think people driving by just to drive along the lake shore or go see the lighthouse may not even recognize
it's a golf course but they will be amazed at how beautiful the property is.
This will give 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 cringle 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.
Speaker will be Karen Johnson 5062 Hunt Club Road.
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.
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-Wankstower for your grandfather.
As a lifelong recipient I do appreciate the many things your family has done to give back to this community.
In regards to the new venture Lighthouse Dunes, I 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 3000 foot wild shoreline is home to a critical migratory flyway with over 270 bird species recorded.
Hoiata Ban in 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 discount.
I just found out that wind point will too.
I would hope that the Lighthouse Dunes 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 has worked very hard, saved the trees.
Hoiata Ban in 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 Zilber, five cedar board.
Good evening. I'm Kevin Zilber, lifetime Racine resident and now living in the wind point area adjacent to the shoe golf course.
And I'm here to speak on behalf of the proposal and its passage.
I won't pull out my prepared remarks only because it would be somewhat repetitive but I do think that, first of all, very impressed by the engagement on both sides.
And while any project has pros and cons, it is my judgment that the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.
We do have a great, great piece of land there.
I have done homework on the Kaiser group and looked at some of the other projects they've done.
All of which have been done with respect to the communities and honoring the wishes of those communities and have been generally rated very, very high and productive.
We do need to move forward. We have a declining infrastructure at Shoops and I do think it would be great for the community advancement.
I've also used some of the caddies at Metalbrook. I know the program.
I've helped advance some of the people of the Evan scholarship. I know what an impact it has on people's lives.
And so there's a lot of, again, when I look back at the pros and cons, is much, much more positive and I think it's going to be a great way to advance our community.
Put us on the map and allow us to move forward 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.
Many of you were here to see the presentation at executive committee.
So we've asked the Johnson and Leopold group to maybe give an abbreviated presentation that they did last time and then offer the opportunity for elders who were there or not there to ask any additional questions they might have.
So if you'd like to come up to the DS, Greg.
Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. Thank you very much for listening to what we have to say.
It obviously is a very, it's a topic that there are people that have a high level of interest in.
I will keep my remarks much shorter than I did previously.
And as I sit here, I think I want everybody to appreciate what we're trying to do.
This is something that we're not doing to make a profit. We never will make a profit.
I think it was Alderman Mack that asked at the executive committee meeting, you know, when will you get your $10 million back?
And I think my answer was never. We will never get it back.
This is something that Helen and I drive by this course, except there's construction going on right now.
But we drive by it twice a day. And 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 overgrown with bushes and trees that are invasive trees.
And I understand the concern that a lot of people have.
I think what I would merely ask is when we're referred to as developers, we are not developers.
All right, 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.
And this is one of those things. I think it's going to 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 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 about the Kaiser group.
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 they care about golf and they care about having an unbelievable experience.
So that's who the Kaiser's are.
When I was first aware of the Kaiser group, 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 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, he was great.
We spent so much time on the shoe property, walking, everything.
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 whole 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 whole course that is number three on the list.
And he said, he'll never be one or two because those are there for a reason.
He said, but maybe you'll be four because you'll never be three either.
And, you know, it's, you know, this is a project that Helen and I are, you know, we want to do it.
You know, we're not doing it. We don't throw money away. All right.
We, you just don't do that. And we do care about our environment.
And you mentioned the, I'm sorry, I couldn't help, but you mentioned the ornithology department at Cornell.
And it's, it was built by the Johnson family. So it is the imaging Johnson ornithology building at Cornell.
So 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, and of course, as you well know, because you spent a couple hours with Jen's Jensen walking the property.
We've hired Jen. So some of you may recognize that name. He's a very iconic.
Racinean that did most of the parks that we have in our city.
And this is his grandson that now is carrying on the ecological environmental.
Business that his grandfather started. So, so what, so what we want to enter into is a, 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 is going to be here in 50 years.
And, and our, you know, our kids are going to be in this community and they're going to be involved.
And, you know, 50 years is just, you know, it's just 50 years. So, but there are outs.
I mean, if we aren't performing like we should be performing, you know, maybe your children will be the mayor and will call my grandkids in and, you know, they'll have a conversation.
And, and I only say that because I want you to feel comfortable that, that we will do the right thing.
I want to say all the time, but we're going to do it most of the time.
All right. So, so I just, 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 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 to them 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 were put a little parking spot. If we could get the city to be able 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 going to listen to you. And that's kind of the, you know, that's, that's who we are.
So 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, in the lease.
But I wanted you more than anything.
I wanted to share with you who we are and, you know, if this is a very important project for us.
We have a few questions on all the Jordans.
Thank you. So you answered most of my questions last week, but in talking with residents, they, they liked the idea that it would be matching Johnson Park.
After the two years of $24.00 is up and they thought that was a great idea.
They did have a question and I didn't have the answer. So I wanted to ask you, they were worried that caddies would be mandatory that they would have to pay the caddy fee and do a caddy.
Even if they just wanted to go do it for the $24.00 and without a caddy.
Absolutely. No caddies are not. There was never any thought process that we had that would have caddies as a, as a requirement to play golf.
You can walk. You can take your pool caddy. We are pool cart. We will not have electric carts or gas carts. So it's, it's still a walking course.
Thank you so much. That was, oh, that's right.
Well, there we go. Just for anyone who didn't hear it, there wasn't with the microphone, but the caddies will be free themselves.
So not even a issue of cost.
I need to keep the conversation between the presenter and the alders and not have commentary from members of the public.
Okay. Please continue.
Well, in hearing that the caddies are free and they're not required, 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 for two years.
And then after that, it would be the highest price for nine holes at nine holes, right? Perfect. Thank you so much.
Yep.
Other 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.
Okay. Good question.
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 Engineers.
They are very aware of what we want to do.
We live on Lake Michigan and we had to put in a ton of these rocks. So we know the people.
And so that's really where we are right now. I think one of the, one of the questions 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 the 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 going to do the shoreline because we weren't able to.
But, but the lease will be subject to getting those approvals.
Thank you. You answered my follow-up question as well.
Okay.
I'll do that one.
Thank you. Thank you for coming and speaking with us again.
At the last meeting, I expressed 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 which I was a golfer.
Also with the restoration, I am a member of the citizens since climate lobby.
My law professor focuses his 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.
The necessity to replenish our trees and remove the trees that are not healthy right now. I know that it sounds painful, but if people could imagine the one rotten apple in the barrel for analogy, leaving those trees there would have the opposite 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 donating time and energy and money and putting 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 was a comment that the DNR denied a wetland permit back in November. Is that something you had applied for?
Okay. I'm not aware of it. But again, we will need to get those permits in order for all of this to actually occur.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Leopold?
Other whites?
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.
I'm under the assumption that wind point, Caladonia, those are all going to be received discounts because their drivers license says we're seen. So I'm assuming that's how you would assess a city overseeing resident when they come in to golf.
We will make the determination based on what their driver's license says. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Leopold. The other presentations that we've had, or do you want to say anything?
No. Okay.
The other presentations we had in this, we've had Commissioner Rooney present to us twice. He's not here this evening, but he did send out his comments to all of you again today.
He made an assessment about whether or not the proposed plans in his estimate would do the work of protecting the shoreline into the future, which it was his assessment that it is.
We also do have Director Kepnick from Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services here as well.
We can ask him to give an abbreviated presentation regarding the trees and the shoreline.
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 we'll be hearing some of his comments, but if there were additional questions for him regarding that space, you have the ability to ask those questions now.
Mr. Kepnick. Thank you, everyone. As noted, 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 going to keep it brief.
This is the process that I went through when I first heard about this project so that I could better understand it for my own needs.
The first thing I did was research the area and determined that a wind point in shoe park is, in fact, I recognize birding area.
You heard some information before showing there over 270 species that have been documented in the area.
I also then looked into what type of habitat those birds use and basically broke it down into four major habitat groupings.
There's the open water, the lake habitat, the shoreline beach habitat, open land and metal habitat, and then trees and woodland habitat.
So this was just an acknowledgement that shoreline work won't necessarily impact every type of habitat that's present.
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.
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 shoreline ice.
There was some bluff damage along the area, entire trees were lost into the lake, and at this point the unstable areas are the damages exacerbating simply due to the fact that the trees are contributing to it rather than preventing it.
The tree and shrub removal along the bluff is tied to the repair work.
Essentially, in order to 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.
I then looked into the tree canopy on the course itself.
As the former city forester, I have access to our GIS-based tree inventory consisting of 40,000 public tree sites and all their attributes, so I did a query of the golf course, the trees that are on the golf course.
I determined that the majority of the species are silver maple, green ash, white ash, or we maple and honey locusts.
I take it back actually, 40% of the species are made up of those five.
And then in addition, 55 of 184 trees on the course were under 10 inches in diameter.
That's important because the smaller trees provide less benefit than the large mature trees.
And then lastly, 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 considered 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 here.
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 habitat.
Silver maple does support a reasonable amount of insect activity compared to some of the other species, but silver maple is a short-lived and prone to decay and storm damage, which limits its long-term reliability.
And then last, honey locust is a native species, but compared to some of the higher value species, it supports relatively low insect diversity.
Any questions for Director Kepnick?
Seeing none, thank you very much.
We now move on to communications introduced to council.
Older land, would you like to make a motion regarding items to be referred to finance and personnel?
I would like to refer the 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 numinum 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 of please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
All there are harm and 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 Alda Allen to discuss household items that are no longer picked up at the Pearl Street and transfer station.
Item 063726, communications sponsored by Alda Widener requesting a four-way stop to be placed at the intersection of Carmel Avenue and Graham Street.
Item 063826, communications sponsored by myself.
Root Pike Watershed Initiative Network to present the Root River Watershed Presentation.
Item 064526, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting agenda two to contract 2025187 for state municipal financial agreement.
Regarding the bridge over the root river.
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 2025181, racing uptown green infrastructure project.
AW Oaks and Sun Incorporated contractor.
Item 064726, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting final payment for contract 2025181, racing uptown green infrastructure project.
AW Oaks and Sun Incorporated contractor.
Item 0664-26, communications sponsored by Alda Jorgensen requesting to allow the farmers market to place signs below the welcome to racing signs at the city entrances.
Use a motion and a second to refer these arguments to public works and services.
All those in favor please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion carries.
We'll now move on to Aldered Peath and ask them to make a motion on referring the items to public services and our public safety licensing.
I would like to refer to the following items to the public safety and licensing committee.
I would like the motion to do that.
Item number 64826, communications sponsored by myself for the license premise report.
Item 64926, communications sponsored by myself.
Requesting any consideration and formal expression of concern or other actions pursuant to the police report.
Item 65026, communications sponsored by myself.
Requesting the appearance or aye.
Ramirez for a new operator's license.
Item 065-126, communications sponsored by myself.
One application for a massage establishment license, sunflower therapy, LLC.
DBA sunflower spa, which is located 906 State Street.
Zo Daizu.
On.
District 1.
Item 65226, communications sponsored by Aldered Kelly for discussion and possible action on the law ring ordinance.
The 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 fermented malt beverage.
And intoxicating liquor license for Marano's Hospitality Group, DBA marinos.
Little Italy, which is located 1238 Lake of Avenue.
Logan marino agent 13th district.
Item 65426, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting a change of agent application for a class B retail and fermented malt beverage and intoxicating liquor license.
For 0s LLC, DBA 0s LLC.
Located at 211 6th street.
Howard Brown, junior agent first district.
Item 65526, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting a new application for a class C online license.
For 0s LLC, DBA 0t room.
Which is located 2096 street.
Howard Brown, junior agent.
Item 065626, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting a new application.
For a retail fermented malt beverage and intoxicating liquor license.
Esquita, LLC, DBA.
Law Esquita.
Located at 2005 Taylor Avenue.
Raymond Adela's agent.
Third district.
Item 65826, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting an application for a second hand.
Article Diller 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 do'sery, ink, DBA, dannies, grocery and lounge.
Located in 1950 Taylor Avenue.
Dixie Patel, agent.
Left hand district.
Item 66126, communications sponsored by myself.
Submitting a new application for a cigarette tobacco and electronic vape device retail license.
For most of the market, LLC, DBA.
Most of the market.
Which is located at 1949 Racine Street.
Side, applied agent.
Second 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.
Referral to the executive meeting.
Would you like to make a motion regarding this item?
Yes, I would move to refer item 0665-26, communications sponsored by Mayor Mason.
Presenting proposed ordinance 004-26, immigration enforcement.
So motion and a second to refer this item.
Thank you.
I would make a motion to receive and file this communication of ordinance 002-4-26.
That's it.
The motion and a second to receive and file this item.
We've put it straight to the ground.
There's still about five minutes.
Kelly, if you can mute your.
So I will make, I'm sorry, just unmuted and apologize.
I can't be there.
I'd like to second that just for discussion sake, please.
The motion has been seconded to receive and file.
Just you do have some background noise in the space that you're in.
So just wanted to let you know that.
And then we will look for your hand if you want to participate moving forward.
There's a motion to receive and file this item.
We will be voting electronically or we will not be voting electronically today.
So people know all the writing would 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 that enforcement of this ordinance may be limited and that communities
passing similar 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 black philadelphia's version, the night circuit, black 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, 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 arrest is booked into the Racine County Jail under the authority
of the county sheriff and independently elected constitutional officer over whom this council
has no power whatsoever.
The legislature understands this, the bill the governor vetoed the spring targeted county
sheriff's not city council.
The detainer provisions before us regulate something that the city does not do.
The third, what remains largely restates discretion we already have.
No federal law requires we're seeing 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 four or against 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.
Some 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
motivated 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.
When the clerk calls your name, the motion before you is to receive and file this item,
if you vote yes, it will receive and file and essentially end moving the item forward.
If you don't know, it would be referred to the potentially be referred to the executive
committee.
When the clerk calls your name, please vote as you wish.
Elder Kelly.
Hi.
Elder Harmon.
Aye.
Elder Harmon.
Elder Pobon.
Elder Frazier.
Elder Weiss.
Elder Davis.
Elder Mack.
Elder Durbinson.
No.
Elder Weiner.
Elder Horden.
No.
Elder Hodges.
No.
Elder Allen.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Elder Weiner.
No.
Mateo.
No.
No.
No.
Aldere Harlan.
No.
Aldere Enchmann.
No.
No.
onda D.
Mark.
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 to the executive committee please say aye.
Opposed?
the ayes appear to have it we will now move on to committee reports taking the
unusual step of the executive committee item to the to the front of the calendar
for action today given the interest on the shoe part issue if other jorgons 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 and nothing came
beforehand so I'm seeing all the wider not her head that she'd like separate
consideration and so if you would read the item for separate consideration which
one is she requesting
separate consideration zero six zero nine dash two six zero six zero nine
dash two six communication sponsored by Mayor Mason requesting to authorize the
mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with Leopold Johnson Gulf
group for shoreline stabilization habitat restoration clubhouse construction
and a long-term lease for the operation and meetings of shoe park the recommendation
from the executive committee was to approve is there a second from Alderman
bone all the jurgons would you like to speak to the notion yeah I mean it was
very very lengthy meeting so I won't try to rehash everything from it but since
we're pulling it out for separate consideration it's been something that
I've had many many discussions with residents on I've had many discussions
with non-residents quite a few of them as well and one thing that I think is
really coming through with this is it's really not perfect for anybody one of
the comments that was made in the in committee actually by Mr. Leopold was
that he wasn't super thrilled that it was tied to a course that he didn't own
or manage the rates for and that would be putting it out of their control 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 is this is an opportunity to get out of the hole that's been dug here
the clubhouse is in desperate need of replacement 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 as you can imagine that's probably not the most sustainable practice for a
golf course he went on and on about how all of the things of him working there
and being there for many years has led to him being in favor of it he had just
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 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 that's the most important part I think if we do
nothing we're going to lose large portions of it we received a report in
2020 detailing that the question raised was raised tonight of why didn't we do
this before why wasn't this done previously why wasn't their 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
and so the idea that there's nothing that we could do if we just sit tight the
further that goes along we actually at one of the other things that I think is
important is our city forester and 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 and this is something
that I also can't imagine being that we hear all the time about 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 part forward there's going to be
many many conversations in the future about the Huyapodown society with the
Leopold-Johnson's and others to make sure that this truly works for everybody we
heard it tonight everyone's got to see at the table on this around the trees and
the birds and so I really view that this is something that in the future really
has the opportunity to truly define our area and what we want it to be known
as 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 the thinking of bringing my daughter to
this park and what do I want to show what that I did on my time on the
council why I want to show her where there used to be a clubhouse but we did
nothing in a deteriorated and it's gone and there's no clubhouse there now do I
want to bring her to a potential mudslides 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 I want to bring her to 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 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 set at the picnic tables enjoy the lake shore go to the
new public beach that is totally public open to everybody that sounds like
potential kayak launch point now as well go along the new walking trail I think
that's the future that 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 haven't deteriorated
beyond repair and so I think this is our opportunity tonight to move start
forward and and go along the long track of repairing and restoring this beautiful
area. Thank you.
Thank you. I asked that this item be pulled out for separate consideration
because I thought about the courage that it took for the board members in
windpoint to make a unanimous public vote on this agreement this arrangement and I
think that we this city council should have the opportunity to have our voices
be heard by watch it's tithing me our voices be heard in our vote when we
vote on this item I thought it was much worthy not just being passed along to
the consent agenda rather a separate vote and I also want to take an
opportunity to think that Leopold Johnson family for their generous generous
offer to replenish our beloved shoe park and a golf course out there and
having spent over 50 years out in that area I know how much it needs the work
to be done and I know that we have not had the resources to put into it and we
appreciate the gift that you are giving the city receipt 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 ever seen
and we are very grateful for that and I want the opportunity to say that so that
is the reason why this called up so we can vote separate on this item and show
our support for this generous gift we have two other members in the queue I do
know we we did have several people ask the city attorney to make comment on
whether or not this having a golf course was in in accordance with the deed that
we received from Mr. Shoop more than a century ago I'd have a golf course on
that space so if it unless there are any objections I'll ask the city attorney
to to render that opinion now just for information as we move into the
conversation thank you Mr. Mayor I'm addressing the specific part of Dr.
Shoop's deed that requires that the property shelf 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 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 100 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 improve 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 is guided Wisconsin municipalities for many generations
courts and other Midwestern states have reached the same conclusion they
recognized 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 field soccer fields basketball courts tennis courts
pickleball courts in 1800 foot a square foot skate park 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 of 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 of
express concerns this proposal somehow privatizes shoe park respectfully I
characterize find that characterization inaccurate municipalities routinely
contract with private entities to operate public facilities throughout
Wisconsin across the country and in the city Racine 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 the lease the city of restraint retains oversight and
enforcement authority and most importantly the land continues to serve the
public the city will continue to own shoe 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 this is a city municipal recreational facility intended
to benefit the community any claim that resident discounts 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
shoe park will remain a public park called shoe park it's 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 in my judgment that is entirely consistent with the concept of public
park purposes and with the city's long-standing stewardship of one of her
scenes most treasured public spaces as a matter of public policy 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 the
city of Racine I've rarely seen a clearer case approving this proposal is
consistent with Dr. Shubes gift to the city thank you all the
people thank you Mr. Mayor so I've heard a lot had a lot of constituents we
tell 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 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 an opportunity forward without having the city taxpayers
be on the on the dime for that because we've we've seen that we've we spend
what $100,000 a year currently to maintain that area is that 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 it is 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 Kaudou and Yomawaki Oak Creek anywhere else really
and said hey well you want ten million dollars we'll give you ten 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 ten 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 twenty five thousand dollars a year toward that purpose over
the course of 50 years it's one other one point two five million dollars I don't
have that I don't have that lying in my couch or anything I mean I know we get a
wealthy salary here as as elders 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 an understand is that
they have been receptive they have helpless and in 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 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 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 thank you as in the executive committee meeting I find
myself coming behind some excellent comments from my fellow colleagues so
I'll keep it brief and say that after I was out at the park this past Sunday
and I saw for myself firsthand and I want to thank the Johnson group for making
the offer I will be supporting it but as the speakers before me already pointed
out the pros outweigh the cons where or we're going to just take a negative
side up perspective and leave it do nothing 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 parkers and they expressed most of the same sentiments that we've 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 as we move forward
I think we're doing a bit making a decision if we are you like to go
up accept that I think we've given a gift for generations 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
Elder Kelly yes
Elder Harmon
Yes
Elder Poem
Elder Frazier
Elder Wise
Elder Davis
Elder Mack
Elder Jorgensen
Elder Weiner
Elder Horton
Elder Hodges
Elder Allen
Elder Pea
Elder Lan
Elder Demer
There are 15 ayes and zero nos it is passed unanimously
Moving on to finance and personnel
Elder Lan
Do you have any items for separate consideration?
Yes
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
digital platform for parking payments and enforcement
The recommendation of the committee was at the mayor and city clerk
Be authorized to execute and sign the contract with passport labs
aimed 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 annually for system licensing
The funds are available and MIS account 70113-57800 for fiscal year 2026
and recurring system licensing for subsequent years
will be appropriated during the annual budget processes
Move to approve
There's a motion and a second to approve this item
Mr. Frazier, did you want to make a motion regarding this item?
Yes
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
and not what's outside the chamber
All the Frazier, please continue
I'd like to make a motion to refer this back to the committee
There's a motion to refer this item back to finance and personnel
Is there a second on referring the item back? All their winders
All their Frazier, would you like to speak to your motion to refer back to 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 owners in my district
over the last three weeks that I've been back
and they've expressed concerns about how this would be implemented
where I think the bigger question is going to be
where are these going to be placed
Several business owners express concerns of elderly people
not being able to use these systems
namely an app
so what's the work around for that?
The location of these
I have no 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 answered
It allows some of my business owners in the downtown area
who this pretty much affects
to come to the meeting
and really voice their concerns to see if some answers can be
to see if answers to their questions will be had
so that's my motion
otherwise
Thank you, I do have a question for the police chief
I support this motion but I'm also wondering if this should
also go to public works and services committee
because of some of the comments that
from the discussion that I had with the police chief
If you could state your question
we'll ask the police chief to approach the DS
I would just point out we are in the midst of a motion to refer the item back
not to debate the item so 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
Good question is
It's a little bit afternoon
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
are am I incorrect?
That's correct
My role is the parking enforcement piece
It's a software upgrade for us
There's any changes to the citation procedure
where this court time changes things like that for us
It's a software upgrade for us
Whether there are kiosks, apps
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?
I would leave that up to the council member here
which committee goes to
but for us it's a software upgrade
on the parking enforcement piece
whether how it gets paid
whether it's through a kiosk, QR code
kiosks, I may accept coins
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 ask it again
but again referrals typically done
for a number of reasons
particularly contracts that we enter into
and the financial impact of it
Yes, thank you for that
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 homeroom software
for enforcement so that we're using the same software city wide
that's why it went to finance and personnel for this particular thing
the operational piece of kiosks, no kiosks
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
it does
yes
yes
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 what we have right now is an item for referral
to a particular committee
otherwise you have the floor
thank you
so I would withdraw my second
can I withdraw my second?
I don't believe that you can withdraw my second
well then I'm going to speak against the motion that I seconded
and the reason for that I think the appropriate action would be
is to vote down setting 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 going to pay for their parking?
all their drugs
so
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 do both
you can put in a communication to talk about the operation component of it
but the software upgrade piece to it
does have financial implications behind it
so you can move this forward
you can send it back
I'm in favor of sending it back
if the alder from the first
I received an email from one of his
a business owner in his community
they were not able to come to the first meeting
if there's additional comments
that would like to be made at a finance and personnel community
to discuss it there
around this specific item
I think that's more than a good place to do it
there was one resident that did come and speak on it
we heard her concerns the committee discussed it as well
when we were talking about 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 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
I would throw a caution to it
mainly because one of the big implications of this
and why this is 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
one of the things we've talked about
actually in committee on it is
this software allows the future
for a potential ordinance change
that supports progressive parking tickets
if you have one
it's one price if you write up six in a week
it's a separate price
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
it's a totally different item
I'm just failing to see how that makes sense
so if we want to send it back
have a discussion with residents
around the software component all for it
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
My comments
is the debate so
I pass
Alder Mack
Thank you
I originally came here
prepared to make
the same motion after receiving
numerous calls from residents
in my district
I don't get a lot of calls
but this one seemed to have triggered
some interest
and then also
a business owner that has
businesses in both the downtown area
and my district although my district
isn't affected by metered parking
we do
approve things that
impact other districts as
Aldermen
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
the 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
the 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 as a software
still needed
or is it a different
program I think would be
appropriate but I still think
maybe now is the time
before we invest in
kiosks and all that other stuff
whether or not
this is the time to get rid
of metered parking and
other municipalities
have done it
others maintain
it and what is the right fit
for Racine
and what this kind of came
about
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 work so that
it can be done
so thank you
thank you
Mr. Mayor
I'm going to speak in favor of just
referring it back to finance because I
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'm on it now and I know we had a
conversation with Commissioner Rooney
about this and he did say eventually we
had a lot 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 others still feel there's more
to the conversation that 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
but I'm not in favor of any
personnel as it pertains to the
software thank you
thank you
just a quick question either for
the finance director or the police
chief regarding if there's a timeline
required for this contract
please take your question and
while she's in transit hopefully she
can so my question is
is it going to interrupt
the contract timeliness if we
refer back to committee
so no not necessarily
it was
envisioned within 2026
for this already to be in operation
it's why it was approved by
public works and services in
2025
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
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
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 don't proceed
that the discussion was to remove
parking meters
well he brought
and all the brought it up
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 a
finance and personnel because it is
a huge fiscal impact
I just want to bring this back to
the discussions that
Elder Mack on the drop link
does this 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
regime that we use on parking and
parking fees that would be a
separate matter to be
a software upgrade
back to finance and personnel
to clarify some related issues
so Elder Hodges do you have the
floor?
Yeah I think I just need
clarification as far as
which department should be involved
my main question is
I think more of the
operational standpoint
what is the rollout strategy
I want to understand the
educational components for elders
who may not know how to use
this technology
and also
I believe in the proposal
we are considering removing
coin meters in its entirety
is that correct?
Yeah
Elder Max points
well taken so
Elder 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
back to the full council but what is
before us right now is a motion
to refer the item back to the
committee not to short circuit the
debate on it but the motion is
to refer the item to a committee
to answer and clarify those questions
in a more deliberate way than I
think it was more people at least
one potentially two additional
venues to answer those questions.
I don't mean to cut off your questions
they are good questions but
Elder Max point of order is well
a discussion on the motion before
us with just as a reminder is to
refer this item back to
finance and personnel.
Seeing 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
Elder Harmon
Elder Bhavon
Elder Mack
Elder Jorgensen
Elder Weiner
Elder Horden
Elder Hodges
Elder Allen
Elder Peay
Elder Lan
The motion referred to
finance and personnel has passed
unanimously.
Elder Lan did you have any other
requests for separate consideration
on the items on your committee
report?
We will be placed on the consent agenda
and we will move on to
Elder 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 on the consent agenda
and then we will move on to public
safety and licensing where I
believe all the fees have one item
for separate consideration.
Elder Peay would you please read
that item?
The appearance of Natasha Evans
agent for select 627
located at 1111
Watson Avenue
pursuant to a formal expression
concerning also a request and
consideration of rescinding the
formal expression of concern
based on the committee report
moved to approve.
There's a motion
and a second to approve this item
I'll repeat.
Did you want to speak further?
I will not be supporting
this motion
and I would like to turn it over
to all the Kelly first.
I'm sorry, Elder Kelly.
I did not see a virtual hand
raised there.
Elder Kelly, you have the floor.
Thank you.
As the maker of the
motion at the committee
I also, you know,
I've had a lot of people
reach out to me
constituents business owners
since our public safety
and licensing meeting
last week
and in good faith I cannot
support the decision that
I made or we made at
the committee level.
And, you know,
I think the right thing
is to
receive an
file or however
the city attorney
is advising us
but I'm not going to
support the committee's
decision at this point.
So, I'm just going to ask the
city attorney to comment on
where we are proceeding to be here
because we do have a motion
that was made to approve the
item with the maker of the motion
is now saying that he's against it
and Elder Kelly is asking
what the appropriate motion might
be.
So, I asked the city attorney to
comment on procedurally what's
the appropriate stance here?
Well, I mean, right now the
motion is to approve unless
Elder Kelly wants to make an
amended motion to receive a
file.
I will say the discussion with a
few orders I've had about this
wouldn't have had it received
and filed, it would have had it
referred to the city attorney's
decision.
It would be a motion that
for their disciplinary
proceedings as exists pursuant
to Racina ordinance 627 B1
but it's the council's decision
to make.
Elder Kelly, did you hear that?
Yes.
So, if I'm understanding you
correctly, I could make a motion
to have this move to the
attorney's office.
If you don't mind, Elder Kelly,
I would say that the attorney
repeat the potential motion
that he stated before and if you
want to be the maker of that
motion, that would be appropriate
at this time.
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
Racina ordinances.
So moved.
I would like to speak any further
to this motion.
You know, I went back a little
bit in the archives and
the original license came
before us January of 2024.
And a couple of the items that
really stick out to me is
in the license application.
It stated that, you know,
that this would
be a betterment for the city
of Racine residents.
I have not yet seen that
happen.
You know, the
lack of 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, the, you know,
the, um,
you know, like I said, the
application was January of
2024.
So we've kind of been going
around and around with this.
So, um, I think this is the
right direction that we need to be
headed.
Thank you.
All the 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 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 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 in with a
business owner.
Business owners have
responsibility.
Law enforcement has
responsibilities.
City leaders have
responsibilities to.
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
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.
A neighbor who simply want
peace in their community.
Every single person
deserves to be held
safely.
These places are places
where people celebrate their
birthdays,
where old friends we connect,
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
is 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.
I believe we can do better.
I believe we should expect more
of ourselves, not because
someone is watching, but
because we choose to be
less become known as a community
that values respect over
retaliation, peace over
pride, responsibilities
over excuses.
Let's create spaces where
people feel welcome, where
businesses can thrive, and
where families know they can
gather safely, because at the end
of the day, everyone deserves
to enjoy themselves, and
everyone deserves to return
home safely.
So tonight, I just leave
you with this challenge.
Protect the people, protect the
place, and help everyone get
home safely, because the thing
is, as I brought up in
committee, we have to look into
accountability for all the
characters, especially the
patrons who are coming
and interrupting folks'
business in their livelihoods.
So if you watch the committee
meeting, I brought up the
concern of ordering.
What does ordering look like?
How do we move forward with law
and how do we take it in?
So I'm speaking against
the motion that was put forward
by Arthur Kelly to move forward
with City Attorney, because
the conversation is deeper than
just one spot.
It's about this community, and we
need to dive deep in the
Lordering ordinance, our
disorderly conduct ordinance, and
actually stick it to the people
that are coming in, and
interrupting folks'
businesses.
I'm completely.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I'm going to speak in favor of
sending this to the City
Attorney's office.
I recognize this particular
business from my time on public
safety and licensing, and I'm
the sergeant there that provides
the licensed premise report does
a fantastic job of explaining
what is going on, just because
sometimes it's the bartender's
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, to have that conversation.
And I think accountability
is 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
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 citizens to take
accountability for speeding,
changing the behavior.
It's understanding that you are
part of this giant 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
the 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
and they've given them the
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 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.
I just wanted to say that I'm
in support of Elder Kelly's
motion to refer it.
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.
Basically, for me, it came down
to two establishments that were
called in.
One took ownership, one didn't.
One talked about collaborating
with the police, the cop house
downtown.
One talked about being on site
during these times that they knew
were troublesome being in the
establishment 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, what our bartenders
are telling her, and also just
the blocking the law enforcement
when they're coming in to try to
respond to calls.
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 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.
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 all
of this motion.
All of the Frazier.
I have a question for the city
attorney.
Please take your question.
So this gets referred to your
office.
Can you just 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 it's referred for potential
disciplinary proceedings.
Again, the formal process would be
for a complaint initiated by my
officer.
It can be a sworn complaint from
other people that gets found
with the city clerk's office and
it proceeds potentially to a due
process hearing.
A due process hearing, frankly,
would be to consider whether or not
to revoke the alcohol beverage
license.
And as you've heard me talk about
all of you, alcohol beverage
licenses once they are approved,
once they're granted our property
right there, constitutional
rights piece of property that
people have and it cannot be
non-renewter 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 having the license
revoked.
Quite frankly, more often there's
probably some sort of
negotiations that take place in an
attempt to settle whatever the
issues are and we certainly would
involve the police department.
If there's other, and I'm just
making this up right now, if there's
building coal violations or health
department violations, those
departments would be involved as
well.
Sometimes there's a 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 poplin that
would go back then to the public
safety and licensing committee.
For consideration, if that committee
didn't like whatever that was,
the either tell us to go try again
or I suppose potentially say we're
not going to be happy with anything
just move forward with the due
process hearing.
But again, that becomes a matter of
prosecutorial discretion essentially
in the city attorney's office to
then move forward to that hearing.
And there is a due process board,
of course, you know, that the city has.
And then my follow-up question,
this is kind of putting the car
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, compliance
conditions, generally speaking.
There could be, you know, a lot of
things.
There are conditions, you know,
compliance conditions, generally
speaking, there could be, and again,
I'm just making this up.
I don't know if it exists in this case,
but there could be requirements of
inspections, certainly the
requirements of cooperation with
police and other city authorities.
So there would be 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
system.
I have a question for the chief.
Sorry to make you walk.
So while you walk, I know you can
hear me.
So 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.
When it comes to certain
concerns, I'm not sure where
the
report is.
Obviously, public safety is
our number one concern.
What we do is on the reports that
we give to the public safety and
license committee are factual
incidents that happen.
We leave it up to the community
to vote to continue.
Sometimes it does get referred to
the city attorney's office.
When we spend a lot of resources
that we still got to protect the
city with 15 square miles.
It's a lot.
This particular location demands our
resources.
We've had some extreme violence over
there.
When we had a young lady get killed
just for doing a tick-tock.
Maybe we had a shooting a couple
weeks ago over the weekend, but
two people got into it.
They know each other and decided to
bring out firearms.
They know each other.
They know each other.
Everything that all of their
Davis said, 100 percent accurate.
There's a balance that we have to
have.
I'm struggling because it is
my district.
I want to be supportive
and a voice for
everyone in my district.
However, the accountability piece
as Audra Pobon
hit on is major.
With this, we don't know what's
going to happen next.
If this motion passes by other
Kelly, I do think that this is
an appropriate step.
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.
I will support this motion
in hopes that we can come to
some sort of agreement.
In addition to what other
Davis eloquently put out,
have a broader conversation
about support for these businesses
and holding these
I'm not to call them,
but the participants
or the people who attend these
businesses, holding them accountable.
I think that that's a broader
conversation.
Thank you.
We do have four more people in the
queue.
Again, if you were more than welcome
to offer your comments on the item,
but if you feel like the comments
have already been made,
we could also move the conversation
along Audra Machia before.
Thank you.
On my prior
tenure with the council,
I was very interested in
licensing.
Chair of that committee
for a couple of years
and became very familiar with
bars that were frequent
flyers.
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.
I'm going to ask 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 patrons are another leg.
The community or law enforcement
said third leg.
We'd see 100 people spill
out onto six street
and all the police department.
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 prong 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.
This is kind of unusual that
we are seeing
an issue like this
brought forth on the
floor of the council
for a
um
for action that
is contrary to what the
the committee saw.
And it
I did a quick glance
and 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
bartenders or
staff that were
representing 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, you have the doors locked
and you have patrons in there
that's unacceptable.
And I think the prudent action
is to refer to
for further action.
And hopefully it's a wake-up call
for the bar. I
was a big advocate
twenty 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
helped. There was a bar in
Alderman Widener's district, I
believe, uh, Keckel Jax
and we were
coming pretty close to shutting
them down and
they, I think, got the message
and implemented some
things that prevented
further problems like
underage patrons,
you know, through buying
equipment that helped the
process. So I support
sending it to the city attorney's
office. Thank you.
Thank you. I will agree
with Alderman Mack.
It is unusual
that the committee
makes one decision and then
we are asked to
consider a different direction.
I think, uh,
also with
Alderman Townsend,
I'm sorry.
I also agree with the consistency
and the accountability piece.
And I would like to
see the committee
work really
intentionally
to put together a
relationship with the businesses
and, um,
design a, uh,
a partnership
of consistency about what
the expectations are.
How do they, uh,
rise above
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
that 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 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
consider what actual training
looks like for
that particular committee.
I appreciate the
attorney's definition
of what would happen going for.
So, as Alderman Frazier said,
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
desk and just say that
they have to close right now
that they're going to lose their
license, that we would put in
place some directives that
they would have to respond to
and then see how we hold them
accountable to deeds at
our probationary time.
And then that would also
coincide with the initiative
of the committee to start
working on that list of
requirements and requisites
that all of the businesses
would need to respond to
and then bring that information
to the full committee.
Alderman?
Thank you, Mr.
I too would be in support of
this going forward.
Public safety is important.
We've had multiple
shootings throughout the city.
We've had people shot and
people killed in the city and
they have not all been violated
but some have.
And so I think that this would
not be the first bar that
has to go through this process.
I also set on PSL
for about three years myself
and there were a time that we
had a bar on Douglas that had
200 people taking over the street
in Douglas and we had the
entire force out there to make
sure that everybody was
out of the street and everybody
got home safe.
The other part of it is that
once we got to this process
the owner themselves said
hey, we're going to close for
60 days and he was working
directly with the chief.
And so basically, you know,
this is just a wake-up call and
not saying that this bar will
close or the license will be
taken but it's just the
procedures that's going to
put in place for the
owner to be successful.
Thank you.
I would like to ask the city
attorney to restate the motion
before we go to a vote.
The motion was to refer the
licensee to the city
attorney's office for consideration
of further disciplinary
proceedings as contemplated
by Racina Ordinance.
When the clerk calls your
name, please vote
as you wish.
Thank you.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
Android Peed, did you have
any other items for separate
consideration?
Then without objections,
the remainer of this report will
be placed on the consent agenda.
We'll finally go to the
office for the mayor,
of report.
Then without Objections, do you
have any requests
for several considerations on
these appointments?
I did not have them.
Then without Objections, these
items will be placed on the
consent agenda.
We'll move to the consent agenda.
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.
Opposed to that motion carries.
We are on to announcements all to promote.
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I just want to say thank you to my colleagues and also to a lot of my
constituents members of the city that reached out during this time, difficult time for my
family RPD. I mean just everything has been really supportive so I really appreciate that.
Also I said at the last council meeting we have a ton of July birthies and my family
I'm not going to rehash that they got their moment in the spotlight so it'll be fine.
But I do want to say we had a chance to visit Sam and Aramah one of their days and it was
fantastic. My nieces had a lot of fun. My wife and I we got to tour the veterans outreach had
one of their veterans tiny homes there so it was really interesting to see and they had a lot
of great 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 Sam and Will's on three mile and 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 pretty thank you aller to mark
I just want to remind everyone that I hope everyone could come out to Italian fast at Romelage
and usually it's a good time out there. The other thing is the recent news that just came out
about the recent suicide over by the lake there's been a lot of issues with mental health across
the country not only in the city we're seeing and if you ever feel like you are
just anyone who's watching if you ever feel like you're down if you ever feel like you're in that
road there is help all you got to do is just dial 988 that's the hotline and they're really helpful
thank you aller to mark aller mac thank you I need to give a shout out to my wife
her brother has ALS and for the almost the last year she's been helping to take care of him on
Saturday and Sundays goes over there helps put him to bed it's a five six hour process
and so she decided that she was going to take a CNA class to just help gain some skills as she's
helping him so I'd like to congratulate her on completing the class passing her first
step in getting state certification in this Friday she goes for her final
practical exam or whatever it is for state licensing so give a shout out to her for taking
that initiative and I guess it means that when I reach that point of needing help she'll
be able to help me so I'm getting older you know so anyway congratulations Amy
all around thank you first I'm going to publicly apologize to all their davis I'm so sorry to
add a brain verb when I was speaking earlier called our refer to her by the wrong name so I
do apologize for that I want everyone to mark their calendars for Friday July 31st
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 six until nine thirty so the movie will actually
start at sunset you can bring your own grill and snacks there will be 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 back to school event at the park
and so we're looking forward to that as well okay thank you all the land yes I would like to
echo all their pebones 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 going to have
pickle fest this weekend so if you like pickles they're going to have special pickle recipes and
pickle tasting but it's a great farmers market other Davis thank you mark your calendars for
July 30th main gallery is having their auction I always have to make sure I've mentioned about
main gallery it's 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 they're the youth were working
on I was at John Bryan Center and put some money in your pockets or have your cash abs or your
vin moles open so that you can put participate in the auction and support these main gallery
youth that's all thank you so our main gallery program is a a long-standing program the city is
funded it is one of a few places in the country where students are actually paid as a summer job
to create art over the summer so it's a a long-standing tradition that we've had in this
community and it's a really great program I'd encourage everyone to take it to the to the art
show it's a it's a great event I'll do Mac for a second time 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 lunch time
come out and see Amy and the rum boogie band they have some great tunes that they've been rehearsing
including a very gritty version of sweet dreams by the urethmics and Ella Fitzgerald some Whitney
youth stand so should be a fun time for all I see no other members of the council in the queue
all the Germans and at this time I entertain a motion to adjourn I move to adjourn
multiple seconds to adjourn all those in favor of adjournment please say aye aye opposed we are