Common Council - Regular Meeting

Oh yeah. Yeah. She's gonna be really good. [laughter] All right. Call to order the meeting of our common council for Tuesday, December 2nd. Clerk. Yes. Thank you, honor. We have 11 members in the room and 11 members, I'm sorry, 11 members in the room, 12 members in Mr. Very good. Thanks, clerk. Now, please rise for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for an invocation offered by Alder Hutcherson. I pledge 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. Alder Hutcherson. Uh, you may be seated. [clears throat] Thank you, Mayor. Um I have words by Robert Frost tonight. Uh he was born a few years after the end of the Civil War. He lived until 1963. He was a poet laurate of the United States assigned in 1958. Um this is a very short poem about wood, snow, and sleigh pulled by a single horse. And I always thought of this poem as a Wisconsin poem. he was in the northeast. But um so I consider it kind of a a Wisconsin thing. And the reason I chose it, it it brings kind of a it it'll bring probably a memory to you maybe that you've gone through in the dark, in the snow, and then it calls for action at the end.

Okay? So it's not just a quiet poem. There's a call for action. It's called Stopping by Woods on a snowy evening. Whose woods these are? I think I know. His house is in the village, though. He will not see me stopping here to watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer to stop without a farmhouse near between the woods and frozen lake. The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake to ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound is the sweep of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep and miles to go before I sleep. Thank you, Karen. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Alder. Uh now we are on to approval of the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes uh from the November 11th and the November 18th meetings made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Stevens. Any changes there? Seeing none. All in favor will say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it and the minutes are approved. Approval of the agenda. Motion to approve made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Profett. Any changes here? Seeing none, all in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And the agenda is approved. Report by the mayor. Uh let's have a good meeting. That's it. Announcements. Alder. Thank you, mayor. Um I, you know, it's it's December, so it's that time of year. Um, I just wanted to remind everybody that um, there are Christmas um, concerts at the Cup of Joy um, starting this Friday through December

19th. Every every Friday, Saturday through Friday, December 19th. So check it out. There's a lot of really fun things and a couple of them are like full family things and they're really talented. So just that's all. Thank you. Thanks, Alder. It's across the street from the city of Green Bay, but we'll let it slide. Oh well. Other announcements. Yeah. Howard Howard, right? Other announcements. Seeing none. All right. On to appointments. Uh motion to approve the uh new appointments made by Alder Profit and seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. I. Nay. The eyes have it and the new appointments are made. Reappoints. Motion to approve made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Stevens. Discussion here. Seeing none, all in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And those reappointments are made. Now we're on to ordinances. Second reading for adoption. [clears throat] Motion to suspend the rules made by Alder Profett for one, three, and four. Second. Seconded by Alder Presley. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have the rules are suspended for those items. Motion to adopt made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Presley. Discussion. Seeing none, we'll use the board. You may vote. [snorts] I thank you. All right, those are adopted unanimously. That leaves item two, Alder

Grant. Thank you, mayor. I'd like to a motion to amend the single property dwellings from the recommendation of 50 feet to 60 or 6,000 square feet uh where it would not require a cup. Anything smaller than 60 ft would just with lot width, I apologize, would require a cup. Ultimately, just allowing us to review the site plan, make sure it fits for the neighborhood, the location, you know, take everything into account uh before approving. Again, it doesn't mean it can't happen. It's just that there's a little bit more oversight before it does. So, anything above or 60 feet and above can be developed, no questions asked. Anything below that would still look at reviewing it. Okay. Seconded by Alderak. Um go to director Reneer Wig for comments from the department. Um I think that as staff we would respectfully disagree with that decision of 60 to 50. We think 50 um works in a number of situations. We've got a developer now working on 50s and we'd like to keep it at the 50. So Okay. Thank you. That' be our opinion. discussion among holders. Alder Presley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I would agree with staff on this. I think 50 is a good level. That's the number that they decided on. Um, I don't want to add additional hurdles for developers if we don't have to. I know they can go through through a cup, but if we put in those extra hurdles, I think that will discourage development, which is the opposite of what um these zoning changes are intended to do or these code changes. Okay. Thanks, Alder. Alder Henas. Thank you, Mayor. Um I think it's important to understand that the changes that we're making apply to both existing neighborhoods, so

developed neighborhoods and new neighborhoods. So the 50 would apply in an existing neighborhood versus a new development. And I think there has to be a difference there. So I'm in support with Jennifer of doing the of alder grant of doing the 60 ft um and just having it reviewed. So if there's anything under that doesn't mean we're going to say no, but I think in existing neighborhoods it should be looked at. All right. Um, Alder Galvin Grant. Thank you, your honor. Um, as I mentioned last time, I live in the inner city. My lot's 53 feet wide. If my square footage of my house on the first floor is 800 square ft. That left me just enough room for a driveway that I had to get a variance from my neighbor to put the driveway right up to his property line. So, I have a hard time envisioning a home on a 50- foot lot that's three feet narrower. And if they don't have I I just am trying to see in my mind's eye how you have make that work with a unattached garage or even with an attached garage. And that's why I'm I'm in favor of the 60foot. And I believe if a developer has proposals where he can make that work, I don't see why the council wouldn't approve that if he comes in and asks for a PU PUD. And I I mean this is just from my experience. So that's that's you know, I would love to see if someone has some renditions or drawings of of how you make that work, but I'm t telling you 800 square feet for the house and I got to put my driveway on the neighbor's property line. and if he hadn't grant me the variance, I'd have been stuck. So, uh, that's that's my comments. Thank

you. Just on that, maybe Mr. Buck, if you could just kind of weigh in on on how how developers or builders would actually make this work. Sure. Like Clement, I guess, in two respects. One is all pre-war or even some post-war homes pretty much downtown are typically 50 foot wide lots. Um, a lot of houses get built. We actually have a design book with about 13 different housing styles that fit on lots less than 50 feet wide. Um but currently so then of course in the 70s 80s things got big. Um developers now are coming in requesting 50 foot wide lots. They have products that that fit they're narrower but longer multi-story. Um and so we've been seeing a lot of developers coming through. Even some of the plan developments that have come through this council the last six months, at least two of them have lots uh at 60 or at 50 um substantial lots on the far east side. So um I guess it is very doable. I mean it's unfortunate maybe your house design didn't allow for a driveway to go around just the way it's shaped. Um I have a 50 foot wide lot and I have a I have a you know 18 foot wide driveway that goes past my house. I mean you can develop it. Uh it's all depending on the model. Again, the model of the 80s7s were really wide giant garages in the front. That was just kind of the style that they did. Um they didn't go very deep, but that's changing now. So, um yeah, I think the cost of infrastructure for street frontage is really driving those housing designs to shift to something that's narrower that they can fit. And just for maybe the new and newish alders, if you could explain the cup process. Sure. Yeah. A cup process would require developers. So in this case, who wanted to do less than a 60 foot lot, they would have to bring those through the plan commission for one meeting and then the council probably about six weeks

depending on the schedule, maybe eight weeks. Um, and for developers, time is money. So that's usually pretty um a negative for them. Not saying that they wouldn't do it, but um right. And then that also we send out notices to all the neighbors. A lot of times there's a lot of discussion about that. Um sometimes things you can't deny it anyway. Um but you know that being said it the cup is going to be a little bit of cost and a lot of time. Okay. Thanks for that older grant. Thank you mayor. Just I guess a reminder that the current ordinance is 75 ft. So going from 75 to 50 is a big change and that's all I'm making sure that there's some oversight of and all those you are correct. You did have some developments come forward asking for smaller lots and all those got approved. So I'm not seeing big push back. My point is to make sure it's appropriate for existing neighbors. If there is, you know, public input, it's important to hear that. So I just want to make sure we're keeping everything in um in mind. Like I said, the one that was in my neighborhood was across from a school. And I think those things are very important to take into account in traffic and very reasonable concerns. So again, I don't see us having any difference of approval, but it's worth considering. Thank you. Any other comments? Aldis, just a question. Um, we can't change zoning for existing neighborhoods versus new development. Correct. So, this 50 or 60 foot would be for anywhere in the city. Mr. It'd be anywhere in the city that a R1 lot uh R1, R2 or R3 that a single family detached or an upper lower duplex would Okay. So, it would be in existing neighborhoods,

existing and and yeah, and that's where I have trouble. I think it should get reviewed. I mean, based on my own district, if you're going to do something under 60, I would like it reviewed. So, [snorts] all right. Any other comments? Hold the press. Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're voting based on, you know, not just our own experiences with this. It is, you know, whether or not we would like a house on a 50 uh foot lot. Um if a developer thinks that there's a market for it and there are people who are going to buy that house and move into it, I don't see why we should be putting up additional obstacles to that outcome. So, I'm against this amendment. Anything else? Um staff just one one additional time. Yep. I just wanted to add an additional comment based on that is this is a minimum. I mean a developer can come in and do a 100 foot wide lot if they choose if that's what's selling in that district or that neighborhood. Um this is just a minimum. So a lot of times developers come in and do larger lots than what our minimums are. So I just wanted to point that out that it's not a mandate. It's Any other comments? Seeing none. All in favor of the amendment. Uh board vote has been requested on Alder Grants amendment. Delete. I'm a nay. That passes 7 to five. Entertain a motion to approve as amended. Motion to approve as amended made by

Alder Stevens, seconded by Alder Morgan, Alder Johnson. Yeah. Um, Mr. talk uh is this the and I'm looking for it and I can't quite locate it. The section where we talked about the uh percentage of multifamily units on a single block. Uh there were some amendments that were offered up at the last meeting. I think it right now is 25%. 925 the the ground floor I was talking about facing the primary street. That's on this item though, right? Number two. No. No. Okay. Sorry. Uh understood it is we're on 2925. I was thinking about the impervious surface. So that was the averaging that you were talking about. That is actually in the section that deals with development standards 2425. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments on this one? Seeing none, we'll use the board approval as amended. Please record me as a nay. Thank you. And that passes 8 to four. Motion to reconsider item one. J1. Alder Johnson makes a motion to reconsider item one. Second by Alder E. All in favor will signify by saying I.

I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it back before us. Uh, thank you, Mr. Buck. Did you have the exact line where that was located? First page of 2425. If you do the redlinined version, it's number five. And that was talking about the duplexes and semi- detached housing design and the physical layout to match the neighborhood. Is that you discussing? Uh, nope. That's not the one that that would have been the only amendment that it came in here besides the appeal process. That was the design in the garage. Uh I believe it was number uh three. Yeah, that's the same as it was before. No more than one quarter of the linear frontage of the block may be converted to two family duplexes or two family semi- detached. That's why I answer your phone. And no further two family duplex or two family 7- housing development is permitted once this threshold is reached. Okay. Um, basically saying no more than a quarter of the block frontage could be duplex. Yeah, forgive me. Were you at the last meeting or did John really John kind of ran with this and he is out? But okay, because there was the the 25% discussion, but then there was the amendment um that that was 15% and then the second amendment at 20%. They both failed. Yeah. Sorry, I don't recall it. I'm just trying to identify that specific section.

You're not talking about the improved service coverage. What's your question though, Aler Johnson? Well, I want to offer up that amendment [clears throat] again. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, and that's why I'm just trying to tie it back to the specific uh item. Needless to say, I'm struggling to locate the exact location of it. I'm not sure was that in one of the five that was approved. So, we had we had nine that came through at the last meeting. Five where we did the first and second reading and four were we I don't think we did first and final on any that that enter Yeah. that we entertained amendments on. I thought we did that. Okay. Well, I think there were some that if the amendments failed, we did it. Okay. Okay. Uh yeah, forgive me. I know Alder Grant was talking to you before the meeting and I uh thought we understood which item, but apparently there's Uh, we weren't in alignment on that one. So, we'll just kind of let let's I think technically Can you do a motion to withdraw the reconsideration be the most efficient way? Um, I think we could just do approval again. Okay. Yeah. Motion to approve. Motion to approve made by Alder Johnson, second by Alder Profett. Any more discussion? We'll use the board. Mr. box, if you happen to find that in the meantime before the end of the meeting, you can let me know. Thank you. You may vote.

Please record me as an I. Thank you. All right. It's adopted unanimously. Uh report of the protection and policy committee. Motion to approve made by Alder Stevens, seconded by Alder Profett. Items here to be handled separately. Items one and two will be handled separately. Any others? Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of the report signify by saying I. Pppos nay. You [clears throat] guys have it. The report has been approved with the exception of items one and two. On one. Motion over the floor made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Hutchson. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. And this item is to deny an appeal by Raven Wallen regarding the denial of her over the limit permit. So if anyone would like to speak to this item, come to the podium and just uh state your name and address for us. Uh Kale Lena, 2221 Leisure Court in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Good morning. Uh, well, good evening, council members. My name is Kale Buda. I was born just outside of Green Bay in the town of Belleview. I'm currently, well, I am a graduate of Notre Dame Academy, and I'm currently enrolled at NWTC. I have known Raven and her family for just under a year and a half. And in that time, I've spent almost every day with them. As Raven is my girlfriend, I can think of no one better to speak on behalf of her dogs than the person who has spent more than a year getting paws shoved into his bag while sleeping next to them. These dogs are some of the most well- behaved, event-empedered dogs that I have ever met. I know how much they mean to Raven, and I know Raven uh is the dog's whole world. Recently, when I asked Raven what she wanted for Christmas, the only thing she said was that she wanted me to get her the dog permit. So, here I am doing everything I

can to help her keep the dog she loves. Before addressing the concerns at hand, I would like to introduce you to the dogs that you are making a decision about. First, the oldest, Neelix, also known as Bubby or Buckbeak because we love Harry Potter. He's a German Shepherd Siberian husky mix who turns 13 tomorrow. Despite his age, he behaves better than what I did at age 13. You may expect him to weigh around 80 pounds, common for a German Shepherd. However, he only weighs about 50 because he was neured at just eight weeks by the Green Bay Humane Society. This stopped him from reaching his full size. Neelix was Raven's first dogs, the one truly meant for her. And after 13 years in her care, he enjoys naps, TVs, and a peaceful life. In dog years, that makes him about 104 years old. And if you look close to the pictures, he definitely has the beard hairs to show it. Next, we have Mickey, also known as Pey. He is 12 years old around 96 in dog ears. He's a lab mix with winer features. Now you may think hearing wimmer big German breed 3t tall and 100 plus pounds. However, he did stay small due to early neutering just like his brother. Mickey also weighs roughly around 55 lbs. And he is even lazier than his older brother. He loves his bed, snoring, food, birds, and short walks. These two were were the dogs Raven raised from the start. They are no nuisance at all unless they laying on the laundry counts when I'm trying to fold it. Next, there is TA. She is a six-year-old black lab originally owned by Raven's brother. When he couldn't afford to care for her, Raven took her in. TA loves rolling in the grass, getting dirty, napping, and begging for love.

She blends into the family perfectly and stays close to her brother Mickey. even shares his bed even though we have her own. And finally, we have Mia, a Chihuahua who became Raven after uh became Ravens after the tragic passing of her father. Mia was his dog, the last remaining piece of him. After he died, Mia lost patches of her coat. But slowly after years in Raven's care, her coat is finally starting to come back. She is stable, secured, and loved again because she found a home with Raven. Now to the issue at hand. Raven did not go out and adopt random dogs. She simply took responsibility for the dogs who are already in her family. Dogs who grew up together, who depend on each other, and who rely on her. I understand the purpose of pet limit policies. Without them, some people might neglect animals, breed irresponsibly, or allow unsafe conditions. But policies also need to consider what is best for the actual dogs involved. Recently, the Humane Society reported that dog kennels are at crisis capacity and that they are in desperate need of adopters and fosters. They even lowered the adoption fees in June because so many dogs are being surrendered. So, I ask, is it truly in the best interest of these animals to force them into a system that's already overwhelmed, especially when they are elderly, bonded, well behaved, and safely cared for. A 13-year-old dog like Neelix is not going to get picked over a younger dog. Families will worry about med medical needs, end of life care, and the heartbreak of adopting a dog they may lose soon. Mickey at 12 would say would face the same fate. Mia, who already experienced one major loss, would be devastated by another. Sir, I I apologize, but your three minutes has expired, so if you could Okay. wrap things up for us. I got one small paragraph that I'll read here. Um, everyone in the building that Raven lives in knows that there is an

aggressive dog named Biggie who is an ongoing issue. We have personally seen him get pulled between cars so that when we come out of the door, we don't get attacked. Or how about the time he tried to charge through charge at us through a closed glass door to attack us when we were just walking outside. Not to mention his handler. When she brings him down the stairs, she has to shout coming down with dog to make sure no one is in the way of this dog. And just today, while I was sitting in class, Raven sent me a picture. The owner of this dog dropped the leash to let this dog roam free. One dog that is known to be aggressive. Now, to finish up what I'm saying, we don't ever punish a sober driver who gets in an accident because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We punished the drunk driver. So, Raven has never had any complaints and even the humane officer said that she [clears throat] has not had any complaints about her dogs and she has been there for 6 months. Why are we punishing her and not taking the dogs that are an issue out of this building? Thanks for your testimony, sir. Thank you. Any questions for our guest? Yeah, older prophet. So, you said you saw Biggie today. Biggie today. Yes. Okay. Because we Yeah, I'll hash that out later, but thank you. Okay. Anything else? All right. Thanks again, sir. Anyone else with testimony on item one? Hello. Um, [sighs] I wrote this for you guys. Um, dear council members, my name is Raven Molen and I want to thank you for taking the time to hear my story. You can just state your address as well. Oh, yeah. Um, 300 Bond Street, apartment 118. Um anyways, I came here from Nina looking for a fresh start, new

opportunities and um a supportive community and the chance to build a better life. My job is here. My boyfriend's here. And for the first time in a long time, I finally felt hopeful about my future. When I moved, I knew finding an apartment that accepted dogs would be challenging. So, when I found a place that said four dogs um would not be an issue, I was absolutely ecstatic. I applied, was accepted, moved into a two-bedroom apartment specifically so my dogs would have enough space. Shortly after moving in, I learned about the requirement to register my dogs and apply for an over the limit permit. I followed every direction exactly as instructed. I've always tried to do everything the right way. Unfortunately, that process is what led me here today. I want to be clear, my dogs have never caused complaints or issues. The concerns brought forward were not mine. In nearly six months of living at my apartment halfway through my lease, I have not received a single complaint or call regarding my dog's behavior. If I had not applied for this permit, no um no one would even know that I have four dogs because they are quiet, trained, and supervised at all times. I even have cameras to monitor them and make sure they remain calm and respectful of my neighbors. I clean up after them every single time. something even the responding officer has witnessed personally. I understand the city limit is two dogs and I want to explain how I came to um my two boys uh Neelix and Mickey. They're 12 and Neix turns 13 tomorrow. It's his birthday. Um they were under a year old and I had and I got them at 8 weeks. They came from a shelter and I've grown up together. They are truly my heart. My other two dogs were not something that I went out and sought. I took them in because of difficult, painful circumstances that affected my family. TA the black lab was my brother's dog. He could no longer care for her and she had already bonded so deeply. Um so separating them in

wasn't wasn't an option. Um Mia the Chihuahua belonged to my dad after the unexpected passing. Um taking her in was the only way I could hold on to the last living piece of him. She brings me comfort on days when the grief feels unbearable. When I think about how my dad will never meet my boyfriend, how he'll never be at holiday dinners anymore, never walk me down the aisle, never see me or my future kids again. Um, Mia helps me feel like he is still with me in some way. I don't collect dogs. I took in family. These four are my family. I have no interest in going out and getting anymore. Um, uh, the thought of being forced to give them up or split them up brings me to tears. uh me many nights leading up to today with shelters and rescues already struggling at over capacity. Surrendering them would not only devastate me, but it would jeopardize the quality of life and the well-being in a system that's already overwhelmed. All I'm asking for is understanding and compassion. I have shown that my dogs are well trained, well cared for, have followed every role placed before me. I was simply trying to keep my family together and I ask that you allow me to keep my dogs and I thank you sincerely for your time and consideration on this matter. I just want to make sure I got everything in the three minutes. So I was talking kind of fast testimony. Any uh any questions? All right. Thanks again. Anyone else on this item? All right. Motion to close the floor. made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Morgan. All in favor say I. Opposed. Nay. The eyes have it. The floor is closed. Alder profit. Um and I don't know if officer Mavis is here, but um maybe Chief Davis during our protection and policy committee, Officer Mavs had indicated [clears throat] that Biggie had orders and was put down. Would you happen to know like was she talking about a

different animal? because I and maybe for anyone who didn't watch the committee meeting in the rest of the council um just give a little background to what's been happening at and the number of police calls and animal complaints at this location um to just set the scene kind of the same way that we received at PNP, please. So, I'm looking at the report from Officer Mavis and I don't see anything about a dog being put down. Um, I do see a note in here that one of the factors that went into this decision was that the apartment complex does not allow more than two dogs on site. Um, it looks like maybe at one point there was someone who uh is no longer employed there who said that was okay, but then they um were not authorized to make that decision is what it looks like. apologize, but there's a lot of documentation in here. Yeah. No, that's fair. And I just remember specifically, and I know that that dog wasn't one of the dogs being discussed tonight, but there is and has been compounding um complaints particularly about the volume of pets just within this complex. And we saw the pictures, gorgeous dogs. Um and I lost sleep the night of this committee meeting because there was a lot of tears about this one. I did vote to deny um because four dogs, particularly three large ones in a two-bedroom apartment complex with the feasibility and the possibility of other dogs that could attack them and one individual trying to control three large dogs and one small dog while trying to let them out in a very small um green space in what is a large apartment complex just doesn't seem fair. Um and I would love to keep these dogs with the owner. I would love to help find housing in which this would be allowable outside of city limits to

keep the dogs together, but this is an apartment complex that per officer Mavis, they are spending way too much time there with compounding complaints about an just the volume of animals in this building. Um, so I stand by my committee decision to deny. Um, but thank you officer David or not officer, Chief Davis. Appreciate it. Alder Morgan. Yes, I was in that committee meeting also. We voted three to zero to deny the appeal. Um, Officer Mavis, who has gone above and beyond in her training to handle humane officer situations like this, presented an outstanding case on why this is just a bad situation having this many dogs. This is the apartment, the brand new big apartments on the corner Broadway and Bond Street. And there are several people there that do have dogs. Part of the problem was someone that thought they were the manager must have given them some wrong information. That person's been terminated since. And uh it just isn't very good. I think if if we were going to vote on this, I'd almost ask that we uh back it up till we could get officer Mavis to come in here and explain exactly the situations here. And she did say that night that that biggie dog from the top floor was either going to be removed or have to be you euthanized or something. Um but it's not just that dog. There's just too many dogs in that kind of situation. Thanks Alder. Alder Hudson. Um I'm also on that committee and voted to deny the appeal. Um, in my mind it's really hard for me to have someone like Raven Walline have to go through this because she

is who we want to have dogs. She follows the rules. She she went above and beyond to explain what she did and what she does with her animals. And I've, if you run for Alder, you get to see all the homes in your district. And there are a lot of homes that have space to run in the backyard and whatnot. This is an apartment, but the way that Raven Loline describes her habits is what you need to have dogs in an apartment, if it's one or if it's four. I'm really now on the on the fence. um uh if we need to hold this for for the officer to come back and and give for views, but I'm actually willing to vote to approve the appeal at this point in time basically because of who we're dealing with. The concept of four dogs is too much in an apartment building, but I think in her apartment it's not too much. Thank you. Thanks, Aler Grant. I don't know if this is a question for legal or Chief Davis, but if the apartment complex only allows two dogs, even if we allow excessive, couldn't the apartment not allow her to still have it? I mean, I think that's kind of that's somewhat a legal question, right? But it's a contract between Yeah. Right. So, I guess I'm just kind of wondering what rights do we have as a city? I mean, it's up to the property owner at the end of the day. Alder Stevens. Okay. So, the ordinance limit is in fact two dogs and I think officer Mavis here makes her um decision just consistently about apartments or apartments and complexes like this and when she grants um excess animal permits. Um, but you are correct or it was alluded to that um, an apartment building or an apartment uh, management

company could certainly allow someone to have more dogs, but that doesn't allow them to have more than two per resident in the city. Um, at the same time, they could certainly support um, their um, excess animal permit, but that would be really up to them. And I think maybe as Alder Stevens probably could contend, um, apartment complexes have some additional regulations that they must follow regarding emotional support animals, um, which is separate from our two dog limit per household in the city. Okay. So, ultimately, we could allow the excessive animal permit. It would be up to the apartment owner and the resident to figure that out. Sure. Just confirming that point. They could certainly deny it even if we approve it. Yes. But that would be subject to their own um rules and regulations at the apartment complex. Okay. Thank you, Elder Stevens. Well, thank you for everybody talking about that, but it' be regarding what's stated in their lease agreement. Um it should have animals in there and it's outlined on what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. So, okay. Uh, Alder Johnson and Attorney Cochart. Um, if uh if this appeal is granted, is it exclusive to her current residence or does it apply and carry forward indefinitely while she's a resident city of Green Bay regardless of where she lives? It's it's just for I'm sorry. Yes. The clerk is saying it's just for that that location and those animals specifically. So, the address and names of the animals are listed on the excess animal permit. Okay. So, if she were to move, she would have to reapply for whatever new address she would she would relocate to. Okay. Yeah. And I guess I it much like what Alder Grant was alluding to, I I it feels to me like if you have dogs that aren't creating a problem, this really is more of a civil matter uh between her and the property owner. So, I'm inclined to uh support the appeal recognizing, you know, if it was obviously a dangerous dog declaration or something

along those lines, it would be a different discussion. But um right now it really seems to be uh a dispute between the property owner and her and I I just don't think the city should be in the business of sort of regulating those civil matters. So I I would favor supporting the appeal profit. This was not brought forward by the property owner. This was brought forward by officer Mavis. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to put that out there that there was no dispute. There was no disagreement. It originated from officer Mavis and the volume of calls she is handling every day at this complex. Alder Hus, but those calls are not regarding these four dogs. Correct. Do we know that? Okay. I'm I'm a dog owner myself. Been my entire life. And it sounds like she inherited two dogs from family members. Um, but if these are good dogs and she's handling it, I struggle with having to have her get rid of them. Other comments? Old G. Anything to do with dogs is very emotional. We know that you can't get away from it. Um, I've seen dogs sent out of the city or or face euthanadasia. They euthan being euthanized and it's it's never easy. Um, but in this case, Officer Mavis does a outstanding job and she's been doing an outstanding job for many years. She has more experience than I'm sure anybody within this county with handling dogs and the situations that goes on with them. Um, it's unfortunate she's she's not here. Um, but if she's recommending for a denial, then I'm going to support her on that. If someone

wants to see their way to holding this until she can come and and give testimony, I'm I'm willing to support that. But I'm at this point considering her recommendation because I've seen her grant plenty of recommendations, a lot. And if she's saying no, then there's a reason for it and I'm going to respect that and support that. Thank you. Other comments? I don't think we have a motion. Alder Morgan, I make a motion that we hold this until the next meeting and have the uh main officer, Mallerie Mavis, appear at that point and give her opinion. Okay. So, Alder Morgan makes a motion to hold this over until the December 16th meeting, seconded by Alder Profett. Any discussion on that? See none. All in favor say I. I. oppos. The eyes have it and that item has been held over. Now on to item two to approve an appeal by Lori Wolen regarding the denial of her over the limit permit. Motion to open the floor made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Presley. All in favor say I. Post nay. You guys have it. The floor is open. if you can just state your name and address and we allow for three minutes. Good evening. My name is Lori Wallen and I live at 200 Bond Street, apartment B. Um, I'm in the same situation as my daughter. Um, but I don't live in the same building as her. I don't live in that big apartment building. I live in a townhouse. It's 1428 square ft. It has three bedrooms, two floors. Um, I live there with my son. He's 22 now, I believe. And one of our dogs, um, is Rya. She is a 2-year-old Yorkshire

Terrier. That's his emotional support animal. Tucker is six years old. He is my emotional support animal. And I also have a three-year-old Yorkshshire Terrier. and then a small 2-year-old female terrier mix. Our largest dog is 10 lbs. We have two separate entrances, a front and a back. Um I don't take my dogs over to that little area because it's frankly it's to me it's too small. There's not enough room. I go straight across in um that open area across from the pond and I follow the rules. My dogs are registered. They're up to date on immunizations. Um they bark when they see people they don't know, but they're good dogs. When I moved there before I signed my lease, I asked April if that was going to be an issue because I love my dogs. They're family. And she said, "No, it wasn't. They don't count emotional support animals." I do know the policies on Green Bay's large dog and over limit. I know all that cuz I've had friends that live in Green Bay. We were misled. Is that our fault? Maybe a little bit. However, I would never have put myself in that situation had I not assured that I would be able to keep my dogs. My dogs have not had any complaints on them. They've never hurt anybody. And frankly, neither have my daughters. But, you know, we're talking about me. Um, I'm just asking that, you know, I be

allowed to keep them. My dogs aren't around that situation with with the other problematic dogs. Um, I kind of stay away from that. I know my dogs. I can read their body language. I know what they need and I'm able to provide it for them. And I I'm just asking you guys please just to consider because like I you know the shelters and rescues are full. They're begging people to foster. Thank you. Thanks for testimony. Any questions? Uh older Galvin then Morgan. Ma'am. Uh unless I'm there's a typo or I'm misreading it. It says you were approved. Yeah, I did not take that as a for sure yes because there were only three council members there. Okay. Um I actually came to support Raven, but then I talked to the lady on I think you're the mayor on her and she said it was a recommendation. So I'm like okay. So you're going to vote on it all of you. So that's why I'm here tonight. So all right. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. That's okay. Thank you, Alder. Morgan, did you have if she uh has the paperwork to show that these are emotional support animals? We didn't see it at committee. I do have paper copies. I did give them to the Broadway lofts, but I do have them on my phone. I can show them to you now or I can provide

hard copies. I think as well, uh, Miss Wine, you don't have to do that, Mr. Alder Morgan. Um, so emotional support animals are really that is a designation. We there's no um forgiveness of the fee and there's really no classification for us in law. It really is for a service animal. So, a lot of people talk about emotional emotional support animals and you know, recently we've gotten um some people in apartments, especially at UWGB. They the apartment complexes want to know the animals are licensed, not whether or not we recognize them at as emotional support animals. So, we didn't need Miss Wen's verification of that. Her landlord does. That answers the question. So, you know, that wasn't a factor in the fact that two alers did vote that because they were emotional support. I just was asking if we any approve. Okay. Anything else for our guest? Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else on this item? Motion to close the floor made by Alder Grant. Second. Second by Alder Stevens. All in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. The floor is closed. Motion to approve, made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Stevens. Any comments? Seeing none, all in favor? Oh, Alder Morgan. I was just going to say this again was one of the uh things that Officer Mavis said that she would not authorize four animals for this type of a building even though it's not an apartment, it's a townhouse. Okay. Thanks, Alder. Anyone else? All right. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. The eyes have it and that item has been approved. On to the report of the Green Bay Police Department granting operator licenses. Motion to approve by Alder Profit, seconded by Alder Stevens. Um any names to be handled separately or abstensions?

Seeing none. All in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been approved or report rather report of the plan commission. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Stevens. Items here to be handled separately. Three and six. One three and six. Any others? Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of that report signify by saying I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. The report has been approved with the exception of items 1, three, and six. Item one is to approve a partial alley closure located near 409 West Walnut Street with conditions. Um, with that, I think going to go to staff first to set the stage a little bit or inform council. Um, you know, we've been working on this since the last council meeting it was held and we've actually had um a number of emails that have gone back and forth between staff. I would respectfully ask that we hold this again. I know we don't like to do that, but if we could hold this again till the next meeting, I think we could clear some things up and get this resolved by the next meeting. Okay. Thank you, director. December 16. Alder Johnson makes a motion to hold this item until December 16th, seconded by Alder Galvin. Uh discussion on that. Alder Profett, I just know um because I've been reaching out to staff asking some of the concerns and questions with this one. So, I would like to propose, if I could with this item, to at least send to traffic, bike, and pedestrian committee the um possibility of exploring a loading zone on this portion of Broadway adjacent to the property for the December 15th. Um so, I'm fine with holding the rest of the item, but if we could keep the ball rolling on pieces of it, um because my understanding is there's pieces of it that would benefit from going through traffic, bike, and pedestrian committee. So, if we could put that motion within the hold, um I

think that's feasible. Um that would be my add-on. Or if we need to handle the hold separately. So, essentially an amendment. Yeah. to send to traffic, bike, and pedestrian um to explore a loading zone on Broadway because my understanding is with the alley closure. Um there's the potential or the discussion of turn radiuses for garbages and this unclear how many parking spots will be affected in the adjacent lot. Um would just I know that one of the items that staff was discussing was the possibility of going to TBMP to look at the loading zone. It is what our parking study recommended uh about two years ago. So I would just like to get that hashed out so at least some of this can continue to move forward. Okay. Alder profit makes a motion to amend the item to include that that referral to TBMP on the loading zone issue. Seconded by Alder Presley on that. Alder Johnson. Thank you. Mayor, Director J, since I know I mean pickup drop off zones had been talked about in the parking study, but I don't think specific locations were referred to. Uh I guess I'm curious what your perspective is on reacting to, you know, one item to create a drop off zone versus assessing the entire study area and determining where the best locations would be. That's correct. Um, so it it probably should be looked at as a whole. Um, we're not opposed to a loading unloading zone in this location. Um, and that's why that would be discussed at traffic, bike, and pad. Um, and the parking study did talk about the pickup drop off uh versus a loading unloading zone. Okay. In in which case then I would just ask Alder profit if you'd be amendable to rather than just looking at this one thing have it cover all of downtown. Okay.

the motion. So, I'd make a motion to send to traffic, bike, and pedestrian commission um to review the loading zones from the I think it was 2023, maybe it was 21, I can't remember. It's a little fuzzy. Um parking study for proposed loading zone locations in the downtown area. In the downtown area. All right. And there still is a second for that. I could just offer a point of clarity on that. Yeah. Just for Clerk Jeff in particular, the the exact terminology is pickup drop off zones, PUDO. Uh if if you're capturing that in the minutes, what is that? Instead instead of loading zone, pick up drop off zone. All right. Discussion on that amendment. Okay. So, I just want to clarify. It seems like there's kind of two things we're holding and that this is all in one. Correct. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Alder Jeff or formerly Alder Jeff, Court Jeff. [laughter] Um, thank you, mayor and council members. So, I actually had divided this. I had a hold and an amend. So, do you want me to put them together to hold it and amend it? Okay, I can do that. Thank you. Uh additional comments. All right. All in favor of that amendment signify by saying I post nay. The eyes have it. Um so entertain a motion to um hold as amended. Alder probably makes that motion seconded by Alder Hinkfist. Discussion on that seeing none. All in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been held over till December

16th. Uh next is item three to approve a request to reszone 1109 South Taylor Street from low density residential to general commercial as recommended by staff. Thank you, mayor. Um so I um was contacted by um several of the neighbors that are there. It's basically the street behind it. Um so I am going to share their concerns about it. I know it is a reszone um but the plan is for them at this point the the owner is wanting to make it into a laundromat. Um so I'm letting I just want to explain the concerns of the people that are in the backyard. They're concerned about the noise um and smells that would come from the drier vent and the way the winds blow it would be um into their yards and um also that it's um a commercial building located that is budding up to their backyards. So I wanted to voice their concerns. They were unable to come to be here. So that's all. Thank you. Thanks Alder. Entertain a motion. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett. Second by Alder Ritterbush. Uh any additional comments? Seeing none, all in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been approved. On to item six to approve amendments to section 44-1580 parent J of the Green Bay Municipal Code Chapter 44 related to short-term rentals as discussed in communication PC-25-3 with the change to remove the maximum 180day rental limitation and add three strikes policy. Motion to open the floor made by uh Yes. Yes. Alder

thought that was how it worked. Uh thank you, mayor. Um I and I do want to open the floor. I want to hear from the public, but I think we've heard a lot of feedback and I want the public to know that we have done some work. Um in the meantime and heard the concerns and I want to offer up some options that I have worked with staff on and then I would like to hear from the public what they think of those amendments instead of rehearing what we've heard. Um, so I ultimately would like to amend to refer to staff to focus on the following three things. Uh, clerk Jeff and whoever else would be appropriate with the short-term rental alliance or um the inspector that handles the short-term rentals to create a letter template that is sent out anytime a short-term rental permit applies for a firsttime permit or a renewal that notifies surrounding neighbors. and we can determine the the logistics after we've see the finished product. But ultimately, I'd like to see a letter template that notifies the neighbors that this property listed is a short-term rental. This is the owner's information how to contact them. Please contact them first. Kind of an order of operations. If you can't get a hold of them, if it's a non-emergency, you can contact this number. If it's an emergency, obviously 911. If it's a parking concern, here's our parking department. If it is, you know, just kind of be helpful and and guide the neighbors in how to address their concerns. Um, and if there's, you know, I know Alder Hankfist is happy to give any input to this letter, but a standard template that ultimately that is saved. What changes is the address that it's being sent to, the owner information, the rest is standard. The second thing is to work with the short-term rental alliance and any staff or alder um to to set a basic set of

house rules that align with city ordinance. Um the reason I bring this up is it was brought to my attention that if there are house rules listed on a listing site like Airbnb, Airbnb does back the owner in being able to uh control the issue. they can ask the person to be removed from the or to leave the premise. Um, as long as it is listed on the website, ultimately the person that is renting it is agreeing to those rules. So, no parking on the streets, you cannot be allowed past 10:00. again, our basic standard rules. And if we have a set of maybe three rules as a city that we say these three rules must be listed on the website along with um inside the premise, please show proof that it's on a website and within the property. And if you want to add your own rules to that, you are more than welcome to. But these three, four, or five that we think are appropriate must be there that again align with current city ordinance. Which leads me to my third thing that I would like staff to work on. Um, when talking with Chief Davis and Attorney Cochart, it's very apparent that our noise current noise ordinance is very hard to uh enforce and it could be improved. And that is a citywide issue, but it will also help with this specific issue as well. It's been brought to my attention that it it has a measurement. Well, we don't have a tool to measure and there are things that we can implement that Chief Davis has even seen in other municipalities that are simple and easy to switch out and again it's it's according to Coocher a need anyways. So we could ultimately address two problems with this. Um so I would like to see those things and then come back and vote like I said on who all gets these letters. Is it just four people right, left, front, behind or do we think it

should be broader? But I think building these three structures first and deciding from that point. Um so my amendment would be ultimately to refer to staff to focus on those three things. Thank you. Okay. And so yeah I'm just a little bit confused. This is a referral motion. Yes. Um but just on those three items, I taking the plan commission's recommendation as is, but I want to refer an addition these three suggestions and that be what we focus on as council. Okay. So refer the planning commission action along with these three additional actions. Correct. Okay. And there was a second from Alder was it um on that motion? Yeah. Well, Alder Profett question. Yeah. Just a point of clarification, I guess, just sending what has already got hashed out from plan commission with what happened in addition to these three back to staff. Is there a date that it would come back to the council? That's my question. It's a lot of work and I don't know the staff's workload. I would like to make sure we are hearing from all parties and that they're ready. I ultimately we're not changing any city ordinances. We're amending and fixing part of the permit process. Ultimately, you know, they already have to submit a permit. Now, we're just asking that you post these house rules and we are going to send out this letter template as part of the process. So, that's why I'm referring to staff to focus on those things. We're not I'm not I don't see a timeline needed for that because we're not changing I'm not proposing to change any ordinances. I if I could respond briefly. Okay. Um I guess my only pause is the latter of the

two just given that there was some minor tweaks that I think are worth moving forward on um such as like the local representative um being listed on the current placard but also adding the parcel owner if that's not the local um representative and then just putting in that we can start to enforce some of this stuff. So that's where not having a timetable. The noise ordinance enforcement I've been hearing about that since I got elected so I'm fully on board for that. I just feel like those latter two are going to take a little bit more time and I think the noise ordinance enforcement piece would benefit from being its own referral to staff on a separate item because that we could take in a lot of things with that not just STR related complaints. I think I've been hearing about cars. I think that's been in the news in other municipalities and the local mayor in Apple I think it was put out a whole thing about that. So I think that one is going to take a lot longer. That's why I asked about the timetable because there are other small I think changes that everyone agrees on that I would like to move forward with. So referring it back to staff delays those other motions and changes if that makes sense. Thanks Alder Alder Johnson. Thank you Mayor. Um yeah and I think uh I agree with Alder Profit. I do think the noise ordinance could be its own standalone uh communication recognizing even I I've had a number of challenges within my district that certainly wouldn't fall into the short-term rental discussion and and I know police department's been a little bit hamstrung in in terms of enforcement because of how antiquated that that law is right now. Um so I would support that and I think Alder Grant if your your motion is a simple refer to staff like I'm good with that though I do want to hear from the public yet. Um, if the motion is referred to staff and exclusively look at these three things, I I would simply request that we allow it to be more broad to give staff the latitude to come back with any and all recommendations that

might make the most sense while making sure that they do address the points that you've raised. So, I I don't know if what you offered up was an exact motion. Um, and and what the if it's just refer to staff, then again, I'm good. If it's only look at these three things, then I would propose an amendment. And it's it sounds like it's those three in addition to what's already been recommended by plan commission. But yeah, Alder Grant, again, ultimately a referral to staff. I just wanted the community to know things that I would like to see out of this. And if the council agrees and the community agrees these things are what people would like to see, that should be something that the staff focuses on along with any other things that come along. I'm okay with yeah figuring out any other issues that need to be addressed along the way. All then Hudson. I think it's better if we could take a proactive approach. So, I'd like from, you know, we've listened to 10 hours, 15 hours of testimony on short-term rentals, and I think all of us have benefit benefited from the perspective of learning about that business, learning what's out there, meeting of the people that own them, and the best practices, you know, that have been employed by some of them. So I'm in support of Jennifer's motion from the perspective of we Alder Grant's motion from the perspective of we want to have standard operating procedures that work across and then we can deal with the outliers. So I think that's what all the grant is trying to get across is based on everything that we've learned, let's implement some of these things that they that's already been implemented in other areas to help bring down the noise and then also work. So I would support

motion from that perspective except I will add we need to put on the applications occupancy numbers. So, right now there's no occupancy requirements that are listed on any application that comes through. Okay. Thanks, Alder Hutcherson. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think one general thing that still has to be performed by staff is determining what's a strike. We have three strikes. You're out. I think there needs to be a fourth item where the strikes are delineated. So anyone who lives near uh a rental or anyone who owns a rental knows exactly what the terms of a strike are. So I think we need to define that also. So when it comes back, I'm also concerned that this gets kicked down a little bit. Uh the road um I'd like to at least see it come back at the next council meeting. If we have to defer it again, fine. But I think we have to get closure on this as soon as we can. Thank you. Just on on that final point, I don't know if it's realistic if Alder Grant's motion succeeds to have this back in time for the 16th. Well, um, when is when would this occur? Like when's the next time we have to go through a issuance of per permits? Like when would this take effect realistically like in May? May a role. I don't I don't issue the short-term rental permits. I issue a lot of licenses. This is not one of them. Oh, dog gone. Director Renewig just on that question. Dave can speak to that. Right. The applications come due July 1st is when they would start, but we receive them all year. I mean, we have four or five in the hopper right now. So, it's not like they all come in at once.

Okay. It's true. But they run from July 1st to June 30th. So July So July 1st would be like a stop dead date. We have to have in things in place by July 1st. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. And I would say just representing the administration, I would want us to bring something back before this current Yes. council session expires. Okay. Um just so that we can cleanly dispense with, you know, what's currently before this this council. Um but next meeting probably a little tighter. Okay. I'll back off. I'll back off. [laughter] Alder probably. Yeah, I just have an again with the timeline just clarifying question because there is we have an ordinance change also. So, um that has this. So, my question I guess to the city attorney some of the things that have been proposed and discussed, how many of those would actually be ordinance changes? because I the way I'm reading it now like that that noise or enforcement ordinance is called out as part of the three strike in what's being proposed tonight. So, if that were to change down the road, because I'm thinking that's like a six-month at least process to hash out what that chronic nuisance premise and all that noise ordinance is defined as, this change, if we were to make it and what's before us tonight, would then whenever that last piece of it got hashed out, would be reflected and captured in what we currently have. So, I guess what I'm asking is the creation of the letter template, is that really something that's within the ordinance? Basic house rules on the listing, is that something that's within the ordinance or is that a policy? because I'd like to just dispel of the ordinance changes that I think had resounding support and everyone agrees on these minute changes but effective changes that people want to see. So, um, again, yeah, within this term for all of us, but a lot of these I'm just questioning, are they going to be changes to the physical ordinance or is it a policy chart? [laughter] Sure, let me take all those up at once. So, the noise ordinance, you are correct that it's a

separate standalone ordinance. It's chapter 24, so it's a cross reference. So, to the extent that there's a cross reference that would be updated at a future time, um, it is a separate ordinance. Um so it it could be amended as such with the reference and when chapter 24 is updated um the cross reference is updated. Um on the letters again I should note that this is the first time these are not things that we've researched uh to the what extent there are allowed legally. I would anticipate the letters could just be a policy decision made by staff to decide to send them because the ownerous is on us to do that. Um, in terms of a requirement for the landowner to uh publish or make available certain rules, um, that's likely something that we would want in the ordinance. Do does it have to be I think that's a question to be answered which we could probably answer pretty quickly. Um, was there another was there four thing that you were asking about? There was a previous change. No, I think I think that covers it. So that second one on the house rules is something that could be researched just because I'm thinking again I would like a timeline. And so I feel like our January 20th council given what you just said would be plenty. Hopefully it would defer to the administration. But just on that particular piece because I think the noise ordinance we could still move forward with the rest of this knowing that that noise ordinance and a chronic nuisance ordinance could would get changed at a later date and already be reflected in the changes we have tonight. Yeah, I would just note that I believe it was staff recommendation um and attorney Wood's recommendation though for the changes under section 13 in terms of uh the accumulation of three or more violations that we need to add some additional language. Could that come back by the next meeting? Potentially, but we need to add some additional due process language in there that's similar to uh the process that we do for revoking other permits or licenses in the city. So, not next meeting, but January 20th potentially. Thank you. All right, Alder Actton, Alder Grant. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so my understanding in talking with attorney

Kochart earlier is um that referring this back to staff, but then it would also it would go through protection and policy before coming back to council. So, um, just keeping that in mind, it wouldn't necessarily be referring and asking for it to come to our January council meeting. it would be going to our protection and policy after they work out the details of um that those additions of the three strike policy rather than working it out tonight and figuring out what that all looks like. Like you said, a lot of language has to be changed and having them work with the short-term uh rental alliance um to come up with um which they had some really great ideas and I think they would be very helpful in this process. So with all that said, I'm just saying it would be that extra um stop at pol protection of policy. Yeah. I mean I think um it's fair to say that if this is referred to staff recommendations would go to the appropriate committees or commissions based on what those are, right? I know we were just talking about the what council meeting. So thank you. uh older grant and I think attorney coach did you want to looked like you were gonna respond. So just clarification absolutely correct it would be based on the changes were made so the noise ordinance chapter 24 which affects uh much more than just short-term rentals is likely a protection policy item and then um to the extent that other changes were made resoning related they probably need to go back through the planning commission. So again, back to the mayor's point, appropriate committee based on the changes that are made, Alder Grant. Okay. Thank you. And if Yeah, I honestly if you would rather a separate communication be submitted, that's fine. I guess the reason I bring this up at the timing that I do is because I would like us to discuss, do we need a three- strike policy? If we do these, is it worth starting with this? I guess my question is, what problem are we

tackling? Is it a nuisance? Do we already have ordinances that fix those nuisances? Why are we I guess I want to know what the problem is? And we already have a noise ordinance. We already have parking rules. We can't enforce a permit limit. There's things we can and can't do. So, I'm questioning, do we feel that the tools in front of us currently aren't adequate or do they need to be tweaked and we can move forward and see how these changes affect any issues or complaints? Maybe we implement these and we see nuisance complaints go down and we don't need a three strike rule. I I don't under I don't I did talk to Chief Davis and if he has any further feedback since we talked. I would love to see data that these rental properties or these short-term rental properties are more of a nuisance than any other property in the city being homeowners or other renters. Every property I shouldn't say every a lot of properties get police calls. Are we evicting them right away? I guess my point is I want proof that these are truly a reoccurring nuisance because I haven't seen that. Some of the police calls that we've heard about are barking dogs or car door slamming. Again, show me an issue that is above and beyond a typical homeowner or an existing renter throughout the city, whether they're short-term or long-term. And if you can't show me that data, why are we implementing a three strike rule or 180day rule or a six day rule to a problem that I don't have proof is here? Thanks, Alder. Alder Presley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, well, I would like to point out first that the three strike rule is potentially is certainly more specific, but potentially more permissive than what is currently in the

code. uh there could be a revocation after one um uh violation in the current code. So this is a much more specific way of addressing this and clearly outlines what a what level of violation has to occur uh in order to revoke a permit. Um this is something that I mean was originally in Equal Rights Commission's report and came from people asking what does it take to get a revocation and the answer was not clear. So this the I mean if you're looking for questions about whether this is worthwhile I mean maybe not but right now we could just start revoking after one strike. So um I and I don't think that's what people would want and I have from testimony from short-term rental owners this is not the issue that they have had. So I don't I don't see why we can't go ahead with this now. I would be in favor of having two separate things passing what we have in front of us now and having some referral to staff for other items. Um if that was going to be two separate motions, I would want to amend the motion for referral to staff to also look into fee changes. Um and what some of the short-term rental owners have uh uh proposed, which is using a portion of fees to go towards affordable housing. Um, so if we're going to do that, again, we've we're not we don't have any amendments on the board yet, I don't think. Um, so I guess we'll have that conversation first, but I want to bring that. There's one amendment. Oh, what is the amendment? Alder Grants. Oh, okay. I'll wait. I don't know how we're describing these things tonight, but um I think it was characterized as an amendment. Yes. And I'll before we open the floor, I just want to make the point that obviously council can be as prescriptive as you all want to be, but it's becoming a little tricky to laundry list all of these things. It would it would be

possible to refer this item back to staff, you know, maybe with what planning commission has recommended and then just allow staff to recommend the most effective way of enforcing and and regulating um based on current essentially a current law that we have in in Green Bay. Alderator Rush, one of the biggest things that I'd like to see, I mean, I agree with a lot of what's being said here, but I think there needs to be a committee between the short-term rental alliance and the city of Green Bay to come together and find out the best practices that work for everybody. And I think this has brought a lot of people together this topic. And I think if we sit down with these people that are sitting in this room right now, I think we can put our heads together and I think we can come up with a really good solution and be a model for short-term rentals in the area. Thank you. All I was I was going to add in when we're trying to decide three strikes, instant revocation, things like that. How many of you have ever had to call the police department because of a loud neighbor or behavior that was going on around your residence? Now, imagine somebody who suddenly has a short-term rental that's being rented out and it's a packer Sunday or something like that and all a sudden you're having to call two or three times or getting woken up two or three times, but you only call once. I mean, then when the officers come, officers have discretion. Are they busy that night? Do they have time to do a full investigation or as they drive up the noise isn't that bad so they give them a warning and on they go and then three months later it's repeated months later it's repeated. So we we we do have to develop something and it has to have standards. You know you look at our chronic nuisance for for rentals and homes and things like that where we hold the owners responsible. Same thing with businesses. So, I I think we do need to listen to what the public has to say, but we also have to give due

consideration to the people that are living next to these these places and what they have to put up with. You know, how much do they put up with before they finally call? What's the straw that broke the camel back? And then somebody shows up and gives them a verbal warning and they're like, "Oh, man." You know, so, um, I I think these are things we all have to keep in in mind as as we're moving forward with this. Thank you. All right. So, are we ready? Motion on the floor made by Alder Profett, seconded by Alder Rud Bush. All in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. You eyes have it. Um, we have a a stack here. Um, and as I think Alder Hinfist was referencing earlier, we have heard a lot of testimony and it has been enlightening absolutely for all of us. U, but just asking people not to rehash things that have already been stated and keep things as succinct as possible. uh so we can get our council to a decision as quickly as as we can tonight. Uh so with that we've got Pete Borchart. [clears throat] And then just a reminder name and address and three minutes. Sure. [snorts] So I'm a new resident at Green Bay. So I'm new to all this. Um so my name is Peter Borart. I live at 1524 Gatewood in Jim's Lombardi neighborhood. So, this is kind of a like I said, I'm new. I just moved in a few like four or five months ago. So, I have not had any problems with my neighbors uh since I live on Gatewood right across the street from the elementary school there. You know, my traffic's low, but that doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. Um especially with corporations and landlords buying up properties around the area with this free strike rule, you know, it definitely needs to be boiled down to what is a strike and is that one renter the strike or is that

whole house the strike that I I need to know answers for. Um and also just having short-term rentals as you guys have probably heard a thousand times as this is my first meeting so I don't know what's been spoken about before or not. It drives the cost of housing go up. We paid probably 25% more than we would if we moved 5 miles away from Lambo. That's fine though. We love the Packers. Um, and I really do want I love my neighbors. I got to meet them all. They came over to my open house. They even, you know, said, "Hey, we can help you shovel the snow since you're new in town." I won't get that with short-term rentals. I won't even answer get an answer on the door. Um, and I that makes me sad because I like a neighborhood. But I like community. That's why I moved here. That's why a lot of us have moved here or live here or stay here. So, whatever protects residents that are long-term renters or owners, I'm in favor of. Now, I'm not going to go over everything like you said, so I'm going to leave leave it there, but just please keep us in mind when you're voting because we have to live next to these renters. We have to listen to the noise. And yes, like like another gentleman said, a lot of them just, you know, hey, keep it down and move on. That's not a strike. So, I'll leave it up to the hundreds of well, hundreds dozens of other people here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, next up is Jose Joseph Rosco. Uh, hello. Uh uh I'm Joey Rosco. I live on 319 Cactus Court. Uh shout out to my fellow Joey. Uh so um I [snorts] am an accounting student at UWGB. Uh I will hopefully, fingers

crossed, be graduating this spring. Uh, and as I plan to move into the job market in Green Bay, I'm thinking about where I want to live because I was born here. I was raised here. I want to live in Green Bay. Uh and uh short-term short-term rentals uh as uh Pete said tend to uh drive up uh rental costs in the area for long-term renting. Uh this is very important to me as I will be on a new higher salary as it is. Um, and I think that it's important that if we have these short-term rentals in our community that they be held to a certain standard. You know, that these aren't just short-term rentals. You know, people are visiting our city and uh oftent time living in houses in our city. They're going to be seeing what it's like to live here. And I believe that a certain amount of standard should be held to these rentals in order to make sure that if we are depriving our citizens of available housing uh that that housing be put to good use. I am in favor of that sweet three strike policy for that reason. Uh I it we I've I've heard it said a lot that there is uh like a housing crisis in Green Bay. I I I'm sure everyone here has opinions on that, but uh it's it's important to know that housing isn't

just something that we all own. It's a part of our community and I believe that by implementing policies that uh regulate how we use it, we can uh make sure that everyone can get what they want. And that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you, sir. Uh next up, Cinnamon Harvey. Hi, I'm Cinnamon Harley. I live at 1198 Canterbury Road and um I'm actually a long-term landlord. There's uh I'm totally against the three strike law, the rule, because it could be retaliatory. And we have a system in place for long-term rentals um that they could be uh uh part of that. We have the landlord alert system. they could either join in that or create another one so that if they um the neighbors don't contact the representative or the owner and they have to call the police, they're going to be alerted by 4:00 the next morning. They get an email. They could be part of that or create their own system even though they're not regular landlords. They could do a community officer engagement. I'm on a texting basis with my community officer. He probably hates me, but we talk all the time. Um they do have nuisance property rules. they do for landlords, homeowners, all of that. This is something they can sweep right into that and make sure that they're following all the nuisance laws. They're alerted and there are plenty of properties, I mean, not a great amount, but there are properties that the city has had to take possession of because they are chronic nuisance problems and this is something that could be resolved for that. I mean, there's so many different things. The city also has a process in place for shutting down businesses that are chronic problems. They just did that with stage one. They already have all of this in place. there's no no reason to reinvent the

wheel. And so they jumped on top of of this the affordable housing. There's 422 units being used. We have already determined these would not fall into the affordable housing. There are so many different things that the city can do to help that one. Get on that zoning change for the ADUs. It's already written that ADUs cannot be used for short-term housing. So right there, we're trading housing for the exact people that we need to have them in. you know, um, we can streamline some of the pre city processes, what we've seen them do today to start actually cutting the red tape to bring developers into the city. We all know about the Green Bay premium. It is a thing. If we can streamline that stuff, we'd invite more developers to come to the city and then we'd also reduce some of the costs because they charge us more to work here from the red tape and the frustration. And I got a question. The whole using the the earmarked money for the affordable housing to build that barn first by JBS. Part of that project is for affordable housing. Why don't we start there instead of the barn? That's just my own suggestion. And the last thing that I have is for the ERC. They bring these reports with concern. No, no problem with that. But how about we don't actually entertain these reports until it's documented. I've already talked to all the stakeholders to try come up with some of these solutions beforehand to actually cut down on this time that it's taking for you guys when you could be dealing with other city issues. That is my recommendation for that is make sure that the reports have everyone included so we're already working on the solutions before it comes here. That's all I have. Thanks for your testimony. Just real quick, the ADU changes have been made by this council either tonight or a couple weeks ago. So that's been done and there's a 100 units of uh workforce housing being constructed as we speak at JBS. So that's awesome. Just so you're and and the other thing is I do I do like Alder

Grant's suggestions as well. Very well. Uh questions for our guests. All right. Thank you. Next up is Genie Vivble. My name is Jeannie Vivble. I live at 938 South Jackson Street. Um I I apologize. I haven't been able to attend meetings uh prior to this. What I am about to say probably should have been presented at an earlier meeting, so bear with me. I grew up and currently live in the Aster neighborhood. For as long as I can remember, and I'm 74 years old, my neighborhood was loaded with affordable apartments and homes. They've evaporated. They're gone. My neighborhood, as many other neighborhoods in Green Bay, has become oversaturated with short-term rentals. I can't walk a block in any direction from my residents without passing at least one short-term rental. The same for the block after that and the block after that. I've been watching the rapid increase in these short-term rentals in the area for several years and found there are many more than are actually known. Some are flying under the radar without the required inspections and permits. They advertise on websites without including a photo of the front of the rental or one that does not show the address number and as soon as they get a renter, they pull the ad. Some claim it's their primary residence. It's not. I have discovered and reported numerous properties operating in these ways and that can be confirmed by city inspector Tim Meeves and more recently the compliance specialist for short-term rentals Mike Boat. Reports of people using these properties for criminal activity are growing across the country and it's happening here in

Green Bay. Background checks are not routinely done on potential renters. And I have experienced some very sketchy people in the short-term rental right next door to me, including suspected gun traffickers with rented protection dogs. There's way too many issues with that uh short-term rental to go into here tonight. Uh but the city ordinances did not help. Neither did the renter who lives out of state. Um, he didn't want to hear it. I tried contacting him. He didn't want to hear it. Bulk home purchases by institutional investors, turning them into short-term rentals, in my opinion, is the latest get-richqu scheme. That's why we're seeing so many of them. Easy money. They're pushing prices up and making it impossible impossible for people to stay here. The homeless numbers are increasing and respectable longtime residents are moving out of Green Bay Green Bay because they cannot afford to live here. My own rent has doubled and I'm not exaggerating. It has doubled in just the last few years. As longtime local residents get priced out, who remains? Only those who already own a home and don't rent it out short term. Goodbye young families hoping to buy their first home. Goodbye to those struggling to pay rent. Goodbye students, artists, seniors on fixed incomes, and anyone who can't afford to compete with the budgets of the short-term renters. Goodbye neighborhood diversity. Goodbye affordable housing. The sad devastation of affordable housing is, in my opinion, due to two factors. the explosion in n the number of these rentals and the lack of more strict oversight of them from our city council. Green Bay isn't unique to all the

problems caused by short-term renters rentals. The difference is that numerous other cities across the United States are taking action and enacting more strict regulation of them to address affordable housing shortages and protect neighborhood quality of life. Some cities are banning them completely. Many cities are banning them completely. Ma'am, your three minutes. There is solid documented evidence that limiting your three minutes has expired. I have two more sentences. Okay. U Some cities are banning them completely. There is solid documented evidence that limiting short-term rentals reduces rental and housing costs and preserves the availability of affordable housing. Year after year, I'm told the city knows there's a lot of problems and the legal department is looking into what can be done. Now [clears throat] is the time to do something. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Yeah, Alder Prophet, thank you for your testimony. I vaguely remember possibly that you were at the Equal Rights Commission maybe like a year year and a half ago when there was some discussion about this because I remember Rights Commission meeting. Yes, you were. Okay. Um, so I'm going to try not to be creepy, but you mentioned your address and you mentioned that there was um a unit next to you that was kind of operating under the radar. So it kind of looks like you're in an upper and a lower. Is it one of those units that's right within your home or it's a different one? It's a duplex off of a duplex next to me that's being utilized as a Airbnb under the rad short-term rental. As a short-term rental but problems, nothing. Okay. Cuz I I mean I have the list. I think anyone who's been at the previous ones knows I have the list in front of me and there's none on your street that are being permitted through the process. I'm on right next to a corner. Okay. Yeah. Corner. I appreciate that because I think that's another layer of enforcement like you know what what does our process look like as a city when we get valid complaints that there are ones that aren't following our process. It's already very well documented. So thank you for adding that layer. Thank you. Have you contacted the police at all when you saw some of these

concerns? Um it started um most recently with well we've had renters there that had four dogs or more. Um when animal control comes out, they don't come to the the renters don't come to the door. Um with the ones that were highly suspicious um weapons trafficking, they had two dogs that they rented for protection. Um the people with the dogs aren't picking up after them, but according to animal control, I have to have video. Almost impossible to get. Okay. So, you did contact the police? Yes. Okay. Go. Thank you, your honor. Um, Miss Bble, um, I did some study on the stats last two years in my district. There's 27 STRs. Two are owned by uh, the homeowners. 10 are owned by people that live in the county. 10 more live by people that live in the city. Three from outside the county but live in the state. who are owned by people uh that live out of state. Total police calls for those 27 homes over two years was 26. After looking at each of those calls, only four of them I felt even came close to being of concern. And none of them uh of the four, only two were substantiated. None of the other ones were substantiated. officers didn't find any evidence of any wrongdoing other than minor noise complaints or dogs defecating outside and the owner's not picking it up. Um, so I I just wanted to let everyone know that that's what's happening in my district. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Next up, we have Rick Scog.

Good evening. [clears throat] I'm Rick Scog. I'm also known as John. It's my legal name. I live at 2520 Sage Drive in Green Bay. I'm a lifelong resident, part of eight generations that have called Green Bay home, dating all the way back to the mid 1800s. I raised my family here. I've owned a real estate brokerage and was one of the first to support and build a building in the I43 business center where Coldwell Banker is today. I could have lived somewhere else, maybe Tucson where I went to university, but I'm glad I came back to Green Bay in those early years of mine living and working in Green Bay. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I probably would. So, my life's history is right here. I love Green Bay. This has nothing to do with anything other than it's made me a pretty strong advocate for Green Bay. And that's an important characteristic for any host. I just want to talk for a moment about the alliance. We've been going back and forth. The alliance. The alliance. I think I was part of the very first conversation about forming an alliance with Brooke. And from there it just mushroomed, grew very fast. There's some amazing leadership in this room that you can take advantage of. Just great people, man. If you want to start a business, seek these people out. Um, so as the alliance was growing, I began to hear more and more often, we need to help the city. we need to participate. We can do this. We can be helpful. And um so I think that's an important important part of what the alliance

offers. Um it's really morphed into something now more than I think was originally intended. It was kind of a defensive move and now it's kind of like we can help, we can assist. So, it's now much easier for you to communicate with all of the short-term rental people as well. One call, two calls, and everybody will know that you have a message. We didn't have that before. So, we're ambassadors to the city of Green Bay. The reason I spoke of my history here is that we're all ambassadors. We're trying to make sure when guests come to Green Bay that they have a great experience and housing is all a part of that, right? And so in our business, repeat customers is the name of the game. And what's good about that is it's good for Green Bay, too. People are coming back with their discretionary spending. Um, so I just kind of want to um flip the script a little bit and say we want to thrive. When we thrive, the city thrives. Um, we can generate more room tax, $1.6 million last year just from short-term rentals, better employment numbers. Um, you know what? We want you to be proud of us. We want you to help us. In return, we'll do our best to help you by bringing operators, data, and industry expertise to the table. We all want regulations that are fair, effective, and enforcable. We all want to protect our

neighborhoods. When we work together, we can achieve a very acceptable outcome for all of us. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any questions? Presley, thank you for your testimony. Um, what is the STR Alliance proposed as ways to address the uh housing crisis in Green Bay? Well, uh, there were discussions about diverting monies was one of them. I mean, I I'm a firm believer that STRs are not impacting the the housing shortage. I think we identified six or seven properties that maybe in the end might have been available for short-term rentals or or for uh lowinccome rentals. How do you define a low-inccome rental? Numbers that have been provided to us. Okay. I don't have specifics right with me right now, but from my data, there are 90 uh short-term rentals that are under $250,000 based on the estimate uh from Zillow of their cost. Um, which is more than there are on the market right now. Um, but I guess uh going back to what I talked about earlier with diverting some of the uh fees for the permits toward affordable housing solutions, is that something you would be in favor of? I'd be certainly interested in looking at it. I don't know the complexities of it, whether it's lawful or how easy it is to pass something like I don't know. I'm I'm not doing what you're doing, but but certainly we would want to look at that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks for your testimony. Okay. Thanks. Uh next up we have uh David B on Washington Street. Good evening. My name is David Bado. I

live in 118 South Washington Street, U Green Bay. I'm in Alderman Johnson's district. Um, I rise today as a land owner and aspiring landlord. We must embrace short-term rentals with open arms, much like Los Angeles County did because that's what I think of when I think of Green Bay. I think of LA, California. LA County has seen their property values increase on average to 3.6% from 2008 to present. Imagine that. So much property value. And it's and that's just the unwalkable urban sprawl. Could you imagine with a walkable city like ours? I did. And Hollywood, the Hollywood Boulevard and the Walk of Fame, 15% property value up. But David, the homeless population has increased by 37%. It's from the same time frame. I say to you, those people don't own property, so they don't matter. And since they don't matter, I stand in solidarity with all the other landlords in advocating for expanding of my rights and prerogatives at the expense of working people, the marginalized, and the working poor. But in all seriousness, that was all sarcasm if you didn't get it. But in all seriousness, short-term rentals should not only be strictly regulated, but they should be outright banned. Stop acting so helpless. You are the city council of Green Bay. We have invited you with enormous power. [snorts] Short-term rentals are a cancer and must be stamped out before it kills our civic

body. If this alliance is so perfect, sell your sell your rentals and buy a hotel. That way you be in one location. Would you rather 1,500 small casinos or one that you have to go to? I want to address the rest of the property owners here. in your hands. You wield enormous power. Use it for the public good. You could dump those short-term rentals onto the market, thereby bringing down the cost of living here and the cost of housing. if we can get some of our neighbors off the street or, you know, screw it. Just pocket more money because, you know, as my grandfather always used to say, it's not about spending time with your family or being home with your community. It's about money. Everything it buys. You can take it with you. He was kind of suffering from Alzheimer's at the end there. I have a I have one more second. Sorry. It is up to us to try to eradicate human suffering in our time. To plant trees we will never sit underneath. We cannot take it with us. We can leave it better than we found it. If you don't agree with me, by all means, turn Green Bay into a theme park for the rich. [snorts] Any questions? All right. Thanks for your testimony. Next up is Mark Dana.

Well, good afternoon, members of the common council. Uh, my name is Mark Dan. I serve on the leadership of the short-term rental alliance and I'm also a town board supervisor in Ledge. Um, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Address, oh, address, sorry. 825 Spring Hills Court deeper. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and I thank you for your open-mindedness uh that you have all shown throughout this process. Um as you guys consider the short-term rental future in Green Bay, I just want to highlight an important point that Alder Grant had brought up just recently. The city already has strong comprehensive regulation around short-term rentals. In fact, as you well know, there is a litany of things that an owner needs to do before they can operate a short-term rental in the city. Not the least of which having it inspected by the county sanitarian, uh applying for the uh permit, um providing the city with uh house rules, parking schematics, proof of insurance, um etc. These regulations aren't just they're not just theoretical. They do work. Um, they create accountability. They provide protection for our neighbors and our guests. And they give the city clear direction on reviewing, you know, good operators from bad operators. But when challenges uh exist is not actually out of the ordinance itself. It's the implementation and the enforcement of what we already have. So my ask of you tonight is simple. Rather than adding new restrictions, things like a a three strike rule that have a lot of ambiguity,

I ask you and I implore you to continue working collaboratively with the short-term rental alliance as Alder Ritter Bush had mentioned earlier because I think together we can strengthen and streamline the enforcement of what's already currently at our disposal in the city of Green Bay. we can improve how the tools that we have are applied and we can be far more effective than adding on uh extraneous things that that we probably do not need at this point. So, I thank you for your time and your willingness to listen. Um and I I um appreciate the work you do for the community. So, thanks for your testimony. Um just a quick question for me and then uh Alder Presley, just putting on your tunnel wedd hat. I was just sort of curious if you all have grappled with this at all or how has it been handled in in the town? So, we're a bit smaller. We're a bit smaller. We haven't uh as of right now, we do not have a short-term rental ordinance. Okay. Got it. Thanks, Al Presley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for your testimony. Um, so would you then prefer in terms of the three strikes rule that we stay with our current ordinance, which allows potentially a revocation after one strike? What I guess what I would prefer is really having, you know, a seat at the table to actually really discuss this and what this looks like because I think right now you have the tools, right? But as we've learned throughout this process, there's there's a lot of, well, I didn't know that was a short-term rental or I didn't know this or I didn't know that. I think we need to do better at at the tools that we currently have. Let's use them. Let's work together to to just strengthen what we already have. Okay. Uh, another question. Um, do you do you consider the short-term rentals a business like the ones that you own? Are they businesses or they're your house? Um, I consider it an opportunity and I consider it a value um for the city of

Green Bay and for those that come here. Okay. So, you wouldn't consider it a business. Um, again, as I've answered, I consider it an opportunity. Okay. Do you think it should be regulated like a business? I think it is regulated. I think it's I think there's you know if you look at at the regulations that already exist. I mean you can't just you can't just open them up and if you do as as one of the speakers said before I think those are the ones that we want to use these tools that you already have to help enforce operators that are doing things without doing them the right way. So, if we could regulate it like a business, um, where it's [clears throat] decided by zone, it has to be in commercial or mixed or whatever, would you be in favor of that since it's already like a business? No. Because I I don't think I I don't think that's right to determine what part of an area should allow tourists that want to come to Green Bay and spend time and that they can only do it here or they can only do it there. I don't think that makes sense. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thanks for your testimony, sir. Uh, next we've got Tyler Loy. Tyler Leroy, 3184 Morning Woods Court. So, Elder Grant, you uh read my speech, so um I'll still go through it because I think it's important to highlight you guys have a lot of levers, right? You can implement three strikes, you can do all these other things. what I know will solve nuisance problems is to learn from the people that do this the best. Right? We have I personally operate um in many municipalities um and I only can be successful with implementing best practices. So um just again want to thank you for all of your hard work through this process. Uh I'm part of the SDR leadership team. I really want to focus on the solution that's consistently delivers the best results for neighborhoods. clear

communication and consistent expectations. A quick example, earlier this year, you know what? I did get a call from a neighbor. Uh they told me there was a noise disturbance next door and within minutes I was able to solve it and restore the peace. But mo and most importantly, I built credibility with that neighbor that they felt trust in calling me without any police call, without any city involvement. That's exactly how we handle effective communication and how it should be functioned. But not all neighbors know who to call. A simple policy change can change fix that. Our first proposal, every time there's a license renewal or a new license, the city mail out a postcard to nearby neighbors with operator's contact information and the clear three-step communication process. Contact the operator first. That should always be their first line of defense. And regardless of how big or small the issue should be, give them a chance because every operator, at least the operators that I interact with, want to be successful operators. If it's not resolved, then call the non-emergency police line. If concerns continue, then involve city officials. This gives neighbors clarity, holds operators accountable, and keeps city resources focused where you guys are needed most. Our second proposal, which you already heard, uh we must ensure guests understand local rules. I truly believe most people are good people. They just really don't know the rules. Most nuisances happen because v visitors just simply don't know them. Require operators to show proof of the city rules, you know, required in their listings and require those same rules be posted inside that front door. Brown County Health and Safety in already come by annually to do their inspections. Simple check. Are the city rules posted on the front door visible for everyone that walks through that door? This guarantees that every guest and every

STR receives clear expectations on quiet hours, parking, and neighborhood standards. These best practices work. They reduce complaints, build trust with neighbors, and minimize unnecessary involvement while preserving tourism and economic benefit STRs contribute to Green Bay. Let's move forward with what's proven to work. Communication, education, and accountability. So, thank you for your time and partnership. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? Alder Grant then Hutcherson. Thank you for your testimony and we spoke a lot and that's where some of these ideas came from. So, thank you for your time. Um, can you just kind of elaborate though for the council how those house rules when posted on the site, how that helps? Yeah, absolutely. So, anytime someone wants a book, say on Airbnb, uh they do have to read through the the house rules that are customizable for for everyone. So, in there I have a whole list of of house rules. If they're coming in, you know, here's our quiet hours, here's what's expected, and they actually have to agree to it. I I follow up with a rental agreement. Um, but that's part of the process is they're actually agreeing to the house rules to be able to accept it uh on our terms and conditions. Um, if once they do that, then I automatically have a lever and I've pulled that lever. I can call Airbnb regardless of what their terms and conditions are and state house rules have been broken and here's the proof with my security camera footage and I've been able to enforce it in that way. Thank you. Thanks, Alder Hutcherson. Okay. Uh, thank you for your testimony. A lot of good ideas. Um, you are what I would call someone we want to manage short-term rentals. The city has to deal with all short-term rental managers and owners.

Some are not going to be like you. Some don't care. Some it's just money. Okay? It's fact life. I mean, because you own a short-term rental doesn't mean you're a outstanding human being. It means you're in the business. Okay? So, how do we deal with someone who doesn't care? So, that's why we're coming up with this short-term the three uh three strikes is because all people are not like you and we have to deal with it. And so what would you recommend if there's an owner or manager who doesn't care? What should we do? Well, well, it starts with forcing best practice, right? So things like the house rules posted on the house, you know, in the house. I don't care if they care or not. It's going to happen if you want to be operating in the city. So a lot of that I think it's just we need to figure out how to force best practices. I think we have a lot of great ideas and I want I think that's important for us to think through with staff involvement on just getting best practices for um and you guys have tools. I think a lot of things is just more education like do we have quiet hours? Do we Yeah, I think we do, right? But we need to vet out what are the tools that are already at our disposal so that we better utilize them in cases where where they need to be utilized. Okay. And but I understand you you you're saying information is good for people to know but there's going to be bad actors. So we have to deal with reality of bad actors. So we have to come up with ways to do it. We don't have to deal with good actors. Okay. Uh we hope everyone is like you. So we got to deal with bad actors. So that's what we have to come up with with our language and we would look forward to help on this. How do we deal with that? Yeah. So, we're not like adamantly opposed of the three strike. We don't

firmly support it because there's just a lot that needs to be vetted out with that because it can be misused. Where I'm where I strongly want you guys to go is implement best practices and see how it goes because I'm confident we can help operators that that really want to stay in the city be better operators. Okay. Okay. Thank you, uh, Alder Presley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your testimony. Um, how many short-term rentals do you own? I own one outright, but I manage properties. Gotcha. Um, and you listed 3184 Morning Woods Court as your address. Is that your primary? That's the one I own. Got it. Is Do you live in Green Bay? No, I don't. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks for your testimony. Anyone else who'd like to speak? Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Alders. I'll keep it very short and sweet. Uh, my name is Ryan Spouty. I live on the 900 block of Willard Drive in Nwabanon. It's my honor to represent both the west side of the city and the village in the state assembly. Um, just going to say the obvious. The state is the problem. We all know it. The state is the problem. Um, we have taken the best tools out of your toolkit to tackle the issue of short-term rentals. And after banging my head against the wall and screaming into the void for a few months down in Madison, uh, I've come to the realization that any attempt to put those tools back in your toolkit, that's not going to happen until we have a new majority down in Madison, until we have a new speaker. That being said, the state has taken the best tools out, but not all of the tools. you have some at your disposal to tackle this issue. Uh when I talk to my constituents, many of whom I share with members here, with alders here, their top issue is affordability. It's the cost of

everything, including the cost of housing. Uh they would like to see our housing stock protected in Green Bay. They would like to see you take some steps. And I'm pushing you alders to go as far as you can right now on this issue to use the tools that you have to enact responsible efficient regulations around short-term rentals. Uh my favorite FDR quote, if I can quote it accurately, uh FDR said, "It is common sense to take a method and to try it. If that method fails, just admit it. Admit it honestly and try something new. But above all, do something. I'm pushing you alders to go as far as you can on this issue to use the tools that are available to you to tackle the issue of short-term rentals. Thank you very much. Be happy to take some questions now or afterwards as well. Thanks, Representative. Any questions? All right. Thanks for your testimony. Thank you all. Ron Morris, uh, 306 North Clay. Um, I was here, uh, some time ago about a noise complaint, um, with a property uh, that has been closed. It was, uh, dual sports bar. Um, so I know a little something about um uh good neighbors and uh and not so good neighbors and that the city will indeed take action on u u irresponsible neighbors. There's a couple of things that I want to um point out. Um, and a a question that today has been answered for me, um, I believe is this.

The question about short-term rentals seems to be a response to the availability or what is perceived to be the lack of availability of housing in the greater Green Bay area. Um, and based on some limited amount of research that I've done, the amount of housing that's represented by short-term rentals is relatively small. Um, it has been estimated that the short-term rentals represent um, approximately um, 3 to 5% of the housing necessary um, in the greater Green Bay area. And I believe that this council is already taking action on increasing the number of housing um that's uh being being made available in the range of it, whether it be low income, whether it be um u multifamily homes and so forth. Another thing that is pointed out and people continue to repeat over and over as if short-term housing is the problem is affordability. Um, we might recognize that shortly after CO the price of housing skyrocketed had nothing to do with short-term rental. We might also agree that income has been relatively stagnant in a variety of different areas which has nothing to do with short-term rental product or the affordability of it. We might also if we are not conducting lazy research that jobs are fundamentally plentiful in the greater Green Bay area but they're not

necessarily in the same places where the housing is or where housing is. So there is something that I want to share with you um because a question has been asked about responses. What I one of the things that I u in response to this uh this thing called three strikes policy. Um there's a draft ordinance in Galveistston, Texas. um a short-term rental licensing board where three documented violations verified by police and neighbors in a 12 month period will trigger a review. The corrected issue does not count as a strike. Uncorrected will lead to a fine or the license being revocated. or revoked. Um, it's happens to be aimed at 4,200 units. It's resident driven. Um, and it has a lot to do with some of the same things that we've heard here. Believe me when I say I am also a short-term rental. I have a duplex and so forth. Um, but I've also am a bit empathetic to the men and women who own properties that are sir, you're irrespons Thank you. that are irresponsible uh neighbors. So I am sort of on both sides, but draconian rules and and increasing fees just be, you know, to offset housing costs, that's a bit lazy in my opinion. Okay, thanks for your testimony. Any questions? All right.

Hi, my name is Keith Schneider. I live at 1141 Guns Road. Um, something that hasn't been addressed in the three meetings that I've been to, um, and I would address, uh, Alderman Priestley's, uh, issue. My son bought his home, um, turned a two family nuisance home at 903 North Broadway into a single family home with a mother-in-law suite and used the mother-in-law suite as an Airbnb. So he lived in his STR, rented the upstairs off, and the the the upstairs as an Airbnb was the only way he could afford to buy his new home. And that's something that hasn't been addressed is STRs can help a firsttime home buyer. And there are things implemented within the city um for for turning two family homes into something just like this. um it gives you preferential viewing so that flippers aren't buying the houses and stuff like that. So there are some things in place to to help first-time home buyers with SDRs available to them. That's all I can say your testimony questions. Thank you, sir. Hello. Um, I'm Samantha Lang. I live at 18 uh 25 Cormier Road, which is actually across the street from Green Bay, too, I believe. I live in Ashwabana. Um, but I want to live in Green Bay. I actually moved here from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I used to work for Schneider um for different opportunities with that company. Um, before I get started, this was given to

me when I came in the door. I not in support of STRs. Um, but something that they said not to do was don't refight the 7-day or 180day issues. Can I talk about that still even though it was like removed? Okay. So, I'm a renter. I've always rented. I've never owned a home, but I want to. Um, so I'm asking that that be put back on the table. I believe that you threw 19,500 renters like me under the bus to protect, I think like 44 local short-term rental business owners and an entire army of outside investors. So twothirds best owners, I don't think, live in Green Bay. Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but a lot of them did zoom in from places like Florida and Texas and California. Uh, even my landlord, I don't live in a short-term rental. I live in a long-term rental, but they don't live in Wisconsin. They live in Missouri. I figured that out because I looked up the property tax information online. Uh, so anyway, those people will never shovel a sidewalk here. They will not vote here, and they will never pay rent here. But somehow they got more respect in this room than the people who actually live here like me. Um because of the consequences of those decisions. Rent is up double digits three years in a row. I pretty sure families are getting priced out of their rentals. Um including me. I did have to move out of a rental into a cheaper rental because they uh my rental company doubled my rent in a year. So meanwhile, we have affordable homes. And I and I actually want to clarify

something. Affordable homes does not mean low income. It means affordable for working people, working mothers like me. Um being used as many hotels um than we than we have for sale. I can't buy a house here. And I really feel that it's a takeover of our housing. Um the the softest guard rail imaginable was torn down because of investors because a handful of investors told you to. So also an appropriate uh an efficient style of accommodations for a weekend stay is a hotel. I actually have to work had to work two jobs for a long time and one of those jobs was at a hotel. Um, not a home that should be housing a family year round like mine. Um, we love our football team, but what makes football great is the community that's being sold out. My husband is actually from Iowa and he moved here because he loves the Packers so much. Um, so I really think that you do have a choice and that's to represent the 44 business owners or represent an entire city. And you cannot do both. Um, so I would ask that you fight for the people who live here, not for the people that are profiting off of my back and our backs. So, put that uh 7-day minimum and 100 day cap back on the table. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you. Hey everybody. Uh John Shelton, 1045 South Webster Avenue. I I'll make this really quick because I know y'all been

here for a while and and uh now this is like several meetings worth of these conversations. Um I you know I was talking to somebody and they made me kind of think about this issue in a way that I think maybe we haven't thought about it. You know Presley's question got to this a little while ago. You know, short-term rentals, they are businesses. And I want to come back to what Representative Spouty said in terms of us not having the proper tools at the local level to really regulate these businesses the way that we can others. Culver's. All right. I I love Culver's. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Uh it's awesome. Um if if Culver's opened up took took housing and opened up restaurants in the middle of our neighborhoods, we would have a problem with that. And that's what short-term rentals are. They're basically taking a property that would typically be used for housing, either o owning housing or renting housing, and turning it into a business, an opportunity business, whatever you want to call it. That's what it is. And you know, we would we would have we would zone that if if that were any other kind of business. But the reality is we don't have the proper tools to do something about this. Um, so you know, with all due respect to everybody here, this is not going to go away as an issue, right? The number of short-term rentals have continued to increase over the past few years, irrespective of the draft. We know that. We know that the majority of short-term rentals are owned by people who don't live in our city. And so, this isn't going away. Whatever happens here today, we have to do something at the state level. And this conversation is going to continue. We will be having this conversation again in the future if we don't take action today to do something about this. So that's all I got. Thank you for the testimony. Any questions? All right. Anyone else? Last chance.

All right. Um, first off, 90 properties under 250, you have to factor in property taxes. Um, property taxes have Oh, Mike Buoyet 2400 Riddle. Um, I don't live in Green Bay, but I'm from Green Bay. Um, family lives in Green Bay. Um, so for the 90 properties under 250 claim, if you factor in interest and everything else and property taxes, it's still unaffordable to the majority of people in Green Bay because the average person only makes 62,000. Average household is only two 62,000. Um, STRs are driving up prices and taxes. Less than 1% of Green Bay housing stock is STR. Um, so that's like blaming 20 years years of underbuilding affordable housing, like blaming the ban on the Titanic for sinking. Um, even if we get rid of all the 430 short-term rentals in the area, 97% of them are still unaffordable to the average person. party houses. Nobody defends bad actors. Like we're not here like there's people that do not deserve a license. Like have you driven around town? Like they don't deserve a license to drive. They shouldn't be doing any like like to just blame like are you going to take everybody's license away because there's a couple subpar drivers out there. I don't think that makes any sense. Um stadium district. I mean, the taxes have raised risen across the entire community. The stadium district has risen the most, not just because short-term rentals. It's just a desirable area. It's like if there was waterfront, if somebody dug a pond, and this is a big pond, people want to live on on the pond, like a lake like Lake Leon up in in Swamo.

That's a popular area. You pay more taxes to live there. Um, it's just it's something that happened. I mean, if you look up property taxes all across the town, you look up property taxes over there, you look up the stagnant income. I mean, we have a lot of workers that get paid well, but we don't have enough workers making enough money to stop the the issue. We have a huge issue here, and I don't think taking away STRs is going to help the issue. It's just another bandage. like I don't I don't I think we need to work together on figuring out affordable housing. Is it tiny houses? Is it is it allowing more h small houses on on on lots that are that might not be used as multif family? Um I have a house down in in Florida and they allow second homes on the properties just due to the housing being more expensive. I mean I'm I'm all game for like I'm in business. Let's be honest. I would like to figure out solutions to problems. That's why I'm in business. It's because I come up with solutions to help individuals, not like I'm not here just to uh to say like, oh, like screw the homeless. No, how can we help them? Like, what can we do? What can we do to work together? Um, taking away jobs and businesses, last time I checked, is usually not something we do to to increase affordability in our area and increase income in our area. questions. Elder Hutcherson. Okay. Are you in the business of buying selling homes at all or Yeah. Okay. So, I'm sure you've seen when you sell a $250,000 home. Sometimes it goes to someone who has to sell their $150,000 home. Okay. That's true. So, what happens is there's this ripple effect. And I keep hearing there's only

nine homes that are affordable or whatever. That's not the thing. If all these homes were available, there'd be a ripple effect and there'd be homes sold to get those homes. So, it's not nine, it's something else. And who knows what it is. You can look at it. I think the the where we're at right now with the number of STRs is the volume is relatively small. I'm concerned if that number grows, this is a different deal. Okay, we're small now. 430 450. That's a small number. So, we're dealing with small inches. So, I think you're right. the numbers are low in terms of homes, but it could get larger and that ripple effect would get much larger. So, we have to just keep tabs on it. Okay. So, thank you for uh thank you for coming up and talking and you're in the business, so thanks. And there there's two things like I'd love to do like market research on exactly what you said. Like under a $250,000 home buyer, is that going to be a first-time home buyer that's getting neighbor work funding and helping? Is it actually somebody like is it one out of three? Is it is it 70% have a home to sell? I mean, you'd really almost have to do a study on that to figure that out. I agree 100%. And also, I I think we would also have to look at how many new building permits are being issued in the city citywide because we we are still underbuilt. It doesn't like whatever you get rid of the 40 430 houses. How many people are on the streets right now? Or how many people are are camped out? Five, six people to a home that should only be sleeping two, three. Like it's there's it's huge. Like we got to do way more. We got to work better.

I agree. Thank you. All right. Anything else? Thanks. All right. Hi, my name is Ben Boutnik. I live at 3409 Glendale Avenue. Uh I'm a short-term owner. Uh I'm a short-term uh manager as well as a realer in town. Um and to echo the sentiments of, you know, yes, there is probably people have to sell a home to buy a home. Uh in order to buy a home, there's many of different things you have to qualify to do. You have to have the the down payment, right? That's the biggest thing as a realer that people struggle with. When COVID happened, everybody was like, I'm on top of each other. Let's go buy a new home. I'm sitting at home. I'm working from home. I don't have the space. Everybody went out. They bought a new home. Interest rates were low. People were able to buy more expensive houses. They were able to spend more money. If interest rates drop 1%, people can technically numbers, there's some lenders in the room that can justify this a little bit better, but they can afford up to 20% more. Somebody's at $200,000 and interest rates drop 1%. They can now spend 20% more. Interest rates go up is 20% less. So as rates go up, affordability is out the window, right? So when COVID happened, everybody started moving in order for us to get people into homes. We have to find a way to help them with down payment assistance. We have to find ways to help them with their down payment. There's grants out there, neighbor works. We need to find ways that we can put more money into that to helping people. A lot of times, hey, I do have people that can afford a home. They're going to use FHA financing. They're going to use neighbor works. Guess what? It requires a home inspection. It requires health and safety items to be fixed. A lot of these homes, handrails, chipping, peeling, paint, broken glass. If it's not fixed, it will not fund. Guess what? Those people don't have the money to fix it. How what do they do then? Guess what? They can't buy it. They can't get a loan for it. So, it goes back on the market

to somebody else. So, it's fixing these problems. You want to make houses affordable, we need to fix some of these homes up. We have to have grants available, which we can use short-term rental money coming in. I think the short-term rental allowance is willing to help use some of these funds to create grants, create things where these people can have down payment assistance. These people can have funds. Hey, I'm buying a home, but there's two broken windows. I can't afford to fix those. I can't buy the home now. Guess what? There's a grant the city can give them. neighbor works, fix the windows, pay us overtime, or some of them are even forgivable if you live there long enough in the home or pay it back when you sell. But finding ways that we can help these people to be able to fix these problems in the homes or the homes that they're going to buy, they need repairs. They can't get loans on them, if that makes sense. So, that's my two cents on the different programs that we can help with. Thank you. Uh question from Alder Presley. Thank you for your testimony. Um, so just to clarify, would you be in favor of a portion of fees being used towards a a program to help uh first-time home bon home buyers or um affordable housing initiatives? Uh, I'm not against it legally. What can the permit be used for? I mean, I've heard different rumors out there. It's probably a legal question. Permits can only be used for certain things. So, is there a way of creating an additional fee that goes towards that? Is there a way of, you know, hey, people that have short-term rentals, if they want to be a part of the short-term rental alliance, they find a way to raise some of this money to help go towards things like that. I think there's ways to help to create these things to be able to have the assistance to people that need it. And it it's mainly affordability and being able to come up with a down payment. All right. Thank you. Uh, one quick question. Um, I I didn't catch your address. Are you in Green Bay? Uh, I live at 3409 Glendale Avenue. So, I live in Howard. I've lived in Green Bay most of my life. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions? Well, thank you.

Hey everybody, my name's Michelle Allen. I'm at 1061 Roland Lane, which is technically the boundary of Howard and Green Bay, but my boyfriend and I have been trying to find a home in Green Bay since 2022. It's been a struggle. um 12 I mean at least 12 months, 21 homes looked at, three offers made, nothing to show for it. So, we are still trying. Um but one thing that hadn't been brought up uh that I would like to point out is that a healthy vacancy rate for a community is usually considered between 5% and 8% vacancy of housing. Right now, as far as I'm aware, the figures that I've seen are at 1.1% for Green Bay, which is down from 2.0% last year. And what that means is that there's really no time in between when houses become vacant and when they are purchased. Um, and when we're thinking about short-term rentals, I know of some personal stories I've heard where uh, you know, somebody bought a house, slapped some paint on it, made some nice looking changes, but didn't necessarily actually fix the house. So, I think that is something to take in consideration. I'm not saying everybody does that by any means, but it is something to be aware of when in a market like this when people are desperately searching for homes and don't have homes. This is something to consider. Uh that's going to indicate high demand, higher housing costs, lower affordability. Not only does that hurt people like me trying to buy a home for the first time, I'm 34, my boyfriend's 41. Neither of us have ever owned a home, but we would like to. Um, it does contribute to greenbased house housing or homelessness problem, which I know a lot has been a lot on a lot of people's minds, especially with colder months coming up, people losing assistance right now. Evictions are coming and we've heard that in multiple city meetings. I do recognize that housing affordability is a multiaceted issue. It's not just STRs that are going to contribute to this problem. It sounds

like we've made some great strides in removing some of the red tape for builders, trying to come up with some other possible solutions, but capping STRs or helping to limit them, making sure that they're in the hands of right owners or operators, is that something that can help people like me in the meantime? So, thank you very much for your consideration and I hope that you'll take that into deliberation. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else? I'm Tanya West Morland. I live at 317 South Oakland Avenue. I am a 25 year renter. I stayed in this city because it's one of the greatest cities I know. And I know I don't want to see this become a Los Angeles, a Chicago, a Detroit, a New York. We have good people. We make decent money. We listen to each other. We share. We look after. Who's going to take care of the properties if they don't live here? a management company that they can't really track because they're not here. Who's going to take care of the people that are going into the places because they're not here? A management company. I believe that being regulatory is a wonderful thing, but who's going to do that? Whose pocket is that gonna come out of? Is that going to come out of Green Bay's pocket? Are they gonna pay for that to happen?

I don't know the numbers. I'm not that number person. But I haven't heard a lot of people say the people the people are the most important thing if we're serving them. I haven't heard that. Any questions? Thanks for your testimony. Hello, my name is Tyler Kavitt. Um 111 North Broadway Street. Um I want to thank the council for hearing us all out and having these conversations. I think it sounds like everyone agrees. The silver lining here is that we did create the Green Bay STR alliance and it sounds like we're going to continue to have conversations around how we can improve and work together. So, that's really encouraging. Um, a couple points I'd like to touch on that I heard tonight. Um, Jim, I believe I heard you um point out the number of STR licenses and I think it was pointed out that the numbers had dropped from 24 to 25 after the draft. And I can speak from personal experience at least with our management company. I've seen three of my owners have to sell in the last year because STRs are not as profitable. So these are properties that did go back into the market. So I think there's enough data in front of us to show that we may see the number of licenses drop at renewal time next year. So we keep talking about 440 properties. I think it's reasonable to assume that we will dip below that number by this time next year. So, with the ideas that we already have in place to work together with the city, to work with the neighbors by putting the postcards or whatever direction we go there, I think we've got great tools already in front of us. And I'd just like to bring up one big case study. It was considered kind of the gold standard for short-term rental regulation in the

entire country. Was in New York City three years ago. Local law 18 um effectively banned short-term rentals in the city with the goal of increasing vacancies and lowering rents. There's their two main points. Uh the number of short-term rentals dropped by 90% in the largest um the largest tourism economy in the United States. And as recently as of September of this year, there are a number of groups working with the city of Green Bay to drop those regulations and pull them back. It's very well documented. I've got an article can share this directly from Airbnb to show that there was zero positive impact on local rents, local vacancies, and that it actually hurt the local economy by the number of jobs that were lost um and the lost tax revenue as tourism numbers in the city have dropped from 24 to 25. So, if we use that as the gold standard, what happens when you strictly regulate short-term rentals? I think what the city of Green Bay is doing by working with us, working together to come up with sound practices, best practices, help us work with the bad actors, um I think we're moving in the right direction. So, thank you for your time. Thanks for your testimony. Uh Alder Presley, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your testimony. Um so, just to update the numbers a little bit, as of uh the 31st of October, it was 444. As of the 26th of November, um it's up 10 with five more in the process of getting permitted. So, the numbers are going up. Does that change your outlook on what might happen? Um I don't think it does based on what I'm seeing across the market. Um Airbnb bookings are down 20% across the country. That's pretty significant and that's why we're seeing more people have to sell. So, I think we got to wait for renewal time, which is not going to be until June. So, there are still people, you know, I have I know a couple people that bought in the last year. Um, I've applied I'm probably one or two of those

um 10 from the last few months. Um, but I'm also seeing that equalize with the number of people selling. So, I think we'll still see a drop. I'd love to have this conversation again in about six months. Just to clarify again, um, the number of people who have renewed since the draft is still over 400, I think 420. Um, and that's not including the 15 or so new permits that are in the process. Sure. Sure. Yeah. Other problem. Yeah. I just had a brief followup from that, too, talking about the numbers that have gone up and and to your point, sounds like the market's changing, so some may sell. Um, two of those that were recently um put on and gone through the permitting process were ones that were purchased by the same gentleman in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and then reapplied for the short term. So those two properties, one on the far east side, one on the far west side, one under $250,000 that was sold for is now being rented by a gentleman who lives in an apartment in Fort Lauderdale. Does that change your perspective at all on the need to kind of get ahead of this as we're seeing that was those both happened in the ma past 90 days? Um, no, I think it was touched on earlier. I think the city of Green Bay I operate in I think 15 or 16 different markets across the state of Wisconsin and the like the placard in the front window of the property that's not required anywhere else. Um some municipalities don't have any sort of short-term rental ordinance in place whatsoever. So I think Green Bay is already at the front of the standard that the state needs to um regulate short-term rentals and and work together. So I don't think that it changes it. Okay. So, even um I'm just thinking about the woman who spoke earlier about wanting to get a house in the city. That one that was purchased in the past 90 days that was under $250,000 that was purchased by a Fort Lauderdale neighbor doesn't concern you at all. You don't think that that is problematic? If it were more rampant, then I would

maybe agree with you. I think one purchase I'm not raising a red flag yet personally. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Of course. Any other questions? Anything else? Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Uh, hi folks. My name is Tarl Knight. I own and live at 7-Eleven South Broadway, which is a mixeduse multi-unit property in a downtown. And as a resident, a business owner, and a landlord, I'm speaking with you in support of the proposal to regulate short-term rentals in our city and to speak to their impact on a housing stock in Green Bay and our neighborhoods. It's vital in our moment in Green Bay for us to provide housing to working-class residents who dream of joining and contributing to our community. As you all know, the discussion on the floor about STR regulations is only a small piece of a larger holistic conversation about providing long-term housing stock in our city. But it's a really important piece as we have proven results to turn to as a proof of concept. In other cities, STR regulations across the United States have stabilized home prices and created thousands of long-term residential units for their populations. A family residing in their long-term home has a much larger financial impact on our local community than short-term visitors. Long-term resident families invest in our neighborhoods, spend in our businesses, work in local companies, volunteer with nonprofit organizations, and contribute to our city in innumerable ways. They're the small business owners and entrepreneurs who hire fellow residents. They're the voluntary neighborhood leaders improving Green Bay at the street level. They're the artists and musicians who improve our quality of life, and they're the children who play in our parks with their other neighborhood children. The

value of providing an affordable home is priceless and incomparable in any way to short-term visits. Ultimately, as you all know, you all represent the residents of your districts. Affordable housing is the discussion facing our community and the thousands of working-class families residing in your districts. And the discussion will continue for years to come. A lot of the people in the room with us and a lot of the biggest voices in the conversation over the last number of weeks are not Green Bay residents and will not be voting in the upcoming elections as you know. But the long-term resident neighbors in your district will be voting based on whether you looked out for them and their neighborhoods and providing them with long-term neighbors. Please consider Green Bay Families First and support Green Bay Families in achieving the dream we all have of participating in our community and owning or renting our home. Now is the time to support regulations and create long-term rental housing for Green Bay. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? Johnson. Mr. Knight, you had mentioned because I admit like this is an area I've been struggling to find reliable data. You had mentioned that multiple cities that have passed policies that have created thousands of units with stabilized rents. What cities and what policies did they pass? I can't speak to the specific policies. I don't have that data in front of me, but Minneapolis is a city that stands out to me. And you saw Minneapolis housing starts crashed after they passed their affordable housing policies. Well, I I don't have the date in front of me, so I can't I I can't debate it, but my my understanding is that um sim similar regulations in Minneapolis and Vancouver is not a US city, but um a North American when Midwestern city um when they substantially regulated STRs that that resulted in stabilizing home prices, created thousands of long-term residential units for those populations.

I think there are probably a couple of olders here who are more experienced in that specific data who could answer that. So, I'll defer to them. But I have to take a look at Vancouver. I I you know, that's certainly not one I've I've heard of to date. I know in Minneapolis though, you know, their housing starts actually crashed when significantly when they passed some of their policies. And and I and I'm sincere when I say I've really been struggling to find examples of cities who have passed policies that have seen the desired outcome that a lot of folks are talking about. Right. And so that's why I was just curious if you had specific examples. So yeah, I'm not familiar with the data you're speaking about. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Galla. Mr. night. I at least in my district uh just over 40% of all STRs are owned by residents of this city. So what do I tell them when I tell them I'm going to take away their extra income? Well, was an exemption spoken about exempting um owner occupants? No, I hadn't heard that. Um, or what do we tell this gentleman's son if he wants to buy a home and put in a small apartment that he can allows him to be able to own a house in Green Bay so his family can live? Yeah, it, you know, my conversation that I'm bringing to the table is pretty broad strokes, but I'm totally supportive of owner occupancy exemptions. You know, I'd even posture that an exemption within a certain uh radius around Lambeau Field in order to preserve a longstanding uh visitor and tourism centered exemption would be interesting to explore. Um, you know, I'm I'm not serving on council now, but um, you know, I liked the idea of Green Bay residents invested in this community and living in their neighborhoods and uh, you know, and providing uh long-term rental or even short-term rental as long as they're a long-term renter. I find

that that that exemption um, you know, that that'll probably prove to be the same kind of investment I'm talking about with a long-term resident. Okay. As far as um people from outside our community that own short-term rentals, how do we address the people from outside our community, from outside our state that own a substantial amount of our long-term rentals and their only investment here is to make money? How do we address that while we tell the short-term rental people from outside the community, you don't, you know, we don't care about you, but what do we tell the you know, how do we how do we balance that? That's a great question. I think that the conversation is going to it's going to take some deliberation and some really careful measure, but you know, your question raises a great point that there are folks from outside of the city of Green Bay who are investing in a long-term uh resident future for Green Bay. And, you know, depending on our morals and and and our goals here, do we want for people to be able to live long-term in this city regardless of who's owning those properties versus, you know, do we want people from outside the city owning property that doesn't contribute in a meaningful way to the identity and and the creation of a strong and firm network of neighborhoods? And so, you know, my my direction with my statements isn't necessarily who owns property outside of the city or inside of the city. It's what are we doing with those specific properties and how are they contributing no matter who owns them? And ultimately the question, you know, before all of you is whether someone lives in the city of Green Bay or outside, whether they own property or don't, you know, who are you beholden to? And a lot of the voices that are heard in this room and over the course of this conversation have been, you know, pointedly folks who have made a long and admirable trip into Green Bay in order to protect their business interests. And I don't blame them for that. But, you know, it's it's up to us as people who run for office and people

who care for the city and represent it to listen to the people living here in Green Bay. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Alder Grantha Presley. Thank you, Mayor. Uh Tarl, you mentioned contributing to our identity. Would you agree that with due to certain amenities here, part of the identity of Green Bay is tourism. Yeah, I totally agree. Part of, you know, most cities is, you know, their economy and and creating a thriving identity is is tourism. Um, so you said you want to make sure we're investing in people who are contributing to it to our identity. So tourism is part of our identity. Part of it once you say short-term rentals then are contributing to our identity. They're eating out. They're visiting. They're doing tours. They're going coming to a concert. It's not just Lambo. We have the Rush Center. We have how many music things in the summer? I mean, would that be fair to say they actually do contribute to our identity? I would argue that people who live in our community contribute vastly greatly. Oh, absolutely. You know, and so if we're going to measure and and compare and contrast, then I think investing in people who love and know Green Bay, who have grown up here and continue to stay here, maybe leave for college, but come back because they know there's opportunity to live here and put down firm roots and become a Green Bayer. I don't know if that's if that's the denominial term, but a Green Bay resident. It's those people who are going to invest longterm in their neighborhood, who are going to look out for their next door neighbors, who are going to take care of their parks, who are going to work and live and thrive in Green Bay. And so I think that that is going to contribute a lot more to whatever identity Green Bay holds than, you know, the awesome power of investment through tourism, but ultimately not a fraction of what the people living here can contribute. And Green Bay was built by people who live in Green Bay. That's what we need to continue to invest in.

Sure. And I definitely agree. I mean, I understand that we I I'm born and raised here as well, but I also know what allows people to maintain a lifestyle here are jobs, businesses, and if we don't have sometimes that extra tourism. We won't have half the restaurants we have. We wouldn't have half the hotels we have or the people that do the maintenance and the cleaning of these properties. So I think it's just kind of a healthy balance of it's fair to say a lot of things play into the identity and not how do we cut one out I guess is my point. So I just wanted to I guess confirm if you kind of thought tourism played into that at all. So thank you very much for your testimony. Yes, you're welcome. I I do believe that people who visit Green Bay are such a core part of our identity and they make the Green Bay Packers shine and they do invest in arts and culture and all the wonderful bars and restaurants and cultural offerings of our city. But um you know in the end I I believe and according to data that lower and moderate income families are the ones who are injecting the most amount of of money into our local economy and um and so I think it's really important that we put those folks first in building a strong core of Green Bay residents and making sure that everyone has that dream to come and invest that way. Um, and while people certainly have an economic advantage when they have a higher level of income or there's someone who has an investment in in business in Green Bay, they can fly in and and they can contribute to all the great dollars we see through tourism. But what about the folks who want to live here and contribute every day of their life who don't have the opportunity because of limited housing stock or because there are hundreds of empty homes in Green Bay waiting for a short-term visitor. All right, Alder Presley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Knight, for your testimony. Um, so you you aren't expected to have done all of the research on this. I don't think that should be put on you, but I've done a lot of research on this, and I have found that one of the studies that you I think were alluding to, Vancouver, um,

had a pretty good scientific study from McGill University. Same with Toronto. Um, there's also a semi or a quasi experimental study in Los Angeles that all did show the results that you were pointing to. More units being put back on the long-term rental market um, and lower cost of living for the people, especially in the areas surrounding um, where there was a high proliferation of those short-term rentals. Um, so I just wanted to point that out. And the Minneapolis example that you bring up, um, Minneapolis has seen rent stabilize. They went into a one host, one home policy. Um and then rent has stabilized um and has gone down uh compared to the state of Minnesota because of the policies uh that they have put into place um not just on STRs but also building new housing. Question for you after all of that. Do you think people who I think it's I I like what you said about tourism being important. Do you think that people who are going to a Packer game or going to an event here would not come to Green Bay if they couldn't stay in an STR? No. And I think that we also owe um you know the folks who invested in our hospitality industry here um you know the benefit of of business and um those are folks who have who have invested whether they're outside businesses with outside ownership or whether they're locally based. Um you know there's an economy of value there that I don't think we've heard represented here in a holistic part of the conversation and I think that it would be worth hearing from them as well. Um, I believe that we have probably many empty units um throughout the entire community that would be very excited to come in and and accommodate uh visitors if we ever reached capacity. And I think that there was even more build or planned for the NFL draft. And so, you know, in my imagination, based on what I've seen in Green Bay, we have a really healthy network of housing options for or

hospitality options, lodging options for people coming and visiting. Um, again, I don't have any data at my disposal, but I'm not familiar with an instance maybe outside of the NFL draft this last April in 2025 where Green Bay couldn't meet the needs of hospitality. Um, thank you. All right. Anybody else? Thank you for your test. Hold on. I'm here all night, folks. All right. Yeah, you just you're fielding a bunch of questions. Um so, and I do think it's pertinent. Um when you traveled, um have you ever stayed in an Airbnb? Um I think I have. Okay. Once. Um, I I asked that because I I think, you know, I think that there's a value to it and I'm going to um kind of share a personal thing. Um, this Christmas we're going down to southern Missouri to visit my daughter and her husband and they don't have room for our whole family. Um, so we're renting a place and um it's a Airbnb. Turns out it's my son-in-law's um former uh his great-grandparents house. We we discovered um she lives way out in the boonies, so it take a long time to get to a hotel. There wouldn't be a a kitchen or anything like that. Um and the house we found is 4 minutes from her house. Um and we're going to be able to cook a whole, you know, Christmas dinner there. Um, so I I want to point that out that do you see the value in that that having that option because a hotel wouldn't offer us all being able to stay like all of us that are going down there to stay together um and be able to cook while we're there. So do you see the value of that? you know, I've stayed in Airbnb, so I've I've certainly felt their value, you know, because I was able to explore other cities and um you know, invest time there, dreaming up great ideas for

our city and coming back and trying to explore those. Um but, you know, I think that there is value in having a number of different lodging and hospitality options, and I think we have a lot of great options covered by um pretty great and deep investment in in our hospitality industry outside of Airbnb. So, I I wouldn't say that I would put all of all of my stock in Airbnbs or that being the only option. Um, in fact, I I think it's probably a minority option in our city. And so, by far and, you know, away a majority of the folks coming and visiting Green Bay are doing that through the lens of one of our beautiful hotels or motel. Um, and uh, so I I I can certainly see the the value in Airbnbs, but I don't think that that's the only option. Yeah, but to allow that option still there. So, there's a lot to consider. Um, so I just wanted to kind of broaden um our perspective here. Um, from a personal level, I've talked to other olders who also use Airbnbs when they travel when, you know, for me, I know I've got a larger family, so it's a much better option and actually many times a more affordable option. So, thank you. Yeah, I hear you. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, let's keep it going, guys. All right, we haven't had enough conversation on this. Let's go. Alder Stevens. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Knight. So, [clears throat] as a lot of people know, you are the chair of our neighborhood associations. Has anybody in your capacity reached out to you regarding this issue that we're dealing with tonight? Um, I have had neighborhood leaders and neighbors reach out to me about this, particularly where uh, you know, my speech in in the past couple of weeks has been concerned. Um, all support and uh, while I'm not an elected official, it's important that I'm listening to folks who are leading our neighborhoods. You know, I've spoken about a number of different uh, instances in which I think

it's really important people are investing directly in our neighborhoods. the power of growing uh those parts of our city through a really qualified network of people being able to rely on a nextoor neighbor. Whether that's for a service or lending a hand or whether it's just knowing through peace of mind that there is someone there on their block investing in their park, watching out for kids. Those are really important elements of our city. Not every city has a neighborhood association program. It's very rare and Green Bay is a leading um you know city in that regard. So, um, you know, from where I sit, to answer your question, Alder, um, I think that this is an issue that's important to neighbors. I think this is an issue that, um, is really important to creating a strong network of neighborhood residents who know that they can rely on one another year round and they know that their neighborhood is safe and clean and looked out for. Um, I've heard a number of testimonies here today that point in the direction of a lack of confidence around STRs in in order to fulfill that sense of safety and cleanliness um and uh and quiet or at least you know peace of mind for their neighbors. Um, in a separate capacity, I also knocked doors running for office here in our community a number of times and the number one issue that I heard in a number of the neighborhoods in my district. Well, I thank you for that, but I'm not asking you about your election run at the moment. So, Sure. I'm asking about your position as a neighborhood chair. So, Well, thank you for asking. Sure. No problem. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Good evening. My name is Ben Debbaker. I live at 901 South Oakland Avenue in the

city of Green Bay, District 9. So, I am a cons constituent of the current and the running person. Um, wanted to um speak more on the personal level. No. numbers, figures. Um, I own an STR. I live in that STR. That is my home. Um, I'm there. I take care of things. I participate in the neighborhood. Um, I know there was a panel right in the park that Carl donated. It was destroyed. I didn't like that. I found it two days before it was destroyed and I was surprised and I I was appreciative of that. I like my community to stay nice. I am also an SDR owner and to the um comment that they can't find housing, I couldn't find housing either. This was my alternative. I find a multiplex that I can live in the bottom and make ends meet by renting out. I um another thing is um you know they're talking about long-term renters contributing to the community. I challenge you to figure out how many people in those long-term rentals actually do anything other than sit in their house and go to work. If that, you know, if you want to group all of us as these corporate villains trashing the city, look at it that way, too, because I can guarantee you there's some people that just took offense to that long-term comment. Okay. Um, we have a lot of neighbors, girls, boys, little kids that come over to our

place looking for a place to hang out. and be themselves because their homes are broken. We set up activities with them, try to contribute to our community and make them feel at home when they don't have a great home at home. Um, you know, you talk about businesses being in a neighborhood. You guys just approved zoning for a laundromat in somebody's backyard and they pleaded not to have that. Why the double standard? Um, yeah, I don't believe in the night caps or minimum stays. I think that should stay out. I think that was a great job on all your parts. Um um and as far as maintenance, I do maintenance around my place and when I can't keep up, I hire it out. That's local person doing that. It stays in the community. The money that comes in from my STRs is from outside the community. We are pulling money in. We are also making up for the bonds that are paying like the KI center with those taxes. Those are taxes that wouldn't be there if it was a long-term rental. How are you going to fill that hole when you can't meet that bond? That comes out of the tax levy again and increases your taxes again. So, think about that. That is it. Any questions? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Hello everybody. Um, thank you so much for being here again tonight and sorry to have to all talk again, but we had

some more opposition, so here we are. Um, my name is Broo Tassel and I'm a member of the Green Bay STR Alliance leadership team. And before we jump in, we all just want to say a huge thank you for not only the time you've put in, but the thoughtfulness um not only in these meetings, we've had meetings externally with almost every single one here, even the people who wrote this communication, and we can't thank you enough for that. Um it's clear a lot of time has been invested to hearing all sides and uh we want to thank you for the responsible decisions that have been made so far at the first council meeting and at the plan commission to remove the harsh restrictions that would have essentially uh put STRs out of business. Moving on from that, uh well first of all we have one big ask up front and that's not to put those two restrictions back in. Um, and then moving on from that, we just want to touch on some data we shared at the plan commission meeting. Um, to show how STRs really do impact neighborhood safety, when we zoom out, as much as we do respect the neighbors that are having problems, we see, as Alder Grant mentioned, that it isn't such a big problem. It is isolated instances. Uh, we pulled parcel data for 442 licensed STRs in Green Bay and we compared police calls from when they were long-term rentals, yearly police calls versus when they got converted to short-term rentals and we saw an average of 90 an average reduction of 93% across all 442 listings. and how that translates into actual numbers. Uh there were a yearly there were 478 police calls yearly at on the same set of

properties as a long-term rental and there are currently 62 calls yearly. So that's reduced from about 40 a month to five a month out of all of those nearly 450 listings. So at a broad level it's clear that STRs in Green Bay aren't increasing nuisance, they're actually making neighborhoods safer. And even though the data shows that, we hear the neighbors who are worried about the nuisance properties. We agree that accountability matters. Uh that policy update updates may be necessary moving forward, but we are concerned about the three strike rule being really ambiguous right now. We don't know how someone will be led to getting a strike. We don't know what the penalties will be for getting a strike. We've heard a huge range of conversations and ideas the last couple meetings of three strike rule, but it sounds like it's still like completely in the early stages. Um, so while we're not against that concept in theory, we really would like to uh ask that you table the three strikes out of this ordinance until we all can sit down and figure out a like grant said, is it even a problem? and B, um, just flush out these specifics and involve us all at the table just like you guys did when you were doing the zoning ordinance where you brought in, um, a lot of people and they said that you really took their um, advice to heart. And we just would ask that if you're going to do a three strikes rule now or later that you put us at the table to talk about that and make sure that it's um enforceable and that it's not having unintended consequences kind of like this ordinance would have done if it went through with its original form. Thanks for your testimony. Any questions? Oh, your address, please. Oh, it's 127 South Ashland Avenue. Any questions? All right. Thanks again. Can I just make a quick note uh just two

seconds um for Tyrell? I was introduced to his company a few months ago by an Airbnb guest and we all went together to see a Ferris Beer show there and we loved it so much we've since went back with tons of friends and we now put it in our welcome book. So even if Tarl doesn't support Airbnb, Airbnb supports Tarl. Yes. Hello. Uh, my name is Aaron Krauss, 1705 South Ridge Road. Uh, thank you guys for your time. I really wasn't going to speak today, but one of the things nobody's addressed in all this is it's all about short-term or uh, you know, low-income housing, affordable housing. The biggest issue, it's not just a Green Bay thing, it's a nationwide thing, it's worldwide thing. Problem is is the interest rates during CO were so low. I'm guessing anybody that owns a house in here probably has a sub4% mortgage. So, biggest thing when it comes to affordable housing is inventory. And you know, with no inventory, houses stay elevated or keep going up. No. And what do most people do when they sell their house? They go buy another one. Most people are locked into their interest rate. So, you know, even if you put all 450 houses that were, you know, short-term rentals on the market, my guess is a lot of the people wouldn't sell. they would just turn them into rentals because I mean three 4% mortgage is technically free money and that's what's keeping everybody in

their houses are those 3% mortgages 4% mortgages. Now I am not a resident of Green Bay but I've spent more time in Green Bay the last few years than I have in the state that I actually live in. And if you did take my ability to Airbnb my house away, I still would keep it. It wouldn't turn into a full-time rental. I would try to, you know, pay the mortgage and utilities and everything else to try to keep it. But if that didn't become something I was able to do, it would be turned into a full-time rental. It would not hit the market again. Thank you guys. Thanks for testimony. All right. Thanks. Anyone else? Amber Edwards, 2434 Sycamore Drive, Green Bay. I'm here to offer my comments to you tonight on why I strongly oppose um loosening any restrictions on the short-term rentals within our city. It's known to this council that our city and many others are in a housing shortage and that we do have an unhoused community here. At its core, homelessness is a housing problem. It's a solvable problem. The point has been raised that each STR is one less available unit for a community member. And that is also a fact potentially. I'd argue that prior to the Airbnb popularity, tourist cities like ours and local economies utilized hotels very effectively without removing stable housing options from their local marketplace. I'm a renter in a time that has a strangle hold on renters. We're unable

despite our level of stability to find, acquire, purchase, and maintain a home. Um, in the event that you are able to actually snatch one while it's on the market, um, the overall increase in rent cost is not something that we can effectively vote and fix. However, the nearly 100 property owners of these STRs that don't reside within the state of Wisconsin often have no skin in the game. I certainly don't believe that that's always the case. As you've heard tonight, there are people locally that have these short-term rentals, and I do consider that. In my opinion, the average gross income stream of these properties, these short-term rentals, is $34,000. In Brown County, the income limit for an individual seeking a housing choice voucher is $37,450. I'm going to say that again. Because while we have human beings in our city freezing on the streets and sleeping in their cars with their kids on a 20°ree night in November in Wisconsin, the amount of gross income from these properties can be well over what a person living in and working full-time in our city brings home in a year. It feels shameful. I understand the right to own property. However, I do feel that a tighter keep on the number of STRs, the 180day cap, and the weak minimum are all reasonable implantations. I also believe strongly in the responsibility of the city and its electeds to help care for those in its charge. And housing is a human right, not a privilege, not an investment. It is a right by I have no concern for the pockets of investors who are removing potentially

stable housing from our community when we have an opportunity to create a clear boundary. As a resident of this city, I have been homeless here while working full-time plus part-time because I couldn't find a rental in the 30 days after my home was sold to become a short-term rental. And this was before Airbnb was Airbnb was super popular that has since been sold and has been converted into another Airbnb. But despite my my experience with housing and security, I do believe in the ability to fix the system here. as Joshua's um the chair of Joshua's housing task force, as the co-chair of the Brown County's Help for the Homeless Hygiene Drive and as the housing programs director of Veterans First of Northeast Wisconsin, I speak loudly for those that can't be here tonight and for those whose stories live in me and aren't mine to tell. I respectfully ask this council to be firm in your resolution to build a framework in this ordinance that will offer a fair and reasonable solution. I do believe in the city's ability to maintain its tourist, you know, reputation with the hotels that we have built since I've lived here. This is a multifaceted and challenging conversation. And I'll leave you leave you with this fact. The unhoused population of this city has nearly doubled according to the pit counts from 2022 to 2023 to 2024. Nearly doubles every year. So, please consider that as you make your decision tonight. Your testimony. Any questions? Thanks again. Anyone else?

Hello, my name is Taylor Pop. I live at 137 Helen Street in Plasky, but I've lived and worked in Green Bay my whole life. 25 years close to whatever it's neither here nor there. Um, I have 10 years in the hospitality industry. Uh, started at gosh darn right out of like high school. I worked night audits. I worked first shifts, second shifts. I've seen how expensive living a week in a hotel is. Airbnb when they started taking off dropped a lot of our rates. So, sorry, first time public speaking. Um, one of the hotels I've worked at six across Green Bay, one of them was 129 a night. Take that by gosh knows how many nights you might need. That's unaffordable in general. Some have week rates, some don't. Some have months rates, some don't. If you get 65 bucks a night, it's like $1,900 a month. Well, I now work where I manage 40 Airbnbs and gosh darn it, I can give them like 1,200 at,300 a month. Well, that means they don't have to go out every night spending 1,900 a month. Like, let's say you're here for business. Well, you can't cook in a hotel. You can't buy groceries and save money. that is more out of your paycheck that has to go to eating out. And well, that doesn't help with the obes obese obesity crisis either. A lot of people like to eat healthy. They don't like having to wonder, well, I guess I'll get dominoes yet again. Um, it's a necess I don't want to say necessarily because I have clients, a lot of them out of the 40 are personal. They may not live in Wisconsin, but it's their former homes. They take pride. They love asking questions. They love leaving little notes or maybe some chocolates for their

upcoming guests. There's one guy that buys cupcakes all the time from like the Piggly Wiggly. He leaves a personalized note for these guests at his Airbnb. Some do treat it like a business. I understand where you see that from, but most of them actually do care. They want to show the Green Bay value that we all love. You know, people come here not only for the Packers, but we're going to get a soccer team. Well, why are you stripping an opportunity for people, especially families? I don't know how many times at one of the hotels I worked at that I was almost on a firstname basis with Ashwabn PD because we're always calling them for not just families, but locals. Locals are our biggest problem at hotels. There are many hotels across the country that actually ban people staying locally within x amount of miles. Well, nobody nobody wants to deal with that. If you gosh darn want to come in, you know, you want to be able to, you know, have your grandkids with you. If you have your brother and sister that maybe haven't seen in like gosh darn five years and you want to have a Christmas, Thanksgiving, or a family vacation. Wisconsin is a tourist space world. We have the the values. We have the mindset. We are one of the most hospitable places. You know, people come here to love Wisconsin and come back year after year. Give them an opportunity to stay in a house, not just go down to Motel 6, not just to go stay at another comfort suit. That is not personalized Wisconsin hospitality. That is just corporate because a lot of those are big brand. Marriott doesn't care about Green Bay. Choice doesn't care about Green Bay because a lot of those are just overall branded. So I think someone with 10 years of in hospitality, I haven't heard anybody really talk about that half of the business aspect

of the tourism. Thanks for All right. Thank you, sir. Motion floor. Motion to close the floor. Motion to close. Online would like to speak. Please raise your hand. All right. Motion to close the floor made by Alder Provin. Seconded by Alder Henfist. All in favor say I. Post nay. You eyes have it. Floor's closed. Uh I think we have the motion from Alder Grant on the floor and there was a second for that. Uh so discussion on on that. Alder Galvin. I I think what we have here is a a twofold issue. One is about uh STRs as it relates to housing. The other one is STRs as it relates to chronic nuisance uh homes. And I I think from what I've heard here tonight, uh staff is going to be looking at the chronic nuisance portion of this and coming back with some recommendations that uh can be used in in the future, not only at STRs, but like we can get our noise ordinance figured out. They've been trying for almost 50 years in the city to figure that one out. So, uh it's it's a tough one. Uh but as far as it goes for um housing, I understand more than many of you here uh how bad the housing issue is, but out of that that puzzle, and that's what it is. Housing is a puzzle and there's different puzzle pieces. Um I think that the city's doing a lot to put that puzzle together. We're looking at land trust. We're looking at changing our ordinances to make it easier for

developers to be doing a better job of offering more options for housing. Uh we're looking at things like Habitat for Humanity, Neighbor Works, uh Ecumenical Partnership for Housing. So, we've got NOS's and government organizations all working together to try and put that puzzle together. Um, I understand we talk about a certain segment of our STRs are houses that could be used for long-term rental or could actually be a stepping stone for a family looking to have a house. The only thing I haven't seen, and for the first time tonight, we talked about some data. Okay, I like data. I mean, if we're going to go and do something, you want to have it based on a foundation, not a gut feeling. And uh the data, the only data I've seen so far is Ashwaba. They've instituted uh the seven days, the 180 days. They did that three years ago and from what I've been reading, there's no change in three years. Um it was talked about Vancouver, Minneapolis, and some other communities. Uh but we haven't seen anything solid on that. I I I right now um have talked to, like I said, I've got 27 STRs. I talked to a number of those owners. Two of them actually live in them. 10 of them, the owners live in the city. So, they're taxpayers live in the city. One I have, she owns an STR in the city, but outside the district, and this augments her income as a retired teacher. We had people come and talk to us about how STRs provide their income, the flexibility to be able to be a single mother and still bring in an income and take care of their children. We I've had stories I'm by the hospitals uh and I've asked a number of those STR owners who's renting from you, you know, is the doctors and nurses. And I did have one person, she she has an STR, she

rents it out to two visiting nurses, sometimes for a few nights, sometimes for several weeks. They've had a few doctors um stay at them. But the more poant uh renter is the family that has a loved one that's being treated at one of the hospitals and their ability to rent four or five hotel rooms for an extended stay while their loved one is being treated either in hospital or out of hospital. It it's impossible. It's un unaffordable. you bring in an STR and a family can live there like a family and um get the help for their loved one and also be there to support them spiritually and physically. I have STR owners that are from Green Bay and love this city but for reasons have had to move out but they use their STRs to come and stay here for sometimes three or four months at a crack usually during the summer. So, we're being asked to try and put limitations on that, let's face it, would rapidly reduce a large segment of our STRs, putting people out of work, having people lose their incomes, having people whose children finally can own their own home have to give that up or potentially not have the opportunity to have their own home until something else comes along. I'm not in favor of putting the 7-day or 180day limit on it. I I'm certainly in favor of uh getting back more of the city's rights to be able to to control these STRs and and where they go and and how many we have and things like that. But as of right now, I'm I'm not in favor of putting those kind of restrictions on STRs unless someone can show me some data that shows that uh restricting the STRs is going to be more beneficial for the city than us focusing on some of these other things that I've mentioned to try

and put that puzzle together uh so we can aid those that want to have a home and a stable a stable place to have their family raised. Thank you. Thanks, Aler. Uh Alder Histen Johnson. I'm sorry. I didn't have mine on. Oh, Johnson. I think it's old. Thank you, mayor. Um, you know, I think part of my frustration that's been born out of this process is that, you know, affordable housing, it seems to be one of the primary toes of this. Alder Galvin alluded to, you know, code enforcement as well, but I feel like affordable housing has been the primary discussion topic of this. I don't feel like we really started from a position of what can we do to solve affordable housing in our community. We started from short-term rentals are taking away affordable housing. Let's fix that problem. And it's really been an untested theory. And it's it hasn't been validated. It it's less than 1% of the housing stock in our community. Um, you know, and I I think one of the areas that I struggle with quite a bit is that we have a housing study that is being updated right now that we were informed by director Reneer Wig as uh first draft has I think been received and so we probably expect to see that relatively soon. But when I do look back at the 2020 study, there were 23 recommendations to improve housing accessibility and affordability. And not a single one of those talked about short-term rental units. And in fact, uh, you know, one of the things it calls out is that in the 0 to 30% median income range, we are short 3715 units. That's something we've acknowledged, right? But in the 31 to 50% median income range, there's a surplus of 8,870 units. Now, keep in mind, that's not just Green

Bay. That's it includes your surrounding communities as well, right? But it feels to me at least like that is the range that we're purporting to kind of bring back into the long-term rental market or home ownership market is is the category that we're advocating or the report has advocated that is is a surplus. So that's why I'm really anxious to see what the updated data says to really understand what problem it is that we are trying to solve. Um, you know, and at the end of the day, I just don't feel it's the government's responsibility to play the role of Robin Hood, um, it's not the responsibility of property investors who have invested considerable amounts of money to subsidize affordable housing. Um, one of the things that Alder Hutchson brought up, which I think is a very prudent point, and it's that ripple effect and and it is a real thing. Uh, and in fact, there's a term for it. It's called filtering. And the data shows that when you build a unit at a higher level that 70% of the downstream units will become available within five years. Five years. We can build faster than that without taking away the investments and livelihoods of so many people here in our community. And so, you know, I would ask the question also is if we're really talking if the issue is housing, um, you know, are we talking about supply or are we talking about the percentage of households that are cost burdened? Because I don't think you can have this conversation in earnest without acknowledging the fact that the city of Green Bay, 26% of our households are costburdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their median income for rent. And this discussion doesn't really help to solve that. And it's over 90%, I forget the exact number, 93% something like that of individuals nationwide have said that if they had the ability to own a home, they would. It's the number one inhibiting factor from them being able to do that. It's the ability to afford

the down payment. None of this solves that problem either. But a lot of those recommendations in the housing study do address that. And I do want to commend the mayor and the staff because there are a lot of these things that have been implemented and we just haven't seen we haven't had enough time yet, you know, for for the the benefit of some of these things uh to really hit us. And so I want to make sure that you know the other thing that you when you talk about the impact of some of those policies, some of which are on the agenda tonight, the number one contributing factor to the cost of housing is regulation and we deregulated a lot of things tonight to try to bring down uh some of that cost, some of that process. Uh and so I'm really excited to see uh some of that take place. Elder Hutchinson, you had also asked a question at a prior meeting and and I hadn't had the opportunity to connect with you on that about the 7-day minimum and kind of the impact of that and and one of the things, you know, in the short-term rental business because I really dug into a lot of rabbit holes in in uh podcasts on this topic. Uh minimum stays are punitive to short-term rental operators because of how the algorithm works. Specifically, rewards availability. So someone might only be staying two nights. Um but if they're required to block out seven, then their unit does not show up in the search results is being available. So so that's one of the, you know, the big downsides as well of that 7-day uh requirement or six day, whatever the number might be. Um, you know, one of the things that I don't know that we have an answer on, but the short-term rental units, even if somebody has a permit, are they being used exclusively for that purpose or as has been talked about, the draft didn't necessarily keep a lot of those filled? So, have they been converted to longer term uses, but they still hold the permit? Uh, I I don't know the answer to that. Um, but it also kind of begs the question, I don't know, Director

Reneerwig, if you would have an answer to this because this was talked about, uh, illegal operators, so those that don't have a permit. I know there's software out there that can pick up, you know, units that that are kind of flying under the radar. Do we Is there a way for us to penalize or or give citations to those who are operating without a permit? way we've addressed that in the past is if we've educated people, gave them the opportunity to come in and get that permit. If they don't, then we issue reinspection fees. So, I believe we could issue a citation if they don't get the permit. So, it's part of, you know, assuming there would be support to refer this to staff. I don't want to presume too hard, but I I certainly think a municipal citation would be a worthy exploration. Yep. I mean, we've tried to be more educational in this matter and with regards to the permitting process, right? Okay. Yeah. And and I appreciate the, you know, the the soft approach to that, right? But for folks who are blatantly violating Oh, or skirting the law, I do think that there should be something more punitive because I think that helps elevate the overall industry as well. Um, the other, you know, thing that we talk a lot about, you know, with building faster, and we have been building a lot of units, which again contributes to my desire to really want to see the updated housing study. Um, one thing that that struck me out of the 2020 study that was very intriguing, uh, 9% of those individuals who earn above 80% of median income are renting units that would typically be reserved for folks at 30% or below of of median income, 17% at 50% or below. So, that's where a lot of that housing stock is being taken up right now are folks where you don't have anything at the high income level, luxury apartments. So they're renting down, right? And that's why when we talk about the importance of building luxury units as well, that's our other major gap. And so, uh, if you want to solve affordable housing, you

also have to address the luxury housing discussion as well because those are the two two biggest areas. Um, so with that, I just kind of I I believe Alder Grant's motion on the floor is an amendment. And if my memory for Robert's rule serves me right, you can offer one amendment to an amendment. And so I would like to do that. And my amendment is going to be to essentially override all of Alder Grant's amendment. So [snorts] a motion to reject uh any minimum stay requirements and maximum number of days rented and referred to staff to develop policy and ordinance recommendations with the input of alders, short-term rental operators, the equal rights commission, and community members. Is there a second for that? Seconded by Alder Ritterbush. discussion on the amendment. Mother Alers Alder, I I just I guess I'm wondering um what the Equal Rights Commission because they they were really focusing on the the affordability or you know low uh or affordable housing. So I guess I'm wondering why that piece is in there. So I I alluded to this at the last council meeting. The Equal Rights Commission was created to put a very critical and important lens on issues facing our community. Affordable housing is certainly one of those. And I think we're we're counting on them to bring a perspective to the table that might otherwise be overlooked. And so really I'm trying to be inclusive of some of the folks that have really been a part of the process who have led us to this discussion. So whether I agree with the conclusions or not to me is irrelevant. I think it's the discussion that's important and anybody can can weigh in with perspective that might help staff bring back uh good recommendations that serve our community the best way possible. Okay. And I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the Equal Rights Commission. just think that the original

reason um that this was brought forward was actually Alder Hinfus um because of bad behavior in her district partially mine but um and and trying to address that. So just you know just trying to bring it back in I think it's kind of gotten a little muddied with all of that. So that was just my concern. Thank you Alder Grant then Presley. And I just have a list of questions and I guess first question is kind of piggybacking off of other Xer Johnson if you can clarify what would be their goal is are they focusing on nuisances or affordable housing because I don't think they go hand in hand necessarily. I think they're two different topics. Um so I guess can I ask what the focus would be? I think the intent of the amendment is to give staff maximum amount of latitude to be able to come back with the best recommendations possible and I think everyone in our community has an important voice in this discussion that can make a program stronger. So I called them out exclus specifically uh because again a lot of the work that they have done have led us to this discussion. I understand there's Alder Hinfist's perspective too. Um, and that can be included, right? Nobody nobody's opinion needs to be ruled out of this process, but I wanted to acknowledge those uh who have had an active role to get us here. Okay. So, they could bring anything back to us to consider. Yes. Okay. Okay. Couple questions. Um, attorney coach, can you please talk about the abandonment process or nuisance process? What rights do we have as a city right now with no changes? or abatement. Sorry, not I don't know. Yeah, it's long. Right. So, uh are you asking about chronic nuisances or just the nuisance abatement process in general? Any rights we have as a city to Sure. So, a couple things just speaking

generally about nuisances. There's a list of things, right? So, this is what we're getting at about like the accumulation of three um violations and that we state them in most of our um processes. We state what a violation could be or not. like as an example for nuisances, parking violations aren't on that list. So the process it's like three qualifying calls. Qualifying calls are what's specified in ordinance. Then we start a process uh which is like a nuisance abatement meeting and it kind of ramps up as like a stepped enforcement process with the goal of compliance. Okay. And then director Alen Becker, it was brought up. Um, do you have any concerns of satisfying debt service without this uh income of the tax, the hotel tax from short-term rentals? If we were to solely rely on hotel tax, because the reality is is we only have so many hotels within city limits, which means if we if our hotels are full and that's their only option, they will go to surrounding areas, we won't capture that hotel tax. Is that correct? if they're in Apple. We don't share that. Director, correct? Only hotels or short-term rentals within within the city limits would go toward our um Well, let me back up. Um actually there is a room tax commission and any all room tax go that go in for all for all the surrounding municipalities go into one pool of um um pool at the associated bank and that helps pay for debt service for the kayak convention center, the rest center and the expo. So that is based on total occupancy tax whether it is a hotel or short-term rental. So it's a combined um for surrounding municipalities. But you have a breakdown of hotel versus short-term rental. We we that is that can be collected. Correct. Would you have any concerns of not satisfying that without a portion of it? You kind of hinted around that. Yeah. If it's not a short-term rental, it's probably going to be hotel room tax.

It's you're probably going to get it from one source or the other. Okay. Um, I think this is a tough discussion and I do support Alder Johnson's amendment of getting rid of my amendment. Um, but the reality is I think it's very hard. I think I would stress to staff that I want us to remember too that as a city government there's only so much we should really be judging and trying to control. Markets play a big mark in in things. Supply, demand, things change. What was popular 10 years ago isn't necessarily today. Who are we to judge why someone chooses to stay in a short-term rental when they travel? If they're here to visit a loved one that is in the hospital or they're traveling for work as a travel nurse and they're here for 3 months, it's not up to us to tell them where they can and can't stay in. Many of us have used short-term rentals for our own personal reasons. Um, so I just want to make sure that we are focusing on things that we should be focusing on as a government. And we've talked many times tonight about the steps we've already taken to help affordable housing and things that we have in place or that we can correct to help the nuisance problem. I think we are heading in the right direction. I just stress to us to focus on the things that should be our responsibility as a government. Um so I do support your amendment. Thank you for offering that and thank you for the discussion tonight. Thanks Alder. Thanks [clears throat] Alder. Next, Alder Presley and then then Hankas. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so just to clarify, is this amendment sending it all to staff? We're not passing any part of it tonight. Okay. I can continue. Okay. [laughter] So, we're holding an ordinance. Um I I mean so we we've talked about the seven

seven-day minimum um and the 180day cap. Um that's not what we have in front of us uh because that has been taken out. One part of it was taken out before the public could weigh in um on the advertised public hearing. The other part was taken out at plan commission before we got the chance to talk about it. Um so it's not on the table. Um and I guess I'm just I'm disappointed uh because those are options that we have and those are popular options. 50% of people in America, according to the most the most extensive study I can find, support a total ban of short-term rentals. Um, that's not what was proposed, but a majority of people support regulation, and a majority of people support strict regulation um up to and including a ban. So, it it it feels like we are so detached from what people are actually feeling. And I have been in the past and I will continue to be a renter on this body who has had my rent go up $150 in the past couple years. Um, and am feeling the effects of, you know, short-term rentals is not the whole thing, but it is part of it. I you'd be hardressed to find any study, any case study out there that shows that the proliferation of short-term rentals does not put upward pressure on the rental market, on the housing market. That it doesn't make intuitive sense. taking uh units off of the market does not help the market. That's not the case in any situation. Adding units back in does help the market. Why do we build new units uh if it isn't to help the market um to, you know, push put downward pressure on rents, put downward pressure on housing? Um so I'm disappointed. Uh and I I've talked to people in my district. I've been to doors. This is an issue for people. Uh we've finally heard, you know, half of the people tonight speaking against this for reasons of nuisance or for reasons of affordable housing, but I don't think

that is 50/50 is not representative of where people fall on this. We have 117 short-term rental owners in the city. 44 of those, as other people have brought up, um and I've brought up before, are owner or not owner occupied. the people who if we did pass those ones would not be exempt because that was in the communication was an exemption. Um, so that is 44 people, two in my district, um, who would be affected by that sort of regulation. Two in my district. I represent thousands of people. I represent half renters, mostly lower income. Uh, and I feel like nobody is speaking for those people. So, if I seem hostile to the short-term rental owners, I'm not trying to be. Um, you know, I've had good conversations with them. They all seem like very nice people. I've had one-on- ones. um you know I respect their interests in this as well but we're not listening to the people here. We are listening to a very small subset of investors many of whom are from out of state many of whom don't live in our city and that can't be how I make my decision. Uh people are coming up to me and they're saying what are you going to do to lower my rent or what are you going to do to stop my rent from increasing and these short-term rentals are increasing. We've had 10 15 in the past month that have gone up. It's not just the draft. It's not an aberration. Uh what is it? 454 permits were renewed after the draft. Renewed or started after the draft. This isn't just a draft glip. So when people are coming up to me and saying, "What are you going to do about this?" I want to be able to answer everything. Everything we can possibly do to address housing. Everything. That's building more housing. That's a community land trust. that's zoning for uh having more permissive zoning to build more housing, but it's also regulating short-term rentals. It It's been done, this is not

a crazy new policy. It has been done elsewhere and it has succeeded elsewhere. I know Alder Johnson can't find the studies, but I found them. So, maybe I'm using a different Google. Uh but there are cases where this works. Um, and you know, it's a it's a a 2% discre decrease in housing costs. But when, as somebody brought up, we have a 1% vacancy rate. 2% vacancy rate. These things are decided on the margins. These I said in the plan commission, saving $100 a year on rent is a medical bill for somebody. Uh, these 1%s and 2%s add up. And I don't see why we can't do everything in our power, especially when this was never the intended use of housing. This was never uh houses were not supposed to be businesses. There were zoned residential. So, I'm sorry. Like, I'm upset about this because I represent people who are upset about this and they are not being heard. Uh and we have bowed again and again to this alliance of people who have the time and the resources and Airbnb coaching them uh from afar uh to bring their testimony here. And it's it it doesn't seem right to me. So, I I I I I'm don't know where I stand on what the amendment is now. It just seems like we've destroyed the whole possibility for regulation and I'm disappointed in this body. Alder Infus. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'm not totally disappointed in everybody, but um I think short-term rentals have um a place within the city of Green Bay. That's been my position um all along. I use short-term rentals versus staying in a home when I'm with my family. It's a lot easier. So, I think that there's a lot of good things that short-term rentals bring, but there's also problems

as Joey has been saying. And until the state does something to allow us to take that back, I think it's really really difficult to for the 180 or the 60 day. I mean, there's been so much dialogue um on that. But in the interim, there are a lot of nuisance properties out there and those nuisance properties, we have very little um ways to manage them. And what I have heard from a lot of the short-term rental people has given us ideas how we can reduce those nuisances. Those things I want to see us move forward. So I support Brian's uh Alder Johnson's motion um on it just from the perspective of I think there's things that we can do to reduce the amount of nuisances that we have. Um, and I'd like to see us move forward on that because that will help in some of the areas, um, especially my district. Thanks, Aler. Alder Hutcherson, then Grant. All right. Could we hear the amendment again? Um, I mean, it's getting late and I just Yeah. Alder Johnson, what do you motion to amend to reject any minimum stay requirements and maximum number of days rented and refer to staff to develop policy and ordinance recommendations with the input of alders, short-term rental operators, the aguides commission, and community members. Okay. So you're basically going along with the recommendation on plan commission just altering the three strikes to a broader area because the first two were already done by plan commission. Right?

Am I reading that right? Okay. Um, okay. I think because we always learn something new every time we sit through three, four or five hours of things. It would be good to come back to where we're not in the same world. We have specific things. So, I guess I would be for that recommendation if um what's brought back is distinct. Um it's uh usable and it's something we can put in place and not have to uh bat about. And I don't know if there's a way we can do that internally before it's presented or because I see it coming back and then we're going to go through this whole thing again. You know what I'm saying? Um I think we should advance. Um, I am totally thankful for the uh Equal Rights Commission for their work in creating the STR Alliance because without them, the STR Alliance wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be getting these good ideas. So, I think that makes Alder Presley feel a lot better. I know. I I I'm sorry, [laughter] but but now we're bringing these people together and I totally agree. It's those those people should be all brought together. Um so I guess I'm going to support that amendment. Thanks. Yeah, coach. And I know director uh Renwig may also have a comment. I just wanted to note that this these changes originated from communications from alders. They weren't brought up by staff. So although I mean I absolutely appreciate Alder Johnson's recommendation to refer it back to staff on work on some things. I think Alder

Grant made a specific list. I don't know if the director feels differently but I think we need specific direct direction on what you want to change unless it's just incorporating recommendations. [laughter] I don't know that I totally agree with that. No, that's fine. I I appreciate that. I'm just saying we're getting kind of lost in the what changes you want us to make or not. That's true. We still have the original communications from the alders. I yeah I would agree with the first half of what attorney coach said which is that this originated from council. This is something that the administration has been responding to as it's been the the latest iteration of the amendment. This does give us a bit more ability to recommend to you what we would actually like to see from the administration's point of view. So, um, I might be the only one who feels that way, but I I would not reject the opportunity to drive this bus a little bit. Director Reerwig, um, thank you. I would I would like some clear guidance on what the expectations are. So, if you're looking at staff to reddraft the entire ordinance as we have it presented here with starting from scratch, working with these groups and rebuilding this ordinance from the ground up. I'd like to know that. Or are you looking at kind of what we've already done with the ordinance? We've made those some of those changes and working with the groups to maybe make some improvements. I'd like some direction on that because we're like, what would you like us to do? Right. I'm I'm hearing rewrite the whole ordinance starting. No, I I'm just hearing like create the best enforcement mechanism that we can. So, we're only talking about enforcement, regulation, and enforcement. Yeah. We can do that. Um, yes, older grants.

Let staff do their thing. But are can we as elders because you want elders to play into this send you guys ideas because you know your job your roles what what are the needs what are the problems you can say oh that was a great idea let's work this in or I don't know if this would be as effective let's maybe just put that to the side my point is now we have an opportunity to send some ideas to them I will send my list to you guys do what you wish with it I think that might be a good start along with then you guys working with the people listed is that fair. I mean, alders are always free to send, you know, suggestions to just that way we're giving guidance, but like not right this second and it gives some freedom to put flexibility in yourself knowing your interactions and history and everything with the city. So, um just my last comment for the night on this, I als frustration of many um with the housing thing. The reality is though, a healthy city, we talk all the time about having diversity. Diversity is everything. It's diversity in businesses, job options, different housing, different people, different everything. Truly, a mix is what makes a city thrive. A lot of things cannot survive without the other. Short-term rentals are a small portion, but I know when I'm at home, I'm just getting through my daily schedule. I'm barely going out to eat. But when I'm on vacation, I'm spending more money. I'm going to see attractions. So, we can't say just because you live here, you spend money here and how many people live here but work outside of the city or vice versa. Again, there is no clear picture as to who contributes to this community the most. That's why diversity of who comes here and who is here, works here, lives, visits is what will make Green Bay continue to thrive. Housing has gone up here for many reasons. 20 years ago, Green Bay looked nothing like

this. I brought this up last meeting. Look at the results of Title Town. But as a council, what do we encourage? Development. Development, you guys, sometimes has consequences on market prices and values. It does. It's a new building. It's assessed higher and it's affects every building around it. That's the reality. When you fix up a home, same thing. You put on a new roof, which you need brings up the value of your home. every move anybody makes has a domino effect. So, I want to make sure that we are concentrating on nuisance and keep doing what we're doing as a council, but I I'm grateful for every little piece that brings something to our community and it's not one thing or another. It's all of it. Thank you, Alder Johnson. Yeah, Mayor, I was trying to limit back and forth um but I just wanted to provide a little bit of clarity. So, you know, I think the best policy is when you co-create it and when everybody, you know, has a voice in that process. And that's why I'm asking for this to be referred back to staff to engage with the stakeholders because I think it's pretty clear that some of the folks from the short-term rental alliance didn't feel like they were part of that process. So, I I want to be able to give staff to direct Director Reneer Wigg to your point. I I think what we have there is probably an incredible start to what would very well be the final product just maybe with some revisions but giving some space for people to actually work with you to give some input around you know some constructive feedback to tighten it up a bit. Um I want to maybe address the point about why the reject piece. Um you know it's to me it's it's a statement and acknowledge you know when you're in a legislative cycle you can only take up a certain issue once. Uh to me the intent um is is really to say that at least for this legis legislative cycle those two provisions um it my gut's telling me there's not enough support. I don't want to say that

you know with with authority but um so my hope was by at least saying we reject that. Um you know that it gives these folks some peace of mind recognizing that the next legislative cycle can be totally different and whole new policy could be introduced. So, uh, and and the one thing I just kind of wanted to allude to as well, you know, Alder Pressley, like for me at least personally, like I do support regulation. I just don't support the regulations that have been proposed here because we're reacting to what's available to us, not necessarily because it's the best tool. So, I I really do hope, and this is why I'm going to support the the resolution to the state, because if the state gave us more flexibility, I would love for us to be able to talk about a cap on the number of permits to be able to have a little bit more surgical precision with where they're located uh to really address maybe even the types of units that could be uh converted, but unfortunately, we don't have that available to us. I wish we did. Um, and and I hope that uh to Representative Spouty's point that if the winds are changing, you know, maybe the policy will too and uh and give us a little bit more local authority over how we govern our communities. So, thanks profit. Just super brief. It's been another long one and appreciate everyone's testimony and all the alers's feedback on everything. My one thing I just really really want to stress because we've gone through a lot of these gone through the comp plan. We've gone through a lot of zoning changes where we held things. Um, we had the the alley closure again, which I know there's been multiple staff time on that, too. This is going to be staff time again. So, I really just hope I think alluding to what Alder Hutchinson was trying to say earlier, that we don't refer this back to staff with this laundry list of things, have them give us clear precision, and then anyone on this body or any additional feedback throws it for a wrench again, and here we are kicking the can again. So, I would just really hope and hope and hope those that have strong feelings on what was talked about tonight and I

hope that we can find a mechanism amongst staff and the rest of the body to communicate, okay, this elder said this, this elder said this, so that we're not in a vacuum each one of the 12 on this body and having to rehash with I think if we'd watch the video back, there's been at least 90 minutes just of our discussion on this without any of the public comments. So, I would just really hope and encourage everyone that takes the opportunity to st talk to staff, talk to the SDR alliance, talk to the Equal Rights Commission members, talk amongst each other so that we're all on the same page and we don't have to hold this again or make more changes and have two hours again hashing things out again. That's all I have. Thanks, Alder. Alder, thank you, Mayor. Um, so I, you know, I'm looking at the redline version, which I know we've made some adjustments to it on page three. Um it's was 12 says 13 but I think it's going back to 12. Um the violation section I really see this as we're really focusing on the violation section. Am I correct in assuming that Alder Johnson? Not everything but the violations because we're discussing kind of the whole instead of the three strikes rule we're looking at this. for taking out the the restrictions of the 180day um maximum and the 6 night 7day um restriction. you've said that in your amendment and then the specific really is the violations which [clears throat] is what would be part of that I feel like the motion paints a broad brush brush to give staff the latitude to synthesize feedback from all of our stakeholders and bring back the best recommendation. Well, I but I do understand where um director Reneer Wig is saying to get a little more I say

narrow down. So that's that I feel when I'm um approving this I'm saying it's like let's look at that particular paragraph. So that's what I look at. Thank you. Thanks Alder. Any other comments on Alder Johnson's amendment? Alder personally. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm still not going to support the amendment. Uh, specifically because of the, um, negation of those two items. Uh, I have to vote for what my constituents want. Um, and I think that's something that I've heard broad approval for. Uh, but I'm also not going to die in this hill. Uh, so I'm not going to vote for it, but I'm also not going to scream and shout and I'm not going to pout when I talk to Alder Johnson later. Um, [laughter] but uh I I do, you know, if this goes forward, which I think it will, um, with the referral to staff, I have uh I I wrote a 24page report. So, throw that into the mix while you're considering this. Maybe the reason that I'm so frustrated is because I've been working on this for a year and I know that the STR alliance that I created says that they weren't included, but somebody has been sending me emails for 12 months and I don't know who, I guess. Um, so yeah, it it's fine. Bring some poor people into the conversation though, please. Uh, I'm not going to vote for it, but I'm not going to cry. [snorts] Thanks, Alder. Any other comments on the amendment? Alder Bush? Uh, I'm going to support the motion due to the fact that I I represent majority of the short-term rental properties in the city of Green Bay, but I also represent the citizens of Green Bay. And that's why I feel bringing people together are going to bring ideas, good ideas, and make a stronger alliance of city government and the alliance that Joey did for him, Alder Presley. So, let's let's move forward with the motion and let's get together with the alliance. Everybody put everybody together and let let's get let's get a good product out of this. Thanks, Alder. Yes. All right. Votes on

Alder Johnson's motion. All in favor will say I. I oppos nay. The eyes appear to have it. Um uh I think we need to amend adopt Alder Grant's amendment. [clears throat] Yeah. The amendment. Motion made by Alder Johnson, second by Alder Galvin. All in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes appear to have it. As amended. Alder Johnson makes a motion to adopt as amended. Seconded by Alder Galvin. discussion here. Seeing none, all in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that has been referred to staff. Um, we are now on to park committee. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Stevens. Any items here to be handled separately? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that report has been approved. Uh thanks to all the citizens for attending and for all the the great testimony. Really appreciate it. Uh report of the sustain sustainability commission. Motion to approve made by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder Profett. Uh any items here to be handled separately? Hearing none. All in favor say I. Oppos. Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Resolutions. Motion to suspend the rules to take up these items with one roll call vote made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Stevens. All in favor will say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have the rules are suspended. Motion to adopt made by Alder Profett, seconded by Alder Stevens. And we will use the board. [clears throat]

are adopted unanimously. And now on to ordinances first reading. All right. Motion to suspend the rules and take up these items with one roll call vote with the exception of one, five, and six. All um those made by profit. Is there a second? Seconded by Hutcherson. All in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. The rules are suspended. Motion to advance made by Alder Profett, seconded by Alder Johnson. Uh and that's on 23478. All in favor will say I. Oppos? May the eyes have it. Those ordinances are advanced to a second and final reading. Now on to one. Motion to hold made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Profett. And that's till the December 16th meeting. All in favor say I. Post. Nay. The eyes have it. That item's been held. Item seven. Oh, sorry. I invited to staff. Motion has been made to refer to staff by Alder Johnson. Seconded by Alder Stevens. All in favor will say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. That item has been referred. Item six. Motion to approve made by Alder Johnson, second by Alder Stevens. Discussion on that. Um this is general ordinance uh number 3525 relates to the smaller uh plots that can be sold in the city and it regards the uh landscaping

uh requirements and I guess staff should really mention what this regards uh so we know what we're voting or [clears throat] and you asked me to do it so you should add it. [laughter] Mr. Buck is not my ML. Um so we brought forward actually 10 big substantial changes. The last council only nine made it onto the agenda. So it was a a clerical error. This one didn't make it on. So we have it on for the first reading. But to be consistent with the other four um that are being approved tonight or that were approved tonight um we're hoping that this could be advanced to the a final reading. What it really does in our mixeduse districts downtown ONC for multifamily of five or more units in just those mixeduse districts. It would would reduce that buffer yard setback that we require to either be 20 feet or 25 feet down to eight. And there's some reasons for that. The 8T is what will support vegetation. Still a buffer is required. You have to have fencing. You have to have solid screening. Um but in the mixeduse areas, people are much more used to um being near commercial properties or busy streets or whatnot. Um so it would reduce that 25 or 20 foot setback uh buffer setback down to eight making the lot developable. I mean, some of these lots are 60 ft wide. You put a 20 foot buffer on both sides. It's not developable any longer. So, that's the reason for this. But, I do apologize that it didn't follow all the rest of them through. Uh, but there was really minor change on this. And again, it was only for those mixed those three mixeduse districts like a downtown district. Got it. Thank you. Is there a motion or Alder Johnson? Uh, thank you, Mr. Buck. I appreciate

that you were looking at me as though I was going to be the one to object. Uh um focus up. I actually wanted to inquire why we're not reducing them even more. And let me be specific. I mean, we we have, you know, setback requirements for buildings that are less than the landscaping buffers. Can you help me understand why the landscaping buffers are larger than the the yard or the the lot line setbacks? True. those buffers, the the landscaping buffer is going to supersede the um regular zoning district buffer like the zero setback in a in a downtown. Um this buffer would beef it up and that's when you have multi next to a a different residential type of use. So it's not from commercial to commercial. There's no setback there. Um but that we have special setbacks for all kinds of things. Parking is there's a five foot setback. Um, but if we have like an O next to uh an R1, right? And that O has I'm trying to recall the change we made. Is that five feet? Regular setback would be five feet. Yeah, five feet. And if I'm reading this correctly now, this would increase it to eight. Okay. Right. So, so you're actually, again, I go back to my inquiry, which is why can't the the landscape buffer actually equal what the zoning setback requirement is? We could have it at five. I mean, eight is what was recommended for healthy tree growth and the and the uh inclusion of a fence, a solid screen. Our code requires are 90% solid screen and vegetation. So, if you start reducing it down to five feet, four feet, there's not enough growth area there and everything you put in is going to just constantly die. So, I guess in what scenario would landscape buffers be required? Is that Sure. Let's say you have a six-unit building going up next to a single family home. You'd have to put Currently, you'd have to put a 20ft buffer um on that lot, vegetation and a

fence. With the changes, you would have to put an 8ft buffer with vegetation and a fence. But if you have a 5- foot, again, setback requirement, but that five foot, this would supersede that. you would have an eight foot where currently you would have a 20 foot, which again is why why I'm sort of inquiring why why the landscape buffers don't why why they're not the same right as the the setback because they go with uses. It's when you're adjacent to a residential use when you're going to have an potential impact due to noise, due to odor, due to lights, due to uh garbage that sometimes go with the parking lot. Again, these are uh some can be very commercial used um or multif family use when you're uh adjacent to another one. It's a protection for that other less intensive use from the more intensive use. And a landscape buffer is not necessarily automatic. Is that required within a cup? Typically, um well, the cup you can't wave the code requirements. So, it would still be required with the cup. It could be increased with the cup. You could say I want a 10-ft buffer, but it but is a landscape buffer automatic. Yes. Okay. And and it has been so you don't notice a lot of it like a mixeduse building next to a mixeduse building like a Broadway building or Washington Street building, there would be no buffer. There two mixeduse buildings. Um but if you're adjacent u let's use the Taylor Street example. When you're the laundry mat adjacent to the homes, there's a buffer required there. So the people say there's going to be noise, there's going to be the code is built in to protect them from that. Um, and feel free to call us. We will tell you that any of that information. But when it's mixed use to mixuse or commercial to commercial, um, you don't have that. So only when it's exclusively residential. So in your personal profession or just say your professional opinion, is there

any advantages to reducing these setback numbers any further? Um, I mean, you could remove them all together, but if you want that vegetative buffer, you're going to need, you know, Yeah. And I don't mind it, but even like the one example, 25 ft is awfully wide, especially when we just passed 50 foot. No, we didn't pass 60 foot wide lots, right? 25 feet is really for large development. So, like, uh, multif family campuses or large commercial entities. Um, so there's a minimum of unplugging. Okay. Well, this and this will go through second reading. So maybe we'll continue to probe this afterwards. And well, are you looking to do it first and final? Well, we can always come back and change it if we really want to. Okay, I'm good. Thank you. Thanks, Alder. Um, is there someone who'd like to make that? I think there was a motion. First and final. Alder Hutcherson makes a motion to suspend the rules. Adopt this on a first and final reading. Seconded by Alder Stevens. All in favor will say I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. The rules are suspended. Motion to adopt. Made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Profett. And we [clears throat] will use the board. You may vote. Johnson I I still there. All right, that's adopted unanimously. All right. Communications and adjournment.

What's that? Communication. Can I just refer to staff to do uh clean up the noise ordinance? No, this is confusing. Um this is only Well, I don't know. Clerk, if you want to speak to this. Yeah, absolutely. So we had a little while ago amended the petitions and communications policy so that in order for an agenda be to be noticed properly a petition and communication would have to be received in my office by Wednesday afternoon. So there's no late petitions and communication. So you can submit the petition and communication like you normally do by just filling out that form and I'll get it and the mayor will get it and we'll handle it from there. Motion to made by Alder Profit. Second. Second by Alder Johnson. All in favor say I. All right, closing. The eyes have it. We're adjourned. Thanks everybody. Recording stopped. That's what I It happens. Yes, I'm sorry. The other.