Village Board - Regular Meeting

Still in there. All right. I will call to order the village board meeting of Sunday, January 5th. Aaron, can you call the role, please? Trusty Venhovven here. Trusty Deman here. Sarah here. Trusty Saunders here. Trusty Keller here. Trusty Casper. And President Buckley here. Seems like we're out of practice. Yeah. Everybody's like, "What?" Brian, do you know what to say after 2026 starting off

some memories? Okay. Uh, next on the agenda is consent agenda. Just one item. Uh, the minutes of the regular meeting held December 15th. Any questions about that? Otherwise, a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Jacob. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the report of village officers. Mr. Village attorney. Nothing to report today. Mr. M. Village manager.

Oh, nomination paperwork is due tomorrow at 5:00. Um, currently it's looking like the um February 17th primary may not be necessary. Um, but of course that could change tomorrow. Uh, so we'll be watching and then we'll let you know if that's going to happen. Currently no candidates besides the three of us. That's correct. And do we know anything from the school board? That's all. I spoke to the school. They said they had two candidates for two positions. The county did not have any um I think they said they have one candidate per and the state has two um Supreme Court candidates for one position.

No primary. Super. Uh village president. I I don't have any report other than happy new year. Any miscellaneous trustees? Um what what's what's that guy doing? Uh he's almost a miscellaneous trustee. What's cool place? All right, we'll close that and move on to petitions and communications. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to address the village board on any issue not on the current agenda. Uh looks like you'd like to speak if you could state your name and address.

Yes. Uh my name is Tim Tharp. My address is 5654 North Santa Monica Boulevard. Um, and I wanted to uh share a public comment on uh village ordinance 1919, which is the ordinance that was passed in November, I believe, about the um about uh essentially Airbnbs and the the um tourist rooming houses. Um, so I learned about this ordinance from a neighbor of Trusty Hower. Um, and uh, and later followed up with a phone call with him to learn more about what what went into the the thoughts on this. Um, and I was initially surprised and disappointed that no one reached out about this in advance because I am one of the five legally operating um tourist rooming houses in the in the area. Um, there are of course 12 others that appear to be operating without a license. Um, and I'm not sure which category of those uh developed these issues that that that uh brought this up and and brought this into our um conversation, but um I understood from my conversation uh with Trusty Holler that some of the reasoning for the ordinance, which is that it seems there are clearly some bad apples um that are operating which have led to some significant issues and concerns that were raised. Um, however, uh, after we talked, he said, "Maybe you should come share some of your your thoughts here." Uh, and so I'd like to share just some of my, uh, experience operating as what I think of as a good apple. Um, so, uh, so you can better understand some of the unintended consequences that I think this ordinance is having. Um, so my wife

and I purchased our neighbor's house about a year and a half ago in order to facilitate some construction projects. Um, some of those you may see coming down the ARC agenda soon. Um, but uh, we we quickly realized that our timeline was going to be longer than we anticipated. Um, and so we started renting the empty house as an Airbnb. Um, since then we've invested in furnishings, updates, fixes, and a whole lot of coffee uh to run this business. Um, we last year we conducted over $50,000 worth of business um with with renters. Uh, I haven't done all the math, but our profits in 2025 are likely to be about $500. Okay, I say this to point out that most of our revenue is going right back into the community. Uh we use it to pay for cleaners, pay taxes, and fund improvements to the property. Um this is not a particularly profitable business, but uh we continue to run the business because it's beneficial to the community and really fun for us. Uh we have hosted visitors for weddings, for funerals, summer fest, family reunions. Uh we even had a master pumpkin carver stay with us for the Whitefish Bay Pumpkin Festival. Um, but most of our clientele are just Whitefish Bay extended families coming to visit. Grandparents or in-laws coming to meet their new grandchildren or adult children coming home with bigger families now to visit uh their parents or their el elderly relatives. We've hosted locals looking for respit from a drier fire in town uh and out oftowners who are shopping for homes in White Fish Bay. Today, uh, we are hosting a family who's come to visit a relative who is dying far too young. Neither we nor they have any idea how long they're planning to stay. Um, this B business provides a valuable service, I think, to White Fish Bay families.

We enjoy doing it and we've invested more than half a million dollars in this endeavor so far. We have never had a complaint and on the contrary uh nearly all of our neighbors have expressed interest that they are excited to have a place nearby where their visitors can come stay. Um this business however will not continue to function under the new ordinance as uh as passed. Um a 180 consecutive day limitation which is what's written in the ordinance is the most draconian limit permissible under Wisconsin law. Whitefish Bay, in my opinion, is not a tourism destination like Dor County, uh, where you have a historic hotel industry that needs to protect itself from newcomers. And I don't think this overly strict policy is appropriate for our area. Uh, further, I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of the ordinance and the relevant Wisconsin statutes leads me to believe the ordinance as written is somewhat nonsensical and self-contradictory in places. Uh, for example, the ordinance does not appear to limit stays of less than 6 days, though I believe that was the author's intent. Um, it does not currently say that the 180day period must be consecutive, though on the application form it does. Uh, and this form requires me to establish the beginning date of this 180day period upon submission of the application rather than upon the first booking, which is, uh, what is required by Wisconsin law. So, I believe that this ordinance needs to be reviewed and I would very much appreciate it if notice were given to at least the five legally operating businesses uh in the village before enacting ordinance changes that apply only to this very small subset of people. Uh I agree with everyone that it is absolutely critical to have sensible rules preventing bad actors from enabling and encouraging inappropriate guest behaviors. Um, but I don't think the current ordinance does

this. Rather, I think it will end the good businesses such as ours that are trying to follow the rules and benefit the community while the bad actors will likely continue to just ignore the rules anyway. Um, I know that you cannot discuss or act upon public comment here in this meeting, but I strongly encourage you to reach out to me and the other operating businesses to review and reconsider several of the details in this ordinance and particularly the 180day restriction. I would love to work together to help identify sensible rules that will enable tourist rooming house businesses that are operating in good faith while preventing abuse. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience for public comment? Going once, going twice. Oh, did I? Yep. If you could just state your name and address.

Yep. U My name is Colin West. I live over at 106 East Copex and I um am just commenting on um what I project to be hopefully some big changes in the future from like what I've learned myself about um I was going to ask if I could if like for assistance actually instead, but I'm guessing this isn't how to do that. But I um I just I guess then instead I'll just say I'm actually working on a um getting a patent done with the group up in Colar because of it because of the um how we all know about like you know the uh climate change and all that stuff and like the like extinguishing of fossil fuels and all that. And so um I'm working on a patent for perpetual energy that will like solve all that. And so it's probably like, you probably didn't hear me, but I'm working on like a patent for Perpetual Energy. And so, uh, that'll be some big changes that'll happen. And I was going to see if I could get or I was going to see if I could ask if someone would ever be able to help me pay for that thing. But um other than that I just want to comment on how there is the possibility of that happening because of the uh extinguishing fossil fuels and the uh community just a couple doors down that will probably take on the contract and that that'll be probably like the next few years in a sense.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Yeah, keep us posted. Any other members of the public? Public comment. All right, we will then close petitions communications and move on to general mis business. We have just two items on the agenda tonight. The first is discussion action on ordinance 1922 to create section 6-1c of the municipal code pertaining to impounding vehicles used in the commission of reckless driving. or chief starts talking. I want to say it's his first ordinance. How he made it this long. Wait, what about I don't think that's true. Oh, I thought I thought that's said the first ordinance that you solicitation.

Oh, okay. I was going to say the nuisance ordinance like 15 years ago. It wasn't me. Okay. I'm sure I did part of it.

Okay. I misunderstood then. I thought it was a fun fact. Um, so yeah, today, uh, I'm here, I'm sure everyone has seen the news coverage on reckless driving, um, and the issues in the greater Milwaukee area. Acts of reckless driving put innocent motorists and pedestrians at risk. Um, in response to the detrimental effects that reckless driving has on the safety of communities, the state legislature passed 2025 Wisconsin Act 46, which was then signed into law by Governor Ivers. Um, this act amends Wisconsin state statutes to allow law enforcement officers to tow and impound vehicles used in the commission of reckless driving if the local political subdivision adopts an ordinance. Um, the White Fish Bay Police Department recognizes the danger that reckless driving presents, not only to our community, but those surrounding us as well. Someone's driving reckless in White Fish Bay, there's a very good likelihood they're driving reckless in many of the communities around us. Uh, and this would be a tool for us to prevent that from happening and stop it from continuing. So, I would ask that um the village board adopt ordinance 1922.

Fair enough. Any questions for the chief?

Yes. Um well maybe not so much for the chief. Um probably a combination of the chief and the village attorney. Um when I when I read this um it it seems it it it seems very the definition of reckless driving seems very vague. Um, and or broad, I should say. I I I'm worried about like I'm worried about the potential of um someone reading this and saying, you know, who what defines public safety or what defines, you know, public health and welfare? Is it speeding? Is it I mean, it seems like there's a lot here and the the definition is not very specific and I'm afraid of loopholes.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, Chief. This doesn't change the definition of reckless driving. This just adds a tool as to how to deal with that. Right.

Yeah. Right. It doesn't change the the definition of reckless driving or how we would enforce it. That just gives us the opportunity to tow and impound vehicles used during the commission of reckless driving. Uh reckless driving um if you look at the definition there, there's an aspect of um negligence. So negligence for Wisconsin state statutes is conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another person. Um so it's not just your average speeding ticket. it, you know, while it could involve speed, it's not we're not going to be towing people's cars for going 10 or 15 miles an hour over the limit generally.

Um, Chief or Attorney Jacobs, are there other do we know of other municipalities close by that have enacted this already? Shwood has, Browner has, Glendale either has or is moving towards that. It's going to be enacted by the great majority of municipalities. I'm all for it. I mean, don't get me wrong. I I'm not here.

To give context, in I looked back in 2021, we had two reckless driving cases. In 2022, for some reason, we had 11. 2023 and 2024, we had six. And in 2025, we had four. So, it's not like we're talking about huge numbers of reckless driving. Um, but it is a tool. Those four people who were reckless driving in 2025 in Whitefish Bay were clearly probably reckless driving in other areas of Milwaukee County. Be because of I mean does it I guess this is more of a question than than anything else. If does the act have to happen in Whitefish Bay or if or if there is a call for assistance in another municipality that maybe that regardless of whether they have this ordinance if the if the rec if the offenses offense happens in a different municipality can we still enact this here even if the act itself didn't happen in Whitefish Bay? Well,

the act has to happen in my fish for us to be able to Okay. And that could be in multiple jurisdictions on its way to ending up up against a tree in the village. Yeah. You know, I just know that you don't you just you see on the news all the time where one, you know, a chase starts somewhere and ends somewhere else. And so that was just kind of the question. I mean, if the chase starts in White Fish Bay and goes into other municipalities, yes, then we can then we can and then others can if it have if it ended up here, if they have if they have the ordinance. Perfect. Thank you. Up until now, what have we done with those cars? They just park them and wait till somebody comes to pick them up.

Yeah, I mean, it depends on what happens with the driver. The driver is usually arrested, brought back to the station, booked. Once they're released, if there's nothing else holding them, um there's no other circumstances, they're released to the car, or they can have someone come and pick it up. Have Have you worked out the logistics of where you're going to tow these things? Yeah, I mean, we tow cars all the time. they go to Leader Towing or another towing company and um they're the ones um who house it and and got they would be compensated as well for the storage fees by the by the person who the reckless driver perpetrator. Yeah. Going to say victim, but no.

Any other questions? Okay. Where it says we may dispose of the vehicle impounded, do we could we sell it or how does that work? So that's handled by a different state statute. Generally, we don't get involved in that. The the storage fees for the towing company. Um once it goes to them, they would generally handle that for us. Anyone else?

Just briefly, and I I can't imagine it's going to come up that often, but you know, given that we're a very small village geographically, uh it's very likely a lot of these instances are going to be multi-jurisdictional issues. Um, and it seems like I understand that the ordinance says, uh, you know, until reasonable cost of impounding the vehicle, um, can be fully paid. I imagine there will be cases where it's not fully paid where someone just, you know, they're either going to be incarcerated for a while or whatnot. I mean, how do we determine which jurisdiction does the impounding in a multi-jurisdictional? generally it's the agency who started the where this incident started. So if something starts in Whitefish Bay and ends in Milwaukee, we generally have take the the case and have the jurisdiction.

Anyone else? Any members of the public interested in this ordinance? Hearing none, I entertain motion number one. I move that the village board adopt ordinance number 1922 allowing the police department to impound vehicles used in commission of reckless driving. Thank you. Do I hear a second? A second. I'll give that to Anna. Uh any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks, Chief.

Thanks, Chief. Um we that is the end of our public agenda today. We are now going to go into close session for a few different subjects. Would somebody like to make motion number two? I move that the village board convene into close session pursuant to Wisconsin state statute 19851E deliberating or negotiating the purchase of public property investing public funds conducting other specified business whether competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed section specifically regarding 511 North Lidell developers agreement with Sendex food market and Whitefish Bay School District's use of parkland. Thank you. Do I hear a second? We'll second. Thank you, Brian. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now in close session. And let's see, who are we going to ask to leave? Probably just one gentleman and we'll pause the recording, I think. All right. We are back in open session and the last thing we need to do is uh you know what we're gonna fight. You got a rock paper scissors. All right. I think there was a motion to adjurnn. I'm going to give it to Anna just because and seconded by second. Thank you Jay. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? We arejourned. Thank you for sticking around everybody. Good talks right.