 Alk. Present. Decker. Here. Kittleson. Excused. Clionis. Excused. Meyer. Here. Montemoyer. Excused. Serac. Here. Verhasel. Here. Wongerman. Here. Born. Here. Geshe. Here. Heidemann. Here. Rindflush. Here. Ryan. Here. Vanderweal. Here. Last three. I have 13 present. Three excused. Very good. And now we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Good evening. The topic of the night is a recommendation and a motion to approve general ordinance 520809, which was referred by Public Protection and Safety as RC 240209, an ordinance creating Article 7 of Chapter 70 of the Sheboygan Municipal Code relating to sexual offender residency restrictions. We're going to switch the order up, and we're going to let B go first and have the citizen comments. So as I call your name, if you're the next citizen to speak, you just step right up to the microphone and let us know your address, please. First is Gail Groznik in the audience tonight. Gail Groznik. OK. Jen Butler? Jen Butler, are you available? Please. Come on up. And if you could just let us know your address. 1529. Thank you. You'll have three minutes. One in five girls and one in five boys will be molested before their age. Did you know the rearrest rate for convicted child molesters is 52%? Did you know the typical sexual predator assaults 117 times before being caught? Hello, my name is Jen Butler. I am a hardworking tax-paying citizen of the city of Sheboygan. But most importantly, I am a mother. I, as well as many of others in the community, oppose this proposal. Defenders are a community burden. It is not rational to place that burden in small areas where 10% of the community has to deal with it while 90% does not. This burden should be dealt with as a whole community. You cannot take large amounts of that particular element and force it to live in highly child-populated areas. Segregation into one area is flawed. Sex offenders, like drug addicts, in time will eventually feed off of each other. In the stated area, superior to Seaman, 20th to 29th Street, we have Emmanuel Bible Church, corner of superior 25th, Monk Community Center, corner of superior and 23rd. Church of Christ, corner of Seaman and 29th, Calvary Church, corner of 27th Street and Ghillie. Calvin Church, Christian Church, corner of Seaman and North 25th Street, St. Dominic, School and Church, Ghillie and 21st Street, Montessori Daycare, Garfield and 20th Street, 0.14 miles from the center of Seaman Avenue. Cooper Elementary, 20th and Cooper, 0.4 miles from the center of Seaman Avenue. Not to mention Cleveland Park on the corner of Cleveland and 25th Street. I implore each and every one of you as leaders of our community to gather more data and information to equally distribute these offenders throughout our community or to isolate them to areas with a lesser population of children. Because one in five girls and one in six boys will be molested before their 18th birthday. Because the re-arrest rate for convicted child molesters is 52% and because the typical sexual predator assaults 117 times before they are caught. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Jenny Engels. Is Jenny Engels in the room? Please. And if you could pull the mic closer to you in case it needs to be. There you go. Thank you. In your address? 1729 North 29th Street. Thank you. You have three minutes. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my neighborhood's concerns. I am a lifelong resident of Sheboygan. As a wife, mother, and teacher in the Sheboygan area school district, I devote my entire life to the safety and well-being of children. When my husband and I purchased our first home on North 29th Street, we were drawn to the neighborhood because we thought it would be a safe, family-friendly place to raise our own children. In fact, let me tell you a little about my neighborhood. Next door and right around the corner are families with young children. They enjoy running from the RTR and jumping through the sprinkler and waiting for the bus together. My own son watches eagerly and anxiously waits the day that he will be able to keep up with them. Directly across the street is a home for abused and battered women. These women, many of whom have young children, find a safe refuge in this home as they try to begin a new life free from abuse and mistreatment. Behind our house is a group home for adults with disabilities. These people have around the clock care to assist them with everyday living. They have a fenced-in yard where they can walk, play games, or enjoy some fresh air. About 50 feet north of our home is the Sheboygan Church of Christ. This church has Sunday services as well as programs for children. On any given night, one may find kids playing catch in the parking lot or a group of children enjoying the playground area. It almost sounds picture-perfect, doesn't it? Well, not exactly, but it's a place that we're glad to call home. Now, let's imagine what our neighborhood would become if it was bombarded with sex offenders. Remember the young children running freely from one yard to another? Now their parents are a little nervous, and the kids play inside most of the time. The home for abused and battered women? These families no longer feel secure as they are now surrounded by the very type of environment from which they were trying to escape. What about the group home for adults with disabilities? These residents are particularly vulnerable and are kept under constant watch. And the church on the corner, attendance for the children's program drops and the playground sits empty. Perhaps these scenarios sound extreme, but ask yourself, how would you envision your own neighborhood if it was flooded with sex offenders? Or perhaps you don't need to imagine this scenario because your neighborhoods will not be affected whatsoever. The sex offender residency proposal would establish a 1,500 foot buffer around any school, daycare, park, trail, playground, or place of worship. However, within our designated zone, there are three churches, safe houses, group homes, cultural centers, and other institutions that were not considered. As indicated on your handouts, the 1,500 foot buffer would clearly encompass the entire zone in question. There's one more thing I want to tell you about my neighborhood. Not only are we family friendly and safe, but we are also committed and determined. We will not sit back and allow this proposal to break down our neighborhood. We will continue our mission until our children are safe. Thank you. Okay, is Sam Fields here in your address, please? I live at 1726, North 26th Street. Okay, thanks, you have three minutes. Hi, my name is Sam Fields. I live on North 26th Street in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. My wife, my wife Maria and I, my son Samuel, my daughter Sophia. We live in the proposed area pocket of where the sexual offenders are. Where the sexual offenders were possibly be located. The following story is as it happened to my sister. I will speak in the first person. A man enters a door across the street from across the street and grabs my eight-year-old daughter. This man is a registered sex offender. He takes my daughter by the hand Meanwhile, I am grabbing my daughter in return. My daughter is screaming, what are you doing? What do you want? At this point, my daughter is screaming. I am screaming. I am yelling at my four-year-old son, telling him to stay inside while he watches this fight take place. The man then pulls out his scissors and stabs my sister in the back of the neck in the head several times. I start to bleed in and out of consciousness. I move. My daughter is screaming for help from what seems to be eternity. I concern neighbor approaches. He stated he called the police. They're on the way. Finally, this fight continues. The neighbor assists my daughter and me. In the meantime, I pass out. I pass out, my husband arrives. To see the bloody mess. I'm rushed to the intensive care unit in Ambulance. My children, my husband, all around me and so is the emergency team. Yes, this is a true story. It actually happened to my sister less than three years ago. She was unaware that a registered sex offender was living across the street. She had eight staples in her head. Last generations caused by the scissors. It took eight months for her to fully recover. Her family has undergone several months of therapy, not to mention the thousands of dollars in medical bills. I ask you, those of you behind this proposal, would you want to live in a neighborhood where there's a concentration of sex offenders? Would you feel safe and secure? I ask you, the people behind this proposal, please reconsider. My name is Sam Fields. Thank you. And Mr. Dwayne Jordan is Dwayne Alderman Gisha. Thank you. Yes, sir, we'll get you. You're not going to be cheated on. Yes, sir, one second. My question for the author of this legislation, two questions so far. One, the document I have before me says 2,000 feet, not 1,500. Correct. And then the other question is, does the language include houses of worship or does it not include houses of worship? It does not include houses of worship. But that could certainly be amended. It certainly could be amended. And the area showing the 1,500 foot is actually, that is the accurate 2,000 foot residency map, if that's of help to people. Okay, so that's the 2,000 foot. Which is the ordinance. Which is what the ordinance says right now. And then behind that are the other pictures? Correct, behind that is for future use if anybody's interested. So just for the public's awareness, right now the document that we're considering is that picture there. It's 2,000 feet away from, from, give me just a second here, from a school licensed daycare center, park recreational trail or playground. And the point that a couple of speakers have made is that this pocket is created by not including houses of worship. So that's certainly something we could consider later on. So, man, we're going to let Mr. Jordan speak. And then, so Dwayne Jordan, if you could give us your address, sir. Okay, Dwayne Jordan, 409 Lincoln Avenue, Shevorgan. Shevorgan police detective, 20 years experience of working crimes against children. I like to applaud the council for addressing the issue of trying to keep children safe. However, I believe this legislation is flawed in the fact that experience and history shows that children are more at rest about by family members, by neighbors, by people close to them, by those who are not identified as sex offenders. When you say sex offenders, you're encompassing a wide range of individuals, not just those who have a preference for children. Now, I can't stand here and say that I'm defending sex offenders, but people make mistakes, they're convicted, they serve their time, they come back to the communities where they're convicted in, which is where they live. This ordinance, I understand, prohibits where they live, not where they work, not where they travel. So sex offenders have always been around us and in the community in this legislation only deals with those who have been identified, not those who haven't been identified. Several years ago, after I retired, I came before salaries and grievance, and we talked about replacing a position on the police department, which was my position, which worked extensively with crimes against children and sex assaults. At that time, the committee chose not to replace that position. These investigations are quite time consuming and quite involved and take expertise, and it would be my suggestion that if you really want to protect the community, that you reestablish that position and let the law enforcement officers do their job to help identify those who have not been identified and bring them to justice. And the council should also be aware that there is state legislation that if you are a two-time convicted person of sexual assault against a child, it's a mandatory life incarceration. The judge has no choice. You will spend the rest of your natural life behind bars. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. And I need to take a step back in the agenda. We need to, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 25th. Motion in second to approve the minutes of August 25th meeting of the committee of the whole. Is there any discussion? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Sorry for that house cleaning item. Now we're gonna shift to, we have some invited guests that are going to present to us this evening. I have a question before we begin. I have a question. The DOC is gonna be the first team up here. So if the Department of Corrections team wants to come up and get set up, I just had a big picture question while you're getting set up. Do we know the rough percent of the, those that have been relocated, that two or 300 sex offenders that are here in Sheboygan area, how many of those lived here before? Did all of those live here in the Sheboygan area before they were resettled here before they came here? I don't know that information. Okay, is that something that's easy to get? Not for tonight, but certainly in the near future because I would think that'd be a fundamental statistic that would help us tonight. How many of these sex offenders that live in Sheboygan, lived here before and who didn't? And Alderman Gisch, have you got some information? I can just update you that I requested that data from the Department of, from their organization for two months straight and they did not provide the information due to, well, I guess that's for them to tell you why they didn't provide the information. Okay, and at the public protection and safety meeting a couple of weeks ago, I recall there being a number of 200 and 300 out there and I think 200 were being tracked and 300 were on the registry or the other way around. So let's just call it 300. Let's say there are 300 registered sex offenders in the Sheboygan city of Sheboygan about how many of them came to us because this was their home before their crime and about how many did Madison settle here because we were vulnerable to be, to having that done to us. Or is that not how that happens? If they are the special bullets and there's another microphone here, we'll give you that one and then, and that one for your team. I don't have the statistics numbers at all of who would be settled here. Individuals that had convicted in Sheboygan County in Carson, when they returned, except for extreme situations, they would be relocated in Sheboygan County. Okay, the DOC policy is to place them back in the county of their conviction. Okay, and that came about essentially because if your Milwaukee County or County Met County or another county, the complaint was, well, why are these individuals coming to our county? So the department made that decision that those individuals coming on the institution would return to the county of their conviction. And so the department places them in their county of conviction. Okay, so, and I know we ask it, the night of the public protection and safety meeting, I know that that was one statistic I specifically ask and let you guys know that we'd be asking that tonight. So I'm a little disappointed that we don't have that number but I'm sure you got lots of other good information. So I assumed we'd have that and that would help us frame up of those 300, how many of those belong to us before they committed their crime and how many have come to us because the office that places them places. Well, there's also individuals who are off supervision. They're free to move wherever they choose. But again, I don't have those. Sure, and Jim, would a second microphone help you folks with your presentation? No, not really. Okay, because we're on television and so in order for that to work the best, we need you to always be talking into the microphone. Okay, I need to run the power thing. Okay. I want you to come on with the clip. Oh, okay, you could walk around with that one behind you. Or I can turn that one on for you. And that microphone there? That one will work for you. That one will work for you, yes. Yeah, we don't want to pin it to your jacket, though. Alderman Ryan. We have these folks identify themselves. Thank you, I apologize. Please, if our guests could introduce themselves to the crowd. Have a talk on the microphone. I am Vicki Seibel-Garvey. I'm a field supervisor at the probation and parole office. I'm Kendra Heary and I'm also a field supervisor at the probation and parole office. And just to further address your question with regard to people being placed here, people are only placed here if they have family support, something like that. We don't just take random people in for residency within our community. So none of the 300 would have been placed here because the placement organization found them a place here and they had no connection to the community before they committed their crime. That's correct. Okay. We have a strict, and I know a lot of people are not familiar with what we do, but we do have a process of evaluating residences before people are allowed to live here. We look at who lives in the residence, where the residence is located, employment, availability to treatment, and those things are all screened and determined. And staffed, actually we have a sex vendor team, the agents that work together with the supervisors, and we staff all of the cases for appropriateness and whether or not that they're allowed to stay here. Okay, so. So there is a screening process in place for people that are convicted in other counties that may seek to transfer here. But so the level of jurisdiction or placement is the county. So they might not be from Sheboygan City. They could be from anywhere in the county but located in a home in the city of Sheboygan. I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. If they were from the city of Plymouth when they offended. Correct. Could they be relocated by the state to a home in the city of Sheboygan, even though they weren't from Sheboygan, they were from Plymouth? They returned to the county of conviction. So let's be very clear about that. They could be from outside of Sheboygan and the state could relocate them here because they have decided there's an appropriate support network or a home that they can fit in. So while Madison isn't just willy-nilly placing them here, they are placing people who were not citizens of Sheboygan when they committed their crime potentially in the city of Sheboygan. And that'd be a good number that would be worth knowing as well. Is it 100 of the 300 or is it five? Okay. Thank you. Sir, take it away. My name is Eric Worslund. I'm with the Department of Corrections. I'm with the Sex Offender Registry Program. I'm a registration specialist in four counties in Region 7, Department of Corrections, region in this area. Can you hear me with this? Yes. Okay, thank you. Could you repeat your last name? Sure. It's Worslund, W-U-E-R-S-L-I-N. First of all, I'd like to thank the council for having us come and present some information. And also the community for coming and speaking about to the council and being involved in this. This is an issue that of all the issues that the communities face, I think the issues that people are most emotional about, people are most adamant in terms of their viewpoints about sex offenders and sex offenders in the community. I've got a short presentation. I'm not sure if you're gonna be able to see it, but I'll talk about it. And just as you get going, Mr. Worslund, I just wanna manage some time expectations. We've got about 65 more minutes until we have to adjourn. So about how long? I'm gonna try to do it in 15 or 20 minutes. Okay, great, perfect, thank you. Try to get it done as quickly as possible, get as much information out there. As I stated, no other issue out there gets people as emotional and I think that's true of any crime in general, but especially when you talk about crimes against children. Some things that we know about sex offenders and what we do know is that for most of the general public, there's a lot of myths about sex offenders. There are viewpoints, there is kind of this intuition about who they are and what they do. But there's not a lot of empirical evidence that supports some of those assertions. What we do know is that sex offenders come from all walks of life. I've been with the department 16 years and there isn't a profession that at some point I haven't supervised or dealt with. We know that the oldest person on the registry at this time is 88 years old, the youngest is eight years old. We do have juveniles on the register. We have about 2,000 in the state of Wisconsin who have been adjudicated delinquent. 98% of the registrants are male, 84% of the victims are female. Two thirds of the registrants that we have in the state of Wisconsin are lifetime registrants. That means they were convicted of certain statutes and I'll show you those statutes in a minute. But the greatest percentage on the registry at this time are lifetime registrants. And one of the most important things we need to understand is that they have always lived among us. Whether we've known about them prior to the registry, et cetera, they've always been in our communities. And that there's individuals that discharge from the registry. There's a number of offenses where individuals are only required to register for a period of 15 years and then they're removed from the registry. And the registry is time specific. It starts December 25th, 1993. If you're on supervision after that date, you could be on the sex offender registry. However, you could have 15 sexual assault convictions. And if your last case discharge prior to December of 93, you're not on the registry. You don't have that information. So the registry is time specific. You have to remember that. And this becomes important as we talk about a community in terms of protecting ourselves. And it becomes important that we need to do certain things and we need to base those things on what works. 81% of sexual assaults go unreported. That's a huge number. Woman over here provided some statistics. I'm not sure where she got those statistics, but I know I've heard the one in five girls will be assaulted, one in six boys will be assaulted. That's a huge number of assaults that go unreported. And there's a number of reasons for that. 57% of the assaults took place in the victim's home. One of the things that we, as a community here, and one of the myths that's out there, and one of the things that we kind of intuitively think about sex offenders is we kind of view them in one kind of light. And most often that's the individual who abducts a child and the child is gone. And that's certainly horrific, no doubt, but that's a very small percentage of the actual sexual assaults that take place. One of the statistics I saw was between 50 and 70,000 sexual assaults occur in a year, but only about 100 of those fit into that category of the non-relative, non-known assailant who grabs a child and takes off with a child. The federal statutes that we have in this country that mandate notification and registration are based essentially on those types of crimes. And there's certainly horrific, but that doesn't lessen the victimization of those other types of assaults. And we see 57 took place in the victim's home. Their proximity to parks and schools are really not an issue in that. 93% of the sexual assaults were committed by someone known to the victim. We're talking about relatives, friends, people who gain their trust. We know that sexual offenders for the most part thrive on secrecy, they use manipulation, they gain people's trust to access their victims. Again, that's the largest group that we have that commits sexual assaults of the data that we have. And again, that's another important date. Although a lot of this appears to be intuitive, we gotta really rely on what the data tells us and what the studies tells us. We have to base the Department of Corrections policy based on the empirical evidence, based on the studies, based on what we know. 20,464 registrants in the state of Wisconsin. 90% of the registrants are adults. We have active about 5,100 registrants. Active means they're on supervision with the Department of Corrections. We have roughly 5,000 that are incarcerated at this point. Those people will be released to the community at some point. 9471 are off supervision. They have no supervision. They're not on probation, parole. Their only requirements are to the registry. And some of those individuals, at least a third of those individuals are gonna be off of the registry at some point. That's a lot of numbers. That's a lot of people. But those people have always been there. We now know about them because the registry can provide information. This is a list of the mandatory registrable offenses. I'm sorry, you probably can't see most of them. The ones in red are the lifetime, or mandatory lifetime registry. First-degree sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, first-degree sexual assault of a child, repeated access sexual assault, and the sexually violent person's commitment, which is a civil process. So those are the largest list. We do have some registrable offenses that are court-ordered. The court can use their discretion. And most of those offenses are involved in burglary types of offenses, where someone is breaking into somebody's house and stealing items. And the court can make that determination if that was sexually motivated and then place them on the registry. Wisconsin sex offender registry versus other states were ranked seventh in terms of the numbers in our state, nationwide. There's over 563,000 sex offender registrants in the United States. That doesn't mean those individuals haven't discharged about those, or it doesn't mean that there hasn't been individuals that have discharged from the registry. That number continues to grow. Part of the reason it continues to grow, states are adding new registrable offenses. In the state of Wisconsin versus Michigan, I think Michigan has about 40,000 people on their registry. Part of that is based on what offenses that state considers a registrable offense. So that's some of the difference. Obviously, size, California, Texas, they just have a lot more people. Talked a little bit about the statutes that mandate registration and notification in the United States. These are federal statutes. Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan Kenko's law, you probably heard of these names, Megan's law. Wisconsin Act 440 was enacted in 1997. Those federal statutes mandate what each state does in terms of the registry. The Adam Walsh Act was passed in 2006. It's gonna mean some significant changes in registries throughout the country and what is mandated that a registrant has to do to stay compliant with the registry. That becomes very important because it's another tool that we use to monitor those offenders and that tool is gonna become much more harsh. It's gonna hold registrants much more accountable. This is just some aspects of the Adam Walsh Act. We're gonna have a tier system. Instead of just you're on the registry or you're off the registry, you're on for 15 years or you're on for life, we're not gonna have a tier system. 15 years, 25 in lifetime registration. So it's gonna become much more intensive. They're face-to-face contacts with law enforcement are gonna become much more intensive. Again, this is just kind of some background information as we go in and we start talking about residents' restrictions and what they mean. What they mean to our country. One of the things that has occurred and one of the things that we've seen in terms of states that have mandated registration and then mandated residency restrictions, we've seen some serious problems that have occurred, unintended consequences. I know we've provided, I think we've provided the board with some studies, one from Iowa. Iowa was one of the first states that instituted a statewide registry or residency restriction law. And what had happened in Iowa was that their registration and their compliance with the sex offender registry in Iowa doubled. Their non-compliance rate doubled. And so they went from a certain number of people that were non-compliant, the state didn't know where they were, they hadn't answered their letters, they were not where they were supposed to be. That law then instituted and was instituted and then that rate just skyrocketed. So these unintended consequences have a huge impact on the safety of our communities. When we talk about offenders and we talk about people coming out of the institution, there's a tendency for people to get angry because we, as a state, as a department, we spend money on individuals to try to reintegrate them back into the community. What the research tells us is that when we reintegrate people back into the community, when we get them a place to live, when we get them a job, and that's not necessarily the department does that, but the individuals do that. We have individuals in treatment, they have stable lifestyles, they have family support, that recidivism rates go down. When offenders don't have that, they're much more likely to reoffend. And so what happened in Iowa is these people disappeared, they went underground, they couldn't find a place to live. And what happens after that is all those other aspects kind of follow, and they become much more likely to reoffend as a result of it. And that leads to a question that I think would be a good opportunity to ask. So when someone does that, you're released, you're supposed to sign up for this coverage or this to be on your caseload, and I disappear, you might use me, someone disappears, what happens next? Does that trigger anything from your department? Yes, it's a very good question. There's a couple of different scenarios. We have individuals who discharge from the institution, and I'm sorry, we might have to act as an institution. No, no, that's okay, please. The discharge from the institution, they've served all their time. It's called a max discharge. They discharge absolutely, they have no more probation or parole supervision or extended supervision, we've got various names. And they're free, they're free citizens. They've earned a number of rights back, and they're in the community. And essentially they can move, they can work pretty much where they want to, depending on some ordinances and some other aspects of some laws that pertain to certain individuals. Just another quick clarification. So first of all, you would be under supervision. So the first time you'd be under supervision, either parole or probation officer, somebody would be looking after you. Could be, there's a couple of scenarios. So there's a situation where people discharge, they're not on supervision. Most likely what will happen though is individuals come out on parole supervision with the Department of Corrections. They will have a probation agent, they will see that person, and those people are supervised in a very intensive type of supervision. That is, quite frankly, very good. And it works very well in preventing reoffending. They're involved in treatment and all kinds of different treatment. They're involved in treatment, they're involved with their agent, they're involved in using the polygraph. So there's this kind of triangle approach that we use to get them back into the community, integrate them correctly, because they're much less likely to reoffend if we can integrate them back in the community. So for these people who are driven underground, which is what your research says is a concern of yours on ordinances. So let's start with that as the premise. This person has gone underground, either they checked in and went underground or they didn't check in and went underground. What happens? What happens? If they're on supervision and they abscond from supervision, the agent certainly attempts to look for it. We notify law enforcement. They put out a warrant for that individual. If they're usually a registered sex offender, I begin, as a specialist, I begin my investigation. I try to locate them. And if I can't locate them, then we refer their case to the district attorney's office for a felony warrant. So they have a probation warrant and then they have possibly a warrant from the district attorney's office for failure to register, for being non-compliance with the registry. The governor. If I could follow up and the second defense would be an automatic class age felony, correct? Correct. You mentioned Iowa and I think it's, and people like to do that in these situations and you have a very difficult job. It's not pleasant, I understand. But Iowa is a statewide ban. We're not talking about a statewide ban. Right. If I could finish, please. Iowa also has no review board process to opt out of the program. Our ordinance has such a review board feature in it. So from an apples to apples comparison, I just want to, for the record to be clear, this is not Iowa. This is Sheboygan. Right. But there are some aspects that are similar. This is different from the Iowa in two very major ways. And the review board, I think is one of them. Okay. Yes? Right. There's a number of different, there are some different caveats of each ordinance in different states versus statewide versus local ordinance. But there are some general underlying aspects that link them together. So you go underground and you issue potentially a probation warrant. Probation warrant, yes. And then if this is a bad enough character and they've disappeared off the radar, you issue a felony warrant. Well, there is an determination of whether or not they're a bad enough character. If they're on the registry and they're not compliant, we're not concerned about what their offense was. Okay. Other than it's a registrable offense. So then anytime they try and get a job and use their social security number or anytime they try to get a driver's license, anytime they try to do anything that involves mainstream society, is that gonna flag that warrant? It should, depending on whether or not there's contact. But as we know about many sex offenders, they thrive on secrecy. They learn to not put their name on leases. The governor instituted the SAFE initiative. We have a task force of retired detectives who spend their time once a warrant is issued, checking out and following up on those warrants trying to locate individuals. They work with law enforcement in other states if an individual has transferred to another state. The Department of Corrections might issue a warrant in that county. As a registration specialist, I would send that request for a warrant. Again, that's the DA's decision of whether or not they're gonna charge. But also, in some cases, that person is absconded and gone and gone across state lines. The U.S. Marshals will take that case and refer it to a federal court. So there are some- So there are some- When someone disappears and then tries to do something that involves mainstream society and identification about how long would it, do they generally get captured? Whether they've got a light out and a cop stops them for a light out in their car or are these people getting caught? Are they living underground? Because I think when you use the term going underground, I think it gives the impression that these people disappear and they're walking around in trench coats picking on kids and we can't find them. Well, I don't know if they're wearing trench coats and picking on kids necessarily. That's what they think and that's what we think. Right. But again, we have to look at who makes up the majority of the registrants. It's individuals who are sexually assaulted, somebody they know. So are they being found? There are individuals being found. I don't have any- Okay. A specific number off the top of my head of how many, I could get that information of how many have been located. That would be helpful. So once you go underground through modern police work and police forces that are diligent, there's a good chance that if you're in a good law enforcement in a district where the law enforcement is keen to not let sexual predators live underground, is there a pretty good chance you're gonna get found? I don't have. I mean, I've dealt with hundreds of cases. I don't have an idea of what the numbers are for those individuals. I've spent a lot of time in court because people have gotten picked up, but we don't necessarily, I don't have the records of how many people have been. And there are a couple more questions for you, sir. I gotta go to Alderman Verhassel first, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What is that, you had mentioned non-compliance rate doubles with some of these ordinance are put in place. What is typical non-compliance rate? In Wisconsin? Yeah, average non-compliance rate. I don't have this county non-compliance rate off the top of my head. I know statewide we are, our compliance rate is above 80%. So we have a very low non-compliance rate. So when you were saying it doubles, then typically. I think in Iowa, it doubled. I think they went from like 5,000. I don't remember the specific number, so I don't wanna say it, but that doubled. And it was a significant number of people. Yes. Non-compliance rate is 91% and the actual average is 75%. Non-compliance is they? No, non-compliance. Non-compliance. Wow. We're killing when you hear that. That would be pretty bad. Okay, so, and I guess that you had mentioned the Adam Walsh Act would significantly change things. I think how registries are set up or something. Could you explain the, give us the highlights? What are the big changes with that act? Right now, registrants are required at a minimum to send an annual letter back in compliance. Any time they change residence, school, or employment, any of those changes, they must notify the registry within 10 days. Adam Walsh is gonna change that process. Changes have to be done within three days. Plus, Adam Walsh is also gonna mandate that individuals have face to face contact with law enforcement. And the Department of Corrections, and I don't know if that's been settled. Yes. So, those are two of the most significant changes. That thing, it's also gonna go to a tier system. So, and right now, in the state of Wisconsin, inclusion on the registry is based solely on statute that you were convicted of. Whereas this is gonna go to a tier system, they're gonna look and put people into categories as to whether or not they're required to register and for how long. So that's a change. And Alderman Giesha. Just as a follow-up, one of your slides you had noted, I think you said 57% of these offenses take place in a home. In the victim's home. In the victim's home. That still leaves 43% that would be in place out in the rest of the community. So I just don't wanna, by saying that, I think we should be aware of the other part. But if we look at the numbers for individuals, unknown assailants, okay. The majority of sexual assaults that are occurring, by far the majority, are occurring by somebody known to the victim. Somebody who's talked to the victim, somebody they know, somebody who's gained their trust. I understand, but wouldn't restricting where they live in return to get them away from those people be a benefit? We'll talk about that in just a second. Okay, and I'll tell you what the current research says. Because I just wanna tell you, it just seems to be quite have my cake and eat it too, data, to this point. No, I don't agree. I think, again, it's intuitive to say if we remove sex offenders from these areas, sexual assaults will go down. No, we're talking about homes, because that was your data. Right, and the data says that 57% of the sexual assaults that occurred in the victim's home. That doesn't leave the neighbor's home or other aspects. And that those strangers. But the Minnesota data, the Minnesota data says 50% happen in the offender's home. Right. So if those offenders aren't living in our community, that's 50% of the sexual assaults that aren't happening. Well, well. And when you say 15% of the sexual assaults happen. And let me continue. Keep your hands ready. Because when you say 15% of Minnesota data, 15% of the reoffences happen in a public place. When those public places aren't in Sheboygan, that's 15% more that aren't happening in our town. When you say 5% of them happen within one mile of the offender's residence, that adds up, my math is 70%, we can prevent 70% of those offenses from happening merely by saying you can't live in our town, you can't hang out in our public places, and you won't be within one mile of that. So that's 70% of future attacks. You can be. That's your data. That's your data. But that's saying that we know that those offenders are living in that place. And what part of the data is also saying is that when these restrictions go into place, these individuals have a tendency to go underground, be lost from the registry. We don't know where they are. We don't know if they're at their current residence. We don't know where they went. So we don't know if those numbers pertain to those individuals, or that proximity to parks and whatever has an impact on that. All those offenders essentially could not be living in that next to a park. And we're looking forward to that number. Are you Miss Gail Groznik? Oh, okay. Why put all those sex offenders? What happened to those neighborhoods? Those neighborhoods were destroyed. Well, we don't necessarily put every sex offender in their neighborhood. They're free to move where they want. On this side is a sex offender, and the neighbor on this side is a sex offender. What happens, and they can't sell their house? I think I can address that with it. It may have been right before you came in, ma'am. Oh, okay. With the picture you see there, there are places, there are no pockets. If we stick with the 2,000-foot wording, there will be no pockets. There will be no pockets. Right, and so we talked about that. The ordinance as it stands right now says 2,000 feet, and so we could choose to change that to 1,500, but that would be up to the body, and so far I don't see a big wave of support behind that. So if you'll just have patience, I suspect that you might be satisfied by the end of the night. So we'll let you pick up with your, what happens if they go underground? Okay, so you- And I know we're peppering you with questions, but we just gotta keep it moving. That's fine, that's fine. What about unintended consequences? Okay, again, if those people go off the registry, they abscond from supervision, we have no idea where they're at. That also has an influence on whether or not they may reoffend. We know that individuals who don't reintegrate in the community successfully have a much higher rate of reoffending. There's lots of data about that. Colorado Department of Public Safety article, they did a study, molesters who were reoffended while under supervision did not seem to live closer than non-recidivists to schools or childcare centers, okay? So their location, their location close to parks didn't have an influence or places where they congregated didn't have an influence on whether they were reoffended or not. They did not seem. Minnesota Department of Corrections study, one that you talked about, proximity to schools or parks was not associated with recidivism. There may be other factors involved, but when we're talking about offenders living in these areas, their location may not, and in this situation did not have an influence. Offenders are free to drive their cars to go to other neighborhoods, and if we lose track of them, we have no way of giving that information to the community. There are lots of ways that are probably better at protecting the community than some of these other residency restrictions. There's other things that we need to do. Sometimes what happens in terms of the community is that we have a residency restriction. Then that means we have no sex offenders living here, and they're not being diligent about the reality, and the reality is those individuals may be living in your town and you don't know about it. Again, sexual assault is one of the most under-reported crimes. Oftentimes it's not the situation of somebody abducting a child, it's somebody known to the family, it's a parent, it's a relative, et cetera. Those people may not have ever been convicted. Have you had the opportunity to read the ordinance? I have not read the whole ordinance, no. You talk about being able to bring it back into the, for family support, do you realize that the ordinance contains language that allows that to happen? I understand, there's different aspects I'm talking in generalities right now. What we want to do is we'll get- We're dealing with specifics tonight, because specific to our community, and that's why I think we were all going to be here some time. Well, I think we were talking about some specific data about our community. I was not told to bring any specific data. I understand, it's not your fault, I'm just saying that some of the items you're bringing up are actually contained in their ordinance. Okay, I understand. But each, there's lots of communities throughout the country who have different little aspects to their ordinances. What I'm saying in general right now, these are some of the things that have occurred and some of the research. There is not a lot of research about specific ordinances and the specific outcomes. That has not, that's kind of in the process. What we have seen is situations in Iowa, some of the Minnesota information have said this is what occurs. What we do have is we have a lot of data about what happens when offenders go underground and they don't reintegrate back in the community. Study done that appeared in corrections today. Residence restrictions which leads in stability, transience and hopelessness. Conradic decades of criminological research identifying factors associated with successful reintegration. The situation can happen that even though you have residency restrictions, it doesn't mean you don't have sex offenders living in a community. And that there's, it can create a false sense of security. We have this ordinance that must mean there's no sex offenders here. And we're not then doing some of the things that can be proactive that can be better in terms of protecting our community. So what I think I hear you saying from this slide is Dr. Tuxbury's data would say that residence restrictions lead to instability and are not such a good idea. Correct, that's what Dr. Tuxbury also said social and economic marginalization is especially pronounced for registered sex offenders who are publicly identified. But that didn't stop us from passing Megan's law, the Walsh law or the Whittling Act. Right, and those those are in place. Dr. Tuxbury is very inconsistent or we have ignored Dr. Tuxbury in the past and had three of the greatest child protection laws in the history of our country. Well, I'm not saying that those weren't. I'm saying those are already in place and that. But they weren't and before they were put in place Dr. Tuxbury predicted great doom if these sexual offenders were outed that they would have marginalization that would lead to reoffense. There's no doubt that those laws have been passed and that there is an influence. There's data saying that the registries have an impact on integration. I can't do anything about that. All I can tell you is what he's saying about residency restrictions at this point. I think there was ma'am right there in the book. Some of your statistics, I have some questions. What percentage of sexual assault cases to a child are random, meaning by an unknown? Well, the data that I've seen say that it's about 10% or it's about 100. They said the research that I read or read said 50 to 70,000 sexual assaults a year and only about 100 are those random X. And are any of those in the city of Sheboyga? I don't have any idea. If that, I don't know. In the city of Sheboyga, the sex offenders were against adults. I don't have that data. No, I just have the basic numbers of who's on the register. Okay, the type supervision that you spoke of after being released. Yes. Have you ever had anybody reoffend and if so, what's the percentage of that under this type supervision? I don't have 30% just for Sheboyga County. The data that I've seen talks about 10 to 14%, which is much less than the general public viewpoint. There's been some, one of the treatment providers that we have who works with the Department of Corrections has numbers even lower than that. But again, I don't have specific data for Sheboyga County. I don't know what the reoffense rate in Sheboyga County is. Thank you, ma'am. And we need to do quick questions because we have another guest that needs to speak. Ma'am in the blue sweater, you had your hand up earlier. I'm Sheboyga financially in the infrastructure and supporting these folks in integration, what is it gonna be per person per year to the city? In terms of reintegration from the department standpoint? It's important to be in here and us having to support them in any way, shape, or form. I don't know what the numbers are in terms of what is spent on each individual and that varies from individual. And that's ongoing, ma'am. That's been going on for years, so I don't know that we could get to that number. Chief Kirk, any way to get to that number? The state's not picking up the bill. Sure. Well, the state pays for- They pay for the monitoring. Yeah, for monitoring of individuals. I don't know what the total is per each person. In some cases. Yes. Chief? No, no. And not every individual is in certain kinds of programming. It depends on what the needs of there are that individual upon the release from the institution. Some of those expenses are probably tied into the Department of Social Services state coming grant program. Take a look into some of those questions to give you an answer. But just one local statement as far as how many, since 2006, we have about 1,300 people have registered with our city case. About 51 cases where they have not registered and we actively do some. Okay, thank you. One more question from the- Are you sure they're not required if they're off supervision to register? We really gotta move, but please, ma'am. Stick around. We've got 30 minutes. I wanted to go through a couple of quick slides. I tell you what, we've got that other, so yeah, if you'd go through- Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers talked about the problems that have been affected. Stable housing support, we've talked about those issues. We have the Iowa County Attorney's Association. Those are the district attorneys for the state who were opposed to the Iowa law based on who that law was affecting, et cetera. Wisconsin Coalition for Sexual Assault also talked about the proximity of schools or kids congregated to recidivism. They talked about Iowa's troubling non-compliance rate, et cetera. Jacob Wettling Foundation in an article said, instead of enacting public policies such as residency restrictions, more resources should be spent on preventing sex crimes in which the victim and perpetrator know each other, which make up the majority of such crimes. And so here is a national organization deals with this issue, the federal laws named after it, and they have some concerns about residency restrictions. Alderman Verhassel, did you have a question before? Yes, I did. You know, there's a lot of debate going on here, but I don't think Sherboygan's the first to come up with such an ordinance, or at least a suggestion. Surely there must be some statistical evidence out there by other communities in Wisconsin. I've not been able to locate it any. Now I- Green Bay passed something here, not that long ago. Green Bay has, I don't know what the statistics are from Green Bay in terms of their- Alderman Verhassel, do you have statistics? Well, Alderman Verhassel's right, there's 400 communities across this country, 400 that have done this. There are 26 states, I believe, who have statewide bans like Iowa. I noticed they're not mentioning the other 24, just- Well- For a moment, and we actually have the author of the Green Bay Ordinance, former Alderman from Green Bay here tonight, to tell us about their situation. Now I guess the question is, have the number of offenses dropped as a result? In Brown County, there are 406 people on the registry, 25 are non-compliant. I believe the former Alderman from Green Bay can speak to their current situation. Is that- Okay. Can we put a brief in between? Yeah, please. And if our guest from Green Bay to see, he or she have a presentation, or could we bring the lights up? Just as it, as it flows. Tap the button, there you go. There you go. What is that, Alderman Gisha? If I could take that. The slide that's up is today, right now at this moment in the city of Sheboygan. There's a link on our city of Sheboygan police department webpage that allows you to go to a website in which you type in your city and your zip code and it will show sex offenders in your community and in your neighborhood. And you're able to click on the schools and actually find out how many live and it's shocking to the close proximity of a thousand feet or less even to schools. So this is a tool for families much like the ordinance really is a tool for families. And this website is www.familywatchdog.us. Encourage lots of people to go do that. Would you click on one of the dots? That would actually, all right, where's Cooper? Pick a red dot, pick a dot. Just have to pick one here for a moment. How about Longfellow? Oh, sorry, Cooper. Sorry. Cooper, there was one resident living within one less, or within a thousand feet of Cooper elementary. So my point is not to discuss this site but to show the people who are unfamiliar, especially you out in TV land, this is a very powerful website where you can see pictures, addresses, convictions, things of that nature for these sex offenders so you can better protect your family. And again, this is an outcome of some of those, the Wetterling, the Walsh, and the Megan's Law, some of that legislation that said transparency is good. I would put one warning though. Many of these websites- Can you pick up that mic real quick? I'll activate that one for you. There you go. Many of these websites essentially scrape the data from the Department of Corrections. And so there's no indication necessarily of how often that information is updated. That would be just my one, one something that you need to remember. We know where these guys are. Can you- There you go. What this website also shows us though is that we know where these guys are. We can keep an eye on them versus having no idea where they are in the community. I think it's important to note that there is the grandfather clause in this ordinance. So these people are gonna stay living there so I don't want there to be a false sense of security that if this gets passed, while there's no sex offenders in my backyard, people shouldn't just go out and play in the streets. We still have a responsibility as parents to keep an eye on our kids. Like we said, a lot of this has to do with the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. Keep an eye on your kids. Know who they are, where they're going. That's the important part. Very good. And now if we could swap and invite our other guests from Green Bay. And so do you have slides or could we turn the lights up? Just speaking a moment. Oh, okay, please then. Go ahead, that light switch is right there by your elbow. Thank you. Come on up, we'll get you the microphone. Please introduce yourself. And our guests, if we could get them to stay in case there's some technical questions. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Hi, hello, Mr. Chairman and Council. My name is Chad Fredette. I live at 1406 Day Street in Green Bay. I'm a former president of the Green Bay City Council and an alderman for four years. And what you see tonight is some of the frustrations we had in Green Bay. I just want to give you a quick background of why we got to where we did in Green Bay. We had an area of the city, near a park, near a hospital, in a neighborhood where the Department of Corrections would continually place dangerous sex offenders or beat sex offenders, release them into our community. We felt as though Green Bay was becoming the dumping ground for Brown County. We would ask the Department of Corrections for information. In all due respect to the Department of Corrections, officials, you have a very tough job and I'll take on you a little bit tonight, but I do realize you have a tough job and appreciate the job you do with the limited tools you have. But we would ask for a lot of information from them. What we get is, well, we can't tell you, we can't tell you, we don't know, I don't know. They wouldn't help us. We would say, well, we're concerned about this neighborhood because so many sex offenders are released into it or a neighborhood across the other side of town where I live, a lot of sex offenders are released there. They don't give you information and tell you a general area where they're going to be placed. Well, that is enough information for a community. So we said, okay, we'll write some resolutions to the state. We'll ask our representatives to help us. No help came. We'll send one to the governor. No help came. We'll go back to the Department of Corrections. No help came. So we said, okay, we're gonna take the leaders in their own hands. We're gonna force the state. We're gonna say, no, we're gonna take back our city. You're gonna have to ask us permission if you're gonna release a sex offender into our city. So we introduced an ordinance very similar to yours and it may be identical, I don't know. If it is, that's good. Change a little bit, that's good. Change it to suit your city, that's what you should do. So we did, we passed this ordinance and along the way, there was a lot of complaints of the Department of Corrections. Oh, they'll go underground. They'll, they won't help you at all. They'll create this false sense of security. It won't help you in the least bit. It'll make matters worse. It'll cost you lots of money. It doesn't. And that's not what it did for us. It did what we wanted to. No one in Green Bay goes around and says, it's a safer place or no sex offenders. We said, no, we're gonna keep the ones we have. They're here, we're stuck with them. But you're gonna come to us every single time that you want to release another one into our community. You'll go through this residency board. They'll look into the background, they'll scrutinize them. It's supposed to be open to the public. That's one thing I would ask you to change. Make sure it's open to the public. We'll know where they're going to live. We'll know the exact address. We'll know what the offense was. And if we don't want them, no, we're not taking them. You ship them somewhere else, we don't want them. They say they always live among us. We realize that you're not gonna prevent the sexual assaults from happening. But what you'll do is cut down on the repeat offenses. And yes, there's a law that may say that they go to prison after repeat, but there are many of them who've repeated who are not in prison now. And many that will repeat. So you have to think about this in that respect. We're screening them. You're going to screen them if you pass your ordinance before you allow them into your community. Yeah, 93% of the sexual offenses, maybe to someone you know. Well, think about the Section 980 offender that does get out of prison. If you saw that on the slide, that's the sexually violent commitments. What happens are so bad and so dangerous. The Department of Corrections commits them back to prison or into a mental institution because they know they're going to repeat offend at some point in time after they release them, but the law says they have to go out. So they do what they can. That will happen. Do you want them living next to you? Do you want them to get to know your children? Or your wife or your neighbor's wife? Say no, we don't want them here. Keep them in prison. So we said in Green Bay, we're gonna tie your hands. And we hope that everyone else around us in the whole state ties their hands too so that they will stay in prison. We force the Department of Corrections to go legislature and say, nobody wants them, keep them in prison. So that's what we did. And how is it worth in Green Bay so far? Pretty darn good. Our compliance rate was about 93, 94% before our ordinance was passed. It's 93, 94% now. Nothing's changed in Green Bay. What does it cost us in Green Bay? A recording secretary. A few pieces of paper and we have to list some very tough individuals in our community to volunteer their time to come to City Hall and go through all these cases. Maybe a little electricity in the lights and a little time from our police. But that's what they're there for. They love their job and they're more than willing to sacrifice for the community to do so. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'll take any questions. So your ordinance doesn't say you can't live here. Your ordinance says you can't live here unless we say you can. Absolutely right. And most of the sex offenders will let in. And the reason we put that in, I put that into the ordinance because there are some called Romeo and Juliet's. Teenagers are full of their own. Are they a danger to the community? They're not. But this gives the community a chance to screen them. Where Iowa, they always bring up Iowa. Iowa is a blanket state loss. There's nobody within so many feet of, I think it's 2,500, I don't quite remember, but yeah, you catch all the Romeo and Juliet's too. And the one that creates depression and unemployment to people who don't deserve it. But the people who do deserve it, you're gonna find out who they are and you're gonna find out more than you wanted to know. But it's good for the public to know. It creates a better feeling about who you're letting in and information that everybody wants to have that you don't get otherwise in the current situation. And if a violent sex offender gets depressed and unemployed, I don't care. You shouldn't care. You should say put them in prison where they belong. We could have said execute them at one time, but Supreme Court says no now. But hey, prison is good enough for me, build them. And that's what we said in Green Bay. Parximity not associated with recidivism rate. Well, if they, you don't let them live near the parks, it will eventually associate itself with it. Yeah, no, you're not gonna stop the random guy driving through town and pulling some poor child off the street. You're not gonna stop that, but that's what your law enforcement's there for, so. Okay. Excuse me, one second. Yes, yes. Alderman Ryan, I'll wait until this gentleman's done. Okay, okay. When they're free to, and you mentioned, now they're free to move where they want. And that's part of the problem. We don't want them to be free to move where they want. They want them in prison. But remember, Green Bay's ordinance only went after the worst of the worst. The repeat offenders that are not in prison now, the Section 980s, which are basically loony tunes that are going to re-offend. And that's who you don't want in your community. The rest of them, yeah, there are people who reform themselves, but you're given a chance to look at that case and decide for yourselves whether or not they've reformed themselves and then let them in or not. That's basically the gist of our ordinance, how it's been fine, and everyone knows the information on the people coming in. So I think it's been good. And I would encourage you to pass your ordinance as well. Okay, thank you. Alderman Ryan. Thank you. This is not a question for you, sir, but it seems like your ordinance has worked. And what you've basically done is blocked out the whole city. And then you work it on a case by case basis. Now, what we have here on our 1,500 foot buffer, 2,000 foot buffer zone here is we have one small hole, which is where all these folks are from. Well, actually that's, our whole city is not blocked out. The more affluent areas of town are open and there's some residential three areas that are open. The affluent areas of town, the department corrections cannot afford to place them there. The R3s they've been trying, but they haven't so far. What I would like to propose is that, basically right now what we have on our 1,500 foot buffer is one hole that's open. I would like to add houses of worship. So I would entertain, I would entertain a motion to recommend to the Common Council to approve General Ordinance 5208-09. I would entertain a motion to do that. So move. Is there a second? Okay, so under discussion, Alderman Ryan, what I would like to do is amend that to add houses of worship. Second. Is there an objection to that amendment? What this will do is take this zone here and block it out. So we don't have a hole in the ordinance, so to speak. And then we can operate such as Green Bay has that we can approve on a case by case basis where these individuals will live. Okay, Alderman Brassel under discussion on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess the question I have for the gentleman from Green Bay is again, I think your ordinance is relatively new in the last year, but is there a number that you can associate before and after the law was enacted? You know, did the number of offenses drop 10, 20, 30%? Is it flat line? At this point, we have no data on the number of offenses that have occurred in our city. I have not asked our police department. There was a news station that did do a story on that WBAY in Green Bay. And since they didn't point it out, I'm assuming they didn't find anything as far as increase or decrease at that point. That's something we will definitely be monitoring in the future, I'm sure. And Alderman Heidemann. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to also amend this ordinance to go up to 2,500 feet. I think that's the maximum allowed. Okay, before we can entertain that amendment, we have to dispose of this amendment. Alderman, Alderperson Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this isn't on the amendment. This is on the confusion with the press article that brought this to light about Superior and Seaman Avenue with this 15,000 foot buffer. Now, our 1,500, and now you're saying it is the 2,000. And it's quoted in here, Alderman Bob Ryan is quoted as saying that he expects the council to set the buffer at less than 1,000 feet. So this Sheboygan Press article is completely confusing. That's why all these people are here because the way this is written, it's gonna put this residency smack dab in the middle of their community. And my people are saying no. Thank you, Alderman. So now you're saying- Let me take a shot at clearing that up just on behalf of Alderman Gisha. And we'll see if I don't do a good job he can. So the ordinance before this body tonight is 2,000 feet, which takes care of everything with that small white dot you see there. And then the amendment we're working on right now says they wanna add houses of worship to the language so that that dot no longer exists. Everyone is protected under the umbrella of this ordinance. The press article notwithstanding and Alderman Ryan's previous opinion notwithstanding. Is that fair, Alderman Gisha? That's very fair. And in Alderperson Meyer is correct regarding what was printed of the Sheboygan Press. None of us control how that comes about the ordinance though was presented to the council. It is in writing. It is 2,000 feet. It is as you described. And you're right, it caused a section of Superior Avenue and these great people, some consternation, but you know what? These people are the champions. I'm glad they came out. Look what they care about with our community. Isn't that a great testament to that district and these great people and their families? So yeah, maybe it was wrong in the press, but look what it did. It down in the council chamber. And you all should be applauded for coming down and making a difference. And Alderman Ryan's place, please. Thank you. I did bring this up in public discussion safety. If we could get a map that shows the outside boundaries of the city because the legislation would only be up to the boundary of the city. That shows outside the boundaries for areas that are boring in my district such as sunny side. Again, I don't represent them because they're in the town instead of be aware that if you're on the outskirts of the city, you're not in the city, you know, the house next to you may be in the towns that may be eligible down the road. So just people when they look at that map understand that that does not include us. The US city engineering or whoever put that together. Certainly. If I could just mention one other quick thing. Please. And that is, I just wanted to. Sorry, I turned, there you go. Thank you. I'll get back to you, Bob. I just wanted to publicly thank former Alderman Chad Ferdette for coming all the way down here from Green Bay to help us with this process. He was a true champion in that community and bringing his knowledge and kind of cutting through the muck and mire this evening. And I also want to thank our guests from the DOC and we're not done yet, so don't anybody leave. But, you know, it's a thankless job. The first people that presented us a thankless job, they're clearly passionate about protecting our children. And they just have some data that as professionals that see things at the state level and see things at the national level and see things at the federal level, they have their opinions on things. And we want to thank them for walking into this very difficult situation tonight and telling their side of the story and thank our guests from Green Bay. So a hand for our guests. So the amendment, the amendment as it stands is to include the language or houses of worship, a place of worship in this. Any other discussion on the amendment only? Okay, all in favor? One at a time. Would you accept the friendly amendment to your amendment? Yes, I will. I'd say to anybody on the city's boarders that if they have a problem that they're not being under our sex offender ordinance, and they'd like to annex in the city. Well done. Alderman Gisler, you seem to have some concerns about the 25. Just slight concerns that I think it was mentioned that that doesn't have clear boundaries in the city of Sheboygan. I think at 2,000 with adding churches, I think we cover 100% of the boundaries of Sheboygan. Again, it's the decision of the body. Legislatively, I know you've looked into the legislation at the appellate level and suits and things of that nature. Does 2,500 put us at any additional risk? 2,000 is more than norm. 2,500 does exist. I believe that was one of the initial proposals in Green Bay was 25. Somebody was at 50 and they settled at two. So Attorney McLean is back. Oh, Attorney McLean, please. And Mr. Chairman, just on the issue of the distance requirement, the former Alderman from Green Bay mentioned even in Green Bay, there are residential areas that are within where sex offenders can reside under their ordinance. I guess my concern would be from an enforcement standpoint if the intent is, and what I'm hearing so far, is to banish all sex offenders from the city limits of the city so that no residential areas are permitted. You can certainly do that, and we can see how it goes. But I think if that's going to be the focus, our ordinance is going to be a lot more subject to a tank than those that have some area within the city that permit sex offenders. So I would just provide that caution that while it's very palatable to say, basically, it's not a residency requirement. It's no sex offenders can live in the city limits unless you go to the appeal body. That's what, in effect, you're doing if you're adding in houses of worship or if you're expanding the residency distance. So what I think what you're saying is if we set it up so we blanket the whole city and leave no pockets, then we are more susceptible to a suit later on to someone who wants to locate here and says it's not fair. Yeah, or from the ACLU or from some national organization or state organization that might want to challenge it. So this body, if we vote on this tonight, realize that we'll have this in place, and then we'll let the courts sort it out over time should we get a lawsuit like that. Alderman, oh, Alderman Wangeman, you've been blinking for a while, I apologize. Thank you. Are we then saying we're going to set up a board of review or a hearing panel or whatever you want to call it? That's part of the ordinance, and I believe it's Public Protection Safety. It's the Public Protection Safety Committee that will hear those appeals to people saying, and that's chaired by President Hanley. Alderman Gisha and I talked about this earlier, and I think maybe we need to point out that there are exceptions to this rule now. And that's why the provision was put in there, that Public Protection Safety Committee, and I'm sure these good people would like to know. Maybe Alderman Gisha could just point out what these exceptions are so that people understand that, as the Alderman from Green Bay described it, the Rumeo and the Julietts don't go down along with this. To try to accelerate, just because we're running low on time, there's a Halloween provision that says if you're a convicted sex offender, you can't participate in Halloween. It has to do with the 2,000 feet that we talked about, and we've added the language for place of worship. There's a fine, in addition to kind of showing up on law enforcement's radar, there's a fine, a monetary fine for those sex offenders if they choose to move in and get caught. There is the exception if they, oh if they were here before the time of this ordinance, so if they're one of those people, those red, blue dots you saw up on there, if they're living here already, they're exempt from this. If they're a minor and not required to register, they're exempt. If a school licensed daycare, any of these facilities are opened up after the date, what's that one about? If somebody opens up a daycare center in a spot where an existing sex offender organ lives. Okay, okay, so now there's another exception here, which again, in the literature, says helps a lot with this going underground. It says, if the residents that they want to move into is the primary residence of a person's parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, or children, provided that they establish their residence in Sheboygan at least two years before the offender wants to move here. So if that gives public protection and safety a reason to say this person has social support here, they have people who care about them and may help them reenter the community safely, that's something that public protection safety can take into consideration to allow them to move to town if they apply for a waiver. And then all that what makes this ordinance powerful is it is unlawful to rent a place. So landlords become, again, become accountable. If it's found that a landlord is renting to a convicted sex offender that is newly coming into Sheboygan, then they're accountable for monetary damages as well. It provides for the appeal that public protection and safety can hear the appeal and choose to grant that person the right to live here. I think those are the high points. Alderman Ryan, you're next. That was actually from the last time you turned my microphone off. Okay, okay, and then please, Mr. Vice President. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though we have to live with the ones that are already here, if they decide to move in the community, then they're covered. Is that correct? Correct. Right, so then they would have to, how would that work, Alderman Gischee? If they, let's say they were living on the south side, they wanted to move to the north side, how do we handle that? The map handles it. The map, yeah, the map. That would go through PPNS like anybody else moving into the community that PPNS would have to approve that place of residence. Okay, is that, is that as Dr.? Alderman Mayer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be clear on the motions that are being brought up here. We as a body cannot take any action. All we can do is a recommendation. Right, so just to be clear to the folks tonight, thank you, Alderman Mayer. What we are doing right now is voting on an amendment to include the church, a place of worship, which will expand it to the whole city. Then what we're gonna do is vote on whether we think that's a good idea. We can only recommend to the council, we can recommend to ourselves. We can't make a decision tonight, we can only make a recommendation to ourselves, which is an odd procedural, I know it's an odd procedural thing for you to think about, but it keeps us from doing something without having some more time to deliberate about it. So whatever happens to this tonight, it will be taken up next Monday, not October 6th, it'll be taken up the October 6th Common Council meeting. First vote is gonna be on the amendment. Right. And after that it's gonna be on the amendment. Correct, and Alderman Verhassell, did you want to make more discussion on the amendment? My question has been asked. Okay. To recommend an amendment. Right, so the first vote is on the amendment to include places of worship in the wording of the ordinance. All in favor, say aye. That was a friendly amendment and that was accepted by Bob. Is there any discussion on that? Give us more susceptible to the lawsuit and that 2000 feet covers the whole city. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 2000 covers and keeps us well under the radar. Okay, so if Alderman Heidemann feels strongly about that, how about we take it as a separate amendment? We keep the amendment separate. So this first amendment we'll be voting on. Is there any more discussion on the places of worship? Alderman Ryan. No, this isn't on the places of worship, it's on the 2500 feet. Okay, let's just dispose of the places of worship. So all in favor of adding the places of worship to the buffer zone. Okay, in that case we will do a roll call and Alderman Hanna, please. Aye means to add places of worship and blank at the city. Hyde. Aye. Rimflesh. Aye. Ryan. Aye. Valus. Aye. Deckard. Aye. Hanna. Meyer. Aye. Vanuwhill. Aye. Serb. Aye. Braz. Aye. Wonderman. Aye. Born. Aye. Gesher. Aye. 13-0. 13-0, amendment passes. Now before we move on to the ordinance itself, Alderman Heidemann, would you like to? I would like to. Okay, he's moved it. Is there a second? No, that's fair. Let's get it done tonight then. It's been, is there a second? Before? Second. Seconded by Alderman Verhasselt. Under discussion, Alderman Ryan. I don't see why we need to add an extra 500 square feet to make ourselves more open to possible legal action against us by getting excessive, when it actually accomplishes nothing. It does not cover any more than that map right there because the houses of worship cover the one little sliver that was left open. So why turn it into 2,500 square feet to stick out on the state radar like a bigger sore thumb? Alderman Heidemann? So then if you're asking people to next into the city and they don't want, and they don't come within that 2,000 feet, you're not going to protect them? I can't. If they're outside the... For a minor to 2,500 feet, I don't know if we're going as far as possible when we can to what to have somebody sue the city. If they're going to sue us for having the entire city covered, why not have the 2,500? I don't understand why not. Sorry, all the person in my are, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could we have Attorney McLean maybe come up and explain some of this? Attorney McLean, would that make us more, does the 2,500 make us automatically more susceptible? I think is the question, might we sail under the radar? Is this an avoidable thing that eventually we're going to get sued whether it's 2,000 or 2,500 and does the 2,500 accelerate that likelihood? Pure speculation, but I would say that going to 2,500 is like raising a red flag. Green Bay's got 2,000. Other communities in the state have 2,000. I'm not aware. Maybe there are other communities in Wisconsin that have 2,500. I'm not aware of any. Most are from 500 feet up to 2,000. Okay, all the member has a question. So you would be out in one extreme. Right, I guess I'm thinking that from the state level of the city of Sheboygan is tagged as nobody can live in that city because they pass an ordinance. Are they really going to look deeper into it? Say, well, no, they've got a 2,500 foot law versus a 2,000 foot law. The city's off limits. It's off limits, whether we have a 10,000 foot distance or a 1,000, if the city's off distances, is the state really going to dig deeper beyond that as to why we are? I guess my answer or response to that would be Alderman Verhassell is somebody is looking at the black and white, they see 2,000 feet. A lot of people aren't going to take the time to find out where the map is and look at the map. But if they say 2,000 feet, oh, that's what Green Bay is. That's what somebody else says. They see 2,500 feet. Maybe the net result is the same, but somebody says that's out of the mainstream. Does that raise a red flag with some enterprising young lawyer on the ACLU staff in Chicago? Yeah, I guess I'm looking, the end result is the same no matter the number. The city is going to be off limits. I'm just curious. Okay, Alderman Bourne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's no reason why this distance can't be revisited if someday we, Annex, Town of Wilson, or Town of Sheboygan, it always can be revisited. But for purposes right now, 2,000 feet is going to blank at the city. Alderman Ryan. Yes, when I said maybe people will want Annex because of our ordinance, I wasn't actually serious about that. I don't think it'll force them to Annex into the city, but I don't see any reason in putting in any overkill on this by doing 2,500, I think 2,000 conferences. Alderman Gysha. I've been studying this and writing this thing for a year, over a year, year and a half. Thank you, Bob. Bob remembers the conversation when we started talking about this. Like it or not, going above 2,000 feet does put us in some sort of jeopardy. It just does. If you read the volumes of legal reports from Iowa and 25 other states, it does stand out. So if we can accomplish everything and keep our checkbook closed for legal fees, I would certainly appreciate it based on my last year and a half worth of experience. Okay, and so we had a motion and a second. We need to vote on the 2,500 foot restriction. So we'll take a voice vote. Green Flesh, Ryan, Dope, Bob. No. Decker? No. Hannah? No. Maya? No. Vanderwill? No. Sir? No. Verhasen? Hi. Wondland? No. Born? No. Gysha? No. Heider? Aye. That would be 10, noes and three, yes. Okay, that amendment is defeated, but Alderman Hydeman reserves the right to bring that up again the night it comes to the council based on what he learns between now and then. So now we'll move on to the ordinance itself. Alderman? Please note. Okay, welcome. No. No. Okay, Alderman Gysha. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that general ordinance discussed this evening on behalf of the citizens and families of the city of Sheboygan be moved to the common council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Under discussion. Okay, I would just like to kind of bottle this up one more thing. What I think this thing accomplishes accomplishes three things. It says if they weren't from Sheboygan, the city of Sheboygan before they committed their crime, not just the county, but if they weren't from the city of Sheboygan before when they committed their crime, Madison, you can't send them here. Department of Corrections, you can't send them here. So it protects us that way. Since we, 70% of reoffences happen either in the home of the offender, a public place near the offender's home. 70% happen there. If those people aren't moving to our community, guess what, those homes and those places near their homes aren't in our community. That's the second thing it does. And then this is a statistic that didn't come up earlier, but about 20%, 17% of reoffences happen in the home of a girlfriend. Happen in the home of a girlfriend and happens, the assault happens on the children of these new girlfriends. So if these guys aren't moving back to our city and dating our women, that protects our grandchildren from these offenders. So there are three good reasons. Those are three reasons. I should maintain a little more neutrality. There are three, those are three reasons why you might choose to support this. Our friends from the DOC based on their learnings from other states have different opinions and our friend from Green Bay gave us his advice. Is there any other comment? Okay, hearing none, we'll take a voice vote on whether or not to recommend it to ourselves as the Common Council. Ryan. Aye. Val. Aye. Decker. Aye. Clionis. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Sarrick. Aye. Brahasen. Aye. Wagnerman. Aye. Born. Aye. Geshe. Aye. Heider. Aye. Rindflash. Aye. 14, yes. 14, aye, unanimous. The recommendation of the Common Council will be affirmative. And we appreciate everybody's participation. We have one more item on the agenda and that is to select for the Committee of the Whole. Our next date that is the non-pay plan has come up as an issue. And September 29th is the date. It's a fifth Monday, but it's the only time that it could be fit in. So is there any discussion on whether or not that is an appropriate content and an appropriate date for that? And to keep it from being just a free for all, what we'll do over the next week or so is work with the chairman of salary and grievances to make sure there's some sort of agenda for that night. Like Alderman Verhasselt, I know has a plan he'd like to bring up. I don't know if Alderman Zurich. What we're gonna do is have a planned agenda for who will present what that night. It's not just gonna be a show up and let's hash it out because salary and grievances kind of owed us that. And Alderman Boren, did you wanna? I think you've covered it. Okay, okay. So in lieu of any sort of recommendation from salary and grievances, it's gonna be up to us as a whole to try to sort out what our thoughts are on the pay plan. Any other comments before we close the evening out? I'd like everybody to join the finance committee meeting. Yeah, there's a very exciting finance committee meeting about to start down the hall. Thank you for your participation tonight and have a good evening. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second, all in favor? Aye. Good night.