RDA passes option for West Racine grocery store, restaurant and gas station

A crowd packed Monday's Redevelopment Authority meeting to see what would happen with Tom Tousis's request for an option to build a grocery store, restaurant and gas station in West Racine. His request passed on a unanimous voice vote. So many people packed the committee room Mayor John Dickert, left-foreground, stood for the discussion and vote.

A proposed grocery store in West Racine cleared the first of several hurdles Monday evening.

The Redevelopment Authority voted unanimously to grant developer Tom Tousis an option on land at the corner of Washington Avenue and West Boulevard to build the grocery store, along with a restaurant and gas pumps.

Tousis's request now heads to the full City Council on Jan. 5 for final approval on the option. It's a positive step forward for Tousis, but the approval process is far from over.

If the City Council finalizes the option, the city's Access Corridor Review committee and Plan Commission will review the specifics of Tousis's proposal. Both committees will take a close look at the project's layout, traffic impact and the overall fit in West Racine.

Monday's meeting went relatively smoothly for a project that's proven controversial in recent months. The meeting opened with RDA member Pete Karas asking the proceeding be held in open session. No one objected and the meeting proceeded with the understanding that it could go into a closed session, if needed.

Tousis and developer Ray Leffler sat at the table along with the RDA members and City Development Director Brian O'Connell. Mayor John Dickert, Aldermen Terry McCarthy, Aron Wisneski, Sandy Weidner and Mike Shields watched in the audience. Alderman Jim Spangenberg sits on the RDA.

There was little debate on the proposal and once Karas made a motion to accept Tousis' option, with Scott Terry seconding, the proposal passed on a unanimous voice vote with no further discussion.

Despite taking a step forward, Tousis's proposal is far from finalized. Along with passing city committee and the City Council, it needs to come back before the RDA to finalize a developer's agreement. Tousis must also secure a liquor license and financing for the $5 million project.

The option approved Monday by the RDA would sell RDA-owned land at Washington Avenue and West Boulevard to Tousis for $250,000. Tousis would receive $50,000 of mortgage relief every year for five years - or $250,000 - if he creates at least 24 jobs.

Leffler, a prominent local developer who is working with Tousis, said the project would create more than 24 jobs.

"We want to over-deliver, which is what our intention is," Leffler told the RDA.

Special meeting set on proposed West Racine grocery store

The city's Redevelopment Authority is scheduled to meet in closed session Monday at 4 p.m. to discuss the proposed grocery store with gas pumps in West Racine.

Tom Tousis's proposal for the corner of Washington Avenue and West Boulevard is the only item on the agenda for the RDA's special meeting. Tousis wants to build a $5 million grocery store and restaurant with gas pumps on the vacant site.

Tousis needs the RDA to agree to sell him the land to move forward with the city approval process. He's run into resistance from a group led by Alderman Jim Spangenberg, who opposes the gas pumps.

The meeting's first vote likely will be an effort by RDA members Pete Karas and Scott Terry to hold discussion of Tousis' option in open session. Two meetings ago the RDA voted 4-3 against discussing the proposal in open session. Robert Ledvina joined Karas and Terry in trying to prevent the closed session. John Crimmings, Cory Mason, David Lange and Spangenberg voted to close the meeting to the public.

It's unclear if the RDA will take action on Tousis' proposal Monday. If they vote to approve Tousis's option, the City Council will not consider the proposal at its meeting on Tuesday. Instead, it will be put off until the council's Jan. 5 meeting.

Spangenberg laid out his objections to Tousis's project (including objecting to Tousis supporters' tactics) in a commentary that appeared in The Journal Times on Thursday. In the commentary, Spangenberg said he supports a grocery store and sitdown restaurant (with a liquor license to serve beer and wine) and even suggested some wiggle room on the gas station. Instead of outright rejecting the idea, Spangenberg suggested he could support a well-designed gas station on the site, writing:

The gas station would need to be a new urban design. This means the gas station does not look like a gas station but fits in with the business district and neighborhood.

Many of Spangenberg's concerns, such as too much traffic at the intersection, are issues that would be discussed by the city's Plan Commission and Access Corridor Development Review committee. But Tousis's proposal has not reached that stage because the RDA needs to decide if it wants to sell the land for the project.

Tousis offered to buy the land for $250,000 with a forgivable mortgage of $50,000 for five years if he creates at least 24 jobs. It's unclear if the city will make a counter-offer or simply accept or reject the proposal. Monday's meeting should answer that question.

'Raytown Roadhouse' gets liquor license approved; Two others turned down

Public Safety and Licensing Committee Monday night.

Yeehaw, Racine! You're a step closer to getting a country-western bar.

The City Council's Public Safety and Licensing Committee voted unanimously Monday night to grant the "Raytown Roadhouse," 522 Sixth St., an alcohol license. The new bar and restaurant will have a country-western theme featuring live music, a steakhouse and a mechanical bull.

The "Raytown Roadhouse" is the creation of Jim Spodick and Pete Karas, who got the idea for the restaurant and bar walking around 7 Mile Fair. They noticed people drawn to a country music singer and realized there's an untapped market not only in Racine, but southeastern Wisconsin.

The new bar and restaurant is a career change for Karas and Spodick. Karas ran for mayor earlier this year, served on the City Council and used to sell insurance. Spodick opened the Historic Century Market at 522 Sixth St. and has hosted a number of businesses on Sixth Street, but he's still looking for a knockout success.

The same night the committee approved a liquor license for the Raytown Roadhouse, it rejected two other requests.

Tommy Daniels' bid to reopen a bar in the former "Cash Money's" at 901 S. Memorial Drive failed on a 3-1 vote with Alderman Jim Kaplan the lone member to support giving Daniels a license. Alderman Robert Mozol argued against the license, noting a murder occurred outside of the bar when it was open, but few, if any, incidents have been reported since it closed.

Kaplan supported the license because Daniels agreed to a series of security measures for the new business. But the video cameras, extra security and other provisions Daniels agreed to were not enough to convince Mozol and aldermen Sandy Weidner and David Maack.

Alderman Mike Shields, whose district includes the proposed bar, spoke in favor of the license. That leaves the vote total at 3-2 against heading into the next City Council meeting, where the license likely will be debated.

The committee also rejected Dwight Mosby's application for a liquor license at 1846 Mead St. Mosby wanted to open a bar that would be affiliated with the adjacent Prince Hall on Mead Street. He planned to limit the bar to patrons 25 and older.

Alderman Bob Anderson, whose district includes the proposed site, spoke against the license. He said neighbors strongly opposed the tavern. "Everybody said, 'Absolutely not,'" Anderson said.

Mosby's application now goes to the City Council for a final vote up or down.

DA won't charge mayor, aldermen for secret meeting violation

District Attorney Mike Nieskes will not pursue a violation of the open meetings law against Mayor John Dickert, City Attorney Rob Weber and five members of the Racine City Council.

In a letter (full text below) to Pete Karas, who filed the complaint with the DA's office, Nieskes rejected Karas' arguments and criticized him for bringing the alleged violation to the attention of the media.

... when we met for the first time on August 5, 2009, you indicated to me that you had already been to the media at that time. This caused me to question your statement that you were interested in open and informed government. If you were truly interested in that process, I believe you should at the minimum give law enforcement the opportunity to review those matters prior to giving an interview to the press.

Karas said Monday he was disappointed, but not surprised, by Nieskes' ruling.

"I had a feeling the DA wouldn't do his duty to defend open government," he said. "... it certainly appears his decision not to go forward was a political decision."

(Read the JT's version of the story here.)

With Nieskes declining to pursue charges, Karas is now allowed to file his complaint directly with a Racine County judge. Karas said he met with an attorney who specializes in open meetings cases and is considering his options. He also intends to monitor city government for further violations.

Karas' complaint dates back to a July 7 meeting of the city's Executive Committee, which met in closed session to discuss City Administrator Tom Friedel's contract. The committee gave public notice of the meeting less than 24 hours in advance of the start time, held a quorum of the full City Council and gave no specifics about what would be discussed at the meeting.

City officials defended the meeting saying they could call an "emergency meeting" to discuss Friedel's contract, which allowed them to bypass the requirement for 24-hour notice of a public meeting.

Nieskes dismissed the quorum argument without addressing the fact that enough members of the council attended the Executive Committee meeting for it, basically, to be considered a City Council meeting. He simply said the Executive Committee and City Council, which met right after the committee meeting, were separate bodies. State law forbids the City Council from meeting twice within 12 hours.

As for notification, Nieskes said the city didn't need to give specifics about what would be discussed the meeting. Nieskes wrote in his letter that Dickert didn't want media to attend because "no final decision had been made as to who was chosen for the job." Dickert announced he had chosen Friedel for the job on June 25 - nearly two weeks before the July 7 meeting.

The ironic aspect of this issue is the meeting backfired on Dickert. The new mayor hoped to build consensus on the issue before the council's vote on Friedel's contract, but questions still emerged from the secret meeting.

Alderman Jeff Coe, feeling trapped by the council's rules, took the unusual step on July 22 using the council's public comment period to suggest the committee had agreed to pay Friedel $85,000 per year, only to later learn (after the vote) that Friedel was making $95,000 per year.

If Dickert and the council had simply met in open session, hashed out a deal and moved forward, none of this confusion would have happened. It's much easier to govern in the sunshine than in the shadows.

Here's Nieskes' full letter:


August 26, 2009
Mr. Pete Karas
821 Blame Avenue
Racine, WI 53405


Dear Sir:
On August 6, 2009, you filed a complaint under the Open Meeting statute 19.84, regarding the Public Notice of Meetings of Governmental bodies. Your allegations were
that a meeting of the Executive Committee on July 7, 2009, in the City of Racine, was in violation of those statutes and asked that a portion of the individuals attending the meeting be held responsible and a forfeiture action to recover a penalty against them be initiated. You had come to this office on the previous day, had a discussion with me regarding the complaint; when various errors in the complaint were pointed out, you were asked whether or not you wanted an investigation to begin or wait until you filed a complaint. You indicated you would be filing a complaint in the future. I informed you that I would begin my legal review of the materials promptly. That afternoon there were conversations with a lawyer from the Attorney General’s staff. We reviewed specifically the provisions of Chapter 19.84(3) which require notice of any governmental body be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of said meeting unless for good cause, such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case a shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice of the meeting be provided in less than 2 hours in advance of
the meeting.

The next day, I requested that an investigator from the Sheriff’s Department review these matters and conduct an investigation. Later that day, the verified complaint was received at my office with the corrections that we discussed being included.
The following is my accurate summary of the matter:

On July 6, 2009, Mayor John Dickert asked his Administrative Assistant Greg Bach to
notify aldermen if they had questions about the issue of appointment of the City
Administrator that he would be in his office at 5:30 until 7:00 p.m. on July 7th to discuss this matter.

At approximately 4:58 p.m. on that day, Mr. Bach sent an email to the aldermen indicating there would be a “meeting” in the Mayor’s office.

Mayor Dickert states that he had discussed the matter with the City Attorney. Mayor Dickert said City Attorney Weber advised the meeting needed to be noticed and there
was a discussion about the meeting being closed. Mayor Dickert, when interviewed by
the investigator stated that he wanted to include the aldermen in the process of electing a new city administrator but did not have to and desired to have their input. He stated he also did not want the media at the meeting as no final decision had been made as to who was chosen for the job and therefore asked for the meeting to be closed.

Alderman David Maack responded at approximately 9:48 p.m., on July 6, 2009, that given the nature of Greg Bach’s email that this meeting needed to be noticed.

City Attorney Rob Weber states, based on David Maack’s email that on July 7, 2009, at 8:58 p.m., he informed the Deputy Clerk to notice the meeting to be as a closed meeting of the Executive Council beginning at 5:30. The purpose of being in closed session was to discuss a personnel matter, an exemption under the statute for having a meeting in closed session.

A meeting was held of the Executive Council of which a number of members of the City Council attended including the Mayor. The meeting was in closed session.

Mr. Karas, you complain about three violations. First, is that it was improperly posted as an emergency meeting. Under Wis. Stats. Chapter 19, there is no use of the phrase “emergency meeting.” Under 19.84(3), a partial quote reads: “Unless for good cause, such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”

Here it appears that when the oversight was determined based upon the email of Alderperson Maack, the meeting was noticed at that point, it was impossible to give it notice of 24 hours or greater, and still held the meeting. In my review with the Assistant Attorney General, there is no Wisconsin case law or opinions by the Attorney General on the definition of this portion of the statute regarding impractical and impossible, nor is there any definitions of what qualifies it as an emergency. While the better practice would have been to postpone the discussion until a point where the 24-hour notice could have been given, inasmuch as the Mayor and members of the City Council were acting upon the advice of counsel in how to handle this matter at that point, I cannot believe that a forfeiture matter would prevail. The lack of direction by prior case law, by opinions of the Attorney General, and the fact that the individuals’ counsel was consulted and determined the course of action, demonstrates that all the individuals acted in good faith in holding of the meeting.

Therefore, it is the determination of the District Attorney’s Office that there is no action that lies on this issue.

Your next complaint is that violation does not properly notice the discussion. As I stated previously, it is an exemption from the Open Meetings portion of the statute that personnel matters can be discussed in closed sessions pursuant to Chapter 19.85(1 )(c). I believe the description that is found in the minutes posted albeit before 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the meeting on July 7, 2009, accurately described the subject matter. The subject matter is, “It is intended the Executive Committee will convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stat. Sec. 19. 85(1)(c) to consider the employment compensation of the public employee over which the common Council has jurisdiction or exercise ability.” By my reading and my review with the Assistant Attorney General, that is an adequate notification. To have further information would erase the allowable purpose of closed session matters. Therefore, I cannot find there was a violation of the Open Meetings statute pursuant to that matter.

The final complaint is the two meetings were one body within 12 hours. If the argument is that these are actually one meeting of the Common Council occurring in closed and open sessions of each other, I find that that allegation has no basis in fact. These are two separate meetings of two separate bodies. The fact the bodies have overlapping members do not make it a meeting of one body.

Based on my review and findings, there is no basis for a prosecution for a forfeiture
action against any of the individuals and none will be filed by this office. In addition, I feel I must comment on two matters regarding this complaint. First, as the complainant you have acknowledged to me that you knew of other individuals who attended your alleged improper meeting, but you were electing not to file a complaint against them. I am somewhat disappointed that you would pick and choose only certain attendees to pursue any action against. I don’t know the basis for your selective complaint, but I do not believe it would be an appropriate action if this office had engaged in the same sort of behavior. Second, is my disappointment that when we met for the first time on August 5, 2009, you indicated to me that you had already been to the media at that time. This caused me to question your statement that you were interested in open and informed government. If you were truly interested in that process, I believe you should at the minimum give law enforcement the opportunity to review those matters prior to giving an interview to the press. While a review by the press is an important component to an open government with an informed electorate, I believe these actions call into question your actual motives.

Sincerely,


MICHAEL E. NIESKES
Racine County District Attorney

cc
John Dickert, Mayor, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI 53403
Greg Helding, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI
53403
Aron Wisneski, Alderperson, City of Racine, City HaIl, 730 Washington Ave., Racine,
WI
Sandy Weidner, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine,
WI 53403
James Spangenberg, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave.,
Racine, WI 53403
Rob Weber, City Attorney, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI 53403

Karas alleges council, mayor illegally discussed Friedel's contract

Update: Karas filed the complaint this afternoon with DA Mike Nieskes. He asserts the July 7 executive committee meeting was not properly noticed. He also noted the City Council itself may have had a quorem (at least eight aldermen) at the meeting, which itself could be illegal because that wasn't officially noticed.

We talked with Alderman Greg Helding, who said the complaint had no merit. The meeting was officially noticed and the committee had "good cause" to hold an emergency session. He added that the state has never defined "good cause," so Karas would need a court to determine what that means. "He can take me all the way to the Supreme Court on that," Helding said.

Helding, who is named in Karas' complaint, also said the meeting clearly wasn't held with bad intent. If the council wanted to hold a secret meeting it would have done a better job, he reasoned. The fact that Alderman Maack asked if the meeting needed to be noticed was a sign the council was aware of the law it had to follow.

And, the meeting was open to all aldermen because it's against the law for the city to ban City Council members from committee meetings, even if they're in closed session.

Interestingly, Karas filed another records request today to determine who actually attended the meeting. He was sent minutes from the City Attorney's office, which you can read here. They differ from the minutes that were posted in Legistar as of this morning, which you can read here.

Original post:

Pete Karas is set to file a complaint with the District Attorney's office regarding the July 7 Executive Committee where City Council members and Mayor John Dickert discussed new City Administrator Tom Friedel's contract.

Karas, a former alderman and mayoral candidate, is alleging the committee illegally called an "emergency meeting" to discuss Friedel's contract before the regularly scheduled July 7 City Council meeting. The meeting was held in closed session and vaguely noticed. Following the meeting, where council members reached an agreement on important aspects of Friedel's contract, the council voted to hire Friedel.

The Executive Committee is chaired by Dickert and is made up of the City Council's committee chairmen, City Council president and an at-large member. Current members include: Dickert and Aldermen Q.A. Shakoor, Sandy Weidner, Greg Helding, Aron Wisneski and Jim Spangenberg.

Along with the committee members, other aldermen were in attendance including Alderman Jeff Coe, who recently blasted the mayor and council for approving Friedel's contract without seeing the final document. Coe said he would not have voted for the contract if he had known in advance Friedel was going to make $95,000 per year.

Karas' claim is the meeting was illegal because the committee had no grounds to call an emergency meeting, which is reserved for extreme circumstances that demand a meeting without the customary 24-hour notice. The Attorney General's office has ruled that "inconvenience" is not a justifiable reason to call an emergency meeting.

The meeting is also questionable because enough City Council members attended the meeting to require an official meeting notice of the council. No such notice was filed. RacinePost earlier reported at least 10 people were in the meeting, though it's unclear how many aldermen actually attended. The entire City Council was invited.

The Executive Committee meeting was held July 7 for council members to reach agreement on Friedel's contract without sending the document to a regular council committee. (In 2007, the Personnel and Finance Committee reviewed the contract for former City Administrator Ben Hughes before the full council voted on it.)

Greg Bach, Dickert's assistant, announced the meeting by email on Monday, July 6 p.m., but the meeting wasn't noticed by City Attorney Rob Weber until Tuesday, July 7, according to records obtained by Karas through the Wisconsin Open Records Law.

After Bach called the meeting, Alderman David Maack emailed him asking if the meeting was properly posted and said he was concerned it could be viewed as an illegal meeting, according to the records obtained by Karas.

Bach then emailed City Attorney Rob Weber, but the city redacted the entire email citing attorney/client privilege, according to records obtained by Karas.

"Representative democracy can only work in the sunshine," said Karas, who is pursuing the complaint over concerns with how city government has been holding meetings in recent months. He called the Executive Committee's emergency meeting a "red flag."

"I thought when the Gary Becker administration left office this would end, but apparently it hasn't," Karas said.

Karas added the complaint was not personally directed at the mayor or any of the alderman. "It's only procedural," he said.

If found guilty of an illegal meeting, committee members can be fined between $25 and $300. A judge could also, in theory, void Friedel's contract for holding illegal discussions.

The Executive Committee has met three times this year. On Feb. 16 the committee met to discuss a legal issue and city personnel data. On Jan. 20, the committee was scheduled to meet to discuss removing former Mayor Gary Becker from office.

Jameel Ghuari endorses Pete Karas for mayor

Al Haj Jameel Ghuari announced today that he endorses Pete Karas for mayor.

"I’ve looked at each candidacy in some detail. I know Pete is the best choice for Racine," Ghuari said.

When asked how he will field questions from among the African American leadership and a community who have been described by some pundits to be divided among three African American candidates, Ghuari stated, "I am moved by spirit and principle, and not by ethnicity or any other surface attributes. Pete Karas is best suited to bring what is best for Racine because he is a man of principle and vision. He’ll be a Mayor who will finally bring transparency and accountability to City Hall."

Ghuari said he has no qualms about dealing with the possible attacks against him for this choice.

"This isn’t about me," he said. "It’s about what I believe is best for the City of Racine. Pete Karas is my choice."

Ghuari is a former candidate for the Racine City Council. He is also executive director of the Bray Center, a nonprofit social service organization in Racine's central city.

Karas on YouTube

Pete Karas is the first mayoral campaign to release a video on YouTube. Here he advocates for public power and Racinians supporting Racine-owned businesses.

Local Green Karas volunteers for New Orleans Congressional candidate

Karas and Malik

Former Alderman Pete Karas emailed a report from New Orleans about a Congressional election that was pushed back to Dec. 6 because of Hurricane Gustav. Karas, a member of the Green Party, is supporting Malik Rahim's bid to unseat (allegedly) corrupt Democratic House member William Jefferson.

Rahim is something of legend in New Orleans. He stayed through Hurricane Katrina and is credited with on-the-ground organizing in the aftermath of the devastation. He opened the first free health clinic in New Orleans, helped thousands of people back into their homes and worked to re-open schools.

Greens like Karas from around the country are targeting the seat in hopes of winning their first Congressional office. They hope Jefferson's corruption troubles (the Republican candidate apparently doesn't stand a chance in the district) push people Malik's way.

Here's Karas' report from New Orleans:

It’s an interesting race. “Dollar Bill” Jefferson is not to be seen. He apparently thinks he has it in the bag. The Republican is visible, but has very little support in this district. I’m seeing true excitement surrounding Malik’s campaign. He is being supported both with dollars and people from not only here, but also from around the country.

It is a very grassroots campaign. There are many people on the street working for him. Radio ads are running. There are even three billboards in prominent locations. Signs are popping up all over town. There is a real feeling that this is a winnable race.

I’ve been canvassing at the doors and talking with people. One of the challenges is to remind people there is an election on Saturday and get them to the polls. I have not talked to one person who had anything nice to say about “Dollar Bill.” And most everyone seems to know who Malik is.