Village of Lomira Sexual Offender Residence Restrictions Reconsidered

Police Sergeant Counard’s realization of possible legal repercussions from the current sexual offender residency restrictions, findings, and intent ordinance led to the Village of Lomira Rules & Parks Committee’s discussion of proposed ordinance changes at its meeting on Wednesday, April 9.
“What started this was within two weeks, I had two people call me. They said they were registered sex offenders asking where they could live because they wanted to do it the right way. They didn’t want to move in, and all of a sudden, we have problems, which led me to look deeper into the ordinance as far as restrictions for where they could reside,” explained Sergeant Counard.
The ordinance presently restricts registered sexual offenders from living within 1,500 feet of schools; parks; playgrounds; childcare centers, programs or providers; or the library. They also are not allowed to live in the village if they did not already have established residency there when the offense occurred.
“Basically, that a sex offender could live here if their offense was committed here. If it wasn’t committed here, they couldn’t. That is something that other communities have as well. The problem with that is if every community does that, then a person can only live in one place in the United States,” said Sergeant Counard. “I got a hold of [the village attorney,] Rick Manthey, and explained the situation to him. He looked at it, and he agreed that this could wind up with the village getting sued.”
Multiple ordinance amendments were drafted, reducing the restricted area to 1,000 and, later, 500 feet for the attorney to review.

“We brought that to him, and he said that’s still too restrictive. That’s not going to pass if it gets taken to court,” stated Sergeant Counard.
After dropping the area restriction to 350 feet, Manthey believed the ordinance could pass in court.
“My goal is to try to keep the village out of expensive litigation and try to satisfy at least some portion of this so that there is a place for sex offenders to move if they choose to so that they can actually be far enough away from where kids will be. And not all sex offenders are after children either,” Sergeant Counard explained. “This is the best we could come up with with the way the laws are written and the ways courts are ruling.”
“The question I have is: what are the consequences if we don’t change it?” inquired Trustee Gary More. “Yes, it would cost us something to defend ourselves. What happens then? Do we end up having to change our ordinance at that point?”
“You would definitely have to change it that point, but then again, on the flip side of that, there could also be a civil rights violation, and you could end up in civil court. It could cost you a fortune in liability, not just the one-two hundred thousand in attorneys fees. The civil part of it is where you really get hit,” answered Sergeant Counard. “I know it’s not the best thing in the world. I know a lot of people, including myself, worry about sex offenders. I worry about that, too, with kids in the area, and I worry about that with my own family.”
“It’s not just kids either,” added Trustee More. “Also, the possibilities of bringing a general offense along with it, not just reoffending as a sexual offender. The [reoffence] incidents seem to be higher with general offenses as opposed to sexual offenses as well.”
Sergeant Counard explained to the committee that the ordinance would only apply to sex offenders who are no longer under mandated supervision.
“It’s after they’ve been out for a while, and they’ve been able to stay clean,” stated Sergeant Counard.
“The trend for reoffending goes up as the time goes out, though,” responded Trustee More. “That’s the big issue there... I don’t want to discriminate against people who have served their time and have availability to the village. We will give them a fair shot, but I’m trying to make it so that other people who currently operate in the village feel safe and comfortable. Three hundred fifty, to me, is a little thin.”
The committee’s conversation shifted to generating ideas on how to keep the ordinance more restrictive while making it defensible in court.
“So, at 1,500 feet, currently, we are probably one of the most restrictive municipalities in our area?” asked Trustee Jennifer Priesgen. “Gut feeling, I don’t want to loosen the restrictions. I don’t want costly litigation. I would love to see a map with like 1,000 feet.”
“1,000 didn’t really do anything,” answered Sergeant Counard. “The problem is with the size of the village. There’s a lot of parks, a lot of playgrounds, when you look at the square footage. That really limits available housing. A lot of these people are looking at rental units, which makes it even harder. Granted, it’s their issue if they can’t afford to buy a house.”
Trustee Eric Kohlmann provided the committee and other present board members with a handout comparing residence restrictions from neighboring municipalities’ ordinances.
“Theresa is 1,000, Mayville is 1,200 feet, Fond du Lac is 500 or 1,000...Ashippun 1,500, Hustiford is 1,000, Town of Lomira is 1,000, Slinger is 1,000,” listed Trustee Kohlman. “My biggest concern, regardless of all of this, is if you make us 350 feet, you might as well put a bulletin out on the highway saying, ‘Sex offenders, having an issue finding a location to live? We have the most relaxed ordinance in the area.’”
“I’m not advocating for less restrictions,” said Trustee Priesgen. “It’s kind of a situation where I guess, in my mind, I’m leaning towards being willing to take the chance on being sued and see what happens if that happens.”
Based on the information provided by Trustee Kohlmann, the defensibility of changing the ordinance to 1,000 feet appeared to increase, sparking further consideration.
Sergeant Counard stated, “If you did that drop to 1,000, you would be more in tune with other local municipalities, so they couldn’t use that against you.”
“If we matched the area and said we’re following the area. I mean, 1,000 feet probably wouldn’t open up much more,” said Trustee Kohlmann.
“I’m just thinking about defensible. If you’re actually giving them a place to live in the village, I think that would be defensible,” added Trustee More. “If you gave them possibilities, granted only 5% or 10% would be small, but if there was a percentage of the village that was available, at that point, it would be defendable because it’s available.”
The committee also discussed alternative amendments that would allow for the continuance of stricter residency restrictions.
“What’s your opinion on keeping it on the stricter side but then adding an appeals process in?” Trustee Kohlmann asked Sergeant Counard. “Based on what I’ve researched, there are municipalities that have created residency review committees.”
“You’d have to have something in writing that shows what you would and would not allow,” Sergeant Counard answered. “That would be another difficult task to put together.”
“Obviously, the review process has to strictly state that it’s not based on the offense because I know that was a big deal,” added Trustee Kohlmann. “You can’t look at their offense and make the decision based on that, so it would have to be a list of other things.”
The sexual offender residency restrictions, findings, and intent ordinance was a discussion topic on the agenda, so no action could be taken during the meeting to make changes. The Rules & Parks Committee will continue to discuss possibilities in future meetings.
Committee Matters:
• The committee discussed allowing private events to be held at the Lomira Pool after operating hours. To host events, rental of the pool space would be required at least one week in advance and subject to staffing availability. Trustee Priesgen will contact the Dodge County YMCA to discuss creating a contract and waiver.
• The committee also considered creating or changing village impact fees. The village currently charges two impact fees: a $1,200 sewer impact fee for new construction homes and a $200 park development fee charged to developers of new multifamily units per unit. Creating or changing impact fees would require a study. The committee decided to do more research before continuing discussion.