Council adopts rewritten residency restriction ordinance with 1,250-foot buffer; attorney warns on available-unit counts

The Franklin Common Council on Aug. 19 adopted an ordinance to repeal and recreate the municipal code section on residence restrictions for registered offenders, setting a 1,250-foot buffer between offenders’ residences and specified child-focused facilities and establishing a mayor-appointed three-member council appeal board.

City Attorney briefed the council on mapping updates completed after the last meeting; three parks had been added to the maps and staff recalculated the number of “available living units” under several buffer distances. The attorney presented computed percentages of available residential units at each tested distance: 1,250 feet resulted in about 19% of available units; 1,000 feet about 27%; 750 feet about 37%; and 500 feet about 49% of the city’s living units falling outside the restricted zones. The attorney reminded council members that legal challenges in other municipalities (including Hoffman v. Pleasant Prairie) have focused on whether an ordinance effectively banishes a person by leaving too few housing options.

The council discussed competing concerns: some members urged a shorter buffer to preserve available housing stock and reduce constitutional risk, while others said larger buffers are needed to protect children and schools. The city attorney said that, before mapping updates, he had recommended not exceeding 1,000 feet given constitutional considerations; after the additional parks were added, the attorney said the 1,250-foot map still left more available units than the thresholds that prompted invalidations elsewhere.

Council action: by roll call, the ordinance with a 1,250-foot restriction and a provision creating a three-member appeal board (members appointed by the mayor, suggested to be council members by seniority) passed 4–1–1 (four ayes, one no, one absent). The council also approved language to have the appeal board hear administrative appeals that would otherwise be heard in open council session.

Other procedural notes: the director of administration reminded council that the city’s prior ordinance had been found unenforceable in litigation and that the rewrite is intended to produce an enforceable local code. The city attorney noted that any choice of distance affects the percentage of available units and that council can revisit the ordinance later if the city’s land use or facilities change.

Ending note: councilors agreed the matter would remain subject to future review and emphasized that the new ordinance includes an administrative appeal path; the ordinance will be codified and the updated maps filed with city records.