Wisconsin Rapids council directs staff to draft residency and safety-zone sex-offender ordinance after DOC briefing

At a June meeting, the Wisconsin Rapids aldermen voted to direct staff to draft an ordinance combining residency restrictions and safety zones for certain sex offenders after a presentation from Department of Corrections (DOC) staff on registry rules, case counts and residence-assessment practices.

The DOC presentation, led by Dan Schrader, a registry supervisor, gave counts as of June 19: 27,776 registrants statewide (6,630 incarcerated; about 6,080 on active supervision; roughly 15,000 terminated), 331 registrants in Wood County and 160 registrants in Wisconsin Rapids (excluding persons incarcerated in the local jail). Schrader said 106 of those listed in the city had Wood County convictions and that his team recorded five non-compliant addresses and five people listed as homeless on the morning of the meeting. “An informed community is a safer community,” Schrader said, explaining the registry’s emphasis on public notification and offender accountability.

Melissa Vetort, corrections field supervisor for sex-offender units in Wood County, described the residence-assessment process used during intake and active supervision. She said agents perform drive-arounds, contact landlords and consider proximity to schools, parks and day-care centers when assessing whether a residence is appropriate. Vetort said assessments consider factors tied to the individual offense; while the department may evaluate proximity up to about 2,500 feet in some cases, a 1,500-foot rule of thumb is often used and mitigating factors can apply.

Both DOC staff warned that municipal residency bans can have unintended effects. Schrader and Vetort told council members that stricter residency restrictions sometimes increase non‑compliance and homelessness because some registrants avoid reporting addresses in restricted areas; they also repeated that the DOC does not have authority to enforce city ordinances. “We can counsel them and document it, but we do not have authority to enforce a municipal residency ordinance,” Schrader said. Local enforcement and ongoing monitoring, the DOC staff said, would fall to city police and staff.

City attorney Attorney Shell outlined drafting choices and legal considerations for a municipal ordinance, including how to define who is covered (for example, all registered sex offenders or only certain offenses), which locations to include as restricted (schools, parks, playgrounds, day-care centers, trails), distance thresholds (examples discussed ranged from several hundred feet to 2,500 feet, with 1,500 feet mentioned as common), grandfathering existing residents, exemption or appeal processes, and enforcement mechanisms. Shell noted practical steps such as GIS mapping to identify coverage gaps or overlaps and warned that courts, circuit injunctions, or nuisance actions could be required to remove a resident from a location contrary to ordinance terms.

Council members debated whether to adopt a residency ordinance, a safety-zone ordinance, or both. Several members cited Mequon and Macomb as comparative models; others urged staff to model proposed distances on city maps before finalizing language. One council member said he preferred focusing on offenses against children as a starting point; another suggested using the registered‑sex‑offender status as a simpler drafting criterion.

A council member moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance similar to the packet presented—with residency and safety-zone restrictions—and return it to the legislative committee for review; another seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. The council adjourned at 7:01 p.m.

What happens next: staff will draft ordinance language and GIS maps for council review and the item will return to the legislative committee for further consideration.