Hello, Neighbors. Thanks for tuning in for this quick note on this Fifth Week in City of Appleton government.
In case you aren’t already aware, the city’s business calendar works on a first/third and second/fourth schedule where Full Council Weeks are the first and third of the month (with the meeting scheduled for the first Wednesday of a month) and Committee Meeting Weeks are the second and fourth weeks of the month. So sometimes — like in this month of April 2025 — there ends up being an extra week in there where we are all awaiting the first Wednesday of the next month for a next Full Council Week.
The TLDR version is: It’s Fifth Week so there are no city government meetings scheduled this week.
But if you’ve followed along on this blog for a while, you know that sometimes some special committee does schedule a meeting on Fifth Week… just to mess up the “no meetings on Fifth Week” thing I just mentioned.
That’s not the case this week, though. The meetings schedule is perfectly blank. As such, I was planning to keep this week’s alderman blog post a short one (though you might not have guessed that by the preceding four-paragraph-long explanation of Fifth Week).
I want to briefly mention a couple of items which have come up quite a few times in the last few weeks and give you an update on the latest status of these items after last week’s committee revisiting of both:
- The “special consideration” request to move $20,000+ from some under-budget items in 2024 to a “wayfinding signage” pot of money for City Hall now that the new Fox Commons (formerly the Avenue Mall in downtown Appleton) is opening: The combined businesses in the former mall — which are all tangentially connected via some indoors hallways and such — are jointly proposing to split the bill on combined signage for all of their spaces in the City Hall/Building for Kids/Fox Commons buildings. The Finance Committee heard more about what discussions have thus far taken place in this regard and it turns out that the city currently has no real idea what their share of this joint signage is projected to be. It could be as much as the full $20,000 available in this “special considerations” ask but it could be far less than that.I find it ridiculous that this item is before us without those specifics. I would have voted “no” (again) on this item for the simple fact that it is too costly. But when it was announced that there is as yet no real projected cost on the signage as yet…. oof! The committee (including your alderman) voted to allow the funds to be carried over from 2024 and held to possibly be used for this signage with the condition that city staff will need to bring the item — with full cost information — back to a committee for a final decision when the real numbers are available.For me, the “no” vote will come if the city’s real projected cost is to be at or near the $20,000 mark. But it could be a “yes” vote for me if the numbers are substantially lower. The point is (another TLDR) we just won’t know until we have the real cost to evaluate it so we’re basically holding it open for now.
- The “special consideration” request to move $100,000+ from a 2024 under-budget park pavilion roof project to pay a consultant to create a “climate action plan” for the city. I have mentioned this over and over again (with posts here, here, here, and here) in the last few weeks. And you’ll note that each time, my opinion has not changed despite more information provided to common council members each time it’s brought up.This last week during the Finance Committee meeting, committee members were told that this consultancy and plan were needed because the Director of Parks and Recreation and Facilities feels as though he is “in a rowboat without an oar” in terms of leading the city in sustainability measures. I do not concur with this as the city continues to move forward incrementally and appropriately in sustainability and energy conservation measures. Staff in all city departments are aware of the city’s goals of energy and cost savings and are tasked with doing so as much as they are capable. This city’s common council has granted wide latitude on this with taxpayer funding for many sustainability projects throughout the city and will likely continue to do so. So this “boat without an oar” excuse is not one acceptable enough for this kind of consultancy spend at this time.It was also noted at this meeting that there really is no directive (scope of work) prepared to seek this consultancy. In other words, there are as yet no defined parameters/guidelines set for this consultancy request. It is as if the city just has these (borrowed!) funds available, so folks seem to desperately need to find a way to spend them. I believe that city staff need to go back to the drawing board and really hone a truly clear and concise request for what exactly would be expected of a consultant in developing any sort of “climate action plan,” add whatever logical pricing that might require to their operating budget for the next year (i.e. make a plan to not use borrowed funds), and allow robust discussion on the part of all of the council members of this more refined plan at city budget time.My answer will likely still be “no” at that time. But at least it wouldn’t be this rushed, haphazard, unclear, undefined request to use this large amount of borrowed funds immediately. This is no way to operate a truly fiscally responsible municipal government. Do you agree? What are your thoughts on this? Please make them known as there are many aldermen on this common council who are ready to take this leap to spend these borrowed funds wildly in this undefined “plan” simply because the words “climate action” are attached to the request.
The above two items — with committee votes of “yes – contingent on more information needed on the signage” and “no” on the consultancy for a “climate action plan” — will come up for a full council vote next week. (The Common Council will meet and vote on these on Wednesday, 05/07/2025, in City Hall. You can make your voice heard regarding these two items during this meeting or by emailing me or all of the council members.)
Well…. it turns out that “brief” was a poor headline for this blog post. I’m glad that you stuck with it this long, though. Assuming you’re still reading at this point… thank you! If you have any questions on the items above or anything else city-government-related, please reach out to me. I’m here to listen and help in any way that I can.
Have a great last few days of April 2025! See you back here again soon.
