Hello, Neighbors! It is again a Full Council Week in City of Appleton government. And this week, there is one other meeting scheduled as well. The planned Wednesday, 02/07/2024, meeting of the Appleton Public Arts Committee has been cancelled due to lack of agenda items but the Personnel and Policy Subcommittee of the Library Board will be meeting on that day at 3:30pm. Their only action item for the day is to “establish library director’s 2024 performance goals.”
Later that day…
Wednesday, 02/07/2024
City of Appleton Common Council – 7pm After a Fifth Week hiatus, the full council will get together to hash out final votes on a few very important items that have been mentioned in this alderman blog the last couple of weeks.
The mayor will get the ball rolling with three proclamations — proclamations are apparently back in season! — and a recommendation for a new Utilities Director for the city. The mayor recommends (and the council will very likely unanimously approve) the city’s Utilities Deputy Director, Chris Stempa. I support this recommendation as Mr. Stempa has been an excellent interim director, is highly qualified, and has many years of experience with the City of Appleton’s water and wastewater systems. Representatives of the Appleton Fire Department will also perform a “Stop the Bleed” demonstration for the council and those members of the public present before we get to council action items.
There are no public hearings scheduled for this meeting but, as always, there is public comment time available during the meeting. So if you have strong feelings in regards to any of the items mentioned below (or anything else on the agenda), please do attend this meeting and speak to council members before our votes are taken on any of these items! Let me know if you need directions to City Hall or the council chambers or, if you can’t make it, please let me know your thoughts so that I might share them with other council members during our discussions.
Here are the items which will likely garner the most discussion:
- From the Municipal Service Committee: In order to curb the public urination and other types of destruction to the city’s parking ramps, there is a request on the table for increased ramp security in 2024. At a price of $57,000, this is likely a relatively inexpensive “solution” for the problems that the city is encountering in the parking ramps. But wouldn’t it be great if taxpayers would not have to pay for the salaries of security guards whose main job is to try to keep people from using the elevator and stairways in the parking ramps as public toilets and places in which to start small fires? Wouldn’t it be great if the city could explore other options to better manage this issue and the many others (including the continually “in the red” bottom line) that the city has with these ramps? Let me know your thoughts. Please also see below as to why I believe we should support the original version of the resolution for a comprehensive parking utilities study.
- From the Parks and Recreation Committee: The $71,500 proposed contract for design and engineering of a park pavilion at Lundgaard Park is on the table for approval. While I am taken aback by this dollar figure (as you, too, might be!), I have been advised by city staff that this is a reasonable fee for all of the things that are expected for a design and engineering package for a park pavilion. The Director of Parks and Recreation, Dean Gazza, has expressed that this package is not just for something as simple as a rough sketch of how a small shelter should look but rather all of the plans for a large pavilion which also includes plumbing, electrical, structural engineering and the drawings/design paperwork required by the city for proper permitting. Isn’t it ironic that the city’s requirements for permits are so extensive that it will require this large a contract for the design and engineering of a park pavilion and will cost taxpayers this much? What are your thoughts?
- From the Finance Committee: As I mentioned last week, there is a resolution on the table for the acceptance of some energy efficiency grant funds for the library project. I am not opposed to this initiative as the grant funds would be a welcome offset to the public/taxpayer funding allotted for this project; but I am vehemently opposed to the use of these funds to increase the scope of the library project essentially attributing these grant funds to the project without lowering the taxpayer burden for the library project as a whole. I believe that it needs to be very clearly stated in this resolution that the acceptance of these grant funds to the city’s library project cannot increase the scope of the library construction project or allow for any add-ons that weren’t already a part of the library project as it was approved by a majority of the council members (excluding your alderman due to the lack of surety of the private funding that is required and is still well short of the $12M required) before real construction began. It would be a breaking of a promise to taxpayers of this city to use these funds and the full $26.4M promised maximum Appleton taxpayer contribution to this project. Taxpayers should see these grant funds as relief to the full taxpayer burden of this project. As such, I will not vote to approve this grant allocation to the library project unless it is amended for that clarity. I hope that other aldermen will be convinced to see these facts and not vote to openly break theirs and the mayor’s promise to you, Appleton taxpayers!
- An item held at the last full council meeting is also up for discussion and potential approval this week: a resolution regarding a parking facilities management study. The resolution regarding this study has been discussed and held multiple times since it was introduced. Here is where I last mentioned this (with links to earlier discussions in this regard). Though I believe it would be good for the city to proceed with this study, I will not vote to approve this resolution as it was amended in committee discussions to remove any potential for discussion of all of the options available to the city, including privatization of some or all of the city’s parking facilities. I think it behooves us as policy makers to have all of the options on the table and, only after evaluating all options. After all options have been reviewed for viability and success, we can proceed to remove any untenable option — not because people are afraid of one of those options ahead of time but because an option is proven by evaluation by professionals in this realm not to be a viable solution for the city.
I do not know what the answer to the question of making the city’s parking utility most valuable and at the same time least likely to lose taxpayer money is; but I do know that cutting a parking study off at its knees by taking one potential option off the table without proper evaluation of its viability simply because of unfounded fear of that option is a ridiculous mistake. I would like to see this resolution returned to its original verbiage and a real, true study of all of the options undertaken by the city. Taxpayers who don’t go downtown and utilize the parking utility assets should not be subsidizing this losing venture… especially without a proper evaluation of all that can and should be done to both help manage parking for downtown businesses and keep taxpayers from having to foot the bill on a losing venture at the same time. Do you agree? Are you afraid of the option of privatization and therefore require it be off the table for discussion? Or are you willing to see the whole picture and make educated decisions armed with all of that information?
And with that… this meeting will conclude the week’s meetings schedule. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the above items or any other city business items of importance to you, please reach out and let me know. I am always happy to hear from you, receive your feedback, and answer any questions that I can for you.
I wish you an excellent first full week of February and look forward to sharing more with you with next week’s alderman blog post. Thank you for reading today!
