Happy Father’s Day, Neighbors! My dad was my public servant inspiration and a true believer in the greatness of our country and how neighbors work for neighbors in representative democracy. I miss him very much… today and always…
- The first item to approve is a full bid package — a “Guaranteed Maximum Price,” though that phrase is misleading — for the library project not to exceed $30,928,427. Yes, this total exceeds the city budget for this project. The Council approved $24.6M for the project and an additional $2M in “broadband access” through American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.  Here is a synopsis of the bids received and the additional costs on top of bids that make up the total that this committee is requested to approve.
My primary concern that this exceeds the budget for this project is only slightly allayed by the verbal promises from the Friends of the Appleton Public Library (“Friends”) fundraising efforts for additional private funding for the project. I’ve heard through the grapevine (but have no actual evidence) that the Friends have or expect to raise $9M in a “quiet phase” of fundraising and that they expect to raise a total of $12M through the entire fundraising campaign. But none of this is assured or guaranteed and that makes me wary of approving bids (and this first agenda item is only a portion of the project!) that exceed the city budget for the project. How can the city be certain that taxpayers will not be left “holding the bag” if the private fundraising efforts have not been publicly announced and/or don’t come to fruition? I do not like the lack of transparency that has come with this Friends campaign thus far and am wary. Trust, but verify, right?
Another concern of mine is that for ~$31M (and again, that’s not the full total… see below!), the city and Appletonians will essentially be getting a glorified remodeling of the library. That seems a steep price tag for a remodeling project…
What are your thoughts on this?  Let me know!
- And as alluded to above, there is the matter of another library project expense: the architectural fees. The contract with the architectural company calls for the design fees to be based upon the cost of the project. As you recall, the original project budget was $26.4M. For that, the city was to pay the architects ~$2.9M. Now there is the matter of the as yet unclear but “estimated at $12M” private donations, increasing the amount that is due to the architects by (according to this memo) by $973,800. (There is no indication in the memo as to how exactly the architectural fees are calculated on the total construction cost of the project. It doesn’t seem to follow an exact percentage calculation.) This portion of the pricing change I understand though I don’t completely agree with it since, as mentioned above, there is as yet no guarantee of the additional private funding. It’s the next part, though, that troubles me.
Remember when the initial grand plans for the library were presented and the city first went out for bid… only to find that the price tag far exceeded anything near the approved budget? Yes. Then the architects were sent back to the drawing board for a revision of the project and we got the current iteration of the design that has now gone out for bid. At the time of the rejection of the initial over-budget bids, I specifically asked what a revision of the architectural plans would cost the city. I was assured that revisions to the plan would not cost the city additional architectural fees as “the architectural fees are based on the eventual total cost of the project.”
This memo directly contradicts what I was told. It seems that the architects are now requesting an additional $381,018 (and $25,000 in reimbursables) in redesign fees! This is unacceptable to me.
The total architectural bill is going from the starting point of ~$2.9M to a whopping ~$4.3M. As mentioned, I understand an increase in the total if the total project costs are increased to include the private funding and the contract with the architect is to follow the total build cost. But these redesign costs are unpalatable to me. Surely the architects should bear responsibility for overdesigning the project so much so that the initial bids far outpaced the budget. Surely they should bear the burden of the $381,018 to redesign the project to more closely align with the city’s budget. I cannot abide this request.
Let me know what you think about this? How is the library project sitting with you these days…? We’ve all got a bit of library project fatigue, I guess. But I’m not prepared to just allow any additional costs to be pushed forward simply because we are all tired of talking about the library project.
- There is a proposed car wash business on a site on East Calumet Street which would require a drive thru lane in the front yard of the business. But by municipal code, drive thru lanes are not allowed in front yards. As this is a commercial building, “front yard” is not as meaningful as a “front yard” is for a residential property. This is also a corner lot commercial property. Board members will no doubt ask many questions about the proposed plans and whether there are any other alternatives for the orientation of this business on this property that would not require a variance. But this one still has a good chance of being passed.
- An owner of two abutting properties on South Memorial Drive would like to change the lot line that divides the two lots. There was an inground pool built on one lot (with a permit) and the controls for said pool are currently located on the other lot. The owner would like to redraw the lot lines to get the pool and the controls for the pool together on one lot to be able to later sell the properties separately. The problem is that the redrawing of the lot lines will make one lot have too much lot coverage (55%, which is above the allowed 50%). This is a self-made hardship for the owner so that makes granting a variance trickier. However… this board has been known to grant variances for much less of an issue than this… so we shall see if this owner will be granted a variance without penalty.
Tuesday, 06/20/2023
- Only two proclamations and no other action items are on the Business Presented by the Mayor portion of the agenda.
- There will be a public hearing regarding the rezoning of the public right-of-way pieces of land for future Providence Avenue and Baldeagle Drive streets/intersections. (See here for more info.)
- From the Parks and Recreation Committee: There is an amended resolution regarding the City of Appleton joining the Wisconsin Local Government Climate Coalition. As I mentioned last week, there is no membership cost to the city to join this coalition. I’m glad, though, that the resolution has been amended to exclude much of the inflammatory and hyperbolic language that was included in the resolutions original version. The amendments make it possible for me to vote in favor of it. However, it would not surprise me if the resolution were “re-amended” to return it to its original form. And if that becomes the case, I will not vote in favor of it.
- From the Finance Committee:  Whatever comes of the above-mentioned special meeting of this committee will come to the full council for approval along with the other items that this committee took up last week. I look forward to hearing your feedback regarding the library project bids and the architectural fees… so share your thoughts with me!
And that will complete (Many More Meetings Than Just) Full Council Week.  Thanks for stopping in to read the latest here, Neighbors. Please always let me know if you have questions or concerns or ideas or other feedback. I’m happy to listen!
