Hello, Friends and Neighbors! Thank you for again tuning into the alderman blog to learn about what can be expected this week in City of Appleton government.
This week is a Full Council Meeting Week… but with last week’s Fifth Week in the middle there, I think we all need a little refresher on what will be up for full council vote this week!
Wednesday, 05/07/2025
City of Appleton Common Council – 7pm It seems it’s “proclamation season” once again as this week’s agenda includes ten — yes, ten! — mayoral proclamations for council review. The council will also be asked to approve some mayoral reappointments of citizens to the city’s library board. Then we get down to business with approvals of committee action from what seems like months ago but what was only a couple weeks ago. (Here is what was discussed that committee week and here is a tidbit more of what came of a couple of pivotal items thereafter.) The items most likely to be separated for further discussion include the following:
- From the Safety and Licensing Committee: The committee denied a bartender license for an applicant with a battery conviction. State law disallows municipalities from granting bartender licenses to applicants who’ve been convicted of “crimes against life and bodily security” which means that her battery conviction leaves the city no choice but to deny this licensure.
- From the Finance Committee: The awarding of a contract for the construction of a pavilion at Lundgaard Park is up for full council approval. A majority of the funding for this pavilion construction comes from private fundraising — for which the contributing neighbors should be very proud! After this approval, construction should quickly begin. The pavilion is expected to be completed by October 2025.
- Also from the Finance Committee: When I mentioned it here, I was very concerned about the large amount of interest earned from the city’s investment of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) not being immediately turned over to the city for other expenditures. Instead, city staff are asking the council to approve moving the interest earnings — ~$1.5M! — into a reserve fund to be used if any ARPA-related projects in the works for the city go over budget. My concerns were allayed a bit by the committee discussion in which this was further explained.The vote on this item is just to hold the interest money in a reserve fund, not to allow for any further spending of it. Any potential over-budget items for which these funds might be requested will require a further vote by the Finance Committee and then the full council. The plan for the interest money subsequent to the completion of all of the city’s ARPA projects is to close this reserve fund and 75% of the balance would be used for debt reduction and the remaining 25% for other projects by mayoral request and requiring full council approval. It is my understanding that there are not a lot of incomplete ARPA-related projects remaining so there should, in theory, not be many requirements for these funds to fill any over-budget funding gaps. So I can safely vote to approve this request, knowing that any requests will have to be voted on and the balance of these funds is most likely to be used as mentioned above (75%/25%).
- Also from the Finance Committee: And these two are “the big ones”… Both items mentioned last week in the Fifth Week blog post (“brief” notes, remember?). “Special consideration” items for 1) quite possibly grossly overpriced “wayfinding signage” for City Hall and 2) a very definitely grossly overpriced request for ~$107,000 for a consultant to come up with a “climate action plan” for the city. (See here for the refresher on these two items.)You’ll likely be surprised but I eventually voted “yes” on the “wayfinding signage” as it came out in further discussion that city staff really have no idea how high the price tag might be on this signage. (Wow! How disappointing! A request is before us but there are no specifics tied to it.) It could be as little as a thousand dollars or as much as the whole ~$20,000+ that is requested be set aside for this. Without more specifics, I was reticent to move this further ahead. But the vote came down with a caveat that specific expenses for this signage must be further approved by the committee and council. So… much the same as the above item regarding the reserve fund, a “yes” vote now is not approval for the whole spend of these dollars, just an approval to allow those funds to be held pending further action. If the real projected expenses come in at the $20,000+, you can bet that my vote will be a resounding “no.” But if the project really only will require a fraction of that, I can get behind it. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to wait and see… and then bring this all back up for you to weigh in on! I am still voting a solid “no” on the request for $107,000+ in borrowed funds for a consultancy for a “climate action plan” for the city. This simply cannot be justified in my mind… for all of the reasons noted in last week’s blog post (and many earlier blog posts as well). What are your thoughts on this?Thank you, by the way, to all those who have weighed in on this via email to me. As I mentioned last week, the council is very much in need of feedback on this one as it contains the buzzwords “climate action.” So please reach out to all aldermen with your feedback, not just me!
At the end of the agenda for this week’s full council meeting is a notice of anticipated closed session for the aldermen. This week’s note mentions “conferring with legal council regarding matters associated with flooding that occurred in July 2024.” I have no idea what to expect here and cannot share what we learn until it becomes public. But I will let you know what I can when I am able to do so.
Thank you again for tuning in to stay informed about what’s happening in our city government. As always, I ask that you send me your feedback and let me know when and if anything in particular is of great concern to you.
Until next time… have an awesome May week! Take care and God bless.
