Hello there, Neighbors! Thanks for joining me again for another week’s alderman blog post. Yesterday was Budget Saturday where we discussed the proposed 2027 budget… from 8am to just past 4pm. It was quite a day…!
This coming week is a Full Council Week with a special meeting just prior to the regular council meeting — an official public hearing — and a library board sub-committee meeting to close out the week. You might also know that there is an important Election Day on Tuesday. Here are all of the details for the week:
Tuesday, 11/03/2026
Election Day! Polls are open from 7am to 8pm. See here for what’s on your ballot, etc. District 13’s Polling Place details are below. Be sure to get out and vote!!
Celebration Ministry Center (Faith Lutheran Church)
Voting Room: Gymnasium
3100 E Evergreen Dr, Appleton, WI 54913 Get Directions
Wednesday, 11/04/2026
City of Appleton Common Council – Public Hearing on the Proposed 2027 Executive Budget and Service Plan – 6pm An official public hearing for the coming year’s proposed municipal budget is required by state law. So here it is! Here is your opportunity to come and speak your mind about the proposed 2027 budget. After yesterday’s marathon Budget Saturday workshop, I will tell you that the proposed 2027 budget presents few major changes from the 2026 budget. An overall 3% salary increase and very little change to the employee benefits package (which means a higher taxpayer cost to continue to offer the same level of health insurance to city employees) are the major changes. The real issue that the city is facing at this time is that the proposed budget is full of administrative errors — numbers not cross-checked and many pages of clerical errors. This makes me pretty uncomfortable about the proposal. If the details aren’t tying and cross-checked, how can I trust that the full calculation is correct? I have been working with the mayor and the new Director of Finance for the city to attempt to feel more confident about what’s contained in the proposed budget document. So I hope that many of the questions that came up and the majority of the errors that were discussed in yesterday’s workshop will be promptly addressed so that I can very soon say that I am confident in the details of next year’s budget.
To get to the bottom line… as reported in the newspaper, the proposed levy for next year would result in a $30 annual savings for the owner of a $250,000 assessed home. Contained in the budget calculations, though, are a proposed increase to sanitary sewer rates (4%) and a proposed garbage cart fee increase (7.7%, which will result in a $0.65/quarter increase for a small garbage cart or $1.30/quarter for the 64-gallon size cart). Side note: Even the local newspaper believes the mayor’s use of the phrase “draconian cuts” to be hyperbole and puts them in quotations.
Do you have any questions — general or specific — regarding the next year’s budget proposal? Please reach out and let me know. Or better yet… attend this public hearing and let all members of the council know!
City of Appleton Common Council – 7pm After the official public hearing, the council will get down to its regular non-budget business. The mayor will kick it off with a number of proclamations — four, to be exact. Then the items that were taken up in committee meetings last week will come forward for full council approval. The items to most likely to garner more discussion and a separate vote are noted below:
- From the Safety and Licensing Committee: As I’ve noted the past few weeks, there has been discussion on a resolution calling for dramatic increases in the penalty (fine) amounts for certain vehicular noise in the city. See here, here, and here. While I agree that an increase in these fines might be warranted, I have been concerned all along that the original resolution’s proposed fines were far too dramatically increased. As I mentioned in previous blog posts, the “sweet spot” for increases in fines seems to be no more than a 100% increase. Anything greater seems to do nothing to curb the behavior to be penalized and could result in far fewer tickets being issued for these offenses and/or far more work for city attorneys as most tickets with the higher fine amounts will be more often challenged in court proceedings.
In last week’s committee meeting, the final suggested fine amounts amended and approved by the committee were $250 for the first offense (where the current fine is $100), $400 for a second offense within one year (where the current fine is $200), and $800 for a third offense within one year (where the current fine is $500). The currently amended proposal seems to come close to that “sweet spot” (though admittedly higher then a 100% increase for the first offense). But this might be acceptable and I could support it. What are your thoughts on this?
- From the Parks and Recreation Committee: This committee made a decision to recommend to the full council the name “Memorial Bridge Park” as the “new” name for the “old” Veterans Park. Confused yet? You’re not alone.
As you likely remember, the park currently to be renamed is a smaller park on the south side of the river. It had first been named Memorial Bridge Park long, long ago. Somewhere along the line, the city built Memorial Park on the city’s north side and this smaller park was renamed Veterans Park. I don’t know if that renaming happened concurrently with the construction of Memorial Park… but at least with that renaming, the city did not have two parks with the word “memorial” in the name. No one could be confused by the simple phrase “Meet me at Memorial Park,” right?
Then within the last year, Memorial Park on the city’s north side was renamed “Veterans Memorial Park” to allow for a larger park for veterans memorials and to accommodate larger gatherings for veterans groups and memorial ceremonies and celebrations there. But that led to a potential for confusion with the phrase “Meet me at Veterans Park” as now there are two city parks with the word “veterans” in the name. So the council was tasked with deciding on a new name for that smaller Veterans Park.
And now here we are, aiming to rename a city park with a word that’s also contained in the name of another city park! AUGH!!!!
I understand and appreciate history as much or more than the next. I understand the desire to return this park to its original historic name. But renaming this park “Memorial Bridge Park” seems crazy to me as it just creates yet another instance of name confusion. Yes, the word “bridge” is contained in the name which makes it unique from Veterans Memorial Park. But somehow, I think we need to get away from having two city parks with the word “memorial” in them just the same as we had to get away from having two city parks with the word “veterans” in them. At this rate, we might as well just leave this small park’s name “Veterans Park” and doubly honor the veterans who’ve served for our country!
I much prefer we use a completely new and unique name for the renaming of this park, despite the parks name history. It seems to me we’re muddying the waters here when we should be making things more clear. Do you agree? Let me know your thoughts.
- From the Human Resources and Information Technology Committee: The four members of this five-member committee who were present at their meeting last week could not agree on what to do about the salary rate for aldermen who will be elected or serving after the election in April 2028. (That last part of the sentence is important. This way you know that no serving alderman is voting to give himself/herself a raise unless he/she happens to get reelected for a subsequent term.) A proposal for a roughly 3% increase was debated. And this increase was proposed under the idea that “since city employees get a 3% raise for their work and the increase in the cost of living, so should we.”
The committee vote on that would have come to a tie vote as two of the members agreed with it and two did not. This item then would have been stuck in committee without a tie-breaking vote. The chairman of the committee who did not wish to see this proposal come forward but also did not want this item to be “stuck” voted to approve the recommendation of this roughly 3% pay increase. As such, the council will this week debate and vote on a salary increase that would add to the already last-year approved increase for those taking office after April 2027.
I very much disagree with this. No, aldermen do not get paid much. But also: No, I did not run for office to be paid a high wage on the backs of the taxpayers to represent my neighbors in council. No alderman should. An alderman’s salary is not meant to be a living wage for full-time employment nor meant to keep pace with cost of living increases. It’s meant to be a small stipend for attending meetings, informing neighbors on city business, and helping be a liaison between neighbors and the city government. It’s also not meant to penalize the taxpayers of the city as you, Neighbors, pay these salaries. I hope you will not be upset with me when I vehemently vote “no” on this salary increase proposal this week.
Thursday, 11/05/2026
Library Board’s Personnel and Policy Committee – Appleton Public Library Thrivent Conference Room – 4pm This committee will discuss the Library Director’s End of Year Review and several minor internal library policy updates.
And there you have it: the plan for another week of happenings in your local government. Did you see anything above that gave you pause, made you want to ask for more information, or made you want to share your feedback with your alderman? If so, please contact me!
It looks as though we are now headed into some real autumn weather here in early November. I hope you stay warm as dry as the days get cooler and the rain comes in to take the last of the leaves from our neighborhood trees. Have a great week this week… and don’t forget to vote on Tuesday!
