Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Good morning, and welcome to the Wednesday, May 13 edition of your City of Appleton Board of Health. We are calling this meeting to order. And please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to United States Of America, one nation under God is

Wonderful.

Thank you so much. I realize that I do not have all of the microphones on, so let me get those on. 13. Wonderful. So we'll go ahead and do a roll call of membership. The record show that everyone is in attendance except for our Kathy Spears, who is excused? I need a motion on the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, item number 260,608. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

That is approved. We have no public hearings or appearances for today, so we will move on to our action items. We are going to take things a little bit out of order today. We will be moving up our hearing of the dangerous animal declaration up to position number three behind electing our chair and vice chair. So I don't need to make a motion on this just yet to get started. All right. So we're going to go ahead and elect the Board of Health Chair. So I'm going to open up the floor for nominations.

I nominate Kathy Spears for the position of chair. Second the motion.

Wonderful. Are we able to accept on her behalf? Wonderful. She accepts the nomination. Any other nominations? Wonderful. We do need to vote on that. All right. All those in favor of Kathy Spears being our chair, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Congratulations, Kathy, for another year. All right. Our next item is to elect a Board of Health Vice Chair. Oh, yep. Or are you doing a nomination? Okay. The floor is open. I nominate Lee Vogel. All right. Do we have a second? Second. We have multiple seconds. Wonderful. Doctor. Vogel, do you accept the nomination? I would, but

I also have to note that I appreciate that you fill in on Robert's Rules of Order, so maybe you need to educate me better.

I love the partnership and teamwork. I'm here for it. Wonderful. Other nominations for the floor? All right. So let's go ahead and vote on Doctor. Vogel for vice chair. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Wonderful. Welcome back, Doctor. Vogtle. All right.

So at this time, we're going to go out of order a little bit. We are going to begin item number 20 six-six 38, Hearing of Appeal Attorney Glad will go ahead and give us a rundown of what it's about to look like.

Thank you, Chair. We're set to hear an appeal of a dangerous animal declaration for two dogs known as Buddy Boy and Angie. I want to briefly explain to the board and others what you can expect this hearing to look like. All people who speak during this hearing must use a microphone. This hearing will be conducted orderly, and the chair has ultimate authority as to how this hearing proceeds. My name is Darren Glad. I'm here as legal adviser to the board. Even if there were matters before this, need to make sure that the speakers and microphones are working properly during the hearing. So if you're having trouble in the room hearing, please let one of us know. If we have witnesses, all witnesses will be sworn in.

I will do the swearing in. The dog's owner is exercising their right to object to dangerous animal declaration. This hearing is an opportunity for the animal's owner to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous. Based on what the owner has provided to the the board prior to the hearing, my understanding is that the owner intends to request, modification to the leash and muzzle and confinement requirements to allow animals to be in the fenced area of the backyard without the leash and muzzle. But he'll have an opportunity in a moment to clarify what his position is.

First, in the hearing, you'll hear from attorney Berwyn who will present as to why the animal was declared dangerous, including any opening statement that he want to give. The owner will have opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses called by attorney Berwyn With the chair's permission, the board members will also have an opportunity to ask any relevant questions. Once attorney Berwyn is finished, the owner will have their opportunity to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous, including any opening statements. This should be an opportunity for the owner to make his case for if he is not really contesting it but wants the modifications as anticipated. Attorney Berwyn will have an opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses.

With the chair's permission, board members will also have an opportunity to ask relevant questions. Chair can repeat that process as many times as necessary until the chair is satisfied that each party has had a fair opportunity to address evidence introduced by the opposing party. The board will then decide on the appeal. There's three available determinations, whether to uphold the order declaring the animals as dangerous, to rescind the order, or uphold the order while waiving certain requirements. Generally speaking, the requirements that can be waived are the registration requirement, leash and muzzle requirements, the confinement requirement, the signage requirement, the spay and neuter requirements, and the liability insurance requirements.

A written decision of the board will be provided to the owner. And with that, I'll turn this over to Chairperson Jones for a chance for any final comments before we begin.

I do not have any final comments.

And you're Mr. Janz, is that correct? All right. You're already at the podium. I guess

Attorney Berwyn. Attorney Berwyn. You.

Good morning, everyone. I will, I think, keep this relatively short here since I think we're all pretty much on the same page about what happened and the way forward here. The dangerous animal declaration for Buddy Boy and Angie comes about from an incident, where they pulled free from, their owner, Mr. Janz, while he was walking them. They ended up charging at, and one or both of them, to some degree, ended up attacking a different dog walker who required stitches to close some of the wounds, although thankfully was not injured much more beyond that.

So it certainly could have been worse. There's not really a factual dispute so far as I'm aware. Mister Janz was cooperative and forthright with everybody with the investigating CSOs about what happened, so there's no issue there. My understanding from the documents he submitted is that his chief concern relates to some of the requirements for keeping a dangerous animal in the city based on what he's indicated. And I will turn it over to him momentarily here to elaborate a little bit more on those.

But I think that there is likely the ability to do that within not only within the city code, but also within good policy given certain circumstances. I do have some language that I have submitted that I am thinking Attorney Glatt is likely prepared to adopt or adapt for use today, how that would fit into Mr. Jans' plans, the two alternatives he submitted. I don't know that we necessarily even need to figure that out today. But ultimately, at least in principle, I think his proposal to enclose them with a more secure and taller fence around the entirety of his backyard, I do think that is workable.

That's something that we could do and permit without compromising the safety of the community as well. So unless there are additional questions I will note lead CSO, Philip Brown, is here behind the pillar there. So he is prepared to testify should the need arise or answer questions should the need arise. But without there being a factual dispute, I didn't see the need to involve him right away here. So unless there are additional questions, that's all that I have to start off with. And I would turn it over for Mr. Jans to make his presentation.

You may go ahead, Mr. Jans. Thanks for being here.

That on?

Oh, what number is on your microphone? Apparently you got to turn them on, All right. It should be good for you.

All right. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this morning. I will be brief, intending on less than four minutes. If I may, before I address why I'm here, I would like to convey to the board how deeply apologetic

You can take your time.

I feel over the incident on May 5, which led to the victim, Jennifer, being bitten by my two dogs, Buddy Boy and Angie Girl, after I lost control of their leashes. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Appleton Police Department, including officer Ciballis, who initially took my statement, and LCSO Philip Brown, who made the determination that my dogs were dangerous, a decision I accept. And finally, would like to thank Doctor. Sebers, who was courteous and informative as they all were. I'm doing everything I can to fully meet all the requirements pertaining to all applicable Appleton statutes related to dangerous animals.

However, I'm respectfully seeking a waiver pertaining to Appleton Code Division two, dangerous animals, section 3,132, harboring dangerous animals, deconfinement number one, which fully states, except when leashed and muzzled, all dangerous animals shall be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel that is located on the premises of the owner or caretaker and constructed in a manner that does not allow the animal to exit the pen or kennel on its own volition. With that in mind, please direct your attention to the attached photos marked one through five. Surrounding our backyard is a very sturdy cement anchored six feet high polyvinyl fence built to code in 2018 by Valley Custom Fence of Appleton. It begins at the back door of our home where Buddy Boy is sitting in photo one. That gate now has a lock on it, And Buddy Boy and Angie must now wear a muzzle and be leased in our yard.

As depicted in photo two, the fence continues along the side and back of the yard to the rear of the garage. However, as seen in photo three, along the near side of the driveway, there is a stretch of 44 feet from the front of the garage to the northeast corner of the house where the yard becomes completely enclosed, but is served instead by a now inadequate three foot high fence and gate. I propose two options for the board to consider, both which I hope you will agree will meet the criteria for preventing either animal from exiting on their own volition. And thereby both will then be allowed to enter the yard without the need for a muzzle or a leash. Option A, replace the shorter fence with a six foot high fence identical to that presently installed around most of the yard along with a locked gate.

Option B, install a large sturdy steel anchored 14 foot wide locked gate, again, six feet high. See photo four, which was printed from the Valley Custom Fence website. To span across our driveway. Please see photo five from the northeast corner of our house to the six feet high polyvinyl fence on the far side of the driveway. For Valley Custom Fence, additional full or partial six feet high polyvinyl fencing sections will be added as needed on both sides of the gate to close any gaps.

It is my belief, and I hope the Board will share that belief, that both options fully meet the standards set forth within the aforementioned Appleton Code, D, confinement, one, that our backyard will act as a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel that is located on the premises of the owner or caretaker and constructed in a manner that does not allow the animal to exit the pen or kennel on its own volition. Approval of both options would give me flexibility based on cost. Valley Custom Fence can install either option within about four weeks after I sign the contract. Thank you for listening and your consideration in this matter.

Thank you, Mr. James. Is there any questions from anyone on the board? For Mr. Jans?

I have a question. Can you describe the location of the incident where they got loose from their leash? I assume that was not within the confines of the backyard.

That is correct. It was one block away from our home on Rankin And Alton Street, a block from College Avenue. And I was coming east with my two dogs early in the morning around this time. And there's somewhat of a blind area there where a house is on the corner. And the victim, Jennifer, was coming up heading at the apex of this spot.

And

before I knew it, my dogs noticed her and they escaped from my grasp. So it was a block away. May I add one thing? I'm sure that

they

this was almost like a perfect storm of meeting at the same time. Very surprising. My dogs are rather territorial and protective. And I'm sure somehow in their mind they thought that they were protecting me. And of course it couldn't have been further from the truth. But that's what occurred.

Debbie may continue. Kathleen, sorry.

My understanding then is that the modifications we would be deciding on don't address that situation.

No. I it was hard to argue the result. And it feels very, very uncomfortable to try to explain it that way. And when the people here can see the result of the victim having stitches. And it's just very difficult for me to do that.

I think what we're looking at here is you're not denying what happened. Oh, not at all. And you're accepting the label for the dogs, the dangerous declaration. Just the one part of that where it says to leash and muzzle, went outside. That's the one thing that you're looking to change is to build the fence. Is that

not, to my own misunderstanding? In the confines Within of the the confines of yes.

Within the confines of the yard. Yes. My understanding would be still that, of course, it would be leashed and muzzled outside the yard.

Yes. So it's not so much a concern of outside the yard. Today we're looking at the yard itself.

Yes. And I Sorry, turn it over. I'm sorry.

It's not a problem. I think based on everything that we've heard, I do think that the language that I have that I'm prepared to propose would be an appropriate way forward. And what I would propose is that the board consider a partial waiver of the leash and muzzle requirements contained within the code, The requirements would not apply when the animals are contained within a fenced in enclosure on the premises of the owner's dwelling. The fenced in enclosure must be at least six feet tall, properly and lawfully installed, maintained, and secured, and locked so as to prevent any persons or domestic animals from entering or exiting the enclosure without permission of the owners. At all places and times where these conditions are not met, the leash and muzzle requirements shall remain in full effect.

What that does the intent of avoiding it that way is that the waiver is partial in that within the enclosed yard area, they would not need to release their muzzle. Outside of that, they would need to be. The language is nonspecific as to how the fence is structured. So if the gate works better and is up to code or the the raising of the fence along the driveway works better and is up to code, it leave those leaves those options open. The idea is that it's awful and that it securely contains the dogs.

The other thing that structuring it in this way does is that it it removes the need to come back and reapprove something. If the fence is there and up to code and secured, they're fine as long as they're inside that. If it's not for whatever reason, either because it's out of repair or it's not built yet, then the leash and muzzle requirement applies. So it provides flexibility. It provides us with the ability to exercise oversight but not the responsibility to come back and micromanage.

And I think it does adequately address the safety concerns that are in play from this particular situation, especially since by everything that I've read through the investigation and everything, frankly, that I've seen and heard here today, Mr. Jans understands the significance of this situation. He does seem a generally responsible and conscientious dog owner, which I certainly appreciate. And he seems, intent on on addressing this the best way he can. This allows him to do that while still providing us a backstop to ensure for public safety, which I think is what we really need out of this situation. Chair.

Okay. Mayor?

I'd like to make a motion to modify the language of the requirements as specified by Attorney Berwyn.

I'll second that.

You have quite a few seconds.

I have a question.

Yes. Is the language such that if he were to move that it's still applicable?

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Is the language such that if you were to move to a different home within the city of Appleton that it would still be applicable there?

So the language that I proposed did not include any specific address. It would be it would be specific to the owner's dwelling.

Okay.

So if it moves if you move someplace else or if you were to move someplace else with the languages I've indicated, as long as there's a new fence on that property that adequately encloses, that would be, again, lawfully and properly installed and maintained and all those things. That would not be an issue based on the language that I have indicated here.

And just to confirm, the wording is vague enough that we don't need to approve different types of options for offense, just that it needs to be done however is most affordable for Mr. Chance. Is that correct?

It's the requirements are that it needs to be at least six feet tall, properly and lawfully installed, maintained, secure maintained, secured, and locked so as to prevent any person or domestic animal from entering or exiting the enclosure without permission. So the dogs can't get out, People can't get in without permission and wander into a place where it's not safe. Those are the requirements. And as long as it meets those requirements, then it's fine.

Further questions? All right. Can we go ahead for a vote then? All of those in favor in going forth with the stipulations as described? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jans. So we're going to go ahead with our next action item, 260,613, set Board of Health meeting date and time. What I was just told is that if we are unanimous on it, we are good to move forward. So are we good with this time? Any A bit of an arm twist, yes. With a bit of an arm twist, are we okay with this time? So this is unanimous. Perfect. We will set the date and time going forward.

02/60614, designate Board of Health contact person. Will it be Doctor. Sievers as a contact person? Do you accept this? Member, are you?

Director one? Yes, I do. Wonderful.

Everyone agree? Great. We will move forward then. Item 02/60900, a request to approve revisions to the municipal code Chapter nine relating to health department licensing of retail food establishments, hotels, motels, and tourist dreaminghouses, bed and breakfast establishments, safety, maintenance, and operations of public pools and water attractions, recreational and educational camps, campgrounds, and tattoo and body piercing. Do I have a motion? So moved. We have a motion and a second? Second. Wonderful. All right. Who will we have speaking on this today?

I'm going to have Steve Keele present this item.

All right. Mr. Keele, what number is your director to? Go ahead.

Okay. So as stated in the memo, rewrite is essentially just an update of the municipal code to update the structure and give us the authority we have. We need to enforce the state code related to our licensing program. We are agents of the state. So a lot of the laws that we use and work from are state laws, the state statute and the state code.

So our municipal code had to be updated to give us the proper code references and authority in adoption of those state statutes, state codes to do our work in those programs. This rewrite doesn't effectively change anything operationally for our program. It just cleans up a lot of the language and gives us the proper references

needed. Wonderful. Any questions from the board regarding the update? Wonderful. If there are no questions, we can go ahead and vote. All those in favor signify by saying Any abstentions? All right, that passes. Thank you, Mr. Gill. Next item is 260,615, request to approve Department of Public Works noise variance request. Do I have a motion?

Move. Second. All

right. And Doctor. Siepers, are you taking this one?

Yes. Just to say that this is a routine sort of maintenance issue. So currently the noise ordinance does prevent any sort of construction work to take place outside of those sort of daylight hours seven a. M. To ten p. M. And this would just allow the city to perform that work at a time that works the best.

Any questions from the board on the noise variance?

That only work done by the city?

No. So this would include contractors as well. I'm not exactly sure who's performing this exact work. But typically in the past where we're looking at let's see. Yeah, I'm not sure if the contractors actually outlined here. But this would effectively approve that work being done, whether the city is doing it or if a contractor is doing it that the city is hired to perform.

Is that for state and federal projects like taking down the Richmond Street Overpass? I live near there. I've got to stop at 10:00 at night. It's two consecutive days.

I would like to note that the state has not come to this body asking for a noise variance.

And worth noting here, this is a specific request related to the project at Badger, 200 Block Of South Badger. So this is not a blanket approval. This is for planned dates the week of June 1. Hours of operation would be five p. M. To seven a. M. Spanning two consecutive days. So this is a very narrow request. This is not a blanket blanket issue. Issue. And that was included in a memo in the packet.

Thank you. Doctor. Vogel? I think it is our practice right to notify owners and residents. I'm always concerned that, particularly when school is still open, but two consecutive nights and families and children, just so that's at least proper notification.

Yes. Then that is the practice. I don't have details about that notification here in the memo that was sent to us. But my understanding is that it has been done.

Additional questions from the board? All right. We can take it to a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that passes. Thank you.

It is

the end of our action items, and we'll move on to information items. First is 260620. Referring to 260327, the dangerous to animal declaration of Chief Incello update number two. Doctor. Sievers?

Yes. So I would just indicate that that item was actually scheduled 02/60327 was scheduled to be heard during this meeting. That is not needed as both animals have been dispatched by the

owner. Any questions? All right, we will move on to information item 260604, dangerous animal declaration. Doctor. Sievers?

Yes, so this is different, yet a different dangerous animal declaration that the board has not seen. This owner has also dispatched that animal.

All right. Next information item 260607Q1 Health Department Quarterly Report. Doctor. Sievers.

Sure. I'll just highlight a couple of data points here for the board's awareness. So on the first page of the Q1, we see a dramatic rise in a gastroenteric. So those sort of foodborne things that we see from time to time. There is not anything systematic going on between these cases.

If we're looking at twenty twenty six Q1 versus twenty twenty five Q1, we do see a pretty large jump in those cases. So our advice is to wash your hands and practice safe cooking when at home and especially serving food for others. And then the other data point we'd just like to call out, so the child passenger safety, those car safety appointments. So for, you see in Q1 twenty twenty five, we had 18. We only had seven in 2026.

And I just want to note that that was due to the funding being applied late. So the government shutdown in the fall had actually delayed the distribution of funds that came to the state. And then the sort of distribution of those funds were three to four months late on that. So that's why we're seeing a little bit of a lower number there. I just wanted to highlight that.

The need for that program is dramatically rising. Glad to have it. And I just want to call out the work of Cassidy Walsh, who is our emergency management coordinator. She's been doing a fantastic job supporting the surrounding counties as they lending her expertise as they have experienced a good deal of flooding and property loss in those cases. I want to thank Cassidy Walsh for that. That's all I have on that item. There's any questions.

Any questions on that? For the TB skin tests, thirty five in Q1 twenty twenty six compared to fifteen in Q1 twenty twenty five. Could you speak to that jump there?

Sure. So I'll just start by saying a TB skin test is not a best practice. But there are some organizations that do need it for work or for school, that kind of thing. So if we're thinking about we want more skin tests, that's not necessarily what we're saying. But the TB skin test jump is likely due to word-of-mouth, folks just hearing more about this program.

There's not many services, which is why we provide this as a fee for service. We do charge a nominal fee, which does more than break even per unit. However, the real benefit is our TB skin test program must be done for those that the TB program does indicate for. And so this is a sort of savings on the waste of that product. So we would normally waste that. Now we're actually selling it. The increase is likely due to word is out. City of Appleton is selling TB skin test services.

Thank you. Any additional questions? We'll move on to item 260,606, Health Department Newsletters. Doctor. Siepers? So just Looking great as always.

Yep, looking great. We've got a great team doing a lot of great work and so in April highlighting some of the work that our basic needs team had done in concert with the city's Sunshine Committee. And so that was raising a collection of canned goods and other basic needs items. And so featuring Jamie Grisbach from the city attorney's office who is a tireless warrior for all good things in the city of Appleton. And then in 2026, focus on asthma.

We did receive a new grant this year that was sought and written by our tech, Todd Schmidt. And so really looking to build skills there as stepping up to identify ways in which to diversify funding. And so we are working through this asthma friendly project. And so those sorts of programs within that, we are working with Parks and Rec and the Appleton Area School District to highlight the current sort of air quality index using flags. So last year, we saw the sort of apex of bad air quality as we saw the wildfires in Canada and that kind of thing.

And so understanding if the day to day forecast is safe for those with asthma or other sensitive respiratory ailments might consider taking caution. And so that's what that program does, physically putting a flag in a very obvious place to indicate that the forecast for air quality like rain, like other sorts of weather, pollen, that kind of thing. It's another indicator in that sort of how do we plan our day in our natural environment. And then just say there's other programs but I won't go into that. This talks a lot about it.

I will say too there is some outreach with this. So there's some dates for public reach outs here for that program at the Appleton Library on May 7 and May 21. May 7 has already passed, course, but the twenty first is still

ahead. Great. Any questions? All right. We will move on. Item number 260602, Respiratory Virus Surveillance and Wastewater Report. Doctor. Sievers?

Yeah. And so as we head into May here, this will likely be the last of these. But as you can see, COVID-nineteen influenza and RSV are trending down as is normal and typical at the end of respiratory virus season.

Any questions on that? All right. With that we can move on to our last information item 260605, Approved Noise Variances.

Doctor. Ziegler. Lots of new noise variances as you can see. We are in noise variance season for those who celebrate. And yeah, so I just want to highlight the sort of streamlining that we've done with this.

Two years ago, we added a nominal fee profit businesses and for residences that are holding sort of, for lack of a better word, concerts or parties, sort of amplified sound. And that program is working really well. We've not deterred anyone from applying. Think actually the mindset of so for a month's worth of noise variances, it's $75 And so what we have seen is if folks are having some sort of event on, let's say, every Saturday of the month, they're more likely to say, if they have a Thursday event or something like that, to be like, let's go ahead and throw those on there as well just to cover our bases. The reason why this is so important is we want to make sure that we are utilizing all staff time to the best that we can.

And if there's a noise variance in place, we're getting less calls to law enforcement. And PD does not need to respond to those sorts of things. So that's sort of the thinking behind some of that. And just want to just highlight that that program's working really well. We haven't seen any we haven't seen less noise variances coming through.

That's wonderful. Doctor. Vogel?

I just have an observation and a curiosity, I think, and also an appreciation that we don't spend so much time with this new approach to things where we're actually having to review that and a great deal of trust in things, how they're going. But when we were doing that, there was a significant amount of neighborly and neighborhood complaints. And is there something different that that's just if you could just characterize that, because I think it's great.

Yeah. So there have been conditions that have been placed on sort of those problem areas. There was sort of sound dampening structure that was placed at Fox River House. The neighbors had noticed that there was a decrease in sound. I'm not sure if everyone is still in those areas as well.

So those sort of frequent flyers, if you will, there have been modifications. The composition of the neighborhood has changed a little bit too, I think. All that's helped.

Any additional questions? All right, if not we can move on to adjournment. Do I have a motion? Move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.