Common Council - Regular Meeting

One of the reasons that we do not want to narrow it. Those of us who live there know that some of the people coming off of the prospect want to just go through really fast, and I don't know why, but by narrowing it, that can create a bottleneck, it can create a hazard. Some of these people come around and they end up in the middle of the street. If there's a child or somebody coming out or a parked car and that person is not seen, that is a great . So very concerned about that. And then there's this existing two sidewalk narrowing policy. It's not new, but yet Complete Street was adopted after that. So if those were already in place, it doesn't seem like Complete Street was necessary.

Not vehicle friendly. Hey, we have a microphone. We're not going to cut off your time, so just sit tight. Alder Doherty, we were having an issue with the microphone. It seems we have that restored now. If you don't mind, just remain on mute until you're recognized to speak. And with that, if you don't mind, Lisa, just pull that microphone down. Yep, there you go. That's fine, too. Just pull that whole thing down. There you go. With gusto. Okay. Go ahead and continue your comments. I'm sorry for the interruption.

That's okay. Appleton does not have a large mass transit system like other large cities do. We don't have a large population that uses it. There are some, not a lot. So adding sidewalks on South Driscoll doesn't really help access to any bus route. And there's been talk about the... the bus stops, and there's a bus stop on Perkins that could be utilized not only by the public buses, but perhaps by the other buses. And I understand that there's concern about people who need the sidewalks, but sidewalks don't necessarily be needed by everybody and they don't necessarily connect a community. Something that really bothers me personally is the assumption that elderly and people with disabilities rely on sidewalks. There are many types of physical mobility challenges. Many mobility device users use a drive to get around. They don't actually use the sidewalks. So keep that in mind because categorizing people with disabilities as vulnerable over sidewalk accesses can be very inaccurate and actually discriminatory, and we do not want to do that. So, pursuing fairness and equities is noble, but forcing unwanted policies on residents can breed division, discrimination, destruction, because someone will always be slighted. We don't want that. Requiring current residents of South Driscoll to install sidewalks simply places them in the same unfair category of people who had to shovel for decades. About 30 seconds remaining. Yes. We will become part of that and I don't mind, we have to shovel, we have to shovel, but things are not always fair and we try to keep them as fair as possible. If another neighborhood wants to make different decisions about their street, they should be allowed to do so. So it's been implied that South Driscoll residents are asking to be treated in a special manner, but we're really not. We're asking to look specifically at our street.

The time has expired.

Oh, sorry.

You can finish that thought and then... Okay.

Just to keep that in mind, because other neighborhoods may be affected, will be affected, and we don't know what neighborhood is next. So, thank you very much.

All right. Next is Jim Sotorius.

Welcome. Okay, I apologize in advance if I fumble, because my printer didn't like this cold, rainy day like your microphone, so... I apologize in advance. Jim Sartoria, 1618 South Driscoll Street. First, I would like to thank those that took the time to listen to the residents and understand the problems we will face with the Smart Street Plan. I recently submitted a photo showing 11 vehicles parked on both sides of the north block of Driscoll Street, representing approximately 69% of the available on-street parking capacities. with a proposed road narrowing and with additional vehicles likely forced to park on the street because they can no longer legally block sidewalks in their own driveways, the demand, the demand for on street parking will increase significantly. This change has the potential to create parking shortages and conflicts that do not currently exist on our street. In the finished traffic study, the 16 parked vehicles exampled were considered visitors and not residents and also didn't consider the varying lengths of vehicles. We will now have problems with vehicles parked directly across from driveways, dangerous driveway egress, along with a continuous wall of cars, causing an unsafe width for two-way traffic with no margin of error. There hasn't been any research conducted on how the Smart Street Plan would affect a dead-end street like ours, and as a result, residents may be left to bear the burden of unforeseen consequences that arise from applying a policy designed for typical streets to our unique situation, which includes an apartment building and the distinct traffic, parking, and safety considerations that come with it. Also, our situation is unique because the surrounding streets and cross streets currently do not have sidewalks, and there are no plans for those areas to be included in similar projects for the next 25 to 50 years, which does put us on an island. Overall, I believe this proposal will have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents on our street. Many of us have raised legitimate concerns about how these changes will affect our daily lives. including parking availability, vehicle access, and the practical use of our properties. This has a similar feeling of being punished for having serious concerns or opinions that affect our daily lives and may even be forced to sell vehicles, campers, or trailers, and for some, even their homes. Thank you kindly to those that hear us. We greatly appreciate you. Thank you.

Next is Jessica Beto.

Hello, my name is Jessica Vito, 1625 South Driscoll Street. Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns. I agree with my neighbors that our streets should not be narrowed. My husband, Kelly, bought our house in the fall of 2009. Shortly after moving in, he was told by our alderman of the plan to reconstruct the street in 2011. This did not happen. We were told the same thing for 2016 and 2024. The repairs still didn't happen. When Prospect Avenue was reconstructed in 2020, we started experiencing issues with our plumbing. We had three plumbing companies come many times to look for a cause. We were told repeatedly that there was no issue with our sewer lateral until April of 2022, when we were told that there was a gravel blockage where our pipe met the city main. In June 2022, we had to get a loan to pay the $18,000 to rip up our front yard and replace the sewer lateral from our house to the manhole. This does not include the over $5,000 that we paid out of pocket to diagnose the problem. My husband, Kelly, passed away after a heart attack in 2024. I am now a widow with five young children. I, like many other residents of Driscoll Street, am on a fixed income. We as residents are being told that we will have to pay to cover the cost of new sidewalks and sewer laterals. If we opt out of the discounted lateral replacement, we will be responsible for any future repairs. My lateral is only four years old. But it may be damaged in the process of street reconstruction. I would be responsible for those necessary repairs if I do not pay now for another new sewer lateral. That is not right. I am one of the few houses on Driscoll Street with a sidewalk. We have been shoveling and maintaining that sidewalk since we moved here in 2009. We are not asking for special treatment or saying sidewalks are a bad thing. Having to agree to pay for a sidewalk without a set amount in place, that's a problem. I also have a brand new concern. I went on a walk around the block yesterday with my children on South Perkins Street. I had my two-year-old on the stroller, my six-year-old on a small bike on the sidewalk. My 10-year-old was on his bike next to the curb on the right side where he belongs. We were halfway down the block when a car came speeding down Perkins. If I had not yelled to my 10-year-old to get on the sidewalk, he would have been hit. Thankfully, there was a driveway right there he could go up. The car did not slow down or move over. There were no other vehicles on the street, so there was no excuse for this. If the city is trying to support multimodal transportation, Perkins Street is not a safe example to follow. There needs to be space outside of the traffic lanes for safety. In conclusion, I'm asking that our street be left the same width for safety reasons. Thank you for listening to my concerns.

Next is Michelle Pauley.

Good evening. My name is Michelle Polly. I reside at three 16 East Benton drive in district seven. I'm talking about the truancy ordinance tonight. I stated recently at a committee meeting, and I will say it again here, it seems rather presumptuous that some here in Appleton believe that we can do the same thing that a preponderance of the research has shown to be ineffective and harmful, and then expect different results. Not only that, but we have had our own experience with that harm playing out in our community. which led to the last truancy ordinance being repealed. I listened to conversations in recent school board meetings and city meetings suggesting that members of the public opposing this ordinance don't understand all of the things that the district has done or is doing with other services available to students. Services that are available because the last truancy ordinance was repealed. Services that have made AASD a leader and a model for other local districts. I, as a community member that has consistently showed up, followed this issue and stayed in contact with school board members and city leaders, have in fact stated that it is because of these services and hard work of dedicated staff that the positive trajectory we have seen in attendance numbers has continued. This was also predicted by professionals and experts in the field. It is the district that has disregarded these services and given credit on multiple occasions to the ordinance without recognizing the services, even before the ordinance went into effect. Through all of this, very little has been shared about the original small group of students that this ordinance was supposed to be about. Believe me, I understand the motivation of some staff who just want the chance to connect with the hardest to reach students so they can be informed about all of the services and options available to them. But if that connection starts with law enforcement in communities that already have trust issues with law enforcement or with a student that doesn't show up to the courthouse because of the same reasons that prevent them from getting to school, then one more wall goes up that must be taken down before that connection can happen. I do not believe that there's a single person in this room that does not want the very best for every single student in this district and elsewhere. But repeating past mistakes won't get us there. Creative solutions and strong partnerships will. In the end, it will be up to this council to decide if the data and anecdotal stories the district provides is enough to refute the research that has been done over time and across districts. In closing, I want to share something that I told my kids tonight when they asked me, why are you going to another meeting, Mom? And it's a quote from Maya Angelou. When you know better, you do better. Let's do better.

All right. I need a motion to extend public participation 30 minutes. We have a motion and a second to extend public participation by 30 minutes. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Any opposed? All right, the motion passes. Public participation has been extended 30 minutes. Our next speaker is Nancy Jones.

Good evening. My name is Nancy Jones. I live at 1125 North Briarcliff Drive, but I want to emphasize that I'm speaking today for the League of Women Voters of Appleton-Fox Cities. The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering voters and promoting effective, equitable governance at the local, state, and national levels. We advocate for policies based on studies by and consensus of our members. In our 2016 study of local land use planning, League members agreed that priorities for future city design should take into consideration a wide range of economic, environmental, safety, and quality of life goals. We support comprehensive planning based on community goals and objectives as outlined in the city's comprehensive plan. We further identified accessibility for people of varying needs and abilities and safe and convenient routes and conditions for bicyclists, walkers, and people of varying abilities and needs as key components of city design. In another local study, Members supported requiring quote, minimum service levels in urbanized areas and listed street and sidewalk standards as one of those minimums. Our 2021 resilient infrastructure position supports quote, all communities and units of government planning and implementing changes to community infrastructure that will move municipalities toward climate resilience and cites the opportunities for making community infrastructure systems more resilient and sustainable by facilitating alternative modes of transportation We are also aware that some city residents have transportation barriers, which is another reason to plan for complete streets. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, children and pedestrians with limited mobility are at a greater risk than others on the roads. Children have a limited understanding of traffic laws and little sense of danger. They tend to be impulsive and don't take the time to stop and think about safety, and children may also have a difficult time judging the speed of approaching cars. Their smaller stature makes them harder for motorists to see. It goes on, older pedestrians are more at risk because they do not have the same ability to recover from injuries as younger pedestrians, and many may take longer to cross the street or have difficulty seeing or hearing traffic clearly. Based on our local positions, the League of Women Voters of Appleton Fox City spoke in favor of the city's Complete Street Guide and policy, which begins with this vision statement. Appleton will strategically use resources to plan, design, build, and maintain a multimodal network of streets so that community gathering and traveling by walking, rolling, biking, transit and driving is a safe and positive experience for people of all backgrounds, ages, and abilities, supporting Appleton's local economy, health, and environment. We think the city has the right policy for the right reasons and that the city should follow the policy. The league supports sidewalks for safety and accessibility for support of multimodal transportation to encourage walking for health benefits and as part of our resilient infrastructure. Thank you.

Next is Jennifer Ritterbush.

Welcome. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Herterbush, and I live at 1500 South Driscoll Street. I'm the block captain of the neighborhood watch on the two blocks. I've seen a variety of vehicles on my street, especially the northern end where I live. I've seen full semis come down when they come in the air and had to back down the street. I see the garbage and recycle trucks that sometimes cannot turn around, so they have to back up down the street and then back up back down the street to get the other side trash. I've seen recently the big pickup garbage truck come, and it took him anywhere from, I think, six to eight point turn to turn around, and he didn't turn around at the end. He backed into the drive entrance for the building to turn around. There's different sized fire trucks that have been down, and there's been delivery trucks, Amazon, FedEx, UPS, Speedy Delivery, Schwann's, DHL, and many other food delivery vehicles. FedEx and UPS and Amazon come multiple times a day, sometimes three times a day or four. I've never seen any of these vehicles go to the end except for Amazon to do a point turn to turn around. The other vehicles have either pulled in and used the parking lot to turn around for the building or they've pulled in and backed up and they barely have enough room to back up currently. Their rear bumpers almost touch the other side of the curb. I forgot where I was at. It's not common for the garbage truck and recycle trucks to back up down the street, but it's usually because there's cars parked on the street and they can't turn around in the entrance of the building driveway. There's a tenant that lives within the building and comes home and parks his semi on the west side of the street. He's going to have issues when it's 26 feet. If you narrow the street from 32 to 26, and there's current issues, I can't even imagine what it's gonna be like when it's 26 feet. All I know from living there, there's going to be some major issues or even accidents. My truck alone is 22 feet long, and I have a hard time backing it up into my driveway because the vehicle's parked on the opposite side of the street. Now add a trailer to that. I'm gonna be 33 and five inches long. and try to maneuver a trailer into my driveway. I don't even attempt it now. I can't even imagine those that use a trailer on a daily basis or even weekly. There's quite a few of us on both blocks that use trailers. On the topic of sidewalks, I feel I'm going to be losing privacy in my home since my home is 36 feet to the back side of the curb. So the sidewalk would be in the middle of my front yard. We don't have hardly any foot traffic on our street and have had since we haven't had any since I've lived there since 2021. Even public works employees had said when they put in my storm drain in my backyard that the city of Appleton won't put in sidewalks on a dead end street. There's no reason because there's nowhere to walk. I thank you for your time in listening to me and have a good evening.

Next is Rama Swift.

Hello, once again. Ronna Swift, 230 West Seymour Street. I'm a retired prison, guidance counselor who taught employability skills and health for the GED HSED program at the big prison in Oshkosh for 15 years. I want to personally thank so many of you, more than I can take the time to thank, who've been on this journey of how to provide opportunities for all our students in the district without the old truancy court. This includes League of Women Voters and Esther. Every department and the district staff have been very responsive to my communications, and I've had good response. I sat in on both task forces after the court was shut down and have been at this for 12 years now. The prison statistics about inmate students earning their GED HSED showed it was more important than any of the treatment programs for inmates to stay out of prison once they were released. That kind of amazed me, but the pride that my guys had was incredible. And many of them were first generation. At both task forces, I was upset that most of the teachers on the task force and staff wanted the truancy court to continue, which I obviously did not. I still see it as a prison pipeline and I'm opposed to fines and other punitive measures. These same individuals that were opposed to shutting it down have worked very hard. I know many of them, the back row is full of people from the district and these people really care. They're really doing the best they possibly can. There is a new program in effect right now that started about seven or eight months ago that is going extremely well. It's helping the program and the civics lesson in particular is very helpful. Ever since Scott Walker and the continuing lack of money for public schools K-12, it's become impossible to have enough staff to run the needed programs. All the money for private charter schools in the form of vouchers comes out of our local property taxes. Most people don't know that. And the family only needs to apply one time. There's a new private school system that will probably take some of our students potentially called Cominius Academy that comes out of Alliance Church that is hoping to build in Greenville and have 2,000 students within four to five years, K to 12. Most people don't know this. They only believe in two genders.

Only on items that appear on the agenda. So we're talking about truancy.

We need this money to expand our truancy and attendance staff and for the specialists to meet the enormous needs of our students. The private charter schools receive the special money, enroll special needs students, and by the end of September get to keep the money. And then we in the public schools get these kids back, but we don't have the money. The superintendent told me today they will have the most recent semester statistics within a week. I'm amazed at all the emails going around. I'm exhausted from trying to keep up with this. Everybody cares, we're all in the same boat. I was against the ordinance and yet know that it is working. We need to monitor it longer. I want all involved to continue to have meetings discussing possibilities in a civil manner. I trust the alders to work this out by continuing to communicate with all of you concerned. Thank you.

Right. Alder Doherty, just want to note, we can see you. I don't know if you can see us. It doesn't look like it, but we can see you. So just so you're aware, your video is working now. All right. Recognize there may be some new folks who've never been to a meeting before. We have a sign-up sheet before the meeting for public participation. But I just want to check and make sure, is there anyone else who would like to speak on an item that appears on the agenda who did not have a chance to sign up? Okay, hearing none, we will close public participation. Alder Schultz.

Chair, if it pleases, could I read two letters in public comment versus reading them when it gets to the debate?

Yeah, it's working now.

If the chair pleases, could I read a couple letters that were asked to be read under public comment from constituents, or would you rather I wait?

If you'd reference the content in the letters during debate, I think that would be appropriate, seeing we just closed public participation. All right.

All right.

We have no public hearings this evening and no special resolutions, so we'll establish the order of the day. Just again, for those of you who have not been to a Common Council meeting before, what's gonna happen now is we're doing what's called establishing the order of the day. What that means is that the council is gonna have the opportunity to identify any items on the agenda that they would like to pull out and have a separate conversation and vote separately on. So that's the part of the agenda that we're in now. What that'll mean then, we'll work our way through those separate items with individual discussions and votes. And then at the end, any items that have not been separated out during this period of time will be taken up as a whole. So the rest of the agenda will be taken care of at that point. So with that, we'll establish the order of the day.

First is Alder Crowe. Thank you, Mayor. From safety and licensing, the resolution 7R26, which is 26-0758, which is the resolution on reviewing options for truancy ordinance. It's my understanding we have several options for this, but one of them that I would like to present would be to refer this back to the committee, and I'd like to state a couple of reasons, please. Okay, so would you like a separate discussion? Or right now you're going to refer back? Refer back to committee, please.

Okay, okay. So you're going to... Refer back, so go ahead if you'd like to explain your reason.

Yeah, and I was one that always said, if you're going to refer something back, please give your reasons why, so everyone knows why. We heard from some members of the public tonight to trust Alders to work this out. We heard mutual trust and respect. I would ask that, respectfully, allow this to go back to committee so that the committee can review the options as it's stated in the resolution. And one of the more... specific reasons for refer back would be to get the rest of the data that will be presented by the school district which is the remaining data from the school year school year just ended they're gathering data so everyone that's been following this for months will have not only all the data that's been presented over the months but also the last bit of data for the committee to review that's the reason for refer back okay refer back is automatic with no objections

All right, hearing no objections, this item will be referred back to committee. It'll appear on the next agenda of the Safety and Licensing Committee. All right, continuing with order of the day, Alder Hartzine.

Thank you, Chair. From Municipal Services, item number 26-0490, the proposed reconstruction of Driscoll Street. And from Parks and Recreation, item number 26-0432, Resolution 2R26, please.

OK. Any others? Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. From Safety and Licensing 26-0781. OK.

That is regarding the technology and equipment grant. Okay, any others? Okay, hearing none, we are going to start with the item from Municipal Services Committee. This is 26-0490, a request to approve design for 2028, paving reconstruction of Driscoll Street from Prospect Avenue to Railroad Tracks terminus. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. This item first came before me when I was chair of Municipal Services Committee, and we discussed it very thoroughly. both in the design hearing and when it was an action item. And it was, with myself voting against, held for several weeks to direct city staff to do additional studies on traffic flow and on parking utilization. And after... many taxpayer dollars in man hours and the fee for the consultant to review the traffic camera footage, they came back with the same designation of the street. And so we wasted some time and we spent some money to achieve the same result. I was one of the people who went out and looked at the street and agreed that there could be issues with people with large vehicles. But as I took some notes while people were talking today and in previous meetings, I made four little tick marks on my sheet where people were talking about how heavy the traffic is and how this could be dangerous. And to me, that just screams sidewalks. when we're talking, when we're saying that there is a heavily traveled street. And the other thing that I mentioned in committee was we've talked over and over again about the unanimity of the residents of that street. We have a letter from a resident of the street who indicates that it's certainly not unanimous. And as I've brought up more than once in committee and in my newsletter to my constituents, we don't have anybody on any of the petitions, we've not heard anybody who speak whose address is 1401 South Driscoll. And that's the apartment complex where there are children, who have to go down to the end of the street to catch a bus, they have to walk in the middle of the street now, or they have to have parents who come out and drive that couple of blocks to pick them up because it is not safe, or the parents are not deeming it safe to walk in the street. And I just feel like we cannot let the The voices... of a few people whose concerns I absolutely do not discount. I know that it's difficult to have to pay for the cost of sidewalks, the cost of water and sewer laterals. And we've also been in discussions with city officials. One of my colleagues has been in contact with our state officials, trying to look for some other ways to finance this. And I just feel like deviating from a city policy that we have determined is a good policy to encourage multimodal traffic or transportation and safety would be a real mistake. And just a small aside, I truly, truly wish that we saw so much fervor and so much excitement in November when we're trying to pass the budget. Thank you.

All right. Alder Hartzheim. Did I get the wrong mic? All right, there you go.

Thank you, Chair. I agree with the last comment from Alder Fenton that it's great to have community input, and I'm happy that the neighbors come and express their concerns. I love that a neighbor says, I love my street. I love that that neighborhood feel is important to the people who live there. But I'm concerned not only for the current situation on Driscoll Street, but for the future of Driscoll Street. One of the neighbors expressed that if Driscoll Street gets sidewalks, then there aren't any other streets around there that have that connectivity, and then they would still be an island. But we, as alders, know that it takes 50 to 100 years for us to reconstruct a street, just budget-wise and planning-wise. It is just not a immediate, everybody's gonna snap our fingers and get sidewalks so that we have this connectivity. But if we don't do it now, when would we propose to do it? If we rebuild this street without sidewalks, then we go another 50 years where that island is a reverse island where they won't be connected. So again, I'm pleased with the current residents being very outspoken about their concerns, but I'm As a voting member of this committee and the council, I'm most concerned about the long-term future of this street as a part, as it makes up a part of this city. The only other thing that stood out to me is that much of the concern expressed by the neighbors is the financial piece of this. And as was mentioned by Elder Fenton, there is hope that there is some sort of assistance in that regard, but the city does have a five-year policy for special assessments. So any cost would be then distributed over five years. It doesn't eliminate the blow, but it does assist in the blow in neighbors being able to take that on as an expense to themselves. So I would encourage... my fellow council members, to approve this plan as it was brought forward by staff, as it was re-reviewed and re-reviewed and still came forth from the committee to approve. Thank you.

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. I'm sort of equally frustrated and disappointed with where we are in the process of this discussion and where we are with the design. Let's agree that sidewalks are beneficial and should be installed on both sides of Driscoll, and let's assume that that's what we're going to do, and I have no issue with that, I think. As a goal for mobility and connectivity, that's a good thing, despite the fact that it might be upwards of what was just said 50 years before full connectivity of those sidewalks is attained. I've got no issues with sidewalks in that neighborhood, and I think the layout of those homes and the properties can fairly well accommodate those being installed. I'm frustrated myself for not really having the foresight when we passed this policy two years ago to comprehend what it was going to mean for some of our older neighborhoods, in this case maybe not an old, old neighborhood, but neighborhoods that don't have, that have wider streets and no sidewalks, and really not comprehending at the time what we were going to position ourselves to be dealing with now and into the future as every one of these projects comes before us, and citizens are sort of caught blindsided a little bit by the changes that are going to happen in the neighborhood. So that's frustrating. I'm frustrated that we're at this point where there's still some unknowns about what's the average cost going to be to each of those landowners. I don't know what a full assessment. I mean, we've got some numbers, but I really don't know what that number is. And it's a little funky that you know, we're changing the street width and adding sidewalks for the benefit of the entire community, but the entire community isn't footing the bill for those sidewalks and some of the other work that might be necessitated to those homeowners who may have to do some changes in their property, adding parking pads or adjusting the height of their driveways. So that's frustrating. I guess I'm a little frustrated by the fact that we couldn't have a deeper discussion about something akin to a better compromise with what the community is asking for. So I'm disappointed too that I'm disappointed that this study of the parking congestion didn't merit a change in the classification. I was hopeful that it would, but numbers are numbers, and it didn't meet the threshold. So here we are, and that's a little disappointing. I'm a little disappointed by the nature of some of the dialogue that's taking place outside the chamber in a space where it probably shouldn't have. I'm a little disappointed with that no matter how clear a picture of the uniqueness of this two-block street with a dead end and an apartment complex and some serious parking issues, parking congestion, that we just can't seem to get beyond this precedent argument that we can't create precedent heading into this new policy because then everyone will want to change the design that comes in front of them. But I'm fearful that we are going to create precedent that, turning it on its head, no matter what comes before us in the next dozen, two dozen years with this new policy, there will be no exceptions to any kind of situation where the particular conditions in that neighborhood or on that street might warrant some consideration. So that's where I stand. I am 100% behind the Complete Street's policy, its intent, its goal, but I also recognize that it has some, presents some leeway for people on this body who have brains and are educated adults to have a deeper discussion on a situation like a two-block street with no connectivity at present and a dead end at a railroad track that will never change, and an apartment complex with over 40 Units without any on street visitor parking presents a unique challenge to that community and I'm just sad that That there probably will be no resolution to what we're about to place in front of them. Thank you Alder Smith Thank You chair

I want to say, first of all, I appreciate the residents who came in to talk, and I appreciated talking in your neighborhood. I saw and heard the things that you were talking about, and heard them again tonight.

Alder Smith, if you'd bring your mic a little bit closer.

Sorry, trouble hearing you. Votes like this have a tension that we all recognize. Residents who value and love a neighborhood that they chose to move into and and a neighborhood that has been that way for decades in their experience, and then the future and needs of residents until in the next 50, 60 years. And here on council, these votes about renovations and reconstruction of streets often fall on this kind of, consideration of both of these calls and demands. Ultimately, for me, I do believe that design is an important piece, that with the data, small changes can be made to design, and I think some of the widening at the end of the road to make turnarounds easier is an example of that, but that it's is a benefit to a neighborhood and a city to have a kind of uniformity of design. And over time, that will become clearer. This is a dead end road, but it also is part of a neighborhood. Perkins was redone next to it, and there's these other streets as well. And this will be, I believe, a move that in the long run will create a more cohesive neighborhood. Sidewalks and agreeing here with the League of Women Voters sidewalks are a public good and I find you know That's something that has been concerning me not here but in a lot of our discussions about the value of sidewalks and it seems like such a small detail but And maybe even a boring detail in city design, but it is a an important piece of our city design the city gets one chance 50 or 60 years of So it's a time for not a Band-Aid, but an update, and that's where the need to have a system and the need to bring this into conformity with how we are imagining the city in the future, and I think that's an important thing. understand the cost and I hear that I heard that when I when I met with some of you I think that is that's a difficult piece for this I share Alder Schultz's concerns here but I also believe that the benefits are clear and I hope that in the time these benefits are come to the front of our minds. The new road, water mains that are deteriorating and that need to be replaced, improvements and ultimately getting towards a million dollar investment in this road that I think is going to be a benefit to Driscoll, all of you individually, and also as the neighborhood, as other streets go through this. We as a council have tried to limit that. The wheel tax is a great example. That is, you know, years ago, if the road reconstruction had come up, the road itself could have been on the part of the special assessment. That is not the case now because of this wheel tax, but that is not to take away from the sidewalk. But I am just recognizing that over time, we have tried to find ways to limit these assessments, and that is something that is of value to us. um so just to conclude to say that i i i i hear you i understand the love that you have for the neighborhood i felt that and heard that and that your intentions in this whole thing and and coming to talk to us respect deeply. But I feel like I have to vote also for a future and agreeing with the design plans for the way the city will come to look over time and the importance of sidewalks in that picture. Thank you. Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. I believe in the complete streets policy. I also appreciate that it is a policy that allows for discretion. I believe that this street is unique. I believe that the dead end nature of the street, the lack of any visitor parking for the apartment complex, are significant aspects of this particular project that warrant discretion and warrant making an exception. So at this time, I'm going to make a motion to amend the design to maintain the current street width and maintain parking on both sides of the street.

All right, we have a motion and a second to amend. All right, and there was nobody in the queue at that point, so the queue is now for discussion of this amendment. Alder van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. Could staff address the parking restrictions that exist currently on the street? I believe that there are current parking restrictions on a portion of the street.

Director Youngworth, which mic is that? Okay. Director Youngworth.

Parking currently is restricted to one side of the road from December 1st to March I can't recall if it's April 1st or end of April, but it's end of April 1st, I believe. So it's three or four months that it is restricted, those of you that live there.

April 1st, yep. Our residents are confirming, yep, April 1st.

Thank you for that. So yes, from December 1st to April 1st, it is parking only on, I believe, the west side of the roadway.

Alderman Zeland, anything else?

Not on the amendment.

Okay. All right, continuing discussion on the amendment. Alder Croat?

Thank you for clarity. Could I ask the author, the presenter of the amendment, how this impacts the sidewalk installation? Alder Meltzer.

It's my understanding that the terraces would be smaller to accommodate the sidewalk. That was what I gathered from the discussion that happened at committee. So I'm not I'm not choosing to change anything about putting the sidewalks on. And also to clarify my amendment further, maintain the current width and maintain the current parking situation.

Alder Crote, anything else? Thank you. OK. All right, Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. Could I please ask Director Youngworth to clarify, or could you please ask Director Youngworth to clarify, is there a greater travel width of the street with restriction of parking on one side and the narrowing to the 26 feet? So in other words, is there a benefit to the narrowing we're not seeing just based on the fact that we're assuming that a wider street means more travel lane.

Director Youngworth.

Yes, thank you. So the current roadway width is 32 feet face to face. When we say face to face, we mean front of curb to front of curb. The proposed condition is 26 feet face to face. we estimate on a local road seven to seven and a half feet for parking. So if you do factor in and remove the parking width, you end up with approximately, in the existing current condition, with both sides of parking, 17 feet to 18 feet of clear space or travel lanes, if you will. In the proposed condition, seven to seven and a half feet equates to 18 and a half to 19 feet of clear space. vehicular travel. So in fact, you're adding between a foot and two feet potentially to the traveling width in the proposed condition and removing one side of parking fully.

Alder Hartzheim, anything else?

Thank you, Chair. That's vital information that I think we should keep in mind as well. Thank you.

Alder Meltzer.

I'm sorry. I was going to add that clarification about the maintaining the parking condition. And Alder gave me the opportunity to say that already.

Okay. Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. Could staff address what the estimated difference in cost would be with the amendment?

Director Youngworth, do you have a cost estimate for this as amended?

Yes, and this is in our original memo that was brought forth to committee. The estimated construction cost of, we're just looking at the roadway itself, and the 26 feet width is approximately $460,000. That's present day construction estimates, bearing in mind that this is a 2028 repave. The estimated construction cost at 32 feet is $545,000.

Alder Van Zeeland, anything else? No, thank you. OK. Any further discussion on the amendment?

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. I would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this. We've sort of all agreed that the sidewalks, which probably the biggest sticky point of this conversation to date, are a good thing. And we'll move forward under this amendment, we'll move forward with sidewalks on both sides, accomplishing that mobility component. But the biggest condition here that remains a significant factor is the on-street parking. And once those sidewalks are installed, you may end up with some additional pressures from some of those residents who are going to be not able to be parking their drivers because they'll be over that sidewalk. And that will force them on the street for some portions of the day. So take the numbers that we've been presented and maybe add another 10 to 15% for a handful of residents who cannot get all their vehicles in there no longer get all the vehicles in the driver without clearance for that sidewalk. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Again, the street is unique in its situation, and given the pressures from that complex, I think this is a well worthwhile pursuit. I get that it's going to cost us another $80,000 or $85,000. That's significant. But in this case, I think the benefit outweighs the cost. Thank you.

Alder Van Zeelen.

I'm sorry, mayor. Um, after I said I was done, I remembered another question about the cost. So if, um, also if staff could tell us what the added costs of the turnaround that we added in design, um, if they have an ability to give an estimate for that, or, um, if there is any estimated costs for the additional analysis, please.

Dr. Youngworth, anything on that?

We've not run estimates on the additional turnaround. We have, confirmed the importance of incorporating that and are intending to incorporate that. The width will be, so the cost may be slightly more than the 460,000 attributed to that additional pavement to add that turnaround at the end. But that is something we will be incorporating, whether it's 32 feet or 26 feet, frankly, to get that turnaround appropriately at the end of the roadway.

Go ahead.

Can I just follow up and also if there was any extra costs that we can estimate for the extra analysis that we did?

Anything there?

We had approximated that we spent, I want to say 20 to 30 hours of staff time and the analysis that we sent out to have the video assessed, I believe was in the ballpark of three to 5,000. Thank you.

Any further discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to amend, keeping the sidewalks and maintaining the roadway width and current parking condition. Please cast your votes. Alder Doherty, what do you, oh. He says, okay, he's voting aye. Okay, we got a yes. Thank you, we got you. Thank you. All right, the motion passes eight to six. So the item has been amended. Now we're back to the item as amended. Further discussion on the item as amended. Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. Every one of my colleagues understands that accessibility is deeply personal for me, but this vote isn't about me or my personal feelings. For me, what it comes down to is whether a neighborhood can demand that this city invest below their street and benefit from that as property owners, but not contribute any private investment or follow the rules that other similar roads must follow. So I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the street design Because the cast-iron water mains keep showing up on our utility water break report That's going to have cost for taxpayers and ratepayers across the board And it will set a precedent that allows property owners to delay projects raise costs and benefit from the public investment While not contributing overall to the public good. Thank you. I

Right. Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. I have to say I'm disappointed in this vote. So we've talked about $85,000 difference plus $5,000 plus, say, another $90,000. So just very, very low ball estimating time, say, another $90,000. So we're getting close to $100,000 of all the taxpayers' dollars to add a few parking spaces for six months of the year. And I'm not sure that that is being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. Thank you.

Alder Wolf.

Thank you, Chair. I'm okay slightly increasing the cost to the street as long as it helps our taxpayers out at the same time they are taxpayers. Because in comparison, recently the White House spent $5 million to paint four horses' carrot gold. So, I mean, if we're going to spend tax dollars in a way, at the very least it's benefiting the taxpayers rather than something like that, just for comparison.

Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. I think that as stewards of taxpayer money, we do have a very challenging job. But when we look at other street projects that have come forward, sometimes we narrow streets in order to save trees. Sometimes the concrete ends up costing less because we have narrowed the street past the original proposed design. So I think in the bigger picture, there is a balance that happens. Sometimes people need to preserve their parking. Sometimes people need to preserve their trees. And it's really important for us as representatives to listen and try to make what we feel is the best choice for the people we represent and those who are coming before us with their concerns. Thank you.

Alder Smith.

Alder Crote. Thank you, Mayor. We are on the item as amended, correct? Yes. Okay. Just want to say a couple things, because I got involved in this process by visiting with the neighborhood. Alder Wolf and I were there, talked with the neighbors, understand their concerns. Obviously, they feel very strongly about this project. This is a tough one for me, because I see both sides of it. I see the city's position on the proposal, the cost implications I'm struggling with, But the biggest thing for this project for me was installation of the sidewalks are important. I was hoping for a compromise, and what I'm hearing tonight is we have a compromise. Yes, it does add cost to the project, but I'm okay with that. I thank the residents for getting involved. This is the process. No matter what happens with the vote, I hope you understand your voices have been heard. And lastly, I would just say that the city would never propose a design that creates significant access challenges for public safety pedestrians or homeowners. So either way we go, we're gonna be okay. It's just which way do we wanna see it end up? My one question I think for someone, Mayor or Director of Public Works is if this does not pass, what does it mean for the project from a timeline perspective? Because it's already been pushed out several times or many times? Director Youngworth?

If it fails and we don't have a direction forward as staff, we would not be reconstructing. We would allocate those funds elsewhere to other road projects.

Thank you. That's what I was thinking was going to be the statement, which I think affirms why we need to support this amended version. and get this project done for the neighborhood, most importantly for the infrastructure underneath the road. It's aging. Every year that goes by, it gets worse. It's gonna be more problems. So I would encourage everyone to support the amended project. Thank you. Alder Furcus.

Thank you, Mayor. I cannot support this in the state it is right now. The edit costs. so that we can provide more parking spaces for people that own more vehicles in places. They have the storm at taxpayers expenses, taxpayers across the entire city that are paying for this project through wheel tax and through the general fund. I will not support this. Yep. Alderman Zealand.

Thank you, Tara. I had intended to clarify what the options would be since the item has been amended, but I too will not support this. I can't, I had an issue asking our taxpayers to pay more for the wheel tax and now to ask them to pay extra for preferences that I don't think will accomplish what we want to accomplish with the street reconstruction. I can't vote in favor. Thank you.

Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. I am leaning in the direction of Alder's focus on Van Zeeland in this regard. Not that I don't agree with Alder Crote that this is an important street to move forward on because of the infrastructure issues there. But the added cost is not minimal. And honestly, A part of our narrowing of streets throughout the city during reconstruction is for natural traffic calming, and that is going to be negated here with the amended version. So I'm struggling at this point, but I do appreciate the comments from my colleagues. Thank you.

Alder Smith. I just want to say that, thank you, Chair, that I believe strongly that our changes to the system need to be based on data. And I don't feel like we're following that. And I think that's a bad precedent for us. And I just don't want to be in a situation where every proposed design of a street can be changed back and forth in this way. I think we have to keep our eyes on the data. We did collect a lot of data on this situation, and I think this is a bad move. I will support this just because I think that the road needs to be done, and I have a hard time just putting this back in limbo. The street's been in limbo for a long time, so I don't feel like I have a great choice in this, so I will support it on that basis, but I think it's a bad precedent. Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. Just one more thing to add. In my district, where we do have wider streets in some areas, the complaint that I get all the time, at least once a month, is asking for more pedestrian safety and what we can do to stop people from speeding down the street. And those calls and those calls those messages that get passed to our police department have a cost. I remember looking into an enhanced pedestrian crosswalk. One of those costs about $60,000 in 2019. I imagine it's much more. You know, there are other costs at play when we don't follow the design that we know will make things safer outside of the street. And a lot of that falls on our police department. Thank you.

Alder Wolf, who is the only speaker in the queue. Thank you, Chair.

As I often share during contentious street conversations, in my district, we have Glendale and Mason Street, which have bike lanes and reduced parking, and this created a lot of frustration with the people who lived on those streets at the time. So as I have talked to those neighbours over the years, and including new neighbours, it's become very apparent to always take their thoughts with me into conversations about other streets as well. when a group of neighbors come together wanting change or compromise with the city, I take that very seriously to bring something forward that makes them a little bit happier so that each day when they walk out, they're not frustrated with the street, rather look at the street maybe a little more optimistically because they do have to see that every single day, which if they don't like the street can create frustration every single day and remind them that the city didn't work with them or et cetera, et cetera. So I appreciate my colleagues working with the constituents of Driscoll Street and the constituents of Driscoll Street coming in to speak in this process. Thank you. Alder Jones.

Thank you, Chair. This is a very difficult decision for me. As you know, we went through this with Oklahoma Street in my district a lot shorter ago than I feel like it is. It is very hard when this is your home and you've lived here forever. But we also have to be responsible as stewards for this city as well. And if the data is telling us this, if we passed, I almost said clean streets. If we, if we pass this and we believe in it and the data is telling us this and the experts are telling us this, at what point are we going to keep saying, well, yeah, but what if this is it? I don't want to discount anyone, but, With Oklahoma Street, it was the trees and the narrowing and the parking. And with Driscoll, it's its own unique things. And I just wonder that if we don't stand strong on what we voted for and what we believe in for the smart streets, is this going to happen every time? And I know it again with Oklahoma. not having these repairs is not okay. They need to be done, and they need to be done on schedule. However, I struggle to vote for this as it is. So I don't know what my plan is, but know that it is not to punish anyone. Thank you.

Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. I thought I had said my piece on this. But I just keep coming back to, in committee, I understand that sidewalks remain in the amended design, but in committee we talked a lot about objections to sidewalks being ableist. I feel like a lot of what's going on here is pretty classist. We have 30 signatures on the petitions, and the vast majority of those are homeowners who would be assessed. We have a 48 unit apartment complex. Those people are citizens of the city. They pay taxes through their rent. They pay property taxes. And yet, I feel like we're listening, we haven't heard any of those voices. And to the point of the city and having people's needs, people's requests ignored, The city almost immediately, Department of Public Works, when they heard about the trucks backing down, almost immediately altered the design to put that turnaround in there. And when it is legitimate, we had in the same design hearing, we had Roosevelt Street come up. The Department of Public Works actually did further review and agreed that that street, it made sense to leave that street at its width, original width, for a number of factors, not the least of which was the work that had been done for curb and gutter when Morrison Street was reconstructed. But I feel like, to Alder Jones's point, we cannot engage in policy or make policy and then back down every single time when the people who have the ability to take off work and come talk to us and to write letters, when they're the loudest voices. And I go back to this, and we're doing this for a half a dozen parking spots for six months out of the year. Thank you.

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. This reconstruct was a part of an original package of five street reconstructs, two other streets very near this street in that very same neighborhood, a section of Pine Street, and I forget the other street. There was one singular complaint from one of those residents, but overall, there has been no blowback or pushback on the narrowing or the addition of sidewalks. Pine has a fair amount already, but the other street does not. There's no concern, primarily because as residents, I think those homeowners can see that they were connector streets, that they went from point A to point B and beyond. that that sidewalk connections down to Prospect and other places made sense to complete some of those linkages. This is a little bit different street. It is a dead end, and it serves primarily, I would say 90% of the time, it serves the residents and the tenants of that apartment complex. And the tenants of that apartment complex, I know personally some of them have significant issues because they get one stall with their rental They can pay for a second one, which most of them can't afford, and anybody who comes to visit them or stay with them ends up parking on the street. If you reduce the parking on the street to one side, you are going to negatively affect those residents as well, because those people who come to see them, visit them, or whatever, or service them, will also be vying for those select public parking spaces. There's a notion that they haven't been heard, but I can tell you from conversations I've had with some of them previously with parking issues that this will benefit them to maintain some additional parking in that space. And I believe that a lot of the pressure in that community already is driven by those tenants' excessive needs beyond what they're allowed in the complex parking lot. So for those two reasons, I still support this. Maybe it wasn't the compromise I was hoping for, and I 100% understand The additional cost, I understand the time and expense that we've added to staff, and I appreciate that we went this extra mile, but we did it for a reason. And the reason was, there was some special circumstances here. And maybe as we look forward to doing more street projects, we can. maybe get a better sense of connections that serve more people as arterials or through streets instead of focusing on a neighborhood with a dead end and an apartment complex. I hope you'll vote for this. Thank you. Alder Heffernan.

Thank you, Chair. I mean, the homeowners have to live there, right? Like, we make policy... for the city of Appleton, but we make policy for the people who live here. And the way that good government works is that if we're elected by constituents and the constituents come and they talk to us and they're able to make a difference, we wanna continue to encourage people coming to share their vote. Like my colleagues, Fergus and Hartzheim, the increased cost gives me a lot of pause That being said, we also have to work with who is showing up to talk to us. and who is making their voices heard, who are also taxpayers, I would add. My biggest reason, I'm going to support this, and my biggest reason for that is that if we do not pass this tonight, those funds are going to go elsewhere, and the state of the cast iron plumbing waterworks, that not being taken care of right away that has to outweigh the cost for me. People need to have safe access to the water and water mains continuing to break as another additional cost to the city. So I will support this and I would ask that my colleagues support it as well. Thank you.

Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. If this project is now increased, as amended, is increased by approximately $100,000, I would like to stand up for the 3,333 people who have paid 30 bucks in wheel tax, that that's where that money comes from. If $100,000 is added to this project, it's removed from another. It's disappointing and very difficult. Thank you.

Alder Van Zeelen.

Thank you, Chair. Because I think that the city has to act to mitigate any extra costs from the cast iron water mains i would like to introduce or move to amend the amendment with a substitution of the original design from that came out of committee all right and and actually you're just uh if this is a this is the first amendment so this would be

The item was amended, so currently this would be the first level of amendment, just if there is a second. So you're moving to amend by substitution, replacing with the recommendation that came out of committee.

That's correct.

All right, we have a motion and a second to amend by substitution. We'll clear the queue and we'll open discussion on this amendment by substitution. All right, Alder Wolf. I was in the queue from the... Oh, okay, okay. Alder Furcus.

Thank you, Mayor. Some of the comments made just before this amendment really hit the nail on the head. This money for this added expense doesn't just drop from thin air. This comes from someone else's project. you can say this is important to get done because of the underground infrastructure. Somebody else's project is also very important to get done for the underground infrastructure. You're pushing them off by doing this. Thank you. Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. I am in full support of this amendment because of what Director Youngworth stated before, that 17 to 18 feet of travel lanes is given for what had been amended. But 18 to 19 feet of travel lane, that much additional travel lane is given by narrowing the street and restricting parking on one side. That's important to me. And the narrowing of the street as well is not just a financial thing, it is a, I've talked enough to Traffic Engineer Lam to know that Traffic engineers aren't silly. They know their craft and they know what it means to increase safety on a street by narrowing it. Thank you.

Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to remind my colleagues of the discussion that we had previously in the Finance Committee about what our budget looks like in the coming year and the hard choices that we're going to have to make. And I want everyone to consider when we have to make those choices that we have to report to our constituents outside of this district why we thought if these changes were more important than the other changes we need to make at budget time. Thank you.

Alder Lambert. Thank you, Chair. This has been, first I want to thank the council for a really robust discussion on this. I think coming into this, one of my big concerns for not only this project but my district as a whole is parking. And so as we've been thinking through and talking about how this might impact the parking. That definitely resonated with me as we were talking about the amendment, the original amendment. I also, though, agree with Alder Hartzheim with regards to the road width is actually going to have more of a of a clearance with a one side parking versus the other the one thing coming in today that i i absolutely wanted to accomplish is making sure that we had sidewalks i'll be completely honest at the end of the day that is 100 my was my goal and my hope from the original amendment was that that would be a um a compromise that we could could reach With all that said, right, and I think there were some very important points as we were discussing that, and what I'm gonna defer back to actually is something Alder Van Zeelen said, which is around the staff expertise, the thoughtfulness and effort that they put in to not only respond when requests and those types of things are made with the end of the road and the roundabout, but also adjusting when new information is presented on what the best choice for not only today but the future will be. And so this discussion has very much so evolved my thinking over the course of even the last 43 minutes that we've been having it. And at the end of the day, I think this is a really difficult one. And I think of the examples that were highlighted in which the body followed the recommendations of the staff to make the best choice possible based upon the data and the information that they provided. I'm going to be all over the place on this one, but I do feel like I'm going to need to vote in favor of the amendment by substitution to return back to what the staff's recommendation was for the narrower roads with the sidewalks. I think it's important for us to use the data and to listen to the experts who are looking at this, and I'm not trying to discount the expertise and knowledge of you as day-to-day residents and citizens, but the same thing I said for Roosevelt. was that we need to make decisions based upon not only today, but also the next 100 years in the future. And at this time, I think the amendment by substitution, based upon the knowledge and what I know from our staff, I'm going to be supporting it.

Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, chair. I hear my colleagues talking about issues specific to their district that don't relate to this street. We just heard Alder Lambric talk about parking in his district. And I would encourage my colleagues that if they feel that there are changes that need to be made in that regard, that they submit a resolution and that's a conversation that we can have. But as the policy stands, It stands this way for a reason, and most of us supported this wholeheartedly. So I just think we have to move forward, but we can have another conversation. Thank you.

Alder Heffernan.

I'm going to support the substitution amendment, but I want to be clear about why. I'm only going to support this because after the discussion tonight, I don't believe that we would have the votes to get the compromise, previous amendment passed. and the water mains need to be taken care of. That's an important part of health and safety. I hope that the residents understand that, at least from my vote. And I'm sorry that we could not come to a compromise that accommodated the residents in a way that they wanted. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion to amend?

Alder Crote. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. You just said a motion to amend, but I've heard a couple times people say substitution, so I want to clarify what this vote is. If it's an amendment and the amendment fails, we go back to the previous item?

Yeah, the motion is an amendment by substitution, so my stating it as an amendment is just a shorthand for what the full action would be. You are correct. If this fails... it would go back to the item as amended previously. All right, there seems to be no further discussion. This is on the motion to amend by substitution reverting to the version that came out of committee with recommendation for approval. Please cast your votes. Alder Doherty votes nay. Motion passes eight to six. The item has been amended by substitution reverting to the version that was recommended out of committee. That is the current version that is before the council now. Any further discussion? Hearing none, please cast your votes.

Oh, Alderwolf under the wire. Thank you, Chair. Just on rolling back a little bit, I just wanted to make a point of, as a person who has lived 26 out of 34 years of his life in an apartment building, I do appreciate the thought of the people who are down the street and their viewpoints. I think that is really important. And that is why I have always canvassed every apartment building whenever I'm running for office or canvassing in general. So I do appreciate the thought of bringing them into the conversation. I will say, I think that the wider street would have helped them continue to park on the street when it gets snowy or when their overflow is getting full. I don't think that they'll be able to now. So I do think that's going to present issues with the narrower street. Just to point that out, that I think that we did them a disservice in doing that. It should be noted that the landlord of the property would not allow people into the apartment buildings to canvass, as I tried to do, mentioned before I tried to do that. So I just wanted to put that out there that it was attempted to contact them, but was not able to. Thank you. Alder Fenton.

Apologies, Chair. I know you thought we were finished. All right. I'm gonna thank Alderwolf for bringing up that point. I just kinda wanna remind everybody who's talking about parking and people who wanna park their cars. Overnight parking is still prohibited in the city of Appleton. Street parking is not a permanent solution. And then back to the apartment complex, that brought up an issue to me back when this first came up and I was serving as chair of the committee. And I actually reached out to the Department of Public Works to find out how we were doing notifications, courtesy notices for construction, et cetera. And we tend to send these notices to the owner of the property. But looking in the GIS system, You don't have the names of the tenants, but you certainly have an address. So we have been in discussion about extending those courtesy notices so that tenants in an affected property would also be notified. And I think that's a really important step because I keep reminding all of us that tenants pay property taxes as well. They just pay it in a different way. Thank you.

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. In my discussions with some of the community members, and you've heard it tonight, that the addition of the sidewalks will create an extra burden for some of those individuals who won't be able to park how they're normally used to parking, and they may have to take advantage of on-street parking. One of the thoughts was, would it be possible to shift the sidewalks closer to the curb such that some of that driveway parking could be maintained in that extra vehicle that might currently fall over the sidewalk as this design dictates. Maybe that sidewalk could shift closer to the curb and allow some of that parking to actually continue to happen. Could I ask a question of staff? Okay, I'm curious to know whether there's any prohibition on shifting that location of the sidewalk closer to the curb to allow for some additional space on those challenged driveways.

Director Youngworth.

What I would say is that it eliminates the ability to plant anything within the terrace area. We need typically very minimum four feet, but ideally five feet or greater of terrace width to be able to plant trees. So we would not, that would prohibit that ability by shifting that. And then further, we try to accommodate for door openings alongside parking. So you want to provide at least two feet before you have a, travel through for pedestrians, if that makes sense. So you'd want probably seven feet. So the two feet for the clearance of the door, but then also you have to consider snow storage. Terraces do allow for snow storage when you plow the roadway, and that would also be further reduced, that storage area.

And then any concerns related to underground utilities, private utility easements, anything like that?

The right-of-way would not change. The right-of-way would still stay the same. So what is currently the right-of-way would remain the right-of-way, and utilities laterals are still the responsibility of property owners in their entirety to the main.

Just a follow-up, a quick one. What's in the design? What's the current width of the terrace between sidewalk edge and curb?

Bear with me. eight and a half feet terrorists with the road widening and 11 feet with the road narrowing.

So as the current design with the road narrowing, which is what we're about to vote on, we would have 11 foot terrorists. Is there any opportunity given that number also considering tree planting and clearance to shift or is that basically the minimum required to, to allow for tree planting in that two foot clearance? Director Youngworth.

I'm trying to run quick numbers in my head here. So 16 feet in total off of the edge of road are with, this is where are we talking narrowing or are we talking what we're about to vote on? So that would be 16 feet in total, uh, between the sidewalk and adding in the terrace of 11 feet. So it really depends on how, What are we shifting? We said closer to the curb.

I'm going to say, I want to say, I don't want to put director Youngworth on. This is a, a larger design and engineering discussion than we can reasonably have on the fly here on the council floor. And I don't want to put Director Youngworth in a position to try and opine on the design because there are also broader considerations than any single street with respect to future connectivity as this network expands. If that's a serious point of consideration, then I would advise the council to consider an action that would allow or direct for additional design work. But again, what's been previously shared is that the time constraints for this process are a material issue at this point with respect to getting the project moving. So again, just want to give you your options. Council, you can certainly give direction to go back and attempt to redesign the spacing of sidewalks, but that is not an exercise we can do on the council floor.

Thank you, Chair. And it is not typical nor standard for us to put sidewalks anywhere than at the right-of-way line. Not saying we can't deviate, but that has frankly not been our practice to do so. Thank you for all of that.

All right, Alder Hartzine.

Thank you, Chair. Director Youngworth just basically stole my statement, which was it's typical in, or it's standard in this city to put sidewalks at the right-of-way line. And I believe that even though this neighborhood is an older neighborhood, there is probably at least a 20-foot right-of-way from building setback to the front of sidewalk. Even moving sidewalks nearer the roadway I don't think solves the problem because the right-of-way is going to remain the right-of-way. And even if there isn't a sidewalk there and you're parked in it, that's technically illegal anyway, in my understanding.

Thanks. All right. Any further discussion? Again, this is on the item as amended by substitution, reverting to the version that was recommended by the committee. There being no further discussion, please cast your votes. Alder Doherty votes nay. Motion passes nine to five. The item has been approved as amended by substitution. All right. At this time, we are going to take a recess before we continue with the items that we've yet to get to. We will resume at 9. All right, we'll come back to order. All right, we're going to move to the item from Parks and Recreation. This is 26-0432, resolution 2R26, supporting vegetation analysis and advancing a data-informed mowing reduction strategy.

Looking for a motion.

We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. Alder Hartzine.

Thank you, Chair. I separated this because while I agree with generally all the statements included on the resolution, it really truly, in my view, does nothing. The therefore be it resolved clauses say the Common Council supports, the ASAP group is encouraged, and the results will be considered. I think most of those things have been done or will be done. without this resolution, so I intend to vote against it. Thank you.

Alder Van Zeeland.

Thank you, Chair. The bad news is that on this front currently, I agree with Alder Hartzheim. The good news is that, well, I just mean in principle. The good news is that, not you person, not Alder person, I'm sorry, not Alder person.

Alder Van Zeeland, the hole continues to get deeper. I'd advise you to get back to your point.

Actually, I believe Alderperson Hartzheim knows better. But the good news is, after discussions where, as Alder Schultz said earlier, our brains almost did fall out, we did come to an agreement on how to deal with ASAP recommendations in the future. And working with project and sustainability and resiliency manager shraggy and director flick, we have come up with an entire process for the recommendation, we have a recommendation from the panel that will come to the committee. So I would like to just hold this item at council until after they can present that recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Committee. And that would, I guess, together make what this process will look like in the future without having to use a resolution. So I would like to motion to hold this item at council until after the recommendation can be on the agenda for Parks and Recreation.

All right, we have a motion to hold. Is there a second? So Van Zielen moves, seconded by Alder Landrecht. All right, any discussion on the motion to hold? All right, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, the ayes have it. The item will be held until the recommendation can be on the Parks and Recreation Agenda. So we'll rely on the Chair and Director Flick to keep track of when those are coming so that both appear. Okay, thank you. All right, from Safety and Licensing. Back to this. All right, this is 26-0781, request to apply, accept $425,000 COPS grant, technology and equipment grant funds. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. Hearing none, please cast your votes. Motion passes 12 to 2. The item has been approved. That's it for separate items. Need a motion on the balance of the agenda? We have a motion and a second to approve the balance of the agenda.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, please cast your votes. I motion passes fourteen to zero the balance of the agenda has been approved I would like to take a moment to just draw your attention to one of the items that was a included in the approval that you just gave this was for the management agreement for the fox cities exhibition center and I I Just think I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to thank our team for their work on this process. This was a very long process to secure a new management agreement for the Exhibition Center. I wanna thank Director Holman and former Director Gaza, Director Flick, Attorney Behrens, Deputy City Attorney Abshire and also Director Youngworth for her efforts and our outside consulting support. This was many hands involved and our community partners and of course I want to thank our partners at the Paper Valley Hilton for their work on this and continuing in operations. And finally I want to thank the Council for your support of this management agreement. This positions both the City of Appleton and the Fox Cities Exhibition Center for a more financially secure future by establishing a reserve fund that will provide for capital maintenance of the building moving forward. There was no reserve fund in place prior to this. And so that's a major component of this agreement. But with your support, this agreement also unlocks more potential for the operator to further activate that facility and drive the kind of activity that all of the participating members of the Fox City's Room Tax Commission hoped for when this project was originally constructed. So I just want to thank you all. for your support and again, congratulations to the team on getting this project through. Thank you all very much. All right, we have no consolidated action items, no items held, no ordinances before you this evening. License applications and communications referred to committees of jurisdiction. All right, resolutions submitted by all the persons referred to committees of jurisdiction. Have there been any resolutions submitted?

Yes, there have. Tonight we have Resolution 9R26, which is a resolution establishing public oversight and accountability standards for automated license plate reader, ALPR, and mass surveillance technologies. This was submitted by Alderperson Sventon of District 6 and Alderperson Van Zeeland of District 5. The summary of this resolution is, this resolution ensures that automated license plate reader, or ALPR, technology and or other automated mass surveillance or data collection tools using artificial intelligence for analysis used by the Appleton Police Department are properly reviewed prior to the Common Council approving a trial or contract for such technology will be subject to Appleton Police Department policy that governs its use in a manner consistent with the constitutional rights of citizens and establishes a regular reporting schedule to the Common Council during the term of any contract. and the full text of this resolution will be on the minutes.

All right, that'll be referred to the Safety and Licensing Committee. I'll also make note that Resolution 4R26, submitted by Alderperson Wolf, will also be referred to the next Safety and Licensing Committee. In addition, the Safety and Licensing Committee can expect a recommendation on next steps regarding our termination of FLOC for the City of Appleton. So those items will appear on the next agenda of the Safety and Licensing Committee. Is there any other business? Alder Schultz?

Thank you, Mayor. Just a reminder to colleagues that next week is Pollinator Week, and Pollinators Fox City is the B-City affiliate for the City of Appleton, along with our partners at Park and Rec have a couple events. Tuesday night there will be a talk given by, let's see, who's doing Tuesday? Let's just go with Thursday. Michael Stononic, our forester, is going to give a talk on the role of pollinating trees in the urban landscape. On Tuesday, oh, I'm sorry, Steve Schrage will be giving us a talk on essentially invasive species removal and some of the things that were covered by that resolution we just held. And then on Wednesday, there will be an invasive species practicum and poll at the Ellen Court Peace Park where we're going to walk into that very large pollinator plantation, which is gone kind of crazy with sweet clover and need some serious manpower to get in and clean it up, but otherwise it looks good. So a little hands on at three o'clock to six o'clock on Wednesday. If anybody wants to get their hands dirty and get some exercise, I'd welcome you to join us out there. Thank you. Thank you.

Alder Hartzheim.

The 75th Appleton Flag Day Parade was really awesome. And thanks to everybody who came.

Alder Van Zeeland, and then I see Alder Wolf. Okay, good. Oh, how about a mic?

Are you trying to tell me something? Go ahead. I want to do again, apologize to my very good friend, Alder Hartzheim, for not just my mistake in before, but not being able to make the parade. And sincerely, though, I want to thank everyone for the hard work that was done tonight. I think that there were a lot of really good examples of good government and civil discourse this evening. Thank you.

Alderwolf. Thank you for reminding me, Alderperson Hartzog. The latest edition of the Promenade occurred over the last weekend, which saw double the numbers from the year prior, as well as Pride in general, saw twice as many people come down to Jones Park. Without question, a remarkable sight and a really big day for Appleton. really giving people, recognize that this is an opening and accepting place for people to come. And I would like to thank the mayor for coming to the promenade. It was pretty nice to have him there, as well as older person Smith, I believe. I saw you there. I was a little busy, so sorry if I missed anyone. And older person Meltzer as well. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm asking because I've been asked by some citizens, if you could please tell us what the plan is for the large metal structures that are all over downtown, meridian barriers. What is the plan for them when there's not an event going on?

Yep, so the meridian, we've received the meridian barriers. If you haven't noticed them... The color selected by the traffic engineer is called sulfur yellow, and so we wanted them to be conspicuous, and I think we've achieved that goal. So where we are right now is still continuing to refine our operational process around use of the barriers. Obviously, events like the farmer's market requires a pretty substantial deployment, So it's likely that over the course of peak event season for us, the barriers will remain in the right of way. They may not remain in their deployed positions always, but you can expect to see meridian barriers in the right of way in parts of downtown over the course of event season. So that will, at least in the short term, be part of our approach. Again, over time as we refine our operations, that may change and in some cases will change. But again, we're in early days with respect to operations. And at this point, going out and recovering 80 barriers on Monday to put them back out on Friday, it's a bit of a question in terms of operations. So that's the current approach. I see your disappointment.

And I respect that. I just am a little concerned that that means all summer, because quite honestly, they're stacked up all over, and some view them as an eyesore, especially the ones around Houdini Plaza. They're just lined up like cordwood. I think the expectation was they were going to be removed and replaced when there was an event, and that's why I'm asking.

Yeah, and I appreciate the feedback. We've received similar feedback and, frankly, share that concern. So as we continue to refine operations, we'll sort out the most efficient ways to tackle that process. This last weekend was our first full-scale deployment of the new system, and it was, from a vehicle access perspective, probably one of the most secure, if not the most secure set of events we've held in the downtown as a result of being able to close off those sidewalks and access points. We also wouldn't have been able to secure the route as fully if it wasn't for the private companies that volunteered to provide vehicles along the route. So a couple of towing companies, Murphy Concrete, among others, So we very much appreciate that support. Those are the kinds of deployments that we can expect to see for those large scale events like parades, Oktoberfest. There will still be supplement. We will still supplement with vehicles. The next part of our process is refining our deployment of the gate systems for events like the farmers market. Those are more labor intensive and more technical to deploy. So we need to work out some of the process components around it. And so we're really in an active process of refinement when it comes to how we use them. So more to come, it's not our expectation that they're gonna sit out and certainly not in that deployed position in the long run, but we've got some work to do to come up with process around that. Alder Van Zeeland.

thank you chair i just wanted to ask is the number of barriers out there right now the same number that will stay out there while we go through this process or is it because of the parade that there are so many uh that that is a that's a good question and not one i have a ready answer for i i don't know if there are are barriers that that are still in storage but the

And the perimeters may change, particularly with the farmer's market. So again, refining how we secure that event, still an ongoing discussion. So the strategy around Houdini Plaza may look different around the farmer's market as we continue to iterate on that closure. So at this point, I don't have a ready answer for how many are in storage, but What's out represents most of the barriers that the city purchased.

Okay, thank you.

Right. Any other business? Okay. Hearing none, we need a motion to adjourn. We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Thank you.