Common Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I now call to order the Wednesday, July 15th, 2026 meeting of the Appleton Common Council. Please rise for the invocation, which will be delivered by Alder Hartzine.

Thank you, Chair. In August of 1776, just weeks after the American Declaration of Independence was signed, Samuel Adams, perhaps remembered today as much for beer as for his statesmanship, reflected on the significance of the Declaration and the new nation it had brought into being. He said, quote, other nations have received their laws from conquerors. Some are indebted for a constitution to the suffering of their ancestors through revolving centuries. The people of this country alone have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact." His words remind us that in America, honor and authority are not inherited by birth or wealth, but entrusted by the people. That trust extends all the way from our nation's founding to meetings like this one, where neighbors come together to solve problems, serve one another, and shape the future of our city. As Adam spoke to the privilege of self-government, John F. Kennedy reminded us 170 years later, quote, we cannot assume that the struggle has ended. It is never ending. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It was the price yesterday. It is the price today. and it will ever be the price, end quote. Freedom and good government are not to be taken for granted. They are our responsibility. Four decades later, Ronald Reagan expressed a truth that remains relevant. Quote, the things that unite us, America's past of which we are so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country, these things far outweigh what little divides us. We pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom, the cause that has given light to this land and hope to the world, end quote. Tonight, let us give thanks to God or whoever might be your higher power for the blessings of liberty, for those who have sacrificed to preserve it, and for the opportunity to serve our neighbors and local government. We ask for the courage to do what is right rather than what's easy. May we remain grateful for the freedoms we enjoy and always be faithful stewards of the responsibilities those freedoms require.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to God, indivisible,

All right, roll call of Alders.

All are represented with the exceptions of Alderpersons Hayden, Jones, and Stancilmartin, who are excused.

And roll call of Officers and Department Heads.

All are represented with the exception of Library Director Rortvert, Health Officer Siepers, HR Director Ratchman, and General Manager McDonald.

They are all excused. All right, thank you. Need a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion of the minutes? Hearing none, please cast your votes. All right, that motion passes 12 to 0. The minutes have been approved. And on a business presented by the mayor, a number of proclamations to bring to your attention. We are recognizing Parks and Recreation Month, National Disability Awareness Month. We celebrated Houdini Day. And Children's Week is coming up. That'll be next week. A number of different programs around the community, including the Children's Parade. So it'll be a great week of activities. And I look forward to seeing folks out and about at those. I have no further business to present to you this evening. And as we come to public participation, seeing some new faces in the room tonight, thank you all for being here. We appreciate you being here and participating in our meeting. I want to talk a little bit about how the council agenda is organized and how the council conducts its business Just just so that everyone has clarity about how the flow of the meeting works. So What will happen is we'll move our work. We're going to continue moving our way through our agenda We'll have public participation and then we have no public hearings or special resolutions and then we'll come to Establishing the order of the day so the council uses what is sometimes called a consent agenda To to help make their meetings more efficient And so what will happen during the establishment of the order of the day is that members of the council can ask to have a separate discussion on any of the items that appear on the agenda. And once we're finished with establishing the order of the day, we'll work our way through each of those items that they've separated out from the agenda for a discussion. And once that is through, any other items that remain on the agenda from the committee reports, they get approved with a single motion. So it makes the meeting a little bit more efficient, so there's not necessarily discussion on every single item. So just want to make sure that there's some clarity about that, so we'll get to order of the day. And now that we've come to a time of public participation... At every meeting of the council, the council reserves 30 minutes for members of the public to express their views on items which appear on the agenda. Tonight, we have 17 people who've signed up to speak. And when I call your name, and I'll do my best to get your name right. I apologize in advance. It is handwriting after all, but I'll do my best. When you hear your name, come on up to the podium. We ask that you restate your name and address for the record. And then we will get into our public participation. When I call your name, do you need something? No, I'll get to that.

I'll get to that, sir.

Sir, I will get to that. Thank you. We have 17 folks who signed up ahead of time, but as a practice, we make sure that if you didn't have a chance, we make sure that anybody who'd like to speak on items that appear on the agenda have the opportunity to do so. Before we begin public participation, I'd like to remind everyone that we maintain decorum in this chamber. And we take that seriously. So what that means is that we're going to be respectful of every person who wants to speak. We do not react or respond to the things that are said during public participation. If you need to have a conversation or you'd like to have a sidebar conversation during the course of the meeting, we'd ask that you please step outside to do so. And we will We will maintain order and decorum to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to share their views. The other thing I'll note is that during public participation, it is not a dialogue between the chair or members of the council. I would also ask that when you give your comments for public participation, you direct your comments to the chair. The alderpersons will do the same when they engage in debate and discussion. They direct their comments to the chair. So please direct your comments to the chair and our alders will be listening, but we will not be engaging in dialogue during the course of public participation. So with that, we will begin public participation. And I'm going to take these up in the order in which you signed up. There are a number of items that folks would like to speak on this evening. We're just going to take these in order. I'm not going to group them by subject matter. So we'll begin with Stephanie Marta. Welcome.

Hi, everyone. Stephanie Marta, attendance coordinator with the Appleton Area School District for the middle and high schools. Thank you for having us again this evening. Over the past year, you have asked thoughtful and challenging questions, and we appreciate the time you have taken to understand our work. We have shared our data, explained our process, and been transparent about both our successes and the areas where we continue to grow. Some council members have expressed concerns about whether the Appleton Area School District has earned the trust of the community. While we recognize that trust must continually be earned, we also believe our community has demonstrated confidence in the work of our district. That confidence is reflected in the continued support of our Board of Education, with school board members being re-elected by large margins, some of those who are here this evening. and in the community's strong approval of the recent referendum. More importantly, it is reflected in the relationships our staff build with students and families every day. Many of you have also acknowledged the tremendous work that has been done to strengthen attendance supports across our district. Thank you for recognizing our efforts. That work has not happened by chance. It is the result of countless hours dedicated by principals, associate principals, deans of students, social workers, school counselors, school nurses, attendance coordinators, cultural support staff, teachers, and many others who work tirelessly to address barriers and reconnect students with school. These are the professionals who work directly with students and families every day, making home visits, contacting families, meeting one-on-one with students, addressing crisis situations, and providing resources to address barriers. They have seen firsthand what works, what doesn't, and where additional tools are needed. Collectively, the professional educators who serve on and support our high school attendance teams believe that the truancy ordinance should remain available as one component of our comprehensive attendance system. Not as a first response, but as a carefully considered option after extensive interventions have been attempted and only as a last resort for a very small group of students who have not responded to other interventions or supports. These are the people doing the work every day. Let's trust their expertise. Over the past few months, we have shared a significant amount of data with you. We recognize that many of our attendance measures were already beginning to improve during the 24-25 school year. We believe one important reason for that progress was our investment in expanding our attendance team. The addition of a second attendance coordinator allowed Stacey Nicka to focus exclusively on elementary schools, while allowing me to dedicate my work to our middle and high schools. As a result, my caseload was reduced from 28 schools to just seven, providing an opportunity for much more intensive support, stronger relationships with school teams, and earlier intervention for students experiencing attendance concerns at the secondary level. The progress we are seeing today is the result of a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, intervention, relationship building, family engagement, and accountability. We are not asking you to choose between support and accountability. We are asking you to allow us to continue using both. This ordinance has only been in place for three quarters of a school year. During that time, we intentionally used it sparingly, only issuing one truancy citation, while building the systems, partnerships, and processes necessary to implement it thoughtfully. We are beginning to see encouraging outcomes, but meaningful systems change cannot be fully evaluated less than a year after implementation. This evening, we respectfully ask that you extend the truancy ordinance for one additional year. Doing so will allow us to continue refining our approach, gather additional outcome data, and fully evaluate the ordinance as one tool within our comprehensive system designed to help students attend school, earn credits, graduate, and build successful futures. Ultimately, this decision is not about citations. It is about making sure that after every relationship has been built, every support has been offered, and every intervention has been exhausted, we still have one more opportunity to help a student reconnect with school before that opportunity is lost behind every attendance statistic is a student whose future is still being written tonight you have the opportunity to ensure that our schools retain every reasonable tool available to help those students succeed thank you for your time and consideration

If I neglected to do so at the beginning, I will also note that speakers have five minutes per speaker, and I will give you a reminder with about 30 seconds of time remaining so that you can finish your remarks. Also, I hear the doors clicking and popping. We have this automatic opener thing. So that may stop if you just prop that other door open too. I can see that's kind of driving us crazy. All right. Hopefully that's better. Okay. We'll continue now with public participation. Next is Michelle Pauley.

Good evening. My name is Michelle Pauley. I reside at 316 East Benton Drive. Over the last several months, AASD has made multiple presentations to the city and school board claiming that improvement in attendance numbers over the past school year is because the ordinance went back into place. This despite the fact that numbers were already improving and experts in the field predicted the improvement would continue. This, despite numbers they like to highlight, have nothing to do with the small group of unreachable students the community was told this would be about. We still have not been told if any of those students have returned to school as a result of this ordinance. My concern has always been the social costs far outweigh the little to no effect this ordinance has, and I have backed that up with research and data, and I have shared this with you in emails. Tonight, I'd like to share some of that publicly. Evidence-based reviews of available research and data show that students of color are disproportionately ticketed, even when controlling for other factors. According to the attendance playbook found on the Wisconsin Department of Instruction's website, ordinances like this exacerbate disparities for socioeconomically disadvantaged students, as well as black, Native American, Latino, and Pacific Islander students, with black students experiencing the largest disparity. According to the Tenants Works, a national nonprofit which informs many districts, including AASD, quote, when we recognize the root causes of truancy for low-income, black, Native American, and new immigrant families, these are also the same students likely to be harmed the most by a punitive approach. Review of the research also shows these steep costs come with little to no reward, despite what the district would have us believe. A literature review provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency lists strategies shown to be ineffective. Included on this list are financial sanctions. Gandy and Schultz, 2007. Sending police to the home of students is more likely to increase incidences of truancy. Eastman et al., 2007, National Research Council, 2013, and Weber, 2020. Court involvement for youth who are truant actually decreases their likelihood of attending school and completing high school. That comes from the Council of State Government Justice Center. No difference was found in court-referred students in areas of attendance, GPA, or graduation status, but a striking continued accumulation of ongoing absences was found when students were referred to court. George Thomas, 2011. Improving attendance involves not just adopting proven evidence-based practices, but also discarding ineffective approaches. Jordan, 2023, The Attendance Playbook. I could go on, but time is limited. I found many of these citations in an article given to me by a district staff member when she told me ticketing can be beneficial, and I asked for proof. Although the article encourages districts not to use punitive measures alone, and also as a last resort, I found no cited work nor did I find anything in the articles that I read in their entirety that showed that such measures at any value when used in conjunction with other non-putative measures. In fact, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has used AASD as an example in presentations as the district had better attendance numbers and those numbers were improving faster post-pandemic than neighboring districts. This at a time when those districts were ticketing students and AASD and the city of Appleton had no truancy ordinance. Moreover, some states have or are in the process of eliminating truancy as a reason to refer students to court. AASD is now choosing to go backward and is doing so when damaged relationships with many in our community has not yet been fully rebuilt after the dissolution of the truancy court in 2019. Thank you for your time.

Next is Deb Blank.

Deb Blank, 2623 East Sundance Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin. First, I'd like to share a big thank you to Kara, David, and Greg for their gifts of time, clarity, and patience in talking about the TID with us. This is a big decision, an enticing 580-acre dream come true for the city in expansion, reimbursements, developer incentives. This land rests approximately two blocks from our home. We look forward to what our good neighbor Thrivant will develop. Restaurants, a hotel, green space, a grocery store, walking trails, and much more. Sadly, there are some unsettling aspects of this agreement. Thrivant has covered the cost of the city's contracting with the city's consultant firm, Ehlers, to justify a TID for its development. Contingent on its approval, Thrivant will sell 3.5 acres to Appleton for a dollar for a fire station Appleton will build the fire station. Appleton will pay Thrivent for a park. The city of Appleton will be a bank for Thrivent's development, pending their reimbursements to pay the debt and interest. Also supplied an $11 million letter of credit from Thrivent, which may be used if the garnered amounts are insufficient. This TID proposal covers all but a sectioned residential area. No smaller options were considered by the city by agreement with Thrivent. During the length of this TID, estimated at 20 years, Appleton property taxpayers will pay more to cover the other recipients of our property tax dollars. Appleton area schools, the county, Fox Valley Tech, that's why the joint review board exists, however, Appleton taxpayers during those 20 years will carry a higher yearly tax burden due to how mill rates are set, including percentages of the increment in the city's assessed valuation. When the TID is closed, we're told there'll be relief in 20 years if things go well. I was personally surprised that this council would advocate for a company that manages $212 billion in assets with a CEO who garners $70 million annually with their own real estate subsidiary, developer, and planner. that's held wonderful, inclusive public meetings that I've attended. Do you remember what occurred in other TIDs? Remember what we were told about, well, that's another aspect there. When you look at the Appleton City budget projections for indebtedness, what do you see? There are increases. When I attended the city's comprehensive city planning sessions, I asked why the thriving development housing projections were not included. I was told more than one, that's a private development. Now almost all will be included in the proposed TID 14. The city of Appleton has a wonderful development team, with guardrails in place to ensure a positive outcome to work cooperatively with private developers. Thriving's an amazing neighbor whom we truly appreciate. Lifting others up is admirable. However, this has the appearance of maybe some preferential treatment with the Appleton property taxpayers carrying the largest burden. The big winner here is Thriving, possibly the city, but the loser's the Appleton taxpayer. Thank you.

Next is Walter Blank.

My name is Walter Blank. I reside at 2623 East Sundance Drive, which is just a stone's throw from a thriving complex and the proposed Wilden development. I suppose I should start off by saying that the previous speaker was my wife, and I agree with everything she said, and then I could leave. But I have some things to add. The Thrivant has been an excellent neighbor and a good friend to Appleton over the years. So it's not animosity towards Thrivant that's driving this discussion, or opposition, I should say. When I look at the development, I think it's like a pancake. There's two sides to this issue. And this pancake has a nice side with the development offering 2,000-plus homes, a hotel, shopping area, mixed-use buildings, a four-plus-million-dollar park, fire station for a dollar if the land comes for a dollar, plus green space, trails. Upon completion, the development will represent approximately 4% of the city's assessed valuation. That's pretty alluring. I can see why we want this done. But there is another side to this. And when it comes to the taxpayer, the impact on the taxpayer, neither the city nor Ehlers consultants included a taxpayer impact in this study, in their studies for this TID district. However, others did. The McCliver Institute analysis, which is gained from the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council Their information illustrates how TID districts always, and I emphasize always, raise the mill rate of the city because of the way the formula is constructed. It's simple arithmetic. I have five copies of that study, by the way, for those of you that would like one later. All current Appleton TID districts promise approximately 300 million in assessed value increase. Using the Wisconsin Legislative Council's illustrations, we can calculate that these districts' total impact on the taxpayer is about $60 per $100,000 assessment of assessed value. According to the Ehlers consultants and Thriven's development, this Thriven development could yield over a little over 600 million, potentially tripling the Appleton TID District's total taxpayer impact. This is on top of any general obligation borrowing debt service increases connected to the project. And I think I at one time told you that right now in 2024, just the debt service for general obligation was costing the taxpayer of a $250,000 house about $435 a year. I will note that Ehlers does not dispute the taxpayer increases, but contends that the taxpayer will receive a mill rate reduction at the close of the TID district. ACT, that's Appleton Concerned Taxpayers, disputes any idea that after a minimum of 20 years of taxpayer increases, it would be lucky if the taxpayer received even pennies on the dollar of input into this. I'm asking the council, I have other things to say, but there's certainly a time limit on this and we have a lot of other people here. But I'm asking the council to consider that this pancake does have two sides. There's a nice side and there's a bad side. But I feel that Thrivent is certainly capable of being its own bank in this instance. They have the money. And we're not supposed to be looking at return of investment on someone that large. That's their problem. A solution without a TID, this development will happen. And the winners would still be Appleton, but also the taxpayer. So I'm asking you to vote no on that. Thank you.

Next is Jason Kolpak.

Good evening. Jason Kolpak, 1311 Bedford Lane. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Jason Kolpak and I'm a sitting member of the Appleton Area School District Board of Education. I'm speaking tonight in my individual capacity as a parent and resident and not for the board. I'm speaking in support of the resolution to extend the truancy ordinance trial for another year and in support of the many educators and administrators who dedicate their career to serving the students of the Appleton Area School District. Much has been said about the tremendous work our attendance teams have done and I could not agree more. When they presented to the board on this topic, I asked them point blank, Do you feel that this will improve your ability to do your job? Their answer was an unequivocal yes. In the end, I think that you need to ask yourself, do you agree with the idea of compulsory education? If not, then I don't know that you need to support this resolution. But without it, education is not necessarily compulsory, but maybe more of a recommendation. No one is here because they want students to receive citations. I believe the data presented to the Safety and Licensing Committee demonstrates exactly that. The ordinance is largely served as a deterrent. In many cases, its existence has encouraged engagement without the need to issue a citation. This is the best possible outcome. In my time on the board, one thing has become abundantly clear. The Appleton Area School District does not give up on students. Even when a citation is issued, it is not the end of the process. It represents the beginning of another level of intervention and accountability. It creates an opportunity to connect families with additional supports while reinforcing that chronic absenteeism has serious consequences. We should continue looking for as many off-ramps as possible to help students return to the school successfully. As a board member, I've shared many of the concerns that have been raised by the community and brought them up in our board meetings. My feeling is that we have done an excellent job putting controls in place to prevent many of the problems that have occurred in the past. Regardless of the outcome, my expectation is that the district will continue the hard work to improve student attendance, and I look forward to the results of the upcoming attendance work group. My hope is that we will have the City of Appleton as a partner in these efforts. Thank you.

All right, next is Amanda Marque.

Good evening. My name is Amanda Merkway, and I am the Policy and Advocacy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the flock termination item and Resolution 9R26. The ACLU has been advocating for transparency, regulation, and democratic accountability in the use of surveillance tech for decades and has worked with many jurisdictions across the country to enshrine good governance measures in this arena. But it's also important to recognize the drastic expansion in scope and power of artificial intelligence-powered dragnet surveillance tools, tech that aggregates personal data, and the integration of these systems in the past few years since the first wave of many of these technology oversight ordinances were first enacted. We deeply appreciate the work put in by the authors of this resolution and others on the council who I understand have been identifying ways to make it stronger to ensure protection of the community. But I respectfully urge the council to vote to send the resolution back to committee for further review before a full council vote. The resolution was discussed at the June 24th Safety and Licensing Committee. And in just the 21 days since that meeting, there has been a tidal wave of news about ALPRs highlighting why taking a brief pause in the name of good governance is so important. To give just a few examples. On June 26, the UW Madison Police ended its contract with FLOC following pushback on data sharing practices and how third party agencies could access campus data. On July 8, criminal charges were filed against a Milwaukee Police internal affairs detective who allegedly used FLOC's ALPR system to track two individuals' locations a total of 20 times over the course of one year. Outrageously, this MPD internal affairs detective was entrusted with also investigating former officer Jose Ayala for FLOC using flock to stalk a romantic partner and her ex nearly 200 times. Former Officer Ayala was sentenced just hours ago after pleading guilty last month. On July 11th, the Los Angeles Police Department, the third largest police force in the United States, allowed its contract with Flock to expire, and the LAPD deactivated all of its 138 cameras. This decision followed an internal audit by LAPD Office of the Inspector General, which revealed that over just a two-month period, the LAPD had investigated 161 car owners whose vehicles were wrongly identified as stolen by Flock's system. City leaders stated they walked away due to serious concerns over civil liberties, data ownership, and sharing protocols. On July 14th, reporting revealed that two officers with the Racine Police Department and one deputy with the Racine County Sheriff's Office are actively being investigated for misusing flock. As of yesterday, over 20 officers in Georgia have been fired and criminally charged for misusing flock just this year. And this morning, news broke about two South Carolina officers being fired for ALPR misuse, all since the committee meeting. While Flock provides one of the most widely used ALPR systems, they aren't the only company generating significant profits and funding robust marketing and government relations departments to expand the reach and capability of this dragnet surveillance tech. Axon, Vigilant Solutions, a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions, Genetech, PlateSmart, Innova Systems, ReCore, LSAG, Perceptix, and Genoptic are a few of the other leading companies selling ALPRs to police, private companies, and others. Take Axon, for example. In 2019, Axon's own AI and policing tech ethics board, a group established by the company itself to advise on ethical issues related to its policing tech, published a report on ALPRs that found insufficient regulatory oversight for the technology that had evidenced the impact of ALPRs falls disproportionately on low-income people and people of color and called for government and industry regulation. It warned, quote, without regulatory intervention, there is a risk that competition will encourage a race to the bottom of more pervasive and more powerful surveillance." Indeed. In 2022, nine of Axon's 12 member AI ethics board resigned in protest over the company's plans to develop remotely operated taser equipped drones. Axon is currently piloting body cameras equipped with AI facial recognition tech with a Canadian police department. Draft 1, another Axon product, uses generative AI to write police reports from body cam audio. I say all this because it's critically important for Alders to stay vigilant and not treat the flashy marking materials and soothing assurances of surveillance tech PR teams as unquestioned truth. Despite countless assurances to the contrary, we've seen how ALPRs have caused harm across the country. ICE and CBP have repeatedly used flock to go after immigrants without warrants. Kansas police used them to pursue a man who wrote a critical op-ed about the department. Colorado police officer wrongly accused a woman of theft based on a flock hit. In Arkansas, a mother and her children were held at gunpoint because ALPR cameras wrongly flagged their car as stolen. So in light of these non-hypothetical risks, thank you again for your commitment to transparency and democracy in the policymaking process surrounding surveillance tech acquisition, a commitment that ultimately ensures the community's future remains rooted in the consent of the governed.

Thank you. Next is Kay Eggert.

It moves. Good evening. My name is Kay Eggert, 1524 South Weimer Street, District 8. I am one of the seven members of the AASD Board of Education. I also serve as the board president. I appreciate the time to address you tonight. My remarks relate to agenda item 260758, the truancy ordinance, which is before you tonight. First, I want to thank each of you for all of the time you have invested in the topic of student attendance, chronic absenteeism, and truancy. I appreciate your willingness to learn, engage in discussions, and seek solutions. Second, I believe everyone in this room sees the importance of education and wants the children in our community to learn and thrive, and ultimately succeed as adults. Third, I am not an educator. My professional background is in the healthcare field. As a school board member, when making decisions, I rely heavily on data, research, and input from experts in the field of education. Research shows the clear benefits of regular school attendance. Regular school attendance is an important indicator of academic success. Research also shows the high costs related to chronic absenteeism. Research consistently links chronic absenteeism to lower academic performance, increased risk of course failure and dropout. District data previously presented to the council also demonstrates this important link. You may recall the success cliff graph, which depicts days missed of school and grades earned. This is on page 16 of the document titled ASD Truancy Ordinance Updates Attachments. Research also suggests chronic absenteeism is best addressed using a multi-tiered approach, using data, identifying barriers, and collaborating with families and community partners to re-engage students. AASD has such a program. Attendance coordinators, Stephanie Martin, Stacy Nitka, have led the development of a successful district-wide multi-tiered system to support our students struggling with the consistent attendance. You have seen the flow chart of the AASD support process. This is on page one of the attachment document. A truancy citation holds a small spot in the process. It is a last resort tool that can be used if all other steps have failed to reengage a student. At this point, just one citation has been issued. Ms. Marta and Ms. Nitka are well-respected leaders in their work locally and across the state. They certainly are considered experts in their field. They, along with other district personnel, classroom teachers, social workers, administrators, have shared input that the existence of the truancy ordinance has had a positive impact on improving student attendance. This is further substantiated by data and feedback from students who improve their attendance following participation in an attendance education lesson. You could refer to pages 26 and 29 to 30 of the ordnance updates attachments document. Improving student attendance is a priority for the school board. GOALS REGARDING ATTENDANCE ARE INCLUDED IN OUR MONITORING REPORTS AND DISTRICT SCORE CARD. THE BOARD REGULARLY REVIEWS ATTENDANCE DATA AND REPORTS TO MONITOR PROGRESS OF THESE GOALS. THE BOARD ALSO UPDATED OUR ATTENDANCY POLICY TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS AND CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET PRIOR TO A REFERRAL FOR A TRUANCY CITATION. THE POLICY CLEARLY ESTABLISHES A REFERRAL FOR A TRUANCY CITATION IS A LAST RESORT OPTION. As you approach your vote on the truancy ordinance, I ask you to consider the research on chronic absenteeism, AASD attendance data, input from experts in the field, and awareness of continued board oversight and monitoring. The truancy ordinance has shown effectiveness in the short term. An extension of the ordinance will allow us more time to collect data and evaluate how best to support students struggling with consistent attendance. I ask you to vote to approve an extension of the truancy ordinance. Thank you.

All right, before we proceed, is there a motion to extend public participation by 60 minutes? Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve extension of public participation by 60 minutes. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, public participation has been extended 60 minutes. All right, we'll proceed now with Edward Ruffalo.

Good evening, my name is Edward Ruffalo. I live at 3125 Winsong Lane. I am a member of the Applin Area School District Board of Education. My comments tonight, however, are my own. It may not necessarily reflect the AASD Board of Education or other organizations which I am affiliated. I have had the opportunity to attend many of these meetings, either in person or virtually, and I want to thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of attendance issues, especially the members of the Safety and Licensing Committee. The school board has spent much time on this issue over the last two years. During that time, I have learned that attendance challenges are often complex. There is no single solution. Every student we successfully reconnect to school, however, is one more student with a greater opportunity to walk across the graduation stage. Success requires collaboration amongst families, schools, community organizations, and local government. It's important to recognize that one of the fundamental challenges associated with chronic absenteeism Some cases, despite repeated outreach efforts, attendance intervention, offers of support, students and families can become increasingly disconnected from the school system. When meaningful engagement does not occur, it becomes difficult for educators and support staff to identify barriers and connect families with resources that may help improve attendance. While citations alone are unlikely to resolve the complex issues that contribute to chronic absenteeism, the ordinance provides an additional opportunity to encourage engagement with students and families who have not responded to other interventions. That engagement, in turn, can create opportunities to better understand individual circumstances, address barriers, and connect students with the support they need. Let me just take a moment and share a personal reflection. One of my favorite responsibilities as a board member is participating in graduation and representing the Board of Education as students walk across the stage. I have the opportunity to shake their hands, congratulate them as they receive their diplomas, and witness firsthand the pride and sense of accomplishment that graduation represents. You can see it in their faces, and see it in the faces of their parents, grandparents, teachers, and the loved ones that helped them reach that milestone. In these moments, I'm reminded that everything we do ultimately comes back to their student and their success. Every student who graduates leaves with more opportunities, more choices, and a brighter future than they had before. When we talk about attendance, truancy, interventions, support, and policies, we're really talking about helping more students reach that stage and experience that moment. Helping more students reach that stage, earn their diploma, and begin the next chapter of their lives is a goal worthy of extending the trial period of the assurance of ordnance for an additional year. Thank you.

Next is Rob Kettleson.

My name is Rob Kettleson.

I live at 208 1⁄2 East College Avenue in Appleton. I designed the only K-5 18 basket elementary level disc golf course in the world. I'd like to give copies of that out right now.

Thank you.

When I applied for a special events permit to have this, to do a one-day pop-up of the course on September 12th, Saturday, September 12th, and I was denied that opportunity. I was at a meeting here last Wednesday, so I, When I was designing the course, I was in the park for two hours one Saturday, and I was measuring the disc golf baskets out, and it was over two hours and I had to get going, but I want to show, somebody called, I had a cop come up to me, and he said that someone called, and they said I was pacing in the park And they were doing a welfare check on my welfare because they said I was pacing. I want to show everybody what I was doing. I was marking every stride, I was marking up as three feet, and I was marking out the distances on the baskets there, as you can see on the line. And this is what I was doing. I don't think that's unusual behavior, but one person called. Okay, so one person called and thought that was unusual behavior. And I explained to the cop, I said I had to get going, but I said, I'm okay, you don't have to be concerned with my welfare. I was just measuring out disc golf baskets, the length of the disc golf baskets. And then I thought that was it. And so I walked home from Herb Park. This is at Herb Park in Appleton. And on the way home, I had four cops pull up in squads and draw guns on me. And I guess they describe it in the letter here that I have as I was being argumentative. because I was, because I wanted to know why I had four guns drawn on me. I didn't know why. So they never did tell me why they came up and drew their guns. I said, I told them, I told the cop there that responded to the park that day, that it was early in the morning, there was, there was nobody else in the park. I was the only one in the park. So I don't know why it is that they, uh, they came up and they, they drew their guns on me. But, um, that's one of the reasons they gave to deny my permit. They, they, they, they painted me out to be unfit to be around children. And in the, uh, and in the letter that they, uh, they sent out, um, They said that they painted me out not to be unfit to be around children because of this. And they lied in that letter. They lied in that letter. They said multiple parents were afraid to send their kids to the park.

About 30 seconds remaining.

Pardon?

You have about 30 seconds remaining.

Okay. They said I wasn't... And there wasn't multiple parents that called. There was one nut job that called and said that I was pacing and they were concerned about my health. I was charged with a felony 21 years ago for marijuana possession and property theft. And I said, those charges are bunk. and they got rid of the property theft charges, and they got rid of the felony with intent to deliver, and that's a misdemeanor. I don't have any felonies. I don't have any violent crimes or anything like that I've been convicted of. I've got two college degrees,

Your time has expired, Mr. Kettleson.

I'm thoroughly qualified to have this event, so I would hope that the council here would help me out and reconsider.

Thank you. Right. Brian Reimer? Reimer? Reimer?

Hi, my name is Brian Reimer, 3 Winona Court. First time doing this, so. All right. I'm here to provide my thoughts on the ALPR proposal being discussed tonight and the controversy that has surrounded Appleton and the surrounding communities this year. I'm asking you to consider a moratorium on bringing future license plate readers into our community to give everyone a chance to vet exactly what this fast moving technology does and doesn't do and what policies, laws and procedures can be implemented to avoid the feeling of government mass surveillance. As a citizen, I'm highly concerned with everything that I've learned about what flock cams are since, I believe, 2022. I saw them go up, black poles go up, and I was like, what the heck are these? And so all that, I've learned a lot about it since then, and it's quite concerning. I believe the intention of this technology was good in the sense that it was brought to provide Appleton a safer place to live. And I also believe the trade-offs currently don't outweigh the benefits that they provide. Some quick research will lead you to over 10 police officers arrested this year alone for using plot cams to track people for personal reasons, including right in our own backyard in Menasha and Milwaukee. While I understand there are audits that take place to help catch this behavior, an audit of an event happening after the fact doesn't go far enough. And from my understanding, you cannot audit another police department's search and what that data was sharing. Another data point is an oversight committee in Oak Park, Illinois found that 40% of the FlockCam alert-initiated stops were identified as mistakes due to bad data. they have since terminated their FLOC contract. The LAPD this week can't, and I promise I didn't collude with the person before me, this is my own research. The LAPD this week canceled their FLAT-CAM contract after carrying an error rate of 32.3% false positives over an audit window. I personally don't want to get pulled over when I have done nothing wrong in this community. And there's a one-third chance of all stops from two audits that have proven that, which tells you it's going on more than that. So I thank you for getting the FLAT-CAM contract canceled so far. Audits by the state of Illinois and California have also found that US Customs and Border and other federal agencies access their data even though they have laws in place that prevent that and make it illegal. The technology is moving so fast that people are making decisions, and I believe they are good intention decisions, without understanding the full scope of the technology. If Appleton decides to bring back Flock or another license plate, reader, camera, and we share our data with other departments, we would not be able to say with 100% confidence that our data would not be used to help ICE or other government agencies or other departments that are known to work with them. We need tighter controls, procedures, and time for committees to collaborate with experts, which is what the intention of the resolution is tonight. Well, I understand that my cell phone right here that I carry with me tracks more than what the flock cam does. Uh, that needs a warrant to be searched and accessed. Um, it can't just be a police officer, um, you know, pulling up and finding out where Brian Reimer has gone in the last 12 months. And there are strict procedures in place in order to meet that demand. Again, I ask you tonight to put a moratorium on any new license plate reader technology for at least 12 months to give more time to explore how to implement this technology with proper safeguards in place or realize the safeguards are not possible and do not bring the technology back. Personally, I hope this technology does not come back into our community. Thank you.

All right.

Next, it seems there's someone who wishes to remain anonymous, and I'll invite anybody who'd like to speak after those who signed up have spoken to address the council. So we'll proceed with the next person who signed up, which is Ron Swift.

Thank you for once again listening to my concerns about the truancy situation. I'll start by saying I support extending the ordinance for another year so we can get more statistics. And then I need to make a statement to the people behind me that the state truancy requirements I think are ridiculous and it needs to be rewritten, but the city school board and school department has to abide by them, which pushed us into this situation. I was very instrumental in helping shut down the truancy court. It was a very punitive, hostile situation. I've been on two task forces so far, and I've been asked to be on the next one as a citizen, not as a retired guidance counselor. What I have seen is great improvements that are positive, not punitive. I've seen a coordination between the different levels of education, the different grades, between how they record and maintain their daily data. And there's always room for improvement, but I personally have followed this very closely. I still say I don't want to see any fines. I don't want to see police involved personally. I don't want punitive measures like what used to go on with the Truancy Court throwing kids into shelter care and putting them on electronic monitoring bracelets, like my grandniece who is on the spectrum and had social anxiety. And that's what was going on back then. That's not going on. Everything that's going on now that I'm aware of in talking to teachers, administrators, people at headquarters is positive and it's a team effort. They're working with family systems. You can't take a kid out of a family or a system without incorporating that. And they have done a very good job of doing that. It's a team effort. So I ask you to support extending the ordinance for another year. Thank you.

Next is Kari Tetzlaff. Kari?

Good evening. My name is Carrie Tetzloff. I live at A24 Powers in Oshkosh, but I'm a business owner who serves Appleton, and my husband's business is located at 310 West College, just two blocks from where we're gathered here today. Thank you all for what you've done as a council to make Appleton a great place to grow our businesses. My husband and I are grateful to you, and we love serving this city. I'm here because I'm concerned about warrantless mass surveillance. At the Safety and Licensing Committee meeting, ALPR was defended as being something in the best interest of small business owners, and I'm just here to say that those views don't represent my family's views. Love of personal freedom is often part of what leads many to the lifestyle of business ownership in the first place. People concerned about this tech are not a monolith and are not members of one political ideology or group. This resolution starts an important conversation, but I am very concerned. It does not provide sufficient guardrails and protections for citizen privacy. I would like to see additional protections and trying to get a robust ordinance. Appleton is not alone in this journey. Cities across the country are discovering more must be done to protect their community from the lies of popular third party vendors. And this is an issue bigger than just flock. The risk of passing insufficient guardrails is paving the way for the return of irresponsible companies and tech. A great example of this would be Berkeley. Leaders there passed a CCAPS ordinance. They have flock cameras and even renewed them under this ordinance. Block can be accommodated by most guardrails commonly in use. We need to be pioneers in the Fox Valley if we want a better outcome. I understand that council can't make operational decisions at APD. Many citizen demands have less to do with demands on APD, and more to do with establishing formal demands of vendors who are housing sensitive citizen data. And we want to know those specific demands from council upfront before advising alders on how we'd like them to vote on this complex issue that has many moving parts. It's reasonable for citizens to want leaders to demand vendors of surveillance tech to use end-to-end encryption to store sensitive pattern of life data. Citizens are also asking you to use your authority given to you by the state of Wisconsin to create or sign oversight structure subject to open meetings law. An oversight committee could help build public trust. Audit logs are not enough. We saw in Milwaukee just this last week, the detective tasked with investigating another officer for abusive flock also been charged himself. I won't repeat the rest of those details. Those were covered very well earlier by the ACLU rep. I'm concerned that approving a contract based on police policy that can later be changed without council input puts guardrails on potentially unstable ground. Many city councils across the country have placed moratoriums on the use of facial recognition technology and now people are becoming aware of the risks of ALPR and are reasonably asking for more guardrails oversight or even moratoriums on this tech too. If leaders can't meaningfully incorporate as many protections as possible from the citizen-authored ordinance, I personally don't think we should deploy this technology at all. I'm asking you to aggressively pursue the highest standard of protections, and if we can't negotiate a custom deployment held to that high standard, don't deploy it at all. Please send this resolution back to committee for further work and amendments. Thank you.

All right, next is Jordan Hanson. Jordan? Okay, we'll make sure that Jordan has an opportunity, but we'll keep moving. Next is Ben Niles.

Good evening. My name is Ben Niles. I am a resident of Appleton, Wisconsin at 17 Crestview Drive. I am here before you tonight because in these times, the most salient parts of the United States Constitution have fast become the Fourth through the Eighth Amendments. And I'm here today to speak out in defense of the Fourth Amendment by urging you to return the ALPR resolution to committee for further amendment and consideration. And I further urge you to consider the citizen authored bill that was presented to the committee for reference of potential creation of those amendments. As it was mentioned in the invocation, vigilance is the price of liberty. And it is vigilance that urges, that prompts me to urge you this today. Some things that I would like to see out of any potential regulation of ALPR include but are not limited to end-to-end encryption, data storage managed by the city, not by the vendor, A warrant required signed by an Article III judge for any access to this data greater than 24 hours or for use by federal government or any outside law enforcement. And a strict regulation of any usage of data collected that is not part of an active investigation. Thank you for your time.

We'll check. Is Jordan Hanson back? Okay.

Sorry about that. Jordan Hanson, 423 West 12th Avenue in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. But I spend a lot of time here with friends and family and spending money in your area. I just want to speak against the ALPR resolution because it isn't strong enough. ALPRs are extremely unpopular and a lot of people have been showing up to meetings across the area speaking out against them. This feels a bit like a slap in the face to all those who have been speaking up. It's just not doing enough. It just feels like lift service. I'd like to suggest a very simple resolution against ALPRs. ALPRs are not to be permitted in the city of Appleton. There you go, that's a really simple resolution you could pass. I certainly understand the claims about how ALPRs improve law enforcement efficiency, but it is unacceptable to do so at the expense of the Fourth Amendment. Chattery versus US from June 29th has recently called into question the use of third-party dragnets to collect data for law enforcement to use without a warrant. It didn't specifically talk about ALOPRs, but it certainly talked about third-party data collection to be used without a warrant. The case very clearly said you need a warrant, and these cases should be treated under Fourth Amendment rights. We've had our Fourth Amendment rights continuously eroded, and surveillance creep is reaching extreme heights. No amount of safety is worth trading for our precious rights. Again, I must insist that Appleton reject all ALPR vendors and pass an ordinance to just simply ban them in their city.

Thank you.

All right, next is John Vandercolk.

Evening, John Vandercolk, 3301 East Drake Lane. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm here to speak against the TIF for Thrive, and I would echo the comments of the married couple before me, because that's the same research I found. But there's one thing that I wanted to add to what they said, is when you look at the incremental value locked up in the TIF, that incremental value, when you get that additional funding, that goes to pay off the TIF. It would not go to the Appleton Area School District. So when you think about all the additional families and school you're moving in there, for the next 20 years, the school's not going to get that access to that incremental value. so we can probably look forward to 20 more years of operating referendums as they bring in more students. I also feel the justification for the TIF, that the Thrivant-owned farmland lacks critical infrastructure for development, and that would satisfy the but-for test, is a weak rationale. Why does a privately held $10 billion company that made $175 million in income last year need any help or incentive to develop property it owns. TIFs were created to stimulate private investment in blighted areas that need economic revitalization. I would ask you, does the land around Thrivent look blighted to you? I mean, you might not like corn or soybeans, but you know, it's not blighted. The main reason Thrivent is trying to tie up their development agreement with the TIF, we found out at the community development meeting, and it's right there in black and white in the exhibit G, which was on your agenda. The look back pro forma development agreement dated 7-8-26. In that spreadsheet, you can see the reason TIF, why Thrivent wants the TIF so badly. is to improve its rate of return on this project from 7.9% to 15.4%. So I ask you, why are we using public money and tax incentives to help a $10 billion private corporation make more money? Because that is just gonna result in a greater tax impact to the citizens of Appleton. The city claims the market will not bring middle level housing that the Thrivant Development does. That's simply not true. The market is already bringing that type of housing to the north side of Appleton, right across French Road in Little Chute. Granted, it's not Appleton, but in Little Chute, very close to the Thrivant, there is a lot of multifamily housing going up right now and a lot of development that this doesn't take into account and doesn't look at because we're just looking at Appleton. We should keep public money out of this development and Thrivent should make a market-driven development to meet its required return without the corporate welfare that the city is offering. This development will happen with or without TIF or public money. The development of this property will give you a mix of commercial, retail, hospitality, office, and various residential uses because that will make Thrivant the most money in this real estate market. Thrivant can do that development on its own because it is a $10 billion company that earned $715 million in income last year. So please do the right thing and vote no on this development agreement. Thank you. MR.

This is Kathy Stratton.

Hello, my name's Kathy Stratton. I am at 1009 East Capitol Drive. And I am a former business owner in Appleton. And I also have children and family members that don't want to be tracked by cameras all the time. I want to walk my dog and not have somebody know every day when I walk my dog to Memorial Park. So I just don't want any flock cameras in Appleton. Thank you.

Right, so that's it for folks who signed up ahead of time. So the way we'll manage this, I'll just ask that if you'd please just raise your hand and we'll work our way through. I'll call on you. Okay, right over here, and then we'll just work our way through until everyone's had a chance. So, all right, we'll have the next person come up. If you would, please state your name and address for the record and the item you'd like to speak on.

Hi, my name's Mike Krupski, 3929 East Appleview Drive. I came tonight just to voice my opposition to using TIF funding for the Thriving Project, just like everyone else said, but I'll add one more item. I think it sets a bad precedent for other wealthy investment companies to come and expect the same kind of treatment. Like the former gentleman said, TIF used to be for blighted areas I'm not sure how it got approved for this, but I'm opposed to it.

All right, next. Okay, you're in the blue, and then we'll just kind of work our way. Your name and address and the item you'd like to speak on.

Yeah, Sean Poole, 1622 East Pauline Street. Here to speak on Resolution 9R26. Good evening. I've been a resident of Appleton and the Fox Valley for over a decade at this point, although I've only recently, and unfortunately somewhat belatedly, made an effort to be an active citizen and a participant at the local level here. So this is my first time talking to the Common Council here. For better or for worse, the issue of properly regulating the use of automated license play reader technology is what finally inspired me to, I'll say, pay attention. So right up front, I hope to see Resolution 9R26 be sent back to committee because I think it needs more time in the oven, so to speak. It's essential that we name more specific desired outcomes as prerequisites for any future contracts that the Common Council fulfills its duty as a legislative body and performs appropriate oversight any future deployments. and that we implement temporary meritorium to give time to implement these provisions and avoid rushing into a similar scenario in the future. 9R26 lays out some broad and admittedly somewhat vague criteria for the process of obtaining future ALPR tech and related items, but it falters a little when it comes to naming important specifics which could and really ought to be necessary for contracting with a vendor or provider. What requirements should we obligate a future vendor to meet? For example, what should we look for in terms of policies for handling and patching security vulnerabilities? What terms should we seek to offer redress to the city in the event of a data breach? What sort of user access controls to enforce record-keeping requirements and tamp down on the potential for misuse? What encryption standards might we look for to help prevent some of those scenarios? Those are all questions which could do with answering first before we move forward. Maybe one of my takeaways from some conversations I've had with all the persons thus far, I felt a certain kind of reticence when it comes to oversight. Perception that some items maybe overstep the council's bounds a little bit and intrude on the authority of other bodies. But the council is a legislative body. It doesn't just have the power of the purse. The statutes empower it to perform oversight. It is part of the council's job to ensure ordinances are implemented properly and in the interest of public safety. We've certainly seen the US Congress and some state legislatures abdicating this function recently and eroding trust in government as a result. But our own Common Council need not follow suit and defer anything on this matter. Because that's what this is about, really, trust. If the public trusts the technology is implemented with robust protections to ensure it's difficult to undermine and can't easily be misused, this ensures there wouldn't be a repeat of this scenario in one, two, or three years. But if doubts linger, if we're not confident some new vendor has implemented the tech in a satisfactory way and the city is exercising proper oversight, it'll be the same thing over again. To that end, I support implementing a temporary moratorium with a 12-month time frame, allowing the city and APD to grapple with the specific details and update standards accordingly. Doing so reassures the public that the city isn't trying to rush headfirst into another contract with a vendor that may well have similar issues as FLOC has turned out to. for that reason, and others described by myself and others tonight. I believe it's imperative 9R26 be sent back to committee for additional work and amendment. Thank you. Good evening.

All right. What we're going to do is just kind of work row by row. I think that's going to be the most straightforward. So yes, please. Your name and address for the record and the item you'd like to speak on.

Good evening. My name is Katrina DeVille. I reside at 115 East College Avenue, Appleton, Wisconsin. I'm a candidate for United States Congress. I'm here to speak on the resolution, flock cameras, resolution 9R26. The right of the people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This is from the United States Constitution and that is the Fourth Amendment. I believe that this council acted in the best interests when putting flock in place. I believe it's very evident that we can see public opinion of these cameras is less than stellar. I would compel the council to act in a way that would instill public faith back in this council. I think in the time that we currently live of our government, there is significant cause to call other bodies of government malicious and I think that it's a very good positive step forward for this council to consider doing something different and showing the people how much you really do care. I know the people on this board some of you as friends and I know that you're on these boards because you care about Appleton and that's why you have so many people here in your audience tonight too. I would also compel the council to do something different. What I'm hearing from people far and wide is that we should not have flock cameras in Appleton. And I understand their feeling on it. I understand where the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution lies with it. And I would propose that perhaps the Appleton Police Department and the council and the communities work together to do something more of a community overwatch program using people and having people involved in your communities instead of using invasive cameras and surveilling. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in the first row? All right, one over here. Yep, go ahead, please. Name and address in the item.

Hello, my name is Dexter Peterson. I live at 2701 North Viola Street here in Appleton, and I'm here to just talk about the ALPR regulations. So I work in tech, specifically in databases, and a big thing that I do is send data to and from the vendors that we work with. One of the big things with this is once you send the data out to the vendor, it's theirs for them to deal with. And the best that you can hope for is to be able to get that data back and understand what they did with it. And I guess what I mean by bringing this up is that when we introduce these cameras into our communities and when we introduce this data into the ecosystem of the vendors, it's out there. To my understanding, we still have these black cameras up Some of them have been covered. Those covers have been ripped off by wind, other things like that. And to my knowledge, they're still capturing data to an extent. I guess I'm just here to say that the most secure system is only as strong as its weakest link. whether that be how the vendor treats the data or the security of someone's password. And when we're talking about introducing systems that will be able to track people and their every movement, I just think that we have to be absolutely certain that we are making sure that the weakest link is up to our standards. Um, the other thing is I ask you all to appreciate the irony that we are being told that these cameras are out here to make Appleton a safer space. when in fact a lot of these people in the room, when they see those cameras, it represents the exact opposite, that they are being tracked and that this information is being given to someone else. So I just ask you all to send this back to council for review and to look over the citizen-authored ordinances and regulations over it and consider that and to make it a safer space for us. Thank you. Right, anyone else from the first row?

All right, moving on to the second row.

Anybody in the second row? And if you're behind the column, yeah, come on up. Your name and address and the item for the record, please.

Yeah, of course. Ben 1028 Lucerne Drive. Came in here today and I didn't not shave to intimidate you guys just unemployed right now. This ALPR technology has been on my radar for quite a while. I've met an interesting group of people who are also focusing on it in a much more in depth way than I could ever hope to do. have my hands in a lot of pies. So I could stand here and I could cite the dozens of different examples around the country of this technology being used in a way that I think most of the people in this room would not be thrilled with the way it's being used. I could come in here and I could quote Benjamin Franklin. I could quote, fill in the blank here about anybody talking about your safety, your security, the Fourth Amendment, what it means to be an American and things like that. But what I would rather use my time to talk to you guys about today is try and figure out why it is that we are in such a rush to get these cameras up. We have existed most of our time as a society without these cameras, without this technology, and while any crime is too much, I would argue that we don't have some kind of massive crime problem here in the city of Appleton. I don't understand why the idea of a moratorium in the name of getting actual regulation together, checking out the end-to-end encryption, making sure that our data is stored in the appropriate way, What would be the big deal about a year, two years, three years? Why is it that it feels like, despite the fact that every time I come to one of these meetings, it is easily 90% of the people that show up that do not want to see any of these kind of things go up without the appropriate regulation? The people here have done the research, they provide you with the facts, and they're going to keep showing up, as will I. We want to know that our elected leaders are doing something to address the issues that we are focusing on. And to be frank, it feels a lot of the times like we're being scoffed at. It feels like the ideas and the beliefs and the actual policy that people show up with is oftentimes being scoffed at in a way that makes us feel like we aren't being heard. So normally I am a fact driven individual and I come with examples, but right now I'm appealing to emotion. This feels fast. The people don't want it. And at the end of the day, representatives are elected to represent the people. And most of the people in the room behind me are not feeling represented when it comes to these ALPR cameras. So I hope you'll reflect on exactly how many people are standing behind me right now. Take your time, take a breath, and let's see if we can actually do this in a way that makes everybody feel comfortable. Thank you for your time.

All right. Sticking with the second row, and if you're behind the column, just pop on up. Yep. I'm going to address an item for the record.

Mitch Anderson, W six one eight eight Everglade road in Greenville regarding the truancy. Um, after hearing all the push for another year, I don't know what I can say that would change people's minds. But, um, I guess I am always wondered since they've started this, the district has started, this is what is the reason behind the truancy? Cause it just doesn't feel like it's, um, it's, I think to the general public, it still feels like a, I'll call it a scare tactic. Um, And I know the district has argued against that. But when they tell us that the first thing a parent calls on when they talk to someone on the student services is they're worried about a citation. So we'll call it worrisome, call it scare. Why is the first thing a parent thinks of is a citation? And then all the stats they've been giving us, it's like 90% of the stats has to do with absenteeism, chronic absenteeism. And I know there's a correlation between the two, but it's truly truancy we're talking about here, not chronic absenteeism. And the other thing I would like to say is everything we have heard from teachers in the district, I believe other districts in the state, the board tonight has all said that the staff is doing a great job at doing this. that the statistics have gone down, they're applauding their hard work and effort, and I applaud their hard work and effort, so why do we need a truancy citation if everything they're doing is working? Thank you.

All right, next. All right, name and address and the item for the record, please.

Good evening, Council and concerned community members. My name is Meg, and I'm a resident of Oshkosh, moving through the Fox Valley to advocate against the expansion of ALPR usage. Due to previous statements I've made that have resulted in safety concerns, two kidnapping threats, and an attempted break-in, I will not be publicly sharing my address. I do not support this invasive use of technology and would prefer at least a one to three year moratorium. But if the ALPRs are the future, we need specific guardrails in place that highlight the community's very vocal apprehensiveness. I've read the citizen authorized ordinance online and agree this is our best route forward. as a survivor of severe domestic violence from an active employee of the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department and the records the public has regarding how many officers are already abusing this footage, it is absolutely necessary that we implement independent community-involved oversight before there's an incident we can't come back from. These officers were caught stalking others at a critical tipping point. Who knows what they would have done, actions they would have carried out had they not been halted by other members of law enforcement at the time. If we must proceed with ALPR technology, please consider the citizen authorized ordinance and a one to three year moratorium while we work through the growing pains as a community. The citizens and council members have a real opportunity to come together and form a solution that benefits the people of the Fox Valley, and we need to walk through this door together before it's closed. To quote Frederick Douglass, power concedes nothing without a demand.

Thank you for your time and genuine consideration to this matter.

All right, next in the second row. Anyone else in the second row? Yeah, come on up.

Hello, my name is Sarah Gamalinda. I'm at 913 East Commercial Street. And I would just like to add my voice in opposition to the ALPR cameras. I came here really just to make sure that I was hearing from other people as well. And I'm glad to hear that there has been so far total opposition to this. I would also encourage us to all think about how our lives are already facing so many forms of surveillance through our phones, through our engagements with anything online. I mean, there's so many ways in which surveillance is spreading and creeping and and making life a lot more difficult to even relate to one another in a way that is, you know, sustaining ourselves outside of what technology is sort of putting onto us and guiding us through. Um, I'm thinking about this more in the sense of, um, of just a deeper sense of a human and a human connection, um, that doesn't get filtered through outside, um, companies and determining how our society decides to operate together. I really would support also this deeper conversation between community members and law enforcement and the council to come up with an alternative solution to solving problems that does not immediately, quickly, far too quickly turn to sending our problems off for someone else to sort of look at, scan through data. That's more of the type of society that I would like to live in.

Continuing on with the second row. Anyone else in the second row?

Yeah, come on up.

Hello i'm Sigma colon eight 20 East Washington street and I also just wanted to add my voice to the choir of people opposing a lpr technology for the reasons already stated in more articulate ways than I could at the moment. I also wanted to express my feet in favor of having an indefinite moratorium and to look more closely at the citizen authored ordinance.

Others in the second row. OK, moving on to the third row. OK. Welcome.

Hello, my name is Amber Vadanagamage. I reside at 213 Bosworth Court. I'm a NENA resident who works in Appleton. I've been to some of the public commentary around flock and around surveillance in NENA. and I didn't prepare remarks, but there was something that happened there that I thought was really powerful, and that is that someone had asked those who are here who represent either anti-surveillance or a pause on surveillance sentiment to please quietly and respectfully stand, and those in the back row to raise their hand if it applies to you. So if anyone's comfortable standing or sharing while they're here. Because I know not everyone is comfortable publicly speaking, but I think their presence needs to be seen here. Thank you.

Continuing on with the third row.

Yeah.

Hello, Council. My name is Tanner Mann. I live at 833 West Harris Street here in Appleton. Most of what I want to say about ALPR and AI-assisted mass surveillance technologies can be found in the citizen-authored ordinance that you've all received. It is the product of months of work with subject matter expert residents here in the Fox Valley. I support amending the ALPR resolution back in committee to include as much material from that citizen-authored ordinance as possible and for the rest of it to be added to APD policy surrounding AI-assisted surveillance technology use. the conduct, or I'm sorry, the exercising of that APD policy, it would be great if that could be very tightly monitored and regularly reported on to an independent oversight body. I'm not closed off to the idea of, as a community, allowing APD to use ALPR in a more controlled and regulated fashion in our neighborhoods. With that said, we cannot cut corners like we did with Flock. I believe we need to pause our usage of this category of technology for at least a year or two until we can establish the necessary ordinance and oversight to govern it effectively. As a result of this council and its committees having rules that prohibit public comments unless they pertain to an agenda item, the public has long been deprived of a public forum to make their concerns known about ALPR. Despite growing unease, distrust, and tension, participation at City Hall has been closed off to us. Residents are left to send emails and voicemails that go ignored. We're left to make assumptions about the intentions and views of unresponsive city leaders. This has chilled debate and dialogue in our city, minimizing consensus building and discouraging civic engagement. An agenda item subject to the whims of unresponsive or innocently overburdened city leaders should not be a prerequisite to participate at City Hall. The impact these meeting formats have to civic engagement in my city have serious impacts to public trust, policymaking, and regular attendance at these meetings. Please add a period of open public participation to common council meetings and committee meetings. And well, as an alternative, remove the agenda item requirement entirely. Nina and Oshkosh already have an open comment format for their city meetings. We should do the same. The current limitation in Appleton is stifling and undemocratic, thank you.

Third row, yeah.

Hi, I'm Emmy Carrick, and I'm an Oshkosh resident who frequents Appleton. I'm here to talk about the resolution on ALPRs. I felt compelled to come and speak here today because the issue of ALPR technology impacts everyone who lives, works, and visits here like myself, and I believe that we need strong and expert-informed ordinance to provide guardrails for ALPR use. The citizen authored ordinance that has been sent to council, I have read through it and it's my sincere hope that it will be thoughtfully considered. The Oshkosh Council is also reviewing a version of the citizen authored ordinance. And while I'd love to see my community be the first to adopt it and be a leader in the state for these kind of protections, I would equally love to see Appleton take on that opportunity and be a pioneering force in ALPR guardrails. Well, I appreciate the time and effort that Alders have put into drafting the ordinance being discussed tonight. This is not what will make Appleton that pioneering force. Advanced surveillance technology requires an in-depth and expert-informed approach, and I feel that this community deserves more than what's being put forward right now. I will share with you that my experience voicing concerns about ALPR tech in Oshkosh was probably one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. And having my legitimate concerns dismissed by my local leaders is a feeling that I will never forget. And I want to share that because I don't want that for the people of Appleton. Appleton residents deserve leaders that prioritize their privacy and their safety and welcome dialogue from residents. I would like to suggest a moratorium on ALPR tech to allow residents a meaningful opportunity to engage and voice their opinions on this issue. Developing robust guardrails is also not something that should be rushed, and I think a temporary pause would be the appropriate course of action in this case. Thank you.

Next in the third row. Anyone else in the third row? OK, we'll move to the fourth row. Yeah, I see you back there. Come on up. Welcome. Your name and address and the item you'd like to speak on.

My name is Megan Norman, so address is 229 North Rankin Street. And here is both a resident and owner of a downtown Appleton business. And I just wanted to express that I support all the statements that I've heard so far. regarding the termination of FLOC. I would ask for at the very minimum a 12-month moratorium or maybe even consider let's not because we've done this for how long without some kind of mass surveillance like this. I think we can continue to do perfectly fine without. There are obviously many issues with this. There's a lot of people who feel less safe having this in our community. I certainly do. And I would just ask that we at least consider putting this on pause for a long period of time to reconsider. Thank you.

All right. Before we proceed, I need a motion to extend public participation 30 minutes. Motion and a second to extend public participation by 30 minutes. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. With none opposed, public participation has been extended 30 minutes. All right, sticking with the fourth row. Anyone else in the fourth row? All right, anyone standing who'd like to speak and hasn't had a chance yet? Okay, in the, maybe the purple. Several, okay. Well, all right, well, just, all right, next person, come on up. Kind of behind the column there, so, okay. Okay.

Hi, my name is Rachel Zimmer, and I'm speaking on item 9R26, and I live in Little Chute currently. So I'm an IT professional. I work in healthcare IT, and thank you to the community. I was made aware. of the tech that Flock has and learning about the technology and the software itself, I was highly disappointed. And I've been an analyst for nine years. One thing that stuck out to me was just the lack of policy. My understanding is with the software, there are a lot of free text fields and different things like that that don't hold law enforcement or whoever's accessing the system accountable. Where in 2026, there are a lot of different ways that the software companies should and can hold their users accountable, making sure that the software and the data is not being abused. That also being said, I was looking at a federal level, and I think across the nation in all honestly every state they're having issues with surveillance and not just license plates scanning just as a whole all of the tech it seems like everyone wants the new shiny tech and it's very important to make sure there's policy in place to protect the citizens before putting that in place and i don't know if you guys run off kpis like hospitals do or have gold stars and different things but it's very important to have the policy in place first before acquiring the hardware and I understand that the software is only scanning license plates. But one software push, those cameras are able to collect facial recognition and different things like that and it can get out of hand really, really quickly and it's very dangerous. One thing that also was shocking to me is that the federal government can go to the software companies directly and give out data without having to even circle back with law enforcement. Now, they've actually tried to do that with healthcare software companies, but because of these software companies holding themselves accountable. They have things in place where they actually can't access each hospital's data. So they told the federal government, you have to go to the hospitals directly. And then the hospitals having to use their legal systems, taking them to court, where unfortunately they're not all winning across the board. But it's something where It starts with us holding the software companies accountable. It's very important and I'm very disappointed, honestly, America as a whole for not putting anything in place before pushing this. You can also look at who funds these texts and it's hard to not pull the string of this large sweater and wonder what is actually going on. I think it's important to ask these questions. And I guess I'm just disappointed that no one's taken a step back and looked at the bigger picture of how this data is funneling and how it's being used. ICE, also all the domestic violence cases, I have been stalked before, thankfully it It wasn't through Flock. It was through social media apps. But I can then choose not to use those apps. I cannot choose to opt out of being tracked by these different surveillance things. And I haven't committed a crime.

Anyway, not that that justifies anything.

But I would just love for more accountability and I do believe accountability is love and I do think that we need more love and less hate. So if we could please hold these software companies accountable because bottom line is we live in a really safe place and I don't know how necessary all of this is and I think it's creating more fear against people that we really need to be partnering with and trusting which is our law enforcement. Thank you.

All right, next.

Hello, my name is Nathaniel Miller. I live at 981 Grove Street in Neenah, but I'm a former Appleton resident, frequent visitor these days. I am also here to speak about my opposition to flock, ALPRs in general, and to encourage you to send this particular proposal back to committee for further review at the very least. I think this is a topic where it's really easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Those of us who have talked about this a lot, and I know that includes many people in this room, can find ourselves bogged down in ALPRs and data security and the specifics and the nitty gritty. and lose sight of what we're actually talking about right now. So it is my sincere hope that everyone in the room, whether you are walking in with a fully made up mind or not, whether you think you agree with me or not, can open your mind for 20 seconds and honestly consider what we are discussing tonight. What we're discussing is mass dragnet surveillance of every single person who passes through or spends time in the city of Appleton. We're talking about creating a system that allows them to query where you were in the past, as well as set up notifications to track your whereabouts and your movements in the present. That is an awesomely powerful system to allow to exist. And I mean awesome in the truest sense of the word. That is awesome. Now, if I walk out of this meeting and I find that my 20-year-old Honda has been stolen while I was in here talking to you, I have no doubt that an awesomely powerful system of that magnitude could be helpful in finding my stolen junk bucket. But anyone who tells you that that is the only use that something of that amount of power could be put towards is being willfully ignorant of reality. I'm not telling you anything you don't know if I talk about officers in Menasha, in Milwaukee, across the state of Wisconsin, across the country, who have been accused, found guilty, in some cases convicted, of misusing this technology. I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard before. If I talk about the sheriff in Texas who performed a nationwide search of flock databases going after someone who legally accessed reproductive care. I have heard concerns from some people in this room tonight actually about what if technology like this was used during shelter at home orders through COVID to track people who didn't feel like staying at home during that. As a queer man, it's extremely easy for me to imagine that the powers that be might choose to see every single person who attended a pride festival and subject us to greater scrutiny. I would encourage everyone sitting up here about to vote on this this evening. Regardless of where you stand on any political entity, any police entity currently in power, remember that the only constant in life is change. Imagine some years down the road the political winds have shifted and whatever organization it is that absolutely hates you to the core of your being has found themselves in control of the levers of power. Do you want whoever that is to have this kind of power that again, massive dragnet surveillance of every single person who passes through or spends time in the city of Appleton. Whether you're worried they're gonna track everyone who goes to your church whether you're worried that they would track everyone who attends a protest or a rally for a politician or a candidate, anyone who attends a conference, whatever it is. If you can imagine a world where you don't want someone to have that kind of power over you, you need to create that world. And that means you need to stop this technology from letting an awesomely powerful system exist where it has the potential to fall into anyone's hands, whether you agree with them or not. As legislators, as government officials, you do not have the luxury of only looking at our exact current moment. and a resolution in front of you that asks for a pinky promise to be really good this time from the police department and whatever next contractor comes in, you might feel rises to the occasion of this current moment with the current specific people that you know and trust. But that does not rise to the level of what we need in the future when things will be different because they have always been different. If you can imagine a world where this technology could hurt someone, you need to act responsibly and prevent that world from happening. Thank you.

All right.

Thank you. Next.

Alistair Schatz, W6309, Arborvitae Lane, Menasha. I frequently attend events in Appleton. I'm here to speak out against ALPR systems. I will mirror the previous remarks made by those who have spoken out against Flock and other ALPRs. There are obvious Fourth Amendment concerns. There are obvious concerns for its implications for warrantless immigration enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. In addition, I believe it is fiscally irresponsible to support a system that produces false positives 30% of the time and places citizens at risk of a meaningless, unreasonable, and dangerous traffic stop. That risk exists for both the officers involved and the citizens. This technology makes us less safe, not more. And any system that uses ALPRs asks our citizens to pay money for it. money that could go to schools, to feeding our children, to housing our homeless. It represents a fundamental theft from all better causes, of which nearly all are. Money spent on FLOG or any other warrantless mass surveillance system would be better burned for heat in Wisconsin's winters than it would be spent on ineffectual and invasive camera networks. I have heard comparisons made to cell phones with ALPR. They are false equivalencies. There is no federal, state, or local requirement to carry a cell phone in the same way that there are for vehicles to display license plates. Any ALPR network represents a de facto state-required citizen monitoring system. That, in fact, exists regardless of any ordinance that thinks to mitigate harm by requiring encryption, quibbling about data storage locations, or when exactly warrants should be obtained. I understand the impulse to litigate away risk and find middle ground, but there is no middle ground to reasonably be found with mass surveillance. We are either being watched everywhere we go or we are not. I urge the council to ban all ALPR systems indefinitely. I additionally urge a period of reflection where we all ask ourselves why anyone felt entitled to spend tax dollars to spy and monitor all citizens and travelers within Appleton. Thank you. Next.

Seth Hammond, West LC Street 819 in Appleton, and I'd just like to offer my point of view as a layperson. I don't know what ALPR stands for, and I honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I don't trust FLOC. Until my life needs saving and like until someone saves me from getting hit by a car that was driving way too fast. And that person who saved my life says, yeah, thank God I saw you on that flock camera. Otherwise you'd be a goner. I'm not going to trust flock. And I'm not going to trust any of the software companies that own these types of mass surveillance systems. I'm not going to trust that they have our goodwill in mind. I support taking down these cameras, turning them off and sending them back to Atlanta and never bringing them back. Thank you for your time. Next.

My name is Gloria DeGrave, 981 Grove Street, Neenah, Wisconsin. I serve on the planning committee for Fox Valley Pride. So this city is a large part of where I contribute to my community. I also am a person that's a part of the LGBTQ community. I'm a trans person, and ALPR technology terrifies me, truly. It shakes me to my core. Part of that is because I am somebody that has survived domestic violence. I am somebody that has survived cyber-stalking. And I truly don't trust that every single person that we could possibly hire that would possibly have access to this system or all of the other departments that share the information is trustworthy with my information as a trans person and as a part of the LGBTQ plus community. I am deeply worried about any time that we create any sort of a searchable database of people, especially when that searchable database of people can be linked to a specific location and time, where something can be noted as a meeting of a group of people that is marginalized, right? Any time that Fox Valley Pride puts on an event, which often happens here at the Appleton Public Library, in Jones Park, all across the city of Appleton, I do not want all those people that I am there to serve and make sure that they are safe and make sure that they feel welcome and loved in this community, I do not want them to be afraid to drive their car to our events. And right now, that's the reality for a lot of people. They do not want to be tracked. There are people in this room, that are queer and are afraid to say it. There's somebody in this room that is queer and has said it for the first time publicly in front of a microphone and in front of people. And that is trusted information. And that is information that I do not believe that every single police officer that we could ever hire in the future should have. People get through background checks all the time. People get through screenings all the time. And this is information that I truly believe is too specific for us to be able to hand over to just anybody that is able to get through. I am often in the position of wanting to advance technology. I'm often in the position of somebody that wants a brighter and better future. I am somebody that often wants to integrate technology in ways that better serve our community. And this isn't it. And I've reviewed the resolution that's been put forward by this body, and I can appreciate that time has gone into it. However, it does not meet the standard of what the public is asking for. And certainly a few of you have shared that you do not believe that the standard of what the public is asking for is appropriate or whatever. But when we elect you, when we trust you to represent us, when we trust you to keep us safe, We are asking that you try to find a way to do the things that we are asking you to do. And ultimately, the thing that we're asking you to do is keep us safe. The thing that we're asking you to do is to make sure that our information cannot be used against us. And so I just... I need us to do better than the resolution that's been put forward. I can understand if you don't like the citizen drafted ordinance that we've been suggesting to several of you. Let's amend that, though, rather than to throw it out like the baby with the bathwater. Let's not rest on a short two-page document that does not contain the detail and does not contain the safety measures that the public is asking for. We need more. And if we can start from 20 pages and go from there, I feel a lot better about that than starting from two. Now, certainly, I do not think that ALPR technology should be available to us at all, but I would feel a lot better if we did the things in that 20-page suggested and drafted ordinance. And so that is why I'm asking of you tonight is to deny the two-page drafted ordinance, put up a moratorium, and then work from that 20-page document and get something good.

Any others?

Yep.

And just as you're coming up for the council, I know we're coming up on two hours of meeting time. Unless there are any objections, what I'd like to do is make sure that anybody who'd like to participate has the opportunity, and then I would like to get through establishing the order of the day, because there may be actions taken during the order of the day that folks may decide they want to stay for the rest of the meeting or may feel they could leave after those actions are taken. After we establish the order of the day, we would then take a break if there are no objections to that. I see nodding, so I'm sorry to interrupt you. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Sam Stratton. I live at 1009 East Capitol Drive here in Appleton. I'll give you one guess as to what item on the agenda I want to talk about. Yeah, you've heard a lot about like legality and examples of misuse and all that sort of thing. To me at this point though, this has really become more of a matter of human dignity. I feel supremely undignified to have to show up with dozens of my neighbors to beg my local government to stop spying on me. And I don't know, do you guys feel dignified? Do you feel respected? I don't. So yeah, I would highly recommend to send this back to committee. I don't think we really need the two page resolution ordinance and just put in an indefinite moratorium until the entire country realizes how insane the situation is that we've found ourselves in. And the last thing I want to say is that all these providers, Flock, Axon, All these people, they've got sales teams and executive boards that have fiduciary responsibility that legally binds them to make the most money as possible for their shareholders, and they do not have our best interests at heart, whether you're a citizen, a police officer, or a local government official. That's all I have to say. Anyone else? Yeah.

Hi, my name's John Bon. I am at 1512 Tri Parkway, also here on Flock, surprisingly. I want to say the current usage of Flock and other LPR cameras across the states was adopted much too quickly, pushed by Silicon Valley startups who move fast and break things, and our trust is what's been broken. They've sprinted far ahead to install these systems in our cities and allow police to use their systems. The data collected is not stored locally and the company itself can do what they want with it. This should be a non-starter since their security on the system is inadequate. People can easily intercept the data coming from cameras through Wi-Fi, log into them remotely through stolen credentials, or simply through commercial search engines. There are too many ways for the sensitive information stored at these companies to be accessed, and that is without the possibility of them allowing companies or governments access to the sensitive data of people trying to go throughout their day. ICE and CBP have already been allowed to use the cameras to target immigrants just starting their days going to work. This isn't even touching on the surveillance devices to be used for facial recognition when they are meant to be license plate reading only. At the meeting, at the last meeting, the Outagamie County DA, I believe, made a point that we don't necessarily have privacy on public roads. But the use of these cameras is almost equivalent of having a GPS tracker on every single car. There is no privacy in that when everyone with access to the system always knows your location or could find where you're most likely to be on a Wednesday evening. I urge the council to return the ordinance to committee and rethink based on the citizen proposed ordinance and include the moratorium for indefinite amount of time until a more reasonable and citizen developed and approved ordinance has been made. Thank you. Others?

Anyone else? Anyone else who would like to speak on an item that appears on our agenda? Okay. Hearing none, we will close public participation. And I want to thank you all for conducting a respectful public participation session, and thank you for being here to share your thoughts with the council. Moving along, we have no public hearings and no special resolutions. We will now establish the order of the day. All right, Alder Crote.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple here, starting with the separate vote on 26-0758.

I'm sorry, which committee? Safety and Licensing. Okay, go ahead. It's the truancy ordinance. Okay, 26-0758.

And then separate vote on 26-0848, which is the FOC termination final recommendation. And then that'll be it. I think someone else is going to refer something else back. Okay.

Alderheart's time.

Thank you, Chair. I have less of a request to separate and more of a point of order regarding some process. There are three items in your consolidated items. Will those items then be pulled out of a consent agenda prior to the consolidated items portion? Or should I request those items be pulled out separately?

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes. So this is 26-0943. Correct. Consolidated action items.

Correct.

What we'll do is we'll just pull that and we'll deal with that during our regular business before we get to, you know, before we complete the consent agenda. So I'll pull. 26, because it's a consolidated action item, it deals with all of those items. We'll just handle that one.

I just want to confirm that when we vote on the consent agenda at the end, that we will not be voting on those things separately.

No, we will not.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Oh, also, one other item.

Go ahead.

From Safety and Licensing, item number 26-0850. That is the special event application denial. 0850.

OK. All right. Others? Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. I think that my tablet's not working. Am I in the queue for speaking?

I'm not sure, but you are recognized.

Okay. I did hit my button.

Okay.

I would like to refer back to Committee 26-0825, Resolution 9R26 for the Oversight Standards for Surveillance Technology. I'd like to refer that back to the Safety and Licensing Committee for further discussion to explore amendments. Thank you.

All right. Hearing no objections, that'll be referred back to the Safety and Licensing Committee. So that item, that is the ALPR resolution. That'll be referred back to the next meeting of the Safety and Licensing Committee. Alder Meltzer.

And could we just share with the public the date and time when that meeting will be? Thank you.

Yeah, that is, when's our next Safety and Licensing? Week from tonight, 5.30 p.m. here.

Okay.

July 22nd. Everybody's welcome. All right. And now you've been here a first-timer, so come on back. All right. Any other separate votes? Alder Schultz.

Thank you, Chair. From Park and Rec 26-0827, approved Veterans Memorial Concept Plan.

Okay. Good.

Any others?

All right now this is all this is a little bit out of order but I'd like to ask for the council I'd like to suggest to the council that we deal with the item from safety and licensing committee regarding flock. My goal is to take care of the items related to flocks y'all can go home and we don't want I don't wanna make you sit through more meeting than you need to so. If there are no objections from the council, I'd like to dispense with that item before we go to our break. So this is item 26-0848, flock termination final recommendation. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. Alder Crowe.

Thank you, Mayor. This action item on our agenda is basically in response to action that you took a while back to terminate the agreement with Flock and stop paying Flock. I would encourage this body to approve this. It came out of committee on a unanimous recommendation to terminate the agreement and cease payments to Flock, and I would encourage us to support that. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. Could you, just for the benefit of folks that are interested, share a couple of the details with what was communicated to that company in terms of us discontinuing our relationship with them, what we've asked them to do, et cetera?

Yes. We indicated to Flock that our use of their technology would cease on June 30, which it did. In the communication to FLOC, we also asked them to remove the cameras timely, not later than July 31st. We requested verification from FLOC that the cameras would be inert and not gathering information, and if we didn't receive that, we would cover the cameras. We received no response to the letter that was sent to FLOC with this information, and so we proceeded with covering the cameras immediately on June 30th. We heard during public participation this evening that some of those covers may have been disturbed or blown off. And we will make inspection and replace covers if they have been damaged by wind or otherwise. So I appreciate that being brought to our attention. So we will be making sure that those bags are in place. We have yet to receive a final plan for removal of that equipment. We did ask for that equipment to be taken out not later than the 31st of July. And if they're not removed by that time we'll have to consider other options But but that was what was communicated and the action is alter quote Referenced that the cup that is before the council is to make no further payments to flock. Thank you Any further discussion Hearing none we have a motion and a second to approve. Please cast your votes.

I

That motion passes 12 to zero. The item has been approved. All right, so if you are here interested in ALPRs and FLOC, there will be no further business conducted by the council on this subject this evening. You're welcome to stay, and we would love to have you, but just the same, no further discussion or action on this tonight. Again, this will be at committee next week, safety and licensing, 5.30 p.m. a week from tonight, 22nd of July here in council chambers. And again, thank you all for being here, and especially for those of you, your first time coming and participating in a public meeting, we appreciate you joining us. Thank you all, and for those of you heading out, have a good night. At this time, before we proceed with the rest of our business, we are going to take a 10-minute break. We will reconvene at 9.20 p.m. for the rest of our business. All right, all right, we're gonna come back to order. I gave us an extra minute and 40 seconds, but we gotta get back to business here. All right, we're gonna come back to order. All right. All right, we're gonna come back to order here. All right. We're going to continue with our business from the Safety and Licensing Committee. The next is going to be 26-0758, Resolution 7R26, Review Options for Truancy Ordinance. We have a motion and a second to approve. Open the floor for discussion. Alder Crote.

Thank you, Mayor. I know it's getting late, but I have quite a bit to say on this, but I'll try to keep it short. We've been working on this as a committee for over 10 months, I believe. First of all, I just want to say I would hope my colleagues can get behind the amendment by substitution, which is essentially putting the exact same language back on the books for a year, starting September 1st, ending August 31st. of next year. Essentially the same thing. The expectation would be to get regular reporting from the district continue to evaluate the numbers. I think what has happened over the course of the last 10 months or so has been a very meticulous and methodical approach to reviewing information they've provided. In my opinion, they've responded to questions that were asked of them. I'm really proud of the work that the committee has done. We've had many meetings on this. And I think we've made some good progress. I just want a couple of reminders, I guess I would say is, you know, I listened to the public comment and, you know, as far as this, Being a step backward for the district, I don't agree with that. I think this is a small step forward that we should continue to look at. It's a tool in the toolbox, and what we've seen from the district is it's like the last tool left in an empty bag. Yes, they can use it as a tool in the beginning, but I think they've demonstrated that it's rarely used. And I... You know, what I've learned over the course of this deliberation is all of the things that they've put in place from that flow chart, this document here, are what's really making a difference. That's what's driving better numbers. It's all of the supports that they've created and put in place, because as we learned, every student situation is different, so every situation requires different supports. The truancy citation is a last resort, and I think having it in place for a year has given us enough information to say, let's continue it for another year, Let's gather some more information and see where that takes us. My hope is that a year from now, we're looking at another set of data that shows even better numbers from the district as far as our students attending school. Superintendent Harches is not here tonight, but he talks about it being more than attendance. It's about student success. And that's really the goal is to get kids to come to school and have them be successful when they leave school and go out into the community and work. So I would encourage support of this. I know there's some opposition to it, to putting it back in place. I hope that an additional one-year trial period is acceptable for those that are unsure about what to do. And I would just hope that we can approve this tonight. Thank you.

Alder Heffernan.

Thank you, Chair. I want to be clear that the work that Appleton Area School District has been doing to improve attendance with their students is nothing short of phenomenal. I want to be very clear about that, as I usually have quoted. That being said, I do believe that the increased attendance, one, was already projected to increase in the way that it has, and I do believe that the supports that have been put in place and the relationships that are built and the things that teachers do and the emotional intelligence of teachers is something that has always astounded me as an adult in that interaction. I believe that it is those things that are increasing the relationship and the attendance and understanding that the family needs to be all involved and they're doing that. That does not require truancy ordinance. that does not require having a big stick that we can use later if it's not going exactly the way that we want. When we make laws, it's for everybody, not for small groups of disadvantaged people. So I will not be supporting this ordinance, and I really believe that the intendants will continue to improve because of all of the other efforts. We have not given enough credit to all of the other efforts that have been done by the Appleton Area School District. We have given all of that credit to the threat of a ticket. That is what we're talking about, is that what they need is the threat of a ticket to get people involved, and you don't need an ordinance for that. So I will not be supporting this ordinance, thank you.

Alder Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by thanking Alder Crote for shepherding this through the Safety and Licensing Committee, and not on that committee, but I paid special attention to this because I think it's such an important issue. We had three huge issues come up tonight, and thus I counted 35 comments, so we had a long time there. But of the three huge issues for our community, I think a case could be made that education and what we do here on truancy is perhaps the most consequential of our votes because of the knock-on effects of attendance and student success for our community in the long term. I think Jason or Jason Kovac made the comment about compulsory education. Is that something that we believe in? Is that our community standard? And I think that a yes vote to extend this ordinance and this trial of the truancy system is a vote in favor of that, yes, that is our community standard here in Appleton is compulsory education. We expect students, outside of health concerns and other things, we expect students to be in school. We approved the truancy ordinance this last fall. I was always dubious that we had time that would allow for us to see really a full impact in that. So we saw three quarters of the school year. But in fact, we do see modest change in the right direction, and it's within the range that we were looking for. And then Superintendent Harches also talked about related academic outcomes. And I think that those should not be downplayed as well, that those are important. We see things moving in the right direction. And to me, that is a reason to continue this trial for another year and see where we get with the data on the other side of this. Our interest in my view shouldn't be to outthink the elected school board. or to out-think the teachers who see every day what's happening in their school system and they have far more data on the classroom and what's going on. But our goal is to make sure that the punishments are in line with our community values. And I would say that looking at what we've been shown from the data, that they clearly are. There was just one citation last year. I would expect that to increase. over the next year, but we do not see the return of anything that resembles a punitive approach. What we see is modest improvement, and we can continue to see that, I trust, by continuing this experiment for a year. I urge my fellow council members to allow this truancy policy to continue and to continue to support our teachers and the school district. Thank you.

Alder Furcus. Thank you, Mayor. I would support and ask that this council support extending this for another year, allowing for our community to gather more data on this. I think the partial year has had some promising information, but I would not hold it against anyone that feels that a partial year is not enough year to sway their opinion. And I'm saying that as someone who's been pretty consistently in favor of a truancy ordinance. I realize that some people are still trying to figure out where they stand on this, and I think another year will give us more information for those people to make their decision on. We're hearing a lot of praise for the systems that the school district has put in place through the administration and through the execution through the administration and the teachers and the support from the school board. Those are the same people that were asking us to bring a truancy ordinance back. They're asking us to give them additional support in their efforts. I feel what those people who are on the front line of this are seeing and coming back and asking for is something we should be very seriously considering. Because without the truancy ordinance, we've seen that we're effectively a community where going to high school is optional. We don't have that backstop without it. And these programs are great. It creates, they have created a system that handles the potential of higher dropout rates in a way that is much more willing to focus and address the underlying issues and working collaboratively with the students rather than the more punitive measures that existed during the days of the truancy court. So please, let's continue this for at least one more year, gather more data, get more insight, and reconsider this a year from now. Thank you. Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. Alderman Smith and Ferkus both sort of stole some thunder. And I won't reiterate what they said, obviously, because the clock's ticking. What's impactful to me is that school board members showed up this evening to fully support a truancy ordinance within the city. These are people who are elected to really look out for the best interests of the students, of the children in our community. and the fact that they came forward and were very sincere about knowing that this has been helpful, knowing that their teachers are asking for this, those are important things to me. Granted, we've heard lots of great things from the attendance coordinators and from Superintendent Hartges as well, piece tells me that it is well worth us doing at least one more year of a renewal of this truancy ordinance. Thank you.

Further discussion? Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. My tablet's still not working. I did restart it. I trust AASD. I love our school district. And I have so much respect and admiration for how they support students. It has been a really eye-opening and impressive journey over the past 10 months just learning just how much they do. That said, the data for attendance and academic success has been trending up, and I believe it will continue to do so without the ordinance. So I appreciate that our community has come together to take the time to have a thorough look at this and discussion of this topic, but I do not believe that another trial period is warranted. Thank you.

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. When we first passed this, I had some concerns about a couple of dispositions, primarily the significant forgery if and when someone is referred to a program capacity of whatever that program or who facilitates it to charge the family or the student up to $25,000 for whatever they might be assessed if they're assigned to any kind of remedial course of action by the court. That still concerns me. That's still in this resolution by substitution. I remain concerned about that now. one citation out of a student body of what's, I don't remember what the number is, but it's 14,000 if I remember right. It feels like a lot of work to cut down to that small handful, what might amount to maybe 10 to 15 individuals in that vast number of students that might be affected by this policy. I also still remain concerned about disposition number three in order for the Department of Workforce Development to revoke work permit for anyone who finds themselves in this situation or by the court to have their work permit revoked, particularly if that student is helping their family through a period of crisis and needs to do what they need to do for their family. So that remains an element of concern. Lastly, You know, we've seen the trending upward numbers, which is a good sign, and I'd echo all my colleagues' comments about the great work that AESD is doing for our students and all the people involved in turning this around. But I can't tell from the numbers what portion of that upward trend is attributable to the carrots that are being offered, or the carrot cake, or whatever you want to call it, and what's attributable to this stick. And without knowing that, I guess I'm okay with seeing another year, but I guess I'm with my colleagues who don't feel like this is a necessary element in our ability to get students to attend and get through their education. Lastly, I haven't really seen any documentation or assurances that this might not be applied in a disproportionate manner to those minority populations black latino or native american or otherwise in our community that might find themselves more. prone to finding themselves struggling to attend. So without that information and without knowing the impact on those with a socioeconomic status that's challenging for them, I can't, I'm not going to support it this time. I'll be okay with it if it does pass going for another year just to see what the numbers prove out. But at this point, I will not be voting for it. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alder Lambrecht.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'VE FOLLOWED THIS TOPIC VERY CLOSELY, AND ONE OF THE ITEMS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TO BRING THIS UP, ONE OF THE PRIMARY GOALS THAT WAS ADDRESSED OR WAS IDENTIFIED WAS THAT CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE AS A MUNICIPALITY HAVE NO STANDING TO LEGISLATE ON CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM, AND THAT'S WHY truancy was the mechanism and is the mechanism that was put in place because we do have compulsory education with the allowance to have that truancy. And I would say that seeing the increases and the improvements around that specifically, the chronic absenteeism and the improvements in academic outcomes for those students who may be re-engaged because of the accountability options, I think, is justification for an additional year of trying this out and seeing because it does seem that it is having an impact on people's behaviors and perceptions with regards to their attendance in schools. And I think the fact that we're seeing positive signs and then potentially ending the trial sends mixed messages to the greater community as a whole.

Further discussion? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. Please cast your votes. The motion fails six to six, and in this case, even if the Chair were to vote, the motion would fail, so the Chair will not vote. The motion fails. Okay. Moving along, I don't know, is Mr. Kettleson still present? Okay, given that, what I'd ask is if the council is open to it, I'd like to next take up the items related to the tax increment district and the associated items around the Wilden Portfolio Park project. Are there any objections to that? Okay, and at this time, what I'd like to do is ask Director Holman just to walk us through the approval items because we have We have a number of things coming together tonight for approval. So I'd just like to have a quick overview of the items that we'll need to deal with and vote on tonight. I think it would just be helpful that we get a quick rundown of all the component parts. So Director Coleman, which mic do you have there? Okay, go ahead.

All right, so... We have two related items that are part of consolidated action item 260737. The first is a budget adjustment to the community development budget that would allow for revenue to come in through a cost reimbursement agreement and then expenditures to go out for a real estate acquisition that's needed for the intersection at Evergreen and Ballard road. The related action item is 260890, which is the second amendment to the cost reimbursement agreement with North Meadows Investment LTD. That agreement formally was known as the Thriving Cost Reimbursement Agreement. So those two items are related and under a consolidated action item. We also have item 26-0891, which is an option to purchase agreement for a future fire station parcel at the northeast corner of Evergreen Road or future Evergreen Road and Meade Street. That is a item that is related to a particular section of the development agreement. So the fourth action item is 26-0867, which is the development agreement. between the city, Thrivant Financial for Lutherans, and North Meadows Investments. That is primarily a development agreement related to the funding and provision of public infrastructure for phase one of the Walden Portfolio Park Platte. Um, within that is, um, significant and, um, multiple layers of, um, financial assurance that would underwrite any risk for the city's direct borrowing, um, putting the city in first position for, um, the TID increment that does come through, um, ensuring that gap payments are made by the developer. And in the event that for whatever reason they don't, there would be a, letter of credit. That would be a third level of, um, safety for the city. And then finally we, uh, retain our right to special assess for any thing that goes beyond that. Um, other provisions within the development agreement include a pay goal, uh, TID financing, um, that would fund a portion of the developers costs related to, um, primarily public infrastructure, or in fact, all public infrastructure. with provisions making sure that payments are made on a reimbursement basis, not made until our Public Works team has signed off on the various components of infrastructure, and also making sure that it is only reimbursing for direct public infrastructure costs. Finally, the final two items are 26-0737, which I believe that is a consolidated action item that is related to the resolution or resolutions from plan commission, as well as common council creating or supporting the creation of TID 14. Do note that the final action to create a TID is actually taken by the joint review board, which is a special body comprised of all the various taxing jurisdictions and representatives from the city that would occur in a publicly noticed meeting of the JRB. And finally, 260586 is the action item that would approve the TID number 14 or proposed TID number 14 boundaries and project plan.

Okay. Everybody got that? All right. So what we'll do is just we're going to work our way sequentially through these items. And again, we'll state what the item is and what it pertains to. If at any point anybody has any questions about what it is we're discussing or what the item is before you, I do not want there to be any confusion among the council about what it is we're talking about, which component part. So please don't be shy about asking because This is a complicated set of items to deal with this evening. And if the council will offer me the deference, we're just going to work through it. I know that these weren't pulled out separately, but I do think given the significance of the items, want to make sure that the council has the opportunity to talk through each of these. So from Community Development Committee 26-0867, Request to approve the development agreement with Thriving Financial for Lutherans. We have a motion. And we have a second to approve. All right, we'll open the floor for discussion. Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. Because this item is intricately entwined with the creation of a TID, I cannot support it. There are many items within this development agreement that seem to be appropriate, but again, because it is completely contingent on a creation of a TID and TIF assistance through the city, I cannot support it. Thank you.

Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. I am very much against corporate welfare. But I also had the privilege of serving on the Housing Task Force, of being on the advisory group for the update of the comprehensive plan. I was just in a meeting this morning with rep consultants where we're talking with some HUD funding increased development on our major transportation corridors. And the bottom line in all of these things and in most of what I deal with on a daily basis is that the city doesn't have enough housing in particular levels. And what this development, we've got a couple examples that weren't separated out in the minutes of the City Plan Commission, where we approved two preliminary plats on the north side of town, all for houses on approximately 13,000 square foot lots. I'm guessing these are gonna be pretty big houses. So what we get by approving this development agreement is the commitment from the developer, and if you'll bear with me, I will actually read this paragraph. The developer plans to develop, but it says in the agreement that the developer commits, to develop the property with a mix of uses including commercial, retail, hospitality, office, and various residential uses and public infrastructure as shown on the proposed plat, et cetera. And then it says the developer shall construct the infrastructure pursuant to the engineering and planning documents included, et cetera, to the approval. And then further on, the agreement goes that the funding is for public infrastructure that becomes the property of the city. And we need that. We clearly, if we're going to have housing, we must extend the evergreen between those two points. We have to have that done. And the TID proposal, and I know I'm speaking of the development agreement, but they're related, so stop me if I get too far, but specifically carves out the proposed development of the large homes that would be built anyway on property in that area, as I remember and understand it. So in the... While not being a fan of corporate welfare, I'm a fan of having all families have the opportunity to have a home. And I think that the city exerting the influence by pocketbook reasons, et cetera, is our best way to make sure that we get the mix of housing and other development that we would like to see in this area. So I'm going to support this. Thank you.

Further discussion or questions? Alder Hartzine.

Thank you, Chair. I respect Alder Fenton's statement, but It is my firm belief that housing can and will occur on this property, and Thrivent, a philanthropic nonprofit organization, can absolutely commit to all of those things without TID assistance.

Thank you.

Alder Smith. Thank you, Chair. I want to agree with Alder Fenton that creating a TID, this tax incremental district, will be a benefit for the city. There's two things that I see primarily that we get out of this. Of course, first is infrastructure with the extension of Evergreen and other roads there. And then second is this varied set of housing and we've seen that if we leave Housing if we just let housing development go strictly according to the market. There's easy things to build and there's We've seen developers Aim at one part of the market where we as a city could use a more varied set of housing options and that's why I believe that Habitat for Humanity supports this and in the community development meeting last week, Eric Sernger from Habitat for Humanity talked in favor of this for these reasons about lot size and the variety of housing that will be offered here. I think it's easy to imagine that left on its own devices, simply on the profit motive, we would have come up with a very different development plan. And I think you can look around cities. The ones I know best are in Texas, where you just get you know, self enclosed, um, uh, housing developments, which don't, there's, there's no good infrastructure. The cities have to come in later and build the infrastructure to connect these places. And yes, that that type of thing could be an option, but that is, that is not good, strong development for our city. What we have is a huge plot of land, which could be a center for a lot of the new development that's happening in the north part of the city. And this adds reason and order to that development. And I'm very pleased with the plan that I see from ThriveInt and look forward to see how it's developed. I would urge everyone to vote in favor of the TID. ALAN M. Alder Heffernan.

May I direct questions to Director Holman? Yeah, let's have your questions. So I just wanted to make sure that I understand, because what I thought I heard her say was that the TID payments in the development of this are going to be going towards the public infrastructure, so like utilities, roads. Is that accurate?

Director Holman, could you talk more about the TID payments?

Yeah, so within the development agreement, the first tranche of increment would service the city's debt, which would only fund public infrastructure piece of it. And then the payments made to North Meadows investments that are made after the city services the debt would only go towards public infrastructure that they would be borrowing money for.

OK. And then my other question is then, with the mixed use of the land, is there some measure of this that's going to then drive down the cost of the houses, making them more affordable or does that not affect it at all? This isn't an area that I'm very well versed in.

Director Holman, thoughts on that?

Yeah. So in terms of, um, what drives the mixture of houses, it's a variety of things. One is the underlying zoning. So if you recall, we amended the plan development district for the private property that really unlocked the property for variety of housing types. The other piece that goes into the cost of housing is the lot sizes that you create and the linear feet of or frontage of infrastructure that each unit is adjacent to. The PDD that we've created here allows for the narrower lots and or going up in terms of multifamily. Underwriting public infrastructure also contributes to the cost of the actual land that turns into housing. And then there's other things that go beyond the city's controls, such as the cost of labor, cost of materials, but anything the city can do in terms of allowing for the variety of housing types, as well as assisting with infrastructure really moves the needle.

So this is essentially would be something that could potentially work towards like driving down house prices and make them more affordable and available? Is that what I'm getting?

I think the point here, Director Holman, is that the provision for public infrastructure and the smaller lot sizes do address some of the drivers of higher home prices. But in terms of the the actual price of units within the development, difficult for us or for any developer to say on a speculative basis before those houses are built because the cost fluctuates. And we've also previously had discussions in the Housing Task Force talked about the matter of housing supply in general in the city and the impact of availability on pricing overall. So those are, you can reference the Housing Task Force report as one example for more data and information on that.

Okay, thank you.

Alder Wolf. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Alderperson Hartzheim on this issue and will be voting against it. So, thank you.

Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair. I remember sitting through the closed sessions and some other meetings where we discussed the nature of this development and how generally we were all very excited to see this coming our way and taking that chunk of property and making something of it for a broader community. And again, none of us relished the idea of having to foot some of the bill, but we were just talking about what that money is going for. It's public infrastructure, which at some point we would have to invest no matter what gets developed there, whether it's this or some other project down the road. I think for this, it's not a small amount of money, about $11 million investment for this TID funding with a conservative return when that thing matures of $200 million in tax incremental value. That's a really good bang for our buck. and just knowing what that development's going to bring for various housing types and what it can bring to this community. I'm fully supportive of this, but I will echo the not in favor of corporate welfare, which I don't believe this is. Thank you. Alder Lambrecht.

Thank you, Chair.

One of the other provisions or items within the development maybe helpful for the director or somebody to speak on is some of the clawback options i think when you think about what the uh this agreement does it actually provides opportunity for us if this is more successful um to to receive some of the benefits i'm not mistaken about that so maybe the director homan can speak more director holman on the look back provision sure and my laptop just died no

Okay. The current underwriting that was done by Ehlers, who's our TID advisor, we do have Greg Johnson here. So if you want to chime in on anything that I didn't quite get right off memory, the current pro forma is estimated with the TID development agreement provisions included at just over 7% internal rate of return. If in the event the market gets hotter than we projected, again, our projections are our best guess as to how this will play out. We do have provisions that if they achieve an internal rate of return of 15% or more, there is a look back provision that if they exceed more than that threshold of what is a reasonable return for this type of development, that we would then recalculate what their future payments would be. And Greg, is there anything you'd like to add or does that cover it?

Further discussion. Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. I heard earlier that the risk for the city is mitigated. But that's for the city. That's not the risk for all the taxpayers that are outside of the TID that will have to bear the additional expense. I'm very concerned about, again, because this development agreement is so intrinsically linked with TID, it's hard to speak about it without speaking about the TID, but I'm very concerned about the 20-year threshold for this TID. I'm very concerned that, again, we make it sound like it's free money, but it really is not free money. All the rest of the taxpayers in this city will have to foot the bill. It was explained by... the information from the MacIver Institute, and by Burt Blank, this is not, this is not, this will not not affect every other taxpayer in this city. And to the benefit of Thrivant. And that is incredibly unfair to me.

Thank you.

Further discussion? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. This is on the development agreement. Please cast your votes. All right, that motion passes nine to three. The development agreement has been approved. All right, we'll keep working our way through these items. We're gonna stick with Community Development Committee, and catch me if I'm pulling an item from a consolidated action item, but we'll move on to 26-0890. Actually, let's get to the tax increment district related items. Let's take care of those next. I wanna make sure that we're all clear on this. Item 26-0737 is a consolidated action item which would then address the tax increment district creation. Is that correct, Director Holman?

This is the resolution for Planning Commission and Common Council to support creating the tax increment district. However, the actual plan would be approved under 260586.

All right, let's begin then with 26-0586, request to approve the resolution establishing the boundaries of and approving the project plan for, yes? Under 2607, okay, this is why I'm seeing it under items held. Okay, so 26-0737, the consolidated action items related to tax increment district number 14. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. Alder Hartzheim.

Thank you, Chair. Here's where the slippery slope began, and now we're on it. As mentioned earlier by Mr. Blank, using the current Wisconsin DOR numbers regarding the existing TIFs or TIDs in this city, which is about $300 million in increment, on average, for every $100,000 worth of property value, our taxpayers are paying $60 extra, each $100,000. Now we are proposing this TID for 20 years that will, in best case scenario, double that 300 million that we're looking at for existing TIDs. That is then three times $60. Do some quick math. It's a lot of money per $100,000 of value for every property owner in this city to support this. And I cannot possibly get behind that not again for the enrichment of a private corporation.

Thank you. Director Homan, was there some context to be shared here?

There is a DOR report that portrays what the actual dollar per 100,000 is for TIDS. If it's okay, I'd like Greg from Allers to explain it.

Please do.

So annually the department of revenue prepares a annual TID report for all active TID districts in the city. And on that form, they populate how much the city is allowed to increase its allowable levy annually under levy limits based off of new construction growth within a TID district. So for the 2025 budget, the total allowable levy increase just due to new construction and all of the city's existing TID districts, was $227,534. So for every $100,000 of value for the city's tax bill, that added $2.27 per thousand. So that's a form that's published annually by the DOR. It's required to demonstrate that impact to the levy while TID districts are open.

Thank you. Alder Hartzheim.

If I may, please, is there a calculation for the estimated $600 million for this new projected TID increment?

Every year, new incremental value gets generated in the TID district. It'll be populated and added on that report. So every year, this calculation is done by the Department of Revenue, so it's very transparent, so you can see what the impact is on the city's allowable levy just based off of construction activity within the TID district. how this TID impacts it will depend on how much value is created annually within the district, similarly to all your other TID districts. It'll act no differently.

You may follow up, please. Are there estimates to what effect this will have on existing taxpayers at this point, based on all of the data that was gathered for this project? TID creation potential.

As I said, as the value gets created, it'll be published what the annual increase was due to net new construction in that TID, and it'll calculate what your allowable levy will be. So that's a calculation that is done automatically by the Department of Revenue every year as that development occurs. It's going to depend on the pace of development within the TID district.

Our net new construction as a city is calculated on a citywide basis also, so that's all new development within the city, all new increment created within the city.

So we do not have that number to even tell people as a projection, just based on the very intricate information that has been prepared in a development plan for this TID?

We have historical data about increases based on net new construction.

but no future.

Correct. Further discussion? Any further discussion? All right. We have all the hard time.

I'm sorry, Chair. The same people that we failed tonight by not approving an extension for the truancy ordinance, are gonna need more money to educate more children. And if we in this room don't think that that's gonna come from all the rest of us, we are gravely mistaken. I feel that this is a very, very dangerous path we've walked. Thank you.

Any further discussion? This is 26-0737, Consolidated Action Items, Tax Incremental District Number 14. We have a motion and a second to approve. Please cast your votes. Motion passes nine to three. The item has been approved. All right. We'll get back to the items from Community Development Committee. Next is 26-0890, a request to approve the second amendment to the reimbursement agreement with North Meadows Investment. Was that also in the consolidated action item? A different consolidated. Oh, that's 26-0943. And does that also take care of 0891? That's a separate one. All right. Great. Let's stick with Consolidated Action Items. Forgive me, everybody. It's been a long meeting. All right. Under Consolidated Action Items, 26-0943, Consolidated Action Items, North Meadows Investment, Limited Cost Reimbursement, second. Cost Reimbursement Agreement, second amendment. We have a motion and a second to approve discussion. Hearing none, please cast your votes. All right, the motion passes nine to three. That item has been approved. Back to Community Development Committee. This is 26-0891. Okay. Request to approve the option agreement with North Meadows Investment Limited for vacant property located near the northeast corner of Future Evergreen Drive and Meade Street for a proposed future Northside Fire Station site at a purchase price of $1. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? Hearing none, please cast your votes. That motion passes nine to three. That item has been approved. All right. Director Holman, do we have any other items that we need to take care of related to this project?

Was 260586 the TID project plan part of a consolidated action item? Okay.

Yes.

Then we are good.

Okay. So that, that, concludes the business related to the Thrivant project. All right, back to, excuse me, back to the items that were separated. We'll go back to safety and licensing now. This is 26-0850. Special event application for Rob Kettleson. As a reminder, this is coming out of committee with a recommendation for denial. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion?

Alder Crote. Thank you, Mayor. Just for everyone's benefit, this came out of committee on a unanimous vote to deny this application. And without getting into a lot of the details, if you would watch the video, you would have heard Sergeant Bees go through a pretty lengthy list of reasons why APD is not recommending approval of this license. Also in the packet, you'll note that there's a memo from the clerk's office that outlines some of those reasons, but included in that packet is a 149-page document that APD provided that supports their case to not approve the application. I would encourage us to deny the application. Thank you.

Further discussion? We have a motion and a second to approve, and just to be, oh, Alder Lambrecht, you're getting in under the wire.

Point of order, I just wanted to make sure, since it is a recommended denial, if we are voting an affirmative, it would be denying.

Correct, you vote aye, it gets denied. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. Please cast your votes. Motion passes 12 to zero, the item has been approved, the application has been denied. All right, from Parks and Recreation. We have 26-0827, approved Veterans Memorial Concept Plan. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? Alder Schultz. Thank you, Chair.

I just separated this out to give staff an opportunity to speak to the work that has been done to get us to this point and sort of the future vision of that memorial space. Just to open it up so that everyone on this committee understands what's happening out there. Okay, go ahead, Director Flick.

Thank you, Chair. Last fall, our department took on a process of gathering an informal committee of nine veterans, some of them consisting from the Fox Valley Veteran Organization and then some other local veteran organization groups. We hired Rettler Corporation out of Stevens Point. They were the original company that did the design for the Veterans Memorial that is at the Scheig Center currently. We worked through a process. coming up with some different concepts and the committee ultimately suggested the concept that's before the council tonight for approval. So this is a concept pant plan. We like to use that terminology instead of a master plan. It gives us a little wiggle room throughout, uh, design and, and final implementation of, of, uh, memorials. Um, this has taken some green space that's currently underutilized, uh, along the parking lot of the sheik center. It's a great support area. And from there, we'll work on funding projects and get back together with this committee and hopefully bring some memorial advancement there in the future.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Alder Lambrecht. Yeah, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the staff on working on this. I know when we made the decision to rename Veterans Memorial Park, one of the comments that they've really stepped up and are continuing to honor our veterans in this way.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. Please cast your votes. All right, that motion passes 12 to 0. The item has been approved. All right. And we've handled all of our separate votes. I need a motion on the balance of the agenda. We have a motion and a second on the balance of the agenda for approval. Please cast your votes. All right, that motion passes 12 to zero. Balance of the agenda has been approved. We've taken care of our consolidated action items and our held items. We have no ordinances before you this evening. License applications and communications refer to committees of jurisdiction. Thank you. Resolutions submitted by all other persons refer to committees of jurisdiction. Have there been any resolutions submitted?

Thank goodness there have not.

Okay. All right. We do, any other business? All right, we do have a closed session posted, and we are going to need that closed session This is a closed session unrelated to any of the items that were on the agenda this evening. And so at this time, looking for a motion from the council. All right, Alder Hartzheim with her duty.

I move that the Council goes into closed session pursuant to the State Statute Section 19.85 , deliberations or negotiations on the purchase of public properties, investing in public funds, or conducting other specific public business when competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session for the purpose of discussing a potential real estate acquisition related to public utilities, and then reconvene into open session.

We have a motion and a second to approve. And at this time, please cast your votes. Oh, I need a roll. Excuse me. We need a roll call vote. Would the clerk please call the roll?

Alderperson Lambrecht. Aye. Alderperson Meltzer. Aye. Alderperson Forkus. Aye. Alderperson Smith. Aye. Alderperson Van Zeeland. Aye. Alderperson Fenton. Aye. Alderperson Heffernan. Aye. Alderperson Schultz. Aye. Alderperson Wolf. Aye. Alderperson Hartzine. Aye. Alderperson Crouch? Aye. Alderperson Doherty? Aye.

All right, the ayes have it. We will go into closed session. Before we shut things down, though, I just want to note there will be no action taken in the closed session, and the only action following the closed session will be adjournment of the meeting, for the record. At this time, we'd ask that all members of the public and press please step out of the room for the closed session. You're welcome to rejoin us for adjournment if you wish. All right, at this time, we've concluded our closed session, and I'm asking for a motion to adjourn. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Any opposed? All right, none opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.