Community Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Hello, and welcome to the Wednesday, 04/29/2026 meeting of the Community Development Committee. Calling this meeting to order, let's do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next is the roll call of membership. Let's start from my left.

Adrian Stanson Martin, District 11.

Vered Meltzer, District 2. Thaya Jones, District 10.

Josh Lambert, District 1. Martin Smith, District 4.

All right. Let's move on to the approval of minutes from the previous meeting, item number 260,514, minutes from 03/25/2026. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

All right. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any abstentions nope. Any

objections? Objection or abstinence.

Either way. That clears five, nothing. I was supposed to ask if there's any corrections to that. So was there any corrections? Wonderful.

Clearly, I'm a little nervous. At this time, I'm going to respectfully ask the committee to be willing to change the order of a few things in regards to a conflict of interest. So I would like to move item number 260,520, elect vice chair to come next. After that, also moving 260,547, determine CDBG advisory board representative from the Community Development Committee. So that once we elect that vice chair, the vice chair can then take over the meeting, preside over the CDBG items while I will be abstaining, and I will take over once those items are done.

Is that Okay with the committee? So moved. Wonderful. Thank you. On that note, let's go ahead and start with item 260,520, electing a vice chair. So at this time, I'd like to open up the floor for nominations. I nominate Josh Lambrecht.

Do we need a second?

We do not need seconds for nominations. Alder Lambrecht, do you accept the nomination?

I accept.

Wonderful. Are there any other nominations for this position? All right. So single nominee, a majority vote will confirm the appointment. So all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any objections? Abstentions? That passes five-zero. Welcome, Vice Chair Lambrecht.

Thank you very much.

All right. At this time, I will silence my microphone, have you go on to All do

So we're going to do item number 20 six-five 47, determining CDBG Advisory Board Representative for the Community Development Committee. So I think at this point, just as a clarification for anybody that didn't hear beforehand, the mayor had made an appointment but that was incorrect based on the Community Development Block Grant policies and what needs to happen with that. So I believe it will either be a chair, but in this case we're going to be looking for a different representative to be a member of that community development block grant. And having done it last year, it was a fantastic experience for anybody that would love to try it, but it's also I'm not opposed to doing it. Do it again.

I do it for the first time. I nominate Martin Smith. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, why don't we go ahead and vote? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? Any abstentions? Aye. Abstain. Thank you for that abstention. That is, I believe four successful votes for yes, one abstention will be noted in the record. Congratulations. Thank you. Alderman Smith. All right.

So then we're going to move on to back up to the public hearing and appearances Action Item twenty six-five fifteen, twenty twenty six Annual Action Plan AAP for the Community Development Block Grant CDBG program associated with info item 20 six-five 16. This is a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak? This is a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak?

This is a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak? Hearing none, I officially, call this public hearing to close. Anything else I need to do with with that one? Perfect. Alright. So then we're gonna move down to our action items. Action item 20 six-five 19, request to approve the revives twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven program year community development block grant allocations as specified in the attached documents. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Alright. Is there anyone who would like from the staff to present on any of these items for us? Specialist Grayson? Gat. Gat. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Thank you. I knew it was Olivia. I didn't want to say that.

No, no worries at all. So just to give you a brief update here. So when we originally projected the city's CDBG award for the 2026 program year, we had projected that we would receive about $576,096 which is very much in line with what we received for the 2025 program year. But we ended up actually getting a little bit of a boost to that, and we received $595,806 for the 2026 program year. So following the additional funds, we took the same procedure that we had confirmed was acceptable with the CDBG Advisory Board when undergoing that process and then also was listed in our annual action plan as our contingency plan as it was put out for public comment.

So the plan for this was to increase the final award to the community resource navigator position. And that's a public service CDBG activity, which public services are subject to 15% cap of the total award. So that one was moved up by $3,120 for a total award of $89,370 and to get us at that 15% cap. And then the next step there was the CDBG Advisory Board approved us to increase final award allocations to three of our external partners that have been preliminarily approved for CDBG awards. So after the public service increase, there were $16,590 available for allocation to external projects.

And so under this pillars was one external applicant that was already fully funded at their request of $35,000 So that left the three other external applicants available to get more funds from their original request. And when discussing it with the advisory board, the best option was determined to be doing a proportional increase for each subrecipient based on their total award. So this worked out to be an increase of $27.47 per applicant. So that was a $2,852 increase to Habitat for Humanity based on their preliminary award, and then a $6,869 increase to both COTS and Rebuilding Together Fox Valley based on their preliminary awards. So the totals there for COTS now would be $31,869 dollars for Habitat for Humanity would be $13,231 for pillars would stay at $35,000 and then rebuilding together went up to $31,869 as well.

So those are kind of the final updates that we made based on the decision by CDBG Advisory Board to recommend these. And I did also just want to caveat, you'll see the asterisk under Rebuilding Together's award. And we just are going through a process to request a conflict of interest waiver from HUD with Alder Jones's position both as the executive director of that organization, which that position she took on in the middle of the application process and also serving as an Appleton older person. So we just need to make sure that we follow their process correctly and have already gone out for public notice for that component of it and have received a letter from the city's attorney's office also stating that there's no perceived conflict of interest. We just need to finalize the public notice process, send that to HUD, and then we do expect that there should be no issues with that but just need to double check everything and make sure we're following their processes correctly.

So that's why you'll notice the asterisk on that one. But otherwise, we're requesting for these amounts to be approved.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Are there any questions the committee?

Alder Smith. Thank you. That made a lot of sense, the explanation. I just had a question about the inspection spot blight removal. So that's for a single problem house that needs to be torn down and the site cleaned up, basically?

Yes. So there was some issues with that property. It was a burned down property, and it hasn't been able to be taken care of by the owner due to some issues. And so it's kind of becoming a blight to the neighborhood and still hasn't been torn down or cleaned up in any manner. So the city of Appleton is kind of deciding in an unusual circumstance like this to step in and help remediate the issue and do the spotlight removal in that situation. But it's not a common project type for us. Thank you.

Any additional questions? Excellent. Thank you all for all the work that you've done on this. I think it's time for a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table to approve proposed funding, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Abstentions?

Abstentions.

We have one abstention that shall be on the record. Excellent. With that, I believe I'm going to cede back to the chair.

Thank you for your service. Going back to item 517, request to approve an amendment to the development agreement with Oshkosh Investment LLC and Lofgren Property six LLC to extend the completion date and minimum assessed value date from 01/01/2026 to 01/01/2027, and update payment process language for improvements to the property located at 200 West College Avenue, tax ID number 312026300, the Chase Bank building, and Tax Increment Financing District Number 11 with the added condition to record alley right of way dedication quick claim deed prior to city signature on amendment Do I have a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Wonderful. And who will be speaking to this? And

Thank

you, Elder Jones. So the item before you tonight is regarding the Chase Bank building owned by David Bear, also with the LLC, Oshkosh Investment LLC, and Lofgren Properties six LLC. The changes are needed due to the property not meeting the assessed value as previously required from the the last development agreement. The city's been in a development agreement process with the developer since 2023. There was a amendment in February 2025 similar to to the amendment before us today.

Ultimately, the the reason why they weren't able to meet the assessed value requirement was because they had two units that were still awaiting occupancy due to a access concern with commercial commercial codes. So the developer is requesting a variance for that, and that'll take some time. But until those units are are occupied and have a certificate of occupancy, the building cannot reach its its final value. So our assessment department expects that that value would be met by the following review, which is going to be next year, January 1. The other changes regarding the payment process language to kind of meet the updated language that we've had in more recent settlement agreements.

This basically allows a prorated cost of the agreed compensation to happen a year sooner than previous. Previously the language had so that it was as soon as the assessment value was met, they would then get paid the following year after that when the taxes are paid for that. This allows a prorated cost to be paid to the developer a year sooner. So basically with the value of the property as of 01/01/2026, they then get a payment of whatever the value is, from that date instead of the full full payment value. And then the last thing was just having the right of way dedication click quick claim deed prior to city signature on amendment documents.

It's with the developer. We're just waiting for it to be finally recorded.

Okay. Any questions from the committee? Alder Linder.

Thank you, Chair. So with the fact that this has, you know, had to be amended a couple different times, are we confident that the recommendation from city staff with regards to the variance request is going to be made and therefore then be able to hit that occupancy requirements?

Yes. As previously stated, I did talk with the assessment team and the assessors are very certain that they'll hit that value as soon as those units are occupied. And the units are substantially complete. They're just waiting for that final variance approval from the state, which can take a couple months, but it should certainly be complete by new year.

So it would be the state that would be providing variance

Correct.

For this? Correct. If that variance was not approved by the state, what would be the recourse then in the long term should?

So yeah. If if you don't mind. District 1. I do believe that the developer, even without those units occupied, has leased up the balance of the vacant, units that because the assessor's basing the value on rents that were as of 01/01/2026. And there were some units that weren't rented, even the ones that weren't variance ones. From what I recall is variance units aside, I believe based on the rents that we've seen for the last three months since the first of the year, they're likely already there.

So there was an increase in rents for some

of Correct. The units Even without the two.

Okay. Yes. Yep.

JEAN There was one other question that I had which was with regards to the language adjustment in the amendment that we've to align it with some of the more recent kind of developer agreements that we've had. Is this language going to be utilized moving forward opportunities? Or is this going to be maybe in specific situations we might look for this type of amended agreement again given the extension of time for it to hit its assessed value?

This should be the new standard language moving forward

for projects that are like a single building.

Okay. Perfect.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments, concerns? All right. In that case, let's go ahead and vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any objections, abstentions? That passes five-zero. We will move on to our next two six zero five one eight. Request to award three separate contracts for one, grass and vegetation cutting services two, detention pondvarious mowing and three, city owned industrial sites to BNV maintenance in an approximate total amount of $33,951

Moved to approve. Second.

All right. Who's going to share with us today? Are you two or

go ahead. Are contracts that we've been maintaining for many years and we've used this contractor for many years. The only difference here is we merged three different contracts into one RFP and then the dollar value went up to or over the purchasing policy that requires us to come to counsel and get approval.

Do you find that we've used them for a long time? Is there any issues with having the ability to find someone new to try a more affordable price?

We did bid these out. Okay. And there was another contractor that we had last year that bid and a third contractor that bid. The so we had three. And we had been using different contractors. But previously, these these three contracts would go to different companies. So it just happens this year that BNB was a little bitter on all three. Okay. So there there are other companies out there.

Any other questions? Comments? Wonderful. In that case, we'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any

it's not objections. What's the word I'm looking for? Objection. Is it objection? Alright. Any objections? Abstentions? That class is five zero. Wonderful. We have already D U S 260520 and 260547. Let's go ahead with 260521. Set the meeting date and time.

I move to leave it as is.

Second. I agree.

I mean, if there's a obviously, if there's a concern or any sort of scheduling conflicts, I'm happy to to

Maintaining the same date and time of Wednesdays of the second and fourth week at 04:30PM.

Correct. Correct?

Alright. We get to vote on that. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any objections, abstentions? That passes five zero. We will continue to meet at this time. All right. And our last action item, 260,522, designating the contact person. I do believe this is director Holman, correct?

It is. And for a laugh, nobody's ever contacted me. But I'm happy to continue serving that function.

Malicious compliance. Now look what you've started.

Point of clarity, is this for the committee or for the public with regards to these types of things as the

I believe that there's a contact listed at the bottom of every agenda. For people who have questions or need ADA accommodations, they would start with me.

So I'm rude for Care Homan to be

the director Second.

I second that.

Wonderful. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any objections, abstentions? That passes five-zero. All right. Going on to information items. As this next item is an information item, I am able to facilitate it. 260516, the 2026 annual action plan for the community development block grant program. Galeon.

Thank you. So this is just an action item to let you guys know that the City of Appleton's Annual Action Plan, which is a required component of receiving community development block grant funds on a yearly basis from HUD, is out for public comment and then will be brought back forward in front of Community Development Committee in May. So the annual action plan is basically just our way to lay out how much money that we think we'll get during the program year and then how we plan to spend that money. So that detailed the core projects that we do on a yearly basis and our city department projects as well that were preliminarily approved by CDC previously and Common Council. And then also the external applicant projects that were preliminarily approved by CDC and Common Council.

So in the annual action plan, one thing to note is the numbers that are listed in there were based off that original preliminary projection of 5 and $76,000 sorry, 576,096. But it did have contingency language included in there, which stated how we would make those adjustments in the event that the amount of funds we received in our award from HUD was different. And so same adjustments as what you just saw in the previous action item. And then also, the annual action plan requires a certain number of public hearings, which we've already fulfilled, and again, with the hearing that was held today on that. And then it's currently out for public comment.

It has a thirty day public comment period, so we're just waiting for that to be finalized. I haven't received any public comments to this date, but still got a couple more days in there. But then once that is all completed, we will update the annual action plan to state the actual numbers for each project, the actual amounts there. And then it will go back in front of Comm Dev Committee for approval, then to Common Council. And then once we've received final approval, we will submit that to HUD.

And it is due to HUD this year by June 3, and we're on track to submit it, I believe, May 22 or '23. So a little bit ahead of time there just to get it into them. So yeah, we're getting close there.

Yeah.

Wonderful. Questions? Concerns?

No concerns. I just want to thank you all for all the work on that, getting ahead of time. And also, I know how broadly sometimes we write the plan to say that if there are additional projects or things, dollars are able to be reallocated in ways that are best used for the city. So thank you all for all the work you do.

Yeah, thank you. And just to mention on that as well, we do have the opportunity to amend a plan. So if a project that we did allocate funds to ended up there was some reason that it couldn't happen or anything like that, we do also have the opportunity to go back in front of HUD at some point and say, hey, we allocated this amount of money, but we'd like to change the use of that. And as long as it complies with our consolidated plan for the city, which was approved in 2025 or for 2025 through 2029, then we would be good to go on any amendment to it as well. Perfect.

Wonderful. We can move on to our next information item, 260523, Inspection Division Permit Summary Report ending 03/31/2026. Anyone have anything to follow-up on that? Do we have any questions from the committee or concerns? All right. With that all set, we can move on to number eight for adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any objections, abstentions? We are adjourned. Thank you very much.