Municipal Services Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is 5.30. Let's call to order this meeting of the Safety and Licensing Committee for Wednesday, July 22, 2026. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, thank you. A roll call of membership. All members are present tonight. I'm Chris Crote, the representative from District 14, and to my left is... Faya Jones.

Denise Fenton, District 6.

Patrick Hayden, District 7. Josh Landrick, District 1. Okay, thank you. Next on the agenda is the approval of our minutes from the previous meeting, which was July 8th. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Motion and a second to approve the minutes. Any corrections or changes? Not seeing any. All those in favor of approving the minutes, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Five-zero. The minutes are approved. Okay. We do have one public hearing slash appearance tonight. It is 26-0872, demerit point violation appearance for sushi lover. Is there anyone here tonight? I don't believe they were able to make it. Okay. In our packet, we have the letter that was sent to them explaining their violation, the demerit points. They sent a response to the clerk's office, which is also part of our packet. Hopefully everybody had a chance to read that. It's basically what we ask them to do is come before us and tell us what actions they've taken to rectify the issue. They've provided that via email, and that's part of the packet, part of the record. So if there aren't any questions, we can move on from that. I did have one question, though, before we move on for Attorney Berwyn. This establishment had an 80-point violation for serving to a minor. They already had an 80-point violation, so now they have 160. Is that first one one of those that doesn't really count towards the 160? Is that accurate, just in case anybody's, District 4? Okay, just in case anybody's wondering if we're at that point.

That is correct. I did double check that this afternoon. Um, and it is the prior offense was more than 12 months before this current offense. So for our city purposes, it is 160 points, but, uh, in terms of license actions, it would be 80 comfortable points.

Okay. So no action to suspend the license at this point. Uh, and some of that is state statute based, uh, correct.

That is entirely state statute-based.

Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions on that? Okay, we can move on to our action items. We will take them in order. I know a lot of everybody or a lot of people are here for the second one, but we should be able to work through this first one relatively quickly. 26-0969 is a commercial solicitation license for Fox Pest Control. Is there anyone here from Fox Pest Control tonight? No? Okay. We have in our packet the letter, their application, and the letter that was sent to them from the city sealer, Eric Maggio, who is not here tonight, but the memo, it details everything. Does anyone from staff want to comment on, maybe Attorney Berwin, anything from your department on this particular application and the recommendation?

I can do that. Briefly, and I will speak just to the the scope of the committee's decision here, the guidance that we get from the city's code regarding the criteria for evaluation is a public good effectively is what it is, uh, which leaves the committee with a broad level of discretion, uh, mounting to actively making sure that they're within the bounds of, um, any discriminant anti-discrimination requirements, which based on the information provided on the, uh, by, Eric Maggio, there would be discretion for the committee to act as it sees fit in this matter. That includes denial.

OK, thank you. And just to be clear, maybe the appropriate action would be to recommend upholding the denial that was already, because Eric Maggio already denied the license. This is an appeal of the denial, correct?

I think the committee's intent would be clear with that phrasing, which is sufficient for purposes. OK, Clerk Mulder.

District six, go ahead.

In cases of commercial solicitation license denials, it automatically comes before Safety and Licensing Committee for action. So there is no need for the applicant to appeal. I just wanted to make that clear that it automatically comes before you guys for action. The way we phrase the file name as well is just the commercial solicitation license, not the license denial. So that allows you to recommend the license for denial if it's cleaner for you guys to phrase it that way.

Thanks for the guidance. Someone from the committee, feel free to make a motion.

I will move to deny. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny the commercial solicitation license for Fox Pest Control. Any other comments or questions? Just for anyone wondering, the memo from Eric Maggio is very detailed, and it outlines all the reasons why he's recommending denial. Okay, if there are no other comments or questions, we can move on and take a vote. All those in favor of denying the license application, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? All right, 5-0. That will go as a recommendation to deny. All right, next on the agenda is the one that I think most of you are here for, is the Refer Back to Committee of Resolution, it's 26-0825, Refer Back of Resolution 9R26, Establishing Public Oversight and Accountability Standards for Automatic License Plate Reader, ALPR, and Mass Surveillance Technologies. Before we get started, then I will yield the floor to the council member that referred this back, and then also I'd maybe like to get some input from the original resolution authors, and then we will have an opportunity for public comment as well The other thing I wanted to say is it would be my intent or hope that we might be able to keep this item at the committee for a couple of meeting cycles just to do thorough committee work at the committee level and discuss all of the ideas, concerns, possible amendments, things like that. So what I've basically heard is there's not a need to rush through this. Let's just methodically work through it, take all the input from all of you, take all the, you know, research work that we've had access to or done on our own, and then ultimately send it back to the City Council with a, either in its current form or an amended form. So, with that said, refer back, Alder Meltzer, you referred this back to committee, correct? Eight? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you for giving me the time to speak on this today. And I want to start by thanking the authors of Resolution 9R26 for bringing this forward. This is very important work that's very important to our community. We've got a foundation to start with. The citizens have made it very clear, community members have made it very clear, that they want a much stronger resolution, much stronger regulations. So I have been working on some amendments. There are six core safeguards that the community is asking for. These amendments do not cover all the core safeguards. I think that we are somewhat limited as a city with our scope of council authority, with our staff capacity and things like that. But I do want to just start by outlining those six core safeguards that the community is asking for and put that on the record. which is city-held cryptographic keys so that only APD could access the data, restrict access to data older than 24 hours and require a warrant to access it except in documented time-sensitive emergencies, maximum data retention period of seven days unless being used in an investigation, sensitive use restrictions such as immigration, reproductive care, and personal use, no sharing with federal law enforcement without a warrant, and independent oversight. I have shared a copy of my drafted amendments with the committee. The very last one of those is a moratorium to allow the time to establish an effective mechanism for independent oversight. I think that the independent oversight piece is very important. It also is very complicated, and even figuring out what that would look like would take a lot of time and work. So I think that having the time to figure that out, that's definitely a big gap as we proceed forward with mass surveillance technology. So I want the committee to keep that in mind. So in the amendments that I have offered For one thing, I wanted to really add some technical detail to how the city would evaluate vendors, what criteria vendors would have to meet. I think that that is very important. I think that also determining what sorts of things are considered surveillance technology, automated or AI-assisted surveillance technology, I do understand that the exclusions that I've tried to establish in my amendments are not necessarily sufficient, so that's an area where I think we need to do further work to make sure that we're not interfering with things like Microsoft Office cloud use and water monitoring systems and things like that. I do recognize that there's a lot more work to be done, but I think that making it very specific, what standards we hold the vendors to and what exactly the city will be doing and how the city will be handling the data, I think that those are the priorities that I've tried to address in my amendments.

Okay, thank you. Just for clarity, from a process standpoint, at this point, only members of the committee are able to make an amendment, but we always take input from our colleagues and welcome them all to attend and share that. So next, I will have one of the authors of the original resolution speak. Alder Fenton.

All right, thank you, Chair. First off, I want to express my gratitude to Alder Meltzer for all the work that he has done on putting this together with the input from what was provided by the citizens. And also to thank those citizens for it was a huge amount of detail. They were transparent with the council in sharing both the final product and interim products of the citizen drafted ordinance. And I appreciate everybody coming to a place that might not be comfortable for everybody to share their feelings about this. I have done a preliminary analysis. Alder Meltzer was gracious enough to share what he has proposed with all of us on the committee and my co-author. And I am in agreement with Alder Meltzer that more work needs to be done on this. And for one thing, going through all the technologies, I will be very honest with you. Without input from the city's IT director and other more technical people, I would not be in any position to vote on this right now. I know that Alder Meltzer has consulted with IT director, but I agree that I would like this held for a couple of times. And I just want to, Alder Van Zeelen isn't here, and I just want to, just for everyone, it is not our intention to provide a glide path for this technology. My colleague and I were the first people who called on the police department to be transparent with what their processes were around the technology, and I think that both Input from us and our colleagues on the council, in addition to the community input and what we heard from surrounding communities, led to our discontinuing our relationship with Flock. And we are all aware that we need to have a sounder foundation before we would consider bringing forth any other technologies. So with all that being said, I agree with the Chair. I don't know if we're ready for any motions right now. I think you probably want to hear from people first. Yes? Alder Van Zeeland has got something to say, so I'm sorry, Chair.

Alder Meltzer.

Thank you. Oh, Van Zeeland, I apologize.

I just want to add that, as Alder Fenton mentioned, the input of our IT director is very important. I have an upcoming meeting scheduled with him, so I think that yet another reason to hold this is because that outreach and that input from this director is planned and the timing of this meeting was in advance of the ability to make that meeting with Director Pop happen.

OK, thank you. And I don't think we can take a motion because I think everybody's in pretty much everybody's in agreement that we would like to just keep this at committee and hold this, including our mayor and police chief, who in a memo encouraged the committee to take the time needed to thoroughly discuss this matter, engage the public in a productive discourse and legislate in a way that reflects the will of the committee, council and community. Simply put, there's no need to rush advancing the final version out of committee. And Yeah, essentially in agreement with keeping this here and doing the work over the next few weeks, let's call it. But whoever wants to make a motion to hold, then we can at least have that on the table. Alder Fenton?

Chair, I would make that motion to hold, and I don't want to automatically hold it for our next meeting. I think I would like to hold it, and if you've got your calendar. I do.

Our next regularly scheduled meeting would be August 12th.

Okay, so then two weeks from that would be the.

That would be the 26th.

And I'm even thinking possibly, and I'm looking at Alder Meltzer.

Keep in mind we. We can hold it again if it's on our agenda. And I know for the time commitment for people to come.

So shall we say that let's make a motion to hold it for one further than that?

That'd be September 9th.

And I'm looking to Alder Meltzer to see if he is comfortable with that beforehand. Okay. Yeah, I would move to hold it until our meeting of September 9th.

Okay, is there a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to hold it. We're gonna continue comment and take input from citizens. But just for clarity, if this passes and it's held at committee until the 9th, it would not be on an agenda until then. So just if you're planning on following this and coming to meetings, just so you know that. Okay, now if we wanna go to the public, just come to the microphone, use the podium, name and address for the record, and you're able to make your comments. And I know we heard from a lot of you at the council meeting. Thank you for coming to that. It was a long meeting. Mr. Mann, welcome.

Thank you.

Yeah, Tannerman 833 West Harris Street here in Appleton. Yeah, I love the idea of holding it here at committee until September 9th. I think that's a very wise and measured thing to do. It's my sincere belief that as you read through these amendments, the more you understand them, the more we can all see that these are not controversial These are not unreasonable. These are quite common sense things that we should be expecting of future vendors in our city. So I think, yeah, the more time we can have to consider and understand them, the better. I did want to express support for the idea that we have common sense carve outs for things like traffic control, parking, wastewater management, and whatever monitoring that that department does. It's my understanding that whatever applications they have of this kind of technology, it's not going to have the capability to track individual vehicles or people. It's very much for the public good. I did want to express some support for some specific categories of amendments that you'll find in those four or five pages. I really like that there are some contract term limits in the event that we got locked in with a vendor that we can't get out of. I think it's reasonable, you know, three-year contract. I think we should have escape hatches on future contracts, but I think a contract term limit is reasonable. I liked that the amendments called for much more thorough due diligence on future mass surveillance contracts. I think that due diligence is really important and could help prevent a future flock type situation where we have a lot of contention and controversy over something like this. I don't want that in my city. I think that things should be more chill and more thought out going forward. So the original resolution also called for some reporting requirements which served as a starting point. I think in the amendments you'll see that those requirements have been expanded a great deal and I think pretty sensible requirements in those reporting requirements. So very supportive of that and I think that level of detail, that level of thoughtfulness will help with public trust and public support for the technology and APD generally. It shows care and benevolence. And I think one thing that excites me most to see, in this amended resolution are much more specific security requirements. It doesn't get to the level of being highly prescriptive of specific solutions. It's more outcome based of, for example, the city being the only one who holds a copy of the keys to read the data. I think that's very reasonable. Pretty much everyone in this room, I would expect, doesn't really see the need for folks outside of Appleton to be able to see travel patterns in a system for Appleton residents. The city held keys, that's fantastic. As Alder Meltzer did point out, This still falls very much short of the level of protection and comprehensiveness called for in the citizen-authored ordinance, of which I was a contributor to. This amended resolution really only covers one of those six core safeguards, which on one hand gives me pause. It makes me concerned that even still, this is not good enough. But I don't ultimately feel that way. I think this is a really good first step. And without having passed a bar exam, my opinion on what can be legislated into city ordinance, I have to defer that to the city attorney. And city attorney says that right now, clearly it seems only one of these six things we can put into ordinance. So I think we should do that. I think four of the other six items that are called Forest Core safeguards, while I don't love it, I think it's very possible that they can live in APD departmental policy. And as long as we have a very good reason to believe that that policy is here to stay, it's going to be enforced, and if it changes, we'll have some kind of transparency on that. I think that makes my fears for this type of technology, for the misuse of the technology, to become more hypothetical rather than real. And if my fears are just hypothetical, to say the policy changing or being ignored, as long as that doesn't happen and we can clearly see that the benefits of the system are outweighing the risks now, I think that's a good place to be. Absolutely, I think we need independent oversight of a future mass surveillance system like this. I think even with all these safeguards, it's still a controversial system. And so we need to take great care if we're going to do this, to have that independent oversight and really make sure that abuse and misuse does not happen. And if it does, we can catch it immediately. And I think... you know, with ordinance, APD policy, independent oversight, those things combined, I think we can probably get there. And I think it'll really help turn the temperature down on this issue and ensure stability of a future tool. I think that's all I want to say right now. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Tanner. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? All right. Mr. Poole, right?

That is I.

All right. Hello. Welcome.

All right. Here we go. Good evening. Just speaking real quick about a few details. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Oh, yeah.

Sorry. Sean Poole, 1622 East Pauline Street.

Thank you. I believe these amendments go a long way toward making Resolution 9R26 as robust as it can be. And to that end, I'll kind of echo some of what Tanner said. I would ask the committee to adopt them after having appropriate time to review them and make any necessary fine tuning or what have you. I believe there is still important room to flesh out some details. perhaps even implement some other protections, which just requires extra time for work to be done. So again, I would echo holding this for further discussion. Tragically, I'll be out of town on September 9th, but oh well. And you just don't have to see me, that's okay. So I do wish to speak to some of the individual amendments proposed today, as well as a few other possibilities. So I'll kind of take them more or less in order for sake of simplicity. Some of the First Amendments on page one, I hope, again, are not overly controversial, just spelling out key reporting requirements to ensure the city can do its due diligence when looking at a vendor and any options that they have, from acquisition all the way to ongoing use, expansion, or renewal, or what have you. Moreover, those reporting requirements are still somewhat generous compared to some of what's laid out in, for instance, the citizen authored ordinance, which is more stringent and exacting in some regards. He's also covered ground where certain vendors may have acted disingenuously in the past, expanding the scope and capabilities of their platforms over time through feature creep outside of what was maybe originally contracted for. New clauses on pages two and three would also establish requirements for vendors to adhere to, ensuring that among other matters, as Tanner pointed out, Citi would retain ownership over any data collected, that vendors are held to a higher standard for information security. New clauses contain some of the most important protections and requirements I've seen in here going forward, but I would say there's still maybe some room for improvement here, as we could maybe name some more concrete security requirements. I don't know. I didn't get a chance to review the New version with the bold at the top, I just reviewed the plain text from slightly earlier, but maybe requiring the city to be the sole holder of cryptographic keys, ensuring the city and only the city could actually read any data collected, lest the city decides to actually give definite permission to some other party to access it. We've already seen some vendors such as Flock downplaying some of the risks or imploring kind of poor security for their system, so it's kind of essential to set firm standards on this front. Then the second to last amendment on page four would name some important specific reporting requirements. These wouldn't necessarily obligate a department using this technology to report more frequently than what 9R26 already proposes, but would ensure there's an explicit allowance for public comment and review and would ensure the Common Council has a number of key data points available for its own review of the technology in the future. This is one way to ensure the council is able to effectively perform its own oversight of this sort of system. It's not the only way, nor should it be, but it's an important step nonetheless. Everything I've just gone over are certainly some important items to look at implementing. Taking a step back and kind of looking at these as a whole, I do want to add, when we're looking at what requirements to implement or what have you, it's important to make sure we're not tailoring them to suit the most common product on the market. We should be tailoring them to suit the needs and wants of the city of Appleton and of the residents of Appleton. We should be ensuring that any system we use has robust data protection measures, strong user access controls built in, hardening against any tampering, and so on. If a vendor, I'll say, isn't willing to offer something on that level right now, if they're cutting corners or making excuses instead, I would say maybe they aren't really that serious about offering a robust and reliable platform that can be used long term for us.

And lastly, at the end of page four,

the proposed new final clause would implement a temporary 12 month moratorium on contract approval for this type of technology. I suspect that out of maybe any of the items here, this one might be the one that would prompt members of the committee or Common Council to blanch a little, but I'd like to offer a few points for consideration. First, the time it would take to go from an approved resolution to a workable municipal ordinance with associated policies and procedures. These things just necessarily can't happen overnight. And they would need to happen before moving forward with a contract. Second, thinking back to last week on Wednesday, how many residents were in attendance and how many of them said they didn't even want to see this technology in their city at all. Kind of putting on the brakes with the temporary moratorium in a very visible way. is a way to show residents that the committee and the rest of the Common Council, by extension, is really taking this seriously as well, and that we aren't rushing headlong towards a contract with a new vendor before doing our due diligence. And third, As written, the last clause in no way prevents the city from exploring and evaluating options or doing work on this. It just places a temporary pause on the contract approval itself. So it's a way to rebuild some of that trust cast aside and maybe some of those lingering doubts that many in the room last Wednesday expressed all without impeding the city's ability to work this into an ordinance divine or refine policies and perform research on options. So for all the reasons I've outlined, I hope to see these amendments in some incarnation adopted for Resolution 9R26, and I hope to see 9R26 held for additional discussion and amendment over the following weeks or months. We have an opportunity here to act as pioneers in a way. We can set a very high standard for any future use of, as one resident put it last week, this kind of awe-inspiringly powerful kind of technology. and we can act as an exemplar for other municipalities, not just here in Wisconsin, but maybe even across the country. Thank you for your time and consideration tonight, and good evening.

Thank you, Sean. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right. Name and address for the record, please.

Connor Duffy, 1127 West College Avenue. I'll keep this short because I really hate public speaking. I have spent 20 years living in Menasha, three years in Milwaukee, and then the last six years have been in Appleton. Recently, my girlfriend and I purchased our first home in Appleton, and part of the reason is we felt safe here without the use of ALRP. We didn't... We think the city of Appleton and the police department has done a great job at making the city feel safe and protected without the license plate readers. And I just feel like we're trying to solve a problem that isn't there. I hope we keep that in consideration going forward that not having license plate readers is also an option and not just making changes to the existing contractors who are offering to install the readers here. Appleton's already been the best city I've lived in my whole life. I've enjoyed living here much more than Menasha or Milwaukee, and I don't think that would change without this technology. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you, Connor. I know there was someone else. Okay, there you go. Oh, you'll get your turn.

Hello, committee members. My name is Kate Moody. I live at 1528 North Division Street. I've been a resident of Appleton for almost 20 years now, which I can barely believe that. I'll say I feel less safe in my community with cameras and databases tracking my every move as I go about my day. That said, I understand it could be a powerful tool and help many people. Luckily, I do believe we can thread the needle of having this useful tool with minimal ability to do harm. And so I ask the committee to take the time necessary to do its due diligence with the technology, however long that may take. I just want us to do this right. I'm not a security expert by any means, but I understand the things that Alder Meltzer has proposed, like having the city be the only holder of the cryptographic keys, requiring a warrant to access the information, and expanded public reporting requirements could go a long way in doing this right. So I just ask you all to please work with the experts in the community and take the time to draft strong protective requirements and then only contract with companies who can meet the necessary standards. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Kate. The person in the back, it's your turn.

Thank you.

Carrie Tetzlaff. A24 Powers in Oshkosh. My business serves Appleton. My husband's business is two blocks from here, 310 West College. I want to start by expressing gratitude to the initial drafters of the resolution. Gratitude for the procurement regulations in that resolution. Undemocratic processes have been used across the country to install ALPR. We see that when forfeiture funds are used to purchase this technology without council approving it. We see this when Contracts with companies like Flock are drafted for just enough cameras that it doesn't touch the dollar mark that would require your approval. We don't want to see that here in the Fox Valley, so thank you for including those protections in that initial resolution. My concerns about ALPR go far beyond procurement. These cameras do pose a real risk to the most vulnerable among us, and I want to center that in any conversation that we have about this technology. women who have been stalked, brown people profiled by ICE, children in a gymnasium spied on by a flock during an unapproved product demo. In fact, all of us should be concerned about privacy in the Fourth Amendment. I heard a statement at a previous committee meeting that nobody should have an expectation of privacy in public spaces, and I think that doesn't allow room for nuance that we can find when we're reviewing Supreme Court decisions like Carpenter or Chantry that assert that a lot can be learned about a person's personal life in as little as even two hours worth of location data that's being held by a private company. I would not know how to begin to describe ALPR to our founding fathers, but something I think they would understand is this quote that I read in the Chatri decision that I want to read. New technologies should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the government. I think that really cuts to the core of what the Fourth Amendment is all about. Courts move slow. Geofencing has been around much longer than ALPR, for decades. We just heard a decision on geofencing this last couple weeks, right? So I'm asking you to move a little faster than two decades worth of living with technology to put some regulations in place and to help protect us. I also want to express gratitude for what Alderverd has incorporated from the citizen-authored ordinance and especially thank him for the ALPR moratorium language. which echoes what I heard from citizens at the last council meeting, and that could help ease public fear about this tech for the time being. I also want to thank those of you today that have mentioned this idea of moving slowly through this process. I think that's critically important. Many local citizens from diverse backgrounds, subject matter expertise, variety of political ideologies and beliefs have come together to collaborate on imagining what a safer and more privacy-respecting Fox Valley could look like. Many hours have clearly gone into drafting that ordinance. I want to highlight some comments from the last council meeting from the ACLU rep who came. The ACLU has been shifting in their messaging. I don't know if you've been noticing this. They used to promote heavily their CCOPs ordinance. Now they're promoting heavily, and especially in Wisconsin, trying to keep this technology out. That represents a dynamic shift. Um, quote from the recent publication here in Wisconsin, it's easy to conclude that the surveillance state is simply inevitable, but accepting that conclusion guarantees the very outcome we fear. Um, just want to wrap up by saying, I will continue to support the spirit and vision of the protections of the citizen drafted ordinance. Some of those protections I love end to end encryption with city of Appleton being the sole holder of those keys. Um, Independent oversight structure. I completely agree with the comments we heard earlier that this would be a complicated thing to tackle, but I think it's important. And when I asked, you know, I was at a meeting in Nita and asked a couple alders afterwards, if you were ever to implement some type of oversight structure, would it be subject to open meetings law? They said yes. I think when we're inviting decision making and oversight into our processes, we should invite citizens who are most affected by technology such as this to become a part of the process. That should be a transparent process. Here in Wisconsin, we're a sunshine state. We can have that open meetings law make this a transparent process and help build goodwill and trust in what we're doing in our cities. I support the principles of the citizen-drafted ordinance the same way that I support harm reduction as a principle. My personal beliefs are that using AI-powered cameras to aggregate patterns of life data is risky behavior. At least in the short term, I want to see a moratorium on fixed location ALPR. That would allow us as a community to have broader discussions about what safety means, how we can invest in addressing the real causes of crime, comprehensive evaluation of the pillars outlined in the citizen-authored ordinance, as well as what oversight processes could look like to protect innocent people. Thank you.

Thank you, Carrie. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right, come on up. Oh, okay.

I'm John Bon, 1512 Tri Parkway. I want to second a lot of people's comments so far and add my point of view as an engineer. A lot of things like this are made through gate reviews, three or four of them even. And over the next two, I think, months till September, Lots of input will be put in on the new draft of this resolution. And we should go through that process at least two or three more times over several two to three month chunks of reviewing and talking to the community so that we get to the place where we want to go. And as a lot of other people have said, we should definitely be open to just not having these. Putting something like this in is dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands. We're already heavily surveilled as a nation. And the old saying about the frog in a boiling pot of water, we won't know it until we're there, and it will be too late then. So like one of my favorite movies in Batman, when at the end, they destroy their giant surveillance system. I think that we should heavily consider that as an option. It is truly an awesome power in the original sense of the word. So thank you.

Thanks, John. All right, there was someone in the back. All right, come on up.

Hi, my name is Rachel Zimmer and I live in Littleshoot currently. So I'm an application analyst for a healthcare company and I've been doing that for nine years. So it was interesting to take a look at and dive into a little bit. The software, thanks to Tanner and other people in the community, So I just wanted to share some of my two cents, and it might be like a little technical, but just a couple things I wanted to share. But I did like the idea of the crypto keys, so data in but not data out. And something else I just wanted to bring up, which I'm sure everyone's already thought about, but just... america as a whole and different things that have been coming up around surveillance and especially recently people charged with being a terrorist and that kind of thing in different lists i feel a lot more comfortable knowing that you all are holding the data uh versus you know some bigger entity that could be accessing it and using it for different things Because I really like where we live and I trust everyone and so I really advocate heavily for that because it does scare me how it's been used in other places across the country. And that kind of thing also like from a healthcare perspective. There's also been a lot going on where the government has been trying to get a database of people for different things. doctors and stuff. So I think it's really important. And with the software companies, thankfully, there's things set in place with healthcare where the data is only data in and not data out. So if they go to the vendor, let's say Epic, Epic has to say, sorry, you have to go to our client directly. And then they have their legal teams to deal with it. I would much rather have Appleton fighting that fight than having it be just going to some vendor we're paying that I don't know if they even care about what happens to us. Anyway, sorry, rambling. And I do like the idea of public reporting. I think more transparency for the public With this kind of stuff, we can't opt out. So there's a lot of software. If I don't want to do it, I don't have to download the app. I don't have to go to a certain facility that has it. This is all the time. I can't opt out of it. So I think it's really important to let the people know what is out there, what you guys are using, and maybe even what are our rights if we do feel like it's being abused or something like that, maybe a number to call or some sort of process so that we know that that were cared about and that those possible abuse of the system situations, that we have a voice and a say and rights as well. Because I think that's the scary thing is with all of this, I think a lot of people just assume, oh no, I'm just gonna be looked at under a microscope and I don't have rights anymore. So I think it's important to communicate that out. The hardware as a whole, so I know like with the cameras and stuff, it's only doing license plate scanning, I believe around here. Other places they are doing like full facial recognition and the cameras are capable of doing that. It's just a matter of the software pushing an update. So I would also caution with whatever happens in the future, if there's ever an update or an upgrade, It's okay to stop and pause and deny them of pushing stuff forward without fully understanding. Do it all the time in healthcare. Epic's like, hey, you want this? And we're like, whoa, whoa, whoa. We need to slow down for our hospital to make sure this is what's right for our patients. So just know the software doesn't drive you. You drive the software. You're paying them for a service. They need your money. You don't necessarily need them. So I just wanted to call that out. Because there are many times at organizations I've worked at, the vendors aren't producing what we want and we just walk away and we say, you know what, we're not gonna go with this project because it had more harm to our client base than is needed. So just throwing that out there, it's okay to say no. And if there's certain functions you want to have, like you guys know your needs and to advocate for the needs of the people, don't let the software companies bully you into some sales pitch of like, oh, we can do this, this and this. Like, don't lose sight of what you need, what you want, because they need to develop the software. And if it doesn't exist, people will figure out a way to make it work. So just throwing that out there. Sorry if I'm sounding condescending. I'm not trying to. Anyway. And... The other thing too, so again, being an analyst, paying attention to detail. So running risk scenarios. So I'm really good at poking holes in things. But on a national level, there's been a lot of examples. For example, in Detroit, Robert Williams, he was wrongfully detained in his home. He's a person of color. They were using AI to identify and try to identify a crime that was committed and he was wrongfully detained in his home in front of his kids. So ACLU, they did a bunch of research and I attended a seminar where they talked all about the surveillance, but there's a 34% rate of people of color being wrongfully detained due to AI. And so I would just throw out there where sure, maybe the tool would be helpful in certain circumstances, but to make sure that it's understood what the risk scenarios are, because we don't want to be marginalizing any set or group of people. So to identify where is the limits within the software or hardware and just making sure there's things in place to ensure things like that don't happen. Because essentially if the tech is removing rights or hindering rights, everyone's gonna find out about it and we're gonna feel less safe about it. And And then also, I know that there have been cases of tracking and that kind of thing. Wrongful tracking, like of Xs or different things like that. And there are ways within the system. So I'm drawing from the software I use. So Epic, if we have like, let's say a famous person, come into a hospital there's different things we can put in place where we can see audits of who's accessing it and they actually will have auto reports so it'll say like hey if if this is being accessed more than this amount of times it goes to someone so I would just suggest something like that in place by the vendors sending something to maybe the sheriff or a couple different people that say like, oh, this license plate was ran this many times. And just holding accountability within the system and working through those workflows and what that looks like. Because there are automated ways. And I do think it's really sad that the people themselves have to be the ones reporting the abuse versus you guys could identify in the system when it's happening and having the talk beforehand and remedying it that way. Because I think that would fare a lot better. Anyway, so that's all I had. But I just want to say thank you because I know on a national level across the board, people are fighting to be heard and struggling to get this kind of information out. So I just appreciate everyone for taking the time to listen to what we all have to say. And I'm hopeful that something comes of it all where we can all kind of come together instead of fighting over what's going on. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Rachel. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay. Mr. Peterson. Welcome.

Hello, my name is Dexter Peterson. I'm at 2701 North Viola Street here in Appleton. I do want to thank you all for putting this on pause and taking some time to think about it and hear everyone's thoughts. I am a fan of the citizen authored proposals. I do work in tech, and one of the things I work with is data between vendors. And I guess while I don't work in IT security, there are things that we call industry standards. And one of those is making sure that your data stays your own. So things like washing the data before it goes there or being the only one to have the keys for sensitive data like that. is very important to businesses when they think that there might be another business that could get an advantage over that. I think that we should care about that just as much when it's about people's information that could be potentially harmful to them. Another reason why I think it's very important is because if we aren't holding those keys, then the trust is in the vendor that they're following those best practices and standard practices. Keys have been around for a long time. Certain keys have been cracked. Others get introduced, and those are the ones that are used to protect data. If we're not sure what the vendor's using, they could be using outdated keys. Um, the other thing that I wanted to mention is just this idea of opt out, which was brought, uh, brought up before me. Um, you know, I'm not a fan of this technology and I don't think that we need it to, uh, keep Appleton safe. Um, but if it's going to be here against our will, um, why not allow us to opt out of having license plate track? you know, if we can put our phone numbers on registries so robocallers don't call us, why can't we have the city not track our cars? If my car gets stolen, I'll find it eventually. Um, uh, I just don't understand why that all needs to be there. But likewise, on a city scale, like what was brought up prior, was these technologies, the physical hardware is part of the attack surface. Someone could put something on that device to allow them to get into it. How the data is transmitted is a part of it, and how the vendor holds it is also a part of it. But if that vendor decides to roll out a new feature that is against the philosophy and motto of Appleton, if we have no way to opt out of those features, we might enter an agreement with a seemingly friendly vendor And then as they roll out new features, it appears, well, we're caught in this three-year contract now as they're doing these things that we don't support. So we don't have a way to either opt out of certain features as they roll out or opt out of a contract as it becomes, you know, against the terms that we entered with. I think that that would be a very, bad opportunity for us. So I just want you to all really appreciate how much this means to the community and protect it like it's your own data as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Dexter. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Welcome.

Rachel Peterson, 2701 North Viola Street.

I just want to thank Alder Meltzer, first of all, for all of your hard work and your dedication to this. I think it's obvious how important it is to all of us. So thank you for that. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am against ALPR and mass surveillance technology in all of its currently implemented and proposed forms. However, it's been proven countless times that Police departments across Wisconsin and across the nation cannot be trusted with this information. We see incidences of profiling and stalking almost every single week. So because of this, you guys are starting behind the eight ball when it comes to public trust. You're starting in the negative. So we need to double down on the regulation and double down on the transparency to make this even publicly palatable. People don't want to be watched. They want privacy. I think we all agree with that. So I'd like to double-click on two of the items in the proposal. One, I do agree that having the crypto key and the security keys held by the city is important. I think we need even more regulation and specificity around who it is that holds those keys. I really like the idea of having some sort of automatic flagging system if one person views data a certain number of times or if multiple people are viewing it. And then... the data storage. I think we need to be more transparent on how long and when and what is being stored. And because we cannot opt out in its current form, that's going to be really important. People want to know what other people know about them. And if we don't do this right, Appleton will become a panopticon of fear. That's it.

Okay. Thank you, Rachel. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay.

Hello. I'll be brief. Alistair Schatz, W6309. I just want to say that I think everyone who's spoken up to this point, I have a lot of respect for them. I think they're great people. I know a lot of them personally. I think that a lot of technical people have this impression that they can legislate away or find technical solutions to risk. I think that that's true in an ideal world, in situations that are implemented perfectly, with people who act ethically and with systems that are implemented as they're designed to be. I think we all live in the real world and that's not where we are. I think that we've all gotten plenty of emails, plenty of things in the mail about all the data breaches that have happened. major credit bureaus, banks, places that spend tens, millions, billions on security that have failed. They failed because people are in the equation. And I don't think that that will be any different here. And I don't expect the city to spend anywhere near that much attention or that amount of money on security for these LPR cameras. I don't think the public wants them and I don't think they're worth the risk. Thanks. Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Dylan Rucker, 1061 West Broadway Drive. I am a man of few words, so this will be short and sweet. I personally have lived here for 27 years. That'd be my entire life, and I will happily live here the rest of them. And I do not think we need these AI mass surveillance systems. I think the easiest thing to be on the budget would just be not implement them at all. Just short and sweet. Thank you.

Thank you, Dylan. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? I'm getting to the end here. We do have another meeting after this, but we wanna make sure everybody has an opportunity to comment.

Oh, we don't?

Oh, okay. We don't have another meeting after this. It was on the schedule of meetings.

I know. Well, I'll still try to keep this short. It's okay. Go ahead. I'm Katie Olson, 1720 West Reef Street, Appleton, and I serve as the executive director of Esther, an interfaith community organization bringing people together across lines of grace, faith, and lived experience. And I'm here on behalf of Esther not to oppose public safety, but to quite the opposite. We care deeply about public safety, but public safety cannot come at the cost of our civil liberties. And we recognize that it kind of feels like they're coming at odds with each other right now. So I want us to be a healthy community that honors both of these. So first, just thank you for continuing this discussion until September 9th and taking more time to hear from the community, hear from experts. what will be the best way to keep us safe while keeping our freedoms as well. And then I just wanted to comment on the public participation we've been having, seeing all the folks here tonight and over the last few weeks talking about these license plate readers and having this thoughtful discussion. And I just want to kind of... admire this civic participation and celebrate that. And note that this conversation is more than just about cameras. It's about that surveillance and relationship between government and the people. And so, again, thank you for taking the time to listen to us because we realize that these technologies that collect all this information really needs a lot of thought. process to be had before decisions are made. And so just yeah, over these next few weeks, encourage on both sides that we all continue to speak what we know on learn more and work together. And just kind of a note that democracy is more than elections. Democracy is people working together listening to one another.

and collectively working for the common good and so yes thank you for giving us this opportunity and i hope we can continue to a fair and safe resolution thank you katie i did want to mention because i think it was mr poole that mentioned he couldn't be here for the september 9th meeting you can watch our meetings online in live if if there's no glitch um and also you can watch recorded meetings so Go to the Appleton website, Granicus, and you can find those meetings. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? All right. Come on up.

Hi, Julia Blair, 922 North Mead Street. I want to thank all my very intelligent technical citizens, fellow citizens, for their input. I thought it was really well laid out. I'm not going to get into any technical stuff. And thank you, Alderperson Meltzer, for all your work with the amendments. The only thing I want to add, because I agree with what everyone is saying, is... Well, first of all, I want to make it clear that I am opposed to AI-assisted surveillance in this community. And so this is just if, unfortunately, it is utilized. I would implore you to require APD to just document in any records any intelligence that's gained through AI-assisted surveillance. Just so that it's... Do you want me to... Everything okay in the back?

OK.

I think a chair, maybe a chair.

Oh, dear.

OK. Go ahead, Julia.

Just that there's documentation anytime that type of surveillance is utilized to gain intelligence to charge people with crimes so that there's the ability to see where that information comes from for anyone who is then charged with that crime. And that would go then towards if we... for some reason, expand into beyond just license plate recognition software and all the flaws that go with that sort of AI surveillance. So, but I appreciate your moratorium and that you're really looking into this. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Julia. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right.

Hello, good afternoon, good evening. My name is TJ Hobbs. I live in Oshkosh. I do shop and occasionally work in Appleton. And I am here today to voice my support for the Citizens Author Ordinance, as well as my gratitude to its co-authors and its contributors. Appleton has a unique opportunity here to lead the surrounding area, setting an example on strong ALPR regulations. And I am encouraged seeing y'all taking your time on this and doing your due diligence and listening to the community experts that you have in this room. I think that's very good fortune and that's awesome that they're here and spoke up, but also consult with your own experts and Trust the professionals on this. Remembering also that, yes, if we tell the market what we need, the market of capitalism, it will fill the products to create the product that we need. So if you're cautious that this product doesn't exist, let the market know what products you want. We all know that that's how it works and it will exist in a year, right? So just keeping all those things in mind. Thank you for keeping the safety of your community front of mind as you make these decisions. as well as community input. I know in Oshkosh it really helped us to have a community conversation prior to big meetings like the one you have on September 9th. I don't know if that's something Appleton wants to try. I was hoping tonight would be a little bit more of a conversational than the back and forth we typically see in city government, but I know I'm seeing that's not how it works and that's all right. But if there's any way something like that could be cultivated in the city of Appleton to feel a little bit more warm, a little bit more welcoming, a little bit more back and forth conversational. I know in Oshkosh, when it was a community, folks who organized that sort of a conversation, folks were just calling each other. It was really civil. City council members, I don't know who or how, but the city of Oshkosh let all the city council members attend because I know there's quorum concerns. They might have run that through a city manager or something, but there's probably a way where y'all in Appleton can get permission from your higher ups in Appleton to have all or as many as you wish attend a similar meeting where folks can really just speak a little bit more candidly. Not that we already are, but you know, just all folks get all perspectives and even go line by line through that citizen authored ordinance, right? And see like, What things do we like about this? What do we not like? Let's get some real input and not just have updates going out, you know, only on social media or only at meetings in big chunks because it's a big document, any document like that. And even the short ones are very dense and important to get right, you know. So I'm excited for Appleton leading the way on this in this event. arena. I look forward to the good news I'm sure will come out of Appleton. And again, just want to thank everybody who's been involved. And of course, my own opposition to mass AI surveillance. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, TJ. Is there anyone else that would like to speak tonight? All right, come on up.

Hi, Sigma Colon, 820 East Washington Street. Well, I wanted to say thank you. I appreciate the ability to hear all of these public comments. And thank you to Alder Meltzler for providing the amendments. I especially appreciate the last line about putting a moratorium for at least a year. And I also wanted to express being against ALPRs and all AI surveillance. There's a website called Deflock. I don't know if it's accurate, but it gives you the location of flock cameras in any zip code that you enter. And ostensibly, if it is correct, it would mean that I wouldn't be able to drive to a grocery store or return a book at my campus library without ending up on a police database. And I think to echo a lot of the comments that were made about what happens with that data we're also kind of living in I mean we've always lived in a. In this kind of data breach society, but I think we're also living in a moment where government protections, even so far as things like food safety. relying on citizenship to keep you outside of a federal detention facility. I think the kind of skepticism of being able to rely on particular forms of regulation has become even harder for people to fathom given the moment that we're living in. and it's part of the reason why I think just having this data out there and no matter how hard we try to put some kind of regulations on it, it's difficult to imagine that it's not always also at the whims of like tech millionaires or tech billionaires or whatever government is in place to do with that data what they will. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right, no hands going up unless I'm missing somebody, no? Okay, let's bring it back to the committee. We have on the table a motion and a second to hold this until September 9th. Comments from the committee? Alder Hayden.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Alderman Meltzer, for the work that you've done. I look forward to taking up the amendments that you have here in committee to avoid having 15 voices' opinion on every single one. So I think that would be a great use of the committee's time to go one by one through each amendment and get the facts. I also look forward to holding this because I know, as you've mentioned before, one of the authors of the citizens ordinance isn't available for the next few weeks. So that'll give us an opportunity to hear their voice. And one thing that I would like to see added to this resolution is when we look at the whereas. I'm not getting a clear why. And when I look at the citizens' comments that we've had, it's almost feeling like this is kind of becoming a bit of a Rorschach test, where some people are seeing it as something where it's anti-surveillance. Some are seeing it as data management. Others are seeing it as a right to privacy. And I know it gets into the why is about protecting the constitutional rights of citizens. But my concerns around that is, as we've seen with the Supreme Court recently, constitutional rights are by interpretation have been rather hazy recently. So I would like to get a much more clear definition of what rights we're looking to protect so that we're much more crisp in what we're trying to do with this resolution itself. Okay, thank you.

Okay, other comments, questions? Not seeing any from committee members. Other alders present? Anything? Okay. Before we take a vote, I just want to thank you all for coming to another meeting at City Hall and being involved in this process. I hope this shows that there are opportunities to provide your input and we are listening, clearly listening and taking that all in when we make votes down the road on what's best for Appleton. So appreciate you coming out and appreciate you sending us emails and your comments here tonight. All right, if there are no other comments, we'll take a vote on the motion to hold this item until September 9th. All those in favor of holding, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Any abstentions? Five-zero. Okay, so this will be held at committee until September 9th. Please continue to follow it. I know you will. And again, thanks for getting involved.

Let me get this back up here once here.

So next on our agenda, oops. Let me go back once here. So I'm gonna skip, because I believe Ms. Stefani is here for an item. Jennifer, are you here for your temporary application? Okay, thank you. All right, 26-0948, temporary Class B beer and Class B wine license application for Creative Downtown Appleton Incorporated, Jennifer Stefani, person in charge. Is there a motion? Move to approve.

Second.

Motion and a second to approve. Do you want to speak on it, or are you just here to... Okay, all right. Are there any comments from committee members? Sorry, we should have taken this up sooner. I didn't realize you were there until after the fact. All right, all those in favor of approving the license application for Creative Downtown, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?

All right, five-zero.

Thank you, Jennifer. All right, then go back up to the agenda. On the revised agenda, there is an item listed that I'm wondering if it's supposed to be information, or is there planned action on the 26-1002? It's listed as scheduled of deposits update. It looked informational.

It is an action item.

Okay, all right. You wanna take it? You're one of the three people on the memo. I believe it was Attorney Glad, Clerk Molitor, and Parks and Rec Director Flick.

Yes, my role in the schedule of deposits is more keeping it up to date after the committee has made recommendations on it. This came out of, we originally did an update, I believe it was earlier this year, and Attorney Vlad has been working on making sure that the schedule of deposits does stay up to date. There were recently changes to several ordinances for Parks and Recreation, which is why we have Director Flick on there. And this schedule of deposits update is just to reflect all of the changes from those Parks and Recreation updates.

Okay, so I'm guessing the appropriate motion would be to approve the schedule of deposits, Attorney Berwin? Does that seem accurate?

Recommend for approval.

Well, it's not listed that way. That's why I'm asking for some clarification. It's just listed as scheduled of deposits update on our agenda.

If it's going to the council, I would say that still needs to be recommended for approval.

Okay. All right. And it's an action item, so we need to get the motion correct. So moved.

Okay.

Motion to approve the schedule of deposits. All right. Any questions from committee members? Alder Fenton, go ahead.

Just a quick one, and it's to Clerk Molitor or the Attorney's Office. I know that this memo specifically referred to the Parks and Recreation changes. However, there are some other redlined items in there. Are those items that we've already looked at? And I could have gone back to the old one, but are we just looking at the Parks and Rec changes, or are we looking at all of the redlined updated items in this memo? I can take that.

Um, my understanding from my conversations with attorney glad is those other ones, the other red lined items are, um, there are changes made to bring the bond schedule in compliance or in harmony with, I believe it's, um, section one dash 16, which is kind of the backstop, um, penalty prescription for when there isn't a different penalty prescribed. So it's largely a consistency and housekeeping matter as I understand it, but I can't be more specific than that at this time.

Okay.

Is that enough? I think so. I think so.

Okay. All right. Any other comments or questions on the schedule of deposits motion? All right. Let's take a vote. All those in favor of approving schedule of deposits, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? All right, 5-0 on that. How about the balance of the agenda? Is mainly temporary license? Okay, we could take a motion and separate one out if you want.

So I would move to approve the balance of the agenda.

Okay, is there a second? Second. Okay, a motion and a second. And the balance of the agenda contains 26-0946, 26-0947, 26-0945, 26-0949, and 26-0959. Is there an item that you would like to separate out? Yes. Which one? Okay, let's take a vote on 260946, which is Class B Beer, Class B Temporary Premise Amendment Application for Fox City's Performing Arts Center, Maria Van Lannen, Agent. All right, is there a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Motion to second to approve. Any comments or questions? Not seeing any. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, any abstentions? Aye. All right, 401 on that. And then back to the balance of the agenda, which we already have the motion on to approve. Is there any other ones that anyone would like to separate out or comment on? Not seeing any, okay. All those in favor of approving the remainder, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition? Any abstentions? Five zero on those. Okay, that takes care of action items, I think, right? All right. On to information items. We have the Appleton Police Department Mid-Year Report, and we have Assistant Chief Lewis here tonight instead of Chief Olson. Is there anything you would like to comment on the Mid-Year Report or just take questions? District 2? Okay, there you go.

Yeah, we can start with questions.

Okay. Are there any questions from committee members on the five-page report? No, always good to get the report. So thank you for putting it together. Not seeing any questions. So we can move on from that. And if there are any, we can reach out to Chief Olson or yourself.

Can I give you some highlights then? Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Okay. Sorry. Didn't mean to cut you off there. Yep. Okay. So really one of the highlights I wanted to, put out there is this year we made a change with how we're deploying the school resource officers in the summer. So last year we had one assigned to the parks. This year we've assigned two. And what we have seen in collaboration with Park and Rec and with the Boys and Girls Club is Park and Rec is giving us information that they have seen a decrease in problem behavior within the parks because they are working Monday through Friday, various hours, roughly 9 to 5, stopping in at the parks, meeting with all the different park programs. Big contributors, they kind of did it on their own, joined the Monday Night Miracle League and have become very active participants in that. We started a program in collaboration with the Boys and Girls Club called Neighborhood Nets. Got a donation for a portable basketball hoop. And we put that up in Houdini Plaza. We were taking it to different apartment complexes that don't necessarily have parks near them. So they're having gatherings there. And then they're just generally helping park and rec with a lot of their programs, like the hometown heroes, uh, bike rodeos, those types of events. The other one I would like to direct you to is canine Onyx is going to be medically retired this year. We actually found out he has pretty much gone blind. Oh, his nose is still working.

Amazing.

Oh, so We were able to receive some donations, so Officer Reith is going to maintain being a canine handler. He's going to receive his new canine hopefully within the next couple weeks, and then he'll be back out in New Mexico training with that new canine. So we will be having a new canine joining us by the end of the year.

Okay, thank you for the updates. I was looking at the areas of primary concentration for 2027 and I was thinking of the comment made earlier about community conversations, and one of the things on the area of concentration is continued collaboration of the police chief's community advisory board to educate the community in crime prevention and other police services, so I'm glad to see that. And there's some other bullets on here that are somewhat related to that. Keeping that dialogue going with the community on what's happening within the department and also tools that you're using, just keeping that conversation going. So I'm happy to see that that's an area of concentration.

Lieutenant Nagel just closed out our current survey. We actually took a different approach. Instead of just putting it out on Facebook or putting it on a website, he was trying to be very specific and attending certain events and then reaching out to people. So we have some preliminary data back. a lot more participation than you would normally see in a survey, so that was a positive. Also recognize again that there's certain demographics that we're not quite hitting But strategically, we have a plan in place on how we're going to be able to hopefully increase some of that engagement. So surveys will continue.

Good. Alder Fenton, did you have a comment?

I didn't. I was actually going to ask about the survey.

So thank you, AC, for bringing that up.

Okay, good.

If there's nothing else on the Police Department Mid-Year Report, we can go to the next information item, which is the 2026 Legal and Administrative Services Mid-Year Report for the Clerk's Office. Clerk Molitor?

Sure. So as usual with the clerk's office, a big thing that we always talk about is elections. We actually saved quite a bit of money already this year by not having a February primary. So even though primaries are great for democracy, they're not having them as great for saving money in our budget. Our numbers are looking really good. We also did carry over quite a few unused funds from postage and advertising last year in order to invest in election equipment, which we haven't quite done yet. But as we approach the general election, we're going to really stock up on things like absentee envelopes, things that we know are going to be used from year to year, as well as in our electronic poll books, getting more Badger books, because I believe it was 2020 that we purchased those, and we know technology is sort of fades as time goes on. So we're gonna have to look at replacing those over time. I did also just wanna call out that this year we have had some changes to various licensing processes. So this was the first year that we did electronic delivery of our alcohol license information. It was a little bit rocky. I think as we go forward though, we will see our establishments getting more used to this, but we, didn't run into too many hiccups and we made sure that we reached out to establishments who at the end weren't turning in their applications to ensure that they had gotten the information they needed and get those applications in. And then we also worked with the attorney's office this year on revising the mechanical amusement device application to do better education about gambling machines in the city of Appleton. And as a result of that, we did see far fewer amusement devices licensed in the city, resulting in fewer, like less revenue from that. However, that was in a way our intention to no longer license those gambling machines. And I'll take any questions you may have.

All right. Are there any questions for the clerk? No? All right. Good report. Thanks. All right. That takes us to a list of alcohol license violation convictions. Deja Vu, Glass Nickel, The Dirty Leprechaun, Pizzeria Pub and Bar on Sharon Street. I would imagine those would be asked to come before the committee at some point. The last one mentioned is not dispensing to minor. It's exceeding posted capacity. So a little bit different than the other three. Next on the agenda is a long list of special events. Lots going on in the summertime, including tonight with the Children's Parade, right? Yep. All right, that takes us down to director's reports. There is nothing listed for the city clerk, fire chief. Deputy Chief Wires is here tonight, but doesn't have anything to share. Thank you for coming and staying. Nothing listed for police chief, so that takes us all the way down to number eight, which is adjournment.

Move to adjourn. Second.

Motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Five-zero, we are adjourned.