Municipal Services Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome. I would like to call tonight's meeting of the Municipal Services Committee, 4.30 p.m. on August 10th, to order. Please join me in 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. Thank you. Roll call of membership. Let the record show that Alderman Doherty and Alderman Wolf are absent and excused, but we have Alderman Van Zielen and Alderman Furkus and myself, Alder Hartzheim. And we can move on then, please, to item number 26-1042, the minutes from the July 20th MSC meeting. Move to approve.

Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Are there any corrections, changes, issues? There being none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. That vote is three to zero. We're going to hang loose just to make sure that we're keeping up with the new Granicus today. I know. All right. Moving on then to public hearings and appearances. We have none. If anyone is here to speak on an item, we'll go through the items individually. And I'll allow public speaking during those items. But we'll just take up the items one at a time. We'll start with item number 26-1043, request to approve a long-term occupancy permit, temporary occupancy permit for 1102 North Superior Street terrace plantings out of compliance with the street terrace policy. Do I have a motion?

I'll move to deny the request.

Second. Motion and a second to deny. Would staff like to start out with this, Deputy Director Neuberger?

Sure.

There you go.

Thank you, Chair. So in the packet, staff provided some photos that were taken by Inspections Division of Community Development from July. And then they provided some updated photos from August as well that we shared with the committee. So I've also attached a copy of the street terrace policy and highlighted the sections that, in DPW's opinion, seem most relevant to the request. So the request involves temporary occupancy permit for plantings within the street terrace. And the policy states that the conditions under which it would be subject to it would be APPROPRIATE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUE A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT AND THEN SPECIFIES THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, THAT IT WOULD BE A PURVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL. SO IN THE STREET TERRACE POLICY, I'LL GO TO PAGE 3 OF 3. It appears that some issues that are preventing administrative approval of this permit would be that the private plants in excess of three feet of height exist on the terrace, and that the plants there seem to include non-native vegetation as well. So on that basis, the request is not compliant with the policy. And in addition to that, There are concerns with the weed ordinance that it seems that there are weeds in excess of eight inches in height that are within the planting areas. And then it also appears that with the height in excess of 36 inches that it also creates concerns with the vision corner elements of the code as cited on page one of the street terrace policy.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public here wanting to speak on this item? If you could please come forward to the mic there. I will turn the mic on for you, and I just need your name and address for the record, please.

Cindy Carter. I live at 1102 North Superior Street. I am asking you to extend my permit to occupy a public role because you've kept my $40, and I'm asking that you honor me enough to allow that. The City of Appleton basically picks and chooses what ordinances it wants to enforce. I'm going to give you a whole list of examples here. People not picking up their dog poop, especially on the terrace. This is an issue in my neighborhood and has been for years. Overnight parking. The city of Appleton just basically refuses to do anything about that. I've lived in my house for 17 years. I've had a car, as many as four or five cars parked on my street every night of the week for 17 years. Snow emergency. The city of Appleton has talked about if you don't move your car off the street for a snow emergency, we will ticket it and tow it away. That has never happened in my neighborhood in all the years I've been there. There are abandoned vehicles all over my neighborhood. There are several abandoned houses in my neighborhood. There are cars parked on lawns. There are cars parked over sidewalks. I've complained about some of those for over a year, and nothing has done. The snow shoveling. The city of Appleton has an ordinance that you can shovel your sidewalks, or you only have to shovel your sidewalks 36 hours after a snowfall. Well, if it snows every other day, you technically don't have to shovel your sidewalk the whole winter. That makes no sense to me. Keeping side and crosswalks open. There's so many people in the neighborhood that don't do that. Keeping street grates cleaned and open. I'm probably the only one in my neighborhood for blocks that does that. Mowing lawn clippings into the street. People do that stuff all the time and nothing is ever done about that. Barking dogs. The city doesn't do anything about that anymore. Loud music. Can't do anything about that. Faulty illegal mufflers. Nope, can't do anything about that. Running stop signs and speeding. You know what I hear? Well, this happens all over the there's really not a whole lot we can do about it. Really? Leaving garbage carts out on the terrace for weeks. Nothing's ever done about that. Nuisance renters. I've had homeowners who've lived next to me who've moved out of their home because nothing could be done against a nuisance renter. And when it comes to fireworks, that's another issue the city of Appleton just seems not to want to do anything about, which I think is not fair, it's not equitable, and I actually think it's very discriminatory against me. The city of Appleton has also been designated a bee city. Well, what's the point of having a bee city if there's no food or habitat for these pollinators? And you say that my plants are not native. Well, they're still pollinator-friendly plants. Ahem. The manicured lawns and hybridized flowers do not provide food or habitat for our pollinators. Natural and wild is back in. People are looking for this. People want this. It's good for the planet. It's good for the pollinators. And everything on my terrace was planted there by nature. I didn't put any of that stuff there. It planted itself. I have bees and butterflies in my yard, lots of them, because of the habitat of my wild plants. I ask that you honor my permit to occupy the row for the sake of our pollinators. And all the violations I listed previously are illegal. I'm doing this the legal way. I ask that you honor my permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Do I have any questions from the committee? Any concerns? Anything you'd like to ask the applicant? Oh, no. Okay. Did you have a statement?

Sure. I was on the council when we passed the resolution that allowed for planting within the terrace. And during that discussion, we went over all of the different safety type issues that we might run into. And this was one of them, is that on the corner, we need to be able to see for safe travel for pedestrians and for drivers. So this isn't a matter of not liking what's planted in the terrace. For me, it's a matter of safety and a matter of compliance with the rules in order to get the permit. So I would urge my colleagues to vote for the denial of the permit. Thank you.

Excuse me, ma'am. We're at the committee level now. So if I have an opportunity, I'll let you come back to the microphone. Could I ask a question of staff, please? On what date was the application for the terrorist occupancy submitted?

Let's see.

And I probably can find it as well in the documentation here.

So it was submitted on or around July 14th. I don't know that I have the exact date correct on that, but it's close.

Was there a notice to this particular homeowner regarding noxious weeds or anything of the sort prior to the application?

So the city had received a complaint July 1st. Okay. And then additionally, there's a history of weed violation notice issuances. I believe there was one in 2024 and 2022 as well.

Thank you. I agree with the safety aspect that Alderman Zeland talked about, but my concern is that this almost feels like a I got a fine for having noxious weeds. Now I want a way to not have to deal with the noxious weeds. I want a $40 permit in order to do this. So That is a concern to me, and that, I believe, is the primary issue for me. Alderferkus, did you have anything?

Nothing else to add, I think. My questions are answered. All right.

Would you like to approach and add some additional context, please? Yes, I would like to speak to that.

First of all, my corner is open. I've opened up that corner for several feet on both directions. And I was not aware of such a thing as an occupy the permit of the public road. After I got this notice, I talked to my alderman, and he was the one that suggested that I put in for the permit. I had no such idea there was something that permitted, I mean, that was allowed for that. So that's why the late issuance of this is because after I talked to Josh, he said put in for a public parole permit, which is what I did.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. That is good context.

Is there anything else from staff or Alderman Zulu? Could we just ask staff to talk about the vision corner? We got into that in great detail when we were talking about passing the resolution for planting and often for other types of permits. You know, I recall a daycare wanting to be able to put a fence closer to the edge of their yard, and they couldn't because of the vision corner. Could we just sort of explain that?

Certainly. So there's a diagram on page one of three in the street terrace policy that identifies the area subject to the vision corner unless there is superseding information, such as information that's provided on a subdivision plot. So this is the default configuration for interpreting the vision corner that's subject to vegetation of no more than three feet in height. And essentially what you do is you measure 25 feet in each direction from the corner of the sidewalk on the property side, and that'll get you a point on each of the two cross streets, and then you just draw a straight line through that, and that line is projected out into the terrace. And that cross-hatched area that's identified on the diagram is subject to that height requirement.

Thank you.

Just to add, it's a safety measure. Those vision distances are really a safety measure so that if the intersection is either controlled or even uncontrolled, you want to be able to see other vehicles approaching at whatever speed they're going. It's based on the speed of that nearby road coming up to the intersection as well.

Thank you. Right. And that's what I see in these pictures, is that if you didn't see what's behind, what's in the middle of the block, you don't have time to react, to stop, or perhaps you're already going through the intersection. It's very important that we be able to see not just other cars, but pedestrians or bicyclists. So again, thank you for the explanation.

Thank you. I don't know if staff remembers this, but correct me if I'm wrong. This is not, Vision Corner isn't something that Appleton created. This has been in other, many other municipal codes for the- We did not invent it. Excellent. Thank you.

It's AASHTO standards. It's the, I don't know what the acronym is, but civil engineering practice for speeds and intersections. Excellent. Standard practice regionally.

Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from committee? All right. There being nothing else, we will then proceed to vote. All those in favor of the denial of this long-term occupancy permit, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? There are none. That denial is a temporary denial until it goes to City Council next Wednesday. So this item will be on the City Council full agenda next Wednesday. Correct. It'll be 7 p.m. in this room on Wednesday. Thank you. All right. Moving on then to item number 26-1044. Request to approve a long-term temporary occupancy permit for Copper Leaf Hotel construction dumpster in North Superior Street loading zone through 12-1-2026. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Anything from staff in this regard?

Nothing to add unless there are questions.

Okay. Anything from committee? All right. There being none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes three to zero. Moving on to item 26-0968, request to revoke BMO Harris Bank's designated parking stalls in the Red Ramp. May I have a motion, please? Move to approve.

Second.

Motion and a second. Deputy Director Neuberger, would you like to speak to this?

Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to start with an update and say that payment was received today for this item. So that's one update that we have to share. Maybe I'll just provide a little additional context to and point out that these reserve stalls, I think there are about 12 of them, they don't They're grandfathered in right now. They don't comply with the current purchase stall policy. So we would not sell designated stalls at this location if a new request were to come in. And that's because they're located on the ground floor. And the policy indicates the appropriate floor for this would be third floor and above. And then, additionally, they are paying the fee that was in place at the time that the designated stalls were first purchased, and the cost has increased for designated stalls since then. So those would be two areas where they're basically grandfathered into a condition that would not exist for a new request.

Thank you. Alderman Zeland.

Thank you, Chair. Well, I appreciate receiving the payment. Because this is quite late, I'm wondering if we have any ability. It seems like they've got a pretty sweet deal going on here compared to the rest of the folks who use the parking utility. And I'm wondering if we have any clause or anything that would allow them, if they continue not to pay on time, to have to comply with the same rules as the rest of the citizens who would apply for a permit.

I think there are a couple of different avenues that we might be able to pursue on that. One avenue might be to say, well, you're paid up through the end of the year, and then notify them as of the end of the year when they're all paid up that WOULD WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN AND START OVER ANEW WITH A NEW REQUEST ON THE BASIS THAT WOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT POLICY. SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE THAT I THINK STAFF COULD PROBABLY GET BEHIND.

IF I COULD JUST ASK, WOULD THAT REQUIRE AN ACT FROM COUNCIL OR WOULD THAT BE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE?

I'D HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT.

OKAY. It would need to be approved by committee and council.

Right, right, OK.

The reapplication.

Sure. I would be interested in seeing something like that. I mean, it is August, and this was due in January. And that just seems, none of us can pay our parking tickets late without a fee. I think there just has to be some sort of consequence for not paying on time. I concur.

Correct me if I'm wrong, there are other folks that are looking for and are working with the city, procuring some designated parking stalls. Is sort of a new policy moving forward, kind of coming into play with all of those people? And this would be the ideal time for that to occur with BMO Harris as well after the end of this year?

We are trying to standardize as much as possible because we have come across these certain circumstances. And if it is contrary to policy, we would want a supplemental written agreement initiated and executed if anything were to differ from policy moving forward. Thank you.

Alderman Zetel. I'm sorry. There was one other thing I noted that I forgot to bring up. Are there any late fees that are incurred when someone's paying a bill in August that should have been paid in January?

I believe we follow whatever finances policy on lack of payment would be. It's set days that notices are sent, then they're provided to collections. There are stepped dates solidified through the finance department.

And are we able to ensure that that amount, whatever that amount was levied to the bank has also been paid?

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

If they amassed any late fees according to our finance policy, has that been taken care of as well with this payment?

We can double check on that. I think there's some administrative capacity and a little bit of leeway there. So there's the standard that's finance can do. And then the question is, what were they invoiced for? And we can certainly make sure that if there were any late fees that were part of the invoice.

Thank you. I would appreciate knowing that. And I guess I would also ask what action is recommended by staff now that payment has been received?

Yeah, the motion on the table is to actually revoke these stalls. I'm wondering if the request of staff then is to modify that in some way. like allow them only till the end of this year or something of that sort. Would that be staff's recommendation, subsequent to payment being received? I know we're taking you by surprise because it just got here.

It's new information. Staff are happy to entertain additional comments or questions on that. Alderman Ziegler.

I would be happy to make a motion to hold this until the next municipal services meeting.

I would second that.

Do we need a withdrawal of the original motion? Attorney Barron?

No.

Is there anyone from the public who is here to speak in this regard? I just need your name and address for the record, but if you can just hold on tight.

I regret I'm speaking a little out of turn. I was hoping to discuss the Franklin Street redevelopment project that was discussed on June 22nd. If you'd be so gracious as to give me airtime after this topic.

Unfortunately, I cannot because it is not on the agenda, and our rules state that it must be on the agenda at the time.

I understand. If the committee could please add that to the next one. Thank you.

I have a motion. I made the motion.

Please.

That's correct.

The next scheduled municipal services meeting, which would be the 24th of August. Does staff have any issues with a hold in this regard? I mean, are they going to be demanding that they use these stalls now because, hey, we just made payment eight months late?

Their payment does go through. Their payment is for the year. It's an annual payment. So frankly, we can let it run its course through the remainder of the year. We can be OK with that. Preferably moving ahead, if I had to speak to it, I would like them to have to work in accordance with the policy, reapply. And I believe I do speak on behalf of our department that that would be our preference in order to try and standardize these reserved stalls and reserved stall requests moving forward.

All right, Van Zylum. Thank you. I would just like to hold it because I'd like the additional information that we discussed. And then that also made me think of another question, which was, were these stalls being used by bank employees during this time? Or were we ticketing people who parked there? If you don't have that information now, I would love to just have it come back at the next meeting.

So it's a little bit tricky for us to track exactly who's parking in a designated stall, but I can share just some anecdotal information from parking staff. It appeared that there was not a whole lot of turnover that was going on there, similar to what you'd expect to see from bank customers. So the turnover seemed to be more indicative of something that you might see from bank employees.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is there anything else? I did just get some information, if the committee may.

Cutting edge. I pinged live here. Live on day.

Our parking utility manager had emailed me the invoices, and it appears that they did pay the collection fee amount. It was 15% of the unpaid balance, or $35, whichever is greater. And they did, that was added on, and they did pay that in full and paid the fees that were associated with that. Okay.

Committee, are we still satisfied to just hold this until next week, or do we want to try to move to... resolve this this evening. I would say that answers my questions.

I think the broader policy about renewal going forward can probably be addressed to a different item later, so I'd be willing to withdraw my second.

And I would be okay to withdraw my motion and to give Attorney Barron's time to undo what we have all just done.

We're just doing a thorough diagnostic of the new system.

My apologies for throwing the kink in there, but I thought it would be pertinent since we are discussing.

It is indeed. So does the committee have some thought process on action on this particular item? Alderman Salem.

THOUGH I WONDER IF COLLEAGUES MAY ALSO HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD, I DON'T AT THIS TIME, AND I BELIEVE WHATEVER ELSE COULD COME UP IN THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE FINE TO BE HANDLED AT COUNCIL IF NECESSARY.

SO DO YOU HAVE A MOTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IN THIS REGARD?

WE DO HAVE A MOTION ALREADY PRIOR TO THE HOLD FOR THE REVOKE.

WELL, THAT'S TRUE. IT WAS A MOTION TO REVOKE.

I made the move to hold, and it was seconded by Alderfergus. Well, but what about the actual action? Initially, I think, did you? I made the initial motion. Alderfergus made revocation and second.

Yes, that's correct. Question for staff. If we hold the, or if we, I don't want to use the term hold because we're done with that now. Attorney Behrens would kill us. If we stick to the revocation as requested, WHAT THE STAFF, HOW WOULD STAFF PROCEED IN THAT REGARD? BECAUSE NOW THEY'VE PAID.

CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? ATTORNEY BEARANCE. THEY'RE PAID THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR, SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS WE HAVE UNDER THOSE PAST ARRANGEMENTS THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR, AND IN THE INTERIM, can begin working on an agreement that's consistent with current policies and practices to start for the new year.

I concur. We would likely have them probably reapply, and we would run them through the standard process and follow our standard policy for 2027. And we would put them on, we would work with them and put them on notice of that so that they are not surprised by it.

I absolutely concur with that. I just wonder whether the motion then needs to be amended to state that. IN SOME RESPECTS. SO CAN THE MOTION BE AMENDED? I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE REVOCATION BEGINS 1-1-2027.

CHAIR, I WAS THINKING MAYBE WE CAN JUST, WE CAN WITHDRAW OUR MOTIONS FOR REVOKING AND JUST MAKE A CLEAN MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.

FINE WITH THAT EITHER WAY.

All person hard time you had suggested an amendment to the current motion to revoke effective January 1st 2027 and and that would also that would accomplish the scenario that I talked about where We run through the end of the year as we have under current arrangements and then it's done and that that would put a marker and That could be accomplished through the motion that's on the table with an amendment

So I hold that amendment, and I would ask for a second.

I would second that amendment.

Thank you. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor of that amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

We'll wait for Attorney Barron to catch up. Anything further from staff in that regard?

No more breaking news, please.

These ESPN updates in the middle of municipal services is very difficult.

Nothing to add. Thank you.

We need to re-enter it in the correct box.

It gives good direction. Excellent. Excellent.

Chair, well, Attorney Barron's is a general question that won't impede Attorney Barron's work here.

Please, no new information. All right.

I'll have a clarification once you're done. OK. We know of this particular client that has an arrangement like this. If we're talking about going forward to the end of the year, do we know of, or maybe we would want to find out, are there any other customers of the utility that have these kind of deals where we want to catch up and modernize, get those on board with the same policy that everyone else is on? Is that something that... probably would be looked at then too.

As we've been having conversations with the business owners, the hotels, all of the downtown users, we are working towards updating to current policy as much as we possibly can. And then again, those where there are just some nuances, we are working through agreements. So we are actively pursuing covering in writing how all of these are transpiring, but trying to get all on the same page. Same page, same policy, as much as we can.

Sounds good. Thank you.

Attorney Berens.

Just to clarify, so there's a motion on the floor to approve the recommendation to revoke the agreement with an amendment that the revocation shall be effective as of the end of business on 12-31-2026. Yes.

Is there any further discussion from committee in that regard? All right. Then the vote on the item as amended, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That amended item moves forward to council next week. Excellent. Last action item, 26-1045, request to approve a residential recycling cart exchange policy update.

Move to approve.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Who would like to speak to this?

I can start, and I may have Deputy Director Loper chime in. Excellent. So this we're bringing forward, we had actually brought forward potentially in December of 2025 for implementation in January of 26, the residential refuse cart exchange policy. And at that time, we struck what you see in the right up here in approval criteria number four. Striking if the cart was exchanged within the past 24 months We realized as we were going through our paperwork that we hadn't also Proportionately updated the residential recycling cart exchange policy. So there is some cleanup verbiage and then also Updating that piece to have alignment with the refuse policy Excellent Anything to add any questions from committee I

All right. When I spoke with staff in this regard, I had to get it clear in my head. So it costs a user more money to get a larger garbage can, but more money to get a smaller recycling can, because we are trying to encourage recycling. That's correct. Excellent. All right. You guys had it clear in your head. Well done. All those in favor of this item, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? None. That passes three to zero. We have no information items, so I would entertain item number eight.

Move to adjourn. Second.

Motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. And we are adjourned. Thank you very much.