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, September 9th. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Great. Thank you. Welcome, everybody. Roll call of membership. All members of the committee are present tonight. I'm Chris Crote, representative from District 14 and the chair of the committee. And to my left is?

Bia Jones, District 10.

Denise Fenton, District 6.

Josh Lambert, District 1. Patrick Hayden, District 7. OK, great. Thank you. All committee members are here, so we have a full quorum to conduct business. Next on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from our previous meeting. We actually had two meetings on one day, so there's two sets of minutes. There's the special meeting minutes from the joint meeting with the Board of Health, and then the regular meeting minutes from August 26. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. Second. Motion and a second to approve the minutes. Any corrections or changes? Not seeing any. All those in favor of approving our minutes, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Any abstentions? Minutes are approved 5-0. Okay. takes us to public hearings or appearances. We have one appearance on our agenda. It's 26-1149. It is a demerit point violation appearance for Home Burger Bar. Is there a representative from Home Burger Bar here? OK, thank you. I'll ask you to come up in a minute. Just kind of want to recap. What we do is we ask establishments that have demerit point violations to come before the committee and explain what happened and what they're doing to correct it from happening again. In this case, the most recent conviction was dispensing the minor for 80 points. The establishment has a total of 120 points. If you want to come up, use the microphone at the podium here. I'll turn it on. And just give your name and address for the record. First of all, we appreciate you coming. Thank you for that. And then you can go ahead and explain what happened and what you're doing to prevent it from happening again.

Mandy Ferg, and you want the address of the establishment?

Sure.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

We had, it was a sting by the APD. They came, they sent someone in with a driver's license, and she's the one, it's my daughter, we're family owned, so she's the one that got stung, I guess you could say. It was an individual that had a driver's license, and on the driver's license it says under 18 until such and such date. And she looked at it, over and over again because something just didn't seem right, you know, and like, she just, I mean, we've been, you know, they tried to sting us how many times in 10 years, and this is the first time that we've failed. So she looked at it and, you know, something just didn't seem right about it. Looking at it, she's asking them questions and such and such, and it just didn't sink in that it was that under 18. So obviously, you know, in our We talked to our employees. One of our staff members, their kid is 17 years old, so they had an ID. So we posted that in our employee group chat and it was like, this is what you look for. It's not often that you have someone under the age of 18 trying to pass as a 21-year-old, so we had never seen that before. So that's how it got us.

Okay, thank you. And I assume you understand the demerit point system and where you're at in the overall scope?

I mean... We've never really had Demare points before, so I mean, I know that we had the situation where they came in and asked for

license and it was a day that an employee went home sick and someone stayed and we didn't have someone so okay so according to our memo you have you had at least a i believe a 40 point violation previously attorney berwin do you want to chime in on that so the establishment has 120 total when you get to 150 to 199 there can be i say can because there's some things that that that change that can be up for suspension of the license. And I just want to make sure you're aware of where you're at. Also, are you aware that the Appleton Police Department offers free training for you and your employees?

Yeah.

OK. Attorney Berwin, do you want to comment on the previous? Sure. District 4 should be on.

Thank you, Chair. So you're correct. It is, at this point, 120 points. AGAINST THE LICENSE, IT'S 40 FOR THE PRIOR VIOLATION AND THEN 80 POINTS FOR THIS ONE. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES, AND THIS IS WHAT THE CHAIR WAS ALLUDING TO BEFORE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SUSPENSION OR A REVOCATION, THE SERVICE OF AN UNDERAGE INDIVIDUAL, THOSE 80 POINTS CANNOT BE COUNTED UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER VIOLATION IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THAT. SO THE 80 POINTS FOR THIS CAN'T BE COUNTED TOWARDS A SUSPENSION, BUT IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS, then those 80 points could be counted.

So it's a little unusual, but... And when does the 40 points from the previous, does that expire? Or is that like in a 12-month period?

There is a look-back period depending on the circumstances. It's somewhere between 24 and 36 months. Okay.

Okay. Okay. All right. Any questions from committee members? Not seeing any. Again, thank you for coming. Thank you for explaining it. Just wanted to make sure you understood the whole system and where you're at. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We can move on to action items. 26-1134 is an operator's license application for Christopher T. Ruth. Christopher Ruth, are you here tonight? Okay. All right. I'm going to have you come up, but I think I'm going to have the attorney start out with an explanation of what's in front of us tonight. I believe this is one of those situations where the committee has very little options, but we appreciate you coming and explaining the situation. Attorney Berwyn, do you want to start, please?

I can. As the chair was alluding to, this is, and there's additional detail set forth in the memorandum that I submitted, but the long and short of it is that The applicant is not eligible for a Chapter 125 license based on the criminal conviction history, that being a battery offense from a number of years ago. And the battery offense being an offense under Chapter 940, it is considered an exempt offense, which is one of the relatively narrow set of offenses for which the ability to show rehabilitation is not provided for by the statutes and under the circumstances that would make him ineligible and the license could not be granted and it would not be valid if it were granted. As I did note in the memorandum, however, this does not stop him from working as a bartender. He just needs to do so under the supervision of either the licensee or a licensed bartender. So it's not a total bar to employment in that area, It just prevents the license from being issued or valid.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, hang on one second. Thank you, Attorney Berwin. Mr. Is it Ruth? Am I pronouncing it right? Okay. Now you can address the committee and explain your situation.

I had a license. I came to renew it. The incident, the crime that occurred happened in like 2002 when I was about 19 years old, and I'm 43 now, and that was the last time I ever got in trouble. You know what I mean? So like, I don't...

So that's an Appleton license?

Yeah.

Okay.

It expired on June 30th.

Okay. Attorney's office, anything? A renewal is what's in front of us, correct? Or the application?

I believe it's a new license because it wasn't applied for until after the prior one had expired. Isn't there like a four-month window for that? Not that I'm aware of. Regardless, and I don't know why one was granted previously, if that was not found on the background check or if there was some other information that was provided, not provided. if it was ever brought up or even broached, but all I can go off of is the information that I have now in terms of the advice that I provide to the committee and based off the information that I have now, I can't advise that the license would be valid if granted.

OK, thank you. Appreciate that. And Mr. Ruth, we have to take what's in front of us. And what's in front of us is your new application with a couple of attachments, including a memo from the attorney's office explaining exactly what he just described.

It's not a new application, though. And I've had a bartending license. I had one back in like 2006. It wasn't a problem then. And back then, I think I was still on probation for it, you know. I don't know. Okay.

The challenge for the committee is the guidance from legal is even if we were to grant it, the license would be invalid. And we really, in my opinion, should not go against statutory language that says we should not issue or grant a license based on certain circumstances. So I would encourage you to, you know, maybe research that further. But we have to base our decision on what's on our agenda and what's in front of us tonight.

All right.

Did you want to speak on this particular subject? Name and address for the record, please.

Heidi Supley. I'm one of the owners of the Melting Pot where Chris is employed and also the attorney for our company. Chris has been with us for 10 years. Phenomenal bartender. Has... been part of teams and even in the restaurant with managers multiple times, has passed every sting operation we've had in the restaurant, knock on wood, which is great. Very proud of our team. The only thing I wanted to bring up is underneath the letter that was sent to Chris is whether or not under Chapter 940, if it's a felony, has been convicted. But if you go back at his record, it was actually a misdemeanor that he ended up being charged with and convicted. So as it being a misdemeanor and not a felony, I'm wondering if there is any room for that to be renewed. And again, this was a license renewal that he's had with us for quite a while. So that was really my question, because it was a misdemeanor, not a felony.

OK, thank you. The committee does have some options here, as we could hold it at committee, ask for some additional research or information, or we could send it to council. Whatever comes out of this meeting is either a recommendation to the council or to hold it at committee and try to get more information. Sure. There seems to be some questions. I'll start with Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. Really hate these where we have to have someone appear before us and statutorily for state law We regardless of how this comes out. We don't have any options So I just feel bad that we have to put people through this when we don't have an option my concern in this particular case is that the application on the application the applicant listed that he had never been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. And so in some instances where we do have some leeway, where we could look at evidence of rehabilitation, et cetera, I have concerns that the application isn't truthful.

So that's just my two cents there. OK. Thank you. And before we, as a committee, before we discuss it further, we should get a motion on the table. And I would just also clarify that the application does say new applicant, not renewal. I know that's been referenced a couple of times. So if we could get a motion on the table, we can always change it. Someone want to make a motion on the operator's license application?

Alder Fenton? Chair, before we get a motion on the table, may I direct the question to the attorney? If the felony slash misdemeanor, would that make a difference?

Sure, go ahead.

So, Attorney Berwin, you heard the question.

I did. Not based off of my understanding. I am happy to look into it if the committee wants, but a pretty long-standing understanding is that At least in situations like this, it does not make a difference.

And the only reason why I ask that, because in the letter that came, it said felony. Convicted of a felony. So the letter that came actually from...

I think it was Lieutenant Gooden's memo. Is that the one you're referring to?

No, actually it was the letter that came from Legal and Administrative Services, where it specifically convicted of a... may not be granted to individuals with arrest or conviction records, habitual law offenders, or individuals convicted of a felony who have not been pardoned.

Those are separate eligibility criteria. So arrest or conviction record, that's one eligibility criteria. Okay. Habitual law offenders, separate eligibility criteria, and then felony conviction, separate criteria.

But you also had mentioned that that was a certain category that you don't have room where literally spend 22 years. And it is kind of interesting. I think all of us have probably, hopefully, improved our characters every year since they were 19 years old.

Just to clarify, the memo from the APD from Lieutenant Gooden does specify misdemeanor in the memo. So you're referring to the other letter. I was referring to the other one. OK. OK. Alder Hartzheim, did you have your hand up? No? OK. OK. What would the committee like to do?

At this point, I would move to deny.

OK. Is there a second? I will move, I will second the motion. So on the floor right now is a motion to deny the operator license application for Christopher T. Ruth. Any additional comments or questions? Alder Hayden, go ahead.

I just would like to echo what Alder Finnell was saying, that it's unfortunate that I'm sure you're a different person than you were back then, but with state statute, our hands are kind of tied.

Anyone else? Alder Hartzheim, 13. Yes, please, Chair. It should be on.

Thank you, Chair. I'm reading on the fly, reading Attorney Berwin's memo. And in it, on the second last paragraph on the first page, section 125.04 sub 5 sub b states that no license or permit related to alcoholic beverages may be subject to these sections, then may be issued under this chapter to any person who has habitually been a law offender or has been convicted of a felony unless that person has been duly pardoned. So I see some confusion pieces here, and I'm concerned about that in the urgency of the matter.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF IT DOES GO TO COUNCIL, WE DO HAVE OPTIONS ONCE IT GETS THERE, UP TO INCLUDING REVIEWING NEW INFORMATION OR SENDING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE AS A REFER BACK. BUT ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS THE MOTION TO DENY. ANYONE ELSE? ATTORNEY BERWIN.

JUST TO POINT TO THAT, THAT IS Those are just separate sections of the statute.

Thank you for clarifying. Sorry, these microphones all of a sudden decided to start flashing. Just trying to fix that problem here. Oh, OK. Let's turn them off and back on. So OK. All right. Any other comments or questions? Not seeing any. We'll take a vote on the motion on the floor, which is to deny the license application. All those in favor of denial, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Any abstentions? Five-zero. OK. So it goes to the full city council as a recommendation. That would be two weeks one week from tonight correct One week from tonight seven o'clock if you want to address the full city council you do need to sign up ahead of time I Recommend coming about 15 minutes early there will be a sheet on that table over there And you will be able to speak to this particular item. It will not be a dialogue back and forth it's just an opportunity for you to present your your case and Have the whole council here hear that so again. Thanks for coming All right, moving on to, I assume why most others are here, is 26-0825 is resolution 9R26, establishing public oversight and accountability standards for automated license plate reader, ALPR, and mass surveillance technologies. This was before the committee a while back, and we held it here until this date to do some additional work and bring it back for discussion, debate, and possibly some action. Who wants to start? Authors of the resolution, anyone? Alder Fenton, kind of raising your hand.

ALDER FENTON, Yes, I am. Thank you, Chair. As one of the authors of the resolution, I will include it in our materials here. is a memo from the city where they state that they will not be pursuing any automated license plate technology or a contract with anybody as long as this is going on. Alder Meltzer, whose suggested amendments are included with this item, and I met with the mayor and the city's IT director. And what I would like to do at this time is to refer this item back to staff, where we have requested that the IT department create a request for proposals for an expert analysis of the proposed amendments and the item as it is presented so that we can have better information to weigh our options. Okay, so there was a motion in there, correct? I am moving to refer this to staff. Okay, is there a second? Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to refer this to staff. I see Alder Meltzer. I'll go ahead. Which microphone do you have? Seven should be on.

Thank you. I think that the amendments that I have proposed are valuable, especially the ones around procurement. I understand that this is a very deep and complex issue. So I think having a neutral third party advisor with the technical expertise would be a very good way for us to move forward on this resolution to properly evaluate the amendments. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, and thanks for your proposing those. They are in the packet. There's four items in the packet. It's the original resolution, a memo from the police department, and I believe the memo from the mayor. Yep, Mayor and Chief Olson, and then your list of amendments. So we have all of that in there. Other questions, concerns, and if there's anyone here that wants to speak, you'll get a chance. Alder Hartzheim. 13 should be back on.

Thank you, Chair. My only concern in this regard, and I believe that this is a good path forward, but my only concern in this regard is where in the budget would we be able to do anything as far as contracting a third party? And perhaps the refer back is only to get what those numbers might be, but I would like some clarity on that before it's automatically referred back and then we've kind of lost track of it and suddenly it comes forward to us with, Here's a giant budget number that we need to approve because we've got this refer back.

Director Popp, do you want to take that? Or Alder Fenton, you had conversations with the mayor. The mayor's not here tonight, so I don't want to speak for him. Which microphone do you have, Director Popp? Director 2 should be on.

Okay. I'd say funding is a little bit out of my wheelhouse on this. In our conversation that we had, there was something mentioned, I think, about ARPA money. Do I recall that?

Interest on ARPA funds.

Yes, which is what we use to purchase the barriers. Right. Okay.

And clarifying in our discussion, Chair, we asked for this RFP to be like an hourly basis on a not to exceed amount, and I would expect that when That goes out with responses that those would come back to us for our evaluation and voting. Okay.

And I assume any substantial expenses related to this may go before the Finance Committee as well?

That is my understanding.

Because I think the costs are valid concerns and need to be considered.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. I think that that's a wise way to move forward, but again, I would like for the council to be privy to making that decision based on what comes back in that regard, not just an automatic, hey, we've referred this back, now this has to happen, and now that we seem to have ferreted out some funding response, I just want to be able to say we still have the final say as council on whether that will occur.

And, Chair, that is absolutely the understanding. Alder Meltzer also has something to say.

Yeah, and this is all part of us taking this kind of slowed-down approach and working through all of this. I think it was maybe two months ago that this was before the committee. Actually, on July 22nd is when we held it here. Alder Meltzer, go ahead.

Thank you. I just want to clarify that the motion that the committee is considering isn't to refer this to staff for staff to hire a consultant. It's to refer this to staff for an RFP. And then that RFP will come back to the committee. So not only will counsel be able to weigh in, but the public will also be able to see what is included in that RFP so that there's transparency at every level, not just for council, but for the community as well. So the next step of action would come back to evaluate the RFP before the RFP actually goes out for proposals to be sought.

OK, thank you. And that's an important clarification. And I saw Alder Fenton agreeing, and I saw Director Popp agreeing. If you both want to just make a brief comment about that, go ahead.

I'm just agreeing with Alder Meltzer that we were in the room, and I agree with his understanding.

Okay. Yeah, that's what I'll do. I'll bring our feedback to this committee.

Okay, good. Clarified. Thanks. Other comments, questions? Alder Martin, or Smith. Martin Smith. Sorry. Former Alder Martin. First name.

I just wanted to weigh in on a strategy on this. And I guess I feel a little bit leery about voting on something with technical language that I don't fully understand as far as the technical details of this. And I would wonder if the better approach wouldn't be to think in terms of what are the principles and the values that we would look for in any case of ALPR, whether that's local control of data or something in a kind of common language that I would feel comfortable with voting for. And then if any proposal were to come forward, it's at that point that we would look for technical explanations. Does this new service meet? the kind of principles that we've set out. And that would be a way of, I mean, I feel like if we now put a lot of effort into the technical details in a year or two years, The technical details could be shifted, and we're back to square one anyway. So to me, it makes more sense. Talk principles. When a proposal comes forward, that's when we get someone with technical knowledge to interpret it and see if it fits those principles.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Smith.

Alder Fenton, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. And I agree with Alder Smith in principle. However, what was submitted as an an attachment to this item has very, very, very technical language in it. And I, even after 40 years in IT, not in that area, I don't feel comfortable evaluating that. We reached out to our IT director, who I believe agreed that a neutral party would be. Because the IT director has responsibilities for not necessarily deciding where things happen, but in evaluating technology. And so principle-wise, I agree. Again, I agree with the Alder person, but I feel the need to have some very, very technical things that we were asked to consider evaluated by someone with that expertise.

Okay. Thank you. Alder Meltzer, go ahead.

Thank you. I think that Alder Smith's point is very valid, and that is exactly what the request for proposal, what this tech advisor, what their purpose is. We have something in front of us. We have these amendments that I have proposed that I hope we can consider that I think a lot of us find to be too technical. So we are not requesting for a technical advisor to write an ordinance for us. We are requesting a technical advisor to help to analyze, to break down, to make these things understandable to the rest of us who are not IT experts so that we can objectively make decisions about this topic. So not that we want to bring in a neutral third party tech advisor to do this work for us as though we're outsourcing the technical expertise, but rather to bring in someone to help bridge that gap of technical expertise that we as a council body don't possess. So I think it's important to clarify that also. This would not be requesting some neutral third party to just write up some alternative amendments for us or something like that, or to like, draw a big check mark on the ones that I've proposed. This would be more a way for us to really do our due diligence and have someone help us through the process of actually understanding what is feasible, what things mean, how to put them in context for the city. Thank you. Alder Hayden. Thank you, Chair.

I think what Alder Smith was saying, it really becomes interesting because when we're looking at this, we're thinking about what's happening right now. But when you think about having principles, it becomes a much more of a living document that 10, 20 years down the road when we have a resolution that gets adopted. We don't have to constantly bring in experts to explain it to a completely different counsel who wasn't present when the expert kind of explained it to them at that time. So when Alder Smith said that, it kind of clicked me that having something that captures the spirit of what we're trying to do around automated surveillance technology kind of helps make it more of a living document that is much more robust over the years than something that is much more granular that captures the technical aspects of what is happening today with these technologies. Okay. Thank you. Alder Fenton.

Thank you, Chair. I was just taken back to a time when we as a council were considering some pretty high-level real estate negotiations. And at that point, we, the council, brought in our own attorney to advise us about the ramifications of different things that we could decide. And I think this is fairly analogous to that, that we would be bringing in someone to advise us on the technical aspects of what we're going to decide.

OK. Alder Smith. IT'S ON DISTRICT 13.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND I APPRECIATE ALDER MELZER AND ALDER HAYDEN. A LOT DEPENDS ON WHAT COMES FORWARD FROM THIS, BUT I HOPE IT WILL BE IN COMMON LANGUAGE AND BE A WAY FOR US, BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KIND OF GET OUR HEADS AROUND AS ideas. So I hope it's a translation of these technical, this is what I would hope for, a translation of these technical issues into some level of principle that we can debate and talk about and not kind of a presentation of technical facts. I think the technical facts, like I said, will come when we get someday a proposal of an idea that would meet these principles. Then we'll be having lots of, we'll need someone to tell us about this new system and what it means. But I hope for a robust debate that we can all understand. And I'm worried about voting on something with details that I don't really understand.

All right. Anyone else from the committee? No? Any other alders, comments? Okay. Members of the public, if you want to speak on this, we are going to limit it to three minutes per person. Just give your name and address. Use the podium microphone. Anyone want to speak? Mr. Mann, welcome.

Thank you, Tanner Mann. Excuse me. Tanner Mann, 833 West Harris Street in Appleton. We touched on a few topics that I want to talk about tonight. One is related to that ALPR memo that the city will not be pursuing that tech while we're working out these details. I want to talk about the previous system that the city had used. Appleton Police Department's flock audit logs are currently missing. This was confirmed by Appleton Police Department on September 1st. I submitted a legal public records request for those audit logs on August 31st, and they responded that they're not denying my request, that they're unable to fulfill it because they simply do not have those audit logs. And they claim that they are under no obligation to retrieve them from Flock. THAT TO ME WAS SHOCKING. THOSE AUDIT LOGS ARE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF APPLETON, AND IF REGULAR AUDITS OF THE SYSTEM WERE BEING DONE, THOSE HAD ALREADY BEEN EXPORTED AND LOOKED AT, WHY WOULD THOSE NOT BE ARCHIVED? THOSE ARE NECESSARY TO FULFILL legal requests such as mine. And also, we're going to have a new police chief in four or five months that might be very interested in looking at those audit logs. I would love to find out why those are missing, because as a taxpayer, I paid for those, and I want those. I think to say that we're under no obligation to retrieve those from the vendor, I can't imagine that holds legal water. We paid for this contract as taxpayers through the end of this year. Why can't we reach out to that vendor and get those if we don't have a user account that's provisioned to log in and export them ourselves? You as council members know this. I emailed each and every one of you explaining this. But what you don't know is that three months prior to ending the use of this system, another citizen put in a public records request for the flock audit logs. That was early April. Appleton Police Department did not respond to that public records request for three months When they did, they responded one week after these cameras were fully turned off and the user accounts had their access removed. That's very convenient timing. Very, very convenient timing. So we hear from Appleton Police Department that all along they were committed to transparent and accountable use of the system.

You're at the end of your time, so please wrap up your thoughts.

Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, I would like to see those audit logs. I support the amendments. I think it makes sense to bring in a professional to evaluate those. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mann.

Anyone else? Chief Olson, did you want to respond? Okay. What microphone do you have? District two should be on okay. Go ahead.

Thank you, so I just want to add a couple clarifying points based on some statements that Mr.. Mann made and Despite some allegations of some conspiracy theories that are happening here. I'd like to reassure The please know what no additional comments I would like to reassure everybody that's in attendance here that we did reach out to flock we have not had a chance to respond to mr. Mann yet to advise him that we're working obtaining those records if they exist they are not in our property we've never accessed those audit logs or the Reports that he's asking for we don't have those records so we cannot provide a record that we do not possess But we are reaching out to flock we have to go through the foyer request With them and they have up to 14 days to respond to our request for those records if they exist and And it's my understanding that my records manager, I thought she had responded back to him already to advise him of that, but apparently that response has not gone out and hopefully will tomorrow.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Mr. Mann, no, no, you already spoke. I want to see if there's others, and then if you want to make one additional comment, I'll allow that. But is there anyone else that would like to speak? Name and address for the record, please.

Hello. My name is Haley Hauer, and I live at 1003 North Appleton Street here in Appleton. I've called this city my home for the past year. I'm originally from Los Angeles, and I'm here tonight to share something personal with you. A friend of mine, Edil Gerto, has been going through the immigration process legally. At one of his check-ins, he was handed a notice thanking him for his voluntary departure back to Nicaragua. Terrified of being deported on the spot, he went to stay with a friend. ICE found him there, and they tracked him down using flock cameras. This is happening to people across Los Angeles and the whole of the nation right now. ICE is using ALPR camera networks to locate and capture people, even as they follow the process. He was taken to the Atalanta Detention Center, denied sleep for days, then transferred in the middle of the night to the Aero El Paso Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, built on the site of a former Japanese internment camp. There were no perimeter security cameras, no outdoor recreation space, no room for attorneys or families to visit. He was held with 50 men in a single cell with one toilet during an active COVID and measles outbreak. The food was moldy. Each man was given one liter of clean water a day. During the day, he watched guards pull men from the cell and beat them to keep them in line and to break them. He should have been deported from El Paso. Instead, he was moved again, this time to Louisiana. We don't know how long he'll be there, where he'll go next, or whether he'll even survive it. What is happening to my friend, what is happening to any human being treated this way is sickening. It's made possible because ICE has access to ALPR camera networks in his community. I beg of you, do not let this happen here. Protect our community, protect our neighbors no matter where they come from or what part of the process of building a life here they are in. Do not allow ALPR cameras to be used in Appleton at all. I've heard the arguments that with the right rules, the right controls, the right audits, this technology can be made safe. But a camera doesn't know the difference between a stolen car and a man running for his life. Once that data exists, someone somewhere will find a reason to obtain it. And I'm not willing to bet a single person's life on the promise they won't. Tonight you're voting to bring in a consultant to help write safeguards. I've seen the effort you're putting into doing this the right way, but I'm asking you for more than careful rules. I'm asking you not to adopt this technology at all, not from Flock, not from any other vendor, no matter what safeguards come with it. There is nothing I can do for my friends back home, but I'm not willing to watch the same thing happen to my friends here. We are your people, all of us. Protecting us is your responsibility as our elected officials. Please don't take this risk with our lives. Thank you, and thank you for your continued effort with us.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay, come on up. name and address for the record. And before you start, Attorney Berwin, I'm giving a lot of latitude on comments here. If we get too far off the action item in front of us, please give some guidance. Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

Carrie Tetzloff, 824 Powers, Oshkosh. My husband and I own businesses at Surf Appleton. I've articulated my shift in thinking before, but I want to state this again for this body. Earlier this year, I supported the notion that we could put guardrails around ALPR to somehow reduce harm. And I want to articulate even more strongly than I did last time I reject this notion. Nobody should have access to the pattern of life data of all citizens. That data is too sensitive to collect in one place, let alone share it across hundreds of other agencies. That's how these systems work, regardless of brand. It is the existence of the databases these cameras build that I object to, not any one specific camera brand. Our privacy is violated. At the time this data is collected, no amount of guardrails will change that this tech puts every single citizen under a pre-investigation. This is the kind of data that is a foundation for pre-crime analysis. These systems are opaque. Citizens don't have meaningful control over the systems that operate this tech or avenues to truly fully audit the tech. We have been tricked by these companies across Wisconsin. Over a dozen municipalities canceled their contracts just this last week based on being tricked by tech bros. Our tax dollars have given these companies big budgets to fly their reps here and lie to us. I'd like you all to look up Locke's e-book, How to Talk to City Councils, to see them brag about how citizen disenfranchisement is something they teach law enforcement how to do. Police departments across the country in Wisconsin were already failing to follow the very small number of rules surrounding mass surveillance tech. So I'm concerned that adding more rules won't help. My understanding is that an open records request was submitted recently for Appleton. FLOC audit logs have not yet been produced because Wisconsin state law doesn't require a city to create a record to fulfill a request. How do those logs not exist when FLOC creates them automatically? They're just accessible within the system. If the audit trail within FLOC was not preserved before cancellation, it appears records that were described as permanent and immutable could have been destroyed. Appleton City website states that their policy is regular in-house audits would be conducted. So if that policy has been followed, those documents should exist and can be responsive to a FOIA request. ALPR is going to pave the way for even more invasive tech on the horizon, such as real-time crime centers like Axon Fusis that can turn any camera feed into an AI surveillance cam and combine and analyze citizen data from a variety of sources via AI software. We must think bigger than just brands like Flock and Axon and bigger than just ALPR. Here's what I'm asking you to do. I know I'm limited on time. Ban ALPR. It is a myth that you can't do that. Other places like Ypsilanti, Michigan, Iowa City, Oconee County have done it. Many more are pursuing it right now.

Your time is up, so please wrap up your thoughts. Thank you.

I'll wrap it up. Continue the work Alders Denise, Katie, and Barrett are working on to close procurement loopholes. Tech companies like Flock and Axe are teaching law enforcement how to use grants, weekly billing, jail commissary revenue, civil forfeiture funds, private donations, and free trials to bring this tech to our communities. Skydio was on a free trial here in Appleton, which didn't require council approval. Resist the temptation to try to justify mass surveillance with guardrails, and let's have a broader community conversation, like the one Alder Smith is talking about. Safety comes from people having their needs met. It comes from relationships and trust. It comes from looking out for each other and investing in evidence-based programs to address root causes of crime. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I wasn't sure if you were getting close to the end there. OK. Anyone else like to speak? No other hands? Oh, OK. Come on up. Name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is Malia Hawksall. Because my published work on the subject has made me a target of documented harassment, I do not state my residential address aloud in recorded meetings, but I'm happy to provide it in written format.

OK. Go ahead.

I am also a US Air Force veteran with two combat deployments where I supported intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. My focus while serving was counterterrorism and surveillance. Let me be clear. Pattern of life analysis was the bread and butter of my career field. Please don't talk my time.

It's OK.

So that was the bread and butter of my career field. In 2015, Peter Thiel and his team came to my unit and trained me on Palantir. Palantir ran a dragnet across open source media to build target decks on individuals that we were targeting for capturing and killing. who they associate with, the locations they frequent, the vehicles they're likely to be in. And I was told specifically, this data can never be used on Americans because that would violate the Fourth Amendment. So you can imagine my shock and horror when I learned systems like it were being deployed nationwide, pointed at American citizens in my community. The council did something right in Appleton. You ended your contract, and the cameras are gone. But I'm here tonight to ask you to finish the job. Do not replace them with another ALPR vendor. and put an outright ban on this technology. So let me step back and define pattern of life. The US Army Intelligence Analysis Manual defines it as persistent location collection, baseline establishment, deviation detection, and predictive analysis. A networked ALPR system that stores every plate it reads satisfies that definition. Let me be clear. If the cameras only flagged a Bolo hit and discarded everything else, I would not be here tonight. It is the storing and the aggregating that turns a traffic camera into a surveillance system when you leave your house, where you worship, where your children are during the day. That is not data. That is a map of your every single day of life. The legal ground is beginning to catch up nationwide. In June, the Supreme Court held in Chattree v. U.S. that when police access aggregated retrospective location data, even a couple of hours of it, That is a Fourth Amendment search, and the third party doctrine does not excuse it. Although that is on cell phone cases, it does not declare ALPRs unconstitutional, but its logic is aimed squarely at the aggregation, the dense networked retrospective location records. Because this is not legally satisfied, I have reached out to various state representatives and offered my knowledge of ALPR systems. And I will testify as an expert witness if asked to outline exactly why this architecture cannot survive a Fourth Amendment scrutiny in its current architecture. Appleton would not be acting alone in pursuing a ban. Just last week, Wisconsin US senators went on the record about these cameras. Senator Johnson said that he would be supportive of limiting or banning their use. Senator Baldwin says that it would be the government should not, quote, the government should not be ever surveilling its citizens. So my ask of this council, you ended Flock. Do not replace it. Flock, Axon, any successor, they are brand names for the same system, the way Kleenex is a brand for tissue. I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. That oath did not end just because I took off my uniform. It is why I travel to these chambers, because I have used a comparable system against American enemies, and I know what it's capable of. And I can see the danger of pointing it at the American people.

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

Hi, my name is Emmy Carrick. I'm an Oshkosh resident who frequents Appleton. I want to say that a few months ago, I felt that pursuing guardrails felt like a logical and reasonable step in how we deal with ALPR technology. But at the end of the day, I don't feel that this technology can be responsibly deployed. The guardrails may be strong, but the only way to fully protect against the erosion of our privacy is to ban this technology. And I don't think that that's an extreme position, given the alarm bells being sounded by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil liberties groups, as well as the documented abuse that we have seen of these systems. I strongly feel that an ALPR ban is the only path consistent with upholding our freedoms. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? I see you, Mr. Mann. Is there anyone else? All right. Mr. Mann, I'm going to allow you to make some final comments. Please keep it brief. All right.

Thank you. I just want to point out to hear the chief of police say that those flock audit records were never accessed is completely contradictory to doing regular monthly audits. That's how you do the audits. I don't know if there's some confusion on that point. if the audits were never done, but I'd like an answer to that. And I'm not alleging any conspiracies. I'm stating plain facts. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. All right. I'm going to wrap up the public comment. Is there anyone else that would like to speak that hasn't spoken? All right. Chief, did you want to comment? OK. Go ahead.

I would just like to answer Mr. Mann's question. And I do think it's a valid question. I want to make that clear. But keeping in mind that from January until April-ish, when all of this started to escalate, That flock was just starting to develop the tools to provide us with the ability to do the auditing that Mr.. Mann is referring to and So as we, even as a working group, and Alder Fenton, you were a part of that, as we tried to talk through what those guardrails would look like and make some of the changes to our policies, we have not yet accessed any of FLOC's audit logs, their automated audit logs that they were providing us because we were unhitching ourselves essentially from this system. And we knew that we were going to pause using this system until we could find a path forward. So I understand the concerns that Mr. Mann and others might have. But the auditing that was being done was being done by one of our designated captains for January and February. And that was a basically not an automated process, but one where he was selecting certain entries and then verifying it through our process, like checking an incident number, verifying that it was a valid search, but he was doing it all by hand. So there really are no records that would be something that could be provided as a part of his request. When I reached out to our flock rep, because we no longer have a contract with them, they're not being helpful but other than forwarding us to follow the FOIA process that anybody in the public could also have to follow. So I don't have any other way of trying to access the records other than what we're already trying to do. I hope that clarifies things.

It does for me. Thank you, Chief, for responding to the question. Appreciate that. Other questions or comments from anyone?

Alder Hayden. Just one observation. One concern I have around this conversation is we are completely focused on ALPR. And my understanding of the intent of this resolution is to be something that goes for ALPR and any mass surveillance technology. So if we are hyper-focused on ALPR, then we're going to miss the mark on something that makes sure whether we're looking at drones, whether we're looking at listening devices, Anything else that could potentially come in the future, that this will not be something that actually serves the purpose that we're looking to achieve here. So while I appreciate all the comments, I would like to make sure that we're not missing anything with this.

Yeah, good point. And the conversation tonight and what it has been has mainly been on ALPR, but the resolution does specifically state ALPR and mass surveillance technologies. So I think the authors of the resolution did cover that, and that is what's going forward. So... Good clarification, however. Other comments or questions? Otherwise, we're ready for a vote. All right. Not seeing any hands. Okay. We'll take a vote. The motion on the table is to refer this to staff, specifically to the IT department. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving that, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, 5-0. That's what will be recommended to the full city council. All right. Thank you all for coming. Thank you for speaking. Thank you for following this. Alder Meltzer, go ahead.

Point of order.

Yeah, I think I know what you're going to ask. Go ahead.

Wasn't there a motion to refer to staff as opposed to this going to full council?

Well, the motion was to refer to staff. Attorney Berwin, does that go to the full council for a vote, or does that just automatically go from committee to staff? Just to clarify, correct? I will need to confirm that.

My understanding was that the committee would refer this to staff. Staff would come back to committee with an RFP that the committee would then move to council with a recommendation for approval or denial.

Right.

Chair, that was my understanding as well, Chair.

Okay. Attorney Merwin are you gonna get us clarification on that or is it does it automatically just go to staff from committee without counsel action I'm not aware of a referral to staff having ever Forwarded I'm not either. I just want to make sure we're we're clear on the process here.

Thank you That committee is another option, but you already voted so I

I'm attempting to review. I don't see anything. If that's the understanding, I think.

Let's proceed with the understanding that it gets referred to staff. It's going to come back to committee at some point. It will not be on the council, or will it be on the council agenda as action taken by the committee?

No.

And if we're wrong, there would be time to put it on the agenda. I should be able to confirm that and consult a little bit to confirm that. And if we're right, then it's a non-issue. And if we're wrong, there's time to correct it. All right, does that help?

I'm not aware of any instance in which council weighed in on a committee referring an item to staff.

I can't recall either, but just wanted to clarify the process. OK, are we ready to move on from that? I think so. All right. Moving on to our agenda is the next item is 26-1143, the Appleton Fire Department 26-29 Gold Cross Shared Service Agreement. We do have the attachment, which is the agreement. We have a representative from Gold Cross here. We have the fire department here. Who wants to go first? Chief Hansen? All right. District 3 should be on.

Thank you, Chair. Before you is a new three-year agreement with Gold Cross Ambulance. We are coming on the tail end of our first agreement ever, which is ending on October 1st. So the agreement that's in front of you has been modified from the last one, and I'll just highlight some of the changes. On page two, section three, we updated the NFPA standard to the 2026 edition, and NFPA as a whole has gone through like some revamping, and they've combined different standards, so that's why we had to update it to the 26 edition. Also in Section 3C, we added a sentence in there where Gold Cross and Appleton Fire Department will be jointly dispatched to all medical incidents within the city so that we are compliant with NFPA 1750, which requires a minimum of two EMTs and a minimum of two paramedics on all ALS critical incidents. We added in Section 3D, where Gold Cross will provide us a staffing transition plan within 60 days that meets Wisconsin Administrative Rule DHS 11050, which requires two paramedics on a transport ambulance for ALS calls or advanced life support calls. And that would be for any routinely staffed ambulance within the city. And, you know, obviously there are Their service area is 1,200 square miles, and they have multiple ambulances, but we're focused on the ones within the city of Appleton. Page 4, Section 7, that refers to response times. And there is no change to the response time goal. And Gold Cross has met that pretty much every month. I think there was one month that they missed it by like two seconds or three seconds. So for all intents and purposes, they're meeting our response time goals. in section 8 a2 we added a benchmark for communications so radio communications between the fire department and gold cross ambulance that's responding we'd like it to be at 100 but i think 80 percent is a or greater than 80 is a good benchmark uh to start with and uh we'll monitor that and um make adjustments as needed. And then lastly, the item I want to point out is on page six. It's B2. The information found between A and E are pretty much all basically new information on reporting requirements and representing collaboration in patient care. Those are the major changes within the contract. It was collaboratively created between Gold Cross and the Fire Department, and we're really happy to bring that forward for your review and approval.

Okay. Thank you, Chief. Representative from Gold Cross, would you like to comment? Mr. Romanesco, correct?

Correct. Hello. Nick Romanesco. I'm the Executive Director with Gold Cross.

I reside at 1920 Biscayne Drive in Little Chute.

I'll just kind of echo a lot of what Jeremy has said. He kind of reviewed a lot of the technical changes to the agreement. But really, from our perspective, it's about improving the product for the city of Appleton. And I think we went into the three year agreement understanding that at the end of it, there would be a change and there would be some modifications. And really, the goal is to continue to collaborate work together and provide a better product to the citizens of Appleton. So you're going to see that over the next three years. And it is really built that way so we can kind of build upon what we have established in the previous three years and continue to get to a goal there. I know one of the big things that Chief Hansen has been very vocal about since really became chief was the two paramedic requirements. So we've already, you know, put together some groundwork for that and have a plan within the three years on how to achieve that, make sure that we have good coverage of those dual ALS paramedic ambulances and are working through some things to continue to fortify our staff. But certainly we're in a much different place as an organization than we were three years ago. I think as a relationship with the state of Appleton and the Appleton Fire Department have improved immensely. So really just looking forward to continued growth and development of the relationship and, again, enhancements to the product that you guys receive.

OK, thank you. Good to hear. Chief Hansen, I'm not asking for this, but since the attachment in our packet is the new agreement, thank you for outlining all the changes. I'm fine with what you stated, but I assume there's not a version that has red lines or font of changes to the agreement or a memo that outlines what you stated?

There is a red line version of it. If the committee desires, I can send that out to the committee.

I wouldn't mind having it, just in case somebody asks me what's changed with the agreement. I didn't write down everything you said. So yeah, that would be helpful, I think, in case we get some questions at the council about it. Too much to ask? No, we have that. Okay. Okay. We collaboratively built it on marking the changes. Thank you. And I'm fine with the changes. I just think it'd be good to understand what they look like. Alder Hertzheim, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Could that also be added to the minutes of the meeting?

Yep. It'll be included in the packet going forward. Thank you. Okay. All right. Questions, comments on that?

WE NEED A MOTION, AND I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. THANK YOU.

GOOD. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEW THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH GOLD CROSS SHARED SERVICE. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? 5-0. THAT WILL GO TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE. THANKS FOR COMING. All right, next on the agenda are a couple of fire items. They're all a little bit different. One is inspections, one is fire code, and one is fire permits. So we'll start with the changes to the fire code, or inspections. 26-1165 is an amendment to the code, sections 6-100 and 6-9 relating to fire inspections. Chief Henson, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you again, Chair. I'm going to turn the microphone over to our resident expert, Division Chief Derek Henson.

All right, thank you. Thank you. The first proposal is to repeal section 6-100 of the charter ordinances. This is something that we're currently in conflict with between 6-100 and then 6-9 of the general ordinances. 6-9 says we follow the Wisconsin SPS 314 and state statute 101.14 for inspection frequency, but then 6-100 conflicts with that. Our secondary goal with this is to go to an inspection frequency of at least once per year with no more than one inspection in, I'm sorry, 15 over, not to exceed a 15-month period. That is consistent with what our neighbors are doing, Grand Chutes doing that, Kimberly, Buchanan. We're seeing fire departments go to this across the state. This is a way to balance the workload and to really start focusing on quality inspections versus just the quantity of inspections. Doing two inspections a year in a business is good from a quantity standpoint, But from a quality standpoint, these become rushed inspections and things where the crews are really not spending time in educating business owners like they should be doing. So the goal here is to shift that focus more to a quality inspection and more of an educational endeavor while also reducing some of the workload on our crews to allow them to do other things like training and incident responses. I did provide some incident response or Chief provided some incident response data in the memo just showing that we have We've seen a considerable increase in our incident responses, and we are continuing to see 5% to 10% increases in call volume every single year. And reducing the number of inspections is a way for us to balance that workload on our crews.

OK, thank you. Questions, comments, motion?

Move to approve.

Second. OK, motion and second to approve the amendments to the municipal code. If there are no other, Alderheads, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to make special note that the second last statement is important to me. Buildings at higher risk, such as hospitals and nursing homes, would continue on an inspection frequency of twice per year. That, I think, is the important thing, is not just getting quality inspection, but also making sure that those things that are at higher risk still have eyes on them more often.

Thank you. Yep, good point. All right, any other comments or questions? Okay, let's take a vote on 26-1165. All those in favor of changes to the code, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? Five-zero. Okay, moving on to 26-1164 is an amendment to the code relating to the adoption of the International Fire Code. Chief Hansen?

THANK YOU. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE CITY OF APPLETON TO ADOPT THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND OUR GOAL IS TO UPDATE THAT EVERY THREE YEARS, MAINTAINING ONE CODE CYCLE BEHIND THE CURRENT YEAR. SO AS OF JANUARY 1ST, THE 2027 CODE CYCLE COMES OUT. Our goal is to be three years behind that, so we would recommend to adopt the 2024 IFC, International Fire Code. Some of the key changes there are just mainly focused on lithium-ion batteries. As we're all aware, lithium-ion battery technology has kind of exploded in the last three or four years. AND MAINTAINING CURRENT WITH THAT IN CODES IS REALLY IMPORTANT FROM A FIRE PERSPECTIVE. SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE FACE WITH LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES ARE GETTING THEM TO GO OUT AND THEN ALSO KEEPING THEM OUT. SO ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS ONCE WE GET THE FIRE OUT, HOW DO WE REMOVE THAT BATTERY FROM THE BUILDING? ONE OF THE CODE PROVISIONS HERE IS THAT THERE'S A FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY PLAN THAT'S REQUIRED FOR BUSINESSES THAT STORE CONSIDERABLE QUANTITIES OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES. And the key there is having them develop a plan for how they want us to remove those batteries from their facility. Things like exit routes. What's the fastest way to get those batteries out of the facility with causing minimal harm to the business in doing so? Inflatable amusement devices have also been added to the code now. These were things that were never inspected in the past, but now we're realizing that there's some dangers with inflatable amusement devices inside of buildings. Just things like that that we're starting to work through as far as updating the code. With that, is there any questions?

OK, questions. Alder Meltzer, go ahead.

Thank you. I'm curious, why the schedule of three years behind? Why not two year or one year? I assume that the international fire code is dynamic, and we couldn't really keep up with it if we tried to stay lock, pace, step, and step. But why the three-year period?

Thank you. That's a great question. So our goal is not to be beta testers of the code. Our goal is to let the code be vetted nationwide first. And then after that three years, anything that has been proven to be an issue in the code, we could then remove if we needed to from the code. We let other communities beta test these codes through the development process. And once we know that it's a good, solid code, then we're going to adopt it. And that usually is about that three-year mark. So our goal is to be three years behind.

Right? Does that answer the question? Thank you. All right.

Good. Thanks. Other questions? Alder Hayden. Thank you, Chair. One other question. I thought you were going somewhere else when you were talking about lithium-ion batteries, and you were talking about removing them from buildings and things like that. Do you have anything in the code around dealing with batteries when it comes to cars? Because I know that's becoming a bigger hotspot, pun unintended, when it comes to the batteries underneath cars and making sure that you're getting those fires out.

Is there anything that

Is covering that in this code or in a future code?

It's a difficult proposition because vehicles are typically exempted from these codes because they're mobile. The one kind of exemption to that would be food trucks. Food trucks are covered under the code, but right now lithium battery vehicles are not covered in the code. There are some safeguards for parking ramps. There are some safeguards for charging stations inside. But those are things that already exist in the code, and we're already enforcing. They're not added. They're not new to this version of the code.

Good questions. All right. Other questions? All right. Not seeing any. WE HAVE A MOTION, CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CHANGES TO THE CODE RELATED TO THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 5-0. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS 26-1163, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6-12, SUBSECTION A2, RELATING TO RECREATIONAL FIRE PIT PERMITS.

Thank you. This proposal is for just a simple change. So right now all of our recreational fire pit permits expire on December 31st. That's regardless of when the resident applies for or obtains that permit. So as of right now, if they obtain that permit on December 30th, they would then have to renew that permit on January 1st. So this also coincides with us implementing Tyler EP&L, which is Enterprise Permits and Licensing. So as we go to this new software, one of the limitations of the software is that the permits can only expire based on a number of days. So we're asking for this to be changed so that the permits are good for 365 days. One of the issues this does raise is leap years. The residents are going to lose one day every four years. We'll work with them if we have to on that. But it is a limitation of the system, so therefore it's also fair to the residents to have the permits expire 365 days after it's issued instead of on December 31st every single year.

Yeah, I think that's a good change. You take out a permit, it's good for a year from when you get it, right? Alder Fenton, go ahead.

I was just going to agree with that. It took a long time for state park passes to work that way, so... I think this is a great change for our citizens, especially people who decide they want a fire pit when the weather starts to get cooler. Other comments, questions?

Alder Hartzheim, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I agree. And also, this stops people from saying, oh, it's too late in the year. I just won't get a permit because it'll expire on the 31st of December anyway. This keeps people honest and safe. And also, I think I should buy one on February 29th.

Nice. Okay. Other comments or questions? Not seeing any. We have a motion on this? No, we need a motion on this one. Motion and a second on changes to the fire code relating to pit permits. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? All right. 5-0. That takes us to Director 1.

I am still getting used to this new system as well. We didn't actually have a motion in a second on 261164. Okay. So if we could go back and get that just so it officially is approved.

We will do that. So that is the International Fire Code item 26-1164. Is there a second? I'll say Alder Fenton and Alder Jones. I KNOW I HEARD OTHERS. DO YOU NEED A NEW VOTE THEN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THAT CHANGE TO THE CODE, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? 5-0. No problem. The balance of the agenda is four license applications of different varieties. Alder Fenton?

I would move to approve the balance with the understanding that I think one's going to be separated.

Okay. I think I know which one. All right. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve these. Separate vote on the Performing Arts Center? Okay. We'll take that one up first. 26-1020 is a Class B beer and reserve Class B liquor temporary premises amendment application for the Fox Cities Performing Arts Center. Is there a motion? To approve. Second. Motion and a second to approve that. Any comments? Not seeing any. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? Abstain. Okay, so 302. OK. All right. And then the other three, we have a motion on those already. That's 26-1046, 26-1125, and 26-1126. Any comments or questions on those? Not seeing any. All those in favor of approving those three, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentions? 5-0. OK. That should take care of all the action items. Clerk Molitor, is that correct? OKAY. INFORMATION ITEMS. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF ALCOHOL LICENSE VIOLATION CONVICTIONS. TWO ESTABLISHMENTS FOR DISPENSING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR AND TWO ESTABLISHMENTS FOR NO LICENSED OPERATOR ON THE PREMISES. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO INVITING THOSE TO COME BEFORE US. A LIST OF SPECIAL EVENTS. FALL EVENTS. AND THEN DIRECTOR'S REPORTS. NOTHING FOR CITY CLERK, NOTHING FOR FIRE CHIEF, BUT WE DO HAVE THE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE CHIEF HAS THE COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2026. Do you want to talk about the survey results or just take questions?

I have a few statements. Okay, go ahead. I certainly would welcome any questions. Okay, go ahead. So the 2026 Appleton Police Department Community Survey provides us with an important opportunity to listen, learn, and continue improving the way that we serve our community. The overall message from the survey we felt was encouraging. Appleton residents have a high level of trust in their police department and recognize the professionalism, responsiveness, and community commitment of our officers and employees. Many residents reported feeling safe in Appleton and shared positive experiences with our personnel. Our community engagement efforts, school resource officers, behavioral health officer program, crisis response, and visibility at community events were frequently identified as strengths. At the same time, the survey provides valuable insight into where we can do better. Residents want their police department to remain highly visible and engaged not simply responding to calls for service But being present in neighborhoods downtown schools parks and community events Traffic safety was one of the more consistent concerns particularly speeding reckless driving racing red light violations noise and the use of e-bikes and other devices in pedestrian areas We also heard concerns about consistency. Some residents believe that certain neighborhood issues do not receive adequate follow through, while others expressed concerns about the tone or demeanor of individual interactions with officers. These comments remind us that how we police is every bit as important as what we police. The survey also identified opportunities to improve communication, transparency, records access, non-emergency call routing, and public understanding of our policies and enforcement priorities. Based on the survey, I believe APD should focus on several priorities moving forward. One, increase proactive neighborhood and downtown policing through greater visibility, walking, problem solving, and meaningful engagement with residents and businesses. Two, strengthen traffic and pedestrian safety efforts while clearly communicating our enforcement priorities and responding to community concerns about reckless and disruptive driving. Three, continue expanding behavioral health and crisis response capabilities, building upon the success of our behavioral health officer program and our partnerships with mental health and social service organizations. Four, invest in relationships with young people, including our continued commitment to school resource officers, early intervention, youth programming, and positive police community interactions. Five, there's only seven, so bear with me. Improved communication and transparency, particularly surrounding significant incidences, complaint processes, records requests, and the department's policies and priorities. Six, build stronger partnerships with schools, service providers, shelters, nonprofits, businesses and other community organizations to address issues that cannot be solved by law enforcement alone. And seven, continue investing in our employees. A professional, healthy and well-supported workforce is essential to maintaining the level of service our community expects. I also want to point out that a community survey captures a moment in time, one that allows us to assess where we've been while also helping us chart out a path for the future. We should celebrate the areas where our community tells us we are succeeding, but we must also be willing to examine the areas where residents believe we can improve. Our goal should not be to defend every criticism. Our goal should be to listen, learn and act. The APD is committed to being a department that is visible, responsive, professional, compassionate and accountable. We will use this feedback to help shape our priorities, strengthen our partnerships and ensure that the community's expectations remain at the center of our work. I want to just also express my appreciation for the residents and visitors. It wasn't just residents that took the survey and that they took the time to share both their positive experiences and some of their concerns that this feedback does make us better. Our commitment to the Appleton community is simple. We will continue to earn the trust that has been placed in us when one interaction, one neighborhood, and one day at a time. Thank you.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. AS I REVIEWED THIS, A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION IN HERE, A LOT OF VERY POSITIVE THINGS. LET'S TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS. ALDERHARTS, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHILE IT ALL SEEMS Kind of what we generally hear through the grapevine about APD, I'm concerned about how there's only, there were only like 1,100 people that took this survey. Almost 12. That's about 1.6% of the entire community if we're talking about the population out there. I'm not at all faulting APD for, hey, why didn't you get more people to take this? I just want us to sort of brainstorm ideas on how we can get more participation for this, perhaps having it available on all the library computers immediately the next time that it comes up. Something that can, without excess cost, I mean, I think mailing every single individual in the city QR code to try to get to the survey is craziness. But something to get at least a bigger, broader swath of the community would be really helpful. Again, I think that the general themes that came out of it seem to reflect what I generally hear as an alderman, but I only hear what I hear. So I would like a greater reach for this in the future. And if we can just think of spitball ways of making that happen, that'd be great. Thanks. Chief, any thoughts?

I do. So thank you for your feedback on that. And if the committee does have any suggestions for ways we can try to get more people engaged, we'd be very much welcome to hearing those. What I would like to point out is that this year's survey response was actually the highest response we've received to date. So we've been doing these at least every other year. Sometimes we've actually added a year in there. now that it's become a little bit easier to do it since you can do it all online or digitally via your phone. We did actually add specific outreach opportunities this year. So Lieutenant Nagel headed the efforts. He put the survey together. It was a project that he took on and was excited about. So he and his team, I believe, went to at least two of the Saturday morning farm markets to try to engage people walking by and get them to take the survey. They held like some coffee with a cop sort of events. I know at a Coca and there might have been actually some additional locations. Also had, I think, at least two interactions or scheduled interactions at the library where we did push out on our social media that we would be there and engaging residents and just collecting feedback. We also had it available in multiple languages and tried to Engage some of our non-english speaking folks as well to take the survey It's a challenge as you know We also tried to make it as short as possible to try to you know so that it wasn't like a 10-minute 15-minute ordeal There is at the end of the survey of an opportunity to just provide your thoughts in there those we did use some AI technology to try to filter through the more than 1,000 responses that we had to come up with some of the themes that we were able to digest to help us moving forward. So, yeah, but I would be very much open to hearing some suggestions if there's ways we can make that even better.

Thank you, Chief. I was going to ask you about survey length, because like a lot of us, if it's too long, just stop or don't even start it if it looks like it's going to be too long. And then the other one was... I forgot, sorry. I'll think of it. The one thing that I sometimes hear about from citizens is the routing of calls. Could you just talk about that a little more? After hours, weekends, I know they go to the 911 center, Outagamie County takes those calls. You just touched on that a little bit?

That's a frustration that we do continue to hear. I think it was less of a frustration when we had 24-hour staffing at the front desk, so people knew, and they relied upon getting a person when they called, and I think appreciated that. And when we were forced into a situation, when I say forced, it was nobody's fault, but just the state of budget to start looking at ways that we could cut back on some services, we went away from 24-hour staffing at the front desk. So there are periods of time, so from 10 p.m. to 6 in the morning and weekends, when our calls are not answered by APD personnel, and those automatically get pushed to the Outagamie County Sheriff's Department. And Unfortunately, we have absolutely no ability to control how those calls are handled from that point forward. We have no input in any customer service that people might receive or again, the responsiveness or the time it takes to get a response. We also, though, to try to fill that gap, we've automated some of our features on our website so people can go online and do reporting. If they want to report something that doesn't require an immediate police response, they can. We continue to try to add more things to the website so that people can avoid having to pick up the phone and call unless it really is an emergency to try to make things easier. Overnight parking requests, for example, is another thing where our front desk people believe it or not, took thousands of calls just on that alone. And by pushing that to the website, we really alleviated some of their workload. So we continue to look for ways to do that as well. But we've also explored ourselves implementing some sort of a phone tree and have really shied away from doing that knowing that the vast majority of people really get turned off by having to go through a phone tree to access a person so i think that you know that there are no real intentions to move in that direction anytime soon and we continue to look for ways to actually have a real person answer the phone and provide service when we can okay thank you for addressing that

The other thing I thought of that I forgot about was you touched on it, is the ability for survey takers to do the open-ended comments. I think there might be some valuable information in there as you summarize that. Using AI tools or not, I think what people type in might be pretty helpful feedback. Alder Fenton?

So just building on what Alder Hartzheim said, I shared it myself many times in my newsletter.

Thank you.

But just building upon what Alder Hartzheim said, in terms of... I love the coffee with the cop thing. That was really good. And being at the farm market, what methods, and I know I ask this every year, did you use on the survey to reach out to people who may be underserved or maybe sometimes look at the police department in a different way than the people who see it on social media and say, yeah, I want to go take that survey right now?

I think some of those efforts were, and again, tasking Lieutenant Nagel with trying to make some of those connections continues to be a discussion that we had even after the survey and trying to push it out to some of our service groups intentionally, I think would be something we would do in the future as we reflected on some of the things we could have done better. I do feel like though by being present at the library a couple of different times hopefully allowed people from all walks of life to be able to weigh in and provide feedback on the survey and also by providing the QR codes at really a large number of places for people to access. I'm just going to ask my staff behind me if I'm missing something, because they were involved in it as well and might have something to weigh in on.

Okay. Okay, guys. Need a microphone?

Yeah, multiple languages and... Oh, that's right.

Okay. Yep.

Yeah, thanks for reminding me. So we did do it in four to five languages, but we did push it out to people of progression. We pushed it out to both of the Hmong groups, because I think there's two of them now. And it's my understanding there's also two Latino groups that we pushed it out to specifically.

All right, thank you.

But I think we were looking at expanding that even further to try to find more groups like that that we could help. or get it to so they could help us get it out to people.

Okay. Alder Hartzheim and then Alder Hayden.

Thank you, Chair. It might dramatically change the results, but perhaps a QR code with a ticket?

You mean like a get-out-of-jail-free ticket? Or a ticket?

If you get a parking ticket, you get a QR code with it as well.

I got you. It may change the results.

It would dramatically alter the results, perhaps. But it still is seeing more people.

I thought you were suggesting an incentive to take the survey, like one free parking rip-up over your ticket. Alder Hayden, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. One thing I have to say about the 1% is I think it's actually good. For the work that I'm in, we request people do surveys on their experience all the time, and we would kill to get 1%. And we only have three questions. The only thing I would say that you might find valuable is what we're doing is we're doing safe state as people are going through the survey. And because you know our broad numbers here, I can't tell if you're doing that or not. But the idea is if somebody fills out, you have your demographic data at the top. If they fill out their demographic data and then get through one question, we're capturing that in case they bail after the first question because Even with three questions, we're finding 75% of our people get through one question that actually agree to take the survey, which is less than 1%. And after that, it cascades down after that. So people will be like, I don't want to answer two questions. Three questions. So any way you can capture as much data as possible is great. So kudos on the 1%, I guess, is the highlight.

Yeah, and I'll look into that. I'm not sure how those metrics were, if you had to go all the way to the end for that information to be fully collected, or if it was collected even if you answered two or three.

Yeah. kind of depends on how it's set up if you have to hit submit at the end it sends it as a batch or it collects as you go i like the approach of collecting as you go because you get more data about at least part of your survey um yeah because i'm like a lot of people i'm not going to take a really long survey i'll get halfway through it and stop other other comments or questions Not seeing any. All right. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you. All right.

Next on the agenda is adjournment.

Move to adjourn. Second.

Motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, 5-0. We are adjourned.