The Notes: Week of October 18 - October 22, 2021

Here we are, Neighbors, in a mid-October Full Council Week in Appleton.  Wednesday's council meeting could well be the least exciting thing to happen in city government this week, though!  See below for more information (in order by scheduled meeting time).

Redistricting Committee - Monday, 10/18/2021, 3:45pm - Despite what you might have seen at or heard about last week's meeting when this committee voted to proceed with Option D, the work of this committee is still not done!  I don't know if it weighed upon any of the committee members, but there were a number of aldermen who would/will be displaced with Option D.  But for whatever reasons, the City Clerk and staff sensed that the committee wanted to further explore other options even after voting to approve and move forward with Option D.  So, two additional options were created in the limited time remaining and the committee will hash them over on Monday and make what we have to assume will truly be "the final option."  The actual final-final option will be voted on by the full council on Wednesday. Below are Option D as was just approved last week and new Options E and F.  District 13 is not changed between the three options; but the central and southern portions of the city are decidedly different in each of the three.  It's important to note, too, that the population deviation (explained further here) is lower in Options E and F than in the approved Option D but that the deviation in all three options is lower than the prescribed 10%.  

Let me know what you think is the best option based on the three "golden rules" of redistricting: 

• Compactness: Districts should be reasonably geographically compact.  The rulebook says "you know it when you see it" though, in some parts of the city, particularly on the north side where we live, this is more difficult due to "island territories" made as the city has acquired more territory. 
  
  
• Contiguity: Areas within a district should be physically adjacent to one another.  Again, there are some challenges with the growing areas of Appleton... but this should be an overall goal for each district.
  
  
• Ideal Population: The Ideal Population for a district in Appleton (assuming the current 15-district plan for the city) is 4,967 people (with a +/- deviation across all districts of 10% or less).

Board of Zoning Appeals - Monday, 10/18/2021, 7pm - This committee will hear three appeals for zoning variances.  Two of these are for residential properties not in District 13 and one is for a commercial property in our district.  It's important to keep in mind that the purpose of this board is to only grant variances if there is a definite hardship involved with the size/shape/location of the property and no good alternatives exist that will allow the property owner to proceed with their proposed construction without a variance.  Also, variances granted by this board follow the property into perpetuity, no matter how many times ownership of the property changes.  With that, let's see what the board comes up with on these three appeals:

• 66 Garden Court: The property owner lives on a cul-de-sac and would like to construct a detached garage.  Per municipal code, detached garages in the city must not be closer to the front of the property than the primary structure on the lot.  (You can imagine why that rule is in place... otherwise neighborhoods could potentially look like bunches of lots with detached structures in front lawns and homes behind them.)  There is an alternative to this homeowner's plans which would comply with the ordinances; but he doesn't want that option.  It's a tricky situation as the primary structure (home) is L-shaped and the proposed placement of the detached garage seems to visually work, despite not complying with code.  But since there's an alternative... where is the hardship?  
  
  
• 1600 S Clara Street:  These property owners want to put a gazebo on their property for shade.  However, a gazebo addition will put this property in an "excess impervious material" situation.  The code for this property calls for 40% or less of the lot to be covered in "impervious material."  (Again, you can imagine why a rule like this exists... otherwise residential areas could be parking-lot-like with no natural landscaping for rainwater absorption, etc.) The gazebo the property owners would like to build would make 56% of their lot covered by impervious material.  However, it is noted by city staff that this particular lot is smaller than the minimum size of lot for that zoning district (and thus, the 40% coverage limit).  As such, there is technically a bit of a hardship.  If this were to be granted by the board of appeals, I think it would behoove them to set the maximum allowed impervious material coverage for this property moving forward so that no additional hardscapes are erected here.     
  
  
• 2105 Enterprise Drive (in District 13): This is a difficult one for me.  I see both the applicant's/owner's position and the position of the city.  A code-compliant sign for the zoning of this property is a maximum of 200 square feet.  The applicant wants to erect a sign that's 694 square feet.  That's.... quite a bit larger than what's allowed.  I worry that a sign this large will change the character of the neighborhoods in the district.  I look to you, neighbors, for your thoughts.   The applicant has a concern about the uniqueness of the lot -- that it's situated near the on- and off- ramps for Highway 41 and, as such, signage for the property at the 200 square foot minimum size is difficult to see.  City staff does not think that this qualifies as a hardship.  But we have yet to hear the case and hear how the board members feel in this regard.  Take a look at the proposal.  Please note that the smaller proposed sign to the left is what the applicant is requesting (not the larger example to the right).
  
  
  

Library Board - Tuesday, 10/19/2021, 4:30pm - The board will look to approve the bills and budget reporting for the month of September and a 2022 contract for the Appleton Library to continue to be a resource library in the Outagamie Waupaca Library System (OWLS).  There will be a library project update (which specifically states that the city and the architects are trying to address the parking issue that has come up through initial designs and feedback sessions) and a review of the 2022 library budget (including an accompanying memo from Library Director Colleen Rortvedt).  

Full Common Council - Wednesday, 10/20/2021, 7pm - In a crazy turn of events, there are no mayoral proclamations on the agenda for this week's full council meeting.  We will hear the Health Department's COVID-19 report and then move on to the items which came out of committee meetings last week (and earlier in the week - see above!).  On the high level, there are not too many items of contention... but the redistricting map which will be "final-final" on Monday may be pulled aside for discussion and, undoubtedly, the mayor's proposal for the city's first use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars will come up for debate separately.  

I mentioned the mayor's proposal in last week's post.  The Finance Committee took this into discussion this past week, and, despite pleas to use a large portion of the ARPA funds for the Second Raw Water Line for the city, the committee voted to approve the mayor's plan exactly as he presented it.     

The problem some on the committee (and some other council members who attended the meeting) had was that the city's raw water line is utilized by not only Appleton citizens but also by citizens of other municipalities (for which they pay water utility bill just like you and me as Appletonians).  The dissenters claim was that it would be "unfair" for Appleton to "foot the bill alone" and not have the other municipalities take on the cost of this venture as well.  However, as I understand it, this claim is unfounded as the nearly $10M in construction costs for the second raw water line has been budgeted in the Appleton city budget and will be taken on by Appleton alone.  No other municipalities' citizens would have been asked to pay for this project in the first place.  The only added cost that the other municipalities' would bear would be any cost that the city of Appleton would take on to finance (i.e. borrow for) this project.  And since ARPA funds would eliminate the need for the city to finance this project, no one would be paying any more than the rates as they are established now.  If the City of Appleton is to finance this project in the future (instead of using ARPA funds), the costs of financing would be borne equally by all users of the water utility -- Appleton citizens as well as those of surrounding municipalities.  So, as far as I see it, the argument against this use of APRA funds bears rehashing in full council!  I want no one -- not Appleton citizens nor anyone in surrounding communities -- to bear any cost of financing this project when it can be done without debt and, in the process, save Appleton approximately $2M in debt servicing.  As Mayor Hanna used to say: "Appleton succeeds when our neighbors succeed" (or something to that effect).  

I have a call into the Director of Utilities, Chris Shaw, to speak with him to confirm what I believe as stated above.  I hope to speak with him Monday or early Tuesday so that I can make my argument clear to the full council on Wednesday.  Whatever is decided upon needs 2/3 vote of the council in attendance to pass.  Convincing other council members to see the importance of using ARPA funds for this and for the other couple of items I mentioned in my last blog post will be my aim for this week.  This should be fun...! 

I look to you for your feedback and ideas on this as well.  Please contact me with your thoughts.

I hope to see you back here in a week for more city government happenings.  Have a fabulous week!