The Notes: Week of September 29 - October 3, 2025

Hello, Neighbors!  Thanks for tuning in again this week.  Sorry about the slight delay in this week’s post as I was traveling over the weekend to see my daughter who's at college in Florida.    

This week we are in a Full Council Meeting Week and the only other potential meeting for the week (a previously scheduled Appleton Public Arts Committee meeting) has been cancelled.  So “all” we have to talk about are the items on the Wednesday meeting of the full council.  You’ll see soon why the “all” is in quotes!  But don't worry.  This post is not too long. :)

Wednesday, 10/01/2025

City of Appleton Common Council - 7pm  As usual, the mayor gets us started with proclamations — four of them — and this week, he also has City Star Awards to present.  Then we get to items from last week’s (and other weeks before that!) committee meetings to discuss and potentially approve.  Here are the items most likely to get extra attention:

• From the Municipal Services Committee:  There was some homeowner pushback on yet another future street reconstruction plan in the city.  This time, there were neighbors from 6th Street near Memorial Drive who have concerns over the plan to change the intersections near there and add 10-foot side paths (wider sidewalks) to a block or two around that intersection (not the whole length of their streets).  The aim here is to better accommodate pedestrians and other modes of transportation (bikes, mostly).  The intersections near there (including with the angled Badger Avenue) are tricky and the plan in front of the council is, I believe, the best possible alternative for that whole area.  I understand and appreciate the concerns of the neighbors who live along this route. However, as we all know, we cannot please all of the people all of the time… and this is an example.  We just have to choose to do the best that we can do for the city overall.  As such, I am inclined to vote to approve the plan as presented by the city’s engineers. 
  
  
• From the Safety and Licensing Committee:  Not first on the list from this committee (but sure to garner some discussion) is a request to approve a Class "B" Beer license for a sports card shop in the city despite an initial recommendation from city staff to deny it.  The denial advisement was based on state statute which precludes certain types of businesses from procuring a liquor license of this kind based on the type of business that the establishment operates (not a tavern).  In the end, the committee (your alderman included) came to the understanding that this business would not be statutorily excluded as how its run seems to qualify it as a "recreation premises" and/or a "novelty store" both of which are not defined in detail in the state statute but are non-tavern business types allowed to hold this kind of liquor license.  I suspect that this will be approved by the full council.  But it may require some further discussion before all council members understand and are comfortable with it.  
  
  
• Also from the Safety and Licensing Committee:  The Mad Elephant (former Taste of Thai ownership) applied for licensure for two gaming machines ("amusement devices") and this committee voted to recommend a denial of the license.  According to a recommendation for denial by the Appleton Police Department (APD), the games are considered illegal gambling machines in Wisconsin.  The applicant hired an attorney who showed up at the committee meeting last week and argued the legality of the APD recommendation, though.  I suspect that he will be present again this week at the full council meeting so I would not be surprised to hear much more discussion on this one! 
  
  
• ALSO from the Safety and Licensing Committee:  And this one is bound to garner the most discussion: A resolution calling for a reinstatement of a truancy ordinance in the City of Appleton is up for final approval after months and months of discussion and committee holds.  The initial resolution was amended numerous times and now reads like this.  You can see (if you read the text found in the link) that the resolution aims to limit the number of state-statute-allowed court "dispensations."  The state statute offers courts/judges numerous options as "penalties" for a truant student.  With this resolution as it stands now, the City would look to limit the court's ability to asses some of the more egregious ones.  Despite this limiting, the ordinance should still have some "teeth" to allow the courts to impose some penalties on those students who are not at all communicating with the schools/district and just not showing up for school. 
  
  The resolution also calls for a limited term for this ordinance to be in place (what amounts to two school years).  This is to allow the schools to "prove" to citizens and council members that the ordinance is working as intended -- only to get the attention of the students who are not coming to school and ignoring all efforts on the part of the school/district to work with them to get them some -- any! -- high school education and not to punish those who are making efforts and attempting to remain in contact with the school/district.  
  
  Many have argued that a truancy ordinance is only the "stick" and not the "carrot" in attempting to work with children with truancy/absence issues.  But in my mind, the "carrot" already takes the form of all of the other avenues the school/district are now offering to kids who are missing too much (or not at all attending) school.  If -- and only if -- the "carrots" don't work, the school/district can, when this resolution is passed and the ordinance is added to the city's municipal code, use this truancy ordinance to try to get somewhere with those non-communicating kids.  In theory, this last tool in the toolbox will get a student's attention and therefore get him/her to be in contact with the school to help to get him/her back to some sort of schooling before adulthood at 18 years old. 
  
  I believe that we are at the point of instituting this in its best possible form.  It is not excessively harsh to a truant student.  It will be used by the school/district only when absolutely necessary and not before.  And it is worth the try to get the attention of even one or two of the small number (roughly 30, per the school district) of students who are going without an education and thus setting themselves up for a much more difficult future.  I believe we must give this a shot and be very thorough about reviewing the results in this trial period.  We can then determine where to go from there.  But we must give it a shot for the sake of those kids who need us adults the most.
  
  If you've not already shared with me... what are your thoughts on this?  
  

As I mentioned above, this is not a long post.  But as you can see, above are some critical (and thought-provoking and difficult) issues in front of your common council.  I am interested in your feedback on any of the above items and anything else city-government-related.  Please share your ideas and thoughts with me!  

I hope you have a great early fall (which seems more like a continuation of summer... and I'm here for it!).  I look forward to continuing to work with you as your alderman.  Thanks for your patience awaiting a blog post this week! :)