The VIN (Very Important Notes): Week of July 13 - July 17, 2026

Hi, Neighbors!  Happy middle of the summer to you all!

This week in City of Appleton government will be a big one.  It is a Full Council Meeting Week but there are also several other meetings scheduled this week as well.  Please pay extra attention to the full council meeting agenda information below, though, as that's where the Very Important part of this week comes up for a vote of the full council.  

Here's the rundown:

Monday, 07/13/2026

Appleton Public Arts Committee - Special Meeting - 8am  The last time this committee was to meet, there were not enough members present for a quorum.  So this committee's approval of the "public art appropriateness" of the proposed Peace Pole for Ellen Kort Peace Park was put off until now.  (This was mentioned here, during the week in which the meeting was originally scheduled.)  Since that last scheduled meeting time, another item has come forward for this committee's potential approval.  And it's another item intended for Ellen Kort Peace Park as well.  Sculpture Valley (operated in part by Alderman Alex Schultz) and Creative Downtown Appleton are proposing to install five "wind sculptures" in the park.  These are the same sculptures which stood in front of the City Center Plaza ("downtown mall") before the reconstruction of that plaza into Fox Commons. 

Here is the proposal for placement of these sculptures in the park along the riverfront trail:

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the aesthetics of this, please let this committee know your concerns or let me know and I'll pass your comments on to Alderman Schultz. 

Board of Zoning Appeals - 7pm  This board -- a favorite of mine, as you know -- meets this week after a rather long hiatus.  (The last time they met was in November of 2025!)  There is one request for a variance on the table, this one for an accessory structure (a greenhouse) to be constructed 6 feet from a "front" property line at 72 Garden Court where municipal code prohibits any accessory structures in front yards.  For the first time in a long time, this board will see a variance request for a property which truly qualifies for a variance due to its unique characteristics.  It has triple frontage -- is bordered by a private drive named Hidden Acres Court on two sides and of course Garden Court -- which means that municipal code considers the property to have three "front" yards.  It also sits fourteen feet above Hidden Acres Court with a large retaining wall structure at its "back" property line (which, as mentioned, is technically considered "front yard" by zoning code standards).  I see this one as an easy "yes" vote since it truly is a unique property with very few options in which an accessory structure could be placed.  The staff recommendation in this case is approval of this variance.   

Tuesday, 07/14/2026

Library Board - Appleton Public Library Cornerstone Conference Room - 5pm  There are two new library trustees and one new employee to be introduced to the board at the start of this meeting.  They then move to potential approval of 1) the June bill register, 2) some renewed resource library system contract agreements, 3) the potential closure of the library on August 14th for staff and library trustee strategic planning workshops, and 4) the results of the recent Personnel and Policy Committee requested internal library policies (mentioned here).  The board will also review several administrative updates, staff reports, and review some basic trustee training.  

Wednesday, 07/15/2026

Appleton Redevelopment Authority - 8:30am  This board will not have new action items on which to vote.  They are meeting only to review a presentation by a consultant for this group for what's being called the Appleton Redevelopment Readiness Initiative (ARRI).  You can view the nuts and bolts of this presentation here. 

Municipal Services Committee - Special Meeting - 6:30pm  Since this committee did not meeting last week during Committee Meetings Week, they will hold a short special meeting before the meeting of the full council to potentially approve 1) a pavement marking (paint) maintenance contract which is for the lowest bidder and is within budget and 2) a request for permanent occupancy in the amenity strip on East College Avenue (for tables and chairs for outdoor dining in front of il Bar Coffeehouse and Bistro). They will also discuss a memo regarding a shifting of the public office hours at the city's Municipal Services Building which would begin their day earlier (7:30pm instead of the current 8am) and end their days earlier (3:30pm instead of the current 4:30pm). 

Utilities Committee - Special Meeting - 6:45pm  Even though this committee met last week, they will meet again for this short special session to approve what can only be a "late arrival" action item.  The Department of Public Works (DPW) is asking this committee (and later this same evening, the full council) for approval of a consultancy contract for the future acquisition of some properties for potential flood mitigation projects in the city (presumably on the north side).  I will be asking where these consultancy dollars are coming from since the contract is to be set at "not-to-exceed $221,500" which, I believe, is not including the costs to the city to actually purchase any properties.  This would be just for consultants to manage the appraisal, acquisition (paperwork and such), relocation and related services for the potential acquisition of up to six parcels.  I'm interested to see how this fits into the city's budget.  

City of Appleton Common Council - 7pm  And in the biggest meeting of the week -- perhaps one of the most potentially impactful and important meetings of this council in a long time -- the full council will convene to discuss the following:

• In the Business Presented by the Mayor: There are four -- yes, four -- proclamations for review. 
  
  
• From the Safety and Licensing Committee:  Last week's committee meeting brought forward a recommendation to the full council this week to renew a truancy ordinance in the city for one more school year.  The proposal would be to use the same truancy ordinance language as was just used last year (with an expiration date of 06/30/2026) but with the following start and end dates: September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2027.  I believe that it is important for the council to hear and see at least one more school year's worth of data regarding the effectiveness and use of this new truancy ordinance before we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  What are your thoughts on a one-year renewal of a truancy ordinance in the city? 
  
  
• Also from the Safety and Licensing Committee:  As was mentioned in the alderman blog post for the last meeting of this committee in June, there is a resolution on the table for a new city policy regarding accountability standards and public oversight measures for Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) and other surveillance technology in the city.  Please re-read the blog post in this regard for more of my thoughts on ALPR technology in the city.  This resolution came out of this committee with a recommendation to approve it, meaning that the city would not be asked to ban all ALPR and other surveillance technologies altogether but it would be asked to develop and work through the logistics of some oversight for such technologies.  This is a good step for the city to take: don't rule out the benefits to public safety, but at the same time, make sure that said systems are properly and regularly reviewed by the common council to help protect the public.  I am in favor of this measure.  But I'd like to hear your thoughts.
  
  In another action item on this same subject, there is a memo from the mayor up for approval.  It states that the city requests that the council approve that no further payments will be issued to Flock Group, Inc. pursuant to the now terminated service of their ALPR system within the city.  The city's contract with Flock is paid until the end of this calendar year.  However, since the mayor made the executive decision to terminate the contract early due to the security concerns of the Flock network, the council is now being asked to affirm the end of their use in the city.  I concur with this only due to the security concerns of the Flock brand, despite my general support for the crime-fighting capabilities of secure ALPR networks.  
  
  
• From the Community Development Committee (and in Consolidated Action Items/Items Held):  And this is the important part, Neighbors...  on the table are a few items all related to the Thrivent property on the north side of the city.  In no particular order, all of the following related items are up for approval:

1)  The proposed development agreement between the city and Thrivent.  This agreement calls out specifically the creation of a Tax Incremental District (TID) in a large portion of the Thrivent property.  It also calls out the city issuing bonds in the amount of $11M to fund a portion of the core infrastructure of the Thrivent proposed development.  This would normally be a cost borne directly by a developer and, in my mind, should still be a direct cost to the developer rather than the city issuing debt to fund it.  In fact, another part of the agreement states that Thrivent will issue an $11M letter of credit "to protect the city."  Why should this at all be needed?  If Thrivent has the basis for offering this letter, then they have the cash or the borrowing ability to make this development happen without taxpayer assistance. 

The agreement also calls out the city providing financing to Thrivent in the amount of $16M at 6% interest.  This, too, should not be needed by Thrivent to develop this property as they have the assets in hand to properly fund the development.  Also included in this agreement are some other provisions as listed below. 

Per the memo regarding this agreement, the conservative estimates are that this development will create "more than $200M in new incremental value by 2033."  However, the city and all other taxing entities will not be able to tap into those increased property values until the expiration of the TID.... a mere 20 years from now in 2047! 

2) A second amendment to a reimbursement agreement between the city and Thrivent.  Thrivent would agree to add $395.500 to an escrow fund with the city.  In exchange, the city would look to purchase right-of-way lands from the WisDOT for intersection improvements at the corner of Evergreen Drive and Ballard Road to accommodate the projected increased traffic flow at this intersection when Evergreen Drive eventually is extended into the Thrivent property.  I am not opposed to this item on its face.  However, I am greatly concerned that the approval of this step would make it more difficult for some council members to perhaps reconsider this entire development package which of course requires the creation of this TID and the TIF (financing) which puts the taxpayers of this city in the position of offering, in essence, corporate welfare to this successful and affluent non-profit organization called Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.  This action item itself is not one that puts the taxpayers at a disadvantage with this development.  But it is one which could unjustly sway council members into allowing for the TID because "we already said 'yes' to other items in the agreement." 

3) An option to purchase agreement that would allow the city to purchase up to 3.5 acres of land near the corner of Meade Street and the future Evergreen Drive.  This seems like a great opportunity for the city.  However, it is completely predicated on and reliant upon the council also fully approving the development agreement mentioned above and the TID/TIF (as was mentioned in past alderman blog posts here and here). Thrivent isn't offering this out of the goodness of their hearts.  They are laying a carrot out there for council members to nibble on in the hopes that the entire development agreement and the TID get approved by the council.  Similar to the previous item, I find this item being contingent upon a TID (and vice versa) very conflicting... like a "buying" of votes for the TID.  There would be no way to approve this item and not approve a TID/TIF.  So how could I see it any other way? 

4) Establishing the boundaries of and approving the project plan/creation of a new TID (so-called TID #14) in the city for a large portion of the Thrivent property.  This is the item that came up for council approval a few weeks ago but was held until the council could also review the proposed development agreement to go along with a new TID creation.  Because this is such a big deal, I will reiterate here what I wrote when this first came up for potential council approval:

"The city is proposing to create a Tax Increment District (TID) #14 that encapsulates the majority of the Thrivent property on the north side of Appleton, about 500 acres.  The purported purpose of the TID is to "pay the costs of public infrastructure improvements and/or development incentives as determined by the city." 

Many of you may not know about what TIDs are or how they work.  Here is a video specific to Wisconsin giving a primer on how Tax Increment Financing (TIF) works.  But I find this video, not specific to Wisconsin but still regarding TID financing which explains some of the major concerns and issues that arise from TID finding, to be more helpful in understanding TIF.

An important line in the latter video is "... the general property taxpayers are subsidizing the development costs of the properties located in the TID."  This is corroborated in this article which gives proof of increased property taxes for the general population while a TID exists.

A TID also requires sacrifices that the school district, the county government, and the technical college make because they cannot benefit from the increased value of the properties in a TID until the TID expires.  In this case, we are looking at 20 years during which there will be no tax benefit to these taxing entities despite the increased property development and tax base value for them on this land.  Keep in mind that the current property owner is a tax-exempt organization.  It is my understanding that they do pay a Payment in Lieu of Property Taxes (PILOT) to the taxing entities here; but that amount could not be anything near the added taxes to be collected on the properties being developed and homes/businesses being built on this land during the next 20 years!  Why should these other taxing entities have to sacrifice what would be increased tax revenue for the next 20 years while the usage of the services provided by these entities increases with the new homes and businesses being developed on this land?

For example, imagine that in the next 10 years, 100 homes are built on this land and 100 families with children move into these homes.  The additional influx of children into the school district will no doubt mean that the price of education in the school district is increased.  But with a TIF here, the school district would have to wait another 10 years to realize the added tax base/tax dollars that this development would bring.  It just doesn't make sense for the greater good of the city, especially when the property owner is a multi-billion-dollar Fortune 500 company.     

It's also important to remember that all Wisconsin TIDs and TIF must pass a "but for" test which generally means that it must be proven that a development would not occur but for the use of TIF.  I cannot imagine justifying this particular project under this test.  Thrivent is a huge and wealthy non-profit organization who own this property on Appleton's north side outright.  It is impossible for me to believe that there are no other ways besides public/taxpayer funding for the development of this land to occur.

I understand fully that some will say that "it's more complicated than that."  However, I believe it to be just this simple: that the city should not have to subsidize the development of this land for development of it to occur.  The free market and a wealthy non-profit property owner can make development of this land happen without the use of TIF.  Maybe the development would take a bit of a different route than the current owner wishes, maybe it will look different than the current plans that the property owner envisions, and/or maybe it will take a bit more time to move forward or be completed.  But should this property owner truly desire to make this project occur, it no doubt will without TIF. 

TIF should only be used to encourage growth that would otherwise not happen.  And I find it impossible to believe that a multi-Billion-(that's 1,000 million)-dollar financial organization couldn't otherwise make this development happen or sell portions of the property to private developers who could otherwise make the project happen.  Some have said that without this TID and TIF, the development of this land would happen "in piecemeal fashion" and that end result would be less desirable for the community.  I reject that notion as the rest of the north side of Appleton has been developing through the hard work and investment of individual developers for decades.  And those of us who live in District 13 know full well that this has not been detrimental to the overall prosperity of the city or made our neighborhoods any less desirable than had those same developers been given TIF to promote the development here in one fell swoop.  There is nothing to stop the current property owner from selling the land in parcels and requiring the buyers to follow certain pre-determined desires of the property owner.  Private developers willing and able to purchase and develop the land would surely be interested in developing portions of this property using some of the basic plan elements that the current owner has set in their current plans if the end profit is there.  

Which brings up another point that was touched upon at the recent meeting of the Outagamie County Joint Review Board (JRB), an entity made up of appointees from all of the taxing jurisdictions of the proposed new TID whose job it is to ultimately determine if this TID/TIF should be approved.  Tony Saucerman (a former City of Appleton Finance Director and member of the JRB) asked why this property owner (who wishes to be their own developer) should be treated any differently than any other developer who chooses to develop land in the city.  And that point is an important one.  This TIF would, I believe, unfairly benefit only this property owner/developer and not equally be available to benefit the free market of all developers ready, willing, and able to develop lands on the north side of the city.  When you think about that, it's even more disturbing that a large corporate entity such as the owner of this property should be given preferential treatment by the government for the creation of this TID and use of TIF for this property.  Small independent developers suffer from being unable to wield a big stick in negotiations with the city for what one could easily see as "corporate welfare." 

For all these reasons and more, I am greatly concerned about this TID creation and will be voting against it this week.  In so many ways, it is not good and right for the city or for you, the property taxpayers in the city.  I know you don't all agree with me.  So please share whatever possible logical arguments you have in favor of this corporate welfare.  I look forward to hearing from you."

I have recently heard many people who are excited about the increase in the home inventory in the city praise the Thrivent development process and the TID/TIF... as if the only way to make development happen on this Thrivent land is with a TID/TIF.  But they fail to take into account that this development can absolutely happen without a TID/TIF.  It is not necessary for the taxpayers of the city (and other taxing entities as noted above) to suffer through 20 years of a TID for this property to be developed and homes to be built.  I'm excited for development to add to the home values in this city as well.  But I know that taxpayer assistance is not needed to get there.    

I encourage you to attend this week's council meeting (6th floor of City Hall) at 7pm on Wednesday to share your thoughts on this with the entire council!

As you can see, this week is a big one in your city government.  I would love to hear from you your thoughts on all or any of the items above.  Please share your feedback with me.

I hope that you are able to stay safe and cool through this next round of heatwave headed our way.  Have a good week... and I hope to see you at the council meeting on Wednesday!