In addition to the refer back to the Municipal Services Committee of item 21-0872 regarding banning metal shipping containers and pole buildings as accessory structures, two other items were referred back to the Municipal Services committee during the 07/07/2021 Common Council meeting.
The first was item 21-0863 regarding the Alvin Street reconstruction. The original language of the item read “Alvin Street, from Wisconsin Avenue to Marquette Street, be reconstructed with asphalt pavement and concrete curb & gutter to a width of 31’ from back of curb to back of curb, which is 2’ narrower than the existing street. Existing parking provisions within the project limits will remain unchanged.”
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) wanted to amend it so that instead of stating “Existing parking provisions within the project limits will remain unchanged,” the last sentence would be changed to say that there would be no parking on the street one block from Wisconsin Avenue.
[It sounded like he was wanting to ban parking on Alvin Street between Wisconsin Avenue and Brewster Street. Alvin Street is right next to the Planned Parenthood Clinic and there have been some complaints regarding protesters there, so I’m not sure if this is in some way related to that. At any rate…]
Alderperson William Siebers said that since this street was in his district he was going to refer the item back so they could have a proper discussion about it and he could also have an opportunity to discuss it with his constituents that would be impacted by this proposed change.
The other refer back was for item 21-0873 which would update the Municipal Code Section 4-392 related to electrical work by a home owner.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) had two questions. First, he wanted to know what the impetus for the change in the code was. Secondly, he was particularly interested in the line that read “In the case of installing or replacing service equipment in a single-family dwelling, solar photovoltaic installations” and wanted to know what the reasoning was for calling out solar photovoltaic installations specifically. He could think of small, easily installed personal solar units or wind units that were things a homeowner could probably install themselves, and he wanted to know if this language would prohibit small scale renewable energy installation.
Director Paula Vandehey said that, as far as the impetus behind the change, this was mostly just clarifying the existing language. They had an existing property owner that installed their own service even though according to the existing Municipal Code and state statute they were not allowed to do that and it should have been done by an electrician. When city staff looked at the code, they realized it wasn’t clear that a property owner couldn’t do that electrical work, so they worked with the attorney’s office to really clarify what homeowners could do and what they needed to hire electricians to do.
She said that solar installations could occur, but a property owner couldn’t put their own in and would have to have an electrician do that work. She said they were trying to protect property owners from themselves. There’s quite a bit of work they can do but certain things the city wants them to hire an electrician to do.
Alderperson Schultz said that solar installations can mean anything from a full roof solar installation with backup systems and energy going back into the grid to simply a small-scale backup battery system. He said he has seen relatively quickly installed units that can go up without a lot of work and he was curious if there had been much discussion about the scale of the terminology and what it included. Did the language include everything that falls under the term “solar photovoltaic energy generation” or just something of a certain scale or size?
Director Vandehey did not know the answer, and apologized for that. She said she could either check on that or he could refer it back.
Alderperson Schultz opted to refer the item back to committee, and apologized himself for not having a chance to dig into it earlier. He did want some time to look into small scale versions of renewable energy generation and see if it conflicts with the proposed Municipal Code language.
[I really appreciated that exchange, and I think it demonstrates how valuable it is to have people from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences serving on the Council. It’s always a pleasure watching people who genuinely know what they’re talking about cast a discriminating eye at proposed legal changes and point out concerns and potential unintended consequences. It was kind of the opposite of what happened earlier this year with the insurance agreement the city has with the Appleton Housing Authority. In that case, no one on the Council seemed to have the background necessary to even be able to know what sorts of questions to ask and, as a result, the end vote was not necessarily based on full information and didn’t necessarily serve all the taxpayers of the city well.]
View full Common Council meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=867240&GUID=24258141-DBC7-4247-935C-A5411B4C9045&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply