The Safety and Licensing Committee met 09/08/2021. The main item on the agenda was Resolution 14-R-21 regarding excessive vehicle noise. Although they decided fairly early on that they wanted to refer the item to staff for more research and work, they still spent most of the committee meeting discussing this resolution.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) was the main writer of the resolution, but he was running a few minutes late so Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) the chairperson of the committee asked if any of the other resolution co-sponsors who were present wanted to speak about it.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) was not an author but he was a cosponsor. He said that he realized this resolution was not going to solve the noise problem for them, but it was a problem that the police and the alderpersons get a lot of calls and emails about. He thought the resolution was trying to bring awareness to the issue and align city ordinances with state statutes. He didn’t know what the solution to excessive vehicle noise was. He’s had good conversations with members of the Police Department and also reached out to Public Works about what they could do differently to address this. “I don’t think we’re ever gonna solve it with just one resolution, but my hope is, you know, a little bit awareness maybe gets in to front of people’s minds. Maybe they kind of consider their own actions and own decisions a little bit more. And maybe we get a little peace of mind that way.” He thought this resolution was one very small thing that they could do to try to bring a little more attention to the issue. [The idea that the sort of people who modify their vehicles to be louder (a) follow local politics and (b) would be moved by a resolution to “consider their own actions and own decisions a little bit more”, seems a little implausible to me.]
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked Captain Freeman from the Police Department if he wanted to speak.
Captain Freeman said he was happy to answer any questions about Chief Thomas’ memo, but he didn’t have anything to add to the memo. He thought that Chief Thomas had been clear that he sees this resolution as being duplicative of already enforceable state statutes. Captain Freeman did not think the city would be able to enforce its way out of traffic noise downtown. If the resolution got discussion going about the larger issue of traffic downtown, perhaps it would be useful.
There were some members of the public who had come to speak on the resolution, but before Alderperson Van Zeeland allowed them to speak, she asked Attorney Glad if he could clarify exactly what this resolution would do from a legal standpoint.
Attorney Glad said that, it would include two new definitions to city code but that would not necessarily add enforcement. The “Be It Further Resolved” section stated that intents to disrupt the peace would be “enforced consistent with the policies and penalties defined under Sec. 12-76.” However, 12-76 was not a section about enforcement, rather it was the section about definitions. “So, as it is, I think [the resolution] would add two definitions to our code, not necessarily add any enforcement to them as is. But I think in the Chief’s memo, I think he pointed out that it would ‘be enforceable under prohibited acts 12-81’. He put that note in his memo. So, as it is, it adds two definitions to our code.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked if Alderperson Schultz (who had by that time arrived) had anything he wanted to add)
Alderperson Schultz said he probably did not get the right reference for enforcement so he would make a motion to amend that to So, fix that issue. In general, the consensus seemed to be that the resolution didn’t add anything new and that staff has been dealing with noise from loud vehicles and vehicle operators for decades. He saw things differently and thought that over the last year or two they had started seeing vehicles being modified that were not classic cars or Harley Davidsons but, rather, common, ordinary vehicles with no classic merit. He said, they “are being modified specifically to create excessive and very excessive noises with the sole purpose of disrupting the peace. There is no other–there is no other reason that these vehicles are being modified except for that purpose. And so, for me having conversation about some new definitions to codify that behavior and those recent vehicle modifications that are coming out of Covid probably makes sense.
He thought solving the problem came down to enforcement and it always would, so it was proper to have a conversation about how they go about doing that. Should they change anything? Chief Thomas seemed to think that the language currently in the noise ordinance covered this issue, but Alderperson Schultz thought that there were new behaviors and modifications happening in the community that haven’t been seen until recently. Anecdotally, he said the number of noise citations has doubled from what it was last year. So, he introduced the resolution to have a conversation and figure out what the city could do.
He suggested referring the resolution to staff for a longer conversation about what enforcement meant. The current fines for the noise ordinance are already rather hefty, but they are ordinance violations, not traffic violations. Perhaps they should make these become a traffic violation instead which could result in demerit points off of drivers’ licenses.
Although Alderperson Schultz did make a motion to refer the resolution to staff, he still wanted to hear from other people before that motion was voted on.
Two members of the public appeared to speak.
John lives downtown. He said he had lived in inner cities all of his life in middled-sized, big, and small towns across three different countries and four different states within the United States. “I’ve never experienced noise terror as I experience it in Appleton.” He said he had pursued the issue with both the Police Department and the Post Crescent and was dissatisfied with how the issue was being handled. He was having a hard time understanding the difficulty in enforcement in a law that is so clear. Appleton’s municipal code identifies noise as a serious hazard to the public’s health, safety, and quality of life which again made it difficult to understand why enforcement was such a problem when it was spelled out so clearly in the law. He wanted to emphasize the health hazard of this so, out of the many studies on the issue, he picked one from the American Journal of Epidemiology which he said was a 7-year study that concluded that people who are subject to noise of 70 decibels or more have a 26% higher increase in the probability of dying from coronary heart disease. He asked the city to find some way to put some teeth into the resolution and have the courage to enforce it. He referenced the Appleton Police Department’s motto and said that he was not seeing integrity, courage, and compassion regarding noise enforcement. “The compassion part is putting yourself in my shoes living near a busy street in Appleton.” He added that he lives near a busy street because he likes to walk to places and enjoys the activity. He understands what normal street noise is and he also understands noise that is absolutely ridiculous. He said there were racing stripes up and down College Avenue, and he wanted some teeth added to deal with the problem.
David Oliver, the owner of Mondo Wine Bar in downtown Appleton also spoke. He agreed with John. He said he had lived in many other parts of the country, including New York and Chicago, and travelled a great deal abroad. “Never have I heard the kind of noise in those places that we hear on a daily basis on College Avenue”. He has made complaints multiple times to the police and has had some nice conversations with staff members there. He understood that there are a lot of things that go on in Appleton that require the police’s attention. However, he agreed with the people who had already said that the only way to deal with this was via enforcement. He thought the current resolution did possibly duplicate other things, so he didn’t know how important it was, but he stressed that the city needed to do everything it could to enforce the current laws in order to bring the noise level down. He mentioned that a woman who runs the Copper Leaf front desk told him that they get complaints weekly about the noise on College Avenue. He wasn’t sure whether the city was contemplating the economic impact of the noise. Businesses are suffering. Additionally, there are new residents and apartment complexes downtown and some higher end apartments and condos currently being built. He thought things would get much worse without enforcement and that the city had the opportunity to nip it in the bud.
He concluded by saying, “I think that Alder Schultz pointed out that the last two years has made it worse because of Covid. I think a lot of people were bored trying to figure out what they could do to make their lives more interesting. The thing is, we all have a duty to be citizens and to be polite to each other. Now these people who are out on college avenue who have no interest in being polite to me, to you, or to anybody else. Their whole purpose is to be as loud and annoying as possible. and I have tables that I put outside. The people who sit at those tables don’t necessarily have the most enjoyable time they could have because the noise is just—if you haven’t sat outside and tried to enjoy a meal or a glass of wine on College Avenue, I encourage you to do that. See what it’s like because if you don’t spend a lot of time on the Avenue like I do, you may not have a full picture of what it’s like. “
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that the motion right then was to refer the item to staff and that she would like to make sure that they included the acting Health Officer in the discussion because she did agree that it was a health-related issue as well.
Alderperson Michael Smith (District 4) concurred with what John and David had said. With all the spectacular things the police officers do, the hardest thing and the biggest wart that he saw was responding to complaints which did not happen as quickly or as often as he would like to see. He apologized if he saw that wrong. He wasn’t sure what the resolution was going to do. He agreed that if they could step up enforcement that would take care of the problem. He thought the problem was not just on College Avenue but also in neighborhoods. He thought it was an enforcement issue that needed to be given priority. He knew how hard the police officers work, but this was one area where complaints are driven by citizens and the response just seems lacking. He wasn’t sure what the resolution would do if there was not buy-in from the police department to step up and do the enforcement of the ordinance.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) said she was happy to put her name on the resolution even though she agrees the resolution is redundant. “I am someone who has owned multiple cars with performance exhaust. I enjoy the rev of an engine. I do not do it downtown Appleton.” She and Chief Thomas had a great conversation about the squealing tires on a pinto when he was a kid. Those were great memories, but her issue was that the noise was not coming from 16- or 17-year-olds. They were coming from adults. She loved the revving and cracking but it was not appropriate to do it downtown. It was a respect issue and they could not legislate away disrespectful behavior. “I want something to pass that addresses noise. My bigger issue is in the long term. We as a city need our businesses on College Avenue to be successful. We need to be able to sit outside on these wonderful beautification strips and enjoy a cocktail and a burger without having to pause every 30 seconds for a vehicle going by. We have to be able to do that. All of these high-end residents, we need them living downtown.”
She agreed that downtown Appleton had more noise than Chicago. She herself lives downtown. She was not expecting the noise of the farm she grew up on or the peaceful quiet of a cul de sac or a lake. She lives downtown because she wants the energy of downtown and enjoys the reality of what the day-to-ay looks likes. But they have got to figure out a long-term plan. She wasn’t sure what the sort term solution was and was aware that the city doesn’t have enough dollars to do all the stuff they want. At the same time, many of the alderpersons were starting to say out loud, “This is a big complaint and we gotta do something. I think we have a long-term issue with College Avenue. I think we have to start looking in the future as to how we’re going to deal with it and how we’re gonna end cars around as a lot of other communities have had to do—from a safety standpoint, from a sound standpoint, and just from a flow standpoint. I will support this resolution knowing that we’re not actually getting anything accomplished, but if we don’t do something or start the conversation then we’re not doing our jobs. So, I will be supporting it even though I think it’s redundant. I think that the officers are doing their very best. We’ve gotta start this conversation. This is the beginning and I think that we need to continue to figure out a plan.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) said she respected that Alderperson Schultz understood that this wasn’t the full solution and she agreed with him that they should refer the item to staff for further investigation. She was interested to see what would come of that.
Alderperson Schultz said this resolution had been on his desk for the last 6 months and he’s had conversations with a number of staff about the fact that it was redundant and that the current noise ordinance already captures anyone who violates the public peace. He had been talked out of introducing it several times, but he kept coming back to the fact that he felt there was something that had changed. This was no longer about muscle cars. Rather, he had witnessed vehicles with no redeeming value being modified to create noise so he introduced this resolution to respond to that adaptive behavior. While noise is covered, there are some modifications and behaviors that are not written into the city code.
He would love to have a discussion on how they respond to that. Perhaps this resolution was not the right way, but he thought it some way they should codify new behaviors and noises into the city code. He recognized that enforcement of this was always going to have issues because it wasn’t like a stationary night club. These vehicles make a racket and then are gone, so it will require some public vigilance to try to identify individuals if the police are not present. He encouraged people to spend a night on College Avenue and witness the disruption then think about how the issue could be addressed.
Alderperson Smith asked if the noise was more of an evening issue or an all-day issue.
Alderperson Alfheim lived two blocks off College Avenue. The day before the committee meeting, she spent an hour and a half sitting on a park bench right outside the main drag on College Avenue and spent a lovely hour and a half reading on her phone. However, if she had tried that at 7PM it would have been impossible. She said there was a tremendous different between day and night. The noise is really bad in the evenings, especially on Fridays and Saturdays.
Alderperson Smith said he knows we run a fairly bare bones police department and if they want to get this under control the Council will, at some point, have to look at putting some dollars toward extra staffing or equipment that would allow the police department to do their job. If this was more of an evening/nighttime issue he thought they already had a lot more officers Downtown so maybe it wouldn’t be as critical.
Captain Freeman said that they do offer an overtime signup which is not what it used to be. There has been a priority and shift in their workforce, which they knew for years was coming. When officers are working 10- and 12-hour days, the interest in overtime simply isn’t there anymore. So, those overtime shifts frequently go unfilled, and it’s not uncommon for them to post 4 positions for an officer to walk from 10PM to 3AM and only get one response. They do supplement that with patrol officers, but they’re responsible for calls all over the city, and often times the downtown district takes an inordinate amount of police presence all weekend long. He said there are some neighborhoods that will not see a police car after 5pm Friday until 10am Monday.
He asked if he could address the enforcement complaints. He said that between 8pm and 2am Friday Saturday and Sunday of the past weekend, they made 48 stops and issued 39 tickets and 32 warnings. “We know what we’re looking for and frankly I’m disheartened to hear some of the comments. We—enforcement is not the only tool. What Alderperson Alfheim was suggesting I think is what needs to be fast tracked. Is 4 lanes of heavy traffic through College Avenue appropriate with all the changes that have come Downtown?” He thought they would need to get the business community to buy in to result in momentum for that sort of change.
He said the police department has been dealing with things. A gentleman has been providing license plate numbers and the district commander has been calling the owners of those cars, talking to parents and letting them know that Appleton is cracking down on noise and asking them or their child to please get their muffler fixed or stay out of Appleton’s downtown. That had been going on for a few weeks. He stressed that enforcement happens. A lot of the 39 tickets and 32 warnings they issued were for noise issues, although some would have been for speeding and drunk driving. He thought Alderperson Smith hit the nail on the head. Where does Appleton want to put its public safety dollars?
He encouraged people to come on a ride-along with an officer and thought they would be surprised to see what a 10- or 12-hour shift entails and how long a simple welfare check can take, not only to investigate but to make contact with people and then to document it. When the police write a ticket, the person drives away and then could be back the next night. The police are not impounding cars or cutting out exhaust systems. Sometimes they can mandate fixes by giving a person a fixit ticket with 15 days to show that they’ve repaired their exhaust system or else they’ll get an actual ticket. He thought the Council members might benefit from having a great education as to what enforcement meant and looked like.
Alderperson Smith said that to fix this issue they as a body had to be prepared to put something behind it. He would support referring the item to staff but his heart was not in it because he thought they knew what they needed to do, they just needed to do it.
Alderperson Hartzheim respectfully disagreed. She didn’t think they knew exactly what to do and she would look to staff to give them a broader picture of that information.
Alderperson Van Zeeland agreed. She thought this was a very complicated situation that was going to take multiple departments—the police, the city attorney, and the Health Department—to give input so they could craft something that could help. She noted that she lives in the southeast part of the city and they have noise complaints because people take Highway 441 to get too Downtown. She can hear too those cars from her house at night. She thought this was a situation they needed to deal with not just for Downtown but for the city as a whole.
Alderperson Wolff agreed with what Alderperson Alfheim had said earlier. He knew the police department has been working hard on things like this, but he didn’t think they could have pushed off this conversation any longer. It was coming to the fore and so many people have been talking to the alderpersons about it. If they don’t have the conversation, they can’t fix the problem, so he thought it was time to do that. He thought there were solutions that they and especially staff could come up with and he had full confidence in the City of Appleton to figure out how to deal with this situation.
Alderperson Van Zeeland added that recently the Safety and Licensing Committee had heard from some residents in Alderperson Smith’s district who thought there was noise coming from a night club, but the police department said it was coming from College Avenue. So, the noise from the street had caused problems between those residents and that business.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) appreciated what Captain Freeman had said, would be interested in a lot more education on enforcement, and wondered if there were things the city was doing in other situations that could maybe be applied to this situation. There were a lot of unknowns for those who were not involved in the day-to-day enforcement process and they would benefit from a very thorough understanding of that in order to move forward on this issue.
Alderperson Schultz echoed those sentiments and thanked Captain Freeman for his insights. He was encouraged by the enforcement that they were doing. He didn’t know how to get a handle on this issue, but he appreciated the fact that the police department was aware of it and doing their best to get it under control. He was still eager to have a conversation about what else they could do to respond to this problem.
There were no further questions or discussion and the committee voted 4-0 to refer it to staff for further investigation.
After that vote, they discussed that they had not put a timeline on the item for when it should return to committee. Alderperson Schultz preferred to leave it open ended at this point because it could take some time to sit down with staff and figure out where to go with this. He didn’t expect it to come back soon, and wanted to take time to dig deep on it.
Alderperson Van Zeeland agreed and said that, if it took longer than expected for it to return, then she would be open to putting it on the agenda if requested.
[I must say, part of me has a viscerally negative reaction to throwing any money at Downtown problems. We already spend so much money on Downtown and currently have a big library project that I have little hope is actually going to stay within its $24 million budget.
My more charitable side points out that we have a lot of housing going in Downtown now and perhaps it’s not good to have a bunch of rowdy people making excessive noise at all hours of the night.
But then another part looks at this situation and says that Appleton’s Downtown is well known for its bar scene and every weekend pulls in thousands of out-of-towners who come specifically to go barhopping. We’ve set up a situation that promotes drunkenness and rowdy, obnoxious behavior. Is it reasonable for people to move into a situation like that and then expect all the taxpayers, even the ones who have actively chosen to not live downtown, to spend money to fix this problem?
As far as wider ranging solutions to this problem go, I’m curious if its reasonable or probable that Appleton can turn its Downtown into a much more residential area, as it’s currently trying to do, while also maintaining the commercial and entertainment mindset that resulted in it being named the Drunkest City in America only 5 years ago, or is there going to have to be some kind of shift in what we want out of our Downtown and some kind of attempt to draw a different sort of crowd?]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=880087&GUID=EA1CFD50-CC08-4AB4-98E1-253A7A775A51
Be the first to reply