The Parks and Recreation meeting met 09/12/2022. The item which took up a majority of the meeting was a request to approve a process map for the proposal by the Trout Museum to co-locate a new museum in Ellen Kort Peace Park. The committee ended up voting 5-0 to approve the process map after making some amendments requiring…
- The Trout Museum to share a presentation with the public and the common Council going over the reasoning for the site selection and the challenges with other potential sites they had looked at in the downtown corridor and along the riverfront.
- The Common Council to hold a vote after having received that presentation on whether or not to continue discussions about the proposal.
- Step 4 to also include an explanation of strategic alignments and a clear business case as well as a clear vote as to whether or not to proceed.
Three members of the public spoke on the item.
Lisa was a process engineer with 22 years of experience and was very familiar with stage gate processes. Overall, she liked the draft of the process map but, outside of pointing out that the process map as presented felt like they were starting in the middle, she had some recommendations and critiques.
- Although the Trout was free to withdraw their proposal at any time, outside of the Common Council’s vote on 09/21/2022, there were no formal opportunities for the city to say “continue” or “stop” until step 5 which was the step that could essentially give the park to the Trout
- The process map lacked a presentation and Council vote to proceed or stop at every step of the way
- The map lacked a step in which the project’s strategic alignment, business case, and decision criteria were discussed, formalized, and voted on.
She went on to explain what strategic alignment, a business case, and decision criteria were.
- STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT would explain if the proposal aligned with the city’s values and long-term vision. Did it fit in with the Parks and Recreation strategy, mission, and vision? Did it align with Appleton’s strategy behind community, quality of life, and sustainability? What was the intent of the memorial park to Ellen Kort and what would the Trout proposal do to that intent?
- BUSINESS CASE would show the Trout’s evidence that putting a new building in this small, secluded park was going to provide them with the expansion and business traffic required for them to be successful long term. It would also show what the benefit would be to the City of Appleton and the average Appleton residents and taxpayers.
- DECISION CRITERIA would explain what success would look like. She noted that deciding how to measure success too late in the process tended to tilt the table to favor of approval due to all the work that had been done; that was how bad decisions got made. She referenced the memo from Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Dean Gazza which he had submitted when the Trout first sought approval to begin discussions on this proposal. In that memo he stated, “Our team briefly discussed some minimum conditions that would be required for our support, and recommends Council affirm the conditions in authorizing further discussion.” He included a number of bullet points one of which was “The community welcomes the plan.”
Lisa believed the items in that memo should be expanded upon, formalized, ranked in terms of importance, and presented to the Council and that the way the proposal to locate the Trout in Ellen Kort Peace Park stacked up against the decision criteria should be explicitly presented to Council members before they vote to finalize whether or not to move forward.
Another member of the public named Kari said that she was still trying to understand how the project would be “collaboration” and with whom the Trout would be collaborating with. It was hard for her to see how anything would be left in the park if the Trout put a building there, which, to her, took away the whole design, mission, and vision of the park. That didn’t seem like collaboration to her.
Additionally, she was concerned that the Trout would be moving to a spot that didn’t have the space for their building or adequate parking which would negatively impact the businesses that were already in the area. If the museum moved away from downtown to a less accessible area that could also negatively impact the Trout, and she wanted to know what would happen if the museum failed. Who would care for and maintain the building and what would happen to the park’s vision?
Curt Detjen was part of the team working for the Trout Museum with the City of Appleton. He believed the process map was very thoughtful and thorough. He said the Trout envisioned the project and were approaching it as a collaboration and partnership, and they were following the city’s lead and the process that the city preferred. He thought the points that had been raised by Lisa were very good and if a few more things needed to be added to the process they were very willing to do that.
He also said that that several of the Trout Museum representatives attended the listing session about the proposal at which some very articulate points were raised. They listened to them careful and were willing to follow the city’s process. They were just asking that they be allowed to keep on moving forward.
It was clarified by Director Gazza that the intention of the process map was to provide an easy-to-follow process and that, at any point, if either party felt they could not move forward then they could stop the process. It was their intention that the Common Council would be able to act at any step along the way.
He also went over where they currently were in the process which was Step 3.
Step 1: Concept Inception had been done by the Trout Museum on its own during which they had performed their analysis in regards to needing a new space.
Step 2: Site Selection happened when the Trout looked at multiple sites and decided that Ellen Kort Peace Park fit their needs. At the end of that the Common Council was made aware of their desire to locate on the site, and the Council gave their approval to proceed with discussions.
Step 3: Process Development happened once Council approved beginning discussions. Staff developed a process for those discussions and were now asking if the Common Council would support that process so that they could move forward to…
Step 4: Site Analysis in which the Trout Museum would look more closely in terms of building on it and how their project might be affected by the elements on the site such as previous construction, environmental aspects, storm water, traffic conditions, and sustainability issues. The site plan and zoning issues would be talked about with city staff to determine what steps would nee to be worked through.
At that point, the Trout would also need to speak with WE Energies which owns the other half of the site. If WE Energies approved their plan then the Trout could move forward with getting approval of the site and park design. Then if all that was approved an agreement could be entered into between the Trout and the city and they could proceed with construction.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) was in attendance and said, “I’m not a voting member of this committee obviously, but I do just want to share that I don’t have warm and fuzzy feelings about this issue. The park is really important to a lot of my constituents, and I feel like we’re at the stage where next we’ll start to hear things. I just can’t make decisions based on my warm and fuzzy feelings, I have to have facts, and I’m hopeful that in the next site analysis, number four, is where we’ll get all the information and we can make a better-informed decision on this.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) who was also not a member of the committee was worried about sunk costs if they moved forward and, given the feedback from her constituents which had been pretty overwhelmingly against the project, she urged the committee to recommended not to move forward with any further discussions.
Overall, the committee members were very receptive to the concerns that were raised during the public comment portion of the meeting, particularly to the critique of the process map given by Lisa. [I have to say, I was very impressed with her speech. She came across as very knowledgeable and kept her comments very clear and on point.]
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) thought they should have a clear “stop” or “proceed” vote at Step 4 instead of just an informational update to the Common Council. She also thought the three key items Lisa had made (strategic alignment, business case, and decision criteria) ought to be added to the presentation given to the Common Council at that time.
That amendment was approved 5-0.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) wanted to have some more granular detail on the partnership that the city was potentially entering into. He felt that part of the struggle the Council was having, as well as the public in general, was that they had voted to have a conversation but they were already now 3 steps into the process and he felt that they missed a step. That step was partially covered by the amendment that had just been approved, but even prior to moving on to Step 4, he felt it would be beneficial to the community for the Trout to explain how they arrived at wanting to move to the park, what other sites they had evaluated, and what challenges they had experienced with other sites.
He went on to say that the Council had heard concerns about how the Trout would not work within the small space of the park, but he would like to hear from the Trout about why the museum would work within the park. He felt that that conversation was what they had been hoping to have by voting to allow a conversation.
Christina Turner, the Executive Director of the Trout, said, “We would welcome the opportunity to be able to talk with you about some of the history and our thinking for why we want to move in general and why we think this is a good site.” They would be happy to be able to answer any questions and do a presentation to help them understand the background more thoroughly. She said she had talked with some of the alderpersons who had really appreciated the information they had learned through those discussions and had felt it would be beneficial for the entire Common Council to hear that information.
Alderperson Schultz made a motion to amend the flow chart to include a Step 3.5 which was a presentation by the Trout Museum to share with the public and the common Council the reasoning for the site selection and the challenges with other potential sites they had looked at in the downtown corridor and along the riverfront.
Alderperson Hartzheim requested that it not be simply an informational meeting but also include a vote by the Common Council as to whether or not to proceed because she was concerned about sunk costs and wanted to be able to vote before the city had expended to much time or money investigating the proposal. That amendment was approved 5-0.
Prior to its approval, the committee discussed in more detail the concern about who would cover the cost of site analysis.
Director Gazza said that environmental testing was something paid for by whoever was building a building (in this case the Trout) and would not be a cost born by the city.
Regarding things like stormer water planning, zoning, and site plan, those were general conversations that the city would have with any developer that was thinking about building in the city. City staff would be expected to discuss things like that as part of their normal jobs. There would be no site design at that point, and the Department of Public Works would just be answering general questions and letting the developer know the sorts of things they would have to think about if they moved forward with their project.
It wasn’t until the developer got into the actual site design that they would be designing the storm water and things like that, and that design would be part of the Trout Museum’s costs.
After both of the amendments were approved, the committee went back to talk about the item as amended.
Alderperson Hartzheim said, “I hope that this puts us in a better position with everyone involved. I think we are trying to do this very thoroughly and very thoughtfully and take everything into account before we move any further. So, I hope that this satisfies many more people, whether we get to the next step or not.”
Alderperson Schultz thanked the committee and staff for trying to get the Council into a better position to evaluate the potential for the Trout/Ellen Kort Peace Park project to happen. He knew that the Trout would love to remain in downtown and in Appleton. He thought the efforts they were taking make the discussion process transparent and open as possible was a good thing.
Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) also appreciated the transparency of the process and reminded people that this had not been how things had historically been done in the city. The fact that they were even looking at a process map meant they were light years ahead of where they had been. He believed the Trout belonged in Appleton, but the discussion thus far had also highlighted the care the community showed for both it’s parks and the arts. He believed if they followed the process map, they would arrive at a solution that hopefully satisfied most of the parties.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) knew that in the past project had happened in which had not featured much discussion with the public. What they were doing now was a new way of doing things. “I want the public to know that this is going to happen in the future with other projects. We are about getting everyone involved and hearing from our community. It’s something that I’m proud of as an alderperson and make sure I try really hard to get that feedback.”
The committee went on to approve the item 5-0.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=980228&GUID=793B96BD-AF7D-42ED-A4D6-06887E2086F8
Be the first to reply