The Common Council met 09/21/2022. The item that garnered the most public comment and resulted in the most discussion was the request to approve a process map to guide discussions and votes on the request from the Trout Museum to construct a new museum building on the site of Ellen Kort Peace Park. They ended up approving the process map by a 10-4 vote with alderpersons Vered Meltzer (District 2), Brad Firkus (District 3), Denise Fenton (District 6), and Maiyoua Thao (District 7) voting against it. During the discussion, Alderpersons Firkus and Fenton each expressed their opposition to continuing talks about the Trout Museum/Ellen Kort Peace Park proposal or allowing the project to go forward.
10 people spoke during the public portion of the meeting, 8 of whom expressed opposition to, if not the process map itself, the underlying proposal to relocate the Trout Museum to the park, predominantly citing concerns regarding loss of greenspace and access to the river.
Ellen Kort’s daughter, Kerry Williamsen, expressed a desire to end the process sooner rather than later. She said, “Ellen Kort was a beautiful person in our community, and this park has already designated to honor her and to honor the essence of what community meant to her, and to have that changing is absolutely heart-wrenching. And being a family member, being her daughter, it’s really hard to sit back and watch these changes happen in a negative way. We’ve all in our family felt very strong about keeping this as a positive, wonderful honoring to her, and just with there being such great opposition I hope that you can all reflect on that and see how many people in this community really don’t want the Trout to build down there. They want this park to honor my mother, and they want this park to be a beautiful green space that we already have. It is a park. Just remember it already is the Ellen Kort Peace Park.”
Christina Turner, the Trout’s Executive Director, and Clint Drisenberry, a member of the Trout’s Board of Directors, each briefly spoke and asked the Common Council to approve the process map because it was an excellent tool and would give the Trout the opportunity to present their vision to the community and the Council.
Alderperson Fenton started out the discussion within the Council by expressing opposition to moving forward. Given the community’s strong opposition to the project she felt it would be disrespectful of the time of everyone involved to drag discussions out further. “I don’t support the project continuing, and I am not in favor of spending more time and resources of staff, this body, the community in general, and the staff and directors of the tout museum.”
Alderperson Firkus said that when the proposal had first been brought to the Council, he had thought it was worth considering and he had wanted to give the Trout the courtesy of taking a look at it. But he struggled to see how the Trout could build a building that met their needs on that park land. “I want to respect everyone’s time and resources, and I don’t want to drag this out, and I guess why I ask my colleague is unless you feel like there’s at least a fifty-fifty chance that you would support this, let’s not drag this out any further.”
Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) had a gut feeling that there probably wasn’t a workable solution for the Trout to locate in Ellen Kort Peace Park; however, he supported approving the process map because he thought it set a positive precedent or framework for how discussions about other proposals could take place going forward. He also didn’t think that moving to the next step of the process would result in a lot of time or resources being wasted. “I feel that we owe it to the Trout for being as brave as they have been to propose what I consider a radical idea (and radical ideas can be really good and really amazing for communities), and I feel like we have to hear them out. I feel like we really have to give them the opportunity to say their piece, communicate their evidence, and make the arguments that they’re required to make in segment three point five [of the process map].”
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) agreed with wanting to be careful about the time they invested in exploring the proposal, but he also wanted to move away from the abstract concepts they had been dealing with and get some concrete details. H wanted to see what the Trout was envisioning.
He also felt that part of the reason that, over the decades, the Trout had not succeeded as well as other art institutions is because the space they currently occupied was limiting. “To embrace a contemporary museum in the city of Appleton, I think, is a laudable goal, and if [Ellen Kort Peace Park] isn’t the space then I think we as a council and city and staff should help them find the space and move us forward.”
He thought that if the Trout’s leadership didn’t think they could make it work in the limited space of the park that they would not have brought forward the conversation, so he wanted to learn more about what their design might look like and how the challenges of parking, traffic, etc. would be addressed.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) also wanted to get to at least step 3.5 (the presentation from the Trout). Referencing Alderperson Del Toro’s “gut feeling”, she said, “I prefer for us to have logical thought versus emotional thought in this regard. So that’s another reason that I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this process map, so that we can get away from the gut feeling, the emotion that has been displayed here, but also we sort of feel because we’re getting all this feedback from our constituents.” [Personally, I don’t see why responding to the feedback from constituents and voting per their expressed wishes would inherently be an “emotional” response.]
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said, “I really want to see something from the museum to say yes or no to instead of just hearing rumors about what it might be. I don’t like making a decision off of, you know, sketches you did in [MS]Paint, and I would like to see something from the Trout before I make a decision to end this project.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 12) had originally given credit to the mayor for the way the discussion had been brought before to the Council before any action took place, but now, having seen how it played out, she now felt that, while the concept had been right, the way it turned out was not good. In hindsight she wished that they would have had a 30-day comment period before voting on whether or not to open discussions with the Trout Museum because that would have allowed alderpersons to hear from their constituents beforehand. She thought they all loved the Trout and wanted it to remain in Appleton. They also all loved parks. Ultimately, her district had spoken very loud and clear. “There is no question the people that live surrounding this park are a hard no. Whether I think it’s a good idea or not is a moot point. It is my job to represent the most voices.”
Although she was a fan of rational thinking and was curious about the Trout’s vision, the feedback she had received led her to submit an amendment to the item calling for a hard yes or no vote prior to even receiving a presentation from the Trout.
Slightly later in the discussion she explained that her point in making the amendment was so that if they approved the process map, they could then immediately ask for a vote on whether or not to continue having a conversation with the Trout.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked whether it would be permitted for the Council to immediately hold a yes or no vote on moving forward with discussions or if such a vote would need to be help by the Council at a future date.
City Attorney Christopher Behrens responded that the item on the agenda that evening was for the process map. In order to mee public notice requirements, the Council would not be able to hold and up or down vote on continuing discussion during that evening and would have to wait for a future meeting when proper notice could be given to the public.
The Council debated the amendment with Alderpersons Del Toro, Schultz, Wolff, and Chad Doran (District 15) expressing a desire to hear more from the Trout before taking an up or down vote. Alderperson Wolff noted that he had received a mixed response to the proposal from the residents of his district who were asking a lot of questions he did not have the answer to. Alderperson Doran said he thought their job as alderpersons was to do some fact-finding so that they could make an educated decision. He appreciated and viewed as laudable Alderperson Alfheim’s attempt to represent her district and their wishes, but her district was one of fifteen districts, and they had to look at what the residents of all the districts wanted.
Alderperson Firkus felt they had enough facts now. “We have more people moving into our downtown area every year. It’s a growing population, and most of these people are living in apartments, smaller spaces. They don’t have big yards. They need green space to be able to get out and enjoy nature. If you put a museum in this park, you’re going to have less green space. Our downtown does not have a whole lot of locations that offer alternatives for more green space, but what it does offer is alternative spots for a museum, and I think that with those facts in place that’s enough for me to be against moving forward.”
There was no further discussion, so they voted on the amendment. The amendment failed 3-11 with Alderpersons Meltzer, Firkus, and Alfheim casting the only votes in favor.
After the motion failed, they went back to the original item. None of the alderpersons had any further comments on the item, so they moved straight into voting. The process map was approved 10-4 with Alderpersons Meltzer, Firkus, Fenton, and Thao casting the 4 no votes.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=980231&GUID=E23870E1-D0F4-4870-8733-3EF0BBD01926
Be the first to reply