The Parks and Recreation Committee met 05/25/2021. The bulk of the meeting was taken up with discussion of Resolution #8-R-21, the resolution expressing support for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) said that the only issue he had was with the line “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Appleton supports the reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for ten years and consideration of the proposal in Governor Evers budget request of $70 million per year”. He wondered if that was necessary. He agreed that the program should be renewed for at least 10 years and thought the recent 2 year extension was a disservice to the state.
He started to explain his thoughts a little more but Committee Chair Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4) said he wanted to hear from a Director’s perspective since Appleton had projects moving forward and projects waiting to be funded.
Tom Flick, Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Management, said that Appleton recently received $702,000 through the Knowles-Nelson program for the Lawe Street trestle trail bridge project. Earlier this month they also submitted another request for funding for the David and Rita Nelson bridge and trail project. (Here’s an article about a different section of that trail project.) Appleton is asking for $1.4 million in assistance. He said they would most likely not get that much, but they were optimistic that they would receive something. He said that renewing the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program would be very advantageous to the City of Appleton and to Northeast Wisconsin. There have been a plethora of projects supported by it and the development of the river trail system wouldn’t have happened without it.
Alderperson Martin then asked Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) to speak since he was the lead author of the resolution.
Alderperson Schultz said that, as the author, he drew upon resolutions from other municipalities and counties. The funding amount and duration of the renewal are reflective of what Governor Evers was asking for in his budget. At it’s high point the program was funded at $86 million per year and that is now down to $33 million a year. He said that there had been a precipitous decrease since 2007. He said they were not asking to go back to that $86 million high point but instead maybe try to get back to 2/3rds of that which he thought was what the Governor’s budget was trying to establish. He noted that Appleton has significant projects coming forward and given the amount of funding they are going to be chasing after it would be advantageous to show support for the number that was proposed by the Governor. He said they could argue all day long about whether that was the right number or whether they should use a different number, but, as the author, he was simply making a statement of support for where the budget request was at the state level. He said a lot of things are supposed to happen in Appleton over the next 5-10 years which simply aren’t going to happen without this program. He didn’t have any issue putting that $70 million dollar amount on the resolution and requesting funding at that level.
He also wanted to let the record show that a number of other cosponsors had signed onto the resolution prior to it being read at Council but that note didn’t get to the city secretary. [As a result, their support was not reflected on the draft of the resolution in the record.] He listed Alderpersons Prohaska, Wolff, Van Zeeland, Fenton, Smith, Meltzer, and himself. [Although, ***SPOILER ALERT***, if this committee meeting was any indication, it seems like Alderperson Prohaska may not be totally on board.]
Alderperson Martin wanted to know if the committee needed to do anything to correct that issue. The attorney said that could be clarified with the City Clerk and that the committee did not need to take any action.
Alderperson Wolff noted that Alderperson Schultz had attempted to do that last week. [I also can confirm he noted that during the 05/19/2021 Common Council meeting, and it was acknowledged so I was a little surprised when the draft of the resolution in the Parks and Rec agenda packet didn’t reflect those additional cosponsors.]
Alderperson Martin asked Alderperson Prohaska if he was happy with what had been shared.
Alderperson Prohaska said he was in complete agreement with the resolution. He did, however, want to see the language changed regarding the $70 million. His concern was that he didn’t know where the approximately $40 million difference between the $33 million current funding level and the $70 million level called for by Governor Evers was going to come from. He’s looked at Appleton’s finances and we are short this year. [I took that to mean he expected budget shortfalls at the state level also.] The $40 million will take away from other programs in Wisconsin. It won’t just magically appear. He had contacted people on the state finance committee to find out where that money would come from, but had not gotten a response yet. He would be happy to put the resolution right now at $100 million if he knew where the additional money would be coming from. But he didn’t want to see Knowles-Nelson get an extra $40 million and three other projects get shut down because the funding was taken from Peter to pay Paul. He reiterated that Knowles-Nelson is a great program, but he didn’t know enough about the financial situation at the state level to specifically ask for $70 million per year for it.
Alderperson Martin opened the floor to other alderpersons.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) agreed with Alderperson Prohaska. She didn’t think they knew enough about the state budget to know how much to be asking for. She understood what Alderpesron Schultz was doing with the verbiage, but she thought that if they either removed the second half of that phrase or amended it to call for “a potential increase on the $33 million” they would still get the same bang for their buck without having to worry about calling for a specific increase to the Knowles-Nelson program but then finding out that resulted in the removal of a different program/service Appleton needs. She was not comfortable with having that dollar figure in there simply because they don’t know what happens on the state level. “God giveth, and God taketh away.” She reiterated that if they requested an increase to the $33 million that would do what they want it to do but they wouldn’t be asking the state to do something when they didn’t know what the negative ramifications could be.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) said that what they were asking for in that clause was simply what Governor Evers proposed in the budget. She thought the example of how the funding for Appleton’s share of the Lawe Street trestle trail project was held up and they finally only received it a week ago was a good illustration of why Knowles-Nelson was a good thing but not giving any specifics. Since the program was initiated over 170 projects in the Fox Valley have benefited from those funds. “So if we’re quibbling about dollars maybe we need to quibble about the dollars but I think that removing the request for a specific amount of funding makes this whole resolution pointless to be honest.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland (District 5) thanked Alderperson Prohaska for clarifying what he was looking for. She wondered if they could get to the same place in support of the proposal by simply saying that they support the proposal in Governor Evers’ budget.
Alderperson Prohaska said that would be basically the same thing. They would just not be mentioning that the Governor is requesting $70 million.
Alderperson Van Zeeland was still confused by what his concern was and asked Alderperson Martin for permission to ask Alderperson Prohaska to clarify some more. She thought it was just that he didn’t want the number in there but maybe she wasn’t understanding.
Alderperson Martin gave permission to Alderperson Prohaska to clarify. [Just as a note, meeting participants are supposed to only address the Chair, not alderpersons or members of the public which is why they did that little dance.]
Alderperson Prohaska said it was not the amount of money that was the issue but the fact that he didn’t know where it was going to come from. He would rather have the resolution ask for the program to be funded “at the best level for the program and the state.” That way they could put as much money as the state can afford into the program. It might not be $70 million, but it might be $45 million or $50 million. He wanted the funding to be whatever was best for the state. He didn’t want to see other programs hurt because all of the money was going into Knowles-Nelson. He reiterated that he wanted this program to succeed. He rides the trails that the program helped create. He uses this stuff. He wants the program to continue. He just doesn’t want to see other programs suffer because of that.
Alderperson Van Zeeland thanked him. She said she was at a loss as to what they could do to make the resolution palatable because really what they’re asking for is for reauthorization of the stewardship program which needs to be funded by the current budget. There’s no way to ask for it to be funded in a meaningful way for future years without making sure that it’s in the budget itself. She thought as Alderperson Fenton pointed out, if we take that portion out there really is no point in even having a resolution like this. That was her concern, but she was open to hearing different ways that they could address that.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) that the resolution specifically asks for “consideration of the proposal in governor Evers budget request of $70 million per year.” As the legislature considers the budget they will hash out where all of that money will come from as they consider Governor Evers’ proposal. They may amend it up or down, and it might not end up being $70 million, but the proposal that the state has out there waiting for consideration is this proposal. Therefore, they named it in the resolution. Alderperson Meltzer believed that it was appropriate to make the request and, as far as where the money would come from, the state would consider that.
Alderperson Schultz had been in the queue to speak and said he had been going to essentially say the same thing.
Alderperson Hartzheim wanted to offer verbiage for a potential amendment. She suggested they could ask for it to be renewed “For 10 years and consideration of an increase to the program’s current budget amount.” That would take away the piece that seemed to be a little bit tricky, but also would say that they are in support of an increase to the $33 million that is currently there in the state budget.
Alderperson Martin asked her if that was an amendment.
She answered that she couldn’t offer an amendment because she was not on the committee.
Alderperson Van Zeeland also suggested a possibility although she acknowledged that it might require a bit of legwork. Since some people were uncomfortable with the current wording, perhaps they could word it in terms of how much funding has gone down for Appleton as a municipality overall. They could say that in 2015 the funding was at one level and now it is at this level. They could look at it that way and ask that the funding stay at a certain level. She was curious to hear what other members of the committee thought about that.
Alderperson Schultz thought that they could go around and around in circles about what the number is and what their recommendation to the state should be, but they were simply trying to show support for a proposal in the budget that’s been established. This is the number that the governor has established as wanting to fund the program at. Yes the Joint Finance Committee is going to hash it out and it may not end up being $70 million. He thought it was dangerous to just to just ask for a funding amount that is higher than the current level because it could go from $33 million to $34 million which would not be a significant increase that would help Appleton as a municipality. “And I just think that, you know, this conversation shouldn’t be centering around for us trying to establish this number. It’s beyond our purview. I think we’re here simply to say that we support the program and right now we have a number that’s in the budget and we’re comfortable supporting that number because it will help us fund the projects that are coming down the pipe.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked if the Deputy Director had an idea of how funding has gone over the last 10 or 20 years for this program so that they could gauge how much it used to be vs how much it was now.
Deputy Director Flick said he didn’t have specific numbers of what has happened over the last decade regarding the funding. He said the city has not been a large player in receiving grants from this program over the last decade. They’ve had a few here and there. He said he wanted to throw out an idea and suggested they just ask for renewal of the Nelson Stewardship Program for 10 years and consideration of an increase in Governor Ever’s budget request if they wanted to remove the reference to $70 million. That way they would still be supporting a 10 year renewal and also requesting an increase in funding. It sounded to him like nobody even knew what that increase could even possibly be.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said she felt like they all understood that the Finance Committee would be doing the work to decide if this program warranted that much funding. She thought that if they couldn’t think of a way to ask for it in a way that was different but that really put pressure on them the way that the co-sponsors intended this resolution to do that they should leave the language as it was.
Alderperson Prohaska offered up an amendment to the resolution. He wanted to strike the phrase “consideration of the proposal in Governor Evers budget request of $70 million per year” and replace that with “and increase funding at the best level for this program and the state”. So the full clause would read “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Appleton supports the reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for 10 years and increase funding at the best level for this program and the state.”
His motion failed for lack of a second.
Alderperson Martin said that he was going to weigh in on this. He said they were looking at a ball of mystery as to how the program would be funded and supported. He thought the current wording of the resolution was fair enough. He was happy to get it in front of the governor right now.
There were no other amendments so the committee voted on the resolution. They approved it 4-1 with Alderperson Prohaska voting against it.
[It was not clear to me why the resolution would be useless, as a couple Alderpersons argued, unless it specifically supported Governor Evers’ $70 million budget request for the Knowles-Nelson renewal. It gave me the impression it was being turned into a “resolution expressing support for Governor Evers’ budget request for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program” as opposed to a “resolution expressing support for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program” which is what it was billed as and which a person or a government body can do without specifically asking for $70 million per year in funding.
Alderperson Schultz said that he was guided by other resolutions, and while I did find some resolutions that specifically called for Governor Evers’ request to be approved (both Wood County and the City of Eau Claire supported reauthorization at $70 million per year), there were other resolutions that showed their support in other ways.
Outagamie County expressed support for the $50 million a year funding that was requested by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Eau Claire County said they “recognize[d] the need to balance debt burden with conservation benefits” but they did also “recommend and support funding renewal for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program”.
Vilas County supported “reauthorization of funding for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program and for a term of no less than 25 years.”
The Door County resolution was interesting in that it referenced Governor Evers’ budget request in the “Whereas” portion of the resolution but not in the “Therefore be it resolved” section where they stated that they did “strongly support reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for another decade in the 2021-23 state budget presently under consideration for adoption.” For what it’s worth, that seemed like it could possibly be a workable compromise for our own Common Council.
At any rate, it seems clear from some of the other resolutions that have been submitted that support for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program does not inherently require support for Governor Evers’ budget request.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=864906&GUID=767BE93D-64A2-4ED7-83BC-81961B51992C&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply