During the 06/02/2021 Common Council meeting, the Council took up Resolution #8-R-21 the resolution in support of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10) asked if there had been any updates regarding what the state is planning to do with this?
Mayor Woodford was not aware of any updates, nor was anyone else.
Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8 ) said that Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was not able to attend that meeting [she was at her 8th grade child’s graduation ceremony] and had asked him to read a letter into the record so that she could have some input on this item. Her letter read, “Please accept my sincere apologies for my absence at this week’s meeting of the Common Council. In my absence please would you share the following remarks with my colleagues to be read into the record at the meeting. Much of what I would like to share is a reiteration of my remarks during this past week’s Parks and Recreation committee discussion of the revision of the second to last clause of Resolution 8-R-21. I respectfully request that my colleagues amend this resolution–particularly the second to last clause to remove verbiage to request any specific dollar amount for the reauthorization of the state’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. This resolution is specifically named I quote ‘resolution expressing support for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program’ and not named ‘a resolution expressing support for Governor Evers’ budget request for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program.’ The former is acceptable and appropriate for the city of Appleton while the latter is not. I fervently believe that this resolution can and should express support of this program which can greatly benefit Appleton without calling out any specific partisan political state budget proposals. At last week’s committee meeting the lead author of the resolution, Alderman Schultz said it best himself, he said, ‘This conversation shouldn’t be centering around us trying to establish this number. It’s beyond our purview. I think we’re here simply to say that we support the program.’ If that is truly the case, this resolution must be amended before being considered by the full council. If not, then this resolution is part of a partisan ploy to say that the City of Appleton only supports Governor Evers’ budget for this program. I believe that the latter has no place in the City of Appleton’s government, and I do not support that. As Alderperson Schultz also mentioned at last week’s committee meeting, other municipal governing bodies have expressed support of this program with similar resolutions. In fact the Eau Claire County Board of Supervisors used the following verbiage in their resolution of support. I think it’s a fitting example of how the city of Appleton should support this issue. ‘Whereas Eau Claire County recognizes the need to balance debt burden with conservation benefit, the County urges the state the renew the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program with funding to perpetuate the program while continuing to retire existing bond debt with the goal to stabilize debt at current levels or gradually reduce them.’ The resolution’s second last clause is simply, ‘Be it further resolved that the Eau Claire County Board of Supervisors does recommend and support funding renewal for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.’ I ask that my colleagues seriously consider the addition of a similar ‘whereas’ clause expressing our explicit understanding that the state budgeting process is beyond our purview. As Alderman Schultz admitted in committee. I also ask that the second to last clause in Resolution 8-R-21 be amended to do only what this resolution was named to do. To express support for this program using similar verbiage to the Eau Claire County resolution’s verbiage voted above. Respectfully submitted Sheri S. Hartzheim, Alderman District 13 of the City of Appleton.”
Alderperson Reed then said that he would like to make a motion to amend the second to last paragraph to remove everything after “Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program”, so that it would read, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Appleton supports the reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.”
Alderperson Smith seconded his motion.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) said that if they were going to amend the resolution that she would propose that they at least keep the “for 10 years” part because these funds are used by communities for long-term capital projects. Appleton prepares Their capital budgets five years ahead of time. If there is no guarantee that the program will continue beyond a certain period in time, then she didn’t think that they could use it in their planning process.
Alderperson Meltzer (District 2) encouraged the alderpersons to defeat this amendment and was confused about the problem of partisanship. If they support the program then they needed to express support for funding the program because without funding the program would not be able to to do much for many communities. At one point, the program received over $80 million in funding per year which was now down to $30 million per year so there was a history that this resolution was addressing. They need the program to be able to function. If it was partisan to express support for anything that then governor does because of his political affiliation, then that really tied the hands of the Council to advocate for the needs of the community. Alderperson Meltzer did not think it was in any way partisan to pass the resolution as originally written and believed that this was the type of advocacy they needed to be doing for the community. They couldn’t just support the program without backing that up with a logistical recommendation.
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) agreed that the 10 years should remain in there. He would like to see the program made permanent so that municipalities could count on it being there to fund their projects.
Alderperson Reed thought keeping the 10 years in there was a reasonable request. He asked how he should procedurally change his amendment.
Attorney Christopher Behrens recommended that he withdraw the motion as long as the seconder agrees to that and then offer a new amendment.
Alderperson Reed did that and made a new motion proposing to strike everything in that clause after “10 years” so that it read “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Appleton supports the reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for ten years.”
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9), who was the main sponsor of this resolution said he made some statements and he stuck by those statements. It was a challenge to support a dollar figure; however, simply stating they supported the continuation of the program at an adequate funding level left the question of what was an adequate funding level. They couldn’t tell the government what it was going to do–the Joint Finance Committee would be making the decisions. He thought that simply supporting an adequate funding level was insufficient given the fact that eight communities had to go back to the state and argue to get the funding they were promised. That spoke to the necessity of funding the program at a higher level than what Joint Finance might recommend. He thought in spirit they could support the funding level that was in the Governor’s proposed budget and say that here was a proposed dollar amount that they supported.
Alderperson Fenton said that in her earlier remarks she was referring to the bare minimum she thought should be left in the resolution. She had no problem supporting the $70 million funding proposal. The program had originally been funded at $86 million a year and that was now down to $33 million. The governor was trying to get that funding back up to that initial funding level. She said it was not a partisan program and pointed out it was started by Tommy Thompson, a Republican governor, and funded at that initial high level under a Republican administration. She noted that 93% of people live within 1 mile of a property that has received Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program funds. The budget that they were calling for worked out to about $19.75 per person in Wisconsin. She said this was not their purview but they were puting a number out there with the hope that if they and other communities asked for a specific level of funding, the Joint Finance Committee would look at those numbers and realize the benefits of funding the program.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) wanted to speak and Alderperson Fenton asked Attorney Behrens if, given his employment with a state legislator, Alderperson Doran needed to abstain from discussion or voting on a matters where they were asking the State Assembly or Senate to do something. [Note: Alderperson Doran is the Communications Director For Roger Roth.]
Attorney Behrens said that was a matter that Alderperson Doran would have to evaluate and determine for himself.
Alderperson Doran said he wanted to share a little bit of perspective on this matter from that work that he does for the state. There are some significant concerns by legislators on both sides of the aisle about this program. He thought there was a lot of support for it, but the program itself over the years has racked up significant amounts or debt through land purchases. As a result, there were concerns about future funding for the program. There were also concerns over how much land the state should own and in what locations. That didn’t necessarily relate to Appleton as the state isn’t buying land around us, but it certainly applied to the northern part of the state. He said he had an amendment he would like to offer that he thought would be something of a happy medium in this situation, but he wasn’t sure how to proceed since there was already a motion for an amendment on the floor.
Mayor Woodford said that he wanted to make sure they were clear about procedures in this situation because they haven’t always been.
Attorney Behrens said that since the question had been asked, rule 16 of the Council rules was amended approximately 2 years ago to state that once an amendment has been proposed that it shall be resolved prior to the introduction of a second amendment. He said that practice had not been followed, even as of very recently. He said he had talked to the City Clerk about some of the history. Even after that change was made and in place, amendments to amendments were offered and no points of order were raised at the time so it was allowed to continue. It has been their practice to permit an amendment to an amendment; however, the Council’s rules do say that’s not allowed. Attorney Behren’s opinion was that, since the issue had been raised, according to their rules (unless they wanted to suspend the rules) they should address the current amendment on the table and then move forward depending on the outcome of that vote.
Mayor Woodford said that, since they were on the point of order, this was an opportunity for him to give a bit of a mea culpa. He was the one who facilitated the most recent amending of an amendment at the previous Council meeting. (https://allthingsappleton.com/2021/05/22/common-council-meets-fully-in-chambers-votes-to-end-emergency-covid-related-council-rules-on-july-1/) He had ruled that an amendment to an amendment was in order which it would have been under Roberts Rules of Order but not under the Council’s rules. He said they were now going to follow that rule.
Attorney Behrens said that at their upcoming organizational meeting, they could take up that rule and change it if they decided they wanted to allow an amendment to an amendment.
Mayor Woodford brought the discussion back to the item under consideration and said they needed to resolve Alderperson Reed’s amendment before they took up another amendment.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) did not like the amendment and thought they were missing the point. She had never been to a negotiation of any kind where they hadn’t asked for more than they expected to get. They always ask for the stars and settle for the tops of the trees. With that in mind, she would rather leave the $70 million in there. She did, however, think that there is a partisan thing going on on a regular basis which was frustrating, and if some of the alderpersons felt that because the resolution was approving of Governor Evers having made this proposal and that itself caused problems then they should remove his name. She did still think they could support the program, as all the alderpersons said they did. She also thought they should support the request for a dollar amount because if they didn’t put a specific number on there then there was nothing to support. But they could remove the name of where that number came from.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) made a motion to call the question which only Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4) opposed.
The amendment was defeated 9-4 with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Reed, Smith, and Prohaska voting in favor of the amendment.
They then returned to the original resolution.
Alderperson Schultz made a motion that the clause be amended to read “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Appleton supports the reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for 10 years and consideration of the proposed budget request of $70 million per year.” He thought that removed some of the muddiness about whether this was partisan or not. He said this was not a partisan resolution nor was it partisan call for the Wisconsin legislature to stand up and do it’s duty to promote and continue the program. If Governor Evers’ association with the budget proposal was a sticking point he thought removing his name was a reasonable compromise in language.
Alderperson Fenton thanked Alderperson Alfehim for her very wise suggestion and pointing out that this is a non-partisan program voted on by governors of both parties. She also thanked Alderperson Schultz for the amendment and urged her colleagues to support the amendment.
There was no further discussion and they voted on the amendment. The amendment was approved 10-3 with Alderpersons Siebers, Martin, and Doran opposing.
After the amendment was approved the Council voted on whether to pass the resolution as amended. They voted 12-1 to approve it with only Alderperson Martin voting nay.
[This discussion really illustrated to me that the needs/desires of a city do not necessarily neatly align with the needs/desires of the residents of that city. Strictly from the standpoint of managing a city, having this program exist and be funded at a high level is highly desirable and definately adds to the tools that city government has to improve the quality of the city.
At the same time, that money comes from taxpayers who may not want to see their taxes go up and who may prefer to see this program funded at a lower level or not at all and who would be willing to forgo a nice new trail if it meant they didn’t have to pay as much. This particular budget item may only amount to $19.75 per resident of Wisconsin, but Governor Evers is calling for a budget that spends $45.5 billion per year for the next two years. If every $70 million in spending costs a person $20, that really start to add up. Particularly after the economic upheaval of the last year, that may not be desirable.
It was also interesting to me that it was taken as a given by multiple alderpersons that because the program had started out with $86 million in funding that that level of funding was the “right” level of funding and something the state should try to return to, but maybe it makes sense that the program funding would decline over time because the amount of land available for purchase has decreased and there are only so many walking trails and parks municipal governments can create?
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Joint Finance Committee comes up with.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=853494&GUID=8F880894-EEF1-4FCF-A50C-31AB4481DE74&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply