The City Finance Committee met 07/12/2021 and took up two related items: Resolution #8-R-20 related to a city Brand Study and action item 21-0946 which was Mayor Woodford’s allocation of the city’s $5,115,000 excess General Fund balance.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) asked Mayor Woodford to give some background on the brand study resolution.
Mayor Woodford said that, as explained in the memo attached to the agenda, the brand study had been before the Finance Committee a couple of times, most recently at the previous meeting where it was held until 07/12/2021 in anticipation of the conversation regarding the excess reserve fund balance.
Originally the resolution directed the city to identify a funding source for the study, and it was staff’s recommendation to wait while they worked to identify a potential funding source, given that there are many competing priorities for the municipality when it comes to resources and priorities.
The mayor was now putting forward, via action item 21-0946, a recommendation for not only funding a brand study but also for implementing the brand changes recommended by the study. He thought it would be a mistake to, as the resolution called for, fund a study to identify a new brand but then not have the resources to implement that new brand. He said that a couple neighboring municipalities have gone through this process and found it to be costly and time intensive. It will take years to implement a new brand.
Mayor Woodford said that the memo regarding the resolution outlined what their proposal and included a draft Request For Proposal (RFP). If they moved forward on this, they anticipated issuing the RFP in early 2022 with early phases of implementation beginning in early 2023, which would give them time to go through the study process, develop the materials, and make sure that they have a robust process both of public input and stakeholder input within the City of Appleton organization. They want to make sure they’re representing the city of Appleton well through the process.
The committee did not have further questions about that and did not take up a motion at that time on the brand study resolution but instead moved onto action item 21-0946 regarding Mayor Woodford’s recommendations for the allocation of the city’s excess General Fund balance so that they could discuss and vote on that first before voting on the resolution.
Regarding the excess funds allocations, Mayor Woodford said that, as the 2020 audit was wrapping up and they had a clearer idea of where the city stood financially, Finance Director Tony Saucerman had informed him that the city was likely to have an excess reserve fund balance. As outlined in the memo presented to the Finance Committee, the City of Appleton’s policy is that 75% of an excess balance will be applied to debt.
He said that in terms of allocating the remaining 25%, he had tried to keep a running list of the things that the Council has expressed a desire to accomplish and the things Appleton is trying to accomplish as a community, and he put forward a proposal that would help accomplish some things that they might not ordinarily be able to accomplish with an ordinary operating budget. As outlined in the memo, this situation was unusual in terms of the size of the excess balance. He noted that there were some extenuating circumstances contributing to that. [He didn’t go into specifics, but my assumption is that it’s the result of things that have happened during the pandemic such as the availability of federal dollars and potentially also less use of certain services]
The list of allocations was a reflection of what he believed were priorities of the Council and of the city. He sorted them into different categories to help with organization.
The first category was “Debt Reduction” which accounted for $3.84 million or 75% of the total. He said Director Saucerman speak in more detail regarding how portion would work, but first the mayor ran through the rest of the allocations.
The next category was “Local Economy and Growth”.
This included the $50,000 for a brand study and $450,000 for the study implementation. Mayor Woodford said that they were contemplating a web redesign during the rebranding, so that was baked into their estimates for the implementation. The website is something they routinely hear negative feedback about, so they have some work to do in that area. The $450,000 would also cover rebranding for anything that has a city logo on it.
He mentioned that as they began the rebranding implementation there would be opportunities to fold in costs such as by not updating the logo on a vehicle that they knew would soon be removed from service. They were going to try to be pragmatic about implementation and not be wasteful.
The other item in the “Local Economy and Growth” category was Industrial Park Land Acquisition for which he allocated $250,000. He said Southpoint Commerce Park continues to sell, and they recently sold another 30 acres there. He said it’s been a great investment by the city and is really bearing fruit for the taxpayers.
Mayor Woodford said the city needs to look forward and be thinking in terms of where we want to go next regarding industrial park land development. This allocation would provide seed money for some additional industrial park land acquisition and allow them to not have to bond the entire amount of a future real estate transition. Overall, $750,000 was allocated for “Local Economy and Growth.”
The next category was “Pedestrian Safety, Infrastructure Maintenance, and Public Spaces”.
The first item in this category was Enhanced Crosswalks which are crosswalks with flashing lights and safety enhancements. This is something that the Council has talked a great deal about over the last few years and is a popular program in the community. He said it was an important program for neighborhoods and he wanted to make sure that it was supported. Each enhanced crosswalk costs about $50,000 so the $100,000 allocation would allow two more crosswalks to be enhanced.
The next item was the Green Dot Sidewalk Program. Green Dot refers to the Department of Public Works’ system of marking sidewalks for replacement. The city has lots of sidewalks and rarely enough resources to keep up with all the maintenance as they’d like to. The $75,000 allocation would support that program and was particularly important for accessibility because differences in sidewalk squares can present barriers for people getting around the city.
The final item in this category was Jones Park Shade and Acoustical Improvements. This summer has been the first full summer of bookings at Jones Park, and as the city is starting to really experience that space, they are getting feedback about the airflow in the park. Mayor Woodford dryly noted that the park is in a ravine, so the wind has to be the right direction to keep the air moving but it’s not always in the right direction, and the sun can get pretty hot for daytime events. Given the tremendous asset that this park is to the community and the investment that’s been made in it, he wanted to do everything possible to make sure that it’s fully functional at all times of day. The $200,000 allocation would support the Parks Department in coming up with a solution for some shading. They have also gotten feedback from residents in the neighborhood about the noise that comes out of the park during events, so this allocation would also go toward, at the very least, funding a study of option to help reduce the sounds that come from the park. They want to be responsive to the concerns from folks in the neighborhood and have it be a place that works for everybody.
The allocations in the “Pedestrian Safety, Infrastructure Maintenance, and Public Spaces” category totaled $375,000
The final category of allocations was “Organizational Effectiveness and Public Access”.
The first item in that category was Council Chamber AV Upgrades. When the Council decided to proceed with ordinance changes allowing remote participation in committee and Council meetings going forward, staff estimated that it would cost between $50,000-$75,000 to upgrade the audio video system in the Council Chambers. They had talked about different sources for that money with American Recovery Plan Act funds being one potential source; however, his concern was that that is federal money which comes with strings attached in terms of how the city could use it and it’s entirely possible that, in the end, these uses may not comply with the final rules the federal government comes out with in regards to the use of those funds. By using the excess reserve fund balance to pay for this upgrade, the city would be using money that is both within our control and not offsetting any operating dollars.
The next item was a Council Chambers Hearing Loop. This was separate but connected to the audio/video upgrades. One of the things he has heard from a couple of people who have been in the chambers for meetings is that they have difficulty hearing when seated in the audience. The city does have assistive listening devices which go over the ears, but hearing loops send a signal directly into the hearing aid device and provides a much better quality of sound. It’s a fairly common technology and he hoped that by installing it they would be able to make the meetings more accessible for those who have that hearing aid technology. [I was honestly surprised to find out the city doesn’t already have a hearing loop.]
The next it was $25,000 for an Economic Development Study. For some time now, Mayor Woodford has wanted to set up standing up a task force to take a look at the economic development experience that the city of Appleton delivers. His hope is that they’ll be able to gather a comprehensive view of how the city is doing when it comes to economic development, covering everything from the permitting process, to the TIF application, to get a better sense of how competitive the city is and where we can improve. He thinks that in order to get unvarnished feedback from the community they need to hire a consultant so that the city is not simply conducting a city about itself and concluding that we’re doing a great job.
The final item was $50,000 for a Data Analyst Fellow. During the last budgeting process, the Council had discussed key performance indicators in the budget and the need to update those performance indicators. That discussion led down a path about how the city tracks its performance across the organization. Currently, there are many different aspects of the city organization that they gather data and track, and they do a great job with data analysis within their functions, but they don’t have a mechanism for doing that across the city organization as a whole. He thought that was a challenge for the city and the Council in terms of making informed decisions about how the city is doing as an organization—where they should allocate resources, where they have more work to do, and where we they can speed things up or slow things down. A data analyst could be helpful in synthesizing data across the organization and pulled it all together, and also in helping to display that information in ways that is helps it make sense to staff and be usable. Rather than doing a Table of Organization change and adding an employee, Mayor Woodford was proposing a fellowship which would essentially be a “souped up internship”. This would be somebody who holds a credential or is close to holding a credential in a field like data science, statistics, or computer science and who’s qualified to do this work. It would be a limited term position and would give the city the opportunity to try it out, build some dashboards, and see what they think. At the end, they might have something they can manage themselves and don’t need another employee for, or it might prove the worth of the position at which point they could have a discussion about adding an employee.
The funds in the “Organizational Effectiveness and Public Access” category totaled up $150,000.
Finance Director Tony Saucerman then spoke about the debt reduction aspect of the allocation. He was going to work with Brad Viegut who was already working with the city on issuing bonds to see if any general obligation bonds they currently have issued were eligible to be called. He did caution that when bonds are issued this is someone on the other side buying those bonds as an investment, so it isn’t like a mortgage where it could just be paid off ahead of time. There would need to be a call notice that the buyers are aware of when the bonds are sold, and with 10 year debt it can be tough to do because that’s a pretty short term and you end up paying for it if you try to put a call notice in because if investors think the debt might get called early, they’re not as willing to give the lower interest rates they would for a bond with no call provisions. However, they will take a look at what is out there and see if calling early is an option. If not, they would put the money toward funding a capital improvement project and reduce the the amount of debt they have to take on for that project in 2022.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) was chairing the meeting. He said he saw Helen Nagler in the audience. She served with him on the Council a long time ago, and he asked her if she had any comments. She made a brief comment but if was of mic so I don’t know what it was.
Alderperson Siebers then opened the fund allocation proposal up for discussion by the committee members and other attending alderpersons.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) asked if they had designated areas for the two enhanced crosswalks.
Mayor Woodford said that DPW was keeping a queue so the money would go toward whatever was next in that. The allocation would not change the process of evaluation or prioritization of crosswalks.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) ask if the $450,000 for a brand study and implementation was intended to cover everything related to the rebranding implementation, or was it just seen as a good starting point for a process that they may need more money to complete.
Mayor Woodford said his intention was for the allocation to fully fund the implementation. City staff talked to Kaukauna and DePere which have recently gone through rebranding processes, and he felt that staff had a fairly well-informed estimate of the costs. He did say that, like anything, they will have decisions to make about how they implement the changes and there will be some things that they either do or don’t do based on the resources that they have available. But his intention was to drag out the implementation over a decade because he didn’t think that served a brand implementation well. From a capacity perspective he didn’t think they would be able to fully implement it within a single year and it would be a multi-year process since it was extensive and would cover everything from letterhead, to business cards, to the patches on uniforms. But he didn’t want it to take too much time because that would cause the city to lose some of the value in implementing a new brand.
Alderperson Hartzheim agreed that it was something they should push forward if they intend to push it forward. If it takes 10 years, then at the end of that they’d be ready to change the logo again.
Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8) said he knew they have a multitude of different things such as signage, vehicles, stationary, etc, and wanted to know if they’d be putting things into categories so they didn’t end up with a little bit of signage changing followed by a little bit of vehicles as opposed to changing everything in a given category.
Mayor Woodford said that’s why they would do the study first. They would seek and hire a qualified firm to help guide the process and advise the city on the most effective way to do the work. He couldn’t answer Alderperson Reed’s question directly because they have not identified a firm yet or started work on that process. His expectation was that they would come up with a plan that delivers the most value for the community as possible.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) said that he did a lot of work on the brand study when he was with the city. It was a project that they felt years ago was important and the former mayor was a proponent of it. Alderperson Doran couldn’t recommend strongly enough how important the project was. It was an economic development tool that touches many aspects of our community, and he thought it was vitally important in bringing our community together under a singular umbrella. He was not a member of the Finance Committee, but his recommendation was that they put a little more money into the study portion of the project because he wanted to make sure that they started off right. There were two parts—doing the study and then the implementation. Doing the study was a one-shot deal that they had to get right the first time. He thought it was important that they made sure they were casting a wide net when they were looking for firms that would be interested in doing this project. He thought that $50k was potentially a little bit on the lower end of the scale, and he suggested that the committee move an additional $50,000 from the implementation side of the allocation to the study side perhaps with the caveat that if any was left over that it could be moved back over the implementation side. This would ensure that they end up with a brand that the entire community could be happy about and proud of.
Mayor Woodford said another thing they could do was not separate it into two pieces but simply allocate $500,000 to “Brand Study and Implementation”. He thought it would make it clearer and simpler in terms of administering the funds over the course of the project because it was going to be carried forward multiple times during the study and implementation.
Director Saucerman said he wrote it that way because they were probably only going to spend $50,000 this year. The other $450,000 basically made up a reserve that they were not going to spend in 2021. He said they would have to make a distinction about how much they thought would be needed in 2021. If they wanted something higher than $50,000 they could easily adjust that budget entry right now.
He said that although they could just include the full $500,000, it would be cumbersome for reasons I didn’t entirely understand. If they reserved $100,000 and didn’t use it all in 2021, they could carry it over into 2022 and designate it back into implementation at that point.
Alderpers Siebers asked what his recommendation was.
Director Saucerman said if the committee felt they would like a higher number for the initial study, then he would recommend increasing the $50,000 number to whatever they were comfortable with such as $100,000 and reduce the reserve to $400,000.
Alderperson Van Zeeland made that motion seconded by Alderperson Reed.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked Mayor Woodford where the original $50,000 figure came from.
Mayor Woodford said that came from conversations with other communities who had done these as well as a little bit of market analysis in terms of what other studies have cost. He said the $50,000 seemed to be a solid number in terms of what those studies cost, but to Alderperson Doran’s point, those are just estimates and it could end up being more expensive, especially given the sort of economic recovery environment we’re right now.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked Director Saucerman if they changed the numbers now from $50,000 to $100,000 would that affect the money that was available down the line if the full $100,000 wasn’t used or would that money still be available? [I think that was her question but it was a little bit of a disjointed back and forth, so I may not have accurately reflected what she was getting at.]
Director Saucerman said they would have the allocated funding in 2021. If the study ended up costing only $60,000 it would carry over in March at which point it could be designated for implementation.
Mayor Woodford said their goal was to have a good study but also be as economical as possible and have as much money available for implementation as they could.
Helen Nagler who was in the audience wanted to speak, which Alderperson Siebers permitted. She said she thought the committee shouldn’t say how much they want to spend. If they said they were going to spend $100,000 then they were going to get bids for $100,000. She thought they should leave it the way it was and see what the going rate was. She didn’t think they should give an amount that was double what they originally talked about because that’s what they would get. That had been her experience as the Outagamie County Chair of Finance. [I may have cheered a little. Ms. Nagler said exactly what I was thinking while I was watching this play out.]
Alderperson Siebers asked Mayor Woodford if he wanted to respond to that.
The mayor demurred, saying he was not a member of the committee and it was really up to the committee in terms of what they wanted to do regarding the allocations. What they had in front of them prior to the amendment being introduced was his office’s recommendation.
Alderperson Siebers asked Director Saucerman if he had any suggestions.
Director Saucerman agreed with the mayor that it was the committee’s decision at that point, and the recommendations were before them.
Alderperson Reed clarified that if they allocated the $100,000 that number wouldn’t go into the Request For Proposal that would go out to potential consultants.
Director Saucerman responded that the number would go into the budget and give them spending authority up to that amount.
Alderperson Reed said that meant they would know internally what their limits were but they wouldn’t be putting that out there.
Director Saucerman said that was true. The RFP process was somewhat independent of the budgeting process.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) agreed with what Ms. Nagler said, pointed out that the committee meeting was public record, and trusted the work that the Mayor and staff did when they brought the recommendations to the committee. If they said the going rate was $50,000 that was sufficient.
Alderperson Metzler was also really excited that the website was a part of this, really wanted to make sure they didn’t overspend on the front end, and encouraged the other committee members to not make this change.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said she agreed with Alderperson Metzler and respected Ms. Nagler’s experience with these things. She knew she couldn’t retract the amendment she had made without someone removing their second, but she said she would vote against it.
Alderperson Reed had seconded the amendment and said he wondered if there was a benefit from a budget perspective of changing it to $100,000. If in the future they had to go back and fix it, why not just allocated $100,000 now.
Director Saucerman said it was the committee’s call. The $450,000 would be reserved in the general fund, so if more money was needed in the future they could make a motion to use whatever amount they wanted to add to the funding for the study.
Alderperson Reed didn’t have a strong opinion either way so he withdrew his second and Alderperson Van Zeeland withdrew her amendment.
Alderperson Hartzheim wanted to have it noted that when she spoke with Parks and Recreation Director Dean Gazza about the line item listed as parks, he told her it was incorrect to assume the full $200,000 would be allocated for Jones Park. She said that he stated directly to her that $100,000 of that $200,000 was to be set aside to begin the Lundgaard Park project in District 13.
Mayor Woodford said that the memo noted what was recommended for the allocation. If dollars were to be allocated for other projects, that would need to go through a separate process. He said that they have many needs on the parks front, not the least of which was Lundgaard Park which was a high priority. He thought their hope was that they would be able to identify a solution for Jones Park that would then leave resources available within that parks line for other projects; however what was noted in the memo for Jones Park is what the committee would be approving at this point, and any deviation with those dollars would have to go through a separate approval process.
Alderperson Doran had one other suggestion for a potential amendment. He said he talked with both Director Gazza and Public Works Director Paula Vandehey as well as, briefly, with Mayor Woodford and all three were supportive of this idea.
Alderpersons Doran and Brad Firkus (District 3) had introduced a resolution at the prior Common Council meeting that would direct the mayor to budget money for a study to research the feasibility of creating a traffic utility in Appleton. After having conversations with the two directors and the mayor, he wanted to suggest amending the allocations to take $50,000 from the enhanced crosswalk project, which would take that down from funding two projects to only one. He said, per Director Vandehey, there were originally eight projects staff had identified as priorities, four of which have already been completed. He said that Director Vandehey had indicated she was comfortable taking away $50k from that line item and only leaving enough money to fund one enhanced crossing instead of two.
He then asked to take another $50,000 from the Jones Park line item as well and said that Director Gazza had indicated he could certainly part with that money and still be able to accomplish some of the things they wanted to do at Jones Park.
Alderperson Doran stated that Director Vandehey thought $100,000 would be sufficient to fund a traffic utility study.
He thought that if they funded the study with an allocation from the excess funds balance they wouldn’t have to wait for the 2022 budget to be approved or spend most of 2022 waiting for the study to be completed. Funding the study now would give them the opportunity to hire a consultant to do that work and bring recomendations back to potentially later this year. That would save the city over a year of time in finding out whether a transporation utility fee would be a feasible option for Appleton to look into.
Alderperson Siebers said he was hesitant to make any amendments given that Directors Gazza and Vandehey were not present; however, he did want to hear the mayor’s comments.
Mayor Woodford confirmed that he was indeed supportive of this change for the reason that Alderperson Doran stated. The resolution had come forward after the recommendations for allocations had already been made. Waiting to identify resources for this study in the 2022 budget, which they know will be constrained, would ultimately delay their ability to get up and running on the study. He reiterated that he was absolutely supportive of this change. He added that the enhanced crosswalk program is something they have been funding through bonding as capital improvement projects. This was an opportunity to not bond for a couple of those projects, but if the committee made the change Alderperson Doran was requesting, the city could still do one enhanced crosswalk and then look for other funding opportunities going forward. He also said it was accurate the Directors Gazza and Vandehey were supportive of the proposed amendment and added that he himself had no reservations about the change.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that she felt very uncomfortable setting aside that much money for something that hadn’t even gone to committee yet. She thought they would still have the ability to make a change later if needed, but she felt uncomfortable making that change now with no research or recommendations from staff.
Alderperson Reed agreed with her and said he would like to get the resolution in front of a committee along with a recommendation from the mayor so they could look at the pros and cons and then decide whether or not to move forward, at which point they could deal with the budgetary issues. He didn’t want to put the cart before the horse.
Alderperson Meltzer wondered about the proposed $100,000 cost for the study and wasn’t sure how to determine if that was the correct dollar amount since the resolution hadn’t been through committee yet.
Mayor Woodford said his thinking was that they would be establishing a reserve for a study. Another option would be to simply create an undesignated reserve. He then asked Director Saucerman if they could do that within this allocation.
Director Saucerman said it would be similar to what they were doing for the brand study. They would basically take the reserve fund balance and designate whatever amount they wanted for a future potential transportation utility study. They would not actually be putting it on the budget line saying “Go ahead and spend it.” They would still need another action to bring it into the budget itself.
Alderperson Siebers told Alderperson Doran that he had a week until the next Council meeting at which he could make that amendment if he wanted, but it didn’t seem that any committee members wanted to make an amendment at that time.
The committee then voted on the allocations of the excess balance funds and unanimously approved the mayor’s recommendations without making any changes.
After that, they took up the resolution regarding the Brand Study Resolution.
They held no further discussion about that and approved it unanimously.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=870495&GUID=EE6BB9D8-F33E-4E43-951B-D3601C9755A8&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply