Common Council Defeats Amendment That Called For 2023 Library Project Borrowing To Be Reduced By $2 Million

The Common Council held a special session on 11/10/2021 to vote on the 2022 executive budget. All Alderpersons were present except Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) who had been expected to join them but then did not.

The item that took up over half of the meeting was the proposed amendment to “Reduce 2023 Borrowing for Library Project CIP from $13,542,000 to $11,542,000”. This amendment was introduced by Alderpersons Kristin Alfheim (District 11) and Chad Doran (District 15) in response to the 2021 ARPA budget amendments which included an allocation of $2 million to provide broadband service and infrastructure for the library. This amendment seemed aimed at clarifying that that $2 million was supposed to go toward the $26.4 million budgeted cost of the library project and not be on top of that $26.4 million.

I’ll just say right off the bat that the amendment did not pass. In some respects, approval of it would have not done anything binding anyways since it related to the 2023 budget not the 2022 budget that was being approved that evening. During the meeting Finance Director Saucerman explained that this was 2023 item and the 2023 budget would involve a whole separate discussion that the Council would take up next year and they would basically start from scratch. If I understood Director Saucerman correctly when he said, “There really is nothing holding anything on this action to 2023’s budget at this point,” voting to approve this amendment would not have legally required them to take any sort of actions regarding the 2023 budget.

The meeting started out with a time of Public Participation. 8 members of the public spoke, all expressing opposition to the passage of the amendment.

Nancy Scheuerman, the President of the Library Board of Trustees, spoke on behalf of the Board of Trustees. She stressed the collaborative nature of the library project process. She said, “We look forward to an approval of the proposed 2020 [sic] library budget and also look forward to that $10 million special funding for the building project. It’s vital, I think, for the full fulfillment of this project that this funding occur at this juncture”. She said they needed to plan thoughtfully for the new and emerging priorities and specifically mentioned sustainability. She also said, “We wanted to be sure to avoid any short-term reductions or changes that could result in increases in future spending which could actually end up costing more money, particularly in operational costs.”

Kara Sullivan, the Executive Director of the Friends of Appleton Public Library, said that the Friends enthusiastically supported the library project. “As such, I support full funding for the project with no budget amendments.” She raved over the planned amenities of the library. “It’s easy to envision, given the totality of the building, that Appleton Public Library will quickly become the place for collaborative learning and social interaction. In closing, the best way to make our community stronger is to invest in our library. Please do not limit the potential of this project so early in the process.”

Jill opposed the amendment and said, “There seems to be some confused thinking that $2 million from federal funds allocated for broadband in the county can be subtracted from the funds set aside for library construction costs.”

John said the library was important to him and he felt it was important to the community. He told a personal story about how he had been impacted by libraries. “I would like to see us fully fund what we originally budgeted.”

John was there to advocate for the “full funding” of the library and “against the amendment that wants to cut $2 million from it”. He said the $2 million felt like a contingency fund and he thought contingency funds were important. He’s been involved in a couple dozen institutional projects and the one lesson he has taken from that is, “If you want to save money it’s really gonna cost you.” He also told the Council, “If you hope to save money, it’s really gonna cost you; don’t get into a false economy.”

Rick also spoke in favor of “full funding” for the library project without any amendment.

Balakuntalam Sridhar was a board member of the Friends of Appleton Public Library as well as in leadership with the Rotary Club of Appleton. He opposed the budget amendment and thought we should maintain Appleton’s reputation as a model city. He believed we needed to be future-proofing the city and the library was important for the future education of the entire community. He thought a distinction should be made between expenditures and investments, with the library being an investment.

Carolyn Desrosiers supported the library project and opposed the amendment saying, “I believe the library is the heartbeat of our community.” She characterized the amendment as “the amendment to remove $2 million from the budget.” She thought doing that would be short-sighted. “We don’t know the rules for how those ARPA dollars can be spent yet, and I’d rather see us make the decision to invest as folks have stated, in the future of this community based on what we know now and not put ourselves in a situation where we may not really be able to fully realize this amazing proposal that we have—this moment that we have as a community to come together.” [Note: I’m not actually sure her statement that we don’t know how ARPA dollars can be spent yet is accurate. The city is operating under the guidance they have received from the federal government regarding what is and is no allowable.]

After the public speakers make their statements, the Council sat down to business and took the procedural steps necessary to take up the amendments as a Committee of the Whole which essentially means that instead of sending it back to the Finance Committee to deliberate on, the entire Council functioned as a committee as they deliberated on the items before them.

After convening as a Committee of the Whole, Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) who is the Chair of the Finance Committee took over the chairing duties which Mayor Woodford had been handling until then.

Alderperson Siebers started out by saying, “Before we get into the amendments, I just want to share a little story, and some of you have heard it already. When you get to be my age, you like to tell stories. I remember going way back when, when I was a new alderperson and it was budget adoption night, and I was a very passionate alderperson. I was the savior of the taxpayer. I was gonna save the taxpayer a lot of money. And so, in those days we didn’t put our amendments on paper. We gave them verbally at the meeting, and so it came my time and I stood up and I cut this and I cut that and I cut this–15 minutes of cutting, and I felt pretty good. And I was surprised that my colleagues tolerated me, but, you know, anyways they did. After it was all said and done and voted on and it was a favorable vote–feeling really proud at what I did I turned to the Finance Director and I said, ‘How much money did I save the taxpayer?’ and the Finance Director said, ‘Well, my best guesstimate is a half a cent.’ So, I’m saying that, that you all keep that in mind. We are dealing with a multi-million-dollar budget, and we can talk all night long in regards to a couple dollars here, a couple dollars there. So, with that in mind, with having an audience, if you don’t mind, I would like to take the library amendment first.”

After that, they took up the library amendment. 

Alderperson Siebers wanted to make sure the audience in the room clearly understood that the amendment had nothing to do with the 2022 budget. Rather, it was related to the 2023 budget. He then opened things up for the alderpersons to speak.

Alderperson Alfheim, one of the amendment coauthors spoke first. She felt that she had several jobs as an alderperson. One was to help establish needs and prioritize them. The second was to deal transparently and accountably with the residents. Through her interactions with the community and those involved with the library she believed the library provided generational value to the community and that it’s need and priority had been clearly established.

The amendment had been about transparency and accountability. She said, “The reason that my name is on the amendment is because I feel that in the initial conversations, I was unclear—and I asked questions and I challenged—but I was unclear as to whether the $2 million from ARPA would be going against the cap that the mayor has promised the city to keep, and I just needed to know if it was or was not and if we could have a hard answer on that. And I learned through many conversations that it’s a very hard question to answer. I know that Mayor Jake has done an outstanding job.

“In the last week, with a number of questions I have done a lot of research as well, and my findings—or my rationale at this point—is that the ARPA dollars were created to deal with the increased cost or things that have been lost due to Covid. In that vein, it is my belief that, with acknowledgement that costs on our project are rising—the cost of the building, the cost of the expense—the expenses are absolutely going up, that was an unforeseen issue. we were not aware of that going into.

“With that in mind, I now understand that by utilizing the ARPA dollars to go towards this project it is indeed saving the city. It is helping. The ARPA dollars are doing exactly what we have been asked to use them for which is to offset a cost that we did not anticipate.

“All of that being said, and I know this might confuse some, but all of that being said, I now can rationalize. I now believe that we have transparency, meaning we are acknowledging that costs are going to be higher than anticipated. That to me is transparency. I believe that accountability has been validated. In my investigating I have had numerous conversations in terms of capital and what our intentions are. I have full faith in the city staff and in the mayor and the City Council in making good decisions in the use of our dollars. I believe that the transparency and the accountability does indeed exist. So, I no longer have a gray area.

“I am, in essence, withdrawing my support of the amendment itself or I will be voting against it. I am fully in favor, now that my questions have been clarified, that we have accountability and we have transparency in what we are using the dollars for or why. Thank you.”

Alderperson Doran, the other coauthor on the amendment, was then allowed to speak.

Before he spoke, Alderperson Siebers asked him why he was proposing this amendment now as opposed to waiting until next year during the 2023 budget process.

Alderperson Doran said, “By proposing this now, what we’re doing is making a statement to the community that we are being budget conscious and we are working towards keeping the promise that we made to the community, that the mayor had stated, that we are going to build for $26.4 million a fantastic library that’s going to meet the needs of our community, deliver on the programs we’re looking for, and it’s gonna meet the needs of the community now and well into the future, and by allocating $2 million on top of that, we’re now effectively committing $28.4 million to the project. And I think there will be opportunity for us to have future discussion in this project as it moves forward on costs and where we lie with increased in construction materials and other things that may be unforeseen at this point.

“But I think if we’re willing to start now before we even put a shovel in the ground at higher than what we committed to I’m not sure that we’re gonna put a ceiling on the amount that we’re gonna be willing to spend. We can probably all be reasonably sure that the cost of the building is going to end up being more than $26.4 million. But we know that we’re going to see some private donations that will help cover some of that, and at some point, we have to set aside the emotional aspects of this project—of wanting to see this fantastic facility for our community that we will have one way or the other—and we need to look at the fiscal responsibility that we also have to the community.

“We’ve asked—departments have been asked to cut budgets this year, projects have been pushed off some for one year some for as far as five years. This building, this project, will probably end up being the largest project that most of us work on in our time as a Council. This is a high dollar project with big stakes for the community, both in terms of how much we spend and what we come up with with a final product. But I think we all can be sure that what we’re going to get is something that’s gonna make this community proud.

“But we can’t do that at the expense or the lack of control of what we’re willing to spend on that project. At some point, we have to look at the future for the city beyond just this project and what we’re gonna be able to afford for other things that this community needs. The library for years has been a—one of the biggest drivers of bringing people downtown. In the future it’s going to be do an even better job of that, and how exciting that will be for our community.

“But I think we have to keep that aspect of fiscal responsibility in mind, and I think it’s really important for us to make that statement now, and that’s why this amendment is geared toward 2023 borrowing rather than 2022. We’ll be able to start the project, continue on with what we have planned for now and yet, at the same time, still make a statement to the community that we’re being fiscally responsible, and that we’re going to do our very best to hold the line on spending and meet the commitment that the city has made.”

Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) said she understood and agrees with Alderperson Alfheim’s statement about ARPA funds being here for the purpose of taking care of local governments and helping local government deal with the effects of Covid 19, those funds were also specifically set aside for infrastructure, to allow cities and local governments to make improvements without debt. She thought this amendment reflected that. They were trying to help Appleton taxpayers not see that additional $2 million in debt.

She went on to say that for every constituent she had had contact her to vote against this amendment, she had also heard from one or two more telling her that they were concerned about the Common Council keeping their promises. She believed this amendment would allow them to be true to their promise.

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said he felt like the library project had been a topic of conversation for his whole life. He started talking about the library project in general, but Alderperson Siebers asked him to focus on the issue in financial issue.

Alderperson Wolff said, “So, basically, I’m against this amendment because I needed—for my constituents, I’m going to make sure that this building is built on time with the money that we’re allocating out. And the $2 million is a safety net for inflation and that’s exactly what the ARPA money is supposed to do. It’s supposed to be a buffer from that money and guide us in to making this project a reality.”

Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4) briefly expressed his opposition to the amendment.

Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) said, “I encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I would like to entertain you all with an analogy. The budget, the capital improvement project, the way that this is all put together, you can think of it as a living organism, just like a banzai tree is a living organism. You might have your goal and vision to be as minimalist as possible, to have your tree as narrow as possible, but when you’re pruning it, you still do not cut off so much that you compromise the tree’s ability to survive. And you certainly don’t say, ‘Since I was able to add some fertilizer to the soil, that justifies me cutting off an additional piece.’ So, the ARPA money is fertilizer. The ARPA money is not the same money as we have allocated. If we reduce the funding right now, we are basically undermining our support for this project. So, I encourage you all to defeat this amendment. Stay focused on the fact that this project is its own whole organism. Whatever benefits the ARPA funding brings in in addition is a separate matter and we have to make sure that we preserve the health and vitality of the project itself.”

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) indicated she would not support the amendment, “There’s nothing fiscally responsible about cutting a budget that hasn’t been set when inflation is on the rise. Period. So, I would encourage my colleagues to defeat this as well.”

Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10) had several questions. Firstly, he wanted to confirm that the $2 million in ARPA funding was going to be spend on library broadband.

Mayor Woodford answered that, yes, the Finance Committee had recommended and the Common Council had approved allocating $2 million toward the library project to address broadband infrastructure. That was, as they understood it, one of the allowable uses for the ARPA funds.

Alderperson Smith wanted to know if someone could provide a deeper understanding of what the broadband would actually do in the library. [It sounded a little to me like he wanted to know how $2 million of library broadband compared to at home internet service and technology.]

Mayor Woodford said that, at a very high level, the broadband technology would be to provide public access to the internet. That was the purpose of the funds.

Alderperson Smith wondered if anyone could talk about why $2 million was needed for broadband and how what would be offered at the library compared to the internet access people set up in their homes.

Mayor Woodford she he couldn’t speak to the technical aspect of that. They were still relatively early in the design development process and the details about the cost of the broadband network infrastructure was still being sorted out. The $2 million was recommended and approved as an earmark for this purpose. It has not yet been spent.

Alderperson Smith’s last question centered on the fact that this amendment was for the 2023 budget. He wondered if, procedurally, it would be possible for them to hold the amendment until next year when they took up the 2023 budget or did they need to vote on it now. Waiting until next year would give them more time to see how things works out budget-wise as the year progressed.

Finance Director Tony Saucerman said that tonight they were voting on the 2022 budget. This was a 2023 item and that would be discussed next year. Voting for this amendment would not bind them to a specific action next year as related to the 2023 budget.

Attorney Behrens said that, regarding holding it for next year, the only consideration was that the Council would go through an election cycle and it would be a different body taking the amendment up if it was held for that extended length of time.

Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) said “Director Saucerman pretty much made my points. The 5-year plan is provided to give us context on the current budget…it’s not binding, it’s not setting us to anything. This really does not accomplish what needs to be accomplished. And even if it did, 11 months from now, 12 months from now when we’re talking about the 2023 budget, we’re gonna know a lot more details and be able to make a much more informed decision.”

Alderperson Wolff made a motion to call the question. That motion passed.

The Council voted on the amendment. It failed 11-3 with Alderpersons Matt Reed (District 8 ), Hartzheim, and Doran being the three who voted in favor of it.

[For what it’s worth, my impression is that we are solidly on a path to having the library cost more than the $26.4 million that has been budgeted. The question is, how much more will it end up costing?]

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=897733&GUID=CA4F0BCF-FC1E-40B1-A2BB-5F92AB863E55