Common Council Votes 14-0 To Maintain $480 Parking Pass Benefit, Allocate Any Unused Funds To Police Department For Assistance To Homeless Individuals

The Common Council met 12/21/2022. One of the items they took up was Resolution 12-R-22, the resolution to eliminate the Council parking passes. Currently, sitting alderpersons receive an annual parking pass worth $480 per alderperson. As initially written, this resolution would have eliminated that parking pass benefit and reallocated the $7,200 in total funds to the Public Works Department concrete budget.

The resolution was initially discussed and recommended for denial by the Finance Committee. During the Council meeting, the resolution was amended (a) so that it did not eliminate the parking pass benefit and (b) so that any funds left available due to alderpersons willingly turning in their parking passes would be reallocated to the Police Department’s budget to aid officers in assisting homeless persons with challenges caused by winter weather and related community safety expenses.

The amendment was approved 13-1 with Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) casting the lone dissenting vote, and then the resolution as amended was approved by a vote of 14-0.

I’ve prepared a transcript of the full discussion for your downloading pleasure:

Alderperson Hartzheim was the main sponsor of the original resolution. She urged the Council to approve the resolution because she believed the current parking benefit asked taxpayers to pay more than was truly necessary for alderpersons to do their jobs. “The authors of this resolution have been told that we are playing political theater and that this is virtue signaling. And I beg you to think otherwise, because this [parking pass benefit] is directly telling our taxpayers that we are more important than they are and that it’s more important for us to have a benefit that is more than what is necessary for parking.”

Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15), another sponsor of the resolution, thought that the $7,200 could be spent in thousands of other ways which would impact far more people in Appleton than it currently did. “I would bet if this resolution was over something else that talked about cutting $7,200, this wouldn’t face nearly the opposition that it has. And we should ask ourselves why that is, because when it comes down to it, all this money does is benefit 15 people out of 75,000.”

He addressed a number of arguments that had been made in opposition to the resolution:

• If they got rid of parking passes they needed to replace it with something else. – He disagreed that it needed to be replaced, pointing out that most of the alderpersons had voted for a 8% pay raise to take effect next year.
• The money designated for parking passes didn’t take away from anything else. – He thought that belief showed a complete lack of understanding of finances.
• $7,200 was not worth arguing over. – He noted that during Budget Saturday, department directors had talked about ways to cut a mere $250 from their budgets.
• Some city employees who have parking passes do not use those passes every day; therefore, the Common Council shouldn’t give up their parking passes. – Alderperson Doran said that Council members were not employees and he did not think the amount of time Council members used their parking passes was even comparable to how much employees used them.
• This resolution and past discussions about removing the parking pass benefit was political theater. – Alderperson Doran could not count the number of times political theater had taken place in the Council Chambers [the implication being, if I’m interpreting the subtext correctly, that that particular objection to the resolution was absurd.]
• Without the parking pass benefit, only a certain class of people would be able to run for Council. – “Do we really think anyone runs for Council because we get a parking pass? I bet none of us who ran for council knew at the time we were running that you got a parking pass.”
• The parking pass benefit did not penalize taxpayers. – He believed it did given it was used to benefit 15 people rather than 75,000.
• Parking passes enabled alderpersons to get to meetings on time. – “What allows us to be here on time is leaving early, not having a parking pass.”
• The parking ramp ensured a close parking spot. – There were dozens of parking stalls and parking lots that were closer than the ramp.

He also listed a few other objections to the resolution that he said he didn’t even know how to respond to.

• Reallocating the funds to the concrete budget would not provide a tangible benefit to anyone else in the community.
• Reallocating the funds wouldn’t fix anything.
• $7,200 was hard to make a difference with.
• Parking passes provide equity for Council members.

Although he said he didn’t know how to respond to those objection he did actually respond to them by saying, “If we choose not to support this [resolution], in my mind, we’re telling the community that we feel we’re entitled to this benefit. Opposing this resolution isn’t about fairness or equity or certainly not about fiscal responsibility. It’s entitlement, and it’s nothing more. And I think it’s time for us to do the right thing. Remove this wasteful spending from the budget, guys.”

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) asked how many sidewalk blocks $7,200 would purchase as was told by Public Works Director Danielle Block that it would cover 5-10 concrete sidewalk squares.

Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) proposed an amendment to strike the existing “therefore be it resolved” statement and replace it with “Any money for unused 2023 parking permits from alders who choose not to take a parking pass for 2023 be added to the Police Department’s budget to aid officers in assisting homeless persons with challenges caused by winter weather and related community safety expenses. The amount to be transferred will be equal to the full twelve-month costs of parking passes from any even-numbered district’s alderperson or any odd-numbered district’s alderperson if that person is running for re-election unopposed, plus the costs of four months of parking passes for any other alder who chooses not to accept a parking pass in 2023. The funds will be made available to the Police Department after the first week of January 2023.”

He did this because he wanted the alderpersons to be free to choose whether they gave up their benefit or not and he also did not want an alderperson currently running for reelection to be able to make a decision for any alderperson who might take their place in the coming year.

He also explained that he was prompted to reallocate the funds to the Police Department in response to a Facebook post he had seen regarding a donation of hand warmers for the police to provide to those in need.

He said he had initially criticized the resolution because $7,200 would not have a very noticeable impact on the concrete. He felt that allocating the funds for the police to use to help the homeless would provide a greater community impact. “There’s been stories in the past of our officers paying for jackets and other stuff out of their own pockets for people they’re trying to help. And this is just one way where we can choose—we can make our own decision on whether or not how important this parking passes to each of us as individuals, and if we say ‘You know what? I don’t really need this. I can do without it,’ then we know that money is going to go somewhere where it’s going to do some real benefit.”

Alderpersons Kristin Alfheim (District 11), Israel Del Toro (District 4), Alex Schultz (District 9), Vered Meltzer (District 2), and Wolff all spoke in favor of this amendment.

Alderperson Alfheim appreciated that the amendment still kept the parking pass benefit for those who wanted it but allowed those who turned their passes in to use the funds for something of value.

Alderperson Del Toro thought it showed a willingness to compromise and appreciated that the money would be allocated to a fun where it would “have a noticeable impact, as opposed to a concrete budget.”

Alderperson Schultz didn’t use his parking pass and loved having a better use for those dollars. However he also stressed the importance of the parking pass benefit saying alderpersons served a minimum of several hours a week for a small amount of money. He also stressed that the $7,200 was “miniscule in the vast volume of the budget.”

Alderperson Meltzer thought the amendment was a creative solution, and Alderperson Wolff agreed with that assessment.

Alderperson Hartzheim opposed the amendment because the purpose of the resolution was to eliminate the parking pass benefit. She was the only alderperson who voted against the amendment.

Once the resolution was amended, the Council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1064885&GUID=23157F67-0079-435B-BD93-2236F2BF0F43