Back in December of 2022, the Common Council voted to approve Resolution 12-R-22. In its original form, this resolution would have eliminated the aldermanic parking pass benefit, currently valued at $480 annually per alderperson, and reallocated the $7,200 in total funds to the Public Works Department concrete budget. The resolution, however, was only passed after it was amended to (1) allow individual alderpersons to choose whether or not they were going to keep or turn in their parking passes and (2) to reallocate any funds to the Police Department’s budget to aid officers in assisting homeless persons rather than to the Public Works Department’s concrete budget.
As has been reported to the Municipal Services Committee, the city of Appleton is currently replacing an average of 1.81 miles of roadway per year which is 0.52% of the transportation system. That puts the city on a 200-year replacement cycle. The ideal timeframe for replacing the city’s roads is 50 years; however, 100 years is probably where most communities are at right now. The city’s then Director of Public Works, Paula Vandehey told the committee that Appleton’s 200-year replacement trajectory, “[I]s not sustainable. So, I think if we can find some way to at least start shooting for the hundred years, that would put us in a much better situation.”
The city has explored creating a transportation utility but has held off on moving forward with that due to uncertainty about the legality of transportation utilities.
Additionally, the city is paying for less and less of its infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs through tax dollars and is increasingly borrowing for those projects. 15 years ago, the city paid for 85% of road projects with cash from the general fund and only borrowed money to cover the remaining 15%. Now, that ratio has almost completed reversed, with the city borrowing for 80% of the cost.
Beyond that, the city is lagging in infrastructure maintenance in general, and not just road pavement. In 2019, a consultant hired by the city concluded that the city should replace more than 30 miles of water mains between 2020-2024 (an average of 6 miles per years), but as of April of 2022 (two years into that 5-year time frame), the city had replaced only 5 miles of water mains, less than what should have been replaced in a single year.
Mayor Woodford has pointed to a lack of shared tax revenue from the state as a major contributing factor in cities not having enough money and needing to rely on borrowing/debt in order to fund operations. Although overall tax collections in the state were increasing, shared revenue from the state to municipalities was decreasing. Per Mayor Woodford, “[T]his is a structural issue for us in local government in Wisconsin. And Wisconsin is special in this way and not in a good way. There are other ways to fund municipalities that other states have figured out, and we seem to have not figured it out yet in the state of Wisconsin. And so this is meaningfully impacting our ability to deliver services for our residents and maintain municipal operations.”
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) has made numerous attempts since taking office to reallocate and designate funds for infrastructure maintenance. Outside of the Transportation Utility resolution which is on hold, those efforts have all been voted down. Two particular examples that spring to mind are the above-mentioned aldermanic parking pass resolution and Resolution 5-R-22, the Water Main Resolution, and Resolution.
The water main resolution as originally written would have reallocated $6 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds to replace undersized water mains throughout the city. The resolution did eventually pass by a vote of 12-2 but only after the language about reallocated ARPA funds was removed and the resolution was amended to simply ask the state to send Appleton $35.1 million.
I checked with City Clerk Kami Lynch, and [perhaps unsurprisingly] her office has not heard back from any state officials or representatives after the amended resolution was forwarded to various state-level offices.
My impression from all of this is that the Common Council does not seem willing, even when it is in its power, to increase the funds for Appleton’s infrastructure maintenance at all, either by $6 million, as in the water main resolution, or by a token $7,200, as in the aldermanic parking pass resolution.
At the time the parking pass resolution was passed in December 2022, 7 of the alderpersons were utilizing their parking pass benefits. Those were:
- William Siebers (District 1)
- Israel Del Toro (District 4)
- Katie Van Zeeland (District 5)
- Denise Fenton (District 6)
- Maiyoua Thao (District 7)
- Joss Thyssen (District 8)
- Nate Wolf (District 12)
The 8 alderpersons who were not utilizing the parking pass benefit were:
- Vered Meltzer (District 2)
- Brad Firkus (District 3)
- Alex Schultz (District 9)
- Vaya Jones (District 10)
- Kristin Alfheim (District 11)
- Sheri Hartzheim (District 13)
- Chris Croatt (District 14)
- Chad Doran (District 15)
I contacted all 15 alderpersons and asked them, “I have gotten the impression that the Common Council is unwilling to reallocate city funds to increase the budget for the maintenance of our transportation and underground utility system. At the same time, the city is borrowing a majority of the dollars that go toward road infrastructure maintenance and is on track to have a 200-year road replacement schedule which is not sustainable. What plans do you and/or the Council have to address these issues?”
Additionally, I asked the 7 alderpersons who were using parking passes, “will you be turning your parking pass in and thereby providing additional funds to help the Police Department in their outreach to homeless people?”
Finally, I asked Mayor Woodford, “I was wondering what the plan is to get our sewer, water, and street maintenance onto a sustainable path both financially and time-wise. It’s been reported at committee meetings that borrowing for infrastructure projects have increased markedly over the years and the city is currently on a trajectory to have a 200-year road replacement schedule which is double the more acceptable 100 year replacement schedule and 4 times the ideal 50 year replacement schedule.
“I understand you would ideally like to see more revenue sharing from the state in order to fund increased infrastructure maintenance and replacement and I know that you have been working with other municipalities to lobby for an increase in shared revenue. Is there a timeframe by which residents could expect shared revenue to increase? And, if it is doesn’t increase, is there a backup plan to replace our infrastructure in a timely manner while also reducing the percentage we are borrowing?”
Mayor Woodford responded saying that he was “heartened by the emerging bi-partisan recognition of the need for change to the way local governments are funded in Wisconsin. My expectation is that these negotiations (sausage making) will pick up as the Governor drafts his budget and the Legislature takes it up. As far as when we can expect to see changes agreed to and implemented, your guess is as good as mine.” He also stated plainly, “absent significant changes in revenue, and assuming we maintain our commitment to stabilizing municipal debt, we will not have the resources to meaningfully accelerate infrastructure replacement.”
Two of the alderpersons who had been using the parking pass benefit indicated that they would be turning in their passes.
Alderperson Fenton directed me to a post on her aldermanic blog in which she indicated, “I turned in my city parking pass this week and purchased one on my own, which I will keep just for the winter months.”
Further on in that blog post, she talked about the budget constraints related to street reconstruction, stating, “I, along with the mayor, am always open to hearing from district and city residents about your concerns. However, given that the city is being squeezed by the failure of revenue sharing from the state to keep pace with income tax collections while the state is sitting on a $6 billion surplus, I would also suggest contacting your state representatives. If the state passes a small income tax cut while cities are being forced to increase property taxes and reduce services or pass referendums to fund public safety and schools, our citizens are not better off. To me this is a non-partisan issue.”
Alderperson Del Toro said, “I do plan to turn in my pass to help support the PD’s efforts to help our unhoused population. I think this is a much better plan that what was proposed by other colleagues as it makes a much bigger and noticeable impact than pouring a few feet of concrete.”
He also referenced a lack of shared revenue from the state as impacting the rate of infrastructure maintenance in the city. “As for changing our infrastructure replacement, I continue to email our state legislature to change the way they share revenue with the communities that provide the funds that are stuck in the state. We pay our taxes here in Appleton and the State needs to share its ‘surplus’ back to the communities that need infrastructure improvements, like us here in the Fox Cities.”
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland reiterated her position that the budget amendment related to the aldermanic parking pass benefit that Alderperson Doran had introduced during the 2023 budget process in November had been political theater. After Resolution 12-R-22 was passed, she opted to keep utilizing the parking pass benefit, explaining, “Now, personally, it is not about the cost of parking that I am concerned about. (Though, I believe that we should be mindful of how the cost of being an alder compares to the salary of an alder. I do not know many successful people who spend beyond what they earn! We also do not want to disqualify people from representative government based on income.) I spend a lot of time at City Hall (and previously at the library) during the day for meetings. Having a pass has allowed me to park in the ramp without worry about plugging a meter during essential discussions or the risk of parking tickets.”
She wrote a very thorough 7-page explanation of her thoughts on the city’s transportation and utility infrastructure funding in which she explained the Public Works areas the city was managing well.
In this, she pointed to structural issues at the state level as playing a large role in why the city is not able to adequately fund infrastructure maintenance.
I absolutely agree with your concern about borrowing for street projects and the system being unsustainable. This is why having a long-term plan to reduce debt is essential. We also need to find a way to fund road construction in a way that is fair for taxpayers (offering relief to residential homeowners that currently shoulder most of the burden) that also meets the regulations that the state legislature has in place that controls how municipalities are allowed to handle their budgets. The Council has not just sat on its hands and complained. We are actively looking for solutions.
These solutions would be more straightforward if we had not inherited, in my opinion, overspending on Erb Park and Pool and the adoption of the Wheel Tax, which has never met the needs of DPW, and is likely to continue to decrease as people work from home and more households become single-vehicle households. (FYI: The Wheel Tax currently brings in approximately $1,200,000 per year. To meet the objective of a 100-year replacement cycle the Wheel Tax would need to bring in $10,885,000 per year. That would require the current Wheel Tax to be raised from $20 to $180 per year with no end to increases in sight.) If municipalities had control of their finances (even only as the Home Rule allows) we could address this without absorbing the full impact of the loss of shared revenue. The state controls both, which is why we find ourselves in this predicament.”
Those were the only responses I received from alderpersons who had parking passes.
During the debate on the resolution at the 12/21/2022 Common Council meeting, Alderperson Wolff had indicated he would be turning in his parking pass, telling his colleagues, “I just want to really complement this amendment, and I will be supporting it. And I also will be handing in my parking pass to support that.” He did not respond to the email I sent him and, per Finance Director Jeri Ohman, as of 02/02/2023 he had not turned in his parking pass.
I also received several responses from the alderpersons who were already not utilizing the parking pass benefit.
Alderperson Brad Firkus, who you may recall was one of the sponsors of the transportation utility resolution, wrote a very thorough response. It’s not one that is easily screenshotted because it contains a very large data table regarding the city’s infrastructure project funding over the years. I saved his email as a PDF which seems to be the most readable format.
In his email he stated:
I think its helpful to grasp just how big of a endeavor it would be to find enough money in the general fund to pay for reconstructing 2% of our roads and underground utilities. I have had this discussion previously with Dept. of Public Works leadership and the dollar amount required to replace 2% of roads and underground utilities would be around $36,400,000 a year in current dollars. That’s $24,900,000 more than we are budgeting for 2023. Our general fund expenditures for 2023 are budgeted at $68,946,539. So you would need to reallocate about 36% of the entire city’s budget if you wanted to reach that goal through reallocating city funds. If you eliminated all funding for every department in the city, except for the police department, fire department, and public works department and allocated all that money towards infrastructure replacement, you would still end up short by about 4% of the budget (those three departments currently receive 68% of the budget). Entirely eliminating all those other departments is not possible and in some instances would be in violation of state statute. Hopefully this helps describe why you don’t see any real serious effort by the council to hit that goal through reallocating funds from existing departments.
He talked about the city’s efforts to create a transportation utility and how those efforts were currently on hold due to legal uncertainties. He also discussed the issues surrounding shared revenue with the state.
A lot has been made of the fact that shared revenues were first cut then held flat for several years now, meaning they are a shrinking factor in funding local operations. This has occurred even while us residents send a surplus of sales and income tax revenue to Madison. While we can advocate for the state to do more with the resources it has, that is something that is outside of our control.
In the near term it will be wait-and-see until there is a ruling on the Buchanan case and we find out what Madison will do, if anything, about shared revenues. How those two things shake out will inform us on what our options are moving forward. Thinking longer-term, since this is a problem with a multi-decade window and doesn’t have to be solved all at once, we can pursue policy changes that aim to induce better land usage that results in higher land value while also making sure we make more sensible infrastructure investments that can be realistically be supported by the tax base we have. Even if those policies can be implemented quickly and within the next few years with little or no costs beyond staff time, those kinds of things usually take years to make a noticeable impact since they lead to incremental changes rather than sudden and drastic changes to our city.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim responded to by question by saying, “This is a loaded question. The city is doing everything possible to minimize borrowing while still providing all necessary services to the entire community. The drastic reduction in revenue shared from the state legislature over the last decade plus has the city running 35% behind where we used to while the expectation of a healthy, safe, growing community still exists. Please consult the League of Municipalities for detailed data on how most communities have been placed in a similar, difficult situation.”
I sent her a follow-up email in which I laid out some of my concerns more fully.
To this she responded:
The long and short is that infrastructure and water Main replacements are taking place, just slower than anticipated or recommended. We are not referring to lead service lines or water quality, but changing from 4 inch to 6 inch pipes which would provide more water pressure.
The question you’re asking is why don’t we take money from somewhere else to deal with the lack of revenue. It has been suggested we reduce spending on mental health, wellness, the library, sell parks and sell parking ramps.
All of the above are considered unnecessary by those who don’t use them and essential to all of those who do.
I expect there will be an increase in shared revenue from the state, aimed towards police, fire and EMT. Hopefully that will begin to offset the shortfall.
In the mean time as the city sprawls, the amount of new roads, sidewalks and miles of sewer and water pipes increase, the challenge to maintain or replace old existing segments becomes even more difficult.”
Of all the alderpersons I contacted, Chad Doran, Sheri Hartzheim, and Chris Croatt were the three who expressed a desire to prioritize infrastructure maintenance.
Alderperson Croatt did not go into detail but he said, “Yes, this Council has shown unwillingness to reallocate funds to infrastructure proposals. It’s been frustrating. I plan to continue to support measures that address our infrastructure needs and I’ll work with the others (Chad Doran and Sheri Hartzheim) that also place a high priority on this. We must prioritize this as we are falling further and further behind and borrowing for street and utility projects more than ever.”
Alderperson Doran noted that he authored several resolutions that, had they been passed, would have reallocated funds to be used for city infrastructure issues, and he said he was currently researching a few funding ideas implemented in other municipalities.
He stressed the critical nature of the issue. “Our roads are built to last roughly 50-60 years (with proper maintenance) and we are expecting them to last 200 years.”
He went on to say, “My feeling is that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues on council are hoping that an increase in shared revenue from the state will solve this problem. News flash, it won’t. While an increase would be welcome, it won’t be enough even if it is fully directed at the infrastructure issue. But there is also no way a shared revenue increase would be directed solely to that issue in the first place. I don’t think staff would recommend it and this council wouldn’t support it.”
He faulted long-term choices made by the Council for playing a role in landing the city in the situation it now is. “Many members of the current council have served for many years and have been part of allowing this problem to get to the critical level it is now at by showing, at best indifference, and at worst negligence in doing anything to address this.
“I will add that previous budgets proposed over the last decade, through this most recent budget, have shifted funding from infrastructure to other priorities that can’t be used for borrowing, like infrastructure can. I’m sure others would argue that the lack of shared revenue increases from the state over that time drove those decisions, and to some degree that is true. But those are choices that were made. Choices that have now put us in the situation we face that is so daunting, others are unwilling to look at making any sort of cuts to the budget to put funding back toward infrastructure.”
He believed serious fiscal restraint was needed. “Infrastructure and public safety are two of the primary responsibilities of any municipality. If we can’t properly fund those things, then we need to reevaluate our priorities.”
Alderperson Hartzheim was fairly blunt in her assessment. “[M]any members of the City of Appleton Common Council and/or the city’s mayor will have to be replaced with public servants highly focused on this issue OR existing members and the mayor will have to change their current focuses drastically in order to properly address this problem.”
She highlighted that, although the American Recovery Plan Act “was dubbed the federal infrastructure bill and sold to the American people as a way to help municipalities deal with infrastructure issues,” $8 million of Appleton’s ARPA funds were budgeted for or already spent on things like “the library project (‘for broadband’), salary and fringes, etc, for ‘COVID losses,’ propping up the city’s failing parking utility, supporting local arts and culture, ‘community partner support,’ consulting fees to support this ‘community partner support.’”
She disagreed that shared revenue had to be “fixed” in order for the issue to be dealt with, and actually advocated for eliminating cost sharing and changing the system entirely. “I feel that the state government should be supporting state operations and not be taking in more tax dollars than are needed just so that they can be the ‘benevolent dolers out’ of shared revenue funds. If state taxes are lowered and revenue sharing eliminated, then municipalities can properly charge taxpayers for the actual work of their own municipal governments. […] Perhaps in this way, more people would be interested in their own municipal governments and how much is spent on non-essential activities of said local governments and the focus would come back to rebuilding and supporting the city’s infrastructure and the core competencies of a local government.”
So, those are the perspectives I was given from various alderpersons on the state of Appleton’s infrastructure maintenance and the funding for it. I suppose we will have to wait and see what the future holds for the maintenance and funding for the maintenance of Appleton’s roads and utilities.
Be the first to reply