Common Council Approves Acceptance Of $134,000 Energy Efficiency Grant, Declines To Allocate It For The Library Project

The Common Council met 05/03/2023. One of the items separated out for an individual vote was the request to approve the grant allocation for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program of $134,180.

This item had been approved unanimously at the Finance Committee meeting. It was also approved at the Common Council meeting; however, Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) made a motion to amend the item to specific that the funds would be used for “existing proposed energy efficient projects for the library.” That amendment failed by a 5-10 vote with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Kristin Alfheim (District 11), Hartzheim, Chris Croatt (District 14), and Chad Doran (District 15) casting the 5 votes in favor of it. After the amendment was voted down, the Council went on to unanimously approve the unamended item.

I’ve prepared transcripts of the Finance Committee discussion and the Common Council discussion for download.

These grant funds originated with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and were allocated to the city automatically without the city actively seeking them. The city simply needed to submit an application by the end of January 2024 indicating what project or projects the money would be used for, and if those aligned with the goals of sustainability and resiliency, then the city would be given the money.

During the Finance Committee meeting, Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) specifically asked if the geothermal system at the library or some of the other sustainable/energy efficient aspects of the library project would qualify for the use of these funds, and Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Dean Gazza confirmed that they would.

At the Common Council meeting, Alderperson Hartzheim made a motion to amend so that acceptance of the allocation was directly tied to using the funds for existing proposed energy efficiency projects on the library.

Director Gazza told the Council, “We’re always in the midst of doing multiple sustainable projects, but for example, like the library, we know the geothermal is going to be an expensive investment and so would be a, you know, a strong candidate for the use of this money. Not knowing where you know, where the bids are going to come in, but we do know that the geothermal is going to cost us about 1.6 million of that library bid costs. So yeah, offsetting it with this, it would give it some off-set.”

None of the alderpersons said it was a bad idea to use the funds for the library, but the ones who opposed it expressed hesitancy to lock down the funds in that manner without first reviewing what other projects the money could be spent on.

Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) noted that the grant was uniquely flexible so she wanted to use it for projects where the city would get the greatest return on investment. She did not want to remove that flexibility and thought that $134,000 was a drop in the bucket of the estimated $1.6 million cost for the library’s geothermal system.

Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) wanted to give staff time to process and figure out where the money would be best spent rather than allocate it right then.

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said he liked the amendment but didn’t feel it needed to happen just yet and the decision could be made further down the road.

Alderperson Vaya Jones (District 10) loved the idea of putting the money toward the library but was concerned about not doing appropriate research on other projects the funds could be spent on.

Alderperson Van Zeeland said she would support the amendment if merely requested that the allocation “give preference to an existing project,” but she didn’t want to put it toward a project that they didn’t really know a lot about at this point.

Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) opposed the amendment because he was concerned that if contractors knew this money was available, they would artificially inflate their bids.

Those who supported the amendment felt it was a reasonable way to allocate the funds in a manner in which they would be fully used.

Alderperson Doran said, “It fits to a tee what the purpose of the grant is,” and he thought that it was important to take any step they could to offset the cost of the library project and decrease borrowing. He did not believe $134,000 would be a drop in the bucket for any project, and it was the responsibility of the Council to be judicious with the city funds and allocate them as wisely as possible.

Alderperson Alfheim pointed out that this would cover 10% of the cost of the geothermal system. “We’re putting it towards a valuable project that we need, the dollars are there to offset our escalating costs, and we’re getting something that community needs and wants.”

Alderperson Hartzheim said, “[V]oting on this today tells our constituents today now that it is important for us to take these funds and assign them to this project that we already know is in the works and is going to need these funds. 10% of what the estimated cost is going to be for just geothermal in this library. And we have even more energy-efficient plans for the library as well. So I see no downside in this either, and I really encourage my colleagues to vote for it.”

The amendment, however, failed with 10 alderpersons voting against it. During the meeting, Mayor Woodford did note that the grant funds would still have to go through an approval process to allocate them, so this item would come before the committee and Council again in the future.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1084963&GUID=A74D1EF7-1767-4E41-BAE9-11EBA5A44495