Municipal Services Committee Votes 3-1 To Deny Resolution Calling For A Downtown Parking Facility And Management Study – Several Alderpersons Express Opposition To Language Asking To Investigate Privatization Of Parking Ramps

The Municipal Services Committee met 12/11/2023. One of the items they took up was Resolution 15-R-23 which, if passed as written, would direct staff to seek the services of a consultant to help them conduct a study of the city’s publicly-owned parking assets, help them determine best management practices, and create a strategic plan for the parking facilities, a plan that could potentially include the sale or lease of the city-owned parking ramps.

The inclusion of the request that the study include looking at the sale or lease of the parking assets as a potential option was a non-starter for both Alderpersons Kristin Alfheim (District 11) and Vered Meltzer (District 2). Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) was unwilling to support removal of the language from the resolution regarding the potential privatization of the parking ramps, not because he supported selling or leasing the ramps but because he believed information about those options was necessary to have a complete study.

The committee ended up voting 3-1 to recommend the resolution for denial with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Meltzer, and Alfheim voting for the denial and Alderperson Doran casting the one dissenting vote.

I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download.

This resolution sprang from discussion between Alderperson Doran and city staff in the Department of Public Works, and it sounded as if city staff was supportive of this resolution.

Director of Public Works Danielle Block explained that they wanted to review existing policies such as the designated stall policies, special event management and the way the DPW reviews requests for special events, and the policy and process for bagging meters as well as to review best management practices for the parking utility and whether there was different technology and software programs they could be taking advantage of and how they could improve the user experience entering and exiting the ramps. Finally, they wanted to include marketing and promotional campaign development.

Alderperson Alfheim liked and supported the desire to optimize best practices; however, she was very concerned about the proposal to investigate the potential sale or lease of the parking ramps. She thought that her downtown constituents, “when they do have the opportunity to speak are going to fill this room and scream from their top of their lungs if we even talk too much about it.”

Alderperson Meltzer also supported  optimizing best practices but opposed the privatization of the ramps. “I have seen a lot of different communities. I’ve seen their history and trajectory over decades. I have never seen the privatization of parking leading to an economic benefit for any residents or any businesses—only for the companies that end up gaining the upper hand by becoming the private owners. So, I am absolutely unequivocally opposed to privatizing these publicly owned assets.”

Alderperson Siebers asked if there was money in the budget for it, to which Director Block responded, “I had identified the $100,000 that was set aside for the wayfinding, branding, marketing campaign effort. If that is a part of the scope of services, I would recommend that those funds be used. I think it would be helpful to know before moving forward, obviously.”

Alderperson Alfheim asked about the possibility of removing the language in the resolution regarding investigating privatizing the parking ramps. Alderperson Doran was opposed to that. The intent of the resolution was not to promote selling or leasing the ramps, but he did want any study to take a full look at all of the city’s options. He pointed to the YMCA ramp as an example of a ramp that the city had sold due its poor condition and the city not wanted to spend any more money on it. The city sold it to the YMCA for $1, the YMCA invested in it and eventually completely rebuilt it, but the public is still able to utilize it at a reasonable cost. “I’m not suggesting in any way that we are going to do this, but I think it would be foolish of us not to take a look at what all of our options are if we’re going to do a study about best practices in management and whether or not this is the right maneuver, right move for the city to continue doing.”

Alderperson Meltzer felt the situation with the YMCA was unique. It happened in 1996 and, at the time, the city had not been seeking to get rid of the ramp, rather the YMCA had reached out to the city about a potential sale.

Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) supported the resolution and felt that it was important for the Council to find out what they don’t know. “And if your sticking point is it has to not include a sale, then we will never find out what we don’t know. Because that could be a best practice. But we don’t know it yet.”

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said that he asked about looking into selling the parking ramps online and received 20 responses all of which were from people who opposed a sale. “I would say the best practice here is to listen to the constituents—right?—and they’ve made it pretty clear that they have no interest in us selling any parking ramps. So, if we would look at what we don’t know and make a recommendation that we want to sell, it would still come down to us listening to the people who put us here and who pay taxes in this city, and they have said that they wouldn’t want that to begin with already. So, we may as well not move forward with this, because the people have already spoken.

Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14) said he had not received enough citizen input to make that conclusion. He supported the study but wanted to confirm that they could in fact pay for it using the $100,000 Director Block had mentioned.

It seemed that they could use that money for that purpose; however, based on some questions by Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) it sounded like while the resolution itself could be passed by a simple majority of the Common Council, a future step related to utilizing that money to award a contract would entail passing a budget amendment which would require a 2/3rds majority of the Council to approve. He thought that reality should be taken into consideration as this resolution was discussed.

The committee ended up voting 3-1 to recommend the resolution for denial with Alderpersons Siebers, Meltzer, and Alfheim voting for the denial and Alderperson Doran voting against the denial.

[I’m not overly impressed with this resolution or with city staff’s desire to hire an outside consultant to review their practices. It’s concerning to me that city government does not know how to manage its assets, because keeping up on the best practices pertaining to the city’s parking utility seems like it should be a basic part of staff’s job. Why do we even have a parking utility if city staff needs to bring in “experts” to tell them how to run it? That seems like an argument for privatization right there.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1145256&GUID=71D558F8-C469-4D93-961D-A6B9C5334492