The Common Council met 05/21/2025. The item that took up the majority of their time was the discussion and vote on the request to take $107,000 left over from a 2024 park pavilion roofing project and use it to hire a consultant to put together a climate action plan for the city. The Finance Committee voted 3-1 to recommend denial of this item, but the three alderpersons who voted for this denial were also the only three alderpersons to vote against the recent resolution changing the City of Appleton’s emissions goals which the rest of the Council ended up approving. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Common Council did not follow the recommendation of the Finance Committee but voted 11-3 to approve the direction of the carryover funds toward the hiring of a climate action consultant with Alderpersons Brad Firkus (District 3), Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), and Chris Croatt (District 14) casting the 3 dissenting votes.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
One of the concerns that had been raised during the various discussions of the item was the fact that there had been no information submitted by city staff outlining the scope of the work they expected a consultant to perform and the deliverables they expected the consultant to provide. Prior to the Common Council meeting, city staff did finally provide a memo explaining their expectations.
They estimated the cost of such a consultant would be $80,000 to $150,000. They want the consultant to assess city operations and practices, energy use, water use, and waste use, review the city’s existing sustainability and resilience master plans as well as such plans from comparable municipalities, and then put together a plan with a 10-year implementation schedule with annual, measurable milestones that includes things such as:
- Identify a minimum of 25 priority projects or policy changes to reduce municipal GHG emissions.
- Propose specific targets and actions across buildings, fleet, land use, waste, and procurement.
- Provide lifecycle cost analysis for each action, including payback periods and potential funding sources.
- Recommend updates or adoption of policies, ordinances, and operational changes to embed sustainability into daily practice.
- Incorporate sustainability considerations into long-range capital improvement planning.
- Develop a resilience framework addressing stormwater infrastructure, green infrastructure, backup power, cooling shelters, and community resiliency centers.
- Include a dedicated section on flood resilience, including modeling of future flood risks due to climate change and identification of infrastructure upgrades and green mitigation strategies.
- Identify neighborhoods most at risk from climate-related impacts and recommend site-specific adaptations.
- Propose feasibility and siting criteria for a City of Appleton Resiliency Center.
City staff expected that projects identified in the report would result in cost savings to the city by reducing utility expenses, deferring capital costs, and lowering maintenance needs.
The Common Council spent nearly an hour discussing the item.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) kicked discussion off by recounting the city’s history of focus on climate change mitigation and sustainability dating back to a resolution in 2017 that would affirmed the city’s commitment to sustainability. She noted that while the Appleton Sustainability Advisory Panel had put together some reports, “There’s a limit to what can be done with a volunteer team and part of the time of one project manager however. In order to ensure that the city undertakes projects that make the best use of our resources and provide the greatest benefit to our citizens, the panel is asking that we consult with experts to develop a plan that would integrate initiatives over all departments and provide a project roadmap and a financial framework for evaluating projects and policy decisions.”
Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Dean Gazza believed that a climate action consultant would be able to create a roadmap for city staff to help them prioritize projects and help them figure out how to accomplish the goal the Common Council had set for the city to reduce net emissions by half over the next 10 years.
A couple concerns were that (1) the money had been budgeted for the Facilities Department but using it to hire a climate action consultant would result in it being moved to a different department and (2) using money in this manner that had originally been budgeted for a capital improvement project would increase city debt. Mayor Woodford clarified that the money would not be moving from the Facilities Department, and Finance Director Jeri Ohman told the Council, “The debt for the original project has already been taken out. We would not issue additional debt for this project for the carry over.”
Alderperson Firkus who is the Chairperson of the Finance Committee and one of the members of the Finance Committee who recommended the item be denied, felt that a master plan was unnecessary and that any projects recommended by such a plan would not be able to be started until summer of 2027 at the earliest. He thought that the money could be put to better use sooner without the direction of a master plan. To that end, he made a motion to amend the item to be used “for projects with emission reduction, climate mitigation and/or sustainability value, and/or for consultants to assist with such efforts.”
He intended the allowance for use with consultants to be for any consultant that might be needed for smaller projects, but based on the actual wording of the resolution it still would have allowed the money to be used in one lump sum to hire a climate action consultant; however, Mayor Woodford indicated he and staff would take the intent behind such a change in language under advisement as they put together recommendations for the use of the funds. Regardless, it ended up being a moot point because the amendment was voted down with only Alderpersons Firkus, Patrick Hayden (District 7), Hartzheim, and Croatt voting in favor of it.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) thought it made sense to approve using the money for a climate consultant now because if they didn’t they would just include it in the 2025 budget and have this same discussion in the fall during budget time. Additionally, he felt it would be a way to support staff, saying, “[T]he Director of Parks and Facilities, who oversees a lot of what we’re talking about here in being able to make significant strides forward, is asking us to give him the tools to do his job. And we have, over the course of six years, provided direction to that director and others, city staff, to make progress as it relates to resiliency and climate adaptation, but we’ve not given him the tools.”
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) supported the carryover request, pointing out that the savings to the city were expected to outweigh the costs.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) supported the carryover request because it had come from Director Gazza, and explained, “One thing that I don’t think has been mentioned, but should be, is that Dean Gazza has been with the city for a long time, and in that time and in the time that I’ve been an alderperson, every time Dean has brought something to our attention and asked it has led to good things. We look around the city, some of the best parts of the city are the parks and some of the best features have been led by Dean Gazza. I trust Dean to make the right decision for this city in how to proceed and move forward. And if he thinks that this is the best course of action, then I support that and I support staff.”
Alderperson Hartzheim, who opposed the item, was concerned about process issues and the lack of information that had been provided when the item was first brought before the Finance Committee. She also didn’t feel like the memo eventually provided by staff adequately narrowed down the scope and was clear about what the city would be asking the consultant to provide. Additionally, she was concerned about the price take potentially being $150,000 which was more than the $107,000 in left over funds.
She noted that Green Bay, La Cross, and Eau Claire all had climate action plans, and there was Wisconsin state website that have municipal climate plans ready for use. She wondered if Appleton could use some of those plans.
Alderperson Martyn Smith (District 4) thought that they needed a specific plan for Appleton, not a plan for elsewhere. Alderperson Patti Heffernan (District 8) also thought Appleton needed its own plan, saying, Appleton and Green Bay “have completely different challenges. They have completely different needs. Appleton is going to have a different need and a different challenge than other cities and other parts of the state. We are a valley, okay? That’s going to have different challenges. Then La Crosse and Eau Claire, that has much more hills and cliffs and different rivers and so on and so forth.”
There was also disagreement over the benefit of hiring a consultant. Some alderpersons felt the city hired too many consultants while others thought it was a good way to allocate resources. Alderperson Hartzheim, for example, pointed to an email she received from a former alderperson who said, “many times, we’ve wasted money on consultancies and come back with poor information.” Alderperson Fenton, on the other hand, said, “To a lot of people, including some in this room, ‘consultant’ is a dirty word, a synonym for wasteful spending. […] Would it have the same negative connotation if we called them contractors or temps? Appleton has experienced and well qualified attorneys on staff, but this council has engaged other attorneys with specific expertise to consult with us on real estate matters. We have a skilled and dedicated finance team, but we bring on outside consultants to perform the annual audit.” Alderperson Hayden also spoke in favor of hiring a consultant saying, “I appreciate the idea of bringing in someone with a different viewpoint that might be able to provide something that we’re missing or something additional that we might not have thought of.” He went on to say, “[T]he city’s already using digester, geothermal, and methane, which I’m assuming are the low hanging fruits when we’re looking at alternative energy sources. So, I’m wondering, would a consultant help us achieve getting to the next level when we’re looking at not only alternative forms of energy but additional forms of cost savings, when we’re looking at things like maintenance, fuel usage, and electric bills?”
There was also a fundamental disagreement on what the underlying purpose of hiring a climate action consultant was. Obviously, everybody who supported the item thought it was beneficial. Alderperson Hartzheim, on the other hand, described it as “a virtue signal.”
Alderperson Firkus who is in favor of “good environmental stewardship and preparedness against climate change” voiced his opposition in even more strident terms saying, “I’m not going to support this. My opposition to this is sustained. I feel this is not taking action on climate change. This is a six figure, taxpayer funded pacifier for climate activists. I also find it very interesting that five days after we voted on the goals setting a 50% goal reduction, that this item showed up before us. You cannot convince me that nobody knew this card was the next one to come off the deck. When I hear people like my colleagues say we’re only voting on this and not that, we heard the same argument last time: ‘We’re only voting on a goal, not spending money.’ Somebody had to know that this was right around the corner. I do not buy that these are just innocent coincidences.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland pushed back on that and said, “I shared his concerns initially about the timing of the carry over in relation to the other resolution, but in looking into it, I found that the process with Finance to provide them these carry over requests actually occurred before the resolution for emissions was introduced. So, I just want to encourage folks, if you are ever concerned about something, something doesn’t feel right, question staff. They were very open with me to provide me the information, and that allowed me to look at this project more clearly.”
Toward the end of the discussion, Alderperson Croatt voiced his opposition, stating, “I do want to remind everyone that the Finance recommendation was to deny this request, and one of the members was myself. One was the Finance Chair. And just because we *have* done this before doesn’t mean that we *should*. Just because we *can* do this doesn’t mean that we *should*. For me, it’s not about climate change. It’s not about what we might do in the future. It’s about the process. And I personally feel, and I think I agree with Alder Hartzheim that this is something that should come forward during the budget process. And I encourage us to, if this gets defeated, bring it forward as part of the departmental budget, and let’s have a deep discussion about it. I will—might be convinced to support it. I have some reservations, but I think the due diligence part that was mentioned earlier would be to deliberate this during the budget and adopt it then. Instead of using borrowed funds, use departmental budget funds that were carefully evaluated as part of the budget for next year.”
The Council ended up voting 11-3 to approve taking $107,000 in 2024 funds budgeted for a park pavilion roof replacement project and use it to hire a climate action consultant for the city.
After the vote was taken, Mayor Woodford addressed the Council and said that he recognized that more details and information could have been provided to the alderpersons about the request earlier on and that he and Director Gazza had had a conversation earlier that day about making sure that when items like this come before committees and Council, city staff is proving more information up front.
He also responded to Alderperson Firkus’ comment by saying, “I also would like to address the suggestion that that there was some sort of conspiracy around this item. I think, that stands in a bit of tension between, on the one hand, the criticism that this was haphazard and incomplete, that you didn’t have the information that you needed, and on the other hand, that there was some conspiracy to bring this before you in a way that was some somehow a bait and switch. And I take umbrage to that suggestion, because I try to do this work with integrity, and my staff tries to do their work with integrity. And so, I specifically want to mention that, because it’s important also for our community to know that we work with integrity. At a time when trust in local governments, local institutions, and all of our civic institutions have been heavily eroded, it is very important that we are clear about our values and the way we approach our work. There was no conspiracy around bringing an item forward. That is not how we operate in the city of Appleton. That’s not how this administration operates. And I want to make that very, very clear.”
He finished up by noting that items related to hiring a climate action consultant would come before the Council in the future as staff solicited and scored proposals and made a recommendation on which consultant to hire. This would provide opportunities for further discussion and comment from the community.
[I don’t know whether there was a conspiracy or not around bringing this proposal forward, but I don’t think Alderperson Firkus was out of line to bring up concerns about the timing of the proposal. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few other situations where things seemed to be going on behind the scenes in a secretive manner. Back when the Trout Museum was looking into building a new building in Ellen Kort Peace Park, they were talking directly to Mayor Woodford and did not loop in the Director of Parks and Facilities at all. The resolution that would create a new truancy ordinance also, from the public’s standpoint at least, came out of nowhere and seemed to be introduced very suddenly. The way 5 alderpersons abstained from voting on the rezoning request pertaining to land owned by the Apostolic Truth Church seemed very weird, and one suspects that there was off the record, behind the scenes talks that happened between alderpersons. Finally, the fact that Unlisted, LLC was recommended for the city rebranding contract despite scoring 3rd and having very basic deficiencies with their proposal suggests that something weird happened behind the scenes to get them on the top of the list.
I’m not saying Appleton’s government is horribly corrupt. It seems generally okay and better than a lot of places, and they do seem to generally strive for a level of transparency not every government strives for. At the same time, human nature is human nature, and people are prone to being sneaky, particularly when they want something that may prove to be unpopular or have some sort of controversy attached to it. I don’t think it was wrong for Alderperson Firkus to express doubts about and dissatisfaction with the way this item was brought forward.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1289901&GUID=E5858A36-4C82-4CBE-BF00-7D2E34C76D05
Be the first to reply