The Finance Committee met 09/11/2023. The item which took up the majority of the meeting was Resolution 10-R-23 regarding the allocation of state shared revenue funds. As written, the resolution called for the entire amount of the $1,926,000 that the city received in additional shared revenue from the state “to be used only to offset borrowing for public works and utility infrastructure (water distribution and sewer systems) and/or public safety projects” and for Mayor Woodford to provide the Common Council with documentation detailing the proposed use of the new state aid.
These goals were partially aligned and partially at odds with how Mayor Woodford indicated he would recommend the funds be used. At the Common Council meeting on 09/06/2023 Mayor Woodford indicated he wanted to use half of that money for “physical projects related to infrastructure needs for the city” and the remaining half to fund public safety, technology equipment, and compensation and benefits needs.”
The resolution was amended to replace the reference to “nearly $2 million” and “the entire amount of additional new state aid” with the precise figure of $1,926,000. But, after being amended, the resolution was recommended for denial by a vote of 3 to 2. Those in favor of the resolution were concerned about Mayor Woodford’s proposal to spend some of the shared revenue dollars on employee compensation because compensation was an ongoing expense and there was no guarantee that shared revenue dollars would be available year after year. Those opposed to the resolution thought that it was generally not needed, believed that the standard budget process was the way in which to work out these things rather than through a resolution, and had concerns about the legality and appropriateness of passing a resolution that “directs” the mayor to perform a certain action.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download.
Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14), the primary author of the resolution, explained that he had brought to resolution forward rather than waiting for the budget to be released so that they could start some dialogue before the budget was released and hopefully not have to do a bunch of work after the fact.
He believed that the resolution was mostly in line with the plans for the shared revenue that Mayor Woodford had outlined at the 09/06/2023 Common Council meeting with the one difference being Mayor Woodford wanted to use some of the money to cover employee compensation which would not be permitted by the resolution. “The challenge with using that money for compensation purposes is that it becomes an ongoing expense. And yes, that money is likely to be there year on year. But is—there is no guarantee of that. And that’s the part that I think we have to be extremely careful of.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was one of the co-authors of the resolution concurred. She thought that because the changes in shared revenue were new, the Council should pass the resolution, “so that we can make sure that we know what we’re dealing with before we get into the next two years of this shared revenue.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) opposed the resolution because she didn’t feel it was necessary. She believed that the requirement that Mayor Woodford provide documentation detailing how the state aid was used was an unnecessary requirement on top of the very detailed supplemental documentation that came with the budget. “I just think this is a resolution that doesn’t actually do anything we wouldn’t do either by policy or by law anyway. And I’m not in favor of it.”
Alderperson Hartzheim believed that Mayor Woodford was highly to provide documentation about where the shared revenue funds were utilized even without the resolution directing him to do so; however, she thought it was very important, particularly given this was the first year shared revenue was available, to clearly delineate the use of those funds.
Mayor Woodford disagreed that the resolution represented an alignment of his goals and the authors’ goals for the shared revenue money. Although he, Alderperson Croatt, and Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) had met and discussed the use of the funds prior to the introduction of the resolution, they had not discussed using the money to offset borrowing for public works and utility infrastructure projects as laid out in the resolution. In fact, he did not recommend that approach because it suggested the city would maintain its current rate of infrastructure replacement and just use the shared revenue to decrease the city’s need to borrow for those projects. He, however, wanted to maintain the city’s current rate of borrowing for infrastructure project and then use the shared revenue dollars to fund projects on top of those, thus increasing the number of infrastructure projects the city does.
Alderperson Croatt said that he also was not in favor of maintaining the status quo regarding infrastructure maintenance and replacement. “I just want to make sure everyone’s clear that I’m not in favor of a status quo budget on infrastructure, because I think we do need to invest more than we have been investing. We’ve been kicking this down the road for years. So, whatever—whatever outcome comes from this, I hope that the discussion had value, and that we end up with a budget that invests in infrastructure, invests in public safety, and takes care of our employees.”
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) asked if the budget would include documentation regarding where the shared revenue was intended to go. Finance Director Jeri Ohman said they didn’t have anything in there yet, but they could probably add something that outlined that information. Mayor Woodford also noted that the state Department of Revenue was working on finalizing rules on how municipalities would certify that the new funding was being used in a way that was in line with the law.
City Attorney Christopher Behrens lightly touched on the wording of the resolution in which it was stated, “the Appleton Common Council directs the Mayor”. He noted that there was a separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch, and the mayor would not necessarily have to follow the resolution. The mayor would submit a budget to the Council and the Council would ultimately decide what to do with that budget. “I understand the intent of the resolution was just to try to maybe focus some of that a little bit and cut down on some of the work that will have to be done later,” but he did also want to bring up that point.
The committee discussed safety related projects and purchases the funds could be put toward rather than for employee compensation. Those included police cameras related to the renewal of the Axon body camera contract and the replacement of Fire Station 4. However, the replacement of Fire Station 4 would be a major capital expense that would require a larger conversation.
The committee ended up amending the resolution to replace the references to “nearly $2 million” and “the entire amount of additional new state aid” with the precise figure of $1,926,000. But, after being amended, the resolution was recommended for denial by a vote of 3 to 2. Alderperson Fenton summed up her opposition to the resolution by saying, “I believe this resolution, if passed would accomplish nothing that’s not already done in Act 12 and in the budget that Common Council will receive and which we can amend if that is the will of the Council. So, I believe that the time for making decisions about the expenditures in the budget is during the budget so I will not be voting for this resolution.”
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1119168&GUID=8EBA3BAD-2849-4610-BED5-4E00C6341F90
One thought on “Finance Committee Votes 3-2 To Deny Shared Revenue Allocation Resolution – Majority Of Committee Views Resolution As Unnecessary”