The Common Council met 09/20/2023. One of the items they separated out for an individual vote was Resolution 10-R-23 regarding the allocation of state shared revenue aid. This resolution was recommended for denial by a vote of 3-2 by the Finance Committee.
The resolution called for the entire amount of the $1,926,000 that the city has 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 told the Council 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 main item of disagreement was whether it was advisable to use shared revenue for a recurring cost such as employee compensation when there was no guarantee that the state would give municipalities shared revenue dollars every year. Additionally, during the Finance Committee meeting, City Attorney Christopher Behrens had noted that there was a separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch, and, as the executive, the mayor would not be legally bound to follow the part of the resolution which stated “the Appleton Common Council directs the Mayor to allocate” the funds in a specific way.
The full Council ended up voting 11-4 against the resolution with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), Chris Croatt (District 14), and Chad Doran (District 15) casting the four votes in favor of it.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download.
My impression was that there were unspoken, interpersonal issues lurking beneath the surface of what otherwise seems to be a fairly innocuous resolution. Normally, I try to separate out my thoughts, feelings, and impressions of the meetings from the sections in which I just recap what went on in a meeting, but in this case, the whole meeting seemed to be peppered with apologies and attempts to explain motivations and intentions that gave the impression there was some kind of unspoken drama the public was not privy to, and I feel like I would, in some respects, not be recapping it accurately if I didn’t mention that fact up front.
The entire discussion started out with Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) asking for the question to be called before any comments had been made or discussion taken place. This motion was not approved by the Council as a whole, so discussion was allowed to take place, but it was an abnormal way to begin debate.
Alderperson Hartzheim thought the arguments against passing the resolution were reasonable given that the state legislature already required a lot of the things that were being asked of in the resolution; however, she was concerned about using funds that may not be available every year to pay for recurring expenses.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) did not support the resolution because she thought the discussion about the funds ought to occur within the normal budget process; however, she explicitly commended Alderperson Croatt for authority the resolution and stated, “I think that he had the best intentions, and I think that he and the authors did start an appropriate discussion about this item so that we will have materials and things ready when it comes time to do our duty with the budget.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) was one of the co-authors of the resolution. She believed the resolution had started with a good intention and she had signed onto it because she believed all parties, including the mayor, were fully on board with it. “And I think after listening to the mayor in the finance committee, I think that was stated that perhaps that was an overstatement.” She thought everyone agreed there were rules that needed to be followed in utilizing the funds and they all understood the city was behind in the maintenance of its infrastructure. “I have full faith in our budget process. I have full faith in the ability of the staff and the mayor to present us with the tools and that the measurement and accountability to those state laws will be followed. With that in mind. I do not need this resolution to follow through on that. So, I will be voting to deny as well.”
Alderperson Croatt thanked his fellow Council members for having voted against the motion to call the question made earlier. He felt it was disrespectful to try to prevent any discussion on a resolution.
He told the Council he had not drafted the resolution to create confusion or misunderstanding, and the main goal had been to use the additional shared revenue on the city’s greatest needs—infrastructure and public safety. Although he agreed that compensation was an important part of the budget, he was not comfortable using money that was potentially just a one-time payment and not something that was guaranteed year over year for ongoing expenses.
He went on to say that he could have either submitted this resolution or he could have waited until the budget came out and then discussed his concerns at that time. He wished he could have gotten the resolution out sooner.
He thanked Mayor Woodford for the discussion on the issue and acknowledged that there were some things in the resolution that he had not directly discussed with the mayor such as using some of the funds for debt reduction. He apologized for any confused caused by that.
Alderperson Siebers appreciated the resolution because it provided the Council and opportunity to talk about the budget at an earlier time than they normally do and noted that the mayor and department heads started talking about it months before the Council ever gets its hands on it.
Alderperson Patrick Hayden (District 7) was going to vote against it. He did not speak about the resolution itself but did take the opportunity to raise his concerns about the compensation of city staff. “I have heard from talking to staff that many of our—many of staff who work here in the city struggle to be able to afford to live in our city. So, I saw the compensation part of this resolution as probably the most meaningful piece of the resolution out there, because I think for people to work in the city and for the work that they do, to be unable to afford to live here is almost criminal.”
Alderperson Wolff, who had made the motion to call the question earlier, said “I figured I knew how I was going to vote let’s just vote. But I will say what I wanted to say earlier. I do think this resolution is pointless. I think that it was made in a sense of political theater, wanting to take credit for something that we all lobbied for, and I just felt as though it was, in a way, disrespectful to the staff who also worked hard to get more shared revenue, the mayor’s office, and the rest of Council. I think this resolution is garbage. And I’ll be voting against it.”
Alderperson Croatt clarified that the resolution did not even include the word “compensation” and the resolution’s purpose was to focus on infrastructure and public safety. “There’s nothing in the resolution about not providing compensation in the budget. Just wanted to make that crystal clear.”
The Council proceeded to vote 11-4 to deny the resolution.
After the vote was taken, Mayor Woodford told the Council that he appreciated the discussion around the budget and was grateful to the colleagues who talked with him about how the shared revenue funds should be allocated. He and Alderperson Croatt had also had some follow-up meetings, which the mayor also appreciated. He said, “I just want to be clear that, you know, we’re not always going to align in our views about how to do things, but I do also believe that deep down the intent was good, and I appreciate the opportunity to have the discussion.”
[As a member of the public not privy to behind-the-scenes conversations, I didn’t understand the hard feelings around this resolution. It seemed to provide a good opportunity to hold a public discussion about a matter that is relevant to the taxpayers of the city. The changes in the amount of shared revenue municipalities receive have been a long time coming, and it’s beneficial to the residents of the city to understand how those funds work. For example, I was unaware that it was possible, albeit unlikely, that the increased shared revenue might not continue from year to year.
While I can see good arguments on either side for using or not using those funds for recurring expenses, the basic discussion seems like a very reasonable and relevant one to have up front as Appleton figures out how best to use this new money, and I think it makes sense to have that discussion separate from the normal budget process and discussions given that the lack of shared revenue has been pointed to multiple times over the last few years as being a major contributing factor to why Appleton could not maintain a more timely infrastructure maintenance schedule. I would not describe a resolution that prompted a discussion about the best use of those shared revenue funds as “garbage.”]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1114839&GUID=50924CCD-719A-41E8-982A-51D0EA4112F5
One thought on “Common Council Votes 11-4 Against State Shared Revenue Allocation Resolution – Alderperson Wolff Calls Resolution “Garbage””