On 01/24/2022 the Finance Committee voted to indefinitely hold the city brand study. After doing that they then moved on to consider and vote on Resolution #2-R-22. If passed as written, this resolution would take $475,000 from the funding previously set aside for the city rebranding effort and reallocate it as follows:
- $100,000 for an Appleton.org website re-design
- $225,000 for the city’s enhanced crosswalk program
- $150,000 for technology upgrades
[As some background, the money being discussed had started out as part of the excess balance in Appleton’s General Fund in 2021. Mayor Woodford had made the original allocation recommendations to the Finance Committee regarding that excess balance. At the time he said that he had tried to keep a running list of the things that the Council had expressed a desire to accomplish and the things Appleton was trying to accomplish as a community, and he put forward a proposal that he thought would help accomplish some things that they might not ordinarily be able to achieve with their ordinary operating budget. He had categorized the money for the brand study and implementation as being associated with the “Local Economy and Growth”.
The “Pedestrian Spaces, Infrastructure Maintenance, and Public Spaces” category of the mayor’s allocation recommendations had originally included $100,000 for the enhanced crosswalk program. This ended up being amended down to only $50,000 in order to pay for a transportation utility study. Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) was opposed to this change and ended up voting against the final allocations when the item came before the Common Council.]
Alderperson Van Zeeland serves on the Finance Committee and was the main sponsor of Resolution 2-R-22. She started the discussion out by stating that, as she had already touched on during the discussion on the brand study contract, there had been issues that she thought a brand study could resolve, but, at this time, she thought they would be better off moving in a different direction. She believed that the city had some pressing needs in terms of pedestrian safety and specifically for enhanced crosswalks.
She noted that there had also been discussions regarding finding funding for technology upgrades and since the branding funds were sitting there, she thought they should be used for more pressing issues than branding. They could work on the website, create a style guide for the city logo to maintain consistency, look at upgrading computer technology, and improve pedestrian safety with the enhanced crosswalk program. crosswalk program.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) was not on the committee but he had invested time and effort in studying and preparing for rebranding when he was an employee of the City of Appleton. He said that, in general, he agreed that some of the things in the resolution were concerns that were held by a number of alderpersons and had been discussed, but he thought there were some issues with the resolution as a whole.
The allocations in the resolution encompassed a number of different departments and committees, and he thought that a lot of the issues were budget-driven issues that should be solved through the budget because a lot of the issues were ongoing concerns.
He had an amendment to the resolution that he wanted to offer up as an option for the members of the committee to move and second if they so desired.
Alderperson Van Zeeland thought it was odd that someone who was not on the committee could offer an amendment, but Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) who was the Chair of the committee ruled that what Alderperson Doran had done was acceptable.
Attorney Behrens also clarified that this was just a suggestion that was being shared, and it was up to the committee to decide if they wanted to take it up or not.
The amendment changed the “Be It Resolved” section of the resolution.
Original Language
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT city staff will create a style guide to ensure the city logo and stamp are used appropriately; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT funding previously set aside for city rebranding be reallocated as follows: $100,000 for an Appleton.org website re-design, $225,000 added to the enhanced crosswalk program, and $150,000 to address much needed technology upgrades and committees of jurisdiction and staff work together to appropriate these funds accordingly
Alderperson Doran’s Suggested Amended Language
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT city staff will, upon completion of the city branding project that will include a style guide, allocate funds for a website redesign project as soon as practical
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff continue to implement the enhanced crosswalk program as planned in the CIP or bring recommended changes to the plan before the municipal services committee. And continue working with the mayor office to create a plan to address much needed technology upgrades
Alderperson Van Zeeland was appearing remotely so Alderperson Siebers read her the suggested amendment language and asked if she wanted to table the item until a later date so that she could see the language in black and white.
Alderperson Van Zeeland did not think a hold was necessary. She said it sounded like Alderperson Doran wanted to strip the funding portion of the resolution and maintain funding for the branding effort, which they were all aware he would like to do. But none of that mattered unless a committee member wanted to offer this amendment.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3), a committee member and also a co-sponsor of the resolution, thought that, based on the fact that the committee had voted to indefinitely hold the brand study, effectively killing it, there was no brand study now which seemed to make the amendment moot.
None of the committee members opted to make the amendment.
[Given that two of the five Finance Committee members were also sponsors of this resolution, it seemed perhaps overly hopeful to think that the amendment would be taken up, much less passed by the committee.]
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), who was not a committee member, said that she agreed that the resolution did cross lines between departments. She also had a very big problem with including the enhanced crosswalk initiative in with the other branding related items. [I took that to mean she viewed the website redesign and technology upgrades as being more closely aligned with the function of a rebranding effort than enhanced crosswalks were.] She understood that the rebranding effort had been ended by the committee’s previous action, but she thought that combining these two things [which again, I took to be branding related items and pedestrian safety] was a bad idea overall.
Alderperson Siebers said, “I’m in agreement with what you just said.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland reminded the committee that they had recently voted on a number of allocations that spanned departments and had been packaged together similarly to this when they had voted on the ARPA funding. “This is essentially a reallocation of funding. Everything will still go through the committees to make sure that we have projects that are sound and that…the money will be spent properly. But this is essentially setting that money aside so that we can go through the process of committee. If we go through a process of committee right now without having the funding, I think most of us would agree that we would vote against something like that. So, we’re setting aside the funding first then going through the process to see if we have projects that that funding can be used for, and if not I’m happy to reallocate it elsewhere.”
Alderperson Firkus pointed out that the action that had originally provided the funding for the brand study was a package of recommendations from the Mayor’s Office to allocate excess funds in the General Fund. He said that included some items that were very similar to what was in this resolution. Within the last year, the committee had taken action on items that were multi-departmental in nature.
Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8), who is a committee member, said that the fact that the brand study had been killed by the committee didn’t prevent it from coming up again, possibly even in the near future. Former Alderperson Chris Croatt will be back on committee in April, and he may put forward another resolution. [He is running unopposed for the District 14 aldermanic seat.]
Regardless of what happened with that, Alderperson Reed thought that the website redesign needed to be done in conjunction with some sort of rebranding because he believed that if they redid the website now, they would likely have to redo it again if they did end up doing a rebranding.
Alderperson Reed wanted to have more specific information on the enhanced crosswalk program. He knew that the crosswalks were already scheduled out in the Capital Improvement Project program and tracked very closely. He wanted to get feedback from City Traffic Engineer Eric Lom and Police Chief Thomas as to what sorts of trends they were seeing and how much money they thought would actually be needed, if any, to add to the currently scheduled lists of enhanced crosswalks. He also wanted to hear from Human Resources Director Jay Ratchman to find out how much funding would be needed to upgrade technology. He didn’t want to just throw dollars at something because they could. “If we’re gonna do this I want to know specifically what’s a need and what’s not a need.”
Alderperson Siebers felt the same way and said, “We’re operating like the federal government. ‘Here’s some money, spend it wisely’ rather than saying ‘what are your needs, define your needs and let’s see how we can fund it’.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6), who was not a committee member but was a co-sponsor of the resolution, said that the original allocation of the excess general fund balance had included $450,000 for implementation of the brand study, but the brand study was dead, so the resolution they were now discussing would reallocate that money.
As far as needing to perform a brand study before redoing the website, although she was not an expert on web technology, she said that he had many years in Information Technology, and she believed that the problem with the website was not the logo but rather that it was inefficient, things were not linked to correctly, it was not easy to navigate, and it was not easy to find information. Those were the things that needed to be fixed; the logo could be changed later.
Alderperson Siebers reminded her that they were not talking about the brand study.
Alderperson Fenton apologized for that but said that they were talking about reallocating funds that had previously been allocated for a brand study which had been tabled indefinitely.
In terms of the resolution itself, she believed that the things being asked for were necessary. She had felt queasy about voting for the brand study and pointed out that, if her recollection was correct, the resolution for the brand study had never passed on its own but was recommended for approval by the Finance Committee and then passed in conjunction with excess general fund balance allocations. She had been willing to vote for it even though she didn’t really approve of it in order to solve problems that she felt needed to be solved, but she thought this resolution was a brilliant way to solve those problems.
Alderperson Siebers didn’t think anyone was going to disagree with the intent of the resolution, but he thought they needed to define the issues before they started throwing money at them.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2), who is a member of the committee, said, “My concern with this resolution isn’t that it’s undefined. I think that it has too many heads,” and wanted to know “Hypothetically if the Finance Committee and then Council were to approve this resolution as it is unaltered, what would the next steps be?” Would things go to their committees of jurisdiction? What would the practical implementation of the resolution as it currently stood look like?
Finance Director Tony Saucerman answered that, right now, the money was sitting in the 2021 budget. “If nothing happens the money basically lapses”. Historically, the mechanism that the city has used to move budget money from one year to the next was through the carryover process which happens in March. If the resolution passed, it would be assumed that the scenarios laid out in the resolution were the Council’s desire going into 2022 and those allocations would come through as an information item to the Finance Committee at carryover time in March.
Alderperson Meltzer thought that didn’t sound very complicated and that the resolution seemed to be doing some very efficient things.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said, “I just want to point out that none of these were really stabs in the dark be it the amount of money being allocated. That the numbers were things that came from staff and from the Mayor’s Office as far as what it would cost for a website etc. We know the funding it would take for the crosswalks, for those of us who are looking for them. We know the issue with technology—the amount of money we’re looking for. None of these are surprises. They weren’t just stabs in the dark. They were numbers that were picked with purpose.”
She also reminded them that this would still go through a committee process and they could reallocate this funding again in different ways. She acknowledged that they could carry it over as Director Saucerman had said, but the allocations in the resolution were a way to get all of the items that they have been holding back on onto committee agendas along with the funding to implement them so they didn’t have to scramble and try to figure out how to do them without having money set aside.
Mayor Woodford wanted to clarify that city staff had not conduced a review of the recommendations in the resolution, nor had they sought quotes for any of the recommendations in the resolution. Staff had not gone through a process yet on any of the recommendations.
Alderperson Hartzheim said she was uncomfortable with the verbiage “those of us who are looking for them” that Alderperson Van Zeeland had used regarding enhanced crosswalks. That does not seem, to her, like something that was for the good of Appleton as a whole.
Alderperson Siebers noted that there were only three enhanced crosswalk projects left in the remainder of the 5-year plan in 2023-2025, and they were estimated to cost $163,000, not the $225,000 allocated in the resolution.
Alderperson Doran said that that the thought the resolution was too all encompassing and also seemed a little rushed. He did some outreach to staff the previous week and learned that none of the authors of the resolution had reached out to any of the staff to ask questions about the resolution.
Regarding the crosswalk program, he said, there were still some projects in the queue, but once those were completed, the original intent and standards for the program would be met and all of the city’s crosswalks that met the program criteria would be completed. In order to do more crosswalks, the city would have to review whether or not they wanted to lower the threshold or whether circumstances had changed and some of the older crosswalks now met the criteria as originally set forth. It seemed ill advised to in to allocate more money when the program hadn’t changed.
He did recognize that the city’s need to upgrade its computer program, but that involved more than the staff members’ desktop computers and included tablets, a number of other devices, and the traffic camera program. He also thought that since they had a new Director of IT, it would be wise to give Director Popp the opportunity to review the program himself, meet with staff, and come forward with a recommendation to the Human Resources and Information Technology Committee that could then be addressed in the budgeting process.
He finished up by saying, “I just think that this seems like it was rushed really at a time with trying to take the funding from the branding project—which is fine, has happened—but I don’t know that necessarily means we need to plow ahead to reallocate money when it seems kind of ill-advised at this point, since this hasn’t really, seemingly, been thought through well with staff.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland said, “I take issue with this being an ill-advised resolution. All of these items have been discussed numerous times since I joined Council three years ago. These are issues that were brought up during the budget. These are issues that have been brought up to staff and we’re told there isn’t any funding, and every single thing that Alderperson Doran is asking for is what will happen in the committee process.”
They were setting aside the funding so that they could then go into the committee process and move forward on them while having the money there. She said it made no different if they have places in the city that need improved pedestrian safety but there is no funding for that. “So, we’re starting by just setting aside the money and then we’re going through the committee process to answer all of those questions. But none of these things are items that are brand new.”
She pointed out that she had specifically been talking about issues with pedestrian safety since she became an alderperson three years before. She said they all knew what the issues were but they just never had the funding the deal with them. She said they would make sure the issues were resolved appropriated and that they would work with staff and Council to make sure the money was used appropriately. But she didn’t want the money sitting there doing nothing. This resolution would bring everything to the table and to the specific committees to be worked on.
Alderperson Reed thought it was important to understand that if they didn’t take action that night it didn’t mean the money disappeared. It was still money that had been set aside and that they could reallocate.
He believed it was very important to get feedback from staff.
He made a motion to hold the item until the next Finance Committee meeting, so that they could get feedback from staff and have more specific dollar targets.
He noted that the enhanced cross walk program has been in the Capital Improvement Plan, has been funded, and is being completed. If they determined that there were further crosswalks that could or should be added, then they could look at that and reevaluate it, but he didn’t want to just throw money at it because there was some money available.
Alderperson Siebers seconded the motion to hold. He went on to say, “I really feel real, real strong about this. and I really think the issue in regards to the rebranding could have been handled a heck of a lot differently. Had we gone to staff before the meeting and voiced our questions and our concerns, and possibly we could have been dealing with those before it ever got to committee. I’ve always, always felt that before—before I submit a resolution or before I decide to do anything—I touch base with staff. Two things—one of two things happen. Number one, they’ll either convince me that’s a dumb resolution and shouldn’t be submitted, or two they’ll make the resolution a lot better than what I have. So, I’m really—I’m gonna say this again, Council members, we gotta learn to work with staff and I wish we would have gone to staff ahead of time to discuss these issues before hand.”
Alderperson Meltzer said, “As far as speaking to staff, I definitely think it’s important for us to have open channels of communication, to not try to surprise each other, or do things behind each other’s backs. But I think that when we sit here in these seats with these cameras and these videos that are recorded week after week, we also have to draw our boundaries and consider carefully what discussions do we want to make sure happen in front of the cameras so it doesn’t seem like business was being conducted outside of committee. There is a reason for committees. There is reason for new ideas to be introduced and discussed at committee. Not everything should do a dress rehearsal behind the scenes before it comes in front of the cameras. I think that’s something very important—that’s very important to our constituents. It might enable us to spend less time and feel that we have a more efficient system, but if the cost is less transparency and less open circulation of the ideas that we are intentionally trying to put out there to put to the test, to see if they are what we want, then I think—you know, we are better served by resolutions that are brought forward without prioritizing any sort of consultation the way that has been brought up right now. I think that we have to remember what roles we play in our community.”
Alderperson Siebers said he’d allow one last round of comments before they voted.
Alderperson Reed said he was not implying that they should engage in behind-the-scenes shenanigans. What he was asking for was some specific feedback from staff so that they could bring it in front of the committee and in front of the cameras and discuss it with further detail.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that when they had talked about reallocating ARPA funds, she had disagreed with doing that before the allocations having first gone through committee, but she had been told at that time, that they would allocate the funding first and then everything would go through committee afterward. She wanted to understand why, now, when she was trying to do that, that she was being told it had to be done the other way around. “It’s starting to seem like there’s no good way to do any of this.” She wanted to stick with one way of doing things. With this resolution she was trying to follow what she had been told regarding ARPA funding.
Alderperson Firkus had no problem slowing down on this item. He supported the resolution because it started a conversation about different ideas and initiatives that they may want to prioritize instead of a branding study, given the way the branding study was going. But he was fine having a few more conversations to work things out and see if people had ideas about other things they would like those funds to go toward.
He didn’t think the requests for more time and discussion were unreasonable, but he also didn’t think there was anything wrong with how this resolution had come about, given the condition of the brand study and particularly given that the recommended firm had withdrawn from consideration. If they wanted to do something different, there was only a short timeframe to put something together and get it out there.
His personal feeling had been to get the resolution to committee and then have a discussion to see what other people had ideas for before they started digging deeper into executing things.
The motion to hold was approved by a 4-1 vote with Alderpersons Siebers, Meltzer, Firkus, and Reed voting in favor and Alderperson Van Zeeland casting the one dissenting vote.
[I can definitely understand Alderperson Van Zeeland’s frustration regarding what the right procedure was in this situation, and, like Alderperson Firkus, I don’t see anything wrong with the speed at which this resolution was brought forth or even, perhaps, the lack of communication with staff given the short time frame.
I don’t like that this resolution would apparently give more funding to the enhanced crosswalk program than is needed. It seems beneficial to taxpayers to allocate money to pay for the projects that are already in the 5-year plan because that would presumably reduce the amount we need to borrow. But allocating additional money beyond that doesn’t seem like it would necessarily benefit taxpayers because it would be taking money that could be used to keep our debt down and instead using it to fund an unplanned and potentially unneeded project.
It also seems like it would be prudent to confirm that $100,000 would be sufficient to revamp the website. Although I’m not convinced that the website ought to be revamped in conjunction with a city rebranding, it seems to me that some sort of study would need to take place to figure out exactly what residents need and want out of a current website. Given how much studies seem to cost, I’m not sure one could cover the cost of a study as well as the actual creation of the website with only $100,000.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=921479&GUID=F3E54127-9E2B-4E8F-8D2A-13B9B918D3F1
Be the first to reply