The Community and Economic Development Committee met 03/09/2022. One of the items they took up was the allocation of American Rescue Plan Act grant funds to various organizations that provided mental health services.
The allocation was approved but not without some discussion that included a request for transparency from alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) and the expression of some possible strong feelings by Alderperson Kristine Alfheim (District 11).
Community and Economic Development Director Karen Harkness told the committee that there was a fairly detailed memo included in the agenda packet. She noted that Alderperson Alfheim had served on that ARPA grant review committee.
During the 11/03/2021 Common Council meeting, the Council had allocated $250,000 of the ARPA funds for grants.
The city took applications for behavioral mental health services and from community organizations that sponsored community events that supported other businesses. They received a total of 24 applications, plus an additional two that came in after the deadline and were therefor ineligible. The review team met 02/24/202, reviewed all of the grant applications, and made determinations on allocations to all of those organizations. The list of their recommended allocations was included in the agenda packet.
The grants amounted to a total of $250,000 which was the amount approved by the Common Council.
She opened things up for questions and mentioned that there were a couple of people in the audience [presumably from one or more of the organizations that had received grants] who were available to answer questions if the committee needed them to.
Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8 ) was chairing the meeting and asked Alderperson Alfheim if there was anything she wanted to add.
Alderperson Alfheim started by giving a rundown of the process, saying it was impressive. The committee consisted of fifteen people, and the city staff members on the committee collectively held many decades worth of experience in looking at grant applications and filling out related paperwork. “So, my point is this was not a lightly taken situation. There were rules, there were federal guidelines, there were information they had to go through. The staff that has decades of experience followed it to the T.”
There was a formula and a very specific method for ranking the applications. There was also a lot of work and time spent gathering and collating information. “I probably spent three hours looking at those applications and grading them before we ever got together. So, with the countless hours that go on behind the scenes then, when you have a committee putting in that much time, we’re talking hundreds of man hours in doing it. Then we get together and we tear it apart. Right? We literally tore it apart and said ‘okay, what, why, how, when does it make sense?’ And we then spent two hours and used every bit of those two hours on our Zoom [meeting] working through that.
“So, I guess my comment comes from the fact that the Council as a whole asked us to do this. We agreed as a Council that we were going to set up in this situation. The federal guidelines lay out very clearly how it is to be done. And then a group of professionals that do this for a living helped us to do it properly.
“So, the reason I say that is, one, to validate the staff. They know what they’re doing. I am there to be part of it—right?—as we are all. But it is not our job to make the rules, to set the rules, and to do it. We have to trust our staff to do that.
“So, when I found out there were some questions on who’s getting the money and why are they getting the money and what is it for, I’m here to tell you that that’s been investigated. It’s been worked through as a group—as our committee was assigned the task to accomplish—and I would caution us in looking from the outside and wondering every minute of every opportunity and every question that was ever asked and whether that was the appropriate one, and perhaps trust the competence of our city staff to do their job with the insight of our committee members. and I will leave it at that thank you.”
Alderperson Reed thanked Alderperson Alfheim for volunteering her time and thanked the staff for their hard work. He then called on Alderperson Hartzheim.
Alderperson Hartzheim started out by saying, “I wholeheartedly understand what the message was that was just being sent.” Because the funds were ARPA dollars, the residents if Appleton should understand what was done with them rather than being used to pay off debt or some other things. “I’d be interested in perhaps a summary statement—I know it may take a little bit of time—but perhaps a summary statements before Council next week that would tell us who the grantee was, what they’re—like a one sentence or one word of what they’re—the impetus of this grant money is and what our follow up procedure will be for it. I know that there are probably very well laid out grant funds follow-up procedures, but again because […] these are ARPA funds, I’d be interested in being able to tell our constituents these are the things that those monies are going to rather than going to reducing debt for taxpayers etcetera etcetera. It isn’t that I doubt that what was done was appropriate. It is that I would like some way to justify that, validate that, make that transparent to our constituents.”
Alderperson Reed asked if she wanted a summary statement explaining why these grant allocations were chosen and what the organizations were going to do with the money they received.
Alderperson Hartzheim confirmed she did. She was looking for one or two sentences about each grantee explaining what they plan to do with the money and what the city’s follow up with them would be. When would they know that those ARPA funds had reached their full capacity in being used appropriately—not, she added, that there were problems with appropriateness.
Alderperson Reed asked Director Harkness if that was a feasible request.
Director Harkness answered that she had already anticipated that and had a document available that she passed out to the committee members. She noted that it would be attached to the minutes of the meeting.
Alderperson Alfheim had a follow-up comment. “I think my caution in all of this is redundancy of effort and man hours, right? I understand transparency; I’m all about that; I’m all about accountability. But when we lay out what we’re supposed to be doing, and there are very clear rules that are far more detailed than we could understand, I think that we are now creating work on top of work. All of what we do is already established. We’ve said we are going to allocate two hundred fifty thousand of ARPA dollars to mental health issues in the City of Appleton. We agreed on that before this process started. So, the answer is, no one can get any of this money unless it is directly related to what the city Council told the city to accomplish correct?
“So again, I’m not questioning your motives. I guess my question is: are we really going to ask and create more work for the staff when clearly there are black and white bullet notes that they must follow in order to be accountable to the city? So that’s my cautionary phrase. If every time the city decides to spend money, we ask them for a detailed print out on who gets what and now what are they going to do with it, I think that we’re overstepping the job of the city Council. And that is opinion—I appreciate that. And again, I respect yours, but please hear mine as well. I think there’s a fine line between asking for accountability and […] being able to see it and micromanaging very capable staff.”
Alderperson Reed said, “Trying to connect what you’re saying, I think, with what she’s saying, and having been involved in the process—yeah there definitely is a very specific set of criteria to be met. I think if I’m right what direct—what Alderperson Hartzheim is requesting is more of a visibility. Not necessarily an analysis of why it was picked, but just a visibility [of] what’s being done with the money.” He asked Alderperson Hartzheim if the document Director Harkness had supplied was sufficient, and she confirmed it was exactly what she was asking for.
Alderperson Reed commented, “I don’t know of any time when Council has gone and tried to redo the process or micromanage the process. It’s just to have the visibility.”
Alderperson Alfheim responded, “And what I heard in the comment was ‘and then what?’ And ‘the follow up beyond.’ And I think that is beyond the scope of our responsibility. That’s on them to do—to follow the federal mandate. So, I guess that’s where I would say if this is giving you the information of clarity then I think fantastic, but then I would like that issue closed because we need to let the staff to do their job at this point which is to now follow the mandates that are on them to follow through with the nonprofits. That is not our job to be doing, and I would ask us not to ask them to do it for us in addition to for themselves and the federal government.”
Director Harkness had nothing to add and no committee members or alderpersons who were present had any further questions.
The committee voted 5- to approve the allocations for the grants.
[I didn’t understand what was controversial about Alderperson Hartzheim’s request. I think it’s beneficial for the public to be able to see a little more detail into what the grant funds are going toward. Whenever the city awards a contract to a company there’s always a brief description of specifically what that money will be paying for be it purchase and installation of a new piece of equipment at the wastewater treatment plant or the paving of a specific road. Just saying that these grants are going toward mental health services is not particularly useful because “mental health services” is such a general thing. It’s much more helpful and more concrete to say a company that has received the grant will use the funds for the “hiring of 13 therapists, as well as advertising and signing bonuses”, or for “new website, app creation, and marketing”, or for “enhancing office space for advocacy use, website development”, or to “increase operating hours and staffing.”
I also don’t think some kind of follow up in 6 months or a year would be unwarranted. Presumably none of the grantees are going to surface 6 months later as the warlord of a local autonomous region, but it’s not difficult to find examples of grant funds not being utilized well, so it would be useful to receive some kind of update that might report on how many additional people these organizations were able to serve as a result of the grant funds or perhaps indicate if there has been some sort of quantifiable impact on the number of people in Appleton experiencing mental health crises.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=924639&GUID=4A43F446-20C4-4828-9D70-4F4037E9A99A
Be the first to reply