By Heather Graves
Editor
GREEN BAY – City Council members approved the city’s preliminary bonding request plan of around $14 million at its Feb. 16 meeting.
Alderpersons differed on what were considered city “needs” versus “wants.”
Removed from the request included a variety of green infrastructure projects, totaling approximately $2.5 million.
District 8 Alderperson Chris Wery said the extra amount involved in doing “fancier streets” can be reallocated to do more work citywide in 2022.
“A total of $2.5 million in extra cost, 55% more,” Wery said. “We are still going to do these streets. It is just we are paying 55% more over and above to do these streets that we don’t have to do. It might be a good idea to do them, but (not) when we are cutting out other streets that really need to be done, or they wouldn’t be on this list. You know how behind we are on our streets. So, to do these fancy streets, we are saying we are not going to do School Place. We’re not going to do Howard Street, and we are not going to do Oakland Avenue. I think we take out this money, and reallocate it toward these streets.”
Others felt the city needs to act now.
“These projects have been described as luxury items and not necessary,” District 7 Alderperson Randy Scannell said. “Green infrastructure is necessary. Anybody who thinks climate change is something we can put off anymore, I think is very short-sighted.”
There seemed to be some confusion on the meaning of green infrastructure by some on council, because addressing flooding issues in the city was cited as the reason behind the push for green infrastructure, which Department of Public Works Director Steven Grenier said is not the case.
Grenier said green infrastructure is intended to handle the “very first precipitation that comes down,” which contributes to getting the city in compliance with state and federal regulations.
“It is a very minor contribution toward flooding,” Grenier said. “If we are talking about eliminating 6 inches of street flooding – no, that is not what green infrastructure is for. Green infrastructure, by its nature, is primarily intended to reduce the pollutant loads in areas where we are not, and cannot, currently meet (state regulations).”
Grenier said the city will continue to be in non, full compliance with the city’s permit.
“As long as we can demonstrate that we continue to make efforts toward achieving compliance, we are in the good graces of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Environmental Protection Agency,” he said. “Should we not continue with good-faith efforts to continue to achieve compliance, that is when we’ll run into problems.”
City Council Vice President Barbara Dorff, who was in favor of the proposed green infrastructure projects, said she supports the idea of “at some point, hopefully in the near future, getting a more comprehensive plan around green infrastructure.”
“I also understand that until we actually put some things in place in our city, we are not going to be able to get data, because you can’t get data if you don’t have green infrastructure in place,” she said. “I think now is the time that we need to start caring more about our environment and do everything we can to keep our water pure and to actually meet the requirements of the DNR.”
City Council President Jesse Brunette said the city can look at green infrastructure as part of a long-term plan when “we have the figures in front of us.”
With the green infrastructure project out, the Howard Street, School Place and Oakland Avenue project, as well as the request to redo aging parking lots of Colburn Park at a cost of $200,000 was reinserted into the bonding request.
Council members also voted to bond $460,000 for a new engine for a firetruck, a Fire Department request the city had originally postponed until 2023.
An item many on council deemed a “priority” – the replacement of the hydraulic system in the Main Street Bridge, which was closed all of January for repairs, was not included in the bonding request.
“We’re going to put $200,000 into a parking lot and yet, when we look at the Nitschke Bridge, which sits with one hydraulic working and one not, we’re just waiting for that one to go out,” District 4 Alderperson Bill Galvin said. “Just wondering if money might be better spent repairing a bridge that we’re just waiting to fail one more time in the near future. We’ve already been told that that’ll be a catastrophic failure.”
Director of Finance Diana Ellenbecker said the bonding process is a long process.
“We would prefer if at all possible tonight, move forward with bonding, so we can get the ball rolling,” she said.
Ellenbecker said bonding years and interest rates will be available when the bonding plan is final and requests are sent out for bidding.
Brunette attempted to remove $100,000 of police expenses out of the bond request and reallocate the $100,000 from the unspent revenue from the 2021 cooperative governance agreement with the Oneida Nation, which is currently set aside from a potential city rebranding initiative, for these purchases.
However, it didn’t receive majority council support.
Brunette later requested council members to rescind a decision made in December 2021 to set aside the $100,000 from the agreement for the potential rebranding effort.
Both of Brunette’s rescind requests failed with tie votes.