In my last post that illustrated why I believe Monona's referendum is premature, I erroneously thought we had $3 million in debt. I was wrong and the reality is far worse than that. Our actual debt is...
$47 million.
Spread that over our population of approximately $8,000 people and that's just under $6,000 for each man, woman and child living in the city. It was almost five years ago when I started waving my arms alerting people to the financial struggles the city was facing. People at the helm said I was being untruthful and were unable to be honest and transparent with residents stating that the city's financial position was sound. Had the city begun to make strides in fiscal responsibility back then, we may have been able to avert the difficult decisions we are facing today. Now, in a post-pandemic world, leadership is even harder.
I have always been and will always be a voice for those who do not have a seat at the table or who are not being represented. Passing this referendum in the midst of a housing crisis will only worsen the situation. It will be unmanageable for low-income homeowners and elderly who are already struggling to afford their taxes. For renters, it will increase rents as property tax increases get passed on to them through higher rent. This could make renting even more less affordable, worsening the housing crisis for vulnerable populations. For those who end up displaced by this permanent tax increase, we know they likely will not be able to find housing in the area, forcing them to drive more and spend more on transportation costs. Lastly, higher property taxes can decrease disposable income and impacting local businesses and the economy, stalling economic growth and development. These are some of the key concerns of property tax increases during a housing crisis.
I've shared the excellent Municipal Data Tool by the Wisconsin Policy Forum in past blog posts. There are a wide variety of comparisons you can make but the image below comparing our debt with neighboring cities really brings it home. We used to hear Alder Patrick DePula say often (before he was an alder) that the city is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors." Yet that spending continues today even in a time when the city is embarking on their campaign to get this permanent tax increase passed through referendum. The recent $1.3 million path through Winnequah Park is just one example of that. More infrastructure means more expenditures plain and simple. The city is commendably concerned with environmental sustainability but we need them to take that same concern and sense of urgency when it comes to the city's need for long-term financial sustainability. Making financial documents readily available, airing all committee meetings on Zoom per the ordinance (one of my proudest achievements as alder) so we as residents can access the information and so we know what is going on.
The city needs to hire a financial advisor to help us chart a path toward long-term sustainability. A $3 million referendum is like a tiny band-aid on a gaping wound. With this amount of debt, we need to call in the professionals. The city does not have the tools or resources to do this on their own. This should have been done years ago. The finances need to be made a priority by city leaders. Including a standing agenda item on finances in city council agendas, provide financial reports to alders in their packets, discuss the financial challenges at council meetings for a start.
Call an end to complacency. This referendum kicks the can down the road once again instead of addressing the structural change that is needed. Similar to the school district, developing a task force open to residents to apply and call on those with financial experience and expertise would be a way to leverage the talent in our city through volunteers. This would go a long way in transparency and building trust.
Require elected officials to do the job we've elected them to do. They need to start making comprises understanding that some services may not be able to be at the level we once had. Make a list of the needs versus the wants and let the people decide through public engagement what our priorities are. I know I pick on the little ice rink a lot but that's because it's low hanging fruit, it's a "nice to have," not a necessity. How many cities do you know that own a Zamboni? Transparency and planning must start now. One easy way to start with transparency is tell us what the status is of the $845,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.
The marketing fliers the city is sending out about the referendum state, "51% of the city positions were below the minimum recommended wage." But that statement leaves out some important details. You won't find the 80 page compensation report available publicly but you can view it here.
I took the 80 page report and uploaded it to an AI app to assist in analyzing the data. While AI may still be considered a non-traditional tool, it can quickly analyze information and present insights based on a wide range of data and patterns. In this case, I used it to help identify potential concerns with the referendum, which I think is valuable when considering different viewpoints. Ultimately, it’s still up to us to evaluate the information and make informed decisions.
Below are the AI results for additional consideration. Most notable is that only 43 of the 77 city positions were used in the report.
The focus of the compensation study on only 43 non-union, permanent positions out of 77 total employees can influence public messaging in a few key ways:
Exclusion of Part-Time, Seasonal, or Union Employees: Since part-time, seasonal, or union employees were not analyzed, public messaging that references "51% of city positions" could be misleading if people assume it applies to all 77 employees. The study only covers full-time, non-union roles, so the figure might not reflect the entire workforce.
Potential Overstatement of the Issue: By focusing on positions that were analyzed (which may skew towards lower or stagnant pay), the claim about positions being "below minimum" may exaggerate the extent of underpayment. Without including union or part-time roles that could be more competitively paid or different in structure, the issue of wage gaps may seem more significant than it is across the whole workforce.
Perceived Wage Inequity: If the public is not aware that certain positions, like union roles or well-compensated senior positions, were excluded, they might be led to believe the wage inequity problem affects all employees, when in fact it could be isolated to non-union positions.
Lack of Transparency on Total Workforce: The focus on a limited group without clarifying this in public messaging may create a perception that the city has broader pay issues than it actually does. Transparency about which positions were and were not included would help manage expectations and provide a clearer picture of the workforce.
This focus could result in an incomplete or skewed narrative if not properly explained, influencing how residents or stakeholders perceive the city's pay structure and compensation adjustments.
The report does not provide explicit turnover numbers for 2023, so I couldn't directly confirm the claim that "22% of full-time employees left in 2023." However, here's how you can approach evaluating this:
No Turnover Data in Report: The compensation study does not include specific turnover rates for Monona, making it difficult to verify the 22% figure directly from the report.
Historical Turnover Rate: You mentioned the historical turnover rate ranged between 1-4%. If the city is now claiming a 22% turnover rate, it suggests a significant jump. You might want to request or review HR or staffing reports for 2023 to confirm this claim.
I'm glad to see robust conversation happening on this very important issue. While it's difficult to speak out, it is our duty as concerned residents who have elected people to be fiscally responsible and prudent in their spending of our finite tax dollars. Once again, I extend my sincere appreciation to the city staff who are caught in the middle. We shouldn't be viewed as an ATM or as the easy way to fill the coffers. This is an operational referendum and without a long-term plan, we'll be right back here again in three years.
Comments