Advancing A Vibrant Community

I am absolutely AGAINST, and will vote NO to any referendum that seeks to increase the levy or burden residents with additional property taxes. 

First, I would like to thank, and acknowledge, Mr. Schiemdicke for all the public forums he conducted regarding the City of Madison finances. As always, he was knowledgeable and informative and gracious with a difficult task and forum.  

However, he was not the person who should have been presenting to the public.  That responsibility should have fallen to the owners of the budget which are Mayor and Council.  Given Councils’ lack of true participation in budget details for years, the Mayor should have been present to understand and address resident concerns.

The primary reason for a NO vote on the referendum is that you have lost all credibility in being fiscally responsible in managing our money.  I personally feel you don’t feel true ownership over every dollar the City is spending, questioning with passion what, why, where, how, if spending meeting a specific, quantifiable and measurable objective.  When you plan to have work done in your own home, I assume you pay attention to details, you want bids to be competitive, you want the work to be guaranteed, you will follow up with the work to make sure it met contractual objectives and are personally satisfied with the work done. The single biggest question and priority is do you have the money budgeted to perform the work. 

Many of us feel its simply a rubber stamp process with no true sense of ownership.  Plus, in our own homes, if we are over our budget, we are not continuing to spend and putting it on a credit card!  This is what Mayor and Common Council have been doing for years.  

There are very specific, and significant issues, that Mayor, Council and Finance have not addressed:

1.     Use and application of ARPA (American Rescue Plan ACT) and other “one time” use funds – Rainy Day Fund, Bond Premium

a.      Likely a significant amount of the budget shortfall is in how ‘one time’ funds have been incorporated into the normal annual operating budget.  ARPA (and other funds) were never intended to be a liability transferred to a municipality’s constituents. 

b.    The transfer of this liability into annual operating budgets is “highly irregular” and is usually bound by specific rules.  When and why was this initiated?

c.     Lack of transparency in where these funds were applied, when, how much, why,

2.      While at a critical juncture in City finances, there is $10M (at one time $12M) in ‘uncollected revenue’.  When the City is starved for funding leaving monies uncollected is unfathomable.

3.      Lack of clarity around BRT funding.  Portraying grant monies from any governmental agency does not make it ‘free’ money.  Capital assets require maintenance and repair (operating expenses) whether it’s a building, elevator, fire alarm/suppression system, bridge, road, bus, bus stop, bike path, etc.  Any ‘net new’ asset drives maintenance as well as requiring funding (reserves) for future replacement.  A $200M grant will eventually require funding sufficient capital reserves, which will be a net new obligation for City and taxpayers.  When ridership is falling this is a huge risk, and obligation, to citizens.  What is the ridership model for the next 5 years, what happens if ridership declines, what are mitigation plans if BRT is under water?

4.      Threatening “layoffs” of City staff and a reduction in core services, when that is unnecessary.  The City does not have an FTE problem but a services spending problem.  I thank the City for releasing the latest “5% budget cut” model that makes the point. 

a.     Are members of Common Council requesting to see an FTE model from 2019 to current day for city staff.  How much has staff grown as compared to City growth?  A $20M shortfall in 2025 is 200 FTEs at $100K salary for round numbers.  At $75K that’s 266 FTEs.  Where is staff growing?  Shrinking? Does it align with core city services?

b.    The core spend areas are in “purchased services” (from the budget release last night) which are vague, undefined, and lacking detail.  These spends are significant, yet vagueness surrounds the details. Does Common Council understand where we are spending, with who, are they meeting measurable objectives with our funding? How often are those being audited for results, efficiency?Useful and actual information around where ‘one time funds’ (point #1) have contributed to net new operating expenses over time is critical.  Who is asking those questions?  Where are answers for the general public who are paying the bill?  If you are not asking these questions WHY NOT?

c.     From a professional standpoint asking for a flat 5% cut across all agencies was unnecessary.  And you spun up staff when it was not required.  If you have a department of 10 and all are ‘outstanding’ or high achievers, you are going to willingly cut good talent?  You take 5% of all the bottom performers based on performance reviews.  Private sector does this periodically and it typically increases morale, because your better employees have been picking up slack for poorer performing employees, and the general attitude is ‘it was about time’.  And this is done at each layer.  Where is the information about people, and department overtime?  Does anyone remember the bus drivers make more that $225K a couple years ago?  If Common Council is passing budgets you should be asking for information that is useful when evaluating budgets!

d.    When Chief Barnes has to remind you that a 5% cut will violate the principles of Act 12 and would cause the City to repay hiring grants tells me little thought was actually given to selectively and with purpose reviewing how budget reductions were requesting through City staff. 

e.    Laying off City staff is the choice of Mayor and Council only.  Staff reductions are likely not necessary.  However, this appears to be the path of least resistance which is disappointing.  It also highlights that City has no real interest in managing in a responsible manner.  If staff reductions are preferable to cutting other spend and commitments, that is your choice.  Not the choice many citizens would make.  Your choice.

5.      You continue to blame the state for lack of funding! 

a.    This has been known for years.

b.     If Council has been applying one time funds for ongoing operating expenses then you knew years ago, what you know today.  You are not the US Govt and you can’t print money.  And at some point this was all going to catch up with reality.

c.    Negotiations with the State should have been initiated years ago in preparation for this day.  Madison is a key economic engine for the entire state.  As dysfunctional as our state government is, they know this.  Plus, you have Evers!  Why have you waited?

6.     Last but not least – the Civilian Police Oversight Committee.  For the millions spent to date there is still NO actual process in place to run the program.  HOWEVER, do I see in file # 83848 that this body is proposing that the City will actually pay up to $15,000 towards complainants attorney’s fees to…….litigate against the City of Madison?  So, we are going to pay for both sets of attorneys in the same case?   And there is no mention of a limit to the number of instances, whether the person wins/loses the case with prejudice?  I mean, wow.  How can this not be a conflict of interest?  How does this make any rational sense to a taxpayer that we will pay for both the defense and prosecuting attorneys in the same case?  The City is actually incentivizing court actions against itself?  Mind boggling.  If this is representative of what happens in other areas of our City government we have bigger problems than just the budget.  If this is your money, how about each member of Council pay the first 20 $15,000 bills personally.  Would this make you look at situations like this differently in the future?  I would hope!

I will not support a referendum.  I would support having a member of Common Council sit in every exit interview for an employee who is cut, and to be present for every agency or supplier or person who has benefited from a service that can no longer be afforded.  Perhaps then, it will make decisions more personal when funding issues come before Common Council.

I will be a NO vote until I see reason, personal responsibility and common sense in financial decisions.

Alder Harrington-McKinney

I have experienced living from paycheck to paycheck. I am a survivor.  I am a senior living on a fixed income. I was elected Alder of District 1 in 2015, re-elected Alder of District 20 due to redistricting in 2020. My "NO VOTE" was my personal accountability pledge going forward. Elected as alder in 2015, I did "rubber stamp" the budgets presented by both Mayors Soglin and Rhodes-Conway. I do support advancing Madison as a vibrant community where there are opportunities for all people to advance. I support the Core Areas in Madison's Comprehensive plan 1. Landuse and Transportation 2. Neighborhoods & Housing 3. Economy and Opportunity 4. Culture and Character 5. Green and Resilient 6. Effective Government and 7. Health and Safety. The Comprehensive Plan's recommendations are intended to:

• Create a collective vision
• Establish priorities
• Inform policies
• Align the work of City Agencies
•  Create a framework for topic specific plans
• Guide private development

• Foster private partnerships

  Plan Limitations:  While forward looking, this Plan cannot forsee all eventualities. The Plan helps to prioritize Actions so Madison can maintain a high quality of life and be financially resilient through ever-changing economic circumstances. (The City of Madison's Comprehensive Plan, Amended December 5, 2023.

How and when did the Madison Common Council become so disconnected? We can pass by one another without the common courtesy of "speaking"? My "No Vote" was my commitment to do better. I end with this quote by Neil Heinen, WISC Editor, For the Record Host:

"BEFORE A PLACE BECOMES WHAT ANY OF US TRULY WANT, WE HAVE TO IMAGINE IT.

Get Outlook for iOS