MARSHFIELD, WI (OnFocus) – The City of Marshfield has initiated its budget meetings for 2025, starting with a session on October 14, 2024. These meetings aim to shape the city’s financial planning and address key budgetary issues.
City Administrator Steve Barg explained that the budget started with requiring $1.1 million in cuts, something he described as “rough.” Union contracts with fire and police departments don’t offer much flexibility in budgeting, and with 2/3 of the budget being salaries it is a challenge to find areas to reduce.
“Most of the budget cuts you see tonight that got us down to the balanced budget really do impact public services. At some level, you could argue whether refilling a staff position affects what the public gets initially, but over time if positions are vacant and it’s difficult for people to pick up the slack and be able to complete the work on a timely basis, it will have an impact on the services that the public gets,” said Barg. “Many of them that you see on your list have more of a direct impact in terms of the services that we provide.”
With fewer cost-reduction options available each year, balancing the 2025 budget requires changes to staffing levels and pay/benefits, reductions in many programs and services, and budget cuts primarily impacting public service.
Barg highlighted the need to preserve core employees, emphasizing the importance of fair compensation while managing financial constraints. This means removing certain part-time employee positions, delaying some hiring, and leaving some positions vacant. He noted that there would be no increase in health insurance premiums, crediting employees for being responsible health consumers. Barg proposed a step increase of 2.5% plus a 1% increase in employee wages – which is less than the amount suggested by the McGrath wage study conducted in 2024.
Positions that would be left vacant include Community Development Director, a Street Department employee, Civil Engineer I, part-time clerk, and a full-time library position.
“I hope that’s not for the long haul but it’s something we needed to do to make this work,” said Barg.
Library Director Jill Porter explained that due to budget constraints, the library has to cut Sunday hours, which have traditionally been significant for the community. She emphasized that the library operates on a “bare bones” budget with no excess spending, focusing primarily on staff and services. Porter highlighted that Sunday hours attract many patrons, including families and foster children who use the library for essential interactions. However, since all operating hours depend on available staff, cutting Sunday hours will also require reducing one full-time position. Porter expressed her frustration, stating that the library cannot make cuts elsewhere since their budget is already tight.
Alderman Russ Stauber acknowledged Porter’s points and suggested that the library and city should reevaluate their core services. He questioned whether all current offerings are essential or if some could be fulfilled by other organizations. Stauber reflected on past public projects, emphasizing that the city needs to ensure these facilities are utilized effectively. He proposed that discussions should begin early in 2025 about which services the community values most and how they can continue to provide them sustainably.
Concerns about the proposed budget cuts surfaced during discussions. Council member Mike Feirer questioned the need for transparency and emphasized careful communication regarding potential cuts, especially to programs that affect residents.
“When you start laying out what’s going to happen, you just open Pandora’s box,” he warned. “Citizens are going to be wild when they find out about cuts, especially to their favorite programs.”
Feirer urged the council to approach discussions about service cuts, such as swim lessons and library hours, cautiously. “You need to be ready for the consequences of these decisions. It’s better to make cuts discreetly than to announce them upfront and face public backlash,” he stated.
He pointed out that revenue from tourism cannot be used to balance the budget and emphasized the necessity of spending the room tax appropriately. “You can’t expect to balance the budget using that 30% of the room tax revenue. It won’t work,” he said.
Council members also requested more detailed explanations of budget cuts, particularly regarding unfilled positions and their impact on services. Several participants asked for a clearer understanding of how staffing changes would affect operations, especially in critical areas like snow removal and street repairs.
Alderman Andrew Reigel posed important questions regarding the general fund budget, specifically seeking clarity on the gross change in expenses from last year to this year. Reigel further expressed the need for transparency regarding which specific services are being cut, emphasizing that the public deserves to know how taxpayer dollars are being spent and which valued services may be impacted. He suggested that the department provide a follow-up list detailing the service reductions, as many members of the public may not be aware of significant changes, such as the library not opening on Sundays.
Reigel also highlighted the importance of clearly communicating these cuts in a manner that is easily understood by the public, suggesting that vague terms like “service adjustments” could lead to confusion. He urged for a straightforward summary that details what specific services will be impacted, as this information is vital for public awareness and engagement.
Alderperson Rebecca Spiros shared her frustrations regarding the budget’s impact on employee compensation. She noted the need for a deeper analysis of peer cities’ tax rates and services, and expressed disappointment in the declining HSA contributions, stating that they could hinder efforts to retain quality staff. Spiros requested more detailed information on specific cuts and their implications for city services, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the budget process.
Alderman Mike O’Reilly expressed strong concerns about proposed cuts to employee wages and reductions in Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions. He highlighted the contradiction of approving significant expenses, such as $30,000 for lights at Braem Park, while simultaneously balancing the budget by making cuts that adversely affect the very employees who have been underpaid for years.
O’Reilly stressed that employee retention and recruitment have been ongoing issues and that these cuts would further exacerbate the problem. He emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation of budget priorities, arguing that employees should be regarded as the top priority in the budgeting process.
O’Reilly reiterated the importance of examining how peer cities manage their finances and what trade-offs they make. He expressed frustration over the current situation, indicating that the budget’s approach to employee compensation is unacceptable and must be addressed.
The discussion called for a commitment to better support employees and suggested revisiting potential funding sources, such as the public utility payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT program), to alleviate budget constraints and improve staff compensation.
The budget meetings will continue on October 21 and October 28, with a public hearing and budget adoption set for November 26.
As the budget discussions progress, the city administration is under pressure to balance fiscal responsibility with the needs and expectations of residents. Public participation is encouraged, as the outcomes of these meetings will directly impact Marshfield’s services and quality of life.
We welcome your stories! Contact us at [email protected]!
Author: News Desk
This piece was posted by our news team! Contact us or submit stories at [email protected].
