Good morning.

Wednesday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 83. Sunrise is 6:28 and sunset is 7:15 for 12 hours 47 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waning crescent with 3.2 percent of its visible disk illuminated.

On this day in 1947, scientists discover the first computer bug after a moth lodges in a relay of a Harvard Mark II computer at Harvard University. (They taped the dead moth into the logbook for the computer. “First actual case of bug being found,” one of the team members wrote in the log.)

This summer, by his own admission, a resident who served on and chaired the old CDA, presided over the Whitewater School Board, and has claimed expertise in finance contended that the city’s budget doubled over the last few years. In response, the City of Whitewater produced a memorandum debunking that claim. See FREE WHITEWATER, No, Whitewater’s Budget Did Not Simply Double, September 1, 2026.

During the September 1 session of the Whitewater Common Council, the city’s finance director presented that memo to the community.

In reply, the same gentleman who advanced the erroneous claim attempted to rehabilitate his position. Embedded immediately below are his remarks:

What is one to make of this effort at rehabilitating a claim? The simplest assessment: wrong before and still wrong, stubbornly so. There’s something telling about a reply that concedes that the city’s analysis is “a very nice factual report” but refuses to accept the ineluctable conclusions that follow from those same facts.

The response never shows — because it cannot — that the original $24 million-to-$49 million comparison measures recurring operations, distinct expenditures, or property taxes. From the get-go, this gentleman’s claim of $49 million (however characterized) was off by over $5.3 million due to his double counting of that amount. And yet, and yet, in his September 1 remarks, he holds to the $49 million figure.

This was the August claim: “City budget, total spending in 2021 was $24 million. This year it was $49 million.” The September claim retreats from that position: it is now about ‘all-funds spending’ and shifts to the general fund or individual tax bills.” When one claim fails, changing the subject to a related but different claim does not rehabilitate it.

The shift (and concession!) from an erroneous claim about the budget to an all-funds view matters because that shift includes utility funds, capital projects, millions in temporary construction expenditures, a full year of Fire/EMS activity compared with a partial year in 2022, and approximately $5.3 million in transfers appearing in both the sending and receiving funds. Whitewater’s general fund increase is also explained clearly in the finance director’s memo: referendums, state aid, permit revenue, interest earnings, debt service, a TID closure, and net new construction. “There’s still a lot more in there” is not an answer to that reconciliation.

Of taxes, be clear: city taxes are higher, but for identifiable reasons: two public votes for public safety and council-approved borrowing for capital improvements. That history is an argument about whether those choices were wise — not proof that the city quietly doubled ordinary government. These increases should not be an opportunity to collapse gross expenditures, recurring operations, tax levies, tax rates, individual assessments, and TID increments into a single misleading claim that “the budget doubled.”

Let’s assume someday, on a day uncertain, this libertarian blogger finds himself in debate with Whitewater’s finance director over one claim or another. I should hope that, if that day comes, then I have the intellectual honesty to admit any errors she might find in my analysis.

The budget didn’t double. Would it have been so hard to admit this obvious error?

_____

Forthcoming topics (in no particular order): Development in Downtown Whitewater (Follow-Up), A New Ethics Ordinance, Polling Places in the City (Further Considerations), and Steps for a Public Interest Campaign.

Volcanic eruption on Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau causes widespread disruption:

Good morning.

Tuesday in Whitewater will be partly sunny with a high of 90. Sunrise is 6:19 and sunset is 7:29 for 13 hours 10 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waning gibbous with 80 percent of its visible disk illuminated.

Whitewater’s Public Safety and Licensing Review Committee meets at 5 PM and the Whitewater Common Council meets at 6 PM.

On this day in 1939, Germany and Slovakia invade Poland, beginning the European phase of World War II.

What does it profit a man to have served on and chaired the old CDA, to have presided over the Whitewater School Board, and to have claimed expertise in finance — only to count the same millions twice and mistake an accounting total for the cost of ordinary city government?

In recent weeks, a false (indeed, fallacious and mendacious) claim about the city has spread: that the city’s budget has doubled. In today’s post, this libertarian blogger will assess that claim, and a memo and presentation that the municipal government has prepared in response.

CLAIM:

“Because again, city budget, total spending in 2021 was $24 million. This year it was $49 million.”

CITY REPLY:

In reply, and as part of tonight’s council agenda packet, the city administration has prepared a multi-page memo and accompanying presentation. See Memorandum to Whitewater Common Council, Claim That the City Budget Has Grown from $25 Million to $50 Million (Sept. 1, 2026).

ASSESSMENT:

The memo refutes the implication that Whitewater’s ordinary operating budget — or the city’s typical property-tax rate — simply doubled. Indeed, “city budget, total spending” is a category error: the claim conflates different measures into one dodgy claim. A year’s city operating budget, one-time expenses, and the amount residents pay in taxes are three separate categories.

Anyone who cared to advance an intellectually honest claim about municipal finance would know that presenting a total funds number as though it measured recurring municipal operations or an ongoing property-tax burden was a false claim. The claim takes an accounting total, slyly implies it’s a tax bill, and sends it into public debate in a gaudy costume.

There are several obvious errors in the claim that ‘city budget, total spending’ doubled.

The city’s property-tax levy in 2026 was $7.74 million, not $50 million. Memo at 1.

Of the larger number of approximately $50 million, much is from unusually large, temporary construction expenditures. Memo at 2.

Some expenses are one-time matters. A year in which a city repaves a road, for example, does not permanently double the city’s budget. It’s a one-time expense that adds a better road while removing a worse one. A year in which a family replaces its roof does not permanently double the family’s cost of living. It’s a one-time expense that keeps the family dry and improves the house’s value.

The $50 million total is itself temporary and is projected to fall to $38 million next year, after some projects are completed. Presentation at 6.

Approximately $5.3 million in interfund transfers is double-counted by the resident—once when transferred in and again when transferred out. Memo at 2.

Double-counting is so inexcusable it’s disqualifying. If this resident’s double-counting was inadvertent, then it was incompetence. If the error was recognized and left uncorrected, then the claim was deceptive. No one should rely on an analysis that counts the same millions twice.

Beyond the budget, there are other concerns that residents, regrettably, face. We must ensure that our city has an effective, consistent ethics policy. We must ensure that our city provides two polling places to serve our electorate properly. These are fundamentally right positions, and as they are fundamentally right, they are to be advanced and defended diligently, zealously, and relentlessly. No matter of budgeting or development, however important, should take precedence.

And yet, and yet, budgets are unquestionably important. Budgets and the development they provide matter to the lives of our sixteen thousand residents. If important — and they are — then they are worth analyzing and considering honestly and accurately.

The claim against the municipal government fails in this regard, and the city’s reply succeeds in the same.

The city’s memo and presentation appear immediately below:

_____

Forthcoming topics (in no particular order): Development in Downtown Whitewater (Follow-Up), A New Ethics Ordinance, Polling Places in the City (Further Considerations), and Steps for a Public Interest Campaign.