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.