Wausau City Hall. MWC photo by Mike Leischner
WAUSAU, WI (WSAU) — Things got heated and testy between Wausau Mayor Doug Diny and the City’s Parks and Recreation Committee as the two sides discussed potential changes outlined in a memo by the Mayor last week including the cancelation of the long-standing intergovernmental services agreement with Marathon County for parks maintenance and shifting those duties and employees to the city’s Public Works Department.
District Seven Alder and Council President Lisa Rasmussen said she didn’t feel the proposal was vetted enough or ready for discussion at the committee level. “[Some Alders] were concerned about the order of introduction of this item because they felt like they should have had at least some background before people started calling them to ask them what in the world was happening,” said Rasmussen. “We need a lot more data. We need to make an educated decision about this.”
Alder Tom Neal agreed. “Aside from the fact that we kind of got blindsided [by this] and we shouldn’t have been; my greater concern is the lack of meat on what I’ve read so far. It is not a vetted proposal, at all.”
Diny said the idea wasn’t supposed to be ready for any sort of vote or further action from the committee. Instead, it was designed to be the start of a conversation. “This is a high-level [look] that started with a zero-base budget concept. The first thing you do is look at the organization chart and look for areas with redundancy or duplication.
“The details will follow,” added Diny. “The finance department has not run a full analysis on it, no. The Department of Public Works has not run a full analysis on it, but I’ve had preliminary discussions.”
Diny also noted that he couldn’t verify if the information in his proposal, which calls for the elimination of up to three FTE positions and up to $400,000 to a half-million dollars in savings, could be achieved. “Whether that’s the exact number, the number is we can save money. Is it valuable if it was $150,000, $200,000, what is that number? The savings are there because of a reduction in layers,” said Diny.
He also noted that the original estimate came from looking at full-time salaries that would be eliminated along with tax and equipment savings.
Both Public Works Director Eric Lindman and Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Director Jamie Polley got very little airtime through the nearly hour-long discussion. When they did, they agreed to provide input as needed. “I’m willing to provide information about what we do on a daily basis. We have all that data, we’ve been doing it for 50 years and I’ve been here for six. I’m well aware of our department and what we have,” said Polley.
She was also blindsided by the proposal, saying she was left out of initial discussions by Mayor Diny and other city staffers.
“When you look at the organizations and how they overlap, I do feel it’s at least worth taking a look. I think if everybody’s OK with looking at it, we should look at it,” said Lindman.
RELATED: REPORT: Wausau Mayor Proposes Parks Department Cuts in 2025
As for the timing and nature of last week’s announcement, Mayor Diny defended himself by saying it’s not practical to have every proposal vetted by all 11 alders before it’s released or included with a meeting packet. “Transparency requires sharing information with the press and the public- in real-time. This isn’t your first rodeo. [I can recall times] when I got something I wasn’t aware of. Your options are to tell them [the press or public] you weren’t aware and refer them to those who may [be aware] or you call the appropriate staff or the Mayor. It happens all the time. We are all professionals here, if you don’t know the answer you know where to get the answer,” said Diny.
The Mayor also issued a press release following the meeting, taking some of the Alders who questioned the proposal to task by saying they would question a proposal to install a gumball machine at City Hall and request a feasibility study on it. The release continued with a bullet-point list of how he would like to review operations and create efficiencies in city government:
Here’s how that process should work:
- After a review, some items will be flagged and a hypothesis formed about how to make things better. In this recent example, the parks department has one supervisor for every 5.25 workers. That strikes me as too much. We don’t need to over-supervise people to get the work done.
- The hypothesis or outline of a proposal will be sent to the relevant committees to gather more information, add detail, and answer questions. The proposal to separate the joint city-county parks department was in fact sent to chairs of the Finance Committee and the Parks & Recreation Committee before it appeared in the press. Committees are the place where we should put flesh on the bones of the proposal. As it moves through committees and to the council, all council members will have a chance to have input. No one is being forced to render a verdict on the proposal without adequate information—and no one should.
- The expectation is that every alder will address proposals with fair and open minds. Several of them did. When asked by the press whether they supported the proposal or not, they replied it was too early in the process for them to have formed an opinion. That is, in fact, where we are at. On the other hand, other alders made wild and unsubstantiated claims that separating the department will cost lots of money to give cover for their efforts to “deep-six” the proposal before work on it begins.
- Transparency means sharing information with the press and the public in real time. I have come to understand that some alders would like to keep proposals under wraps until they can kill them quietly or workout their talking points against them. I think the public deserves to see the whole process from beginning to end.
No action was taken as a result of the discussion. It’s unclear if the issue, or pieces of it, will come back to another city committee as the 2025 budget is crafted over the next few months.
Diny also noted that any changes are still 12-18 months away from implementation due to the advance notice clause in the current agreement.
Comments