Letter to the editor:

Recent posts from the blog “Discerning Whitewater,” found here: https://discerningwhitewater.com/blog/, reveal several misunderstandings about how the city of Whitewater operates, especially regarding the lakes, tax increment financing (TIF), tax increases, open records, the recent library expansion project, and development projects. While our residents must engage in local discussions, ensuring these conversations are grounded in facts is equally important.

The blog’s author has raised concerns about the state of the lakes, suggesting that I, as city manager, bear personal responsibility for their condition. This is not accurate. Elected officials have made all funding decisions about the lakes and created the Lakes Advisory Committee, which is discussing the creation of a Lakes Management District. This district would have the power to tax and spend on lake-related projects. I, as city manager, am not involved in these decisions. City staff have been actively working on budgeted and approved city-owned shoreline improvements, such as clearing cattails from public spaces, which was identified as the top priority during community listening sessions in 2022 and 2023.

The next opportunity to participate in the conversation is on October 2nd, from 5-7 p.m., at 841 Brewhouse, and details can be found on the Whitewater Parks and Recreation Facebook page. It is essential to recognize that decisions about lake management are made collectively by committees and councils, not unilaterally. Additionally, the suggestion that funds from TIF or unrelated projects could be diverted to the lakes demonstrates a need to clarify how city finances work. There are specific legal and financial frameworks that ensure funds are spent appropriately on projects like economic development and environmental preservation.

The blog’s author also raises concerns about multi-family housing developments, stating that the city is moving towards a pattern of subsidizing wealthy developers through TIF. This portrayal is inaccurate. TIF is not a subsidy but a state-approved tool for fostering economic development by leveraging future tax revenue from projects that wouldn’t happen without it. A great example is the ALDI development, where TIF was used to bring a much-needed grocery store to our community and purchase and clean up an environmentally contaminated property from a prominent landowner. This project is a win-win-win: it got a vital grocery store to Whitewater, redeveloped a site with asbestos, lead paint, and contaminated soils, and created a pad-ready site for future development. Far from subsidizing developers, TIF projects like these are strategic investments in our city’s future to spur essential services and housing.

Similarly, the blog’s author has expressed frustration about tax increases, claiming a personal 42% hike with no indication that the trajectory will stop. This perspective overlooks critical facts. The bulk of this increase is due to a one-time $1.2 million-dollar referendum, approved by 65% of Whitewater’s voters, to improve emergency response times through a full-time Fire/EMS department. Before the referendum, it took our fire department over five minutes to respond to half of the calls. Now, response times are down to one minute and thirty seconds, with teams on-site within five minutes—saving lives and property in numerous documented cases. The author sees waste in the tax increase, but I see families safely returning to their homes, which might otherwise have been lost. Of note: a TIF district that closed that same year helped reduce the referendum’s impact by over one dollar per thousand of assessed value.

It’s also important to note that Whitewater’s mill rate aligns with comparable communities, as determined by our finance team. Our local government carefully manages finances to balance investments in necessary infrastructure—such as housing and public services—while keeping tax burdens reasonable. The city’s per capita spending on essential services like police and streets is lower than comparable communities. By efficiently managing our resources, we can serve a larger population and area while maintaining a solid commitment to financial responsibility and respect for taxpayers.

The blog’s author has also suggested that his public records requests regarding the library fundraising and donations have been stonewalled. The Whitewater Community Foundation, which is not subject to open records law, maintains those funds, and the requests are broad. We are processing them as thoroughly and promptly as possible. One part of the request is time-bound to two weeks, while the other part, concerning donations and pledges, has no specified time frame. If the request were more specific, we could handle it more efficiently. It’s important to note that the decisions surrounding the library, like many other city initiatives, have been made by elected officials and committees working in the community’s best interest—not in secret or with any lack of transparency.

We can all agree that if Whitewater is going to recover from decades of stagnation, we need inclusive infrastructure like housing and libraries. These are not simply pet projects but essential to building a thriving, resilient community. Without these investments, Whitewater risks being left behind and unable to attract new residents or keep up with the demands of our changing economy.

Unfortunately, the blog’s author seems determined to cast every project as a failure or destined for failure. As someone with over a decade of experience and a successful track record in city management and economic development, I can confidently say that Whitewater is moving in the right direction. Our staff is engaged and happy; our new developments and financial metrics show improvement and decisions that lead to major changes or expenses are recommended by the committee and approved by the council — not unilaterally by city officials. Rather than spreading misinformation or fueling discord, we must work together as a community to focus on the facts and have informed discussions and thoughtful debates, not ones rooted in anger or misrepresentation.

In closing, I believe it’s essential to maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue about the city’s decisions. While I always welcome differing perspectives, giving weight to opinions based on misinformation is challenging. If we’re going to build a better Whitewater, it needs to be through collaboration, transparency, and mutual respect.

John S. Weidl

Whitewater City Manager