Shorewood’s Consulting Extravagances

Are consulting services worth the time and money when 80%-90% of the recommendations are never implemented? Is a 10 Year Financial Plan or 25 Year Comprehensive Plan worth the effort when administration, council members and even mayors rotate out every few years? Cities waste so much money on elaborate consulting ideas that are never implemented. This needs to stop.

And why have we never seen a Shorewood plan to study COST REDUCTIONS or PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES? These studies are very common in the private sector. Are Shorewood and other municipalities exclusively geared toward spending more taxpayer money? If 80%-90% of the ideas are never implemented could the city save 80%-90% of consulting dollars?

The city of Shorewood uses consultants for many projects varying from Weed Management to Long Range Financial Planning. But does the city rely on consultants too much? Here are just some 2025 consulting projects, staff augmentation and recently issued RFP requests:

• 2050 Comprehensive Plan (RFP issued)
• Bolton & Menk Engineering (average $1.4M/yr.)
• *2026 – 2035 Long Range Financial Plan ($11k)
• Shorewood Community Center Assessment (n/a)
• Highway 7 Transportation Management ($200k)
• ABDO Professional Auditing Services ($24k)
• *Shorewood Parks Master Plan ($40k)
• Vegetation Management Plan (RFP issued)

* For comparison the City of Victoria produces these services in-house

Key Disadvantages of Consulting Services:

Accountability and Transparency Issues: The use of consultants can complicate accountability. In case of problems, elected officials or internal leaders may refer blame to external parties, obscuring who is truly responsible for decisions and outcomes. This can undermine public trust and democratic accountability.

Higher Long Term Costs: While seemingly cost-effective for short-term projects, the cumulative cost of repeated consulting fees can ultimately be more expensive than investing in permanent, in-house staff with full benefits. Audits have sometimes shown significant cost overruns and poor oversight of consulting expenses.

Potential for Conflicts of Interest: Consultants may have ties to private organizations or industries that create conflicts of interest, potentially influencing their recommendations to favor their own commercial interests rather than the public’s best interest.

Hollowing Out Internal Capabilities: When external firms handle core governmental work, in-house staff often miss out on opportunities to develop skills and expertise, leading to a “hollowing out” of public sector capacity over time. This creates a negative feedback loop where consultants are needed even more for future projects.

Loss of Institutional Knowledge: Consultants come in for a specific project and then leave, taking with them valuable knowledge, context, and data they’ve gathered. This means the municipality might have to rehire consultants for similar problems repeatedly, making it difficult to build long-term, sustainable solutions.

Dependency Risk: Excessive reliance on external advisors can lead to a dangerous dependency, making the city ill-equipped to address future challenges or innovate without external help.