A Bloated Payroll: Examining Disproportionate Compensation in Superior

The financial reality of Superior’s payroll system reveals a troubling disparity. In 2022, the top 50 earners among city employees collectively drew $4.9 million in salaries. When factoring in benefits—estimated conservatively at $20,000 per employee—total compensation surges to over $5.9 million.

This small cohort consumed 18% of Superior’s $32.28 million annual budget, raising critical questions about the city’s fiscal priorities.


Concentrated Spending at Taxpayers’ Expense

Such an allocation of resources highlights a system that prioritizes a narrow segment of the workforce over broader community needs. With nearly one-fifth of the city’s total budget directed toward just 50 individuals, the balance of spending on essential services, infrastructure, and community programs appears increasingly skewed.

Taxpayers are left to wonder whether this financial structure serves the greater good or perpetuates inequality within the city’s workforce.


Accountability and Oversight Are Crucial

The numbers prompt urgent questions:

  • How does this level of compensation benefit the community at large?
  • Is such spending justifiable for a city of Superior’s size and budget constraints?
  • What oversight mechanisms are in place to evaluate the fairness and efficiency of this system?

The lack of transparency surrounding these expenditures only deepens concerns. Residents deserve clear answers and assurances that their tax dollars are being used to serve the community equitably.


Time for Reform

This analysis underscores the need for meaningful oversight and reform. A city’s budget should reflect the priorities and needs of its residents—not disproportionately favor a privileged few. By reallocating resources more equitably, Superior could better address its pressing challenges in public services, infrastructure, and community development.

The current system isn’t just a financial issue; it’s a governance problem. Responsible stewardship of public funds requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and fairness—principles that must guide Superior’s future fiscal decisions.

 

SERCK, JASON L
130,068.34
PRELL, HARLEY L
130,068.32
JANIGO, TODD M
130,068.30
ALEXANDER, NICHOLAS F
119,946.65
GORDON, SCOTT D
119,946.64
JANIGO, CAMMI L
117,184.79
KAMUNEN, DEBORAH F
113,274.71
CADOTTE, LINDA M
111,193.45
MONTE, TIMOTHY R
110,218.85
LEAR, WILLIAM A
106,949.04
POSKOZIM, ADAM R
106,452.17
EASTMAN, NICHOLAS S
106,049.48
ROBERTS, STEVEN G
104,794.92
KIEL JR., JOHN P
104,794.90
CARLSON, CHRIS M
103,725.95
SHEA, DANIEL R
103,697.84
ZIMMERMAN, ROBERT D
103,054.00
VOLLBRECHT, CAMRON M
102,111.01
CARLSON, TODD A
101,098.23
HARRIMAN, JEFFREY T
100,258.27
HESKIN, SUSAN F
100,222.10
CHAMPAIGNE II, THOMAS D
99,743.75
WINTERSCHEIDT, PAUL F
98,987.10
RUDE, TYLER B
98,063.54
JOHNSON, TERRY A
97,650.57
TRONE, THOR D
95,765.54
KRUIT, PETER W
95,035.34
SWANSON, MATTHEW J
94,230.77
HUBER, HOWARD P
93,434.89
TRIBBEY JR., JOSEPH A
91,285.82
HOLSCLAW III, VERNERD D
90,297.12
SERTICH, DANIEL M
90,108.09
JOHNSTAD, NATHAN J
89,622.90
MAYOR PAINE, JAMES W
89,529.23

JOHNSON, ADAM D
88,390.12
SHEPARD, SCOTT W
87,179.98
BROWN, MATTHEW S
86,901.02
FINKBEINER, SAMUEL D
86,861.95
JOHNSON, ASHLEY A
86,528.98
EASTMAN, ROBERT E
85,393.44
LAURIDSEN, AUSTIN J
85,285.54
POPE, MICHELLE M
84,765.58
SHAMLA, JONATHAN F
84,611.64
MCNAMARA, DARIENNE M
84,571.17
SHELTON, SETH R
83,818.97
WOOLERY, CHRISTOPHER J
83,767.33
JAGO, BRADLEY C
83,222.84
ALLEN, JEFFREY R
83,030.43
COFFMAN, GRIFFITH S
82,841.21
MAHLEN, CHARLES L
82,633.70

$4,908,736.52