Wyomissing paid $1,118,400.90 to the current top 15 providers in our consulting and outsourced-government review through September. Those same providers received $295,110.29 in August and September, on top of $823,290.61 paid through July.
The total includes engineering, code enforcement, legal services, interim management, finance and other specialist services. It is not all spending on interim management. But the management bill raises a direct question: what has been completed, what has improved for residents, and what is the plan for ending the interim arrangement?
The public record shows financial analysis, published budget materials, proposed zoning changes and procurement work. Council should explain what those outputs have accomplished, what they cost, and which commitments remain unfinished. A growing list of activities cannot substitute for an accounting of results.
Download transaction workbook (.xlsx) · October 13 Council packet: September payment records, pp.58–74
Stonehill Ratliff: what the monthly figures show
Stonehill Ratliff moved from fourth to third in the ranking. Its total reached $201,705.73, including $175,305.73 in management payments and $26,400 in Kate & Co communications retainers. The management portion accumulated through July was $82,086.21. August and September added $93,219.52, more than doubling that cumulative amount.
Monthly management payments climbed from $13,687.97 in May to $48,372.91 in August, then declined to $44,846.61 in September. July and August each showed increases of about 26–27%. Management payments rose sharply through August, then fell 7.3% in September.
Exact monthly amounts
| Recorded month | Management | Communications | Combined | Management change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2026 | $13,687.97 | $0.00 | $13,687.97 | — |
| June 2026 | $30,085.95 | $0.00 | $30,085.95 | +119.8% |
| July 2026 | $38,312.29 | $0.00 | $38,312.29 | +27.3% |
| August 2026 | $48,372.91 | $13,200.00 | $61,572.91 | +26.3% |
| September 2026 | $44,846.61 | $13,200.00 | $58,046.61 | -7.3% |
| Total | $175,305.73 | $26,400.00 | $201,705.73 | — |
Workbook: Payment detail, rows 217–225; accounting notes in Comparison. No Stonehill payment appears in the reviewed January–April registers. No recorded payment does not establish that no work occurred. The available registers do not establish invoice service periods.
What has actually been produced?
Financial analysis and reporting. The August 11 management/finance presentation reorganized the budget view to separate operating activity, capital, debt and restricted funds. Its old-versus-new comparison retained the same overall financial result. That is a clearer analysis; it is not, by itself, a spending reduction. The October packet also provides detailed September payments and year-to-date fund statements. August presentation, pp.3–8; October financial statements, pp.99–110.
Budget information for residents. The Borough has a public budget information center with a calendar, presentation and video links, explanations and a feedback form. These are visible public-information products. Council should also show what spending decisions and improvements follow from that process. Borough budget information center.
Borough Hall and Police project procurement. The Borough listed a request for proposals for Borough Hall/Police Station renovations, with an October 1, 2026 closing date. That establishes a solicitation; it does not establish a finished design, completed construction or savings. Official PennBid project listing.
Source update — October 11, 2026: The Borough’s original notice is no longer available at its linked address. The link above now points to the official PennBid listing. The issue date and award-target date have been removed pending an accessible primary timetable.
These are Borough outputs involving staff, officials and consultants. The records do not justify assigning every achievement to one person. They do justify asking Council to identify each consultant’s contribution and the value received.
What management said it would do
On September 16, the presentation headed “Current Activities of Stonehill Ratliff and Transcend Finance” combined broad work areas with dated deliverables:
| Announced work | Timing shown | What a public results report should establish |
|---|---|---|
| Staffing analysis | October 2026 | Findings, recommendations, staffing decisions and financial effects. |
| Personnel manual and job-description updates | November 2026 | Completed documents, approval and implementation. |
| Accounts-payable and payroll redesign | December 2026 | Changes put into use, controls tested and measurable improvements. |
| New chart of accounts | January 2027 | Implementation and how it improves reliable financial reporting. |
| Communications and transparency; consultant-relationship review | No completion date shown | Published information, completed reviews, contract changes and savings, if any. |
Stills from Real Wyomissing Boro’s September 16, 2026 Council meeting recording: slide 1 and slide 2; abridged account in draft minutes, October packet p.10.
Some of these are specific deliverables with target months. Most dates were still ahead on October 11. The question is what has been achieved in the meantime and how Council will judge completion. The slides do not provide item-by-item budgets, quantified savings targets or a completed-versus-pending report.
Berkshire Mall: zoning work needs its own accounting
Salzmann Hughes received $16,127.50 through September in payments identified in the registers as Berkshire Mall special-counsel work. Council appointed Sam Wiser on June 9. He subsequently presented proposed overlay zoning changes on August 11 and September 16. That drafting and presentation work is documented. June 9 minutes, p.6; August 11 minutes, p.4; September draft minutes, pp.10–11; payments.
At the September 16 meeting, management also reported that no Mall land-development plans had been received. Zoning amendments and a developer’s actual redevelopment application are separate steps. A private developer’s submission timetable is not proof of counsel’s performance. Residents can still reasonably ask what legal work was commissioned, what has been delivered, what remains and what budget Council has set. September draft minutes, p.9.
The reviewed October packet does not give residents a consolidated account matching those legal payments to completed deliverables and next steps. Council should publish that account, including the distinction between proposed zoning changes and an actual redevelopment project.
The current top 15, compared on the same basis
Both periods below use the same current 15 providers. The right-hand total determines rank. Category descriptions identify the work associated with each provider; they are not a claim that every dollar shares one accounting code.
| # | Provider and service | Jan.–July | Added Aug.–Sept. | Jan.–Sept. | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kraft Municipal GroupCode, inspections & zoning | $201,500.77 | $42,690.63 | $244,191.40 | Transactions Sep. pp.67–68 |
| 2 | McCarthy EngineeringEngineering | $181,690.31 | $34,797.92 | $216,488.23 | Transactions Sep. pp.68–69 |
| 3 | Stonehill RatliffManagement + Kate & Co retainers | $82,086.21 | $119,619.52 | $201,705.73 | Transactions Sep. p.72 |
| 4 | Transcend FinanceInterim finance / management | $115,995.00 | $33,485.00 | $149,480.00 | Transactions Sep. p.73 |
| 5 | Masano BradleyLegal | $80,584.68 | $12,672.00 | $93,256.68 | Transactions |
| 6 | Eric NeedleFire management consulting | $32,130.00 | $5,040.00 | $37,170.00 | Transactions |
| 7 | Saxton & StumpProfessional services | $28,300.00 | $8,150.00 | $36,450.00 | Transactions Sep. p.71 |
| 8 | ECON PartnersEconomic development | $21,000.00 | $10,500.00 | $31,500.00 | Transactions Sep. p.63 |
| 9 | Kristina SchurrPolice / Fire wellness program | $18,794.50 | $5,050.00 | $23,844.50 | Transactions Sep. p.68 |
| 10 | Hartman Valeriano et al.Legal | $20,535.20 | $1,076.50 | $21,611.70 | Transactions Sep. p.66 |
| 11 | Kozloff StoudtLegal | $15,575.01 | $4,699.22 | $20,274.23 | Transactions Sep. p.67 |
| 12 | Salzmann HughesLegal | $2,990.00 | $13,137.50 | $16,127.50 | Transactions Sep. p.71 |
| 13 | Eckert SeamansLegal | $12,310.18 | $957.00 | $13,267.18 | Transactions |
| 14 | Suzy Rae DesignDesign / public communications | $4,248.75 | $3,235.00 | $7,483.75 | Transactions Sep. p.72 |
| 15 | Alyssa Lindahl, PsyDOccupational fitness group sessions | $5,550.00 | $0.00 | $5,550.00 | Transactions |
| Current top 15 total | $823,290.61 | $295,110.29 | $1,118,400.90 | Workbook | |
Stonehill accounts for about 40.5% of the additional August–September spending in this group. Kraft added $42,690.63; McCarthy added $34,797.92; Transcend added $33,485.00. Those are additional payments over two more months, not an equal-period annual growth rate.
Suzy Rae Design and Alyssa Lindahl enter the displayed top 15, replacing C.S. Davidson and Shultz Forest Management. Both newly listed providers already had payments before August. Their appearance in the chart does not establish a new engagement. Recalculating July for the current membership keeps the spending comparison consistent.
What Council should put on the record
For each major consulting engagement, residents should be able to see the agreed task and budget, the work completed, the results achieved and the remaining timetable. Savings should be shown in dollars, service improvements in terms residents can understand, and unfinished projects against their stated milestones.
For interim management, that accounting also needs an endgame: what must be completed before the arrangement ends, how permanent management will be selected, and what Council expects the remaining work to cost.
What has interim management actually delivered for the money—and what evidence will Council put in front of residents to show it?
Scope, calculation and source notes
This review covers recorded payments from January 1 through September 30, 2026, before reimbursements, using January–August check registers obtained through Right-to-Know requests and September payment detail in the October 13 Council packet. The packet was available before the scheduled October 13 meeting; this article does not treat that meeting as already held.
The current top 15 are selected from 19 reviewed providers within the original consulting and outsourced-government focus, including design/public communications and occupational fitness services. This is not a ranking of every Borough vendor or every professional-services account. Audit, actuarial/GASB work, managed IT, medical testing, routine operations and maintenance, construction, equipment, utilities and insurance are outside this chart’s scope.
The comparison uses the same providers in both periods. Payment dates do not establish when services were performed. Figures are not contract ceilings, annual salaries, accrued expenses or net taxpayer costs. The graph rounds to whole dollars; the tables preserve cents.
The corrected Excel workbook (.xlsx) contains 429 payment-allocation rows for 19 reviewed providers, the comparison, source filenames and page references, and accounting notes. January–August originals were obtained through RTK; some archive links inside the workbook require local archive access. The published figures and transaction rows remain readable in the workbook. The Council packet provides the September summary on PDF pp.58–60, transaction detail on pp.61–74, and fund statements on pp.99–110.
September 16 and September 30 minutes cited from the October packet are marked draft. Presentation targets identify announced work; they are not proof of completion. Assessment of published deliverables is current through October 11, 2026.
Real Wyomissing Boro is independent and is not affiliated with the Borough. Its publisher participates in Borough meetings.