JANESVILLE — Will a future city council fulfill a $5 million promise for a children’s museum?
It’s the million-dollar question, Bill Truman, vice president of the Janesville City Council, said.
Janesville will have a new council by the time it must spend the $5 million. And one council can’t bind the vote of a future council.
“It’s a lot of money,” Truman said.
“And when you we’re talking the serious cuts that we’re looking at with our budget and our economics of Janesville—a $125,000-a-year subsidy, I could not support at this time.”
The council in August unanimously promised $5 million for a children’s museum if a private group raised $3 million. The vote also included the promise of a $125,00 annual subsidy.
But during recent budget study sessions, the council struggled and argued while finding ways to lower the tax rate in light of economic conditions.
Truman wondered at the time how the council could cut its subsidy to the city-owned Tallman House but OK a future annual subsidy of $125,000 for a children’s museum.
What exactly did the council do when it voted in August?
Council President Amy Loasching said the August vote technically means nothing.
The council has yet to approve any funding for a children’s museum, and no money is scheduled to be borrowed until 2010. A public hearing always is part of that process.
Loasching said the sitting council cannot guarantee that a future council will think a children’s museum is worthy of support from taxpayers.
But if the private group can raise the $3 million match, “There’s certainly a possibility,” she said.
“I think that the public is going to have a say as (the private group raises) money. If the public thinks this is a bad idea, they’re not going to raise funds. If the public is behind this and the community wants it, they’ll raise funds in a very short time.”
Ron Ochs, a member of the museum steering committee, said the committee might have to change its timeline because of economic conditions.
The committee first will concentrate on education, he said.
“We really don’t think that the public understands this project well enough—how it works, the value it has in terms of quality of life and in terms of future economic development,” he said. “We have a lot of educating to do. We have to do that first.”
Ochs said the public-private partnership is crucial.
He termed the council’s August vote as “almost a letter of intent,” but he said he couldn’t predict how a future council might view the deal.
Still, it’s a risk worth taking, Ochs said.
“We walked away feeling that the intention of the council was to give us $5 million. And that’s good enough from our point of view to continue to educate this community and take it to the next step.
“We’re going to work real hard to make this happen over a period of time.
If the committee does a good enough job of education and communication, if won’t have much work to do to convince a second council, he said.
Public should get chance to comment: McDonald
Janesville City Council Member Tom McDonald has asked that the proposed children’s museum be put on an agenda within the next month so the council can have a public meeting before fundraising begins.
The council voted at an August study session to contribute $5 million in taxpayer money if the museum group raises $3 million. The council also pledged a $125,000 annual operating subsidy.
The vote was unanimous, although McDonald did not vote because he had to leave early to attend another city committee meeting.
McDonald said he has been uncomfortable since about the way the issue has been handled.
The agenda for the August study session did not give notice that the council would take action. It indicated only that the council would review the proposal.
At that same study session, the council authorized $32 million in improvements to the wastewater treatment plant.
“What the council did that afternoon was basically commit to spend $37 million without ever having public input and without even telling the public we would be taking votes that afternoon,” McDonald said.
“If the (museum) steering committee does in fact raise the $3 million in large part based on knowing the city has committed $5 million, there is no way the city can go back on its word and say we will no longer give the $5 million,” he said.
“It’s really not a good situation” because the council essentially promised the money without first bringing it to the public, he said.
Support materials distributed at the study session indicated that a letter of agreement between the council and the museum group would be drafted based on the council’s actions at the study session. The agreement was to be brought back at the next council meeting for formal endorsement.
That apparently did not happen.
“It did sound like the original plan was to have this happen at a council meeting where people would then be able to see it on an agenda and talk about it,” McDonald said. “But why that never came at a council meeting, I don’t know. That has not been done.”
If a letter is signed, what are the legal ramifications if a future council decides to not fund the children’s museum? McDonald asked.
Former City Manager Steve Sheiffer retired a month after the August study session. Acting City Manager Jay Winzenz said he is not sure of the status of the draft.
“I think if the city is going to be pledging multi-million projects to anybody … the public should have a chance to comment,” McDonald said.
“I think it is important we have our open, public meeting regarding this issue before the museum-steering committee begins a major fundraising drive. According to the memo, they are planning on starting in 2009, so we need to have this discussion soon.”
The city is tentatively scheduled to commit money in 2010. Four council seats are up for election in April.
McDonald isn’t sure how he would have voted in August.
He may have voted “no” simply because of the absence of a public hearing.
“At the same time, I wasn’t against a children’s museum, just the process,” he said. “So it really is tough to say for sure.”