Councilman seeks zero bump in budget
JANESVILLE — At least two Janesville City Council members on Monday indicated they will take a close look at the 2009 budget, and one said he would ask the administration to come back with a no-increase budget.
George Brunner said the budget contains a 2.3 percent increase in taxes and shifts spending from the operating budget to borrowing.
But Brunner said the economy is bleak and residents are concerned about job losses. Many on fixed incomes are wondering how they will afford any increases.
He worried that shifting the cost of street repair to borrowing will become the norm, and Brunner said he'd prefer to keep those costs in the operating budget.
Brunner said he would like to see no increase and believes that can be accomplished without impacting services.
Tom McDonald said the borrowing would cause problems in the future.
The council will hold its first study session on the budget Wednesday, Oct. 22.
A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 10.
related STORIES
Oct 14, 2008 at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
ATTEND your council meeetings and be heard! Check out the city website and see when the next meeting is.
Oct 14, 2008 at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bike tunnel aside, I am curious where your information comes from lakennedy. If I remember correctly McDonald suggested putting the children's museum on a referendum. I also heard that Brunner was not at that meeting and has never voted on the museum.
Oct 14, 2008 at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just curious. Right after GM made its first announcement, both Brunner and McDonald were all for that ridiculous bike tunnel. They both voted for it. They both seem to be supporting that idiotic Children's Museum. How, exactly, does that translate into being fiscally conservative? I understand that this budget doesn't include those expenditures, but if McDonald and Brunner have their way, we'll be paying for these projects soon enough. For two members who support spending a whole lot of money on projects that they won't support putting to a referendum to gauge public support for, this sudden whim of trying to lessen the economic impact on the taxpayer is a little confusing.
Oct 14, 2008 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city borrows money every year, Ernie, but it's primarily for capital expenditures. This has nothing to do with Sheiffer. The state tax levy cap means that revenue does not increase as fast as expenses such as salaries or supplies (look how much gas has gone up, for instance). The money to pay for those things has to come out of other parts of the budget, or the city has to borrow. Fortunately we still have a very good bond rating, which is directly attributable to Sheiffer. That means borrowing costs us less, just like having a low rate on your credit card.
.
It probably would not be prudent to shift maintenance costs to borrowing on a long-term basis, but at least roads are something that amortizes over time, unlike salaries and consumables. It's a tough choice, considering we have no idea at this time what the tax revenue picture will look like a year from now.
Oct 14, 2008 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
I totally commend Mr Brunner and McDonald for their understanding of the economic situation facing this community. It's such a shame that "Shieffernomics" got us into the point where we would have to borrow money rather than have it already in the operating budget.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.