Janesville councilmen want to raise $2.5 million for public safety, streets
Tax levy changes
Listed below is Janesville's adopted tax levy over the last five years. The result is a 1.6 percent average increase.
-- 2009: $25.308 million
-- 2010: $25.611 million
-- 2011: $26.199 million
-- 2012: $27.089 million
-- 2013: $27.383 million
On the agenda
The Janesville City Council will meet at 7 p.m. Monday in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St. A monthly informal listening session normally scheduled to meet with residents is canceled because of another meeting.
Items on the agenda include:
-- A public hearing to increase the distribution of room tax revenue to the Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. The current room tax is 8 percent, of which the bureau gets 3 percent. An amended ordinance would increase that to 3.4 percent, meaning an additional $35,000 for the bureau.
-- Approval of the preliminary design of the Jackson Street Bridge. The city received a federal grant to pay 80 percent of the cost to build a new bridge at the same site to replace the existing 95-year-old structure. The existing bridge is a six-span, sand-filled arch structure that has a distinctive look, but the design is nearly obsolete today because of costs. Because the bridge lies adjacent to the historic Fourth Ward neighborhood and the riverfront, several similar designs were generated, ranging in price from $5.2 million to $6.7 million.
JANESVILLE — Two council members want to ask local voters whether they support higher taxes to maintain police and fire services and improve street maintenance.
Councilmen Sam Liebert and Jim Farrell asked that the council Monday discuss putting two referendum questions on the April ballot. If voters approve, the council could raise up to $2.5 million in additional revenue.
One referendum would ask taxpayers for $1 million to maintain police and fire services. That comes to about $31 a year for the owner of the average home assessed at $120,100.
The second question would seek approval to raise an additional $1.5 million to maintain streets. That would cost the average homeowner about $46 a year.
Voters could say "yes" to one question, both or neither.
At least one council member, Matt Kealy, doesn't believe the council has explored all other options, including cuts in services and contracting for services.
The council is limited in raising revenue because the state caps levy increases at the value of new construction in the previous year. At the same time, the state has cut shared revenues to the city by $1 million since 2009.
To maintain services, council members in the last three years raised garbage fees and instituted a wheel tax. The council also took money from reserves, including $1 million in 2013.
Additionally, the council has borrowed for street maintenance since 2007. The state does not limit borrowing.
Some council members have warned that borrowing adds to the total cost of maintenance by adding interest. A new council policy, unless superceded by a super majority vote, allows $950,000 in borrowing for streets each year.
City Manager Eric Levitt said the staff cannot make a recommendation on a referendum.
"However, we are challenged in meeting certain operational and capital needs," Levitt said.
For example, the city should be paving 14 miles of road per year but is only doing about four to six miles, he noted.
Additionally, public safety makes up about 60 percent of the general fund.
The state levy caps came in the middle of a recession, Levitt said.
"There is very little construction activity, which limits the amount cities are able to increase their tax levies. At the same time, cities have seen dramatic nonproperty-tax revenue declines, particularly shared revenues from the state of Wisconsin and interest earnings on general investments."
Past and present councils have not levied to the limit, he said. Taxes paid on the average home to support the general fund have increased an average of $4.89 per year, or .61 percent, the last five years.
Farrell said he and Liebert narrowed the referendum to public safety, which is a top priority, and streets. The council wouldn't have to use any or all of the additional taxing authority but would have greater flexibility in writing future budgets, he said.
The money for street maintenance would allow the council to reduce borrowing. The council could not find $1 million in the existing budget to adopt a pay-as-you-go system.
"I think all of us would agree that reducing our (borrowing) would be a good thing," Farrell said. "We feel this is giving the citizens of the city some input whether they want to go that route."
Increasing taxes also would leave reserves intact.
The referendum would generate public discussion, said Farrell, who doesn't see a downside to asking residents what they prefer.
Farrell said he's not precluding future cuts, but the potential is limited.
"We're not going to find $750,000 or a million in cuts. I don't think that's possible unless we're cutting back on services like police and fire."
Kealy asked last year that Levitt find $150,000 in cuts in the proposed 2013 budget. The majority of the council did not back the request.
Kealy is reluctant to go the referendum route, especially for police and fire, because he doesn't know where the $1-million figure came from.
"I think we can maintain the current service levels by some cuts," Kealy said.
"Janesville is a nice community, and I don't think people need to be concerned that we're going to get to any level that it would not be safe," he said.
Kealy is interested in public comment about streets because the council needs to find a solution on maintenance other than continued borrowing, he said.
The bottom line is that the council was elected to make decisions, he said.
"They're not always easy decisions, and I think the referendum is passing the buck," he said.
"You've still got avenues to find the funding, and I'll fight to do it."
Feb 13, 2013 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Mantain police" means finding creative ways to raise revenue for excessive police pensions. Time to cut those excessive pensions and end double-dipping and other public sector abuses. Raising property taxes will make the foreclosure situation worse.
Jan 14, 2013 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mr Liebert will always find it very very easy to spend other peoples money. How about proposing a reduction in spending of 2.5 million somewhere (anywhere) else to offset the need to spend 2.5 million on "safety" (=platitude) and city streets.
This is where leadership matters. Double the wheel tax to $20 which may increase the amount collected from 550K to 1.1 Million-then you find another 1.4 million to reduce from the budget. Its a 43 Million general fund-increase parking tickets by 100% (not 50%). Propose and pass a special sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol (which will drive the sales out of rock county, etc.). Double the price of building permits, etc.
These are simply ideas. However, the city council-if they wish to spend MORE tax paying money on projects should not only propose the project but they should offer realist-specific measures to pay for more city govt. It is clear that some on the city council believe that citizens of Janesville have not met their individual tax capacity and citizens want and are willing to pay for more city govt. If this is true then a 2.5 million referendum should easily pass.
Jan 13, 2013 at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
truth1, that only covers 50% of the expenses for the Interstate Highway System. With the exception of the occasional grant (such as for the Jackson St. bridge), it does not finance municipal road maintenance projects.
.
This is a referendum. This is the definition of direct democracy in action. The people will decide whether they want this.
.
watchinjvl, they approved the 2013 budget. Because the referendum, if approved, will not be until April, that means the cap could not increase until FY 2014.
Jan 13, 2013 at 4:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
WHERE is the 40 cents tax on every gallon of gas and diesel going??.....and the excise taxes on tires and auto/truck parts??....That is all supposed to be used for the roads....Where is it???
Embezzled by politicians no doubt.
Smoke and mirrors and fool the people some more.
Jan 12, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Confiscate all wealth and property from everyone who has more money than me.
Jan 12, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let's get some Obama money - cell phones for everyone - bailouts for big business - the promise of life eternal --- He Will Save Us
Jan 12, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just a couple million more. (Said every government history has known)
Jan 12, 2013 at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
No more tax increases. No on the referendum. I regret moving to Janesville. Can't wait for the housing market to improve so I can sell my home and leave.
Jan 12, 2013 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seems to me that the Council just can't win. Seen a bunch of people in gazette comments complain about how the Councilmembers don't listen to the citizens of Janesville and do whatever they want, but when they want to ask for the public's input, the public berates them for not doing their job.
Jan 12, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Really Kealy is what this city needs? Pretty sure in an earlier article and this article Kealy hints at he thinks public service jobs like Police and Fire need to have their budgets looked at and some cuts can be made....Yes Mr. Kealy lets keep this city "nice" by making cuts to two positions that actually care about the city and give their lives for it. Police and Fire comparable to other jobs don't make enough with the risk and the stress they put on themselves. I agree we need to make some cuts and less spending but there is no way to save as much as we need to by doing just one. I hate the thought of raising taxes also, but unfortunatly it has to be done. If taxes are raised and spending is cut this city could do whatever we wanted to. Its not that one person needs to be removed, its the fact the council has a whole has to work together and not have personal agenda's.
Jan 12, 2013 at 1:26 p.m.
Jan 12, 2013 at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." City services and proper/timely street maintenance will save us all money in insurance rates, vehicle repairs, and interest. Vote YES!
Jan 12, 2013 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Liebert's idea is to tax and spend more ? There's a shocker ! Didn't he vote for a city budget that increased spending, increased taxes, and used $1M from reserves? Didn't he vote for the wheel tax? Didn't he vote to take $190k the city had saved in pension contributions and give it away as a union bonuses ? How dangerous is this guy to the city's fiscal health and city taxpayers ?
Jan 12, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think Councilman Kealy is on the right track for the city. He has a very level head and is always thinking of the constituents who voted him into the position. He basically is saying that they should explore any and all options before raising taxes on the people of Janesville. Isn't this what we would all like our government to do? Just passing the buck to a referendum without exploring all options is not how we want our representatives to perform their responsibilities of the position.
Jan 12, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
I guess $31 a year verses $150 per tire, makes sense. Keep blame one party or the other, it is not going to fix the budget. Just a heads up it is not the democrats that want to take take take, that would be your G-reedy O-ld P-irates.
Jan 12, 2013 at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
The tax and spend liberals/Dems/socialists have never met a tax they didn't like nor a dollar of someone else's money that they didn't want to spend. Kealy sounds like he is the only one on the council with any common sense.
Jan 11, 2013 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
If Mr. Liebert, Mr. Farrell and Mr. Levitt aren't up to the task of setting a budget that lives within this city's means, then they should tender their resignations post haste. Sadly, none of them will.
OK, so send us your referendums. Let's see what the people of Janesville want you to do. If they should fail, will any of you then resign? Or will you quit whining about how hard it is to do your jobs with the income the city has?
Even if they get the extra money, they will probably complain about how little they have to spend next year too and how nice it would be if only they could raise taxes as high as they want to again.
Jan 11, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yet these two voted to approve the budget.
Jan 11, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
They do need to do something about the streets they are horrible... and then have them checked when whoever repairs them. Anyone notice Washington between Ravine and by the hospital? They poured patches of cement that made it worse. Who does this crap? And we pay for it?
Jan 11, 2013 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Money tree ?
Jan 11, 2013 at 5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
I personally think going the referendum way is the way to go on issues like this. I am not sure if I would support it or not because I would like to see how the totals were arrived at.
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.