Janesville City Council decides to work with revenue it has in 2014 budget
Photo 
Deborah A. Dongarra-Adams
A simple statement by Janesville City Council Member Deb Dongarra-Adams effectively ended a lengthy discussion Monday.
"I just want to say, I can't afford to pay any more taxes," she said. "I will not be voting in favor of these."
Dongarra-Adams referred to two referendum questions that members Jim Farrell and Sam Liebert proposed adding to the April ballot.
One question would have allowed the council to use up to $1 million each of the next three years to maintain public safety services. The second would have allowed the council up to $1.5 million for each of three years to fix streets.
Voting against the referendum were Dongarra-Adams, Matt Kealy, DuWayne Severson and President Kathy Voskuil. Voting in favor were Liebert, Farrell and Russ Steeber.
The city has recently begun every budget cycle in the hole because of the levy cap, decreasing revenues tied to the recession and falling state shared revenues. The council's options have been to take from reserves and increase borrowing, which is not capped by the state.
State law allows the levy to increase by the value of new construction only, and that is running at 1 percent or less, said Assistant City Manager Jay Winzenz.
The council in the last three years has used reserves to maintain service levels, raised garbage fees and instituted a $10 wheel tax.
It also began borrowing to maintain streets because borrowing is not capped by the state. That, though, increases the eventual cost due to interest. The city will fix four to six miles of street this year, while it should be fixing 14 miles per year, Winzenz said.
Those voting against the referendum said they were elected by residents to make responsible decisions. Two advocated for more scrutiny of the budget before residents are asked whether they want to be taxed more. Those who voted for the referendum said the option to levy more money would be another tool and would not necessarily mean the council would raise taxes.
"We are doing our jobs by asking the people what they want," Liebert said. "That doesn't mean you support a tax increase. … You support the people deciding."
He said he believed residents would rather stop borrowing to fix streets.
Farrell noted past councils have been extremely responsible in handling city finances and have kept tax levy increases to a minimum.
Severson, though, said the council would not agree to ask the administration to find $150,00 in cuts last year to reduce the use of reserves this year.
"I think we have to look at the same thing the people in our community are having to do, to cut their family budgets, their business budgets," Severson said.
"If you pass a referendum to spend money, you're going to spend money. That's what government does," he said. "It's an easy way to just take someone else's money."
Kealy said candidates are elected by residents based on the candidates' views.
He, too, said the council failed in its scrutiny of the 2013 budget.
"We haven't looked at tough cuts. We haven't looked at contracting services, we haven't looked at efficiencies," he said.
Kealy asked council members to begin looking at the 2014 budget now rather than waiting for the traditional start in October.
"I can't support these initiatives unless we are going to put everything out to referendum," he said.
Steeber disagreed, saying from his experience, budgets already have been scrutinized by the administration by the time they get to the council for review.
"There's not a lot of wiggle room," Steeber said. "You're never going to make up that hole that's there. You'll have to borrow it or take it out of reserves.
"Let the citizens decide."
Voskuil agreed with Kealy and said she was elected to make the decisions and be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars.
"We have ways the public can be involved other than a referendum," she said. "I don't think we should govern by referendum."
After the vote, Liebert said: "For the record, the majority of the council said they don't trust the public to help them in making large decisions.
"They decided to continue borrowing on roads rather than pay-as-you-go. … It is impossible with the current budget status to find a million dollars in personnel cuts or anywhere else."
Jan 16, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Clearly Liebert just doesn't get it. First of all, NO, I DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC MAKING LARGE DECISIONS! That's why I voted for city council members. Second of all, show me a government that gets a million bucks and doesn't spend every last penny and then ask for more. I've never seen one. The solution to the budget problem is not to expand the budget to fit the spending, it is to limit the spending to fit the budget. How anyone can to continue to operate on the assumption that money grows on trees, and just because we need it means we can have it, it is entirely beyond me. Of course the majority of the public is going to support more money for fire, police, and roads. THAT is not the issue. The issue is where is the money we already pay going, if not for those things? In a time when unemployment is high, there is a recession going on, and money is tight for just about everyone, the city needs to cut back. No, it's not ideal. Yes, difficult decisions will have to be made. The bottom line is the city cannot continue to keep adding "fees" to our water bills and vehicle registrations and got knows what else. Call it whatever you want, at the end of the day it's a higher tax whether they put it on my tax bill or not. The only difference is since they don't put it on my tax bill, I can't claim it as a deduction (and thanks a lot for that, by the way). I appreciate the city council members that refused to support this referendum. This is the attitude we've needed on the city council for a long time.
Jan 16, 2013 at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Way to go council. It is about time the coucil made a tough decission. Thanks Deb. Too bad you are not running again. We need more like you.
Jan 16, 2013 at 7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Great post, doc. Thank you, Deb, for your service and your commitment to doing the right thing. Matt Kealy, thank you as well. Sam, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Jan 16, 2013 at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
I would like to say that Deb Dongarra-Adams has done a great job for the people of Janesville and she has been fiscally responsible in this economic downturn. She gets a great big "Thank You" from me and I am so sorry that she won't be running again.
I agree with doc0430. It's time that the Council considers options other than taxes and fees. I think the wheel tax was the last straw.
Jan 15, 2013 at 11:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
On WCLO's 'Your Talk Show" Sam Liebert, when asked how the 1 million dollar figure was arrived at, admitted it was more or less a guess. Liebert went on to say, "just because a million dollars is approved doesn't mean we will use it all."
An early nomination for quote of the year.
.
"After the vote, Liebert said: "For the record, the majority of the council said they don't trust the public to help them in making large decisions."
One of the sayings that comes to mind when reading this is that the majority isn't always right, most of the time its just the majority.
Jan 15, 2013 at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city will fix four to six miles of street this year, while it should be fixing 14 miles per year, Winzenz said. No Jay, the city should be fixing only the streets that NEED to be fixed. I think all of us at one time or another has driven down a street that is being redone and wondered to ourselves, what was wrong with this street that it needed to be redone so soon? I think Jay's statement just answered that question for us. Maybe if every level of our Government took a financial stance that our own City Council member Deb Dongarra-Adams did last night our country wouldn't be in the financial situation it is in. Tough times call for tough decisions to be made, and by getting to see here who voted for and who voted against last night we now know who's willing to make those calls. Now for the thing that will be the hardest for our City Council to do for the next few years, placing priority on the things our city needs to run, Fire Department, Police Department and city services, and in that order! Well I guess one and two should actually be one A. and one B because both are, or at least should be at the top of our list, not somewhere down the list after ice arenas, and roundabouts! The money that the city has already borrowed will be coming back to haunt us in the form of interest payments so it will be important to keep that in mind when crafting future city budgets as well in the future years, because after four years of an economic downturned years here, we are still sitting with higher unemployment and underemployment than a lot of other areas across the state in cities where they are still making cuts to their budgets. This is not a time to try and come up with more taxes and fees to make up for the councils fiscal irresponsibility. Thank you to the Janesville City Council members who spoke up last night and voted for making a responsible choice! To the three who didn't, we know that Mr. Steeber is leaving for sure, and come election day, to Sam Liebert I say, we will make sure you join him, and Mr. Farrell your day will come if you continue to make irresponsible financial decisions with our cities taxpayer dollars. We have some really good candidates to choose from in the upcoming spring election and I for one am looking forward to the chance to vote for some of those on the ballot that can make a difference. No new taxes/fees, no new borrowing, and lets work toward a balanced budget! Do the research people, it's our cities future that will be crafted over the next few years, it's time to get out of this rut we've been in, and build a brighter future for generations to come.
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.