Janesville's operating budget falls
JANESVILLE — The city would collect less trash for free and plow only after bigger snowfalls under a proposed city budget that would cut total operating expenses for the first time in at least a decade.
City Manager Eric Levitt called the proposed reduction in operating expenses “significant.”
The city would cut its operating budget by about $448,000, or 1.2 percent.
The city’s general fund proposed budget—which includes operations and debt service—would be $41.4 million, down $222,087.
To make that happen, Levitt is working with employee unions and asking them to defer until the end of the year a 3 percent pay increase scheduled for January 2010.
Even with pay and service reductions, residents would see their taxes go up because the city has lost so much revenue, Levitt said.
The result is a general fund tax rate increase of 1.3 percent, or $10.26 in additional taxes paid on the average home of $113,800. This year that homeowner paid $800 to the city.
The overall tax rate including library and TIF would be 0.70 percent more than 2009. The city’s share of the average homeowner’s tax bill would increase by $6.47, from $931 to $937.
The city council has scheduled its first budget session at 6 p.m. Thursday in City Hall. For the first time, a budget study session will be televised live on JATV.
The council asked Levitt to prepare a budget that minimizes service reductions, keeps property taxes stable and reduces the use of the reserve fund.
Council members understand that many residents have had their salaries frozen and many others, including council President Bill Truman, have lost their jobs.
The council’s orders were tough to follow in a down economy, Levitt said. Because of drops in state shared revenue, interest earnings and community development permits, the city budget started $830,000 in the hole.
Levitt said he tried to only increase fees for services that residents could choose to use.
“Hopefully, the average resident won’t see an impact,” he said.
Levitt said he approached the budget as a policy document rather than one driven by numbers.
Trash
City staff is considering limiting—perhaps to three or four—the number of trash bags residents could put at the curb for free pickup. Residents would be charged for extra bags, which Levitt hopes would generate $100,000 to $150,000.
Resident could haul their garbage to the landfill for free.
Residents have never paid for trash pickup, but the landfill is taking in fewer tons of trash because of the slowed economy, and it soon could operate at a deficit. The landfill historically has made money is scheduled to contribute $450,000 to the general fund in 2010.
The council must discuss ways to increase revenues, Levitt said. But increasing tipping fees might scare away haulers who already have been hit by a new Wisconsin fee.
Snow removal
Levitt suggests streets be plowed only after at least 3 inches of snow. In the past, plowing has been ordered after 2 to 3 inches. Levitt suggests increasing the snow removal budget by $126,000 because the budget fell short the last two years.
Other suggestions
To help make decisions in paring the budget, Levitt asked every division to submit three reductions and one enhancement.
Suggested changes include:
-- Sharing staff between neighborhood services and community development, where business is down because of the economy.
-- Cutting sports camps duplicated elsewhere, such as girls basketball and pompons.
-- Increasing admission fees at the pool, from $1.50 to $1.75 for adults. The city will ask for donations at the wading pools, hoping to raise about $4,000.
-- Using less of the reserve fund. Levitt plans to apply $850,000 or less from the reserve fund at the end of the year. That compares to $1 million transferred last year. About $6.1 million remains in the reserve fund.
-- Cutting staff training by 12 percent.
-- Freezing employee pay. Some administrative employees still would be eligible for merit pay increases if they were at certain pay scales compared to their pay ranges, and some union employees would be eligible for step increases.
“The unions are very interested in working in the city’s and citizen’s interests but want to make sure they are treated fairly in the process,” Levitt said.
n Reducing the city’s newsletter from four issues to one. A recreation brochure would be reinstituted.
Projects
The budget includes money for three major projects:
-- $500,000 to buy bad property in the inner city neighborhoods.
-- $1.1 million for the ice arena.
-- $1 million for a new central fire station.
“When we started this, there was skepticism that we’d be able to keep taxes somewhat level and use less of the reserve,” Levitt said.
“I think we accomplished that.”
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Among the highlights of the 2010 city budget being proposed by City Manager Eric Levitt are:
Garbage
The number of trash bags residents could put at the curb for free pickup would be limited—perhaps to three or four. Residents would be charged for extra bags but could take their garbage to the landfill for free. City officials believe the system would encourage more people to recycle while raising $100,00 to $150,000. The program would start July 1. Although the city still is working out the details, a sticker system was mentioned.
Snow removal
Streets would be plowed only after at least 3 inches falls. The policy now is 2 to 3 inches.
Police officers
Because the city did not get a state grant, one police officer position would be left vacant. That would reduce the number of police officers from 104 to 103. Janesville lost the grant because its crime rate has dropped when compared to other communities. Hiring to fill a second open position would be delayed until July.
Pay freeze
City Manager Eric Levitt is working with the city’s unions to delay until December 2010 a scheduled 3 percent cost-of-living increase. Some raises still would be given for merit and union step increases.
Oct 14, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cut trash and plowing services, yet put money in for the ice arena? HELLO!!!!! 500,000 to buy bad properties? The City isn't in the real estate or the entertainment business. They are supposed to be providing services to taxpayers. All taxpayers.
Oct 5, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why isn't the ice arena thing going to referendum? Why isn't there a way for people to vote on this issue - like a community ice arena meeting or something? I realize that we have it, we need to maintain it, but the deal inked by the Hockey group, benefits them, not the City residents. Even last week, open skate was cancelled twice because of Jets games. Let the business people that want this ice arena so badly, fork over their hard earned cash to build it. Aside from public safety and infrastructure, the City needs to butt out of ventures that should be brought by private businesses. Talk about creating jobs, let the hockey partners create a bunch of jobs here by building a kick-butt ice arena without public funding.
Oct 5, 2009 at 1:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
I would like to touch on the snow removal issue. I dont want to sound like my dad but I'm 40 years old and when we were kids The heavy snow falls of the last couple of years were the norm. Janesville already has some of the worst streets for winter driving as is. You have no problem telling when you hit the city limits I've had to many times when the street I live on was'nt plowed for two or more snow falls. If they want to cut it even more then they need to at least do away with the city ord. that gets me a ticket for using my personal plow to plow my street when the city wont. as for the dump that place is a joke. every time I have to go there its like pulling teeth. 9 out of ten vehicals are from other towns and if you even think of taking a trailer you have to be prepaired to go off road two miles back to unload and dont even think of complaining when you get a flat because they "ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE" for damage to your car or truck. And if any of the council members even read this stuff and would like to talk you might remember me I was the one that came with my son to the Q and A for the school class and wanted to know about the downtown revitalazation project you guys have been pushing for the last 20 years.
Oct 4, 2009 at 11:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
THETRUTH...to expand on your point a little bit. I guess the landfill thing wouldn't be such a big deal if they had decent hours and it was easy to get in and out of like the recycling center. Every time I get a load of stuff together to take to the dump I have to plan like heck to make it there becuase they have hours that SUCK! At least at the recycling center I can go there any time of the day and just drive in and out. To go to the dump you have to find a way to get there during their bankers hours, then sit in line and get quizzed about where you live and what you want to drop off, then wait some more to try and work your way into tire impaling minefield to try and drop your stuff. I have never went to the dump and not been seething by the time I got out of there.
Oct 4, 2009 at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not surprised to see the city management rubber stamp 1.1 million for the ice rink. This backdoor deal has insider slush fund written all over it. The secret coalition of private investors have courted the city councle and management for the 1.1 million of tax dollars for a venue that benefits a very small percentage of Janesville at the expense of you the tax payer. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see JP Cullen winning the bid to build this new facility. Not expecting to see any investigation by Gazette into lack of oversight either. This issue should be voted on by the people. Call city manager Eric Levitt at 755-3177 with your outrage. Call city council president William Truman at 758-9700 and council VP Kathleen Voskuil at 754-7116 and tell them you want this issue going up for a vote by the people of Janesville.
Oct 4, 2009 at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I understand the city has to look into the budget. As a taxpayer, I am not in favor of cutting back on law enforcement or fire services. Over the years, I know station 1, needs a new home. Yet I have rarely used police or fire, but if I need them, I want them here ASAP. I think we all would want them there to help us. On the garbage issue, I have no problem taking my garbage down to the landfill. Recently I have been taking my recyclable bin to the drop off place.
Oct 4, 2009 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
If they need money for our garbage collection they need to raise tipping fees instead of a reduction in service. We have alot of other municipalities and private garbage collection services flocking to Janesville to dump for our low tipping fees. The Gazette itself has reported numerous times in stories that Janesville has very low tipping fees. Just what we want is everyone elses garbage dumped in our back yards while we see a reduction in service.
Oct 4, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
If this plan goes into effect every single person that voted for it should be out of a job, like alot of other people in this city. We are taxed and feed to death and when the city has to make tough choices what do they decide to cut? Snow plowing, garbage pickup and emergency services. Yet I still have to read about how the city wants to dump more money into the Tallman house or an ice rink. Enough! Wake up people, you're being played for a bunch of suckers and it will continue until you put these people out on the curb with the trash they are going to charge you extra to pick up.
Oct 4, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
"$1 million for a new central fire station"?
How on Earth do they expect to build a decent, up to date, brand new central fire station on a one million dollar budget? By the time it's completed, the actual cost will be closer to three million. History repeats itself in Janesville, after all.
Don't get me wrong... I think a new central fire station is a good idea. Especially seeing as how all that leftover garbage will create new fire hazards
Oct 4, 2009 at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Agreed, Janesville is in better shape than some. And our taxes here are low comparatively, although you'd never know by the way some carry on. I'll give those folks a break, though. We need to find a different way to pay for services other than the property tax. It is an old and no longer useful system.
Oct 3, 2009 at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville's in pretty good shape fiscally compared to a lot of cities, but it's good to see the council working through the pain of reducing services. It's hard to say when sales tax revenues will be up again, and the impact of lower property taxes is still unclear.
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.