Prison Guards Try to Change Unions  |   Home  |   Fitz Suggests GAB Reform

Racine To Run Up Debt to Bypass Levy Cap

If they do this once, they’ll do it again and again until the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

RACINE — Police cars, garbage trucks, lawn mowers, water pumps. City Hall used to pay for these big-ticket items with the annual tax levy.

Next year it’s putting them on the charge card.

Officials say the move is the only way they see of getting around new tax cap laws that all but bar cities and villages from raising taxes for operations unless they experience a significant increase in development.

Since the city only saw $4.8 million in net new construction between 2011 and 2012, it was only allowed to increase its operational tax levy by about $55,700 in 2013.

With that amount of money unlikely to have much of an effect on a $82.5 million budget, and the city facing an overall budget gap of $4 million, finance staff proposed moving $1.5 million to debt service — the one part of the tax levy not subject to the cap.

To Finance Director Dave Brown, the solution was simple, especially since the city will be paying the money back in one year.

“We are freeing up $1.5 million for operations by shifting the cost from operations to debt service,” he told aldermen during the budget process.

Posted by Owen at 1305 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Is it not possible that the citizens of Racine want their city to engage in this practice, especially when state lawmakers impose “arbitrary limits” on spending?  What, the adults of Racine cannot make their own economic decisions as to what is best for them?  I thought (R)‘s preferred localized control of their finances.

   The voters can certainly voice their displeasure at city hall or at the ballot box.

   Besides, if cities are “getting around” the tax cap laws, then the Wisconsin Legislature ought to close the loophole.  Otherwise, Racine is able to legally engage in this practice.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 2352 hrs
   
   
   

2. This seems a lot like how the federal goverment got up to 16 trillion in debt.
   “Officials say the move is the only way”
   How about cutting spending?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 0617 hrs
   
   
   

3. greencarman is correct - as long as this is being done with approval of the local constituents, what difference should it make to those of us outside of Racine?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 0823 hrs
   
   
   

4. In the age of shared revenue, every local decision matters to all state taxpayers.

   Posted by Owen on December 04, 2012 at 0844 hrs
   
   
   

5. “In the age of shared revenue, every local decision matters to all state taxpayers.”

   It may be a concern to everyone, but it’s not their place for people in one locality to interfere in this particular financial decision that the citizens of a community has made.  That’s their freedom to choose.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 2329 hrs
   
   
   

6. but it’s not their place for people in one locality to interfere in this particular financial decision that the citizens of a community has made.  That’s their freedom to choose.

   Who is interfering?  Owen made a comment about it, using history as a backdrop supporting his comment.  It’s his freedom to do so.

   Get over yourself already.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2012 at 0806 hrs
   
   
   

7. Greencarman only likes “interference” when its a cause he is interested in.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2012 at 1333 hrs
   
   
   

8. Mr. Schuenemann is projecting yet again.

   And Jason, next time, make a cogent argument to refute my stance.  The GOP touts “local government” only when it best serves their interests.  What is the business of other communities in how another community spends, especially if the constituents agree to that spending and the method employed to spend?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 0016 hrs
   
   
   

9. And Jason, next time, make a cogent argument to refute my stance.

   I’m sorry that you missed my “refutement”.  Please bookmark this page, and come back when you’re all grown up.  Hopefully your comprehension skills have caught up by then.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 0314 hrs
   
   
   

10. Jason, act juvenile all you want, the question still remains “What is the business of other communities in how another community spends, especially if the constituents agree to that spending and the method employed to spend?”

    Paragraph response only.  Cite your sources.  That’s what “adults” do.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2118 hrs
    
    
    

11. Jason,

    If you’d like….  find someone that agrees with you, quote them, and cite them as a source.  Seems to be working in the mind of Green Car La Mancha.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2252 hrs
    
    
    

12. That’s what “adults” do.

    Actually, “adults” discuss the actions of others without worry mongering by throwing out phrases like “but it’s not their place for people in one locality to interfere in this particular financial decision that the citizens of a community has made.”

    Its our freedom to do so.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1208 hrs
    
    
    

13. “It’s our freedom to do so”.  And it’s also the freedom of a locality to choose how it will pay its bills without outsiders insisting they ought to do something different and tell them to go fly a kite, that’s its not their place.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1926 hrs
    
    
    

14. All these little last word posts, gcm, and you have yet to show anyone “Insisting” or “Interfering”.

    I’ll say it again because you seem to have missed it, get over yourself.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 2229 hrs
    
    
    

15. “I’ll say it again because you seem to have missed it, get over yourself.”

    My, Jason, such astute commentary. Perhaps you should run your own blog, or run for public office, with your intellectual prowess.

    Anyways, you have yet to disprove my assertion.  Owen opposes the leaders of Racine to be able to engage in a practice that supposedly impacts the citizens of Wisconsin in a detrimental way.  I contend he would support the state interfering in this matter, i.e. prohibiting or limiting that practice; otherwise, why did he make Comment 4?  If Owen is indeed concerned about local leaders making decisions that leave “taxpayers holding the bag”, then I could see him agreeing with the state trying to close that loophole.  Again, the GOP touts “local government” only when it best serves their interests.  What is the business of other communities in how another community spends, especially if the constituents agree to that spending and the method employed to spend?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2012 at 2200 hrs
    
    
    

16. GreenCarMan of La Mancha, you have a bad habit of stating an opinion, calling it fact, then challenging people to disprove cette opinion.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2012 at 0901 hrs
    
    
    

17. “...you have a bad habit of stating an opinion, calling it fact”

    If you could properly read, I used words such as assertion and contend, which means I have an opinion.

    Speaking of facts, do you have any to disprove my position?  No, that would require intellectual effort on your part.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2012 at 2140 hrs
    
    
    

18. Speaking of facts, do you have any to disprove my position?  No, that would require intellectual effort on your part.

    Actually, it would take a real lack of intellect to refute what you have opined here.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 0704 hrs
    
    
    

19. “Actually, it would take a real lack of intellect to refute what you have opined here.”

    Keep thinking that, Harry Dunne. Perhaps you can consult with Lloyd Christmas on your next move.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0058 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.