Paul Kusuda’s column
Public Municipal Services Budget Proposal
Public Municipal Services Budget Proposal
By Paul H. Kusuda
Beginning July 26, 2011, and ending August 31, 2011, City of Madison Paul Soglin, members of
the Madison City Council, and department staff hosted for the general public five community
budget discussions. The city’s operating budget was the primary focus for public input of ideas,
reactions, sense of priorities, etc. Capital budget considerations were not part of the review but
probably will be in the future. The Mayor intends to repeat the process next year and possibly in
following years because he and Council members want public input during the city’s budget
priority-setting and decision-making time periods.
The purpose of holding community budget discussions in five different locations throughout the
City was to provide information about various sections of the City’s operating budget and to give
all participants opportunity to work with elected officials, city staff, citizen committee members,
and other residents to provide feedback as to city programs and services desirability and priority.
Beginning July 26, 2011, and ending August 31, 2011, City of Madison Paul Soglin, members of
the Madison City Council, and department staff hosted for the general public five community
budget discussions. The city’s operating budget was the primary focus for public input of ideas,
reactions, sense of priorities, etc. Capital budget considerations were not part of the review but
probably will be in the future. The Mayor intends to repeat the process next year and possibly in
following years because he and Council members want public input during the city’s budget
priority-setting and decision-making time periods.
The purpose of holding community budget discussions in five different locations throughout the
City was to provide information about various sections of the City’s operating budget and to give
all participants opportunity to work with elected officials, city staff, citizen committee members,
and other residents to provide feedback as to city programs and services desirability and priority.
Participants involved in the discussions discovered how difficult it was to select programs and services in terms of priority
and potential allocation of the finite amount of fiscal resources. Consideration from the standpoint of personal,
neighborhood, and city-wide needs and wants proved to be not too easy. But individual evaluations of priorities (low,
medium, and high) for programs and needs were recorded in summary fashion using methods enabling each person to
study and prioritize the many city programs and services currently being provided.
I attended four of the five sessions and was pleased with the turnout of concerned residents. The Mayor and a couple of city
staff reviewed the process to be followed and verbally described programs and services. The five major categories of
programs and services were: Community Development and Services, Administration, Infrastructure, Large Community
Facilities and Parks (Recreation), and Public Safety. City staff, including Department heads, were present at all discussion
sites and made themselves available for questions and to provide information. I was impressed by the sincerity of the
Mayor, City Council members, and staff who quite obviously wanted resident appraisal of city services and priorities.
The outcome of the community budget discussions will be assembled for those responsible to develop the annual budget
proposal. Those summaries will be part of the many variables that must be considered in putting together the budget.
Department staff will prepare preliminary budget proposals showing possible five-percent reductions as requested by the
Mayor. The Mayor then constructs his initial proposed operating budget. After public hearings, a final budget will be delivered
to the Common Council for its consideration, revision, and approval. Following a few fine-tunings, the annual budget will be
formulated in final form and expenditures permitted.
Attending the community budget discussions emphasized for me the direct relationship of city services to the provision of
different programs and services to help exercise our right to pursue happiness, as noted in the Declaration of
Independence. That pursuit must not be totally dependent upon each person or family having sufficient financial resources.
Many believe that those who, for one reason or another, have insufficient funds must not be denied that right. Public funds,
to which all contribute, need to be accessed to provide programs and services to all. The current fiscal climate for
individuals, families, and public agencies is dismal; however, the need for public programs and services is here and is
obvious.
Priorities must be established for the expenditure of public funds, and the funds must be budgeted and spent with an
underlying philosophy of stewardship in the finest sense of the word. Further, public funds must be made available in
sufficient quantity to enable best provision of budgeted programs and services.
Mayor Soglin has proposed that the City property tax levy not exceed an increase of three percent over the previous year.
Program and service needs have increased considerably as the over-all economy has declined. Federal and state fund
allocations made in past years to the City of Madison have been cut drastically this year as in the past two or three. Budgets,
of necessity, have been reduced and employee positions left vacant. As employees retire or in other ways create vacancies,
fiscal constraints force delayed replacement or non-replacement. Services suffer. Programs and services provided in
previous years have to be dropped. Additionally, workloads have to be increased for all remaining staff. Can something be
done to mitigate the impending disastrous development?
The Mayor’s three-percent proposal will mean that programs will have to be cut or downsized and services reduced because
costs of everything have risen, for example, health care, computer services, equipment replacement, food, and everything
required for public programs. Is there a way to increase public funds with minimal effect on individuals and families with the
smallest financial ability to meet city tax levies?
Unfortunately, the City of Madison has only three sources for funds—program revenues, state and federal funds, and
property tax levies. Charges could be made for garbage pickup, street cleanup, fire protection, etc.; however that alternative
would not be equitable in terms of impact on Madison residents, so program revenues such as for licenses or fines,
parking, etc. cannot be readily expanded. As everyone is aware, funds from federal, state, and other resources have
dwindled over the years. Are property tax revenues the only source available? Unfortunately, the answer has to be in the
affirmative. Unless the State will enable the City to levy other than property taxes, no alternative exists.
If the State would permit such action, I would propose that the City of Madison be authorized to levy a three-year, three
percent surtax to begin on the first of the next calendar year to provide extra public funds for two of the five groups of
programs and services reviewed during the community budget discussions: Community Development and Services and
Public Safety. I recognize it’s difficult to be accepting of any increase in property tax levy of any amount. For individuals and
families having trouble meeting current expenses, the thought is more than frightening. However, I believe that local funds
must be provided to meet burgeoning costs. Some programs and services must not be cut; indeed, they must even be
increased! A surtax would have a greater impact on those who must pay larger property taxes than on those who don’t.
Thus, it would be levied to a greater extent on tax-payers who can better afford the extra cost.
The two major program sectors I have proposed to receive the additional funds have programs that directly affect people:
Community Development and Services cover such activities as Community Development Block Grants, senior center
and potential allocation of the finite amount of fiscal resources. Consideration from the standpoint of personal,
neighborhood, and city-wide needs and wants proved to be not too easy. But individual evaluations of priorities (low,
medium, and high) for programs and needs were recorded in summary fashion using methods enabling each person to
study and prioritize the many city programs and services currently being provided.
I attended four of the five sessions and was pleased with the turnout of concerned residents. The Mayor and a couple of city
staff reviewed the process to be followed and verbally described programs and services. The five major categories of
programs and services were: Community Development and Services, Administration, Infrastructure, Large Community
Facilities and Parks (Recreation), and Public Safety. City staff, including Department heads, were present at all discussion
sites and made themselves available for questions and to provide information. I was impressed by the sincerity of the
Mayor, City Council members, and staff who quite obviously wanted resident appraisal of city services and priorities.
The outcome of the community budget discussions will be assembled for those responsible to develop the annual budget
proposal. Those summaries will be part of the many variables that must be considered in putting together the budget.
Department staff will prepare preliminary budget proposals showing possible five-percent reductions as requested by the
Mayor. The Mayor then constructs his initial proposed operating budget. After public hearings, a final budget will be delivered
to the Common Council for its consideration, revision, and approval. Following a few fine-tunings, the annual budget will be
formulated in final form and expenditures permitted.
Attending the community budget discussions emphasized for me the direct relationship of city services to the provision of
different programs and services to help exercise our right to pursue happiness, as noted in the Declaration of
Independence. That pursuit must not be totally dependent upon each person or family having sufficient financial resources.
Many believe that those who, for one reason or another, have insufficient funds must not be denied that right. Public funds,
to which all contribute, need to be accessed to provide programs and services to all. The current fiscal climate for
individuals, families, and public agencies is dismal; however, the need for public programs and services is here and is
obvious.
Priorities must be established for the expenditure of public funds, and the funds must be budgeted and spent with an
underlying philosophy of stewardship in the finest sense of the word. Further, public funds must be made available in
sufficient quantity to enable best provision of budgeted programs and services.
Mayor Soglin has proposed that the City property tax levy not exceed an increase of three percent over the previous year.
Program and service needs have increased considerably as the over-all economy has declined. Federal and state fund
allocations made in past years to the City of Madison have been cut drastically this year as in the past two or three. Budgets,
of necessity, have been reduced and employee positions left vacant. As employees retire or in other ways create vacancies,
fiscal constraints force delayed replacement or non-replacement. Services suffer. Programs and services provided in
previous years have to be dropped. Additionally, workloads have to be increased for all remaining staff. Can something be
done to mitigate the impending disastrous development?
The Mayor’s three-percent proposal will mean that programs will have to be cut or downsized and services reduced because
costs of everything have risen, for example, health care, computer services, equipment replacement, food, and everything
required for public programs. Is there a way to increase public funds with minimal effect on individuals and families with the
smallest financial ability to meet city tax levies?
Unfortunately, the City of Madison has only three sources for funds—program revenues, state and federal funds, and
property tax levies. Charges could be made for garbage pickup, street cleanup, fire protection, etc.; however that alternative
would not be equitable in terms of impact on Madison residents, so program revenues such as for licenses or fines,
parking, etc. cannot be readily expanded. As everyone is aware, funds from federal, state, and other resources have
dwindled over the years. Are property tax revenues the only source available? Unfortunately, the answer has to be in the
affirmative. Unless the State will enable the City to levy other than property taxes, no alternative exists.
If the State would permit such action, I would propose that the City of Madison be authorized to levy a three-year, three
percent surtax to begin on the first of the next calendar year to provide extra public funds for two of the five groups of
programs and services reviewed during the community budget discussions: Community Development and Services and
Public Safety. I recognize it’s difficult to be accepting of any increase in property tax levy of any amount. For individuals and
families having trouble meeting current expenses, the thought is more than frightening. However, I believe that local funds
must be provided to meet burgeoning costs. Some programs and services must not be cut; indeed, they must even be
increased! A surtax would have a greater impact on those who must pay larger property taxes than on those who don’t.
Thus, it would be levied to a greater extent on tax-payers who can better afford the extra cost.
The two major program sectors I have proposed to receive the additional funds have programs that directly affect people:
Community Development and Services cover such activities as Community Development Block Grants, senior center
programs, children and families
services, youth and community services,
community gardens, public housing, and
services for our aging population. Public
Safety coverage includes fire and police
protection programs, public health
services, Board of Health
responsibilities, and overview and
licensing of alcohol programs. Both
sectors have people-related
responsibilities that must be continued
for the good of the City of Madison. A
time-limited, modest surtax may not be
the only solution; however, something is
needed to avoid painful cuts to programs
aimed to protect and better our society.
services, youth and community services,
community gardens, public housing, and
services for our aging population. Public
Safety coverage includes fire and police
protection programs, public health
services, Board of Health
responsibilities, and overview and
licensing of alcohol programs. Both
sectors have people-related
responsibilities that must be continued
for the good of the City of Madison. A
time-limited, modest surtax may not be
the only solution; however, something is
needed to avoid painful cuts to programs
aimed to protect and better our society.
