Greenfield sticks with its budget road map

Greenfield - With one person speaking for and another against the proposed 2012 Greenfield budget at last week's public hearing, the Common Council approved the $48.8 million spending plan that calls for a 2.15 percent property tax hike.

Nearly all the increase is due to an aggressive $11 million road program that is aimed at capturing savings from low interest rates and contractor prices.

The plan calls for the city to lump road work initially scheduled to be done over the next seven years into the next two years, an investment that Richard Sokol, director of neighborhood services, estimates would save $2 million over 15 years because of today's favorable fiscal conditions.

Indebted management

Though the city wouldn't borrow for any addition road work until 2015, the $11 million borrowed up front admittedly is far more than the city would normally borrow for roads.

That road program is what caused Alderman Tom Pietrowski to cast the only vote against the budget.

"I'm not in favor of debt," he said after the meeting.

Instead of taking on more debt when the economy is struggling, Pietrowski said the city should declare a yearlong hiatus as officials talked about earlier in the year.

"We should take a rest from borrowing," he said.

Pietrowski went further, suggesting that any borrowing be approved in a referendum. But that motion died for lack of a second.

Although the other aldermen voted for the budget, many shared Pietrowski's concern about the big borrowing. So they took the unusual step of requiring each proposed road project to come back to the council to make sure it needs to be done.

While that isn't a ringing endorsement for the compacted schedule, aldermen left the door open to follow the plan as proposed, Sokol said.

The Finance Committee should get that road information along with costs sometime next month, Sokol said. Time is of the essence as bids should be returned in February to get the best prices, he said.

One thing he is more certain about is that the projects will likely total $9.9 million or less rather than $11 million. Sokol learned that borrowings for less than $10 million attract more bidders, hence get better interest rates.

Budget picture

The 2012 budget calls for a property tax rate of $7.21 per $1,000 of assessed value, 17 cents higher than 2011, or about $34 more than this year for the owner of a home assessed at $200,000 both years.

The total 2012 budget is $48,920,832, up 21 percent from this year mainly because of the road program. The operating budget is $23,765,134, or 2.9 percent higher than this year's $23,072,958 package.

While taxpayers will not be hit too hard by the 2012 budget, city workers will.

There will be no raises next year, and employees will pay 5.9 percent toward pensions and 12.6 percent of health insurance premiums. Currently, employees pay 9 percent of health premiums, and no one except nonunion employees pays toward pensions.

There are no furlough days in the 2012 budget as opposed to this year when there were five. Furloughs are forced days off with no pay. The budget contains no layoffs but there are some reorganizations taking advantage of attrition.

The budget will use fund balance but less than previous budgets, finance director Milt Vandermeuse said, and it will not endanger the city being able to keep reserves at 25 percent of the operating budget.

The 2012 budget year looked grim at the start of 2011, said Alderman Karl Kastner, council president, because of fears that the state's financial distress would trickle down to cities.

"But using the tools and concessions the employees gave us allowed us to be sustainable," he said.

AT A GLANCE

2012 proposed budget: $48,920,832

2011 budget: $40,344,052

Difference: $8,576,780 increase (21 percent)

2012 operating budget: $23,765,134

2011 operating budget: $23,072,958

Difference: $692,176 increase (2.9 percent)

2012 proposed tax levy: $21,409,326

2011 tax levy: $20,959,028

Difference: $450,298 increase (2.15 percent)

Property tax rate: $7.21 per $1,000 of assessed value, 17 cents higher than this year meaning the owner of an average home assessed at $200,000 would pay $34 more next year