Update: Unfortunately, we’re not alone among Wisconsin cities.
The city administrator and staff have put together a more detailed estimate of how the proposed state budget will impact South Milwaukee.
The estimated hit for 2012 should Gov. Scott Walker’s budget pass as is: $347,839 in red ink.
This includes the following projected general fund cuts:
- $255,427 in shared revenues;
- $135,177 in general transportation aids; and
- $126,004 in recycling grants.
In all, the total cuts to South Milwaukee general fund revenue from the state would be $516,931.
Of course, these cuts will be offset by savings through increased pension ($135,799 in net general fund savings in 2012) and health insurance ($33,293) contributions by employees — “tools” promised by Walker that, in the end, won’t do the job.
Of course, these are only estimates, and real impacts remain to be seen and probably won’t be known until the state budget is passed in coming months … and the ultimate fate of the so-called “budget repair bill” is determined.
There is also some hope that state lawmakers will actually listen to community leaders and try not to balance the budget in part on the backs of local taxpayers by slashing various state aids while concurrently disallowing property tax increases for many municipalities.
In other words, you can always hope that at least some of the well-reasoned changes proposed by the League of Wisconsin Municipalities are enacted. You can always hope that legislators who have so far scoffed at any sort of compromise will see the light.
There’s always hope, right? Maybe not.
South Milwaukee Blog 
OK, now I’m more confused than ever – not that this whole budget thing wasn’t confusing to begin with. How is disallowing property tax increases balancing the budget on the backs of the local taxpayers? At first blush it would seem just the opposite would be true. If the state cuts funding to the locals (“balancing” the budget) and the locals raised taxes, it would seem that that would be on our backs since the tax payers would simply be covering the budget cuts – basically a hand-me-down of raising the taxes (at the local level rather than the state level – so the local gov’t are the “bad guys” rather than the state). This proposal (good or bad) is actually balancing the budget by program cuts rather than on the backs of the local tax payers. Right? Now, there is plenty wrong with the budget and certain things that are being cut shouldn’t be, but that’s another topic.
Couldn’t Agree with you more SM Guy. I think the best thing in the budget is that the locals can’t raise taxes. Govt needs to be cut from the top down and not just passed down. Erik, while I agree with you that if your numbers are correct the $170000 in Employee contributions doesn’t fully cover the $500000 in state aid cuts, and Gov Walker was wrong in his estimates that it would cover all the cuts. But is $170000 not better than nothing? Is it not a third of the cuts that you don’t have to come up with somewhere else? It is never popular to cut any govt programs but debt in this country is out of hand. How would you feel if your personal home budget looked like the govt’s budget with all the red ink? I know I’d feel sick, and at some point you can’t just keep raising taxes to cover it, and I personally feel that point was a long time ago, to much of my salary is going to taxes now as it is.
Indeed, the comment about balancing the budget “on the backs of local taxpayers” was probably the wrong choice of words. That said, Walker’s budget certainly inflicts its share of pain on local governments, and local taxpayers will most definitely feel that through service cuts to some level.
To me, the accompanying levy freeze is an unnecessary “double whammy.” State lawmakers should not on one hand tell us they’re taking more than $500,000 from our budget and then not give us the proper “tools” to help deal with that. It’s wrong and unfair to local taxpayers.
I am OK with small annual levy increases, even at CPI, sensible and reasonable increases like we as a council have approved the last couple of years. I hope my constituents are too. I also hope my constituents prefer letting local leaders make local decisions — not state lawmakers who should focus more on getting their own house in order before turning their unnecessary and unwanted attention to communities like South Milwaukee.
Erik,
You say that you’re OK with small annual levy increases. Why is it that government is ALWAYS asking for more money from taxpayers? I realize that costs are increasing for goods and services but most taxpayers have not gotten pay increases. In fact many have had pay or benefit cuts – or lost their jobs. When that happens we have to tighten our belts and SPEND LESS or go to the credit cards and we all know where that leads. Why can’t government tighten THEIR belts? The reason the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party has become so popular is that we’ve had enough of bloated government that is encroaching into more and more areas of our lives and spending more and more of our hard-earned tax dollars.
Randall: I hear what you’re saying, and I respect your point of view. But I disagree with the comment that we’re “bloated.” South Milwaukee runs as lean, and efficient, a ship as any I’ve seen. We are already cut to the bone, and any further cuts will likely impact services. And that’s what the debate should be: How many and what services are taxpayers willing to give up so we can deliver a state-mandated 0 percent levy increase coupled with $500,000 less in state revenue?
The reason the “on the backs of local taxpayers” is a VERY apt phrase is because past and present legislators and governors, and the current governor in the proposed state budget, have made choices that exempt from appropriate taxation property owners and corporations that make use of government-provided infrastructure and services. That is, WE pick up the difference for the taxes from which they are exempted, while they benefit from the infrastructure and services for which we pay. Eliminating property tax exemptions, for instance, is a “tool” that could have very easily been provided in the so-called budget repair bill. Appropriately taxing properties that have been exempted either through good intentions or backroom deals would significantly address the shortfalls in local funding without having to raise taxes on those of us who have dutifully and consistently paid our share. Instead, local taxpayers get to take on the chin in terms of likely cuts to the services we’re provided. I don’t buy that the only choices available are to saddle local taxpayers with higher tax rates or jam us with cuts in services. Once again, we see a governor and legislators that have had to make NO hard choices. They’ve continued to spoon feed their contributors and special intersts while passing the hardships on to the rest of us. And though both parties appear to need to head to rehab to kick the habit of sticking it to the working and middle classes, small businesses and local munipalities, too many people are willing to absolve “their guy” based solely on abstract ideology or party affiliation. As long as we continue to allow those we elect to represent us to frame the situation as an either/or between raising local taxes or cutting local services then every budget shortfall will be made up on the backs of local taxpayers, one way or another.