Last year it was easier . . . since there was so much that Mayor Dave was putting in the budget that never got built . . . this year, more cuts . . . this ought to be interesting.
Half of the Capital Budget is engineering and streets and Planning and Community and Economic Development. The question is, at what point will people start to notice and care? Here’s his message to the departments:
May 14,2012
To: Depatiment and Division Heads
From: Mayor Paul R. Soglin
Subject: 2013 Capital Budget TargetLast year, as we began work on the 2012 Capital Budget, I expressed my deep concern at the level of city bonowing and its increasing impact on the operating budget. I challenged you to reduce your projected capital requests in order to help moderate this upward trend.
Within that target, we were able to include many important projects in the 2012 Capital Budget. For
2013, we must continue to be prudent in the level of our borrowing, while still maintaining our city infrastructure. I continue toevery concerned about our debt level. As the portion of our operating budget that goes to debt service grows, our ability to sustain city operations is increasingly hampered.For that reason, we must once again limit new bonowing. Each agency’s target for developing its
2013 Capital Budget is 80% of the amount in the adopted 2012 Capital Improvement Plan for 2013. I realize that some agencies were more severely impacted in the 2012 budget than others and we will bear that in mind when their budgets are considered.I appreciate all of your help with last year’s budget and your continued assistance in ensuring that the city works more efficiently. I look forward to working with you in the coming months in preparing a responsible capital budget which protects our investments in roads, buildings, parks, and more.
Finally, the Finance Department has prepared some informational sheets on debt levels anq trends. Please feel free to contact them if you need more information.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
When you look at the numbers, it is clear why he needs to do this . . . our debt is growing out of control . . . just look at that second column and the amount of debt we have and how it has grown. Especially under Mayor Dave’s administration 2003 –
Budget
Year
Net General Obligation Debt
Most Recent Equalized Value
GO Debt as a% of Equalized
Value
%Chg in
Rate
1990 67,681,724 5,709,180,000 1.19% 1991 69,030,201 6,229,400,000 1.11% -6.5% 1992 75,675,496 6,550,915,000 1.16% 4.2% 1993 86,826,470 6,964,184,800 1.25% 7.9% 1994 89,251,835 7,581,595,000 1.18% -5.6% 1995 92,863,450 8,306,368,500 1.12% -5.0% 1996 109,152,868 9,093,362,900 1.20% 7.4% 1997 114,051,571 ‘ 9,671,053,800 1.18% -1.8% 1998 118,847,799 10,332,251,000 1.15% -2.5% 1999 121,707,563 10,939,193,300 1.11% -3.3% 2000 121,956,000 11,446,834,500 1.07% -4.2% 2001 126,831,000 ‘ 12,351,593,400 1.03% -3.6% 2002 128,409,000 13,677,854,400 0.94% -8.6% 2003 131,381,000 15,073,829,000 0.87% -7.2% 2004 139,088,000 16,239,031,200 0.86% -1.7% 2005 172,508,000 17’764,099,400 0.97% 13.4% 2006 186,546,000 19,412,430,500 0.96% -1.0% 2007 194,108,000 21,219,003,600 0.91% -4.8% 2008 210,349,000 22,309,064,800 0.94% 3.1% 2009 237,062,718 23,105,474,700 1.03% 8.8% 2010 267,513,208 23,131,428,500 ‘ 1.16% 12.7% 2011 322,165,000 22,212,095,800 1.45% 25.4% 2012 est 369,084,173 21,965,221,700 1.68% 15.9% 2013 est 454,172,456 22,184,873,917 2.05% 21.8%
Worse yet, look at how much of the operating budget is spent paying back all this debt. (2nd and last two columns) so that we don’t have money for other services.
| 2013 Est. Debt Service |
2012 |
|||||
| Share of | Adopted | |||||
|
Year |
Debt Service | %Change | Expenditures | %Change | ExEenditures | Budget |
| 1992 | 11,638,319 | 108,883,900 | 10.69% | 10.69% | ||
| 1993 | 12,090,707 | 3.89% | 113,057,982 | 3.83% | 10.69% | 10.69% |
| 1994 | 13,161,860 | 8.86% | 118,436,855 | 4.76% | 11.11% | 11.11% |
| 1995 | 13,805,000 | 4.89% | 122,919,229 | 3.78% | 11.23% | 11.23% |
| 1996 | 16,725,000 | 21.15% | 131,390,822 | 6.89% | 12.73% | 12 .73% |
| 1997 | 17,051,616 | 1.95% | 138,754,494 | 5.60% | 12.29% | 12.29% |
|
1998 |
18,145,624 | 6.42% | 143,567,683 | 3.47% | 12.64% | 12.64% |
| 1999 | 18,224,200 | 0.43% | 145,900,321 | 1.62% | 12.49% | 12.49% |
|
2000 |
19,197,757 | 5.34% | 151,833,834 | 4. 07% | 12.64% | 12.64% |
|
2001 |
20,732,183 | 7.99% | 161,020,255 | 6.05% | 12.88% | 12.88% |
|
2002 |
19,559,391 | -5.66% | 166,320,847 | 3.29% | 11.76% | 11.76% |
|
2003 |
18,346,342 | -6.20% | 171,089,821 | 2.87% | 10.72% | 10.72% |
|
2004 |
20,473,325 | 11.59% | 176,959,171 | 3. 43% | 11.57% | 11.57% |
|
2005 |
20,953,207 | 2.34% | 182,594,260 | 3.18% | 11.48% | 11.48% |
|
2006 |
21,323,259 | 1.77% | 188,018,737 | 2.97% | 11.34% | 11.34% |
|
2007 |
20,513,055 | -3.80% | 203,134,775 | 8.04% | 10.10% | 10.10% |
|
2008 |
21,607,727 | 5.34% | 210,476,301 | 3.61% | 10.27% | 10.27% |
| 2009 | 25,979,821 | 20.23% | 222,885,837 | 5. 90% | 11.66% | 11.66% |
| 2010 | 27,948,416 | 7.58% | 225,864,316 | 1.34% | 12.37% | 12 .37% |
| 2011 | 29,812,712 | 6.67% | 233,227,107 | 3.26% | 12.78% | 12.64% |
| 2012 Projected | 26,592,349 | -10.80% | 240,240,461 | 3.01% | 11.07% | 11.34% |
| 2013 Projected | 41,072,825 | 54.45% | 261,130,381 | 8.70% | 15.73% | 16.16% |
| 2014 Projected | 46,019,706 | 12.04% | 265,008,578 | 1.49% | 17.37% | 17.23% |
| 2015 Projected | 50,247,955 | 9.19% | 275,806,493 | 4.07% | 18.22% | 18.49% |
| 2016 Projected | 54,686,440 | 8.83% | 287,011,734 | 4.06% | 19.05% | 19.51% |
| 2017 Projected | 59,628,216 | 9.04% | 298,923,269 | 4.15% | 19.95% | 20.49% |
| 2018 Projected | 61,256,669 | 2.73% | 307,730,574 | 2.95% | 19.91% | 20.42% |
| 2019 Projected | 66,218,301 | 8.10% | 320,086,423 | 4.02% | 20.69% | |
Could you imagine if Mayor Dave Cieslewicz had kept us going down this road. For this, and so many other reasons (except one really big one) I’m so glad we have Mayor Paul Soglin! I know we tried to cut back on projects when we were on the council, but the Mayor always made the arguments for why we needed the roads and other projects. But now look at the mess we have.
