69����

But one county board member, Beloit resident Mike Zoril, said Tuesday that he and others have signed on to a resolution the county board read in last week in a proposed letter to the Janesville City Council. The board member’s letter expresses support for a public referendum that would gauge whether city of Janesville residents favor public spending on the Woodman’s Center.

The proposed county board resolution asks the city of Janesville to “sponsor” a ballot referendum question.

The measure as of Tuesday had not been placed on any county agenda for consideration.

Separately, a group of residents calling themselves taxpayer watchdogs have circulated a petition for a public referendum that would ask Janesville taxpayers on an election ballot — as early as the April election — whether the city should spend taxpayer money on the Woodman’s Center.

That group or any other petitioner has by law until Jan. 24 to submit a ballot referendum initiative to the city to get it placed on the April ballot. The residents’ group has been actively circulating its petition, and members asked the city council last week to support a public referendum on spending for the arena.

The city council likely will vote in May or June on whether to commit funds and whether to move forward on the Woodman’s Center project.

Zoril said although the county board in November didn’t move forward on a city request for $2 million in county funding for the facility, he believes it is possible the county board could in the future look at another proposal on the project—whether it’s a formal funding request or a request for a show by the county of public support.

He said he and the six other county board members who signed the letter supporting a referendum see such a measure as a reasonable way to take the temperature of city taxpayers who also pay county taxes.

“We feel it is important that the taxpayers of Janesville should be in favor of this project via referendum before the Rock County Board takes any further action of support,” Zoril said.

The proposed county resolution also encourages the city of Janesville to hire an auditor to review the project’s construction costs and the center’s future operational costs.

The city of Janesville’s legal counsel has said such a referendum by law would only be “non-binding,” meaning if the city council decided to place it on a ballot, the council would not be required to honor the outcome.

The city has earmarked $17.3 million in potential borrowing and could opt to spend more through a 5-2 council vote late last year that did not include a cap on the city’s borrowing for the project.

The city of Janesville asked the Rock County Board last fall to consider kicking in $2 million in excess county sales tax revenue receipts to help pay for the public side of the two-sheet indoor ice arena, sports flex space and convention center.

The county shot down that request in its budget sessions in November by a 16-11 vote.

Other provisions Zoril and other supervisors included in the resolution would prevent Rock County staff from sending letters of support for the Woodman’s Center project—and require any county staff members to follow any past letters of support that might have been published with written disclaimers that they were exercising their own opinion, not that of the county board.

Zoril said although the county board as a whole hasn’t pledged support for the public-private project, administrators in Rock County’s economic development and public health offices at some point last fall sent the state of Wisconsin letters of support for pending grant funding requests for millions of dollars that would help fund construction of the center.

Zoril stopped short of calling the administrators’ letters “lobbying,” but he said he considers them a “conflict” based on the board’s current intentions.

“There wasn’t support then, or at least not enough support from the board to say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to back this project.’” Zoril said. “But they (administrators) sent letters of support anyway, which it kind of conflicts with the way the board voted at our budget meeting on Nov. 15.”