Several months ago, during a newsroom discussion about taxes, property revaluation and other governmental necessities that kick a person in the paycheck, a realization washed over me.
In the process of local funding increases, the Union County taxpayer is really nothing more than a child of divorce, torn between governmental parents vying for affection.
We are just kids being unfairly asked to choose which of our parents or grandparents we love the most at any particular time. But, our government relatives don’t ask for hugs. They ask for money.
Who do you love more – your motherly schools or your fatherly safety services? Do you love your county grandpa with its safe, smooth roadways or your grandma in mental health who is always there with an open ear and good advice.
And we, like toddlers, run back and forth from relative to relative based on who has custody – which in tax terms means who got on the ballot first. We show them we love them by voting yes and we give them money, or we throw ourselves on the floor, have a fit by voting no. If we turn down a levy, however, we will have our nose in the corner for six months until it comes back on the ballot.
And like separated parents, agencies vie for our love. They explain how hard it is to live in the grown-up world. They tell us about enrollment projections, and response times and alcoholism rates. They simply can’t carry on without our love and our money. They tell us things will be better for us if we just give in and vote yes on levies.
But the funny thing is, in any healthy divorce the parents don’t focus on their own needs at the expense of the child. That’s the very definition of an unhealthy separation. In a nurturing divorce, the parents’ first consideration is doing what is best for the child.
Why on Earth is that not the mind-set of local governmental entities? Why is the taxpayer simply a funding source? Why do agencies only consider their own needs? Sure, property taxes, income taxes and other payments like gas taxes and license plate fees all go to different coffers, but they all come from the same pocket.
That is the thought that ran through me. What would it take for local entities to come together and create a taxpayer-first approach to levies?
If I know one thing, it is that city and county agencies, as well as the schools, fund studies to tell them what to expect in the future. They have income and expense projections as well as information about their needs in the future. The Marysville School Board is in the middle of a study future enrollment and space needs as I write. The district has also known for many years that it is approaching a window where an operating levy will be needed. Township fire departments seek levies based on run volumes, the county put an additional license plate fee in place because of claimed roadway needs and city officials have mentioned that the Marysville income tax rate could be bumped without putting the issue before voters.
My point is, government officials know what they will need in the coming years, but do they ever come together to discuss them collectively, so taxpayers don’t face year-after-year combo punches to the wallet. Does the fact that revaluations are skyrocketing factor into the decisions on when to plan a school levy? Might the city back off plans to seek more money because of the looming Marysville Schools enrollment boom will bring with it a need for new tax-funded buildings?
A little coordination by area leaders on timing their requests might go a long way. It’s not like local entities don’t form collectives for other purposes, such as the Council of Governments groups that formed to take a collective look at the interests of stakeholders along the U.S. 33 corridor.
Voters around here have been relatively supportive of the needs of agencies for many years, but it wouldn’t take too many levies piled on top of each other to swing the pendulum. If revaluations drive up tax bills, followed by looming school operating and building issues, and topped by a request or two from a few other local agencies, the local generosity could end quickly. I could see voter opinion souring and not improving for a great while.
Very much like a family laying out its budget, local tax-funded operations could figure out what is fair to taxpayers and then live within their means. The entities could then figure out when it would be their turn to ask for additional money from the citizens. A taxpayer-focused approach would refocus office holders on the generosity of their citizens, rather than treating them like ATM machines.
-Chad Williamson is the managing editor at the Journal-Tribune.