Sociology

An interesting budget hearing tonight, really.  It was the first of two, and the other one will be next Thursday (September 20).  6:30.  Be there.

There was a distinctly collaborative tone tonight, as much as there could be among people who don't agree with each other, and sometimes very much disagree.

Here's the short version: the Manager's proposal was for a millage of 9.5.  Anderson and Ross agreed with it.  Jacobs liked the sound of 9.3, which he said was what the Manager proposed.  The Finance Director tried to tell him he overlooked an add-on for the Log Cabin, but Jacobs was good with his preconception.  Watts thought 9.3 sounded too low, but 9.5 sounded too high, so she liked the even number in between.  Cooper just likes it the way it is: 8.9.  Ross' motion was for 9.5, and it failed 3-2.  Anderson then proposed 9.4, which passed 3-2.  On the surface of it, it appeared that Anderson and Ross were capable of compromise, and Jacobs, Watts, and Cooper were not.  But we had agreement, and agreement is good.  So good, that Ross started out phase two trying to figure out where in a 9.5 mill budget to take out $12,500, which is what that 0.1 mill from 9.5 to 9.4 would cost the Village.  They made some headway there, too, except for Cooper, who appears completely incapable of compromising about anything.  Suggestions were made, the Manager and Finance Director will sharpen their pencils, and we'll continue the conversation next week.

The longer version is also the less tidy version.  First of all, these numbers, except 9.5, and the concepts behind them, were about nothing.  There was a proposed budget that included thousands of details, adding up to a required income, and resulting in a necessary millage, which was 9.5.  So that part was rational.  For Jacobs to say something like "I couldn't go above 9.3" was not rational.  It was not about anything.  It was simply a number, chosen from his imagination.  It had no premise, and it had no implications.  It was just a number.  And for Watts to say she thought 9.5 sounded like too much, but she could see why the number should be higher than 9.3 was also not about anything.  9.4 has no rational meaning.  It's an empty and impressionistic number.  I joked above that it was distinct from 9.5 and 9.3 by being even, instead of odd.  There really isn't any more to it than that.  The only other rational proposal, in a weird way, was Cooper's.  He liked 8.9, because it was no more taxes than last year.  Except for the 3% increase in the taxes of homesteaded properties, so the same 8.9 for the coming year is not the same number of dollars paid in taxes as this past year. 

At one point, Anderson tried to inject a note of reason and reality into the discussion by telling his colleagues what we were really talking about here.  For the average home, an increase of 0.1 mills costs the homeowner $9.75 a year.  To increase the millage from 8.9 to 9.5 costs the average homeowner $58 per year.  One mill costs you a one-time splurge at Burger King.  The whole 0.6 mills costs you a nice dinner for two, without wine, at a moderately priced restaurant.  Once.  That was the reality.  I sort of wish he hadn't said it.  It's better for Jacobs, Watts, and Cooper to vote against 9.5 mills when they don't know what they're talking about.  But for them to see how trivial this actually is, and vote against it anyway, is frankly very disheartening.

The other suspension of reason occurred in Cooper's explanation of why we shouldn't raise the tax rate at all.  He said he was concerned about the homeowners who might be out of work, or undercompensated, and couldn't sustain an increase in their property tax.  Setting aside that anyone who owns a home and can't afford to pay up to $58 more in property tax is already sunk, what happens to that person when his tax bill goes up 3% anyway?  3% of my tax bill is over $100.  So it's really not clear how Cooper imagines he's protecting these marginal or worse homeowners by saving them the 0.6 mill increase.  And anyone who is that marginal must also have a very low-assessed property, so the cost to them is less, maybe much less, than $58 a year.  It seemed to me like a very twisted expression of populism.  And the result, as Anderson tried to point out, is a run down Village.  And that's in whose interest?

So the next effort was to take $12,500 out of the budget.  For the moment, just in case sanity intervenes, this is just an exercise.  At the concluding hearing, next week (Be there), the group can decide that 9.5 is OK.  Our group looked at places from which to shave $12,500.  There was a lighting study that could be dispensible and was worth about $2500, we could shorten Commission meetings, to save an hour of attorney time, and resulting in savings of $1900 or more, and some other ideas the group agreed upon.  Ross had an idea: how about cutting Commission salaries in half?  That will save $6000 a year.  A maneuver like that is called putting your money where your mouth is, for those who voted against 9.5, and the rest of the group said no.  And there was a discussion about maybe spending less for tree maintenance.  Ross and Anderson thought this was a bad idea.  Something about the value and importance of our Village flora.  Nobody mentioned "Tree City USA," but that could have been part of the thinking.  Cooper, who complained a couple of months ago about the trees we lost due to poor maintenance, now doesn't like spending money on tree maintenance.  He wants new trees instead.  I guess if you have more children than you can responsibly support, the answer is to have more children.  Probably that Darwinian thing about the weaker ones dying off.  Jacobs didn't make his position clear, but I don't think he voted to cut the tree maintenance allowance.  Watts said nothing.

So we'll all be back next week to see what our adventurers decide to do to us.  Well, I don't know if we'll "all" be back.  The room was a bit packed tonight.  Not only were Janey and Chuck there, and Barbara Kuhl and Linda Dillon, but Dan Keys showed up, Michelle Chao was there, and Russ Katzman sat in.  Eight of us, including me.  Come on, be a sport.  Come to the meeting next Thursday.  There was coffee.  You could bring popcorn.  If I bring a flask, I'll share.