News reports indicate that Village President Tom Kempinski is considering asking the Board to approve a referendum that would appear on either the September ballot or the November ballot.  This referendum would deal with just how Germantown voters desire to fund some $2,000,000 per year in road repairs, if they desire to do so.  The choices apparently would be borrowing, increasing property taxes or a combination of both or none.

The referendum could be advisory or binding in nature.  Obviously, if advisory, the Board would then decide what, if any action it would take, but it would do so with some idea of the public's mood.  If binding, the results would stand as the electorate decided at least until the Board was reconstituted or until the Board found some other approach to achieve the end if that were possible.

If property taxes were increased by $2,000,000 annually, the increase in village taxes over 2008 would be some 20.5% without consideration for any other line item increases in the village budget. It is unrealistic to assume that all other expenses will remain constant.  If the amount were to be borrowed, the debt service would be part of the tax increase each year so that both the amount spent each year plus interest would be added to the tax bills over a number of years.

The village's portion of our total tax bill in 2008 was 24.52%; that share would climb to 30.67% if all other taxing units remained at 2008 levels which, unfortunately, is very unlikely.  The actual increase in total property taxes due to the village's portion of the total could be something in the range of 1% to 2% I would suspect.

Use of a referendum will please some people and anger others.  Some will say that this gives the voter the direct voice on specific items that they otherwise lack in representative government.  Others will say the referendum gives the Board a place to hide; still others will say that there should be no referendum.

There are several questions that come to mind about which you may wish to make your views known:

1.  Do we need $2 million worth of road repair every year?  For how many years?

2.  What portion of the village's road surfaces need to be repaired today? 

3.  Have past Boards avoided their responsibilities and not funded road repairs properly?

4.  Is a referendum a good idea or is it a convenient tool for a Board that doesn't wish to stake out a position that may be very unpopular?

5.  If this referendum appears on the ballot, what impact will that have on any issue the School Board may advance at the same time?

6.  If we are to see a referendum, should it be simply an advisory referendum or should it bind the Board to a specific direction?

What think you G'town?

I received an email from a regular reader this morning asking me what my opinion was concerning the announcement that the elementary school bond issue will be back on the November ballot.  He forced me to give thought to something I had managed to push from my mind for about a week, but that hiatus is over.

First, let me say that I think the district has had a poor public relations week.  The announcement that the bond issue, apparently unchanged, is expected to be on the ballot in November was probably awkward enough.  Then, we learn of the expected budget deficit for the current year, and we learn that the proposed budget will require a property tax increase if approved as explained.

I've not engaged anyone from the district on the subject of the reappearance of the bond issue, and have had no contact regarding budget shortfalls.

There was some analysis done as the result of the spring election where the bond issue was defeated.  That apparently showed some interesting results when reviewed area by area.  Remember that the Germantown School District encompasses more than simply the Village of Germantown.  The most recent election apparently showed results indicating that some non-village areas were quite opposed while the village proper was more evenly split, or at least that is my recollection.

My supposition, and it is only that, is this:  November will see a significantly higher turn-out of voters.  The district may have reasoned that this will be a 'fairer' review of the proposal and it may have reasoned that the outlying non-village areas' votes might be outweighed by greater village turn-out, desiring to take its chances on that populations' decision this time around.

Beyond this, the budget deficit is understandable given the economic conditions we're experiencing.  Energy and food costs are up significantly and those are the primary areas identified as the 'culprits' in the budget shortfall.  The fact that preliminary budget numbers for the next period are reflecting the need for greater revenue is not surprising on its face.  The amount of the deficit and the amount of the need for the next period will be of more interest.  The tactics employed by the school board and the district administration in meeting these issues will be very informative.  We are in a superintendent 'lame duck' position and the new person selected will have had little, if any, substantial input by the time hiring decisions have been taken.

I must say that I'm disappointed with this confluence of events.  I don't know what, if any, press releases may have been issued on the bond issue decision.  If there were such releases, there is little indication of that fact since the news was simply dropped in our laps without forewarning or preparation for receipt of the news.  Then, to see the news about the current and prospective budgets pop up within days, citizens were subjected to what in our small world is tantamount to a 'media blitz'.

I fear that some significant damage has been done to the district's credibility on both issues whether or not deserved.  Those opposed to the bond issue have a ready-made counter offensive dropped into their laps.  Those who favored the bond issue have been embarrassed, self included.

All the old bromides about school boards being more interested in buildings than students, etc., etc. will be front and center during the election season.  And, frankly, the district has brought that unto itself whether through arrogance or ignorance or simple mishandling.

We've gone a long time between Blogs centering on MATC, but it is again time to take a critical look.  A 'headline' from some time ago suggested that MATC just can't help itself.  That seems to be the case.  They certainly don't seek out the kind of news coverage they tend to generate.  No organization would want to be in this type of 'limelight' and yet they do it to themselves over and over and over again.

Yesterday we learned that poor old MATC was being chastised by the 'state' for having proposed a budget that would require a property tax increase of some 6.4%.  It seems that even Governor Doyle thought that was too high, and that is going some when you think about all the tax increases and fee increases he has dumped in our laps.

So, having had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, they are being forced to the unthinkable...they may have to make some cuts in their expenses!!

They are now talking about cuts that will get the property tax increase down to as little as 5% to 5.5%.  These people do not live in the world that you and I populate.  They must breath some other life giving gas other than oxygen.  Maybe they're actually in a different orbit.  It seems obvious that they are not bound by the same life rules that we, the taxpayers, are bound to follow.

Hammering at an old theme again, if you and I have too little income for our expense load, we usually will look at our expense first and make the necessary adjustments.  In the world occupied by MATC, it seems that you first look at raising your revenue before you even give any thought to reductions in budget.

An article today centers upon the 'incubator boondoggle' that MATC created for itself many years ago.  We've Blogged about that before, as well.  Some of the businesses aren't real businesses with any hope of survival in the real world.  Many are considerably behind in their rent payments.  Now MATC is looking at actually closing or modifying the two incubators but it may have to give some money to those businesses that are to be displaced apparently according to some language in their agreement with each.  I've not seen those agreements, but I can't imagine that even MATC would give money away, much of it probably to those same businesses that are behind in their rent payments, if it were not bound to do so by the agreements.  Let's hope that MATC is sharp enough to hold back funds from this payment to at least recover the rental payments owed to it and to us taxpayers.

I have a high degree of difficulty in imagining that there is nothing else that can be cut out of the MATC budget.  How is it that MATC will cut expenses and still have to take us taxpayers to the cleaners for 5% to 5.5% more property taxes than we paid last time?  There are things that can be cut.  Let's talk about staff positions to begin with.  Let's look at the benefits next.  Let's review the travel expenses; it seems to me that was sort of a bloated area the last time we went down this pathway.  Maybe they need to sell off property and lease back the portions they actually need.  Maybe they need to shake up the status quo and actually take some real action like ending the deal with the current 'King' and getting a replacement that doesn't suffer from such egotism and illogical sense of institutional direction.  The Board should be capable of changing this direction unless it also suffers from something similar.

In the meantime, maybe the petitions to be removed from this system should be filed quickly and the case pressed while this iron is still hot enough to burn some sense into the directors of the state technical college system. 

By the way, Waukesha County Technical College has solidified its budget with a 3% increase in property taxes.  It is in the same geographic area, and faces most of the same issues.  What is the difference?  It seems to be leadership from my perspective.