I'd like to share some concerns and observations about the new state budget.
The new budget incentivizes localities to reduce expenses and hold down taxes, offering property tax rebates for municipalities that meet certain metrics. This is a "home rule" state, according to state law, but the budget uses our money to coerce us into relinquishing our ability to manage our localities. If a locality exceeds certain budget criteria, it is punished by withholding the rebate. If a locality passes a law to allow a budget that exceeds the metrics, it is barred from the rebate process. That seems contrary to everything the home rule law stands for.
We at the local level are already doing everything we can to reduce expenses, share services and make our municipalities as efficient and responsive as possible. We don't need the state to tell us to do that; we hear it from our neighbors every day and have been continuously working to optimize for efficiency long before it became fashionable at the state level.
The home rule law recognizes the best decisions for a locality are made locally. The new budget implies that the state knows better. I disagree.
Our village budget is prepared openly, with public debate and input. It is small enough to be understandable — every line scrutinized during public meetings and every allocation justified. The state budget is too large to be widely understood or even read. Such massive scale invites allocations that are not carefully reviewed. The governor's claims that small governmental entities are wasteful ignore that we in small government are more accountable for our actions, more responsive to our constituents, and more careful with our expenditures compared with larger governmental entities. The smallest government is the most efficient.
The state's process of closed-door negotiations produces a final budget document that cannot possibly be rigorously reviewed before it must be adopted.
Such a process is not only illegal at the local level (why isn't it illegal at the state level?), it is also a source of tremendous inefficiencies; transparency leads to efficiency because it prevents wasteful allocations and exposes hidden favors granted behind closed doors.
Finally, if the state has collected such excess revenue that it can fund rebates, it should stop collecting that money to begin with and lower state-wide taxes. A reduction in the state sales tax, the most regressive of all our taxes, would be a welcome relief for everyone (not just property owners), would cost nothing to distribute (unlike sending checks to every property taxpayer), and would be easy to administer.
Stop taking our money and then using it to punish us for doing what is best for our communities.