Roads II

We had about 4 or 5 discussions/ meetings on roads and other budget meetings where roads came up. I looked back over the few months, my notes and the ideas I threw out there and proposal or two I made. It was clear my conservative approach did not have support.

At the final meeting there were 9 proposals on the table from conservative, to moderate, to liberal. Mine was the most conservative ($1.7 million, 2.8 mills, no city give away), which I talked about the meeting before. I also expressed support with others for the second most conservative option ($2.3 million, 3.8 mills, no city give away). The $6 million a year (10 mill tax hike) option that passed was the second most expensive proposal — there was an $8 million (16 mills) proposal.

Whenever you are trying to fund a new initiative, you have three routes you can go: One, cut waste, excess or a low priority in the existing budget and reallocate the savings to the new initiative. Two, allocate expected revenue for next year to the new initiative. Three, raise taxes rates and get more money for the new item.

My approach at the start was to reallocate within the existing budget and allocate some of the new revenue coming in to roads. Options one and two.

For example, the first budget meeting of the year when we were told annual revenue was going to be up $2 million, I threw out the idea of dedicating $250,000 of new revenue to roads. Later on in the budget process we received an extra $150,000 from the state/ aid to subdivisions, and I said put it toward roads. There was no interest using any of the new revenue for roads.

Early on the library wanted to take on the museum, and that would have generated $90,000 a year in savings. I said, let’s put it towards roads.

I strongly argued to stop giving the cities $650,000 a year to pave city roads and instead put it toward county roads. The first and second readings that give way was in there, but it was taken out of the final proposal. The chairman said it would be discussed in the future. Only Trey and I said we would not support it now or in the future.

As I said the county has $23 million in savings. It just got another $24 million from the Federal government in Covid money. I asked and the county administrator said $2.4 million could be designated for roads. Early on I suggested putting a $1 million a year from the savings toward roads to supplement any shortfall.

I counted 11 different things talked about, I suggested or was proposed to the council, individual councilmen or the administration and just one idea got traction – but only after it was watered down. The library requested growing revenue 19% next year, I suggested giving them only a 6% increase and putting the $450,000 excess toward roads. To get 4 votes, my proposal was cut in half ($250,000).

A different time, a different council, maybe, but there was little to no support for a conservative approach in solving or putting a good dent in this problem. Then sitting in the last meeting, as the tax increase grew from 3.8 mills, to 5.3 mills to 9.6 mills, I thought is this the best 6 “conservative Republicans” could do? In the primaries, I don’t remember hearing we'll fix your roads and do it with the biggest tax increase in history. Good grief.

Folks, it is the biggest lie in government -- we had to raise taxes, because we had no other option. That is usually technically true, but it is because our leaders overlook or reject every other conservative option along the way. It happens at every level of government.

It was clear, the council needed to allocate more money to roads and was split on how to pay for it. The annual need was $5 million (not $6 million). Compromise was in order if the needle was going to be moved. I floated a compromise to a couple councilmen… starting with the $1.7 million a year the county was getting now, then keeping the $650,000 the council had been giving to cities, $250,000 from the library savings which was $2.6 million. Then a $900,000 tax hike or 1.5 mills. Resulting in annual revenue of $3.5 million, that moved us half way there the first year. Then add $1.5 million from savings got us to $5 million this year. Next year we’d take another swing at growing the annual allocation to roads.

I said it would show the public the council was meeting the public half way - half comes from the government better managing its existing resources ($250,000 and $650,000) and half comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer ($900,000). My incremental approach also had no support.

In sum a conservative compromise is not funding the entire amount (and more) with a record tax increase. Republicans who lead with higher taxes like a Democrat would is not a compromise, but a complete abandonment of what we promised voters. This is a good lesson for all elected conservatives out there. If you find yourself in a situation where the needle has to be moved and you must compromise, insist on 50-50 on tax increases and budget savings/ reallocations.