August 10, 2006

By Diane Chiddister and Lauren Heaton

Two Village Council meetings in the last week drew standing room only crowds as villagers expressed to Council members concerns over how a proposed tax hike might affect local services.

At their regular meeting Monday, Aug. 7, Council members voted unanimously to put on the November ballot a levy which seeks an $8.36 mill property tax hike. The levy would provide continued funding for non-mandated Village services, such as the Gaunt Park pool and the Yellow Springs Library, as well as a new maintenance program for Village roads.

In total, the levy would provide $1 million annually for Village operations. It would cost a home owner an additional $256 per $100,000 of property valuation before exemptions.

Forty-nine percent of the revenues gained from the tax hike would go toward the new road maintenance program and 51 percent would fund non-mandated Village services such as the pool, library, community programs at the Bryan Community Center, and an economic development program.

Monday’s action followed a Council work session on Wednesday, Aug. 2, during which many villagers passionately expressed their fears that Council might cut non-mandated Village services. At the previous Council meeting on July 17, Council members had discussed several scenarios for possible tax increases, with the highest increase, which was recommended by Village Manager Eric Swansen, funding both mandated and non-mandated services, but lower increases resulting in cuts of the pool, library and Bryan Center. .

Council members and Swansen at the Aug. 7 meeting told villagers that the proposed levy would continue to fund the pool and library along with increased road maintenance. About 50 villagers attended the meeting.

“I hope this reflects our mindfulness of the need to strike a balance” between mandated and non-mandated services, said Council President Jocelyn Hardman, who stated that people-oriented Village services, such as the pool, would be cut only if the levy fails.

“It’s your call,” she said to the audience at the meeting. “You’re the voters.”

Several people who spoke on Monday night said they would support a tax increase as long as they felt secure that the non-mandated services would not be cut.

“I will absolutely vote for it, but I would not do so if it left out the non-mandated items,” said Elizabeth Lutz-Hackett.

Pat Murphy said he would also support the tax increase, and would “pay extra money to maintain the quality of life here.” He encouraged Council to use some of the funding for economic development for the longterm goal of increasing jobs.

Others spoke in favor of the balance Council had struck between the human-oriented services and the Village infrastructure.

“I’m 100 percent for the human infrastructure needs,” said Ellen Hoover, who described the pool and library as being “wonderful for our family.” But she also believes that maintaining the physical infrastructure is equally important, a perspective she said she acquired as economic development director in Springfield.

“I don’t like to see this level of levy but I don’t see any other way,” she said.

Some who spoke saw the current budget difficulties as an opportunity to get villagers more involved in helping to maintain or support the services they desire.

“Is there some way to harness the community to solve these things?” said Michael Cannon, noting that the Village spends about $137,000 to maintain the parks. “Maybe we can help take care of the pool and maintain the parks so it’s not such a big slice” of the budget, he said.

At the beginning of the discussion on the proposed levy, Council member Judith Hempfling made a counter proposal. She suggested that Council plan to spend only half as much, or about $225,000 rather than $450,000, on new road maintenance programs, and thus ask for a smaller tax increase. She also proposed that Council promise that, in the event of an emergency, budget cuts would be made equally to mandated and non-mandated services, rather than cutting non-mandated services first. She also suggested that Council needs to “face more squarely our problems with affordability,” in the light of the tax increase, and that economic development projects should keep in mind environmental concerns.

Other Council members did not respond to Hempfling’s proposals, although Hardman stated that discussion about budget priorities will continue until the budget process is completed before the end of the year.

Additional information about Monday night’s meeting, including a presentation by Hardman on funding issues, will be in next week’s News.

Wednesday meeting

Over 50 Yellow Springs residents attended a special meeting of Village Council last Wednesday, Aug. 2, mostly to speak in support of maintaining the Village’s “human-centered” services, such as the Yellow Springs Library, the Gaunt Park pool and the Bryan Community Center recreation facilities. After listening to just under an hour of citizens’ comments, Hardman abruptly ended the public hearing and Council agreed to consider putting the $8.36-mill property tax levy that Village Manager Eric Swansen recommended for the ballot in November.

The proposed levy is less than the $9.83 per mill tax increase that Swansen had recommended at the July 17 meeting. The lesser amount was due to a revised budget for the Gaunt Park pool, he said.

The Village is required by Ohio law to maintain all of its dedicated streets, and spending a larger than normal amount to repair the roads now, Swansen has said, would save the Village from having to spend about five times that amount later if the road deteriorated to below “fair” condition. The proposed amount for annual road repair is almost double the amount the Village spends on road repair currently, but Swansen said that the road budget has been reduced over the years to pay for services of higher priority and has never returned to its previous level.

The Village is not mandated to provide the other services mentioned, but according to a report prepared by Swansen, the proposed $8.36 mill levy would be enough to “keep mandated and nonmandated services operating with a limited level of risk protection for major unforeseen events.”

At Wednesday’s meeting, Hempfling opened by imploring the Village to stay focused on the community’s values as it considered different budget scenarios. A “crisis mentality” doesn’t help to solve problems, she said, adding that the notion that villagers shouldn’t question the proposed level of road funding simply because roads are something the Village is mandated to provide, is the wrong way of approaching the issue, she said.

“I have concerns about the proposal as stated,” Hempfling said. “In the long-run, street maintenance will be cheaper, but this will affect the kind of community we become.”

Community members at the meeting seemed to agree. Local resident Ann Kent said that as a mother of two children and a homeowner who has struggled to afford living here, she would choose to pay a little more to keep the pool, the library and other non-mandated services for youth and seniors that make Yellow Springs the kind of village that attracted her family in the first place.

Ali Thomas, an organizer with the local Seadogs swim team, challenged Council members to match the passion villagers have for their public pool, their library, and their skate park, with an equal passion for the roads they are trying to fund. “I’d be willing to stump for the pool,” she said, because she cares about the pool. And others would likely be willing to do the same for the library, the skate park, and other community-oriented venues they use, she said.

“Everyone in this room would vote for a levy if it were for people-centered things,” Thomas said. “But you have to stump for the roads because you know about the roads.”

Even if part of the levy revenue was used to increase the road budget, local residents Chad Runyon, Kathy Adams and Ellis Jacobs all pointed out that there should be more options, different levels of road budget increases that incorporated funding for nonmandated services. And if the maximum budgeted for the roads is necessary, Jacobs said, Council needed more evidence to justify it.

“This [levy] is in danger of going down because of the priorities,” Adams said. “Council needs to make the Village manager understand our community values.”

But villagers Peggy Erskine and Sue Abendroth weren’t against the community’s values when they each spoke in favor of levying the recommended amount of money needed to return the roads to good condition. Without the roads, the people-oriented services wouldn’t be here, Abendroth said. “If you don’t fix the roof when it’s leaking, you lose the house later,” she said.

Good roads also attract people and businesses to the village, both of which are necessary for the long-term solutions to the Village’s financial problems, Erskine said.

Contact: lheaton@ysnews.com, dchiddister@ysnews.com