When the press digs into an issue and asks probing questions it's called investigative reporting. When I ask the press to cover the whole picture it's called "grousing." In that vein let me grouse a little more.

Let me present a hypothetical exercise. You are on the Town Council, for your community. The latest independent audits of your town's finances reveal that the last two years have produced deficits of $1.3 million and $2.4 million. Let me add that these budgets were proposed by the former mayor and came out of his office with 3 percent tax increases. The result was they finished in the red and cost you $3.7 million more. I don't recall seeing that in his letter last week. I digress.

The amount your water department owes the General Fund increased to almost $5 million. That number increased steadily during the same period referenced above.

The undesignated fund balance, i.e., the savings of your town is in a deficit.

These first three items are mainly why your town was assigned a negative outlook by Moody's Investors Service recently, while your bond rating was retained. You wish the media would print that opinion by Moody's. It touches upon the principles that lead to the financial recovery of your town in 2000-2004 under another administration. That recovery saved taxpayers a lot of money in interest payments. You mutter to yourself something about wishing there was some investigative reporting into that. Back to the exercise.

Through a series of budget amendments between 2007 and 2008 you reduced expenses $900,000 and began the work of repairing the water and sewer funds.

Just ahead, in the 2008-2009 budget, is the first payment of the taxpayer/voter approved $30 million high school bond for improvements and the new science wing.

Now we all know that the Town Council sets the tax rate and does not set the assessed valuation of everyone's home. The combination of the two makes up your tax bill. We also know property revaluations result in some property values going up, some going down and some staying the same. In 2002 I was on the council when it lowered the tax rate 26 percent. Did you see a headline reporting that decrease? Of course not and you didn't see a 26 percent reduction in your taxes either because your valuation went up. Remember it is the combination of the two. I might add that it is usually considered a good thing when your valuation goes up. Using the editor's example last week on my modest home, my tax bill increased just slightly less than $100 (3.1 percent) but I lost over $10,000 in value. So that put me in a better financial position? I digress again.

So taking all this into perspective, you as a member of your town's council, were presented with various options for setting the tax levy/rate. One option was to keep the rate at the 11.99 which was 4 percent higher than last year. To accomplish this would have required you to use a one time revenue source (judgment bond) to balance the budget.

This source obviously wouldn't have been available next year and would have placed an insurmountable burden on that budget. Remember you are going to have to start paying the voter/taxpayer approved school bond next year. Where is all that money going to come from? Or should you just do the political thing and worry about that later? It is an election year after all. You can tout your fiscal management while campaigning and no one will find out until the election is over.

Another option counted on the General Assembly reversing the decision by your governor to reduce your community's state aid by $300,000. You didn't feel confident about that happening. Not sure if the press was at the meeting when you asked your representatives and senators personally what the likelihood of that reversal was. You didn't get the feeling it was going to happen. Turns out you were right, it didn't happen.

Enough of the hypothetical. You get the idea.

That brings us to the option we chose. It was a tough option, made with much deliberation. A responsible option based on the circumstances. Isn't that what the media is always asking for? Isn't that what the taxpayers/voters are asking for? They want their politicians to be straight with them and give them the facts. They want the whole picture so they can draw their own conclusions. Why should you believe me? I don't want you to believe me. I want you to look at the options available if you sat in one of those seats and tell me what you would have done and why. I want to be judged on that effort but I want the same effort put forth by those who will return the verdict.

If you want to take me up on that you know where to find me. I'll be muttering to myself about the high price of milk and grousing down in the area of the more modest homes in Valley Falls.

Jeff Mutter

Town Council District 2