Reprinted with permission "Mt. Horeb Mail",
November 19, 2001

Springdale holds 2002 budget hearing
Heated discussion leads to minor change in tax levy
by Diane Hermann

It started out peacefully enough.

Town Board Chair Ed Eloranta went over the estimated figures for next year's budget. He pointed out that they compared favorably with past budgets. He explained, in detail, that the main cause for the proposed tax levy increase of $9,447 was due to the decision to pay off the remaining $20,000 balance on the town's new truck rather than pay the high interest rates of extended payments. He also stated that the $12,000 proposed for legal fees, combined with this year's projected expense of $11,000, was modest compared to the $35,000 total that was spent the last time the town revised its Land Use Plan.

Everything seemed in order and it looked like the budget would pass without significant objection - that is, until the questions started.

One question, from resident Pam Johnson, concerned the new house number signs being installed in compliance with county requirements for uniformity for emergency vehicles. She wanted to now what was happening with the signs and why they weren't all installed in one year.

Eloranta replied, "One third have been installed, as was planned, and the rest will be completed next year."

Town Clerk Vicki Anderson added that, because the numbers delivered by the county are out of sequence, someone who has not yet received a new sign might have a neighbor who has.

"Nobody's going to be forgotten," she said.

Other questions - about bridge projects, road work, patrolman's pay and overtime - were quickly dispatched.

Not so easily handled was the issue of legal fees. The main argument, from the same handful of residents who have challenged virtually everything this new town board has said or done since it took office last April, seemed to be that they were being denied a line-by-line breakdown of what the money was spent on.

Johnson, who recently asked for and received copies of phone conversations and correspondence from the lawyers being retained by the town board to assist in the drafting of a new Land Use Plan and supporting ordinances, was the most vocal.

"How did you come by that estimate?' she asked. "For the last sixth months (the lawyers) haven't done much. They've only reviewed what we have now."

Eloranta replied that the board is trying its best to minimize legal expenses. He praised the "excellent work by the committees on drafting documents," but added that final legal review was "clearly necessary."

Johnson wasn't satisfied with the response, nor was she pleased that the documents she had received from the lawyers had parts blanked out.

"I don't understand why we aren't being told what the money is spent on, when we're spending so much," she said.

Delores Esser agreed: "Why aren't we allowed to know what is going on? We, as taxpayers, are paying for this."

Eloranta explained that the legal advice they had received was to not include individual conversations per attorney-client privilege, adding, "we have to be free to ask 'what if?' without fear."

Steve Gauger said, "The $12,000 is just an estimate. With a budget, money needs to be moved to where it's needed. And, anyway, by law they can't spend more than the overall budget."

Supervisor Steve Albert stated that when he had asked the lawyers what they thought it would cost to put together the Land Use Plan and ordinances they had said it should be around $10,000. That's if we do a lot of the work, added Albert.

"What if it's $30,000 or $40,000?" asked Phil Esser.

"We don't expect it to be that," replied Eloranta. "That's why we budgeted $12,000."

Then it was time to vote.

The proposed 2002 highway expenses of $221,662 passed without a single nay vote. The vote on the $207,818 tax levy, which, of course, included the $12,000 for legal fees, was tied, 5 for and 5 against.

And that's when it got ugly.

Phil Esser complained about the "evasive answers by the Town Chair" and stated that "everything was good enough" for Eloranta until he took office and now he "wants to change all the rules and regulations" and that he "evades questions."

Eloranta replied, "This is the most open government this town has ever had."

"And the most unfair," Esser retorted.

Reminding Esser that the citizens had voted him in based on what he said he would do and that he is doing it, Eloranta said "I won the election, Phil. I'm doing my job."

Jim Leary complained about the "attorney fees that no one knows about" and again Johnson stated that previous lawyers' fees were for "mostly phone calls and correspondence which we can't know about."

Supervisor Steve Albert spoke about the need for the town board to protect itself.

"There have been several threats to sue from town citizens," he said. "Let's face it - we're not all one big happy family. The town's elected officials need to be free to ask legal questions. And if you're not behind the changes being done, you're not going to want to see a cent going into lawyers' fees."

As Johnson continued to argue, Eloranta finally said, "Pam, you have attempted to legally challenge everything. You've been trying to derail what the elected officials have been elected to do."

"That's not true," Johnson replied. Eloranta reminded her of her attempt to prove illegalities during the last election.

"The only reason I was involved in the election debate," said Johnson, "was because I know how elections are run. Election rules were broken."

"And what happened to your complaint (to the election commission)?" Eloranta asked.

"I don't know," Johnson replied.

"It was thrown out," said Eloranta.

Jim Leary responded to Eloranta's statement that they were "within budget" with the comment: "That's irrelevant."

"Would you rather we hired high-price counsel?" asked Eloranta.

Leary replied, "I would rather you kept the old Land Use Plan like it was," then added, "You need to figure out how to tell us what the money is being spent on. That's not a threat, it's a promise."

Phil Esser got in one last jab at Eloranta: "If you hadn't had your head buried in the sand for the past 14 years you'd know what's going on in this township!"

And, so, the standoff continued, until Karl Hacker decided he would make the attempt to "get this off dead center."

"If you reduce the proposed legal fees to $10,000 I would support a motion to approve," he offered. "But that's just me."

Immediately Johnson said, "I'd second it."

Then Hacker acknowledged that it is up to the board to determine how much money gets budgeted in each category, and that the electors were only approving the total budget amount.

So, after all the accusations, after all the complaints, the end result was a reduction in the total tax levy of a mere $2000, from $207,818 to $205,818. The revised tax levy was quickly approved and the bickering was all over - for now - ending as abruptly as it had begun.