Williamson was clearly engaged with the budget process and with the questions residents had submitted. Before the hearing, she pointed out that the packet included roughly 10 to 12 pages of citizen questions and asked whether any new questions had come in since the packet was prepared.⁣
⁣
That was a fair question and showed she was paying attention to the public record.⁣
⁣
She also said she reads the staff responses to citizen questions and that those answers help her understand the budget more fully each year. It shows she is not brushing off public input or treating the written Q&A as background noise.⁣
⁣
Where her score drops is what she did with that information.⁣
⁣
Residents had raised questions about reserves, staffing growth, tax burden, development incentives, and the amount the city planned to collect above the revenue-neutral rate. Williamson did not take those issues and ask staff on them during the hearing. Most of her comments focused on how thorough staff had been in answering questions and how helpful those answers were.⁣
⁣
There is value in recognizing a good process. But there is a difference between reading an answer and testing it.⁣
⁣
A stronger showing would have been taking one of the bigger questions in the packet and bringing it back into the public discussion. For example: Why are reserves still above the city’s target? What would actually have to change if the governing body wanted to reach revenue neutrality? How should residents think about lower mill rates when actual tax bills are still going up?⁣
⁣
Those were the kinds of questions residents were asking the council to wrestle with.⁣
⁣
Williamson did explain that she supported the budget and that she understood the city’s budget principles. So this was not a case of being checked out. She was following the process and reading the material.⁣
⁣
The problem is that the public saw much more acceptance of staff’s answers than independent questioning of them.⁣
⁣
Her score reflects that. She was engaged and informed, but on one of the biggest financial decisions of the year, there was not much public testing of the numbers or assumptions behind the recommendation.⁣
⁣
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥: 𝟐𝟔/𝟓𝟎 𝐂-⁣
⁣