So, the mill rate road show has begun. Early last week, municipal councillors in St. John's began the rearguard action of arguing that, while they all promised mill rates would be reduced, the rates probably won't come down enough to satisfy most people.

There have been high-tech presentations on the city's increased costs and future financial commitments, along with plenty of discussion about how living up to election promises would mean cuts - perhaps drastic ones - to city services. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's likely to come next.

The very first action of a newly elected council that promised to hold the line on taxes will be to effectively increase those taxes across the board. And it's going to happen fast: by Dec. 15, the decision-making will be over, and councillors will be earnestly saying that they've done their best, but ...

It's a story that people in other cities and towns in this province with increased property values will also hear.

Added to everything else, there's also the fact that mill rates and property assessments are a murky soup; in areas where property rates are rising quickly, taxpayers can see the taxes they pay double, or even more, while elected politicians go around blithely saying "we didn't increase taxes," while benefiting from increased returns.

You'd think there would have to be a better way - well, perhaps there is. An astute reader pointed to the way property taxes are being dealt with in several other jurisdictions, especially those with rapidly increasing property values.

It's called full disclosure, and its aim is to make sure that the political chips fall where they should.

There's a great description of the system in an article by Gary Cornia and Lawrence Walters of Brigham Young University in the National Tax Journal.

Since politicians are often elected on promises to hold the line or decrease taxes, they should have to clearly show what they're doing. Full disclosure legislation says that cities and towns have to calculate an annual tax rate that blends assessment increases and mills rates and "produces property tax revenue equal to that amount of property tax revenue generated during the previous year." Or, more clearly: "Increases in property values that are captured by a reappraisal must be offset by a reduction in the tax rate that creates a revenue-neutral outcome."

It doesn't mean politicians can't increase taxes to cover increased costs: the only difference is that they have to clearly show what they are doing.

"If public officials seek to approve a tax rate that generates more revenue than the previous year, then they have consciously chosen to increase taxes and must formally adopt and vote on a rate that is greater."

The rate increase has to be clearly spelled out, advertised, and in some jurisdictions, letters outlining the real effects of the increase have to be mailed to every household. And it means the chips fall where they should: with the politicians who are the ones sending out the larger tax bills.

Cornia and Walters say where full disclosure has been used, it has tempered tax growth, especially in areas like ours, where assessments of property values have shot up.

The end result? Instead of councillors saying "we can't cut as much as we'd like," we'd have the more accurate statement "we've voted to increase your taxes." It isn't as palatable, but it's far more honest.