Montgomery Village taxpayers have every reason to welcome the news that more than $532,000 will be returned to them after officials discovered a clerical error that caused them to pay more in village taxes than they should have.

They should also welcome Village Treasurer Brian McDowell’s announcement that he has identified between $800,000 and $850,000 in undesignated funds that have been sitting in the village’s general fund from prior years — money that can be used to reimburse taxpayers and address long-overdue infrastructure needs such as fire hydrant repairs without increasing taxes or issuing debt.

But while refund checks will be appreciated, they raise a far more important question: How did this happen?

According to village officials, the tax error stemmed from exemptions not being properly applied when assessed values were calculated. The mistake caused the advertised village tax rate to differ from the final rate by nearly 11.5%, resulting in taxpayers paying more than they reasonably expected when the budget was adopted. To the administration’s credit, officials have acknowledged the mistake and proposed reimbursing taxpayers from the village’s fund balance rather than asking residents to shoulder the cost a second time.

Mistakes happen. Government is run by people, and people make errors.

What is more troubling is the revelation that hundreds of thousands of dollars in undesignated funds were apparently sitting unused for years.

Deputy Mayor Darlene Andolsek’s surprise during last week’s meeting mirrored what many residents are likely thinking when she asked whether an additional half-million dollars had simply been sitting in village accounts. McDowell’s response was even more striking: he believes the total is closer to $800,000 to $850,000.

Those funds belong to the taxpayers.

A healthy fund balance is essential for emergencies, maintaining strong financial ratings and protecting against unexpected expenses. But government also has a responsibility to explain why money is being accumulated, how much is appropriate to retain, and what plans exist for using it. When even members of the Village Board appear surprised by the existence of such significant reserves, it suggests the financial picture has not been fully transparent.

McDowell himself acknowledged as much when he said, “This village has, for years, has continued to do things that are not necessarily transparent to anybody, including the board.”

That may be the most important statement made during the entire discussion.

Transparency is not simply about publishing a budget. It means ensuring elected officials fully understand it before voting. It means explaining fund balances, reserve accounts and financial assumptions in language residents can understand. It means taxpayers should never be left wondering whether hundreds of thousands of dollars have been quietly accumulating without public discussion.

The board now has an opportunity to improve public confidence.

Unfortunately, another discussion during the same meeting pointed in the opposite direction.

Mayor Michael Hembury suggested eliminating budget work sessions involving department heads and trustees. Instead, he proposed meeting privately with department heads before presenting a completed budget to the Board of Trustees. Trustee Randi Picarello strongly objected, arguing that trustees should participate in the budget development process rather than simply reacting to a finished proposal.

On this point, Picarello is correct.

Budgets should not be developed behind closed doors by one elected official. They should be built collaboratively, with department heads, trustees and the public able to observe the discussion. Open budget workshops allow questions to be asked before decisions are made, assumptions to be challenged and mistakes to be caught before they become costly.

Had there been greater scrutiny in the past, perhaps questions would also have been raised sooner about the size of the village’s undesignated fund balance.

Government works best when more eyes are reviewing the numbers, not fewer.

The Village of Montgomery deserves credit for correcting its mistake and making taxpayers whole. That is the right thing to do.

Now comes the harder task: ensuring residents never have to ask again how an 11.5% tax-rate discrepancy occurred or why nearly a million dollars could remain largely unnoticed in village accounts.

The refund checks are welcome.

Lasting public trust will depend on something far more valuable: openness.