Higher taxes for Fayette schools should come with more transparency from district
On Thursday evening, the Fayette County school board raised property tax rates to support a wave of new and upgraded facilities for our rising public school population.
Board members chose Option 2, which will change the rate that will go from 80.8 cents to 83.3 cents per $100 of assessed value. Because of Fayette County’s increased housing values — about 2.4 billion — this will allow a separate nickel tax to be put into the building fund. Officials said it will allow bonding on $540 million, paying for 12 planned projects across the district.
It’s the right decision for Fayette County to have world class facilities for teachers and students. There’s probably a recall movement brewing already; let’s hope our city’s traditional support for public education doesn’t falter.
However, I also agree with board member Stephanie Spires, who voted against the measure last night. She was board chair in 2018 when the board passed a nickel tax for school safety. At that time, the process to prepare the public for a tax hike was much longer than two weeks.
“Our process has not been transparent,” she said last night. “We have not gone out and engaged as we did in the past ... the timing is wrong.”
She urged for more thought, planning and creative financing instead. For example, she said the new technology center on Midland Avenue, now estimated at $75 million, could probably be paid for with a combination of grants and federal dollars.
Or, as I asked Thursday, why didn’t they offer an Option 3 of leaving tax rates where they were, which would still bring in a tidy sum because of the increased tax rates?
School officials said the middle option would raise more money, we don’t yet know exactly how much, but not enough for an extra 5.5 cents per $100, known as the nickel tax. Under state law, the nickel tax is automatically restricted to a district’s building fund every year as a recurring revenue, which allows them to use it as a base for borrowing money in bond projects.
Option 3’s revenue increase would go instead directly into the general fund. Because school boards are not allowed to obligate future boards even for a year, school boards would have to vote every year to put that money into the building fund, which would hurt its bond rating because it’s not guaranteed a future board would vote to move the money over. So they’d have more money for the general fund, but it’s not clear how much could be used for building projects. And they couldn’t leverage it because the state will now equalize Fayette County’s nickel tax, so there would be state funding as well.
It’s understandable why they are pushing Option 2. But it would have been useful, however complicated, to explain that there is a possible Option 3, and why district officials don’t feel like it’s the best one. There might be creative ways to use the new funding for facilities. And 30 minutes for public comment, at two minutes per person, is not enough time for public comment.
I talked to Matthew Vied, a public school parent and outspoken critic of the school board who is now running for a seat in District 4.
“A third option where the rate remains flat seems so obvious — if only for comparison purposes — that its omission feels manipulative at worst or a very regrettable oversight at best,” he said. “The taxpayer deserves to know and the Board should be considering the details on how many facilities projects could be completed if the tax rate remains the same.”
He’s right. It does feel manipulative not to give taxpayers all the options. That’s unfortunate because there are already too many people ready to pile on our public schools at the slightest hint of opacity. Many are flummoxed by the board’s ability to shell out so much money, roughly $20 million for two pieces of property — on Midland Avenue (former home of the Herald-Leader) and the Webb property on Versailles Road, while three high schools —Lafayette, Henry Clay and Dunbar are in such bad shape.
Parent Jessica Bowman supports the higher tax, but she’d like to see it accompanied by an increase in transparency by the school district.
“We definitely need new facilities,” she said. “We still have children in portables. I’m willing to pay more for better facilities, but I want the school board to be more transparent. I want to know why we prioritize some things over others before we invest in large properties. We need to look at best investment of our money that serves our school community the best.”
I believe that the public school system is one of the most important elements of our democracy, and constant undermining of public support and financing has undermined it, even in districts as generally supportive as Fayette. Our teachers and kids deserve the best facilities we can give them. But these kinds of unforced errors by the district are maddening. In this matter, I wish the school board hadn’t given the critics such an easy opening, and I hope it doesn’t end with a recall.
This story was originally published September 8, 2022 at 10:13 AM.
