Reject Monroe school taxes for future lower rates

About the only thing that makes sense coming from the split among Monroe City School Board members over looming property tax renewals/reductions is the Board majority scheduling the vote in December when it has the best chance of passing.

Last month, the Board voted to put the propositions of 13.93 and 5.94 mills for operations and maintenance on the Dec. 12 ballot after renewals of 14.41 and 6.15 mills failed in May elections headlined by party primary votes for the U.S. Senate. These proposed are the current millages being levied, after the Board eschewing rolling forward rates to their maximums allowed since 2016, which then were levied at the rate that failed the voter test. The current levy expires at the end of the year.

Putting an election on a date with much less stimulus for voters to turn out is an age-old trick of local governments to pass taxes. Disproportionately supporters, who may be government employees whose agency directly benefits from the tax that also incite their families and friends, turn out for these. Delaying the vote from Nov. 3 also avoids at the same time that three supportive board members would have their names up for reelection on the same ballot as a tax.

But some Board members may upset the applecart by working against the measures, if for confusing reasons. No party Jennifer Haneline and Republican Bill Willson publicly oppose it, saying both they didn’t like it because Superintendent Sam Moore hadn’t recommended rolling forward beforehand but had wanted a renewal at roll forward rates. Haneline said greater efficiencies should be pursued but aren’t, while Willson proposed a lower combined 16.50 mills

Willson further alleged that some large landlords would jack up rental rates on each of their units $25 to $100 a month if the levies passed at that combined 19.87 mills, but not at 16.50. Yet it doesn’t make sense that if the rate had been there for the past couple of years that economic changes would have occurred so dramatically since then that suddenly rental rates would have to increase so dramatically, as the difference on every $100,000 of value only would be $33.70 a year.

As well, it’s odd that these members would complain that a higher level of past taxation was too low but now a lower level should be voted down. Regardless, it’s clear both believe the measures setting the maximum rate at the current rate peg it too high and that voters should have another crack at lower rates. That could be possible, since a jurisdiction can levy a tax at any time before year’s end and collect it for the entire year, so another 2026 failure but a 2027 success could restore most of the funding.

Still, as an option a Dec. 12 failure could trigger budget cuts in the second half of the school year to guard against if a 2027 vote also failed, which is a cudgel supporters can use to entice voter support at the end of the year. Moore claims that student instruction and school safety would be priority areas, but non-instructional programming, such as athletics, athletic facilities, extracurricular opportunities, transportation and non-instructional staffing likely would be negatively impacted.

However, the numbers indicate a rethink on reducing rates further is in order. Willson’s proposal would cut ad valorem taxes from about $12.6 to $10 million a year, and the system has about $20 million in unrestricted reserves that could tide over for years if that drop would become so critical. And this doesn’t consider a likely and hefty sales tax bounty from economic activity that has swept across other nearby school districts to date that promises to last at least a few years. That probably will reflect also in property value hikes, thus more total such taxes paid even at lower rates, when reassessment occurs in 2028.

So, lower rates do seem justifiable. The departing Haneline and Willson are on to something, and Monroe voters should follow their lead to set up another attempt, if even needed, in 2027.