Steep drop in Medford school taxes
Debt payoff brings tax rate from $8.33 to $6.24 per $1,000 equalized value
Taxpayers in the Medford Area Public School District will see a drop in their tax bills this December thanks to the district paying off a sizable chunk of debt.
After staying steady for the past few years at $8.33 per $1,000 of equalized value, the projected tax rate approved at Monday’s school district annual meeting was $6.24 per $1,000 in equalized value.
The school district is just one part of the overall property tax bill. The final bill includes the municipal, county and technical college tax levies. However, the drop in the district’s tax rate will result in a sizable savings for local taxpayers. The owner of a home valued at $150,000 will see the school portion of their property tax bill drop from $1,249 last year to $936 this coming year. The final tax rate will not be formally set until later this fall when the district receives the final state aid numbers which are based on student enrollment.
The district’s tax levy for the coming year is significantly below nearby communities and the statewide average. The state average is $9.22 per $1,000 of equalized value.
District financial director Audra Brooks presented the budget as part of the annual meeting. It calls for the district to spend $33,804,693 in the coming year and in order to be balanced requires applying $322,779 in fund balance. Brooks also noted that due to the state legislature not including any inflationary increases in the school district funding, they were forced to use federal ESSER funds to make up the difference. This puts the district in the position of using federal grant funds which will be available for only a relatively short period of time to help cover operational and maintenance expenses.
Brooks highlighted the state funding formula which has been in place since 1993. At the time, Medford was among the lower spending districts in the state on a per student basis. Under the funding formula, the district has never been able to catch up. The district is capped at $10,000 per pupil. The average in the state is $11,450 per pupil. Based on the district’s enrollment of 2,091 on the three year rolling average, the difference in revenue cap limit would make for a significant impact in the budget.
An elector questioned if any of the federal funds being received by the district were tied to the teaching of critical race theory. Brooks replied that there were no provisions like that in the federal funding received by the district.
Elector Fred Ebert questioned if critical race theory was coming to the curriculum at Medford Schools.
“The quick answer is no,” said district administrator Pat Sullivan, he said it is largely something at the college level and not in public schools. Curriculum coordinator Laura Lundy said she has not gotten any interest from anyone wanting to use it in the classrooms.
Board president Dave Fleegel reminded those at the meeting that curriculum is approved at the school board level and any proposed changes in the way history is being taught would have to come through the school board.
Purchase power
While typically routine, Monday’s annual meeting included efforts to put brakes on the board’s powers, specifi cally its authority to buy and sell land.
Ebert made a motion to allow the board to continue with its lease agreements but require that they have to ask voters when it comes to purchasing or selling land.
Ebert said he felt it was good for the public to have a say in if the district decides to purchase land. He said he understands the need to occasionally make deals, but said that the district also must prove to taxpayers that they are willing to live within their means. He raised concerns about the fiscal cliff that is coming with concerns over future funding at the state level.
Board member John Zuleger questioned what would need to happen if the power to buy land was not granted and an adjoining property owner wanted to sell it to the school at a cost of a $1. “How would we go about it,” he asked.
Sullivan said the initial answer would be “no” and that they would then have to spend money to consult with an attorney to find out the course of action to follow.
On a voice vote on the issue, Fleegel said the motion failed. However, Ebert asked for it to be by show of hands because it was hard to determine. By a show of hands, the motion clearly failed with all the board members and many of the district staff members present voting against it and a group of district residents voting for it. A second motion to grant the authority to the board for the coming year was approved on a voice vote.
