Residents pressed board at public hearing over proposed property tax levy
Loading...
Summary
At a March 30 public hearing, Burlington residents urged the school board to minimize property tax increases, citing rising household and business costs and concerns about transparency; board members said recent state funding changes lowered the district's estimated rate and noted legal limits on responding during hearings.
The Burlington Community School District opened a public hearing on March 30 about its proposed property tax levy as residents described the personal and business impacts of rising taxes.
At the start of the hearing the board noted recent state legislation changed school funding after the budget was submitted, lowering the district's earlier estimate from $16.75 to $16.19. Board leadership said the revised figure represents a 56¢ decline from the earlier estimate and framed it as a 22¢ increase compared with last year rather than the 78¢ increase first estimated.
Several residents said even modest-sounding rate changes add up when a taxpayer's home or business receives a large assessed value. "Groceries have gone up, gas has gone up, utilities have gone up," said Janet Schultz, who asked the board to be "fiscally responsible" and mindful of the pressure on property owners. A business owner, Beth Bridal, said combined home and business bills have jumped from about $28,000 to $46,000 over three years and urged a statewide conversation about what schools should be required to pay for.
Other speakers said families on limited incomes struggle to absorb yearly increases. "Year after year after year, it goes up," a resident told the board, urging trustees to review whether some facility projects remain necessary.
Concerns about safety and student movement also surfaced during public comment. Sandra Schneider described reports she'd heard about drug activity at the public high school and suggested closer coordination with local police; she warned that when families leave the district their state funding follows those students. District staff answered procedural questions about the hearing format and directed residents to contact local legislators if they wanted to change the rules that constrain board responses during public hearings.
Board members repeatedly encouraged residents to follow up with district staff for budget detail. Director Roberts pointed people to Finance Director Greg Reynolds for explanations of which funds control which expenditures and to clarify how tax rates translate to spending.
The public hearing concluded with a voice vote to adjourn and the board reconvened into its regular meeting.
