Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hickman County commissioners send school budget back with direction to cut proposed tax increase
Summary
After heated debate over a proposed 4¢ property-tax increase to cover a $710,000 maintenance-of-effort rise, the commission rejected the original school budget and then voted to return it with direction to substitute a 2¢ property-tax increase paired with a local-option sales-tax change and a one-time $405,000 capital allocation from fund balance.
A divided Hickman County commission on Tuesday rejected the school system’s proposed budget that included a 4¢ property-tax increase, then voted to send the plan back to school leaders with specific instructions to reduce the tax ask and adjust local-option sales-tax figures.
The school’s presenter, Coates, told the committee the school board had "decided that we would or the board wanted to accept the 4¢ property tax increase for our current budget" and said the maintenance projects list would remain the same. Commissioners pressed for alternatives, saying the county’s maintenance-of-effort (MOE) obligation would grow by roughly $710,000 under the full proposal despite an estimated $286,000 increase in state funding.
Why it matters: County leaders said the proposed MOE rise would be a long-term commitment that could outpace local growth and asked the school board to consider a smaller property-tax increase combined with adjustments to the local-option sales tax. Several commissioners said the combined package — as originally proposed — would be unlikely to win voter approval in their districts.
Commission debate focused on tradeoffs between recurring property-tax increases and one-time capital expenditures. Commissioner Barnhill noted the MOE change equated to about an 11% increase and said that shift raised fiscal concerns; Commissioner Nash urged exploring a combination of a smaller property-tax increase plus sales-tax adjustments to limit long-term obligations. Some commissioners declared conflicts before voting.
A roll-call vote to approve the school budget as submitted failed, with 4 commissioners voting yes and 9 no (1 absent). After a recess and informal consultations, Commissioner Keith Nash moved to return the $1.41 million school budget to the school board with two specific directives: use a 2¢ property-tax increase instead of 4¢, pair that with a corresponding local-option sales-tax adjustment to keep the MOE near the targeted level, and include a one-time $405,000 capital allocation funded from the county’s fund balance rather than a revenue increase. Commissioner Ron Puckett seconded the motion.
That motion passed on roll call, 11 yes, 2 no, 1 absent. The commission’s action was directional — it gave the school board parameters to rework figures rather than formally adopting the school’s submitted budget.
Next steps: County staff said the school board will receive the guidance and return with revised figures; the committee scheduled follow-up budget meetings in late May and June to finalize numbers.
