Taylor School District board discusses replacing operating millage, adding 2‑mill cushion to offset rollback

The Taylor School District Board of Education on Wednesday heard a presentation on a proposed operating millage replacement that would restore the district’s assumed 18 mills on non‑homestead property and add a two‑mill cushion intended to offset Headlee rollback reductions.

Attorney Crowley, who explained the proposal, told the board the replacement measure would be placed on the Nov. 3 general election ballot and asked the voters to “replace the current authorization” with an authorization set for 10 years, through about 2035. Crowley said the 18‑mill levy is the state assumption used to calculate the district’s per‑pupil foundation allowance and that rollbacks have reduced the district’s effective levy to roughly 17.5603 mills. “So, because of this, the district's losing about $400,000 this year,” Crowley said.

Committee members pressed for clarity about who would pay and how large the increase would be. One board member asked directly, “This will be a tax increase. Correct?” and another summed up the mechanics: the cap is 18 mills, the board would seek authorization up to 20 mills so a two‑mill “cushion” will absorb future rollbacks while the legally‑levied amount remains at or below 18. Crowley said the aim is to keep revenue at 18 mills over the 10‑year authorization even if the Headlee rollback would otherwise reduce it.

Public comment at the meeting included a request for data. Resident Courtney Prowt asked how many mills were being requested and urged the district to make public documentation showing how much revenue would be lost without the replacement. The board and staff said administration would work to make supporting data publicly available; Crowley and a board member emphasized that static snapshots are less informative than modeling of future property‑value changes.

The board discussed practical details: the administration said the resolution must be filed with the county by Aug. 11 to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot, and Crowley noted the district chose Nov. 3 because holding a question in a general election lowers election costs. Several board members and the presenter reiterated that the levy applies to non‑homestead properties (commercial and rental properties), not owner‑occupied homes, meaning landlords—rather than most homeowners—would pay the tax and rental costs could be affected indirectly.

No final action was taken on the proposal during the July 15 meeting; the board agreed to return the matter to a future meeting for additional information and formal consideration before the filing deadline.

What’s next: administration will publish the revenue and modeling data requested by public commenters and board members; the board tentatively planned further consideration at a subsequent meeting so it can meet the county filing deadline if it decides to place the question on the November ballot.