The second of three tax hearings for the Lincoln County Board of Education took place Monday, August 30.

At the outset of the meeting, School Superintendent Randall Edmunds said the board is proposing to increase the school bond taxes from .75 mills in 2009 to 1.385 in 2010, an increase of .635 mills or 82.25 percent over the rollback millage rate.

The reason for the needed increase is to meet bond interest and principle payments as required by the amortization schedule on the bonds for the new high school. Current SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) collections, along with monies from the Fund Balance, are not sufficient to meet these obligations.

In her comments, Kaye Bufford, system comptroller, addressed the issue from a historical perspective, saying, “In 2005, the board began making plans to build a new middle/ high school on land owned by the board. Initial plans were drawn showing a campus with the shared facilities in the middle wing and each school basically on either side.

“After much discussion at board meetings and in the local paper, the plans were changed to design a high school, leaving the middle school at the old campus,” she said. “This would separate the middle school students from the high school students and allow room for growth at all three schools.”

Bufford noted that many factors affected the decision to build a high school, including the opposition of local residents to the abandonment of the old high school campus and the improvement of educational opportunities with the separation of the schools.

“The board believed this to be the best use of the property and proceeded with plans for a new high school,” stated the comptroller. “Education personnel from other counties confirmed the wisdom of the board in planning for future growth at each campus.”

In other comments, she indicated that two factors have been at play in the need for a bond tax increase: higher construction costs in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and a decrease in SPLOST collections from the original projections.

The floor was then opened for public comment.

During the sometimes heated exchanges that followed, one of the main concerns raised by members of the audience was the fact that the contract for state funding was not reviewed by an attorney for the board.

According to Dr. Edmunds, the contract was a standard one and executed in accordance with instructions from the state consultant.

In his remarks, Board Member Wayne Williford said, “We were trying to see how to get the maximum amount of state money. The consultant told us the way to do this was to apply for funding for a middle school/ high school. Then, the board could make it a high school.”

Since that time, state officials have informed the board that it may have to reimburse the state from $4.4 million to $7 million for the new school.

The system has received roughly $7 million in state funds for the school.

The matter has yet to be resolved. Addressing the board, a member of the audience stated, “Why place high taxes on us because you didn’t spend the money the way it was allotted to you?”

“It’s best for the students and our educational program to keep the middle school and high school separate,” said Dr. Edmunds. “We were told we could do that by state officials.”

Another speaker from the floor said, “Ya’ll don’t give good enough answers. You are not considering the finances of the taxpayers.”

Dr. Robert Williams, board chairman, pointed out that he is one of the major opponents of tax increases.

In other discussion, a student from LCHS remarked, “When we were at the old campus, we never interacted with the middle school students. It didn’t really affect us at all.”

Board Member Gail Remsen said, “At the old campus, there were two sections. If you put both schools on the new campus, middle and high school students will be on the same hall. It’s set up differently.”

Williford indicated there was such a crunch at the old high school, you could not get through the hallways.

He went on to say, “We’ve got to make the best of the situation. If everybody had it to do over again, we’d do it differently. We were looking at growth.

“Maybe we should have had an attorney present, but when the guy from the state says this is the way to go, you listen. But, if we’d combined the schools, it would have cost more money.”

“When the economy started going south, there was just a field at the site of the new school,” noted an individual from the floor. “The school could have been stopped, and we could have waited until the economy recovered.”

“Some of us begged you to stop,” stated another audience member.

In further comments from the floor, it was said, “Most of us chose to live here. Now it’s getting to where we can’t afford it. This is never going to end.”

The board was then asked to reconsider combining the middle and high schools. “This will help alleviate the pain we’re going through and save a lot of grief on everybody’s part,” stated an audience member.

“It won’t change anything other than the payback,” said Chairman Williams. “I’m going to fight for the citizens. There will be a legal challenge. I’m not against the taxpayer; I’m one, too.”

Another question from the audience concerned whether the interest rate on the bonds could be negotiated.

It was noted that renegotiations can take place after 10 years.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the board assured the audience it would take their comments into consideration.

The third hearing will take place Tuesday, September 7, at 6:30 p.m. at the board office on Metasville Road.