Editors Note: This article was originally published in the Nov. 29, 2023 issue of the Chronicle Progress. Some information may be outdated.
A majority of Millard County’s electorate chose to saddle taxpayers with $4.5 million in additional financing costs after rejecting a general obligation bond issue placed before voters by Millard School District during the Nov. 21 general election, according to an unofficial preliminary vote tally released on election night.
The general obligation bonds were proposed as a means of financing new construction projects in the district, including a much-needed renovation of Millard High School in Fillmore. District officials warned the public MSD was moving forward regardless of the election’s outcome—higher interest lease revenue bonds will be the means of financing the projects now, costing taxpayers the additional interest charges over the 36-year life of the bonds.
The bond election failed by a vote of 1,559 against to 1,274 in favor, according to the preliminary vote result. About 400 ballots remained untabulated Monday, so technically the vote could still flip in the district’s favor. A countywide canvass of votes is scheduled for Dec. 5 at noon in Fillmore.
The school district held multiple public meetings, mailed out an information pamphlet to voters and highlighted the zero impact to property taxes the general obligation bond option offered—existing revenue combined with retiring existing bonds is how district officials expected to keep property tax impacts to zero.
Superintendent David Styler said Monday he expected there still to be no direct impact on property taxes from the lease revenue bond option, either, though the additional $4.5 million that could’ve been saved for future projects now disappears.
“We’re grateful to those who supported it,” he said. “We saw no reason to not support it. When you know the facts, that ultimately it was just to save $4.5 million in interest. That either way the projects were going to move forward. And either way there was going to be no (property tax) impact on our folks. You would think that would be something they would understand. But, for whatever reason, they didn’t.”
Voter confusion, protest or some combination of the two might explain the bond election’s outcome.
For example, the district by state statute was forced to include language on the voter information pamphlet it distributed ahead of the election that describes the typical property tax impact from issuing $47.5 million in general obligation bonds. The language spells out for voters that regardless of the district’s financial position, such a bond issuance would normally cost average homeowners an additional $117 a year on a $300,000 home or roughly $212 annually on a similarly valued business property.
Though that formulation is required by law, that doesn’t mean taxpayers would see any such rise in their property taxes—a message the district repeated often during its information campaign. On the same election pamphlet, in fact, it was written in bold letters and underlined: “The District will not be raising taxes to pay for this project.”
Tax fatigue in general might also explain the election result.
Property taxpayers in Millard County have seen wild increases in their annual bills year over year for a few years now, the sharp increases due in part to rising property values as well as depreciation on industrial assets, such as represented by Intermountain Power Project, the county’s largest individual taxpayer. As the area sees new growth, particularly when IPP Renewed is complete, property tax rates should stabilize considerably—another reason district officials were certain of their pre-election, zero tax impact claim.
“I think it was just hard for people to understand when it says your taxes may be impacted by this much. I just think in light of the (property tax) increases this year, and just the uncertainty, people weren’t willing to take a risk that their taxes would go up that much. Which is what the language implied. I understand their caution,” Styler said.
School Board member Adam Britt agreed with Styler’s assessment. He said he was approached by multiple voters, with many confusing the issue to such an extent some people thought a “no” vote meant the building projects wouldn’t be started at all. He also heard questions regarding tax impacts.
“I just feel like it was a lot of misunderstanding out there,” he said.
