FREDERICKTOWN — Fredericktown’s board of education rejected a downtown redevelopment proposal during a special meeting Tuesday.
Board member Patty Miller moved to approve the proposal, but no one seconded the motion. Without a second, the measure failed.
The proposal, which would have designated downtown Fredericktown as a Downtown Redevelopment District, or DRD, is an economic development mechanism in Ohio that allows the increase in assessed value of real property improvements to parcels within a DRD to be exempted.
The amounts exempted are paid as service payments in lieu of taxes to the village and school district in which the redevelopment district is located in the amount of the taxes that would have been payable to the school district if the improvements had not been exempted from taxation. Those payments are then used to fund redevelopment.
Up to a 70% increase in assessed value of the property within the DRD for up to 10 years can be exempted, but the exemption can extend out to 30 years with the consent of the school district.
The proposal was a key topic of discussion during the regular board meeting earlier in August, and was tabled until Tuesday after a 45-minute discussion between village council and school board members.
In the regular August board meeting, village council members had argued improvement of Fredericktown’s downtown would lead to community growth and, as a result, school growth.
There was no discussion before nor after the vote Tuesday, but board members provided Knox Pages with written statements explaining their decisions to reject the proposal following the meeting.
Board members’ main reasons for rejecting the proposal included an objection to diverting any school funds away from schools, a lack of confidence the project would return dividends for the school, and the unpredictability of future financial needs within the district.
More specifically, board president Todd McClay wrote the reason he became a board member was to ensure fiscal responsibility of tax dollars.
“This decision has been one of the toughest I have made in my six years on the Fredericktown school board,” McClay’s statement reads. “After talking to many stakeholders in the community, I had to go back to one of my original Whys of becoming a school board member. That reason was based on fiscal accountability to the taxpaying citizens of this district regarding school funding.
“My decision is focused on protecting funds currently directed for school purposes to stay in the school district to exclusively benefit our children.”
Board member Candi Gallagher also stressed fiscal responsibility in her statement.
“After much consideration and soul searching as a Board Member, I cannot support voting to participate in a DRD commitment of 30 years, or any number of years for that matter,” part of her statement reads.
“When I chose to run for Fredericktown Board of Education 6 years ago one of the tenants I ran on was fiscal responsibility of tax dollars earmarked for the school. I cannot in good conscience support any tax dollars that could benefit students or the school going towards anything other than the school.”
Gallagher recommended Fredericktown Village Council explore other ways to revitalize downtown, such as through grants.
Board member Charles Streby wrote in a statement he was not convinced the project would return dividends for the school.
“I continue to hear from the public that families move into the Fredericktown Local School district for the schools, not the downtown area. Thus, another reason I feel we should never divert funds from the district,” part of Streby’s statement reads.
Streby emphasized fiscal responsibility, as several other board members had, but also mentioned concerns about the future finances of the district.
“While the school district is fiscally sound right now, my concern is for the future,” Streby wrote. “Financial forecasts may dictate that additional revenues, via levies, could be necessary to maintain the quality of Education that Fredericktown demands.
“How would future school boards feel about asking the taxpayers for additional funds knowing that the village is collecting tax dollars that could be going to schools?”
Board vice president Jim Blanchard addressed several concerns in his statement, including who would benefit from the project.
“The building owners are to benefit the most,” Blanchard wrote. “The business owners are the ones that put the blood, sweat, tears and often the equity into trying to make a business run, not the property management.
“If the program only included currently owner-occupied businesses, that might be a different matter. Long-term, the landlords benefit twice. They get upgraded at taxpayer expense, and then rents will be higher in a more attractive building.”
Blanchard, similar to others, took issue with tax dollars meant for schools being used elsewhere.
“While I can fully agree that we are ALL the Fredericktown community and we would ALL benefit from an attractive and vibrant Main Street, I cannot with a clear conscience support the DRD proposal to the Fredericktown LSD,” he wrote.
“As a taxpayer, as well as a duly elected official to the Fredericktown Local Schools, I can’t support tax dollars being funneled to private property ownership. Maybe I have backwards thinking, but I feel that if you own a property, you should properly maintain it and make it attractive to the community, just like most of us do in our own homes.”
Council members Rick Lanuzza and Ryan Shoemaker told Knox Pages after the vote they were disappointed with the school board’s rejection of the proposal, but council will continue to work with the Knox County Area Development Foundation — the organization that originally brought the proposal to the school board — on ways to revitalize downtown.
“I wish the vote would have gone a different way, but the school board needs to vote how they think their constituents would want them to vote,” Lanuzza wrote.
“From numbers shared with us, less than one percent of their budget would have been affected, but I would guess that could have been overcome by the amount of new taxes generated by people wanting to move into an area with a vibrant downtown.”
In the regular August board meeting, Shoemaker had emphasized the proposal would have had a 1% impact on the total school budget. Shoemaker pointed to the low percentage and the potential for a large payoff through the proposal following the vote.
“I believe this to be a minimal investment that could pay dividends in new tax revenue created by people wanting to move into a school district with an attractive downtown,” Shoemaker wrote.
“Although the school board’s decision not to vote on the proposal is not the outcome we were hoping for, the village council will continue to work with the ADF on strategies to help our downtown businesses.”
