No shortfall with impact fees
Editor, The Sun:
Reference the article on 25 January (“Rental controversy: The school board approves, 3-2, raising cost of renting school facilities,” front page):
Mr. Josh Brown (School Board member) and I have shared a few vigorous discussions regarding the role of the school board and who is the property taxpayer advocate. I’ve long advocated a school board composition that represents the best interests of the taxpayer because a majority of our property tax bill goes to the schools.
Every new candidate for the school board whines and squeals as to what the children need. Mostly, it’s not what the students desire but rather a utopic shopping list desired by the candidates. But, I digress.
The school board got it right on the rental issue. The school board’s job is to maximize the assets to instruct and provide education for the students. As a taxpayer, I want my property taxes utilized fully for those two purposes. In Florida, we have had vigorous debates regarding what should be taught to students up to the 3rd grade and this is good. The school board is held accountable, by the taxpayer, to be good stewards of public funds designated for education. Yes, sports is part of the education national process. However, sports is not to be a revenue-stream for ancillary groups or activities not directly associated with the curriculum.
If the community-at-large desires another recreational field, such as the one in Medart, then that is the responsibility of the vaunted Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), not the school board. The precedent has been established, by the BOCC, to develop and operate venues for recreational purposes. It is not the responsibility of my school district tax dollars to subsidize or support an external group of sports enthusiasts, regardless of their tax status or good intentions.
If a business model cannot be sustained without support or subsidies of tax dollars, I would strongly recommend you revisit your business model.
Robert Franco
Ochlockonee Bay
