Just questions are harmless

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

Thomas told us he and some other lawmakers are frustrated at what he called the school district's "constitutional end run" around the debt limit on capital expenditures of 8 percent of the district's total assessed property value. That "end run" is considered by its supporters, including this editorial page, to be a creative financing plan that has allowed school officials to build about two-decades worth of new or renovated schools in about a five-year period. It uses a nonprofit company called Building Equity Sooner for Tomorrow to enable the district to sell more bonds more quickly to take care of critical building needs.

Efforts to eliminate the practice — pioneered in Greenville — have failed. Thomas said smaller counties are seeking to copy what's been done in Greenville and therefore he can't get support for statewide legislation.

At issue for Thomas, and surely other opponents of this practice, is the fear that school taxes will skyrocket after each five-year reassessment because school and BEST officials have counted on tax revenue windfalls to pay for the schools. (Homeowners can check their new property values by going to greenvillecounty.org and click on Real Estate.) Also, Thomas told us he has heard that in a year or two, school officials are considering expanding the building program in place.

The price tag for the school district's building program has grown over the past five years — from about $750 million for new and renovated schools to about $968 million. The higher price tag has been attributed to the extraordinary inflation for materials and to management decisions to change the scope of some of the work. The building plan has been presented as requiring "no tax increase."

School and BEST officials are expected to appear before the Greenville County legislative delegation Wednesday at a meeting in Columbia. Thomas said he wants straightforward answers to two questions: (1) Does the building plan count on tax increases through the next three or four reassessments? Such tax increases would come if the millage rate stayed the same on property that increases in value every five years. (2) Is there a plan to expand this building plan in a few years?

In the interest of open government, Thomas has a right to ask these questions and expect candid answers. It's the understanding of many people that this building plan was designed to take care of most school construction needs for two decades. And it's also the understanding that while growth in a county enhances its bottom line, the financing plan for these new schools doesn't require significant tax increases over the life of these bonds.

But in the interest of fair play and in deference to the school district's credit rating, Thomas should not burden Greenville County Schools with special legislation that ties its hands when it comes to construction needs.