The board room inside the district’s offices in American Fork were filled full of citizens who wanted to learn how the proposed tax hike would impact their families and to weigh in on the increase. Many of those in attendance were opposed to the idea of forking over more money in property taxes.

The approval means a net increase of one tax increment, which according to Alpine School District Business Administrator Jason Sundberg is approximately a 1.76% increase over the certified tax rate — though for Utah County residents, their property tax notice likely will show an increase of 11.57%.

Sundberg explained during a presentation at the truth-in-taxation meeting that the increase is being offset by a decrease in the district’s debt service levy, a reduction of three increments, which the tax notices that residents receive won’t reflect.

“So for one increment, it’s a $28.60-per-year (increase), or $2.38 per month, for each one increment change up or down,” Sundberg said during his presentation.

The hike is the net impact on owners of a home at the median value of $520,000 within the district.

Board members noted that that property tax increase is expected to yield an estimated $23 million, which they say are needed funds to help prepare for the upcoming division of the present Alpine School District.

Financial frustration

Tense comments followed Sundberg’s presentation, as dozens spoke before the board to voice their concerns about the financial implications of another property tax increase.

Brent Gray, a Vineyard resident who has full-spectrum autism, criticized the board for proposing the added financial burden on residents, including those with disabilities, while questioning its fiscal responsibility.

“Why are you forcing any tax increase on us when Alpine is splitting in less than two years?” the resident asked via Zoom. “Is it your intent to help all of us pay for these new schools before the split?”

Resident Jeremy Goff vehemently opposed the increase while sharing a personal account about the financial struggles his family endures due to rising taxes.

“Do you know how many people are on fixed incomes?” he asked the board. “Just last night, I was sitting with my mom and some of their neighbors, and they were talking about how they’re struggling to try to figure out how to pay for this.”

Goff also went on to question the board’s transparency about proposed tax increases.

“You raise taxes every year with a brand-new excuse every single year, and then you gaslight us and say it’s going down. … Come on, have some honor and respect,” he said.

Despite the barrage of citizens who balked at the tax increase, some spoke in favor of it, arguing that the funds raised will be essential as new districts become operational in 2027.

Leah Collins, an Orem resident, spoke in support of the tax increase, citing the need for more investment in public education.

“Even if the increase doesn’t pass, I guess I could just tax myself and give my money to my school, but those are only going to go into programs I care about, and that’s not fair to other people,” she commented virtually.

Pleasant Grove Mayor Guy Fugal noted the financial impacts that three new districts will bring with them. A supporter of the increase, he believes the additional funds will be crucial down the road.

“Nobody likes a tax increase. But you know, you’re going to help us immensely in the new districts to lessen the impact that we’ll have on future tax increases, and we’ll continue to have them,” he said before the board. “I know people in this room don’t want to hear that. I don’t want to hear that, but it’s what (we’ve) been dealt with.”

School board officials weigh in

Ultimately, the board voted 5-2 in favor of the increase, with members Emily Peterson and Sarah Beeson dissenting.

Before the final vote, board Vice President Stacy Bateman said she supported the increase in revenue because she believes it will help new school districts that were recently created.

“We have the opportunity now to do something that gives each new school board a strong starting position, instead of them needing to raise taxes sharply in two years,” she said.

Beeson said she was not in support of the split but also emphasized her desire to respect the outcome of last November’s vote. While she said she wants to see the new districts set up for success ahead of the 2027-28 school year, she added that she didn’t feel imposing increased financial stress on residents at this time is the solution.

“I believe that we can prepare for this transition responsibly by living within our current means. I think we can avoid a decision that’s going to lock cities into tax increases, especially before new districts are formally created and respecting the will of the voters,” she commented virtually. “Even though I didn’t agree with them, I think I need to respect the fact that they voted for what they voted for, and so we need to allow these future districts to decide what’s best for their own communities and for their own future.”

A full explanation of Alpine School District’s latest property tax increase can be found at www.alpineschools.org/page/tnt.

Elsewhere in Utah County, the Provo City School District is also proposing a property tax increase in an effort to generate $4 million that will reportedly go toward salary increases for teachers and staff.

“The tax increase is going entirely to fund teacher and employee salary so that we can stay competitive,” said Wendy Dau, superintendent for the Provo City School District, in a blog post Monday. “We’ve done a really concerted effort to try to close the salary gap between us and surrounding districts and have been able to pretty much get really close to doing so with our efforts.”

The Provo City School District Board of Education will hold its truth-in-taxation hearing at 7 p.m. Aug. 12 at the board offices located at 280 W. 940 North in Provo.