Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kirksville council adopts 2025 city property tax levy; rate falls as reassessment raises property values
Summary
The Kirksville City Council approved a 2025 levy of $0.6692 per $100 assessed valuation, a reduction from $0.6902, after the county reassessment increased aggregate values; council members and staff said most homeowners should see little change, though individual bills may vary.
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Kirksville City Council on first and second readings approved an ordinance setting the citys 2025 property tax levy at $0.6692 per $100 of assessed valuation, down from $0.6902 last year. The council voted to adopt the levy after a required public hearing and staff presentation explaining the state-mandated reassessment process. The reduction in the rate reflects a county assessors reassessment that raised the citys aggregate assessed valuation by $50,076,894, about 6.9 percent, city Finance Director Lacey King said. Because state rules cap the amount a municipality may collect to the prior years revenue plus new construction or the specified growth limits, the city adjusted its rate downward to avoid increasing tax collections. King said the city applied a 2.9 percent factor in its calculations. Using an example provided by staff, a home assessed at roughly $250,000 would have owed about $327 in city taxes last year and about $318 at the new rate. King also told the public the cost to publish the required newspaper notice was $96. During council discussion, members emphasized that an individuals bill may still rise or fall depending on changes to that taxpayers property (for example, new construction, improvements or changes in vehicle ownership). One councilor noted the city could not know every individual outcome and reiterated that the rate change is intended to normalize city tax receipts in light of reassessment. The ordinance (bill 2025-43) passed first reading with Council Member Gardner moving and Council Member Steele seconding; on second reading the motion was moved by Council Member Steele and seconded by Council Member Bansal. The ordinance passed on roll-call voice votes.

