KIRKWOOD, Mo. — District staff presented recommended property tax rate ceilings and revenue projections at a tax-rate hearing called at the beginning of the Kirkwood R‑VII Board of Education meeting, outlining the results of the district's recent reassessment and a state-auditor-guided recoupment calculation.

The presentation, delivered by Mr. Cook, district staff member, summarized final assessed valuations, a recoupment estimate of roughly $1.3 million and recommended tax-rate ceilings issued by the State Auditor's Office. "55.81% of personal property or of property taxes is coming back to the school district," Mr. Cook said, noting the district remains heavily dependent on local revenue.

The issue in brief: statewide limits under the Hancock Amendment and a 2.9% Consumer Price Index (CPI) cap govern how much districts may increase revenue from existing levies. The district reported a large reassessment year — which Mr. Cook said resulted in a roughly 15.46% increase in assessed valuation from the prior year — and said that combination (high reassessment, low CPI) drives the recommended levy rollbacks.

Why it matters: Kirkwood schools receive the majority of local property tax dollars the district collects and rely on that local revenue to fund operations. Mr. Cook told the board that the district budgets for fiscal 2025–26 on roughly $74 million in local tax revenue and that, based on the state-provided rates and a 97% assumed collection rate, the district would see about $75,751,035 — a roughly $1.5 million variance above the budgeted amount.

Key figures and board discussion

- Final residential assessed value (AV) was cited as $1,794,382,860; Mr. Cook said residential AV declined by about $19,400,000 from the early estimate.

- The presenter reported commercial AV fell by about $30,900,000 and personal property rose by about $4,800,000. He described the overall reassessment increase as 15.46% year over year.

- Recoupment: Mr. Cook said the district can reclaim a little over $1.3 million through recoupment tied to property tax appeals dating to prior years; the district received $924,000 in recoupment in 2024. He described a recommended recoupment rate (included in the evening's recommended tax rates) of 0.3337.

- Recommended ceilings from the State Auditor's Office presented by Mr. Cook included a blended tax-rate ceiling of about 3.255 and a debt-service levy remaining at $0.27. Mr. Cook said the bottom-line recommended residential rate would still represent a net reduction versus 2024, even after including recoupment.

- Fund balance: Mr. Cook said the district finished the prior year with roughly $41.4 million and that, under conservative assumptions, the district will add roughly $300,000 to fund balance this year (noted as a conservative estimate that compounds over time). He said that projection would push the fund balance toward about $46.1 million in later years under the scenario shown.

Board members cautioned against reading the extra revenue as unrestricted. "Although we have increases, we also have to keep in mind that we have, you know, at times significant unfunded mandates," said Miss Andrews, school board member, who asked whether recoupment claims dated back to 02/2019. Mr. Cook confirmed the recoupment calculation included appeals dating to February 2019 and said many of those earlier filings were commercial appeals.

Miss Andrews and other board members also noted the district's aging buildings and the potential for unexpected deferred-maintenance costs that could absorb some of the additional revenue. "We wouldn't wanna leave the impression that we're flush with cash," Mr. Cook said when asked about balancing new revenue with anticipated costs.

Process notes and next steps

At the outset of the meeting the board noted that a public hearing on the proposed property tax rates will be held before the regular Board of Education meeting scheduled for Sept. 22, 2025; the meeting notice listed a Manchester Road location. Mr. Cook said the board was being asked to approve the levies at the tax‑rate ceiling recommended by the State Auditor's Office along with the one‑time recoupment rates for residential and commercial property.

No formal vote on the rates appears in the transcript segment provided; the session proceeded to board questions and comments following the presentation. Board members asked staff to continue monitoring state deliberations about property-tax reform and the state funding formula, and Mr. Cook and board members said they would follow developments at the state level.