Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee recommends converting expiring levies to permanent capital levy; board to decide whether to put measure on ballot
Summary
A finance committee recommended placing a ballot measure to convert expiring Prop A and debt service levies into a permanent levy dedicated to recurring capital needs; the committee advised restrictions on eligible uses and outlined timelines for ballot placement.
Members of the Mehlville R-IX finance committee on April 10 recommended placing a measure on the ballot to convert two expiring levies'1 Prop A (temporary capital levy) and a debt service levy'1 into a permanent operating levy restricted to recurring capital needs.
The committee estimated the two levies combine to about 5.66 cents, producing roughly $1.4 million annually. Committee chair Mark Hinson said the district's predictable annual capital needs (roof replacement, transportation vehicles, parking lot maintenance and technology) total about 9.22 cents, roughly $2.3 million, based on district history and recurring maintenance needs.
Hinson told the board the committee's unanimous recommendation is a voter-approved conversion to a dedicated capital levy that would require only a simple majority to pass and would not raise the overall tax rate because the levies already exist. The committee recommended explicitly restricting the new permanent levy to certain uses (the four primary categories the committee reviewed plus building security) to reassure voters that funds will not be diverted to operations.
District CFO Marshall Crutcher and committee members presented six financing options the committee had reviewed, noting the levy conversion would reduce reliance on debt financing and aim to prevent the recurring "catch-up" cycles that have driven large past expenditures. The committee also acknowledged the main downside: once converted, the district would forgo the opportunity to sunset the levies and reduce the tax rate by about 5.66 cents.
Board members asked timing questions. The discussion identified that placing the measure on the ballot in November 2025 or April 2026 would meet timing needs to avoid a lapse; an August special election was also discussed as a possible option for scheduling.
Ending: The finance committee presentation was informational; no board vote occurred April 10. The matter was scheduled to return to the board for a decision about placing the measure on a future ballot.
