Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Levy Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Grove R-VI board approves ballot language for Aug. 5 levy-transfer question
Summary
The Oak Grove R-VI Board approved ballot wording for an Aug. 5 question to transfer levy authority from debt service to operations, selecting option 2 with a request to remove the words “estimated” and “expects” if allowed by election officials.
Get email alerts on the Tax Levy Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oak Grove R-VI Board approved ballot language on a levy-transfer question to appear on the Aug. 5 ballot, choosing the phrasing labeled Option 2 with a request that election counsel remove the words “estimated” and “expects” if permitted.
Board members discussed three draft endings for the ballot statement during the meeting. District staff said the question would transfer 70 cents from debt service to operations and would not increase the district’s overall tax levy as presented on the ballot. Board members expressed concern that certain wording — especially the word “estimated” — could confuse voters in a reassessment year when property assessments change.
District staff explained that the August ballot question is decided before the district formally sets its tax levy in September, so the levy shown on the ballot is necessarily an estimate. Board members asked staff to ask election counsel whether the ballot language could omit “estimated” and “expects” and instead state that approval would “result in no increase to the estimated overall tax levy” (Option 2 as revised).
A motion to approve Option 2 with the request to remove “estimated” and “expects” if possible was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The board asked staff to return a final drafted version if the elections office allows the requested edits; if not, the board said it will proceed with the language as filed.
The discussion included repeated emphasis from board members that ballot wording should be clear to voters and not imply guarantees about individual property tax bills in reassessment years. Staff reiterated that voter approval of the transfer would constrain the district’s later levy-setting to match the voter-approved transfer when the levy is adopted.
Board members moved on to other agenda items after the voice approval; staff said they would follow up with election counsel.

