Monticello school board holds Truth in Taxation hearing; final levy vote set for Dec. 15

Monticello Public School District officials reviewed the district's budget and led a Truth in Taxation hearing on Dec. 1, outlining how a recently approved operating referendum and state funding formulas affect property-tax levies and individual tax bills. No levy action was taken; the board scheduled final approval for Dec. 15.

Director of business services Tina Burkholder said the levy approved in December is collected the following year and funds the 2026-27 school year. "The levy that's approved in December, that gets collected in the following year, 2026, and that goes towards our budget in the 2627 school year, so a year delayed," she said during the presentation.

Burkholder said the district's general fund is the main operating fund, comprising roughly 83% of the budget, and that state aid—not local property tax—is the largest revenue source for the district this year. She told the board the successful operating referendum contributed a roughly $3,000,000 increase to the general-operating levy components and that voter-approved referendum revenue rose about $3,400,000 compared with the prior year; she noted those increases interact with equity revenue and enrollment to determine net impacts.

At public comment, resident Lisa Latello asked whether the levy applies only to 2026 and why the district appeared to have ‘‘doubled’’ its existing levy. "How are you gonna determine the benefit to your students with this increased levy?" Latello asked, requesting metrics the district would use to measure educational impact.

Budget-committee member Mark Branson, who helped shape the district's proposal, said trustees returned the question to voters rather than automatically renewing an expiring levy. "We put this into the voters' hands rather than taking control of it as a board," he said, adding that without additional revenue the district would have faced deep cuts and that payroll and benefits account for the bulk of spending.

A public commenter who did not give a name challenged the ballot language and described the omission of certain details as misleading. "The fact that it wasn't written on the ballot itself is obviously deceitful to the voters," the speaker said; Burkholder and other staff clarified what was submitted to the county and how the county's September report led to the proposed-tax statements mailed in November.

Burkholder emphasized that individual tax bills depend on multiple variables—market value, property classification and levies set by city, county and school—and walked through example calculations and historical levy trends prepared with advisers Ehlers and PTMA Financial Solutions.

The board took no vote tonight on the levy and will consider final levy adoption at its Dec. 15 meeting. The hearing included a public-comment period limited to questions about taxation and levy matters, and staff invited further questions for the Dec. 15 packet.