Bond counsel lays out three levy‑transfer and bond‑timing options as Missouri bill could restrict election timing

Brent Blevins of Piper Sandler told the Francis Howell R‑III board at its May 7 work session that the district can move a portion of its debt‑service levy into the operating levy via referendum and still pursue ‘no tax rate increase’ bond issues, but timing and amounts depend on pending state legislation.

Blevins said the district’s debt‑service levy has held near $0.67 per $100 assessed valuation for many years and that the board could run an April 2027 no‑tax‑rate general‑obligation bond issue of about $162 million combined with a roughly 12.5¢ levy transfer to operating. “That transferred April 2027…would generate about $5,500,000 in your operating budget,” Blevins said, adding that the additional operating revenue would not appear until the FY28 tax cycle after the September tax‑rate hearing.

Why it matters: moving levy authority from debt service to operating increases near‑term operating revenue but reduces the pool available for facilities and bonds. Blevins emphasized the tradeoffs and the district’s need to balance immediate operating needs against long‑term facility funding and market access for future bond issues.

Blevins presented three scenarios:

- Option 1 (no legislative change): April 2027 no‑tax‑rate bond for about $162 million with a 12.5¢ levy transfer that would preserve the district’s ability to run future no‑tax‑rate referenda on a roughly five‑to‑seven‑year cadence; the operating revenue from the transfer would first be collected in FY28.

- Option 2 (if restrictive legislation takes effect): call a November 2026 no‑tax‑rate bond (about $160 million) and a 12¢ levy transfer; the transfer likewise would be realized in FY28 and would comply with even‑year November windows if enacted.

- Option 3 (delayed or split elections): a November 2028 bond or a combination of an August levy transfer and later bond, with the tradeoff of earlier operating revenue versus voter fatigue and higher construction inflation.

Blevins warned that a proposed state law (referred to in the discussion as SB1002) aimed at Saint Charles County could require general‑obligation bond and levy measures to appear only in even‑year November elections; that restriction would compress the district’s timing options and could force earlier or more frequent ballots in short succession. “That makes it very tough on us,” Blevins said of the possible change.

He also reviewed legal and market constraints: Missouri ballot language for levy transfers and bonds must use statutory phrasing that only permits estimating that the overall levy is ‘estimated to remain unchanged’ (the district cannot legally guarantee a levy will never rise). Blevins noted the district’s constitutional bonding capacity is substantially larger than the proposed issuance — roughly $400 million — and that the district’s current debt levels are low relative to capacity.

Board members pressed Blevins on assessed‑value assumptions, timing, and the effect of other pending bills (including a possible property‑tax cap referred to in the meeting as SB3). Blevins said the board should have clearer legislative outcomes by the end of the week and that the May 21 board meeting would be the next chance to act; some election deadlines (for an August ballot) would require action by May 26.

What’s next: administration and counsel will provide updated recommendations at the May 21 meeting after the legislature’s near‑term action. The board did not take a final vote on any bond or ballot language at the May 7 session.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions are drawn from the May 7 Francis Howell R‑III work session transcript.)