Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Taxes Debt Service topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Camdenton R-III narrows options on debt levy; board sets FY27 tax rate after 3¢ debt-service debate

CAMDENTON R-III Board of Education · August 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a required tax-rate hearing, financial adviser Becky Brook told the board a 3¢ increase to debt service (to 34¢) would keep reserves positive under conservative growth forecasts; the board set the FY2026–27 levy and adjourned the hearing.

The Camdenton R-III Board of Education held its annual tax-rate hearing and, after extended discussion, set the overall levy for fiscal 2026–27. Becky Brook of Stifel briefed the board on the district’s outstanding general-obligation bonds and presented two reserve forecasts showing that a 3¢ increase to the debt-service levy would prevent a future legally constrained shortfall.

"So with a 3¢ increase on debt service, even if assessed valuation growth were to come in at 1% under our forecast, you would still stay above 0 in that reserve," Becky Brook said, stressing the recommended change was a modest step to preserve long-term flexibility. Board finance lead (speaker 3) echoed the fiscal concern: "Debt spending by over $1,000,000 in any fund is not ideal," he said, noting the district ran roughly $900,000 in debt-service shortfalls last year.

Brook explained that the state calculator produces a legal levy ceiling of about 49.79¢ but that the district need not and would not set the rate at the ceiling. The Stifel analysis showed the existing 31¢ debt-service allocation would draw reserves toward zero by the 2030s under slower growth scenarios, while a 34¢ levy would support the district’s payments without triggering a forced increase later.

After questions about refinancing history, reserve levels and communication to taxpayers, the clerk moved to set the tax levy as presented for FY2026–27 (DESE form figures were read into the record). The motion was seconded and approved. The board adjourned the tax-rate hearing and proceeded to the regular meeting.

The board’s action sets the administrative next steps: revision of state forms and public materials explaining the levy, and additional outreach before any tabling of future ballot measures.