R-III Board Sets Tax Rate

By: Tim Schmidt
Posted 11/7/19

Despite concerns about raising taxes during the current economic downturn, the Warren County R-III School Board voted Tuesday night to raise its property tax rate nearly 9 cents. The board voted 4-3 …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

R-III Board Sets Tax Rate

Posted

Despite concerns about raising taxes during the current economic downturn, the Warren County R-III School Board voted Tuesday night to raise its property tax rate nearly 9 cents. The board voted 4-3 to set the 2009 tax levy at $3.9709 per $100 of assessed valuation. The 2008 tax rate was $3.8824. The district will levy $3.35 for operations, which includes the general fund, teachers fund and capital projects fund. Last year operations levy was set at $3.2635. The breakdown by fund is as follows: $3.2706 for the operations fund, 61.89 cents for the debt service fund and 8.14 cents for capital improvements. The teacher fund levy is 0. Pam Frazier, chief financial officer, noted that the district could have increased the debt service levy by 30 cents, but the district has always elected to roll back the rate. The new tax rate is expected to generate $10,419,849 in property tax revenue, including a portion of the district in Lincoln County. Frazier said an owner of a $150,000 house will pay an additional $26 due to the tax increase. Board members Dale Schowe, Carmen Schulze, David Housewright and Bill Hawley voted for the tax levy increase. Teresa Scott, Jan Sutherland and Beth Banze voted no. The motion was made by Schulze; seconded by Housewright. Board members expressed concern about raising the tax rate at the same time as other governmental bodies, such as the city of Warrenton and the Warrenton Fire Protection District. "Twenty-six dollars is a tank of gas or food for the week," Banze said. "It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but if you're unemployed, that is a lot of money." Superintendent Dr. John Long indicated if revenues continued to drop without an increase in the levy, the school board would be faced with a decision to either cut staff or programs midway through the school year. Hawley said he didn't want to be in the position six months down the road wishing he had voted for the tax hike. "It seems like our revenue is going to drop if the economy doesn't turn around," Hawley said. Responding to a comment made from someone in the audience about wanting to see the tax levy kept at the current rate, Schowe responded, "I understand that we're in a downturn in the economy. A lot of people don't understand, when we could have taken more money for three or four years, we rolled it back to help the people. Sometimes that goes unnoticed to." Schulze noted that the school board has rolled back the tax rate when allowed, noting it occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Scott said she was not comfortable with the 9-cent increase and suggested the board look at splitting the difference. "It's going to impact a homeowner," she said. Frazier said every cent figured into the tax levy is worth about $26,000. The district has a little over $4 million in reserves, she added, to cover a decrease in revenue. However, Frazier noted it costs around $1.5 million for the monthly payroll and an additional $300,000-$600,000 for other expenses such as bills and utilities. In addition, health and dental insurance rates are expected to increase, while expenses for special needs students also is unknown at this time, she added.' She noted other neighboring school districts also were raising their tax rates. Before the tax levy was approved, a few senior citizens voiced their concerns about the hike during the public hearing. "We are on fixed income and we constantly have to adjust our budgets to make things meet here," Frank Loeschner said. "Seems like nobody else can adjust their budgets." The district projects a loss of $45,332 in revenue from reassessment. New revenue from construction and improvements is estimated at $154,612. The total assessed valuation for 2009 is projected at $262,405,204, down $3,166,784 from a year ago. Personal property assessed valuations suffered a drop of $6,282,535 from 2008 to 2009. Real estate valuations increased $3,115751. Each tax rate is determined by dividing the amount of revenue needed by the current assessed valuation. The result is multiplied by 100 so the tax rate will be expressed in cents per $100 valuation.


X