The Chillicothe R-2 board has unanimously approved an increase in the district’s tax levy which will add approximately $763,984.66 more to its budget (based on a 94 percent tax collection rate).
The action occurred during a tax rate hearing prior to the regular August R-2 meeting at district headquarters. There was no opposition to the levy increase.
Superintendent Dr. Linda Gray Smith told board members the tax levy increase (from 3.7469 to 4.1830) is necessary for two reasons: Higher operating costs associated with personnel, fuel and utility costs, and new state legislation which stipulates that districts must adjust their levy ceiling to the amount actually levied.
“If we don’t take advantage of it (the tax rate ceiling) we won’t be able to next year,” Smith said, explaining that the new law goes into effect beginning with the 2009 reassessment year.
The district’s tax rate ceiling of 4.1830 per $100 assessed valuation received voter approval in 1998. However, since then, the district has utilized a voluntary rollback (not taxing up to the set tax ceiling) because previous school boards decided the district didn’t necessarily need those funds.
Specifically, the approved tax rate will be divided into the following R-2 funds: $3.5630, incidental; $0.5000, debt service; $0.1200, capital projects.
Also during the meeting board members heard a presentation by Dwight Dickinson of Dickinson Hussman Architects, who outlined the process of creating a long-range facility plan for the school district.
The cost of contracting with the St. Louis-based architectural firm would be $35,000 ($5,000 for every R-2 building assessed). That money, Dickinson said, would be rolled into the first construction project done as part of the district’s long-range plan and could possibly be paid over two fiscal years.
Dickinson said the process of assessing every student population center in the district would include two phases. Phase I includes a complete assessment of each building — including an on-site inspection and input from faculty and staff members. The second phase, Dickinson said, is an analysis and decision-making phase, performed by a large community contingent, which will then present its recommendations to the board.
“That’s when you consider the best options for addressing the district’s current and future facility needs,” Dickinson said.
He added that all facility improvement decisions are driven by curriculum needs, with improved student achievement being the primary goal. From there, Dickinson said, the district must marry the cost of improvements with financial res.
