Troy City Schools: District voters to consider levy renewal this May

District officials said rejection of the renewal would not lower tax burden for homeowners, but district would lose tax proceeds from business real estate.
Troy City Schools is seeking renewal of a 5.8-mills, five-year tax levy. Voters first approved the levy in 1996. BRYANT BILLING / STAFF

Credit: Bryant Billing

Credit: Bryant Billing

Troy City Schools is seeking renewal of a 5.8-mills, five-year tax levy. Voters first approved the levy in 1996. BRYANT BILLING / STAFF

Voters in the Troy City Schools district will be asked in the May 5 election to approve the renewal of a 5.8-mills, five-year operating levy.

The tax generates around $4.6 million annually, and costs around $111 for each $100,000 of the county auditor’s market value, according to officials.

Voters first approved the levy in 1996 and it has been renewed every five years since then.

Funds generated from this levy cover general fund expenses, like salaries, benefits, purchased services for special education, supplies, and equipment, according to Superintendent Chris Piper.

“This levy helps us continue with our normal operations within the district; it’s part of our general fund and helps cover costs associated with educating our children,” he said. “We have a lot of great things happening here in Troy, in terms of student growth, learning, and new building projects, and this levy allows us to continue that great work while providing the programs and opportunities our kids deserve.”

Along with the 5.8-mills levy that’s up for renewal this year, district voters approved the renewal of a separate 5.9-mills operating levy in May 2025. The district also has a 1.1-mills permanent improvement levy in effect, along with multiple temporary bond issues, including a 4.66-mills bond issue for 37 years and an accompanying 2.3-mills tax levy for 24 years to construct new school buildings, update the high school HVAC system and provide for future maintenance of the new buildings.

Piper noted that the rejection of the 5.8-mills levy renewal would not lower the tax burden for district homeowners, but the district would lose tax proceeds from business real estate since they are calculated at a different rate, he said.

“If this levy were to fail, we would lose some of that additional revenue, only from businesses, and the people would still be paying the same amount,” Piper said.

About the Author