Lebanon R-3 Board Votes 4-3 to Roll Back Tax Levy After Divided Study Session

Lebanon R-3 Board Votes 4-3 to Roll Back Tax Levy After Divided Study Session

The Lebanon R-3 Board of Education voted 4-3 Wednesday night to reduce the district’s total property tax levy, rejecting the administration’s recommendation to maintain the current $4.4650 rate and instead setting the 2026 levy at $4.3523 per $100 of assessed valuation.

The decision came after nearly an entire study session focused on the tax rate, including 19 public comment cards, a financial presentation from district administration and a sharply divided discussion among board members.

The first motion before the board would have accepted the administration’s recommendation and maintained the total levy at $4.4650. That motion failed 3-4.

A second motion was then made to set the operating levy at $3.4987 and reduce the debt service levy to $0.8536, producing the new total rate of $4.3523.

That motion passed 4-3.

The vote means Lebanon R-3 taxpayers will see a lower school district tax rate for 2026 than they did in 2025.

How the Board Voted

The board first voted on a motion to maintain the current total levy of $4.4650. That motion failed 3-4.

Voting YES to maintain the levy:Jina RichardsonNicole WaltersAmy Waterman

Voting NO:Mary RussellKrissy JacksonLauren JacksonCraig Blair

The board then voted on a motion to voluntarily reduce the total levy to $4.3523. That motion passed 4-3.

Voting YES to reduce the levy:Mary RussellKrissy JacksonLauren JacksonCraig Blair

Voting NO:Jina RichardsonNicole WaltersAmy Waterman

What the Board Actually Voted On

The district entered Wednesday’s meeting recommending that the operating levy be set at the maximum allowed by the State Auditor’s Office, $3.4987, while setting the debt service levy at $0.9663.

That would have maintained the district’s total levy at $4.4650, exactly the same total rate as 2025. The district’s published study session materials stated that the recommendation was to levy to the operating ceiling while rolling the debt service levy below its $1.4472 ceiling.

The administration’s recommendation was specifically structured to keep the overall rate unchanged. The district’s assessed valuation for 2026 is $438,144,251.

The board rejected that recommendation.

Instead, the board kept the operating levy at $3.4987 but reduced the debt service portion further, to $0.8536.

That lowered the total levy from $4.4650 to $4.3523.

The final reduction is $0.1127 per $100 of assessed valuation compared with the 2025 total levy.

First Vote Fails 3-4

Before the rollback was approved, the board first considered the administration’s recommendation.

Board member Gina made the motion to maintain the $4.4650 total rate, with Amy providing the second.

When the vote was taken, three board members voted in favor and four voted against.

The motion failed.

The room became tense immediately following the vote, with members of the audience reacting and questioning the decision.

The board then moved to the alternative tax rate.

A motion was made to set the incidental fund rate at $2.6987, the teachers fund rate at $0.8000 and the debt service rate at $0.8536.

That produces the $3.4987 operating levy and $4.3523 total levy.

The second motion passed 4-3.

Administration Warned of Long-Term Financial Impact

Before the vote, district administration presented the board with two financial scenarios.

Under the first scenario, if the levy were rolled back, administrators said the district would need to continue reductions already included in this year’s budget in order to maintain its fund balance while continuing commitments involving competitive staff pay, preventative maintenance and bus purchases.

The district’s goal is to maintain a fund balance between 18 and 20 percent.

Under the rollback scenario presented Wednesday, administration projected the fund balance falling below 18 percent beginning next year and continuing downward over the following years, eventually reaching approximately 14 percent.

The second scenario assumed the district maintained the levy and voters later approved a no-tax-rate-increase transfer of levy authority from debt service to operations.

Administration said that scenario could provide approximately $650,000 annually for the operating budget.

According to the presentation, those dollars could have allowed the district to begin restoring some reductions made in the current budget, including staffing positions, while improving class sizes and supply budgets.

Under that scenario, administrators projected the district could remain near its 18 percent fund balance goal.

The administration therefore continued to recommend maintaining the $4.4650 total levy.

Rollback Changes the Path Forward

One of the most important distinctions in Wednesday night’s debate was not simply whether taxpayers should pay a higher or lower rate.

It was what happens next.

Administration told the board that maintaining the existing total levy would preserve the possibility of asking voters to approve a no-tax-rate-increase levy transfer.

That would have allowed voters to decide whether a portion of the tax rate currently collected for debt service could eventually be moved into the district’s operating levy.

If approved, the district estimated approximately $650,000 annually could have been available for operations without increasing the total $4.4650 tax rate.

By reducing the total levy Wednesday night, that specific no-tax-rate-increase path is no longer available at the previous $4.4650 level. Administration explicitly told the board that if the levy were rolled back, “any talk of a no tax rate increase levy transfer is gone.”

Any future effort to restore that revenue to the operating side would therefore begin from the newly reduced $4.3523 total levy.

Public Comments Heavily Opposed Rollback

The board heard extensive public comment before taking action.

Board leadership said 19 comment cards had been submitted for the meeting.

The overwhelming majority of speakers urged the board not to reduce the levy and instead asked members to maintain the existing rate and eventually allow voters to decide whether to transfer levy authority from debt service into operations.

Speakers included parents, teachers, district employees, taxpayers and community members.

Their arguments repeatedly centered on the district’s existing budget reductions, staffing levels, classroom resources, paraprofessionals, the SWARM after-school program and concerns about the district voluntarily giving up revenue while facing uncertain state and federal funding.

Lebanon counselor Laurie, who told the board she has served the district for more than 20 years and also serves as the district’s homeless liaison, argued that the effects of budget reductions extend beyond numbers on a spreadsheet.

“Budgets are numbers. But cuts have names. They have faces,” Laurie told the board. “They sit in our classroom, they teach our children. They drive our buses, serve our meals, Provide interventions. Support behavior. Clean the schools, counsel the students, and sometimes become the ones that keep students coming back to our schools.”

Joanna, a parent and working mother, told the board the proposed rollback would amount to less than $50 annually for her family, while the larger amount represented significant revenue for the district.

“That fourteen cents represents roughly six hundred thousand in an annual revenue for our school district,” Joanna said. She asked the board to maintain the levy and allow the community to vote on a future transfer, saying, “They should be able to decide if they’re if they want to invest in the children in our classrooms today and the children yet to come.”

Jason also urged the board to maintain the rate, pointing to positions that were not filled during previous budget reductions and changes to the SWARM program.

“Please keep my fifty dollars from your proposed cut and keep the help in the classrooms for the teachers,” Jason said. “Keep swarm. Keep the other programs and improvements for the students who need all the help we can and we should give them.”

Major Jennifer of the Missouri National Guard approached the issue from the perspective of education, workforce development and community readiness.

“A voluntary six hundred thousand dollars reduction may look responsible on a balance sheet today, but the effects of decisions involving education, staffing problems and facilities can extend years into the future,” Jennifer told the board.

Dustin, who identified himself as a father, taxpayer and educator, calculated his own potential savings from the rollback at $46.73 per year.

“Please keep my Forty six dollars seventy three cents and maintain the current levy for the betterment of our students, staff and our community,” Dustin said.

Ryan, speaking as a taxpayer, parent and representative of local Missouri State Teachers Association members, also urged the board to maintain the rate.

“I recognize that every dollar matters to working families, and I do not dismiss the importance of tax relief, but that limited individual relief must be weighed against the more than six hundred thousand dollars per year, per year lost in revenue to our schools,” Ryan said.

Others argued in favor of the rollback.

Susie told the board her concerns went beyond the immediate amount individual taxpayers would save. She pointed to the possibility of continued increases in property assessments and the cumulative effect of rising taxes, insurance and other expenses on property owners.

“I’m not saying thirty dollars hurts anybody. It doesn’t hurt anybody,” Susie said. “This is the mouth of the volcano. And we’re all getting ready to hit the big part of it.”

Susie told the board she represents 85 real estate investors and argued that the district should consider the financial pressure facing property owners.

Another speaker, Angela, questioned the district’s budgeting and argued that the district should reduce spending rather than preserve the higher levy.

“Y’all need to cut the fat,” Angela told the board. “Instead of asking me for more money, figure out how you’re going to cut it.”

The division in the room reflected the larger argument that has surrounded the issue for several weeks: whether maintaining the levy represented responsible preservation of school resources or whether reducing the debt service levy represented a responsibility to return available taxing capacity to property owners.

A Debate That Began Earlier This Month

Wednesday’s vote was originally expected to occur during the district’s August 11 tax rate hearing.

Instead, the board tabled the issue and moved it to Wednesday’s study session to allow additional discussion.

The tax rate was the only substantive action item listed on the August 26 study session agenda.

The district’s written recommendation going into Wednesday remained unchanged from the earlier meeting.

It called for an operating levy of $3.4987 and debt service levy of $0.9663, maintaining the total $4.4650 rate.

The board ultimately chose a different direction.

After weeks of discussion, two meetings with extensive public input and a final pair of closely divided votes, the decision is now made.

For tax year 2026, Lebanon R-3’s total property tax levy will be $4.3523 per $100 of assessed valuation, down from $4.4650 in 2025.