JACK SILBERBERG • REPORTER@LACLEDERECORD.COM
The setting of the Lebanon R-3 School District’s property tax rates per $100 of assessed valuation will once again be an extended discussion rather than a decision hammered out in one meeting.
During Aug. 11’s meeting, the school board, divided and at times heated over whether to accept the district’s recommended proposed rates vs. Board President Mary Russell’s proposal, which included a rollback of the proposed debt service fund rate, ultimately tabled the decision until their next study session.
The district’s recommended rates:
Incidental rate (part of operating): $2.6987
Teacher rate (part of operating): $0.8000
Debt service rate: $0.9663
Capital projects rate: $0.0000
That makes a total of $4.4650, which is under the total rate of Fiscal Year 2023-2024, which, as the Record noted in its reporting on last year’s tax rate discussion, was set before Proposition 4.
The proposed debt service rate is $0.4809 below the State Auditor-established ceiling of $1.4472, according to the district’s presentation.
The Aug. 11 meeting was when the public hearing over the rates took place. All the public comment speakers, which included current and former district employees, a former school board member, parents, taxpayers, and a homeschooling parent were in favor of the district’s recommendation.
Speakers were fearful of the further reductions they anticipated the rollback bringing.
Russell’s recommendation was to keep the rates as proposed, except for the debt service fund rate, which she put at $0.8536. She said the district had calculated that $0.85 was the was what the district needed to pay off its debt annually. She noted that the total rate was $4.3523, which was $0.1377 was below $4.49, the voter-approved total.
Russell highlighted her issue with the increased debt service fund rate from last year (see below) and stressed that the decision was focused on keeping voter promises. Russell’s position was the debt service fund can only be used to pay back debt and that the rollback would not be taking money away from classrooms.
Community member Susie Williams, who was present at the meeting but did not give a public comment, later expressed as part of a later written comment to the Record that she of Russell’s suggestion and advocated for the board asking for increased revenue instead of taking it.
Last year, the district had seen an extended discussion on whether to rollback its proposed debt service fund tax rate – which had been increased by the amount the State Auditor’s Office had reduced one of the operating fund component rate ceilings; that proposed rate was still below the State Auditor’s tax rate ceiling – as well, which had involved concerns over the district’s operating fund balance, had the context of increased assessed values leading to a Hancock Amendment-mandated operating levy rollback, and board member and citizen concerns over their view that the debt service fund tax rate increase would contradict ballot language.
That issue, which Russell restated during the Aug. 11, 2025, meeting with the Proposition 4 ballot language was that it said that if passed, the debt service property tax levy was estimated to stay the same at $0.8463.
The school board had ultimately decided to approve a debt service fund rate that was 2.5 cents lower in 2025.
The district has recommended the extra funds generated by the increased debt service fund rate from that year to be put on the ballot to ask the voters to transfer those funds over to the operating fund.
While in the debt service fund, those funds continue to pay down debts. The current school board has not put that question on the ballot.
The district’s transfer proposal is a recommendation to help alleviate the financial stressors the district faces due to local, state, and federal factors. The district has made almost $3 million in spending reductions for its 2026-2027 budget.
Superintendent David Schmitz said during the meeting that the question was whether rolling back and asking voters to increase taxes in the future or asking the voters to transfer the funds would be more successful. He stressed the district’s need for additional revenue.
The discussion and likely decision (the district must send in its approved estimated rates to the county clerk by Sept. 1) is set to come up again at the board’s study session next Wednesday.
The school board also approved the district’s 2026-2027 budget letter as well as the fifth change order for the Lebanon High School construction project. The change order, coming out of owner contingency, was $81,739. The remaining owner contingency is $421,624.
