Lebanon schools decide on property tax levy try

Voters in the Lebanon LEBANON — City Schools district will be asked in the November election to pass the same 4-year, 4.99 mill emergency operating levy rejected in May.

On May 7, 56 percent of district voters rejected a 4-year, 4.99-mill emergency levy expected to raise $5 million a year for operating expenses.

“The levy is identical to the one that was turned down by voters in May of this year. If passed by voters in November, the levy will run for four years before needing renewed by voters,” Superintendent Todd Yohey said in a press release.

Since the May election, the district cut $1.3 million from its operating budget, including four teaching positions, 10 special education aid positions and one media specialist, according to Yohey.

“The district also reduced purchases in curriculum and technology, as well as some cuts in student transportation. If the November levy does not pass, the district will need to make additional budget cuts in January,” Yohey added in the release.

“Those cuts could include the elimination of high school transportation, eliminating transportation for students in grades K-8 that live within two miles of their schools, reductions in administrative, teaching, and custodial personnel, office staff, and aides. More details on possible cuts will be announced by the district in August.”

Before the May election, Cole Proeschel, a fourth-generation farmer with a 265-acre farm in the Lebanon school district, said he opposed a property tax increase, because it was hardest on owners of larger properties, often farmers.

“If they would just stop asking for a property tax levy, if they would just ask for something more income-based, I’d be right on board,” Proeschel said.

After the May vote, Lebanon Treasurer Eric Sotzing said the school board discussed the possibility of seeking an income tax “but opted for the traditional fixed-sum operating levy.”

Asked to elaborate, Sotzing said, “the three primary reasons are the long length of initial collection, the higher volatility of collection compared to property tax based levies and the percentage needed to be asked to generate the same income as proposed property tax levy.”

“An income tax takes at least 18 months to be implemented and receive funds from the levy. It is much different than a property tax issue that collects beginning January 1st of the following year and generates the full amount of the levy.

In addition, Sotzing said, “The volatility is much greater with an income tax as it fluctuates with the income of the residents in the taxing jurisdiction. That fluctuation could be either an increase or a decrease depending upon the situation. Conversely, a property tax is stable by generating exactly what the levy amount was when approved.

Income tax rates must be levied in .25 percent increments. The income tax rate to generate the same $5 million was estimated to be right in between two of those percentages. So we either need to ask for not enough of a percentage or more of a percentage to generate the same income,” Sotzing said in email responses.

In May, voters in the Clinton-Massie district, east of Lebanon, along the Warren-Clinton county line, approved a 0.5 percent income or earnings tax on the second try.

Matt Baker, superintendent in Clinton-Massie, said he and the local school board opted for the earnings tax after voters rejected property tax levies in 2014 and 2016.

Spending cuts were also made before voters approved the May income tax.

Unlike homeowners in subdivisions, farmers own tens if not hundreds or thousands of acres, magnifying the implications of property tax increases.