USD 383 board approves resolution on revenue-neutral tax rate after public comment

The Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education voted 6‑1 on Sept. 3 to approve Resolution 25‑26‑7, a resolution tied to the district's revenue‑neutral tax rate for the 2025‑26 budget year. The board took the vote after opening the meeting for public comment and hearing questions about why the district did not maintain a revenue‑neutral rate.

The resolution, introduced at the start of a special hearing on revenue neutral tax rates, was moved by Board member Kurt and seconded by Greg; the roll call produced six yes votes and one no (Wexleman), and the motion carried. The board cited state statute KSA 79‑2‑2988 in calling for the roll‑call vote.

Why it matters: Revenue‑neutral hearings let taxpayers address the mill levy calculation the district uses to fund its annual budget. At the Sept. 3 hearing a resident urged the board to explain why the district did not meet the revenue‑neutral rate and whether taxpayers would see increased bills as a result.

A local resident, Gary Oles of Frontier Circle, spoke during public comment. He said the purpose of the hearing under statute was to allow citizens to "express concern or objection to the mill rate," and asked directly, "what are the main reasons that you were unable to achieve R and R?"

District staff explained to the board and the public that maintaining a revenue‑neutral rate can reduce the district's state aid because state funding formulas take into account local assessed valuation. As property valuations rise, state aid that flows back to the district under the formula changes; the district said keeping the rate strictly revenue‑neutral in the face of rising valuations would, in some cases, lower state aid the district receives and could leave the district with less total revenue for the same level of services. Board members and staff framed the choice as a tradeoff between holding the mill levy constant and preserving expected state aid and operating revenue.

The public comment period also included questions about how local option budget (LOB) and capital outlay items appear on the notice and whether specific line items were included; district staff identified the 'capital outlay' references on the published materials and confirmed statutory limits that apply to the LOB.

After discussion and the public comment period, the board proceeded with the roll call mandated by KSA 79‑2‑2988. The recorded vote was: Allen, Brighton, Hagmeister, Herman, Hoyt and Morris Hardeman — yes; Wexleman — no. The motion passed 6‑1.

Board President (at time of vote) adjourned the special hearing and opened a second special meeting for the budget hearing that followed.

Ending: The resolution is procedural and part of the statutorily required hearings on property tax policy and the district's budget. The board's action sets the formal record for the district's approach to the revenue‑neutral calculation for the 2025‑26 budget year; further budget and levy decisions were addressed later in the meeting.