LINN — Linn R-2 officials have revised the district’s upcoming August levy proposal, removing funding for a School Resource Officer (SRO) position after hearing concerns from community members and levy supporters following the defeat of the district’s operating levy increase request in April.

Superintendent Bob James said the decision reflects the board’s effort to remain responsive to community priorities while focusing limited resources on teacher salaries and maintaining the district’s long-term financial stability.

“The only thing we’ve changed is that we’ve dropped the addition of the SRO,” James said. “We tried to do what we feel like responsible leadership would do, which is adjust to the needs and wants of your community.”

The district is still seeking a 50-cent operating levy increase.

According to James, the idea of adding an SRO had been discussed for more than two years as schools across Missouri continue dealing with increasingly difficult student behavior and rising concerns involving adults interacting with schools.

“One of the things that we’ve been increasingly dealing with is not just intensified student misbehavior,” James explained. “I think schools across Missouri are all dealing with that, but we’re also dealing with intensified and increasing adult behaviors.”

Administrators believed an SRO would provide value to the district, and early polling indicated little resistance. The proposal survived through the district’s October 2025 effort without significant criticism.

However, feedback changed after the April 2026 levy election. “One of the pieces of feedback the levy committee received was that some people didn’t understand that if we really needed money for teacher salaries, why in the world would we take on the salary, all or in part, of an SRO?” James said.

Some residents opposed placing an officer in the school, while others simply did not see enough value in including the position. “It seemed like there was an increasing amount of feedback that suggested that that wasn’t really valued in the community,” James added.

After discussions with board members and community contacts, the district opted to remove the position from the proposal.

“The board talked with their friends and family and community members,” James said. “Then we came back together and said, ‘Yeah, this is something that we feel comfortable dropping off considering our current budget landscape.’”

A special board meeting was held on June 9 to approve the change, allowing district officials enough time to complete the required paperwork.

James said the district petitioned the circuit court and coordinated with both the Osage and Gasconade county clerks before filing the revised language ahead of the June 10 deadline.

“We were all in agreement,” he said. “We felt it was a good idea to adjust to the community’s preference.”

While the ballot language changed, district leaders remain committed to using the additional revenue to address mounting financial pressures.

“We’re going to put it toward salaries,” James said.

He emphasized that the district’s financial concerns extend well beyond a single position. “If we were going to stay in the exact same financial position that we have been in the last five years, then we need about a dollar more to do that,” James explained. “What we’re really trying to do with the 50-cent levy is keep us in a relatively healthy position as far as finances go.”

Even if voters approve the measure, James anticipates continued losses in fund balances over the next several years. “This year we lost over $100,000,” he said. “Next year I anticipate about a quarter of a million, about $400,000 the year after that, and in those three years we’ll lose about $800,000.”

The levy would generate approximately $482,000 annually.

“Anything that we don’t spend on an SRO in the coming years is just going to be put toward our fund balance so that we can weather the teacher base salary increases over the next three to five years,” James said.

The board’s long-term goal remains maintaining a 30% fund balance.

“In the state of Missouri, DESE believes that 20% is a good number,” James said. “But we are in a conservative community that believes in saving for a rainy day, and so we do our best not to spend below that.”

Another concern James raised involves legislation that could reduce Missouri’s minimum operating levy.

“There’s legislation out there, for instance, that would reduce the minimum operating levy below $2.75,” James said. “If we don’t pass anything that establishes it above the minimum, then our levy will continue to drop backwards to the proposed $2.20, which would plummet us very quickly.”

James said maintaining a levy above the state minimum is critical to protecting the district’s long-term financial health.

The board’s goal remains maintaining a 30% fund balance, though James acknowledged the district is already projected to see gradual declines.

“Right now I’m projecting about a 27.5% to 28% ending fund balance, which will be about a 1.5% drop from year to year, and that’s pretty good considering the predicament,” he said, contrasting that with what could happen if the district failed to maintain its current salary structure. “If we didn’t, we would go backwards about 8.5%, which would put us very close to what the state says should be the minimum fund balance.”

James noted that other proposals in Jefferson City would further reduce districts’ ability to generate local revenue.

“There is no doubt in my mind,” he said. “For years and years and years, they said schools should be under local control. Well, not only has the state cut off funding through the formula, they’re attempting to remove local control.”

He warned that communities willing to support their schools could lose the ability to do so. “What they’re trying to do from the Capitol is say, ‘We don’t care how bad you want your school. We’re going to cripple you and make sure that no matter how bad you want it, it’s going to die anyway because we feel like you shouldn’t want it,’” James said.

Even with the proposed levy increase, James said the district will continue losing ground financially, though at a pace he believes is manageable.

Despite those concerns, James said he remains optimistic about Linn R-2’s future and believes voters recognize the district’s need.

“I really think we will pass it,” he said. “I really do. I have faith in the community that they’re going to find that we have a legitimate need.”

He stressed that the district’s current situation is not the result of irresponsible spending. “We have not done anything flagrant with our finances,” James said. “Nothing. It’s a combination of passing legislation that forces increased expenditures while reducing revenues, and I can’t do anything about that.”

James said district leaders are not attempting to make Linn R-2 one of the highest-paying schools in the region but simply want to avoid remaining at the bottom.

“We’re not shooting for high salaries,” he said. “We’re not trying to be the highest-paying school district in our conference. We’re just trying not to be tied for last place with the other people that are in last place.”

He noted that state minimum salary requirements only allow districts like Linn R-2 to remain competitive with other districts paying the legal minimum.

“All that meeting the minimum base salary will do is tie us for last place with every other district that is on the minimum base salary,” James said.

He questioned whether any organization could expect outstanding applicants while advertising only minimum pay.

“What business or entity in Osage County can run an ad that says we guarantee the minimum and expect to have great staff members apply?” he asked.

James praised the community for the accomplishments Linn R-2 has achieved despite operating under those limitations.

“I applaud this community for doing as well as it has for years,” he said. “Honestly, we’ve done a great job. Our community has a ton to be proud of.”

Looking ahead, James said educational information efforts will continue leading up to the August election.

The district’s political action committee plans to arrange presentations to community groups, where James will answer questions and explain the district’s financial position. “I can’t advocate in any way for a levy,” James said. “But I can present information from an informational lens.”

He said additional informational meetings are being explored, particularly in areas where residents may not have fully understood the district’s needs during the previous election cycle.

“I’ll tell anybody any information that they want,” James said. “But I am making sure that I’m asked to do that versus advocating.”

Ultimately, he believes the issue is straightforward.

“The disconnect occurs between the community’s expectation for outstanding results and the gap that exists between that and the minimum investment we’re attempting to make in attracting and retaining highly qualified outstanding teachers,” James said. “To me, it’s as simple as that. There’s just a gap.”

More information can be found  on the district’s website, or on the community advocacy group’s website — https://www.linnwildcats.com.