KCK schools remain in disrepair after bond question failed. Will voters accept new vision?
Three months after a proposal to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new school buildings tanked at the polls, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools leaders are considering whether a smaller bite of the apple may be more palatable to voters.
District officials have drafted two alternative paths to build new schools and improve existing ones in response to problems at aging buildings that include leaky roofs, lack of classroom space and poor heat and air conditioning.
Both plans, which would require voter support for financing, are heavily watered down compared to the $420 million upgrade that voters rejected this spring amid opposition to property tax increases.
At a cost of roughly $180 million, district leaders say the first option would not increase the tax rate. Proposed are full rebuilds of Central and Argentine middle schools; a combination of Silver City and Noble Prentis elementary schools; and an addition to Sumner Academy of Arts & Science.
The second, which targets elementary schools, carries a $260 million price tag and would bump up the tax rate, but by far less than the original bond proposal. It includes plans for combining Eugene Ware and Lindbergh; combining Emerson and New Stanley; and capital improvements at Whittier and M.E. Pearson.
Under the more expensive option, district officials predict the tax bill for a residence valued at $150,000 would increase by $34.50 per year.
In proposing the new buildings, district leaders have highlighted apparent inequities in schools that depend on where families live. Some children have access to modern facilities supported by earlier capital plans, such as Gloria Willis Middle School, versus the 109-year-old building for Central Middle, where up to three students share a locker and some take classes in trailers.
Opponents to the $420 million plan that failed this year highlighted property tax increases — a growing concern in Wyandotte County over recent years — as well as student achievement benchmarks that have lagged behind other communities.
Proponents, meanwhile, supported the measure as a way to close equity gaps, encourage broader community investment and improve education through a better learning environment.
In May, roughly 8% of registered voters within the district’s boundaries participated in the special election over the bond issue. Voters rejected the idea by a landslide margin, with 42% supporters and 58% opponents.
In recent weeks, district leaders began gathering input through an online survey and a community visioning team. Superintendent Anna Stubblefield on Wednesday provided a summary report of findings during a public hearing, pointing to a mixed bag of thoughts from the community on how to meet the district’s needs.
Some takeaways so far, Stubblefield said, included a greater level of support for the cheaper of the two options, though many participants were undecided. She also said respondents expressed a desire for other things not included on the project list, such as special education improvements and addressing deferred maintenance.
The survey will remain on the district’s website through Aug. 9, following an action by school board members Wednesday.
Elected school board members face a tight timeline to decide which proposal, if any, will make it on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. District officials are advising board members that a decision should be reached by Aug. 13 for that to happen.
As the pressure is on to craft a bond initiative voters will accept, tensions ran high during the special meeting Wednesday afternoon, where board members struggled, for example, to agree on the terms of holding another public meeting so more residents could weigh in.
Wanda Brownlee Paige, a board member since 2018 now seeking election to the Kansas House, raised frustrations over tax bills she’s heard from residents. She and state Rep. Valdenia Winn, a board member since 2016, publicly criticized the $420 million bond in the leadup to its failure in May.
Board member Robert Milan Jr. stressed the importance of making sure community members “understand what we’re trying to do” for buildings that are “unfit and need to be repaired.”
“It doesn’t come free. We need new buildings. Let’s go with it,” Milan said. “... Explain it to the folks. Ain’t gonna cost you an arm and a leg, ain’t gonna cost you a new car, ain’t gonna cost you a new home. It has to be done.”
