Advisory group says no — at least for now — to another Wichita school bond

Yahoo

5 hours ago

An advisory group told Wichita school leaders Wednesday that the district needs to clarify its message and rebuild trust in the community before seeking another bond issue.
District leaders wanted the financial oversight committee to recommend putting a bond issue to voters by March 2026.
But committee members rejected that plan, saying the state's largest district has not made a clear case for why it needs a bond or precisely how it would use the money to rebuild and repair schools.
'I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but everyone I talked to said, 'What are you doing?' And angrily,' said Thomas Rose, a senior vice president for Commerce Bank and a member of the oversight committee. 'I honestly do not believe a bond issue will pass, even in March.'
The group opted to not recommend any bond proposal to the Wichita school board for its July 7 meeting. Members recommended that the district transfer all year-end cash savings into its capital budget to pay for building repairs and upgrades.
Earlier this year, voters narrowly rejected a $450 million bond issue to rebuild and repair Wichita's school facilities. Since then, the Wichita district has been searching for a plan to address aging buildings and declining enrollment.
District leaders formed the financial oversight committee in response to the failed bond issue.
Last month, members were directed to gauge community sentiment on three alternative bond plans. All three proposals were similar to the original bond, and all were linked to the district's facility master plan, which the school board approved last summer.
Addi Lowell, chief financial officer for Wichita schools, recommended a new bond election either this coming November or March of 2026. That's because Wichita property owners are currently paying for a 2008 bond issue, and 7.5 mills for the bond and interest will come off of tax bills next year.
Any bond issue after next spring would require a tax increase rather than 'zero rate change,' a tax-neutral argument supporters used during the last campaign.
'Once we lower the mill, it is very difficult to get it back up. Increasing property taxes is unpopular,' Lowell told the committee. 'No one likes paying bills … whether you support public education or not.'
Lowell and two other district administrators on the committee — Deputy Superintendent Gil Alvarez and Chief Communications Officer Rachel Bell — leaned toward the March 2026 date because they said November wouldn't give the district time to craft its message.
'We didn't want to do another sprint to the finish,' Alvarez said. 'We want to make sure that we are addressing any lack of trust or transparency and really get the word out.'
Several committee members said voters lost trust in the district after the 2008 bond issue, when several projects were scaled back or ditched altogether because of reduced state and federal funding. Among them: two new comprehensive high schools and a K-8 school in Bel Aire.
'What I've heard from folks: Accountability and transparency were not completely addressed in the most recent bond issue,' said Lindsay Poe Rousseau, chief financial officer for Sedgwick County.
'Even the folks who voted yes, the question is: What has changed? Why do we think that people will change their vote now? And there's still a reluctance by them to vote for another bond issue right now.'
Trish Hileman, a parent who serves on the oversight committee, surveyed more than 100 district residents and said trust and transparency were common themes.
She said the vast majority of people she talked to also opposed special elections for bond issues, which traditionally have much lower turnout than primary or general elections.
'They were like, 'Just put it on the general or shut up. Stop manipulating us,'' Hileman said. 'People are tired of being strategized.'
Hileman said voters also wonder whether the district could rethink its overall master plan and scale down the next bond issue.
'It's important that what we put out we can get a 'yes' to,' she said. 'And if that means we make it smaller so that we can get a 'yes' and build on that … People want to say yes, so let's give them a really easy, clear path to say yes.'
Sarah Amador, a parent and education consultant, agreed the district should consider a scaled-down bond issue. After voters in Kansas City, Kan., rejected a $420 million bond in April 2024, the district came back with a $180 million bond, which voters approved in November.
'You have to make it as small as possible, and you have to show them, 'Say yes to me here, and here's your result,'' Amador said. 'If we cannot do that, you're going to jump off a cliff. And the reality is very dire.'
Lowell, the district CFO, said the district learned from the February bond campaign and plans to change its tactics.
'There's no way we could have known the distrust and the things that people were going to bring up in the election without doing the election,' she said. 'So, we learned a lot, and our communication strategy will look completely different this time.'
Bell, the communications director, said any new campaign would take time.
'We didn't know that there was so much distrust surrounding the 2000 and the 2008 bonds. So understanding what those concerns are, so that we can address them, just takes a little bit of time,' she said.
When they meet in July, school board members could decide to pursue another bond election despite the committee's reluctance.
But board president Diane Albert, who serves on the committee, said the group's message was clear.
'There are real facility needs within the district that we have to address. But when we are using taxpayer dollars, we have to address that trust and transparency issue first,' Albert said.
'I think we can build trust and transparency, but we need to use this committee to do that and not just immediately start talking about another bond issue.'
This story was originally published by KMUW