[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6604521,"mediaKeyId","2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0","parentId",2987728,"title","Votes at a glance: Lansing USD 469 board actions include KASB membership, legal assistance renewal, DOE certification and network infrastructure award","audioSeconds",2037,"startMs",10397000,"endMs",12434000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0&start=10397&end=12434","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0/thumbnail_10397000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6604521/Lansing/School-Boards/Kansas/Votes-at-a-glance-Lansing-USD-469-board-actions-include-KASB-membership-legal-assistance-renewal-DOE-certification-and-network-infrastructure-award","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604521-bf75607dceb9cfffbde85f5bf537f8c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073614&Signature=N4LdxrvlYNpyiX-AM~wu6UyMVYtcbxKD2zfCjeclTzBzxDPqJ24AdmmEkAIRMrDpaV-AzT499-ZcUdTv2csc~DXRAKJ0DgsenHkG4Z0AV7kUsMyGEqK-KhleDosZ15lRyq3FXxfZTevlCfni1wQu2-SgG88iWf~ISLdpAsbtmKYVWX7nO6DhOi4C~8cCqfXgNfQKdMdBsOtTvxnijQHtfygY8ax3Nw8xrpooFHBCqTXyVWfFoBuOEiw6TpbppDE3~tCoqX1ObVkg~txtXps3olcuxLy6jIZ9oJeDFU6JLIt0ZCTYnV1ggMpzvAp1J~DVwoV4OKCp-tWh0p~mfT0jyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lansing usd469 ","date","2025-04-15T04:35:21.753Z","article","The Lansing USD 469 Board of Education recorded several formal actions on April 14. Below are the primary motions, outcomes and key details as reflected in the meeting record.

Votes at a glance

- KASB all-access season pass (Option 2): Motion to approve KASB season pass and KASB all-access services (2025–26). Outcome: approved. Recorded roll-call indicates the motion passed 4–3 (Yes: Bogart, Grama, Yoakam, Boland; No: Escobbe/Covey, Workman, Wood). The board had discussed concerns about KASB’s advocacy and training content alongside the value of legal and training services.

- KASB legal assistance fund renewal (2025–26): Motion to approve renewal of the KASB legal assistance fund (legal services access). Outcome: approved. Recorded board roll-call shows approval by a 4–3 vote (Yes: Brugart, M., Yoakam, Boland; No: Covey, Workman, Wood). The fund provides the board and district access to KASB legal counsel for routine questions; board members asked staff to seek alternative legal providers as a second option.

- Network infrastructure (E-rate-funded) purchase and contract award: Motion to award a district network-infrastructure contract to Pinecove Consulting (Ruckus-based switches and licensing) and apply E-rate funding to the purchase. Outcome: approved (recorded roll call in transcript shows unanimous board approval). Discussion noted the project spans FY cycles and will be funded with a district match plus E-rate reimbursement; staff said the full technical proposal and vendor selection materials are available on request.

- DOE certification regarding receipt of federal financial assistance (request for certification): Motion to sign the U.S. Department of Education certification regarding civil-rights compliance and receipt of federal funds. Outcome: approved by roll-call 4–3 (recorded in transcript as 4 yes, 3 no). Several trustees nonetheless asked that the policy committee review local policies to ensure compliance with federal guidance as additional legal guidance becomes available.

- Personnel approvals (new hires, transfers, exits): Motion to approve a list of hires, transfers and retirements was moved and seconded. Outcome: approved (recorded roll-call indicates majority approval; the transcript records individual votes in sequence). The approved hires included licensed staff, custodial and paraprofessional positions; retirements and resignations were also accepted.

Other items

- Agenda modifications and consent items: The board considered motions to pull certain consent items (including the school nurse job description) and to delay agenda item 3.4 (the Riverbend Heights RHID presentation) for joint city/district review; those procedural motions were recorded and discussed in public session.

Ending: Board members asked staff to pursue independent fiscal and demographic analyses where needed (notably for the RHID matter), to solicit alternative legal-provider proposals in addition to KASB, and to bring revised policies and job descriptions back to committee for review ahead of future votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","USD 469 Apr 14 Board of Education Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Lansing USD 469 Board of Education recorded several formal actions on April 14, including approval of KASB membership services, a KASB legal assistance renewal, a DOE certification, and a district-wide E-rate network infrastructure award.","taxTitle","Lansing, School Boards, Kansas","taxId",70182,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6604529,"Lansing residents and school board press developer on Riverbend Heights RHID, citing tax and capacity concerns",4778,2018000,6796000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0&start=2018&end=6796","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0/thumbnail_2018000.jpg","/articles/6604529/Lansing/School-Boards/Kansas/Lansing-residents-and-school-board-press-developer-on-Riverbend-Heights-RHID-citing-tax-and-capacity-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604529-ed27395b862b43d80143a611dddbcc88/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073614&Signature=HX2qFiTTGWITRlDV4olOgazVFpSyQ4L2uTUxgO7YDSj6xY3zTly8twG8bYI-7-oyTHkt3hN59bMNSNgGuVLSkJymNMEIiewdX7lB~AcUbUeoFlZIN8N31j-lbAGn3N9vz02qh~P4GyLs-Xmc0j8GLBU~Kv16IVVqT1f1rsvHaNowyj9Jpb1tUPT99vYCH7jVN2UIgUIvmi174YBmctGQ2bolqBbIg84zFv58~F5X-dk6YkxvqqUeG8bGyHoqXB9w5x88JaC8vA1BSntJ8RzGsoQvHsBFVLVI8UwyJPqzPUet9NhOIK0q7WJm4qS9ly~3BTpl3PXgLgsJZRURgF8xGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hundreds of residents and several board members pressed Ad Astra Development and its attorneys on April 14 about the Riverbend Heights proposal and the city’s request to form a Residential Housing Incentive District (RHID), saying the arrangement would divert tax revenue from Lansing schools and could create more students than the district can accommodate.

Public commenters raised funding and capacity concerns. Paul Cromer told the board he had reviewed the developer’s feasibility spreadsheet and said it used outdated mill levy figures and misstated tax calculations for annexed parcels. “Please don’t be misled into thinking that you will not lose money,” Cromer said, urging the board to prepare a resolution to reject any RHID approved by the City of Lansing on April 17.

Other residents made similar arguments. Scott Tenner said the district could lose “$6,000,000 or more” in revenue and would face choices such as cutting services or raising taxes. Trina Guilford, Betty Kleinitz, Janie Mann and several other Lansing residents told the board they oppose using tax revenue to subsidize developer-paid infrastructure when school funding and facility needs already concern voters.

Ad Astra’s attorney, Joseph (“Joe”) Oakes of Polsinelli, presented the Riverbend Heights plan and fielded detailed questions from the board. Oakes described the proposal as a roughly 418-unit residential development on McIntyre Road and said the RHID is intended to capture only “incremental” tax revenue created after development — revenue that, he emphasized, does not exist today. He described the RHID as a pay-as-you-go reimbursement mechanism for infrastructure the developer would build up front and said the developer had revised its original proposal to an 80/20 split (developer keeps 80% of the captured incremental taxes; 20% shared among taxing jurisdictions) to respond to stakeholder concerns.

Oakes also presented figures from the developer’s financial model. He said the developer’s analysis projects about 0.5 students per home (roughly 209 students from 418 units) and argued that, because Kansas school funding is largely distributed via state aid per student rather than local mill levies, the district would receive additional state funding for the added students. Oakes said his team’s modeling showed the RHID’s net fiscal impact to the district would be neutral to positive over time and that captured taxes would reimburse the developer for approximately $27 million in infrastructure costs while private investment would deliver vertical development estimated near $123 million.

Board members and staff asked for clarity on several points: how quickly homes would be built (Ad Astra said it expects roughly 40–60 starts per year in early phases, possibly averaging about 50 per year), who the intended homebuilder(s) would be (not named at the meeting), how many students the development would actually add to the district, and how quickly the captured taxes would be returned to the tax rolls if the RHID reimbursed the developer faster than projected. Superintendent Marty (presenting as district staff) confirmed the district’s facilities and enrollment reports have shown flat population growth historically, and both board members and speakers urged deeper demographic and capacity analysis before any district-level vote.

Board members also described meetings they had held with city officials and the developer’s representatives, and several said the facilities committee had emphasized the district’s immediate maintenance and capacity needs. The board asked the developer and the city for further detail and invited the district’s financial advisor to run independent projections comparing tax outcomes under multiple scenarios — faster vs. slower home build-out and higher or lower student-per-home assumptions.

No formal board vote on the RHID request was taken at the meeting. The city’s hearing was scheduled for April 17; the developer asked the city to open and continue the matter to May 1 to allow additional public discussion and review. Several speakers urged the board to reject any RHID that the City of Lansing ultimately approves without stronger protections for the school district’s capital needs.

Ending: The board left the Riverbend Heights discussion open and asked staff to arrange further analysis with the district financial adviser and to coordinate a public discussion with the city before the board takes a formal position. Members of the public continued to circulate petitions and asked the district to track the city’s RHID agenda closely in coming weeks.","Hundreds of residents and several board members pressed Ad Astra Development and its attorneys on April 14 about the Riverbend Heights proposal and the city’s request to form a Residential Housing Incentive District (RHID), saying the arrangement would divert tax revenue from Lansing schools and could create more students than the district can accommodate.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6604525,"Board pulls school nurse job description for review after members raise licensure and supervision concerns",389,1218000,1607000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0&start=1218&end=1607","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987728-f073d1203c29552dbcda7cc7be748da0/thumbnail_1218000.jpg","/articles/6604525/Lansing/School-Boards/Kansas/Board-pulls-school-nurse-job-description-for-review-after-members-raise-licensure-and-supervision-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604525-8f7db5ce6e93e6b41b458bed70c1f5f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073614&Signature=MF-uXLq2uiIyOIPAxsPKocmffnLRdvGO~tMIdjl6YQWMHustNDKfgAF9~iUKsGckPvzoBuyBV0OUemM5pXqQnbAxkGNr7xES6OYR6Nve7JR29geDTekHrjA9gunkHdtMeDmjX4c-WEvuJT711od6KNtTvx0AEpUTQIym60xy-48M23Ttwa5vpcTKqWLaL1E520PGmqbDioB8~BCbpDbgzY1JjIK0w6K4mPh~Un13VgwGfquaCeCLD26hwpBnm1DEtFbJ-Oiz5T7Ttrt0siy7FexDqH1MEJa1AsdAkalzRpsXmFNx5vZI2LeGVnf0~QD4xb6TiS~k9NO725hDK0WUeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members pulled a proposed school nurse job description from the consent agenda and discussed multiple revisions they say are needed before approval.

A board member asked for the job description to specify whether the district intends to hire licensed practical nurses (LPNs), registered nurses (RNs), or both, and to clarify scope-of-practice differences. The board member said LPNs are not authorized to perform independent assessments at the same level as RNs and asked who would medically supervise an LPN on campus. Superintendent Marty responded that the district currently employs an LPN under supervision and that the job description was revised primarily to add LPNs to align the written description with existing practice.

Several board members asked that the job description explicitly list mandated-reporting responsibilities and require an active, unencumbered Kansas or multistate nursing license. They asked that the district specify expectations for medication administration, accident reporting and recordkeeping. One board member objected to physical requirement language in the draft that listed differing push/pull weight requirements (50 pounds in one section and 80/25 pounds in another) and asked those items be clarified.

The board discussed where school nurses report for employment supervision, and Marty said nurses report to the head nurse for nursing-related supervision while building principals provide general employment supervision. Several board members requested that the job description explicitly reflect reporting to the head nurse for clinical matters, and that it better describe expectations for health screenings (vision, hearing, dental) and how screening programs would be implemented under existing policy (policy JC was cited by a staff member during discussion).

No final vote was taken on the nurse job description. Board members who wanted more detail said they would route the item to the policy or facilities committee for targeted edits and return an edited draft to the board.

Ending: The job description was removed from the consent approval for further review; staff agreed to clarify licensure language, the distinction between RN and LPN responsibilities and supervision, physical requirements, medication and reporting duties, and to consider referring health-screening language to the policy committee for revision.","Board members asked that the proposed school nurse job description be pulled from the consent agenda for revision, citing gaps on licensure language, LPN vs RN scope, supervision reporting lines and screening procedures.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Lansing USD 469 board actions include KASB membership, legal assistance renewal, DOE certification and network infrastructure award

Lansing residents and school board press developer on Riverbend Heights RHID, citing tax and capacity concerns

Board pulls school nurse job description for review after members raise licensure and supervision concerns