[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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",[32,76],{"_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":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6267707,"mediaKeyId","3066343-dc17132285ed30c755e021b76e010de5","parentId",3066343,"title","Board reviews budget outlook and asks for decision on elementary 'faces' cluster staffing","audioSeconds",1208,"startMs",6032000,"endMs",7240000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3066343-dc17132285ed30c755e021b76e010de5&start=6032&end=7240","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3066343-dc17132285ed30c755e021b76e010de5/thumbnail_6032000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6267707/Kansas/Board-reviews-budget-outlook-and-asks-for-decision-on-elementary-faces-cluster-staffing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6267707-f7367219d763f48318828c704d675aca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770873675&Signature=Mb8StGEHo9yTPZdKXf~WcbE4YCal91ntHxWTwCrLUx4l9tcQn~Fw5UgppTSP4QywSz43E-NxBH~MBBpkG-rHMhpJC4pwTqX46MQfhWPtmheYl~Bat939yREMKdEwVvCdkG3Av7hBbZdC9sRA6Eur~eknm6gEIj6OlGzovPQQYxEMeRBVPVwUmb2MJOMBcLrvtTCJzo45AsbHbj6LIY-RbDbxzP3DlwWDNLvQUPqApDJTHPJaWwTaHxNtaMuh3jhZlp4Jk7djQfCDnZq6rOO22N~mLY34niSa3Pv63Fu7swRnv1uPmpZiBr9lKaSUo2yXJ50nwXhjlwIlOGsowFsqzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kansas City School District","date","2025-04-17T00:00:00Z","article","District finance staff and the superintendent briefed the board Thursday on a fiscal outlook for 2025–26 and asked the board for direction on several staffing and one‑time initiatives ahead of formal budget adoption.

Finance presenter Brad Isnard told the board the district has not yet received a preliminary valuation from the county appraiser and is working from estimates, including a Wichita State University real estate study used for current projections. On the revenue side, he said the district is operating on an estimate of roughly $6 million in additional general fund funding for 2025–26, assuming a flat student count and the current base state aid per pupil.

Isnard and Superintendent Dr. Stubblefield reviewed items the administration considers likely to require funding next year. Those included recurring costs such as health insurance and workers’ compensation, a contingency for cybersecurity, district match requirements for potential grants (described as a SPARK grant match), and a one‑time digitization project for student records that administration said can be paid from this year's funds. Isnard noted the district has already committed reductions tied to the recently passed bond: a 1.5‑mill reduction to the library fund and a 1‑mill reduction to the capital outlay fund.

Dr. Stubblefield raised a board decision point about a proposed model for “faces” positions in elementary schools. She described a recommended “cluster” model that would not place a faces staffer at every building and said the district’s recommendation would be roughly $700,000 to implement the elementary cluster approach; secondary faces staffing is already budgeted. “Our recommendation is around 700,000,” Stubblefield said. She asked the board for direction so administrators could finalize elementary budgets.

Board members discussed the tradeoffs of further general fund reductions and where cuts would fall if revenue proves insufficient. Finance staff noted that any additional mill levy reduction beyond the planned bond‑related adjustments would likely fall on the supplemental general fund (LOB), which tends to receive the highest percentage of state aid and can have outsized programmatic impacts.

Members asked for additional budget materials and easier navigation of the packet; the board requested a one‑page cover or summary that lists department reductions and additions and an updated three‑year March 15 history including 2024–25. The board also directed staff to schedule school‑level and department budget review sessions in coming weeks and to provide spreadsheets and departmental detail for those meetings. Finance staff said the building‑level budget meetings were complete and department reviews were scheduled through the first week of May.

On personnel and bargaining matters the board recessed into multiple executive sessions during the meeting (the board cited COMA as the authority). The public meeting record shows the board moved into and returned from executive session several times; those unanimous procedural votes are listed in the meeting record and are summarized in “Votes at a glance” below.

No final, binding vote on the faces recommendation was recorded in open session Thursday. Administrators said they need a board decision on the faces cluster approach to finish elementary budgets and will present an updated packet at the next budget meeting; several board members expressed that they expect department and school‑level presentations before final budget adoption.

The board directed staff to deliver the requested summary pages, the updated March 15 history, and the one‑page departmental cover sheet before the next budget meeting. Administration also agreed to provide the budget impact figures for any salary schedule or step movement proposals ahead of negotiations.

Votes at a glance
- Approve special agenda for April 17, 2025 — motion moved and seconded; roll call recorded as unanimous (see vote record). Outcome: approved.
- Recess to executive session (multiple motions to recess, extend, and return) — motions moved and seconded; roll calls recorded and entered into the public record as unanimous procedural votes. Outcomes: approved (timed executive sessions for personnel/COMA matters).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","KCKPS Board of Education Special Meeting 4.17.25","oneSentenceSummary","Administration presented a budget outlook showing an estimated $6 million in new general fund aid and several anticipated new expenses; board asked for a decision on a proposed cluster model for 'faces' positions (estimated at about $700,000) and scheduled follow-ups for department and school budgets.","taxTitle","Kansas City, School Boards, Kansas","taxId",13089,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6267712,"District hears RSP enrollment, boundary and housing analysis; board to set criteria for boundary committee",4988,352000,5340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3066343-dc17132285ed30c755e021b76e010de5&start=352&end=5340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3066343-dc17132285ed30c755e021b76e010de5/thumbnail_352000.jpg","/articles/6267712/Kansas/District-hears-RSP-enrollment-boundary-and-housing-analysis-board-to-set-criteria-for-boundary-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6267712-251136d0693de0997b759b8883131db2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770873675&Signature=LthqglwB8kRV~blCWZz3DFEuj8l9-OFpCUkS6ocY1sntJDZQikRuMgyg93RweHrFAFX7bvkJuxsImG~rfF-igG6p9ijtlKjurzjQgHQrzJbAvnDPlZ~eiD81iVHZXu525HKd4QC8MjKWRyF~guFbe74d-K8UtQUHaPQh98x0lQy5Z0TdYpvxYrERRLDq6~akJ~erY9ZWdcJCeM78YX7nQ3QO5LfWyOiKzhtPAygltsLWZSJmGvl1XHFuObWAoZUWc31DnEMb8NltB8TNJhqq-eDkB~b-1zV7dWrKlyXOxTEpqufEy1~3vIvdI1M6IdSOaVcdEIGDjz4lKSNW56jWHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The district's board on Thursday heard a detailed presentation from RSP on current enrollment trends, housing development and boundary planning that will inform the implementation of bond-funded projects and a planned boundary review.

RSP planner Rob Schwartz told the board the presentation “is really 5 parts” — enrollment and demographics, developments, projections, next steps and an appendix — and urged members to focus on the executive summary. “Page 5 is where everything really comes to be. This is the executive summary,” Schwartz said.

The consultants said the district saw an enrollment uptick this year after several years of losses: total enrollment rose roughly 2.5 percent (from 2,324 to 2,425 in one cited comparison) and the district recorded a positive average cohort change — the first comparable increase since 2006–07. RSP also reported that live births in Wyandotte County have declined over the past decade, a demographic headwind that makes stable or growing kindergarten cohorts harder to sustain without increased market share or migration into the district.

RSP planner Jenna Wallace walked the board through the methodology. The firm divides the district into small planning areas (neighborhoods, apartment complexes, townhome clusters) and models births, cohort retention, in- and out-migration and housing yield at that block level. Wallace said the district’s recent cohort gains were “spread out throughout most grade levels” and that kindergarten classes currently outnumber the senior class — a pattern that can support future stabilization if the trend continues.

On capacity, RSP flagged constraints at specific schools. The presentation notes capacity pressure at Carl Bruce Middle School and at Washington High School. RSP also displayed maps of student density and planning-area changes, showing pockets of both growth and decline across the district and higher student density near Central Middle and several cluster neighborhoods.

Housing and development were central to RSP’s projections. The consultants reported 62 new housing units completed in 2024–25 and identified roughly 2,900 potential new dwelling units over the next 10 years, with about 752 described as currently active or in process. RSP emphasized that unit type matters: their “yield rate” analysis found single‑family homes in the district historically produce about 43–44 students per 100 units, while multifamily yield has declined to roughly 32–33 students per 100 units in recent years. The firm noted that new multifamily construction can vary widely in student yield depending on unit size, price point and whether units are targeted to families.

RSP tied the projections to the district’s feeder structure. Wallace noted Douglas Elementary is currently split between two middle schools but fully feeds Wyandotte High, and RSP asked the board to consider whether to preserve complete feeder relationships as part of any boundary options. The consultants also presented parcel‑level development maps and a list of identified projects, noting developer timing and market conditions can change expected build-out timelines.

Board members asked for clarifying data that RSP said it can supply: specific schools attended by out‑of‑district students (RSP said it can pull that), a combined projection that reflects bond‑related school consolidations (for example where two elementary attendance centers are planned to be combined), and additional detail on yield rates by project type. Several members urged RSP and staff to return with materials that model the impact of bond projects (school consolidations and new buildings) on projected utilization.

RSP and district staff proposed a boundary‑setting process that includes a board approval step for guiding principles and criteria, six committee meetings, public input, and two board reviews; the consultants said the board should set objectives for the committee at the next meeting. The presentation materials and a homework packet will be sent to board members in advance of the follow‑up.

Next steps the board agreed to: administration will work with RSP to circulate a homework packet and schedule a follow‑up meeting in May (the board asked staff to avoid graduation week where possible). The board directed staff to provide the additional data requests RSP listed and to return with maps and scenarios that incorporate planned bond projects.

The boundary presentation portion of Thursday’s meeting ended before the board recessed for a budget discussion and executive session.","At a special board meeting April 17, RSP analysts presented enrollment projections, neighborhood-level student density and a 10‑year housing pipeline; the board reviewed next steps for a boundary process tied to bond projects and asked for guiding principles before a May meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board reviews budget outlook and asks for decision on elementary 'faces' cluster staffing

District hears RSP enrollment, boundary and housing analysis; board to set criteria for boundary committee