Olathe Public Schools staff on Tuesday urged the board to consider a no-tax-rate-increase bond referendum in 2026 to fund building reinvestment, technology and athletic and activity space updates after presenting an analysis showing slowed enrollment but continued capital needs.

The district presented survey results and financing scenarios for a potential March 3 mail-in election, showing public support for reinvestment projects at three tested totals — $200 million, $400 million and $600 million — if the current bond-and-interest tax rate is not increased.

Why it matters: The district said lower birth rates and a decline in starter housing mean enrollment is no longer the primary driver for bond spending; instead the district must maintain and modernize 6.2 million square feet of facilities, replace aging systems and provide technology that the district lacks a dedicated funding stream to pay for.

John Henn, a district staff presenter, summarized the district’s three “buckets” of funds — operating, capital outlay and bond-and-interest — and said bond proceeds remain necessary because capital outlay revenue (the locally levied 8 mills maximum) yields less in Olathe than in neighboring districts with higher assessed commercial valuation. “Ironically, we have more students than they do. So on a per-pupil basis, we generate less, which drives us to more bond dependency,” Henn said.

The district contracted ETC Institute to survey voters; staff said ETC mailed 3,000 randomly selected addresses and ultimately validated 411 responses (about a ±4.8% margin of error). Respondents rated several project types consistent with the district’s stated needs: building maintenance, middle-school locker room upgrades that emphasize privacy, additional playground equipment, investment in high-school buildings (including athletic/activity spaces and outdoor facilities used by marching band and performing arts), and safety/security/technology replacements.

Henn said consolidation of low-enrollment elementary schools tested well: when asked about consolidating two low-enrollment elementary schools into one location, 71% of respondents were supportive. The district is considering options to “right-size” elementary capacity in the central area if needed.

The survey showed only a small difference in voter likelihood between the $200 million and $600 million packages, Henn said, but that respondents were more likely to be firmly committed (“very likely”) at the larger package when they liked the projects: “If you like the project, they’re all in. It doesn’t matter the dollar amount,” he said.

Board members asked about planning assumptions. Board member Brad Boyd asked how far the enrollment forecasts extend; staff said forecasts are most confident at five years, with some planners stretching to 10. Henn cautioned that local demographic trends — notably fewer starter homes and lower birth rates — make long-term upticks unlikely absent housing changes.

Next steps: Henn said staff will return with a formal recommendation in November, file required postings with the state board of education in December if the board approves a plan, and the district could conduct a mail-in ballot election on March 3 if the board places a no-tax-rate-increase measure on the ballot.

Board comment and context: Board members and the superintendent emphasized that maintaining assets and preserving the district’s competitiveness for families were major drivers behind a bond proposal. “We still have an obligation to maintain the investments that the public made in our buildings,” one board member said.

Ending: The board did not vote on a bond at Tuesday’s meeting; staff will present a formal recommendation in November and continue community outreach in the coming weeks.