Excelsior Springs levy would raise 70¢ per $100 to fund staff pay increases, district official says

Mark Bullmore, the district's incoming superintendent, told a public forum in Excelsior Springs that the school district is asking voters to approve a levy increase that would raise the tax rate by 70 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to increase salaries and benefits.

"The point of this is to increase general annual revenues, to directly improve salaries and benefits in order to address, our ability to recruit and retain staff members," Bullmore said, outlining the district's case for the ballot measure.

District officials and a third-party consultant, Educational Management Solutions, presented the results of a compensation study the district commissioned to compare local pay to peer districts. Bullmore said teaching staff at the district are about 9% below the peer median at entry steps (1–10) and about 6.5% below at higher steps, with the largest deficit at the masters-plus level. He said classified support staff are about 20% below starting pay median and about 8% below by step 15, and administrative staff are roughly 28% below starting pay median and 23% below by step 15.

Bullmore said the district employs about 375 people and that staff salaries account for about $26 million of payroll — roughly 74–78% of the overall district budget. The district's current tax rate is 5.2262; the proposed increase would raise property taxes by about $300 a year on a $225,000 home, Bullmore said, using that figure as an example to illustrate homeowner impact.

The district's proposed allocation of new money, as described by Bullmore, would direct approximately 78.2% of the new funds toward certified (teaching) staff, 17.9% toward classified staff and 3.9% toward administration. Bullmore said Educational Management Solutions recommended and district leadership generally accepted a proposal of targeted raises: an 8% adjustment for certified staff, 6% for classified staff and 4% for administrators. The design of the increase places relatively more raise percentage toward higher rungs of the certified salary scale to reduce turnover among experienced teachers.

Bullmore described why the district placed the measure into Fund 1 (the general operating fund) rather than Fund 2 (the teachers' fund), which is restricted to certified-staff pay. "If you put it into the teacher's fund, only teachers can be paid for that. We found it very important that we wanted it to impact all of our staff members," he said, noting the district's intent to raise pay across job families.

On financial controls, Bullmore said the district will use the ballot language and the district's annual audit to check how funds are spent. "When we do a state audit, it tells us that we need to spend these funds. This is how we've allocated these funds in the ballot language...and then when they go through into our annual audit, they will check and make sure that's how those funds are being used," he said.

Asked about contingency plans if the levy fails, Bullmore said the district will prioritize keeping instruction strong but acknowledged staff costs dominate the budget. "Our people budget is 74 to 78% of our budget. It's $26,000,000," he said, and suggested that avoiding larger class sizes is a key priority but that staff reductions or larger class sizes could be on the table if revenue does not increase. He said the district has reduced staff through attrition over recent years (about 14 positions over three years) and will continue to examine positions as they open.

Bullmore and forum moderators also emphasized that the levy is a local vote scheduled for the coming Tuesday and that the board must later ratify any salary plan. He said the district leadership committee developed how new funds would be allocated and that the school board would need to approve final compensation changes if the levy passes.

The district provided homeowners with a sample impact: Bullmore used a $225,000 home to estimate an annual increase of slightly less than $300, and reminded listeners that assessed value and local exemptions can change the actual dollar impact. He repeated that the intent of the levy is ongoing revenue for compensation rather than a one-time expense.

Next steps for voters include the scheduled ballot vote; if the measure succeeds, Bullmore said the district will present the proposed compensation allocation to the board for final approval and subject the use of funds to the district's audited accounting procedures.

Ending: The forum moderator closed by reminding attendees to vote on the levy in the upcoming election and inviting further questions of district staff.