Committee hears state legislative developments and federal funding uncertainty

The Finance and Facilities Committee heard updates on several state and federal developments that could affect district finances, including a House bill carrying a cost-of-living increase, reduced special-education funding in a House budget draft, a proposed banking bill that would change how local governments consider local banks, and a state-level property tax limit under discussion in the legislature.

Russell Mapp, the district’s chief financial officer, said a House measure he described as the legislative budget included the general state aid amount to fund a 4.3% CPI increase but reduced the special education allocation the district had expected. "The sped amount that we've been telling the board that we thought was in there for 30,000,000, I believe, got decreased to 10,000,000," Mapp said, and he noted part of that amount for the current year was drawn from federal ESSER/ARPA funds.

Superintendent Mike Schumacher and other administrators stressed that federal funding uncertainty remains a concern. Schumacher said the district's contingency planning had considered the possibility that federal funds could be rescinded and that, for Shawnee Mission, the district receives about $11.8 million in federal funds annually for programs largely tied to personnel. "For the Shawnee Mission School District, that's about $11,800,000 annually," Schumacher said, adding the bulk of those dollars support staff positions.

Committee members also discussed a proposed banking bill that would require a "first look" for local banks, potentially mandating that local public entities award investments to banks that meet a specified rate tied to Treasury yields. Mapp said municipalities and school districts had testified against aspects of the bill, including proposals to require the use of a state-level pledged security for public deposits and to include bond proceeds in the first-look requirement.

The group also flagged a Senate-passed constitutional resolution that would impose a hard cap on property-tax increases (a 3% cap was discussed in testimony). Members observed that if a constitutional limit passes the legislature it would still go to a public vote. The committee was reminded the legislative session's turnaround day had been reached and that bills approved by one chamber were moving to the opposite chamber for the second half of the session.

No formal board actions were taken during the legislative update; the segment served to inform committee members ahead of upcoming budget workshops and board budget presentations.