LSR7 Board of Education Work Session- 12/4/25

001Okay, I'd like to officially call this work session to order. Could I get adoption of tonight's agenda, please? >> I move to adopt the agenda as presented. >> Second. All those in favor, please raise your right hand and say, "I." >> I. >> Okay. >> Demographic study. Good evening and uh welcome welcome to tonight's work session. It's a it's a special night. If you haven't been outside the super moon, if you seen it's it's amazing. So, you know, after tonight's session, make sure you get a chance go and take a look at the super moon. It's also a special night because we have a special guest with us tonight, Mr. Rick Braver. Uh Rick is our demographer. He's been our demographer since 2002. Uh he's seen a lot happen in our school district since since

0022002. He's been doing this work type of work since 1988, so 37 years uh in this profession. So, he's one of the very best around the country. Matter of fact, he's he's working on uh three I'm sorry, 33 33 projects around around the country for other school districts. And so, uh he's one of the very best and we're very fortunate to have him in our school district doing this work, but also very fortunate to have him tonight make this presentation. So, Mr. Bremer, >> President Myers, Vice President Miller, members of the board, Dr. Um it's my pleasure to be here tonight to um give you an update on the demographic um report that we've been doing for the district as you've heard for for quite some time. Um it's my privilege to be with you

003also. It's um this is one of the uh become a very special place for me and I started coming here in 2002 and I didn't know where it was and now I don't need a map and I know where every sub every subdivision is and I think I've worked for the district longer than anybody in this room. So, um, it's been it's been a real privilege. Oh, okay. I'll take it back then. Anyway, very long time and I appreciate the opportunity. I really do. Uh, so the scope of our study is obviously uh enrollment projections and demographics and what that means. Uh, we look at enrollment trends uh not only the total but grade level distribution, geographic distribution. real work comes in looking at what's happening at the neighborhood levels and then you know working

004with attendance area totals and school projections um demographic characteristics of the existing population. We're at the point now that it's a very large existing base of housing units. So when you build a 100 houses it doesn't have the same kind of impact as it did back in the year 2000. So um the characteristics of who's out there and the aging particularly right now of our resident population is a very major factor in determining our our enrollment. So total population doesn't mean what it meant before. Um we do a very thorough inventory of residential uh projects and what they might mean in terms of uh enrollment in the in the district. Um have a database that goes back to 2002 that tracks every single building permit that's been issued in this district in the last 23

005years. So we have a definite pattern to follow. We know what builders build at what paces and so forth. Um we do two enrollment projection models. One is a macroeconomic top down. How does Lee Summit fit into Jackson County into greater Kansas City? And that's where we look at big factors, the big birth rates and job creation and all the things that uh might um influence people to move to the district. Um whereas the subdist take a peek and see is all done at this level. So you see the boxes on the map, there's about 170 of them. We refer to them affectionately as grids. Um and we have data then um on enrollment and demographics again going clear back to 2002. I can tell you how many students by grade level the district served

006from each one of these each one of these planning areas. The purple dots that you're seeing overlaid on them right now are the actual locations of the students that that attend the the district uh this fall. And there's not many, but as you'll see, there's some purple dots that go outside the district. So it's not only inside the district but um since the board has had adopted the policy of allowing um staff to bring students with them to school we have seen an increase you know in in the number of students coming from outside the district. Um as you can see the majority of the population is concentrated in what I'd like to call the central area of the district uh or to the west out along the third avenue and and shipment corridors. And

007then of course in the in the southwest corner with the big area in between left undeveloped which we all know is because of the property reserve lands that caused this rather unusual distribution of enrollment. And like I have said in the past, um this situation which you've had to work with here, um is is difficult in that you just don't have your your your student population evenly spread across one nice little area of the district. You have that in the middle, but then you've got a clump here and you've got a clump here and you've got a clump here. And it impacts all kinds of decisions in terms of site, you know, site location, transportation, all kinds of things. And it's obviously something that we, you know, are proud to help manage, but it is

008an extra challenge where you've got this sort of odd distribution of students. Um, starting back looking at 40th day enrollment going clear back to 2005 2006. The blue bar would be the number and the red squiggly line is the percent change year-over-year, which is key to the right hand axis on this chart. And so you can see going clear back to 2005 growth in in uh in excess of 3% per year. From 2000 through about 2007 or eight there was about 800 6 to 800 single family houses added per year um to the district's inventory. And that did propo you know um um cause a fair amount of growth in in enrollment. And um basically after the great recession. So starting in about 2010 or so, the rate of growth just really declined. The number

009of housing added almost went to zero for a couple of years. And since then, it's come back somewhat, but the big part of the comeback has been in apartments. We're going to talk about that in a minute. Whereas single family homes were still running in the range of around 400 units per year, which is half of what it was clear back, you know, 20 years ago. So, uh we do see the the the combination of that and the birth rates that we're going to talk about has put us in a position where we're at least temporarily experiencing enrollment declines such that this year's number is almost exactly the same as 2008 2009. And it's it's amazing because there's been 9,000 um housing units, a full quarter of the inventory of the district has been added

010since 2008 2009. And that's just underscoring how significant the the shift in demographics has been. So, you know, again, we're going to keep bringing that theme back. The next way we look at the data is in the average enrollment per grade in groups. So amongst the K2 group, this is the average number of students per grade level. We had 3, five, 6, 8, 9, 12. Um, and you can see that if you go clear back to the start of this chart that they were all very close together. Um, K2 was still the smallest, but almost exactly the same size as as the 35 cohort. If you could go back five more years on this chart, which I can, K2 is actually the biggest group because when you have fast growth, it's almost always led by

011younger families and an influx of new students. So what's happened since then is of course is that the K2 group has been in decline uh since 2011 2012 um had the big dip for COVID in 2020 uh 2021 and only a small rebound and one of the things that we have seen um everywhere that I work is particularly in more affluent neighborhoods is that there were some people that um changed their attitude about public education and and and offerings um postcoid and there was a lot of money that was put into developing online and alternative programs during that same period of time. So um you know the K2 number didn't come back to where it was in 201920 um and in fact in the last couple of years has dropped off again precipitously which is

012a worry you know in the in the in the near term because these curves follow each other. So when you see for instance a big drop in the 35 cohort in this period corresponds to a drop in the 68 cohort two or three years from now. And so right now where we're at is we're looking at the very first declines in the per grade at the high school level ever. And that's because it's now finally gotten from the sixth and eighth grade up to the high school level. Dr. Buck, did you want to add something? Yeah, I was going to point out that that group um when they when they were born is a year after the recession and the collapse of 089. Um so that's a a bubble that's been going through. We've been

013watching that go through the entire time. So that meant our high schools went down 150 kids and our middle schools went up 150 kids just for that freshman class moving into high school. >> Correct. Unfortunately, we'll have a couple of years here where I think that's going to continue to be the case before it sort of evens back out again. Um, like I said, what I'm most concerned about is is what's going on with the K2 group at the present time. You look at that not just by grade, but by by cohort, but actually by individual grade. And I usually don't show this chart. It's just that it's kind of interesting. Blue is is little and and and red is big. And you can see if you go back here to 2005 where we had

014I don't count kindergarten because there's a lot of different kindergarten providers but there were 1284 first graders and 1216 seniors. So the distribution of enrollment was almost flat across the grades whereas we're sitting here today with a with,00 first graders and 15 and500 uh 40 12th graders. That means if we do what we call simple roll up, the eighth graders leave and we'll be bringing in another class of about,00 kindergarteners. We're down 400 every year before we start. And so the fact that we're not losing a full 400 a year means there is people moving in. It's not like people aren't moving in. It's just not enough to offset this um uneven distribution that we have. And I highlighted these ones in yellow because the 1541 seniors this year came from a class of about

015um 12, 1280 or so uh first graders. So that gives you an idea of how much growth that class experienced while it was going making its way up through the grades. And that's generally what we can, you know, in absence of a lot of new housing, that's what we're going to be looking at. And so when you think about that 2018 number, I'm sorry, 1103 number first grade we have this year, um, that rolls up, you know, if nothing else happened, it rolls up into a significantly smaller number of seniors on down the road. I don't think we're going to go there because of the housing growth that we've got coming in front of us. But if, you know, absent that, the the district would definitely continue to shrink just based on who's out there

016right now. Um, again, we look at subdist stuff. This is just a map that shows the number of students that you're serving from each one of our planning grids. The color is normalized because the grids aren't the same size to enrollment per square mile. And obviously this is foundational to our subdist projections and it is what gets used in doing facility planning and boundary potential boundary planning adjustments and those kinds of things because we have that number of students by grid by grade um for a very long time. In fact, just looking at the last five years on this map, same map, but now blue means there's a loss in students in the last five years. And red means there's been a gain. And so pretty much the places where you see gains are the

017places where we've been, you know, continuing to build some houses up here on Seventh Highway, Chapman Farms, and down in Woodlon Estates off of Seventh Highway and around that area, Woodland Trails down out of Greenwood. um um some of the developments down in this corner of the district. Um Stony Creek and those um interesting right here, this is Eagle Creek. Eagle Creek was one of the most successful projects I ever tracked through the process. They built 50 houses a year there even when the economy was bad. And uh it's already started to decline. It's amazing how fast you go from peak enrollment once an area is built out to starting to see it backslide. And so that's what we've got to be aware that there's a balancing act here going up here and going down

018there. >> We have several people in the room live Eagle Creek. So I want to make a clarification. Decline in enrollment, not the subdivision and decline. Declining enrollment within Eagle Creek. Sorry, I didn't I didn't I I did I didn't mean to scare anybody. No, it's my it's actually one of my favorite developments in the entire area. It's just that it's it's amazing to me how fast enrollment peaks once you start building. And I have done some longitudinal studies for other districts that show that between peak enrollment and minimum enrollment, you're talking about 30 to 40%. So if you're in an this building really super fast. You have to overbuild to have a seat for everybody originally knowing that about 30% of them are going to be vacant eventually. Now you've you're not in that

019position and so it's actually better because your growth is coming in as other places are declining. Now, I realize the seats may not be where you want them to be, but in terms of grand scale of things, you know, you've had been able to have increases in some areas and still have net a lot of seats open, you know, in schools across the district. Looking at some of the demographic characteristics of the population in general, uh the green I'm going to start with this upper chart. The green bar is total population in the district. That's all persons. So it's been continuing to increase. Blue bars are the total number of housing units again beginning continuing to increase. The red line shows the share of the population under of the total and that has decreased such

020that from about 29% to about 24%. It's basically just enough to bring the change to zero. So even though total population has been growing. The population under 18 has been staying almost exactly fixed. And one of the things that that is causing that is this distribution of householders. So the red part of the bar down here are householders under the age of 55 and the green part is householders over the age of 55. And so you can see that from over the last 25 years, we've had maybe a 25% increase in the or 30% increase in the householders under 55, but the the the number over 55 has grown by like 125%. And so the vast majority of the net result of our growth has been adding older households. And that's another reason why the

021school age population hasn't been increasing like total population has. It's because of the age structure of the households. Um and in particular the blue the blue line is is a is the owners under 55. So if you go back to the year 2000 55% of the households were owners under the age of 55 and that's now down to less than 40%. Because as the come in. It gives you householders less than 55. It does that, but it doesn't give you the school age population. And so that's where the that's where the divergence has really come is the continued housing growth, continued population growth. Currently, no growth in the school age population. A lot of that also has to do, of course, with birth rates. Um, back in back in 2006, there um the um Jackson

022County birth rate was over 46 live births per thousand people 15 to 39 that has now dropped down below 33% 34% and um the rate is down now a quarter and the number of births is down 18%. So essentially, even though we've had growth across the county, we've had housing units added across the county, we have 18% fewer births now than we did um 17 years ago. Um and that's really the bottom line of what's coming forward um and affecting our enrollment. So I look at that, I lag it by so 2006 means they hit kindergarten in 2011. So, I'm lagging it out. And so, I know now we're sitting here in in 25 26 and we've still got a ways to go down in that kindergarten number. Now, the kindergarten the birth rate appears

023to be stabilizing um um after the after the sharp decline in in 2021. Um it has shown strength in the in the two years since then. So, we're hoping that here and really across the nation, we're finally starting to see the bottom of the birth rate dip, you know, but that means it's going to take 12 years to work its way out of out to the out to the high school level. So, even though we may be seeing minimum kindergarten enrollment as a group, as a nation coming up, it's going to take a long time for that to result in minimum uh senior and high school enrollment. And again, you're you'll have some growth that will offset that. In the meantime, um the district enrollment in in in the lagged fashion, kindergarten enrollment fell by

024about 22% versus the 16% in the in the declines in in the births during that same corresponding period. Um which is that shape of that curve I don't like where the K2 appears to be declining faster than it really should be. And um Dr. Shelton and I have done some some research and um there's a pretty good return to homeschooling right now that's that's taking place and um we're going to see how long and how deep that actually gets because we've seen that in the past and then people find out that it's hard and they send their kids back to school. But but at the present time, you know, it's also making a difference in our size of our kindergarten classes. >> Rick, I think when I look at this, you're saying the decline in

025birth rates, it's the entire Jackson County and you're comparing it to our kindergarten enrollment of our district only when there's 12 districts in the county. So, it's not quite apples oranges. There's 11 other districts in that declining birth rate. >> Correct. Exactly right. >> I just wanted this to show how they compared. We'll talk about residential development. Now, this is just the total number of permitted housing units. Um, blue part of the bar being single family, green part being multifamily, which is mostly apartments. There's town homes and things in there, too. Um, but as you can see, I talked about in the early 2000s over 800 almost at one point a thousand housing units, single family housing units being added to inventory and then the result of the great recession where by By 2009, 2010,

026we were less than 200 units being added, you know, districtwide. And obviously, it's rebounded from that. It's formed a nice base at 3 to 400 single family um housing units per year. Um and but the big number of additions, you know, has been in multifamily. So, um, over the past 10 years, uh, 48% of the housing units added to inventory were multif family units or apartments. And even though they certainly could have students in them, they don't at the same rate. And particularly the type of apartments that have been built here in Le Summit have been mostly higherend we call urban lifestyle um apartments which are not marketed or targeted or designed for families. They don't have playgrounds and they they have a conciier and a wait room and so those those kinds of units

027um just don't help build school age population. And you can see this there's been strength in the in the single family market. Um but it really hasn't had the kind of rebound that we were kind of looking for. Um, we hope that'll come down the road. In terms of the potential development going forward, there's a lot which shows on this map. These are polygons that show future land use. Yellow colors are single family housing. Orange colors will be some kind of multifamily housing like up here at Discovery uh Park where they're building the apartments right now. See, that's all in orange. red is usually commercial uh development. So, but we we track all all all the land use. Um and like I said, that's about 40,000 units the way we're tracking the inventory right now

028is that's possible. Um about 56% 60% of those would be single family homes. So, there is definitely more apartments uh on the way. >> Can I ask a question about those apartments? So you have on this graph multif family and townos. Is there a differentiation of what's like that urban lifestyle quote unquote that you mentioned a minute ago? >> Well, they would all we we do inside of our database as they're colored on this map. They're just all grouped together. But actually inside of our database and in the report I think it even shows it broken down into much much more level of detail. In fact, single family, I think we have seven different density categories that we use. And multifamily, we're looking at standard apartment complexes versus these lifestyle complexes, you know. So, we

029do differentiate and we use that differentiation um in the student generation rates then that we assume about those projects too. The same polygons except here they're colored by when we think it might happen. So, in this The the red is everywhere we where where we have existing uh projects under construction. The darker orange are where projects are coming online in the next year. Then you get down to the yellow and the blues are getting further and further out um into the future. Um this is how we prioritize if we're going to build 600 houses, where do they go first, second, and third? And that's what drives then the subdist projections by uh school and by attendance area. Um I would point out that part of what we've added to the map now this PRI south

030this entire area that I'm circling right now if you were if we would have done this three years ago I wouldn't be showing anything there at all. So this has really changed the game in looking at you know the amount of single family and actually higher density single family and townhouse type development that they're envisioning across this project. And one of the best things about that is that housing diversity gives you stability because you need to have or like to have product available to everyone in the market. No matter what you're looking for, if it's a starter home or if it's your milliondoll dream home, it's nice to have as many points on the spectrum covered as you can. And I think that they've realized that in putting together their preliminary land use plan and

031are really looking at offering a much more robust variety of of housing than we're used to seeing here. And I think that's what I'm most excited about in terms of the potential for enrollment because I think we can gain back some degree of housing affordability by looking at these different op these different types and styles of housing options. >> Rick, on this map, if you can go back to that, that is a in time for maybe September, right? Because just this week you heard about something else. You probably recolor it um about a potential developments coming up. I can see one and I know it's red now that wasn't red on this map because this was done based on when you were out here in September. Correct. >> In August. Yeah. Yeah. And there's and

032there's and there's timing issues that that that shift as we go along too. One of them is that down here um at Summit View Farms, you notice how we have part of it's red, which means it's being built or is active, and part of it's blue, which is way out in the future. That's because there was a falling out between the owners of the property. And I just uh had a discussion with the city of Kansas City uh planner who says that they have mended their ways and she's looking for a fresh plat to come forward on that project and get that project rolling again. So Dr. Buck's exactly right and that's one of the reasons why we keep doing the updates is because you know it just changes you know pretty much constantly. Um

033out of that potential we think there's going to be about 11 and a half thousand housing units built over the next uh 10 years. That's this number here. Um majority slight majority at least will be multifamily. We have coming up not so much this next year but in the two years afterwards with Discovery Park and a number of other projects. We have got a massive number of apartments that are coming at us in the next two or three years in those projects. I think that we'll find out after that how much appetite there is for additional development. But the stuff that you see in the next two or three years that's in the pipeline. That's not maybe that's really going to happen. Maybe after that people will say, "Oh my gosh, we overbuilt." You know,

034but those projects have to happen because they're already financed and planned and approved. So that's really going to happen. Um single family development, we have a little bit of a down year. This is lagged. So what I looking at impacting us for 2627 is only about 340 units. Um and it probably stay that way or grow just a little bit the next year. And then after that, Starting in about 28 is when we're now expecting to start seeing the activity on the on the PR lands, property reserve lands. And so then we'll come up to a whole different pace of single family development. And I would say long-term projections are awfully difficult. The first five years, I think of these are pretty good. Second five years, if it turns into the project I think it

035will, these aren't high enough. I just don't know exactly how much to throw at it. And be honest, the housing market in the United States and here has been fairly weak. We see projects that are going and projects like summit homes on seventh on on Highway 7 that have sitting there with streets for the last six months and not a single stick of wood being used. So, it's really uneven out there and there's a lot of uncertainty in the housing market. But I think that's going to be resolved and I do think we'll add these housing units and that'll probably add about 2300 or so schoolaged persons. So that's persons aged 5 to 17 living in the district. That amount of development will >> how many did you say? >> 2350 is the current estimate

036for the next 10 years in terms of the increase in school age population. You can see the school age population has actually been going down as of, you know, very very recently, which is one of the things that's causing our enrollment to go down. Um, but between the birth rates bottoming out and the new projects getting underway, I think we'll finally start to see some growth in the school age population, especially in the second five years of the projections. Um, look at it by level. You can kind of see right now where we've got this low group going through at the 68 level which will translate to the 910 level for only about two or three more years and then it bottoms out and it starts heading back up. So that was the effect of

037these curves pushing forward on each other. We had a net loss of 259 Ku 12 this year. I think that'll turn into a loss of about 170 next year and it should be the last loss in terms of the demographics, in terms of what I've seen in the housing market. After that, we should be at least in a break even if not in a gain situation with everything um with everything taken into account. And then we do projections as I said um also by in in subd district. These happen to be by school. Um we have some actual data here that shows where each school has been over the last three or four years and then you know the totals for those and then in the projections you know where we see the most increases

038and decreases. And so you know over the next five years you know Trail Ridge area um is by far the biggest followed by Woodland and then uh the Hawthorne Hill area and then pretty much the same pattern but accelerating particularly in the Hawthorne Hill area and then um also in the Mason area um during the second five year period of time um small continued declines in some other places some schools that are um you know getting fairly small um at the middle school level they're all a very good size >> can you go back to the previous one just let everyone know on the previous one you see Greenwood going down. But remember, we're going to take about 150 kids that are currently at Woodland, but live west of Greenwood, and they will go to

039Greenwood when that building opens. So those two numbers will flip. Woodland will lose about 150 kids, and Greenwood will gain about 150 kids. >> Thank you. Um pretty even distribution amongst the amongst the amongst the middle schools. Um moving up the sixth graders um seems to have had um a good impact in terms of um stabilizing the middle school enrollment. Campbell with the most growth probably in the next five years followed by Summit Lakes where it'll continue. Um East Trails is the area where we've had growth recently but the grade structure coming up doesn't support that continuing. So, we'll see. That's one of the things we'd like to see. It might change. That's the kind of things those grade level distributions definitely do definitely do change. And with the way this high school areas are

040laid out, um you know, the vast majority of the long-term growth will still be at least summit west. However, you know, very stable at at Le Summit High School and at least Summit North. >> Can I ask a question about this page? Um the did you explain why there's a sharp increase and then a sharp decrease between 25 and 30, 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2035 in I think three or four schools where it goes up significantly and then back down again kind of levels out. >> Yeah, it's just this um it's tracking the distribution of the students by grade who are in the pipeline now essentially >> and a combination of the PR land development. So based on the timing that we are being told now um which is fuzzy still um but

041when PR land starts popping that's when west really starts increasing. Um enrollment continued to decline this year. Um but with low birth rates and the aging of this existing population um it just offsets any gains that there might be from the level of new home construction that we're having right now. Um level of home construction is expected to increase. However, we're going to continue to be somewhat offset by the aging of the existing population. Um, I think that'll be less of a factor in the second fiveyear period again because I think we're going to bring to the market a much more robust variety of housing options and I really think that's going to turn that one around. Um, we're looking at single family construction um, basically increasing slightly over the next couple of years, but

042it's really the second five years when that takes off. Whereas multif family construction is frontloaded. We've got the next two or three years or maybe four of very very high levels of construction and then I think the market's going to have to reassess where it is and see what the demand is for you additional housing units of that type. And I'm really bullish on your community. I know that there's long-term potential. It's a solid community. It's got great schools and it's got a good economic base. you know, a lot of growth that's happening around here isn't with housing. It's actually in creating new jobs and good jobs. And so, I'm encouraged that um that the future is bright and that the PR lands are going to come to the market and they are going to

043develop and it's going to it's going to put us on a different track again for a while. So, if you have any questions, I would be happy to take Can I ask? Okay. I didn't want to press the button. Okay. All right. I got a few questions. Um so, um the on page six, um when you showed kind of that following the enrollment through each year, sorry, I'm scrolling back to it. No, it's fine. >> Um, >> is it typical of most school districts or just districts like LSR7 that you see an increase of a few hundred kids uh or whatever percentage of kids as as they get older? Um, do you see that's an excellent that's if I can take a stab at then you can back me up or say I'm wrong, but

044there's kind of three different models. You see some districts where they decline as it gets older. Yeah. Um because they have a lot of starter homes, but when they can afford to move into another community, they move in when the kids are older. You see some like North Kansas City, their kindergarten and senior class is almost the same size. In fact, North Kansas City is the second largest school district. We're the sixth in the state, but their senior class is almost the same as ours. Their kindergarten class is 500 kids bigger than ours. Um that's the difference because they have a variety of of of housing stock, if you would. um we see it where it's more expensive to move in and thus we end up people move in with older kids um and so

045we end up gaining kids as we go up and we've been doing that for 15 years. you're you're what what I what I would call a move up housing market >> and so people move in as they become able versus move out as they become able because there are definitely the up and out you know districts where people are working to get out of those districts basically >> as they age >> and um do we have any data about that um the you mentioned and I didn't write down the page number the the household uh owners that are 55 Um, do you have any data that talks about like what age group they're selling into? And that kind of goes back to the answer to the last question. Um, like what age group are they

046selling to when they, you know, downsize or or move into a like retirement neighborhood or whatever? Um, do we have a demographic for who they're selling their houses to? >> I don't really have, you know, in like a direct link like that. However, we do track, you know, house owners and renters by age group over time. >> And so we can see how many of this group becomes, you know, 10 years from now is left in this group versus how many moved out >> and then by working backwards I can figure out who moved in. So it's almost a you almost have to get through it to the back door. But yes, we can actually kind of figure out who's moving in. And the thing is is that's how we know when people are moving

047in. moving in here in their 40s. >> Yeah. Kind of ties in with the last answer. >> Yeah. >> So, um and then u the fact that that even with all this new construction, the occupancy rate is so high in Lee Summit. Um what impact does that have on like that? That's I guess it's tying into the same thing again, but um that kind of um you know um price of housing and and >> well I think there's definitely a shortage of housing in the district. There's a critical housing shortage. It's just that it's it's affordability >> that's really preventing it in your case from correcting itself. And I and I do think that, you know, obviously steps are being taken at the national level to try to address those housing affordability issues, but it's

048a combination. It's been prices and interest rates. Either one had gone up, it wouldn't have been a problem. But the fact of the matter is we've had a large run up in housing prices. At the same time, interest rates went by. >> And I'll add another piece. rental is about 97% rent rate in our apartments, which means that they can charge more, which means you tend to have less kids. Um, as long as that rent that fill rate is that high, um, we tend to have less kids out of apartments. If that fill rate drops, they have to drop their prices to get the apartments full. Um, and that's when you'd see more kids. >> And then on page 14, um, we t you talked about the school age population. Um, I don't have the

049numbers memorized for the LSR7 enrollment rate on each of these years. Are we seeing a trend of percentage of kids going to LSR7 versus private, home school, whatever? Um, or is it pretty much uh flat, like the same percentage uh uh year year-over-year? >> We're in the upper 80%s now for percent of kids choosing public school. It used to be in the low 90%s and we're seeing that nationally. Um when we look at our our u enrollment at our two private schools that are primarily in our district um they pull from 70 and 40 zip codes is what they tell me. Um so it's hard to tell but they've grown both one's grown about 50 kids in the last six years. One's grown about 100 something kids the last six years. Homeschooling has increased rapidly.

050Um there was an article maybe a year ago that um somebody out of Wu I think somebody on the St. side did a study and I I think it's doubled the percent of kids that go that home school compared to what it did before. >> So if we look at for example if we went back to say something pre-COVID like 2017 2018 the LSR7 enrollment versus the entire school age population and then jumped down to like 2028 2029 projection. >> I mean you're you're looking at a a a decrease right and Okay. And and is it continuing in in the in the projection of the school age population, the percentage that goes to LSR7, is it continuing to decrease all the way through? >> I tend to flatten it over the second five years of

051the projection period because we're we're not in a sustainable, you know, we're in an anomaly, not in a long-term trend right now. And so if I were to take our current trend and just extend it straight line, I would come up with an answer that neither one of us would believe. And so we got to be really careful with it. Plus which the 2020 census was incredibly poor. Like even though this number right here for 2020 20,741 that's nothing that Rick did. That's actually from the US Census Bureau. However, the 2020 census was done during CO under some very dicey other circumstances. So, we don't even know if that number is real. >> Uh, and since then, all we can really look at is birth rates to try to figure out, you know, which way

052it might be going because we honestly don't get this level of detail until it's history. >> And I have one more question if you can bear with me. Um, so just to be clear for anyone watching the video or whatever, all of this data was shared with the Lee Summit Elementary, Westview Elementary, Pratt, and with the CAC. Is that correct? >> CAC has not seen this. Um, Dr. Shelton, I'll defer to you what the Pratt saw. U, but this is what data will then every single year when Rick presents to the board, um, this is what the CFMP will look at. um and then make recommendations to you and you'll learn about that in January. >> Thank you. >> Do you want to come to the mic? Sorry. That way people online can hear but

053we this is the first unveiling of this data. So I don't think this particular packet but last year's packet uh is has been public for a long time. So, a little fuzzy on the dates, but the first process action team, Lee Summit and Westview, uh Pratt, that was before the study was was done. I mean, it was was in the works. You know, he as Rick said, he's here in August. He's working on September and October. He gets that to us probably at November, you know, early November. So I believe that Pratt saw the data from the fir from the last prior of the previous study. The second Pratt the Pratt that looked at elementary enrollment that's that Pratt saw this data >> and Dr. Carlson start moving over here because he was the co-chair

054of that Pratt. I should have asked him Dr. Carlson do you want to come to the microphone? Sorry that would have been a more appropriate ask. >> No you're you're correct. So we did look at this data the previous versions and per the request of several team members on there we did some analysis of that data uh to look at um oh we we took I think gosh seven eight years of reports and then did a I don't know if you've seen this Rick but we did a kind of some analysis to see how accurate those da that data was to present to the team because there were some questions about the reliability of the data and we were able to show how it trended and it was pretty pretty good especially within one to

055three years of of where it was and then it was still still good five years out. So we we did do a lot of analysis and looking at that and uh saw these trends that are repeating themselves again today. >> Thank you. any other I have a question then um back to you were talking about the percentage of kids um that choose you know us over the private school options here in town and and this may be a dumb question but at some point does the tuition price raise enough at the private that it triggers them back our direction does is that does that phenomenon happen or is that no >> I haven't really seen it. >> Okay. >> It's a pretty small group to begin with, you know, honestly. And so I don't think

056that price is is a big factor. >> Dr. Johnson, >> and if you can't answer this question, I totally get it. Are there any models out there that show an increase in growth in the LSSE area to have us think maybe the number of children will increase the enrollment will increase? Are there any models that show that? >> Well, this one does. I mean, it it does it does show that we should gain >> I I think she's asking about Lee Summit Elementary. >> Sorry, Lee Summit Elementary. Sorry. >> I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought about the district. >> So are there any models that show no there is expected growth here so enrollment is going to go back up? >> Yeah. Um there isn't anything to fuel that you know and and

057you go look back and I don't know if you saw this in my three or four years ago studies you know we were looking at some some new housing options for downtown Le Summit that might have brought in you know some some younger families again. Um But what we've gotten instead are again urban lifestyle projects where we essentially don't get any kids out of those out of those. And so I don't see anything going forward to prop it up. Now it's been 200 or thereabouts ever since I started doing this job. So it doesn't want to go down much either. It's an odd thing that it would be stable at such a low number for such a long period of time. Thank you very much. I enjoyed your presentation greatly. >> Thank you very much

058for having me. >> Thank you. >> Safe travels backward. >> Oh yeah. >> He is from Arizona so he was getting dust off his coke to go. >> Okay. Dr. Prop C. >> Prop C. So, I'm going to have three presenters for this one come up. So, Dr. Herzog, Dr. Carlson, and Miss Bergen are going to come up. And so, um, if we can, somebody hit the the first two. So, I will go to the agenda and kind of walk you through what they're going to go through here. Um, so this is we're going to go over the history of Propecy. And by history, I mean going back to 1982 when it was passed uh in our state, and also what our history of elections are around the partial waiver we currently have. Um, then

059we're going to go over the the revenue and taxpayer impact. Um we'll use this year's numbers because obviously every year it's a little different. So this year it's a little over 12 cents we rolled back and what that mean would mean if you didn't roll back. Um and then Dr. Carlson will take over from Dr. Herzog and he's going to talk a little bit about um what this means of salary schedules because if you remember in um the CAC what they asked for is that we do this ballot issue and 100% of it go to salaries and benefits. Uh and then um last would be Katie Bergen taking over kind of rehashing what you saw before we did our bond in 24 September 24 um with applied economics not applied economics that's um you'll get

060the right entourage is that entourage yes there so they uh you know show you the the survey data where it started off at 49% of people before they were educated were supporting this topic and by the end it became 59% of our um survey folks um moving to supporting a full waiver of Prop Z. So, kind of give you some background. Some of that will be rehash of what September maybe of 2024 you saw. And just let you know that is old data. It's not current data, but it is closer to the assessment debacle of Jackson County. The farther we get from that, probably the better that's going to be. So, without further ado, Dr. Herzog, I'll let you start off with history. >> All right. Well, thank you. Um, Dr. Buck went through the

061objectives for tonight. Um, just want to make sure you know as we go through, just please feel free to ask questions during each of our parts. You don't have to wait till we're all the way through. If there's something that comes up, just ask away so we can help you understand as much as we can about the history, the taxpayer impact, the revenue, where this is going, potentially the salary schedules, and then sort of what our community has asked for. So, my portion really talking about history, and then also the impact to our budget, uh, specifically revenue and then our taxpayers. So brief history um just so you understand where Propsy came from. It's been around since 1982. So it was enacted by voters in 1982 across the state of Missouri. A 1% sales tax

062was enacted for to go directly to public schools. That comes to us in the form of local revenue actually. So the state tells us to to code that as local revenue when it comes into us. So we receive approximately it's approximate approximately $25 million each year in recent history uh of Prop Cy revenue from the state that comes from that sales tax. So that's given to us on a per pupil basis. So so there's an allocation that is statewide. Our ADA then drives our previous year ADA then drives the amount of Propsy revenue we're going to receive. And so I want to highlight that it doesn't matter where the the tax was collected, the sales tax collected. If it's in Shamoy, Missouri, it's in Kennet, Missouri, it's here. It goes in one state pot and

063then gets redistributed out by kid. Um so even though it says local, it's not. We are probably contributing more than we're receiving as in our community because we have a lot of sales tax. We have a lot of shopping. Whereas if you go to a community um to our east that might be more rural and doesn't have a lot of sales tax, they're probably gaining more than their citizens are spending in sales tax. So that amount per pupil that is is given out across the state roughly was about 1,500 a little more than $1,500 per per student in FY25. So last fiscal year, this fiscal year it's it's it's projected to be about 1495. Uh so 1,495 per pupil. Um we're tracking a little lower than that right now, but that is the that is

064the allocation that we've budgeted based off. >> And Dr. Herszog, can you um can you clarify um what we spend that 15 what we spend that money on today? The money that we do get >> the money that we get through Prop C. >> Yeah. >> Uh I believe all of Prop C actually we put into fund two uh fund two revenue. So that goes towards salaries and benefits. Yeah, certified staff certified staff salaries and benefits. So the the other side there are two sides to Prop C. The one side is that there's a 1% sales tax that comes into to all school districts across the state of Missouri. The other side is that um we are required then uh unless we have a waiver, we are required then to roll back our levy the

065next year, okay? Based on the amount of money we received the previous year. This year's Prop Cy roll back was based on the amount of money we received during the last fiscal year. So, we calculate the amount of our levy that it would take to roll back to equal half of the amount we received last year. That's the amount we're required to roll back. Now, we have a partial waiver. So, for us, in order to roll back our levy uh or to change it to reduce down our revenue by 12 and a half, so half of 25, right? That would have taken this year 3258, but we have a 20 cent waiver already. We already have a partial waiver. So, we take that 20 cents off and that's where we get our.1258 roll back that

066we had to do this year. And that does vary every single year based really on two factors and I'll get to those a little bit later. But the two factors that that that impact that are your assessed value obviously as your assessed value changes, the amount you need to roll back changes and then the amount of revenue you received the previous year. As that changes, it changes the amount of the roll back. So those are really the two levers, the amount you receive in the previous year and then your assessed value in the next year. Those drive what your roll back is going to be. So a little history just as well on sort of where we've been with Props Cy. Um so in 2022 the CAC made a recommendation that uh we run a

067full Propy waiver in 2025. Last year, 2024, the CAC made the same recommendation that we run uh in 2025. And then uh as you I think you're well aware, the board passed a resolution last March to put it on the April 2026 ballot. And then at the bottom, you just see the history of of the Props Cy um questions that have been on the ballot in the history of LSR7. So in 95, we did fail to to pass a Prop Cy vote. the very next year in 96 we passed our initial partial waiver and that vote in ' 08 that was to basically solidify forever that we're going to have that 20 cent partial waiver. >> So in 96 there was a sunset so it would have gone away. It was for x amount of

068years. In 2008 it was a permanent partial waiver. Um so it made that 96 vote permanent going forward and it was a simple majority 50% plus one more person. >> And then just a little bit of data statewide on on roll backs, okay, that exist. So 471, so 91% of all the states in Missouri fully have waved fully their roll back of the Propsy of Propsy. 23 have a partial roll back. So we're one of those that have a partial roll back. And then 24, the remaining 24 have a have no waiver at all. So they they have to do the full roll back every year. And as Dr. Buck already mentioned, it just requires a simple majority vote of the public to to wave or to remove that waiver. All right, a little bit

069on revenue. Uh, I'm only put this up here just so you understand. I mentioned before our current Prop C revenue comes into is local. So, it's the big blue area that that's where that goes. It's also, as you all well know, local is the biggest funding source that we have, the biggest revenue source. And so, the removal that we have each year that that four million roughly that we lose up to the roll back comes out of that local piece as well. It is the biggest piece of the puzzle for us in terms of how we budget and where our revenue comes from. I I I want to spend a little bit of time here. This is a very very busy chart, but I think it's very telling. Um I think most of you have

070seen this chart before. Um and as I mentioned the the green column going down, that is the amount of money each year that that our roll back basically that we we do not receive in revenue. Okay. And again, it fluctuates every year. You also see the one next to the left, the Propsy rollback number fluctuates every year as well. And as I mentioned, the reason why is because our assessed value changes. Each year, our assessed value changes. And the previous year, the amount of revenue we've received from Prop C changes. So that we have to adjust that every single year. So this year that was.1258, but it's been 13 cents before. It's been 15 cents. You go way back, it's been about 20 cents. uh back uh 06 07. So there there have been different

071times it's it's fluctuated but I would say based on our current assessed value you know if if you know next year being a reassessment year I'm sorry next year being a non-reassessment year we should see an assessed value pretty similar um however we've been told that there may be some changes to the assessed valuation of of commercial properties and residential. So it might even lower a little bit. So I would I would just estimate that that that Propsy roll back number for next year would be very similar to that third 12 13 cents. It would not change too much for next year. All right, here's a little bit of comparative data. So on the left hand side you see the actual levies for all of the school districts in Jackson County. So the range from

0726.32 all the way down to to us actually at 4.7391. That's the range of levies. And on the right, uh, just a quick comparison to see if LSR7 had a full Prop C waiver where what that would do, where we would be in that list and what it would do to our levy. So, it would change our levy from 4.7391 would have this year. I'm sorry. This would have changed it for this year if we had it to 4.8649. And that would move us from from number 12 in the county to number 10. So that that's the the movement you would see in terms of where we are in comparison to those school districts. I also mentioned I want to talk a little bit about the impact of taxpayers. So this is a very similar

073um illustration that you saw during the tax rate hearing in September showing our tax rates. uh but it's been changed a little bit to show you the difference between our current tax rate this year and then what it would have looked like for a taxpayer this year with a full Prop C roll back waver. So top row going across left to right assuming you have a $100,000 market value home. Okay, at a 4.7391 levy that would equal $90043. Okay. So, $90043 per $100,000 of market value for a home. If we had a full propsy waiver this year, that's the next row all the way across. Same value home, $100,000, the change in levy to 4.8649 would have equal 92433. So, a change of $23.90 total for the taxes for a $100,000 home. Now, you just

074scale that, right? You scale it. If you have a $400,000 home, take that number, 23.9 times four, and scale that up closer to $100. So that's what the impact would be on on a residential home of $100,000. Okay, the the impact for commercial, the impact for a the impact for personal property would be different than this. This illustration is only for residential. I'm going to pause for a minute because the next portion is Dr. Carlson's. But before Dr. Carlson moves into salary schedules. I want to just make sure there's no questions on history and also impact of revenue and taxpayers. >> Okay. So, a few questions. When we say residential property, again, forgive me if I'm being dense. Is it only single family? >> No. Residential property is all of your homes that exist in

075the community. Okay. So, >> apartment but you're right. Apartment complexes tend to be commercial. >> They tend to be commercial. Yes. So I think what you're asking is yes is a re a big apartment complex that would be assessed as commercial yes at 30%. >> Okay. And so family if families were living there in these apartments they're not impacted tax-wise by this if we did the waiver. >> Well they may be depends. It depends on how the the the landlord passes that along potentially. Correct. But obviously obviously the person that owns the property is the responsible for paying those taxes, but then as a as a renter of that potentially that pay is passed on in the form of a rent increase. So, it's hard to say yes or no. Uh but immediate impact, no.

076>> Okay. And so when I think about that, when I think about why sometimes people want to come here, think just from the tiff commission, you know, they get breaks, tax breaks. Does that impact if they get breaks that not? >> You're correct. If there's any tiff and I can send you a list of all of single of all of them, >> that is a set for 10. Usually it's 10 years. And so this would have zero impact on them because they have a set amount per door um built in. So I I have a list of all of them. The oldest one is from 2015 16 and Long View Farms. It's going to go off the books at the end of this year. Um that's the first one they've done, but we have quite

077a few different um they they don't go through tiff, they go through the LC. Um there's a five member committee that the mayor appoints and they make those decisions and if they vote yes and it goes to city council. There's one coming up that's coming to city council, they just recently approved. Um and I just let you know I've advocated that we have a school board member in the future when they appoint one again because um we have zero representation in the LC, >> right? So theoretically, if they got a break, there's nothing for the property owner to pass on to the people renting those apartments. >> That is correct because they have a deal for 10 years. >> Okay. Sorry, I have one another question. Or do you does anyone else here? Okay. >>

078And I will say when that deal is done, there would be an impact, but during the 10 years, they would not. >> Okay, great. Makes sense. Back to slide six. When we look at where our revenue comes from, is there anything a community could do in order to try and get increased revenue from the state? Is it who's in office or >> I I think I mean I don't in terms of what the community can do. I mean, obviously advocacy is a great thing. Um, to advocate to those that are that are in office to to fund fully fund the formula and any kind of changes that are occurring to ensure that public education is at the is a top priority um at at the state level. Beyond that, I'm not I'm not certain. >>

079Okay. But fully funding a formula like promoting that is something that >> I would say go beyond that. Um, okay. Kansas spends a thousand they give $1,800 more per student from the state than Missouri does. Kansas ranks 25th, I think it is, in the nation. We ranked 50th in the nation on funding that comes from the state. So, um, and that's with fully funding the formula. We're dead last with fully funding formula. So, advocating for more funds to come to public schools. Kansas is $1,800 ahead of us per kid than Missouri. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else up here have a question? Thank you, Dr. >> We'll shift over to Dr. Carlson now. >> All right. Thank you. So, yeah, just um a little bit about the what would happen with a prophecy waiver

080that we envision and have talked about. Um and just to kind of give some context here. So last school year, 2425 school year, the previous school year, our starting teacher pay was $43,620 for a year. Um, with that, that made us number nine out of the 22 districts that we typically compare to in the Kansas City metro area. In 2526, the current school year, uh, we actually increased our starting teacher pay by $560 to $44,180 a year. Everyone else made moves, too. So, we actually went down in the rankings after adding 560 a year to the base. Um, so now we're 13 out of 22 in the Kansas City metro. And I was doing some looking this morning. We were actually number one in teacher salary in 201920. So not too long ago. Um but

081other districts have been making moves and doing things to to uh be more competitive. So right now what we're planning for budget and revenue for the next school year right now we only plan to be able to do step movement for our staff and our budget and revenue currently does not support increases to the base of the salary scale. >> I have a question related to that. >> Yes. And this is do we do we have the budget um to be able to do that to be able to allocate the step? >> We have uh some challenges as you know with our current funding for this year. I know that we have a superintendent that is committed to giving our employees step movement. Um I think the scenarios we've looked at based on the data

082we know now and Dr. Buck can answer better. I think there's a chance that that's going to likely uh touch our reserves even further. The answer is yes. We're committed to doing that. So what improvements would happen from Prop Cy? So we estimate and this is an approximation. It's hard to say for sure because of the variables that Dr. Herzog shared with assessed valuation and the state, but we estimate about $4 million for salary enhancements uh would come from a full waiver of Prop C. That would equate to approximately $1,000 to the base of the teacher salary schedule um with a like percentage increase to the other schedule. That's the scenario we're looking at. So that would move starting teacher pay from $44,180 to $45,180 for next school year. >> Can I clarify that a

083little bit? So this is just kind of high level understandably, but last year I thought there was a discussion around focusing on specific uh roles that were farther behind the other districts. Um is that still being looked at by teenly summit if this passes? We shared that uh information at our first meeting at the start of the year in September. Um teamly summit's also aware of the current uh funding scenario and situation as well. Um so we're looking at that. Um but knowing that there's not a lot of movement budget, we haven't really talked about budget in detail. Um especially since, you know, we don't know if there's going to be money to do things with. And can you also talk through um when if if it passes in April 2026, when would when the

084money would be in the district? Like talk about that length of time. >> So this would be coming in December through February time next year. That's when you would see the funds come in. Um >> 2027, right? >> 26 December to February 27 is when the vast majority of it would come in. uh we would need the board to vote on salary schedules if it passes within a week of that because we have to give contracts out by April 15th and this is the first Tuesday of April the election. So um we'll have a short turnaround of of having the board approve recommendations from teamly summit and then printing you know a lot of contracts. >> Okay. So, so if it passes, the the teachers and and everyone else who gets paid by the district

085would feel the benefit of this if it passes in the 2026 2027 school year, >> the fiscal year July to June July of 26 to June 27th. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? I do want to give one little nugget of context just because you know we're talking millions of dollars stuff but so I did take a look if we went up to $45,180. Um this is just for us to keep moving forward and stay competitive. I looked and that would move us from we were last year we were nine of 22 this year we're 13 of 22. If no one else makes a move it would move us up to 10 of 22. So just to give some perspective of, you know, how how competitive everyone else is being in making moves to

086get great teachers and educators. Any questions on the salary enhancements, salary schedules, anything blended from last month's presentation to this? Thank you. All right. Good evening. I'm going to finish us out by really just reminding the board of some data that those of you who were on the board in fall of 2024 might find familiar. And that is our community sentiment, community polling from creative entourage. We know that we make better decisions when they're informed by data and research. And so it is very common for us to go to our community and do some polling to understand sentiment about things that we want to put on the ballot. and we did that in September of 2024 um regarding our 2025 bond proposal and a possible Prop C waiver. Um and so we know we did

087telephone polling. We also did an online survey. I'm going to run through some of our results just to remind you of uh some feedback that our community gave you. Know that what I'm really focused on is that telephone survey. That's that 400 respondents. That's the piece that's statistically significant, involves a random sample, has a margin of error, um, and really gives us better insight um, to our decision- making. Okay. So, uh, one of the things that our statisticians did for us is that they really established an early baseline when they were asking a random sample of our community about potential support for Prop C waiver. Um, so with very little context at the beginning of uh their survey questions, they established that folks have a lot of faith in Le Summit that they would rank

088us higher than the average school district in Missouri. But they really got down to brass test and asked very quickly about perceptions around Prop C to establish a baseline. And that's what you see here with a very little context and a pretty brief description of Prop C. um would you uh be in favor of supporting a possible roll back proposal? Um and the answers from our community was right down the line at 49% with 8.2% in that strongly favor piece. So we're going to come back to this. Remember this is the baseline collected at the beginning of that conversation with respondents. Then they gave respondents a chance to reflect on their values um and their feelings about our local school district. Um And so one of the things that I want to point out is

089that 91 almost 92% of folks strongly agree or somewhat agree that people move into our district because of its great quality. Um that's an important piece for us. It tells us that our community values public education. Um that people see the district as um essential to property values and community success. You see 77.8% 8% strongly or somewhat agree that supporting the school district is the best thing they can do to protect property values. So they see a connection between property values and the quality of our school district. Then you get to a piece people like me can't afford higher property taxes no matter how good the cause and you got strongly and somewhat agree at a 56.2%. This is when we start to see some nuance. Um and so previously you say at 66% were

090willing more to support our school district to make sure that it continues to be successful. And we kind of continue to go down um in contextually um into more detail um and some hesitation around um the possibility of affording higher property taxes. Um what this tells me is that our community is very engaged. They're paying attention to current events. They're costconscious and they're very discerning when it comes to fiscal responsibility. But what it also tells me is that they're not inherently anti-ax. So context matters. Context is very important when it comes to the decisions that taxpayers make at the polls. Um and what's um promising about this also is that um that kind of tells us that trust and support in the district are going to just drive decision making because you can see that

091that 56.2 is about the same as 56.8 of folks disagreeing that we don't need additional financial support. So again, there's some nuance to this data, but it tells us that the information that we provide will be very important to the decisions that taxpayers will make. This is where more context comes into play. Um, and here you're going to see a sentiment that we also see in our bond cycle when we talk about community sentiment, and that's the idea of are you taking care of what we have? And so that was very important to our taxpayers. We They told us it's very important how much you invest in our current infrastructure in addition to that new and shiny stuff. And so I really think that that idea applies to people. Um, however, what's important about this

092slide is when asked to rank the district's performance, only 60.5% of respondents ranked the district excellent or good when it comes to paying competitive salaries and benefits to staff. And you can see where they ranked us much higher in other areas, particularly in fac care that we saw um reinforced by our voters at the poll in April of 2025. Um so um this is a place where we can kind of see that um competitive salaries and benefits is a is a vulnerable area for us. People see that as a place where we can improve. However, um when forced to pick priorities from limited funds, folks were said, uh folks were told, "You can't do it all. What would you prioritize?" Two things really led the way. ADA accessibility, paying staff competitive salaries and benefits when

093compared to other area districts, 86.5 for both of those. Uh 45.8% on that competitive salaries and benefits for that very high priority. Um, this tells us that taking care of staff is an important community priority. It's a top priority and that's something that we ultimately will be able to share with our community if we choose to go out um and put this on the ballot. >> And Katie, before you move on from that, the top one that is largely addressed with our bond issue, it's a big part of our 2025 bond is addressing that piece. So, we we've taken in account this um feedback we received in fall 24 with our 2025 bond projects. >> Absolutely. Okay, again, this data um when asked additional questions about um our district, you can see that polling still

094shows that residents see the district as essential to property values and community success got school pride there at 90%. The bottom question, great schools are a source of pride for the community. We must provide them with necessary funding. And then you have voters engage with C adjacent or related questions. Um, and that tells us a lot about the challenge and the opportunities of taking this to voters in April of 2026. Um, so this is where I want to take a minute. With the cost of everything going up, it only makes sense that our district needs more funding to keep up with salaries and programs. 74% strongly agree agree with 33% strongly agreeing. So you can see that this shows some community understanding of our rationale for why we to be taking this to voters. Um,

095and while these percentages are not as high, we wouldn't necessarily expect them to be as high. Um, again, it's still a very clear majority and it tells us that folks aren't inherently anti-taxed. Um, that the the rationale matters to them. That middle one, eliminating this Prop C roll back, our district will have the full use of the tax rate that was approved by voters. When I look at that one, what that tells me is that there's some community understanding um that Prop C is a a resto a restoration of our tax rate and not something above and beyond what we might be asking for. And then finally, there are 518 school districts in Missouri. Only 25 have not fully waved the Prop Cy roll back. It only makes sense for our district to join the

09695% of districts that have passed this proposal. You could say this shows that our community understands that Prop C alignment is somewhat of a state norm and that we're not so um that we're somewhat unusual and not having this weaver. But what makes sense to me what makes more sense to me is when I compare that to 95% agree that we need to be competitive with neighboring districts. And then you look at this last question that ref references districts in um throughout the state of Missouri. And what that tells me is that it's more import for our community to be competitive and in sync with our neighboring districts than to be looking statewide. And so, uh, one talking point might be stronger than the other. And finally, again, we know our voters are engaged. They're

097discerning. They're paying attention. This data is a year old. It's from September 2024. So, the important context, too, is that um the feedback on this question was about any LSR7 proposal, a bond issue or a proxy waiver. Um, know our bond issue was successful um several months after this question was asked to our community. Okay, so here's the takeaway. We come back to um an initial question and a reconsidering question about whether our community would consider supporting a proxy uh proposal. And so again, we have that benchmark level of 49% total favor. Um, and then folks, they go through the they go through the survey, they have more time, they get more information, they get more context, they have more time to reflect on um their sentiment about public education. They're asked the question again,

098and you can see that the uh total in favor shoots up 10 percentage points overall and 10 percentage points in the strongly favored category. And that's pretty significant because again it shows that voters respond really well to education um that the information that we provide them is going to be really critical to a possible successful um ballot item. Um and that what we're going to do with Prop C and why it matters is going to be something that's important for us to share. Um so I can ask I can answer any questions. Um, again, this is a rehash for you for some of you guys who have heard this presentation, but just wanted to kind of put that back into your brains. >> Do we have plans for an additional poll of any sort or

099are we um we're going to use this one through the whole cycle? >> Yeah, well, we think this data is still very solid. So, we will use this to inform planning for uh any potentialformational campaign that would be used to educate voters about um a prop seed waiver and its impact on our community. >> Um I was going to ask the same question, but a a follow on question to that. Um the climate, what was the climate when you took the survey with respect to um the Jackson County um uh tax situation and things like that? Where were they in that when you took this survey the first time? >> Everyone was just notified in July of what their initials were and they were all appealing. So, it was very much hotter back in 23

100and 24 than it is currently. I'm not saying it's as cold as it was in 2016 maybe, but it is it was very much a uh anti- um assessment piece at that point. I have a question. Um, yes, I am hearing this again. So, I have new questions. It's like I hear something different each time. On slide 16, we talk about district performance, the paying competitive salaries and benefits. Was the question, do you think we pay it or how important it is to pay it? >> It was about priorities. It said, you have limited funds. Here are the things that you could fund. Um, you can't do them all rank order, your priorities. And that's when ADA accessibility and paying competitive salaries rose to the top. >> Maybe I'm reading it wrong from slide 16.

101The one the numbers on the bottom. >> I don't have numbers. What is what which slide are >> slide 16? >> District performance. >> Oh, okay. I'm so sorry. No, it's okay. >> We got start over now. So where it says paying competitive salaries, >> yes, it asked it asked to rank our performance in these areas. >> Rate rate. Not this one's great. >> I'm sorry. Rate. Yes. >> Yeah. So, are we doing a great job or not? 60% said we're doing a great job. Whereas 92% said we're doing a great job of keeping our buildings up to date, well maintained. >> Okay. So, they that many people think we're doing a great job with salaries. >> Yes. And it's the lowest out of all the choices. >> Yes. >> Right. No, I get it.

102I was just thinking if people think we're doing great and then we ask for money. >> It's the lowest the lowest um they ranked it the lowest of all the performance priorities presented to them. That makes sense. >> You have something else, Dr. Johnson? >> No, it doesn't. I don't think it makes sense compared to the other things. like it's the lowest priority, but then other sides it's like no, we really >> well some people might say we need to do more even if we're doing a good job because we need teachers deserve to be paid more, >> right? >> It's not the lowest priority. It's the it's the top priority along with ADA accessibility. Um the fewest the fewest percentage of people thought we were doing excellent or good in the area of paying

103competitive salaries. But even if you thought excellent, you may think, "But we need to do more because teachers need more money. They deserve more money." Board member Dawson. >> Thank you. Um, so is it too soon to ask about the like community engagement plan or discussion about this? Is do we wait till after? If I don't, if you don't mind, I'll jump in on this one. We never want to get out in front of the board. So, we're going to wait until you approve before we start a speaker series. In 23, we did 72 speaking engagements. In 25, we did 62, I think it was. So, that was 4,2400 people. We have started a list of where those will be. Um, we've sent out invitations to groups and asking and HOAs if they would like

104to have us, but we won't do a single one of them until um the board passes it to be on the ballot. So, we won't get ahead of the board, >> right? And will we discuss further either tonight or on the 18th um what the money would be used for like in more detail because Teamly Summit hasn't had a chance to really >> So, we're just saying the entire amount will go to salaries and benefits and then Team Lee Summit will make a recommendation >> in April really really early regardless because they have to plan for is it just a step or do we have extra money? So they'll that'll be after the April election that we'll have a special board meeting um to approve salary schedules. >> So the details of that are are

105nowhere near being ready for December 18th. It'll it'll come between December and April. Correct. >> Yeah. Whenever the team summit finishes their work, they may go fast. It may take him a while >> because I I mean we're, you know, listening to all the other budgetary pressures and impacts and things that were thinking about and being made aware of and and some are outside of our control and that sort of thing. And I think that's going to play a big part in in all of this. So, I guess I was just wondering how much we could know. >> You are correct. We're two and a half million short in revenue this year with a potential what Dr. Herzog alluded to maybe a little bit more if they do lower commercial assessment after we set our

106tax rate which is highly unusual. >> Correct. Um I think um I don't know if it's too soon to ask this but um in your last summary Dr. book. You mentioned that if Propsy if if we vote in December to put it on the ballot and then if it if it passes in April that it'll have a negative effect on our reserves. >> Yes. So if you have uh four million in revenue and four million increased expenses um they they seem equal, right? It's balanced and that's true. But percent because your your budget's bigger. So if your savings stays the same but your budget's bigger, your percent reserves will go down. Um so it is kind of a funny place where you could actually You can even actually gain dollars but lose percent reserves. >>

107And then you also mentioned tonight that that we're going to collect that money between December and February, which means November is going to be even worse, right? >> That's potential. Yes. >> Okay. So, um what will the proposed remedies be for that? If it passes, if we vote yes in December and if it passes in April, >> I think we'll still be fine. Um so, and we can have Dr. Herzog run that again for you. um because I think he did that in finance committee maybe this month maybe last month I can't remember when uh showing the projection what it would be for um next year and he is going to be um we just decided this at board leadership um the work session at the November board meeting on the budget and so he

108can also share that piece at that time as well. >> Thank you. Can I mention something about Team Lee Summit? Just to let you know, we do talk about So, if this is the money we have, this is what we do. But if we got this additional money, so it's not like we're going to be throwing a curveball like, oh no, we got this money. What are we going to do? We are think that's something that's thought about. Yeah. So mine I'm sorry mine kind of goes back to the teamly summit the budget. Sorry. Um I don't know which one of you two this really hits, but I'm just trying to think ahead about uh argument points that perhaps might be brought up. And so I'm back to this. I and I am a big

109fan of course of committing to always getting your step. So that is not I don't have a problem with that. In order to achieve that, if we were not to pass this uh ballot measure, uh I mean, we're looking at a maintenance plan. We're looking at a tightening our belt plan. We're looking at a we we can't expand this program plan. I mean, I think people are I'm curious as to what the thinking is on that. And then I'll I'll have a follow-up question. >> If you look at the last five years, we're doing six to eight million dollars of salary um uh enhancements including the steps. So steps about $4 million. And what we're saying because we're two and a half million short, maybe a little bit more that we don't know yet. Um

110that we can only afford to do the $4 million for step. So we we are scaling back SANS Props Cy as a reaction to revenue issues um that we know we have now. And then I guess my followup to that would be we when the Prop C does pass, we would still continue in a somewhat conservative fashion at this point in terms of positions and things of this nature. Um or maybe this isn't a fair question to ask just this yet, but it I I have heard this in this community. >> We will keep the tap turned down when revenues turned down. Um, and we'll uh act in kind if the revenue all of a sudden starts coming back in because we we spend about 82% of our budget on salaries and benefits or the

111people helping people grow business and so we want to support our staff. Um 2,83 employees employees, full-time employees, we're the largest employer in the in the city. We're a huge part of the economy. Um not just on what we do business-wise with local businesses, but also all of our employees go and spending their dollars within throughout our community. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you for that. Mike, wait, can I add a number? I added this to the retired teachers meet in this room once a month and they met yesterday. I shared with them um PSRS does it does this every year and you can go look it on their website from July 1 to June 30th. Um retired employees in Jackson County, so retired educators um throughout the state if they're living in Jackson County,

112they received $291 million of salaries um just in that last year. So, our retired folks are getting a lot of funds that they contributed to and that we can, you know, those of us still working are contributing to. Um, $291 million of money into our economy as well. So, it's not just our current employees, it's the retirees in Jackson County who are really a big part of our economy. Thank you, Stacy. >> I wish my retirement check was that big. Any anyone anyone else up here? You guys any other questions? Thank you. Oh, >> sorry, board member Dawson. Sorry, I didn't see the light. >> Um, yeah, I wanted to follow on to your uh question, President Myers, and I don't I don't want to put Tly Summit on the spot again because I know

113you guys haven't had time to look at this, but um I know we've lost I think is it 800 or 900,000 in title funds? How much how much of that money was going to salaries? >> Almost all of it. Dr. Barker had to leave at 7 o'clock. So, she's the one that would know the answer off top her head, so she can get it to you. Um, some of those we're going to find a different revenue source. So, if you think of uh of some of our our funding sources we're have for enrollment, say prek, we can recode some things there to be um aligned with that. So, we'll be able to recuperate some of that, but not all of it. Um, but vast majority of our salary and there's also benefits in that too.

114Salary and benefits. Um there's very little non- salary and benefits because mostly the cuts were title one and we p you predominantly spend on salary and benefits out of title one. >> I Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I I guess I'm I'm thinking a few steps ahead and I know we're not there yet, but I'm thinking if if we're out doing community engagement and we're using the same argu arguments we used a year ago when we weren't when we didn't have so many budgetary pressures, um we wouldn't want to say anything disingenuous about um salary increases or you know this or that when when it might be an all hands- on deck just protecting positions, you know what I mean? We don't know what it's going to be. Team Lee Summit hasn't had a

115chance to look at it. We don't know, you know what I mean? So, I guess I'm I guess I'm kind of nervous about like what from December 18th to April 8th or whatever, like what's going to be said. And >> so, that's where your your crack team over here led by some of those folks who just spoke. And um but we don't argue. We just present what this would do and let voters decide. It's really up to our community to decide what kind of district we have just like when they vote for board elections or vote vote for bond issues. We're just going to present the facts. Um I feel like we've already told voters that we're going to put this on the ballot um with the resolution. We had CAC asked for it two

116times um to put it on the ballot. So it's up to the voters decide. We're just going to do best to educate what Propsy is and what the money will be used for. >> Right. But we wouldn't want to be put in the position of saying salary increases and then the minute it passes we say no salary increases. You know, like you know, we just want to be I would imagine >> if the governor gets rid of income taxes, we're doing that regardless of what happens, right? So, I I I can't guarantee that, M Michelle, but our board member Dawson, but um you know, that's not the intent. Um well, hopefully we'll have continued revenue. Some people are talking about this new task force that they're going to try to send more money to suburban

117districts. Well, we'd be winners in that. Some were saying no, it will not. We'd be losers in that. So, we just don't know what 27 and 28 look like. Um, but we'll act in kind because we're a reflection of of the what our state feels public education should be and what our local community feels public education could be. And I think we also have something that some of our neighboring districts, there's four of the 12 districts in our county. They're at their max tax levy. We are we've rolled back 65 cents. We've rolled back more than any other district in the state. Um there's only one other district's rolled back anything. Independence rolled back 9 cents. 10 of them rolled back nothing. Um that voters approved. that's 65 cents below what voters approved. Um, so

118we have as a as a board have decided we're going to tax less than what voters approved. So you also have that as a safety net that some of our other districts have very little or none at all have a safety net for that >> which we won't be able to touch till next school year, right? >> Yeah. That every September you get the chance to set tax rate and you cannot take a roll back. I know it's kind of weird to say that that way in a reassessment year. You can only do it in an even number of years. >> Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you all for all your uh your information tonight. We appreciate it. I think this work session is over.