The Nov. 3 ballot divides the request into two questions. The first request to fund: $407.1 million in improvement that would not raise the current tax rate, but would pick up at the same rate for the 2008 bond tax levy that will expire in 2008. The second question will fund $207.9 million in improvements and would raise the current tax levy by $50 per year on a $200,000 house.
The total package is for $615 million in borrowing, $165 million more than voters rejected in February 2025.
That earlier proposal failed by just 319 votes: 14,208 against and 13,889 in favor. That bond plan also proposed continuing the existing bond tax rate rather than raising it.
This time, voters can approve the smaller package alone or both questions. Under the board’s resolution, Question 2 cannot take effect unless Question 1 also passes.
What the First Question Buys
Question 1 would finance four replacement schools: Truesdell Middle and Black, McLean and Chisholm Trail elementary schools. Chisholm Trail would become a K–8 school, and Cessna Elementary would gain a middle school wing.
It also includes a new FutureReady Center for Trades on the East High campus, $20 million each for preservation at East and North high schools, and heating and cooling improvements in physical education and other learning spaces at 11 middle schools, five high schools and one FutureReady Center.
Traffic improvements would target Christa McAuliffe K–8, Isely K–8 and Seltzer Elementary. Plans include moving vehicles – particularly for students drop off and pick up – onto district property and separating pedestrians from traffic. The East High trades-center project would also address traffic at that campus.
The trades center would offer training in carpentry, heating and cooling, electrical work and plumbing, with opportunities to earn credentials and certifications.
The $407.1 million request would replace payments on retiring 2008 bond debt with payments on new debt, for a net zero increase in the tax mill levy rate.
That means “no rate increase” tied to the bond. Without a new bond, the district says property taxes would decrease beginning with the 2028 tax bill — approximately $125 annually for a $200,000 home.
However the no rate increase does not mean taxes paid won’t increase. The amount in taxes paid will likely increase based on increases in appraised values as well as non-bond related mill levy increases approved by the school board for operating expenses.
What the Second Question Buys
Question 2 includes replacement buildings for Coleman Middle and Adams Elementary, along with preservation work and career-training improvements at West, Heights, South and Northwest high schools.
Previous bond issues included classroom, athletic and other improvements as well as air-conditioning work for these high schools, but these large aging facilities – between 50 and 70 years old – need proactive preservation work that can help prevent future concerns. This includes things like roof repairs, brick restoration, foundation, drainage or grading work. – – between 50 and 70 years old .
The proposal sets aside $4 million for preventative preservation across the four high schools, plus separate allocations for career and technical education spaces and other improvements: ranging from $7 million to $11.3 million per school. These projects reflect the district’s FutureReady emphasis on preparing students for careers, including skilled occupations that do not necessarily require a four-year college degree.
Question 2 also would renovate the existing Coleman building to bring alternative programs together. Horace Mann would move into the former Hadley Middle School, and Irving would move into the vacated Horace Mann building. OK Elementary would be renovated into an early childhood center.
The replacement of Adams and Coleman are the only two proposed replacement schools in the bond issue. The only other east side projects in the bond issue are preservation, heating and cooling, or career-training improvements.
Does Northeast Wichita Win?
The last two successful bonds, $284.5 million in 2000 and $370 million in 2008, brought visible investments to northeast and nearby central Wichita.
The 2000 bond built Jackson Elementary, replaced Washington Elementary and built Stucky Middle. It also replaced Horace Mann and funded substantial additions at Park and L’Ouverture.
The 2008 bond funded replacement buildings for Mueller and Spaght, as well as the new Northeast Magnet campus in Bel Aire. Isely also relocated to Bel Aire.
The community also suffered a net loss from the Mueller/Isely shift, alongside the loss or relocation of Northeast Magnet from the old Matthewson School building, which then housed Chester Lewis, which was vacated and torn down this year due to structural problems.
The Northeast community can also expect the closure of L’’Ouverture at the end of this school year, regardless of the bond outcome. Other district schools planned for closing are Pleasant Valley Elementary at end of the 2026–27 school year. Both Woodland and OK would close at the same time if the bond fails; but passage would delay their closures until after 2028–29.
While previous bond issues offered a lot more for Northeast Wichita, this bond proposal doesn’t but that could be because so much was included in the past two bond issues for the area. That could be seen as a reason not to support the bond issue, or it could be seen as a reason to support other areas who supported improvements in our area, when there wasn’t as much for them.
What Homeowners Would Pay
Approving Question 2 would add approximately $25 a year on the tax bill for a home with an assessed valuation of $100,000 or $2.08 monthly. For a $200,000 home, the increase would be approximately $50 annually, or $4.16 monthly.
Over the proposed 20-year repayment period, those additional amounts would total approximately $500 and $1,000, respectively, assuming unchanged property values and tax rates. These figures represent the added cost of Question 2, not the entire bond tax bill.
However, what begins as a $25 or $50 increase this year could rise significantly as property values increase over the 20 year length of the bonds. The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Sedgwick County home-price index rose about 96% between 2006 – the year of the district’s last bond issue. That is a market-price measure, not an average county appraisal, but it illustrates why a fixed-value tax example cannot predict what an tax payer will pay over the length of the bond.
Why Bonds as Financing
According to the Vote Yes flyer, the state of Kansas discourages school districts from building large cash reserves, limiting their ability to save for major projects for the future, making bonds the primary mechanism for a district to fund major facility and Supporters say Wichita students need safe, functional buildings alongside stronger classroom instruction.
“If we don’t get the bond, then it would delay some of those things that are needed in the schools,” said school board member Sheila Kinnard.
In response to the Vote No call to focus on academics first, the Vote Yes supporters cite research covering roughly 14,000 bond elections across 29 states. Researchers found school facility investments improved test scores on average, with gains developing over several years.
Beyond replacement buildings and repairs, the package would expand career and technical education through a new trades center and improvements at four high schools. The center would serve students districtwide.
Those investments support the district’s FutureReady approach: helping students graduate with skills and credentials for well-paying careers, recognizing that not everyone will attend a four-year college.
VOTE YES
Invest in Learning & Career Preparation
Supporters argue that improving achievement and facilities can happen together. Bond proceeds cannot pay teacher salaries, but they can address building problems that complicate teaching and learning.infrastructure needs.
Supporters say Wichita students need safe, functional buildings alongside stronger classroom instruction.
“If we don’t get the bond, then it would delay some of those things that are needed in the schools,” said school board member Sheila Kinnard.
In response to the Vote No call to focus on academics first, the Vote Yes supporters cite research covering roughly 14,000 bond elections across 29 states. Researchers found school facility investments improved test scores on average, with gains developing over several years.
Beyond replacement buildings and repairs, the package would expand career and technical education through a new trades center and improvements at four high schools. The center would serve students districtwide.
Those investments support the district’s FutureReady approach: helping students graduate with skills and credentials for well-paying careers, recognizing that not everyone will attend a four-year college.
Supporters argue that improving achievement and facilities can happen together. Bond proceeds cannot pay teacher salaries, but they can address building problems that complicate teaching and learning.
VOTE NO
Improve Learning First
Opponents of Wichita’s $615 million school bond package say academic performance and accountability should take priority over more construction.
Their slogan, “Improve Learning First,” reflects concerns that previous building investments have not produced adequate classroom results, particularly in northeast Wichita community schools.
“You have to improve learning, and you can’t do that by building new buildings,” said bond opponent Walt Chappell during an October press conference.
Opponents point to low proficiency rates at newer schools as evidence that facilities alone cannot solve educational challenges. They argue the district should emphasize instruction, classroom discipline and better financial management.
The group also questions closing schools that received previous improvements and committing taxpayers to another 20 years of bond payments. Question 1 would continue a tax levy that would otherwise end; Question 2 would increase it.
“If we’re going to spend that kind of money, we want results,” Chappell said.
Understanding the Scores
The Vote No group’s slogan, “Improve Learning First,” highlights concerns about academic performance, particularly in northeast Wichita schools. Most chart rows show students scoring proficient or advanced—Levels 3 and 4. Level 1 indicates limited performance; Level 2 indicates basic knowledge and skills. Scoring at Level 2 does not mean a student cannot read or do math; it means the student has not reached the state’s proficiency threshold. Spaght’s second row includes Level 2 students. While the 2024 district figures show significant improvement, it cannot be credited entirely to improved student performance, because the state changed the assessments and the scores needed to reach each performance level in 2025.
