# USD 259 bond proposal — factual source summary

Sources checked October 31, 2026. Election: November 3, 2026.

## Sources and scope

1. District overview: https://wpsbond.usd259.org/
2. District FAQ: https://wpsbond.usd259.org/faqs
3. Ballot wording and resources: https://wpsbond.usd259.org/resources
4. District-linked election-resolution packet: https://wpsbond.usd259.org/fs/resource-manager/view/2bbab0bb-f485-46bc-b18e-16d5088d5318
   - PDF: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1779223692/usd259org/dgai89lgrhzzcmkq9y3b/ElectionBoardResolution.pdf
   - Financing disclosures: exhibit A, pages A-3 through A-5.
   - The linked packet contains unsigned forms, blank resolution numbers and other template fields. Its financial figures are projections, not executed financing terms or a certified final county notice.
5. Sedgwick County Treasurer, Property Taxes 101: https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/treasurer/propertytax101/
6. District boundary lookup: https://webquery-wichita-ks.etstack.io/#/home

Proposal-specific forecasts are district estimates and have not been independently audited here. County material documents the general tax mechanics, not an independent forecast of this proposal.

## Bond authorization and projects

- Question 1: up to $407.1 million of general-obligation bonds. Projects include a trades FutureReady Center; rebuilding Truesdell, Black, McLean and Chisholm Trail (as K–8); a middle-school addition at Cessna; North and East preservation; HVAC and traffic improvements.
- Question 2: up to $207.9 million additional borrowing. Projects include Coleman and Adams rebuilds; repurposing existing Coleman for alternative programs; Hadley/Horace Mann/Irving moves; early-childhood conversion at OK Elementary; high-school preservation and career/technical improvements.
- Combined principal authorization: $615 million.
- Question 2 issuance requires Question 1 authorization as well as voter approval of Question 2.
- The FAQ expects 20-year repayment. It identifies possible construction completion by mid-2033; construction and repayment timelines are distinct.
- Proceeds fund capital projects, not ordinary teacher salaries or day-to-day operations.

## District tax estimates and comparison baselines

For an unchanged $200,000 residential appraised value:

| Outcome | Annual change versus today's rate | Monthly equivalent |
|---|---:|---:|
| No bonds authorized, beginning on the 2028 tax bill | approximately -$125 | -$10.42 |
| Question 1 only | approximately $0 | $0 |
| Both questions | approximately +$50 | +$4.17 |

Source: district overview and FAQ. The FAQ states that if the bond does not pass, taxes would decrease by approximately $125 per year for a $200,000 home beginning with the 2028 tax bill.

Subtracting the projected no-bond outcome gives approximately $125/year ($10.42/month) for Question 1 only and $175/year ($14.58/month) for both. These differences apply once the projected no-bond reduction begins. They are arithmetic differences between public district estimates, not verified annual debt-service schedules.

The projected no-bond reduction is not immediate. Maintaining today's rate differs from receiving the projected future decrease. Building needs and future funding decisions remain regardless of the election result.

## Estimate formulas based on rounded public examples

Let V be county-appraised residential home value, not equity, mortgage balance or assessed value.

Annual change versus today's rate:
- Question 1 only: 0.
- Both: V × 0.00025.
- No bonds authorized, beginning in 2028: −V × 0.000625.

Annual difference versus the projected no-bond outcome when that reduction applies:
- Question 1 only: V × 0.000625.
- Both: V × 0.000875.
- No bonds authorized: 0.

Monthly equivalents are annual amounts divided by 12. Round at final display. The district displays $4.16/month for $50/year; standard nearest-cent rounding gives $4.17.

| Appraised value | Both vs. today / year | Both vs. today / month | Both vs. no-bond / year | Both vs. no-bond / month |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| $75,000 | $18.75 | $1.56 | $65.63 | $5.47 |
| $100,000 | $25.00 | $2.08 | $87.50 | $7.29 |
| $150,000 | $37.50 | $3.13 | $131.25 | $10.94 |
| $200,000 | $50.00 | $4.17 | $175.00 | $14.58 |
| $250,000 | $62.50 | $5.21 | $218.75 | $18.23 |
| $300,000 | $75.00 | $6.25 | $262.50 | $21.88 |
| $400,000 | $100.00 | $8.33 | $350.00 | $29.17 |

Source discrepancy: the FAQ lists $18.75/year for a $100,000 home; the overview lists $25/year. The $25 amount is consistent with the other proportional examples. The formulas above use the overview's proportional amounts.

## Residential tax mechanics

The County Treasurer confirms a residential assessment ratio of 11.5% and one mill equaling $1 per $1,000 of assessed value:

annual levy tax = appraised value × 0.115 × mills / 1,000

A $200,000 home has assessed value $23,000; one mill costs $23/year. Tax provisions specific to one levy should not automatically be applied to another levy.

The district-linked packet projects average new-bond levies of 5.500 mills for Question 1 and 2.180 mills for Question 2, or 7.680 combined. On a fixed $200,000 home these correspond to approximately $126.50/year and $50.14/year, or $176.64/year combined in gross new-bond taxes. Gross new-bond tax is distinct from the net change compared with today's existing tax bill and from the difference compared with rejection.

Rounded FAQ figures and formal average-levy projections are close but not identical. They are different presentations and are not a complete year-by-year homeowner forecast.

## Projected financing

The district-linked packet assumes 5% interest, 20-year principal repayment and $0 bond state aid:

| Authorization | Principal | Projected interest | Principal plus interest |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Question 1 | $407,100,000 | $265,890,791 | $672,990,791 |
| Question 2 | $207,900,000 | $135,781,125 | $343,681,125 |
| Combined | $615,000,000 | $401,671,916 | $1,016,671,916 |

These are district-wide projections, not individual homeowner tax increases. Final interest rates, issuance timing, tax-base growth, repayment schedules and other factors can differ.

## Limits of household projections

- Estimates assume unchanged appraised value and unrelated tax levies.
- The no-bond reduction begins in 2028; it is not a change beginning immediately after the election.
- The public figures used here do not establish annual tax differences over the entire debt term.
- A precise cumulative homeowner estimate requires year-by-year levy and debt-service schedules for no bonds, Question 1 only and both questions, including existing debt and issuance timing. Multiplying the displayed estimate by 20 does not establish such a forecast.
- Monthly amounts are equivalents of annual taxes divided by 12, not a county monthly billing schedule or guaranteed mortgage escrow change.
- Residential assessment rules do not describe every property class, tax-relief situation or landlord-to-renter cost effect.
- A Wichita address does not alone establish residence within USD 259 boundaries.

## USD 259 bond history — selected recent votes

Amounts are nominal borrowing authorizations before interest, not inflation-adjusted costs or total debt service. This is not an exhaustive district history. Approval, construction completion, delivery of original scope, budget/schedule performance and academic outcomes are distinct measures.

### April 2000 — $284.5 million, approved

- KMUW describes the program as focused largely on air-conditioning and other infrastructure upgrades.
- The FY2013 district financial report, printed page 26 (PDF page 38), states: “In April 2000, the voters approved a $284.5 million bond issue, of which all bonds have been sold and all construction completed.”
- This establishes a district-reported completion statement, not an independent finding that each original project was unchanged, on time or on budget, or caused improved academic outcomes.
- Sources: [FY2013 district financial report](https://www.usd259.org/fs/resource-manager/view/488da7a4-0daa-45e7-b941-92824fc3f9df); [KMUW, April 22, 2024](https://www.kmuw.org/2024-04-22/wichita-school-district-could-consider-bond-issue-consolidation-plan).

### November 2008 — $370 million, approved

- KMUW reports that the program built nine new schools, including the replacement Southeast High School.
- The FY2013 report, printed page 24 (PDF page 36), documents a new high school, a K–8 school and six elementary schools constructed by that point, plus fine arts and athletic renovations, classrooms, multipurpose rooms, middle-school auditorium upgrades and tracks.
- In 2013, the board chose to relocate Southeast rather than operate both the old school and a new one. Contemporary reporting identifies operating costs after state funding cuts as a driving factor. May 2016 reporting describes the move to the new building for classes that August.
- KMUW reports that several original projects were scaled back or dropped after state and federal funding losses, including plans for two additional comprehensive high schools and a K–8 school in Bel Aire. A replacement school and an additional operating school are not the same outcome.
- The FY2025 report, printed page 28 (PDF page 39), states all bonds had been sold and all construction completed. The same page lists $183.305 million in bond principal outstanding as of June 30, 2025, related to the 2008 authorization. Completing construction does not mean completing debt repayment or delivering every original proposal unchanged.
- Sources: [FY2025 district financial report](https://www.usd259.org/fs/resource-manager/view/0d572f8c-e9dd-46ff-be8f-89d595403bb3); [FY2013 report](https://www.usd259.org/fs/resource-manager/view/488da7a4-0daa-45e7-b941-92824fc3f9df); [KMUW historical overview, April 22, 2024](https://www.kmuw.org/2024-04-22/wichita-school-district-could-consider-bond-issue-consolidation-plan); [KMUW reporting on project changes, January 13, 2025](https://www.kmuw.org/2025-01-13/wichita-bond-issue-draws-supporters-and-opponents-as-campaign-heats-up); [Southeast relocation decision, June 25, 2013](https://www.kmuw.org/education/2013-06-25/school-board-votes-to-move-southeast-high-school); [Southeast move, May 19, 2016](https://www.kmuw.org/education/2016-05-19/teachers-students-say-goodbye-to-old-southeast-high-school).

### February 25, 2025 — $450 million proposed, rejected

- KMUW's report of the county's final tally says the proposal failed by 319 votes with about 28,000 ballots cast and approximately 14% turnout.
- The proposal included five new elementary schools, two new middle schools, an early-childhood center, two elementary-to-K–8 conversions, a construction-trades career center, Northeast Magnet athletic fields, and other renovations and program relocations.
- The borrowing was not authorized. This was an unsuccessful election, not a completed construction program to evaluate. It is a different proposal from the November 2026 two-question ballot.
- Sources: [KMUW final-result report, March 7, 2025](https://www.kmuw.org/2025-03-07/wichita-voters-narrowly-reject-450-million-school-bond-issue); [KMUW proposed-project overview, February 14, 2025](https://www.kmuw.org/2025-02-14/unpacking-wichitas-proposed-450-million-bond-issue).