November 10, 2025 Summary

Key Takeaways: State funding cuts will reduce school revenue over the next several years. Our financial consultant recommended asking voters to increase the referendum property tax rate to make up this shortfall. There was a discussion and public comments about the upcoming board decision on the transfer student policy. The board approved a new anti-bullying policy which requires parents to be informed of potential bullying no more than 1 day after an administrator learns of a potential bullying incident (our prior policy was to allow a 5-day delay before informing parents).

Agenda with links to board documents

Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording

0:28 – Work session about state funding cuts to schools and referendum funding
1:01:58 – Discussion about transfer students
1:25:32 – JSHS Presentation
1:45:23 – Athletics Presentation
2:00:52 – Public comment
2:14:37 – Approval of consent agenda
2:15:22 – Approval of revised minutes
2:22:40 – Collective Bargaining Agreement
2:37:57 – Approval of Insurance Benefits
2:40:13 – Approval of Policies C250 Title I Parent and Family Engagement, C275 Test Security Provisions for Statewide Assessments, C425 Student Suicide Prevention and Awareness, C550 Student Search and Seizure, C575 Student Homework, C600 Withdrawal from School
2:46:06 – Approval of Policy B150 Organizational Meeting, Board of Finances and Committees
2:54:32 – Approval of Policy C175 Student Attendance, Academic Engagement and Truancy Prevention
2:56:29 – Discussion and 6 to 1 vote approving Policy C200 Anti-Bullying
3:25:22 – Approval of Policies C225 Parental Access to Instructional Material and Surveys, C300 Programs for Students with Disabilities and Least Restrictive Environment, C350 Student Discipline, C400 Use of Restraint and Seclusion with Students, C450 Drug Prevention, C500 School Trips and Privately Sponsored Activities Involving School Corporation Employees and Students, C525 Medical Needs at School
3:35:46 – First Reading of 23 Policies
3:38:08 – Superintendent Report
3:41:17 – Board Reports

The following is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions.

0:28 The board held a work session before the regular meeting to review the financial forecast and fiscal update with consultant Mike Reuter. Reuter presented financial projections related to the impact of Senate Bill 1 on future district revenues and referendum planning. He explained that Policy Analytics, a respected firm used across the state, conducted an in-depth parcel-level analysis for West Lafayette. Their work focused on anticipated revenue declines due to significant changes in property tax law passed in the most recent legislative session.

Reuter said that the final law added a 10% or $300 homestead credit starting in 2026 without providing any replacement revenue to school districts. Alongside this change, several major deductions were expanded or introduced. The standard deduction will be phased out, and the supplemental homestead deduction will increase from 37.5% to 66.7% by 2031. A new deduction for rental properties will phase in from 6% in 2026 to 33.3% by 2031. Additionally, a reporting threshold for business personal property will increase in 2027 from $80,000 to $2 million, exempting many filers and reducing the district’s taxable base.

These changes will result in a sharp decline in net assessed valuation (AV), with an expected average decrease of 4.4% per year over the next five years. In 2027 alone, AV is projected to drop by 7.3%. This shrinking tax base means less revenue from the school district’s rate-based referendum fund, with the referendum levy projected to fall from $8.7 million in 2026 to $7.3 million by 2031 if the current rate of 37 cents is maintained.

Reuter also discussed circuit breaker losses from the 1% property tax cap for owner-occupied homes. In 2026, the district is projected to lose $195,000 in its debt service fund and $130,000 in its operations fund. Reuter warned that future legislative sessions might shift the entire homestead credit loss onto the operations fund, increasing pressure on the education fund to cover operational costs.

He emphasized that many districts are preparing to rerun their referendums in 2026, as the new law only allows a referendum during general elections. Reuter encouraged the board to consider whether to rerun the referendum at a higher rate to offset projected losses. He modeled a scenario where the district aims to maintain purchasing power by increasing its referendum levy 3% annually through 2031. Under this model, the district would need to generate over $10 million by 2031, requiring a referendum rate of approximately 51 cents per $100 of AV.

Reuter noted that while an increase from 37 to 51 cents sounds like a large increase, it may not result in higher tax bills for homeowners due to declining AV. He recommended asking voters to approve a referendum rate of no more than 51 cents and cited Speedway Schools as an example of a district with voter approval for higher rates but collects only what is needed each year. The board would commit to limited initial collections and gradually increase the levy to meet future needs. Communicating this strategy clearly to the public would be essential.

Reuter emphasized that once a referendum rate is approved, the district cannot increase it without another vote. While West Lafayette has benefited from strong community support in the past, the concept of setting a maximum rate but collecting less initially may be a potentially confusing message.

Reuter clarified that if the district currently has a referendum in place, a failed renewal effort would not eliminate the existing rate. However, there are waiting periods for certain types of failed referenda.

Reuter presented four key financial scenarios for the board to consider when setting a new referendum rate:

Transfer Students:
- Currently, the district has 160 transfer students.
- If there were no transfer students, the district would lose approximately $1.15 million in revenue (about $7,300 per student), requiring a referendum rate increase of 4.89 cents per $100 of AV.
- Assuming 50% cost reduction due to less students, the needed rate increase would be 2.45 cents.
Declining Enrollment:
- If the district were to have 150 fewer students by 2031, it would result in a $1.08 million revenue loss, requiring a referendum rate increase of 4.58 cents.
- Assuming 50% cost reductions, the required increase would be 2.29 cents.
New Homestead Credit:
- In 2026, the district expects to lose $325,000 due to a new $300 homestead credit.
- This would require an additional 1.38 cents in the referendum rate, increasing to 1.65 cents by 2031.
Senate Bill 1 Impact:
- Assessed Value (AV) is expected to decline due to expanded deductions.
- To raise the same revenue, accounting for inflation, a projected 2031 rate of 51.15 cents would be needed.

Reuter then modeled a combined impact of all scenarios, indicating that the referendum rate would need to increase to approximately 59.16 cents per $100 of AV by 2031. He clarified that the board would still have discretion each year to set the actual rate below the approved maximum.

Reuter advised starting community outreach as soon as possible after the legislative session ends in February or March. While the board legally has until July 2026 to finalize the referendum rate for the November election, earlier planning allows more time to communicate the rationale and build support.

52:17 The work session was adjourned.

1:01:58 The regular meeting began with questions and discussion on the financial information shared at the work session. Yin commented on the assumptions underlying enrollment projections and the potential impact of open enrollment policy on the district. She pointed out that changes to the transfer policy might affect resident behavior and suggested that if the district were to open and increase transfer students, it may encourage families to move out of the district while continuing to enroll their children through an open transfer process. In contrast, if the district were to decide to close to new transfer students, more families might choose to stay or move into the district, especially with new employers attracting new residents.

Yin said that if more families want to move into the district, home values would go up which would increase the assessed value and property tax revenue. She complained that the projection in the presentation assumed the full loss of all 160 transfer students by 2031 if the district were to not allow new transfer students, which is unrealistic, since existing transfer students would be grandfathered in.

Reuter agreed with her concerns, explaining that the model was designed to show a worst-case scenario. He added that if resident enrollment increased as a result of closing transfers, the district would not need to collect the maximum referendum amount for declining enrollment. The board would have flexibility to adjust annually based on actual enrollment data.

Yin said that she is concerned about the optics of asking residents to pay an even higher referendum rate while accepting an increasing number of transfer students who do not contribute to the local tax base. She suggested that the district temporarily close to new transfer students for a few years to see if in-district enrollment increases.

Yin inquired whether it would be feasible to accept international students at a high tuition rate to offset public funding needs, citing Kokomo as an example. Reuter responded that he had limited experience with that practice.

Mumford recommended using focus groups for both teachers and community members to compliment the transfer student & referendum survey. She referenced the use of focus groups during the Happy Hollow discussions and strategic planning process and noted that those efforts were well received. Mumford expressed her desire to avoid teacher cuts, highlighting the district’s small size and personal connection with our teachers and other school employees. She emphasized the importance of giving teachers a voice in the process and ensuring they understand what is happening.

Greiner responded that focus groups could be structured similarly to those held during the Happy Hollow and strategic planning processes. He proposed offering both virtual and in-person sessions to capture input from different segments of the community in January.

1:25:32 JSHS Principal Chad Rodgers shared a presentation about the JSHS. It is both exciting and encouraging to see a shift in practice where the principal now actively supports collaborative academic decisions made by students, parents, and teachers, rather than limiting those decisions to teachers alone.

1:45:23 Athletic Director Joel Strode shared a presentation about athletics at the JSHS.

2:00:52 Communication from the Audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began)

Becky Creech, JSHS science teacher and community member, warned the board that deciding not to accept new transfer students could lead to severe cuts, including larger class sizes, fewer electives, and the loss of programs like band, orchestra, and robotics.
Marydell Forbes, JSHS English teacher and community member, urged the board to allow new transfer students, noting that they bring in needed revenue amid state funding cuts. She dismissed concerns about property values and said to trust the financial data and act in the best interest of students and staff.
Tara Kim, HS student and co-founder of West Lafayette Tutti, shared that her student music group performs for senior communities and is organizing a benefit concert to support Tippecanoe CASA after their federal funding was cut. With support from the JSHS faculty and administration, the concert will take place on December 7th at 3pm at Covenant Church, with all proceeds going to CASA for Kids. Kim invited the board and community to attend and asked for help promoting the event as well as for donations. She later announced that an anonymous donor had committed a matching gift for the fundraiser, doubling all funds raised. Kim also shared information about their Holiday Toy Drive for Riley Children’s Hospital, running until January 16, with the goal of delivering a truckload of toys during their performance for the hospital’s music therapy concert series on January 19 (MLK Day).
Becky Swanson, JSHS special education teacher and community member, said she was speaking for the special education department, and expressed deep concern over the elimination of a GLASS position. She emphasized this GLASS employee’s extensive qualifications, experience, and critical role in IEP compliance and legal oversight. Swanson urged the board to hire this person as an employee of our district.

2:14:37 Consent Agenda

Voted 7 out of 7

2:15:22 Minutes of the October 6, 2025 Executive Session: Witt said she was abstaining because she wasn’t at the meeting. As far as I know, ours is the only school district in Indiana with a tradition of abstaining from approving minutes when a board member was not present at the meeting, even though this is not required.

Voted 6 out of 6 (Witt abstained)

2:17:06 Minutes of the October 6, 2025 Regular Meeting: Witt again said that she was abstaining because she was not at that meeting. Mumford requested that the minutes be revised to remove a list of policies that the minutes report were rescinded during the meeting, noting that those policies were not on the agenda, were not discussed, and were not rescinded during the meeting. Everyone agreed to the change.

Voted 6 out of 6 (Witt abstained)

2:20:34 Minutes of the November 4, 2025 Tentative Collective Bargaining Meeting: Mumford requested that the minutes include some detail about public comments, rather than simply stating that comments were received. She suggested that even just recording who spoke and the topic they addressed would be helpful. Mumford motioned to note in the public comments section that David Joest, a high school teacher, commented on teachers’ concerns regarding low salary increases in the collective bargaining agreement. Everyone agreed to the addition.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:22:40 Collective Bargaining Agreement: Greiner thanked teachers for approving a two-year contract, noting it reflected trust and collaboration despite financial uncertainty from state funding and property tax reform. The agreement includes base salary increases of $550 in year one and $250 in year two as well as the step increase for an additional year of experience. Starting salaries in West Lafayette remain higher than neighboring districts, and the top salaries in our district now exceed $100,000.

Witt acknowledged teacher concerns, agreed that they are underpaid, encouraged their continued advocacy, and said that the board remains committed to doing what is right for teachers and students despite severe state funding challenges. Turning to the board’s upcoming decision creating a transfer student policy, she spoke to the teachers in the room: “You understand, as do I, that there is no mathematical possibility that we can eliminate transfers and not impact the classroom and our teachers. While I believe we in this room have a fair grasp on the issues, I do not believe our community does. We are standing at the edge of the pool of those very difficult conversations, preparing to dive in. And I perhaps think it’s more of a cannonball. Please step into these conversations. Stay informed. Help us to see your perspective. I know you are already educating our children and I will ask you to also educate us.” I appreciated that Witt acknowledged the concerns about low raises for our teachers. On her point about the transfer student decision, increasing the number of transfer students is not the only option to address the revenue declines. Also, I strongly believe that the community understands this issue, wants to be fully informed, and should be allowed to provide input. Our district has a long history of keeping the community in the dark when making important decisions (for example, the pandemic policies and past construction decisions). I am very pleased that our school district now makes information publicly available and actively seeks community input.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:37:57 WLCSC 2026 Health Insurance Renewal and Premiums, Medical Compensation

Voted 7 out of 7

2:40:13 Policies C250 Title I Parent and Family Engagement, C275 Test Security Provisions for Statewide Assessments, C425 Student Suicide Prevention and Awareness, C550 Student Search and Seizure, C575 Student Homework, C600 Withdrawal from School: Mumford asked Greiner to explain how the district is implementing Policy C250 on Title I parent and family engagement, specifically with what parent involvement looks like and how the district is ensuring compliance with the policy. Greiner explained that West Lafayette Elementary School is the district’s only Title I school, and parent involvement is primarily facilitated through the Title I family engagement night, where parents are invited to participate and provide input. A parent compact is also completed during registration to support involvement. Additionally, surveys are used periodically to gather feedback and help tailor engagement efforts, making it an ongoing process.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:46:06 B150 Organizational Meeting, Board of Finances and Committees: Lyle motioned for a slight wording change to paragraph 4: “the board may set a fee charged to persons who request individualized notice.” Witt argued that board members should not make any edits during the meeting, stating that while she agreed with Lyle’s proposed wording, making changes during the meeting creates confusion. She recommended approving the current version and then later bringing it back to make revisions. Purpura said he agrees with Witt and that the board should now only consider previously submitted revisions. Mumford disagreed and seconded Lyle’s motion, stating that Lyle raised a valid point that deserves consideration and noted that there had been no opportunity for board discussion after the policy committee meeting.

Voted 6 out of 7 (Wang opposed Lyle’s revision)

Voted 7 out of 7 to approve revised B150

Policy B150 requires board approval of committee assignments rather than allowing the board president to make committee assignments unilaterally, as is stated in Policy B125. At the September meeting (3:08:31), my proposal to revise Policy B125 to require board approval of committee assignments was voted down 5 to 2. I appreciate the more collaborative approach reflected in this policy, and Policy B125 will need to be revised to ensure consistency.

2:54:32 C175 Student Attendance, Academic Engagement and Truancy Prevention

Voted 7 out of 7

2:56:29 C200 Anti-Bullying: Mumford motioned to change the wording for when parents are to be notified about alleged bullying incidents from “before the end of the next day” to “before the end of the calendar day.” Drawing from her experience as a parent, teacher, and social worker, she emphasized the ethical responsibility to inform families by the end of the day when an allegation is made. She argued that no student who feels unsafe should return to school without their parents being informed and said immediate communication aligns with the district’s stated commitment to prioritizing student safety.

Austin disagreed with the proposed change, saying the current language gives administrators flexibility for complex situations. She expressed concern that setting a hard same-day deadline implies mistrust of administrators, who she believes already prioritize student safety. Yin agreed that parents should be notified promptly but preferred to rely on the input from building administrators, who felt the “end of the next day” language was more practical.

Witt raised a concern, noting that administrators might not be able to distinguish between bullying and general conflict by the end of the same day, especially in cases that happen late in the school day. Mumford clarified that her motion was not about sharing any investigative details but simply requires notifying parents that an incident was reported so they could support their child. She said many students do not tell their parents when they are bullied, making prompt communication from schools essential.

Margaret Psarros, WLIS principal, was invited to respond. She explained that while administrators often begin investigating immediately, they may have little information by the end of the school day, particularly if incidents occur late in the day. She emphasized that school staff take action to protect students and involve counselors when needed, but trying to inform parents the same day could leave them worried and without answers. It would also put pressure on administrators with limited time. She prefers to have until the next day for a more thorough and informed response. She said that while administrators notify parents the same day when possible, factors like needing bus footage or interviewing multiple parties often makes even 24 hours insufficient.

Mumford clarified that her concern was not about mistrusting administrators but about ensuring that parents are involved promptly to support their child. She emphasized that if a student reports feeling unsafe, even if the situation is ultimately identified as a conflict rather than bullying, parents should still be notified the same day.

Voted 1 out of 7 for the proposed revision (Mumford was the only one who voted in favor)

Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)

When this anti-bullying policy was first brought to the board in March 2024, state law and our current school policy allowed school administrators up to 5 days before they were required to notify parents of potential bullying. Austin argued that allowing administrators 2 days after an administrator learns of a potential bullying incident was a good compromise (2024 September 13:06). My proposal to reduce the delay in informing parents was met with strong resistance from administrators and other board members. I couldn’t get a majority of our school board to support anything below a 2-day delay and the policy committee would not bring the policy to the board for a vote (leaving the 5-day delay as our policy). So, I reached out to Representative Vernon Smith and Senator Spencer Deery (both serve on their respective education committees) and I urged them to consider introducing legislation to amend Indiana law regarding parent notification. As a result, House Bill 1539and Senate Bill 255were introduced, both initially requiring same-day parent notification, but subsequently amended to allow administrators until the next day. Both bills passed unanimously.

Still, I was disappointed that the state legislature gave into the pressure from school administrators and I continue to be disappointed that administrators are not willing to inform parents as early as possible. The argument that they need more time to gather information before notifying families reflects a misunderstanding of the critical role parents play in supporting their child’s mental health. If a parent wants to know details, it is fine for the administrator to say that they don’t have any details yet and that administrators will investigate and keep the parents informed. Informing parents the same day is not about mistrust or questioning administrators’ intentions. It is about recognizing that a student’s safety and emotional well-being comes first.

3:25:22 Approval of Policies C225 Parental Access to Instructional Material and Surveys, C300 Programs for Students with Disabilities and Least Restrictive Environment, C350 Student Discipline, C400 Use of Restraint and Seclusion with Students, C450 Drug Prevention, C500 School Trips and Privately Sponsored Activities Involving School Corporation Employees and Students, C525 Medical Needs at School

Voted 7 out of 7

3:35:46 First reading of 23 policies.

3:38:08 Superintendent Report

3:40:23 CFO Report: September Financial Report – Funds, October Financial Report – Funds, Cash Flow, Credit Card Statement, Claims Docket Object Breakdown

3:41:17 Board Reports:

West Lafayette Education Foundation: Witt shared that when it became clear in late October that SNAP benefits would not be distributed in November, a notice was sent to West Lafayette families in the free and reduced lunch program inviting them to enroll in the backpack program. In response, the number of weekly food bags distributed increased from 27 to 56, supporting 48 families and 83 WLCSC students, as well as their younger siblings and guardians. She emphasized that the backpack program still needs ongoing financial support and asked anyone interested in donating to provide either cash or multiples of the same food item. Witt also noted a new matching gift opportunity from a West Lafayette family to help cover AP exam fees for students on free and reduced lunch. The family pledged up to $1,000 in matching funds, and $500 has already been raised. This initiative is part of the foundation’s new school enrichment fund, which also helps with school field trip costs. Donations and inquiries can be directed to Wendy Ailor.

3:49:46 The meeting was adjourned

Upcoming Public Meetings in the Central Office Board Room, located at 3061 Benton Street:

Regular Board Meeting: December 8, 2025 at 6pm

This document is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions. Previous agendas, minutes, and audio recordings can be found at the WLCSC website.

After the meeting, the school district sent the following message to families with children in the schools to provide information about school finances, the transfer student policy, and the referendum:

In-District Enrollment:

We have 2,139 students who live in the district or are the child of a school employee.
In-district enrollment has declined by 198.5 students since 2019–2020.
The number of in-district students at the JSHS is similar to the 2019-2020 level.
The younger grades have seen the largest in-district enrollment declines.

Transfer Students:

We have 168 transfer students, an increase of 116 students since 2019-2020.
This has been intentional to partially offset the in-district enrollment decreases.
Transfer students must reapply annually, and most continue in our schools until they graduate.
We are required by law to enroll children of eligible employees if capacity exists.
Our district receives $7,395 in state funding for each transfer student.
In addition, transfer students each previously paid between $3,000 and $4,500 in transfer tuition.

Financial Considerations:

Beginning July 1st, 2025, the state no longer allows school districts to charge transfer tuition.
Given our current enrollment, our district spends about $18,000 per student, when combining the Education, Referendum, Operations and Debt Service funds.
Property taxes on homes, apartments, and businesses provide about $5,200 per student.
The referendum property tax provides an additional about $3,800 per student.
Grants, miscellaneous taxes, and interest provide about $1,700 per student.
Due to state property tax reform, property tax revenue is projected to decline.

Capacity:

Our target for total enrollment has been about 2,300 students.
We are currently not at this target even after accepting students from TSC.
Our facilities could comfortably accommodate up to 2,500 students.

Robust Programming and Extracurricular Options:

Enrollment size directly affects programming and extracurricular breadth.
More students allow offering more academic pathways, electives, and extracurriculars.
Fewer students increase the per-student cost of providing all the specialized programs (e.g., AP courses, robotics, performing arts, athletics).

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply