[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6247043,"mediaKeyId","3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd","parentId",3213472,"title","Lakota proposes central-office reorganization to restore curriculum and student-services capacity","audioSeconds",1198,"startMs",3962000,"endMs",5160000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd&start=3962&end=5160","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd/thumbnail_3962000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6247043/Ohio/Lakota-proposes-central-office-reorganization-to-restore-curriculum-and-student-services-capacity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247043-8c5a6b5de07a0ac05492a55b409d910f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051106&Signature=MAdklr1KqN-2uPrvVkT4I3o~sPgZ9RHJzWnd5TsDsbJqPmP5iGd6kZZtGoP1EROL8wtjK4pcUFromMNOmqJpHR2s-mmGgdtF-lBkAsbVfGYA-plTakWtLb2DYgaZrbaO8~CaJq8rfbt6kY-qBgM9dWLpOPwnU0ougRRpAFpS0d6BpsoAvghPt9UOPwsrVHLaT78dMA8dx9uTCkOwwP1d8mbwfaIWowCS5cMigGcWTyuzQwul~m8T1G9rnpXk0nzgouwRfVAG5tloZQJwPCeqPLQOCvzILcuSbMKyqq2Js-~ClK3CKgdj5q2uCa~Cu5xA~NOfKJZHfyrVZIBaoUTvMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lakota Local, OH ","date","2025-05-07T17:04:55.38Z","article","Lakota Board of Education members reviewed a proposed reorganization of central-office staff on May 6 that would reconstitute roles supporting curriculum, MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support), special education, English-language learners and residency/enrollment work.

The presenter described the chart as a partial org chart focused on academic and student-support roles. The plan would split prior combined duties, restore a director-level focus on English-language learners and establish an executive director of student services to combine oversight for student supports. The proposal also would fold contracted part-time truancy positions into an in-house attendant-services function tied to an ombudsman role and add a residency specialist to audit enrollment and residency records.

According to the presentation, the central idea is to create a system-level umbrella (presented as a “blue band”) that houses tier-1 curriculum, special education, gifted services, ELL and PBIS work so those functions can offer consistent interventions and data to buildings. The presenter said the director of ESL position and a residency specialist are new additions; several other roles shown were described as restored to align the central office with district needs.

Board members asked how the reorganization would affect classroom staffing and whether roles could be repurposed rather than added; the presenter said some building-level repurposing had already enabled middle-school model changes without adding classroom teachers. The presenter and board members agreed that job descriptions and internal audits would be required before final hires or reassignments. One board member requested continued scrutiny to avoid becoming “administration central-office heavy.”

The proposal included a plan to phase out or repurpose a few contracted or standalone positions and to provide redundancy for critical data and enrollment functions. Staff said the residency specialist would be a roughly 12–18 month audit-heavy role to clean up residency records, affidavits and returned mail processes; presenters said the district lacks a single automated system to manage residency audits and that the role would coordinate buildings and central office functions.

No formal personnel actions were taken on May 6; staff said the reorganization would be refined, job descriptions audited and changes presented for board review and any required approvals.

Ending: Staff will continue auditing job descriptions, identify internal candidates and return with a refined proposal and the supporting job descriptions for board consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lakota Board of Education: May 6, 2025 Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","District leadership presented a proposed reorganization of central-office roles aimed at restoring curriculum, MTSS, ELL and student-services capacity; the board discussed repurposing existing staff versus adding new positions.","taxTitle","Lakota Local, School Districts, Ohio","taxId",14477,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6247048,"Lakota leadership previews five-year forecast; proposes reserve accounts and optional bus-fleet purchase",1979,1901000,3880000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd&start=1901&end=3880","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd/thumbnail_1901000.jpg","/articles/6247048/Ohio/Lakota-leadership-previews-five-year-forecast-proposes-reserve-accounts-and-optional-bus-fleet-purchase","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247048-6932b4f57ce92623e062cd17165a30a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051106&Signature=K5kxUs4S5jh55DhzPTQsG9TkY~yS7fQLEAlrfvPfeSVF58R5gf7Gure6KXkDn3o1ISDZY0iyVVLKmQaIe0cZIAh2ojJJhn2tenGcLP3GIeETTWfZRhUnG~HpccTgfADNaQFSXbZYqLQ896MN6J6CiDIBwIYFHPULdamixVpe8uqcFb~dAr1EDG1BEWokBJMpin5UwpYBTbGsGs8FRV9S6c1f1cPyPGhrTrTuB5By9~JO7SGPMLS0gfxX0qcfPp--93zwo6tdgOmBLVqRajTIQPs7FLCldAYoFfDOA68GOdrNf06lWJt-~NYKDQf5fygsjMLQ09WlZE~Wb4nMI0KH-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","District finance staff presented a five-year forecast and several reserve-account scenarios to Lakota Board of Education members on May 6 and discussed options should state legislation impose a cap on reserves.

The staff presentation described a theoretical structure of reserve “buckets” to smooth capital and operating needs over multiple years. Staff invited the board to consider reserves for items such as transportation fleet replacement, severance payouts, curriculum rotation purchases, and other targeted accounts rather than maintaining a single large general-fund balance.

A central proposal in the discussion was whether the district should consider acquiring the physical school-bus fleet currently provided under contract (the meeting referenced the contractor “Peterman”) and use a reserve to purchase buses over a multi-year rotation. Staff presented an illustrative model that assumed about 200 routes, an estimated $125,000 cost per new bus, a 12-year lifecycle, and an approximate $10,000 salvage value, with routine insurance and maintenance assumptions. Under those assumptions staff estimated per-bus ownership could cost roughly 85% of the contract route cost and that buying a fleet and rotating replacements could reduce the district’s transportation contract expense over time. Staff noted that purchasing a fleet would require further appraisal and negotiation with any incumbent contractor if buses in a contractor’s yard were to be purchased.

Staff also reviewed a proposed severance reserve sized to track with contract language (roughly 0.6 of wages in a typical year) and showed how one-time transfers into reserves could smooth spikes related to retirements. The presentation included a “curriculum rotation” reserve as a PI-eligible target and noted that PI fund balances have not kept pace with rising costs; staff said the PI fund receives roughly $3 million per year and that some PI revenue sources (tax-levy collection rates) have rolled back over time.

State legislative risk was discussed. Staff said recent proposals—identified in the presentation as Sub. House Bill 96 (also mentioned earlier alongside “Sub House Bill 9” in speech)—could impose a cap (staff used 30% in an illustration) on reserve balances and that such legislation, if enacted, could require changes to how the district presents and holds reserves. Staff showed an example that applied a 30% cap and illustrated a roughly $34.2 million amount above the hypothetical cap in the model; they described options including doing nothing (which could trigger a budget commission review and millage reduction in the staff example), or reconfiguring reserves by fund and purpose.

Board members asked operational questions about bus ownership timelines, maintenance responsibilities and contract mechanics. Staff said a purchase would likely require an appraisal and that the district would need to negotiate terms with a contractor if buying existing buses; staff estimated a typical procurement timeframe of about 180 days for bus purchases and noted ongoing work to refine cost assumptions.

On timing and next steps, staff said they would finalize materials for the finance committee and planned to present a formal recommendation to the board. No formal vote to create reserves or purchase vehicles was taken at the May 6 meeting; the board asked staff to return with workpapers and a formal recommendation.

Ending: Staff will refine the fleet and reserve models and present a formal recommendation to the finance committee and the full board; no reserve transfers or vehicle purchases were approved on May 6.","District staff walked the board through a five-year forecast template and proposed reserve accounts, including a possible strategy to purchase a bus fleet to gain contract leverage and create a multi-year replacement reserve.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6247053,"Lakota staff outline $6M in building needs, ask board to consider tapping fiscal stabilization fund",1783,98000,1881000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd&start=98&end=1881","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3213472-4b41d99739c91435cc048e05259a9dcd/thumbnail_98000.jpg","/articles/6247053/Ohio/Lakota-staff-outline-6M-in-building-needs-ask-board-to-consider-tapping-fiscal-stabilization-fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247053-4ef7e6d483b9f0d86eac0c4823f369b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051106&Signature=W3iupeoLbl5TrDHM73kRRCBSW8oZLvliDKs-aDmcTkntZGgAIXUTDw3KvqH6bB~MbZh8jVgysGfcpdm8plMDZnr9oYAFmq8VjeipSvpGWiW-rqv2MF8ROm7xYofGErK~PxsAedMfcotTU9YpgYZAVq0b4Fndz1EPL8p78TWQmE2GxMMrJyQckSASmVx~ciSSYMU5qdAMywyobzF6JoTd7RfxWPlEmfAgwD-SUMmOXhdbsUc0OpAcRpcRLBVuZg6oCslBZhZtnxIlMd5uDw-VvVjWLB4E0XkJIq7eLtq5ArBQ8aU-MLegie~UrFtwsCTk6OEx3grhV04-69PToPjVrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lakota Board of Education members heard on May 6 that planned one-year capital needs for district buildings total more than $6 million, exceeding the $3 million budgeted in the district’s PI fund. District staff asked the board to consider a proposal to use fiscal stabilization funds to cover one-time work so the district can complete its highest-priority projects this year.

The request came during a presentation on the district’s annual capital plan. A facilities presenter summarized the district’s building assessments and work-order review and said the district identified about $3.7 million in high-priority work this year and a little over $6 million when medium- and low-priority items are included. “As with most years, all of our needs outweigh our funding that we have available,” the presenter said.

Board members and staff discussed which high-cost items would be deferred if the board keeps the PI fund spending at $3 million. The facilities presenter said removing identified deferred items—such as a section of the East Freshman roof, a rear entrance and circulation improvements at West, and other mid-to-low projects—would reduce the list to the budgeted $3 million. The presenter also described an East Freshman roof estimate of about $600,000 for shingles and said a metal roof option had a higher estimate (about $2.3 million for a comparable metal roof on that building).

Board members pressed on durability and the cost effects of repeatedly deferring projects. One member asked how many deferral items have been postponed for multiple years; staff replied that several items have been deferred repeatedly, and that deferred maintenance can escalate into higher-cost, emergency repairs. “At some point, these become emergencies now if you keep deferring,” a board member said in discussion.

On funding, staff said the PI budget includes $3 million for capital this year and noted a roughly $300,000 carryover from the prior year’s fiscal stabilization-funded projects. Staff reported the fiscal stabilization fund balance in discussion as about $4.1 million to $4.5 million (speakers used both figures during the conversation) and suggested using a portion of that fund—roughly $700,000 to $800,000 in one discussion—to move additional high-priority items from the deferred list into this year’s work. One board member urged caution about repeatedly using the stabilization fund: “I’m not a fan of using the fiscal stabilization year after year to defer to fix maintenance,” the member said, asking for more long-term budgeting detail before committing the fund.

Staff framed a compromise approach: prioritize roofs, HVAC (chillers and boilers), and parking-lot repairs (identified as the district’s “big three”), and return with a formal proposal listing specific one-time costs for board approval if the board wishes to use stabilization funds. The facilities presenter requested board permission to prepare a proposal of one-time costs that could be funded from fiscal stabilization and to bring that proposal back for review by the finance committee and the full board.

Discussion also covered contingency and the PI fund’s limits. Staff noted the PI contingency line was reduced to $150,000 from a more typical $250,000 and that the PI fund receives about $3 million per year, which does not automatically grow with inflation unless the board supplements it. Board members asked staff to return with a prioritized list of items that would move from medium to high priority if additional one-time funding were available.

The board did not take a formal vote on funding during the meeting. Staff said they would prepare a formal proposal and bring it to the finance committee and to the next regular board meeting for a decision.

Less-critical agenda items and scheduling were discussed after the facilities presentation, and the board moved on to the district’s five-year forecast.

Ending: The board asked staff to return with a detailed, prioritized list of one-time capital costs and a formal recommendation on use of the fiscal stabilization funds; no formal appropriation or transfer was approved at the May 6 meeting.","District facilities staff told the Lakota Board of Education that this year’s prioritized capital needs exceed available PI funding; staff asked the board to consider using fiscal stabilization funds for one-time repairs to reach high-priority projects.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lakota proposes central-office reorganization to restore curriculum and student-services capacity

Lakota leadership previews five-year forecast; proposes reserve accounts and optional bus-fleet purchase

Lakota staff outline $6M in building needs, ask board to consider tapping fiscal stabilization fund