Lakota board votes 4-1 to place $506 million bond and 0.95‑mill PI on November ballot

The Lakota Board of Education on June 30 voted 4‑1 to place a proposed $506 million bond issue and an accompanying 0.95‑mill permanent‑improvement levy on the Nov. 4, 2025 ballot, approving a resolution to proceed that board leaders said is needed to fund a district master facilities plan.

“These funds would be put on the ballot to give our community the opportunity to either support or not support that,” Dr. Whiteley, Lakota superintendent, said while presenting the proposal. “So again, the whole point of this resolution is to say, we're going to put it on the ballot to give our community the opportunity to either support or not support that, not our individual viewpoints as individual board members.”

The board’s action authorizes the district to submit ballot language that requests up to 4.99 mills over the full collection period; however, the resolution of intent included a board commitment that the millage actually collected to pay annual debt charges will not exceed an aggregate total of 2.66 mills if certain conditions are met. Those conditions, as read into the record, are: an interest rate not to exceed 4.8 percent, a maximum bond maturity of 37 years, a district tax valuation at or above the school district's 2026 collection‑year valuation of $5,244,719,670, and maintenance of the district’s bond ratings (Moody’s double‑A1 and S&P Global Ratings double‑A-plus).

Adam Zink, the district treasurer, walked members through the millage math during the discussion, saying that although ballot language must state the requested total collection period millage of 4.99 mills, projected rolloffs and backfilling mean the net new burden in tax year 2029 would be about 2.66 mills — which Zink said equates to roughly $93.10 per $100,000 of appraised value per year when the full schedule is in place. Zink also explained the 0.95‑mill permanent‑improvement (PI) component and said part of the PI was intended to meet Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) partnership requirements and to cover technology, security and pavement needs.

Dr. Whiteley said the bond proceeds would be used to implement a master facilities plan that restructures grade spans, consolidates and modernizes buildings and creates dedicated instructional and intervention spaces. “Moving sixth grade into the junior high will give us a little bit of lift,” she said, adding that new classroom space should reduce some K‑6 class sizes and allow more electives and intervention rooms.

Board discussion included questions about alternatives if voters reject the levy. Dr. Whiteley and Zink told the board that failing to secure the bond could force the district to consider an operating levy and other measures to address capacity and programming, and that timing matters because state participation (Zink noted a projected 32 percent state share) and construction schedules could change if the district misses the projected phase windows. Under the district timeline presented, documents would be delivered to the board of elections immediately if approved; the election would be Nov. 4, 2025; and the district aims for phase 1 facilities to be operational in fiscal year 2029, with phase 2 operational by fiscal year 2030.

One board member, Mr. Dee, said he would vote against the motion because of concerns about recent board actions and community trust, not because of the facilities needs. “For me, at this point, I believe it is disingenuous for me to go back to the same community ... and ask them for bond levy,” Mr. Dee said during the public discussion period before the vote.

Roll call on the resolution to proceed (agenda item 9a) produced the following recorded votes: Miss Casper — Yes; Miss French — Yes; Mr. Dee — No; Mr. Horton — Yes; Miss Schaefer — Yes. A companion resolution (agenda item 9b) to certify the issue to the board of elections and to levy tax in excess of the 10‑mill limitation passed by the same margin (Yes: French, Horton, Casper, Schaefer; No: Dee).

The board made clear that the resolution is a procedural vote to place the question before voters and not a final commitment by individual board members to vote for the levy in November. If approved by voters, the board’s resolution places limits and assumptions on the district’s future collections to keep the annual debt service at or below the stated aggregate level, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution.