Sycamore staff present $24.6 million five‑year capital plan; board discusses permanent improvement levy

Sycamore Community City finance staff and consultants presented a draft capital plan showing approximately $24.6 million in needs from 2025–2029 and flagged a likely shortfall if the district relies only on the $4.1 million annual transfer currently in the five‑year forecast.

The plan, presented by Dan Shaw, a consultant with Bradley Payne, quantified district capital needs by category and building and showed the $4.1 million annual allocation would cover routine maintenance and replacement but not many new projects the district has identified. The presentation and subsequent board discussion focused on financing options, timing and community messaging if the board pursues a permanent improvement (PI) levy.

District staff and consultants said the draft plan combines facilities, technology, athletics and transportation needs into one interactive project schedule that can be filtered by building, year and work type. "The punchline, so you're not sitting there wondering, right? Is that the 4.1 is pretty good for the maintenance items that you have. It does a good job of covering maintenance and replacement costs, but it's not really gonna be enough to cover some of the new needs that the district's coming down the road," Dan Shaw said during the presentation.

Shaw and staff walked trustees through top‑level findings: of the roughly $24.6 million identified across the planning horizon, about $14.4 million is facility work (roofs, HVAC, building envelope), roughly $4 million is technology and network infrastructure, and the remainder is athletics, transportation and programmatic equipment. The consultants noted that the five‑year snapshot is a draft and that items scheduled beyond year seven were aggregated pending more detailed cost estimates.

District staff explained the analysis method: needs were captured through meetings with administrative directors plus a facilities assessment by a firm the district identified as "4 Seasons" (the firm also served as the district’s bond commissioning agent). Staff emphasized the plan is needs‑driven rather than budget‑driven: projects are scheduled when they are needed, then financing options are explored to determine what can be accomplished.

Board members and staff discussed several high‑cost items that were pulled out of the core maintenance total to illustrate the gap between current funding and desired projects: phase 2/phase 3 of athletic fields (phasing previously approved only through phase 1), a proposed playground program estimated at $5.5 million, a scene shop addition estimated at $1.3 million and visitor‑side stadium improvements (press box/amenities) totaling about $2.4 million. With those additions the five‑year deficit materially increases.

Trustees reviewed scenarios showing that continuing the current $4.1 million transfer would push the district’s operating cash balance toward a deficit by about FY2027, even without new projects added. Staff showed options that separate maintenance/replacement from new projects and illustrated how adding the pulled‑out items changes the levy or financing required.

The board discussed whether a dedicated permanent improvement levy is the right path. Staff recommended giving the community a clear plan and a separated revenue stream for capital needs — both to increase transparency and to reduce the chance that operating money would be diverted to capital needs. "My professional advice would be the next request for additional revenue from this community, I believe that we need to look at permanent improvements. That revenue stream needs to be separated, and not risk our academics," a district finance staff member said.

Trustees asked about timing and next steps. Staff presented a timeline that allows for a November 2026 ballot measure (with required resolutions and county auditor certification in early 2026) and noted May 2026 as an alternative if the board chooses a different timetable. The team recommended adopting a financial‑parameter resolution when the board next adopts a revised five‑year forecast (target: second meeting in May) and using an annual mailed/electronic prospectus and broader outreach to explain the levy to the 70% of households that do not currently have school‑age children.

Board members also stressed communication and public education. One trustee said the district must show the community "what we're going to do with our PI money" and explain why investments in maintenance continue after bonds and renovations.

Ending: The board did not adopt a levy at this meeting but directed staff to continue refining the capital plan and financing scenarios, to prepare community communications and to return with parameters and a recommendation timed to the district’s five‑year forecast adoption.