Mister Osterquist, the security coordinator for Sioux Falls School District 49-5, told the board at a work session that an assessment by the South Dakota School Safety Center found the district strong in emergency planning, relationships with law enforcement and video surveillance, but identified areas for improvement such as fencing, screening at after-school events and entry-control details.

"The details of each individual assessment are considered protected critical infrastructure information," Osterquist said, adding the district will share broad findings publicly but not building-level vulnerabilities. He described the district’s use of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s K‑12 School Protective Measures Assessment for school sites and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s SAFE tool for administrative buildings.

The assessment process combined administrator interviews and facility walkthroughs across elementary, middle, high school and central services sites completed in 2025. Osterquist said elementary, middle and high schools showed similar trend lines, with middle and high schools scoring slightly higher on fencing largely because of secured athletic facilities rather than full campus perimeter fencing.

Among recommended steps, Osterquist highlighted expanding panic-button coverage and exploring wearable panic devices for staff — measures associated with "Alyssa's Law" efforts elsewhere — and working with Metro Communications on a system that would directly notify dispatch to speed law-enforcement response. He said the district has already repurposed earlier homeland-security funding to support Wi‑Fi–enabled radios for first responders after new connectivity options became available.

Osterquist also raised lower-cost, practical changes his team would prioritize: for example, removing an exterior door handle from a set of double doors to reduce the risk of barricading while preserving evacuation and responder access. "If I had all the money in the world…that direct communication to law enforcement" would be the top investment, he said, "but there are next-to-zero fixes we can do now."

Board members and staff discussed student identification policies; Osterquist said the district does not currently require students to display IDs but noted past efforts—ranging from enforcement to incentive programs—had mixed operational effects. He and principals described trade-offs between safety gains and administrative burden.

On administrative buildings and the Instructional Planning Center, the assessor recommended first-responder tours so officers know building layouts, and suggested designating an alternate site for business continuity if power or services at IPC were lost.

No formal vote or funding allocation for the recommendations was recorded at the session. The presentation concluded with board members encouraged to review packet material and to work with staff on prioritization and implementation plans.

The district reported that some homeland-security grant applications are still pending and that a three-year program to replace radios across the district is in its second year, expected to finish by next summer.