Lakeland District staff ask board to prioritize projects as $3M plant facilities levy is outlined

Lakeland District officials used a public workshop to explain how a proposed plant facilities levy would be spent and to ask trustees for direction after bids for school modernization work came in higher than expected.

“The community wanted to know what projects we were going to do with this funding now before they voted on it,” said CFO Jess Grantham, describing why staff convened the workshop and shared two documents: plant facility levy budget estimates and the list of state school modernization projects. Grantham and facilities staff said the district must now balance state-funded modernization projects with a smaller, locally managed levy fund.

Why it matters: staff presented a five-year levy framework built around a $3 million annual threshold that they said is a manageable amount for in-house project management. Staff and trustees said the levy would be used for deferred maintenance, roofing set-asides, HVAC and electrical work, access control and targeted classroom or site work that state modernization funds will not cover.

Key budget pressures and program shifts

Staff said school modernization bids returned significantly higher than preliminary estimates, with HVAC and related electrical and architectural impacts the primary drivers of cost increases. As a result, some items initially slated for state modernization funds are likely to be supplemented or shifted to levy-funded deferred maintenance so projects can be completed.

Staff cited districtwide voice-evacuation fire-alarm upgrades as a major cost item (staff figure cited: $2,483,267) and said that line item largely explains why the modernization budget exceeds available state funds. Facilities staff recommended removing optional items (for example, discretionary voice-evac upgrades where not immediately required by code) from the near-term work list to preserve funds for higher-priority systems.

What trustees heard: priorities and trade-offs

Trustees pressed staff for a practical prioritization. Board members repeatedly asked for a building-by-building breakdown showing: what was last replaced, what remains on the 30-year maintenance matrix, and a recommended timeline for work. One trustee said the public needs the per-building detail to defend levy requests; staff agreed to add a detailed tabbed spreadsheet showing summary-by-year with drill-down per school.

Staff also recommended specific operational choices to reduce cost: buy some large equipment directly from manufacturers, perform smaller retrofits in-house (for example, some classroom HVAC swap-outs), and use levy funds to supplement—rather than duplicate—the state modernization program where bids are insufficient.

Examples of projects discussed

- HVAC and systems: Staff called HVAC the biggest single driver of cost increases and urged keeping related electrical and plumbing work coordinated so partial, half-completed projects are avoided.

- Roofing: Staff proposed a roof-contingency set-aside (illustrative: $500,000/year) to build a multi-year pool for larger roof replacements; district estimates cited examples (Timberlake ~ $1.4–1.5 million; John Brown ~ $800,000) as mid-range planning figures.

- Tracks and fields: Timberlake High’s track and adjacent field were highlighted as safety and instructional concerns; a worst-case replacement estimate for the track was discussed (roughly $1.1 million now, with contingency up toward $1.5 million).

- Fleet and portables: Staff proposed using levy funds to buy one additional bus per year (in addition to one bus funded from required depreciation transfers) to accelerate fleet turnover. Trustees also asked staff to reconfirm earlier approvals for two portable classrooms at Timberlake Middle and to study feasibility and site constraints for adding up to two more portables.

Board direction and next steps

Trustees asked staff to return a clearer, building-level package: a worksheet that lists each school, the year built or last updated, the projects proposed, estimated costs (or ranges), and staff’s recommended sequencing. Staff agreed and scheduled a follow-up workshop to review a more detailed plan before the district’s town hall and public outreach. The board closed the workshop at 7:56 p.m.

Numbers and caveats

Staff emphasized that many figures discussed are estimates derived from returned bids, historical cost matrices and contingency assumptions; several items described as costs or totals (for example, voice-evac and roofing estimates) were framed as budgetary estimates rather than final contract prices. Trustees asked that the public packet include last-repaired dates, photographs and a clear history of expenditures by building to improve transparency.

What’s next: staff will prepare the building-by-building spreadsheet, provide updated bid information at the next regular meeting, and present the refined levy plan at a follow-up workshop prior to the public town hall. If the levy passes, staff said project approvals and budget amendments would be scheduled for the board’s regular meeting cycle.