Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakota Local reviews $87.6 million, 10‑year capital plan and finance scenarios
Summary
Board members reviewed a 10‑year capital plan estimating $87.6 million in needs across 21 buildings, discussed facility priorities (roofing, HVAC, plumbing), considered a "C1" scenario that stretches investments farther into the future, and flagged Adena Elementary bathroom and plumbing work as requiring higher priority and clarifying cost estimates.
Dan presented an interactive 10‑year capital plan for Lakota Local that aggregates identified needs across 21 buildings and estimates total capital requirements at $87.6 million. The plan breaks that total into facilities (about $39–40 million), operations (about $19.7 million) and technology (about $17.66 million), and allows board members and staff to drill into year‑by‑year, category‑by‑category, and building‑level detail.
Dan showed how the plan surface items such as roofing, HVAC and parking lot work and explained that the dashboard can display narratives, photos of deficiencies and per‑building cost lines. Using Adena Elementary as an example, he said Adena’s high‑level plan share is about $1.1 million; the plan currently lists modest plumbing line items (the dashboard showed $6,000 for certain plumbing entries) but board members said that full bathroom renovations or bringing rooms up to code would cost substantially more—board estimates ranged from about $100,000 to $200,000 for a full bathroom rebuild—so the team agreed to add clearer, separate entries for full bathroom projects and photos to illustrate needs.
On financing, Dan demonstrated a baseline forecast that leaves the district in the red and a modeled "C1" option that removes projects for buildings planned to be taken offline; the C1 scenario extended the plan's useful horizon (Dan said it could extend 20–25 years) and improved the plan's long‑term balance without dramatically increasing near‑term costs. Dan cautioned that using reserves or stabilization funds can temporarily close shortfalls but is not sustainable long term.
Board members and staff discussed prioritization trade‑offs—making facilities merely functional versus investing to current building codes and ADA standards—and the presenters recommended a twice‑yearly review cadence to keep the plan current. The board also agreed to an enrollment review in October to feed into facilities planning and discussed shifting forecast review and approval steps into August and February work sessions to align committee schedules.
Dan said the capital‑plan materials will be available to the board for further comment and that staff will incorporate photographs and clearer per‑project checkboxes (for example, a checked item to "improve Adena bathrooms/ADA compliance") so voters and the public can better understand what each funding scenario would deliver. No capital funding vote occurred at this meeting.
