Three Lakes School Board reviews Nexus facilities assessment, asks staff for prioritized list and public outreach plan

The Three Lakes School District board reviewed a comprehensive facilities assessment prepared by Nexus at a special meeting Feb. 7, and directed administration to return with a prioritized list of needs, budget estimates and options for community outreach and funding.

The report, delivered in phase one of the district’s contract with Nexus, cataloged deferred maintenance and a range of potential projects at both Sugar Camp School and Three Lakes (the district’s elementary and junior-senior high campus). Board members and staff agreed to narrow the options before pursuing a public survey so residents would know precisely what the district might ask them to support.

“First of all, I really want to hit on the wants versus the needs,” Terry, the district administrator, told the board. “That I think is very key to this whole conversation.” She urged the board to task administrators with developing multi-year budgeting details for deferred maintenance, safety upgrades and any potential space additions before wider outreach.

At Sugar Camp, maintenance staff told trustees the existing heating system is working reliably and that routine repairs are far less expensive than full-unit replacement: “It’s literally around $1,000 when you have to exchange it and put a new one in,” Jack, the district maintenance lead, said of heat-exchanger repairs, contrasting that with a roughly $20,000 estimate for a full replacement. Jack said wholesale changes like adding glycol systems or replacing multiple boilers would be necessary only if the district pursues a building addition.

Board discussion highlighted a set of projects that administrators and staff identified as higher priority: secure entry office remodeling and a secure lobby at both campuses, electrical-panel and surge-protection work, localized HVAC and thermostat zoning fixes, certain interior finishes and replacement of a handful of windows, and targeted site/civil work to address drainage near building entrances.

At Sugar Camp trustees flagged a proposed “Jack-and-Jill” toilet remodel to serve 4K and kindergarten students as a near-term, reasonably scoped project; one cost figure in the Nexus materials—$59,000 for a 4K/K toilet addition—was discussed as a starting estimate to be validated. For resiliency, staff said Sugar Camp has experienced recurring power outages and asked permission to pursue updated generator pricing; a previously noted figure in the discussion was about $2.12 million, which administrators said they would recheck and present as an updated estimate.

On the Three Lakes campus, the board and facilities staff reviewed aging air-handling units, boiler and pump components, and unit ventilators. Dave, who oversees facilities, told the board most systems still function but advised planned replacement and staged upgrades rather than emergency fixes. Air-conditioning for large spaces was described as a future, high-cost project that would require careful prioritization and phasing.

Security and life-safety systems drew sustained attention. Staff said the existing card-access system and door controls do not provide a single, reliable ‘lockdown’ override across campus and recommended modernizing the access platform—ideally to one that integrates card access, cameras and a district-wide override. Administrators also recommended replacing the local-only fire-panel interface so alarms can be reported automatically and managed more easily during incidents.

Athletics and outdoor facilities were raised as a community-visible concern. Trustees and coaches discussed track and field conditions and agreed that improved irrigation, seeding and field maintenance are immediate needs; track replacement would probably require a single large project. Justin, a building administrator, said a staged maintenance approach—immediate seeding and fertilization with larger field or track projects to follow—was a reasonable path.

The board did not take final votes on any of the facility projects at the meeting. Instead trustees unanimously approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session and later asked administration to return with: a prioritized needs-vs-wants list; explicit budget estimates and whether items can be done in-house or require contracted work; proposals for staging and phasing; and recommended formats for community engagement (surveys and town-hall sessions). Caleb, the district’s finance lead, told the board the district has built a fund balance in recent years and that limited use of those reserves for prioritized deferred maintenance would be a possible option alongside other funding approaches.

Chair Mike closed the discussion by asking staff to prepare the more detailed materials and a recommended calendar for follow-up, and the board adjourned after approving a motion to end the meeting.