Lakota Local board reviews $300M master facilities plan and weighs November funding options

At its regular meeting, the Lakota Local Board of Education heard a detailed presentation of the C1 master facilities plan and spent the bulk of its time debating how to pay for the work on a possible November ballot.

Presenters Tom and Craig described Option C1 as a phased program that begins by establishing a middle‑school model (grades 6–8), shifts the district to K–5 elementary schools in most neighborhoods, and delivers new independent high‑school additions or adjacent buildings where required. The team said the total program is “just over $300 million,” including a roughly $2.6 million demolition allowance and a program‑improvement (PI) allowance of about $15 million; presenters said the state share is about $77 million and the local share about $223 million.

The presentation emphasized classroom and program changes as well as facilities: the plan would reduce grade‑band transitions, aim for typical class sizes in a 21–24 student range, and create larger specialty spaces for science, performing arts, career and technical education and community use. The design team reminded the board that state co‑funding rules limit certain athletic square footage, meaning additional gymnasiums or outdoor athletic fields would likely rely on local PI funds.

On schedule the team described two delivery scenarios: an accelerated start that could finish by 2029 if the state allows immediate design work, or a later path finishing in 2030. Both scenarios anticipate roughly two years of construction for major phases and require early procurement of long‑lead equipment. Presenters said connectors between new and existing buildings would likely be phased and that students could occupy new space before some interior connections are built, so security measures such as vestibules, badging and gated circulation were discussed.

After the facilities briefing the meeting turned to how to present the plan to voters. Consultant Yen summarized a recent text survey by Fallon Research and told the board that the clearest path to voter support is a message that emphasizes no increase in property‑tax rates: “the core message of not raising property tax rates would be the most successful appeal to the voters,” Yen said, adding that that framing lifted support in the group’s polling. The board discussed two broad financing approaches laid out by staff and consultants: (1) a traditional bond financed through property tax (with the district’s existing bond millage rolling off in 2029) and (2) a 0.75% school‑district earned‑income tax (the “75% earned income” model) that would begin collection in January following a successful vote and be reflected in the district’s general fund.

Consultants walked the board through illustrative taxpayer impacts and timing. Using the consultants’ examples, a 0.75% earned‑income tax would have materially different net effects for households depending on wages and the near‑term property‑tax roll‑off; consultants estimated a roughly $660 annual gross effect for a household at an $88,000 income in one modeling scenario, while the property‑tax roll‑off could create a $308–$343 drop in property tax for a typical homeowner in the same modeling assumptions. Consultants also noted that some financing tools, such as COPs, have shorter allowable terms and higher assumed interest rates than long bonds and therefore higher near‑term payments.

Board members debated strategy at length. Several trustees argued for a single, comprehensive ballot ask that would pair facilities and operating funding to keep the district solvent through 2032 and avoid a second near‑term ask; others warned that a combined package could be politically difficult and urged splitting the requests or offering alternative roll‑outs. Concerns highlighted during the debate included the political clarity of ballot language, the risk of building facilities that the district cannot staff without operating funds, the burden on local PI funding for athletic and outdoor facilities, and the need to explain trade‑offs to residents.

By the end of the discussion trustees directed staff to prepare multiple resolution options for an upcoming meeting so the board can review formal language and run numbers with the auditor. The staff list the board asked for includes: (1) a 0.75% earned‑income tax scenario coupled with necessary debt; (2) a package combining bond financing, PI funds and an operating request; (3) a bond + PI package without an operating ask; and (4) a bond‑only (no new millage) option. Board members said they want those options available for stakeholder outreach and legal review before the board decides what to place on the ballot.

The meeting closed with a reminder that the district faces a fiscal cliff in the late 2020s unless new revenue is secured: trustees repeatedly framed November as an opportunity to either pursue a multi‑part solution now or begin planning for substantial cuts that would be required if no additional revenue is approved.

What’s next: staff will draft and circulate the proposed ballot resolutions and assumptions for the board’s next meeting so trustees can weigh campaign messaging, timing and which combination of asks to present to voters.