Lakota narrows master facilities options; trustees, staff press for clearer site maps and outreach

At a work session on Aug. 5, Lakota Local Schools staff and their planning team reviewed candidate sites for a districtwide master facilities plan, outlined criteria used to score properties and set a goal to finalize site recommendations by September so the district can begin detailed public outreach ahead of a proposed bond issue. The discussion matters because the locations under consideration affect student bus times, which neighborhoods keep neighborhood schools, what vacated school properties would become, and how construction can be phased without disruption to students. Staff said they intend to provide community maps and more frequent public briefings so residents can see how proposed closures and new buildings would change travel and neighborhood access. District planners and consultants presented site-selection criteria — constructability, safety, environmental constraints, utility access, usable land area and expansion capability — and described four main site groupings still under consideration. The district said the criteria are scored numerically and weighted; planners said final scores will be updated once enrollment projections are fully factored in. The sites discussed, and acreage figures given during the meeting, included: a transportation/central campus parcel of roughly 26 acres; a Hopewell complex of about 56 acres with roughly 31 acres classified as buildable; a pair of Westchester-area options (labeled in materials as West Freshman/Creekside and Heritage) with roughly 43 total acres and 19 buildable acres for West Freshman versus about 16 total and 6.25 buildable acres for Heritage; and two neighborhood sites — Shawnee (about 22 acres, 11 buildable) and Adena (about 14.5 acres, 3 buildable). Planners noted the state’s guideline of roughly 7.5 acres as a minimum elementary-site footprint and said that most sites exceed that minimum, which opens possibilities for fields or other community uses on vacated land. Staff also said they will factor near-term and long-range enrollment scenarios into the scores, including uncertainty tied to local development (the meeting repeatedly referenced potential growth tied to the Milliken interchange). The team recommended prioritizing sites that allow future expansion and minimize operational disruption during construction. The district also announced that Skanska will serve as the construction manager at risk (CMAR) partner; staff said they will present the formal partnership to the board in a regular meeting later in August and that the CMAR will contribute construction-phasing recommendations. Trustees and staff reported that Westchester Township officials raised three concerns at a recent briefing: (1) perceived loss of local facilities in their township if several buildings are decommissioned, (2) increased student ride times if schools move farther from existing neighborhoods, and (3) the need for clearer public messaging separating bond-funded capital projects from operating-levy questions. Administrators said those concerns informed their decision to place site maps and more detailed enrollment overlays at the center of upcoming public engagement efforts. Staff described a stepped engagement plan: information at district convocation for staff, an “administrator training” with talking points and FAQs, building-level staff presentations, a short informational video, and a schedule of parent and community meetings and site visits. They also plan tours of recently built junior-high and high-school facilities so trustees and staff can judge scale and program adjacencies. On cost and size, planners offered ballpark guidance for building square footage and how cost varies with program: elementary buildings use fewer square feet per student than junior highs or high schools; high schools can approach about 180–200 square feet per student depending on extra facilities. Staff said exact cost estimates will depend on final program, site grading and phasing requirements and will be refined once sites are selected. Next steps: staff said they aim to finalize site options by September to allow the public at least a month to review maps before the district advances a bond measure (staff discussed a November timeframe for a possible ballot measure). The planners will refine scores to reflect final enrollment inputs and provide recommended phasing and traffic mitigation for chosen sites. The board did not take a formal vote on sites at the work session.