Bates County school board signals direction to build full Lakewood Ranch high school; cost and timing remain contentious

School board members in Bates County discussed a proposed new high school for the Lakewood Ranch area at an Aug. 8 workshop and signaled a consensus to move forward with a full high school plan while also airing major concerns about cost and schedule.

A resident, Kimberly Brewer, opened public comment urging the board to choose the most comprehensive option, which she described as “option 3.” “I urge you to please support option 3, and let's not cut corners when it comes to our children's future,” Brewer told the board.

Board members and staff spent several hours on enrollment projections, funding options and construction scheduling. Chair Chote opened the discussion by saying the board needed to “come out of this meeting ... give a direction to staff on how do we move forward,” and, after extended debate, several members said they supported moving ahead on the larger campus so it could open by fall 2027.

Staff and board members cited rapidly rising enrollment at nearby schools, with recent counts above May projections. Joe Jensen (district enrollment projections) explained that Lakewood Ranch and Parrish high schools each showed increases in summer counts that exceeded the staffing and construction allocations prepared in May. Several board members said that trend underlined the need to start construction now rather than delay.

Finance and planning staff described a funding plan that relies largely on impact fees generated by new residential construction in the county. District finance staff told the board last year’s COP (certificate of participation) offering and a 1.5-mill local funding allocation were already positioned to pay debt service for ongoing projects; for the proposed 2026 COPs package staff indicated roughly 80–100% of the debt for the new high school and additions would be covered by impact fees, with the remainder covered by the district’s capital millage allocation.

Board members debated trade-offs. Trustee Tatum urged the board to build a Parrish-style full high school — including athletic fields, auditorium and full facilities — arguing that pausing now and returning for a second COP in a few years would likely increase total costs. Trustee Kennedy cautioned about borrowing now at higher interest rates and asked whether postponing by a year to capture lower rates might save “tens of millions of dollars in interest payments.” District financial advisors told the board they monitor market timing and aim to bring debt to market in the most favorable window; staff identified a tentative timeline in which architects would finish 100% design and a construction manager would prepare an initial guaranteed maximum price (GMP) in September with potential COP issuance discussions in October.

The board reviewed three financing/construction scenarios provided by staff. Staff presented a “scenario 3” package that would include a full academic campus sized similarly to Parrish High School (two academic buildings, auditorium, gymnasium and athletic fields) with an estimated construction cost of about $182 million for the high school plus additional projects (a Myakka Elementary renovation and a Lake Manatee K–8 addition), yielding a combined COP package near $230 million in staff materials. Members noted that the district’s per-student construction cost estimates currently exceed the Florida Department of Education’s recent cost-per-student figures; Trustee Tatum and others asked staff to explore design changes, exemptions to state SREF building standards, and other value-engineering steps to reduce cost per student station.

No formal board vote was recorded at the workshop. Multiple trustees indicated support for proceeding with design and funding preparations for a full high school to meet a 2027 opening; staff said they would continue 100% design work and prepare procurement documents and an early GMP for the construction manager so that a COP offering could be timed with market conditions. Board members also requested further analysis on possible SR F exemptions, design value engineering, and a community outreach process to test trade-offs between facility standards and costs.