Lakota board debates transportation promises tied to bond levy; staff told to gather more data

The Lakota Board of Education spent a large portion of its Oct. 20 meeting debating whether the district should commit to providing K–12 transportation if voters approve a proposed bond levy to consolidate schools.

Board members said the question matters to voters and to equity across the district. Several trustees asked staff for clearer, apples‑to‑apples comparisons with peer districts and for an independent audit of routes, costs and assumptions before the board makes any binding commitments.

The discussion followed a special meeting the previous Friday where trustees reviewed a draft “statement of facts” that included slides about busing. Board members said the draft contained language that read “may provide K–12 busing” rather than a definitive promise, and the trustees decided not to present that document for a vote at the time.

Treasurer Adam (last name not specified in the record) and Superintendent Dr. Whiteley told the board they have top‑line figures but lack complete routing and logistics data needed to be certain they could deliver universal K–12 transportation at the costs staff estimated. They said the district is working with Peterman, its current provider, and a consultant who previously worked for the Ohio School Boards Association to complete more detailed routing and cost modeling.

Board member Isaac said he felt “blindsided” by the special meeting because he did not receive the agenda in time and later reviewed comparative spending figures that surprised him. Isaac presented district comparisons he asked staff to prepare: Olentangy Local Schools (Columbus area) with roughly $13,700,000 in transportation spending and enrollment of about 22,978 (about $599 per pupil); Lakota’s transportation spending listed as $22,432,000 for 17,022 students (about $1,318 per pupil); and Middletown City Schools at about $8,800,000 for 9,959 students (about $885 per pupil). Isaac said those numbers raised questions about whether Lakota could commit to expanding busing when it already spends substantially more per pupil than some peers while not transporting all students.

Superintendent Whiteley and other trustees urged caution. Whiteley said board members and staff generally want to provide transportation where possible but that the worst outcome would be to “overpromise and underdeliver.” She said the board asked staff to continue gathering complete data and not to make a definitive public commitment until an independent audit and routing details are available.

Several trustees said the district may be able to achieve efficiencies after consolidation of buildings, citing an internal estimate that bus usage could fall from roughly 200 buses to about 163 in a reduced footprint. Board members are also examining operational differences in peer districts — for example, staggered school start times or multiple bus hubs — that yield different routing efficiencies.

Board members asked that future community presentations and any statement for public release be clear about the level of certainty ("may" vs. "will") and that the board amend future meeting agendas at the time of approval if substantive items should be discussed. Trustees also asked staff to include the transportation slides in the master facilities information only once the data are vetted.

Ending: The board did not adopt a commitment on K–12 transportation at the Oct. 20 meeting. Instead members directed staff to complete a detailed, independent audit of routes and costs (including routing logistics, start‑time scenarios and comparative district practices) and to return with clarified recommendations. The treasurer asked that the comparative numbers presented be included in the minutes for transparency.