Board leans to a shelled second floor at Eustace Elementary to balance cost and flexibility
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After hearing four design and capacity options for the new Eustace Elementary campus, the Lake County School Board signaled support for option 3 — building for 650 student stations with a shelled second floor — to preserve future flexibility while limiting immediate cost and site congestion.
District facilities staff and outside consultants presented four design options for the new Eustace Elementary site and recommended the board give direction so design fees and preconstruction work can proceed. The options were: reduce the campus core to 650 student stations, build a 650-station campus structurally designed for a future second floor, build a 650-station campus and shell a second floor (plumbing, wiring and structure installed but interior finishes left for a later phase), or construct the full 750-station campus now.
Consultants said option 1 (reducing the core to 650) would save roughly $1.5 million to $2.0 million in rough-order estimates; option 2 (design for future second floor) has an estimated differential of about $1.0 million; option 3 (shell) showed ~ $500,000 savings versus full build but would shorten future finish time and reduce disruption compared with building the second floor later from scratch. Consultants emphasized life-safety requirements (egress, elevator programming, fire sprinklers) and warned that finishing a shelled second floor later would still involve code, inflation and site-disruption risks.
Board members focused on site constraints, student-generation projections and construction disruption. Staff presented attendance-boundary maps and growth estimates that showed significant growth in the Eustis Heights zone but uncertainty in timing: planners flagged roughly 250 students within five years in targeted pockets and larger numbers over a decade. Several board members called Eustis Elementary “landlocked” and questioned whether 750 students would be feasible on the site given parking, stacking and pedestrian circulation concerns.
After discussion, multiple board members said option 3 (the shelled second floor) offered the best balance of cost savings, future flexibility and mitigated risk from the state’s shifting policy landscape (including colocation and capacity rules). The superintendent and staff were directed to return on Jan. 12 with a recommendation and final preconstruction and design fees consistent with the board’s direction.
Next steps: Staff will bring a January recommendation that incorporates a preferred option, detailed design fees, and a plan for attendance-boundary scenarios and construction phasing to minimize disruption to students.