Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OASIS growth report recommends holding expansion, controlling enrollment until funding clarifies
Summary
After reviewing options—virtual/hybrid models, portables, new construction and debt implications—the board’s growth group recommended reducing enrollment gradually and delaying major capital expansion until local capital funding and district debt obligations are clearer.
The OASIS Charter School Board reviewed a growth and expansion report May 12 and endorsed a cautious approach: hold off on major capital expansion, manage enrollment to school capacity and revisit options when funding is clearer.
Superintendent Jackie Collins outlined options the board had asked staff to explore, including the Schools of Hope program, fully virtual or hybrid models, temporary portables, brick‑and‑mortar additions and opening new campuses. Staff ruled out Schools of Hope because OASIS does not meet the Title I/low‑performing criteria. Full virtual models were judged financially impractical due to lower per‑pupil funding and significant fixed-platform and staffing costs.
Collins said adding three portable classrooms—touted as a short‑term fix—would cost about $500,000 after installation and IT outfitting and would add capacity for roughly 50 students; she warned portables are temporary, vulnerable to storms and bring ancillary costs such as expanded food service and scheduling changes. New construction estimates ranged from roughly $500–$600 per square foot; a modest 8,000‑square‑foot classroom addition was estimated at about $4–$5 million, while an auditorium plus classrooms could reach $6–$8 million.
On funding, Collins explained local capital improvement (LCI) allocations and that the Lee County school district’s use of certificates of participation (COPs) for building projects reduces local capital dollars available to charter schools. She said recent LCI per‑FTE figures have fluctuated and that outstanding debt service and facility maintenance needs (for example, HVAC and roof replacements) constrain available funds for expansion.
Given those constraints, the growth group recommended a practical, low‑cost solution: control enrollment over the next two years by not backfilling seats as students leave and aligning class sizes to sustainable targets (for example, a 950‑student capacity at the high school). That approach would use the district’s extensive waiting list to manage capacity and avoid immediate capital outlays.
Board members supported fiscal prudence and noted that state funding, county debt decisions and upcoming elections could change local funding availability. The board did not commit to new construction or portables at this time and agreed to revisit expansion if funding and political conditions improve.
