Board Takes Time to Bring the Right Proposal to Voters

The Lakota Board of Education has decided not to place a bond issue on the May ballot. This decision followed a lengthy discussion at its Feb. 2 meeting about Master Facilities Plan (MFP) options, state partnerships updates and funding considerations.

Master Facilities Plan Options

Two revised options - both costing $223 million - remain under consideration. Each focuses on grades 6-12, including shifting the grade-band configurations. Planning for K-5 buildings would occur later and likely require a future ballot issue.

Key differences between the options include: 

• Whether to keep two or four middle schools; and
• Whether to keep schools on the Ridge and Adena sites.

Board member Douglas Horton would like further discussion about alternative plans. “I want to challenge us to think differently. I’m not in favor of putting this on the ballot in May because I don’t think we have the answers the community wanted,” he said, referencing impacts on class sizes, K-5 specials, 7-12 electives and transportation.

Before discussing the MFP options, funding and timing, the Board received an update on state co-funding.

State Co-Funding Update

Tom Fernandez, chief executive officer at Elevar Design Group, shared news that the Lakota would become eligible for 33% co-funding—1% more than expected and several years sooner—from the Ohio Facilities Construction Committee (OFCC) once voters would approve a ballot issue. 

With state co-funding becoming available soon, Lakota would shift from its current Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP) agreement to the Classroom Facilities Assistance Program (CFAP). Under CFAP, the District would have three opportunities for voters to approve funding. If all three fail, the District would move to the bottom of the OFCC priority list and wait for its next turn. 

Moving to CFAP is the next step in receiving OFCC co-funding for the District's MFP.

Following this update, the discussion moved to different funding models and the potential impact to taxpayers.

Funding Options

Two funding options (30 or 37-year bonds) were verified by the Butler County Auditor’s office. Superintendent Ashley Whitely reminded the Board other funding sources, like an earned income tax, were discussed at the Jan. 20 school board meeting. “We needed a little bit more time to explore that,” Whitely said, noting that May would be too soon to educate the community about an income tax issue ballot issue. The funding will need to be re-calculated for a November ballot issue due to possible cost increases.

Treasurer Adam Zink compared property, traditional and earned income tax funding models, noting the wider distribution among taxpayers with property taxes: “The smallest impact we’re going to run into is going to be the property tax because we are very fortunate to have a very large property tax base.”

Board member Julie Shaffer expressed concern about the absence of Permanent Improvement (PI) funding for long-term facility maintenance:  “I don’t ever want to put a future board in a situation where they’re choosing between allowing kids in third grade to have PE (physical education) or maintaining our buildings (for example).” 

Both Zink and Whitely said that waiting will not reduce costs due to inflation. Regardless of the MFP option the Board chooses, it would not eliminate the need for an operating levy at a future date because of school funding laws in Ohio.

After reviewing funding options, the Board turned to the timing of a potential ballot issue.

Ballot Timing: May vs. November

Several board members weighed in on timing:

• Alex Argo expressed concern about a possible statewide property tax repeal on the November ballot and its impact on school funding.
• Benjamin Nguyen preferred November, noting historically higher voter turnout: “You…put this plan in front of a lot more people and…gauge the community in a more realistic manner.”

Whitely stressed alignment: “I do think being aligned in this decision is important for our community because it shows that we’re moving forward and that we have a vision.” 

The Board also weighed the impact of waiting on enrollment growth and current space constraints.

Potential Impact of Waiting

Enrollment is expected to grow by about 2,000 students over the next 10 years, with current class sizes already high, especially in grades K-6. 

Whitely outlined steps being considered to help overcrowding, including review of Alternative School of Choice (ASC) approval. “That will help some, but it will not eliminate the problem.” 

She also stressed wanting to keep all-day kindergarten and specials as long as possible, but warned that if the next ballot issue failed “then we would be forced to look at some decisions.” 

If necessary, programming changes would not take place before the 2027-2028 school year.

“At some point, we need to do something,” said Argo. “Then we can build trust with the community (to) do the next thing, to continue investing in our schools.” 

Casper echoed this concern, asking the Board, “When does it become not fiscally responsible for (supporters) because we’re doing nothing except bandaiding?”

Next Steps

With no motion to approve a May ballot issue, the Board will work with the MFP committee. The Feb. 3 meeting was cancelled due to weather; the next committee meeting is scheduled for Feb. 10 at 9 a.m. at the Lakota Central Office.