Lakota board reviews facilities survey, coalesces around two‑middle‑school option as ballot timing and funding are debated

The Lakota Board of Education on Monday reviewed a districtwide facilities survey and discussed narrowing its building plan while weighing options for funding and ballot timing.

Tom, a district facilities presenter, told trustees the survey polled "330 registered voters" with a margin of error of about 5.39 percentage points. He reported that 65% of respondents said property taxes are "too high," 48% said they were satisfied with Lakota schools, and 42% believed the district could meet enrollment and capacity needs without constructing new buildings. When asked whether the district should pursue two larger middle schools or four smaller neighborhood middle schools, 48.4% favored two, 17.4% favored four and 34.2% were "unsure," Tom said.

Those findings led trustees to focus discussion on the two‑school (C1) option as the most decisive survey response. "Are we comfortable going with the C1?" a trustee asked during the meeting, and several board members signaled that C1 was the direction they were leaning toward. Trustees emphasized that the survey left a substantial "unsure" bloc they identified as the primary audience for education and outreach ahead of any vote.

Board members also discussed funding frames tested in the survey. Tom said the survey tested an earned‑income tax question (33.5% in favor; 50.9% opposed; 15.6% unsure) and two bond framings: a statutory ballot language version (about 32.1% in favor, 51.4% opposed, 16.4% unsure) and a "no tax increase" framing (about 48.7% in favor, 32.1% opposed, 19.1% unsure). Trustees noted those results vary substantially depending on how the question is worded and that the "unsure" respondents represent a target for messaging.

Trustees discussed the Office of the Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) process and the need to provide a clear option to the OFCC this week so the commission can finalize cost estimates. Tom said the OFCC will reapply a new cost set and expects cost figures to increase "about 4%" before returning revised calculations to the district.

Several trustees cautioned against promising long‑term financial stability without clear follow‑through. One trustee warned that asking voters for a levy that only preserves services for a few years could lead to a second request soon after, saying trustees must be "crystal clear on expectations" for what a successful ballot measure would deliver.

On timing, trustees discussed holding a "vote of necessity" at the April 27 meeting and a second vote in May to place any levy on the November ballot. Calendar constraints were noted: some votes require a four‑member quorum and several trustees will be unavailable on certain June dates; the board agreed to consider moving the May meeting to May 20 to increase member participation.

In other business, the board approved a motion to enter executive session to consider personnel matters, property sale negotiations and employee bargaining under Ohio Revised Code sections cited at the meeting. After the executive session, trustees approved personnel items and updated job descriptions; one trustee recorded an abstention on that vote.

The board scheduled follow‑up facility and programming discussions (including a possible evening meeting on April 13) and asked staff to prepare more detailed programming breakdowns and conceptual visuals to help voters understand how square footage would translate into classroom space and new programming. The meeting closed after final scheduling confirmations and a roll call.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to amend the agenda to add second reading of public comment policy 0169.1: moved by Board member Ben; seconded for discussion; amendment failed (roll-call votes recorded during the meeting showed multiple 'no' votes on the amendment).

• Motion to approve the agenda: approved by roll call.

• Motion to enter executive session (Ohio Rev. Code 121.22(G)(1)(A), (G)(2)(B), (G)(4)): approved by roll call.

• Motion to approve personnel items and job descriptions: approved by roll call; one abstention noted.

What happens next

Staff will refine program requirements and conceptual visuals and return to the board with updated OFCC cost estimates and a recommended option. Trustees signaled a preference to refine messaging targeted at the survey's large "unsure" cohort before deciding final ballot language and funding sources.