Administration recommends $432,000 McFall project to reduce bus/traffic risks; village supportive

Thornapple Kellogg administration on June 15 presented a recommended traffic and bus-loading reconfiguration for McFall Elementary, telling the board the village of Middville had expressed support for the concept and that the project estimate from architects includes a contingency that drives the figure into the low-$400,000s.

Administration described two approaches considered: Option A, a reconfiguration of the McFall lot designed to separate bus loading and parent drop-off and to improve emergency-vehicle access; and Option B, a short-term operational change moving pickup to the south side of the building that could lengthen wait times and risk shifting traffic into nearby neighborhoods. Administration said Option A is budgeted in the district’s capital/improvement funds and estimated architect pricing at roughly $432,000, noting the estimate may vary depending on stormwater/drainage or retention-pond work required by the village.

Transportation staff and architects discussed whether buses could be safely “stacked” in the front lot: the district typically uses a two-row pattern rather than stacked single-file because of maneuverability and supervision concerns. Administration emphasized student and community safety as the primary driver of the recommendation and reported village leaders shared concerns about emergency access and illegal parking in the current configuration.

Board members asked about capacity (the district’s bus fleet was described as about 17–20 buses), whether parent drop-off trends will continue to increase (administration said parent drop-off has increased and estimated roughly 250 cars at McFall per day), and whether a future decline in enrollment would change the need for a large capital fix. Administration replied that bus fleet reductions of more than a couple vehicles are unlikely in the near 5–8 year horizon and that the facility study will provide longer-term planning context.

Next steps: administration asked the board to either submit remaining technical questions or to move the project to an action item at the July meeting, at which time the district would likely take the project to bid (administration suggested the possibility of split fall/spring bids but said the realistic construction window is spring/summer). The board asked administration to invite GMBB (the architect) to the next meeting to answer drainage and retention-pond questions and to refine the cost estimate.