Frequently Asked Questions

Part of Lakota’s strategic plan calls for an in-depth assessment of our facilities. Called a Master Facilities Plan (MFP), this process is needed to develop and communicate a long-range vision for our school facilities that will protect our district’s most important physical assets - our 25 buildings valued at more than $632 million - and best support our students' current and future educational needs. It serves as a guide for assessing the long-term needs over the next 30 years for facility improvements and the capital investments required to implement them.

The MFP will assist us with ensuring that our schools continue to provide a quality learning environment that fosters future-ready, student-centered and personalized learning experiences for every single learner every day.
 

The goal of our MFP is to continue providing exceptional learning environments that support our community’s vision for the future of education at Lakota, while utilizing existing facilities in the most fiscally responsible manner.

The last time Lakota completed a modified MFP was in 2008. The last comprehensive plan was completed in the early 2000s. 

With an average age of 34 years, some of Lakota’s aging facilities are showing significant signs of deterioration and are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. In many cases, they are not equipped to provide students with the learning spaces that match current and future K-12 educational models.

Furthermore, the most recent enrollment study completed in 2019 projects continuing increases in the district’s northern schools, which are already becoming overcrowded. Some of these schools are already becoming overcrowded and, in a few cases, mean the expansion or return of portable classrooms. Since 2018, Lakota’s enrollment has increased by 600 students. In fact, our current enrollment has already surpassed the growth predicted through the studies completed by both the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) and an independent company.

Finally, if accepted into Ohio’s Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP), Lakota would be eligible to begin receiving partial funding from the State for all system or building upgrades or improvements that are defined in the final approved Master Facilities Plan. Lakota leaders have been monitoring the reimbursement rate offered by ELPP. They are confident that now is the time to lock into the current rate of 29 percent, which is eight percent higher than it was two years ago. It is also important to note that if Lakota is accepted into ELPP, it would be a non-binding agreement on the district’s part. That means, if funding sources have not been secured within one year, Lakota can reapply for the program.

 happens if ELPP funding doesn’t come through after 5 years as planned? 
One concern is if our ranking changed, the % covered by ELPP could shift, so we have to anticipate that. Many neighboring districts have used it successfully.  
 

The average age of Lakota’s 23 schools is 34 years, with four schools over 50 years old. By 2038, eight (or one-third) of Lakota’s 23 schools will be at least 50 years old. So naturally, some of the buildings are beginning to show their age and become less efficient in their daily operation and maintenance. This trend will only progress as time continues. Eventually, in 20+ years even the district's newer buildings would need some renovations. This is included in the options.

As assessed by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), 13 schools are considered to be “deficient” or “borderline.” This means that the District, if part of Ohio’s Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP), would receive state funding for these buildings only if replaced versus renovated. This is because the OFCC has determined that it is less expensive to build a new school than it is to renovate in its current state.

Furthermore, the most recent enrollment study completed in 2019 projects continuing increases in the district’s northern schools, which are already becoming overcrowded. Some of these schools are already becoming overcrowded and, in a few cases, mean the expansion or return of portable classrooms. Since 2018, Lakota’s enrollment has increased by 600 students. In fact, our current enrollment has already surpassed the growth predicted through the studies completed by both the OFCC and an independent company.
 

Every building in the district has been assessed by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). Assessments are completed for the entire facility and evaluate 23 major building components, including structure, systems, technology and safety.

At each school, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) evaluates 23 major building components. Based on the current condition, a renovation cost is assigned to each component and covers all upgrades required over the next 30 years to match the condition of a new building. Renovation costs are revised annually by the OFCC.

The OFCC also assigns each building a replacement cost, which is determined by multiplying the building’s square footage by the cost per square foot. The per square foot new construction cost is set by the OFCC and is based on other school construction throughout the state. 

The OFCC uses the following formula to determine a building’s overall condition rating and if it should be renovated or replaced: Cost to Renovate / Cost to Replace = %. Based on that percentage, a building is classified as follows:

* Under ELPP, the district would receive the state funding only if renovated. 
** The district can apply for a waiver from the OFCC, allowing them to renovate instead of replace, if approved. 
*** Under ELPP, the district would receive the state funding only if replaced.

View Lakota’s current building condition ratings, as assigned by the OFCC. 

Being classified as “Deficient Condition,” or receiving a percentage rating of 66 or above (replacement cost divided by renovation cost), does not mean that the school is currently unsafe or unfit and not being maintained properly by the district. In some cases, the school may get a deficient rating based on the goals of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) to bring all buildings up to a “new” standard over the next 30 years of its life. 

For example, an existing roof may be nine years old and performing as designed. Under normal use and maintenance, this roof could last another 10 to 15 years. In the OFCC program, however, this roof would be considered “deficient” as they would want to eventually replace it with a new roof with a long-term warranty.
 

Being classified as “Deficient Condition,” or receiving a percentage rating of 66 or above (replacement cost divided by renovation cost), does not mean that the school is currently unsafe or unfit and not being maintained properly by the district. In some cases, the school may get a deficient rating based on the goals of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) to bring all buildings up to a “new” standard over the next 30 years of its life. 

No Lakota school is considered unsafe in its current condition. Despite some of the difficulties and challenges that come with maintaining systems in our aging facilities, even our oldest schools meet state safety codes and regulations established at the time of the building’s construction. This does not mean they are current with today’s safety and health codes. In some of our buildings, certain system upgrades - like improved air filtration systems as requested during the pandemic, for example - cannot be supported by current systems without a complete replacement.
 

The long-range Master Facilities Plan assesses the needs of all 23 Lakota school buildings. Depending on the data presented and the option ultimately approved by the Lakota Board of Education, some schools could be replaced, consolidated, expanded or renovated, while others will receive more routine maintenance to bring them up to new standards over the span of the plan’s 30-year implementation. With the MFP looking 30 years into the future, every building will be included in the plan, even if just for standard renovations to address normal aging and maintenance. 

View the four options that the Board is currently considering and gathering community feedback on before making a final decision. 
 

An open, honest and transparent process that involves the community from the beginning is of critical importance to Lakota. A compilation of community meetings, focus groups, online surveys and even one-on-one conversations, emails and phone calls will shape the final outcome. 

Frequent data sharing and input gathering has driven our development of the possible options and then narrowing of the options. To help inform a final selection, the Board will continue to gather community feedback and considerations, but never in the form of a community vote. Once the plan is selected, another round of community feedback will help inform timing, funding options and logistical details of implementing the plan.
 

Community focus groups and conversations held before, during and after the pandemic revealed some common themes that shaped the four options being considered by the Board. These include a desire for: 

• Fewer building transitions;
• Smaller class sizes;
• Personalized learning experiences;
• Flexible learning spaces for collaboration;
• Continued upgrades to safety and security; and 
• Increased mental health support.
   

The final Lakota Schools Master Facilities Plan will benefit every resident, whether they currently have children in our schools or not. The exceptional education provided at Lakota already makes it a school of choice for our families. More sustainable and modern schools to match that of some of our neighboring and competitor districts will make homes even more marketable and valuable to prospective homeowners. Moreover, providing students with facilities that match their learning needs is one way of investing in our future.
 

Enrollment dictates the space that will be required to support current and future students and their learning needs, so Lakota’s projected enrollment is a major factor in the facilities plans being considered. See the most recent 10-year enrollment study completed in 2019. 

The most recent 10-year enrollment study completed in 2019 projects continuing increases in the district’s northern schools, which are already becoming overcrowded and in some cases, have meant the expansion or return of portable classrooms. Since 2018, Lakota’s enrollment has increased by 600 students. In fact, our current enrollment has already surpassed the growth predicted through studies completed by both the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) and an independent company. 

Once the Board votes on a final plan, the OFCC will complete a new enrollment study to help guide us as we finalize projects in the selected plan.

The 30-year facilities plan outlives the 10-year enrollment outlook, so while the options address the anticipated growth in pockets of our community, we cannot guarantee that future changes to the school configurations will not be required to address enrollment figures beyond the 10-year projection.

Current projections show that the district will peak around 18,000 students.
 

The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) applies its renovation and rebuild costs (updated annually) to help estimate the total cost of each facilities plan. 

The Board may choose to partner with the State to receive partial funding of its plan through the Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP), detailed below. The funding is expedited, meaning the district would earn credit for for all system or building upgrades or improvements that are defined in the final approved Master Facilities Plan and completed using local funding until the State’s funding share becomes available.

A ballot initiative in the form of a bond issue - different from an operating levy - would be necessary to help secure the local funding required to carry out any one of the four options being considered. Requesting new resources from our community through a ballot initiative requires significant due diligence and the timing would be dependent on many different factors.

In anticipation of the District’s facilities plan, Lakota’s finance leadership has been laying the groundwork to ease the burden on the taxpayers as much as possible. The last time the district was on the ballot was in 2013.
 

The Board may choose to partner with the State to receive partial funding of its plan through the Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP). 

The State ranks Ohio’s 609 school districts in order from least wealthy to wealthiest based on the valuation per student. Lakota is currently ranked 432. In comparison, the district was ranked 476 in 2018. The State uses this ranking to determine the funding percentage a district can receive through ELPP. Last year, Lakota was eligible to receive 25% reimbursement. Now, with our latest ranking, that amount has increased to 29%. The last time the district went through the MFP process was in the early 2000's. At that time, the percentage Lakota qualified for was less than 10%. The Board decided to fund the plan itself.

In order to receive the funding, the Board must pass a resolution to join ELPP and choose a plan that is approved by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). Based on the OFCC’s evaluation of Lakota’s buildings against future building standards, OFCC funds could only be applied to the renovation of schools that are in satisfactory condition and replacement of those determined to be deficient in relation to its current building standards.

The OFCC looks at a cost versus benefit. They use a third party to evaluate the buildings and determine what it would cost to bring it to the current design. If the cost is more than 66% the cost to build a new school, you must decommission, or close, the existing building in order to receive ELPP funding.

Lakota currently has nine satisfactory schools and 10 deficient schools. Three other schools are considered borderline, which means that the OFCC may be willing to approve some renovations instead of requiring the district to rebuild to qualify for partial funding.

Option one, which keeps Lakota’s current school configuration and brings schools up to OFCC standards through renovation, would be eligible for limited co-funding through ELPP, meaning local funding would cover a larger portion of the plan’s implementation. Options two through four are eligible for the 29% co-funding. The funding is expedited, meaning the district would earn credit for projects completed on an approved plan until the State’s funding share becomes available.
 

Perhaps the most obvious advantage to partnering with the Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP) is the option to receive state reimbursement for all phase one system or building upgrades or improvements that are defined in the final approved Master Facilities Plan and completed with local funding, helping to offset the costs of other projects completed later in the plan. 

Furthermore, ELPP is considered a sustainable and highly reliable program, so there is very little risk in making it part of the funding model. 

Districts that partner with ELPP are required to implement their master facilities plan according to the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission’s (OFCC) Ohio School Design Manual. Over the years, this manual has become increasingly flexible, allowing for more district-level decision-making and flexibility. Furthermore, Lakota would still have the autonomy to do work that doesn’t meet the specific OFCC requirements, but such work would have to be 100% locally funded without State reimbursement. 

While the options that decrease Lakota’s building count also mean larger buildings to accommodate all our students, we still anticipate some operational savings in areas like utility costs, systems maintenance and buildings/grounds upkeep, for example.

At the same time, there are some added operational costs associated with some of the plans. For example, the addition of the shared space in option three means the addition of transportation services to transport students between this location and main campus. We also have to factor in any deconstruction costs associated with buildings slated to be closed and not repurposed or sold. 

On a related note, we have not yet factored in any potential revenues from the potential sale of buildings or real estate associated with buildings that could be closed. 

These savings and added costs, up against the capital costs required to renovate or rebuild, are important in our evaluation of the plan options. The district is in the process of calculating these long-term estimated cost savings and added costs for each plan option. 
 

As a baseline, this is what is proposed in option one. The total cost to renovate all of our existing buildings to meet future standards is very similar to the other options that involve the replacement of our most deficient buildings. This plan also assumes minimal state reimbursement through ELPP in light of their condition rating formula. 

Furthermore, the projected long-term costs to maintain an older facility that has been renovated versus rebuilt are substantially different. View the 10-year and 20-year maintenance costs on a renovated versus rebuilt version of some of our “deficient” schools. 

A ballot initiative in the form of a bond issue - different from an operating levy - would be necessary to help secure the local funding required to carry out any one of the four possible options once selected. Like a homeowner buying a new house and taking out a mortgage, the district would also need to finance its facilities plan. Requesting new resources from our community through a ballot initiative requires significant due diligence and the timing would be dependent on many different factors.

Lakota hasn’t been on the ballot to ask for additional funding since 2013. The levy at that time was a combination of permanent improvement (PI) and operating funds for a total of 5.5 mills (2.0 mills for PI and 3.5 for operating). PI funds are used for projects that have a lifespan of at least five years, such as facilities and technology.

In anticipation of the District’s facilities plan, Lakota’s finance leadership has been laying the groundwork to ease the burden on the taxpayers as much as possible. This includes taking advantage of lower interest rates to refinance district debt and pay it off earlier. Currently, residents pay over three mills to the school district for its current debts, which will be mostly paid off in 2028. As this debt is paid off, the district would replace it with new debt incurred from the MFP, a strategy that can be compared to a car owner who buys a new car just as they’ve paid off their old one. 

As a result, the net overall increase to the taxpayer to cover the full cost of the MFP is lowered.

Until a final plan is approved by the Board, and details are finalized, the district can only share a range of possible mills with the community. When estimating for an Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP)-supported project in which we partner with the State (options two through four maximize these savings), the treasurer estimates a net increase in current millage between 1.5 and 3 mills. Not partnering with the State, we would need to collect approximately 3.75-5.25 additional mills. 

A mill is the annual tax rate applied to an assessed value of property. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of assessed value. Assessed value is the taxable value calculated at 35% of the total property value. This is the figure that is on file at the Butler County Auditor’s office and differs from an appraised value. For example, if a home is valued at $100,000, the taxable value is 35% or $35,000. To determine the tax per mill, divide $35,000 by 1,000, which equals $35 tax per mill.
 

In anticipation of the District’s facilities plan, Lakota’s finance leadership has been laying the groundwork to ease the burden on the taxpayers as much as possible. This includes taking advantage of lower interest rates to refinance district debt and pay it off earlier. Currently, residents pay over three mills to the school district for its current debts, which will be mostly paid off in 2028. As this debt is paid off, the district would replace it with new debt incurred from the MFP, a strategy that can be compared to a car owner who buys a new car just as they’ve paid off their old one. 

As a result, the net overall increase to the taxpayer to cover the full cost of the MFP is lowered
 

When Lakota would be on the ballot is unknown and contingent on the timing of the selection of a final plan, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission’s (OFCC) approval of the plan and possible acceptance into the Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP). The earliest Lakota could go on the ballot would be May 2023.

Because enrollment projects show an increase in the number of students we serve, we don’t anticipate a reduction of staff even in non-teaching positions. There may be some efficiencies to consider, and natural processes like attrition will play a role as well.  
 

The proposed grade reconfigurations for three of the four facilities plans is a direct response to the community’s strong request for few building transitions, as conveyed during community feedback forums. Furthermore, the K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 models are more commonly used in the K-12 educational environment and allow the district to be more efficient with our learning spaces.
 

The proposed grade configuration changes mean a broader mix of ages in each building and students remaining in the same building longer and with fewer transitions. Having older students (fourth and fifth grades) in the same building as K-3 students, for example, means added mentoring opportunities among older students and younger students. Having students remain in the same building for longer facilitates stronger relationships between staff and students and their families. All of this contributes to stronger academic performance.
 

The grade configuration shifts do introduce some possible changes as well as new opportunities for the make-up of the school day for students. For example, where sixth-graders are joining seventh- and eighth-graders, we have to consider the implications to aspects like recess, bell schedules and course options (i.e. Will sixth-graders have access to current junior school electives like band and choir, among others?)

The K-5 model introduces an opportunity for more student mentoring or “buddy” programs between younger and older students that are more difficult to implement in our current grade band configuration. 

Once the final plan is selected, another round of community feedback will help the District catalog these ideas and considerations and then inform logistical details of implementing the plan.
 

Once the plan has been selected, a more thorough review of the challenges of the grade configuration changes will be conducted. For example, while sixth graders might not have the same athletic opportunities as the seventh and eighth graders, the new configuration could mean more opportunities such as exposure to band earlier.
 

The district owns enough land to complete any of the four plan options. We do not anticipate the need to purchase more real estate. 
 

The locations of the new buildings would be determined once a final plan is voted on by the Board and after the community is given an opportunity to provide input. It is our goal to maintain the current neighborhood-school model as much as possible, meaning schools will be geographically situated to serve surrounding neighborhoods and students residing within the same neighborhood will not attend different schools.
 

Schools slated to close in any of the plan options would be deconstructed, repurposed or sold. The specific determination of each building would be determined once a final plan is selected and with consideration toward community input. At that time, we would also share any associated costs or revenues for each option. 
 

The options that decrease Lakota’s overall building count mean constructing larger schools to accommodate all of our students. Mostly in options two and three, this might mean some significant differences in size among schools of the same grade band. How attendance zones are redeveloped and district lines redrawn will determine the numbers making up each building. 
 

While redistricting will inevitably be a part of this process, we understand that it is important to our families that our schools follow a neighborhood model, meaning schools will be geographically situated to serve surrounding neighborhoods and students residing within the same neighborhood will not attend different schools. We will do our best to continue this.
 

While specific projects and upgrades cannot be determined until the Board votes and approves a final plan, each of our schools will be updated to meet current and future standards as determined by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). The MFP looks 30 years into the future, so every building will be included in the plan with upgrades and improvements to bring it up to current design standards.

  Furthermore, buildings that are slated to serve a different grade band than they currently serve will require modifications. These costs are considered in each of the options being considered. 

If the selected plan includes changing the grade band serviced by a building, we will closely consider the required modifications to make this transition. These costs are factored into each of the options being considered. 
 

While we may potentially have fewer buildings, we will still have the same number of students to transport. This means that we will have more buses going to fewer schools. We do not anticipate a drastic increase in travel time for our students.
 

We understand that many of our community partners utilize our facilities and outdoor spaces. Once the Board approves a final plan, this is something that will be closely considered as we finalize things like building locations and how to best utilize buildings that would close. 
 

This is still to be determined. The committee will need to look at logistics such as attendance zones, building needs, enrollment, etc. This process will began after an option is selected. 

These are typically locally funded initiatives and are not included in the cost. The additional costs associated with this are being calculated.
 

The options being considered will actually help with the shortage for drivers needing a full 8-hour day. We are currently reviewing anticipated added operational costs.
 

This will be studied in depth as as the process continues. For example, we will first have to consider whether or not we utilize the existing athletic facilities. 
 

We are looking to have a better balance between enrollment at our schools. This would most likely require boundary changes.

The expansion designations are based on the most recent enrollment study completed in 2019 and which buildings would require a larger footprint to accommodate anticipated growth in that attendance zone. While these buildings wouldn’t necessarily require an expansion, they would still include renovations to bring them up to current and future Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) standards. 

Yes. Despite its old age, Liberty ECS underwent a full-scale renovation in 2009 through which major system updates were completed. Designated as “satisfactory” by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), it does not require enough deficiencies to justify a rebuild even though the plan calls for some renovations over the next 30 years. 

Yes. The cost shown for each option is the total cost. For options 2-4, the district would qualify for ELPP funding which would reduce the total cost by 29%.
 

In these options, the space for Lakota Central students would likely be absorbed into the high schools’ main campuses like is currently the case. With most Central students participating in partial or fully virtual learning, this program option does not require as much physical learning space.
 

Using the shared space in option three to host some (not all) programs available at both high schools would create some efficiencies. This is true of programs that might not be at maximum capacity at each campus or that require expensive equipment currently being used at both locations, for example. While the specific programs and courses to be housed in this space have not been determined, it might include Butler Tech satellite courses and even the Cyber Academy or INCubatorEDU. It wouldn’t combine performing arts programs like marching band, choir or theater, for example. 

In some cases, this model also allows for equal access to equitable courses, regardless of East or West being your main campus. 

The location of the shared space will be determined in the next phase of the process once a plan is selected. We will be cognizant of making it centralized between East and West, especially when considering transportation logistics.
 

No, the new shared building would free up enough space to accommodate 9-12 at the main campuses without expansion.
 

If this option were ultimately selected, this logistical consideration would be addressed then in the form of renovations or modifications to the bell schedule, for example, to ease navigation between classes. 
 

The locations of the new buildings would be determined if/when this option is selected by the Board as the final plan and after the community is given an opportunity to provide input. We do not anticipate the need to purchase more real estate to accommodate any of the options being considered, including this one. 
 

Yes, across Lakota there are approximately 1300 students in sixth grade; under Option 4, approximately 650 sixth graders will converge in each of the two junior schools.

Option 1 is not the fiscally responsible choice because the district and taxpayers would be responsible for the full price (this option doesn't qualify for ELPP funding).
 

The District anticipates starting the actual design of its facilities alongside its architects as soon as the Board approves a final plan and funding is secured, which could potentially be as early as May 2023. Based on this timeline, phase one of the multi-year implementation would take place in 2024 through 2026, with phase two taking place from 2027 through 2037. This timeline would be adjusted according to the timing of a bond issue, which is dependent on many different factors and will be determined by the Board (see above). 
 

Students would inevitably have to be moved to a different building for a short period of time while a building is being renovated or rebuilt. These details will be determined with community input after a final plan has been selected.

After a community listening tour through which the Board is collecting feedback, questions and concerns on the four possible options, the Board intends to select a final plan in the fall of 2022.

When Lakota would be on the ballot is unknown and contingent on the timing of the selection of a final plan, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission’s approval of the plan and possible acceptance into Ohio's Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP). The earliest Lakota could go on the ballot would be May 2023.