Sandusky Schools building foundation

Board members take next step toward placing new school building initiative on November ballot at Monday meeting
Alissa Widman Neese
Jun 9, 2014

Sandusky Schools is one step closer to placing a monumental building initiative on the November ballot.

At an 8 a.m. meeting Monday, all five Sandusky school board members agreed to send a resolution to the Ohio School Facilities Commission, indicating the district's intent to partner with it for a building project, pending voter approval.

In July, board members are expected to officially place the bond issue on the ballot.

If a majority of voters approve the measure, Sandusky Schools will:

•Construct two elementary school buildings — one for preschoolers through third-graders, and one for grades 4-6 — near Sandusky High School, on the old Memorial Hospital site.

•Repurpose Mills Elementary School as an adult education building and Venice Heights Elementary School as the new Regional Center for Advanced Academic Studies, a school for gifted students.

•Demolish Hancock, Ontario and Osborne elementary schools, unless someone offers a plan to repurpose them for community use.

•Demolish part of the former Jackson Junior High School building, while retaining the portion containing its gymnasium and swimming pool for public use.

•Renovate science laboratories at Sandusky High School.

The entire project totals nearly $58 million. The Ohio School Facilities Commission would pay for 54 percent of the project, with local taxpayers funding the remaining 46 percent.

The 3.94-mill bond issue, estimated to endure 37 years, would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $138 in additional taxes each year.

Construction crews would likely break ground for the new buildings by summer 2015, superintendent Eugene Sanders said in a meeting with the Register this past week.

The earliest students would likely enter the buildings would be fall 2017, he said.

The approved plan was one of nearly a dozen board members considered throughout the past several months. Their goal is to improve facilities and align them with their district-wide academic improvement endeavors.

Discussion at Monday's board meeting regarding the facilities project was brief. Only board member Martha Murray spoke, voicing concerns about the likelihood of voters approving the issue based solely on the argument of improved academics.

She voted in favor of the project, but has "serious reservations," she said. Many individuals who consistently support the schools have told her they are not in favor of the proposed bond issue.

"I ask everyone here today to talk to as many people as possible in the next couple of months, keep an open mind and listen," Murray said. "The most important thing in choosing a building configuration is to please as many voters as possible."


Sandusky Schools bond issue

• If approved, this bond issue would generate funds for a building project costing $58 million total, in a timeframe of 37 years. The proposal would construct two new elementary school buildings, renovate science labs at Sandusky High School and demolish three existing buildings.

• 3.94-mill, 37-year bond issue.

• Would cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $138 in additional taxes per year.



$138 in additional taxes a year. I can hardly wait to vote no on this one. The schools must think the residents are made of money and we can just print it anytime.


you just asked tax payers 2 years a ago for a 4.9 mil. My taxes went up $220, enough is enough VOTE NO. And all of you landlords raise your rent now so all the renters who are 85% of Sandusky get hit with this also since they always vote yes because they don't have to worry about paying property taxes. Use the building you have now they work you dont need a new state of the art school. Try to explain to all the teachers you also let go and made all kinds of cuts because you didnt have money for their job but now want a school.


If you aren't willing to help educate this generation of kids and teach them to become productive, educated adults that are helpful members of society, don't you dare start complaining about the crap that lives in Sandusky that are clearly products of poor education.

And when your own kid/grandkid/niece/nephew doesn't get into a good college because they weren't properly prepared in high school? Remember your comments here.


you dont need a new school to educate them


I will be voting no but it will pass. We have more renters than home owners and they all blindly vote yes. Vote no people.


WJONES 85% of sandusky are rentals that's why I said above that all the landlords need to act now and raise there rent so they are not hit hard if it passes, and if it don't pass oh here you go a refund.


I agree but can they just arbitrarily raise metro rates? The land owners sit out there in Perkins collecting all this money while we have to deal with the consequences. There is metro all over around here. Are those rates locked in? I don't know the answer. The land owners don't care. Out of sight out of mind as long as they get their check every month.

Simmer down

Own two houses,rent one to a growing family.Proudly live in Sandusky,no kids left in school.Kids all graduated with honors from Sandusky,love the diversity here always have.I did not listen or care in school,that is why i never comment on these things because of the grammar police.My kids cared and listened and there are things falling apart in these buildings and they have made lots of cuts.I will be voting YES because my town and OUR kids are worth it.


obviously there not falling apart that bad since they sold Barker, Monroe and Madison for $10 a piece and all are being used for kids.


Pisan it was all three for $5.00. New buildings do not equate a better education. This has been proven. Does something need to be done, yes. But this plan is NOT the plan to lead SCS into the future. Sorry BOE!


All these older beautiful schools that have been sold for a pittance, shameful. If we have a bad tornado, it will be the older institutions that are still standing and the newer ones that will be crumbled...
Sandusky schools are getting as bad as Perkins, wanting to waste taxpayers money.


I hear what you're saying about taxes going up, but I wonder if it makes sense to keep Osborne in operation as a school. It's more than 120 years old. What will it cost to put a new roof on it? It's been years since I visited an Open House there, but I remember the worn, wooden stairs that stretched up to the third floor and classrooms in the damp basement with low ceilings. Sandusky children--all children, deserve better.


I am only trying to keep the record straight, for the comment about the three schools that was sold for five dollars. The old Monroe school was not part of that deal,but the schools that was part of that deal was Madison, Barker and Campbell.




Sandusky is constantly at the bottom when the performance ratings come out, and new buildings won't make the kids any smarter. Has Sandusky learned nothing from Perkins? I'm waiting for them to tell us how many "cents" the levy will cost us per day.


Lol, it's $.38! Go to the meetings before you ranting. I will be voting YES..... I went to school in those old decrepid, asbestos, and mold infested buildings and so did my kids. some of those buildings are over 120 years old and unable or to costly to reno. Use ou heads people, this isn't like Perkins that wanted a campus just because.


It's unfair that only homeowners (who are a minority in Sandusky) should bear the burden of financing the schools. And before you say that renters pay too when they pay their rent, consider that many of them are receiving governmental assistance...which is paid by the in effect we're getting charged TWICE for the schools.

I will be cancelling out your vote by voting NO.


If the state is willing to provide half the funds to replace these schools, the community should jump at the chance to make it happen. Don't know if these (internet) dates are accurate, but we can't expect the buildings to last forever.
Osborne - 1890 - 124 years old
Hancock - 1923 - 91 years old
Ontario - 1952 - 62 years old
Jackson Stone Building - 1898 - 116 years old