An Update on the Vision for the Education Facilities Plan for 21 st Century Learning Presentation to the Citizens of Sandusky, Ohio Wednesday, February 24, :00 p.m.

THANK YOU TO THE SANDUSKY COMMUNITY

Gina Deppert, Brigitte Green-Churchwell, Martha Murray, Jeff Krabill, Kate Vargo, Thomas Patterson, and Dr. Eugene T.W. Sanders

PURPOSE: The purpose of our meeting is to update the Citizens of Sandusky, Ohio about the upcoming proposals regarding the 2016 School Facilities Vision for the Sandusky City Schools. PRIDE TRADITION EXCELLENCE

GOALS FOR OUR MEETING TODAY: 1.Provide an overview of activities since January 2016 that has resulted in the facilities proposals and an overview of the district’s financial stability. 2.Communicate all of the significant aspects of the facilities plan, including the rationale, vision, logic, configuration, proposals, options on location, the historic nature of this facilities opportunity, and our partnership with Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC). 3. Include updated data from the pre-bond architects regarding the feasibility study on lot size capacity and related findings. 4.Continue our commitment to transparency and open dialogue on all issues associated with the facilities vision and to post all comments and questions on our website for observation and review by all members of the community.

KEY TERMS TO UNDERSTAND Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC): A state agency in Columbus created to work with local school districts to build and renovate schools in the state of Ohio, as a result of the tobacco settlement dollars. Two key roles for the OFCC with our district will be to work as a partner with SCS to build schools and determine the percentage of local share that taxpayers will pay to receive the state share to build new buildings. Co-Funded Percentage: A co-funding percentage is determined by OFCC that will split the cost of the facilities program with the local school district citizens and the State of Ohio. The current cost sharing percentage for the Sandusky City School Residents is 36% and the State share is 64%. Local Funded Initiative (LFI): A cost that is not shared by the State of Ohio (OFCC) for the facilities program. This is a cost that the district citizens must cover 100% of the cost for items that the State will not co-fund based on the OFCC rules. Examples of facilities not co-funded include auditoriums, swimming pools, athletics facilities, and PreK rooms.

KEY TERMS TO UNDERSTAND (cont.) STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics Maintenance Millage: All OFCC projects in Ohio are required to have a financial amount set aside in order to ensure that there are dedicated funds to address building maintenance for the newly built facilities in the district. The OFCC (State of Ohio) has a required millage of.50 (or one-half mill). Abatement/Demo Budget: A specific financial amount will be dedicated to abating and demolishing school buildings and is a separate part of the each presented proposal. Pre-Bond Architects: Professional architects assisting the district to access lot size and capacity for buildings, soil samples, traffic flow, and related alignment with the Ohio Facilities Construction Manual

CORE DESIGN VALUES OF THE FACILITIES VISION Emphasis on centralizing educational classes and students as a collective group (grade level being organized together to enhance educational attainment) Science labs at Sandusky High School to support the STEAM initiative (upgrade science labs at SHS for the first time since 1957) A commitment to PreK education for early childhood development Identifying Local Funded Initiative investments that support long-term goals for students and families Investment in the Frohman Planetarium to upgrade to a 21 st Science Center Learning Facility Partner with the City of Sandusky and interested business, civic, and social agencies to identify a purpose for historic buildings in the district

CORE DESIGN VALUES OF THE FACILITIES VISION (cont.) Room 300 and Room 301 at Sandusky High School redesigned for an enhanced learning environment Seek input and feedback on the facilities vision Communicate the facilities vision as a key economic and historic community development opportunity Present a consensus plan to the Board of Education for a formal partnership agreement with OFCC by Thursday, April 7, 2016 OFCC Construction design manual guidelines Consider placing a bond issue on the ballot for consideration for November 2016

OHIO SCHOOL FACILITIES GUIDELINES FOR ACRES REQUIRED FOR BUILDING SCHOOLS a.Elementary School:10 acres plus 1 acre per 100 students b.Middle School:20 acres plus 1 acre per 100 students c.High School:35 acres plus 1 acre per 100 students d.Combination Schools: K-12 School:40 Acres plus 1 acre per 100 students K-8 School:20 Acres plus 1 acre per 100 students 6-12 School:35 Acres plus 1 acre per 100 students e.Career-Technical School and Comprehensive High Schools : 35 Acres plus 1 acre per 100 students

Review of Scenario One: A PreK-6 th grade campus for all district students Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Parents have access to children at two central sites (Middle / High School and PreK-6 th structure) Adds to Hayes Avenue revitalization initiatives Disadvantages Very large building and compacted on the site with over 235,000 square feet and two story structures Size eliminates the inclusion of the Global Education Center (Scenario 3) Potential traffic congestion

Review of Scenario Two: A PreK-2 nd grade building on the Hancock Elementary site. Advantages There are no identified advantages for Scenario Two based on lot size as a result of the feasibility study, and the buildings do not fit on the site Disadvantages This school configuration does not fit on the Hancock Elementary site Can not meet the OFCC guidelines for parking, playground, and green space Bus and parent drop off and pick up do not fit the Scenario 2 option.

Review of Scenario Two: A 3 rd – 6 th grade building on the Ontario Elementary site. Advantages There are no identified advantages for Scenario Two based on lot size as a result of the feasibility study, and the buildings do not fit on the site Disadvantages This school configuration does not fit on the Ontario Elementary site Can not meet the OFCC guidelines for parking, playground, and green space Bus and parent drop off and pick up do not fit the Scenario 2 option.

Review of Scenario Three: Build a centralized 3 rd – 6 th grade building at the Hayes Avenue site and Global Education Center Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Places a centralized school for 3 rd – 6 th grades on the Hayes Avenue site Includes Global Education Center with swimming pool and indoor track Disadvantages For discussion at Community Forum

Review of Scenario Three: Build a PreK – 2 nd grade at the Hancock Elementary site for all district students. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Places a centralized school for 3 rd – 6 th grades on the Hayes Avenue site Includes Global Education Center with swimming pool and indoor track Disadvantages Lot size for elementary buildings do not fit on the lot as identified

Review of Scenario Three: Build a PreK – 2 nd grade at the Ontario Elementary site for all district students Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Places a centralized school for 3 rd – 6 th grades on the Hayes Avenue site Includes Global Education Center with swimming pool and indoor track Disadvantages Lot size for elementary buildings do not fit on the lot as identified

Plan A: Build two (2) PreK-2 nd grade buildings. One at the Hancock Elementary site and one at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school building at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

Plan A: Build two (2) PreK-2 nd grade buildings. One at the Hancock Elementary site and one at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school building at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

Plan A: Build two (2) PreK-2 nd grade buildings. One at the Hancock Elementary site and one at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school building at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Advances 21 st Century learning standards Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

Plan B: Build a PreK - Kindergarten Building at the Hancock Elementary site and a 1 st – 2 nd grade at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

Plan B: Build a PreK - Kindergarten building at the Hancock Elementary site and a 1 st – 2 nd Grade at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

Plan B: Build a PreK - Kindergarten building at the Hancock Elementary site and a 1 st – 2 nd Grade at the Ontario Elementary site. Build a 3 rd -6 th grade school at the Hayes Avenue site (next to Sandusky High School) and build a Global Education Center with pool and indoor track. Advantages Meets core value of centralizing students and faculty for academic and professional growth Meets core value goals of improved science labs, PreK emphasis, Planetarium, & technology upgrades Plan addresses both neighborhood and centralized option next to the high school Disadvantages To be discussed at community forums

KEY NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE Share and receive feedback from internal and external stakeholders (SCS faculty and staff, parents, students, business leaders, faith leader, elected officials, and interested citizens) Brief the Editorial Board of the Sandusky Register Communicate the facilities vision via district website, social media, and related local communications outlets Conduct community forums in January, February and March Communicate the key timeline of Thursday, April 7, 2016 as the date for the Board of Education to formalize a vote to partner with OFCC and the selection of a building scenario and specific locations Communicate and seek feedback at monthly school board meetings in February, March, and April 2016