Bellbrook‑Sugar Creek board weighs options for aging Sugar Creek Elementary campus

The Bellbrook‑Sugar Creek Board of Education spent much of its Oct. 24 meeting reviewing the condition, costs and possible futures for the Sugar Creek Elementary campus, with staff reporting an annual operating shortfall and presenting options that range from keeping the status quo to auctioning or selling the property under Ohio statutory rules.

Business manager Jeff Heckley told the board the downtown campus covers 8.41 acres and includes five buildings, and that "we currently bring in some income through rent of $58,400" while operating expenses total $101,758, leaving the district with a net deficit of "$43,398," figures he said the district is exploring ways to reduce. He outlined repair and replacement estimates that include roughly $364,000 to replace two roofs, a boiler‑system replacement estimate of about $120,000, roughly $50,000 in asphalt repairs and dozens of aging rooftop AC units; staff said cumulative exposure through 2030 could range "between a half‑million to three‑quarters of a million dollars" if multiple systems fail.

Why it matters: the Sugar Creek campus currently houses community tenants and county programs, and many residents value those services. District staff emphasized that selling district property greater than $10,000 must follow a statutory sequence under Ohio law — first offering the property to eligible public education entities, then a public auction with at least 30 days' notice, and only after a failed auction exploring private sale or other options. "We want to make sure we're doing what we need to do, in order to follow all those things," a staff presenter said while citing guidance from the district attorney.

The board and staff discussed several pathways: (1) continue current use while trying to narrow the operating gap; (2) pursue an auction; (3) sell to an eligible governmental or educational entity; (4) consider parceling the land; or (5) donate (only an option for very low‑value parcels as defined by statute). Trustees pressed staff for an appraisal and market context, whether the site is more valuable as parcels than a single tract, and whether district buildings elsewhere could absorb additional students if the district divested the campus.

Community reaction: during the public‑comment period, representatives of longtime tenants urged the board to preserve space for community services. Jen LeClaire, board chair of the Bellbrook Sugar Creek Community Support Center, said the nonprofit occupies "the entire main floor" and serves roughly 70 families a week; she appealed for public support and asked how the center would continue if the district changes the campus use. Ray Hitt, president of the Bellbrook Amateur Radio Club, said the club’s antennas and its role in emergency communications make relocation difficult. Meredith Brinaker, speaking for local Girl Scouts, urged the board to preserve meeting and storage space that supports troop activities.

Next steps: staff proposed and the board agreed to layered outreach: an informational item in the community newsletter (the Bridge), stakeholder coffee chats and a series of public sessions. Staff said they would invite current tenants and municipal stakeholders and scheduled a board discussion segment for the Dec. 12 meeting and a larger forum in late January with the goal of gathering input and returning to the board with feasible options by February. "We can try not to drag it out long, but give people enough input," a board member said.

What was not decided: trustees did not vote on any sale, donation or reactivation of the 3‑story building; they asked staff to gather additional financial detail (appraisal and market expectations), explore parceling, and report back. The board emphasized it wants meaningful community and tenant input before making any final decision.

Ending: district staff said they will share the appraisal information and noted potential partnering conversations with the city and Greene County educational authorities. The board set a near‑term outreach timetable and invited community members to the Dec. 12 meeting and January forums to provide feedback before any formal action.