Strongsville board clears procedural step to pursue May bond; staff narrow school designs and weigh SAO lease vs. build

The Strongsville City Schools Board of Education voted unanimously on Nov. 20 to file a 4% consent resolution with the county tax commissioner — a procedural step that allows the district to pursue a bond question that would exceed Ohio’s 4% assessed valuation threshold. The motion, moved by Haley and seconded by Michelle George, passed by roll call (Miss Thek, Mrs. Bissell, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Miko and Mrs. Ham voting yes). The resolution authorizes preparation and filing of materials to seek designation as a special‑needs district and related consents under the Ohio Revised Code.

District leaders said the action does not commit the district to issuing bonds; it begins a certification timeline that must hit county and board‑of‑elections filing deadlines in January. Treasurer staff outlined January dates for a certification vote (target Jan. 8) and subsequent submission to the county for millage certification prior to the Jan. 27 board‑of‑elections filing deadline.

Why it matters: Board and staff framed the filing as the next administrative step toward a possible bond issue in May 2026. The board also received the program‑of‑requirements work from their architectural partner, GPD, which shapes both cost estimates and the community pitch should voters be asked to approve funds.

What staff reported: Superintendent Dr. Rya and GPD described a design baseline for three new elementary schools sized for roughly 708 students each. Space drivers include classroom counts (five sections per grade at a 25‑student average), dedicated art and music rooms (the team is proposing two of each per building instead of the single rooms typical for comparable sizes), small‑group intervention rooms (reduced in recent iterations from 12 to 9 after staffing assumptions), and specialized special‑education rooms (reduced from eight to six classrooms with supporting spaces). Staff emphasized tradeoffs between program quality (for example, dedicated art/music spaces and sensory rooms) and square footage/cost targets, and said they are on “iteration three” of the program model.

Administrative office options: The board heard a lease‑versus‑build analysis for a district administrative office (SAO). The lease proposal considered ~24,715 sq. ft. with a base rent near $7.50 per sq. ft. (plus about $2.25/sq. ft. for insurance/maintenance), producing projected payments that staff estimated would total roughly $13 million over a 37‑year term. A new standalone SAO tied to Morasi‑site options carried an estimated $6 million principal and an estimated total cost of about $13.7 million over the same financing horizon (using municipal adviser assumptions). Staff noted the lease appears slightly cheaper on paper over 37 years (by roughly $700,000 under current assumptions) but called attention to retrofit or tenant‑improvement costs, contract certainty, certification rules for long‑term obligations, and the district’s near‑term cash‑flow picture.

Board direction and next steps: Multiple trustees favored separating the Morasi preschool from permanent SAO placement (keeping Morasi focused on preschool programming), citing traffic and programming concerns; several trustees asked staff to develop refined cost estimates for a standalone SAO, including preliminary schematic options. Staff will complete an enrollment study in the next three to four weeks to test 2029 enrollment projections against the capacity of proposed buildings. GPD will be asked to return with adjusted square‑footage impacts and cost implications, and staff will provide additional detail on lease retrofit assumptions and land‑swap/legal options mentioned during discussion.

Legal/administrative notes: Staff reminded the board about recent statutory changes affecting the disposition of surplus school facilities and described the county’s land‑swap or fair‑market‑value requirements for vacated properties; those statutory details influenced questions about where an SAO could be located and how vacated school properties would be handled.

The board did not adopt a final bond amount or timeline at the Nov. 20 meeting; it approved the certification step and directed staff to refine cost and enrollment analyses before decisions in January.