Advertisement

The existing maintenance building is not adequate for their needs, since they centralized maintenance of all the road commission's vehicles. There are also safety issues is in the building, which was constructed in the 1960s.

The current maintenance/office complex is in a residential area of Sandusky, and there is no room for expansion or vehicle storage.

They hired a firm to do an analysis of all their facilities in 2005 and last June they learned the 51,900 square foot maintenance / vehicle storage /office complex they want to build would cost $5 million. However, with falling state gas and weight tax revenue, they can't afford to build the complex.

"You have 20 acres south of town. Why not use that," asked Jerome Essenmacher of Washington Township, a former road board member.

"The architects and people we've talked to say it is important to have city water, which comes treated," explained Engineer-Manager Robb Falls. "We would not have to buy a fire protection system. A bigger thing is for the sewer for the salt water or oil run off. We'd have to truck that away, have an agreement with some municipality to haul it away."

"If you build it in town that won't be an issue," asked Flynn Township Supervisor Gene Burgess.

"It doesn't appear to be," Falls said.

The agency owns property on M-19 south of Sandusky, which they have talked of selling if they build elsewhere.

The road commission also had their eye on two adjacent lots in the industrial park for expansion when they have the funds to add the vehicle storage and office.

However, they received a cold reception from the Sandusky City Council on May 7, when Falls and Vice-chairman Ron Gerstenberger tried to convince the council to sell them the lots. The city, which owns the property, has already promised the right of first refusal to Numatics, which is planning an expansion of their Sandusky operation. The council indicated they would rather sell the lots to a company that will bring more jobs to the area.

City officials held a workshop to discuss the matter on May 9, but made no recommendations to the council.