HS TO BUILD NEW FOOTBALL STATIUM

The Laurel School Board may have some explaining to do to voters who voted down the first referendum because they did not want a football stadium built after voting 5-0 to build a new middle/high school stadium and a large elementary school to be located on the current site of the Laurel intermediate and Middle School adding fuel to the rumor that the former Laurel High School will be demolished.
An article in this weeks Laurel STAR indicates the administrative offices, which were slated to be moved to the old HS along with supervisors and meetings rooms for the community are now slated to be moved to the new North Laurel School.
The second referendum passed without listing a new stadium by a handful of votes. The bids for the new schools came under the anticipated price by several million dollars.
With the new stadium and if the old HS is demolished their will be two groups in Laurel who will feed betrayed.
I would be willing to wager any referendum whether it be for teacher raises, books, etc., will go down to defeat. Their is no trust or faith in how the a administration spends money and when you don’t have the trust of the farmers and working people in this community you are as done as a pig at a pig roast.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “HS TO BUILD NEW FOOTBALL STATIUM

    • The article says, “The proposals included a larger team building as part of the new middle/high school stadium and a large elementary school to be located on the current site of the Laurel Intermediate and Middle School.” See what happened when you stopped attending meetings? LOL

  1. So glad we had a vote to see how us citizens feel. Win a State Championship then get a new stadium. Put a product on the field worthy of a new stadium.

  2. If there is a surplus, it should go back to the tax payers in the form of a reduced tax rate or go to the teachers fund as part of the ongoing negotiations.. To put the surplus money into a sports stadium is contrary to what was voted on. If you will recall, the sports stadium had to be removed in order to get the referendum passed in the first place. Further, I don’t know whether the Board has the authority to spend surplus money on items which weren’t voted for and approved by the tax payers.
    I don’t believe you can return the money; the state borrowed that money and is paying off the bonds that were purchased at the time of the bond sale.

    • Steve I had some experience with bond money when I worked for the state. If the referendum was for new infrastructure which includes buildings, as long as the original projected is fully funded, monies left over can be spent for other projects. I think I had to obtain approval from the budget office. Although I know what you are saying about voters not wanting the stadium, if money is available, the schools are built and the state says you can build a stadium if money is available…they can.

      • How is it possible that there is enough of a surplus to fund a stadium? Is there any information on what this will cost? Is it possible that the original estimates were inflated/overstated so that the money would be available for this purpose?

        Can’t afford a reasonable teacher contract, new text books, or printer paper. But there will be a hella awesome football stadium. Good to know LSD has their priorities in order.

  3. CN1216C – New athletic stadium – was voted down 1121 for/ 1265 against. The rest of the construction was voted for by a margin of 14 votes.

  4. As was indicated earlier Sandy in the discussions, DOE said because of the economy it was possible the bids would come under what DOE estimated; it did by some $3 million. I agrees the priorities are a little out of whack, but Laurel has been a sports town. I wouldn’t want to be in the boards position when teachers start screaming about not having supplies.

    • oh frank, that’s a non-issue. the district has suggested that the teachers go to a website and apply for their supplies. if they r lucky some unknown donor on this site might get them for the teachers. i taught in this town for a loooonnnnggg time and never did the district pass on their responsibility to provide materials for the teachers/children.

  5. Students will have to share books, teachers will have to purchase their own supplies, but a new stadium is going to be built even though it was voted down. What is wrong with out current stadium?

  6. This is what you get when Jennifer Givens is the liaison between the district and the architect. Money from the buildings now goes into the new stadium. Ms. Givens has no educational compass.
    Frank: their = belongs to them; there = a place, not here.

  7. A new stadium, like a new school building, will make the students smarter
    automaticlly. Or that was one of the selling points way back when.

  8. Happy New Year’s Eve Frank. I hope you and your family had a Christmas. I was curious if you were talking about this latest and greatest information coming from the district and you did not let me down. =)

    I managed to get a walking tour of the new buildings being erected behind the high school just before Christmas. I met with the head contractor, the new superintendent, & Lois.

    You’d be hard pressed to notice the hit that multimillion dollar deduction between the 2 referendums caused.

    Not only did reducing the referendum cost not affect the schools it is still leaving enough to build a stadium. According to sources it is because they figured on buying the bonds at a certain rate and every bond they’ve gotten has been at a lower than expected rate.

    I say if they have money do it now before the money goes missing. smh

    I don’t believe the board nor the administration deserve a new building. There are plenty of existing buildings they can utilize. Last I heard they were going to be using the old middle school. I thought they were going to demo all but the original front part of the school and renovate it for the administration.

    I guess I’m too far out of the loop?

    • Good to hear from you again Ed. I can’t say you are out of the loop; plans are changing often and quite a bit different than the original plans, this the public has no idea what we are going to end up with. I heard yesterday our 650 seat new auditorium has been reduced to make room for one of the schools or the football stadium.

      • The auditorium is already built. Kind of hard to reduce seating now. lol The best one I’ve heard so far is that the building is sinking. lol

    • Happy New Year, Ed. It’s great to hear from you and once again Thank You! You may not want to take credit or blame for the defeat of the first referendum, but if it were not for you thinking about, researching and speaking up about the cost of the original school construction plan, it would have been a “shoe in” the first time around. You got people to stop, think and talk about what could and should be done differently to improve our school buildings in Laurel. The 25%, that pay 75% of the school taxes, would be paying 25-30% even more than they are now! There would be more boarded up houses and properties in the Sheriff Sales, but we may have had a 5000 student school complex and a football stadium the size of U.D with the extra funds the board would have been able to spend.

      Many things have changed in the last 3 1/2 years, including several school board members, but most things have stayed the same. The Board “fired” McCoy, our Interim Supt. (LOL) retired and cost us a bundle, and now we have a Supt. that preaches community involvement and input. He is so busy talking, tweeting and posting “selfies” (of the 5 minutes he is at a school function) that he cannot hear what the public and the most important working personnel of the school district are saying. Our schools are NOTHING without good quality, dedicated teachers and adequate school supplies! Listen to US and to THEM! Unlike several highly paid administrators, it is our tax money, our children’s future, and for most teachers here, it is both, PLUS their passion. Until a couple of weeks ago, I had not been to a school board meeting for over 2 years.
      Some faces have changed, but that seems to be all.

  9. Good afternoon Frank. I thought I’d update you and your posters with the information I’ve gotten since the New Year. It is true that the board voted on the 18th to demolish the old middle school completely. I asked why and I was told it is due to lack of funds to renovate the school. I asked if the schools 1950s sections could be demolished and the original front mothballed until a later date in which money may be available to renovate. The response was that if we did that the new elementary school complex wouldn’t have enough room for athletic fields, parking lots, etc. Frankly I’m a little skeptical about that but I’m no engineer and I haven’t seen the plans in 2 years for the project.

    It is the boards intention to move their base of operations along with the administrations over to North Laurel and keep it open just for them and possibly in the future the classrooms can be used for overflow. I asked if the school would be partially closed off to save on heat, upkeep,etc and was told it would not be. I asked about the heating system which I received several complaints about while I was in that school doing research for the referendum. I was told that there was nothing wrong with the heat now nor did the person ever know anything about heat problems. I guess I just imagined all that.

    In my original Star article I suggested that the middle school be the only school worthy of being demolished and that is because I honestly believe that it would cost too much to do then as I do now. Part of me would like to see it stay because it is one of the most recognized buildings in town. The other part of me says demo it and spend the money elsewhere within the schools.

    I’m going to stay on the fence regarding the middle school. We’ll just have to see what the other folks of Laurel are willing to do or not do.

    I heard the Laurel Historical Society is working to try to make the building a historical landmark to block the demolition for those of you that are interested in keeping the building.

    • Herein lies the problem Ed. You have a much different story than I just received from a board member. I wonder if the board is getting the true picture of what is going on or they don’t understand, thus the confused community.

      • I just ask the questions and post the results. I’m interested in where your version of the story differs from mine & why would we be getting more than one story at all.

        It aggravates me that the parents of Laurel always seem less interested than me, a single person with no kids, in what the district is up to. Only when people like you, me, or the few other openly vocal people in this town speak up do parents and others get involved. Certainly the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but people need to learn to not let the wheel get squeaky before they grease it. Be more proactive and less reactive. Course that could be said about a lot of things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s