- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
School bond: Field replacement, fees not a good idea
I read both the articles on the February bonds. The fire station is a no brainer and everyone should vote yes on this.
The school bond is a tough one. I have a couple questions/responses to the article that maybe your readers can clarify.
A big red flag that jumped at me is why we have not split the bond to have repairs for $7.9 million as one vote and the yes/no on a new middle school (as) a second vote. Based on conversations I have had with residents of the district, this bond is not going to pass. The big stumbling block is the need for a new middle school vs. a new elementary school. We risk all our much-needed repairs by grouping these into one bond.
With the repairs that are listed, I am curious why we can’t seem to get it right the first time. TFMS is only three years old and yet you want to rip up the field and replace it. That is not good use of my money and very poor planning on the part of the school board. Centennial Field is one of the most used parks in the area and is all grass. Ten-plus football teams practice on the field from mid August until late October. Soccer, baseball and softball are played there, year round. The grounds are beautiful. Is it better to put in artificial or keep a groundskeeper employed? Sorry, I just don’t get this budget item.
Finally, as the school board takes away more and more of the programs from our children, the parents are stepping up at all levels with booster programs to support sports and clubs. However, the district has not been supportive of these activities charging, huge custodial fees for facilities use. How will this issue be addressed and resolved so that parents can effectively fundraise to bridge the gap in funding? The district should not profit off school fundraisers by charging huge usage fees.