Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

$7.7 Million at North

Thank you. You made most our point. They ESTIMATE $5 Million for a football stadium. Now it is too expensive. They didn't hesitate to put in a $7.7 Million facility at the north school a few years ago. Now we have become conservative and complain at $5 Million.

The people that always support every decision of this and the past school board always come up with creative ways to defend the fleecing of the Pickerington Tax payers.

We don't need to build a brand new stadium. If you are going to replace the track then why not replace it up near the Central High School? What really gets under my skin and I suspect that of the voters as well is the mind set of the Pickerington School Administration. Once they have an idea then the only purpose of any study or committee is to prove their position is correct. Even Bruce Rigelman is off base on year round schools.

If there were truly some outside the box thinkers here in Pickerington that football stadium could be moved for a number of good reason and that would not all be for parity for between the schools.

These athletic boosters talk all the time and yet they can't find a person willing to spend a day or so with a company graders creating the football? There is isn't enough citizens in this citizen that work weekends planting and making their yards look like golf courses and then there are the bleachers. That is the expense.

I do have experience with the crooked bidding system the schools employee and it is the good old boys circuit. With a little innovation they could move that stadium at no more cost that the refurbish job going on now.

Now is the question where did this refurbish money come from? Part of the roof and locker money? If money is so tight then hold joint or both track meets and football games at the North facility.






By Taxpayer

Where?

Please identify the site at Central that you believe will accomodate a football stadium.

Thank you.

TRULY SAD times

Being an Alumni of the Pickerington track and field program, and a PHS (C?) graduate, I think it is honestly pathetic and sad that the track at ridgeview is only being granted 7 lane status.
First of all, the size of the track should be no concern, as the only limiting factor to the size of the current area is the cell-tower, which would not inhibit 8-42'' lanes. the stands, the field, the track, and the press boxes can ALL fit around this tower, on the same land.
Being a runner, i realize that this is the new standard width, and thats fine. What i dont realize is how thrifty this decision is, considering the TWO 8 lane tracks currently at north.
Please dont try to tell me that having both teams practice at north is a viable solution, because I have seen it happen, and it does not work-period. space-wise, transportation-wise, and time-wise. I can see this bitter divide between schools, and It breaks my heart when i remember how great my high school was when it was still the only one in town.
Having big events is crucial for track programs-especially that of Central's team, which is one of the smallest and most struggling D1 programs in the state, all thanks to the split. It was the once great meets such as the STINGEL and PICKERINGTON invitationals, to name a few, that drew attention and top track teams from all over the state. With 7 lanes, central will be LUCKY to pull of some slow-moving dual meets. They can and will kiss the once great championship track team days goodbye.
Also, do not try to argue for an entire new stadium to be built on central grounds, becasuse that would imply that there is quite a bit of space on central property: space that could have been used to expand PHSC, instead of building an entirely new school. The track team has grown to enjoy the traditional location for over a decade, and I really dont think this issue is much of a concern.
Before firing off your own opinions about funding and priorities, it would be best to know exactly what you're talking about. In all my years of competition, I have only once run on a 7 lane track once- at a JUNIOR HIGH track, in Gahanna, as an 8th grader.
An 8 lane track is NOT too much to ask for. In fact for almost all runners, its a maximum, its a minimum, and its a STANDARD. And before any parents raise the issue of ''central having an indoor track'' and north not; one lap around central's field house, is the exact same distance as a lap around north's gymnasium. Coming home from College, I find my beloved city in heated divide and permanent struggle. So much has changed, and I really fear for the direction of both schools, the kids, and their parents.

times are different

Mark,

I understand your concerns, but right now in the community, the financial impact of the schools on families is different than in the time you attended PC and getting more expensive every year.

When the taxpayers see kids in portables, reductions in programs due to operating money crunches and the board returning to them repeatedly for more money to alieviate these problems.... and build more facilites, then they see large capital expenditures on stadiums and athletic facilites, many are scratching their heads. They are asking what is the priority in this community.... and do those in charge realize that 3.3 percent of taxpayers incomes are already devoted to supporting the current system the highest percentage in central Ohio...and what are we getting for this high percentage...frankly, less and less every year program wise and a whole host of other reductions.

I come from a suburban district in North Central Ohio that shares facilites between two high schools, the original stadium was built in the 1960's and was recently renovated and is now similar to the North facility, there is a practice track and practice football and soccer fields at the one high school and the other school has the competition track and competition fields which are used for practice for that school. They share these competition facilites for games and meets, and are bussed there for meets and some practice sessions. I grew up riding the bus to this facility as my school had the practice set up. I did not mind the fact of the bus ride, longer than the one between Central and North and was grateful to have a nice facility to utilize as an athlete. Never once did I think I was entititled to my own competition faclility on our high school site nor did my parents. The competiton facility was scheduled by the athletic directors to meet the needs of both schools. This started in the late 1970's when we went to two high schools, and continues today... imagine why they still do this in a growing suburban district? It is an efficient and effective use of taxpayer money that is why. They use any permanent improvement money or left over money from recent bond issues, to fix roofs, pave parking lots and add classroom space as needed, not to build stadiums out of concerns for parity.

The North facility has TWO full size tracks, just how is it not possible to practice two high school teams simultaneously at this facilty? I know the Junior High track team uses it too, it seems to me that we have a lot of daylight at this time of year and the facilties could be used until nearly 8pm. in my book this is pure logistics and the convenience of striving having direct after school practices for everybody is not worth many millions of dollars to construct comprehensive competition athletic facilities to be convenient and have everyone on the track at the same time all over town.

Just so you know my career field is Logistics so I do have a knack for figuring these things out and not just spouting off without having done some research.

I believe any monies left over from bond issues, interest income etc should be used to do permanent improvements and build additional classroom space, not to ensure parity. The current board (some) inheritied this over the top North facility. Does this mean we need to keep repeating these mistakes....total disregard of the ability of the community to construct REASONABLE facilities...I believe it has been said that when we go to the ballot, perhaps we should not be funding projects at an inflated cost, have better homework upfront and if something comes in below budjet or appears to be on that path, avoid suckin up every dollar in extras, which appears to be what has happened at North.