Pulaski County Football Field

Page 6 of I was on Twitter last night and I saw a lot of tweets about the Pulaski County school board voting against installing a turf field at the school. To sa... 88 comments | 5768 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #76
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    A lot of schools need new fields and Pulaski is definitely one of them...but the money just isn't there unless a field is included at the time of a new school being built, in most systems. Not every school has a benefactor throw $100's of thousands of dollars at them to build a new field/stadium.

    Interesting fact from the past, Pulaski County won State Cross Country and Track Championships in the past without the benefit of having a track for a couple of decades. They had lines painted on the parking lot to mimic a track for practice purposes...didn't stop them from winning titles. Pulaski had/has by some accounts one of the worst fields in the history of football, yet they were able to win the state championship.
    Advertisement

  2. #77
    Hellcats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 14
    Posts
    5,757

    Yes and we rarely need new anything, but I ask where is that money going if you don't put it back in the facilities.
    Fair to say between the schools:

    150 football players middle and high.
    80 soccer players boys and girls
    100 band members

    That's about 20% of population not counting any other benefit it may have. Not sure other than remodeling front doors, English classrooms, or cafeteria you may get that same benefit to the schools.

  3. #78

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    169

    Here is what I know about this situation after talking to people who would probably know along the way.

    When all of this discussion about getting turf initially came up, Southwestern was to be installed first, before Pulaski. That could be a rumor, but I believe my source would have been involved in that decision of some sort. That is absolutely crazy to me to be honest. Same person also told me about 1/3 of the funding would come from private businesses & boosters. (I'm not sure if that was both fields or just Pulaski's.) I personally believe the administrators at both schools were given a green light for a couple of months, then just a week or two ago, it turned to a yellow light and almost immediately a red light within a 24 hour span. The vote shot it all down 3-2 and in my opinion, 1 of those 3 flopped in that 24 hour period for some reason. Almost everyone from both sides assumed it would pass easily and I personally believe both sides were somewhat led on by select board members.

    As far as the current condition of the field. It's about 60% weeds & 40% dirt (or concrete is what it feels like). It has been vandalized (rumored to have been from a crosstown rival) and there are truck tracks all over it.

    The football program uses the grass field (even the middle school & youth programs when it is available). The band uses it (when they don't have to practice in the parking lot. This year, I have a feeling that no one will be allowed on the the grass field whatsoever other than the high school football team because of the maintenance it will take to keep it up. To my knowledge, soccer has never used it as they have their own nice facility over the hill and have never complained. Getting turf at both schools is necessary for a variety of reasons. As far as football, state championships are not played on grass. If the Pulaski district wants more, they need to put out for both schools. SW and Pulaski neither one fear each other and the day has come where Highlands, Bowling Green, etc. are just names on a jersey. Historically, they're not on the same level, but right now...Pulaski is king of 5A (could have very easily been SW). Turf will give these programs an advantage by getting to play/practice on the state surface year long like the other "big boys."

  4. #79

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    169

    Quote Originally Posted by plantmanky View Post
    I do find this interested, considering an Asst Super told me directly they had the money for facility upgrades to both stadiums back in October last year.......................So where did the money go?
    plantmanky - What are the financial numbers for hosting a regional for the KMSFA playoffs? What is average "take-home" for the host site, competing teams, KMSFA, etc? Not sure how all that works. I know you all look for turf fields most of the time for each region. Would be nice to finally get a regional located in Somerset somewhere!

  5. #80

    Join Date
    Jun 08
    Location
    In the Garden
    Posts
    20,192

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat18 View Post
    plantmanky - What are the financial numbers for hosting a regional for the KMSFA playoffs? What is average "take-home" for the host site, competing teams, KMSFA, etc? Not sure how all that works. I know you all look for turf fields most of the time for each region. Would be nice to finally get a regional located in Somerset somewhere!
    Current Breakdown is every participating team gets 5% of gross profit (gross gate minus officials cost, trainer cost and such.) That totals 40%, host site gets 30%, KMSFA gets 30%.

    Coach Hines and Coach Foley wanted to host Region 4 last year, as it got closer and with Pulaski Co pending a deep playoff run, both parties deceided to pass last year, hence it went to Letcher Central (who did an outstanding job.) For those not in the know Region 4 is so big (area wise) we try to rotate around the region with the regional finals.

  6. #81

    Join Date
    Aug 08
    Location
    On the two yard line!!
    Posts
    696

    Latest news is that Pulaski will get new sod on their field- my guess is Sw field will be repaired .

  7. #82
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    SW field is in decent shape the best I can remember, they shouldn't need a lot done to it.

  8. #83
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    I had heard rumor around town that some parents had banded together to possibly sue the School Board over the vote reversal...I think that has since died down.

  9. #84

    Join Date
    Dec 14
    Location
    Owensboro, KY
    Posts
    210

    I personally hope the folks of Pulaski County remember the names of these board members when re-election time comes. My Dad always said, don't write a check with your mouth, that your backside can't cash!" That's what this board did, voted to do this and then didn't follow through. Shame on them!!!

  10. #85
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    Seems like the change came when they researched the bonding and found out the bond length couldn't exceed the warranty on the field which was 8 years. At 8 years the yearly bond service was much more than they expected when they initially voted for the turf to be installed. I spoke with someone that said the board had every intention of passing this and moving forward but when they found out that it could only be for 8 years...the short bonding period put them in a much tighter financial bind than they originally thought.

  11. #86
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    Quote Originally Posted by MountaineerMan View Post
    I personally hope the folks of Pulaski County remember the names of these board members when re-election time comes. My Dad always said, don't write a check with your mouth, that your backside can't cash!" That's what this board did, voted to do this and then didn't follow through. Shame on them!!!
    I'm sure many have and will continue to think this way...IMO that is being very short sighted. I as much as anyone understand the know the importance of sports in school. I also know there are a great many needs in that district that also need to be addressed. I would hope that when people take the emotion out of it they will realize the board may have made the right decision even if it was unpopular. The board was given a proposal that in the end wasn't what the final plan was...cutting the bonding length from 15 years or what ever to 8 years more than doubled the yearly outlay and that ended up being more than they wanted to commit to.

    I fully expect "Turf" to be used a great deal during the next election cycle for school board.

  12. #87

    Join Date
    Dec 14
    Location
    Owensboro, KY
    Posts
    210

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    I'm sure many have and will continue to think this way...IMO that is being very short sighted. I as much as anyone understand the know the importance of sports in school. I also know there are a great many needs in that district that also need to be addressed. I would hope that when people take the emotion out of it they will realize the board may have made the right decision even if it was unpopular. The board was given a proposal that in the end wasn't what the final plan was...cutting the bonding length from 15 years or what ever to 8 years more than doubled the yearly outlay and that ended up being more than they wanted to commit to.

    I fully expect "Turf" to be used a great deal during the next election cycle for school board.
    Jumper Dad, you missed the point of my post. The short sightedness was on the part of the Board. They made a decision, cast a vote without all the facts. Shame on them. You know what you can and cannot do before you cast a vote. That fact only discredits them from a point of a leadership position. If, you don't have all the facts, you postpone a vote. It's like this, if a person steals from you, while they may or may not make restitution, they are always a thief. These folks cast a vote to do something. Now they have gone back on their word. How can you trust them to keep their word on anything else? If I was Mr. Butcher, I would watch my back, because you can not trust a person that does not keep their word, in this case their vote.

  13. #88
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,119

    Quote Originally Posted by MountaineerMan View Post
    Jumper Dad, you missed the point of my post. The short sightedness was on the part of the Board. They made a decision, cast a vote without all the facts. Shame on them. You know what you can and cannot do before you cast a vote. That fact only discredits them from a point of a leadership position. If, you don't have all the facts, you postpone a vote. It's like this, if a person steals from you, while they may or may not make restitution, they are always a thief. These folks cast a vote to do something. Now they have gone back on their word. How can you trust them to keep their word on anything else? If I was Mr. Butcher, I would watch my back, because you can not trust a person that does not keep their word, in this case their vote.
    They voted to proceed and get bids and proposals...I'm sure the board had no idea when this was first brought to them the fields only had an 8 year warranty and thus could only be bonded for that long.

    IMO...they voted to proceed with the process and everyone jumped the gun thinking that it was a done deal when it wasn't. When all of the facts were brought to light they realized it wasn't prudent at this time.

    Kinda like if your kid ask if they can have a puppy and you say "sure"...then they come up and want a $3500 English Bulldog pup...now that you have all of the facts you have to say, "No, why don't we go to the shelter and rescue a dog instead?"

  14. #89

    Join Date
    Jan 12
    Posts
    447

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    They voted to proceed and get bids and proposals...I'm sure the board had no idea when this was first brought to them the fields only had an 8 year warranty and thus could only be bonded for that long.

    IMO...they voted to proceed with the process and everyone jumped the gun thinking that it was a done deal when it wasn't. When all of the facts were brought to light they realized it wasn't prudent at this time.

    Kinda like if your kid ask if they can have a puppy and you say "sure"...then they come up and want a $3500 English Bulldog pup...now that you have all of the facts you have to say, "No, why don't we go to the shelter and rescue a dog instead?"
    This is a good point... Most people also don't realize that when a public board or council votes to do something like this, it generally requires two readings/votes. The whole purpose of this is to allow for further research, public input, etc.

    Only considering the information on this thread, it seems that the board did their due diligence and made an informed decisions.

    That said, I obviously think that Pulaski should have a field they can be proud of, and that is safe - no reason they can't do that with natural grass.

Top