I think that much more studying needs to be completed.
I remember another report from a few years ago that showed an increase in students for a short bump- and then a decrease in enrollment.

Is there a 20 year projection chart that has a verifiable basis?

Any talk about the need for a new structure- at this point, would be premature.
.

I agree with Anthony. Unless those circulating the petition have information not released to the public, there is no reason to take the step of building a new school. There is certainly nothing in this article that would justify even starting talk about the need of a new school.

Surely, somebody who is part of this drive, and in part of Patch, can provide a few paragraphs to justify their actions in this thread.

"Just wanting something new" is no cause for action.

I do not believe talk of a new structure is premature. Yes, a study needs to be done to convince everyone that this is the proper course of action. Here are some FACTS, not projections,but actual facts:

The current student enrollment is 1496; the maximum capacity is 1500. There isn't one space in that school where the entire student body can gather together - the gym cannot hold everyone for pep rallies; the auditorium cannot accommodate everyone for assemblies, or speakers.
Storage areas have been turned into classrooms creating safety issues in many instances. These storage areas don't have windows This could potentially be a security issue in addition to being a safety concern. Because of the small size of the cafeteria, some students have to eat lunch at 9:45. There are extensive infrastructure issues. There is a boiler from 1969 that they don't even make parts for anymore.

These are just a sample of problems; I'm sure there are many more.

This situation needs addressed and it needs addressed now.

Maybe the effort should be expended to ensure that property reassessments are completed as soon as possible. Those paying taxes based on what their homes were assessed for back in 1981 would hopefully start paying their fair share toward new schools. I do not want my already ridiculously high school taxes (everything is relative, but as an owner of a new house I pay close to 7 grand) to increase even more, while the guy down the street who has been here for a long time is given a tax break. I don't care that the gym or auditorium can't hold everyone at the same time. Buying a new boiler is cheaper than building a new school. Why has money been thrown away for artificial turf at an elementary school? If this is such a crisis, somebody needs to show me why the school board continues to throw money away on other things that appear to be unnecessary.

Cece, thank you for your response.

From the brief description supplied, I suspect the discussion will quickly be diverted from a new school, and toward past practices. Somebody has been very asleep in the preventative maintenance and cycling out/in of equipment to allow the school to be running on a 1969 boiler. This revelation exposes some major problems in attention to standard maintenance practices. Having this piece of equipment remaining in service, and yet new sports fields being built shows the taxpayers how badly priorities have been managed. Who is accountable?

I agree with Joe on the enrollment counts and fitting people into one place. Posing this as a problem shows how desperate somebody is to get the ball rolling on a new building. If attendance is 90% most days, the gap between capacity and attendance remains wide.

Your group has little credibility in coming to the taxpayer now to suggest a new school building, in light of having just spent $2.5M on new sports facilities, complete with audio, light standards, and artificial turf. Also, to pose the matter at the same time wanting to spend yet more money on new turf at the stadium minimizes your position for a new building. Your cause may have merit, but do you really think the taxpayers are going to listen very well in view of major expenditures on sports?

Discussions about a new building will quickly derail into discussions regarding recent practices of spending, and maintenance.

All Peters Township homeowners should be concerned about the state of this high school. With all the surrounding districts having built or in the process of building current facilities, our property values are at risk since schools are a factor in resale I'd homes. Bethel park, south Fayetteville, Baldwin, Mt Lebo and upper st Clair all have buildings which can provide a better education for its students. Gym classes at our high school are held in the hallways because of lack of space, class room desks are moved to get students into the rooms and then moved to block doors once all students are inside, the electric, boiler, Internet and phone capabilities are beyond repair. At some point, it's less expensive than to continue to add on and/or fix major infrastructure problems. Buildings don't last forever. This building also poses security risks since the front of the building has access to the public when students are changing classes. There is also one wing where students have to go down stairs and back up to get to another wing. Anyone looking at this high school that wants a good facility can choose any of our surrounding townships to buy a home. This is an issue which needs to be addressed now.

Our home prices are not going down. You are buying into the crap that is being promulgated in support of this initiative. What security problems are you talking about? There's a cop there all the time, for crying out loud. And he or she has a weapon! During class changes, they can easily move to the front entrance area. Just because a few people think the facility is inadequate doesn't mean the little darlings aren't being properly educated. If you have quality staff (not necessarily associated with high pay, in case the union is reading this), you can run classes ANYWHERE! Oh my God! The kids need the exercise. Walking down stairs and back up is helping them lose weight, which is in line with the First Lady's initiative against fat kids. If you are still worried about security, put a fence around the entire place. It is a cost effective alternative.

Wow ! A fence around our high school should do wonders for our property value ! So would trailers in the parking lot.....some people may never get it. Good schools are good for a community, and our property values.

I've read the PTA material. They are NOTasking for a new building. They want the school board to plan for improvements and address the laundry list of building issues. They say their mission is to inform the community. People should know the facts, not comment on assumptions based on fear of tax increases.

The comment above re: child obesity is insensitive and misses the point about our community issue --- the failing structure which we are calling a high scho

We moved here from NJ and did look at the elementary school with the real estate agent. Wish we had seen the high school or known about the problems, it would have made a difference in where we bought. Hopefully, the school board look seriously at this

We moved here from NJ and did look at the elementary school with the real estate agent. Wish we had seen the high school or known about the problems, it would have made a difference in where we bought. Hopefully, the school board look seriously at this

N.J Bean, you didn't answer Roger's question. I am assuming he asked if you were a recent transplant to this area, because by the time your youngins get to high school, you could be long gone. Also, be honest with us - did you not pick Peters because of the lower taxes? If plans with building a new high school go forward, I highly doubt that the taxes will stay at their current levels...

That's it. I am out of here. Moving to South Fayetteville. Which is somewhere South of a city in Arkansas. They have nice school buildings. Taxes are much more reasonable.

Finally, someone with a sense of humor in the midst of school board and PTA madness! Thanks, Lucy, for your comment. By the way, Zillow says the property values in this area will go up more than 3 percent this year. In spite of the dangerous and horrible high school!

Lucy, to piggy-back on your comment about transplants, the posts above about comparisons brings to mind the pattern in recent years about changes in Peters Twp.

The pattern is simple, very easy to understand. People move to Peters from elsewhere, then make comparisons, and want to make Peters look like their former place of residence. Perhaps it has been 15 years, but the regulations regarding residential burning were changed at the request of newcomers. People went to Council, said they recently moved to Peters from XXXX, YYYY, or ZZZZ, and there was no burning allowed, and wanted Peters to change the regulations. They were all about making Peters look like their former location. Eventually, the regulations where changed.

Then one can follow the plans for the Rec Center, "... Mt Lebanon has one, and we just moved here and want a Rec Center in Peters." OK, ... a new Rec Center. Then followed new sports fields behind Pleasant Valley, "... XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ have fields with turf, lights, and audio, .... we need to upgrade to be just like them." Then came to soccer field in Peterswood Park, with the same arguments, "We want to have the same kinds of fields...." Does anybody want to put bets on a Peters swimming pool? We've already heard, "Mt Lebanon, .... Upper St Clair ....blah, blah ..." The same patterns follow both school and municipal issues.

You are right on the target, Roger! Good man!

Thanks roger
To add:
Remember that there was a polling of the populace in regards to building a community rec center which included an outdoor pool etc..?

I believe that the results showed a 74% against result.

But just like Obamacare as a foot in the door approach to a single payer system. We went ahead without further polling and put in the base version of the center- with ability to easily expand future options _ health and fitness equip. etc..

Go through the economics of the new USC rec center to get an understanding of where we could head- and the promises broken to those citizens who are funding their enterprise.

Are there not private facilities that we should encourage in a capitalistic society that provide these services to those who truly desire them?

These facilities enhance the economy and provide meaningful employment without forced taxation- whether or not you are a user of the "public" facility?

My other problem is that it seems that the largest customer of the facility is the Peters Township School District teams. Did we not build multiple schools with basketball courts, multi purpose fields, etc.. ?

DOES PTSD pay significant fee's for this usage ? If no- how do I get this deal as a taxpayer for my group?

I would love to see the schools open to senior citizens groups and such for usage - courts, walking the halls for exercise, whatever- especially during inclement weather. They fund the schools with taxpayer support..

My goodness, I thought I was the only one in PT that had maintained my sanity and love of the rural nature we once had here. For instance, the park that once was natural and I could train my hunting dogs. Now turfed, fenced, and all dogs on leashes. I'm sure after everything is turfed and rebuilt, the next step in the park is to asphault all the trails so no one gets their feet dirty. I moved here for low taxes and the rural environment. The rural aspect is quickly dissolving and low taxes will be a memory if these folks get their way to more spending for unneeded infrastructure.

I would move to North Strabane, but they have the spending bug too. All the money from casino and other new businesses is being spent (major municipal stadium, plans for new municipal building, etc.,) rather than lowering taxes. Government loves to spend your money and have their names mounted on the plaques. The poorly thought out projects already in place like the turf at the elementary school and park, and the rec center are just the beginning of major tax increases to come once the government building tsunami begins.

Be afraid when the people pushing for all of these projects begin winning seats on the township council and school board. They will spend your money and borrow more to "improve' their township

NJ Bean
I did not think I had to leave a resume in order to post a comment, but since length of residency seems to be important to some, we moved to PT about 13 years ago. Bower hill was just built and it was very attractive to us along with the country spaces. Taxes were not a concern for us in our decision. We wanted a caring, well maintained community to raise out children and eventually grow old. The curiosity of my background surprises me ! The curiosoty should be the facts of the high school building and how it can be improved. We have a right to an opinion about this community no matter how long we have lived here.

The high school building dates from 1968 and even the new additions do not connect properly (that is why the other poster wrote about going up & down stairs) and have really placed the students at unnecessary risk. Whatever is ultimately decided, I would hope community members would embrace more than their pocket books and think about what is best for the students in this community.

Roger, you are correct in your recitation of all the amounts chosen to be spent on fields. ALL the growing problems with the high school building have been discussed for years, yet the choice was made to build fields. See the comments above from PA Mom. The choice to put money in the fields does not negate the existing problems with the high school. This is not new, the school district just did not advertise all the building issues. Now that its made public, we shall see what happens.

The school board made the choices for turf rather than academic needs in the past and will probably do so again in the near future. Yes, there is another million they want to spend on the high school stadium, knowing that there is much needed in the high school building.

I do agree with the opinions here that something needs to be done about the failing high school structure. I also agree that the school board made choices to improve fields rather than address the structural problems in several of the school buildings, including the high school campus. I do not approve of the choices to put athletics programs above everything else. The school board has had the studies and discussed the needs of the high school building since before the decision to proceed with building the PV fields. A adjunct committee of teachers, administrators, community members studied and reported to the board in 2009 what the school district needs were and prioritized the high school building, yet the athletic complex behind the high school was chosen. Voices were raised in opposition by many, and the school board responded that the high school would be dealt with after the fields ! The whole point of the petition is to urge the school board to take action, "whether that means renovation, addition or new construction" since after doing the fields, they ignored the building problems which has continued to worsen.

I am not surprised that they now want to put another million into new turf in the stadium while the building problems worsen. I do not however approve of capital expenditures for turf while academics and the facilities are ignored.

http://peters.patch.com/articles/peters-township-top-scoring-district-in-washington-county