Paddock Lake rejects Central bid to use stadium this spring

The Paddock Lake Village Board Wednesday night rejected a request from Central High School to use the school’s new stadium this spring.

In a lengthy discussion, board members cited inconsistency in addressing safety issues that the village sought to allow the approval.

While they plan to return to the village to try to get approval of other portions of the project as they are completed, school officials acknowledged that there probably is not time to get Village Board approval before the end of the school year. Instead, the school will next seek approval to use the stadium for a planned soccer camp and football camp this summer, said district administrator Scott Pierce.

Without the approvals, the school will be spending an additional $6-9,000 to hold scheduled home girls soccer games elsewhere, said school athletics and activities director Kris Allison.

Last week, the village Planning Commission recommended granting a temporary approval for use of the stadium based on certain conditions being met.

Those conditions were met at that time, but subsequently have been seen to not be in place, several board members and village staff said.

One big sticking point seemed to be a fence that the village was requiring to be placed to deny access to a ramp that lacks proper fall protection railings. Those railings cannot be installed until asphalt is available in mid-May.

Village building inspector Tim Popanda said he made an inspection last week and found the fence in place. But he and others from the village found the fence at the bottom of the ramp not in place as recently as this morning.

“They have to keep the safety features in place,” Popanda said.

Tim Merrill, head of maintenance for the school, said the fencing has been removed at times to allow access to construction equipment finishing up the site.

“We believe it’s safe enough to be used,’ Pierce said.

Another point of contention was that a clear water test for the well supplying the stadium has not been achieved yet. Merrill said locker rooms in the stadium would not be used unless water tested safe and that instead rest rooms on the back of the building adjacent to the old football field could be used for games until the stadium’s facilities were ready. But board members were unconvinced.

Also discussed at length was the prospects of future approvals for the project. Board members pushed for all components of the project in a conditional use permit to be completed before approvals for using the rest of the porject would be approved.

But district officials contend unforeseen cost overruns of $200,000 forced cutting some aspects of the project. Pierce said the district plans to not build a planned bathroom building at the new tennis courts and a paved path to Highway 50 long Highway 83 as cost savings.

All board members voted against approving use of the stadium, except Trustee Barb Brenner. Trustee Karen Harris was absent.



  1. Dr. James Cross says:

    I attended the paddock lake board meeting on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 astr which Central High School requested a conditional use permit for the athletic field. Superintendent Pierce stated that the school could not meet the requirements of the paddock Lake Village Board concerning certain provisions previously agreed to by CHS because the school did not have the money to fulfill these obligations. The reason he gave was that there was a budget overrun attributable to the extra $200,000.00 the school had to spend to excavate and replace the peat which was found and had to be replaced during construction.

    Although it was not mentioned at this meeting, there was also the little matter of the road leading from the back of the high school to Rt. 83. I first learned about the proposed road at a meeting arranged by CHS approximately two years ago. At this meeting the cost of the entire construction project was explained; the cost to construct the road was budgeted as $500,000.00. I voiced my concerns about this projection, that it would cost far more to construct such a road. I was told I was mistaken and this was seconded by a member of the audience. I felt that the road would cost at least $750,000.00. My concerns were dismissed by the officials who represented CHS.

    The most recent meeting held at CHS as an update on the construction project was conducted by Dr. Pierce. When I asked about the current cost estimate for the road, I was told it would be one million dollars. When I asked what happened to the $500,000.00 cost projection, I was told there was no such projection.

    If we add the $200,000.00 to the $500,000.00 overrun from the road, we reach a total of $750,000.00 that was either misspent or poorly determined in the first place.

    My conclusions is whoever was the project manager for this construction should be held accountable. The school board was either not monitoring the operation or did not understand what was happening. this appears to be another example of incompetence by another quasi-government body demonstrating the misuse of taxpayer funds.

    The school board made the decision to build the football/athletic field on top of a swamp. I/m not an engineer or geologist, but felt from the beginning that it was a bad decision as there had to be very poor subsoil composition for such a project. But what do I know, I only have the powers of observation and the ability to think.

    Why wasn’t the engineering company that did the test borings held responsible for missing the peat? Why should the school have to pay the extra costs for removing the peat and replacing it with clay? $200,000.00 extra! Were any costs such as this in the contract as the responsibility of the school(read that as taxpayers)? If this is so, the person who allowed this to be in the construction contract should be held responsible for being incompetent of worse. If not, those school board members responsible for executing such contracts without penalty clauses should be held accountable.

    The cost of the road, being double the original estimate, should be the responsibility of the construction company who offered sch a low bid in the first place. Was the plan to simply capture the contract, ten somehow defend the extra cost as reasonable and require the school(read that as taxpayers) to shoulder the extra burden? If it wasn’t for these errors, it might be possible that the funds would be available to complete this project as originally conceived and agreed to.

    This whole project smacks of gross incompetence. At the very least some heads should roll. Someone needs to be held responsible. If it is Dr. Pierce, the school board, the project manager or all of them, the most honorable action for them to take is to admit the mistakes and resign.

    Who is caught in the middle of this mess? The students and the taxpayers!

    All fingers point in all directions, but no one takes responsibility. The buck must stop somewhere. Is there anyone who has the integrity to accept responsibility?

    Just my opinion.

    James Cross, D.C.

  2. Dr. Brad Smith says:

    I will “second” Dr. Cross’ commentary. All stakeholders suffer because of the inept management of these projects: the students, staff and the increasingly-beleaguered taxpayers.

    Affected taxpayers should realize that when possible WCHS will be back with budget proposals that will generate even higher taxes for that component of our property taxes.

    Combine that with increasing taxes from Salem, Paddock Lake, Salem Grade School and higher County taxes as well, and you will see ALL COMPONENTS of your property tax bill rise– even though collectively our property values have declined AND ARE QUITE LIKELY TO DECLINE EVEN FURTHER in the year ahead.

    Contrary to what Moody’s Mark Zandi said Friday night on PBS’s “Nightly Business Report”, the so-called “recession” IS NOT “over”. By the way, is Moody’s one of the agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Fitch’s that bond king Bill Gross (head of PIMCO) just this past week publically impugned their collective credibility? (“Google” his name and PIMCO, and search for his recent comments.)

    This past week’s dramatic market decline IS EXACTLY CONSISTENT with what Elliott Wave International’s Robert Prechter forecast in his April ELLIOTT WAVE THEORIST (issued April 16th):

    “…With April 14 already behind us and May 8 a Saturday, we can project
    a top on this basis between APRIL 15 AND MAY 7, 2010… BY THIS
    THEN FALL FOR SIX YEARS.” (emphasis mine)

    Prechter’s May issue of his EWT, issued yesterday (May 8th), goes into a detailed summary of the financial collapse to follow over the next six years.
    HE SEES THE DOW ULTIMATELY FALLING TO BELOW 400 BY 2016! (I should note that while Prechter says that the Dow should “…then fall for six years…”,
    he doesn’t mean a straight line down. He indicates that there will be some “rallies” and so-called “green shoots”. However, he insists that the overall trend will now be DOWN, DOWN and DOWN. Did I say “down”? Yes, down! Those who protect themselves and their families as Prechter suggests should survive the dire times ahead– even being in a position to profit when there is a true bottom. At which time he will again become bullish.)

    While they admit that their timing is not perfect, their overall directions have been INCREDIBLY ACCURATE.

    You might ask, “What does that have to do with Central, Paddock Lake, Salem or any of the other area tax bodies?”

    The answer should be clear. There will be thousands of bank failures, MUNICIPAL BOND DEFAULTS, municipal bankruptcies, and all of the socioeconomic woes that attend such disasters.

    Check out famous trends forecaster Gerald Celente’s recent “You Tube” interviews about the metastasizing debt crisis that is currently spreading from Greece and infecting the rest of Europe– and soon, over the months ahead, to America itself. Also, check out his website at:

    Also, you can access free information at Prechter’s website as well. They even have a free e-letter. Their website is:

    “WE, THE PEOPLE” need to demand that all of our various tax bodies’ elected officials now DEMAND that the federal government now puts America first.

    We need to fix our own bank yard. The impulse for any tax body to go into debt MUST COME TO A STOP.

    It has been stated that Salem’s new garage and fire station, a some ten million dollar project, will now cost us over EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS over the next twenty years due to the Town having to borrow to finance this highly-debated project.

    Where’s Salem’s stimulus from Obama & Co.? Town administrator Casey admitted publically at Salem’s annual meeting that he had failed to get even one cent in funding from the federal government!

    The Village of Paddock Lake is trying to renegotiate their debt load. Their bondsman quipped that if Paddock Lake wanted to go bankrupt that they should “go west”, to “California”. Frankly, what kind of moronic statement is that?

    WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS OF PADDOCK LAKE HAVE TO PAY EXTRA DEBT BECAUSE OF INFRASTRUCTURE BURDENS PLACED ON THE VILLAGE IN THE PAST TO ACCOMODATE VARIOUS DEVELOPERS’ PROJECTS? If those developers can’t pay for this infrastructure, THEN NEITHER SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS OF PADDOCK LAKE! That is why I suggested that the Village file for bankruptcy. They should have well-advertised bankruptcy lawyer’s Peter Francis Geraci’s phone number on speed-dial!

    Finally, in relation to Dr. Cross’ concerns, I see per the KENOSHA NEWS that Central and Paddock Lake are trying to come to terms over “occupancy” issues.

    I just hope that the Village does a better job of protecting itself from further costly exposure; unlike, OBVIOUSLY, their infrastructure experience with the failed developers!

    And oh yes, once again I ask: Where is Paddock Lake’s share of the “stimulus” from Obama & Co.? Too bad Salem, Paddock Lake and Central weren’t big Wall Street “too-big-to-fails”!

    Thank you.

    Dr. Brad Smith, D.C.

  • Follow us on

  • Archives