4 new stadiums set to start in OKC area (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=390-4-new-stadiums-set-to-start-in-OKC-area)

Soon and for the first time ever, all 3 Edmond and Putnam City high schools will be playing varsity football games on their own campuses.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/edsantafe.jpg


Both districts recently passed bond issues to build the facilities.

Edmond Santa Fe opened its new stadium last year and all Edmond high schools started playing their home games there, but Edmond Memorial and Edmond North will soon get home fields of their own.

And both Putnam City North and Putnam City West are scheduled to start this summer on stadiums in their own back yards.

In the case of Edmond, the district had been paying rent to the University of Central Oklahoma for Wantland Field and all but three games last season were moved to Santa Fe.

Work is set to start this summer at Edmond North and they should be hosting home games in the fall of 2018. After completion, work will start across town at Edmond Memorial with the likely ability to host games starting in 2019.

In addition to no longer paying rental fee, a fourth high school is planned for Edmond (land has been purchased at Air Depot and Covell) which would make the UCO arrangement almost impossible to manage.

The work at Putnam North and Putnam West will run simultaneously and both new facilities should be ready for the 2018 season, at which time Putnam City will have the district's original stadium all to themselves.

Although scheduling had been difficult for the three PC schools, through a spokesperson the district said, “The intent of the improvements is to build a greater sense of community at each school and within each feeder pattern. High school teams will play home games at their home school, surrounded by the community that most closely follows and supports the school. Middle school teams will play games at the school they look forward to attending and playing for a year or two down the road.”

The schools have been sharing Putnam City Stadium since Putnam West opened in 1968 and Putnam North in 1978.


The following information was provided by Susan Parks-Schlepp of Edmond Schools and Steve Lindley of Putnam City Schools.

Edmond North
Cost: $10 million
Capacity: 6,000
Architect: LWPB Architecture
Estimated Completion: Fall 2018
Location: Current practice field / track


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ednorth3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ednorth2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ednorth1.jpg


Edmond Memorial
Cost: $10 million
Capacity: 6,000
Architect: TBD
Estimated Completion: Fall 2019
Location: Current practice field / track (track to be moved)


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/memorial2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/memorial3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/memorial1.jpg


Putnam City North
Cost: $8 million
Capacity: 3,500
Architect: Red Prairie Design Group
Estimated Completion: Fall 2018
Location: New; next to practice field / track; baseball moved


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcnorth1b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcnorth1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcnorth2.jpg


Putnam City West
Cost: $8 million
Capacity: 3,500
Architect: Sparks Reed Architects
Estimated Completion: Fall 2018
Location: Current practice field / track; baseball moved


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcwest1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcwest2.jpg

I am a proud grad of Putnam City and for years before playing rivals PC West, we had the tradition of covering up "Putnam City Stadium" with a "Pirate Stadium" sign, as that has been the name before West opened in 1968 (and then PC North in 1978).

Looks like the original stadium -- which is really a great facility, BTW -- could get its original name back once the other schools start playing on their own fields.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/piratestadium.jpg

Not a fan of the design for Edmond North's stadium. I really like how Edmond Memorial went with shorter stands that were longer. That and the brick wall give a classic feel. Putnam North's looks good too. Can't really tell what's happening with that Putnam West rendering.

Due to space constraints, Putnam West will have both home and visitors on the same (west) side of the field, but separated.

I should have a better rendering soon, as they are still finalizing things.

I wish Moore would build stadiums.

I wish Moore would build stadiums.
Westmoore will get their own, new stadium someday. When I win the lottery it is a done deal.

Due to space constraints, Putnam West will have both home and visitors on the same (west) side of the field, but separated.

I should have a better rendering soon, as they are still finalizing things.

The neighborhood will like those lights at that stadium....not

That's going to be a fun right field fence against Warwick in the case of PCN's baseball field relocation! I'm looking forward to seeing what the stadium looks like, even though this occurs 20 years after my graduation.

The neighborhood will like those lights at that stadium....not

That field has been used for middle school games and scrimmages for some time and I believe it's had lighting for a while.

Most these schools back right up to residential areas, as does the original Putnam City stadium.

Westmoore will get their own, new stadium someday. When I win the lottery it is a done deal.

I mean don't they already use the mini stadium for jr high games? I feel like they could just expand it and it would work and be on campus.

I don't know who originally designed the stadium at Edmond Memorial but they deserve to have their knuckles rapped. Your prime seats are between the 50s and as it is now, there's barely any seats in that location. Glad to see they'll be fixing this.

That field has been used for middle school games and scrimmages for some time and I believe it's had lighting for a while.

Most these schools back right up to residential areas, as does the original Putnam City stadium.

Been there done that at all three stadiums years ago. It's so close to the backyards on the East side that they do not have enough room for anything. IIRC the players for both teams were also on the West side.

Schools around the state move to four days a week to deal with budget cuts while Edmond invests millions in extra curricular facilities. What a time to be alive.

Schools around the state move to four days a week to deal with budget cuts while Edmond invests millions in extra curricular facilities. What a time to be alive.

It was passed by bond issue. I clicked on here looking for someone, usually anti sports guy, to make that comment. But here's the truth. Football pays for a ton of stuff at every school. The revenues brought in cover stuff, not only for extra curricular activities, but education too. So, them having nice facilities is okay with me.

I realize it's a bond and separate from the state budget. And that Edmond can do what it wants with it's money, especially given it has the advantage of being able to use football as a revenue generator. More of just a commentary on the education system as a whole and how we've gotten here. It just shows the advantages/disadvantages you have based on your schooling district and how this particular city can withstand the state's budget crisis.

^

But keep in mind, the PC schools are doing the exact same thing .

^Exactly. Must've missed that part.

It was passed by bond issue. I clicked on here looking for someone, usually anti sports guy, to make that comment. But here's the truth. Football pays for a ton of stuff at every school. The revenues brought in cover stuff, not only for extra curricular activities, but education too. So, them having nice facilities is okay with me.

Your comment piqued my curiosity. What ton of stuff does football in Edmond pay for? Is there a source somewhere for finding out how much and to where these revenues are diverted?

It was passed by bond issue. I clicked on here looking for someone, usually anti sports guy, to make that comment. But here's the truth. Football pays for a ton of stuff at every school. The revenues brought in cover stuff, not only for extra curricular activities, but education too. So, them having nice facilities is okay with me.

Don't confuse high school sports with top major universities. High schools do not get the TV revenue streams or much anything else as a source of revenue. I doubt a program in the state actually has any amount of excess cash from it's operations.

Your comment piqued my curiosity. What ton of stuff does football in Edmond pay for? Is there a source somewhere for finding out how much and to where these revenues are diverted?

I was referencing coov23's comment.

Don't confuse high school sports with top major universities. High schools do not get the TV revenue streams or much anything else as a source of revenue. I doubt a program in the state actually has any amount of excess cash from it's operations.

Yeah, they only charge a couple of dollars for entrance and I don't believe concessions are that crazy. If they made excess revenue it would be from donors and this would be reinvested into athletics.

Now, it could be argued that grouping athletic projects with less popular bond issues helps those items to get passed.

I was referencing coov23's comment.

I know, that would be why I included coov23's in my comment.:cool:

I can't imagine that any high school football programs can pay for themselves much less other sports or academics. I'd be interested in reading any studies or articles that suggest otherwise. Heck, only 7 universities (one of them being OU) in the entire nation have athletic departments that actually make money overall. All the other athletic departments lose money and have to be funded by taxpayers/donors.

Regardless of the amount of revenue being brought in by any of these football programs, is it going to be that drastically different if the game is played at PCN VS PC's shared stadium at NW 50th and Meridian? May sell a few more seats at each game, but that is about it. Yes these new stadiums are paid for by bond issues, but that is the problem with our education system and the monetary system that is tied to it. That bond money should be delegated to increasing teachers pay instead of new stadiums, or they should be paid for by private donations. I am all for these schools having a stadium to play games in, but the sharing of one stadium has been working without any issues for a long time.

The PC spokesperson said the whole point -- especially with the changing communities around their schools -- was to better engage the neighborhoods and get people more involved with the schools.

Football is by far the easiest way to have that happen, as is the ability to host graduation and other events.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that huge of a one-time expense and the schools will have them forever. The PC stadium has been there since the late 50's or early 60's, going on 60 years.

And with artificial turf, there isn't much maintenance and the ability to host playoff games for the smaller classes in football, soccer... Host band competitions, etc.

Yeah, they only charge a couple of dollars for entrance and I don't believe concessions are that crazy.

Yeah, it's not tons of revenue. I know there's some there. The concessions help out the music programs (at least at Santa Fe) as the parents music association runs the stands.

I can't imagine that any high school football programs can pay for themselves much less other sports or academics. I'd be interested in reading any studies or articles that suggest otherwise. Heck, only 7 universities (one of them being OU) in the entire nation have athletic departments that actually make money overall. All the other athletic departments lose money and have to be funded by taxpayers/donors.

Activity fees. The parents carry the burden at most schools. Same with the music programs. You'd be surprised how much revenue merchandise brings in as well, but activity fees seem to be the major portion. The school side expenses are going to be for staff and facilities.

Actually football and basketball are the two sports that help bring in the most cash to the activities funds of most schools. Yes you get ticket sales, but concessions are a huge part of what comes in. In my teaching, the band staffed/ran/etc the concessions at football/basketball/wrestling. Since the per-student allotment in Mid-Del has fallen so low these days, this is not their only source of revenue. They can't afford buses to away games, so the school has to pay for those from its funds.....and even they can only afford the two closest games, and the band is missed at the rest by both the crowd and the players. If they didn't get that concession money, there would be no contests. They still (like every other group) have to pay > $1 per mile + driver time for the buses (x 4-5 buses) + the gas/insurance on the U-Haul or band truck to get the equipment there. Not to mention that on the OSSAA contests, they are during the day so all the schools have to pay for charter buses since the district wont rent out the buses for those trips (affects the routes too much).

Have you ever seen other groups set up tables at those games? Bumper stickers, license plate surrounds/plates, raffles, etc. While those groups may not get a cut of the gate, where else would they go to be able to hit up so many people for fundraising? It's not as though we dont all see fundraisers every minute of our life for schools. Everyone's competing with everyone else for that next $1.

One thing Edmond will be able to do now, is not have to share any of that. Each school will get their piece on what they collect. No more agreements on how much of what goes to which school/group/etc....no sharing with UCO. With PC, it will be similar. I can't imagine the hassle of coordinating the use of concession purchasing vs intake between 3 schools.

And having turf means you can have those jr. high and high school games even if there was a monsoon that week. No mudfest field. Mid-Del was one of the last in 6A to get there, and it showed at times. By the time playoffs came around, those fields could be nasty. Tulsa East Central's is on a flood plane!!! Imagine what that's like!!!!

There's also the ability to call the stadium your own home. You can have as many activities as you want without having to continually pay. In Edmond, i think most of the non-football activities had already gone to the small on-site facilities anyway (soccer, track, etc...hell UCO didn't have a track after they turfed). And for PC, again, no more nightmares of scheduling. No more forced Thursday games over and over. And with turf, your maintenance of the facility is cheaper...no chalking/mowing/fertilizing/etc.

It really is an investment. And no way would any of it happen if it weren't for a bond issue. And in both PC and Edmond, the arts already have great facilities. So it's not like they've placed the stadium first. Hell PC North housed the Philharmonic Pops during the Civic Center renovation! I saw the President's Own Marine Corps Band perform at PC O in their auditorium. PC West/North both have hosted OSSAA state concert contest, so have Edmond Santa Fe at least.

And in Moore, at the same time they built athletic facilities, they built arts facilities. Moore finally moved out of the old bus barn and into a real band room.....and finally got an auditorium 50 years later. Westmoore got a real field house 30 years later.

I feel like most districts are conscious of making sure that there isn't a REAL problem of funding lop-sidedly in bonds.

I know this isn't Oklahoma, but I can't imagine it being much different. At the bottom of the article is the data. Of the 20 major district in the Dallas area that provided the numbers, only 3 were even profitable. 2 of the 3 were in extremely affluent areas (Highland Park & Coppell) and those two also were districts with only one high school.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/high-school/sportsdaydfw/2011/11/17/special-report-an-inside-look-at-the-finances-behind-hs-football-in-the-dallas-area

I seriously doubt many schools outside of Jenks & Union are turning a profit on any sport. It's probably even worse for smaller districts.

What is irritating to me, is that communities can pass bond issues to pay for these sorts of things, but can't to say hire 10 more teachers or something similar to that.

I don't know who originally designed the stadium at Edmond Memorial but they deserve to have their knuckles rapped. Your prime seats are between the 50s and as it is now, there's barely any seats in that location. Glad to see they'll be fixing this.

Just reread my post. I meant between the 40s not between the 50s. That makes no sense.

What is irritating to me, is that communities can pass bond issues to pay for these sorts of things, but can't to say hire 10 more teachers or something similar to that.

Because it's voters who live in those districts making the bond decisions, rather that state lawmakers deciding about the salary and operating budget issues.

Another way to look at it is that citizens are choosing to tax themselves to better the schools because they know the state short-changes them. And the only thing they can control is capital improvements like stadiums and other improvements because they have nothing to say directly about the operating stuff.


But I agree with what you are saying. And I also believe that things have become so bad now with the state that people will finally demand changes. It's just sad we've had to hit rock bottom before the masses really started to care.

Bonds are school administrators go to source to finance infrastructure and equipment upgrades. If voters start voting bond issues down out of frustration over what happens with the operating budget, this would seriously hurt schools in the long run.

I should have been more clear. It is irritating that capital projects and the like are the only thing a community can do as a whole to help their school. It's annoying they can't get together and even just fund raise for say a new teacher, because it will be offset by the state.

I should have been more clear. It is irritating that capital projects and the like are the only thing a community can do as a whole to help their school. It's annoying they can't get together and even just fund raise for say a new teacher, because it will be offset by the state.

I see what you are saying and agree.

It's all pretty messed up.

So people on here (maybe even myself) may see this announcement and think it seems quit superfluous. But it's not always. It's not like any of these are akin to the Eagle Stadium (Allen, TX). They all appear reasonable for the caliber/size of schools.

I live in a community with a top notch school system (Bartlesville). It is generally ranked up there with the Edmond and Norman districts by the state (large schools). It is nearly always ranked ahead of Union/Owasso/Bixby/Broken Arrow and often Jenks as well. But many of the young working families here choose to live in those other communities because the perception is that the schools are better. And the reason by and large came down to the football stadium in Bartlesville was rather sad looking. At first glance this seems ludicrous that someone would come to this conclusion based off a football stadium. But the logic goes that if a district isn't willing to spend money on facilities that the public gets to see, they must not be spending it anywhere. In Bartlesville's case that is a bit unfair of an assumption as the rest of our sports facilities are quite nice, and the educational buildings for the most part are also in good shape and perform pretty well. So people that work in Bartlesville are choosing to live in Osasso, Skiatook, Collinsville, even Tulsa/BA in order that their children can avoid going to a superior school because they perceive the opposite because of a football stadium.

Edmond already has a good rep, so maybe there won't be a huge increase in perception. But that thought process is out there.

Often, the only real connection with many in the community is through the stadium.

It's also sometimes the only way people from other schools and communities come in contact with a district.

So people on here (maybe even myself) may see this announcement and think it seems quit superfluous. But it's not always. It's not like any of these are akin to the Eagle Stadium (Allen, TX). They all appear reasonable for the caliber/size of schools.

I live in a community with a top notch school system (Bartlesville). It is generally ranked up there with the Edmond and Norman districts by the state (large schools). It is nearly always ranked ahead of Union/Owasso/Bixby/Broken Arrow and often Jenks as well. But many of the young working families here choose to live in those other communities because the perception is that the schools are better. And the reason by and large came down to the football stadium in Bartlesville was rather sad looking. At first glance this seems ludicrous that someone would come to this conclusion based off a football stadium. But the logic goes that if a district isn't willing to spend money on facilities that the public gets to see, they must not be spending it anywhere. In Bartlesville's case that is a bit unfair of an assumption as the rest of our sports facilities are quite nice, and the educational buildings for the most part are also in good shape and perform pretty well. So people that work in Bartlesville are choosing to live in Osasso, Skiatook, Collinsville, even Tulsa/BA in order that their children can avoid going to a superior school because they perceive the opposite because of a football stadium.

Edmond already has a good rep, so maybe there won't be a huge increase in perception. But that thought process is out there.

To be fair, the career opportunities B'ville once had, aren't there to the level they once were either. So it is more difficult to have a successful career there rather than in a burb of Tulsa. I agree that the schools are great there and B'ville has a lot to offer. But it's not the 90's there anymore with the changes that came with the energy sector. Enid and Ponca City could say similar things....ESPECIALLY Enid.

To be fair, the career opportunities B'ville once had, aren't there to the level they once were either. So it is more difficult to have a successful career there rather than in a burb of Tulsa. I agree that the schools are great there and B'ville has a lot to offer. But it's not the 90's there anymore with the changes that came with the energy sector. Enid and Ponca City could say similar things....ESPECIALLY Enid.

Bartlesville has a net inflow of commuters for work. In other words more people commute to Bartlesville to work from the Tulsa area than the other way. So while it may not be what it once was, it still is a job center in the region. Those career builders are the types that are commuting and they are building their careers in Bartlesville.

I think in the last decade thousands jobs have been added but the population really hasn't budged in that same time period.

Often, the only real connection with many in the community is through the stadium.

It's also sometimes the only way people from other schools and communities come in contact with a district.

I know before we moved there, we had gone to a football game as a "visitor" and were convinced this was a pretty crappy school. All because of the stadium. In fairness, we had no kids at the time and had not studied anything in regards to the quality of local school districts. But the perception was that Owasso/Jenks/Broken Arrow were the place to be because they have nice new flashy facilities.

Side post, but regarding the bonds, I don't mind the stadium and capitol improvement stuff. I have a problem with spending millions on things like iPads and Computers that take decades to pay off but they become obsolete after a few years.

Side post, but regarding the bonds, I don't mind the stadium and capitol improvement stuff. I have a problem with spending millions on things like iPads and Computers that take decades to pay off but they become obsolete after a few years.

Honestly, they're sort of essential if we're going to equip students to be competitive for the future. Additionally, textbooks tend to only remain "in play" for 5-8 years so there is an upkeep cost there as well. Chromebooks cost about twice the cost of a single textbook, but provides cost savings on paper and such. They (the schools) still have to pay for the digital version of the books, but considering the information stays current, it's a worthwhile investment IMO.

Side post, but regarding the bonds, I don't mind the stadium and capitol improvement stuff. I have a problem with spending millions on things like iPads and Computers that take decades to pay off but they become obsolete after a few years.

"Decades to payoff", is an over exaggeration. If they bought every student an iPad or Mac, I could see this, but most schools are going to stick to Chromebooks or a low spec PC that they will use at least 6-8 years.

I'm not going to disagree that it probably is important for the next generation. I am also not "that guy" who complains about teacher pay. I don't mind the computers, but the iPads are just a bit of a stretch for me.

In the $180 million dollar bond package that was passed in November, "$54.4 million to be spent on technology upgrades and would include the purchase of nearly 13,000 computer labs, iPads and other devices for students and teachers." That means around 1 per 3 to 4 students. Which to me seems like a lot.

I'm not an expert on bond payoffs but from the research I have done says typical school bonds are paid off in usually 25-40 years

A lot of the technology items these days that the schools subscribe to (in order to meet federal mandates) require the use of this technology. For example, my kids are in Moore Schools. In their 1st grade class, they had I think 5 different programs they tested under to evaluate reading skills (sight words, comprehension, reading, etc). Each of them used a different piece of software for their evaluations. STAR is one that used iPads. So they had a single cart of ipads (and yes the cart is expensive, but for charging, storing, transporting around the school 30 ipads, it really is the best way) that traveled between the classes for them to take the tests. They did this multiple times throughout the year to track their progress. They also had some PCs in the classroom (only 2 in 1st grade at least) that they could also use Lexi (web-based) on...we could do this from home as well. It was another reading and comprehension type system. These PCs are a little older (Dell 380 series or so) but they still worked just fine for what they are being used for. So in terms of technology, as far as the student is concerned, the technology isn't really out of date still. It's not Windows 10, but so what. Most businesses haven't moved to 10 yet either. Move over to the actual computer lab and the resources are newer.

Now 13k of them in any district seems like a lot, but it also depends on if they are changing out hardware in labs. Because then you're looking at 30 at a time. Some of the newer elementary designs have things organized in pods so each grade has a shared lab space. so do 30 X 6 grades and there's a lot of PCs right there. I only say that to say that it would probably be easier to swallow for you if you could see what the break down was. I would almost bet that there's some information on that in some Board meeting minutes posted on the district website.

This is purely anecdotal but a school that my kids used to go to (in another town) got a lot of their technology, including Apple, from grant writing. The principal wrote a ton of grants because he said the worst that could happen would be that they would turn you down. However, he got tons of money from grant writing.

This is purely anecdotal but a school that my kids used to go to (in another town) got a lot of their technology, including Apple, from grant writing. The principal wrote a ton of grants because he said the worst that could happen would be that they would turn you down. However, he got tons of money from grant writing.

Lots of schools do this, including Putnam City.

If you go into any of their elementary schools, you'll see computer labs filled with Apple Macs.

Looks like PC North will be able to get their stadium open for the 2018 season but PC West is behind schedule and thus won't open until 2019.

Here is an updated site plan for PC West; looks like visitor seating will be on the north side:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcwest081117.jpg

This is a recent photo at Edmond North from the LWPB Architecture FB page:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ednorth021018.jpg

This is a recent photo at Edmond North from the LWPB Architecture FB page:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ednorth021018.jpg
Monkey see, monkey do. Now the Moore district is planning to build new stadiums at Westmoore and Southmoore. Edmond did it, PC did it, now we all must do it.

Monkey see, monkey do. Now the Moore district is planning to build new stadiums at Westmoore and Southmoore. Edmond did it, PC did it, now we all must do it.

Where did you hear this? Just curious as I live in disctrict. I agree with it, never liked playing in the rivals stadium for home games.

Where did you hear this? Just curious as I live in disctrict. I agree with it, never liked playing in the rivals stadium for home games.
Administrators. I was in MPS for 40yrs and talk to people at various levels on a regular basis.

Administrators. I was in MPS for 40yrs and talk to people at various levels on a regular basis.

Interesting. Any idea if they are going to ask for another bond issue or do they have money from the last one?

Monkey see, monkey do. Now the Moore district is planning to build new stadiums at Westmoore and Southmoore. Edmond did it, PC did it, now we all must do it.

Haven't heard an inkling of this and I've spoken to several in the know. Maybe it's in the plans for yrs down the road

Interesting. Any idea if they are going to ask for another bond issue or do they have money from the last one?
Bond issue.

Took this yesterday at PC North:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pcnorth041618a.jpg

Maybe it's already been said, but it's weird that they're building this east-west. Are they only going to play under the lights?

Maybe it's already been said, but it's weird that they're building this east-west. Are they only going to play under the lights?

It's not that uncommon to build east/west, especially in high school. Putnam City Stadium -- where they have always played -- is E/W.

They only play Thursday or Friday nights.

^^^ It definitely helps with keeping both sides from having to look into the sun so much. There are a lot of stadiums built north/south and the visitors side faces the sun. I got a good laugh when my kids attended Luther schools, and they built their new stadium north/south and put the home side facing the sun.

^^^ It definitely helps with keeping both sides from having to look into the sun so much. There are a lot of stadiums built north/south and the visitors side faces the sun. I got a good laugh when my kids attended Luther schools, and they built their new stadium north/south and put the home side facing the sun.

I graduated from Mustang and back in the day our home side was on the East side and faced the sun. Since I've graduated they have redone it and it now is on the West, but I always thought they were dumb for having done that.