Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Nevada School Celebrates 10 Years (cont) (cont) (cont)

right of Siloam Springs as its superintendent.

Well educated, experienced in the building of schools, Woolbright was able to get state funds many thought were unavailable. On everything, he insisted on getting the best from the architects down to the concrete used in the construction of the new school. He insisted on having a structure that would last for up to 40 years.

His insistence on have a long-lasting quality to educate children, and his never- tiring efforts to go to Little Rock to fight for funds from the State Department of Education, from the state legislature and from Governor Bill Clinton himself, finally brought many patrons to believe that "it is either my way or not at all." His foresight in the quality of materials in the building and the furnishings for the school may be seen in detail Friday.

Rosston Petitions Rejected

On July 22, 1985, in a special meeting for the purpose of acting on the two petitions before it, the Nevada County Board of Education rejected the Rosston petition to be released from the Prescott School District, even though the Prescott School Board had thought the decision would go the other way.

W.D. Barlow of Prescott was the only board member who voted for the petition. He afterward remarked, "I am afraid that prejudice overrode good judgement." Bill Nichols, Paul Bailey Jr. and Bobby Caudle voted against it. Because his law partner, Glenn Vasser, was on the Prescott board, Jim McKenzie excused himself from the decision.

Appeal Filed

Proponents of the Rosston petition filed an appeal in early August in the Nevada County Circuit Court against the County Board of Education, naming Barlow, Caudle, Bailey and Nichols as defendants, seeking to reverse the decision by the County Board of Education.

The appeal stated, "Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the board of education in denying their petition and that such denial was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to both the desires of the majority and the best interest of all the inhabitants of the territories affected by the decision."

Prescott, in turn, began to negotiate further with the Nevada District, offering 40 acres in the city of Rosston for a school site.

In the meanwhile, the Nevada board began looking at proposed sites for the new school facilities. The city of Rosston, or immediately around Rosston seemed to be the more geographical center of the district and several sites call for closer examination. One board member stated that it appeared that the five schools were being lost, while Rosston, which did not have a school, was gaining one. Choosing a site suitable to the patrons, who would be passing the millage to build the facilities, also became a concern.

On August 26, the County Board of Education filed a motion to dismiss the suit filed in Circuit Court against them, stating many reasons why it should not have been filed in that court to begin with.

Cross, Dillard and others who had field the lawsuit dropped it in early October hoping that "there would be better working relations all the way around. Rosston was not wanting to cause hard feelings in any of the districts.

School Site Selected

The district, by the recommendation of Dr. Woolbright, hired Locke Wright Foster Inc. of Oklahoma City as its architect.

After narrowing the site selection down to three or four, a site was finally selected inside the city limits of Rosston, in the Prescott School District.

The decision was not an easy one due to the board trying to do what the patrons from their former school districts wanted. The pre-annexation agreement said that the site must be in the geographical center of the new district formed.

Two sites, one just a few miles west of Rosston, and one on Highway 19 North in Rosston, were rejected by the board. The most western site was rejected due to negative test results by the architects. The 40-acre site (within Rosston city limits) chosen belonged to the Dillard family.

The site selection was made by a 3-2 vote, with Rowe and Overton not voting for it on December 12, 1985, at its regular board meeting.

Finally, in late December with only three board members present, the new budget was passed. The budget would require 34.8 mills for the construction of the new school.

School Design Revealed

The proposed design of the school was revealed early in February 1986 so the public could view the new facilities before the school elections in March.

The school would house the elementary on one end of the 90,000 square-foot building, while the junior and senior high students would be on the other end. A library wold be centrally located between the two sections. Offices for principals, counselors and secretaries would be at each end of the library at the beginning of each division.

Separate from those two divisions, across the large central hallway, would be the cafetorium (with one of the most modern kitchens around), the gymnasium, the superintendent's office and the band and choral rooms. The superintendent's office would be a buffer between the band and the rest of the school.

Highlighting the entire school are two storm shelters. One shelter is on each end of the building. They each take up the rest rooms in the central area and four classrooms. The walls and the tops of the two shelters are concrete, providing shelter for students of both secondary and elementary students in case of a tornado during school hours.

Outside, two parking lots were designed. In addition, a shop for agri and shop students was planned. A bus garage was later added. The architects also proposed that the school have its own sewer disposal system.

By being located in Rosston, city water was provided, along with natural gas and electricity.

Room on the grounds was left for outside athletics, such as football, track and baseball.

Millage Approved

On March 11, 1986, 34.8 mills were approved by 61 percent of the patrons voting in the school election. The vote was 641 for and 414 against.

Also reelected were the same board members who proposed the school and the millage. Benton would have a one year term; Overton a two year term; Waters a three year term; Mendenhall a four year term; and Rowe a five year term. From henceforth all other terms would be for five years, with Benton's position coming up one year later. (Overton's two year term is up this year. He is seeking reelection to the post.)

District Threatened By Oak Grove Patrons

On March 25, some patrons from Oak Grove and their attorney from Little Rock met with the County Board of Education, threatening a law suit, because of some items in the pre-annexation agreement.

One of those items was that Rosston should be a part of the dist