The renovations promised by the bond referendum at Chapin High School have not begun due to the complaints of concerned community activist and school board candidate, Kim Murphy. In the designated area for a practice field there is 727 feet of what is considered to be wetlands which are protected by certain permits. Mrs. Murphy filed a lawsuit against the school to keep the wetland area undisturbed.

In a legal document provided by Murphy, she states, “I have objected to poorly planned sprawl development which needlessly destroys natural resources and open space and which requires the unsustainable extension of infrastructure and public services.”

In the District 5 newsletter, Focus on Five, District Superintendent Herbert Berg expressed his feelings on the issue.

Berg says, “We are ready…but ONE community member is holding up this very important project and much needed improvements-improvements that were approved by the citizens of our community in the bond referendum.”

Another statement made by Berg reflects the reasoning behind his complaint. He feels the renovations should have already begun because they already discussed the issue with the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Berg writes, “We are ready! We have Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) approval…bidders are lining up…students are anxious. So what’s the problem?”

The problem is that the renovations are unable to begin until Murphy’s testimony is overseen by a judge. District 5 is getting restless because the appeal can take up to a year or more.

In October 2009, District 5 was sent a letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers informing the district of the “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged of Filled Material” which consists of three main rules.

The first rule is that the wetland cannot be filled or destroyed if there are any other practical alternatives in which there will be less harm to the ecosystem.

The second is that all possible alternatives need to be considered if they are not overly expensive or complicated.

The final rule is that if there are no other acceptable locations, the wetlands can be built over so long as the wetland that would be destroyed is not depended on.

Murphy believes that there are other alternatives that can be used after reading the public records between the school district and DHEC.

Murphy explains, “Review of these records indicates that there are a number of feasible alternatives to the proposed stream filling and destruction which avoid or minimize the environmental damage while still fulfilling the project purpose. Providing the additional proposed parking lot and practice athletic fields can be feasibly accomplished without filling the subject stream.”

One issue both sides agree upon is that Chapin High School is in need of the renovations.

“And to be clear, the school will have the classroom space necessary to educate 1,700 students a modern gymnasium and arena, improved commons areas, a new media center and expanded cafeteria, adequate parking lot and improved traffic flow around the school, and for the safety of our students, practice fields on-site,” says Berg.

Murphy says her ultimate goal is to move the ball fields off of the creek and the district has decided to do so in possible hopes of dropping the lawsuit. At this time the lawsuit is still moving forward.

There are allegations that the school board has not been transparent with their renovations plans to the public.

Murphy says, “I’ve come across all other things in the process. I have to do something because the public deserves to know what I found.”

The allegations against the district include the district had renovation plans prior to the referendum that should have been shared with the public; some think that these plans were hidden because the district knew building over the wetlands would be a problem that could cost votes.

Murphy feels that any change of plans in CHS renovations should be reviewed by the voters of Lexington/Richland Five school district.

She says, “If you tell the voters that this is what you want them to vote on and they vote on it then that is what you should build unless you say we think this should be changed.”

In November 2008, District 5 recorded the renovations that would take place if the Bond Referendum was to pass. Included in the Referendum was a new Media Center, science labs, resource rooms and a cafeteria, all totaling to $44,964,614.

It has been approximately two years since the Bond Referendum passed and the promises have yet to be fulfilled… or even begun.