Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Maury County school board rejects staff-recommended five-year facilities plan after safety and cost objections

Maury County Board of Education · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On March 3 the Maury County Board of Education declined to adopt the staff-recommended five-year facilities plan after board members raised safety concerns about the proposed site and questioned large prior expenditures; the motion failed on a 5–5 tie.

The Maury County Board of Education on March 3 declined to adopt the staff-recommended update to its five-year facilities plan after a 5–5 tie left the proposal without enough votes to carry.

The board’s chair moved to approve the option labeled "staff recommendation" in the packet; the motion was seconded by a board member and prompted extended debate about a proposed elementary school site near Carter's Creek and Highway 31. Board member Miss Stevenson led the objections, citing traffic-safety issues, capacity strains at nearby schools and what she described as large prior expenditures on the parcel. "We've already spent $4,250,000 on property that appraised for $800,000," Stevenson said, adding later, "If you continue with this, lives will be lost." The transcript records Stevenson asserting another $4,000,000 was spent on the site and saying the county commission lacks the debt capacity to fund the road and safety improvements.

Other board members echoed safety concerns. One member noted a permanent roadside cross near the intersection and recalled a multi-vehicle crash with fatalities at that location; another said traffic patterns and sight-distance differ from the Spring Hill example offered in prior discussion. Those concerns, combined with questions about whether the city or state would fund road work, prompted several members to withhold support.

The motion to adopt the staff recommendation ended in a 5–5 tie and did not carry. The board did not adopt an alternative plan at the meeting and moved on to other business.

What happens next: board members did not set a new date for reconsideration during the meeting. The failed vote leaves the five‑year plan unresolved; staff or board members may return with revised site options, additional traffic and cost data, or alternative priority changes for the next meeting.