The referendum must be so much as to address things like this and the leaking roof that people that have been there recently have stated. The city has the track with a tax value of 5ish million dollars while the referendum is for over 9 million.

Interesting that the school's response to the rumor does not deny the existence of a hole in the roof or the presence of mold. Wasn't part of the bargain that much of the existing structure would be repurposed and now it sounds like it is slated for demolishing. I think there are too many unanswered questions in this rush to purchase a property that has not even been zoned properly by the city for it to become a school.

I've heard this concern voiced from many fellow parents for months now. Even the school's own property assessment says there is a leaking roof and water damage inside. When I read that my first thought was mold. Why would the HSD not have performed an extensive mold damage assessment before making an offer on this property that may end up housing over 2000 students? Is there mold or isn't there mold? Too many unanswered questions regarding the condition and potential repurposing of this building.

As a person who has worked with the destruction/elimination of microorganism for many years on an industrial level, I am not concerned with any mold in a building that requires extensive reconstruction. Once mold dries out, only it's spores can cause any possible health problems. These spores can be eliminated rather efficiently and cost effective.

I vaguely remember a mold problem at the Hudson Middle School that caused some illness and even the resignation of one or more teachers? Could not find any archived information on HSO, but does anyone else recall how this was handled and how costly? To the affected teachers, it was very costly.

Mold can cause serious health problems. For accurate information about the health effects of mold, go to http://truthaboutmold.info and check out the Global Indoor Health Network at http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com. Be sure to read GIHN's new position statement.

As for being honest and open, remember that these are the same people that tried to sell us on the UU property 9 years ago and now tell us we can't build on there....

Scare Tactic!! You mean like the crap the superintendent is spewing about class sizes and year round school? Scare tactic!! Unbelievable. How about the truth. How about the superintendent get her head of the sand and tell the truth about the many viable options of land out there to build a school in another location. Maybe that is why the City only assessed the property at 5.5 million dollars because it is useless!!

Why aren't they looking at land north of Hudson? That is where the growth is & will be when the bridge finally gets built. To have 2 high schools wiling 2 miles of each other is crazy. Plus to have kids ride a bus from Houlton to south of 94 would make their rides over an hour. There has got to be another option!!

Houston by the current school would be a good place.

Oh how I hate auto correct Houlton

Does anyone else find it interesting that readers are trusting unknown sources without supportive documentation to have accurate information, yet duly-elected individuals and their hirees, whose names are all known, are said to be speaking falsehoods? Conspiracy theories did not die with Kennedy.

Ah yes, trust your elected officials and government wonks. They would NEVER steer you wrong.....

And what were those class sizes again? Amazing how they ask for millions of dollars and not ONCE tell you what the average class sizes are in the middle school and high school. Yep, those are the people that I would trust.

Being a City of Hudson resident, I am fairly confident that the property will not be rezoned. The city has to many budget issues to give up any revenue, especially future commercial revenue from this property.

given the structure has not been used for many years, it is logical to expect water intrusion with some mold issues. It sounds like the intention is to reuse the structure with finish replacement to better accomodate a school use. removing the finishes will also remove the mold. considerable savings would be expected reusing an already existing structure as opposed to constructing a new one from scratch. Also with respect to tax loss, it is expected that the school will draw commercial development in that direction. It already looks like commercial development is going that direction. this will just assist it. If you don't want to build new schools, then stop building houses and encouraging people with children to live in Hudson. My property taxes dropped last year. I can afford to pay a little more to educate the children of Hudson.

I found the campaign mailings in support of the dog rack purchase less than honest.
The last page barely mentioned the need for a future referendum to fund the actual school conversion/build or the cost of the future referendum. I am almost certain that any cost savings of buying an old unmaintained building will ever be realized. We have once again been had by those that have very little accountability when it comes to spending your tax dollars. How many times will the people of this district stand still as their pockets are picked?

From my point of view, the rumors were stirred about by insecure residents who think that the committee has cheated them of their money. But honestly speaking, does anyone think that the committee would invest millions of dollars just to waste those same millions on problems afterwards? I'm pretty certain that the committee has been well aware of the mold situation from the very beginning but hasn't made a public notification about it because it is considered a minor issue and mold remediation has been done prior to the purchase of the building. - http://www.mold-removal-toronto.com