Artificial Turf
Artificial turf was the topic of conversation at a recent Council meeting. Councilman Matt Altieri got the artificial turf onto the agenda. And when the seemingly endless debate was over, the Council voted 7-2 to support an amended motion. I voted with Mr. Altieri against the motion that had been amended. However, my vote had nothing to do with supporting or opposing artificial turf. I opposed the motion because the Council was putting the cart before the horse. The discussion on artificial turf (and sewer plant improvements) should have never even happened during the meeting.
Why should the discussion not have happened? The discussion should have begun with the Town Manager, but it did not begin with him.
The Town Council is Cheshire’s Board of Directors. The Town Manager, Michael Milone, is Cheshire’s ChiefExecutive and he does a good job with the finances. So for the town to consider requesting grant money from the state for any capital items, the discussion should begin with Mr. Milone. He should first draft his list of capital project priorities, and only then should the Council discuss opportunities for grant money in relation to that list.
I do not have in-depth knowledge of all the various projects within the town’s five year capital budget. However, the Town Manager does. And similar to the town budget process, this discussion should also begin with the Town Manager, not with the Council.
Sincerely,
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
Well, the Council still hasn't had this discussion. But I still want to know why turf is a higher priority than little league fields. Fields have been in the capital budget for years, but turf has never been in it. I have a great deal of trouble whenever anyone wants to jump to the front of the line, including now.
And if you're curious about what other projects may be eligible for this grant, I think this link may be the place to visit (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/env/rpt/2002-R-0198.htm see "special act grants") Items "such as improvements made to a high school track, or the installation of lights at a football field" appear to be covered by this program.
And one other VERY important question must be answered: has the Board of Ed ever requested artificial turf? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think they have.
11 comments:
The priority list of needs for the community should come from the Town Manager. The list should be developed after discussion with all departments, including Education. It is my opinion that a turf field does not qualify as priority at this time. Is the State is giving our tax dollars for turf fields we, the residents of the Town should take a stand,refuse the money and suggestthe money be used for other purposes like building improvements, energy efficiency programs.
The issue with the turf is getting out of hand. An email was sent out by the Athletic Director to many parents asking them to show up and support the turf field request on Feb 7th in the Town Hall. This is another example by the same people who blindly support educational increases and choose not to enter into discussions about cost cutting actions of the BOE budget. The bottom line belief here is that if the State is handing out money or turf then we (Cheshire) should get one too. It is time the residents of the town come out and show there are other, more important priorities. Some of the other priorities could be: technology initiative asked by the Supt in his latest budget, additioal educational cost sharing grant money, water treatment upgrades, energy efficiency projects.
People should start doing the research about turf fields in CT. They cost significantly more than the 500k number that is being tossed around. Farmington is spending 1.5 million for the basic same basic field the athletic supporters in Town feel they need. Other towns are spending anywhere from 1.1 to more than 1.5 million. To install a turf field in most cases the track needs to be done, new drainage and new concessions stands. There is more to the project than a turf field.
If the State is so hell bent on giving us the money we should apply it to the technology initiative the Supt wants. We should stand up and make the statement that sports is not the most important item in school, academics has a greater need.
People should start doing the research about turf fields in CT. They cost significantly more than the 500k number that is being tossed around. Farmington is spending 1.5 million for the basic same basic field the athletic supporters in Town feel they need. Other towns are spending anywhere from 1.1 to more than 1.5 million. To install a turf field in most cases the track needs to be done, new drainage and new concessions stands. There is more to the project than a turf field.
If the State is so hell bent on giving us the money we should apply it to the technology initiative the Supt wants. We should stand up and make the statement that sports is not the most important item in school, academics has a greater need.
Artificial turf has never been in the capital budget. Yet things such as ballfields have been in there for years, but not been done. So why should turf jump to the front of the line, so to speak?
Why doesn't the booster clubs with the help of Mr.Matt Bowman raise the money. The other sport teams all raise money to support their respective sports. In the past, new scoreboards, equipment for kids, money for travelling was supplemented and paid for by the respective parent groups. If so many people think that this is important, then let them start writing the checks. That is the way , we have in the past paid for recreational projects such as Playground in the Park. Don't burden the senior citizens with someting nice to have and is not essential to the education of our kids.
My limited understanding of the state grant is that the money is to be used expressly for recreational projects. We could be noble and refuse the money on the grounds that it does not address more socially important needs. However, I don't think the state, impressed by our act of principle, would then use the money for education or home heating oil assistance. Rather, it would likely go to another community that was willing to apply it to a recreational project.
There are three questions that may help us decide whether to accept the money. First, how urgent is the need for a new field at the high school? This doesn't ask what is the value of a field to Cheshire but whether the field will need to be replaced/fixed within the next 2 or 3 years or whether it can be effectively and safely used for several more years. If the need is immediate, then accepting the money may make fiscal sense.
A second question is whether an artifical turf field is the best option. The inititial cost, long-term maintenance and performance should be compared to other types of fields.
Finally, are we willing to accept the opportunity costs of installing a new field? Even with the state grant, the town would likely have to spend $500K to $1M for the field. As a result, other projects that would bring enjoyment to residents and add value to the town may have to be postponed. This is where the value of the field relative to other items can be debated. Consequently, this question will create the most contention between residents and will require that the town council engage in a vigorous but respectful discussion.
Talk about special interests gone wild! The artificial turf football field (yes, it is a football field) has suddenly jumped ahead of every other project in the town's five year capital budget plan.....with no discussion, no debate. Sure looks like at least one councilor is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the CHS booster clubs.
It looks like this turf football field request of $850,000 is making its way to the Bond Commission. How unfortunate it is that the State would so easily hand out money for turf fields when there are so many other important needs in our community. How unfortunate it is that we have a couple of town councilors who don't have the guts to take the high road and refuse to accept these lollipops the State is handing out. And they say the linear park extension was a waste of money. At least that was put out as a referendum question so the taxpayers could decide on it..which is the way it should be. You can research turf fields and you'll find information supporting them and an equal amount of information opposing them. As far as safety goes and serious injuries on turf vs grass, I think you'll find basically the facts that turf does NOT reduce injuries. The most serious of injuries, that of concussions, are caused by helment to helmet contact, so it doesn't matter if you're playing on turf or grass..they're going to happen. And if coaches continue to tell the lineman to "take their knees out", well then, that is how many of your knee injuries will continue to happen regardless of the playing surface. I hope, and I'm not sure exactly how these recreational grants work, but if the $850K does come to Cheshire that the TC, knowing that it has to be used for "recreational projects" would forego the silly turf request and use it towards putting a permanent, retractable cover over that huge expensive pool we have. At least if we're stuck with the lollipop, it would help reduce the expense of covering and uncovering the pool and help keep the heat from being sucked out through the bubble.
Anonymous
There should be a LAW, that one must live in Cheshire for 6 years before being allowed to vote on any capital expenditures !!!!
Geeeez.........people come here vote on everything to raise taxes, then pooooof, they're gone !!!
Art the barber had that rule. He said that until you had lived in Cheshire for 7 years, you weren't considered a resident!
Post a Comment