Turf returns
In yesterday's NHR (not online), Luther Turmelle reported on the BOE turf discussions:
Superintendent of Schools Greg Florio told the Board of Education Thursday night that he had been contacted by a staffer from the office of House Speaker James A. Amann and told that $525,000 for a new field had been put on the agenda for an upcoming Bond Commission meeting...
Board Chairman Stephen Mrowka said he was in favor of accepting the state money for the field. "If we don't take it, it will go to somebody else," Mrowka said.
Board member Gerry Brittingham said that while he's not against the idea of improving the football field, he does have some concerns.
"The state is going out to bond $7 billion to adequately fund the teachers' pension fund, and then they want to spend money on things like this," Brittingham said. "That's how these problems occur in the first place."
Gerry also mentioned the health concerns that have been raised by many, including AG Dick Blumenthal.
Tim White
30 comments:
This is a damn shame allowing the Chairman of the BOE to say "If we don't take it will go to someone else." Not a reason for acceptance. The State cannot fund the teachers pension fund, they cannot find money to fix old school buildings, but they give money away for turf fields. Ask the question, who is going to pay for the replacement turf field in 12 years? Not the Cheshire taxpayers. The money should be accepted and used to fix the buildings.
One would think the Environmental Commission would have to approve the turf field, but that may not be so. No mention of this in the past. Anyone care to bet the fields of the schools are consider not be public property and out of the examination of the Environmental Commission?
If towns started turning down this "free" money, maybe the state would get the message to get it's fiscal house in order
Shame of the BOE chairman for saying "If we don't take it, it will go to someone else." Refuse the money and send a message to the State to stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on turf fields! Ecke called this a "lollipop" from the State. I call it our being "suckers" for not only accepting funds for frivolous items but for risking the health of our children. Do your homework! There are too many possible health risks from the chemicals in those rubber tires.
Bill, They'll probably say that the money has to be earmarked for the field. But maybe we could put a small piece of the turf on the field and use the rest to insulate those single pane windows at CHS..or use it to "carpet" Doolittle's cement floor classrooms..or do the Dodd stage over in turf! I am, of course, being sarcastic. I agree with you that it's a total waste and the money should be refused!!
Are the rumors true that Matt Altieri's brother-in-law would stand to benefit from the instalation of turf at CHS??
12:01 If that's true then Altieri definitely has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from any vote taken on whether to accept funds for a turf field. Course we all know he's the one who has been pushing for this for so long.
Where is the conflict of interest diclosure? He got out of the last one ( land leased to the youth baseball).
What's on the ground at Lambeau Field and Fenway Park? The answer is GRASS." A turf farm in NJ supplies grass for some of the country's most well known sprorts venues". This was in todays Hartford Courant. We in Cheshire are smarter we want "TURF".
Even if Altieri recuses himself from formally voting for the turf, he's still lobbying for it -- still a moral if not legal conflict of interest.
Gives all the more meaning to the rhyme about him on the other thread:
Fools who don't
show their faces
plant their crap
in public places.
Would the bubble fit over the football field?
Giants stadium has turf as well as the Patriots
It would be good
5:24 No..how about putting the turf over the pool. Then instead of looking like a spaceship, it will just blend in as a large mound of grass. And who knows, maybe it will help to keep the heat from escaping.
7:34 "The Giants stadium has turf as well as the Patriots." Who cares. In case you haven't noticed, the Rams are not in the same class as the NFL teams. And do your homework, some NFL teams would prefer grass.
Look inside the schools - that's where the money should be spent.
So Tim, what can we do to stop this turf field nonsense. Who should be contact in Hartford to get it off the agenda of the Bond Commission?
They didn't understand that the pool could have problems and this bunch doesn't understand that turf can have problems.
What happens when the ground freezes? It rises. How do you make it flat again? How do you repair it? How much would it cost to remove it and turn it back to grass if it doesn't work out.
Let's face it the few people that want it don't want to be concerned with any of the possible problems or reality. They are just like the people that are pushing for the MALL.
They also forget that we are the state and that the money ultimately comes from us.
To date the potential problems with the turf has not been addressed. In the summer the turf gets very hot, in excess of 120 degrees. The turf requires watering to cool it down, The turf requires regular disinfection. An actual savings has not been developed. Just because the State will contribute 500k and the balance made up by private contributions the cost is still the same. The annual maintenance needs to be figured and the article stated it would save 190k over the years but the projected life of the turf is 12 years shorter than the projected savings on maintenance. Who is going to pay for the replacement?
I found the NHR article online:
http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.content=%2FMAIN_REP%2FArticle%2F2008%2F01%2F18%2F1442078
2:43 "who is going to pay for the replacement?" I understand that the Boe thinks that revenue generated from "renting" out the field could be set aside in an account which would then be used to replace the turf 12 years later.
I highly doubt enough revenue could be generated to pay for the replacement. Altieri said a while back that it would likely cost $300,000 to replace. My guess is that in 12 years it will cost much more than that.
Also if you read about the safety issues you'll find that when it is very hot the fumes from the rubber tire pellets emit even more toxins. No one has done their homework on this. It will cost us all in the end.
The town of Cheshire will get 500K+ for something that cost a little more than that
Town gets a field upgrade and saves money
STudents get to play on a safer and better field
Sounds good to me
Time marches on
It's halftime and it is -2 degrees in Green Bay.
The NFC championship is being played today on a GRASS FIELD
"The town of Cheshire will get 500K+ for something that cost a little more than that
Town gets a field upgrade and saves money
STudents get to play on a safer and better field
Sounds good to me
Time marches on"
Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:21:00 PM
So what are you saying the actual cost of the field will be? From what I've read they've been $850K to $1 million...quite a bit more.
Please give a detailed costs saving analysis.
Explain "safer" field. If a player on turf hits another player head on with helmet to helmet contact you'll get the same serious concussion as if it happened on grass. Concussions are the most serious of injuries.
Explain "better" field. Currently we do not use pesticides on our fields. How is a turf field that contains chemical toxins better?
Tim, I went to the Bond Commission website trying to find a copy of the Bond request but could only see those that were on a December meeting. Can you tell me how to find it or can you post it to your blog so we can see how it's written up.
Matt A need not substantiate the turf. As always, Matt H and Coach (non-CPA) M.E. will rubberstamp his wishes.
3-2 caucus vote = 5 council votes
Matt A gets whatever he wants from his rubberstamp caucus.
If you disagree, I ask, when was the last time any of these three made a substantive comment?
Matt gets what he wants. He doesn't have to explain. So just "pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain..."
I couldn't find anything on the bond commission website. I'm guessing the agendas are formalized as the meeting date approaches.
I did find this link interesting though:
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/finance/queries/municipality2.asp
So, if the state "gives" us this money and the athletic teams raise the money for the difference, then we have a state of the art field. What becomes of events, such as Relay for Life, that use the field?
I am sure the Athletic Dept. won't allow tents to be placed on this field, nor would I want that if it costs that much.
I sure hope someone also looks into the safety of the athletes on a field like this. I heard there are more insuries on artifiacial turf then natural grass.
Why not "give" the taxpayers of the state the $500+K as a tax break due to the rising costs of fuel and electricity.
Any why is our current council majority not giving a tax break to the citizens of Cheshire? They've decided to make that Rainy Day Fund Policy and keep 8 to 9 % surplus.
The tents will have sandbags to hold them down, nothing SHOULD be driven through the turf. Just like Cheshire does not have a drug or alcohol problem at the high school. In the end the turf will cost more than the real turf. This is just another item the crybaby parents want for their kids. Not to mention the developers, real estate agents and all other blind supporters of an education system that is aid to be so good. Just goes to show money spent on marketing will convince the uneducated they are getting a good deal.
Who pays for the replacement in 10-12 yrs? Maybe 2 million? Oh that's right most of the people will leave by then and the new citizens will worry about it.
Great Blog!! That was amazing. Your thought processing is wonderful. The way you tell the thing is awesome. You are really a master. Thanks..Online Turf Cheshire
Post a Comment