Turf study gets funded
According to the NHRs Luther Turmelle, the Cheshire Education Foundation has received a $10,000 grant to study the installation of turf. And it seems the funding came from one of our regular bloggers, Mr. Anonymous. j/k... but Luther does mention that the funding source is anonymous.
Anyway, the study would need to be conducted to ascertain costs, according to Superintendent Florio:
“We need to get an idea whether we’re talking $850,000 or $1 million to do this, and using the money from the foundation would allow us to do that without having to touch the Bond Commission money or any amount that booster groups might raise,” Florio said.
The difference between $850,000 and $1 million is significant.
Keeping in mind that the "Fritz/Amann lollipop" is $525,000. And the "Council lollipop" could be $349,000 (just below the referendum threshold of $350,000), that means the total "lollipop" is $874,000. And any cost incurred by taxpayers, greater than $875,000, would require voter input.
I wonder how the voters would feel about this?
Anyway, I was glad to read that BOE members are at least considering lifecycle costs and the long term liabilities:
“We’d need to set up a plan where money was being set aside for replacement costs if this is approved,” Massey said.
Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that such long-term planning for liabilities would remain with the BOE. Peter, and every other current member, would probably be gone from the BOE by the time the turf got replaced in ten to 15 years. Then what happens?
And if the replacement costs were not properly funded over time and if a replacement goes to referendum... could the referendum fail? If so, do we have to "condemn" the field? I have no idea, but it's probably something that should be considered. Although, maybe people would see the increased availability (200 days vs. 30 days / yr) as a reasonable offsetting benefit to a possible loss of any field use in ten years?
Tim White
30 comments:
What 200 uses?
Tim - I've been away from Cheshire blogs for a while (thank you for your helpful guide, by the way) so I may be a bit late to the party on this. Still I must ask:
Has there been any discussion of the health hazards associated with synthetic turf?
thanks,
Neil Fischbein
3:49 it's been stated that regular grass can be used up to 30 days per year and that turf can be used up to 200 days per year.
I have not confirmed either of those numbers, nor even done a "sanity check" on them, such as determining if
1) snow coverage or
2) hot summer days
eliminates the use of the field.
Hey Neil...
The potential health hazards of turf have been discussed here a bit. But the Council has not really discussed it. And I'm not sure if the BOE has discussed it.
Anyway, if you have any useful info/links, please post them. I'm sure people would be interested.
I got an email from someone about health hazards, so I was thinking about posting that in the near future.
Well, my wife just got the bill for her nursing license and that got doubled by the state.
When you hear about "free money" from the state remember they have to bill someone for it.
It's time for CT to stop going into hock to buy toys
Never before has the BOE allowed themselves to put away money in a reserve account on an annual basis except for medical expenses. They have never been able to return any large sums of money at the end of their fiscal year. To properly fund the money required for field replacement after 10-12 years an annual amount needs to be set aside out of the operating budget. Will this change in fiscal policy require a change in fiscal policy? Don't forget, a key part of the annual operating costs is the annual amount to be set aside. When that amount is added in the annual costs of the turf will be more than the grass.
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #937, December 13, 2007
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN SYNTHETIC TURF: A RESEARCH REVIEW
Across the country, schools, parks, and private sports organizations are installing the "new generation" synthetic turf. It is springier than the old AstroTurf and feels more like natural grass. But it is made from used tires, which contain toxic chemicals.
...
Of special concern are the small rubber granules that rest between the turf's plastic blades of grass. These granules, which are the size of grains of rice or smaller (0.5 to 3 mm), contribute to the turf's resiliency. The granules are typically made from large quantities of recycled rubber tires; between 25,000 and 40,000 scrap tires are used to produce the granules for a standard soccer field.
...
[P]reliminary studies [indicate] that toxicants are present in the rubber granules. The more critical question concerns the bioavailability of the toxicants: Can they leach into the surrounding environment and harm human and non-human organisms? Can they be absorbed into the bodies of children and athletes who use the turf fields?
...
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station recently found that at 60 deg. C (140 deg. F) -- a temperature that synthetic turf reaches in the summer -- the rubber granules off-gassed several hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. Three chemicals -- benzothiazole, n-hexadecane, and 4-(t-octyl) phenol -- are irritants to humans; a fourth chemical, butylated hydroxyanisole, has many toxic effects and may be carcinogenic to humans. In addition, in 2006 the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Radium Hospital observed that several VOCs were released from rubber granules in an indoor facility. Others, including RAMP, also have detected VOCS. Although the Norwegian Institute -- as well as the FieldTurf/French agencies -- play down the possibility that the chemicals would remain in the air sufficiently long to cause harm, more research on this question is needed. Research also is needed on the extent to which rubber granules produce particulate matter that aggravates asthma.
...
Conclusion: Hazardous chemicals are clearly present in synthetic turf rubber granules that are made from recycled tires. Some metals in the granules, including zinc, leach into water and, if they behave like the metals in other rubber tire material, they can kill aquatic life. However, it is not yet clear whether this leaching presents a health risk to humans and other species in ordinary life conditions. It also is unclear whether the various toxic chemicals in the rubber granules can be absorbed into the bodies of children and athletes through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact. Much more research is needed. Although some reports have concluded that the risks are minimal, such conclusions are premature.
Its hard to think about turf when the next blog topic on this site talks about how we took the lowest bid to fix the boiler at Norton School. We take the cheapest way out because we are concerned about expenses....but we are looking at turf? We do need to thank the anonymous donor for stepping up with the 10k....you put your money up while alot of us bitch on the blog....this buds for you Mr/Mrs Study Funder....tax payers owe you one.
http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/Pages/WellesleyMA_Sprague/EHHI%20DPH%20responses%20to%20fact%20sheet%20(2).doc
Boe member, Bob Behrer, commented that the CT Dept of Public Health issued a "fact sheet" claiming turf fields are OK to install. However, the Environment & Human Health, Inc. reviewed this report and came up with many contradictions to CT DPH's report. Check out the link above, or perhaps Tim can print the report directly on the blog.
Environment & Human Health, Inc is located in North Haven. It would be easy for the Boe or TC to contact them and have them come speak about the hazards of turf at one of their meetings. Somehow though I don't think the Boe and TC majority are interested in learning about the negatives of turf.
There was an article in the Hartford Courant last week regarding the Pittsburg Steelers and how the players lobbied the team owners to keep the grass at Heinz Field. In the article it stated that "the majority of our players have told us that they prefer natural grass to any artificial surface". "The players are convinced that grass reduces injuries".
Here is the ESPN article on the Steelers opposition to turf...
I don't think it refutes the use of artificial turf though. I'd say it really just makes the arguments of both sides stronger.
How come on all the sites I look the life span for the turf is 8 to 10 years while Mr. Trifone is saying 15 years?
Then he says that the town will save $190,000 over 15 years in maintenance costs. Hmmm So we should spend $1 million on turf to save $190,000. Something doesn't sound right to me.
Why is Florio saying that "Booster organizations associated with the high school" will raise the rest of the money? No mention about the town chipping in. Is he not telling us all the facts?
I wonder how the Elmwood Drive residents feel about a turf field that could have 200 events per year on it? Glad I don't live over there.
Tim, why can't the seniors geta tax break but the field gets new turf? I know the state isponyingupsome funds, but its obvious the town will be on the hook for something.
We have the "WHITE ELEPHANT" on one side of the street and we will have the "GREEN MONSTER" on the other side. I thought the responsibility of the BOE was to look out for the safety of our children and oversee the school administrators? How is spending $10,000 (which many know where this came from and who will do the study) an example of performing their elected duties. For all that voted for this, shame on you and you have lost my faith in the BOE. Do your job and don't be pressured by special interest groups. Our childrens future hangs in the balance.
Who is going to reward the study and to whom? Needs to be an independent healthcare organization, not a turf company, not an anti-turf group.Like most studies we can tell what the outcome will be by knowing who sponsored it. If the Cheshire Education Foundation is behind it then we already know the outcome.
Will it be MILONE & McGROOM? They get all the work. Conflict yes/no?
What about the POOL? This costs over $400,000/year and nothing is being done about it. How about fixing one problem before starting another. It appears to me that the TC majority keeps pushing important items back and promoting special interest groups pet projects to the top of the list. Turn the list upside down and start working on real problems that can save money ASAP.
11:13 With regard to the pool, the leadership is "paralyzed" or in "a state of paralysis" (their words, not mine).
Perhaps related though... did you hear the TMs report? He mentioned that Chris Murphy wants our "earmark" requests.
I'm guessing the earmark request will be for a natatorium or an extension of the linear trail. But I doubt the earmark funding would come-to-be. In which case, it'd turn out to be just another delay in determining if we could stop
1) wasting so much money on the pool's energy bill and
2) reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.
and improve the air quality inside the bubble.
The town hasn't had much success with rubber products. The "roof" over the pool comes to mind. On the other hand our grass fields have worked for a longtime. It doesn't last forever and it does have its costs but we understand it. And don't try to convince me the football coach is going to welcome all sorts of activities on "his" field either. The turf wars will go on no matter what the surface.
I'm an advocate for replacing the pool rubber with a permanant roof. Recycle the old top and make a giant white football field out of the old cover. If they like great. If it doesn't work out the town crews can make dozens of temporary covers for their equipment.
" between 25,000 and 40,000 scrap tires are used to produce the granules for a standard soccer field."
At replacement time, how much will it cost to dispose of the old one. Is it considered hazardous waste.
As we have seen with the P&Z's approval of the Northend, decisions are made without any regard to significant negative factors and no consideration of long term consequences.
We are using "organic" fertilizer on our ballfields but some want "artificial" turf for football. Is this senseless?
200 uses? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
It sounds like an ad for vinegar.
I don't think you want to tell the insurance company that it will be used 200 times a year as the liability will be 10 times as great as now.
http://www.aninconvenientturf.com/#Links
It is always the same people who are against the north end-then they tried to pull the 0 budget deal then they were against the north end
allthe same 10 people
wrong.
It is time for all the Cavemen to retire
lost on north end
will lose on turf
lost the last election
the same 10 people against everything? Oh I thought 10 was your IQ or even better your sperm count
Post a Comment