The downstream impact of turf fields
The MRJs Amanda Falcone reports that neighbors of Meriden's Falcon Field are not particularly enthusiastic about their new turf field.
If there's increased use of a new CHS turf field, there will be downstream impacts. I hope the BOE is considering them. Though I suspect this would just be another case of "that's not our responsibility."
Tim White
22 comments:
With a turf field the statement was that there will be well over 300 events per year (vs 97 currently). They will be able to have several events per day they claim.
I doubt they surveyed anyone on Elmwood Drive & Elmwood Circle as to what their opinions were.
Heck, I can hear the band and loudspeaker at my house and I'm 3/4 mile away from the high school.
I live 1 mile from the Police Station & I can still hear the bands....
The turf for CHS is another POOL in the making (money pit)
With so many other problems caused by reckless spending, only an idiot would want to proceed with this fiasco.
It's time for Florio to pack his bags, but he won't on his own because he'd be hard pressed to find another job that pays as much. When you consider the President's salary is $400,000 and year since 2001 without any increase to date. Why does Florio make so much?
Yesterday I was a substitute teacher at Lyman Hall High School and spoke with some members of the LHHS football team who do not have artificial turf at their home field, but have played on Sheehan H.S.'s artficial turf. They told me that they prefer grass. One showed me the burns he had on his arm from being scraped across that field. He said they were brutally painful when he showered.
I am very concerned about the safety of users, especially students, on an artificial turf field. This is a school field and the first priority is the safety of students and their adult coaches/supervisors.
Also, how does one keep senior girls from wearing high heels at graduation on such a field? And, what exactly are the annual maintenance costs?
Good points, Anne. Not only would high heel shoes not be allowed on the turf, what about the metal spikes on track shoes? Track meets also involve the football field with high jumps, pole vaults, and all those runners crossing it with their spike shoes. Plus with Relay for Life, those tents can't be held up with stakes in the turf.
Bottom line is this project is not feasible and the grant money should either be redirected to something we need or it should be returned.
To say that surrounding towns have turf is a poor excuse for thinking we need it.
$1.1 million was cut from the school budget by the boe, and the tc cut over $200,000 more. The schools have nearly 18 less teaching positions, less AP classes at CHS, reductions in textbooks & supplies, a cleaning service that's been cut from 5 days/week to 2 days/week, etc.
What's more important - academics or athletics?
It has to be one or the other. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
"Anne Giddings said...
Yesterday I was a substitute teacher at Lyman Hall High School and spoke with some members of the LHHS football team who do not have artificial turf at their home field, but have played on Sheehan H.S.'s artficial turf. They told me that they prefer grass. One showed me the burns he had on his arm from being scraped across that field. He said they were brutally painful when he showered."
MRSA is a greater risk on artificial turf. Who knows exactly how long it can live on the turf. Texas has a lot of turf fields and if you do the research, you'll find there are much higher rates of MRSA associated with them.
Of course, there's chemicals you can apply to the turf after each event, but that's an added expense.
I work with a women whose son has played on some of these new turf fields and she complains of all the little particles that he brings home stuck in his shoes, equipment and clothes and then tracks them around the house. She's referring to the rubber crumbs that contain many chemicals included carcinogens.
Oh, but the turf committee says they've cleared the "safety" hurdle. Yeah, right!
I remember when the athletic director stood before the Board of Education and said that the maintenance costs for the grass field were in the neighborhood of $20,000 per year. It must be nearly two years ago that he stated this. Some say our fields have become neglected so one would conclude that the maintenance costs of grass today would be even less than $20,000. The AD is currently working on an exact cost. It will be interesting to hear what number he'll use this time.
Not sure of the maintenance costs of turf but they'll need a machine to rake it over after events, water to cool it down, disinfectant to kill the bacteria, and many manpower hours to do all this plus repair of any tears or seams that come undone. And don't forget the annual amount set aside for replacement costs (possibly $78,000/year). Wonder what number they'll use for the mainentance of the turf?
Hello all you turf brains. We are in a RECESSION!!!!
Didn't the democrats criticize the republicans 2 elections ago when they wanted to spend a million on the linear trail, a trail that the whole town can use?
Now the democrats want to spend what will likely be well over a million dollars on an artificial turf field?
Go figure.
What are the school enrolmment numbers for 2009-2010? Anyone know if it is + or - from lat year?
This topic is as good as any to introduce myself as candidate for the BOE this year. Initially, the estimated replacement cost for turf was approximately $250K+/-. It's now closer to $700K and climbing depending on who you talk to on the BOE. The proposed turf has an expectancy of 6-8 years. When you break this number down over 8 years, it's clearly more expensive to maintain (replacement costs only) then the current grass field. If the driving factor for the turf field was reduced maintenance costs than its clear that argument is null and void right now.
Costs aside for a moment...we, as a community (not just BOE acting in isolation), have to put the turf proposal into one of two buckets: Needs vs. Wants ( <-- Borrowing from my colleague Anne here :-) ). Is the turf field a need or a want? If the core foundation of our education system in Cheshire is Reading, Writing & Math then I say the turf is a 'Want' at this point. IF we have $1M to spend on education, then let's spend it where it's needed the most and where it makes the most sense. And, let's do it responsibly with full disclosure and transparency.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against spending...I should say I'm not against responsible spending but I am against irresponsible spending. I believe the turf proposal is irresponsible spending at this point time. We, as a BOE, need to ask ourselves why now? If we didn't execute the turf proposal in the best of times why would we attempt this in the worst of times?!?
Are there no better, higher priority needs in our education system deserving of the turf money? NCLB has reared it's ugly head this year. Although I agree with Mr. Florio that NCLB is indeed a numbers game and Cheshire has become is now an innocent victim...we're embarking on spending resources (People/Time/Money) to rectify the NCLB compliance issue which was not budgeted for in the 09/10 budget. Does NCLB take a backseat to the turf?
Additionally, in order to support the turf proposal, money has to be borrowed from another account. Clearly, a $500K state grant doesn't cover the installation let alone the maintenance. Where will the remainder of the money come from? Are we going to cut projects in the education budget in order to fund the difference? If so, what's going to be cut? If anyone attended last week's BOE meeting on this topic, there was talk of borrowing from one of the town gift accounts.
I wish I had artificial turf when I played ball in High School. It took me some time to adjust to artificial turf in College. Looking back, however, I never once regretted playing on a grass field. After all, it was not the grass field that gave me the skills I needed to make it in life, rather, it was the core foundation I learned (Reading, Writing & Math) that helped me compete and win in life.
I think artificial turf is a want and not necessarily a bad idea. Remember, Cheshire has a very active sports program. However, I think it's the wrong time and perhaps out least priority in the overall scheme of our educational strategy. I'd like to see this proposal revisited at a later time when the BOE has earned the opportunity to make this proposal as part of a longer-term strategy for our facilities. In the meantime, let's focus on more important matters.
I'm Tony Perugini, candidate for the Board of Education. Make a Difference, Vote Perugini!
Tony
Nice response.
My question is, can the TC take money from the $500L referendum question that asks for money for the "infrastructure at Cheshire High School", and use it for the turf?
I also appreciate you thinking that artificial turf is not a bad idea, but I would have to disagree.
Our own attorney general is having the safety of artificial turf investigated. There are a number of health issues that go along with artificial turf. There is new equipment that will need to be purchased to take care of it. We have been told by the turf heads that we need it because the current field is not properly taken care of. So, we now spend close to $1 million dollars on a field and our town can ignore that as well? We won't get the 6-8 years they promise out of it if it isn't taken care of.
You still have my vote, but I have to disagree with you on this point.
Anonymous, thanks for the feedback. Regarding your question "My question is, can the TC take money from the $500L referendum question that asks for money for the "infrastructure at Cheshire High School", and use it for the turf?" <-- I don't know. Tim White also asked if the $500K grant (assuming this is the turf grant money) can be used on something other than the turf or if the grant is very specific and can be used only on artificial turf. I will find out soon and post what I learn here.
If that money can be used on something other than turf...how about the boy's locker room? Fixing the boiler problem? Or perhaps putting the money towards the sewer treatment plant upgrades?
As for your feedback on artificial being a good/bad idea. I should be more specific in what I meant by 'good idea'. I meant that the intent was good (helping make our facilities better, etc, etc.). As for the specific safety concerns, I fully expect the board to disclose their findings on turf safety. One of my frustrations is that, for some reason, these little details are hard to come by. It could be because the topic is still in discussion but I would lobby to have these details posted on the board's website so that there's full disclosure.
On 10/1, the BOE is holding an open forum at 7:30pm at Doolittle School. I'll certainly be there asking lots of questions. :-)Hopefully I'll see some you there.
Artificial turf won't solve sloppy, poor maintenance which seems to vex town playing fields and the athletic facilities at CHS.
The turfinados certainly would have special new bragging rights if AT gets installed. Until this town figures out how to maintain what it currently has, giving even more play-toys to our town workforce isn't a really great idea since in total, town employees seem unable to properly care for town property.
Let's not forget the crazy removable plastic pool bubble, the supposedly leaking sewer manhole covers, the town maintained roads sink-holes, the recurring multiple school building boiler replacements, and the list goes on and on.
Tax payers deserve better for their ever increasing recurring payments to the town. Artificial turf needs to be put out to pasture until the town shows that it really runs like a well oiled machine and that it runs like clockwork.
And as far as our school budgets goes, re-focus for once on READING, WRITING, and ARITHMETIC.
Tony, We have (8) school buildings in Town with a collective age of 400+ years; most with marginal quality of construction. They represent (collectively) $1 Billion in long term replacement costs, $600-$700 million if renovated in place. And were thnking of putting a $1 million turf field at CHS? Does not make common or business sense
"Tony, We have (8) school buildings in Town with a collective age of 400+ years; most with marginal quality of construction. They represent (collectively) $1 Billion in long term replacement costs, $600-$700 million if renovated in place. And were thnking of putting a $1 million turf field at CHS? Does not make common or business sense"
No it doesn't. The turf is a 'Want', not a 'Need' or a priority. I'd like to see a long-term planning for renovating our facilities. It's inevitable that we need to renovate but rather than patch-work or band-aid a renovation plan together the BOE should be looking out 5-7 years (if not sooner for some school buildings) and articulating a renovation plan, obtaining input from the public and fully disclosing costs. It's good business, common sense and just the right thing to do.
A democrat board member was quoted in the Rep-Am as saying "It's a tough year, we can't afford extra costs." Really? But interestingly enough, we can afford $1M in turf? It does not compute.
Tony
Nice response.
My question is, can the TC take money from the $500L referendum question that asks for money for the "infrastructure at Cheshire High School", and use it for the turf?
The answer is YES the Boe can use the $500,000 from the capital budget's "infrastructure for CHS" (Nov. referendum question) for ANYTHING THEY WANT. The question needs to be specific and if it's not, we should all vote NO.
I believe the current CHS football field is purposely being ignored as far as taking care of it goes because the turfheads want you to think the grass field is not a good enough field anymore and that turf would be the only answer. You can bet they'll take better care of a turf field because that'll be their "new baby."
As for replacement costs, at the BOE meeting Behrer said they would have to set aside up to $78,000/year to cover the replacement costs after 8 years. That $78,000 represents 1 1/2 teaching positions. Come budget time in January, the super is going to say that we're down 15 to 18 teaching positions and we need to start making that up.
So what do you want - turf or teachers in front of the class? You can't have both.
Isn't it funny that the Cheshire Herald said absolutely nothing about the turf committee report at the BOE meeting in last week's edition. The turf committee report was almost 45 minutes long yet the Herald made no mention of it??!! It's almost like they purposely didn't mention it so they wouldn't rile up anyone.
Also funny how the boe yanked the 9-17 board meeting with that turf report off the air already.
Did anyone else notice that all of the board meeting minutes for the 2008-2009 school year were pulled from the site? They were made available electronically until a few weeks ago. Very odd, it's as if the the BOE candidates running for re-election are trying to hide something...
Hopefully Tony will find the missing minutes and get them posted for us?
The Cheshire Herald long ago abandoned trying to do anything good for the town via responsible journalism. They are only concerned with the monied interests and advertising revenue. The Herald resembles "My Weekly Reader" vs where publisher August Loeb had them in the 70's & early 80's.
Post a Comment