Selling the turf field's 'naming rights'
I just happened to notice this in today's Herald:
And can't help, but wonder: When did the BOE and / or Council vote to sell naming rights to a new turf field?
And if someone forks over $250,000: Who is the government official to sign the hypothetical contract?
And if the naming rights are the exclusive domain of the BOE: How will this project be funded in both the short-term and the long-term?
Tim White
35 comments:
Typical of the turf people, putting the cart before the horse.
I see they became a 501c3 charity though.
Although I am not a fan of the turf, I do give them credit for coming up with a fundraising strategy. If they can raise the money and the town doesn't need to subsidize it, then more power to them. Maybe we can put them in charge of the pool too.
I just think the TC should have spelled out some rules to them.
Do they have the right to change the name of the field? Who does?
How about the bricks that they are selling? Where are they going? I cannot think of one logical place at the football field to put them. The players will not be able to walk on them with turf shoes, cant build on them, cant drive on them. What spot was approved for a paver patio?
Is the press box and the lighting going to be addressed as well? They are both electrocution hazzards that are ticking time bombs. The fact that the press box was shut down by the fire marshal and building offical during a game should have been a wake up call
For haha's, why is there nothing about Steven Hayes changing his plea to GUILTY?
Looks like he is going to take the plea bargain and spare his life.
Tim: To which body (TC, BOE, or Both) does the Turf Subcommittee report to?
Who's keeping tabs on them? It seems as if it's YET ANOTHER group walking amuck without any town supervision.
12:27... I think the Council is doing some things well (Schrumm & the budget process, Sima & the pool structure process) and some things where I'm left in the dark (the turf & the tolerance of failed management). I agree that the lack of clarity surrounding the turf issues is a mistake.
I'd like to know if the total cost of installing the field and fixing electrical issues has been firmed up. If it ends up costing more than $875K is the project automatically cancelled? How about the long term. Who gets to pay the huge replacement costs?
They have as much right to sell the name of this town field as I have the right to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
thhis is a great project combining citizens and the town and state
Cheshire town council report card so far
F for pool-can't have it both ways
the Dem who voted the fix for the bubble showed wisdom Rep real bad vision
Police-man can't give a grade of better than D- How's that fact finder working for ya Dave?
Budget-F-blame the teachers again Dave is back
Tim White F-sorry but the vendetta is not workin for Ya
The culvert fix worked no matter what Schrumm said
Nov 2011 can't come soon enough
12:21
Plea bargain is not part of the deal.
If he pleads guilty and it is accepted, it will go straight to the penalty phase either by jury or a 3 judge panel who will decide the penalty.
9:11, that is correct, and Hayes can still receive the death penalty.
Prosecutors refused to plea bargain with him. They know the evidence of his guilt is irrefutable, and they want the DP. So the sentence will now be up to a jury or 3 judges.
When is this town going to stop listening to the Town Council members (pointedly David Schrumm)who continue to recommend pouring more tax dollars into the town's money pit-the POOL? David admit you were wrong by trying to cut corners and not spend the money up front requisite to do the job right in the first place. Cheshire, let this be a lesson to us all-you get what you pay for and if you settle for less you usually get less than what you settle for... The same goes for the education budget now before the town council. Mr. Schrumm wants to cut corners, once again, to save a couple of bucks. What is his gripe with the teachers anyway? I heard he lost a battle with the State years ago in attempting to fight arbitration law. Apparently, it was put into legislation to prevent town officials from doing EXACTLY what Schrumm is attempting to do. Can you say "personal agenda"? In any case, the upfront savings gained in cutting the education budget will cost us dear when our property values diminish. Ignorance may be blissful, but when you ignore or deny the facts it transforms itself into stupidity.
9:41 - You got it right! He is the problem. His cheap penny pinching ways are going to lead us to ruin. The people in his district were fools to bring him back. His record of failure and personal grudges needs to be made clear to the public. Hopefully someone will do it Monday night!
It's amazing the bashing Dave Schrumm is taking here. Do these bashers realize he won the election because the dems couldn't get the job done?
He makes hard decisions, but you need to be fiscally responsible in tough times.
You few may not like it, but he won the election so the majority in his district want him in place.
Deal with it.
Isn't funny that all the councilors that voted for the teachers contract are no longer is office. Maybe the voters are looking for fiscal responsibility i.e. Dave Schrumm.
Pretty funny, Tim~~I couldn't stop laughing when I saw the thing about the naming rights. It didn't even occur to me that they don't have permission to change the name of the field. I was picturing someone looking under their sofa cushions looking for 250 large.
Maybe ENRON Field!
The turf committee was given no specific timeframe for coming back to Town Council. They said they would come back in June 2010 with progress report on their fundraising efforts. They may want to come before us sooner but I have not heard anything yet.
Their ad in this weeks Herald is a great way to get the word out. I hope they are very successful raising all the money they need.
If fundraising is slower than they expect I believe they have 5 years to access the funds appropriated by the state. The real rub is what will this field cost. Hopefully in this economy it will be less than they have estimated. Others feel the turf committee has under estimated.
The town adopted a naming policy for public properties. The turf committee is probably making an assumtion that a $250K donation will net a naming award for the field but ultimately it will be a Town Council decision. I would venture a guess that a $250,000 donation would see 9 TC hands go up for naming the field.
Tim Slocum
In response to 4:30:
You said "It's amazing the bashing Dave Schrumm is taking here. Do these bashers realize he won the election because the dems couldn't get the job done?
He makes hard decisions, but you need to be fiscally responsible in tough times".
By getting the job done are you referring to being personally responsible for creating the money pit called the town pool because he was too cheap to spend the money to do the job right in the first place? He is now recommending we spend another $5-6 million more to fix the pool problem. It would have been a lot cheaper to have done it right in the first place. Is that fiscal management-NOT. The real hard decision for Schrumm to make is finally deciding to admit he was wrong and apologize to the taxpayers for his lapse in judgement with respect to underfunding the pool to begin with. Like one of the bloggers siad earlier, "you get what you pay for". I wonder if you will still be a supporter for Mr. Schrumm when your property value begins to fall due to prospective buyers hearing that Cheshire is thinking of closing some of its schools. Twenty years ago he stated that the best thing to happen for Cheshire would to be in a position to have to close it school system entirely-that would save a lot of money in taxes. True but what would our homes be worth-look at Prospect and see that the avergage home iws worth $50K LESS than Cheshire-sound fiscal management-NOT. So maybe underfunding the school budget IS GETTING the job done from Schrumm's myopic perspective.
the problem with the pool was the town engineer at the time. the initial hole was dug in the wrong place, then filled in and redug in the right place. unfortunately the right place was filled with ledge. at the time cheshire was putting up the inflatable bubble milford orange ymca was taking theirs down and replacing it with a more (at the time) cost efficient permanent structure. no one from this town whether they were on the council or the town engineer or anyone bothered to look into this. we have seen the results of departments and or projects not supervised and left to run on their town. it does not work cheshire. are you finally getting the message?
If I recall the pool was put to referendum with a dollar amount. The more expensive proposals were defeated. How can you blame one council member for that? Get your facts straight before you comment. All the voters that voted in favor of the pool are to blame.
Yeah all the same voters who put Schrumm back into office voted for the least expensive solution. Their only concern was then and now is saving money in the short term-a fool and his money are soon parted. I'd like to say get your facts straight but it appears facts don't matter to people who just vote with their wallets.
In your world voters don't matter. As far as the pool is concerned, the problems had more to do with design than costs..
good one dave
too bad it was your council that did not have the vision
own up....
I would venture a guess that a $250,000 donation would see 9 TC hands go up for naming the field.
I want to know the lifecycle costs before I vote for the turf. At the moment, it appears to me as another unfunded long-term liability.
In response to 8:02 I ma be wrong but I believe what 9:41 was trying to say was that voters were never given an option to vote for an enclosed pool in the referendum. It was the short-sighted vision of the TC at the time NOT to spend the extra money up front and do it right in the first place. And now the TC is going to put to referendum spending another $5-6 million to do what should have been done in the first place-at an even higher cost! That is poor financial planning. This is not to mention the fact tht during the first winter the pool needed to be heated at $1000's of more dollars becasue they couldn't put the bubble on. This is true "bubble math". We can't make big budget decisions like that before us now with the school budget without a long term plan. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face to save a few bucks now.
The voters rejected many Pool proposals that included a "fitness Club" and paid membership. That was rejected and so a less expensive proposal came foward etc,etc. The voters at that time didn't want it. I believe the pool is an asset to the Town, but it's an expensive toy the way it is. A more permenant structure is the way to go for energy savings. The people will once again have a say and we will see if the current voters have better vision than the past.
7:21 - Please come Monday night and say this so every one can hear it! Its about time the truth was out there. Don't forget his role in CTAC either. His grudge against the schools goes way back.
Once again, to all you Dave Schrumm detractors, he won the popular vote.
Guess what, over the past 2 years with the dems in control, my property value went down.
What attracts people to a town?
A good school system with a high mill rate? A good school system with a lower mill rate? Or a poor school system with a very low mill rate?
They are trying to balance it so it is fair and enticing to everyone.
Perhaps you don't realize this, but Schrumm has only 1 vote. He also said he would not vote for a 0 percent increase. He expects it to go up.
Why aren't we twisting the arms of the teachers to give back, then we wouldn't have these issues. The dems who allowed the ridiculous 4.4% increase are to blame for that one.
Why are we twisting the arms of the teachers...
The parents in this town are too afraid to press the teachers to make concessions...it's easier to bad mouth the council then to ask their kids' teacher to give something up.
Kind of makes one wonder just what really goes on with the BOE in this town? Education more and more becomes things which don't have much to do with preparing our children to work in the 21st century.
Just how many football games and what fraction of the high school student body spend much time actually playing varsity football? Why put so much time and effort into something which in reality should be a town Parks and Recreation Department activity?
The state was conned into bonding money it does not have to give to the town so the town could tax residents even more so that 40 of 50 kids from our team and the other team could play maybe 10 or 12 games a year on an artificial grass field. Oh, let's not forget all the other non-education uses this 'school' field will be used for, especially after it goes from real grass to artificial grass.
It's going to be great fun trying to find some easy mark willing to front a quarter of a million or so just to be able to see their name on the proposed field. What a great educational piece it will make for our children. Whenever they have a class on the field (time for a removable bubble top?) or whenever they go to the field they'll be treated to a great big advertisement. No doubt this will be good for home prices in town too. Everyone will want to live in a town whose athletic field is named after some deep pocketed corporation even if property taxes have to be permanently increased to pay for all of this.
Here's hoping the town doesn't actually find the next ENRON to front the money. It is also hoped that somehow town government gets its act together soon and re-focuses basic things like the BOE back to the basics of education.
We need to remove districts in the town council government. The different areas of cheshire are not diverse enough that districts are necessary. All the councilors should be at large so everyone gets to vote for everyone making decisions.
I think the TC needs to take a serious look at revising the charter and especially given how backwards the whole budget process is. It has become clear in the past two years that this way of doing business is broken.
the pool was defeated in referendum i believe two times. the third time it passed. what message does that send. how many times must an issue be put onto the ballot? the people who wanted this pool, most of whom are now gone from this town should be held accountable. also the pool should have been run by the y and opened up to all people at a flat membership rate. the y in southington makes a profit and so does the y in milford/orange. stop trying to restrict who uses things in this town it is not a private country club. this is why everything fails. we had a skating rink fail, we had roller rink fail mixville fail. why because of restrictions. run this pool as a business and it would be profitable. if you to to staples in cheshire or staples in southington do they ask to see your id to see if you are a resident of that town? no they don't they don't care neither should this town. this is a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Isn't the field already named after someone? McClary Field? If it was named after someone to honor him, wouldn't it be wrong to change it now? Or is this one of those hair-spltters...McClary Complex but XXX Field?
721. Where is someone proposing to spend 5-6M for the pool? Get the the right facts. It will be up to the people and not one TC member. The pool and this budget are not the same...
Yes the field already has a name. The "turf committee" that is offering to sell the naming rights is made up of the same people that honored Mr. Mcleary years back for his time and service to the school athletics and education. B.S. like this is adding to the anti-turf movement.
This should be brought to the Heralds attention to see where they stand. Will they report the truth or protect an advertiser?
Post a Comment