Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Esty / Adinolfi on the slush funds & turf

Elizabeth Esty in her own words:



Al Adinolfi's response to my question on the slush funds discretionary funds and turf:



Tim White

Labels:

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

OK, so Esty felt the public heat and voted against the bloated state budget this year. She likely ascertained that her party had enough votes to pass it before she voted against it.

Esty is still out of touch with the town on a host of other issues, even aside from state spending and the death penalty. She's part of the systemic malaise in Hartford.

Its time for change, time for Al Adinolfi to represent us!

October 21, 2010 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...

The thought of Al Adinolfi back in office makes me even more queasy than watching these videos with the terrible shakes!

October 21, 2010 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...

The thought of Esty back in office makes me queasy.

October 21, 2010 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...

Tonight the BoE gave their approval on the turf project. No surprise.
The surprising thing was that Brittingham made a motion to limit the discussion by board members to 10 minutes. Sobol made a great point that by doing that, it sets a bad precedent. I agree. Imagine that happening with the budget...lol

October 21, 2010 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...

Here's a recap of what we did or did not really learn about this turf project:

1. How long will it last? Standard warantee covers 8 years and it will last beyond the 8 years.
2. Estimated revenue to go towards replacement is $37,000/year. Includes donations, rentals, gate fees.
3. Estimated cost to install - $780 to $870K. Fund raising is $217.5K so far. The grant is $525K and none of the money is from the taxpayers. Huh?? Isn't the $525K our money?
4. We'll have approx 507 events on the new field (currently have 96). Weren't these numbers different a couple months ago?
5. The end of the motion that was made read with words to the effect "that a reserve fund will be set up to pay in whole or in part the replacement costs." You know what that means, don't you?

October 21, 2010 11:06 PM
Tim White said...

Last November, the 5-4 Dem Council swung 8-1 GOP. That was in large part because of a 51% GOP turnout and 42% Dem turnout.

Currently, the Council is split 5-4 on moving forward with turf... count me among the opposition to spending more tax dollars on a nicety, not a necessity.

If the 4th district vote changes the turf vote, I wouldn't be surprised to see that 51% GOP turnout drop significantly next year with a depressed base... and that's happened in the past... look no further than 2005 and the linear trail.

October 21, 2010 11:43 PM
Tony Perugini said...

Let me write some of the points I stated at last night's meeting:

Yes, I agree that the $525K is slush fund money that should've never happened. We tried, unsuccessfully, last year to use this money for the CHS Boy's Locker room and the motion failed in the last TC. We've learned this money cannot be used for any other purpose besides turf. Should the town reject the grant (which is still a viable option) Hartford will not take it back and use it towards balancing the budget. It will make it's way to another town. In my opinion, this money is already spent. I'd rather take this negative and turn it into a positive if the project is feasible.

Regarding the turf project itself let me put forth the facts presented last night:

- 507 events are being planned for the new field, most of which are practices to alleviate wear and tear on the practice fields while they heal. Original estimate was 300 events.

- The total number of hours planned for this field are less than 1,900 hours. Some of the events range between 1 - 6hr or more. A detailed slide was presented last night listing all of the events, types & change between grass & turf. This was something that did not exist until about a month ago. It was one of the critical pieces of information I complained about.

- The warranty for the turf we're considering covers 3,000 hrs of use per year over an 8 year period. Clearly, the number and type of events are not going to cause premature wear/tear on the turf field. I expect 10-12 years use based on West Haven and a few other fields usage patterns.

- We've spent just under $200,000 over the last 10 years maintaining the mud pit we call a football field. Andy Falvey said it best last night, the town neglected the field over the years.

- Doing nothing, we will spend another $160,000 - $200,000 over the next 10 years trying to make this field work, not including the maintenance costs associated with trying to repair the practice fields. Watering, seeding and trying to make the clay base work as good as top soil without the ability to use pesticides will yield the same result.

- The revenue plan (not donations) presented last night, I believe, is more than feasible and realistic.

- The donations, or the promise from donors that they will raise all of the necessary funds is not realistic. Yes, the turf committee has raised just over $217K this year. I don't know if it's feasible to do this over a 8 - 10 year period. If it happens, great, if not I'm taking a more realistic view by looking at field revenue and town taxes.

- I'm not using the savings the $13K year. It doesn't go away. Rather, I full expect that the Town will be on the hook for $130K of the replacement costs every 10 years. This also happens to be what we'll spend on maintaining the existing field. Between the revenue we can generate on the field and the $130K we're going to spend on maintenance (grass) it'll be a wash for the town.

- Regarding the maintenance of a turf field: Watering the field will be significantly reduced. The turf field will require about 8-10 hrs of maintenance per month. The maintenance involves sweeping/brushing the field and spreading sand/rubber infill as needed.

- Regarding the equipment needed to maintain the new field. The estimates we received from engineering firms/vendors included $50,000 of equipment. Basically a tractor and a few attachments. We don't need a new tractor, we already have one. We do need to attachments. One is a sweeper and the other is a comber. Both of which combined costs less than $3K and can be hooked up to our existing tractor.

October 22, 2010 3:35 PM
Tony Perugini said...

Continued:

- To replace turf today, based on the turf used by West Haven and others that meets our needs, it will cost $350K. Obviously, costs will fluctuate over time but the proposal uses a replacement cost of $450K which I think is more realistic.

Do I believe that the turf is going to cost taxpayers more than a grass field? No, not necessarily. Certainly, by charging an extra $1 on ticket prices (for future replacement) this can be considered a form of taxation. Setting up a reserve account to capture field revenue, and donations, may be considered unfair by some but I think it's a fair compromise. I would waive the requirement of a reserve fund if this project goes to referendum and is allowed to be voted upon by all stakeholders.

Factor in installing a new natural grass field into the equation. Should this project die something has to be done to the field. Installing a natural grass field, in our case, is not a simple process. The costs can range as high as $500K+/-. I believe it will end up in a similar condition as the existing grass field within 10 years. Maintenance costs will be higher for a new grass field than what they are today, at least in the initial years but I don't see costs decreasing below $13K per year. Water, fertilizer and labor would still exist. A warranty will not be around long enough to cover 'issues' with sod. If such a warranty for a grass field is even feasible.

I do think that the turf field is the better value and I'm basing my decision on that value proposition. I think that the project warrants a serious review by the Town Council and by the PBC, if the TC chooses.

That being said, I'm not going to lose sleep if the TC rejects or shelves the project. I fully expect that the TC will scrutinize the request, the plan, the assumptions and long-term costs/liability to the town.

There are a few issues that require TC discussion. Besides the reserve account and the mechanics around moving funds between donations->Town->Future Turf Replacement and the accounting reports contained within....will the residents living near the field be happy with more usage of the field?

I don't expect everyone to agree with my thought process on this project but I wanted to share what went into my decision with you.

Thanks,
Tony Perugini

October 22, 2010 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...

"...- The warranty for the turf we're considering covers 3,000 hrs of use per year over an 8 year period. Clearly, the number and type of events are not going to cause premature wear/tear on the turf field. I expect 10-12 years use based on West Haven and a few other fields usage patterns..."

Okay Tony, maybe because you are in your first term as a local elected official in a small town you are applying a dubious warranty factoid to the outcome of a potential, yet to be built, public facility.

I for one would not want to buy a used car from anyone who babbled about how an 8 year warranty could be thought of as a 10 or 12 year warranty if the car were only driven by a little old lady on Sundays to go to church with. AFter all, in the case of the turf maybe the 8 year number has more to due with sun shine then how much play takes place. The sun can be pretty nasty to the condition of plastic and rubber over long time periods Tony.

Along those lines I for one would not vote for a turf field covered by an 8 year warranty which magically gets extended to 12 years in the minds of elected officials whose terms run out well before the 8 year point.

As framed by the BOE and its group of field boosters the turf field can be guaranteed to help maintain the relentless, year in and year out increases of local property taxes which at the very least are doing nothing to help attract and maintain the kind of businesses which provide high quality employment opportunities for area residents. Where do any meaningful cost savings exist over just maintaining the status quo? Spending a million or so up front to eliminate 5 or 10 thousand dollars a year in grass mowing expenses is not something a BOE should be proposing here. Grant or no grant, any spending which significantly increases ongoing expenses is a bad idea.

October 23, 2010 10:48 AM
Tony Perugini said...

"Along those lines I for one would not vote for a turf field covered by an 8 year warranty which magically gets extended to 12 years in the minds of elected officials whose terms run out well before the 8 year point."

No magic but I am looking at turf fields that have been replaced after 10 or 12 years of use...beyond it's 8 year warranty on lesser quality turf. It's not out of the question but not a guarantee either. My term may indeed run out in 8 years but I'm not hiding and I can be easily found on Ashley Court. Stop by, I'll make coffee and we can chat.

Our grass field also takes an intense beating from the sun, heat and the elements. Unlike a turf field, a grass field has no warranty so when a section dies and needs to be replaced we pay out of pocket for repairs. With turf, it's not the case during the warranty period. We'll keep throwing more money at grass and hope for the best while the field continues to deteriorate taking the track along with it.

"Spending a million or so up front to eliminate 5 or 10 thousand dollars a year in grass mowing expenses is not something a BOE should be proposing here. Grant or no grant, any spending which significantly increases ongoing expenses is a bad idea."

We don't spend $10K on grass mowing expenses? Where are you getting this information from?

If you follow the plan presented by the BOE, nobody is proposing spending $1M to save $10K per year. I'm not wearing the rosy-colored glasses used by the turf committee in my estimates. I don't consider there to be any savings in this project when factoring in replacement costs. I think a significant portion of the replacement costs will be paid for by revenue generated by the field, and to a lesser extent, donations. I do expect the town to be on the hook for a portion of the replacement costs which I believe is in line with what we pay/paid historically for maintaing the mud pit.

The variable that will affect this is how much revenue, i.e. chargeable events we can have on the field and that was clearly laid out Thursday night.

If you want cost savings with the field then get rid of it. We can pave it and expand parking at CHS. We can eliminate football, soccer, lacrosse, softball, relay-for-life, etc. We can also take it a step further and eliminate track. By doing so, we'll be off the hook for installing an elevator at the press box and other CRA compliance items related to the field(s). Now we're talking operating savings.

Like a few other projects in town the grass field was poorly designed particularly with the drainage system which has spilled over to the track and contributed to its' splendid condition. Grass needs quality soil, fertilizer, pesticides, water and labor in order to be maintained...not to mention a well-designed drainage system.

Both turf and grass requires replacement. Neither will generate a savings to the town. The question becomes which option is the better value and cost-effective?

Let's get it right, whatever the option may be, as opposed to being penny-wise and pound-foolish. The TC asked for a plan, we gave them a plan. Unless, of course, the TC Planning Committee was disingenuous with it's request for a plan?

Knowing the makeup of this TC I know they will give it the proper scrutiny as they did with the pool enclosure.

And...we have time. There is no dying patient on the operating table awaiting surgery, the turf is not a life or death situation. There's no rush unless of course one is worried about the grant being rescinded after 11/2.

This is a first draft of a plan and it will most likely be debated for some time. The grant expires in 6 years. Should we find honest politicians in Hartford after 11/2 then perhaps the grant will be rescinded and put towards balancing the state budget.

Regardless of what happens the facilities at CHS still requires attention and let's not lose sight of that. Let's not take the easy way out.

October 24, 2010 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...

"...I don't consider there to be any savings in this project when factoring in replacement costs. I think a significant portion of the replacement costs will be paid for by revenue generated by the field, ... I do expect the town to be on the hook for ... the replacement costs which I believe is in line with what we pay/paid historically for maintaing the mud pit. ..."

Tony, you have to be kidding. But as an elected politician maybe you really believe you were elected to feverously work to maintain the ever increasing property tax rate that local residents are subjected to.

A town government which cannot even maintain a grass playing field has no right forcing residents to pay even more for a replacement for grass which it has proven it is incapable of maintaining in the first place.

Put your efforts into forcing town government, elected officials and paid employees, into efficiently and properly maintaining and operating town facilities.

"... Unlike a turf field, a grass field has no warranty so when a section dies and needs to be replaced we pay out of pocket for repairs. With turf, it's not the case during the warranty period...."

Tony, you can be amazing sometimes. Last time most of use checked it was pretty clear that grass was made to function in the sun. It needs a bit of water and maybe some fertilizer on occasion but it is quite happy out in the sunshine. Please don't go on thinking that artificial turf, or anything made from a wide variety of plastics and rubbers would be better in the sun then plain old ordinary green grass.

And just think a moment about your wild warranty claims Tony. Most people I've spoken with about warranties on big ticket items have bad stories about how they have experienced a warranty which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. I am certain the files at the BBB, and the state's dept of consumer protection are just full of complaints from state resident's who found their written warranties associated with construction projects to be worthless when they were needed.

October 25, 2010 9:38 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)