Thursday, October 01, 2009

Sept 17 turf committee report

Here is the 32 minutes of discussion from the September 17, 2009 Board of Ed Turf Committee status report:





Tim White

Labels: , ,

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the first part it's interesting to listen to Behrer talk about how some people thought this grant could or should be used for other projects instead of the turf. He tries to say that "with the pilot money down this is a way to funnel money to facilities to benefit the students"...and goes on to say "It is apparent that we have to use the funds for artificial turf."

Who is he kidding?? What he really means to say is, "We don't care what the real needs of the town are; we don't want to redirect this grant; we're getting this turf field whether you like it or not!"

What a bunch of BS!!!

October 01, 2009 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...

This turf committee is so FAKE it's not even funny.

October 01, 2009 11:13 PM
Big Mike said...

People like Behrer think most voters in town are idiots. His rationale for funding the turf is about using a $500K of grant money to pay for a $1M turf field in year one. $500K does not equal $1M. So, how does he plan on getting the rest of the money? He 'hopes' to get the rest of the money via fund-raising and if that fails, he'll ask the town council...

In other words, he's trying spend money we don't have AND he's ultimately putting the burden of funding the turf field on the backs of taxpayers.

Read this week's Cheshire Herald and the article on the Turf Field whereby Behrer is quoted extensively throughout it. Fund raising is the answer and if that fails, the town council will foot the bill.

Irresponsibility....I can't help but be reminded of the sub-prime mortgage mess whereby some irresponsible borrowers borrowed beyond their means because there were no repercussions. Behrer is trying to do the same thing...spend beyond the town's means.

Greed...it's what's for breakfast...for the democrats.

October 02, 2009 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...

Bob Behrer is nothing but a puppet for the turf heads.
He states how a new field will get over 300 uses as opposed to the 90 uses it currently gets. He spouted off all these sport team events as well as Relay. None of these will generate the income needed to pay for the replacement in 8 to 10 years. Although he said they will look into using the field to generate revenue...how? He figures they would need to put aside $70K a year to go towards the replacement--$20K a year is the number he threw out for rental then they just have to come up with $50k. Then it comes out...perhaps we can put it into our capital budget plan. Their way of gettting the taxpayers to spend a minimum of $600K every 8 years.

He mentioned that he doesn't see them falling short in getting the additional $300K they need. He also said that they already had backers ready, at least since last September. But, if they do fall short, they can go to the TC and ask for the rest, knowing it won't have to go to referendum. Anothr way of sticking it to the taxpayers.

The way he explained why we needed to take this grant made no sense. It'ss embarassing that he is on the BOE and he speaks in circles.He tells us that since Cheshire doesn't get its fair share of taxes from the state, this is how we get money form them. If that is the case, is turf the most important thing we should be chasing?I think not.

I agree with 11:13, the committee is FAKE. Loaded with pro-turf people who will not look at the bottom line, is it a want or a need.
We can't afford wants now.

October 02, 2009 1:49 AM
Anonymous said...

And everyone is forgetting the fact that the numbers being thrown around don't include electrical work, water issues, how does it effect the track....If you had to re-do the track, do any electrical or plumbing...I am thinking your talking at least 100k? How cheap could it be to lay down a new track...They don't have the numbers for this yet? Ask the Little League how ther fundraising for their baseball complex at the prison is going....

October 02, 2009 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...

Behrer already said that the $150K in the Capital Budget is not enought to redo the track. He also says there would probably be added expense for electrical work because the wiring there now is sometimes faulty. So there's more expense than just the $825,000 minus the $525,000 grant. He claims that turf is less costly to maintain but he's not figuring in the replacement cost of $600,000 or more.

October 02, 2009 3:51 PM
Behrer's Lost Sense of Reality said...

$525,000 DOES NOT EQUAL $825,000...then again, given the deteriorating math curriculum...I'm not surprised at the math here.

"Hoping" to raise the difference from private fund-raising (which hasn't happened yet) and asking the town council to cover any short-fall tells you that the burden of this field falls on the shoulders of the tax payers. This is true for the initial installation of the turf as well as replacing the turf every 6-8 years. It's the gift that keeps on bleeding.

Exactly what are the 300 events being planned for the new turf field? This is more hot air from Behrer and crew.

This BOE is so far out of touch with the Cheshire residents that they should have their own galaxy named after them. There's no need for turf right now and the grant is set to expire in 10 years...WHAT'S THE RUSH?

BTW, Mr. Behrer, since you're so busy with turf these days...I just want to remind you of NCLB. Explain to the special needs sub-group how a turf field is going to help them achieve 100% test scores.

October 05, 2009 12:09 PM
Anne Giddings said...

I finally had time to watch the entire video.

Behrer's Lost Sense of Reality commented on some of the things that I would like to ask Bob.

Since Bob was not available, and I noted his comments at the beginning of the video about the grant being a Bond Commission agenda item that was approved 1-25-09, then immediately after his report that he talked with Mary Fritz at the Fall Festival about it, but not telling HOW it got on the Bond Commission agenda, I sent Mary an email asking for background.

I would like to see the numbers put up, perhaps on a new SmartBoard if the committee meets in a classroom. Let's see the precise items and the grand total. And, on a SmartBoard, the information can be saved to a computer and put on line.

October 05, 2009 1:15 PM
Anne Giddings said...

I appologize for the typo in my previous post. I should have typed 1-25-08 as the date of Bond Commission approval per Bob Behrer.

October 05, 2009 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...

Anne, I don't know if this will clarify things anymore, but here's what I remember about how the turf got on the bond commission agenda.

Back before Jan.08 during the meeting of the council with the State legislators, the council submitted a list of requests. Included at the very bottom of the list was a request for the artificial turf field. The D's had originally put the field further up on the list, but the R's, knowing it was not a real "need", indicated that the list should be items by priority and insisted the turf go to the bottom of the list.
Who'd have known Altieri & Ecke teamed up with Fritz to push this through the "back door." Fritz got House Speaker Amann to get it on the bond commission's agenda and the rest is history. That's what happened in a nutshell. :)

October 05, 2009 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh, and I forgot one important point. The $525,000 comes from Amann's discretionary "slush" fund. :)

October 05, 2009 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...

Are there any members of the turf committee whodon't feel it is a wise decision, or is it full of pro-turf heads?

I find it hard to believe that the TC will allow a committee to be formed with people who are all in favor of the turf. Who plays devils advocate?
I bet they all sit around and pat each other on the back for getting it this far. Now all they need to do is get the TC to foot the rest.

Heads will roll if that happens.....

October 06, 2009 1:05 AM
Tony Perugini said...

Part I:

I attended the Turf Sub-Committee meeting last night (9/6) at CHS. Bob Behrer was the sole BOE member in attendance. It was an ad-hoc meeting with myself and 2 other people in attendance.

In all, it was very informational. I've always said that the specifics can always be found at these meetings and I was disappointed that only 3 people were in attendance last night considering the sensitivity and potential impact of this project to the Town.

It's clear that Bob is a doing a lot of leg-work on the turf. He's in the process of gathering estimates for some outstanding items such as:

- Drainage System
- Electrical/Water/Conduits
- Top Soil Removal
- Resurfacing the track
- Lighting
- Insurance for Vandalism
- Annual maintenance costs

But more importantly there's work to be done regarding putting together a fund-raising plan to pay for both the initial turf installation (difference between the grant vs. actual cost) as well as annual maintenance.

It appears that the Alumni will be asked for donations but Bob is still putting that plan together. They will do their best to raise funds but ultimately whatever isn't covered they will ask the Town Council to foot the bill. It has to come from somewhere right?

Someone mentioned that the current field hinders some of the teams, especially in the early spring when the field is in horrible condition and they can't practice on it. Meanwhile, competitive schools can practice on their turf in those conditions. It was stated that "the field is a gip to the athletes." In fact, someone said that the first 3 losses of the season were directly attributable to the current field. I have no facts to dispute this one way or another.

Based on what I heard, it sounded like the maintenance (excluding replacement costs) of the turf field will be cheaper than the current grass field. Bob is preparing those specific costs and they will be included in the final proposal.

There is still discussion going on about the density, blade type and thickness of the recycled-rubber padding that will be used with the turf. As such, until the final specifications are prepared by the sub-committee and sent to a design engineer, we won't have an exact cost for the turf. The $800K is a reasonable guess at this point. The final cost could be lower or a bit higher.

Bob stated that based on the turf studies they've seen to date, there's no reason to expect the turf field is a health concern. He stated that people are confusing the new turf with the old turf health problems. Specifically, some NJ facilities are ripping out their 15 year old 1st Generation turf fields which were tied to health concerns. That's not the case with these "6th generation" turfs.

Funding: Someone in attendance asked if the Town Council was going to re-purpose the Grant money towards locker rooms...as some TC members have been discussing. Bob stated that he spoke with Mary Fritz earlier in the morning and Mary told him to stop using the word "Grant" and use "Bonded Money" because it's bonded money at this point, not a grant.

According to Bob, Mary stated that the money COULD NOT BE RE-PURPOSED since the "bond" specifically stated "artificial turf". I told Bob that, actually, the money could be re-purposed but we'd have to deny the "Grant" and re-apply for one.

Bob said that at this point if we deny the grant, it will go to another school that currently has two grants from the State for their turf field installation. His exact words were "Either we use it or them, either way it's state money that's going to be spent."

I told the person in attendance that we already have money set aside in the capital budget for Lockers Rooms, Hall Lockers and Home Ec...and there's a ballot question about it. Bob said, again, that the $500K bond money being requested for CHS Infrastructure upgrade "Could" be used for those specific projects but DID NOT COMMIT to them, again.

He did tell me that he would NOT use that $500K towards the turf. Only time will tell.

Tony Perugini
(R) Candidate for BOE

October 07, 2009 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...

I was disappointed that only 3 people were in attendance last night considering the sensitivity and potential impact of this project to the Town.

Tony, I saw Gerry Brittingham about a week or so and I asked him why the turf committee meeting wasn't shown on the BOE's upcoming agenda (printed at the bottom of every BOE agenda). He said he believes the meeting was cancelled.
So, if it's not on the agenda and it's not clearly printed in the Herald, no one would know about it. But I think that might be how they want it.

October 07, 2009 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...

" Bob stated that he spoke with Mary Fritz earlier in the morning and Mary told him to stop using the word "Grant" and use "Bonded Money" because it's bonded money at this point, not a grant."

"According to Bob, Mary stated that the money COULD NOT BE RE-PURPOSED since the "bond" specifically stated "artificial turf"."

TONY, OF COURSE MARY FRITZ IS GOING TO TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT IT CAN'T BE REDIRECTED AND BEHRER AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO REPEAT THAT.
HOW DID WALLINGFORD MANAGE TO REDIRECT A "GRANT" FROM ONE PROJECT TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ONE. DETAILS OF THAT HAVE BEEN ON THIS BLOG.
DON'T FALL FOR THE BS, TONY. ANY RESPONSIBLE BOE OR COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD REALIZE TURF ISN'T A FEASIBLE PROJECT.

October 07, 2009 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...

"Someone mentioned that the current field hinders some of the teams, especially in the early spring when the field is in horrible condition and they can't practice on it. Meanwhile, competitive schools can practice on their turf in those conditions. It was stated that "the field is a gip to the athletes." In fact, someone said that the first 3 losses of the season were directly attributable to the current field. I have no facts to dispute this one way or another."

The football team doesn't practice on the playing field - they have a separate practice field.
The losses can be attributed to coaching & player abilities...lol...not the field.

October 07, 2009 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...

"Based on what I heard, it sounded like the maintenance (excluding replacement costs) of the turf field will be cheaper than the current grass field. Bob is preparing those specific costs and they will be included in the final proposal."

YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE REPLACEMENT COSTS - THE UP TO $78k THE BOE MAY NEED TO SET ASIDE ANNUALLY TOWARDS REPLACEMENT IS EQUAL TO 1 1/2 TEACHING POSITIONS. DUH!!! I GUESS ATHLETICS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ACADEMICS!

October 07, 2009 6:41 PM
Tony Perugini said...

"YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE REPLACEMENT COSTS - THE UP TO $78k THE BOE MAY NEED TO SET ASIDE ANNUALLY TOWARDS REPLACEMENT IS EQUAL TO 1 1/2 TEACHING POSITIONS. DUH!!! I GUESS ATHLETICS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ACADEMICS!"

LOL, no that wasn't the case. The point, a bad one, was made that if one were to exclude annual replacement cost accumulation ($80K or so), then the actual field maintenance costs look reasonable. Maybe...but there's that darn 8 year replacement we'll need to save up for on annual basis....The point is putting lipstick on a pig...doesn't work.

I'm not in support of the turf...not at this time. There are more pressing needs we need to worry about and turf is not a need. NCLB compliance, Math Curriculum, Infrastructure plan, medical costs, contract bid process overhaul, curriculum upgrades for starters. Not to mention, that I believe the BOE has gotten out of touch with the community. The community does not start and end within the school walls...it also includes the very folks that votes them on to the board.

I can't help but feel that BOE often keeps these specific stakeholders out of the loop.

Also, at some point the BOE needs to stop patting themselves on the back and worry about achieving 100% on the NCLB tests. While most of our schools are up over 80% or better, that last 10-15% is going to be the most difficult to achieve.

I only wish the BOE spent as much time and energy on the important needs as they have so far on the Turf.

October 07, 2009 6:57 PM
Tony Perugini said...

Part II:

There's second part I wanted to post that is somewhat related to the turf meeting. It appears that one of my ads in the Cheshire Herald has upset some of the BOE (D) candidates. In fact, one candidate confronted me about the ad.

Now, mind you, I have no intention of slinging mud or making personal attacks. I'm focusing on the issues, facts and task at hand and that's all I will be focusing on during this campaign. If my (D) opponents want to divert away from the issues, their loss...literally.

Anyway, this (D) candidate asked me what I mean by "Baloney" as they took offense to the ad. Turf, for example, is baloney. Irresponsible Spending...is baloney. Playing on the fears of parents by stating "Our children will suffer"...is baloney, especially when there's no factual evidence to back up that statement.

Telling me "It's not our problem, talk to the Town Council" regarding the $500K Bond question ambiguity is Baloney.

The poorly executed bus contract bid process that may cost us $200K over the original budgeted estimate...BALONEY!

Long story short...after I explained myself this person said "Well, it's negative." I thought about it for a second and asked "Well, why do you feel this ad was targeted at you? I didn't name any names and I just explained the processes (not people) that are full of baloney so how could you take it personally?"

I then finished by saying "The only reason you're taking this personally....is because you're GUILTY of it, otherwise there's no reason to pay attention to it."

If the shoe fits...

Tony Perugini
(R) Candidate for BOE (Baloney Free!)

October 07, 2009 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...

"I then finished by saying "The only reason you're taking this personally....is because you're GUILTY of it, otherwise there's no reason to pay attention to it."

If the shoe fits..."

LOL...glad you set them straight. Another weakness of the current Boe is that they keep forgetting that the Superintendent reports to the Board - not the other way around.

October 07, 2009 7:26 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)