The more you dig into it, the more questions arise...questions that are not answered in the documents provided.
But of course not.
That is status quo with the world in general.
When something is being given the full-court press, it's human nature to point out the POSITIVE aspects, and ignore the negative. Sometimes, in our haste to get things moving, we even forget to include some costs or facts that perhaps need to be considered.
And that's the case with the Ashley Field proposal. Sure...now....3 years after the high school decision...a case is being made to improve the quality of facilities at Ashley Field.
Question No. 1: Why weren't these same concerns raised earlier?
Costs could have been built into the $100M project which is now winding down.
Timing
Clearly plans for this were drawn up last summer. Question#2: Why is it that not a peep was heard until now?...even AFTER any opportunity for referendum money?
The Busing Problem
So the issue seems to be the concern over the cost of transportation from the new high school to Ashley Field.
Problem #1:Athletes from the new high school will need to be transported from the new high school to Ashley Field for competitions. The locker facilities that have been used in the past will now be used for the Upper Middle School. The locker rooms in the SOAR building are too small to allow an entire team to meet, so many members are left out of the team meetings and need to congregate in the gym area. The cost is estimated at $3,000 to $5,000 to transport the athletes for home games. Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the gym, which can expose the district to liability.Here's another newsflash. Madison has 4 high schools and only two of them have fields. LaFollette has Lussier Stadium which [ahem] was donated by the Lussier family. How do you suppose the other schools get to their "home" field?
Question#3: Why, again, do we need to dress at the new high school and bus over to Ashley?
Players now drive separately up to the high school dress in the locker room. Why can't that continue to happen? Can't the equipment be shuttled over to Ashley on Friday afternoons? Certainly we have enough district-owned vans and trucks...right?
The Locker Room Space Problem
Question #4: Why, again, can't players dress at CHUMS---just as they have in the past?
SPHS has locker space for 1800 kids. CHUMS will have less than 1000. Did we delete locker space as part of the renovations? And....even if they did...locker space for 1000 kids HAS to be enough for 80 football players....right?
“I’ve been told there’s inadequate locker room space for the teams to change into their uniforms” at the upper middle school"You've been "told"? Oh, REALLY"....Isn't that nothing more than conjecture, then? Don't we make DATA-driven decisions in this district?
--David Stackhouse
Liability Problem? Really?
"Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the [SOAR building] gym, which can expose the district to liability."
Umm...did we miss something? The proposal appears to be to design a new locker room for SUN PRAIRIE...NOT for visiting teams or officials....right?
Question #5: So how does this proposal even address the liability issue?
Use of Ashley Field By Other Groups
Question #6: Seriously...would Ashley Field EVER be made available to other sports groups in the community?
The Ashley Proposal Situation Report opens with:
It is our goal to respect the wishes of Mr. Ashley and create a field that will be used by more youth in the community, as well as an additional focal point of the excellence in Sun Prairie Schools and Athletics.
That's OUR goal too! [ when you read that, if you've seen the film "Stakeout", recall Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss crying in unison, "Stickley's OUR favorite too" to Rosie O'Donnell]
Seriously...people have screamed for years to use Ashley field...and always been rebuffed. Thou shalt not play on thy hallowed ground! How exactly does putting turf on it increase the likelihood of letting other teams/groups use the field? The next thing we'll hear--after it's installed--- is that we have to minimize the utilization to prevent costly tears in the surface. And don't say that want happen. Let's keep it real and not offer any pronouncements that--after all--can only come from the school district.
Inflated Savings Estimates?
Question#7: How realistic are the "rough" estimates of maintenance costs?
The "rough cost estimate" shows cost of annual maintenance of current field to be $60K per year. Are you kidding me? Web-based estimates and case studies show more like $20-30K per year...Are we REALLY spending $60K/yr (and if so, why?). If not...why is the budget inflated?
The proposal doesn't include any annual maintenance costs for a synthetic turf field.....cost are estimated at LEAST $5K/yr. The proposal doesn't include cost of disposing of artificial turf (8-10 yrs) of about $130K. That's $13-16K/yr to budget for right there!
Maintenance cost savings over 15 years........................$240,000 (that's a far cry from $600K/10 yrs)
--Schuylerville Schools, IL (Feb. 2010)
There ARE maintenance costs for artificial turf:
---Repairs (seams)
---Replacement every 8-10 years
---Disposal cost upon replacement – Infill systems filled and topdressed with crumb rubber material that is typically made from ground automobile tires may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated to be $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.
Just Keeping Up with the Jones...er...Middletons...and Waunakees...and Veronas?
A funny thing happened while reading the paper this morning...we came across
this article about schools looking at turf fields
Waunakee: A $700,000 field — part of a proposed $1.5 million remodeling of the district’s outdoor facilities including seating, a visitor’s side concession stand and lighting — would be paid for entirely with donations, just as the field at Middleton’s Breitenbach Stadium field was.
Well...it seems the Joneses are doing THEIR projects entirely with donations. Hmm...fancy that.
LOST: One school board member, reported to be fiscally conservative
Where is the fiscal conservative David Stackhouse who said this:
[on Charter School] Where I have a problem with this right now, we’re opening a new high school, we just opened 4K, we have enough things going on in my eyes. We need to take a step back and bring it under control before we go forward with another. I think a year from now we’ll be in a better situation to look into it.”
---STAR 1/14/2010
or this:
That seems like an awful lot of fixtures for baseball and softball,” Stackhouse said. “That’s a lot of energy.” He added that the district with 56 lights around the track and soccer field, “it sounds like we could host football games there.”
STAR 3/11/2010
or this:
Stackhouse voted against the recommending these projects to the board because he believed the bleachers still had life in them. "I don’t think that’s a wise investment at this time. Other projects need to get done,” he added.
STAR 3/11/2010
Suddenly Stackhouse is all onboard with spending money again. Hmmm.
More on the Artificial vs. Natural Turf Debate
Another ViewPoint: Natural Turf is Better
In 2008 survey conducted to evaluate the preferred playing surface among NFL players, Out of 1565 players from all 32 teams, 71% preferred to play on natural grass fields.
---Sportsturf Managers Association
Another cost analysis:
Yet another maintenance cost comparison
Look...you'll get no argument here. The field turf looks nice....arguably a little TOO nice for high school (makes us think Badger lite)...but nice. If the quarterback club is game, we say, "Have at it!" Rob Hamilton didn't come looking for money when turf was desired for the baseball field...he just went out and quietly raised it. That being said, if the locker rooms are truly the issue, the QB club wants to invest its fund-raising on building the locker room they seem to desire, and leave the turf for the future.
Whatever is decided...
Let's agree to be 100% above board.
Let there be NO undisclosed or "forgotten" costs.
Consider a FAIR 10-15 year cost comparison.
Posts
