Put a Fork in Her, Captain...She's Done

Ashley Field is once again on the agenda for tomorrow night's Planning Committee meeting.With a new projected. cost of $5.1 to $5.7 M (give or take 5%), all we expect to hear is the death rattle.

...Ashley Field proposal

All told, there was a lot of talk being talked, but no Benjamins made the walk for this folly.  For all the interest in football in Sun Prairie, no donations could be mustered to even form the nucleus of a real plan.  Meanwhile, the pedal is firmly to the metal on the new $7M 2-sheet ice arena.

How is it that donations or financial commitments could be generated for the ice arena and Summit Field turf, but football came up with diddly squat?   Don't hang Dave Stackhouse for this one.  He's got enough to atone for.  Was it the 11th hour "need" for a new baseball field to replace the field at Ashley the final nail?   Was fundraising held hostage by the baseball folks?  We hear rumblings to that effect, but logic would dictate that this is the football community's show to blow.

It seems the epitaph has been written...

Due to the significant increase in the proposed budget for improvements to Ashley Field, the competing need for funding other facility security and maintenance issues, and the apparent limited public support of the initiative, it is recommend that nothing be done at this time with Ashley Field; that the fields continue to be used as are. 

We have far more pressing issue on the...cough, cough....ACADEMIC and SAFETY fronts to wate any more time on a grandiose Ashley Field.

Super-Size Me. Ashley Field Plan Now Projected at $5. to $57 MILLION

Sorry folks.  We WISH this were an April Fool's joke, seeing as this is on the agenda for tomorrow's Planning Committee meeting.

Who knows....Maybe it IS just a [Athletics Director]  Jim McClowry joke.
We're afraid it's no such thing.

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=95YJA84C332C

Stackhouse is tossed underneath the bus, ran over and then the bus put in reverse and run over him again.  Granted, the "Stackhouse plan" was a tad swiss cheesy, but we dont think he deserves to be hung with all this.  This plan has gone from $1.6 M to $5.7M.  Even the STAR's Chris Mertes has got to come off of the fence and rip this one to shreds.

It' our understanding that the entire cost of ALL the fields at the new high school came to about $6M.
But that's a number that Jim McClowry didn't provide.  We get it though.  His numbers haven't been...shall we say...overly impressive.

$5.7MILLION?

Are you fricking kidding us?

Screw Ashley Field!

Oregon Voters Say NO to Big Athletics Spending

This week we also saw the Oregon School District Referendum--heavily laden with athletics spending-- voted down 57% to 43%.

This doesn't bode well for any big public cash infusion for our own Ashley Field project.  Kinda sounds like most folks' pockets contain only a little lint these days.

While some may view that a narrow margin, bear in mind that this was one of those slickery referendums posed during the primary elections.  The only thing on the ballot was for a judge that few cared about!  We wonder why such an important referendum for that community was not posed later in the year...at the spring elections, perhaps?  Or the presidential primary at least.  It wouldn't be that many community members sleep through primary elections, allowing a very small group of voters to push forward some major proposal?

Nahhh....couldn't be.  That's something only wacky conspiracy theorists might believe.
Right???

http://www.wkow.com/story/16987914/oregon-school-district-referendum-voted-down

Oregon Referendum Prompts More Ashley Field Questions

Discrepancies are one thing, but HUGE discrepancies are a horse of an entirely different color.
Let's talk about discrepancies first.

Not that many people other than the truly astute noticed, but a year ago, SPASD administration brought forth a comparison plan showing the costs to turf Ashley Field vs. moving football to the new high school athletic complex, which also called for turfing the field.

But did you really LOOK at the numbers?
The Ashley Field proposal called for 90,000 square feet (SF) at a cost of $823,000
Yet the high school proposal called for MORE turf ($92,000 SF) at LESS cost! ($780,000)
How can that be?
No explanation was ever provided.
Is this yet another of a nauseatingly long list of bad data coming out of the Sun Prairie Administration office?

And to make matters worse...and again...one has to be on board and paying attention... now we see that Oregon's proposal is to turf 81,000 SF at a cost that is HALF that of Sun Prairie.  Why do we even NEED more than 81,000 SF?

The average turfed area for a football field is about 80,000 SF.
The cost of field turf is generally about $4.50/SF.  Even factoring excavation and prep costs of $2/SF, something doesn't add up.

This information further underscores the need to stop screwing around with the Ashley Field proposal.  The numbers stink.  And the further one digs into them, the bigger the stink.  This smells funny and we advise against eating it.

Seeing is Believing
Don't take our word for it...peruse the documents themselves:
March 14, 2011 FTT Agenda including Ashley Field proposal

Detailed Ashley Field Costing

Q. How much will a field cost to install?

A. There are many factors that go into the final cost of a particular project. Generally, the final cost of a project is around $5.00 per square foot for a full size football or soccer field.

---http://www.academysportsturf.com/faqs.php

Formula For Victory: Don't Let Opposing Team Wash Their Hands!

Thanks to an eagle-eyed community resident, we were alerted to take a closer look at the architectural plans which were drawn up for the proposed new team locker rooms/PPA lockers/public restroom complex at Ashley Field.  What we found raised eyebrows; what we DIDN'T find raised the "ick" factor.

Excerpts from architectural renderings for Ashley Field Project

The home team (Sun Prairie) locker room is slated for 98 lockers (hold that thought!), 3 toilets (or "two-holers" as Caren Diedrich calls 'em), 6 urinals (or "one-holers" as [school board member] Caren Diedrich calls 'em), and 4 sinks.  The visitors side gets ONE toilet, THREE urinals, and NO SINKS!  We got news for you, Ms. Diedrich...those "one-holers" might be forced into service as "two-holers".

No Sinks
Really?  We had a locker room facility designed with NO SINKS for the visiting team?

Bigger Shower Area...for the Visiting Team
We also couldn't help but notice that the visitors shower area is at least 25% larger than that of the home team.  Does that mean we expect them to get dirtier than us?  Or do Sun Prairie players (with 25% more lockers) just like to shower in a more cozy situation?  You know...save water...shower with a friend?  The team that showers [more closely] together performs better?
Oh wait...now we get it...instead of sinks, they wash their hands in the shower area!

NINETY EIGHT LOCKERS...AYFKM?
With any building, space is cost...right?
NFL teams are allowed a 53-man roster, yet only 47 can "dress" for the game.
We reviewed all 2011 Big Eight rosters and found that the largest was Sun Prairie with 72; the smallest team had 41 on their roster (tie: Madison West and Madison Memorial).
Anyone that knows anything about building knows that cost is by square foot.  Building in larger locker space than is really needed or excess shower area just means a higher price tag for whoever pays the bill.

Are Women Are Just More Sanitary?
The design for the women's public restroom calls for 7 toilets and 4 sinks (3 plus 1 which appears to be optional).  The men's public restroom includes just one toilet (Dude...do you know what those stadium hotdogs do to a guy?) and 3 urinals.  Then there is one less sink than in the womens (2 plus 1 which appears to be optional).

Never Mind the Beef...Where's the Quality Control?
2012 isn't starting out much better than 2011 for the quality of information provided by the district.  How did these things pass muster?  Didn't ANYBODY review this?  At least we can understand from the drawings, as the drawings were both created and reviewed by a "JLP".  So they didn't receive a second tier review by the firm, and IF they were reviewed by district staff, it was clearly a sub par review.

This is really status quo for this district.  Tim Culver constantly verbalizes what a stellar district we are, but those are just words.  This is information available to the public, and it just doesn't cut it.  The school board and taxpaying public should certainly expect better data from people that are paid more than $100,000 per year.

Yes it only cost $5,000...but that's $5,000 we won't ever get back, and it's money that could have been better spent elsewhere.  Wasting other peoples' money has simply become first nature in this school district.

The Worst Cut of All
What is really the most embarrassing part of all this is that no one from the district caught these issues.  It took people from the community that have no knowledge whatsoever about architecture.  But you know what?  They know when something makes no sense...and it appears that's something they have over the highly compensated district administration.

Maybe someone should do some homework:
How To Design a High School Team Locker Room --by Rich Young (Young Equipment Sales) OCTOBER 27, 2011

$1.7M on Ashley Field? We Don't THINK So!

You gotta give 'em credit. They keep coming back. Dave Stackhouse is challenging the Energizer Bunny for stick-to-it-iveness. If there was any hope of this folly moving forward, however, it should be abundantly clear by now that Uncle Scottie's 2011-13 Biennial Budget Plan should squash any further flights of fancy. Could we use better locker room area? Sure. We'll concede that one. But under the hack and slash style of our new Governor, the future of education in Sun Prairie --and every school district-- is in jeopardy.   Curriculum has to get 50 yard line seating; athletics gets relocated to the cheap seats. 
 But...just so everyone understands what was proposed....

Total estimated cost: $1,680,000 
Parking...............$ 80,000 
 (OK, so we just got done deconstructing 200 parking spots; now we want to add back in 60???!!!)
Artificial turf.......$823,000 
Locker rooms..........$370,000 
Move ticket booths ...$257,000 
 (Interesting...this is what it was labeled in the situation report, but actually, this cost is for adding 1,000 seats)


Site upgrades/misc....$150,000
-------------------------new ticket booths $40,0000 
-------------------------site paving $50,000 
-------------------------fencing $20,000 
-------------------------general site electrical $25,000 
-------------------------general site landscaping $15,000 

 Another lowball estimate?
The quote from Findorff (interesting...was this bid out?) tells it all, "This budget is conceptual..."  
Haven't we heard this too many times before?  The most recent example is the (now) need for an additional $70,000 worth of bleachers for Summit (baseball) field.  Fool us once, shame on you, but fool us twice....
Where are the costs NOT being mentioned?

Conspicuously absent is the ongoing cost of maintaining--and replacing--the 90,000 sq. ft. of artificial turf. What?  This stuff is so cool it maintains itself?  And never has to be replaced?  Estimates for annual maintenance are approximately $20,000 per year.  There are needs for seam repairs, replacing the "crumb" rubber (typically used), sweeping the field, brushing the field, locating and removing lost metal items (e.g., Chad Ochocinco's missing earring), re-painting lines (yes that still has to happen at least 1-2 times per year).

 one turf maintenance link

Another good turf maintenance reference

Replacement Costs
No, Virginia...artificial turf is not forever..  It must be replaced every 8-10 yrs.  One estimate (2005) suggests that replacement and disposal (not recyclable) of the old turf runs about $7.15 a square foot, for a total cost of about $650,000.  Spread over 10 years, that's $65,000 which needs to be budgeted.   Replacement costs only are at least $4 per square foot (meaning at least $360,000)  [http://www.academysportsturf.com/faqs.php#7].  But what do we do with the old stuff?  There are costs there....that nobody is discussing.
 Bond interest? 
 Assuming we would even have the desire to fund this venture, where are we coming up with $1.7M? Fund Balance? We would have to go to referendum, and even if that passed, there are bond origination charges, and interest as well.  We don't see that factored in.


 "Potential" Stormwater Management Area? 
What part of "climate change" isn't being understood? You think maybe there's a QUESTION about whether or not we'll have to deal with rainfall (and snowmelt) runoff? Natural grass at lease absorbs some water. This plan reduces over 90,000 square feet of potential infiltration. Or is this one of those, "Let's plan on NO COST for stormwater management and then a year from now go "Ooops, we made some miscalculations and we'll need another $200K for an approved stormwater management plan?". Of course, in the interest of business development, maybe Uncle Scottie will no longer require stormwater management plans!
Bottom Line
If there was any board interest in spending any money on Ashley field, Walker's budget plan has vaporized it.  

Valentine's Day Spend-A-Thon!

Vanilla after vanilla school board agenda.  An occasional spark, here and there but generally Dr. Feelgood style happycrappy.  That's the way school board business has been for several months.  Then.... just as many folks will be [very happily with absolutely no reservations whatsoever] celebrating the joys of Saint Valentine with their significant other...BAM! ZAP! WOW!   School board got that Boom Boom Pow!  


Just seems a tad fishy that all of a sudden we have this jam-packed agenda for both FTT and the full board...on a night where many folks have reservations elsewhere.  Really! Really, JohnE?  This meeting couldn't have been moved up a day...or the agenda covered at another meeting?  Really?  The board continually cajoles community residents for showing up at board meetings instead of appearing first at the committee level.  Did you folks even LOOK at that FTT agenda and all the multitude of big ticket items being discussed?


These are some of the hot issues that will be discussed:
Kobussen Contract (School Board)
Isn't this interesting!  First this appeared as an "addendum" to a $10M contract.  Now it's termed "revisions".  Addendum? Hah!  The only reason for this "addendum:" is that the original contract was prepared and signed without the original --critical-- addendum which determines transportation costs.  Is that what we get from $35.00+ per hour staff?  Board member John Welke was the only board member that requested a critical legal review of the revisions.  Welke rightfully questioned if the district had the authority, based on the original contract language, to solicit other, less expensive carriers for the 4K program.

 “The contract is ambiguous. If the District does not get prior consent or agreement from Kobussen but acts unilaterally, Kobussen could object and assert that contracting with another vendor constitutes a breach of contract. Thus, unless the District has prior agreement or approval from Kobussen, then contracting for transportation from another vendor could expose the district to litigation with uncertain outcome”.
---SPASD legal counsel Bill Fahey on whether the district could use other options for 4K transportation

Contract Extension for District Administrator Tim Culver
This is a waste of time.  Legally, by failing to act prior to January 31, 2011 (at least nothing was ever done PUBLICLY), the contract defaults to an extension through June 2013.  The big question though...is what aren't we seeing?   What decisions have been made behind closed doors regarding Culver's 6 contract proposals?
New HR position
Perhaps 'nuff said...but is this the time to add administrative new staff?  And is this ONE individual going to really effect change where 3 years of intra-district efforts have not?
New baseball stands for Summit Field
The situation report doesn't appear to 1tell the whole story.  We hear from reliable sources that the reason for spending $70K on new bleachers (hell..we haven't even used the original "new" ones yet!) is that the view from the ones we bought is largely blocked by the above ground "dugouts".  Apparently somebody had the brilliant notion that if they call 'em "dugouts" they must be below ground and therefor wouldn't block views from the grandstands. Hmmm...whodathunk?  Genius!    Now, of course, somebody wants to spend $70K MORE of the $900,000 leftover from construction.
Ashley Field
Like the Twilight saga...this story just seems to keep building.  Now the pricetag is up to $1.7M.  Of course they at least determined that at $2.3M, it would cost too much to make changes to the new high school field.  Is this school board incumbent for re-election David Stackhouse's swan song?  Is he looking for HIS legacy?  How about we all stop looking for our own leg-acies and start trying to get an academic LEG UP on other school districts?
District Office remodel: $70,000
OK...enough with the fat cat office remodel, eh?  We already have gold name plates on doors fro cry eye!  When does it stop!
Secured Door Access
Here's an item that at least makes sense...securing the buildings for our students.
Our Particular Favorite...New Diving Boards.
OK...so they only cost $3,400.  So we should just do it, right?  EXCUSE US!  We BOUGHT--and had delivered over a year ago--- brand spanking new diving boards that even the district says meet WIAA standards.  Except....and this is good...so give us a drum roll for effect...the diving boards aren't the "preferred ones" used for competitions.  So...the threat is that if we don't replace them, we may not be able to host competitions. So...let's just replace perfectly good, brand new diving boards...right?  We don't freakin' think so!  You want new/better boards?  Then make a stink with the contractor who purchased the ones we have.

The Boy Who Cried "Ashley!"

Three times the Ashley field lockers & turf proposal has been on the agenda. And three times, we get a bunch of information, but no one is ready to have a real discussion. In fact, the whole subject has yielded WAY more questions than answers.

The bottom line is that eyes are looking at the school board to the tune of another $425K. Haven't we spent enough?

• Putting turf on Ashley field? Awesome idea.
• Make Ashley field less "hallowed" and open it to other community uses? Absolutely!
• Create more/better locker space? Sure...if you really think it's needed. But just don't tell us that visiting teams and referees need better "digs" too and then design something ONLY for the home team to use.
• (With all due respect to Joni Mitchell...) Pave Ashley's baseball field and put up a parking lot? Gee...not so sure about that one.

Here's how things have progressed on the Ashley Field proposal.

4/26/2010, School Board meeting (Informational Items):
Ok...here comes the pitch....high and outside, ball 1.
Stackhouse indicates that he'll come forward with more complete information for a full discussion and action (hopefully) at the 5/10/2010 school board meeting.

5/10/2010, School Board meeting (official agenda item):
He's in the wind-up..the stretch...a curveball low and away...swing and a miss...Strike 1
Looking around the room, we don't see anyone but the usual suspects. Hmmm...wouldn't one expect a big presence and comments from the football folks to help grease the skids for this project? Ah, grasshopper, well your eyes serve you. Briefly it is discussed that the plan needs more time; a motion is made to bring the item back for discussion at the next FTT meeting.

5/24/2010, FTT meeting:
He gets the sign, here comes the pitch...a knuckler...swing and another miss...Strike 2.
Again, we note the lack of any "football" people in the room. This doesn't bode well. We're predicting a bail. Indeed, for the second time, Stackhouse pulls the plug on the agenda item indicating that some more information came in that needs to be reviewed. Our take: Costs have probably increased markedly over early estimates.

Ashley Field Proposal: Lots of Handouts; Few Questions Answered

So many questions surround the 11th hour Ashley Field Artificial Turf/Locker Room Proposal.
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"
--David Stackhouse

You've been "told"? Oh, REALLY"....Isn't that nothing more than conjecture, then? Don't we make DATA-driven decisions in this district?

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.

Stackhouse pushing for a $475K Ashley Referendum?

Good news, folks...the recession's gotta be over.
"What?", you say. You didn't get that memo?
Well...it must be over if School Board member David Stackhouse is pushing for the district commit $475,000 MORE money to improve Ashley Field.

Read the Situation Report for the Monday 4-26-2010 meeting

Ok. Stand down (for now, anyway). It's only an "informational" agenda item--meaning the board cannot take action on it---but it's clear that the intent is to bring it BACK for action at the Board's May meeting.


But this is one loaded potato. The Stackhouse-Kaminski Report contains 13 attachments (several with multiple parts) and a total of over 50 MEGAbytes in downloads. Geez...think of all the Itunes you could get for that!

Seriously...we get it. We love football too. But you know what? Here's just the top tier of reasons why the school board needs to politely say, "NO, but thank you for bringing this forward".

1. The initial intent was to siphon off some of that referendum surplus (Hmmm...does that explain Stackhouse's opposition to several of the other projects proposed?). But the legal opinion was that referendum funds cannot be used for Ashley Field. Stay tuned though, because we hear that "they" are asking for a second opinion on that.

2. Talk is turning toward a referendum specifically for Ashley Field improvements. Stackhouse asked Tim Culver to research how much revenue could be generated by a one-year tax levy equal to $12 on a home valued at $200K. A referendum SOLELY to improve a sports field? Is Sun Prairie trying to be a great SPORTS district...or a great SCHOOL district?

3. Contrary to popular belief, there ain't no fat lady singin' and the recession most definitely is NOT over. The budget was tough to swallow last year, resulting in an unprecedented taxpayer vote to slash the levy by $2M. Newsflash...the economy isn't much better, and the proposed budget already calls for a nearly 8% rise in the mill rate!

4. The locker rooms at the existing high school were always sufficient. How could there be LESS space when the school will now house 50% fewer students?

5. If these changes were so sorely needed...why were they not part of the CHUMS modification plan 2 years ago?

---

A good school board separates "wants" from "needs". Like Caren Diedrich once said, There are many wants; [the board] provides what is needed".

As Al Borland would say, "We don't think so, Dave"