|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 4, 2014 22:03:11 GMT -6
I feel like i just got punched in the gut....then kneed in the nuts. We did everything we could to spread factual information, but too many voters were uninformed. We gave it our all, spent countless hours writing letters to the editor, emails, research, etc....The 10 year bond would have cost the average tax payer $5.80 a YEAR...actually $2.80 a year since you would be subtracting the current field maintainance cost. O well we must move on with our pot holed, divot filled, uneven field that has drainage problems. A sad day in a town that use to love it's sports and student athletes.
Has anyone on here been involved in getting field turf through a bond referendum? If so, how did you fair?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 4, 2014 22:27:42 GMT -6
I feel like i just got punched in the gut....then kneed in the nuts. We did everything we could to spread factual information, but too many voters were uninformed. We gave it our all, spent countless hours writing letters to the editor, emails, research, etc....The 10 year bond would have cost the average tax payer $5.80 a YEAR...actually $2.80 a year since you would be subtracting the current field maintainance cost. O well we must move on with our pot holed, divot filled, uneven field that has drainage problems. A sad day in a town that use to love it's sports and student athletes. Has anyone on here been involved in getting field turf through a bond referendum? If so, how did you fair? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards One of the "secrets" to getting something like that passed is when to get it on the ballot. You want to try and avoid having those type of propositions on the same ballot as major elections--did you guys have US Congressional elections or major statewide elections on the ballot? Did you try knocking on doors? Players in jerseys going door to door explaining and informing? Was the only support coming from the football staff? Was the Board/ Superintendent involved? |
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 4, 2014 22:34:22 GMT -6
We tried getting it on a special referendum last spring, but the town council thought it was rushed and wanted to wait for the fall. We saw that as a "we will say we are all for it, but by putting it up during major elections, where these referendums rarely pass, we are really against it." We had a couple councilors all for it and very outspoken about it, but most tiptoe'd around the issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by paulsonj72 on Nov 5, 2014 1:38:30 GMT -6
I feel like i just got punched in the gut....then kneed in the nuts. We did everything we could to spread factual information, but too many voters were uninformed. We gave it our all, spent countless hours writing letters to the editor, emails, research, etc....The 10 year bond would have cost the average tax payer $5.80 a YEAR...actually $2.80 a year since you would be subtracting the current field maintainance cost. O well we must move on with our pot holed, divot filled, uneven field that has drainage problems. A sad day in a town that use to love it's sports and student athletes. Has anyone on here been involved in getting field turf through a bond referendum? If so, how did you fair? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards One of the "secrets" to getting something like that passed is when to get it on the ballot. You want to try and avoid having those type of propositions on the same ballot as major elections--did you guys have US Congressional elections or major statewide elections on the ballot? Did you try knocking on doors? Players in jerseys going door to door explaining and informing? Was the only support coming from the football staff? Was the Board/ Superintendent involved? In Rhode Island there was a gubernatorial election as well as a Senate election as well as a House election and assorted local races. Turnout is always higher for fall general elections than primaries and special elections. That is just a fact |
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Nov 5, 2014 3:38:47 GMT -6
We had a big bond referendum for a new school get voted down by 2% tonight. It means that we have to continue to share our home field with our cross town rivals and practice at an off campus facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Nov 5, 2014 8:48:43 GMT -6
A high school near us and that is in our region didn't just have turf issue, but a stadium issue. The bond referendum was held in a special election back at the beginning of the season. It got voted down by large margin. It was part of a major school renovation to the high school that is land looked and originally built in 1955. The stadium was refurbished in the 1980s, but is an engineering night mare. Also this district has experienced a tremendous amount of growth over the last 12-15 years and the district has had to build several schools to handle it.
The biggest problem they faced was that they held the bond referendum in a special election and it was seen as trying to slip something through when the voter turn out would be much lower. Also, the community was also tired of the constant quest for more money. The bond would have added $50-55 on a $100,000 house. Another problem was in the last bond issue, the district built a fine arts center that while it is used, was not a necessity.
The sentiment from the community seemed that while all the other building/projects are needed, this seemed to be a 'football stadium' bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 5, 2014 9:08:03 GMT -6
I wish I could say I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. As a HC, asking people for an extra $3 so you can have turf is pretty ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 5, 2014 9:28:44 GMT -6
I wish I could say I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. As a HC, asking people for an extra $3 so you can have turf is pretty ludicrous. If we had a normal grass field I'd agree with you I guess. $3 a year is expensive to you though? However, our field is a liability right now, that's how bad it is. Plus because of our current field it's only usable 17 weeks out of the year instead of 40+ on artificial. We play football (freshmen, jv, varsity), boys and girls soccer (jv, varsity), a handful of middle school soccer games in the fall. Boys and girls Lacrosse (jv, varsity) in the spring. Plus band, flag, and dance line practice. If we got turf it would also be used on weekends by youth organizations. Also, there are currently 680 man hours spent trying to upkeep and maintain the field. If we got turf it only requires about 50 hours a year. That's 600+ man hours the town could spend at other rec and school facilities. Our finance director proved that after the 10 year bond period, artificial actually saves the town money. Obviously it fell on deaf ears. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Nov 5, 2014 10:51:17 GMT -6
I feel like i just got punched in the gut....then kneed in the nuts. We did everything we could to spread factual information, but too many voters were uninformed. We gave it our all, spent countless hours writing letters to the editor, emails, research, etc....The 10 year bond would have cost the average tax payer $5.80 a YEAR...actually $2.80 a year since you would be subtracting the current field maintainance cost. O well we must move on with our pot holed, divot filled, uneven field that has drainage problems. A sad day in a town that use to love it's sports and student athletes. Has anyone on here been involved in getting field turf through a bond referendum? If so, how did you fair? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Sell your facility to the P&R District with first rights to usage going to the HS Programs. Voters are not interested in more taxes especially since most incomes have leveled off since the recession. It may take another 10 years before voters will even listen to you again. Its not that they dont care....they just dont care right now. My local HS has beautiful on site facilities now. Was a complete dump 10 years ago. The School District no longer "owns" the facilities outright. The P&R and School District split all debt / credit. The School District has ZERO disposable income...the P&R has the cash and the manpower. Different tax base because things are more localized....sales tax...seat tax...licensing's etc. Worth looking into if that is something they do in your town. Kinda like K-Mart selling all the land underneath their stores to generate cash for improvements and then leasing it back from the Investors for 30 years. Very common now a day with no new debt on the books. More tax=new debt for the People. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 5, 2014 11:12:42 GMT -6
I wish I could say I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. As a HC, asking people for an extra $3 so you can have turf is pretty ludicrous. If we had a normal grass field I'd agree with you I guess. $3 a year is expensive to you though? However, our field is a liability right now, that's how bad it is. Plus because of our current field it's only usable 17 weeks out of the year instead of 40+ on artificial. We play football (freshmen, jv, varsity), boys and girls soccer (jv, varsity), a handful of middle school soccer games in the fall. Boys and girls Lacrosse (jv, varsity) in the spring. Plus band, flag, and dance line practice. If we got turf it would also be used on weekends by youth organizations. Also, there are currently 680 man hours spent trying to upkeep and maintain the field. If we got turf it only requires about 50 hours a year. That's 600+ man hours the town could spend at other rec and school facilities. Our finance director proved that after the 10 year bond period, artificial actually saves the town money. Obviously it fell on deaf ears. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards If I'm an average voter in today's economy, anything out of my pocket for a sports facility is idiotic. You look at it through your lens and they see it through an entirely different perspective. I don't know how much of your population is shifting older, but if it's a larger one they see things like turf as frills that aren't necessary. And they're really not. |
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Nov 5, 2014 15:31:18 GMT -6
All but 3-5 schools in my area have field turf. Because we have been in a drought for the last several years it has saved in cost on water. Even the six man schools have field turf.
Our field does get a ton of use. The youth league uses it on the weekends. Heck, we even have a 60 yd indoor facility. The community passed a bond issue 5 years ago that turfed the football field, softball field, built the indoor facility, expanded our HS, built a new JH, and expanded one of our elementary schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Nov 5, 2014 15:39:23 GMT -6
We don't have turf. But, the middle school down the street does. Wtf.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Nov 5, 2014 15:40:34 GMT -6
You need optimum traction when playing duck duck goose.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Nov 5, 2014 16:03:25 GMT -6
"Our finance director proved that after the 10 year bond period, artificial actually saves the town money"
Don't believe it - in 10 years you'll be looking for a new field.
Our HS is on year 7 with the turf. It gets a ton of use - all the sports, youth sports, local club sports. There are now seams pulling up, and the "grass" is starting to come off. That is consistent with the other fields around that I've seen, they start getting pretty beat up at 6-7 years. Malden Catholic (MA) has one of the oldest of the field turf fields in this area, it's maybe 10-12 years old, and last time I was on it 2 years ago it was in HORRIBLE shape. You're just covered in little fake grass as soon as you step on the field, and there are huge seams opened up, worn spots, etc. Maybe it's not any "more dangerous" than divots in a grass field, I don't know.
Maybe you can stretch it to 12-13 years and save some money, but be careful with what you promise. We originally heard 15-20 years, and that's just BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 5, 2014 16:13:38 GMT -6
"Our finance director proved that after the 10 year bond period, artificial actually saves the town money" Don't believe it - in 10 years you'll be looking for a new field. Our HS is on year 7 with the turf. It gets a ton of use - all the sports, youth sports, local club sports. There are now seams pulling up, and the "grass" is starting to come off. That is consistent with the other fields around that I've seen, they start getting pretty beat up at 6-7 years. Malden Catholic (MA) has one of the oldest of the field turf fields in this area, it's maybe 10-12 years old, and last time I was on it 2 years ago it was in HORRIBLE shape. You're just covered in little fake grass as soon as you step on the field, and there are huge seams opened up, worn spots, etc. Maybe it's not any "more dangerous" than divots in a grass field, I don't know. Maybe you can stretch it to 12-13 years and save some money, but be careful with what you promise. We originally heard 15-20 years, and that's just BS. The finance director planned for the 400K replacement cost by placing 34K a year in a reserve account. Everything was factored in. Give the guy some respect for holding that position. Of course he planned for the replacement cost. The reason it's cheaper is because if the bond didn't pass the town still has to address and fix the issue which costs money. The town will now either have to rip the whole field up, grade it, level it, proper drainage, lay sod down at an initial costs of 250-300K then put 50K a year in a reserve account to resod the field every four years (200k). Plus all the other maintainance costs that go along with natural grass. The other option is to continue with sod patchwork every year which is throwing money down the drain. All which costs a lot of money. Our finance director knows his stuff. The synthetic after the 10 year bond was paid off was cheaper than natural grass. We went on a tour of 6 synthetic fields in our area. The oldest is 10 years old and their AD was bragging that they'll get 20-25 years out of it. Yes this is rare but we walked the field. It looked brand new. They use the field non stop too. Just like cars there's different types of turf. Yea if you buy the cheapest possible you'll be lucky if it lasts 10 years. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 5, 2014 16:15:21 GMT -6
I wish I could say I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. As a HC, asking people for an extra $3 so you can have turf is pretty ludicrous. It's not exactly like you are asking everyone to chip in $3.00........more than likely a smaller percentage would have carried a majority of the burden. That being said, spos21ram, I am sorry to see something you put so much time into not come to be. It is tough when that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 5, 2014 16:19:18 GMT -6
I wish I could say I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. As a HC, asking people for an extra $3 so you can have turf is pretty ludicrous. It's not exactly like you are asking everyone to chip in $3.00........more than likely a smaller percentage would have carried a majority of the burden. That being said, spos21ram, I am sorry to see something you put so much time into not come to be. It is tough when that happens. One of our neighboring towns had their's passed with 65% saying yes yesterday. The difference was that they had the full backing of the town council and school committee. Ours was mixed. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 5, 2014 17:58:15 GMT -6
.. I don't know how much of your population is shifting older, but if it's a larger one they see things like turf as frills that aren't necessary. And they're really not. Neither are high school football programs. The point is that if you have a HS program, you need a field. And as was pointed out--often the turf field option is actually CHEAPER than a natural grass one over time. So that doesn't sound like a frill to me-- sounds like a sound financial decision. The problem is trying to educate voters on that. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 6, 2014 8:55:55 GMT -6
.. I don't know how much of your population is shifting older, but if it's a larger one they see things like turf as frills that aren't necessary. And they're really not. Neither are high school football programs. The point is that if you have a HS program, you need a field. And as was pointed out--often the turf field option is actually CHEAPER than a natural grass one over time. So that doesn't sound like a frill to me-- sounds like a sound financial decision. The problem is trying to educate voters on that. I don't disagree with anything you said, but to the average tax payer asking them for $3 a year for something they don't see a use for, especially when they see the program with three different unis, fireworks before and during the game, a blow up helmet, smoke machine, etc- is absolutely insane. Not saying the OP has any of these things, but I'm just presenting it from the mindset of a taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 6, 2014 10:30:09 GMT -6
Neither are high school football programs. The point is that if you have a HS program, you need a field. And as was pointed out--often the turf field option is actually CHEAPER than a natural grass one over time. So that doesn't sound like a frill to me-- sounds like a sound financial decision. The problem is trying to educate voters on that. I don't disagree with anything you said, but to the average tax payer asking them for $3 a year for something they don't see a use for, especially when they see the program with three different unis, fireworks before and during the game, a blow up helmet, smoke machine, etc- is absolutely insane. Not saying the OP has any of these things, but I'm just presenting it from the mindset of a taxpayer. I wish that the proposal would have a passed. But three things on the $3 a year. I do not have the facts at all so I am just talking. 1) $1,000,000 is $1,000,000 no matter how little it costs each one individually. I do not know how much the bond issue was for, but I guess it had to be around $1,000,000. 2) People are fed up with taxes. Not to turn this too political, although this is a political issue since it was voted on, but I myself am paying $800 more a month in health insurance with higher deductibles and higher co-pays because of obamacare. People are just tired of paying more. Hence, the Republican sweep of the elections. They absolutely steamrolled nationwide on Tuesday. Your bond issue vote came at the absolute worst time. Sorry. 3) It might be $3 per person per year on average. But let's say you have 33,000 in your community and you have a 10 year $1,000,000 bond issue. That works out to $3 per person per year. I am just guessing on these figures. But it never works out the way where each person pays $3. More than likely you 10,000 or less families. 3,000 of those own home instead of rent. This is probably a progressive tax so that the ones with higher incomes or higher property values will pay the highest tax. So now 1,000 are bearing the brunt. Now they $100 more per year for 10 years or $1000 total. They don't want to do that and those are the people that vote. Many of those are on fixed incomes. The older people have more of the money, well, because they are older and have worked and saved longer and don't give a hoot about artificial turf. I have no idea how the bond was to be funded, I was just using property tax as an example. Just putting a different spin on everything. Still wish y'all would have gotten it passed. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbs72 on Nov 6, 2014 10:45:12 GMT -6
I feel like i just got punched in the gut....then kneed in the nuts. We did everything we could to spread factual information, but too many voters were uninformed. We gave it our all, spent countless hours writing letters to the editor, emails, research, etc....The 10 year bond would have cost the average tax payer $5.80 a YEAR...actually $2.80 a year since you would be subtracting the current field maintainance cost. O well we must move on with our pot holed, divot filled, uneven field that has drainage problems. A sad day in a town that use to love it's sports and student athletes. Has anyone on here been involved in getting field turf through a bond referendum? If so, how did you fair? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Same things happened to our district last May. It was part of a bond issue to replace a ton of worn down school facilities. Some of our mis-information was so bad, we had people in town calling ours "astroturf" and saying they heard that astroturf can cause cancer. True story. Hard to get the facts out when you are combatting stuff like that! |
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Nov 6, 2014 13:13:37 GMT -6
The finance director planned for the 400K replacement cost by placing 34K a year in a reserve account. Everything was factored in. Give the guy some respect for holding that position. Of course he planned for the replacement cost. I wasn't not giving him credit - the folks selling the turf fields will tell you 20-25 years. Never seen one last that long, but hey, this current crop of products hasn't really been around that long either. So who knows. I can tell you OUR school system is woefully unprepared to replace our field. They were collecting user fees that were theoretically supposed to go into a fund, but then spending them elsewhere. It's only now starting to come to light that they're going to need to do something, and have no money to do it. Frankly I don't know that our city or school system HAS a finance director...certainly no evidence of that the way they do things... |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 6, 2014 13:19:26 GMT -6
The finance director planned for the 400K replacement cost by placing 34K a year in a reserve account. Everything was factored in. Give the guy some respect for holding that position. Of course he planned for the replacement cost. The reason it's cheaper is because if the bond didn't pass the town still has to address and fix the issue which costs money. The town will now either have to rip the whole field up, grade it, level it, proper drainage, lay sod down at an initial costs of 250-300K then put 50K a year in a reserve account to resod the field every four years (200k). Plus all the other maintainance costs that go along with natural grass. The other option is to continue with sod patchwork every year which is throwing money down the drain. All which costs a lot of money. Our finance director knows his stuff. The synthetic after the 10 year bond was paid off was cheaper than natural grass. We went on a tour of 6 synthetic fields in our area. The oldest is 10 years old and their AD was bragging that they'll get 20-25 years out of it. Yes this is rare but we walked the field. It looked brand new. They use the field non stop too. Just like cars there's different types of turf. Yea if you buy the cheapest possible you'll be lucky if it lasts 10 years. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Why does the town have to do anything? |
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 6, 2014 13:23:10 GMT -6
The finance director planned for the 400K replacement cost by placing 34K a year in a reserve account. Everything was factored in. Give the guy some respect for holding that position. Of course he planned for the replacement cost. The reason it's cheaper is because if the bond didn't pass the town still has to address and fix the issue which costs money. The town will now either have to rip the whole field up, grade it, level it, proper drainage, lay sod down at an initial costs of 250-300K then put 50K a year in a reserve account to resod the field every four years (200k). Plus all the other maintainance costs that go along with natural grass. The other option is to continue with sod patchwork every year which is throwing money down the drain. All which costs a lot of money. Our finance director knows his stuff. The synthetic after the 10 year bond was paid off was cheaper than natural grass. We went on a tour of 6 synthetic fields in our area. The oldest is 10 years old and their AD was bragging that they'll get 20-25 years out of it. Yes this is rare but we walked the field. It looked brand new. They use the field non stop too. Just like cars there's different types of turf. Yea if you buy the cheapest possible you'll be lucky if it lasts 10 years. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Why does the town have to do anything? The town ultimately owns the field. It wasn't a school bond it was a town bond. The field just happens to be on school property. The school and town outside maintainance are done by the same people, which is the town public works dept. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 6, 2014 13:24:25 GMT -6
I wasn't not giving him credit - the folks selling the turf fields will tell you 20-25 years. Never seen one last that long, but hey, this current crop of products hasn't really been around that long either. So who knows. I can tell you OUR school system is woefully unprepared to replace our field. They were collecting user fees that were theoretically supposed to go into a fund, but then spending them elsewhere. It's only now starting to come to light that they're going to need to do something, and have no money to do it. Frankly I don't know that our city or school system HAS a finance director...certainly no evidence of that the way they do things... The oldest turf in our area is also falling apart and is losing "the grass" after 6 or 7 years. Just played on it and it's also harder than a rock. You can keep the crap for my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 6, 2014 13:26:21 GMT -6
The town ultimately owns the field. It wasn't a school bond it was a town bond. The field just happens to be on school property. The school and town outside maintainance are done by the same people, which is the town public works dept. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards The town mows the front lawn of the school district? Isn't that a contradiction of governmental entities? Again though, why does the town "HAVE" to do anything about your field? |
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Nov 6, 2014 13:34:55 GMT -6
don't give up, at first you don't succeed try again, there is a school that has tried to get a bond passed to add on to their school since the 90's, it finally passed the other day, keep educating, keep working, it will come,
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 6, 2014 14:27:52 GMT -6
The town ultimately owns the field. It wasn't a school bond it was a town bond. The field just happens to be on school property. The school and town outside maintainance are done by the same people, which is the town public works dept. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards The town mows the front lawn of the school district? Isn't that a contradiction of governmental entities? Again though, why does the town "HAVE" to do anything about your field? The town and school dept. consolidated their maintainance departments 5 years ago to save money. They are all one. The same town workers cut the grass in the front of the school that cut our Rec facility's grass. The town owns the field. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 6, 2014 14:51:12 GMT -6
That is a very odd arrangement to say the least.
But again- Why does the city "HAVE" to do anything? If it's as bad as they say, why don't they have it condemned and use some emergency funds to fix it? That has been done locally IIRC.
|
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Nov 7, 2014 7:50:18 GMT -6
There are companies out there that do everything for getting field turf installed, starting with fundraising all the way through installation of the field.
|
|
