District 304′s Artificial Turf Fantasy, 27 Acres of Boondoggle and More Transportation Budget Follies
April 18, 2010
The Geneva District 304 School Board met last week. I’ll start with information from the latest “On the Record” summary of last Monday night’s Board meeting:
Outdoor Facilities Presentation
The Superintendent’s Athletic Facilities Task Force presented a needs assessment report detailing an inventory of existing outdoor athletic facilities and a review of the usage and conditions of these facilities. The task force did not recommend additional use of any of Geneva High School’s outdoor athletic facilities, including Burgess Field, due to overuse and deteriorating conditions. The task force did report field turf as a possibility at Burgess Field to allow for greater use year-round, though this possibility would have to be explored by the Board at a future date. The task force found that athletic fields at the middle schools would be available for additional use, but noted that transportation costs would be incurred if practices were held there. Finally, the task force found that, as it currently exists, the 27 acres owned at Brundige and Keslinger roads is unusable for athletics due to the fact that the property is not lined or graded and lacks drainage.
OK, two very interesting pieces of information here. First, “field turf” is a company but it is also Board-speak for a “$1,000,000 artificial turf football field that we’d prefer to keep quiet”. If you read this Geneva Sun article, they would have you believe that they will raise funds privately for this. This despite the fact that the Geneva Sports Boosters just recently canceled a major annual fundraiser due to lack of interest and advance ticket sales. Of course, the “On the Record” summary ignores the fact that the primary reasons that Burgess Field is in poor condition is that four of the five field drains are not working and we had a very wet fall and an extended playoff run. If the drainage tiles are not functioning, get them fixed, which is certainly not going to cost anywhere close to even one tenth of a million dollars. There was also discussion about the poor lacrosse team needing to be bused to Wheeler Park for practice. Huh? It’s a one mile warm up training run / cool down run from the High School. Easily less than an 8 minute run for high school boys. But instead we waste money on busing and contemplate spending a million dollars for artificial turf so they can practice at Burgess Field? How does this kind of lunacy even make it into a Board meeting? The case for going with an artificial turf field is very weak and based on a number of dubious cost savings assumptions, even IF we had the tax money, which we clearly do not. And please, spare me the “artificial turf will prevent/reduce injuries” argument. The root cause of football injuries is choosing to play football. But if the Sports Boosters or a wealthy sponsor or patron wants to raise or donate the cash to install it, while also assuming responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement, then go for it. Knock yourselves out. Just don’t belly up to the public trough expecting taxpayers to fund your Friday Night Lights fantasy football field.
In the second and actually more interesting piece of news, we now learn that the 27 acre Keslinger and Brundige boondoggle is not suitable for play or practice fields. Hmmmm. So what exactly is this land suitable for? Was it bought for a bus barn, which the District has denied, or was it for playing fields as the District claims? Since they’ve never published anything to explain it, I guess it’s for whatever they want it to be for this week. It will be quite interesting to see what they do with it now after they’ve invested somewhere north to $2.5 million tax dollars for the purchase and site access road improvements. Will they sell the property as I’ve suggested in prior posts? Or is this the first sign that they will eventually want to spend even more tax dollars to “develop” this site? If Grosso had not led the effort to strip out the budget dollars for this project last fall, imagine where we’d be when the cost overruns started showing up because of the things that would need to be done to line it or grade it or to put in drainage. This boondoggle has been an unconscionable waste of tax dollars from the very beginning. The District should sell this property and use the proceeds to pay down the bond debt incurred to purchase it in the first place.
Which now brings us to the preliminary budget proposal for the Operations & Maintenance and Transportation Budgets.
2010-2011 Preliminary Budget
Assistant Superintendent Donna Oberg presented an outline of proposed reductions for the 2010-2011 Operations and Maintenance and Transportation budgets. Proposed reductions total $814,771 in Operations and Maintenance and $785,962 in Transportation. These proposed reductions are in addition to $1.3 million reduced this school year, which will not be reinstated in 2010-2011 and $1.4 million in reductions already approved for the 2010-2011 Education Fund budget. Combined, all of these reductions will result in a balanced District budget for the 2010-2011 school year. A copy of the Operations and Maintenance and Transportation budgets presentation, which includes the outlined reductions, is available on the District’s website, http://www.geneva304.org<http://www.geneva304.org/>, by clicking on the “Geneva 304 Finances” link.
This deck is puzzling. The Operations & Maintenance section seems pretty straightforward, while the Transportation Fund has several peculiar features. For starters, they bring in FY 2012 to show that over FY 2011 and FY 2012 they will generate a $360,486 surplus. Presumably, this has to do with going to a two year cycle on new bus purchases, with the planned purchases in June of 2011 falling in FY 2011 and creating a $4,144,743 deficit for FY 2011. Then for FY 2012, they show a surplus of $4,505,229, from not buying new buses. Of course this is predictated on the deck being correct. As I review the deck, I have the following questions regarding the accuracy of the numbers in the Transportation budget section:
1. On page 7 of the deck, the FY 2011 Projected Expenses = $7,902,908, while on page 9 they total $8,688,870, an unexplained increase of $785,962.
2. On page 7 of the deck, the FY 2011 Projected Deficit = $4,144,743, while on page 9 it totals $4,930,705, the same unexplained increase of $785,962.
3. Then on page 8, the list of Transportation budget reductions totals $947,337, yet on page 9, they show reductions of $785,962. Where did the other $161,375 go? And how did the $785,962 get added to the 2011 expenses and the deficit from page 7 and then subtracted to reduce the deficit from $4,930,705 to 4,144,743 on page 9? Note that the FY 2012 numbers do not change from page 7 to 9, so what is going on with the FY 2011 numbers?
4. The projected two year surplus of $360,486 is completely dependent on generating a surplus of $4,505,229 in FY 2012, which is completely dependent upon the assumption that Local Projected Revenue will increase by $3,976,385 from FY 2011′s $1,763,165 to $5,739,550 in FY 2012. There is no explanation in this deck as to why anyone should believe that local revenues will increase by 325% year over year. It also is very dependent on the assumption that state funding will be unchanged from 2011 to 2012 at $1,995,000. We all know Illinois is broke, so how comfortable are we with that assumption?
So, who can really say based on this deck that the Transportation budget will or won’t be balanced over a two year period? What is certain is that buying buses in 2011 will create a $4+ million dollar deficit and that to get back to even in 2012 requires us to believe that local revenues for this budget will increase by 325% while state support remains at current levels. Now there may be logical explanations for this, but if there are, they should be explained in the deck so that anyone can review and understand them. While it’s great that the District put the deck up quickly for a change, it does no good to post one with numbers that don’t tie. If only I lived in town with a cable company that carried the Board meetings so I could review the deck while watching the DVR’d meeting commentary. Perhaps it would make sense then. Or perhaps not. But of course that would require a Board that actually wants to increase public access, rather than one trying to minimize it.
Comments
8 Responses to “District 304′s Artificial Turf Fantasy, 27 Acres of Boondoggle and More Transportation Budget Follies”
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Advertisement
This all follows from this school district’s over-emphasis on reading at the expense of math and science. They don’t think anyone will analyze the numbers becuase they don’t understand the importance of math and science. In their view, nothing is absolute, not even 2+2. They can just throw out a few words and the math gets swept under the table.
Why should this district spend any money on the football field? What percentage of the students will benefit EDUCATIONALLY from this investment? Not even that, what % will benefit athletically? I’ve heard talk of fees going up for all extra-curricular. How does that reconcile with this new turf field? Will there be equal funds allocated to “upgrade” other acticities [sports and non-sports]?
Don’t get me wrong, I love football. But seriously, who gives a shit about the field?
Nice analysis, Dave, AFTER the first paragraph.
You forget the rest of the sports that regularly use Burgess field and outlying practice fields and the high volume of traffic these fields all get. If there were a turf field, there would be less injuries, but not necessarily just to football players, whom you seem to hold at low esteem. The soccer teams play there matches on Burgess and it is really embarrassingly bad. Have you kept track of the ligament tears that routinely occur? It’s predictably worse in the fall for boys soccer, but even if you go to a girl’s game now you’ll see that both the center of the field and the edges are bad. Remeber, a soccer pitch is wider than a football field, so the entire area that the football teams stand on all game is part of the soccer playing surface. It is nothing but dirt/mud all fall long. It truly is a problem that is worthy of the Board’s concern: think LIABILITY.
Many districts are thinking progressively on this. See the recent Tribune article (that I clipped knowing you would eventually write about this subject): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/ct-x-s-astroturf-0407-20100407,0,6348842.story
I was particularly impressed on how these districts were able to make it work. It was a “no brainer” for them. Perhaps one or two less administrators on staff, and the District could find the money to do it.
Lunatic Fringe,
A couple comments. I assume the district already requires some sort of waiver of liability form to play any sport. If not, they should. Of course, they are probably not worth the paper they are printed on, but it would seem to me that it would be tough to file suit and prove than an injury on the field was a direct result of the field.
Second, the link to the article above is exactly the type of behavior I’m trying to head off. Let’s see, in that article we have a special interest group complaining until a school board agrees to artificial turf, diverting limited capital dollars from other projects to fund a $4 million dollar pet project with a financially ridiculous 10 year payback, speciously arguing that if it prevents one injury, its worth it and a no-brainer, so that their district can keep up with the Jones’ and not be embarrassed or the butt of field ridicule jokes. I fail to see the progressive thinking in this, but rather more empire building. And once again, the “we can rent it out” argument pops up in support of doing something in spite of its dubious financial merit.
LF: Why would Burgess be $1 million but the article you cited be 3.7? I think the costs just quadrupled. Also, are you implying that the entire “complex” around burgess field gets turfed ["outlying practice fields and the high volume of traffic these fields all get."]? Real costs going up again!
If you can make a financial argument that it will save money over time or not cost money [ie, finance at a rate/term that requires the same yearly outlay as current maintenance], then I’m all for it. But the arguments re: injuries and “embarrassment” are hallow.
If a financial argument cannot be made, then why would we allocate money from the district pot into a small number of students for NO educational benefit? Seems elitist. The “chosen” sports/clubs/activities get the extra dollars. Why would we cut special ed aides/teachers at elementary school and put in a turf field? Seriously, why? Crap-o-la!
It’s not a no-brainer at all. It deserves consideration and attention, and review in a public forum.
Disclosure: children are athletes in geneva 304.
Dave-
Yes there is a waiver. Also there is heightened immunity for governmental units. However, continuing to expose the students to a knowingly defective condition will help an injured party cut through the legalese. The district also covers any injured party’s costs not covered by their own insurance. You just have to know to ask. So, if you have a high deductible plan, and your child has to have surgery, the district will cover the deductible. Who can guess what that has cost them over the years already. I base this on our own experience from roughly 2005.
Also, the facility could be multi-use and practically year round. It could be the practice field for sports plus the marching band, cheer teams and dance, as well as the playing field for soccer, football, lacrosse, track and field, etc. The park district and other clubs could be able to use it too. It’s not like a pool (don’t get me started on the long-unfulfilled need for an indoor pool) which only has a few lanes and thus rental is problematic due to the hours of availability. This field would be big enough to accomodate multiple uses all at the same time. There’s no reason that more than one team could be practicing at the same time.
Anyway, with “progressive” thinking like wtf’s, the athletes will be stuck with Burgess as is for a long time to come.
LF: what’s not progressive about my thinking? The fact that I disagree with you? I don’t come to this site to snipe. I’m just trying to present logical arguments. I want the people of this district to think logically about the things going on. I don’t think you are being logical on this one.
I’ll try to to respond to what i consider your points:
1.) “year round”: There are no winter sports that need to practice outside. Really from Nov-March there’s about 4 months where the field will go unused.
2.) “safety”: You’re really only concerned with the health of the VARSITY athletes. For example, frosh/soph football will not be practicing on that field, right? Won’t they be subject to injury during practice? I don’t see how the likelihood or severity of injury would be less during practice than during games. they spend 5 times more hours on the practice field than on the game field [assuming they move the game field to the turf field, they currently play games on the practice field]. That would bring us back to turfing over the entire complex, and that has never been mentioned.
3) “Multiple uses at the same time”: Have you ever been to a varsity football practice? they pretty much take over the whole field as they break down into units.
Same with soccer. It would be 1 team at a time out there. I think you would get into more injury issues with too much going on.
You are not even trying to refute points about fair distribution of money. Give me some response re: why district dollars should be spent on a limited number of students. The cost benefit ratio is not there. And again, what educational purpose does a new field solve? If the district is adding fees for every extra-curricular, and then turning around and buying a new field, isn’t that really a new field tax imposed on everyone else? In effect, the field becomes funded by the debate team fees going up.
I’d be happy to sign up for it if it made fiscal sense, but I don’t see the numbers yet. If you really want the turf, come up with new arguments besides injury prevention and year-round use. They are not good points.
Keep on trying! You’ll get it some day!
I have no idea what the cost of this would be. Neither the 1M nor the 3.7M numbers are mine. No, I am not implying that they turf more than Burgess. My point is in doing that, they could vastly reduce the stress on the practice areas because they wouldn’t have to “baby” Burgess every time it rained.
Decisions on allocation of $$ are made every day that favor one group over others. I agree that most of them are idiotic (Cadillac busses serve only the bussed, flat screen tvs in the middle school, tile emblems in Williamsburg, etc., etc.). However, a deteriorating facility needs improvement from time to time. Maybe the numbers are out there to perform a study of repair and maintenance vs. installation; but, I certainly don’t pretend to have them.
And just because one poorly advertised fundraiser was cancelled is by no means a reason to denegrate the Sports Boosters ability to raise funds that might be dedicated to this purpose. In the past they raised the funds to vastly update the weight room. It could be a publi/private effort.
My time as a high school parent here is almost over. It should be the families that have middle school athletes in soccer, football and lacrosse etc. that should be pushing for this effort. The problem is that unless they go to a game and see for themselves, they’d never believe the slop that is Burgess field in the fall.
LF: i seriously hope you don’t drop off the radar after your kids are gone. I value your input and appreciate your positions. You often have good info and views on the topics.
I am really asking for the Board to put forth the numbers re: maintenance vs replace with turf. If Mutchler or the board had a handle on the financial health of the district, It should take them about 10 minutes. But they don’t really value bottom line, so they don’t care about numbers. They are “idea” people.