Turf Fields Feasibility Committee

Transcription

1 Turf Fields Feasibility Committee I. Charge of the Committee Due to ongoing public discussion and misinformation regarding the private funding of turf fields for the school system, the Superintendent of Schools charged a committee with the task of exploring the feasibility of acquiring turf fields for the Carroll County Public School System. The committee was charged with examining all aspects of turf fields and how they relate to the use of athletic fields in Carroll County Public Schools. II. Committee Members Barbara Shreeve, Board of Education of Carroll County President Ray Prokop, Carroll County Public Schools, Director of Facilities Jim Rodriguez, Carroll County Public Schools, Supervisor of Athletics Dave Dolch, Carroll County Public Schools, Coordinator of Facilities, Activities and Athletics, Manchester Valley High Randy Pentz, Carroll County Public Schools, Coordinator of Facilities, Activities and Athletics, Century High Kathy Lowe, Department of Recreation and Parks, Charles Carroll Recreation Council President Ed Beane, Department of Recreation and Parks, Winfield Recreation Council President Michael Carr, Department of Recreation and Parks, North Carroll Recreation Council President Kip Barkley, Department of Recreation and Parks, Charles Carroll Recreation Council President Scott McKelvie, Department of Recreation and Parks, Westminster Area Recreation Council Vice President William Kennedy, Carroll County resident III. Summary of the Committee s Discussion The committee explored the advantages and disadvantages of turf fields as compared with natural grass fields in the areas of use, playability, and initial and long term cost. A summary of information discussed in those areas is contained the report s attachments. However, the group concluded that, without regard to the use and playability of turf vs. natural grass fields, the initial cost of turf fields would preclude their installation without additional sources of revenue. Accordingly, the committee brings unresolved financial issues to the Board of Education for discussion prior to continuing to explore the remaining issues. 1

2 IV. Discussion Topics Summaries A. Comments and questions regarding turf fields (Attachment 1). B. Carroll County s fiscal state (Attachment 2). C. Advantages and disadvantages of turf fields (Attachment 3). D. Usability and cost of natural grass vs. turf fields (Attachment 4). E. Outstanding Issues (Noted in Subsection V). V. Outstanding Issues Will the Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools alter current policies and regulations to allow the following? Individual high schools to raise funds for a turf field. A benefactor to donate funding for one or more turf fields. The use of advertising as a source of revenue for turf fields. Naming rights of fields/stadiums as a source of revenue for turf fields. 2

3 Comments & Questions Turf Field Feasibility Committee Attachment 1 What if outside money was donated to install a turf field at one of our schools, would the Board of Education allow this to take place? What role, if any, would the county s Department of Recreation and Parks Council play? Cooperation, co-funding, etc? Can we solicit funding from private industry in exchange for naming rights or advertising? Do we need to differentiate between school system fields and county fields? Can the county government raise bonds? How are the surrounding counties funding turf fields? What are the costs going to be? Initial, maintenance, revitalization, replacement, time (man hours)? What is the longevity of turf fields? What does maintenance of turf fields exactly entail? When looking at bid packages, we need to consider both hard & soft costs. Consider piggy backing on existing bid from counties throughout the state or possibly surrounding states What are the different turf products out on the market? Need to consider the safety issues involved, i.e. toxins, heat, footing, MRSA? What preparation would need to be done prior to installation? Blasting? Need to know cost of ownership? What are the latest trends in technology involving turf fields? We need to list pros and cons of having turf fields in Carroll County 3

4 Turf Field Feasibility Committee Attachment 2 Financial Considerations Total budget dropped from $589.2 million in FY 08 to $451.4 million in FY 11 County operating budget has changed about 6% from $328.4 million in FY 08 to $349.0 million in FY 11- Elimination of 90 positions who report directly to the county commissioners CCPS operating budget has changed a little more than 6% from $308.4 million in FY 08 to $327.9 million in FY 11 County capital budget has changed from $187.1 million in FY 08 to $53.3 million in FY 11 CCPS capital budget has changed from $87.6 million in FY 08 to $18.8 million in FY 11 Indicators such as income, record, interest, & permits have seen changes ranging from 10% to 96%, resulting in $1.0 to 13.8 million dollar differences from high years to FY 10 There has been significant changes in money from the state in areas such as county/towns, college, schools, library, health, retirement The operating budget has a miniscule margin of error built in for future years:.7% in FY 12,.7% in FY 13,.2% in FY 14,.1% in FY 15,.6% in FY 16 The state is highly considering handing over retirement pensions to the county level which would cause further burden on the county financial situation The BOE Facilities Master Plan calls for 14 additions, new structures, renovations or modernizations in future years which currently cannot be funded Left with sentiment that artificial turf fields are a good thing, however, resources are limited and what are the priorities? Tax base: 82% residential, 5-6% agricultural, and 10-15% businesses 4

5 Turf Field Feasibility Committee Attachment 3 Pros of Turf Fields Consistency of surface Multiple uses- Multiple sports as well as practices and games Extended use time Able to use regardless of weather No need for fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides Upside of conditioning vs. irrigation Possibility of generating funds from outside sources Possibility of multiple games/sporting events/non sporting events CCPS teams have equal footing in regional & state playoffs Cons of Turf Fields Financial costs initial & replacement Vandalism possibility Management of use Need for sanitizer, conditioner, antibacterial products Need for special equipment Community impact: lighting Safety: heat, infection, and burns/abrasions Possible toxins Latex allergies possibility 5

6 Stadium field size is 100,000 sq. ft. Assumptions Used for Cost Calculations Attachment 4 Annual cost is an average over all eight stadium fields. $100/hr. used for Athletic Director s hours. Increased custodial cost due to increased usage excluded. Additional electrical usage and lamping excluded. One-time contracted services for natural turf excluded. Full sod replacement every 5 years. Consideration of volunteer hours and donated services excluded. Irrigation systems installed at all schools. Note: FSK currently in process of installing irrigation system. Natural turf maintenance equipment exists. Assume water usage of artificial turf at ½ that of natural turf. Calculations do not include cost escalation. Natural Turf - New On-site native soil and natural turf - $ $1.50/sq.ft. Native soil and natural turf - $ $5.25/sq.ft. Sand cap - $ $6.50/sq.ft. Sand and drainage - $ $10/sq. ft. Replacement Sod with Native Soil Costs $20,000 budget Artificial Turf Costs $1,000,000 budget o Maintenance equipment included in cost. o Plus-ups for sewn in lines, logos, etc., irrigation system, shock absorption pad excluded from cost. $600,000 budget for removal, disposal and replacement 6