New Athletic Facillities and the Budget

[Bullaholic]

With the proposed budget cuts in education it sure is going to be a tough sell for athletic improvements. We have been working on Turf proposals in Bridgeport for several years now and haven't made it yet. I think it's going to be a while.

[mwrams]

We were lucky and passed a bond package after the 3rd attempt just a year before the economy tanked.

[sinton66]

Start up some wind farms.;)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Start up some wind farms.;) You guys have an awesome baseball park!

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
You guys have an awesome baseball park!

I've only seen pictures so far. I'll get down there one of these days.

[RoyceTTU]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
With the proposed budget cuts in education it sure is going to be a tough sell for athletic improvements. We have been working on Turf proposals in Bridgeport for several years now and haven't made it yet. I think it's going to be a while.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think many of the smaller districts will squeeze bye and feel very little. I've heard of many schools in the Bwd area that will not lose any jobs. They are merly tightning up the budget. The larger districts will take the brunt of this and I would think they would have a 0 chance of getting anything passed.

I think only the PR blowback could be the only thing to really hurt the smaller districts. It really boils down to how well they were managing their expenses before this all happened. Some schools were very lean before so they were in better shape. It's tougher to manager the larger districts that lean.

[rancher]

What type of imbecile would put it to a vote in today's economic climate. How can it be justified? A million dollar plus investiment in something that will only be used a few times a year. Give me a break. REMEMBER THESE ITEMS ARE EXTRACURRICULAR. For those feetsball coaches this means activities performed by students that fall outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school. WE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT. Let those feetsball coaches who are too lazy to take care of a field pay for it. They have plenty of time since they teach nothing and just hang around on the taxpayer's dime.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by rancher
What type of imbecile would put it to a vote in today's economic climate. How can it be justified? A million dollar plus investiment in something that will only be used a few times a year. Give me a break. REMEMBER THESE ITEMS ARE EXTRACURRICULAR. For those feetsball coaches this means activities performed by students that fall outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school. WE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT. Let those feetsball coaches who are too lazy to take care of a field pay for it. They have plenty of time since they teach nothing and just hang around on the taxpayer's dime.

Wow, rancher---you have some bad experiences with football coaches somewhere along the way?

I don't think you can paint all football coaches with that broad brush, rancher---most work very, very hard because they love kids and coaching, plus many districts require all coaches to teach.

I think extracurricular activities pay tremendous incalcuable dividends to our kids from an enjoyment, character development, and sense of work/achievement standpoint----especially in our smaller schools and towns.
Sufficient, not extravagant, facillities are a small price to pay for these gains for our kids.

[RoyceTTU]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Wow, rancher---you have some bad experiences with football coaches somewhere along the way?

I don't think you can paint all football coaches with that broad brush, rancher---most work very, very hard because they love kids and coaching, plus many districts require all coaches to teach.

I think extracurricular activities pay tremendous incalcuable dividends to our kids from an enjoyment, character development, and sense of work/achievement standpoint----especially in our smaller schools and towns.
Sufficient, not extravagant, facillities are a small price to pay for these gains for our kids.

Bull, don't do it, it's a trap. He'll suck you in to a no win argument :doh: :p

[tigerball4life]

Rauncher = all hat no cattle....

He will never see the forest for the trees. If he had his way we would all be watching Hee Haw on RFDTV or the auctions at 4 counties instead of his beloved Brahmas perform on the pasture of pain. There are studies that prove that the up keep on a football field is almost as much as the note on an artificial surface and that is at today’s costs. I say put it in today and save on the demands of water, fertilizer, diesel, paint, labor and all that goes with a grass field, not to mention the studies on artificial turf being safer for the athletes. This isn’t your fathers “Astroturf” anymore.
I can’t wait to hear the responses this gets

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by RoyceTTU
Bull, don't do it, it's a trap. He'll suck you in to a no win argument :doh: :p

LOL---Thanks for the warning, Royce. I'll discuss anything, anytime, with anyone---even rancher---in the interest of learning other's views, but I won't argue, and I've grown a pretty tough hide over the years.

[Matthew328]

facility improvements ie bonds are completely seperate from the general budget as is

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Matthew328
facility improvements ie bonds are completely seperate from the general budget as is

True---but the overall perception by voters is not segregated. Some see athletic improvements as an unneccessary expenditure of their money in difficult economic times.

[Matthew328]

No it is not, so any new projects may be tough to pass...any existing ones (ie new stadium in Allen) are fine.

[rancher]

There are no such studies unless they are by the manufacture of field turf or their hired whores who are told what to publish. In fact, there is a study out by the Univ.of Ark and another by Mich. State Univ. that say the opposite.

It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960.

Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. When artificial turf (in-fill systems) needs renovating every 8-10 years, there is a hidden cost of disposal. Because the field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.

A recent survey of 1,511 active NFL players by the NFL players association found that 73% of the players preferred playing on a natural grass system, while only 18% preferred artificial turf (4). Nine-percent of the players had no preference.

An aspect of synthetic turf that is now receiving increased scrutiny is the potential for increased incidences of infections among players that play primarily on in-fill systems. In a report titled “Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection From Turf”, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals (6). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported a rate for the general population of 32 in 100,000. These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the risk of infection that might occur off the field from infections. In-fill systems must now be routinely treated with special disinfectants to reduce the likelihood of infections, adding another cost to the maintenance of these fields.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

[Pick6]

Lindsay ISD is getting a new grass field and one of the Muenster schools, ISD or Sacred Heart, is getting a new grass field also.

[CENTEX FAN]

Rancher is full of it. All he can do is spout stats he searches on the internet. La Vega put in a turf field two years ago. In doing so, they were able to eliminate two grass practice fields since the turf field could be used by multiple organizations, i.e, band, soccer, 9th, jv and varsity Fb teams, and even softball and baseball in the spring when their fields are wet. they have had no instances of staph and the cost for upkeep in considerabley less than the 3 grass fields. The cost to replace turk in 8 to 10 years if about half what the turk cost new because the sub structure is already in place. Rancher, as usual, you are full of crap.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by CENTEX FAN
Rancher is full of it. All he can do is spout stats he searches on the internet. La Vega put in a turf field two years ago. In doing so, they were able to eliminate two grass practice fields since the turf field could be used by multiple organizations, i.e, band, soccer, 9th, jv and varsity Fb teams, and even softball and baseball in the spring when their fields are wet. they have had no instances of staph and the cost for upkeep in considerabley less than the 3 grass fields. The cost to replace turk in 8 to 10 years if about half what the turk cost new because the sub structure is already in place. Rancher, as usual, you are full of crap.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[GrTigers6]

What rancher posted is just proof that just because it is on the internet doesnt make it true.
We have had a turf field since I started 4 years ago and havent had to do any of that, with the exception of the infill, which was a part of the initial contract for the first time. Also when its hot, you simply play on it, if you were to water it so to speak all you would do is create a more humid playing surface while only decreasing the temperature for a brief amount of time.
Also because of the turf we could absorb two grounds positions that were no longer needed thanks to the low maintanence turf.
So there is no way anyone can tell me its not cheaper than grass was. In the long run.

[Lucky2Coach]

Originally posted by rancher
There are no such studies unless they are by the manufacture of field turf or their hired whores who are told what to publish. In fact, there is a study out by the Univ.of Ark and another by Mich. State Univ. that say the opposite.

It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960.

Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. When artificial turf (in-fill systems) needs renovating every 8-10 years, there is a hidden cost of disposal. Because the field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.

A recent survey of 1,511 active NFL players by the NFL players association found that 73% of the players preferred playing on a natural grass system, while only 18% preferred artificial turf (4). Nine-percent of the players had no preference.

An aspect of synthetic turf that is now receiving increased scrutiny is the potential for increased incidences of infections among players that play primarily on in-fill systems. In a report titled “Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection From Turf”, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals (6). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported a rate for the general population of 32 in 100,000. These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the risk of infection that might occur off the field from infections. In-fill systems must now be routinely treated with special disinfectants to reduce the likelihood of infections, adding another cost to the maintenance of these fields.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Rancher, where did you coach? I know you had stops at Grape Creek and North Garland, but I think there were a couple other schools in there. Retirement must be boring!

[12thMan]

I could be wrong here, but it's hard to see so many teachers loose their jobs while schools are building new stadium's and playing fields. Some small town schools are even shutting the doors and combining with other schools.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but it doesn't look good. I love sports, and I know how it helps kids grow up and achieve in the class rooms, on the field, and off the field.

[GrTigers6]

the money for the facilities being built comes from bonds that are voted for by the taxpayers, money for education comes from the state. its that simple. bond money can only be used for improvements and not for salaries or education expenses, so what are schools supposed to do, just sit on money and not improve their district?
We are building a new arena, but also creating a larger band hall, adding classrooms and a larger ag facility, so its not all sports related.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by GrTigers6
the money for the facilities being built comes from bonds that are voted for by the taxpayers, money for education comes from the state. its that simple. bond money can only be used for improvements and not for salaries or education expenses, so what are schools supposed to do, just sit on money and not improve their district?
We are building a new arena, but also creating a larger band hall, adding classrooms and a larger ag facility, so its not all sports related.




At the risk of ruffling some feathers I have to state that although Bond money does come from a different source the repayment of those bonds (w/interest) comes out of the school's general fund. And I agree that in these tough economic times when teachers are at risk of losing their jobs it is irresponsible for the school district to go ahead with plans to build new infrastructure. I'm not sure it can be done but I'm pretty sure there is a buy-back clause on school bonds that would allow the district to give back the bond money with minimal interest debt.

[Farmersfan]

Can anybody closely involved in a school district give us an idea of what the general debt repayment cost is annually for your school district?

[Farmersfan]

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/155947



A article on future indebtedness at Galveston ISD as relating to new sports facilities.

[CENTEX FAN]

Bond indebtedness is not paid out of the general budget. There are two parts to schools budget. M & O (Maintainence and Operation) is the general fund that pays for supplies, salaries, etc. I & S (Interest and Sinking( fund pays for facilities and building. When a bond is passed and bonds sold, Money goes into I & S fund. Districts figure how much tax they need to charge to repay bonds. There are two different tax figures. I am surprised that there are so many taxpayers weho do not understandthis. I and S money CANNOT be spent on general fund balance items per law.

[GrTigers6]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
At the risk of ruffling some feathers I have to state that although Bond money does come from a different source the repayment of those bonds (w/interest) comes out of the school's general fund. And I agree that in these tough economic times when teachers are at risk of losing their jobs it is irresponsible for the school district to go ahead with plans to build new infrastructure. I'm not sure it can be done but I'm pretty sure there is a buy-back clause on school bonds that would allow the district to give back the bond money with minimal interest debt. Im sure the money can be given back but that is all they can do with it other than the purpose that it was given for.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by CENTEX FAN
Bond indebtedness is not paid out of the general budget. There are two parts to schools budget. M & O (Maintainence and Operation) is the general fund that pays for supplies, salaries, etc. I & S (Interest and Sinking( fund pays for facilities and building. When a bond is passed and bonds sold, Money goes into I & S fund. Districts figure how much tax they need to charge to repay bonds. There are two different tax figures. I am surprised that there are so many taxpayers weho do not understandthis. I and S money CANNOT be spent on general fund balance items per law.



That makes perfect sense Centex! Thanks for the input. I think I knew this but it has been so long since I have thought about it that it escaped me.
But it still represents a indebtedness for the district and the tax payers that should be avoided when economic conditions have created such dire straits. I can almost guarantee that if proposed to the tax payers AGAIN with the addendum added that they will also be subjected to a tax increase to offset the budget shortfall, very few residences would vote yes to both.

[GrTigers6]

Our bond issue included no raise in taxes, Just using funds from other bonds, interest, etc along with the tax income. a win win for both taxpayers and school

[cr180t]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
At the risk of ruffling some feathers I have to state that although Bond money does come from a different source the repayment of those bonds (w/interest) comes out of the school's general fund. And I agree that in these tough economic times when teachers are at risk of losing their jobs it is irresponsible for the school district to go ahead with plans to build new infrastructure. I'm not sure it can be done but I'm pretty sure there is a buy-back clause on school bonds that would allow the district to give back the bond money with minimal interest debt.

Well said some of the problem is they have already voted to start building or started the actual building. AS far as a new field (Turf) a farmer stated to me that is like speending more for a tractor but never having to buy diesel.

[CENTEX FAN]

FarmerFan, M $ O school taxes were capped by the Legislature in 2006 at 1.04 UNLESS the taxpayers vote and approve a TRE of up to .13 cents for a total cap of $1.17. A school district cannot go over the $1.04 without an election and CANNOT go over the $1.17 in any manner. Bonds are generally brought to the public by vote to upgrade facilities. I know in La Vega we have passed 3 bonds in the last 6 years to replace 4 buildings that were over 50 years old. These buildings were totally antiquated, had no more electrical capacity for technology upgrades, foundation shifts, air quality issues, etc. Eventually if you do not upgrade your facilities, it will cost more and more in upkeep. Our new building will last another 40-50 years. Sometimes it makes sense to pass a bond to improve the education facilities for the children.

[Bullaholic]

Probably a good thing that Allen has already got their mega-stadium underway:

Allen HS New Stadium (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sports/2011/04/29/mckay.60.million.hs.stadium.cnn?hpt=T2)

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by rancher
What type of imbecile would put it to a vote in today's economic climate. How can it be justified? A million dollar plus investiment in something that will only be used a few times a year. Give me a break. REMEMBER THESE ITEMS ARE EXTRACURRICULAR. For those feetsball coaches this means activities performed by students that fall outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school. WE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT. Let those feetsball coaches who are too lazy to take care of a field pay for it. They have plenty of time since they teach nothing and just hang around on the taxpayer's dime.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. If you have such a problem with FOOTBALL and the coaches, what in the heck are you doing on a FOOTBALL BOARD?????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ctown]

Turf in celina gets used morning and afternoon RAIN or shine. Barring any lightning of course. Most ADs won't let sub varsity teams touch a grass field after rain. Celina just rolls on with all the games and has the other teams come here if they can't play on theirs. Band also has full access to the artificial surface along with any other school groups. It gets used a LOT more than the grass ever did.

There is little or no ongoing maintenance cost. Its paid by the I&S bond portion of taxes and that can't be used for the classroom salaries. Shift your water/fertilizer/paint/gasoline costs out of the M&O budget and save enough to keep a teacher employed with the regular budget savings. The real cost is the field portion of the bond payment minus the savings from the M&O budget.

[injuredinmelee]

if you build it, they will come....