ems2430 Posted April 28, 2009 Author Report Posted April 28, 2009 Wow, unusually quiet on here. Here are some more points to think about: Allegations that the process involved a small group of teachers and administrators are false. Group of 32 citizens conducted evaluations of facilities in 2007 and quickly realized that the work required was more than simple cosmetic improvements and that additional expertise was required to truly understand needs. Some have complained about the use of a consultant. If the District had not involved professionals, the cry would have been that the numbers were illegitimate, arbitrary and could not possibly pretend to know what the District really needs. “Where were the experts?†would have been the charge. Once it was determined by the committee that they needs were significant, a decision was made to involve experts. Why has CARE solicited the use of a consultant? NISD projected a tax rate of $0.18 to fund the debt issued during the last bond in 1998. Actual rate charged never exceeded $0.09. This demonstrates that district is not spending like crazy and that management of the bond was done with diligent observance of the need to respect the public treasury. Statistics show how businesses and home buyers look to the school system as a strong factor in the purchasing decision. Look at the following links: This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up And as for those of you opposing the bond…you want to be a part of the leadership of the district but never attended one of the meetings that were a part of shaping one of the most significant measures in the history of the community. How did the original facilities get built? Pioneers that knew schools mattered. Here is another point not commonly know. The tax rate in 2005 was 1.55 per $100 of valuation. State of Texas forced school districts to lower the tax rate and shifted the taxation to businesses. Revenues have failed to keep pace and the district now has only $1.12 of revenue per $100 of valuation. When tax was $1.55 was the population of Nederland dwindling? Answer; No. So, why would new schools and a proposed tax rate lower than 2005 levels drive people from the community? Again, I respect everyone's opinion and right to vote. I just want to make certain that people vote based on facts and not speculation and information that is distorted at best.
Guest Penny Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Any thoughts on the impact/backlash to local businesses who are either campaigning for or against the bond.
Bigdog Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Don't know. That would be up to the consumers, not all of which are from Ned. Early voting has started get out and vote!
Bon_Mot Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Any thoughts on the impact/backlash to local businesses who are either campaigning for or against the bond. I've already decided where NOT to go to eat seafood now...
ems2430 Posted April 28, 2009 Author Report Posted April 28, 2009 Those of you who are so adamantly opposed to any portion of the bond being athletics, consider this. This project effects many more students than high school football players. Varsity, JV, and freshmen players use the field. At those games, we have the cheerleaders, band, twirlers, and Westernaires involved as well as 8 to 10,000 fans. At other times, the two middle schools use the field with the band, cheerleaders, etc. How many students at this point - several hundred? Then the soccer teams - boys and girls , varsity and JV - use the field. How many more students? Of course, track takes over in the spring - high school and middle school? How many more students? In Nederland, all of the elementary schools participate in a track meet during the late spring. How many more? All students in our district use the athletic stadium at least once during the school year. Also, any seniors who oppose this please answer this question...WHY? Your taxes are frozen, you will not experience an increase and you get the benefit of improving the long term future of your community. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
dawgnut Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 It's time for everyone to use the rights that we have in this country and vote. A lot of people think that their vote does not count but in an election such as this every vote counts. This thing could be decided on just a few votes.
Guest Penny Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Any thoughts on the impact/backlash to local businesses who are either campaigning for or against the bond. I've already decided where NOT to go to eat seafood now... Okay, that's one person who's shopping/buying habits will be impacted by a businesses campaigning... any more? Wonder if businesses even care or consdiered it? Just questions.
baddog Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 I think I have decided to vote ''YES''. Businesses can vote any way they choose. If their food is good, I will still eat there no matter how they voted.
KFDM COOP Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 News video This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
Bucof2010 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Why not eat a restaurant just because their owner disagrees with you?
adminbaberuth Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 I'm with most of you. If they fix my tires, serve my food hot and tasty, and my credit union gives me a fair rate on a loan, why will I boycott them for their constitutional right to disagree with me?
silly365 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 id like to see the city fix the drainage and sewer before putting turf on a dang field
dawgnut Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 The City does not have anything to do with the School System. They are separate entities! id like to see the city fix the drainage and sewer before putting turf on a dang field
dawgnut Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Those of you who are so adamantly opposed to any portion of the bond being athletics, consider this. This project effects many more students than high school football players. Varsity, JV, and freshmen players use the field. At those games, we have the cheerleaders, band, twirlers, and Westernaires involved as well as 8 to 10,000 fans. At other times, the two middle schools use the field with the band, cheerleaders, etc. How many students at this point - several hundred? Then the soccer teams - boys and girls , varsity and JV - use the field. How many more students? Of course, track takes over in the spring - high school and middle school? How many more students? In Nederland, all of the elementary schools participate in a track meet during the late spring. How many more? All students in our district use the athletic stadium at least once during the school year. Also, any seniors who oppose this please answer this question...WHY? Your taxes are frozen, you will not experience an increase and you get the benefit of improving the long term future of your community. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Turf Help Educational Programs Publications Research Prospective Students News Personnel Alumni Synthetic (Artificial) Turf vs. Natural Grass Athletic Fields With the increasing popularity of youth sports, especially soccer, and the necessity for building more and more athletic fields, many communities are considering constructing synthetic (or artificial turf) athletic fields. Even the Arkansas Razorbacks are considering the move as outlined in a recent article published on January 17, 2009 in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette by Tim Murphy titled “Artificial surface is coach’s desire.†Yesterday’s artificial turf is much different than today’s synthetic in-fill systems in that the new in-fill technology creates a field that looks much more like the real thing (natural grass). The purpose of this turf tip is to provide some additional information regarding synthetic fields so that you’ll be more informed the next time your community is considering a switch from natural grass to artificial. Maintenance 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 (1). Long-term costs 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. In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013 (2). Disposal costs 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 (3). Warranty concerns Artificial turf (in-fill type) is a relatively new product. As such, its complete life span and maintenance requirements are not fully known. When considering the purchase of one of these systems, the answer to several questions should be researched prior to purchase. These questions include (adapted from Natural Grass and Artificial Turf: Separating Myths and Facts)(3): Will the artificial turf manufacturing and installation company provide a warranty specifying the expected life of the product? Will the selling firm provide a warranty bond for the life of the product? This will ensure that there is some legitimate recourse in the event of a product failure even if the seller is no longer in business. What is the longest period of time the artificial field being specified has been in use at another school, college, or university? What conditions or maintenance practices will void the field’s warranty? Does a single warranty cover all aspects of the artificial field’s soil base preparation, base materials, artificial turf materials, etc; will there be separate warranties and warranty voiding conditions for each element, some of which could contravene each other? What is the minimum and maximum financial investment in specialized equipment that must be purchased to maintain the artificial field at a level that will provide maximum playing conditions and maintain the warranty? What level of technical training is supplied, recommended, or required for the maintenance crew in order to properly maintain the area and the warranty conditions? What are the warranty requirements or recommended processes to address each of the following repair or replacement demands of the artificial surface: Damage caused by fire? Large and small areas. Damage caused by vandalism? Discoloration of areas caused by wear pattern differences? Replacement of areas caused by wear or other physical or weather-related damage? Player preference 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. Player injuries There is a lack of research comparing injuries incurred on new in-fill artificial fields vs. natural grass fields (5). There are data indicating that the traditional artificial turf fields increased athlete injury, primarily due to increased surface hardness. Although actual data are not available, anecdotal data are available from NFL players. Players were asked in a 2006 survey “Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on?â€. Five-percent felt like natural grass systems increased fatigue, while 74% felt that artificial turf systems were more responsible for fatigue (5). Twenty-one percent felt they were the same. In the open comments section of the survey, the most common comment was “make all fields grass to prevent injuries.†Potential increases in infections 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 Turfâ€, 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. High temperatures Artificial fields cannot be played on all the time due to temperature build-up on warm-sunny days. Artificial field surface temperatures have been documented as high as 199°F on a sunny day with an air temperature of 98°F (7). Researchers at Brigham Young University reported that the surface temperature of a synthetic football field on campus averaged 117°F, with a daily high of 157°F (8). On an adjacent natural grass field the surface temperature averaged 78°F, with a daily high of 89°F. Researchers at Penn State University studied the effect of using irrigation to reduce surface temperatures of synthetic fields and discovered that temperature could be decreased with irrigation, but the effects were short-lived (20 minutes) (9). Because of these high temperatures, an artificial field will remain largely unusable during warm days. Additionally, practicing on an artificial field could increase the incidence of heat stroke, muscle cramping, and overall athlete fatigue. Coaches holding practices on synthetic fields will need to monitor athlete health more closely and will need to limit the duration of practices on these surfaces to reduce the risk of athlete injury. The images below comparing air, water, bermudagrass, sand, asphalt, and synthetic turf surface temperatures illustrate how hot a synthetic field can reach during a warm day. Going green With continuing efforts to increase the sustainability of all of our communities, a synthetic turf is a move in the wrong direction. Synthetic fields do not require fertilizer or pesticides, which may make them seem environmentally friendly but keep in mind the following: Synthetic fields are made of plastic and then in-filled with pulverized rubber particles instead of plants as on a natural grass field. Both the synthetic turf and the rubber must be disposed of when the field reaches its life capacity (8-10 yrs). Natural grass fields require renovation less frequently with much reduced renovation costs. Synthetic fields do not cool the environment like natural turf. Synthetic fields and natural grass fields have similar irrigation requirements since both need irrigation in warmer months and little to no irrigation in cooler months. Synthetic fields do not help to filter air and water pollutants. Synthetic fields do not fix CO2 (carbon-dioxide) and release O2 (oxygen) as do natural grass fields. The net carbon loss for a synthetic field is high, whereas a natural grass field will have a net carbon gain despite the need for fertilizer and some pesticide inputs to maintain a natural grass. I don’t dispute that there are certain situations in which an artificial field might be an appropriate choice and I don’t disregard a coach’s preference. We also do not dispute that an artificial field could host more events each year, which could be beneficial in certain situations. WHERE DO YOU GET THE MONEY TEN YEARS FROM NOW TO MAINTAIN or REPLACE THE NEW FIELD? I am all in favor of NEEDS in our community but not WANTS, I am one of the, "adamantly opposed to any portion of the bond being athletics", people you talked about above simply because I don't see the need. We have one of the best natural field turfs in the state, something to already be proud of, press box is fine just repair both press boxes, build some schools, I don't agree with tearing them down either, but I agree we need something better than we have now. A little less of a bond without stadium upgrades would have been much easier to pass, especially in our times today. I will still vote in favor but trying to sell the bond because of wants at a football stadium isn't going to get many votes..... Again, just an opinion.... I AM just SIMPLY very proud of our field and the tradition of our field. The problem with facts about turf is that everyone that does a study has different numbers! It all depends who is doing the study which way the data is skewed. I know the guy that sells most of the chemicals to the schools around here for their natural fields and he has another set of numbers. It really comes down to who you want to believe.
Guest Penny Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 Call me crazy James, but I WANT... yes I WANT the best for my community. I think you do too, I'm just willing to pay for it. If others aren't that's fine just vote accordingly. But I am not embarrassed nor ashamed of WANTING the best for my kids. Our community has nothing going for it except for the school system. PNG has their industry, we have nothing but our school system... and it's a dang fine one. I am very comftorable investing in my community. On top of this sentimental BS arguement as some would see it... I also think this bond makes me money in the long run. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I'm being greedy both ways. I think I personally will make money on this by not maintaining old out of date inefficient buildings... and I get the stability in property value that will come from voting yes. I'm voting selfishly. I'm voting YES. And Dawgnut, you're right, there are many studies on field turf, I've read many more studies, the majority that I've found which are resoundingly in favor of field turf for financial and safety reasons.
BURLDAWGS Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 there is common ground between supporters and opposers of the bond proposed- all agree that we have needs within our schools. And according to what I've been able to research, the only way to get money to "fix" the needs is apparently through a bond. Of course with a bond comes an increase in our taxes; i dont have a problem with this as long as the bond money is spent wisely and money isnt wasted. The main question that remains is WHY wasnt any specific data obtained from LANWALTON to compare repair costs vs rebuild costs. Instead it seems like our bond committee and our Board just took LANWALTON's word that rebuilding MOST of the schools was the best financial option. I understand that LANWALTON said if you repair over 50% you might as well rebuild. If thats the case, then why didnt they get a few local, UN-BIASED contractors to bid the repairs and include it in a comparison analysis. If they had that information to present and it PROVED their point, I think it would ease alot of concerns. To be honest with you, when you talk about $120MM bond and only 3% going towards stadium renovations that doesnt bother me a bit. I understand that some believe, and there is probably some truth to it, that we are trying to keep up with the "PN-GJoneses". But I dont have a problem with it.
Bigdog Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 Where are you getting that a turf field needs to be replaced after 10 years? Just wondering. I would think that if the field was maintained properly it would last longer than that.
YankeeDawg Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 Where are you getting that a turf field needs to be replaced after 10 years? Just wondering. I would think that if the field was maintained properly it would last longer than that. Maintained - ;D I have spoken with companies who install the turf and have googled the heck out of information on press boxes and field turf. All reports indicate 10 years average life for field turf. Maybe 12 years, if, like you say, well maintained, but hey, I thought the idea was to install turf to cut down on expense. With all the abuse being reported on our current grass field I'd guess the field turf wont make it 5 years!!! ;D ;D Again, what does it matter, 10 years, 2 years, 15 years, how does it get paid for! We can't pay for stuff now as it is..... Now that I mention it just how big a press box do we need again, I found out 500 square feet and you don't need an elevator. visitor side, home side, both 500 square feet in size, nice, looks great, serves the purpose of room for both teams. Come on, draw the line, pass the bond, vote yes. How big is PNG's ??
YankeeDawg Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 Where are you getting that a turf field needs to be replaced after 10 years? Just wondering. I would think that if the field was maintained properly it would last longer than that. Maintained - ;D I have spoken with companies who install the turf and have googled the heck out of information on press boxes and field turf. All reports indicate 10 years average life for field turf. Maybe 12 years, if, like you say, well maintained, but hey, I thought the idea was to install turf to cut down on expense. With all the abuse being reported on our current grass field I'd guess the field turf wont make it 5 years!!! ;D ;D Again, what does it matter, 10 years, 2 years, 15 years, how does it get paid for! We can't pay for stuff now as it is..... Now that I mention it just how big a press box do we need again, I found out 500 square feet and you don't need an elevator. visitor side, home side, both 500 square feet in size, nice, looks great, serves the purpose of room for both teams. Come on, draw the line, pass the bond, vote yes. How big is PNG's ?? Looks like it is big enough to hold the remaining fans inside it after a Nederland victory over PNG... LOL...why did I bother to ask.. : So I'm guessing our proposed press box is going to be at least the size of PNG's ?
ems2430 Posted April 29, 2009 Author Report Posted April 29, 2009 Not hardly, Yanke Dawg. It will be much smaller. For perspective, PNGs press box will cost more than 5 times the amount ours will. As stated earlier, there are a lot of misconceptions being bantied about regarding this bond. For the facts, go to www.nederlandbond.com and click on the link that says "click here for the facts about the bond". It is a lengthy piece but very informative. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
Bigdog Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 Maintenence of turf vs field should still be a lot less when you add in the other facotrs that I have mentioned before. The elevator in the press box is a ADA requirement. As far as replacement, IDK the second part of the bond in a few years will include a brand new stadium and maybe replacement of the turf at the old one.
Bigdog Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 James, PM those numbers, I am curious about that. As far as the press box goes, I doubt that the hole in the floor is code, and the wiring is substandard for what is being done there. I agree that the maintenence guys do there best, there is just not enough of them. With the amount of traffic on the grass now, I am not sure that the crew will be able to keep the current field up to standard, there is just not enough time to repair/rebuild the field between the end of school and football season.
SportsFanatic79 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 I too want what is best for the kids, I just think they already have the best grass field in the state. As hard as I know the maintenance department works on the field, you have to be delusional to believe this. I have seen many fields throughout the state myself during all seaons. As nice as our field looks during football season, the field gets overused and is in very poor condition by the end of the school year. It's nearly impossible to maintain it. As much as I would rather Nederland keep a natural playing surface, it's not fair to the kids who have to play in slop every year. Even if field turf is not the answer, something needs to be done to enable all sports to have a fair shake of playing on nice field conditions.
soccer18 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Posted April 29, 2009 The surface question goes round and round at ALL levels...pros went turf then back to grass; colleges went to astroturf to grass to fieldturf to grass...in the late 90's I attended a D-I college game at an "astroplay" turf...4 years later, they went back to grass...outdoor sports are played on grass!!!! Sometimes it rains and you have to play in the rain and the mud...
smitty Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 James, I'm just using yours again. But you need to read this as well as everyone here. This is from a local blog report: "after reading documents that were not disclosed to the public that if the Nederland ISD Bond is passed by taxpayers - and if an economic slow down occurs in Southeast Texas that directly affects home prices - that the school district might have to file for bankruptcy and be absorbed by another district according to state law." And went on to say, "If the district passes this bond. And if home prices decrease more than 5% across the board - we could have a situation where the district could be insolvent. If that happens - we would look for another district for Nederland to attach itself to. Most likely it would be Port Arthur due to the ratio of minority students to white students," the source at the State Board of Education told us this past week." Interesting stuff. 1.8 million dollar press box, tell me this is not true, please!
Recommended Posts