162 replies to this topic

[s0479]

 
I looked at the CIF rules and National HS Rules and can't find anything that mandates a "green" field.  The only rules for the fields are dimensions (size) and slope.

Yeah I think folks were looking at FIFA - USSF rules. So hopefully all will be ok!

[cw68]

My kids aren't playing on that turf, though they may in a few years, but if it did indeed cost more, I would have preferred that any extra monies spent would have gone to cool the field instead of blue the field.

I am concerned, however, about the soccer rules.

Has anyone made a formal appeal to the district to explain if the blue field cost more, why the price differences between Cordova and Folsom, and if soccer will be able to be played upon the blue field?

Ps- I think it's ugly!

[dimeracer]

Once money is earmarked, it WILL get spent on that thing.  The way I read the original article, the blue color was a luxury, and the logical conclusion is that having a blue field comes at the expense of funding other things such as teacher supplies, the cost of which is instead externalized to parents who already pay taxes on property and on bonds.  There may be hard-to-quantify benefits of having blue turf ("pride"?), but it remains a fair question whether those presumed benefits outweigh the real financial cost.

You are getting ahead of yourself. So far, no one has been able to cite any evidence that the blue turf actually cost any more than a green turf.

[tessieca]

 

I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't have a football field.  I have no basis to say it wasn't time to replace the synthetic turf.  I haven't seen any official confirmation that the blue turf did NOT cost more than green turf.  I also haven't seen any numbers for the special underlayment that was used or if it was any different than what Cordova's field got.   I know school board members have read this and you would think if that weren't true they'd quickly correct the misconception.  The numbers used in The Folsom Telegraph article don't match up with what was budgeted.

 

The special CUSHdrain used at FHS is supposed to drain more quickly and prevent injury.  I suppose the drainage issue would be important if Folsom had one.  I don't remember there being any problem with the old turf in that respect.  I wouldn't have a problem with a turf underlayment that is supposed to prevent injuries such as concussions, especially since it is supposed to be a multipurpose field for things such as soccer where they don't wear helmets, but if that can't be proven scientifically then the school paid extra for a gimmick.

 

It keeps being said that the money from the cell tower rental was earmarked for this purpose, but was that a law or a choice?  If they can make an exception to borrow from the cell tower fund to fill a budget gap, they could certainly use excess to go to other school district needs.

I don't get on here that often anymore, mostly due to the anonymous sniping.  But in answer to the good questions about costs and cost differences, here is some useful information.

 

Folsom High - $736,864 (includes turf, site work, drainage, blue field, e-layer, and taxes)

Cordova High - $777,081 (includes turf, site work, center logo, end zone lettering, e-layer, long jump and taxes) 

 

The adopted budget does not actually show a $300,000 cost difference between the two fields.  The $300,000 difference is actually between the reserve balances in the cell tower accounts, not expenditures. $800,000 was budgeted for each field.

 

The turf alone at Folsom High cost more than at Cordova High in large part because it has 12,000 more square feet to cover.

 

The cell tower fund was set aside at its inception for the purpose of maintaining these facilities so that the district would not need to use general fund money.  For FHS, that was part of the plan when the stadium was first built.  It's a good idea to plan for maintenance and repairs of capital projects when you can.

 

For the person who asked about the stadium name, it was named Prairie City Stadium because it sits directly on top of the old Prairie City, which was then a neighboring town of Folsom.

[ducky]

 

I don't get on here that often anymore, mostly due to the anonymous sniping.  But in answer to the good questions about costs and cost differences, here is some useful information.

 

Folsom High - $736,864 (includes turf, site work, drainage, blue field, e-layer, and taxes)

Cordova High - $777,081 (includes turf, site work, center logo, end zone lettering, e-layer, long jump and taxes) 

 

The adopted budget does not actually show a $300,000 cost difference between the two fields.  The $300,000 difference is actually between the reserve balances in the cell tower accounts, not expenditures. $800,000 was budgeted for each field.

 

The turf alone at Folsom High cost more than at Cordova High in large part because it has 12,000 more square feet to cover.

 

The cell tower fund was set aside at its inception for the purpose of maintaining these facilities so that the district would not need to use general fund money.  For FHS, that was part of the plan when the stadium was first built.  It's a good idea to plan for maintenance and repairs of capital projects when you can.

 

For the person who asked about the stadium name, it was named Prairie City Stadium because it sits directly on top of the old Prairie City, which was then a neighboring town of Folsom.

 

 

 

I don't get on here that often anymore, mostly due to the anonymous sniping.  But in answer to the good questions about costs and cost differences, here is some useful information.

 

Folsom High - $736,864 (includes turf, site work, drainage, blue field, e-layer, and taxes)

Cordova High - $777,081 (includes turf, site work, center logo, end zone lettering, e-layer, long jump and taxes) 

 

The adopted budget does not actually show a $300,000 cost difference between the two fields.  The $300,000 difference is actually between the reserve balances in the cell tower accounts, not expenditures. $800,000 was budgeted for each field.

 

The turf alone at Folsom High cost more than at Cordova High in large part because it has 12,000 more square feet to cover.

 

The cell tower fund was set aside at its inception for the purpose of maintaining these facilities so that the district would not need to use general fund money.  For FHS, that was part of the plan when the stadium was first built.  It's a good idea to plan for maintenance and repairs of capital projects when you can.

 

For the person who asked about the stadium name, it was named Prairie City Stadium because it sits directly on top of the old Prairie City, which was then a neighboring town of Folsom.

 

 

Thank you for the response.   You say the turf alone cost more than Cordova High because of square footage, but did the color play any part in extra cost, or was green and blue equal in price?

 

I agree that it is good to have the money set aside for the expenses you know are coming up.  I suppose what's in the reserve will also be used for their center logo and end zone lettering when FHS is able to put that on.  Where will the rest of the reserve money go if it isn't used for synthetic turf replacement?  Is it possible to use it for bleachers at Vista?

[tessieca]

Ducky: I do recall that blue cost a little more than green, but since it fell within the original budget, the sites got to decide.  CHS considered and decided against a red field.

 

When the field belongs only to the Bulldogs, they'll use the fund for the center logo and end zone. 

 

Vista's bleachers go well beyond the funds in the cell tower accounts, which are separated by school.  Vista doesn't have any cell towers because they have the highest point in the county right above them that already has all of the towers anyone could want.  A committee had been set up to try to find funding for bleachers, but there simply wasn't enough support at the time.  Eric King was spearheading that effort and is probably still interested if the effort could gain momentum.  I can get the cost estimate if you want it.

[ducky]

Ducky: I do recall that blue cost a little more than green, but since it fell within the original budget, the sites got to decide.  CHS considered and decided against a red field.

 

When the field belongs only to the Bulldogs, they'll use the fund for the center logo and end zone. 

 

Vista's bleachers go well beyond the funds in the cell tower accounts, which are separated by school.  Vista doesn't have any cell towers because they have the highest point in the county right above them that already has all of the towers anyone could want.  A committee had been set up to try to find funding for bleachers, but there simply wasn't enough support at the time.  Eric King was spearheading that effort and is probably still interested if the effort could gain momentum.  I can get the cost estimate if you want it.

Thank you, tessieca, for the honest answers.

[Rich_T]

You are getting ahead of yourself. So far, no one has been able to cite any evidence that the blue turf actually cost any more than a green turf.

 

I'm actually getting behind myself... because originally someone claimed to have found that out by "googling it".  However, I just tried googling it now, and could not find anything relevant, and plus I now see that "tesseica" has provided answers.

 

So cell tower money was set aside for the football field, and that money will be spent only on that - even though it is theoretically possible to use some of that money to help pay for simple things like classroom supplies that are otherwise funded by parents.  One way to save some money (how much?) was to use green rather than blue turf.  However, that decision was not made and perhaps not even considered, and blue was a "splurge" decision because money was available for that use.  Earmarks are earmarks, regardless of the fact that money is fungible.  A cost/benefit question is this:  is blue vs. green more valuable in some way than alleviating parents from the need to purchase supplies for teachers?

[The Average Joe]

Thank you Tessica for your response. Slightly off topic, how was Vista allowed to be built without bleachers and pool heating (making both pool and field unusable)? Doesn't the infrastructure required of developers have to be completed?

I know most builders build their profit, and wait til the end to build infrastructure. I know EG was notorious for letting developers leave schools and other required build outs to the very end of developer activities.

Was that what happened here? Or was it an oversight during the negotiations? I am just having a hard time seeing any rational explanation for doing things half way, and then being left with all the maintenance and finance costs for items we are unable to use.

[ducky]

Thank you Tessica for your response. Slightly off topic, how was Vista allowed to be built without bleachers and pool heating (making both pool and field unusable)? Doesn't the infrastructure required of developers have to be completed?

I know most builders build their profit, and wait til the end to build infrastructure. I know EG was notorious for letting developers leave schools and other required build outs to the very end of developer activities.

Was that what happened here? Or was it an oversight during the negotiations? I am just having a hard time seeing any rational explanation for doing things half way, and then being left with all the maintenance and finance costs for items we are unable to use.

 

I think the cost of the asbestos abatement might have played a part.  I also found this article in 2007 where nearby residents complained about the lights and a press box and bleachers being built at Vista Del Lago and didn't want varsity Friday night games played at Vista.

 

basslakeaction.org/PDF_files/SacBee-070921.pdf

[SacKen]

The take I get from all of the wasteful spending comments is that we shouldn't have a football field. These turfs wear out eventually, and need to be replaced, if not now eventually. The expected lifespan was up. The blue color did not cost any more than green would have, at least based on one supplier website. Grass fields arguably cost more over the long run with watering and maintenance than synthetic fields. Every new high school that puts in a new football/ soccer field seems to be going the direction of synthetic. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. Note: I am not a Bulldog parent or in any way affiliated with the school or program. My kid plays soccer. I'm just being devil's advocate here.

 

According to another post, another school got one installed for $345,821 less. I also question whether it was needed yet. It just doesn't seem like that field should be that worn already. It really doesn't get that much use. For comparison, does anyone know when the synthetic fields behind the Sports Complex were last installed (if recently, how long did the previous field last)? Those things get some heavy use.

 

From studies I've read, it's also a myth that a grass field costs more in the long run. Yes, you save on water, but not necessarily on overall cost. Synthetic fields also have higher injury rates and higher cases of heat related illness, which have a huge cost. Especially when you have teens with blown ACLs.

 

Either way, when we have a situation where teachers can't get supplies to do their job, then yes, I am saying that we shouldn't have a football field. One is a necessity. One is a "nice to have" and should only be funded once the necessities are taken care of. Frankly, I think both could be taken care of if people controlling the money actually gave a crap. Even a portion of that $345k difference going directly to the classrooms would be HUGE! There'd still be money for a field. The issue is that something like this probably wasn't even considered. The entire amount was probably earmarked for the field without consideration of any other uses, so they probably got the best field they could for that amount rather than using the money wisely.

 

There are non-school subsidized sports clubs. Hell, in soccer and softball, it's the club play that gets colleges looking at you these days, not school play. No reason all sports can't be that way. They don't need to be school subsidized to exist.

 

Also, when I was growing up in the 80s and early 90s, all the schools played their games at Hughes Stadium in Sacramento. Each school didn't have a state of the art facility. You had a cheap field for practice and one good facility that hosted all the games and more.

[VillageIdiot]

 

According to another post, another school got one installed for $345,821 less. I also question whether it was needed yet. It just doesn't seem like that field should be that worn already. It really doesn't get that much use. For comparison, does anyone know when the synthetic fields behind the Sports Complex were last installed (if recently, how long did the previous field last)? Those things get some heavy use.

 

From studies I've read, it's also a myth that a grass field costs more in the long run. Yes, you save on water, but not necessarily on overall cost. Synthetic fields also have higher injury rates and higher cases of heat related illness, which have a huge cost. Especially when you have teens with blown ACLs.

 

Either way, when we have a situation where teachers can't get supplies to do their job, then yes, I am saying that we shouldn't have a football field. One is a necessity. One is a "nice to have" and should only be funded once the necessities are taken care of. Frankly, I think both could be taken care of if people controlling the money actually gave a crap. Even a portion of that $345k difference going directly to the classrooms would be HUGE! There'd still be money for a field. The issue is that something like this probably wasn't even considered. The entire amount was probably earmarked for the field without consideration of any other uses, so they probably got the best field they could for that amount rather than using the money wisely.

 

There are non-school subsidized sports clubs. Hell, in soccer and softball, it's the club play that gets colleges looking at you these days, not school play. No reason all sports can't be that way. They don't need to be school subsidized to exist.

 

Also, when I was growing up in the 80s and early 90s, all the schools played their games at Hughes Stadium in Sacramento. Each school didn't have a state of the art facility. You had a cheap field for practice and one good facility that hosted all the games and more.

 

Amen!

[tgianco]

The only big concern that I read (each of us has their own concerns) is whether the blue turf will keep other events from being held there. Folsom High has been home to many of the soccer playoff games and even championship football games (not FHS or Vista) as well as marching band competitions. Will the blue turf in any way affect those or whether it's as attractive a venue? I could see where it could be not as quite aesthetically pleasing to a group looking to field competitions there... just wondering.

 

I've seen the crowds that some of those events draw, and I can assure you that the city benefits in tax revenue (restaurants, etc... try going to Safeway or Starbucks before or during one of those events!).

[folsom500]

The only big concern that I read (each of us has their own concerns) is whether the blue turf will keep other events from being held there. Folsom High has been home to many of the soccer playoff games and even championship football games (not FHS or Vista) as well as marching band competitions. Will the blue turf in any way affect those or whether it's as attractive a venue? I could see where it could be not as quite aesthetically pleasing to a group looking to field competitions there... just wondering.

 

I've seen the crowds that some of those events draw, and I can assure you that the city benefits in tax revenue (restaurants, etc... try going to Safeway or Starbucks before or during one of those events!).

I have been thinking the same thing- especially the marching band competitions and potentially Drum and Bugle Corps competitions. 

Band and Corps use their flags and uniform colors in contrast to a Green Field to display their precision as viewed in the stands... and a deep blue field could certainly mess that up ...

 

Not sure how much revenue the School or district get from the other events, but hopefully the HS was not selfish when choosing the colors and looked at all other potential venues for using the field.

 

Guess FHS will need to use Red - or White gowns for graduation from now on so you can at least get a picture of your child ...