To Bond or Not To Bond – That is the Question

The goal of this Patch post is to inform the community about various aspects of the proposed bond up for public vote on March 24, 2014. I have neighbors who are unaware there is even a bond coming up for a vote while there are others who have very strong feelings for or against this bond. I spent much time attending meetings, asking various stakeholders for information, and researching on the Internet to try to become a more informed voter. My thoughts about this bond have evolved over that time and I ask all those who are pro vs. con to really take a close look at the numbers presented here. Let facts and not emotions guide your decision-making.

You may view this bond proposal and others at http://www.millerplace.k12.ny.us/departments.cfm?subpage=589147

Current bond info at http://www.millerplace.k12.ny.us/files/filesystem/BOEAdoptedProjected-March2014BondIssue.pdf

Summary of projects:

Install new hybrid District‐wide phone system ($501,500)

AMPS Security Vestibule ($253,799) – NOT aidable

LADSBS Security Vestibule ($413,000) – NOT aidable

Security: Glazing windows & replacing doors/hardware at three schools ($51,920)

Replace roofs at AMPS and LASDBS ($2,538,770)

Natural gas line at MPHS ($295,000) but expected cost savings of $92,500 annually

Playground at AMPS/LADSBS ($100,000)

NCRMS: Repair tennis courts, replace/amend baseball and softball fields ($259,300)

MPHS:

Install artificial turf ($1,180,000) and lights ($731,600) at stadium

Install artificial turf on upper fields ($885,000)

Replace/repair track ($767,000/$354,000) and tennis courts ($236,000)

Rebuild baseball and softball fields ($177,000)

Total cost: $3,816,600 (replace track) or $3,403,600 (repair track).

At 4% loan interest the actual cost over 15 years is: $5,081,567/$4,531,683  

[Approx. $3,000,000 available for state aid to offset the $5 million true cost]

Cost

It has been claimed that this bond will not cost much because of state aid. The numbers floating around make it appear that the $7,488,000 bond will *only* cost $2,538,000. It has also been claimed that this bond will not increase taxes. Both statements are very misleading. State aid only covers 72% of certain building projects and up to $3 million for MPHS sports improvements. More importantly, state aid does NOT cover the interest on the loan for aidable items.

The approved bond costs $7,488,000 before interest. Including 4% interest* over 15 years the total cost of bond rises to just under $10,000,000. *BOE President Michael Unger told me that the 4% rate is ballpark. As shown on the approved bond proposal the average annual bond payment is $669,488. NYS aid will return $327,311. The end result is an annual budget expense of $342,177 (This is the KEY value!) During the next five years, expiring debt will cover that expense line in the budget so proponents of the bond are stating that there is no cost to the community. Again, this is very misleading. Our taxes are higher today because we had to pay for those past debts that are soon retiring. If we did not have this current bond package, our taxes could be reduced or we could spend the revenues from our taxes that used to pay for the old, expiring debt on other items.

This bond locks us into a debt payment for 15 years. What happens in years 6-15? We still have this loan payment and we will still be paying taxes to pay for this new debt. Taxes will have to increase to cover this expense or we will have to cut somewhere else. Which of these two do you think we will see? Debt always equals cost.

Analogy: Suppose you have been paying off a credit card and pay $400/month. Now the card has a zero balance. If you put a new charge on the credit card it does not change your monthly payments but it IS costing you money. If you cut up that card and do not add a new charge then you would have savings.

Bottom line: this bond will increase our taxes than if there were no bond at all.

Of course, there are many (if not all) items in this bond proposal that do have to be paid for now or in the near future. A bond is the easiest way to pay for large expenses if we wish to soften the blow to our budget just as it is customary to get a car loan or home loan to ease the burden on our monthly budget. I am not suggesting that we consider no bond at all.

My main point is that the messaging on the bond’s financial impact has been misleading. $4,910,000 in NYS aid means that ONLY 49% of the actual cost of the loan is covered. (Not the 72% that is being advertised!) 51% of the cost of this proposed bond falls on us taxpayers.

Another concern is that the security upgrades at all three schools have been bundled into this bond package. I went to all but one of the meetings associated with this bond proposal process and it was clear to me that everybody supported spending money to protect our children. It was also clear to me that there were those (including me and at least one BOE member) who were opposed to putting the safety of our children up for a vote. There is no guarantee that this bond will pass. The BOE could have separated security upgrades from maintenance items as suggested in these meetings thus assuring the security items pass. If this bond does not pass, the security will have to be paid for by increasing our budget expenses considerably or by proposing a new bond. If the latter, then we likely miss the deadlines needed to do these upgrades in summer 2015 as currently proposed. A cynic might think that security was bundled to increase the yes votes.

The most contentious items in the bond proposal include replacing the upper field and stadium field with synthetic turf and adding lights at the stadium. My research has led me to the conclusion that Miller Place should move forward on synthetic turf installation on both fields at the high school.

The cost for synthetic turf is about $2,796,600 which is 37% of the initial bond cost excluding loan interest. At 4% interest this ends up costing $3,723,500 over the 15 year loan period.

It was clear to me from the various bond proposal meetings that the upper fields need to have synthetic turf. This field used to be full of oak trees that were cleared and the soil left behind is very acidic and, despite Herculean efforts, will just not grow grass. Even limited use turns this field into a dirt patch. Without synthetic turf, we are just throwing money and time at dirt and that makes no fiscal sense.

What was less clear to me was the urgency for synthetic turf on the stadium field because it appears to be able to support natural grass. I also knew that the start-up and replacement costs for synthetic fields were high. I asked many questions and spent countless hours researching the pros and cons of natural grass vs. synthetic turf. Here is what I found:

Maintenance

Artificial turf fields are not maintenance-free. These fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation on very hot days to cool the surface to acceptable levels, 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. Most maintenance cost comparisons typically show that synthetic turf has much lower maintenance fees than natural grass  but there are reports to the contrary. (See links below.)

Long-Term Costs

The lifetime of artificial turf is 6-10 years and then the surface needs to be replaced. My research shows that replacing the artificial turf with a new surface costs between 50% - 60% of the initial installation cost and disposal of the old surface can cost well over $100,000. These costs must be factored in when considering making the switch to synthetic turf.

Health Concerns

There are various claims about health-related issues with synthetic turf. It is true that synthetic turf gets considerably hotter on a sunny day than natural grass and at times can render the field unusable. Watering the synthetic turf has limited cooling ability. In New York heat is less of an issue than in southern states but during our summer heat waves, it would limit the use of the fields during the hottest hours. See: Summer heat waves are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future. The other health concerns such as more injuries, bacterial infections, chemical vapors, etc. are addressed by some of the links below.  Bottom line: Other than increased heat stress other health concerns show no conclusive evidence that turf is harmful to athlete’s health than natural grass.

There many online resources on the topic of natural vs. synthetic fields. A few that I found to be particularly useful appear below:

http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html - University of Arkansas Turf Grass Science website   (2009): Turf has higher costs than natural grass in 16 year study and turf may have health issues, particularly heat stress on hottest days

http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs.php/ - Univ. of Missouri study used to support the higher cost estimate of Univ. of Arkansas information above

http://www.d214.org/assets/1/workflow_staging/Documents/12523.PDF - Synthetic Turf Feasibility Study (2011) shows that if upfront costs are subsidized then long-term costs are lower with synthetic turf than for natural grass, esp. when cost per use is factored in

 http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm -State of NY Dept. of Health Fact Sheet  (2008): Other than increased heat stress, no conclusive evidence that synthetic turf is more harmful to athlete’s health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265067/ - National Institutes of Health (2008) - Other than increased heat stress, no conclusive evidence that synthetic turf is more harmful to athlete’s health

http://www.setengineers.com/turfvsgrass.pdf - Analysis Of Granular Infill Synthetic Turf as a Sports Field Surface Replacement by Sports Engineering Technologies: Study showing the cost of installing a new natural grass field vs. installing a synthetic field.  Synthetic field more cost-effective in long run.

http://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/STMA_Bulletins/NaturalGrassFields.pdf - Natural Grass Athletic Fields by Sports Turf Managers Association: A detailed look into the benefits, disadvantages and cost effectiveness of maintaining natural grass fields for recreation. Conclusion is that maintenance costs of synthetic fields comparable to that of natural grass.

Miller Place Experts

So what do our own experts think about the need for synthetic turf? I asked Marc Bloom, VP – Miller Place Athletics Booster Club, to explain why synthetic turf on the stadium field and adding lights was something that was urgent. He gave me permission to post his reply here:

So to answer your concerns…..first of all, I don’t feel that these field upgrades are “Urgent” as you stated.  They are very much needed and warranted.  The fields at both the high school and the middle school are in very bad shape.  The upper fields are in even worse shape than that. 

Now we look at the track.  You have to walk the track to understand and see that there are cracks or “canyons” all over the entire length of the track.  There are some cracks that are 6”-8” wide along the South side.  No one can argue that it needs to be replaced. 

To me the track is the key.  Since this needs to be replaced, we must look at what else in that area needs to repaired or replaced.  While the stadium field looks great from far away, it has major playability and safety concerns.  For example, all four corners of the football / lacrosse field drop off in elevation by over 24” in 20’.  The worst of which is the South East corner of the fields.  Very dangerous to players. 

So if the track is being replaced we must do these repairs to the field now. 

2 options….(1) remove and repair the field…or (2) remove and replace the field with a turf field.  Both options care the same prep.  Excavate field and install new drainage.  Option 1 we have to install water lines and irrigation and try to grow field grass.  We then have to maintain, cut, water and line a grass field.  During the spring and fall seasons this requires a dedicated staff to attend to the fields.  And only the fields.  Option 2, if we go just a little bit further we can install a top of the line artificial turf field.  No more lining, mowing, watering, fertilizing, etc….

Keep in mind that with the turf field, all field sports can be played in one season.  With a grass field, only 1 team can play on it during 1 season.  Not to mention that you can only use it for a game day.  You cannot practice on it.  Therefore the current grass field that we have is specifically used by the football team for only 8 – 10 games a year!  The field is also used for lax, which is then destroyed by the end of the season.  then it takes a tremendous amount of man power, equipment and materials to get it ready for football season.  More teams and players can use and enjoy a turf field.  From Sept to June, the current stadium grass field is used by ONLY 3 teams (Football, Boys Lax and Girls Lax).  A turf field can be used by all teams (Football, Field Hockey, Boys Soccer, Girls Soccer, Boys Lax and Girls Lax).  Therefore reaching more student athletes.

Because of the budget cuts several years ago, the field crew has been cut to the bone.  They, I should say HE, cannot keep up.  Let alone keeping up with other schools and more fields.  Our fields keep getting worse and worse. 

Then we must look at the State Funding.  We are paying 28 cents on the dollar.  You must think of this as a 72% off coupon on a one time purchase.  If this is the case , we must purchase all that we can afford to purchase so we can save in the long run.  Keep in mind that while our purchase is 28% of every dollar spent, our school district and home values will reap a 100% of the actual value. 

For this reason, we must purchase the lights as well.  The lights are not a “necessity” by any means.  Instead it is for the entire student population and the community as a whole.  The lights, as you know, draw many community members to all night games.  It is enjoyed by parents that cannot make games that are scheduled for 3:30 due to work.  IF you have the option to purchase state of the art lights for your campus at a 72% off discount, I feel you have to do it.

These items (track, turf and lights) are typically installed at the same time.  Each item affects the other when installed.  That is, if you install the track and wait on the field, you will ruin the track when installing the turf at a later date.  Same idea with the lights and electrical that needs to be installed.  Not to mention that these items will be much more expensive if purchased “a la carte” . 

Furthermore, the turf and lights are key ingredients to a successful and fruitful sports program. 

Ron Petrie, MPHS Football Coach, weighed in on a Facebook thread and he also gave me permission to post his comments:

The fact of the matter is that the fields are an extension of the classroom. Would any parent tolerate their child's math or science classes interrupted by weather or being held in an environment that is "substandard" by comparison? The 2 fields are the focal point of our community's athletic profile. Those facilities are where 12 Varsity, 12 JV & 4 MS teams play their games. That doesn't include the use by 25+ youth/PAL/local travel teams DIRECTLY associated with the Miller Place/Sound Beach communities. There is no wonder that the fields cannot sustain a condition that is safe & prudent. Additionally, since those fields are "game" fields they are usually not available for practice and to be honest they can't sustain that kind of use. We have practice fields, but their conditions are where this really becomes an issue. On rainy days teams are slotted for gym space in 1.5 hour segments for both JV & VARSITY teams combined. This is simply because the practice fields in addition to some game fields become UNUSABLE. The carry-over for that lack of use can sometimes span 2-3 days. Fall & Spring sports are "outside" participation sports and they cannot be effectively taught indoors.

This is the point that many don't realize is that our teams lose valuable practice time for learning & skill development. You are hearing about the teams having to travel to other facilities...and that costs money. What about the cost to our youth programs??? How much do they spend on going to Diamond in the Pines, The Wedge, etc.?? (That opens itself up to a whole different discussion).

But simply put, turf & lights would make the weather less of an issue while raising the standard of our appearance. It opens up many more possibilities to improve the overall experience and development of our students & athletes. If you have ever wondered why PE classes don't use the fields...just show up on early spring AM and walk the back practice fields to observe their condition. The "stadium field" has been fenced off to attempt to restore grass for the upcoming sport season...good luck to that. Outdoor graduation ceremonies are held hostage to the weather because wet fields can't handle that event. School fundraisers & Student Government activities as well are constantly in limbo.

Turf makes sense from all perspectives.

Bottom line on synthetic turf: Although there are many resources showing the various costs of synthetic turf vs. natural grass, when a significant reduction in start-up costs is available, such as with New York State aid up to $3 million, it appears that synthetic turf is a cost-effective alternative to natural grass. It should be noted that turf can withstand much greater use than natural grass so if one considers cost per use it has been shown that turf is the cheaper solution. Other than increased heat stress occurrence on our hottest days, there does not appear to be any conclusive evidence that synthetic turf causes increased health risks. Finally, given the arguments presented by Marc Bloom and Ron Petrie above, it is my opinion that Miller Place should move forward on synthetic turf installation on both fields at the high school. If the NY State aid were not available, then I think the cost arguments against turfing the stadium field would have more merit.

My overall opinion of this bond proposal:

·         I would have preferred keeping the very popular and urgent security upgrades separate from the other items to assure that they get done.

·         I do not think that the costs of this bond have been made clear to the community. It has been sold to us as being cheaper than it really is. Taxpayers are paying for 51% of the total cost of this bond – not the 72% being advertised.

·         We will see higher taxes down the road if this bond passes.  Debt = cost.

·         Having voiced my concerns, overall I think this bond package is a cost-effective way of paying for items that are needed right now or will need in the near future.

Those that support the proposed bond do so because they claim we need these items and are getting a lot of bang for the buck. Those that oppose the proposed bond think that security should not be up for a vote and that the true costs of the bond and the impact to taxpayers has not been accurately presented to the community. I see merit in both arguments. See you on the 24th!