Letter: We Need Accurate Accounting of CVU Proposal
Hinesburg resident believes estimates of income from proposed artificial turf field fail to consider the costs associated with putting on events
By Geri Knortz
I have written to the CVU school board to request that an accurate budget estimate for revenue and costs related to the turf field project be presented to CVU district residents. I am concerned that the information presented to date has been very incomplete and presents an inaccurate picture for taxpayers.
It is disingenuous to state that the estimated annual revenue from field rental will fund the turf field replacement in 10 years, as well as to omit annual costs related to turf field installation and maintenance. The incomplete current financial presentation appeals to taxpayers as a “revenue generator” and “net neutral” tax impact. Prior to any vote to install an artificial turf field it is incumbent on all board members to require an accurate budget be presented to them and to the CVU town residents.
Regarding the estimated revenue for field rentals, there are several questions. Estimates from the sponsoring group range from $50,000 to $100,000 annually. How is that estimate determined, is it accurate, and….is that gross or net? Have the expenses related to hosting an event (especially a VPA event) been part of the calculations? As the former Athletics Director at Saint Michael’s College (1997-2015), I have significant experience hosting VPA events on campus. There are major expenses that must be budgeted for when hosting these events including: personnel costs related to ticket sales, parking, ticket-taking and gate security (bag search for alcohol and other substances), scoreboard operation, police coverage, EMS coverage, event management (including dealing with spectators under the influence), and custodial cleanup, as well as potential costs related to utilities for lights and turf maintenance. Have all of these items been included in the budget to attain the true projected revenue?
Next, the 10-year, end-of-life replacement costs need to be considered. The current presented figure of $500,000 replacement cost does not account for inflationary costs, nor does it include the hazardous waste removal/disposal of the old turf cost estimate of $350,000. Taking both into consideration, the replacement costs could well exceed $1M. Certainly, the projected 10-year net field rental revenue falls far short of funding the true replacement costs. Will taxpayers be expected to take on the burden of these costs? Will they also be responsible for remediation costs should they be necessary to clean up any contamination?
Finally, it is unclear that the presented budget analysis of annual turf maintenance includes all necessary and required aspects. The maintenance costs for artificial turf sports fields can approach $20,000 per year, and that cost is not clearly delineated in the current $15,000 budget presented.
For the 10-year warranty to remain valid, typically installation companies minimally require semi-annual visits from individuals on their list of certified maintenance contractors. These costly but necessary visits address issues related to infill replacement, seam repair, Clegg Compaction Test, and sanitizing and general turf grooming. What is the cost of the annual maintenance contract with certified technicians and is it included in the current projected budget?
Is there anticipated snow removal for the turf field? Is the cost of plowing included in the annual budget (equipment and labor)? Is there special equipment that is needed specific to snow removal on the turf field? Will plowing the field void or exclude any warranty aspects?
Does the warranty contract have stipulations on the annual number of hours of use and/or number of permitted events? Will this limit the outside use/rental income?
Is there a line-item cost allocation for annual water filtration expenses?
Does the contract include an irrigation system, and what is the annual cost for that? While optional, irrigation is highly desirable in order to control heat and crumb rubber infill suppression.
What is the annual increased utility budget for use of turf lights?
In summary, in order to produce an accurate budget presentation, net revenue, 10-year replacement costs, and complete annual use/maintenance costs must be included.
I appeal to the board to require an accurate and inclusive budget be presented to you and be available for public consumption and comment prior to any vote on the turf field.
My main concern, and that of many others, has been and continues to be the potential impact of PFAs to the health and well-being of our community members. That continues to be of grave concern.
As a former collegiate athletics director, I am well aware of the appeal of an artificial turf field and its perceived and real benefits. Certainly, when the turf field was installed at Saint Michael’s College during my tenure, I was “all in.” However, increased and on-going analysis, research and scrutiny of the PFA, microplastic, and other chemical compound contents of turf has caused substantial and legitimate concern. This has resulted in a pause in current installation projects in several states as they evaluate contaminants, and it may well prohibit installation in the future. I appeal to the board to increase the timeline for consideration of artificial turf at CVU. When we know more, we need to do better.
This decision warrants complete and thorough testing of the product that claims to be 100 percent PFA-free. This issue is not about building community. The critical issue, the health and safety of all 4,500-plus Hinesburg residents, is at stake, and is currently in the hands of the 12 sitting CVU school board members.