I am writing today to share my thoughts regarding the Elma Stadium and football field that the school district is asking the taxpayers to pay for. Rather than listing all the negative things I have to say about the current proposal, I feel like I would be much better served to look at this in a more constructive way.
Several weeks back I wrote an email to Superintendent Acuff. much to my surprise later that very afternoon he came over to my business and sat down with my wife and I for roughly an hour and explained the school district's proposal for a new Stadium and ball field.
I wish to thank superintendent Acuff for taking the time out of his busy schedule to come and speak personally to me about this. Among other things, he shared with me the school district’s different ideas that they had mulled over before arriving at the one that they have now.
One idea was to rebuild on the same spot the Stadium and football field was located before it was demolished, another idea was putting the Stadium in the same area that the High School parking lot is now. yet another was to put the grandstand next to the track where the bleachers are now and have that as the football field. And finally, and ultimately, the idea to put the Stadium, football field, and leaving room for a track and other things next to the grade school.
So now I come to the part where I have questions. Again, rather than picking apart the district’s plan, I would much rather ask a few of my own questions.
I was told that by locating the Stadium in the same spot it was before, FEMA demanded that it be raised 5 feet higher than it was previously. Also superintendent Acuff reminded me that the football field In its current spot, was very muddy and not very usable by the end of the football season. He also said the cost would be about ten million dollars to locate the stadium in the exact same spot.
He said the district had hired two separate independent engineers to review these plans just so there could be no accusation that one engineer wanted to have it his way. Also I understood that having artificial turf meant having to replace it every 10 years at a cost of $1 000,000, at today's rate. In addition, the maintenance of a grass football field would cost roughly $50,000 a year, which would indeed be less expensive than the artificial turf. However, the common thought was that if all sports teams played on the football field throughout the year, it wouldn't last the season if it were a natural turf, that's why the idea for artificial turf was left in the plan.
My questions are these:
Two things are true, the school district needs a new stadium, and, the taxpayers need to be thought of, so as not to overtax them. Could it be possible, that there would be a more frugal way to look at relocating the football field and stadium to its original spot? If indeed it would cost the school district via the taxpayers, $1,000,000.00 every 10 years for artificial turf, using the savings of natural turf, could we not build separate practice fields with the money saved, and pay the extra cost to raise the stadium 60 inches in the long term?
So, my thoughts are like this: if it cost $50,000 a year to maintain a grass football field x 10 years, that is a total of $500,000. So in my way of thinking that leaves a difference of $500,000 every 10 years that could be spent on practice fields, the cost to lift the stadium 60 inches,resurface the old playing field, and at some point it would be paid off, relieving the taxpayers of having to pay $1,000,000 dollars every 10 years for eternity, plus, any other levies or needs the school district may have could be dealt with without piling more tax debt on the rate payers.
I am as excited as the next man to see Elma get a new stadium. I also am excited as the next man to take good care of our taxpayers should the economy not be as robust as it is now down the road. I feel like being conservative when spending the taxpayers money will leave us in much better shape in the future for other capital outlays.
So, at this time, I am more inclined to pass on the current offer the school district has for the stadium and football field, and ask them to go back to the drawing board, and give us an option that includes using the money saved from the absence of artificial turf to pay for an alternative practice field, and build the stadium in its original location.
I hope all that read this will understand I am NOT against athletic’s or any extracurricular activities. I am however, very conscious of the financial burden we place on our taxpayers and spending money wisely. I would like to see an alternative offering that uses the monies saved by not using artificial turf, to pay for practice fields, the additional 60 inch lift the stadium, and repairing and making better drainage for the existing field in it's current location.
