I don't know what subjects the laid-off teachers taught. It's too bad anything is being cut from our children's education.

My other point is that they shouldn't be laying off anyone until turf is postponed/discarded and until they've combed the budget for other ways of cost-cutting.

quote:

Originally posted by Farmer:
...they shouldn't be laying off anyone until turf is postponed/discarded and until they've combed the budget for other ways of cost-cutting.

Isn't salaries and bene's equal to about 80% of the total budget? There would have to be draconian cuts "combed" out of the budget to equal 1 teacher.

My other point is what are the cost differences in maintenance between Turf and artificial turf? Over the long haul, isn't artificial cheaper?

Here's the problem that I've seen often in situations such as this. When there needs to be budget cuts, because salaries and bens take up such a large chunk of the budget, they're usually the first to go. What I don't understand is why there isn't more time put into reviewing the specific details of the budgets and more creative "outside the box" solutions? As Farmer suggested, finding cuts elsewhere is a lot easier than most people wish to put the time into considering. Not to say that sals and bens shouldn't be cut at all, but it stands to reason that other creative ways to cut them could've been addressed prior to simply laying off teachers.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

. . . what are the cost differences in maintenance between Turf and artificial turf? Over the long haul, isn't artificial cheaper?

Plastic grass may require less frequent care than natural grass, but it is hardly maintenance free, or even “maintenance minimal” as the manufacturers, such as Field Turf, represent . . . and as D87 administrators are banking on as part of their financial modeling for Memorial Field.

To wit: D87 Business supervisor Chris McClain told the Board at its March 8 meeting that switching from natural to plastic grass would result in a reduction from $15,000 to $5,000 per year. The estimated $10,000 cost differential over 8 years represents $80,000 of the District’s $925,000 ($1.2 million, including interest) portion of the project.

McClain’s illusory projection flies in the face of national articles . . . one of which, “Experts Spell out the True Cost of Synthetic Turf Maintenance," cited a Michigan State University study presented at a Synthetic Turf Infill Seminar in 2005. The report stated that MSU was spending $22,760 per year on one 3-year-old indoor synthetic field . . . which actually entails less maintenance that outdoor applications, such as Memorial Field.

While there is admittedly no seeding, mowing or fertilizing, MSU advised prospective users that plastic grass maintenance schedules included “raking, vacuuming, leaf blowing, handpicking, wetting, washing, sanitizing and treating for weeds and pests.”

In addition, the turfed fields required the purchase of specialized equipment that might include a boom sprayer, sweeper, broom, painter, groomer, cart (to tow equipment), field magnet (to capture metal objects that get tossed or dropped) and rollers.

A detailed breakdown of the MSU Maintenance Budget was as follows:

Seam repairs (Outside contractor; $30 per linear foot) - $8,000

Apply crumb rubber (1x per year; 20 hours per application; 10 tons of top dressing @ $500 per ton) - $5,000

Spray field (4x per year; 3.5 oz rate per 1,000 sq. ft; 3 hr. each; 12 hr. per yr.) - $216

Fabric softener @ $7 per 64 oz. Container - $120

Disinfectant @ $5 per gallon - $100

Sweep Field – (4x per year; 8 hr. each; 32 hr. per yr.) - $1,500

Broom - $500

Groomer - $1,500

Hand pick debris (3x per week; 1 hr. ea.; 156 hr. per year @ $18 per hr.) - $2,800

Paint Field (2x per yr.; 30 hr. ea.; 60 hr. per year; 30-40 gal. per year @ $25 per gal.) - $1,000

Total straight hourly costs: $5,040
Total Supply Cost: $6,220
Total Equipment Cost: $3,500
Total Outside Contractor Repairs: $8,000

Total Maintenance Cost 2004-05: $22,760


These hard numbers and concrete information from an experienced consumer do nothing to quell the concern of many who have watched the plastic grass fiasco unfold at D87, and who fear that in the increasingly frantic rush to turf installation that has ensued over the past six weeks, a thorough and realistic accounting of cost has been left by the wayside.

The entire matter becomes even more disturbing when contrasted against cuts to staff and program, which are now becoming reality at D87. $1.2 million for plastic grass would go a long way towards reducing pink slips, and truly keeping cuts away from the classroom.

At this fragile economic time, with so much financial uncertainty, it is beyond reckless and irresponsible to be embarking on this type of frivolous, luxury expenditure . . . and once again brings into question the caliber of decision-making both from D87 administrative leadership, and those green-lighting the project at the Board table.

quote:

The entire matter becomes even more disturbing when contrasted against cuts to staff and program, which are now becoming reality at D87. $1.2 million for plastic grass would go a long way towards reducing pink slips, and truly keeping cuts away from the classroom.

What cuts to what classrooms? Are the teachers and staff you refer to fulltime classroom teachers? If so, for what classes? I could give two hand picking sweeps of a turfed field if the teachers and programs cut were for jewelry making, beginnig guitar, etc.

There are facts and figures to support both sides of the turf maintenance equation. I am not in this discussion to debate the merits of turf vs artificial turf. I simply would like to know what teachers are being cut and what do they teach. Teachers' jobs, like the rest of the world, are not sacrosanct. If it is not benefitting a large enough percentage of the student population, why the cry to arms over "pink slipping" a couple of people.

quote:

Originally posted by Melbourne:
Broom - $500

Are these Pentagon costs?