The District 87 Board of Education met Monday night, May 4. The old Board certified the canvass results of the April 7 election, and the meeting was adjourned. New Board members . . . Robert Friend, Richard Heim, Yadav Nathwani . . . and Tom Voltaggio were then sworn in and seated as the meeting reconvened. The first order of business was to elect officers.

Rose Malcolm was nominated by Tom Voltaggio, and elected president. Tom Voltaggio was elected vice-president. Steve Sebby was elected parliamentarian. Jo Ahrens and Chris McClain were re-elected board secretary and treasurer respectively.

The major topic to come before the newly elected Board for a vote was a Superintendent’s Recommendation to accept the lowest bid for Site Work, Track and Synthetic Turf at Glenbard North. This agenda item was based on the resolution agreement between D87, the Carol Stream Park District and the Glenbard North Athletic Booster organization to “collaboratively fund the purchase and installation of synthetic turf surface and lights at Weber Field.”

As background, the resolution with Glenbard North specifies that the total Turf Scope will not exceed $1.4 million . . . and that CSPD contributions will be 50% of the Turf Scope plus design fees, not to exceed a total contribution of $600,000. The Light Scope contribution from the CSPD and Boosters would fund the entire amount of $150,000 (replacement of existing football field lights). The total Booster contribution would be $300,000 (for turf and lights) repaid over eight years.

The superintendent recommended that the Board approve the lowest bid from Abbey Paving in the amount of $1,651,800 (base bid) and $96,145 in alternates for a total project cost of $1,747,945.

After some initial dialogue, primarily from new members unfamiliar with all aspects of the project and looking to get up to speed, Voltaggio focused the discussion on three areas of concern:

1. The specification of the turf provider.
2. Alternate bids for additional lighting for the concession area and the long jump and track areas.
3. Cost of complete removal and replacement of the running track, instead of refurbishing and resurfacing that was previously scheduled.

The architectural design package specified four competing turf products . . . which fall into two predominant categories vis-à-vis their infill material. Field Turf, Game Day and Sportexe use the least expensive and most common product referred to as crumb rubber (finely ground pellets of used auto and truck tires), mixed with silica sand. The alternate approach, developed and patented by Mondo-Ecofil, is a product designed and manufactured specifically as infill material for sports field applications.

Field Turf was specified for the base bid at Glenbard North, with the three other firms listed as alternate bids.

With regard to crumb-rubber fields, Voltaggio once again expressed reservation about exposing students (and users in general) to a product that uses lead chromate dyes, and a combination of silica sand and crumb rubber pellets as its base. Voltaggio referenced the growing number of international and nationwide studies that urge caution with this particular product . . . primarily citing the potentially toxic nature of the ground tire rubber, inhalation issues for those coming into contact with silica sand, extremely high field surface temperature (upward of 160 degrees F) created by the black rubber base, and ecological impact of the chemicals (from the crumb rubber) leaching into water tables.

Voltaggio said that he remains uncomfortable specifying a product about which there is still so much conflicting opinion. In the rush to join the “artificial turf generation,” he questioned the wisdom of potentially exposing students to toxic material that might become the asbestos or lead paint of tomorrow . . . as well as creating adverse future environmental issues.

He asked why the Administration would not give more serious consideration to the competing “technology” (i.e. non crumb rubber) . . . thereby eliminating health, safety and eco issues?

The response from the consultant from Legat Architects was “cost,” and trying to find a “balance between cost and quality.” He said that Mondo-Ecofil is a “state of the art” product, and would add $143,000 to the project.

He allowed, however, that these were “good questions to bring up,” and that it is “hard to find independent research about the use of hazardous material in artificial turf.” He said that he “hasn’t found specific information” that would address Voltaggio’s points, and admitted “in no way was he personally an expert.” He said that the fields “appear to be healthy,” although even Field Turf does “talk about the extreme temperatures” associated with crumb rubber.

Voltaggio then questioned that if indeed cost was driving the District to a crumb rubber based product, then why was no consideration given to the least expensive bid in the group (Sportexe)? The consultant did not have an answer other than to say that aside from Field Turf, the other two bidders had never been seriously considered. His impression is that Game Day is more expensive; he had no information about Sportexe.

Board discussion then shifted to questions of why the administration was ramping up the scope and cost of the entire project (adding summer remedial funds to the mix) by tearing out and completely replacing the Glenbard North running track at this time . . . when the original mission, as stated in the North/CSPD agreement, had been to merely refurbish and resurface the existing one.

The administrators and consultants said that they had based the decision on the fact that the track will be scheduled for resurfacing in two years anyhow.

(Note: Resurfacing is not replacement . . . so it is still not clear as to why they are converting what was planned as a refurbishment expense of $125-150,000 into a replacement cost of $440,000?)

In the course of this lengthy discussion, the architect brought up the need to adhere to current storm water retention requirements imposed by the Village of Carol Stream. However, upon further review, it was determined that the project scope includes adequate detention capacity to address these current requirements without the necessity of a complete track removal and reconstruction.

The next bit of chaff that was thrown up in support of tearing out the existing track related to some oblique inference that the current track “bows” the wrong way. Mr. Meissen, the superintendent, jumped in at this point, and went so far as to suggest that the track was not safe for users. Voltaggio strongly challenged that characterization, and cautioned against muddying the water with inaccurate representations.

The last area of discussion centered on increased sports lighting, which adds $71,755, plus $63,000 of underground electric, which was never anticipated in the original project. Voltaggio questioned the need for this added expense.

In conclusion, and overall, Voltaggio voiced frustration that the architects had not shown a breakdown in the bids . . . preferring instead to do a lump sum for the entire project. Voltaggio maintained that by so doing, it eliminated the ability to properly account to the Carol Stream Park District their portion of the cost of the actual turf as required by the intergovernmental agreement. Taking the “lump sum” approach also eliminated the ability of the Board to in fact determine if the turf scope exceeded the $1.4 million limitation.

Heim said that as a new board member, he was wrestling with trying to reconcile a decision Monday night, with what appeared to be many loose ends. He felt that the kind of discussion that was taking place should have been more fully vetted before being brought to the Board for action.

Other members weighed in . . . Friend said that while he liked the idea of “tackling the total project at one time,” he was "worried about money," and thought that perhaps the Board could consider “skipping the lights.”

Nathwani said that in view of a great many other financial concerns, and in deference to the economic times, it would be prudent to “pare back the project.”

Sebby was uncomfortable with the manner in which the “dollars have grown,” and questioned what the implications would be if the vote was tabled until some of the concerns were more adequately covered.

The lengthy discussion and unanswered questions about the arbitrary increase in the scope of the project must have resonated with the Board. By a margin of 6-1, the recommendation was rejected, with President Malcolm casting the dissenting vote.

The Administration will review options, and the North turf project will return before the Board at a later date.

Call me a party pooper or a Debbie Downer but I fail to even grasp WHY these high schools need some elaborate artificial surface.

Seems like something that is destined to be yanked out in a few years.

Grass has worked just fine for many decades. Hasn't it?

Tom V. you dah man!!!

Thanks for a great report Mel

And, it is just flat out in a contrary line of thinking based upon the current [and very near future] realities of sinking EAVs and negative CPIs.

Or is there some other slush fund to pay for this just sitting around somewhere?

Wow. Thanks Melbourne. Big kudos indeed to our new board members, for taking the time to conduct a diligent investigation before agreeing to spend our money.

I do have one question. If I am reading this right, it sounds like they accepted the lowest bid for most things, EXCEPT when it comes to the turf itself. For that, they chose Field Turf, even though they were not the lowest bidder. And WHY?

The company known as "Field Turf" ...is that the same company that was on hand to present us with the Gain Ground proposal for Glenbard WEST? If I remember correctly, we were assured that as a member of Gain Ground,the rep from FieldTurf (GE resident) was simply volunteering his time. Supposedly he was not 'helping out' the folks from Gain Ground in order to reap a financial benefit. Guess that wasn't true after all.

Something smells very fishy here. I realize we live in the most corrupt state in the U.S. Is it too much to ask that our OWN residents not have a financial stake in the outcome when they present us with information, supposedly to 'help out.' Luckily, we have a few smart people on our school board who will not be duped into what could end up being a shell game. At least I hope not.

FYI

FieldTurf has earned some notoriety.

Sued by California for lead content. latimes...

Involved in unpopular political deals in Chicago. committee to keep lincoln park public...

Mel,
Thanks for taking the time for another excellent report.

I too am glad to see a more conservative approach from the new Board. Haste makes waste.

These games should be played on Grass, not turf, and should be played during daylight hours, not under the lights.

Ensure that your voice is heard by the principals, the assistant pricipals in charge of athletics, the athletic directors, assistant athletic directors and the administrative staff of assitant atheltic directors, (amazing...), because for obvious reasons, they want to have the best, for the best, in order to be the best....but might not have your best interests at heart.

this board better not put the stops on this.
Our kids need this. It will help them improve their athletic skills. It is not all that expensive and it is obvious we can afford it.

Please stop complaining about our school system. If you did not want to pay the taxes you should not have moved here. You cannot put a price tag on a quality educational program

Please elaborate on what is meant by "quality educational program."

A quality education program is just what it says. IT is a program that offers our kids a competitive opportunity to succeed. It includes classroom as well as extra activities.

A quality education program is critical to our continual community development. Without it our schools suffer, our towns suffer, our property values suffer. Spending on education should be a priority to all of us. You cannot put a price tag on this nor can you spend too much. Taxes are just the cost of a successful program. Compared to many other areas around the country our taxes are really quite low.
All of us make decent livings. We can afford a tax increase for our children if we really want the best for them. Our children deserve it.

I dont appreciate your comment. Perhaps you dont believe your children deserve the best.
Perhaps you dont believe your children are worth the cost of a quality education. However I do.

There are many areas where the taxes are much higher than here. I have a good friend who lives in Highland Park and they pay considerably more than GE.
GE is a very moderate city to live in. The taxes are very reasonable.
All of us could afford to pay more if we had to.
Think about all the money we waste--starbucks, eating out, new clothes etc. That money could easily go toward our schools.
Research has shown that the more money you sepend on education the better the quality.
Our children are worth a small sacrifice.

Be careful when you spend everybody's money because everybody in Glen Ellyn is filthy rich. This town has its share of widows living on only social security and single moms who are working two jobs and living from paycheck to paycheck.

And there are many in the big fancy houses who are “house poor” ... people who got into mortgages they can no longer afford, with homes are now worth less than they paid.

After reading your posts northsider, I was wondering if you'd mind clarifying a few points for me. That way, I could decide if I agree with you or not.

It sounds like you think that by installing artificial grass, we will improve the education our kids receive at GBW. Would you mind explaining just a bit more about that? Specifically HOW will it improve my daughter's education, or anyone elses?

I am referring to standardized tests, which are the means by which we all can assess how a school is performing. Universities will be looking at how our kids perform on these tests, when considering who they will accept, and who will be rejected.

For example, if we look at how GBW ranks in comparison to other communities in Illinois (such as communities on the north shore, Naperville, or closer to home, say Wheaton for example), please elaborate on how the turf will raise our performance.

You seem to have strong opinions regarding this topic. I assume then that you have done your homework, and you can back up those opinions with some fact. Do you actually KNOW where GBW ranks in comparison to the other communities I mentioned?

My other question is, how do you know what the residents of Glen Ellyn CAN and CANNOT afford to pay? Have you spoken to them, or taken some sort of poll? Was there a referendum that was presented to our fellow residents, where they could answer this for themselves? Or are you the official spokesperson for all the residents of Glen Ellyn?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: D87parent,

Glen ellyn is one of the wealthiest communities in Illinois. It is common knowledge residents here make lots of money. They can easily afford their property tax.
I have never understood why so many people with soo much have taken such a hard line stance against quality education? The more money we put into our schools the better they will be.
The better they are the more our homes will be worth. ITs that simple

Glen Ellyn, IL Household Income:

• Less than $10,000: 349 households
• $10,000 - $14,999: 266
• $15,000 - $24,999: 685
• $25,000 - $34,999: 822
• $35,000 - $49,999: 1,204
  
  
• Total households with income less than $50,000: 3,326
  
  
• Total households: 10,207
  
  
• Percentage of Glen Ellyn households with income less than $50,000: 30.68%

Although you ignore and apparently view these residents with disdain, I assure you they take no joy in placing food, medicine, clothing, heat, lights, water, sewer, telephone, transportation, home maintenance and heavy taxes ahead of artificial turf on their list of necessities.

Source.

It may be common knowledge that SOME of the residents make lots of money. I know many families that work very hard to live here. You cannot assume that because a percentage of residents live a certain life style that all can be held to the same standard. It would make a difference, to more than a few families, to have another tax increase.
Have the students at West really had it so bad without artificial turf?

That's good info Gabriel. I didn't know we had so many families living on less than $10,000.

Northsider may not realize it, but he makes the case against turf and lights every time he types something on this board. Particularly when he references quality education.

Just curious, Northsider, where did you grow up?

Nearly all of my neighbors here make well over $150,000 per year. I dont know anyone here who makes $10,000. Everyone except me, has at least two new luxury cars. They all take two week vacations to nice locations. This town has plenty of money to pay more taxes.
Glenbard West is an old building and needs lots of investments in its infrastructure.
Turf is a small price to pay to help ensure a quality education for our children.