Six weeks ago, the Emporia school board approved spending $6.7 million of taxpayer money to improve energy efficiency in the district. The district hired Custom Energy of Overland Park to oversee the project.
Of that $6.7 million, $1.6 million was going to be used for a new artificial turf football field and track at the high school.
That story created some community discussion because the news did not sit well with teachers who feel the money would be better spent to fix our existing buildings that need improvement. Many community members also believe a turf and track project is a luxury, not a necessity.
After that story ran, we received some news tips that there was another artificial turf contractor that had attempted to submit a bid to build the turf field and track. This company, ATG Sports Industries, estimated it could do the project for $1.2 million, which could potentially save taxpayers $400,000.
This news — and hearing that the turf and field project was not put out for a public competitive bid — raised red flags in our newsroom, and we moved to investigate the situation.
We discovered that the energy project that includes the turf and field improvements falls under a specific state law that allows the Emporia district — and all school districts — to circumvent the public bid process. Instead, Custom Energy works on behalf of the district to solicit prices for the project.
Custom Energy works with what they call their “pre-approved bidders.” In this instance, the turf bid was considerably higher from their pre-approved bidder, and this may not be in the best interest for taxpayers.
If Custom Energy’s pre-approved bidders continually have higher bids, this could represent millions of lost dollars for district taxpayers.
Over the next two days, the Gazette is reporting on this story and will hopefully bring some answers to readers.
To ensure public trust there should be accountability, transparency and no rush when spending $6.7 million of taxpayer money.
In the end, the largest question may be is it in taxpayers’ best interest not to use a public bidding system when a private company is awarding jobs using taxpayer money?
The Emporia Gazette Editorial Board
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by Tell (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ATG had the same type of complaint in the Wichita school district you might look into that .
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the extra $400,000 is needed for bribes and kickbacks.
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let us wait and hope there is a reasonable explanation
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I would like to know is how an artificial turf football field and track can be justified as increasing energy efficiency ?
Unless the new football field and track will be used to play all of EHS home football games and track and field events instead of using or renting the stadium at ESU !
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the Gazette or school district would provide a link to the supporting info included in the packet presented to the Board.
Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
who voted for, who voted against? I will make my opinion known at the next election.
Posted by SFIns (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U... I wan't going to say it BUT I think the gazette should look into it. Why else would they pay more for the same item.
And for everyone else. Remember we get a vote to, at the next election. Lets vote these wreckless spenders out and replace them with people that will be accountable for the trust that they have been given.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, I would like to say, this $6.7 million dollars is not a free handout, this will have to be paid back by someone at some time ! I think we all know who will be paying all this so called free money back is going to be !
Posted by racefan (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to commend Mike Helbert for voting against this proposal. He is the only board member that voted against it. Thank you for watching out for us taxpayers!!!
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Putting this field in was a stupid move, on this issue alone everyone but Helbert lost my vote.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1.6 million dollars would pay a full time groundskeeper $40K a year for forty years. To use a private contractor to maintain the existing field would cost about $5K per season. How long will the carpet last before it is worn out looking? Was there even a cost benefit analysis conducted or was the sales pitch convincing enough?
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With all the business closings here in Emporia, why are we giving our stimulus money to Overland Park?
Posted by tom66801 (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they play games at the high school?
My property taxes are more than likely helping pay for this turf
and I was just wondering if they
just use it for practice.
Does the jv and smaller grades to play there?
I say let them dig in the mud
thats how to make real players.
All of the profession teams are playing on natural grass because the turf is bad for the players
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are there going to be any wind mills or solar farms involved with this energy saving project? Will the spent turf be useful as fuel when it becomes usless as field turf? Somehow there has to be an energy saving aspect to this venture. Maybe the people in Overland Park will stay in Emporia duing the project to generate energy savings! Emporia loses again.
Posted by farmboyinks (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm...the district is undergoing an efficiency study. I wonder how efficient spending an additional $400,000 is. Also, what about the current negotiations with the teachers regarding their contracts? Could this money help some some of the dilemma there? Those hardworking teachers are in the trenches everyday but no one seems to worry too much about fairly compensating them... let's just overspend money on turf!
Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The board president answered my question in the on line deal about 3 wks. ago. I had asked how do we justify spending 1.6 M on a practice field? His answer was ( in round about terms) that it was so much more than that.
If astro turf is so damn good why are all the pros in all the sports going back to natural grass? In the same Q&A he also said that the people they are talking to or taking advice from would guarentee them the money spent back in savings.
I want to see that contract. And then I want to know how they plan to prove that we saved or lost money and how they are going to collect on the guarentee.
Oh yeah, it was also supposed to be stimulus money but we had to sell bonds to get it. Explain that to me.
I've spent my time on city councils, fair boards, etc. and very,very seldom was there a way to get out of a pulic bid.
If it was a stimulus money deal I would rather have give it to a tenured teacher who isn't worth their salt,(not to say that all tenured teachers are that way) than to spend it on a practice field that a minority of the students will use compared to the rest that we forget about that would just like a good education.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's the whole thing tbluma. The law allows them to hire ANYONE to oversee the project without going through a biding process. That means they could have hired an Emporia firm without bids but they chose to hire Custom Energy of Overland Park.
I could understand if they were forced to hire them because of some public spending law but that doesn't seem to be the case here. What ever happened to Shop Emporia First?
Posted by justaflushaway (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the playground for the kiddys going to be heated? I have not heard or seen anyone say anything about that. You all know they could be slipping that in right under your noses. yep, all that for just a few students.........
Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U
I rarely (if ever agree) with the Gazette's position. This time there seems to be a few conservative spots showing up on the lberal horse of the ages here in town. so my answer is
SIC'EM SPOT.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree! I hope they follow the money and discover enough to allow us to take another look at this $6.7 million dollar project.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Founded in 1997, Custom Energy Services, LLC has provided energy efficiency solutions to clients throughout the United States. "The firm is a pioneer in the use of guaranteed performance contracts."
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilit...
Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK YY4U I read the link.
Three questions to be asked.
Did the school board get one of those guarenteed performance contracts signed & who determines what the contract really covers?
Third what the hell does a energy co. know about who should be hired to install artifical turf?
Posted by brightliner (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If any of you paid attention when this all came up - the turf is a reasonable purcahse because they play over 50 games a year on this field (K-State said you should not play over 12 games a year on a grass field) plus the use it for phys ed, band, flag football and who knows what else. It was a good move and when ATG, who ever that is, says they "estimate" they could do the job for $1.2 million they follow that up by saying they haven't yet seen the spefications. Let's see if they really can do the job for less money. The "no bid" thing is troubling, but the USD 253 Board has some pretty strong people on it and I'd be willing to bet they have their bases covered. Let's see what happens.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Like I posted earlier.....sounds to me like Mike Helbert is the only one of the bunch that deserves re-election.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Want to know the disadvantages of artificial turf see below and particularly the part about period disinfection.
I wonder what it cost to disinfect a football or soccer sized field of artificial turf. I also wonder if the BOE really looked at the disadvantages of artificial turf.
Artificial turf
[edit] Disadvantages
Abrasion injuries caused by artificial turf have been linked to a higher incidence of MRSA infections[13].
Some artificial turf requires infill such as silicon sand and/or granulated rubber made from recycled car tires. This material may carry heavy metals which can leach into the water table.[14]
Periodic disinfection is required as pathogens are not broken down by natural processes in the same manner as natural turf. Despite this, recent studies suggest certain microbial life is less active.[15]
Turf toe is a medical condition which is often associated with playing on artificial turf fields.
Friction between skin and artificial turf causes abrasions and/or burns to a much greater extent than natural grass.[15] This is an issue for some sports: for example, football in which sliding maneuvers are common and clothing does not fully cover the limbs. However, with some third-generation artificial grasses, this is almost completely eliminated by the use of polyethylene yarn.
Artificial turf tends to be much hotter than natural grass when exposed to the sun.[16]
But all this seems to be a mute point, since the powers that be, want it, whether it is a necessity or not !
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is some sites, providing interesting reading on artificial turf,
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-05-0...
http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/View...
Posted by giggles (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not just about the turf anymore. The total project is for 6.7 million. What else are we paying for that didn't have to be bid out?
Brightliner, this deal was shoved onto the table and approved on a whim. I don't see how they could possibly have their bases covered. There should have been a lot more consideration put into this whole mess.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I question is the fact that when the BOE, City or who ever applied for or requested this stimiulus grant money, did they apply for it under the false pretense that the whole $ 6.7 million dollars would be used to improve energy conservation, i.e. upgrading heating and cooling, energy saving lights, more and better building insulation, energy efficient doors and windows, etc..
Now it would seem that deciding to use $1.6 million dollars of the taxpayer grant money for an unneeded and unnecessary artificial turf football field, soccerfield and track would be tantamount to defrauding not only the taxpayers but obtaining grant moneys under false pretext.
I have no qualms about using the grant money to improve the energy efficiency of our school buildings, but not one cent should be spent on a whim of a certain few individuals !
Will the education of our children take us into the future or will winning at sports take us into the future ?
Education is necessary to advance in the game of life ! The playing of sports is just a game !
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Eliminate all after school programs including football and focus on academics only.
Posted by create (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, YY4U. If we begin to focus on academics as heartily as we focus on athletics, we will see some sweeping positive changes in our national scores as they compare to other nations like Japan, and Germany.
We can still have athletics, just not in schools. Have athletic clubs like they do in Germany for their youth activities. Have a youth activities league for those who want to enroll in competitive sports.
After school programs should be devoted to raising our scores. They should be enrichment programs.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What....and deny the NFL its right to government subsidized training and recruitment.......blasphemous!
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parents who want their children involved in the arts have to pay for private violin, piano, or ballet lessons but the state subsidizes football, basketball, volleyball, track, wrestling, baseball and gymnastics for children who would have a hard time pronouncing all of the aforementioned sport titles let alone the word aforementioned.:-)
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)