The Emporia board of education voted 6-1 Wednesday night in favor of a plan intended to save money on energy and also provide a new football-soccer field and track at Emporia High School.
Before a lengthy discussion about details of the plan, Superintendent John Heim announced that head-count enrollment in the district was better than had been anticipated. Student numbers, for state aid purposes, are based on enrollments as of Sept. 21.
“We’re up 30 students, and we budgeted to be down 100, so that’s a 130-student swing in headcount,” Heim said. “I have to keep emphasizing that head count and weighted FTE are not the same. ... We’re funded on FTE.”
Weighted full-time equivalency student counts bring additional funds to the district because of its high number of at-risk students.
“I expect we’re going to be up in weighted enrollment as well,” Heim said. “That’s really good news.”
Heim emphasized that the district will not have the final FTE counts used to determine state aid until later in the year.
Field and track
The energy-saving plan was developed after a detailed study of existing buildings and equipment, and changes that could be made to reduce energy use. The board has been discussing the results of the study during meetings the past several months.
Changes will include high-efficiency lighting, water conservation measures, occupancy-based air controls, light sensors in classrooms and on vending machines, new windows in many of the buildings, suspended ceilings, and new boilers, steam traps and rooftop units.
The plan also included installing artificial turf on Emporia High School’s primary football field, and enlarging it to soccer-field size to allow use for both sports. The field would be circled by a “broke-back” track that would be the same length as a traditional track but configured differently. Lighting, an efficient drainage system, and fencing around the football/soccer field also were included in the project.
Several of the improvements already had been identified for replacement, such as the aging boilers that heat the high school; others had been recommended as being needed.
The energy plan was promoted as providing about $6.7 million worth of projects to get the savings, including the track and stadium lighting, and an actual cost to the district of around $5,343,000 because of federal income tax incentives to bondholders who purchase the debt and a lease-finance system that would allow the school district to pay less interest on the debt while simultaneously earning interest on its money.
Unlike traditional bond financing, where payments are made on debts, the district in this instance would pay annual payments to the trustee, who would invest the money. Interest earnings would accrue to the school district, which would pay off the financing in the final year of the 15-year agreement.
The trustee would hold title to the field and lease it back to the school district until the debt was redeemed.
Initially, it had been estimated that the district might pay 0 percent in interest over the 15-year term of the debt. Board members heard Wednesday night that the federal government had lowered the percentage of the tax incentive given to people who purchased the bonds and some purchasers now were asking for additional interest from the participating school districts to compensate for the drop in the tax incentive, according to Greg Vahrenberg, managing director of the Piper-Jaffray company, which will handle the bond sales.
Vahrenberg said that until the bonds are sold, he could not give a firm percentage of interest that would be required, but estimated it could be 1 to 1.5 percent.
“It’s an unusual time,” Assistant Superintendent for Business Rob Scheib told the board during a presentation about the sports-field improvements.
The Energy Conservation Measures are financed through federal stimulus, no-interest bonds, and subsequently free general fund budget dollars to spend on instruction, he said.
“I’ve been walking around the halls calling these Obama dollars, but I don’t know if that’s the correct term for it,” Scheib said.
He told the board that the current EHS track had been decommissioned for six years because it had deteriorated to the point of being hazardous for students. The football field, he said, was being used at least 55 times a year when Kansas State University field experts recommended use be limited to 10 times per year.
Overuse has caused the field to be hard-packed, with holes and dips that are repaired from year to year. The field also has ongoing costs with watering, reseeding and maintenance.
Board member Glen Strickland questioned whether the young athletes would face more injuries from playing on artificial turf than on natural grass.
Scheib said that Astroturf — a carpet-like covering over asphalt base — had produced more injuries; however, injuries reported on the new resilient artificial turf are comparable to natural grass.
Scheib said that the new track and field also could be used for post-season play, meets and use by other area schools for make-up games, in addition to Emporia Recreation Center football and track, club football and soccer tournaments and Relay for Life. It also could boost economic development.
“When you talk about economic development, it brings people to town. ... They stay in hotels, motels, they eat in restaurants,” he said.
A sophisticated drainage system beneath the football-soccer field would drain into the track and flow away from the sports field, keeping it dry for play. The proposed artificial turf field also would provide a safer practice area for the high school’s marching band.
Board member Mike Helbert said he would have a difficult time asking teachers and taxpayers to sacrifice to pay for some of the changes. He agreed that the track needed to be done and that the football field was “on the wish list.”
“But to me, it’s a want, not a need,” Helbert said. “My only question is whether I can walk down the street and say yes, by golly, we’ve got a 10 percent unemployment rate but we’re going to spend $1.6 million on a turf football field so our kids can practice football. Not to play on, just to practice on.
“We have alternative facilities available and the question I have in my own mind is that in tough times, everybody has to make do with something, and we’re going for the Cadillac, not the Chevy.”
Board members Brent Windsor and Amy Scheller disagreed.
Windsor said that high school freshmen and sophomores would play their football games on the new field and junior varsity and varsity soccer games also would be played there.
“So it isn’t practice only,” Windsor said.
He and Scheller each said the TRYSA soccer fields that EHS needs to use now are not in good condition. The main field has been abandoned because of cracks and holes, and the senior varsity soccer players compete on an adjoining field where bleachers are broken and scoreboards don’t work.
“I have nothing against TRYSA,” Windsor said. “It’s an excellent program and they do the best that they can.”
Windsor said that the new field would be needed later and that now is a better time to finance it.
“I don’t feel that it’s a luxury,” he said. “I feel like the time is now. ... My feeling is that we will be paying for that facility (eventually) and we will be paying interest on it and it will cost much, much more.”
Scheller agreed that the soccer field situation needs to be remedied.
When her brother died years ago, his memorial fund was donated to TRYSA for improvements. The complex now has deteriorated.
“And so for me, the perspective I have is ... let’s invest in our infrastructure if we have the financial capability,” Scheller said. “That to me has changed this from a want to a doable need.”
admireed (anonymous) says...
Want to bet there are varsity football games played on this field within 6 years?
September 24, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Anybody for a recall election?
September 24, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
countrydog (anonymous) says...
spend spend spend just like the folks in washington!!!!!
September 24, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
What you red-coats don't understand about the proposed new facilities is that they will actually save the school money in the long run. That is the whole point of energy efficiency. There is virtually no upkeep for artificial grass and within 15-20 years, it will pay for itself. No watering needed, no regular painting, etc.
I am sure that many numbers were crunched and that this decision was not made lightly. Personally, I have faith in the school board and superintendent.
So, relax. It's not like they're spending $6 million on building an evolution exhibit.
September 25, 2009 at 4:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
countrydog (anonymous) says...
you still dont understamd with 17 per cent unemployment why not put that money to better use, the school board DOESNOT know how to crunch numbers !!!!!!
September 25, 2009 at 6:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Artificial turf for practice and underclass games? Never have understood why they continue to rent ESU's field rather than spending the same money paying for a nice field behind the school. That field should have been built with 1974 money.
September 25, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
Could those numbers be posted here or a link? Would like to see them.
September 25, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )