In addition to choosing four school board members in the Nov. 7 General Election, voters in the Perkiomen Valley School District will face another choice — a $2 million choice.
In August, the school board voted to have a question about borrowing up to $2 million to install an artificial field at behind the high school put on to the ballot to allow voters to offer their opinion.
A special public information meeting on the proposal has been set for Monday, Oct. 23, in the Perkiomen Valley High School library starting at 6:30 p.m.
The district has also set up a special informational page on its web site — www.pvsd.org — to explain the specifics of the issues involved.
“A $2 million bond would cost the district an additional $250,000 a year, which would result in a $21 annual increase for the next 10 years, for an average property owner with a property assessed at $180,000,” the district has estimated.
According to the web site, “if the referendum is approved, the district would embark upon the first phase of a three-phase plan to improve athletic fields in the district.”
If the voters refuse the borrowing, the plan may go ahead anyway.
The referendum is “non-binding,” meaning the school board “has the option of moving ahead by using general and capital improvement project funds, subject to availability,” without borrowing the $2 million, according to information posted on the web site.
The first phase would construct a 225-foot by 360-foot synthetic turf field on the hill top behind Perkiomen Valley High School.
It would serve as a practice and game space for soccer, field, hockey, lacrosse, football, baseball and softball. The field would also be available for use by physical education classes and the marching band as well as being available for rent.
The field would include a four-pole field lighting system and perimeter fencing.
If approved by the voters, “work could begin in the spring/summer of 2018. We expect that the new hilltop field could be ready for action by fall 2018,” according to the web site.
The hilltop field was chosen first because it has the potential to host more uses for more people — students and outside organizations alike.
According to the site, 13 of the 21 school districts in the area already have artificial turf fields and three more are exploring the possibility of building one.
The primary reason for pursuing this plan, therefore, is deemed “competitive equality.”
“Being without an artificial turf field means our students can be at a disadvantage when competing against other teams that do have these surfaces,” the district wrote. “The way certain sports are played can change dramatically when an athlete is on a grass surface versus an artificial surface.”
Although the district cites maintenance savings of the more than $11,000 a year it costs to keep up the natural grass fields, it also notes that maintenance of the artificial field would require the purchase of a special machine costing more than $16,000.
Money from rentals could cover that cost and more, the district estimated.
“Rough estimates have shown that an artificial turf field would allow us an additional 700 hours a year of available rental time” (based on based upon anticipated usage of 22 hours per weekend, 30-35 weekends per year).
“If the field is rented out at a cost of $175 per event, that’s an additional $122,500 in revenue for the school district each year,” the district wrote. “This figure doesn’t include the additional revenue that could be recognized through ticket sales, concession stand sales, or advertising opportunities that may exist within a new facility.
As for the second phase of the plan, it would install a new turf floor, resurface existing 400M track and add two new areas, as well as replace existing perimeter channel drain at Thomas J. Keenan stadium. This field would accommodate football, soccer, field hockey, girls/boys lacrosse, according to the web site.
Even if there is no money left over from the first phase, “it is the board’s hope that the momentum from this first phase of athletic improvements will carry over to the second phase, which would be to install turf in the football stadium. With this momentum, there is the potential for a capital campaign(s) organized by one (or more) of the district’s supporting organizations,” the web site reasons.
Plans for a the third phase have not yet been developed.
The current fields are all more than 10 years old, although artificial turf fields have a life expectancy of approximately 10 years, according to the web site.
“If the project moves ahead, the school board and administration would look at setting aside revenue brought in from rental of the field and athletic event ticket sales to help pay for replacement costs. Revenue could also be set aside in the capital projects fund each budgetary cycle so that these savings would be available when it is time to replace the field,” the district posted.
The district also addressed concerns about health risks associated with tire crumbles often used as fill for artificial turf fields by citing (and providing a link to) an ongoing study by the federal government.
Most of those concerns center on the potential for the material to release chemicals called volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds into the air during field use.
“While the study has not concluded, a status report released in December 2016 indicated that much of the research done so far on the effects of tire crumb rubber on human health have shown that the risk is minimal. In addition, tire crumb rubber is not the only material being used as infill — sand, coconut fibers, and elastomers are other options.”
It is perhaps significant to note that the status report’s executive summary includes the following: “Since research is currently ongoing, the status report does not include any preliminary findings of the research. The results of the research on synthetic turf fields will be available later in 2017.”
