P a g e 1 | 2

My concerns with the bond have several layers:

Capital Improvements portion
Projects were either part of the state mandated 5-year facility plan or to fix problems caused, and not
addressed, in the original middle school construction bond. The state mandated facility plan is to
encourage schools to manage known maintenance and upgrade over time, minimizing the risk of having
to go out for bond.
Why are we taking a bond out for known maintenance and upgrades when we have $8 Million in 3
Fund balances? In our Unassigned account, we have 2 Million ($2,251,761) which is just shy of the
State Maximum a school district can hold in this account. This account can be used for anything. Plus,
we have almost $400,000 in our Assigned Fund Balance designated for Capital Fund." The remaining
$5+ Million is also surplus.
Why are we taking out bonds (loans) while we have a Savings Account with a balance at the
maximum amount allowed by law? During last years budget process, we even cut painting classrooms
& HS lockers even though we had excess money in savings. How does the school district plan on
maintaining the facilities and plan to fund the 5-year facilities plan? Does it plan to go out for a bond
every couple of years for known maintenance and upgrades? This should be part of our regular
operating budget.
The state aid we receive is not contingent on the school taking out a bond. I received
irvingtontonunited email and it speaks about energy savings. Weve been asking to have these energy
improvements done for several years, all the while we've had the money in savings or should have
funded through the regular operating budget.
I dont agree with comparing the bond to a homeowner taking out a home equity loan to repair a roof
or car. No, I would put money aside (as the school did) and pay for it out of savings. I wouldnt take
out a loan when I have the money in the bank. The fact that interest rates are low is not a
justification. Do we earn greater interest on our savings account than the interest on the
loan? Would you go further into debt just because you got a great rate?
Turf vs. Grass
I dont have the expertise to decide. I smoke, so obviously Im not overly concerned about
carcinogens. However, as a smoker, I have a civic responsibility to respect others and not impose my
choices onto them. Smoking didnt always have credible evidence that is was hazardous. Life has
risks. As a community, we need to decide between the risks and our ability to offer our children
physical and athletic opportunities. I personally rely on the Esther Sameras of this world to help
protect me from myself. Like I said, I smoke. Turf is fine with me. I just want to see compiled data to
support the need versus the risk.
Im on the fence simply out of desperation for fields. My concerns are the same regardless of the field
surface we choose. Without proper analysis, management, oversight, and quality control plans; it will
place us in a financial position of choosing between sports and academics in the near future. I want
both.
Analyze is the key word. We all know we need new fields. We all know that our current 3 fields are
insufficient to meet the requirements of our athletic programs. However, I havent seen evidence that
actual usage calculations and analyzing of all the complex variables to consider was completed.
I believe Deb Hargraves worked tirelessly and did the best job she could in trying to estimate the
hours. I think Artie has fantastic skills and can move groups around as changes occur at a drop of a
P a g e 2 | 2

hat. The problem I have is, if youre going to present a report you cant insert anecdotal information to
supplement for discrepancies in the report. If averages were taken, I need to see how the averages
were derived. There are so many variables when analyzing. Theres a big difference when calculating
impact usage between Football/Soccer and Track & Field. For example, practice hours were averaged
at 3.5 hours for both Fall and Spring. However, Fall has less light so the number is lower, and the Spring
numbers would be higher (according to the school people I spoke to). That simple discrepancy makes a
big difference when calculating impact usage. Theres a big difference between the impact analysis of
football and soccer compared to track & field. The concentration on high impact usage occurs in the
Fall when there is less light so fewer practice hours. Also, the Fall high-impact sports, according to the
school website, seem to have shorter seasons (fewer weeks). Football (starting in August) and Boys
Soccer appear to only have 10-11 week seasons. How does this affect the calculations? There are
enough questions that would suggest that greater analysis is needed. I think $4 Million dollars is worth
proper planning.
Weve had 6 years since the last bond vote to calculate, in detail, our actual field usage including level
of impact considerations. Theres a big difference between 5 year-olds playing soccer or t-ball and
varsity football players.
There are sports facility software programs out there. Have we explored using any which would
provide us with online booking of facilities and usage reports?
I would not support an automatic turn around bond for grass fields. Regardless of the surface, proper
analysis and foresight requirements remain the same. I believe if proper verifiable evidence was
provided, and turf was the viable solution, many who oppose turf would reconsider. Nobody wants our
kids to miss opportunities. Nor do they want to pay for grass fields if actual data, not anecdotal,
indicates that it cannot withstand the usage causing greater risk for injury and a higher financial
burden.
Foresight
Many people over the years have spent much time looking at and analyzing both cost-savings and cost-
generating opportunities. What foresight have we done to take advantage of opportunities?
o Admin Buildings: Instead of just paying someone to remove them, have we looked at the
possibility of utilizing them for field storage and/or a concession stand which would generate
revenue?
o Should we plan for and initiate some preliminary work for future use. If a concession stand is a
possibility, should we run water and electric to a general location which could be extended at
another time?
If any opportunities were explored, please show me the analysis. All too often the analysis is actually a
feeling. Those feelings have not served us well in the past.

Usually when people realize Im not satisfied with anecdotal data they say I have trust issues. For the
record, I like all the people involved. Its simply about requiring the school to provide actual data to
support handing over $4 Million dollars. Any job I worked my bosses always liked me. That never meant
I could execute decisions without actual data. I never said to a boss, Dont you trust me.

Kind Regards,
Della Lenz