Since 1999, Mars Legislative proposals have been a venue to enable our district and community to:

· Demonstrate our commitment to public education at the local, state, and federal levels.

· Advocate education issues which may have necessarily been ignored, gone by the wayside, or been considered too controversial in some circumstances by challenging the status quo of many governmental, political, and educational establishments throughout the state.

· Achieve what is good for kids and schools by keeping the focus on the truth to the matter, as well as, our benefactors which are students and schools and not ourselves based on original source documentation.

· Advocate and support parental rights in the oversight and authority over the direction of their children’s education. (i.e. the opt-out provision pertaining to the PSSA as contained in Chapter 4, fighting against state enforcement mechanisms which place sanctions on parents and schools for exercising their parental liberties as well as local control.)

· Advocate for all students throughout the commonwealth with special emphasis by shedding light onto the issues affecting our most vulnerable students.
(i.e. profiling and flagging of all students partaking in the PSSA process, as well as, the black community w/the flawed PSSA system as per discrimination issues. Special education issues such as videotaping special education students involved in the PASA testing system. In addition, our work and voice has garnered credibility when demonstrating injustice to minority students and schools enabling our district to attract and forge new networks with such state recognized organizations as Harrisburg’s Andrew Young National Center for Social Change and various organizations.

· Demonstrate a voice in the education forum for all of Butler County School Boards. (i.e. In 1999, Mars’ proposals encouraged all six other Butler County schools to pass statewide resolutions demanding changes to the PSSA and again with the effort to call attention to and remove the statewide seals and notations onto student diplomas and transcripts based on a flawed state assessment….this led to a statewide grassroots effort with over 100 school districts passing resolutions echoing the same concerns resulting in elimination of gold and silver stickered seals.)

· Support the need for legislation in 1999-2003 protecting school superintendents, once school boards across the commonwealth began to challenge the PA Department of Education’s unfunded mandates and superintendents statewide were being threatened to have their certification removed. Even the PSBA and PASA were reluctant to put the Mars proposal addressing this issue initially onto their platform and would not support the concept, many thought and hoped the idea would die and go away. However, Mars officials went directly to the House and Senate leaderships and was able to have legislation in both chambers drawn up, lobbied and educated legislators to enable unanimous passage through both education committees and out of the House and into the Senate for consideration before the PDE caved into reforming their own internal guidelines for addressing this cutting edge issue.

· Precipitated and supported Butler County schools in the successful litigation in the 2001 Seneca Valley Case challenging the writing portion of the PSSA and challenging the PDE to follow their own laws and regulations to prevent circumvention of the regulatory process.

· Be instrumental in working with the House Leadership in influencing the definition of the language of the PSSA as contained in the Education Empowerment Act (Act 16 of 2000).

· Garner support and obtain up to 36 different legislative proposals over the past six years, since 1999.

· Have had many of the proposals drafted into legislative bills in both the House and Senate, even when some of our legislative items were initially rejected by the PSBA and/or PA Administrator’s State Association.

· Have several of the Mars legislative proposals currently on the National School Boards Association’s 2005 legislative platform submitted by the PSBA representing Pennsylvania at the Federal legislative level.

· Have influenced and resulted in creating internal changes and refinements in the education regulations, as well as, educational procedures outlined in Chapter 4 by the Pennsylvania Department of Education and State Board of Education as pertaining to strategic plans and instilling protections in the mechanisms utilized in the profiling and flagging of students, and assessment procedures.

· Restore and protecting the local control of school districts throughout the commonwealth reflecting the board and community’s shared tenacious refusal to buy into increased government intrusion in lieu of keeping decisions made at the local level to those closest to the students and schools.

· Achieve process with minimum costs to taxpayers of the district (usually just postage to submit one final approved copy to PSBA). In addition, the process has not been accomplished on residents/ taxpayer time in lieu of the real work and business of the district during board meetings other than voting for approval of final concepts as required by PSBA. No administrative or secretarial manpower has been implemented at any time for participation in this process. Research, writing, all materials utilized, and lobbying efforts in Harrisburg on the proposals has always been generated on our board’s own individual time and at their own expense. There has been no personal gain to anyone involved in the process. There is no one on the board utilizing this process for political purposes or aspirations. There is no advocating of any special interest groups, other than doing what is truly right for students and schools.

· Provide supportive measures to ensure that the district retain academic freedom and to enable a learning environment that promotes our student’s minds be enlightened as district officials and community at all levels help our student’s to reach their maximum learning potential.

· Provide analysis, consultation, and input regularly at request of various House and Senate legislators, as well as, various school district administrators and school directors throughout Commonwealth pertaining to state and local education issues.

· Enable the district to forge new networks and contacts of support and resources statewide and nationally for the benefit of our local school district and Mars Area
Community.

· Enable the district a forum to continue communicating and listening to the needs and educational objectives of our students by our staff, students, administration, and community and transforming their input into concepts and proposals for the overall improvement of the educational process at the local, state, and federal levels.

Back to Top

History and Overview of NEPA and FHWA:

On January 1, 1970 the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under the Nixon Administration was signed into law. NEPA established a national environmental policy with the prime focus on working with federal initiatives through the collaboration of federal agencies in meeting the goals of a protected, balanced and sustainable environment. In essence, NEPA establishes a basic framework and process for integrating environmental considerations into federal decision making.

NEPA and its process require the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to examine and avoid the potential impacts to the social and natural environment when considering approval of transportation projects such as the Rt. 228 project.

The U.S. Department of Transportation website states “in addition to evaluating the potential environmental effects we must take into account the transportation needs of the public in reaching a decision that is in the best overall public interest.” The website goes onto suggest….”The FHWA NEPA project development process is an approach to balanced transportation decision making that takes into account the potential impacts on the human and natural environment and the public’s need for safe and efficient transportation.” For example, some of the variables studied within the NEPA process include the components of 4F, 106, T&E, water, and noise.

Private and Public Meetings:

April 28, 2005 MASD officials met with Penn Dot, FHWA, and Community Advisory Committee at Mars Middle School to discuss proposed alternatives.

April 29th, MASD officials invited McCormick Taylor and Penn Dot officials to MASD to June 21st, 2005 meeting to discuss Rt. 228 proposals.

MASD officials attended Adams Township Meeting July 28th on Rt. 228 and reported to Board prior to August 5th meeting with state and federal officials.

The Mars School Board of Directors and Dr. Pettigrew met extensively with both state and federal officials regarding the 228 project on Friday, August 5th, 2005
MASD met with: Mr. David J. Alvarez, P.E./Environmental Protection Specialist of the
Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division
And:
Mr. Brian Allen, P.E. Penn Dot
Mr. Rob Nuss, KCI Technologies

Specifications and Impact of Route 228 Project on Mars Area School District:

· Each proposed alternate (on-line and Southern Route) will be at least 94 feet wide excluding the Right Of Way. The breakdown consists of four 12 ft. wide lanes (48 ft.), two 8 ft. shoulders (16 ft.), and a 30 ft. median in the middle separating lanes in both directions.

· By law, there is a NO SPEED ZONE REQUIRED. This will mean on either route there will be no slowing of traffic at anytime throughout school day as currently.

· For those visualizing, the ROW on the existing route is approximately
8-10 ft. on both sides. The utility poles on the Mars Home for Youth’s
(MHFY) property sits approximately 1 foot back off of ROW according to Engineers from KCI Technologies.

· There will be no left turning lanes on either route. Vehicles wishing to change direction, inclusive of school bus transportation, will need to do so
at one of the three designated traffic lights.

· The Southern Route will have a 3% down grade starting at Mars Bethel
Golf Property, a curve in the roadway and then a 3% incline back to Three-Degree Road. This 3% slope will be between a traffic light designated at Brickyard Road and a traffic light designated at Three-Degree Road (located behind the current Mars auditorium). The engineer from KCI Technologies indicated to the Board that the 3% slope is no greater than the current slope which exists between Mars Primary Center and the Mars Drive-In Bank on the current Route 228.

· Various board members expressed concerns related to the Southern Routes 3% grade located to run directly behind the school building as follows:

1. Safety of All Drivers and Pedestrians from John Quincy Adams and neighboring housing developments which walk to school.
2. Increased Noise Levels due to traffic and Jake braking by trucks
carrying freight descending the 3% grade in both directions at designated traffic lights.
3. Increased pollution for High School, as air intakes for high school
currently face south.
4. Southern Route creates at least 3 more traffic lights around school
Area: Brickyard Road, Three-Degree Road, and possibly at the intersection where old Rt. 228 and new Rt. 228 would meet near
Quality Gardens and the proposed 5/6 school building property.

Specifications Continued:

· The new public practice field located currently behind the Mars auditorium utilized for football practices, physical education classes, girl’s softball, and other athletic events will be impacted on the Southern route. School officials have requested how much space will be lost and what will the specifics of its impact be? In addition, how close in proximity will the roadway is in relation to the high school building? We are waiting to hear a response back from engineers.

· The Southern Route allows no room for expansion of Rt. 228 in the future. In 20 years if need be, existing Route 228 would be later expanded.

· The Southern Route will bottleneck Mars High School between two major roadways, instead of just one, which already exists.

· Residents of Adams Township would assume cost usages of maintaining all three traffic lights designated through Adams Township.

· Southern Route is $2.5 million more expensive than the on-line existing
228 route.

Hypothetical Situations In the Event Southern Route is Chosen Over Existing Route 228:

· Adams Township would assume responsibility of costs, maintenance, and oversight of former or existing Route 228….the State would relinquish all
Upkeep. Rather than being a “state maintained” roadway, the former 228 would become a township road incurring additional costs to local taxpayers.

· In the future event MASD would want to sell the existing high school property to a buyer, the district could potentially face the inability to sell due to incompliance of codes requiring the specifications of so many parking spaces in equivalence to the square footage of the building structure leaving a community of taxpayers with a white elephant structure.

Other Issues to Consider:

· Surrounding Mars High School with two major roadways will limit the district’s ability to potentially expand, as well as, impact the educational curriculum and services provided within the current education program.
Officials (at Aug. 5th mtg.) indicated that concern to be inaccurate in that the northern roadway will no longer be a thruway (a major roadway), should the southern route be adopted.
· In either of the proposed routes, there will be alteration of the physical setting (the High School property could lose premium and rare parking areas, public tennis courts, public basketball courts, and public practice field space), the school environment, and overall site atmosphere.”

Issues to Consider (Continued):

· As one of the faster growing areas in Western PA, the Mars tax base will be potentially challenged to “build and expand” to create more space for growing student population.

· Southern Route will place decreasing values on properties that pay taxes and will reduce tax revenues for school district.

· Penn Dot already owns 50% of the Right of Way for the on-line route. Is building off of an exisiting road system more feasible economically for a funding strapped project overall?

· The Southern Alternative potentially appears to allow for an enhanced campus atmosphere among our schools since the roads connecting them would be all local access roads rather than having a four-lane highway separating the southern school from the northern ones.

· The Southern Route will eliminate John Quincy Adams school yard trail which has not been officially recognized by the School District as terminating on the high school property, but, is accessed by pedestrian students living within the housing development. However, Penn Dot officials indicated to MASD officials August 5th that they would or should be able to leave the walking trail intact with the southern option by creating a pedestrian underpass for students to have access to school.

· There will be “barrier” and “boulevard” options for both road alternatives in lieu of planned installation of jersey barriers in the middle of highway.

· The Adams Township Supervisors strongly support the on-line alternative as the Southern alternative has a negative impact on the 1999 developed Comprehensive Plan for Adams Township’s growth and zoning plans. The Supervisors contracted Olsen Engineering Firm which prepared a document outlining the impact of the proposed Southern alternative on the Adams Township Comprehensive Plan.

· The current Adams Township plan keeps all of the property surrounding the schools as “Preservation land” thus increasing the safety for students whereas the Southern Route alternative would change the zooming along its path to commercial zoning thus surrounding the schools with potential strip malls and commercial vending areas.

· All affected property owners and Adams Township residents affected by both proposed alternatives are in support of the on-line alternative (existing
Route 228) including: Tom and Mary Hooten-Mars Bethel Golf, William and Doris Geyer-Geyer Mobile Home Court, Robert Geyer landowners, Nunzio Galletta-Winterhaven Farm, Residents of John Quincy Adams, Valley Brook Farms, and Adams Crossing. Mars Home for Youth is the only entity opposed to the on-line alternative.

· Property Owners along selected road route, inclusive of school district, will be paid “fair market value” for compensation of any loss of property.

Additional Implications for 228 Project:

· Three different locations within sight of one another and in less than a ¼ mile radius of MASD have been designated with 4F status. (See more about 4F on next page of outline).

· Wetlands behind Mars High School and beyond on Southern Route will
likely increase costs for mitigation, as well as, replacement.

· Construction costs for On-line alternative are estimated at $28.2 million

· Construction costs for Southern Alternative are estimated at $30.7 million

· Total Project Cost has been trimmed to approximately $80 million

Time Frame of Current Route 228 Project Decision:

· Less than 45 days from this date, August 9th, 2005, when Penn Dot officials have completed their last analysis of project area and have ascertained their clearances, they will make a final recommendation to FHWA.

· Penn Dot officials indicated to MASD officials that they have not made a recommendation at this point in time to the FHWA. Penn Dot officials stated August 5th, there will be three options for recommendations:

1. On-Line (Existing Route)
2. Southern Route
3. No Build Recommendation

· Even after Penn Dot makes their recommendation to FHWA, the Federal Highway Administration still has the latitude to reject or accept the recommendation and in the event the impact of the recommended route is determined to be too great for the area, it could potentially be rejected. So, in essence the FHWA has the last say regarding determination of the project’s route.

· Potential Construction Start Date: 2008

· There will be ONE Public Hearing to address 228 Project during the Fall Season, date and time to be announced.

The Complexities of 4F:

“Section 4F” is the term which refers to the original numbered section in the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, is a component of the NEPA process, which falls under the Department of Interior.

Agencies within the FHWA decide and determine based on analysis, data, surveys, and assessments as to whether a resource is designated as 4F along a transportation project. Examples of 4F resources include: any significantly publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or significant historic site. Property Owners do not deem themselves 4F status, contrary to public speculation. FHWA officials made it clear there is a variety of variables and criteria utilized in making such a determination while abiding by the law.

It is our understanding, from our August 5th meeting, that property owners deemed 4F status for historical preservation sites, as was done to the three various site locations surrounding Mars High School, are entitled at any point in time to sell
and/or develop any or all parts of their 4F property for commercial or residential purposes. Schools are not accessible to the public 24 hours a day and because of that general rule are not considered as blanketed public facilities, under the law of
Section 4F.

It is also our understanding, from our August 5th meeting, that 4F encompasses the entire boundary of property inclusive of building structures, pertaining to the Mars Home for Youth (MHFY). Despite the property or frontage of the MHFY adjacent from Mars High School consisting mostly of grass, a few utility poles, and declared to be no tribal or sacred Indian cemetery grounds, or a historical battlefield containing historical remnants, or historical archeological site of significance, this property is protected under the law of 4F.

There is a hierarchy of levels of project intrusion upon properties deemed by law to be 4F: Avoid. Minimize. Mitigate.” The law is distinct in stating that the only conditions favorable for designated 4F protected properties to be impacted and/or utilized after reevaluation is in the event “there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land.” And “the project includes the possible planning to minimize harm to the resource deemed protected.”…after that time, the third prong goes into effect, mitigation.

Let’s be clear, “Avoidance” of 4F properties is the number one barrier to having the
On-line alternative chosen and recommended by Penn Dot…for the simple fact, that the Southern alternative clearly avoids most of the 4F surrounding properties in proximity to the Mars High School.

The second barrier to the existing on-line alternative is the fact that by Penn Dot potentially choosing the Southern Route will advantageously enable their ability to work uninterrupted for a much longer span of time, with no redirection of traffic patterns, or dealing with technical implications by keeping the existing flow of traffic of 228 on-line as it currently is, while work is completed on the new and future Route 228 behind the Mars High School Complex.

Conclusion & Comments:

The district, as well as, community may want to explore further and revisit 4F if mitigation were possible in the event of a road widening that does not adversely affect any building structures declared historically preserved under the Act with no or minimal destruction or impact to its original context can be legally challenged?

While many on the Board have indicated that neither alternative is acceptable to the current environment of our school system, we need to formulate a decision on one of the two routes, based on all of the information and data we have gleaned and communicate that decision to our township officials as per their request, as well as, our community to which we represent, for state and federal agencies.

Penn Dot and FHWA officials have granted the MASD’s request to have our public outdoor tennis and basketball courts, as well as, public practice field reevaluated for analysis in meeting the specifications as determined by Section F4.

Furthermore, we need to take the time to provide documentation for both alternative routes and develop a comprehensive plan within our school system addressing future growth and expansion needs for local, state, and federal agencies, similar to a comprehensive building plan.

Southern Route Alternative Photo Map of Rt. 228

Click on map to view large image

Outline Compiled by:
Kim Geyer
Mars School Director
August 9, 2005

This outline is available for the public on my website: Mars Research & Retrieval Services: www. marsrrservices.com

Click on the Mars Page and Scroll Down

Last year, the Mars School District held at least 116 events on the current Mars Athletic Field alone, in various weather conditions, throughout the season except for in snow conditions and lightening storms. As expected, the field conditions are pristine condition with plentiful grass growth during minimal to no usage, and when the weather conditions are cooperative with the events scheduled. Just as well, conditions are worst when weather is bad, meaning either too much dryness or wetness, when in top usage by a variety of student groups/teams all competing for playing time on the same field surface, and/or a combination of both factors, leaving the field surface little time to recover and be in the appropriate playing condition for the next event in a safe manner. The current MAC athletic field requires continuous maintenance, utilizing abundant amounts of resources, and hours of labor.

Who is currently utilizing this one and only field?

The immeasurable list of participants and potential participants is listed below under the heading “Who could benefit from a Turf Playing Surface?”

Many of these same participants listed are already utilizing the current field space regardless of condition and weather factors.

Have there been past attempts by the district to rectify the situation of lack of field space?

Yes, the Mars School Board attempted to address the situation back in 2003-2004 when they purchased property which situates both in Adams Township and Middlesex Township nearby the existing school campus off of Route 228 (behind the Quality Gardens Property). The district was tentively planning and had architectural drawings and engineered plans drawn up to address community and district needs pertaining to various athletic fields. These plans were eventually approved by the Middlesex Township Supervisors with various stipulations required as related to township ordinances and comprehension growth plans. These requirements drastically increased the costs of the “athletic field project”. Simultaneously, the district communicated with Adams Township Supervisors in trying to work out a plan for athletic fields to accommodate the school district, as well as, community needs and provide a win-win situation for everyone. While numerous attempts were made by the school district to initiate the proposed athletic field undertaking, all efforts and attempts to move forward failed in cost-related factors associated with township development ordinances making the feasibility at that particular point in time unconducive in moving forward with the development project of building new athletic fields. When all attempts failed, May of 2004, the Mars Area School Board passed a resolution to appoint a committee to obtain a preliminary costs estimates of installing an artificial turf field at the Mars Athletic Complex. The committee was formed and the committee issued the school board a report of estimated costs of installing a synthetic playing surface, as well as, information on fund raising efforts that have been initiated by the community and boosters organizations to help supplement the cost of the potential project.

Teams and Activities District wide Who Could Benefit from a Turfed Field Surface:

• Varsity Football
• Jr. Varsity Football
• Junior High 7th/8th Grade Football Teams (Each have own team and different schedule)
• Boys Varsity Soccer
• Girl’s Varsity Soccer
• Girl’s Junior Varsity Soccer
• Boy’s Junior Varsity Soccer
• The New 7th & 8th Grade recently approved Soccer teams (Girls & Boys)
• Marching Band & Band Festivals/Competitions
• Cheerleading
• Track Team (Girls & Boys)
• Pee Wee Midget Football
• Powder Puff Football
• Middle School Spring Field Days
• High School Track Invitational Meets
• Physical Education Classes and School Activities
• Baseball: Junior Varsity and Varsity
• Girl’s Softball: Junior Varsity and Varsity
• High School Graduation
• Community

Potential for Income Benefits to the district:

• WPIAL and PIAA Athletic Events Could Potentially be Hosted
• County, Regional, and National Music/Band Festivals & Events Could be Potentially Hosted
• Outside Soccer Club Events Could Potentially Rent Field Surface

The point being, the potential would exists in the event the district chose to garner additional income district wide, by such an investment.

Other benefits from a Turfed Field:

• Saves the district from buying additional land and developing athletic field space to accommodate growing needs within the district and community.
• Allows better utilization of existing facilities such as parking, bleachers, concession stands, restrooms, all weather track, field lighting, ticket booths, and scoreboard systems.
• We are presently maintaining all of this, why not get full use of our facility?
• Allows many students and activities to utilize existing facility.
• Less injury than current playing surface to all participants by providing safer environment.
• Affords the opportunity for many additional people an opportunity to view events (internally within district and community, as well as, externally)
• Provides a safe uniform playing surface in all weather conditions.
• Improves our ability to schedule athletic and activity events.
• Would allow additional practice opportunities.
• Will compliment new scoreboard system and new press box being currently built by the Butler Vo-Tech students, as well as, recent improvements.
• Provides opportunity to host play-offs and competitions.
• Will enable MASD to maintain its tradition of athletic excellence and project a positive image to the other schools and communities that attend MAC events.
• Will make the current playing field an asset and not a liability.
• Assets will improve and better our school district and community.
• Enhancements to school district environment increases property values of residents within a district/community.
  

Where will the funding come from to accommodate the cost of this Turf? Can the cost of installation be justified financially?

Initially, as well as, currently the MASD does not take the decision to install an artificial surface lightly. As a district and school board, we will make all efforts to examine and conduct a thorough comparison study of synthetic surfaces versus grass surfaces before arriving at the conclusion that installation of a synthetic playing surface is the right decision for our school district. Representatives from the school district, as well as, turf representatives throughout the past several years have visited the district to field questions and concerns associated with the issues of installing an athletic field surface in lieu of the current grass field at the MAC by our administration and school board members. We have had our superintendent visit numerous locations with different types of artificial surfaces. We are investigating bids and should be informed soon of some new proposals, when the initial bids in 2005 over exceeded the amount of funding the board would commit to for consideration of such a possible endeavor.

Studying the initial cost of such a project is complex and convoluted at best.

But, when further examined in conjunction with the existing costs of maintaining the current field in the following terms, please take the following factors into consideration…..

• hours of labor and manpower by maintenance department
• money utilized for resources and supplies utilized to maintain field condition
• in comparison of developing new field space to accommodate growing needs of growing student population and teams
• then add the maintenance of another field in the event you chose not to turf and the cost potential of hiring increased maintenance manpower
• Keep in mind, we could actually save the district money by better utilizing the maintenance staff we currently have and will need for the future 5/6 new school building in 2007. Better usage of service staff resources and labor could be redirected in other areas throughout the district to address needs.

When these five quantifiable factors are considered in comparison of the ten year investment required of installation of an artificial playing surface. The district would realize considerable savings, and if the playing surface should last longer than ten years, the savings would be even more significant for the district. If the total yearly costs for the natural grass surface amounts to $23,500.00 annually as noted in the athletic turf committee’s report is multiplied by 10 years…that total would be $235,000.00…..in three short years, time that total would equate to $70,500.00 and you would still have the same playing field, with no changes, and still have the same issues and problems but with an increased amount of student population. In comparison the annual maintenance of an artificial field is estimated at $2,500.00 per year with warranty negotiated into the final cost.

Where’s the Money Coming From? Will My taxes Go Up Because of the District’s Decision to Turf or Not to Turf?

The cost of a potential turf is yet to be revealed as of this date in writing. That cost will be revealed to the public and school board simultaneously at a public school board meeting. However, to be more specific, the Mars Area School Board has a bond issue in which the funding is appropriated and can only be utilized for Capitol Building Projects within the MASD. The money from this bond fund could potentially be utilized for a turf in the event the district chose to pursue this avenue. These monies cannot be utilized from the general funds budget for various other expenditures such as curriculum, equipment, salaries, and ect. This funding is utilized for Capitol Building Projects/ Improvements within a given school district. Taxes will not increase because of a turf playing field, as this funding is not coming out of the general budget. Taxes can potentially increase to generate new revenue for only line items as contained within the school district’s general operating budget.

On April 6th, of 2004, the Mars School Board was approached by seven various clubs/boosters of the community involved in sponsoring school teams and events to encourage the district’s motivation in addressing various growth issues and to encourage their consideration of a synthetic playing surface. This public and open dialogue took place at a regular school board meeting. Upon that two-way discussion amongst the board and community, the board asked for financial support by the community to help defray the costs and to help supplement the costs associated with such a field. The community obliged and fundraising efforts specifically by the Mars Quarterback Club were proposed and supported by the school board and administration. The agreement at that point in time was for the community to at least raise $100,000.00 toward the field surface project before returning to the school board for reconsideration of the project. The school board has since that point in time changed over the past election and this issue will now have to be reconsidered by its newest members. The shared focus by all groups in the past has been aimed to be as efficient with funds as possible and to keep the installation cost as low as possible.

Is this a football related issue only? Why is one group or one team getting maximum benefit? Is this right?

The potential exists for a cross section of diverse groups of students and community within the school district to benefit from such an investment.

While most people may suggest this is strictly football related and to this entity’s ultimate benefit, it is worth noting that the football team is going to be playing on this surface regardless of what this surface ultimately is. The Varsity football team will play their Friday night home games on this field regardless of the field condition as they are currently scheduled for their home games. As most of you know, some seasons we are more fortunate than others to have a dry fall season of weather in lieu of a rainy and muddy season, but, regardless of either, the team still plays and utilizes the field making this assumption a moot point. The potential exists for district wide benefit of all students.

Closing remarks:

While there are costs that are quantifiable, the qualitative factors need consideration as well. Such factors which cannot always be measured in terms of finances include: the safety of our students participating, the increased utilization and access of all the student groups who stand to benefit by the installation of such an endeavor, the year round usage of facilities, the esthetics of the school environment and community at large, the need to accommodate and address growth challenges throughout a growing and progressive district allows the district to address for expansion, and immeasurable community spirit and school pride throughout the district in the years to come.

The cost of the turf is to be limited to a $500,000.00 contribution from the board with a total of $27,000.00 in architects fees already incurred…totaling $527,000.00. If you spread this amount over a ten year period it comes to $52,700.00 per year for the annual debt service on a ten year period of life for the artificial surface. The Mars School District’s ADM (average daily membership for 2005-06 is 2,982 students)…by dividing the debt into the number of students (our ADM) it equates to $17.78 per student per year for ten years. This number will decrease as enrollment increases….and this is just related to per student usage….this number does not cover taxpayers who have no children in the district, but, as a community still benefit from an artificial surface.

Compiled by Kim Geyer, Mars School Director

Reported to Public and School Board at April 4th, 2006 School Board Meeting.

· Referenced Report from Turf Committee Approved by School District, as well as, my own research.

Back to Top