School board balks at high cost of turfing Grayslake Central field
- on 04.04.07
- D-127
- 1 Comment
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
I’m sure some of you remember last year the D127 board claiming they did not approve anything extravagant in the Master Facilities plan even though it included synthetic turf. Well, now we find out how extravagant that decision was. The News-Sun has written an article about how the board is now balking at the cost of over $800,000.
|
Members of the District 127 Board of Education balked at the $840,000 bid price for converting Grayslake Central High School’s football field from grass to synthetic turf – and shaved $35,000 off the top. The district received two bids for the project. One was $80,000 higher than the other, although both products were generally comparable in quality. |
That’s right, the nothing extravagant comment is costing over 3/4 of a million dollars even with the low bidder. Oh, but the board wants to save us taxpayers some money and choose the highest bidder while attempting to drop the price a mere $35,000.
|
Trustees generally seem inclined to favor the vendor who submitted the higher bid because of their extensive experience and reputation for doing a quality installation. But the wide variance in cost was troublesome to the board. |
Interesting, the only thing that bothered the board was the variance in the bids not the fact they will be spending over $800,000 of taxpayer money on synthetic turf.
|
The turf project is part of a $9.6 million renovation of the Grayslake Central campus on Lake Street to improve instructional, student support and sports facilities, as well as outdoor athletic fields. Project funds are coming from district reserves. |
You would think reporters would actually look into the budget to really see where the funds came from. These funds are not reserves, but from the district using premium bonds to exceed their debt limit and what voters approved. If reporters want to maintain that they are unbiased and present only the facts, they should actually start checking the facts instead of just writing what the government bureaucrats say.
Again, the D127 school board and administration continue to spin a web of deception hoping no taxpayers find out the truth behind their money games and expose their claims of financial management or needs as the sham it really is. Taxpayers in this district need to start stepping up and confronting the school board members. Ask them why they vote for the extravagant expenditures. Ask them why they hide these money games from you. Ask them why they take more of your money than you approved in past referendums. These practices need to stop, but they won’t until you taxpayers stand up and voice your displeasure with phone calls, emails and expecially at the ballot box.
It is funny that they are only recognizing 2 bids for this project, when in reality there were 5 bids recieved, my firm was the apperent
low bidder at $655,000. We have been doing sport fields for
over 16 years and the synthetic turf supplier (Sprinturf)
which we represent has installed over 300 synthetic turf
fields like the one at Central School. We were disqualified
because the owners represenatives didn’t feel we had enough
experience, when in reality the specifications were
designed for Field Turf only ( the highest bidder )because
they have more NFL fields than we do. Spending an additional
$180,000 is OK if your the NFL with private funds, but to spend
that much extra of taxpayers hard earned money is a crime.
They never called our references and we were never even
contacted by the board after I personally wrote the board
members to make them aware of this lack of due diligence.
I do not reside in this district but it disappoints me when
I see money wasted like this, how many books would
$180,000 buy or how many teachers could this pay for.
Somebody needs to be held accountable. Would anyone on
that board pay that much more for the same product out of
their pocket if they weren’t using the taxpayers money, I
don’t think so!
P.S. is any of these board members up for re-election,
maybe the voters should think twice.