Turf Installation At Taylor High Surprises Residents, One Man Allegedly Threatened With Arrest
By: John Pape on Mon, Jun 15, 2009
In spite of the high-profile controversy surrounding the Katy ISD school board’s decision to install artificial turf on football fields at the district’s six high schools, some residents living near Taylor High School were surprised when work crews began digging up the field’s natural grass surface.
One resident who walks the area regularly also said one construction worker threatened to call the police when he tried to get a closer look at the project.
Crews began excavating the field earlier this month and the work is in full progress at Taylor.
TURF INSTALLATION – Installation of artificial turf at Taylor High School has begun. In a controversial April decision, Katy ISD trustees approved a $5 million-plus project to replace natural grass with artificial turf at all six of the district’s high schools.
Despite the prominent role the turf issue played in the recent school board election, as well as a vocal public outcry from some taxpayers over the $5 million-plus price tag, a number of residents were unaware of the controversy swirling in their own back yards.
Ed Johnson, a retiree who lives on nearby Park Tree Lane, said one construction worker also told him he was trespassing when he tried to observe the work in progress.
“I walk this way most days for exercise. I saw the work going on so I just wanted to take a rest and see what was happening,” Johnson said. “I walked over there (to the football field) and was just watching what was going on when this guy wearing a hard hat came walking up telling me to get away. I told him I was just curious what was going on.”
Johnson said the man, who did not give a name, told him to “get the hell away from here.”
“I told him I was on public property and minding my own business. He told me I was trespassing on school property and he would call the police if I didn’t leave,” Johnson recounted.
He also said he was standing outside of the fenced field area and not within the construction zone.
“There was no cause for him acting like that. I’m 71 years old; I wasn’t going to do them any harm,” Johnson said. “Besides, he could have asked politely.”
Attempts to identify the construction worker have thus far been unsuccessful.
Area resident Monica Grayson said she was surprised to see the field being dug up and expressed surprise the district would spend $5 million for turf on a football field that sees little use.
“They hardly ever use it for anything; why in the world would they spend millions of dollars for something like that? That school board is like a bunch of kids with money burning a hole in their pocket and they can’t wait to run out and spend it,” Grayson said. “I find it hard to believe that the most pressing need in this school district is artificial grass, especially when the high school plays all its games at (Rhodes) Stadium.”
Sarah McGrath said her husband first saw the work being done and asked if she knew what was going on at the school.
“We’d heard they were going to build a new press box, so that’s what we though it was at first. Then they started pulling the entire field up and we wondered if they were just going to tear it down and build some new classrooms or something,” McGrath said.
She called the project “a silly, stupid waste of money” and wondered if school trustees were really in touch with the people they represent.
“If this foolishness had been put to a vote, I think the people would have turned it down by a landslide,” she said.
McGrath also said she was going to write a letter of protest to the district.
The letter will probably have little impact. Trustees have repeatedly refused to respond to questions about the project, or to requests the expenditure be reconsidered.
The issue first surfaced during the school board’s April 16 work study session when trustees approved spending $5,226,431 to install the artificial turf on football fields at Katy, Taylor, Mayde Creek, Cinco Ranch, Morton Ranch and Seven Lakes High Schools. All previously had natural grass surfaces.
Opponents of the plan also criticized trustees over the fact they approved the project at a work study session with no public input. Although major expenditures are typically first discussed at work study sessions and then later given a final vote during a regular board meeting, trustees voted instead to approve the expenditure during the initial discussion.
The approval came on a 6-0 vote. Then-Board President Eric Duhon was not present for the work study session.
In recommending the move, Superintendent Alton Frailey told the board heavy usage at the fields made it impossible to adequately maintain the natural turf.
“Due to high volume of usage, the existing natural grass competition fields at the high schools are not able to be maintained as an effective or safe playing surface. It is being recommended that a synthetic turf surface be installed complete with associated sub-base and drainage systems on the competition football fields at the high school campuses,” Frailey told trustees.
At the regular school board meeting the following Monday, then-school board candidate Ross Raymond asked trustees to reconsider. He urged them to not “get caught up in the heat of the moment” and make a premature decision on the high-ticket project.
“We should slow down and reconsider this proposal and allow time for the board to more carefully consider viable alternatives and also to provide reasonable time for public comment. There is just too much at stake to rush this matter along,” Raymond said. “I realize there is a natural concern and desire to fast track this for this fall’s football schedule. However, let’s recall for 110 years Katy High School students have played on grass fields and won several state championships in the process, and one more season of playing on God’s natural grass surely won’t hurt us.”
He also said a rushed decision given the current economic climate might come back to haunt the district.
“On the other hand, a hasty decision in these uncertain economic times, no matter how well intended, may haunt us for years as not only do we suffer the expense of $5.25 million but we have to pay interest as well,” Raymond said. “As homeowners, we all understand interest; interest expense is why our homes cost us three times the sales price by the time we pay off the note. Make no mistake about it, KISD taxpayers will be required to pay back this $5.25 million plus interest.”
Trustees did not respond to Raymond’s comments.
A district spokesman later said the board would not reconsider the matter and the project would forward.
InstantNewsKaty requested comment on the decision from school board members, but all have refused to publicly discuss the project.
The board’s silence sparked a renewed round of criticism over what some claim is a lack of transparency in district operations, as well as a lack of accountability on the part of trustees.
Some residents have even called for a criminal investigation into the decision.
6 Responses to “Turf Installation At Taylor High Surprises Residents, One Man Allegedly Threatened With Arrest”
Bob
Says:
As a parent in the District, I would like a full explanation as to why this decision was fast tracked and no one has felt the need to respond when tax-paying citizens asked questions. I’m sorry, there are FAR better ways this could have been handled.
I want to know who the provider of this “asstro turf” is. Was this project put out for a bid? When? It just seems VERY suspicious and strange that it “suddenly came up at a work study meeting” and then it was a done deal, period, beginning and end of discussion.
What really chaps my lips is that “allegedly” there is “a high volume of usage of these fields.” Really? If so, I want to see facts, figures and numbers, dates, times and who exactly uses these fields. Another thing that I find “interesting” is that at each and every Junior High in this District, they have perfectly good grass fields for playing games on and yet, the football teams never do. So, with all the money sunk into a JH football program, their fields are not “good enough” to play on? Why? Why spend money on buses for these teams to be transported to the High School to play on? Why not install bleachers at the JH’s for these kids to be able to use their own, home facilities?
What is the exact revenue that is generated from all the “high volume usage” of these HS fields versus the amount of money spent on upkeep? Couldn’t there have been alternative solutions such as a “turf maintenance and management program” under the FFA Departments? You know, a hands on classroom where someone could actually teach and kids could learn and far more children could have actually reaped more benefit from this? Sorry, I’m STILL trying to figure out exactly why there are so many tractors in this District and what exactly do we use them for because honestly, the grass isn’t always maintained at a lot of the schools in KISD. I’m positive the FFA kids could teach the grounds maintenance people a thing or two like walking and picking up the trash BEFORE you cut the lawn so it doesn’t shred it into a million pieces.
And while I’m on it, how many campuses do you know of or have seen that could use quite a bit of work on their sprinkler systems? I can name 7 that all have sprinkler heads that water the parking lot but not the grass or have mis-directed or broken heads that do a terrible job of what they were designed and installed for. How much water is that wasting and how much money is that costing?
Lack of transparency, lack of accountability and utter lack of common sense is what I see. When no one is willing to talk about the issue nor back their decision up with hard core and undisputable and undeniable facts and figures, makes me and many others think and believe something smells with this “pile.” Sorry, Mr. Frailey and Board of Trustee members, your feet have manure on them with this one!!!
Bobby
FFA
Gary
Says:
KISD doesn’t maintain the grass very well at the Gerald Young Ag Facility for the FFA program either. However, with what Katy ISD is doing to their Ag program, the poor kids will have their hands full just trying to get guidance with their animal projects, ag mechanics, and classwork. Two out of three Ag teachers gone at Taylor, for instance, due to “estimates” and “projections” of declining Ag enrollment for next year. I filed an open records request for 2005/06 through 2009/10 Ag enrollments to try and verify what I was told and all they gave me was this past year. Other high schools have also lost Ag teachers. The district believes that half time teachers can cover any gaps by working at multiple schools. Time will tell if this will be as bad as I fear, but having been around FFA for several years during and after my daughter showed her heifer I am worried.
The administrators all smile and say it will work, but I’ve heard too much doubletalk come out of their mouths to believe them.
The arrogance that some of them show towards tax paying parents that dare to question is symptomatic of an attitude that exists all the way up through the school board. Examples are candidates that did not feel the need to answer any voter’s questions during the election as well as this $5.25 million astroturf project that was passed “under cover of darkness” with no taxpayer input.
Shameful behavior.
Ross
Raymond
Says:
Gosh, I have to ask where were all these upset folks during the school board campaign? I still have my site up with a discussion on the turf at:
http://www.katyvote.com and the situation has not changed. Well that may not be true as it might be described as worse since now no one on the Board will step forward and respond to the press, the voters, the parents, the teachers………. you get the idea.The problem here is the same as always, the Board does not communicate with the citizens it is elected to represent and serve. That is to be expected when the same core of folks sit there decade after decade comforted in the belief they know what is best and therefore there is no need to let anyone know what is going on. This behavior has de-evolved to the point where citizen input is not necessary either.
I believe everyone upset by this should get out their 2010 calendar and make a note there is a school Board election in May and there are two seats up for election. One is currently held by a 20+ year member the other will be asking for 3 more years to round out 9. Of course this assumes they run for re-election.
muckraker
Says:
What’s the old saying, “vendor feeding is an ugly business but someone has to do it”? I think that’s how it goes.
As long as the public buries their collective heads in the sand, boards like this one and the one in FBISD will continue to treat our tax dollars as “free money”. I think one quote from the article says it all:
“They hardly ever use it for anything; why in the world would they spend millions of dollars for something like that? That school board is like a bunch of kids with money burning a hole in their pocket and they can’t wait to run out and spend it,” Grayson said.
They just approved spending nearly 30 million in our district for a vendor after surveys they did demonstrated a great deal of opposition. They even portrayed the surveys as “overwhelming” support until someone got a copy of the documents through the AGs office.
No, trusting our local elected officials during a recession is a big mistake. Question absolutely everything they do and tell you. Our chief county judge, Bob Hebert and local state rep Charlie Howard have been vendor feeders for years…..it’s time to wake up folks, just check out the level of bond debt your district is carrying!
chriscottrell
Says:
To all those that have commented to date: I guess no one read my earlier comment about this district boondoggle originally. Folks, they are using unused bond funds that most of YOU voted for three years ago. When you gave the district 250+ million dollars you handed them a blank check. They are allowed to spend it anyway they please. They are under no obligation to seek voter approval of any project. They are under no obligation whatsoever to spend the money on the projects that they originally told you they wanted to spend money on. This is the reason why you have irresponsible spending. Government has a long history of irresponsible and reckless spending. Why would think it would be any different locally?
The district had to use bond money since they couldn’t get this kind of money out of our operating budget. Remember, KISD is projecting a $3+ million dollar shortfall for this year’s budget cycle. Over the past 3+ years the Katy Watchdog$ have been trying to get this community to understand that we are going to have to DEMAND that the district itemize ALL future bond initiatives so that the voter can determine what is needed and what is not needed. The educrats and Board Members over in the admin building haven’t a clue as to how to manage money properly. One of our current incumbent Trustees told an audience once that while their position is indeed an elected position, that being a Trustee is not the same thing as being an elected official….a Trustee has to do what is good for the district; not what the electorate desire. Are you beginning to see what the problem is here Katy?
Mr. Raymond’s comments are right on the money. To those of you that are outraged by all this….did ya’ll vote in the last bond election? Have you bothered to vote in any school board election? We all had a wonderful opportunity to elect three (3) fiscally responsible candidates last year but the Watchdog$ were unable to convince more people to get out and vote.
Katy, you need to understand that your Board Members have NEVER been a friend of the taxpayer. You are right, there is no accountability and transparency with this bunch. So why is that? Well that answer is simple…they don’t have to be since they are re-elected over and over again. Some of your Board Members have been on the KISD Board for more than a decade. And if any of you think that your newest Board Member, Mr. Howard, is going to be a breath of fresh air on this Board, well you better think again.
Understand this Katy, that unless the district gets some financial windfall between now and the end of this budget cycle, it is my firm belief that they will call for a special election in November to get voters to approve a tax hike. The district isn’t going to change its behavior until we, the taxpayers, MAKE them do so at the ballot box. Understand Katy that the district, the Board and our Superintendent don’t believe that the same economic prinicples that govern our personal and professional lives apply to them. Since “it’s for the children” then there should be no fiscal constraints of any kind place upon them.
The fact is that unless the majority of people in this community come out of their apathetic stupor and make some changes at the voting booth for some new blood on this Board, there will be NO changes.
Christopher
E.
Cottrell
Co-Founder
Katy
Citizen
Watchdog$
Ross
Raymond
Says:
Economics 101.
The more you spend the more you must collect. However it is possible to give teachers a raise, introduce additional learning opportunities for students and NOT increase the tax rate.
How do you do this?
You take a sharp pencil to the side of the budget which feeds bonds. Our current tax rate is: $1.5266 for every $100 of value a $100,000 home pays $1,526.60 in taxes. Within this rate (1.5266) we set aside .40 for our debt. Taxes on that $100,000 home are: $400 for debt and $1,126.60 for operating expenses. Common sense tells us if we don’t spend so much on the debt side we can either: 1. relieve the pressure to increase our tax rate (it was $2.00/$100.00 just a few years ago), 2. pay the debt off sooner and save millions of dollars of interest expenses, or 3. use the freed up dollars on the M&O (maintenance and operation) side of the budget for teachers and student programming.
We may never be debt free, but for the sake of illustration let’s wave the magic wand and say we are. Taxes could be reduced by $400/100 K of value. Another alternative would be to spend some of this money in support of instructional issues and programming. Or how about a combination of both?
The truth is in the larger scheme of things spending $5 million on artificial turf is not going to swing the ISD budget too far one way or the other, but if we continue with a Board who believes “If “we” have the money “we” should spend it,” will, in my opinion, guarantee we (taxpayers) will be forever doomed to repeat this situation over and over again. By law districts are not allowed to operate at a deficit so in a crunch either programs, teachers, extra curricular activities are CUT, or we increase taxes. The Board is counting on the increase. You don’t have to take my word for it, just look across Clay Road at Cy-Fair ISD and what is happening there. We are on track to follow their lead and in many ways are well on our way to the same fate; teacher reductions, salary freezes, higher taxes, cut backs in all segments of instructional budgets. What part of that picture do you like?
Finally, don’t kid yourself. No matter the tax rate, you pay more in taxes every year due to the increased values of your homes. If these increases continue at the 10% average rate your tax bill climbs 10% per year even as elected officials tell you they have “held the line.” Fuzzy math is all around us.
We need a Board who understands the budget is for the full $1.5266 burden and not just for M&O. Strange how we can have a school board meeting and talk about the need to save money on copy costs and not allow a single word from the public about spending millions for Astroturf and other “feel good” projects. If this trend continues we will must water down the M&O or increase the tax rate.
Does the Board not understand this, or simply not care? Does the answer really matter? Make a note, the next school board election is May of 2010.
Ross Raymond was absolutely correct in everything he said about this issue. It is incomprehensible that KISD voters
are so dumb that they forget things like this when it comes time to elect school board members! This one act by an
incompetent superintendent (Frailey) should have gotten him fired and the incumbent board members tossed! (And
it IS incompetent, in my opinion, when one spends 5.25 million dollars for something no one wants and no one needs,
just because he can!)
