Arcadia school board weighs field use policy options

Stemming from a topic that prompted significant community response and debate at their July meeting, the Arcadia school board weighed potential options — though took no action for the time being — on alternate policies dictating use of the school district’s outdoor turf field.

The latest discussion took place at a special meeting of the school board last Tuesday, coming on the heels of their meeting the prior month where there was a high level of feedback during public comments regarding the possibility of restricting public use of the field.

At the outset of the discussion on the topic last Tuesday, board president Brian Steinlicht went over answers to a handful of questions that had been brought to him by other board members since the last meeting. Steinlicht noted the field was built in 2014 for a total project cost of $1.2 million that was covered by donations with an original life expectancy of 10 to 14 years.

Technicians with FieldTurf, the company who professionally grooms the field and fixes any tears in the turf for the district, came to do their usual work in late July. At that time, they told Arcadia athletic director Thurston Schuster that the field was in excellent shape for being over a decade old and they’d estimate a life expectancy for it of another two to three years. 

Steinlicht also stated the FieldTurf technicians indicated that exposure to the elements such as UV rays and winter freezing are the key reason for the limited remaining lifespan of the field, and that reducing foot traffic by placing greater restrictions on use of the field would not prolong the life of the turf.

In comments supporting more restrictions on the field’s usage, board member Tonya Rebhahn read an article to the board from a group called edCircuit that talked about the risks of “unsupervised access to school athletic fields.” Among the concerns listed in that article and raised by Rebhan included potential legal liability, property damage, adults displacing students using the field, security gaps and a lack of background checks on adults using the facilities.

“Unregulated field use isn’t just a policy issue; it’s a safety risk. And in today’s educational landscape, safety has to be a top priority,” Rebhahn said while quoting the article. “Every field is a school-owned space. Letting it become a liability due to lack of oversight undermines the very safety we promise our students.”

Rebhahn said that no matter what the board decided regarding a policy on outdoor facility usage, she believed they should install security cameras at the field. During his comments on the subject later on, board member Gary Pronschinske said cameras could be a “helpful tool” but also wouldn’t be “a catch-all to cover everything that happens out there.”

Arcadia superintendent Lori Frerk brought up that, in addition to the cost of installing cameras, the district would need to expand their internet coverage out by the field to make a surveillance system there feasible. 

In terms of potential liability concerns for the district, Frerk said district policy notes that individuals use school facilities at their own risk.

Later in the meeting, board member Adam Schlesser brought up the potential impact of foot traffic on turf by quoting turf supplier Keystone Sports Construction, whose website has a page on the lifespan of turf fields that says the following: “High volumes of foot traffic inevitably accelerate fiber wear and cause infill displacement and compaction.”

Frerk concurred with his point of high usage impacting the turf but clarified that those impacts would be an issue without regular maintenance. However, in addition to having FieldTurf professionals come in for regular maintenance, Frerk noted that those technicians who came in late July said the brushing and adding of pellets done by groundskeeper Jay Duellman as part of the district’s general field upkeep is keeping the field in strong shape.

“If you have a lot of foot traffic and you’re not following up with your maintenance — at year eight we would have been looking at having a replacement,” Frerk said. “We have to look at this replacement because time is not on our side now. Whether foot traffic is there or not, time is not on our side with UV, freezing, all that stuff. We have to begin to look at that.”

Board member Vickie Kreibich had similar thoughts on the subject, stating that the debate over restricting access to the field felt secondary given that they will be needing to replace it soon no matter what. Schlesser also brought up the fact that roughly 35 years ago, Arcadia had a period where they were without a football field, a predicament he said was “downright embarrassing” and something the district should be looking to avoid repeating.

In terms of a potential price tag to replace the field, Steinlicht said that the median cost for turf replacement is $5 per foot and they have 103,000 square feet for an estimated total cost around $500,000, though that number is subject to change in the coming years.

Frerk said the NFL distributes money for capital improvements projects such as this through a program that awards grants up to $250,000. She added that those grants often go to low-income districts, which could work in Arcadia’s favor since they have a high number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch.

Schlesser told the board that he’d heard from “many people” who had donated to the field project who were concerned about their investment.

“We’ve gotta somehow show we care too. I don’t think we can let it keep going as a public playground,” he said. “But you’re right, we don’t have the money, the resources or anything to have 24-hour security guard patrolling either. I think we have to find something here to save face with the taxpayers and the donors who put that field in there.”

Frerk brought two policy proposals before the board for consideration, which Schlesser characterized as one making the field “locked down” and the other making it “a free for all.” Both he and fellow board member Dana Conrad expressed a desire for a policy with a happier medium between the two.

Steinlicht said that regardless of what they wind up deciding to do in terms of a new policy, he believes it would be a good idea to hold a public forum to go over any changes and answer questions from community members.

No polices were voted on at last Tuesday’s meeting and the board will give Frerk time to come up with cost estimates for potential policy changes that would include things like installing a surveillance system or adding additional fencing if they ultimately choose to implement a more restrictive policy.

In the meantime, Frerk reiterated that until a new outdoor facilities policy is chosen and goes through the whole implementation process, “we’re going to keep the status quo in how it’s been handled.”

Other business

At last week’s special meeting, the board also discussed potential changes to the high school handbook regarding remembrances for deceased students at the high school’s public graduation ceremony.

The existing policy in the handbook did not allow for remembrances at graduation. Arcadia High School principal Wyatt Anderson informed the board that organizations such as the CDC and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) advise against doing things like leaving an empty seat at graduation due to the risk of emotional triggers and re-traumatization for a deceased student’s classmates.

After discussion, the board settled on changing the policy to allow a deceased student’s family to request to have a remembrance published in the graduation program during the ceremony in the year that they would have graduated.

The board also approved a 2.95 percent increase for the superintendent’s salary in a 5-2 vote, with Rebhahn and Schlesser opposing. A 2.95 percent increase for all other salaried and administrative staff in the district was previously approved by the board during their July meeting.