on the Babylon School

BHS athletic field improvements will be subject of bond vote Dear Editor,

My wife and I are life long residents of Babylon, homeowners, raising a family of three young boys. My children attend Babylon schools and use all of their facilities. We intend to stay in Babylon because we have strong ties to the community and love living here. We hope that the high cost of living here does not someday force us all to relocate.

I respect the determination of the Turf Committee, but question many of their claims. The proposed project will be a taxpayer responsibility for a long time to come. It would be unfortunate for voters to base their decisions on biased information.

Some examples from last weeks Beacon article follow.

Mr. Reynolds states that the Turf Committee hopes to raise funds, "so that it will not be a tax burden to the community". The assumption here is that the initial costs to the taxpayer may be defrayed by the amount of funds raised. However, all long-term costs will be borne by the taxpayers. This includes the high cost of replacement as well as maintenance and power bills for the lighting system, which we do not have today. In fact, the taxpayer burden is demonstrated by the School Boards recent decision to consider a referendum on a bond to fund the project.

The article goes on to state how the Turf Committee rejected county funding proposal. At the time the Turf Committee refuted every argument made by opponents and would have willfully accepted the funds. Their recent statement suggests they have the authority to accept or deny funds in the name of the community but it is unclear where that authority comes from.

The estimated cost of the field has fluctuated quite a bit. When the $600,000 county grant was under consideration they were trying to raise an additional $4-500,000. Now the estimate is $700,000, yet that is part of a $3.1M field improvement bond. What is the real cost? We don't have a lighted field today but that is a key element of the plan for extended use of the field. Any cost for lighting will incur added operational dollars. Unit costs for electric increase each year on LI. Is this factored into the overall cost?

Although several references to the Babylon Boosters are made, their support for the project is conspicuously absent.

It is stated that the proponents want to make residents ,"aware of the conditions at the field to raise support for a bond issue". The recent NYS school district report found the fields to be in satisfactory condition. Many of us have played on that field for years are fully aware of its condition, and are OK with it. The district itself stated that replacing the field was not a priority. It seems the condition is not so critical to warrant a ~ $1M expense.

Many other claims continue to be made without much substance or fact. There is no national consensus of sporting organizations, field manager_s associations, Universities, Doctor_s or School Districts who say artificial fields are any safer than natural turf. Both surfaces perform differently under varying conditions. Similarly, there is no proof that maintenance costs significantly less expensive. If lighting costs are considered any savings are likely marginal. However, what is evident is that artificial fields under high use, at the levels suggested by supporters (which justify the project itself) incur the highest possible maintenance costs, offer the least safe conditions and will require early replacement.

Finally, an assertion that the proponents con- tinue to make in justification of the project is that there is no other usable space available to create new fields. I would suggest that it is not a case of space being unavailable as much as it a community choice of what is done with the little open

space that is left. If we continue to allow the creation of more parking lots, commercial space, condos and golf courses, then it is hypocritical of us to continue to complain about the lack of fields and other open space for our kids. The funding suggested for this project along with some local philanthropy, may go a long way towards creating new fields. A partnership between the district, the village and the community as a whole, should consider a master plan for open space.

Regardless of claims made by residents, including myself, it is ultimately the responsibility of the school board to provide data to the taxpayers so that they can make an informed decision. It is unfair to simply submit a referendum on a bond without providing correct supporting documentation. Last year, several residents including myself, requested a long-term comparison of field maintenance costs. Many also requested factual data on the safety, environmental, and financial issue regarding this project. It is not reasonable to ask the public to rely on information provided by a group of zealous advocates. However, to date that is where an abundance of the information has come from.

A sub-committee to study the merits of the project was formed and then summarily disbanded when County funding was rejected. Maybe it is time to form a new committee, get some unbiased answers and then consider a bond.

Remember, "its all for the kids". When the outcome could impact them physically and financially for years to come, don't we owe them more than marketing hype?

Bill Costanzo

Babylon