This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
12/22/2020 02:30 PMThe final recommendations resulting from an assessment of the athletic fields and facilities at Valley Regional High School (VRHS) and John Winthrop Middle School (JWMS) were shared with the Region 4 (R4) Board of Education at its Dec. 15 meeting. The recommendations ranged from safety upgrades for existing fields to plans for new, future facilities.
Landscape architects Jesse Harris and Michael Kluchman of the BSC Group highlighted specific recommendations for management, key projects, and how they might be ordered for a master plan.
The information will ultimately be compiled into a final report document for the district to use “as a roadmap, going forward,” said Kluchman.
The project, which started last summer, involved extensive on-site surveys of school fields and facilities and an assessment of the type and frequency of use associated with them. It also incorporated an analysis of the Falls Landing and Mislick properties, which are owned by the district.
To garner feedback for the fields and grounds study, the architects participated in two meetings with an ad-hoc committee, which was composed of board members, parents, staff and coaches, among others.
A decision matrix denoting which objectives a recommended project fulfilled was developed in consultation with the ad-hoc committee. These objectives included equity, accessibility, safety, maintenance, and management of assets.
Each recommended project was also analyzed by estimated project cost and priority level, with “1” denoting a short-term project to potentially be completed in one to four years, “2” denoting a mid-term project to potentially be completed in four to eight years and “3” as a long-term project, to potentially be completed in eight years or more.
Management Recommendations
A field user policy that expands on existing guidelines topped the list as a recommended action for both schools.
“Really, that is to control use in inclement weather, inappropriate use on fields, things like that, as well as in the stadium fields case, use policies regarding athletic fields lighting,” said Harris.
Another goal is for 100 percent turf coverage.
“When you don’t have 100 percent turf coverage, that is when you get into possible athlete injuries, [with] bare spots, compacted fields, [and] dirt and mud conditions,” said Harris.
Other recommended actions included a proper maintenance schedule, with a rotation of play on multi-use fields and a limit to field scheduling and use.
Facility Recommendations at VRHS
At VRHS, 16 projects were recommended, spanning all facilities and at varying costs.
The following projects were given a priority level “1”, to possibly be completed within one to four years. Safety was among the key objectives, or sometimes the only objective, for accomplishing these projects.
They included reconstruction of the natural grass field in the upper field at a cost of $800,000 to $900,000; repairing cracks in the tennis courts at a cost of $2,500 to $6,000; and reconstruction of the infield in the baseball field at a cost of $150,000 to $250,000, according to the BSC Group.
Two project options were presented by the BSC Group for improving the track in the stadium complex. They included a replacement of the running track surface at a cost of $400,000 to $500,000 or a reconstruction of the running track at a cost of $600,000 to $700,000.
With the track reaching its 25-year life span, Harris said “the condition it is in is very poor. It’s delaminating on the edges. It’s been patched many times. The resiliency of the surfacing is wearing, especially in lanes 1 to 3.”
The reconstruction of the running track would entail creating a new, six-lane track to support regional meets, according to the BSC Group.
Facility Recommendations at JWMS
A total of eight projects were recommended at JWMS, spanning all facilities and at varying costs.
Reconstruction of the natural grass fields in soccer fields 1 and 3 were marked as priority level “1”, to possibly be completed within one to four years. Safety was among the key objectives in accomplishing these projects.
The reconstruction of these fields would entail re-grading, improving drainage, new irrigation systems, new sod, improving accessibility, and adding spectator seating, according to the BSC Group.
For soccer field 1, the cost was estimated by BSC Group at $430,000 to $475,000. For soccer field 3, the cost was estimated by BSC Group at $365,000 to $375,000.
Falls Landing and Mislick Properties
The BSC Group determined that the Falls Landing property cannot be developed into athletic facilities, due to its steep slope.
“The best use for that property is residential development,” said Harris.
The BSC group presented a total of 4 project options for the Mislick property, with construction of a cross country trail being delineated as a priority level “1” with safety as a key consideration. The estimated cost for this project was $10,000 to $20,000, as presented by the BSC Group.
Other project options included new sport fields.
The estimated cost to construct one new field, which was marked with a priority level 2, to possibly be completed in four to eight years, was $500,000 to $700,000.
The estimated cost to construct two new fields, which was marked with a priority level 3, to possibly be completed in eight or more years, was $1,000,000 to $1,500,000, as presented by the BSC Group.
The last project, which would only be implemented if new sport fields were installed, would be for installation of utilities for the Mislick Property. These would include an upgrade to electrical service, an irrigation well and an irrigation system. The cost estimate for this project was $20,000 to $50,000, as presented by the BSC Group.
The development of the Mislick property for athletics would “improve conditions of all facilities” by reducing the use or overuse of existing fields, said Kluchman.
After being asked by a board member about the suitability of the Mislick property to be subdivided into residential lots and sold, Kluchman said that in terms of the topography and zoning as low density residential, this is an option for certain areas within the 38-acre parcel of land.