This Wednesday, the Village Board appointed Drive to Distinction (D2D) Chair Sean Cummings to the Trustee position vacated by Michael Phinney.  Now Trustee Cummings previously petitioned the Village Board for a $600,000 grant for the D2D athletic field renovation.  The Board eventually approved the request, at a lower amount of $465,000.

His term will run through April, 2010.  A total of 11 other applicants put in their names for the open position. 

According to a recent ShorewoodNOW article, the others who applied include Mark Clingaman, Daniel Daemmrich, Peter Grimes, William Kohl, Patrick Linnane, Brady McMonigal, Tim Ryan, Ryan Scott, Brad Simenz, Niki Skinner and John Toutenhoofd.

The SHS student newspaper is reporting that demolition of the athletic field has been further delayed by the discovery of asbestos in several of the associated buildings.   (Hat tip, Maryln)  According to the article from last week, Athletic Directer Bill Haury is now pointing to August 18, 2008 as an expected date of re-opening of the facilities.  This date is a significant revision of the original target date of March 15th, which is listed on the D2D website as the expected Phase 1 completion date.

D2D Demolition Delayed
Shorewood Ripples, 10.21.07
Santera Michels

A demolition evaluation of the track and field has been completed, and the D2D campaign committee has hired a company for the demolition process. The purpose of the evaluation of the track was to search for hazardous materials such as asbestos.

 

“A couple of buildings, such as the warehouse located behind the bleachers, contained asbestos,” said athletic director Bill Haury.  The finding of this material caused delay in the demolition. Retter, the construction company hired, will oversee all aspects of the demolition and building processes. 

 

“The actual demolition shouldn’t take that long,” Haury said. Phase one of the D2D campaign is expected to be completed by August 18. This phase involves the demolition of the current site and installation of the track turf, bleachers, press box, restrooms, and lighting.

 

Many teams will have to adjust for the construction. Girl’s soccer practices will be moved to Estabrook Park, while the track and field team will hold for their outdoor season at either Riverside University High School or Whitefish Bay High School.

 

Kristen Obiakor, junior and track athlete, expressed mixed feelings about the upcoming season. She said, “I’m upset that I won’t be able to practice at home this year, but really excited for the new track.”

 

The softball field will be closed starting June 15, leaving the spring softball season unaffected. “I’m glad that I will be able to play on our home field for my final season of high school softball,” said Jordan Tetting, senior. 

 

However, Haury said the summer leagues will need to move to other locations.

 

“Hopefully everything will be ready to use by the fall season in 2008,” said Haury. Shorewood will be holding many home games next year to help make up for the costs of having to use other facilities. 

 

“My goal is to make the money up in two seasons,” said Haury.

D2D Chair Sean Cummings and I exchanged several positive emails today regarding where we are on the athletic field renovation. I think you will find his updates helpful.  Here is what he had to say:

Email 1 (Also posted to ShorewoodNOW as a press release):

I certainly understand the desire of residents to see visible progress on the field renovation.    The D2D Committee, SHS administration and School Board members have been active in progressing behind the scenes.    Soil samples, survey work, construction management contracts  and design reviews have been conducted.   Further design reviews will continue as each of the new facility elements (field/drainage prep., retention walls, bleachers, lighting, field turf, lighting, concession stands, locker rooms etc), are finalized and sent out to bid.    Demolition bid documents were prepared,  sent out and are due back on the 19th, with an expectation that visible progress will be made yet this month and into early November.

We are working very hard on each element to get the biggest bang for our buck.   Yes volunteer committees may be slower than people would prefer however we are determined to get it right, receive good value for money and deliver a project we can all be proud of.  

Email 2:  

The truth is we had to pick a time well in advance so that alternate plans could be made for these teams.  Schedules, times and places for visiting teams had to be locked up.

We had planned to have demolition well underway by now however I am sure you can appreciate the complexities of ensuring that DNR, MMSD, Village and School Board needs are met, specifications clear, bids back, contracts and funds in place.    As dedicated and talented as this volunteer group is we all have full time jobs and everything does not always line up as planned.  

I plan to issue a regular project update to keep the community fully informed.

Although the SHS athletic field is no longer hosting football games, there is still Lacrosse being played on the surface.  I drove by the field tonight, and noticed Lacrosse practice in full swing.  If the field can host Lacrosse, why not other SIS/SHS sports?    (Sorry for the photo quality.  Cell phone camera!)

I really am not trying to be irritating here, I really just cannot comprehending what is going on here.  We are spending money on transporting our teams to other facilities while our own (apparently usable) field sits mostly idle. 

I am a big believer in giving hardworking volunteers (like the D2D committee) and public officials the benefit of the doubt in most cases.  But in this case, I am truly mystified by how the beginning of the renovation process is going. 

Jim Genthe gets credit for the most creative emails, with the most impressive array emoticons, pictures, and graphics.

-------------------------------------------

Hey Steve,
It's been a while since I've touched base with you;
well, other than that random incident of photoshop with the condo project!

Anyway, I was just wondering what your thoughts might be re: the ongoing village projects!
 I'm confused and concerned by the haphazard way it seems they are being implemented!

I agree with Dave Tatarowicz that the Oakland Avenue Streetscaping is
about as 'hit 'n' miss' as it comes! First there was a several week lull after the streetlights
were removed from the west side of the street. Now, as I drive the street several times a day,
the entire length looks like a no-parking war zone with the workers bouncing around
from one end to the other like a pinball machine! Meantime, both sides an obstacle course
for cars and/or pedestrians trying to patronize local businesses!

After the original prediction of the SHS lot being closed for an entire month, which I thought FAR too long since they could just close it during the creation of the new access (which they actually DID)
it was only closed for around 1 1/2 weeks! Granted, this was a GOOD thing (apologies to Martha Stewart)
 but why does no one even know WHO was responsible for the closing in the FIRST place,
much less declaring a timeframe for it??
(School Board--> Village Board--> (aHA!) -->the DPW!!)

Moving to the seemingly stationary D2D project, I have yet to see ANY movement
relating to actually beginning construction, while the "dreaded dome" has migrated southeast to the baseball field! I'm at a loss as to why, weeks after the triumphant ground-breaking ceremony, those appear to be the only shovels to touch the ground, yet the football team has had to play their 'home games' away
since that Friday evening!

Anyway, I hope you've continued to find good food, cold brews and stimulating
conversation around our favorite 'burb;
mayhaps I'll run into you at the Post, Brit Inn or  the Oakcrest Tavern!
Keep on blogging!

 - Jim Genthe
---------------------------------

Very creative :-)

 

Several of you asked me why no visible progress has been made on the athletic field renovation, so I emailed Sean Cummings to find out.  Here is his response.

-----------------------------------
Steve,

We are awaiting demolition bids to be back Oct. 19th and expect demolition to commence shortly thereafter.

- Sean Cummings
Chairman, D2D Committee
-----------------------------------

This raises several questions:

1. Why we have been unable to use the field for the last month and a half, despite no construction activity?
2. Why didn't we already have demolition bids in hand before restricting use of the field?

The Streets & Buildings Committee heard last from a representative of Shorewood Little League regarding moving the old lights from the SHS football field to Spector Baseball Field. The move would coincide with the planned removal/replacement of the lights during the Drive to Distinction renovations, which will soon be underway.

The Committee has not yet approved the placement of the lights, pending notification and input from area residents. The commitee also asked for additional information regarding engineering specifications, and payment for engineering work and ongoing maintenance. Action on this may come at future meetings.

I was intending to do a full D2D update this week, but am pleased to see a fairly detailed article on the topic in this week's edition of ShorewoodNOW.

The one D2D-related development that the NOW news story did not mention is a change to the dome plans. You will recall that the D2D committee and the School Board needed to decide early this month about whether the dome would be included in the overall design of the football/soccer field. Certain aspects of the design would different, depending on whether the dome is intended to be added later.

As it stands now, the dome will not be included in the football/soccer field. Instead, a dome may be included later, in the renovation of the softball field. Since the softball field renovation is scheduled later in the process, the committee now has more time to decide whether to include the dome, and raise the funds necessary to include it.

"The D2D Committee recommended and the School Board decided to shift the winter dome location study to the softball field, allowing for connection to the buildings and negating the need to spend money during Phase I for prep. work," said Sean Cummings, co-chair of the D2D committee. "This will give the group more time to study the revenue generating model, address resident concerns and raise additional funds while avoiding any delays to Phase I."



Comments

1. Steve, The latest articles I've seen thus far are hopeful, yet, when I saw THIS headline, I had to look twice, since it was all about the Shorewood/Messmer GREYHOUNDS!!

Knight pride
The community came out Aug. 31 to cheer on the Shorewood-Messmer football team and stuck around afterward to witness the groundbreaking of new athletic facilities that will open in a year....

A few quick updates for you:

1. We now have a new reporter from NOW assigned to Shorewood. His name is Dave Fidlin. Hopefully the quantity of reporting about what is going on in Shorewood will show a noticeable uptick.

2. Groundbreaking for the athletic field renovation took place this past Friday. They held a ceremony during the final football game to be played on the old field. There will be an update from the D2D committee at tomorrow night's Village Board meeting.

3. Oakland Ave reconstruction is now well underway.

4. Budget season has begun for the Village. Listening sessions are scheduled at the following times and places.

• Monday, September 10, 2007—7:00 p.m.—Court Room—Listening Session
• Tuesday, September 18, 2007 – 7:35 p.m.— Committee Room
• Thursday, October 4, 2007 – 7:35 p.m.—Committee Room
• Wednesday, October 10, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.—Committee Room
• Wednesday, October 17, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.—Committee Room
• Saturday, October 20, 2007 – 8:35 a.m.— Committee Room

Several people in the talkback forums and comments to various blogs have been questioning what they can do to oppose various parts of D2D or even stop D2D altogether. In our system of government, you do have specific legal remedies. Understand that I am not in any way advocating any of these alternatives. But for those of you who want to know what you can do, here are some of the options you have.

1. Put a referendum on the ballot. You can pass and ordinance about almost anything you want by collecting signatures to get it on the ballot. You could add an ordinance preventing the construction of air-inflated domes in the Village of Shorewood. You could ban the use of Astroturf. You could require public building projects of over $1 million go to referendum. You will recall this was done inb April of 2006 with the referendum on the war in Iraq. WI Statute 9.20 has everything you need to get started.

2. Organize a campaign now and run candidates who oppose D2D for both School Board and Village Board in April of 2008. If the candidates you support are elected, they are then free to reallocate spending however you see fit. Phase I of the project will be well underway if not completed by the time these candidates take office, but they would still be free to prevent any other phases from going forward.

Again, I am not advocating these measures. But if those opposed to the project would like to direct their dissatisfaction into action, the list above gives you several ways of doing so.

I have been out of town on vacation for the last week, so have not had a chance to add these additional comments I received after the last D2D post.

-------------------------
1. "Steve - To include everything, you need to add in the $350,000 left over from the Science Building Project that the School Board intends to put into the Athletic Field instead, and the donation made by Mr. John Nickoll for the bleachers, the exact amount I am not sure of."
- Dave Tatarowicz, Shorelines, 7/13/07

2. "Steve, In response to S. Cummings' response above, you may want to note that at the special school board meeting held back in the spring to offer the public limited details about the D2D project, we were told that the cost for the dome preparation that is part of Phase 1 would only be about $25K. Now we are told it is likely, though not definitely, going to be less than $100K. It's this lack of transparency, dearth of candor, and ever-so-vague (and ever-rising) numbers that are responsible for much of the skepticism about this project. By and large most folks want to have good facilities for the schools, but no one likes being played for a fool."
- Shorewood Skeptic, 7/13/07
--------------------------------

You will notice that the facts below do not all support or oppose the project. I am not arguing for or against this project. I am just trying to be sure that if we disagree, we disagree based on facts. If anyone disputes these facts, or has additional insight or information, please send your comments. That way, all residents will have the opportunity to make a fully informed decision on their support of or opposition to the D2D project.

By way of full disclosure, I was on the D2D committee at its early stages, left the committee several years ago, and have no ongoing affiliation with it other than the D2D sign in my yard.

1. This is a school program. Although there are significant private dollars going into the renovation, these dollars are going to renovate a public structure which is part of the recreational facilities of the school district. The school district would spend significant amounts to renovate the field whether or not D2D existed.

2. There was indeed a significant private donation several years ago for the new bleachers. The money was donated to the school district before D2D began. Once it became clear that we were not going to stop at the bleachers, the decision was made not to spend the money on the bleachers until the full scope of the project was determined. The School District has not spent the money yet because the bleachers are a part of the overall D2D project, and not a standalone project. The money is instead being included as a part of the overall funding package for the renovation.

3. Phase 1 costs will likely rise if the dome is included. The specifications for the stormwater runoff facilities may be altered, if the dome is to be included in phase 4. The cost of these additional facilities is not pinned down yet, but the estimate of $400,000 was discussed at the Village Board meeting. This has not been reported in the paper, which is why I bring it up now.

4. The date the contractor needs to begin dome preparations is Sep 1 of this year, according to the discussion at the Board meeting. As such, we cannot wait until Phase 4 to decide if we are going to build a dome. We cannot wait to see if the private funding will be sufficient to cover the dome, as is suggested on the D2D website. Preparations for the dome need to begin in Phase 1.

5. The Village Board’s contribution is $465,000. The CDA’s contribution is $250,000. The CDA had agreed to conduct landscaping of part of the grounds using TIF monies before the $465,000 was voted on by the Village Board.

6. The dome phase of the project will be privately funded, and will only be built if it is determined that it can be economically self-sustaining. It will only be up from November to March, and may be rented out to private organizations. Business plans are being examined using comparisons to Minneapolis seasonal domes to see if the Shorewood dome would be economically viable.

Comments

1. "Steve, Thank you for taking the time to present the facts. Just one comment for clarification. While it is true that some money will have to be spent to prepare for the dome in Phase 1, that number is likely to less than $100K. No public money will be allocated to this element of the project and indeed the dome prep work (and hence the dome) will not proceed if all project features, as described to the public, cannot be delivered in Phase one. In other words, the dome prep. work will not take money from Phase one amenities. The $400K number discussed was misinterpreted as storm water retention cost required for the dome when in fact storm water must be retained for the field, with our without the dome. Finally, I believe the School Board will not approve the expediture of any dome prep. $'s if they are not convinced the dome is likely to become a profit center for the school district."
- Sean Cummings, D2D Committee Co-Chair

As a curious historical fact, the reason our fundraising drive is called Drive to Distinction is because the committee used the fundraising writeup from Ball State University as a model. BSU also called their stadium fundraising drive the "Drive to Distinction." The name stuck after the committee read that document, though we did not officially decide to use this as the Shorewood name until Jan, 2005 after brainstorming any number of other names including some clearer reference to Greyhounds or other Shorewood terms.

For those of you who could not attend, I will tell you the D2D listening session was very interesting and informative. Several readers contacted me after the meeting regarding the article written about the event. Their questions specifically related to one aspect of the D2D presentation at the meeting. The article on the event said the following.

--------------------

Residents back D2D's request for funding

ShorewoodNOW, 6/25/07

"Sean Cummings, who spoke on behalf of D2D, said that upon completion of the facility, it would like attract new families to Shorewood.

Cummings said if four new families with two children moved into Shorewood each year and those children attended Shorewood schools, it would generate more than $11 million in revenue for the district."
----------------------

I contacted Mr. Cummings yesterday to seek clarification on the statistics behind this calculation. Here is his response.

-----------------------
From: Sean Cummings
Date: 6/26/07

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your interest in and support of D2D. I will drop a sign off at your home in the next few days.

It is my understanding that the average benefit to the school district of a student is $140,000. This assumes the child stays in the system the entire 13 years (K-12).

This is how the funding was calculated.

If D2D attracted (or retained) 4 incremental families (2 child avg.) per year for 10 years to Shorewood schools it would result in $11 million in increased funding:
per student value (K-12) = $140,000
4 families x 2 students = 8 students
8 students x $140,000 = $1,120,000 for each set of 8 kids in the system for 13 years
$1,120,000 over 10 yrs. = $11,200,000 assuming a new set of 8 kids entered into the system each year for 10 years and stayed the entire time

In summary, this assumes that 80 new kids (8 kids per year x 10 years) come into the system and stay the entire time. 80 x $140,000 = $11,200,000 over 10 years or 1,120,000 per year

Cut the assumption in half to just 2 families and D2D still delivers $5.6 million over 10 years or $560,000 per year

This numbers assumes a flat rate benefit per student, state formulas are very complex. I cannot begin to figure out all of these scenarios. This was intended to illustrate the directional power of increased (or declining) enrollment on school funding and the need to implement bold, visible changes to our schools to attract additional residents. If D2D prevents some families from leaving the system it is equally valuable. There are just two ways to keep our schools strong, one is to raise taxes and the other is to increase enrollment. As a tax payer and resident I like D2D because it provides a very visible investment in the community, utilizing primarily privately raised funds, that will appeal to prospective home buyers and renters.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sean
------------------------------

1. In the D2D response, I saw no mention of the $600,000 that the VIllage of Shorewood was expected to put up. Somewhere, I saw a statement that village tax payers would pay about $200 for each $300,000 assesment. If D2D is a privitized approach to upgrading athlethic facilities, why should the local gov't subsidize the effort to the tone of $600,000? Why can't this be a loan to the School Board to be paid back to the Village at $60,000 a year from future private donations? Does the $11,000,000 for eight students in school come from State collected taxes. Will Shorewood residents, get hit by State taxes as well as School taxes and additional Village taxes. I thought CDA efforts were to reduce tax, why are the members now encouraging increase in taxes? Why should empty nesters and people without children and seniors who will no longer have children have to pay additional taxes to support new sports buildings? Why don't the families with the children make their contributions on a private basis? I believe that those people who are against subsidies of other sorts and are all for privatization should go all out to keep this a private project in order to prove that privatization can work. I don't believe sports to be necessary for eduaction, in fact it works against good education and diverts the attention of our young. I'm not giving my name because those who attack certain blogs won't give theirs."
- Anonymous, 6/27/07

From Steve: Some of these issues were covered in the actual presentation that day. I will try to post some of the actual materials from the D2D committee, which answers some of these questions.

2. A - What was the calculation behind $140,000 (is this net present value?), or w

In response to my post about Tim's comments on the Library, I received this comment. The comment is topical and timely, given tonight's events, so am highlighting it.

------------------------------
Go for it, Tim! This is still a vital topic for discussion. We should have learned from the failures in the library planning and execution--and those lessons should be reflected in the planning and execution of the athletic field renovation/beautification/dome project. Unfortunately, so far that doesn't seem to be the case.
- Anonymous, 6/22/07
-----------------------------

Links
1. Tim's Post
2. My Response

Tonight at 6:30 PM at SIS, there is a listening session concerning whether the Village Board should contribute to the renovation of the athletic facilities. I will bring you whatever information I obtain on either side, and will recap the evening in a later post.

For now, here are some electronic materials I obtained which are being distributed by those in favor of the Village Board's contributing the money to the fundraising effort.

---------------------------------

Why Support D2D?

Vibrant communities don’t develop by accident. They take vision, commitment and investment. The Drive-To-Distinction (D2D) campaign is a bold initiative designed to make a major contribution to the quality of life of all Shorewood residents for decades to come.

Athletes and those families interested in athletics support this initiative. This is not a surprise to anyone. What is less obvious perhaps is why every Shorewood resident benefits (see summary list below) by implementing these plans. You should support D2D if you believe our schools are a significant, contributing factor to the health of our community. You should support this initiative if you are tired of the academic program cuts in our schools. You should support D2D if you believe in physical education or combating the rising problem of childhood obesity. You should support this project if you are a Shorewood resident with children at St. Roberts today, with plans to attend Marquette High or DSHA. You should support this project if you like the idea of a summertime farmer’s market or a Seniors Walking Club in the middle of winter. If you are a landlord, business owner, empty nester or senior citizen with no direct interest in the schools, recreational and social activities, you should support this project. Finally, if you are a property owner and taxpayer you should definitely support D2D.

The single largest reason that people choose to live in Shorewood is the quality of our schools. Families move to Shorewood, raise their kids and become the next generation of empty nesters, senior citizens and shoppers. We must continue to fill the pipeline with that next generation of Shorewood residents or the quality of Village life will diminish over time.

Like it or not, we are in competition with other school districts and communities for residents. Young families who are considering a move from other countries, US cities or Wisconsin communities often come to town and visit three, four or five communities prior to making a decision on where to rent or buy a property. They may make two or three visits to various school districts in a single day. We often get just one chance to make a good first impression. Shorewood High School is the gateway to our community and we don’t have great “curb appeal”. Our neoclassical buildings are impressive however a closer inspection reveals a facility that is tired and underwhelming. Facilities sell and we are sending a signal to prospective residents that we are not looking forward and investing in our future. Our competition: Whitefish Bay, Nicholet and Mequon, to name just a few, continue to invest in new facilities.

Shorewood must attract new families to our community at an accelerated rate if we are to reverse the tide of declining enrollment. We cannot continue to enjoy the benefit of a world-class school system without doing one of two things: increase property taxes or increase enrollment. Did you know that each additional student who enters and completes K-12 in the Shorewood system generates $140,000 in funding? We would inject an additional $11 million into the school system if D2D helped to attract or retain just 4 families (2 children avg.) per year over each of the next 10 years. Cut that assumption in half to just 2 families per year for 10 years and you generate more than $5 million to use in the classroom. In addition, an increase in the demand for housing would benefit property owners, area businesses and the Village tax base.

We must take bold, visible action if we are to attract more students into the school system, remove the pressure to cut programs or dramatically increase school revenue through referendum. Nobody would dare to suggest that D2D is a panacea for all of our fiscal challenges however we can reduce the magnitude of future funding requirements by implementing these plans. Certainly residents will always have the ability to reject a school referendum however seniors, empty nesters, business owners, landlords and Village representatives all understand that there is no free lunch. Surely all Village residents realize that a declining school system is not good for Shorewood? A decline in the reputation of our schools would ultimately lead to a fall in demand for rental units, reduced housing values, declining business success and tax revenue. We cannot save our way to prosperity. We must spend some money to make money. This project will deliver tremendous value, especially

In case you would like to see what is going on with the athletic field renovations, or find out about how to donate to the fundraising campaign, the website is:

http://drivetodistinction.org/

Shorewood Resident Jim Genthe has this appropriate question about the planned renovation of the Shorewood athletic complex.

------------------------------------------
...a DOME?????????


-----------------------


Plan includes dome

"The project, as shown in Monroe's presentation, also features a dome over the artificial turf field."

Comments

1. "First off Shorewood needs an athletic team to use the proposed dome."
- Ron Deichler Class of 70, 11/15/06

2. "One of my friends saw your entry and told me "In answer to your dome question, it's a good idea because the project is going to be privately funded and a dome would let the SHS soccer season start earlier, end later and the village could rent out the facility to other soccer clubs and for other uses."

Apparently, this dome would be enclosed, heated and air-conditioned! I had just two words for him: SOCCER USA, the building on Port Road and Capitol Drive, which is now a vegetable delivery warehouse if I recall correctly! Why is it, when folks see the word 'free', they can't seem to look past that and see the annual small fortune involved in upkeep, heating and cooling an expanse like that in deference to the minimal amount it could return in rentals and any other uses?? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see people in this 'burb being enthused enough about a project this to make it fly! What say we just create a quality playing field, remove the 'splinter-factor' from the bleachers and call it a day??"
- Jim Genthe, 11/18/06

3. "Let's get this straight..... we have streets in Shorewood that are in dire need of repair, we have a police and fire station that is crumbling apart,and no money to do any of this. We have had budget crunching to the tune of actually losing village staff, and there is something on the table to build a dome over a high school athletic field?????? To whoever came up with this knit witted idea.... see that big lake on the east end of the village? Please go jump in it. "
- Domehead, 11/21/06

The Shorewood school district athletic complex is in desperate need of renovation. The article about the official launch of the fundraising drive is welcome news. While there will certainly be discussions about what exact design elements are appropriate, nobody can seriously argue that our current facilities are sufficient.

Here are some factors to keep in mind during what is sure to be lively and ongoing discussion:

1. It is one of the main entrances to our village. As it stands now, visitors entering Shorewood from the west are greeted by what is, in my opinion, the least visually appealing plot of land in Shorewood.

2. The need for renovation is a matter of safety. The field was not safe to play on back when I was in high school. I cannot imagine what it is like now. To this day, I have scars on my arms from being tackled at home football games. The field had roughly the consistency of poured concrete back in the mid-1990s.

3. Putting down artificial turf would allow greatly expanded uses of the field. I will be called names by football purists for advocating the use of artificial turf, but I am going to do so all the same. If we put down artificial turf, the field could theoretically be used 24/7 without degrading the playing surface. Many more organizations could use the field and contribute to paying for its upkeep. Examples include UWM team, Milwaukee Kickers, Messmer teams, adult flag football leagues, etc. In my view, this model would be much more sustainable from an economic standpoint than simply replacing the grass.

4. A new field would allow us to host expanded levels of competition. Regional track meets, and regulation soccer games cannot be held in our current facilities.

5. The improved facility could become another piece of our community center. As we look to restore Oakland and Capitol, this would provide another community space we could all enjoy. Some of the preliminary sketches of what the field could be are very visually appealing.

I will track down some of the pictures and post them here.