I don't know the exact cost, but I do know that SLR is going to do an itemized list. Um and I don't know that that itemized list would hold if you did them in separate times, but at least we'll have a picture of how much each component of that project would be. Yeah, I think the consensus discussion. No, Tim, did you have a question? >> Oh, no. Just comment. >> I was just going to say it's like bundling, right? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Mister. >> Um, just a quick question. You had that 36-hour estimate of usage? Um, my question is just is that CHS usage or is that like kind of townwide? All the programs >> that that is our sports programs, >> just us alone. Yeah, >> we were trying to see if Parisino can give an example of, you know, just us using it.
Would it even meet >> the standard recommendation of grass? And now granted, again, I made the point I'm a soccer man. I prefer a grass field, but there's no way given all the other sports that >> it would be quite expensive to maintain. >> Thank you. >> So, Tim, >> thank you. Yeah, just uh to reiterate sort of my takeaway from what you were saying, from what we're hearing downstairs, the difference between if we didn't redo the artificial turf, what I'm calling basically maintenance, and we switched over to a natural grass, the two numbers I heard thrown down thrown out downstairs tonight was $2 million to redo the turf and the track versus $3 million actually, I think, just for the natural grass is what he was talking about. So regardless whether that's apples to apples or not, uh the natural gas natural grass would be sorry I have energy on my mind.
Um that would be 50 50% more expensive. And then he I think John Perino, the athletic director said 20 to 25 hours per week >> on natural grass versus 36 hours per week of use using the artificial turf. So you get 50% more use with the artificial turf and that time gets filled up, right? I mean, uh, or 50% and 50% more in cost for the natural grass. So that really doesn't make any sense to me just from an economic perspective or service perspective. Um, I would like to see this move forward and get done. I don't want to see the field effectively get shuttered. Um, one of the concerns that I sort of wrap my head around tonight in speaking with the expert there is the safety. So, we've been talking about this in terms of a safety issue and it was described in terms of GMAX as well as a few other measurements that can be used for it.
But what struck me was uh the higher the number, the more dangerous it is, the more compacted it becomes. The number 200 is like hitting concrete. Uh the numbers that we're not supposed to exceed are around 180 or maybe 165. So it's a little bit softer than concrete. The natural grass, the number they were saying was 135. So it's significantly significantly softer than the artificial turf. And the issue with the artificial turf, which I really did not understand at all tonight about how this would work, but it basically has to do, I think, and Mark, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but basically the crumb rubber, so it kind of gets kicked up and out over time off the field. There's less of it. There's less infill. Um, and >> and if it's not wellmaintained, it can it can get compacted as well. >> It gets Okay.
And it gets compacted and so it becomes more akin to concrete than natural turf. So that's where we are right now. And it also is not uniform across the entire field. When we do the testing that's been mentioned, it's actually 10 different tests done at different places around the field. And certain places are do get more compacted like the center of the field gets a lot more used in general probably across all sports. And therefore it gets more compacted there than other parts. Um I just wanted to offer that in case anybody else didn't understand because I didn't have any understanding about all that until tonight. Regardless, I would like to I would like to see this move forward and I know it got rejected at referendum last year. Um I hope that uh I hope that it can move forward. Um and I do, as I mentioned in a maybe it was a month ago, I really would like to get an explanation from I I would like the public to get an explanation from council leadership about sending it out and not following up on it at all.
And then several referenda failed. Um, I think that's unfortunate, but I do think that that creates a higher hurdle for the board of ed to get this uh to get the turf done if it ever happens. And it may not because the voters have said no once. Um, so that's it for me. Thank you. >> I I think the consensus though, Mr. destroy if you all agreed that the language and thank you Emily for you know moving forward looking into the potential of ensuring that the language on the referendum is a there's initial public awareness um and that we're explaining it critically it's you know let's bring up the parking lot again right that we um really prioritize in explaining it properly so that the public doesn't get confused as to really what they're voting for too. And then, you know, outlining also the expense plus the impact on taxes, too.
So, I want to thank you in advance. Um, I know you're going to um, you know, move forward with trying to figure out a way for us to do that. So, appreciate it. >> Any other items we might have missed? I don't think so. >> I don't think so. >> Excited about the wait room? >> Yes, >> for sure. >> Yes, that's going to be a great addition. >> Awesome. >> Yeah, one. >> Thank you. Yeah, you mentioned the the parking lot. Yep. And that was I voted for it and I may very well be sending it uh that got rejected by the voters. I may very well end up vote to send that back out to referendum. Um I do want to make one point though about that. I when we discussed it a year ago, my feeling where my focus was was the loading dock right outside the cafeteria and the problems associated with that.
And it wasn't the parking lot. Um, so that's bad on me. Um, but I want to highlight that for the voters because I don't recall the loading dock being a significant part of the public discourse last year with regard to that one particular referendum and I think that that's the loading dock was the important part for me, not the parking. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> I think that was it for planning. Thank you Emily again. Um, policy is next. Mr. Ar, you're still on. >> Okay. We got a couple of things. The uh, first off, the we talked at length about the undocumented student policy and we I want to make sure that uh, we discussed in committee that we wanted feedback from the full board. So, if you get some time, take a look at that policy. We are uh somewhat on the fence I I would say about whether we actually need to put the implement the policy and we are looking for feedback from from the board in general.
So before we you know that's at its second second reading. So, um, >> is there anything specific you want us to hone in on or just the idea? >> Just the idea of having it, you know, we we we took some of the, uh, some of the language that that Cab had in their model policy out and as we as we've reviewed it and we've discussed it, um, I don't know if we need it. um the uh the administration and the administer administrators in the the individual schools know what their responsibilities are uh should should ICE come to the school. Um, and I don't know that having the policy, if you read the policy, I don't know that it does anything for us. And we we discussed at length whether uh having more policy is a problem than having less. So, uh, it's it's a relatively short policy.
>> Mr. White, thank you. >> Yeah. So in terms of feedback, I had uh I spoke with Matt Kler Kolar about it. Uh so thank you for that and he explained it to me from his perspective. I think I don't want to speak for him, but my words based on what we talked about. Um a lot of the stuff in there in the policy is makes sense, but I'm going to be really blunt about it. I see the name of it being undocumented students. We have President Trump who is I think he's pretty well known for being vindictive. And my simple question is if we have if we're doing everything like Mark I think Mark was saying like our principles know what they're supposed to do then we're adopting a policy that literally I just wonder does it turn us into a sanctuary city and then all of a sudden we have $2 million of federal funding at risk again.
Just to be really direct and blunt about it. I just don't see that's where I see something like this going. Well, we don't and one of the interesting things we don't know if any of the students are undocumented as a school as a school system kid has an address registers for school. That's we don't ask them if they're they're undocumented or not. >> Would this change that? >> No. >> Okay. So, it has no impact on that. So, I I appreciate what you're saying. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. I, you know, I I want the superintendent to do what he needs to do to obey and enforce the law. I don't want to I'm not a big I'm not a big fan of this enforcement this mass deportation policy to be blunt about it. Um, I want to see the worst of the worst deal with.
Um, but having said all that, I uh, as I said, I just don't if there's if we're doing everything in the policy already, I feel like this literally creates a risk for us in terms of federal funding. I I truly believe that and that's why I don't support moving forward with it based on what I know about it. Thank you. And >> I would just add another uh way to look at it though, Tim, and that would be um if it just makes one, two families, three, I don't know how many. If it just makes one family feel a little bit better because they know that we have a policy on what what to do with undocumented students. Um, I think there might be a reason to have a policy on the books, but that's that's one way of looking at it. >> Any other comments?
Mr. Collard, you had a comment. >> Yeah. Uh, I think as you all know, I'm on the policy committee. Uh, this is one I do not think that we should adopt. uh my reasons why with my operations and and business background anytime I make a decision in any walk of life I think why are we doing this what does it improve what's the return on investment um what risks are we mitigating by making this decision um and and when I put it in that frame of reference for the board adopting this I I can't come up with a good reason why this is a good policy to to do that um Dr. Solen has stated in policy committee meetings. I he may have even stated it in full board meetings that all of the things in that policy are things that we're doing anyway, right?
That that is how that we how we would handle that situation. And so the policy doesn't fundamentally change the way that we would operate. The state doesn't mandate a policy like this and so we don't have to ma to adopt it to be compliant and there's no tangible benefit to that. um you know we're not improving compliance even with the law because again Dr. Solen has assured us the policies that the procedures that they would follow comply with the law. I spent the better part of an hour today in preparation for this discussion with the assistance of AI um going through and trying to figure out where where are boards of ed and towns liable for situations like this where policies have have burned them. And uh a lot of what I found is not the actual event that happened and how the event rolled out.
It was how the event rolled out in difference from the policy. Even in 2000, there was a lawsuit uh Southernington Board of Ed and it wasn't about hey, I don't like what happened. It was you didn't follow the policy. Right? So whether or not the outcome and the process was sound, it was you didn't follow the policy. Um and so you know that that's my issue with this adopting this policy to me has no upside given that you know Dr. Solen and team are going to handle this according to the way that the policy would be written. Um and I wouldn't want our community to pay for the consequences of us doing something that we we really don't need to do doesn't fundamentally change change our approach to the situation. Um and you know Dr. Higan, I I think that's the second or third time you've mentioned if it makes one person feel better, but you know, we're charged with the good of all students.
And you know, if we wanted to do or something that made one or two people feel better, most of the people that showed up for redistricting didn't support the decision that we made. And so we could have made a decision that made one or two of those people feel better, but we went with a unanimous vote on what is best for the community. And I think putting this policy in place is not what's best for the community because it doesn't fundamentally change anything and opens us up to potential litigation. You know, god forbid something did happen in this realm. And >> I'll just respond very quickly that none of your measurements took the human value into consideration in any way, shape or form. And I I do take the human impact into consideration. >> Yeah, I I I understand that. um you know, but there were humans here in other scenarios where we we didn't take that into consideration or or it wasn't the driving force of the vote.
And you know, I I I would welcome you in letting the board know which of those families you're informed about that would feel better about this. If it's some abstract idea, that's one thing. If it's a couple of families that are asking for this and concerned about this, that's an entirely different thing. And I and I may feel more about this the way that you do, but I I don't have any of that information to think that that would be true. I would also disagree with your um assessment of taking the human value into consideration because I things like um Ann Marie and I getting in our cars and spending some time driving those bus routes. We did take the human um consideration into our deliberations and we took it very seriously before but it was part of our of what we it's part of what we wanted to include as we were assessing and I you know I just feel that we shouldn't slight that part of the argument that we should always be talking about that as Well, >> I I did not to intend to imply that you did not take the human aspect into account on redistricting.
We we we certainly did. I commend you for that drive around. >> Well, I think we all did. I didn't mean to make it sound like we're the we're the saints in all this. I think we But we did. We >> I we some of us agonized over it a lot. I I know that uh I know that Heather did, for instance, >> and I'm and I'm all for helping as many people as I can, but in in my view, if you know, using your words, if there's one family, two family, three families that feel better about this, >> well, these are these are families these are people that I think feel very under attack right now in this in the climate that we're living in. And I I think it is important to make that consideration. That's all I'm saying. >> I think the other considerations that you bring forth are worth uh considering as well, but I don't want to forget that that human value.
>> Dr. Solen, to your knowledge, have we've received any correspondence specifically about this issue or concerns from community members? >> I have not. >> Um >> Miss Fitzgerald Thank you. Sorry. That's okay. Uh I have a question. Um appreciate the discussion. Um but just to like help me understand. So you know if we don't institute this policy and I get I don't want to open us up to any unnecessary uh you know issues of legality. But if ICE came to the school in pursuit of a potential undocumented student, does implementing the policy change anything that we would do if we didn't implement the policy? So everything would be enacted exactly the same. We would protect undocumented students in the same way if they came to the door. Got it. Thank you. >> Before you answer that, Dr. only if you are by definition what what is the policy any policy technically supposed to do >> generally provides guidance and parameters around how to navigate specific situations that are outlined in that policy.
>> So therefore based on her question or comment >> law supersedes everything though. So we could write all the policies we want. If they're contradicted by the law, we have to follow the law. >> Mr. Eki, did you make a comment? >> Um, something I neglected to mention. We asked uh Dr. Solen to uh survey area boards of education and uh Southernington, Wilut, Wallingford, Meridan, Handen, Bethany Prospect and region 16 and Waterberry do not have a similar policy. Correct. Stratford and Meridan do just to keep in perspective. >> Meridan's mentioned twice though on both sides of the aisle. >> Yeah, you didn't mention anything. Yeah, Meridan, I'm sorry. In the in the minutes, we have Meridan twice. Dr. S, do you recall if Meridan's in or out? >> They have the draft. They started a draft. >> I thought Meridan did have a draft. >> Not that I know.