TUHSD ATHLETIC COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Present:
Athletic Council: Monica Bonny, Ken Conroy, Pete Donoff, Corbett Elsen, Jamie Firmage, Jessica Peisch, Eric Saibel, Chad Stuart, Bob Walter, Susan Wirta, Sue Chelini
Guests: Peter Arnold, George Baranoff, Don Drake, Adam Farb, George Gazzoli
Drake Baseball Batting Cage
Summary of Discussion
Background:
· Drake has smallest school footprint of any District school. Athletic parity is always an issue because there is just not enough real estate.
· Drake’s baseball field is the smallest in the league and it is a challenge to have a productive day of practice for three teams every day. Fielding practice cannot take place while batting practice is going on.
· Drake’s three baseball teams are unable to practice every day thus affecting the competitiveness of their teams.
· The proximity of the baseball field to the football/soccer field and track creates a safety issue thus compromising the ability to fully utilize the baseball field during much of practice time. (Note: on Feb. 9, 2010, the second day of spring practice, several baseballs wre hit over the fence during batting practice and one baseball struck a girls’ soccer player in the arm sending the girl to the hospital. This event has put an even greater spotlight on safety and has caused additional restrictions to be put in place on batting practice.)
· Drake and Tam each have only one field to service three levels of baseball (V, JV, Frosh). Drake does have part-time access to the Red Hill field.
· The Red Hill fields cannot be used for lacrosse/soccer AND baseball simultaneously so baseball has had little opportunity to use the Red Hill facility.
· Before modernization, Drake had 6 basketball courts on which baseball could practice in good weather or rain. Now there is only one and it cannot be used for baseball. Drake baseball had been able to use the old basketball courts, demolished and replaced by the swimming pool, for drills and practice.
· Drake’s current batting area is inadequate, consisting of a 12’ x 65’ area connected to an old shed. It is used for pitching practice as well. There is a low roof ceiling that impairs practice.
· Drake’s baseball batting cage has not been modernized while all other schools have batting cages for baseball and softball.
· All other baseball and softball fields have fenced, unlighted batting cages with internal netting.
· After the 2006 bond, the Board of Trustees authorized $20,000 to design a baseball batting cage at Drake. Further commitment to construct the facility was tabled until the end of the bond projects.
Proposal:
· Drake originally proposed a 30’ x 75’ lighted batting cage with a shed roof and protective sides and 3 gates. It would be custom-built from tubular steel. The estimated construction cost of $200,000 included paving, fencing and electrical. Soft costs were not included.
· The architect has value-engineered the batting cage recently to be pre-fabricated with fenced siding and using channel steel. The width is 5’ narrower. The cost, excluding soft costs would be $50,000 plus another $50-60,000 for paving, electrical and fencing. It would continue to include interior channels for the netting.
· George Baranoff distributed a cost analysis including demolition and district-estimated additional allowances (change order, DSA, other allowances) which would bring the cost of the current proposal to $167,000.
Discussion:
· All sites appreciate the tremendous improvement of the athletic facilities as a result of modernization.
· The District is currently in final negotiations with pool contractors. Any amount of leftover bond funds won’t be known until that is completed. There are other programs in the pipeline for the end of the bond project at all three schools. The bond balance may be zero.
· An open structure (no roof, just fencing) does not require DSA approval.
· Lighting can be directed to minimize the effect on neighbors.
· Although funds were allotted at Tam and Drake for baseball field rental when the freshman teams were established, there are no baseball fields geographically available to rent.
Issues:
· Will there be any money left in the bond issue for Drake’s batting cage?
· Parity in facilities is an issue. If Drake has a covered, lighted batting cage, they will be able to practice more hours thus creating unfair athletic opportunity for one school over the other two.
· Tam also has a single field with significant drainage issues (tidal swamp). They do not have access to any other field similar to Red Hill. Five soccer and lacrosse teams share the football field and the extra grass space between there and the baseball/softball fields. Tam believes that the equity should not be in dollars spent, but it the end result of effective playing space.
· There may be gender equity issues with softball not having an equivalent facility even though they have a batting cage. There are fewer girls playing softball (two teams at Drake and Redwood, only one at Tam this year).
· Is there a way to retrofit existing fenced batting cages at all baseball/softball fields to add lights relatively inexpensively? Although it would be problematic, it may be possible to use a Musco system with directed lights on poles.
· Lighting and noise (pings from aluminum bats) will create issues with neighbors. There would need to be time limits even though baseball is not changing the use of the facility.
· What combination of baseball facility improvements would be fair to all and within District budget?
Bottom Line: The consensus of the Athletic Council was that modernization of Drake’s small athletic footprint has created unusual difficulties for Drake baseball. Drake needs adequate batting cage facilities for both safety and athletic parity. The ideal would be to find some compromise to provide a good batting cage for Drake and possibly retrofit those at Tam and Redwood.
2/2/10 TUHSD Athletic Council 1