Turf kerfuffle sprouts in Falcon District 49

Falcon School District 49 has found itself in the midst of a turf war that’s become messier than a muddy football field in a rainstorm.

At the heart of the battle is the possibility that the board will vote to put artificial turf on the football field at the new Vista Ridge High School, an issue that it will take up at a special meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday.

But even before the district put out a request for proposals for the job, which it’s legally required to do, word spread that a Mississippi company was already at the head of the pack. Since then, mud has been slung, and rumors and speculation have spread faster than dandelions.

Among the accusations is that board president Anna Bartha had all but offered the contract to Environmental Turf Services of Madison, Miss., before last week’s posting of the request for proposals. Bartha said that’s not true, and Environmental Turf Services chief executive officer Jim Bateman said that as far as he knew, no one on the Falcon board promised his company the contract.

Nevertheless, Bill Fanning, owner of Copper Mountain Turf and Landscaping in Colorado Springs, was under the impression that the board was going to go with artificial turf and would award the job to the Mississippi company — a tidbit he heard from one of his customers who had heard it from an Environmental Turf Services representative.

So Fanning went to a school board meeting in mid-June, and the board let him talk. He ended up giving what amounted to a formal presentation, hyping the work his company has done around town. He turned in a tentative bid, good for 30 days, to the board. And he angrily criticized Environmental Turf Services.

Some members of the public who were at the meeting were stunned by the outburst.

“It was one of those surreal moments,” said Paul Fuschich, a Falcon parent and vice chairman of D-49’s Long Range Planning Committee who is familiar with the bidding process. “Nobody — the board or the board attorney — made the guy stop.”

Some board members also seemed taken aback, including Kent Clawson, who said he told Fanning “Though I appreciate enthusiasm you don’t need to beat the other guys up. If your bid is best, and it looks like it may be, it will rise to the top.”

Fanning said some parents thanked him for his low bid, but he agreed he might have gone too far.

“I admit my hairs were puffed up at that meeting. But I’ve done bids all over the state, and have won some and been beaten on some — and have never had anything like this happen in a school district.”

At least two factors indicate why some people may have been under the impression that Environmental Turf Services has an in with the district:

• Bartha had been in touch with the Mississippi company. In an e-mail response to questions from The Gazette, Bartha said she had heard good things about Environmental Turf, thought they had an "amazing" product and liked that they would help with fundraising to cover costs if there weren’t enough money in the budget for the project. When she learned the district was going to get estimates, she contacted the company to provide information on the district’s needs. But she said she made no promises or even suggested they had the inside track. “I would never promise anyone anything of the kind,” she wrote.” I try to hold myself to the highest ethical standards.” She also said she’d recuse herself from a vote if Environmental Turf is in the mix.

• The person who told Fanning that Environmental Turf Services had the job was a customer who said he been told by a representative from the company. Bateman said the rep was one of several independent contractors who promote his products and get referral fees.

“All those guys, I’m sure they aren’t above saying ‘I’ve got this one in the bag.’ But we know it’s only true when a contract is signed and delivered,” Bateman said.

All the drama over the battle of the turf might be for naught, because the district has yet to decide how it will fix the football field. During the June 17 meeting, D-49 chief operating officer Paul McCarty said reseeding would cost about $23,816 a year including water, fertilizer and other maintenance; resodding would be about $100,000, plus $23,000 yearly in upkeep; and installing artificial turf could cost $400,000 or as much as $800,000, but could be more cost-efficient in the long run.