Current news story on TURF FIELDS

A place to discuss issues relating to the Rockford School District, which serves the majority of Greenfield.

Current news story on TURF FIELDS

Postby Joe » Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:53 pm

A very timely article in this weekends Star Tribune discusses the whole issue of artificial turf fields (like the one this school district wants to spend almost a million dollars of our money on). Seems the TRUE COSTS are significantly more than they have been admitting - estimated to almost $80,000 per YEAR of the only 10 year life.

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/175030471.html

Good reading. The article discusses MANY schools using these fields, so it is not just one bad experience.
Joe
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:29 am

Re: Current news story on TURF FIELDS

Postby wastingmoney » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:51 pm

Uh oh ... the vote yes people won't like these facts.

So they're talking about it costing almost the same cost to build it in maintenance for the 10 years or less lifespan of the field. $80,000 PER YEAR in maintenance. Who could possibly think this is a good idea?
:bang :bang :bang

Here's an idea .. how about getting kids past their failing grades and finally meeting NCLB standards before worrying about sports BS. I'm sure this will crush the dreams of the 100's of kids that think they're going to be the ones to get the sports scholorships (and the money grabbing by those encouraging those stupid enough to think this is their path forward).
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Current news story on TURF FIELDS

Postby nikidog » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:39 pm

I found another interesting article about synthetic turf. The University of Arkansas’s Division of Agriculture article “Synthetic (Artificial) Turf vs. Natural Grass Athletic Fields” is also very informative about the downsides of turf fields. To see the article, visit http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html. According to the article, “It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free.” In fact, “ Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation.”

When it comes to maintenance costs, artificial turf fields are not much different from the cost of maintenance of natural grass fields. According to the above article, the Certified Sports Turf Manager at Michigan State University said “the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220.” The “typical maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960.”

On a side note: According to district Superintending Paul Durand, the Rockford School District spent $42,201 to maintain its sports fields over the summer of 2011(http://www.pressnews.com/articles/2011/03/10/greenfield/1greenfieldcc3-1-10.txt). That would mean that the district spent an amount of money ranging on the higher side ($42,201 out of range of $8,133 to $48,960) of what a university spent in a year to maintain its natural turf fields. And the school district spent that in amount only in the summer season, whereas, at most, Michigan State University spent $48,960 to maintain their grass fields over the entire year! I have to wonder why our district is spending that kind of money to maintain its current fields. Should we really be spending as much or even more than a university spends to maintain the fields we already have? That seems like a highly inefficient and overly expensive way to maintain fields. As a voter, I am not at all comfortable approving paying the district even more money for synthetic turf fields if they cannot maintain the fields they already have in a cost-effective manner.

Actually the long-term costs of synthetic fields are greater than the long-term costs of natural grass fields. According to the above article, artificial turf fields need to be replaced about every 8-10 years. Moreover, “in a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013.”

So, assuming the November 2012 Rockford bond referendum passes and the district spends the proposed $900,000 for their synthetic turf stadium, in another 8 or 10 years they’ll likely be asking voters for an additional $900,000, give or take, depending upon how much of that $900,000 is spent on the synthetic turf alone, to replace this synthetic field, plus an additional amount of $65,846 to $109,103 every year, for the next 16 years, depending on which type of synthetic turf the district chooses.

And once the Rockford School District replaces their original synthetic turf field 8-10 years down the road, they will have to dispose of the old, original field. This will not be cheap. According to the same article, “Because the [synthetic] field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.”

So now, on top of the original $900,000 for the district’s synthetic turf stadium, there is the potential of spending $65,846 to $109,013 every year for the next 16 years (65,846 x 16=$1,053,546; $109,013 x 16=$1,744,208), approximately $900,000 to replace this field in 8-10 years, plus at least another $130,000 to dispose of the original field. That’s $2,983,546 to $3,674,208 by the year 2029 (assuming they build the original synthetic turf stadium in the year 2013)!

I would love to see the district suggest how using artificial turf would save taxpayers money over natural turf, factoring in all the maintenance and other costs related to these two types of turf. It would be hard to pull off that math.

And it’s not just cost issues that are a concern with this turf stadium. Artificial turf fields also pose safety issues to the athletes who use them. According to the same University of Arkansas article “There are data indicating that the traditional artificial turf fields increased athlete injury, primarily due to increased surface hardness.” It should be noted that “There is a lack of research comparing injuries incurred on new in-fill artificial fields vs. natural grass fields.” However, the tentative research here suggests that artificial turf fields may result in a higher rate of injury among athletes.

Moreover, a 2006 survey of NFL players suggest that these players thought that synthetic turf was harder on their bodies than natural grass turf. They were asked “Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on?” In response, “Five-percent felt like natural grass systems increased fatigue, while 74% felt that artificial turf systems were more responsible for fatigue. Twenty-one percent felt they were the same. Moreover, “In the open comments section of the survey, the most common comment was to ‘make all fields grass to prevent injuries.’”

I figure if grass fields are the preference of most NFL players, then grass fields ought to be good enough for student athletes.

Injuries are not the only safety issue for players. Infections are also a risk. According to the article, “In a report titled ‘Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection From Turf’, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals.” The reason for these infections is clear: “These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the risk of infection that might occur off the field from infections.”

To prevent these infections, “In-fill systems must now be routinely treated with special disinfectants to reduce the likelihood of infections, adding another cost to the maintenance of these fields.”

The greatest danger posed to athletes by synthetic turf fields is the fact that these fields can produce very high temperatures while players are on them. In fact, “Artificial field surface temperatures have been documented as high as 199°F on a sunny day with an air temperature of 98°F.” Additionally, “Brigham Young University reported that the surface temperature of a synthetic football field on campus averaged 117°F, with a daily high of 157°F.”

One proposed solution to the high-heat risk posed by these fields is irrigation. However, “Researchers at Penn State University studied the effect of using irrigation to reduce surface temperatures of synthetic fields and discovered that temperature could be decreased with irrigation, but the effects were short-lived (20 minutes).”

Due to the heat risk of synthetic fields, “an artificial field will remain largely unusable during warm days.”

Unsurprisingly, temperatures ranging from of 98°F to 199°F compromise the safety of athletes on synthetic turf fields. As would be expected, “practicing on an artificial field could increase the incidence of heat stroke, muscle cramping, and overall athlete fatigue. Coaches holding practices on synthetic fields will need to monitor athlete health more closely and will need to limit the duration of practices on these surfaces to reduce the risk of athlete injury.”

I wonder if some of the relatively recent reports of NFL players suffering heat strokes during practices could be due to synthetic fields.

So, the District proposes spending, at the bare minimum, $900,000 for a synthetic turf stadium that will require more and more costly maintenance than the current grass field, like need replacing within the next decade, one that would be unusable on hot days, and one that poses potential safety hazards to the student athletes who would use them? This sounds like a terrible idea in so many respects.
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: Current news story on TURF FIELDS

Postby jewels » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:47 am

Check with ANY surrounding community with TURF....Wayzata's field was one of the first and it said to only have a 10 yr life....its been there for 13 and the ONLY reason they are replacing it is because the Wayzata parent want logos on their field like Hopkins and Minnetonka...otherwise the 10 year field is still good after 13 yrs. PLUS check it out....the safety of the players over the past 13 years has gotten better! ROCKFORD ROCKETS PREVAIL!!
jewels
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Current news story on TURF FIELDS

Postby wastingmoney » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:56 pm

Fine. Not a penny of money for maintenance on this field for the next 10 years.

Let's see how much it REALLY costs us. How many teachers will we have to get rid of to pay for that?
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm


Return to Rockford School District

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron