Artificial turf OK’d for city school
A divided Charlottesville School Board on Thursday approved the installation of a synthetic turf field at Charlottesville High School, despite some members’ concerns about possible health and environmental risks.
“I’ve struggled a lot with this issue,” board Chairman Ned Michie said.
Charlottesville High School is one of four area schools seeking to install a synthetic turf field, with much of the cost being financed by an anonymous donation.
The anonymous donor who gave $325,000 each to Albemarle County’s Albemarle, Western Albemarle and Monticello high schools has also offered the same amount to Charlottesville High School.
Monticello was the first high school in the county to install the turf.
“I don’t feel like I’m doing this because it’s a fad or because it’s a new thing to do,” board member Juandiego Wade said.
City school administrators say it will cost between $600,000 and $700,000 to install the synthetic turf field at CHS. But because of a board direction to avoid crumb rubber infill, the cost could end up being more, said Beth Baptist, the school division’s director of special education and student services.
A 2007 analysis conducted by Charlottesville concluded that using synthetic turf for a football field, instead of grass, would save the city up to $12,000 a year in maintenance costs.
According to city schools estimates, turf maintenance would be far less than maintaining a grass field — over 25 years, grass maintenance would cost $837,283 compared with $182,338 for turf. But equipment replacement for grass, at $25,657, is far less costly than the $973,983 cost expected for the turf field.
The estimates assume that labor and materials costs would increase 3 percent each year and that the turf field would need to be replaced three times in the next 25 years.
Under the board’s approval, the money required for the new field must be raised privately and the fundraising must be completed by Dec. 1, 2010.
The board also required that the public be made aware of the cost and potential health implications, and whichever product is selected must be approved by the body.
Some board members were adamant that there is insufficient information about the synthetic turf.
“There are no short cuts for doing things the right way,” said board member Kathleen Galvin, one of two members to vote against the synthetic turf. “We simply do not know the consequences over time.”
Board member Colette Blount added, “Anything less than 100 percent in the long term we cannot support.”
The board on Thursday also passed a resolution apologizing for its role in Massive Resistance, the failed attempt in Virginia to keep public schools from becoming integrated in the 1950s after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education deemed racial segregation illegal.
The action mirrored that of the City Council, which passed a similar resolution Oct. 5. Copies were given to the 12 black students — at Lane High School and Venable Elementary School — who integrated the city’s schools on Sept. 8, 1959.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
It is simply amazing to me to see and hear about all of the negatives about real grass and synthetic grass. Some very basic comparisons that are simply common sense. One real grass needs water, fertilizing, cutting and needs to rest between events or it turns to dirt plain and simple. Two Synthetic grass has gone from Nylon in the 1970’s called Astroturf then to the system that is 2 1/2” tall filled with sand and ground up tires or even one comment above called ecofill. Again it is a total joke that everyone relies on these infill products on a 30-40 ounce face weight turf that they call synthetic turf. I call it playing on the infill and not even close to grass. Everyone is worked up about Gmax and there is non of that when the infill migrates to the sides of the field. The system that has been used the last 20 years is not PROVEN JUST ACCEPTED. The new GEN-5 system is by far superior, safer, no infill and the athlete is playing on the fibers not the infill which creates less injury and a faster field. Plain and simple. All of these so called gurus on real grass and synthetic grass do not even know what they are talking about. There agenda is all greed driven and how they can just take money from society and then blame someone else. I am hopeful that the shcool district reads this comment and emails me so they can truly be educated and informed as I am not a salesman or guru,just a very successful business owner that educates and informs. It is obvious that infill products of any kind are not the answer to the synthetic turf issue. The fertilizers, pesticides and water from real grass contaminates to soil so who is right. In my opinion the GEN-5 system takes care of both issues and is 100% recyclable, evironmentally proven and play on the fibers which emulate real grass without the injuries or contamination of the soils. KEEP IT SIMPLE AND DON’T LET the so called experts, salespeople blow smoke. The school district needs to perform their do diligence and do not settle for a company that promotes installing 3000 terrible fields filled with crumb tires. Do landfills accept old tires?, so why grind them up and put them in synthetic fields. Finally, keep the fertilizer and pesticides on the shelf. Have a great day and I would like to have someone from the school, newspaper, so called turf guru’s etc. email me to learn more. Thank you for your time.
Can someone please explain the “new math” to me here?
According to the article, the city schools’ estimate is that grass fields would cost $837,283+$25,657 = $867,940 total maintenance and equipment over 25 years. Over the same period of time, turf would cost $182,338+$973,983 = $1,156,321 total maintenance and equipment.
This means that the turf actually costs $293,381 MORE than the grass over those 25 years (roughly $11,735 more per year).
So how exactly is the turf supposed to save money?
There are synthetic turf products available that meet EcoSafe and Environmentally Sustainable needs. Turf fibers which are lead free, backing materials that use no Urethanes and infill materials composed of ground organic materials treated with a chemically bonded anti-microbial to preclude decomposition and at the same time control mold, mildew, fuingus and kill bacteria (including the dangerous staph bacteria MRSA). These products are not only available they have been and continue to be installed in day care centers and for recreational playgrounds and sports fields. The turf is very dense and hence does not require the 9 pounds of infill of some of the competition - also because of this density (and the albedo of the infill - it is light brown) the heat island effects of the turf are reduced by some 20 degrees. Unlike the competition you see none of the infill and hence there is no fly out and kids do not haul any of the infill home. On our system we run on the grass not on the infill - this also reduces player injuries since the torsional resistance of the turf is almost identical to natural grass. Ball roll and ball bounce are also almost identical to natural grass hence training and/or playing on the artificial surface does not require player adjustments when moving from natural grass to the synthetic turf surface. Unconvinced is certainly correct in his final statement (below) that you will hear none of this from the “big boys” in the industry - they are still claiming that everything is OK - even though the new “sand coated” infill is nothing more than coated silica sand (CA Prop 65 issues). For more detailed information please visit www.targapro.com or e-mail me at turfboss@targapro.com.
People are too quickly jumping on the fake turf bandwagon. NYC and other areas that quickly jumped aboard have since discovered that turf fields get very hot—up to 160 degrees Farenheit!—which is well over the 115 degree threshold at which dehydration, heatstroke and thermal burns can occur. So, people have to shift games and practices there not due to wet weather, but to hot and sunny weather. Much of the heat island effect of turf flelds is due to using crumb rubber from recycled tires as a cushioning device. The black crumb rubber really soaks up the heat, and also contains elevated levels of lead, a neurotoxin that is particularly (and permanently) harmful to developing children if ingested. So, a kid tracking crumb into the house on her cleats or in her hair is bringing home a load of lead for baby brother to eat and get brain damage from. Subsititutes for crumb rubber are in R&D (like a sand-based cushion), but are not yet widely available and well-proven. And even without crumb, the plastic grass blades trap lots of heat (according to Columbia Univ.), in the absence of evaporation that occurs from natural grass. So, kinda funny, huh, that a climate change conscious city like Cville would go for this heat island trap—just the very opposite of a green roof. But don’t expect to hear this from the industry lobbyists who stand to benefit from heading down this road.
It’s my understanding that the rubber infill is what makes FieldTurf just about as safe as natural turf. If the City doesn’t use that, are they setting the stage for increased risk of injury? If that’s the case, keep the grass.
The turf WILL cost more long-term. It doesn’t last very long.
Advertisement