Turf life: 6, 8, 10 or 12 years?
My biggest concern with the turf -- and with all projects -- is spending. I want to know about initial and lifecycle costs. As such, there have been statements made during Council meetings that current turf products typically have eight year warranties, but are used for ten to twelve years.
That sounds reasonable, but I want to parse that statement a bit.
Beside assertions that the turf would definitely last eight to ten years or more, it's been stated that the turf would allow for 300 uses annually, but...
What is a use?
I distinctly recall a "use" being defined at a Council meeting a few years ago and a use is not a day. Rather...
1 use = 2 hours
So the Relay for Life is 12 uses. And how many uses is each game? 1 use or 2 uses? How about practice after school? If practice lasts for four hours, then that's two uses.
My point is this... I'm guessing that if the turf is installed, the school's AD will come under immense pressure to use the field more than the 300 uses. And if the life is ten years, but it gets 400 uses annually... does the field last only 7.5 years? Is the 8 year warranty invalidated due to excessive use?
Considering we'd be taking on a known long-term liability, I hope the BOE gets details on this.
Tim White
17 comments:
Pretty amazing that anyone needs to discuss what some item in a school budget would really be used for. Amazingly the discussion is about a football field which will be used 300 times a year. Now, having watched many, many footballs games it just causes one to wonder how long that field will need to actually accumulate 300 football games? If it's like the 8 year life of the turf that amounts to many thousands of dollars per game played.
The BOE and our town council sorely need to refocus their efforts away from much of what they do back to basics. It was nice that someone figured out how to offer some money to the town for an artificial turf field. It wasn't so nice that the money so offered was from the bankrupt state treasury and it is even less nice that so many of us seem to be acting like irresponsible, spoiled and totally predicable 5 years on this topic.
Get back to basics. Spend your time and our money on the basic education of ALL our children before their performance as measured against other nations slips even farther.
I keep asking this question and I am amazed that I haven't received a response from anyone on the BOE or TC.
Why aren't we checking with towns that already have turf and find out out what the actual costs are to maintain and how it is wearing after 1,2, or 3+ years? Are they happy with it? Do they wish they did something different? Are there any health concerns with their students?
Meriden, Hamden, East Haven, West Haven, Guilford all have turf. I tried going on the internet to find the costs, but I couldn't find them. I am sure BOE or TC members have an easier avenue of contacting these towns and finding out the answers. It makes sense since these towns are already living with it.
I do know that West Haven just replaced theirs last year after ony 8 years of use. I understand that was the old "Astro turf", not what the Cheshire turf committee is proposing. But they have now had the new turf in for 1 year, so I wonder how it is wearing.
Just ask the questions and perhaps we can all be happy.
September 30, 2010 10:26 AM
Good questions, but I'll be they did check with other towns and the answers didn't support their argument. In addition, we should find out what the other towns estimated the installation costs to be and what the actual costs were to complete the installation. I think the TC owes us these facts before they approve anything.
I think the turf committee shopped around to find a consultant that would give them the estimate they wanted. I just don't trust this gungho turf committee. According to them, everything is just rosey, it's all positive. Remember all the hype about the town pool? I can just see that if this is approved, they'll be crying that they need more money after they get the current field all dug up.
Ask how many members of the turf committee do not support the turf.
Ask the turf committee how many people/organizations that oppose the turf they invited to be interviewed or presented their opinions to the committee.
The original job of the committee was to determine if a turf field was feasible, not what it would cost
I've have some information to post up about the turf...some of it I repeated many, many, many times throughout Tim's blog over the last several months...but I also have more information to share.
The BOE is visiting West Haven High School to look at it's turf field and talk with the AD about costs be it maintenance, replacement...health concerns, injuries(increase or decrease), how much use did they get out of their old turf field, etc. As such, I'd like to post this information over the weekend.
When the turf committee solicited bids from engineering firms, almost all of the firms (including the one the BOE chose, Stantec, included costs from recent turf installations/replacements as close to possible to our requirements and size of the CHS field). Stantec was chosen because of their experience and attractive pricing (even though it's being paid for by donations from CEF).
Part of the problem with the Turf project, in general, has been that whatever detail exists is scattered about and not contained within one comprehensive plan. I think this is the direct result of having an advisory committee that has no official oversight and a BOE that never voted to accept the project. This is my opinion and I know some on the BOE disagree.
I find that it's easier to diffuse the anxiety and skepticism that builds when things (read facts) are not written down and made available for the public to read and interpret.
"I do know that West Haven just replaced theirs last year after ony 8 years of use. I understand that was the old "Astro turf", not what the Cheshire turf committee is proposing. But they have now had the new turf in for 1 year, so I wonder how it is wearing."
This is part of the reason why I want to have the BOE visit the turf field...one that's similar to our requirements, has had experience with it and can share facts about it's use and cost structure. Are our 'events' the same as theirs? Do they last 2 hours, 3 hours or perhaps 1 hour on average?
I agree that, in the end, the questions need to be answered, written down and disseminated and that's my goal for 10/21 meeting.
Perhaps Tim this may be a good opportunity for me to create a guest topic here and put together everything I know about the turf project in advance of 10/21.
I'll post more on the topic in the coming days.
Thx,
Tony Perugini
"Just ask the questions and perhaps we can all be happy."
All won't be happy with the answers, it's just not possible but I understand and agree with your points. Thank you.
"I just don't trust this gungho turf committee. According to them, everything is just rosey, it's all positive. Remember all the hype about the town pool?"
I think the turf committee has done a good job even though I don't necessarily agree with all of the members' comments. One in particular, from Bob Behrer, was classic. At a recent BOE meeting, Bob came to the microphone and during his commentary he stated "We (BOE) are now experts at installing turf fields". FALSE. Researching vs. actual experience leading the project from inception to post-installation are two very different things. But this is Bob getting happy/excited about the project. LOL.
No amount of rosy-glasses is going to change the fact that $49K > $16K. Without fund-raising, there's no savings. Accusing BOE members of stonewalling or being political does not change that fact. Reference facts, a presentation, a life cycle cost analysis sheet...maybe even a list of the 300 events (by category) that are being planned for the proposed turf field.
Wow, 40 new events we can charge money for and put the proceeds towards future turf replacement? Great! I'm excited...but what are these 40 new events? Point to an artifact with the information as opposed to the generic answer "We've had this answer for 2 years...you're stonewalling"...No, I want to know the details, don't make it personal, LOL.
My point is that the turf committee is a good group but the defense mechanisms need to be turned off. They were at 100% at the last BOE Planning meeting. I hope that's not the case on 10/21.
Tony
300 events? What are they smoking. I can't imagine much happening when school is out of session and that the field is used in the wintr with snow on the ground and there are so many other days when the weather is awful.
Good question Tony. What are all the supposed events and which ones would anyone pay for.
To listen to the turf supporters you would think the economy was on a tear. New track, press box enhancements, new locker room, and snack bar. Did I miss anything? We must have all of this right now or the town will be ruined and the sky will fall.
Tony,
You are doing a great job on the BOE. Keep up the good work. We need more people like you asking rational questions in a reasonable and responsible tone. You are standing up for all the folks not just some of the folks.
"To listen to the turf supporters you would think the economy was on a tear. New track, press box enhancements, new locker room, and snack bar. Did I miss anything? We must have all of this right now or the town will be ruined and the sky will fall."
In all fairness, the turf donors have raised an impressive amount of money in a short period of time: $220K in less than one year.
Additionally, many who have donated have come up to the microphone and pledged their support to donate money towards the replacement costs. Be it heads of youth organizations in town, individual donors and the like. Some have pledged $25K donations for long-term costs.
I think this is a great show of support. Question many have is: Will the same level of support exist over the next 10 years? I think this is a very valid concern because those same donors and same level of generosity may not be there every 10 years (give or take).
And I don't believe the donors/fundraising will cover the full cost of turf replacement. I do believe, however, that the fundraising can cover a good portion of it.
Essentially, fund-raising would need to produce about $50K a year (assuming 10 year average).
I don't advocate shifting the proposed savings of $13K out of the operating budget each year towards the replacement fund. This is a line-item in the funding plan. No grass field means no grass field maintenance costs so why would I budget grass savings for turf replacement?
So, in essence, the fundraising would need to be self-suficient i.e. no contributions from the BOE operating budget...particularly maintenance accounts.
If and when the Turf needs replacement, whatever money hasn't been raised to cover the cost should be a capital item assuming it meets the threshold.
Assuming a worst-case scenario...say fundraising raises $300K out of $500K over 10 years. The BOE would need $200K. It goes to referendum...and fails. What then? Use the field until it's no longer safe to play on and cancel sports activities that utilize the turf field.
Tony--I appreciate your comments hear and agree that you are a huge asset to the BOE.
I am happy to hear that you are going to meet with West Haven officials to discuss their turf. I don't know how long this "newer" turf hads been around, but I don't think it has been available long enough to tell how long it would really last. I would be curious to know what they were told the life expectance of their previous turf, that lasted 8 years, actually was.
I would also ask them the costs for replacing the rubber crumb each year.
They probably have a lot of issues with seagulls flying over the field, so they can tell you the costs and frequency of disinfecting the field.
With the additional "uses" of the turf, is the Relay for Life included? Are they going to allow tents to be put up on the turf? Wouldn't that do damage?
Are any members of the Turf committee or the TC going to West Haven?
Thanks Tony!!
I always figured that if i pay $5 to get into a game, that money is for the purpose of helping to pay for the event costs. If there are 40 new events, how much of my $5 will go to the turf? I would think none of it as again there will be costs associated with the event....if there are 20 new junior football games - do we charge the league to play there to offset all the costs and then put my $5 towards turf expenses? Who pays to go see an 8-12 yr old play football anyways..if you dont charge the league or the fans, then thats 20 new events that don't produce turf money...there needs to be a calculation put on my $5 so that we can tell how much per ticket the turf project will get based on the new events.
Tony was elected to ask the hard questions and to see that our tax money is well spent. He's doing a great job in digging for the facts so that sensible decisions can be made. I like his ability to look at not only the good but the ugly and to give us the information.
"I don't advocate shifting the proposed savings of $13K out of the operating budget each year towards the replacement fund. This is a line-item in the funding plan. No grass field means no grass field maintenance costs so why would I budget grass savings for turf replacement?"
EXACTLY!! There is no savings if you're just shifting money around.
And I'd question this $13K savings number because if you look at the "water usage" number in the budget you'll see that some how it just doubled from the year before. Now that's creative accounting!
"EXACTLY!! There is no savings if you're just shifting money around."
There will be savings if the fund-raising fully pays for the turf replacement at no cost to the town. It's possible but I'm not going depend on that being the case in 8-10 years simply because the donor base that exists today, and their generosity, may not be there in 8-10 years. We just don't know. But, besides donations, part of the fund-raising for turf replacement includes some arguable items such as charging an extra $1 on tickets for the 40 new events being planned for the turf field. Selling banners, soliciting donations, pledges from almost all of the local youth organizations.
Frankly, I'd consider it a win if after 10 years it cost us $130K (taxpayer money) to replace the turf because this is what it's costing us now (~$13k/year).
I believe that some, maybe most of the $500K est turf replacement will be paid for by this plan. But I believe the town will be on the hook for a portion of it. It all depends on what happens with the fund-raising over every 8-10 years. I just don't know. I don't have a crystal ball.
The question I have is: Will the perceived value generated by the turf, to the town, offset the portion of the turf replacement cost that we'll be on the hook for in 8-10 years? I'd like to think so but then again the one fact we do know is that the turf field will need to replaced and that will depend on a number of factors including uses.
"And I'd question this $13K savings number because if you look at the "water usage" number in the budget you'll see that some how it just doubled from the year before. Now that's creative accounting!"
I asked Dr. Florio to break out the water bills by field because we also have practice fields that get watered at CHS. And water usage has indeed gone up over the last few years to maintain the fields. But water is only one component of the 'savings' or maintenance of the football field. Fertilizer, seeding, patching, sanitizing, painting are some others that make up the number. I do anticipate some savings in personnel, albeit small, due to the fact that the turf field requires much less maintenance than grass. In fact, I'll venture to say that the maintenance of turf could be done by parks and rec. Sweeping the turf doesn't take significant effort or time, LOL.
Hope this helps. And thanks for the positive comments. If nothing else I'm trying to get information into your hands so that you can make an informed decision/opinion. I feel that the Turf Committee should be on this BLOG doing the same if not more to answer the questions being posed here.
Tony
I do anticipate some savings in personnel, albeit small, due to the fact that the turf field requires much less maintenance than grass. In fact, I'll venture to say that the maintenance of turf could be done by parks and rec. Sweeping the turf doesn't take significant effort or time, LOL.
Are you sure they'll be a savings in personnel? With 300 events the AD might need some additional personnel to coordinate and schedule all these extra events. And as I understand it, sweeping the turf has to be done regularly so someone will be moving that machine over every inch of that turf after events (not much different than someone riding that lawn mower over every inch of the grass field). Some one will have to apply the disinfectant to kill any bacteria after events. Maybe we'll even need someone to walk the field to inspect it for any tears or areas needing more of that crumb rubber.
Savings? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
With 300 events the AD might need some additional personnel to coordinate and schedule all these extra events.
It would increase events tenfold -- 30 to 300. And it may not be limited to scheduling 30 w/ natural and 300 with artificial. Instead, it may (or may not) be 30 events scheduled and a half dozen rejected on natural... and 300 scheduled with 50 rejected on artificial turf. And a lot of that might not be a big deal, such as with sports practices. But if non-profits want to schedule an event and they helped raise money... how does the scheduler turn them away? Do they continue raising replacement funds?
Whenever government services increase 10x, it's virtually certain that related services will cost more. There can be admin savings, tech savings, etc. But there won't be any savings related to scheduling... at least I don't see how that happens.
"Are you sure they'll be a savings in personnel? With 300 events the AD might need some additional personnel to coordinate and schedule all these extra events."
During my visit to the West Haven turf field yesterday I learned that maintenance of their turf field consists of sweeping it about one a month. The process takes between 45-60 minutes.
As for the maintenance equipment, they use a sweeper which is nothing more than an attachment that can be hooked up to our existing tractor. I doubt the sweeper costs more than $1K. The other attachment looks like a fertilizer spreader used to distribute the rubber infill. They have yet to use it. The field is one year old. In total, I'd be surprised if the maintenance 'equipment' costs more than $2K total.
As for events/staff. You have raised a valid concern. We met with the AD and the facilities manager for West Haven. Their turf field gets a lot of use and they do a fair share of field rentals for various college teams and some high school teams. The facilities manager seems to oversee the coordination of event planning. In our case, it would the AD.
The 300 event number is misleading. CHS had 90 events on the field last year. I know we plan to have 40 'new' events we can charge for. That's 130. I do know that a part of the 300 events are nothing more than practices that would normally occur on the practice fields. Because the practice fields are deteriorating, the AD wants to use the turf field for those teams until the practice fields can 'heal'.
I calculate that we'll have up to 200 events on the CHS field initially made up of existing events, additional practices and 40 new events. I see this number going down as the practice fields become healthy in year 2. In short, I don't believe we'll ever have 300 events.
West Haven has turned their field into a revenue generator since they're are able to rent it and charge for its use as time/scheduling accommodates.
I did see a dozen or so banners strung up along the field perimeter.
They spent $40K on a new scoreboard.
They have an 8 year old press box, no elevator. Instead, they built handicap-accessible locations on the bottom row of the bleachers. This was more than sufficient to meet CRA requirements...HMMM....so why was this solution good 8 years ago but not today?!?
West Haven paid $450K to install their field. They have an 8 year warranty which is the only warranty available. HOWEVER, they god rid of their rug-turf which was installed on top of a concrete base and thick rubber pad. They kept the concrete base and rubber pad so they only had to install turf over it. We have more work to do with the infill.
They were given a quote of $350K to replace the existing turf if it were to be replaced today.
I'll post up more details but I just want to point out a few of these items here.
But I seriously doubt we need extra staff to coordinate the turf field. I asked about this several times and I was assured that the A.D. can handle it and considering how I interpret the number of events to really be, he should be able to handle it.
But we now know that maintenance requires about 1 hours' work each month with turf, at least while its within warranty. This is consistent with the feedback we received from turf vendors and engineers.
But yes, I do expect personnel savings which is part of the $12,655 figure we're using.
I need to write up more detail and send it to Tim and figure out the best way to make it available here.
Thanks,
Tony
Post a Comment