Turf topic raised again for Greeley field
August 22, 2008
by Ann Marie Fallon
At a Tuesday, August 19 board of education meeting, Board President Jay Shapiro reported that a new group of residents has come forward with plans to privately fund a synthetic turf field on the competition field – the field surrounded by the running track—at Horace Greeley.
He stated that he wanted the board to hold off on any discussion of the merits of turf and instead examine the process by which they might go forward to consider it.
The issue of a turf field has remained relatively dormant since 2005. In September of that year, the board held a well attended public session to hear arguments for and against the plan. At that hearing, held at the Seven Bridges cafeteria, the 2004 Turf Committee reported to the community.
The advantages of a synthetic surface, they maintained, included longer playing seasons, uniform field conditions, and reduced maintenance requirements. Erik A. Kaeyer, of KG&D Architects, and Ronald C. Tetelman, a landscape architect with Eberlin & Eberlin, presented a proposed scope of work and a project budget. They estimated a total project cost of $1.4 million for direct and related costs – which included preparation work, drainage system upgrades, field equipment (goal posts and safety netting), surface installation and landscaping. They estimated the life of the turf surface as eight to ten years, with a replacement cost of approximately $300,000 in 2005 dollars.
A month later, on Oct. 10, 2005, the board voted three to two to continue consideration of a synthetic turf on the competition field at Horace Greeley, to be funded exclusively through donations to the district. The board’s facilities committee was to begin identifying the parameters within which the board might be able to accept a turf field as a gift. The board failed to develop the guidelines and the group that had championed the turf project never went forward.
Susan Haberman said that she believed the 2005 resolution was dated and that the board should look again at the resolution itself, as well as the issues of cost and replacement cost of turf as well as guidelines for fundraising that need to be addressed.
Janet Benton agreed with Haberman that the board should reconsider the 2005 motion and not just let it stand. She requested updates on issues including toxicity and environmental matters. “It is also important that the community be heard on this issue.” She also suggested that John Chow, assistant superintendent for business administration, gather information from other districts in the area that have recently installed turf fields.
Jeffrey Mester, the board’s vice president, weighed in as comfortable with the existing resolution, and urged the board to identify the issues and move quickly on this. Newest board member Gregg Bresner told his colleagues that the board “should accelerate focus on this issue,” and, in the process, get “a better handle on costs.”
Board President Jay Shapiro encouraged members to make time on the Oct. 14 agenda to hear public comment, then offer a new resolution and vote. Shapiro expects that the board will review all information generated by the first round of discussions in 2005 as well as receive additional information.
What do you think of having turf on the competition field? Click to tell us.
Click here for a printable view of this article.
Click here to read more Schools articles.Click here to read more Sports articles.
Click here to send a copy of this article via email.
We're interested in your opinion. Click here to submit a comment on this article, or any other.
