[No. 26] Maysville, Ohio: Winds rip through turf field (September 2008).

[No. 25] Brookfield, Conn.: HS turf in need of repair after 2 years (September 2008).

No. 24  St. Charles Parish, New Orleans: Plastic fields need watering, too! (ugust 2008).

No. 23  Brookfield, Conn.: Brookfield High's turf unplayable after a couple of years (August 2008).

No. 22  Liverpool, NY: Team has no home field, as 10-year old turf rots away (July 2008).

No. 21  Boston, Mass.: Saunders Stadium turf carpet dies after 5 years, $500G to replace it (June 2008).

No. 20  After 8 years, Wimberley (Texas) High's TurfField surface is worn out, fails safety requirement (June 2008).

No. 19   Drainage woes with turf field in Texas (May 2008).

No. 18   Boston University to replace turf field after 7 years (May 2008).

No. 17   Grass field cost less to maintain (new estimate) (April 2008).

No. 16   Liverpool (NY) field closed for drainage and infrastructure problems.

No. 01   The Myth about Maintenance.

No. 02   Manufacturer (Ten Cate) maintenance advisory.

No. 03   Dollars and cents.

No. 04   Missouri State University/Fresenburg Study (In 2005).

No. 05   Fouty's Perspective, Michigan State University’ athletic turf manager (2005),

No. 06   Boston College Interview (May-June 2006).

No. 07   More equipment: a pictorial

No. 08   Who says turf doens't need watering!?

No. 09   Vandalism adds to the cost of maintenance of artifcial turf.

No. 10   Security cameras on at field? What cost?

No. 11   Bad Maintenance Practices at the "Y" (December 2007).

No. 12  DelawareRiverkeeper.org's comparative cost schedule (Septemebr 2007).  

No. 13  Anti-staph treatment: What cost? January 2008.

No. 14  Cost of  Turf Replacement Worries Board of Ed memebr (February 2008).

No. 15 Maintenance-free, eh? An expert's checklist. March 2008.

[No. 53] Honolulu, Hawaii: Aloha Stadium artificial turf filed is in a sorry shape after just six years. According to a news story in The Advertiser (October 11, 2009), “When Aloha Stadium rolled out a new $1.3 million artificial turf in May 2003, the expectations were that the new surface would last until early 2011. Six years later, the turf already has hit a rough patch.” “[T]he surface increasingly is drawing criticism that it’s worn and no longer offers a soft cushion.” “Montreal-based FieldTurf provided the turf under a sole-source contract awarded by the Hawai'i Tourism Authority in 2002. The turf replacement was required under a contract between the HTA and the Pro Bowl to keep the annual all-star event in Hawai'i.” But recently, the “[p]laying-field conditions have generated complaints and were a factor behind a major international soccer tournament declining to return to Hawai'i.” For more on this story, go to Sean Hao, “Stadium faces big bill for new turf,” in The Advertiser, October 11, 2009, available at  http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091011/NEWS01/910110370?source=rss_localnews .

[No. 52] Friendswood, Texas: Artificial turf field falling apart after just 3 years. According to a news report in the The Daily News (September 16, 2009, “School district officials claim the artificial turf at Friendswood’s high school football stadium is coming apart at the seams — and want the contractor to replace it.” Superintendent Trish Hanks blames poor installation and poor workmanship for the problem with the field. Three years ago, the district spent a little more than $1 million to replace the turf and track at Henry Winston Memorial Stadium, but “the turf was never properly installed, resulting in more than 300 repairs in the past three years, Athletic Director Steve Van Meter said.” “Canada-based FieldTurf Tarkett, which has manufactured turf for more than 40 universities, dozens of National Football League teams and three Major League Baseball teams, hired Dallas-based RS Global to install the turf at the Friendswood stadium in summer 2006, Van Meter said. FieldTurf Tarkett representatives declined to comment about the district’s complaints. Officials with RS Global could not be reached for comment Tuesday [September 15].” For the list of woes afflicting the installation of the field, see the source: Rhiannon Meyers, “Officials: Surface at stadium should be replaced,” in The Daily News (Galveston, TX), September 16, 2009, available at http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=8925302272cfdb30 .

[No. 50] Whittier, California: Irrigation of Artificial Turf: An Oxymoron? Hardly.

SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. August 9, 2009. The people in the know are well aware that artificial grass does not need water to grow. It fact is does not grow, scientists tell us. And we believe them. We also know that artificial grass does not need mowing, scientists tell us. In fact, artificial grass is versatile that over time it gets shorter all on its own. And, if artificial grass does not need watering then why do artificial turf field operators keep watering them? Have they not heard the turf manufacturers’ scientists? The ordinary people, not scientists, have observed over time that while artificial grass does not need watering that an artificial turf playing field does. Water dampens the infill, keeps the dust down, washes off the vomit from the last game, adds some shine to the surface (for appearances sake), and – get this – it also cools down the temperature of the field. That is the following excerpt from a case study at Whittier College is a good read:

The school decided it would bring its football field up to the speed of the 21st century by converting it entirely to synthetic turf … There was only one problem in going synthetic: Once summer rolled around, the field would get much hotter than standard grass fields.

And since hotter temperatures are the last thing athletes need when pushing themselves to the max, something would have to be done… To handle the hot temperatures, [the Contractor] Byrom-Davey decided to install a cooling system. The system’s capabilities were impressive: It would provide 125 feet of water coverage at 100 gallons per minute, each sprinkler running for only a minute long. A groundskeeper would activate each sprinkler one at a time simply by using an ICC Remote to connect to the Hunter ICC Controller. This would “spritz” the turf’s surface in less than 10 minutes, bringing it back down to a cool, comfortable level.

 

[E]ight M-125 valve-in-head sprinklers were installed around the field. These sprinklers featured two extra-high capacity nozzles for an extended throw radius of 125 feet, a four-inch pop-up height and a 22-degree trajectory. In addition, the sprinklers’ covers were colored a green, grass-like tint to blend them right into the field.

 

Today, the people of Whittier College are happy with their new football field. Able to deliver 100 gallons of water a minute, the field can be cooled and cleaned in a matter of minutes.

Source: Danny Fasold,” Case Study: Cooling Off Synthetic Turf,” in Irrigation & Green Industry, March 17, 2009, available at http://www.igin.com/article-899-case-study-cooling-off-synthetic-turf.html or click here .

[No. 49] East Greenwich, Rhode Island: Sub-carpet work to fix flooding/drainage. We reported on the flooding woes at East Greenwich High School earlier - See http://www.synturf.org/waterdamage.html (Item No. 10). According to a news report in the Providence Journal (August 7, 2009), “Spooked by discovery in July of water collecting on the newly installed football field at the high school, the committee overseeing the project on Thursday voted to take core samples of the stone and gravel beneath the artificial turf and send it out for independent analysis.” “The group, meeting in a packed School Department conference room, also decided to call in a plumber who can use remote sensing equipment to see if the pipes designed to carry water from the field have become blocked or damaged.” “Contractors have already pulled back part of the turf and begun installing an additional drainage system in an attempt to relieve the problem, which became apparent after storms flooded part of the field and the surrounding track.”

“We have a second-rate situation for something we brought brand new," said Town Councilman Henry V. Boezi, a former public works director for the town, who recommended that core samples be taken throughout the field and that the drainage pipes be checked. He questioned whether the washed stone and gravel that is supposed to provide drainage beneath the artificial turf was installed property. “Whether or not the base was adequate and how it was installed was questionable,” he said, explaining that the gravel became visible when workers pulled back the turf to add a makeshift drainage system and looked much too compacted -- almost like concrete. “I saw four to six inches of processed gravel as tight as it can be. That can choke off the drainage,” he said. “It could be the entire width of the field.” “The artificial turf carries warranties of one year on installation and eight years on the carpet itself.”

Source: C. Eugene Emery Jr., “Further drainage tests okayed for E. Greenwich field,” in Providence Journal, August 7, 2009, available at http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/08/further-drainag.html .

[No. 48] Belton, Texas: Artificial turf grows bald spots; buyer wants replacement. According to a news report in the Temple Daily Telegram (July 8, 2009), the Belton independent school district has filed a lawsuit against three corporations over the synthetic turf at Tiger Field. The artificial turf football field that was installed in 2005 “is defective and [the district] wants the company that manufactured the surface …to replace it.” Under an 8-year warranty, the district wants the field replaced and for the companies named in the suit to cover attorney fees. “[C]oaches alerted administrators to concerns about the field earlier this year. An inspection found nearly 30 bald spots or defective tuft binds on the field.” “The turf was almost completely gone in those areas. There were some spots as small as an inch in diameter and others as large as 3½ inches in diameter.” Nevertheless, “the district’s athletic director and football coach said the field would be safe to play on this year.” “Two weeks ago about $10,000 in repair work was done on the bald regions and a loose seam The bald spots were cut out and replaced.” The district paid $670,750 for the turf and “expected the turf to last 12 years.” Source: Paul A. Romer, “Belton ISD in turf war over ‘defective’ surface,” in Temple Daily Telegram, July 8, 2009, available at http://www.tdtnews.com/story/2009/07/08/59126/ 

[No.  47] Chicopee, Mass.: Field of repairs, costly fresh crumb delivery. Chicopee’s two new high schools each has an artificial turf field.  The Chicopee High School’s field is about five years old; the Comprehensive High School’s field was finished in November 2008. According to a news report in The Republican (June 26, 2009), the “seams on the Chicopee High field need to be repaired and the rubber pellets which lay under the turf need to be replaced.” According to Superintendent Richard W. Rege “the benefit of having an artificial turf field is it does not need regular mowing but the bad side is they wear out and repairs are expensive,” with “a delivery of the rubber pellets cost[ing] $50,000. So the School Committee “is reviewing its price to rent its fields to outside sports teams. The policy currently gives Chicopee Public School teams first priority when using athletic facilities. If the fields are not being used, Parks and Recreation teams and local leagues can schedule games and practices. Outside leagues may use them if the first two are not occupying them.” Recently, the town received a request from an outside soccer league interested in renting one of the high school fields for a year at a price of $15,000 to $20,000. Such rentals would help offset the cost of maintenance and repair. Source: Jeanette DeForge, “Policy reviewed for school fields,” in The Republican, June 26, 2009, available at http://www.masslive.com/chicopeeholyoke/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1246000754129030.xml&coll=1 .

[No. 46] Potomac, Maryland: School turf field not draining properly. According to a news story by ABC 7 News (June 13, 2009), “St. Andrews Episcopal School in Potomac put in an artificial turf field last fall. Neighbors say it doesn’t drain correctly.” “That's the school and you can see where the fence is, how close we are,” said one neighbor. “The runoff has been overwhelming... It’s a big plastic bag! And when there’s rain...” Source:

ABC 7 News (Bethesda, Maryland), “Council, Residents Disagree About Funding for Artificial Turf,” June 13, 2009, available at http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0609/632448.html .

[No. 45] Bryan County, Georgia: Gotta water that turf! The synthetic turf fields need to be watered, especially in the summer heat to keep players from getting heat stroke. The watering also helps in the grooming process, keeps down the dust and by wetting the sand adds to the ballast effect of the infill. The industry has pushed these fields saying they would save on water consumption because the artificial fields would not have to watered like real grass. So, we got a kick out of reading in the Bryan County News (June 5, 2009) that  the “County votes to spend as much as $30,000 to keep Henderson Park synthetic turf cool.” The appropriation was for the installation of the watering/irrigation equipment alone. “We did artificial grass thinking we wouldn’t have to water it,” said chairman of the county commissioners. The plan is to mount sprinklers on new poles with separate concrete foundations just outside the soccer field fences. Another commissioner expressed some frustration with the park, which opened in March at a cost of approximately $7 million. “This is the problem this month. What’s going to be the problem next month?” he asked “Safety is paramount,” he said, “We don’t need anybody dying of heat stroke.” Source: Gina Sutherland, “County votes to spend as much as $30,000 to keep Henderson Park synthetic turf cool,” in Bryan County News, June 5, 2009, available at   http://www.bryancountynews.net/news/article/4222/ .

[No. 44]: Swaziland: More hocus pocus on Somhlolo turf: natural grass to the rescue! According to a news report in the Swazi Observer (June 1, 2009), pre-game rituals have once again taken a toll on the turf field at Somhlolo National Stadium. Prior to the game between Mbabane Highlanders and Manzini Wanderers, the offcials discovered “a big hole … at the centre and match officials decided that the game would not start until it had been repaired as it could have injured the players. Inside this hole were raffled feathers, eggs and coconuts.” Moreover, “all the four corner-kick areas had some holes with the same strange stuff and apparently, the turf was dug up.” Here is an irony: the match commissioner, Philemon Mkhaliphi, “had to organise natural grass to fill up the big hole at the centre of the pitch before the match could commence.” Source: Sabelo Ndzinisa “Somhlolo artificial turf damaged again,” in The Swazi Observer, June 1, 2009, available at http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=4581 . For background, see

http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html (Item No. 42)

[No. 43] Dodge City, Kansas: Pamper that turf! According to a news story in Dodge City Daily Globe (May 22, 2009), the Community Facilities Advisory Board has okayed spending up to $26,000 on a turf-protection system for Memorial Stadium. Turf protection from what, you may ask? Usage! Here is the problem: “The school district wants to purchase about 10,000 feet of temporary flooring made of polypropylene, a plastic polymer that can be used as both a structural plastic and as a fiber. The material would be put directly on Memorial Stadium's turf to protect it from foot traffic and other wear and tear. The district currently uses plywood to protect the turf for occasions like graduation, but plywood increases the risk that people could trip and fall, said Bill Hammond, USD 443's assistant superintendent for business services. He also said unless the wood isn’t painted properly, rain could cause it to stain the field. Hammond said the polypropylene flooring would make it possible to accommodate more community events, as well as school-sponsored activities at the stadium.” Source: Eric Swanson, “CFAB backs school district's request for funding,” in Dodge City Daily Globe, May 22, 2009, available at http://www.dodgeglobe.com/localnews/x862899737/CFAB-backs-school-districts-request-for-funding . Plastic cover to protect plastic fields!    

[No. 42] Swaziland: Ritual causes extensive damage to turf field.  SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 10, 2009. We are not quite sure how the classify this story – under ‘maintenance’ or ‘vandalism.’ Anyway - The scene: Somhlolo National Stadium, Lobamba. The time: Saturday, May 2, 2009. The Event: The Mbabane Swallows versus Green Mamba. The surface: artificial turf. The problem: mysterious burns to the turf at the centre of the pitch. The damage: $US 100, 000. According to reports in Swazi Observer, “the turf has been mysteriously burnt at the centre spot of the pitch. [T]he centre spot was not only burnt but black chicken feathers were found scattered all over the same spot. Close inspection revealed that the part of the artificial turf was uprooted and underneath were more chicken feathers.” For details, please go to Bodwa Mbingo, “Heads will roll,” in Swazi Observer, May 6, 2009, available at http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=3859 ; “Fifa need a witchdoctor,” on  Kickoff.com, May 5, 2009, Touchline Media, Cape Town, South Africa), available at http://www.kickoff.com/static/news/article.php?id=8218Fifa ; and Ntuthuko Dlamini, in Swazi Observer, May 5, 2009, available at http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=3799 .

[No. 41] Mahwah, NJ: Turf replacement just after 7 years. According to a news report on NewJersey.com (March 21, 2009), “[p]remature wearing and safety concerns” have convinced the township to replace the artificial turf at Continental Soldiers Park. “More than 200,000 square feet of faux grass [which was installed in 2002] will be removed and a newer product - believed to be safer because it’s lead-free - will be installed. The work is expected to … cost the township $560,000.” “[u]nder a 10-year warranty [n]ow, seven years later, the fibers on the soccer, baseball, softball and football fields have begun shedding” and according to Mayor Richard Martel, “The grass-like blades are starting to separate from the turf itself.” According to NewJersey.com, “Officials negotiated with the manufacturer and installer, FieldTurf, to get the fields redone before the warranty runs out, Business Administrator Brian Campion said. Had the warranty lapsed, the cost of resurfacing the fields would have been $1.2 million to $1.5 million, he said. Mahwah's current artificial grass is made from polyethylene fiber film. It will be replaced with a monofilament fiber product that is certified to be lead-free.” State officials have said no one under the age of 8 should use the turf fields, players must wash their bodies and clothing after playing on them, and students should not eat on the fields. Source: Allison Pries, “Mahwah, New Jersey to replace artificial-turf field,” in NewJersey.com, March 21, 2009, available at http://www.northjersey.com/bergen/Mahwah_to_replace_artificial-turf_field.html .

[No. 40] Baton Rouge, Louisiana: LSU covers turf field with tarp to prevent storm damage. According to a news report in Bleacher Report (March 27, 2009), “[a] line of strong thunderstorms and damaging winds ripped though Baton Rouge and the campus of LSU on Wednesday [March 25] night.”  “School officials covered the practice facility turf with tarps to prevent the rain from damaging the artificial turf [of the indoor practice facility].” Source: Corey Gautreux, “Severe Storms Damage LSU Athletic Facilities,” in Bleacher Report, March 27, 2009, available at http://bleacherreport.com/articles/145969-severe-storms-damage-lsu-athletic-facilities .

[No. 39] San Diego, Calif: “You don’t say? Water the turf!” SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 28, 2009. So far we know for sure that the annualize cost of an artificial turf is more than the annualized cost of natural grass. We also know that artificial turf runs tens of degrees hotter than natural grass. We also know that artificial turf takes maintenance, which includes application of antimicrobial agents and cleansers to the surface. So much for the promise of the “low cost” turf! Many of us also have know for a while that while the plastic flower in a vase does not require watering, artificial turf fields do! Water cools the surface, cuts down on silica and other dust, and washes out the harmful bacteria and other nasty stuff that gets left behind by man and beast. This is especially true of the hot and semi-arid climates around the country. 

A recent TV news story by KUSI-TV (San Diego) highlights the issue: “KUSI’s Michael Turko is investigating a San Diego School District plan to install new irrigation systems at local high schools. Turko says the district wants to use tax money to water the artificial turf on the schools football fields. Until my first report, no one knew school district bureaucrats were planning to use Prop ‘S’ bond money to put in sprinklers on artificial turf football fields. It’ll cost at least twenty five thousand [$25,000] bucks per field, not counting the cost [of] the water. And it'll use a lot of water at a time when we're all being asked to conserve. And now it looks like our elected school board officials are buying into that plan... hook line and sinker!” See the video news report at KUSI, “School Board Backs Turf Irrigation,” February 17, 2009, at http://www.kusi.com/features/turko/39767772.html .

[No. 38] New Jersey: Notes on replacing the supposedly lead-free fields. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 8, 2009. The function of a turf field warranty is to render the buyer harmless in the event the field becomes unusable because of a shortcoming in its installation (design, labor, and materials) or lousy maintenance practices recommended by the warrantor or its agents. Naturally, every warranty, like an insurance policy, has exemptions and exclusions. Many fields last beyond the term of their warranty. Many do not. In the literature from past December [2008] one story in particular caught our attention because the fields at issue were made by a manufacturer that routinely proclaims its product to be lead-free and that the fields at issue were taken out and replaced with new ones while they were presumably under warranty.

The case concerned the removal of the two artificial turf fields from Northern Valley Regional High School in Demarest (New Jersey), beginning on Monday, December 1, 2008. The two fields were being removed because of presence of lead in them, even though the fields were supposed to have been “new generation” and made by a company that constantly proclaims its product as being lead-free!

According to Northern New Jersey media, “The fields were installed several years ago at a cost of $1.4 million to the district. They will be replaced with a new product by a Canadian company that provided the initial fields.” Each multi-sport field, more than 102,200 square feet each, costs $700,000 to replace, a discounted price that includes disposal of the old fields, an amount considered “reasonable” by district officials who believed the actual value of the replacement to be more than $1 million a piece! For more on this story, see Evonne Coutros and Andrea Alexander, “Playing safe on health,” in NorthJersey.com (Hackensack, NJ), December 2, 2008, available at  http://www.northjersey.com/betterliving/recreation/Playing_safe_on_health.html ; and Marc Lightdale, “Schools to get new turf fields,” in Northern Valley Suburbanite (Cresskill, NJ), December 2, 2008, available at http://www.nvsuburbanite.com/NC/0/1522.html .

--

[No. 37] Wellesley, Mass.: Plow, plow, plow, your turf gently into spring; merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, grass is but a dream!  In the last week, the theatre of the absurd pitched its tent at the turf fields next to Sprague Elementary School, in Wellesley, Mass.  On Monday, January 26, 2009, the town’s Department of Public Works (DPW) was out snow-plowing one of the artificial turf fields just ahead of the next snow storm. For a carpet that was sold on the premise of low maintenance, it sure looked silly to be using municipal equipment and man-hour clearing a field that could hardly be used in the freezing temperatures that predominated during the week. On Tuesday, DPW was back during recess and afterwards – that is, longer than two hours, plowing the other turf field. On Wednesday, a snow storm dumped another 8 inches of snow on the newly-plowed fields. On Friday, DPW was back out plowing the fields, again.

[No. 36] Pine-Richland, Penn.: When turf goes bad before it’s time! The artificial turf field at Pine-Richland stadium was installed in 2001. According to a news article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (January 11, 2009), the “turf is wearing out.” This is only after 8 years in an environment where most municipal governments belive or operate on the false or contrived assumption that the life of an artificial turf field for them will be 10 to 15 and, yes, even 20 years. The assumption is necessary in order to accomplish two things (1) to justify the upfront cost of installation of turf (it will pay for itself over time by saving on maintenance), and (b) to give the political impression that the replacement of the carpet would be so far in the future that it need not concern the short-sighted now-oriented public. That is until the turf goes bad before it’s time.

On Tuesday, January 6, 2009, the Pine-Richland school board's planning meeting considered the issue of replacing the turf and its estimated cost of $300,000 to $400,000 or more. No decision was taken. According to the “who said what at the meeting,” here is the sign of theatrics to come for many unsuspecting municipal and school officials:

Official #1: The artificial turf has become rippled and worn to the point that it is a safety concern. A rubberized mat and drainage system beneath the turf would not need to be replaced.

Official #2: The turf had a 10-year warranty for “normal” use, but the field is heavily used for a variety of sports and activities, including football, lacrosse, physical education classes, graduation and band. The company with which the school had a 10-year warranty is out of business now.

Official # 3: I just feel like we didn't see it coming.

Official # 4: Replacement of the turf had been planned in the budget for two years from now.

Official # 5: It's [replacement] come to the forefront ... because it's a safety issue.

Source: Cindy Micco, “Pine-Richland stadium turf may see early replacement,” in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 11, 2009, available at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09011/940553-54.stm .

[No. 35] Liverpool, New York: The bubbling turf field is still closed! The fate of the quarantined artificial turf field T Liverpool High School Stadium is back in the news. As reported in July 2008 (http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html -- Item No. 22), the officials closed the 10-year old turf field in December 2007 because its surface had developed potholes and soft spots. According to a news item in The Post-Standard (November 24, 2008), the school district is back to deliberating what to do next with the stadium. “The field's surface bubbled and district officials have not been able to determine what caused that to happen,” according to the news report. According to Liverpool’s acting athletic director, Mark Potter, “It kind of looks like a miniature golf course, it’s not flat.” Having been rebuffed twice before by the voters, a group called the “stadium committee” now recommends that the school board consider sending what it calls a “bare-bones” proposal to voters for approval in February 2009. This time the proponents of the fake-grass field have cut from their proposal such amenities as expanded parking, a new press box, restrooms, concession stand, scoreboard, field lights and visitor bleachers. Source: Catie O’Toole, “Liverpool Stadium Committee to address school board tonight,” in The Post-Standard, November 24, 2008, available at http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/liverpool_stadium_committee_to.html .

SynTurf.org Note: Here is the irony – The proponents of turf fields often pitch their quest with the help of a slide show that compares a brand new artificial turf field with some pathetic looking natural grass field with potholes, standing water and dirt. How interesting that after 10 years a turf field that cost $100,000s to $1 million can be in better shape than a natural grass fields the costs a lot les to install and care for. Our advice to the Liverpool voters – for the sake of human health and the environment and your pocketbook - go with a natural grass field for a fraction of the cost of turf field. Who knows maybe there will be enough money leftover to get the amenities too!

[No. 34] Redwood City, Calif.: Frayed carpet increases the rate of crumb migration from artificial turf field. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. November 24, 2008. According to a news item Palo Alto Daily News (November 15, 2008) [Shaun Bishop, “Turf field in Redwood City gets tune-up,” in Palo Alto Daily News, November 15, 2008, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_10996530 ] the artificial turf field at Hoover Park in Redwood City still has two years left on its 8-year lifecycle warranty, but already it has begun to show what the paper calls “a 5 o’clock shadow all day long.” This refers to a condition where the crumb rubber overwhelms the carpet fiber. This happens in three ways: First – when a field is freshly installed the crumb rubber has tendency to be generously applied with the understanding that eventual use of the field would compact some of the crumb into the space between the fivers. In September 2008 SynTurf.org posted picture and video clip showing this phenomenon at Saunders Field in Boston (see http://www.synturf.org/miscellanea.html --Item No. 18). This condition may also obtains when an in-use field is groomed periodically with fresh applications of crumb rubber.

Second: the five-o’clock shadow also comes about when the carpet is worn so thin that the crumb rubber is exposed all the more. Third: the “shadow” phenomenon also can occur when a field is not properly maintained and so the forces applied to the crumb either by nature (water and wind) or players tend to push the crumb to the areas of least resistance. For crumb rubber migration, see   http://www.synturf.org/migration.html .

The worn out fiber uproots or unhinges or de-nestles the rubber crumb from in-between the turf fibers and therefore increases the likelihood of it migrating to other parts of the field or from it. This migration necessitates the need for additional application of crumb in order for the field to retain its uniformity and softness/bounce. It is a poor choice – a new expensive carpet or more crumb rubber?

According to News, “The city council last week green-lighted spending $905,447 on the upgrade, and city planners are hoping to start the replacement — a two-month project — next month.” The Parks Superintendent Gary Hover reportedly told News “We knew from day one that FieldTurf, who was the manufacturer of this product, was very concerned about it lasting because it got a lot of use.” According to News, “The city said it circumvented a competitive bidding process for the project, which is usually required by state law, because Oregon-based FieldTurf's discounted price of about 40 percent off was not available from other suppliers.”

SynTurf.org smells a rat -- In order to minimize wear and tear on the one turf field the municipalities ought to consider getting several!

[No. 32] Harrison City, Penn: 8-year old turf good for one more year. According to a report in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), on November 3, 2008, the directors of the Penn-Trafford school district (Harrison City in western Pennsylvania) postponed discussion about the replacement of the turf surface at Warrior Stadium. According to the report, “School officials have said the cost to replace the artificial turf could be between $350,000 and $450,000. The current turf was installed [in 2000] for $623,798. An independent contractor tested the field last month and estimated it would be safe for another year.” Source: Chris Foreman, “Penn-Trafford to hold off on new turf,” in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 4, 2008, available at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_596704.html .

[No. 31]: Midland, Texas: Turf busts at the seams, needs replacement after five years. As reported by KOSA CBS 7 (Odessa, Texas), on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, the Midland City Council cleared the way for the replacement of the artificial turf field at Grande Stadium, part of the Scharbauer Stadium, Midland, Texas. The Parks and Recreation Manager, Scott Swigert, showed the council how the original turf kept coming apart at the seams on either side of every five-yard marker, where the turf got the most wear. At the cost of $700,000, including 12% for contingencies, the replacement, according to CBS 7 “The new turf will have only one seam, between the yard.” Source: “Artificial turf to be replaced at Grande Stadium,” in CBS 7 (Odessa, Texas), Ocotber 28, 2008, available at http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=9106 .

The turf field in question was put down in 2002 by Southwest Recreational, which went out of business 3 years ago, according to the administrator of Scharbauer Sports Complex contacted by SynTurf.org. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Southwest Recreational Industries, owner of AstroTurf, was taken to the mat by FieldTurf on allegations that did not stick but may have cost Southwest Recreational to go under. See NationMaster.com’s Encyclopedia at “Filed Turf: legal disputes” at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/FieldTurf#Legal_disputes or click here.

[No. 30] Pelham Bay Park (New York City): Negligent management and lack of maintenance turn turf into a field of nightmares. At over 2,700 acres, Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx is New York City’s largest park. It has a long and intricate history, with many of its historic features still observable to a visitor. The park also has many significant environmental features. Its variety of habitats enables one to see a diversity of wildlife throughout the park. The turf soccer field on the premises sticks out a like a sore thumb, as it is neither enhancing of the environment nor is it in keeping with the park’s historical features. The turf was travesty to begin with and it is now even more so because a pronounced lack of maintenance and lousy field management have turned the artificial pitch into a field of nightmares.

On October 8, 2008, YourNabe.com reported that the condition of the turf field at Pelham Bay Park is “egregiously unkempt and downright dangerous.” “Weak spots covered the field revealing the ‘gravelly,’ slippery secondary layer of recycled rubber and virtually every five-yard white line marker on the hundred yard field was raised inches above the ground, presenting a trip hazard,” according to the report. The Warriors are one of the field’s user groups. Lack of maintenance or little of it can cause developing slopes, unsafe undulations, and weak spots on the turf surface. “Negligence in sustaining and protecting the field by the Department of Parks is precisely what the Warriors are charging,” YourNabe.com reported. “The field needs to be re-stretched, so its taut and the whole top layer need to be flattened” said Warriors’ director. “God forbid one of my kids gets his foot stuck in a raised spot, and turns awkwardly. These are the sort of things that can lead to crippling injuries.”

According to the report, “the gradual destruction of the field … could so easily have been avoided with proper, routine maintenance by the Department of Parks staff. In the equipment shack is housed barrels of replacement rubber pellets that should have been used to fix the raised and weak spots on the field.” Additionally, the indifference to certain prohibited practices for the field/track facility – such as the use of metal cleats and heavy, metal garbage cans as goal posts by pickup soccer players – has helped the deterioration. According to officials, the field is under warranty and so the manufacturer will be repairing the seams along the stripes re-sealed as soon as possible. Source: Andrew Ulrich, “Tuff play destroys Filed Turf: Non-permitted sports activity destroys Pel Bay Park’s football field,” in Your Nabe, October 8, 2008, available at http://yournabe.com/articles/2008/10/10/bronx/doc48ed18642f6e6945615071.txt .

SynTurf.org Note: No turf field warranty known to SynTurf.org provides coverage for negligent or improper maintenance practices. If anything, the exclusion provisions of the warranty protects the warrantor from consequences of prohibited practices and per se exclusions. For example of an industry warranty, see “Warranty Talk” at http://www.synturf.org/industrynotes.html (Item No. 20). 

[No. 29] Blantyre, Malawi: Surprise! Unscheduled practices taking toll on turf field. According to a news report The Daily Times (September 30, 2008), Malawi’s premier daily, the Football Association of Malawi is arranging training sessions for the Malawi Flames without consulting the authorities at Kamuzu Stadium, where the soccer team is supposed to practice. “Kamuzu Stadium authorities have expressed fear that the life span of the artificial turf is under threat due to Flames ill-timed preparations for the 2010 World Cup and Africa Cup of Nations qualifier against DR Congo,” The Daily Times reports. The tractor that is supposed to brush the turf is broken and therefore, the maintenance crew requires advance notice to prepare the field for play/practice, a process that takes the tractor one day but four to six days if done by humans! Furthermore, the management of Kamuzu Stadium is none too pleased with the Football Association for not honoring its portion of the stadium’s water bill. Source: Mphatso Malidadi, “Flames training damaging artificial turf,” in The Daily Times,  September 30, 2008, available at http://www.dailytimes.bppmw.com/article.asp?ArticleID=10914 . For a background story on Kamuzu Stadium, see http://www.synturf.org/forbiddenfields.html (Item No. 06).

[No.  28] Lawrence, Mass.: Splish, splash -- they were taking a bath! Date: September 27, 2008. The event: Foxboro High School at Central Catholic High School (Lawrence). The venue: Veterans Memorial Stadium, in Lawrence, Mass. Weather: pouring rain. The playing surface: Artificial turf, installed in 2006 by FieldTurf (See http://www.fieldturf.com/football/installations.cfm?keyword=&state=Massachusetts&country=all&year=all&sport=football&resultCount=all&sortOrder=installDate+DESC%2C+installID+DESC&formSubmit=yes -- Item No. 16). According to a report in The Eagle-Tribune (North Andover, Mass.), “[o]ffense wasn't easy due to the heavy rain falling on the artificial field surface. Huge puddles accumulated all over the playing surface, the worst in front of each end zone.” Source: David Willis, “Central Catholic defense dominates Foxboro: Raiders hold Foxboro to only 14 yards total offense,” in The Eagle-Tribune, September 28, 2008, available at http://www.eagletribune.com/pusports/local_story_272022503.html?keyword=secondarystory .

[No. 27] Stratford, Conn.: If you give a mouse a cookie ….: Oh, those pesky tie-ins that go with turf fields! Synturf.org, Newton, Mass. September 26, 2008. It is no secret that turf manufacturers do not just put down a field and leave the scene. There is much money to be made in after-sale products and services. Often a condition of any warranty, the buyer is advised to use buy or use only grooming equipment that the turf manufacturer recommends; that also goes for paints and paint removers for lines on the fields. Now comes a situation where the turf manufacturer seems to get into the business of even deciding for the seller what chairs and tables could go on the field. The case of the Scott Bunnell High School turf field in Startford, Connecticut, is good example of this tie-in practice by artificial turf sellers. According to news story in the Connecticut Post (September 23, 2008), “is vulnerable to damage from chairs, tables, tents and other objects, creating a variety of logistical problems that may force the district to buy hundreds of new chairs before next year's graduation ceremony.” The superintendent of schools told the meeting of the board of education on September 22, 2008, that "The chairs appear to be presenting the biggest problem because we may be forced to buy new chairs or retrofit the old ones to chairs with bars connecting the bottoms of the legs, and that could be costly.” The superintendent and Bunnell’s athletic director have been charged to report back to the board about “how the district will cope with the field's ‘extreme sensitivity’ during heat, and its vulnerability to a wide range of objects that could puncture the turf.” “[M]ost of [the] issues can be dealt with by using special equipment supplied to the town by [the firm] that is installing the artificial turf at Bunnell,” the Post reported on the say so of the town officials. Source: Richard Weizel, “Startford seeks to protect turf field,” in Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, Conn.), September 23, 2008, available at http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10540929 . For a background story on Bunnell High School, see http://www.synturf.org/forbiddenfields.html (Item No. 05).

[No. 26] Maysville, Ohio: Winds rip through turf field. WHIZ News (Zanesville, Ohio) reported on September 15, 2008, that the turf field that was being installed at Maysville High School fell victim to the high winds of the past few days. “The field is a total loss, and Maysville will now have to start over from the beginning and reset their new field. The new date for the field to be done is now late November,” reported WHIZ. Source: J.T. Raymond, “Maysville turf project back to square one,” in WHIZ News, September 15, 2008, available at http://www.whiznews.com/article.php?articleId=22699 .

[No. 25] Brookfield, Conn.: High School turf field is in dire need of repairs after just two years. The turf field at Brookfield High School was installed in the fall of 2006. According to a report The Brookfield Journal (September 12, 2008), at the time of installation the town had issued a certificate of acceptance, even though the surface did not seem to have met the town’s specifications. There were “unlevel parts to the surface.” When a June 2007 survey showed "substantial gaps" on the surface of the field, the town asked the Morganti Group, which managed the renovations, “to make repairs, recommending that the sub-base be reinstalled and a new turf be placed down.” When several seams burst apart, the town was forced to close the field. “The field should be able to be used for 10 years and it didn't last for 10 hours,” Selectman Jerry Murphy is quoted by the Journal as saying. The town has hired another consultant to assess the damage/defect and recommend if a new carpet is warranted. Meanwhile, with the season on the way, a group of irate parents and students have taken twice to protesting in large numbers against the Morganti Group. The parents are asking that the contractor replace the defective turf with a new one – and quickly. For more on this story, see Scott Benjamin, “‘Study’ an issue in stadium field discussions,” in The Brookfield Journal, September 12, 2008, available at http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20118517&BRD=1656&PAG=461&dept_id=13278&rfi=6 . For an earlier report on this field, see http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html (No. 23) below.

[No. 24] St. Charles Parish, New Orleans: Plastic fields need watering, too! On August 13, 2008, the St. Charles Parish School Board authorized the purchase of two water cannons for use at each of the district’s high school turf fields, and a groomer to be shared by both. According to the report in The Times – Picayune, the cannons were purchased at a cost of $7,500 each, along with a mechanical groomer costing $8,900 to be shared by the schools. “The cannons can cool down a field to an optimum level, ‘where players wouldn't be as hot,’ said John Rome, school system administrator of physical plant services. They will be most useful during the day, since temperatures drop at night, but they can be used to wet down a field before games, he said.” At the time of the two  fields,  “Officials knew from their initial studies that an artificial field would be warmer than natural grass,” as Field Turf had “reported the fields are an average of 10 degrees hotter.” Sandra Barbier, “It’s artificial, but it gets genuinely hot,” in The Times – Picayune, August 15, 2008, available at http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/riverparishes/index.ssf?/base//news-5/1218778306185770.xml&coll=1 . For the heat effects of artificial turf fields, at time rising to double the ambient temperature (not just the lowball 10 degrees that was claimed by manufacturer’s rep, see http://www.synturf.org/heateffect.html .

[No. 23] Brookfield, Conn.: Brookfield High School turf unplayable after a couple of years. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. August 3, 2008. According to a news story in The Brookfield Journal, “the synthetic field at the [Brookfield High School] football stadium has come apart in some sections and is currently unplayable.” The First Selectman Robert Silvaggi is quoted as saying “The town has already paid for it, and we're not going to pay for it again. Right now it is not something that you would want your children to play on.” The field was installed more than a year ago and has split apart in places.
Silvaggi said “it appears that it will be up to the appropriate subcontractors to repair the field so that it can be used.” Source: Scoot Benjamin, “Residents to mull BHS funding,” in The Brookfield Journal, August 1, 2008, available at   http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19883246&BRD=1656&PAG=461&dept_id=13278&rfi=6 .

                                                                                         

[No. 22]  Liverpool, New York: Team has no home field, as 10-year old turf rots away. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. July 25, 2008. Liverpool advertises itself as a  delightful 1-square mile community of 2,600 residents on the north shore of Onondaga Lake, with lovely lakeshore trails. The Liverpool High School’s football team is called the Warriors. “There will be no home football games, no Friday Night Lights this fall at Liverpool,” writes The Post Standard. Reason: “Their once state-of-the-art stadium is closed - head football coach Dave Mancuso calls it condemned - because of erosion problems that left potholes lurking under the 10-year-old turf.”  According to the Post, “The school board voted in December [2007] to close the stadium because of safety issues with the playing field, which had been rebuilt and fitted with a new Astroturf surface in 1998. The track surrounding the football field had been closed previously because of the same concerns. Now, Section III officials were recommending that the football field be closed as well. Acting director of athletics Mark Potter said erosion in a crushed stone layer underneath the turf has created soft spots - or potholes - along with bumps. He likened the experience of walking down stairs, only to miss the last step.”

Source: Donnie Webb, “Liverpool football team will be road Warriors,” in The Post Standard, July 20, 2008, available at http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1216544116201810.xml&coll=1 .

Source: “Turf woes: $500G to fix spoiled Moakley Park field,” in the Boston Herald, June 28, 2008, page 2, available at http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_28_Turf_woes:__500G_to_fix_spoiled_Moakley_Park_field/srvc=home&position=also .

[No. 19] Cedar Hill, Texas: Repairs to stadium’s turf  drainage system may cost district $850,000. The Cedar Hill Integrated School District is located in Dallas County, Texas. In the last two years, the district has been dealing with one expense after another in addressing the ISD stadium turf drainage system. According to a report in Dallas News:

The Cedar Hill school district may need to spend approximately $850,000 to fix a problem taxpayers paid almost half a million dollars to correct two years ago.

Standing water on the field has plagued the district's $6.2 million Longhorn Stadium since it opened in fall 1999. In 2006, the district spent $480,000 to replace the drainage system and artificial turf.

By the time school officials realized water still was not draining from the field, the company that installed the new system had declared bankruptcy.

"The year after it was installed we had a drought so the system wasn't tested, and by the time it rained enough to cause pooling, they had gone out of business," said Mike McSwain, the district's chief financial officer. "The contractor did have insurance, and they came out and looked at it, but they denied the claim."

In addition to water problems, Mr. McSwain said sink holes are forming on the field, creating a safety hazard.

Cedar Hill ISD has hired McKinney-based Sports Design Group to oversee the new installation. Richard McDonald, a landscape architect with the firm, came up with the $850,000 estimate based on similar projects.

Sports Design Group will receive 6.25 percent of the installation cost up to a maximum fee of $55,000, according to Mr. McSwain.

Trustee Valerie Banks said she is livid over the failed fix.

"Spending this kind of money to correct something that's two years old just gives me heartburn," Ms. Banks said.

Alternatively, the system can be repaired for about $130,000, but Mr. McSwain said it would be a temporary patch that probably would only last two years.

Mr. McSwain said the 2006 fix failed in part because some of the drain lines were installed too close to the surface. The company that did the work used a steamroller to press down gravel covering the pipes rather than hand-tamping it, he said. That caused the pipes to collapse in several places.

Artificial turf is designed to last 10 to 12 years, Mr. McSwain said, but the turf will have to be replaced because it's too difficult to re-align the seams. The two-year-old turf will be stored for possible re-use on softball and baseball fields.

Mr. McSwain said several factors have contributed to the higher price tag, including rising oil prices that affect shipping fees and materials cost. Artificial turf is a petroleum-based product, he said. There also is an environment fee for disposing of the petroleum base under the current turf.

"This also will be a more extensive fix than before," Mr. McSwain said. "Last time we tried to rework the base and replace the drainage system. This time we're going to take it up all the way to the base and start over from scratch."

The district received three bid proposals this week from turf installation companies. Two are lower than the estimated cost and one is higher, Mr. McSwain said.

"We'll check each one and make sure they're based on the true scope of the work, then take our recommendation to the board on Monday," he said.

Officials hope to complete the project before the first 2008 football game in mid-September.

Kathy A. Goolsby, “Repairs to stadium’s drainage system may cost Cedar Hill ISD $850,000,” in Dallas News, May 29, 2008, available at 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-stadiumfix_29met.ART0.South.Edition1.46abb47.html.

[No. 18] The Boston University turf field will be replaced after only seven years. According to the item in BU Today, the turf field at Boston University’s Nickerson Field will replaced this summer. According to BU’s executive director of constructions services, the field, which is only 7 years old, “has outlived its life.” The rips and tears pose serious safety issues to the teams that practice there on a daily basis, she said. Source: Vicky Waltz, “New Track, Turf on tap for Nickerson Field,” in BU Today (Campus Life), May 20, 2008, available at http://www.bu.edu/today/campus-life/2008/05/19/new-track-turf-tap-nickerson-field .

SynTurf.org Note: The BU artificial turf field is among the older ones in the Boston area. Could it be that the lead scare that has caused the closing of several fields in New Jersey and elsewhere spooked the BU administration?

[No. 17] Grass costs less: turf versus grass comparative maintenance cost. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 25, 2008. In the various materials posted on this page, notably Item No. 16 below) readers have been apprised of the comparative cost estimates associated with artificial turf versus natural grass playing fields. While these number provide a basis for an institution or municipality to budget its resources. When a community installs a an artificial turf field, the ultimate financial/fiscal cost borne by the municipality depends very much on its maintenance culture as well as replacing, as matter of carbon neutrality,  the subtraction of a natural resource (grass field) with an acquisition of a comparable size  green space or equivalent in vegetation.

In the recent literature, SynTurf.org has come across two comparative cost estimates that compare the cost of natural grass with artificial turf. Both bode well for natural grass fields, because they calculate cost of maintenance in manner that it truly affects the financial and fiscal resources (bottom line) of a community.  

1. In relation to the Manchester Field renovation project, the town of Winchester, Mass. Will be considering appropriation for an artificial turf field. “A synthetic turf field would allow increased capacity and usage. It would also cost more money to maintain.

Information provided by the town shows that maintenance of a natural grass field would be about $22,100 compared with $38,100 for synthetic turf. The bulk of turf costs are for replacement, which would run about $37,000 annually. Eric Tseti, “Field of dreams depends on where you live,” April 23, 2008, available at http://www.wickedlocal.com/winchester/news/education/x1319858953.

2. “Tire Waste Athletic Fields Have Expensive Hidden Costs, read the title of a balance sheet  posted on http://sfparks.googlepages.com/claim6, a website dedicated to saving San Francisco area’s dwindling green space, especially from conversion to artificial turf. Based on figures obtained from San Francisco’s Parks and Recreation Department, the ledger includes two items that are rarely considered when municipalities try to sell a proposed turf installation to the taxpayers.

The average annual cost for the guaranteed life of 8 years is $106,000 for turf and $74,500 for grass. On a 15-year life span, the average annual cost for life of turf evens out with natural grass at $59,333.

The ledger also allows for the cost of disposal of turf, which is $1.75 - $2.25 per square foot, versus $0 for natural grass. This estimate does not include the cost of transportation or landfill surcharges for environmentally controlled products. 

[No. 16] Liverpool (NY) field closed due to drainage and substructure problems. In December 2007 the authorities closed the artificial turf field at Liverpool High School in Liverpool (NY). It was an AstroTurf brand, like the field that Syracuse area authorities closed on April 21, 2008 due to elevated lead readings. The problem that led to the closing of the turf filed in Liverpool was due to drainage issues and the field’s below-ground substructure. Sapna Kollali, “High lead levels in turf close C-NS field,” April 23, 2008, available at http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-14/120894131115030.xml&coll=1.

The Liverpool scenario raises two interesting points. First, given the drainage problems at the site, to what extended lead bearing fibers and leachate entered the soil and water resources connected to or abutting the field. Secondly, how does one safely dispose of the lead bearing fields not only in Liverpool and Cicero-North Syracuse high school but also with regard to the three that have been closed in New Jersey (and at what cost)? 

The purveyors of artificial turf fields often emphasize the environmentally friendly aspect of their product. The buyers are told that by installing the rubber infill variety of fields and other synthetic surfaces that one is helping the cause of recycling used tires and rubber and plastics from the municipal dumps. Mostly, however, artificial turf is touted for eliminating the need for pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that are associated with natural grass playing fields; it requires neither watering nor mowing like grass. These claims are disingenuous because the maintenance of artificial turf has functions that are elaborate, often involving the application of chemicals, with specialized equipment. In order for the benefits of an artificial turf to be realized by the playing public, a rigorous maintenance regime is not only recommended by the manufacturers but is made necessary as matter of warranty or insurance coverage.

The sports field manager for the Detroit Lions football team, Charlie Coffin, told a reporter in May 2005 that "We were sold these fields on the basis that there would be no maintenance. That just wasn't true." [Lynne Brakeman, “Experts spell out the true cost of synthetic turf maintenance,” Athletic Turf News, May 24, 2005, available at http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=162975].

The promoters of artificial turf are quick to point out “One of the advantages of artificial turf is that it is unaffected by weather conditions and that is resistant to almost every climatic condition.” Factually, the climate places limits on the playability of an artificial turf, just as it does on the players themselves. Extreme cold, ice and snow conditions, as well as thunder and lightning storms and heavy rain make the field as unusable as natural grass. In the words of Koninklijke Ten Cate, Nijverdal, Netherlands, a manufacturer of artificial turf, “Always available, but not always playable.” In other words, Artificial Turf: Nor for All Seasons!

No. 02] Ten Cate Thiolon Product Advisory

When the field is covered by a layer of snow, the game is played on the snow rather than the carpet itself. The snow protects the carpet from damage. Note that this will cause the snow to be compacted making further removal difficult. Also: If mechanical snow removal is required, one must ensure that (a) the carpet is not damaged by the removal procedure and (b) the players are not injured by remaining frozen material between the fibers. If there is a reason for removing snow however, use a wooden – never metal! – scrapper or a broom. “Playing under thaw or glaze ice conditions may render the field very slippery causing dangers for the players!”

Furthermore, according to Ten Cate advisory, polypropylene (PP) fibers should not be used for rubber-infill pitches nor for use at low temperatures. In cold (-15°C / 5°F) the PP transitions from rubber-like to glass-like, which makes the fiber brittle. Bottom-line: Polypropylene pitches are never to be used nor cleared at temperatures below 0°C (32°F).

Even the lower sliding resistance (LSR) fiber types should not be used in –20°C (-4°F) conditions. The LSR transition point is around -100°C / -150°F. Click here for full PFD version.

Winter has its challenges, but the real scourge of artificial turf is the fall season. The Ten Cate Thiolon Advisory (Issue 2005-03) on “Autumn-specific care and troubles” is reproduced here verbatim [Click here fr PDF version]:

Leave the leaves out please! Pollution is one of the enemies of an artificial turf pitch. The Autumn season forms an important hazard for pollution of the pitch. Leaves and twigs fall down or get blown onto the pitch. Combined with rain, pitches get slippery, systems compact and microclimates are created, enabling moss, bacteria and algae to flourish.

Consequences of pollution. Pollution is fatal to every artificial turf construction. Debris, leaves and small twigs, but also small particles like moss, algae and fine grains of sand can compact the top layer. This forms a hard layer that leads to slipperiness, reduced porosity and increased susceptibility to injuries. Also the lifespan of an artificial turf pitch, naturally, suffers from this.

Removal of leaves and twigs. Use a wide brush, a special vacuum cleaner or a leaf blower. This way the infill materials remain in place. When cleaning, also clean the area outside the playing surface.

TIP: If possible, have the fence around the (soccer) pitch installed at around 10 centimeters from the ground. Leaves can then be blown from the pitch directly.

Moss. Remove moss as soon as it appears with a high-pressure cleaner. If this is not possible due to the infill, moss-killing herbicides can be used. Be very careful with the choice and use of moss-killing herbicides, and always consult the installer of the pitch beforehand.

Bacteria and algae. The combination of “warm” artificial turf, water and particularly light, offers a perfect breeding ground for the growth of bacteria, and to a lesser degree algae, on the artificial turf fibers.

Prevent dirt from settling on the pitch. It is important only to step onto an artificial turf pitch with clean shoe soles. Furthermore the pitches themselves must also be swept and brushed. This also removes all organic materials that have been pressed slightly deeper into the surface. It reduces the formation of bacteria and the increase of algae. Nevertheless, if algae should still arise, then a method of suppression can be necessary.

Algae killer. Prevention of algae growth is hardly possible. Early detection is key, especially in shaded areas. For combating algae, products with the active agent “alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride” (a.o. Dimanin Spezial from Bayer) give very good results, without damaging the artificial turf fibers. In some cases it is possible to add this agent to an existing irrigation system.

In all cases use only carefully chosen products, and always consult the instructions on the package, and local regulations.

No. 03] Dollars and cents. When promoters or consultants are asked about the annual cost of maintaining an artificial turf field, most often I have heard estimates in the range of $5000 to $10,000 per year. It is upon pressing the promoters and agents for more realistic data that the estimates tend to get revised upward. The fact is that even an estimated maintenance cost of  $22,000 is not accurate, as that number is usually with respect to indoor fields and a few years behind the current price list.

Your estimates may also vary if you have an outdoors venue, particularly in a wooded area, snow and ice conditions, hot summer days, and where the local economy enjoys a higher standard of living. Your estimate will also differ if you have greater wear and tear, due to increased playing time, vandalism, and other factors. The cost of supplies, consulting, and maintenance equipment may be yet other factor in determining the ultimate maintenance annual. Extended warranty and insurance premiums too will increase the overall annual cost for the fields.

Below are summaries of two seminal works on maintenance cost of artificial turf fields. The first one form Missouri State University is about outdoor field and second one is from Michigan State University’s indoor facility. Instructive in the second summary is the cost schedules in reference to the type of maintenance service, price and equipments involved in the process. A third summary appears at the end of this section from anecdotal information obtained from Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.

No. 05] Fouty's Perspective. Amy J. Fouty is the Michigan State University’ athletic turf manager. On May 11, 2005, she made a presentation at the Synthetic Turf Infill Seminar, in Detroit, Michigan, entitled “A Sports Field Manager’s Perspective: Synthetic Turf Construction Considerations, Maintenance Costs & Concerns." She stated, "There are concerns with regard to the safety of the products used to make the fields, as well as with how to clean and disinfect synthetic infill fields. Synthetic infill manufacturers need to get information and solutions out to the people who have to deal with these issues on a daily basis."

Among the problems tackled by Fouty was the removal of metal objects that got tossed or dropped on the field. She has her crew manufacture a field magnet that could be dragged over the field once or twice a year to capture the objects. Furthermore, "If you paint lines, the first time you groom over the lines the product spreads over the field. The dried paint is abrasive, slippery and the lines don't look good very long," she said. And, for the first few years, static control is a problem that requires a spray of diluted fabric softener. "It also takes away the old tire smell," Fouty said. "Without the fabric softener, our indoor facility smells like old tires and locker rooms."

Fouty’s presentation included a break down of the annual maintenance budget for MSU's 3-year-old synthetic infill field (indoor), which added up to nearly $23,000, on such items as equipment, outside contractors, materials, and labor for regular field grooming.

Outside Contractor Maintenance Charges

Synthetic Turf Maintenance Equipment : Total:  $8,250 to $82,000

2004-2005 Maintenance Budget

        (1 x per year; 20/hrs per application; 10 tons of top dressing at $500 per ton)

Overall Maintenance Cost

No. 06] Boston College Interview (May-June 2006). The Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts (Newton/Brookline) has had its rubber infill synthetic field since 2004. According to Mr. Joseph Shirley, Director of Facilities, the college should expect to replace the field within 7-10 years and not the 10-15 years often advertised. The BC field has following maintenance performed on it:

-- Since the infill is disrupted with usage, the field is “raked and flattened” every 2 weeks. This ensures that the rubber and sand infill is distributed evenly over the entirety of the field surface. BC purchased a machine as part of the overall construction project by Geller Associates, BC’s artificial turf contractor. The machine is made up of a tractor with various devices to rake and flatten the field and accessories for snow plowing, snow blowing, leaf blowing, and more.

--  After raking and flattening, the field appears black owing to the rise of sand and rubber to the surface. The field is watered with a sprinkler system to (i) eliminate severe static electricity and (ii) push the sand and rubber back into the base below the synthetic surface.

-- Geller Associates performs “deep tining” using much larger equipment with a bigger rake that goes down deeper into the surface and removes any bigger rocks or debris deeper in the bottom. It also removes any foreign debris (e.g., metallic, organic, etc.) that gets into the turf. This is done twice yearly at a cost of $3500 per application.

--  An anti-bacterial treatment is applied once monthly. This is sprayed on via a tractor with “fertilizer-type” sprayer once a month (probably not a good idea to spray on anti-bacterial agents with a device also used for fertilizer).

--  Rips are fixed periodically.

--  Based on full-time usage, a “bounce test” is performed every year to determine the status and viability (safety) of the field.

YMCA-Newton, Mass. 12/8/07

[No. 11] Bad Maintenance Practices at the West Suburban YMCA! Newton, SynTurf.org. December 8, 2007.  The general protocol for dealing with snow-covered artificial turf fields is as follows: When the field is covered with a layer of snow, the game is played on the snow rather than the carpet itself. The snow protects the carpet from damage. If mechanical snow removal is required, one must ensure that (a) the carpet is not damaged by the removal procedure and (b) the players are not injured by remaining frozen material between the fibers. However, if there is a reason for removing snow, one must use a wooden – never metal! – scrapper or a broom. Playing under thaw or glaze ice conditions may render the field very slippery causing dangers for the players! Source: Ten Cate Advisory on snow dealing with turf in snowy conditions, see http://www.synturf.org/maintenance.html [Item: No. 02].

That said – about 12:30 PM on December 8, 2007 (temp: low 40's degrees F), SynTurf.org noticed a group of four men vigorously at work on the artificial turf field at the West Suburban YMCA on Church Street, in Newton, Massachusetts. Each of the four was removing the snow with the help of a common household snow shovel. Two of the shovels appeared to be of the model that has a metal strip attached to the hard plastic edge.

SynTurf.org examined the pile that the crew had shoveled to the northern sideline and western end-zone. No broken polygrass was observed in the snow banks. However, the snow pile contained a generous amount of crumb rubber, which had been removed from the field in the process of snow removal.

Maintenance Question: Did the removal of the snow with shovels violate standard maintenance protocol?

Athletic Health: How safe is it to play on thawing turf or on a surface that is not cleared completely of slush?

[No. 12] Delaware Riverkeeper slams artificial turf on cost and other issues! October 16, 2007. In  a letter addressed to the Radnor Township [Pennsylvania] School Board, Delaware Riverkeeper (www.delawareriverkeeper.org) sought to dispel the myth associated with installation of artificial turf playing field at a middle school in the town. The letter pointed out, among other things, artificial turf costs excessively more than natural grass under every cost scenario applicable to the situation, and the environmental, educational and social affects of artificial turf could not be justified. See the text of the letter at http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/newsresources/factsheet.asp?ID=53 (October 16, 2007).

DelawareRiverkeeper.org has a very well informed Fact Sheet on Artificial/Synthetic Turf. It can be accessed at http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/newsresources/factsheet.asp?ID=50 (September 9, 2007). It discusses the actual and potential adverse impact of artificial turf fields with regard to stormwater considerations, water quality issues (leachate and discharge containing harmful particulates and substances), heat island effect, and costs in dollars and cents terms.

From a cost standpoint, Fact Sheet states: “It is generally agreed that artificial turf costs more to install than natural grass, while natural grass costs more to maintain.  Installation and maintenance costs for each must be assessed on a case by case basis depending on site specific conditions.  But generally speaking, when the installation and maintenance costs of artificial turf are assessed for the life span of the turf, particularly when the cost of disposal is added, the cost of installing and maintaining natural grass is far less.  The guaranteed life and/or lifespan of artificial turf is 8 to 10 years.  Some attempt to claim a longer life in order to assert a lower annual cost.” Footnotes omitted.

The comparative cost figures for artificial turf and natural grass as set forth in Delaware Riverkeeper.org’s Fact Sheet:

Per San Francisco Recreation & Parks (2005):

Installation:                 turf $800,000    v.    natural grass  $260,000

Annual maintenance:  turf $6,000        v.    natural grass  $42,000

Cost of disposal: turf  unknown (significant/hazardous waste)   v.  natural grass  $0

Av. annual cost for   8 yrs:  turf  $106,000  v.   natural grass   $74,500

Av. annual cost for 10 yrs:  turf  $86,000    v.   natural grass   $68,000

Av. annual cost for 15 yrs:  turf  $59,333    v.   natural grass   $59,333  

Per Facts about Artificial Turf and natural Grass (Turfgrass Resource Center):

Cost of construction and maintenance per sq. ft.: turf  $7.80-$10.75  v. natural grass  $6.50-$7.95 (with high quality soil amendments), or $2.50-$5.25 (with native soils)

Cost of disposal per sq. ft.:  turf $1.75-$2.25  v. natural grass  $0

Springfield College case study installation and maintenance: turf &105,000  v. natural grass  $78,000

Av. annual cost for 8 yrs(without disposal cost): turf 800,000 install and annual maintenance of $5,000 v. natural grass $400,000 and $28,000, respectively

Av. annual cost for 10 yrs (without disposal cost): turf $85,000  v. natural grass $68,000

Av. annual cost for 25 yrs (without disposal cost): turf  $58,377  v. natural turf  $54,666

Per A Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Fields:

Cost of installation per sq. ft.: turf  7.80-$10.75  v. natural grass  $2.50-$5.25 (if done with native soils), $3.50-$5.25 (if done with combination of native soils and sand), $6.50-$7.95 (if done with sand drainage)

Annual maintenance:  turf $5,000-$25,000  v. natural grass $4,000-$11,000 (per the case studies provided)

[No. 14] Auburn, New York: Cost of Turf Replacement In 10 Years’ Time Worries Board of Education Member. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 24, 2008.

Joseph Leogrande is a member of Auburn Enlarged City Board of Education. Auburn is small city located in the Finger Lakes region of New York State. The heart of Cayuga County, this city of some 32,000 people lies at the northern tip of Owasco Lake. This May, the voters in this educational district will be considering an ambitious project to renovate and expand the athletic facilities at Holland Stadium, which is located on the grounds of East Middle School. The $15.68 million capital project will pay also for the installation of synthetic turf at the stadium.

Leogrande has questioned the cost and environmental/health risks associated with artificial turf. In that, he is not alone as many around the country do make similar points about the product. Leogrande however has put his finger on something that hardly gets any attention – the cost of replacement of a turf field every 10 years or so. “Down the road, in 10 years, we're going to have to replace it with no state aid. It will be a full shot, like one or two million dollars,” he told Alyssa Sunkin of The Citizen . “Combined with the toxicity and the very expensive surface, I think we can put the money somewhere in the school for education,” he continued, “That's what we're here for.”

For more on this story, see Alyssa Sunkin, “Turf trials,” in The Citizen, February 9, 2008, available at http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2008/02/10/local_news/news01.txt.

Even in this debate – the public needs to be told that the replacement happens every 10 years for as long as there is a field. The impression that the public pays for the turf once at installation and again for a replacement 10 years later supposes that a field will have useful life of 20 years total. That is not the case in most instances when a playing field, natural or artificial, would be a round for decades after decades.

[No. 15] Maintenance-free, eh? An Expert's checklist. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 17, 2008. For some time now, Syn Turf.org has been informing the public about the fallacious notion that artificial turf does not require maintenance. The maintenance-free or low-maintenance cost of turf is often touted as a selling point and the cost-conscious municipal officials tend to fall for this rouse, because in tough economic times the prospect of “savings” is an irresistible lure for the cash-strapped municipality that cannot afford to maintain its grass playing fields.  
In a recent article, Ron Hall, the editor of Athletic Turf News, discussed the necessity of good maintenance for artificial turf fields. Here are his 13-point recommendations -- the observance of which SynTurf.org assumes could add up to a good chunk of chnage: 

1. Acquire a maintenance log from the synthetic turf supplier and/or installer. If one is unavailable from the supplier or installer, fashion your own. This is a working document. Enter every maintenance procedure that you perform on the field into the log and date it.

2. Get the most complete and precise maintenance procedures you can from the synthetic supplier and/or installer. Following these recommendations will lessen the chances for disagreements over warranty issues and major repairs during the warranted life of the field.

3. Acquire, if possible, a list of recommended or suggested maintenance equipment and materials from the synthetic turf supplier or installer.

4. Your most important maintenance tool may be a fence around the field, with gated and locked entrances. Unattended fields invite unsupervised play and lend themselves to vandalism. Yes, these fields can sustain a lot of use, but it should be supervised use.

5. Signage at the field that clearly spells out guidelines in terms of use and what may or may not be brought onto the playing surface or its immediate area (gum, candy, glass containers, tobacco products, etc.) tells users at a glance that you’re serious about keeping the playing surface clean and safe.

6. Keep trash or litter containers near the sports fields so that users and spectators can dispose of cans, paper and other materials rather than pitching them onto the ground.

7. Develop a strategy to keep materials such as leaves, twigs, grass clippings or wrappers and other wind-blown debris off the field. You don’t want this material to get crushed or ground into and contaminate the infill. The fence around the field will solve keep some wind-blow material off your fields. Many field managers now use push or pull gasoline-powered blowers to remove litter from their fields. Backpack blowers can do the job, as well, as long as operators are careful not to disturb the infill.

8. Inspect fields regularly for damage or unusual wear. Pay special attention to areas that receive lots of traffic (goal mouths and corner kick areas of soccer pitches, the edges of infields on baseball and softball fields, between the hashmarks on football fields) to maintain adequate levels of infill material.

9. Keep a supply of extra synthetic material, glue and other materials to make minor repairs as needed?

10. If possible, keep on hand some extra infill material (perhaps a 55-gal. barrel) to replace what's lost through normal use.

11. Develop a routine for drag matting or brushing your synthetic field to redistribute/even the infill and restore the “grass” blades to an upright position.

12. Equipment is now available to "pick up", filter and return infill material to the surface of synthetic fields. Look for manufacturers to introduce more units to collect infill material, filter it and redistribute it evenly over the surface of a playing surface.

13. The question of sanitizing synthetic fields in light of concerns over the presence of community-acquired MRSA is a difficult one. There have been statements made that rain cleanses these fields, which seems unlikely, inasmuch as even in areas with regular rain car washes seem to do quite well. Also, it's been claimed that environmental conditions, in particular, sunlight and heat destroy MRSA bacteria, which seems reasonable. But what about spring and fall play when these fields are most used for youth sports, often during cloudy, cooler conditions? While other sports surfaces, including locker rooms, training equipment and wresting mats, to name a few, are more likely to harbor MRSA bacteria, the degree of risk of infection from synthetic sports fields remains a matter of lively debate.

“We hope, however, that these suggestions alert you to the very real need to maintain your synthetic turf fields,” wrote Hall. “Remember, the financial investment in these fields is sizable, and your responsibility to provide safe playing conditions for athletes.”