Another School Districts Chooses the Expensive Field Turf
- on 06.18.08
- General
- 4 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Palantine-Schaumburg High School District 211 agreed to spend $8.5 Million dollars to put artificial turf onto its stadiums at its 5 schools. This cost is an extra $2 Million dollars that originally expected. You can read some related stories about this at the following:
- Test: Lead in Dist. 211 turf doesn’t pose health risk
- Straight Talk on District 211
- Artificial turf OK’d despite $2 million over budget
- DISTRICT 211 TO PROCEED WITH TURF
The following are excerpts from a letter to the editor entitled, “This kind of money for turf is obscene”. [Emphasis mine]
District 211 board meeting, we learned: (1) that a motion to spend $8.7 million on artificial turf for the district’s football fields had been approved; (2) that the project cost was $2.2 million higher than the board had been led to believe it would be; and (3) that Superintendent, Roger Thornton, was “embarrassed” by the error and regretted it.
Two things about the news are bothersome to me. First, spending $8.7 million for artificial turf is an obscenity. I gather that the academic departments within the district have all the money they need, so spending the millions on turf is not a problem.
I know all about the “safety” arguments that favor such projects, but in a difficult economy and with taxes rising all around us, it is the height of arrogance to spend taxpayer funds for this purpose.
————————————————–
Second, what is the response to Superintendent Thornton’s regret? What now? How will he and/or support staff members be held accountable? Will they be fired? Will they receive a salary decrease? Will they be denied a raise when these decisions are made?If one of these things doesn’t occur, Superintendent Thornton’s utterance is just words. A $2.2 million mistake isn’t like ordering two dozen more boxes of pencils than are needed. This is a big deal. The District 211 board owes it to the public to show that they think it is a big deal too.
Charles F. Falk
Mr. Falk is absolutely correct. The cost of this artificial turf is obscene.
You will notice that turf being put in is Field Turf. This is the same turf that Grayslake High School District 127 chose. In the Grayslake case they made sure the specs eliminated all other synthetic turf vendors so they could choose the highest priced vendor which provided Field Turf. It would be interesting if someone checked the bids for this purchase to see if the same sort of bid rigging took place.
For most schools, an artificial turf project represents a substantial investment in time and money. With so much on the line it is up to the assembled committee to conduct thorough research in order to select a product that will provide for safety, performance and the greatest return on their investment. When it comes to quality and savings, no artificial turf on the planet has helped more schools save more money over time for other schools expenditures than FieldTurf. As the global leader in infilled artificial turf, FieldTurf has been providing students, athletes, coaches and athletic directors with the highest quality and longest lasting artificial turf on the market.
Over ten years ago, when FieldTurf created the world’s first infilled artificial turf for sports applications, a decision was made to invest in quality. Today, as a result of that decision, FieldTurf features the highest grade materials and only implements the most meticulous of installation methods. Due to that dedication to quality and durability the initial price of FieldTurf tends to be higher when compared to the competition and natural grass. However, when broken down over time, the durability and performance of the FieldTurf product has proven to be the most cost effective sports field surface in the world.
With an average sized natural grass field, maintenance costs with regards to mowing, reseeding, resodding and watering can amount to over $50,000.00 each year. Compared to the virtually maintenance free FieldTurf product, the cost of maintaining a natural grass field over a ten year span has proven to be substantially more expensive than the price of a FieldTurf field.
When compared to the competition, FieldTurf’s patented product has been proven to last the test of time. Despite several other cheaper turf alternatives, FieldTurf has never compromised on quality for price. In the artificial turf industry, history has demonstrated a direct correlation between quality and longevity. With the highest quality materials and the most amount of infill per square foot, FieldTurf has remained a step above. Unfortunately for several schools who decided to roll the dice on a cheaper artificial turf product, their fields have been plagued by costly field breakdowns and have often failed to last more than 5 years.
FieldTurf understands that the true test of a product’s quality lies in its longevity. For a school, that longevity translates directly into additional money for school related expenses. The Amarillo Independent School District is just one of many satisfied FieldTurf clients who have already experience the incredible savings promised to them by FieldTurf. Athletic Director Tex Nolan decided to install FieldTurf 10 yeas ago. Today that same field continues to be used non-stop by hundreds of students and community members.
“By choosing to invest in FieldTurf which is a higher quality product with a history of durability, our school board experienced tremendous savings. As it turned out, by investing in a FieldTurf field we were able to free up a lot of money for other school expenses that would have otherwise been reserved for natural grass field maintenance. Our FieldTurf field, which lasted 10 years, was significantly cheaper than natural grass in the long run and provided our schools with additional finances which we used to invest in education. It is safe to say that FieldTurf has had a direct and positive impact on our students, both on and off the field.”- Tex Nolan
Results like the ones seen at Amarillo are not uncommon. When it comes to durability, FieldTurf is the only artificial turf company on the market with fields (50+) over the age of 10 that are still in daily use.
With more than 2,500 installations in the ground, FieldTurf is the most trusted name in artificial turf. Thanks to a commitment to quality and longevity, the FieldTurf product has been helping more schools save more money for education than any other sports related surface in history.
Sean Adelsohn
sean.adelsohn@fieldturftarkett.com
Sean:
You need to understand that the only factor worth consideration here is that utilization of your product in no way supports “Fund The Child”; value, need, fact and science are meaningless unless you “Fund The Child”. The mantra is, “Fund the Child – Not the Turf”.
FieldTurf, as the world leader in artificial turf fields, has always been interested in the concept of “Fund The Child”. However, it has always been our policy to go beyond the funding stage in order to ensure the long term success of the student and school. With that being said, our mantra is “Invest In The Child”.
In order to effectively “Invest In The Child” it is essential to make decisions today that will positively affect tomorrow. By selecting FieldTurf, the school has not only made an investment in the physical well being of their students, but they have effectively prevented the unnecessary allocation of valuable resources which would have otherwise been spent on the maintenance of a natural grass field. With a natural grass field, each passing year represents over $50,000.00 spent on field maintenance instead of the child. Although initially more expensive, FieldTurf and its reduced maintenance requirements, when broken down over a ten year period have proven to be substantially less expensive than natural grass. As it turns out, by “Funding The FieldTurf” the superintendent has “Invested In The Children”.
Sean,
I have been doing some research as well into one of your competitors. Here is a comparison of Premier-RS system versus your Fieldturf product.
1. Premier-RS – 44 ounces of yarn per square foot with a 2” pile height and is tufted on a 3/8” gauge tufting machine.
Fieldturf – 33 ounces of yarn per square yard with a pile height of 2.5” and is tufted on a ¾” gauge tufting machine.
Conclusion – Premier-RS has 25% more fiber per square yard by weight and has twice as many yarn ends since it is tufted on a 3/8” gauge tufting machine. This provides a heavier, denser, more durable and consistent playing surface, which is critical for sports like field hockey and soccer.
2. Premier-RS – perforated at the factory with 3/16” holes every 4” on center. These perforations provide and ensure consistent, long-term drainage capabilities throughout the life of the system.
Fieldturf – not perforated at all. Conclusion – This is totally inconsistent with the concept of positive drainage that is inherent in the design and construction of these types of fields. There is a Fieldturf installation in Stamford, CT, that floods every time it rains which is attributable to the lack of perforations in the carpet.
3. Fieldturf – made with two standard, woven polypropylene backings and less than 17ounces of urethane secondary coating per square yard.
Premier-RS – constructed using the TTC Thiobac Pro three-ply backing that is composed of over 60% polyester. This backing is manufactured by TTC, the world’s largest manufacturer of slit film polyethylene yarns and was specifically designed to provide the highest degree of backing strength and dimensional stability for these types of loose laid systems.
4. Premier-RS – uses a rounded, coarse, uniformly sized silica sand for the sand component of the infill and also uses a higher percentage of rubber infill than Fieldturf.
Fieldturf – use a much finer sand component and has many more angular shaped particles
Conclusion – Use of angular shaped particles has caused some Fieldturf fields to get harder over time, whereas the Premier-RS rounded sand will not compact nor will it be abrasive to the fiber or the athlete providing a more consistent and lower G-Max ratings over the life of the field.
5. Premier-RS – installed system will have only 1/4”-3/8” of fiber exposed above the rubber/sand infill and topdress the field with a full 1 ¾” of infill. This level of infill and less fiber exposed above the infill provides a much more consistent surface as it relates to ball roll and ball speed. This is critical when it comes to sports like field hockey, soccer and lacrosse. This level of infill also ensures that the polyethylene fiber will remain upright and will not lay over as will happen with fields like the Fieldturf product that have ¾” or more of the fiber exposed above the infill.
6. Premier-RS – G-Max rating of 160 during the life of the warranty.
Fieldturf – G-Mas raiting of 190
ASTM unsafe rating – 200, meaning Premier-RS should be safer throughout it lifetime.
I am sure you have data that you will provide to try and prove why this research is incorrect. Feel free to do so.
I have seen this now in 2 Illinois school districts where they have chosen your product with is much more expensive to the competitors. To me this is not an investment in children, but more of a “I have to have the top of the line because the high school down the road has this turf”.
Your reputation as being the top of the line could very well be just reputation only because of being a market leader and not based on the facts. This happens in many industries. In databases, people buy Oracle because they are the market leader even though they do not have the technically superior database. Everyone buy Microsoft products as well for the same reason.
I understand this is somewhat subjective. But spending the taxpayer money in excess just to make sure you buy the market leader in no way helps the children’s education. It is investing in your company to the detriment of the children in the district and to the wallets of the taxpayers. Fieldturf is not an effective use of taxpayer monies.
Second, if your company truly believes in a “Fund the Child” concept, feel free to commit a certain portion of you earnings from the installations to efforts to make that happen.