May 19, 2005
Meeting Minutes**Note: Please see the minutes of June 2, 2005 for revisions recommended by the committee to the minutes that follow below. Roll Call Tom Davids opened the meeting at 7:04 pm and roll was taken. Approval of Minutes for Meeting of May 5, 2005 Minutes of the meeting of May 5, 2005 were presented for approval. A motion was made to approve the minutes subject to corrections and clarifications requested by several committee members. Unfortunately, many of these comments, except for those noted below, were not recorded and are not available. Committee members will be requested to repeat their comments at the June 2 meeting and their comments will be included in the minutes of that meeting. Member comments regarding the May 5 minutes which were captured in the meeting are summarized below: - Regarding Adult Softball, page 1, the second sentence should read: “Gross revenue for Softball is approximately $73,000 (actual figures can be obtained).”
- Regarding Crestview Field, page 3, the last two sentences are removed, recognizing however that the Mahady Report did recommend synthetic turf and lights for Crestview Field among their list of field renovation options.
- Regarding Tierra Linda, page 4, the first sentence reference to “baseball” should be “softball”. Also, the 750 students reported for Tierra Linda includes students at the Charter Learning Center. Also noted to correct the spelling from “Terra Linda” to Tierra Linda.”
Review Next Steps Leading to Recommendations Tom Davids presented an overview of topics to be discussed by the committee which will lead to specific recommendations to the City Council. These topics include: A. Synthetic Turf
B. Natural Turf
C. Lights
(Items A, B and C will include a review of economics, discussion of advantages and disadvantages regarding use, and informational presentations.)
D. A presentation by three representatives of cities or campuses having experience with artificial turf and/or lights.
E. A review of the playable hours matrix comparing field surface, field size, lighting current and potential fields and other relevant factors.
This discussion will center on our primary mission – how do we balance the increasing demand for field space with the reality of sites available and neighborhood concerns?
F. Formation of one or more committee recommendations along with minority opinions as necessary. Discussion Natural Turf, Synthetic Turf, and Lights Two turf experts were invited to address the committee. Greg Wisebrick of FieldTurf Builders (a provider of synthetic turf) could not attend. Dave Schinski, Assistant Athletic Director – Capital Planning at Stanford University and the person in charge of fields was welcomed by the committee. In his introductory comments, Schinski stated that he would present the Stanford experience regarding turf and lights without advocating for either side; that his comments would be objective based on his experience; and that committee members were welcome to ask questions at will. Schinski proceeded with an excellent PowerPoint presentation and displayed samples of different types of synthetic turf. His review and discussion was not recorded; however, the following comments are intended to be representative: A. Stanford has hundreds of acres of fields, many of which are being considered for conversion from natural to synthetic turf. B. Stanford’s motive for converting would be to extend play
time (especially during the rainy season) and give their teams the “synthetic experience” players need when competing at other campuses. C. Stanford currently has only one field of artificial turf and it is the old Astroturf type. D. The current generation of synthetic turf is basically a “carpet” of different types of plastic fiber. Manufacturers can and will modify their product to meet specific needs.E. Schinski visited Europe to inspect synthetic turf fields in use for 10+ years. F. European fields do not allow recycled rubber infill on synthetic turf. They substitute a natural product which results in a higher overall project cost. G. One interesting turf type is a combination natural turf/synthetic turf field used in the Netherlands. H. Schinski found no increased incidence of injuries on syn thetic turf. I. Synthetic fields are recognized as being hotter than natural turf. The real impact depends on sun conditions and ambient temperature. J. Under ideal circumstances Schinski prefers natural to synthetic turf. Players generally feel the same way except for field hockey players who prefer synthetic. K. The maintenance of natural turf was discussed including the types of grass used, cutting and thatching techniques, watering, fertilizing and over seeding. L. In Schinski’s experience, the base/drainage system is the most important structural component of either type of field. M. Manufacturers of synthetic turf generally provide a 10 year warranty; however, engineering tests indicate a life of 15 to 20 years. N. Downside factors regarding maintenance of synthetic turf include:
- Eventual disposal of synthetic should be in the contract. The product is not recyclable.
- The carpet must be periodically groomed to redistribute the infill material.
- Weeds, leaves, sunflower seeds, gum and animal feces are maintenance issues.
- Surface can be vandalized by motorized vehicles if not secured.
- Bloodletting will create areas to be disinfected.
O. Schinski presented cost factors for certain synthetic products and briefly reviewed installation and maintenance costs for both synthetic and natural turf. This information is generally consistent with that in each member’s binder. P. Schinski concluded his presentation with slides of light fixtures used at Stanford. Based on his experience, a good quality lighting system will be characterized as follows: - A fixture may include an appropriate number of lamps relevant to the expected types of activity on the site.
- Lamps can be directed to illuminate a precise field location.
- Quality current generation lights will not glare to the sky but will produce skyline and sideline glow minimizing the overall impact of lighting in the surrounding area.
- Fixture hoods will reduce light spill and timers will ensure light curfews.
In conclusion, Schinski reiterated the general idea of preference for natural turf, but acknowledged current generation synthetic turf as a good alternative when necessary to meet the need for more field time. Schinski predicted that in the future, only the elite turf managers will be able to maintain natural turf in a desirable, playable condition. Committee members thanked Dave Schinski for his excellent presentation. Additional Information Relative to Synthetic Turf Committee member Katherine Tynan distributed a packet of three articles which highlighted potential problems with synthetic turf including: - Potential for concussions
- A five year study on high school football injuries
- Health, environmental and cost concerns
Committee members were encouraged to study this information to ensure a balanced approach as we focus on the possible use of synthetic turf. Followup Comments of Field Discussion from Meeting of May 5, 2005 No discussion was held. Public Comment There was no public comment. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:13pm. |
