Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Caunty
thi11hOOrhoodand
(ammuriity'it!'rvircn
CONTENTS
DevelopmentDAnalysis
and Findings
10
21
24
26
28
31
32
37
38
Cost
42
43
Appendix VllDNatural
44
Cover Photo: Oak Marr Park Synthetic Turf Field and Robinson Secondary School Stadium Field
-2-
The development of new synthetic turf fields, to include location recommendations for
rectangular and diamond fields
The funding of new synthetic turf fields, to include private and corporate partnership
opportunities
The planned replacement of existing and any new synthetic turf fields
The regular on-going maintenance of existing synthetic turf fields
The task force was comprised of community leaders and county staff who had a direct
connection to the current and future synthetic turf field efforts. (Members are listed in Appendix/.)
The task force was charged with:
Proposing recommendations that focus on ensuring fair and equitable access for all
geographic areas of the county
Providing a formal report on its findings and recommendations to the Fairfax County
School Board, the Fairfax County Park Authority Board and Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors for their collective review and action
Reference: Fairfax County School Board resolution, December 15, 2011; Letter from School Board Chair to Board of
Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova, February 2012; and April 10, 2012 Board of Supervisors action. (see Appendix II)
- 3-
Synthetic
Appendix VI.
New Resources Increased Capacity
In 2005, additional funding was required to complete planned development of synthetic turf fields. In
recognition of the overall community benefit for the resulting increased capacity, the Athletic Council
advocated for, and the County Board of Supervisors adopted, the creation of a Turf Field Development
Fund. This program utilized a portion of revenues from the Athletic Services Application Fee (commonly
referred to as the 0$5.500 fee) to offer annual mi-rgrants to spur development partnerships with
community sports organizations. Of the current synthetic turf field inventory, 19 (28 percent) were partially
funded by the Athletic Services Application Fee. The creation of the new Turf Field Development Fund
and the concurrent financial support from the community helped to sustain the momentum of the synthetic
turf field development effort until passage of the 2006 Park Bond referendum. That referendum
specifically targeted synthetic turf field development and provided full funding for an additional 12 fields.
- 4 -
Implementation
of the Two-Field
In 2009, Marshall High School became the first FCPS site that created a []we-field model. D The
development was funded through proffer funds and contributions from community sports organizations.
This became the new design model for synthetic turf field development at high schools, which included
installation of synthetic turf surfaces on both the main stadium field and on a lighted auxiliary field on the
school campus. The physical configuration of the two-field model increased the availability for field use by
school athletic and physical education programs, as well as the surrounding community.
In 2010, Herndon High School became the first high school to successfully apply for mini-grant funds
through the grant program administered by NCS, resulting in the county's second two-field model. Nine of
the county's high schools have two-field models in place.
-5-
BOS
(one-time
appropriations)
4%
($1,977,032)
6%
($3,458, 177)
Proffers
12%
($6,313, 127)
Community Sports
Organizations
22%
($11,787,763)
Athletic Application
Fee Grant
8%
($4,450, 180)
FCPA Bond
43%
($22,772, 166)
Total Cost
$53,423, 706
Significant
* A summary of all synthetic turf locations, funding sources, and costs can be found in
Appendix VI.
- 6 -
School boosters
18%
($3,458, 177)
Proffers
16%
($3,039,735)
FCPS
(one-time funds)
7%
($1,274,715)
BOS (one-time
appropriations)
8%
($1,475,000)
Community Sports
Organizations
31%
($6,070,799)
8%
($1,495,502)
Total Cost
$19,329,474
Athletic Application
Fee Grant
7%
($1,425,000)
and school
turf fields.
* A summary of all synthetic turf locations, funding sources, and costs can be found in
Appendix VI.
-7-
Synthetic
Turf Task
Force
Proffers
10%
($3,273,392)
......_
BOS (one-time
appropriations)
1%
($502,032)
Athletic Application E.
ra;;~~
Grant
9%
($3,025, 180)
Total Cost
,,,..
FCPA Bonds
62%
($21,276,664)
$34,094,232
Park Authority
majority
school synthetic
* A summary
___________ Appendix
of all synthetic
turf locations,
funding
sources, and costs can be found in
VI.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-8-
CRANESVILLE
r+emuc-t
HS
o1l
S,,oog
H1llPrk
!,']
Timber Ridge
El.EDS
V>,lestfield
HS
o1l
SPRINGFIELD
South
RunPri<
~d
SmJ.h Run
FICIHOuse
[i2]
Grist
Mil Pr1<
0
MOUNT
Legend
o1l
FCPS Completed
FCPS Pending
li'l
FCPA Completed
FCPA Pending
Non-High
Non-High
- 9-
VERNON
Synthetic
Needs
identified
field shortage of
Conversion of
surfaces helps
What is the best field configuration? How can the county maximize community sports
organizations' use and school's use for physical education instruction and high school
athletic and other school program use?
FINDING 2: The optimal use of resources in the creation of synthetic turf fields on all sites
(parks and schools) is a minimum two-field rectangular, or more, model. Including a
diamond field (where physically possible), the following financial benefits exist for establishing a
standard minimum two-field rectangular model at all sites:
Land purchases are costly, and limited opportunities exist for stand-alone development
throughout the county
There is some flexibility with land at middle and elementary schools to leverage existing
resources to maximize use
Cost savings can be achieved through economy of scale of field construction and
operations
- 10 -
Synthetic
Opportunities exist for two-field models on park-owned properties at sites throughout the
county, thereby increasing accessibility to more users
FINDING 3: In a two-field rectangular synthetic turf model at high schools, overall usage
capacity is significantly increased, with both FCPS programs and community use equally
benefitting.,
This provides community access to FCPS athletic fields that were previously not
scheduled to the public through the field allocation process/system. A two-field model has the
following benefits:
Allows for increased use during the school day for physical education classes
Avoids transportation issues for after-school practices to nearby middle and elementary
schools and parks
Increases field use time for community sports organizations during peak community use
hours
Best utilizes land available at school sites for community use
Benefits the community sports organizations by the existence of a second, non-stadium
field on school campus sites. The stadium field is heavily used by the FCPS sports teams
and as such has a much more limited use for the community.
Adds new fields to the public access inventory which were previously not available for
scheduling
Affords greater opportunity for community programs to use school fields
Affords FCPS high school teams earlier practice times, makes more time available for
community use of high school synthetic turf fields, and allows FCPS year-round use of
FCPA synthetic turf fields from 3 D 5 p.m. on weekdays for practice
- 11 -
100
90
80
%
87.9%
70
F
i
60
e
I
d
50
43.1%
40
u
s
e
30
20
10
0
Grass
Synthetic Turf
* A summary of grass versus synthetic turf usage can be found in Appendix VII.
community
users.
Capacity is significantly
increased
- 12 -
Who benefits in a
two-field
model:
Public Schools
instructional
programs
Physical education
Interscholastic
athletics
Intramural
and after
school programs
Community sports
organizations
- 13 -
Synthetic
approximately $600,000 to $900,000. Cost variances are attributed to the varying sizes of the
fields, specific site design requirements, and incorporation of project-related amenities required
for each project. Examples of site specific design features include those that address
environmental factors, geotechnical findings, engineering layout, onsite/offsite storm water
drainage/best management practice requirements, earthwork balancing, and related
infrastructure improvements. Project-specific ADA accommodations and amenities may include
creation of accessible trails, parking spaces, bleacher/players bench accessible pads, purchase
and assembly of bleachers/benches, side-field goals for youth soccer, protection fencing, and
community-requested landscape buffer enhancements. Any combination of these site-specific
design features may contribute to the variances between the overall total costs of individual
projects.
Are the Park Authority and FCPS methodologies for project development similar? Are
there any efficiencies or cost savings that can be applied to future development?
FINDING 6: Project Definition: FCPS and Park Authority total project costs commonly include
professional design service fees, permitting fees, and construction development costs. There
are, however, significant variances in project related amenities incorporated into FCPS and Park
Authority development projects. Additionally, Park Authority total project development costs
include a standard staff salary recovery expense, calculated at 8 percent of the design and
construction development cost for capital improvement projects. FCPS previously did not charge
staff salaries to project development costs, but will implement a $35,000 per-site fee for field
development administrative costs in the summer of 2013.
FINDING 7: Competitive Pricing: Both the Park Authority and FCPS use the Fairfax County
and Virginia State Procurement Regulations/guidelines, which include provisions for the use of
National Cooperative State, Local and Municipal Contracts offering nationwide competitive
pricing and competitive sealed bidding processes for the procurement of construction services.
FINDING 8: Contracting Efficiencies and Purchasing Practices: The Park Authority and
FCPS have in the past identified opportunities for joint cooperative contract arrangements when
in the best interest of the county. In 2008, staff partnered on joint contracting through U.S.
Communities, a nationwide cooperative procurement program. Standards for the industry, price
comparisons and other information sharing is routine and will continue on future synthetic turf
field development efforts to maximize purchasing power and oversight of synthetic turf field
development.
- 14 -
Synthetic
Shortages of synthetic
turf fields
of synthetic
turf fields.
FINDING 10: Based on its review of synthetic turf field location and utilization, the task
force identified significant comparative shortfalls in available synthetic turf fields in the
Mount Vernon and Lee Supervisory Districts. These areas of the county should be
considered for the next opportunities for development of rectangular synthetic turf fields
to address the shortfalls. Shortfalls were identified through analysis of several different data
sources: overall numbers of sports participants in youth leagues and high school athletic
programs, total population, and placement of synthetic turf fields at high schools within each
respective supervisory district. The analysis revealed community shortfalls in available synthetic
turf fields, as well as comparative uneven distribution at high school sites across the county.
(See detailed analysis on page 16 and comparison used to assess adequacy of field distribution
across the county.)
The task force concludes that the shortfalls in these districts are not the result of a conscious or
deliberate plan; the history of the development of the synthetic turf fields across the county
clearly shows that fields were developed when a combination of opportunities met with:
- 15 -
Synthetic
Community interest
Site availability (with full size field and lighting infrastructure in place)
Funding availability (through large community or private sector financial donations and/or
development proffer funds
Typically, it was only after one or more of these opportunities were under consideration that
public financing to supplement community resources was even considered to support the
development projects. The ultimate allocation of public funding also was influenced by the stated
need for a particular community. Were there unmet field requests experienced as part of the
county's management of countywide field scheduling and use policies? Did communities applying
for grant funding to partially support synthetic turf field development provide justification for the
placement of the field? In most of the synthetic turf fields developed in the county, funding
sources (including those appropriated or recommended by the Park Authority, the Athletic Council
and/or the Board of Supervisors) were leveraging significant investments for specific identified
sites and completed the financing package to allow the projects to move forward.
FCPA&
Non-HS
School
fields
FCPS
High
School
Fields
Total
Turf
Fields
Braddock
Dranesville
Hunter Mill
Differential
from STF
Inventory
% of Sports
Participants
*
Differential
from STF
Inventory
10.6%
-0.2
9.9%
0.5
19.4%
11.1%
8.3
16.3%
3.1
9.0%
11.4%
-2.4
11.3%
-2.3
4.5%
11.1%
-6.6
9.7%
-5.2
10.4%
10.8%
-0.4
10.6%
-0.2
Mount Vernon
4.5%
11.2%
-6.7
9.0%
-4.5
Providence
13.4%
11.2%
2.2
10.3%
3.1
Springfield
10
14.9%
11.0%
3.9
11.2%
3.7
Sully
13.4%
11.6%
1.8
11.6%
1.8
100.0%
100.0%
% of turf
% of Total
fields*
Population *
10.4%
13
Lee
Mason
41
26
67
*Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding
- 16 -
100.0%
Synthetic
placement
FINDING 11: The Park Authority adopted criteria to identify fields that would be priority
candidates for conversion to synthetic turf. The fields to be selected would be those that
most closely meet the program criteria. The approved criteria, adopted by the Park Board on
July 26, 2006, are:
**Any construction of synthetic turf fields on property owned by Fairfax County Public Schools
will require a long-term agreement that addresses the construction, community use,
maintenance and eventual replacement of the field.
Are other types of synthetic turf fields needed in the community for other sports?
FINDING 12: The 2004 Park Authority Needs Assessment identified a diamond field
shortage of 13 fields. Diamond-configured synthetic turf fields are in the development stages
for Fairfax Countywide use. Two current synthetic turf fields exist (Nottoway Park and Waters
Field) and two future sites are identified in the Park Authority Master Plan for the Laurel Hill
Sports Plex and Patriot Park. In 2005, when the Board of Supervisors directed the use of
Athletic Services Application Fee revenue into specific sports-related projects (such as
rectangular synthetic turf field development), the diamond field community advocated for the use
of available funds to significantly enhance the maintenance program on their existing natural
grass diamond fields. The Park Authority is currently conducting an updated needs assessment
that will be completed in 2014, the results of which should be used to guide community
engagement for future diamond synthetic turf field needs.
How should synthetic turf fields be funded in the future?
FINDING 13:
Community sports organizations provided significant funding and
leadership to create the inventory in place today. However, the success of the synthetic turf
field development program did not come without some unintended consequences. As the
economy dipped into recession in 2008, increased reliance upon an already significantly
leveraged program caused some disparity in development opportunities. For instance, on high
school sites where synthetic turf fields were successfully completed, over half of the funding was
- 17 -
raised by community sports organizations and school booster clubs in those communities.
Geographic areas of the county without groups able to contribute at similar levels were left (and
remain) without synthetic turf fields.
An additional issue identified by the task force is the capacity for some community sports
organizations that borrowed funds to finance construction of synthetic turf fields. This has
allowed their community to obtain such facilities in a timeframe that would not otherwise have
been possible. However, this arrangement is reported to have left some of the organizations
with significant loan debt. It will be important to assure that future arrangements forecast
capacity to also contribute to maintenance and/or replacement needs on the field in question
and the other natural grass fields on which they play.
FINDING 14: Community sports organizations have continued, and should continue, to
play a significant role in the development of synthetic turf fields. To date, community sports
organizations have contributed approximately 30 percent ($16 million) of all funds for
development through direct financial contributions and payment of the 0$5.500 feeThese
contributions both leverage and reduce the county taxpayer funding investment for school
children playing sports, physical education classes and community use for athletic league play
for both children and adults.
FINDING 15: Reliance upon leveraged partnerships helped to create the inventory that
exists today. Some communities will continue to have limited access to funding sources that
other neighborhoodshave had available. New strategies will need to be employed to overcome
these challengesto ensure access for all county residents.
FINDING 16: Each school site has unique site capacity, a variety of community sports
organizations and funding opportunities. Many contributing factors require individualized
field developmentplans; for example, some sites are limited in size and could only be developed
with a one-field model. A completely uniform development approach is not advantageous if
communitysports organizations'opportunitiescan be leveragedto reduce taxpayer costs.
Are development proffer funds available to support synthetic turf field development?
FINDING 17: Development proffer funds have been used in specific past efforts,
contributing approximately 12 percent of the total cost of all synthetic turf field
development to date. However, proffer funds cannot be relied upon as an assumed
ostandardJ source of funding for development or replacement of synthetic turf fields.
Availability of proffers is dependent on land use patterns. Proffers will be variable and should
not be factored into a standard formula for development of synthetic turf fields as they may or
may not be available for a particular developmenteffort. Developmentproffer funds were made
available to support 7 of 16 high schools for synthetic turf field development (Madison, Marshall,
Lee, Westfield, Mclean, Oakton and Woodson High Schools). Funds totaled $3.04 million for
- 18 -
Synthetic
11 synthetic turf fields, and represented approximately 16 percent of total high school sites
development costs of $19.3 million; however, 9 high schools were built through other funds
sources. Timing of synthetic turf field construction, location and development activity in the
community were all factors in determining applicability and appropriateness for use.
What is the justification for use of school general fund or bond financing for synthetic
turf fields on school property?
FINDING 18: Synthetic turf fields are not included in the existing FCPS school
construction education specifications, thereby excluding the development of synthetic
turf fields in new school construction or renovation projects. To date, no FCPS bond funds
have been used to pay for installation of synthetic turf fields, as the fields were not included in
the school education specifications. However, should the School Board choose to do so, bond
funding, including new or undesignated funds, as well as use of general FCPS operating funds,
appear to be viable funding sources.
How have other jurisdictions financed synthetic turf fields?
FINDING 19: The task force reviewed various development and maintenance strategies of
localities throughout the nation. A select listing of these jurisdictions is shown on the next page.
In reviewing the data, it is clear that Fairfax County residents have created one of the largest
synthetic turf field inventories and are at the forefront of communities addressing the sharing of
public resources, long-term capacity and need, maintenance, and financing strategies for
synthetic turf fields.
- 19 -
Synthetic
Other Locality Practices for Development, Maintenance and Replacement of Synthetic Turf Fields
Jurisdiction
Fairfax County, VA
Montgomery County, MD
# of Fields
67(41 parks
and non-HS, 26
HS)
4 (2 schools, 2
parks)
Development
Maintenance
Replacement
Bond financing
BOS
FCPS one-time funds
Donations, grants, other
Athletic application fee grant
Proffers
School boosters
Community sports
organizations
FCPA: General
maintenance fund
Athletic booster
clubs (151</year),
community field use
agreements, turf
field replacement
fund ($1501</year),
FCPA Tournaments
for Turf, County
general fund
appropriations
($3501</year)
Revenue
replacement fund D
user fee based
Loudoun County, VA
Arlington County, VA
5 schools
1 o (3 schools, 7
parks)
Miami-Dade County, FL
Included in capital
expenditure budget
Weekly inspection.
G-max tested by
contract. General
Operating Budget
Public-private partnerships D
government and sports
leagues
Maintained by
Parks as part of
regular operating.
Weekly clearing,
monthly sweeping
and grooming.
Done by
public/private
partnerships
Weekly inspection
and grooming as
needed. General
Operating Budget
General Obligation
bonds, pay-as-yougo, rental fees,
possible
partnerships
Under discussion.
One field is licensed
directly to a league;
they carry
responsibility to
replace. Use fees
and fund raising
under consideration.
6 schools
Public funds
included in Capital
Improvement Plan
Annual cleaning of
infill
Private funds
through user fees
9 parks
9 parks
G-max testing
done by
manufacturers
Contracted project
management and
construction
Capital Improvement
program, appropriated funds
Aberdeen, MD
FCPS: Local
school
responsibility
5 parks
- 20 -
Privately
maintained, G-max
tested twice per
year. General
Operating Budget
Soccer association
purchased
equipment; Park
staff maintains and
does work
Under discussion;
Money from grass
maintenance redirected to turf
replacement.
Under discussion
Under discussion
- 21 -
Rationale:
1. Conversion of these eight school sites will provide 15 rectangular fields for both community and
school athletic use. The purpose of this strategy is to resolve the equity issues that now exist in
schools that do not have synthetic turf fields or will not receive synthetic turf fields in 2013.
2. This strategy will further address overall community use shortages in several identified areas of the
county. Building these synthetic turf fields will increase the playability of fields located in the
supervisory districts where demand exceeds availability. These fields will address the significant
shortages identified in the Mount Vernon and Lee Districts.
3. Targeting the high schools:
is a prudent utilization of existing space and amenities (parking, lighting, bleachers and
other infrastructure)
benefits the greatest number of county residents participating in public schools and
community programs
Adding synthetic
1
9
3
2
5
3
4
6
8
6
4
3
5
7
6
5
4
1
7
13
6
7
12
9
9
10
9
No change
No change
No change
+4
+5
+6
No change
No change
No change
41
41
82
15
comparable
in the southeast
- 22 -
to incorporate
guidelines for
directed at
Park Authority
Staff representation from the County (FCPA and NCS) and FCPS
- 23 -
Synthetic
Funds Generated
over a 3 year period
Mini-Grants - Redirect Community Services Turf Field Mini-grant Program funds for
targeted development of the 8 high school sites (suspending the mini-grant program)
$1,050,000
Ability to Pay Expectation D Require community contribution for all eight schools from
athletic booster clubs and community sports groups for field development.
Tier 1:
$800,000
Tier 2: $200,000
Tier 3:
$450,000
Tier 3: Require 6.25 percent contribution ($100,000 D or $50,000 per field). Schools
recommended for tier 3 participation: Annandale, Edison, Mount Vernon, West
Potomac, JEB Stuart.
(See Table 1, p. 25 for further detail)
Increase the Athletic Fee from $5.50 per rectangular sports participants (lacrosse,
soccer, football, cricket, rugby, field hockey), per season to $8. Increases would be
dedicated to development costs for the 15 new synthetic turf fields for the three-year
development period.
Subtotal: (community support)
$750,000
$3,250,000
TBD
TBD
BOS: Development of a line item appropriation to create annual allocation or direct onetime appropriation of carryover funds in the county budget.
TBD
TBD
- 24 -
$8,750,000
Synthetic
School Boosters/Adult-Youth
Groups Contribution
It is the expectation that school booster clubs and community sports organizations will,
collectively and to their best ability to pay, contribute up to twenty-five percent (25%) toward the
development costs of a two-field synthetic turf field project. The ability to pay criteria will include,
but may not be limited to, a school's percentage of students eligible for the FCPS High School
Free and Reduced Lunch Program. This program serves as one indicator on the economic
viability of the student body and community.
Currently the development costs of a two-field synthetic turf field project are estimated at $1.6M.
The following table depicts the ability to pay scale and its application to the development of a twofield turf model:
Table 1. School Booster Clubs/Community
Costs of Two-Field Synthetic Turf Model
Percent
Free/Reduced
Lunch Student
Body
Ability to
Pay
Expectation
for Athletic
Booster
Club and
Athletic
Groups
33% or Greater
6.25%
$100,000
Annandale HS (44.7%)
Edison HS (34.3%)
21%- 32%
12.50%
$200,000
20% or Less
25.00%
$400,000
*Stuart HS would be a one-field model (based on available space). As such, their contribution expectation would
be $50,000.
- 25 -
Synthetic
Athletic Booster Clubs - FCPS required booster clubs at schools where synthetic turf
fields were installed to commit $15,000 annually as a set-aside for future synthetic turf field
replacement.
Community Field Use Agreements o FCPA and FCPS developed community use
agreements that allowed community partners to maintain their priority use benefits in
exchange for contributions to replace synthetic turf fields at the end of the fields' life cycle.
Synthetic Turf Field Replacement Fund o Established in FY 2012, funding for this
purpose was redirected ($150,000) from the Synthetic Turf Field Development Fund. A
portion of athletic participation fees charged to rectangular field users, the [$5.50 fee, o was
allocated for synthetic turf field replacement requirements.
Tournaments for Turf - The Park Authority initiated a Tournaments for Turf Program, in
which tournaments are held for the purpose of generating additional revenue for the
Synthetic Turf Field Replacement Fund.
County General Fund Appropriations o The BOS approved use of a dedicated line item
totaling $350,000. When combined with the 0$5.500 fee redirected funds,otal annual
replacement funding, administered by NCS, is $500,000. Currently, this funding leverages
monies provided by existing community partners continuing to participate in the priority
use agreements, for all synthetic turf field replacement requirements.
- 26 -
These efforts are not sufficient to fully fund future replacement needs, for either the existing
inventory or for the task force recommended expansion to 82 synthetic turf fields. Including the
recommended additional 8 high schools in future development would increase this requirement
by a total of $2.16 million annually.
Total replacement
Replacement fund
(10 yr. est.)
10 yr. average
replacement
Annual Shortage
Total
Current
Field
Inventory
Revised Total
Including
Recommended
8 New HS Sites
16
51
67
82
$7,200,000
$22,950,000
$30, 150,000
$36,900,000
$2,400,000
$5,000,000
$7,400,000
$8,600,000
$4,800,000
$17,950,000
$22,750,000
$28,300,000
$480,000
$1,795,000
$2,275,000
$2,830,000
($223,200)
($390, 150)
($613,350)
($669,600)
$256,800
$1,404,850
$1,661,650
$2,160,400
Cumulative
Shortage
Community
contribution Percentage of
monies
contributed to
each by
community group
FCPS
Stadium
Assumptions:
./ Synthetic turf field life cycle = 10 years
,/ Synthetic turf field replacement cost = $450k
,/ Community contributions remain at least at initial percentage level of development commitments
- 27-
the
scheduled
Option
$2, 160,400
Redirect additional Synthetic Turf Field Development Program monies into the
Synthetic Turf Field Replacement Fund.
$150,000
Increase Athletic User fee charged to rectangular field users from $5.50 to $8 (per
sport, per season).
$250,000
$120,000
Tournament Field Rental User Fee - Increase field rental user fee from $15 to $50 for
county teams and $100 for non-county teams for post regular season rectangular field
sports program tournaments. (Assumes approximately 625 teams from out of county,
generating an additional $53,000 annually and 1875 in-county teams generating an
additional $65,000 annually)
$118,000
$638,000
$1.53 million
Synthetic
managed with Park Authority staff. Fairfax County Public Schools' maintenance is decentralized
and conducted by a combination of high school staff and contractors. The two approaches to
managing the maintenance should be further reviewed to see if efficiencies can be achieved.
What are the current practices for synthetic turf maintenance?
FINDING 21: Park Authority staff currently maintains synthetic turf fields at county parks
and fields located on elementary and middle schools, as well as other non-high school
FCPS sites. With the conversion of natural grass fields to synthetic turf, the Park
Authority has found that the total annual operating cost of a synthetic turf field, including
maintenance and utility costs, is comparable to a lighted and irrigated natural grass field
because of the nature of year-round use.
Natural grass field operating costs include a basic turf grass program with seeding,
aerating, fertilizer and pesticides applications, soil testing and amendments.
Synthetic turf fields operating costs include regular grooming, debris removal, minor carpet
repairs and adding rubber infill to high use areas, and unique reconditioning requirements
that include brushing, de-compaction, deep cleaning, repair of inlaid field lines and adding
crumb rubber to low or high use areas. The synthetic turf fields are also annually G-max
tested by a certified engineer to help ensure their safety.
Maintenance activities for both field types include trash collection, inspections, field lining,
maintenance and repairs of lighting, bleachers, benches, goals and signage. The costs
associated with these tasks are year-round or 12 months a year for synthetic turf fields and only 8
months a year for a natural grass fields. Natural grass fields have additional mowing costs.
Utility expenses are also similar for both field types. Natural grass fields require lighting and
water for the 8-month playing season. While the synthetic turf fields don't require watering,
savings from reduced water usage are redirected to cover the increased electricity requirements
for athletic field lighting resulting from the increased use capacity to 12 months.
Park Authority synthetic turf fields are maintained to all manufacturers recommendations and
recognized industry standards. The natural grass fields are maintained to a budget. The
maintenance standards for the natural grass fields have been adjusted as the available funding
remained constant. The adjustments were necessary as staff and utility costs increased and
additional lighting and irrigations systems were added without associated increases in operating
budgets.
- 29 -
Synthetic
FINDING 22: Due to the decentralized nature of the maintenance activities at each FCPS
school sites, any achieved savings from natural grass maintenance
to synthetic turf
maintenance should be redirected to specific site operations, to include the maintenance
and replacement of the synthetic turf fields.
Natural grass fields at high schools are maintained at various levels, depending on the use.
Rectangular, stadium game fields and 90' and 60' game diamonds are maintained at a higher
level than grass fields used primarily for practices. The number of fields, both game and practice,
varies by campus. Additionally, athletic fields with Bermuda grass surfaces require a significantly
higher level of care than cool season grasses.
The annual cost to maintain a natural grass, stadium rectangular field is between $20,000 to
$40,000 per school. The variance is influenced by type of grass, size and configuration of the
field, volume of usage, frequency of maintenance, impact of weather, cost of labor, and the use
of field lights. The expenses associated with school athletic field maintenance are not covered by
the operating budget. Athletic field maintenance, to include supplies, labor and materials, is paid
for by athletic event gate receipts, booster donations, fundraising, and donated labor. The
equipment used to maintain grass fields can include tractors, mowers, sweepers, groomers,
aerators, seeders, and/or trimmers. While individual schools do have some field maintenance
equipment, the inventory is often supplemented by equipment purchased by the community
funding sources. There are some schools that are able to contract for athletic field maintenance;
these services are paid for by the same community contributions.
Recommendation 10: Park Authority and FCPS should adopt a consistent maintenance
program for synthetic turf fields utilizing agreed upon best practices in order to maximize
use of equipment, staffing and other resources.
Recommendation 11: Create a joint FCPS and Park Authority field maintenance work
group, tasked with meeting to address ongoing maintenance needs to include recurring
operating budget requirements.
- 30-
Synthetic
- 31 -
Synthetic
,County
l\1EMORANDUM
JUN 2 2 2012
DATE:
TO:
Boa.rd of Supervisors
EdwardV ":ong J r.
FROM;
County
SUIBJECT:
~~ut1iv,e
County/Schools
Fields
The Fafrfax County School Board passed a resolution at its December 15, 20111, meeting
recommending
the creation of a County/Schools
Joint Task Force on Syntheti-c Turf Atlli,etic.
Fields. In February .2012,Fai1rfax County Sd'1ool Board Chalrrnan Jane K Strauss sent~
lette1r to 8,oard of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova and Fairfax County P:ank Authority
Board Chairman W:iilliam G. Bouie requesting support for tMs effort. At the April 10,. 2012,
Board of Supervisors (BOS} meeting, Board members affirmed the[r collective interest tn
working with the School Board and Park. Board in tilnis effort and referred the i!Ssue to staff to
d ete rm! ne task to roe pa rticl p atlon.
tor developjnq
the development
of new synthetic fields, to include location recommendations
the funding of new synthetic fields, to, include plivate and corporate partnership
opportunmes
- 32 -
Synthetic
Board of Supervisors
County/Schools Joint r'ask on Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields
Page 2
The task force will be comprised of community leaders and staff that
to the current and future synthetic turf field efforts, including:
have
a direct
connection
It is anticipated thart official reporting of the task force's findin,gs will be presented at a future
Joint schoo: Board/B,oard ot Supervisors meetlng .
For further informa.tion, please contact Chris Leonard, NCS Dlr@ctor, at 703-324-5501.
c:
- 33 -
Synthetic
J,uti~. K. :sti:3~
~Tl!n
!"illlli'J>llliol~
. Bltoll$ Ml;;;,:;
'IJilll!-Ghaf!.!Mil
~b!lll!,U.-.~
ru1111r:aO<Jrem!:[tt0!.ffiJ>:
LaealM!1~:
sano:1,~. ~~,inDli!ltilr:l
M~~""
Cll<iinnan
:.a1rfax ce.r.mtY B.o-ard of-'5:Upe!irlS".01'5
12oon .Gc;Nernment C"ent"er Partway, suoo 530
FeLr:fax, VA 22006
Mt. Willig,m 0., llc;ll.lit;!
Phaim'lan
Fairfax Cc111riey ParkA'l.rthtilllty, ISoo!Td
H:Sm:ty BUil~tni;i -St:I~ 9-27
E',ft;Hfp.co;,
i'b-ll<;r P.t.iH;i1shml:
ii;)'.n,L,r~~~
r,!,;<111,,:,r N. ~"
~A).
M,;UJ,gl,llo
l~~ll:
Db;ljj--.{
,t>:allf,:fa
s, ~111!11
l",f,>"/klim,;i (;I~
i;~-~
L. 6_1:DJ1ifz
:splfr~el:1 00-Jll::I
~ll.Sm'llll
:suit)' lli~l'~I:
~~n! V~r,n~,iDl,Mot;
s~~nJ
:SE'IJ~~I
R.e.,--~.ntl,li'fe
El,!ll9:rt'ilJ\.~,111
foma f!O maka ireoon,m~i:'!atiooli .on tti~ d'.e-wlopmeot of bn1 fields, ir., the fufl!re.
~j::,~iii
to Irle
Thi!,', Joint ~ rorce wOlild ~xamtna th~ ri~d for additlon:at .r.:ec,t&l'lfJul:eir cmd
d"iaf(l.l'.lndi lYrf liiekis, the requrremenls. foli ongolng field1 mrunte11ance, and fun6ll~g
~~uiremenls f~ future l1efd fe~emenl.
J!'li~ Joint ~ffert between tlhsi Bo-ar,! of
6upe,'fl11;sors;, 1h,e ~m'k .A11h'hprity, and the School Boarq would be. comp,ls:ed of
re~ntatw:e:s from Iha-Fairfax Cou11cy tl!e~hb.ori'lo.od Communify Service~.tt,e
Park A!,rfhorily, l=a!.~ax Ca~n:t!l pui,lio :S,r;iiooi.s, -arrd th@ 'Fairfax County Athfetic
e'ouoclL Tlhe joi:rt ~sk force wa.uld ~port oo their recem mer,d!atl.o.ns by
See.ptemtter 2014, to thl;il Br;Jar.Q of S.up.el:!llsors,the School Bo~r-q, and ~ f'afk
Aurthority.
I hope, !he:, BO.lr\l of ?,upertisP.l"!S 811'Kl ihe Pait Authority wim vrtelwm~ thfa
ln!tiHih'\.lle 10 wOl'k oo1la.'boralively so 'that mht-etes- and ciffze1'11s across. Fa.1~
Oountv wan ,1.1rv.ally
. Jack D. !:taler
- 34 -
Synthetic
MeetJngi
Del:'
c;ategory,
Sub1trnt
2.10 Rsol.utton
ll!ESO,LUl"IOf'\t lmt'OMMi:NrbfNG:
:r.OINTTASK.FORCE ON 'ltJ1t~ F.IJ:LOS
WREREAS, ~i rfax . .cour1:J;y citit,E{IS be11efitffpm the in~llat1oti ,of.ntrfu;!<lf 'n!li 1-1ek!s at Ciwnty p:ar-k~
~oofs, thr!l~hir1e.rnase-d a;vaitijijle ~ayMg-tt'm~; aM
l'W{EREAS, pro.gre86 has been rncttre In lnsta[il11y sii_ch ilii:lds at over
both Park AWilmrlty and Faimi1x County Pi!Jb~c Sdiq~s li!!.lds; iind
c1111i
fo l111ttuds.
WtJl~REASr It Is JmPflrtann~ l'!.l'ISUM"tJlElt ~11 geogr.:iphtc areas 9f the Col.,MID/' enfi;iy: equtd access to siJCh. fi~r~s biy:
iQ'l!it3Ulhg additional ffel!J~ ir1 th~ Mulie, to lrlciij~ 3 JI F,rill'~ai .Ct11J:J1-'ly publlc lhlgh sciloQ.ls;. ~nd
WFl~REM., 1Jt lsi important th~ bol'.ll ,existil'iQ and ftUture field5 are maintal11erl appropri:i:1-tety' to et1S;ure the.i""
!X!Nln.uln!] ,quaillty i:mti max.imium ~I
'Rl:r cltlmn,~ and ,iiQunt..; hig:t1 wiool st1Jd enfui ~illd
nre
exbaust.ed~ and
l:1S'efu I
rr
RESOLVED tmt the Se:honl 'Bo;;ird .rei:-om.tnemls oo the fBC)Srul oif' Supe.rv15br::i and 'the:
J1~rk :Au~orlty Board the- ,;realiO.lill Qf a j:olnl; ta.sk fo,tce tti exam in~ ah!1 rt!-po11:' by ~l)ternber 2012_ oo 1111~ 1Fafl1:ax
Col!lrify 'School l'!mud, the r.aildax eoubt,/ ~ark 1llJt'horlty B-qard, and thi.! P.311 rfa>t Co!.i"liW Bi(l.ard df Su~erv~rs on
tttc need for. adtlltknal ~drni.n,gular and dia mand Mif fiields, the lili~'ir~ments"
fc;ir ongoing i1lcld ma lrrienani;e, and
'fl..!l'lll:!iogi l('equlreme:ntsTQ<r ft.I.~ flel~ ,eplac;:ern(mt; aryd
NO~ THE-REFOR.fi,. B
;:urtmER.MDRf! BE Ir Re5-0LVEO 'th.at the ~c:h.o.ol lch;i~d rei;(Jmfl"l,rmds':tilat1be Jailit tr.Bk torce 'Ire ~rnprlS;tld 0fi
represerrtatii,..,-1;115 f!rnm Fa ill"l'aix County ~~ighborhood <:omm ul'llty Servlces1 Fai1r~t l;ot111ty 'P.-13rf< Aurth.Mt'I/, Fiifrtax.
or
.r>
~b'
l)n1t1f_y. Vl[!;W~ia
- 35 -
;i..R
CEIVE,D.
ebruxr;('22,, lO 12.
.~. Jaae
onrrv
r... s~~
CbAlJDWI
S dlool Board
81 l :5 Gateoowu Ro&li, S:1.1.::te S-100
t:uma.l;
~"11Cilf7
pbc-.d oo leaen of tiu;:. Sdicoi 1:ill!ard':; r,l!Oe[!t row~odn.tion for !ht crcuii:111. ,rif a
Cilll!IL)' lk)m-d (ifs~~~
Ir~. Ctilwlty !:'ark .
~
&~iiml
aa ,ordm- IJ;!! m~ ('C:i;IJmp!Jlm:detion.s. 0Di iho dc,,cll).?,11.ect ,;)f!:Jynfhebi:l mrf ~]ds .
bi Fai:rf~ C:iuaty. Tur:: Pm ku.:h,mry Bo~-.wo{I~
ll:ie ~am
amt. ~J:fus of
ml IPbor:mfo DI a4 ELH L~ mid bas Sil.I ppor:ibll w i..tJ F.W:tJ1~ru,i JI:; r. inee the fie] d 111.rf' progr.!1.11 s
i.iQ.i;pJD near~ Bl ~
S:L.'I.
I am ~
Su.uruly~
-zc:,,dt-,.6 ~ ..
4w~. e.~pIe
C..lri:i.
- 36 -
.. Commtmity. Si!lV!ii::.e!:i
Synthetic
Appendix Ill. FCPS High School Free and Reduced Lunch Percentage
October 2012
"~10mm,,
School
Ty1
High
Grade
Low
Grade
SNP
FREE
FREE REDUCED REDUCED! TOTAL TOTAL
F/R
embershi Fligillle Percentag Fligillle Percentag
~/~
Fl,g,Iie Percentag
e
1/J
1111
029
1070
STUART HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
029
0420
SCH-HIGH
029
1100
SCH-HIGH
1, 749
811
46.37%
155
8.86%
966
55.23%
12
1,885
799
42.39%
221
11.72%
1,020
54.11%
12
1,673
687
41.06%
170
10.16%
857
51.23%
029
1020
LEE HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
1,813
674
37.18%
171
9.43%
845
46.61%
029
0660
ANNANDALE HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,414
819
33.93%
261
10.81%
1,080
44.74%
029
0900
SCH-HIGH
12
2,255
709
31.44%
151
6. 7CJ!o
860
38.14%
029
1270
EDISON HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
1,695
458
27.02%
123
7.26%
581
34.28%
029
0032
HERNDON HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,168
508
23.43%
128
5.90%
636
29.34%
029
1800
HAYFIELD SECONDARY
SCH-COM
12
2,831
555
19.6CJ/o
221
7.81%
776
27.41%
029
1990
SCH-HIGH
12
2,321
484
20.85%
116
5.00%
600
25.85%
029
0020
FAIRFAX HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,650
471
17.77%
184
6.94%
655
24.72%
029
0200
CENTREVILLE HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,385
342
14.34%
162
6.79%
504
21.13%
029
2228
WESTFIELD HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,785
430
15.44%
129
4.63%
559
20.07%
029
1290
MARSHALL HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
1,654
209
12.64%
62
3.75%
271
16.38%
029
2241
SCH-HIGH
12
2,008
227
11.3CJ!o
93
4.63%
320
15.94%
029
0131
CHANTILLY HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,634
359
13.63%
51
1.94%
410
15.57%
029
0090
12
4,000
408
10.20%
181
4.52%
589
14.72%
029
1610
12
2,279
193
8.47%
80
3.51%
273
11.98%
029
1960
12
3,882
286
7.37%
135
3.48%
421
10.84%
029
1710
OAKTON HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,162
176
8.14%
43
1.99%
219
10.13%
029
1260
WOODSON HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,224
144
6.47%
57
2.56%
201
029
0790
MCLEAN HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
2,081
121
5.81%
58
2.79%
179
9.04%
8.6(Jl/o
029
1060
MADISON HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
1,986
114
5.74%
42
2.11%
156
7.85%
029
1371
12
1,842
24
1.3CJ!o
17
0.92%
41
2.23%
029
1460
LANGLEY HIGH
SCH-HIGH
12
1,949
31
1.59%
0.15%
34
1.74%
- 37-
Syntliletiic turf fi ell ells using crumb rub her have been i nstal l:e.dJ an di used in manv aitlillletiie and
pl ayj ng f i:el:dls th roughout Faii rlfa:x Coi.mty.,the Uniited States and tlh e wmil di. Currentlly Fairfax
County Pu bllic Schoolls and Parks lhave 48 rectangular atlh I etic fields co mposedl of sy1nthetic tun
1
mate rial[. Questions have been ra iiSedabout potential[ hea lloh, safety:, and environ merita I effects
from the use of synthetic turf, lilhis fact sheet was prepared iin oonsujtatton wiith the Fairfax
County H ealth Department~ Fairfax County Risk Mamagernent Dirviston, !Fairfax:,county Public
Sdhools and !Fairfax:County Park Authmiity to provtde i nformattcn on research conducted by
numerous state and rn aticnal organ irzatii ons who have studi ed tlh ese its.sues.
Q:
.A:: Starting in the ea lily 2.000:' s. the Park .Autho riitv along witlh other organizatiaris irn the Gounty
that prm.i'ide athletic facilities began !looking at alternanees to natural turf fiieildlsto meet tlhe
growing demand for use of ath l:etic fii ell ells throughout the County.
Syntliletiic turf ts a man-made product and ts most1 irnstalled iin fields that are hea'iiiillyused.
Syntlhetiic turf fieildls ar,e used iin Fairfax ,county be.cause tlhey:
Use no ifertflliz:,e,rs
or pesticides.
m-a de of?
.A:: S.yntlhetic turf ftelds installled in Fairifax ,county lhave been constructed U1siing a s.yntlhetic
carp et mate nal that mi mies natu ra I grass along wiith a crumb rub b er i nfilll or sand/om m b ru bber
i1nfill miix:ture a ndl s U1bsu rtace drainage syst,e.ms. Syntlheti e tu rif f i:el:dls are made of the fell owing
mate rta ls:
A subsurface draina,ge [layer composed! of crushed stones wiritlh plastic tubmg fur
d raina,g,e.
- 38-
Crnmb rubber lnffll, made from r,e.cyde<:l tires, is added to tlhe top llav.er to provide
paddin,g and keep the grass. uprjght, Sand iis sometimes. mixed wit1h the crumb rubber.
Q: What ehemleals can be found iirn the synthetic it1.11rif arum b rubber?
.A;: lilhe crumb rubber used in syntheiti c tJU rt i1S ma inly composed of recyclledl tjres, wh'i oh contain
man- madle a ndl natu ral rubber. B.ased on the r,eview of research studies. and r,e,p orts, certain
chemtca li5 have bee.n i:denitified iin crumb rubber. These indude small I a mou nits of polycydii c
aromatic hydroca rbons ( PAHis.], 'T\follatile o rgarn;i c compounds (VOCs) and h eaT\fY meta li5 s uch as
ztnc, i ron, manganese and l:ead.
Q:
C-a n people be ex1posedl t,o the chem lcals found ii:n crumb rubber?
.A;: lio date, studies on the rel:ease of chermca li5 from cru m b rubber have reported very llow
eoncentrattcn of chemtca I expcsure,
to chemica l:S i n cru mb rubber is verv. low, tlhe re a re three posslble ways for peo p!I e to lhav,e
contact witlh these chemicals on artificial turf fields:
Accide.nta Illy ingesting small amounts of crumb rubber by putting fingers in the mouth or
moil: washing hands before eatin,g after playing on the lnielldi5
,.
Br,eatliling in dust and vapors. whtle playirng on tlhe fi:el:dls .. Orumb rubber may become
dust as it wears. and the rubber may give off some \!a p ors.
Q: Ar,e any
health eiffe.ots associated wiirtll!ll1 these dill.emicals found in synlbheitic lttrni arll!.[mb
rubber?
.A;: lilhe health and saf:ety aspects. of s.ynitliletiic tu rif haT\fe been re'iiii e-wed and add ressed by many
nattonal and state organ irzatii ons, including tlh e U.S. Environ men ta I Pr,oit,ee:tion Agency, tlhe
Ce,nters. for Disease Control and P reventtcn, a ndl nu rnerous s.tate aige.ncies in California,
Connecti cut, New.Jersey, and New York. lilhey g,e.n e.rally conclude it hat health effects a re
urn llikely from ,expoSJU re to the levels cf dhe rmcals found in s.rynil:iletiic tu rif and that these fiellds. do
not pose a serious publlic healitlh concern.
crumb rubber by the New Yorlk Department of Health indicates that mgestion, dermal~ or
im halatton exposu res. to dhe rnicals in or rellease,dl from crumb rubber do not pose a significant
pu bllic hea litth concern,
that tlhe
use of outdoor an di indoor a rtifii di all tu rf fi el:dls. is not associated witlh elevated h ea Ith rts lk.
Stud te:s and reviews. con ducted by tlhe califorrn iia Office of Environment.all Hea litlh Haizardl
Assess me.nt found that sy1ntheil:icturf fields do mot rep resent a serious hu man h ealth risk witih
regard to the mhalation of oh emii eals or pa rtlculates ab OT\fe itlhese ftelds,
that at mu:clh higher llevells,, these chemjcals can cause sertous health ,effocts .. Some PAHs. may
- 39 -
pose a cancer riis k for peo p:I e ,exp osed to high I ev,elrs for I ong pertods.
throat, an di skin irritation.
,eye, nose,
In you n.g oh flldren, ,expo.sure to lea di may cause Ilea rni n.g and
i nt,ell lli1gence.
hulillfll
Peopl:e can be eXJPosed b,y breathing or eating or by gettin,g dirt or dust on their skirn. R.ubber
dust from
car nres iis a source of urban alr polllutio.n and sotl pollllUJtiion. PAHs are present irn
voes a ire
gasohne, pa int, bu fl:dli1ng materls ls and many oth er sources. ILead iis commonly fou nd irn soil and
dust in the urban en Vii ronment because, irn tlhe past, it was. used
other p rodu
cts,
rn you eXJPe.nie.nce
shaded area, drmk wateir and rest, Seek medical attention iif you dlo not feell better. It iis
esp eciiallly impo rtant that: adults su pe Nii sing chtld ren take precautio ns o.n hot days.
Q: Are people W'ilhm play on Sifill'l1tlhetic
to be ca U1sed by synthetic turf ifii ell d1S. A multi1-agency report to th e Ca llifu miia state I egi1sllatur,e
stated that tlhe m umber of skin ab raslons s Uiffer,e.dJ on syntheti:c tu rt fields was greater tlh an on
natural turf U:el:dls,, but the severity of the abrasions diid not differ, lihe report found sy1ntlhetic
turf ftekis to harbor fewer ba etenel species and a s mallle r mu mbeir of liv,e bacten a than natural
turf ftekis,
RSA has not been proven to be ca used by synuh etlc turf ii eld contact.
among athletes a ir,e due mai nly to pnys1i cal contact and sha rii ng conta mtnated towels or sports.
equii pment, Coaches and players should be awair,e of the petentjal for M RSA tra nsmtsston an di
mfectton among atJhlletes. AJlll skin cuts or abrasions should be washed witlh soap and water and
cove red i m med1i ateliy. school athletic depa rtments and sports leagues, s hould 1J1se good
hygienii c pracitii oes an di prohi bit the sha rii ng of to wells a ndl equl pment that ru bs a,gainst: ba re skin.
- 40-
Q: Should
people
A;: Regula, plhysi:call actiivinty is one of the most impo rtant parts oif a hes litlhy lifestyl:e. Synthetiic
for sports and physii cal ac:tiivitii es. After any outdoor
health organ irzatii ons recommend that people shoul di wash their hands. before eating or
driinlking. On very hot days . users shoulld lliimit activirti:e,s, ta Ike r,e,.st breaks and drink wat,e,.
Q: What
p:ireve.ntive measures
re.duce pote.nitial
after
rlllness a ,e recommended
min imirziing potantta I risks asso cii ated with synt1hetic turf fields.
Q: Where
h111fo:r11i11111aition?
.A;: lihe follll mvin,g I inks provtd e add itii ona I info,mati:on
synthetiic
,.
http:f!www.nyc:.gov/html/d
,.
oh/htm
lfeode/eod
c] Tu rt !Fa ct .She.et::
http:f/www.nyc.gov/html/cfoh/cfownloadsfpd1r!eode/turf
,.
of
Fiiell dis::
a qs report0409.
Conrnecticurt Department
NewYorlk
eplli b/dep/artiificia
ltiu rf /dph
Crumb-lRubbe,r
05-08.pdf
rf report
of Artiificia'I
report. pdf
Fiellds
c turf /crumb-
Conrnecticuft Academy
Evaluation
of tlh e Hea lit1h and E m1irnn menta I Im pacts .A.ss,ociat:edwith Syntlhetiic Turf
P llayin,g Fiellds::
www.ct.gov/cfep/l
,.
Cahforrua
i b/dep/a
De partmant
http :f/www.ca
artiifici,a I turf
review
,e
port. pdlf
- 41 -
pdlf
A. .
dix V. FCPA S
thetic Turf O .
tl
/M
t
WORKING DRAFT
--
Frequency
As of 6/18/2013
Per
Recurrence
Labor
Hours
Labor
Cost
Material
Cost
$73
$279
Contracted
Services
Total Task
Cost
Per Field
MAINTENANCE
(April - November)
1 Time Per Week
(December - March)
Annually
2 Times per Week
( April - November)
116
1
0.2
13
23.20
13.00
$52
$52
$1,206
$676
64
0.8
51.20
$52
$2,662
2
2
32
2
2.5
8
0.2
2.2
8.60
5.00
16.00
6.40
4.40
$52
$52
$52
$52
$52
$447
$260
$832
$333
$229
$138
$82
$580
4
2
2
1
0.33
0.33
1
1.2
2.7
3
3.5
3.6
1
1.2
4.80
5.40
6.00
3.50
1.19
0.33
1.20
$52
$52
$52
$52
$52
$52
$52
$250
$281
$312
$182
$62
$17
$62
$1,000
As Needed
$1,279
$955
$2,662
$350
$800
Total
$585
$342
$1,762
$333
$1,029
$8,947
Turf Program
Fertilizer Applications
Aeration
Pesticide Application
over Seeding
Soil Amendments
E1.ery 3 Years
Soil Sampling
E1.ery 3 Years
Field Inspections
Turf Program Total
Annually
$1,250
$281
$712
$582
$164
$27
$62
$3,078
$400
$400
$102
$10
UTILITIES
Electricity
Annually
Water
Utilities Total
Annually
$3,429
$2,102
$5,531
127.0
$6,605
*Labor, Material, and Contracted servces costs are supported with monies from General Fund and County Construction Fund-Athletic Field Maintenance
- 42 -
$3,064
$800
$17,556
Fairfax
ia'
ant Alternative
HS
EC La"'\-vre:nce
Park
Franconia
Dist.
Park
Great
Falls
Nike
Park
Greenbriar
Park
Hutchison
ES
~ Jackson:M:S
~
Lake
Fairfax
Park
Lee District
Park
Ls e-cv-imsrv i Ll e Park
~ Lin,vay
Terrace
Park
:M:ason
District
Park
~
Notto,vav
Park
:;; Oak :M:arr Park
9 Ossian
Hall
Park
Patriot
Park
Pine
Ridge
Park
Lee
Dranesville
Springfield
Dranesville
Providence
Hunter
:M:ill
Lee
Dranesville
Dranesville
:M:ason
Providence
Providence
:M:ason
Springfield
:M:ason
Sully
:M:ount
Vernon
Springfield
Dranesville
Dranesville
Braddock
Hunter:M:ill
In-Service
Fields-Subtotal:
I Sully
Sully
Dranesville
:M:ountVernon
Sully
:M:ason
Springfield
Pendine:Fields-Subtotal:I
5 _
5
-'.,
B ~
t:;;
'
~
;i
5
._;;!
Wakefield
Vienna
Park
ES
t!
~
~" ~
, j
Count:y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
32
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
SUBTOTAL:
PAIFCPS
NON-
Centreville
HS
_ , Chantilly
HS
Herndon
HS
Langley
HS
"" Lee HS
~
:M:adison
HS
~ :M:arshall
HS
~
:M:cLean
HS
::
Robinson
SS
West
Sprin:i>;field
Westfield
HS
HS
FIELDS
- PERCEN"T
SHARE
t;
SOURcCES
OF
Lee
Hunter
:M:ill
Providence
Dranesville
Braddock
Sprin_u;field
I Sully
In-Service
Fields-Subtotal:
:M:ason
Braddock
Providence
Hunter
:M:ill
Braddock
PendingFields-Subtotal:I
HS
SUBTOTAL:
PERCEN"T
GRAND
1. use
of" one-tnne
funding
athletic
source:
and
band
funding
athletic
boosters
OF
ALL
TOTALS
PERCENT
2.
3.
SHARE
at
carryover
OF
or
application
ALL
quarterly
SOURCES
OF
I
I
I
I
Financing
$812,310
$650,000
$841,000
$250,000
$898,000
$900,000
$257,550
$1,596,000
$908,000
$267,365
$2,433
I
I
I
I
I
$500,000
$687,766
$250,000
I
I
$340,892
I
I
I
$150,000
I
$166,533
$166,533
$502,032
$425,000
$682,500
$200,000
$1, 709,000
$600,000
$1,100,000
$685,000
$1,520,000
$820,718
$1,348,000
I
I
I
$761,
198
$1,783,000
$400,000
$425,000
$5,23
il,964
I
$100,000
$100,000
$0
I
$16,084,164
$1,647,500
$825,000
$150,000
$950,000
$200,000
$243,467
$258,467
$2,675,180
$1,773,392
I
I
I
$0
$175,000
$175,000
$485,000
$1,500,000
I
I
I
I
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$300,000
Oo/o
$3,025,180
62%
9%
$168,432
$135,ooo
I
I
$175
$350,000
$21,276,664
lo/o
$275,ooo
$810,000
$810,0_0_0__
$5,192,500
$1,500,000
$400,000
$3,273,392
10%
,000
$780,979
$458,018
$991,190
$200,000
$175,000
$775,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$700,000
I
$0
$1,274,715
$1,274,715
$40,114
$42,000
$385,546
I
$400,000
$200,000
$250,000
$180~000
$75,000
$705,000
$115,387
$849,603
$130,512
$1,095,502
$650,000
$260,000
$85,000
$260,000
$85,000
$85,000
$775,000
I
$350,000
I $2,780,187
$485,000
$0
$5,716,964
$300,000
$200,000
$392,128
$100,000
$10,476
$186,085
$407,188
$250,000
$608,000
$100,000
$498,000
$795,671
$350,000
$3,493,799
$75,000
$2,253,177
$500,000
$250,000
$115,000
$340,000
$1,205,000
$34,094,232
lOOo/o
$500,000
$1,400,000
$177,000
$500,000
$2,577,000
$1,257,752
$685,ooo
$1,334,436
$71 7 ,800
$780,979
$808,018
$1,609,666
$661,085
$1,230,188
$835,785
$817,000
$10,737,709
$1,534,715
$1,460,000
$2,519,265
$1,581,603
$1,496,182
$8,591,765
$6,070,799
$19,329,474
$1,475,000
$1,274,715
$1,090,546
$1,495,502
$1,425,000
$3,039,735
So/o
7o/o
6o/o
So/o
7o/o
16o/o
$1,977,032
$1,274,715
$1,.390,546
$22,772,166
$4,450,180
$6,.313,127
$3,458,177
$11,787,763
$53,423,706
4'o/o
2o/o
43'o/o
8'o/o
12'o/o
6o/o
22/o
100/o
3/o
$3,458,177
$650,000
$841,000
$825,000
$898,000
$900,000
$1,489,829
$1,596,000
$908,000
$767,365
$837,766
$741,000
$540,892
$1, 709,000
$600,000
$1,100,000
$685,000
$1,520,000
$823,151
$1,348,000
$911,
198
$1,783,000
$810,000
I
$950,000
$26,366,732
$1,647,500
$825,000
$810,000
$1,325,000
$1,500,000
$810,000
~-~$S_l_O_,OOO
$7,727,500
17o/o
$339,320
$200,000
$392,308
$542,800
$68,878
$190,670
$259,548
$0
Oo/o
I
I
$175,ooo
$150,000
$150,000
$175,000
$150,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
TOTAL:
$549,779
$166,533
lo/o
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
$150,000
$150,000
$324,467
$502,032
FlJl'.IDING-TOTAL:
FUNDING-GRAND
Project:
I
I
I
I
26
OF
Field
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
67
SHARE
services
SOURcCES
Turf
$849,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
FlJl'.IDING-TOTAL:
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
15
2
2
3
2
2
11
I Dranesville
Falls
Church
HS
Lake
Braddock
SS
OaktonHS
South
Lakes
HS
Woodson
HS
~
5
=- ~
ALL
Synt:het:ic
41
Dranesville
-5
ia'
.5 ~
OF
---------------------------------
18o/o
3 lo/o
lOOo/o
reviews
7/3/2013
fee
- 43 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Turf
Fields:
Grass
vs. Synthetic
Turf
------------------------------------
Usage
Legend
c=
FCPS-lnstructional
Usec=::J
FCPS-Practice
Time
Use
SUMMARY
Use
Stadium
Hrs/Day
Fx Cnty-Community
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thr
Fri
Sat
Sun
Total
Hrs/Wk
Practice
Total
Hrs/Year*
Hrs/Day
08a
Time
Wed
Tur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Total
Hrs/Wk
Total
Hrs/Year*
Field Utilization
Grass vs. Synthetic
08a
09a
Mon
FCPS
Pract.
Use
09a
- Stadium
Field - Grass
Field - Synthetic
- Practice
Field - Grass
11a
11a
12p
12p
01p
01p
- Combined
- Grass
02p
02p
- Combined
- Synthetic
03p
03p
04p
04p
05p
10a
Instructional
------------
FCPS
- Practice
Community
Use
Use
05:30p
Usege
12
08p
12
08p
- Community
13
09p
13
09p
14
10p
14
10p
15
11 p
15
11 p
3.0
3.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
105.0
2,520.0
Total
Capacity:
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
1,956
5,040
4,428
Use
12.0
12.0
6.5
3.0
0.0
2.0
9.0
12.0
8.5
12.0
12.0
84.0
Stadium
Field
- FCPS
Usage
- Community
2,016.0
- Synthetic
Usage:
Cmnty
Usage:
0.0
0.0
Total
Usage:
3.0
3.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
- - 0.0
15.0
360.0
100.0%
- - - - - - 0.0
0.0%
360.0
14.3%
%Field
Capacity
Usage
FCPS
Usage:
8.5
8.5
8.5
6.5
Cmnty
Usage:
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
Total
Usage:
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
-------
- - - - - -
41.5
996.0
- - 25.0
Use
Practice
Field
37.6%
- FCPS
Usage
79.2%
- Community
- - - -
1,596.0
600.0
66.5
62.4%
- - -
%Field
Capacity
Usage
Total:
Field
- FCPS
Usage
- Community
- Synthetic
Stadium
Time
Tue
Wed
Model
Thr
Fri
Sat
Sun
Total
Hrs/Wk
Practice
Total
Hrs/Year*
Hrs/Day
Time
10a
Use
3
4
10a
11a
11a
12p
12p
01p
01p
02p
02p
03p
03p
04p
04p
05p
FCPS-Practice
I Use
Use
Community
Use
10
06p
10
06p
07p
11
07p
12
08p
12
08p
13
09p
13
09p
14
10p
14
10p
15
11p
15
Total
Capacity:
FCPS
-
Usage:
-
Cmnty
Usage:
Total
Usage:
15.o
15.o
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
4.0
4.0
- 0.0
13.0
>-- - 0.0
13.0
13.0
- -
14.0
- -
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
105.0
2,520.0
13.0
5.0
0.0
64.0
1,536.0
0.0
10.0
15.0
33.0
792.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
97.0
2,328.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total
66.0%
- - -
34.0%
92.4%
%Field
Capacity
Usage
Wed
Tur
Model
Fri
Sat
Sun
Total
Hrs/Wk
Two-Field
Total
Hrs/Year*
- FCPS
Useage
Use
Total:
Two-Field
60% FCPs - Effective
Use
- FCPS
Instructional
FCPS
Usage:
Cmnty
Usage:
Total
Usage:
------
- Synthetic
Usage
Use
Synthetic
FCPS-Practice
Use
- FCPS
Turf
Increased
Usage
- Community
Use
15.o
6.0
15.o
6.0
15.o
6.0
15.o
6.0
- -
- -
- -
- -
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
15.o
6.0
0.0
5.5
15.0
0.0
>-- - 15.0
11.5
15.0
15.o
- - - - - -
- 44 -
15.0
15.0
105.0
2,520.0
30.0
720.0
34.3%
57.5
1,380.0
65.7%
87.5
2,100.0
- - - - - - - - - - -
83.3%
%Field
Capacity
Usage
1,536
66.0%
792
34.0%
2,328
100.0%
996
62.4%
600
37.6%
1,596
100.0%
720
34.3%
1,380
65.7%
2,100
100.0%
1,356
69.3%
600
30.7%
1,956
100.0%
2,256
50.9%
2,172
49.1%
4,428
100.0%
Usage
Over
900
Use
Total:
Community
100.0%
Tur
Total:
11p
Capacity:
Useage
- Community
0.0%
360
- Grass
Usage
- Community
05:30p
11
Community
Use
Tue
05p
05:30p
Field - Synthetic
09a
FCPS-1 nstructiona
Mon
08a
09a
Field - Synthetic
08a
1--
Mon
Turf
Total:
Hrs/Day
87.9%
- Grass
Use
Practice
43.1%
- - - - -
Turf
Total:
FCPS
-------
83.3%
- Grass
Total:
12.0
- - - - -
100.0%
Field
- FCPS
15.0
360
Stadium
15.0
79.2%
% Field
Usaae
07p
Capacity:
Field Useage
(Hrs/Year)
06p
Total
10
Lights
- - - - -
11
Not In UseD.No
1,596
I-
4,536
07p
Field
2,016
- - - - -
92.4%
1-------
Turf
06p
Use
- - - - -
2,328
2,100
11
- Practice
14.3%
- - - - -
2,520
2,520
10
FCPS
360
1-------
05p
05:30p
Turf
% Field
Capacity
Usaae
Field Usage
(Hrs/Year)
2,520
------------
10a
Field
Capacity
(Hrs/Year)
Turf
- Stadium
TABLES
Grass
36.4%
1,572
63.6%
2,472
100.0%