Whose paying this time?

Back in 2001 the City of Burlingame helped fund the $640,000.00 installation of a new artificial turf field at Burlingame High School. See photo below...

Here is an excerpt from the staff report back in 2001:

In June 2001, the City Council approved the $640,000 funding for this contract from the general fund hotel tax. The district will be providing the city an annual credit of $22,000 against our rental of the cost of use for the pool as a for of repayment for the portion of the cost. That $22,000 will be increased by a cost of living index throughout the 10 year agreement.

Well, it's 10 years later, almost to the day and the turf is being replaced. See photo below.

All this leads to the simple question posed by the title of this post:

"Who is paying for this replacement and at what cost?

Comments

[fred]

How about the question, why is it being replaced?

[Russ]

It's not a bad question, but like car dealers suggest when servicing your vehicle,"the manufacturer suggests this or that part be replaced at such and such a time."

So, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it needs to be replaced after 10 years, but why is no one letting the public know who is paying and how much it is costing?

At least there was some discussion 10 years ago.

Can someone who reads this blog enlighten us? The silence is deafening.

[fred]

Or are they replacing it because the plastic grass is toxic and that surface causes more injuries and they are going back to natural grass? I sure hope so, for the kid's sake.

[fred]

PS: There's construction going on at every high school in the district, so I would assume the money is coming from the parcel tax associated with the last construction bond approved by the voters.

[Oleo Marzella]

who cares...they are Union Jobs. They'll spend anything they want to support Union jobs using illegal workers. Just go out there and ask if the contractor verified that the workers social security numbers are valid and you'll get a deer-in-the-headlights look.

[Horace]

As usual, the comments are utter nonsense. First, the field has to be replaced because it was in horrible condition. It was not even close to being used for any sports. Second, as has been published elsewhere Mr. Cohen, the $1.6 million dollar upgrade is being spent by the San Mateo Union High School District. One would think that as brilliant as you are, you could have found that on your own. But no, you'd rather rant and rave with your typical drivel. Third, there are NO problems with toxicity, Fred with artificial surface fields. The most important aspect is this field will have proper drainage so it, like the other newly installed fields, can be used year round. Drop the nonsense people and stick to facts.

[Horace]

Pardon my mistakes typing in the prior post. The second sentence should have been HAD to be replaced. The third sentence should have had USABLE rather than used.

[alittlebird]

This is just one of many articles that can be found on the hazards of artificial turf. Who is making comments of utter nonsense now, Horace?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-05-07-artificial-turf-cover_N.htm

[jennifer]

I'm not crazy about artificial turf, either. My child spent the night out there in a tent nearly every year for the Relay for Life event. When she came back, the tent was always filled with micro pieces of artificial turf that seemed to slough off and end up on their clothes and all over the place. It doesn't go away, either, just rolls around unless it is physically swept in the garbage. It seems to me that many of these types of fields have been found to contain lead- and if my kid played a sport where he or she ended up on the ground much of the time, I would be concerned.

They are really filthy (not like real dirt, but tiny balls of black plastic that end up all over he place). I'm sure it gets into the bay at some level, too, since we are talking about drainage and being a good choice for the environment. I wonder about the recycled tire material on the track, too. It smells pretty bad on a hot day.

I don't doubt that this is expensive material, but I wonder how the price of installation and maintenance compares with old-fashioned real turf. Yes, I know that the real stuff has to be mowed and fertilized, but even that process has become "greener" since the old turf was ripped out.

I suppose the argument could be made that the artificial field doesn't flood or become wrecked or unusable as quickly over winter as real grass- on the other hand, to replace this every decade must get very expensive- plus, is it recyclable? Where does the old one end up? At least old lawn is compostable. Maybe Horace knows the answer(s).

I'm not completely positive, but I think the track and field may have, at least in part, been donated, like the aqua center was.

[Horace]

If alittlebird believes that the article he/she posted on artificial turf has any meaning whatsoever...guess again. First, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission declared artificial turf fields pose little to no risks for its users, the same basic findings of a cooperative study by two New York state agencies released last month. Second, there are alternatives to the recycled tires used as the fill for most fields if desired. However, they are more expensive. I read one report which showed that only 10 of 3,000 fields installed by FieldTurf use the alternative such as FlexSand. The crumb rubber is incredibly cheap.

[SJM]

Does anyone know what the plan is for home football games since the field is not finished yet?