Burrell School Board reconsiders artificial turf for stadium improvement | TribLIVE.com
Valley News Dispatch

Burrell School Board reconsiders artificial turf for stadium improvement

Mary Ann Thomas
1692880_web1_vnd-burrellTurf-082519
Mary Ann Thomas | Tribune-Review
Drake D’Angelo, Burrell’s athletic director, looks out at the high school stadium, which will get a new track and field. School officials are considering replacing the natural grass field with artificial turf.

After a strong showing by parents last week, urging the school board to reverse its vote to renovate the Burrell High School stadium field with natural grass, the board Tuesday night agreed to seek contract bids for artificial turf as well.

The decision is part of a renovation project at the high school track and athletic field planned for next year. Drainage issues have plagued the track, which has multiple patches, and the football field has lost its “crown,” or slightly raised center which helps water drain from it toward the sidelines.

The school board’s decision to include bid specifications for artificial turf, in addition to natural sod, isn’t so much a reversal of the board’s decision, but a re-examination of the two alternatives with more precise cost estimates.

The original estimates for the field renovation with natural sod was pegged at about $400,000, while artificial turf was expected to cost $1.2 million to $1.3 million to install.

The initial estimates reviewed by the board for natural grass maintenance costs were $40,000 to $50,000 annually, which is about four times the cost for maintenance of synthetic turf. The artificial surface would have to be replaced in 12 to 14 years at a cost of about $400,000.

With the board’s unanimous decision, the architect for the project, HHSDR Architects/Engineers of Sharon, has been directed to assemble bid specifications documents, which will include more precise estimates, on installing natural sod and an artificial turf field.

The school board will hold a special meeting in December to review the bid documents and decide if they will seek bids for just a sod field, an artificial turf field or both. The special meeting date has not yet been set.

School Director Pam Key said the board viewed the artificial turf versus natural sod decision as important and was happy to see the turnout for the board’s agenda meeting last week.

About a dozen residents spoke, many of them parents, urging the board to reverse their decision. They touted the benefits of the artificial field, including increased student use by other athletic teams and organizations, including the youth football Lower Burrell Flyers organization, and becoming on par with most other area high school stadiums.

“I appreciate the discussion last week,” Key said. “That’s the kind of discussions we need.”

On Aug. 20, the school board voted 7-2 to go with natural turf for practical reasons, mainly the lower cost of natural turf and the existence of other school projects that also have to be paid for in years to come.

Although, school board President Tricia Shank said, a majority of the directors would “really have loved to put in artificial turf.”

As requested by the some of the speakers last week, the school board has been gathering more information on artificial fields, Shank said.

There are a number of considerations, including income and grants from the possible use of an artificial turf field by the youth football league, Shank said.

The district could secure a grant, Shank and Superintendent Shannon Wagner said, however, they won’t know the district’s eligibility at the time the school board makes a decision on the field late this year.

Another factor is the recent refinancing of school bonds that could provide extra money for the school board to use for the project.

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary at 724-226-4691, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.