Grass or artificial turf? Burrell school board set to decide |
Valley News Dispatch

Grass or artificial turf? Burrell school board set to decide

Mary Ann Thomas
The Burrell School Board will consider whether to install natural sod or artificial turf at its stadium.

The Burrell School Board will decide Tuesday whether the district will pay to replace the high school stadium field with natural sod or artificial turf.

The decision is part of a renovation project at the high school track and athletic field.

Drainage issues have plagued the track, which has multiple patches, and the football field, which has lost its crown.

Installing natural sod would cost around $350,000 to $400,000, and artificial turf would cost between $1.2 million and $1.3 million, said Andreas Dometakis, vice president of the contractor, HHSDR Architects/Engineers of Sharon.

The field surface is part of a $2.5 million capital project that includes $276,000 for the restoration of the Bon Air Elementary School softball field, $757,000 for resurfacing the high school track and other improvements at the high school stadium.

School board members had mixed reactions on sod versus artificial turf during their meeting last week. Some wanted to spend the money, saying that the field would get more use and more students would be able to play and practice on it.

Others questioned if the extra money spent on the more expensive artificial turf should be applied to other important district projects and expenses.

“We only have so much money,” said Pam Key, school board director and treasurer. “Where are we going to get the extra $1 million (for artificial turf)?”

District Business Manager Jennifer Callahan proposed to refinance the district’s bonds. The current principal due is $19.8 million, she said.

The district monitors the bond market and it’s a good time to refinance the bonds, Callahan said, with the district saving an estimated $560,000.

If the district approves the refinancing, the extra money would shore up the existing capital funds to pay for the artificial turf.

For a school district, having artificial turf is more the norm these days, according to an informal survey by Superintendent Shannon Wagner.

Of 17 area school districts, only three, including Burrell, do not have an artificial surface, she said.

Wagner requested that the contractor make available more detailed analysis of costs of both alternatives, taking into account maintenance costs over a decade.

Natural grass maintenance costs are about $40,000 to $50,000 annually, which is about four times the cost for maintenance of synthetic turf, according to the architects. But the articifical surface would have to be replaced in 12 to 14 years at the cost of about $400,000, they said.

Either way, the project includes fixing the draining issues. When it rains currently, puddles form in parts of the track and field.

By the end of the football season, the natural grass gets beat up, resulting in muddy conditions, said Drake D’Angelo, Burrell’s athletic director.

Although Penn State’s School of Agriculture recommends about 30 contests a year on a natural grass playing field, Burrell holds about 58 per year at its stadium field, D’Angelo said. That includes football, soccer, rugby and band events.

“This field could be used more by band, middle school soccer, softball and gym classes,” he said.

Either way, D’Angelo said a better field means an improved and positive experience for students.

“You take pride in your field,” he said. “You’re from Burrell and a Buc.”

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 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.