Aberdeen High School is next in line to get a synthetic turf athletic field, followed, in order, by Joppatowne, Fallston and Patterson Mill high schools, according to priorities announced recently by County Executive David Craig for his final two years in office. The four schools are the last of the county high schools without synthetic turf fields.
“The County Executive wants to try to complete the overall athletic field improvements that he started more than five years ago”, said Bob Thomas, a spokesman for Craig. “Having all high schools with synthetic turf helps ensure long-term less maintenance costs for the school system and county, as well as to ensure all students have the same high quality athletic fields throughout the county.”
The new turf fields and related improvements for the four high schools are planned at a rate of one per year at an estimated cost of $1.4 million each. Funding in future years is subject to approval by the Harford County Council. In addition, the announced timeline for the Patterson Mill field, in the fiscal year 2016, extends past Craig’s term and would therefore be subject to the budget decisions made in 2015 by his successor in the 2014 election.
Aberdeen High School’s synthetic turf field was funded in the fiscal 2013 capital budget. The project is now in the design phase, with construction planned for the spring, said David Goodwin, project manager with the Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation.
Craig’s next priority is Joppatowne High School, which would be part of the fiscal year 2014 budget that he recommends to the county council in April. Fallston’s field would be part of Craig’s last budget, recommended in April 2014, for the fiscal year 2015.
Synthetic turf fields are supposed to last eight to ten years before major replacement is needed, said Goodwin, at an estimated replacement cost of $400,000 – $800,000 per field. All of the county fields are still under an eight year warranty, he said.
In addition to the school athletic fields, synthetic turf has been installed by the county at Cedar Lane Regional Park, Fallston Recreation Complex, and Tucker Field in Bel Air. North Harford was the first high school to get a synthetic turf field, in 2008.
Athletic fields at county high schools are maintained under a joint use agreement between the county department of parks and recreation and Harford County Public Schools. All questions posed to HCPS about the synthetic fields were referred to the county.
Craig’s spokesman, Bob Thomas, said that the fields reduce the possibility of injuries to athletes and allow sports to be played year-round with little interruption. More information on synthetic turf fields can be found here. http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/.
Results of a recent study of health concerns can be found here.
The study urged athletic directors to limit players’ exposure to high surface temperatures in hot weather. Concerns that the fields are a breeding ground for certain kinds of bacteria were unwarranted, the study found, although researchers noted that the synthetic surface is more abrasive than natural grass, resulting in skin breaks that could be pathways for infection from other sources. According to the Synthetic Turf Council, there are approximately 8,000 synthetic turf fields in the United States.
The cost to resod a grass football field is less than $50,000. For the cost of this turf field, which has a life expectancy of eight years, they could put down a new grass field every year for the next 28 years (and high school football fields were never redone that often). This is not about long-term maintenance costs or reducing injury. This is about the “coolness” factor and David Craig wanting to leave a legacy of being the person responsible for having such great looking fields. How about taking the extra money that is being spent on the turf fields and put it towards teacher salaries? Wait, can’t have that happen. Now that one school has a turf field, they all have to have one. Sorry, teacher friends. Go to a game at a school with a turf field and see how pretty your step increase looks.
I agree with concerned teacher at the beginning but not the ending. Synthetic turf fields are not a cost savings and may reduce some injuries but increase others. In addition, the hygiene of playing on a synthetic turf field is worse due to the abrasions/cuts allowing the germs and bacteria that linger without breaking down in the syn turf entrance in to the body.
Also, after playing on a syn field the game changes and not for teh better in my opinion (and it is just that).
Where should the money be going instead? Not necessarily to labor contracts under their current terms that are not related to performance (individual or collective). How about infrastructure or the taxpayer?
It’s kinda of amazing to me that these officials want to claim that turf fields reduce injuries. The modern synthetic fields are a million times better than the old carpets, but most professional athletes and their trainers would still prefer to play on grass. There is an cumulative impact on the legs over time that wears down joints and connective tissues with repeated use of a turf field.
I’ve played on all kinds of turf fields for years, both old and brand new ones, and putting aside aesthetics, I’d much rather be on grass. Saying it reduces injuries is totally unfounded in my opinion, I’d love to see that claim backed up.
That all said, I do believe having these fields does reduce costs, for a variety of reasons. FIrst of all, if you go around just Maryland, you will find that schools and parks and rec depts across the state are installing these fields because they save money– unless you believe that every board of ed, county exec, council, and parks and rec dept are worried about their legacy of fancy fields. Using the calculations against replacing a full field each year doesn’t account for a variety of other costs, such as having to use multiple grass fields to serve more than one team. Turf fields can replace 2 or more grass fields because they take constant abuse. And for each grass field you have to account for the costs of regular maintenance including regular mowing, minor surface repairs, painting/lining, as well as all the associated labor costs as well which is probably the largest expense.
In addition, turf fields can be used to increase revenue and offset their costs because they can absorb more abuse and can be used or rented by other organizations as needed, which you cannot do with grass fields without also increasing maintenance costs.
They are a cost effective investment in many cases, though not a necessity. But I get frustrated when people try to stretch the truth with a claim that they reduce injuries, because I just haven’t seen it in my playing and coaching life.
I do not know if the turf fields reduce injury.
I do not know what the motives are of our current political leadership. I try not to understand politicians behavior, it gives me too big a headache.
I can say that changing the field to turf is in the long run a cost saver; this has been proven to be true.
its probably best for future projects not to have a reason of why its being done, but instead of just saying its.doing work, son
Knowwhatimsayin? Because every reason of.why will be nitpicked by keyboard cowboys.
It was my understanding that with the building of the Fallston Rec Complex that Fallston HS would be the last to get a turf field.