MCPS found money for $1M artificial turf at Woodward High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does not, and cannot, maintain the grass fields. They are all over-used due to the massive shortage of fields throughout the county - ESs in the county were originally built for 350-450 kids. Now, MCPS regularly builds to 700+ kids. Double the number of kids, double the wear and tear during recess, PE, and community use after school. So you end up with bare patches, which are hard as a rock in summer, and mud pits after the rain, not to mention aiding in the addition of divots that turn into ankle breakers and knee injuries. Same for MSs, and HSs.

Turf is a one-time expense for 12 years (newer turf), has no PFAs, is cooler, and can be 100% recycled. And, gets way more use than the grass that MCPS installs and then forgets about.

Ask the Churchill booster club how much they spend annually maintaining their grass field and what chemicals go into maintaining the field, and then see if MCPS will cover that for all schools

And we agree that MCPS should have been fixing the HVAC issues, they should have for years. I maintain it is not either or, it should be both

Artificial turf is not a one time 12 year expense. It is an ongoing expense and the plastic is done in 8 years.

Plastic is not recyclable.

You clearly flunked math if you think that maintaining a grass field can ever top the astronomical cost of a big sheet of plastic that fails continually. FYI MCPS doesn't maintain the plastic fields either. They fail, injuries increase, streams are polluted with plastic waste, heat islands are created, and the plastic can't be recycled.

[Anonymous]

I know there are people who don't like turf for health and other issues, which is fine. My athlete kid hates playing on turf on many days.

But if you're going to criticize the turf installation based on finances, then I'd suggest you take a broader perspective. There are lots of other costs you can take issue with for financial reasons. The most obvious for those who criticize turf is varsity sports, generally. Why not get rid of football entirely (you'd save the cost of several coaches, lots of uniforms, equipment replacemtn, multiple busses to every away game, etc.). Or MCPS could retract the recent expansions of the varsity sports portfolio (pickleball, stunt cheer). Those drain resources and don't bring in much ticket revenue.

In my opinion, having usable fields that don't get ripped up when soggy, don't require as many rain cancellations, etc. is just part of the cost of running a varsity sports program. And I don't know the details of the Woodward expansion but several of the prior turf installations were covered by rental costs to local soccer programs who play games there on Sundays and other non-conflicting timeslots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are people who don't like turf for health and other issues, which is fine. My athlete kid hates playing on turf on many days.

But if you're going to criticize the turf installation based on finances, then I'd suggest you take a broader perspective. There are lots of other costs you can take issue with for financial reasons. The most obvious for those who criticize turf is varsity sports, generally. Why not get rid of football entirely (you'd save the cost of several coaches, lots of uniforms, equipment replacemtn, multiple busses to every away game, etc.). Or MCPS could retract the recent expansions of the varsity sports portfolio (pickleball, stunt cheer). Those drain resources and don't bring in much ticket revenue.

In my opinion, having usable fields that don't get ripped up when soggy, don't require as many rain cancellations, etc. is just part of the cost of running a varsity sports program. And I don't know the details of the Woodward expansion but several of the prior turf installations were covered by rental costs to local soccer programs who play games there on Sundays and other non-conflicting timeslots.

None have been covered by rental costs. MCPS is responsible for all of their fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know there are people who don't like turf for health and other issues, which is fine. My athlete kid hates playing on turf on many days.

But if you're going to criticize the turf installation based on finances, then I'd suggest you take a broader perspective. There are lots of other costs you can take issue with for financial reasons. The most obvious for those who criticize turf is varsity sports, generally. Why not get rid of football entirely (you'd save the cost of several coaches, lots of uniforms, equipment replacemtn, multiple busses to every away game, etc.). Or MCPS could retract the recent expansions of the varsity sports portfolio (pickleball, stunt cheer). Those drain resources and don't bring in much ticket revenue.

In my opinion, having usable fields that don't get ripped up when soggy, don't require as many rain cancellations, etc. is just part of the cost of running a varsity sports program. And I don't know the details of the Woodward expansion but several of the prior turf installations were covered by rental costs to local soccer programs who play games there on Sundays and other non-conflicting timeslots.

None have been covered by rental costs. MCPS is responsible for all of their fields.

This article does a pretty good job of outlining the cost tradeoffs of turf vs. grass:
https://www.thebanner.com/sports/mcps-turf-field-thomas-taylor-YDBUHEPYSZDFXGKXV2HXI7X64Y/


Not relevant for this debate (Woodward turf wasn't included in the arrangement) but MSI did contribute to turf costs at the earlier schools:
https://www.msisoccer.org/news/msi-mcps-partnerships

MSI will provide $1.2 million to construct an artificial turf field at Walt Whitman High School. Additionally, MSI will provide as much as $2.4 million to construct turf fields at Julius West Middle School and $1.2 million to upgrade the field at Einstein High School to artificial turf. In exchange, MSI will have access to use these fields for a set number of scheduled hours per year for the next ten years, when they are not reserved for school use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know there are people who don't like turf for health and other issues, which is fine. My athlete kid hates playing on turf on many days.

But if you're going to criticize the turf installation based on finances, then I'd suggest you take a broader perspective. There are lots of other costs you can take issue with for financial reasons. The most obvious for those who criticize turf is varsity sports, generally. Why not get rid of football entirely (you'd save the cost of several coaches, lots of uniforms, equipment replacemtn, multiple busses to every away game, etc.). Or MCPS could retract the recent expansions of the varsity sports portfolio (pickleball, stunt cheer). Those drain resources and don't bring in much ticket revenue.

In my opinion, having usable fields that don't get ripped up when soggy, don't require as many rain cancellations, etc. is just part of the cost of running a varsity sports program. And I don't know the details of the Woodward expansion but several of the prior turf installations were covered by rental costs to local soccer programs who play games there on Sundays and other non-conflicting timeslots.

None have been covered by rental costs. MCPS is responsible for all of their fields.

This article does a pretty good job of outlining the cost tradeoffs of turf vs. grass:
https://www.thebanner.com/sports/mcps-turf-field-thomas-taylor-YDBUHEPYSZDFXGKXV2HXI7X64Y/


Not relevant for this debate (Woodward turf wasn't included in the arrangement) but MSI did contribute to turf costs at the earlier schools:
https://www.msisoccer.org/news/msi-mcps-partnerships

MSI will provide $1.2 million to construct an artificial turf field at Walt Whitman High School. Additionally, MSI will provide as much as $2.4 million to construct turf fields at Julius West Middle School and $1.2 million to upgrade the field at Einstein High School to artificial turf. In exchange, MSI will have access to use these fields for a set number of scheduled hours per year for the next ten years, when they are not reserved for school use.

MSI isn’t relevant at all. They are done. Those fields are now MCPS’ to maintain, replace and dispose of every 8 years when they fail.

Where exactly are they throwing away these big sheets of plastic? They can’t go in the incinerator. They are too big and would gum up the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know there are people who don't like turf for health and other issues, which is fine. My athlete kid hates playing on turf on many days.

But if you're going to criticize the turf installation based on finances, then I'd suggest you take a broader perspective. There are lots of other costs you can take issue with for financial reasons. The most obvious for those who criticize turf is varsity sports, generally. Why not get rid of football entirely (you'd save the cost of several coaches, lots of uniforms, equipment replacemtn, multiple busses to every away game, etc.). Or MCPS could retract the recent expansions of the varsity sports portfolio (pickleball, stunt cheer). Those drain resources and don't bring in much ticket revenue.

In my opinion, having usable fields that don't get ripped up when soggy, don't require as many rain cancellations, etc. is just part of the cost of running a varsity sports program. And I don't know the details of the Woodward expansion but several of the prior turf installations were covered by rental costs to local soccer programs who play games there on Sundays and other non-conflicting timeslots.

None have been covered by rental costs. MCPS is responsible for all of their fields.

This article does a pretty good job of outlining the cost tradeoffs of turf vs. grass:
https://www.thebanner.com/sports/mcps-turf-field-thomas-taylor-YDBUHEPYSZDFXGKXV2HXI7X64Y/


Not relevant for this debate (Woodward turf wasn't included in the arrangement) but MSI did contribute to turf costs at the earlier schools:
https://www.msisoccer.org/news/msi-mcps-partnerships

MSI will provide $1.2 million to construct an artificial turf field at Walt Whitman High School. Additionally, MSI will provide as much as $2.4 million to construct turf fields at Julius West Middle School and $1.2 million to upgrade the field at Einstein High School to artificial turf. In exchange, MSI will have access to use these fields for a set number of scheduled hours per year for the next ten years, when they are not reserved for school use.

MSI isn’t relevant at all. They are done. Those fields are now MCPS’ to maintain, replace and dispose of every 8 years when they fail.

Where exactly are they throwing away these big sheets of plastic? They can’t go in the incinerator. They are too big and would gum up the system.

The MSI Whitman HS field that was put down was crap and had to be redone 3 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money is available for football fields but not summer programs.

That’s terrible. And turf is terrible. So many issues with artificial turf.

Not cheaper in the long run.

That is an obscene amount of money to be spending on crap turf.

Agree. The turf is AWFUL. We have it at our high school. Ridiculous to spend $1M on this when we have so many other needs in the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does not, and cannot, maintain the grass fields. They are all over-used due to the massive shortage of fields throughout the county - ESs in the county were originally built for 350-450 kids. Now, MCPS regularly builds to 700+ kids. Double the number of kids, double the wear and tear during recess, PE, and community use after school. So you end up with bare patches, which are hard as a rock in summer, and mud pits after the rain, not to mention aiding in the addition of divots that turn into ankle breakers and knee injuries. Same for MSs, and HSs.

Turf is a one-time expense for 12 years (newer turf), has no PFAs, is cooler, and can be 100% recycled. And, gets way more use than the grass that MCPS installs and then forgets about.

Ask the Churchill booster club how much they spend annually maintaining their grass field and what chemicals go into maintaining the field, and then see if MCPS will cover that for all schools

And we agree that MCPS should have been fixing the HVAC issues, they should have for years. I maintain it is not either or, it should be both

Artificial turf is not a one time 12 year expense. It is an ongoing expense and the plastic is done in 8 years.

Plastic is not recyclable.

You clearly flunked math if you think that maintaining a grass field can ever top the astronomical cost of a big sheet of plastic that fails continually. FYI MCPS doesn't maintain the plastic fields either. They fail, injuries increase, streams are polluted with plastic waste, heat islands are created, and the plastic can't be recycled.

I CANNOT believe that in a county that claims to be so 'progressive', we have so much support for these horrible artificial turf fields. They are simply AWFUL for the environment, and potentially awful for our kids' health. This was a terrible decision, but par for the course for our hypocritical MCPS leadership, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Money is available for football fields but not summer programs.

Mad Mommy of MoCo doesn't understand the difference between capital and operating budgets. But she's Big Mad anyway. Typical Mad Mommy of MoCo being Big Mad behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money is available for football fields but not summer programs.

Mad Mommy of MoCo doesn't understand the difference between capital and operating budgets. But she's Big Mad anyway. Typical Mad Mommy of MoCo being Big Mad behavior.

Buddy the Elf forgets that artificial turf has been paid for out of both the Operating and Capital Budgets. Buddy doesn’t like following accounting rules.