Drake Talks: The Fields    NOTES                Dec. 10, 2015


    Review of the purpose of our talks and norms


    Review of Field Turf presentations from October 2015:

    ·         Coated Rubber

    ·         Coolplay- 50% cork and 50% TPE

    ·         100% Cork

    ·         100% TPE

    ·         100% Coconut husk


    Review of Second Discussion from Nov. 19, 2015


    EPA Report and Timeline:

    ·         Chad reported about the EPA and State and California completing studies on the safety of the rubber. Our question is should we wait a year to see the EPA results. Visit the EPA website for more information.


    ·         David O’Conner reported our field safety test on the field. Compactness of the field determines the safety of the field. With our field- we passed the compaction test with one small part that needs repair. We are looking that we can delay one year based on the results of this test.


    ·         ?- What is the life of the field? The warranty ends after 8 years. Our field is showing wear and the turf is shorter and thus less infill can be placed to increase compaction. It should be replaced soon.


    Cost Report:

    ·         David O’Conner explained the difference cost estimates:

    o   Natural Grass- To return our field to a natural grass the approximate costs is $571,637.00 with annual costs of $62,932.00.

    § Question: Amount of water to maintain the field over the year? Unknown amount of gallons.

    o   Costs of the synthetic fields:

    § Tire rubber- $514,992.00- what we have

    § Coolplay- $548,762.00-what Tam has

    § Virgin Plastic- $658,515.00-Could be interesting but slippery

    Copy of slides used at during the discussion:




    o   Question- We have to replace the costs every 10 years?

    o   With natural turf- you have to re-seed? Yes- This needs to be looked at this through the life cycle. The synthetic fields have to be replaced every 10-13 fields. The long-term costs of the field are about the same. We should consider the long-term costs of each.

    o   Utility- The natural grass needs time to “rest”. Synthetic grass can be open 12 months a year.



    ·         What should the argument be about?

    ·         Costs do not seem to be a factor over the long-term.

    ·         Health factors should be a major concern.

    ·         Chad explained the costs to the district, in all areas of school, with an increased enrollment.

    ·         Reminder of the complexities of natural grass.

    ·         Liz mentioned the option of waiting for the EPA testing.

    ·         Discussion about covering the fields with tarps in bad weather to save the turf.

    ·         Discussion of the difficult nature of covering the fields.

    ·         People like the natural grass- it is softer and cooler and less smelly.

    ·         Prefer grass but with the commitment and staff to make sure it is top notch. With rain- it gets beat up.

    ·         Hard discussion- we are very environmental but the natural fields offer real challenges.

    ·         Leaning towards the most environmental synthetic field we can afford.

    ·         Some discussion about the injuries- and more injuries are seen on natural grass.

    ·         Having the discussion on just injuries would be one discussion.

    ·         Environment is not separate from the health of all of us. Comment of the micro-plastic in the SF Bay. We need to be responsible for this production. The impact of this field on the plastic production.

    ·         Much of this field is recycled product but we need to look at the pay-off.

    ·         We are concerned that there is not safe for our students. We need to know that this is as safe as it can be. We need to feel comfortable with what we ask our students to play on.

    ·         The group in attendance agreed that it is best to wait until the studies are complete and then we will convene again to review and consider our recommendation.