ESTIMATION OF MAINTENANCE COSTS  - NATURAL GRASS

Construction cost of replacing old natural grass with new natural grass and new irrigation system:

Construction		$                     112,550.00
Engineering, Project Management & Inspection		$                       12,000.00
Total Cost: Initial Investment on Field		$                     124,550.00

Construction cost of replacing old natural grass with new natural grass without irrigation system:

Construction		$                       85,050.00
Engineering, Project Management & Inspection		$                         8,000.00
Total Cost: Initial Investment on Field		$                       93,050.00

ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS – NATURAL GRASS

Item	Cost
Fertilizer, Pesticide, Herbicide, etc	$       1,350.00
Top Dressing & Aeration	$       4,300.00
Water	$       7,600.00
Annualized Cost Equipment Purchase	$       1,125.00
Field Paint & Equipment	$       3,600.00
Lawn Equipment Upkeep	$         900.00
Irrigation System Maintenance	$         500.00
Sub-Total of Supplies	$     19,375.00
Labor - Paint Crew	$       5,200.00
Labor - Mowing and Maint.	$       8,300.00
Sub-Total Labor	$     13,500.00
**Annualized Cost of Extended Track Life	$       6,800.00
Sub-Total Annualized Maintenance Cost	$       6,800.00
Total Annual Maintenance Cost	$     39,675.00

**In the case the field lies within the boundary of a synthetic surface track, the elimination of natural grass near the synthetic track surface will enable it to last longer.  This is due to the fact that grass does not grow up through the edges causes track surface breakdown and also due to the fact that overspray from watering will not consistently break the track surface down.

ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS – SYNTHETIC TURF

The cost of maintaining a synthetic field is approximately $540 per year (9 groomings per year, 4 hours per grooming @ $15 per hour). 

ECONOMIC COMPARISON ANALYSIS

Using the above information and the assumption that the life cycle of both the synthetic turf and the natural grass will be the same (12 years), economic comparisons were made.  The following chart depicts the comparison over the first 12 year life cycle.

Economic comparison over the first 12 year life cycle:

COMPARISON OF FIRST TURF LIFE CYCLE
Cost of Natural Grass Over 12 Year Period			$          600,650.00
Cost of Synthetic Turf Over 12 Year Period			$          641,560.00
Percent Pay Back After 12 Year Period			93.62%

As can be seen, Synthetic turf is slightly less cost efficient over the course of the first life cycle.  However, this is not the same for the second life cycle.  In the second life cycle we assume that the a new natural grass field will not need a new irrigation system, but can use the one constructed in the first life cycle.  The second synthetic turf system requires only that the old turf be removed and the new turf installed.  Soil, drainage and other miscellaneous improvements that were necessary during the initial construction period will not be necessary as a part of turf replacement.

Economic comparison over the second 12 year life cycle:

COMPARISON OF SECOND TURF LIFE CYCLE
Cost of Natural Grass Over 12 Year Period			$          569,150.00
Cost of Synthetic Turf Over 12 Year Period			$          381,480.00
Percent Pay Back After 12 Year Period			149.20%

As can be seen, synthetic turf becomes more economically advantageous in the second life cycle.

The average percentage of payback that would be realized by the installation of synthetic turf of natural grass over the total 24 year period would be 114.35%

ITEM 2 – FIELD USAGE

The next topic this report will address is field usage and consequently the reliability of field condition for athletic play.

Natural grass fields are very difficult to maintain in good condition under heavy traffic conditions.  Also, wet weather conditions, which cannot be controlled, make this situation even worse.  Thus, in order to prevent the field from significant deterioration under existing conditions, the School must limit the amount of usage they allow on the stadium field or deal with a field in poor condition on a regular basis.  On the

other hand, GIS Turf has proven to be a very durable product that can handle considerable wear and tear without field deterioration independent of weather conditions.  Because of this, a School could greatly expand how much they use their stadium field while at the same time being able to rely on the field always being in good condition.  SET has found that amongst Owners that have already constructed a GIS Turf field, the smallest margin of increased field usage is about two times.  However, most Owners realize a much larger factor usually between five and ten times.  This is due to the fact that once GIS Turf is installed; the Owner can schedule stadium events at will without worry of weather or extent of use.  Thus, by installing GIS Turf, a School would be able to consolidate events at the stadium location instead of using multiple sites to host events.  A School would also be able to feel confident that the field would be in good condition for each event held, which leads to the next topic, safety.

ITEM 3 – PLAYER SAFETY

Natural grass fields that are properly watered and maintained in good condition (meaning complete ground cover exists) typically provide safe service. However, as was stated above, it is very difficult to maintain natural grass in a good condition when it is continually exposed to the intense traffic related to sporting events.  For instance, most football fields experience significant deterioration towards the latter part of the season. The middle portion of the field experiences the worst deterioration since the majority of the traffic occurs there. Thus, the most heavily used areas of the field become the least safe for play.  In addition, wet weather can make this situation worse.  Most football fans have witnessed how even one football game played when the field is saturated can cause the grass to simply disappear across much of the field leaving the field in poor condition until spring when new grass can be established. In the end, the typical natural grass field simply cannot be relied upon to be in safe condition at all times.  On the other hand, GIS Turf has the ability to remain uniformly safe across the entire playing surface regardless of the amount of play or weather conditions it has experienced throughout the life of the turf.  Thus, GIS Turf has the ability to better ensure a safe playing surface and in turn reduce turf related injuries.

Serious turf related injuries generally fall into two categories; rotation type injuries to the legs and head to ground impact injuries. Turf burn is the primary minor injury related to turf.

ROTATIONAL LEG INJURIES

Because of the granular nature of the infill used in GIS Turf, leg injuries due to a shoe or cleat binding in the turf during rotation are nearly eliminated. Granular rubber has a low degree of cohesiveness and therefore has little to no ability to lock or bind a shoe or cleat in place. As torsion is applied to the shoe or cleat, the rubber granules give way allowing the foot to release. The same is true for well-maintained natural grass but as the grass surface begins to deteriorate, so does the turfs ability to give and prevent injury as a cleat can become locked into the hard ground surface.

HEAD TO GROUND IMPACT INJURIES

The granular rubber infill used in GIS Turf will maintain a G-Max rating (measure of shock absorption) between 130 and 140, well below the allowable rating of 200. Natural grass when properly maintained also has a similar G-Max rating but areas of a field that are in poor condition can have G-Max ratings well above 200. Thus, the likelihood of head to ground impact injuries is greatly increased as the condition of the field deteriorates.

TURF BURN

Unlike its synthetic turf predecessor, GIS turf is relatively nonabrasive to the skin. Natural grass is also relatively nonabrasive, but once again, as the field condition deteriorates; natural grass gives way to bare ground that is obviously much more abrasive.

AMARILLO ISD - DICK BIVENS STADIUM STUDY

Dr. Bill Barnhill of Amarillo has generated a study that details the extent to which GIS Turf has reduced injuries at Dick Bivens Stadium.  This field is the one of the oldest GIS Turf fields in the country and has provided over six years of data. This report will not attempt to cover to any degree Dr. Barnhill’s report.  However, the following graphs illustrate a summary of his report’s findings:

BASED ON 50 GAMES PLAYED ON NATURAL GRASS PRIOR TO GIS TURF INSTALLATION & 71 GAMES PLAYED ON GIS TURF AFTER INSTALLATION.

See Graph at top of report

As can be seen, GIS Turf has shown to significantly reduce turf related injuries.  We find the data illustrated in chart 2 to be especially interesting in that when considering leg injuries, GIS Turf reduces these injuries at a rate of nearly ten per ten games or one injury per game.

ITEM 4 - ECONOMIC IMPACT

This report will deal only lightly with the economic impact that GIS Turf has on a community by drawing more events.  SET will not attempt to estimate how many additional events, such as playoff games, might be attracted or what amount of additional revenue these events would equate to in the community.  It is simply noted that having a more durable field surface in place allows the Owner the option of hosting events without the worry of damaging the field and that many of those events, i.e. football playoff games and band competitions, attract many people to a community.