To the editor:
The recent article about the Shawano School Board’s consideration of passing artificial turf construction costs to taxpayers contained some math that I found interesting.
Such a field, according to the consultant, would cost $950,000 upfront and about $1,500,000 over 15 years. Using the consultant’s projected maintenance costs of $2,500 to $5,000 annually, that $75,000 at most would total $1,025,000. The consultant must believe there is considerable extra field cost beyond the initial expense to reach $1,500,000. After 12 years, said to be the upper limit of durability for the field, it is logical to expect another million dollars plus inflation costs will be demanded for replacing the turf.
Maintenance costs for the existing grass field is projected at $25,000 to $30,000 annually, plus a $490,000 upgrade in four to five years from now. At the upper end of maintenance costs, that comes to $1,015,000 over 15 years, nearly a half million dollars below turf’s projected costs, even if the artificial field is not replaced after 12 years.
What have other schools done? Pulaski’s field has sponsor ads so the taxpayers didn’t fund the entire cost. Stevens Point has multiple teams from two high schools and a university using the field and sharing costs. Kimberly built a facility rivaling the Green Bay Packers building, where the teams using the structure raise funds and no tax money was used.
While an artificial surface is being considered here, following Aaron Rodgers’ injury last September, the National Football League’s Players Association pushed for all NFL teams to use grass fields, believing that reduces injury risk to players. One survey showed 92% of NFL players prefer playing on grass. Should we spend more on an artificial field while increasing the risk to our area athletes?
J.R. Habeck, Shawano
