>
The very fact that the fields are in the flood plain is why they should be turf.
“Turf fields that need replacement and continuous maintenance (b/c they were idiotically built in a flood zone) does not represent wise spending. The return on investment does come close to breaking even as not nearly enough of the student population benefits.”
We had an unusually severe spring storm season this year. So, here is a question for you…how much would we have spent to maintain/repair the old grass fields after the floods this spring? Or, would we have just left the fields closed for 3-4 weeks until they were playable, like we did at Brookside Field this March/April? You need to compare what the costs would have been and what the impact of lost field access would have been.
No one said that the turf fields are maintenance free (particularly in the flood plain). However, the very fact that the fields are in the flood plain is why they should be turf. There are maintenance costs. But, they are different costs from grass field maintenance and are a lower expense to taxpayers