CC PACKET 06092020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Less pesticides 1 3. Increased playability 2 4. Fewer injuries 3 5. Saves Water 4 ii. Cons: 5 1. Heat Island/Hazard—need to alter schedules to avoid summer afternoon use 6 2. Hazardous elements/chemicals (players & water runoff)* 7 3. Increased turf burns & bacterial infections* 8 4. Asthmatic impact 9 5. Lose option for natural turf permanently 10 *There is an EPA study “part 2” coming out in the future that will help define some of these 11 risks. 12 13 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 14 a. Water quality impacts/benefits? 15 b. Crumb rubber—used tires looking for a home 16 c. How does artificial turf fit with SAV’s commitment to the GREEN STEP program? 17 d. Fairwarning article: https://www.fairwarning.org/2019/12/fields-of-waste-artificial-turf-mess/: 18 i. “Despite frequent claims by turf manufacturers that synthetic-turf fields are recyclable and 19 environmentally friendly, FairWarning found that worn-out playing fields and playgrounds have 20 limited second lives…” [goes on to describe how they remain a nuisance to dispose of without 21 viable recycling available] 22 23 3. COST 24 a. Taxpayer $’s at stake, though it appears to “fit” in the budget 25 i. As I understand, the school district has found a way to insert the costs into the budget in a way 26 that won’t show up as a cost increase due to other costs expiring (other than a $15-50/year city 27 levy on each homeowner depending on home value). 28 ii. I don’t know what the school board’s budget looks like, but must assume that $1-2.5 million is 29 significant. It would be helpful if the city and school district could present the various alternative 30 solutions to the public so that it can understand directly if artificial turf will be the highest and 31 best use for the taxpayer funds. 32 Conclusion: 33 Best I can tell, there has been a good effort by staff to explore options to expand use of these 34 facilities. It seems that there has not been any sort of documentation of the process that squarely 35 evaluates all options against one another--pros & cons. Considering the open questions about 36 safety, environmental impact, and the potentially irreversible and dramatic change that will result 37 at central park (some good, some not good), it seems prudent that an effort be made to preserve 38 the opportunity and bring the community along on this big decision: 39 1. Request extension of Hennepin County grant in light of pandemic and potential economic 40 impact on budgets 41 2. Attempt to lock in an option on the School District-City funding to give time for due diligence 42 3. Have a 3rd party consultant present a complete evaluation to the community of the issue, 43 potential solutions, costs and risks. 44 4. If moving forward, include in the vendor contract full indemnification of SAV against future 45 potential health/enviro issues, including (but not limited to) cost of reverting to natural turf if 46 7