CC MINUTES 05262020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 7 1 2. Less pesticides 2 3. Increased playability 3 4. Fewer injuries 4 5. Saves Water 5 ii. Cons: 6 1. Heat Island/Hazard—need to alter schedules to avoid summer afternoon use 7 2. Hazardous elements/chemicals (players & water runoff)* 8 3. Increased turf burns & bacterial infections* 9 4. Asthmatic impact 10 5. Lose option for natural turf permanently 11 *There is an EPA study "part 2" coming out in the future that will help define some of these 12 risks. 13 14 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 15 a. Water quality impacts/benefits? 16 b. Crumb rubber —used tires looking for a home 17 c. How does artificial turf fit with SAV's commitment to the GREEN STEP program? 18 d. Fairwarning article: https://www.fairwarning.org/2019/12/fields-of-waste-artificial-turf-mess/: 19 i. "Despite frequent claims by turf manufacturers that synthetic -turf fields are recyclable and 20 environmentally friendly, FairWarning found that worn-out playing fields and playgrounds have 21 limited second lives..." [goes on to describe how they remain a nuisance to dispose of without 22 viable recycling available] 23 24 3. COST 25 a. Taxpayer $'s at stake, though it appears to "fit" in the budget 26 i. As I understand, the school district has found a way to insert the costs into the budget in a way 27 that won't show up as a cost increase due to other costs expiring (other than a $15-50/year city 28 levy on each homeowner depending on home value). 29 ii. I don't know what the school board's budget looks like, but must assume that $1-2.5 million is 30 significant. It would be helpful if the city and school district could present the various alternative 31 solutions to the public so that it can understand directly if artificial turf will be the highest and 32 best use for the taxpayer funds. 33 Conclusion: 34 Best I can tell, there has been a good effort by staff to explore options to expand use of these 35 facilities. It seems that there has not been any sort of documentation of the process that squarely 36 evaluates all options against one another --pros & cons. Considering the open questions about 37 safety, environmental impact, and the potentially irreversible and dramatic change that will result 38 at central park (some good, some not good), it seems prudent that an effort be made to preserve 39 the opportunity and bring the community along on this big decision: 40 1. Request extension of Hennepin County grant in light of pandemic and potential economic 41 impact on budgets 42 2. Attempt to lock in an option on the School District -City funding to give time for due diligence 43 3. Have a 3rd party consultant present a complete evaluation to the community of the issue, 44 potential solutions, costs and risks. 45 4. If moving forward, include in the vendor contract full indemnification of SAV against future 46 potential health/enviro issues, including (but not limited to) cost of reverting to natural turf if