Habig not convinced on artificial turf - Dubois County Free Press, Inc.

Greater Jasper School Board President Nancy Habig wants the board to truly consider the potential health and financial impacts a new artificial turf football field will have on the students and school corporation if plans to install one move forward.

Habig took some time at Monday’s meeting to voice her concerns over the board’s decision to pursue the new field. She didn’t have a chance to comment on the proposed artificial turf installation at Jerry Brewer Alumni Stadium when the board gave the Jasper Football Boosters the go-ahead in December.

Habig has been tending to an ailing relative and was unable to attend the meeting in which the decision was made. Arlet Jackle, a recent appointment who replaced Mike Braun on the board, was also absent because of a previously planned vacation.

The remaining board members gave booster club president Richard Farr approval to begin fundraising the estimated $800,000 for the upgrade to the field.

Farr first appeared before the board last summer with a proposal to upgrade the stadium and the field. Farr presented data that an artificial turf field would be more cost effective than a grass surface over the long term. Some debate was had when NBC News published a story about the potential health concerns with crumb rubber used in the fields.

Industry representatives presented about 60 studies citing no evidence of health concerns with the rubber in response to the health concerns being raised.

Based on the potential cost savings and with safety concerns potentially dissuaded, Board members Bernie Vogler, Ken Schnaus and Greg Eckerle, the only board members present in December, voted to approve the turf installation.

Habig took Monday night to relay information she felt was pertinent in the decision-making process. brought up concerns about the cost of grass versus artificial turf and stated she didn’t think the health and safety issues were completely off the table either.

One of her main points was “what does the school corporation do after the 8 years or so of the life of the new turf field?” Essentially saying, they would be back to spending the same money for another artificial turf surface — at least as expensive as the original.

In Farr’s original proposal, he stated the artificial turf field’s top layer would need to be replaced every eight to 12 years and would cost about $300,000. He also stated that the annual turf maintenance would only cost about $5,000. He compared those numbers to the costs associated with a grass field providing estimates of $10,000 for a tri-annual replanting, or sprigging, that must be done on top of the estimated $20,000 annual cost of maintenance for the natural fields.

Habig told the board her own research had provided different estimates than those provided by Farr. She stated that an improved and properly drained grass field would last longer than the artificial turf and cost about $432,000 less over 16 years.

Habig also felt that the maintenance figures presented for the artificial turf were low. She felt her own research on artificial turf showed the lifetime of the fields could be less than the 12 years advertised.

She worried aloud about funding shortfalls in the future to maintain and replace an artificial turf field.

In regards to the health concerns, Habig stated she felt the issue was far from settled and that many experts in the environmental, toxicology and health fields are raising concerns about the carcinogens and toxins found in the crumb rubber created from old tires and other synthetic substances used for the substructure of an artificial field.

One of the most egregious is what is called carbon black particles; the particles in the NBC News story.

Habig cited the websites ehhi.org and synturf.org which are dedicated to information regarding the environmental and health risks associated with artificial turf fields to obtain additional information on the health risks.

Habig also raised concerns about the inability of an artificial turf field to absorb pollutants introduced on the field like simple animal waste. These materials can then stay on the surface and harbor diseases.

Finally, she pointed out research that stated the heat generated by an artificial turf field during warm weather months can create a surface temperature of 150 degrees, even in only moderate temperature days.

Habig, in short, does not feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. She said, it is “not necessary to put our kids’ health at risk.”

While she did not advocate a reversal of the board’s vote on the matter, she felt it was necessary to raise the concerns before any final decisions were made.

Farr listened intently to Habig’s remarks and finally said that the boosters and board needed to be on the same page.

He pointed out that if the consensus of all toxicologists was against artificial turf fields, there would be none installed. He added that if the concerns were serious enough, no athletes from any teams at Jasper should play on artificial turf fields at other venues.

He told the board that from the beginning, the goal of the boosters club was to get a new field, be it grass or artificial turf. He added they would cooperate with the board on their decision.

The next 30 days are critical for Farr’s group to begin fundraising so they can reach the $400,000 goal and potentially begin construction of the new field in May. According to Scott Stenftenagel, contractors would need to be notified of the project in March to meet that deadline.

Farr asked that the board members consider their positions more thoroughly over the next few weeks. The booster club will still be allowed to continue with its current fundraising plans.

“We need to be on the same page, I think,” Farr said. “Mrs. Habig, since you’re the leader of the board, we’d want you to be behind it, support it and feel good about it.”

No action was taken by the board.