When Phase 2 of the WHS project was bid the contractor was required to hold their price on alternate S-2 Synthetic Turf on Football Field for eight months. The purpose of this "hold" was to allow the district the opportunity to 1) move through the initial stages of construction (wherin lies the most risk) and evaluate budget capacity. 2) see if there are other funds that are available and accessible for funding the alternate.
Skanska has requested we consider acceptance of this alternate prior to the summer deadline allowed in the bid. The reason for this is that if they do a grass field they need to establish grass this summer to make sure it is able to be played on in 2015.
The Skanska Bid for this alternate was $525,000.
The board has at least three options tha can be exercised at this point in time:
1) Accept the Alternate
2) Make acceptance of the alternate contingent of the community raising pledges or an amount of money by a date certain. (this may mean that thestadium is not usable in the fall of 2015)
3) Reject the alternate
Considerations:
Budget: Currently we expect a $222,000 reduction to the contract amound because earthwork allowances were not utilized.
Currently we have a contingency of $2,400,000 (exclusive of the $222k allowance credit). The biggest risk to contingency is in the dirt, which we are substantially done with. The project managers are comfortable that the use of $300,000 of contingency would leave us with a substantial buffer.
Current budget for projects at other campuses is $2.8m. (inclusive of the Yale Gym, $1.3m exclusive of that project) This is what we promised voters we would commit to these projects. It is very likely that we will have money from contingency at the end of the HS project to enhance this work.
Life Cycle Costs: I would speculate that you have all heard that Turf has a lower life-cycle cost. If you do a little research there are all sorts of competing claims associated with turf. You can find documents produced by the artificial turf industry that demonstrate the savings of turf over grass. You can also find documents produced by the natural grass industry that demonstarte the savings of grass over turf. I did find an article from a University of Missouri extensaion service regarding a presentation on costs that may (or may not) be more objective.
Playability: One advantage of turf over grass is the amount of play time that can occur on the field. With a grass field we limit the amount of use because, particularly in the rainy fall season, the field can get torn-up due to constant use and we have periods when students and community members are limited in their access to preserve the field for competition.
Athletic Director Paul Huddleston requested the board receive a feasability study from another district, and a document he created for the board..