Stadium Surfaces - Frequently Asked Questions

Stadium Artificial Surfaces FAQ

Recent discussions about placing artificial turf on stadium fields at each District 211 school have prompted several questions. We are providing answers to questions that have been posed thus far and appreciate receipt of any additional questions you may have on the topic. We will respond to additional questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your interest in the stadium fields and the issues surrounding them.

Click question to see response. Click question again to collapse window.

1. Why is artificial turf under consideration? What are the reasons it might be installed?

Artificial turf, as other school districts and park districts have learned, provides a much more reliable and durable surface for physical education, athletics and band practices and contests. From early spring to late fall, the surface is constantly in playable condition. In District 211, stadium surfaces are used very sparingly in order to keep the fields in contest-ready condition. Our stadiums serve as sites for soccer, lacrosse, and football contests, and marching bands sometimes practice on the field prior to performances.

Practices for athletic teams are held on practice fields on the school site or off site at park facilities. Early in each season, practice fields become worn and not in good condition. Late summer practices for football and soccer pose real challenges for our natural turf practice fields. Physical education classes then use practice fields for the duration of the fall. Spring sports seasons begin before field conditions are optimal.

School districts that have artificial turf report widespread use of stadium surfaces for physical education and marching band practices during the school day. Before and after school uses include practice times and games for all teams to the extent that scheduling permits use. Artificial turf fields are not impacted by heavy use.

The committee that studied the potential use of the fields if artificial turf was installed found that the usage of the stadium field areas would increase from an approximate 5% use of available hours to approximately 78% use of available hours. Much of the additional use would be for physical education and band while team practices before and after school would comprise the remainder of the increased usage. (see stadium usage chart)

2. How long has the District been considering artificial turf for the stadium fields?

The Board of Education first considered artificial surfaces for the District’s stadiums during the 2002-2003 school year by forming a Stadium Surface Committee. The Committee was formed for the purpose of researching cost and benefits of artificial surfaces. At that time, the Committee’s report was held in abeyance due to significant fiscal challenges facing the District.

After resolution of the fiscal challenges and other facility needs underway, it was timely for the Board to consider installation of the artificial surfaces again. At its meeting on September 20, 2007, the Board approved to reconvene the Stadium Surface Committee, with its focus to further investigate the areas of: stadium usage, maintenance, and safety.

3. What concerns about artificial turf have been reviewed and what was learned from the review?

Whenever students are involved in physical contact sports, either in contests or in practice, injuries are a concern. Most notable in many contact sports are the major issues of joint or bone injuries. Increasingly, scrapes and abrasions have become concerns with MRSA and other significant infections. The committee that researched this area found that there were no data suggesting that joint and bone injuries were more severe with the most recent type of artificial turf. Some reports seemed to suggest possible reductions in some areas, but we found no definitive studies totally favoring one over the other.

In terms of scrapes and abrasions, most discussions compared high quality natural turf with artificial turf. It appears that, in this comparison, some additional scrapes and abrasions do occur. But, with proper care and cleanliness, no increase in infections has been noted. Having said that, the most appropriate comparison for most high schools, including ours, is the comparison of mid-season practice areas with the artificial turf. In that regard, we have no doubt that artificial turf is a more desirable surface. In addition, goose droppings that are increasingly prevalent on our practice and playing surfaces would not be present on the artificial turf area.

4. What is the anticipated cost and how does that compare with other facility improvements made recently in District 211?

The total cost per school is anticipated to be in the range of $1.3 million. Included in that total would be the significant underground structure and drainage/water retention system that would remain intact for decades. Some have estimated that cost to be in the $500,000 range. The artificial surface and infill is estimated in the $400,000 range with the running track and other related costs comprising the balance of the $1.3 million cost per site. (Stadium Surface Cost Estimate)

Recent music facility additions at Fremd and Conant High Schools cost approximately $2.7 million each. The Fremd High School music addition was necessary because of the growth in the music program and the limited classroom and practice facilities there. At Conant High School, the previous music area was not handicapped accessible, and the new location affords ready access to the auditorium area.

5. So, where would the monies come from to place artificial turf on stadium fields?

The proposed funding for the artificial surfaces includes several non-property tax sources identified in the Operations/Maintenance Fund. In the early 2000s, District 211 reached agreement to sell property on Ela Road to School District 15, and final payment for the sale was received by District 211 in 2005. Approximately $450,000 was used to install ventilation in gymnasiums at Conant and Schaumburg High Schools. The remainder of the funds was placed in a dedicated line in the Operations and Maintenance Fund. (Proposed Funding for Artificial Turf)

In 2007 and early 2008, District 211 received settlements of two asbestos removal cases. Each award was in the range of $2 million after legal costs due at the time of settlement. All totaled, the available funds from these three sources equaled approximately $6.5 million. In addition, interest earnings on these funds along with interest earnings from the bond proceeds listed in FAQ #9 will fund the transportation facility and the stadium artificial surface projects, if approved.

6. Will other projects or programs be cut in order to provide the necessary funds for installation and maintenance of the artificial turf?

The proposed funding for the artificial surfaces has been identified as non-property tax dollars from the sale of the District’s Ela Road property and settlement proceeds from two asbestos cases (FAQ #8). Although approval of such projects rests with the Board of Education, the Administration is not aware of any budget reductions or program cuts that would be necessary or appropriate to accommodate the artificial surfaces.

7. Will water runoff be a problem for the areas near the high schools?

Our engineering firm has informed us that while natural land has a runoff factor of approximately 15%, our current stadium turfs have a runoff factor of 74%. The artificial turf has a runoff factor of approximately 84%, a difference of 10%. We have not experienced problems with runoff from our present fields. The Board of Education has authorized our engineer to verify the capacity necessary to contain the additional runoff and the release rate that would meet water management requirements. Resolution of concerns in this area would be a necessary precursor to any recommendation for project approval by the Board.

8. What has happened to the monies from the referendum, and is the District’s financial status improving?

Monies from the referendum have been used as was promised. In nearly every category, actual increased expenditures have been held to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Each controlled fund has been strengthened and Standard & Poors increased the District’s bond rating to AA+ earlier this year. This rating restores the District to the bond rating it held in the mid-1990s and equals the highest rating held by District 211. It is our intent to seek another upgrade in two years.

The Board of Education is presently in the midst of developing a policy that will govern fund balances to ensure that reserves presently being accrued remain strong in the years to come. The Board also has authorized the use of $3 million per year for a three-year period for abatement of Bond and Interest monies. The effect of that action will be the levying of a lesser tax increase than is authorized by statute.

9. It seems that a lot of construction is underway within the District. Why is construction underway and are these projects being funded by monies from the referendum?

As the need for the referendum developed over several years, facility needs within the District were put on hold. Additions to Fremd and Palatine High Schools had been completed, but the needs of Conant, Hoffman Estates and Schaumburg High Schools were not addressed. Those three schools, along with the District Administration Center, remained inaccessible for the handicapped. And, significant needs for additional classroom space in each of the three schools and relocating the office areas for greater security were significant issues that had to be addressed. The Administration Center needed additional Board of Education space for monthly Board meetings, along with additional conference rooms, etc., for daily work in the District.

Total costs for the projects listed above were funded by a $53 million bond issue that is being repaid through the previously established level of the Bond and Interest Fund. The bonds for the projects will be fully paid in 2014 and did not require an increase in the tax levy from its prior level. At that time, the District’s existing debt will be fully paid.

In the near future, work also will begin on the Palatine High School bus garage to expand it to fully meet the transportation maintenance needs of the District. When the Palatine High School facility is completed, the Fremd High School bus facility will be demolished.

None of the monies for the construction now underway at the schools, the Administration Center, or the transportation facility are related to or from the Education Fund referendum from 2005.

Additional Information

Stadium Surface Committee Information
Stadium Surface Information

Stadium Artificial Surfaces Presentation (PowerPoint - requires Microsoft Powerpoint software)