KPS Oval Discussion Paper FINAL 20140525 · The objective of this paper is to present long term...
Transcript of KPS Oval Discussion Paper FINAL 20140525 · The objective of this paper is to present long term...
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 1
Discussion paper on options for the
KPS Oval
Prepared by:
KPS Building & Grounds Committee
May 2014
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 2
Executive Summary
Overview
The last time the Kew Primary School (KPS) oval was in excellent condition was 2009. The
Building the Education Revolution (BER) related works in 2010-11 detrimentally affected the
condition of the oval and other KPS issues have since taken priority over oval maintenance.
In 2013 Grade 6 student representatives proposed fundraising for a running track to the Acting
Principal. The Acting Principal supported this request, and 40 per cent of the necessary Funds
were raised for a running track in 2013 through a student-organised lapathon and very
generous donations from KPS families and the Bendigo Bank. These funds have yet to be
used.
Given this fundraising, the general state of disrepair of the oval and ongoing maintenance
requirements, the KPS Building & Grounds Sub-Committee (B&G) have prepared options for
consideration by the school community.
Objectives
The objective of this paper is to present long term options for the oval to ensure it is a space
that caters to the educational needs and extracurricular activities of KPS students, to enhance
physical literacy and give both boys and girls an equal opportunity to use the oval for both
passive and active play.
The oval occupies a large space and key considerations for both KPS and the school
community include environmental, health and social impacts alongside sporting needs,
physical education curriculum criteria, passive use and a desire to maintain green open
spaces.
Considerations
B&G have investigated a range of options and present research undertaken for the three most
relevant at this stage. B&G are open to other options which may end up warranting a similar
level of investigation at another stage. All options are being considered in relation to broader
school priorities, fundraising and a long term, holistic plan for the oval including:
• Scope
• Costs (Capital, Maintenance and projected 15 year cost)
• Construction time
• Case studies
• Lessons learned
Health, social and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass are also paramount.
Options for consideration
1. Natural grass oval
2. Install a synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds
3. Install a synthetic running track with synthetic infield and natural grass and landscaped
surrounds
Next Steps
A Community Forum will be held in the School Gym on 11 June 2014 to obtain feedback for
consideration by KPS and the School Council. This document provides important background
information that should inform the discussions at the Forum.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 3
Table of Contents
Introduction – history .................................................................................................................................. 4
Future state – objectives, considerations and options ............................................................................... 6
Health, environmental and social impacts .................................................................................................. 7
Option 1 – No additional action ................................................................................................................ 13
Option 2 – Renovate natural grass oval ................................................................................................... 14
Option 3 – Synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds ........................ 17
Option 4 – Synthetic running track with synthetic infield, and natural grass landscaped surrounds ....... 19
Cost comparison ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1 – Further reading ................................................................................................................... 26
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 4
Introduction – history
Recent history
In 2008 the oval was in worse condition than now due to a lack of ongoing maintenance.
An external sporting club was willing to pay for a new synthetic oval at no cost to KPS
including a fence around the oval, night lighting (subject to Boroondara approval), and all
maintenance and upkeep in return for exclusive access outside school hours.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) approval is required for
this type of arrangement however the School Council decided to stay with grass.
In 2009 grass restoration works occurred following fundraising of $15,000 by the Parent
Teachers Association. The restoration works was an 18 month process involving reseeding,
fixing of sprinklers etc. The oval was closed for 6 months, and the oval was in perfect condition
at the end of the period.
During 2010/11 the Principal agreed to give site access across half of the oval for the Building
the Education Revolution (BER) building works. This had a significantly detrimental effect on
the state of the oval and inadequate remediation works in 2011 and minimal watering lead to
further deterioration.
Since 2011 other KPS issues have taken priority over oval maintenance.
KPS Oval prior to BER works - 2009
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 5
Current history
In 2013 Grade 6 student representatives proposed fundraising for a running track to the Acting
Principal. The Acting Principal supported this request, and 40 per cent of the necessary funds
were raised for a running track in 2013 through a student-organised lapathon ($9,100) and
very generous donations from two KPS families ($15,000 and $1,000) and the Bendigo Bank
($11,000). KPS has partnered with Studley Park Kindergarten to be eligible for the Bendigo
Bank grant. In return the Kindergarten would hold its sports day at KPS. This arrangement
would also help facilitate the Prep transition program.
The $36,100 raised is yet to be spent.
Given this fundraising, the current poor state of the oval and ongoing maintenance
requirements, the B&G committee have prepared options for consideration by the school
community.
Current state – KPS oval 2013
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 6
Future state – objectives, considerations and options
Objectives
The objective of this paper is to present long term options for the oval to ensure it is a space
that caters to the educational needs and extracurricular activities of KPS students, to enhance
physical literacy and give both boys and girls an equal opportunity to use the oval for both
passive and active play.
The oval occupies a large space and key considerations for both KPS and the school
community include environmental, health and social impacts alongside sporting needs,
passive use and a desire to maintain green open spaces.
Key considerations
B&G have investigated a number of options for the school oval and has considered the
broader health, social and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass. As part of
background research and data gathering, the Committee’s teaching staff members have
provided input. B&G has reviewed the Victorian state government’s Department of Planning
and Community report into artificial grass surfaces which incorporates evidence based
research and guidance notes.
B&G has conducted a telephone survey of City of Boroondara primary schools and members
have visited schools in Cranbourne and Doncaster to gather data on their experiences with
different playing surfaces. A number of Boroondara schools have invited School Council
members to visit their facilities.
Options for consideration
As a result, B&G have prepared information on the following three options:
1. Natural grass oval
2. Install a synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds
3. Install a synthetic running track with a synthetic infield with natural grass and landscaped
surrounds
The three options each consider:
• Scope
• Costs (Capital, Maintenance and projected 15 year cost)
• Construction time
• Case studies
• Lessons learned
Before presenting the information on these options, a comparison of the broader health, social
and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass follow to establish the larger context
for these three options.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 7
Health, environmental and social impacts
The following tables provide a comparison of the two surface options: natural grass and synthetic turf, and include B&G’s (KPS) response to
each identified issue where relevant. This material is drawn from the Western Australian state government’s Department of Sport and
Recreation’s Natural Grass vs. Synthetic Turf Decision Making Guide, available at http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/synthetic-turf
These tables summarise aspects associated with each surface.
A. Health impacts of the playing surface
Natural Grass Synthetic Turf
Injuries
Due to the limited reported research to date on injuries on the latest versions of synthetic turf, there is little consensus on whether the risk of injury is greater than on
natural turf surfaces.
Abrasion/friction – Burns, abrasions, and grazes
Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Usually only a problem for injuries
when the ground has become bare
and dry. This can be avoided with
good management practices.
A maintenance and upkeep
programme is important
Most fibres are relatively non-abrasive so
the choice of infill is critical, sand based infill
will be more abrasive than rubber but rubber
can cause friction burns if sliding is a
characteristic of your sport.
Rubber infill will be used
Experience and education around
appropriate play will address in part the
sliding element
Heat
Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Grass dissipates heat and naturally
cools the environment so there is
rarely a heat-related injury on natural
grass.
Have heat policies in place to
counteract heat-related injuries.
Agree
In place currently
Synthetic turf surfaces appear to create an
increase in the heat island effect above the
surface, which has implications for heat–
related injuries, particularly in junior players.
The selection of a heat-resistant fibre and a
non-black infill will help reduce the risk of
heat-related injuries.
Surrounding landscaping will reduce
impact
Need school heat policies and education
awareness
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 8
B. Social impacts of the playing surface
Natural Grass Synthetic Turf
Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Cooler feel particularly in summer Agree Warmer and subject to glare when sunlight
is present
Surrounding landscaping will reduce
impact in summer, may be positive
outcome in winter
Softer and more forgiving Requires maintenance to ensure
consistent surface
Consistent surface Helps improve dexterity, coordination,
raise athletic potential of students and
community
Variable quality depending on the
soil type and maintenance regime
Maintenance important to avoid
dust, mud
Needs to be rested – must be part
of maintenance plan
Consistent quality
Durable and low maintenance
More likely to be used by all students with
diverse interests and activities
Expand scope for school sporting events,
including interschool events
Maintenance program includes vacuum,
roll and level rubber infill
Working bees will support leaf removal
activities
Traditional and served the various
sports well for many years
Agree Modern and innovative product Opportunity for greater range of sports
with permanent line markings e.g. hockey,
soccer
Third generation product so no risk from
early adoption of a new technology
Natural and calming feel Agree Artificial and unnatural feel Surrounding landscaping must be integral
Pleasant smells e.g. freshly cut grass Potential source for hay fever Strong odour particularly for synthetic turf
with rubber granule infill
Known example where smell was only
temporary
Visually appealing if well maintained
Note importance of maintenance Visually appealing as it looks ‘green’ all of
the time
Provides good impression of school to the
local and school community
Problematic in winter when wet, in
summer when dry; girls will not
use if wet and muddy
Suitable in many types of weather
conditions
Girls and boys likely to use equally on wet
days
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 9
C. Broader environmental impacts of the playing surface (water, carbon, material)
Area Natural grass Synthetic turf
1. WATER Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Usage Requires significant amounts
of irrigation for growth.
Reliant on mains and
sprinkler system or
excavation for
underground tanks (cost
not investigated)
Annual maintenance of
sprinkler system
Drought conditions will be
an issue.
Does not require irrigation for growth, some
watering required for maintenance of
specific types of synthetic turf
Watering only required when very hot to
cool down surface
Stormwater
capture
Provides for natural infiltration
of water through the soil
profile reducing runoff.
Agree Inhibits natural infiltration of water increasing
runoff (synthetic turf can include drainage
systems to compensate for their inability to
take in water and capture and storage
systems that can harvest rainwater for re-
use).
Spoon drains will remove run off and will
connect into stormwater. Harvesting could
be future option.
Runoff
Water
Quality
Potential for nutrient/chemical
leaching from pesticide and
fertilisers into waterways if
not managed carefully.
Maintenance contractor
would be responsible for
managing this issue.
Require herbicides and
fertilisers.
Potential for leaching of heavy metals and
other residues from synthetic material and
rubber infill
KPS B&G have consulted with suppliers
who have done research and development
to monitor materials used to find more
efficient manufacturing and installation
methods, as well as being involved in
research projects looking closely at
recycling old Astroturf and developing
100% recyclable products for the future.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 10
Area Natural grass Synthetic turf
2. CARBON Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Carbon
footprint
Carbon emissions generally
come from the installation
and maintenance stage
(fertiliser production, mowing
and lawn management).
Tends to have lower carbon
footprint over entire lifecycle.
Proper maintenance will
require fertiliser, mowing,
aerating and slicing with
mechanical equipment
Carbon emissions come from the
processing, production, transportation,
installation, maintenance and disposal
stages. These material impacts over the
entire lifecycle significantly increase the
carbon footprint
Reduce bus use for offsite sports activities
(also cost reduction)
Carbon sink Helps remove carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere through
photosynthesis and stores it
as organic carbon in soil,
making it an important carbon
sink.
Agree Does not have the ability to remove carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere
Plan to plant more vegetation and grass
surrounds
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 11
Area Natural grass Synthetic turf
3. MATERIAL Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Manufacture
Natural product grown from
seed. Requires water and
chemical inputs in the form
of fertiliser and pesticides
for growth and quality.
Contractors cannot
control for weather, use
etc. so no guarantee
equivalent to synthetic
supplier
Reliant on mains water
unless tanks installed
Petro-chemical product which uses mostly
virgin materials, some of the materials can
be made from recycled content(e.g. rubber
granules infill and shock pad)
Organic materials prohibitively expensive.
Rubber compound is recycled product
Transport Natural instant lawns have
short shelf lives and can
only be transported shorter
distances, or they are
planted from seeds which
have minimal transportation
costs.
Prices received for both
instant lawn and seed
Generally speaking synthetic turf is
transported long distances (even if it is
supplied by a local company the
manufacturing of the product is often
performed overseas) resulting in high
transport cost.
KPS B&G have consulted with suppliers
who have done research and development
to monitor materials used to find more
efficient manufacturing and installation
methods, as well as being involved in
research projects looking closely at
recycling old AstroTurf and developing
100% recyclable products for the future..
End of Life Natural grass does not
have a definitive end of life
however may be replaced
to enhance the current
surface. Disposal is not
normally required.
Note ongoing
maintenance costs to
ensure no end of life.
Ends up in landfill where it takes a long time
to break down. High disposal costs.
Contractor responsible for disposal one
supplier is undertaking research into
recycling.
Soil Natural grass improves the
soil by stimulating
biological life and by
creating a more favourable
soil structure.
Agree Heavy compacting of the soil before
installing synthetic turf damages soil
structure, soil microbes and soil life.
Agree
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 12
Area Natural grass Synthetic turf
3. MATERIAL
(continued)
Issue KPS response Issue KPS response
Dust
stabilisation
Well maintained grass
captures dirt and dust from
the atmosphere.
During severe drought
periods and tight water
restrictions natural grass
can deteriorate and dust
may become an issue.
Requires ongoing
maintenance and
expenditure on water
Covered surfaces are effective dust
stabilisers and synthetic turf will provide dust
stabilisation even through drought periods.
Agree
Heat
dissipation
Natural heat dissipation.
Heat is absorbed by turf
grass. Cools the
surrounding environment.
Agree Heats the surrounding environment. Can be
uncomfortable and unsafe in hot weather
conditions.
Heat reflection. Absorbs and radiates heat.
Colour of the synthetic turf may influence
the level of reflection.
Requires school heat / high temperature
policy
Surrounding landscaping should offset
impact on Performing Arts, other buildings
are reasonable distance away
Proposed colours: brick colour running
track, green infield
Noise Grassed areas present an
irregular soft surface which
makes them effective at
reducing noise levels.
Agree Synthetic turf fibres absorb some noise but
not as much as natural grass.
Surrounding landscaping will offset impact
Glare Natural grass assists to
soften and reduce reflected
light, lessening glare.
Agree High levels of glare can be created from
sunlight and floodlight depending on the
type of surface used.
Surrounding landscaping will offset impact
Floodlights a possibility and must be
directed away from Pakington St
Biodiversity
and Habitat
Provides natural
environment for organic
biodiversity in the soil.
Agree No organic biodiversity due to compacted
base and synthetic surface.
Agree
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 13
Option 1 – No additional action
Overview
Retain grass oval and continue to mow and water.
Key considerations
Scope
Oval will continue to receive minimal maintenance.
Costs
Capital cost
Cost $0
Annual maintenance cost
Mowing, fertiliser; service irrigation system [water is a proportion of $4,500 2013 cost]
Cost: $1,400
Funds to cover maintenance cost: Grounds and Oval Maintenance voluntary contribution
Projected 15 year cost
Cost range: $21,000 [plus water cost]
Lessons learned
Observations
• Oval becomes patchy with minimal maintenance, especially in front of goals
• Irrigation system requires annual service to ensure all sprinkler heads work
Considerations for KPS
• Rotating goals
• Water efficiency test for irrigation system
• Understand expectations for the quality of the grass cover in the school community versus
the costs of other options
• No action will allow fundraising for other projects
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 14
Option 2 – Renovate natural grass oval
Overview
a) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas.
This option could include repairing the grass in front of the goals, mowing and watering.
This is considered a lowest cost solution but does not address the whole oval.
or
b) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass
This option requires full grass restoration works similar to 2009.
Key considerations
Scope
a) Limited remediation of surface. Possibility to lay instant turf to repair 300sqm of oval in
front of goals.
or
b) Preparation including re-levelling, supply and laying of turf for full oval – approx. 3,000sqm
of oval. This would include a full irrigation audit.
Costs
Capital cost
a) Preparation and lay 300sqm instant turf and roll
Cost $5,800
or
b) Irrigation audit plus 3,000sqm turf reconstruction
Turf rolls: $56,400
Reseed: $35,800
Cost $36,000 - $56,000
Annual maintenance cost
Mowing, fertilising, weed spraying, slice and aerating, rest for one week either side of school
holidays, move/rotate position of goal posts; service irrigation system.
Cost: $17,000 – $24,000
Funds to cover maintenance cost: Grounds and Oval Maintenance voluntary contribution
Projected 15 year cost
Cost range: $264,000 – $384,000
Construction time
a) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas
One week for installation, plus roping off the renovated areas for two weeks during spring
OR four weeks during winter
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 15
b) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass
Option 1 (turf rolls): One week for installation, oval closed for four weeks
Option 2 (reseed): 6 weeks construction, 8 to 12 weeks for grass to grow in (depending on
weather); close oval for one week either side of school holidays (ongoing)
Option 3: rolling annual maintenance program which incorporates renovation (refer Table
1 below)
Table 1: Annual grass maintenance program
March - June Apply herbicide to control weeds
Over-sow with rye grass for winter
Aerate
October Herbicide to remove rye and other grass
December Slice and aerate
Line plant Kikuyu sprigs
Apply fertiliser and wetting agent
January Top-dress and fertilise
March / April Fertilise prior to winter (may not require over-sowing again)
Case Study: State Primary Schools in City of Boroondara
School which has regular oval maintenance program by school maintenance team
Note: This School also has an additional play area of synthetic turf that provides a soft play
space if the oval is under repair
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 16
School where maintenance is limited to mowing and watering.
Lessons learned
Observations
• Natural grass requires maintenance including watering all year around to ensure a
consistent surface.
• Natural grass benefits from periods of rest
Considerations for KPS
• Externally contracted maintenance of natural grass estimated annual cost quoted up to
$24,000.
• School management challenge of closing oval to rest for one week on each side of each
school holiday period
• Raised funds potentially need to be reimbursed as they were collected on premise of a
running track
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 17
Option 3 – Synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds
Overview
Install a four lane running track, with natural grass infield and surrounds.
Key considerations
Scope
Installation of a four lane running track, including a base of crushed rock, compact binding
layer and synthetic turf. Level and resurface grass infield.
Costs
Capital cost
Cost range:
Running track $70,000
Grass infield $36,000 - $56,000
Cost range $106,000 - $126,000
Annual maintenance cost
Natural grass: mowing, fertilising, weed spraying, slice and aerating, rest for one week either
side of school holidays, move/rotate position of goal posts; watering cost
Synthetic running track: brushing, vacuuming and spreading additional infill (sand or rubber)
Cost range: $17,000 - $24,000
Funds to cover maintenance cost: Grounds and Oval Maintenance voluntary contribution
Projected 15 year cost
Cost range: $395,000 - $522,000
Construction time
Option 1 (turf rolls): One week for installation, oval closed for four weeks
Option 2 (reseed): 6 weeks construction, 8 to 12 weeks for grass to grow in (depending on
weather); close oval for one week either side of school holidays (ongoing)
Option 3: rolling annual maintenance program which incorporates renovation
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 18
Case Study: Catholic Primary School in City of Boroondara
Running track only, grass infield.
Lessons learned
Observations
• If infield is not maintained, surface can become muddy, dusty and inconsistent
• Running track lanes need to be an adequate width and should avoid angled turns
Considerations for KPS
• The grass infield will require an ongoing maintenance program to ensure it is kept up to
standard.
• The grass infield levels over time may drop to being lower than the track. This could lead to
water pooling and muddy areas of the grass as the track will restrict the water flow away
from the middle.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 19
Option 4 – Synthetic running track with synthetic infield, and natural grass landscaped surrounds
Overview
Install a four lane running track, with synthetic grass infield and natural grass surrounds. The
size of the synthetic field can be varied from 77m x 40m to 55m x 40m, depending on available
funds (a smaller field could limit the type of athletic events that can be held at school). A length
of 65m would seem optimum and then allow opportunities for ground rental from outside
sports clubs.
Key considerations
Scope
4 lane running track with synthetic grass infield, concrete spoon drains including drainage to
storm water, tournament surface i.e. longer pile to suit soccer, new AFL and soccer goals and
long jump pit. Variety of line markings to suit other sports e.g. hockey, soccer.
Landscaping around the perimeter (not costed).
Costs
Capital cost
a) Running track with 3,000sqm infield
Cost $255,000
or
b) Running track with 2,000sqm infield
Cost $183,000
Annual maintenance cost
Brushing, vacuuming synthetic surface and spreading additional infill (sand or rubber)
(Note: does not include maintenance of landscaping around perimeter)
Cost: $2,000
Funds to cover maintenance cost: Grounds and Oval Maintenance voluntary contribution
Projected 15 year cost
Cost range: $356,000 to $510,000
Construction time
Oval closed for two months
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 20
Case Study 1: State primary school in Cranbourne
Concrete curb edging to support spoon drains Maintain grass surrounding the oval, longer pile
infield. Note maintenance of natural grass surrounds and trees.
Case Study 2: State primary school in Doncaster
Spoon drains, running track, longer pile infield, anchored soccer goals
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 21
KPS synthetic turf: options for different lengths
Synthetic turf oval and running track configuration
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 22
Lessons learned
• Significant initial capital cost of synthetic surface
• Surface can last between ten and fifteen years
• Importance of landscaping around perimeter
Table 2: Observations from other Schools
Location Observation KPS response
East Kew PS Synthetic turf installed from fence to
fence/building
Large space that could contribute to a
heat bank
Water pools as does not drain through
Need to keep dogs off
KPS oval length will be restricted to allow
for natural grass open spaces at either end.
As the oval does not border any buildings
there will be enhanced airflow around the
oval.
KPS oval has approx. 2% gradient fall that
supports water run off.
Balwyn PS After heavy rainfall, water was pooling
alongside the ground
Large expanse of ground
Limited architectural or landscape link
to main school or play grounds
1st generation installations had turf in the
spoon drains. Current design is for
concrete spoon drains.
Design is not to encroach on full oval but to
have landscaped ends incorporating
passive play areas, viewing seating /
mounds and playground equipment.
The oval is linked to open play spaces
through the middle school play equipment,
the new sand pit and at the southern end
the OSH club and performing arts building.
St Bede’s PS Wall to wall synthetic turf
Long jump pit located close to oval
entrance and therefore sand was
spread around pit and oval
Refer above for landscape design.
The draft plan is to locate the long jump pit
on the Pakington Street side away from
heavy traffic areas.
St Agatha’s Open space with natural grass around
the synthetic oval.
Trees kept along oval fence lines
This good design element can be
incorporated at KPS.
Other
Boroondara
schools
No heavy vehicle access
Do maintenance in house rather than
paying for contractors recommended
by or associated with installers
Tree roots can cause surface to lift
Surface can sink in places
Pile gets clogged and flat
Research undertaken identifies root barrier
as method to limit surface lift.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 23
Cost comparison
To date B&G have sourced quotes from three natural grass suppliers, two synthetic turf and
two running track providers to better understand the cost and construction implications.
Running track
Quotes vary depending on the quality of construction and surface.
To date two separate quotes have varied from $44,000 to $70,000
Capital Cost $44,000 - $70,0001
Annual Maintenance $2,000
Grass options
a) No additional action
Annual Maintenance $1,400 [plus water]
b) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas
Capital Cost $5,800
Annual maintenance $17,000 – $24,000
c) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass
Turf rolls: $56,400
Reseed: $35,800
Capital Cost $36,000 – $56,000
Annual maintenance $17,000 – $24,000
Synthetic turf oval with running track options
a) Running track with 3,000sqm infield
Capital Cost $255,000
Annual Maintenance $2,000
b) Running track with 2,000sqm infield
Capital Cost $183,000
Annual Maintenance $2,000
Tables 3, 4 and 5 and Charts 1 and 2 below show the cost calculations for the initial capital
cost and annual maintenance over 15 years.
1 Note that cost calculations have used $70,000 quote.
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 24
Table 3: Natural grass repair options
Surface Oval
Running
track
Annual
maintenance
15 year
costs
Natural Grass repair
300sqm $ 5,800 N/A $ 17,256 $ 263,440
Natural Grass repair
3,000sqm turf $ 56,405 N/A $ 17,256 $ 315,245
Natural Grass repair
3,000sqm reseed $ 35,750 N/A $ 24,000 $ 395,750
Rolling maintenance
of Natural Grass $ 17,915 N/A $ 17,915 $ 268,725
Chart 1 - Natural grass repair options
Table 4: Natural grass plus Running Track options
Surface Oval
Running
track
Annual
maintenance
15 year
costs
Natural Grass repair
3,000sqm turf (1) $ 56,405 $ 70,000 $ 17,256 $ 441,245
Natural Grass repair
3000sqm reseed (2) $ 35,750 $ 70,000 $ 24,000 $ 521,750
Rolling maintenance
of Natural Grass (3) $ 17,915 $ 70,000 $ 17,915 $ 394,725
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 25
Table 5: Synthetic turf plus Running Track options
Surface Oval
Running
track
Annual
maintenance
15 year
costs
Synthetic Turf 1
3,000sqm $ 198,265 $ 70,000 $ 1,900 $ 510,417
Synthetic Turf 2
3,000sqm $ 254,772 $ 1,900 $ 486,130
Synthetic Turf 3
2,000sqm $182,733 $ 1,900 $ 356,459
Chart 2 – Oval surface options with running track comparison
Other cost considerations include:
• Opportunities for revenue from hiring to outside groups e.g. to cover maintenance costs or
build a cash reserve for future replacement.
• Longevity of surrounding landscaping will be increased if ball games occur on infield
• Smaller infield dimensions provide opportunity for larger landscaped areas at each end
• Reduced bus hire costs for off-site activities
Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 26
Appendix 1 – Further reading
Artificial Grass for Sport Guide. Available at http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/sport/publications-and-
research/publications/community-facilities/artificial-grass-for-sport
Natural Grass vs. Synthetic Turf Decision Making Guide. Available at
http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/synthetic-turf