Guest Post: Why does FieldTurf have this unreasonable usage restriction in its warranty?

The Parents' Coalition received the following comment from a source in the artificial turf industry.  The poor person doesn't realize that here in Montgomery County our elected officials can't do math and don't like facts.  But, they are trying anyway to get across a point.  So here is their comment: 

Does everyone realize Wootton High School students will only be able to use the field for a max of 2000 hours per year?  According to the deal, the Bethesda Soccer Club is paying $900,000 of the approx. $1.1 million in return for 900-1000 hours / year of use.  The FieldTurf warranty only covers use up to 3,000 hours per year.  A copy of the warranty is part of the Towson University document package that was posted about 1 month ago on the site. 

Let's assume the field is used 300 days per year.  That leaves barely 6 hours per day of use for Wootton students when you also take the 150 hours / year use promised for community use.  If you base the usage on 365 days that leaves 5 hours / day for Wootton students.  Same for Walter Johnson HS students since this "deal" was modeled after that one.  Is this even more than the existing grass field??  Clearly, the actual use will exceed the maximum usage allowed by the FieldTurf and the warranty will be as useless as a screen door on a submarine... 

Why does FieldTurf have this unreasonable usage restriction in its warranty?  Why wouldn't Montgomery County consider other less expensive synthetic turf vendors that do not have this restrictive language in their warranties?  What happens in 8 yrs (if it lasts that long) when the field will need to be removed, disposed and replaced?  Who assumes that very significant cost?  I doubt the Bethesda Soccer Club will be picking up the 500k tab to remove, dispose and replace the turf.  How can the members of the Board of Education neglect to take these very high future costs into consideration?