2009: FieldTurf Guaranteed RMHS Field would be 100% Recycled and Would Not End Up in a Landfill

What actually happened to the RMHS plastic grass.

In 2009, FieldTurf produced the letter below stating that the Richard Montgomery High School (RMHS) plastic football field and 120 tons of ground up tires (crumb rubber) would be 100% recycled and would not end up in a landfill.

In 2018, the RMHS plastic football field was removed and sent to a landfill in Southern Virginia and to a paint ball field in Baltimore County.

The RMHS plastic grass football field was not "100% recycled" and did end up in a landfill.

Pictures of the removal and dumping of the RMHS plastic grass football field are at this link. (Scroll down for all posts.) 

The Montgomery County Board of Education failed to have the RMHS plastic grass replaced under warranty when the field failed.  Instead, they diverted MCPS Operating Budget funds meant for public school classrooms to pay for the replacement of the RMHS plastic grass football field.  

The Montgomery County Board of Education failed to have FieldTurf honor their commitment to 100% recycle the RMHS plastic grass field.   They are polluting Southern Virginia and Baltimore County.  

These are the Board of Education members that are continually endorsed by major organizations, unions, other elected officials, and news organizations and elected and re-elected into office.  

The dumping and pollution from the removal of the RMHS plastic grass is their actual record in office.  

This is what Montgomery County voters support. 

2010 Artificial Turf Purcha... by on Scribd

N.J. soccer club accuses top artificial turf company of fraud

The owner of a New Jersey soccer facility claims in a new class-action lawsuit the leading U.S. maker of artificial sports fields, FieldTurf, repeatedly brushed off complaints about his failing field and told him conditions would improve over time.

The complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey, is the third proposed class-action to be brought by customers in the state against FieldTurf in response to an NJ Advance Media investigation that detailed potential fraud.

The investigation found FieldTurf and its executives for years earned ballooning profits as sales of its popular turf, Duraspine, skyrocketed, all the while knowing fields were falling apart and would not live up to marketing and advertising claims.

Despite warnings and candid internal discussions, FieldTurf officials kept selling Duraspine to cities, towns, school districts and private companies across the country, and never changed their sales pitches. The turf was phased out in 2012...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/post_404.html

10 FieldTurf fields at high schools across Georgia failed. Georgia, athletic directors and coaches saw something strange going on with their FieldTurf artificial football fields.

ATLANTA - All across Georgia, athletic directors and coaches saw something strange going on with their FieldTurf artificial football fields.

“It would be like you walked through freshly mowed lawns. You’d have fibers all over you shoes,” says Carrollton High School Athletic Director David Brooks.



http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/i-team/218016511-story

SPECIAL REPORT: Top turf company made millions selling faulty fields to taxpayers #mcps #FieldTurf #MCPSLOVESFieldTurf

Have you read this report yet? Have you watched all the videos in the article? Just insert MCPS and Montgomery County Parks into the article for a good read on what has gone on here in Montgomery County, Maryland.

You will never see this type of investigative reporting here in Montgomery County. Thanks to the New Jersey reporters who put together this comprehensive report on how Montgomery County public schools came to have defective artificial turf football fields at Richard Montgomery High School, Walter Johnson High School and Montgomery Blair High School. Those three football fields have now failed and are putting players at risk on a daily basis.

Here in Montgomery County we will have to wait for a catastrophic injury to a child or adult on one of these fields before any of our elected leaders will acknowledge this crisis. But no worries for MCPS, the legislature has protected MCPS will a cap on any damage claims. Does Parks have a cap on their liability for the Blair High School field? SPECIAL REPORT: Top turf company made millions selling faulty fields to taxpayers #mcps #FieldTurf #MCPSLOVESFieldTurf: Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

Do Not Fall on These Parts of WJHS Field #GMAX #Concussions #HandyPocketGuide

Handy Pocket Guide of Where Not to Fall on the Walter Johnson Artificial Turf Field. Download or Print & Save.

Yesterday, Forbes reported on the condition of the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf field.  Forbes released the G-Max Test and Field Inspection Report that showed that the WJHS artificial turf field is now dangerous to use.  A player falling on this field is no longer falling on a soft, bouncy surface.  A player on this field is now falling on a surface that is very hard and can cause severe injury or potentially even death.

But, we know that Montgomery County Public Schools will continue to use this field for another 14 years because the "plan" is that each artificial turf field must last for 20 years.  As that is the "plan," we have developed a handy pocket guide for student athletes using the WJHS artificial turf field. 

This handy pocket guide should be given to football, lacrosse and soccer players at WJHS and at all of the schools (public and private) that will play against WJHS on this field or use this field.  

We know the Board of Education can not be bothered to deal with student safety, they have a MABE Ocean City vacation coming up to pack for! So we are doing our part for MCPS student athletes.  Print out this handy pocket guide and tell your student athlete to enjoy their next game at WJHS, but to just not fall down on the parts of the field marked with a red X.  Those parts of the field are way beyond the recommended hardness of an artificial turf field.

Also, warn your student athletes to make sure the field never gets to the GMAX level of 200. (Two areas of the WJHS field are already in the 190's.)
According to the chart below, OSHA says a GMAX of 200 "Will Cause Death."

Have a great game!

BOE Pat O'Neill Does Not Know 1/2 of School Site is Gone. ...good enough for her husband in 1960's...

Dear Mrs. O’Neill –

Your 17 August posting [click here] regarding BCC Middle School #2 demonstrates, once again, how out of touch you are with the issues, and the concerns of the neighborhood.

Image shows original school site compared to today.

At a July Board of Education meeting, you fundamentally stated that since a middle school at this site was good enough for your husband in the 1960’s, it should be good enough for the kids of today and the next 25 years.    That statement tells me that, as the elected leader of the Board of Education, you have not done basic research into this contentious issue that has been so controversial for the past five years.  I would conjecture that if you took your husband there today, he would no longer recognize the site which is now almost half of what it was before MCPS sold a significant (and the most buildable) portion to allow construction of a nursing home.   If you took him there during morning rush hour, he would probably be alarmed at the volume of traffic today, as compared with the 1960s.

But, more importantly, your posting demonstrates that you are also unaware of the issues that concerned citizens have discussed with Dr. Zuckerman and MCPS staff over the past two months.    You stated that “some who live near the new school don’t want it in their neighborhood”.  Although that may be true of some, the discussions revolved around, and must continue to revolve around, traffic and safety, as they impact not only all Rock Creek Hills residents, but also those who must transit Rock Creek Hills to access the school – including children who will walk to school…the same route your husband took.  Planning to bring more than 500 family vehicles and over 20 buses, onto hilly, winding two lane roads over the course of one hour, without having even performed a traffic study of those roads is recipe for disaster.  There was never a discussion of a new site, but only the issues and shortcomings, and potential solutions, for those of the current site and project design.

Unfortunately, in spite of what we thought were good faith discussions with MCPS, they elected to reject basically all of the safety concerns, both on and off site, which were brought to their attention by other County officials and neighbors.   

The issues of the past are now passed. 

Do some still feel that the site selection process was biased towards speed of execution and the needs of special interest groups, versus ensuring that the site was most appropriate to provide the greatest amount of program requirements for the least cost? Yes.

Do some still feel that the MCPS relaxed its own high standards and criteria to make the current site work?  Yes.

Do some still feel that the design process was flawed, even with “significant community involvement”, and failed to properly document and address issues brought to the attention of the designers?  Yes.

Do some still feel that a disproportionate percentage of project cost will go to making a bad site work, versus making a good site work better to provide the most educational value?  Yes.

 

So – what are the remaining issues, given the inability of MCPS planners and leadership to demonstrate courage to admit that this site was the wrong choice?

1. 1.  Traffic management, pedestrian safety, safety of children while on site. 

It is clear by your statement that the Board of Education intends to award a project, in spite of these latent defects that will not manifest themselves until it is far too late to make meaningful, cost effective change.    The responsibility to resolve them will be shifted by MCPS to other County agencies, at additional, yet to be budgeted cost.  

1. 2.  School capacity.

Your statement does not reveal the intent of MCPS to also receive approval for the construction of future shell space from the BOE, which would be tantamount to de facto approval for future school expansion.  This space has neither been approved in the MCPS Capital Investment Program, nor does it follow the MCPS rule that does not additional construction before a facility reaches, and exceeds, maximum student capacity.  Additionally, no funds have been budgeted for this construction, and as such, must be taken from projects at other schools that would have to be further delayed.   So – rather than resolving immediate requirements in current our overcrowded system, MCPS and BOE will speculate with construction funds regarding the requirements of the future.   Making this decision also assures that maximum student load will lead to increased impact to traffic and safety.

1. 3. Budget. 

MCPS seeks approval to award construction, based upon current bids, but it does not provide fiscal context for that approval. In full disclosure, a complete project budget with all associated taxpayer costs, compared with the Capital Investment Plan approved amount $52.3M should be provided, to ensure that additional funds will not be required in the future. 

So – given that the site is not the issue as you imply, I believe that you, as Chairman of the Board of Education, should issue a statement regarding your intent regarding these remaining issues.

I look forward to your public response in advance of the Board of Education meeting.

Richard Bond

Parent Responds: MCPS is Bureaucratic at best, but almost insulting to our intelligence. #construction

To: Craig Rice <craig.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: Marc Elrich <marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Nancy Navarro <nancy.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov>; "boe@mcpsmd.org" <boe@mcpsmd.org>; Joan Kleinman <joan.kleinman@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:25 PM
Subject: BCC Middle School #2 - URGENT for Thursday BOE meeting

 

Dear Mr. Rice –

Thank you for your 23 July letter [click here] to Ms. O’Neill regarding BCC Middle School #2.  Since we last met in June, other Rock Creek Hills parents and I have had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Zuckerman three separate times.  He listened to our concerns, engaged his staff and visited the site personally.  Although he continuously indicated a commitment to listen and make change, his response(attached -click here) received last week was wholly disappointing.  Through a screen of lists of meetings, standards and codes, he basically ignored the concerns of both the community and other County officials.  Bureaucratic at best, but almost insulting to our intelligence.  Yes – we know there were many meetings.  But were they effective?  Did they actually address concerns raised, or simply document, nod and ignore?  Add green roofs and architecturally appropriate surfaces for retaining walls to your list of broken promises and missed opportunities to improve the project.

In the meantime, MCPS has received construction bids and has notified Maryland Department of the Environment that they intend to commence with the plans as they currently stand.  

This Thursday, “construction contracts” is a topic on the Board of Education meeting that would result in approval for this project to go forward.   Before that happens, however, I encourage you to question the status of the project and the resolution of all the issues at hand.   Two additional issues are of particular concern that I would like to highlight:  traffic safety, and budget authority and conformance.

Traffic Safety

Many traffic and safety issues are generated by an (total future) influx of 1,200 students to the area.  Although a traffic study was conducted, it only addressed the capacity of Connecticut Avenue and its intersections.  It did not examine other roads leading to, or immediately connecting to, the proposed site.  Attached [click here] is a graphic synopsis of the issues impacting the closest intersections.  To our knowledge, there is no similar circumstance in Montgomery County that has a school of this size served by a local road network that has:

• similar volume of extant commuter traffic (upon which the school traffic will be overlaid),
• winding and hilly roads that are narrower than required,
• insufficient queuing capability,
• intersections with limited site lines,
• bridges with limited load capacity, and sidewalks that are not to code
• non-existant neighborhood sidewalks. 

This is truly an “accident” waiting to happen, when frustrated parents and anxious kids try to navigate this labyrinth before the first bell.  Additionally, at the Feasibility Study presentation, it was noted (but not highlighted) that although parking is sufficient for the initial student load, it is not for the full future student capacity.  The same phenomenon will also occur with traffic…it may only be “bad” the day the school opens, but will become irreversible once the school is fully loaded.  Because none of these problems can be resolved by MCPS planners or budgets, they have stated that these are not their concern.  I contend that it is incumbent upon MCPS and its leadership as the proponents of the project to ensure that these issues are addressed, budgeted, funded and resolved within Montgomery County government and budgets.  Anything less than this should be considered to be turning a blind eye on safety, and perhaps negligence.

Budget Authority

Based upon analysis of bids received to date (see attached), it appears that the project is already dangerously close to, if not over,  its approved budget of $52.3M (CIP 2015-2020).  This assumes that only the lowest bids are awarded, as requested, which typically commits the owner to quality and cost issues during construction.  No construction awards have yet been made, more bids for components of the construction are yet to be received, and construction has not begun.  There is no place for cost to go but up.  Fundamentally, it appears that this project is destined to exceed its approved funding [click here], at the same time MCPS has bid options to build out (un-budgeted, unapproved) expansion space by constructing almost $2M in additional “shell” space with the base construction bid.  Constructing this space now, although tempting, is tantamount to committing to a future of increased traffic problems and pressure on school common spaces which remain inadequate for the full 1,200 student population.    

While I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of your letter, it is focused the future of MCPS school planning, using BCC MS #2 as example.  Without immediate action, Montgomery County is committing to build a school that even you describe as being “disappointing”, still having known and acknowledged deficiencies.  The concerns of both the community and the Planning staff still exist – they are not past tense.  They have not been resolved. 

Rather than this being known as the last school planned, designed and built with a process that is neither collegial nor constructive, it should be seen as the turning point in legacy thinking, with deficiencies corrected in a collaborative fashion.  Does Montgomery County want to be known for knowingly spending more than $52M for a school that its own staff considers to be "disappointing"?  Is this the new “standard” for our County?

Prior to awarding construction, and heading down an irreversible path, MCPS should be made responsible to:  

1. investigate, find solutions and manage execution of traffic issues, both on and “off-site”,
2. provide a true budget lay down of total project costs to the County, including construction contingency for this project, roads and traffic improvements, land acquisition (to replace lost park space), and all “soft costs” indirectly associated with project completion,
3. justify additional cost, and gain CIP approval, for additional unbudgeted “shell space”, 
4. provide an accurate construction timeline (the project is already 2 months behind approved schedule, and not yet awarded) and
5. explain the short and long term (25 year aggregate) impact of any schedule delay.    

Although it is late in the game, there is still time to make a difference.  I hope that you have the ability to make a difference for our students, your taxpayers and the reputation of our County.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

Rick

Richard L. Bond, AIA

Wootton Parents Paying for No Bid Plastic Grass

Wootton High School is now "soliciting" for money for it's lead and zinc infused plastic grass field.

Wootton High School parents are being fed all kinds of ground up crumb rubber to get them to donate!  Here's a fun statement from the Wootton Booster Club website:

Cost - while upfront costs are higher, 20-year lifecycle costs and reduced man-hours for maintenance are much lower

Now, here's hoping the Wootton parents don't get the idea that their plastic field is going to last for 20 years. It isn't.  Wootton parents are going to have to pony up to replace the field, well in as little as 4 1/2 years!  FieldTurf only warrants their fields for 8 years.

In 20 years, the Wootton parents will be shelling out for new plastic grass 3 times.

Wootton parents aren't being told that the cost of their plastic grass field is a few hundred thousand dollars higher than other schools pay for plastic grass from the same company.

Why is the cost higher? Because MCPS likes to overpay!  MCPS doesn't put our RFP's for these projects, doesn't get competitive bids, and doesn't even get contracts!  Imagine, if MCPS put out this project for competitive bids the Wootton parents wouldn't have to put up a dime!  That's because the contribution from Bethesda Soccer would cover the cost of a new plastic grass field in any other school system.  But, shhh, don't tell the Wootton parents.  They are loving the thermometer on the Booster website and all the fun perks they can buy with their 100% tax deductible donation.

Lead Level Up 8 Times in New FieldTurf Artificial Turf

Today, the Montgomery County Council will unanimously approve another 120 tons of ground up rubber waste and a football sized sheet of plastic to be installed at Wootton High School.   Yes, the vote will be unanimous. Why not?  Congratulations to the Wootton High School neighbors and the folks downstream from the 120 tons of ground up rubber.  Look for little rubber pellets in your streams soon! (FieldTurf swears  the little rubber pellets never leave the field. But, we know the truth.)

In 2011, Councilmember Hans Riemer asked MCPS' James Song for the lead levels in the MCPS artificial turf that was already installed.  Now, you may think that when a Councilmember asks a question they get a response.  You would be wrong.  It's now 2013 and MCPS has never released any lead testing for it's 4 artificial turf football fields.

However, M-NCPPC has tested two of its artificial turf football fields, Blair High School (it's on park land) and the new Wheaton plastic field. 

Here's what we know:

Blair High School - Testing done by  EMSL Analytical in Westmont, New Jersey in 2009

What was tested:
Plastic Grass 

Wheaton Sports Pavillion - Testing done by Analytical Industrial Research Laboratories in Cleveland, Tennessee (no date)

What was tested:
Plastic grass
Ground up rubber infill (Nike Grind)
Underlayment
Backing

To date, M-NCPPC has only released the lead content information for the following:

Blair - Plastic grass

Wheaton - Ground up rubber infill (Nike Grind)

Therefore, we cannot compare the total lead levels of the fields.  

All we know is that the lead level for the Nike Grind ground up rubber is 8 times the lead level of the Blair plastic grass.  The lead level in FieldTurf artificial turf has gone up, not down! And, it is certainly not lead-free as one Councilmember thinks is required in California. 

What we need is the TOTAL lead in all of the components of EACH field. Especially now that the CDC has lowered what is considered a dangerous level of lead in children.  The CDC now says there is no level of lead exposure that is considered safe for children. 

Odds of ever getting the information on the total lead level in each of the MCPS and M-NCPPC plastic football fields? 

1.1 million to 1

Video: Council LOVES Overpriced, No-Bid, Lead Infused Plastic Grass!

Click this link ED - 1/28/13 to watch today's Montgomery County Council Education Committee approving a new plastic grass field for Wootton High School.

Here are some quotes from the video:

MCPS Director of Construction James Song: "it's a win-win situation"
"4 months design and permitting through City of Rockville"
"Booster Club submitted a commitment letter"
"Terms and cost are consistent with other projects at Richard Montgomery..."

Councilmember Phil Andrews: "I don't think concerns have proven out at this point, with the exception of extreme heat..."

Valerie Ervin:  "We were asking for certain things to be done..."

Dr. Kathleen Michels:  "lead particulates in the breathing zone" of players
"Who will pay for replacement costs for Richard Montgomery High School?" [Now that partner is gone.]

At the end of the video, did anyone hear Councilmember Ervin call for a vote? No? She just spoke for the committee.  Fascinating how she can read minds.

DeKalb County, Georgia: Opponents of Cell Towers on Public School Playgrounds Claim Victory!

According to GTCO-ATL’s understanding of the T-mobile contract, and professional opinion of several attorneys we have consulted with regarding this matter, the extended deadline for T-mobile to secure permits and complete construction has passed.
...the public property at each of the 9 schools is no longer legally available to T-mobile for the
purpose of operating or placing a telecommunications tower.
What does this mean?...
...Well, as long as everyone is following the letter of the law, it appears that no cell towers will be going up at ANY of our DeKalb County public schools, at least not in the immediate future under the agreement that was voted on during the infamous July 11, 2011 work session.

http://www.getthecelloutatl.com/2012/09/t-mobiles-time-runs-out-cell-tower.html

National League Leaves Artificial Turf in the Dust

For the first time in four decades the National League will play all its baseball games on real grass instead of artificial turf. Montreal was the last N.L. stadium with fake turf, but the Expos have moved to Washington, D.C., where they will play on natural turf at RFK Stadium.

NPR audio at this link.

Cost doesn't spell success for Colorado schools using consultants to improve achievement

...These schools are sharing $5 billion in federal tax dollars in a massive, three-year rescue effort, but no one nationally is tracking how the money is spent and no one can say whether the influx of cash will end up helping kids.
A Denver Post investigation found one clear winner so far: consultants.
In Colorado — one of the few states willing to tally such spending — consultants are taking home 35 percent, or $9.4 million, of the $26.6 million that came to the state from the U.S. Department of Education in the past two years....

Read more:Cost doesn't spell success for Colorado schools using consultants to improve achievement - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/investigations/ci_19997418#ixzz1nDuY11Qi

AJC: Lawmakers propose to ban cellphone towers from school property

Lawmakers hold hearing on cell towers | ajc.com

By Ty Tagami

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Lawmakers will hold a hearing on a proposal to ban cellphone towers from school property...

"who knows, after 45 days..."

Document

Artificial Turf: What Work Group?

The Artificial Turf Report (A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields) is supposedly the product of a 'Work Group' first mentioned by the County Council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee. The final report is dated September 14, 2011. However, apart from the work product of one draft and one final report, there is no evidence to show a work group ever met. I have been in email correspondence with members of the County Council, requesting any evidence at all to show this work group ever met, and if it did, how much did it cost the taxpayers to produce the draft report and now the final report. To date I have been told there are no notes, no minutes, no records at all that the work group ever met. If anyone has any evidence that this group ever met, and what they discussed in any meetings, please let me know either by emailing this blog or emailing me offline.

Thank you.

Paula Bienenfeld
Education Committee Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation

"It is important to note..." that it is easy to put one over on the County Council

In the recently released Report from the Montgomery County Council titled, A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields, the following statement is made on Page 71. 

"It is important to note that site preparation and stormwater management facilities are bid as part of the project's site work, which is bid separately from the purchase and installation of the artificial surface" - seriously?  Who wrote that? 


Certainly not someone who has seen the actual procurement documents that have been made public for the Richard Montgomery High School and Walter Johnson High School artificial turf installations.  Those documents show one vendor, no bids and the entire project listed on one proposal sheet - site work AND artificial turf. 
Note the "ASSUMPTIONS" listed: 1. Bidding services will not be required.

If MCPS now maintains that there were additional costs to install the artificial turf at these two high schools then it is time for them to release the additional documentation to support those procurements, name the vendors, and release the bids.

• MCPS Artificial turf procurement documents released January 25, 2010 pursuant to a Maryland Public Information Act request, and now contradicted in Report to be presented Monday, September 26, 2011 to the Montgomery County Council, are shown below.

Artificial Turf Purchase Orders for Montgomery County Schools

MCPS Director Contradicts Artificial Turf Procurement Documentation

The above statement is found on Page 73 of the recently released Report from the Montgomery County Council titled, A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields.

In this statement, MCPS Director of Facilities is quoted as saying, "There is NO commitment for MCPS to purchase 3 AT [artificial turf] fields within a 3 year period. The cost is based on each individual project." 


But the MCPS Director of Facilities signed the letter authorizing the payment of the Volume Discount Price for the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf! Those documents have already been made public through a Maryland Public Information Act request and show the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE based on the purchase of 3 or more fields in 3 years.

Here is the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE that was stated in the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf proposal:

And here is the letter from MCPS Director of Facilities authorizing the payment based on the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE shown above. Without the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE, MCPS would have had to pay $1,122,169.84 for the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf football field. 

Fresno Superintendent: “There’s no reason for me to keep stockpiling money.’’

Schools chief forgoes $800k in pay - The Boston Globe

Audio: Leventhal "I'd like to feel we are providing some oversight"

Audio of July 1, 2010 Montgomery County Council Transportation, Energy & Environment Hearing on artificial turf on county fields. 

The stated focus of this hearing was to address the environmental issues related to artificial turf.  At the conclusion of this hearing the Council committee requested that a report be created to address the following questions:

• life cycle cost comparison of natural grass versus artificial turf
• water quality of runoff from natural grass versus artificial turf (use Blair HS field)
• environmental impact
• maintenance
• fertilizer

The Work Group has now issued their draft report. Unfortunately, the Work Group did not get their report to the committee by the end of 2010 as requested, and did not cover all of the issues requested by the Council committee.  The committee consisted of Councilmembers Nancy Floreen, Roger Berliner and George Leventhal.

Here is an index of the discussion found in this audio recording of the July 1, 2010 T&E Committee hearing. 

Minute:
4:20 Start of Artificial Turf discussion - Council staffer Keith Levchenko opens the discussion.
8:35 Joe Lavorgna "with MCPS" introductory remarks
14:16 Berliner on cost effectiveness test
17:20 Leventhal on disposal of artificial turf - is infill recycled car tires?
19:00 Joe Lavorgna "with MCPS" answers YES infill is recycled car tires and can all be recycled

20:25 Exclusive artificial turf vendor (FieldTurf) called to the table
22:10 Berliner statement on Council monitoring artificial turf in 6 months and Leventhal statement on not practice of Council to call vendor to give comment at a public hearing. Leventhal speaks to vendor pitching their product at public comment table. 
27:00 Field Turf Regional Manager speaks to recycling of artificial turf "every single component will be recycled"
28:00 Berliner, "put that in writing"
29:00 Leventhal, "how was this vendor selected"-  MCPS Director James Song, "product review that we went through - thorough review - intent to continue with Field Turf" - "not competitively bid" 

31:00 Leventhal - should give guidance to MCPS that artificial turf will be recycled - "this one vendor may or may not be the future vendor" [Note Field Turf has an exclusive deal with Montgomery County for 5 Years, yet this was not disclosed at this hearing]
32:00 Leventhal, "I'd like to feel that we are exercising some oversight. That we are providing some push here...We're not just a passive recipient of assurances from the school system, that we are actually guiding the process to some degree."
33:00 Floreen on no recycling will be required of Montgomery County facilities
34:30 Berliner on water quality issues associated with artificial turf
35:40 Lavorgna "with MCPS" we are not doing any  water sampling of the water runoff from the artificial turf fields"

44:00 Leventhal "are artificial turf fields safe for the environment"
47:00 Leventhal "the rain comes down"

50:00 Leventhal "90 day study" measure costs and environmental impact
57:20 "FieldTurf has many, many competitors" [Note: Yet not one has been allowed to bid on the installation of artificial turf on Montgomery County or MCPS fields.]

1:02:00  MCPS offers to work with County agencies to assess water quality issues
1:04:00 Leventhal "what is next decision point"
1:07:00 Leventhal "is it feasible to construct some sort of comparison...of water quality"
1:14:00 Leventhal "school system can provide very basic information on fertilizer, maintenance, cost..." - "not really seeing that"
1:17:00 Berliner "in addition to Mr. Leventhal's request which I believe there is agreement on..." - "collaborative process" - "...inconclusive nature as to the water quality issues" - "...you said you could monitor this piece" - "what costs associated with that" - "can we use Blair for this purpose"

1:20:00  Berliner "When you come back at the end of this calendar year [2010] with your life cycle cost comparison of grass versus turf that we also have this information..." - runoff from grass versus artificial turf - use Blair field for testing
1:27:00 Berliner on needing a report "holding up a document" - water quality is an important piece
1:43:00 Berliner "We will come back at the end of the year and you will advise us as to the results with respect to that."

Link to Audio



UPDATE:  Final Report at this link.