Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Turf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conewago Valley weighs second turf field, farm site and turf replacement as grass fields deteriorate
Summary
District staff told the subcommittee heavy community and travel‑team use is degrading grass fields; the group discussed fees, a 75‑event wear benchmark, a previous turf rendering and the feasibility of using the district's farm for additional fields.
At a Sept. 22 Conewago Valley School District Athletics Subcommittee meeting, athletics staff outlined mounting demand on school‑owned grass fields from travel teams, boosters and community users and discussed options including a second turf field, renovation of existing turf and using district farm property for additional playing fields.
Henderson said heavy use across seasons—fall, spring and summer—has left district grass fields worn and that the district must balance community rentals against preserving varsity facilities for student athletes. He told the subcommittee that prior rate increases have not meaningfully reduced outside demand and that staff are reviewing cost structures for seasonal versus per‑use pricing.
Henderson cited a commonly used maintenance benchmark from a turf/grass vendor that a grass field reaches a point of heavy wear after about 75 events (practices and games). He also noted the district’s main turf will be due for replacement in roughly five years and that the track is about one year behind that timetable.
The group discussed a past rendering from Trac Turf and Court for a multipurpose turf project near the middle school (handout provided); Henderson said the original permitting on that proposal has lapsed and staff will need to research permitting, costs and capital‑planning options before advancing the project again.
Board members and staff debated farm property as an alternate site. Henderson said the farm has usable open space and soil that appears productive, but that parking, utilities and lighting at the farm could limit it to daytime use unless the district invests further. He suggested a phased approach—adding leveled grass fields at the farm as a lower‑cost initial step—before considering a fully turfed complex.
The committee discussed replacement and installation costs. Board member Joel referenced a nearby district project with a turf replacement price of about $600,000 (he said the West Perry project cost roughly that amount, including a base pad that had not been installed previously). Henderson said a full turf replacement and related infrastructure would require capital planning, permits and likely a campaign or bonding strategy.
Public commenters spoke in favor of an additional turf field. Cole Weaver, who identified himself during public comment, said worn grass has caused injuries for his team and argued for turf to provide reliable practice surfaces and reduce maintenance burden on staff. Garrett Orlik, a freshman on the boys soccer team, said a second turf field would allow overlapping games and earlier start times so student‑athletes do not miss other school events and would improve practice quality. Both speakers said they and community organizations would assist fundraising.
Committee members raised equity and community‑access questions: would turf limit public rentals, how would the district set rental fees, and how to protect varsity facilities from overuse. Henderson said staff will gather cost estimates, permitting timelines, use‑policies and revenue assumptions and report back to the subcommittee for further direction.
No binding decision or vote was taken; staff offered to return with more detailed cost estimates, permitting status and capital‑plan options.
