Court surface evaluation and committee recommendation.

The purpose of this document is to provide members with a briefing as to the new surfaces available to the club given the imminent requirement to replace or renew the existing tarmacadam surface.  

• The current surface is now very well worn, particularly number 1 court (nearest clubhouse) and certain weather conditions compromise the grip and drainage to the courts to the extent that the 17 year lifespan is now adjudged to be at an end. Polymerisation and the care of the members have led to an elongated lifespan beyond the usual maximum of 15 years. The annual cleaning which removes algae has also had significant value and the efforts of Roger and leaf blower cannot be underestimated.
• There is significant concern within the committee and members that our courts will not be safe to play on for the 2019-20 winter season due to their slipperiness and wear.
• This extended longevity has led to an anticipated sinking fund of £64,000 - which is significantly more than the quotes for a like for like replacement costs of a tarmac surface at £37k (VAT inc.).  It was with this additional sum in mind (as we noted at the AGM) that the committee undertook a project to consider the prospect of installing additional courts, if space and planning allowed.  
• A preliminary evaluation of costs, space and planning issues coupled with an assessment of the existing level of bookings/court usage has led us to conclude that a single additional court does not bring the benefit to cost return we hoped. Two courts are not viable due to lack of suitable space.  Therefore this project has been shelved for the foreseeable future.
• This has led to the renewed focus on the remaining courts and their surface, along with a short to medium term clubhouse replacement.  This report seeks only to deal with the resurfacing aspect (Although we have as a committee considered finance aspects of a future clubhouse replacement which is outlined for members later in this paper).
• The two options that we considered for resurfacing were either to replace with a tarmac surface similar to our existing surface or to change our surface to the increasingly popular Synthetic Clay.  We set out in this document more information on the merits/drawbacks of each surface together with detailed financial information we have considered in coming to our recommendation.

Conclusion/Recommendation

We have carefully considered the pros and cons of each surface together with the time required for installation, playability in all weather conditions, ongoing maintenance requirements and costs of each. We have also spoken at length to members and club professionals at other local clubs with this newer surface and their feedback is overwhelmingly positive.  

Whilst it is accepted that the initial cost of clay is significantly higher, after a 10 year period, due to reduced ongoing maintenance costs, clay becomes the cheaper option. We are in the fortunate position as a club, that we have built up a significant surplus to enable us to resurface without having to borrow any additional funds. 

As a committee we are therefore recommending to the membership that we resurface with artificial clay as soon as possible (ideally in August if a slot can be obtained as that is when there is least disruption to members), to enable us to have a new playable surface in place before the winter. 

Surfaces for consideration

It is right to say that there are a variety of surfaces that tennis clubs may consider but in any practical sense there are only two realistic options (tarmac or synthetic clay) which would deliver the demands and lifespan required by members, coaching, competitive and social play.  

Local clubs who have recently resurfaced with surfaces other than tarmac include East Glos, Cirencester and Chalford.  We have also spoken with many other clubs who have had synthetic clay for longer periods to gather opinions on member satisfaction and maintenance requirements over this time.

• Tarmacadam resurface – we are familiar with the surface, know the limitations and recognise methods of extending the lifespan
• Synthetic Clay (as installed by those local clubs above) – this is a newer artificial court surface that mirrors the performance and characteristics of clay BUT is not a clay type surface such as we might remember from our much earlier experiences.  It is a synthetic carpet with painted lines embedded in the surface (so no lines to cause a difference in bounce).  These lines remain visible as the baked sand infill sits in a shallow layer above the “blade tip” of the synthetic carpet and above the root.  It is essential that the carpet root is not exposed through migration of this sand otherwise it will wear quickly but only a very shallow layer of sand is required to maintain this.

Key features

• Either surface can be delivered within the maximum budget albeit with some paring and re-negotiation in a competitive market place.
• The installation time (the period when our courts would be out of use) is significantly different 
  • Artificial Clay 10 days
  • Tarmac 6-7 weeks
• Synthetic clay has a higher initial cost than tarmac.
• The cost of capital in today’s low interest rate environment coupled with the accounts available to the club is negligible certainly when taken against the maintenance costs over the court lifespan. 
• From a members perspective the tarmac courts require only a minor husbandry engagement but formal organised external maintenance is necessary on a well understood basis and, not insignificant, cost.  The majority of the clay maintenance is regular day-to-day brushing, with more significant de-compaction sweeping of the surface every 5 years.
• Synthetic clay requires membership involvement on a daily basis (by those playing for approx. 2 mins per court) to ensure the sand is brushed evenly back over the surface to enable the surface to achieve its vaunted durability – and to leave it in an as-new condition for the next booking.
• The initial “balloon” amount required for synthetic clay installation is more than recouped by much reduced formal maintenance costs of clay over a projected 15 year lifespan of a tarmac court.  An estimated surplus of around £8k results if Clay is chosen over tarmac (or put another way breakeven point from around year 10, after which tarmac is more expensive).
• Clay is much softer on joints with significantly less impact on the body than tarmac and the expectation (as reported by other clubs) would be that our members are able to continue playing injury free tennis for longer.  
• Beyond the technical benefits of the synthetic clay surface, less wear and tear to equipment (shoes and balls) has been seen at other clubs.
• There is only a negligible risk of a failed tarmac renewal.  If the synthetic base surface is exposed by uneven particulate spreading then the carpet will wear perhaps to the point where renewal is required well before the anticipated breakeven point.  This is where ongoing maintenance and sand top-ups are required, which we have put a plan in place to cover.
• This Doomsday scenario is extremely unlikely and the evident benefits of synthetic clay over the tarmac status quo lead the committee to the inescapable and, we believe, confident assertion that the members of Minchinhampton Tennis Club are best served by installing synthetic clay as a replacement surface.

Key influencing factors

The following factors were considered by the committee members but not necessarily in this order as the significance of each aspect would vary for each club member.

• Initial outlay

There is a sizeable disparity (£23k) between the initial capital cost of tarmac resurfacing and replacement synthetic clay. Our current funds amount to a maximum available of £60k in single initial outlay and any proposed surface change would need to fit in this budget and consequently we have sought a variety of quotes to determine the practicality of a change or to determine if we are committed to a given course of action by virtue of the cost involved. The quote we have included in the above is the one that we consider gives the best value for money and the supplier who have carried out the Cirencester courts – we have also spoken to other clubs who have used this supplier to obtain references.  The quote we would recommend proceeding with, fits within our budget.

• Maintenance costs

The figures appended to this report for the ongoing maintenance to either surface have been compiled on the basis of expected scenario (and having taken advice from other clubs now using clay) for synthetic clay but the costs for tarmac maintenance are fairly well identified through our past experience.

Accordingly, there is no variation to the anticipated tarmac costs and a 15 year surface lifespan would generate costs for cleaning, repainting and polymerisation (to prolong life) totalling £38,500.  The anticipated costs for clay are variable depending on amount of top-up clay required – we have used the manufacturer’s worst case of 0.5 tonnes of sand a year is required.  Total maintenance costs for clay are £6,800 over 15 years. 

Maintenance of clay vs tarmac is £31,700 cheaper over the 15 year tarmac lifespan.

The reason for the significant difference in maintenance between the two surfaces arises through the reduced formal or “bought-in” maintenance requirement to synthetic clay.  Burnt sand top up and surface de-compacting are the only ongoing costs to the synthetic surface.

• Member or day to day maintenance

Tarmac is a utility surface requiring no day to day maintenance.  Members need only arrive with separate tennis shoes to prevent dirt of detritus build up but there is no onerous commitment on the playing members.

Synthetic clay requires members to spread the top surface evenly following matches to ensure that the carpet is not exposed and in so doing present a pristine surface for each match.  The “raking” amounts to about 2 minutes per court as the light, one metre square mats are dragged over the court surface.  

We have members (and committee members) who have committed to giving up some time as and when required to carry out the sand top ups, which will keep our ongoing maintenance costs down as we can do the works ourselves.  

• Durability

Tarmac courts have a recognised lifespan of 15 years with some additional years through the use of the polymerisation process. Synthetic clay courts in Warwick have currently been in use for 18 years, and the contractors who have provided a quote and recently installed courts at Cirencester are anticipating a lifespan of 20 years from Synthetic clay.

On the basis of the figures quoted to us, and maintenance expectations, the break even point of clay vs tarmac is in year 10. After which point the clay is cheaper than the tarmac – and potentially lasting many more years before requiring replacement vs the tarmac option.  

• Surface utility and benefits

Members are of course familiar with the tarmac which presents an even and fairly high bounce.  The court lines do not cause variable bounces and Minch courts have been recognised by visiting teams as particularly good in the county.  They are hard wearing and, when cleaned and maintained, drain well.

The current wear to the courts is reflected in a loss of grip particular to the metre wide area behind the baselines, adverse bounce to balls hitting the lines, loss of grip on the lines themselves, general slipperiness of the court surface and water pooling in the depressions on the court.

Regardless of the wear, a new tarmac court takes some time to defrost on winter mornings and, whilst playing in heavy rain is hardly attractive, do take some time to dry to allow play when the weather does clear. They are particularly sensitive to the sheen created by algal growth or very light persistent drizzle which renders them very slippery even when new.

The nature of a hard wearing surface is that it is high friction and high impact.  This will, of necessity, impact the playing members causing wear on everything from tennis balls to shoes and crucially to players’ joints.

Synthetic clay brings a slightly lower and slower bounce (the clay that we are proposing – Clayrite has a speed rating of ITF Category 2 (medium-slow) .  From a coaching perspective it brings some notable benefits through this behaviour and the way the surface responds to spin brings additional dimensions to improving and developing an all round game.

Synthetic clay courts have no raised lines causing variable bounce.  The surface itself presents no variation in grip or friction and can be played on in frosty conditions.  It can also be played on immediately the weather clears following heavy rain although by the very nature of the carpet and the top surface mean it is likely to remain damp for longer.

Tennis balls will fluff up and become heavier (as they would on any wet surface) but they will wear less and we envisage a drying rack to make use of the improved lifespan to the club balls.  This same reduced impact and friction can extend tennis shoe life.  Members need not invest in different shoes but members will notice that initially there is that very typical red clay dust when newly laid which soon washes away from the court surface.

We believe that a very significant benefit to members is the reduced impact on ankle, knee and hip joints.  The synthetic surface does encourage a different style of movement but it is not slippery.  Our own league members have played on the synthetic surface at East Gloucester and Cirencester and adjust quickly to the bounce and movement differences. Our own experiences and those of other club members is that even 3 hour matches do not leave players with a fraction of the strain generated by a hard court surface.

Anecdotally, we understand that members with concerns over the new surface at other tennis clubs have become almost immediate converts and some clubs have seen significant membership increases as a result of the surface change.

Whilst a small timescale in the grand scheme of things, the time to re-lay tarmac courts is about 7 weeks with synthetic clay being around 10 days- 2 weeks, thereby causing less initial disruption to members and in future years less time out of action for cleaning, repainting, binding etc if clay selected as opposed to tarmac.

Current finances and projections

Our expectation, following a significant one-off electricity bill, a small (and reducing) deficit in annual membership income on the previous two years is a total asset value of £64,000at year end 2019.

On this expectation a budget of £60k has been recommended for the court resurfacing project.  Over the past 15+ years, £4,000 per annum has been set aside to contribute to the court sinking fund.  The club has run a significantly greater surplus than this but repayment of the flood light loan (£26,000) between 1997 and 2012, the installation of toilets in the clubhouse (£11,500) in 2013/14 and the court polymerisation / sealing (£11,000) has limited the sinking fund to the £64,000 detailed.

We conservatively anticipate an ongoing and index linked membership income of around £11,000 p.a. and in anticipation of the reduced annual maintenance required by the synthetic clay we are confident that a minimum of £5,000 p.a. can be set aside for a sinking fund.

We currently have an average surplus of £6,000 p.a. on £12,500 membership receipts after including £1,200 for court cleaning.  Therefore the £5,000 is a cautious estimate.

Future clubhouse 

None of the above projections deal with the second and again inevitable requirement for clubhouse replacement in the short to medium term.  A like for like replacement, including fitting and plumbing could amount to £28,000 and a separate kitchen area, fixed heating and hot water capability would add £15,000 to this figure.

The committee plans to explore community and sports grants as our contribution through membership and family engagement is second to none in the sports clubs in the area.  We remain the cheapest tennis membership club by some distance and continue to include lighting in the benefits where many do not. If required at a future point we will also consider the use of LTA interest free loans (repayable over 10 years) to assist with the funding of eg a new clubhouse if our surplus hasn’t built up sufficiently by then.