(Editor’s note: “Life on the Head of a Pin” is a monthly column that appears on the first Thursday of the month. The author was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) nearly 15 years ago. He writes about his life and its challenges every first Thursday. A Hinesburg resident, he currently serves as a mentor at Hinesburg Community School. To read his other columns, click here.)

By Nate Methot
Hinesburg Record columnist

My mom sat beside me as I was diagnosed with ALS on a Wednesday morning in August nearly 15 years ago. I’d tried to keep both my symptoms and the resulting series of doctor’s visits from my parents but didn’t go so far as to call Fletcher Allen (now UVM Medical Center) to make a long overdue change of address. The first couple mailings were not questioned – or explained away easily – but when the envelopes began to pile up, I had no choice but to cave.

That’s how I operated, keeping everything inside until I was cornered.

The people around me knew something was wrong – they had to know; my body was deteriorating right in front of them – but I told no one and bore the heavy weight of uncertainty, anxiety, fear, all on my own.

Until a few days after my diagnosis – as much as 18 months after the mysterious symptoms began – aside from my parents, only my boss knew anything was going on. Sitting across the table from him in a tiny windowless room for our less-than-regularly attended monthly one-on-one, tears and sweat poured from my body as I tried to find the words to explain my numerous medical absences. I told him what I told myself – like anyone in any health matter – I prayed it was something fixable. What he saw was a terrified kid trying to hide a boulder of emotion behind a particle of hope.

I remember the relief afterward: I didn’t care how I looked as I walked back to my desk. Face flushed, eyes puffy, and skin glistening, maybe I wanted to be caught. Whatever I felt, it wasn’t enough to get me to repeat those words to anyone else. I’d keep hiding, pretending, scared and alone.

There are a lot of downsides to hiding – watching another day pass, disconnected from the world and yourself.

On the drive home from the hospital, Mom asked about telling my friends. I saw them that night but couldn’t force out the words. Two days later, I made a safe space among them; it took just a few moments. It would be another 18 months before I told almost anyone else. In between, I stuck with that group like a soldier his platoon. They protected me, though the dangers outside were of my own making.

I now share readily with strangers: my thoughts and actions – even my feelings. (Admittedly, it’s easier in print.) I’ve lost a lot of fear on this journey; a lot of things seem petty and undeserving of attention. Or, it’s possible I’m numb, broken, and just don’t care. I’d like to think I’ve grown. Matured. I’ve had fifteen years.

But it’s hard to share bad news. Devastating news. I’m not sure it would be any easier. In fact, I’m certain it would be just as difficult. Maybe I still keep the darkest of my darknesses inside, letting them linger in the background, mostly unchecked, like cockroaches in the walls. Hoping they’ll stay where they are. And knowing they won’t.

So, when you ask how I am, maybe I’ll tell you. For real.

Subscribe now

Bernard Joseph Roy Sr. of Hinesburg received his angel wings on June 26, 2026, to be with the Lord. He was 83 years old.

Bernard was the son of the late Fernando and Maria Roy; born in Colchester, Vermont, on Nov. 14,1942. He grew up working on the family farm in East Hardwick. After the farm, Bernard went on to truck-driving. He had a passion for driving and continued until retiring in 2006. Bernard started out his driving career with Lussier and Sons Trucking. He also drove for Shelburne Limestone, Bombards Trucking, and finished driving with Norton’s of Colchester.

Bernard married his loving wife Phyllis on Feb. 24, 1962. Bernard and Phyllis built their family with six wonderful children.

He leaves his loving wife Phyllis of 64 years of marriage and his children, Bernie Roy Jr. of Hinesburg, Brent and spouse Jill of South Carolina, Brian Roy of South Carolina, Daddy’s lil girl Tammy Kenyon and spouse Shane Pion of South Carolina, and a very special girl, his pride and joy, daughter/granddaughter Shauna Roy and partner Mike of Hinesburg.

Bernard also leaves two special best friends, project-making partners, great-granddaughters Alexis (Lulu) and Madison. Bernard has 14 grandchildren who loved him dearly: Aaron, Shane Jr., Kevin, Kyle, Adam, Bryant, Alan, Matthew, Chris, Josh, Kayla, Maria, Christina, and Daniel. He also leaves behind his 12 great-grandchildren: Jakob, Kayden, Madeline, Leila, Caleb, Nicole, Paisley, Journey, Rheanna, Mason, Mathaneal, and Maliah.

Bernard was predeceased by his parents, sister Ginette Webber, infant son Daniel, and precious daughter Tina Wiles.

Arrangements are being handled by Cremation Society of Chittenden County, a division of the Ready Funeral Home Family.

There will be no services or visitation at this time.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to the Kidney Foundation in memory of Bernard Roy Sr.

By Geoffrey Gevalt
Hinesburg Record staff reporter

In the end, the opponents’ case didn’t stick.

After hearing dozens of opponents talk about the dangers of artificial turf fields to human and environmental health and after hearing a hydrogeologist explain that runoff from the field presented little risk to Hinesburg wells, the CVSD board voted 8-3 to move forward on a $6 million gift of an artificial turf field and athletic complex at CVU.

The district will now iron out an agreement with the donors – The Community Field Project group led by Eli Lesser-Goldsmith – which will be made public once it is completed, according to Supt. Adam Bunding. The project itself will move forward once money for the project has been raised.

More than 60 people attended the meeting in person and another 40 on Zoom. Most were opponents of the plan. Proponents were scarce, but district officials contended that they might have been worried that the meeting would get tense. It did.

In two public comment periods, one at the beginning of the meeting and one after a presentation by a hydrogeologist hired by the district and a nearly two-hour executive session immediately after, mostly Hinesburg residents:

• presented the board with a list of nearly 1,000 people who had signed petitions opposing the proposed artificial turf field;

• reminded the board that the Hinesburg selectboard, conservation commission and planning commission as well as the Charlotte Conservation Commission had written letters of concern and/or opposition;

• pointed out that the Waite Heindel hydrogeology study of potential risk to wells was at best, severely limited, and at worst, flawed and incomplete;

• there was no proper accounting to determine how much the district – and voters – will have to pay down the road for disposal; and

• wondered why the district would put 2.2 acres of plastic on a field at a time when more and more evidence is emerging on the health dangers for student athletes.

Geri Knortz, a Hinesburg resident and retired athletic director at St. Michael’s College, covered many of the issues in her two minutes of allowed comment:

“I am well aware of the appeal of a turf field for convenience and durability. However, many of us continue to believe there are undeniable reasons to reject turf.

“Artificial turf exposes athletes to known carcinogens as well as hormonal and endocrine disruptors. Cancer, bone health and neurotoxicity for our young adult users are of primary concern. Increased injury rates, ACL knee injuries, turf burns, bacterial infections like staph and MRSA make this such a highly undesirable surface that virually all professional sports associations have banned it.

“Most compelling – PFAS and other forever chemicals,” Knortz added. “No product sample has been, nor are we told will be, submitted for analysis despite numerous requests for such. There is a known link of PFAS to cancer, fertility issues and birth defects and remediation costs millions.

“We, the people, do not feel as if our questions and requests have been heard. The board has not publicly acknowledged nor replied to our legitimate concerns, yet seven of you will soon make a momentous, premature decision that, if in favor of artificial turf, will have catastrophic consequences for our town of 4,500.”

What the crowd may not have realized that this “discussion” about the artificial turf has been going on since the spring of 2025 when Lesser-Goldsmith, part-owner of Healthy Living, went to the district to propose the idea of a privately financed artificial turf field.

The rationale was simple: twice district residents had voted down proposals to install a turf field financed with public money, but there was a need for a better field so that practices wouldn’t be cancelled or moved to another location in the early spring and late fall. Further, an artificial field with proposed ADA access, bleachers, lights and a concession stand would make the field suitable for playoffs and rentals to other athletic groups. More students would use the field more often. CVU would have an athletic complex, they said, they could be proud of.

So Lesser-Goldsmith was scratching an itch that had long bothered CVU and district leaders as well as coaches and students. He held discussions with parents, athletes and coaches and the consensus was a better field was essential and an artificial field would be the best option.

The support has long been there. And it’s still there. Bunting said that letters to the district have been running three-to-one in favor of the project.

But maybe not in Hinesburg.

Over the last two months hundreds of Hinesburg residents have written the board and dozens upon dozens have spoken out at the only two public meetings on the issue – politely obeying the two-minute restrictions and asking the board to consider all the facts. Their passion and conviction have been obvious. So much so that on Tuesday night, one person even broke out in tears.

But the opponents frustration has also come through, particularly in the confusion over exactly what would happen – and what role the public audience would have – at the meeting. The clamor broke out after Chandler Noyes of Waite Heindel Environmental Management had presented the results of potential water contamination, which his firm put at “very unlikely.”

But questions abounded. In stories in The Record, posts on Front Porch Forum, citizens, some with scientific backgrounds, said the study was limited at best and flawed and misleading at worst. They noted that it was done in a little over a month, involved no test borings and cited an incomplete list of research on the dangers and patterns of PFAS spread.

The firm also noted that it did not examine the issue of micro plastics because there are no regulations concerning micro plastics, despite known scientific studies pointing out their dangers and prevalence.

But the board had heard enough. Or so it appeared.

Williston school board member Erin Henderson clearly had had enough. She turned to address someone in the audience who’d interrupted the board to ask the board why it was going into executive session to discuss the issue and why the public was not able to ask questions of the hydrogeologist.

Henderson turned in her chair and said, “You are being very rude. We understand your passion, but you make assumptions that we have not done research, we have not read the hundreds and hundreds of comments. We understand. We are volunteers and we are elected officials and we have spent so much time on this.”

“And you won’t let us ask questions,” a woman shouted.

“We are trying to follow the open meeting laws. But how many times do you say the same thing? We’ve heard it. We’ve read it.”

Bunting, superintendent of the CVSD, admitted later that the board should have explained their process better so there wouldn’t have been quite such a disconnect.

Afterwards, Hinesburg residents at the meeting said they felt disrespected, that their opinions and work were not heard. Bunting, while not at liberty to discuss the executive session, said that the opponents’ testimony was heard and was discussed. And the board’s executive session lasted nearly two hours.

After the board returned, board chair Meghan Metzler asked Hinesburg’s representative on the board, Keith Roberts, to make his motion to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the turf field donor group. A public comment period was opened for another 45 minutes of residents expressing their concerns, opposition and entreaties for the board to vote ‘no.’

Jennifer Decker, a Hinesburg resident who’s spent countless hours opposing the project because of, among other things, her concerns over PFAS (forever chemicals) and micro- and nano-plastics, presented the board with a roll of paper listing nearly 1,000 names of Hinesburg citizens who’ve signed petitions opposing the field.

Only two urged them to vote yes.

Senior student body president Alex Jovell said the student body was overwhelmingly in support of an artificial turf.

Lesser-Goldsmith spoke briefly saying the intent of the project was to deal with a student need and “to bring the community joy.”

But as Mary Beth Bowman said a few minutes later, “there is no joy in this room.”

From Zoom, Rep. Angela Arsenault, a former member of the district school board, said, “I fully acknowledge and believe that everybody involved here is working toward what they believe to be the best interests of our students and our communities.

“I just want to speak to the wisdom of opening the district up to what is all but guaranteed to be litigation,” she added. “So at a time when public trust in our district is more important than ever, I really caution the board and hope you’ll consider voting no.”

After the public comments, Metzler had a revealing statement prior to the vote: reading something that clearly had been discussed in executive session and was part of the memorandum of understanding that the district is working out with the donor group. She may also have been trying to offset reporting of Lesser-Goldsmith’s dictum in response to a board member’s question at its May meeting that the district would have input, “but no veto power.”

“This district is not giving up control of the project or decisions made on district property,” Metzler said. “The district will be the applicant or co-applicant for required local and state permits, if we agree with this, as appropriate and will review, approve and execute design submittals, permit applications and procurement recommendations.

“The district will have final approval over all phases of project design, permit submittals, contract awards, construction scheduling and others. The district shall have direct oversight and authority rewgarding any on-campus activities and the donor shall structure and conduct procurement for the project consistent with any district procurement policy.”

The board then voted, with Metzler abstaining, to enter into negotiations to develop a memorandum of understanding with Lesser-Goldsmith and his group to move forward to accept their $6 million gift to build a new field and athletic complex.

Voting for: Roberts, Cassandra Townshend (Hinesburg), Erika Lea (Shelburne), Kate Webb (Shelburne), Jean Sanchez (Williston), Henderson, Brendan McMahon (Williston) and Meaghan Siket (Charlotte). Voting against: Dave Connery (Shelburne), Lindsay Colf (St. George) and Sarah Showalter-Feuilette (Williston).

And with that, the crowd – with a few shouts and “see you in court” – and the board filtered out into a deluge; thunderstorms had rocked the meeting for much of the night.

Subscribe now

By William Scott
Hinesburg resident

I have partially reviewed the June 29, 2026, Final Report prepared jointly for the school district board by the firms of Waite Heindel and Sandborn Head. In the executive summary the authors refer to the document as a “limited hydrogeologic and environmental evaluation.” I believe that the limitations are very serious and that they have compromised the report’s evaluation, which is incomplete and insufficient to support its conclusions. This final report should be superseded by a revised final report supported by actual PFAS concentration data and rigorous field studies to determine actual site conditions.

The limitations which I will comment on here are:

• The absence of actual data on the PFAS concentration of the proposed artificial turf product and the substitution of incomplete and, in my opinion, irrelevant data from a field in Sweden;

• The limited scope of work that does not include the field investigations necessary to determine actual field conditions identified as critical to evaluating the risk of contamination of the drinking water supply; and

• Insufficient consideration of factors identified as having the potential to mitigate the risk of potential contamination.

At the core of the analysis is an estimate of the total PFAS concentration in the proposed artificial turf field that is baseless. This report is being used to decide on a real project with serious health, safety and financial consequences. It needs to use the data for the product(s) under consideration that has been independently tested and verified. This no different than testing the properties of the steel and concrete for a bridge.

• Proponents of the project have presented the merits of artificial turf fields installed in New England, Vermont and even just down the road in Chittenden County. We have heard the claims that the proposed field will be 100-percent PFAS-free and will absolutely meet the requirements of Vermont law, and yet the calculations in the report are based on the concentration of PFOS (just one of the approximately 15,000 PFAS compounds) in a field in Sweden (see Report, page 10).

• This is not a hypothetical evaluation but a real project that requires real facts. The use of literature surveys rather than actual test results to prepare an engineering report on a critical component for the project owner strikes me as absurd. It is even more absurd if this is the process required by the owner.

• The estimated total PFAS concentration, defined as equal to the PFOS concentration, is 0.78 µg/kg. Again, this process purports to measure only one PFAS compound and ignores all the rest.

• Based on this estimate of 0.78 µg/kg, the report states “We conclude that while PFAS from the AT materials in the proposed field at CVU could be briefly detectable in Hinesburg’s Well 4, it would not reach the current Vermont and federal drinking water standards.”

• How can the school district board expect the people of Hinesburg to trust this conclusion based on a calculation using no real data? We do not have to go to the moon to obtain a sample to test. Just have a qualified lab take a sample in the factory, put it in a sealed container and provide a chain of custody report from the sample in the factory to the lab. We are repeatedly told that the proposed artificial turf is PFAS-free and meets all Vermont legal requirements and PFAS limitations. It is time that this be demonstrated with real, independent testing with the results provided to the engineers to prepare a revised final report.

The final report presents evidence of site conditions that potentially present great risk of ground water contamination as well as evidence of conditions that might partially mitigate this risk. Field studies, including test borings, are required to determine actual conditions before final conclusions on the risk of ground water contamination and surface water contamination can be made. The scope of work for the final report should be amended to include a thorough study of site conditions and a revised final report issued.

• Upward Gradient Assumption: The upward gradient of the groundwater is described as a “likely presence beneath Field B.” The report states that “The apparent upward gradient beneath Field B suggests it will be difficult for significant amounts of contaminants to penetrate the underlying bedrock aquifer. It states that ground water discharging the site is “… possibly also giving indications of an upward gradient in groundwater in the vicinity of Field B.” It also states that data from well logs “indicate that many of the drilled wells have an upward gradient in the groundwater contained in their fractures.” The report relies on the presence of an upward gradient to protect the aquifer from contamination, but its existence and extent of its location have not been verified by field inspections and drilling.

• Depths of Bedrock and Pathways for Migration to Aquifer: The report states that “depths to bedrock vary widely in the vicinity of Field B” and “overburden thicknesses range from essentially zero to more than 100 feet.” It also states that “the potential shallow depth to bedrock under the northeast corner of proposed AT field described above means that there would be a short vertical migration distance downward for potential contaminants from the construction and/or long-term use of this field. The risks posed by these conditions require careful assessment based on documented conditions from field studies.

• Assumption of Mitigation from Underlying Silt-Clay Overburden: The report assumes that short vertical migration distances potentially could very likely be mitigated by the apparent low permeability of the underlying silt-clay overburden. This assumption has been challenged by a consultant expert in PFAS contamination and should be fully investigated before a revised final report is prepared.

Conclusion: The report reaches conclusions without having the data and information necessary to support them. These shortcomings must be corrected before any estimates of risk of contamination by PFAS can be made. I suggest that these steps be taken and a Revised Final Report issued.

• The PFAS content of any proposed products must be determined by independent testing and the results provided to the engineers and the public before any calculations of the risks of contamination can be accurately and safely made.

• The scope of work should be amended to include all field investigations necessary to reach an accurate and reliable assessment of risk and a revised final report issued.

• The revised final report should be made available at least three weeks in advance of a public discussion to allow time for review by local officials and consultants prior.

  

  Cvu

  7.7MB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  
  

• In a Special News Analysis, The Record outlines the many issues facing the CVSD board when it meets Tuesday at 6 p.m. at CVU library. Audio narration is included for your convenience. click this link to read on our website.

• A Burlington environmental firm finished a month-long study of the proposal to donate a $6 million artificial field for CVU and concluded that Hinesburg’s water would not be threatened with contamination from runoff from the field. The draft study will be presented to the board by Waite and Heindel representatives at its 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 30, meeting at the CVU library or Zoom (click this link at time of meeting.) Supt. Adam Bunting said the board “might” vote after the presentation and public comment periods. For The Record’s story summarizing the study as well as copies of the full study, Hinesburg’s Water Source Protection Plan and a recent letter of concern from the Hinesburg Planning Commission, click here to be read the story on The Record’s website.

• For all of The Record’s coverage of the artificial turf field proposal, click here to go to a list of stories on our website.

No Fireworks, but Fun Fourth of July Events Nonetheless

Way back in January, Hinesburg received notification that the annual fireworks display would cost $20,000, an enormous jump from the year before. The selectboard decided that it was too much to pay and so declined to sign up for the annual show that has been held since 1976. Despite the loss of the evening light show, there will be a parade, music, food and other fun activities during the day on July 4. Click here to read the story on The Record’s website.

(Editor’s note: In the initial version of this item, The Record incorrectly described Hinesburg Resist’s plans for their Fourth of July parade. Below is the correct description. We regret the error and appreciate the positive message the group hopes to present.)

Learning songs of resistance

Hinesburg Resists got together with a central Vermont group last week to learn songs of protest and resistance over the years. The group will be marching in the Fourth of July parade carrying posters of individuals from America’s 250 years of history to celebrate the immigrants who have contributed to our country over the last 250 years. Click here to get to our website to read the story and hear audio from the gathering.

New look, but same wonderful store! Support The Record’s advertisers and you support us.

Responsible Growth Hinesburg’s 8th Annual Tiny Art Auction Begins on Saturday

Responsible Growth Hinesburg is holding its 8th Annual Tiny Art Auction, starting on July 4. Bidding for the auction, which ends on July 11, will be done online. Each original piece of art in the auction measures just four inches by four inches. This year’s artists include Mary Azarian, Ashley Wolff, Mary Hill, Gregry Maguire, Andy Newman, Liza Woodruff, Marguerite Jarvis and many others. Click here for more info, including a link to the bidding website.

Letter: Support for Molly Gray for Lt. Governor

Hinesburg resident James Gelber sent us a letter in support of candidate Molly Gray. Read the full letter here.

If you support our advertisers, you are supporting The Record.

Word of the Week – Otiose

This is a fun word, and if you’re like me, you just pronounced it wrong inside your head. Read about this word, and a bit about what Margaret Atwood is up to these days (yes, she’s still with us!) here.

In case you missed it…

Habitat Happenings – Six Affordable Housing Opportunities

Six new homes in two separate buildings will soon be built by Habitat for Humanity on Mechanicsville Road. Read about options to purchase one of the homes, and about volunteer opportunities, in the full article by the Affordable Housing Committee.

Selectboard Pushes Back on Town Common

At their June 17 meeting, the selectboard and Assistant Town Manager Joy Grossman expressed concerns about the proposed playground, costs and maintenance responsibilities. The Town Common Committee sought approval from the selectboard to order the playground equipment. The selectboard requested a formal budget spreadsheet and physical maintenance plan to be presented before approving the plan. Read the full article, including other selectboard meeting items, here.

Upcoming

Tuesday, June 30

• CVSD Board Meeting, 6 p.m., CVU library or Zoom (click this link at time of meeting.)

Wednesday, July 1

• Selectboard Meeting, 6-8 p.m. Town Hall, lower-level conference room and via Zoom. Agenda and details here.

• Community Potluck and Art Unveiling, Carpenter-Carse Library, 6-8 p.m. Join us for a celebration of community, creativity, and America’s 250th anniversary! We will kick off the event by unveiling the community art project led by Terry Zigmund, followed by live music, a potluck, and a visit from The Scoop ice cream truck. More info and sign-up link here.

Friday, July 3

• Hilly Hobble Foot Race, Check-in begins 6 p.m. at Hinesburg Community School. See details here.

Saturday, July 4

• Hinesburg’s July 4th Celebration, Parade starts at 11 a.m. See details and other events here.

By Cathy Ryan

This week’s Word of the Week is otiose. It is an adjective meaning serving no practical purpose. An older meaning is “lazy” or “idle.” I read this word in a book that I’ve just started, Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin:

This is what is said of him in The Chase Industries: A History, a book my grandfather commissioned in 1903 and had privately printed, in green leather covers, with not only the title but his own candid, heavy signature embossed on the front in gold. He used to present copies of this otiose chronicle to his business associates, who must have been surprised, though perhaps not.

When I looked up this word, I learned that I’d been pronouncing it in my head incorrectly. I was pronouncing the “t” like “teen”, but the “t”, or rather the “ti” is pronounced “she” (although some sources say the hard “t” sound is an acceptable alternative pronunciation). Merriam-Webster’s website provides audio clips of how to pronounce words. I once was told that we should never think badly of someone for mispronouncing a word; it simply means that they learned it by reading, rather than having it spoken to them. And of course, there’s no reason to think badly of someone for reading!

I’ve only just started The Blind Assassin, but so far, it’s fascinating. There is a book within the book. A character, Laura Chase, writes a book which is published by her sister posthumously. Don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler – the very first sentence of the book is “Ten days after the war ended, my sister Laura drove a car off a cliff.” The title of the book Laura wrote is The Blind Assassin. Yes, that’s a bit confusing, but not as much as you’d think. I was more confused at first by all the family members, and I’m tempted to sketch out a family tree.

Some chapters of the book (the “outer” book, shall we say?) are chapters of Laura’s The Blind Assassin (the inner book). Then there are chapters in the first person by Laura’s sister Iris. After been given the first couple chapters of The Blind Assassin (inner), I’m now in the midst of several chapters of Iris’ life story, which is interesting, but I’m really eager to read more of The Blind Assassin (the inner book)!

Many people are surprised to learn that Margaret Atwood, best known for writing The Handmaid’s Tale, is still alive. She’s feisty (as one would expect from the author of The Handmaid’s Tale) and recently published a memoir called Book of Lives.

I think one reason some people are surprised she’s still alive is because The Handmaid’s Tale (published in 1984) is so monumental, and seems like a historical classic, like Animal Farm or The Lord of the Flies. Many of us read the book in high school.

Most of you know that The Handmaid’s Tale was made into a television series. But did you know that Atwood had a cameo? She’s the blurry figure that slaps a young woman:

I adore older folks, especially women, who remain feisty, humorous, and troublesome (in a good way) late in life. Atwood even has a Substack website called “In the Writing Burrow,” where she writes frequently (Substack is the platform on which The Record is published). Here is a fun clip from when she appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers a few years ago, and discusses, among other things, flamethrowers:

Most people would agree that Margaret Atwood is the complete opposite of otiose, and I encourage you to check out her other books beyond The Handmaid’s Tale (though if you haven’t read that, it’s really required reading…).

And, yes, otiose works great as an insult, toward people who are totally un-Atwood-like.

You can read about the previous Word of the Week, nonce, here.

(Note: You can hear the author’s narration of the piece on your computer or cellphone by clicking the play arrow above.)

By Geoffrey Gevalt
Hinesburg Record staff reporter

This Tuesday, the Chittenden Valley School District board will resume discussion of a proposed $6 million gift of an artificial field and athletic complex at CVU. The board’s decision to move forward – or not – appears to center on the results of a study it ordered that concluded that it was unlikely the turf field would or could leach PFAS (forever chemicals) into Hinesburg’s water supply.

But a prominent scientist and opponent of artificial turf fields questions that study. Further, the issues and concerns surrounding this project go beyond PFAS contamination and present complex and unusual public policy dilemmas for everyone involved.

Front and center in the public discussion has been the worry that introducing artificial turf fields would or could contaminate nearby wells and the town’s primary water source – Well 4, which is located 4,000 feet away.

The town of Hinesburg is particularly sensitive to this issue given that well water in one area of town has been contaminated by leaching from the old town dump (the town pays upwards of $50,000 a year to filter the wells below the dump); and Well 5, once the town’s main water supply, was shuttered because of contamination from old gasoline tanks once located in front of Lantman’s Market. (The tanks and immediate contaminated soil in front of Lantman’s were removed nearly two decades ago, but pollution from the leaks still threatens Hinesburg’s water.)

Among additional issues on the minds of opponents and town officials is worry about micro- and nano-plastics which become airborne as the playing surface gets older and breaks down: Will they affect the health of student athletes? neighbors? Or will they find their way into the town’s water? The hydrogeologist’s report does not address those issues.

Other concerns voiced include:

• the costs of replacing the field’s surface – and disposing the old surface – every eight to 10 years (approximately $600,000 - $800,000);

• the fact that the field surface is 30 degrees warmer than the air on a sunny day;

• additional traffic generated by more events;

• costs of maintenance versus income derived from events;

• liability, should something go wrong;

• the lack of coordinated and transparent discussions between the district and leaders of the town where CVU is located; and

• a lack of district control and thus its inability to follow customary requirements involving construction of a project on public property.

Threat to the Town’s Water

The primary issue since this project was formally announced in April has been the potential for leaching of PFAS into the town’s primary water source area around Well 4, located off Shelburne Falls Road, and nearby private wells. In layman’s terms, PFAS are a family of chemicals that contain almost indestructible carbon-fluorine bonds, that do not readily break down and are considered highly toxic and harmful to environmental and human health.

Eli Lesser-Goldsmith, the lead spokesman for the project team, The Community Field Project, has insisted that the field is safe and will not leach into the water given the group’s plan for management of drainage and storm runoff.

Further, he has stated numerous times that the “product” – the top “carpet” and infill underneath – is “100-percent PFAS-free.” That’s a hard statement to prove, given that the company with which his group has aligned, FieldTurf, has said it will not permit its products to be independently tested.

And while Lesser-Goldsmith has said that FieldTurf’s materials comply with the state’s new restrictions on PFAS in artificial fields, no one in the state actually tests the products being used and relies on the companies to certify compliance. Further, the state law only covers 40 of some 15,000 known PFAS compounds associated with plastics that are “intentionally” introduced in the manufacturing process.

Last week, two things came to light that, on the surface, seem to assuage concerns about water contamination voiced by CVSD board members, including Keith Roberts, one of Hinesburg’s representatives on the board who, while an unabashed supporter of an artificial field at CVU, asked that the district hire the hydrogeologist.

First concern

The first was the draft report from the Burlington environmental firm Waite Heindel, which was hired by the district to study the hydrogeology of the site and available research on PFAS. The firm concluded that there is “very little likelihood” that any PFAS from the project would contaminate Well 4, Hinesburg’s primary water source, located off Shelburne Falls Road, and other nearby wells. (See full story and report, by clicking here.)

The report states, “our worst-case scenario calculations indicate that it is unlikely that PFAS from the artificial turf materials in the proposed field at CVU will cause the concentrations in Hinesburg Well 4 to increase to a detectable level, let alone reach the current Vermont and federal drinking water standards.”

Further, it states that “if PFAS [compounds are] detected in the future in Hinesburg Well 4, it would be unlikely to be able to ascribe its source as an artificial turf field at CVU, given the low permeability of the underlying silt-clay soils, the upward gradient of groundwater from the bedrock aquifer, and the proposed improved stormwater management system.”

The report acknowledges that micro- and nano-plastics, also a health hazard, are released as the field ages, but “the proposed improved stormwater management system is likely to capture some micro-plastics, but the current state of knowledge about micro-plastics means that the degree of capture is not predictable at this time.

“There are no drinking water standards for micro-plastics, and we do not anticipate federal or state drinking water standards for micro-plastics for one or more decades – so the regulatory impacts on Hinesburg Well 4 from micro-plastics in general are unknown.”

The important word is “regulatory.”

Lesser-Goldsmith and FieldTurf have insisted that the field’s materials comply with Vermont’s law restricting PFAS in many products, including artificial turf. Lesser-Goldsmith has stated that if opponents don’t think the current state law provides sufficient protection, then they should lobby the state legislature; not hold his project to a higher standard than law requires.

Some protection already in place

The other thing that came up last week was an observation by a Hinesburg town official to The Record about Well 4: For the last decade, 80 percent of the town’s water goes through a “nano-filtration” system designed to soften the water but that also has the capacity to filter out many types of PFAS, pesticides and other minerals should they be present, according to the company that installed the system in 2015.

This last item was a bit of a surprise. In all the public meetings by the school board, town boards and commissions and meetings of opponents, there has been no mention made of the filtration system already installed at Hinesburg’s Well 4 and which will also be installed at Well 6, a backup supply coming online sometime in early winter.

The Record reached out to the ISI Water of St. George, the firm that installed Hinesburg’s “nano-filtration” system in 2015 at a cost of about $185,000. Hinesburg’s Scott Shumway, who heads the company, was traveling on Friday but gave this response in an email:

“PFAS is a general term for a host of different types of ‘polyfluoro’ molecules. Some are long-chained, some shorter. …[It is] correct [that] the nano-filtration system was installed to reduce hardness, but it has additional beneficial properties to reject other chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and PFAS in various percentages depending on the specific chemical.”

Here’s what it looks like:

Does this mean Hinesburg shouldn’t worry?

That’s up to the eye of the beholder.

Regarding Hinesburg’s nano-filtration system, it only filters 80 percent of the water coming out of the well (the other 20 percent goes directly into the drinking water) because filtering it all – primarily for calcium and magnesium – would make the water too soft. So if the water were contaminated, the present filtration system would miss some.

Kyla Bennett, a leading expert in PFAS contamination and filtration systems expressed doubt that Hinesburg’s system could filter out all PFAS, noting that the PFAS filtration system in her community of Easton, Massachusetts, cost $11.4 million and $1 million a year to replace the filters. The filtration system is necessary, she noted, because her town’s water supply was contaminated with PFAS in part by two artificial turf fields in her community and by repeated aerial spraying of a pesticide that contained PFAS. She noted that it is very difficult to determine where PFAS contamination originates though she noted that the two highest readings were near the two fields.

Waite Heindel said it did not examine Hinesburg’s water system or filtration system because it was not part of the charge given the firm when they were hired by the district. The spokesman could not say specifically what the firm was asked to study.

The firm does conclude, however, that in a worst-case scenario, if all of the PFAS present in the field were to leach out every day for 27 days, the quantity still wouldn’t be sufficient to be detectable once it reached Well 4.

But Bennett argues that just because PFAS is not detectable does not mean that it’s safe. All PFAS are dangerous, she said.

The question.

So is the study and the Well 4 filtration system sufficient enough for the CVSD board to move forward on the project? That is the question the CVSD board will discuss at its meeting on Tuesday after a Waite Heindel representative formally presents the firm’s study.

When The Record asked Lesser-Goldsmith for a comment about the study, he responded a day after publication of The Record’s story that summarized the study:

“Great article! Nice to see that the report definitively shows The Community Field Project has only spread facts and truth this entire time. Everything we have said about PFAS, stormwater and the groundwater of Hinesburg has been proven true in this report.

“This report should finally put to rest all the lies and misinformation that have spread about this project for over a year, including by your publication. ...”

It is very unlikely that the report will put to rest the concerns of some Hinesburg residents and government leaders.

A primary concern is the actual composition of the artificial field itself – both its top layer and the infill material below. The Hinesburg Planning Commission became the latest public entity to request an independent analysis of the materials, something that in April a spokesman for FieldTurf – the company aligned with The Community Field Project team – publicly and flatly refused to allow. (The Hinesburg selectboard, conservation commission and the Charlotte Conservation Commission have all written letters of concern to the district school board.)

Bennett, a former official and whistleblower with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, told The Record, “I have never seen a properly done test laboratory report showing no PFAS in artificial turf.”

Bennett, who now works for the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national nonprofit, also had several major objections to the Waite Heindel report, which she has closely reviewed. (Bennett helps municipalities and citizen groups for free as part of the work of the nonprofit she works for. She has been involved with the opponents of this project in providing her expert advice and counsel.) Her objections:

• PFAS compounds are a health hazard. Period. They are transmitted by runoff into drinking water but also can be absorbed through contact and breathing.

• “They (Waite and Heindel) are missing the forest through the trees; they are approaching this entire problem from a point of view, ‘Is it legal?’ They’re asking the wrong question. Repeatedly throughout the report, I see them say, ‘but this doesn’t violate water quality standards and we’re not going to see this regulated for another 10 years.’ That’s not the question. The question is: ‘Does the placement of this artificial turf in this location result in harm to human health and or the environment? And the answer is a resounding yes. Is it legal? Probably.”

• “They talk about how the silt and clay soils will capture the PFAS.

  That’s not true. What happens is that the silt or clay will prevent it from migrating vertically, but that just means that it runs off more easily. So actually, the thing that captures and holds PFAS is organic matter. [Yet] when you cover soil, natural soil, with plastic, artificial turf, a plastic carpet, it kills the organic matter, the organic matter dies. That means that the PFAS already in that soil, plus all the PFAs in the field, will easily leach through into the groundwater and off the site. So it’s kind of like a double whammy.”

• The study does not go into the dangers of micro- and nano-plastics because there are no regulations tied to them, yet they are as dangerous and damaging as PFAS.

• And storm runoff management systems are not designed to trap PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics.

Other considerations

Sometimes lost in the debate over this project – which was formally presented in mid-April – is the need.

CVU’s athletic fields – which serve about 250-300 of the high school’s 1,200 students – are often problematic. Field B – the site proposed for the artificial turf and the field used for varsity soccer, lacrosse and several other sports – is unplayable after a heavy rain or in early spring or late fall. Games have to be moved to other schools’ fields, practices are moved indoors or to other facilities and playoffs cannot be held at CVU fields because they don’t meet Vermont Principals Association requirements. School officials, coaches and athletes say the poor conditions of CVU’s fields lessens the student experience and places them at a disadvantage in many games (loss of home field).

A question The Record has posed to the school and district is: “Why hasn’t Field B been improved?”

Several officials confirmed that nothing substantive has been done to improve Field B in at least 15 years because, as one official put it, “we didn’t want to invest a lot of money if it turned out we get an artificial turf field.” Twice the district asked voters in its member communities – Charlotte, Shelburne, Hinesburg, St. George and Williston – to finance a turf field, but twice – 2013 and 2015 – the voters rejected it.

A question asked by just about everyone in Hinesburg is, “why not a grass field?”

Lesser-Goldsmith says his group has considered it, but “a turf field is the best solution.” He has said repeatedly that the group is offering only a turf field – or nothing. His primary argument is that an artificial field would allow substantially more playing time than a grass field, would be less expensive to install and to maintain. An artificial field, he said, offers far more days of use – even in winter – and requires far less maintenance.

Other questions.

Deeper questions about this project have also been raised during the many public discussions of this project.

Lesser-Goldsmith has outlined a generous and heartfelt desire to create a facility that can serve far more students, “bring joy to the community” and enhance the experience of students, area sports clubs, residents and, particularly, those who physically can’t access the current fields. All noble goals. And he often adds that “thousands” of people support it.

Yet the group is not only presenting the school board a “take it or leave it” proposition, it is also saying that while the district will have “input” on decisions relating to the field’s design, engineering and construction, it will not have “veto power.” Meaning that the district has no power over or ultimate control over a $6 million project being constructed on its public property.

That presents a thornier issue for the school district board: Are they to accept a gift that gives them no real say?

Lesser-Goldsmith has said that if the board moves forward, his group will handle and pay for the entire permitting process with the state and the town of Hinesburg. The Record could not find an example of a private entity representing a public school district in a project’s permitting process before Vermont’s Act 250 review board, the Agency of Natural Resources, or the Hinesburg Development Review Board, to name a few.

Again, it seems an unusual and awkward arrangement that the district would be relying on a private group to go through the process of permitting.

And what if something goes wrong?

Lesser-Goldsmith had said that FieldTurf has agreed to “indemnify” the district from damages from its product, yet that agreement has not been made public. What if the company goes out of business? And what to make of the firm’s 2024 multi-million-dollar settlement of a civil suit brought by numerous municipalities charging defective materials in an earlier iteration of its artificial turf product?

And if the district is to enter a memorandum of understanding with the group, will that document be made public and will the details be known by the school board before they make a final vote to accept or reject the gift?

More questions.

If you’ve been following this issue and The Record’s coverage, you’ll note that school board members, Hinesburg leaders and citizens and opponents – even the Charlotte Conservation Commission of which Lesser-Goldsmith is a member – have posed many other questions related to the project’s proposal:

• Are artificial turf fields safe for the athletes? Temperatures on the field are 30 degrees warmer than the air temperature, making it impossible to safely use the fields on hot days. While there are apparently no comprehensive studies of high school athlete injuries on artificial turf, there must be a reason that so many professional teams that play on fields forbid or discourage use of artificial turf.

  • The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai “strongly discourages the installation of artificial turf playing surfaces and fields due to the uncertainties surrounding the safety of these products and the potential for dangerous heat and chemical exposures. In addition, recent studies demonstrating the presence of PFAS and microplastics in these products raise significant concerns for both human health and environmental contamination.”

• And how serious are concerns about the airborne micro- and nano-plastics that everyone agrees occur as the field gets older? According to Bennett, the concerns are extremely serious.

• Estimates have been made of potential income from the field of between $50,000 (the CVSD’s number) and $80,000 a year. Is that net of costs of maintenance and staffing needed for paid events? And is that enough to offset the cost of replacing the top layer of the field within eight to 10 years?

• Should the town of Hinesburg conduct its own independent study of the potential of contamination of its water from the project?

• Should there be an independent cost analysis study of creating a top-notch grass field that would a) provide student athletes and area sports clubs more field time, b) be engineered to comply with requirements for tournaments and playoffs, and c) allow the town of Hinesburg to embrace the project more willingly?

• Given that in 2024, the district cut $9 million and 82 positions from its 2025 fiscal year budget to get its budget passed, what does it say about the district’s priorities that it’s willing to accept $6 million for an athletic field complex?

• If the school district’s stated goal is to make a decision that does not bring disharmony in the towns, what will it mean if the board goes ahead and votes to accept the gift just two months, and two public meetings, after it is formally presented?

• And what a number of people have asked these past two and a half months: What’s the rush?

Geoffrey Gevalt is editor of The Hinesburg Record.

The United Church’s parish hall echoed with the sounds of voices raised in unison, punctuated by a tambourine and clapping, as singers swayed in their chairs to the rhythm of both traditional and newer political resistance songs.

Members of Hinesburg Resists, led by folk singer and member Rik Palieri, were joined by six members from Central Vermont Solidarity Singers on June 24 to teach songs that the group will use in their march during the Fourth of July parade.

They intend to focus on celebrating immigrants in their march, Palieri said.

“Immigrants have become such a targeted group, and we want to make a statement against that,” Hinesburg Resists member Howard (“Howdy”) Russell said. “[We want to] highlight the many people who have come to this country and provided amazing contributions towards who we are.”

The event was the first collaboration between Hinesburg Resists, which began in March 2025 as a response to the re-election of President Trump, and Central Vermont Solidarity Singers, started in 2017 after Trump’s first-term inauguration.

The Solidarity Singers, based out of Montpelier, practice twice a month and have sung at all three No Kings rallies. They were especially galvanized by recent ICE activity across the country and seeing Minneapolis’ response, director Leah Greenberg said.

Palieri strummed a banjo, hand-lettered with the words: “This machine fosters hope and brings people together.” Songs of the night included versions of spirituals, such as “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around;” adaptations of familiar tunes, like “My Country, Tis of Thee;” and household songs such as “This Land is Your Land.”

Between the songs, Palieri, Greenberg, and Solidarity Singers leader Donia Prince shared reflections about the background and history of song as a protest mechanism.

“What’s really important here – and the reason that I did this – is because for a long time, in recent history, music [in protests] has dropped off,” Palieri said. “A lot of young people, they just wanted to chant. They did not want to sing.”

He said this shift recently started reversing, as young people began re-incorporating classic songs into their movements.

Russell said he believes the singing used in Minneapolis’ protests this winter captivated audiences around the country.

“Chanting is one thing, but singing is passionate,” Palieri said. “It’s powerful when you hear a bunch of people singing. Music has always been this tool to gather people.”

Hinesburg Resists’ plan to march in the parade has sparked some controversy, especially online, Russell said. Last year, there were statements made online about how the group’s involvement in the parade “ruined” the day for some.

“We’re here because we love America,” Palieri said. “There were times where things weren’t perfect, but at the same time, there was a freedom to say what you wanted to say without fear of reprisal. We’re at a different point right now, and it’s important that we make sure we have our voices heard.”

The night closed with the singing of “Hold On,” written by Vermonter Heidi Wilson and popularized during the recent protests in Minneapolis.

“Hold on, hold on,” the room sang. “My dear ones, here comes the dawn.”

Subscribe now

To: Champlain Valley School District School Board

Dear Members of the Board:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission writes to share concerns about the proposal to install a privately funded artificial turf athletic field at Champlain Valley Union High School. Our concerns center on a single, serious issue – the protection of Hinesburg’s groundwater and drinking water – and are grounded in the 2026 Hinesburg Town Plan (pages and maps referenced below).

We recognize that the CVSD board is not a municipal body and is not bound by the Town Plan in the way that the town’s own boards are. We offer the plan’s provisions not as a legal constraint on the board, but because the plan is the town’s adopted statement of community priorities, developed through an extensive public process, and because it speaks directly and specifically to the risks this proposal raises. We ask the board to weigh these adopted community priorities carefully as it deliberates.

Protecting groundwater is one of the Town’s highest adopted priorities.

The Town Plan elevates groundwater protection to the short list of townwide priority goals – items the plan identifies as addressing critical issues that require a timely response. Goal 5.G reads: “Protect the town’s groundwater resources from pollution and depletion (p. 7)” and is restated in Chapter 5: Natural Resources as “Protect the town’s groundwater resources from pollution sources and depletion (p. 75).” General Strategy 4 likewise commits the Town to “enhance and protect the surface and groundwater resources of the Town (p. 18).” A project that may introduce a recognized contamination pathway into our water supply runs counter to one of the plan’s foremost commitments.

The proposed site lies within a mapped Source Water Protection Area, which the plan identifies as among the most contamination-sensitive land in town.

The plan explains that Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs) are mapped around Hinesburg’s public water supplies precisely because they are the recharge areas “in which contamination is most likely to impact the well (p. 79; see map 8).” It warns that “aquifer recharge areas are particularly sensitive to contamination because they allow toxic substances from the surface to quickly, and in a relatively undiluted form, reach the aquifers, and thus our drinking water (p 79).” The plan’s direction on these areas is toward greater protection, not new risk, as described in Action 5.26 which commits the Town to examine state regulations “for potential zoning regulation amendments that address groundwater source protection areas (p. 76).”

The plan specifically names PFAS as a water-quality threat, in a town with an unresolved PFAS history.

The Town Plan identifies PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) among the pollutants threatening Hinesburg’s water, noting they “are now known to be present in many pesticides as well as innumerable consumer products (p. 78).” This is not a hypothetical concern for Hinesburg: the plan documents ongoing semi-annual PFAS monitoring at the closed town landfill, where wells and the drinking water of properties on Forest Edge, North Road, and Beecher Hill Road are tested for PFAS (pp. 79, 120). Introducing a new potential source of PFAS – a class of chemicals commonly associated with artificial turf systems – into a Source Water Protection Area, in a community already managing PFAS contamination, is difficult to reconcile with the plan.

The benefits of this proposal would be shared across five towns, but the groundwater risk falls entirely on one.

This is the Planning Commission’s central governance concern. The decision before the board will be made by representatives of the district’s five member towns – Charlotte, Hinesburg, Shelburne, St. George, and Williston – and the recreational benefits of a new field would be shared across all of them. The risk, however, is not shared. Champlain Valley Union High School sits in Hinesburg, and it is Hinesburg’s groundwater, Hinesburg’s wells, and Hinesburg’s residents who would bear the entire burden of any contamination – including the public-health consequences and the potentially catastrophic financial liability of remediation. We ask the board to give this asymmetry the weight it deserves; those who would carry the risk are a minority of the body making the decision.

If the CVSD board elects to proceed despite local concerns, all applicable permits must be obtained in a public and transparent process.

Should the CVSD board vote to enter a memorandum of understanding with the donor and move forward, the commission asks that the project complete every applicable local, state, and federal permitting process before any installation, including but not limited to:

• Act 250 land use review, to the extent the project meets applicable jurisdictional thresholds;

• DEC stormwater permitting, including any applicable construction, operational, and “three-acre site” requirements under the Vermont Clean Water Act (Act 64) and General Permit 3-9050; and Page 2 of 4 Hinesburg Planning Commission;

• Local zoning and Development Review Board approval under the town’s land use regulations.

We note that the Town Plan is expressly designated as “a standard for review under local, regional and state regulatory proceedings (including Act 250 and Section 248 reviews) (p. 10).” The plan’s groundwater and source-water protection provisions are therefore directly relevant to any Act 250 proceeding, and we would expect them to be addressed in that review.

A note on public process.

While the school district board is not a municipal body, transparency and meaningful public engagement remain core community values in Hinesburg. The Town Plan’s vision is explicit that the Town’s work “will be guided by community engagement, input, investment and support (p. 8),” and the Town consistently makes consequential facility decisions through open, public processes.

The proposed gift of an athletic turf field to the school may have different public process requirements than a conventional school district project. However, in light of the community involvement that has been demonstrated thus far, the Planning Commission strongly encourages and expects the board to establish a project-based public engagement plan if the proposal is accepted and the project moves forward into preliminary designs and public hearings.

As part of a transparent process, we request that the school board publicly acknowledge and respond to each substantive question and concern submitted by the public, including but not limited to:

• requests for independent testing of the field material and infill before the project moves forward;

• an accurate budget estimate for the net revenue, annual maintenance costs, and costs related to the turf field that accounts for replacement, material removal costs, and inflation, to be presented to CVSD residents;

• a report on the tax implications across the school district if the revenue generated falls short of expectations and/or if remediation of ground water is necessary;

• a risk assessment report that includes consideration of liabilities from litigation; and

• making the hydrogeology and toxicology reports public at least seven days before a vote on an MOU, and pausing the vote if the report is not available in time. (Editor’s note: Report was made public five days in advance of the board’s planned discussion and potential vote.)

Conclusion

The Planning Commission does not oppose a quality athletic field for students and we share the goal of excellent recreational space. But the Town Plan makes groundwater protection a priority goal and identifies Source Water Protection Areas and PFAS as precisely the risks at issue here. For these reasons, we urge the board to prefer a natural-turf solution, and [if] it nonetheless considers moving forward – to ensure that the proposal undergoes full local, state, and Act 250 permitting, with the Town Plan’s water-protection provisions given their due weight.

We hope this information and the related concerns provide helpful information to the board as it continues to consider its alternatives for the CVU campus. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the board in connection with the Planning Commission’s charge of managing long-term community planning. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Town of Hinesburg Planning Commission

cc: Hinesburg Selectboard; Hinesburg Conservation Commission, CVSD Superintendent Adam Bunting

By Natacha Liuzzi
Responsible Growth Hinesburg

Responsible Growth Hinesburg is holding its 8th Annual Tiny Art Auction, starting on July 4. Bidding for the auction, which ends on July 11, will be done online here.

Each original piece of art in the auction measures just four inches by four inches. This year’s artists include Mary Azarian, Ashley Wolff, Mary Hill, Gregry Maguire, Andy Newman, Liza Woodruff, Marguerite Jarvis and many others.

This year will also include children’s art with a “buy now” option on the Fourth of July during the parade. This year's proceeds will be split between the Hinesburg Food Shelf and NOFA (Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont).

By James Gelber
Hinesburg Resident

I am writing to express my strong support for Molly Gray for Lt. Governor. I have known Molly for about two years. I met her when she was the executive director of the Vermont Afghan Alliance, a Vermont nonprofit dedicated to helping Afghan refugees in Vermont. I worked in Afghanistan years ago, was very impressed with many aspects of Afghan culture and was distressed and infuriated with our country’s abandonment of the country and particularly all the Afghans who risked their lives to assist us there. I joined the Alliance board in 2025 and am now the president of the board. (Let me say now that this letter is my opinion and not a statement for the Alliance.)

I was and remain very impressed with Molly’s leadership. She is hardworking, organized and knowledgeable. Equally, she is also incredibly empathetic and inspirational. Not many people combine both sides of leadership to that extent. As for organizational expertise: in the span of a few years Molly managed to grow the Alliance from a small driving education program into a statewide organization that has helped hundreds of new Vermonters access driver’s licenses, jobs, housing, immigration legal services and other essential social services.

As the Alliance’s director, Molly employed Afghans, building community and an office that was culturally and linguistically informed. Molly created an atmosphere of support and compassion, knowing the challenges of a new culture and that so many remain separated from family still in Afghanistan. Molly also cared deeply about protecting, and fighting for, the rights of those who risked everything for our government.

When President Trump tried to defund the Alliance, Molly raised the funds to keep it going. When ICE wrongfully detained an Afghan man, Molly rallied immigration attorneys and prevented his deportation. When Vermont ended SNAP (food assistance) for some Afghans, Molly worked with the legislature, attorneys and our Congressional delegation to get it reinstated and to raise funds for any shortfalls. She did this all while leading the organization, working with community partners, and caring day in and day out for every member of the Afghan community, ensuring they knew she had their back.

I know Molly will have the back of all Vermonters as Lt. Governor. I know she will use every tool at her disposal to help protect Vermonters from unlawful federal action, and she will fight every day for the needs of our communities. I’ve seen it firsthand.

Moreover, Molly’s intelligence, work ethic, acumen and empathetic heart are unparalleled and are exactly what we need in the years ahead.

I encourage all of you to vote for Molly Gray for Lt. Governor in the Democratic primary on Aug. 11, and to support her campaign in any other way available to you.

By Geoffrey Gevalt
Hinesburg Record staff reporter

CVSD got its answer on Thursday: The proposed artificial turf field at Champlain Valley Union High School in Hinesburg is unlikely to cause any contamination of Hinesburg’s primary source of water.

In its 91-page draft report released to The Record (and attached below), Waite Heindel Environmental Management said: “There is very little likelihood that the proposed artificial turf (AT) field at Field B at CVU high school will cause detectable levels of PFAS in Hinesburg Well 4, let alone levels that exceed the current state and federal drinking water standards for PFAS.” PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” which are present in plastics.

Its other conclusions:

• “If PFAS is detected in the future in Hinesburg Well 4, it would be unlikely to be able to ascribe its source as an AT field at CVU, given the low permeability of the underlying silt-clay soils, the upward gradient of groundwater from the bedrock aquifer, and the proposed improved stormwater management system.

• “Microplastics are likely to be released by wear-and-tear from an AT field at CVU. The proposed improved stormwater management system is likely to capture some MPs, but the current state of knowledge about MPs means that the degree of capture is not predictable at this time.

• “There are no drinking water standards for MPs, and we do not anticipate federal or state drinking water standards for MPs for one or more decades – so the regulatory impacts on Hinesburg Well 4 from MPs in general are unknown.”

CVSD Superintendent Adam Bunting, in releasing the report to The Record, said the district is making an effort to be “transparent” but declined to provide a specific comment since he had just received the report and wanted to spend time studying it.

Eli Lesser-Goldsmith of Charlotte is leading the group proposing the $6 million, privately-financed, artificial turf field, grandstand, lighting, concession building, bathroom and ADA access. He could not be reached for comment.

The Hinesburg Planning Commission, meanwhile, sent a letter to the CVSD board outlining its concerns with the proposed artificial turf field and noting that the project faces numerous required permits and public hearings should the board vote to accept it. (Letter below.)

Jennifer Decker, a member of the Commission who has recused herself from the discussion because of her opposition to the turf field, said she was looking through the report and would issue a statement later.

Craig Heindel, one of the principals of the Burlington environmental firm hired by the district, will be making a formal presentation of the study at the CVSD board meeting next Tuesday at 6 p.m. at the CVU library. Bunting said it was possible that the board could take a vote on Tuesday but there would be time set aside for public comment both before and after the presentation.

The study was begun on May 11 at the request of the CVSD board. The work included CVU site visits; interviews with CVU personnel familiar with the field in question (Field B, which is diagonally behind the oval track and has had a notorious drainage problem); review of studies of Hinesburg’s Water Source Protection report (also attached below); review of scientific literature related to artificial turf fields, PFAS and micro-plastics; interviews with personnel in environmental agencies in Vermont and New Hampshire; and interviews with neighbors of CVU with wells.

The study focused on Hinesburg’s primary water source, Well 4, which is located off Shelburne Falls Road and is approximately 4,000 feet from CVU. It was not clear why Well 6, located at the Haystack Crossing development and due to come online in early winter, was not part of the study. (FYI, Well 5 was taken offline several years ago after contaminants leached into the water from the old gasoline tanks in front of Lantman’s Market that have since been removed.)

However, Hinesburg Town Manager Todd Odit told The Record that Well 6 is not in the source protection area. “The greatest threat identified in the Well 6 source protection area plan is the contamination from Lantman’s.”

Subscribe now

Here are some of the technical findings summarized in the Waite Heindel report:

• Soils at the site are low-permeability silts derived from lake bottom sediments of Glacial Lake Vermont. Soil depths over bedrock at Field B are not precisely known; bedrock outcrops are seen a few hundred feet north and west of the field. However, if the thicknesses of the low-permeability silts under Field B are substantial, they could provide significant protection from potential contaminants from an artificial turf field at Field B.

• Data from nearby well logs and descriptions by CVU personnel indicate the likely presence of an upward gradient in the groundwater beneath Field B. This would impede contaminants from penetrating into the underlying bedrock aquifer, and provide substantial protection to nearby private water wells and to Hinesburg Well 4.

• Studies at various locations in the U.S. and Europe indicate that artificial turf fields could be sources of PFAS and microplastics in the environment, via stormwater discharges.

• Due to the ubiquitous nature of PFAS, their levels identified in artificial turf field materials and related stormwater discharges are generally similar to background levels that exist in the environment.

• Specifically related to the AT field proposed at CVU, our worst-case scenario calculations indicate that it is unlikely that PFAS from the artificial turf materials in the proposed field at CVU will cause the concentrations in Hinesburg Well 4 to increase to a detectable level, let alone reach the current Vermont and federal drinking water standards.

• Regarding microplastics, the current assessment of the rates, fate, transport – and importance – of potential releases of microplastics is limited. Microplastics levels released from artificial turf fields depend on variable factors, such as physical stress/wear placed on the field and environmental impact to the field.

• Specifically related to the artificial field proposed at CVU, the current stormwater management system is likely to capture some of the microplastics released from the artificial turf field, and the proposed stormwater collection and treatment system for the field will likely treat stormwater to a greater degree than the existing system. It would also likely require that the current stormwater management system (and its state permit) be updated.

• There are no drinking water standards for MPs, and we do not anticipate federal or state drinking water standards for MPs for one or more decades – so the regulatory impacts on Hinesburg Well 4 from microplastics in general are unknown.

In making its general conclusion that it would be unlikely the proposed field could contaminate Hinesburg’s water, the Burlington firm wrote this about a worst-case scenario:

“In order for PFOS [the most common PFAS compound] in Hinesburg Well 4 to exceed its drinking water standard, approximately four percent of the entire mass of PFOS in all of the grass blades would need to leach from the field and reach Hinesburg Well 4 in a single day – AND that this leaching would continue for approximately 26 more days. After this 27-day period, all of the PFOS would be leached out from the grass blades (1.4 mg/day of released PFOS, times 27 days of release, equals 37.7 mg of PFOS available from the proposed artificial field). From that time going forward, the PFOS concentration in Hinesburg Well 4 would decline back to its current non-detected level.”

The firm added that currently Hinesburg’s water has no detectable PFAS in the water.

Cvu Hydrology Study

7.86MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Planning Commission Letter

162KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Hinesburg Source Protection Plan Update September, 2025

27.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Six new homes in two separate buildings will soon be built by Habitat for Humanity on Mechanicsville Road. Read about options to purchase one of the homes, and about volunteer opportunities, in the full article by the Affordable Housing Committee.

Selectboard Pushes Back on Town Common

At their June 17 meeting, the selectboard and Assistant Town Manager Joy Grossman expressed concerns about the proposed playground, costs and maintenance responsibilities. The Town Common Committee sought approval from the selectboard to order the playground equipment. The selectboard requested a formal budget spreadsheet and physical maintenance plan to be presented before approving the plan. Read the full article, including other selectboard meeting items, here.

Forest Management in the Hinesburg Town Forest

The Economou Road parking area will be temporarily closed to parking, and the Enchanted Forest Trail will soon be temporarily closed, due to logging operations. Check out all the details in the full article by the Town Forest Committee.

CVU News

Letter to the Editor

Hinesburg resident Geri Knortz wrote to us regarding the proposed turf field. They believe estimates of income from proposed artificial turf field fail to consider the costs associated with putting on events. Read her letter here.

Obituary: David Claude Rondeau

David Claude Rondeau, beloved father, grandfather, brother, and friend, passed away on June 7, 2025, at the UVM Medical Center in Burlington. Read the full obituary here.

Obituary: Dennis Willmott

Accomplished blues guitarist Dennis Willmott was known far and wide for his skill, friendship and mentoring. The longtime Hinesburg resident died Sunday, June 14, surrounded by friends and family. Read the full obituary, and view a video of his “last gig” with friends, here.

If you support our advertisers, you are supporting The Record.

Word of the Week – Nonce

This interesting word was used in a Stephen King book I read recently, but I also found it in an 1864 short story by Scottish author, poet and Congregational minister George MacDonald. He is considered the founding father of modern fantasy writing and was a mentor to Lewis Carroll. Read all about nonce, MacDonald, and a warning about an alternative meaning for nonce here.

In case you missed it…

Recreation News and 4th of July Schedule

It’s just around the corner – the Fourth of July! Although there won’t be fireworks, there will be a parade and other activities. See details, and read other Recreation Dept. news here.

Hinesburg Record Editor Receives Award

Burlington City Arts announced Saturday, June 13, that Geoffrey Gevalt is this year’s recipient of the Herb Lockwood Prize for lifetime achievement in the arts. Read the full article here.

Upcoming

Tuesday, June 23

• Energy & Climate Action Committee Meeting, 7:30-9 p.m. Town Hall, lower-level conference room and via Zoom.

Wednesday, June 24

• Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30-8:30 p.m. Town Hall, lower-level conference room and via Zoom. Agenda and details here.

• The Power of Singing. Hinesburg Resists will be hosting “The Power of Singing” 6:30-7:30 p.m. at the United Church of Hinesburg’s Parish Hall. Local musician Rik Palieri will be joined by members of the Central Vermont Solidarity Singers. Details here.

• The Underwater Archaeology of the American Revolution on Lake Champlain, a Vermont Humanities program hosted by Carpenter-Carse Library. 7-8 p.m. Details here.

Thursday, June 25

• Shelburne Museum’s Summer Nights, 5-7:30 p.m. Admission is free. On select summer nights, the museum extends their hours so you can visit galleries, listen to live music, savor fantastic food truck bites, enjoy a picnic, and stroll through the gardens. Live music from The Tenderbellies. Details here.

By Claire MacDonald
Hinesburg Record Staff Reporter

The selectboard and representatives from the Town Common Committee discussed and debated decisions about the future of the newly constructed common – namely, about the planned playground structure and maintenance of the space – in the selectboard’s only meeting this month on June 17.

Town Common Committee Secretary Rachel Kring and committee member Maggie Gordon sought selectboard approval for beginning the installation of a playground at the common. They noted the substantial amount of time ordering the equipment takes – typically between 10-12 weeks, Kring said – and their desire to start this process by the fall, so that the structure would be usable before winter.

However, Chairperson Merrily Lovell, Assistant Town Manager Joy Grossman, and selectboard member Mike Loner were apprehensive about allowing the Town Common Committee to move forward with this process.

“I am concerned about the financial picture, the total cost of the pavilion, and maintenance,” Lovell said.

Lovell, Grossman, and Loner questioned how the playground – and the pavilion as a whole – are intended to be maintained, and what department or group this task would belong to.

“Could there be a weekly maintenance plan? What is going to happen to keep that area looking attractive?” Grossman asked.

Loner asked if there would be weekly checks on the playground structure to ensure its safety.

Kring noted that Hinesburg is unique in that it has a recreation department, but no parks and recreation department. Thus, it is uncertain what body is responsible for caretaking of the common.

She added that the Town Common Committee has discussed different iterations of what this could look like – whether the committee itself would take on a more managerial role of the space, whether there could be a volunteer-based maintenance service, or whether there could be the creation of a “friends of the common” committee, for example.

Loner and Grossman also raised concerns about the drainage of the site and its tendency to collect water.

“There is no getting around the fact that it is [built on] compacted clay,” Gordon said.

Kring said the Town Common Committee has a plan to add rain-garden plants, to help mitigate the poor drainage in the area.

The selectboard requested a formal budget spreadsheet and physical maintenance plan to be presented before approving the plan for the Town Common Committee to move forward with the playground installation. They determined an extra selectboard meeting will be held when this becomes available – most likely next week via Zoom.

The selectboard additionally reviewed and approved:

• the delinquent dog list;

• proposed personnel policy changes as of July 1: changing the term CTO (Combined Time Off) to PTO (Paid Time Off); this only affects non-union employees;

• a public hearing on July 1 (the next selectboard meeting date) regarding the water and wastewater budget; and

• a motion to have an executive session, closed to the public, for the evaluation of a public employee.

Grossman shared the Town Manager report:

• Bids for the Hollow Road Bridge were expected by Friday, June 19. The town hopes this bridge work will be done next summer.

• Town offices were closed on June 19 for Juneteenth Day and will be closed July 3 for the Fourth of July.

Town Manager Todd Odit and board member Paul Lamberson were not in attendance.

Subscribe now

By Cathy Ryan

I’m an avid Wordle player, so I’m always happy to learn a new five-letter word. This week’s Word of the Week is nonce. I read it in Stephen King’s Black House:

“And here we are, in the speaking circle,” Parkus says. His smiles have been put away for the nonce.

In its noun form, it means the present occasion. “For the nonce” is similar to “for the time being.”

In its adjective form, it describes something made or invented for just one certain occasion. For example, linguistic researchers will often make up a word – which is then called a “nonce word” – for testing children’s understanding of a language. They might hand an item to a child and say, “This is a wug. if you had three of them, you would have three…” and if the child answers “wugs,” they know the child applied a language rule to a new situation. They know the child didn’t simply memorize “wugs” from hearing it before, because they’ve never heard it before – it’s a nonce word.

Unfortunately, I can’t really recommend King’s Black House unless you are a die-hard Stephen King fan, and have read the first book in the series, The Talisman – in which case, go for it! The third and final book in the series is coming out this fall. There is quite a bit of graphic violence in Black House.

So, I searched my Kindle to see if nonce appears in any other books I have – one that I can more enthusiastically recommend. It does! It’s in The Shadows, a short story by George MacDonald (1824-1905).

George MacDonald’s writing is all in the public domain, and you can read his stories online or download ebook files at standardebooks.org. The story Shadows is in a collection of short fiction found here. “Nonce” appears in this paragraph:

When they came in sight of the mountain-lake, the king saw that it was crowded over its whole surface with a changeful intermingling of Shadows. They were all talking and listening alternately, in pairs, trios, and groups of every size. Here and there large companies were absorbed in attention to one elevated above the rest, not in a pulpit, or on a platform, but on the stilts of his own legs, elongated for the nonce. The aurora, right overhead, lighted up the lake and the sides of the mountains, by sending down from the zenith, nearly to the surface of the lake, great folded vapours, luminous with all the colours of a faint rainbow.

I actually haven’t read this book yet, or anything else by George MacDonald, but now I want to! George MacDonald was a Scottish author, poet and Congregational minister. He is considered the founding father of modern fantasy writing and was a mentor to Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland).

Similar to how A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh) described his own writing, MacDonald said, “I write, not for children, but for the child-like, whether they be of five, or fifty, or seventy-five.” MacDonald’s books The Princess and the Goblin and At the Back of the North Wind are popular books for children. But not all of his stories are for children. The above quoted paragraph is pretty complex. One of his more well-known novels, Lilith, concerns the nature of life, death, salvation, and divine punishment. Like C. S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia), some of MacDonald’s stories have a religious theme.

C. S. Lewis described how he picked up MacDonald’s Phantastes: A faerie Romance for Men and Women at a train station book stall, and “the book baptized my imagination.” Lewis would later call MacDonald his “master.”

Madeleine L'Engle (A Wrinkle in Time) considered MacDonald an important literary and spiritual mentor. She declared that he was “the grandfather of us all – all of us who struggle to come to terms with truth through fantasy.”

The video below gives an interesting description of MacDonald, his writing, and its impact on Lewis and other writers.

Caution: Another Definition of Nonce…

While googling the word nonce, I did discover that British English gives a much different definition of the word. We all know of some interesting differences between American and British English – chips meaning potato chips or corn chips in American English, but meaning french fries in British English. Pants meaning trousers in American English, but underwear in British English. Well, in British English, nonce is a slang word, often used as a terrible insult, because it means a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child – a pedophile. Oh dear. I do like learning new words that can be used as insults, but I think I’ll steer clear of this one…

You can read the previous Word of the Week (tittle) here.

By The Town Forest Committee

Forest management activities will begin again in the very near future at the Economou Road parking area of the Hinesburg Town Forest. The parking area will be closed to vehicle parking. Those who wish to access the HTF from the end of Economou Road in Huntington will need to park their vehicle at the cul-de-sac at the end of Economou Road or along the side of Economou Road. Please be considerate of the residents of Economou Road. Don’t block driveways. Park off the shoulder. Do not block access.

Access to the HTF from the end of Economou Road will remain open for hikers, bikers, and runners.

Be careful to avoid logging operations and logging vehicles. Only the Enchanted Forest Trail will be closed for logging. The Eagle’s Trail and all trails accessed from beyond the gate in the parking area will be open as usual.

NOTE: Alger’s Place Trail is still closed due to muddy conditions from this past winter’s logging operations. Please check Trailforks.com for updated trail condition reports.

Please anticipate timber harvest operations to last through the summer and plan accordingly for your visit to the HTF.

If you prefer to avoid the area, parking is available at the access points to the HTF at the ends of Hayden Hill Road East, Hayden Hill Road West, and along Lincoln Hill Road.

By Rocky Martin
Hinesburg Affordable Housing Committee

If you have driven recently on Mechanicsville Road near the so-called CVU four corners, you’ve undoubtedly seen the giant excavator and bulldozer sitting where a house once stood. (My two-year-old grandson loves this.) This is the site of a Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity (GMHFH) upcoming project; six new homes in two separate buildings.

The project has been in the works for almost two years with help from Hinesburg residents Rolf (Truex Cullins) and Rem Kielman (Wagner Hodgson) providing architectural and landscape design respectively, and Bryan Currier (O’Leary Burke) providing engineering services. The new GMHFH CEO is Brett Johnson, born and raised in Hinesburg, also a current Hinesburg resident.

Each townhome-style unit will feature three bedrooms with two baths. Once all permits are in place, construction is expected to begin next month in July. All six units will be under construction at the same time and are expected to be completed in 2027. These homes will be built by GMHFH and then sold by Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) through their Shared Equity Program with income limits and resale restrictions. Buyers will be required to qualify for both programs. Final sale price will be determined as soon as foundations are complete.

These six homes are not all spoken for yet, so apply soon if interested. Here’s a brief overview of how these programs work. Prospective buyers start by submitting an application with CHT. To be eligible you must 1) be able to qualify for a conventional mortgage, 2) be able to pay for closing costs and 3) meet income limits (for example – maximum of $79,800 for family of two, $89,800 for family of three). The Shared Equity Program refers to future sales of the property whereby the owner receives a share of the increased value; the rest stays with the property to allow it to be perpetually affordable. If eligible through the CHT program, then submit an application with GMHFH.

To qualify through their program, you must 1) demonstrate a need for affordable housing such as current expenses for housing over 30 percent of income, 2) have the ability to pay off a mortgage with above income limits, and 3) be willing to partner with Habitat by providing at least 200 hours of sweat equity labor on site or at a Habitat ReStore (friends and family members can volunteer for 100 of the hours) in the building of your home. For more information about qualifying for or purchasing a home, visit Green Mountain Habitat For Humanity’s website where you can fill out a Home Interest Form. Or call GMHFH at 802-872-8726. For more information about qualifying for CHT programs, email buyahome@getahome.org or call 802-861-7373. CHT has a handy checklist for both programs on their website.

This project couldn’t be done without the help of volunteers – lots and lots of them. No experience is needed to help on a Habitat build site. They provide all tools, equipment and hard hats; all you need to do is show a willingness to get dirty, work hard safely and smile. An experienced builder acts as project manager or team leader on the build site to direct volunteers. Volunteers will be needed on this build from the start of foundations all the way through to finish trim. Businesses or organizations can volunteer to come as a team. And experienced tradespeople or businesses are especially welcome to volunteer. For more information on volunteering see the GMHFH website.

Watch for future Front Porch Forum posts on the timing of construction start and volunteer opportunities.

Other Habitat possibilities will be upcoming with two homes as part of the Flying Tractor development just down the road as well as eight homes as part of the Windy Ridge development adjacent to NRG.

Our beloved David Claude Rondeau, father, grandfather, brother, and friend, passed away on June 7, 2025, at the UVM Medical Center in Burlington. We want to thank the staff at UVM for their outpouring dedication while David was in their care.

David was born June 28, 1947, in Burlington, Vermont.

David spent his youth working on his uncle’s farm, where he acquired many of his fix-it skills that followed him throughout his life. If it was broken, he could fix it. After graduating from Burlington High School in 1966, David joined the U.S. Navy and served during the Vietnam War as a Radar Electrical Technician on the U.S.S. Hornet and U.S.S. Enterprise. David went to California and worked on stereo repair for a time. After returning home he worked on his uncle’s farm once again while also studying to be an electrician. Soon after, he found the love of his life, Monica Bruce. On Dec. 22, 1979, they were joined in marriage. In 1981 they were blessed with a son, Joshua David Rondeau. They built their family home in Hinesburg. David worked at RSG Electric, and in his senior years Vermont Railway.

David was always one to be there when something needed to be fixed. He was very diligent, determined, and spoke with conviction. David was a handyman for many; his excellent work ethic was appreciated by all. He also enjoyed family time.

David was predeceased by his mother Simone Curtis, father Claude Rondeau, stepmother Patricia, and brother Lawrence Rondeau. He was also predeceased by extended family Debbie and Mark.

David is survived by his siblings, Sylvia Arnold, Ronald Rondeau, Helene Rondeau, Louise Curtis and Laurie Curtis; his extended family, Stephen, Brenda, Joey, and Scott; as well as his son Joshua Rondeau and daughter-in-law Beth of Georgia, Vermont; and David’s Ggrandson Wyatt Rondeau of Georgia whom he adored.

There was a graveside service on June 13, 2025, at Resurrection Park Cemetery in South Burlington.

Dennis Willmott, 80, an accomplished blues guitarist and a longtime Hinesburg resident, died Sunday, June 14, surrounded by friends and family.

He was born in Woodstock, NY to artistic parents, Cyril and Mary Garrity Willmott and grew up in Cambridge, MA. He was deeply inspired by Flamenco and blues music, and got to frequent and play in the local music venues around Cambridge with his close friend Shantu and younger brother, Robbie.

In 1968 he married Marian Howard and settled down in Vermont. He worked as a builder and then started a Design/Build Company with Michael Abate. He left the business to work as a designer for the architect Turner Brooks and later with the architectural firm, TruexCullins. He has tremendous gratitude for this opportunity and experience.

His life was enriched by his 58-year marriage to Marian and three amazing children, Milo, Leala and Brady, their spouses, Tyler Enfield, Kelly Willmott and Jada Barton and three grandchildren, Lucas, Anika and Indigo. He was fortunate to find land in Hinesburg with spectacular views in 1973 where he built a house and spent the rest of his years. Skiing (a special thank you to Cochran’s racing program), windsurfing and walking in the woods along with a number of cats, dogs and horses throughout the years added to the riches. He lived a life fueled by passion and humor.

Music was his love from the time he was young. In 1997 he established the blues band Left Eye Jump with his close friend, Dan Whalen. The band played in venues throughout the state and for many years played every Saturday afternoon at the Red Square in Burlington. He felt tremendous gratitude for the fantastic musicians he got to play with – particularly his band mates Jeff Salisbury, Kenny Bleckly, Tom Buckley, Bill Darrow, Joe Moore, Bill Mullins, Dwight Ritcher and Greg Izor along with many others, too numerous to name here. He also had the honor of playing with Big Joe Burrell.

He was passionate about keeping traditional blues alive and was active in the blues community, helping to revive the Vermont Blues Society and hosting many blues jams with his band, encouraging both seasoned and young players to perform. As one musician put it, “He lifts everyone up.”

Perhaps his biggest legacy is his natural love and connection to the people he interacted with, whether a waitress, a co-worker, a fan or a chance encounter. Nathaniel, who managed the sound at The Red Square for the band, expressed it well.

“You’ve always exuded kindness and radiated positivity, you bring out the best qualities in people and give them the confidence to be the best versions of themselves,” Marian wrote to The Record. “I think that’s a big part of what made Saturdays so special for all these years. We all got to share your light.”
There will be a celebration of life later in the summer.

One of Dennis’ last gigs with friends at his bedside (video courtesy of Marian Willmott):

Dennis co-founded the Vermont Blues Society with Marian, Charlie Frazier and Sandy Combs in 2018.

The group expressed its sadness on a Facebook post shortly after his passing:

• “Today the State of Vermont mourns the passing of a man who dedicated his life to the music he loved. Dennis was instrumental in helping and encouraging so many great Vermont musicians to pursue their passion and love for the Blues. Dennis worked to keep the Blues alive in Vermont for decades. He always encouraged younger players to step right up and join in one of the hundreds of Blues Jam Sessions he organized.
  
  ”There is an irreplaceable hole left in the heart of the Vermont Blues scene and we will all miss him.”

More than 100 people responded with remembrances and condolences. Here are a few:

• “I had a chance to meet Dennis when he came out to the Enosburg Opera House jam a couple months back. It was freezing night, but he was still on fire on stage, a perfect example of that extra touch that makes a performer great. He had an awesome energy, he was just about dancing while he was playing. I wish I got to see more of his music.” (Richard Durazo) 

• “His blues jams were a gift to all who attended, and especially to the people he encouraged to get up and play. And a good soul, to boot. Rest in rhythm.” (Joe Tymecki)

• “Dennis was the driving force for me to once again appreciate and love the blues. Dennis kept honing his craft and improving with age. We have lost such a great man.”(Ken Grillo)

• “This is such a loss. Dennis was a one-of-a-kind musician and human being. Firm, but kind and a wicked sense of humor. No one picked a guitar and sang like this man. No one. He was the guitarist in my first band. We did a lot of “Ski for Heat“ shows. He was a real pleasure to work with. R.I.P. my friend.” (Bob Stannard)

• “Man, I am just crushed by this. Dennis was a pro on the truest sense of the word. He was always a true pleasure to work with and the man KNEW how to play. I loved working with him. Much love and peace to his family and friends. The world is a sadder place without him.” (Thomas Carvey)

• “So sad to hear. I met him in person (at a rest stop) last year when he sold me his 339. We spent about an hour trading war stories until his wife called and saved us from our own shaggy dog telling. RIP and condolences to all closer to him!” (Chris Stovall Brown)

• “Dennis was the most heartfelt musicians I have ever seen! Proud to call him a friend! I believe every time I saw him play I learned something! What a loss to the music scene!! Praying for his family! Peace and Love, Big Al.” (Alan Lemery)

• “So very sorry to hear this … One of a kind for sure. I will never forget his smile and the way he would light up when we walked into a gig. Made our wedding day extra special by singing Call on Me by Bobby Bland for ‘our song.’” (Jennifer Lynne)

• “Oh my heavens - one of the most beautiful souls I know has left us. Dennis - your star will shine more brightly than most - and we will always hold you and your music in our hearts. Love you.” (Melinda Moulton)

I have written to the CVU school board to request that an accurate budget estimate for revenue and costs related to the turf field project be presented to CVU district residents. I am concerned that the information presented to date has been very incomplete and presents an inaccurate picture for taxpayers.

It is disingenuous to state that the estimated annual revenue from field rental will fund the turf field replacement in 10 years, as well as to omit annual costs related to turf field installation and maintenance. The incomplete current financial presentation appeals to taxpayers as a “revenue generator” and “net neutral” tax impact. Prior to any vote to install an artificial turf field it is incumbent on all board members to require an accurate budget be presented to them and to the CVU town residents.

Regarding the estimated revenue for field rentals, there are several questions. Estimates from the sponsoring group range from $50,000 to $100,000 annually. How is that estimate determined, is it accurate, and….is that gross or net? Have the expenses related to hosting an event (especially a VPA event) been part of the calculations? As the former Athletics Director at Saint Michael’s College (1997-2015), I have significant experience hosting VPA events on campus. There are major expenses that must be budgeted for when hosting these events including: personnel costs related to ticket sales, parking, ticket-taking and gate security (bag search for alcohol and other substances), scoreboard operation, police coverage, EMS coverage, event management (including dealing with spectators under the influence), and custodial cleanup, as well as potential costs related to utilities for lights and turf maintenance. Have all of these items been included in the budget to attain the true projected revenue?

Next, the 10-year, end-of-life replacement costs need to be considered. The current presented figure of $500,000 replacement cost does not account for inflationary costs, nor does it include the hazardous waste removal/disposal of the old turf cost estimate of $350,000. Taking both into consideration, the replacement costs could well exceed $1M. Certainly, the projected 10-year net field rental revenue falls far short of funding the true replacement costs. Will taxpayers be expected to take on the burden of these costs? Will they also be responsible for remediation costs should they be necessary to clean up any contamination?

Finally, it is unclear that the presented budget analysis of annual turf maintenance includes all necessary and required aspects. The maintenance costs for artificial turf sports fields can approach $20,000 per year, and that cost is not clearly delineated in the current $15,000 budget presented.

• For the 10-year warranty to remain valid, typically installation companies minimally require semi-annual visits from individuals on their list of certified maintenance contractors. These costly but necessary visits address issues related to infill replacement, seam repair, Clegg Compaction Test, and sanitizing and general turf grooming. What is the cost of the annual maintenance contract with certified technicians and is it included in the current projected budget?

• Is there anticipated snow removal for the turf field? Is the cost of plowing included in the annual budget (equipment and labor)? Is there special equipment that is needed specific to snow removal on the turf field? Will plowing the field void or exclude any warranty aspects?

• Does the warranty contract have stipulations on the annual number of hours of use and/or number of permitted events? Will this limit the outside use/rental income?

• Is there a line-item cost allocation for annual water filtration expenses?

• Does the contract include an irrigation system, and what is the annual cost for that? While optional, irrigation is highly desirable in order to control heat and crumb rubber infill suppression.

• What is the annual increased utility budget for use of turf lights?

In summary, in order to produce an accurate budget presentation, net revenue, 10-year replacement costs, and complete annual use/maintenance costs must be included.

I appeal to the board to require an accurate and inclusive budget be presented to you and be available for public consumption and comment prior to any vote on the turf field.

My main concern, and that of many others, has been and continues to be the potential impact of PFAs to the health and well-being of our community members. That continues to be of grave concern.

As a former collegiate athletics director, I am well aware of the appeal of an artificial turf field and its perceived and real benefits. Certainly, when the turf field was installed at Saint Michael’s College during my tenure, I was “all in.” However, increased and on-going analysis, research and scrutiny of the PFA, microplastic, and other chemical compound contents of turf has caused substantial and legitimate concern. This has resulted in a pause in current installation projects in several states as they evaluate contaminants, and it may well prohibit installation in the future. I appeal to the board to increase the timeline for consideration of artificial turf at CVU. When we know more, we need to do better.

This decision warrants complete and thorough testing of the product that claims to be 100 percent PFA-free. This issue is not about building community. The critical issue, the health and safety of all 4,500-plus Hinesburg residents, is at stake, and is currently in the hands of the 12 sitting CVU school board members.

Subscribe now