Editor’s note: This was the statement Roberts gave at the Aug. 18 school board meeting.
By Keith Roberts
CVSD board member, Hinesburg representative
As everyone here knows, the school board resolved at its June 30 meeting to proceed with the Gift Agreement relative to the turf field project led by the Community Field Project group, subject to a few revisions which have now been made.
I regret that I did not speak at the June 30 meeting. I refrained principally for two reasons, one was that my position was clear from my prior statements and the second was that it had already been a long meeting and I simply didn’t want to make the meeting longer. That was a mistake and I realized that quickly.
Everyone loves everything about this proposed gift except for the installation of artificial turf. Opponents of the project insist that a grass field must be maintained – and improved if needed. I think that the school board addressed that issue both before the June 30 decision and after. The response falls principally into two categories: 1. Our soils and the conditions of our fields (even the ones that have been improved over that last several years) frequently result in their lack of playability. Turf solves that. 2. Improving our grass fields, even if it could be done (which I don’t think is possible without funds equivalent to NFL or FIFA levels), is simply not going to happen due to the uncertainties in education financing being considered in our State and the school district’s budgeting realities which have resulted in elimination of millions of dollars in expenses and dozens of positions over the past several years. Therefore, we needed to evaluate the pros and cons of an artificial turf field because the decision came down to either doing nothing or proceeding with the turf field gift.
I made my position pretty clear on this project at the April school board meeting which, in summary, is that I had heard the many issues pointed out by those in opposition to the project and I believe that the supporters countered many of them in their presentation or statements. For those questions I still had, we as a board tasked our administrators to examine most of them and they addressed those either in the May school board meeting or at that June 30 meeting. The one exception (and to me the most serious) was the potential for water pollution that was raised by opponents to the project. That is why I encouraged the district to hire an independent expert to review the matter. Other school board members agreed and the school district did hire such an expert. That expert, whose qualifications are laid out in their report, gave us an answer that there is “very little likelihood” of PFAS contamination and that “it would be unlikely” that, if PFAS were detected in the Hinesburg wells, it would be attributable to the field project given the soils under that field, the upward gradient of the groundwater and the proposed improvements to stormwater management. As our board chair noted in her July 15 statement, “the study did not answer every conceivable question or eliminate all uncertainty” but I believe that to expect that is unreasonable. No decision can answer every conceivable question or eliminate all uncertainty but it did provide independent evidence addressing, to me, my most significant concern.
Based on all of that, I was satisfied to proceed with the Gift Agreement.
Since that time, the school board has been accused by a small number of very vocal opponents of not listening to them throughout the process. So, here’s my response.
The Hinesburg Record has consistently covered this project and the process leading to where we are now. In an article dated June 19, 2026, it noted the concerns that opponents raised and listed them as follows:
Concern with PFAS in the turf and compliance with Vermont law;
The potential for water pollution;
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 and replacement 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;
a lack of district control and thus its inability to follow customary requirements involving construction of a project on public property; and
injuries from use of artificial turf
Let me address each one of them with my perspective and response.
Compliance with Vermont law. Laws are enacted by our government that reflect what our society thinks is acceptable. Vermont’s legislature passed a law recently banning certain PFAS related contents in numerous products, including artificial turf. Given the recency of that enactment, one can conclude that it is based on current science. They could have done less – but they didn’t. They could have gone further – but they didn’t. Rather, the law passed reflects what our society will accept as a tolerable risk. Any artificial turf installed at CVU must comply with that law – and it will. We will obtain a contractual promise from the selected vendor that it will comply with that law and an indemnity from damages if it doesn’t. Perhaps more importantly, that vendor will face the wrath of our Attorney General if their product does not comply with the law. Compliance with the law is what is required – and it will be. I found that answer to be credible.
The water pollution potential. The school district hired an independent expert in direct response to the issue raised by opponents of the project. I think this is pretty concrete evidence that they were heard. See the report’s conclusions which I have noted above. I found that answer to be credible.
The temperature issue. Opponents noted that artificial turf is often significantly hotter than grass and therefore dangerous to use on hot days. Supporters of the project noted that in Vermont this is a relatively minimal problem given the frequency of such high temperatures during the times of year when our students will be using the field. Our administrators agreed. There are also other fields available when needed. I found this answer to be credible.
The replacement cost. Opponents noted the cost of replacing turf field fill at the end of its useful life. Supporters of the project suggested that reduced maintenance costs during the life of the turf and income from sponsorships and field rental could raise funds needed for replacement, noting that other local high schools do this. Our administrators agreed and also noted that we will achieve savings by not having to rent other field space or busing students to other game sites when our fields are not available. I found that answer to be credible.
Additional traffic from more events. Some opponents expressed concerns about additional traffic I deemed this to be a minimal impact given what I believe are the handful of additional, non-CVU events likely to occur based on my own experience in the athletic communities in our region. Moreover, some supporters or other board members noted to me that many local businesses might welcome the opportunity to sell their products to those attending those events. This might also be addressed in permitting discussions that come later. I found this answer to be credible.
Liability issues. There is some risk to undertaking this project both from an environmental and health standpoint. On the environmental, that risk is the subject of the expert’s report noted above. Liability must be balanced with everything else as it can never be eliminated. Our administrators outlined our insurance coverages and we negotiated the Gift Agreement to ensure that any construction and installation agreements include indemnity provisions for breaches of promises to comply with the law. I found this answer to be credible.
Lack of communication with our community. We received public comments on this project for almost a year. Many opponents spoke at school board meetings starting last fall, even before we started formally discussing this project as a board. The school board received hundreds of emails from both supporters and opponents. I believe there was plenty of communication from the public. In terms of response, every one of those submissions was acknowledged as being received. What one needs to understand is that the school board does not engage in discussion over email and often in meetings because of constraints on speaking as the board as opposed to as individuals. We can only speak as individuals and that is what I am doing now. The school board speaks and acts collectively through our discussions and our actions at our meetings. As part of that process, the public provides the school board with their comments and then the board evaluates them as part of exercising our duty – and that’s what we did. With respect to the role of town committees or the Selectboard in the process, I take the same view – that is, we received and evaluated all of those comments. Everyone got an acknowledgement of their submission and then we discussed those concerns in our meetings.
Lack of district control. The opponents questioned how the school district could hand over control of this project to the Community Field Project group. We were never going to do that. We negotiated the Gift Agreement to make clear that the school district controls all aspects of the project with final say on “design, permit submittals, contract awards, construction scheduling, construction safety protocol development, issuance of change orders, and notices of substantial and final completion.” This answer is clearly credible.
Additionally, I note that the City of South Burlington is at the same moment applying for installation of an artificial turf field at its own Dorset Park for the same reasons we are considering one. Media reports from Channel 3 and Channel 5 indicate that a PFAS free product will be installed. We intend to inquire about doing the same. To that end, we negotiated the Gift Agreement to contain a clause that the project must comply with our bidding procedures. One reason for that was to allow us to evaluate multiple bids for the project. Field Turf, the vendor presented by the Community Field Project group as the supplier/installer of the field and one that has received a raft of criticism from opponents, is not certain to be the chosen vendor. We heard those criticisms and will keep them in mind in evaluating any bid from Field Turf or any other vendor.
Injuries from turf. Opponents pointed out the many injury dangers from turf fields. Our administrators pointed out that many injuries occur on our fields now due to their saturation, unevenness and general condition. A turf field provides a more consistent surface and avoids those issues, indicating that the risk of injury is neutral, if not less on the proposed turf. I found this answer to be credible.
An additional issue that I contemplated was equity to our students in being able to provide a usable field right next to CVU as opposed to relying on them (or their parents) to shuttle them around to other available turf fields in our community. Some students don’t have access to vehicles (or parents with vehicles) who can move around at a moment’s notice. Providing a field at our school improves that equity equation. Moreover, I considered the lessened environmental impacts of not having all of those students traveling around Chittenden County to get to those other fields. I found those considerations to be credible.
As I noted, some opponents have accused the school board of not listening or responding to their points. I think this is incorrect. I listened to everyone, I read every email that came in, and I watched both community meetings. I tried to recognize when an email was sent to me directly as opposed to the school board generally and, if it was sent to me individually, I believe I responded substantively. Ultimately, I think the opponents made the process better because they raised issues that we might not have thought of.
While we didn’t engage them in public discussion as that is not how we function at our meetings, we did read their concerns in submitted emails and we did listen to them during public comment periods for almost a year. If you really listen to our discussions as a board during our April, May and June meetings, you can hear those objections being addressed and as I described above. In particular, we commissioned an expert report to address a concern that was raised by them. To say that we did not listen is not only disingenuous, it is inflammatory.
When considering my own vote, I can certainly say that I considered everyone’s input in my deliberations. I just disagreed with the opponents’ claims after answers were presented. I think that the only answer satisfactory to opponents was to stop the project. I wasn’t willing to do that given the needs of our school for field improvements and in light of the answers described above.
Nothing in life, and especially in education, is simple or based on perfect answers. So, we balance things – that is what governance is. And that is what we were elected to do as school board members. In light of all of these issues, I voted in favor of proceeding with this project. We can disagree. That is a normal part of a democracy. But so is allowing elected officials to make informed decisions. That is what happened here.