Letter: CVSD Leader Urges Continued Discussion

Adam Bunting praises the civility of the conversation around the proposed artificial turf field and said there will be public discussion of runoff study before the board takes a vote on the gift.

(Editor’s note: This is a copy of the letter sent to parents, teachers and staff of the district. It was sent to The Record.)

By Adam Bunting
CVSD Superintendent

Dear CVSD Community,

A year ago, when we first heard about the possibility of a privately funded gift of a new field and facility at CVU, I would not have guessed the topic would generate as much conversation as it has. Thankfully, the discussion thus far has remained civil and focused on the challenge before us: how to balance opportunity with environmental safety.

Of the hundreds who have reached out to the board, most have acknowledged that people on both sides of this issue are trying to do right by their community. I’m glad our students get to see that model.

And there have been good points and good questions on all sides.

One of the questions I hear from those who support the turf proposal is this: “Given the hundreds of cars that travel across the CVU parking lots every day, do people really believe one turf field could pose a risk to the town wells?”

And one of the questions I hear from those who oppose the turf proposal is this: “Why would the district even entertain the possibility of a turf field when we could instead consider bleachers, lights, and a grass field?”

It’s important to remember that clean drinking water is something we all value, and I understand why this issue feels deeply personal – especially for those who live closest to the wells and waterways in question. For many in Hinesburg, this concern connects to past experiences with breached underground gas tanks. Given that history, it’s understandable how potential contaminants and connected health effects would raise real concern.

For those who are asking why CVSD would even consider this gift of turf – rather than pursuing a natural grass alternative – I would say the following:

First, playing on grass is wonderful. But even the most expensive, well-designed, and well-maintained grass fields do not provide the same durability as turf, particularly during Vermont’s wet and muddy seasons. Turf allows for multiple events in the same day, repeated use throughout the week, and a longer, more dependable season. In addition, modern turf can be safer than fields that are muddy, uneven, or otherwise inconsistent. There is a reason the VPA hosts late-season games on turf fields when the ground is frozen.

Second, given the current financial context, it is difficult to imagine asking voters to bond for a new athletic facility at a time when we have just reduced our budget by $9 million and cut positions while trying to preserve opportunities for students.

At its core, we are considering this proposal because of the possibility of creating more and safer opportunities for students and a meaningful gathering place for the broader community.

So how do we move forward?

To me, this is a question of reasonableness. Taking a “never turf” position simply because the word turf is involved does not feel reasonable. As a country, we make things safer through public pressure, regulation, and better manufacturing standards. During the leaded gasoline debate, for example, we did not ban gasoline altogether. We required a safer environmental tradeoff.

Vermont has taken meaningful legislative action to restrict PFAS in turf fields and other products. As we consider how to move forward, we will need to ensure that any manufacturer certifies compliance with that law. If they can, then I believe it is reasonable to continue considering turf. But that needs to be demonstrated through current science and current law, not through assumptions or what used to be true. But even though the field will have to comply with existing law, there is legitimate concern about potential contamination of Hinesburg’s principal drinking source.

That is why the district is pursuing a careful process and engaging an independent environmental review, which you can learn more about here. We anticipate their report will be complete before the end of the month, and the board is unlikely to take any action on the proposal until the findings are presented publicly – which we hope will occur during the June 30 board meeting.

I know people feel strongly about this issue. That is understandable. Fields, water, health, recreation, taxes, the environment, and student opportunity all matter. My hope is that we continue to approach the conversation with curiosity, humility, and respect for one another.

The people on both sides of this question mean well. Our responsibility is to keep asking good questions, seek reliable answers, and make the best decision we can for students, the community, and the future of CVSD.

Thank you for staying engaged.