Letter: Status Update: Turf Field Discussions
Hinesburg resident makes further arguments against artificial turf after viewing May CVSD board meeting.
By Jennifer Decker
The May CVU school board meeting raised incomplete budgetary considerations on the artificial turf proposal. I am concerned that the board has not yet held necessary discussions on the impacts of plastics and PFAS on student health. While the board awaits two independent reports, the state decreased the allowable limits of “forever chemicals” in drinking water as of January 1. In response, the Health Department has just released new guidance on PFAS exposure. As Hinesburg faces the alarming prospect of synthetic fields in a Source Water Protection area, much of the regulatory process has yet to unfold.
Advocates for plastic turf suggest synthetics are more convenient. However, games could be scheduled later in the day, due to plastic surfaces 30 degrees warmer than the air. Higher surface temperatures present a choice between putting youth at risk or canceling games. Putting limited convenience ahead of the well-being of student athletes is unethical, as is asking Hinesburg to risk poor water quality on behalf of the district.
The board estimate of the current cost of maintaining grass fields plus the cost of transportation and field rentals is roughly $13,500 annually. The school board has a valid option of spending less than $135,000 over the next decade to maintain current field conditions. A $15,000/year estimate for artificial turf maintenance, depending on plastic degradation and infill replacement needs, brings ten-year plastics maintenance costs to $150,000. Artificial turf maintenance costs shared by the school district omitted the eight- to ten-year full replacement cost, which the company Field Turf estimated at $500,000 during their marketing presentation at the school. With average inflation rates, that figure could be closer to $850,000 in 2036.
Adding the cost of replacement to the 10-year cost of field maintenance, in one decade, taxpayers could be on the hook for $1 million, more than seven times the current rate of spending. These figures do not include disposal costs, estimated to be in the range of $350,000. Nor do the district estimates consider the cost of water filtration for taxpayers, for which one small Massachusetts city spent $11.5 million following PFAS contamination. Due to economies of scale, water filtration could be much more expensive for Hinesburg.
Where will the Community Field Project (CFP) be when these costs come due? The board, with input from the CFP, estimates the field will generate $50,000 of annual income, which, even if set aside for the purpose of funding a replacement, won’t cover that cost. Calling this project a “revenue generator” is misleading.
The terms of product indemnification, similar to insurance, must be shared openly. At present, terms do not appear to include full removal costs and grass field reconstruction. Public division about this project increases the risk of litigation, in the event wells are contaminated, or children test with elevated PFAS. The company in question has not been forthcoming in response to requests for a product sample, which could easily be kept unadulterated on its way to an independent testing lab. The company has tested for 40 PFAS compounds, of the total 15,000 formulations that currently exist.
With so many important issues to discuss, it is critical for leadership to avoid distractions. One such notion is that athletic equipment will contaminate the field with PFAS, an argument which sets up turf field companies to evade responsibility. The statement that pesticides and fertilizers used to treat grass fields are a reason to prefer a class of even more noxious chemicals does not add up. The idea that current levels of traffic at CVU are already polluting the water supply is not well-thought-out and indicates a lack of understanding of the severity of potential harm. In light of documented health risks, the suggestion of holding wellness classes on synthetic fields is tone-deaf greenwashing.
Investing in state of the art grass fields has a similar cost to plastic fields over 25 years. While the CFP has discussed grass fields, these were not transparent community or board discussions. Hinesburg community members met with a CFP member this week to share research and budget projections for grass, and to urge serious and inclusive public discussions of grass field alternatives.
I encourage the school board to commit to reducing toxins across campus, as neighbors in the Water Source Protection Area have been asked to do. The community is asking the board to pause, reject any Memorandum of Understanding with an unreliable industry, and consider publicly raising the necessary funds for better drainage, lighting, seating and accessibility through a democratic process. Let CVU teams keep winning, and support community building, on real grass fields.