School Board Inches to a Turf Field Decision
CVSD hires independent consultant to study potential runoff and potential threat to Hinesburg's water source; other questions remain. Next meeting June 30.
By Geoffrey Gevalt
Hinesburg Record staff
The Champlain Valley School District (CVSD) has hired an area independent consultant to study hydrogeological runoff patterns from CVU’s athletic Field B and to study the potential for contamination of Hinesburg’s water supply.
The contractor, whose identity was not revealed, is expected to report to the board by mid-June. Board chair Meghan Metzler said the board would not take action until it had received and discussed the report.
This news came as CVSD Superintendent Adam Bunting and District Chief Operating Officer Gary Marckres reported to the board answers to some of the questions the board members raised during discussion in May. Among the pair’s findings regarding:
Infill, or the material underneath the field’s surface, Bunting said the manufacturer had several options – some more environmentally friendly than others – and “the district would have final say on the infill material that is used.”
‘Cool play,’ or the fact that the field can be 30 degrees warmer than the air; Bunting said that other schools have rescheduled practices and games for cooler times in the day or evening.
Lights: Bunting said modern LCD lights are very different than 1970s halogen ‘flood’ lights and have a narrow footprint. At Burr & Burton, he said, the school had to install auxiliary lights in the parking lot next to the field because the lot was so dark.
Maintenance: Marckres said that the best estimate on the cost of maintaining the current fields, including lining, and the cost of rental of and transportation to other locations when the field was unusable cost about $13,500 annually.
Potential income: Marckres said the Community Field Project had provided a ‘pro-forma’ estimating annual income at $60,000 to $80,0000 a year but Marckres said a good conservative estimate would be $50,000.
As the project’s lead organizer Eli Lesser-Goldsmith put it, “Hopefully we’re showing the district that we’re taking an expense and turning it into a revenue generator.”
Turf field use: Bunting said that Athletic Director Renee Breault had summarized potential additional use of the field if it is artificial turf:
“One of the reasons that institutions and organizations go with turf is because of durability,” Bunting said. “You can have multiple events during a given day whether it’s raining or not and clearly it extends seasons. Renee Breault said during the fall the field could support six soccer teams, two field hockey teams and two football teams with use generally extending from 3 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and the potential to host evening games up to twice a week.
During the winter the field could be used for dry land training and winter track activities when conditions allow.
In the spring it could support four lacrosse teams, three ultimate teams and flag football.
During the school day, the field could provide additional outdoor space for wellness classes. … On weekends, in the summers, the field could be available for soccer clubs, lacrosse clubs, football, Hinesburg Recreation, community leagues, field hockey and other school or community rentals.
Warranties or guarantees: With some back and forth with board members, Marckres said the contractor and manufacturer would be fully responsible for the field and any adverse outcome and, further, FieldTurf had agreed to indemnify the district from responsibility.
Lesser-Goldsmith praised his partner – manufacturer FieldTurf – and said he was glad the company “came through with that indemnification … They clearly stand behind their product, and it meets the letter of the law.”
Later, board member Sarah Showalter-Feuillette of Williston commented “that I have a hard time hearing the onus of responsibility for this is on the manufacturer and that we’re not going to concern ourselves with the responsibility piece.”
There was some confusion regarding the exact role the state will have in ensuring that the field complies with new laws restricting PFAS – chemicals involved in plastics manufacture that never degrade. Bunting contended the Attorney General’s office would be the ones to test the materials being used and Marckres later said, “I don’t know who tests what.”
The Record spoke with the Attorney General Charity Clark, who emphasized that her office’s role is only “prosecutorial,” meaning if there is a problem and there are damages, they would be the ones leading legal action under consumer protection laws. Her office does not test the product under the new anti-PFAS law and relies on the manufacturer’s “certificate of compliance.” She did not know who would regulate the actual product.
The logical agency would be the Vermont Agency of Natural Recourses, but a spokesperson told The Record the agency has no role in testing or regulating products under Act 131 or Act 54 which control use of chemical compounds in consumer products. So it appears that no state agency actually tests materials in an artificial turf field to confirm that they meet the requirements of law and that the certificate of compliance issued by a manufacturer is accurate.
There also was a back-and-forth between board member Erika Lea of Shelburne and Lesser-Goldsmith regarding a grass field versus an artificial field.
“At the end of the day we don’t want to contaminate wells,” Lea said. “We need a healthy community. All of our citizens deserve to live and clean water should be a right. And we really want good fields for our kids. Yeah. So it just feels like if it could be grass, we’d all be happy and everybody would go home.”
Lesser-Goldsmith’s response: “We have looked at grass … We considered it many months ago. We looked at the positives and the negatives of both grass and turf and in the end, after talking to many, many stakeholders across the district, from the district, to teams and coaches and players, turf remains the more beneficial surface for this project.”
He has said numerous times that the proposed $5.5 million donation – including handicapped access, parking lot, concession stand, viewing stands – would be tied to the field being artificial turf.
Before the board took up the discussion, several local residents spoke, several in favor of the artificial turf and several opposed. (Unless noted, speakers live in Hinesburg.)
Jennifer Decker said that 572 Hinesburg residents have signed a petition opposing the artificial turf field. “As I’ve been door-knocking, I run into students who are opposed to the artificial turf, and they report feeling intimidated by the social environment about speaking up.”
Owen McCuin said his support boils down to these main factors: “health, both ecologically and for our students;” sustainability – annual revenue derived from rentals; the fact that’s a private donation and the potential economic growth for the town of Hinesburg.
Chris McCuin followed saying, “this turf field will bring people together on Friday nights for football games, soccer games, lacrosse games. … I appreciate it.”
Mary Beth Bowman, referring to CVSD staff who spoke earlier about the need for higher wages, said, “After listening to all these people here and hearing their situation, … does anyone else see there’s something wrong here? … People can’t even pay their bills, and we’re thinking about a $5.5 million turf field.”
John Penoyer said, “This community has twice rejected proposals for artificial turf. Some may imagine those rejections were driven by financial concerns but … the opposition to artificial turf on our playing fields has always been rooted in environmental concern.
“It’s difficult for me to imagine in this day and age – when we understand what happens to plastics as they off-gas and ultimately degrade, that we would consider covering living soil with [it] much less let our children play on [it].”
For more on this ongoing story, click here. Subscribe to stay up to date.