Selectboard Meeting Features Open Discussion about Turf Field
The Aug. 5 meeting was dominated by a discussion between the board, members of the public, and CVU Superintendent Adam Bunting about the proposed artificial turf field project.
By Claire MacDonald
Hinesburg Record Staff Reporter
The vast majority of the selectboard meeting on Aug. 5, 2026, focused on a discussion about the proposed artificial turf field project at Champlain Valley Union High School.
Superintendent Adam Bunting, CVSD Chief Operations Officer Gary Marckres and Hinesburg representative for the CVU school board Keith Roberts were in attendance.
Additionally, 11 members of the public were present, with more participating via Zoom. Per the selectboard’s ground rules established toward the beginning of the meeting, Bunting was given five minutes to read his prepared letter to the Hinesburg community, and additional time to answer questions. Individuals were allotted between two to three minutes to make statements or ask questions of Bunting.
Chairperson Merrily Lovell stressed the importance of the meeting being a discussion.
“[This] is on purpose, because we haven’t really had that opportunity,” she said. “In our country today, in our culture, we have far too much butting heads, people not listening to each other, people being stuck in their point of view and getting angry with each other…so my hope tonight is that we can really listen.”
In keeping with the nature of the meeting, Lovell added that there would be no decision made by the selectboard that night about taking any kind of action.
Bunting’s letter to the community (click here to read full copy) – where he noted that he was not speaking on behalf of the CVSD board, but rather from an individual perspective – emphasized his desire to prioritize students and forge a path forward towards a compromise for the entire community, with “greater opportunities for students, stronger environmental protections, and a project shaped and improved by public engagement.”
He added that he takes exception to characterizations that CVSD intentionally withheld information from the public. He hopes Responsible Growth Hinesburg will extend the board the same generosity of interpretation that has been granted to them, referencing the fact that a review of the petition presented to CVSD in opposition of the field – frequently described as containing nearly a thousand signatures – identified 122 duplicate names and 341 signatures from individuals identified as Hinesburg residents.
“I could interpret these discrepancies as an effort to misrepresent the level of support. I do not,” he said. “I believe the petitions were presented in good faith … I do not presume bad intent, and I hope others will extend that same presumption of good faith to the district, the board, and me.”
Bunting noted that this process has been hard.
“This is not what I envisioned when I think about the community conversations and what we want to build together,” he said.
Several members of the public asked questions of Bunting. Most concerned next steps, health and environmental implications of the project, and considerations of alternatives.
Bunting repeatedly noted the infancy of the project in his responses.
“I think one thing people are unaware of is how early we are in this process,” he said. “I think folks thought there were already donations raised for this field [and] that the second this was voted for, all of a sudden, a turf field would appear … that’s not the case.”
He added that, to his knowledge, no funds have been raised at this point for the project. No manufacturer has been selected. Once funds have been raised, a public bidding process would begin; however, he reiterated that this could be a very long process.
Margaret McNurlan addressed the selectboard in her question, asking if they had discussed what can be done to answer concerns raised about the field – specifically, as they relate to PFAS, microplastics and nanoplastics.
“As an individual and a selectboard member, this has been very heavy on my mind. But I’m reluctant to start spending town resources on it,” selectboard member Paul Lamberson said. “I think there’s a great process unfolding. I’m more confident in that process with Adam’s comments … what I’m hearing is that [the project] is in such infancy and incubation right now that I don’t have a proposal to respond to.”
Several comments were made about a lack of response from the school board when messaged.
Roberts reminded attendees that the school board must speak as a collective, and that the board acknowledges all input as received and then discusses that input at open school board meetings.
“I don’t know that anyone is going to get any specific substantive return to their submissions, because the school board isn’t going to do that collectively for each submitted communication,” he said.
Additionally, the board:
Thanked former Development Review Coordinator Mitchel Cypes for his decade of service;
approved the Vermont Electric Company’s ROW occupancy request; and,
approved three public questions to appear on the general election ballot in November, all relating to the town assessing a tax on sales, hotel rooms, meals, and alcoholic beverages, pursuant of 24 V.S.A § 138(b).