Selectboard Weighs in on CVU Turf Field
Vote to send 'stern' letter to CVSD school board outlining town's concerns about the proposed donation of an artificial turf field. Townspeople flock to meeting to share views and urge town action.
Video of Hinesburg Selectboard meeting courtesy of MediaFactory.
By Geoffrey Gevalt
Hinesburg Record staff
In a meeting packed with concerned Hinesburg residents, the selectboard on May 6 voted unanimously to write to the Champlain Valley School District board to express the town’s concerns about potential contamination of the town’s water supply from a proposed artificial turf field at CVU.
Eli Lesser-Goldsmith is leading the group that is offering to build a $5.5 million artificial turf field – at no upfront cost to the district – with handicapped access, parking, concession stand and bathrooms at Field B behind the school. Lesser-Goldsmith has said repeatedly that the gift is restricted to only the option of an artificial field.
In explaining why she put discussion of the field on the selectboard agenda, board chair Merrily Lovell said the board has received letters from “a lot of people [who] are very upset about it.”
The major concern is runoff from the fields containing what are known as PFAS or compounds used in and resulting from the manufacture of artificial turf fields. These chemicals never break down and, combined with micro- and nano-plastics that become airborne as the field gets older, threaten the town’s water sources that are downhill from the school.
Numerous communities have had problems with runoff from turf fields, including Easton, Massachusetts, where their fields have required $11 million in remediation and filtration to clean up the town’s water supply.
“Actually the only email that we received that was not against the field,” Lovell continued, “was from Lesser-Goldsmith, who asked us not to make a decision until he could present his side of the picture.” Lesser-Goldsmith and the company he is partnering with, FieldTurf, have repeatedly said the field would comply with Vermont’s new law restricting PFAS in artificial turf fields.
One letter stood out to Lovell: “I was happy to receive one from Barb Galgon who emphasized that we think about community collaboration and shared values and that we strive not to have controversy but come to agreement on this.”
The town, however, has no say at this juncture. The proposal has been made to the Champlain Valley School District and its board will determine whether to accept the gift or not. Its next meeting is May 19 at 6 p.m. at CVU; a vote could come as early as June 16.
Various town officials have told The Record that should the district decide the project should move forward, it would require Act 250 review, hearings with the Agency for Natural Resources as well as approvals from the Hinesburg Development Review Board on several parts of the plan, including storm runoff.
Selectboard member Paul Lamberson was crystal clear in his opposition to the project. “I absolutely want to improve access to playing time and the quality of the fields,” he said. “It is wonderful that the need [for better fields and access] has been identified … but I want to protect Hinesburg’s water sources.
“As we know firsthand in Hinesburg, we are dealing with contamination of some wells neighboring our old landfill. … So as a selectboard member, as a community member, as a human being in 2026, I want to be really careful not to make any mistakes moving forward where five years, 10 years, 50 years [from now] there’s some district trying to clean up the mess we made because we didn’t spot the size of the risk, the severity of the risk.
“I’m not keen on this project. … And I really have taken offense to the strategy of the [donating] group: ‘We’ve got the solution that we’re going to impose on your community. Take it or leave it.’ That doesn’t work for me at all, and I’ll be pushing back on that ultimatum.”
For selectboard member Maggie Gordon, the issue is the town’s water, plain and simple. “Just from what we’ve learned from [the contamination of wells from the old landfill] just the thought of the costs if there were some kind of contamination – the costs of a filtration system, the cost of remediation would be just mind-boggling. It would be many times the amount of our annual budget. Really inconceivable. And who would bear those costs? The town? The school board? Either way, it’s the taxpayers.
“I just feel like there must be other options that haven’t been considered. It seems like there’s this bright, shiny, free thing that some people are really excited about, but when we look at the potential negative effects, the bright, shiny thing kind of loses its luster. So I hope and trust that the school board will take some time to consider all the ramifications.”
Selectman Mike Loner also was concerned.
“A lot of people who know me know sports is an important part of our family. My daughter played at CVU. I would love to see a facility; it’s long overdue and it would be amazing.
“But I just can’t get to a place where I feel comfortable putting down [artificial] turf within our water source area. The school needs a new facility, and they’ve known this for decades … I would love to see a solution that allows for protection of our water source. Whether that’s a natural grass field, whether that’s this fancy stormwater system they’re going to put in that has monitoring on it and somebody else takes responsibility for that, or whatever it might be, I just can’t get to a spot where I’m comfortable with it.”
Board member Dennis Place was not present.
The board then opened up discussion to members of the audience; Merrily asked that the comments be on ‘new’ issues and points given the extensive letters and comments the board has received outlining the issues.
Margaret McNurlan asked, simply, “who pays for the mistake” if one is made? Can there be a stipulation that someone other than the town and district pay for clean up?
On Zoom, Bill Scott urged for full participation between the district, town and donors. “I’m not all that impressed with how the school board is handling this. and if they’re going to tend to defer to the donor and the manufacturer rather than treat this as their own project. To my view, this is a school district project, and it should not be handed over to a donor as a turnkey process just because they’re putting up the money.”
Andrea Morgante noted that given the Act 250 and stormwater reviews, “I think it would be important for the selectboard to prepare itself with legal advice to participate in that process.” She also noted the potential traffic issues should the field be built and tournaments held at the field. “I’m not saying there should not be tournaments, but there’s a lot to consider.”
Barbara Forauer, who lives a mile away from CVU, expressed concern over airborne micro- and nano-plastics, noting that the Teflon plant contamination in Bennington found such plastics 20 miles away in the national forest. She also was concerned about the “light pollution” from the lights that would be installed.
Carol Jenkins pointed out that another concern – should the town’s water be contaminated – would be reduced property values. “We would be a dead town. Who would want to move to Hinesburg if we end up with contaminated water?”
Jennifer Decker, who has been voicing her opposition since the proposal first surfaced last fall, urged the town to hire its own hydrogeologist to determine the runoff path from CVU. Decker asked FieldTurf at its presentation last month whether it would provide a sample for independent testing. “Absolutely not,” was the answer. She urged the selectboard to request a sample.
Decker said that she has more than 365 signatures from Hinesburg residents opposing the turf field. And she noted that FieldTurf has been subject to several class-action lawsuits. One of those suits, which was settled in 2024 for more than $50 million, accused the company of false claims and defective products.
Meg Handler challenged the selectboard “to think a little more about exploring how much power you do have in this situation instead of just accepting that because CVU owns the property they can do whatever they want.
“I don’t really think that’s true, and I feel like we live in a time where government has become reluctant to stand up to money; and I’m concerned that we have a tendency to just bow to whomever is putting up the money. I think we need to challenge that and I think that this body controls the town and has more power than perhaps you’re willing to acknowledge right now.”
The board then voted to draft a letter outlining its concerns to the CVSD board.
The Hinesburg Conservation Commission has already sent a letter of opposition to the district board. Even the Charlotte Conservation Commission – of which Lesser-Goldsmith is a member – began discussing the issue at its last meeting. Lesser-Goldsmith appeared on Zoom as a ‘private citizen’ and was subjected to numerous questions. The commission will resume its debate later this month. And on May 19, the district board will resume its discussions of the proposal.