Supt. Adam Bunting Responds to Turf Field Concerns
On Monday, the CVSD superintendent issued the following statement to the community in response to The Record's Special Report and upcoming public meetings on the proposed artificial turf field at CVU.
(Editor’s note: This statement has been published as sent.)
By Adam Bunting
CVSD Superintendent
After an initial statement of enthusiasm for the proposed fields at CVU, I have remained relatively quiet on the issue. I continue to have appreciation for the community members who hope to better our schools through their proposal to fundraise and donate this project, and despite my quiet, I have stayed in touch with those who support the idea, those who are concerned about PFAS contamination in Hinesburg, and those who are troubled by the optics of adding a field during a time when schools are making reductions.
My goal during this period has been to listen carefully and to come to some conclusions about how we might best frame a decision-making process for our Board.
Given recent media attention and the events coming up this week, I felt I should share where I am as opposed to allowing speculation on the process or my opinion.
The CVSD Board of Directors is scheduled to discuss the field proposal during our regularly scheduled Board meeting on April 14. As is our practice, the Board will discuss the matter before taking any official action—no vote would occur until a later meeting. That vote would determine whether we would enter a memorandum of understanding that governs how the project would move forward if fundraising is successful.
We scheduled this discussion intentionally after the two community events taking place this week: one on April 8 at 6:00 p.m. at CVU, organized by the Community Field Project, and one on April 10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Carpenter Carse Library, organized by Responsible Growth Hinesburg. On April 8, the Community Field Project will share the rationale for the project and the research they have done regarding turf. On April 10, Responsible Growth Hinesburg will share its concerns.
While there has been disagreement on important points, I do believe there is some general consensus that improved playing fields for participants and spectators would benefit our community. Simply put, the possibility of getting more people active – in a comfortable and safe space, for longer stretches of the year in the Northeast – is compelling.
While the [district school] board ultimately will make a decision, the three questions I am grappling with before bringing a recommendation to the board are these:
1. Are turf fields safe?
My view is that this question must focus first and foremost on the safety of drinking water for Hinesburg residents. My reading of the research so far suggests that modern turf systems may be safer for field users than our current field conditions when all factors are considered over time. Many of the injuries I observed during my years teaching, coaching, and serving as principal at CVU seemed attributable to wet, uneven, or overbaked clay surfaces. I think here of knee injuries, shin splints, awkward falls, and the general wear and tear that comes from poor field conditions.
At the same time, if the answer to the water-safety question is no, then we cannot move forward with this project for two simple reasons: first, it would be wrong; second, it would place the manufacturer out of compliance with new state laws regarding PFAS, making the project illegal.
2. Are there future risks that could jeopardize community resources?
This is an area that I believe deserves consideration. As was noted in the Hinesburg Record, one resident raised the question of future liability – the kind of question a board should be asking. Even if a project appears compliant and safe based on today’s information, we have to consider what future costs or risks might emerge. Could there be unanticipated maintenance or replacement costs? Could changes in state law, environmental standards, or public health guidance create new financial obligations? Could future concerns about materials, runoff, disposal, or remediation place pressure on district resources or on the town more broadly? And, if concerns were to arise years from now, who would bear responsibility? This is where the memorandum of understanding helps layout some of the areas of responsibility.
3. If we determine the field is safe, will our community be able to move forward together?
While an improved community space would be a real benefit, what matters even more to me is our ability to remain cohesive as a community. In the years ahead, we will have many important issues to address together. What I do not yet have a full sense of is where the broader community stands and how people would respond if the project moves forward or if it does not. A decision of this kind cannot be made solely on whether a project is technically possible. It also must account for whether the process has built enough trust, transparency, and understanding for us to move ahead in a way that does not fracture relationships we will continue to rely on.
These are not reasons, in and of themselves, to reject the project. But they are reasons to proceed thoughtfully. Part of the Board’s responsibility is not simply to weigh the benefits in the present, but also to consider the long-term stewardship of community assets and public trust. If we move forward, we need confidence not only in the immediate case for the project, but also in our understanding of the risks we may be accepting on behalf of future students, taxpayers, and residents.
Finally, while I am not in charge of either event this week, I would ask that we engage in this dialogue as a model of civility for our kids and for our neighbors. We have an opportunity to show that differing perspectives can strengthen, rather than harm, a community.
Thank you.