Why another field vote? FAQs and what to know before Oct. 22

 

As the Oct. 22 special proposition vote approaches, many residents have questions regarding the components of the proposed projects. There may be aspects of the propositions that have caused confusion. And, there has been some information circulated regarding the cost or science behind the projects that is less than accurate.

For example, the district in these propositions is not asking residents if they would want to renovate athletic fields with natural grass or artificial turf. The decision voters will make is if they would approve renovating the main field at the high and middle schools, and if they would approve renovating other fields either instead of, or in addition to, the main field. The only plan for renovating the main field, including installing LED lighting, resurfacing the track and fixing the surrounding fencing, is by approving Proposition Two, which calls for the installation of an artificial turf field to bring it into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Proposition Three can only pertain to other field spaces.

Each of the three propositions are meant to encourage safety, accessibility and wellness, with elements that aid physical and mental health.

Take a look at this link for details on what is in each proposition, and below are some questions and answers regarding the projects that may be helpful as you decide on the district’s proposals:

Why isn’t natural grass proposed to be used for all fields?

While pristine natural grass is an ideal playing surface, the only way to maintain it perfectly is by limiting its use. The district is proposing a multipurpose artificial turf surface for its main field in order to create a resource that can be used from morning to night every day by students and the community without fear of degradation.

The turf field would be used by physical education classes from the high and middle schools during the school day, by every outdoor field sport team for practices and games after school, and by community organizations during evening and weekend availability. This would be possible because turf does not get beaten down by overuse, it remains safe to use in rainy weather and the LED lighting would allow for expanded usable time at night. Soccer teams for the first time would be able to play on the field, as well, as the turf would be able to expand the playing surface larger than what a grass field would allow.

Because the field would have lines permanently painted and because of the drastically reduced need for upkeep, the cost of maintaining the field would also be significantly less than grass.

The district currently has to limit use of the main field to just competitions, forcing physical education classes and team practices to other spaces. Even then, the field is beaten down, uneven and patchy, with areas of dirt where grass used to be.

Don’t we want students to spend time on grass?

We do. Grass is natural. Of the roughly 500,000 square feet of athletic field space at the high and middle schools, roughly 415,000 would remain natural grass if Proposition Two is approved.

The district’s desire to keep grass playing surfaces and, in fact, improve them is why Proposition Three is on the ballot.

Isn’t grass safer than turf?

The perfect grass surfaces maintained by full teams of workers at professional and collegiate stadiums have been shown to be safer than artificial turf.

The imperfect grass fields seen at high schools across the country have not been shown to be safer.

What matters more than the composition of the field is the maintenance and density – or relative lack thereof – of the ground. A study from the Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research found injuries can be reduced in quantity and severity by up to 20% by competing on favorable field conditions, regardless of the surface.

The artificial turf system includes infrastructure under the surface includes cushioning and drainage. It provides a consistent playing surface that isn’t impacted by weather the night before or how dry and cold the air has become.

Isn’t grass cheaper to maintain than turf?

No. While the classic idea is that grass grows naturally so it must be a free resource, it in fact costs more than $140,000 a year for the district to maintain its six fields. This includes mowing, seeding, protecting against pests, lining for competitions and the care needed to keep grass growing when hundreds of high school students trample it each day.

The cost to maintain turf is lower – roughly $5,000 annually plus the cost of maintaining the grass fields – and more predictable, with a set schedule for when it should be cleaned up.

Isn’t turf toxic plastic, with PFAS and lead?

While turf is not a natural surface, there’s no evidence that it’s toxic.

In the verbiage of Proposition Two, the district promised to choose a turf product that contains no added PFAS – or forever chemicals – and multiple manufacturers have given assurances they can deliver a turf product that does not include lead or any PFAS under industry testing standards. The resulting amount of chemicals on the turf would likely be equal to that found on grass or many other surfaces, as the nearly invisible PFAS have become an unavoidable part interacting with most objects.

The toxicity of infill used in the artificial fields to simulate dirt – which are most often crushed recycled tires – have also been questioned. But, an eight-year Environmental Protection Agency study released in April concluded chemicals present in the crumb rubber infill used rarely leads to exposures with the air, water or participants on the field.

The district is also looking at including a virgin rubber infill, which is not made of recycled tires.

Didn’t voters already reject turf proposals?

Yes, which is why the district took numerous measures to ask voters what they didn’t like about the proposals and how they should change. After the last vote in May, the district circulated a survey in which roughly 400 responded with their reasons for voting. A listening session, in which residents were invited to come to the high school and discuss the projects with officials, was held in June. And in July the Board of Education hosted a facilities meeting in which experts in the areas for the environment and field construction discussed their recommendations to fixing the schools’ fields.

Many who previously voted against a turf field said they were concerned with the sustainability of turf and potentially dangerous materials used in turf, and the district listened. In Proposition Two, for the first time, a recyclable turf product that is free of added PFAS is proposed.

Are the fixes just for athletic teams?

Certainly not. Accessibility, safety and wellness are the driving reasons for Propositions Two and Three. The fields at the high and middle school are uneven, patchy and dense, making them not only unsafe for athletes but inaccessible to part of the population. There is also a drainage gutter in the main field, between the grass playing surface and the track, which adds to the lack of accessibility.

The fields are educational spaces used for physical education and should be accessible to all.

In addition, time spent active outdoors has been shown to improve wellness. By creating space field spaces, both of turf and of grass, the district would be increasing the availability of this valuable time decompressing in fresh air.

Why does the gym need renovation?

For the same reasons as the fields. It’s an educational space, yet the bleachers are out of ADA compliance.

The high school’s gym floor and bleachers are originals to the building’s 1963 opening. Like the grass field outside, the gym floor has been repaired often over six decades. By Athletic Director Tom Cassata’s count, there are 175 places where it is visible that nails were added to keep floorboards down.

The renovations would not only provide a new floor and bleachers that would be safe for all fans but the stage area on the south end of the court would be removed and replaced with more seating. That would create a safer situation for the players on the court who previously may collide with the stage’s knee wall.

Can voters support both Propositions Two and Three?

Yes. That would result in the district renovating the main field and two other grass playing surfaces, giving students the best mix of experiences.

Can voters pass Propositions Two or Three without approving Proposition One?

No. Under state regulations for supplying financial aid, if Proposition One fails, the district cannot move forward with either of the other two propositions.

Where can I learn more about voting?

To see the details of the vote, including how to register to vote and obtain an absentee, early mail or military ballot, visit the district’s voter information webpage.