Town Meeting members spent almost an hour of Wednesday night’s session probing Recreation Committee Vice Chair Christian Boutwell about the proposed $1.8 million turf improvements to Lincoln Field #2.
Last year, Town Meeting approved funding for new synthetic turf for Lincoln Field #1, despite members raising environmental and health concerns. Synthetic turf is known to contain PFAS, a group of toxic chemicals that have been linked to increased cholesterol, thyroid issues, and certain cancers. The black base for the turf, known as the crumb rubber infill, contains lead and other heavy metals. The turf is notoriously difficult to recycle, and when improperly disposed of, can leach PFAS chemicals into the groundwater, which eventually makes its way into drinking water. But the turf is preferred by sports enthusiasts because it is flat and even, and doesn’t get muddy or freeze, allowing for more playing time. Lexington already has a shortage of playing fields compared to the demand for sports and recreation.
This year, Town Meeting was asked to appropriate funds for phase two of a three-phase plan for Lincoln Field, and next year will vote on the final section of field. The appropriation was part of Article 10, a list of funding requests within the Community Preservation budget.
Precinct 3 member Jeanne Krieger opened the discussion with a statement.
“They are nasty,” she said. “The accepted exposure level [for PFAS chemicals] is much less than lead. To make things worse, there is no way to get rid of the turf at the end of its lifetime. There is an alternative to plastic turf, we can do better.”
Harry Forsdick of Precinct 7 decided to abstain after hearing Krieger’s and others remarks. He said it was the first time he ever abstained from a vote.
“I really like the idea of Lincoln Field and all that they do, but I think the concern is a warning that something is happening with all this artificial turf stuff,” he said.
Precinct 2 Member Ricky Pappo decided she had to vote against it.
“I totally appreciate the need for fields and for kids to play sports,” Pappo said. “I can’t in good conscience vote for this. It is exposing our children and even adults at a very young age. And I don’t think we know everything yet. We’ve been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry before,” she said.
Multiple members asked Boutwell for assurance that all parts of the turf can be properly disposed of or recycled.
Jessie Steigerwald from Precinct 8 asked: “If it couldn’t be recycled, would you feel safe if it stayed in our town?”
“I don’t think anyone on the committee is intending to send anything harmful anywhere else,” said Boutwell.
The current turf field was installed in 2015, and has an estimated lifespan of 10 years. Now, Boutwell says, it’s important to renovate and finish the improvements to maximize field space before the Lexington High School construction starts, sometime in 2026, which will take up space on fields around the school.
Some members asked about the possibility of replacing the turf – which sits atop a landfill — with a grass field.
“We would not pursue a grass field there,” said Boutwell. “Its position on top of landfill does not allow for depth of organic materials, and fields before turf were in decrepit condition and had landfill seeping to the surface.”
Boutwell said that if grass fields were ever installed, the Committee would likely have to reduce playing time by around 50 percent.
“I can’t overstate the value of turf fields,” said Precinct 9 member and former president of Lexington United Soccer Club, Thomas Shiple. “These fields take a pounding and still maintain a quality playing surface,” he said.
After the new turf for Lincoln Field #1 was approved last year, a working group including members of the Recreation Committee, Sustainable Lexington, the Board of Health and others, continued to meet over the summer to further develop the plans. Their recommendations will also be applied to Field #2.
The working group recommended that the field’s crumb rubber infill, typically made with old tires, be replaced with organic material and topped with a carpet turf surface.
“One of the key reasons for the organic infill is a health improvement” said Cindy Arens, who was a part of the working group. She said that the group specified that the components of the new artificial turf must be tested and requested that those findings be reported to the Town.
“The carpet surface itself, studies have found, is not bioavailable and not aware of any evidence of leaching,” said Boutwell, suggesting that the green blades themselves don’t pose a significant health risk because the chemicals they are made of don’t have a way to enter the body.
But that was not convincing enough for some, including Select Board member Mark Sandeen, who was the only board member to vote against the funding. Sandeen said he couldn’t support it partly because it was technically against the law to use CPA funds to install artificial turfs, though many towns do get around that. (The committee plans to use Community Preservation funds for most of the work, but general funds for the turf surface material).
“We’ve heard from other members, and I feel that we are in a plastic health crisis,” he said. “I feel that we should take the opportunity to avoid plastic that has no good way to be recycled.”
Janet Kern from Precinct 1 agreed.
“I don’t believe that there is ever going to be full re-use of the current field. Someone else’s groundwater will have PFAS in it, so I cannot continue to support that.”
Members came ready to voice their concerns, but they ultimately couldn’t break the majority in favor, who saw the field improvements as outweighing the cons. The funding passed by a vote of 116 to 41.