Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticides Lawncare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sparta school board weighs cutting spring pesticide applications after parent health concerns
Summary
Parents and staff debated reducing the district's lawn-care pesticide schedule and alternatives after a parent cited childhood leukemia cases and staff described the current product, acreage treated and costs. No formal policy change was approved; staff said they would explore a three-application option and share more information.
Members of the Sparta Area School District board heard pleas from parents and a staff presentation about the district's lawn-care program and whether it should reduce or alter use of pesticides and herbicides on school grounds.
"Please stop spraying our playgrounds," parent Missy Brooks told the board, describing herself as "a concerned parent, a member of this community, and a cancer mom" and saying her child Emmett is one of six childhood leukemia cases in Sparta. "Six cases of leukemia alone should be enough to make us stop and say, what can we change and what risks can we reduce?" she said.
Board members and administrators discussed the district's current contract and possible next steps. A district presenter said the program treats roughly 90 acres districtwide, focusing on athletic fields and areas immediately around buildings and public entrances. The district currently pays about $23,000 annually and purchases four applications each year (May, June, July and August). The provider, Lawnkeepers, uses a granular product (marketed as TurfCo 5,000) applied at one "cart" per 1,000 square feet (946 milliliters per cart), of which staff said only about 10.3 milliliters is active product because the vendor dilutes the material as an abundance-of-caution practice for school districts.
The presenter said the annual program combines pre-emergent control for crabgrass and broadleaf weeds with fertilization, insect control (including ticks and fleas) and treatments for grubs and ground bees or wasps. The company indicated to staff that a three-application schedule (June, July and August, avoiding the school month) is a common approach among neighboring districts and could maintain turf quality while eliminating the May pre-emergent application, which would likely allow more dandelions and clover to appear in early season.
Parents and at least one board member asked about nonchemical alternatives and the safety window after spraying. A board member who reviewed the product's Safety Data Sheet told the group the SDS notes the product is water‑soluble and "may cause long term adverse effects in the environment," and raised concerns about nitrates contributing to eutrophication. The presenter said the vendor follows label and SDS guidance and that dilution practices for school accounts are more conservative than label minimums.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting. Administrators said they would provide additional information to the board, including options other districts use, whether organic or lower‑toxicity products are viable, and the expected effect on field appearance and maintenance if the district drops to three applications. The staff presentation and the public comments were framed as the start of a conversation rather than a final decision.
Board members urged administrators to return with cost comparisons, a list of possible product alternatives, any operational tradeoffs for athletic fields, and clear communication for parents about when and where applications would occur if the district changes frequency. Parents who requested alternatives emphasized educational uses of natural vegetation and the value of pollinator habitat on school grounds.
In closing, the board asked staff to gather more information and report back; no motion or vote to alter the contract was recorded during the discussion.
