Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Turf Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brighton board outlines turf project timeline after voters approved field work; neighbors press for more testing and a possible revote
Summary
The district said a community vote approved the concept for high‑school synthetic turf and field reconfiguration (reported at 703–102, 87.3% yes), while residents raised concerns about PFAS testing, stormwater mitigation, field layout and proximity to homes and asked the board for more analysis or a new vote.
The Brighton Central School District on Dec. 2 reviewed the process that led to a voter‑approved capital project for new synthetic turf and reconfigured athletic fields at the high school and answered community questions about design, stormwater mitigation and materials testing.
Dr. McGowan said the district completed the State Environmental Quality Review and an attorney and State Education Department review before the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the capital project. "The vote then was held on the seventh, and the proposition was approved 703 to 102," Dr. McGowan said, adding the district reported 805 voters participated and that about 87.3% voted in favor.
Design and site constraints: presenters said the current side‑by‑side field layout preserves parking, shared infrastructure and two full competition‑sized fields. David Hallmark of SEI Design described the planned stormwater mitigation area (which he said is built atop existing culverts) as a technical solution to prevent site‑wide backing and spread of mud; he said the mitigation area should not have standing water except in torrential downpours and will be demarcated by a low wooden fence.
PFAS and testing: several residents asked the district to produce more independent testing of proposed materials. David Mazer, who works in environmental and public health policy, said manufacturers have told him they have not developed PFAS‑free turf and urged testing of the artificial grass blades (not only recycled‑rubber infill). "The manufacturers themselves say they don't make PFAS free products," Mazer said. Dr. McGowan responded that the district has tested the turf's three main components (infills, underlayment pad and turf) and that available testing "has not indicated any PFAS in any levels that exceed the limits defined for unintentional trace contamination." He said the district will continue testing and make results available.
Access and use: presenters said the new synthetic surface will make fields more usable in poor weather and that neighborhood access points would remain open except during construction. The district also said it is installing conduit for possible future lighting but that lighting is not part of the current project.
Community response and requests: neighborhood speakers, including Annie Leary and others from Hollyvale and Linwood, said the current schematic differs materially from what many voters recall, cited the added stormwater mitigation area and asked the board to explore alternative materials and layouts and to consider a new, turf‑specific vote now that more detailed designs exist.
Next steps: the board invited residents to a follow‑up forum and technical Q&A with design and construction representatives on the Wednesday after the meeting at 7 p.m. District presenters said bids were awarded to the lowest responsible bidder (Defiori Construction) and that changes at this point would be expensive and could cause legal complications.
