Design firms present two Burke Fields plans and wide budget range; turf, drainage and PFAS concerns raised

Designers from Land Associates and the LA Group presented conceptual master plans for Burke Fields on Nov. 6, walking the ACES on Hudson Board through two broad alternatives, usage tradeoffs, maintenance implications and preliminary budgets.

What the firms proposed

The firms identified three categories for possible bond work: Farragut complex additions/renovations, athletic field improvements at Burke, and capital items flagged in the Building Condition Survey (BCS). They showed two conceptual options:

• Option A (topography‑sensitive, mixed model): preserves more of the existing grades, retains the baseball field in its current location with upgrades (dugouts, backstops), and places a primary varsity field higher on the hill (a ≈500‑seat grandstand and press box) with a narrower lower field for JV or practice; this plan emphasizes emergency access, limited new parking and phased work.

• Option B (regrade/flattened model): involves heavy grading and retaining walls to create a single level multipurpose complex with centralized parking and entry; it can accommodate overlapping multipurpose/soccer/baseball layouts and different phasing lines but requires more earthwork and stormwater management.

Usage, drainage and maintenance

Presenters cited heavy local field demand and weather cancellations: "71 contests just in the fall" was noted as a figure illustrating missed playability. They said synthetic turf can increase usable hours (a slide cited ~3,000 annual hours), let teams start earlier in spring and extend seasons, and reduce recurring mowing/striping costs — though turf raises different maintenance and replacement expenses and can be hotter in high temperatures.

The teams emphasized drainage and regulatory constraints: per New York State DEC guidance cited in the presentation, synthetic turf is treated as impervious for stormwater purposes and therefore will usually require detention and treatment systems before discharge to wetlands. Designers warned that stormwater infrastructure is a "big ticket" cost driver.

Health and material concerns

Several board members and residents asked about health risks and infill materials. Presenters said manufacturers are moving toward PFAS‑restricted products and noted an EPA statement referenced during the meeting that the presenter characterized as seeing "no link to cancer" for synthetic turf; they recommended later meetings with manufacturers and technical experts to compare infill options (virgin EPDM, encapsulated rubber, alternative infills) and to provide product cut sheets.

Budget and next steps

The architects gave a conceptual budget range: approximately $6,000,000 on the low end to about $13,000,000 at the high end, and said budgets will be refined once the board prioritizes scope (grandstands, press box, lighting, parking). Presenters recommended pairing turf with lighting for economic viability and to maximize evening use, but noted town‑and‑gown considerations: lighting and hours must be negotiated with neighbors.

Public response and board direction

Coaches and parents who spoke during public comment urged the board to pursue upgrades to reduce cancellations and increase safe playing options; several residents urged careful community engagement because of prior contentious turf debates. The design team promised FAQ materials, product cut sheets, schedule impacts and refined cost estimates at the next meeting; board members asked the team to return with comparative maintenance cost estimates (including worst‑case replacement at 10 years) and options for phasing the work.