Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brighton Central School District presents three athletic-field options; soils cover and monitoring required
Summary
District architects presented three design paths for campus fields — raise the original turf design, reduce turf to a softball-only overlay, or restore grass with a two-foot cover — and said an interim site management plan with a two-foot cover and air monitoring is guiding the options; preliminary cost impacts range from about +$250,000 to +$1 million.
A Brighton Central School District staff member opened a public presentation explaining three options for rebuilding or regrading athletic fields on district property and asked attendees to review the options at three stations and submit feedback ahead of a board decision.
Brian Seslinsky, an architect with SEI Design Group, told attendees the team’s work is being guided by an interim site management plan (ISMP) developed with the health department and that soils on the site proved worse than originally anticipated. "Reduce the disturbance of existing soils," he said, adding that, where feasible, the district should leave historic soils in place rather than haul them off site.
Seslinsky described the technical measures the ISMP calls for. The plan would place a demarcation barrier — a colored film or similar marker — over existing soils and then add roughly a two-foot cover layer of soil, stone or composite material above it; the barrier would mark where future excavations must stop and trigger protocol with the health department. He also described a community air monitoring plan (CAMP) designed to detect dust and stop work if airborne contamination is detected, and said a third-party testing and supervision protocol would be in place during construction.
The team presented three options: Option one is the original full-turf design raised about two feet to accommodate the cover system; Seslinsky said that approach "achieves all the original goals" but increases cost. Option two reduces the turf overlay to a softball-only square that could serve PE and practice but would not meet certification requirements for a full-size secondary competition field; the baseball field would remain. Option three applies the cover system and returns primarily to grass surfaces, which would restore varsity baseball to campus but reduce the number of full-size competitive fields and active PE space.
On cost, Seslinsky gave preliminary, assumption-based figures and cautioned they could change if the ISMP shifts or soils must be removed: option one was described as adding roughly $1 million to the base contract; option two about a $250,000 add; option three could produce a modest deduct versus the original construction estimate. "All values are rough estimates based on current data and may change," he said.
The presenters emphasized that the ISMP guidance — the two-foot cover, demarcation barrier, air monitoring and third-party testing — applies regardless of which option is chosen. Attendees were directed to stations where team members were available to answer questions and encouraged to submit feedback via a QR code or online link; the staff member said the district will collect and present public comments and other data to the board, which will consider them when deciding next steps.
No formal vote or decision was made at the session; the presentation and the open feedback period were framed as input-gathering steps ahead of the board meeting scheduled for that evening.
