While June 14 was a successful day for the town budget, little progress was made on the artificial turf field that same evening. While progress or a possible decision on the field was expected from the Guilford High School Building Committee (GHSBC), requests from the community pushed the committee to put a decision on hold.

GHSBC is currently considering four options after receiving bids for the project on June 7. Options include artificial turf with crumb rubber infill, artificial turf with coated crumb rubber infill, artificial turf with coated sand infill (“Enviro-fill”), and natural grass, according to GHSBC Communications Chair Mary Beeman.

Discussions are still ongoing for the project, but Beeman said they chose to postpone a decision because the town and the Board of Education (BOE) need to establish field renewal cycles and because of concerns about what they believe to be misinformation still circulating.

“The GHSBC will weigh the costs, safety factors, public comment, and input from the school administration, Parks & Recreation, and the Standing Field Committee,” she said.

At the meeting, BOE Chair Bill Bloss, speaking on his own behalf and not the BOE, said he requested the decision be postponed so that the BOE could consider long-term maintenance of the field and possible replacement costs down the road.

“It seems to me that this issue should be resolved before the GHSBC makes its decision, since it might impact the BOE,” he said. “It also appears to me appropriate that the BOE consider again its position on this project as a matter of spending priorities and other infrastructure needs. Although the decision about this field (like all decisions relating to the new school) belongs by town charter to the building committee, and no part of any funds to install would come from the BOE’s operating budget, we appreciate that the committee has given us the opportunity to offer our views and hope to do so in a timely manner.”

Bloss said he also said he believes “we should take into account and discuss the availability of alternative infills.”

While much of the public discussion of the potential field has centered on objections to its cost and its possible health risks, more residents have begun to come forward in support of the synthetic turf field, including Standing Fields Committee Chair Paul Schmidt.

“When comparing a natural turf and synthetic turf facilities from the view point of hours of play or number of plays, synthetic turf wins out by at least a factor of four to one,” he said. “In addition, one of the primary reasons for moving to a synthetic turf facility is the ability to use the facility immediately following a weather event and to take it several steps further both during a rain event and at the initial start of the spring season.”

Residents in opposition of artificial turf have suggested natural turf can be constructed to withstand more play time, but Schmidt said people have to consider not only game time, but practices and seasonal conditions.

“There are natural turf field construction techniques which allow for an increase in field use and play time,” he said. “These techniques come with a substantial increase in capital construction costs and include such elements as extensive sub-grade drainage and base system similar if not identical to the sub-grade and under-drain system used for a synthetic turf field and sand-based sod as the turf component. The outcome of this type of a design is a capital construction cost which approaches that of a synthetic turf facility with an annual maintenance cost doubles that of one of our current turf fields.”

John Ireland, who was involved with the addition of the first artificial turf field at the school, said he, too, is in favor of an artificial turf field.

“The field itself is a lot more playable than a grass field and it saves a lot of the other grass fields around town,” he said. “The turf fields are also getting better and better. When we put the last one in, I think the warranty was maybe 10 years and now this one is 15.”

Ireland said he is concerned by misinformation over the cost of the project. Currently the project cannot exceed a net cost of $950,000 and funds will come from residual bonded dollars from the new high school project.

“I think the idea that it is $950,000—it is not,” he said. “The idea that people say we didn’t budget for two turf fields—that is wrong. They budgeted for a second field; it was up to the building committee to decide the type of field it was going to be depending on how much money you have at the end of the year. The cost really is an additional $400,000 I think for the second turf field.”

Residents against the turf field said they were pleased to see the decision postponed. Guilford Residents Concerned About Turf (GRCAT) member Paul Lenois said he was glad more people are speaking up.

“Not only is this synthetic turf field unhealthy for our children, it is also a large, recurring budget expense,” he said. “These fields only last eight or nine years before needing to be replaced at $500,000 a piece. If we have two synthetic turf fields, that is $1,000,000 every eight to nine years. After two failed budget referendums, it’s clear that [neither] the town nor the BOE can afford a second synthetic turf field.”

GRACT Member Margot White said she felt the voice of the opposition was finally being heard.

“We were pleasantly surprised to hear that the turf field decision will be stalled,” she said. “We encourage the decision makers to reflect not only on the costs associated, but on the hundreds of comments, phone calls, and emails from parents, doctors, lawyers, and environmentalists that have been sent about the safety concerns of crumb rubber. I sincerely hope for our children’s sake, they wait for the results of the federal investigation regarding the toxicity and health concerns before installing another crumb rubber field.”

Meeting times and agendas for the GHSBC can be found on the town website www.ci.guilford.ct.us.