Tuesday’s (March 21) Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting garnered more public attention than usual, and it wasn’t because of the public hearing on the BOS budget that officials held earlier that evening.
It was the proposed new turf field with a seasonal bubble at Allen’s Meadow that was front and center on the agenda.
The Wilton Athletic and Recreation Foundation (WARF) has mobilized legions of supporters for the new turf, including many who have already pledged financial support. But now some residents are asking town officials to reconsider the idea and raising questions about what they perceive is a rush to the finish line — before environmental, financial and operational impacts are fully understood by residents.
Wilton’s right to use the state-owned land at Allen’s Meadow for a turf field was only secured in January. However, First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice is refuting the charge that the selectmen are now fast-tracking the project to beat an April 10 deadline for submitting projects for bonding referendum at the Annual Town Meeting on May 2. Vanderslice says quite the opposite: the Town has been pursuing the goal of a new turf field for the past 11 years.
Project Status
Vanderslice began Tuesday’s turf project discussion clarifying that point.
“In 2016, the Board of Selectmen decided to take the lead effort towards a third turf. The Board of Selectmen is the lead on this… the group that decides what is recommended to the Annual Town Meeting,” Vanderslice stated.
Environmental Affairs Director Mike Conklin then gave the selectmen a detailed update on environmental testing currently in progress.
The testing is largely in response to claims made in mid-February by the Norwalk River Watershed Association (NRWA) that Wilton’s artificial turf fields are responsible for PFAS (also known as “forever chemicals”) being found in surface water in the area. Before proceeding with the new turf field, the BOS is seeking more data to confirm or refute the NRWA claims.
Conklin explained that the Town had hired an independent, environmental consulting firm (Clinton, CT-based Thunderbird Environmental, LLC) to conduct surface water tests at ten locations in the watershed basin areas around Wilton’s two existing turf fields (Fujitani Field and Kristine Lilly Field) as well as further upstream.
Vanderslice pointed out that Fujitani Field is surrounded by the rubber-based running track, making it difficult to isolate the impact from the turf at that location.
Conklin emphasized the rigorous testing protocols used in collecting the test samples, as well as control samples.
Results are expected on March 31, in time for the BOS to review the results at its April 3 meeting. Vanderslice is aiming for that April 3 meeting for the BOS to decide whether to proceed with a bonding request for the project. (The actual deadline to submit bonding proposals to the Board of Finance is April 10.)
DPW Director and Town Engineer Frank Smeriglio also appeared at Tuesday’s meeting to update the selectmen on the engineering study authorized by the selectmen on March 6. The preliminary planning includes geotechnical tests and will help pinpoint a more precise location. Smeriglio said some rough costs and schematic drawings would also be obtained.
Results are not yet available. Smeriglio plans to hold interim progress meetings in an effort to provide the selectmen with as much information as possible before the April 3 BOS meeting. Actual design and construction bids are not part of the preliminary study.
WARF Mobilizes For Early Donor Pledges
Scott Lawrence, WARF’s vice president of development, gave a presentation at the March 21 meeting, reviewing the rationale for the new turf.
One chart provided by WARF shows Wilton’s two turf fields are outnumbered by neighboring towns, with far more children likely competing to use them:
Lawrence attended the meeting primarily to inform the BOS what financial support WARF would commit to providing. He reported that WARF would commit $500,000 toward the construction of the new turf — originally estimated to be in the range of $2 million — and that 15 donors had already pledged $200,000 toward that goal.
Exactly what the town would be asked to consider paying through bonding is still to be determined. On April 3, BOS members will weigh cost estimates from the engineering study, which Smeriglio said will almost undoubtedly come in higher than the original $2,000,000 placeholder to construct the foundation, field, and lights.
Vanderslice said once those estimates come in, the selectmen would need to decide whether to ask for additional WARF fundraising beyond the group’s promised $500,000 or consider asking the town to bond a higher amount.
The seasonal bubble is not part of that cost and is not expected to be included in the bonding proposals at the 2023 Annual Town Meeting.
In addition to the $500,000 toward the turf field construction, WARF expects to raise $40,000 per year from its corporate sponsorship program which it would offer to the Town as a funding source for future costs.
WARF also offered assurances the organization would “support and follow the Town’s lead on environmental diligence” and “continue to offer design and operational guidance wherever helpful” as well as “continue to fundraise and build community support leading up to the Annual Town Meeting in May and beyond.”
Opposing Views
WARF’s enthusiasm for the new turf field is not shared by all residents. Several residents attended the March 21 meeting to express concern about the turf project’s impact and to urge the selectmen to proceed more cautiously. Their comments are summarized below:
Jamie Van Acker said the project was a “bad to rush to action” in light of potential environmental impacts.
“It’s almost laughable that we’re having a conversation about removing two natural turf fields… in order to roll out two acres of plastic carpet that contains chemicals that the EPA has recently set a drinking water limit of four parts per trillion because they are so harmful,” Van Acker said. “What’s even more ludicrous is that this two-acre toxic carpet is being placed over an important aquifer for the region’s water supply.”
“Please don’t believe that this field is needed because we don’t have adequate fields in town,” Van Acker urged. “This field is to alleviate [parents’] need to drive to Danbury to practice during the winter. This is an attempt to have the Town of Wilton enter into an indoor field scheduling and maintenance business, for the convenience of a few. Before we agree to this, you should have a business plan that is vetted by the Board of Finance.”
“I think that it’s incredibly irresponsible to push this into a timeframe in order to get it to the Town Meeting without a viable plan, without any real idea of the [costs],” Van Acker said.
Theodora Pinou, a scientist and former Inland Wetlands commissioner who previously submitted a Letter to the Editor to GMW, expressed concerns about toxicity and what the Town’s liability might be.
“We need to really consider the toxicity of the turf,” Pinou said. “I want to encourage everyone to take it seriously. It’s been called an emerging science, but it was emerging a couple of years ago. It’s not emerging today. I think there’s really good evidence that this is a problem.”
“There are major lawsuits that are happening, and as a taxpayer in this town, I’d want to know, if this happens — and the lawsuits will come — who’s paying for them?” Pinou asked.
“I also think it’s important for us not to fall into semantics of terminology,” Pinou continued, explaining that PFAS include a wide array of chemicals, but as a category, all are harmful.
“We don’t want to approve today or tomorrow things that are going to change in a year or in two years, and that are going to leave us liable for, quite frankly, money our town can’t afford. And nor do I think that there should be the legacy we leave our children,” Pinou said.
She also urged the selectmen to got to Westport to view the warning signs posted by that town on its artificial turf fields.
“Where is some sort of risk assessment that compares the grass field with the artificial turf?” Pinou asked. “I’ve been listening to everybody, but I haven’t seen anybody talk about a risk assessment that looks at grass fields and artificial turf, both on the health advantages and the costs.”
Shawn Gregory, a Wilton High School junior who previously submitted a Letter to the Editor to GMW, said the benefits of the proposed new turf field “don’t outweigh the harms.”
“I urge the entire board and audience today to truly consider the environmental devastation this new artificial turf field will cause through runoff, its impact on public health, and its impact on the natural beauty of Allen’s. If not, my entire generation will be forced to deal with the consequences,” Gregory said.
Cathy Smith, a Wilton resident and board member of the Norwalk River Watershed Association who had also written a Letter to the Editor, called the turf project “a shame” and likened it to other environmental disasters caused by “blissful ignorance.”
She urged the selectmen to consider alternatives.
“The town should look at organic alternatives to artificial turf. The cost/benefit analysis is really there. The costs are lower than artificial turf. I really think it’s incumbent on the Town to look into that,” Smith said.
Tina Duncan, a resident who was active in opposing the Middlebrook turf proposal, says the cost of artificial turf is still an issue.
“My understanding was the town was not going to be paying for more turf,” Duncan said. “Taxpayers paid to replace both the turf at the football stadium and Kristine Lilly field. Now we’re looking at millions more dollars. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Duncan regrets that her son played on artificial turf in Wilton.
“I actually paid for turf for my son to play on years ago, and I will always regret that because it’s not a safe surface,” Duncan said. “I would hate to see the Town go down that road again.”
Sara Curtis urged the BOS to proceed more slowly.
“It is irresponsible to rush for judgment,” Curtis said. “There is the science out there… the concern is these toxic chemicals that do not break down… We need to focus on the fact that five years down the road, if Wilton becomes [like] Fairfield, who’s in the midst of lawsuits because of toxic chemicals, what’s the plan? We have to understand what we’re up against and look at it very carefully.”
Vanderslice has indicated that Town counsel will appear at the April 3 BOS meeting to discuss those types of issues.
Barbara Massey Bear also raised concerns about the timeline and the possibility a new turf could quickly become obsolete.
“There’s a lot of discussion and concern about the science. One thing we can be sure is that science doesn’t always become public knowledge on a convenient timeline. Neither does legislation,” she said.
“This is not a generational gift that we give ourselves. It is a short-term investment at the cost of millions of dollars,” Bear said.
One member of the public, Mandy Schmauch, spoke in support of the turf project. She thanked WARF for its efforts and said she is “hoping the alarmists just have patience” and “real facts” become known.
Following the meeting, at GMW‘s request, Vanderslice shared information from 92 emails she had received from residents expressing views on the proposed turf project. The majority (84%) were in support and 16% were opposed.
Rush to Bonding or Long Time Coming?
Vanderslice pointed residents to the long history of the efforts to make a third turf field a reality.
In that 11-year history, Vanderslice included the initiative for a turf field at Middlebrook dating back to 2012. That initiative — which would have been privately funded — was ultimately unsuccessful after several years of contentious disputes with residents over turf materials and lighting.
The effort resumed in 2016-2017, with a Parks and Recreation Commission subcommittee validating the need for two additional turf fields, but without creating a specific plan for one. Two locations — the North Field (adjacent to Kristine Lilly Field) and Allen’s Meadow — were identified as possibilities.
Vanderslice says an important shift occurred at that time. Previously, the Board of Selectmen “kept their distance” from a third turf project, allowing sports organizations to take the lead. Since 2017, the BOS has taken ownership of shepherding the project.
In post-pandemic 2021, the BOS took up the initiative again, with a feasibility study of the area behind Comstock Community Center for a domed turf facility. Vanderslice has said publicly (including at the March 21 meeting) that the study concluded the site was not feasible, for cost reasons.
[GMW reached out to Vanderslice for more details on the Comstock study, including what the cost estimates were, and other conclusions about the site feasibility. Vanderslice responded by email saying that the report from the 2021 Comstock study “hasn’t been finalized” and “we still have open questions.” She further clarified the Comstock study was for a domed, multi-sport structure including bathrooms and workout space. While not comparable to the seasonal bubble, Vanderslice says the analysis still ruled out Comstock as a more expensive location. “The site costs related to the ledge and slope informed us that the cost of just a turf field at that location would be substantially more than on a flat location,” Vanderslice wrote by email.]
In March 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission identified the third turf as a top priority and requested ARPA funds to pay for the planning and design costs. Instead of allocating the funds, in June 2022, the BOS agreed to a strategy to fund the turf through bonding at the 2023 Annual Town Meeting.
August 2022 represented a key turning point. When state officials informed Wilton of changes at the Community Garden, also located at Allen’s Meadow, Wilton renegotiated lease terms for the state-owned property which resulted in new allowable uses, including a turf field, seasonal bubble and lighting. The new lease was finalized in January 2023.
With that hurdle finally cleared, Vanderslice was not anticipating resident pushback.
“We’ve been talking about Allen’s Meadow as a potential location for a turf field since 2017,” Vanderslice said. “Concerns hadn’t been raised when we replaced Lilly [with turf] or when we replaced the track in 2021.”
“We’ve been talking about [the third turf] for years,” Vanderslice repeated. “We started talking seriously about it in June 2022, and the first concern we heard was the letter we received on February 14 from the Norwalk River Watershed Association.”
She went on to say that the Town wants to resolve any environmental concerns, but says the “rush” residents perceive is due to the recency of the concerns being raised.
“We appreciate the fact that people have raised these issues, so we can look into them,” Vanderslice said. “If it feels like a tight timeline with that [water] testing, it is because it is the first time it was ever raised [as a concern] by residents.”
Editor’s note: The story was updated to clarify that the potential bonding costs could be higher than originally stated.
This is a bad idea for environmental reasons alone, but when you factor in the uncertainty of future maintenance costs and the fact that we’re being told that in every other area of the budget this is a year for extreme austerity, opposing it seems like a no-brainer; we have other needs more urgent than a new athletic field.
Ghastly. Unsafe. Hideous.
UNECESSARY
Allen’s Meadow has a Pollinator Pathway, nature trails and Community gardens. Why ruin that environment with artificial turf and an ugly bubble?
Allen’s Meadow is such a lovely and beautiful place. Why would we ruin it with this eyesore?