To the Editor:
I have continuing concerns about the proposed Town bonding of more than $1.9 million for an additional artificial (per- and polyfluorinated alkyl acids, aka PFAS) field at Allen’s Meadow, which the residents are being asked to vote to approve in May.
At the April 10 Board of Selectmen meeting (when the BOS was going to vote on the bonding issue and the public was invited to attend and pose questions), I raised three concerns, none of which was addressed to my satisfaction.
- I took issue with the fact that the substantial funding (about 8.5% of the project, $180,000) offered in support by the private organization Wilton Athletic and Recreation Foundation (WARF) has not yet been escrowed or legally assured, which made a Town vote on bonding basically a pig in a poke because there is no assurance that WARF will raise that money or provide it. First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice’s explanation — that there is no reason to believe that WARF will not do so, and in any case the bonding wouldn’t occur until next spring — only confirmed that this bonding vote is premature. Since the bonding wouldn’t occur until later, why the rush to vote now, before the funding has been solidified? Awaiting assurance about the WARF funding would also permit time to further study the effects of another PFAS field — both environmentally and otherwise (as described by other residents).
- I addressed deficiencies of the environmental study commissioned by the Town to perform testing on various Town properties in and around the current PFAS fields, on areas not near PFAS fields, and on nearby waterways. This expert professional group drew no conclusions regarding the relationship between the testing and the waterways and did not provide insights regarding a proposed PFAS field at Allen’s Meadow. I was dumbfounded to learn at the April 10 meeting that the Town had intentionally requested only testing and not conclusions or analysis on these critical issues from this company, while at the same time disparaging the testing from another group that performed testing. “Conclusions” and “analysis” should have been a fundamental feature, not a rejected option.
- I pointed out that materials prepared for the April 10 meeting were transmitted to the public only within hours of the 7 p.m. meeting, and at least one of the documents had only been prepared the previous Friday, which effectively prevented considered review by the public. This suggests, at the least, an undue rush to prepare or a lack of consideration for residents charged with expressing opinions at the meeting. To this complaint, First Selectwoman Vanderslice denied that anything performed by the Town with respect to this project had been rushed, which in my opinion leaves only the other alternatives open. There is no excuse for preparing and delaying transmission of critical information to within hours of any such important meeting.
This vote on the bonding is premature and additional review should be performed.
Kelly L. Morron
I attended the same meeting, as well as prior meetings this month, last month and in the prior five years regarding the efforts to locate a new turf field. I will try to assist.
1. Calling the field the “PFAS” field as your lede is an odd nomenclature choice. The infill is organic husk. The surface is PFAS free according to testing results provided by the manufacturer. The town tested water directly from field drainage – using proper state and federal testing techniques – and had Non-Detects in for both fields. All of this was presented in the April 3 and 10 Board of Selectmen meetings, with results posted online.
2. Funding timing and assurances were addressed a few times. The First Selectwoman stated that WARF agreed to provide the funding to the town before construction would begin and the town started bonding in 2024, which would be memorialized in a memorandum of understanding. If WARF does not provide the funds, no bonding or construction occurs. The clear purpose of the town taking the lead in this project and putting this to a vote is to ensure the town indeed wants the project as a town asset, so that private funds can be raised with assurance that they will be spent on actually building the field, rather than risking town board rejections or delays or costly lawsuits, as had occurred in past efforts.
3. The environmental studies were not “deficient”, as the drawn conclusions were obvious. The two turf fields’ drainage systems results were “non-detect” for PFAS, meaning below testable thresholds using current testing standards and procedures. Other watershed and drainage areas tested upstream and downstream from those systems had some PFAS detects that were below even new proposed EPA drinking water guidelines. Those other positive test locations have hundreds or even thousands of potential drainage sources for those PFAS detects. Empirical data and logic clearly indicate that Wilton’s fields are not a leaching PFAS source, at least to the extent of the detectable range of current testing standards.
4. This process has been years in the making, as discussed in the Board of Selectmen’s April and prior meetings. The town has spent years trying to find the proper location for an additional turf field. Multiple locations have been proposed and studied over the years, including Middlebrook, Comstock, Guy Whitten, North Field, Allen’s Meadow Fields 5 and 6 and now Allen’s Meadow Field 1. The Board of Selectmen reviewed this history several times in their meetings and posted a history online. A conceptual design and budget have been proposed for this project. The concept and design of a turf field is not complicated or new – Wilton already has two fields and our neighboring towns have more. Wilton’s fields have been around for nearly 20 years. It is expected that Wilton will continue to use state of the art environmental and safety practices in this field as it has in its two existing fields, using organic infill, shock padding, and a PFAS-free surface backed by the manufacturer. If the bonding passes, the project will have to go to the construction design phase and Wilton’s standard land-use approval process, with public participation as regulations require, as have all other bonded construction projects. This too was explained in the meeting.
Opinions may vary on whether they want a turf field or to incur the cost of the bonding, which are questions for the voting process. But there is nothing missing or premature about this bonding proposal or the turf field it supports. If anything, both are years overdue for a vote.
Ms. Morron’s concerns are quite valid about the actual segregation of what WARF will actually bring to the table vs. the $2,000,000.00 taxpayer bonding. If there is nothing in WARF escrow ($500,000.00) going into this vote, it should be denied on that fact alone. It is still amazing that since 2018 we cannot see anything that shows how much WARF took in and how much it dispersed. Not even an excel spreadsheet!
And the beat goes on – PFAS and WARF funding. Another consideration: increased water runoff to Route 7 and nearby streams and properties – YMCA parking lot – from artificial turf and dome.