School Leaders Pressed To Reconsider Plan To Upgrade Athletic Facilities

Dozens of concerned students, parents, coaches, and Nantucket residents gathered at the Nantucket Intermediate School cafeteria on Thursday for a special meeting of the School Committee to discuss the Nantucket Public School system’s plan to renovate its athletic complexes.

No decisions were made on Thursday, but for the second time, Nantucket Public Schools (NPS) administrators faced pushback from community members opposed to their plan for an asphalt track and a PFAS-free natural-grass playing field to replace the current football field.

“I have had so many of my daughter’s friends come and tell me how ashamed they are of this school and how ashamed they are of their fields. And they’re embarrassed when opponents come and play, and that’s really what got me,” Finance Committee chair Jill Veith said. “It’s wrong. It’s wrong what’s happening here.”

One of the main concerns raised on Thursday was overuse, with speakers suggesting that a natural grass field simply can’t withstand the volume of play imposed by Nantucket’s numerous sports teams.

“If we’re serious about solving this, we have two choices: add more field space, or use more durable surfaces that can handle the demand,” parent Heather Stevens Woodbury said. “Replanting grass without adding capacity puts us right back where we started. Our fields are maxed out.”

Some speakers also raised concerns with the turf alternative for the field, pointing to the health impacts of the so-called “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, often found in artificial turf, which have been tied to cancer and other health problems.

“Wherever there is a safer alternative [to PFAS] we should push for it,” Nantucket PFAS Action Group co-founder and parent Ayesha Khan Barber said. “Even very low levels can pose significant health risks, including cancer. Any level—for PFOA, PFAS—any level can cause cancer.”

But those speakers were outnumbered. When School Committee chair Laura Gallgher Byrne asked everyone in attendance to indicate their preference, the overwhelming majority signalled their support for an artificial turf field and a synthetic track.

The School Committee previously gave its unanimous support to the plan for a natural-grass field and an asphalt track.

“I quite like this,” School Committee member Vince Murphy said at the time. “I appreciate change is difficult and people want to have multi-use surfaces, but looking at it all in context...I like this.”

But some Committee members reversed course on at least the track component during Thursday’s meeting.

“I think a synthetic track makes a lot of sense to me. I think a grass field makes a lot of sense to me,” School Committee member Tim Lepore said. “I understand concerns people have, but we’re not seeing—I’m not seeing, on the football team—a large number of injuries because they’re playing on grass.”

“We need a solution that’s going to be what’s best for the kids,” School Committee member Shantaw Bloise Murphy said. “We can all agree that the asphalt track is not it.”

Vince Murphy also requested consultation from an unbiased materials scientist to gain a third-party perspective on the issue.

“I think in some ways we’re arguing blind,” he said.

The issue will be discussed again at the School Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting on November 17th.

Concerns with turf field harkened back to the response to a 2021 proposal to install two artificial turf fields as part of a larger campus-wide facilities improvement project, which NPS backed down from after facing intense opposition from local groups concerned about the impacts of PFAS.

“Choose options that truly protect our children’s health, like well-maintained natural grass,” Board of Health member and nurse Merideth Lepore said. “Our kids could play on safe, living grass instead of plastic turf filled with industrial chemicals.”

Now, some community members and student athletes want them to go back to pursuing the turf option.

“The worst injury I’ve ever gotten on turf was a turf burn, and let me tell you, the grass burns…hurt so much worse,” girls soccer goalie Madden Meyers said. “I don’t want to be back here years from now arguing for better facilities for my own kids because years ago I didn’t fight hard enough.”

Advocates of turf have claimed that there are PFAS-free synthetic options the school could pursue - and that the project is going to contain PFAS anyway.

“Why are we holding the track hostage, and the field, to this when there are other parts of this envelope that have PFAS all over it?” parent Graham Veysey asked.

The current plan is now expected to cost around $20 million, up from the $15-18 million estimate floated at past meetings on the proposal. Switching to an asphalt track is expected to increase the cost to around $21.5 million, and moving to an asphalt track and a synthetic field would cost around $23 million.

If nothing is passed this year, the cost will likely rise.

Superintendent Elizabeth Hallett emphasized that, whatever materials NPS ultimately chooses for its fields and track, it is imperative that the town pass something at next spring’s Annual Town Meeting.

“We really need a plan that can be successful and pass at Town Meeting,” Hallett said. “We have a lot of important pieces in this plan that cannot be ignored.”

Any plan will have to gain the support of voters this spring before work can begin.

The plan also includes a wide variety of other renovations, including a new grandstand, press box, team room building, booster building, bathrooms, improved ADA compliance, and dark-sky-compliant lighting. None of these amenities has generated significant controversy.