DELMAR — Student-athletes and their parents dominated public comment on the debate as to whether or not Bethlehem Central should install its own artificial playing field.
The Bethlehem Central School District Board of Education finalized a list of projects on Wednesday, Aug. 11 under its 2021 Facilities Improvement Capital Project that will go before voters
this fall.
The Board has approved $40.7 million in infrastructure projects that it said will not create any tax increase as it will be funded through a combination of state aid and capital reserves. Board members have spent the previous six meetings starting in March developing the plan by weighing the merits of each proposed project.
District residents will be able to ask questions and discuss the plan at a community forum scheduled for Monday, Sept. 13. But that didn’t stop the many of those supporting the artificial field from voicing their support on Wednesday.
The Board embarked on a spirited discussion over the proposed turf field, which was only one of eight items discussed. Nonetheless, the public comment period — exacerbated by two executive sessions — pushed the meeting beyond to nearly four hours Wednesday night.
Shelly Goldman, a mother of a 10th grader, told board members how fields at Bethlehem Central caused the cancellation of lacrosse and football games last year because of poor conditions.
“We lose good students to [Christian Brothers Academy], LaSalle, Albany Academy — schools that pour money and resources into their athletics,” she said. She argued for the Board’s support as scholastic athletes are “known for getting really good grades.”
Field 2 is one of several fields on the high school campus, which includes two neighboring baseball fields and adjacent softball and soccer fields. The field has historical drainage issues. The proposed plan would include a stormwater facility system in addition to a new network of drainage lines underneath the playing field.
The synthetic structure of the field will resemble those used at other schools, incorporating a “crumb rubber” filled surface. According to the district’s demonstration, the loose crumb rubber would be contained with “minimal spillage.” The district also cited a 2009 state Department of Environmental Conservation report that said “crumb rubber may be used as an infill without significant impact on groundwater quality.”
Board member Jonathan Fishbein remained skeptical over promises that the field would be safe for the local environment, and the school children playing upon it.
“People have said that the [Environmental Protection Agency] says that it’s not a problem,” Fishbein said, “but this is the same E.P.A. that said the air at the World Trade Center after 9/11 was not a problem. And now we have people dying of it.”
Fishbein continued to assail promises over health with references to the once popular use of Teflon on cookware. Introduced in the 50s, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process have since been linked to developmental issues with children, along with liver disease and cancer.
“Now you can’t find a Teflon pan because all of us, especially Baby Boomers and [Generation X], have Teflon floating around in our body, in our blood,” he said. “Along with microplastics, I might add.”
Fishbein suggested that the field be a separate referendum item from the capital project. District residents voted down an artificial turf in 2013. The board member feared the district could lose all of the projects if voters rallied against the turf option again.