Letter from the Williamstown Community

January 28, 2020

Dear School Committee,

At your January 2nd, 2019, meeting, you indicated that there were questions that still needed to be answered in order to reach a decision on the athletic field improvement project.

We, too, feel that the process would benefit from a more deliberative process, one that involves broader public discussion and sharing of knowledge, along with more in-depth investigation of the scope of the athletic infrastructure needs.

Clearly, an improved athletic infrastructure is valued and warranted. Mount Greylock Regional School has a long history of a popular, high-performing athletic program. As a community, we value active lifestyles and outdoor sports participation. Our student athletes, physical education program, and community members would benefit from well-maintained, ADA and Title IX compliant fields for practice, play, and competition.

The generous financial gift from Williams College makes this possible.

We recommend, though, that prior to making a decision about whether an artificial turf field or an organically managed grass field is the best choice for Mount Greylock, we need to take a wider look at the needs and priorities of the athletic program and resulting financial demands on the Williams College gift and taxpayers of our future choices. Our decision making process also needs to take into consideration other potential health and environmental impacts and community support.

While it is expected that some (possibly all) of the capital cost associated with the proposed improvements can be funded by a gift from Williams College and therefore not require a vote at Town Meetings, this gift should be considered as belonging to the community. This is particularly true, since future costs associated with on-going maintenance, upgrades and replacement of any capital expenditure will most likely be funded through taxes. Given the positive and negative impacts (health, environmental, and financial) of the various options, input from various stakeholder groups is advisable.

A community outreach program would enable the School Committee to inform the community of the considerable work done to date, present the analysis of athletic needs and financial implications, explore alternative approaches, gauge community interest and concerns, and solicit questions and input.

To begin this process, we have consulted with a number of community members in an attempt to assess where further study, investigation, or discussion may be warranted. We list here a number of questions that we’ve heard, some of which you may already know the answer to. We’ve grouped the questions into several categories: needs assessment, financial planning, comparison of relative benefits and drawbacks of artificial turf/organically managed grass, and project risk assessment.

A. Needs assessment:

1. It is clear that many of the fields at Mount Greylock are in disrepair and require significant upgrading, regardless of the decision to install a new field. What improvements are necessary to bring these fields up to appropriate standards for student athletes?

2. At a recent board meeting, it was suggested that a new water source or well is required to adequately irrigate the existing playing fields. Is it feasible to construct a well? How much will a well cost? Would improved rainwater catchment be an option?

3. Will the long term needs of the athletics program change in the future? Will football be added back to the roster? Will other sports be dropped or added? Will school population changes affect the sports offerings?

4. Which sports need ‘home’ facilities? (Lacrosse, Soccer, Track and Field, Cross-Country running, etc.) Is it feasible to share existing or new facilities?

5. How do the time constraints of the ADA and Title IX deficiencies impact project scheduling options?

B. Financial Planning:

1. Does the long-term financial plan include all financial obligations associated with operating and maintaining the school, buildings and athletic infrastructure (20-25year time horizon)?

• What are the costs for required upgrades (Title IX, ADA)?

• What are the costs associated with bringing the existing playing fields up to standard and to maintain them in future years?

• What are proposed future expenditures (artificial / organically managed grass field, track, other?)

2. How will planned expenditures be financed? (gift, taxes, fundraising, other?)

3. Have the Towns’ Financial Committees reviewed the financial plans?

C. Alternatives: Artificial Turf/Organically Managed Grass Field

C.1. Artificial Turf Field:

1. What are the capital and operating costs of an artificial turf field over 20-25 year period?

2. Various studies have attempted to assess the human health risk associated with artificial turf fields due to toxic materials (heavy metals, PAHs, etc.), but to date theresults have been inconclusive. A recent article indicated that the 1 plastic grass in the fields may contain PFAS (a class of chemicals that can contaminate water resources at very low levels — and for which the state is developing regulations. Will parents be advised of these potential hazards and how to reduce risk? What equivalent options for physical activities will be available for those students whose families choose not to use the artificial turf field?

3. What design elements or operational practices will be put in place to reduce the spread of the infill material off site? Will students be given an opportunity to clean off their clothes or shower before they return to class or after a practice or game?

4. What will happen to the field at the end of its useful life in 8-12 years? Currently there is no recycling facility operating in the United States.

5. What are the proposed maintenance practices for the field? Snow plowing is known to increase the risk of damage to the field and to release infill materials to the environment. Will the field be plowed? If so, what safeguards will be put in place to protect the environment from infill and grass blades?

6. Has the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the engineering drawings? Have they, or will they require, any design or operating practice changes?

7. What are the expected playable hours for artificial turf field?

C.2. Organically Managed Grass field

1. What are the costs (capital and operating) associated with an organically managed grass field over 20-25 year period?

2. Have regional experts in organically managed fields shared their expertise and experience?

3. Could the construction of an organically managed grass field inform the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing grass fields?

4. Will there be sufficient irrigation available (if the well is constructed?)

5. What are the expected playable hours/days for organically managed grass fields?

D. Risks:

As with any significant project, a risk assessment and identification of key success

factors can be useful.

1. What risks might this project face? These may include: impact of changing regulations, the potential for unexpected expenditures, or taxpayers support of future costs.

2. What are the key success factors? What does ‘success’ for this project look like? What will make this project successful? These may include: community support, transparent process, hiring an Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), etc.

Below is a suggested high-level project process.

Suggested Project Process

Step 1:

● Develop a method to collect questions and concerns of the public.

● Develop a means to share these comments and other documents publicly.

● Develop a high level project plan.

● Gather information to address questions, assess athletic infrastructure needs, prepare options financial plan, compare options and identify risks.

Step 2: Presentation and discussion of findings with the community. Determine final course of action.

Step 3: Prepare design documents and engage OPM

Step 4: Bid Process

Step 5: Construction

While there are many ways that this project could be managed, our recommendation is to devote some time to addressing the questions/concerns of the community and developing a more consultative process. Taking the time for reflection now, to fully understand current and future needs of our student athletes and physical education program, to engage the community more deeply and to fully assess the financial, environmental and health impacts will lead to the best outcome in the long run. We trust that you will find this document useful as you continue your deliberations. Please contact us if you would like to discuss in more detail. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Best regards,

Daniel Aalberts

Nicole Anagnos

Ted Anagnos

Thomas Bartels

Laura Bentz

Kira Bingemann

Stephanie Boyd

Ralph Bradburd

Jerry Caprio

Ashley Weeks Cart

Lisa Conathan

Paula Consolini

Justin Crowe

Erica Dankmeyer

Mike Evans

Hugh Guilderson

Parvin Hajizadeh

Rebeccah Kamp

David Keiser-Clark

Erin Keiser-Clark

Arlene Kirsch

Amrita Lash

Bill Lenhart

Gretchen Long

Carrie Love

Peter Low

Andrea Malone

Chris Malone

Jeanne Marklin

Martha Marvin

Elizabeth McGowan

Catherine McKeen

Elayne Murphy

Katherine Myers

Michael Nixon

Anne O’Connor

Julie Pedroni

Wendy Penner

Libbie Pike

Molly Polk

Bernie Rhie

Julie Schutzman

Clark Semon

Karen Shepard

Bridget Spann

John Spelman

Adrian St. John

Gerardo Torres

Sloane Torres