2022-10-27-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 biggest user of the fields and that the schools are given first priority on field use. Ms. Walker also asked if the Recreation Department charges Lexington Schools for the use of the fields. Ms. Battite stated that the schools only pay for the use of lighting the fields and overtime for the Department of Public Works. Ms. Battite also mentioned that Recreation and community programs are also allowed to use school facilities at no cost outside of incurred overtime. Mr. Pressman then asked about which part of Town government has the final decision on whether lighting on fields will be permitted. Ms. Battite responded that will be brought forward by public process before appropriation and once funds are appropriated , requests will be approved through Town Meeting. Mr. Pressman asked for Mr. Sandeen to comment if the Select Board has a right independent of Town Meeting requests to decide whether or not fields should be lit. Mr. Sandeen stated that he would have to look into that question. Mr. Pressman then commented about the potential site for the new Lexington High School and the associated loss of fields. Ms. Battite stated that no determination for a laydown site had been made and that taking resources offline while there is high field demand would exacerbate the existing problem. Ms. O’Brien commented that Lincoln Field 1 is reaching the end of its life span, having been installed nearly 10 years ago, and also commented that currently the demand for field use exceeds Lexington’s supply and that synthetic turf satisfies a de mand for playability and longevity. Ms. O’Brien went on to say that currently Lexington cannot build more fields at Lincoln Park so it is building lights instead. Ms. O’Brien also stated that it was the desire of the Recreation Committee to keep costs down by combining these projects as opposed to requesting funding individually. Mr. Sandeen commented that he believes that the Committee should look at these projects holistically and that the Committee could potentially run out of money by funding projects that come in piecemeal. Mr. Sandeen also asked for a complete breakdown of the $2,475,000 request -- whether all of this amount was going directly into the cost of construction. Ms. Battite explained that there were a variety of other costs besides construction including conservation and permitting fees but the department would provide a more through breakdown of the associated costs. Mr. Sandeen also asked about the lifespan of a synthetic field and the effect of “stretching” the field’s lifespan. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that Lexington’s synthetic fields have 10-year warranties (8 years are included, and the Town purchases 2 additional years). Mr. Pinsonneault commented that 10 years, with the amount of use the fields incur, represent about the lifespan of one of these fields and that if turf is stretched too far it will start to breakdown and could compromise safety. Mr. Sandeen then brought up concerns about synthetic fields being constructed using PFAS and other “forever chemicals” that have been shown to have adverse health effects and what the process of disposing these surfaces is when they have reached the end of their life cycle. Mr. Pinsonneault stated that disposal is included in the project and that all disused turf must be safely disposed of. Mr. Pinsonneault also stated that the fields are regularly tested for health and safety. Mr. Pinsonneault then stated that the replacement of synthetic fields is staggered so as to not take all fields offline at any one time. Ms. Battite also commented that Lexington has an independent contractor come in and perform annual audits in the fields in addition to regular