The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-03-01-REC-min-attr� k Lexingt x n � RECREATION &COMM F R o G R A M s APRIL 19- �XING'�G� .r smogµ!i I -a ;- March 1 2023 �. �,j': '• i ;.¢ • y yy ��11.A „�", 'fix="• - ,' , ; k �.;y ' y' t .... ......alai: � .C� •. ..rte. " '"'�•ec'�E�: £ ... .x oJ,3 HIORN/HG v "Lexington Recreation"? 9 Who isc� z APRIL 19� Recreation and Community Programs Department —Town department responsible for day-to-day operations and oversight of recreation programs and facilities and the community center. — Executive staff: Melissa Battite (Director), Christine Dean (Community Center Director), Peter Coleman (Assistant Director of Recreation) Recreation Committee — Town Manager -appointed committee of residents responsible for making recreation -specific policy decisions and for providing guidance to the Recreation and Community Programs Dept. — Recreation Committee members: Rick DeAngelis (Chair), Christian Boutwell (Vice Chair), Lisa O'Brien, Carl Fantasia, Claire Sheth, Weiwei Li, Renen Bassik The Committee and Department work together to provide quality recreational opportunities for all residents of Lexington. pJg M��Nr�C Projectmspecific Architects & Engineersr APRIL 19� Activitas, Inc: — Patrick Maguire, Owner and Managing Principal and Meq Buczynski, Principal Civil Engineer — Activitas is a landscape architecture and civil engineering company with a focus on outdoor recreational and athletic design. Meg Buczynski, PE is a Board Member of the American Sports Builders Association and is one of two designers in the country with ASBA's Professional Certificate of Distinction. — Patrick and Meg led the original design team (under a previous company) that conducted the first technical evaluation of athletic fields and park renovations at Lincoln Park in 2002, and their recommendations were implemented in 2003 leading to the facility we have today. — Lexington has continued a highly productive relationship with Activitas for design and project management of athletic facilities projects including, but not limited to, the natural grass fields at the Center Recreation Complex, the award-winning Center Track and Field, and the upcoming Gallagher and Farias Courts renovation. pJg M��Nr�C Projectmspecific Architects & Engineersr APRIL 19� Haley and Aldrich: Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering — Keith Johnson, LSP is the Licensed Site Professional that oversaw design and implementation of the renovations at Lincoln Park in 2003 and the subsequent monitoring requirements in relation to the underlying landfill. — Jay Peters, Principal Risk Assessor, is a leading expert in developing risk-based strategies for managing and redeveloping contaminated sites under regulatory frameworks. Jay's expertise includes review of primary scientific literature to evaluate the human and environmental health risks of various compounds including those found in synthetic turf components. — Haley & Aldrich has been a key partner with Lexington and Activitas in the safe development of Lincoln Park from a town dump to a first-class active and passive recreation facility. pJg M��Nr�C How is Lexington Recreation funded?r APRIL 19� Recreation Programs and Operations — Recreation programs are funded by user fees, which are collected and managed independently of other Town funds in the Recreation Enterprise Fund (Rec EF). — The Recreation Enterprise Fund is a municipal financial structure that isolates Recreation revenue and expenses from the general operating fund and resident taxes. — Lexington resident taxes do not regularly* fund Lexington Recreation operations. (*COVID exception). Recreation Capital Projects — Capital projects to support Lexington Recreation fields and facilities are funded at the discretion of Annual Town Meeting. — Capital project funding sources include the Recreation Enterprise Fund, Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, and the tax levy. — Recreation capital projects typically follow a multi-year process of review by numerous boards and committees. oJ,3 HIORN/HC w o W IA Annual Recreation r APRIL 19� Submit Budget & Capital Plan Present CPA funding request(s) to Community Preservation Committee Present Budget and Capital Plan to: Town Manager, Select Board, Appropriation Comm, Capital Expenditures Comm Approved funding requests Placed on Town Meeting Warrant Community & Town Meeting outreach and information Town Meeting New fiscal year: funds available if approved Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug pJg M��Nr�C m Q W A Recreation I Capital • lan a APRIL 19� Every fall as part of the annual Town budget setting process the Rec Dept. and Committee submit a departmental budget and proposed capital projects for the upcoming fiscal year and a 5 -Year Capital Plan for review by the: Town Manager's Office, Select Board, Capital Expenditures Committee, Appropriation Committee, and the Community Preservation Committee (CPA proposals). Annual Town Meeting ultimately votes on the annual Recreation Dept budget and on capital projects proposed for the coming fiscal year. Most Recreation capital projects appear on the 5 -Year Capital Plan for multiple years providing ample opportunity for review, discussion, and consideration by Town staff, boards, committees, Town Meeting members, and the community prior to eventual the Town Meeting vote. pJg M��Nr�C Recreation Capital Projects Evaluation� r APRIL 19� We attempt to balance multiple goals when considering future capital projects including: • fulfilling the official Recreation Committee charge; • maintaining the current level of facilities and services; • sustaining the fiscal health of the Recreation Enterprise Fund; • responding to community needs including as identified by the 2020 Community Needs Assessment, the Recreation Facilities and ADA Compliance Study (2017), and direct resident communication; • aligning with the goals and priorities of other Town boards and committees including the Select Board, the Conservation Commission, and the Lincoln Park Sub -Committee; • enhancing the facilities and services provided to residents and; • honoring Town bylaws and Town Meeting resolutions. pJg M��Nr�C Capital a APRIL 19� • Lincoln Field #1 was last renovated in 2015 with an expected lifespan of 8-10 years. • The Lincoln Field #1 end -of -life field replacement project has long been presented on our 5 -year capital plan for FY25. • Two developments led to acceleration of the project to FY24: 1. Annual safety testing indicated the current field merits earlier replacement. 2. The anticipated closure of fields during LHS building project necessitates maximizing availability of Lincoln Fields. Why is it critical to maximize the availability of Lincoln Fields? pJg M��Nr�C Lexington Athletic Field Supply & Demamir APRIL 19� +tIYLOWN OF LEXINGTON z Comprehensive Study of Athletic utdoor Recreation Facilities, 2021-202 u,jI 1S - f� �I I l Y Complete report is available via the Capital Projects tab at: www.lexingtonma.gov/511 /Recreation -Community -Programs • In 2019, Recreation was asked to formally quantify athletic field needs in Lexington and funding was approved at 2020 Annual Town Meeting for an external consultant to conduct a comprehensive analysis of field supply and demand. • In 2022 Weston and Sampson, LLC provided the results of their analysis of field supply and demand including options to address identified supply deficiencies. Ov5 aIORNIhC b iRectangle Field Hours Deficit �XlNG'�O� • Study evaluated 20 athletic sites comprising an effective field inventory of 15.5 diamond fields, 15 natural grass rectangle fields, and 4 synthetic turf rectangle fields. • This field inventory can sustainably support 21,600 hours/yr of use but is currently used 27,700 hours/yr. Currently, Lexington operates at a field deficit equivalent to 8 large rectangle fields. 4 • ' 1 _ r - J 2¢• C 1 V l � 4 � { 4 ti ,a - LLA tMmu�t �r.Nax A FINDUPAIRK wR•+�1�ktii► � FhArrwN ww,s � * I 9 V�7,Lik +f�� SGN8151 . MENOMM, FUTl,4RPNP Pi H,[ • Study evaluated 20 athletic sites comprising an effective field inventory of 15.5 diamond fields, 15 natural grass rectangle fields, and 4 synthetic turf rectangle fields. • This field inventory can sustainably support 21,600 hours/yr of use but is currently used 27,700 hours/yr. Currently, Lexington operates at a field deficit equivalent to 8 large rectangle fields. oJg MORlrrc, s s AnticipatedLHS=associated APRIL 19- � -ING W� LHS building project lay down area is currently anticipated to impact most fields at the Center Recreation Complex — 2026- 2030. Anticipated Center Rec Field Closures: • varsity softball field • varsity baseball field • Harold Crumb football field • JV baseball field • Worthen practice field • Fitzgerald little league field pJg M��Nr�C v LHS=associated Substantially Decrease Field Availability m x a APRIL 19� Center Rec Complex field closures will make the existing rectangle field deficit worse by closing a large number of rectangle field hours in Lexington and will profoundly impact the operations of athletics programs in Lexington. How can we optimize use of the fields at Lincoln Park to make sure they are available during these significant anticipated closures? pJg M��Nr�C Lincoln CapitalProjects • � r APRIL 19 To maximize availability of Lincoln Fields during LHS project we propose: • Lincoln Field #1 renovation in FY2024. • Lincoln Field #1 and Field #3 installation of athletic lighting in FY2024 • Lincoln Field #2 renovation in FY2025 (last renovated 2016) • Lincoln Field #3 renovation in FY2026 (last renovated 2017) oJg MOR11Ir�c, v 'Q a -i ror� z � rr Athletic Field oConsiderations w c c� APRIL 19�' In determining athletic fields, we seek to find a balance between multiple factors, and we've been working with Sustainable Lexington Committee and the Board of Health to that end. The core parameters we consider include: • Athletic Operations: ex. weather resistance, surface stability/"footing", durability, hours of use • Environmental Health: ex. impact on waste stream, wetlands, sustainability • Human Health: ex. heavy metals, PFAS, allergens, fitness • Fiscal Impact: ex. installation, maintenance, staffing, equipment, $/hour of usage • Site-specific Factors: ex. landfill 0 Town Field Inventory: seek to reduce the existing field deficiency Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 Activitas is an independent landscape architecture and civil engineering firm that provides outdoor recreation and athletic facility consulting services for municipal, collegiate and professional sports clients throughout the United States. • We are strictly a "client side" design firm representing only the interests of our clients. • We do not sell, construct or otherwise profit from the installation of synthetic turf, or other playing field systems, or any associated products and equipment. • We have been working on recreation projects for the Town of Lexington for the last 20+ years. • Activitas did not provide the Compre- hensive Study of Athletic & Outdoor Recreation Facilities, that was complet- ed independently by Weston & Samp- son. TOWN OF LEXINGTON MULTIPLE PROJECTS Lexington, Massachusetts Patrick Maguire, Mark Novak and Megan Buczynski have been working with the Lexington Recreation Department since 2000. Patrick completed a comprehensive town -wide recreational improvements implementation plan that considered new in -ground irrigation systems, fencing and backstop upgrades, 17 new tennis courts, a new running track surface, and two (2) new natural grass athletic fields. After completing this plan, Patrick, Mark and Megan undertook an assessment and master plan for the renovation of Lincoln Park which eventually led to its award winning renovation, including three (3) new synthetic turf fields, two (2) renovated grass little league fields, a new playground and parking for 117 cars on an abandoned landfill. Since that time, Activitas has completed three (3) turf replacements at the park in addition to further upgrades at the parking lot and circulation areas. In 2010, Megan completed a study assessing the playing field characteristics at the Center Playfields complex. She completed a drainage analysis, a site assessment, soils analysis for the five (5) fields and a layout and configuration review for the complex. Based on these results Megan developed a three -tiered approach for renovations at the complex. Using this plan, the Town implemented the strategy to upgrade all five (5) of the field areas in three (3) distinct phases: projects which Megan oversaw through construction. Activitas completed the comprehensive town -wide accessibility study of twenty (20) outdoor athletic facilities, one (1) building and five (5) play structures. Upon completion of the study, Activitas prepared a full report for the Town to use in implementing accessibility upgrades over the next five (5) years which is the 2017 ADA Compliance Study reference in the Open Space and Recreation Plan RFP. The following is a list of other projects completed for the Town. Each project listed below included a physical assessment of the pre-existing field/court and needs assessment with the Lexington Recreation Department prior to preparing the design for renovation. If additional information is desired, please let us know and it can be provided. Lincoln Park Fields 1-3 Renovation Center Tennis Courts and Clark MS Tennis Court Renovations Rindge, Kinneens, Marvin and Sutherland Basketball Court Renovations Center Playfields and Muzzey Fields Fencing Renovations Pine Meadows Pond Dredging Project ADA Improvements (based on 2016 Study) Center Fields Athletic Lighting Replacement (2018) Center Track and Field Renovation (2019) ACTIVITAS • Other upgrades include building, the athletic ligh the granite forest, the stc ry-walk, and various boc walks and overlooks --` _ -- �_ - r. ....... . ......... ................... UTILITY NOTES / \ 11APROJECT BENCHMA K "B": \ I IS A RAILROAD SPIKE SET 1' ABOVE G =1= ANo SLR ORS,Iro.OF WESiIBRIp66�A,E NO IS DA,EDXKWFi 3PxD LF9hT®T ' II. PLL SEWER FIRE55HP11�P/L FHt ASTM WOBa,50R-98 ND AS,M DIT84 WNH FI.9I9t 6A5KET.tlINTS. IN SOUTH SIDE OG UTILIT! POLE /18, RA 13. REf6. TO E1EGIRILPL NPNS FOR sEL11LM Aro ceTAILS OF nE IrtlLltt DK15P1K. / ELEVATION=238.62 (N.G. OG 1929) RNE — O -GE TINE UHTE, OF PR— 11I BV TINE T. n 91m AVE �N LO�LA AND M=F. "T" A DI6SAFE NINAW �SLATIN6 TMT ALL 19_ RESTLT¢D BT TIE LONiRIGiOR i0 nElft pa6lxK Lq~InON AT'IxE CMrtaLT�T�S ExFET✓`£. L \ \ TO <E FLI)iH WInl6RALE /LLEAx-LInS, UllLltt la. REFER i0 ARGHIEGRRAL PJNv FLft PFOPOSED LOLATILN OF MLItt YRVILE SIMES AL WILOIN6. S IXISTINS, —i nIA 1TAFFELT®er Slre wTRK cft sone cwW6E5. wIETEft IS. IZE, OEFix. ANo sFELIFwATI Nas 11 eTAroAPFRDVEo erLlillE rsESiTs vE� �e / \` \ �'PLLTTNORE ON— oR IE INSTKLEO (6As.I�TELTEHq ITWLKI FINK DE51Ni AND LLr.AT10115 Ai nE WILDING WILL BE UnIJtt COMPANY/ I WETLAND eW t 4. PL W6 ATRILTIONTO Do1E IH hCGORDPNLE WInITOWl OF LEgN6TON o@Anrnmm a Ft4Llc WO 5 Om_ mE ITNE ii. i�00.�sxAaL caOFrnlwTM Iwi>u NAnoN OF THE DrwT! wITM / \ =iR XE Is. Au. cD�ENT LWITM MwnLe Rax bwTs AT FITnNbs /Aw s21 vKVEsrow x.Dw,xr uTEaa.st. / I 5£LIFI TIp60FneT0wo LExI Tox p ENY W S �IRmex 9et£GwIL �MWITxtE INTEATF l xAIONe�V LNT— E � \ n rzrzaa } m _e, Ase slwlw Ix A pAFProxINAre rwr or Aro Iwve rs"e""wlrrE,°"Au lu',�usW+ Nmgwr of asp psi `�"r,Raa`"s'o�A wwNm+ / .rC4:- / NOEN 1111 RE wR NR_x,E. T D __= _= - - iaRs Ro b. "IIx xl E 6�aE� ADs�e� IOFeei6xel eftslDe E / 1 ( .P \ \ / / 1 _ N6 ILItt Is Faro TO Wo LILT WITH TIE FRLPP» wORx. TIE LocAnON, 5.EVAnbx n. FRmEOT Nruu IXlsTxb O -6,E OftAINASE sTaMC,uas roTED. / ' •\V\/, ,- url ITrs.w.BEACLDaA,ELTOErEFwINEowIneDTOE�..r0'T,Ec�NI�ACTOR, TIE I—ON ISHro TO TE EN61I.eEft rdR REsa.lmax cFTIE coNFLIcT swIEY .—x�E D crus Ii RTASTER uux 6 —NE—FOR-1 x 6.RME, HD RESET ALL WATER PND pRAIN46E FRPNES, OUNOEENCINEER IMMEDIATELY IF CONRICi IS / S. TES.Hn�XES TO TIER+O96�FIWSH 6.RFALE 6ftaDE Ni OF ALL MER YNVH[I£AS Nlnl TILE�NO STN_/ UIREII TOM EIEOTft TOFT e+roIE, NT PROJECT BENCHMARK /� 0 TO lO MAIN. MSTTO NIM S�—A3ASFOR TN! ANELFSsnRT NL InITTLT MO NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.B. Dw Y �\` - � X I 'j" 2J�/ TLRiST SA:H L PLi ELEVATION 233.)3(N.G.V.D. OF I ) �` RV / / / / �_ I • \ DazT®brOwaeS"RENrNA n u D ur�iTr Aro TErre uwFss onERwl� xOTeD OR NV ' 75 INV 2321 I \ IIET 4 6 `S ♦ l I I / t= vz3N \ i 9 o --M NP r \\ 1 \ / .. 5 _l 1 t: 2u.3s I I NIRANTOR b JANUARY Ol /� 2 — \ \ " $ „VI Y3k�� / l I I / 1 / / I/ { �...../ L KAM SIN \ - `�4;/ / \i • ,.� a° / �./,,. / / I / \ \ ,� DN \ 3JO HVERTD `229vv N3 K / u.1 f lk 23.931 ADE \ \ I I l \ Ni I D, lb 1 INV Ro DE N TO N INN DET i 2iz 3sTEN ll° aFVI 23' ]Ev WETLAND , X15 P eW \ .z \ \ D N E��TIINN OTELO yS' /, t 22N IP FROM HELD N:1 11 fy D /2 I RJ uriuP Tr INVNv P b DD -- — LINE \ �� 40r o DR i — — — UNIT O WOR DRAN LIE ------- LIQ i nA —� �e 6 Tem FIN K , , 2E9N UTILIFT SURVEY UTILITY LEGEND CO LLEPNart SEWER — — — —5— — — — WETLAND �' \ ,:,. • °�. / / u�/. DRAIN DRAIN — — — —D— — — — °afl FLPFID Ero SELnON WATER — — —W — aY. •� \ \ ✓ / ®W'N —IN wx a seIER NAranLe UTILITY OPERATING AUTHORITIES DRAIN/SEWER/WATER TOWN OF LEXINGTON LFgAIDED REr.ERfI4LE5 GAS KETSPAN uY. � •\ / / /// / / cA�iOHE SIN 1 laesnnw uErtR PIT ELEGTEIG NSTAR V GONTAGT Dlff�,4FE� PIMP / ��111 woEn6RaNm LTIUTES slvAw ON nE FLAX s]E camum FROM FLa+s>ln 11— MATER FOUxTAIx TELEPHONE VERIZONeM I / �TORTR .1,LIOttR —0.�ABf � � �xI�TEON, p155PFE / rfI GELLER 77 NORTH WASHINGTON SINEBT BOSTON, NA 02114 P61]3i1.8109 i61].9bA999 r� UrIDTRcxOUNY U �+ w rn w w� V �I Wa n� 4� Q Q � 50 O Q Nle: E 220433u.atq L3.1 Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 z co s z I EXISTING SYNTHETIC TURF PROFILE EXISTING DRAINAGE LAYER (LAYER PROVIDES STORMWATER MITIGATION FOR SITE) NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ATHLETIC FIELD HDPE UNDERDRAIN SLOPE TO PERIMETER DRAIN EXISTING COMPACTED SUBGRADE, 2'-0" MINIMUM COVER TO REFUSE TOP OF EXISTING REFUSE Synthetic Turf System Overview I Existing Profiles at Lincoln Fields AC T I V I TAS Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 I Fiber Type ng Infill Materials Resilient Underlayment Synthetic Turf System Overview I System Components AC T I V I TAS Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 Traditional Slit Film • Extruded tape -like flat strands that are sliced (slit) forming a honeycomb -like fiber Once the turf system is installed, the tops of the strands break apart (or 'filibrate') creating a more natural looking surface • Holds up to high use activity better than monofilament Tends to provide a faster ball roll and less infill splash, Traditional Polyethylene & Ure- thane Backing Polyethylene primary backing with polyurethane secondary backing Drainage through carpet by punching holes through the backing • Limited recyclability of the carpet because of the mixture of PE and PU for the backing Synthetic Turf System Overview I System Components i y 3.F ♦ - Infill Material - Silica Sand Natural and Consistent Material Industry -wide Acceptance with All Turf and Infill Combinations Without Proper Maintenance Silica Sand Compacts Over Time with Heavy Use 10. #IP MM Infill Material - Crumb Rubber/ Alternative Material • Made from Recycled Tires • Creates Cushioned Feel to the Turf • Least Expensive Infill • As process continues infill materials will continue to be reviewed by the Working Group Resilient Underlayment Expanded polypropylene made of 30% recycled materials • Porous material allowing vertical drainage • Maintains impact safety of system while not compromising playability ACT M TAS, Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 Typical Seasonal Synthetic Turf Maintenance • Field grooming before each season and 1-2 times during season as needed • Debris removal, monthly or as needed • Disinfection application 1 x per year - completed by a subcontractor • Infill releveling - as needed, not typically yearly, completed by a subcontractor • Line striping - typically before each season then as needed for programming • Recreation Committee Policy is no snow removal Field Maintenance I Typical Maintenance Practices AC T I V I TAS Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 FIFAFFki) WORLD wr me came. ror me wore. RUGBY. ONE TURF CONCEPT A multi -sport consensus on long pile artificial turf One Turf Concept FIFA, FIH and World Rugby have invested large amounts of resources in developing long pile artificial turf requirements that reflect best practice in the areas of player welfare, performance, sustainability and longevity. All three federations recognise the benefit of artificial turf at all levels of their respective sports and, while each has unique playing characteristics, collectively support the development of, and investment in, multi -use community fields. While short -pile products are the preferred surface for hockey, the FIH recognises that long pile (3G) surfaces can also aid hockey development where the national association permits it. One Turf Concept Basic Requirements for existing fields While each of the three federations recommend that the full battery of tests required by their certification processes are met, existing fields may not be capable of achieving this. It is important to note that World Rugby require all fields intended to be used for rugby to be tested to and to comply fully with Regulation 22 requirements before any contact rugby, whether training or matches, takes place on the field. With this in mind, facility owners should content themselves that the basic performance requirements listed below are met by their fields. The data indicates the levels for each parameter achieved by good quality natural turf surfaces for all sports, all of which have been extensively tested to determine these requirements. Statistical information available has indicated that there is no difference in injury rates between those occurring on good quality natural turf surfaces and those occurring on compliant artificial turf surfaces. A brief explanation of the risks of each parameter being outside the recommended limits is provided in each case. community fields It is the intention of this document to better inform users of the benefits of testing and continuing to test against Minimum Value these requirements. Shock Absorption Vertical Deformation AAA Version (FIFA Method) -Z`,1! With this in mind, FIFA, FIH and World Rugby have combined resources to identify best practice for multi -use long �EST'O pile community based fields and provide information to facility owners, managers and investors in ensuring that 1 Synthetic Turf their fields achieve the highest possible standards. Some sports have, in addition to those listed here, additional C O U N C I L requirements for elite level fields, details of which can be sourced from the individual sports. European Synthetic The organisations from within the industry who have offered support to this initiative indicates the importance of Turf Organisation trying to ensure better quality artificial turf products continue to be installed globally. Ball Roll (large ball) March 2017 - It should be noted that each federation has their own certification process and that application of these best Vertical Ball Rebound (large ball) practices does not guarantee that certification by one or any of the federations will be achieved. Other sports may 0.6m also have additional requirements which must be met before they can be played on the field. Evenness (Surface Regularity) The information contained below is in consideration of what a multi -use long pile community field should achieve. _ It is not intended to be used for certification purposes, nor is it sport specific but it is considered that, if complied confidence in their foot holding. It makes with, the field will be suitable for general use. Rotational Resistance This document is separated into three parts: excessive grip between the boot and the • Basic requirements for an existing field slippage can result in over extension injuries. • Standard considerations for future fields • Identification of sport specific requirements injuries, especially ankle and knee. For all of the tests listed below federations stress the importance of having the testing completed by a The likelihood of serious injury occurring as a knowledgeable and accredited test institute. Many federations provide accreditation processes for such test Impact Attenuation institutes which incorporates a rigorous round robin testing process with regular re -accreditation required. however to achieve higher values, the Achievement of certification of fields for each of these federations is only possible through testing by one of these surface is increased. accredited test institutes. One Turf Concept Basic Requirements for existing fields While each of the three federations recommend that the full battery of tests required by their certification processes are met, existing fields may not be capable of achieving this. It is important to note that World Rugby require all fields intended to be used for rugby to be tested to and to comply fully with Regulation 22 requirements before any contact rugby, whether training or matches, takes place on the field. With this in mind, facility owners should content themselves that the basic performance requirements listed below are met by their fields. The data indicates the levels for each parameter achieved by good quality natural turf surfaces for all sports, all of which have been extensively tested to determine these requirements. Statistical information available has indicated that there is no difference in injury rates between those occurring on good quality natural turf surfaces and those occurring on compliant artificial turf surfaces. A brief explanation of the risks of each parameter being outside the recommended limits is provided in each case. Parameter Test Method Minimum Value Maximum Value Shock Absorption Vertical Deformation AAA Version (FIFA Method) 55% 5mm 70% 11mm Rotational Resistance EN 15301-1 (football studs) 25Nm SONm Impact Attenuation (HIC) EN 1177 1.3m - Ball Roll (large ball) FIFA Method - 12m Vertical Ball Rebound (large ball) EN 12235 (absolute) 0.6m 1.0m Evenness (Surface Regularity) EN 136066 (3m straight edgSlope _ 10mm confidence in their foot holding. It makes Surveyor's Level Rotational Resistance 1% Parameter Too Low Too High The surface will feel too hard and result in an The surface will feel heavy to the players and Shock Absorption increased risk of injury to players from will sap their energy tiring them out quicker. compaction of the meniscus in the knee joints and the spinal column. The field does not have enough compressibility The field will deform too much under the Vertical Deformation and will feel hard to run on resulting in player which may result in overstretching of potential joint and muscle soreness. ligaments. The players are more likely to slip and have less The natural slippage that is expected is confidence in their foot holding. It makes reduced meaning that the likelihood of Rotational Resistance change of direction much more difficult and excessive grip between the boot and the slippage can result in over extension injuries. surface increases the risk of potential joint injuries, especially ankle and knee. The likelihood of serious injury occurring as a There is no real risk to having a high HIC, Impact Attenuation result of a player hitting their head on the however to achieve higher values, the (HIC)* surface is increased. likelihood of other requirements not achieving their required levels is increased. While Ball Roll is a specific playability requirement for football and hockey, the use of Ball Roll as a tool to identify the condition and orientation of the fibres is recognised by all sports. It is Ball Roll (large ball) included here as a maintenance indication tool and also an on -field guide to the potential for friction burns and abrasion to occur. A high Ball Roll indicates that the fibres may be lying flat and that this risk is increased. Vertical Ball Rebound The ball will bounce less than is expected The surface will make the ball bounce an (large ball) resulting in a deadening of the ball. I unusually high amount. These parameters should not be taken independently. A field's performance can only be truly ascertained by completion of all of these parameters and the potential effect that changing one could have on the others considered. Synthetic Turf System Overview I System Playability Characteristics & Requirements March 2017 Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 Draft Language that will be included within the synthetic turf specifications section. This language has been updated since the last turf replacement project in Town (Lincoln 3) and since the new field at Center Track. Town of Lexington endeavors to keep the existing infilled synthetic turf system out of the waste stream. The Town further endeavors to reuse and/or recycle the infill and synthetic turf carpet. WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS The waste management goal to be achieved for this project is to reuse the existing field's sand and rubber infill to the extent practicable and to recycle or repurpose the synthetic turf carpet and fibers. Reduce Waste: This project shall generate the least amount of waste feasible and methods shall be used to minimize wasted due to error, poor planning, breakage, mishandling, contamination, or similar factors. Reuse: The Contractor shall reuse materials to the greatest extent possible. Salvage reusable materials for resale, for reuse on this project, or for storage for use on future projects. Return reusable items (ex: pallets, tubing or unused products) to the material suppliers. Recycle: As many of the waste materials not able to be eliminated in the first place or salvaged for reuse shall be recycled. Waste disposal in landfills shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. REMOVAL AND RECYCLING OF EXISTING SYNTHETIC TURF CARPET AND INFILL Contractor shall cut, roll and temporarily store pieces of turf carpet and infill as indicated on the Drawings to be delivered to the Owner by others. To the extent practicable, all sand and rubber infill shall be removed with machinery that can simultaneously remove and convey the infill from the synthetic turf carpet into supersacks to be reused or recycled. If the turf installer does not reuse the infill in the new synthetic turf field system, the turf installer shall provide in writing the chain of custody for the sand and rubber, certifying that the infill will be recycled/repurposed and eventually used on another synthetic turf field for infill or other applications which do not result in the landfilling of materials. This certification shall be provided to the Owner's Representative and Town of Lexington as a condition for payment. The existing synthetic turf carpet and fiber shall be removed and recycled. Disposal of the synthetic turf carpet and fiber in a landfill will not be permitted. The turf installer shall provide in writing the chain of custody for the carpet and fiber, certifying that the carpet and fiber will be recycled/repurposed. This certification shall be provided to the Owner's Representative and Town of Lexington as a condition of payment. SUBMITTALS Cut Sheets for all materials required under this Section including third party ASTM certified lab reports. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all materials required under this Section. HEAVY METALS: The Infilled Synthetic Turf Vendor shall submit a signed letter, on company letterhead, stating the company's specific manufacturing and procurement practices that address Health and Human Safety concerns. The letter shall certify, through the independent testing of all Infilled Synthetic Turf System components installed as part of the Project, that their system's lead and other heavy metal content complies with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) most stringent requirement for lead content in children's toys (below 100 ppm), is safe forthe environment and for use by people of all ages. Copies of the testing reports shall also be provided in conjunction with the certification. Installation of the field shall not commence until the written certification is received. Adjustments to the project schedule to accommodate testing laboratory schedules will not be granted. PFAS: The Infilled Synthetic Turf Vendor shall submit a signed letter, on company letterhead, stating that the Vendor and their suppliers do not use PFAS (as defined in EPA Method 537 and California Proposition 65) in or as part of their manufacturing process for their turf fibers, primary backings, and urethane coatings or the assembly of any components of the system or system as a whole. PFAS must be non-detectable at analytical detection limits that are suitable to meet state regulatory standards for solids as defined below. Alternatively, PFAS must be non-detectable at analytical detection limits that are suitable to meet state regulatory standards for liquid as defined below using a leaching test (e.g., EPA Method 1312). If an Infilled Synthetic Turf Vendor is unable to provide this information, they will be rejected for not meeting this requirement. Required detection limits - solids: PFDA: 0.03 ug/kg PFHpA: 0.05 ug/kg PFHxS: 0.03 ug/kg PFNA: 0.03 ug/kg PFOS: 0.2 ug/kg PFOA: 0.07 ug/kg Required detection limits - liquid: PFDA: 0.003 ug/L PFHpA: 0.003 ug/L PFHxS: 0.003 ug/L PFNA: 0.003 ug/L PFOS: 0.003 ug/L PFDA: 0.003 ug/L Letter of certification that the existing synthetic turf carpet has been recycled/repurposed and all associated Chain of Custody documentation. INFILL MATERIALS The Infilled Synthetic Turf Vendor shall provide a signed letter on company letterhead stating that their system (with the resilient underlayment) using the infill mix ratio below will meet performance requirements set forth in this specification. In the event that the Vendor does not believe they can meet the performance criteria within this specification, the Vendor shall provide a request to the Landscape Architect/Civil Engineer prior to the date questions are due with a requested alternative mix ratio. The existing system has an average of 1" of infill assumed to be a 60:40 sand:rubber by weight mixture. The Vendor shall provide additional infill materials as needed to uniformly fill the carpet to a depth which leaves no more than 1/2" of exposed pile after settlement, and consists of a homogeneous non -compacting mixture of silica sand and resilient granules meeting the following criteria: The sand:rubber content shall be 60%:40% by weight +/-27o. Silica sand shall meet the following criteria: Infill sand shall be high quality clean grains of rounded silica sand (Si02) equivalent to: (i) Granusil4095 Unimin Corporation, New Cannan, CT 203-966-8880 20/40 HC (ii) Ogleboy Norton, Brady, TX 915-597-0721 20/40 Oil Frac (iii) US Silica, Ottawa, IL 800-243-7500 Angular or sub -angular particles will not be accepted. Sand shall have 100% passing the # 16 sieve, no more than 80% passing the #30 sieve and no more than 0.5% passing the #50 sieve per ASTM E-11 and also meet the following requirements: (i) Hardness 7.0 Mohs (ii) Moisture Content <0.1 % per ASTM C-566 (iii) Specific Gravity 2.65 g/cm3 per ASTM C-128 (iv) Aerated Bulk Density 92-102 lb/ft2 per ASTM C-29 (v) Compacted Bulk Density 98-110lb.ft2 per ASTM C-29 Resilient granules shall meet the following criteria: SBR Rubber - Granules shall be processed recycled rubber derived from passenger tires. Rubber shall contain no dust or contaminants and shall work to hold the infill sand in suspension. Color to be black. PERFORMANCE TESTING ON FINAL SURFACE A. GMAX: The Infilled Synthetic Turf System Vendor shall have G -Max testing performed by an approved and certified Independent Testing Company prior to requesting Substantial Completion. Testing shall consist of shock attenuation per ASTM F -355-A and F-1936 current edition and shall include the depth of infill as the test location as well as the temperature on the day of testing. The Owner and Landscape Architect/Civil Engineer shall be provided with copies of all testing. B. HIC Testing: Testing shall be in accordance with EN -1177 and critical fall height shall not be less than 1.4 -meters. C. Artificial Athlete: Testing shall be in accordance with EN -14808/14809 and shall be completed in 6 locations over the field area. Vertical deformation shall be 4-11 mm, shock absorption shall be 55-707., and energy restitution 25-50%. D. Infill Depth: Infill depth testing by means of an infill depth gauge capable of measuring 0-2 inches per ASTM WK51663 using a Constant Ground Pressure 3 -Prong Gauge. A minimum of 40 test locations shall be taken at random and documented in the test results provided to the Landscape Architect / Civil Engineer and Owner. If the results of the depth gauge show the infill height to be on average lower than the depth specified, additional infill will be added to meet the specification and the field will be re -tested to show compliance. Synthetic Turf System Overview I System Specifications (partial) AC T I V I TAS Town of Lexington Synthetic Turf Surfacing Presentation I March 1, 2023 �CTIVITAS escape architecture I civil engineerinc delivered via email mbaftite@lexingtonma.aoy dpinsonneoult@lexingtonmo.gov 28 January 2020 Lexington Recreation Committee c/o Ms. Melissa Batitte and Mr. David Pinsonneault Director of Recreation and Community Programs Director of Public Works Town of Lexington Town of Lexington 39 Marrett Road 201 Bedford Street Lexington, MA 02420 Lexington, MA 02420 Re: Town of Lexington Center Track and Field Renovations Field Surface Testing Results Dear Ms. Battite & Mr. Pinsonneault: Aligning with the testing completed on the fields at Lincoln Fields, following the installation of the turf at the Center Playfields Track and Field, Activitas sent turf and infill samples to LaboSport to test for heavy metals and PAHs. The following tests were completed: Heavy Metals (lixiviation) exceeding the DIN 18035 standard - meaning chemicals' ability to leach out into water/liquid Heavy Metals (migration) exceeding the EN 71-3 Standard for Safety of Toys - this is the European standard which is more stringent than the ASTM standard - basically testing if someone eats the system components, how much of the chemicals can come out (bio - available for the body to absorb). PAHs (migration) exceeding the EPA standards. Lead exceeding the ASTM F2765 Standard - this is for testing of the fibers and determining the lead content in the fibers. The test results showed that none of the heavy metals or PAHs within the system components are bio -available to a person or could leach into water at any concentration that is of concern. In addition, no lead was found within the fiber components. Respectfully: ACTIVITAS 7* -6� MczY nski, PE 9 Principal Civil Engineer Attachments: LaboSporf Test Report dated January 21st, 2020 LMOY►1rU INFORMATION Synthetic turf carpet filled with rubber infill Unknown Per infill (rubber): US00335 synthetic turf carpet: US00336 November 11", 2019 MLformance December 2019 - January 2020 70°F (21 `CJ 73°F (23-C) 48 %RH 55 %RH RESULTS Toxicological analysis of Heavy Metals — DIN 18035-7 /lixiviation): mg/L DIN 18035-7 <0.005 <0.025 Pass mg/L mg/L DIN 18035-7 DIN 18035-7 < 0.001 <0.002 < 0.005 <0.05 Pass Pass mg/L DIN 18035-7 < 0.005 < 0.040 Pass Chromium A mg/L DIN 18035-7 <0.008 <0.008 Pass Mercury mg/L DIN 18035-7 <0.015 <1 Pass Zinc mg/L DIN 18035-7 0.43 < 0.5 Pass COD mg/L DIN 18035-7 20.4 < 50 Pass Toxicological analysis of Heavy Metals — EN 71-3 (miaration): mg/kg DW EN 71.3 13.5715000 70 000 Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71.3 < 0.5< < 0.05< 560 47 Pass Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 0.85 < 0.5 18 750 Pass Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 < 0.25 < 0.5 < 17 < 130 Pass Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 4.5 < 2.5 < 1 <0.005 < 7 700 < 23 < 15 000 <94 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass <0.5 <930 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 <0.25 <460 Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 < 0.5 < 56 000 < 180 000 Pass Pass < 2.5 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 153 < 46 000 Pass mg/kg DW EN 71-3 mg/kg DW EN 71-3 <0.5 < 0.05 <460 < 0.2 Pass Pass �aasPa Toxicological analysis of PAH: Fiber lead content: Element Units Test method Results Fiber lead content ppm ASTM F2765 <0.25ppm REPORTED BY LoicSchuffenecker (Laboratory Technician) - Writer Thomas Amadei, T.P. (Laboratory Manager) -Approver activitas.com 70 Milton Street I Dedham, Massachusetts 1 02026-2915 (781) 326-2600 Synthetic Turf System Overview I System Testing Example AC T I V I TAS Human Health and Safety / Environmental Common Questions ACTIVITAS Safety of Turf • Heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) —Crumb rubber infill • Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PEAS) —Turf carpeting, backing, shock pad • Heat — Turf system • Questions that we resolved: — Would contact with PAHs, metals, or PEAS in synthetic turf be considered safe? — Would substances in synthetic turf contaminate groundwater? — Is a synthetic turf field a 'heat island'? ��RICH Method of Evaluation • Over 100 peer-reviewed studies over the past two decades: none have drawn an association between adverse health effects and crumb rubber • We focused recent studies (2014 — 2022) specifically evaluating whether substances in crumb rubber or turf systems could pose a health risk that would be deemed unsafe, including: —comprehensive study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency —comprehensive studies performed for synthetic turf systems for Martha's Vineyard (MA) high school and the city of Portsmouth (NH) ��RICH Method of Evaluation (continued) • Evaluated safety using the process of Risk Assessment —Are chemicals present in synthetic turf systems? — If so, how much chemical in synthetic turf could people be exposed to? — Would that exposure be considered safe? • Same process that is used by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine if chemicals in soil and groundwater are safe L� 0 ��RICH Heavy Metals and PAHs • Overall conclusions - PAHs and metals in turf are safe: — PAHs and metals in crumb rubber, turf carpeting, and bonding agents and do not come out at concentrations that could be harmful (low bioavailability) — Even without accounting for low bioavailability, concentrations are generally below levels that MassDEP and EPA consider safe for soil in a backyard — Concentrations in many cases are similar to normal background levels in soil — Conclusion backed by Mass Department of Health ��RICH PFAS • Overall conclusions — PFAS are not a concern in synthetic turf.. — Most PFAS compounds tested for were not detectable in synthetic turf from the manufacturer — No PFAS compounds were detected at concentrations above MassDEP standards — No other PFAS compounds were detected at concentrations that would cause a contact or leaching concern to groundwater or surface water — PFAS concentrations that typically occur in soil as a background condition were higher than PFAS concentrations in synthetic turf from the manufacturer F%DRICH Heat • Overall conclusions — Synthetic turf is not a Heat Island: — Synthetic turf does not `hold heat' - returns to same temperature as natural turf with loss of daytime heating — As compared to asphalt, brick, and masonry, synthetic turf cools much quicker with loss of daytime heating ��RICH Summary,4 • The existing deficit in available field hours and the anticipated exacerbation of that deficit during a LHS building project highlight the need to optimize management of the synthetic fields at Lincoln Park. A A�- • The timely renovation of the synthetic turf at the fields (Field #1 in FY2024) is critical to avoid compounding the effect of the LHS building - associated closures. • The replacement "in kind" of Lincoln Field with a synthetic turf system that is certified PFAS-free and meets all federal and state regulations represents a reasonable balance of the many competing factors. f Jie - , FA , .-C w = Thank you for joining us. We look forward to your questions and feedback both now and by sending email to recdeptCcDlexingtonma.qov or recreationcmte(d�lexingtonma.qov U' + f w k r R . r _ +. i�• • I •• - � �+�• y 1 F `rte Y _ i lu