Articles 9, 10, and 20 in the 2024 Town Warrant cover the ADDITIONAL funding needed for the RecPlex.
Let’s thoughtfully collaborate on a consensus based project that will be a healthier, safer, and an economically feasible plan for the enjoyment of all!
TOO EXPENSIVE
1. The cost of this project has more than doubled from the time it was originally rolled out in 2018 (from $8.75 million to over $21 million with inflation and interest payments)
2. In 2021, the MA Superior Court ruled that Community Preservation Funds (CPF) cannot be used to pay for any aspect of artificial turf fields. These are the biggest components of the RecPlex project and the Court's ruling takes away a major source of funding that the Town had planned to use.*
3. Even if this was allowed by the courts (which it’s not), the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) cannot afford to take on the cost of this project. They would have to “bond” it over ten years (See Article 10). Requesting to bond CPC projects is highly unusual!
4. The 25-year bonds in Article 20 would exceed the life of the artificial turf fields that they are intended to fund. Artificial Turf Fields only have a life span of 8-10 years. Would you take out a 25 year auto loan? If not, then why would you take out a loan on a field that we will be paying for long after it’s useful life has ended?
5. The opportunity costs are too high. What other potential projects will we have to forego in order to fund the RecPlex?
6. The Town is not in a financial position to take on the cost of this project right now. There are too many other pressing needs and not enough funding to go around.
7. Where is the budget for the ongoing maintenance and the government entity responsible for oversight of the fields? Is this going to be left up to volunteers? It’s improper to build something without the funds to maintain the facility properly.
PENDING LAWSUITS
1. Despite publicly claiming that it prevailed in the first lawsuit, The Town actually lost a significant portion of the case (*See point above about Community Preservation Funds and Artificial Turf Fields)
- Several line items in the Town’s most recent budget for the RecPlex were deemed ineligible for Community Preservation funding, yet the Town still has them listed as CPF items.
- Thus, the Town risks further litigation for being in contempt of the judge’s ruling.
2. The town ALREADY LOST the second lawsuit.
3. The third lawsuit regarding the RecPlex is still pending. - Why would we vote to fund this project before the judge has ruled?
- The Town publicly admits this is risky!
- The outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact the design and budget of the project
THE DANGERS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
An estimated 40% of the proposed RecPlex would be artificial turf.
1. UNSAFE LEVELS OF PFAS - DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH
- Artificial turf is made with dangerous levels of PFAS that are shockingly toxic at extremely low doses and builds up in our bodies, groundwater & environment. Didn't we just ban plastic bags because of these concerns?
- How could we in good conscience introduce these forever chemicals to our town, knowing what we do about them now? Didn't we just ban plastic bags?
2. POSES VERY REAL RISK FOR HEAT INJURIES TO OUR KIDS
- Can get to over 160 degrees Fahrenheit and lead to burns, dehydration, or heat stroke.
3. INCREASED INJURIES & ABRASIONS - The National Football League Players Association say that players suffered more non-direct contact injuries on artificial turf than natural grass and that football players are ‘significantly safer’ on natural grass fields.
4. THE STATE IS AWARE OF THE DANGERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - The House and Senate both have bills pending to ban municipal use of artificial turf over safety and environmental concerns.
5. EXPENSIVE - In nearly all scenarios, the full life-cycle cost of natural turf is cheaper than artificial turf, better for our children’s health, and safer for the environment.
Other Considerations
1. Would students of surrounding schools use the RecPlex fields and amenities during school hours?
- If so, is general public excluded at those times?
- If not, how do school staff ensure safety of students?
2. The RecPlex has been promoted as Open Space / Recreation for use by the public.
- The reality is that the proposed playing fields would be individually fenced in and used by permit only.
3. WHY THE RUSH?? - There is absolutely no need to be rushing this through while in a budget crisis. Residents would be better served by taking our time and doing this PROPERLY.
- At the very least, the town would be best served by waiting for the ruling on the pending lawsuit.