Synthetic Turf at Burke Estate:
What You Need to Know

In June 2025, voters approved $8.1 million for two synthetic turf fields at Burke Estate as part of a larger capital bond. Proposition 3 passed 1,440 to 1,369 — a margin of just 71 votes. A shift of 36 votes would have defeated it.

Before the vote, the Board publicly committed to the following requirements in a Board endorsed memo and an email sent out to the community. These were stated at community forums, published on the bond website, and promoted by supporters on yard signs across town:

See screenshot below from the email that was sent out on June 13, 2025, weeks before the vote.

In response to community feedback, the District issued an updated memo on February 10, 2026 that actually strengthened the PFAS specification. The original pre-referendum language required only that the product "not be manufactured using PFAS." The updated specification went further, requiring that the turf:

FieldTurf's Executive Vice-President Darren Gill provided a letter confirming that the proposed turf products "do not contain any intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in its formulation or manufacturing process."

The problem is not the specification — it is what happened next. Despite this letter, the vendor's own testing — conducted by Gradient, a consultant hired and paid by FieldTurf — subsequently confirmed that PFAS are present in the turf. PFOA was detected in every single sample. PFOS was detected at 590 parts per trillion — 147 times the EPA's drinking water limit.

A manufacturer's letter is only as good as the testing behind it. When the testing shows PFAS are present, the letter provides no protection.

The district released testing results (Page 59+ of this document) fewer than 24 hours before the Board voted to award the contract. Two Board members were absent and one board member voted against it.

That testing was conducted by Gradient, a consultant hired and paid by FieldTurf, the vendor seeking the contract. This is not independent testing.

Even so, the results show PFAS are present:

Additional PFAS detected across samples include PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, 6:2 FTS, and others.

The "J" qualifier used throughout the report does not mean the results are uncertain. It means the chemicals are confirmed present; the precise concentration is an estimate. It does not make them disappear.

Two independent national scientific experts reviewed these results and were unequivocal. One stated: "This is the farthest thing I have seen from PFAS-free."

The Board argues that the applicable legal standard is "intentionally added" PFAS, meaning if FieldTurf attests they didn't intentionally add PFAS, the product is compliant.

There are three problems with this:

PFAS don't stay on the field. The Burke Estate contains Hastings' largest wetland. Factory Brook, which originates on the property, flows directly into the Hudson River. PFAS leaching from turf fields into the surrounding soil and waterways would affect the broader community and ecosystem — not just athletes.

If you are concerned about the Board vote, please email them ASAP and/or make a public comment at the next Board meeting.