The Vote on Turf Fields
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 โ a margin of just 71 votes. A shift of 36 votes would have defeated it.
What Was Promised
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:
- Turf must be free of lead and PFAS (no qualifications, no exceptions)
- Infill must exclude rubber โ organic or mineral alternatives only
- Turf must be recyclable or repurposable
See screenshot below from the email that was sent out on June 13, 2025, weeks before the vote.
The February 2026 Updated Specifications
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:
"shall not contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose"
This is stronger and broader language โ covering not just the manufacturing process but the finished product itself. It mirrors the enacted NYS carpet law (ECL ยง 27-3313) almost word for word.
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 โ it is what happened next. Despite this letter, the vendor's own testing โ conducted by Gradient, a consultant hired and paid by FieldTurf โ subsequently confirmed that PFAS are present in the turf. PFOA was detected in every single sample. PFOS was detected at 590 parts per trillion โ 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.
What the RFP Required
When the District went out to bid, the Request for Proposals (RFP, page 809) sent to vendors was unambiguous. Bids were required to be submitted by March 24, 2026. The RFP required manufacturers to provide certified letters confirming compliance with the following PFAS standard:
"No carpet offered for sale shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose."
This is the exact language of the enacted NYS Carpet Law (ECL ยง 27-3313) โ no threshold, no "intentionally added" exception. FieldTurf submitted a bid and was awarded the contract under these terms. Their own testing then confirmed PFAS are present in the product.
The community was promised PFAS-free turf. The RFP required PFAS-free turf. The vendor certified PFAS-free turf. The testing shows PFAS are present.
What the Testing Found and How the Board Voted on April 8, 2026
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's Response
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:
The pre-referendum commitment said "PFAS-free" not "free of intentionally added PFAS." That distinction was never communicated to voters.
The law being cited (ECL Section 37-0123) has not been enacted. It is a proposed bill still in committee. The law that is actually in effect โ the NYS Carpet EPR Law (ECL ยง 27-3313) โ bans PFAS in turf effective December 31, 2026, with no threshold and no intentionally-added exception.
The testing conducted by Gradient, a consultant hired and paid by FieldTurf, the vendor seeking the contract, showed there is PFAS in the turf blades.
The Environmental Risk
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 โ not just athletes.
What We Are Asking
- Pause the contract for the turf and delay bulldozing the fields on June 1st
- Voice your concerns by making public comment at the next Board meeting, writing to the Board, and writing to the Rivertowns Dispatch
- Ask the Board to honor the plain-language commitment made to voters: PFAS-free means no PFAS
If you are concerned about the Board vote, please email them ASAP and/or make a public comment at the next Board meeting.
The Legal Challenge
On May 4, 2026, three Hastings-on-Hudson residents filed a formal appeal with the New York State Education Department (Appeal No. 22746) seeking to stay and ultimately annul the April 8, 2026 contract award to Laura Li Industries, LLC.
The petitioners contend that the contract award does not comply with the bid specifications โ specifically the PFAS Prohibition (Section 4c) which requires: "No carpet offered for sale shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose." The vendor's own testing confirms PFAS are present.
The following documents are part of the formal appeal record. Links will be added as documents become available.
- ๐ Petition โ Appeal No. 22746, filed May 4, 2026
- ๐ District's Response โ Affirmation of Stephanie L. Burns, Keane & Beane P.C., May 14, 2026
- ๐ Affidavit of Alexander Dal Piaz โ Board President, May 14, 2026
In his sworn affidavit opposing the stay, Board President Dal Piaz argues that the Gradient test results do not establish that the FieldTurf product actually contains PFAS โ a claim that directly contradicts what Gradient's own report shows: PFOA detected in every sample, PFOS at 590 ppt.
The District's legal opposition also concedes in paragraph 14 that even if the Commissioner finds the turf contains PFAS, the Board had authority to waive noncompliance โ an implicit acknowledgment that PFAS may indeed be present.
The District's entire defense rests on the DEC stakeholder footnote from June 2025 suggesting "intentionally added" PFAS as the enforcement standard. That footnote has no legal force and was not adopted in the DEC's December 2025 enforcement discretion letter.
Hastings Alliance for Safe Fields
We are a group of concerned citizens of Hastings-on-Hudson, NY including students, parents, grandparents and other community members. Our mission is to protect the health of our children and our environment by opposing the installation of artificial turf fields at the Burke Estate. We are also committed to holding our school district accountable to the promises made to voters and ensuring that residents can trust the commitments their elected officials make.
๐ฅ Health First
Protecting players from toxic chemicals, microplastics, extreme heat and increased risk of injury.
๐ฟ Environmental Safety
Preserving local waterways, including the Hudson River, soil and drinking water from PFAS pollution.
๐ข Community Advocacy
Empowering residents through education, transparency, and sustainable alternatives.
Join Us
No dues or obligations โ we'll just reach out with info on what you can do to advocate for safer playing fields.
Join HASF โ