After public comment and deliberation, the North Shore Board of Education voted Dec. 11 not to include a new artificial turf field in a proposed capital bond project, citing concerns that the controversial element could place other athletic upgrades and districtwide infrastructure improvements at risk.
The decision followed a divided public discussion, with the majority of speakers urging the board to move forward with turf, intended for a multi-purpose field for the middle school, as a competitive necessity. One person in opposition called for a pause due to health and environmental concerns.
The capital proposal, which includes upgrades across multiple school buildings and athletic facilities, is expected to go before voters as a separate 2026 referendum. Several board members expressed concern that including turf could jeopardize community support for improvements such as drainage, air conditioning, and other infrastructure needs.
Several residents spoke in favor of including turf in the bond package, arguing that North Shore athletes are at a disadvantage compared with neighboring districts.
“I’m here because I support the proposed capital improvements,” said Mike Conklin of Greenvale, a father of three alumni and a current student. “I do so because I want our student athletes to be able to compete with the best.”
Conklin said he moved to the district decades ago for its reputation in academics and athletics but believes facilities have fallen behind. He urged the board to act quickly and vote “yes” on including the turf field in the proposal.
“Our facilities haven’t kept up with the pace of our neighboring districts,” he said. “Lights and turf fields aren’t luxuries, they’re the norm.”
Others also supported turf but emphasized fiscal responsibility and the broader scope of the capital plan.
James Versocki of Sea Cliff said he supported putting the bond question before voters, noting that the district has remaining funds from its 2016 capital bond. Versocki also said he supported synthetic turf for baseball and softball infields, citing weather related cancellations and shortened seasons.
“You’ve put together a very comprehensive plan of capital needs that are necessary, and I support that,” he said. “Anything that gives our children and our athletes more opportunities to play for longer periods of time is helpful.”
Kim Silvia, a Sea Cliff resident and parent of a freshman student athlete, also spoke in favor of turf, calling upgraded facilities a priority for the community.
Silvia urged the board to rely on established research, highlighting concerns amongst some community members that artificial turf poses a serious health risk. Silvia correctly pointed out that there is not any research that connected them and argued that it was not a legitimate reason to not allow the community to vote on replacing the turf fields.
“There is no credible evidence linking artificial turf to cancer,” she said. “The majority of peer reviewed studies and assessments by public health agencies have not established a link between synthetic turf in fill or turf systems and cancer in athletes or the general population.”
However, other speakers warned that artificial turf poses unacceptable risks and should not be included in the project.
Abby K. Cannon, a Sea Cliff resident and parent, said she supports capital improvements but felt obligated to raise concerns about turf. Cannon cited chemicals found in turf components and said children are especially vulnerable.
“My research leads me to the conclusion that it is risky and unhealthy for our children and our community,” she said. “These chemicals are linked to cancer, respiratory issues, immune disruption, behavioral and neurodevelopment issues and reproductive harm.”
Several types of “forever chemicals” or PFAS, have been found in artificial turf, but these are also detectable in effectively every source of drinking water and even every American person, according to an article posted by the Institute for Exposomic Research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Cannon also warned of potential regulatory changes. A bill introduced to the state senate at the beginning of 2025 would institute a moratorium on all artificial turf installations until further research can be done on its health risks. The bill is still in committee, and no new votes or public discussion have taken place on it since it was referred to the senate’s environmental conservation committee on Jan. 30.
Cannon asked the board to reconsider including turf and to provide transparency.
“We deserve to know the risks,” she said, “and feel confident you’ve thoroughly researched them before being asked to approve turf.”
Another Greenvale resident, Cynthia Ayers, argued that delaying turf should not stall the rest of the project. She described current conditions as unsafe and inadequate, pointing to drainage issues, uneven playing surfaces, and scheduling conflicts.
“Do not let one concern block all progress,” she said. “Do not deny the high school the other improvements it desperately needs because of one single field.”
Despite the strong support voiced by many residents, board members emphasized that their responsibility was to ensure the success of the overall capital proposal. Lisa Colacioppo, the board’s vice president, recollected seeing a previous capital project fail to secure enough votes in 2021, with the budget barely passing as well.
“I don’t want to go into another gym waiting for the numbers to be read and have this proposition fail,” Vice President Lisa Colacioppo said. “I would be willing to give up the multi-purpose field, because I don’t want to risk the other pieces of this.”
The board voted to move forward without including an artificial turf field, with members indicating that separating the issue would give the broader capital project a stronger chance of voter approval. Trustee James Svendsen was the lone ‘nay’ vote.
The board indicated that the capital bond proposal, without turf, will continue to be refined ahead of a community vote, with opportunities for further public input.
