The South Portland school board approved a multiple choice bond Monday night for its athletic complex, in a last-minute shift that will give voters the choice of artificial or synthetic turf, or no to both.

The decision comes four months after the city rejected a $12.3 million bond referendum that included artificial turf fields and upgrades to the South Portland track and other facilities.

At Monday night’s school board meeting, members were set to vote on an $8.25 million project proposed by the superintendent, which included two synthetic turf fields and other infrastructure upgrades. But member Rosemarie DeAngelis, who has expressed opposition to the artificial field, introduced a new motion for a less expensive bond that focused on the priority fixes of the track, field and bathrooms, and which would allow voters to decide on artificial or natural turf.

The new cost of the natural grass bond option is $4.3 million, and the synthetic option is $5.1 million. The substitute measure passed in a 4-3 vote, with the two student representatives voting in advisory support. It will now need approval from the City Council before being put on the November 2025 ballot.

WORKSHOPPING TURF

Last November, South Portland voters took up a $12.3 million bond to fund upgrades to the high school’s athletic complex, including updates to the track, permanent restrooms and artificial turf fields. It lost by a vote of 8,199 to 6,394.

After the bond failed, the school board and superintendent arranged a series of three workshops about the athletic facility, focused on the debate between artificial and natural grass fields, which occasionally became contentious as school board members took different positions on the matter. Supporters and critics have traded letters in the Press Herald opinion pages, and dozens have given public comment across three public workshops about the field.

At the first workshop on Jan. 8, the board heard from the South Portland athletic director, the city’s outdoor facilities manager and some parents who said an artificial turf field would allow for greater play time for student athletes. But they also heard from many community members who said the health risks and environmental impacts of artificial turf aren’t worth it.

A few weeks later, the district hosted a second workshop, focused on the cost of a new athletic facility. Superintendent Timothy Matheney and a representative from the landscaping consulting firm Activitas shared information about the short- and long-term cost differences between grass and synthetic turf.

The initial cost of artificial turf is about $2 million, compared to $1.4 million for the most expensive natural grass. A 10-year projection put turf at a $3.88 million price tag, while natural grass would cost somewhere between $1.58 million and $2.2 million, although Activitas said the natural grass estimate was conservative because it doesn’t account for potential weather events that will require maintenance. And he said the rate of use for the synthetic field is much higher.

At the third and final workshop held at the end of last month, the board heard familiar testimony, and De Angelis introduced a statement from city Sustainability Director Julie Rosenbach, which said while there is no specific strategy around turf in the city’s climate plan, she personally opposes artificial turf because of sustainability issues related to heat, chemicals and microplastics.

During the workshop process, Matheney put forward his own proposal for the athletic complex. The final version was an $8.25 million bond — $4 million less than the last one — and included two artificial turf fields, a natural grass field, improvements to the track, and permanent restrooms. That proposal had a 40% reduction in synthetic turf from the original bond, according to the superintendent’s presentation.

Matheney said he weighed the different public comments and concerns about turf but still felt his proposal was the right approach.

“I think the community needs a superintendent who’s going to thoughtfully approach an issue like this,” he said. “And I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion, the best approach is to have synthetic turf on two of those fields. And that’s because we will have increased time that we can afford our student athletes, and other organizations like the marching band, on those fields.”

GIVING VOTERS THE CHOICE

On Monday night, the board was set to vote on Matheney’s proposal. During a public comment period, several South Portland residents, many of whom have commented in past workshop meetings, mentioned their concerns about the sustainability of synthetic turf and said that the presentations provided in workshops were biased toward that option. No public commenters spoke in support of artificial turf.

Then DeAngelis proposed her substitute motion with two ballot questions: either a $3.17 million bond with a track, one synthetic field and permanent bathrooms, or a $2.53 million bond with a track, natural grass field and bathrooms. Voters would be able to chose between the two, or vote no.

“My substitute motion here is to do two things: to reduce the overall cost, so that I think we have a better chance of getting one of these passed,” she said. “Secondly, it gives the voters, who are the decision makers, (a choice) about whether they want to put in artificial turf or natural grass.”

Member Tandy Ratliff proposed adding the cost of outdoor lighting, and after a brief recess, district officials presented new numbers of $4.3 million for the project with natural grass and $5.1 for the same project with synthetic turf. The proposal eliminated practice fields and other facilities.

Member Jennifer Ryan, who has been a supporter of a synthetic field, opposed the motion, and said as a parent of an athlete, she felt DeAngelis’s cuts were to needs, not just wants.

Board Chair Molly Schen said the dual choice would lead taxpayers to choose the less expensive option, without considering weather-related concerns with natural grass.

“In my view, it’s irresponsible for this board to put a natural turf field outside of South Portland High School. Irresponsible. It won’t work. It’ll be a waste of taxpayer money,” she said. “So what my fear is, if we approve this proposal, taxpayers will vote for the less expensive option, and it’s going to be a disaster.”

Student Representative Eliot Wertheimer spoke in support of De Angelis’ motion.

“We’ve all agreed, so many times, that what we need is a new field,” he said. “We need something out there, and I think that by lowering the price, we’re more likely to get that. I think we’re more likely for people to actually vote in favor of it.”

Matheney said the board will need to wait to hear from the city about the viability of the referendum’s format, and may need to revisit the approach on March 10.