Charlene Seibel asked the board to add a brief agenda item asking the district to present the artificial-field proposal, the related contract, missing test results and an explanation of Board Policy DGA. That motion was tied 4–4 and therefore failed, leaving the turf contract question on the public record but not added to the meeting’s agenda.

During the request and ensuing public comment, attendees and several trustees raised concerns that the superintendent had already executed a contract for a turf replacement on Feb. 17 before the board had received certain soil and infill test results. One trustee said the contract was signed before all requested test reports were received. Company and operations representatives described how industry-standard G‑Max (impact) testing is performed and noted that a G‑Max over roughly 165 is a concern and that an absolute ASTM maximum is 200; administrators said they were looking at fiber degradation and other maintenance issues as part of the rationale for replacement.

Supporters of the turf replacement pointed to voter-approved capital reserve funds available for a field replacement. Opponents and some residents asked the board to delay and to publish baseline testing results for the proposed new infill before committing to replacement. At least one resident requested that the board consult additional material options that avoid microplastic infill.

The board’s failure to add the item to the published agenda means there will be no formal board discussion or vote on that motion at this meeting; trustees and administrators said they would continue to collect and post test data and consult the district’s policies and contractors.

Ending: Residents and some trustees asked the SAU to publish all test results and the signed contract text and to clarify whether other infill materials that do not contain microplastics are under consideration. The district indicated it will continue to develop information and return to the board as appropriate.