The South Portland Board of Education heard a two-hour workshop on the future of the South Portland High School athletic complex during its meeting, with the superintendent saying a compromise of two synthetic turf fields and one natural-grass field best balances playability, budget and environmental concerns.

The recommendation came from Superintendent Tim Matheny, who said the district needs fields that can carry heavier use while minimizing travel for student practices and events. “My position has not changed — a re-envisioned approach: two synthetic turf fields and one grass field,” Matheny said, citing playability and the district’s large athletics program.

Why it matters: board members and dozens of residents said the committee must weigh student access, environmental impacts, recyclability and long-term costs. Multiple citizens urged the board to consider fully natural grass alternatives and to gather more data; others like state-licensed geologist Aaron Martin said modern engineered turf and wood-based infill pose fewer health risks than older crumb-rubber products.

What the district presented: Matheny and consultants from Activitas, including Patrick McGuire, described cost comparisons and maintenance scenarios, and answered questions about synthetic-fill recycling. McGuire told the board a recycling facility in Rockland, Mass., is expected to open and “should be able to do about three fields per week,” allowing much of the turf and infill to be processed rather than incinerated or landfilled.

Public concerns and requests: Speakers including Amy Haskins and Karen Talentino urged the board to take a precautionary approach on plastics and microplastics, to obtain independent analyses of local recycling capacity and to consider long-term disposal costs. “I believe we will be on the right side of history on this issue if South Portland says no to artificial turf,” Haskins told the board during public comment.

Technical and operational points discussed: Activitas and other presenters described performance differences between third- and later-generation synthetic turf and modern natural-grass management. The board discussed heat effects on turf surfaces, testing for hardness (GMAX), maintenance routines and the potential need for filters to capture fibers and prevent runoff. Activitas said modern recycling methods separate infill and fibers, and can convert backing and fibers into pellets or other products; the firm estimated only a small fraction of a field would be landfilled in a proper recycling flow.

Politics, cost and scheduling: Matheny said the capital cost for a fully synthetic option is higher than several grass scenarios but argued cost per use narrows the difference because turf supports many more hours of play with fewer weather cancellations. He noted the FY26 budget cycle is under development and suggested the board consider options including a bond referendum, phased capital work, or limited FY26 budget requests for highest-priority items (for example, bathrooms or lights).

Board response and next steps: Board members expressed differing priorities — some prioritized minimizing plastic and long-term environmental risk, others prioritized maximizing on-campus access and hours of play. Chair Shen said the board will continue the workshop process and scheduled follow-up discussion at the district’s State of the Schools event. Matheny and staff offered to provide additional technical materials, to arrange site visits to existing natural-grass installations, and to bring clearer cost and recycling estimates back to the board.

Ending: No vote was taken at the workshop. The board instructed staff to return with more detailed comparisons, clearer warranty and maintenance terms, and documented recycling pathways for any synthetic option the board might consider, and to continue public outreach before firming any financing plan.