Ridgewood board hears wide community push for long‑term fixes after athletic‑field flooding study

Ridgewood — The Ridgewood Board of Education on Wednesday outlined next steps after a community engagement exercise that showed broad support for investing in long‑term fixes for repeatedly flooded district athletic fields.

Dr. Schwarz, Ridgewood’s superintendent, told the board the ThoughtExchange involved 1,381 participants who submitted roughly 1,000 distinct “thoughts” and nearly 20,000 ratings. "The highest rated response" called for prioritizing "long‑term engineering solutions for sustainable fields," he said, adding that the district will file insurance claims and pursue contingency plans while it prepares a feasibility study.

Why it matters: Recurring flood damage has forced repeated, costly cleanups and left fields unusable during parts of consecutive seasons. Board members and residents warned that continuing to repair fields piecemeal wastes resources and disrupts student athletics.

The discussion covered three concurrent approaches the superintendent urged the board to pursue: maintain playable space for students in the short term; research reconfiguring or elevating fields as a medium‑term fix; and coordinate with the village and the Army Corps of Engineers on a broader watershed solution. "We need to emphasize a long‑term and sustainable solution to the recurring flooding issues," Dr. Schwarz said.

Concerns and trade‑offs: Residents and some board members raised health and environmental concerns tied to artificial turf — including possible PFAS and crumb‑rubber contamination — while others emphasized turf’s resilience and lower maintenance in high‑use districts. "Most people would prefer to play on natural turf, but in a district like Ridgewood . . . artificial turf may be necessary to meet demand," Dr. Schwarz said when summarizing the ThoughtExchange themes.

Costs and funding: The superintendent said isolated cleanups have previously been expensive; in his presentation he referenced remediation estimates potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and noted the district's insurance has a deductible (he cited a $25,000 deductible per field and discussed the district’s exposure). Board members clarified that field projects typically do not qualify for state debt service aid and would therefore be funded locally; one board member suggested fundraising or booster contributions could help close gaps.

Next steps: The board agreed to move forward with a feasibility study and to involve architects, engineers and the finance committee to scope options and costs. The superintendent said a group of community members and booster organizations have volunteered funds to launch a feasibility study this year while the district continues to refine its budget proposals. The board also discussed potential erosion‑control planting, silt‑capture measures and finer mesh netting around fences as interim mitigations, subject to DEP constraints.

Public input and evidence: Multiple public commenters urged the board to rely on scientific and medical expertise to evaluate turf‑related health claims and to present that evidence publicly. Dr. Schwarz said the district will consult engineers and planners and expects to present a preliminary budget and feasibility scope at the board’s March 18 budget hearing.

What’s next: The board scheduled committee work with its architects and engineers and asked staff to coordinate the feasibility study scope and funding options. No formal decision to rebuild or replace specific fields was made at Wednesday’s meeting; instead the board approved pursuing study, funding options and interim operational plans.