How can people vote by mail by this Friday if they don't even know this referendum vote is taking place? Unless they read the Patch they would have no clue about this. Nothing has come in the mail as of yet and the vote is less than one week away What if people work late? A poll opening at 2pm does not allow people to make it on time if they have to commute for a 2nd shift. Nor does it allow someone to vote before going to work if they start in the morning.

This seems to be setup for the least voter turnout. Short voting window 2-9pm. Inconvient Locations - in my case literally on the other side of town farthest from my nearest school or normal voting location. No information for voting by mail or sending out of ballots. This is ridiculous.

"The sample ballot is suppposed to be mailed (to resident voters) this week by the county clerk's office. They should be in the mail I really hope so"
I really hope so??? How about Town Clerk Wazimus making a phone call to the County Clerk to confirm so?.
And yes Ms. Bluj is correct the "topic" was discussed at Town Council meetings six months ago and a couple of times at the BOE meetings since the BOE decided to announce the Referendum. So for the good 30-50-citizens who turned out at those meetings you are in the know. As for the rest of Parsippany's tax payers who aren't in on the "secret" - tough look because what you don't know can only cost you

I just hope "NO" votes show up.

I looked at all the pictures with this report. My question is, Why spend $7.7 million on fields the Board of Education won't maintain? Spend $100,000 to fix up what's there.

This should have been on the November ballots to get the most voter turnout. I don't care what the reasoning was or if they couldn't make some deadline. By moving it to January 22nd, you limit the amount of people (especially the elderly who will vote against it - - everyone knows this) that are going to vote because they simply just don’t know that there is a special vote. The only people that really are aware of it are the residents who are extremely supportive and people who are against it. Sorry, but it feels like a backhanded way to get this passed. What else is new...it is Parsippany after all!!!

"I really hope so."????

Wonderful job as always, Mr. Mayor.

I have to vehemently disagree that the BOE does not want to hear things. The opponents of the FOD had their message heard loud and clear: They wanted the BOE to keep control of the fields and they wanted a special referendum vote and that is EXCATLY what they got!
The BOE also listened to the proponents when they said: "We don't want to wait another year to get something done - we want a January vote date" and that is EXCATLY what they got. So it is fair to say that both sides have been heard.

Here is a partial timeline of events:
May 10, 2012 - BOE voted to move forward with the referendum
July 26, 2012 - a notice was sent to community groups, booster groups, Par-Troy Council of PTA to announce a Special Meeting to be held on August 1 to discuss the referendum
August 1 - first Power Point presentation held by the BOE
November 15 - BOE voted to hold the special election on January 22

The County board of elections decides the voting times and places. The BOE has no say in the matter. So if you have a complaint with the time or the sample ballot - you need to take it up with the County.

The BOE has listened to people on both sides and has done everything required of them or there would be no vote.

I'm most likely going to vote no. See the problem I have with this I don't mind the fields but instead of doing things like putting up lights and the bleachers why not take that money and use it towards The Brooklawn Softball field. (A.K.A The swamp.) Atleast people can get to the football fields where as older people and Handicapped people have no chance of getting to the SWAMP unless you make it safer to get to.

What has not yet been pointed out is that the large majority of FOD opponents were actually in favor of the project if it was not done by the town. They wanted the BOE to maintain ownership of the land and were not in favor of using the OSTF. Many of these people were, in large part, the reason for the organized effort against the FOD. Now that this is a BOE project, most (not all) of these people are in favor of it. As Beth has pointed out, the BOE listened to all the voices and moved forward with a project that will keep them in control of the land, control of who uses the fields and control of the scope of the project. There are some, who claimed they would support this project if it was done by the BOE, who now have changed their tune. That's OK, I know what was said and who said it to me. We all have our opportunity to vote. This is no secret. It has been a "hot" topic for about a year.

Just to keep the facts straight the County Clerk sets the date of the election in response to requests made to it by the BOE and a timeline is established. Accordingly, there are certain dates by which certain information has to be provided to the Clerk's office by the BOE and because the BOE controls when it will submit the required information it ultimately controls the date of the election.
As was stated in an above post, the BOE heard it's first powerpoint presentation on August 1 but didn't bother to cast its vote calling for a referendum until November 15. Why it took the BOE 3 and1/2 months to call for a special election is anyone's guess It certainly wasn't because the BOE was actively engaged in exploring alternatives that might make more sense and cost less. Along those lines, please read Cindy Forrest's story in today's edition of Parsippany Life. Titled The Best of Plans and the Worst of Plans (Page 3), the story describes what might have been. Or perhaps what still could be ...

The reason they did not vote until November is because they took more time to listen to people at every BOE meeting from August to November and then listened when we pleaded not to wait any longer.
This topic has been talked about to death and guess what? it's one year later and we still have the worst fields in Morris County. All the talk in the world won't change that. It goes the same way in rgards to exploring other alternatives; there will still be people for and against those alternatives. Then guess what - another year of deplorable fields. When does the insanity end? There will never be a time when everyone is on the same page.
There comes a time when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. I am glad to see the BOE has decided to start doing.

I agree. The continued complaints about the timing of vote is getting ridiculous and getting quite stale. This issue has been out in the public for quite some time. The facts are out there. Whether way you cast your vote...Just Vote. Can we get beyond the what took place or what didn't take place. Let's not distort the information or the timeline. This subject has been on the forefront in our community and everyone homeowner who has a vested interest in this town should have taken the time to understand the issue at hand and the proposed solution.
Come Jan 22nd, it's WE the people who decide.

Just to keep the facts actually straight, not slanted, the STATE sets and controls all the dates that referendums are allowed and all the deadline dates that paperwork and plans need to be submitted. Also, the 3 and 1/2 months was because the board was required to submit the plans to the STATE and that the approval had to come from them FIRST before the Board could take the next step and vote on whether to have a referendum. If someone has been following this issue for the last 8 or so months, they should know this.

If you think artificial turf is the way to go, you will want t check this website.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/search/label/artificial%20turf

Are you thinking the turf makes a really nice field or are you thinking about the children? Read what the Sierra Club has t say.
http://maryland.sierraclub.org/montgomery/support_astroturf.html

The school system won't maintain the artifical turf any better than they have the grass fields. They'll be back at you in two years for another couple-million-dollar bond issue to repair the trashed artificial turf. January 22, 2012 is the time for you to stop the Board of Education from picking your pockets.

Kevin
Respectfully you are absolutely wrong with regard to your portrayal of Cindy Forrest. Agree or disagree with her she has the gumption and the guts to write it as she sees it. Were attempts to silence the free press in Parsippany successful there would be no checks and balances in place. Dislike the message all you want but let's not shoot the messenger(s)

Maurice, i think it would be wise to discount the opinions of turf manufactors and turf installers.

No sir, she does not have the gumption and the guts to write it as she sees it, she writes it as she wants us to see it! Her article today was a slap in the face of journalistic integrity. If you are writing an editorial then have the decency to disclose that up front, otherwise you are simply trying to pass off your own opinion as news which is a grave disservice to your readers and the community you serve. Sadly, even intelligent people often have trouble distinguishing between the two which is why article writers such as she feel empowered to lead you to see things as she does and why I might add, Mr Brancato and everyone I know feel the exact same way about her.

Bob - reporters are supposed to report without bias - not how 'they see it.'
She is comparing apples to oranges. I find it hard to believe that any company would pay for two fields in the town they do their business. Also, I find it hard to believe that the organization that raised $30,000 would have been able to raise $60,000. So, its a completely unfair comparison.
Also, isn't it convenient how she put that article in when she knew that no on would have the opportunity to have a say in the Parsippany Life before the next edition of the paper. Hmmm - talk about back handed.

After all the debates surrounding Parsippany, The towns official news outlet "The Daily Record has printed one story.Can anyone guess which one?
When our Mayor was cleared of possible ethics violations. Really?
All these debates all the lawsuits all the questionable decisions or lack there of.
Carol , what is inaccurate in this story? Another lack of looking at other options,lack of investigating possible other options? Proof that Montville cut thru the crap and found an answer?
I can speak personally to the fact that reports by Ms.Forrest are fair on both sides of a story,in fact I respect that even when it painted me as a possible troublemaker.
The truth shall set us free and facts are facts...FYI I will be voting Yes for the fields hoping that they will be taken care of better than in the past!!

Sorry, I was not clear in my previous post. I meant to say that she knew that no one would have the opportunity to have a different say in the Parsippany Life before the next edition of the paper because the next edition will be delivered the day after the vote. Coincidence? I don't think so.

When I think about Montville - I think of a more upscale town than Parsippany, with much better schools (rating in the top 40 statewide), and to see that they can find a way to do this with no tax impact.... Then, when you look up and down the street - the guy across the street from me has been unemployed for over 2 years, woman across the street was laid off and is underemployed now and that's just close neighbors. A lot of people can't afford their own homes right now, nevermind fancy playing fields. Nothing about this seems right to me. We should be spending modestly, and trying to fix what's broken to the greatest extent possible, only spending money where it is absolutely necessary, yet this whole plan is brand new everything.

Beth, you are not joining in on the conspearacy theories now are you?
Just like the county that has structure and deadlines so do the editors at NJ.Com
There are deadlines and press dates as well unless NJ.com moved the vote date to support Ms.Forrests article hmmm I gues anything can happen

Truly no disrespect but my suggestion would be continue your efforts because it has made a difference and your input and open approach has changed my vote.I truly wish others will follow your lead with standing behind what we both believe that our kids deserve better.Thank you Beth sincerely.

The turf looks nice and does not have to be mowed. If you are thinking about the children, there is more to be considered. Rug burns from the turf are more serious and painful than scrapes from grass. Turf retains heat and gets 20 degrees hotter than asphalt and needs a cooling spray of water on hot days. Turf holds bacteria and must be disinfected often. The ground automobile tire base leech 15 carcinogens and the rain water needs to be treated. If you are concerned about the children, more information can be found on the internet.

Robert, Really! it's really disappointing that you use this tactic about how turf is bad for the kids. This isn't the 80's and we are not talking about artificial turf. it's 2013 and we are talking about artificial grass. There are thousands of towns, schools and organizations who are using artificial grass for their mulch-purpose fields. If playing on artificial grass is so bad for humans, i'm sure there would so many class-action suits and public outcry. So let's get pass this notion that's bad for the kids because they are going to get rug burns argument. By the way, the proposal does include a water management system. Let's just be fair and not distort.

Bob,
With all due respect that "she writes it as SHE sees it" is exactly my problem with her "reporting". Her opinion shouldn't count and she always slants her writing toward the negative side of the argument.
Let me give you an example from the very article you quote. In the next to last paragraph " According to Mark Resnick interim Business Administrator the cost if the referendum passes will be about $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value. A resident with a home valued at $500,000 will pay $500 for the new fields while a resident with a $200,000 assessed value home will pay $200."
Totally an accurate statement, I agree. Funny thing is she managed to leave out the time frame that the money will be paid out over. Is that $500 per month? per year? or is it $50 BUCKS PER YEAR FOR 10 YEARS which it happens to be for a home assessed at $500,000.
Bob with all due respect. This is how she always "reports" which is my opinion of her articles. My only surprise is that you are quoting her misleading article as a strong basis for voting no on this issue.
It's not complicated it's pretty strait forward either the taxpayer will be willing to pay $20 to $50 dollars per year ( which is $1.66 to $4.16 per month ) for an improvement that will benefit all of us in the long run (my opinion) or not. It's really that simple.
I for one will be voting yes for my interest in improving the value of my home as I have no children left in school. I hope that will others to do the same.

Part 2 I certainly don't want to silence the free press as you suggest. I just would like her to act like the press and stop slanting her articles to suit her opinion or at least state them as such.

@ Maurice. Well, here it is 2013 and the ground up used tires you think were so "80's" are still be using on plastic grass fields. 120 TONS - that's ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TONS per field.
And those little cuties bounce their way off the field and into streams and creeks and have to be replaced. (Apparently, they haven't learned how to replicate themselves yet. That will be 2014.)
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/crumb-rubber-is-good-for-streams.html

Live near the plastic grass? Then you can expect hotter temperatures.

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2009/03/artificial-turf-heat-islands.html

@ Janis,
With all due respect, the point I was attempting to make is that for every reason something is bad, there are opposing reason why it is good. I'm not going to go on and go tit for tat and spend my time coming up google results to dispute your google results. If someone is going to post the cons it's only fair to post the pros...but I guess what would be the point in that right? :-)

Maurice: No one is disputing the pros, the turf looks nice and does not have to be cut; Does this trump children playing on high temperature toxic turf.

Robert: The proposed installation of artificial grass includes the installation of storm water management system and updated drainage. So when you reference that tidbit, leaving out the facts that with a water management system it significantly reduces the risk of our children playing on high temperature artificial grass you are not being honest.

Maurice, If you recall, at the BOE meeting when they were discussing the project and the architects were going over the plan there were two major issues.

1. Water Management system - has nothing to do with the temperature of the field. It has to do with preventing flooding on the field , surrounding property and neighborhood. Water penetrates much faster in turf so there is a large reservoir under the field and they have to drain the water.

2. WATER CANNON - The BOE was even debating asking the local fire department to aid with this. The reason being, when the temp rises, the field gets much hotter and the only way to cool it down is spraying it with water. One of the ways to do this is the purchase of a water cannon, which is expensive. I do not know if they ended up including it in the plan.

The storm water management is for storm water, not the field temp. Anyone who went to the meeting is aware of this. You can contact Dr. Seitz and he will explain the issue.

This is just not a valid issue. We have 3 town turf fields currently. There is NO issue with heat or hot turf. There is no "water cannon" at these fields. There are 12 local area High Schools with turf fields and they have no issue with this. We also can't compare turf to grass. I, for one, prefer grass to turf. I think anyone would. However, we don't have grass fields at the Hills, we have rocks, holes and weeds. It can't sustain grass. Also, we have to emphasize the word "multi-purpose" here. It's about usability. It's about getting all sports teams a place to practice and play, football, boys and girls soccer, field hockey and lacrosse. It's about allowing gym classes to use the fields for activities, it's about the band being able to practice on a properly lined field so they can be prepared when the compete. People who are not at all informed about the programs and the field conditions just don't know what our school kids and coaches are dealing with. There are stories of opponents getting off the bus and getting right back on the bus because the fields were so bad. There was a state playoff football game this year that was stopped by the referee because something was sticking up out of the field.

As the Referendum rapidly approaches there is one topic that has not been considered and debated during what has become a very informative and useful online conversation.
That topic is perhaps best captured in a question and that question is - Do you trust that the $7.7 million improvement proposal is the best deal possible and do you trust that the Superintendent and the BOE conducted the due diligence required to assure us that they explored all available options. Many of the posters who have expressed opinions for and against the Referendum attended the BOE meetings when the topic was discussed and they know the level of interest and knowledge Board members demonstrated when discussing the proposal and they also know the level of detail the Superintendent provided when questioned abore core issues including safety, financing and community impact. So if you trust Superintendent Seitz and the BOE then by all means vote yes...

I think raising taxes just two months after Sandy isn't just ridiculous, it's immoral. Folks in this area need money to rebuild. Putting in artificial turf fields is a luxury that shouldn't be contemplated when people are struggling to survive.

Chris H...I agree with you 100%. That coupled with the deepest recession since the Great Depression really illustrates how the entire administration, both the BOE and the Mayor's Office, have no idea what the true pulse of the community is. I know it is only $30 per year, but if most citizens in Parsippany are like me, they have seen a 33% tax increase over the last 5 years while economy as a whole has stagnated. Yes, I said 33%!!!These are luxuries we should not be investing in during a time when so many are struggling.

vote this project down...

Bob- I would love to hear what you would do for this FOD project. All i have read is complaints about first the mayors proposal, then the BOE's proposal and now even the time table of when and how the referendum is being handeled. So I ask you what would you do?

@Enough Already, I am sure you have heard the term "I will wash your back if you wash mine" Are you getting fearful that all your friends are not available to return the favor? Mr.Crawford was one of 9 members why are you not asking all the others in the past what there roll was.You wouldnt want to upset those who you have promised to help now would you?

Thats fine, I have to figure the soap has run out in this lovely clean town sooner or later

Wow, there is a whole bunch of things to address...first, Analli: correct the $30 is the avg home owner cost. But to say that most will not pay that is really not true. Most will pay very close to that as the larger majority of home values in this town are between $250 and $350. And if you have a $500,000 home, I guess it's fair to assume that you could afford to pay a bit more than someone who owns a $200,000 home. Now, Michael: Stop using the "10 years and thats it" as the life of the turf. Jannarone is now turning 9 years old and showing no signs of being near the end of it's life. And also, it's gotten to it's 9th year with no regular maintenance. And lastly, Scott: I know what your driving at but depending on one's point of view, it's just a different bar of soap. And I'd like sit down and have a beer with you sometime and perhaps try to hold the picture up at a different angle. You seem like a reasonable guy.

Chris, Make that a coffee and your on ..We share mutual friends so that can be arranged. As I mentioned to Beth there is a desperate need to upgrade our fields,pointing out the path that was taken by some should be noted is my point.
Maybe I will see you at the ballfield this spring lol...

A coffee sounds good! I'm not a Starbucks guy...Dunkin Donuts is my preference.
Seriously..just reach out to me and let's do it.

Chris, sounds great I will get in touch over the weekend
Thanks

Enough Already
Any proposal that involves spending funds requires at least five votes of the nine member Board. As you may know over the past number of years the funds provided to the District by the State were reduced and yet the need to repair and and replace boilers, roofs, windows, and the need to install security cameras and to pay employees continued unabated. Given that reality the BOE had to decide where and how to spend tax payer dollars and per policy and process based those decisions on the recommendations of the Superintendent and the Business Administrator. Their recommendations were initally reviewed by the three member Building and Grounds Committee which, after a discussion and a vote,.forwarded their recommendations to the full Board. The Board had some difficult decisions to make and did so based on what it believed to be the District's priorities. For the record I expressed concerns about the quality of the PHS track but was convinced that other priorities took precedence.
My memory may be faulty but except for one instance approximately 8 years ago I don't recall any "outcry from the people" that was directed to the full Board regarding the condition of the District's fields and tracks. Perhaps, on Patch, you would be good enough to identify yourself and provide just one example of when you spoke to me or came before the full Board to express your concerns about the conditions of the fields and tracks. But that would take guts.Got any?

Sample Ballot Question - who did / did not receive a sample ballot? We are on brooklawn drive and I did not receive one as of yet.

This seems pretty simple:

WHY take on a TEN-year obligation for a product that is projected to last only SEVEN years ?

I wonder how much use the "Parsippany" Soccer club will have of these fields. They already use the majority of our town's fields free of charge and from what I was able to discern, (correct me if I am wrong) only 3 players from their national champion team are actually from Parsippany. It is not really a "Parsippany" team. Yet, we pay for the fields, the lights, the maintenance, etc. This does not seem right to me. I want my tax dollars to go towards actual Parsippany residents.

One other point - with the majority being not from Parsippany and playing for surrounding high-schools, we are actually helping make these players better, with our tax dollars who then compete against our own high school teams.