If turf is so good, why is there still professional sports using them. Turf puts kids at risk of injury, buy new sod and get on the contractors that are suppose to maintain the field.

Do you people know that turf fields cause many more injuries than do grass fields?

That's why major league baseball teams have gone back to grass surfaces. Artifical turf was shortening the playing life of professional baseball players and causing more injuries during playing years. Only two staduims still use artifical turf. Andre Dawson, a Hall of Fame baseball player, had his knees destroyed by playing on artificial turf.

College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial turf versus grass, according to a U.S. study published in the The American Journal of Sports Medicine;

Artificial turf is great for the fields in Parsippany. You'll believe that until your kid gets some kind of injury that will be with him or her for the rest of their life.

I’m a former athlete from Parsippany Hills. We need the turf fields. The current fields are in horrible shape. By installing turf fields maintenance will be easier throughout the year and the fields will be much safer. I remember playing on the soccer fields at the hills and they were in such bad shape, that all there was dirt and rocks in patches of the fields. And if you want to just bring in contractors to come in and keep repairing the fields that will just cost a lot more time and money over time than doing the turf fields. To the first comment above, having rocks and gravel in the fields must prevent injury’s better than turf fields right?? Plus if the turf fields are so dangerous why has our town put them in at Vets, Janerone, and Smith field and allowed many sporting events and practices there? We liked playing on those fields better than our field at the school. People will get injured on any type of surface they play on. As a former Parsippany athlete I know when I played I would much rather have been playing on turf at my home games then a field with rocks and gravel!

After the cost of the turf fields shaft the taxpayers, what's next? A $50 million dollar basketball arena? Please.....do it for the children.

The Jan 2nd Patch article on the Field of Dreams has a link to the PHS and PHHS project scopes; both listed the cost as a “preliminary cost estimate”. This estimate does not include: field replacement before 25 years, maintenance costs, utility fees and connection costs, or bleachers, nor does it address the heat issue with artificial turf. Please check these websites for articles on the heat issue from Penn State http://www.fieldturf.com/en/artificial-turf/artificial-turf-news/penn-state-university-testing-debunks-cooling-technologies and Brigham Young University
http://aces.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf before making your decision. Please also ask yourself why these facilities were allowed to fall into such disrepair.

Clyde, if the fields were "fixed" using real grass would you have any issue with it at that time?

There are articles and studies on both sides of the coin as to safety, price, etc. Those for turf are going to site the ones in favor of and those against, are going to site the opposite. That's just the simple truth.
Asking the question why the facilities were allowed to fall into such disrepair is not going to change the fact that they are in disrepair and need to be addressed. The pictures above do not lie. These are truly the fields are kids play on.
Putting down sod is not the solution. The follwoing issues will still have to be addressed: water management, the tracks, the fencing, the ADA compliance, the maintenance costs and most importanly, the fields will continue to only be used for football as grass simply cannot withstand the constant beating that turf can. Is that fair to all the other HS sports teams?
The question to ask is, "If turf is so bad and harmful why has the town installed 3 turf fields and why has just about every other town in Morris County done the same?" Our school facilities are so behind the times, it's shameful. The BOE has listened to the people, they have kept control of the fields, they lowered the scope of their original plan, and they have put it to a vote.
Walk the fields and take a look. If after doing so, anyone still thinks nothing should be done, then vote how you see fit. However, don't be under the impression that money is going to be saved.

The spoiled athletes and their cry baby parents don't need professional stadiums to play football and soccer, etc. However I think these fields would be off limits to all but the high school fooball teams.

You taxpayers are getting scammed.

As every article ever written has clearly stated: These fields will be used by physical education classes, football (Freshman, JV and Varsity), band, boys soccer, girls soccer, field hockey, fall cross country, spring track, softball, baseball (in early spring for outside practices) and hopefully one day there will be an LAX team as well.

Also, consider how nice it would it be if some of the games can be played more towards the evening so that working parents can actually get to come and see their kids play.

Not to mention the facilities will be welcoming to anyone with disabilities who are currently unable to access them now - kids and seniors alike. And let's not forget all the grandparents that will be able to attend games and graduations because they will have easier accessibility and senior-friendly facilities.

If anyone still feels that all of this is a taxpayer scam, again, I ask you to walk the facilities and then make your decision. Better yet, walk our fields then take a ride to Boonton, Dover, Roxbury, Mendham, Summit, Chatham, Morristown (just to name a few) and then make your decision.

I forgot to mention cheerleading too!

First of all I take offense to the rude comment of being called a spoiled athlete & atleast I am not an ungrateful resident of this town who doesn't appreciate this wonderful opportunity at hand for the children of Parsippany.

Beth, I am 100 percent in favor of the fields as it is an absolute disgrace presently and I do applaud your efforts.I do have one question?
What gurantee do we have that after this money is spent and the shinyness of this wears off that these like so many of the BOE fields presently fall by the waste side again? I ask this refering to your post of why does it matter about accountability of the past as to why or how we are in this predicament.I certainly hope just because money is being thrown at this problem it is just to clean up neglect from countless years in the past.

I've read what there is to read and prior to voting would like to know:

1) Are current fields maintained by in-house personnel? If so, how many personnel will be let go, due to less maintenance requirements by the new fields and what is the cost savings?
2) What is the current annual maintenance cost of the fields (looks like there should be a huge budget surplus from fields & grounds, since upkeep seems to be nil, but JMO)? How does that compare to the proposed maintenance cost for the turf fields less any decreased personnel headcount?
3) How many bids were received to arrived at the +$7M cost? Or, where did that estimate come from?
4) Who was ultimately responsible for maintaining the condition of the fields, which are presently unsafe and are lacking in very basic care and maintenance? My husband takes better care of our lawn.... This person or people need to be let go, and new people with a track record of actually maintaining public property need to be brought in.

These questions DO matter. And, it absolutely is crucial to agreeing to commit to +$7M - that we understand that they must be tended to. This is absolutely the problem with the current schools - no TLC & they look ghetto. As to the "only $30 per household" contingency - yep, it's only $30 - for the average homeowner - some of us pay more than average. And, it's only $30 for this, but there are plenty of other things in town that need fixing, so we need to be careful.

Scott - my answer to you is very simple - there is no guarantee on anything in life. However, I am an optimist. Regardless of the way things have been done in the past, I look towards the future. I hope that after the past year of bringing the condition of these fields to the forefront, that the residents will get more involved and not allow the mistakes of the past to happen again. I hope that more people with young children will get involved and stay on top of this board and the boards of the future to be sure that these fields stay up to par. Most of all, I hope that the board will realize the problems of the past and make 'maintenance' of anything: schools, fields, parking lots, more of a priority moving forward. A little preventative maintenance goes a long way.
Again, no guarantee, but hope.

Beth, thanks for responding. I think that should be the approach going forward and will pay dividends to us that will vote that some steps be taken to assure the residents investment will be looked after. I happen to have some free time this spring I would be happy to volunteer my time for the effort.

To:Sick O Trolls, lol while I dont understand you condemning people with fake names,I must point out that trying to ban someone for speaking there opinion is not a way to solve problems.MAybe there is an alternative to your issues with Clyde
Just sayin

Beth
As I think you know I raised five questions at the last Board meeting about issues that most concern many of the residents who live next to or close to the PHS and PHHS fields. As you may recall I did not get answers to any of the questions and was directed to submit my questions to the BOE through their website. I did so later thatevening and received a confirmation that my questions had been received. .
As of ten minutes ago Superintendent Seitz had yet to answer any of the questions which suggests that he is either unable to or unwillng to so. If he is unable to do so then the only conclusion that can be reached is that the required due diligence was not conducted by his office. If he is unwilling to do so then the only conclusion that can be reached is that he has somenthing to hide.As I think you might agree Incompetence and/or secrecy from the BOE do not serve or support arguments to vote in favor of the Referendum on January 22nd

can someone please show me where on the BOE website it mentions the vote on the 22nd? then they make the nasty comment about 10 people showing up and the other 59,000 saying they didnt know about it. at least put it to an honest vote.

The town makes money on the rental of the fields. The next thing is the $30..then it will be $20 for something else and then something for this and that and then the ten years will be up and you won't see your tax dollars reduced and then they will tell you because of the overuse of the turf fields that they will need to be replaced at a minimal fee. Which will raise the taxes again and again and again. And the last I know was that cross country runs in the streets...grass and some parks for their meets.

So Mike do you have a point here? Just asking.

How does Parsippany rank versus all the other Morris County schools academically? If we really want to stand out to new parents looking to move into the area I am sure academic standards are much more important than field conditions.

How many of you played a high school sport? How many of you took high school classes? Are any of you still playing a sport? I bet all of you are still using your brain every day at your job or even any where else you want to use it. Let's concentrate on fixing up our schools to be number 1 if we are so worried about these kids.

Just to clarify, there must be more than one Chris posting here.

OK...changed my name

Did a little research on the last two years of scores for all the high schools in NJ. Not a complete overview of the entire district but a quick analysis.

2 main things stick out to me a lot more than who has turf fields. 1)The fact that neither PHHS nor PHS rank in the top half against all the other HS in Morris County.
2) When compared to every other district that has multiple HS (each has two high schools as well) Parsippany has the largest discrepancy between the two schools individual ranking.
West Morris Regional - WM Mendham (ranked 3)
West Morris Regional - WM Central (6)
Hanover Park Regional - Whippany Park (11)
Hanover Park Regional - Hanover Park (14)
Morris Hills Regional - MKHS (12)
Morris Hills Regional - MHHS (13)
PTHSD - PHHS (10)
PTHSD - PHS (18)

Doesn't this town or the BOE care about PHS? Can't we spend a little time, attention and maybe resources towards the academics of these children? Why is there such a discrepancy between the two high schools and couldn't $7,700,000 be better spent towards fixing those problems?

Some of these posts are losing focus of the issue at hand - the referendum.

Test scores and academics, are important but are not going to be solved in this forum. If people are not happy with what is going on in their school then they need to get involved and demand answers. Don't ask why - offer a solution.

To clarify some items posted:

The date of the referendum is in the power point presentation on the BOE website
Cross country also uses the track to train
I don't think there has been anything secretive about this entire process
I did not play a sport in high school but I still care about how my high school facilities look. If you ask most athletes, they will tell you that they learned more life lessons on the field then they could ever learn in a classroom: sportsmanship, team work, humility, caring about more than just yourself, discipline, just to name a few.

If you were a first-time home buyer with young children and you walked around these facilities and saw first hand what has been depicted in the pictures- good test scores or not - would you buy a house here? I know that I wouldn't. I would look for the town that gives it's students the best of both worlds on and off the field. And as it stands right now, Parsippany falls short; and that hurts every homeowner.

Beth, I understand your point of view and you have been very persistent with it through out this entire process. I commend you on your continued support for something you believe in so much.
I completely disagree with you though. I can not believe at all that a family of any size at any point in their house buying decision is going to base that decision on the sports facilities versus the academics. Is it possible for one or two families? Maybe. I can only see that if they think their child is a sports super star and athletics is the only chance for that child. I completely disagree with that notion as well. Spend more time with anyone on academics and it will pay back in spades over a lifetime versus making a varsity team and possibly getting a scholarship. How about invest in their academics and have them get an academic scholarship?

Beth states" If people are not happy with what is going on in their school then they need to get involved and demand answers. Don't ask why - offer a solution." Wouldn't you agree that the first part of looking for a solution is to understand the problem? How can you offer a solution if you don't know WHY there is a discrepancy between the schools? If everyone understood WHY there is a discrepancy then maybe a solution would be more obvious.

I personally learned a lot through sports my entire life but I learned more in the classroom. To bring up academics is not losing focus, but maybe bringing focus to where it should be.

Analil - thank you for your very thought out, pleasant response. I believe in what you are saying in a lot of aspects. Academics should be important to any home buyers. I never said that the decision is based on the facilities vs. the academics. I said that to me, they go hand in hand. Let me rephrase my last quote and say that, "If I was a first time home buyer with young children and I walked through these facilities and saw first hand what has been depicted in the pictures - good test scores or not - I would not buy a house here."

This referendum is about upgrading facilities - period. We have a decision to make a as a community. My vote is YES. If there was a referendum to hire more teachers and lower class sizes for 7.7 million my vote would be YES for that too. Why? Because I feel that too, is good for the town.

All I ask is of anyone who votes please keep in mind what is trying to be accomplished - upgraded facilities. Facilities that are long, long overdue. Let's be honest, if the board tried to put in $1 million each year for upgrades for the past 7 years, we would still be having this same argument. At least now, we have an opportunity to get this done once and for all and move on with education. Because the truth of the matter is, if the referendum does not pass, the $$ is still going to have to come from somewhere.

As the days wind down and as the January 22nd referendum rapidly approaches it appears as though there are at least four schools defining Parsippany's residents' thoughts regarding the upcoming vote.
(1) People who are not at all interested and/or engaged and who will not take the time to vote on January 22nd.(In all likelihood and sadly this group of people will probably represent the largest percentage of Parsippany's population).
(2) People who are totally opposed to the Referendum and who will vote no regardless of how the voting outcome might or might not impact them, their neighbors and their community.
(3) People who are totally in favor of the Referendum and who will vote yes regardless of how and why the decision was made by the BOE to spend $7.7 million
(4) People who are uncertain and undecided but who are increasingly concerned about the BOE's and Superintendent's unwillingness to fully explain their plan and how it speaks to citizens' concerns about best price, field usage and neighborhood impact..
While it impossible to predict the outcome of the upcoming vote it is likely that less secrecy and more information from the Superintendent and the BOE over the next couple of days will go a long way towards creating an informed and perhaps supportive public.
To use a football analogy, the ball is just out of field goal range. it's 4th down and three with 90 seconds and no time outs left and the score is tied. Overtime is an option but......

I have respect for many of the people who have written here on both sides of the question. What I do not understand is how can we be so unconcerned with the cost of this referendum? Montville, our neighbor next door, is a far more affluent town with fewer people and much less industry. It has recently had a referendum on similar issues...turfing their high school field. It was defeated. Their BOE then tried another tack. They put out an RFP asking a business in town to adopt the high school field and pay for the installation of turf in exchange for some years of "naming rights". Now that makes a lot of sense.
I know the "recreation" parents want the turf fields and all the other additions that have been included in the referendum, no matter what! But as good citizens, good business people, good parents and grandparents, we are voting to accept a taxable amount and our leaders have not done any research as to how it could be done for less. To me this is inexusable. If the referendum passes, the people of Parsippany will be weighed down with paying for a $7.7mm bond. How was Montville able to get their needs done for only $1mm? To me it seems that our BOE and "recreation" parents want what they want and do not care about getting a fair deal or doing the job in a reasonable manner. Parsippany plans to spend almost 4 times as much per field. The answer can't be that we want it now because we think we can get it now. I think we are going at this in a poor manner.

Oh, and by the way, the people of Montville are NOT paying that $1mm charge for turfing their field. I think the Montville BOE is paying about only $25,000 toward the project. The sponsoring company is to pay $990,000 for the priviledge of using their name on the field and controlling the concessions for a period of time. Now that would be a great direction for Parsippany to go in, it seems to me.
Additionally, I noticed on the Parsippany BOE site that the Soccer Club is projected to use those same fields. It would be good for the taxpayers to know how may times per week the Soccer Club will be able to use the fields. We all realize that the fields will last for x number of uses. If the BOE allows the Soccer Club (or any other club) to use the field any appreciable amount of time, the frequency of replacement will, of course, increase. That means that we, the taxpayers, will have to foot additional bills for maintenance. If the current Parsippany SCHOOL usuage will allow the fields to last for 10 years, what will the use by NON-SCHOOL teams reduce that useful life by??? It looks to me like the Superintendent and the BOE have sold their souls in order to get the fields that the "recreation" families want. I would be happier if we had more information and better planning to convince the taxpayers that we are going in a responsible direction. At this point, I am concerned and doubtful.

After so much pushing for this project from our Mayor and now from our past BOE it will be very discouraging to find out that it can be done for less money and also for possibly giving up some concessions for a time.We all know the considerable mark-up for a hot-dog these days, It seems like Montville has no problem providing updated facilities by cutting in and outside vendor why doesnt Parsippany?

Will county track meets be held? How many lanes will there be? I thought 8 lanes were needed and we would only get 6 lanes. ?

Hank
At the BOE meeting last week I raised some questions I had about the upcoming Referendum. I was not given a single answer but was instead instructed to send my questions to the Superintendent's office and was promised that they would be included and answered on the District's web site. I did so and one week later have yet to get any answers.
Included among the questions I asked were:
Who are the local recreational groups who will be able to request use of the fields? Will the make-up of those teams be 100% Parsippany childrren and what will be the ages of the players on the recreational teams?
Will recreational teams be allowed to use the fields on Saturdays and Sundays during the school year? As the fields will be used by school teams each day during the school year between 3pm and 9pm, will local recreational teams be able to use the fields when school is not in session i.e. during holidays and throughout the summer?
If recreational teams are allowed to use the fields during weekends, holidays and throughout the summer, what times will the recreational teams be allowed to use the fields and how does the Board propose to deal with neighborhood traffic, parking, noise and safety isses that will arise as a result of the use of the fields by recreational groups during non school hours?
These aren't difficult questions and the Superintendent has had since August to figure out the answers. Maybe they have the answers but don't want to share them. I wonder why?

Bob,
Your questions seem very reasonable to me and should not be difficult to answer, I would think. I believe that some of your questions were answered on the BOE web site by the Superintendent writing in many places that the Parsippany Soccer Club (specifically) and other community sports clubs (not named specifically) would be permitted to use the fields. It gave lots of direction to various Board Policy notes (which were up to 17 pages long) which I assume after reading them that Dr. Seitz is looking to baffle us with volume, but it seems clear that the Parsippany Soccer Club will have lots of field time (and put lots of wear on the fields at no additional cost to themselves).
Your questions are good and deserve a clear and honest answer. I think my questions posed a few blogs above this one are also good and would help the voters and taxpayers to really understand the potential cost and value of the project. Unfortunately, I currently feel that the Administration and BOE are looking for the "recreation" parents to carry the ball across the goal line for them, without Seitz or the BOE members having to do much "heavy lifting". It won't cost them much, only about $30 bucks a year (or so they say, ha), but we know that we're really talking about $7.7mm of debt. And, $30 bucks a year for 10 years (wish that it was only that amount) will earn the remaining members of the "old" majority another term, or so they think. Not a bad deal for them, if they can get it, eh?

By the way, Bob, someone told me today that there was a big meeting last night of the supporters of the turfing referendum. I don't know if this is true but if it is, I wish it had been fully and openly publicized because I would have liked to attend. Perhaps some of my questions could have been answered and some of my doubts been assuaged. While there are some very decent people eager to have this referendum passed, I do not understand why so much of what passes for honest effort in this town is done in such a non-transparent manner. It would have been better for all people to have been invited to learn together why the project is good for all of us. Perhaps then we could begin to trust each other and show each other the respect that each side should enjoy, no matter one's position. And, I wonder which of our BOE members and/or former members were in attendance. Time may tell.

The PSC and any recreational club or outside the town activities should not be able to use the fields if the referendum goes through unless they pay substantially. No reason for them to be on the fields. The town charges them if a certain number of kids are from another town. Those clubs and families leave the fields a mess with garbage. If the cans are full they just thrown the garbage on the ground.

Mike, please read the information on the Parsippany BOE web site. It clearly says that the Parsippany Soccer Club and other local sports organizations WILL be permitted to use the turf fields. Period! And if you read the attached supporting Policy documents amd the many references to them, it must be doubly clear that carrying the vote to their membership has earned PSC and others, excellent and free access to $7.7mm worth of taxpayer paid for fields...if it passes.
According to the official site, the battle over who can use the fields, OTHER than school use, has already been won, it seems. The only battle left to decide is whether the Turf Referendum passes. We will see what the people of Parsippany are willing to swallow based upon what will happen on Jan. 22. Then we will know if Public Relations campaigns or planning, good sense and reasonableness will prevail in Parsippany. It is clear to me that the Mancuso-Calabria prior leadership (and their fellow supporting Boardmembers) knew fully well how they planned to get the "recreation" families to carry the water and why. We'll all know more about ourselves and our town after 1/22.

The BOE has thoroughly updated its Q&A and I recommend that everyone take the time to read it.
Also, I would like to point out that our local sports organizations' parents ARE taxpayers. So, please let's not single them out as the bad guys. As I have continually said, it's NOT about the local youths sports organizations; it's about our high school facilities.

. Now I have a question if the board can spend 7 million dollars to fix a football field why can't they spend some money to fix the girl's softball field at brooklawn? A.K.A The swamp.

The Field of Dreams estimated cost of $7.7 million is based on a project scope that includes the following items for PHS and PHHS:
• New 6 lane running track
• Synthetic turf field
• Storm water management system
• Barrier free accessibility
• Replace fences
• New lighting system
• New public restrooms

Not included:
• Replacement of non-ADA bleachers
• Maintenance costs
• Additional utility fees and costs
• *Connection fees for sewer and water may apply and are not included in these budgets
So what is the REAL cost of this project?

Beth,
No one has said or implied that the "local sports organizations parents" are NOT taxpayers. Of course they are. But the desires of that well organized group are being forced on the much larger contingent of taxpayers to fund their hearts desire. They may get their wish because they are well organized and deeply commited. However, that does not make it right. And, nobody is singling them out as "bad guys".
Thank you for mentioning the overnight changes to the BOE web site. Changes were made, but they only make the answers more obscure. Additionally, I was surprised at the answer on the BOE web site noting how changing the fields would make our student athletes more competitive. I have always doubted that projection of "fact". In truth, the team that your son played on so well (at PHS) has had remarkably success on a lousy (meaning NOT MAINTAINED) field. The other team (PHS) has done remarkably poorly on a similar field. You and I know that the difference in success rate has had nothing to do with the fields but lots to do with the quality of coaching and prior preparation (i.e., Little Vikings on the PHHS side vs. Little Redhawks on the PHS side). Some have said that the difference in demographics for each school has a lot to do with it too, but I don't know that.
You can say that it is about "the h.s. facilities" if you want, but the anticipated useful life has lots to do with how much the BOE allows the youth sports organizations to use the facilities.

Please keep focused on the issue - the High School Facilities. That is what this referendum is about This is strictly about brining these facilities up to date, making them ADA compliant and multi use. There are many other important things going on with our school system as well; but right the focus is the on the High School Faciltiies.

The total cost will most likely be less than 7.7 million. The BOE, in what is a responsible action, was very conservative in the estimate. If the referendum passes, then the project will go out to bid. The bids will very likely come in lower than the estimated 7.7 million. The extra money will then have to be returned to the taxpayers by law.

Hank - thank you for the kind words about my son who plays for PHHS (not PHS). However, I have never argued the point regarding better fields make better players. Actually, for football, I love the grass (not the weeds/rocks/mud that we currently have.) I can say, though, that in regards to soccer and field hockey (which I learned about this year), turf does make for a completely different game and I believe that the kids that practice soccer/field hockey regularly on turf do have an advantage over those that do not. Again, this is not the point of the referendum. The point of the referendum is about upgrading our high school facilities to best fit the needs of the students and the community and right now our facilities, in my opinion, do not fit that need.
If anyone wants to question how can good sports teams make a difference to a town - I ask you to take out your town calendar and look at the PTELL team. Those little athletes brought more joy and pride to this town than anything this town has ever seen.

Bruce C, you are right, there was money left over from the building project. By law, it can't be used for anything other than what is listed in the referendum. There was money returned to the taxpayers from that project. I don't recollect if the parking improvements were part of the referendum or not.

Mr. Brancato,
The BOE Web site was substantially changed overnight. Please see Beth Bluj's comments below yours telling us that. However, THIS Q and A still remailns. You can see it on the more Questions and Answers under the Referendum discussion. Q - What is the intention of the BOE regarding use by the Parsippany Soccer Club? A - They would eligible to use our fields as per Policy 7510 Use of Facilities. Please see the 17 page jumble that is given in answer to this simple question.
Regarding "horses and barns", you seem to think that the money is just another entitlement. You mention Montville's field. Well, Montville's turf field will be costing the taxpayers of Montville approx. $25,000. The taxpayers of Parsippany are being asked to fund $7.700,000. That is a hell of a differance!
And regarding the excess money to be returned, come on, Mr. B. When did you ever see that happen in Parsippany??? In fact the excess $5.5 mm that was left over after the prior years BOE budget mysteriously disappeared into other accounts that has never really been explained so most taxpayers can understand. We have never gotten money back. And, once the referendum is passed (if it is passed) we are OBLIGATED to pay the bondholders back the $7.7mm, not any lesser amount!
So, you vote your conscience, Sir, and I will vote mine.

Mr. Brancato,
I am truly not looking to pick a fight with you. I know you are a smart man. Your comment above - "Furthermore, as to your point about Montville's field costing less, remember that we're talking about 2 fields and substantial capitol improvements that are both necessary for safety, for field upkeep, and mandated by law. That's why there is such a huge discrepancy". I agree that there might be substantial differences, but how can responsible government just go out to "referendum" $7.7mm without studying and learning what is different about Parsippany's situation from Montville or even Summit's situation? Montville's taxpayer cost was $25K per field. Ours will be $3.85 MM each! That is nuts!
If the Referendum passes, the money will come in and MUST be paid back out to the bondholders as agreed. If we take more than is needed, we have all seen Government at all levels spend excess money because it is there and they will lose it if it is not used. That is not what should be happening in these very difficult financial times. We should investigate what is the best ways to accomplish better facilities for our students and plan for that. Not just grab the biggest pot of money we can and then spread the cost and let other people foot the bill. I know the politics of our BOE and Dr. Seitz is to do the later. I know that following the current course is wrong for all the people of Parsippany. We can do better for our students and each other.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Administration for providing answers to the questions I asked at the Board meeting last Thursday. As I understood the answers that were provided on the District web site yesterday evening , eighty foot light towers will be erected on the two football fields. And, given the way the current Board policy is written the fields could be in use 365 days a year from day break until 9 pm. I also understood that should parking, noise, litter and/or safety become a concern that the BOE will then react to those issues and own the solutions. This is important information especially for the hundreds of residents who live next to or in the proximity of the fields, to know and to factor into their decision making on January 22. As Ii have said all along an informed voter is Parsippany's best chance that the right decision will be made.

Hi, Mr. Brancato,
Thanks for your openness. My comment comparing Montville to Parsippany was only to clarify that whether one field or two fields are necessary, Montville's BOE, after being turned down by the voters, did a wonderful, creative job of causing there to be local interest in subsidizing the improvement of the field. This enabled Montville to pay only $25K for their one field and we are being asked to pay $3.85MM per field. That is some difference, just because our BOE and senior political representatives do not have the confidence to follow the more cost effective path. And once we pass a referendum, if we do, we are then legally indebted to pay the bill. Do you ever remember Parsippany taxpayers getting unspent money back? I don't. Mr. Brancato, the issue is simply this...we need to have more and better ideas to choose from so the voters can believe they are not getting hammered once again. This hasn't been done. Our former BOE leadership has taken the easy way out on this and other important issues. And, they have convinced the "recreation" parents that by supporting the former majority BOE members, the fields will be built sooner and more to their groups liking. That is so unfortunate because ALL of the taxpayers of Parsippany will be forced to pay the bill. If the BOE had any real smarts, it would find out what Montville and Summit did to get their fields funded without unfairly hitting the taxpayers. If you are there tonight please say hello.

Bob - it's time that you stop this nonsense and present the facts. Yes, the light towers will be 80', however, what you failed to mention is that (and I quote from the BOE website), "The Higher LIghts will allow the lighting to be directed more downward, than outward, which will result in less spillage off site and a more efficient use of the lighting." So, please, before you try and anger people - at least present the whole truth.

Now, in regards to parking, noise, litter and or safety - these are the same scare tactics you used last time and that's why it was so important to you and others that the BOE maintains the rights to the fields - and they have.

You know very well that football is on the ONLY team that draws a crowd (4-5x per season) and the town has always made sure the surrounding areas are blocked off with no parking signs. Do you have some information that this is going to change? If so, please enlighten us.

Also, please find me a field in this town that is used 365 days per year from day break until 9 pm. You can't. And, you also know as well as I do, that these fields won't be used to that kind of capacity such as that.
So please, stop the scare tactics.

Beth
Do me a favor and do something a bit nonsensical. Go to the property line at the end of your back yard and imagine four to six 80 foot towers erected a stone's throw away from where you are standing. And then realize that that will be your view for the rest of the time you live in your house. Perhaps that's a nonsensical issue to you but perhaps the folks, who will live next to or near the fields with the 80 foot towers, should be made aware of the fact that their back yard view is about to change forever. How they feel about those towers (with or without the low spillage lights) is up to them and they should know about them before they vote.
As for the use of the fields 365 days and evenings a year? You're right that's not going to happen given inclement weather and the observation of certain holidays. But that's my point. The ongoing refusal by the Superintendent to provide any specific information about field usage leads many good folks to fear the worst. You talk about scare tactics that create fear. Silence, secrecy and a vote in the dead of winter come to mind. This all may be nonsense to you but if it is then just maybe you are misreading the feelings of a lot of good folks who simply want to be told the truth so that they can make the right choice on January 22nd.

Bob, to be clear here, what I referred to as nonsense is not the fact that the towers are 80' high or that there is a concern for traffic, etc. You know I have always been sensitive to the people that live in the neighborhoods and to imply otherwise is twisting my words.

As for the vote in the dead of winter - this has been in the news since August. If people were not aware of it, that is not the BOE's fault. They have done everything by the book in regards to this referendum or there would not even be a referendum.

Transparency and truth goes both ways and I will not continue to argue with you.

Has anyone considered the project without the light towers? It would save a lot of cost, both installation and operating expenses. It would make the project more acceptable to the residents living near the fields. It's just another excess in the project. We don't really need lights.

Maybe it's time to get rid of football as a high school sport due the the severity of the injuries.

http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-seau-suffered-brain-disease-nfl-hits-184150065--abc-news-health.html

@ Enough already,why so defensive Mr.Crawford is just asking relevent questions why does it hit such a nerve for you MR.P , No matter how or the tone of questions are presented these our things that should have clear answers .I agree that these fields need a ton of work as most do in town,isnt it fair to have all the info before votes are cast? I vote yes for the fields presently but still want all the information to be on the table shouldnt we all?

I'm not sure why we need two stadiums in town. It would take some doing but if the BOE and Township were to do a land swap, we could have one single, shared stadium somewhere centrally located like the Smith Road area.

The savings would allow for the construction of a field house that would house locker rooms and concessions for less than the cost of constructing and mainting two field complexes.

One end zone would be Par-High colors, the other would be Par-Hills. Events would have to be scheduled more carefully, but it's possible. The abuse the field would see would rule out any natural turf designs though.

I have a question where are they going to put two more lanes on the phs track under the stands.

There are not going to be any more lanes than there already are. The referendum is to replace existing 6 lane track with a new 6 lane track.

$30 a day is the average house, many will cost much more than that. It is a waste of money and the cost is ridiculous. Did they even put it up for bid or does it include the cost of bribes?

Can I ask a simple question, how many of you actually have children in the school systems now? It seems that whenever I discuss this with someone they are either: for it (people with children in the system) or against it (people that just live here and don't have any children associated with the school systems, currently). Me, I have 4 kids in the school system (Hills side) and my family members have kids in the other side of town (High side).
Bob C, I don't know you only from what I have read here in the Patch, you seem to be 100% against this "field upgrade", do you have children that are currently in either school systems at the moment or are you just a concerned Parsippany Resident? It would be an interesting statistic to find out what part of the "yes" votes have kids currently attending schools in the district and the same for the flip side of the coin. (Sorry to address you specific Bob)

My question wasn't about paying taxes, it was more of a statistical question regarding those with kids and how they are voting. And Analli, since you brought up: "...have only those that vote YES to pay for the fields." I have a response for you. I will gladly pay for the fields in my taxes if I vote YES, but, people that vote NO should be on a list of people that can never step foot on those fields, nor their kids OR even better, never have another say what goes on about those fields.
And I don't even know if my kids will ever play sports (we don't pressure them), but I do want them to have respect for their school and not be embarrassed by it's field. Ever seen a graduation at the hills after it rains? Looks like a sloppy muddy rock pit. Makes those graduation pics great! Or ever have your 90+ great grandmother use a rent a potty cause the field doesn't have proper facilities? Or how about during a State Playoff game have the head ref stop the game because the field conditions are so bad (in football) and watch the A.D. and field people try to fix the issue? Not to mention, telling my little kids to be careful around the fences because they are so rusted in spots and in bad shape I don't want them to get hurt. But you are right, $30 a year is outrageous to fix these issues!

I wanted to ask if certain people here have lost their focus. We are talking about providing our kids with an upgraded facility for $30 a year, that’s the cost of 2 sodas a month. Is it the $30? Well if that’s the issue I am sorry to hear that. Is it because you feel the money could be better spent? There is always going to be something that needs to be fixed. We are talking about providing our kids with a first class facility. Where is your pride? Don’t you try to keep your home looking nice, mow the lawn, paint the deck or are you the one that lets the grass grow until you can’t see the house. The local school affects the resale value of your home it is usually the FIRST thing someone looks at before they move into a town. Would I love every child that goes to both High Schools to be a straight “A” student of course I would but I can’t make that happen and neither can you. Who knows with better facilities maybe more kids will take pride in their school and stay off the “street” and do better in school. How some of you think that a Turf Field that needs way less maintenance could cost more to up keep than a sod/grass field that needs to be looked at on a weekly basis is beyond me. Look you can vote whichever way you want that’s America people but if for $30 each year over the next 10 years I can give our current children and future children a better place to play than why the heck not.

Analli, your comments are exactly why I did not even want to get involved in this post because you can keep spinning this however you like. I am only dealing in the here and now if you want to concern yourself with what might happen down the road and what someone might want in a year from now or 10 years from now you can play this game forever but please do it with someone else. I am dealing in the facts of today. The school facilities are a mess that's a fact. It looks down on our town and school system that's a fact. It hurts property values that's a fact. I don't have my Magic 8 ball to tell me what the future will be if you do can I please have the winning Lotto numbers!

Annali - this is a very different way to look at it and thank you for sharing. What I am hoping here is that the BOE has listened to the people - in regards to the maintenance of the schools - and pay more attention to that in the budgets moving forward.
The fact of the matter is, our youngest school is 35+ years old and they have not been maintenaned properly - that's just the truth. I am not passing blame here; just stating a fact. So, we can start the process of rectifying the situation and learn from our mistakes or we can continue to let things fall into disrepair.
I have a daughter who graduated and a son with 1 more year to go. So, one would question my compassion on this issue. It is simply because I feel so strongly that this will only help improve our community as a whole.
I feel both my kids got great educations here. I think the teachers are top notch. So, if past years maintenance budgets were cut to 'keep it in the classroom' than I can accept that. However, there comes a time when 35 years buildings and grounds need to be fixed. Although some think that this referendum is overkill; I still disagree. I still believe that it is bringing our schools into the 21st century and I will be voting YES for the referendum.

Analli,
Good luck to you...you are 100% correct I am sure as our school facilities crumble before your eyes your home value will stay just as is or in fact rise in value and not quite sure where I said every child is embarrassed but again who really cares right. I mean when my son takes a friend to play tennis at the Hills and they have to play over cracks and divots I am sure he is as proud as a peacock. But let's quote one fact and the only fact in all of this is if my $30 a year can fix our school fields I am not sure what the problem is because everything else you state is a "What If".

Only hope can give you hope - and that's I try to have :)
Let's look on the bright side - turf fields need a lot less every day maintenance than grass so they should stay looking nice a lot longer. Fences should last a lot of years and the standing bathroom structure is really just going to be a concrete building with some toilets and sinks. The tracks will have to be replaced at some point regardless and I do not know how much maintenance they need on a daily basis.
Here's the key - when someone sees something broken - they need to speak up - Call the school, call the BOE, call the maintennace department - we ALL have an obligation to be sure these fields stay maintained. It's our tax dollars either way and we have a right to place a phone call and see something gets done about it.

Mike, I agree Clyde may have some angery feelings about many things,but honestly who is anyone to try to ban someone from blogging.I dont think it should bother some people the way it does but then again.If the sweater fits, wear it...

Clyde I agree and enjoy most of your posts(sometimes a little overkill)
I dont think there is anything wrong with posting your feelings about some of these situations and own them.I vote NO to Banning you lol

4kidsproductions
To answer your earlier posting (9:26 am). Yes I am a parent and have had children in the school system for the past 15 years. I also served on the BOE for seven years and currently sit on the Parsippany Education Foundation. My wife served as a PTA President at the elementary, middle school and high school and she is one of the parents working on providing this year's PHS graduates with the opportunity to participate in Project Graduation. I don't share all of this to brag but I do share it with you to let you know that we and many other parents, while being fully vested in ensuring the quality of our children's education, still have some concerns and questions about the decision we are all being asked to make on January 22nd.
In your post you said that I seem to be 100% against the upgrade. If asked to vote today I would vote against the upgrade simply because the Superintendent and the BOE have failed to make a compelling case for why I should vote yes.
Until the BOE meeting on December 20th the Board and most importantly the Superintendent hadn't begun to develop a communication strategy about the proposed upgrades.. Whether their failure to do so was deliberate or yet another example of mismanaged messaging is not important at this time. What is important is that people are provided with direct, complete and factual information and then are trusted to make the right decision. Without that information we have only one way to vote.

This is a classic exercise in futility. Clearly there are those in favor and those opposed. This is always the case with any decision that has to be made. The facts stand for themselves. I have to assume that some people believe that they can influence someone else to change their minds. There are 122 posts on this article and has anyone come out and said.."oh, you're correct, I changed my mind"? The only issue I have is that there are many facts being distorted and words being twisted to make points. The political process has become clouded with negativity, disdain and mistrust. The media glorifies the outrageous and profane. And we have all become part of it, caught up in it and destroyed by it. "instead of the rest of world becoming like us, we're becoming like the rest of world, tribal" Vote your conscience.

Chris, for me I disagree I have changed from a no to a yes.As soon as this proposal came up publicly anyway,I was against it for the secrecy and because of what I thought to be hijacking of funds from the open space.
I am shocked that these fields are in the same condition since I was in school in the late 80's.
I hope it passes,for the future of all not only my child but believe the only way to avoid a future problem regarding field maintenence is to find out what happened in the past to make sure it doesnt happen again?

Scott, Thanks for pointing out that I was wrong and you changed your mind. However, you have to agree that you are in the very extreme minority. And if you step back and really look at all of us as a whole, we have become tribal. I for one don't like it and won't accept it as the norm. Not much I can do though.

You are correct lines have been drawn on the patch. For my part I hope our behavior on here will advise all of our public leaders to be forthcoming about their ideas,and actually join in the conversation on the patch.In fact if they were all fighting for the kids why would we have so many issues that the public is trying to decipher.

Again, I agree, but I ask you, who will be the one to step up and stand for unification rather than division. I will always support those who work for unification. Compromise will always be what is best for any community. Sometimes you have to work WITH people rather than against them. I welcome a constructive discussion. I fear that we have become even more divided than ever because of retribution, competition and vendettas. Who will step forward to create a platform of unity... and in todays environment, who will listen? We are stronger when we are unified. Right now there is a great divide, we are weak.

For me, what builds credibility is transparency. I don't think you can be unified if you suspect others are doing things on the sly. If a new business wants to build in Parsippany, we ask the heavy questions - what will be the impact of the noise? the lighting? the parking? the environmental impact? But, when it comes to our OWN planning, we are handed down edicts and ominously warned that the "cost of delaying these projects are… Increased construction costs due to multiple, smaller projects, possible increase in interest rates, Interconnection of options."

The PowerPoint includes a random selection of local high schools that could be weighted to give the impression most have turf (I don't know at all, but it's just not good math - you need to show all of Morris County, or all of NJ, otherwise it's just fluff). What's the annual maintenance cost now for our fields? What will it be after turf? Will jobs be lost, due to less need for upkeep by current staff?

There is not one option or alternative evaluated - has a lawn expert come out to talk about grading/filling the fields and fixing the grass, plus a local fence company, etc?

I wonder what the enviro impact would be to homeowners near schools - I don't flood, but my neighbors often have pumps going on rainy days. Will it be the same, better or worse? Parsippany has had it's share of flood woes, for sure. We need to know this.

I'm not totally against this. Won't vote yes, in good conscience, without facts.

Robyn - all good questions. I am an not an environment or turf expert so I will not try to answer these questions for you. However, I do believe that you can find some of the answers on the Q&A portion of the website.
In regards to which schools in Morris County do/do not have turf - the list given on the website is accurate. I have been to lots of schools throughout NJ over the years, and I would feel confident in saying that the grass ones are becoming harder and harder to find.
Lawn is NOT an option in conjunction with what is trying to be accomplished and that is to make multi-surface playing fields that all sports/phys. ed classes can use. Grass or sod will not allow that to happen. All we get is a nice grass field that is used for football. Just not practical any more. Still have to bus kids to other fields, still can't use in the bad weather, and will still need much more daily maintenance than turf.
I will continue to disagree with anyone who thinks that this has been done with secrecy. This topic has been in the forefront for over a year now with much debate (often nasty). The BOE listened to the people and maintained control and put it to a referendum. They have answered questions, and continue to do so. A lot of people want to vote no on principle alone, but then we are still in the same boat.
I only ask that if you can get the answers you are looking for, you will consider voting yes. Thank You.

I have read the Powerpoint and the answers are not in there. There are no sources for cost estimates, nor impacts noted for the neighborhoods referring back to actual engineers who looked at this. I'm sure it is right that certain schools have turf - what %, though? I live pretty close to a high school. My backyard gets very soggy, at times (we are not in a flood zone at all) - didn't know this in the dry spell in which we bought our house. Luckily, my house itself, is on a higher level. Our neighbors are not so lucky - up & down the street there are plenty of water woes. We hear the games right now, although I don't see the light. If the light is substantially higher, I don't see how it's possible that we won't see it if it's going to be 3x higher and brighter, even if it's pointed downwards. As to secrecy - I mean, in general. You don't trust people who continually do strange things - accuse each other internally, bicker amongst themselves, elect the guy with the least votes - the norm here. We pay significantly more than average in property taxes, and I think it would be more detrimental to our property values to have potentially more water on our property, as well as more light or noise. As to the schools, I am debating sending my kids elsewhere, due to the academic ratings, at this point. We can pay this much in taxes in a town with better schools.

If this doesn't get passed I will most likely move to another country. This issue has me so riled up I say the most disturbing and disgusting things. You see, when you are as lonely and shallow as I am, you tend to rant and rave. As I sit here in my basement in a cold dark corner I think that the fields are more important than academics. I mean, who cares if our kids can't read, write or do math. What we need are turf fields like my friend Beth Bluj and Chris Joyce have said. We are all useful idiots at the end of the day and we have no idea as to what we talk about.

My question is in regards to the $30/year, .09 cents a day it will cost the everyone is concertrating on. I have read the referendum and the powerpoint and all i can find is vague wording such as "the AVERAGE homeowner" and "APPROXIMATELY $30 per year." I can only assume these figures are based on tax assessments/home values. My home is valued at $600,000 and my taxes are $12,000 a year. Am I to believe that I will be paying the same amount ($30) as someone who is living in a bungalow in Lake Hiawatha or Lake Par?

Probably not Cindy...if it's based on the 300k looks like that could be doubled for you and all alike. Then in ten years the fields will need to be returfed and where will this money come from...You of course...another ten years of 60 a year..and then again and again...Stop this insanity and just get the fields in shape..

Cindy
Mike is correct. The $30 estimate is based on an "average" house's value in Parsippany which, is I think, is in the neighborhood of $306,000. So your taxes, given the assessed value of your house, will increase approximately $60. That $60. will be added on to the automatic annual increase the Board is allowed to levy each year as long as their budget is not increased by an amount in excess of 2%. The BOE realized two years ago that by keeping the increase to 2% or less they could avoid having to put the proposed annual budget in front of the voters for their review and approval.
So your school taxes next year will include the $60 as well as the tax dollars that are required to pay off the annual charges related to the $47 million dollar renovation referendum that passed a number of years ago as well as the tax dollars that are required to run the district most of which go to paying for salaries and benefits. You may one day, in the not too distant future, look back at a $12,000 tax bill as the good old days.

Bob I agree!!

If turf is good enough for the Giants, it's good enough for me.

Doesn't matter what the cost of the rug is to be resurfaced. If it's 800k we the people of Parsippany will have to pay for it.

We need to be weary, god forbid we get another 100 year storm for a third year in a row, It cost just 324,000 to fix carpet only at Veterans Field,Open Space money to boot...