Bob,

With all due respect, this is not, and never has been about being AGAINST providing better fields for our children or schools. In- fact it's ABOUT providing those both through the use of school budgets and maintaining the integrity of school controls land. The community use need can and should be focused on existing parks like Smith field and other such sites. The soccer club has plenty of fields already available to them.

Nat, I still don't like it and think the schools should be paying for this themselves, afterall they caused the problems now let them pay for it. These fields were in their Care, Custody, and Control and should have maintained these filds much better. What else are they Not taking care of, that we pay them to? They have the $5M surplus from last year, they were talking last year about giving it back to the taxpayers, NOW its all gone, gee I wonder why, because they knew this stuff was coming up. The Mayor had $5M surplus from our being over taxed on the sewer and water as well, but he took that money ans put that someplace else also, and we are still being overcharged. When does this town wise up and put a stop to the corruption here.

It's unfortunate that this process seems to be "attacks" on respected members of the community. This is a vetting process that hopefully can bring ALL of the important points to the forfront of the conversation. It IS a conversation; and as conversations go, there needs to be two sides. If this project was approached that way in the first place, it wouldn't look like "attacks" as you claim. Instead, there would be FULL and appropriate disclosure, full transparency to for ALL the residents, full participation by ALL those impacted, and frankly no need for the opposing view to spend such time and resources to just that with this website.
More community members should demand transparency from their leadership and take a proactive role in the town.

@donna

I challenge you to quote one attack.

Selene, if the money is used for the field project by default every other proposed use of the Open Space Funds will either be put on hold or have less funds available to accomplish the goals of the Open Space Committee.
There is no way that over half of the expected future tax levies for capital improvements for all recreation and open spaces can be used on one project and there will not be some adverse effects to the other planned projects. Any one that tells you differently is not explaining the whole truth.

FOD website is self serving, useless.

@beth

How much did Inglesino charge for his time developing that website? It's pretty impressive.

foil, what you don't understand is we are going to be paying for this abortion of a project anyway. If not now we will be paying later, it has to be financed and we will be paying for it for many years to come, like a mortgage that never ends, don't believe what these politicians are telling you.

@foil

You said "In other words, nearby residents sound like nothing more then idiots when they say they knew nothing about it."

This project started over a year and a half ago and it wasn't until last December 2011 that residents in the area even heard about it. Think about it. If you were going to start a project would you want your potential opponents to know about it once you started the project or would you wait and let them find out as late as possible? It's politics, plain and simple.

Oh Louis – please understand that I mean no disrespect to you. I’m just out of my gourd that no one (particularly FOD proponents) is correcting this misconception about the length of the bonding. …And full disclosure – while I’d like to see turf – I oppose this method of funding.

The entire cost of the project is “conservatively” estimated at $4.5 million. Please note –that is the entire “installation” package – lights, track, and field. Yes it’s true that a turf field from what I understand only last 10 years – but that’s the fabric (if I’m using the correct term) and fill. Yes – similarly – lights need to be replaced on the lighting system, and I’d imagine the surface of the track has an expected useful life as well. But it has to be noted that within the entire package ($4.5M) is the one-time “installation” vs. the wearable items. It’s not unlike having a 30 year mortgage and having to paint or replace a roof (several times) along the way. The replacement of the carpet and fill I’ve heard pegged at $300K (based on the recent Vets Park replacement post-Irene) to $500K, which under the current scheme would likely be another payment out of OSTF.

Just wanted to make sure we’re all clear on that.

Louis, I so agree with you, this thing is going to be funded for 15 yrs and then in 10 yrs we have to put out another so called $300,000 to do it again, and thats at todays prices, in 10 years it may be doubled that, it like a mortgage that is never going to end. You can't believe these politicians with their legal double talk to turn it around some other way to make it look good when its not. I am a taxpayer here to for the last 32 years. I especially don't believe a democrap and the lies they are always telling. Thats the only way they know how to talk is with lies. Please don't let them steer you wrong, this money can be used to help all these people in lower Lake Hiawatha, who have been suffering for months now, and many are still not in their homes because of red tape that noo body wants to hear about. Its about time we do something right to help the citizens and not the schools who are doing nothing but spend money on stupid ideas. They should have been maintaining these fields right along but used the money to pay you know who and his lying phony contract--that he doesn't have.

I agree with you Patchlover, these schools should be paying for this NOT the taxpayers again and again. The Mayor is really trying to run this thing through for some reason. It looks like someone is going to make a real quick buck off the taxpayers again.

Great point, Natalie. And, Frank, I hear where you're coming from. My concern is that the very genesis of this FOD initiative was that the HIGH SCHOOL kids have "unsafe" fields. That can be debated. I hear BoE saying that officials inspect the fields before each game, and they're fine or they wouldn't be played on. I hear the town saying the fields are in "horrible shape."

What upset me is that there hasn't been more open debate and proof/inspection, etc of the actual fields. Much public sentiment can be addressed if there was an official position on the actual condition of the fields from a professional.

If the fields are, indeed, UNSAFE, I am worried that the BoE hasn't allotted any funds for what needs to be done. If they are, indeed, SAFE, then this whole FOD proposition is more of a "nice to have" than a "need to have." And then, it could be taken to a place of other private sport interests needing more fields and something the town can address.

My point in this is that it's all been opinion...not much backed up by facts...and I expressed at the BoE budget meeting that supposedly there is one field that is 3' off level, bad track, etc...yet there isn't any line item for any upgrades to the fields. At the town meetings, I have expressed that it is truly a BoE issue.

I was worried that something so much of the public has been openly passionate about - including high school kids speaking at Council meetings - hasn't seemed like more of a priority to the BoE.

Kristen, the maximum acceptable slope for a high school track is 2%. The difference of 3feet only creates a slope of approximately 1.1%. There is no problem with the 3 foot difference and it does not need to be corrected.
Whoever designed and built the original track must have known this and was fine with the 3 foot difference. There is no need to add cost to this project or any project to fix a problem that is non existent.
These comments are based on facts, not opinion. If anyone wants to look it up I found this information here, Sports fields: a manual for design, construction, and maintenance By Jim Puhalla, Jeff Krans, Mike Goatley p. 320
To figure out the current slope is 3ft / 270 ft = a slope of 1.1%. The 270 feet is the distance between the two outer edges of the runways on a high school track.

I do not know why there is an impression that 8 lanes are needed for high school sanctioned events.
Look through old results, even as recently as last years high school regional and State Championships for Track and Field and you will see that many of the tracks used are 6 lanes.
There is nothing in the NJSIAA bylaws or rules that states a track meet has to be on an 8 lane track to be sanctioned. There are specific rules for 6 lane tracks and for 8 lane tracks.
Why this big push for TWO 8 lane tracks when they are not necessary?

Thanks @Kevin and @Jennifer. I didn't realize at all about the 3' level difference not being too much of an issue. The way it had been discussed at Council meetings, I took that as one of the critical pieces. Thanks so much for clarification.

Agree completely about not needing 8 lanes. Especially at PHHS where the track is in great condition. I went to look at it and don't know why anyone would say it isn't.

And, Michael, thanks for the clarification on field use. We bough on a high school, expecting high school football games....not non-stop use by all age ranges and sports. This thread is such great progress that there is FINALLY a debate going on that represents all sides of this. To everyone on this thread - thanks so much for being a part of it.

Discussion + Debate + Transparency + Compromise = the best solution for everyone involved...

Kevin,
In your post you reference the soccer club as being the driver of this proposal and why should we give more fields to the soccer players in town. If the 2 youth football programs, that each align themsleves with their respective HS, used the new fields would that change your opinion and tone?
Look at the FOD committee, although there is respresentation from all youth organizations, most of the committee are football parents (I am not 100% sure on this, but when they speak at the town meetings they represent that).

So why the hatred for soccer? Has the sport or the people involved in it done something to you? I don't know much about the sport, but if children play it, then I support it whether it is soccer, football, rugby, or cricket. Either support ALL youth sports and activities or don't support any, but stop with the hatred for a segment of our society that does not conform to your way of thinking.

Bob,
It is not that the Soccer Club has done something to us, they did something to all taxpayers. We only looked into this after Mayor Barberio said the Soccer Clubs would primarily be using these fields. See the You Decide Section http://parsippanyunite.com/you_decide There are TWO VERY DISTINCT ASPECTS TO THE SOCCER CLUB - Intramural is LOCAL. They only play from Sept. - Nov. The Travel and Academy Programs recruit from outside Parsippany and play up to 10 months out of the year. Because of not having 80% residents on these teams, the town ordinance was changed in order to ensure they would not be billed for these teams use of the fields. Is this fair to taxpayers? How much could have been made by charging the out of towners? Look at the Field Use Fees that are linked from Parsippany Unite.

Bob,
I don't have hatred for any sport and frankly I never thought about the youth football teams playing there. That was not my point, so I fail to understand where you are coming from.
I even stated at one point I thought turfed fields is a good idea.
My point is simply that these fields a currently controlled and paid for by the Board of Education and to give up that control in order to cater private groups is wrong. For it to be paid for by open space money is wrong. The arguments being made by the FOD folks are biased to their cause.
Statements are being made about the unsafe conditions on these fields. I ask you how can that be a concern to the youth football or soccer or rugby teams if they don't use these fields now. I can only draw the conclusion that these private groups are looking to expand their programs and have convinced the powers that be that this would be shared services at its best.
I believe the FOD group including Township employees wants to turn these fields into public parks without regard for neighbors, the BOE or the taxpayers. So no hatred from me I just this a poorly designed method to cater to special interests that are already being taken care of by our tax dollars. If that constitutes hatred in your mind then I feel for you.

Well said, @Kevin. Points I hadn't thought about. True that the HS athletes have said their fields are bad, but I hadn't thought of why that would currently bother non-school sport youth/parents. Happy to see this debate happening, and happy to see residents get involved. There is no right or wrong, and no one, correct solution. What is needed is ongoing dialogue to get to something practical.

The Mayor will be answering as many questions as he can next week to address concerns of people questionining or opposing the current turf plan. That'll be a great start. There are many things that still need to happen:

1: Town Council needs to vote on ordinance change, which would pave the way for funding with OSTF money and dissolve the current OSTF as we know it (taxpayers should have an interest in ensuring they have the info they need to make an informed decision)
2: Board of Ed needs to hear back from the State Dept of Ed (who, in turn, is waiting to hear from the AG on whether a conservation easement could be granted). If not, this doesn't proceed.
3: Board of Ed needs to vote, based on above (and should have all of the information they need to make an informed decision)
4 - Mayor has conditions he has or will be addressing with the BoE and if those aren't accepted, it doesn't go forward.

Correct me if I missed anything here. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot of steps in this process so I don't think it can move as fast as some have said it would.

Thanks @Beth. Understood that someday the kids will be at the high school. That's a great point - one I hadn't thought of. In my mind, this then makes it something that isn't as critical as breaking ground ASAP, but something that really is important to address and have as many voices as possible behind, going into next year's budgets. Do you think we could have more dialogue about this and shoot for a collaborative plan to start on for next year....one that could keep the BoE land with the BoE and have them finance it? Having time to plan could ensure we could explore other ways of fundraising, get detailed water studies, work out appropriate scope, lobby for BoE funding for this, etc. Surely with more time to plan, we could come up with something that would get the fields to what they need to be and have a lot more support. In the meantime, if more field space is needed...could we look at other town owned land, and something that could be moved on right away? I know there is an idea that could be implemented quickly that wouldn't meet such resistance. I am in support of it.

I am a huge supporter of getting the high school athletes their fields...but doing it with BoE resources, in a way that isn't over-scoped, and keeping the land school owned. Just keeping this at BoE level cuts cost for lighting, track lanes, etc since scope for shared usage is cut. It's just where I am coming from.

Thanks for your perspective and shedding some light for me!

Kevin, I apologize. After reading your response to my comment and re-reading your Part 2, I see better where your coming from. My reponse was to your comments in Part 1. It seems people are using the soccer as a rallying point against the project and that should not be the case; base it on its merits and not on the possiblility of one youth organization's benefits.

Michael,
I read the use decide as suggested. In the ordinance where it lists all the local youth orgainzations being exempt, it also states that any non-resident must pay a $100 fee. So it would appear, based on this information, that all youth orgainzations are exempt from paying and all non-residents on those teams are paying a fee to the town. I wonder, would it be better to rent to organizations not affiliated with the town and would not have the same overall community feeling of looking after the fields.

Also looking at the section you point to and reading the emails and gather other information. The Soccer Club appears to be the only town-wide youth organization so with limited space in the fall would it not benefit all the youth participants to provide more fields for there use. It seems the soccer club does a lot more for the community as it was just honored by the Parsippany Chamber of Commerce.

Michael - I could be wrong, but I do not believe the BOE would be charging in-town teams to use the fields. My daughter played soccer in town for 13 years and probably used every school field there is; we, as a team, were never asked to pay for a field. The Pride Tournament has definitely used HS fields in the past for their tournament which has been held in town on Columbus Day weekend for the past I don't even know how many years.

Beth,
Thanks for your note. I understand you are saying the Soccer Club has used every field. However, an email included in the You Decide section shows the Club President Dave Ferguson saying they have NOT used the high school fields during his tenure. Do you know otherwise? http://parsippanyunite.com/you_decide

Michael, the Mayor is going to tell these people anything they want to hear as long as he can get this thing through. Parsippany needs to wise up for a change, not everything here is about the "Kids". Think for once, somebody wants this to go through real bad, and you have to ask yourself "WHY" whats in it for them. You cannot trust this Mayor or the council, whatever the Mayor wants they are going to give it to him.

Michael,

You are wrong. I read the You Decide section you mentioned, The email between Dave Ferguson, President of the Soccer Club, and Joe Plescia (town's Recreation Supervisor) states they soccer club has not used the two HS football fields; not that they never use the fields at the HS.

Frank - great questions. I've had them added to the Our Questions section of Parsippany Unite. Check them out at the bottom of the page here: http://www.parsippanyunite.com/our_questions

I've also sent them to the Mayor, so they should be addressed at the meeting on March 13th. Will you be in attendance?

Frank - Each team that rents a town field must submit a certificate of insurance and must display their permit at all times.
Organizations that want to use a field or rent a room at the High schools must also submit their own insurance policy naming the BOE as additional insured.
In addition, most school booster clubs must carry their own insurance. That is paid for by money collected through fundraising by each booster club.

Thanks for the clarification, @Beth.

Do you know, based on the FOD plan, if any schedules have been drawn up? I hear some residents (including @Frank) asking what recreation use will be available for residents. We know school hours won't be open to the public, but we've heard that the field schedules will be pretty packed in order for the town to get their 51% use. Will there be set times where the tracks, etc, are open for taxpayers to just use? I think it becomes tough to call it "open use," if in reality it'll be pretty booked up. Currently, there's little to no availability for any residents to use the turf fields we already have since they're booked. I could be speaking out of line here...so if anyone out there is familiar with the other fields and scheduling, could you contribute here?

Thanks again.

Kristen - the school athlete already plays on the town land. Both HS soccer programs and field hockey, maybe even football for practice, use the town turf fields when the school fields are unplayable.

I forgot who owns Parsippany High fields?
Thanks

Frank, I believe it's the BoE that currently owns them. I live literally right on the field. Our property line is less than 50 feet from the track. I was told by someone in my neighborhood that the land that the fields are on was given to the town back in the late 60s, I believe, by the developer of the houses on Brooklawn so that the development could continue. So, the land was given over as a gift and then packaged as part of the high school when it was built. It's been BoE land since the school was built....meaning the BoE is responsible for maintaining it, developing it, insuring it, etc.This would essentially shift all of that responsibility to the town if they take over the 51% rights via the permanent conservation easement. Hope this helps...and if I am incorrect on any of this, I'd hope everyone can jump in and correct me. I am just writing what I've heard...