Post #25 My rec complex email to the planning board

Background: On January 1st, 2011 I was appointed for the first time to sit on a planning board. I considered that an honor but unfortunately I was green to proper procedures. In a 1/26/11 email to the planning board, Bill Neirstedt explained his conversation with an outsde professional regarding the turf field size requirements. In a 1/27 return email to that one, I copied to the whole of the board and (now as a planning board member as of 2011) expressed my sentiments regarding costs and other issues, cost being one of the conditions which was discussed by the board in a previous meeting of the past year (When I was not on the board).

This 1/27/11 email is the one referred to during the 2/23/11 PB mtg by board counsel Fraser as being out of order regarding transparancy since it was not actually discussed in a public forum only by the email system between board members. He deemed it a violation of the sunshine laws. I agree. I had asked him how I can have this email made public to which he replied that it will be included as a record to the rec complex application. In other words anyone from the public can OPRA all paperwork on the rec complex applicatoin and can review the email.

However, subsequent to that board meeting Mr King, a resident, asked if I would post my email that Counsel Fraser referred to. Herewith is the email en toto:


Subject: Re: Garwood Athletic Center
Date: 1/27/2011 12:18:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

This email is only circulated among the planning board members since Bill N initiated it (I may copy my thoughts to the M&C later):

i had looked at the field dimensions a while back and agree with Bill N that 50 x 90 was easily achieved by stretching the length. Width appeared to be OK.

Some digression: From the PB q's about costs and the data provided-Reviewing the $ amount charts given out to the PB, it appears we have about $1.3 to $1.4 mill in the bank for this project. Although we as the PB really have no jurisdiction over the cost consideration, it is my opinion that in these financially stressed times, it would be in the best interests of the whole town who are paying for this that a plan should not impact the residents taxes at all yet provide a reasonably acceptable project for all.

Mayor Crincoli noted that the boro would build something for the senior and youth of our town "at no cost to the residents" and I would like to honor his wishes.

I know there is a number of $2.1 mill out there for the entire project and maybe we can knock off the geothermal heating for the field house of $50-75k since that does not make sense on such a small scale. Looking at cost breakdowns, the soccer/lacrossse field costs about $600k so that should be built since its the hallmark of the complex. The lighting of the ballfield was about $100k (?) and there is a grant specific for that. Other elements to be considered are the walking paths, field house, bocce/horseshoe, playground relocation, basketball area, irrigation costs, some sort of picnic lawn area.

If we have $1.4 mill at hand and it costs $2 mill, so to me something has to give. I do not control any disposition but am just bringing this up for any dialogue if one wants.

At the council mtg tuesday, the mayor was asked who makes the final decision to go with the project once all T's are crossed or who makes the decision is anything should be changed if new info impacts the proposed layout. The answer was that the rec complex standing committee has the final say so. There is a meeting of that committee next week per the mayor. Unsure if they now have all information at their disposal and all questions are now resolved for them to proceed with their wishes.

It has been 10 years of foot dragging IMHO and a sudden evolution, but I agree that something can and should be done for our youth ASAP. Unsure if this serves our seniors since I missed the meetings of December and don't see anything substantial (but there is senior related grant monies involved)

I apologize for the lengthy email and I know i wasn't asked for a diatribe but to me after 10 years of watching this closely we are close but not quite there since costs and other elements not addressed are concerns. However as I noted, i have no input except as a resident and leave it up to the members of the standing committee for final disposition. And maybe to the joy of some, I am begrudgingly turning a blind eye toward heritage concerns in the hopes of ending this 10 year journey in exchange for a financially sound project.

all IMHO as a resident and member of the PB,

Bruce Paterson