Save Ritzer Field
With Ritzer being severed and a new vote taken on the remaining projects to be bonded.
And ignoring the fact that Ritzer will be destroyed as a result of the construction. The only question is whether or not when it is rebuilt if it will be an unusable grass field or a usable turf field(s).
Nancy Adams will never vote for a turf field. Her claim that there were "questions" still being raised was crap. Someone will always "just ask questions" that have been answered before or assert some new claim that is without a factual basis which would support Adams' approach.
There was also the question about whether or not the BOE could/should have started some sort of permitting process. No one asked, but I do wonder if expense monies could be used for that given that it relates to a capital expenditure. Also probably can't use capital funds for that purpose since the project isn't approved.
The BOE approved the expanded Ritzer plan 9-0. The BOSE’s town council members split 3-3 on approving the school funding package that included it, which means the package was denied. The BOSE approval for the original Ritzer turf concept that was part of the LRFP remains. Given that the BOE unanimously OK’d the expanded turf plan, would private funding be able to pay for the expanded turf section?
chalmers said:
The BOE approved the expanded Ritzer plan 9-0. The BOSE’s town council members split 3-3 on approving the school funding package that included it, which means the package was denied. The BOSE approval for the original Ritzer turf concept that was part of the LRFP remains. Given that the BOE unanimously OK’d the expanded turf plan, would private funding be able to pay for the expanded turf section?
Because the South Orange/Maplewood School District is a regional school district, the BOSE rather than the voters gets to weigh in on BOE expenditures that exceed the cap. The BOSE would not have any say on the use of private funds used for the project. However, there are other groups, including the DEP, that might need to give approval before the project went ahead, even if private funds were used.
ctrzaska said:
Resolution re-passed BOE 9-0. New BSE meeting slated for 3/18. Two points of note before leaving some of you free to continue your flawed arguments: 1) this isn’t a resolution about turfing Ritzer— it’s about additional turf on Ritzer and, 2) if one has financial concerns with the field, you’re missing the forest for the trees by a factor of about ten, and the true issues completely.
According to Village Green today, it was about turfing Ritzer:
[Editor’s note: To be clear, a project that included turfing Ritzer Field was approved and funded in the original $157M Long Range Facilities Plan. However, district administration reported that it had run short of funds due to inflation and supply chain issues before getting to the Ritzer project, among others, and hence requested the additional $30M bond. Also, under the new $30M bond “ask,” the district expanded the Ritzer project to include additional turf and fields at a total cost of approximately $4.5M. The previously approved Ritzer project was estimated at $2.2M.]
The BOE and administration blew it. If the district had stayed on budget with the long range facilities plan, the BOE wouldn't have to request extra funds. No one could have denied the Ritzer project in that case. Don't blame the BOSE for the past incompetence of the BOE and superintendent's office.
yahooyahoo said:
The BOE and administration blew it. If the district had stayed on budget with the long range facilities plan, the BOE wouldn't have to request extra funds. No one could have denied the Ritzer project in that case. Don't blame the BOSE for the past incompetence of the BOE and superintendent's office.
This was not a case of staying within budget for previously approved work. The Ritzer proposal changed. The original proposal for artificial turf was for one field. That was approved. The revised plan was for artificial turf on two fields, thus the need to go back to the BOSE for additional funding.
joan_crystal said:
This was not a case of staying within budget for previously approved work.
If that’s correct, couldn’t the district proceed with turfing Ritzer at the earlier approved scale?
As far as I can tell, it isn’t proceeding — because cost overruns on other projects under the bond issue bumped turf off the table.
DaveSchmidt said:
If that’s correct, couldn’t the district proceed with turfing Ritzer at the earlier approved scale?
As far as I can tell, it isn’t proceeding — because cost overruns on other projects under the bond issue bumped turf off the table.
I don't know if the money for the original proposal is still there or not. In any event, there is nothing to prevent the BOE from proceeding if they can raise the money privately.
joan_crystal said:
DaveSchmidt said:
If that’s correct, couldn’t the district proceed with turfing Ritzer at the earlier approved scale?
As far as I can tell, it isn’t proceeding — because cost overruns on other projects under the bond issue bumped turf off the table.
I don't know if the money for the original proposal is still there or not. In any event, there is nothing to prevent the BOE from proceeding if they can raise the money privately.
Raise money privately? What exactly do you mean?
yahooyahoo said:
Raise money privately? What exactly do you mean?
Grants? Donations? Fundraisers? I have seen this idea suggested by those supporting artificial turf for both proposed fields at Ritzer. I am not sure how likely this is to happen.
There was a vote against the 30M bond.