Save Ritzer Field
chalmers said:
Here are the attachments for the BOSE meeting to be held at 5 p.m. Tuesday. One is an email from the outside engineer stating that there is no presence of wetlands at Ritzer.
There's also a detailed financial breakdown. As most people realize, turf is more expensive to install, grass is more expensive to maintain. Over a 24-year period, which would include replacement of the turf halfway through, the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). However, the turf could be used nearly four times as much.
How much does it cost to maintain a grass football field per annum?
It’s not even 100k ! You’re saying it’s 5 million to maintain Ritzer grass in 24 years? I just love how people throw out numbers to make their claims. It’s not realistic, and you guys will push and push until people get fed up with the fight.
These millions you guys are throwing out will double in 10 years. It’s the same old argument over and over. Aren’t your taxes enough already?
Jaytee said:
You’re saying it’s 5 million to maintain Ritzer grass in 24 years?
No, that’s not what chalmers was saying. The numbers are there in the link for you to dispute if you choose to view them.
Aren’t your taxes enough already?
If they weren’t enough to keep our school facilities up to date, that’s another no.
When it comes to the school district, the amount of school taxes we are paying is only part of the issue. The other part is how the school district is prioritizing the expenditure of the tax money collected.
In 24 years the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). … maybe I need google translate or babblefish
Jaytee said:
In 24 years the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). … maybe I need google translate or babblefish
Calling up the link would be just as easy. There you’d see that of the $5 million cost for grass over 24 years, $1.7 million is for maintenance.
DaveSchmidt said:
Jaytee said:
In 24 years the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). … maybe I need google translate or babblefish
Calling up the link would be just as easy. There you’d see that of the $5 million cost for grass over 24 years, $1.7 million is for maintenance.
I would say the estimated costs of turf vs grass are extremely optimistic for turf and extremely conservative for grass.
For example, from the 2018 presentation on the long range facilities plan:
$1.2 million to "replace turf at Underhill Field."
So now they are saying a much larger field than Underhill will only cost $600k about 12 years from now? Give me a break. Let's see realistic numbers.
joan_crystal said:
Fencing cost is included in the proposal documents. Is the proposal to fence in the entire two-field complex? If so, what impact would that have on multi-use of the space?
I just noticed that the fencing cost is the same for both turf and grass, so whatever the impact is, the choice of turf vs. grass doesn’t appear to make a difference.
yahooyahoo said:
For example, from the 2018 presentation on the long range facilities plan:
$1.2 million to "replace turf at Underhill Field."
So now they are saying a much larger field than Underhill will only cost $600k about 12 years from now?
Good question. The estimate for the initial turf install at Ritzer, though, is $882,000 — also well shy of $1.2 million — so, square footage aside, there may be an apples-and-oranges element to a comparison of the two sites.
Jaytee said:
How much does it cost to maintain a grass football field per annum?
It’s not even 100k !
Sorry, this chuckle just came to me.
So, what’s $1.7 million divided by 24 years?
It’s $71,000 per annum. Not even 100k.
yahooyahoo said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Jaytee said:
In 24 years the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). … maybe I need google translate or babblefish
Calling up the link would be just as easy. There you’d see that of the $5 million cost for grass over 24 years, $1.7 million is for maintenance.
I would say the estimated costs of turf vs grass are extremely optimistic for turf and extremely conservative for grass.
For example, from the 2018 presentation on the long range facilities plan:
$1.2 million to "replace turf at Underhill Field."So now they are saying a much larger field than Underhill will only cost $600k about 12 years from now? Give me a break. Let's see realistic numbers.
They're not my numbers, so I'm not making any representation as to their veracity, but at the same as the turf was replaced at Underhill, there were other repairs, such as the replacement of the near-side bleachers. I don't know if that could explain the difference.
chalmers said:
yahooyahoo said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Jaytee said:
In 24 years the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). … maybe I need google translate or babblefish
Calling up the link would be just as easy. There you’d see that of the $5 million cost for grass over 24 years, $1.7 million is for maintenance.
I would say the estimated costs of turf vs grass are extremely optimistic for turf and extremely conservative for grass.
For example, from the 2018 presentation on the long range facilities plan:
$1.2 million to "replace turf at Underhill Field."So now they are saying a much larger field than Underhill will only cost $600k about 12 years from now? Give me a break. Let's see realistic numbers.
They're not my numbers, so I'm not making any representation as to their veracity, but at the same as the turf was replaced at Underhill, there were other repairs, such as the replacement of the near-side bleachers. I don't know if that could explain the difference.
The bleachers were a separate line item in the same presentation. $1.2 million was for turf only based on the information that was presented.
This is getting interesting, and I admit that after a few conversations I may be rethinking my position. The BOE claims that these are not wetlands, but this doc says otherwise.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:62a2d2c7-f0d7-47f4-95af-de64e3bef74d
DanDietrich said:
This is getting interesting, and I admit that after a few conversations I may be rethinking my position. The BOE claims that these are not wetlands, but this doc says otherwise.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:62a2d2c7-f0d7-47f4-95af-de64e3bef74d
Interesting. I can't access the report, but does it say that because of the wetlands only that turf shouldn't be installed or should the area not be used as an athletic field altogether?
The report only says that the area is a wetland area. It does not take any position. But it makes me wonder how the district claims otherwise.
According to the EPA:
"Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
DanDietrich said:
The report only says that the area is a wetland area. It does not take any position. But it makes me wonder how the district claims otherwise.
The emails that chalmers mentioned and linked to earlier acknowledge the DEP map but say, according to the hired civil engineers who found no wetland at Ritzer, “the maps are often wrong in either direction or it is possible that the map reflects a soil or other condition in the area prior to the school/field being built.”
https://somsd.schoolboard.net/sites/nj.somsd.schoolboard.net/files/B.%20RitzerNotWetlandsEmail.pdf
And then the link you shared suggests that the DEP wetlands determination was made more recently and remains current. (ETA: Weird. I could call up the report yesterday, but now it’s asking for an Adobe account.) It’s hard to tell from these two sets of contradictory documents, by themselves, who’s right.
tjohn said:
According to the EPA:
"Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
The state DEP’s wetlands information is probably more relevant. Here’s an excerpt:
“In a wetland, the water level will be at, above, or just below the surface of the ground for some duration of time at least once per year. A wetland does not have to be wet constantly. Some wetlands retain this high amount of water throughout the entire year while others will only be wet during certain intervals, such as during a particular season. The water in a wetland might come from a nearby waterway (such as the ocean, a river, a stream, or a creek) or from precipitation. It could also seep up from below the surface of the ground.”
https://dep.nj.gov/wlm/lrp/wetlands/
We’ve entered a technical area of the discussion that I feel ill equipped to judge.
The letter from the engineer simply states there were no "visible" wetlands. It sounds like they didn't look through DEP records at all. Just because "wetlands" weren't visible, it doesn't mean it's not a wetland.
This sounds suspiciously like one of the various specious arguments against turf fields that the anti-turf contingent trots out in effort to defeat the proposal.
And if cost is the concern, why don't we just defund all athletics at CHS?
DaveSchmidt said:
The state DEP’s wetlands information is probably more relevant. Here’s an excerpt:
“In a wetland, the water level will be at, above, or just below the surface of the ground for some duration of time at least once per year. A wetland does not have to be wet constantly. Some wetlands retain this high amount of water throughout the entire year while others will only be wet during certain intervals, such as during a particular season. The water in a wetland might come from a nearby waterway (such as the ocean, a river, a stream, or a creek) or from precipitation. It could also seep up from below the surface of the ground.”
https://dep.nj.gov/wlm/lrp/wetlands/
We’ve entered a technical area of the discussion that I feel ill equipped to judge.
I just read the linked documents. Most recent document (2/7, from the BOE) asks for confirmation from the engineering firm that Ritzer is in fact a wetland. There is no later dated document at that link indicating the engineering company's reply.
yahooyahoo said:
The letter from the engineer simply states there were no "visible" wetlands. It sounds like they didn't look through DEP records at all. Just because "wetlands" weren't visible, it doesn't mean it's not a wetland.
The emails mention that the engineers took some soil samples.
joan_crystal said:
I just read the linked documents. Most recent document (2/7, from the BOE) asks for confirmation from the engineering firm that Ritzer is in fact a wetland. There is no later dated document at that link indicating the engineering company's reply.
I don’t see a Feb. 7 email in the link. Am I missing it, or is there another source for that email?
DaveSchmidt said:
yahooyahoo said:
The letter from the engineer simply states there were no "visible" wetlands. It sounds like they didn't look through DEP records at all. Just because "wetlands" weren't visible, it doesn't mean it's not a wetland.
The emails mention that the engineers took some soil samples.
You are correct. It's interesting that the results of the soil samples were never mentioned in the emails.
Was the conclusion that Ritzer is not a wetland based on the visual inspection only, or also on the sample results?
DaveSchmidt said:
I don’t see a Feb. 7 email in the link. Am I missing it, or is there another source for that email?
February 7th 10:22 AM document, which is the last in the chain, asks: "Can you tell us when we will get the results for Ritzer being a wetland?" That suggests as of 2/7/2024 the wetlands status of Ritzer had not yet been determined.
Valley Street is in a valley. It’s wetland. Maybe they’re thinking of building up the field higher so that the drainage is at street level. Or maybe they’re just plain ole lying.
I think we need to identify all the former wetlands in Maplewood and South Orange and restore them to their original state.
tjohn said:
I think we need to identify all the former wetlands in Maplewood and South Orange and restore them to their original state.
No one is asking for Ritzer to be restored to its original state.
yahooyahoo said:
It's interesting that the results of the soil samples were never mentioned in the emails.
Jan. 31 (reply included in the third email down in the link):
“… but initial indication from taking the samples was no — they saw nothing in the soil that would suggest wetland characteristics.”
joan_crystal said:
February 7th 10:22 AM document, which is the last in the chain, asks: "Can you tell us when we will get the results for Ritzer being a wetland?" That suggests as of 2/7/2024 the wetlands status of Ritzer had not yet been determined.
Oh, I see now. I think that time and date, at the top of all four pages, are when those pages were printed.
The last email in the chain — the one that appears first — is stamped 5:37 p.m. Feb. 6 and says that “no further action is necessary by SOMSD regarding this subject.”
Aren't snow blankets reusable?