ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"Death Valley" in Montville?
Posted by Ron Soussa at 2:53 PM
 

A committee has formed to raise funds to install artificial turf at Montville High School stadium.

Funding for turf was defeated by voters in 2005. The committee of concerned Montville citizens has taken it upon themselves to start a fund raising campaign similar to what other districts have done to raise this money.

Bravo to this group for their perseverance and dedication.



54 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
54 Comments:

$900,000?? Wasn't the original total a few years ago in the $1.2 million range (even though they were seeking approval from voters of only $800 - 900K)? what's different this time that eliminates roughly 1/4 of the cost?

Good to see members of the community come together to try to finally accomplish this task. Good luck.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 2, 2007 12:53 PM
 
 
Why is artificial turf necessary? Are the children of Montville unablr to reach their potential on plain old dirt and grass?

Concerned citizens might direct their efforts better towards something to improve living or reducing tax burdens etc. Unless little Joey is about to start high school and plays football.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 2, 2007 8:36 PM
 
 
I think that it's great that a group of individuals have chosen their own cause and are working to make it a reality. More power to 'em!
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on October 2, 2007 10:14 PM
 
 
I like the way they say all donations are 100% tax deductible, let's be honest on a $300 donation the average person gets only a couple of dollars in tax savings when you itemize.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 3, 2007 12:57 PM
 
 
the original cost included the track which has since been replaced out of necessity. this project is not about little joey about to start high school and plays football.several sports fall and spring,physical education classes,the band[currently the band spends the most time utilizing the stadium field] and other school and community activities would utilize the facility. in today's world one grass field cannot withstand the demands for it's useage.mountain lakes,madison,livingston,mount olive,west essex and morris catholic are among the local districts that have recently gone with turf.boonton will begin installation at the conclusion of this football season.even with maintenance there is not enough tim to properly restore the field correctly because of it's constant use.synthetic turf is a safe practical solution that would benefit montville as a community.
Posted by Blogger field for all on October 4, 2007 8:00 AM
 
 
for info go to www.turfthevalley.com
Posted by Blogger field for all on October 4, 2007 11:20 AM
 
 
A few questions;

Statement regarding cost savings in respect to maintenance.

Can someone apply actual numbers to this? Current cost, it's potential cost as a Turf Field to reflect this potential savings.

How long will this field last?

It's rumored 13 years, if so, what will the cost be to replace this field in 13 years? How are funds going to be raised to fund its replacement down the road? Because based upon the $900000 current cost, if the price remained the same, the amount of $70000 a year would need to be saved starting now to replace it.

Please provide some actual numbers to confirm the claim.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 4, 2007 11:49 AM
 
 
The replacement cost is about half of the original cost. Even if they raise 100% of the funds necessary for the project, the taxpayers must foot the bill every 13 to 15 years for replacement.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 4, 2007 3:25 PM
 
 
Camp Dawson already nearing the end of its turf life.

Why is it so important the HS get a turf field? Someone please explain..
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 4, 2007 4:45 PM
 
 
Good luck with their project. It is true that many Towns are either committed to turf or or concidering it. Butler was just in the paper either planning it or seeking proposals. The last figures I remember on maintaining the grass fields at the community center were running about $300,000 per year which included the cost of the personal needed to maintain them. I don't know if people really understand the number of people and sports making use of all our fields. They get tremendous use. Also alot of the cost goes into what is under the turf and once done it could well be that only the turf itself will be replaced when worn out. If done properly the sub structure will not have to be done again.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on October 4, 2007 5:25 PM
 
 
"Why is artificial turf necessary? Are the children of Montville unablr to reach their potential on plain old dirt and grass?"

My ankle was injured in part to the fact that I was playing football on an unkempt, rugged and bumpy field. These happened in Caldwell and the valley. I've missed almost half of my junior season due to this and I'd hate to see this happen to someone else.
Posted by Anonymous John Gauweiler Jr. on October 4, 2007 10:11 PM
 
 
I can't understand those who are trying to trash this effort. If you don't agree with what is being attempted, don't contribute financially. Many are putting a lot of time and effort into this project. Look at he committee members - many do not have children in the school district, some have children who will never see the results. Others do have children who will benefit but have made a decision to be part of the solution. A turf field will benefit the entire community. It is safer, more cost effective and will dramatically increase the amount of time the field will be able to be utilized. Do your own research - don't rely on the responses of others. Then make your final determination to support this effort or not.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 4, 2007 10:47 PM
 
 
Cost to re-skin a turf field is about 1/3 original cost. (family member in the business) Assuming sub-surface holds up. Dawson is about 5 yrs old. This field only good for 10 yrs. The newer types of turf fields last 13-15 yrs. Dawson was about $1.2 mil. Where is $400,000 to replace it? Cost to maintain natural fields is inflated but sounds good when you're looking to get "turf". Replacement costs should be factored into the turf equation.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 4, 2007 11:29 PM
 
 
camp dawson is 2 fields+. fieldturf fields are outlasting the 12-13yr.expectancy. the substructure is the major cost.replacement is not 50%. why turf- please come over and walk the field to see what it is like.this is after a spring when it could not be used due to track construction.in the fall football plays it's games on the field. the band practices on it regularly from 3:00 to about 7:00. we will host our band competition which had to be moved inside recently due to weather and deplorable field conditions. in the spring 6 teams play home games on the field and varsity and jv boys lacrosse practice on it.[boys varsity,jv,frosh and girls varsity,jv and frosh teams play games.]last year lacrosse did not use it due to track construction. this necessitates transportation costs to camp dawson. the season ends late may-early june and graduation is mid to late june on the field.the town's 4th of july carnival uses it next. maintenance and repair is done mid july and the field is used for scrimmages and the season mid august. this is not a frivolous idea-it is practical.it will take hard work to accomplish this goal but it is worthwhile for montville.
Posted by Blogger field for all on October 5, 2007 8:46 AM
 
 
I walked the girl's field hockey "area" last night after their game and almost broke an ankle myself.
I'm amazed more injuires haven't occurred.
A turf field would certainly help them!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 5, 2007 11:20 AM
 
 
The advantages of a turf field are obvious....safer for players, less upkeep (watering, chemicals, cutting,etc.) and much more of a "showpiece" for an upscale community like Montville.

As it is now, the field looks like something out of backwoods Kentucky than an affluent place like Montville.

Those against the turf field are people who would also be against paving dilapidated roads, fixing burnt out street lights, maintaining historic buildings, etc.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 7, 2007 12:55 AM
 
 
Give some numbers to substantiate the claim of cost saving? And, address the concern regarding funds for field replacement. If numbers and answers could be provided, what one deems as trashing would soon realize is only a search for the truth...
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 10, 2007 1:49 PM
 
 
I disagree with the upkeep issue, how difficult is it to grow crabgrass? That's what all the fields are in town, it's not like they fertilize and care for the fields as one would their own yard (except for my neighbors, who seem to like crabgrass too.).
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 10, 2007 5:00 PM
 
 
If Dawson requires turf replacement at $400,000.00 that also extends the life span another 10 years minumum so now you have $1.6 million for twenty years or about $80,000.00 per year with very little spent on maintenance . Compare that to the roughly $800,000 spent for the Community Center fields with anywhere from $200,000.00-$300,000.00 per year spent on maintaining them. There is a reaon why many public facilities are going to Turf and the reason is the ecconomy of it. It isn't about little Johnny playing on dirt or Football or Baseball. We have 4000 school age young people many of whom play multiple sports, as well as band, in the course of a year. The law also requires that young people who happen to be female have the same opportunities as those who are male. We did Light the Valley and Field of Dreams to expand the use of those facilities. I commend those who are not taking no for an answer and are pressing ahead with a volunteer effort. My children are long past the age of using any of these facilities but I do understand the value they have for the next generation and on and on.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on October 10, 2007 5:21 PM
 
 
Dan, Your math is fuzzy. the Community Center fields cost $800K 15 years ago and for that we built 4 fields. The $200-300K you say we pay for maintainence is for 4 fields and those numbers are also suspect. This is a great example of takeing facts and distorting them. You are very good at it!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 13, 2007 7:43 AM
 
 
Don't forget we are talking about a group of citizens raising the money here. I wish them well. Dawson was for two fields and very little maintenence. The figure I gave for maintenance on the Community center and, yes it is for 4 fields, is I believe accurate. Costs on those 4 fields may well be reduced now that they are not the only fields we have available. The bottom line is that we have a continued need for these fields and this group wants to do something about it. Good for them.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on October 13, 2007 12:31 PM
 
 
It's great that there are individuals willing to step up and take on such a project and I wish them well! There are valid points on maintenance and risk of injury, but on the other hand, give some numbers to substantiate the claims to cost savings? How are funds going to continue to be raised for field replacement over time? Is this going to be like other projects that once the gift is given, there are no funds to maintain of fix the gift, case in point, haven’t seen the scoreboard work on the Varsity Boys/Girls Soccer field in 6 plus years! What good is giving the gift if no one takes ownership or responsibility?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 17, 2007 1:45 PM
 
 
The definition of turf is: A surface layer of earth containing grass plants with their matted roots; sod.

What is being discussed here is conversion from turf to artificial turf.

I do not understand the strong desire to convert to artificial turf.
IMO, as a former athlete, a well maintained natural grass field is far superior, and will prevent more injuries compared to artificial turf.

If artificial turf is so good, why is every major sports franchise re-converting their stadium fields back to natural grass?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 17, 2007 2:48 PM
 
 
It's nice to see community members making an effort to do something that they feel is important to themselves. Just because they raise the money does not mean that the project moves forward. The rest of the tax payers need their say on whether they want to pickup the future liabilities of maintaining these turf fields at these large costs. Image is not reason enough. There needs to be tangible reason for taking on this liability.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 17, 2007 5:04 PM
 
 
Reply to above:

"What is being discussed here is conversion from turf to artificial turf.I do not understand the strong desire to convert to artificial turf.IMO, as a former athlete, a well maintained natural grass field is far superior, and will prevent more injuries compared to artificial turf.If artificial turf is so good, why is every major sports franchise re-converting their stadium fields back to natural grass?"

Response:

You are probably referring to the old artificial turf - hard, abrasive and horrible stuff. What is now considered "turf" is a product called FIELDTURF or REALGRASS...it is totally different than the old artificial stuff and mimics real grass without the wear, maintenance, etc. concerns. Look it up on google to see what all the rage is about! Also, the majority of pro stadiums are converting to this not real sod/grass!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 17, 2007 10:11 PM
 
 
Put the money towards something else! Artificial Turf is unnecessary and harmful to athletes. Ok, it's a little faster of a surface but the negatives far outweigh the positives. This surface is terrible on joints and ligaments! Take it from me, I'm a former Mustang running back who still has sore knees and I have not played in 15 years! If we played on turf, I probably would not be able to walk right now! No good for our athletes!
Posted by Anonymous David DiPasquale on October 17, 2007 10:15 PM
 
 
The money that is raised would be better suited to hire an investigator or auditor to find where our tax dollars are going... My taxes have gone from $6,0000 to $10,000 from 2002 to 2007.

Good luck in your collections.
Posted by Blogger mgiusto on October 18, 2007 8:42 AM
 
 
Has anybody checked the weather report for this year's Homecoming Football Game against Delbarton. Better yet has anybody other than those directly involved, taken the time to understand why the Freshmen Football Game was moved to the practice field, prior to this years succesful Band Competition ?

The issues surrounding this committee's misson cannot be debated either on a cost basis or a safety issue. They can only be agreed with and helped in whichever way that you can. A deceased philospher (my mother) once stated ' Lead, follow or get out of the way...' This group is leading !
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 18, 2007 9:43 AM
 
 
anon October 18, 2007 9:43 AM This topic can and should be debated. It is a nice gesture by a private group of citizens and if it's best then I hope they reach their goal. BUT, some people have asked very good questions on this blog about costs related to maintenance that have not been answered and probabaly should be. Also would be nice to understand if there are any future liabilities to the project and who's responsible for them.

As for the weather, I believe they are calling for rain showers.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 18, 2007 4:22 PM
 
 
Reply to D. Dipasquale:

Again...this is not the artificial turf you most likely played on. It is a fairly new product that came out in the last 7-8 years. Most pro stadiums of all types of sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) are going to it as well as their practice fields. Most major athletes love the stuff as it is EASIER on the legs/joints. etc. than real grass and definitly than the aold hard artificial turf.

Here's a link to the product:

http://www.fieldturf.com/product/overview.cfm
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 19, 2007 1:33 PM
 
 
All this to do over a field?

Re-sod the field and let it go at that. Soon every toddler will need special turf and equipment to go outside and play tag. What a joke.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 19, 2007 2:14 PM
 
 
Staph infections reported at the high school, as I understand it staph infections are also more likely to occur when one participates in activities on artificial turf. I believe both Bryant Gumble and Bob Costas have done reports on the topic as it affects pro athletes. Should we be concerned that this will be an on-going, possibly litigious situation if turf is installed?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 25, 2007 4:01 PM
 
 
Here is a link that may clarify the situation. You can find a sourse that says anything but this seems to be a real study.

http://hcs.osu.edu/sportsturf/international/detail.lasso?id=1093
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on October 26, 2007 10:29 AM
 
 
Ummmm.....

The high school students don't have aturf field so ergo they don't normally play on TURF!!!

They spend more time on the natural grass playing and practice fields than any thing else.

I think the high school varsity football team has only played 2 games and that was early in the season WAY BEFORE the staph problem surfaced!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 27, 2007 9:55 PM
 
 
Ummm... No one said the current staph situation was related to turf. The comment was that staph infections are more likely to occur when activities take place on turf and what should we be concerned with in the future. Just because they played early in the season doesn't mean the staff infection is not a product of playing on turf; infections sometimes show up weeks after an injury.

Also if they play so often on the natural turf, doesn't that give them an advantage when turf teams come to play?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 29, 2007 8:51 AM
 
 
in the long run isnt it cheaper to have astro turf. no cutting , no seeding ect. some of our tax $$$ should go towards it , maybe 1/2 that would make it a lot easier to raise the other 1/2
Posted by Blogger MRMONTVILLE on October 31, 2007 3:16 PM
 
 
Mr Montville: the taxpayers have already voiced their displeasure of this topic by not approving it in the past, so why should we now ask them to pay for 1/2? I say let this committee do their thing and see if they can raise the money, and leave the taxpayers out of it.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 31, 2007 5:23 PM
 
 
At the request of some of our committee members, here is a link that describes Mendham's attempt to do the same thing.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/morris/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1193982257128580.xml&coll=1

Dr Michael Duddy
Chair-TTV
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on November 2, 2007 10:53 AM
 
 
$900k vs Mendham's $1.3 for 2 fields. Is the economies of scale that large? $400k for the 2nd field seems cheap, maybe Montville should raise the bar and shoot for 2.
Article also states that they've raised $300 k in a few months, how's Montville's efforts going so far? Website shows some folks who have donated but no indication on how much?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on November 5, 2007 10:45 AM
 
 
Any updates on how the fund raising is going? Went to the turf the valley site but they only list people who've donated, not how well they're doing.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on December 3, 2007 7:58 PM
 
 
Being a graduate of Montville High, and playing football there, under Coach Gallagher, I think it is imperative to get input, not only from Mr. Gallagher, but that of other sports coaches and the players of all sports who utilize the field. Switching to turf, has many advantages, but there are disadvantages associated with it as well. For instance, practicing on grass, and playing on turf is a minimal, however noticable, difference, primarily in the speed of the game. It's not always a popular idea to have student imput on town issues, but I feel this may merit such an occasion.
Posted by Blogger Matthew Gluck on December 7, 2007 5:29 PM
 
 
based on the lack of response on how the fund raising efforts are going and no mention on the website itself, are we to assume that things aren't going so well?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on December 20, 2007 4:13 PM
 
 
the first major fundraiser will be friday- FEBRUARY 8-"CASINO NIGHT"- AT THE KNOLL COUNTRY CLUB- the committee and other concerned folks are working very hard to make this project a reality. please go to turfthevalley.com for further info and tickets or donation info.
Posted by Blogger get it done on February 1, 2008 9:53 AM
 
 
Concerned about what? That little Joey wont have soft, artificial turf to play games on?

Focus your concern elsewhere, what a waste of time and money this is. Find a cause that will improve life in this town, state or country. The turf is a joke!!

One more thing, STOP with all the mass emails from every sports team and organization in town. You guys are becoming worse than telephone solicitors. Only wish there was a number to call to be placed on the DO NOT EMAIL LIST!!!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 1, 2008 12:45 PM
 
 
not everyone will agree with this project.it's not about soft turf to play games on.there's nothing soft about how our teams play.it's about a practical modern solution to a field that gets overused with so many of our youngsters playing a variety of sports ,taking part in our band and other activities that our community shares.it's about a reliable surface which is safer and easier to maintain.to manystudents,band members ,athletes and their families it can improve their lives.
Posted by Anonymous get it done on February 1, 2008 8:18 PM
 
 
so you had the first big fundraiser and still can't find anything about how this effort is going, is one to assume that it isn't going too well? I mean if it was I'm sure we'd hear about how close they are to being able to start the work. How many years will it take to get to end of job?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 10, 2008 11:29 AM
 
 
final figures are not in yet. at least $25,000 raised.don't know exact timing but hope to have it done within 3 years.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 14, 2008 7:53 AM
 
 
This is not an overnight project and was never thought to be. The work of the "TURF THE VALLEY" committee is much appreciated by many people. Noone is asking for an easy handout. People are trying to take a poor field situation and make it better. With the many activities on one field it never has a chance to be restored to a consistently good surface. To sod or plant grass in mid-july needs to be done every year only to get by from season to season. This is not the old days where only a football squad played on the game field. This is a practical idea which will benefit our students,our athletes,our band and our community over the long haul.It's not a luxury but a practical answer to many people and activities. To those who wish not to contribute that's ok but the work ,effort and perseverance of those who see the benefits is appreciated. Gerry Gallagher-Head Football Coach-MHS
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 14, 2008 3:48 PM
 
 
3 years! Too long for a project like this. This needs ot be a quick project or else it will run out of steam. There has to be a way to accomplish this in 12 - 18 months.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 23, 2008 2:23 PM
 
 
hope it can be done quicker.with perseverance and hard work it will.we need to keep striving for support and finding ways to fund this project.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 24, 2008 1:47 PM
 
 
This lost cause will never get fully funded. Best case is long after your kids have graduated.

Then what happens to the money?

Most of the donors will have probably forgotten all about it by then.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 7, 2008 6:26 PM
 
 
Both the girls & boys lacrosse teams have been bussed to Dawson for the last 2 weeks to practice on a TURF field since the high school GRASS field is unusable.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 21, 2008 10:14 PM
 
 
Great, they can't bus my kids to school, but they can bus them to practice across town, how much is that costing the taxpayers? I'm sure it's an out of budget expense.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 26, 2008 8:23 PM
 
 
I pay for my kids to be bussed to school & I'm not happy about it! The number of people who would not pay to bus their kids to practice would be huge! I'm happy these kids have an alternative. I understand the town has paid to have the field between the HS and the field house fenced to stop the kids from WALKING across the field. I hope that when TTV is in reach of their goal, the town will kick in an amount equal the amount they have spent on buses, fencing and personnel hours to keep people off the grass fields! How can this not be cost effective?!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 29, 2008 12:41 AM
 
 
Post a comment    |    


 























OurMontville.com
Copyright © 2007 OurMontville.com