Just remember Mr. Amlen and Mr. Huber, when you guys wanted votes you wanted to make the field happen, now you want to back pedal for political reasons. (Perfect reason why nobody trusts a politician) You stalled all last year claiming things were done wrong, what was done wrong other than you guys just wanted to stall the project? Mr. Huber I am more disappointed in you since for many years you were a big part of Recreation in this town and now your views change because you are a politician and someone else tells you how to vote.

You guys have the OPPORTUNITY to do something big for this town that will be used and remembered for years. Don't be afraid to do something great.

I'll just paste my comment from a previous post below as I think it is appropriate.

I am in favor of having a nice field for the kids--for having nice stands, concessions, etc. I am opposed to having it be a chemical turf that has negative repercussions to our children and our water supply. I am also opposed to spending this money now, after the flooding, on a turf field instead of other projects that will better benefit the infrastructure of the town.

This turf field is long overdue!!
How exciting would it be if the Dayton football team played on a home field in 2012!!
Its always embarrasing to see other towns' rec fields compared to Springfield's.
I for one welcome the turf field and feel it would definitely benefit our town!!

i think our kids should have the best field that money can buy... i don`t think that the best is the most expensive and i don`t think the best is made out of old rubber tires that can leach toxins like lead, benzine, zinc into our waterways. i think the question at the top should be, do you support a natural turf field or a synthetic, shredded rubber tires field

Is this guy Amlen for real ? “I don’t feel comfortable bonding three plus million without a referendum showing the public is on board with it,” - You felt comfortable a few months ago before the election. Public on Board ? - They created their own Turf Committee for goodness sakes ! Were you not in attendance at the packed Town Hall meetings? Were you not in attendance back in December when this issue was supposedly voted on and passed ? Check the the signed petitions or check the poll on this site. Amlen characterized the actions as hasty and said that more investigation was needed. - Hasty and more investigation ? Its been years !!!! Either you dont want the field or you and whoever was suppose to do the investigating have been in a coma since 2000 !! How much more investigation is needed ? “We wanted to find out if it could be done before we put it in front of the public and make false promises,” - I got news for you Amlen , FALSE promises have already been made.

Fully agree with Dzikowski.

Amlen was NEVER on board with this field...however, Huber was! Further, when Keffer was up for re-election...do we all remember what his mailings stated: one of his priorities was doing the Turf Field! So, Amlen and Huber, I must ask did you not support Mayor Keffer during his election ( we all know the answer to that)? Here's what the hold up is: suddenly the Dems are the majority and it won't be on their time clock so now - they don't want to do it. I am tired of the politics between the five township committee members...let's start thinking for yourselves and stop being puppets for the party you are affiliated with!

The Turf Field - the Downtown - and a Senior Center! GET IT DONE already!

Finally, HUBER since when did you stop thinking for yourself and become a Puppet of the old Dems - very disappointing? Your kids grew up here and now your grandchildren...leave them with a legacy that they will be proud of!

As for those of you that bring up the health issues concerning a turf field I do appreciate the concern - However,I'm sure the parents of the 2,500 existing turf fields were concerned as well. Do you really think they didn't do their homework? I contacted not only contacted NJ, but the DPH of New York and Connecticut. The one thing that all these agencys have incommon :No one will ever say that they are 100% positive that there are no health, or enviromental risks associated with a turf field. I will say this,that hundreds of tests have been done by world-class facilities around the globe.Health and safety,environment,toxicology and other leading environmental study groups,including universities,government departments, hospitals,and independent laboratories. Many have concluded there is no proven danger to human health or the environment . Why are turf fields making headlines ? Turf fields were being installed at a rate of 10 per year, nationwide. The natural grass industry was not concerned about artificial turf, now with almost 1,000 fields being installed per year, artificial turf is a serious threat to the natural grass industry ( $20 billion of chemicals each year) Think they may have something to do with negative press? Fact is,there will always be some study that finds a potential danger in any material and calls for more research. Also a fact, that none of the dangers have been proven - Maybe then we get the more expensive FieldTurf if we're so concerned...I'm in

I find it absolutely mind boggling that we are still have these same discussions that have been going on for YEARS!!! Springfield is one of the VERY few towns left without a turf field (some towns even have several). The state of our fields is an embarrassment!! The softball and soccer fields are a mess, the tennis courts are unusable and paying Union HS THOUSANDS of dollars every year is an incredible waste of money!! How do some TC members to not see how desperately our town needs this field ?? Having football games in town would restore a sense of community that Springfield is seriously lacking! Not to mention, that a new sports complex would help attract home buyers to our town.
Please put the political nonsense aside and do what is right for the town!

Totally agree with Mike, every town has turf fields but not Springfield. It is a joke when towns see our fields. What a great sense of pride our children would have with a turf field.Mr Huber and Mr. Amlen are really not for the best interest's of Springfield they are only out for their political party. When Mr. Keffer ran for reelection his campaign literature claimed he was for the turf field.Did you not want the field than Mr.Amlen and Mr.Huber.Mr.Huber to charge our own children to use the fields is crazy.I urge both of you to get on board with the rest of the Township Committee and do the right thing.Kudos to Mayor Shehady for attempting to get this project started.

Educate yourself before voting for the synthetic turf field. This is NOT a political issue, just an issue of safety for our children & increased flooding risks to our homes. Please do your own research and decide for yourself.
1. There are TOXINS found in the rubber pellets made from the recycled materials. Toxins are harmful to the children that play on them. The pellets contain heavy metals & known carcinogens. Recommendations from health departments around the country include: “ Children should shower and wash thoroughly after playing on artificial turf fields.” “Clothes that were worn on the field should be taken off inside out and washed separately.” 2. Artificial turf surfaces are reported to have temperatures significantly higher than natural grass fields, increasing the risk of burns, dehydration and heat exhaustion in children. 3. The surface may harbor dangerous bacteria because it does not get washed down and irrigated which increases risks of antibiotic resistant infections. Goose/animal droppings don’t decompose quickly on these artificial surfaces. 4. The chemicals from the pellets & rubber will runoff into our local streams and natural springs, decreasing our water quality and adding to our local pollution. 5. Drainage failures are one of the major problems confronting owners of turf fields. Do we need to add to that problem especially in a neighborhood that already floods?

If 3 votes were needed the turf field would be under construction as we speak.
Im just saying......

dave. dave. dave. i am very dissappointed in you that you you are voting the party line rather than whats good for the town and our kids

the Turf field could build a sense of community and be the catalyst for transforming the downtown from the dust bowl to a vibrant, thriving hub of our town. think about it man. the community rallies around our football team attending night games at the new Turf field. After the game we wnt to continue to hang out and get a bite to eat.

the field coould be the linch pin for attracting more wuality restaurants, coffee shops and dessert bars to the center for residents to hang out after games.

i think you are being very, very short dighted as the field eould ultimately pay for itself in do msny intangible ways.

I am trying to understand the upsides and downsides of this issue.

As I understand it from previous articles the turf field will be paid through a land swap deal. The article on the deal just says that the board will swap several acres and bid them out for development. I have two questions, Where is the proposed land to be developed? and What type of development is envisioned? Residential, commercial?

The answers to these questions can help us find out how the turf field will affect our taxes, and overall quality of life in the community. We can then weigh the benefits of the field with its true costs and determine if it is really something we are willing to sacrifice for.

I am opposed to the “Artificial” turf field for various reasons:
1.       Location: Flood Area as per FEMA Map – Field to be constructed 50 feet away from Van Winkle Brook: Regular use and weather will wash all those little pieces of rubber shredded tires right into the lowest point: the stream, contaminating the stream and endangering wildlife.
2.       Toxins and off gassing: dangerous toxins and off gassing have been found in artificial turf fields:  Your are putting your children at an unnecessary risk.
3.       High Temperatures: Artificial turf fields create higher temperatures.  Your children will have a higher risk of burns, dehydration and heat exhaustion.
4.       Injuries:  Your children will have a higher risk of abrasions, infections and injuries.
5.       Cost: 3+ Million dollars; REALLY – Can we afford this project???

Why can't the town Repair the Miesel field and maintain it?
 

It is understandable that people have different opinions as to whether or not a turf field should be built. Some cite issues about toxic material, which I believe after having looked into this a few years ago, is extremely minimal to nearly non-existent. It is true that when turf fields were originally installed material was being used that could result in health issues, but the newest materials have eliminated that problem. As for abrasions, heat and the other concerns those are valid issues, but nothing that should create cause for elminating the project. I feel first and foremost the issue of cost needs to be examined and definitively stated. In 2011 the Democratic controlled TC cited concerns over the amount of revenue that would be generated from the proposed land swap (inclusive of annual tax revenue) as the primary reason for delaying the project. I don't know if that was just a bunch of smoke or if its an accurate assessment. However, one thing we should all be concerned with is whether or not taxpayer dollars will be needed to fund the project. For as much of a proponent of the project as I am, I feel its unfair to use any taxpayer dollars.
There are ways to get this done so let's see how creative our TC members can get because it would definitely be a great addition to Springfield.

TO: Interested Parties FR:Dr. Tuncer Edil, Ph.D
DATE:January 10, 2008 As a professional engineer and university professor who specializes in research concerning soils, recycled materials and environmental geotechnics..Much of my research has revolved around industrial by-products such as shredded automobile tires..Based on my scientific review of the facts and my independent research, I have concluded that artificial fields are safe for humans of all ages to play on. They are safe for the watershed. They are safe for the environment at large. There are a great number of internationally respected studies that arrive at the same conclusions.... I have found that none of these studies show that crumb rubber used in artificial turf is a hazardous material as defined by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA).They do not show that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) emissions and leaching of organic and inorganic chemicals are at concentrations that would be health hazards in the environments where the turf is used. In fact, numerous studies in the United States and Europe already have concluded these releases do not constitute significant risk to human beings and groundwater resources. Dr. Edil, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Department of Civil and Environ- mental Engineering, is an international expert in the study of crumb rubber, leachates and toxins. He has received numerous awards from the American Society of Civil Engineer

All of us have concerns - you must make sure that you aren't referring to AstroTurf that was started in the 1960's. As I strongly agree with many of you that we must do our homework, I have. Therefore I will try to make it easier for all of us by giving info -As recent as September 2007, environmental health officials from Connecticut’s Department of Public Health wrote, “We have reviewed a great deal of literature on potential human health risks from rubber used in artificial turf fields. We have not seen any information that would lead us to recommend against installing such fields based on chemical exposures or health risk from those using the fields.” ---- In June 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection conducted a similar study concluding,
“there was no obvious toxicological concern raised that crumb rubber in its intended outdoor use on playgrounds (Yes we are already using it our parks folks !) and playing fields would cause adverse health effects in the normal population.”---As for environmental concerns, studies examining the environmental impact of artificial turf have found NO harmful effects to the environment. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment stated, “It can be concluded that rubber tires contain PAHs originating from certain oils used in tire manufacturing, but there is clear evidence that any release into the environment is negligible relative to other PAH sources.”

Artificial turf can actually benefit the environment- artificial turf does not require the use of pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to identify hazardous effects of certain chemicals on the environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, “recent studies of major rivers and streams documented that 96% of all fish, 100% of all surface water samples and 33% of major aquifers contained one or more pesticides at detectable levels.”Artificial turf maintenance requires absolutely no pesticides. --In addition to posing no known health or environmental risk, studies have shown that serious sports related injuries are less likely to occur on artificial turf than on natural grass. The American Journal of Sports Medicine published a study comparing high school athletes’ injuries on natural grass to those on artificial turf concluding that the overall injury rates are similar, but that the type of injury differs between the two surfaces. Namely,
the study found that surface to skin injuries and muscle strains were more common on artificial turf while head concussions and ligament tears were higher on grass fields. The conclusion: artificial turf injuries were less severe and had a quicker recovery time. Please note that I have provided sources and not just commented on what I heard....

One last thing which I hope helps --Misleading Claim: That PAHs in crumb rubber are carcinogenic.FACT: PAHs are naturally occurring substances found everywhere in our environment. The claims of PAHs in SBR should be balanced with the fact that burning fossil fuels, including heating and cooking are, in fact, the top causes of PAHs in our atmosphere.--Misleading Claim: That the crumb rubber (SBR) used as infill in artificial turf fields is toxic.FACT: Recycled rubber has been in use for almost 20 years in a variety of products, including; construction materials, roads, running tracks, fields, parks and playgrounds.FACT: Over 46 billion tires have been ground up on our highways and city streets. Each year, 300 million more tires are worn out by planes, trucks, buses and the cars we drive. People have been exposed to this rubber since the advent of the automobile.FACT: An artificial turf field represents ONLY 0.0017 of the rubber that is part of our environment and the air we breathe every day. If it is dangerous then the focus should not be on the 0.0017 but on the 99.9983.---Misleading Claim: That artificial turf is dangerous to the environment.
FACT: Burning of fossil fuels remains the #1 global concern. The environmental benefits of artificial turf include the recycling of old tires, the elimination of thousands of tons of pesticides, chemicals and fertilizers from our environment. ONLY PROVEN CONCERNS ARE HEAT AND TURF BURNS....Again only things proven after 52 years

I am a coach in town and the shame of this is that EVERY town we play at has an atheltic turf field. I wish that the 2 opposing committeemen would see and hear the comments from the other towns people that visit Springfield. They pity our kids for the lack of concern that our township counsel shows it's student athletes. Based off what I hear and am reading it seems that there are 2 guys on the committee that are playing the politic game ( Huber and Almen). It's about time these 2 men stop being Democrats and start being responsible leaders and do the right thing for the kids! I guarantee every Springfield kid would appreaciate it. Trust me these student athlets will make this whole town proud with the pride this athetlic field would provide them.

FYI for all the folks concerned with the turf field go and check out where the High School and Jr.Dawgs practice football... It's not the goose dropping that scares me it the HANDS full of glass that has to be policed before EVERY practice to keep the kids safe... Until you walk in our LAND FILL pratice field then you will truely know how much time and effort is put in... I beg you to find a football coach that practices at Meisel and ask them!

Since it looks like the major of people that have responded with comments or by taking The Patch's online poll are in favor of the proposed project why doesn't e TC publicize the financial particulars so that the public can be sure that taxpay dollars won't be used. While I am in favor of the project I would like to know about the $3,000,000 bond the town will be responsible for. The financial details should be shown to the public in advance of any approval.

I would rather see that $3,000,000 spent on correcting our flooding issues!!!!!

Not to downplay the flooding problems and the people that got flooded, but you will need to add some zero's to the 3,000,000 to impact the flodding issues. When I bought my home I knew it was in a flood zone and I had to buy flood insurance. I knew the risk but was willing to take it. Irene came through and I got flooded just like many people. It was a storm we will probably never see in my lifetime again so I rebuilt and life goes on. I believe this field would build a sense of community and would help lead to the development of downtown as someone else above mentioned. People with children will consider moving to Springfield seeing a nice facility at the High School and kids would remain at Dayton instead of transferring to other schools with better sports facilities which happens every year.
Do the right thing Mr. Amlen and Mr. Huber, Do the right thing!!!

Resolving the flood issues in Springfield must not only involve the support of our town officials but all the towns along the Rahway River and also the county and state officials. It would require separate legislation and separate monies very different than what is required for the turf field. Focusing both on our flood issues and putting in a turf field will only benefit our town and I am confident the present administration is up for the task!!

If you did a quick search on PATCH under turf you will find articles from 2009 about the Turf Field for Springfield and our efforts go so much further back as I personally have been pleading for at least 10+ years for a furf field for our players. All residents should come to the Council meetings on February 14 and 28. It's now or never. Our children deserve this. Please do the right thing.

A turf field will revive the downtown? Really? Is this "Field of Dreams" or Springfield we're talking about? Back in the 80's, when Dayton was bigger (still Regional) and had its own football field at Meisel ... remember the games, the excitement, the crowds? Me neither. Our teams were mediocre. We were never much of a football town, and we never will be, $3 million field or no. Dayton's just too small and too academic. Students who value sports above everything else will still seek out bigger, more sports-oriented private and parochial schools.

I bet we can build an adequate grass field for a lot less than $3 million, for students to play sports and have fun while getting the great education that Dayton should really stay focused on.

Springfield citizen ? nice! ....this field has nothing to do with a state champion football team or the success of our athletic teams - "students who value sports above everything else will seek out private or parochial schools" ? what about the hundreds of K thru 4 kids that play in the programs ? should they too look to go to private schools because at that age they know that sports is going to be very important to them in high school? Get real ....this is about the community and are children, and making this a town a place where young families want to move. (Thus helping our real estate values) and yes, there is a good chance that a new field located 2 blocks away from town, can actually revive the downtown area. You sound like you're one of the people that are part of the problem..been here for years, let things stay the way they are...bet you were against making the Community Pool better as well.......and before you make comments about the field , I think you should go to the meeting on Tuesday first, so you know what you are talking about .......Any idiot knows that you build a grass field for less than $3mm......

Do not allow Party Politics to hold Springfield back

http://www.zashehady.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Case-for-the-Springfield-Athletic-Turf-Field-Project.pdf

we have been promised money to fix the flooding issues since 1999 and before that even but nothing is done. i know its a process but i found out now that the morris ave bridge cant be replaced or fixed for at least 5 years. Im for a field our kids can be proud of but im also for the safety for the citizens of this town. why let 5 politicians decide this issue? IF THERE IS NOTHING IS TO HIDE THEN SIMPLY PUT IT TO A VOTE via a reforandum and let the democratic process do what it does best. if the township citizens vote for this field and also make sure the environment isnt affected then i am all fot it. if not then im against it. safety for our kids is a must.

http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html

"I don’t dispute that there are certain situations in which an artificial field might be an appropriate choice and I don’t disregard a coach’s preference. We also do not dispute that an artificial field could host more events each year, which could be beneficial in certain situations. I simply wanted to write this turf tip to provide some additional information about artificial turf fields that you are not likely to get from companies who supply these products. Please take a look at the references below for more information about synthetic athletic fields.

Aaron Patton"

Thanks Leila. I'm also very concerned about an artificial turf field (like Faith and some others above have said as well). I DO think our kids deserve a nice field to play on, but I do NOT think artificial turf is the answer. What about natural turf? Or is there another option? Plus what does the town plan to do in 7-10 years when the artificial turf will need to be replaced? And is there money being budgeted to maintain the turf - beyond the initial $300K? I do think there should be a public vote on the issue...

Karen, if we thoroughly understand the issue we can be our best advocates. I too would love to see, and often wonder, why the parks aren't better kept. Every single field have major issues. The reason proponents of the turf field say out-of-town players' parents complain, is simply because Springfield has absolutely neglected park's maintenance. If fields were routinely maintained, none of this would be on the table for discussion. Plus, we being the quaint little town we are, could be the pioneers for setting an example of environmental responsible town that down the road may be what people revert back to.

Karen, or anyone who is truly interested in the health and well-being of our childre and our environment, please go to this website. It addresses many of our concerns
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm

http://cropsoil.psu.edu/ssrc/research/synthetic-turf-health

Please read and research as much as you can. Please wake-up to the potential problems and many of the negative effects that might be associated with artificial turf. I wish a moratorium would be place on its use until we knew more about this product. Just having a chance to learn more, is what we need.

I work in The Infection Control Department for a major hospital. There are two types of MRSA Community acquired and hospital acquired. You can get MRSA simply by being in the hospital, doctor's office, having an operation, cohorting next to a another person who has MRSA or from the gym, mats, unkept wounds, playing any contact sport where players are sweating and touching another person's sweat, etc. MRSA is Methocillin Resistant Staph. From experience there are other antibiotics used to treat MRSA and they are successful. Although there have been incidents where people have died from MRSA it is extremely rare. i.e. low immune systems, not properly treated, etc. Proper hygiene and the most imporant thing is to not touch your membranes if possible (eyes, nose, mouth) until you can wash your hands is the best way to prevent MRSA!!! You can get MRSA from the handles of shopping carts!!!!! The CDC has a great web site with up-to-date informative information on MRSA or you can call any local hopsital and ask for the Infection Control Dept. A microbiologist/epidemiologist who specializes in MRSa would be more than happy to address any concerns "free of charge" They are willing to visit schools, etc and would be more than happy to do so. People will die faster from cigarettes, the air we breath, the food we eat and just by crossing the street faster than from MRSA! THE KIDS DESERVE A TURF FIELD. Leila you have no clue what you are talking about!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/28turfwe.html?pagewanted=all
"Similar health concerns have been raised in Massachusetts and on Long Island. In Albany on Wednesday, State Assemblyman Steven C. Englebright, a Democrat from Long Island, introduced legislation calling for a moratorium on new fields".

Mr. Dzikowski, would you kindly post (website) the information you speak about so I, and others can read? Thank you.

Leila, saying you haven't had the time to educate yourself is no excuse. This project has been going on for several years.

Our Football team already plays on a Turf Field for all our "Home Games" without any major incidents.

Please educate yourself on the basic facts before you put in your two-cents.

2011 ARTIFICIAL turf write ups:

http://greenkidsdoc.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/the-safety-of-artificial-turf-playing-fields/

"There are three main health concerns regarding artificial turf fields. First, the ‘blades’ of grass in older fields contain dangerous levels of lead. With wear and tear children are at risk of ingesting lead-laden dust. Lead is a potent toxin and manifests as behavioral disorders and lower IQ. Second, the tire crumb infill contains polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are known to cause cancer. It is common for children to become covered with the tire crumb during play. Ingestion or inhalation of the tire crumb might increase the risk of certain cancers. Finally, artificial playing fields are hot. Temperatures on field surfaces during hot, sunny weather have been recorded as high as 160 degrees F. This confers a risk for heat related illnesses like heat exhaustion and dehydration."

2011 write ups
http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/08/artificial_turf_problems_at_li.html

"In a work session, board members heard an update on two troublesome artificial turf soccer fields at Liberty High School. The east field has been closed to use for the last year due to safety concerns. The field has developed 100-150 small “potholes.” A second field, the west field, is beginning to develop similar potholes".

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18539681
"This is totally wrong," Urban said. "You rip out grass and put in plastic?"

2011
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/article-should-consider-dangers-of-metals-in-soccer-fields

"An article in the San Francisco Chronicle describes the results of a recent study, which suggests that artificial playing fields – made from recycled tires – are safe for children. This level of safety was determined solely because the fields harbor fewer bacteria than normal grass fields, a concern posed by concerned citizens. Yet scientists report that the air around artificial turf fields contains "volatile organic compounds" and lead and other heavy metals.The article goes on to say that the "presence of these toxins was so low that no public health concern was identified." In fact, for many heavy metals – including lead – there is no safe level of exposure. Even incredibly low levels of lead have been shown to affect development of the brain and nervous system. Children and developing fetuses are sensitive to heavy metals and permanent damage can occur after exposure. While only 20 percent of the lead that enters the body in food is absorbed, the majority of lead that is inhaled will enter the bloodstream. Therefore, even small amounts of lead in the air around playing fields should not be ignored. Heavy metal exposures are a serious concern for children, and the exposures should be reduced as much as possible".

What do you mean you're worried about Hepatitis? OMG! Read the requirements for children in the state of NJ. You said you were a healthcare professional? I am scared! Children are required to have them if they want to attend school.

http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schImmRqmtReport.asp

Lelia,
Just because you are vaccinated against Hepatitis, you can stilll contract it, just like with Chicken Pox. Please let's not over exaggerate these issues.

Lelia, I think we get your point, you're against the turf field because of environmental and health concerns. There are a lot of things that can be debated pro and con, but what I'm still waiting for is an explanation of the financial cost to us as taxpayers from start to finish. I read the mayor's post and I didn't see anything about ongoing maintenance and who's going to pay for that. I didn't see who is in charge of the field so that all the recreation groups will have equal access to the field and not just school sports. I don't have the same concerns you and like the idea of a turf field but I do want to know all the details before our elected officials vote on this. We're not voting, only them and not all of us can or do go to the TC meetings. With so many different opinions about this it would be nice if all the information was put on line for the public and not just some of it.

Wouldn;t logic dictate that no major reconstruction or repairs be done (especially at a $3M clip) without fixing the infrstructure and drainage issues of the current site? I'm sorry, but I have to believe that TC and Pro-Turf members are smart enough to figure that out.

Mr. Dvorchik, I have read many comments as to the engineer told us at the meeting, if you were at the meeting, the cost will only be $39, it won't cost anything to taxpayers, it is safe because we say so... I think those who really are rallying for it, should respond with specific and answer the person who is asking the question, not say the person is silly, stop posting, posting outdated information, bringing up diseases to scare people, etc. It's an attack on someone who is truly trying to understand every aspect of the project, in a way that it leaves very little room for anything to go wrong. Not answering and telling us to look up the information is like saying they don't know how to verbalize it, and that worries me even more, because then it confirms that maybe they don't really understand it enough to make a decision in the first place.

It's all good Bob F.! LOL I am beginning to find it quite amuzing, especially when someone calls another a puppet! It insensitive! It is disturbing - http://springfield.patch.com/articles/turf-field-bond-ordinance-passes-first-vote
and I know Mr. Shehady wrote this on his website, but you will argue that he ONLY meant the 'average' or the 'lowest' appraisal: "A bond is like a loan. The Township pays an initial down payment followed by annual debt service payments to pay for the principal and interest. Because of Springfield’s remarkable credit, we can benefit from extremely low interest rates. This bond will not result in a $3.4 million change to the 2012 municipal budget affecting municipal taxes. To get an understanding of the bond implications, a debt repayment schedule has been prepared assuming a principal of $3.4 million over a payback period of 15 years at an interest rate of 2.5%. The impact to an average assessment of $155,000 is $39.00 a year."

Bob F., I am sorry to inform you that you are not accurate about attacks. No one who is questioning this project has called anyone who is pro a name, but if you see the link included on my previous post, that the the Patch wrote regarding a BOE meeting, you will see how they quote of a board member calling someone a 'puppet', so your statement "I haven't seen any attacks from the Pro turf people" is not accurate. You may not have seen/read, but it has happened.

Ok Bob F.! See I am trying very hard to stay with the facts and that is why I try my vest best to show where I get my information from, even if people don't agree with it, they can see that it is NOT MADE UP!!

Leila everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and its obvious what yours is - its just the way you go about it posting the same old articles ( 28 times in 2 days !..really?) It's almost like you weren't at the meeting or read anybodys else responses...like your articles are correct and theirs are a lie...I think they did an excellent job at the meeting answering your questions - but you continue to disregard responses...everyone appreciates people bringing up concerns when children are involved ... I bet close to 90% (and no Leila I don't have proof) of the people who are in favor of the turf field have children..my confusion with many is what is their real concern - is it really the health concerns or is it the $40 per year that it may cost ? Yes there are a great deal of things that we could do in this town with more money - then lets do it - lets do another $3mm bond and add $40 more a year to our taxes - at $80 per year ( less than it cost to fill my gas tank)would you be in favor of that?I think I know the answer - forget the FACT that the BOE funds couldn't be used for half of the suggestions made (You surely most of known that "little" detail) -This by no means, is saying that those other ideas are not important, they truly are, but like many have said,we are in a tough economy and the better deal is to spend this money with rates at historic lows,funds from the BOE, and the revenue that this field would generate (sponsorships,home games,tourneys,donations)

oh yeah I forgot for you Leila - can't fit it all - but you can find it yourself ---I DID NOT PRINT IT ALL--- Human health issues on synthetic turf in the USA (Take a look at the date!!!) MUST READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
T J Serensits, A S McNitt and D M Petrunak Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology published online 13 June 2011 As the popularity of infilled synthetic turf continues to increase, concerns over potentially negative impacts on the health of field users have arisen. One of the main health issues on synthetic turf fields is high surface temperature, which can contribute to physic- logical stress of athletes and can cause serious heat-related illnesses. At The Pennsylvania State University, various methods to reduce surface temperatures have been evaluated including irrigation Another issue that has received attention is the possibility of athletes contracting bacterial skin infections, specifically those caused by Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Infilled synthetic turf has been targeted as a potential source for harboring S. aureus bacteria. A survey of 20 infilled synthetic turf fields was conducted to determine microbial population and presence of S. aureus bacteria. S. aureus colonies were not found to be present on any field; however, S. aureus colonies were found on other tested surfaces, including blocking pads, used towels, and weight equipment.

MORE For Leila-Skin infections associated with contact with synthetic turf have received national media attention in the USA. S. aureus is a common bacterium found on human skin and in the nasal cavity that can cause various types of skin and soft tissue infections In most cases, the presence of this bacterium causes few serious problems and often goes unnoticed; however, antibiotic-resistant strains can cause serious, and sometimes fatal, health complications. Outbreaks of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) have resulted in the temporary closing of school buildings and athletic facilities while the facilities are cleaned Infilled synthetic turf surfaces have been implicated as potentially harboring S. aureus bacterium although no scientific evidence has been published to support such a claim . However, the concern may be war- ranted as S. aureus has been shown to survive on various synthetic materials for up to 40 days Although no scientific evidence shows high levels of S. aureus on synthetic turf ...Both studies concluded that turf burns caused by synthetic turf could facilitate skin infection through person-to-person contact; however, neither study suggested that the players contracted the infection directly from the synthetic turf. Kazakova et al. and Begier et al.each implicated poor sanitary conditions in locker rooms and training facilities together with physical contact between players as the most likely causes for the outbreaks.

MORE-It should be remembered that microbes tend to be present on most surfaces that humans come into contact with and the simple presence of microbes should not be cause for concern. In fact, many products on the market claim to boost the microbial populations of natural turf-grass soils with higher microbial populations considered to be beneficial and a functioning microbial system essential...Based on the findings of the S. aureus survey, concern that infilled synthetic turf harbors and provides a breeding ground for S. aureus bacteria is unwarranted within the context of this study. S. aureus bacteria were found on a number of surfaces that athletes commonly come into contact with, such as towels and blocking pads; however, the tested synthetic turf did not contain any S. aureus. It is important to note that synthetic turf is more abrasive than natural turf grass and, as a result, breaks in the skin are more common, creating a pathway for
Infection when in contact with an infected surface.
BEST INFO YOU CAN OBTAIN AT LEAST AS FAR AS DATE -JUNE 2011
Good night and hope that helps Lelia - Hey Lelia do you know anyone that has a child at Oratory ? They Just got a Turf Field a few years ago - wonder how their parents felt about that ?

Oratory is a private school and I don't live in Summit and my concern is what is going on here not one, two or three towns over. We should not have to compare ourselves to anyone. I think for the most part, we have a beautiful town, with natural beauty and we should try to preserve it. Can you imagine if Baltsurol caught the artificial turf bug?

why shouldn't you care if its a health concern about the children and when others bring up up towns its not for comparing purposes ....No can't imagine (it has turf in several small areas already) - whats worst are the proven chemicals there that are actually linked to cancer....and cause a threat. (Go read up on that for a while) As for the other three postings that came thru my phone but are not up here on this site - I have no idea what you are talking about. You rambled on about reports...I honestly could nt make any sense of it....Anyway good luck at the meeting and I 'm glad you achieved what you wanted ...