This is taken from a patch article written by Mayor Shehady in feb 2012 (3 months after he found out about the contamination). "Additionally, the Board of Education has committed the proceeds to be generated from the sale of land reasonably expected to be between half a million to a million dollars. After the sale, that money will further reduce the amount to be borrowed through bonding. There is the added benefit of the new ratables and the annual tax revenue to be raised "

It appears he omitted some important information the public deserved to know.

I'm also very curious why this article was not written by the guy who typically covers Springfield??

I am very happy the turf field is being built and I honestly believe the town will benefit from it. That said, there are a number of things that need answering in regard to how our elected officials handled this whole thing. First, the agreement with the BOE is one where the TC approved a bond ordinance to provide the funding for the project. The TC provides the money and then the BOE has authority over the construction and use of the field. How does that make any sense? Who gives someone else money for something they have no control over?
Anyone who has ever purchased a home or land understands that proper due diligence is always conducted before any agreement is reached--everyone gets a home inspection at the very least. In this case the township attorney, who lists land use as an area of his expertise, apparently didn't counsel the TC to make sure about possible contamination before they approved the agreement or voted on the bond ordinance.
The public was given a sales pitch about the 'land swap' implying that money received by the TC from the sale of that land would offset the cost of financing through the bond ordianance. It's not the job of the TC to 'sell' a project, it's their responsibility to inform the residents of all the facts they know about. They failed to do so and regardless of what the former mayor says now, everyone remembers what he said then.

Nicole, it appears that neither of them provided a direct answer. Yes or no would have been a direct response. Did you ask if there was reason to believe there could have been contamination or if either of them were aware of testing that needed to be done?

We need to ask the same question of Huber and Amlin. They all voted for the bond issue. If any information was held from (or not brought to the attention of) the public they should all be held accountable. I'm tired of hearing the excuses from the TC about who said what / who was pressured into it / who was against it, etc. It was a 5 - 0 vote and all 3 current TC members should be help accountable. There needs to be an investigation as to how this 'project' was sold to the public and if any meaningful information was withheld.

From the way Nicole wrote the article, it seemed the county wanted that test to be done before getting the land, whereas the town was ready to get it.

Also, the land swap deal was voted by the town on Dec 28, 2010, as listed in this Patch article: http://springfield.patch.com/articles/turf-project-takes-big-step-forward Notice Mark Krauss writes some comments about the deal at the bottom.

For Bob, I did check Ziad's letter about the turf field and his estimate of $39 for just for the bond, and did not include any offsets. You know that I'm not a big fan of him, but I did double check that.http://springfield.patch.com/blog_posts/the-case-for-the-springfield-athletic-turf-field-project

Good article and good comments which pretty much answered a lot of my questions too. Thanks

Nicole, its better to let all the readers fight amongst themselves on your articles...lol.

Otherwise, you may as well argue with 5 year olds.

Oh Mr. Groder please turn off your computer and find something constructive to do. You insist on making this something it is not. Someone just provided you with a calculation to prove that the $39 estimate included only the bond amount. Isn't that enough?

On Dec. 30, 2010 Mr. Krauss said "the land the township WOULD receive COULD be POTENTIALLY divided into 5-9 lots." He never said WILL, CAN or PRECISELY.

Am I the only resident who has grown tired of your incandescent negativity to anything related to Shehady and specifically with the turf field?

I have a business to run so so go ahead and continue to rip me apart for standing up in my beliefs. Have a good day Kevin M.

Nicole, thanks for the clarification regarding their direct responses.

If as Mayor Amlen suggests in the article, that he is only in favor of partial remediation of the land, then what will happen to the values of the homes next to the contaminated land when the owners try to sell them at a future date.

I can hear the real estate pitch now, “This lovely home is not to close to the contaminated behind you. It was partially cleaned up.”

I wouldn’t want to be a home owner on Tree Top Dr and Skylark Rd living next to contaminated land, even partially cleaned up. I would expect Mayor Amlen to insist on complete remediation.

Let's stop the politics of this and realize both Democrats and Republics had a part in this 'deception'of the taxpayer. I know for a fact the bond was 'sold' to the public based upon the assumptions that the land would be viable and offset part of the bond. It was also back in 2010 / 2011 when democrats held the gavel that the swap started and the phase one was done. Even if you couldn't say with 100% certainty that the land was contaminated it did raise questions. These questions should have been held out front to the public as much as the assumptions that we (the taxpayers) would see substantional benefits from it. To me, the whole thing does not pass the 'smell test'. I think our public officials (both democrats and republicans) have let us down by not being open and upfront with us. The only thing that is true at this moment is that we (the taxpayers) have no recourse except in November when we go to the ballot box. The only way to move forward is to ensure that we elect non-partisan members who hopefully will be transparent and let the public decide what is best for their pocketbooks.

Www.change.org/petitions/now that it has been revealed the promised land to offset cost is contami aged, what will the turf field cost Springfield (nj) taxpayers?

I would like to know too! How much will it cost now?

===“Township committee, FYI - Apparently the environmental results for the top are in but what result is we don’t know,” the email stated. ===
Is this to show 'proof' that they had no clue anything unusual was going on with the land? Was this plucked from an episode of SNL? Why would the BOE waste its time to contact a committee member with a message that said NOTHING!!?? Is this indicative of how the Township and BOE will inform residents of what really happened? Save it. Save yourselves the additional embarrassment please. Clean up the land. Continue spending our $$$ indiscriminately. Do what you want to do, because in the end, even if everything is in the state of upheavel, you treat us as if we have no rights to know anything. That has been the standard rhetoric mortadella coming out of every communication from the TC in the last couple of years, and consistently from the BOE.

And NOW, how much is the estimated tax hike per household? (Like anyone ever believed it was going to be $37...).

Mr. Shehady stated that government owes its taxpayers an open form of government; one who will represent taxpayers effectively. In his open letter published in the Patch February 2012, while Mayor of Springfield, he detailed reasons a turf field would benefit Springfield athletes and in the process assigned blame to many for causing some type of stunt to the sports' programs in Springfield. He, in 2010, and several other committee members supported the idea of developing a turf field and embraced the drafted plans proposed by a foundation. Eventually, a vote by TC and BOE sealed the support for the agreement on 1/10/11. According to Mr. Shehady, the agreement did not come to fruition in 2011 due to changes in TC membership. Mr. Shehady then labeled the turf efforts “Project 2012” and relentlessly lobbied to get everyone on board. He accused, he placed blame, and berated past politicians for their lack of oomph to bring Springfield to the future so it could compete with neighboring communities. In summary, it could be understood (hope I did a fair interpretation of what he wrote) that Mr. Shehady promoted that Springfield would not settle for less than what it deserved, and what it deserved was a state of the art turf field with seating for over 500, a press box, a refreshment stand, restrooms and lighting, which Mr. Shehady insisted would rejuvenate, united and give pride to residents, as well as, generate revenues to help with Springfield’s economy.

There are 2 different arguments being raised by people. Some people aren't in favor of the turf field and are basically saying "I told you so" about any of the possible financial issues that may be passed on to taxpayers. The others appear to be in favor of the turf field but aren't pleased with what appears to be less then full disclosure by the TC (in 2012) regarding any possible issues with the "land swap" property. Here are the facts: the field is being built; a bond ordinance was approved by the TC to finance the field; the BOE oversees the construction of the project; the land swap property has contamination that requires remediation and the cost will be borne by the BOE. The final fact is that the financing approved by the TC and all costs incurred by the BOE will be paid by taxpayer dollars.
I served on the TC long enought to know that elected officials will never please everyone, so it is understandable that some people would be upset one way or the other. I am fully in favor of the turf field project but I am not pleased that the financing of this project is based 100% on taxpayer dollars because Springfield has a large senior population that in many cases are financially strapped and those people will never see the benefit of this project. I believe our elected officials should have (and still can) explore ways to bring in money to help offset the cost.

Hey Chris,

I was against this project originally being a large senior population is here who wont get any benefit from the project but after talking to many people in town im convinced its good for the town long term. WHAT IM NOT HAPPY ABOUT however is the misleading ways it was advertised to the citizens in springfield and that the land swap would control the costs. that was shoved down our throats and I feel someone fell asleep here when doing this deal. as bart & i have both stated when you buy a house or property you always take due diligence before buying it. well a project of this magnutude this wasnt done. thats my only beef at this point that and the fact that shehady refused to put this on the november ballot last year for fear of it being defeated.

Nicole: I truly believe this will cost more than 37.00 per tax payer but time will tell long term what the real cost will be. Like any construction project or budget done its just an estimate. the actual totals usually differ a lot once a budget or project like this gets completed.

Chrys, I made some suggestions over the past couple of years but to date have not been taken up on my offer to pursue them again. I am still willing to do so, since as a taxpayer, I will also bear my share of the costs. But even moreso because I honestly feel a turf field will be beneficial for the community. My position from the very start of this process has always been that it should be built, but I also felt that every possible avenue should have been explored before using taxpayer dollars. That was not done. The TC and the BOE placed the cost squarely on the taxpayers without any effort to come up with at least something that could offset some of the cost. And if anyone suggests the land swap was what they came up with, then they did a terrible job because no one did their due diligence on it.
You have every right to be upset about how your elected officials spend your tax dollars because even if the increase ends up being about $37 per household, the bond term is 15 years, which means the useful life of the turf field will be less then the time the taxpayers will be paying for it,. At the very least the field should have been paid off during its lifetime so that the cost of replacement will not overlap with the intiial cost.

Marc , you can slice everything & skew the statistics all you want. You know in the early meetings for this many people spoke up against the project. You are right that not 1 group should benefit over the others. This field is only helping a select few while the mass majority of citizens in town wont get much benefit from it other than the issues ill say to chrys below. Almost everyone who was at the early public meetings on this asked for it to be put on the ballot for a public vote as anything of this magnitude in my opinion should be up to the voters instead of a board who in my opinion had a political agenda when doing this bond issue. When its put to a vote by the citizens in town ( just like the charter study commission was) then the majority gets heard. You and I both know that not many people go to TC meetings until a big issue comes up.

I have friends who in 2012 refused to go to TC meetings as they were simply afraid of speaking out because of the way former Mayor Shehady ran meetings. He was outright rude to some long time citizens just because they had the nerve to speak out against him.

To Chrys: Here are some pros & cons for this project:
1. The property values so I've been told will go up because of this.
2. Kids wont have to play home games elsewhere.
3. Student morale will be higher.

The cons:
1. Only a select few get to benefit from this.
2. Taxes will go up a lot more than we were told.

This was Ziad & the BOE's baby.

Chrys,

I did say in my comments I WAS TOLD the property values would go up and i didnt say i believe it. The jury is still out on this. This is what the republcans promised when they shoved this down our throats last year.

You make some valid points Chrys. All i was worried about is the deception given about the contamination if there was any. The proof is in the pudding and I hope they investigation proves this 1 way or the other.

Seriously don't you two have anything better to do? This is hysterical and I sincerely thank you for the hourly doses of humor but wouldn't it be easier if you met at Dunkin Donuts or Barnes & Noble to share your anger? I am embarrassed for both of you.

Chrys, I disagree with your comment about how the parks in town are maintained. I feel they are maintained very nicely, with the exception of the basketball courts only having 1 hoop up. That was another issue where a minority of people who were the loud squeaky wheels got their way.

Mr. Groder,
The title of the article is Springfield BOE Waiting on DEP to Remediate Contaminated Property. The words INVESTIGATION, REPORT RESULTS TO THE PEOPLE are never present. I am not convinced there will ever be an investigation! How can the BOE and the Township investigate themselves? Those who set up controls and implement them need others to audit. One cannot audit oneself and report results clearly, objectively and without bias. Anyway, the write up says: "Currently, the Board of Education has filed all the appropriate paperwork with the DEP, but the DEP needs to approve everything from the outlines and plans to the contractor, according to Davino." All Mr. Davino is saying here is that the BOE will spend a TON of money that will eventually have to figure out how to recover from other areas (maybe the answer is to eliminate yet another class period or try to unlawfully take away reimbursement of transportation again -- good grief!!). We are not challenging that the BOE has NOW filed paperwork, what is in question is the WHY the people WERE NOT told the land was contaminated and it was not a viable source of $$ to help with the project. It is apparent, at least in my little world, that from the initial negotiations with the County, which I read didn't want to purchase the land after preliminary studies, that there were suspected issues with it. COME ON... how do we spell dysfunctional?

To Bob Groder and Chrys [Lela ] the turf field is being built get over it.If we had a referendum for everything people disagreed on we would be up to our ears in referendums. Bob another plus for the turf field is savings on maintenance and not having to postpone games because of poor field conditions. While I am disappointed in the land swap deal that is a different issue. The turf field was long needed.You can't choose where your tax dollars go we all have to share for the good of Springfield. That is why Seniors will pay for the field, Chrys maybe their grandchildren will use the turf field, and those with children have to pay taxes for the senior center. I agree with Bart Fraenkel the turf field is long over due, investigatethe land swap and then see what happens.Bob other ways to offset the field are naming rights for the field and rent to clubs. Enough already stop the nonsense

Ok, Mark W (Ziad), I will stop making sense! Leave it up to all of you to run the town and make the good choices for everyone! Stupendous!! Hysterical! and Outrageous. Glad someone is amused with all of this! I could care a rat's butt if anyone is bothered by my comments. There are a lot of real crazy theories out there and a lot of you are guilty of it! so tune off your Patch reminders and you won't have to read them!

Mr. Groder:
I admire that you stand up for your beliefs. I also understand that many people don't want to write in here, but who nonetheless are appaled by the decisions that have been made recently for our town. I am not against spending money for real improvements. I am hopeful that after this is behind us, our town will be in the right hands.

Chrys, where are these "many people" who don't want to write in here? Are they in your head talking to you? Because like Frankel, anyone can create an internet alias and post anonymously or with a fake name. And if they don't want to write in here, they're certainly not signing that laughable rambling petition you created. You've only managed to get 2 other signatures besides your own and one of those two lives in Vermont. As for Groder, if I were you, I'd be careful about accusing Shehady of using aliases without any proof. Writing something that's not true and defaming their character really could get you in a lot of legal trouble. While I'd love to see you end up in court (maybe that'll finally put an end to the shame you're bringing to the Groder name that your father worked so hard to build) you'd just be wasting your time. If you want to continue saying that "everyone who is a regular on the patch knows..." or even imply that, offer the proof. Because like everything else you say, it's not worth much and it's always incorrect. Jeff R. knows that it's not hard for others to find out the names people post under on here, so it shouldn't be hard to prove the aliases Ziad is allegedly using if you were right. Everyone who is a regular on here knows that you can't prove most of what you say so we're not expecting any proof of your claims. We're waiting... (Is this when you change the subject?)

The only problem with Chrys's statistics is it doesn't include the parents of those children who will also benefit from the field because their kids will have a good place to play various sports. In the end I think the turf field is a good investment in OUR community. The only issue I have is the way it was sold to the public. We need and DESERVE a honest and open government. Not one that hides behind party affiliations and politics. In my research both sides knew about the potential issues and should have brought it to the publics' attention. Instead they told us how the land WILL (or as they try to say could) reduce the debt burden of the taxpayers. Like I said in a past post the deal is done and our only recourse is in November. Hopefully some independent minded people will come forward to represent Springfield taxpayers instead of a party!!

The only point i made here is we need and deserve an open and honest government much like sprinfield resident tired of bickering is stating.

To Marc Krauss : yes it was a 5-0 vote but you know that both rich & david had to be talked into it and they were convinced the land deal was part of it and that it would all work out. all i have contended all along is that due diligence wasnt done with the land swap by the township attorney who was appointed by the republican mayor in 2012.

The rest of this article and posts have gotten way out of hand.

It is my impression from listeninfg to Mayor Amlen at last weeks TC meeting that he also felt that due diligence wasnt done in regards to the land swap deal. At this point since its being built it doesnt matter what people think. A done deal is a done deal so now moving forward lets maximize the income with naming rights and any advertising that can be sold. I still want the investigation to be looked into as the mayor also stated should be done. If its done great and if not then the public can just judge how it feels and speak out at tc meetings. The people who did speak last week mostly asked that something be done to look at why the land swap deal went bad.

Please stop trying to deflect the real issue which is the land swap deal going bad. Thats the gist of this article.

Bob, either you don't know what you're writing/saying most of the time or you have someone feeding you lines. That was not the "only point" you made. You TRIED to make a number of points. One of those points you always bring up is the "fact" Shehady has aliases that you say everyone knows, that it was proven, etc. Are you now saying that it's NOT a point you're trying to make? Are you admitting you were wrong? Or are you telling us you don't have proof and that you were just spreading a lie? These comments get out of hand because of people like you who claim to be against the partisan politics and attacks yet you start them every time and attach "the republican mayor" and the "previous majority". There is no land swap deal that went bad. That's a made up story to deflect from the current Township Committee's inability to claim progress. By this time last year, the turf field was a done deal. Nothing has been accomplished this year besides the creation of more "committees" and government bureaucracy.

Sprinfield Resident Tired of the Bickering, you're right, "We need and DESERVE a honest and open government". That government is only as good as its people and if we want to hold the people in power responsible, we need the information. "In my research both sides knew about the potential issues and should have brought it to the publics' attention" Can you share this research? Surely, if they both knew, there must be a paper trail. Please let us know how you know.

The Turf field was not contingent on the sale of the land on top. What we were trying to do was find a way to help alleviate some of the cost, so we asked to BOE to sell the land on top and use the money towards the bond. Lets not confuse the 2 issues. You can debate if you feel we need a field or not, I felt we did and think the benefits would be a benefit to the town. I wonder did previous committees try to find ways to lower cost on projects they were bonding like the firehouse that is built on contaminated land? So like when you sell you house something came up on the land that we did not find out till November 2013. This does not mean that the land can not still be sold to the County like the Democrats wanted to do in 2011. Once it is cleaned and it had to be cleaned Turf or no Turf then it can be sold. I have to believe that a cleaned land up on top, 9.2 acres has to be worth a significant amount that will go towards the bond. Do not forget that Mayor Hugh Keffer was in office when the BOE and the TC met with the county. I sat in that meeting with Dave Amlen. That article in the Local Source was a joke with so many false information.

If you didn't go to the last township committee meeting, watch it on TV Channel Verizon 46 and Comcast 35...Mayor Amlen admits he knew everything all along.

Those who run our town think we are all stupid!!!!! We all know the truth!!!!!!!