baseball field again

[Guest]

On Sept. 22, the TC announced that the Rec. Committee would work with the public works department on the fencing. On 9/29 the public works department told the Rec. committee that they don't have the capabilities. Isn't anyone paying attention? The PW is now getting a quote from the contractor on Millstone park's field.

Here are the latest rec minutes and there is ample concern over how this field is being built.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/rec_minutes092908.pdf

[Guest]

Excerpt from the pdf file:

"...
OLD BUSINESS

1. Baseball Fields

The commission has some concerns with the regulation ball field and wanted to put together a punch list.

1. Fence

The commission asked Jerry Thorne if the public works department could move the fencing at the ball field. Jerry stated that his department does not have the man power or the experience to do that. Jerry will check with the contractor who will be doing the fencing at Millstone and see what kind of price they come back with.

2. Soil

Find out if the soil was tested. The commission wants to make sure the right spec soil was used. Pari stated that Chris Smeltzer will deal with the contractor if there is a problem. The commission would like to see the results of the test and find out what kind of soil was used. Jeff Graydon stated that silk like soil is preventing water form draining and is encouraging black algae growth. The contractor has until October 15th to aerate, drag and fertilized the field for this growing season.

3. Infield Clay

Find out what kind of mix was used, the commission found some deficiencies with the infield clay, and Commission wants to know if it tested. The commission would like to see the results and stated that action needs to be taken; the field is not playable as is. The infield has lipping because of the mix.

4. Sprinkler Heads

Several heads are too high; the soil around them is compressed. Each of them need to be looked at and fixed.

5. Backflow

The commission would like to know where it is and if it was tested.

6. Irrigation

The commission feels that the field has been over watered. They would like the indicator looked at to make sure it is working.

7. Outside of the field

The irrigation ditch that was dug on the outside of the field needs to be back filled again. Pari indicated we will need to get an architect to work with us on the phase 2 of the ball field. Phase 2 will have the scoreboard, dugouts and bleachers.

2. Other

Cranbury Plainsboro Little League wants to pay for 2 additional sheds at Village Park. The will require us to get Parks approval, a zoning permit, HPAC approval.
..."

[Guest]

"if we build it they will come". Was the justification used in a recent press article. That's the same shortsighted reasoning used by the auto makers, spending money on bad projects instead of market needs. Now they are faced with liquidation, so what is appropriate for a bad decission by our leaders to build a ballpark for no cranbury players?

[Guest]

There is no planning, no process in our town right now, it's give everyone everything, and then worry about the effects later or even if it's done correctly later. It's why we submitted a COAH plan that has a maximum number of units of 288, but when questioned about reducing the max number on 130D even to 35 from 48 (still leaving a max. of 275 as opposed to the required 269) they wouldn't do it.

Then you have the special interests like the letter writer who support the TC because they get what they want even if it may not be best for the town.

There is no planning, no process, and no accountability.

[Guest]

I am one of the most vocal critics of the ballfield and still don't agree with it. But I like to be fair. It seems to me that TC members scrutinized the field and are basically providing their punch list to hold the contractor accountable for. If so, I am glad they are. That does reflect some process. Too little, too late perhaps, but still not something fresh to be critical of, unless it leads to more expenditure that the Township is responsible for, which hasn't been established yet (other than the fence, which we all knew they were going to have to pay for eventually).

What I would like to see from the TC though is a concrete use plan that lays out in writing the rights of school and local groups to use the field beyond the use for a Babe Ruth league. They have implied this but I haven't seen it spelled out in binding rules.

[Guest]

Excerpts from the the October 16, 2008 Recreation minutes:

"...
3. Regulation Baseball Field

Ed Sekelsky asked if we got a punch list from the contractor. Michele Harcher was asked if our list was given to Chris Smeltzer and Michele Harcher indicated that she did give Chris Smeltzer our list. Michele Harcher reported that Chris Smeltzer gave Jeff Graydon the specs for the ball field and that Cathy Marcelli will give Jeff Graydon the soil samples and test results. Jeff Graydon will make a recommendation to Chris Smeltzer after he reviews everything. Mario Fiorentini indicated that a hose bib needs to be put in. The commission also recognized that the field will need to be added to our field policy and fee structure schedule. The commission also wants in writing that they had absolutely nothing to do with the design or the construction of the ball field and that our previous liaison had never addressed the Township Committee with the commissions concerns. The Recreation Commission also would like the Township Committee to call the ball field a "Regulation Ball Field" not a Babe Ruth Field.

4. Shed for Baseball Fields

The Commission agreed that two sheds are needed. One shed for Millstone and one for Village Park. Beth Veghte asked Michele Harcher to get HPAC approval for Village Park and she will give the Parks Commission information on the sheds.
..."

http://www.cranburytownship.org/rec_minutes101608.pdf

[Guest]

[Guest]

Is our whole town in CYA mode? The commisson wants in writing a letter stating their concerns were never addressed and they had nothing to do with this, if I ever saw an admitted failure of a project this is it. The field was managed by David and Pari. This was their project. Couldn't the commisson have gone in front as CHA did a while ago and present their concerns if they weren't being addressed?

Here is what I find really funny given the Rec's comments. August 11, meeting notes:

Ms. Stave stated that she feels that ball field looks fantastic and is proud of the Project.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes081108.pdf

Also from the same meeting our town engineer:

Ms. Marcelli advised that there were some concerns raised regarding the grading of the Babe Ruth Baseball field and the location of the fence along the foul line. She advised the grading and fence are compliant with the contract plans and with Babe Ruth Baseball standards.

So we have TC taking pride and a Rec Commisson fleeing ship.

I do like they the Rec Commisson recognizes it should not be referred to as a Babe Ruth field. However, is that only how it's referred to or will they honestly push for it not to be a Babe Ruth field at all. That is what I'd like to see. A regulation field for school and public use makes me a lot more comfortable.

[Guest]

I am not sure it's even legal to use town owned land and tax payers funds to build a ball field that cannot be used by the tax payers who are not in the league and is NOT owned by the town after its completion.

[Guest]

Yes it's legal. The town has made at least one park in the town a little league field. It's a restricted use.

[Guest]

[Guest]

The field in the far back when you enter the park. It's a CPLL little league field. I'm not sure if it's deeded over to the league or restricted to little league use only. In either case I am fine as the field gets use during the season from Cranbury kids. Also, CPLL and the town have practices and kids can and do have pick up games.

BR has different rules and regulations than little league because of the care required on the field.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Do they literally plan to give the deed to the land to the private company that owns the Babe Ruth League? How does that make sense, anywhere? What's to prevent the Babe Ruth League in the future from changing the use or from using the field for profit-generating activities unrelated to local kids playing games? Why would the Township both the ownership value and control of an asset taxpayers footed the bill for?

[Guest]

What happens is that the field is town is the owner, but that the league maintains control and decision making control over the use it is a restricted use field and we have no say once it becomes a league field. In essence we are owner in name only (and for expenses). For example, the league rules don't allow the field to be used for pick up games. If we want school use it has to be approved of by the BR league with their permisson granted. Pick up games are not allowed under BR rules on the field due to the expense of maintaining a BR quality standard. With zero kids on the team it is also unlikely that the league would play games here so it is feasible that they'd be thanks, but do whatever you want to do since we won't play here. Which makes it non-sensical to even develop the relationship with BR. We should simple make it a regulation field and be done with it. We shouldn't be developing fields that restrict resident usage.

[Guest]

I thought the field was needed for the few students that had out-of-town games. It was meant for them, because it was a disgrace that kids had to travel and we didn't have our own field.

That's how it was sold, that's how it should be!

As for the crappy field.......I thought the contractor had experience building baseball fields. They should fix it, right?