Alex, you there? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> All right. Um, >> this is So, we got a bunch of people in the audience and uh currently being recorded. >> Okay, good. Uh, do we have other
participants yet? >> Yeah. Uh for those that are on the uh uh trust fund advisory committee, I'm going to promote you to panelists. Please accept. All right, everybody. We're just waiting for a couple more members. Um, we'll get
started in a little Uh Steve, I know Steve Green might have been calling in. So if Steve, if you're uh on here, can you just raise your hand? I think uh at this point uh I don't see any other members um in the uh
attendees. Uh we do currently Oh, Deborah just came on. I will promote her. But I'll I'll keep an eye out and so if other members uh do do come on I'll bring them in as panelists. Um so uh
with that I will uh turn the meeting over. This meeting is being recorded and uh we do have currently 20 uh attendees in the audience. Um so and uh I'll turn it over to uh chairperson Stler who will
uh um go from there. So yeah, you got you good then? >> Yeah, I was just saying who who are we missing? I guess we're missing uh uh who are we missing? Um
>> uh we got we got Steve coming in as well. >> Okay, great. All right, listen. I want to welcome everybody to the u uh Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Committee um uh advisory board. Uh thank you guys for
all the hard work you're doing uh and making time for this uh meeting. Um really the the soup dour today the topic of the day is the project funding of the high school field improvements uh and providing a recommendation to the
township committee. Um in terms of kind of process Alex how do you want to work the process here? Um right now we're discussing about the open discussion then going to public com comments uh and then a uh and
then that's do we do that prior to the vote or or after the vote? >> Uh quite honestly it can be done however you however you want it to be done. Um, you know, obviously there should be an open discussion of of this committee of uh what their recommendation may be if
any to the township committee can certainly be opened up to the public for their comments then. And um and then I think the important part is is that after after that that there is a sort of a a consolidation of what a
recommendation might might be so that it can be voted on by the group. >> Got it. Got it. So, so I would I would say uh we have our open discussion now. We open it to public comments. Uh you know, brief comments from from anybody
who wants to say any something. Uh and then we'll have a chance to to obviously um address any of the points we feel that need to be addressed and then uh we can put it to a uh a a vote to provide a
recommendation to the township committee. uh to move ahead with uh to move ahead with this project uh and uh whether we agree to f to fund it through the the open uh space trust. Uh is that
fair enough to everybody? Good. Uh Alex, why don't you just do a roll call so we know who's So for just for the record. >> Uh yeah, sure. Um Mike Langley >> here. Uh Deborah Nevice
>> here. >> Beer Patel >> here. >> Um David Cosgrove >> here. >> Josh Ryder >> present. >> Steve Green.
>> I'm here on the phone. I'll be joining the Zoom in a little bit. >> Okay. And uh Brad Jenkins. Don't see him in the audience right now either. Um, uh, Ben Stler >> present. >> Matt Larissy
>> present. >> And myself, Alex Mcllen. Okay. So, we have everyone in attendance with the exception of Brad Jenkins. >> Okay. Good. So, just to begin, I just want to I want to begin. I sent a a piece of uh literature to everyone uh
that showed the uh field project and the playable hours. Uh this was this was done internally and it showed a um the playable cost per playable hour. Uh that cost per playable hour from synthetic
turf came in at around $98. And for grass, natural grass, it came in at $371. So that was about a 3.8x benefit uh to going with synthetic over
grass. Uh it also meets all our needs for the playability of the fields. Um I want to you know I want to see if there were any questions anybody had on that as well. Uh who's anybody we had a everybody had a chance to review that study and uh if anybody had any
questions. >> Ben, I'm not sure if I was reading it right, but it looked like factoring in the cost of the renovations. Uh, I thought I saw 142 an hour for the turf and 208 for the um grass. Was I was I misreading that?
>> Yeah, you were. Uh, everything was broken down to the lowest common denominator, which is the cost per playable hour uh utilizing both the both of the uh either turf or natural
grass. So, if you look at the bottom where I had this red line circled around the s the cost per hour of usability, those are the numbers I'm referring to. >> Okay, got it. I apologize. I'm driving so it's hard for me to look at it right now, but I'll take another look when I'm
I'm in the thing with that. Thank you. >> Sure. No worries. >> Quick question, Ben. >> Yes, sir. I I I don't the playability figures um you know turf versus s you know versus uh Assad. I I don't know that
that's within the realm of what we're considering here other than the cost of the project itself. Meaning I don't think we make any rulings on whether this field rulings in this committee whether you know whether the field should or shouldn't be any
particular type of turf. Correct. Correct. Correct. So, this is, you know, somewhat somewhat to the point of when we were pushing through when we were we were lobbying for the uh uh the open space trust fund is that we would use
recreation, we would open this to recreation. That's a great point, David, uh that you're making. So, you know, as we look at this project going down to that, you know, externality of grass versus turf, I see your point. However,
it's become a a bit of a uh a bit bit of a topic in town on from an environmental side. So, I just want to make sure we address all those different pieces. uh breaking it down in such a way that we could actually analyze those cost uh is
the the only way I really know how being a finance guy to get down and put a uh a measurement in there. But I agree with you in terms of the externality of looking at turf versus grass. Uh it's whether the project makes sense for
recreation uh for the uh town at large. That being said, um, Alex, I >> go ahead. >> Sorry, Ben. I just, uh, Alex, I I'm looking at the field project comparison from March 2nd that you sent out, Alex, is that the wrong thing to be looking
at? Because on the bottom of that first page, it looks like I see a 142 to 208. I just want to make sure that's on. >> Alex, do you know what I'm talking about? >> You're on mute, Alex. >> Hello.
>> Yeah. So, so this this uh what Ben is referencing is the or the materials that were sent um was the was the uh one that was sent yesterday. That was the one the one we asked was the one that uh on the last meeting people asked to uh be
updated to have all of the economics and all the different pieces down to that playable hour. So that you might you might have the the one from the la from the last one that did not go all the ways down to the playable hour. >> I see. Okay.
>> Um >> um All right. Thank you. >> Also too, I have a statement from uh Nick Romano, who's the chairman of the recreation uh committee. I want to read that into the record. Uh should we do
that now, Alex, or or a little bit later? >> You you I mean, you can at any point. I just don't know if anybody else wanted to want wants to say say anything or if you wanted me to uh you know display that um you know analysis same way for
the group. So >> no let me let me go ahead and read let me go ahead and read it and then we'll jump back to questions. If anybody has a question just raise your hand. Uh but in the meantime let me read this this this uh statement that Nick had asked me to put into the record. Uh, I first want to
apologize. Actually, you know, he's getting old. I first want to apologize that a work obligation makes it impossible for me to be here in person this afternoon. I also want to thank my friend, committeeman Ben Stler, that's me, for agreeing to read my statement into the public record. My
name is Nick Romano. I've served on the recreation commission for the past 20 years and currently serve as its chair. However, today I am speaking only for myself. I am saddened that the high school field project has turned into a political football. For the record, I am
100% in favor of this project. For the past two decades, Commissioner Ducker, Chris Ducker, and I have worked to secure more playable fields for the youth of our community. No one can argue the fact that we need more fields and better fields. As a longtime baseball, softball, and soccer coach, I have
traveled throughout the state, and quite frankly, Milburn's fields do not come close to those in many other towns. As recreation director Chris Meyers often says, quote, "We are a program rich but filled poor. This project is needed and long overdue, nothing but good things
happen when our children are given the opportunity to participate in sports. As a coach, I have often used sports as a metaphor for life. Sports teach humility, teamwork, dedication, competition, sacrifice, leadership, and accountability. They teach you how to back up when you are knocked down and
how sometimes you can learn from a loss more from a loss than from a win. The Open Space Trust Fund is a great way to help fund this project. The money is already there. Taxpayers do not need to be asked again. They already voted for it and approved it by an overwhelming majority. Many residents, including
myself, support the referendum because we believed it could help address our community need for more field space. Years ago, supporters of the Open Space Trust Fund said it would provide our town with opportunities like those provided by the county's open space trust fund. However, there is no
county-owned property in Milbourne where the county of Essex could build fields. Commissioner Druer Ducker and I have explored that option in the past. The county has used its trust fund to build some of the best fields in the state, many of which are turf fields. When the
environmental commission presented the open space trust fund to the recreation commission, it was clearly implied that these funds could be used for field improvements. When residents voted on this referendum, it was also understood that funds could be used for projects
like this. Please do not create a bait and switch situation. Now, our community is far too informed and engaged for that. There is no reason not to vote yes on this project and there is no statute that prevents you from doing so. Vote
yes. Vote for Milbour most and most importantly vote for our children. Thank you Nick Romano. And and you know I think that's a great statement just to have on the record here and it also pushes towards what Dave Cosgrove said earlier in that whether it's turf or
natural grass really isn't the issue. The issue is is it good for the community uh uh from a recreation perspective. Uh, and I tend to agree. Uh, any questions? >> Uh, Dave, is your hand up? >> Ye. Yes, it is.
>> Okay. I'm looking for the little thing on the on the Zoom where you raise your hand, but that's fine in person. Fine. Okay. Got it. All right, Dave. >> So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. So, so yeah, folks, you know, I'll kick this off a little bit to, you know, to to get to some thoughts that I have. I you know
I I don't think there's any question um at the township committee level or at you know or or even in this committee that these fields you know are going to happen. Um there certainly is a dispute
um you know about and and again I don't think that's before this committee what type of turf it would or wouldn't be. Uh the town clearly has the money. The town itself has the money to uh to pay for this uh agreement. I think there's
serious questions when you look at the actual ordinance as to whether money can or can't this our money uh you know open space money can be used at all for this project. Uh doesn't mean the project can't go
forward with town money. Uh but the the ordinance the way it's drafted, putting aside um Nick Romano's comments about how it was sold or how it wasn't sold. Um the reality is the the ordinance speaks of
acquisition of things ac if so if you acquire a piece of property and I've been using that the Exxon station that I think is near and dear to some of the people on on this committee. If we buy that Exxon station, then I think the money in in the in the in this uh pot
can be used to turn that into a field or to turn that into whatever we want. But this is a um this is not an acquisition here. Um so I think there's a legal question. Now again, that legal question may be uh h something that has to be
answered by the town's lawyer. uh because frankly, you know, all this committee does is make a recommendation whether they think this money should or shouldn't be used, meaning the open space money and the township ultimately makes that call and obviously does not, you know, I'm I know would not want to
violate, you know, the terms of the ordinance. So, I think our question is, do we think it's a worthy project u using the open space fund? I don't think we should use the open space money for this. Um it's the open space money. I think the bulk of the people in town
wanted to see it used to buy a piece of land somewhere um that might be uh in, you know, in in jeopardy of being developed and turn that into something. Again, that Exxon station makes it, you know, is an example whether or not people on on this committee agree. But
uh I just don't think it's a good opening volley. I also think when I look at the financials that are set forth, uh we basically would be, you know, giving all of the money away that the uh that the open space fund has for a significant period of time. Uh leaving
us hamstrung. Um you know, I've seen comments that there's no project before this committee other than this. I I think the Arboritum project is before us. Um the Exxon station project is before us. Um, so I I think there's
plenty of projects that we're aware of. Um, and you know, I don't think we should be looking at just one project. We should be trying to weigh what we want to do with this money and and frankly not depleted. So there's no money there and there's nothing for us
to do, you know, next year. But that's my two cents on this. >> Those are all valid great points, Dave. uh unfort you know not unfortunately but in reality uh we're not depleting anything. The bulk of the the project as
we've identified it is easily funded by the open space trust fund uh at a very uh very minimal percentage of the annual tax raise. In fact we have $2 million just sitting there in terms of as we get
going. I know there are a list of projects including that Exxon station which is dear to my heart. Uh that's the one at the Vox Hall uh that I've been told by numerous people that on on the township committee that we don't want to do. Uh we could actually turn that into
a nice pocket park. It could help for flood mitigation. It could be a great gateway into our community. The person who first introduced that project to me maybe two and a half, three years ago was actually Priya. uh and then the arburetum project and such this is not a
all or nothing uh uh guys in ter in fact this is about 20% of our annual raise under the uh open uh space trust fund actually about 23 or 24%. Uh, and I can defer to Matt Laracy to talk about that on a 20-year
note, on a 10-year note, whatever the case may be. In terms of the legality, we're not here to talk to to discuss. We're not lawyers. Uh, actually, Dave is a lawyer. Uh, but we're not here to discuss the the lawyering of it. If there is a uh if there is a a problem
with how it's written, that can be remedied uh at the township council, at the township committee level. Uh, and such. I think we need to focus in on whether uh this project meets uh the obligations of this f trust fund and and
how do we move it forward uh to the township committee with the yay or nay. Uh the other projects are going to get going quick and you know very quick uh and furiously. Uh you know I'm sure I was talking to Priya today. We have a whole list of opportunities uh that we can get on the docket and get them
moving. But this is not an all or nothing uh opportunity. Um uh and the land acquisition uh the whole statement of land acquisition uh we're going to have plenty of time to acquire that land. Uh this is really, you know,
what was communicated per Rick Nick Romano's opening statement there that we are looking at spending at bringing fields. That's a definite need to our community right now. Uh I'd like to hear from everyone too. Uh uh I'd like to give an opportunity to Pria and to Mike
and to uh to uh Josh and I think Brad and uh Bri, are they on all on now? Uh Alex? >> Yep, Brad. Brad's on now. >> Okay, good. So, so let me just volley it around and then we can go to go to maybe our mayor uh and then to open comments
and then we can, you know, look at what we want to do. Uh Priya, please bless uh grace us with your your your words. >> Um though really kind words from you, Ben.
Um, I think that for me personally, I I I look, I'm a, you know, I'm a mother of two kids who were threeseason athletes and I always heard complaints
about the lack of fields in our town and um, and I know that it's a real problem and I have talked to residents and I've talked to family members who live in town. I've talked to friends from, you know, from high school boosters and I
know that the lack of playability, playable hours is a problem. And it's something that I've heard at least as long as I've lived here since 2015. And under New Jersey law, open space
funds can absolutely be used to fund recreational fields, sports fields. And that is exactly what was advertised when I along with other EC members um Renee Paparian who was the chair at the time
when we did our public session. So, um, we made it abundantly clear to residents that if you vote for this, uh, ballot measure, um, there will be tax money available to pay for open space, as many
of us think of open space, which is, you know, land that has grass on it, that's undeveloped, that is used for passive recreation s such as walking and hiking, but also land that is used for
organizing recreation, athletics, etc., as well as historic preservation. And I'm I'm a little bit amissed that the representative from historic preservation isn't able to join us today because I would love to hear his thoughts on this project as
>> Oh, sorry. Red's on. >> Okay. Excellent. Um, so I, you know, I am not I'm an appointed volunteer. So that is, you know, I operate in that capacity.
I'm not an elected official. Um I will not be voting to recommend this project um after reviewing um the materials that have been sent to me by Alex and um by
others. But um I will support this project if that's what the elected officials the elect are the township committee members of our that have been elected um if this is the project that
they feel the majority of residents in our town demand then I will do my part to support what the majority of residents in our town But I will continue to advocate for the
multitude of incredible projects that we have before us. Um Ben, you mentioned the former Exxon station. Um which I've lobbied hard for turning into a pocket park and an EV charging station. Um you
mentioned the forest restoration project at the arburetum. um you know that that forest is heavily impact impacted by beach leaf disease. Um so it's in need of um restoration work and I've also talked to our
township forester and she has a ton of ideas for um developing green space in our town. Um, we also have just a wealth of information and the uh the open space and recreation
um element that was put together back in 2023 2024. I think um under the helm of I think it was deputy uh Frank might have been the deputy mayor at the time. Um but that is just such an incredible resource. I would encourage everyone that's attending this
meeting um to look at it because it really does provide a great road map for this town. Um it addresses everything from fields to greenways to biking and walking and
just all the various needs that residents have articulated. And um you know I I just think that we have to continue working together in the best way possible and
um I hope that this fund can always be a resource and through good governance and transparent process and involvement of the community um it will continue to be that. So, I don't know if I can say
much more. Um, so I'm going to pass the mic. >> All right, Pria, always eloquent and and absolutely informative and thank you so much for that. Very, very helpful. Uh, Brad, you want to jump in? >> Sure. And thanks, Ben. Um, nice to meet
everybody. I don't think I've really met everyone outside of David because he usually sits on the HPC as well. Um but um yeah, these are my first few meetings. Um happy to be here and kind of learning about the open space fund and the purpose for it and everything
like that. Um from the historical preservation committee standpoint, um it really kind of depends what projects are out there. From our view, I know there are some things that could be utilized in this perspective.
um you know that but you know currently there's not anything that we have on our plate. There are some things I know Zach's working on some things with preservation of the and standardizing how we have uh the local like train bridges and the historical parts of that
using money to really kind of focus on what parts of our town are have that historical aspect to it. Um, but I mean right now I don't really know of anything from the HPC standpoint that we would be able to utilize funds from this
for that. So from my perspective in terms of what would benefit the community as a whole or as a majority um right now there really isn't anything um from a historical look there would
obviously there's lots of pieces throughout the community. There's lots of things that we could look to utilize this fund for in the future. Um, but right now I think the focus should be on whether it's recreation fields, whether
it's um turning the Exxon station into a park or something like that. But um I guess just from my perspective based off of what I've heard and learned from other members here um building on what David and also Pri has said um hey I'm a
sports guy. I've played sports all my life. Um I have two young kids. I'm sure they will play sports in the future and they would utilize these fields and they would get benefit out of it. But when we're trying to sell this to the community, is the majority of the
community going to get benefit out of these fields? Are they going to see a large chunk of this fund being spent on something that not everybody's going to use? And I think David mentioned that that is that the best look to spend a
large amount of money toward something that only benefits families that do sports. I mean, not everybody does. We have a big chess, you know, a big chess club here. There's people that use, you know, the the Taylor Park. They There's things that they do like not outdoor people that would be able to go and
like, you know, walk around or go and have benches unless that's something that has been thought about with this. But it seems like if you're not a sports family or you're not utilizing the fields on a regular basis, is the benefit really there for them? And that's, you know, I will go along with
whatever the majority is here with everybody because I'm very new here. Um, but that's just my two cents and I do agree with the sentiment um from David and Pria as well. >> Okay. And and I don't think I Thank you, Brad, and great to meet you and I I can't wait to to to meet you in person.
Uh, you know, that's almost akin to saying that anybody with kids shouldn't live in this town or or or play pay for the schools, right? So I I just think, you know, being more open to the needs of the town
at large uh is is is is really um to be more to be more uh you have to be more uh respectful or not respectfully, you have to know that there's a lot of people live in town who don't have kids, but should we not put money into the school system? I don't
think you would agree with that. So uh I understand what you're saying, but that's just a counterpoint. Uh I think that when this was sold into the town that recreation was by far the most talked about opportunity. Uh and now it seems like we will be pulling the rug out from under folks who did vote for
this uh who will not have those recreational fields just as if it was a different school project or something along those lines. But I respect your opinion. Uh listen, the bedrock of democracy is the ability to agree to disagree based on uh on analysis. So,
um, let's jump to, uh, uh, uh, to, uh, Deborah Neas. Hey, Deborah, how are you? You're on mute. >> I know. >> Okay. >> Um, it's Nevice, by the way, just for your edification. >> Um,
>> thanks for calling on me, Ben. So, um, I am here as a representative of the Environmental Commission. Um, and I also had kids who grew up playing little league, field hockey, lacrosse, so I understand the importance of the fields.
I think um for me the issue is proportion and um just you know taking what you said and going and looking at the open space recreation element just looking at the goals and objectives
there are five listed four out of the five refer to parks um or environmental resources one is for active recreation so I think you know in terms of the fund being spent.
Um I don't think that's I I think the amount that's being proposed is probably the concern for me and um I think if it were more proportional in terms of um what the
goals are from from um the element then um you know I would give it some consideration. at at you, we talked a couple weeks ago about it being 50 or 60% of the fund and I just can't give uh
an okay to that. If it was much lower, then I think that that would be something that I would certainly um be willing to consider. >> Understood. How are you quantifying what percent of the fund it is? I just want to just so for my own >> well I'm looking I'm just remembering
the conversation and maybe Alex I don't know if you can put up or Ben you can put up um the document that you guys gave us. It's it's the Excel spreadsheet the township board of ed joint field open space trust analysis and it has the
financing estimates in it. I don't know if you can share that or not. on >> I think Matt Larissy our CFO is on or Alex if one of you guys could pull it up the 10-year option the 20-year option what that >> does exactly >> exactly
>> Yep. Let me do that. >> Thanks. So while Alex is pulling it up but just I'll just kind of explain how the financing works. Um you know the the principle on something like this is we we well we have a lot of options right? we could
just pay straight principal evenly over 5 10 20 years. Um that would be one approach. Uh but we have a lot of flexibility within that. So we would we would be able to not pay principal at all for 3 years and then um the next
seven years uh it would be pretty low principal payments um if we and that would be the the plan if we had other projects that needed a lot of funds. Um so it's not kind of a set in stone financing schedule, right? Um, and then if we didn't have a lot of large scale
other projects, we could pay it off more aggressively, therefore decreasing the the total cost of the financing. Um, so there is a lot of leeway like even even these numbers here. Um, even these numbers here, like let's say the 20-year $342,000
a year. Um, that could be a lot less in the beginning and then scale up towards the end when the fund has, you know, $10 million sitting in it or $8 million sitting in it. So, I I don't think, you know, if if it's a project that we want to do um that that the open space uh
board wants to recommend, I don't think the cash is is too much of a consideration um at this dollar amount in terms of using up the whole fund in one one swoop, right? I think we have the flexibility and ability to manage it. Um,
>> yeah. So, so Matt, if the the annual just just for everyone for everyone, the annual collection is about a million dollars on $213,000 debt service. That's about 20% of the annual uh annual collection. Is that correct, the right math?
>> Right. Correct. And then, like I said, it could be a lot less in the beginning and then scale up depending on what we have going on. I mean, it it's all it's all pretty funible. Um there's certainly a dollar amount where that would not be the case where I would say, you know,
this is what we'd have to commit to. Um but considering the infancy of this fund, the fact that in another few months, you know, before you know it, it's going to be next year we'd have another million dollars in the bank. Um and the fact that we do have a lot of ability to scale principle, especially
in the early years that there is flexibility there is what I what I want to make sure I communicate. And and can you just explain why it all has to come out of the why the township's share, not the board of ed share, but the township's fair share all has to
come out of the open space trust fund rather than splitting it. And again, I'm not a financial person and I splitting it with the um general fund or whatever you call it. There was a there was a slide with that, but I can't seem to find it. I'm just wondering why
everything has to come out of the open space trust. Certainly it it does not need to all come out of the open space trust fund. Um I think the theory is that we raise these taxes already. So rather than raise more taxes from the same population later um you know then
then it would all come out of this fund. But it's certainly possible that we think we want to be a little more conservative with with this fund and save the money and you could fund half of it um or or whatever you know whatever the appetite >> was. But but at the end of the day from
a financial perspective, Matt, since the money is fungeable, it's all coming out of tax dollars from residents and these tax dollars have already been collected and are just sitting there from an optimal standpoint
to optimize the the the cash flow. I would think it would it it should come out of of the open space trust fund. Or am I barking up the wrong tree there? And Matt, when you address that, u just tell tell
everybody here how much uh free cash the the uh the town has right now. >> Okay. So to Ben's point first is is certainly from like a strictly financial perspective. The way my mind would think was we have funds available. If if the appetite is to use them for this
project, we would want to use that before raising new money. Um but but I could see I could see an opposite approach to that or at least uh a more moderate approach. Remember you're meeting it halfway. Um just from a philosophy point of view um which isn't really kind of where where I would re
make a recommendation either way, right? Um and David, yeah, so we had we ended the year with about 10 million in fund balance um free balance after after our plan 2026 budget. Um the the town on the general fund side certainly has an immense amount of borrowing power. Um
but they also have a lot of large scale projects uh coming on board and really like in my mind the finance mind it's all one pot of money that we're trying to use right and um one pot is a little bigger the general fund where we have a lot more going on and this pot is a little smaller and we want to make sure
we're managing it to get done what everybody wants to get done these worthy projects. So my perspective is strictly on the finance side here. Um but that there is a lot of flexibility either way and you could certainly split it. Um it could be all out of one all out of the other and you know I'll recommend
whatever is best once that decision is is kind of made. >> Right. Right. And thank you for that. Um thank you for that Matt. Matt uh in terms of uh the opportunity set just so everyone knows how great of a
CFO Matt is uh we have a AAA credit rating. Uh we just did another debt. Uh we got it came in at 2.88%. We have borrowing capacity up to approximately 260 million or so. Uh and we've taken down some debt recently for uh to fund
the paper mill to keep them here to um to uh rebuild town hall and some various other ancillary projects. I sit on the finance committee. I cannot reiterate enough to this team how good of a financial position our town is in. Uh
and being able to utilize the funds that we have uh optimally to me is always the best prudent approach to to funding these projects. Um all right, that that being said, why don't we jump to uh Deborah? Are you are you are you
satisfied with those answers? >> Thank you, Ben. Thank you. >> Very good. >> I had a question. >> Yeah. I mean, it sounds like there's some wiggle room and >> I just had a question, Deborah, to what what they were just showing. Can I just get clarification on that? >> Yep.
>> Ben, is that is that okay, Mr. Chair? >> Yes, please go ahead. Go ahead, Josh. >> I just want I just I mean, obviously I'm not in finance either. I'm in the sales and I look at this as, you know, from a sales perspective and I'm looking at the
numbers and it seems to me that we're going to have 200 We're going to have $2 million in the fund before we draw any money off of it and we're talking about Is that correct? I mean, I just want >> We current We currently have $2 million sitting in the fund today as we speak
>> and then and we're going to pull $200,000 out a year or a little bit more than that. to to me that sounds you know in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 if it's like 250,000 10 to 15% of the fund not 50 60 70% of the fund I mean
>> I just want to make sure I understand the numbers correctly is Matt is that what I'm seeing is we're talking about pulling around 10 to 15% is is that is that the number that we'd be pulling annually >> I I think that I think that would be the low end would be you know the the the
low end would be about 10 to 15% um but the point I I wanted to make was if we're not doing a lot of other projects and we did have funds sitting around, we could pay it off more aggressively. Um, >> understood. No, understood. I I I'm just looking at your schedule. >> It could go as long as
the s we're talking 10 to I mean because I think there's been some >> some information that's gone out publicly and when the community is hearing and someone grabbed me in the park the other day and said, "Hey, you we're talking 60%." I'm like, "We're not talking 60% annually." And I just think
people need to understand that and and Deborah kind of said it like if it's if it's less money, well maybe it's a little more attractive to fund it. Well, is 10 to 15% a little more attractive to fund it? I I mean I think people need to hear that that's kind of what we're talking about here. We're not talking
about 50 60 70 or rating the whole fund. I mean like this is a fairly small number and maybe we have 85 or 80% of the money left for other projects. And I'll talk a little later, but I just wanted clarification. I thought that the community that's on here listening
should hear and understand like that's the percentages we're talking of the fund. I think it's important for people to understand that. And I I didn't mean to like hijack your session, Deborah. I just >> No, that's okay. I think I I think where it was coming from was at our last meeting, we were talking about doing
like a fiveyear loan or 10-year loan, and then the numbers were much much higher. So that's where that number was coming from, Josh, because we were talking about like maybe 50%. Um, at the meeting that was at the library. >> Yeah, I think >> this seems, you know, like
um, you know, more reasonable if we're talking about 10 or 15%. Um, then that, you know, to Ben's point, that is it's in the ordinance. That is what, you know, how the EC was talking about it as
one element. Um, and that, you know, seems doable. If we're talking about 50% of the fund, then I'm a little then I'm then I'm reluctant. But, you know, and then the other piece, just going back to what Matt was saying and what Dave had
asked, is, you know, how much money is there a way to split it with the town with the general fund? And it sounds like there is some money there as well. So, you know, maybe we can, you know, there's a way. I don't know that it's our job to to do that. Um but maybe
there's a way to to work that out so that people feel like it's fair for everybody. >> Yeah, Josh, just to clarify. >> Well done, Ben. >> Deborah, if I may, just um Alex, if you pull up that spreadsheet again, I think it's just important to understand this also that last week we had been
primarily looking at the 10-year bond, which was on the order of 550, I think, to start and then it goes down obviously. Um, so that's where those those figures were coming from. So if you average that out over the 10 years, you know, maybe it's about 500 a year.
If we look at the 20-year, you know, obviously a lot more interest ultimately, but it's a very low interest rate. Um, probably averages somewhere around 280, right? If you ex >> That's exactly right, Steve. That's 280. >> So um, so that that's just that's why
you might have heard 55 60% or something. Okay. Excellent. Uh Steve, do you want to stay on the mic and uh and just uh uh go ahead and start go and give your point of view? >> Sure. Thank you. U Thank you, chairman. I um did prepare some notes. So, if
you'll give me a few minutes, I'll try to um go through this. I I think at the last meeting, many residents sort of passionately expressed their thoughts on the environmental and health concerns they had related to the turf fields. and
um you know certainly sympathetic to that and and appreciate the fact that you know all of those people came out to to to say that um on the record. I I think something that maybe didn't come up as much is just that this plan will
clearly add outdoor hours for our kids, right? And regardless of which surface they're on, I think it's indisputable that having them outdoors, breathing fresh air, playing um is going to be better for them than if they're indoors.
Uh and you know, regardless of how you feel about the environmental pieces of it, um I think the the outdoor time is valuable in and of itself um for the kids' health. So, uh for that reason, I I do support this plan. Um, I think
another thing that is a little bit lost in some of the conversations is that there's really two projects here that have been merged into a single project. There's a project to light the fields and there's a project to turf the fields. The lighting part of it seems
uncontroversial, right? I don't think anybody is suggesting that the lighting itself is going to do some environmental or health damage. Um, if you look at the presentation given the high school presentation, and I was just looking at it to confirm the numbers, but it looks
like I think it was, yeah, it's about 4 million of the the total cost is going toward the turfing and about 3.6 is going toward the lighting. Um the lighting I think has more benefits even for the open space element in that it
creates um some passive walking areas that wouldn't have been available in the evening hours before. You know that area is very dark at night and you know if you do light up that back field behind the high school it makes a little bit more welcoming. You know especially if people are on the track and then they're they're going back there or the you know
after a football game or something the high school kids are going to be back there. Um, so I think there's a huge benefit to the lighting part of it irrespective of how you feel about the turf part of it. Um, and if you look at it that way, and I don't know if we can divide up the money, but if half of the
money is being spent by a board of ad and half of the money is being spent by the town, you can look at it as the half that's being spent by the town is purely the lighting and the half that's being spent by the board of ed, it's sort of their prerogative to spend. I mean, you know, I don't I'm I'm not trying to be cute here, but I am saying that I think
that that portion of it absolutely makes sense for the open space part because it it probably much more than the turf. It adds a lot of playable hours. It adds a lot of outdoor hours for the kids and um you know, I don't think anybody disputes the benefit of kids playing outside. So,
so I am supportive of it. I also know um Matt I was going to ask I remember when we were talking about sort of the savings rate that we're getting on our on our million or 2 million in there. I think that was higher than the bond rate right at least right now. So I mean >> a little arbitrage little arbitrage
>> I mean we're not really losing a lot of money on the on the interest in other words that's what I'm saying. So so you know my concerns last week were like okay you look at all the interest it's going to be 1.4 4 million. But, you know, provided we continue to have a a nest egg in the open space fund like we do now, I don't think it's going to be
terrible. Um, in terms of adding money to the to the overall thing, I think, um, you know, the turf savings on maintenance is definitely notable. I will say from personal experience that,
you know, it it sort of ruins the soft the softball, the the soccer, I'm sure, all of the seasons when the kids can't get on the on the fields because, you know, it rained four days ago and, you know, your field's still not working. So, so there's benefits to that. But, um, I'm I'm very sympathetic to the
concerns, uh, the environmental and the health concerns from people who are are worried about that, um, turf wise. But, there's a lot more to this project. There's a lot of lighting, there's a lot of fresh air for the kids. Um, and you know, given if we're talking about this
20-year bond and it comes out to say, you know, 28% of our million dollar annually. Um, and Josh, I I I'm not going to call it a percent off the 2 million because we don't know if that 2 million is always going to be there. But there is going to be a million a year and we'd be spending about 28% of that
every year on this project. I think that's fine. Um, the only concern I would have, the big concern I would have is just that I don't want to lose the opportunity to acquire additional field space if that were to come up. Because
while this does add a lot of playable hours, it doesn't actually add to the recreational field footprint in town. I know how difficult that sounds like it's going to be. Um, but you know, I I wouldn't want to say, okay, well, now that we've done this, we'll never be able to do anything on the recreational
side anymore. Um, so that that that would be the one concern that I have. But overall, I I do support the project. I think it's going to do a lot for our town and I think it'll be a source of pride for the for the um for the kids and the school. >> Certainly. Thank you, Steve. Okay. So,
I'm going to go to Mike Langley, then to Josh. Pri, I see your hand up. And then whoever's on on the attendees, if you want to start raising your hands, we'll start we'll jump to you guys as well. If you have a question or a comment, we're gonna give you what? Two and a half minutes, Alex. Is that is that what we
said? Two and a half minutes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, two and a half minutes to to for for the attendees. So, uh so so let's go ahead and jump. Prio, we're not going to miss you before we jump out of here. Go ahead, uh Mike.
>> Sure. Um all right. So, I'm Mike Langley. I'm one of the resident members. Um, and I am uh, look, I I know the importance of more playable hours and I want more fields. I went to Glenwood, Milbourne Middle, Milbourne High School. When I was on the freshman lacrosse team, we
played on the parking lot behind Saks Fifth Avenue. So, I know, right, we need we need more fields. Um, coming into this meeting and from the previous meeting, I was pretty leerary about how much of a chunk of the fund we were going to dedicate to this project. Um,
just because like what Deborah was expressing and like what Steve was expressing, um, not being able to predict the future, I don't want to dedicate too much of our purchasing power to potentially being able to make big moves down the line. Um,
I want to keep listening to what everyone's saying. Um, depending on what the obligation looks like if we're thinking 5 10 15 20 um I could see supporting using some trust fund for this, but I I want to hear more. I want
to see where we land um in the in my head an ideal outcome would be some mix of um the 50 DOE or 50 BOE and some gen fund and some uh open space trust fund just because this this is the first project that we are planning on
funding and it is it is a significant one. It is an important one, but I want to make sure that we are just in balance with the five objectives of the trust fund. So, I'm at this point I'm I'm listening. Um, and if if the number is
low enough, then I I'm supportive. >> All right. Fantastic, Josh. Then, thank you, Mike. >> Hi, I'm uh thanks, chairperson. Um, I'm Josh Ryder. I serve on the rec commission in town and um and I'm the
rec commission representative here for this for the open space preservation fund committee and so I guess couple of things. one um you know I'm listening to what everybody's saying and and I hear
comments that um along the lines of is this going to benefit the majority of the people in town or is it going to only benefit a small number of people in town and um you know I I think there is no perfect project. I think even if we talk about the Exxon station over in the
corner of uh you know Milbourne right by Voxhall um if we were to do something there are we going to get complaints from the folks over in Archon and back of Deerfield saying well that's not really going to affect me that's so far away like I don't I don't want to I don't think that
that's worth us funding. Um and and I say that because people might be like well that's ridiculous. Everybody would benefit from that. But I mean, I want to give you the idea that when I was scheduling Milbourne soccer club practices, I would get complaints from folks that they didn't want to drive to
Sllayton Field cuz it was too far. And so these are people that live in our township and I mean nothing is really more than you 5 to 10 minutes away. So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone could complain that they're not getting the benefit of, you know, something at, you know, that's on this
corner of town versus this corner of town or that my child doesn't involve themselves in this or I don't involve my there is no perfect project. And when you look at this project, it does affect a lot of people. And I and I think in listening to what some folks have said, um, and I've been pretty vocal about the
fact that when things get rained out and kids can't participate or even adults can't participate, um, I coached the one of the women's softball teams here in town for the recreation department and, um, more than half the games were cancelled last season. I mean that
that's a pretty high percentage of games to be cancelled and that's because we just had an excessive amount of rain on Tuesdays and Thursdays um last uh you know spring summer and but I've been pretty vocal about the
fact that when things get cancelled our kids you know obviously are disappointed when they can't participate and where do they go if you think that they're going and then they're you know going and and jumping in their homework or they're or they're you know going to go do something else active inside. That's
probably not true. What they're going to do is they're likely going to get on their device and on their screen and they're going to spend a lot of time doing that. And I think that I I it's very hard for me to find anyone who's ever disagreed with me that that's not what we want our kids doing. We do not want them on Instagram and Tik Tok and
and and doing all those things. That's this is not what we want. And if this is going to benefit us with more playable hours and it's going to allow the kids to play and and it's going to allow you just less rain outs then I don't see I don't see any detriment to that. Um and
so you know just from a playable hours perspective just for getting kids out there I I think that Steve was talking about earlier fresh air being outside all of that is pretty obvious. There's been some also some talk about
extreme heat and whether this is safe with extreme heat. I will tell you I've had I had two girls go through um through Milton schools, played um all seasons of sports, all both of them played all three seasons, eight years of
playing outside in the fall and in the spring. That would be at the end of August and into September and then in the late part of um the school year as well, which would be the hottest times during the school year for for our, you know, for this community. Never once was
anything cancelled or whatever because of extreme heat. And when we hear about 150° on the turf, yeah, I mean that is true if you live in Las Vegas or in Death Valley and and you know you have a turf field, but that's not happening um
at an 8 a.m. practice for Milurn High School soccer or Milbourne High School field hockey or lacrosse. It's just not. And so I I don't want people to think that then all of a sudden we're going to be putting kids into a situation where they're going to, you know, they're going to be running the risk of heat exhaustion from, you know, 150°ree turf
fields. that's just not going to happen here in Melbourne. You know, we just don't live in a uh in an area where it's going to get that warm. And I also, you know, I think this was also a huge point that was made and and I thought it was
um and it wasn't being cute at all. I think it was smart is when the presentation was made but and and Pria was actually one of the people that made the presentation on the open space trust fund and I'm a I was a big supporter of it obviously voted for it am a supporter
of it now supported it while on the rec commission all on the record I I will say that one of the things and slides that was presented was that the funds could be used and it was specifically delineated for lighting I mean it says it on the slides in the presentation and
the presentation that was was put out publicly that the funds would be used for lighting fields. So I don't think that there's any dispute and should be any dispute by any member of this committee that we wouldn't use those funds when that was the whole
premise and what was presented to everybody when they voted on and it obviously won with overwhelming support. And I get like there's all kinds of nuances. It's the first project, you know, it's is it real? Is this open space? Is it I mean, I've heard
arguments about institutional. And the bottom line is when you just break it down with, hey, we presented this to you. This was the referendum. We asked you to vote on it. Here's here's exactly what we said it could be used for, and
here we have a situation where we can actually use it. There should really be no dispute. We should just be using. And I get that it's a large chunk of money. I'm not I'm not in any way um discounting that. But I think we've also
just heard it's not as large as may have been proposed or may be floated out there or may some of the propaganda that's out there. It's less. I think that it's certainly in that workable area. I would be a person who would definitely take notice if it was 50 or
60%. I might I would probably sit back and think about whether it makes sense to fund at that level, but when I hear high teens and 20% and it's for lighting and it's for the fields, I I'm I'm
having a hard time hearing anything that's negative. And so when I say that, I I want to make sure that like we we we look at this from just and this is just from layman's terms of from public's perspective. Like when you present
something and you delineate and you vote on it and now you have an opportunity to do it, I can't see why we would. It just it it just doesn't make any sense why we would stop now. and the fact that it's going to be replenished within the next
I I I probably 60 days or 45 days we're going to get more money into it. It's going to double the amount that we were. So now that percentage and I know we talked about it's x percentage per year but first year we didn't even do anything. And one thing that I've learned is that when you have reserves
and you have money sitting around that can aggravate people in town more than anything because it's like hey you asked for this money you told us what you're going to use it for. here is a proposal to do it and he didn't do anything with it. That's that's worse. >> So I and I don't want to go on too long.
I don't know if you're gonna if you're looking to cut me off, but um I I again I support the project in full. I think that at the level we're talking about it makes sense and I think it's the right thing for our community and I think it's the right thing for everyone in kids,
adults, and and really everyone. Right. >> Josh, that was a Thank you so much for that. And you broke brought up a risk that really uh has not been discussed yet. And that's a risk that residents just don't want to do the do it because the money sitting in in in a bank
account and not doing anything. That's a risk to everyone. that's in risk to our environmental goals going forward that we don't get that we don't invest in these fields and get the recreation and the lights that were promised for the playability for our children. That that's the bigger risk to me is that
there's a push to say, hey, if you're not going to invest in recreation, why did we vote for this? And it goes the other way. So, uh thank you for bringing that up, Josh. That's uh you know, we have to also pay attention to that. Uh Pria, you wanted to circle back your
>> Ben. Ben, before you go to Pria, and I just and I'm not trying to cut Pria off. I just want to say one one other thing because I I want to make sure that I say this. Um Sure. And I I did speak at the TC meeting um on Tuesday, and I want to reiterate this on the record here that
it is paramount and imperative that safety is put first. I don't want anyone to think that if there's if there's an inkling that this is unsafe in any way then that that I can't
imagine that the five people that stood on the TC would support it or the people on the BOE would I mean like nobody is going to just recklessly support something that could put people in danger and I think that I I think we have to really consider the fact that it like you know it's it would be no one's
that irresponsible and I can't imagine that you know and I and I the mayor's on here and the former mayor's on here. I mean, like, none of these people are ever going to do that. And so, let's just be realistic when we when we when we and I want to make sure that I that people understand that that is still paramount and that is still imperative,
>> right, Josh? That's a great that's a that's a great point. And at the TC meeting, you know, I I I actually said this. Brown University, Colombia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, uh, UPEN, Princeton, Yale, uh, Milbour High, uh, Milbour, Livingston, West Orange,
Summit, Chadam, Madison, and then we had a whole host of private schools. Pingry, Kimberly, Montlair, Kimberly, etc., etc. You know what they all have in common? They have turf fields, and and they've been able to get comfortable with any risk of turf. And in fact, somebody sent
me a a report from two days ago where the state of California um uh and and I I think I sent that to you guys in an email as well. The state of California deemed it as safe uh that uh turf fields were safe, etc. Uh per that write up and
uh you know, I I think I sent it to everybody. Uh thank you, Josh. So, just in in the interest of time, Pria, did you still have your hand up or did you want to rebut something or come back? >> No, no, I'm good. Steve had mentioned something um and that's why I raised my hand um because he I just wanted to kind
of piggy back on something that he had said. It was more related to process which I think I can share after we kind of go through this discussion. >> Okay. Fantastic. Fantastic. Okay. So now I think we're going to we're going to jump into some uh comments from the uh attendees. Uh if you do want to speak
you should have your hand up and then it'll be two and a half minutes. Uh, Alex, from a procedural standpoint, I can name the attendee and you could open them to speak. Is that is that fine? >> That's fine. >> Okay, good. So, let's see. >> And I'll I'll I'll keep the timer, Ben,
just so that's fair for everyone. >> All right. Very good. I appreciate. Thank you. Uh, so, um, let's get this jump on here. Uh, let's start with, uh, uh, let's just do it in the, uh, Odark Odark Odark Odark Stalker. Hey, Darka.
Let's open her up. >> Just Yeah. So, just so everyone knows, um we're just going to allow uh the individual to talk. Uh they will not be brought on as a panelist. >> All right. And we will respond we'll respond to everything at the end if there's if we anybody wants to make any
responses. >> Go ahead, Odarka. >> Say great. Thank you. Um, I wanted to say that I checked on your websites and I I don't know if I missed this, but I could not find a form to submit a proposal or a deadline or the rubric
that you were using last week. That's just a comment. Okay. So, I want to remind you what we voted for and we voted for acquire, develop, and maintain land for the purposes of conservation and recreation. Okay, that's number one.
The second one was acquire and maintain um historic land. And uh I'm not going to go through all the whole list of things. Those were the two things that we voted for regardless of what anyone talked about a long time ago. What I would like to see is um some of this
money to go to uh flood mitigation projects that would propose land acquisition of floodprone areas primarily for the purpose of mitigation, water retention, open space for public
usage such as walking trails, farmland, playing fields and recreation as but you know I think that it's like I want to provide money almost to the mitiga to the flood mitigation people so they would have they would be able to respond to opportunities.
Um I wanted to also mention that um money spent on land and property acquisition serves a double bounty to us because we not only preserve the land but we prevent development that all of us are sick and tired of. Um, if that
doesn't appeal to you, I want to suggest that you think about potentially um splitting your funds three ways. For example, and maybe the funds would be split like um conservation, recreation,
and um what's the third one? Historic, you know, or some kind of formula that would kind of represent what we voted for. And um I think that's uh what what I really wanted to u maintain is that
whatever you do it needs to be in the spirit and the intent of the law that we passed and um covering open space with artificial turf with all its issues. And by the way the women uh risk ACL two to three to four to five depending on the
sport times more risk to women athletes. And I say that as a a woman who was a young athlete and who has an ACL myself and I'm now have arthritis from it. Um please remember the women. >> Thanks. That's time Odarka. Thank you.
>> Thank you Odarka. Uh Renee preparing. Hello Renee. >> Oh Ben. Okay. So, unquestionably we need more fields
and this field project is going to go forward even without using open space trust fund money. Ben, you said today and I've heard at township committee meetings in the past that Milbour is in
great financial situation, but to say that the recreational fields were by far the most talked about use of the open space trust fund money prior to the referendum moving uh onto the
ballot. And I I am talking about information sessions Priya gave them. I attended them. The recreational fields and all monies going to park and wreck
was actually a great concern. There wasn't one information session that I was present at where people all ages um didn't raise their hand and express
concern that the focus of the fund monies would be spent on park and wreck. And the concern was why? because our tax dollars are going to park and wreck projects
anyway. I'm not saying that they're not legitimate projects uh pursuant to the open space trust fund. I'm just saying that you really need to understand and unless you were
present and interacting with the public, people were very concerned that this is exactly what was going to happen with the money. the project needs to happen. This the the and I also want to say I mean Ben
you're really you're you're talking a lot about artificial turf here and that is not what the open space trust fund what you're here to decide today. Um but but please don't be misled to say
that by far the most talked about and the the greatest reason that people voted for the open space trust fund was for fields or for anything park and wreck. Um that was a fear. So the
project will go forward without the open space trust fund money um because unquestionably we need more fields. That is just the clarification that I wanted to make. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Renee. Uh let's jump to uh
uh let's jump to uh Venita. Hey Venita. Hi Venita. You there? >> Hey Ben. How are you? >> Good. area. >> Good afternoon everybody. So I'm Venita Gangal, resident of Melbourne um and I'm
here to um you know represent Melbourne climate action group. Uh you heard from some of those members in the prior meeting as well and I heard some comments about you know some people acknowledged a concern about using open space trust money or or frankly any public taxpayer dollars for use of
artificial turf. Uh putting that aside, I think uh I just want to bring to all of your attention that there is an petition that Melbourne climate action started just a week back with we already have 240 signatures and the issue right now is not which pool of money is going
to be used for this proposed plan. The whole the whole issue is the proposed plan seems to be not well thought out and well researched and it does not provide a comparative analysis of artificial turf versus better managed
natural turfs versus uh hybrid options. So I heard uh Ben speak about you know playable per playable hour cost between artificial versus natural turf. Again we have not seen any analysis. I just heard about it just now. Uh so it would be
appreciated if we can see that. Second thing, there are just a whole bunch of other issues uh when we think about making a decision of this size, this uh you know the public taxpayer dollars. And again, we talk about $200,000 or $300,000 10% of the open space trust
money uh on a yearly basis. But that's not the issue. Issue is this cost of converting to artificial turf is over $7.5 million and it will only last about 8 to 10 years. So we'll be talking about it every 10 years digging into open space trust money and if you just am
advertise the capex over eight years you're talking about a million dollars in cost and of course if you add on financing and other things uh that just adds up. Second thing is it is repeatedly said that natural turf cost a whole lot more to maintain. First of all again that hasn't been proven but if it
if it is for just take use that just park that thought for a moment. If that's the case, then I would think that would be a better use of open space trust money. Use that money to maintain our turfs the way they are presently in their natural state. Use them to enhance
playability as well as preserve our ecological benefits for the community. So that would be a good use of open space trust dollars. And the last thing I'd like to say on behalf of Melbourne Climate Action and other people who have started this petition, we are not against the fields. Nobody's saying
don't use public dollar uh taxpayer dollars to ex uh enhance field access. By all means use it for lighting. The issue at hand is this from our perspective just not well thoughtout decision to convert to artificial turf which is irreversible which is just
against you know really the the where our state is headed. There's a proposal in the state legislature against artificial turfs and there's just a whole bunch of studies out there about uh the ecological impact. So, thank you. Thanks. >> Thank you, Vanita.
>> Thank you. Uh let's jump to uh uh Lee Lee Kersbomb. Hey, Lee. >> You're muted. >> How about now? >> There you go. We hear you. >> The co days. Um, so good afternoon. My name is Lee Kersbound. I'm co-president
for Milbour Soccer Club. So, I'm representing an organization that serves about 550 travel players and several hundred more who participate in camps and clinics. And every year, uh, we're responsible for nearly a thousand Melbourne children. Um, right now we're
not managing a program, we're managing a constant state of crisis. And just to be pl we're at a breaking point. I think uh Josh at one point had mentioned this at the public comments every season. Well, what it was Josh and now it's us. We're we're we're basically begging for
fields. And so, while I hear people mention that they're not opposed to the fields, the reality is we we just don't have them, right? And so, someone mentioned 16% field deficit, I actually think it's optimistic. It doesn't account for the constant rain outs that
spike. We really just don't have playable fields. And so even when we're granted the access, the conditions are unplayable. Anyone who can go out and visit Glenwood today, the high school today, Hartshorn today, you'll see that the fields you can't play on them most days. Uh and I'd say the the the fields
are in the worst shape out of any other town we visit. We we typically cancel practices. We'll switch from away game home games to away. Storms come and we have to move the entire week. And so I'd say we we're not in a great place. And nothing happens. Nothing good hap
nothing but good happens when our kids are participating in sports. And so we get that there's a debate around turf, but we need to be clear for the high school back fields. Turf is the only viable solution. We've looked at other options. We brought up par three. They just don't work for this need. And with
the water table and the drainage challenges at the high school, you can't put new grass in there and get a get a good use of the resources. It won't survive given the volume of play. And from our perspective, turf is the only way we can turn a part-time weather
dependent patch of mud into 365day community asset. And from from our perspective, the open space trust fund is the perfect way to fund this. We've got existing funds that ensure that taxpayers aren't impacted. And we f finally solve a problem that has been
years, if not decades in the making. It coincides directly with the open space element of our master plan. It honors the mandate of our residents who specifically voted to fund to improve and develop our recreck spaces. And so for the first time in many years, the recck department and the board of education are finally in lock step on
making this happen. It's a rare moment of civic alignment to solve a problem that's plagued our family for over a decade. And it's not just a soccer project, right? It's an infrastructure project that provides space for other growing sports like cricket and benefits the entire town. So, we're asking that
the committee recommend that the high school field to move forward with the high school field improvements using the open space funds. Without this, the deficit will continue to widen and finally reach a point we can't accommodate children. So, let's stop making this a crisis. Let's start getting the kids a reli reliable place
to to play uh and something they deserve. >> Thank you. >> You're on mute, Ben. >> Thank you, Lee. That's thank you and thank you for all you do for the community and the thousand kids that we entrust to you every year. Uh you and
August, thank you so much. Um let's move to um who else we got here? Uh Judy. Uh Judy, I don't see a last name. >> Uh it's your neighbor, Ben. Judy Christian. >> Oh, hey Judy. How are you?
>> I am okay. of uh I just wanted to um add my voice to what Mr. Cosgrove said at the beginning. Um, there are 128 acres. Uh, I can quote from the website, but you've probably read it. Um, in a 2023
open space master plan identified some of the properties that could be purchased. Um, and I don't know why those are not considered before this fields project. Um, I wanted to quote again from the
township website. What are the benefits of open space? Preserving open spaces gives residents places to walk, bike, picnic, and enjoy nature. Open spaces provide homes for wildlife, reduce flooding, and improve
air quality by filtering out pollutants. Green spaces muffled noise, pollution, and reduce heat island effect from asphalt and concrete parks. One of my problems with using the open space trust fund money for this project
is because there's a difference between recreation and sports. And I I kind of feel like this has totally been seen from the sports point of view. Um, and open space includes recreation, but
it seems to me that the fields project is not really recreation. It's for sports. and that targeted group which is fine but I really do believe that there will
be limited access to the fields um extremely extremely limited act access for the general public. I just want to say too that I admire the diligence that will be done to search for the best materials for the fields
but personally I'm against artificial turf. I'd like to speak perhaps for the voiceless, for the heartbreaking decline in bird population, for example, and how the nighttime light pollution will contribute to that travesty.
And just respectfully, I'd like to caution members of the township and other committees against impatience or unintended arrogance when questioned about artificial turf, about
people who need to know what materials will be used before this project is funded. Respectfully, I'd like to remind you that you serve the people of the town. And there are people in this town who come from backgrounds and places where they have witnessed and suffered
devastating effects of plastics and industrial pollution and are seriously engaged in efforts to leave their children, grandchildren, and all sentient beings a sustainable and healthy environment. Thank you for
letting me speak. >> Thank you, Judy. Always a pleasure. uh you always learn new things from you. Um let's jump to uh uh Sam Schmidt. >> Good afternoon. Uh I'm Sam Schmidt. I've
been here about 33 years and yeah, I have all my children have gone through all the sports and use the fields, but some of the numbers uh that have been quoted don't seem to be quite accurate. Uh, first of all, the I've learned that
the uh it could be divided between lights and and turf. Uh, and I think someone had spoke before about uh putting up lights might be a good use for it. Uh, but a turf field has an 8 to 10 year lifespan. Uh and when you're
talking about uh a 20year bond, you're talking about having a bond paying being paid off 10 years after the turf needs to be redone. So, uh for a 10-year bond, then you're talking about $550,000
and then you're talking about uh a much larger percentage. So while if with the lights were funded uh then you're talking about a number about 25% uh or a little bit less but with everything being funded you're talking
about 50%. So uh I think that uh that's a bit troubling when you're talking about numbers that really don't match the lifespan of what work you you're doing. uh also that
uh the playability part. It seems to me that when you talked about those vastly different numbers and the playability is that part of that is having lights and being able to use the field at night,
which I apparently wasn't calculated in to uh the non-turf field. Uh, and so that's sort of also a number that doesn't seem to be quite accurate number. Uh, and it does seem to be sort of kind of rushed here, though. I
appreciate being able to speak today, uh, having learned about this problem only a few weeks ago. uh but uh it seems that uh you know spending all the money uh or for both the field and the lights
uh doesn't seem be necessary and maybe shouldn't really come from uh the open space fund money uh that it would should some of it should come from our general revenues and some of it from uh then open open space you know having the
lights I can understand has a purpose of opening up to everybody for much longer. So, thank you for letting me speak. >> Thank you, Sam. >> All right. Uh few more here. Uh let's go
to uh JP is uh JP, >> sorry, Jean Pastor Neck. Sorry about that. Wanted to make a couple quick comments. Very thoughtful commentary from everybody here. It's really
impressive. Um, I'd like to just speak to the uh notion I think that Brad brought up that not every family participates in sports. Well, we have like 5,500 families in the town. I would I have to think that probably half at least have their kids at some point in
their life time here uh participating in sports. I had four uh one went on to be a college athlete, but the others just really got a lot out of being on a team, getting to know people that way. They all u mostly attended private school. So, it was a really good way for them to
connect to our community and me too as a parent. So, um I'm a very strong supporter of our sports programs here in town. Uh I would also like to say about the money and the funding. I brought this idea up at the last meeting and I think it's valid. Um there was a sports Milbourne Sports Activity Foundation set
up I think in about 2008 and that was a $2.5 million raise for the Miller Field. uh Ted Burke who was the former mayor. He uh was the one behind that. I love his quote. I hope the project stand is a testament of what can be accomplished as the community stands behind it. Don't
question if you can do something, but how you can do it. And I think it's just about how uh if money is a problem, we have um from professional athletes that have graduated from our programs to families in town, I'm sure would be very happy to donate and be part of uh making this a reality. So, I don't think that
idea should be put off the table at all. I certainly would be interested in contributing and helping in any way I could, but I think there are people that know how to do this in our town and would do it well. The other thing I wanted to say about the 2 million that's sitting there. Uh, when I was on the board of education back in 2011, there
was like a $12 million surplus and we got a lot of heat for having that money just sitting there. So I do think there is ve very important um point to be made that money shouldn't just sit idle it's been collected from taxpayers how it's used again that's up to the the majority
here but I I do believe that it should be used and time is of the essence this has been talked about for 20 years you know getting field space and I think we have to do something about it I was also convinced by comments made by Charlie Charles Charles Bambber at the TC meeting last Tuesday about flood
mitigation he said that with a synthetic turf there would be much better chance of doing something about flood mitigation in that area. And I think that's something important to put forward. And lastly, I want to give a lot of praise to Renee and Priya. They did an excellent job when they went
around last year uh whenever um promoting the idea of doing open space. And I don't think it's fair to say that people were in some way misled or didn't understand. I think everybody just heard what they heard and looked at it from their own lens. So I think that um we talked about this Pri and I that you
know it's like you have to get the best alternative to a negotiated agreement here. Not everybody's going to be happy but most people will get something and I think that's where it seems to be leading. So I applaud my fellow commentators here and and this committee and also our township committee for
pushing this forward. Thank you. >> Thank you Jean. Thank you Jean. Uh okay. Um okay. Uh Jeff Feld, >> he might be on mute. >> Do you hear me now?
>> Yeah, we can hear you now. >> All right. first and now I really feel old because I think I coached Mike Langley when I was in I think he graduated with my son and with um what was it Schmidt son so that tells
you how old I am no one disputes the need for fields it's the question of how we fund it and one of the issues is you know part it's going to be open space some is going to be private contributions but also we really haven't been focusing on the open space grants
from the county. This is the time we go to the county and ask them for contributions to this through their open space county fund and through the state and to do that and this is something that I've been raising as a legal issue and earlier Dave Cosgrove talked about
it is the word of acquisition and I'm just wondering whether we have to struct restructure this deal that is a lease agreement with this board of education rather than a joint um use
issue that'll give us the access to use and go to the state and to the county for open space monies to reduce our amount. When we talk about the funding, there's a piece that I don't think we've really been focusing on it. The board of
education's piece, they're going to say they're going to take it out of their capital reserve fund, but at some point they're going to have to reimburse it and that's going to be issuing when they have to do a bond referendum. So there will be a taxpayer consequence on the other side. And I think we should be
working together to figure out a way to fund it. And I think the the issue that I've been hearing today is how much will be coming out of the open space fund. I I don't think anyone disputes that a portion will come out, but it's the question of of what is that quantity and what is that amount. And please listen
to what Mr. Schmidt said about useful life. When we do go, if we go into the bond market, the useful life might be blended, but because of the turf fields, it will affect the life of your bonds, and that's a factor that should be
considered and and then you get advice from your bond council as to that. But this project has to will go forward. It's just a question of finding out the proper and equitable fair way to fund it. That's my comment. And I can't believe how old I am that we're passing the torch to a different generation.
Mike Langley, welcome to the fight. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Feld, it's funny, too, on the train going in this summer, a kid that I coached when he was in eighth grade was going into his first job on Wall Street. And, uh, it really
does make you feel a little bit old. Uh, you know, Mr. Stler, how are you? So, that's good. Um, so it looks like uh we have um uh Jerry Jerry Kong. Jerry? >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Hi.
>> Hi. Uh, thanks for the opportunity to comment. Um, I really appreciate all of the very thoughtful and insightful things everyone has said on the call so far. Um I may have missed it in the financial presentation earlier but I think it was mentioned in a earlier
meeting. Um the fields themselves if there if the project goes forward they do generate some amount of revenue when um they can be used for you know sports clubs. Is that correct? Um because you know if so that revenue might be able to offset some of the financial obligations
and might make it more financially sustainable. So I just wanted to make sure that point got addressed at some point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jerry. And that's exactly right. Those those uh uh revenue generation opportunities would be used to uh build the trust to uh replace the
fields. That's to address Mr. Schmidt and so forth and other folks uh who had that same question. Um all right. So, it looks like all the hands have been raised. I thought I saw Bill Brazelle on here, but he's no longer on here. >> Yeah, just Yeah, I'm not sure what
happened with Bill. He had his hand up the entire time. So, I was just uh checking to see if uh if uh he dropped off or if he >> Let's give it let's let's give it 30 seconds. See if he comes back on. I always like to hear from Bill. Um and you know, as we go through this uh you
know, I don't want anybody to to not have the chance or opportunity to raise their hand and ask a question. And I think I'm looking at everybody's face on the on our team and everybody seems to be taking in and learning a lot from this. So, that's good. Um
when we go back, >> sorry, Ben, he he won't get back on. Um he he had to he had to drop off. So >> Okay. Okay. No, no worries. Uh okay, good. So, let's go back into the panelist. Um I want to welcome >> Ben, I just I'm sorry. I didn't know if
you still have one hand raised in the in the uh >> No, no, I think that's the mayor. The mayor was going to come in as a panelist to discuss to discuss it with us. Uh he had made Okay. So I'd like to go back to the panelist to the panel uh bring him
in. I you know obviously uh uh sits at the top of our town. I'd love to hear some comments from him. Uh and then we can go to uh go to any more discussion and and go to a vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> He's he's coming on now.
>> What's that? >> He's coming on now. >> Okay. All right. >> Yep. Hello. Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> Awesome. Um, so yeah, I just had a couple points um that I wanted to make.
Uh, so first off, um, you know, Darker brought up a good point about flood mitigation. The flood mitigation advisory committee has actually been looking into potentially utilizing the area under where the proposed field project is going to be for some sort of storm water detention. and you really
can only accomplish that with an engineered solution uh using synthetic turf. So that's one of the advantages uh and that would address you know potentially some flood mitigation uh issues as well. Um, the other thing I want to bring up and and some other
people have touched on this, but the open space trust fund when this went to referendum, it was really sold and um, you know, part of how it was sold was that it could be used for fields and it could be used for lighting the fields. And as as Pria admitted, uh, it's it's
right in the slide there. And I do truly believe that the majority of people that voted for this had those fields and and the lighting in mind uh when they voted for an increase in their taxes. Um and given that and given the amount of money
that we have in there, uh you know, I think it would be a bit hypocritical for us not to utilize the open space trust fund to fund this project. Now, if we do a 20-year bond, then it's only going to take us, you know, a portion of the open
space trust fund. So, we're going to have plenty of money left over to do other projects. And, you know, I think this project is actually going to benefit a lot of residents. If you look at something like the pocket park that's being proposed, how many residents are actually going to use that versus how
many are actually going to use these fields on a on a daily basis. So if we need to weigh that uh when we're making decisions, you know, what's going to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people and then a lot of the other things that I've heard have been, you know, resistance to using open
space trust fund or any public funds for synthetic turf. And you know, people cite all sorts of reasons uh as to why synthetic turf turf is is bad or or is dangerous, but a lot of those reasons are based on outdated technology. The
technology that we have available today is vastly different than what existed even 10 years ago. Um, you know, the heat issues that you had from the old school synthetic fields were mainly due to the rubber infill. We're we're not even looking at uh options that utilize
rubber infill. And in fact, the options that we have available that either use no fill or use a natural like a coconut husk fill uh are 30° cooler than, you know, this the standard uh turf of yester year that used that type of
infill. Um, additionally, uh, you know, California just, uh, did a study of 35 synthetic turf fields and their EPA found no significant health risks associated with even the legacy technology. So, the new stuff being even
better, you know, I I I really do think that the environmental risks that people are bringing up are not quite as serious as they're being uh made out to be. Um, and we have some some data that we can share and put on our website. uh that talks about some of these studies and um
you know specifically about the uh the PFAS and um you know the lack of uh them actually leeching out of these newer materials. Um the other thing that um you know I think we need to consider um
is you know that to to Jeff and and Dave's legal argument um yeah we are going to have to have an attorney take a look at whether we can utilize this funding. Uh but I think that we could get around that pretty easily if we you know either did a lease or if we
purchase an easement. So, if an acquisition is required, we could purchase an easement for, you know, some are part of the fields or maybe an easement for where we put the lights. Um, and you know, I think we'd find a way to get around that. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that when you guys are making your decision. That's
something that we can have the township attorney figure out after the fact. Um, but, you know, I think overall this is a fantastic project. it it is well suited uh for the use of open space trust funds and you're not going to deplete the
whole fund. If we go with the 20-year bond option, you're going to have plenty of money left over. So, um I I would I would encourage you all to think through all those things as you're making your decision. Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Frank. Okay. So, as a team here for the open
space trust fund advisory committee, uh I want to I want us to provide a recommendation to the township committee. Ultimately, it'll be the township committee deciding on how to move forward even to actually how to
allocate the funds, etc. Um, Alex, what's the best way to go about this? uh being that um you know I've not been on this town on this committee on a committee similar to this to actually move that forward uh to suggest uh uh
just a vote on the open space trust fund advisory committee u approving uh or giving an advisory u consideration of yes to move forward with it. Yeah, I look I think I think um
you probably need to come up with a a motion and maybe allow others to make a make a motion um to see what the vote is. Unfortunately, if there's if there you know or you can just do where is there a vote to utilize um you can just
keep it simple and say is there a vote to utilize open space funds for this project? Um and and and and uh and a recommendation to the township committee to do such. >> Okay. Uh does anybody have a problem with keeping it simple and moving this
and and having the uh having a vote to move this forward? >> I I think Pria might have had something to say and I I just wanted to say something else as well. >> Just raise your hand just raise your hand if you have something so we could see it because it's hard to see on this thing. If you >> There's a little thing that you can
raise a hand like Steve has his hand raised or >> Yeah. Oh. Uh, thanks Steve. Um, so I just wanted to kind of uh draft off of what if Frank uh had said about um
what was sort of advertised. And I think as Renee and I when we were talking about this fund in the summer of 2024, it was over Yeah, it just again it was overwhelming the amount of um feedback
that we got from residents who attended public sessions that that they wanted, you know, these these funds to not be used on recreation. And we always clarified that again in the state of New Jersey this this money can
be used for recreation for fields and certainly for turf fields. So I just want to put that out there because I didn't I just wanted again just to clarify that for everybody. Um, also just as a matter of process before we
get into the um the voting to recommend um you know I think it's it's it's worth reminding the attendees um that are here that there are representatives on this commission from all the various stakeholders. So there's Deborah from
environmental commission and there's Brad from historic and there's Josh from recreation because these are the three areas that this funding can um you know that this funding can go towards. So, I
think that the if there if the first project out of the gate um is is going to focus solely on recreation, I think it's it's worth reminding attendees and reminding this group that maybe next time the the priorities would be
historic preservation or the next time the priority would be um environmental conservation or or something that is under the purview of the environmental commission. So that's I just wanted to put that out there just as a matter of process. >> Sure. Sure, Priya. Thank you. And I went
to a bunch of those uh information sessions as well uh as a township committee person advocating for this and and I I would I my recollection is a little bit different is that recreation was a big part of it. There's 20, you know, 24,000 residents in Milbour Short
Hills and there's a very additionally there's very small people at a small amount of people at those information sessions. My take is is that a majority of people voted for it for recreation as a way to solve uh the the the uh needs
of our children for uh sporting and recreation, etc. And as to Dave's point before, whether it's turf or grass is superolous, it's for recreation for our children. Um, I think uh Steve had his hand up
before Dave, but I don't know if Steve wanted to move it. >> Dave can go ahead. >> Okay, very good. Dave, please. >> Where'd he go? >> Can you guys hear me? >> Oh, yes. >> Okay, good enough. Yeah, I lowered my hand once you called on me. >> Okay, got it.
So, um, so to to Alex's comment, I think or Ben and Alex's, uh, you know, on the vote, you know, I I think we're at that point. I I don't know that I that we should be, from what I'm hearing from people, you know, that made comments, I
don't know that this is just a yes or no, you know, yes, we we think we can use it. I think it's got to be an amount, you know, whether it's 15%, no more than 15, no more than a 100,000. That's my only suggestion. And I don't
know what everyone's thinking about that amount or percentage, but I I'd rather see it addressed that way. Um, you know, and maybe, you know, if if people have a have a, you know, a number in mind, maybe we just move, you know, move till
we get um, you know, a, you know, a majority that all like, you know, 15% or all like whatever that number is, but I don't know what the rest of the gang thinks or how they feel about how to how to process it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, David. And listen, I thought
think we saw at the 20 year at the 20-year bond, it's about 20%. On a 20-year bond uh and I think Pri also mentioned the five elements or no, Deborah mentioned the five elements and this is one element which is 20%. So that might be a piece but doing the
project and moving it forward I think is where the votes required. uh the township council uh will be tasked with with with how we move it forward and how it gets uh allocated etc. Uh so I I would like to start. Steve, is your hand
still up or did you mean to take it down? Okay. Uh it looks David's hands back up. >> Yeah, I'll let Steve go first though because uh >> All right. Yeah, I was >> got hands flying everywhere. >> Sorry about that. Yeah, there's >> um I want to say something quickly. Uh
first, and I'm not suggesting that anybody on this committee is trying to do this at all. Uh, I just want to make sure that um, you know, I really appreciate the residents who have come forward with um, environmental concerns because I think um, you know, it's eye
opening for me and it's great to see how concerned um, those people are and I want to make sure those that we're not um, vilifying them and saying that they're somehow against kids playing outside because I I don't think anybody in town is is against kids playing
outside. I think we all are and and that probably didn't need to be said, but I I just want to make sure that the the tone and the takeaway um feels like, you know, we're we're respectful and appreciative of those opinions um and those concerns and and I share them. But
I I also want to um say that I know I brought up a point earlier and I think some other people sort of came in on it and Pria maybe you were going to piggyback on it as well is this question of whether it's possible to make a proposal that we fund the lights and do not fund the turf given that you know
we're splitting the costs anyway. Board of Ed has already committed to half of it. We're only talking about funding half of it anyway. Um, and you know, maybe that's a way for us to support the, you know, the project of making sure that there's more field time, uh,
without asking the town to get behind, you know, the artificial turf, at least from a, you know, township perspective if the board of ed is going to pay for that. So, I don't know if that's feasible. I don't know how the economics work, but just something to throw out there is, you know, maybe that's worth pursuing.
>> Yeah. So, so Steve, thank you for that. uh operationally. I don't know if that's even plausible. Uh and we're not looking at turf versus natural grass. This is an environmental commission uh recommendation. This is a recommendation from the open space tax uh trust fund uh
not from the environmental commission. The reason that this was structured like this was somebody from HBC, a resident, uh uh Alex has a vote here, uh the vice chair vote from the township committee, Pria has a vote here. It's all put together here to have everyone's input,
not to renegotiate the transaction, Steve, uh, or or or or parse it up like that. It's simply to give a recommendation to the TC on on with all of our input how we would like to see it proceed. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I see another hand up. Dave's hands up again. Mine's up, but Josh, I think, was up first, so maybe uh >> So I Go ahead. Go ahead, Dave. Go ahead, Dave. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I I I think it's
risky. I'll I'll tell this group I think it's risky if we just were to say to the township committee, uh we're all right with the money being used. Um I think it has to be uh in my mind, and maybe everyone disagrees, but it has to come
with a condition. we we are all right with spending 15%. Or whatever that number is. Um I I think there's a real risk that if this committee just says it's fine, um that that money may very I don't want to be
mean to anybody, but that money may disappear instantly. Uh you know, once once the uh TC votes on this. >> Well, I'm How would you get to 15%, David? >> 15% sounds like a good number. that gives us money that we can spend on
other things that frankly you know to other people's comments when I went to the meetings um on this um I was very concerned that the money would be used uh for routine you know items that the town normally would pay for and and to
you know to our brethren there about the fields I am for this project so this this has you know and and we know it's can get funded so this is just a it's it's just an argument of where that money comes from. It's not an argument in my mind or a thought in my mind that
it's not going to happen. But but I do I do think we need to to give a hard number um because I you know I worry about what would happen if this committee just said it's all right. >> Okay. I'm not sure I follow that that
what would happen. What possibly could happen just so everyone on the committee >> Sure. The township committee votes to use all $2 million. >> Well, the township committee can vote to do that at their own peril as well already, right? And that this this recommendation has nothing to do whether
they do that or not. it would I don't disagree with that but I I if this you know I worry about if this committee doesn't put some guard rails on it even though that guard rail could arguably be disregarded >> those that people just on the TC side
just run with this and say well you know what >> the the however many of there are the six or seven of us gave them gave them the green light and boom let's use the two million >> okay >> and then when we then we when we want to do projects that some people here feel
are more appropriate for um uh open space fund than we don't have money or we're borrowing a ton of money to do it. So, >> understood. Understood. Okay. Uh and Josh and then and then uh Deborah and
then we can we can move forward as it's getting late in the day as well. >> Well, I don't can you guys hear me because >> Yes. >> Okay. Good. uh at at right when uh the mayor was finishing uh my computer shut down. So I I don't know what I missed.
Uh so if I'm repeating anything that happened in the last eight minutes, I apologize, but I'm I'm going to say uh just a couple things. Anyway, uh there were three things that I wanted to comment on and now four after President Cosgro's statement. um first was about
the um you know the the town the town people's concern with all the money going to recreation and I think that I'm I'm on the board of recreation so I mean I'm I'm certainly you know wasn't one of those people that was concerned about it but during the presentation and on the
slide five out of eight of the possible projects were part of town you know parks and recreation whether it was Ajiro Park or whether it was a Bower center or whether it was fields or whether it was lights. I mean, so it would make sense that somebody might say, "Hey, you know, is this all going
to go to wreck?" Well, when five out of eight of the proposed possible projects that are actually being presented as part of the plan, I could see why that would have happened. Um second was um there were comments made about the amount of money that it is to you know with the replacing of the field and it's
only 10 years and let's just remember that the cost to replace or fix a field after it's been constructed is a lot less than building it new and I just want to make sure that we've re I don't know if that was said already but it needs to be reiterated that once you have a field and then yes you do have to
you do have to fix it and it has to pass GMAX tests and all this other stuff with it that is less expensive than building it from scratch. So just it it's not like oh we're going to go out and spend this money again and it's the exact same amount because it's not. And the third the one the third thing I
want to talk about was there was mentioned about um ACL injuries and there's an article in the New York Times and it was mentioned at the TC meeting on Tuesday and I think it also I I have daughters that play sports. I have one that plays collegiately and plays on turf. And I think it just needs to be
understood that part of the studies with female athletes and ACL injuries. Many happen on grass. US women's national team soccer players, many happen on grass. Uh basketball, Cameron Brink and some other athletes that don't. I mean,
it's not just turf. A lot of ACL injuries happen with uh female athletes because of specialization in sports and not diversifying what they're playing and concentrating in one area. And so that's part of the reason why you're seeing a lot um a lot of ACL injuries
and also with female athletes just in general there seems to be more specialization in one sport. So I want to make sure because that was mentioned in in the articles as well. And then what Mr. Cosgrove said, "I think it's important um and you know, this was something that I brought up during the
presentation to the rec commission uh when the open space um idea was presented was how the funds were going to be spent and whether it was going to be just TC deciding and and it was explained to me that in the end uh it
might have even been you commit um Mr. Stler that said, "Hey, in the end the TC decides where the money goes. Doesn't really matter." But I do think that what Mr. Cosgrove said is correct is if we make a recommendation for a certain percentage, I think the TC would listen
and say, "Hey, the preservation committee said we should spend 15%." That sounds like the right number. Let's do that. They wouldn't really I don't think that five elected officials would just willy-nilly say, "I don't really care what those people said. I'm just going to spend all of it." So that's why
I I don't think that's a bad idea. I don't think I think that would maybe would put some people in this room at ease. I think it might make a lot of people in the public uh be put at ease so that we know that we're not dipping into high percentages. And look, if the TC decides to just do what they want, then that's on you guys. That's up to
the five of you, you know. >> So, that's why that's why I meant at our peril, right? So, the TC is going to vote at their peril if they want to go through with that. I said that to David prior. Um >> I we have two hands up. Let's get
>> Let's get through through Deborah and through David. Uh, I think Deborah's hand up was up first. Go to Deborah, then back to David, and then we'll move forward. Oh, now Pria's hands up. >> Um, I I also agree that um I would be I
shouldn't say I agree, but I I would be more comfortable giving as much guidance as possible to the TC given that that's my understanding of an advisory board. Um, I wouldn't want to give it, you know, just cart blanch. Um, we've had a
really robust discussion. I think it's been an important one. I think we were appointed to serve a purpose and I would hate to just toss that aside by not giving some kind of more um specific recommendation. I also think it feels
like we moved to today when we talked about doing a percentage. it felt like we kind of came together a little bit more and it doesn't really make sense to me to just throw that away um and just say yes, go ahead and and spend. So, um
if we were to just say straight up yes or no, my vote would be no. If we were to say it's a percentage not to exceed whatever, 15% whatever, then my vote would likely be very different. So, I
just wanted to put that out there. >> Thank Thank you, Deborah. Uh uh uh David. >> Yeah. You know, I'm willing to make I don't want to cut Pria off because I saw her hand up, but I I would just make a motion uh that uh the committee report
to the township committee uh that we we think it's a a good idea to spend the money, but no more than 15%. And so I'd make that motion and let's see if we can get a second. But I don't >> Priya, she Pria had her arm up. We're not I
don't think we have some motions yet. Let's go to Pria. >> Really fast. I I don't know if it sets good precedence for kind of going back and forth on percentages. I think we should just evaluate the projects before us and take
a a clean vote and and and then you know go from there. That's just sort of my off-the- cuff thinking because I think otherwise next time we there's another proposal that comes around and we're going to be thinking 10% 5% 20 like what's the number and I think we should
just evaluate the projects on their merits are you know first of all do they meet the criteria? Can we actually you know use open space money to fund them? yes, no, and then go from there. We have a rubric in place. We're evaluating these proposals based on the rubric
which should be made public um as soon as possible. Um and then we just, you know, approach it that way. That's my two cents. >> Okay. Um you know, sitting here as chair, I've I've heard everything. Uh I
don't really disagree, Priya. Uh I really don't agree. Uh, however, Deborah made a very strong point on having a guardrail, and I think David made that point as well. I would like to make a motion to to to the
committee here to uh vote on moving it forward with a 25% guard rail that it can't be more than 25% of the fund uh of the current of the current fund uh per per calendar year, etc. Uh, from the
collections. Uh, I'd like a second for that. Let's give that a round. See if we can get through here. Get out of here. Uh and wrap this up. Can I get a second on that? Josh, David, anybody? >> I'll second it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Brad. Uh Alex, will you do the honors of going through and and just doing a quick vote? >> Sorry. Clarify the the U. So would it be 25% of the current 2 million plus 25% of
each million going forward? >> No. Each year $1 million. >> Yeah. >> So $250,000 allocation per year. >> But we currently have 2 million. What would happen with with that? >> Well, that that would that that's still
there for other projects, right? So you have you're you're you'd have essentially what is that one? you know, 1.75 million that that could be utilized for other projects. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we start doing we start funding the 20-year bond. If the TC decides to
do a 10-year bond, they're on the hook for the difference. That's going to be our recommendation, right? So, so I think that's a nice happy medium. Gets everybody on board and lets us move this forward. Uh we've all heard from our constituents, from the residents. Um,
everyone did a fantastic job of articulating their points, but uh you know, we're up at 2 hours now. Let's try go see if we can get consensus and move this forward. I'd love to have everybody on board and go to the TC with a with a with a with a nice big thumbs up from this group. Go ahead, Alex.
>> So, so just to just to reiterate the motion on on on on the floor is uh that uh 25% of the annual allotment uh you know that comes into the fund each year um be utilized uh for this project. um
that is not in you know currently there's 2 million it's only on the 1 million that would come in each year or whatever or whatever that allotment is like you know this year it was 1 1 million6 thou six you know 6,000 so so I just so that's the motion there's a
second by Brad I'll go around the room um David you you want to make a comment that now would be the time that there's a second >> yeah just just a clarification um when you're when you're talking about uh 25% % per year. Um, are we talking for this
particular project? Because I think we all know that down the road there's going to be more money spent on this project in quotes. U, but you know, so so is are you are you envisioning or or is Ben when he makes the motion envisioning 25% which is $250,000 of the
million uh in perpetuity? >> Yeah. as long as this open space tax trust uh ex exists to pay down the bond with a cap at the amount of the bond, right? So it just doesn't go on beyond that life. It can't.
>> Okay. So essentially based on the project cost now, thanks for that clarification. And the and the K and the kiss up front. The kiss up front, uh, if you understand what I mean there for Deborah and and Pria and everybody else is that listen, we're still preserving 1.75 out of the 2 million that sits
there. Only 250 of that's going to go for this year one uh towards it and then go from there. So that that's a nice a nice kiss. All right, Alex. >> All right. Um, good. I'll go through the uh the attendees um again with that with
that motion um on the table. Um just I'm just going in order of as I see people um uh Pria Patel. >> I I need more time to think about this. >> Okay. Come back to you then. Okay. Uh
David Cosgrove. >> Yeah, I would say no to this. If it was a lower amount that that's better, but 25 is too rich. Thank you. >> Yep. Steve Green. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Uh Deborah Nevice. >> Yeah, I'm a no on 25%. >> Um Josh Ryder, >> I'll support it at 25. Yep. Um, Brad Jenkins,
>> he might be on mute. >> Brad, we can't. >> Did you not hear me? I I I'm a Yes. >> Okay. Uh, Mike Langley. >> Um, I would be a yes.
>> Um, and then, uh, Ben Stler, >> I am a yes. And then back to Pria Patel. >> No. >> No. Okay. Um at the
So we have one, two, three, four, five yeses and three nos. Um as you can imagine, I'm going to abstain at this point given uh the fact that the yeses have it. So >> great. So the motion carries. Motion carries 25% and and and we will
and we will write that up and make sure uh that uh that recommendation is formalized to uh the township committee. >> Thank you guys and team. Listen, thank you so much. It was handled with such grace, professionalism, courtesy,
civility, intelligence. Thank you all. David, thank you. Pria, Deborah, Josh, Brad, Mike, Matt, Steve, and Alex. I really appreciate it. Thank you for making this uh a robust discussion and a and a uh and a uh informative discussion
>> and for all your time on a Friday afternoon. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> This is cutting into happy hour. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm gonna make a a motion to adjourn. Second. >> I'll second. >> I All in favor? I. >> Thanks everybody.
>> Thank you guys. Appreciate you. >> Thank you. Byebye. >> Thanks everyone. >> Thank you.