Tally the baseball field cost

[Cranbury Conservative]

The fence being moved was approved and the reason stated was it was a safety issue. The less of the two bids was chosen and it was for $19,270.

All five TC members voted yes because it was a safety issue. Wayne however wanted to be on the record that he was never for the field in the first place, however since this was a saftey issue at this point he had to vote yes.


I will post more details later when I have more time.

[STKINVST]

To answer a couple of questions and to ask one:
1) The Guest is correct. This field will NOT be open to anyone who wishes to start a pickup game. When we built the ballfield in Villiage Park, the Plainsboro/Cranbury Little League wanted us to turn it over to them. However, we said no (since then I believe the TC has said "yes") because it meant taking the field away from any kids who simply wanted to play. It meant Little League play only.

2) I respect Wayne Wittman as the only TC member looking out for all of Cranbury, not just the few. However, the $20,000 was unnecessary. Change orders should be few and far between and only if an unforeseen circumstance arises. This was not an unforeseen issue or was it? If it was, then who did the planning? This is someone's lack of attention to detail.

The Democrats treat $20,000 like it's nothing. It is time we get back to being fiscally responsible.

[Jay T.]

I really feel sorry for Ms. Smeltzer and others in our town office who have to put all these resolutions and costs together. I have a much greater appreciation for their work after tonight.

I was very bored this evening and went through some meeting notes. Excluding property costs and the topographical study I found the following fees. This is just what I saw reading the meeting notes between 2005 and 2007 (said I was bored )

1/9/2006 100,873 remediation
10/22/2007 8,377 move poles- PSEG
11/26/2007 $297,000.00 precision - build
9/11/2008 20,000 precision - build new fence

$426,500 in expenses that I was able to see. This does not include Engineer time and I could not tell if it included Scoreboards, etc...

Just some quick fees.

[Cranbury Conservative]

I asked about the phase II expenses tonight such as score board, bleachers and dugouts.

Committee Member Stave stated the following. (Please note this is not an exact quote)

The phase II costs have not been funded yet and she felt they would be kept to a minimum. Further the TC was going to seek a county grant to pay for the phase II part of the project.

There were also some comments made by the TC that the fence being moved was being paid for by a grant, however that money could have been used to off set another part of the current expenses. So either way it sounded as if the fence would in the end cost the taxpayers.

Further some comments were made by Committee member Stannard I believe that he was concerned that we might have trouble getting the second phase funds from the county since we were spending the original grant money to move a fence.

Again these are not exact quotes but the context is accurate.

[Guest]

This is clear negligance on the part of the engineer, builder or whoever is responsible for the design and placement. The town has an obligation to hold that person responsible and not to eat the cost. Clearly the individual did not do their job if we're having to move the fence at a cost of 20,000.

At what point does this simply become a project to walk away from and just say enough is enough it's another ball field end of story mistake made and admitted.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Sorry I really wanted to have one post with all the facts from tonight, however regarding the safety issue.....

Apparently the field was built as per the specifications of the Babe Ruth organization. According to what I hear the league did not ask for the change. The recreation Director asked for the change because there was not enough foul territory thus creating a safety issue.

Anyone that knows me knows I am not only a big baseball fan I also coach baseball and play softball and have played baseball and coached my whole life. With that being said I did not see a safety issue when I went to the field. I wish I could have asked more questions at the meeting however the public comment was before the TC spoke of the safety issue. My other question would have been how does the foul territory relate to the other fields we have such as the one over at the park in town? Based on what I have seen of the park fields and the new Babe Ruth field they are basically the same when it comes to foul territory. In the end the only safety concern is that being raised by the Recreation Director. Though it’s not my area of expertise I am sure we could have asked which ever insurance company we use to give us an independent risk analysis. Again it’s not my area of expertise, possibly someone else on the board could answer that one?

I will give the TC some credit where credit is due since they did go with the low bid. Apparently the Recreation Director also wanted the backstop moved which would have cost another $10,000.

It was however determined after discuss that the backstop move was more of a want to have and not a need to have and is not considered a safety issue.

Further Committee member Stave commented (again this is the context of her comments not a quote) that the blame here was the Townships since they did not bring the Recreation Director and Engineer together to review the plans before things progressed to this point.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I didn't even know Cranbury had a recreation director. But since we apparently do, why didn't they review the plans before construction began and made all their notes then? In the real world of business, executives usually don't get to come in after the fact when they should have spoken up during the requirements phase and suddenly say they want changes they could have made on paper, and in this case would have had a responsiblity to do so...

[Jay T.]

This is another example of why we have to hold Pari and David responsible and can't re-elect them. Pari was in charge of this project and if there was supposed to have been and should have been a meeting with the Rec. Dir. and the Engineer it was her role to ensure it occured. Now, we have a 20,000 mistake because of her lack of oversight.

I am concerned that the fence meets the rules, the engineer approves, and now a Rec. Dir. who is neither an official in the league nor an engineer is able to make the call and spend our money. What's worse is that our TC takes his word over the league standards and engineer, when he/she could be wrong. That person should have been at the meeting to explain the specific concern they had about the fence.

Also, one wonder's if this is just an excuse because the league had questioned the fencing prior and making a change for change's sake may have proven difficult. But, no one can say safety is not an issue.

[Cranbury Conservative]

[Rec. Dir?]

I found it odd that the Recreation Director did not even show up at the meeting to explain the details.

[Guest]

This all smells bad to me. At the very least, they seem to be making a choice to keep the facts vague to the public. Is the Rec Director a Cranbury employee, volunteer committee member, county position or does it really refer to someone affiliated with Babe Ruth? Or is it an official position at all? Who are they? Why does a well established league like Babe Ruth, with decades of experience and very precise requirements not agree with the need for the more space but this anonymous rec. director trups them? Why does the TC jump reflexively at the word "safety" without further scrutinizing these facts? It is one thing for the public to do so, but they are elected to be level-headed and dig deeper in the defense of our Township funds and actual welfare.

[g2]

Can someone (Jay T.?) check with the town to see who the Recreation Director is?

[Guest]

Ken Jacobs 395-0900 ext. 302

[Frugality in Cranbury]

I am by nature a “fly by the seat of your pants” type of person. It keeps life interesting never knowing what’s around the corner. Boy, what great adventures I have encountered. This - my friends, is how the current TC has been governing Cranbury. I have to say those adventures have been invoking community passion and unity. But, some may say it’s focused against the TC members.

But let me be clear, I am also extremely conservative especially when it affects my family’s and community’s future. In my experience, Planning is the most crucial element in any long term future endeavor. So, I sit here thinking about 5 – 10 years down the road. Where will Cranbury be? What will it look like? My hope is that we can maintain our current quality of life but after attending most of the township meetings for the last 2 years this hope is seriously diminishing as time goes on.

I’m not sure that the idea of “planning for the future” can be accomplished by our current TC. I can only judge by their past “fly by the seat of your pants” actions and “quick get-it-done” attitude. These actions and attitudes have plagued our Current township committee and it is costing the citizens of Cranbury millions in extra expenditures. Most of these issues could be avoided with in-depth project planning, management and better oversight by the TC.

Case in point, the Babe Ruth baseball field project has been handled poorly from the very beginning. After a bid was accepted, the project started without even knowing that there needed to be an environmental cleanup. Due to the county grant we accepted; Cranbury could not back-out or delay this project. The wheels kept turning – quick… quick, it must get done.

Currently, the newly installed fence needs to be moved due to a safety request by Cranbury Recreational Director’s safety. Apparently, all parties that is or would be involved with this field were not asked for their comments or recommendations.

This Babe Ruth Baseball Field will finally cost over 1 million to complete. It is fine to say that most of it will be covered by county grants – But really, where do you think the county gets their money from? Right out of our paychecks.

It is common business practice, that the project manager is always directly at fault for just about everything; including not being prepared with correct up front cost estimates, no ideas of cost overrides, no upfront environmental assessments, lack of communications with effected parties, and the list goes on. Any boss, would immediately take the reigns to completion or until a new project manager could take over.

Other concerning community past issues:

A. Tax reassessment (which by the way the TC lucked out – due to the state of the economy, it raised to resale value of the older homes). But, this was not the intent for the reassessment. It was to stave off lawsuits from commercial properties.
B. “Once in the Lifetime” PNC Bank property purchase endeavor. No Plan – “No go” requested by taxpayers.

C. 2008 property tax increase – 5% to all mainly do to school budget increase of 1 million needed.

D. COAH homes regulations changed to 3 story buildings for low, low income rentals – idea tabled due to “no immediate need to change” at request of community. On a personal note, I like us to stay with the low – moderate income housing or special needs housing.

E. West Property preserved. – has this issue really been thought out? Um…perhaps Expansion for the school? Community gardens? A new library/community center? Of which the community center for older teens and senior was on the Master Plan amendment from 2000 and suggested it be placed on the West Property. I guess those older teens and seniors need to play baseball.

F. Helping farms with preserving development rights – Ok I know it is needed, but when the TC only knows that is costs Cranbury 20% - they have no clue what that number is - $10, $1000, or even millions.

Some may say I am complaining and why don’t I do something about it. Even our Mayor stated at one of the township meeting (one of the poorly attended tax reassessment meetings) that for anyone to know what is going on, or are displeased or have ideas; taxpayers need to come to the meetings. In effect, I felt he was blaming me for the tax reassessment and the budget, etc. But, he was right and I took him up on his challenge.

I have been to almost all of the township meetings and on many occasions made my voice heard. But, now I see a disturbing pattern of closed meetings, “quick get-it-done” poorly planned backdoor projects, and dismissiveness of community ideas. Perhaps it is due to the TC governing for years without too many disturbances of questions and complaints by the citizens. But, now these open meetings are general packed. Do not mistake it for being a sign that people want to be involved or just there for knowledge. They are displeased by the TC and have lost trust in their decision making by many of the reasons stated above.

My hope is that the TC will wake up and smell to coffee and use the resources and the knowledge of the Cranburians. We can learn from the past but must always PLAN for the future. Afterall - We are all neighbors; We are all in this together. Let’s make a better life for us now and for future generations to enjoy and grow.

[Jay T.]

I stopped in the town office today and had a very pleasant discussion with our town hall staff. First, I want to say to everyone if you have any questions they are very happy to help you understand costs, ordinances or anything else.

Here is what I found based on the expenses for the ballfield.

There are two grants from the County one for 400,000 and one for 75,000.

There are three pages of expenses because they detail each invoice and charge. The total expenses incurred from inception are $390,991.80. The fence change will add an additional 20,000 to this price.

This includes fees to date. It does not include future fees, dugouts, restroom facilities, soreboard, etc... also known as Phase II expenses.

It also does not include the land acquisition costs, future maintenance, etc... The biggest item appears to be the remediation for the field.