1. Is there really a need for additional Recreation fields in Roxbury?
2. How did you first determine that there as a need for additional fields?
3. What did the Township do to validate this need?
4. What were the results of the Master Plan?
5. What steps did the Township take to address this need?
6. Was Turf the First Option selected to resolve this need?
7. Why use Turf, why not add new grass fields to resolve the issue?
8. What are the true costs of a Turf Field?
9. What is the useful life of a Turf Field?
10. Is Turf a safety hazard?
11. Is Turf a new idea?
12. Are there Advantages of Turf over Grass?
13. Where would you locate this Field?
14. Why would the town even consider working with the BOE regarding this effort?
15. How do we know that there will be equal usage at the high school for both entities?
16. Were the Town and BOE simply planning to use tax payer money to Fund this effort?

1. Is there really a need for additional Recreation fields in Roxbury?

• Yes. At first, there was a general belief that the township was short playing fields, however we did not have concrete proof. We realized, up front, that the number of participants and programs had grown significantly over the years.
• As a result, the Recreation Advisory Committee took on the effort to evaluate current and future recreational requirements within Roxbury.

2. How did you first determine that there as a need for additional fields?

• Several Sports organizations raised concerns with Recreation regarding scheduling conflicts and field conditions. They were concerned with over use of the existing fields, and the inability to “rest” fields to improve conditions due to the large demand. Furthermore, as stated above, the Committee realized that Roxbury was a growing community, and participation levels and program offerings have been increasing over the years while the number of facilities to support this increased usage remained constant.

3. What did the Township do to validate this need?

• The Township Recreation Advisory Committee embarked on an effort to create a Township wide Recreation Master Plan. This plan identified the current state of recreation within the Township and projected needs for the future. This included program offerings and facilities to accommodate current and projected offerings. This encompassing analysis and report was completed by the committee at no cost to the residents of Roxbury. Some have suggested that this document would have cost Roxbury $50K to produce if it was outsourced. This plan was presented to both the Town Council and the Board of Education late in 2005.

4. What were the results of the Master Plan?

• That the Township provides a number of offerings to the residents of Roxbury. The programs are highly utilized and have adapted to a growing need. The programs are successful and have very large participation. However, it did point out clear needs today and in the future for Roxbury. The growing population, coupled with increases in program offerings, have placed a growing demand on staff and facility usage. Currently, Roxbury has over 1,600 acres of open space land, but less than 60 acres of this is utilized for Recreational requirements. At the top of the list was a requirement for additional fields (6) to address a growing population, participation level, and safety concerns associated with the inability to take field’s offline for maintenance.

5. What steps did the Township take to address this need?

• Several options were taken to address this growing need. Programs were reorganized to maximize currently facility demand (e.g. Kiwanis), plans were also implemented to create additional facilities. Two, new, multi-purpose fields were implemented at Horseshoe Lake, by the Day Care Center. In addition, the town coordinated efforts with Soccer in a shared services model to place sod on two heavily utilized fields. Irrigation systems were implemented to extend the life of these fields. The town continued to lay the foundation for new recreational facilities in other areas of the Township (e.g. Baseball facility in Kenvil). The Township funding for many of these efforts was through a 1% green acres loan totalling $180K.
• Finally, the Township aggressively pursued open space opportunities for recreation to further address these concerns. Currently, the Township has applied for and received funding for two new tracts which are currently in negotiation.

6. Was Turf the First Option selected to resolve this need?

• No. As specified above, several other options were initially taken to address these needs.

7. Why use Turf, why not add new grass fields to resolve the issue?

• Cost. The cost of adding 4 new fields, as well as the ongoing maintenance, would cost the township over $200K / year. The cost of one new Turf field would be equivalent of installing four grass fields, the cost would be considerably less, and provides for increased play time.

8. What are the true costs of a Turf Field?

• The most cost effective way to fund a turf field is to Bond the costs over an extended period of time. This is what has been done by the vast majority of Communities throughout the State, who have implemented Turf fields.

9. What is the useful life of a Turf Field?

• Anywhere from 12-15 years.

10. Is Turf a safety hazard?

• No. There are both pro’s and cons to this argument as to whether Turf is safer than a grass field. The new synthetic turf options are far superior and safer then their predecessors and have an extended life span. When comparing this new surface with some of the playing conditions on our existing fields, it would be hard to make an argument that the existing playing conditions are safer than a new turf field.

11. Is Turf a new idea?

• No. In fact there are many communities that either have implemented Turf or are in the process of implementing new turf fields in Morris County. Some of these areas include Randolph, Mt. Olive, Parsippany, and Dover. All of which have stated how satisfied they have been with the decision to move forward with turf option. Overall, there are hundreds of turf fields implemented throughout the State.

12. Are there Advantages of Turf over Grass?

• Yes. They include availability, usability, and cost. Compared to other options being considered to address the concerns for the need for additional fields, Turf is the most practical. When scheduled correctly, it can account for 4 grass fields without the ongoing costs of maintenance. It also takes up considerable less space than implementing 4 new grass fields. These fields are also more available after inclement weather.

13. Where would you locate this Field?

• The Town conducted a study to evaluate alternate options to address the need represented in the Recreation Master Plan. During this process the Committee became aware of growing concerns regarding field conditions and ongoing maintenance of the High School Football field. Clearly, the most cost effective solution was to engage both the Town and the Board in a shared services model to position this new surface at the high school. To obtain full benefit of a turf field there must be a number of prerequisites in place. Lights, fencing, parking, restrooms, and bleachers are all necessary requirements for full usage. These items are already in place at the high school stadium. It was estimated that it would cost an additional $200K more to position a turf field at another location in Roxbury. Other options that were considered were Horseshoe Lake and the new proposed recreational facility in Landing.

14. Why would the town even consider working with the BOE regarding this effort?

• Simple stated, the BOE has a need and the Town has a need. Instead of working in Silos, we may have an opportunity to solve the athletic needs at both the Township and high school level by working together. We can maximize the number of participants, while reducing the cost of this effort, as opposed to addressing these issues separately. It simply makes sense to combine efforts to maximize usage and minimize costs. Due to the fact that the high school field already has a number of the turf prerequisites, and is currently underutilized, it simply makes sound financial sense.

15. How do we know that there will be equal usage at the high school for both entities?

• A contract will be established between the two entities representing usage criteria and appointing specific individuals who would be solely responsible for scheduling efforts. It is our hope that this would be the Township Recreation Director and the High School Athletic Director. Conflicts would be specified in contractual language. Initial efforts have already been completed by the Town and High School to overlay events.

16. Were the Town and BOE simply planning to use tax payer money to Fund this effort?

• No. Surprisingly, if you take into account the fact that the BOE is spending, on average over $20K per year on maintaining the high school football field. and coupling this with the fact that the town has spent over $20K per year over the last 6 years, adding and replacing fields due to high usage, it becomes clear that we are jointly spending considerable, reoccurring tax payer dollars simply trying to maintain what we have, without addressing current and future recreational needs of the community including the high school athletic programs.
• Regarding making up the cost differential, last fall the committee responsible for attempting to move this effort forward, opened up a non-profit account for the purpose of raising funds from businesses and the community, to help offset these costs. It has always been the policy of the Recreation Advisory Committee that additional funding would be necessary. In addition, from a Township perspective, the committee is investigating increased user fees associated with the participating entities that would gain the most benefit from using this new facility. The combination of these efforts should help to address the costs and more importantly, assist in addressing the recreational needs of the Township and the High School Athletic program.