Turf Money OK Draws a Standing Ovation

Haddonfield's commissioners approve $356,000 toward turf fields at the high school, in a move that draws both delight and disgust among resides on opposite ends of the playing field.

Two hours of passionate commentary at Tuesday’s borough commissioners meeting for and against spending taxpayer money on turf fields came down to a quick, unanimous vote: Haddonfield will fork over $356,000 to resurface the fields.

Supporters leapt to their feet in a standing ovation after the commissioners cast their votes, cheering what they see as a vital step to promoting sports in town and protecting athletes from injury. Among those applauding were many student-athletes who took to the microphone to recount injuries, tripping over rocks and competitive disadvantages they all attributed to subpar grass fields.

The commissioners’ vote allows the Turf Field Committee, a citizens group, to continue its fundraising efforts for the project, which will install turf at ’s stadium field and adjacent Anniversary Field. The borough owns the latter.

When the borough’s allotment is combined with the school board’s $150,000 payment, already OK’d, taxpayers will fund $506,000 of the estimated $1 million project. The Turf Field Committee pledged to raise $500,000 on its own, and the project is contingent on the group doing so.

Read more public comments on the turf proposal at
"Sound Off: Residents Take Their Positions on Turf Fields"

Walking into Tuesday’s meeting, supporters could feel of “aye” votes from Commissioners Tish Colombi and Ed Borden, while Commissioner Jeff Kasko was something of a wildcard.

Kasko acknowledged certain misgivings about the project, which has whipped through the school board and borough government lightning fast compared to most large undertakings. If it was up to him, Kasko added, he would table the resolution to allow more time to consider the many issues that residents raised.

“However … I am going to give you my full support to move forward with this initiative, to raise the private contributions and to move this forward,” he said. “I hope you do well.”

Borden felt no such ambivalence, calling his vote an “easy decision for me.” No other group has ever come forward to guarantee $500,000 in private funding for a project, he noted.

‘It’s about time we get a nice upgrade’

Before the vote, about 30 residents shared their views with the commissioners. Although the police chief sat in the corner to monitor the meeting, residents mostly behaved outside of heckling some critics at times.

The pro turf side outweighed the critics by a 3:1 ratio. Parents spoke of watching their children trip and struggle on uneven fields, student-athletes complained of twisted ankles and torn ligaments and coaches recounted watching their teams advance to championship matches, only to lose to teams with more playing experience on turf fields.

“The Haddonfield Memorial High School football team has been playing now for over 100 years on the same field and I think it’s about time we get a nice upgrade for that field,” said high school football player Charlie O’Neill. “Our football field has been a mess for a long time. It’s full of lumps, holes and is generally an uneven surface that is dangerous and hard to play on.

“My father swears that I turned my ankle on some of the same holes he did during practice 30 years ago.”

Turf advocates also framed the debate as an investment in Haddonfield student-athletes’ futures. Residents repeatedly deemed the borough’s fields “the worst in South Jersey” despite Haddonfield’s reputation for athletic prowess. Turf Field Committee fundraising head Joe Del Duca said the group isn’t asking for facilities “commensurate to (athletes’) talent and success” but simply for adequate facilities.

“We make an investment of a half-million dollars …. When you have one child do something on a turf field at Haddonfield and get a (college) scholarship, that’s a hell of a return on investment,” resident Bob Kiep said. “I think there is a possibility of that happening.”

Critics have their say

But detractors weren’t convinced that turf fields are the way to go. Resident Heather Vaughn raised the issue of turf fields’ composition.

“There’s a lot of really horrible, hazardous chemicals. The recycled crumb rubber contains a number of chemicals that are known or suspected to cause adverse health effects,” Vaughn said, adding that cleaning agents have additional chemicals, but are necessary to remove bodily fluids, animal droppings and bacteria that gather on turf surfaces. “Materials that decompose on grass do not decompose on turf.”

A Potter Street resident said she supports revamped fields, but questions whether turf is the right way to go.

“Everyone seems to talk about turf fields not needing maintenance and we’re going to save costs on maintenance—if it’s maintained properly,” she said. “I’m not exactly sure everyone understands what’s involved in that and who’s going to be doing it.”

The costs aren’t one-time, she added. Turf fields are guaranteed for eight years and usually last about 10. Will taxpayers be on the hook for $1 million when that time is up, she questioned.

It also came down to money for George Passes, who said it’s hard to condemn the project that has so many student-athletes passionate. But, he added, the borough will soon face a decision on the Bancroft property, which could end up being a very costly project, plus rising taxes.

“There is a tide moving forward to spend monies. That’s where spending the half-million dollars at this point makes it difficult,” Passes said.

Moving forward

Turf Field Committee’s Del Duca tried to address each objection he heard over the past several days, . They included using open space money to finance the project (that’s the borough commissioners’ call, he said), the board of education paying less (the board will absorb the long-term costs, making the borough’s contribution a one-time deal, Del Duca said) and reported higher injury rates on turf (people are using selective data, according to Del Duca).

Above all, supporters took exception to the idea that the Turf Field Committee railroaded the project through without taking the time to consider the issue. The committee has worked for two years, but often behind the scenes until it came time to ask for funding, committee members said.

“The time to do this is now. I guarantee you will have to do turf fields eventually,” resident Dave Ragone said. “But if you do it two, three, five years from now, you won’t have the benefit of Joe Del Duca and his committee.”

Did the borough commissioners make the right decision? Are you pro-turf or anti-turf, and did Tuesday’s meeting change your mind either way? Tell us in the comments.


Don’t miss the most important Haddonfield news of the day—sign up for Haddonfield Patch’s daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.

Jack S May 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM
This decision by the Commissioners is a disgrace. The Commissioners voted at their last meeting to subject Haddonfield taxpayers to a 7% increase in the local purpose tax, in order to compensate for a claimed deficit in the Borough's $500,000 tax reserve. Now the Commissioners magically discover that the Borough/BoE has a spare $500,000 to spend on artificial turf. It's ashame that the Commissioners can be swayed by a 3:1 ratio at their meeting favoring the turf and by standing ovations. How could the opposition to this sort of unfunded expenditure be expected to be in the majority at such meetings, when the vote on was rushed through at lightening speed and clearly escaped the attention of all but the most observant Haddonfield residents who happens to read Patch. Is there a way for this decision to be appealed without monumental expense?
Sue Martin May 23, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Jack, I completely agree with you. While I know the playing fields are not great, this expenditure at this time should call into question the entire Borough budgeting process and the Commissioners' accountability to residents. The quality of life for the majority of residents is declining (potholes, rising taxes, outsourcing of services resulting in poor work, safety concerns, etc.) And at one meeting we hear the cry that there's no money, but a subsequent one there's suddenly a substantial sum lying around? No matter how you slice it, its still baloney.
Jeff H May 23, 2012 at 01:59 PM
HAV May 23, 2012 at 04:13 PM
Unfortunately, there were not enough of us speaking against the proposal at the meeting last night--it would have been nice to have these thoughts shared publicly. Only a hand-full of us brought up the questions that needed to be answered, as in your posts. It was one giant popularity contest, and when money talks, the people listen. Where was the Planning Board? The Zoning Board? Environmental Commission? Correct government procedures were not followed here, and now the boro has promised this $$ if the 'private' group can raise another $250k. It's not finished yet! Also, I do not know if there is a deadline for meeting this goal--that would be nice to know. I do know one thing: the boro has set a precedent, so they better be prepared for groups to start asking for $$ for their projects!
Jeff H May 23, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Maryann Campling May 23, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Last night's performance was some of the best theater I've seen in years! The air was thick with the scent of testosterone and sweat socks and the actors were well rehearsed. Once again, the Borough has it's hand in our pockets for the benefit of a segment of the population, that is never going to change in this town. What I found particularly disturbing was, after all of the pontificating about "sportsmanship" , when a very strong, opposing question was presented, the speaker was booed!!! Not by the kids, by their parents. That's a disgrace. And Jack S. regarding an appeal, filing a lawsuit with the Camden County Prosecutor is probably the only way to go, I've been told. So, my good friends, if you liked "The Turf Field War" you'll love "The Amazing, Giant Brandywine", and The Great Bancroft Disaster." Keep smiling!
Brian Kelly May 24, 2012 at 04:39 AM
After listening to the students talk about the role sports plays in teaching fair play and value of good sportsmanship, one of our citizens addressed the commissioners about her legitimate fiscal concerns and SHE WAS BOOED BY THE PARENTS. It was a flat out bully mentality against one woman who had the temerity to voice her concerns to the town council . I understand people being passionate about a cause but that was an embarrassment. In the America I live in everyone has the right to express their opinion in a public forum about matters that have a direct affect on their lives. Our students need to give their parents a lecture on fair play and respecting the rights and opinions of others. By the way, this turf decision was a done deal long before anyone stepped through those doors. Our elected officials are just getting started...
Pro-Haddonfield May 24, 2012 at 02:56 PM
The reason the speaker was booed was due to their tone. Opposing opinions are part of the process and to be expected. But, when you are voicing your opinion, due so in a respectful way. Coming to the microphone with an attitude does not generate the respect needed for others to consider an opinion. Most every person who came to the microphone with an opposing position or concern clearly had a chip on their shoulder. It was embarrassing. That is the disgrace.
R. Lloyd May 24, 2012 at 04:48 PM
"The reason the speaker was booed was due to their tone." It's a double standard to believe that your opponent must be absolutely respectful when you do not accord them the same treatment in return. Even if you don't like somebody's tone or attitude, the point of sportsmanship is rising above poor play and holding yourself to a higher standard. Since I wasn't at this meeting, though, I don't know if the speaker was truly rude or if her only crime was disagreeing with the pro-turf rally. I'm curious if booing is these parents' response to anyone whose tone or opinion they dislike--i.e., would they do this in their workplace at an office meeting? In a courtroom? PTA event? Outside of a stadium or the Jerry Springer show, there aren't many places this kind of etiquette would be ok. Did the commissioners or any other officials make it clear this behavior is unacceptable? If not, that is probably the most egregious disgrace of all.
Jack S May 24, 2012 at 08:12 PM
"Pro-Haddonfield," you speak of sportmanship, but you're off-base. If a speaker truly had an inappropriate "tone," then it was the job of the Commissioners to address that, and not you or your friends. Who annointed members of the audience umpires? Clearly you believe that the proponents of the turf are entitled to get what they want without any spirited opposition. This is consisent with the manner in which this project was jammed and rushed through without sufficient public notice. It showed a total disregard for due process and the opinions of the taxpaying public.
Jack S May 24, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Who are the major private donors for this project? It's interesting that they have so much clout. Does the donor list include individuals working for firms that will profit from this project (e.g., architectural, planning, construction, legal, etc.)? Do some of those individuals also make contributions to any of the elected officials in Haddonfield or CC?
Questionable Spending May 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Soon you see for yourself how people treat each other in a public meeting ( for all of you who did have to experience it first hand) and how the commissioners do not follow thier own "Code of Conduct" . The Civic Association will be posting the video of the meeting on their site soon. BTW. It was the "Dog Wars" that caused the code to be written and printed out at every meeting. A special interest group making demands and not folowing the rules... somethings don't change.
Maryann Campling May 25, 2012 at 12:41 AM
I honestly didn't feel that any of the oppositional speakers had an attitude or a chip on their shoulder. I believe that their delivery was borned out of a sense of frustration, as they are truly Pro ALL OF Haddonfield, not just a small segment. And, in my humble opinion, the most brilliant orator in the world would not have made a difference to the sports crowd or the Commission....this was a done deal before anyone opened their mouth.
Concerned taxpayer June 11, 2012 at 06:11 PM
The Open Space Trust Fund was promised by the commissioners for Bancroft land acquisition. Their recent resolution violates their October 2011 promise which was the basis for voter approval of the OSTF referendum: Statement of Borough Commissioners Regarding Open Space Trust Fund and Referendum October 6, 2011 As our citizens consider the referendum on the ballot this November to continue the Open Space Trust Fund Tax, we believe it is helpful and appropriate to advise the voters of our current intentions concerning the use of funds generated by that tax. If terms favorable to the Borough are proposed by Bancroft, it is our intention to use the funds generated by the Open Space Tax up to now and in the near future to fund the acquisition and improvement of portions of the Bancroft property for active and passive recreation. Should it become apparent that the Bancroft property will not be available, we will promptly reevaluate the uses of these open space funds and develop a plan for their expenditure for purposes authorized by the referendum. This statement is made by the present Board of Commissioners and cannot bind future Commissioners. Letitia G. Colombi Jeffrey Stephen Kasko Edward F. Borden, Jr.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »