Bernards Township board rejects turf bids, delays decision on 85-foot lights after neighbor protests

The Bernards Township School District Board of Education on Monday unanimously voted to reject all bids for the varsity athletic field project and directed staff to rebid the work with alternatives after residents raised concerns about drainage, light pollution and amplified noise.

The vote followed more than an hour of public comment from residents who live adjacent to the varsity soccer field and Lee Field. Several residents urged the board to remove or delay the planned four 85-foot light poles and asked for an independent review of photometric plans and drainage details.

“ I would ask that I’d be given the chance to review the bid package before it goes out,” said Richard Hawkins of 67 Woodstone Road, who told the board he has an environmental engineering background and that the proposed culvert would “dump the water directly onto my property.”

Susan McGowan, a Homestead Village resident, urged the board to “Remove the lights entirely from the varsity soccer field project,” and called for enforceable rules about amplified sound and a hotline for residents to report problems.

Superintendent Markarian told the audience the board would give residents more information and make updated plans available online. “We can put those on the district website and make an obvious link for anybody that wants to look at updated plans,” he said, and said the engineer who prepared the plans will be asked to attend the next board meeting.

Board members said they heard four recurring concerns during public comment: that the proposed lights would create light pollution for Homestead Village and other nearby homes; that drainage changes could concentrate runoff toward private yards; that amplified public-address systems and late-hour field use have created persistent noise problems; and that the lighting expense should be weighed against other capital needs while the district is working through operational budget cuts.

Board member Dave stated the board—s immediate action: “We are gonna be rejecting it today,” referring to the bid package currently before the board. Multiple board members said the rebid will include alternatives that separate turf installation and drainage work (which most speakers supported) from the lighting option.

Several residents asked the board to consider alternatives such as updating Lee Field—s existing lighting fixtures, installing protective landscaping, and adding stronger, enforceable facility-use policies that specify hours and who may operate amplification equipment.

Board members and staff responded with a list of next steps: post updated engineering and photometric plans on the district website; invite the project engineer to the next board meeting to answer neighborhood questions; ask policy committee to review facility-use rules (hours, amplified sound, enforcement and contacts for after-hours complaints); and rebid the project with an explicit lighting-as-an-alternative line item and options for conduit/footings only.

At Thursday—s facilities and finance reports, administrators confirmed the low bids received earlier were noncompliant or over budget; the board voted to reject those bids and to return to bid with revised specifications. The board emphasized that turf and drainage improvements are intended to allow more daytime field use by students but that a final decision about permanent night lighting is deferred.

Neighbors cited specifics during public comment: a 28-fixture design on four 85-foot poles (estimated in public remarks at approximately $356,000 for lighting as presented in the bid materials), proposed field-hours expanded to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., and a retention/overflow detail near the southwest corner of the soccer field that several speakers said will concentrate flow toward their backyards. Board members said drainage design questions will be clarified with the engineer and staff before the next bid.

The board also said it will consider whether to require conduits or footings in the current contract so future lights could be added later without requiring major excavation, but several board members said they personally prefer delaying permanent lights until field use data are collected after turf installation.

The board closed public comment after multiple speakers and then proceeded with routine agenda items. The turf and lighting project will return to the board with revised bid documents and additional engineering information; the engineer has been asked to attend the next meeting to respond to neighbors— technical questions.

Votes at a glance: the board voted unanimously to reject all bids received for the varsity field project and to direct staff to rebid with alternatives separating turf/drainage work from the lighting option.

Less critical public business at the meeting included committee reports and routine approvals.