Turf Field Supporter We now have 3 turf fields that get used almost non-stop. That means more kids participating in more activities and being more active
Could we please stop with the turf field bashing, or at least get some facts straight? First of all, the turf at Maple is still there and still being used so I have no idea where “we only got 7 years out of Maple” comes from. Secondly, how could it be “way too much money” when the field at Maple was paid for with private money? And in regards to the loss of the 90 foot diamond after moving the track to BF that falls on the past Village Council. The Master Parks and Field plan called for all of the upgrades/changes that were made including moving the undersized/unusable track from RHS to BF. Almost all of the upgrades/changes were to BOE properties. The only component in that phase of the plan that fell to the the Village of Ridgewood was to renovate/expand Lower Hawes so to accomodate a 90 foot diamond to make up for the “lost” diamond at BF. They never did it. So now the focus is on Schedler.
We now have 3 turf fields that get used almost non-stop. That means more kids participating in more activities and being more active. That is a positive in my book. If we had not passed the bond and we still had the old facilities the RHS Stadium Field would be gettng used a maximum of 12 to 15 times a year instead of dozens of times a week. The same goes for Stevens. I actually disagree that the “turf looks nice.” I’d rather see real grass, I think it looks better but the reality of the situation is that with our limited number of fields and the sheer numbers of children we have involved in sports from the youth level thru the HS there is no alternative if we want safe, usable, fields. In fact I would bet we’ll be seeing a couple of more fields “turfed” in the next few years.
Tag: Turf town
RBSA: How to Lose Your 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status (Without Really Trying)
RBSA: How to Lose Your 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status (Without Really Trying)
It’s easy for a nonprofit organization to maintain its tax exempt status—and can be just as easy to lose it.
Each year, the IRS revokes the tax-exempt status of more than 100 501(c)(3) organizations. Organizations recognized as exempt from federal income tax under this section of the Internal Revenue Code include private foundations as well as churches, educational institutions, hospitals, and many other types of public charities.
But these organizations can maintain their tax-exempt status if they heed the rules in six areas:
Private benefit/inurement
Lobbying
Political campaign activity
Unrelated business income (UBI)
Annual reporting obligation
Operation in accord with stated exempt purpose(s)
(Note: The following subjects are described briefly. If you want more information about each area, visit the Tax-Exempt Status Virtual Workshop on the IRS educational micro-site, www.stayexempt.irs.gov.
1. PRIVATE BENEFIT/INUREMENT
Private benefit: “A 501(c)(3) organization’s activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose,” said Richard Crom, Staff Assistant for IRS Exempt Organizations Customer Education and Outreach office. “Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization (other than the 501(c)(3) organization) more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one.”
Inurement: The concept of inurement states that no part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of a private shareholder or individual who, because of the person’s relationship to the organization, has an opportunity to control or influence its activities.
“A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization),” said Crom. “Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees.” He added that prohibited inurement includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.
If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in inurement or substantial private benefit, the organization risks losing its exemption. Additionally, insiders guilty of inurement may be subject to excise tax.
2. LOBBYING
When an organization contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or when the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation, it is lobbying. “501(c)(3) organizations are allowed to do some lobbying,” said Melaney Partner, acting director for the IRS Exempt Organizations Customer Education and Outreach office. “However, if lobbying activities are substantial an organization risks losing its tax exempt status.” She added that an organization can elect to have its lobbying activities measured by an “expenditure test” to determine whether or not the activities are substantial. This is known as a 501(h) election, so-named for the section of the Internal Revenue Code where the rules for the expenditure test are spelled out.
“By making this election, an organization agrees to not spend more than a certain percentage of its total expenses on lobbying activities,” Partner said. “The other way to measure lobbying activity is to determine whether, based on all of the pertinent facts and circumstances, an organization’s lobbying comprises a substantial part of its overall activities. This substantial part test is a more subjective method compared to the more mathematical, objective expenditure test.”
Organizations must file Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Sec. 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, in advance to be subject to the expenditure test.
3. POLITICAL ACTIVITY
All section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate running for public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns (federal, state and local level). “Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office,” said Crom, who speaks to non-profit organizations on a regular basis about tax-compliance issues. “The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.”
Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, but they can’t engage in activities that favor or oppose any candidate for public office. Whether an activity is political campaign intervention depends on all the facts and circumstances.
“The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves as individuals,” said Crom. “Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.”
4. UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME (UBI)
Another activity that can potentially jeopardize an organization’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is having too much income generated from activities that are unrelated to the exempt function of the organization. This income comes from a regularly-carried-on trade or business that is not substantially related to the organization’s exempt purpose. “An organization that produces unrelated business income as a result of its unrelated trade or business may have to pay taxes on that income,” said Partner. “Income-producing activity must meet three conditions before the income is potentially taxable.”
First, the activity must be a trade or business. Second, the trade or business must be regularly carried on. Third, the business activity is not substantially related to an organization’s exempt purpose. In other words, the activity itself does not contribute importantly to accomplishing the exempt purpose, other than through the production of funds.
Some of the most common UBI generating activities include: the sale of advertising space in weekly bulletins, magazines, journals or on the organization’s website; the sale of merchandise and publications when those items being sold do not have a substantial relationship to the exempt purpose of the organization; provision of management or other similar services to other organizations; and, even some types of fundraising activities. Generally, organizations that generate unrelated business income should file Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, and pay tax on the income.
“An organization must be careful generating money in activities that do not further its specific exempt purposes,” said Partner. “In addition to the taxability of income from unrelated activities, if those activities are substantial in relation to your exempt purpose activities, you may be putting your exempt status in jeopardy.”
5. ANNUAL REPORTING OBLIGATION
While 501(c)(3) public charities are exempt from Federal income tax, most of these organizations have information reporting obligations under the Internal Revenue Code to ensure they continue to be recognized as tax-exempt. In addition, they may also be liable for unrelated business income tax as described above, employment tax, excise taxes, and certain state and local taxes.
Public charities generally file either Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, Form 990- EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or submit online Form 990-N, Electronic Notice (e-Postcard) for Tax-Exempt Organizations not Required To File Form 990 or 990-EZ.
“The type of form or notice required is generally determined by the public charity’s gross receipts and the value of its assets,” said Crom. For tax years ending on or after December 31, 2010, an organization may file Form 990-EZ if its gross receipts are normally less than $200,000, and if its total assets are less than $500,000 at the end of the year. If the organization’s gross receipts are $200,000 or greater, or if its assets at the end of the tax year are $500,000 or more, the organization generally must file Form 990. If the organization’s annual gross receipts are generally $50,000 or less, the organization may in lieu of Form 990 or 990-EZ submit online new Form 990-N, Electronic Notice (e-Postcard) for Tax-Exempt Organizations not Required to File Form 990 or 990-EZ.
There are some public charities that are not required to file Forms 990 or 990-EZ, including churches and certain church-affiliated organizations. Organizations can learn about filing and new requirements applicable to supporting organizations at the IRS Nonprofits and Charities website.
“The IRS will remove many organizations previously recognized as tax-exempt from its Master File due to provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006,” said Crom. “The act requires that all tax-exempt organizations—except churches and church-related organizations—must file an annual return with the IRS. And if they don’t do so for three consecutive years, they automatically lose their exempt status.”
The IRS conducted an extensive outreach effort over the past several years to remind tax-exempt organizations about this new legal requirement — and to file on time. “There were many organizations that we still did not hear from and we will post a list of those revoked organizations on the IRS website in February 2011,” said Crom.
If an organization finds that its exempt status has been automatically revoked due to non-filing and it wants its tax-exempt status reinstated, it will need to reapply and pay the appropriate user fee. For more information on that process, visit the Charities and Non- Profits pages on the IRS website.
6. OPERATION IN ACCORD WITH STATED EXEMPT PURPOSE(S)
“If you stop doing all or a significant amount of the exempt activities you told the IRS you were going to do in your original application for exemption—you could lose your exemption,” said Crom. “If your organization’s direction has changed, let us know. It could prevent future problems.” He added that organizations must adhere to the guidelines inherent in these six areas. “If they do this, they will maintain their tax-exempt status and continue enjoying the benefits associated with it,” said Crom.
To receive periodic updates on current Exempt Organization issues of interest, visit www.irs.gov and sign up to receive the EO Update by e-mail.
https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/How_to_Lose_Your_Tax_Exempt_Status.shtml
RBSA Reputation takes a big Hit after threats made Against Ridgewood blog
Don’t pay attention to those real nutty posters, trying to hurt people..
Tell them the Mayor of Robert St. …. will find out who the are…. and reverse the threat.
Too bad that the RBSA has adopted such “wiseguy” tactics.
It can’t be Gary, there are no misspellings…..
Ouch–apparently the truth hurts. Hear anybody denying RBSA’s questionable financial practices or demonstrating that the accusations are not correct?
RBSA Rich Boys Social Association
Did Albano actually think that running for Village Council would be a walk in the woods?
Having fun yet Gary?
Reader says I am a bit turned off by the whole astroturf the world thing
Reader says I am a bit turned off by the whole astroturf the world thing
Jim is “always available”….except, we have learned, when it is time to vote in local elections….
I actually like the mayor and would want to support his choice but I just can’t pull the lever for someone who doesn’t bother to vote.
I am also a bit turned off by the whole astroturf the world thing. Enough already. So they play on grass and dirt. At least it produces oxygen and helps cool the earth instead of being just more pavement.
Reader says Albano Supporters Continue their Campaign of Negativity
The letters to the editor in today’s Ridgewood News in support of Albano were interesting. A couple had nasty rants about a woman who was not even running and the others praised him for his service to youth sports.
If you are going to write in supoort of a candidate, stick to the subject. Writing negative comments about a resident does not make Albano look any better.
Keep it positive. I associate the negativity with your candidate.
Ridgewood moves ahead with $41,000 Maple Park restoration
Ridgewood moves ahead with $41,000 Maple Park restoration
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 19, 2014, 10:47 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The Village Council signed off on a cleanup of Maple Park during its meeting Wednesday night.
The turf, which has become hardened from years of storm and floodwater damage, will undergo a complete restoration following a second round of bids on the project.
The cleanup was delayed last year, when the village rejected the sole bid it received for the project. A second round of bids was sought, and the contract was awarded Wednesday to LandTek.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/Ridgewood_moves_ahead_with_Maple_Park_restoration.html#sthash.br5Ipffe.dpuf
Bid to be awarded for Ridgewood turf cleanup
Bid to be awarded for Ridgewood turf cleanup
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 18, 2014, 10:09 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood Council members expressed satisfaction over the second round of bids received to clean the flood-damaged turf at Maple Park, and they are expected to award the project contract this week to the LandTek Group.
In December, the council rejected the lone proposal received for the artificial turf cleanup job after concerns were raised that the initial bid process might have been flawed. At the time, Councilman Tom Riche noted several vendor complaints, some of which suggested that the village advertisement “was misleading” or that the municipality did not distribute bid packets in a timely manner.
As a result, the council opted to open a second bidding process, which ended last month.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/245978341_Bid_to_be_awarded_for_Ridgewood_turf_cleanup.html#sthash.qyddiTx9.dpuf
Reader says to save money, quit buying land and taking it off the tax rolls to make soccer fields
Will the Zabriskie Schedler House, in Ridgewood become the next turf field
Reader says to save money, quit buying land and taking it off the tax rolls to make soccer fields
If you want to save money, quit buying land and taking it off the tax rolls to make soccer fields. The horse farm, if its worth the $10 million we got hosed for at the time of purchase, equates to about $250,000 per year of taxes no longer coming in.
Citizens park was paid for with donations from long time residents, whose names appear on the placque. It was for a PARK, not a soccer field, with obnoxious loud people blocking up the traffic there, along with the nite lights. Its disgusting how a nice green park became a brown mudfield to accommodate the newbies here.
Turf King endorses Aronsohn, Hauck and Puciarell criticizes police and firemen, attacking salary and benefits
Turf king endorses Aronsohn, Hauck and Puciarell criticizes police and firemen, attacking salary and benefits
Moments ago, after a long day at work I sat down to review my personal emails, check school info and sports emails, kids schedule, etc. In the mix was an email from Brian Abdoo who I know from a number of sports programs my kids are involved in. I began reading the Abdoo’s endorsement of candidates, Aronsohn, Hauck and Puciarelli. The more I read the sicker I became. Abdoo has thoroughly disgusted me with his hypocritical rhetoric.
From 2009-2010 Brian Abdoo repeatedly endorsed the multi-million dollar controversial turf projects at Stadium and Stevens fields. As we all know the turf has been an unmitigated disaster resulting in Ridgewood Taxpayers incurring the burden of costly repairs.
Now, this same Brian Abdoo wants to express concern over taxes? He attempts to peddle Paul Aronsohn’s gimmicky zero based budgeting. Even my 6th grader understands built-in inherent cost increases. Abdoo states he wants more transparency and Village Council should “open the books”. The fact that Brian Abdoo is ignorant should not persuade anyone to his argument. Brian, the books are open. They are a matter of public record and are available for anyone to review. Brian, feel free to visit APP DataUniverse if there is anything you need to know. However, Mr. Abdoo, while doing your research you likely will not find the value of your candidate Aronsohn’s health care costs, at village taxpayer expense, for the past four years. Mr. Abdoo, while Mr. Aronsohn is busy telling you he wants to help Ridgewood Taxpayers, he has been busy helping himself for four years
.
Brian Abdoo proceeds to attack our police and firemen, attacking their salary and benefits. If this is such a concern why on earth would he support Aronsohn who voted for each and every raise, and contract , pertaining to the police & fire department. Maybe he prefers regionalized police and fire departments like Hauck and Puciarelli. Hauck announced the savings for each village taxpayer during the debate: a whopping $ 285 each! For that money I will sleep better at night with Village police and firemen.
Abdoo professes the revitalization of Ridgewood downtown and how committed each of his threesome is to this goal. Mr. Abdoo, Paul Aronsohn is the Council liaison to the Chamber of Commerce. What has he been doing for the past four years? Shopping at the mall? And Hauck and Puciarelli prefer a more urbanized Ridgewood. If they want urbanization let them move to Hoboken.
Best for last, Abdoo states each of these candidates is committed to helping Valley and residents to negotiate a compromise to allow for expansion. For goodness sake, Brian, where has Al Puciarelli been? He has been a member of the planning board forever. Hauck didn’t speak of compromise when she endorsed the massive expansion, as is, over and over again. Valley Hospital is not interested in compromise. The only time that was suggested by Valley was at the last Village Council hearing. Audrey Meyers, seeing the writing on the wall, begged council to hold off their vote so Valley could develop a compromise. Seriously, where was the compromise for six years?
Mr. Abdoo, reconsider and bullet for Killion and Shinizuka before we are in another turf-like drowning mess attributable to the likes of you.
Lets Turf Habernickel
>
Lets Turf Habernickel
Why is Habernickel never an option for a Turf field? With stands and a concession.
At least I see teams using the turf fields on the east side. You see maybe 15 kids a time on the precious Habernickel.
Please lets sell it to a developer to pay for all the services we have lost and get the town in a better finanical position.
Turf Field Safety : GMAX TEST RESULTS ARE IN

>Turf Field Safety : GMAX TEST RESULTS ARE IN
Gmax testing is a standard measure of the safety of athletic fields. It involves measuring the shock absorbing properties of a playing surface and comparing the results to an industry standard set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Harder surfaces will increase the amount of impact absorbed by the body, which results in a higher Gmax rating. Scores over 200 are considered dangerous and increase the risk of life threatening head injuries. Preferred Gmax scores should be in the 120-150 range.
Things to Know About Gmax:
-The cumulative nature of the effects of head injury make it important to monitor the impact-related
-characteristics of sports surfaces.
-The higher the Gmax value, the lower the shock-absorbing properties of the surface.
-Gmax measurements are a fundamental tool of athletic field safety testing.
-Gmax is also useful in assessing the playability of a field; an athlete’s ability to cut and turn on the surface, the -rotational resistance and consistent footing it provides, and the support it gives without sacrificing speed and -quickness.
https://www.g9turf.com/pages/maintenance_gmax.aspx
GMax test results are in:
Click here to view the Baseball GMax Test Results : https://tinyurl.com/3rv6f8x
Click here to view the Football GMax Test Results : https://tinyurl.com/3fl2zzd
Click here to view the Stadium Field GMax Test Results. https://tinyurl.com/3mbpwl8
A new facilities and fields hotline has been established for non-emergency concerns regarding the school district’s buildings and grounds. To report a concern, please call 201-670-2700, ext. 10548 or e-mail rpsfacilities@ridgewood.k12.nj.us.
Another $21k Down The Brook : Turf field’s ‘wrinkle release’ costs $21,000
>Ridgewood turf field’s ‘wrinkle release’ costs $21,00
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
BY KELLY EBBELS
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Staff Writer
The final repair of the wrinkles left on new turf installed on Ridgewood High School’s (RHS) Stadium Field after flooding this month cost the school district about $21,000, Superintendent Daniel Fishbein disclosed at a Board of Education (BOE) meeting Monday night.
Answering an initial question from BOE member Laurie Goodman, who asked for a cost estimate of the cleanup of the fields following heavy rains on April 16, Fishbein responded that the cleanup was being conducted by the district’s contracted custodial company, “so there’s no additional costs.”
However, when The Ridgewood News questioned Fishbein during the public comment portion of the meeting about the cost of hiring an outside company, LandTek, to repair the turf wrinkles, the superintendent reported that the field repair in fact cost about $21,000.
“I’m sorry. There was a cost for LandTek. I neglected to say that,” he said, adding that he considered the repair of the wrinkles a “correction” and not a “clean-up” cost.
April showers leave wrinkles on Ridgewood fields
>April showers leave wrinkles on Ridgewood fields
Monday, April 25, 2011
BY KELLY EBBELS
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Staff Writer
Another weekend of heavy rains and flooding from the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook damaged the artificial turf fields at Ridgewood High School, and prompted a new flurry of concern from neighboring residents.
A district worker cleans Stevens Field. The district hired a company to clean the fields after they were flooded in March, but decided this month to do the cleanup in-house.
Consecutive days of rain in March also left the fields flooded, and a cleanup effort following those storms was still under way when recent rainfall dropped on the village.
The cleanup last week was proceeding differently at village and school fields than in March. After paying a private contractor to clean the fields last month ($21,000 for the RHS fields and $9,500 for Maple Park Field), both the village and school district chose to use in-house employees last week. The village and school district rented a sweeper to clean the fields.
https://www.northjersey.com/news/120609369_Rainfall_again_damages_Ridgewood_sports_fields.html
Lightgate: Plans for the fields and being informed, the discussions and plans were available
>Lightgate: Plans for the fields and being informed, the discussions and plans were available
This has nothing to do with the “Inside” or the “Outside” or being disinteresed, it has to do with being informed and being informed works both ways. You have to keep yourself informed as much as if not more than someone needs to inform you. In regards to the plans for the fields and being informed, the discussions and plans were available and relayed to the “outside” for a very long period of time.
During the planning of the Parks and Fields Master Plan in addition to numerous open forums and press coverage there was a mailing that went to every home in Ridgewood explaining what was being planned and looking for input on the plan as well as priorities from residents. That plan was/is the basis for the fields and gymnasium upgrades as well as upgrades/renovations for parks and other recreation facilities in Ridgewood. It didn’t happen over night, there were years of planning and discussions and numerous notices and reports. The pro’s and con’s of artificial turf and lights were discussed extensively and the turf was even a topic at a Village Council meeting which was televised and reported on by both the Ridgewood News and the Record as the plan was reaching it’s final stage.
In addition to that the BOE had (and still has) the plans for each of the projects both at the BOE office and on their website. Each plan was described in detail with the scope of the plan and projected costs outlined. There were mailings sent out with information on the plans as the BOE was trying to generate interest in the bond referendum. The BOE and Administration spent numerous hours at coffees, meetings with residents, open forums at schools as well as being available at Starbuck’s to discuss the plans leading up to the voting on the referendum. The vast majority of the negative feedback on the referendum dealt with the upgrade to the athletic facilities. The Ridgewood News ran a cover story seemingly every week for a year on the topic and the different facets of the referendum.
A couple of the immediate neighbors of RHS were incessant in their criticism of putting turf on Stevens and the RHS Field. The detail they went into at numerous meetings including the hearing with the DEP left no stone unturned, yet now they are claiming they didn’t know that lights were going to be installed? C’mon, do you really think anyone believes that they could dissect the plans to the point of knowing the physical characteristics of the pellets that fill the turf and not know that there were light stantions in the plans? That is hard to believe.
You can put all the “Outside” people you want on a committee and what will you accomplish? Are you going to put one person from every elementary school, one from each middle school and one from the HS on each and every committee in town? How unweildy would that be? What would you accomplish? Nine new committee members who would only bring their personal view to a problem with no concept or concern for the greater good. The Ridge representative fighting with the Somerville rep getting interupted by the GW rep arguing with the BF rep, I doubt that would be a positive for anyone. And the idea of requiring someone from each elementary district to sit on the BOE isn’t going to work either as we can’t get quality people to run for the few seats we have now. Who in their right mind would want to sit on the BOE and spend the time involved dealing with the Federal Gov’t, the State Gov’t, Bergen County, and listen to the non stop complaining from residents every time they make a decision?
As many people have said before; if you think you have better ideas and can make some changes; run, but don’t claim there was some conspiracy or you were uninformed or the information wasn’t available. The information was available and it was dessiminated. There was no conspiracy. Maybe some missed what was going to happen but they’ve got to accept some responsiblity for that.
$48 million dollar Referendum :safety of the turf at Maple Park
>PJ,
I noticed that Laurie Goodman’s blog and the Ridgewood Patch both featured a report from REAC about the safety of the turf at Maple Park. The Patch even provided the report on its site. Goodman had a the link
(https://ridgewoodreac.com/SustainableFields.html). I spent some time over the weekend going through this report. It is the most informative and objective I have seen on the topic. There were a number of things that I found surprising. It basically shows that the people, who have been critical of artificial turf for environmental or safety reasons have been wrong, at least at Maple Park. I was shocked to learn that the design actually has benefits for the flood plain.
This report is very timely with the referendum vote tomorrow. Why didn’t you feature this report on your blog? This is the kind of information I would expect you to bring to our attention. You let us down on this one.