Because Teaneck did not include restrooms/concession in its original Sportsplex design, it has been five years this 2019 Spring that those facilities have not been available to Sportsplex users. There has never been a good answer. But NOW – restrooms may not arrive soon!
Why? 3 fundamental reasons!

1) The Town applied for [2010] and got Bergen County Open Space money [2011] to repave/repair the Votee Park hockey roller rink. It got it by promising to maintain the rink for 10 years after paving completion [2014] — -but in December 2018 it awarded a contract that involves destroying/replacing that entire hockey rink with the gigantic Field House/Pavilion. Did the Township ever tell the County about its Field House plans for the hockey rink site. Apparently not – but now apparently the County knows.  The County would be within its contractual rights not to approve any destruction of the rink. Or it could require the immediate replacement of the hockey rink – presumably within Votee.  A senior official has acknowledged that the Township is scrambling to sort all this out.  And a new rink: 1) would be hard to relocate; and 2) almost surely would cost hundreds of thousands of $, a project for which the Township is unlikely to be eligible for new grants. What next?

3) Given 2011’s environmental fiasco about Votee Park contamination caused by “misinterpreted” environmental testing studies that shaped the conditions NJDEP’s set when giving approval in 2013 to build the Sportsplex, Teaneck now has to work out complicated commitments to NJDEP about any new project that involves moving Votee Park soil. (Last summer’s delay of the Votee splash pad is an example.) Although the Township has not until 3/8/2019 shared this issue publicly, the town knows it cannot now move soil under the current roller hockey rink – and replace it with the field house – until it does an environmental assessment and quite possibly defines/completes additional remediation — all under the NJDEP’s environmental authorities. Significant delay is almost inevitable – as are some costs for environmental experts.

3) The Township violated its own promises – in its specs given to Field House bidders – to notify the top 3 bidders within 60 days if more than 60 days would be was needed after bid opening [3/13/2018] before selecting the Field House Contractor. No such notice was provided to the top 3 bidders [verified by personal phone communication with the bidders’ project managers] . The project was not actually awarded for nearly 9 months. The neglected could have challenged the award, though the economics would not have justified doing so. However, If the project is now significantly delayed by the two items just listed, and the construction contract requires significant modification [i.e. more cost] or delay, the two bidders not originally notified about the delay may again have rights they can assert and cause the original bidding to be reopened.

————————————–

Let’s go back to make sure we have the entire story about how Teaneck took County $ to repair a hockey rink it promised to preserve for 10 years while simultaneously moving steadfastly to placc to place a 4300 square foot structure directly on top of the hockey rink.  Below see the diagram that demonstrates this.

Where can we look to see all of the actions taken by the Township can county that are claimed in this diagram.
We start with the data on the Township’s application & contract to use/& receipt of County Open $.
CLICK HERE to go to a page where the 2010 application and 2011 contract are found., how the Township carried out the rink rehabilitation and the certification and restatement of the Town’s commitments that the Engineer Hals gave the County in November 2014.

————————————-

But wait – Didn’t you hear the Township attorney tell the Council/listening public on 2/11/19 that it was a resident’s interference/misrepresentations to Green Acres that kept the township from completing the pavilion last summer?  Hm………check it out on the Town video

http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1528&Format=Agenda

go to hour/minute/second 9:11:15 to 9:14:19 and then
later after a council member asks for clarification, the attorney “clarifies”:  9:18:35 to 9:19:11

But did Powers raise his concerns with Teaneck officials first, or at all, about specific placement of the Field House in Votee Park?
Attorney Shahdanian said that he had not – but:
Check out the Town video for March 1, 2018.  Powers in public Council session – with 5 of 7 Council Members, Manager Broughton and Attorney Shahdanian in attendance cautioned the Town about proceeding with the bids until it has worked out key issues with Green Acres – to watch and listen click here

In his statement, Attorney Shahdanian indicates that members of the Public should NOT be taking their questions about GA restricted lands – to Green Acres.
What do Green Acres Regulations say about that?
“All questions concerning proposed uses of Green Acres restricted lands
should first be addressed to the Local Unit and then the appropriate Green Acres County Steward.”
https://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/openspace.html

Hmm …. Isn’t that precisely what Powers did?

The remainder of this post provides additional information about only the first 1) of these three impediments to near-term construction of the Votee Field House, that is,  whether the original March 13 bids were still valid in December 2018

What do the specifications given to bidders for the Field House define by when the Township must choose and award the contract?

In sum, the Towns bids document said the contract award had to be made by mid-May 2018 –
unless with the agreement of the three lowest bidders by mid-July.  And No Later!
But the contract – if now approved by Council – would be 5 MONTHS TOO LATE!

The above s is from the 2nd page of the General Provisions of the document all bidders for the project were sold

These BID provisions were clearly devised to be consistent with – and define – how Teaneck’s Field House specifications would apply the state law which governs all such municipal contracts. 
That state law – ironically cited by the proposed Council resolution – is as follows:

The proposed Council Field House resolution, (232-2018) claims that the bids can be extended to December 10 (see p. 76 of agenda packet)
because the lowest bidder says its OK –
BUT
The time to make the award could simply NOT legally be extended past mid-July 2018 – even if extended
and any extension past mid-May until only mid-July had to approved by the 3 lowest bidders – not just one bidder.

Bottom Line – Teaneck could not legally approve any contract from its March 13 bid opening after July
and other bidders could have legally challenged its doing so!