Did I hear that right? At 00:59:07, Josephine Posti says, "For Joint Steering..."
The School Board is already trying to get their mitts on the Recreation Bond mentioned at the last Commission meeting. Listen to Josephine Posti at 00:59:25 on last night's podcast. Mrs. Posti and Commissioner Brumfield "talked about having the recreation department and the athletic department share information regarding anticipated field and gym use needs, in light of the Commission discussions
regarding the proposed Recreation Bond."
This was after she spoke to Commissioner Brumfield about the education credit and the stormwater utility fee. When are they meeting? Are they meeting privately? What is going on?
14 comments:
Looks like Brumfield changed his mind again.
Is he now taking legal advice from Peterson instead of Weis?
David Huston
Rather then allow people to be distracted by guessing at what I discussed with Ms. Posti let me fill you in. We spoke privately over the phone a coupel of weeks ago. It was an unplanned call to get a few answers on issues that would effect both the Municipality and the SD.
We discussed the Stormwater fee and how the education credit might work. I advised Ms. Posti that any suggestions or concerns would probably be better dealt with by discussions between SD staff and Municipal staff. I believe those discussions did occur but I am not certain.
As to the rec bond Ms. Posti had been told that the municipality might try to hold the SD hostage on certain municipal fields to generate income. I advised her that I did not see any reason for us to be unreasonable especially given the steep discount that the rec department gets for SD gym usage. I advised that I would recommend that both the municipality and the SD worked together to develop appropriate fees for all field usage.
David Brumfield
Commissioner Brumfield, you may have noticed that the SD is doing a fine job spending our school tax dollars. Don't let them get our real estate tax dollars too. Fix our roads. According to this map, the large sink hole on Hoodridge is acceptable.
http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3397
We have gone from upgrades to the pool and locker rooms to talking to the SD about their needs.
As the Commissioner who has routinely objected to private joint steering meetings (an opinion I made clear to Raja, Ed and Jo) I see nothing wrong with Jo and Dave having a one-on-one conversation on any matter. That’s not a joint steering meeting. Has there been items that could’ve gone better if we had public joint steering meetings- yes I believe so. The Commission offer to begin those meetings still stand. But all Jo and Dave did was pick up a phone and talk, which is overall a hopeful sign for greater cooperation.
When you say “don’t let them get our real estate tax dollars too”- I know you know that o they of course already do. They get about 5x as much of our real estate tax as the Municipality does. The Commission couldn’t change that if we wanted to.
About roads: The Commission is currently debating my ordinance that we mandate that the Commission fund our street reconstruction each year at a level that would keep our streets at an “acceptable” OCI rating as determined by our Municipal Engineer. Dave has been a strong supporter of my efforts in this regard (which thus far does not seem to be receiving unanimous support). And keep in mind, this ordinance does not forbid an actual decrease in the level of “acceptability”- meaning currently our overall OCI index rating is at 72. This ordinance would just forbid the Commission short-changing our roads to a degree that dips our rating below 60 (which is the bottom of the “acceptability” rating).
Best,
Dan Miller
Any storm water credit for the school district comes out of residents' pockets instead of Jan Klein's padded school budget. The same applies to reduced inspection fees Miller helped Posti to reduce when he wasn't meeting behind closed doors.
As it turns out Posti didn't need a meeting with the MUNI she just made a phone call and did her damage. Now Miller and Brumfield don't want to be blamed for BACK DOOR GOVERNMENT. Too late Guys!!! You already did your damage on storm water and inspection fees. Now it is time to let the cheap lazy athletic supporters from the district get the Muni to finance another field on McNeily where the MUNI was promised the financing for the field would be paid for by the cheap lazy deadbeat athletic supporters. That is the same crap they pulled on the school board. Now our commissioners are being duped.
Celli didn't recommend another field when he recommended putting the HS tennis courts on the Markham playground.
Now we find the Muni gov't is just as corrupt as the Board.
Miller, don't think you get any credit for open government just because the other meetings advertised on the Muni website have the words "Public Welcome" written in the TV ad.
John Ewing
(My comment is in 2 parts)
John-
What “damage” came out of Jo and Dave's conversation? That he supported the storm water fee? It was his and Matt's idea- of course he supported it. That he supported the education credit? You do understand that the education credit is essentially a cost shift from the Muni to the SB right? You know that it “costs” the Muni basically nothing- right? Are you saying that the “damage” done was that the Commissioner who supported it all along anyhow, talked to a SB director who asked him about a credit, which he then helped put together that would cost the Muni nothing? This was “backdoor government”? I already did damage with the storm water fee? You do know that I voted against it, right? We had 3 votes relating to it and I always voted against it.
Inspection fees that I helped reduce? You do know that the Commission unanimously followed the solicitor and inspection offices cost structure in the end- right? Yes it was a bit lower than the original estimate but the dept heads explained how and why they were able to offer a more definitive total. Did you find something wrong with what they said? You must have reviewed that document to base your allegations on, right? Let me know what you think we undercharged them for and I will gladly review the matter publicly. And if I follow you, this watered down inspection fee was somehow agreed to by all five Commissioners in a secret deal to help the SB? Are you under the impression that the 3+ years I have been on the Commission has been a time of cohesive harmony on the Commission? Do you believe that when I was quoted in the Trib and caused a stir because of my negative reaction to the alleged suggestion by a SB member to get around fire code inspection costs, that I was trying to throw you off? And of course when Matt and I voted against the HS project for design reasons- that too was an effort to mask our secret love for it?
And my opposition to private joint steering meetings was just my way of telling elected officials “don’t worry we can chat by phone and maybe skype?” I think there is a reader of this blog or two who can assure you quite differently of that. Should Commissioners refuse to talk to any SB member no matter what until the SB agrees to public meetings? Should we de-friend them on facebook? Should I run the other way if I see a SB member at First Friday or the Ultraparty? Is that really what you would have done when you were elected? If there were multiple elected officials involved I could question something, but otherwise I just disagree with you.
(sorry 3 parts, this is the 2nd)
I get it John you believe that someone or group or the entirety of youth sports in MTL mislead elected officials in the past. I do acknowledge that there is a variety of stories from about 10 years ago that seem to contradict. You do realize though that most likely whatever you are referring to has little to with the average family who brings their kid to go play soccer or whatever? Are you perhaps painting to broad on that- maybe you should at least exclude all parents whose children weren’t born in 2003? But ok, I get it you are upset.
Am I right to assume that you agreed with my criticism of the McNeilly purchase when I spoke at the 2007 candidate forum? Am I right to assume that you agreed with me when I spoke against the $10-12m pool project that I called “Sandcastle South” or when I refused to issue the $8m of bond designed to start the project in 2008? Did you support my efforts to work with solicitors in evaluating ways to divest ourselves of McNeilly? Or asked the engineer to come up with possible commercial and private development schematics, or met with Commissioners to come up with alternatives on how to deal with pool and field issues, or met with our state rep, state senator, and our congressman’s office to talk about the roadblocks we were finding? Do you believe that the time I spent doing that over the years was just a smokescreen?
I assume that you now know that despite all of that we cannot get rid of McNeilly due a a federal restriction in a grant we received unless we then purchase another 23 acres of land that we don’t currently own to use for rec purposes. We also tried to negotiate the meaning of “rec”- but we cannot move Public Works there, we cannot move the leaf collection operation there, we cannot build a roof simulator there for the Fire Dept, etc. We are legally and practically stuck with it for rec use only- end of story.
If you are arguing that we do nothing with it and just continuing paying off the debt for another 12 years - while I disagree with that- I except that as a position. I would note though that we are already doing that for another piece of property- Twin Hills Park- that we spent a million dollars for in Scott also for fields. Also not done. (Hence my position that we should not purchase any more land until we make use of what he currently own.)
I believe that we have ourselves to blame for McNeilly. The Commission rightly or wrongly in 2003 believed it to be the best option to deal with the fields problem. That doesn’t alleviate those who disagree from the responsibility of publicly attending a meeting and saying so- and neither you nor I did that. In fact when the purchase was approved unanimously (by a Republican majority Commission) no one rose to complain. I know this because I have the minutes from 2002, 2003 and 2004 on my desk. (In the same period the Commission also unanimously spent $5m on the Muni building and backed the $1.2m for the south garage.) You did however attend a meeting shortly after the purchase of McNeilly but not complain about the purchase. Instead you were there because you were upset that the Manager had suggested the Commission review privatizing the golf course. This was brought up again by the 2010 Land Use committee and even though it sits on 90+ acres, and that many people in MTL don’t know where it is, and that you can only enter it through Castle Shannon, and that it is at or near the bottom in rec attendance (depending on how you calculating rounds played versus people), I am not suggesting that we revisit that right now. What I am suggesting is that the real time to fight McNeilly was in 2003 and you and I missed that opportunity.
(3rd part)
Instead of calling the Commission corrupt why don’t you just ask if we are revisiting the ideas of increased fees and extended maintenance agreements (yes to both)? Why not ask if we are supportive of getting a sizable buy in for capital from sports associations (yes and the plan already calls for a couple hundred thousand dollars of items paid for by them).
John you know I have never refused your phone call or ignored your emails. Personally (and correct me if I am wrong) I do not believe you will ever support fields in this town. That is your right and reasonable people can disagree. But we need solutions to issues that do not involve time machines and I am committed to bringing an efficient end to as many issues as possible before I leave. I don't know how much more the debate can benefit from our online discussion- feel free to call me or lets set up a coffee any time.
Best,
Dan
Gee...after all of that, I might want to have coffee with Dan Miller.
There are points that I agree with in his 3 comment blocks, and those that I do not. Let me focus on one for now...McNeilly.
My family and I hiked through there one evening this week, and I've got to say, that someone is grossly under-estimating the cost to turn that into atheleic fields. We went up hill and down hill and through deeply wooded paths. Just to remove the trees would cost a fortune.
It's bad enough that we have the eyesore that is supposed to be an LA Fitness on Castle Shannon Blvd. Let's spend a lot of money to remove trees, then have the budget be shot so that nothing else can be done. Great idea, kids!
I'm glad everyone with an engineering or finance degree is thinking this through. At least I hope they are and are not just saying what they think people want to hear.
Dave and Jo having a one-on-one phone conversation may not seem like a joint steering meeting to the Commission, but "Joint Steering" was an agenda item and Jo gave her report as such. Seems like Josephine chalked up another one.
Mr. Miller,
The municipality only publishes minutes back to 10-JAN-2005 on the website.
Can you please share with us the older minutes you are referring to?
David Huston
Elaine: Jo and Dave having a one-on-one conversation does not seem like a JSM to me- I don't speak for the "Commission." Feel free to check with the others and see what they think. However, the argument I made for public JSMs was based on the Sunshine Law and my general belief in transparent government. I can assure you that having a one-on-one discussion does not violate the law. Nor does it violate any policy that I am aware of for either body. If anyone can prove me wrong I will gladly accept it. Whether or not the SB agenda should say "JS" or whatever is a fine question to ask Jo about. But if she called me I would answer the phone. (By the way, if we somehow forbade all one-on-one contact, how would you police that? How would that comply with freedom of association? It is unworkable and probably unconstitutional.)
Liz: Why don't we agree to operate off of the presumption that Gateway actually knows there are a lot of trees on that property. Here is my solution, the budget lets say is $3.1m- if the numbers are high then cut down the scope, i.e. no regulation baseball field for example. If the numbers come back in low maybe add a playground area, dog park/walking area or whatever. The big thing is to cut and grade that field area for productive use. Once that is done any combination of activities can be up there. Look at the Veterans project- bids came back high, we are retooling a new bid to allow for a phased approach and some minor scope changes. Plan C will mean large scope changes. If Gateway's numbers are horribly off then that is an issue in my book. But they have proven themselves to be more than competent in my tenure. And I have a track record of holding our professional services accountable for issues in the past- once ending a 50 year relationship due to questions.
Elaine: Your question about addressing rec issues now is in my opinion the only real question. The projects are sound otherwise. If you add the cost of the fields in as well we have taken a roughly $13 to $15 million project cost for both items and have cut that to about $6.5 to $7 million (50% reduction?). I would give you the monthly cost but I know you asked me not to. Besides from just not doing them does anyone really believe a cheaper better option is coming? And given all the time I (and the Commission) have spent over the last three years or so on this, if someone is sitting on a better suggestion that addresses our needs please let me know. But if there aren't four Commissioners who agree so be it. I can just promise you that the issue will cycle back around like it has periodically for the last 17 years or so since the town bought Twin Hills Park and I truly think most people will look back then at our plan and think it was the best option.
Can we find a middle ground between spending 3 million on fields and doing nothing? Based on the location of the land I think Brookline and Baldwin kids will enjoy the fields more than Mt. Lebo kids. Why not go back to a presentation made by Eric Milliron and turn the land into walking and biking trails. Maybe add a frisbee golf gourse. Things that will make the land useful, but don't cost 3 million that we dont really have. I would rather that money be spent on roads and sidewalks. The people I know who are looking for houses are not looking at Lebo and saying we are not movig there because they dont have enough fields. They are saying look at the roads and sidewalks. If they are falling apart what does that say about the community.
Chris: I do admire your usual effort to constructively move a ball.
You are right we could still use McNeilly in some regard, most likely spending a fair amount to actually do the road, parking with some grading and such. Not sure the cost of that but for arguments sake lets say its $1m. The problem still remains as to how to solve the field issue.
As you will probably recall Joe D. and I explored a couple of possibilities- such as putting fields at Public Works and Dave B. came up with the idea of putting a small field at the bottom of Twin Hills Park if we could make a deal on access. The Land Use committee also came up with an idea to buy the church property by Brafferton and expand and improve that field. Course PWs is impossible now and THP and Brafferton have a cost to their own. So we would fall back on the idea of turfing and improving existing fields (such as Wildcat). Lets ballpark turfing Wildcat at $1m too. (I would note that this option included the SD turfing Mellon too but lets leave that out for now.) Within 10 years or so the turf on Wildcat would need to be replaced- thereby reaching the $3m that we would be trying to avoid for constructing 3 new grass fields and more at McNeilly. Plus of course we would be on a 10 year cycle of turf million dollar replacement.
I admit that some can argue for that but for me it just doesn't make much sense...
Post a Comment