Do we want to spend $3.1 million developing property on McNeiily Road? I have had a couple of emails asking, "Where exactly is McNeilly Park?" After David Huston and his daughter were kind enough to show me last week, I can tell you. If you are looking at the Citgo gas station on McNeilly Road, the entrance to the park is to the left of the parking lot. It is very easy to walk around since the Municipality (or someone) has been cutting a pathway in the grass.
I imagine a traffic light will be needed at that intersection now. Is that Brookline, Baldwin, or Mt. Lebanon?
According to the Trib, parents and coaches of Mt. Lebanon athletes are interested in developing McNeilly Park.
14 comments:
PART 1 - McNeilly Field
Beyond the absence of necessary & appropriate Muni oversight and due diligence associated with the Muni purchase & grant seeking/receiving for McNeilly "Park", there are six (6) other factors that youth field sports lobbyists avoid recognizing that make this issue very, very aggrevating :
1) There is no real or actual shortage of athletic fields in Lebo. The perceived and claimed shortage is related to parents/coaches not being able to (a) obtain the particular field they want, (2) at the particular time of day they want, (3) on the particular day or days they want...all 3 conditions ! If they can't have what they precisely want, they claim there is a shortage of fields. Its like 3 different groups want Wildcat at precisely 5:00 pm. on Wednesdays from June thru August.....when 2 groups don't get it they claim there is a field shortage. There is a lack of scheduling flexibility, due in large part I believe, to the apparent *requirement* for both coaches and parents to be present with the student athletes at all times. Parents/coaches claim they can't be present 7:30am. - 5:30 pm. weekdays during the summer because of work...fine, let the kids practice without all or just some of the parents/adults present at 4:00 pm. In my generation during the '40's, we played baseball and soccer on vacant lots...there were no athletic fields, and there were no dads to coach or watch because they were at war or working 6 full, 10-hour days/week; and, we walked or rode bikes...we were not *chauffeured* in family SUV's to and fro.
I pass the 3 Cedar Blvd. Muni fields almost every day during various daytime hours, yearound, 7 days/week. Seldom are the 3 fields all in use...seasonally for soccer they are busy for a couple of hours for several weeks a couple of days a week....for baseball sometimes perhaps 2 fields are in use for a few hours on just some days. The same has been reportedly true for the 2 remaining Muni fields based on observations by friends who also question an alleged shortage. The fields are scheduled and allocated, but not entirely utilized. I cannot speak for the 10 District fields other than the school in my neighborhood, but that too is not operating at anything near its capacity at reasonable times & days.
Overuse ? The Cedar Blvd. fields are maintained & groomed to perfection and are in pristine condition. Show me deterioration due to alleged "overuse".
2) The Muni has fee schedules for everything, and every recreation and athletic facility use....pool, hockey, skating, tennis, paddle tennis, all rec programs, etc.....except for the 5 athletic fields! The $30,000/ year that the YSA donates for field use...from portions of memership fees of the youth sports clubs & associations...goes towards the overall cost of maintaining the 10 District fields, NOT the Muni fields ! So the sports groups get a free ride on Muni fields.....not fair & equitable !
Bill Lewis
..........to be continued........
PART 2 - McNeilly Field
3) The field sports groups have neither made good on offers, or if asked, have been willing to contribute any significant capital dollars to the Muni towards investments in maintaining, improving or adding to athletic fields. This has been proven to be the caqse in the Terrace Park fiasco where the Soccer Foundation/Association's claimed they would provide $1 million in private funding towards the construction of a soccer field, but failed to deliver even though they had full Muni zoning, planning board & then Commission support. It has happened in the high school project boondoggle...the field sports cabal in their April 2009 questionable "Questionnaire" sent to SB candidants & incumbents claimed they would generate "millions" of donation dollars for athletic enhancements, but to date have failed to deliver in spite of being given an athletic Taj Mahal, returfing of the stadium field and resurfacing of the track. And they also advised SB member Remely, Co-Chair of the project for the SB, that they were willing to contribute $8 million....you betcha ! And, there is the classic case of McNeilly "Field" itself a few years back.....when the development cost estimate to provide 2 soccer fields, a baseball field, stadium seating for a couple hundred fans, a concession stand, lavortories and paved, lighted parking for 200 cars increased from an initial estimate of $1.75 million to $3.00 million, the Muni placed a condition on going forward -- $800,000 from the field sports groups for construction, or no going forward....no one came forward except for the Soccer Foundation who pledged $125,000 from the sale of Terrace Park (it had been a tax deductible gift), but then reneged and dropped the pledge. So, the Muni decided to put McNeilly up for sale....and then discovered they could not or the Fed's would sue ! Plus, I believe a preceeding apprasial update for the sale came in with a figure of about half the $1.832 million we paid for the land alone.
4)No one has come up with a solution to manage & overcome security & public safety issues and trespassing/unauthorized use of a developed McNeilly much less it's current undeveloped state. Is a high, electrified fence with lockable gating around the 24 acre site contiguous with Dormont, Baldwin and Pittsburgh in the cards ? Just how will this actually be managed and at what added cost, including liability risk ? How about including this in a facility user-fee !
Bill Lewis
........to be continued........
PART 3 - McNeilly Field
5) The Muni is only fair, not good, at estimating capital costs, and historically has avoided consideration of annual operating costs associated with capital projects for added or new facilities. When the cost of the Public Safety Center increased to $9.5 million from much lower initial estimates, I asked the Commission how much it would cost to operate the new, additional building. There was a long and absolute silence....until one Commissioner offered a SWAG, out of embarrassment more than anything else, of $95,000....the actual cost is $300,000 which does not include annual debt service cost to amortise the bonds issued to fund the building. What will be the total operating costs of a proposed development of McNeilly, including the preceeding factors in item 4) ?
6) When the McNeilly plan for athletic fields and facilities was scrapped a couple of years ago, word on good authority was that the School District had very quietly (ie. non-public) indicated they did not intend to use the baseball field. What is the current District position on the matter....if they have changed their mind, have they put it in writing irrevocably.... to the extent that if they reverse course again we can charge them for the field. By the way, other than varsity, what other baseball teams and age groups can & will use the regulation baseball field ?
This completes the six (6). Has Lebo learned yet that if you don't learn from history you'll be doomed to repeat it....we adults don't seem to be good learners.
Have at it it !
Bill Lewis
...............fini.............
(multiple sections)
In response to Bill’s post:
Item #1: I think that some of your thoughts in this section blur between school sponsored activities and rec sponsored activities. But as to field shortages: I was an assistant soccer coach for my son last spring. We tried to get field time for practice anywhere on any field but were unable to. Yes, the games and practices had to be scheduled after 5. Keep in mind my son is young. In appreciation to the many unsupervised pickup games that both you and I played as kids, at what age in today’s times do you think its appropriate to send your child to an activity unsupervised (and I know you are a loving grandfather)? I also know that you are very familiar with our traffic problems when considering the child’s safety. One could debate the difference between unsupervised and low-supervised activities- agreed. But you must agree that that would be an age-specific determination- and most of the kids involved in our rec programs are under 13? As for utilization I am sure there could be a difference of an opinion. All that I could tell you is that I have physical moved the goalposts myself all over Bird Park’s field to trying to get out of the mud. Every time I was there on weeknights and weekdays it was packed. I am sure there are times we can find that not to be the case but I generally believe that to be true. And whether its due to poor field conditions or the lack of proper drainage Bird Park’s field is often a disaster.
Item #2: As stated before, agreed and worth serious investigation.
Item #3: Both the McNeilly and Twin Hills purchase in my mind, should raise the ire of all residents. Not for the intent- which I believe to be valid- but for their execution (although buying a part of another town still seems odd to me). But how do you buy a $1m property without securing an access road to it? If development is based on the need to secure $100k’s from a third party, why do you proceed without getting that in writing? If you did not plan on building the project without securing third party funds, then why accept a grant that so ties your hands and weakens your bargaining power later when you try to collect? (Just wondering by the way, were appraisals done on both property’s before the purchase...?) And now that we have been unable to move forward because of these actions, the Municipality pays debt on almost $3m of purchases while the rec department is in a virtual standstill over the past 10 years or so besides from about $1m for the golf course in 2006 and 2007. This is all true and must be learned from. (I would note that I have the benefit of hindsight on these matters and its not my intent to impugn any or all past Commissioners for their assuredly best efforts.)
Item #4: Keep in mind that the Municipality is responsible for police and fire services at La Salle, Keystone Oaks, the old Bradley site and the new Salvation Army- all of which essentially border McNeilly. (I am well aware of this because I have responded to calls with the FD there.) The police and fire chiefs have been asked to evaluate additional safety requirements for that site, and should a bond pass I believe that an ad hoc group of Commission, public safety, youth sports, planning board, and interested parties could meet to discuss all such issues (and to help structure a tiered approach to bidding). I have also asked that we talk to neighboring towns to understand concerns that they might be aware of. I have also talked to our solicitor regarding increased liability costs. Initial information seems to stress little concern on that front but I believe we can get more specific information.
Item #5: Agreed there are costs for maintenance, lighting etc. that need to be understood. (If bathroom facilities/concession stands made the bid limit they obviously would alter some of that.)
Item #6: As previously stated there are no Joint Steering Meetings so I don’t know about the SD position on the field with certainty. Can I ask Dave to ask Jo? Just kidding. If we don’t need a regulation baseball field it shouldn’t be there. If it comes in too high it shouldn’t be there. But if the SD or baseball wished to make up the difference in the cost then that could be workable. I am not wed to the actual design of the project. If it needs to be lowered in scope because its over budget thats ok, if more can be done because of great bids then that can be debated. (Also we are exploring volunteer opportunities to put in a walking or bike trail around the border of the park.)
Bill: Thanks so much for your dedication to MTL. I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussions and hope to emulate your example for positive public involvement when my term ends.
Best,
Dan
Dan you write:
"Item #3: Both the McNeilly and Twin Hills purchase in my mind, should raise the ire of all residents."
You know, you're absolutely right- I'm so PO'd I'm going to sing while I slave to give the municipality another $6-7 million.
By the way, are we borrowing or raising taxes for the next round of street pavings?
Dick Saunders
Dick: Believe me I would like to be operating without the realities of the THP and McNeilly purchases too. But I can't get around them. This is why we need to constantly strive to improve our system of government. We need to be sure elected officials hold staff, professional services, and themselves accountable when mistakes are made. How would private industry have handled the $1m no access mistake for example? Of course recognizing that reality doesn't change the situation we are in but like Bill said it's important to learn from them. (And I fully accept that I could be proven wrong in the future. I just hope that I have done my due diligence before making my decisions.)
In 2009 for the first time in its history the Municipality paid for the entire annual street reconstruction program by a bond. The majority also moved the sidewalk improvement program into it- something that had always been paid for without debt. If you might recall the sidewalk improvement program had been canceled 6 months prior by a 3-2 vote on the Commission in order to give us a $14 a year tax cut that no one noticed. Someone rightly complained in the 1st Ward about that and surprise-sidewalks re-materialized in the bond issue.
If the Municipality continues along the path of borrowing for its annual street reconstruction program in similar fashion we will need to borrow about $38m over the next 20 years (and for the next 20 years too). Somewhere around the 13 year mark we will begin paying more on the debt service then we would to actually pay for the annual program straight up. As amazing as this "logic" sounds, my effort to do streets as a "pay-as-you-go" essential government service (i.e. no debt) has not been universally supported. Thankfully Dave and Matt supported an ordinance that forbade borrowing for streets (while Raja and another Commissioner voted against it). But this has not in itself solved the funding question. I understand that despite the scaled down version of the proposed rec bond it still shouldn't be done- I accept that as a position. Obviously like my personal decision to have student loans or my need to have a mortgage- not all debt is necessarily bad debt. I am glad that we have the PSB, the library, etc. and I want money spent wisely on the pool, etc. But I don't want annual routine expenses to be paid for by borrowing. How long as individuals would we survive by putting our routine, re-occurring expenses on our credit card (like monthly gas bill, water bill, phone, etc.). I believe those in government who advocate to borrow for such annual programs merely want to obfuscate the true cost of government and take the easy way out. So while I am not yet sure where the votes will be on the Commission I can tell you that I will not support any debt issued for our annual reconstruction program.
The streets issue will be discussed on 8/22 and probably the first meeting in September too if anyone wishes to join us.
Dan, I truly appreciate your stance on many the pressing issues in the community, but I'm truly baffled on this one.
I'm sorry I just have to point out the double talk.
You say: "I believe those in government who advocate to borrow for such annual programs merely want to obfuscate the true cost of government and take the easy way out."
But you're willing to BORROW another $6-7 million for luxuries we cannot afford at this time.
Is any resident going to suffer if we don't have a climbing wall or new dressing rooms at the pool?
Damn, 30 kids or so won't get to kick a soccer ball around at a convenient time.
That's OK, some senior will cut their heart pills in half to extend their budget for a while.
You say: "If the Municipality continues along the path of borrowing for its annual street reconstruction program in similar fashion we will need to borrow about $38m OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS (and for the next 20 years too). Somewhere around the 13 year mark we will begin paying more on the debt service then we would to actually pay for the annual program straight up."
Hmm, so you're on board to increase that debt load by another $6-7 million.
Makes perfect sense too me!
Dick Saunders
Dick: I do appreciate your disagreeing with me without calling me corrupt or something. But I do think you should re-evaluate whether I “double talked.”
There is a sharp difference between supporting ONE-TIME borrowing for well-tailored projects designed to address a need (and yes I do understand we disagree with that one). But such ONE-TIME capital investments included the Public Safety Building, the Municipal Building and the Library. I accept that one could say that those projects should not have been done, I just disagree with that. We could debate the scope of the projects perhaps or how the Municipality handled them, etc. but I do believe our town is in much better shape because those projects were completed.
My opposition to street borrowing is that it would occur essentially ANNUALLY. It is not ONE-TIME. It is basically EVERY YEAR for decades. (To put that in perspective, going off of conservative estimates from the Municipal Engineer, we will need to borrow around $80,000,000 to keep our roads acceptable over 40+ years compared to the $6.5- 7m currently being discussed for the rec bond. That $80m does not include interest.)
I know that I am asking you to look at the difference between annual and one-time debt projects but quite honestly there is a real structural difference between the two in relation to our budget and planning. It is not a matter of “double talk.”
Of course if you do propose that there should be no debt at all, either one-time or annual I can accept that as a position. I just think it would lead either to tremendous spiking of tax rates or the stagnation of elements of our town.
Best,
Dan
Dan, double talk was probably a poor choice of words. I was trying to cover a lot of bases.
#1. you said residents should be irate over the TH and McNeilly deals. I agree, but you don't say what we should do with our ire! Several million dollars spent foolishly and I haven't heard of anybody's head rolling. Did we have a tar and feathering and I missed it?
#2, I fully comprehend all the differences between annual projects like road maintenance and a one time deal like building a park. Yes the "debts" are different. Nonetheless, debt is debt!
#3 Once you build those parks they add to the required muni annual expeditures. We'll need more groundskeepers, maybe some new mowers, a new pick-up or two.
The commission majority last year decided they needed to borrow some money to cover routine maintenace.
So, hey lets add some more fields to take care of.
Here's some more questions for you and your fellow commissioners.
Who determined sports fields were the best use of McNeilly Park?
When was this decided? By whom?
Seniors outnumber young kids in MTL and they need recreation too. An interesting and timely article appeared in the Trib Friday: "Pittsburgh's bikeways, walkways lure businesses and homeowners"
By Bob Karlovits, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, August 19, 2011
Maybe the seniors want a place to exercise in MTL!
You also wrote: "This is why we need to constantly strive to improve our system of government." And once again, I agree sort of.
We have a pretty good system of government already in place, rather than improve it lets use it.
You or the athletic boosers can make their case for soccer fields, others make theirs against or for some other use.
zThen put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
The Rec Bond issue wins, great its what the community wants.
Dick Saunders
Hi Dick:
#1- Don’t know. We all missed the boat it seems. Demand better accountability? All I can say is that when I felt there was a missed issue from a professional service I voted to not rehire them. (change was made 4-1)
#2- Ok glad you caught the point I was trying to make. Just keep in mind that if you take the hard-line no debt at all approach that too has issues to consider.
#3- One of the issues we talk about is extending maintenance agreements for sports associations over there. Not saying that there won’t be some additional cost but we are attempting to find solutions.
The Commission decided to buy McNeilly for fields. I am all for senior recreation- in fact I attended the rec senior luncheon last Thursday. The concerns mentioned to me were: 1) street condition, 2) keeping senior luncheons, and 3) zero beach entry into the swimming pool. If you would have any suggestions besides the walking/hiking/biking trails for senior activities at McNeilly (or anywhere) please let me know. (Also the Commission voted to allow the Mt. Lebanon Village to have free space in the Municipal Building for the last couple of years. I had a discussion with their founder and suggested that she keep in mind how if any of their activities/services can/should be brought into the Municipality rec department.)
You mention that we have a good government in place- but this is the same government that voted in the last 10 years or so twice to issue even more debt than the total being considered now. And obviously those were done without a referendum. Despite that you may wish that we should do referendums in the future. Fair enough, as stated previously I am introducing a motion to create a charter review committee to recommend changes to our government and I would urge you to consider participating.
Hey everyone: Thanks for the lively debate but I need to back off for a bit and spend some time with my family this weekend. I will look to return all emails and phone calls though and will gladly schedule a coffee. Otherwise will hopefully see you at the next Commissioner meeting.
Best,
Dan Miller
Gee, thanks Dan for the home rule charter review committee. Maybe you can coax some of your mouthpieces to serve on that committee and get rid of some of the tax limitations written there by a responsible group of residents. When the changes are made you will be off the Commission and hoping nobody will remember you are to blame for introducing legislation to gouge residents for higher taxes. Up to now you have been the best of the bunch. What happened to you?
John Ewing
Dan Miller, thank you for taking the time to comment on the blog. You have always been responsive to our community. You know where I am going with this, right? Here it comes. I would love to see members of the school board come forward and defend their positions on various school district issues, instead of just lurking on here. Thanks again.
Elaine
Dan, thank you for your participation here. Your voice will be missed on the commission.
Two replies which you don't have to respond too, enjoy the off time.
One, I never said no debt. Sure take out a mortgage on a home, borrow for a car... but not for a vacation.
Two, as for the last 10 years of debt being issued. Unfortunately, that wasn't the campaign pledge I heard from my choice for officials.
On the school board one pledged to keep the high school project under $80 million!
Unfortunately that board member or any of the others will even come forward and explain where they're getting $900,000 for kitchen equipment off budget.
Anyway, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Dan, you are one stand up guy.
Dick Saunders
Post a Comment