I am going to attempt to explain what happened tonight with the recreation bond. Dan, Dave, David, Bill, and Dave, help me out here if I don't get it completely straight. It was a long night and they were nice enough to stay after the meeting to try to explain it to me.
At the Discussion Session, we heard a presentation from Steve Diaz where he proposed a business offer to look at ways to get funding from the government and public/private partnerships. All five commissioners were present for this proposal. I know how much he wanted per hour, but it was never discussed at the meeting, so I am not sure if I can disclose that here. Let me just say that it was a crap load of money. How am I doing so far, guys?
OK, Discussion Session is over and Joe DeIuliis high tails out just before the Commission meeting is ready to begin. It is time for the vote for the resolution for the rec bond. Dan Miller explained that the resolution was a compromise for the community. He had made a passionate speech about the whole process including working on the pool project with Joe D., the years of research that were behind this resolution, and incorporating different suggestions made along the way. I believe Dan was sincere. Dave and Bonnie also explained why they were behind the bond. I will put the meeting online as soon as I can so that you can hear their thoughts. Joe, of course was history. I guess he was thinking votes. Then Matt explained why he was not for the bond. He wanted to pursue obtaining a line of credit from another bank which he felt had more to offer when PNC advised against obtaining a line of credit. It was a very heated discussion. Then came the vote. Here is where it gets confusing. The resolution passed 3-1. But the bond issue is dead. In order to pass a bond, there must be four votes for it to pass. So no pool improvements, even though it was Joe's project, no McNeilly fields, no improvements anywhere - not for the golf course, the Rec Center, existing fields. Nothing. It was a package deal. While I was against developing McNeilly Park, I had said many times that we need to fix what we have, including the fields we have, the pool, and the Rec Center, and that is not happening either. According to those who stayed after the meeting, the time was right for this bond.
Dan asked me to write about this and ask the question, was this the right decision for the community? So there it is. Was this the right decision for the community?
Update: Dan Miller's blog Compromise Rec Resolution Defeated,
Podcast of meeting
48 comments:
Disappointing that one commissioner couldn't actually stay- don't they allow you to call in?
So are you saying that it fell apart because one wanted to pay with a line of credit (although not recommended by someone) and the others wanted a straight bond?
What happened about the private-public partnership debate? I heard actually that was expected to be the sticking point- one side wanted to just do that and if it failed get a bond while the other side combined both...?
Charles Jones
Yes, Charles. That is correct. The rec facilities are not going to get better. And putting off these repairs will be just like the high school renovation all over again. We neglected the high school and that is going to cost us millions.
As far as that one commissioner, he took off in a flash. Calling in wasn't an option. He was there for the discussion session, asked many questions and then, just left.
To think he beat me in the Primary. He couldn't even defend his own idea.
Elaine
Don't miss the update for the link to Dan Miller's blog and the link to the podcast.
Elaine
From what I heard Joe tired himself out last night by asking too many gardening questions. But perhaps thats too harsh.
I must say after all these accounts it just feels like a missed opportunity to me.
I would be interested to know what the commission candidates feel about the resolution. If it wasn't a good plan, what is their solution? (And if the town is passing out $400 per hour contracts without going through a public bidding process sign me up!)
Charles Jones
The proposal on the table seemingly satisfied a lot of different groups – those who wanted improvements to the pool, those who wanted improvements to the existing fields and even those who were for AND against McNeilly. McNeilly seemed to get the most publicity during this whole affair. However, the proposal on the table would have actually allowed the Commission to evaluate the true cost of a variety of field improvements not just at McNeilly, but also along Cedar Blvd (Dixon, Middle and Wildcat) and at Bird Park (Doctor Field), and then make a choice as to which one(s) were best to pursue - and then have the money to complete them. In other words, if it was ultimately decided that McNeilly was better left as a dog park and money should be spent on improving our existing fields, that could have happened. It did not mandate a particular field choice. And oh by the way, it would have required significant contributions from the youth sports associations and the other users of these facilities. A true compromise, in my opinion.
I believe the Commissioners who did not support this proposal walked away from an extremely fair and flexible deal. When this issue comes up again - and it will - I do not believe there will be a better option (at this price) than what Commissioners Miller and Brumfield put forward.
Dave Franklin
Charles, I am still laughing out loud at what you wrote. Yes, Joe wanted to know about English Ivy and if he could get it for free from Bird Park.
When I first heard about the proposal, I offered my services for $200 an hour. Don't get me wrong, I like Steve and know he would do an excellent job, but there were no guarantees, the project could take 36-42 months and there was no commitment from four Commissioners to proceed.
Elaine
Dan Miller's proposal would have been more welcome if it came sooner in the process.
Also, I'd like to know how McNeilly always gets roped into the rec bond discussion. Maybe next time, we can fix up our recreational facilities at a lower cost by leaving McNeilly out of the discussion.
David Huston
I guess I miss how the proposal would have been "more welcome" if it came sooner- but that also means that it could have come sooner...?
Wasn't the commission still working on trying to get the feds to let them use McNeilly for recreation and public works activities as recently as six months ago? If so, it would seem that at least some aspects of the proposal could not have been offered much sooner than it was.
But if it was at some point done sooner- does that mean you would have supported it as written? Was there some type of large financial cost incurred in the meantime that alters your decision?
Also, just wondering, since the resolution seemed to give a variety of options, how did including a McNeilly bid impede the possibility of improving existing fields?
Charles Jones
Charles, all of your assumptions are correct. As anyone involved in this process can attest, there was a lot of give and take/back and forth, prior to the drafting of the final Resolution. This effort included various discussions with Commissioners Kluck and DeIuliis, as well as the various youth sports groups.
Mr. Brumfield and Mr. Miller can speak to this better than I, but in summary they asked each youth sports group to dig deep and find ways to assume responsibility for parts of major capital projects. They further asked some of these groups to pony up their (minimal) reserves to address the concerns of some residents that youth sports need to “step up”. And they asked each group to agree in principal to increase their registration fees to cover these costs, all while still playing on deteriorating fields for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Miller drafted a resolution that allowed for ways to minimize the cost of these projects; he allowed for the retention of a consultant to pursue grants and public-private partnerships; he capped the spending; he allowed for the bidding of alternative field improvement projects in case McNeilly went over budget; and, in fact, this proposal didn’t even mandate that funds be spent on McNeilly. In my opinion, as well as others, his proposal went further than any rec project that has ever been proposed in our community.
All of those efforts take time, but I can assure you that those individuals with a vote to cast were in the loop and up to speed and - in fact - engaged first hand in the give and take.
Dave Franklin
I am not going to win any popularity contests over this statement, but I want to thank all of the commissioners who voted last night because they were all doing what they felt was right for the community. Matt Kluck was voting against the resolution because he was being fiscally responsible. The other three were voting for the resolution because they were being fiscally responsible. The people that I am disappointed in are Raja and Joe for voting to reduce taxes and then using that for their campaigns. That is all I heard up at Foster School on May 17. "I lowered your taxes." Because of that, we now have a stormwater fee and not enough money to patch holes in the Men's locker room or replace the floors or paint the walls at the Rec Center.
What threw me over the edge was when I had heard Dave Brumfield say how poor little six year old girls couldn't play because there weren't enough fields and how there were so many people who volunteered their services and all they wanted was a new field. As I chewed out Dave Brumfield in between the meetings last night, I said how there are many who volunteer their services in this community who do not coach and ask for nothing in return. And how about those poor teenagers and older who have NO place to skate in Mt. Lebanon? My son was stopped by the police in front of our house because he was skateboarding. Dave said that growing up, the skateboarders were a bad element and would get into trouble. I wanted to tell him, but ran out of time, how many kids who play in organized sports have been busted for under age drinking?
If there were scheduled fees all along or if groups would "step up," could we have been keeping the fields in better shape? I was not convinced that we need more fields. We need better fields. Would that have gone differently if that was the approach taken? If we didn't have the tax break last year? If we had expected more for field usage? Later, at the discussion meeting, the municipal planner was explaining how various fees were going to be doubled next year. While Keith McGill was explaining the new fee schedules, I kept thinking about how the District wanted a break on the current fees. There are changes ahead for the magazine's ads. These are tough times and we are trying to survive. The District tied the Commission's hands. If we weren't paying for their mess, I am sure this all would have gone down differently.
Elaine
While I was not happy about some aspects of Commissioner Miller's resolution, I am sensible to the concept of “compromise” - which, by its very nature, makes all concerned “unhappy.” However, I think Mr. Miller put forward a workable solution. Having said that, Mr. Kluck's “no” vote was a principled stand against what he saw as flaws in the funding portion of the resolution. But the person who owes this community an explanation is Commissioner DeIuliis. Why did he leave the meeting? If he didn't like the resolution he should have had the courage to vote “no”; if he didn't want to vote on it he could have told us why and abstained. Frankly, having looked over a variety of Mt. Lebanon Blogs I'm amazed that not more is being made of his absence. I sent Mr. DeIuliis an E-mail, asking for an answer, but as of this writing I have received nothing in reply.
Although Commissioner Miller's resolution did not pass there are still some things Mt. Lebanon could do right now that make sense:
1. The provision for on-line contributions targeted to capital improvements requires little work to set-up and no expense.
2. Since the current fields are in such poor shape why not ask the local sports cartels to fix them. Or if there is a liability issue surrounding volunteer labor, ask them to pay for repairing them – now. If the cost is too great for them to fix all of the fields then ask them to pick a field and repair it.
In fairness to the sports cartels, I understand that some of them have indeed cleaned up certain fields from time to time, and that is commendable. What I am referring to is undertaking major repairs.
It is not necessary to wait for legislation to be enacted in order for our local sports cartels to assume some of these maintenance responsibilities. All they need do is go to the Commission and ask. This happens all the time in other communities across America with the blessing of their local governments. Are Mt. Lebanon residents so tied to local government that they can't create an initiative on their own?
Richard Gideon
Richard,
Do not expect an answer from Joe DeIuliis. He does not respond. He has never responded to any of my emails, but one in the almost four years he was my commissioner. That is why I adopted Dan Miller as my commissioner. When I was running for that seat, one of the things that my campaign literature listed was that I would respond. Now, I have to be careful here because as much as I criticize Joe, that translates to more votes for Linfante. I am definitely not endorsing her. She should have been running for school board, in my opinion. That is where she was involved and still is. She is a key communicator for Dr. Steinhauer which speaks volumes. Remember her Real Lebo blog? Yes, Joe owes us an explanation, but you won't get one. I am still writing in my own name because I can't vote for either one of them.
Elaine
Also, Richard, I totally agree with your first point. Setting up an online contribution system should be done for both Municipality and School District. every candidate running for office would know how to do it because it is on every one of their websites.
Elaine
Elaine-
I have heard from many people what Kristen has talked about going door-to-door and it has precious little to do with the school. Did either Kristen or her opponent knock your door? If so, what did they talk about?
On a related side- I think it is very arguable that over the last several months Kristen has been to more commission meetings and traffic board meetings than her opponent. His record of attending traffic meetings is abysmal and it seems he either is late or leaving early for most commission meetings...
But maybe I have that wrong...?
Charles Jones
Richard, I like it... "Adopt a Ballfield!"
As for Joe D. the silence is deafening and for me the alternative on the ballot isn't a big improvement. Notice Ms. Linfante said nothing about or addressed the McNeilly project prior to vote.
Here's how I see the Ward 3 race.
We have Silent Joe and Its All About Me Linfante.
Neither of which put much effort into campaign promises or ideas.
Then we have Elaine. Who has been diligently active in both school and municipality issues. Talking with officials, investigating issues and most important- interacting with proponents and foes alike on her blog.
I haven't agreed with all her positions though most I do. I believe I've even seen her modify some after hearing evidence from her audience and that is how I'd like our representatives to operate.
If the official believes their position to be right defend it, if not be flexible enough to modify your position in light of hard evidence. Dan Miller did this admirably! Dale Ostergaard on the school board may be also.
Elaine's not on the ballot, but Ward 3 won't find a harder working, more transparent representative.
Ward 3 is making a big mistake by voting for the other two.
Dick Saunders
Charles, yes Kristen and Rob knocked on my door. We talked about Joe, mostly. And Joe did not knock on my door. I wouldn't expect him to. I know he has visited people's homes who had my sign in their yards asking for their support.
I got a flyer from the Republican Committee today, as did others. I guess they are alive and well after all.
Elaine
Mr. Gideon, can we apply your pay to play policy to other community facilities? Should we charge a fee to check out a book from the library or $100 for a library card? Not everyone uses the library (especially these days with the internet) but all of the taxpayers pay for it. In fact, we probably pay more for the library than we do for the upkeep of the municipal fields. Sounds crazy, right? I would never suggest that kids pay to use the library but isn't that exactly what you're advocating for the fields?
A few years back, the same fiscally responsible Matt Kluck went to the Commission and urged the taxpayers to fund renovations at the golf course - his then place of employment. A number of people supported Matt, including me and ironically even a number of the same people who opposed the most recent Rec proposal. I suppose the easier solution would have been to ask the golfers (who by the way are mostly seniors) to pay more money to use the course, the carts, Matt's lessons, etc. We didn't do that. Instead the Commissioners concluded that the golf course is a valuable asset worthy of significant funding. I supported the golf course renovations and I supported the Rec bond because our community has a long history of supporting the community's various recreational assets. As an aside, Matt has told me and others that he supports investment in these assets and even indicated to me that we can do more than what was most recently on the table. Many of us are waiting to hear more about his ideas. A few thousand families hope they come soon.
Lastly Mr. Gideon, do you think that the sports groups are each sitting on thousands of extra dollars to use for field improvements? Do you think we overcharge our participants in order to create huge reserves? Please tell me what makes these groups cartels and like the others who have made similar suggestions I would gladly invite you to sit in on a meeting. I can assure you that "counting all the left over money" isn't on the agenda. I'm anxious to hear how you can label these groups as cartels.
Dave Franklin
Yes, Mr. Franklin I agree with you that the golf course, the pool, the library, the parks and fields are all great assets. I agree also that they should be maintained as well as possible.
Unfortunately those assets cost money to maintain and as you add more so grows the expenditures and staffing required to keep it all in tip-top shape.
Yes, we could charge more to play a round of golf.
But then as with any commodity the more it cost the fewer people it attracts. They'll use it less, find cheaper alternatives or and I believe the MTL fees are approaching some of the 18 hole courses-- go elsewhere.
Same holds true for municipalities.
MTL no longer holds the monopoly it once did. Not knocking it as it has amenities that I personally decided weren't available elsewhere.
As the taxes grow I could begin thinking otherwise.
I'm wondering-- has anyone done a utilization study of the fields we already have. Seems to me in an unscientific casual drive-by observations there are a lot of empty fields on Saturdays and Sundays in the middle of the afternoon!
I would be amazed if the sports groups are flush with money considering the number of kids that come to our door with raffle ticket request and such.
I'm not against everything Mr. Franklin! I just believe that sometimes you just can't have it all or that sometimes as I tell my kids if you want it that badly -YOU- need to find a way to pay for it.
Dick Saunders
I'm sorry - Commissioner Kluck was for spending money at the golf course but not, for example, the pool? Can anyone tell me the difference between the two?
I am not sure half of Lebo knows where the golf course is- let alone actually cares about it.
Commissioner Kluck is for golf course improvements, probably wouldn't sell it off for real development either, but is for holding up work on real issues- obvious issues at our pool and fields- to pass out $400 an hour contracts without publicly bidding them first? And this is good government?
Gotta love Commissioner Deiulliis response in the Trib. Is it me or doesn't the compromise resolution actually allow for higher fees on users? And he said he needed more time to study the $400 an hour proposal- isn't that what an RFP will allow you to do (and besides from the resumes- the proposal is just 4 pages long how much time does one really need).
Charles Jones
I’m pretty familiar with the economics of the golf course, from having worked there for about 5 years and from having served (with Matt Kluck) on the Commission’s ad hoc committee to study the golf course, its economics and its future. I’m happy we have it, believe me, but it gets far fewer users annually than our athletic fields and frankly if it were a private business (having to borrow money, etc), it would have gone under long ago. Most people would be surprised to learn that the folks who use it the most generally pay the least on a per round basis over the course of the year. An upside down formula, for sure, but something we have always done for the benefit of our golfing residents.
Mr. Saunders, I assume you read Mr. Miller's proposed resolution. Therefore, you know that his plan would have required significant increases in youth sport registration fees. Further, the proposal mandated that the youth sport associations contribute at least $100,000 before any work could have commenced on field projects. That’s a pretty significant investment, don’t you think? And by the way, no one asked the swimmers to pitch in even a 10th of that before the pool got fixed.
Presently, as I have stated before, the youth sports associations contribute $8 per kid to a municipal fund dedicated to field maintenance. That surcharge is in addition to the money that voluntarily comes out of each association’s operating budget for field maintenance. All in, the baseball association, for example, spends over $20,000 annually for field supplies and maintenance. Most would be surprised to learn that we pay for a truck, a tractor, gas, field drags, rakes, brooms, field dry, lime, pro-mound clay and utilities. These funds come from registration fees and we do it because we recognized a long time ago that if we want our kids to play on quality (and safe) fields, much of the responsibility would fall on us. The wild assumption that we do nothing but walk around with our hand out is insulting to the thousands of residents who help us do what we do. In many respects, the youth sports groups and the parents that support them would love to do more and we were prepared to do more under this proposal. Unfortunately, we won’t have that chance as quickly as we had hoped.
I don’t have an official study, but I would refer you to the field schedules that are included in the Municipal Report (pp 68 & 69) that was prepared as part of the McNeilly proposal. I think you will see that they are booked to capacity. I’ll grant you that you may not see a baseball game being played on a Sunday afternoon in November at your neighborhood elementary school.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin:
You have asked me a series of questions and you deserve an answer from me. I'll surprise you by saying that not only do I believe that you will not like my answers, but many of the people who read this Blog, and would normally agree with me on other issues, will not like them either. But that is the price we pay for freedom in America. The other comments you made in your post of 27 October 2011 at 9:24pm are your own thoughts and require no comment from me.
Q:Mr. Gideon, can we apply your pay to play policy to other community facilities?
Yes. The Reason Foundation can supply you with a number of studies showing how free market solutions may be applied to municipal problems. See www.reason.org.
Q:Should we charge a fee to check out a book from the library or $100 for a library card?
With respect to charging a fee for checking out a book – yes. This is being done in some library systems today, especially in the West. The libraries that do this find that their books come back on time and in good shape. As to charging $100 for a library card; you set that figure, I did not. I would also point out that the Mt. Lebanon Library already charges fees for some of its services and fines for overdue books. When people pay for things, even modest fees, they tend to assign a value to those things and take care of them.
Q:I would never suggest that kids pay to use the library but isn't that exactly what you're advocating for the fields?
Yes; although we both know that kids pay for nothing – it's their parents that pay.
Q:Lastly Mr. Gideon, do you think that the sports groups are each sitting on thousands of extra dollars to use for field improvements?
Collectively, yes. I say this because Commissioner Miller must believe it as well. In his resolution, Resolution R-16-11, he has the following language: “Before accepting any field improvement bid, the Municipality should receive a capital donation from youth sports of $100,000.”
Q:Do you think we overcharge our participants in order to create huge reserves?
I cannot address the question as to whether you “overcharge” your participants, as that is subjective, and comes very close to the famous “Have you stopped beating your wife” question to which the inquisitor requires a yes or no answer. I can say that you must charge your participants enough to create a surplus. If you don't you won't be in existence for any length of time. This is business 101, and it applies to non-profits as well as to anyone seeing to make a living.
Q:Please tell me what makes these groups cartels and like the others who have made similar suggestions.
The word “cartel” does not always have the negative connotation that I believe you ascribe to it. It can, indeed, mean an organization of business that band together for a common cause and to set prices; but it also means “..a political group united in a common cause.” Thus the sports organizations that are operating together to lobby for the Municipality to upgrade its fields are, indeed, “cartels” in this sense of the word. Remember, it is the speaker (writer) that establishes the usage of a word, not the listener (reader). However, I will concede that you may have a point of sorts, in that a writer must remember his (or her) audience: I published and edited American Vexillum Magazine for three and a half years, so I have a more than friendly acquaintance with words. When one deals with Ph.D.'s on a regular basis one tends to get a little “over familiar” with all of the legitimate definitions of various common words.
(...continued in next post...)
Richard Gideon
..Answers to Mr. Franklin, continued..
And now I would like to ask you a few questions of my own:
1. Do you believe that the Municipality has a right to confiscate money from the majority of its residents and spend that money to benefit a minority of its residents?
2. To your knowledge, does “youth sports” as mentioned in Commissioner Miller's resolution have $100,000 to donate to the Municipality?
3. What is the percentage of youth participants that receive “scholarships” to participate in the various Mt. Lebanon youth sports programs? If you don't know that figure in total, then use the percentage for your own group.
4. It is now legal for a municipality to take private property belonging to one person or entity, and give that property to another person or entity if it can be shown to be “in the public interest” (in other words, the second party agrees to pay higher taxes – Kelo vs. New London). Would you be in favor of the Municipality declaring a house or blocks of houses “blighted” in order to “flip” these properties and thus attract more desirable people into the community, which would benefit the Municipality and its recreational facilities through increased tax revenue?
I have a feeling we come from two entirely different philosophical worlds, but I will not make any personal attack on you or your supporters. I will also declare, publicly, that I have nothing at all against sports or youth groups. I played sports in my youth, as did you. I played sports when I should have been studying, and I'll bet you did too. I support the Boy Scouts, and I'll bet you do the same.
If these were bright economic times we would likely not be having this debate; but the United States and its sub-divisions are looking at massive debt (a total of 65 trillion dollars in total liabilities for the Federal government alone, for which it has no money, according to Duquesne University Economist Antony Davies). Remember, when you ask “the government” to do something for you, you are actually asking your neighbors to do it. This holds true for any government at any level. So, given the current economic climate, if I'm given the choice between giving a six year old girl a field to play on, or allowing an 80 year old widow to stay in her home, I side with the widow. However, I think there are free-market solutions to municipal problems that would allow for both fields and widow's homes. As long as the debate in Mt. Lebanon stays civil and on point we may be able to work out these issues.
Richard Gideon
I believe I own Mr. Franklin and other readers an apology for a few typos I made in my preceding posts. To wit:
"...to anyone seeing to make a living" should have read "..to anyone seeking to make a living".
"..an organization of business that band together.." should have read "..an organization of businesses that band together.."
"..both fields and widow's homes" should have read "..both fields and widows' homes".
If there are others I didn't catch you'll just have to read around them. This medicine I'm taking doesn't help matters.
Richard Gideon
Mr. Franklin you replied to my comment (rather sarcastically I think): " I’ll grant you that you may not see a baseball game being played on a Sunday afternoon in November at your neighborhood elementary school. "
My observations weren't in November, this is only October-- check your calendar.
I have eyes Mr. Franklin! If its 1:00 p.m. on a July, Aug or Sept. Saturday and I drive by Mellon Field on the way to the mall or Home Depot and return via the same route at 1:45 or 2:15 p.m. and the field is still empty I can assume a sporting event didn't take place. This isn't a one time experience or isolated to one field in particular.
Yes, I did read Mr. Miller's proposal and I think Mr. Gideon gave you an excellent response.
As for the golf course, if you were proposing building one from scratch today, I'd vote no even though I love having one nearby. It is one of those MTL amenities we expect and it should be maintained as long as the residents wish to support it. May it reach a point where it is unaffordable... that may be possible one day.
FIrst priority in my opinion, is the pool.
Dick Saunders
Mr. Miller shows #3. "Before accepting any field improvement bid, the Municipality should receive a capital donation from youth sports of $100,000."
Mr. Franklin, is the $100,000 ready or not? Why even argue the matter if this check is not signed, sealed and delivered. If the commissioners can't bid any field improvements without it as Mr. Miller proposes why go through the motion?
Or is it ... I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." - Wimpy J. Wellington
Dick Saunders
Mr Saunders, I have no doubt that if this moved forward the money would have been paid in accordance with Mr. Miller's proposed resolution and at appropriate time.
PS I haven't forgotten the questions. Just haven't had time.
Dave Franklin
Thank you Mr. Franklin. In light of Elaine's post on the Dollar Bank letter perhaps a reasonable solution may surface yet.
Is there a rush?
Dick Saunders
1. Do you believe that the Municipality has a right to confiscate money from the majority of its residents and spend that money to benefit a minority of its residents?
Yes, but I would not use the word “confiscate”. Our federal, state and local governments spend tax dollars to provide benefits for the minority all of the time. I don’t visit the national parks as frequently as I should, but my tax dollars help keep them open. My kids don’t go to Penn State (at least not yet), but I help pay for others to do so. Not everyone has Steelers tickets, but we all helped build the stadium. I could go on and on. My point is that communities and their elected officials make choices all of the time, knowing that what they choose to spend money on may not be relevant, essential or even wanted by all of the people who help pay for them. to quote the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo, “Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties.” Do I personally believe that we need an $11 million public safety bill every year? No, I think we could probably save a few million for the same result, but I understand the decision and the philosophy that the decision has been based on for decades. I believe the same is true for recreation. It has always held a very high place in the minds of the residents of this community.
2. To your knowledge, does “youth sports” as mentioned in Commissioner Miller's resolution have $100,000 to donate to the Municipality?
By sports associations, I assume you and the resolution are referring to the football, soccer, baseball, softball, and lacrosse associations. Using straight math, that’s $20,000 per association. The final accounting might be somewhat different given the number of participants in each association and which fields are ultimately chosen, but I’m relatively certain that the funds would be there at the appropriate time. If I can anticipate your next question, with one exception, no association is sitting on significant reserves, and these funds would come from fundraising efforts.
3. What is the percentage of youth participants that receive “scholarships” to participate in the various Mt. Lebanon youth sports programs? If you don't know that figure in total, then use the percentage for your own group.
Just guessing, but less than 8 kids per sport. In some instances the parents are required to provide volunteer services to the association.
4. It is now legal for a municipality to take private property belonging to one person or entity, and give that property to another person or entity if it can be shown to be “in the public interest” (in other words, the second party agrees to pay higher taxes – Kelo vs. New London). Would you be in favor of the Municipality declaring a house or blocks of houses “blighted” in order to “flip” these properties and thus attract more desirable people into the community, which would benefit the Municipality and its recreational facilities through increased tax revenue?
To be honest, it’s not a new phenomena, but I don’t support it in the context of your hypothetical unless the properties are truly blighted and present a significant detriment to the community; in which case, I’m sure most people would agree that something should be done. And before anyone freaks out, please know that Pennsylvania is one of the few states since Kelo to enact legislation that all but eliminates the sort of scenario suggested by the question.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin:
Thanks for your replies; I respect your opinions on these subjects.
I can offer a lot of evidence to rebut your points – especially the one concerning “blight” and Eminent Domain, and its application in States that have passed laws to protect private property in the wake of Kelo vs. New London (the Institute for Justice has some interesting law suits in progress on this issue); but it likely would not change your mind – I'm sure you feel the same way about your arguments with respect to me. And the word “confiscate” was used correctly; even if you are in total agreement with the aims of the “state” and cheerfully surrender you money to it, you don't have a free choice in the matter. We could continue this Libertarian vs. Authoritarian debate ad infinitum, but I think we would only bore the readers of this Blog.
To those of you who may have been following the respectful exchange of ideas between Mr. Franklin and myself, please keep this in mind: Public benefit always comes at private expense. No government “creates wealth” - it only consumes it. And while public expenditure is sold to the polity as “the greatest good for the greatest number” - an idea first espoused by Francis Hutchenson in 1720 - it is never administered without harm; but it is administered by people who honestly believe that they are “good.” C. S. Lewis had the right perspective on this when he said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Richard Gideon
Robber barons? Tyranny? These families want nicer athletic fields, not a castle with a moat.
Dave Franklin
I was under the impression they/you wanted more fields, not nicer fields.
Elaine
Elaine, the propsal had no guarantee or directive for more fields. In fact, it was modified in large part to address the concerns and preferences that folks like you expressed regarding new vs existing fields. The resolution didn't mandate any funds be spent on any particular field. We may have ended up leaving McNeilly just how it is and used the funds to fix the pool and the existing fields! The sports groups were largely okay with that.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin and/or candidates for commissioner:
How much should the community spend on athletics and recreation?
A large portion of the HS design is tied up in pool, gyms, tennis courts, rifle range, weight rooms, locker rooms, etc.
Now we are looking at possibly spending $7 million more on fields, pool and bathhouse by the municipality.
What is the total planned investment in athletic/recreation facilities and how much is enough?
Dick Saunders
Mr. Saunders, I've been asking that exact same questions of my critics for the last 2 years on this blog and elsewhere with zero success. Many of these critics argue that youth sports have a place in our community and they also argue that we need to maintain our existing facilities, yet at every turn these same folks have argued against every initiative. I'm not sure if yours is a rhetorical question and I must admit I don't have an exact number for you (just like I can't give you an exact number on how much we should spend on books or sidewalks). However, I can tell you that our community and our school district have both recognized the importance of and made a commitment to recreation and athletics - a commitment that has been supported and enjoyed by the majority of our residents (old and young alike) for decades. I have said all along, if the majority of our community thinks that such a commitment to recreation is no longer relevant, that's fine. It's easier for me to chose whether to stay or go then it is to overturn the opinion of the majority.
At the same time, I've never suggested that these facilities and initiatives should be treated any differently than anything else on the municipal budget. Fir the last several years I've preached that we all need to step up and fill the gap created by an increasingly stressed budget. But I've also argued that you can't pay lip service to recreation (because you think it's the right thing to do) and then do nothing. We've done nothing for way too long (except perhaps at Mr. Kluck's golf course). Recreation facilities need to be maintained and updated just like anything else. Despite some opinions, soccer fields need to be more than mowed, especially if things like drainage have been ignored for a long time. Baseball fields may look great as you drive by in your car but over time they shift, erode and need significant work to keep them playable and safe. All of that costs money and my concern is that if we continue to ignore them, they then become cost prohibitive to repair.
Many of my critics also like to point how Mt. Lebanon has fallen on this list or that list of desirable communities and they immediately want to blame someone. But ask yourself, what have we done in Mt. Lebanon in the last 20, 10 or 5 years to make ourselves more appealing not just to the folks who create lists, but to people looking to buy a home? With all due respect, fixed income seniors are not moving to Mt. Lebanon. Most of us will sell our homes to first time homebuyers who have chosen Mt. Lebanon for their family, current residents looking for more room to grow or transplants to Pittsburgh who are moving here with their families because of their job. These young and middle aged families need only look at USC's stunning recreation complex and its fabulous new field complex at Boyce Middlle School or the Peterswood and Pleasant Valley athletic facilities in Peters to recognize a significant disparity between what those communities offer them and what we offer them. And God help us if one of those families should happen to stop in the concession stand bathroom on Cedar Blvd.
So I don't have an exact, but I'm also understanding of the fact that we can't spend a "new" $7 million on recreation every other year or even every 10 years. I just hope that some people recognize that standing still isn't an option either.
Dave Franklin
Dave,
This is not taking a shot at you. If I had kids in school, I would move to Upper St. Clair, in a heartbeat. My grandchildren go to school in Upper St. Clair. Yesterday, I told my daughter and son-in-law (both MTL kids) the same thing. She said that so many of her neighbors graduated from MTL, that it has almost become a joke on Facebook. Their schools are lightyears ahead of ours. My grandson plays hockey and had a concussion. As I was telling someone at a Policy Committee meeting, his school was a delight to work with. At that meeting, we didn't even have a concussion protocol in place. Because they don't have an ice rink, they play at Ice Castle. So that is something we have over USC. I teach at Boyce Middle School in the evenings, so I know what you are saying. Their school district has been consistently ranked number one in the PBT for what - six years now? That is the reason why the young people are choosing USC over MTL. So if I had kids in school, I would move to USC.
Elaine
I also know a few families that have moved to USC primarily for the schools and more specifically for special ed programs. I'd be lying if I didn't say my wife and I looked there when we bought our second house, but that was because we noticed you could get more house for the money. Not sure if that still holds true. Ultimately though, we settled on proximity to family and other factors. I'm sure even the folks that have moved to USC will tell you that they miss a lot about Lebo that USC will never have and I know a number of USC families that have moved to Lebo and have not looked back. For example, the notion that my kids can walk home from school, to a friends house or to a ball field and then to get a pizza is something you really can't put a price on in my opinion. My kids have a Ron of freedom that they easily have in USC. So in other words, I don't think any generalizations really apply.
FYI - the National Football League, in conjunction with UPMC, is currently funding a concussion study exclusively in association with Mt Lebanon football. Every participant in our youth football program was invited to take the baseline concussion test as part of this program. Further, every student athlete in grades 8-12 undergoes the same baseline testing as a pre- requisite to participation in school sports. I'm sure Mr. Grogan deals with concussion related issues almost as any other these days. In other words, we're not as clueless as some would have you believe.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin you said -
" Do I personally believe that we need an $11 million public safety bill every year? No, I think we could probably save a few million for the same result . . . "
How would you restructure public safety to put money into athletic fields?
Mr. Franklin, you argue your opponents point: "Recreation facilities need to be maintained and updated just like anything else. Despite some opinions, soccer fields need to be more than mowed, especially if things like drainage have been ignored for a long time. Baseball fields may look great as you drive by in your car but over time they shift, erode and need significant work to keep them playable and safe."
Why are we ignoring these issues... could it be... $$$$$.
But out of the other side of your mouth you want to add another site to the list of amenities you cry are under maintained, fiurther increasing the financial burden.
You also answer: "Mr. Saunders, I've been asking that exact same questions of my critics for the last 2 years on this blog and elsewhere with zero success."
Sorry, Mr. Franklin, I think they've been giving you a fair answer -- its just not the one you want to hear! The answer I hear is that they are tapped out.
So instead of listening to their constituents the municipality purchased an overpriced piece of real estate for $2,000,000 and now want to compound the problem by spending millions more developing a rec. facilitiy. All the while by your own adminission the existing ones go wanting! So once again, how much is too much, Mr. Franklin?
I agree, the concession stand restrooms at Cedar and the HS are atrocious and have been for years. WHy they were allowed to deteriorate is beyond me. Gee, maybe the $2,000,000 spent on McNeilly could have fixed 'em!!!!
Dick Saunders
Dave, yes, Mr. Grogan deals with concussion issues and that is why Mary Birks asked him to write a concussion protocol for the school district. We didn't have one. This was all on the Policy Meeting podcast that I post for some people's amusement. In fact, it will be cowritten by a very dear attorney, the only attorney my husband ever liked, who volunteered her services. So before you jump on me, it is the teachers who are clueless because up until recently, there was nothing in place.
And you better think about moving if you want to grab a pizza after a game. Two pizza shops closed here in the last few months.
Thank you for acknowledging that people move to USC for the schools and special ed programs. They really have their act together.
Elaine
Elaine I know MMMM pizza closed, what was the other?
Mr. Franklin, I join with you on your perspective about MTL. There are few communities that have quaint(?) Main Streets any more, let alone two. We have Washington and Beverly! High taxes make it difficult for businesses to survive.
MTL is also close to town though with Southpointe, Robinson and Wexford business centers that may not be as important as it once was.
Mr. Franklin, you say we need ballfields, but the school district is going to eliminate a nice one for the younger kids.
They're also going to spend $1,000,000 tearing up nice tennis courts only to locate them about 100 yards away.
Then spend $4-5 million tearing down and disposing of a structure experts claim is totally sound only to build another one of similar size ... yep... about 100 yards away.
They, both the school board and the municipality also engage in idiotic waste of money on zoning lawsuits which grabbed $24,000+ that could have gone a long way to renovating the Cedar restrooms.
What about the monies wasted on the Twin Hills property?
Its not that I'm against your wants, it just seems there is not a lot of thinking going on.
Dick Saunders
Pizza Hut closed at the corner of Mt. Lebanon and Castle Shannon Blvds.
Elaine
Mr Saunders, you're just grumpy. And it's answers like yours that keep most peole off of the blog. I don't think my responses reflect anything different that what Elaine has suggested.
Elaine, I'm struggling to see how I " jumped on you" but I can't say I'm surprised by the acusation.
Is it because the grumpy 5 people who actually comment here don't know how to respond to someone who actually participates?
You guys can attack me all you want but it doesn't change reality.
Dave Franklin
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin,
The reality is if you can't afford the upkeep of what you already have you have no business building something else you don't have the money to keep maintained. How hard is that for a shareholder to understand?
It is stiff-necked ideas like yours that run up the taxes and run down the maintenance of the ML athletic facilities.
If the athletic volunteers are as good as you say they are, why don't they clean the Cedar Blvd. bathrooms?
Grumpy eh Mr. Franklin.
Pray tell what is reality?
You say the fields we have need long neglected maintenance. I agree with you, they do.
So what is the reality I'm missing?
That we should build more fields and facilities so we can neglect those too?
How about we build over a ballfield so we can build another one. Is that your BIG plan???
Dick Saunders
Oh one more thing Mr. Franklin.
As long as you're going to stoop so low as to denigrate people.
I think your are a self-aggrandizing, pompous ---!
The Graumpy Old Man
PS: Note to Commissioners perhaps we should investigate building a Dueling Field! Mr. Frankiln's honor has been besmirched.
Mr. Saunders, clearly you have paid attention to nothing! Nothing in the resolution, nothing that I have said on this thread and frankly nothing Elaine has suggested supports what you are saying about new fields. Try listening instead of distracting.
Dave Franklin
Dave, in my "attack" to you which included the words "Thank You" and "BEFORE you jump on me," I brought up the lack of a concussion protocol policy. FYI, on Tuesday's policy meeting agenda, there will be a discussion about a Concussion Protocol Policy.
A lawyer recently said, "Try listening instead of distracting."
Elaine
OK Mr. Franklin, just so we're on the same page-- From Miller's website.
1.The appropriate Municipal officials shall begin the process of issuing up to $7 million of Municipal bonds for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing recreational facilities. If possible and financially prudent, such measures shall be combined with the current refinance effort in a manner consistent with saving taxpayer dollars.
2.The primary purpose of such funds shall be the improvement of the: 1) Municipal Pool Facility and 2) Municipal Fields- which may include work on McNeilly Park, the fields in the Main Park, and/or the field at Bird Park. If these goals can be accomplished with less than the issued amount the Municipality could entertain other prudent projects at that time.
3.The Municipal Pool Facility shall be prioritized for improvement first. Such efforts must target structural improvements over program enhancements, with program enhancements only to be addressed after the pool structure, the drainage issues, the bath house, and zero beach entry have been properly accounted for. Pool user fees should be appropriately adjusted for new operational costs. The Municipality shall contact pool related associations to discuss their involvement with any appropriate cost sharing.
I agree with #1. Maintenance needs to be done. Can we afford $7 million at this time. I think not since we floated a $2 million bond to pave streets too.
I agree with #2. Pool upgrades are long overdue. If you're taliking about adding a $400,000 climbing wall then I begin to have issues.
But as I read #2 it leaves a lot and I mean a lot of wiggle room. And it does specifically mention "which may include work on McNeilly Park". Did you think we missed that? You're the legal beagle, Mr. franklin, tell me what it says.
Again agree with #3. The pool/bath house is a priority.
As far as fields, maybe we take small steps... fix drainage improve the worst of the lot and work from there. Developing McNeilly AT THIS TIME absolutely not.
So, have I comprehendend the basics of the resolution to your satisfaction Mr. Franklin?
My bet is though you want more. You won't tell us how much more of course.
Grumpy!
Post a Comment