Some Material may be Inappropriate for Children Under 18.
http://www.agu.org/news/archives/2010-01-15_ClaireDworksy_BrightSTaRS.shtml
Update April 24, 2012 8:30 PM
My mailbox is getting filled with articles about artificial turf. Here are just a few.
http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html [No. 29] Carbon black nanoparticle in crumb rubber raises further concern about artificial turf fields.
***
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/docs/fact_sheet.pdf
***
Chuck Bachorski writes:
All,
There are several published studies regarding artificial turf and injuries. The NFL report states a much higher incidence of ankle and ACL injuries reported on turf fields.
As we all know, ACL injuries are much more common in women than in men.
Therefore, we need to consider this aspect as well as the maintenance costs and environmental impact.
I have emailed these articles to Elaine to post if she sees fit.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4988136
http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html
http://www.hss.edu/conditions_artificial-turf-sports-injury-prevention.asp
Update April 25, 2012 6:20 PM The following letter from Commissioner Fraasch is in response to blog reader Ken Ward's request. It was too long to submit as a comment.
Mr. Ward:
Thank you for asking my opinion. I have been studying this issue for over a year now and have been talking to community members and doing my own research. What I share is my opinion alone and not of the Commission. I am very much in the middle in this debate. I see the need to address field issues, I see the concerns about maintenance, and I can definitely see that we need to watch our spending.
One of my top concerns is maintenance. I think we need to maintain what we already own and find out what we need to do as a Municipality with maintenance to make sure we can support our current fields. I have been inquiring about our maintenance program for fields specifically to resolve any current issues we have with taking care of what we already own. This issue needs to be addressed before we put one dime into doing renovations or anything new. If we properly invest in the fields we currently have, then we increase field use.
We have $1.3 million in undesignated fund balance and I would like to see the Commission put aside $300,000 for pension obligations or a “rainy day” fund. I would spend a large portion of our undesignated funds to get some much needed items taken care of that have been recommended by our municipal manager Steve Feller and the Parks Advisory Board.
In addition, I feel strongly we need a new field. We have been told this by our own staff. Even if we do invest funds into our parks and fields, we could still see them in terrible condition after a couple of years if maintenance and overuse issues are not addressed. My first choice for an expansion of field space would be Cedar Blvd. Three reasons I support Cedar: #1 We need to make Cedar Blvd look nicer. It is a main thoroughfare for our community and it looks terrible. This field could be a showcase for our community in that location. #2 We need to make some improvements to our Public Works in the next couple of years and this would get us started. I see that PW could stay in its designated area but turn towards Lindendale. They would have their entrance/exit off of Lindendale and literally become contained into the area behind the trees. #3 Development of a field would help with connecting our green spaces. It’s a continuation of the other fields on Cedar. It’s next to PW to ease maintenance and can have some value with the green space along Robb Hollow. My second choice for an expansion of field space would be Robb Hollow with the entrance on Kelso. This space is large enough to put a large field. It has some of the clearing done already and is fairly flat compared to anything at McNeilly. However, Robb Hollow isn’t as visible or easily accessible as Cedar Blvd.
My top priorities for parks and recreation are to fix our local neighborhood parks and get them cleaned up. If we fix Bird Park, fix Brafferton/Sunset Hills and add Cedar that will put Mt Lebanon in a far different place than we are now with fields. As a Municipality, we need to ensure maintenance is thorough enough to increase current field usage which will afford us the luxury of maximizing our already existing field assets. It will also allow us time to figure out what to do long-term with our other Recreation needs. On another note, my initial thought was to put the undesignated money into the pool facility. After feedback from the Municipal staff, the Commission was told that they would prefer to not do the project in parts. So the Commission will need to consider the full pool plan at a later time.
77 comments:
Cal Berkley study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/Crumb_Rubber_Study_Feb_2010.pdf
EPA study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/Scoping_Level_EPA_Study2.pdf
Ridgewood, NJ Environmental Advisory Committee study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/REAC_Synthetic_Turf_Assessment_FINAL-2.pdf
California EPA study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/CA_OEHHA_litreview_re_air_quality_and_staph_FULL_RPT_10-19-09.pdf
NY Dept of Environemtal Conservation and NY Dept of Health Study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/nysdec-report.pdf
Penn State study: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/penn-state-university-staph-study.pdf
U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission Report: http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/CPSC_Guidance_on_Lead_7-30-08.pdf
Let me know if I can be of further assistance in helping to educate the public.
Dave Franklin
FieldTurf Scrub
FieldTurf Scrub is a powerful industrial cleaner and conditioner, which can be used for removal of grease and oil, mold and mildew, and can be used as a deodorizer. It is chemically formulated to be compatible with other FieldTurf treatment products, such as liquid static conditioners.
This is just one interesting item from the FieldTurf maintenance procedures. If a powerful industrial cleaner doesn't raise eyebrows, all the brushing. aerating and other maintenance procedures should.
Remember the municipality having a difficult time maintaining dirt, what's going to happen when they have to vacuum, brush, aerate and then scrub artificial turf?
Which will need to be replaced every 10+ years,
I'm sure the Environment Sustainibility Police, oops, I mean board will be presenting detailed impact reports soon.
Dick Saunders
Obama's government purchasing directive: http://www.astroturfusa.com/Press-Releases.aspx?id=433
Dave Franklin
To keep FieldTurf's warranty in effect-- from their own maintenance page:
"Sports Guidelines
These basic maintenance procedures will ensure compliance with FieldTurf’s industry-best third-party insured warranty and keep your field in optimal condition. Refer to the FieldTurf Maintenance Guidelines for details and recommended frequency on each maintenance activity along with steps to follow throughout the life of your FieldTurf field.
There are 4 basic maintenance operations that all FieldTurf fields require according to our recommended maintenance schedule. We simply call it BARS – for Brushing, Aerating, Raking and Sweeping.
BARS Maintenance
Brushing - Rejuvenates the matted fibers and levels the top portion of the infill.
Aerating - Minimizes risk of slight compaction, by penetrating and loosening the infill with rotating tines.
Raking - Prevents fibers from matting down and ensures infill is loosened.
Sweeping - Ensures debris doesn't get into the infill.
Other necessary maintenance procedures should be done periodically and according to FieldTurf’s maintenance guidelines.
Inspection of line markings and seams - In the unlikely event that line markings or seams come apart, it's important to notify FieldTurf Customer Service right away.
Infill topdressing - For high traffic areas, rubber may need to be added to the top layer of infill.
Snow Removal - Snow must be removed according to field-friendly guidelines."
Dick Saunders
Dick, I've attached the complete link here so that the readers can learn that Field Turf Scrub is environmentally safe: http://www.fieldturf.com/artificial-turf-maintenance/
Thanks for drawing our attention to that fact.
Dave Franklin
Obama's purchasing directive? Was that authored at the GSA Las Vegas Convention?
Dick Saunders
Dave, very interesting links. Who funded those studies? Field Turf?
I also noticed numerous critical data gaps. Since the CA OEHHA was dated July 2009, I am wondering if any of those gaps have been filled since then.
Elaine
As best I can tell, none of the studies that I have provided were funded by Field Turf. Incidentally, the page that you provided from NYC offers the same conclusions regarding the overall safety of this type of surface. Not to mention that all of the scientific public studies that I have provided appear to be a bit more thorough than the 2008 article from USA Today. As for updates to the 2009 report, I have not seen any yet.
Dave Franklin
Let's ignore all the health issues Dave, that may or may not be associated with artificial turf. Keep in mind though it was perfectly acceptable to use asbestos in building C of the high school in 1981. Which is costing $5 million to remediated, but let's ignore that.
Let's just focus on the maintenance.required on your artificial field. Who's going to do it? Who's going to pay for it?
The district or the municipality can't do basic care like dragging dirt infields and you expect them to handle the BARS maintenance described above.
Are you serious. All that so a bunch of second graders don't havthey're no score soccer game rained out.
Dick Saunders
In the CA study you provided, it was shown that:
No study has measured the metals content of the particulates released by artificial turf fields. In addition, it is not known if field use increases particulate release.
The variables of field age and field temperature should be monitored to determine whether they influence the release of chemicals and particulates into the air above these fields.
Data are needed for the amount of time athletes spend on artificial turf playing fields. Data are needed for a variety of sports, age groups, and for both men and
women. Other subgroups with potentially heavy exposure to fields include coaches, referees, and maintenance workers.
Only a single study was located that compared the rate of skin abrasions on the new generation of artificial turf to natural turf. This was for high school football.
Similar studies are needed for other sports, age groups, and for both male and female athletes.
The contribution of field age to chemical and particulate levels has not been measured.
The effect of field use on the levels of either VOCs or particulates has not been
measured. Thus, it is possible that air sampling before or during games would give different results.
Measure the time dependence (as the fields age) of respirable particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) release from artificial turf fields containing rubber crumb.
Determine if levels of respirable particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) vary with field use; i.e., are the levels in the air higher during games compared to periods when
the fields are idle?
While most of the VOCs identified by Dye et al. (2006) do not have MADLs developed under Proposition 65, data exist indicating that some cause developmental/reproductive effects in test animals. Thus, additional screening is required to more fully evaluate these risks.
I am not sure I would want to be subjecting coaches, referees, and maintenance workers, not to mention growing children to this stuff. We thought asbestos was safe for schools at one time. I can see it now, millions of dollars set aside for artificial turf abatement.
While I mention dollars, that is a lovely picture of the FieldTurf GroomRight. http://www.fieldturf.com/artificial-turf-maintenance/ I wonder how much that baby costs. Does the school district have that for the high school turf that the Staff spent almost two months establishing what our true school blue is? http://jposti.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
Last night, I mentioned that a new mower for the golf course was number #15 on the Capital Improvements list. Fifteen.
I just don't get it.
Elaine
I agree with Dick.
Who is going to pay for and maintain the field? Will the YSA pick up that tab?
Besides the overall health questions (note that there are no questions about natural grass but we do have people all over the place on the health issues with turf), the cost of maintaining and replacing the turf is a neverending process.
Turf needs to be replaced every 8-10 years at a cost of about $1 million. Plus you need to pay for and maintain the field during its use. Who has the equipment for that?
Here's a fact. If somebody invested the right amount of money then that field would be usable more often. I was over there yesterday and the infield for the baseball field is flooded. Why is that? That's not needing turf to fix a problem, that's getting someone from the school district to do their dang job. Shouldn't that field be level and drain properly?
Instead of advocating for taxpayers to pick up the tab for a high priced project when we don't have any money, the turf folks should petition the school district to MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE!
There seems to be a number of people who just want to scrap all the investments we taxpayers have made in this community and build something new or do something new. Don't we disrespect the investments made by previous generations by letting their investments go to waste by not properly maintaining them?
Break the cycle and do what's right. Invest in our existing assets and make them last. The cost is much less and more "green".
Albert Brenneman
Albert, think of this as Lebo's "boob" job.
Yeah, it looks sexy for a while, but then those implants start to leak into the body, the long term health issue arise and somebody needs to pay to have them removed.
I'll take natural any day.
Giffen Good
Commissioner Fraasch, since you must read this blog, I have a public question. What are your thoughts regarding this whole Park and Rec thing? A friend of mine shared some of your thoughts with me this weekend, and a lot of it made sense. I believe your ideas have nothing to do with turfing but helps out a lot of sports groups. Let us know your vision or thoughts.
Ken Ward
OK, you convinced me. Let's petition the Municipality and the School District to maintain what we have, including fixing the drainage at about 7 or 8 of the 17 fields that really, really need it. Then let's buy the mowers, the grass seed, the fertilizer, the gas, the pesticides, the water, and the personnel to properly maintain these 17 facilities as long as we have them. I'm all for it. Let's do it right and maintain everything we have right now - all 17 fields - at a level at which we can all be proud. And let's do it with grass! We don't need a square foot of turf and we don't need any new facilities.
Make no mistake about it guys, the sports associations would love that. Like I said last night, the community made the decision to be in the recreation business long ago, so we better be prepared to do it right. Sounds like you all agree!!
So, do I have your support to make that pitch to the Commissioners and the SB? Who will join me?
I'm sure in the end we will spend far more in our lifetimes than simply turfing Mellon. But as long as we all agree that's the way to go, let's do it!
Dave Franklin
You certainly have a unique way of looking at things, Gif!
Albert, part of the problem is that the district has been cutting the maintenance budget for years, taping HS window and not replacing ceiling panels are two examples. Field care is another.
If you looking at this years budget, you will see evidence of the same attitude towards maintenance budgets.
Which will compound and accelerate the deterioration of the cheap alternatives used to bring the high school project under the $113 million limit.
Dick Saunders
Dave, are we still allowed to use pesticides? And why are we even having this discussion? Shouldn't the fields have been maintained all along? As Albert said above, "that's getting someone from the school district to do their dang job." I am sure that Matt Kluck and his greens expert know all about draining and maintaining turf. Before I support any of this, do we agree that the district pays for their stuff, while the municipality pays for theirs? Do we agree that grass is the better way to go rather than artificial turf? Will you still consider my idea of different sports groups adopting a field, the way many of us have adopted parks? Maybe you can work pro bono with the planning board over the sign amendment since you have been involved with naming rights. Are we starting to work as a community?
Elaine
Yes, Dave I join with you since you've finally seen the light. But alas, sorry to say not completely.
The municipality still has an outstanding "loan" on road paving they elected to borrow money for.
Look at the budget reduction list for the school district. In the list of 44 items, there is mandated vacation for staff, shorter work weeks, cuts in painting and general maintenance, as well as others that will impact the district's ability to undertake all the things you list.
So, how do you plan to do all this without blowing budgets out of the water? Yes, let come up with a plan to undo years of neglect and mismanagement. Can we do it all in one season, I doubt it. Can we turn it around, yes if we really want too.
Dick Saunders
Dave, I know at least two commissioners who would support that vision.
Get Dave Brumfield to agree and you got your three votes.
We have the mowers. We have the grass seed. Fertilizing might be a bit of a problem with the environmentalist tilt this community has but there might be a compromise to be had there.
The biggest issues are the drainage (which was addressed in one of the presentations at a commission meeting recently) and overuse.
I'd agree to invest the money in properly draining municipal fields over time (say 1-2 fields per year) and also create a new field at Cedar so that we can have some additional field space because, as I said before, the municipal folks seem to think this is more of an issue.
Albert Brenneman
I guess my sarcasm was lost in transmission. What I was trying to demonstrate was that the cost of doing everything that we need to do to get it right and keep it right (as has been argued here) will be far more expensive than what I am proposing.
Elaine, to answer your questions:
1. I don't know about pesticides, but to do it right and keep it right we'll need fertilizer and level of attention that the golf course gets from a turf grass perspective. Otherwise, we will never undo the cycle.
2. We're having this discussion because the fields have been neglected for a long time. The anti-field lobby has been powerful for a long time. Funds have been spent on the golf course, while other facilities have been ignored. Play at the golf course has plateaued over the years while the demand for our field space is at an all time high.
3. I don't necessarily agree that the School District pays for their and the Muni pays for theirs. That's a system that has obviously seen the end of the line. Face it, the residents pay for everything. The SB and the Commission need to figure out a way, together with private funding, to maintain the collective inventory of field space, regardless of who holds the deed.
4. Unless the SB and the Commission are willing to fully commit to a state of the art turf grass program that will ensure playability and sustainability of its grass fields, no, I don't agree that grass is better than turf. Even with great grass, turf provides significantly greater field time at a significantly reduced cost per hour.
5. We have already adopted the fields, but not under a formal program. All of the baseball fields have a local coordinator who sees to it that the field supplies are well-stocked and that the field is shutdown when it is too wet. The individual team managers line the fields, rake the fields, drag the fields, repair the benches, equipment boxes, etc. The association also maintains the Township's concession stand and batting cages.
6. I have already (on several occasions) offered my assistance to both the SB and the Commission with respect to naming rights and sponsorship agreements. I am not a zoning lawyer though.
Dave Franklin
Elaine, a few months back you lauded the new turf surfaces over in USC. I wonder why they elected turf over grass. I'm sure they care about kids and the environment. Perhaps your friends and family can share with you the results of their due diligence.
Dave Franklin
My family moved after all due diligence was done. They are all ice hockey players. No turf there except the frozen kind.
Drats! I thought we were making headway. Tell me more about this anti-field lobby. Didn't Mt. Lebanon High School get new turf last year?
Elaine
Yes, Dave your sarcasm was lost in transmission, but let's take a close look at why.
In your last sentence you said:
"I'm sure in the end we will spend far more in our lifetimes than simply turfing Mellon. But as long as we all agree that's the way to go, let's do it!"
So, doing a simple investigation, using simple numbers, not factoring in inflation, rising wages, loan fees etc., etc., etc.
A lifetime is around 72 years. The lifetime of the artificial turf you want to put on Mellon is about 10 years. So in a lifetime, we'll install/replace that turf at least 6 times. At $1,000,000 a crack that's $6,000,000 in a lifetime on just one field.
Breaking down the lifetime cost of turfing Mellon to $83,333/year! Remember that doesn't included the BARS maintenance that FieldTurf says is necessary to keep the warranty in effect.
Or the lighting/electricity you also expect to keep it running in the evening.
Please Dave, when you drop that budget bombshell on Cappucci, Birks and Cooper at tomorrow's coffee, take a picture and post it here. It should be a hoot!
Now then you say there are 17 fields that need upkeep. $6 million divided by 17 = $352,941.
Divide that amount over 72 years and you have an annual budget for each field for each year of $4,901.95.
Now, I don't know how much the district or municipality spends per field per year but I'd think $5,000 would be a nice amount.
SO we can go with you sarcastic $6,000,000 lifetime plan for one field or we can enhance 17 fields for a lifetime for the same amount. By the way that plan would add $45,000/year to the districts already thin budget for their 8 fields.
OK everybody on board with Dave's Mellon turf plan, we'll ALL meet there tonight for a game, whose bringing the ball?
Dick Saunders
Dave, growing up we played on fields that didn't have any turf at all. We lived and generated some good ball players to boot. Hell, half way thru the season we taped the ball becuase the cover came off.
And no in case you're wondering, mommy and daddy didn't provide after game snacks and we did keep score.
Giffen Good
USC has an Ice Rink?
Jay Neff
Know why your sarcasm didn't work Dave?
"What I was trying to demonstrate was that the cost of doing everything that we need to do to get it right and keep it right (as has been argued here) will be far more expensive than what I am proposing."
Your original premise stinks! No one agrees with your idea of what is 'getting it right" is.
It's not funny unless everyone is in on the joke.
Giffen Good
Here are some personal liability issues for elected officials if they turf fields. They are from the original articles Elaine posted.
Occupational studies document a spectrum of health effects, ranging from severe skin, eye, and respiratory irritation to three forms of cancer.
fraying AstroTurf surfaces that have been in place for years — are contaminated with lead and could pose a health hazard to children, athletes and others who use them. A half-dozen artificial fields in New York and New Jersey as much as a decade old or more have been closed because of concern about high levels of lead in the turf fibers
Kids and athletes could be exposed by inhaling or swallowing lead-laced turf fibers or "dust" kicked up by those playing on the fields
the concern over fake turf has triggered efforts by legislators in five states to get studies of potential health and environmental hazards done. Several schools and municipalities nationwide also are testing their fields.
Responding to a request from California State Sen. Abel Maldonado, Attorney General Jerry Brown's office says it will study whether signs should be posted near synthetic fields warning that users could be exposed to toxic chemicals.
GeneralSports Venue owner Michael Dennis says he has a contract to rip up the closed field in Newark and replace it with a new "PureGrass" system with lead-free nylon fibers. The company also will install a lead-free artificial baseball field in the city.
At much higher levels, these chemicals can cause serious health effects. In laboratory studies, PAHs have caused organ damage and cancer in animals. Some PAHs may also pose a cancer risk for people exposed to high levels for long periods. VOCs are a mixture of chemicals that can cause eye, nose, throat and skin irritation. At high levels, some VOCs can also cause organ damage. In young children, exposure to lead may cause learning and behavioral problems and lowered intelligence.
And the personal injury attorney will only take 30% of the settlement for the unsafe conditions! There is no fee unless he gets money for you.
Sally Adams
No Jay, USC does not have an ice rink. They knew that going into it. They decided on USC for the school system.
Elaine
Ken, I just heard from Commissioner Fraasch. She will be able to share her thoughts once the polls close.
Don't forget to vote, y'all.
Elaine
This thread has many thoughts that explain why the STEELERS use grass.
John Ewing
We may want to get Mr. Papke and his Save the Planet crew involved here. From one study on artificial turf they report:
c. Global Warming
1.Artificial turf pitches have been reported to produce significantly higher surface temperatures than grass fields. However, their impact on global warming has not been sufficiently studied such that a realistic evaluation of their effect on global warming can be given. Stuart Gaffin, an atmospheric scientist whose focus is excess heat in urban areas and storm-water runoff, has said synthetic turf poses problems on both scores. Last summer, as part of a study of heat radiation in New York City, Gaffin found the temperature above artificial turf fields measured at 140 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, creating what he described as "heat islands." Gaffin, with the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University in New York City, wrote in an e-mail to Globe West that the "surfaces are among the hottest possible for urban areas, rivaling dark roofs and fresh asphalt."
In addition, the tree planting offset requirements to achieve a 10-year carbon neutral synthetic turf installation is estimated to be 1861 trees (+/- 23%).
Giffen Good
If that study is accurate Gif, the Washington elementary students only need to plant 1860 more Linden trees (give or take) next Arbor Day.
Dick Saunders
All,
There are several published studies regarding artificial turf and injuries. The NFL report states a much higher incidence of ankle and ACL injuries reported on turf fields.
As we all know, ACL injuries are much more common in women than in men.
Therefore, we need to consider this aspect as well as the maintenance costs and environmental impact.
I have emailed these articles to Elaine to post if she sees fit.
Taking a break of commenting on turf for the moment to express my appreciation for Dave who is defending his position knowing he will get lambasted on this blog.
Dave, we may disagree on turf but I respect how you have defended your position in a positive way...even the try at sarcasm was amusing.
Anyway, I wish all disagreements were done with the same absence of name-calling and belittling that has revolved around this turf issue.
Thanks to Dave for keeping the arguments above that line.
That's how you disagree without being disagreeabe!
Albert Brenneman
David, rather than trying to demonstrate the cost of your Mellon Turf plan with some nebulous comments and sophomoric sarcasm why don't you show us some numbers?
I put up my calculations, amateur effort that it may be, but it is an attempt to evaluate the cost of turfing one field vs. maintaining all the fields.
Tell me where my math is wrong. I figure an artificial turf at Mellon will, just for the turf mind you, cost taxpayers $83,000/year over an average lifetime of 72 years.
"Show me the beef, Dave!"
Dick Saunders
Albert, at the risk of opening another debate, I do have to comment on your 11:28 comment.
Early on you and I seemed to be on the same page. Then Dave, made his concession post, which I could join in wring on, as did a few others I think, but then we find out it was only sarcasm. I don't see how that is positive.
Now I did try to do a financial analysis of the Mellon turf plan. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. I could be wrong in my calculations, but I haven't seen anything more concise from Dave or anyone else.
I guess this message from Dave to ELaine is infinitly less disagreeable and a positive contribution to the discussion: "Elaine, a few months back you lauded the new turf surfaces over in USC. I wonder why they elected turf over grass. I'm sure they care about kids and the environment. Perhaps your friends and family can share with you the results of their due diligence."
Dick Saunders
Dick, we are preparing a plan that will be presented to the Commission and the SB at the proper time. I would be guessing at a cost without first speaking to the experts, including landscape architects, contractors, vendors, etc. The numbers that have been thrown around have been thrown around by those who oppose this project without any real support. I don't know if turf at Mellon would cost $500,000 or double that. Nobody knows that at this point. Further, there are a variety of vendors who offer contract maintenance over the life of the turf. The school district already has a maintenance plan in place for it's turf so perhaps there are some cost savings that can be gained there. Same goes for the equipment. Who knows, perhaps the youth sports teams will cover the cost of the annual maintenance contract. I do believe however that based upon the due diligence that we have conducted to date that turfing one field is a better deal on a cost per hour of use basis than fixing and maintaining our entire inventory of grass fields at a level that everyone think is safe and appropriate. Answers to all of these questions will be developed over time - thoroughly and correctly. I see no benefit in putting together an argument to win a debate on a blog. Our goals are much more important than that.
I apologize if you felt my attempt at sarcasm was sophomoric; however, if you review history the volleys that have been lobbed at me anonymously over the years on this blog are far worse. That's okay though. I have a think skin. I've also come to realize that it's best to make my point directly to the commissioners and school board members at meetings. The opposition isn't nearly as vocal and aggressive when attendance and real names are required.
Dave Franklin
My question for Elaine was sincere. She consistently uses USC as an example of a school district that does it the right way. Since they recently installed new turf fields I was interested in knowing whether USC conducted environmental, health and safety due diligence and concluded that the issues raised (like those raised in the articles cited by Elaine) were real or ultimately of no great concern to them. I'm inclined to believe the latter because I assume that USC is as concerned about the environment and the health of it's student-athletes, just like any other school district. Who knows, perhaps they even concluded that an artificial surface was better for the community in these areas.
Dave Franklin
I never did get an answer to my question about the anti field lobby. Did you not get a new artificial turf at the high school? Aren't you getting a wonderful athletic wing, which at one time was to be for community use? Now, you proclaim that there is an anti field lobby. Dave, do you honestly feel that the community is ignoring your quest for better facilities for youth sports? When does it end? After Mellon, then is it the rest of the fields, one by one? I want to share the latest
potential capital improvement projects wish list.
Let's take a look at that. Improving Bird Park field is number 6. Number 7 is to continue with the Parks Master Plan which I am sure you are aware of since you are now on the Parks Advisory Board. The ice rink floor and tennis center sidewalk are listed as numbers 3 and 4. There are nineteen items on the municipal wishlist. How can you say that turfing Mellon Field should come before the above mentioned, in addition to 17 defibrillators, fixing up the community center, ice center facility, sidewalks and fixing potholes? Why aren't you leaving this up to the school district? Why must turfing Mellon Field even be considered through the municipality? I knew the whole joint discussion session thing was an exercise to get turfing Mellon Field back on the table. What about the rifle range? What about going to the school district and asking Timmy and Jan for a pay cut? How about giving this turf thing a rest? When a grandparent is watching a game at Mellon and suffers a heart attack, do you think they will appreciate the lights and turf instead of defibrillators that could have been purchased with municipal funds? I take great issue with even one dime of municipal money being used to help the school district. If that is the case, then Seton and KO will be wanting assistance as well. It would be only fair.
The other thing I would like to address is that you have not been the easiest person to deal with on this blog. Please don't act like a victim. You made my life a living hell when I was trying to run for commission to make this community a better place. I got threatening emails from Mr. Reese and now see that we are being accused of lying. Please. Here is a copy of the meeting minutes where this "lie" started. $8 million plan
No wonder you can't look me in the eye at commission meetings. I don't agree with the "deadbeat athletic supporters" crap, but your group has certainly skewed our priorities. To think that your group will be making a presentation to the commissioners when they have a wishlist which, in my opinion, should come before turfing a school field, does not represent the values of the entire community.
Elaine
Dave, I'm going to try and be as neighborly as possible.
You and your like minded sports enthusiast, are requesting, 2 turfed and lighted fields, an indoor athletic facility, a new pool and to be honest, I not sure what else. We collectively have gone through 38 or 39 comments here and now you've written that you really have no idea how much your proposal is going to cost! Your turfed Mellon field may cost $500,000 or it might cost double that. But your argue that this is a much better value than maintaining natural grass.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Hey, I'm. fine with you, Adams and the fifty or so people that packed the commission meeting putting together a plan and an estimate and presenting it to the commissioners. That's great that you want to do it. But to pack the chamber and "insist" this is the only way and we must start now is, I don't know how else to describe it, childish. Sorry.
I won't say you won't prove your case, Nor guarantee that another group might compete with more money for this or that, but at least come prepared with a plan and the cost.
I'm in agreement with Elaine, don't roll in here with poor, poor me. There have been insults, slurs, late night phone harrassment from all factions.
So Dave, develop and present your plan, when you presented your sarcastic comment, I was willing to discuss it civilly. Want to walk that path, it's up to you.
Dick Saunders
Dick, first and foremost, the folks who want comment and throw stones need to understand the facts.
Fact #1: The Commissioners collectively requested the Town Hall Meeting to solicit the community's input on the state of our parks and recreation facilities. Neither the YSA nor any other sports association or group requested this meeting. All opinions were invited.
Fact #2: The Commissioners are in agreement that the existing field spaces and some parks are in deplorable shape.
Fact #3: The YSA is only pursuing a plan that would turf and hopefully light one field.
Fact #4: The YSA is not currently working towards a new swimming pool or an indoor facility.
Fact #5: The YSA supports improvements to the swimming pool and the ice rink using a portion of the unassigned funds balance.
Fact #6: The YSA supports the use of unassigned fund balance monies that are currently being considered to repair Brafferton and add a micro field on Cedar to instead be used to fix the known problems at the pool (including the locker rooms) and the ice rink. In other words, the YSA would prefer that the money being proposed for Brafferton and Cedar be used to solve other problems at other facilities.
Fact #7: The YSA does not have a cost to turf and light Mellon Field because we have not completed our analysis and we have not completed our meetings with those who can do the work and provide those figures.
Fact #8: Any plan to turf Mellon will take at least a year and certainly require the particiapation of the School District and private funding.
Fact #9: A turfed/lit field will increase the available field space in Mt. Lebanon on a useable hour basis and will eliminate some of the stress on our existing grass field spaces, as well as the high school turf.
I apologize if these facts do not meet with your approval. I didn't make them up. I apologize that the completion of our proposal did not match up with the timing of the Commisision's town hall meeting. We were not asked to pick a date for that meeting. We received the same notice of that meeting as everyone else.
I don't know if our plans represent the values of the entire community. That is not for me to decide. That is for the community to decide through its elected officials at the appropriate time. We will continue to meet with those officials as the plans move forward. We're excited about the possibiliies.
Dave Franklin
Dave, I suppose you'll find this a dumb question, but you said: ''I don't know if turf at Mellon would cost $500,000 or double that. Nobody knows that at this point."
Earlier you said: "I guess my sarcasm was lost in transmission. What I was trying to demonstrate was that the cost of doing everything that we need to do to get it right and keep it right (as has been argued here) will be far more expensive than what I am proposing."
So your demonstration that the cost of doing everything is far more more expensive than your proposal is based on nothing more than... air!
Your last post said: "who knows at this point."
You'll have to excuse me, if I laugh out loud.
Giffen Good
Dave -
FACT #10. the district is trying desperately to fill a $1.8 million budget hole, facing a $1 million grevience and looking for donors to help pay for the high school. They're so excited that they're sending a letter to Gov. Corbett looking for more money.
And they haven't even seen your turfed field estimate yet!
FACT #11. the municipality.borrowed $2 million to pave streets, created an $8 fee to manage rain water, plus they have pool problems and other problems.
Giffen Good
Fact #12 Gateway Engineers prepared a comprehensive review of field development options in March 2012. Athletic Fields - Review of Alternatives can be viewed here.
http://mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2660 I also have had the link on the home page of lebocitizens.com since March.
They are considering Cedar Blvd. Should they drop all these plans to turf Mellon?
Elaine
I apologize, Dave. I see Fact #6 explains that the "micro field" idea isn't worth looking into. You want bigger and better. It is never enough, is it?
Elaine
Blog reader Ken Ward asked for Commissioner Fraasch's opinion. As promised, Kelly responded, but it was too long to submit as a comment. I have posted it as an update on this original post.
Elaine
The CCofML supports a high school renovation for $75m. You can't always get what you want.
-Jimmy Hutmaker
Jimmy, I learn so much through this blog. Thanks!
Elaine
Commissioner Fraasch, makes some very excellent points. First we need to figure out what we have, what we need to spend to bring them up to good condition, determine how much needs to go for annual maintenance.
As to adding another field, with PDE predicting K-12 Lebo population falling to 4,990 in 2016, I wonder if we really need another. But I'm open on that one.
Everything else Kelly suggest seems worthy of investigation.
On the sign issue, with the SB and Blumfield arguing for more signs is Lebo going to be littered with sponsor signs?
Sure it's an easy buck, but is that a path we want to go down.
Dick Saunders
Jimmy - the MTLSD school board wanted a less than $95 million high school, apparently they couldn't get what they wanted either.
They could've possibly if they listened to the CAC, but they chose not too.
So the rest of the lyrics are "if you try sometimes, you get what you need."
Giffen Good
Dave,
Facts 3-6 conflict with each other.
Either the YSA doesn't advocate a position on the pool or it supports spending fund balance on the pool.
Please take some time to attend meetings that do not have to do with fields. In those meetings you would learn that there currently isn't any option to invest any amount up to the fund balance limit in the pool. That is, it needs more repairs than the fund balance currently has and you can't halfway do the pool- at least that is what municipal staff has said (Donnellan I think it was).
It's tough to understand all the machinations of the municipality and their priorities and I think that is what you hear here. I don't hear a single person on this blog saying they don't want to spend a dime. Most are saying to spend it in places that make sense and to prioritize funds.
Field space and fields are an issue. There is a commissioner who has taken a heck of a lot of time to put forth a plan and it includes investing a significant sum in fields and parks. Are you saying you would rather that money NOT be spent on fields and be saved for the pool instead if it means you also would not get turf?
In your scenario, you have no path to field improvements. You have a wish for turfing a single field. This is what confuses me. Here we have a commissioner with a plan to help ALL of your fields, some very significantly in the very near term, and you are actually saying the YSA would actually prefer those improvements NOT be done?
I defended you earlier, Dave, but now these points you make just don't pass the logic test.
If the YSA studied Kelly's plan and agreed with it, you would have that plan passed by the commission in a month. This means you would have a new field to relieve congestion and overuse, you would have improved fields at Bird/Brafferton/others, and the parks would be fixed up over time to better show off our municipality. And this would be done in a year.
Can I make a suggestion? Take a moment to review Kelly's plan and instead of keeping on the course of turf, bring the plan to the members of the YSA- or bring Kelly to the YSA- and have them discuss it. You might be surprised at what you hear by the members....not the leaders, but the members. Ask them if they want nothing, or if they want a new field with improvements to all existing fields. See what they say.
Albert Brenneman
Albert, I'm at a loss how you have a serious conversation with anyone that thinks like Mr. Franklin. It's not only his Facts 3 & 6 that are in conflict.
He claims that he's for improving field conditions all over Lebo, but then writes he's singularly focused on turfing and lighting one field.
He claims his 'plan' is the only finacially sound path, but then tells us he nor anyone else knows what his plan cost.
He wants everyone to support and lobby for his 'plan', but then tells us he'll make it known to the appropriate officials at the appropriate time.
I don't know how one has amaryllis conversation with 'thinkers' like Dave.
It is the same type of logic the school board applied to the high school project that puts the community in the financial predicament we are now in.
They claimed we are going to build a high school for $95 million or less, but proceeded with a self- imposed ceiling of $113 million.
They came nowhere close to their first number and it is highly doubtful they'll stay under the second,
Dick Saunders
We're a step ahead. The YSA met with Kelly yesterday and she shared these ideas with us. We appreciate her taking the time to meet w/ us. Kelly agrees that our most significant problem with fields is our inability to maintain the grass fields that we already own. That is why (w/o some commitment to increase annual maintenance) it doesn't seem prudent to add 2 grass fields to our inventory. Instead I have advocated that the $$ that she wants to apply to new fields should instead be spent on the locker rooms at the pool. Aside from fields, complaints about the locker rooms were perhaps the next largest concern raised by the speakers at the town hall meeting. I don't know why the staff is opposed to fixing the locker rooms without a comprehensive pool renovation. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I think we should fix those problems now.
Kelly concedes that details re: her plan are slim at this time, much like a proposal to turf Mellon. Specifically, we don't know what it will cost to clear the land, grade the property, plant grass, irrigate, fertilize, relocate sewer lines and the stream, create access, move the PW, pave, fence, install bathrooms, parking, conduct the traffic study, etc. Estimates that were part of Gateway's recent field summary were in excess of $800K(before we add $$ for annual maintenance). Further, the field proposed for Cedar would be small and not suitable for soccer/lacrosse/football games for kids beyond 4th or 5th grade. For these reasons, I don't think we should spend those $$ on something that does not meet the needs of a majority of the users and only adds to an already stressed field maintenance budget. However, I do believe that these funds can solve some community-wide issues at the pool and the ice rink.
We agree that poor maintenance is the biggest problems facing our fields. As such, I cannot support spending over $800,000 to add 2 grass fields that will not be utilized by a majority of our athletes, and realigning Brafferton for $300K+, all without any corresponding commitment to increase our annual field maintenance budget. As has been noted here, without a change in how we do business, these new fields will be in the same condition as Bird and Mellon. Take a look back at some of the comments made about McNeilly and you will see that my critics used the exact same argument I am using now - if we can't maintain what we have, why should we add new grass fields? Ironic to say the least. Finally, I assume that those who opposed new fields (before we fix our sewers) at Monday's meeting would also object to Kelly's plan.
YSA is not pushing for a turf field because we have some love of turf over grass. We want a field plan that makes sense under the circumstances. If we could create and maintain grass fields in a proper, safe and consistent way, we would probably never need turf. Unfortunately, I don’t see the funds in the Muni or School budgets to do that for all 17 fields. Thus, I support turf @ Mellon. It increases playing time year round for all athletes. It also reduces stress on the existing grass fields, while increasing the longevity of the HS turf. It also includes contributions from the sports groups and others. I would extend a similar invitation to Mr. Good, Saunders and Brennaman. Come to one of OUR meetings and hear from the folks on the ground. Come hear how we are turning kids away because of insufficient field space. Come hear how we support a public-private partnership to improve our facilities. Come hear what we already invest to maintain these facilities. Come hear why we would prefer to spend $800,000 on pool improvements vs. new fields on Cedar and RH. Come hear how we are required to charge $12 per athlete (on top of registration fees) for field maintenance. Come hear how much we spend $$ to rent fields outside of Mt. Lebanon. These discussions may not change your minds, but you might understand the other side a bit better.
Dave, even though you will not respond to my questions and comments, I will continue to address some things that you have brought up.
First of all, you write: "I don't necessarily agree that the School District pays for their and the Muni pays for theirs. That's a system that has obviously seen the end of the line. Face it, the residents pay for everything. The SB and the Commission need to figure out a way, together with private funding, to maintain the collective inventory of field space, regardless of who holds the deed."
I doubt that "the system has seen the end of the line" would stand up in court. My blood is boiling and I keep popping the Nexiums when I hear that the commission would even consider helping the school district. They were elected to represent the municipality, not be advocates for the school district. This keeps going back to the sham of the joint discussion session. I wish you would back off with the commission. I am sure the game plan is to spend the unassigned funds on other stuff besides fields because if we do, then the municipality will be forced to float bonds next year and that increases your chances of getting turf into the bond issue next year. If you want to pursue this Mellon turf issue, why not work with the school district? Is it because they are bankrupt over the beautiful turf and athletic complex being built? If any municipal money goes to the school district to help turf a field, I will hold each and every commissioner responsible for agreeing to such an arrangement.
Now, I have to pop another Nexium.
Elaine
Has it ever occurred to you Dave and YSA that your wants, well intended as they may be, just might be unattainable?
I'd love to own a 40' Hinckley, a Porche Carrerra and belong to Augusta. Try as hard as I might, I may never get one of them, but I'm not willing to take basic things like education away from my family or borrow over my head to get them.
I'll plot, I'll sweat and I'll dream and perhaps maybe I'll get one, perhaps all three.
But I'll be damned if I'll ever force anyone to get on board or finance my dreams.
Yes, I've experienced bad fields,raked and dragged them to make them playable. But, you know what somehow each season we made them playable.
And each season the kids had fun and learn a little sportsmanship and the meaning of teamwork.
That's what youth athletics are about to me.
Dick Saunders
Dave, why is it perfectly acceptable to put a band-ade on the pool, but it isn't acceptable to do housekeeping and maintenance on fields?
Because you think so?
And don't proclaim that YSA didn't call for the community meeting. Sure you are correct, you didn't ask for the meeting specifically - but YSA certainly lobbied to get officials elected that were allied with your agenda.
That's fair, it's just a little disingenuous to disavow any connection.
Giffen Good
I looked back at Commissioner Fraasch’s prior plan and saw the difference with the portion of the pool. I think that is a mistake on the Muni’s part to not fix some of those key items prior to this swimming season. If they go down, it will be a significant problem. That’s my 32 cents regarding priorities. It sounds like Commissioner Fraasch has laid out her plan and no one on the Commission has committed to or debated against any of it. What gives? It sounds like Commissioner Fraasch is doing exactly what tends to happen in the business world. An idea is laid out there for debate and no one seems to be sharing their ideas. I am so disappointed in our other Commissioners. All I hear from Commissioner Linfante is that she doesn’t want any band-aids. Wake up Commissioner Linfante-if you don’t want band-aids -you are saying you will spend in the upwards of $20 million for Recreation and believe me Mt Lebanon can’t spend that much. What are your priorities and do you have a plan? Spend some money from the reserve so we don’t have to finance it. Commissioner Linfante, financing is not a good thing. We pay interest. Financing doesn’t mean free. Just needed to say that because it sounds like Commissioner Linfante and even Commissioner Bendel were rather aloof about bonds in recent meetings . Maybe someone that was there can share if I am wrong, but the podcast was an eye opener...
Let me sum up. I guess if I am looking at Commissioner Fraasch’s statement she is willing to pay out $900,000-$1m and debate some financing later. Let’s say looking at her prior plan of $2.6 million for pool and looking up on the CIP on Mt Lebanon’s website. What would be about the top for financing some Recreation projects? $3-4 million? If we turf/light Mellon or any other location, what do we lose? What sport or program gets nothing to improve their facilities? Does hockey not get their much needed updates, does the bathroom facility or zero-entry pool get cut, does the learning center at the golf course get pulled? Or even crazier, does the Commission decide to hold off roofing the Muni building that’s already leaking, do streets get ignored, do we get the leaf collector cut from the budget, does our recycling program get cut, do nonprofit programs not get their funding, does the library get funding cut, does the Rec facility continue to smell? Who says that turf is more important than any of those items? Again let’s look at the pie, and divide it up. Fields folks (FF): If grass is your only option, will you take it, if Commissioner Fraasch can get the City to pay more attention to their current investments? In all my years here, I have never seen an elected official throw out their plan, talk about it online, and offer more accessibility. We ought to take advantage of it. FF, if I were you, call Commissioner Fraasch today and tell her that you will advocate her plan to the other Commissioners. Get a vote at the next meeting and start what’s needed for the community. It’s that simple in my eyes. Last comment, I was reluctant of Commissioner Fraasch being on the Commission, but now I couldn’t be a bigger fan. She seems to be the only one working and talking to the public. Thank you for proving this old man wrong about you.
Ken Ward
Well said, Ken.
Dave, Kelly is promising to push for those needed maintenance expenses for existing fields. She is also saying that the people on staff are telling her and the community that turfing a field, while it does give more practice time, does not address the issue of limited field space.
Turfing Mellon does not increase field space.
If you are insistent that you need a full sized field then Robb Hollow should do the trick as it should be able to fit a full sized field rather than the "micro" field you say would be on Cedar.
Spending over $1 million to turf and light Mellon might extend practice times by a few hours and reduce the number of inconvenient weather cancellations. But it still leaves you with a field space problem which you admittedly have.
So, increasing maintenance on existing fields is on the table. This will increase field use times across the board, not just at Mellon.
Adding another field to the mix at either Cedar or Robb Hollow is on the table. This will increase field space which is good because you won't have to turn away any more kids because of limited field space.
That plan sounds like it addresses ALL of your concerns except for the occasional rain delay. My bet is that if you took that plan to the YSA that they would buy it. Those are all things you don't have today and would come with no tax increase and no bonds to pay off over the next 25 years like turf would. Ok, maybe there is an increase in the operating budget to properly pay for field and park maintenance (unless the Commission finds something to cut) but that increase is tiny.
Dick, I get what you are saying. Yes, there seem to be conflicts in Dave's arguments. I guess I am still trying to convince him that there is ALREADY a plan on the table that gets him and the YSA everything they want, just not in the same way they wanted it.
If he and the YSA would sit back for a moment they might just grasp it. There hasn't been a commission here that has promised to do anything near what is on the table from Kelly. When will they have another commission that will even come close? If the YSA consolidated behind this plan then it would be voted on next month and passed with at least four votes.
Albert Brenneman
There is a learning center at the golf course?
I wonder if Mr. Kluck pays the muni $12 for each of his students?
Jay Neff
Nexium does not prevent blood from boiling....but it does have many more known and well documented side effects that turf.
Jay Neff
That's mature Mr. Neff - screw some of your neighbors because you're not getting your way. My kids used to do that when they weren't getting their way too - when they were 7!
First I don't give a hoot if Mr. Klick pays or not as he probably doesn't tear up the course, the better the players are, the faster the rounds and they probably get unstudied as well in the etiquette of the game. Making it more enjoyable for everyone.
Second, even if he had 1,000 students that $12,000 wouldn't pay for your Mellon turf.
So dry your eyes Mr. Neff and look for a more mature solution.
Giffen Good
Elaine, I can’t help you with your obvious dislike of the SB. However, the plan to turf Mellon is more about cooperation and collaboration than anything else. We have limited real estate in Lebo. If we all agree that our fields are in need of repair etc., I’d rather work together to do right by the most number of people. We all use and maintain each other’s fields as it is. Nothing will get done if we throw a big divide between the municipality and the SB as you suggest.
Let’s apply your "us vs. them" mentality across the board. Would you support telling the high school baseball, soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey programs that they are no longer permitted to use the municipal fields at Cedar Blvd and in Bird Park? Should we tell the high school cross country teams that under no circumstances should they use a course that runs through Main Park? How about the golf and hockey teams? Where do they go after the municipality kicks them out? We must stop helping the school district with all of their shortcomings, right?!?
Are you then similarly prepared for the school district to tell the municipality that it can’t use their fields and playgrounds for its K-4 sports and other summer camps? Should the school district tell the municipality to take its fireworks display somewhere else this year?
Obviously, I think you appreciate the absurdity of these examples. Perhaps you don't. My point is that we can't simply build a wall between these two authorities and demand that they never communicate, let alone work together to solve problems. You wanted the joint meetings to resume, but now you protest the manner in which they have resumed. Talk about a headache!
I’m not going to convince some of you that turfing Mellon is a good idea regardless of what I say. I’m content to live with the fact that when it comes time for a vote, you’ll be there encouraging a “no”. Believe me, I’m okay with that. I really am. I’m okay with it because the number of people that I have spoken to since the town hall meeting have encouraged us to move forward with the plan. You guys may be right . . . we may get our butts handed to us at some point and it will have all been for not. I can live with the result either way.
Carry on. You can have your blog back.
That is instructed not unstudied in the etiquette of the game.
Dang spell check.
Giffen Good
Dave, the number of people you've spoken to want you to go ahead with the plan?
I thought you told us here that you don't have a plan yet! No numbers, no requirements, no studies. But you do have a number of people that want you to proceed with your plan... That's incredibly scary, probably the same group that Mr. Kubit talked too.
Giffen Good
Dave, you could make your case - show us how turf is more economical, environmentally safer and healthier, and adds play time over grass.
I might be a convert if you did.
Or if you prefer, take your ball and go home mad.
One way you might make friends out of enemies, the other just keeps things the same.
Dick Saunders
Good one, Jay. While I was approving your negative comments, Jay and Dave, I was meeting with Chuck and Charlotte to come up with some ideas about sports facilities - both municipal and district. Charlotte will be writing about our meeting in the next couple of days. We're residents of Mt. Lebanon and we have all been involved with youth sports. I think it was a productive meeting.
I can have my blog back? I never lost it, Dave. It is comments like that, Dave, that doesn't help your cause. Jay, are you involved with sports too? How about some solutions besides bringing up drug uses and side effects?
Elaine
Dave,
It's quite simple. You don't have four votes to float a bond to turf Mellon.
What don't you get about that?
Absent that bond, would the YSA support the alternative that has been presented by the sitting commissioner? Or would the YSA rather wait and see if it can elect a fourth commissioner in two or four or six or eight years to get the fourth vote for a bond that includes turfing Mellon?
You know that term, "strike while the iron is hot"? Well, here the YSA has the opportunity to get what it needs (maybe not what it wants). All it has to do is throw its weight behind the only plan that has been introduced thus far.
Elaine, I, too, give you permission to have your blog back....lol
Albert Brenneman
When times are good, you can say "this AND that." When times are not good, you have to say "this OR that."
If you want to put the best fields posible out there and there's not enough cash in the coffers, then what is going to get struck from the budget to fund this? Will we cut a fire truck? Will we cut First Fridays? Will we cut Fireworks? Will we not pave roads for a year? Will we cut items from the new high school (which we also can't afford)? Will we cut employees? What programs will we cut? Will we try to renegotiate teacher contracts?
I hear lots of proposals on what sort of field would be good but I don't hear what sacrifices are going to be made to reach that goal. The School District budget had a $2M hole in it. With that sort of predicament, I am surprised you don't see them talking about SELLING the fields to fill that gap.
Maybe we're just trying to develop the "Transforming Wealth into Debt" plan.
Responding to prior criticizms, I pay upward of $14,500 for the privilege to teach at the Mt. Lebanon Golf Course. This is public knowledge and included in the budget. It was a competitive bid with an RFP requested by the municipality. 30 years of teaching, playing and contributing to the betterment of the youth of Mt. Lebanon, starting the Pittsburgh Youth Golf Foundation, The Allegheny County Special Olympics Golf Program and doing fundraisers for many organizations in Mt. Lebanon and continuing to contribute time and money to every organization imaginable, someone who has no clue can challenge my integrity. What a great country.
Matt Kluck
Matt, Jay likes to send in those zingers. I don't think he has ever said anything constructive here.
Elaine
Matt,
Don't let the b******s get you down. You have done so much for the youth here and the community in general. How's that high school girls' golf team coaching going? I was very impressed at the fundraiser you held for them at Oakmont, not to mention how you inspired me to play golf. You are a good man, Matt. Don't EVER forget it!
-Charlotte Stephenson
Thank you Charlotte and Elaine for you support and encouragement.
Matt Kluck
For the record Elaine, I support both positions. I'll make a final decision when and if Dave's group provides a plan. Both sides have some valid points.
Also for the record, I did not criticize or challenge your integrity Mr. Kluck. I simply asked 2 questions. I had no idea the golf course had a learning center. And I also was curious if Mr. Kluck paid a fee to the muni, similar to the fee that each youth sports group currently pays to the YSA.
Many tax payers in Mt. Lebanon never use the golf course, but we pay taxes to maintain it. I believe it was a very fair question to ask. And I appreciate you taking the time to answer them.
Jay Neff
I have been reviewing this discussion for a couple of days and considered posting often. I have avoided posting lately due to concerns that these discussions are devolving to snippy immature banter rather then discussion. But I was very encouraged that Elaine is attempting to curtail the DAS slur so I decided to try again. There has been a lot of incorrect information bandied about. Hopefully over the coming weeks and months we will be able to correct most of it. But there are a few things I would like to focus on.
1) Turf is maintanable to a level that grass is not. A perfectly maintained grass field will still be destroyed every year with regular use. Grass is not designed to survive the intensity of athletics. The grass dies, creates bare patches, which get baked in the summer sun to the point that it will not support grass the next year without replacing the dirt. The more you use the field the worse it gets. Turf is designed to withstand this type of use for anywhere from 8-12 years with minimal regular maintenance. There is a sizable commitment every 8-12 years to resurface (only about half of the cost of the initial field as the base does not have to be prepared again). According to many experts the maintenance savings annually will pay for the resurfacing. But what is not debatable is the cost per hour of use. Turf extends annual hours of use considerably. Even if the costs of the two surfaces is similar, or even if turf is a little more it is still amore efficient use of municipal resources.
2. I have supported a partnership with the Community and SD to turf Mellon publicly for quite a while. And I think my reasons bear repeating. For the reasons stated above I believe turf is a good investment. If we were to turf a field in Mt. Lebanon the most logical choices would be one of the following, Bird, Middle and Wildcat, Jefferson or Mellon. Bird we believe can be improved to make it a better field (a drainage improvement project has already been approved and is currently being scheduled). Additionally, Birds natural park setting turf might seem out of place and would definitely anger many who see Bird as our best green space. Middle and Wildcat would certainly be a possibility, as would Jefferson or Mellon. There are two main differences with those 3 fields. Jefferson and the Middle/Wildcat complex are at least in decent shape while Mellon may be the worst field in town. Why upgrade OK to great for the same money we could upgrade awful to great. Our total field stock is in better condition if we upgrade Mellon over any other field. The other difference is location. No other rec expenditure could possibly help our primary business district more than improving Mellon. If Mellon was devloped and made our "showcase field" we would be drawing more potential customers to within a couple of hundred feet of our business center. Pizza places,ice cream and yogurt, gyros and other eateries would have an increased appeal if people could just walk to them after the game. Or parents could drop off kids for practice and go get coffee or do some shopping.
I would support turf at middle/wildcat but I would just rather see our business district get some benefit if we are going to spend the money. And if additionally the school district handles the maintanence because they already have the equipment and the properly trained personnel, all the better.
If anyone would like to discuss this further I am more then happy to talk on the phone or meet in person. I will also try to respond to any thoughtful questions, but I will most likely ignore snarky comments.
Dave Brumfield
I debated about copying and pasting your comment, Dave B. into a new post called Turf War cont. Where are we now, comment 75?
Well, here goes my comment.
I wasn't able to reply when I approved your comment because I was supporting uptown businesses at the time and have a devil of a time typing on my iPad. You should know I am a big proponent of supporting businesses in uptown Mt. Lebanon.
First of all, you are aware of how I feel about commissioners supporting the turfing of Mellon Field. I am not a lawyer, but the word "misfeasance" comes to mind. I am sure you and Dave F. will correct me if I am wrong since you are both in the profession. I find it odd that a commissioner is defending a district project while there hasn't been a peep from or to the District. Would you explain that one to me, Dave B.?
Second, if "the Daves" believe that turfing a field is the way to go, then I guess this will continue after you get Mellon turfed. How many fields did you all say there were? 17? How many of those are District fields? Will the municipality be supporting that effort as well? Should turfing school district fields become a line item in the municipal budget? I wonder what service level that would be.
Third, I heard somewhere along the line that a concession stand was in the plans for Mellon. Doesn't that kind of kill the argument of supporting uptown businesses? If that is the case, who would be running that stand? And who would be collecting the profits?
Fourth, aren't these businesses supported already during their business hours when a game takes place at Mellon? Would the addition of lights be enough for businesses to stay open a few more hours to wait for the games to end?
Finally, why is there a power play on the Commission? Why not the School District? I am confused.
Elaine
Please continue to comment on Working Together 101.
I want to continue the comments there, rather than scrolling through over 75 comments here. Thank you for your input. Keep it coming!
Elaine
I'm interested in seeing the maintenance schedules the school district has for maintaining the community’s assets. Marge Sable made it known she was shocked that the district didn't have a maintenance schedule prior to her being superintendent.
Freda Witness
Post a Comment