It was a pleasure to meet today with Chuck Bachorski and Elaine Gillen to brainstorm regarding what “he wants” and “she wants” and “they want” and “we want”. The fact is there is no real problem solving going on around here, only requests for more funding by those who yell the loudest or influence the most, and we understand how this problem-solving method has led the school district down an unfortunate financial path.
I learned some neat things today including there are many unsung heroes who give their time to maintain fields and facilities. I also learned that some of the sports groups pay for supportive equipment and for the facilities they use (including portable toilets at fields – who knew?). What I learned the most is that we can no longer sustain programs within our community without understanding the “big picture” of what we have, how to best use it and what it costs to have it.
I asked a question at the Commission Discussion Meeting this week regarding the maintenance needs of our facilities. In short, we really do not know exactly what they are; we appear to only know of the big-ticket items. There are many groups functioning independently and, most likely they are unable to take advantage of possible solutions to their constrained resources because they simply only know what they know. “Turfing” is at an all-time high at various levels in our community because of this lack of understanding with respect to what resources we do have. If we are going to make things better we must begin to work together.
So, we decided that there could be a new way of thinking. How about if the residents begin to work together and develop a plan that is fair and doesn’t break the bank? Why are we all sitting back on our laurels and looking to the Commissioners to come up with all of the ideas and solutions only to duke it out for the final vote? Our Commissioners put in long hours and have much on their shoulders. Why are those who want things to get better not proposing real solutions beyond asking for everyone to dig deeper or take on more debt?
It’s time for all of us to stop behaving like children and start coming up with real solutions. We have the talent, interest and know-how right here in Mt. Lebanon to do it. Let’s work together on a plan and ask the Commissioners for support along the way. If something requires a change in our ordinances, let’s take it to them. First thing is first, however, and we have research to do. Stay tuned because there is more to come. If you are asked to help, our guess is you will. Let’s work together and find solutions starting now!
-Charlotte Stephenson
USC put in fees for athletics; ML just whines for more and more. The fees for two sports in athletics are $150-$175.
ReplyDeleteIn addition we were promised a community center by the school board and I'm tired of the lies we have been told b y the NSF Athletic Supporters over the years and the double charging of seniors for school activities and the Municipal Tax for turfing and lighting Mellon and Jefferson School to finance a plush-pillow high school.
Music gor Mt Lebanon is charged expenses plus $750 in rent plus performances for a District charge of about $1750 per performance. The ticket prices have become uncompetitive and Music now has fewer than 600 subscribers versus a 1500 seating capacity at the High School.
Furthermore, our Golf Course has produced profits that are spent in other areas but not for Golf Course uses. The Athletic Supporters have suggested making fields of the Golf Course.
It seems to m e Chuck has a smooth tongue and a tight wallet. Good luck funding the Cheap Sons of Bitches, Charlotte.
John Ewing
John, I spent two hours in a meeting with the man. I did not get that impression. Have you met him?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Well crap, there went that "working together" mentality you all were trying to build. Thanks John for that.
ReplyDeleteTrying to bring it back to the topic at hand..
Charlotte and Elaine, thanks for taking time out to talk with someone who wants to give and get ideas.
Both Dave B and F are using arguments for turf that just don't make sense to me. The suggestion that business on Washington Rd will somehow see some measurable uptick in business due to a few extra hours of practice a night seems ludicrous to me. But hey, that is what they want to focus on so they have to prove it to me.
I certainly am not of heart and mind to pay double for a financed field with bonds. You pay the principal and the interest when you float a bond, remember. Typically the interest will be around 170% of the actual bond amount when interest is around 4%. So for a $1,000,000 loan you would pay back almost $2,700,000 over 25 years.
This is why you see so many people against going into debt for things like fields.
Well, that, and the fact that I still don't agree with the idea that our fields need turfing.
Albert Brenneman
I have copied my comment from Turf War and pasted it here. I thought it would be easier to continue it here rather than scrolling down to the bottom of 75 comments.
ReplyDeleteI 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
April 27, 2012 1:18 PM
Don't miss Commissioners Fraasch's, Kluck's, and Brumfield's comments on Turf War.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can hear from Commissioners Linfante and Bendel. Here is an idea. Perhaps we can get some school board directors to weigh in.
Elaine
Albert,
ReplyDeleteI just came back from seeing patients in uptown and bringing tax revenue to the municipality.
FIrst thing is first, there is no logical reason to jump to turfing decisions until we have a handle on things. I believe that people will work together, and if they don't then they will be left out. It's time to roll up our sleeves and research things so that we can problem-solve. I have already received calls from knowledgeable individuals who want to help.
-Charlotte Stephenson
Matt, Dave and Kelly, thanks for engaging here, I promise to try to be civil and remain on topic.
ReplyDeleteFirst a question for Mr Brumfield, you claim grass fields can't get heavy use and be maintained. Scott and Dormont appear to be able to manage grass fields quite well. I don't know what they spend or how they do it, but it appears to fisprove your claim.
Our own Dixon Field is better than any field I ever played youth ball on and again seems to dispute your claim.
Is it infinitely mor expensive than a turfed field? I presented a quick estimate of the cost to install fief at Mellon and the cost replace it every ten years during an average 72 year life span. Without any msintenace it worked out to $83,000/year.
How much more is that than what we spend on Mellon now?
You and Mr. Franklin seem to believe artificial turf is a more cost effective plan than grass, but neither has offered even the vaguest estimate of installation or cost of ownership for a turfed field.
Until one is presented then compare with what we spend on Mellon NOW and a comparison made with grass, I find it impossible to take your turf idea seriously. Again, to ask that old question: "where's the beef?"
Dick Saunders
Albert, I agree with your comments on John, Charlotte, Elaine and the two Dave's.
ReplyDeleteI hear claims that turf is better, but one would think it would be easy to provide some kind of evidence to back it up.
Not to be sarcastic, but I could claim to turn water into gold, but saying it's true and proving are two different things.
Dick Saunders
Comissioner Kluck, thank you for your earlier post. Since you are a reader, I will pose the same question as I did Commissioner Fraasch. What are your thoughts about the whole parks/recreation? Read Commissioner Fraasch's comments and Commissioner Brumfields's. I am sure you agree with some notions from both of them or you don't agree with them at all. Maybe you have your own plan. Please share if you can.
ReplyDeleteKen Ward
It starts here. We decided to identify all the fields in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteMt. Lebanon Recreation
In our discussions, we decided to gather information listed on the spreadsheet. We are hoping that each group takes the time to provide the information requested so that we can identify how much is actually being spent by volunteers, as well as what is needed at each facility. Please email your responses to me (EGillen476@aol.com), so that I may update the spreadsheet. Also, I can't seem to come up with the right amount of fields. What am I missing?
Elaine
I don't know who came up with idea Elaine, you, Chuck, Charlotte, one of the commissioners, but it is one heck of a starting point.
ReplyDeleteWhen the tally is completed, we might find collectively we're all spending bushels of money on recreation.
Until that is known, it's absurd to even discuss anything else.
We might scratch our heads and proclaim- is it worth $XXXX just so kids can play ball.
Or we might ponder, could turf save is money, are we not managing upkeep properly, where's the money going, etc., etc.
Finally someone has drawn the starting line. Well done, lot of work getting here, but now everyone will have a base from which to work and compare.
Dick Saunders
Chuck, Charlotte and I worked together on this, Dick. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteElaine
From Dave Franklin, Part 1
ReplyDeleteElaine, my answers are below. I did not confer with Dave B on these so I’ll be curious to see how closely our responses match up.
Q: 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.?
A: I don’t think this has ever been described or portrayed as District project by those of us in the community who are in favor it. No one in the District (SB or otherwise) has asked me to promote this idea. Not one. I have always viewed this as community project – municipal users and District users (in other words, the residents of Lebo) all benefit. I certainly realize that Mellon is a District property, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with the two taxing bodies working together to improve the real estate of one or the other. The municipality and District are already parties to a joint maintenance agreement, we already share buying powers and other spaces and services without the level of angst that has been attributed to this proposal. I also concede that the plan to turf Mellon may need to crafted to allow for the legal requirements of contributing municipal funds to a school district property, etc. but I don’t think that is an impediment to the overall plan. As has been suggested, there are plenty of smart people in this community who can work together to creatively solve this portion of the problem.
Q: 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?
A: I’m glad you asked this question. I recognize that turf is a significant investment. I also recognize that most of our residents value these field spaces and the opportunities they provide. Over the long term, converting one of our multipurpose fields will greatly benefit the sports/recreational programs we have here. A turfed field can be used all year long unless it is covered in snow. Using this year as an example, a turfed field would have been in use for the better part of 50 weeks given our mild winter. No one that I have spoken to has suggested that if we turf Mellon that we should immediately begin an initiative to turf another field, whether it be a municipal field or a district field. With the exception of Hoover and Foster, I believe our District fields are in relatively good shape. They are mainly baseball diamonds, but the outfields are in generally good shape. I personally have no goal or expectation of turfing any elementary school field and I think that the Jefferson pony field is a great grass complex. If our experience with a new turfed field at Mellon prove beneficial, I think it would make sense to consider turf at Jefferson and perhaps Wildcat/Middle Fields. I think the long term benefits of turf may make that a logical next step, much like Bethel Park, USC, Peters, etc have concluded in adding to their inventory of turfed fields. That said, I don’t know anyone who is advocating for turfing more than one field at this time. If there is a need or a desire for additional turfed fields, proper planning and budgeting would be required.
From Dave Franklin Part 2
ReplyDeleteQ: 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?
A: I have not heard anything about a concession stand at Mellon and I would not let that issue clutter the decision to proceed or not to proceed. Personally, I would not be in favor of that additional investment simply because I don’t see it as being worthwhile even without the business district close by. I think it would unnecessarily increase the expense on a variety of levels. Ideally however, this complex would have a bathroom, but I’m not making it a requirement. If there was to be a concession stand, perhaps it could be leased to the sports associations (like the stand a Dixon) so that they could in turn raise money to help pay for their portion of the public-private partnership, which we all agree should be a component of this project.
Q: 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?
A: To certain degree, yes. However, I think it bears noting that very few games are played on the Mellon fields do to its current condition. Melon is generally used as a practice field and the actual games are limited to a handful of middle school football games, Colt baseball games, 6 or 7 weeks of youth football games on Saturdays, and a handful of 7th/8th grade lacrosse games. The remainder of its usage is for practice and without lights, it has no usefulness after dark. As you know, practices don’t generate spectators and weekday games don’t generate huge crowds either. The ability to play weeknight games and weekend games at Mellon will wildly increase the foot traffic and spectator attendance at this venue 52 weeks out of the year. I have little doubt that that certain businesses (pizza, ice cream, restaurants, coffee, etc) will indeed benefit from this increase. I don’t think they would need to change their hours of operation to accommodate these new customers, but they may ultimately choose to do so.
Q: Why is there a power play on the Commission? Why not the School District? I am confused.
A: I am not sure I understand the question. If you are asking why we are making this pitch to the Commission and not the District then the answer is easy. The Commissioners hosted the town hall meeting to address recreation issues and so it was raised in that forum. As the plan develops, it will certainly involve meetings with the District at the same frequency. In fact, I personally see no benefit to discussing a Mellon project without both parties being a party to the discussions along the way.
Dave Franklin
John,
ReplyDeleteThings would not appear as desperate....if only you would remember to take your medications.
Dick,
ReplyDelete"When the tally is completed, we might find collectively we're all spending bushels of money on recreation.
Until that is known, it's absurd to even discuss anything else. " - EXACTLY!
-Charlotte
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteIf I don't like BULLY sports that cause head injuries and possibly epilepsy seizures [football] what medication are you recommending?
Are you licensed as a physician so you can prescribe medications?
John, I putting a lot of time into this project. We're trying to work through this. Do you have any suggestions?
ReplyDeleteElaine
John,
ReplyDeleteAs you have seen by checking out my LinkedIn profile, I am not a doctor. However I looked your symptoms on line. By what I can tell, you display the classic symptoms of Cranial-Rectal Insertion Syndrome. This malady makes lucid thoughts difficult, especially when typed in the blogosphere.
From my perspective, I have been very positive and constructive in my commentary. You, on the other hand have resorted to calling names and other negative gibberish. I think that you have gone out of your way to insult those with whom you disagree. As soon as someone fights back, you accuse them of being a bully. Trust me Mr. Ewing, you are not a victim.
It is very obvious that you are an intelligent person. Why not use your abilities to change things?
Elaine,
ReplyDeleteThe folks in Mt. Lebanon have similar investment results in their 401K plans as the teachers do in their pension plans - too little money - too many special interest groups.
If you are interested in funding this that is fine with me.
I'm not interested in extra taxes for whiners. If we need new athletic fields how did we ever get along with 8,000 kids and fewer fields?
If the athletic folks want more they need to take the lead in fund raising by putting up their own money first to meet their goals. So for I've not seen that initiative.
John, where ever did you ever get the idea that I want to fund turfing a field? I thought I was pretty clear on that. Does asking for information about all the rec facilities imply that I want to turf a field? Not all the athletic folks want turf.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteI am trying to change things by keeping the NSF Athletic Supporters from destroying our community. At this point we appear to be suffering from an over priced HS as well as single-issue Commissioners.
Mount Lebanon wasn’t built upon “entitlements” and it won’t remain the community that it is unless the School Board and the Commissioners realize the District has stopped funding athletics. You may have heard one of the Board Members say at the last meeting that we have added three new sports but haven’t increased the athletic budget. Since Lacrosse was added and their contribution went from about $4,500 to $18,000 that means we have had a real cut in the athletic budget.
In addition, the $53,000 from the District for field maintenance plus the $30,000 from the YSA now appears in the Municipal Budget as an $83,000 figure. My inference is that the District is putting what monies they have into education rather than fields. That preference for education over fields has been a Board preference for many years.
In the last board meeting three Board Members were encouraging other board members to keep counselors but the majority of the Board didn’t agree unless other budget cuts are found. If the District can’t fund counselors who help kids in crises should we really be willing to fund more field maintenance?
Four last questions:
1) Why is the Commission willing to fund turf for District property when their own fields are in disrepair?
2) What kind of example is set for our children when parents make promises they don’t keep?
3) Do you want to raise your children in a community of dishonest folks?
4) Are Brafferton, Mcneilly and Twin Hills Fields expenditures and debt really acceptable expenditures?
John
1. The entire Commission is not willing to turf a district field.
ReplyDelete2. Parents who do not keep their promises are setting a bad example. So is name calling.
3. If there are dishonest people in the community, then what? Move? Is there a community that doesn't have dishonest people? I would hope so, but highly unlikely.
4. I don't know what to say. What do you suggest we do about Brafferton, McNeilly, and Twin Hills? I mean that sincerely, John.
Elaine
Go ahead and make excuses for Chucky if you like, Elaine. That still doesn't justify the behavior and disrespect we get from the Board, the PTA , the parents and the NSF Athletic Supporters.
ReplyDeleteJohn
Elaine, just to clarify (1), some of the Commissioners are willing to turf a district field.
ReplyDeleteJohn, why are you going after Chuck? Really, what is his sin? Is it because he coaches basketball and wished the schools would open up their gyms on Sundays? I think he raises a valid point. When Charlotte and I met with Chuck, we didn't get the vibe that he was responsible for the Board, PTA, the parents, and the ___ whatever you decide to call them Athletic Supporters. That pretty much covers everyone. He seemed like a nice guy. Wow. I had no idea.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to Dave F. Yes, some commissioners are for turfing a school district field. That is disgraceful. They receive $3500 a year to govern the municipality, not cater to their special interest groups or bail out the school district. It is just plain wrong.
Elaine
Little Johnny,
ReplyDeleteYou must be feeling the heat from me. Everything you say has a grain of truth in it, but you twist things around to make your ridiculous points.
Based on what I have read, you are not into athletics. That is fine, but don't try to impose your opinions on others.
I do like athletics. I also want to have decent and safe facilities. I am not willing to break the bank to get them.
We have common ground to work from. You must like to lob grenades from an anonymous location. If you would like to meet and discuss things, I am open to doing so. I don't think that I need protection from anyone. It is now up to you? You make the call.
Elaine, I'm struggling to figure out how anyone can take your offer for cooperative, collaborative, constructive efforts seriously when you are at the starting line calling our ideas "disgraceful" and "just plain wrong". I think that's especially true when those same ideas are shared by at least 2 and perhaps 3 of our acting commissioners. It seems like you have done a good job alienating yourself from much of the SB and now you've moved on to the Commission. That's unfortunate. I wish you luck in your efforts.
ReplyDeleteDave Franklin
Dave, please don't twist my words. I said it is disgraceful and just plain wrong for commissioners to even consider spending municipal money on a school district field. They have so much more to worry about on the municipal side of our government, to even consider a capital project for the school district.
ReplyDeleteAs far as alienating myself, maybe I am just looking for more people to pray for me. ;>)
Elaine
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteYour true colors come out in your posting. I bet you didn’t behave that way when you were getting your way with the ladies you met at lunch. Let us see how you behave in the future if the ladies disagree with you.
John
John,
ReplyDeleteMy invitation remains open to you. Where & when?
John, please stop this. We did not meet for lunch.
ReplyDeleteDave, I guess by your comment that the YSA does not have your blessings to complete the spreadsheet.
Elaine
I just heard that we still owe $1,983,900 on McNeilly Park. It was originally $2,000,000. Would someone "in the know" write in to verify that? I hope it isn't true. If that is the case, was that pushed on the commission by the same sports groups who are behind turfing Mellon?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Dave, I have a solution to your Mellon turf plan. Since this seems to be top priority for Mrs. Franklin's organization, why not attend the May 14 school board meeting and state your case there? The board majority has experience with artificial turf due to the high school. They are in the process of finalizing their budget. Besides my objections to the safety issues regarding artificial turf, my ultimate objection has been spending municipal dollars on school district assets. You did say that the municipality called a meeting on the topic, but the district has been asking for input towards the budget. The timing is perfect. They should be receptive to your proposal.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Mr. Saunders,
ReplyDeleteSorry I did not respond more quickly, I do not check the blog much over the weekend. As to your questions 1)First a question for Mr Brumfield, you claim grass fields can't get heavy use and be maintained. Scott and Dormont appear to be able to manage grass fields quite well. I don't know what they spend or how they do it, but it appears to fisprove your claim. ANSWER: Actually, based on my surveys with surrounding communitities our field use is higher. For example we rent fields in Scott and Canonsburg because they do not use all of their fields. Places like Senecea Valley SD have more then double the number of fields for fewer kids. Keep in mind natural grass field experts suggest that heavily used fields be resodded every 3 years. The only definition I have seen is that 25 hrs/week is considered very heavy use. Nearly all of our fields are scheduled for at least that much use.
2)Our own Dixon Field is better than any field I ever played youth ball on and again seems to dispute your claim. ANSWER: Dixon is our best field. And between the municipality and the Baseball association maintenance efforts probably approach $25,000 per year including manpower (some of which is volunteer). Dixon was constructed with better drainage then many of our other fields. It would take hundreds of thousands of dollars in grading, fill and drainage to get a field like Mellon, Foster or Brafferton to that level.
3) Is it infinitely mor expensive than a turfed field? I presented a quick estimate of the cost to install fief at Mellon and the cost replace it every ten years during an average 72 year life span. Without any msintenace it worked out to $83,000/year.
How much more is that than what we spend on Mellon now? ANSWER: Your estimate is a little high. After installation a turf field needs approximately $3,500 a year in maintenance and every 8-10 years needs to be resurfaced at a cost of approximately $300,000-400,000 per field (no foundation work required). So the cost would be between $33,500-$47,500. (this cost might also be significantly reduced if we pair up resurfacing projects to avoid double mobilization costs). The field would be of a higher quality and, due to extended playable season, perfect drainage and no need for it to be allowed to rest, would get double the use
Thanks
Dave Brumfield
Mr. Brumfield, a simple question.
ReplyDeleteYou tell me my estimates are a little high.
You speculate after installation maintenance on a turfed field should run around $3,500/year and $300,000-$400,000 in replacement cost every 8-10 years.
Under Turf Wars Dave Franklin responded to several of my questions on April 25th at 12:21 with:
"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."
Mr. Franklin writes that turf numbers could be $500,000 or $1,000,000 - NOBODY KNOWS AT THIS POINT.
Are you suggesting Commissioner, you do? Did you develop a plan in the 5 days since Franklin's post, did you have a plan you didn't share? Are you just pulling numbers out of a hat.
I based my estimates on the cost of re-turfing the high school field for around $1,000,000. And FieldTurf's proclamation that it would need to be replace approximately every 10 years.
So here we have 3 different opinions on the Mellon Turfing Plan.
One guy says nobody knows how much it'll cost yet.
You claim, it'll cost about $300,000-$400,000 initially and $3,500/year to maintain.
I claim it will cost us about $83,000/year.
Who's right Commissioner?
Dick Saunders
Commissioner Brumfield, Dave Franklin, Elaine's titled this post Working Together 101.
ReplyDeleteApparently you two proponents of the Mellon turf can't work together. How do you propose enlisting support for your projects from your opponents?
Godfrey Hardy
If two members of the Youth Football Association Board - Brumfield, the Field Director and Franklin the Funding Director can't work together that is very funny!
ReplyDeleteJohn Ewing