Continuing the Joint Maintenance Agreement (JMA) thread, I started a new poll here on Lebo Citizens. I have been questioning the Municipality's involvement in the JMA. What IS in it for the Municipality? Why should the Municipality be concerned with School District fields? The agreement has not changed since 1999. The District fee has been $83,300 since Day 1. The YSA claims to have an increase in participants. Why are they being charged $30,000 each year if field use has increased? They are wearing out the fields, based on their own reports. As it stands, the School District has been bank rolling the YSA during their "lean years." Recently, the District has been looking at various sports and clubs as possible cuts in the budget. Scott Goldman and Dan Remely voted for eliminating hockey and crew from their budget, while others have compromised with a $3000 reduction in the budget.
The District would be able to control costs, in my opinion, if they did their own maintenance. Perhaps each school would be responsible for their own fields. I had suggested for different sports groups to adopt their own field, but that idea didn't seem to fly with some folks.
I have been trying to come up with a list of pros and cons for the Municipality's involvement in the JMA partnership. I haven't been able to come up with any positive points. If anything, it muddies the waters. If the Municipality got out of the District landscaping business, that would create a clear division when it comes to signage revenue. The District is in an agreement with UPMC which permits UPMC to advertise for free within certain conditions. By not renewing the agreement, the Municipality would be free and clear of any sports agreements with UPMC. They could have their own contract with UPMC and generate income for the Municipality.
I am leaving it up to you, the readers, to come up with any reasons why the Municipality should be in such an agreement.
16 comments:
Elaine,
Not on point, but true to form, the District entered into an Agreement with UPMC which would allow UPMC to place UPMC banners on school district buildings several times a year...which is absolutely not permitted by the Muni Zoning Ordinance !
Banners are permitted only in Commercial Business Zoning Districts, and no school buildings are located in Business Districts.
The District sets a very poor example for the students because the District never seems to learn from history, and they repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Will another lawsuit by the District be in the wind ? Maybe UPMC will sue MTLSD ?
Bill Lewis
What, and have further participation in a contract with a partner that breached "legally bound" contractural financial requirements in 2 out of the last 3 IRS Form 990 reported years of such Agreements ? And in their most recent 2010 990 filing, there appear to be several questionable errors & omissions ?
Bil Lewis
On topic I suppose.
Two headlines from The Almanac on 5/16/2012.
"ML school board settles on final budget reductions" This one talks about district raising taxes.
and
"USC still cutting budget"
This group of school directors are still looking for ways to hold the line.
Interesting. Let's see if Pursuant Ketchum does manage to come up with $30 million in pledged donations do you think the board will cut the tax rate or spend it on more raises and benefits?
Giffen Good
The Board announced a $30,000,000 building fund for the high school. Then they did a bait-and-switch to a building and an endowment campaign. A building campaign replaces bond issues and interest payments. An endowment usually supports staff expense and curriculum. We have no idea what the Board is planning.
Susan Frost
Giffen and Susan, I agree with what you are saying, but I would like to know is what are the pros, if any, for the municipality to renew the JMA.
Elaine
If there was accountability there might possibly be some benefit, the key being 'there might be,' but as we have seen from experience there is none.
From the condition of the fields it's dubious as to how much field maintenance is really being done and according to your published investigations no one is keeping track of the money to pay for them.
So in this residents opinion, the agreement only creates cracks thru which all the responsibilities fall thru.
I suspect that the recently passed field signs zoning amendment will be even worse in accounting terms. After all look how vague it's starting out.
Giffen Good
What truly amazes me Elaine, are the 4 (In your poll so far) people that believe the YSA is a responsible party the JMA. I would love to hear how they came to that conclusion.If I had an agreement with a client, a tenet or a customer that I was receive $X annually and I didn't receive it, responsible would hardly be my description of them.
Also thinking are we paying the superintendent $150,000+ to have pizza with middle schoolers or are we paying him to manage and oversee the operations of the district?
Giffen Good
I think there are two different questions.
1) Is the YSA a responsible party?
and
2) Should the agreement be extended?
While the YSA appears to be short given the documents we have, we can't exactly form a 100% iron-clad conclusion on what has happened. I would expect there to be internal emails/phone calls with the YSA folks to figure this out. I am not excusing anything, just saying it is not all that unusual for there to be a booking error. Why do you think the IRS is so massive? So until those facts play completely out, I want to lay off the YSA.
Here's what I am looking at. The $30,000 the YSA typically gives to the School District is $30,000 you and I don't have to pay. What happens if your poll is taken to heart by the Commission and School Board? Guess what, the SD and Commission lose out on that money when the YSA is disbanded.
The discussion should move to figuring out an enforcement mechanism on all parties.
1) What happens if the YSA doesn't pay the money?
2) What happens if the school district doesn't do its part of the deal?
3) What happens in the event the municipality doesn't live up to its part of the bargain?
These questions are not answered in the current agreement.
My suggestion to those who would otherwise disband the YSA is to instead submit language that YOU want to see included in the next agreement. Submit it to both the school board and the commission and perhaps even copy Mr. Franklin.
My guess is that NONE of the parties has lived up to the contract and that they may each have claims against the other. Since that is the case, all parties need to have actionable clauses in the contract.
Just my two cents. I don't want something to end that has the potential to bring additional non-tax revenue to the district and commission.
James Fraasch
James, I understand what you are saying and agree if YSA lived up to their agreement. The way it is written, jan Klein just writes the $83,300 because that is easy. The sports groups claim that the muni doesn't do a good job with school fields. Pull Muni out completely from the agreement, let the SD worry about their own fields and let them determine how much it costs the and renegotiate a new number with YSA. As it stands, there are no consequences for YSA. It is a sweet deal for them. I have some personal issues with YSA with the bullying I see and Brumfield's involvement, I my opinion, is a conflict of interest.
Elaine
I guess the point that I would make is that, while the fields are ON district property, they are used by more than just students at those schools. In fact, they are used significantly by people who sign up for rec programs offered by the municipality.
It's a question of "use". And in this case the municipality is a significant user of the resource. So while I wouldn't suggest the municipality invest capital into someone else's asset, I don't mind at all that the YSA wants to pay for a share of the maintenance. If the YSA doesn't pay, then you and I will pay through higher taxes.
That is why my suggestion is to maintain the agreement but to have people give suggestions on how to improve it.
This is one of those agreements that when it comes up for a vote there just aren't too many questions asked. I had to have voted for it at least once in my time on the board but don't remember any significant discussion on it. I was under the impression that all parties had kept up their ends of the bargain, however.
I think its a good idea to have the agreement, but there needs to be some kind of penalty. Perhaps if the District doesn't rake the fields then the YSA can send them a bill. If the YSA doesn't pay, perhaps access to certain fields becomes limited. Those are the sorts of ideas I am brainstorming on and would like to see the conversation turn in that direction, not on whether or not the YSA should exist.
Overall I think you would agree that $30,000 of private money coming in for field maintenance is a good thing. Ignore any issues outside of that for a moment, imagine the YSA never existed. Wouldn't you like to have a private entity come and tell you they would like to pay a share of what it will cost to support their programs and that these funds will be raised privately?
Maybe you want the amount to be more or less. But, all in all, I think its a good thing that the YSA is able to fork over a check to help pay for their use of fields.
James Fraasch
James, I absolutely agree and the point I was suggesting in my 9:00 am comment.
The idea of a YSA isn't bad, nor is the Joint Maintenance Agreement. Actually I'm of the like mind that the JMA is a good idea.
The problems surface in that no one seems to be minding the store, not the money, not the maintenance nor the bookkeeping.
I've suspected for some time that the maintenance on our fields has been lacking. But never quite sure as to whom was responsible or if it was caused by bad management, lack of funds or slacking off. I 'suspect' it might be all three, with no one wanting to blow the whistle because all three parties are culpable.
As you say spell out the enforcement and actionable items and it should benefit us all.
I though don't harbor your confidence that our elected representatives are up to the task.
I'll use the recently passed sign amendment as an example. Here we have our commissioners approving a change in a district ordinance on field signs to generate revenue. Not bad, maybe a good way to raise money, we'll see.
But wouldn't it have been wise to spell out who was going to manage it? Who was going to handle the money? Who was going to see that the funds actually got to and were used for their original intent?
No, the 4 majority commissioners, put the cart in front of the horse once again. As you well know the SB did the sme thing on the high school renovation. You warned them that the budget would be impacted, but Ms. Klein knew there were exemptions and exclusions available.
So now affluent Mt. Lebanon is forced to go out tin cup in hand to find donors willing to pay for our munificence .
My two cents.
Giffen Good
While check out info on the Dicks Sports Complex I came across this and it provides a perfect example of how the YSA and JMA should be transparent.
http://www.svjrfootball.org/Documents.asp?n=49472&snid=eHOA%5B1O0%5C&org=svjrfootball.org
In this link you will see a button for treasurer's reports for the Seneca Youth Football Organization. 2010 is the last year showing monthly statements but a quick read shows every transaction for each month of 2010 for the Seneca Youth Football organization.
You can't get more accountable than that.
If they can do it why can't our YSA do it?
Same info should also be made public on any sign revenue/expenditures thru the recent municipal sign ordinance.
Giffen Good
Ooopps forgot to add that the Seneca Youth Footbll Treasure's Reports are found under Meeting Minutes.
But here is a link to the 1/10/10 treasure's report.
http://files.LeagueAthletics.com/Text/Documents/10008/29393.pdf
It is the Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual for 2009.
Interesting how easy transparency is when you really want to be transparent!
Giffen Good
And for those lured by promises of beautiful sports complexes that will pay their own way...
Vadnais Sports Center might need taxpayer bailout
Article by: TIM HARLOW , Star Tribune Updated: May 8, 2012 - 8:34 PM
The 19-month-old sports center isn't taking in enough money to pay its bills and also is behind on sales-tax payments.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/150697585.html
Giffen Good
I still don't know what is in it for the Municipality. In any case, I added two more polls, to be fair. Have the Municipality and the School District been responsible partners in the Joint Maintenance Agreement?
Elaine
James Fraasch said: "I think its a good idea to have the agreement, but there needs to be some kind of penalty."
I concur with James the YSA/JMA agreement isn't a bad thing, it's just been management too haphazardly.
I would suggest that for this to work some by-laws need to be followed by the YSA such as these from the Seneca Valley Youth Football organization. For those that don't know the SVYF is affiliated with the Dick's Sports Complex in Cranberry. The following are just a few of their accounting procedures, which would eliminate what we're trying to find out as to YSA field maintenance payments.
"ARTICLE VII- FINANCIAL POLICY
A. An annual budget is to be prepared and approved by the Executive Board. This budget must also be presented and approved by the voting membership no later then the February monthly meeting. Expenditures made within the approved budget guidelines do not need further approval by the voting membership. Anticipated expenditures exceeding the budget guidelines by $250 are to be approved by the Executive Board. Anticipated expenditures exceeding the budget guidelines by $500 are to be approved by the voting membership.
[THIS ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IN MY OPINION. I'D ADD AN YEAR END STATEMENT ALSO]
B. A summary of deposits and expenditures is to be presented and approved by the Executive Board and voting membership on a monthly basis.
C. All revenues and expenditures are to be deposited and disbursed from a common treasury. Additional interest bearing accounts or bank certificates of deposits may be established to hold funds for future expenditures."
Regarding the sign amendment. The SVYF association also has minimal info on sponsoring field signs. They get $450 per 3' x 8' banner. I can't find any info on who creates or maintains the signs or where the money goes specifically.
I'm betting it goes into the SVYF coffers, which I'd bet Brumfield/Franklin were/are planning. That may nt be all bad if... ONLY IF... there is accountabilty and auditing procedures in place and specific penalties for lack of accounting that they paid their share of a renagotiated JMA!
If its going to be more of Jan saying this is all we received and Chip knocking on Elaine's door that isn't proper oversight.
Giffen Good
Post a Comment