The YSA has failed to produce a field plan proposal once again! At the "Town Hall" meeting on April 19, they promised a plan by the next Commission meeting, which was held on April 29th...a YSA no show, “Strike one.” They then promised a plan to the Commission by the end of May. “Strike 2,” they wiffed again. Last night, a special public Commission meeting was held to discuss various recreation plan proposals, and guess what, “Strike 3.” No YSA plan was available; but the Franklin's were in attendance, silent, in the very last row near the exit door. To me, 3 strikes and you're out...or, no promised plan and you forfeit the game. Either way, the YSA proves once again it is all no-show and no go!
I was at that meeting last night and posted the podcast this morning. I believe the YSA plan has morphed into the Dave Brumfield plan which is to turf Middle and Wildcat Fields for roughly $800,000. I don't quite understand the logic behind that since those two fields are the Municipality's best fields. Does it make sense to improve the good fields and let the bad fields get worse? Help me out here. I just don't get it. This was part of Dave's plan for a bond. Kristen Linfante was the keeper of his papers. From what I understand, Dave's plan was submitted around 5:00 yesterday. The meeting started at 6:30.
Kelly Fraasch wanted to reach out to all the sports groups and speak with them individually and not just rely on Dave Brumfield's input. Bill Lewis pointed out that of all the organizations, Field Sports are the only ones who don't contribute any funds and yet Dave's proposal is for fields. Kelly would also like to collect any outstanding commitments from the various sports groups. I am so glad she is on that commission. Thank you, Kelly!
Update June 12, 2012 4:30 PM Please cast your vote in the new poll concerning artificial turf in Mt. Lebanon. It would help the commissioners. Thanks!
Update June 12, 2012 4:30 PM Please cast your vote in the new poll concerning artificial turf in Mt. Lebanon. It would help the commissioners. Thanks!
25 comments:
http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html
The preceding link from the university of Arkansas is an article on Natural vs Artificial Turf. Here's just the first paragraph:
"Synthetic (Artificial) Turf vs. Natural Grass Athletic Fields
... The purpose of this turf tip is to provide some additional information regarding synthetic fields so that you’ll be more informed the next time your community is considering a switch from natural grass to artificial.
Maintenance
It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960.
Mr. Brumfield made a claim that Turfing Mellon would only cost about $3,500/yr in maintenance. He never presented how it arrived at that estimate!
Now he is claiming $800,000 to turf Tiger and Middle.
I won't believe it until he shows us the hat he pulled the numbers out of.
How come we never see any documentation on Mr. Brumfields claims?
It is disgusting how our commission meetings and school board meetings have degenerated into sports discussions for deadbeats.
John Ewing
I'd also like to see the documentation for Commissioner Fraasch's $7 million rec bond proposal that was mentioned last night. That's double what Commissioner Brumfield proposed!
Fair enough. She has shared her plan with me as well as others. Send her an email at kfraasch@mtlebanon.org .
Elaine
I should add that you should email Dave Brumfield to get documentation on his proposal at dbrumfield@mtlebanon.org
Elaine
When you say she has "shared it with me and others", do you mean you emailed her to request it and she sent it? Or is it posted online somewhere? Thanks.
It is not posted online, to my knowledge. Yes, email her and she will send it to you.
Elaine
I don't want to sound too ungrateful but why can't documents like that be made available online? Seems a bit silly to have to email a commissioner to get a plan they'd like buy-in on from residents.
Anonymous,
Perhaps, the logic behind this method is to open a channel for frank discussion with a known entity. Anonymity only gets you so far. You need to come out from behind the curtain to get the full story.
The answer to my question to the Commission last night, "Has the Commission received an athletic field plan proposal from the YSA as promised (some time ago) ?", was a response from Dave Brumfield, "They are still working on it, they still have a few more things to find out"....No, the Commission itself still has not received anything, but if & when they do, it will apparently be a proposal for artificial turfing Wildcat or Middle Field and Jefferson with loads of *supporting* data !
Bill Lewis
So Commisioner Brumfield tabled a plan to turf Wildcat and Middle for $800,000. But apparently he is aware that the YSA is still working on a plan that isn't worked out yet. Yep sure, he resigned his field directors position with a sports group so of course there's no conflict of interest!
The question though why the rush to table his plan?
Why not suggest: Kelly, I know you have a plan for fields, I have one too, but the YSA is working on one and would like some more time. Let's wait and view all three and decide which is the most prudent.
Why the rush? It's not like the fields are going anywhere.
From Missouri University:
"
Synthetic Turfgrass Costs Far Exceed Natural Grass Playing Fields
Brad Fresenburg, MU Extension turfgrass specialist Photo by Jim Curley
By Chuck Adamson
Synthetic turfgrass costs more, a lot more, than natural grass to install and maintain, concludes a University of Missouri Extension turfgrass expert.
Brad Fresenburg, an MU Extension turfgrass specialist, recently completed a cost analysis of installing and maintaining natural and synthetic fields. He will present the analysis that includes yearly cost averages on Nov. 30 at the Heartland Green Industry Expo in Overland Park, Kan.
Fresenburg calculated the costs of four field options: a regular native soil-based grass field; a six-inch sand-capped natural grass field; a basic infill synthetic grass field; and a premium infill synthetic grass field.
In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013.
He said he was asked by fellow turfgrass professionals to do the analysis in response to claims that synthetic fields were cheaper. Fresenburg said there is a national trend toward high schools and parks and recreation departments installing the synthetic fields. Often the low cost of maintenance is a reason cited for the investments.
"Don't let anyone come around and say it's for cost reasons," Fresenburg said. "Maybe they can say they'll have more events. That's true. I can't argue with that. No natural field is ever going to stand the same amount of use as a synthetic field."
In Fresenburg's scenario, an existing soil-based field would have no start-up cost but a $25,000 annual maintenance budget. The sand-capped field with a six-inch base would have a $300,000 start-up cost and also the high $25,000 annual maintenance cost.
The basic synthetic field would cost $600,000 initially and have an estimated $5,000 annual maintenance budget. The premium artificial turf installation was estimated to cost $1,000,000, plus $20,000 annually for maintenance.
Fresenburg factored in sod replacement costing roughly $25,000 every four years for the natural fields and surface replacement on the synthetic fields after eight years.
If anything, Fresenburg said, his cost estimates are too much in favor of the synthetic turf industry. He said most public agencies spend much less than $25,000 annually maintaining a natural field. Some turfgrass managers have said $5,000 annually for a synthetic field's maintenance is a fourth of the actual cost.
Fresenburg said a public agency could take the same money it would cost to install a synthetic field and instead put in a sand-capped field. The remaining money could be placed into a maintenance fund with recurring bond revenue. Then the agency would have a premium natural grass field with most of the maintenance costs covered.
"Schools say ‘we don't have the money to maintain natural fields but then turn around and spend $600,000 to install a synthetic field,'" Fresenburg said. "Everyone is going to this because they want to keep up with the Joneses."
Sand-capped fields are natural grass fields made with a mostly sand base. The fields are less prone to compaction and muddy conditions common in native clay soils.
Synthetic grass infill fields are fake grass with a base of rubber pellets or other materials.
Fresenburg will present his study at 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, Nov. 30, at the turf industry expo at the Overland Park Convention Center.
For more information on turfgrass budgeting and the numbers used in the analysis, contact Fresenburg at 573-442-4893."
We have had no official statements from the YSA for anything. I have not listened to the podcast or watched the meeting on tv, but I understand there is the Jan Klein/YSA version 3.0 out there now. I will be writing about that in more detail as soon as I listen to the meeting. For those of you interested, it is towards the end of the podcast.
Elaine
Just asked for Kelly's plan (more like a direction rather than a proposal.) I got it within 20 minutes of the request with explanations. She invited me to call her and I did to ask questions. I was shocked at her response to this issue, knowledge and openness . I liked that she is thinking about all the recreational needs, her goal is one Recreation Bond in her term and fixing a bunch of our current problems/issues. Elaine can I ask your thoughts?
Chuck wrote: "Perhaps, the logic behind this method is to open a channel for frank discussion with a known entity. Anonymity only gets you so far. You need to come out from behind the curtain to get the full story."
What exactly does my anonymity have to do with an elected local official making public and available a plan that will ultimately require public money to see through to fruition? Answer--Nothing.
My issue is that lebo touts itself as some advanced, tech-savvy, better than everyone else community yet we're stuck in a mindset from 25 years ago. We have to email a commissioner and ask for their plan? That makes no sense. I'm just wondering aloud why there can't be a central repository for documents like that. Who knows, maybe it will yield more fruit to have the whole community view ideas instead of just a handful. People like me work such hours that I can't make it to commission meetings or do coffee.
9:21 absolutely right. I wouldn't know Chuck Burchowski if I walked into him on the street. That doesn't make his position stronger or weaker. On the field issues he's made some strong points, some not so strong.
9:21 I don't know you either. I agree with your point here. If I knew your name would I agree more-er?
Or would I disagree because - I KNOW WHO YOU ARE!?
An anonymous blogger submits an article from a university, is it the findings in the paper that are important or the name of the blogger?
Maybe we should include our financial portfolio, or our pedigree before we comment to validate our opinions.
Why are you so fearful of posting your real name? As you can see throughout the site, there are many who simply hide their identity, throw rocks and want everyone else to do the grunt work.
If you really want to get involved, you will make the time to get involved.
Folks like Elaine, Kelly and others work tirelessly to present facts and solutions to our community. The least we can do is identify ourselves. Perhaps, the plan is in draft form and Kelly is reaching out so that it can be fine-tuned to represent the community. No sense presenting a work in progress so that the unnamed hoard can shred it before it ever matures.
You are forgetting that my policy is to not post anonymous comments. If you had a problem with that, you were to email me privately. I really don't ask for much. I put my waking hours into the blog, website and meetings. I get shots taken at me from all sides. Could you at least humor me and follow my policy?
Elaine
I'm not fearful of anything. And if you would read my post, I'm not throwing rocks. I'm asking a legitimate question. Again, has nothing to do with my first or last name. Second, Elaine, you claim your policy is to not post anonymous comments. I say BS. One can go back months and through hundreds of posts to find comments from "anonymous". Now I suppose you won't post this because I'm being critical. Really what you're saying is you just want people on this blog who agree with you. You all have hammered Posti over her dumb commencement speech that celebrated homogeny yet thats what youre aiming for here. All I wanted to know is why a commissioner can't just float an idea out in public. Aren't elected officials supposed to base votes on public sentiment? And Chuck, if she didn't want it in the public domain, why have some people on this blog commented that they emailed to ask her for it and she gave it to them? This is so ridiculous that I'll go elsewhere. seems this town has no place for open discussion left unless someone can go sit down on a Tuesday morning and drink overpriced coffee (now I'm throwing stones, Chuck).
One of the reasons for NOT posting a document like this online is because there is not chance that a simple document with some numbers in it can be explained simply by reading the numbers.
There will be some necessary background information that needs interpretation for a complete understanding of the "whys" of the proposed solution.
Not putting it online requires you to take the effort to talk to the Commissioner to more fully appreciate the position.
The post is about the YSA. I love how things always come back to what I am doing.
Don't forget to vote before you leave.
Elaine
Elaine, I think someone needs to remind you that you and Mr. Lewis are not the umpires. You don't get to declare anyone out. Thank goodness.
I don't blame the YSA for staying away from your blog. You've described them using any number of slurs. Why should they come here and share their plan or their ideas with you?
The post is about YSA's plan or lack of it. Dave has more to his plan besides turfing Wildcat and Middle. I am curious to hear if anyone has emailed him for his plan. If so, did you get it? Kristen Linfante was supposed to have a plan. She doesn't except to float a bond but doesn't have a clue for what. Her job was to pass out Dave's papers. I am not sure what John Bendel wants. Matt presented his plan with Kelly. But hey, let's continue to go after Kelly. She wants to reach out to the community. She wants interaction. She wants to know your opinion so that she is representing the community.
So now, it is my fault that the YSA won't share their plan. Yeah, that's right. They are not coming to the Commission as they were supposed to do because Bill and I have not said nice things about them. Give me a break.
Elaine
How do you know the YSA doesn't have a plan? And why on earth would they share it here?
I have had it. I will not be publishing any more comments from anonymous bullies. If you don't have the you-know-what to identify yourself while taking shots at me or anyone else, I will not be approving your comments. That was your last one.
The YSA plan was supposed to be presented to the commission, not here.
Elaine
Post a Comment