Who cares about the poll? UPDATED

I sent this letter to the commissioners this evening.

Commissioners,
On my Lebo Citizens blog, I have extended the deadline for the latest poll about artificial turf. I mentioned Dave Franklin's blog hoping to give the community the opportunity to learn more about Dave Brumfield's plan. As of today, your project has the support of 25% of the voters. 61% of the voters do not want any artificial turf. 13% would rather have other fields improved instead of Wildcat and Middle fields.
I would like to include two articles about turf.
http://www.westcoastturf.com/pdfs/real3.pdf Check page 4 for the costs and requirements of Franklin's maintenance-free artificial turf.
http://www.redhenturf.com/pdfs/TheTruthAboutArtificialTurf.pdf The case for staying with grass is overwhelming.
Elaine Gillen

I got this nice response from Dave Brumfield.

Thank you for your input. I have seen those articles and they do represent one perspective. As to the poll, it is a shame that such a minuscule portion of our community participated.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Dave

This thoughtful response was from John Bendel:

Elaine,  

Thanks for the articles. I read both of them. I have seen similar ones plus others that have different conclusions. The second article was particularly interesting. The one thing that isn't considered in these articles is the use-ability of synthetic turf fields vs. grass fields. For example, installing synthetic turf will increase the use-ability of these fields, i.e. more games and practices. This would be especially true for wildcat and middle. The current use of these fields is predominately for baseball. Using synthetic turf will continue to allow for baseball plus it would accommodate full a full size soccer, lacrosse and football fields. This is not possible with the dirt and grass surface at wildcat and middle. The size of the same surface field (all synthetic turf) would permit more than one team to practice simultaneously, which isn't practical under the current configuration. So when considering cost, grass vs. synthetic turf, in my view, use-ability is a more appropriate way to measure cost-benefit vs. simply using annual cost. 

As you may know, some of our sports teams are renting fields in other communities because fields are not available in Mt. Lebanon. That has motivated me to explore options to meet the needs of our players and families. Because we have limited options to create new full sized fields, I believe we should enhance the condition of our current fields like we have started to do with the drainage improvements at Bird field. Similar improvements can be made at Brafferton. Likewise, I view the use of synthetic turf at wildcat and middle as a field enhancement and a viable option that should be seriously considered. Finding a site large enough for a full size field is difficult in our built community and would likely cost at least as much to develop as turfing wildcat and middle. Even the second bullet on page 16 of the "red hen turf" article that you sent concludes that synthetic turf should be considered if a school (community) doesn't have land near it to expand and the field will be used for multiple sporting events all year round. I think Mt. Lebanon meets that criteria. 

The red hen turf article contains a good set of questions that we need to address. In addition, we need to better understand the maintenance of synthetic turf. Finally, the sources of funds to complete the project need to be discussed. 

Thanks again for forwarding the articles.

John

And from my commissioner, Kristen Linfante's reply:

Elaine,
Thanks for forwarding the articles and alerting us about your poll. I was not aware of the poll, and you did not mention the number of people who participated in the poll, but based on Mr. Brumfield's email, I imagine it was, unfortunately, a very small number.

Both articles make interesting points, however, I second Mr. Bendel's comments and observations which he so eloquently stated in his email. I too believe that turfing Middle and Wildcat would dramatically improve the usability of those fields - especially since they would become a single multi-purpose facility that could accomodate all field sports. My goal is to find a solution that can accomodate the largest group of people/players. Just as I am willing to support a skate park to serve our skating community, I would like to be able to serve the needs of as many sports groups as possible with a field solution. In my mind, turfing Middle and Wildcat would do just that. It would be very difficult for me to single out any one sports group and say that they deserve more field time and space than others. By developing a multi-use turfed field, we can address the needs of virtually every group involved in field sports. We could not accomplish this anywhere else in Mt. Lebanon due to space limitations. While I and my family are not particularly interested or involved in sports in Mt. Lebanon, I still recognize that sports and outdoor recreation in general are valued by a good number of adults and children in the community, whether it is skating, or baseball, or lacrosse, or football, or any of a number of activities. This is a fact that I am not willing to ignore.

Thanks again for sending the articles.
Kristen Linfante
Commissioner, Ward 3

Looks like a done deal, so I am closing the poll, even though I previously extended it. I wanted to be fair after letting people know about Dave Franklin's blog, Lebo Fields. They really don't care what we think. Dave Franklin, you win.

Update June 20, 2012 12:55 PM The following is a very long email, which is too long to post as a comment.

Bendel's Email
Permission to share.

It's been interesting watching the machinations surrounding the artificial turf issue.  I understand there is room for difference of opinion, but what I don't understand is when somebody is convinced of something that is logically not possible and I especially do not trust commissioners that refuse to do their homework.

Mr. Bendel states:
"Using synthetic turf will continue to allow for baseball plus it would accommodate full a full size soccer, lacrosse and football fields"

Wait, how in the world is this possible unless you are expanding the footprint of the field.  But these fields are surrounded by fences, a hill and a street.  I don't see how there could be any expansion to allow for these other field sports. Indeed, if the field is big enough after turf to house these sports, then they should be able to use the field today in the same manner. On this point it appears that Mr. Bendel has been sold a line of goods from the snakeoil salesmen in Mt. Lebanon.  Maybe Mr. Bendel thinks the dirt infields will also be turfed? If so, then the main purpose of the fields (baseball fields as he points out earlier) changes from baseball to all-purpose and the baseball experience gets degraded because of the change.  If they do change to all turf, who would be responsible for raising and lowering the pitching mound?  I know, small potatoes right?.

Mr. Bendel states:
"Even the second bullet on page 16 of the "red hen turf" article that you sent concludes that synthetic turf should be considered if a school (community) doesn't have land near it to expand"

Did Mr. Bendel not read the proposal put forth by Commissioners Fraasch and Kluck?  There is space to expand.  There could be a field where public works is currently letting all their equipment sit idle (forcing public works to clean up their act and stop using land not dedicated for their purposes). There could be a full sized field at Robb Hollow.  Each of these solutions would cost less than turfing Wildcat and Middle.   Since the staff and others have said that we have a field SPACE issue and not a field CONDITION issue, adding a new grass field would make sense.  Adding two or three hours a day of practice time by turfing does NOT give the same benefit as adding 10-14 hours of practice time that a completely new field would allow.  I am sorry, but being able to practice on turf in the occasional rain shower does not provide the level of convenience needed to justify such an extravagant expense. Do your homework, Mr. Bendel.  Read the proposals by other people besides your 1st ward athletic supporter in chief! Decide for yourself which proposal makes economic sense!

Mr. Bendel then states:
"...we need to better understand the maintenance of synthetic turf"

This is a lie as the rest of his email response already indicates that he has decided on artificial turf.  But, the statement is true.  The Commissioners all need to know the answers to the following questions before they move forward with artificial turf:

1. Who will maintain the artificial turf? Will it be a current employee that will attend the classes and training to properly maintain the field or will they have to have a new Full Time position dedicated to this? What is the cost of this?
2. What does the municipality need to maintain the turf? What money needs to be put in the budget annually for the cleaning (to combat MRSA)? What money needs to be budgeted for equipment to clean and maintain the field (heavy duty vacuums are needed for proper maintenance and warranty protection)?
3.  How will the municipality budget for the turf replacement in 7 years? Will they increase taxes to pre-pay the replacement? Or will they simply try to find the hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace the turf when the time comes leaving it to future commissioners to decide?
4.  What is the 10 year cost of turf (including replacement) versus the 10 year cost of maintaining a grass field?

My guess on this last point is the following:

Turf:
$1,100,000 installation
$400,000 replacement in year 8
$25,000 maintenance equipment (we definitely don't have this)
$200,000 annual maintenance (cleaning supplies, vacuuming, 1 ft employee w/benefits) (10 years is $2,000,000)((see: http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/forms/turf/mondoturf/Mondoturf_Maintenance.pdf)

$3,525,000 total 10 year cost

Natural Grass:
$0 installation
$0 replacement in year 8
$25,000 maintenance equipment (assuming we don't have it already)
$50,000 annual maintenance (this would INCREASE our current budget for Middle/Wildcat fields so that we can properly maintain it with better draining/fertilization/etc)

$525,000 total 10 year cost.

Cost difference over 10 years of $3,000,000 (not including interest on a likely loan for the turf)

Maintenance for artificial turf will not be less than that of grass. In fact, in all likelihood, it will be more.  Most professionals recommend you have someone on staff that is properly trained in artificial turf maintenance if you are going to install the stuff.  That person does not exist on our current staff and would have to be trained or hired.  Otherwise, most turf companies can include in their bid an annual maintenance amount so that the company will properly maintain the field and therefore maintain the warranty. As part of the turf bid, I would recommend that the commissioners include this cost just for comparisons sake.

Until and unless the staff at the municipality can put forth a comprehensive analysis (better than the back of napkin stuff above) then nobody should be voting on anything.  To my knowledge, none of this has been done.  This is why it is so disappointing to see commissioners like Bendel jump on the turf bandwagon when they have no idea what the costs are.  What if staff put together the calculation and showed that turf was $10,000,000 more expensive over 10 years due to increased maintenance and liability? I don't think that would make a single of the pro-turf commissioners even blink an eye.  This is why this topic isn't about what is right for the community, Elaine.  This topic is one of commissioners paying back their friends for helping to get them elected. And we all thought Quid Pro Quo was something left to the US Congress! Local elections matter, folks! Someone should do a RTK for any and all emails related to artificial turf for both the commission and school board.

You won't know who I am, but I will be actively campaigning against any of the commissioners that do not do their homework on this and vote blindly for artificial turf.  In the end, turf is a WANT, not a need. In times of budget contraction, how in the world can anyone justify this additional burden on taxpayers?


Citizen_A