There has been much discussion about recreation proposals in Mt. Lebanon. We heard from the YSA and their desire for artificial turf for Wildcat and Middle Fields. James Cannon III presented an alternate proposal for natural grass called Keeping it Real, The truth behind artificial surfaces in Mt. Lebanon. Both presentations are available on the municipal website here. Ward 5 Commissioner Kelly Fraasch has been working on a proposal for months and it has now been posted on her blog. A number of us received this email from Kelly.
Hello,
I have been preparing a comprehensive proposal for months to present to the Commission regarding our recreation needs.
Each of you have either taken the time to discuss Mt Lebanon’s Recreation issues or have been kind enough to help contribute to this proposal.
I distributed a draft of this proposal to the Commissioners at the last meeting and have received numerous requests from residents to see what the presentation involves.
After a conversation with our Commission President, I thought it would be time to have the proposal “go public” rather than waiting till I present on August 14th.
Please see the attached link to my blog and find the presentation available for review.
www.kellyfraasch.com/blog
Thank you again for your interest in this important topic for Mt Lebanon.
KellyPlease take the time to look at Kelly's presentation. If you have questions about Commissioner Fraasch's proposal, you can email her at kfraasch@mtlebanon.org. If you care to comment on her plan here, please sign your comment with your real name. Thanks to all.
105 comments:
Spoiler alert. There is no artificial turf in Kelly's proposal. Yea, Kelly! I hope Dave sees the light. Thank you for being so transparent and for considering all the residents' needs.
Elaine
KELLY,
THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT THE SWIMMING POOL BUDGET THE REVENUES DID NOT COVER THE DEBT SERVICE - SO WHY ARE YOU ADDING NEW TOYS FOR $3,300,000? WHY DOES THE DORMONT POOL LAST SO MUCH LONGER THAN OUR POOL?
THE GOLF COURSE TRAINING CENTER IS TIED TO NEW REVENUE SOURCES. WHAT OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE TIED TO NEW REVENUE SOURCES? WHY ARE YOU DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GOLF?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT GOOD GOLF TRAINING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE ARE AVAILABLE AS NEAR AS BRIDGEVILLE?
WHY ARE YOU ADDING A NEW FIELD WHEN WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE FIELDS WE HAVE?
WHY DO WE NEED MORE FIELDS WITH A DECLINING STUDENT POPULATION?
WHY DO WE OWE THE DEADBEAT ATHLETIC SUPPORTERS ANOTHER $7,000,000 GIFT?
I COULD GO ON ABOUT HOW ALL THE OTHER GROUPS HAVE PILED ON THE FIELD CAMPAIGN TO GET THEIR SHARE OF THE CHRISTMAS TREE YOU DESIGNED BUT I THINK THIS MESSAGE CONVEYS MY THOUGHTS.
JOHN EWING
I SIGNED IT ELAINE JUST FOR YOU
The silence is shocking when real names are required...
Dave Franklin
I agree, Dave.
John Ewing
Now that is something I thought I would never see, you boys agreeing on something. Dave, all I can say is that your blog is 99% anonymous and you have zero comments on your latest post.
John, thank you for signing your name. I wonder how harsh it would have been if you didn't sign your name.
The stats are showing lots of hits. I have gotten private emails with questions and I have passed on the questions to Kelly. Thank you folks, for emailing her directly.
Elaine
Elaine,
I stopped by the "other" site and here are my observations, Elaine.
On your site, people frame the recreation issue in a comprehensive manner while recognizing what it really is—a nice amenity for a suburban area. That's it. By contrast, the small but persistent collection of people on the other side seem a bit myopic in their stance by framing recreation, specifically youth athletics, as a need. In doing so, they attempt to equate 10 year-olds playing soccer with public safety, road repair and other municipal-wide necessities. While I have no objection to children participating in various sports, it shouldn't be my responsibility as a taxpayer to subsidize sports if it’s a private entity. Of course, the argument can be made I’m already contributing to athletics to a degree by virtue of the taxes imposed by the school district. But I accept athletics in our schools as a by-product of what has traditionally been an above average public education plan. And surely one could split hairs by arguing merely paying municipal tax is funding a portion of recreation. The difference is, those activities we all help fund through taxes are activities any resident can then enjoy--the golf course, the pool, etc. My opposition to the wish list, specifically the turfing idea for the fields on Cedar, is using public money—my money—to fund luxuries for a small special interest group for a project that adds zero to the quality of play. I have yet to see or read the value of artificial turf in terms of the health and vitality of our community. It isn't a need, it's a want. Were the advocates more honest in their delivery, I think at least the tone of the debate would be less contentious.
Kelly’s plan is, to my point, a community-wide endeavor. She is offering options. When taxpayers are given choices as to how their money will be spent, it is certainly more palatable than being told they have no say in the outcome.
Mr. Ewing, specifically to your concern, Kelly’s suggestions merely open the door for discussion regarding publicly owned facilities that, like it or not, will be upgraded or improved at some point anyway. Quite simply, we own ‘em so we have to fix ‘em. Do I relish the thought of dropping millions into the pool and rec center? Not at all but I know those facilities are used by a wide spectrum of residents for a variety of interests. Again, I make the choice to live here so there is a give and take inherent to that choice. The golf course? I think it’s wonderful we have a course so close. I played it recently and I’m sad to report it’s in horrible condition. But I recall playing there 25 years ago when it was pristine and it’s a great local experience. Personally, I’d love to see it restored and then marketed to a wider audience. That, and I recently bought golf clubs for the first time in my life. (So if I’m going to embarrass myself with my play, I’d rather do it in my hometown.) And on and on it goes.
In the end, the point is, we (residents) need to have an open and honest discussion regarding how our money is spent. The school board ship has already sailed and they weren’t too keen on the idea of transparency or honest debate. Well, I refuse to let that happen at the commission level and so should every resident in Mt. Lebanon, including Messrs. Franklin and Ewing. In fact, I would be happy to entertain a conversation with Mr. Franklin or anyone else on the recreation matter. I understand the local coffee house is now the unofficial meeting place for a variety of conversations. I've made the offer before and I'll make it again. Should anyone ever want to sit down and talk through my bloviating and the rationale behind it, I welcome the opportunity.
Thank you.
Some of us have asked questions about "Recreation in Mt. Lebanon" and are awaiting a reply from Ms. Fraasch. Therefore I think it is premature to comment about "silence" one way or the other.
I am disappointed that Ms. Fraasch's plan does not actually outsource anything, along the lines of Sandy Springs, Georgia. But I will wait for Ms. Fraasch's reply to my questions and counter-proposal before taking her to task - if necessary.
Elaine, I have not approved any anonymous comment that bashes any resident by name. If you disagree, or if I've missed one, please point it out to me and I will be happy to remove it. Some folks have been hard on Commissioner Kluck, but I think as an elected official he is held to a bit if a different standard. Nevertheless, I've have generally stepped up to defend him when a poster, in my opinion, got it wrong.
Like I've said, I support many of the components of this proposal because I truly believe that our recreational assets are what makes this community unique. However, many of your readers that have anonymously attacked the turf proposal (and me personally) have done so largely over what is viewed as unnecessary spending or not having any grasp on the real world economic climate. Others have suggested that we don't even have a field shortage in this community and that a request for an increase is, in their opinion, whining. Do those same folks feel we should instead spend $1 million plus on new grass fields?
If so, then I guess it's really not about the money after all and there really IS a need. If not, I would assume that at least a few of those same folks would offer their objections to Commissioner Fraasch's plan on the same grounds and be willing to do so using their names.
My point is this: I am not interested in who has what opinion (some of my close friends disagree with me on these issues), but until people start attaching an identity to their opinions, we (and especially the Commissioners) can't even begin to guage the public's position on this proposal.
I'm inclined to think that many in our community will support a healthy portion of it, and I remain optimistic that there can be some compromise on turf because I firmly believe that a significant lit turfed facility provides our community with considerably more playing time than two unlit grass fields. Perhaps we can even consider using turf for the larger Robb Hollow field include in Commissioner Fraasch's proposal.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Ewing,
Thank you for your comments.
I think we have some ways to cover more debt with the pool and I will be explaining that in further at the Commission meeting. Most of the items on the listing you will see are far more mechanical than “toys”. Actually the listing on Option 3 has the “toys” and I am not in support of that. However, I did add the heater to give us the opportunity to extend the pool season which is an additional revenue source for the pool. I also added the zero entry(like Dormont’s pool) because I find it important that we make our pool far more accessible for those that have mobility issues (young children, seniors, etc.)
Regarding the golf course, I don’t find that we are discriminating against the golf course at all. I actually think it’s a huge benefit for them. The golf course has done a tremendous job in doing the best with what they have. The facility is almost always clean, staff runs it very well and most users enjoy their experience. However, it is aging and the Muni hasn't invested in it for quite some time.
I am aware of the nearby facilities. I do think that we would have an advantage of the 9-hole course on the same site.
I do think we can do a better job with our field maintenance and will be addressing that in the presentation. However, I will say this, Municipal fields (Brafferton, Wildcat, Middle, Dixon and Bird) are the better fields in Mt Lebanon. As Commissioner, I get far more complaints about school fields than I do about Muni fields. If I am taking into consideration investing money into our current fields, I feel strongly that I had to find a new field to give the others a break. I've been told (by staff and experts in the area of field maint) that our current fields are not getting enough rest time and it will help tremendously in keeping our fields in top shape.
Going back to your other point about new revenue, currently a couple of associations are paying significant dollars to other places outside of Mt Lebanon to use their facilities. I find if we bring them back to Mt Lebanon we gain additional revenue.
Regarding decline in student population, most sports have been increasing over the years.
I won’t even answer the next question because it would justify your name calling.
I am confident that this helps far more than just the “fields people” including seniors that would like to see the pool renovations, golf enhancements or additional walking trails for example.
Mr Ewing, my opinion is this, we can continue to go down the same path of doing nothing and end up repeating history of "bandaid fixes" costing us more than what we can choose to invest in now. For $30 a year, I am willing to invest now. Letting years go by and doing nothing, we end up costing taxpayers more because instead of us floating a $5m bond, we find that things are in such bad shape that we end up having to float $15m, $20m or more.
John,
Your questions are fair and good. Hope you actually attend the Commission meetings on Aug.14th. to learn more background and facts about the proposal. Many of your questions will undoubtedly be addressed and answered at that time and in following meetings. And, you can obviously make further inquiries and comments along the way.
Please keep in mind that no one else - public or private - has come up with a comprehensive community plan for recreation. Keep in mind also that this proposal includes municipal parks, not just athletic facilities. What had existed was only the sum of a series of municipal, unconnected Capital Improvement Plans projects spanning 5 and more years in individual scheduling that amounted to over $22 million. There was no required overall support for that conglomeration. I believe this proposal focuses on only the most pressing and cost justifiable needs.
Our parks and recreation facilities have unfortunately become very shabby, and are an embarrassment to many. A root cause, to me at least, is an extended period of deferred maintenance because of a lack of necessary funding. You well recall the high school fiasco. This proposal includes a new, rigorous maintenance policy requirement and execution plan.
As proposed, this plan might cost you $30 a year in taxes. Look forward to seeing you at the meetings. You too, Dave.
Bill Lewis
Mr. Cannon, I think everyone involved in the debate from the field sports side of things has repeatedly indicated a preference of grass over turf. We told that to the Commissioners when the proposal was presented, and we've repeated it ever time since. I don't think there can be any more compelling statement to indicate that this is not about turf for turf's sake or preferring turf over grass.
However, as is even cited in several of the articles referenced in your presentation, when a community has fields that are used to the point of exhaustion, not dedicated to specific seasons or sports, and facing an increasing number of year long diverse users (field hockey, lacrosse, etc), serious consideration MUST be given to using turf over grass. That's coming from the grass experts, not just the YSA. And while I applaud the notion of a field maintenance plan for our grass fields, I also believe that in the long run the expense of "doing it right" with grass will ultimately be more expensive. Take Heinz Field for example. It has been natural grass since it was built and it has perhaps the finest engineering and maintenance that money can buy. Despite these efforts, and after only about 20 days of use each year, it needs to be entirely resodded annually, sometimes more than once. Will we budget for this better maintenance year after year so that our grass fields don't need similar rehab in order to justify their use over turf?
I think we all know why Mellon, Bird, Brafferton and others have deteriorated - it's not a lack of interest or concern or bad maintenance habits. It's a lack of money dedicated to good, repetitive professional maintenance, combined with zero opportunity to take a field off line as suggested by the experts. For those reasons, we believe turf is the better option for our field space issue.
David Franklin
Dave, I am sure that if YSA would come forward with a check to pay for artificial turf for Robb Hollow, you would get no opposition. Until then, I don't see how "compromise" and "turf" can be in the same sentence.
I guess you can't grasp the concept that there are organizations in Mt. Lebanon who do give back to the community.
Elaine
Mr. Franklin,
Respectuflly, exactly which field in Mt. Lebanon has been "used to the point of exhaustion"? Certainly not the fields on Cedar as I drive by them several times a week and on weekends and rarely see them in use. Mellon is in disrepair because of neglect, not use. Markham is used often and in pretty decent shape. Need I continue?
You've still not made the case that turf offers any advantage whatsoever. It still requires maintenance, correct? Which means it still requires a budget for said maintenance. Where do you expect that money to originate? Look, if you want to rip out the grass and cover the Cedar fields in shag carpet, suede or bubble wrap, I don't care as long as you don't ask the public to pay for it.
If your organization wants something unique for your small core interest group, go for it. Raise the funds, get public support and make it happen. As I've stated publicly, if you follow that route, I'll volunteer my time and help with the project. But I don't think the municipality being involved in such a niche idea is a wise use of our tax dollars. And yes, I have a list of other expenditures I find foolish in town and will address those as they arise.
Now, if you'd like to have further discussion regarding these matters, I'm more than happy to sit down with you and do so. Frankly, as much as I enjoy online banter, there is no substitute for personal interaction. My email is jcannon1775@verizon.net. Drop me a line when you have time to talk.
It might be that the dearth of comments is due to the depth of Kelly's plan. There is simply a lot to wade through.
Some of it, I think I like, some unnnnh maybe if we absolutely have too and some I'd say I hope we don't. There are also some pieces of the proposal that need closer srutiny.
I have emailed Kelly and offered thoughts, suggestions and opposition to some components. Will I get my way on everything, doubt it.
It has been awhile since I posted, but obviously Commissioner Fraasch has been busy.
Her proposal shares a sense of community that includes all aspects of users and programming. I have heard nothing but good things from friends and neighbors that have reviewed your proposal, Commissioner Fraasch. That includes Conservatives, Liberals, young and old. Some people you are never going to satisfy. You should be proud of what you have proposed.
Keep up the good work.
Ken Ward
I would offer that Mellon, Jefferson Oval, and Bird are all in bad shape. Please keep in mind that the issue is not about baseball fields. Instead, it's the shortage of multipurpose rectangular fields that can accomodate every other sport. However, our baseball fields will quickly go the same route if they must continue to absord year round use from our football, soccer, lacrosse and field hockey programs. For example, our high school football and field hockey programs will be using the baseball fields at Foster and Markham, respectively, for practices this Fall.
Dave Franklin
Could it be that we've about maxed out the recreational opportunities we as a community can afford to offer?
Seriously, we support baseball, football, hockey, tennis, basketball, golf, lacrosse, field hockey, bocceball, volleyball, swimming.
There was a day not so long ago that a community was lucky if it had anything more than an organized little league.
So should pursuit bicycle racing suddenly gain in popularity, we we have to build a velodrome?
How about a steeple chase for the equistrian inclined?
Maybe there are limits to what taxpayers can bear. Apparently the school district reached that conclusion when they deleted the rifle range from the HS renovation and essentially told the participants to find their own site.
Why does one sport have 19 travel teams? Could that be a reason we are using so many fields in other communities?
If the fields need rest, and I agree that they do, why don't we not schedule a field for rest? Oh, I forgot, we need to give away everything everybody wants instead of what we need - like roads, trees, etc.
The high school was just going to cost $18 more a month. Now we have a proposal to charge $30 more a month to everyone for kids fields. Sports fields used to break even or perhaps cost a very small amount in municipal make-up. Now the residents are expected to pay for deadbeat wants. That is baloney, Kelly.
Put the recreational program on a pay as you go basis and I can support it. As it stands now I don't believe it is my responsibility to pay for everybody's wish list.
When we built the Rec. Center community volunteers worked out the schedule, the charges and the staffing to have it break even. The meeting rooms have been continuously in the red and the Ice Rink has fluctuated between profits and large losses. The second rink was added to give the residents a place to skate so the Ice Rink would not become a second swimming pool where residents were blocked from using the skating facilities like they were blocked from using the swimming pool. Now the swimming folks and the hockey folks want two facilities instead of one. I still haven't seen an effective fund raising effort from either group.
We have already passed a tax on churches and businesses to fund athletics and that amounts to $3,000,000 per yea - sone of that money was diverted to repair curbs on streets.
How anyone can come up with more taxes to fund youth athletics when we have excesses in yearly budgets is beyond my ken. Kelly, go back to the drawing board and make a plan that is paid for by the user groups involved and don't discriminate against or for one sport or group of sports. Then bring that plan forward to the entire community before you offer it to the deadbeats first in exchange for universal taxes. It is up to the younger folks to fund their wants like my generation did. The proposed program is a non-starter for me.
John Ewing
John, take a deep breath and go back to Kelly's presentation. The increase is $30 a year, not a month. I realize we are all damaged goods over the high school project, which was supposed to be $18 a month, but if you want to go by that, Kelly's plan is $2.50 a month. It is more than kids' fields.
I wasn't keen on Kelly publishing her proposal prior to the meeting because it deserves a formal presentation so that people like you, don't misinterpret it. Kelly wanted it out there so that people can come to the meeting with their questions. She wanted people to have time to digest it. I hope you come to the meeting on the 14th and watch her presentation.
Elaine
Mr. Cannon asked a good quesiton that Franklin never answered. If you want turf on those fields, where does the money come from?
Dave, I am really confused now. I was at the meeting when Kelly and Matt made a proposal to use the unassigned funds to fix up Brafferton and Bird Park. The president, your buddy, said that it was not worth doing anything to Brafferton. I think my commissioner agreed with him. Of course, she goes along with anything he suggests, but that is another story.
According to your 11:57 AM comment, lacrosse uses our baseball fields. Didn't they pay $14,000 to use fields outside of our district? If they are using our baseball fields, why isn't YSA charging them anything? It is comforting to know that high school football and field hockey programs have options for the fall season.
Elaine, The debt service on the bond issue to do her sports projects will be substantial higher than $2.50 per month. Do the math.
While I'm thinking about unnecessary expenses, how much did we blow-up on explosives on July 4th instead of putting the dollars into a lasting municipal need.
John Ewing
Mr. Ewing, let's pretend for a moment that you're in charge of any and all municipal finance. How much would you be willing to spend on the pool to bring it up to opening day condition? And how much would you be willing to spend on, say, the ice rink to ensure the ice is in a skate-ready condition? And based on your most recent statement, would you allocate any funds for a fireworks display?
Mr. Cannon,
This community was not built on the "gimme" model; it was built on financial responsibility. As I posted earlier the ice rink was designed to serve the community and the hockey team on a break even basis. Now the hockey team wants the community to pay for two hockey rinks. The swim team wants two pools. Neither want the financial responsibility of funding the capital expenditure and we already know the YSA doesn't live up to their obligations. The golf course has paid for itself in almost all years but the municipal management won't reinvest the profits back into the golf course because they always have some other reason to spend the money.
Accounting that doesn't count debt service toward operating expenses is at best phony accounting that will lead to long term cuts in the municipal budget be it fireworks or some other expense like a 40-year planned deterioration of roads.
The school district has already faced cutbacks of 30% in athletics in addition to [or perhaps including) the elimination of the rifle team and the encouragement of teachers to retire while we built an expensive athletic wing, swimming pool, and a third gym. If we really are concerned about our children does it make sense to you to cut teachers to build athletic facilities?
Don't read into this that i am against athletic facilities because I am helping to finance a 20-lane by 10-lane swimming pool for my own high school in addition to supporting some other facilities improvements and some discretionary funding for educational expenses. The difference between my vision and the athletic boosters vision is I believe you use the cost estimates to raise funding for facilities instead of waiting until bids come in for the project. We did hire P. J. Dick to estimate these costs and then we told the community the cost would come in much lower; the costs did not come lower and the Board ignored P. J. Dick's opinion that the recession discount was built into the cost estimates. So the District tried to raise funds for the second bond issue then decided to cut the fund raising in half and ask for an endowment which is usually for staffing costs.
In the end it doesn't make sense to me to overspend on buildings and athletic facilities at the expense of cutting necessary staff. And before you ask, I do think some staff cuts won't hurt education but those decisions are best left to the District management.
John Ewing
Mr. Ewing,
Please explain the comment about the swim team wanting two pools. The swim team it seems uses the outdoor pool early in the morning, not impacting revenue generating hours. They also pay top dollar to use the outdoor pool and the high school pool. To suggest that sports teams should front the capital costs of these community resources is laughable. The Center for Theater Arts should pay for the Auditorium since they use it for plays. Community groups should pay for the construction cost of the rec center rooms or library for their community meetings. They should, however, pay reasonable fees to cover the cost of their use. Again, the swim team and hockey do, but what about the field sports. Are they charged for use of the fields or are we subsidizing this? Given your tone, we should encircle the municipality with barbed wire, police the streets to make sure people don't have any recreational activities or enjoy the amenities of our town, and not acknowledge any holidays as that may cost the community some money. I think you're a bit out of touch with reality.
John,
I just checked Kelly's proposal concerning the ice rink. Those improvements are coming from the Linc Bond that was approved. Where does it say that there will be two hockey rinks?
You know I can't do the math; what will this proposal cost us based on a $200,000 house? If not $30 a year, then what is the actual number?
Elaine
Mr. Ewing, with all due respect, you didn't answer the question. Further, I understand your frustration with recent spending in the community but I think my feelings on the high school project are well-known. And that has nothing to do with community recreation. Nor does your personal animosity toward the YSA.
I'm simply asking how much you would spend on amenities like the pool, rec center, golf course or any other facility designed to be used by the community at large. To get you started with an answer, let me guide you a bit. There will be some amount spent on all of those items at some point. The question at hand is, how much? So how much would YOU spend? What is your plan for community recreation? Please understand, this is not to bait you. But if you're going to come out swinging against people who simply lay out various options, it would certainly lend weight to the conversation if you offered some of your own. Perhaps you would end up suggesting something that is actually implemented? Never say never.
Read the proposal last night. Great job Commissioner Fraasch. This is what everyone needs and doesn't break the bank. I wasn't a fan of turf so this looks great.
Ms. Fraasch called me last night to discuss her proposal and my rather extensive E-mail reply to it. I certainly understand her thought-process: By going public with the proposal now instead of waiting until the Commission meeting on the 14th of August she can take whatever feedback she gets in the meantime under advisement, and perhaps make some necessary adjustments.
I believe Ms. Fraasch is a sincere, public-spirited person, desiring to effect positive change in the community. I also understand that, given the political realities, a total free-market solution to Mt. Lebanon's recreational venue problems is probably not going to work in this town; however, her efforts toward increasing Private/Public Partnerships is a step in the right direction and worth supporting.
Considering all the feedback Ms. Fraasch is getting it will be interesting to see how her presentation shakes out on the 14th.
I appreciate Commissioner Fraasch's plan. I do disagree with the proposal for a new fields though.
The reason is that it's clear that maintenance of the existing fields is a burden both on the YSA, the Township and the School District (why else would the be in such bad shape?). Adding to that burden is only going to cause more problems with future budgets. We'll be having this discussion until the end of time.
A better idea would be to let the sports organizations buy the land at Robb Hollow and build the fields they feel appropriate. They could then live the dream of a turfed field if they want.
The plan truly is a compromise. There is no way turf would work at Cedar Blvd. It would bring far too many problems to that area with traffic, overuse. Pluse the cost of it over the life and replacement far exceed what is expected to be paid for a new field in Kelly's plan.
Yes, there will be additional maintenance costs for the new field. I am Ok with that. So should the YSA be. They get a new field for field sports and it will be a full regulation size. The YSA should honestly scrap their turf plan and admit that this plan will do better in the long run for both them and the community. The only ones who should remain that want turf are those that simply want to keep up with the Jones's.
I'm ok with the new fields. I'm ok with the cost of the entire plan that includes major upgrades to things not including fields (thank goodness!). I'm ok with what will be increased maintenance of all fields.
Good Job Kelly.
I wonder if all you bloggers realize that the JMA calls for a District payment to the Municipality of $83,300 a year and a YSA payment to the District of $30,000 a year and that these payment amounts have remained constant since 1999 ? And, the specified work required has as well ?
Does anyone think that labor, materials and equipment costs have remained constsnt since 1999 ? Does anyone therefore believe that the entire contract specified work requirements are able to be and are actually being performed at the outdated funding levels provided ?
Would anyone disagree that this just might potentially have a wee bit to do with the unsatisfactory and deteriorating field conditions that exist today ?
Until the JMA became an issue on this blog, it was routinely renewed every year without question. In fact nobody bothered to check if payments were made by YSA. The contract extension was never published anywhere until I published it on lebocitizens.com on "The Facts" page.
Now that the JMA has expired, the municipality has stopped all maintenance. if you read the agreement, even the school district wasn't doing its share of work. The whole thing was a disaster. But the muni did do its part all these years, and the school district paid the same amount since 1997, bless their hearts.
Elaine
And that is why there's more to be discussed here than 3 plans!
I appreciate Kelly putting this plan together. Her initiative is to be commended. That being said, there are elements I like and elements I don't agree with. I think the turf group, some of the naysayers on here, and possibly some of the commissioners are missing a fundamental point. Groups used to be able to discuss three different plans, see the good in those plans, and work to a compromise or consensus position. Some call it reaching across the aisle. As we've seen with the school board, the current view seems to be one of winner take all. My plan or no plan. Commissioners, if you're reading this, please look at Kelly's plan, look at your own perspective, and develop a comprehensive and blended plan that best serves our community. It's your job. Not advocating all or nothing.
Scott, not to argue, not to fight but there is more here than reaching across the aisle and compromising.
This is about analyzing needs and figuring out how much we can afford.
If no one could figure out that the cost of field maintenance wouldn't be the same in 2012 as it was in 1999, there is something desperately wrong.
While I applaud all the efforts put into all the plans, none of the seem to be looking down thenroad 10-20 years.
Will we just have even more fields in bad shape in the future? Do we even need more with a predicted drop in K -12 enrollments over the next 20 years.
Maybe renting space is the more rudely wait to go after all.
The school board seems to think that's the way to go for the rifle team. Peters seems to think buying into our classes is wiser than creating their own.
Companies and individuals do that all the time. Lease office space, equipment etc.
In ten years, if predictions come true, we have less than 5,000 school age kids. Will we still need extra fields or just better maintained fields?
Scott,
I think that is exactly what Kelly has done.
One thing that seems to have gone off the radar screen... The recently passed field sign ordinance.
The purpose, I believe, was to bring in additional revenue to maintain our athletic fields. How does this factor into any of the plans?
Or was this just a ruse to allow the school district to whore out every blank space on the grounds to pay for administrator raises and pensions?
Has anyone noticed that banners on fences at Middle Field are facing outward to the public and residential neighborhood in violation of the Ordinance instead of inward towards the playing area. Doubt also that Municipal permits have been applied for or issued and paid for, which would constitute further violation.
Hello, hello Muni, are you out there, enforcing your Ordinance; or, are you intentionally playing Sgt. Schultz in favor of the YSA !
Ah yes reminiscent of parking meter violations. Raise rates, raise taxes, but never ever take care of, enforce or account for things that are already in place.
Did someone secretly get authorization to manage and let advertising sign space and no one is accounting for it?
Also, Mellon Field at 4:30 on this Saturday completely empty. No game finishing up, no one arriving or setting up for a game either.
Listening to the YSA and Lebofields, they make it sound like there are waiting lines at every field waiting to get on.
Tell me again, how many fields do we need?
Ahhhhh 4:52 PM, you're really beginning to uncover the sophistry in the YSA argument that there is a serious athletic field shortage.
If two or more groups want the same field during the same 2-hour time period during the same day of the week during the same month, and there is absolutely no willingness on the part of either group to negotiate, be flexible or accept an alternative, they will claim there is a field shortage.
Season schedules are fixed - beginning date, day of week, time of day, ending date - forgetabout any change or variation. And the kids can't play by themselves. There always has to be helicopter parents present to coach and tell them how wonderful they are.
It's all B-S, and they've gotten away with it for years.
Considering the YSA claims of overuse the turf at Mellon looked pretty lush today!
No bare spots at midfield or in front of the goals where you'd expect overuse to show up.
Don't take my word for it. The field is easily seen from Castle Shannon Blvd.
The more the sporty-spice delegation spews their "need" for fields and the "overuse", the more they're proven to be dishonest. I've driven by a number of fields this weekend and NOT ONE was in use including Mellon and the fields on Cedar. So how does that translate to being over-used? Have we run out of honesty in this town?
Here is what it boils down to, as I see it. Football is not played on the Cedar fields. That is why they want the artificial turf there. But as Dave Franklin said before he clammed up, football and field hockey have options for the Fall. Dave mentioned that the only municipal field that is a mess is Bird Park. The other fields that he mentioned are school district fields. That shouldn't be the muni's problem. Kelly and Matt wanted to fix Bird Park out of the unassigned funds, but were voted down. Not only have we run out of honesty, people have lost their memories as well.
Elaine
Since it is raining today, I would suggest walking up to Mellon and seeing exactly how horrible that field actually is.
We really should do a study on current field use.
Here's a suggestion - nearly everyone has a smartphone or digital camera. During peak times and you find a field conspicuously empty take a photo of it with the date/time stamp turned on and email it to the commissioners.
Personally, I suspect there isn't a lack of fields, but rather a lack of convenient YSA field times.
There are things in the community that need to be fealty with, creating more fields that we will ultimately have to care for isn't one if them.
This is how the local gov't gets bloated. If we can't maintainthe fields we have how does constructing more help?
That is a school district field. How is it the municipality's problem? Have you gone to a school board meeting and complained about Mellon? Do you not understand that school district assets are funded by school district taxes and municipal assets are funded by our municipal dollars? That would be like complaining to Josephine about the ice rink. It isn't that difficult to comprehend, is it?
Elaine
9:51 AM, what games were cancelled today for Mellon?
Elaine
9:51 that IS a drainage problem not an overuse problem!
Drainage can be rectified by proper set up and maintenance. Don't confuse scheduling and proper care.
From the end of July - end of August, baseball etc is off. Except for high school, no one will see little pee wees/jrs till school begins. It gives the fields down time for Fall sports.
So then the YSA "slot" calculations regarding artificial turf are all smoke and mirrors.
If there is no baseball for July-August whether Wildcat/Middle is turfed or not, the number of slots is meaningless for that time period!?
So, why are we adding fields at Robb Hollow, Kelly?
11:07 AM, attend the commission meetings on August 14 and find out.
Hey 11:07 AM, there is more to Kelly's plan than the 30-page or so powerpoint. Get off your duff, quit expecting people here to answer all your questions, and attend the meeting with an open mind.
Get off your high horse 1:59!
You have no idea as to whether I've studied Kelly's prereleased plan or have even been in contact with her of other commissioners regarding it or the other plans on the table.
I have no idea if you're pro or anti turf, republican or democrat but I find the arrogant tone that somehow you're a better citizen because you sit in the commissioners chambers makes me sick and would suggest it is the very reason this community is as divided as it has become lately.
I will tell you this, though I'm under no obligation morally or legally to do so, that I've voted in every election since becoming eligible to vote. Something approximately 70% of our registered voters can't claim according to polling data.
I regularly send opinions, info and questions to my elected representatives and have taken an active roll in the election process.
Your admonishment somehow ignores the fact that 33,000 residents MTL could never fit in the commission chambers and that Elaine's blog and elected representatives emails are a perfectly acceptable method of participating in the affairs of our community.
I'd like to direct a few choice expletives your way but I surmise they'd go completely over your head!
Wow, 3:36 PM, thanks for putting my blog up there with emails to elected representatives, but the sad part about it is that some of those elected representatives claim that they do not read this blog, but you know they do. Thank you for voting in every election and that you know the issues that are in bubble, but the best advice is to go to meetings, if possible. I do what I can to inform the community, but some things fall through the cracks. Kelly's presentation is the most complete proposal I have seen on both sides of our local government. She has spoken to neighbors who will be affected in the various neighborhoods, met with all the different rec groups, and all levels of staff. This isn't something that can be covered in a thirty page presentation. So what I think 1:59 PM is saying that the next meeting should answer everyone's questions. But continue to email Kelly with your questions. She has been really busy, but she does respond to her emails. Hope to see you at the meeting. As usual, I will be in the first row with my recorder.
Elaine
"Since it is raining today, I would suggest walking up to Mellon and seeing exactly how horrible that field actually is..."
Genius, if I've ever seen it. How about this: "They're having a concert at Heinz Field today so I would suggest you going there to see how loud it is."
First off, Mellon is a school district field. So it's off the table as far as municipal spending or the YSA nonsense. Second, Mellon has been a crappy field forever. It hasn't stopped kids from using it. Third, it's both a drainage AND maintenance problem. But see point one.
There is NO shortage of fields in this town. That's a totally bogus argument. So since the YSA weenies cut and run, I guess this whole thing is over. So moving on--Kelly's plan needs some work but it's on the right track. AS for going to the meetings, not everyone can get there so I don't think it's right to lay into a person for not being able to attend.
Boy, 3:36 PM, are you ultra sensitive and high strung. Maybe too much coffee watching all the field sports events. Take a deep breath and get a grip on yourself.
Maybe you can give us a more calm opinion of what you may learn at the 8/14 commission meetings.
4:59 & 5:19 a swing and a miss.
No, I'm not a youth sports wank. Actually I'm leaning more and more towards Kluck position, if I understand his position, of not floating any 'unnecessary' bonds.
There are some issues in Kelly's presentation that it looks like we'll have to deal with by issuing some debt.
Wish that weren't the case, but it looks to be absolutely necessary.
As for getting a grip, how does one take a comment like: "Get off your duff, quit expecting people here to answer all your questions, and attend the meeting with an open mind."
I don't "expect" people to answer my questions. Asking questions is a good way to keep an opening mind.
As for attending meetings, were all your questions answered regarding the high school project in the years of meetings.
I presume one of you knows exactly how much the YSA has paid yearly into the JMA because you obviously attend ALL the meetings.
You see 4:59 & 5:19 I suspect that the field slot calculations made in the YSA presentation are suspect.
I don't have access to the number of participants, number of coaches and other variables to make an educated analysis of current needed slots, unavailable slots occurring in any particular season or sport.
To vote yea or nay to a million dollar field expenditure is foolhardy.
I also believe that in a 3 or 4 hour commission meeting the answer to that question will get answered.
Broaching the topic in advance might allow someone with the necessary facts to clarify the field needs, or maybe there isn't a definitive one or s clear means to calculate the answer.
If you don't think that there is a real field space issue, please make an appointment to meet with John Grogan (the AD) and Dave Donellan (the Director of the Rec Dept).
Suggesting that we don't need more multipurpose fields because no one is using Mellon on a Sunday in August is like suggesting Seven Springs doesn't need snow makers because no one is there on the 4th of July. If I go the library at noon today and there are only 6 people there, should we discuss closing it?
I think Commissioner Fraasch agrees there is a field space issue (she wants to build 2 more). We simply differ on how best to remedy it.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin,
I've offered to sit down with you, not Mr. Grogan. Grogan didn't deliver an idea to the commission and he hasn't, to my knowledge, commented on this blog or started his own. You have.
It's been alluded to on this site more than once but I'll ask directly--how do you define "need"? And who, exactly, is in "need" of more field space? I think that was the point being made when mentioning Mellon field. You're right, it seems a bit silly to look at a school district field in August and wonder why it isn't being used more. But first of all, that goes directly to the heart of your argument, that somehow there isn't enough available playing surface in town. Secondly, it doesn't explain the lack of use on municipal fields (I too have been by the Cedar fields a number of times in the last few weeks as well as Bird Park. None were occupied, even on weekends). Third, the notion of empty fields anywhere anytime of the year negates your justification for suggesting spending millions in public money on artificial turf. I was under the impression the point of turfing the fields would be to provide year-round use but now it appears that a mention of fields not being utilized in the summer months is ridiculous. So which is it?
And remember--we're talking about municipal fields, not school district fields. Or perhaps I misunderstood that. If so, I would appreicate some clarification.
Again, I'm more than happy to have this conversation with you and anyone else in person. I still contend that if an argument was persuasive enough, I would be an advocate. Right now, though, I just don't see it. The offer always stands--name the time and place. I'll buy.
Since Grogan and Donellan are the ones who actually schedule the athletics and give out the field permits, I think Mr. Franklin's suggestion is apot on.
Why not get the information straight from the source? This way, you will have no preconceived notion that someone is lying to you. You can get the facts straight from the source.
Or, are you afraid that maybe he might be correct?
Well said Mr. Cannon!
Mellon is just one example of a vacant field. Like you I drive by Cedar multiple times in a week and at different hours and there doesn't seem to be any pressing need for more fields by that simple observation.
Coaching in some of our youth sports, yes occasionally there was a dearth of practice space, but we managed. Sometimes it meant having the kids chase grounders on a tennis court. Going to South Park. You adapt.
Spending a million dollars on what is essentially luxuries, as opposed to street or sewer repair is ludicrous.
Mr. Franklin, glad you mentioned Seven Springs.
You make a very good argument about them and their need for snow makers!
You do know the missing element to your argument don't you? Hmmmmmm?
As a privately run recreational enterprise if they deem they need additional snow making equipment, or chair lifts or skis or property... they buy it themselves. They don't hit up the taxpayers.
What answer do you expect bureaucrats to give?
Yeah,I can see both Grogan and Donellan saying we have have everything we need, our maintenance don't have enough to do and we could easily cut a few hundred thousand out of our budgets.
Oh, another fly in your ointment, Mr. Franklin... The library did cut staff and hours I believe last year. And I'm pretty sure in these tough economic times they didn't put in a request for a million dollars worth of artificial books!
Mellon is not vacant. They hosted several baseball/softball games Friday and this weekend. Mellon will also have at least 5 youth football teams plus the middle school team playing there 6 days a week (weather permitting) from mid-August into November. So, you obviously don't know what you are talking about 12:52.
By the way, it might be worth taking a look at the muni signs that are posted on Wildcat and see that some sports are prohibited from being played there.
12:34--speaking of being afraid, I see you were afraid to sign your name. I'm not. Try it. It's liberating.
I second the suggestion of speaking with Grogan and Donellan. They are as close to being "bureaucrats" as this blog is to being liberal.
Just an FYI, David Donnellan advised the commissioners that the pool needed repairs a.s.a.p., but when the turf idea came to fruition, all of a sudden, the pool would be fine for several years. Remember what happened June 30? I wouldn't run to Mr. Donnellan for advice. Sorry.
Secondly, if Grogan and Donnellan are the go to people for fields, what exactly does YSA do? Just demand more money being spent?
Finally, do we need Grogan's input for municipal needs? I do have his letter that he sent to Scott Twp. asking for tennis courts. It was a train wreck.
Elaine
3:51 hope your retort isn't an example of a Mt. Lebanon education.
The online definition of a bureaucrat:
"bu·reau·crat/ˈbyo͝orəˌkrat/
Noun:
1. An official in a government department.
2. An administrator concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs."
They are officials in government departments and therefore meet this definition and every other definition of a bureaucrat.
And 2:42 are you calling me a liar? There were no games or even individuals on Mellon at 4:30 pm this past Saturday. There were no athletes leaving or arriving. The parking lot was empty. For a community that is in such dire need of field times, one would think 4:30 on a Saturday would be prime time. For all the heavy traffic and abuse you claim the field is getting, the turf looks more lush than it has in my memory. Also, curious considering the drought conditions this summer.
You know thinking about Seven Springs, sometimes I go there and can wisk right on the chairlift and can schuss to my hearts content.
Then on other days I encounter long lift lines and can barely find an open spot on the hill.
Sorry, but that's the way it goes sometimes, I don't expect the resort to build another mountain.
Thank you, Elaine for the information. So I guess we need to Mr. D needs to explain. Did the pool heal itself or is it not as bad as we've been told?
Why is it we can never ever get a straight answer from any of our "bureaucrats!"
Elaine's comments underscore the lack of knowledge about field space and its use.
Raise your hand if you know where some of the boys and girls HS soccer and lacrosse teams practice and play - Bird. Where does the baseball team practice and play - Wildcat. Both muni fields. Where do the HS golf teams practice and play - at the muni golf course. For free. On the flip side, the muni soccer and baseball programs use district fields.
If you want to lump fields into 2 different buckets, you're failing to accept the reality of how they are used.
Dave Franklin
I would also like to have this discussion in person but I'm at the beach. However, I will try to answer your questions this way as best I can.
First, the muni field vs district field distinction is lost on me. If the two are to be separated into different categories and not discussed other than interchangeably, then we need to completely revamp or eliminate how we operate our rec programs in Lebo. For example, the muni's rec baseball and soccer programs use some district fields and the district teams use muni fields. Even the boys and girls HS golf teams use the muni golf course for practice and matches and I assume at no cost. I don't look at our inventory of fields as being two baskets. I view it as one.
Next, I have zero issues with our baseball field inventory. They are generally in good shape, and well maintained by the MLBA and the public works team. We don't, in my opinion, need to invest any significant funds on baseball fields. Brafferton could use a new backstop and benches, but that's about it. I've made the same comments at the parks advisory board meetings.
Next, it is important to put everything in context. In this discussion, much of the context centers around the sport, time of day and the season. Of course, between 8am and 5pm, Mon-Fri, our fields will be used very little for organized team play or practice. Whether folks want understand it (or accept it) or not, working adults are still an integral part of organized youth athletics. Therefore, most if not all of this activity takes place after 4pm when teachers and parents are available to coach, volunteer, supervise, etc. If you want to argue differently, you don't understand the reality of the situation.
As for the season, it is not surprising to hear that Mellon and Jefferson fields are empty in July or early August. School sports have not started yet and the field based sports (football, soccer, field hockey and lacrosse) are not in season. However, in September, there will be 5 high school soccer teams, 5 school based football teams, about 12 youth football teams, and too many youth soccer teams to count (over 25) looking to share space on 4 multipurpose fields (3, if we dont count the turf). When you try to jam all of that activity on to 4 fields, between 4-7 pm on weekdays in the Fall, you quickly start to understand the predicament. The problem is magnified when you also understand that the turf - for the most part - is dedicated to HS athletics, especially football and soccer. As I've noted before, we have varsity HS sports using elementary school baseball fields. That's hardly an ideal situation.
Dave Franklin
Part 2
Moreover, if we are going to be serious about a professional, long term, grass field maintenance plan for our future, we probably wouldn't allow soccer, football, lacrosse, and field hockey on those spaces in the Fall. We already exclude football from Wildcat and Dixon for that purpose.
Once the young kids start playing small muni soccer games on Cedar through the Rec dept in the Fall, Dixon, Middle and Wildcat will get absolutely trashed. That certainly is inconsistent with a first class grass maintenance plan for those fields and sadly we let it happen every year because we have no options. Wildcat and Middle may look great (green) when you drive by, but I can promise the outfield grass is full of healthy ruts, puddles and divots. Simply put, 100s of 2nd graders playing soccer on a wet outfield in November isnt on anyone's list of good baseball field maintenance. But what are we to do?
Adding turf at Middle and Wildcat not only adds a full size multipurpose field, but it also extends the useable space in the context of time and season. Lights would allow our older kids to use the field year long after 6pm. I don't understand Commissioner Fraasch's plan to light Wildcat and Middle without turf. Middle already has lights and is used throughout the Summer until 10:30. Wildcat as a baseball field doesn't need lights. Allowing for night play on these grass fields in the Fall and Winter will only tax them even further.
One question I have for you Mr. Cannon, will you and all of the folks who refuse to accept that we have a need for more space show up next week to oppose Kelly's plan to add two new fields at $1,000,000+? Stands to reason that you should, but I sense that you won't.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin how do you know that we haven't made our wishes known to all the commissioners already?
Were you as equally disappointed when your athletic supporters were no shows at the last meeting?
I've been told a number of our local high school golf teams practice and play at neighboring country clubs for little or no charge. So what's the point?
Mr. Franklin,
Respectfully, I note you still haven't defined "need" as it relates to an athletic field. I contend that athletic fields are wants. So convince me otherwise.
Second, Commissioner Fraasch's plan is merely an option to discuss, not the only option. So why would I oppose something that isn't a definite? You seem to be of the opinion that's it's your way or no way. If that is truly your stance, then I will stay opposed based on nothing more than principle. In a larger sense, Ms. Fraasch is looking at the big picture and viewing it through a lens of community-wide benefit. As I've stated before, I'm not a big fan of spending tax dollars on frivolous projects. But the pool already exists. The golf course already exists. The rec center already exists. At some point, we need to either commit to upgrade and maintain these facilities or get rid of them. Again, though, this is all a great way to get a conversation going. In fact, I would go so far as to thank you, Mr. Franklin. Had you never served up your idea, this discussion might not be taking place. So you've helped move the ball, so to speak.
Third, there are some good points made on this blog regarding alleged overuse. Your words are : "However, in September, there will be 5 high school soccer teams, 5 school based football teams, about 12 youth football teams, and too many youth soccer teams to count (over 25) looking to share space on 4 multipurpose fields (3, if we dont count the turf). When you try to jam all of that activity on to 4 fields, between 4-7 pm on weekdays in the Fall, you quickly start to understand the predicament."
No, I think we all understand the predicament quite clearly. The predicament is, there is too much going on. Simply reduce the number of athletic events or different age groups and everything will be just fine. There. I just found resolution to the entire issue. I realize there are some who don't want to hear that we can't have it all but...we can't.
And I will reiterate, if you are hellbent on a luxury like artificial turf, then by all means, go raise the money and pay for it. Taxpayers who won't use the field--the vast majority in town--shouldn't be shouldering the burden for something like that.
Enjoy the beach. I look forward to sitting down with you when you have free time.
Excuse my lack of knowledge on field usage, but after reading your list of sporting events when do you propose taking Wildcat/Middle out of service for artificial turfing?
In my mind holding off this discussion until the completion of the high school project and recovery of the Rockpile gives us back one practice field before we disrupt any more activities.
It's not like we haven't been turning out pretty good athletes with our present facilities for years.
Mr. Franklin, what do the USC and Bethel Park swimmers pay to use our pool? Is it the same rate as the Lebo swimmers?
Dave, you write:
"Elaine's comments underscore the lack of knowledge about field space and its use." Did I get the part about Dave Donnellan saying that the pool was fine and that we need to artifically turf Wildcat and Middle? I was at the meeting when that discussion took place. Also, my lack of knowledge regarding the YSA and its purpose causes me to question its existence. If Donnellan and Grogan schedule the field usage, why do we have YSA? Enlighten me, Dave.
Jim, don't hold your breath for that meeting. Paula is still waiting. And I am still waiting for my car to be washed and the tank to be filled by Mr. F.
Elaine
I've asked this question on other posts and I never get an answer. I know it's a scary question but nevertheless, I'm going to ask it again.
What are we going to sacrifice to achieve this level of spending? What are truly our needs vs our wants.
For example, this year, my wife and I would have loved to go on vacation. But, we were facing an expensive yet essential repair to our house. Because this repair was vital to the integrity of our house, it was categorized as the "need" while the vacation was categorized as the "want." The "want" was sacrificed for the "need."
This is not an "and" economy. This is an "or" economy. Tax revenues are not expected to raise up anytime soon. Despite what you read, if you really look at the economic numbers and things like E-6 data, the economy is still not in good shape and won't be turning around quickly. Because of this, everyone, including local governments, need to be cautious in their spending. They especially should not be taking on bonds that are not necessary to fund an immediate need.
So I ask to those who want to spend, what are you going to sacrifice for an artificial surface on a ball field? What are you going to sacrifice for a new ball field? Where are the funds going to be to maintain those items into the future?
I know this is very uncomfortable question but it's vital to the discussion. We all like to think we do well for "the kids" but we should not mortgage their future with debt just to meet our wants.
And, I should add, to say that the municipal fields and the school district fields are one "basket" sounds nice in arguments but in reality, they are owned by separate entities. And, I think we can all agree, the school district, not being able to meet their existing financial obligations in excess of $1 M, is in no position to be spending money on "wants." They already got their "wants" with the Taj Mahal school.
I think it's incredibly funny that Mr. Franklin admonishes Mr. Cannon and the bloggers here for possibly not showing up live for Kelly's presentation.
I don't recall his YSA associates packing the house as he requested for the Kluck/Cannon presentation nor have we seen that petition that was started on LeboFields.
Not easy to come anywhere near 4,000 signatures is it, Mr. Franklin? You'd think the message would be clear by now. There is no massive support for turfing Wildcat/Middle or any other field in the community right now.
But you keep plugging away, Mr. F!
Mr. Franklin,
I don't think I am the only one that's confused but I would be curious to your answer.
Kelly Fraasch, Commissioner has said she will not turf.
Matt Kluck, Commissioner has said he will not float a bond.
So you have possibly three votes. One short for turf because you need 4 votes for a bond, right?
I would give up on the turf thing and start looking at the Robb Hollow option. $1,000,000+ is generous and it appears you are complaining about the generous offer. Again, confused and irritated.
My advice to Kelly would be to give all you turf people another day or two and if you aren't "on board" by the 14th, screw it. Do something else on the Commission that's worth the community's time and let them wait for turf.
7:14 PM, that is a good plan. There is no way that there will be turf because they don't have four votes for turf.
Jack, to your question, I can answer it. To have artificial turf, Franklin probably wants to give up the golf course part. That is $552,500. Brumfield and Linfante don't want a mower. He is probably against spending $161,000 on Brafferton too. His buddy said it wasn't worth it. Franklin has not commented on YSA contributing $225,000 for lights either, as suggested in Kelly's presentation.
As far as not being at the Kluck/Cannon presentation, there were playoffs that night. Mt. Lebanon's finest were ticketing all the cars that were parked illegally; it was a mess. Wasn't that one of the things Kelly wanted to do at Wildcat and Middle - enhancements to parking for $55,000? I like that idea, 7:14 PM. If YSA isn't on board with the plan, screw it. Spend it somewhere else, where it is appreciated.
Elaine
Actually, on the night of Matt's presentation of turf information (as it was listed on the agenda), I was working. I got home at 11pm if it means that much to you anonymous cowards. Had the agenda read "James Cannon's Anti-Turf Dissertation" perhaps someone might have showed up. Elaine, even you complained about Matt's 5 minute agenda item. It really wasn't promoted to draw people in.
I will continue to fight for what I believe in. If I lose, so be it. However, I will never accept Mr. Cannon's solution that we should tell kids not to play. I'll play on gravel and mud before I advocate for that.
Mr. Cannon, 120 people signed a petition that I emailed to 30 people asking them to support turf. Elaine doesn't like the fact that 5 or 6 people signed it who don't live in Lebo. If you can find 75 people to attend the meeting on the 14th, state their name and address and tell the Commission that we should cut youth sports, you can declare victory. I don't think you'll find 15. The 5 commissioners won't even agree with you, but go for it.
Dave Franklin
Dave, you are a real pain in the butt. I complained that Matt was only given FIVE MINUTES on the agenda. Yeah, and I don't like that you had people signing the petition who don't live in Mt. Lebanon. I verified every address of those who signed the high school renovation petition making sure that they were legit. I even weeded out the duplicates of those who signed online and signed the postcards. I just checked your pitiful petition of 120 signatures.
I am still trying to understand the purpose of YSA, Dave. What exactly do you do? And who do you REALLY represent? Certainly not all the groups who pay dues. And you even represent some who don't.
Still waiting for your answer about Donnellan too. BTW, I have some fuel perks that are expiring at the end of the month. I will let you use them towards filling up my car with gas, which you promised to do.
Elaine
Watch out, Elaine. Dave might sue you for calling him a pain in the butt.
Dave's not a pain in the arse, he exhibits classic symptoms of suffering from what is called cranial rectal inversion.
Had to work, Mr. Franklin? Funny how your blog says that you took your family to a Pirate game. http://lebofields.blogspot.com/2012/07/commission-discussion-meeting-july-23.html
You remember that post don't you? You were inviting your readers to the meeting since a couple of issues might be of interest "1) Robb Hollow athletic field options and (2) turf information to be provided by Matt Kluck"
A Pirate fan
A suggestion, ignore any future comments from Mr. Franklin. Don't deny his freedom to lobby for his artificial turf, but cease to engage with him.
I don't know what makes him believe he is empowered to dictate terms in relating to OUR commissioners, but to banter back and forth with him is a waste of time.
He has a blog let him talk to himself there.
I want a velodrome, I want a badminton court, I want trampolines, I want a high dive, I want horseshoe pits, I want a rifle range, I want a ski slope, a want riding stables. I want a half pipe. I want a skate board park.
What's the matter Mr. Franklin, don't you support youth sports? You better be at the commissioners meeting with 75 people supporting all of the above or I'm going to declare you've got something against kids and sports.
I am still confused and being as sincere as I can be. Why do you see it as a loss if you don't get turf? If you gain two fields more than you have now and upgrades to Municipal fields. The Municipality gets much needed maint and upgrades for Recreation community-wide. I don't see the loss. I see that you win.
Mr. Franklin,
I'm a bit confused as to the hostile tone of your last posting. Thus far, I don't think I've exhibited that kind of attitude with you. In fact, I think of anyone posting here I've been more than fair and open-minded in terms of providing you an opportunity to make your case. What I have also done is ask for a definition of need versus want, pointed out that nobody anywhere has stated Kelly Fraasch's plan is a given and have repeatedly extended an invitation for you to sit down with me so I can understand your position. Your response has been to attempt to castigate me, fold your arms like a child, and huff because you're not getting your way. How very disappointing. I'm sure the people you purport to represent in your crusade are impressed. I hope they are because I'm not.
I suppose the time for discussion has passed, then. That's a shame. You had ample opportunity to defend your position and offer fact instead of hyperbole. You have not, and have chosen instead to offer opinion. If that's the course you choose, so be it but don't expect to get very far. Again, I don't understand the churlish tone of your response. Maybe you're upset because you have opposition. Perhaps you're embarrassed because your argument has been destroyed time and again. Or maybe you just need more sleep. Whatever the case, I'm not going to tolerate it. I have better things to do than become mired in a nasty, immature debate with someone like you. Your response was unwarranted and your evasiveness only leads me to conclude you have no real plan or facts to back your idea. But I'm sure it will go far to bolster support for spending public money on your scheme. Good luck with that.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe Franklin's idea got any traction at all given his poor sportsmanship. And isn't that what youth sports is all about, Dave?
Elaine,
Can you please explain to your readers exactly what Matt Kluck's plan is? It appears (to me) to simply just refute the YSA plan. I am not being sarcastic, I just want to understand if I am missing something?
Jay Neff
We currently have three options regarding recreation. The YSA and Mrs. Fraasch have presented or will present their proposals for this aspect of our community life. The third option is to leave things status quo and do nothing.
In addtion to the rants and anonymous sniping on this post, we have some cogent comments. Examples are the "needs v.waants", economic climate and the need for ongoing maintenance.
We are at a point where we need to address this issue and match the needs to a possible expenditure. Although rates are at historic lows, we need to determine if our budget will support a bond issue. Mr. Fraasch has done some due diligence with assitance from knowledgeable residents with municipal service backgrounds. They have determined that a $5MM bond issue will add .15 mils ($30/year) to the tax burden.
This leads to two additinal questions. First is can we afford the increase? The second is if so, how do we spend the monies?
We all know that some of our assets are at or near the end of their life expectancies. Doing nothing either limits the asset's abilities to generate sufficient revenue to offset expenses or risks catastrophic failure. Neither of these outcomes are desireable.
If we are to invest in the recreational assets, we should consider how to spend the monies to reach the largst bandwidth of our residents.
Perhaps we can use thi forum to to determine our osition on the bond iddue and how to spend the funds, if we pursue this option. Your thoughts?
Jay, I really don't know how to respond to you. What I had posted under the July 23 podcast on Lebo Citizens was this:
"Keeping It Real...The truth behind artificial surfaces in Mt. Lebanon" is a response to the artificial turf proposal and can be found here."
Matt Kluck and Kelly Fraasch had a plan for the undesignated/unassigned funds, which was primarily shot down.
Elaine
Chuck, here's my response that you asked for.
You wrote: "We all know that some of our assets are at or near the end of their life expectancies."
That may or may not be true. There seems to be two answers supposedily from the guy in charge of making the determination. Elaine reports that Donellan said the pool needed replaced then changed it to it's good for another few years. How do we know or find out the truth?
We saw the same nonsense on the high school project. Building B the oldest wing was obsolete, couldn't possibly be updated to a 21st century school building. But wonder of wonders it's now a keystone in the renovation project!
Same with bldg C, the newest wing in the old school. Absolutely has to come down because it couldn't be reconfigured. Problem though is it was designed to be reconfigured and has been more than once in it's lifespan. Two prominent building professionals staked their reputations on that.
So while we may have to bite the bullet and make some necessary improvements, I want to be sure that 1. Those improvements are absolutely necessary and 2. Once they're made we don't get any more of this half-assed maintenance like taping windows for 10 years to keep the cold out!
Stay tuned Channel 19's most watched and top rated show: Mt. Lebanon Ninnies" will begin after this commercial break.
"Only 19 more days until the first day of school."
Do you know where your son or daughter's high school classes will be held?"
Now back to the season premier of "Mt.Lebanon Ninnies".
I completely agree with your answer. Perhaps I should have said it in this manner "some of our assets/facilities are very mature and may need maintenance or upgrades to remain viable."
At this point we could have the discussion on needs v wants.
I believe that Mrs. Fraasch's proposal addresses the maintenance issues. However, we all know that adhering to any systemic program is the difficult part.
Thanks for the clarification and examples.
Questioning Shoddy maintenance and record-keeping in the school district was Marge Sable's downfall I believe.
We all know about the municipal parking authority debacle.
So getting to the truth and knowing when you've found it will be no easy task.
Chuck we seem to have found a common starting point... that is you can't fix what you don't know is broken!"
So no, in my mind surrender is not an option. We have at least two commissioners that are not going to go down the same ladders that our recent officials did. Those old officials truly believed if you signets hole deep enough you'd eventually strike gold. We can use that hole to start examining and strengthening Lebo's foundation.
I wonder if Brunfield, Linfante and Bendel can work with others or just want to make sure their special interest go untouched?
Knowing Elaine, I don't see her running up the white flag anytime soon.
And I'll add a big No. 3.
In the end after we've done 1 & 2, we find the community once again thriving, the economy flourishing we have some discretionary monies - we investigate fulfilling some wants.
Whether that's developing a McNeilly Rec facility or a MTL Symphony Hall. 1 & 2 must be achieved first.
Why are we building athletic facilities while ignoring basic infrastructure and forcing teachers to retire?
Has anyone thought about paying the school district's pension bill and the high tax cost of overassessed homes?
Can we have a sailboat varsity team?
If we do start a varsity sailing team is it ossicle to retake high school ???
Please , please!
Post a Comment