Consideration of a Joint Maintenance Agreement with the Mt. Lebanon School District, Municipality of Mt. Lebanon and the Youth Sports Alliance of Mt. Lebanon.This was never a discussion item. How could the commissioners be voting on this, in light of all the confusion over payments by the YSA? The school district has more homework to do before they try to jam this down the commissioners' throats. When will the YSA clean up their arrearages? Why is this successor agreement for six months? How was $35,700 calculated? Show us the math. The school board just approved this on Monday. When did it show up in the commissioners' packets? Who put this on the agenda? Mr. President, did you? Dave, please tell me how you plan to vote and WHY??? Folks, contact the commissioners at commission@mtlebanon.org and ask them how they plan to vote, and more importantly WHY.
A joint maintenance agreement has been in place for the past 12 years for field turf maintenance of athletic fields on school district property. The agreement expired on June 30, 2012.
The successor agreement is for a six-month period, and the payments shall be in four monthly installments of $8,925 totaling $35,700. The price has been adjusted due to the temporary elimination of two of the 14 original school fields during construction at the high school.
Recommended Action: Move to authorize the proper municipal officials to sign the agreement.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Wait a second!!!
Looking at the newly posted agenda for Monday's Commission meeting, I see the following action item:
Two fields have been eliminated but their recovery and ensuing maintenance will be vastly more expensive once the HS projected is completed.
ReplyDeleteDies this agreement put the municipality on the hook for redoing thenfields for the school district?
We still as yet have no answer on the field sign management and revenue. Even though signs are up. Who's getting the money, who gave permission?
This sounds like it was an executive session topic. Executive sessions are those meetings held in private so the public doesn't know what's going on.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no action on this until the entire agreement is made public and any questions are answered.
We are a Home Rule community are we not?
ReplyDeleteElaine, please send the commission, solicitor, manager, asst. manager and rec. director the YSA payment history record from 1998 - 2012 you have that will show, with a simple arithmetic calculation, how many 10's of thousands of dollars remain unpaid even though Steinhauer stated in a public meeting this month that the YSA was paid up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the District has never provided evidence that the 2008"legally bound" $30,000 YSA payment was legally waived by a formal board vote in a public meeting.
And, has the Public Works Dept. validated the proposed reduced payment for 2012 as representing actual current costs for the work required ? The $83,300 figure and scope of work required in the JMA has remained constant for probably 10 years, but we all know labor, materials and equipment costs have increased significantly.
And finally, Steinhauer has repeatedly represented in their district meetings over the past month that the municipality and YSA have been discussing this amended JMA ; but, no commissioners or the manager has been able or willing to confirm this; and, suddenly it appears with not even any preceeding discussion session discussion, on the regular meeting agenda ? Whats going on here ?
Why in heavens name would we even consider entering into an any agreement with a deadbeat organization like the YSA and a district that has intentionaly hidden from the public the YSA non-payments and substituted taxpayer dollars instead in a manner that is totally inappropriate if not also illegal ?
12:48 PM, I sent the payment schedule to the commissioners, Steve Feller, David Donnellan, Marcia Taylor, and Phil Weis.
ReplyDeleteElaine
The School District never approved an extension, and the municipality never approved the amendment to the expired agreement.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complete surprise to those who attend public meetings.
Don't you bet the municipal commissioners will approve it 5-0, much the way the School Directors unanimously approved the amendment?
Why don't these public government agencies save us the trouble and meet exclusively in executive session?
David Huston
A Home Rule Community 12:21??
ReplyDeleteAh ha - ah ha ha ha ha ha!
A Home Rule Community? Ah ha - ah ha ha ha ha ha! Ah ha - ah ha ha ha ha ha! Ah ha - ah ha ha ha ha ha!
I emailed Dave Brumfield about this and here is his reply.
ReplyDelete"The vast majority of the terms do not effect the municipality. The total amount the school district pays us is our primary concern. That being said the 6 month duration is intended to allow us to examine whether or not a new system should be implemented.
Dave Brumfield"
Elaine
Political doublespeak! The terms of the agreement don't affect the municipality. Then what is the JMA for exactly? The school district has been sending money to the municipality for ... Nothing!?!?
ReplyDeleteif Mr. Brumfield is correct the school directors ought to be asking "why are we sending the municipality money?"
I love how our local governing bodies work.
We'll enter into an agreement - THEN EXAMINE whether or not a system should be implemented.
Fourteen years of shoddy bookkeeping, shoddy field maintenance, but yeah, we're going to sort it all out in the next six months.
If you believe that I have some ad space I'll ent you at one of our ballfields!
Ooops, wait we're still working on that one too. Soon as we're done figuring out who owes all the parking fines.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi when she said they'd vote for Obamacare and then they would read what's in it. Way to go, Brummie. You've just taken the pinball crown from Nan as being one of the dumbest elected people in our country. But at least you're apparently qualified to be VP judging by Biden's performance.
ReplyDeleteDo Mt. Lebanon law students pass their bar exams at the Saloon or at the D'Ivy Inn?
DeleteBased on contracts and decision written by our solicitors and statements made by the lawyers on our commission and board, they've destroyed one too many brain cells.
We need to extend the 12 year old agreement by 6 months so we can evaluate whether to keep it or not. C'mon this guy can't really be that stupid, can he?
Although who is dumber, him or the voters that elected him to office?
What's really funny is that there are a bunch of Lebo parents out there, nodding their heads in support of this nonsense.
In a followup response I received this morning from Dave Brumfield, he replied with:
ReplyDelete"We have not discussed the agreement so I cannot be sure how I will vote."
Elaine
I'm thinking if this guys IQ was two points lower we could use him to resid some bare spots on our grass fields!
ReplyDeleteThey haven't discussed this so why is the recommended action to sign the agreement, Dave. You're the head cheese, the big kahuna, the top guy. Somebody under your watch recommended approving the agreement and you haven't examined it yet!
We've got bigger problems here than deciding to turf or build fields. Just why do we have any elected officials at all?
I'm confused- the YSA shorted the District. The District didn't short the Municipality. I get that people are upset that the YSA didn't pay their total to the District, but thats a liability for them not for the town. Why would the Municipality care at all that the District agrees to assume the shortfall of a third party?
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I would end the agreement since it isn't working. The municipality should get out of the district fields maintenance business. It is a loser. The district fee has not increased since the late 90's. Cost of labor and material has. Let the district maintain their own fields. So what if there are less fields? After the district gets hit with that $900,000 grievance and Pursuing Ketchup reduces the goal once again, there is going to be another cost reduction list. Guess who will take the hit? Posti will have to come up with a way to pay for the Act 93 employees somehow.
ReplyDeleteCommissioners, if you sign this agreement, you should resign, and run for school board. You are as crazy as they are. The commission has gone down hill in the past year!
Elaine
Our commission and school board now represent everything people dislike about government at every level. That's why people don't vote. They look at the Postis and Brumfields of the world and feel if that's the best we can do, why bother? It's unfortunate.
ReplyDelete9:52 you're kidding right?
ReplyDeleteProbably a Penn State graduate.
If you see something wrong, just look the other way as long as you're getting yours.
See if you can comprehend this. The school district is covering the debts incurred by a group that is "overusing" it's fields. Now tell me, do you live in Mt. Lebanon? Do you pay taxes to the school district?
Do you want your money used to provide our kids with the best education possible or are you happy covering YSA debt?
The municipality's participation is sort of like the checks and balances built into the 3 branches of the federal government, except we only have two.
Thanks for insulting me 1021.
ReplyDeleteHere's my position: I don't care at all that the Municipality offsets my tax dollars with private contributions from the YSA. Period. In fact try to do it more.
I am not sure how your "checks and balances" statement actually addresses the YSA payment issue. Are you saying that the Municipality should refuse to accept any money from the District unless the YSA pays in the District in full? Are you assuming that the Municipality will stop maintaining fields while the YSA and District work that out? Thats a fine position- but I just don't think that will happen. What if they never pay or the YSA just folds? Are you expecting that the Municipality will just plant trees and there will be no more fields? One could argue perhaps that the Municipality should just cut out the District and have the YSA pay them directly. Fair enough- although I guess the main point of that would be that the Municipality would get a better result than the District? You also say that while the Municipality is in enviable position in that the District guarantees the YSA payment but because $100k of school tax dollars over the past decade or so has covered part of the YSA payment the Municipality should risk the $800k or whatever it has received through the deal to make some overall point to the District... and of course we all know how open they are to constructive criticism! The reality is that fields are going to continue in Lebo, kids are going to use them, private parent-based groups like YSA have their limitations (meaning no security), and those that partner with them should understand their reality, adjust schedules and cost outlays accordingly, and when they decide to somehow vote to cover the costs of 3rd party entity- do so in a manner that is transparent.
So to summarize- please Commissioners take private money from those who use the fields the most.
11:23 you just made my point, thanks and you're welcome too.
ReplyDeleteYou write: "So to summarize- please Commissioners take private money from those who use the fields the most."
The is the point, the whole point and the only point. The group that uses the fields the most isn't giving the private money they contracted to pay!
The school district is using taxpayer PUBLIC money to cover the shortages. Can't you see that?
Now if the YSA should be paying more or less is a sdperate matter and one that needs much further discussion.
But for now the YSA promised a fixed amount of private funds to pay for their overuse of SD and municipal fields. They didn't meet that obligation, whether its $10 or $10,000.
Try this 11:23, when your taxes are due go up to the tax office and hand them a check (private money for using public facilities, right) for a portion of your bill and tell em that's all I'm paying. 11:23 trlls me you should be happy getting anything - see ya next year.
Get back to me on what happens.
11:23 makes the assumption or somehow figures the YSA payments are "gifts" or "donations." That the district has gotten $800,000 FREE from the YSA.
ReplyDeleteRead the the damn title of the agreement again 11:23.
Joint MAINTENANCE Agreement. See the middle word? If someone doesn't pull their weight that means the maintenance isn't being done. Or are you suggesting all these school district and muni employees work for free and the YSA monies are Jan's to spend as she sees fit?
12:20 what you allude to does seem the way of the world here in the bubble.
ReplyDeleteSome privileged individuals get to park at public meters for free.
Some homeowners pay substantially less on their taxes than their homes true market value.
But hey don't sweat it, the SD and the municipality are lucky they are getting anything-- right 11:23.
I am still unclear as to your solution or why you think this is the Municipality's problem/responsibility and not the school board... but we can disagree.
ReplyDelete1220- thanks for the great tone of your comment.
But I was unaware that some maintenance that was supposed to be done by one or more of the three parties was not being done...? If work was not being done why would there be a financial shortfall? Isn't the work actually being done but the private 3rd party is missing its financial target? If you do know that actual maintenance is not being done can you please elaborate on that?
"I'm confused- the YSA shorted the District. The District didn't short the Municipality. I get that people are upset that the YSA didn't pay their total to the District, but thats a liability for them not for the town. Why would the Municipality care at all that the District agrees to assume the shortfall of a third party?"
ReplyDelete9:52/11:23 apparently you are very confused by your own admission. At 9:23 you make the statement above asking why the municipality should care if the YSA shorts the district. But then two hours later you write:
"Here's my position: I don't care at all that the Municipality offsets my tax dollars with private contributions from the YSA. Period. In fact try to do it more."
In one comment you assert that a public entity is paying the municipality but then you turn around and suggest the municipality should turn around and try to get more private contributions.
Extending the JMA agreement does just the opposite of what you hope for. Not only does it reduce the district contributions it reduces the YSA contributions also.
On top of that our commissioners are trying to figure out how to keep youth sports happy by spending even more taxpayer money on turf or new fields.
So 9:53/11:23 when do suppose the private dollars start flowing in?
Aren't you assuming that any reduction in the YSA amount isn't warranted? Has that been actually determined? You seem to just assume that it isn't- just wondering why. For all I know you could be right. I believe they should pay their fair share. I believe- at best- that I don't understand why the District would guarantee their payment. And at worse, it seems idiotic to do so. But if I was the Municipality I am not sure that I would care. You seem to think that the Municipality should care. I think in order to justify that you have to prove that the YSA is not paying their fair share, or just tell the Municipality to not accept an agreement where the District guarantees the YSA cost. I suppose thats fine- but still believe your main problem is with the District not the Municipality. As a side note, I would be interested to know whether the Municipality has any agreement where they are liable to cover 3rd party costs (parking?). In general I would be against that. But I also think that there is reasonable standard to apply when dealing with entities like the YSA. There is a point where say wrapping the cost of recreational capital into YSA contributions (fees, etc) just prohibits any large scale maintenance or improvement being done. And I do not believe pushing things to such an extreme is consistent with at least the values I have for my community. Likewise it is unreasonable for user fees or whatever you want to call them to not be applied to help defray costs. Do I think the YSA should pay $30k a year? $10K? $40k? No idea. Just make sure its reasonable in relation to operational cost recovery and at the same time inviting enough to provide appropriate opportunity to all. So again in short, figure out what it is appropriate and take the money.
ReplyDelete12:10 PM, I have to interject here for a second. The JMA is for YSA's overuse of school district fields, not for overuse of municipal fields. Nothing is being paid for municipal field maintenance. That comes 100% out of our pockets.
ReplyDeleteElaine
You and I are closing in on the point perhaps 6:21.
ReplyDeleteI believe many of us here are doing just what you suggest - that the municipality not continue in the JMA. But that is not what is recommended in the commissions agenda item. It recommends resigning!
I also agree as you suggest a complete evaluation of what terms all three parties are committing to. Is the YSA paying too little, too much or is the old amount juuuuuussssrt right Goldilocks!?
Some for the district and the municipality. Are they expected to do or pay to much or too little?
One would've thought these items would've been analyzed when the agreement was first established, but apparently not.
So my suggestion for now is each party go back to their respective corners, take care of what's theirs and go from there.
The YSA pays nothing to either the district or the municipality (but it better damn well lower registration fees substantially), the district maintains it's fields, the municipality theirs.
For the next 6 months we'll have a good indication of who's doing or not doing what. What fields are being overused and who's jurisdiction they lie in.
Basically when you think about it ALL these payments come out of residents/taxpayers pockets anyway.
What are we talking about $35,700! The school district flitted more than that away in less than 3 months.
Good point Elaine that somehow has gotten lost in the discussion.
ReplyDelete7:08 PM, I just noticed that re- signing and resigning are spelled the same way. Were you suggesting that they resign if they resign?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Actually the only loss in the 3 parties going to their respective corners is $10,000 or $11,000, the YSA's share of the recently SD signed extension.
ReplyDeleteThe total going to the muni was $35,700.
I would think the YSA would this proposal, they get off Scott free for six months.
Of course being the generous benefactors they are, they could catch up their arrears by $10,000 to the district, but I'm betting they won't.
The biggest loser I suppose is the school district. They need to assume management/maintenance of their own properties.
A double entente, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteOne can hope that some school directors resign, but that'll never happen, their egos are too big.
Hold up. The YSA is supposedly contributing to the "joint MAINTENANCE fund", right? But they're also the ones whining about the horrible condition of the fields, right? So how about the YSA start kicking in more money? Simple math.
ReplyDeleteNotice that 8:31, eh. Whine about the condition of the fields, make proposals about spending a $1,000,000+ on turf, bash a proposal to give them some more field space and yet contributing even less money than they 'weren't' contributing before.
ReplyDeleteTalk about spoiled!
8:31 Mr. Brumfield, resident, youth sports volunteer, ex-sports officer and commissioner needs 6 more months to observe the JMA. That's a hoot!
ReplyDeleteEveryone should have just started tuning Dave out long ago. The idea that the pool loses $30,000 a year is absolutely ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Dave, they actually talk about these things in the meetings. The pool typically breaks even by the 4th of July.
It is these types of "facts" that you pull out that really upset people when you are trying to convince them of your position. Any legitimate argument you make after falsifying (or at least not verifying) what you are saying is consequently dismissed.
This is part of the reason I suspect you are asking for a "do over" of sorts. The turf/field proposal has been talked about for the better part of six months. You had ample time to present your side, in fact you had more time than Mrs. Fraasch (who made her proposal) and Mr. Cannon (who opposed turf) combined.
Mrs. Fraasch has not opposed the idea of turf. She has opposed the idea of taxpayers funding the turf. Your band of merry men has not stepped up to say that you will personally fund the turf. It seems to me that the proposal to be voted on will give you and the YSA an out to go get the turf you want. You just have to raise the money. Do you really need to be talked to before hand to sign up? Fine, if you don't go to the turf meetings, then there just won't be any turf and you can't blame the commission for that. For lack of a better pun, your group will have been exposed as a group that takes the ball and goes home when they are asked to contribute- which is something that has happened far to frequently over the last decade, quite frankly.
Think about what that means for a second. The YSA could have TWO new fields (Robb Hollow and Robb Hollow Lite) PLUS a turf field in the next couple of years (however long it takes you to fund raise). That should make Mt. Lebanon a premier location for those that are interested in such things.
All I have to go on is the agenda that has been released, but I do hope this is exactly what happens. It seems like a solid compromise. I hope that you stop the nonsense and get onboard. The only legitimate beef you have left is the complaining that you can't raise the money for a turf field. And if you can't so be it. But don't think the taxpayers should do it for you, either.
This is the item on the agenda that needs tabled. I am ok with the field plan moving forward. That has been over-discussed. But this is the first time this has come up for review for three of the commissioners. It will take some time for them to have the facts.
ReplyDeleteMy belief is that the YSA is already out of compliance with the agreement since they have not yet made any 2012 payment. The wording in the new JMA says that the agreement will be in place as long as all parties are compliant. So, no agreement.
10:19...one mistake. You say the YSA could have two new fields. No. The community could have two new fields and YSA would be allowed to use them from time to time. There isn't one field in Lebo that belongs to the YSA. That said, if they want to buy out my portion of the fields they use, guess I'll need to come up with a number.
ReplyDelete