Looking at the agenda set for Tuesday's Commission meeting, I think it is going to be a late night.
The final hearing for the Commission revisions to the manager’s recommended budget is first on the list. The link to Bill No. 17-12 seems to be password protected, but the amended budget appears on pages two and three of the agenda. How much revenue is estimated to be generated from signs? Where is it going?
The tax rate is listed. Will someone explain to me where the 5% increase is indicated?
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2013-2017 will be adopted. It can be found here.
The 2013 Comprehensive Fee Schedule will be approved. Notice no fees for fields.
The Compensation for employees for 2013 will be set. The Ordinance is here. Pretty tricky how it is listed. It isn't clear that it is a 3% raise across the board.
Update December 8, 2012 9:40 AM Bill Matthews was kind enough to send the page right out of the budget reflecting the 4.8% tax increase. MTL 2013 Budget Revenues Yep, it is right there in black and white.
29 comments:
The increase in Real Estate taxes is reflected in the Manager's Recommended Budget book. A copy of the page is on its way ...
Elaine,
You won't see a millage increase at all but that is due to the increased revenue from the reassessment. You will see an increase in real estate tax revenues that will be close to 5%.
It is a bit deceptive.
I doubt this commission has the time or the votes to say "no" to the increased taxes put in the budget by Feller.
If they do say no to the increases taxes from the assessments, this meeting may not get done for a week. The commissioners would then have to decided what items to cut from the budget to meet the lower revenue number.
In this case, I do hope the meeting lasts all week. Backdoor tax increases are the worst kind.
Well so much for getting Washington and Bower Hill and Castle Shannon and Mt. Lebanon Road properties developed anytime soon.
But, hey that's not important as long as Feller, Morgans and the dog walkers are happy.
I hope we sell a gazillion field advertising signs to keep the YSA happy for a while too.
Brumfield acted like a jerk when he interrupted those who had the floor at the last meeting. But what can you expect from a deadbeat football jock.
What the hell do "dog walkers" have to do with Morgans and Feller? Asinine statement.
1:56 seriously you can figure that sentence out from following the discussion about new taxes and the budget.
Feller and Morgans are apparently getting 3% raises in a stagnant economy... so they're happy.
A dog park has been proposed for Robb Hollow so one would assume dog owners are happy.
Never insinuated that the three are mutually inclusive.
You could though say the new doggie park will give Feller more responsibility thereby justifying his raise.
And Morgan will have more photo opts to show her pals walking their dogs in MTLmagazine.
Hmmm, wondering if a high society dog show Like the NYC Kennel Club's will be far behind?
Our manager does not get raises every year as the others do. Check the salaries that I posted and you will see this to be true.
Elaine
Then I stand corrected as I thought 3% "across-the-board" raises meant everybody.
Yes, that is true, except the manager.
Elaine
Mt. Lebanon residents often give the impression of being terminally conflicted about local government: they don’t like how it works, but they want more of it if it benefits their pet projects! "Don't spend money for turf, but buy a dog park." Mr. Franklin adduced this point in another post, and he was right to call out the contradiction.
Once people figure out that lobbying the Municipality for one's pet project to the detriment of someone else's pet project does not improve the community's situation, and that free-market solutions benefit everybody, then we will have taken a step toward fiscal responsibility at the local level, and the individual taxpayer will have more of his or her money to support his or her own causes.
Richard,
The problem is that the end-game for each of the projects is completely different.
The purpose for turf is simply to keep up with the neighbors at USC.
The purpose of the dog park (and all investment in Robb Hollow) is to divest the McNeilly property. Investing in Robb Hollow will produce a tangible monetary benefit to the community.
Investing in turf will become a perpetual expense.
Could someone explain how the Robb Hollow field development also us to divest of the MCNeilly property?
Are we selling McNeilly and the proceeds are going into the new rec facilities? Thought the was a restriction of the grant that helped us get McNeilly.
8:53, after sitting through multiple meetings on the subject and after asking question after question, I think your understanding of the benefits of the RH/McNeilly swap is hugely overstated. There are zero guarantees at this point. Probably less than zero.
You're not "buying" if 90 percent of it already exists. I can't believe I have to spell this out but thanks to 248, I guess I do.
A dog park would go where? Likely in Robb Hollow, yes? What would that require? Maybe some grading and some fence. That's about it. What would turf require? Major earth disturbance, drainage and and an artifical surface that is prone to wear and tear.
I don't think, though, we should introduce ANY projects from any special interest group until we're totally solvent and have set in motion measures to cut spending.
Lebo Fields, a.k.a. Dave Franklin, I don't know how you can make that statement. I found these minutes where you state the need for more fields when you were pushing for McNeilly. http://www.mtlebanon.org/archives/31/Minutes%2008-22-11.pdf
That was when you were on the kick for more fields. Kelly put together a plan for more fields and you less than kind towards her at more than one meeting by yelling, dropping f bombs, and just being out of control. Hey, people have seen you in public and they talk. Your behavior at the parks advisory meetings is deplorable. After you get your turf, because you will not settle for anything else, is that when you will come back to McNeilly to finish what we started ten years ago?
11:28 PM, there will be no proceeds from the sale of McNeilly. We have not paid anything towards it.
Elaine
If I thought that Recreation Bill 16-12 allowed for the swap of McNeilly for Robb Hollow, that McNeilly would then be sold at a profit, and that the profit would be used to pay down the debt, I would be more inclined to (reluctantly) support it. But there is nothing in the bill suggesting that course of action. I questioned the commissioners about this and received an interesting reply from Mr. Brumfield, saying the legalities of the situation forbid public discussion of the matter, which could jeopardize any such action.
Dan Miller once explained to me the convoluted terms under which the McNeilly property was purchased, and that it could not be sold unless a similar property in Mt. Lebanon was available that would meet the terms of the Fed's grant, which was channeled through the state. So as of this writing the community's situation has not improved.
Just for the record, I am in favor of individual liberty. Any action the municipal government takes that ends up increasing taxes lessens individual liberty. This includes stealing money from individuals (in the form of taxes, which are compulsory) to buy turf, or stealing money from individuals to "improve" a park. I am practical enough to realize that Mt. Lebanon is stuck with certain "public" venues that it cannot (or in some cases will not) shed and must be maintained. However, these venues have nothing to do with the basic mandates of local government; those being to provide police and fire protection, and to create and maintain infrastructure. Therefore, providing new entertainment facilities or improvements that benefit a small segment of the population of this town, no matter in what form they take, is not a basic function of government; and to try and "sell" them to the polity on the grounds of "public good" is disingenuous.
Richard,
Yes there are legal issues that are getting worked out with the purchase but by and large the municipality should be well on its way to make this swap.
To what degree (how many acres to divest at McNeilly) will be up to the commission at some point once the state officially approves. But rest assured the municipality has started this process.
Mr. Franklin does not want this to take place because it becomes ever so less likely that he will get his turf. In fact, he REFUSED to tell the sports groups about this possibility even though he heard about it on the Parks Advisory Board to which he is a member. As you can see from his earlier post he refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
If the sports groups would have been told what good putting a field at Robb Hollow would have done for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY via a McNeilly swap, would the results be any different than they are now? I guess because of Mr. Franklin we will never know.
And Richard, I too will write to the municipality and ask that any proceeds from the sale or development of McNeilly first go to pay off the bond.
But, here we are bringing it back to turf. Thanks Dave.
The first priority for me is to make sure the commission does not do its hidden tax increase in the budget.
Please write your commission if you want them to refuse the allowed tax increases under Act 1.
Forget turf, forget doggie parks, forget Mr. Franklin... did Mr. Brumfield make this statement to Mr. Gideon and is it true? " I questioned the commissioners about this and received an interesting reply from Mr. Brumfield, saying the legalities of the situation forbid public discussion of the matter, which could jeopardize any such action. "
Now I could understand if there were a negotiation going on and the interested party didn't want an announcement of their intentions, but legalities forbid public discussion of the matter. Please explain this Mr. Brumfield, who set up these legalities? Are they in the initial bond agreement. Demanded by the buyer?
I'm infuriated. The commissioner's are engaged in selling $1 million worth of community property and all the president can say legalities prohibit any public discussion! What is this Egypt and Brumfield, President Morsy?
Elaine writes: "Kelly put together a plan for more fields and you less than kind towards her at more than one meeting by yelling, dropping f bombs, and just being out of control."
Gee, I wonder where Rob is with his indignation of the treatment of wives, moms and sisters?
Need a reminder Rob?
"I am shocked - no, appalled - by the image you chose to accompany "The Results are in".
Maybe you are just unfamiliar with common decency. One day, perhaps your mother, your wife, your sister, or your friend will be rewarded for years of volunteer work by finding herself portrayed as the Wicked Witch of the West with a house dropped on her.
And that would be a shame.
Way to keep it classy Mt. Lebo!
Rob
Where is your righteous indignation now neighbor? Why not ask Mr. Franklin be removed from the Parks Advisory Committee?
My description of Mr. Brumfield's reply to me concerning the legalities of the issue precluding public discussion was a paraphrase on my part. Here's the exact exchange:
From my letter to the Commission of 15 Nov 2012, second question:
Second, with respect to the $4.8 million rec bond that was passed at Tuesday's meeting (and since I can't find the text of it on the municipal website): Is there anything in this bill dealing with a "swap" of the McNeilly property with Robb Hollow Park, thus allowing the McNeilly property to be sold? If not, is this "swap" anticipated?
Reply from Mr. Brumfield to me:"Second, the McNeilly swap you are referencing is not in the bond. Actions that are necessary to effect such a swap are not appropriate for public meeting. They are handled in executive session. Until approval of the swap was granted by the state there is not any public discussion that would not be a threat to the approval."
As we all know, executive sessions are held for the purposes of protecting legal rights - thus my paraphrase. However, I do want to be fair to Mr. Brumfield and make sure he is fairly represented.
Mr. Gideon, by all means let's be fair to Mr. B, but still what actions to effect a swap be so secretive that the public can't be told how such a swap might work?
I can see specifics, such as a private concern willing to trade one parcel for another and not wanting to alert there competition until the deals done. But informing the public on the ways a swap might happen, say the municipality will sell the McNeilly property to say Baldwin and use any 'profits' to develop an alternative rec space... why would that have to be secret?
Mr. Gideon, you see I'm a little gun shy because these backroom shenanigans are exactly what mired us in the McNeilly deal in the first place.
We have another example in the passed field sign ordinance. No sunshine on how the sign sales will be conducted, who will be responsible for marketing, prep, scheduling and collecting the revenue.
We'll get signs, in fact I think ad signs have appeared at times on Field fences. But no accountability on who put them up and where the money went.
On the subject of Robb Hollow Park, has anyone thought about the health issues that surround Dog Parks? Here is a relevant and credible article:
http://www.healthypawspetinsurance.com/blog/2012/04/03/spring-and-your-pets-dog-park-diseases/
What about the health effects on humans?
Another question, related to paid parking... if we allow the Robb Hollow Dog Park to be used (uncontrolled) like Bird Park, will Robb Hollow become a waypoint for dog sitting services and neighboring communities... you know, frankly, to literally shit all over Mt Lebanon?
In my mind, a dog park is about as bad as Mr. Franklin's desires build a Ball Field for 1000 screaming kids and 500 minivans!
You raise an excellent point, John. As dog owners, it is important that our pups have their vaccinations up to date.
So how about that tax increase, folks? Or the 3% raise across the board excluding the manager? Don't you just love how there are no fees for municipal field use or no revenue showing up for advertising at our fields? Lebo Fields got a nice plug on this article in Advertisement Journal back in May. http://www.advertisementjournal.com/2012/05/mt-lebanon-schools-and-advertisements/
Elaine
"Brumfield says that as of right now, the decision as to how the money will end up being handled is up in the air. The board also failed to mention who will be finding the advertisers but Brumfield claims that they are working through this step by step and that it is a process. And while some people may not like the idea of advertisements on fields, it is definitely not something that is unheard of, as there are many other areas that do this as well."
Thanks for that linked article, Elaine. Didn't they pass that sign ordinance in June or July. That last paragraph above says it all for me. Rush thru the ordinance with no thought about how it's going to be implemented, but damn there's gold in them thar fields, full speed ahead.
Furthermore, Mr. B says this is a step by step process. Six months worth of stepping and still no guidelines or accounting. Makes me think, they haven't figured out how to hide something. Especially since they could just follow one of the other municipalities that have done this before them.
What is so frigging hard about setting up and managing ad space sales?
You assign someone to figure out the space allotments, they write up a sales sheet, find a sign producer or set up a spec sheet and then set up an accounts payable/receivable. It's not that hard and could be done in a matters of a month at the longest.
Anything longer is BS, incompetence or both. My feeling is the SD, Commissioners and the YSA haven't figured out how to divvy up the pie!
Probably because of the new math being taught... LOL.
Kendrick your straw man argument is stupid, just stupid. When si the last time you were actually in Bird Park? Got news for ya--it's not the dogs creating the hazards in the park. They aren't the ones who break bottles in the shelter leave glass everywhere, nor do dogs start fires and leave them smoldering. Give me a break. What about all the rats in Lebo? Raccoons? Groundhogs? Rabbits? They all carry disease, correct? Oh, let's not forget the common flu virus that is undoubtedly plastered just about everywhere a human will touch. Get over yourself.
Maybe one of the commissioners can give us a progress report on how the field signs will be handled. For 3% raises the staff should be able to show some progress!!!!
10:00 PM you forgot about the drug equipment that is tossed in Bird Park. Quiet please!!!
Post a Comment