Previously on "The Joint Maintenance Agreement," our commissioners cautiously extended the JMA. The extension was not executed. Enter Starfleet Command. No executions or violations occurred. Dr. Tim "Bones" Steinhauer, and Youth Sports standby Stacey Franklin finally executed the document. The JMA expired on December 31, 2012.
Stardate 90682.78 (January 28, 2013 for all the non trekkies) Captain Kluck (no disrespect, Matt - just going with the theme) announced that the Klingons, a.k.a. School Board would not accept any of the terms as presented.
Bottom line is that there is no Joint Maintenance Agreement for 2013.
P.S. School Board, beware the "Wrath of Khan."
64 comments:
Don't overlook the Romulan Cloaking Device... "first described in 2266, that can generate an energy screen to render a target object — usually a spacecraft [but it can also be used for appointed liaison meetings] — relatively invisible to sensors.
Due to their immense power drain, cloaking generators have usually prohibited simultaneous use of other major systems such as weaponry, shields or warp drive [or pool renovations]."
What are you talking about?
From Dave Brumfield's blog on the Sports Advisory Board: "Of course there will also be a commission liaison appointed and, should they so desire, a School Board liaison as well. The
Board will operate as all other boards do with the possible exception of the frequency of their meetings. My direction will be that the
first order of this board will be to review our field situation and determine whether or not there is a field shortage. And if so, what are
our best options to address it."
First order SAB will be to review our field situation and determine if there is a field shortage or not. What have we been debating for all these years? And what has the YSA been claiming they'd be here to help pay for.
Notice there's no second order for the SAB - to figure out how we'll pay for any shortcomings they establish!
So is this CLOAKED politispeak for - we'll analyze the field issue to death until we get the turfed field we want or the opposition gets tired, moves or dies off.
Ed Kubit has agreed to be the first school board liaison and John Bendel will be representing the commission.
Elaine
Oh good the guy that put out the FAQ mailer telling us he was optimistic that the high school renovation will probably come in under $95 million.
Well, I guess it's only right, he has that contact list with 4,000 & 1 names and addresses to draw on for advice.
First is space, then turf, now shortage. What next Lt. Brumfield?
Ed Kubit was listed as a contributor to youth football - hardly a neutral party.
Forgot to respond to 11:39 AM. I take it that you aren't a Star Trek fan.
Elaine
No actually loved it.
Unfortunately we have too many Cyrano Jones.
"and the "trouble" with it tribbles (free spending politicians) is that they reproduce far too quickly and are capable of eating a planet (or municipality) barren if their breeding is not controlled."
Ok, so anyone know what this means? Is there no agreement with the YSA?
I heard the podcast and I think I heard the Commissioners agree that they wanted to negotiate their own agreement with the YSA. This doesn't make much sense because I would have thought that they negotiated that during the last six month extension. But is seems like nothing was done.
Am I missing something? Can you get clarification?
From what I heard at the meeting, the District rejected all the changes that the commission submitted. The district will have to take care of their own fields now. As it stands now, the JMA has outlived its usefulness. When the individual groups don't pay the YSA, the YSA cannot pay the district.
Elaine
Did I get that right, Dave F.? I saw you there in the back of the room.
Elaine
The district will spend money on education before it spends money on fields. If you don't believe me, ask the teachers union.
The municipality will continue to maintain the school district fields, but will do so pursuant to a two party agreement between those two entities and presumably under the same terms and parameters that have existed for some time. The JMA was a three party agreement which also included the YSA. To put it simply, the municipality did not need to be involved with an agreement that included the YSA. The municipality performs the maintenance and gets paid a set fee by the school district. All pretty simple, really.
If the school district desires to enter into a separate agreement with the YSA to offset some of the funds paid to the municipality (as it has for quite some time) it can do so. I sense that the municipality will also begin adding terms and conditions of use to its field permits so that in the event someone misuses a field, the permit can be terminated.
Aside from that, it's pretty much business as usual.....which in this instance, is a good thing.
Dave Franklin
Huh? Dave-based on Elaine's podcast...Phil Weiss said there is no more agreement. Turn up the volume because as you pointed out at one time, he is a low talker.
Correct, there is no more JMA. However, the municipality will continue to maintain the fields and I assume that the municipality (upon the solicitor's counsel) will enter into new two party agreement with the school district in order to memorialize that relationship.
Dave Franklin
Does this mean that if a group of neighborhood kids have a pick up game going on at one of the fields and a YSA group shows up and says get off they can tell them to blow it out there ear as they have as much right to be there as does the YSA?
Plus on a side note - what's going on with the field sign sales and revenue?
So are you saying that there is no more YSA, Dave?
Good thing we didn't go for the YSA proposal. If the groups aren't paying the YSA, as Dave Brumfield indicated at the meeting, they couldn't very well keep their turf promise, could they? Sounds like they couldn't pay their JMA dues again. Please don't make me file another RTK asking if the fees are up to date again.
I wouldn't assume that the muni will enter into an agreement with the district. The district isn't being very agreeable. I took it to be that they are on their own.
Elaine
Elaine, the only reason I'm choosing to provide responses is to stop all of the misinformation that comes from the blog. This is a perfect example. I never said there was no more YSA. I said there is no need for the YSA to be a party to the agreement between the school and the municipality. Further, the YSA has paid its obligations under the JMA, including the most recent extension.
I also believe that field maintainance on all fields will continue to be handled by the municipality under the same sort of arrangement that has existed for years.
Dave Franklin
So Dave, since the YSA no longer has to pay their portion of the JMA does that mean parents should see a substantial drop in their registration fees?
I doubt it simply because I think it is also safe to assume that the school district will continue to expect the same contribution from the YSA to offset what it pays to the municipality. If they don't, that would be great. I think we are one of the few communities that requires a "field fee" from its residents, but the YSA members have always been willing to help with the cost of maintenance. Until someone tells us they no longer want our money, I think the associations will continue to collect $12 per kid.
Dave Franklin
Thanks for the response but a question.
If the municipality is maintaining both the muni and SD fields why pay the district and then the district pays the muni?
Just send the $12 directly to the muni?
Its form over substance, really. The school district pays a much larger sum to the muni for maintenance of all of their fields and the YSA has always just paid the school to reduce their overall cost. It also might have something to do with the fact that the muni only has a few fields in the overall inventory. Who knows. Not sure it really matters in the overall scheme of things.
Dave Franklin
Dave,
There is no agreement between the school district and the municipality.
Let's talk about the misinformation here.
There is no "business as usual". Under what terms would the school district write a check to the municipality. According to the meeting, the school district (or the ysa I am not sure which) rejected the terms of the municipal proposal.
If the YSA raises its money this year, it won't be getting to the municipality. Perhaps you should immediately inform your members of this fact.
Well anonymous, I suppose my assumption is based on the fact that I watched the public works director and at least some of the commissioners tell the public on Monday that the municipality will continue to maintain the fields. I would also assume that the municipality would prefer to be paid for these services. I also assume that the school districts wants the municipality to continue to do the work. So, I'm pretty sure that we can expect business as usual, which is a good thing.
Dave Franklin
I would clarify one thing. It is not outside the realm of possibilities that the school district could contract the maintenance work out to a third party and take the public works dept out of the equation. I think the guys in the public works dept do a great job, and they are awesome to work with. Tom, Rudy and the others have always been extremely helpful whenever we need something. I also have to assume that they can do it for less than a private contractor, but who knows. If the school goes that route, I suppose they would still expect a contribution from the YSA, but perhaps not.
Dave Franklin
I wonder where we'd be had we spent $1,000,000 turfing and lighting a field?
Well, considering we just borrowed half of that to make 2 holes on a 100 year old W. Pa golf course flat, I personally think we'd be a lot better off.
Dave Franklin
Weeellll, considering that once the two holes are flattened it's highly unlikely that we'll have to come back in 7 to 15 years to flatten them all over again, as opposed to turf that we would have.
Personally I think it's the better investment considering the aging population.
Perhaps Mr. Franklin is correct. Contracting school field maintenance would be a win win situation. The township could reduce public works. The schools would be saving money. The sports groups would reduce fees by eliminating the middle man. Win win...win.
It's worth investigating. Cutting public works would reduce future pension burdens.
There are a number of private firms, I think one in Beaver Falls that claims they are experts in maintaining natural grass fields.
Now that is interesting, 11:21 PM. The new Sports Advisory Board could schedule all the fields. There would be no need for the YSA and the $12 per child fee would go away, thus saving parents some money. That would free up some of my time by continually filing RTKs over the YSA, the District would save $ on less RTKs, Timmy and Jan would have one less thing to do worry about when they use TERC math for their fake budget. How many wins is that?
Elaine
Under what authority does the YSA now collect its fees? When baseball starts up and those parents pay the fee and part of that is supposed to go towards the YSA three party agreement, what is that? That agreement no longer exists.
What this means is that if someone wanted to start schedule frisbee golf on the municipal fields, they would have just as much of a right to those fields as baseball does. Remember, that preference for YSA members was spelled out in the agreement.
Maybe a golf pro can start giving lessons at Bird Park.
Right now if the frisbee golf association decides they want to secure field space, what is to stop them?
Yes, the field maintenance will still take place. That is part of the job of the municipality. And yes, if the YSA does not exist anymore then the municipality will have to take over the very limited duties which were to be done by the YSA and the $30,000 annual contribution would be no more.
However, if the YSA continues to collect fees from members as they have in the past, and some of that fee will no longer be used to secure field space as promised, then is the YSA just a PAC now?
My advice to football, baseball, soccer, softball, (name your sport here), is to contact the municipality and set up your own agreement with them as soon as possible. The failure of the leadership of the YSA extend the now expired agreement over the last six months and the failure of the municipality and the school district to come to a fresh agreement mean it is open season on field scheduling.
My other advice to those sports is to forgo the fee to the YSA this year. What good are they?
The only way these traditional sports will have "first use" of the fields anymore is if there is a back door gentleman's agreement which would be legally questionable in mind.
Frankly, I'd like to start my own turtle racing league at Wildcat Field every Tuesday and Thursday from 4-6pm May through July.
I doubt baseball teams will care very much.
Again with the half-truth.
The municipality IS spending money on upgrades to the golf course, but you know quite well that those upgrades are part of a longer term improvement plan that was put in place before the current crop of commissioners were sitting in their cushy leather chairs.
To say or infer that they chose a $500k golf course upgrade over turf is wrong.
I am no fan of the turf idea for a number of reasons. But I am even less of a fan of the YSA based on the half-truths being told to the community and to YSA members by the YSA officers.
8:23 AM, the school district lowered the YSA contribution to $23,000. Did the YSA reduce their $12 fee? That $7,000 reduction comes out of the bottom line in the fake MTLSD budget. By eliminating the YSA contribution altogether, that is another $23,000 bite out of the fake budget. So kids are getting hit twice because of the YSA, once through education dollars and those who participate in sports take another hit through fees.
Elaine
Comments like those from 8:23 underscore why this blog can be so dangerous. Simply put, 8:23 doesn't have a clue. There's so much wrong/bad information in that post, it's almost hard to correct it all. That probably explains why the author didn't sign his/her name. Zero accountability.
First, under what authority does the YSA collect its fees? The various youth sports associations that participate in the YSA (not all of them do), have agreed to pay this fee to the YSA as part of the JMA. Those associations that do participate include football, baseball, soccer, softball and more recently lacrosse. Makes sense, because those are the associations that use the fields. Swimming and some other sports used to pay into the YSA but they have either stopped participating and in some instances their checks were returned to them by the YSA.
Second, it is correct that the JMA no longer exists, but I suppose that 8:23 would have these associations simply assume that the municipality and/or the school district will not in 2013 (or never) impose a similar fee requirement. Anyone who has been to a public meeting in the last year knows that the sentiment of the vocal meeting attendees (and some of our elected officials) is that we don't pay enough. So for example, if the baseball and softball associations (who are currently going through registration) unilaterally elected to stop collecting this $12 fee, what would happen when the Commission or the School Board decides (next week, next moth or in 3 months) that even without the JMA, the associations need to come up with money in order to have a permit to use a field? This blog and the public meetings are full of people who argue that all sports associations should pay user fees. We've paid a $12/per kid user fee for the last several years. Tell me 8:23, would it be responsible for those associations to unilaterally decide to stop collecting this fee under these circumstances? Do you think we like charging this fee? Also, I doubt that the associations will submit these funds to the YSA unless and until a new two-party agreement is signed with the school district, but I think it is foolish for the associations to simply stop collecting those fees while the future of user fees or a JMA-like contribution is still unknown. I'm sure most associations will collect them and set them aside. Frankly, I would offer that any association that elects to stop collecting the fee is being irresponsible given the current landscape.
Third, if you wanted to schedule a frisbee golf league or turtle racing on a municipal field, you can do so when those fields are not subject to a permit. Otherwise, you'll have to apply for a permit through the school district or the municipality and attend one of the 2 field scheduling meetings. The YSA does not get the permits. The individual associations do. So, your advice for the associations to contact the municipality and set up their own agreement as soon as possible is perhaps the best example of your complete lack of understanding. The associations ALREADY have their own agreements with the municipality and the school district. They are called permits.
Lastly, I'm not sure what 8:23 means when he/she suggests that if the YSA does not exist "the municipality will have to take over the very limited duties which were to be done by the YSA." Perhaps you can elaborate, but I doubt it.
Dave Franklin
Dave,
There is no JMA. To say you collect those fees under the JMA exactly proves my point. When baseball has its first registration and you collect money from each registrant to go to the YSA/JMA, you literally have NOTHING to give it to. It doesn't exist. That's fraud. And you just admitted it. If you collect a fee that is for something that doesn't exist that's like saying you will sell someone some ocean front property in Iowa.
The point of having the individual leagues contact the municipality in your stead is based on a few things:
1. They will need to negotiate a fee structure since none currently exists (remember the JMA doesn't exist anymore)
2. They need to get their name on the list for field scheduling (just like they have in the past). But they also will need to understand that they, having no JMA, will have no priority to field use over someone who wants a frisbee golf league.
The "limited duties" I refer to that were conducted by the YSA referred to the very limited work you all did to fields as part of the agreement.
Finally, I never implied that the various associations should stop collecting the fees for field use. I suggested they stop giving it to you since you have failed to get a new agreement.
There is nothing incorrect about my first post or this last one. You WANT it to be incorrect but facts don't lie.
If you (as a representative of the YSA) collect money from a sports association that is supposed to go towards the JMA that doesn't exist and you do not promptly return said monies, you should be charged with a crime.
Mr. Franklin claims 8:23 doesn't have a clue and people like them make Elaine's blog dangerous. As proof he offers the following:
"First, under what authority does the YSA collect its fees? The various youth sports associations that participate in the YSA (not all of them do), have agreed to pay this fee to the YSA as part of the JMA."
But in the first sentence of the next paragraph he writes: "Second, it is correct that the JMA no longer exists,"
What in heavens name are you talking about, Dave?
The various sports groups pay the fee because of the YSA/JMA agreement. You say there isn't any JMA, so why should any sport give or even belong to the YSA.
Dave, you even suggest that several sports group get along fine with the district and municipality without the YSA. So why have a YSA at all?
We have a pretty good rec department - let them manage field scheduling and maintenance as long as the operations remain transparent and proper audits procedures are in place.
Flash from the past...
"Through a Right To Know, here is the link to the Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment signed by Timothy Steinhauer and Stacy Franklin, a.k.a. Mrs. Dave Franklin, on August 20, 2012. You may remember how Dave said on August 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM:
I'm not a member of the YSA. I never have been. I actively participate in several associations that are part of and contribute to the YSA, but I have no formal position or voice within the YSA itself. In fact, assertions to the contrary only underscore the misconceptions and frankly the lies that have been published here, not only about me but about the YSA.
Here is part of the amendment showing YSA's contribution being reduced to $23,000.
1. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence: "For the 2011-2012 school year, YSA's contribution is reduced to $23,000 due to a reduction in the number of fields, and YSA agrees to pay such $23,000 contribution on or before August 31,2012."
If Dave has no formal position or voice in the YSA, why is he setting the "record straight?"
Shouldn't the president be doing that?
Not sure what is so hard to understand 12:10.
The JMA existed through the end of the year (2012). It was not renewed for 2013.
1:26 we both agree that no JMA exist for 2013.
Here is what is so vague. Dave writes: "Otherwise, you'll have to apply for a permit through the school district or the municipality and attend one of the 2 field scheduling meetings. The YSA does not get the permits. The individual associations do."
What authority issues the field permits if no JMA exist?
What authority established the $12/player permit fee? It is my understanding the school board sets the rates for use of their facilities and the schedules. When did the vote occur?
Same with the municipality. Under the Home Rule Charter, a vote must be taken by the commissioners to impose fees etc. With no JMA the municipality has no idea on how much the SD is going to pay towards the maintenance of district fields. Or what maintenance they'll be responsible for.
The other obvious question if the individual associations get the field permits and there is no agreement, what does the YSA do now that there is no JMA?
The best thing to do is keep this simple. A Field Maintenance Fund should be established. After each registration period, the associations should tallly the number of participants and multiply it by $12.00, or whatever the agreed upon fee should be.
The next step would be to write a check to the fund.
Field scheduling should be conducted by designates from each group along with district and muni personnel.
If no check is presented, field time is forfeited.
Chuck
I like the simplicity.
However, I am concerned that some sports will not get priority under this model. How can we ensure that baseball gets priority over (to steal a previous comment's example) frisbee golf?
I think that was an important aspect of the JMA.
Can we charge a tier level access? $12 per kid gets you Gold priority. $5 per kid gets you Bronze level field access (whatever is left over).
Be careful what you wish for...why would you need a priority unless their really is a field shortage?
So some kids are better than others? I am confused.
Also, are you proposing for YSA to collect the funds?
Elaine
So basically the fields aren't the great big socialist enterprise we're lead to believe.
Why wipild we need to assure that baseball gets priority over frisbee golf? Or over girls softball?
Who decides these things some group of baseball fanatics that deem they're more important.
Then there's the other alternative. Those with the most money win and the peons settle for the scraps.
Real nice!
I am all for turtle racing to be in the gold tier. We can paint little signs on their shells to generate income. Don't they have to be green on one side?
Elaine
To the points mentioned above:
You do not need a YSA. Each organization would be responsible for paying their allotment immediately after they know how many participants that they would have.
To those who are talking hypothetical such as Frisbee golf, I know of no known organization in our community. I am strictly concerned with existing, organized groups that over time have used the facilities in season. If a groundswell of Frisbee golfers were to appear, then it might change the dynamic. This matter could be addressed at such time.
Field priority is not, nor has it been an issue. Baseball and softball work out the schedule based on time slots required, not on a "who is bigger" model. As lacrosse and other sports need rolled in, accommodations can be made, as long as the required fees are paid. Remember, each sport has a season. Some overlap, while others do not. Baseball and softball are both usually finished on or around August 1. Football and soccer usually start mid-August. Additionally, some fields see less use than others, so opportunity exists here as well.
Exactly Chuck.
There is no need for the YSA.
As for field time and new sports - sometimes you just have to say no.
I can remember a group of parents and students petitioning my district to start a hockey team. Other districts had already started there's.
Unfortunately, our district didn't have the money, the coaches or the available ice to make it possible. So we didn't get one. We survived, those that were really interested joined clubs, others joined a different sport.
Sometimes -- "you don't always get what you want - but if you try sometimes you get what you need!"
Chuck B. you wrote:
"You do not need a YSA. Each organization would be responsible for paying their allotment immediately after they know how many participants that they would have."
That seems like a workable plan, but who sets the fees?
With no JMA the school district hasn't authorized the municipality to care for its fields. Nor have they set an amount for what they'll reimburse the municipality for that maintenance.
On the otherside, the municipality with no JMA has no idea what their expenses will be. The SD/YSA used to - or were suppose to - give the municipality around $80,000 for field maintenance.
Don't both governing bodies have to have public discussions and votes on this subject since the JMA expired?
I am sure that there is some type of field maintenance budget for the SD and muni. On top of that is the historical YSA/JMA amount. The fees can be set by taking the historical percentage of the YSA fee divided into the total budget. Once collected, the fees can be disbursed to the SD and muni on a pro-rata basis, depending on the fields and times used by any particular organization.
As the maintenance costs change over time, the fee structure can be adjusted, based on budgeted or trailing amounts. Thus, the fee percentage stays commensurate to the total budget.
That is a possibility Chuck. But the fact still remains, with no JMA the district just can't go around paying the municipality or anyone else for that matter $80,000 for field care without a vote by the board.
Nor is the municipality allowed to set a fee for the use of it's employees to work for the school district without a vote by the commissioners approving their work or the muni's compensation for same.
If they could, we would have never needed a JMA in the first place!
Why not segregate the pool by field ownership? The monies could be dispersed by the fund to the appropriate agency. If muni and SD fields are used equally, divide the pool fund and pay half to each organization. Conversely, the muni and SD would need to maintain the properties in their domain.
We don't need more discussion and bureaucracy, just some common sense based actions.
First Chuck, first step would be to follow the rules and protocols spelled out the Home Rule Charter.
(PDF page 10 of 36)
of the MTL Home Rule Charter
Section 319: Certain Specific Actions Requiring An Ordinance
In addition to any other actions required by law or by this Charter to be taken by ordinance those actions of the Commission shall be by ordinance which:
6) Establish, alter or abolish rates charged for any utility or other service supplied by the municipality
Wouldn't field maintenance supplied to the school district be a service supplied by the municipality? If so, then they cannot charge the district a fee for field maintenance without an ordinance being adopted!
They also could not charge for field permits without establishing a rate.
Wasn't the YSA input considered a voluntary donation?
Yes, a gift according to Timmy.
A gift to this District.
Elaine
Listen to the podcast that I linked in that post. Larry considered it a voluntary contribution - just because they are nice guys, they don't have to do it. The lawyer said that. Pay no attention to the contract, folks.
Elaine
There seems to be some confusion here.
Mr. Franklin said on 1/30/13 at 7:43 here: " I think we are one of the few communities that requires a "field fee"."
If the YSA payments under the JMA were voluntary, then who collected the field fees Dave is referring too?
Or if the YSA payments to the school district were the field fees then why is Dr. Steinhauer calling them a gift?
Chuck, you're right we do need some common sense. Trouble is where do we find it? We can't even get straight answers.
I admit that I am not up to speed on the lgalities. Why not just have each association pay a per player field maintenance fee to the Rec. Dept.? They could disburse it equitably from the pool of monies that are collected. Would this require some kind of SD or muni action?
I think someone suggested that here or in an earlier post, Chuck.
Having scheduling, fee collection, field maintenance all under one umbrella would be a simple solution, one would think.
The problem occurs when that centralized 'aithority' doesn't do its job, as evidenced by the parking authority.
I also agree recreation should be handled by the - wow this is tough - recreation dept. Winthrop the properauditing of course.
Why doesn't the Rec Department pay any fees to the SD or Muni for the kids who use the fields for all of their programs?
Micro-soccer, Rec soccer, Cheerleading, Baseball Camp, T-Ball, etc, etc.
12:15 one would assume it would be silly for the rec. dept. to charge itself then pay itself a user fee for any of these activities.
Although yes, it is also odd that it wouldn't pay a fee to the SD unless there was some agreement between the two entities existing.
It appears this isn't a lot of accountability or financial management in any of this. It is almost being run as "catch as catch can".
Perhaps that also highlights how the fields got into such bad shape in the first place.
A side issue will be the new high school swimming pool.
One can imagine that it will be a more popular place for family winter recreation, senior excercise groups, youth swim classes, swim clubs/races in the winter months once it opens.
Will the management/fees of the pool stay within the district or become part of a community recreation management program?
I can see a case being made for a total separation of school district and state. The district manages its recreation amenities and the municipality theirs.
In my opinion, there are no Rec fees as these activities are offered by the muni. All of the other activities are non-sanctioned by the muni. However, all of the offerings, both indoor and outdoor impact the facilities. Therefore, there should be a fee assessed to every activity that uses community or SD facilities. The increased amount of fee collection would be a great way to plug more resources into the fields and indoor venues.
In short, the Rec Dept. should be the clearinghouse for all of the recreational offerings in MtL. Scheduling can be accomplished by officers of each sport in conjunction with the Rec representative. The Rec Dept. should work with the SD for time allotments and dole them out on a season-by-season basis.
Makes perfect sense Chuck!
Therefore our local officials probably won't do it, its too logical.
Post a Comment