Just got in from the commission meeting about twenty five minutes ago. I don't know how to say this. See sign above.
The discussion session was so long that it reconvened after the regular commission meeting. The regular meeting included:
- Kristen Linfante making sure everyone knew her position on deer during Citizens' Comments.
- Kristen Linfante making sure everyone knew her position on deer during the public hearing on the 2014 Recommended Budget.
- See sign above.
The reconvened discussion session included THE latest and greatest Turf Proposal for Middle and Wildcat Fields. I will be uploading the presentation as soon as I get it. I believe the vote is on November 25. See sign above.
More discussion about solid waste and Pay As You Throw. Paraphrasing Tom Kelley, we shouldn't be making this decision at 11:30 at night. I believe the vote is on November 25. See sign above.
November 13, 2013 3:22 PM David Donnellan just sent me the pdf of John Bendel's presentation. Mt. Lebanon Field Enhancement Proposal Thanks, David.
November 14, 2013 12:11 PM Remember how the intersection of Greenhurst and Cedar floods every year? Flooding of artificial turf
Multiple fire hoses are required to clean up the area. Does the fire department help residents with flooding issues or will they be directed to protect the fields?
November 13, 2013 3:22 PM David Donnellan just sent me the pdf of John Bendel's presentation. Mt. Lebanon Field Enhancement Proposal Thanks, David.
November 14, 2013 12:11 PM Remember how the intersection of Greenhurst and Cedar floods every year? Flooding of artificial turf
 |
| Who pays for this cleanup? |
Multiple fire hoses are required to clean up the area. Does the fire department help residents with flooding issues or will they be directed to protect the fields?
It will come to light soon just how badly the Brumfields of the community will go to get turf. Not only are they prepared to spend almost a million taxpayer dollars for the fake stuff, but they will be willing not to fund other important parts of the budget to get their way.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the PAYT decision they wanted to make? How do they want to do it?
ReplyDeleteSeems like USC has a deer problem as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thealmanac.net/article/20131113/OPINION02/131119983
Stll no decision on PAYT. It is like talking about deer.Kristen is all for it.
ReplyDeleteBut as Matt pointed out last night the PAYT is all based on assumptions.
Elaine
8:06 AM, more proof that culling doesn't work. USC has been culling for years and years. Matt tried to point out to Kristen that USC residents still complain about the deer.
ReplyDeleteElaine
I'm hearing that a PAYT vote now will be for the option to possibly go forward with it in 2015. If not approved in concept now, it would not be implementable until after the new refuse contract expires in 5 years. The time interval, 2014, will reportedly allow for more study and fact finding, pro and con, before a final decision is made. Anyone believe that ?
ReplyDeleteThe Environmental Sustainability Board voted to support the concept only if a formal independent fact finding study supported it for Mt. Lebanon based on Lebo facts and circumstances. The Commission has not agreed to such a study yet.
Does anyone believe that a so called independent, impartial, unbiased study designed & arranged by, supervised by and paid by this municipal government will conclude that PAYT is not suitable for the bubble ? If so, please respond to this comment with your name, address and phone # - there's a bridge in China for sale I'd like to talk to you about.
Yes, 5:28 AM, it came out last night that Brumfield started the Sports Advisory Board to get turf on the fields. I don't see that listed anywhere under the History or Duties of the SAB. http://mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?nid=2150
ReplyDeleteElaine
Can't wait to see the make up of that formal, independent fact finding committee.
ReplyDeleteThe other day I saw a UPS driver leaving a cul-de-sac when countless deer were standing in the truck's path. The driver repeatedly tapped his horn while in motion and the deer scattered.
ReplyDeleteIf Kristen is fearful of the deer in her back yard, as she reports she cannot allow her children to play there when the deer are present, she might want to take a cue from the UPS driver and honk a horn.
Deer are not aggressive animals under normal conditions.
For how long has turf been under considation in Mt Lebanon? In other words, when was the very first time turf was mentioned in a Commission meeting?
ReplyDeleteI was questioning my sanity last night as I was falling asleep at the meeting. This is another Kristen Linfante idea where she has everyone else doing her homework, doesn't come up with a proposal, nothing is supported with facts, just assumptions. We must build a new high school, we must kill deer, we must charge people for garbage collection. No communication, cooperation or collaboration. Her presidential term is going to be a delight, that is, if she isn't out of town.
ReplyDeleteElaine
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/top9.htm
ReplyDeleteSay what? Could PAYT be an underhanded way to funnel cash to the school district or fund artificial turf?
Am I reading this correctly????
"Spend solid waste agency funds for activities beyond those associated with traditional solid waste management services (for example, public education)."
PAYT is a "bait & switch" liberal progressive scheme to move solid waste removal from tax cost to homeowner fees, and spending the tax cost money on new pet progressive programs - they will not actually reduce tax millage to account for the cost transfer to homeowners.
ReplyDeleteClearly it IS NOT THE TIME for PAYT.
ReplyDeleteMt Lebanon Muni and School District need an ethics/law board.
Could Kelly's comment about not discussing this (PAYT) now, be predicated by the infomation contained in the link provided at 9:32 am.
ReplyDeleteAll the appropriate ordinances haven't been put in place to direct waste agency funds to pet projects?
There is one way to keep all this stuff on the up and up. The Home Rule Charter is being revised, now is the time to put some teeth in it and make it what it is suppose to be... a Home Rule Charter
We could save some money by attaching those Screwed signs on the same post as the No Idling signs the ESB lobbied for and no one pays any attention to!
ReplyDeleteHow can the council justify Kristen being the president when she doesn't show up for a majority of the meetings?
ReplyDeleteBe careful, 11:48 AM. We had a school board member serve and was unable to attend meetings. It is just what we do around here.
ReplyDeleteElaine
http://www.edmondsoccer.com/documents/The_Soccer_Field_HANDBOOK.pdf
ReplyDeleteGee, wonder why Brumfield and Franklin never showed us the "The Soccer Field Handbook?"
Especially Chapter 6. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
The Idling issue needs to be addressed. We have some of the worst air quality in the country. Chances of getting cancer in Allegheny County are 2x as high as getting cancer in neighboring counties.
ReplyDeleteWe can't have GO ZONES and "No Idling" as the GO ZONES encourage/mandate idling and doing laps around the schools.
The GO ZONES are hazardous.
1:32 don't believe there won't be lights.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for artificial turf is to increase field use and extending game time after sunset is one one of the YSA goals from the beginning.
There will be lights, you can betcha', same as there is a climbing wall included in the pool plan.
1:14 PM, I can't even get them to email the proposal, let alone showing the money. I have emailed David Donnellan reminding him of my request for a copy of last night's presentation. Since we were there till almost midnight, my guess he is coming in later today. I copied the commissioners and Steve Feller.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation was for eco friendly turf with no lights at Middle and Wildcat for around a million dollars. I believe the money will be coming from last year's unassigned funds, this year's unassigned funds and next year's unassigned funds.
Elaine
What are GO ZONES?
ReplyDeleteSpecially defined areas for the hooty-tooty to really wind up their Beemers through residential streets???
to: Dave Franklin, Esq
ReplyDeletefrom: Richard Gideon
Sir:
Since it looks very likely that the Municipality is going to turf Middle and Wildcat fields, would you, as a spokesman for the various field sports groups, tell me 1)how much money in aggregate these groups are going to contribute to the cost?, 2)how much money do these groups currently have on hand for the project?, and 3)if the sports groups intend to canvass Mt. Lebanon for contributions for the field turf project?
Thanks,
RG
Kelly Fraasch posted the proposal on her blog.
ReplyDeleteTurf Proposal for Wildcat/Middle
Elaine
I'm reasonably sure that the commission majority doesn't give a rat's ass about Robb Hollow. See sign above.
ReplyDeleteI'm reasonably sure that the commission majority doesn't give a rat's ass about the State. See sign above.
I'm reasonably sure that the commission majority doesn't give a rat's ass about what Kelly Fraasch thinks. See sign above.
I'm reasonably sure that the commission majority doesn't give a rat's ass about what stakeholders think. See sign above.
I'm reasonably sure that the commission majority doesn't give a rat's ass about what other non-field sports groups think. See sign above.
I have been saying all along, it is a done deal. See sign above.
Elaine
Whatever happened to the $125,000 the soccer honcho's were to provide for athletic fields, promises made several times but money never delivered ?
ReplyDeleteHey, RG - I'll give you the answers - 1, nada; 2, zilch; and 3, file a RTK! Do you really expect Franklin to answer you?
ReplyDelete2:57 PM, I posted the grant application on the blog on October 6, 2011. Soccer pledge
ReplyDeleteLying to the State is how our local government officials roll, whether it is with the school district or the municipality. We' don't have to go by any rules.
Elaine
Watch the ball...the ball is TURF.
ReplyDeleteDon't watch the deer and PAYT-- while those are important -- the main play here is the turf.
Mr. Gideon, I would be happy to sit down and discuss the proposal with you and answer these (and any other) questions you may have. As I'm sure you can appreciate, I'm not interested in doing so in this forum. I'm available for coffee or a beer at your convenience.
ReplyDeleteDave Franklin
You're getting smarter, Dave. If you say anything here, you are held accountable.
ReplyDeleteElaine
To be honest, I'm sure Mr. Gideon will do a fine job of that if he accepts my invitation to review the proposal.
ReplyDeleteDave Franklin
8:41, Changes in collection rates for tonnage or unit costs can be made in the first 18 months of the contract. The type of collection cannot be changed once the type of collection is voted upon and approved.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the turf is concerned, did anyone read the long term cost sharing page of the proposal. It assumes $542,000 in non-municipal contributions over the 16 years of field use. I hope they can raise the money through fees and sponsorships to meet the nearly $35,000 in yearly non-municipal contributions. I hope they are successful in this venture.
On another note, the use of unassigned funds to finance long term costs/investments is very convenient for those in favor. This should be financed through a bond issue because it is a 16 year long term plan, not an optional use of funds because of an over tax. Again, not representative of the true cost of government.
Constance Spicuous Consumption
May I come too, Dave? You wouldn't make eye contact with me again last night, so this would be a great opportunity for us to finally "meet."
ReplyDeleteWhen you met with Jim Cannon, we never got any feedback from your meeting.
How about this, Dave? Post your answers on your Lebo Fields blog. Is that a better forum for you? If that doesn't work, how about answering RG's questions at the next Sports Advisory Board meeting? That is an appropriate forum, doncha think? After all, it was created with turf in mind.
Good luck, RG. Want to borrow my recorder? ;)
Elaine
The beauty of this proposal is that it only takes three votes. Keep in mind that unassigned funds have been used for flooding issues, sidewalks, buying equipment, buying police radios, traffic calming, buying software, and improvements to the Rec Center, to name a few. All that will go away to turf the municipality's best fields which have good visibility for signage.
ReplyDeleteSee sign above.
Elaine
Whoever votes yes to turfing the fields SHOULD be voted out at the end of their term. We have people being affected by terrible stormwater management issues, but they get ignored because of TURF? Are we serious?
ReplyDeleteWell, for starters it is time to go after those wildly underassessed McMansions.
ReplyDeleteThen, did someone say there is a flurry of sales in the Foster area?
If so, check the final sale price with assessed value. The municipality will pick up $35,000 in tax money real quick.
But, you know the commissioners won't go after that money.
While San Carlos is home to Barry Bonds, no other correlations exist. Average climate in San Carlos, California http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Carlos-California.html
ReplyDeleteMr. Franklin:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the offer. If that information is going to be made public soon - say at the next Commission meeting - I can wait to hear it on Lebo Citizens or watch it on Video.
One of the problems I have is that what I do for a living requires that I keep some crazy hours, so arranging to meet with people, or attending public meetings, is often a dicey proposition. However, if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to talk to you on the phone. If you'll E-mail me I'll send you the number. I have a "buffer" E-mail address for these kinds of things: sewever@verizon.net.
V/r
Richard Gideon
5:04 PM, it was pointed out that the San Carlos fields were situated similarly as Middle and Wildcat Fields. I don't think climate was a factor, although it is an important one.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Deer and Ms. Linfante... you would think a liberal Julliard graduate would care about the four legged mammals. BUT no.. because they have nibbled on her garden and on the gardens of some of her Democratic supporters.. they must be destroyed..
ReplyDeleteQuestion: If public safety is Mrs. Linfante's #1 concern, why is she willing to commit all available funding to artificially turfing 2 fields ?
ReplyDelete4:52 I agree - What is the action plan with respect to storm water?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the turf will help stormwater issues on Middle and Wildcat Fields. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Notice that the proposal indicated they won't go after lighting at this time.
ReplyDeleteOnce they get the turf, the rational will be--- we have these expensive fields and they're too dark to be used effectively.
Isn't it funny, the YSA has been pushing for fields since- what 2002?
If they had followed the Soccer Handbook link at 1:14, they have at least $200,000 to $300,000 to put in the pot immediately, today-- to get the balls rolling.
Unfortunately, as we've seen with all things sports related, Twin Hills, McNeilly, field signs, etc., these sports nutz (hey if they can call us wing nuts) can't plan for anything in advance that involves money.
In actuality won't artificially turfed fields exascerbate stormwater problems for residents downstream from Wildcat/Middle fields.
ReplyDeleteNatural grass and dirt retains water, artificially turfed fields are designed to shed water faster so they're immediately available for play.
What happens when the deer pooh-pooh on the turf?
ReplyDeleteSo there is going to be a vote on Nov 25? To allocate all of these funds for turf? I see that they say there is "support" from several sport leaders... what are their names and where are their signatures? Where are the signatures from all of the other coaches/leaders of sport orgs? What % are opposed to this plan?
ReplyDeleteA $12,000 user fee is quite a bit for sports teams. Are the kids going to have to walk the streets selling hoagies? Washing cars? What's the deal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEFKHuWLgx4
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdiUBYpRY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcZkSf4jj8Y
Before Boyce Middle School was turfed in USC, a survey was conducted of USC residents and the desire for field improvement there was identified. Was a similar survey completed in Mt Lebanon?
ReplyDeleteNo DOGS allowed on the turf.
ReplyDeleteThanks for submitting those links, 7:18 PM. Here they are as hyperlinks.
ReplyDeleteSynthetic turf fires
Dangers of synthetic turf
Turf questions from a soccer mom
Elaine
So is there a guarantee this field will be organic? Asthma is an epidemic. Kids don't need to be exposed to more toxic off gassing and particle pollution.
ReplyDeleteSo let me make sure I get this... somewhere over the last several decades or 100 years, Mt Lebanon made an effort to provide inclusive, handicap-assessible recreational outlets for kids and adults with disabilities, right? Where are they and how to the folks with disabilities actually access those resources?
ReplyDeleteI live in Mr. Bendal's Ward. It is well known in Ward 1 Mr. Bendal will not be told how to vote. This voter won't be putting a check next to John Bendal's name ever again.
ReplyDeleteThe projected maintenance savings requires more details. Unless the payroll is reduced there is no savings. Whatever the contribution from the school district might be, it is still 112,000 tax dollars. This plan grabs tax dollars any way it can, leaving few dollars for other needs. We might live with the $750,000 contribution for initial installation, but replacement and maintenance should be on the teems. And yes, we still want the promised contribution for McNeely. Good luck finding someone that thinks they are good for it. They want the town to front all the money, based on their worthless commitment.
ReplyDeleteA far more favorable proposal would be for the teems to begin paying the $21,000 existing annual maintenance cost (they have paid zero since the beginning of time) and the municipality use the other monies for the real priorities of the families that have paid all their taxes. Teams that want turf they can start saving for it. When they have paid the McNeely commitment and have the $250,000 for turf, we will have something to talk about.
The surpluses being taken from the community result from overtaxation brought to us by the same commissioners that want to spend it on their pet project. It is no surprise this proposal, which has little new except for the turf product has been released at the 11th hour.
7:44 PM, unfortunately, that can be said about most elected officials here in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to stop this. Once they get turf at Middle and Wildcat, they will move on to other fields.
You know, reading www.lebofields.blogspot.com (Dave Franklin's blog,) you can see one "need" after another. First, we needed to have improved recreational facilities.
Use the unassigned funds to fix Brafferton. April 20, 2012
Turf Mellon. April 20, 2012
Support improving Brafferton/Sunset. April 23, 2012
Amend sign ordinance to allow sponsorship signs at athletic fields. April 25, 2012
Sign amendment will enable the Municipality to sell sponsor signage at our local fields. May 10, 2012
A few people have attacked the plan to turf a field in Mt. Lebanon by suggesting it is bad for the environment. June 13, 2012
Bethel focuses on artificial turf at their new high school. June 15, 2012
Announcement for YSA proposal to be presented. June 22, 2012
List of high school turf projects and petition started. June 27, 2012
Support for Rec bond July 2, 2012
Weather analysis. No mention of annual 100 year storms. July 13, 2012
Study done by Penn State. July 19, 2012
Matt Kluck objects to Rec bond. July 23, 2012
Comparing Cranberry to Mt. Lebanon. "NFL players would much prefer a state-of-the art turf facility over the mud craters of Mellon in the Fall or the rock hard dirt of Bird in the Summer." (Bird? Mellon?) July 25, 2012
Rec bond proposal. August 1, 2012
The evils of Robb Hollow. August 14, 2012
Turning down additional fields because they are natural grass. August 24, 2012
Announcement of the creation of the Sports Advisory Board. January 29, 2013
Dave isn't demanding.
Elaine
A MODEST PROPOSAL-
ReplyDeleteArtificial turfing of Middle/Wilcat is estimated to be around $1,000,000.
The life expectancy of artificial turf is approximately 8 to 15 years. Lets go with 10.
So turf cost $100,000/year.
$100,000 divided among the claimed 3,600 field sport participants is $27.78 per player.
$27.78 isn't an earth shattering, bank breaking amount. Hell it's a little more than 1 of School Board Director Cooper's gourmet pizzas.
Add in the income from field sign ad dollars and $20/player is very realistic.
So let the YSA charge the players a fee - kinda of a Pay As You Play (PAYP) fee to buy their artificial turf.
As a taxpayer, I'll happily pay for customary maintenance and grooming of their turf, once they put it in. I'll even pony up for the electric bill to turn the lights on.
Damn, even the school district thinks nothing of charging kids a $100 to park their car. $20 to play on artificial turf is chump change.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteThe commission is fixing Brafferton.
The commission amended the sign ordinance.
So now, an ecofriendly turf proposal even though we were wrong about it being bad for the environment.
We have new turf at the high school.
Rec bond passed.
No comment on Penn State.
High school and college athletes could follow the litigation by former NFL players who have a proposed $765m settlement over head injuries.
Working in bad faith with the State.
There is a shortage of fields, yet reject new fields at Robb Hollow.
The creation of the Turf Board.
Not to mention missing in action:
$8 Million donation
$125,00 donation listed in grant.
YSA proposal of $190,000 for lights at Middle and Wildcat
Sign revenue
Corporate sponsors
Elaine
8:48 U R onto something. Start with Mr. Franklin coming up with the 375, 125 for McNeely and 250 that shows he is good for the balance and the town makes it happen with a bond issue, surplus funds, whatever. Then charge a modest ($30) participant fee paid to the town. That would raise 108,000 every year. After 8 years there would be 864,000 and 600,000 is needed for the replacement, leaving about 264,000 returned to the taxpayers for real needs. After three cycles, the town would get its original money back and the project would be self-sustaining. There is still the issue of the 7,000 annual maintenance cost. We can eat that, because we would have our cake too.
ReplyDeleteYawn, the YSA couldn't even abide by the terms of the Joint Maintenance Agreement with the district and municipality.
ReplyDeleteTheir word is fefinitely not their bond.
No matter what happens, the original problem will remain the shortage of fields which we the original premise. Has the commission satisfied this issue?
ReplyDeleteFees should be incorporated to pay for future restoration/replacement along with sponsorship.
Will the demand for more fields be considered when some athletic groups still need to leave the township to play and practice their sport? Wow, the list goes on...
The Field Enhancement Proposal is whose proposal? David Donnellan said that John Bendal wrote it, but where does it say that?
ReplyDeleteWhose recommendation is it for the Commission to vote for the proposal on November 25? Isn't there a public hearing required to use unassigned funds? If so, shouldn't there be a legal notice posted 15 days in advance? Or at least announce the date for the public hearing during a commission meeting?
This is really being pushed through too quickly. Can it be done before the 2014 budget is approved?
What is the rush?
Elaine
What about the Rock Pile? Is that ever coming back? The claim is that more 2 hour slots are available. Doesn't that address the need for more fields? What about Brafferton? Won't that add more slots? Was that considered?
ReplyDeleteElaine
7:14...Franklin ought to include those answers during his beer with Gideon. This taxpayer votes for the extra tax money go towards garbage collection.
ReplyDeleteSo Bendel writes that there are 3600 youth registrations in a year. Guess what? That doesn't translate into 3600 different kids. If each child registers for four recreational activities, as many typically do especially when they are young, we might be talking about 900 kids. This data is NOT USEFUL, LEGIT DATA. How does Bendel define these registrations because kids can sign up for boatload of different types of recreational activities here in Mt Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteSo if it's $27 per kid, as a previous commenter suggested, it might actually be $27X4, per kid, per year. So is someone proposing that $27 will be added to each registration for an activity? This is getting more ridiculous the more I think about it.
That's a lovely photo of an organic turf field included in the proposal. Here a climate comparison between Pittsburgh & San Carlos. I wonder how the tremendous differences between these towns will impact the maintenance and functioning of the organic turf field.
ReplyDeleteCLIMATE Pgh San Carlos
Rainfall (in.) 36.1 20
Snowfall (in.) 29.3 0
Precip Days 146 60
Sunny Days 160 264
Avg. July High 84 83
Avg. Jan. Low 23.8 39.6
If a resident plays a round of golf with a riding cart the fee is $22.
ReplyDeleteThey play two rounds in a month its $44.
Three rounds - $66.
So why is it up to taxpayers to underwrite a kids sporting activities?
But lets take a cue from the school district. Put a cap on the PAYP on turf fee. Say $60, once you hit the cap you covered for any additional sports.
If you come back and suggest the 3,600 participants number is too high by a factor of four, I'd suggest we need then to look closer at how many fields we really need.
10:26 are you suggesting that we're spending $1,000,000+ to turf two fields for just 900 kids?
ReplyDeleteThis fight against turf is not over. This plan will hurt kids who play athletics in Mt Lebanon by making their sporting involvement much more expensive.
ReplyDeleteSports will be LESS FUN due to the need for MORE FUNDS.
Permits to play on the field will result in high fences, locks, and big signs with lots of rules.
http://www.synturf.org/forbiddenfields.html
11:18, visited your link and found the following paragraph the most interesting.
ReplyDelete"In many communities, the so-called nonprofit sports leagues and boosters defray all or a substantial part of the cost of installing, maintaining, and replacing of the turf fields in an arrangement that city or town officials like to call "public-private partnership." It is a "partnership" alright! The use of the public's land and some of public's treasure is ponied up in favor or a gated eco-desert rug, with limited use and questionable appeal. "
In our community the 'so-called non-profit sports leagues' don't even bother putting up a front that they'll defray the cost of anything.
It's just "buy me this, buy me that!"
Well folks, you wanted commissioners like Brumfield and Brendel, now you've got 'em!
10:26 raises some interesting points.
ReplyDeleteBendel's proposal claims there are 3,600 field sport participants.
That number is the basis for the argument that we don't have enough fields.
But, 10:26 argues that many of those 3,600 are actually some kids participating in four different sports.
So we are advised to spend $1,000,000+ every 8-15 years to provide plastic turf for as fee as 900 kids!
Does this make any sense whatsoever?
There are currently 5,230 students in the school district. Probably another 100 or 200 in private/charter schools.
So Brumfield, Brendel and Franklin are demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for artificial turf that will serve maybe less than 25% of our community's kids.
Enough is enough for these special interest people. With the millions spent on the athletic wingof the high school, taxpayers have done enough!
That last slide is something else. They swallow all the money for Brafferton, they use all the money for the 2013 fund balance and they leverage future fund balance to get to their 3/4 million dollars for turf.
ReplyDeleteAs the first comment said, they are ready to screw the community and Brumfield is surely leading the charge.
What I believe that comment was about was the McNeilly land swap would would be out the window due to this plan. This would leave the municipality with a piece of land that they will be FORCED to develop at a future date and would relegate Robb Hollow (a park people would actually use) to remaining an eyesore.
Where is the PAB on this? They should be losing their mind.
This plan screws parks and pats the sports groups on their heads.
Finally, I like how the plan is a 16 year plan but only includes a single turf replacement even as it suggests it needs to be replaced every 8 years. Conveniently leaving out half a million dollars will get you the project every time.
I know it's November, but this is a snow job on so many levels.
The only way to accurately determine the number of Mt. Lebanon kids who participate in field sports is to compare name lists from each sport so as not to count any particular kid more than once. And the local sports organizations aren't going to let that happen.
ReplyDeleteNo decent environmentalist would approve of turfing a field or the non-sporting killing of deer. The municipality should NOT be paying for the turfing of fields if the sport associations do not pony up more than 70% of the costs to build and pay 100% of the maintenance fees. The money the muni will spend on this could easily fix the stormwater and parking problems in the municipality.
ReplyDeleteWell said 6:04.
ReplyDeleteJust because these people lead a sports organization (Brumfield) or the PTA doesn't mean we should be voting for them to prioritize how they spend our money.
10:38 - I understand that Brumfield is behind this plan but BENDEL wrote it. Bendel, Ward 1.
ReplyDeleteBendel is hoping that if he may have one request granted during his term as a commissioner it will be for turf.
These sports people are all over the place, they pushed for Twin Hills, a roofed facility on the Rock Pile, then McNeilly, then Wildcat/Middle with lights, then Mellon, then they neededore fields, now its back to we don't need Brafferton fixed up, we need Wildcat/Middle and the lights are OK.
ReplyDeleteThey don't have a plan, they have no money and they certainly don't have a friggin' clue as to what they really want... or need!
Its time to ignore them. Properly care and maintain the natural grass fields we have now. They serve us when there were over 8,000 kids in the school system, now we have less than 5,300.
If the Rec Dept. can't keep fields up with a shrinking clientele, somebody's is not doing their job.
Remember how the intersection of Greenhurst and Cedar tends to flood every year? Consider this article.
ReplyDeleteFlooding of artificial turf
Elaine
Residents: If you are waiting on some project to be completed and you wonder why it never is, you won't have to look further than the turfed field. For example, projects like traffic calming are intentionally slow. Traffic projects are basically reserved for fall and spring as the traffic group (Trans) won't collect data in the summer. In the winter, they say they can't install things like speed bumps. In the mean time, the money will dissipate as it goes "unassigned" and then into the turf.
ReplyDeleteThe more the commission argues, the more unassigned funds, and the more money toward turf.
Meanwhile, the kids will be on the streets with their surprise fundraising assignments and parents will be directing traffic.
http://www.fieldturf.com/media/W1siZiIsIjIwMTIvMDgvMDEvMjIvMjUvNDEvMTQwL2ZpZWxkdHVyZl9idWlsZGluZ19oYW5kYm9vay5wZGYiXV0/fieldturf-building-handbook.pdf
ReplyDeleteFirst off, they recommend field should be higher than surrounding terrain. Middle/wildcat are lower.
Everyone knows grass and soil absorb stormwater and recover naturally from flooding. Turf requires expensive infrastructure because the whole point is to get water off the field as fast as possible!
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm
ReplyDelete"Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water pollution in urban areas. When rain falls in undeveloped areas, the water is absorbed and filtered by soil and plants. When rain falls on our roofs, streets, and parking lots, however, the water cannot soak into the ground. In most urban areas, stormwater is drained through engineered collection systems and discharged into nearby waterbodies. The stormwater carries trash, bacteria, heavy metals, and other pollutants (Like pellets made old car tires!) from the urban landscape, degrading the quality of the receiving waters. Higher flows can also cause erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat, property, and infrastructure."
Where's our Green Team/ESB?
Don't be surprised if the sports people decide to switch gears and recommend turfing Mellon. They are flexible that way. Brumfield prefers turfing Mellon. He said that at the meeting the other night. In fact at a prior Turf Board meeting, they went around the room and asked everyone if the turf should go to Mellon or Middle and Wildcat.
ReplyDeleteEither way, we are screwed. Brumfield, Bendel and Linfante will vote for turf and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it. The commission is a disgrace. At one time, I had a lot of respect for the commission.
I can try to inform the community till the cows come home, but it really doesn't matter. Brumfield, Bendel, and Linfante can do anything they want to the State, their counterparts, and the residents.
I understand there is no audio to the Commission meeting on the municipal website. I will be uploading the podcast this afternoon.
Hopefully, they can get it right for today's Budget hearing at 5:30 PM. But does it really matter?
Elaine
While I am commenting, this same group will be expecting us to pay for solid waste (garbage collection), while they negotiate in bad faith with the State, and fund deer culling via suffocation, so the sports people get their precious turf without having to fund raise.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of government do we have here?
Elaine
The money that will be spent by the municipality on this turf would almost be enough to turn all the parking lots owned by Mt. Lebanon into Porous Concrete paved areas, which will retain a majority (if not all) stormwater. Doing this would show the citizens that the municipality is serious about the stormwater issue. How they think turfing a natural grass field will help is beyond me. As a person that played football throughout college, I much preferred playing on natural grass. If the sports people want turf, they should pay for the costs.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add that the commission is also looking at
ReplyDeleteRocket Net/Captive Bolt as another method of killing the deer. I won't watch the video. It is really cruel. Another brilliant move by Brumfield, Bendel, and Linfante.
Elaine
Damion, guessed you've noticed that no one - not the YSA, not the SAB, not MTL magazine, not the commissioners have ever polled the community if they have a preference for natural grass or artificial turf.
ReplyDeleteOne would think the green weenies would want natural, which makes Linfante's preference for turf baffling. After all she's worried about plants, stuffing landfills with plastic and the environment.
Brumfield, one would think being a player, would favor grass, nut he doesn't. Odd, necause the Pros do.
Bendel, i don't have a clue on his motivation. Think he just might be a surrogate for Franklin, whom I think couldn't win a commission seat himself.
4:18PM, its painfully obvious that the commission didn't talk to any put their inner circle of friends. That isn't the way to govern, you govern for the good of the many.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't they turf Jefferon. It ideal for soccer and lacrosse?
ReplyDeleteKeep Middle/Wildcat for baseball, they're already nice and use Mellon, Brafferton, Howe, Foster, Markham for Pinto ball, softball and minor football.
Against my better judgment, I will chime in. Yes, I think we would all rather play on a well-drained grass field than turf, as would the children in the community. Unfortunately, we do not have those. Bird Park is a muddy mess after a rain, necessitating frequent practice and game cancellations. The freshman soccer team plays its games there, and players have been injured due to poor field conditions. (Not to mention the difficulty getting to the field for those with disabilities). Look back at the projects to improve drainage at Foster and Lincoln (I'm sure others as well) - money was spent, but the problems still exist. Turfed fields are built while taking proper drainage into consideration, not to be non-porous ponding surfaces. Frankly, I would love to see the parking lot at Dixon become a porous surface, and it is a shame the new Wildcat paving wasn't done in an environmentally sound manner (I'm assuming here). If done properly, we will receive value for our money.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as you surely have heard, the demand for play and practice time on the one turfed field in the community is too high to be fair. In the fall, for example, three football teams, four soccer teams, two field hockey teams and the band compete for practice and game time. This does not even account for the usage by the non-scholastic soccer teams on Sunday afternoons and the community's walkers/runners on the track. Usage by those ten groups occurs from 6:30am to 10:30pm, most weekdays. You say to just practice on a grass field, I'm sure, but the difference in the ball movement and foot skills is significant (and field conditions are again an issue). Unfortunately, sports games are played on turfed fields in most other communities. I abhor the idea of "keeping up with the Joneses," but anyone who wants to trumpet the competitiveness of our communities' teams needs to recognize the need for a level playing field (pun intended). Club sports players leave the community to practice and play on turfed fields. Pick-up games don't happen often in the mud.
But I'm sure you have all heard all of this before. Your minds are made up. I'm not thrilled at the idea of turfing an attractive grassy field, but I see the need for it and support it. Perhaps Mellon is the best bet - the entire field seems prime for improvement anyway and would surely be used more than it is now with some updates. But I will listen to the options.
Next, what is wrong with considering a financial incentive for recycling? This is hardly a new idea. We are spoiled brats here, able to put out nearly anything for regular trash pickup each and every week. Sadly, a number of your neighbors and mine continue to place many of those recyclables in the trash can/land fill, costing us money. (And think of reduction in exhaust fumes from fewer trash pickers cruising the neighborhoods.) Our family of four infrequently puts out more than two kitchen trash bags per week, and I could compost more than I do. Fall/spring yard cleanups are the major exception here. Aren't I subsidizing the wasteful ones?
Finally, I wish I knew the solution to the deer problem. But the three lounging in my back yard right now are not shy of me, that is for sure. And why has no one considered the fact that we have few vehicle collisions because we are not to drive over 35mph in Mt. Lebanon?
Mr. Derringer,
ReplyDeletethe few that comment on here aren't the "many". Turfing Mellon would be the best field to turf as is is a horrible mess and often unusable. Mellon, however, is owned by the school district, not the municipality.
On the other hand, did you see today's Post-Gazette article about the overabundance of suburban deer?
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2013/11/14/Pittsburgh-s-suburbs-a-perfect-sanctuary-for-deer.html
What the traffic writer from the Post Gazette writes does not convince me of anything. He writes about deer every November. It's a Pennsylvania tradition.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't speed in Mt Lebanon, and you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit a deer.
Instead of looking out for the "public safety hazard of deer for motorists", maybe we could work towards a day when the Mt Lebanon police can use radar to enforce motor vehicle laws.
Kim Ressler/5:51 -same ? both from the inner circle.
ReplyDeleteTrash pickers thrive in Mount Lebanon and do a service keeping things out of landfills. So what.
Well it seems we have differing opinions here. Some think Mellon is the best field location for turfing, Bendel and friends favor Middle/Wildcat and others just think proper maintainance of our grass fields is the right choice.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think getting everyone on the same page is the wise choice before we commit to another boondoggle like McNeilly or Twin Hills?
Perhaps Lebomag can really provide a community service and poll residents!
ReplyDeleteNatural Grass Fields
Turf a Field
Mellon
Middle/Wildcat
Jefferson
Bird
The Rock Pile
Brafferton
One of the elementary fields
That'd be a good starting point.
6:52 PM, good idea, but keep in mind that municipal tax dollars are spent on the municipality, while the school tax dollars are spent on the school district.
ReplyDeleteI uploaded the podcasts from Tuesday's meetings. Sorry for the delay.
Elaine
5:51 - If Mellon is turfed, can you please explain how parking will be accommodated given that the school was designed with the anticipation that most people would arrive on foot? The lot at Mellon is quite small and I doubt that Mr. Bendel has sought the consent of the library and Southminster folks to share their lot.
ReplyDeleteA better poll might be: Which field should the field sports organizations pay to turf?
ReplyDelete1. Wildcat/Middle
2. Bird
3. Brafferton
4. Mellon
5. Jefferson
6. The Rock Pile
7. None of the above
8. All of the above
Elaine
Yes that would make a better poll, but I'd imagine Bendel has already talked to personally or received calls that overwhelmingly support his plan.
ReplyDeleteKim Ressler -as one who is associated with Blue Devil Field Hockey- disagreeing with you translates to - our minds are made up -or worse- we have closed minds ?
ReplyDeleteYes, our minds are made up. You are getting what you want. Are we supposed to happy about it too? Do you expect us to light up a cigarette too? Sorry to be so crude, but come on! You're getting your way on everything.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be nice if there were predictable rules about where tax money from the school and muni goes?
I read this today in the Almanac:
"Donnellan said the school district was open to paying for regular maintenance (of the turfed field), which would save the municipality about $220,000."
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20131113/NEWS/131119968#.UoVr3b-Zw20
My mind is concerned about the increasing costs handed over to families here for participation in band, athletics, etc. and the excessive amount of money being spent on the high school. With those issues accumulating each year, I am wondering how the school district can say "we'll help" with the new turf?
ReplyDeleteSome day new families are going to move in and wonder why they are paying ridiculous sums of money for basic activities, school supplies, etc. and will anyone be around to say: JOHN BENDEL/DAVE BRUMFIELD/KRISTEN LINFANTE.
8:03 PM, I read this today in The Almanac:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thealmanac.net/article/20131112/NEWS/131119976
"According to director of fiscal services Jan Klein, there have been preliminary discussions with certain groups, such as the Mt. Lebanon Aqua Club. “They are expecting rates to change,” she explained. “We don’t usually go out of our way to make money on rentals. However, we do want to make sure we cover our out-of-pocket costs.”
Also in the article, Timmy can go against policy for certain people.
"The district is also preparing to open the high school facilities for four hours on Sundays, despite a policy forbidding it. The superintendent has the power to specify exceptions to the policy."
So why would the school district be wiling pay for regular maintenance when they are raising fees everywhere they can?
Elaine
Don't you just love the thought processes going on here--
ReplyDelete"Donnellan said the school district was open to paying for regular maintenance, which would save the municipality about $220,000."
Hey Donnellan, hate to break this to you, being an extremely tough concept and all, but whether the school district pays the $220,000 or the the municipality pays for the maintenance... it all comes from the taxpayers' wallet!
So let's imagine there's a field maintenance issue that is quite costly... who would pay for it... the school or muni? I
ReplyDeleteI know that the engineers for the municipality have concerns about 100 year storms and their impact on the storm sewers, etc. Recently, in August, a downpour resulted in major damage to the Southmoreland High School turf. Approximately 1/3 of the turf looked like a rippled carpet and the infrastructure beneath the turf was destroyed. They still don't have use of the field, which is normally used for football games, homecoming events, etc.
http://cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/football-field-southmorelan.jpg?w=300
It's kind of interesting that the really expensive field proposal was discussed so late at night with very little preparation given to some of the commission members.
ReplyDeleteMt Lebanon states they "don't have the time" to maintain their fields.
It's also interesting that the dog park, Robb Hollow development, etc. will likely be tabled if turf goes through.
You know lighting issues will be addressed next year. They'll say they can get much more playing time if they can just get lighting. Then we will pay for the lights and the electricity. Then the folks that live across the street or adjacent to the field will be upset due to the traffic and the lighting and the noise.
ReplyDeleteCedar Blvd. residents,
ReplyDeleteI remember what you said over a year ago.
See sign above.
Elaine
My child formerly suffered from asthma but all of his symptoms have remitted.
ReplyDeleteIf he plays on this turf field and his symptoms return, what then?
We're being bullied by the commissioners, staff, and SAB. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine,
ReplyDeleteWe are not being bullied. We got exactly what we elected.
Chuck's right.
ReplyDeleteQurestions regarding the turf proposal for Comissioner Bendel or Mr. Donnellan.
ReplyDeleteJust how many field sports participants are there. 3,600 or 900 playing 4 sports or something in between?
If it's 900, then those kids can't possibly be playing at 4 fields all atthe same time. So are our facilities really overused or are field conditions due to shoddy maintenance and improper grooming?
Then there is the question of which field do we turf, Mellon or Middle/Wildcat.
Kim Ressling, Brumfield and others prefer Mellon. But, there is that damn parking issue to contend with.
If we go with Middle/Wildcat the topography and flooding issues put a $1.5 million investment at risk every year. Plus, with the new pool attracting hoardes of new visitors, parking that is at a premium at this site will become a bigger problem.
Add too, with the pool renovation about to start- why would we want to add yet another construction in an area where we already have the HS renovation going on?
If we want to turf Middle/Wildcat wouldn't it be wise to wait for some of the dust to settle on the HS and pool before tearing something else up?
I doubt you'll address these problems here publically, but I hope the commission thinks long and hard before acting hastily! Haste shackled the community with the $1 million McNeilly property our public servants are clueless how to use.
4:16 AM, excellent questions. My question is why are the commissioners willing to spend our past, present, and future unassigned funds on turf?
ReplyDeleteAs I asked in a meeting, where are their priorities? We have people dealing with flooding, but the commissioners are debating WHICH field gets all the unassigned funds? Are you freakin' kidding me? The only reason why they want to turf their best field is that it is in a high traffic area which COULD lead to more signage revenue. They said it in the Sports Advisory Meeting. It isn't about needs. It is about wants. What about the needs of our community? Let's see. Flooding of homes vs. more playing slots during wet weather. How should those past, present and future unassigned funds really be spent?
Elaine
5:51PM,
ReplyDeleteI am aware that Mellon is school-owned so it is a school problem. Why would the muni pay for a school field?
I never said anything about not controlling the deer population, but wanton killing of them is NOT a safe way to do it.
The flooding at Cedar and Greenhurst is a constant issue, but how can that truly be alleviated? The topography certainly doesn't help. In all honesty, how many homes have been affected by repeated flooding that warrants mediation by the municipality? I only know my personal experience - our basement and garage saw flooding twice in the 18 years we have lived here, both during storms that brought much more rain than this area normally receives. I can't expect the municipality to prevent my losses in those abnormal circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have been a part of the field hockey community, but my daughter graduates this year. Any improvements will not benefit her. My son will graduate in two years. I hope I will continue to see the benefits of community assets, whether spearheaded by the school district or the municipality, long after my family is done using them. There are benefits beyond my household in field improvements, in my belief. Obviously many disagree!
And pardon my use of sarcasm on the trash-pickers comment. It was apparently lost in reading.
Just how many field sports participants are there. 3,600 or 900 playing 4 sports or something in between?—The answer is somewhere in-between. Many of the athletes participate in multiple sports throughout the year.
ReplyDeleteIf it's 900, then those kids can't possibly be playing at 4 fields all at the same time. So are our facilities really overused or are field conditions due to shoddy maintenance and improper grooming?—In my opinion, field design and maintenance are the real issues. Compounding this matter is well-intentioned volunteers that attempt to groom the baseball infields. Improper dragging protocols and excessive use of field absorbent change the drainage properties and create opportunities for puddling on the dirt surfaces.
As far as number of fields is concerned, there are enough baseball-style fields to accommodate play. As an officer in the MLGSA, I know that very few games need to be cancelled due to weather and subsequent field availability issues. The contention is that there are not enough fields to accommodate “field” sports” such as soccer, football, lacrosse and field hockey. Remember, many of these fields were put into service many years ago. The demographic has changed from baseball/football to the newer sports such as lacrosse, soccer and field hockey, which are played by both genders.
Then there is the question of which field do we turf, Mellon or Middle/Wildcat.—The real issue is whether there are enough of the “right” fields v. putting artificial turf on one field. Is it better to place significantly more load onto one turfed field, convert existing fields to meet current market demand, or add fields to the inventory?
Kim Ressling, Brumfield and others prefer Mellon. But, there is that damn parking issue to contend with.—In my opinion, Mellon, Foster & Lincoln have horrible drainage. I believe that all three of these venues can accommodate the field sports. Why not improve the drainage, add a few amenities and use what we currently have? I realize that these are SD fields, but so what. Perhaps a public/private consortium is in order. This happens currently. The baseball association has invested many thousands of dollars to improve the Wildcat/Middle facility. Last year alone, the scoreboards were upgraded and lean-to dugouts were installed on Middle. Remember, each organization that once collected the YSA dues now has a windfall of about $12.00/participant. Use these funds to continue making improvements to the existing facilities.
If we go with Middle/Wildcat the topography and flooding issues put a $1.5 million investment at risk every year. Plus, with the new pool attracting hoards of new visitors, parking that is at a premium at this site will become a bigger problem.—This is a good point, which is worthy of discussion.
From the Bible:
ReplyDeleteAnd God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Note: God did all of this before He created mankind.
It doesn't matter how many sports participants there are. The point is, the municipality should be dedicating PUBLIC money to higher priority items than a couple of bozos' stupid wish list. Turf? Really? That's a priority? Kind of says it all about our Commission. Deal with it, Lebo. It'll be amateur hour for a few years.
ReplyDeleteKim, Gateway Engineering met with residents over 75 homes. There are areas that experience heavy damage every year, including loss of cars. But the number of homes which experience this devastation every year really doesn't paint an accurate picture. Gateway Engineering reported that to correct the flooding on Shadowlawn alone will cost Mt. Lebanon $600,000.
ReplyDeleteI also asked Gateway about the intersection at Greenhurst and Cedar. They are aware of the flooding and said that it is a major undertaking. So my question of who pays for flooding clean up every year remains unanswered. So the projected increase of playable slots is 60%, but does that really matter if Cedar is closed due to flooding and the fields are not playable due to the aftermath?
What it comes down to is this. 60% more playable slots vs. correcting storm water issues. What should the commissioners priorities be? Public safety or turfing fields?
Elaine
Why not consider Bird Park field? It is for "field" sports, it has parking, is not in a flood plain, and would not add to an already overburdened construction area. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteKim, as Elaine points out flooding at Cedar and Greenhurst is a fairly regular occurance, and a heavy storm could very well ruin a $1.5 million investment. The repair, which could take our best athletic fields out of service for a whole season wouldn't add field availability after a heavy rain, it'd cut it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you ask what can be done about the flooding issues.
I'd suggest reading the conclusions found in this paper.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf/dep_artificial_turf_report.pdf
I'll bet there has been no study as suggested. If there has been one, perhaps Mr. Donnellan, Mr. Bendel or the Environmental Sustainability Board can make it available for public view.
These is a lot more that SHOULD be done to evaluate a proper site for a $1.5 million investment.
Unfortunately our commissioners love to run off willy nilly and spend money like its water.
Chuck, you're exactly right.
ReplyDeleteAs a coach I know for a fact that we unknowingly did substantial damage to our fields trying to dry them to get games. We didn't know better!
Had we had a handbook for dealing withstanding water like Cranberry provides its volunteer parents I'm sure our fields would be in much, much better shape.
Maintenance doesn't seem to be a priority here. Its easier and more glamoris to just throw money around for new stuff.
Posts like 4:10's are what make this blog so special. If you are indeed a coach with the Mount Lebanon Baseball Association, then you just admitted to all of us that you elected to blow off one of the several sessions that we have each Spring for coaches about proper field maintenance techniques. If you are a softball coach, perhaps you can ask Mr. Bachorski why the Softball Association does not hold similar sessions for its coaches. Perhaps a third option is that you're not a coach at all, but you are instead what Elaine likes to call a troll.
ReplyDeleteI would also note that on days in which there is even moderate rainfall, the Baseball Association proactively cancels all practices and games, so there should be no coaches on any field trying to get games in.
Dave Franklin
Comments like Mr. Franklin's are what makes the turf argument so special.
ReplyDeleteSetting aside his defensive tone, Mr. Franklin just admitted that field availability is actually dependent on weather. " I would also note on days in which there is even moderate rainfall, the Baseball Association proactively cancels all practices and games, so there should be no coaches on any field trying to get games in".
And an artificial surface changes that how?
Mr. Franklin, when did these field maintenance sessions start and how many coaches/parents attend?
ReplyDeletePlus, I applaud the Baseball Association for instituting such a program, but it doesn't matter if another sport improper dresses a field. The damage still occurs and a quick visit to our fields shows there is a helluva lot of drying agent being used.
It doesn't matter that games are cancelled when its raining, it how the fields are prepped the next day or days later.
Through play, depressions develope around the bases, Home Plate, the mound and water might pond in these holes. I still see coaches, take a broom and sweep the water out of the dip - wrong - and then filling the hole with bags of drying agent - wrong again.
So while your BA coaches may know better, there are others that don't or are so intent on getting practice or games in they don't care or realize the damage they are creating.
How come you're not debating with Kim over which field we turf?
She apparently prefers Mellon, Bendel is pushing Middle/Wildcat and an anonymous comment likes Bird.
Nothing to contribute Dave?
Oh I thought earlier you weren't going to participate in the conversation/debate on this blog.
Seems not only do you flip flop on field choice like a fish out of water, you do on blogging here as well.
If I may make an anonous suggestion, you'd serve yourself well to make a choice on both and stick with it.
Nice try Dave!
ReplyDeleteNever said what sport or when I coached.
And no I don't have to identify myself because you 'demand' it.
Quite frankly, your demands bore the hell out of me.
You never seem to answer the real questions, like why Middle/Wildcat is the field du jour for turfing.
Six months or so ago, it was Mellon.
In six more will it be Bird? How about McNeilly?
A year or two past, we absolutely needed MORE fields. Now we don't need more we just need turf.
I wish you guys would make up your minds.
Mr. Franklin,
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that you understand that I am trying to frame the issue for a reasonable discussion and for financial tolerance. You know as well as I that there are more than just one option and course of action in this matter. Perhaps, if some common ground were discovered, we could accommodate everyone to a certain level of satisfaction.
As far as the field maintenance meetings are concerned, our association does discuss proper field maintenance techniques with our coaches and have done so for the past several years. Although it is not a hands-on clinic, I don’t think the concepts are too abstract for easy uptake, Furthermore, I don’t know how you can make this statement, as to my best recollection I do not recall your presence at any of our sessions. Please, correct me if this is a mis-statement.
Many of the field issues can be traced directly back to the items that I mentioned in my previous post. For example, up until this past season, there was a large lip on Dixon where the outfield met the infield. I remember it to be at about a 2” difference between these areas. Most likely, it was caused by improper dragging techniques, which are only performed by a few people with access to the grooming machine located in the mud room. A few of the softball officers have been trained in the proper operation of this equipment, so we only allow those trained to operate the equipment. Why wasn’t the field levelled prior to the start of the season? This was a safety issue.
To your comment on proactively cancelling games, how many of these cancellations were not made up? That is more of a telling tale. I am still trying to figure out how you can proactively cancel a game. Isn’t the cancellation a reaction to the rainstorm? Do you cancel games based on the weather report?
Is Public Works supposed to take care of the fields? What is the feedback mechanism for providing input on how their work has impacted the fields? Has the municipality tried to create a communication channel or goals for the public works staff?
ReplyDeletePenn State has an excellent turf management program and also has an outreach extension program. I believe the turf program is one of the best in the world -- providing guidance on golf courses all over the world, etc.
Have Penn State turf specialists come to Mt Lebanon to provide any input?
If the unassigned funds all go to turf, which appears to be the desire of the SAB, then the Commission needs to ensure the citizens in this community that this action reflects the interest of the community and not a trio of friends, like Brumfield, Bendel and Franklin. Are these three residents "friends" or not?
ReplyDeleteIf Franklin of the SAB is friends with Brumfield and Bendel, then Brumfield and Bendel need to recuse themselves from the vote according to the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et. seq. identified in Mt Lebanon's Home Rule Charter.
http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995
If Bendel and Brumfield recuse themselves from the vote, the vote will have to wait until a 4th commissioner can vote so we have a quorum, and that won't happen unless a term ends or a resignation is announced.
Thank you for posting the ethics issue, I have had the same concern. The commissioners are supposed to do what is best for the community, not spend everyone's money on amenities for a precious few favored citizens.
ReplyDeleteIf the commissioners really want to make life better for the community, why don't they use those undesignated funds to support the Denis Theatre project? That's something that will serve all ages of residents and provide positive development to the uptown corridor. Those people knock themselves out raising money for a project that the community and local merchants will benefit from. Why don't the commissioners help them rather than spend so much on turf that serves so few?
Based on school district projections the number of kids available to play sports will be shrinking.
ReplyDeleteDear "spoiled brats", Hand over your money for turf you won't use and an inconvenient and expensive PAYT program. You will be repaid in condescension and rudeness.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a bargain! Where do I sign up?
Ethics? We dont need no stinking ethics...
ReplyDeleteWay to go, Dave. And Dave. Hey, do you think the PA Bar Association might want to chime in? Maybe I'll reach out to them. I know how much they love publicity. There's also SHACOG.They have to have some opinion on buddies colluding to piss away tax dollars on something non-environmentally friendly while ignoring issues with infrastructure. Has anyone asked Chief McDonough how he feels? Nick Sohyda? No? So this is basically a handful of wanna be jocks trying to turf fields for.......................
In my opinion, if one wants to see what is going on in MTL recreation pay close attention to comments that prompt Mr. Franklin to go into attack mode.
ReplyDeleteMe thinks you protest too loudly, Mr. Franklin.
8:33 AM, would you mind elaborating on that?
ReplyDeleteElaine
It seems to this observer that Mr. Franklin and the anonymous pro-turfers really go into their dimish the "are there alternatives" commenters.
ReplyDeleteFranklin makes snide comments about 4:10 and Mr. Barchoski's suggestions.
No debate as to whether they're workable or not, just poor attempts to attack their validity.
Why?
Why can't we put a moratorium on any turf proposal until we get the high school and pool projections completed.
ReplyDeleteImpliment 4:10's and Mr. Bachorski's suggestions to optimize the care of our current fields until then.
Plus in the mean time study how many fields we actually need for which sports, where they should be located and how much public/private participation is needed to make it happen?
This turf McNeilly, no turf Middle/Wildcat, no turf Bjirx, no turf Brafferton, no turf Mellon, no more fields, no we have enough fields agenda is dividing the community, wasting time and wasting money!
Here's my take on the myopic minset of the sports people.
ReplyDeleteHate to focus on you Mr. Franklin, but you seem to be the de facto front man for turfing.
For years now, you've been dominating recreation spending for more fields and or more turf.
A while back, our elected commissioners somehow got it in their heads to buy property in the hinterlands of McNeilly Road. That million dollar investment sits vacant and unused.
At the time I always believed the wooded property behind the Castle Shannon Post Office would make and ideal soccer/lacrosse facility. I offered my ideas to my commissioner at the time.
Lets look at this area.
Its a marketers dream! You have thousands of T commuters and drivers passing the area daily.
Seeing a well groomed, lighted athletic, walking path would be a extraordinary ad campaign about living in Lebo. Talk about keeping gome values high!
But there is more.
Think about the area now. We have the vacant Pub & Pizza, the empty Pizza Hut, the deforested plot at Castle Shannon & MTL blvds.
What would a vibrant sports/rec area do to lift up this "blighted" corridor?
One idea I had, was the Aold Pizza Hut could become a YSA/MTL/Blue Devil store, selling everything branded from shirts, hats, pads, bats to nacks and drinks. All profits would be ploughed into recreation upkeep.
Pub & Pizza could possibly reopen. Adding jobs for our youth and adding to the tax roles.
May be the cleared vacant land across from Pizza Hut would become attractive to investment. Rite Aid would profit as well.
One other benefit, EMTs are almost on location, able to provide immediate assistance.
I can't believe with all the great engineering, legal and marketing minds in this community we can't make this project work.
11:12. Great ideas. The tract of land you are talking about was formerly proposed for "revitalization". Store fronts, coffee houses, restaurants all along.
DeletePub and Pizza's building has an extreme mold problem due to the basement constantly flooding. It needs torn down. And let's be real I can't get a teenager to mow my lawn so they'd never work at a restaurant!
Look at the Allegheny County website to find owner information of the tracts of land you're talking about. You'll find a trend.
I like your idea. Virginia Manor Dave F wouldn't like driving over to slumset hills, though.
Something no one has discussed.
ReplyDeleteIf turf is so much easier to maintain and requires fewer manhours shouldn't therebe a proportional cut in maintenance staff, equipment and fertilizers and mowing?
Haven't heard anyone mention that in conjunction with turf. Perhaps we can eliminate a staffer or two or put some people on part time.
Just the savings in healthcare would be appreciable.
Mr. Franklin, since you and Brumfield are leading the charge, how much money, to date, have you independently raised for the turf project? Very simple question and one I will ask publicly every chance I have. Just give us a number.
ReplyDelete'splain this to me Lucy?
ReplyDeleteIn the Almanac this week is a story titled: "Lebo to raise rental rates for high school pool, gym"
Additionally we have Donnellan suggesting that the school district may contribute $220,000 to turfing effort.
So here is the question. If the district can pass out a 7.5% superintendent raise, $5,000 in bonuses and has $220,000 to volunteer to turf, why do they need to raise rental fees for their gyms and pool?
The taxpayers are already paying for the facilities. Now recreation participants need to pony up even more for field turf.
Wonder when the next student parking rate increase will be inacted.
I think MTL needs an official municipal song to be sung before all sporting events.
ReplyDeleteIt could go something like this --
The MTL governing bodies have a farm
and on this farm there are some people
with an oink-oink here
and an oink-oink there
here an oink
there an oink
everywhere an oink-oink
All their wants get filled right now
E, I, E I owe!
Correction
ReplyDeleteenacted not inacted @2:32
http://www.redhenturf.com/pdfs/TheTruthAboutArtificialTurf.pdf
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, 4:19 PM. The Turf Board does not accept any literature produced by a turf farm. They believe it is "biased" and a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, 4:19 PM, we are waaaay beyond that. It isn't natural grass vs. artificial turf. For a while, the question was which field to turf. It has evolved to "How many years of unassigned funds will foot the bill for turf" and that will be decided by the three commissioners on Monday, November 25.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine, may be the ESB/greenteam would comment on the item on page 6 of 4:19's link that 1,861 trees would need to be planted to neutralize the carbon impact of artificial turf.
ReplyDeleteOne woul'd think they'd chime in since the environmental impact of Lebo activities is their main concern.
12:04 PM, I guess you have to buy him a beer to get a response. One sign was sold and if I'm not mistaken, it was $500. So there is your answer and you don't owe me a beer.
ReplyDeleteElaine
According to the MTL Green Team website-
ReplyDelete"To address environmental issues in Mt. Lebanon, the Commissioners and the School Board created the Environmental Sustainability Board [ESB]. The board created 6 committees to participate in the development of the Climate Action Plan. Those committees now drive the implementation of the plan. Resident and high school volunteers, along with an ESB member, plan and help implement committee actions to meet their green house gas reduction goals. The Outreach committee supports the sector committees in implementation of their goals."
But the ESB is suspiciously mute on the issue of artificial turf... hmmmmm?
Climate Action Plan, reducing green house gases, carbon footprints and not one ESB word about any of it concerning converting oxygen producing natural grass areas into plastic grass and ground up old tire pellets.
Regarding PAYT:
ReplyDeleteAccording to a graph on page 14 of the 2012 MTL annual report, waste pick up has fallen from nearly 18,000 tons in 2010 to close to 16,000 tons in 2012.
Plus it appears a greater percentage is recycling.
So why do we need to go to a PAYT plan, again?
Good question, 7:59
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are interested in addressing climate change should have a problem with installing artificial turf in Mt Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are interested in protecting our children from potential neurotoxins and heat exhaustion/stroke should also have a problem with installing artificial turf in Mt Lebanon.
Those of us who believe the SAB & Commission should collaborate with the Department of Health, CHP and ESB in their efforts to address this issue should have a problem with installing artificial turf in Mt Lebanon.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.savereynoldsfield.org/more_on_geo_turf.html
Ethics violations with the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners and School Board for those who are interested.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acba.org/ACBA/pdf/ProfessionalismCode.pdf
http://www.acba.org/acba/About/General_Information.asp
The phone # is at the bottom of the website.
A distinguished member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health speaks to a community group considering the installation of GeoTurf in the youtube video listed below.
ReplyDeleteThe community ultimately voted against the installation of synthetic turf by a wide margin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKqNVPMAXlg&feature=youtu.be
Hey 9:24 - how about pushy lawyers who want free turf!
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to your comment, 11:25 PM, lawyers who are always trying to discredit me and try to compromise this blog.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine, at 4:40 pm yesterday you declared the Turf Board (Sports Advisory Board, I presume?) will not accept evidence from a Turf Farm.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny that they will though accept, ha, ha - evidence from the manufacturers of their favorite artificial plastic grass-- FieldTurf!
Funny that Mr. Brumfield found no problem with charging dog owners a $25/dog permit fee to take their dogs into Williamsburg Park.
ReplyDeleteA fee that doesn't pay for any substantial improvements to the park, but just establishes that a particular dog can 'go' in the park. Pun intended.
But he, Bendel, Linfante, Fraasch and SAB front man Franklin seem to be adverse on the other hand to charging field sport participants a $25-40 annual surcharge for the installation of $1.5 million of artificial turf that is strictly for the players benefit.
When poverty is *growing* in Pittsburgh suburbs, this discussion of a 1 million+ turf installation, when there isn't community consensus, just isn't right.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Mt Lebanon really *need*?
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2013/11/18/Suburbs-suffering-at-high-rate/stories/201311180136
Regarding your comment about lawyers @11:29, i wonder what Mr. Franklin finds so abhorant about anonymous contributors on your blog that he won't engaged in lively debate with, but will engage with and answer questions from anonymous comtributors on his LeboFields blog.
ReplyDeleteA little two-faced eh Mr. Franklin, considering you make what one might consider deragatory, snide remarks about Elaine's fans.
If anonymous comments are good enough for your blog, Dave, they're good enough for anyones!
Unless of course you consider yourself special.
Now, now don't be so hard on the Dave's. They are special! They are handicapped by their shared Narcicistic Personality Disorders!
DeleteRegarding the turf issues. It's all about show and tell. Isn't it enough that we already have nice fields, a future new high school and great facilities? Go into the City and poor suburbs and pay attention to what you see. It is not enough to spend big wads of money. Emotionally intelligent people look at how intelligently a community operates and the school system. One can have all the dog and pony shows that one wants, but there needs to be meaty substance regarding what and how decisions are made and how those decisions affect the future down the road.
ReplyDeleteThe community needs to stop voting for people who rise to the level of incompetence ( also known as " the Peter Principle"). Some people in this community have NO humility and do not appreciate what they already have!
3:09PM, I don't understand what you are insinuating with telling us to look at the owners of the properties. Care to explain further?
ReplyDelete