From: Elaine Cappucci [mailto:ECappucci@mtlsd.net]According to Athletic Director John Grogan, the turf has recently been groomed.
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: high school turf
The high school turf is properly groomed/maintained regularly (at least once per month). The loft in the turf will vary depending on when it was groomed and how much activity has occurred on the turf.
Elaine Cappucci
From: John Grogan [mailto:JGrogan@mtlsd.net]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: high school turf
Our turf is being maintained as per manufacturer’s suggestion. There was some time this spring that maintenance was not able to get on because of weather but it has been recently groomed. The district does have a company come in every summer to do a “deep cleaning” and complete maintenance program (add rubber, look at seams, etc.) which we will continue to do again this year.
As you are probably aware, our turf is used constantly by numerous teams, groups and community members. It is extremely important to our programs and I know that our facility department works hard to keep it maintained. Thanks for your interest.
John
Remember the standing water? That is the reflection of the blue sky in that water. Yuck!
The Lebo Citizens "Turf Photographer" reported back today with this goodie.
 |
| A hole in the turf |
Where the infill and plastic grass is missing, is the plastic backing that we would be getting down on Middle and Wildcat Field. John Grogan can throw a handful of dirt and some grass seed to fill the hole. Elaine Cappucci can spray paint the grass white when it grows, and no one will know the difference. Another option would be to open a Putt Putt Golf down at the stadium.
Please sign this petition if you want to halt public funds for use of artificial turf at Wildcat and Middle Fields.
68 comments:
The invoice from the RTK for $4,998 was dated 7/30/2013 - was that the most recent treatment ? If so, they're not maintaining the artificial turf monthly are they!
Wonder how many additional holes can be found in the grass. Another picture worth a thousand words !
Come on, turf nuts, let's see the spin you'll put on this to try and explain it away.
Those holes in the artificial turf can cause ankle, foot, knee, ACL, Achilles tendon, etc. injuries.
Let's see you explain this away as well, SAB, and the 3 stooges Dave & Dave & Dave.
Looks to me like a justification for another turfed field.
Yeah, the Rock Pile is a shoe in once they find a home for the impaired dirt pile. That cost will be buried along with the dirt, never to see daylight again.
Yeah 8:54 PM. They may feel obligated to provide patients to UPMC to justify the medical and rehab services contract that exists between them.
Did the RTK include a request for G-max testing results? If so, what are they? How often is the testing being completed?
http://prezi.com/otgyylnxbwve/synthetic-in-fill-stma/
Why would this pediatric sports medicine physician researcher state that when given a choice between grass or turf, he'd choose grass?
http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/james-p-macdonald
http://cjsmblog.com/2013/05/02/the-safety-of-artificial-turf-vs-grass-as-a-sport-playing-surface/
The $4,998 is a yearly charge for deep cleaning the high school turf, another one will be done this year. If the turf project on Cedar Blvd. goes forward, a yearly charge will be charged for that too. But what will the cost be? Well, the Cedar Blvd. turf will be roughly 25% larger than the high school turf which equates to a rough cost of $6,250 per year if the billing is based on square footage, a maintenance charge that is not listed on any presentation or communicated to the residents. It would appear that the commissioners who voted for the turf project voted for something without knowing all the facts.
In addition, residents were told at the last meeting (discussion and commission) that the school district has agreed to maintain the Cedar Blvd. turf. However, as of the last meeting on April 28th meeting, no agreement has been made...as a matter fact, Dave Brumfield stated in an email that the agreement has not been prepared. It's anyone's guess as to where we stand on this.
Really makes one wonder about the leadership of this community.
Actually that hole in the turf is bigger than the photo represents. When you pull back the plastic grass blades I would say that the hole measures about 6 inches x 3 inches.
Remember in that ESPN article about the Steeler grass fields, they speculate that it cost on average about $28,000 to re-sod a professional stadium.
So we could apparently laid down NEW grass each and every year at WC/M for $224,000 total over 8 years. The same time period that the $1.2 million artificial turf last.
This to me isn't about crumb rubber or saving the environment, it is about money.
Consider this. There are approx. 14,000 households in MTL. Each and every household probably owns 1 vehicle. Each vehicle has 4 rubber tires. That's a minimum of 56,000 tires wearing out. When those tires wear, where do you suppose the rubber tread disappears too? Do the magic rubber dust fairies come out every night and vacuum it up so we don't breathe it, walk on it and drain it into our streams and rivers?
Whqt are we going to do, ban tires?
For this resident, I prefer natural grass ballfields. It is least expensive, it by all evidence I've read safer for the athletes... Period.
My opinion, I've expressed it to the commissioners, they ignored it. I'm done.
Shoot me.
7:45 AM, the ESB and the PAB have been ignored. Residents have been ignored. The commission majority is being governed by the SAB.
Fortunately, there are many people out there who have not decided to give up. We won't shoot you either.
Elaine
You are exactly right, but they will listen to the advice of the Home Rule Revision Committee and make the charter gender neutral and probably the suggestion to eliminate the super vote needed to raise millage rates.
9:02 AM, this is off topic, but I keep stressing that any revisions to the Home Rule Charter will be placed on the ballot and voters decide, not the commission.
What is the expression? "Don't let the bastards get you down."
Elaine
Sorry, but this is on topic as to whether we have any control beyond voting people into office.
You and others have asked for resignations. You certainly have the right to ask, they don't have to listen.
Advisory boards have offered advice, they don't and they expressly spelled this out to us, have to follow that advice.
As for HR Charter revisions, we don't get to vote UNTIL the commissioners determine which revisions we get to vote on!
Look, I am not going to argue with you if this is on topic. The director of Office of Open Records,Terry Mutchler, has not been reappointed by Corbett which could mean the end of the OOR, but I am focusing on the condition of the high school turf, the lack of proper maintenance by MTLSD concerning the toxic turf, and the true costs of maintaining toxic turf.
Let's focus on that right now. OK?
Elaine
OK focusing on the issue at hand.
If Middle and Wildcat were already turfed-- turfed today Saturday, May 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm would kids be on the field playing in the ongoing thunderstorm?
If not would this rainout be deducted from the 60% figure of more game slots made available from turf?
Plus, if the game is cancelledand if our fields are fully scheduled and utilized as proclaimed-- even with these fields turfed where does one rescheduled the rained out game in an already packed schedule?
Just askin', cuz I know I'm not a brilliant lawyer, municipal employee or SAB member and my mind tends to wonder a tad.
This is where those represented here seem to stop listening. No one has claimed that turf allows play in thunderstorms. Turf eliminates losing fields for days because of it being unplayable due to too much rain. Additionally, grass fields need rest, regardless of weather. Turf does not. Rain today means some fields won't be playable tomorrow. This is not the case with turf.
Why are none of the studies that say literally "turf presents no danger" discarded as not having merit? You lose your credibility on this blog because you discount anything that doesn't agree with your position.
Since most of you that post your name have stated that you either do not have kids or your kids are grown, it is clear this isn't a priority, but some people with little kids are still interested in upgrading recreational facilities.
LOL. We're not the ones who are losing credibility, believe me.
Elaine
You are right you aren't losing credibility, because you never had it to begin with. The truth about what this about it out there, and the claims made here are often beyond fiction. Just because it is printed here doesn't make it true.
Sometimes in a community you just don't get your own way. That seems to be a big issue for you, but that's life.
Personally 4:39, the environmental concerns regarding artificial turf aren't that troubling in my opinion.
As for fields recovering quickly and becoming playable soon after a rain, there are natural grass systems that do just that, I've seen them.
Talking with the companies that install these natural grass systems they costs approximately $350,000 for a field like WC/M.
Which brings us to the issue of resting natural grass fields. If you can install a quick drying natural grass field for $350,000, we could do WC/M, Bird and construct a completely new field at Robb Hollow (or do Brafferton) for well under your artificial turf cost for one lousy field.
So you'd have 3 quick dry fields which eliminates the stress issue.
An additional benefit is that in 8 years we don't need to spend $600,000+ tearing out the plastic and rubber and trucking it to a landfill-- no PAYT!
ESPN suggest it only cost $28,000 to re-sod a quick dry natural grass field.
So why don't you start listening- Mr. Anonymous 4:39.
You're hilarious, 4:50 PM. I let you have that one. Let's see...the fields never flood, the high school turf is in great shape, there are 2900 athletes, no wait, there are 3600 athletes, we'll pay 25% of the cost, no wait, $250,000 toward the fields, change the sign ordinance - from 4/23/12 minutes:
"Dave Franklin of 739 Pinetree Road stated that he is an attorney who works with naming rights
of facilities throughout the country. He said that Mt. Lebanon needs to pass this ordinance to
help raise revenue. He said that he was involved in getting corporate sponsors for the miracle
field in Upper St. Clair, where handicapped children are able to participate in sports on a
synthetic field. He stated that several organizations donated $50,000 each, and the company’s
name was placed on a plaque at the field. He believed that Mt. Lebanon would benefit from this
ordinance and urged the commissioners to vote for it. "
Would you like me to continue? I can.
Actually, I wish I could get my way for a change. Let's see. There is the high school renovation, the swimming pool which was to be $3.3 million, the creation of the turf board, commissioners who live in underassessed homes, and on Tuesday, we get to hear Kristen Linfante go on one of her rants about public safety and carnivorous deer and how we need to shoot deer next to my home.
Elaine
4:39: I have two young kids and am against the turf project.
The engineers said grass won't grow at Robb Hollow, so is turf ok there? It is also not large enough for full sized fields. Personally, I think the turf should go in as planned AND Robb Hollow should be added with the junior sized fields it can fit, but those would have to be turf also. Let's fix Brafferton too, but it is in a more residential location. I am all in favor of all of those projects.
And what is the issue with the signs? Last year, you all wanted the associations to add to the revenues (as if the organizations don't contribute a TON of money already). Now that signs are sold, you aren't happy with that. Maybe the association should send you a bill for all the costs they've invested--new scoreboards, new shelters, new additions to the batting cages, new paint, maintenance, the list goes on and on.....
Oh, and the high school renovation, I agree that was a mistake. We should have built a new school. Everyone knows when you try to renovate, you end up spending way more. A new school was the right answer, so I would agree with that. These kids having to attend with all the issues for all these years is just nuts for the taxes paid. And now it will cost more because people tried to cut corners again, which is what caused the problems to begin with.
5:32, oh right, those engineers! The ones that get everything right.
And you accuse people of not listening. What do you have... ADD?
We were talking about field playable after a rain. But OK, now you're onto to signs. Lets talk signs. Those sign are hanging on my (a collective my) fences which are located on "my" fields, in "my" park which "my" tax dollars pay for. If there is any revenue from them, it should be deposited in the "public" coffers and deducted from the $750,000 the taxpayers are ponying up. Not counted towards private contributions.
As for improvements by the sports groups. 1. How do you know I haven't contributed to those improvements and 2. who do they benefit?
If the sports groups are going to "contribute" then rub it in our faces... don't goddamn do it! The money from these oh so benefactor sports groups comes from the fees and fund raising efforts of "our" children.
So knock off the BS.
What? Signs are sold??? There has been ONE sign sold. The engineers say a lot of things and they don't seem to be true. RH is large enough for full size fields, but since Kelly said no lights, Dave Brumfield said No Fields.
I would like you to listen/watch the ESB meeting from the other night at 01:05:54 time stamp.
Kelly Fraasch listed what will suffer when more unassigned funds get poured into completing the turf project, that has already surpassed the million dollar mark:
School zone signs on delay days
Recycling cans
Robb Hollow
Deer sterilization
Pedestrian upgrades
Lindendale Road
Security system for police and municipal buildings
The vote will be Tuesday night for more unassigned funds.
We have spent over $4 million for ballfields where money never came through.
Conduit is being added for lighting the fields when we were told there will be no lighting added, an additional 95 parking spaces on top of the 30 that were just added.
Why don't you talk with indoor tennis about contributing funds, 5:32 PM?
The community sees all this, Buddy.
Elaine
Didn't the recent proposed $8 million Robb Hollow plan include grassy park like grounds????
Hmmmm, engineer states grass won't grow there, that is curious.
5:35 you mean all those beautiful shots of the 21st century classrooms in Bldg B (the oldest wing facing Cochran Rd) that Steinhauer keeps showing aren't all that wonderful? And our students suffering amid all that disruptive construction haven't fared all that well in the WPIAL?
Knock it off, you'd spewing nonsense.
There's that ADD kicking again 5:35.
You've gone from soggy fields and game slots, to anonymous empty nesters, to adding turf to Robb Hollow, to ungrateful residents, to building a new high school.
Wow, you've blown through about $200 million in just a few post, and dissed quite a few of your neighbors.
Good job!
Thanks 5:35 for showing everyone what little grasp you have for finances.
The proposed new high school option was estimated at $150 million.
The new/renovate option we went with was estimate at $80-100 million.
Kubit even sent us a glossy FAQ mailer stating it would most likely come in under $100 million. It isn't.
Where do you think we'd be on a $150 million project?
The board is already struggling to keep millage hikes down and tapping into reserves.
I sure hope you have no more authority over our fields that writing anonymous post on a blog.
Here is another recent article regarding artificial turf. It is from March 2014, not something from 2006 or 2007, which Dave Brumfield likes to use. Here are what 99 major league soccer players have to say about playing on plastic. Player Perceptions of Artificial Turf
Elaine
Knock it off? Who do you think you are? I'm entitled to say what I think so maybe you should knock it off. No ADD, just addreading all the nonsense presented here. Whenever any of you are faced with facts, you say oh that report is wrong, the engineers are wrong, everyone lies, and on and on. So knock that off and maybe everyone can have a discussion that is productive.
Sorry, Buddy, there is no need to continue with your comments. We have been begging for a productive discussion, but Dave Brumfield and Kristen Linfante frown upon input from anyone other than the SAB.
This is the only place that permits other viewpoints. You have the power of the commission. You have the municipal staff's support. You have it all, Pal. I just have a lonely and pathetic life, remember?
Elaine
BTW, Buddy, photos don't lie. Neither do videos or podcasts. You seem nervous, Buddy. Are you worried?Are we getting under your skin?
Elaine
Without the support of the community's mothers, the synthetic turf is a no-go.
Moms like sports but not at the cost of exposing our children to environmental hazards.
Moms like sports but not at the cost of harming our neighbors on Cedar Boulevard and Vee Lynn Drive.
Moms like sports but not at the cost of damaging the watershed.
Moms like sports but not at the cost of leaving out the kids with asthma.
Moms like sports but not at the cost of destroying a beautiful green space in a built out community.
Moms like sports but not at this cost.
The commission needs a better plan to win over moms.
Kristen Linfante is a mom!!!!!
1:19 AM, Kristen also advocated for LEED certification for the high school project. She was the ESB liaison who "misrepresented" the ESB's position on artificial turf. Her Real Lebo partner is the communications manager for PennFuture. And your point is?
Elaine
Even though at 8:19 PM, I had decided not to post your comment, Buddy, I reread it this morning and had laughed so hard that I decided this blog needed some comic relief. Thank you, 7:53 PM.
Elaine
The point being apparently they won her over?
Which leads to the question-- what plan did the commissioners put in front of that mom that they haven't put in front of the "non-supporting moms?"
Is it that Linfante isn't that bright or can't follow a board meeting? She did misrepresent the ESB's position on turf, didn't she?
So, once again the point is- what is in it for Mom Linfante that the other moms don't seem to get?
Why does this apparently environmentally concerned mom find so attractive about filling her child's play area with tire black and plastic?
OK, now I understand, 9:41 AM. Here's the deal. Her son is a terrific baseball player. Kristen donated toward the non-municipal funds. Mr. He Who Shall Not Be Named, a.k.a. Mr. MTL Baseball, is happy, her son gets the playing time he deserves, and everyone wins. This reminds me of a comment made on January 18 at 8:52 PM. It wasn't adding up
Elaine
7:53 you are correct in your comment that you have as much right as anyone to comment here, or at least as much right as the blog owner grants us. Plus you are exactly right that is a place for productive discussions.
What I was asking for, which you apparently completely missed, was interrupting a discussion on the discussion on how turfing one field adds 60% more play time if that field is already packed solid with game slots.
The discussion was about yesterday's thunderstorms and where do you put a rainout into a full schedule.
You jump to adding a "TURFED" field at Robb Hollow, having sports groups billing us for their field improvements, to thefield sign issue.
But you never once discussed "where do you place a rained out game IF you only turf WC/M! That was the subject for discussion at that point. Not signs, not turfing Robb Hollow, not paying for score boards. Those are certainly topics for other discussions. I'd like to see if we can just resolve one issue before diverting to a hundred more. That was the point of the "knock it off" comment.
I found the quote from Kristen Linfante in a letter she wrote to me after I sent this article to the commission, The Truth About Artificial Turf. It came from this post in 2012. Who cares about the poll? Kristen was lying even then!
Elaine
Yes, Mr. Brumfield, you have been talking about artificial turf for years. And I have been talking about the hazards of toxic turf for years.
Elaine
apparently "Whenever any of (the Commissioners) are faced with facts, (they) say oh that report is wrong " 7:53...
Turfing WC/M does nothing to improve the recovery of the remaining natural grass fields in the municipality!
So, while WC/M becomes open for play the following day after a rain and it may allow that rained out game to be squeezed into the field schedule, it does nothing for the cancellations on the other natural grass fields.
Are we going to have marathon 24 hour/day make up games at WC/M because it is the only dry field?
Or there is an alternative.
There are natural grass field systems that recover just as quickly from rains as turf. They cost at least 1/3 less than artificial turf, so we could 3 for the price of one artificial turfed field.
Plus, in 8 years you don't have to tear them out, send them to a landill and install new plastic and crumb rubber.
Which makes more sense?
Elaine your comment at 10:00 am suggest that Linfante may be skating on dangerously thin "Conflict of Interest" ice according to the HR Charter, considering her past history on environmental issues and green agendas.
Suddenly, plastics, carbon black, water pollution, high energy consuming field lights don't count, but ball games do. Hmmmmm, curious.
Regarding the issue of the field signs.
Could someone with legal qualifications analyze Home Rule Charter, Article IV, Section 401, Item B under the Functions and Reponsibilities of the Treasurer?
It reads "The Treasurer shall receive all municipal moneys from [ALL SOURCES] and promptly deposit the same in a bank..."
So wouldn't revenue from field signs, hanging on municipal field fences be consider a municipal source of revenue? Therefore "public" revenue, not "private".
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me like the commissioners are violating our existing HR Charter.
"Definition of 'Real Estate'
Land plus anything permanently fixed to it, including buildings, sheds and other items attached to the structure."
Section 151.1 Real Estate in the MTL Code states:
"No real estate owned by the Municipality shall be sold or leased except upon authorization of the Commission by Ordinance.
Additionally, no real estate owned by the municipality shall be sold or leased for consideration in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), except to the highest bidder after public notice by advertisement bids or advertisement of public auction."
So when did the "leasing" of public field sign space get advertised and where are the competitive bids?
I'd say the commissioners are counting on a whole lot more than $1,500 from the lease of field sign space?
Another rule violation???
11:28 AM, isn't that how she rolls? Her house, purchased three months prior to the 2006 cutoff, is on the market for almost $200,000 above the county assessed value.
I have been pointing out this behavior for years, but nobody seemed to listen.
Elaine
I absolutely agree with you, Elaine.
Reading the existing Code and Charter the formalities of proper governance don't seem to apply to apply to ANY of the commissioners any more.
Our leadership has taken the tack of full speed ahead, we'll do whatever the hell we want to.
What we can do about it, except to point to improprieties and complain in this forum, is beyond me.
We did have some common sense in the commission when Kluck was on board, I'm not so sure it exist now.
Oh-- Happy Mothers Day!
I see that 7:53 so far doesn't seem to be in any great rush to join in on a productive discussion on game scheduling and maximizing the number of fields recovering from storms!
Thank you, 1:21 PM. Happy Mothers Day to all.
Here is the problem, 1:21 PM. We have two major meetings taking place in the next couple of days. Tomorrow, "The final budget for the 2014-15 School Year will be discussed with the Board." Taken directly from tomorrow's agenda. We won't be able to comment on it until the night where the school board directors will be approving the budget, which is May 19.
Tuesday, the commissioners will discuss the type of infill which will be used for the toxic turf at Middle and Wildcat Fields, along with assigning funds to this project out of the undesignated funds a.k.a. excess taxation. Only three votes are needed and as Kristen Linfante is always quick to point out, they have the three votes, possibly four this year.
If you don't agree with these elected officials, you are out of luck. They have gone rogue and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
Elaine
It might even be a clean sweep of 5-0 if they are voting to go with organic infill.
are you sure Elaine? would the turf supporters be behaving in this manner towards you if they felt confident about the completion of the turf project?
Yes, I know, 1:53 PM. Kelly has been the one insisting on organic infill. That has been eating away at me since the infill isn't the only problem.
Elaine
PAYT may be the quid pro quo for Kelly's vote on turf.
You may be right, 2:32 PM. I know that the ESB is pushing for PAYT, and will accept organic infill, even though the blades of grass and the backing are plastic, the fields will be strip mined, light pollution will increase because of the conduit being added for future lighting, 90+ parking spaces will be added in the next phase, trees will be cut down, buffer zones will be eliminated, noise and air pollution from the increase of cars, all in the name of being green with organic infill. The plastic breaks down and has to be replaced and will be dumped in landfills, but at least we will have PAYT which makes us feel good about ourselves.
Elaine
Oh, and don't kid yourself about Steve Silverman. He is for PAYT and is OK with organic infill too.
Elaine
I don't think Fraasch will vote for it... didn't the RTK say that she had concerns about pool overruns or funding the turf on the muni end?
Silverman sounded like he was less supportive of the turf at the Parks Advisory Board. He probably sounds more reasonable when he is away from Brumfield.
There needs to be a revote to devote the stupid vote.
Kinda rediculous isn't it?
We will switch to a PAYT garbage collection system under the rational that it will cut down on the amount of plastics we send to landfills.
But in the next breathe we'll have tons and tons of plastic imported into MTL, so we can rip out co2 absorbing and oxygen producing grasses and trees. Then in 8 years we'll scrape up all those tons and tons of plastic and ship it off to-- you got it-- a landfill.
And then import tons and tons of new earth fouling plastics to start the cycle all over again.
What a joke!
3:19 we just don't know, do we?
That might be why people don't show at meetings, why signs aren't up and why that don't vote.
It all seems so useless, it is all so reminescent of the Remely, Silhol, Hart Team that were going to keep cost down on the high school project. One fought like hell and got crucified by the BOSN. The other two tumbled like a ton of bricks andthe HS went over $100 million.
We'll see turfing and all the associated frills escalate quickly to $2-3 million. And the sports cabal will be AWOL financially once again.
Ob-bla-dee, ob-la-dah.
Many synthetic turf projects have been stalled or cancelled as a result of environmental impact studies or findings from conservation agencies, DEP, EPA, etc.
So listen naysayers here are some things you need to do:
Give Elaine a map of the Cedar Lake wetlands as a result of the 2000 National Wetlands Inventory.
Get a copy of the 2000 Mt Lebanon Comprehensive Plan with figures included -- especially the part about restrictions on land use as a result of environmental concerns.
Get a copy of the Gateway/Sauer specs for this project, including changes to parking from the past 18 months and planned for the next year
Get a copy of the newly revised FEMA flood zones on Cedar Boulevard.
Get busy making the maps between these zones and Wildcat/Middle, measuring the distances, and sharing them with this blog via a google doc asap/this week.
If you sit back and say "ob blah dee, ob blah da" you are a bigger part of the problem than Brumfield!
So you have your homework. Get busy because future assignments are forthcoming.
Silhol and Hart didn't crumble, Remely and Kubit did.
Why 10:00 pm.
They'll agree to organic turf which will please Fraasch and the ESB and everyone will go home happy, a lot poorer when bids come in, but hey what is a million here or there!
10:36 am. Cyanide is also organic.
- According to an official Geo Turf company spokesman, the "grass blades", connecting base mat and the attachment are all plastics, and are derived from petroleum products. Thus, chemically speaking they are organic as are all plastics.
- The cork/coconut husk fiber/rice fiber infill are agriculture products and thus, chemically speaking, they are also organic. According to an official company spokesman it does not meet the FDA guidelines for organic labeling, thus the company website and literature are in error if by using that definition they are implying that geoturf meets those official criteria. It is not Organic with regards to health and safety definitions of the FDA.
- Bottom line: if you consider the gas in your tank organic, then all the Geoturf components are organic. If you mean by organic, plant or animal matter, only the infill is organic. If you mean Organic in the way it is officially defined by the FDA as healthy, and non-harmful then none of the components of geoturf are organic. So it depends on which definition matters to you. If your concern is health, none of the components are organic, and certified as healthy. If your concern is environmental, then its being chemically organic and petroleum-derived, is a major concern because of the large atmospheric carbon impact created by its manufacture. If these issues are not a concern to you, then all the components are organic and it doesn't matter which definition you choose to use
9:02, let me be perfectly clear, I prefer natural grass fields. Well maintained natural grass fields and I think there is an available solution, that is less expensive and just as quick drying.
It may not hold up as well under heavy use, but if it is so inexpensive that you can have a number of these natural grass fields, which makes more sense?
I really don't care about the details of whether infill is organic or not, it isn't natural grass period.
10:00 pm, I have gotten involved, I have submitted alternatives to the commissioners, i've pleaded with them not to pursue the present course.
I've been asked earlier, what do you suggest we do.
So, I'll ask you the samme question. If we get busy reading maps, measuring distances, etc., etc.,, what do we do with that info?
I'm with you on your point that more is yet to come... turfing or enclosing the Rock Pile, building a youth turfed field at Robb Hollow.
I can google a map of the locations, so what? They have the three votes to pretty much do as they please.
No one with any legal experience has chimed in on these two topics.
#1. Could someone with legal qualifications analyze Home Rule Charter, Article IV, Section 401, Item B under the Functions and Reponsibilities of the Treasurer?
It reads "The Treasurer shall receive all municipal moneys from [ALL SOURCES] and promptly deposit the same in a bank..."
So wouldn't revenue from field signs, hanging on municipal field fences be consider a municipal source of revenue? Therefore "public" revenue, not "private".
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me like the commissioners are violating our existing HR Charter.
#2. "Definition of 'Real Estate'
Land plus anything permanently fixed to it, including buildings, sheds and other items attached to the structure."
Section 151.1 Real Estate in the MTL Code states:
"No real estate owned by the Municipality shall be sold or leased except upon authorization of the Commission by Ordinance. [They passed a field sign ordinance, but they haven't followed up with advertising for bidders. They automatically assigned the sign space to sports groups.)
Additionally, no real estate owned by the municipality shall be sold or leased for consideration in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), except to the highest bidder after public notice by advertisement bids or advertisement of public auction."
So when did the "leasing" of public field sign space get advertised and where are the competitive bids?
I'd say the commissioners are counting on a whole lot more than $1,500 from the lease of field sign space?
Another rule violation???
Post a Comment