Andrew explained that the Unassigned Funds are to be used for emergencies. Typically, the reserves should equal two months of our budget. Our unassigned fund balance is only at 11%. Remember how "Anyone But Bendel" went to the October 3, 2013 Sports Advisory Board meeting and asked how the SAB would like to spend the pot of gold? The October 3, 2013 SAB meeting minutes indicate:
The board recommended that the Commission designate the maximum amount of undesignated funds, plus any available funds that were previously allocated to Brafferton, to a turf project at Middle and Wildcat, with the balance of the project costs coming from other sources.Isn't "Anyone But Bendel" in the banking business?
I bet Vasco Sports can't be too happy with the snow on the ground. Benner hoped for snow, while Vasco hopes for warmer weather. I just love Mother Nature.
70 comments:
Drove by the "crown jewel" today. Lovely, really impressive, I'll bet no other community has a sports field quite like it.
I'll the soccer and lacrosse players love that new 21st century playing surface!
Elaine - I haven't heard this discussion yet but I am looking forward to hearing Andrew's comments. Could he be pushing back on the commissioner's spending habits? Don't they want the unassigned funds to be this make-a-wish stash with a super vote?
If these commissioners are smart, they will appoint a Ward 3 resident who does not possess strong sentiment about deer but rather understands finances, data collection, statistics and authentic collaboration -- all of which could be used to help Mt Lebanon get out of their current deepening hole -- or is it quicksand? Ask Mother Nature.
Have heard that another Wildcat turf change order is in the works.
12:06 isn't the next HomeRule ballot question going to be to eliminate or keep the super vote?
Has anyone heard whether Silverman's house was exempted from the 2015 Newcomers Tax criteria? Under no interpretation could one say it isn't MTL's most egregiously under-assessed home...
I don't think ML is smart enough to keep the super vote.
You might have a point 5:00 pm.
We were dumb enough to vote on making the Home Rule gender neutral neutral and to vote out the municipal mandate to post public notices in the newspaper.
What makes it so absurd is that the state rules supersede local ordinances.
That is on Fraasch. She didn't want to vote for a bond so they had to use the unassigned funds.
More bonds = lower Moody rating
12:07, what is the mysterious change order that you are referring to?
Dave Franklin
12:07 PM, Dave knows about the mysterious change order coming up. Just ignore him.
Thank you, 10:50 AM.
Elaine
10:50 AM, more depletion of unassigned fund balance to avoid bond issues to levels below 10% also results in reductions of bond ratings, like what happened last year.
Can't say that I do Elaine. I must have missed last month's super secret turf meeting. But if 12:07 know the details, I'm sure your readers would love to know about it. Let's be transparent. Perhaps I'll email Commissioner Fraasch for the information.
Dave Franklin
Bonds or "unassigned funds" (ie, intentional overtaxation), the solution is simple - don't spend money on unnecessary projects. This preserves/improves the town's bond rating and reputation.
If those projects are so important to the community, put them on the ballot as a referendum.
11:12 am Burning through money is not good whether its through unassigned funds or more bonds.
Dave, I suppose you could email Kelly, but she is not the SAB commission liaison. Last year, it was John Bendel. This year, it is Dave Brumfield. I am surprised that you didn't know that.
Elaine
10:57 AM Hey Dave, assume you and your field sports buddies will pick up the costs of the coming Wildcat change orders.
How's the spring field sports scheduling looking for April & May at the Crown Jewels on Cedar?
Since you & Gateway did not enforce the contract requirements for tamping of the limestone gravel fill at 6 inch intervals in the 8 foot deep trenches, expect some increasing concave depressions in the turf as time passes. Shortcuts never pan out in the long run.
Is it true that in order to pay for the change order, money will be diverted from a certain public safety project?
- Zack Morris
At least April and perhaps May this year may be rough, but Jan-May look great for many years to come. No one went into this project expecting or predicting any meaningful increases until construction was complete. It would have been great to start and complete construction in the dry months of August - October, but the process was delayed by the various anonymous letters and frivilous concerns dumped upon the permitting agencies. Nevertheless, once it's done it will be great.
Dave Franklin
10:57 Dave, it may be that Vasco will try to get the muni to pay for the apparent OSHA fines they had to pay for assigning a young laborer to dig in an 8 foot trench without required safety shoring last year. The contract calls for a contractor to have a safety person assigned and on site, but one was apparently not there nor was Gateway.
A neighbor saw this violation and called OSHA, who arrived within an hour and remained for the rest of the day and part of the following. The Lebo attitude was, it's the contractors, not our fault. No surprise there. The muni will never admit guilt even when caught red handed.
12:32 PM Zack, like again? They did just that on the fist $86,000 change order.
David Franklin,
As I listened to the budget portion of the discussion session I heard that the anticipated sign revenue would be covering a good portion of the ongoing turf maintenance, or at least this is the expectation of the Commission. Do you know how many contracts there are for signs and what their revenue value is?
Also, I really do want to know if the sports associations will be paying for the change orders. Can you tell me? I would rather get this from you than through RTK.
Thanks,
Charlotte Stephenson
1:32pm - I searched the OSHA website and could not find any information concerning your claim. I also tried to find details on the Internet. Can you provide some details about this? Did OSHA actually issue a fine, or perhaps just a warning?
Crown Jewel? No, this is a bona fide Brumdoggle.
Charlotte,
Elaine doesn't publish all of my comments (especially those which include facts that don't support her theories), so I hope you get to read this.
First, no change orders have been discussed with the sports associations since the contract was awarded. If memory serves, one change order was previously addressed with the SAB.
Second, to my knowledge, there have been no discussions with the sports associations regarding payments for any future change orders (real or imagined).
Third, per the Commission's resolution, the private contribution requirement was $250,000. To date, the amount contributed is actually around $265,000 (I don't have the exact # in front of me). Given the additional amounts contributed, I would offer that the private donations still represent about 25% of the total project cost to date.
Lastly, I don't think that the Municipality will come to the sports associations with its hand out in the event of additional change orders. If it does, should we expect a similar request to be made of everyone who bought a swimming pool pass to cover those change orders? Or when and if we build a dog park or improve Robb Hollow, will we ask dog owners and bird watchers to cover change orders associated with those projects? How about even 25% of the base cost? There have been a lot of street and sewer repairs taking place in our community. They haven't hit my street yet, but I'm not asking those who live on Mapleton, Marietta, etc to cover any cost overruns there. Have you?
Look, I get that you don't like or support the turf project, but many do. It's a municipal asset that is being improved through an improved allocation of municipal funds, plus some pretty generous private funds.
I personally wasn't wild about endorsing tens of thousands of dollars for the curtailing of invasive plants in Bird Park, but as a member of the Parks Board I listened to and understood the opinions of those who thought it was important to the Park and those who use it. Could those funds have been spent somewhere else or on a project that some other group felt was equally important? Sure. The ice rink is in dire need of work including external lighting, the sidewalk throughout the tennis center is in disrepair, the golf course needs some new equipment and a long sought after pavilion, and I could go on and on. Nevertheless, those funds are instead going to be used to eliminate undesirable plants in Bird Park . . . . and I voted for it. I don't use Bird Park, but I didn't ask "Why don't the hikers or the bird watchers pay for this work, or at least 25% of it?"
Was that a mistake on my part? I don't think so, but with all due respect that's what your logic would have me conclude.
Dave Franklin
1:32 PM it occurred in/about early November of last year, a weekday morning. Marked OSHA vehicle arrived on site, spoke with contractor reps, inspected the site, remained on site, and vehicle observed on site the next day.
The neighbor also submitted a written report dated 11/19/2014 to the muni offices on that date about the limestone gravel not being tamped, citing the contract specs. You may well find they have no record of that either. Problem is, I have a copy and observed the neighbor delivering it to 710 Washington Rd. asking that it be taken to Mgr. Feller's office.
Dave, when you start including facts, I'll publish them. Acknowledge the fact that Gateway had to revise their plans which caused the delay, and not "frivolous concerns being dumped on permitting agencies." Gateway caused your delay, Dave.
You want to talk about transparency? Why did you tell Mt. Lebanon Community Endowment to keep the donors a secret? You had a choice.
Elaine
It's not my choice, it's the donor's. Any of them are free to publicize their support. I would never unilaterally make the decision to expose those decent people to a bunch of comments from anonymous bloggers who would probably spend the day Googling the names on the list.. A resident attended an SAB meeting and asked for the names. I asked her why she wanted them? She didn't have answer. Do you have a legitimate reason? If UPMC donated are you going to switch to AGH? Should we boycott the Pirates because they donated? For heavens sake, 99% of the people who post comments on your site assailing everyone and everything in this town don't even the character and integrity to sign their names and you believe you're entitled to see the names of people who made private, charitable donations to improve a community asset?
Dave Franklin
Let's talk facts Mr. Franklin.
How much was the turf project suppose to cost? What is the expected number today to finish the job and cut the ribbon.
How many game slots were we suppose to gain? How many have we gained to date.
The weather is warming. Last year at this time you could find areas of Wildcat will you could practice shagging pop ups with young ball players or play a little hot pepper ball.
This year about the only thing Wildcat/Middle is good for is making mud pies.
Those are the facts that count.
Doesn't matter how much the pool cost, what's wrong at the tennis courts or what equipment the golf course needs.
But if you're going to play that game, tell us how much we contributed to the purchase of Twin Hills and McNeilly in the name of youth sports?
EA lot of money and shame on the prior Commissions for not finishing what they started with those sites. Perhaps you can ask Matt Kluck why he voted against the bond to improve McNeilly. I didn't get a vote. And if you think we did this project for extra field slots in one year and one year only, well then I can't help that sort of short sighted thinking. Let's talk this Fall, Winter and next Spring when it's packed. And every year after that.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin we were only picking up a small number of rainouts per year. So we're now in the hole by the number lost to date.
I hope your prediction of the fields being packed comes true.
Then again, maybe I don't because constant use will require replacing that expensive sooner rather than later.
So who's being short-sighted now?
Plus the field will need to be shut down once again to install the replacement turf. So what is the net gain in game slots long term for the multi-million dollar expenditure?
Dave, talk to the mayor about private donations. I'm not going to debate that with you.
Elaine
Ooops sorry Mr. Franklin, for my short-sightedness, I forgot we're drowning in all that revenue from the field sign.
My crystal ball just isn't as clear as yours I suppose.
Now that you have hijacked this thread again, Dave Franklin, as you love to do, I want to remind folks what was in the October 2013 SAB meeting minutes.
"The board recommended that the Commission designate the maximum amount of undesignated funds" This was after "Anyone But Bendel" asked how the Sports Advisory Board wanted to spend his pot of gold.
Ward 1, do you really want to have John Bendel for another four years? I certainly don't.
Elaine
Dave Franklin,
You responded with "If memory serves, one change order was previously addressed with the SAB." That's a bit nebulous. What change orders have been submitted for the artificial turf project and, if any have, what are the amounts, have they been approved and if so, where are the funds coming from?
Also, will you tell me what revenue is locked in from signs at this point since those are to pay the ongoing maintenance expenses in perpetuity? I don't believe you answered that in your response.
I see no relation between necessary infrastructure repairs and "wants" like artificial turf.
As for invasive species, you must have missed your meeting because the invasive species in Bird Park are a haven for the proliferation of rats. I have had to engage the services of a private company to prevent the Bird Park rats from coming across Beading in to my backyard and I pay for that myself.
We will not agree on the difference between wants and needs of our community, but I am wondering why you are evading my question about signs and change orders. In light of the preliminary budget discussion contracts for signs that you said would generate revenue are more important than ever.
How about it, David, are you going to answer? And yes, I did/do not support the artificial turf project, but how bout sticking with the facts rather then making it personal?
-Charlotte Stephenson
I haven't evaded anything. We discussed one change order, which I mentioned and which has been discussed in several public meetings. You folks are seriously paranoid. I think your understanding of my day-to-day involvement in this project is a bit misguided. Contrary to Elaine's conspiracy theories, there are no super secret turf meetings at which the Commission shares these details with me and no one else. If there are other change orders, I'm not aware of them. Pretty sure I was very clear on that point this morning. Why not harass the anonymous posters who brought up the subject of new change orders since it sounds like they have a lot more information than me? Aren't they "evading" both of us? Should we be surprised that the person who brought it up hasn't come back to answer? Perhaps there is nothing to add. Have you asked John Bendel or your own Commissioner if there are any new change orders? His email is jbendel@mtlebanon.org. It's not that hard. I've never reached out to a Commissioner or a staff member and been told to file a RTK. Then again, I don't insult them at public meetings, take shots at them online and then act surprised when they don't jump at any number of my frivolous requests.
I also have no idea how many signs have been sold . . . it may be 2, may be 50. I don't know. Again, they don't share this information with me in secret emails. Sorry to disappoint, but that's simply not how it works. If not knowing how many signs have been sold keeps you up at night, I'm sorry, but I don't have the information you need. I'm sure you don't believe that either. Again, my apologies.
If the presentation to the Parks Board (that I attended) from the Nature Conservancy focused on rats, I must have missed that point. It certainly wasn't a focus of the presentation, but instead it addressed a variety of benefits having nothing to do with rats. I do recall some mention of deer hanging out in the invasive canopies though. If eliminating rats is also a benefit, I'll remind you that I voted in favor of the proposal. So, you're welcome. If you're interested in their presentation, the video is online, just like every other SAB meeting since its formation. I also pay for the elimination of raccoons and other creatures that make their way up from the Bourse Shops to ransack my garbage. Isn't living here such a burden!
I will remind you that your direct question to me was whether or not the sports associations were paying for the change orders. You can read it for yourself if you scroll up to 2:13. I simply expanded that line of thinking to other expenditures that benefit less than every resident. That's where you were headed right? The people who use it, should pay for it. Why shouldn't we ask the same question for the pool, the library, the dog park, Robb Hollow improvements, etc. Your logic about pay to play shouldn't just apply to things you don't like/want, should it?
So, to recap, there's been one change order to my knowledge, it is not being paid for by the sports associations, nor do I think any future change orders will be . . . if there are any (but you should probably check with the anonymous folks about that . . . er, wait, I guess you can't because they're anonymous). And finally, I don't know how many signs have been sold.
Dave Franklin
Looks like Dave's long on rhetoric, short on facts. As usual.
Dave, you try so hard. My conspiracy theories.
I keep quoting the minutes from the October 2013 SAB meeting, where the SAB wants to take every stinking cent of unassigned funds.
"The board recommended that the Commission designate the maximum amount of undesignated funds," But that's OK. Keep trying to deflect. Even Blogger thinks you are spam. That is why there is usually a delay for posting your comments.
I repeat, Dave:
"The board recommended that the Commission designate the maximum amount of undesignated funds," I guess you are going to go after that $72,000 that was earmarked for killing deer. Why not? After all, the board recommends that the Commission designate the maximum amount to the SAB.
Elaine
One question that comes to mind that I would like to ask Dave Franklin is, will there be a notice put up on the MLBA website informing folks that donations to the MLBA no longer qualify as a tax deduction being that the MLBA lost their tax exempt status and is no longer registered with the IRS? Oops!!
Nick M.
Wasn't the unassigned fund balance accrued for and spent on the turf the largest ever pay-out from unassigned funds? Likewise, the SAB was created only about 1 year before the pay-out right? In addition, we had never before had a newcomer's tax. Likewise, had any female commissioners been stalked by community volunteers prior to the turf initiative?
Boy, Mr. Franklin, you really are making Mt Lebanon a special place.
David Franklin,
I will respond to your post as best I can:
Sheesh, I am not paranoid, I am only asking for information relative to the spending habits of our Municipality. It's a simple question about the dollar amounts of the change order(s) and I can't get an answer form you.
Didn't you have a blog about fields, push for the artificial turf project and then attend every controversial meeting about it to try and sway public opinion? I don't consider that as anything but day-to-day involvement in the lobbying effort for artificial turf.
As for there being no "super secret turf meetings", I was present that day when two residents were kicked out of the meeting. Are you denying that fact?
I have asked John Bendel et al many questions over the past months and do not get any response. That behavior is exactly why people resort to the RTK process. Wouldn't it be better for our Commissioners to answer the perfectly legitimate e-mails that they receive? Please feel free to file a RTK regarding any e-mails from me and the subsequent non-responses. I have nothing to hide.
Weren't you one of initiates of the sign revenue hypothesis that was going to bring in buckets of revenue? Again, no real information from you so, alas, a RTK is the only option. Does it keep me up at night? Thanks for the sarcastic rhetoric but I am not stooping.
I actually like living here and hope to make it more livable for our residents.
I wasn't headed anywhere, just asked you some simple questions.
Thank you, David, for your responses. It reinforces what I have thought all along, that the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon who will not use or are opposed to the artificial turf project that you pushed for are going to get stuck holding the financial bag and that the ongoing maintenance cost will most likely fall on our shoulders as well since the sign selling theory is not panning out.
-Charlotte Stephenson
Just so we don't appear to "short-sighted" (see Franklin comment here @6:09) following is a little past advice (5/12/2012) from our resident soothsayer.
I wonder how many field signs have been sold at $500 a pop by the "municipality and/or youth sports associations" to pay for field maintenance and has anyone seen any improvements on ANY fields in the park system to date 3/26/2015?
The soothsayer admits on 3/25/2015, " And finally, I don't know how many signs have been sold" so can one conclude therefore that he has no clue how the signs have contributed to field maintenance.
Now there's an advisory board member who's advice you can take to the bank! :-)
"Here is an eblast sent from Dave Franklin. His wife is head of YSA.
From: "Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association - LEBO BASEBALL"
Date: May 7, 2012 10:04:56 PM EDT
To:
Subject: MLBA - Field Signage Amendment Proposal"
"Friends:
Tomorrow night the Commissioners will vote on a proposed amendment to Mt. Lebanon’s current signage ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to allow tasteful signs to be placed at our municipal fields, the stadium and at similar venues. This amendment will allow for the solicitation of sponsors (local businesses, larger companies, etc), who in turn will be featured on these signs. Importantly, these sponsorships will allow the municipality and/or the youth sports associations to raise much needed funds for field maintenance and improvements."
http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2012/05/just-so-you-know.html?m=1
Nick M., as expected, the baseball association's tax exempt status has been reinstated and it has been reinstated retroactively to May 2014. As such all prior and future donations are tax deductible.
Dave Franklin
http://mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/View/10357
Interesting 2014 document for several reasons.
#1. did you catch McCreey's comment contributions "needed to fund the "ANTICIPATED $1,000,000 PROJECT."
Does anyone know where that $1,000,000 project is being constructed.
#2. Look at Donnellan's forecast for field sign revenue.
Forecasts are wonderful, but since the field sign ordinance was passed, how much has it yielded?
Dave Franklin, soothsayer, Parks Advisory Board & SAB member and heavy proponent of the $1,000,000 artificial turf project admits he has no idea how many signs have been sold.
Wouldn't you think if you sat on Advisory Boards you'd want to stay on top of whether your advice is working or not?
Something curious. Why is it that the naysayers, protesters, anti-cullers, etc., always get blamed for having a huge devastating impact on all these Lebo projects being delayed, going over budget or being cancelled. Suddenly when things good bad or over budget it's not the proponents fault, it's all blamed on the people that tried to tell them that is where it was headed at the start.
As in Franklin's comment- " It would have been great to start and complete construction in the dry months of August - October, but the process was delayed by the various anonymous letters and frivilous concerns dumped upon the permitting agencies."
But, in the early planning stages when the naysayers advice could actually have a beneficial impact they are cast as inconsequential, a small minority, don't know the facts, cheap, etc., etc.?
Why is that, Mr. Franklin?
About the MLBA getting their tax exempt status reinstated, that may be true, but the IRS website says differently.
Elaine
Probably better advice for Bendel.
"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note." ~Doug Floyd
Hi Elaine,
The info on the IRS website is a few months behind, Mr. Franklin is correct. As of March 9th the MLBA is current with their tax exempt status. Let's just hope these folks stay on top of things.
Nick M.
The IRS website is only current as of 3/9/15.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, it's good to see the MLBA got their act together regarding the tax issues, this black eye didn't look good for the MLBA.
Another question...you somehow came to the conclusion that it is the fault of the residents who opposed the turf project for the reason the turf project did not get started on time. How did you come to this conclusion? Can you back up your conclusion with some sort of proof or at least provide a detailed explanation of how you came to this conclusion?
I would submit that the responsibility lies with Gateway Engineers. If GE did their homework from the beginning and had the NPDES permit available at the time the bids went out, then the project would have started on time and we probably wouldn't have been on the hook for a change order costing taxpayers $86,000. Am I wrong? Thank you Mr. Franklin.
Nick M.
No response to the comments made at 10:02 and 11:26, Mr. Franklin?
Nothing to say about the anticipated $1,000,000 field project that isn't $1,000,000 any more Mr. Franklin?
Nothing to say about Donnellan's field sign revenue forecast that is supposed to cover the field maintenance and contribute to its replacement?
Figured you wouldn't want to discuss real issues.
I'll discuss real issues with real people in person. Elaine has taught me the error of my ways in trying to discuss this stuff with "gutless fools"
Dave Franklin
Run away, Mr. Franklin, run away!
We don't really need you to tell us what we already know.
The $1,000,000 "crown jewel" is no longer $1,000,000, it's $1.2 million and climbing.
The forecasted field sign revenue has yet to appear and therefore will probably never reach the amounts needed to maintain the turf muchless replace it.
It's too bad you don't have the spine for answering answering a few simple questions to the men and women that will end up financing your turf.
If only 'our' Franklin were as prudent as this Franlklin.
"Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship." — Benjamin Franklin
"Elaine doesn't publish all of my comments (especially those which include facts that don't support her theories), so I hope you get to read this." Dave Franklin March 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM
"I'll discuss real issues with real people in person. Elaine has taught me the error of my ways in trying to discuss this stuff with 'gutless fools'"— Dave Franklin March 26, 2015 at 10:20 PM
So which is it, Mr. Franklin? You complain that Elaine doesn't publish all your comments- especially those that include facts that don't support her theories.
Then you turn around and hide behind not wanting to write and converse about those facts. Calling the people that politely ask for your input "gutless fools".
I'm guessing Mr. Franklin, you want to use Elaine's blog as your private soap box. Probably because yours was an abysmal failure and didn't reach much of the community. You want the control and if not you resort to telling people to put down their 'Hot Pockets', calling them "gutless" and not "real" people.
How many times now have you enter the blog conversations here and how many times do you end up avoiding questions and calling the readers and contributors names?
If Bendel is serious about resetting the community dialogue he may want to drop the advisory people that can't have open and transparent conversations.
10:05 (or is it Mr. 10:05), I am more than happy to have an "open and transparent conversation." I've had them with Mr. Gideon, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Madison and few others who I have met through the Lebo blogosphere. However, to truly have an "open and transparent conversation" both parties need to have a name and a face. Otherwise, it's not open, it's not a conversation and certainly not transparent.
Yesterday, Elaine labeled an anonymous poster (who subscribed to views different than hers) a "gutless fool" because he/she would not sign his/her name. Why shouldn't that label apply to anyone who chooses to comment anonymously? The logic is the same, right?
As for John Bendel's choice of advisory volunteers, the Commission just approved a slate of new appointees to our volunteer boards and I don't recall any of them having the name Anonymous or 10:05AM.
Look, you guys can beat me up all you want . . . call me fat . . . make lawyer jokes . . . critique the neighborhood I live in . . . whatever you want. It's easy because people can put a name with a face and frankly it's probably a lot more fun for you guys to criticize someone online when you can personalize an opinion that you don't like. If anonymously bashing me makes your day, well that's just sad. Golf, fishing, needlepoint or reading are perhaps more rewarding and civil, but to each his own. But the reality is that your constant berating of me doesn't do much to change the minds of the decision makers. Elaine knows that, and deep down you know it too. You can't change the fact that Wildcat is being improved with unassigned funds, but you can lash out at me. A win for you, I guess. Congratulations.
Dave Franklin
Do you think Mr. Franklin believes Elaine has an army of automatons setting at keyboards and touch screens writing comments and asking questions on her blog?
Is there such a thing as 'unreal' people?
Dave Franklin,
Since I am blogging while revealing my identity, I am going to ask three simple questions and hope for three direct answers from you.
How much was the first change order and how is that being funded?
How much maintenance revenue is locked in from sign contracts?
It's not personal, Dave. Given our municipal bond rating downgrade I would like to know if the downgrade indicates a trend or if our unassigned fund balance will be restored in the future. Given flat EIT and flat real estate assessments, I am wondering how many property transfers will be necessary to cover the turf expenses while protecting our bond rating.
Thanks, Dave.
-Charlotte Stephenson
Poor, Dave Franklin. Always the victim. Just like my former commissioner. Can dish it out, but could never take it.
Still waiting for you to wash my car and fill it up with gas, as you offered before the high school construction started.
And as far as meeting people with a name, you won't even look me in the eye.
Poor, poor Dave.
Elaine
A question for those reading this that don't have a problem with anonymous people.
Can any of you tell me what this sentence means that Franklin put up.
"You can't change the fact that Wildcat is being improved with unassigned funds, but you can lash out at me."
Is he saying that we have no voice in how much money we pour into Wildcat?
Does he mean maintenance costs and the $600,000 replacement in 8 years is coming out of unassigned funds whether we like it or not?
I'd appreciate my neighbors thoughts.
- anonymous
PS, Elaine didn't a sports person threaten you with bodily harm in a face to face at one time.
Linfante threatened to clear the Chambers when people came to meet with her face to face.
I'm not sure I'd want to sit across a table from Franklin, he seems to rile all too easily.
Charlotte:
I believe the first change order was in the neighborhood of $80,000. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but that amount sticks in my head. I don't write the checks, but I would assume it was paid out of the original allocation of project funds ($1.05M).
The new and improved sign policy and program were rolled out in mid-February. I don't know how many signs have been sold in the last 4 weeks, if any. I'm sure that information will be available at the next SAB meeting, which is scheduled for April 2. I'm no longer on the SAB but I can probably ask Dave Donellan.
Dave Franklin
Or you can wait until until you are appointed on April 2, right Dave? You'll then be a voting member. Is the Mrs. still on the SAB? If so, there will be a husband and wife on the same board. Lovely.
Elaine
The first change order was around 80-85k and the excess money came from a traffic project completed on Bower Hill Road. Some of the original cash for that project was donated by St Clair Hospital (50k) and from the state. This information is available online and via this blog.
Do volunteers that sit on boards do not go through background checks and conflict of interest queries? For example, what if a professional who directly benefits from traffic accidents locally sits on the traffic board and votes against measures that improve public safety?
Just for the record, according to the Trib, the initial outlay of municipal undesignated funds was $162,600 and the project total was suppose to be $1.05 million.
There was a second outlay of around $700,000 and Franklin is about right on the donations of $265,000.
I heard the project was projected to be well over $1.2 million before completed. That would mean the taxpayers are on the hook for another $100,000 or so and far behind in socking field sign money away for the projected $600,000 future replacement.
"Youth sports coaches thanked the Mt. Lebanon commissioners for approving a controversial $1.05 million project to add artificial turf to municipal playing fields on Tuesday night, while opponents warned them of turf's long-term health risks.
In a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Kelly Fraasch opposed, the commission approved spending $162,600 from its 2013 budget surplus to install artificial turf at Middle and Wildcat fields. The commissioners awarded the installation contract to Massillon, Ohio-based Vasco Sports Contractors, and approved an agreement with the Mt. Lebanon School District that calls for the district to maintain the fields in exchange for playing time.
http://triblive.com/mobile/6402662-96/turf-fields-lebanon
Does any know the cost to maintain an artificially turfed field?
Crumb tire rubber replacement, grooming, sweeping, cleaning, etc.?
Dave,
Thank you for that.
In the simplest terms, the ongoing maintenance for at least the replacement of the turf every 8 years will require some 75-80 K each year. I realize that you view the maintenance of this as what is needed for any other recreational asset. I don't know what it costs annually to maintain the pool and other facilities, but I will be spending time reviewing our budget. In the meantime, let's hope the signs are selling like hot cakes.
Charlotte
Yes Charlotte, what would interesting is to see how much the municipality spent in preceding years on maintenance for all the MTL fields.
I seem to recollect that under the old YSA maintenance agreement between the school district, municipality and youth sports the total maintenance spending was around $80,000.
Look at it this way-- With turf maintenance/replacement of $80,000 annually and had they continually culled deer for $75,000/year for 5 years we could have been looking at an increase in muni spending on these two items alone of $155,000.
5:56 PM, that would mean an increase in taxes, or a reduction in services somewhere.
1:46 PM, he never threatened bodily harm, but he ran over to me and looked up at me and warned me not to mess with him. No one messes with him. Then he looked at my iPad as if the thought crossed his mind to knock it out of my hands. I quickly put it in my purse because I had photos of my grandkids on my iPad and didn't want to lose them. And no, 1:46 PM, I would think it would be a tax increase, not something that would come out of undesignated funds.
Elaine
Post a Comment