Commissioners:
After listening to the last commission meeting on 12 August 2014 I have a few questions that I'd like to ask your Honors:
I don't want to put Mr. Bendel on the spot, so any one of you who is so inclined may answer those questions as well. In addition to the above, I have been wrestling with a couple of other issues related to field turf, but not necessarily exclusive to it. It has been stated that placing artificial turf on our Cedar Boulevard fields will attract new, young families into the municipality. With that in mind, I have the following questions:
- A resident asked Commissioner Bendel if he thought artificial turf was "an essential need." Mr. Bendel replied that "it's a need." May I conclude from that exchange that the commission agrees that it is not part of the core responsibilities of Mt. Lebanon to provide artificial turf to the community?
- I would agree that it is not a core responsibility. However as I look back these last three years, we do a lot that isn't our core responsibility whether still in the community's best interest or possibly not. The conversation with Mr. Bendel and the resident was about essential need vs need. I personally believe that we have need at maintaining the fields we have and if the opportunity arises to add a field to do so, as you know, I don't think that I would have done very well in the debate because I don't see turf as an essential need or even a need.
- Earlier in the meeting (if I remember the timeline correctly) Mr. Bendel told the same resident that one of the benefits of artificial turf is that it would eliminate the necessity of our field sports teams to occasionally play or practice on fields located outside the municipality. Why is playing on a field outside the boundaries of Mt. Lebanon a bad thing? If venues are available and nearby, what difference does it make where they are located? Some of the venues are not nearby and I think that is the concern. I agree with Mr. Bendel that it would be optimal to have some of these teams play here in Mt Lebanon, but I also agree with you Mr. Gideon if you can't what's the big deal if it's nearby (30-40 mins).
- What constitutes the demographics for a "new, young family?" It certainly can't be Millennials (18 to 29); a recent survey by the Reason-Rupe Poll, in cooperation with the Pew Foundation, shows that most Millennials are unmarried (71%), only 19% currently own a home or condo, and what's more important, most Millennials don't have the money it would take to live In Mt. Lebanon. I assume you are targeting the over 30 crowd. I read that poll as well and I think even more so that age group is looking at condo and townhouse living with move-in ready and you are right we don't have a lot of that housing stock here. That is why SF, Peters, and others are booming. I am not sure what demographic the Commission is looking at specifically because I don't think it has ever been discussed.
- Since Mt. Lebanon is (almost) completely built-out, and a large percentage of homes (probably more than half) are older, post WWII vintage houses with limited floor space, it becomes rather apparent that attracting "new, young families" will be a zero sum game; i.e., some person, couple, or family in a desirable house will have to "go away" for the new young family to move in. Of course this is not 100% correct, but I think you would all agree that the amount of space available for new construction is severely limited. It also becomes rather obvious that the people who will have to go are elderly couples or elderly singles, "empty nest" families, or families consisting of only one child. Does the commission have a plan to encourage these people to go away? (By the way, I'm not being "flippant"; these are questions that other communities are debating!) I understand your question and the answer is no I don't believe we do. We also don't have a comprehensive plan if they stay and I mean our public transportation isn't there. We don't have sidewalks everywhere either and we are currently working on our accessibility practices for buildings/roads.
- Should you achieve your goal of attracting moderate to large numbers of new, young families into Mt. Lebanon it will undoubtedly put a strain on field services - we're assuming these families want their kiddos to play field sports - and the school district. This, in turn, will necessitate increased spending on the part of both the municipality and the district (for example, the artificial turf will experience more use due to the increased number of kids using it). Spending comes from revenues, and revenues come mostly from real estate and earned income taxes. If the number of new families is limited by the availability of desirable housing, then these families will perforce have to be very high income earners (probably duel-incomes). Given these things, what constitutes the profile of your target family? In other words, what should they have in terms of net income (because real estate taxes are paid out of net income, not gross); ideally, how many kids should each family have; and what would be the typical value of a home they would purchase? In a community, and especially a "built-out" one, there must be an optimum ratio between the under 18 population and non-essential services provided to them by taxpayers. This is my personal opinion, not the Commissions. We highly rely on our families to do volunteerism in the schools which almost requires a stay at home parent. Our school system is making some headway, but still relies/assumes that most students have one parent that stays home so we already have a disparity, because our taxes almost require dual income. Most families in the country, cannot afford one parent staying home and affording our cost of living in Mt Lebanon for purchasing real estate but also times are changing and both parents are becoming more ambitious about their careers and don't want to take time off to raise the children. So our school district still lives in part in the days where "Johnny" could come home for lunch or expect Johnny's mom to do the PTA/Science group and Writing Lab. When we begin looking at this shift as a community/school we will see full-day Kindergarten, comprehensive after school programming for all kids, and maybe some school programs eliminated. I think we would see major differences in school/community if we became more dual parent focused. Until then, I believe that is why we are seeing more rentals and that will continue to grow. Young families, single moms want to have their child attend a safe school/live in a safe neighborhood and they pull the funds together to rent. I also see many retirees or recent widows that want to live in a safe area but don't want to be responsible for the daily care of a house so they rent. Ward 5 continues to grow in rental living every year and some properties do take decent care of the rental, others most definitely do not. To answer your question in a number ratio, I am not sure, but I understand your question and see the issues every time I talk to residents.
- What is your estimate of home price inflation that will be required to sustain a growth of, say, 10% in the under 18 demographic over a period of eight years (I chose eight years because that's the replacement time for artificial field turf) - keeping in mind that the total population of Mt. Lebanon would not rise by the same amount? Same question, but with an increase of 20%? To guide your thinking on this, consider a hypothetical town with two families, A and B, each consisting of five "under 18" kids and two adults. The total number of kids is 10, and the total population is 14. Family B moves away and is replaced by family C, consisting of six kids and two adults. The number of kids in total has increased by 10%, but the total population has increased by seven percent. That additional kid, not being a producer, will put additional strain on the municipality and school system, thus raising the costs for both. I am not sure.
- Finally, what is the criteria for public financing of special interest entertainments? (Again, I'm not being flippant. Each organized field sport, such as baseball, football, lacrosse, etc., is a special interest. That does not mean field sports are bad things; it simply means they are not "essential needs" and do not serve over 50% of the community.) As a private pilot I'd love to see an airfield in Mt. Lebanon - it would save me from driving to the Allegheny County Airport (if I were still flying, that is!). I am sure other Mt. Lebanon pilots would agree. Now that may be a little grandiose, so how about a zip-line facility - perhaps in Bird Park? That would be fun, and it would certainly attract the more adventurous types of young families and their kids. So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a quarter of the costs for a zip-line could I depend upon the municipality to fund the rest? There isn't a criteria. Anyone could come to us and if a Commissioner or staff person has an interest in moving the idea forward it can be possible. Zip line, Denis Theater, Horsing facility, airport, what have you.
I hope this information helps. I can definitely expand my personal thoughts, opinions etc by phone or over coffee as well.Thanks Mr. Gideon.Kelly
