Turf Petition

For reasons that I can't quite comprehend, I have been criticized by opponents of the turf proposal for not including a link to the turf petition on this website. Similarly, they have suggested that I am not sharing the "other side" of the story, including the Fraasch proposal that includes an alternative plan to add grass fields in Robb Hollow and along Cedar Blvd. In the intest of full disclosure, Commissioner Fraasch has presented a proposal for a comprehensive Rec bond. I published her proposal here the day she emailed it to me, and I have since stated on numerous occasions that I support most of what is in her proposal. Where we disagree, is on how best to solve our field issues. I support a turf proposal and Comm. Fraasch has her plan for Robb Hollow and Cedar. Long term, I believe that a weather proof, turf facility is a better option given our current situation, including our inability to maintain our current inventory of grass fields and our growing number of youth athletic programs.

If you care to sign the turf petition, it can be found here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/mt-lebanon-commissioners-approve-a-plan-to-install-synthetic-turf-on-middle-and-wildcat-fields?share_id=JQTxKWFUxF&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Robb Hollow

I thought it would be a good idea to take a walk through the proposed Robb Hollow site, which Commissioner Fraasch has proposed as a possible location for a new grass field.  I think the first thing to point out is that the aerial photo used in Commissioner Fraasch's presentation is just over two years old.  This space is currently not nearly as cleared and open as it appears in that photo.  Not a big deal, but I did not observe the cleared rectangle that is depicted in that 2010 photo.

I took a number of pictures and, if I can figure out how to do so, I will upload them here.  I also walked the site and using some basic guesswork marked off the dimensions of a 60 x 100 yd field.  First, in order to even begin field construction here, there would need to be significant site work (grading, tree removal, road improvements, etc).  This work would not be as significant as what would be required at say McNeilly, but it would be necessary just the same.  Using the dimensions referenced above appeared to take up most of the useable space in this area, and would leave little extra space for benches, pre-game warm-up areas, spectator seating or even a buffer space between the boundaries of the field and the “cliff” on the lower portion of the property. 

Also, as noted in Commissioner Fraasch’s proposal, there is currently no parking in this area.  The entrance to this space off of Kelso is a rather steep driveway that runs up the hill to an even steeper embankment.  Considerable grading would be required of this hillside to allow for even modest parking, and I’m not sure if it is even possible given the significant grade on the left hand side.  The right hand side of the driveway is not useable as it is a steep cliff down to Kelso.  Unfortunately, the parking location would be a considerable distance from the field space itself, so suitable walking paths would need to be installed and maintained.  Ingress and egress along Kelso would similarly need to be studied and perhaps expanded as this is a rather precarious location with less than perfect sight lines.  Turning left upon exiting the site would be difficult. 

In all, it would seem to this casual observer that the site prep, entrance, driveway and parking costs alone would eclipse much of the $500-600,000 estimate leaving little left for the field itself, irrigation, fencing, bleachers, benches . . .  and of course continued maintenance to keep it green and playable.

This space can and certainly should be used for something, but given its size it will not likely provide any additional field space for athletes 12 and over, and it is this particular group that is in desperate need of additional locations to practice and play.  I would encourage everyone to take a look at this space and judge for yourselves.

Commissioner Fraasch's Proposal

Commissioner Fraasch has published her proposal for a comprehensive Rec bond, and it will be presented at the Commission's Discussion Session on August 14.  You can review the proposal in advance here.  I appreciate Commissioner Fraasch sharing this information with everyone in advance.

I support a lot of what is in the proposal, but I think it is important for every to review it and offer their own conclusions.  I will offer a more detailed summary with my thoughts at a later date.

Comparing Cranberry to Mt. Lebanon

Recently, it has become popular to compare Mt. Lebanon with Cranberry, especially in the debate over turf and grass. The grass field folks want to know why we can't be more like the neighbors to the north and have awesome grass fields. My initial reaction is that Cranberry has a better understanding of what recreation means to a community and hase invested heavily in field spaces over the last 10 years. However, the analysis goes much deeper than that. So, before the comparison between Lebo and Cranberry gets any further out of hand, let's address some facts.

Lebo has 1 municipal field (Bird) that can be used for regulation soccer, football and lacrosse games. If we add Jefferson and Mellon to the equation, we have 3. I hate adding the HS to the equation because it is primarily used for HS sports and can't really be considered as part of the inventory, but to keep all of the doubters happy let's throw it in there for a grand total of 4 full sized fields.  Each of the above grass fields is used by multiple groups and multiple sports year round. In other words, they are not dedicated.  In Lebo, we also play lacrosse, soccer, football, field hockey, and of course baseball on our baseball fields. All year long.

On the other hand, Graham Park in Cranberry alone has 7 full size lacrosse/football/soccer fields.  Of this inventory, 3 are dedicated to football and lacrosse (because they are played in different seasons) and 4 are dedicated to soccer. Graham Park's 5 baseball fields are dedicated solely for baseball.

North Boundary Park in Cranberry has 3 soccer fields (including the Giant Eagle Soccer Field) and an American Legion baseball field.

Community Park in Cranberry has 5 lighted baseball fields, a lighted football field, and 2 multisport practice fields.

To be fair in our comparison, the Seneca Valley HS campus has a turfed stadium, 2 additional baseball fields and 3 more multipurpose grass fields, but I'm not sure the folks from Cranberry even venture over to Jackson Twp to use them.  If we include the 4 multipurpose fields at SVHS, that gives Cranberry a total of 17 multipurpose fields, or 13 if we leave out the HS campus.

The 7 fields at Graham Park are subject to strict schedule of rest and use.  They have that luxury. In fact, I think a number of the Graham Park fields are currently closed until Fall. There are plenty of other fields to handle the demand.

In case you're wondering, Cranberry's population in 2010 was just over 28,000.

So, if you consider all of the above, it is very easy to understand why Cranberry's 13 grass fields are in such wonderful condition for the dedicated seasons in which they are used, while our 3 fields are tasked with accommodating every sport over 12 months for the same size community.

Misconceptions Regarding the Turf Proposal

A record number of people viewed this site yesterday, and I’m sure most of them don’t agree with my position on the turf proposal.  Nevertheless, I’m glad you’re reading because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the proposal.

First, it’s not mine.  I support it, but it’s not mine.  

Instead, the proposal had its genesis following a variety of meetings involving a diverse group of residents, and many of these meetings took place long before I got involved.  Following some of the more recent meetings, it was determined that if we were ever going to address our field shortage, we would need to do so proactively.  Moreover, many people felt that the YSA was best suited to do the legwork to put this proposal together.  In fact, we were encouraged to do so by members of the Commission.  I remember quite clearly a December Saturday morning meeting with a Commissioner at Uptown Coffee, followed by an email from this Commissioner in which he summarized some of our discussion points.  The email summarized our meeting as follows (the words are his, the emphasis is mine):

**The need for field upkeep, improvements and additional fields are essential to youth programs.

**The youth sports group needs to get organized with representatives from each sport to represent their views to the commission and the school board.  I will enable them to present to the commission their views.  This is where a plan can be established and positive plans can be implemented.

**The municipality has the technologies and the expertise to establish a sustainable plan to make the fields usable throughout the year.

** The maintenance of the fields should be in the operating budget and should include improvements such as drainage, turfgrass improvements, and additional fields.  I mentioned that this idea was beneficial to the municipality as a whole and for the future sustainability, viability and desirability of Mt. Lebanon.

** Artificial turf was discussed as a solution to the wear and tear of turfgrass fields.  Full turfing was more desirable than partial turfing.

** I will do what is necessary and responsible to help to resolve the problem that exists.

** We discussed the consolidation of the many youth sport groups, their buying power and economies of scale.

The Commissioner was Matt Kluck.

After this meeting, and in light of the points made by Commissioner Kluck and other Commissioners, we felt it was in our collective best interest to put our heads together to prepare a proposal for the improvement of our field spaces.  Like the Commission itself proclaimed at the Town hall meeting, it was the overwhelming opinion of the folks involved that our fields are old, deteriorating, not dedicated to single sports, over used and increasingly expensive to maintain.  This was reiterated by the many new folks who joined the discussion at the Town Hall meeting on Rec options.  


As many of you know, previous efforts to develop grass fields at McNeilly were rejected last Fall, so ultimately we concluded that a turf proposal was the way to go.  Interestingly, if you refer to some of the materials cited by Mr. Cannon in his recent proposal you will see similar conclusions.  Specifically, many experts say that if you have fields that are used by multiple sports/events all year long and if you are unable to allow periods of rest without cutting practice and game time it is responsible to consider turf.

Over the next several months, the members of the YSA (which acts by and through the representatives appointed by its member associations), met with turf companies who traveled to Mt. Lebanon to examine and evaluate our field spaces – all of them.  At this point in the process, many believed that Mellon was the best candidate for turf.  It is centrally located and is contained in an existing campus environment.  It is large enough to accommodate multi-sport use and frankly it was and remains in awful condition.  Unfortunately, the notion of marrying the municipality together with the school district to improve a field on school property was met with such resounding opposition we decided to examine other alternatives.  Enter Wildcat and Middle. 

After several weeks of reviewing aerial maps, surveys, and returning to Mt. Lebanon for additional meetings and analysis, the turf companies submitted their materials and their individual bids.  Most of these bids are accompanied by detailed costs estimates, material safety data sheets, research articles, information regarding recycling programs, environmental issues, warranties and much more information that recent objectors have suggested that we don’t have or have not considered.  (Trust me, we have it and we are prepared to address every issue.)  At the same time, Jordan Halter conducted a detailed analysis of the field space and the existing field permitting process and the end result was the proposal that was submitted to the Commissioners.

A second misconception is that this is simply a "want" and there is really no "need" for a multi-use turf field.  I think it warrants repeating that the sports associations are made up of close to 3,000 children and their families.  The interscholastic athletic programs at the middle and high schools add significantly to that number.  As many of these families will tell you (and did at the Town Hall meeting) our fields are failing fast.  More importantly, they are failing from overuse.  Overuse caused by an increase in sports and participants that did not exist when our current field inventory was planned and built.  The municipal and school fields cannot accommodate all of the athletes that are trying use them.  Baseball fields are used for other sports, and this ultimately adds to the problem.  Our limited multisport fields are used so frequently that they simply have no time to recover.  The problem reached a new low in the last year when several sports associations spent thousands of dollars to rent field space in other communities.  And even this week, the reality of our situation is becoming even more dire as the process of field allocation for Fall sports commences.  Some sports are now considering the unfortunate decision of cutting historically popular programs because there simply are not enough field slots to go around.  By any standard, that demonstrates a need for additional multisport field space and time slots year round.

A final misconception is that we are all about turf.  Nearly everyone that I have spoken to on this topic (including me) would undoubtedly prefer to host every game or practice on a well-maintained, safe grass field.  Contrary to what you may read, I am NOT a turf junkie.  Like the NFL players referenced in the survey supplied by Mr. Cannon, I too would prefer to play on a “dedicated” field of professionally manicured natural grass.  Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury.  I can only assume that those same 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.  So would our residents.

The other night Mr. Cannon responded to a question from Mr. Brumfield stating that he (Mr. Cannon) would  similarly not support spending a $1 million on new grass fields. I chuckled because that would have been a much shorter presentation with only one PowerPoint slide.  If that's your perspective, then the debate really isn't even about turf.  However, it certainly makes for much better theater to attack the turf plan (and its supporters) as being bad for the environment, dangerous for kids, etc than it is to publicly admit that you just don't want to spend the money.  


I agree with Commissioner Brumfield when he stated that if you don’t start from the premise that we have a “need” for field space, then you are coming at the turf debate from an entirely different angle.    The need is there and the need is real.  We are prepared to demonstrate this as the discussion continues.  I have already offered to do so for the anonymous folks who have called me a liar, but as expected they all fell silent.  This is not my battle, believe me. There are many, many people in our community who support this effort and we are prepared to move forward.  

Commission Discussion Meeting, July 23

Tonight's Commission Discussion Meeting (6:15pm - 8:00pm) will touch on two issues that might be of interest: (1) Robb Hollow athletic field options and (2) turf information to be provided by Matt Kluck.  I assume the first item will address Commissioner Fraasch's proposal to build a field in Robb Hollow.  I don't know what the second item entails, but Commissioner Kluck has already publicly voiced his objection to both turf and a Rec bond.

Feel free to attend and listen.  Citizen's comments are welcome at the start of the Commission's Regular Meeting @ 8:00.

The Facts About Injuries and Turf

This short video summarizes the results of a study conducted by Penn State's Center for Sports Surface Research, which falls under the College of Agricultural Studies.  I am pretty confident that these researchers have no predisposition in favor of synthetic turf.   In fact, they would probably be more predisposed to natural grass of the quality found at their own Beaver Stadium.  More importantly, this study was funded by the Center itself, and not by (or conducted for) a synthetic turf company or natural grass sod farm. The results of this study speak for themselves.

The Facts about Heat and Artificial Turf

Recently, much has been said and written about artificial turf and warm temperatures.  This issue has received even more attention given the recent spell of unseasonably warm temperatures.  No one can really deny the obvious heat generated by artificial turf on abnormally hot days.  However, like everything else in the turf debate, it is critically important to conduct an eyes-wide-open, fair analysis of the perceived problem.    First, we don't live in Texas, Florida, Arizona or even southern California, so we must take an honest look at how the heat actually impacts our outdoor activities

Let's look at the facts about warm weather in Pittsburgh over the last 30 years, as published by the NOAA's National Weather Service:

The average annual HIGH temperature is 60.7 degrees.

The average HIGH temperatures in June, July and August are 79.1, 82.5 and 81.4, respectively.

The average annual number of days with a HIGH of 90 degrees or above is 7.5.

The average number of days in June, July and August with a HIGH of over 90 degrees is 1, 3 and 2.5, respectively.

Temperatures get above 100 in July ONCE every 5 years.

Temperatures get above 100 in August ONCE every 10 years.

The most intense heat wave experienced in Pittsburgh was from July 8-15, 1936 when the daily temperatures were 95, 101, 101, 94, 98, 93, 102 and 91.

On the other hand:

The average annual number of days with a HIGH below 32 degrees is 32.

The average monthly precipitation in June, July and August is 4.3 in., 3.83 in., and 3.48 in., respectively.

The average annual precipitation is 38.19 in.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of .01 in. is 151.2.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of  .10 in. is 83.1.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of .50 in. is 24.3.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of 1.0 in is 5.9.

The average number of days in June, July and August with precipitation in excess of .10 in is 7.9, 6.8 and 5.8.

What do these 30 year statistics tell us?  Living in Pittsburgh it is considerably more likely that it will rain in June, July and August than it is that the High temperature will exceed 90 degrees.  In fact, on average each year, we will have about 143 more days with rain than we will have days with a temperature of over 90 degrees.  It is about 4 times more likely that that High temperature will be below 32 than over 90 degrees.  

So, if you're asking me to choose between not playing on one of the 8 days above 90 degrees or not playing on one of the 151 days that it will rain, I'm certainly going to choose the former.  This analysis further underscores the significant increase in playing time that would be afforded to our community with the addition of turf.  Even if we imposed a strict "No Play Over 90" policy to the turf, we would still experience far fewer cancellations than we would rain outs on a grass surface.

 

Next, it is important to understand that playing games and practicing in the heat have always required some element of time management.  For example, the student-athletes who use the HS turf in the late Summer months for football, soccer and field hockey training generally do so early in the morning and later in the day to avoid the more extreme heat of the day.  That's just good common sense.

Don't Blame Youth Sports for the Pool Problems

A number of folks who like to criticize youth sports have a short memory.  First, the youth sports associations came out last year in full support of the Miller bond proposal that would have provided funds for both field improvements (either at McNeilly or elsewhere) and the swimming pool.  This proposal failed because it did not receive the support of Commissioners Kluck and DeIulius.  Had that plan been approved, the pool work may have been completed by this point, not to mention  the efforts to improve our fields.

In my more recent meetings with Commissioner Fraasch regarding fields and parks, I have (on several occasions) suggested that the $1.3 million in unassigned funds be applied to pool and rec center.  However, I've been told by Commissioner Fraasch that the municipal staff does not want to fix the pool piecemeal.  The municipal staff gave me a different answer.  It may be their only option now.

The more recent Fraasch/Kluck proposal would not have provided $1 for pool repairs for at least another 12-24 months according to the spreadsheet they provided to me.  Similarly, for those who have suggested that we can't spend money we don't have on things like turf, I hope you understand that the Fraasch/Kluck proposal seeks to violate that very same principle.  We don't have the funds available for their $7 million package either - it would require a bond.  Absent spending the unassigned funds, most of the items in their package will require a bond . . . or further delays, closures, cancelations and repair bills.

Lastly, I have not been associated with anyone in youth sports, the YSA or otherwise who has suggested that we should ignore the pool, the rec center, the ice rink or any other facility for the benefit of fields.  Not one.  Instead, the folks who are in support of a field project, support this initiative as part of a larger Rec proposal, much like the one proposed by Mr. Miller and even Commissioner Fraasch - we just want it to happen sooner than she has proposed. 

I sense the swimmers do too these days . . . .

Consumer Products Safety Commission Lead Study

Lead has been mentioned by some critics as a risk associated with turf fields.  Some folks are pointing to a YouTube video of a 2008 ABC news story in support of this claim.  Importantly, the 2008 ABC new report references a pending U.S Consumer Products Safety Commission Study, but unfortunately the short piece on YouTube does not discuss the actual results of that study.

Those results can be found here.  Specifically, the CPSC concluded that "young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields."

Also, as mentioned during the presentation to the Commissioners on June 25, the turf companies that have submitted bids for Middle/Wildcat all use lead free products.

Middle/Wildcat Turf Proposal

The field plan presented to the Commissioners on June 25 can be found here.

Turf in Other Communities

This link provides some interesting information compiled and presented by a community (Arlington, VA) that faced many of the same issues as Mt. Lebanon when deciding whether or not to turf their fields.  They now have 12!  I don't think we need 12, but this report more or less confirms what many of us having been saying about adding just 1.

Also, this is a great collection of articles concerning the many communities right here in Western PA that have recently made the move to turf:

Upper St. Clair - Recent Turf and Lighting Project Completed at Boyce Middle School

http://upperstclair.patch.com/articles/usc-school-board-approves-boyce-middle-school-field-upgrades

http://www.uscsd.k12.pa.us/cms/lib02/PA01000033/Centricity/Domain/18/AthFieldsPresentation061410.pdf

Peters Township - 

1.  Pleasant Valley Elementary Turf and Lighting Project - ...The project includes a turfed soccer/lacrosse/football field, restroom facilities, additional parking, a basic sound system, basic concession stands, lighting, bleachers and improved access to the field and Pleasant Valley parking lots...Golembiewski said the athletic field project is not so much a priority as it is a necessity and a fair decision.  “Every board member here should be commended to have the courage to make a tough decision, because this is a tough decision,” she said. “This will be the need of many of our kids. It is the worst time to spend money, but it is the best time to spend money if you look at the interest rates.”

http://peters.patch.com/articles/bond-issue-approved-for-pleasant-valley-project

http://www.ptsd.k12.pa.us/Downloads/Facilities-PVFields.pdf

http://www.ptsd.k12.pa.us/Downloads/Facilities-PVFieldsUpdate.pdf

http://www.ptsd.k12.pa.us/PleasantValleyFields.aspx

2.  Peterswood Park Turf and Lighting Project - Peters council has voted to spend $895,430 to install artificial turf on a soccer field at Peterswood Park

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/peters-oks-turf-expense-631054/

http://www.unionfinley.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4121:peters-township-council-approves-turf-bid-for-soccer-field&catid=1:municpal-news&Itemid=4

Bethel Park - Fundraising to Turf Over Park Avenue Community Field - "The goal is to raise money to install, with the municipality, synthetic turf at the Park Avenue field..."

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11202/1161776-55-0.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/good-morning-south-348645/#ixzz1wXpJ9NhA

Fox Chapel - Recently Completed All Turf Baseball Field...The baseball diamond is just one part of a three-pronged renovation project to on-campus athletic facilities. O’Brien calls it “phase 1.”  “Phase 2” is an all-turf, 90-yard practice field for football, lacrosse, soccer and other sports. “Phase 3” is an updated softball field, which also will have a turf infield. Ground has yet to be broken for the second and third projects.  “Someone will always have a turf field to play on or practice on now,” O’Brien said.

http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourfoxchapel/1156309-87/field-turf-baseball-chapel-fox-athletic-brien-foxes-game-ground

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-north/donor-pays-for-artificial-turf-for-fox-chapel-area-field-311629/

North Park - Allegheny County paid $836,000 from its capital budget for the improvements at Lt. J.C. Stone Field in North Park...The North Park football field is a popular location, she said. As a result of heavy use in previous years by high school, middle school and other teams, the natural grass field was "turning into a mud pit," she said. The new surface will hold up better, allow for more games and reduce maintenance costs, she said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-north/north-park-fields-upgrade-becomes-political-football-310036/

South Park - 2005 - Non-profit entity built soccer field turf facility on land leased from Jefferson Memorial Park.  This complex is the first turf facility in the South Hills not affiliated with a school district.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/south-park-soccer-training-complex-gets-ok-551156/

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/century-united-soccer-complex-almost-ready-for-use-in-south-park-598189/

Recent High School Stadium Turf Projects:

North Allegheny - 2008 - The North Allegheny school board approved an $860,000 bid Wednesday from Sports Construction Group of Cleveland to replace the artificial turf and fix the surrounding track at Newman Stadium.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-north/na-approves-turf-track-at-newman-395454/?print=1

Gateway - 2012 - Turf replacement set to begin at Antimarino Stadium

http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourmonroeville/1925822-87/smith-turf-antimarino-gateway-stadium-surface-campus-field-football-summer

Penn Hills - 2012 - Penn Hills will use a $200,000 grant from the Steelers...to install synthetic turf, new bleachers and a scoreboard.

http://triblive.com/mobile/1999523-81/football-hills-nfl-penn-fields-program-field-grant-steelers-bleachers

Turf Petition

I started a petition on a whim this morning to see how much community support there is for the Middle/Wildcat proposal.  In less than a day and with only minimal outreach, the online petition now has 75 signatures. 

Please consider signing the petition now . . . and tell your friends and neighbors to do the same.  Thanks!

Field Proposal To Be Presented on June 25

The Mt. Lebanon Commissioners previously requested that the youth sports groups develop a proposal/plan for adding synthetic turf to one of our existing field spaces.  Since that time, members of the youth sports groups have met with representatives from various turf companies, lighting companies, field space consultants, the municipal staff and the Commissioners.  The plan will be presented on Monday June 25 @ 6:15PM during the Commission Discussion Session in the Commission Chambers.  Please come and listen to this exciting proposal.

BP's focus on fields

This timely article appeared in the recent issue of The Almanac.  Please continue to let your Commissioner know that you support a turf project in Mt. Lebanon so that we can similarly maximize the recreational opportunities for our residents.  You can email all of the Commissioners at commission@mtlebanon.org. 

I've also copied the entire article here:

BP's focus on fields

By Susan Schmeichel For The Almanac writer@thealmanac.net

With the new high school building completed and opened, Bethel Park School Board is now focusing on completing the rest of the project.

The former campus has been demolished and plans call for the remaining site to be developed into a 378-space parking lot, eight tennis courts, three full-sized sports practice fields, a softball field and a new freshman baseball field.

Board members recently approved lighting for both of the upper level multi-purpose fields from Musco Lighting at a cost not to exceed $195,000, as well as a change order to have Clista Electric install the lights at a cost not to go over $116,468.

In addition, board members approved seeking bids for a concession stand facility, synthetic field scoreboard and a softball batting cage at a cost not to exceed $263,532.

Board members also approved a change order to replace the sod in the upper field with a synthetic surface at a cost not to go above $425,000. 

High school baseball coach Tony Fisher said the new fields will be a big improvement over the old campus sports facilities.

"The synthetic turf fields will allow ample opportunities for the high school baseball and softball teams to have practices when weather prohibits us from playing on our game fields." said Fisher.

The recreation facilities will be used not only by school district teams, but also by community recreational teams. 

Turf and the environment

A few people have attacked the plan to turf a field in Mt. Lebanon by suggesting it is bad for the environment. Please take a minute to read these independent studies and get the rest of the story: http://www.fieldturf.com/environmental-downloads/ Interestingly, several people have pointed to studies by professors at the University of Arkansas, Michigan Stae and Missouri to suggest that artificial yturf is a bad alternative. However, each of those institutions has at least one turfed field, and most have up to three turfed facilities.

Update. Sorry for the delay!!

Things are moving forward at a pretty crazy pace these days. We have received multiple visits from various turf companies who have evaluated the field spaces in Mt. Lebanon. Several of these companies have submitted detailed bids that will be very helpful as we move forward. In related news, Commissioners Brumfield and Fraasch presented their preliminary bond proposals on Monday night. Commissioner Brumfield proposed a $3.2 million bond that included turf at Middle/Wildcat. Commissioner Fraasch proposed a $7 million bond that did not include any turf project, but it did provide for updates at a variety of other facilities. I am optimistic that there is a suitable middle ground that can greatly improve our field space inventory. The YSA members are actively working on a proposal that may be submitted to the Commissioners as early as this month. They have met with the Commissioners on several occasions to keep everyone up to speed. It is very exciting indeed, and there is more good news ahead.

Amendment to Sign Ordinance Passes

On Monday night the Commission voted to approve the proposed amendment to the Municipal sign ordinance. This amendment will enable the Municipality to sell sponsor signage at our local fields. The funds received will likely be used for field maintenance and improvements. This is a positive step in the effort to improve our fields and I thank everyone who took the time to send an email or otherwise contacted the Commissioners with their support of this amendment.

Articles regarding Lebo Field Issues

This article appeared in the Tribune Review and this article appeared in the Post Gazette.  Encouraging to see that both sides are being represented in these stories.

Sign Ordinance

The following article appeared in the Almanac and it discusses the recently proposed amendment to the township's zoning ordinance that was designed to allow sponsorship signs at athletic fields. Ideally, the municipality or the various sports associations will be permitted to sell tasteful sponsorship signage at the municipal fields (picture signs on the outfield fence at Dixon). These funds can then be applied to field maintenance and improvements. I think the first proposed amendment has a few problems, but we also need to encourage the commissioners to stay focused on getting the amendment right so that we can capitalize on this much needed source of additional revenue. Mt. Lebanon divided on sign ordinance When Mt. Lebanon Commission President David Brumfield introduced the idea of corporate advertising signs being permitted and regulated in new areas of the municipality, commissioners hoped it would be a source of revenue for Mt. Lebanon. But the Mt. Lebanon Planning Board has concerns about the ordinance, and on March 27, the planning board voted against recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance. At the commissioners April 23 meeting, a public hearing was held that allowed members of the planning board and residents to voice their opinions about the ordinance. The new ordinance permits and regulates internal signs in the Residential-1, Residential-2 and Open Space-Active zoning districts. The ordinance defines internal signs, setback and spacing requirements as well as regulates illumination and maintenance requirements. "I want to commend you for trying to come up with an idea for raising revenue without raising taxes," planning board president Bill Pope told the board. But according to Pope, the new ordinance is contradictory. "You can't have a 10-foot high opaque fence on your private property, but this would allow it on public property," he said. "That was one of the reasons we rejected this ordinance." Pope also cited that the ordinance does not control sign content and that the signs would distract from the green space at Mt. Lebanon fields. He also said Upper St. Clair prohibits similar signs, and said the Upper St. Clair ordinance refers to the signs as "visual clutter." But residents at the public hearing felt differently about the ordinance. "We need this stream of revenue and we have to get creative," resident David Franklin told commissioners. Franklin said Dick's Sporting Goods paid $2.2 million for the naming rights to Dick's Sporting Goods Sportsplex in Graham Park, located in Cranberry Township. "Something like that is tasteful and subdued." The commissioners will vote on the ordinance at the May 8 meeting.

Meeting Reminder

Just a reminder of tonight's Capital Investment Hearing at the commission chambers @ 8PM. The commissioners will be discussing how best to spend approximately $1.3 million of unassigned funds. The Parks Advisory Board has submitted a a proposal that suggests improvements at most of our parks, including completion of the Parks Master Plan improvements at Sunset/Brafferton Park. If you cannot attend, please sen an email to the commissioner asking him/her to support this proposal. Thanks.

Another Cancelation

The following notice from the Mt. Lebanon Soccer Association more or less sums up the issue relative our community's lack of multipurpose field space. Unfortunately, the need to protect an already worn field overrides the desire to conduct this 2nd grade clinic. Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the rain date will likely be conducted indoors. The Mellon turf project that has been proposed by many would prevent disappointing cancelations like this. Second Grade Soccer Clinic Weather Update Sorry, but the rainy forecast is forcing us to postpone the 2nd grade clinic scheduled for 10:00 this morning at Jefferson. The clinic is now scheduled for Saturday, April 28th from 10-11:30 at North Gym, Mt. Lebanon High School, OR another Mt. Lebanon field.

Field of Dreams

I think this great picture from the FieldTurf website shows just how special a Mellon project could be.  It would  provide a full size baseball field, together with a multipurpose field for football, soccer, lacrosse and field hockey.  Multiple teams and sports could utilize this space at the same time with proper planning and cooperation.  Lights would allow us to significantly increase the hours of use for the benefit of not only our youth, but also for adult soccer and softball leagues.  Keep in mind this facility would also be about a 5 minute walk from the central business district, and would offer a true recreational showcase in the heart of our community.

Capital Investment Hearing

On Moday, April 23 @ 8:00PM the Commission will hold a Capital Investment hearing to discuss how best to allocate and spend an approximate $1.3 million undesignated or unassigned fund balance.  Specifically, based upon an ordinance that was passed last year, the Commission may not use these unassigned funds for recurring operating expenses, but instead must apply them to capital improvements and an unexpected items.  As you might imagine, there are about 1.3 million ideas on how best to spend this money.  The Parks Advisory Board has supplied the Commissioners with a list of items totaling just over $500,000 and is intended to address the needs of most of existing parks.  One of the larger items on this list as prepared by the Parks Advisory Board is the completion of the work set forth in the Parks Master Plan for Brafferton/Sunset Park.  This would include field improvements as well as parking and access improvements.  More information is available here.  Unfortunately, this attachment does not include the updated list of items from the Parks Advisory Board which references the work at Brafferton/Sunset.

Please try to attend this important session as the Commission decides how best to spend this significant sum of money to improve our community.  Improving all of our parks, as outlined in the Parks Advisory Board's proposal should be a priority.

A Great Start

Last night's Town Hall Meeting was a great start to what many of us hope will be a positive, community-wide endeavor to improve the recreational facilities in Mt. Lebanon.  I believe the feedback that was delivered by those in attendance was quite clear - we need to treat our recreational facilities as assets rather than liabilities.  As we heard last night, this sentiment applies equally to the athletics fields, the garden plots, the swimming pool, the parks, the ice rink and every other recreational outlet that makes our community a unique place to live, work and raise a family.

There have been other meetings like the one that took place last night, and unfortunately those resulted in little or no action.  It is critical that we maintain the spirit and momentum that was so evident last night so that we can truly make a difference.

The purpose of this website is twofold - to hopefully provide a clearing house for information relative to the process as it progresses and to offer a place to share ideas, comments and discussion.  Please be respectful.  I don't view this an issue that should cause anyone to stoop to personal attacks or insults.  I am willing to accept anonymous comments, but I would prefer that everyone feel comfortable enough to use their own name.  I've come to understand that opinions presented by "real" people are valued more heavily than those who try to hide behind the anonymity afforded by the Internet.  That said, I understand that some people are simply more comfortable providing their input anonymously and I don't want to discourage those opinions and ideas.

If you have suggestions or would like to author a post for this blog, please feel free to email me at davefranklin4@gmail.com.  Thanks!