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.
David,
ReplyDeleteI can not attend tonight's meeting, but I would appreciate if you could provide an overview.
I beleive Robb Hollow is also in a flood plain, which should certainly qualify it for recreational use in Mt. Lebanon....just like Mellon and Wildcat!!!
Unfortunately, I was not at last night's meeting. I took my family to the Pirate game. It is my understanding that the Robb Hollow item was removed from the agenda and will be presented at a later date.
ReplyDeleteMatt Kluck's turf information was actually a presentation by James Cannon. The presentation was accompanied by a 26-slide PowerPoint presentation. The presentation focused on the many presumed negatives (injuries, environmental problems, cost of maintenance, etc) associated with turf. These same issues have been raised already in a variety of forums, including certain citizen's comments at prior Commission meetings.
Unfortunately, the official agenda didn't come close to identifying the nature of the presentation so I'm sure that most people who would have liked to hear it (including me), didn't even know it was being presented. I suppose that's an issue for a different day.
Most of the presentation focused on studies and marketing materials prepared by anti-turf/pro-grass advocates. I would note that Mr. Cannon did not attend the YSA presentation, nor has he or Mr. Kluck reviewed the bid documents and other materials that we have received from the various companies interested in this project, who have all reviewed and studied the proposed site. Instead, they have elected to make broad assumptions regarding perceived drawbacks to the project. They cite to reports from sod companies and municipalities in California instead of focusing on this project here in Mt. Lebanon. Perhaps my favorite piece of the presentation was the statement that the majority of NFL players would prefer to play on a dedicated (single use) field that utilizes well-maintained natural grass. Well, I wholeheartedly agree. So would I. So would anyone! Sadly, that analysis isn't really relevant in Mt. Lebanon. We don't have any dedicated fields, let alone dedicated fields with natural grass maintained to NFL stadium standards. Perhaps we should ask those same NFL players if they would prefer to play on a state-of-the-art turf field or Mellon, Bird or Jefferson in July. I'm sure the percentages would flip dramatically.
I was also interested in Mr. Cannon's statement that he would NOT support spending $1 million on new grass fields. So I suppose we can expect a similar presentation from Messrs. Kluck and Cannon in opposition to the Robb Hollow/Cedar proposals due to the their cost.
Please understand that the YSA presentation did not contain a detailed discussion regarding maintenance, material data safety sheets, recycling, stormwater management and other issues that have been and will continue to be part of the analysis. Why? Simply because to do so would have required a variety of industry speakers and would have consumed more time then we were provided during the Commission Discussion session. It certainly doesn't mean that we have ignored these issues, or that we are trying to hide anything. We can and we will address each of these issues as the discussion progresses.
You can watch Mr. Cannon's presentation when the meetings are re-aired on the Township's cable network. The schedule can be found here:
http://mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?nid=432
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the overview. Is Mr. Cannon's presentation available online? Where did you see it?
Perhaps we could just eliminate a few holes on Mr. Kluck's golf course?
ReplyDelete1:40, I'll take your comment with the spirit (or frustration) with which it was intended, but I don't have any complaints about the golf course or how it has been operated. This asset has meant a lot to me and my family for over 30 years. I hope it has many strong years ahead of it. All the more reason I support a comprehensive Rec bond to allow us the ability to upgrade all of our existing facilities and assets.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think we need to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a new teaching facility as has been suggested recently. I would rather see those same funds invested in the golf course and the related infrastructure (irrigation, bunkering, etc). At the end of the day, people will continue to visit our golf course if it is well-maintained, reasonably priced and not overcrowded - not because it has an indoor teaching facility.
I grew up and played sports in Mt. Lebanon. I now live near to Howard County MD. Which is one of the most affluent counties in the country. It is also one of the top rec programs in the country. They currently have 17 turf multi-purpose fields and are add more for the community. They are also in the process of turfing all the main fields at all the high schools in the county. Howard County in my opinion would be a good community for Mt. Lebanon to model their park and rec program around.
ReplyDeleteThanks 4:01. Arlington, Virginia went a similar route and I think the information provided on their community page is very informative:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/parksrecreation/scripts/fields/parksrecreationscriptssyntheticfields.aspx
I am optimistic that we can approach this decision with the same level of "forward thinking" exhibited by communities like yours and Arlington.