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.
Dave, I hope your friends read this. It sounds so accurate. You walked the area and therefore you think that parking and roads will cost more than the professionals have professionally estimated. Please give me your email so I can hire you for my next construction project.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I hope your friends show up in force tonight and convince just two of the commissioners to vote against Mrs. Fraasch's plan.
This will ensure that the YSA and you get nothing for at least the next four years.
It's funny, you encourage everyone to take a look at the space, and that's exactly what the professionals have done. And they disagree with you. They can fit a full sized field up there. But you are not telling your YSA friends the truth because you for some reason are beholden to a silly idea of turf with a wonderful removable pitching mound.
Yes, the entrance to the park needs fixed. Yes parking needs to be addressed.
But guess what? If you turf Wildcat and Mellon, you will have worse than ten times that same problem. Have you included that in YOUR estimate?
Dave, stop trying to pretend you want to have an honest debate. Give your YSA members ALL of the information, not just the parts that you filter for them. This filtering is why I hope they show up en masse tonight to hear the truth about what could be in the future for field sports in Mt. Lebanon and how that future does not have to include your beloved fake grass.
Anon 3:36:
ReplyDeleteFirst, how much have the professionals estimated for parking and roadwork at Robb Hollow? How about changes to the entrance which Kelly acknowledges in her plan is a drawback? Will these fields have irrigation? I hope so if they are expected to solve the problem. Are those numbers included in the $600,000 estimate? I suppose we will hear tonight.
Second, I would rather not spend $1.2M on grass fields if they are not going to address the overall shortage in a meaningful way. That's about as honest of an answer as I can give you.
Third, how is it that the parking lots at Dixon and Wildcat have been able to accommodate Spring and Fall sports for decades, but because we have have proposed turf at this location parking is suddenly a nightmare? How will the parking "problem" increase tenfold with the addition of turf? And if you reviewed the YSA proposal, you will note that there is a line item for parking imnprovements, but it is empty, so yes, it has been considered. We elected to error on the side of not guessing about numbers, but we certainly reflected the issue in the proposal.
What information has been kept from the YSA by me or anyone else? Do you even know what the YSA is or how it works? Didn't I share link to Kelly's plan the day it was released and suggest that I support most of it?
Please feel free to ask me anything. I'll answer it and sign my name.
Dave, you are playing a game of chicken where, if you win, you will lose far more in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI hope you listen well tonight to the entire plan and all the ramifications and that you come back tomorrow with a different tact and tone.
Best wishes.
I love the rhetoric Deep Throat. I can almost hear the suspenseful theme music. I'm not trying to "win" anything. Instead, I'm trying to ensure that the money spent on recreation actually helps to solve existing problems and improves our recreational offerings. You might be surprised to hear that I've already suggested that the undesignated fund balance be used to accomplish some of things in the Fraasch proposal. I was saying that weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteI attended tonight's meeting and listened to the entire presentation. In fact, I was one of only a handful of people who attended and stayed for both halves of the presentation. I counted 14 residents in attendance at the start of the presentation. The others in the room were muni staff and reporters. Of the 14, 2 gentlemen were there to speak about deer, there were 3 folks from the YSA, one gentleman from the PAB, one gentleman I know from baseball, one woman is frequent attendee at PAB meetings, and the remainder were the usual meeting attendees. Frankly, I was surprised that there were not more in attendance.
I want to review the proposal again, because what was shown tonight was different than what was circulated prior to the meeting. I assume it will be online. I also appreciate the municipal engineer sharing the maps and drawings with me during the break as those were not part of the formal presentation. I also appreciate his honest assessment of this project.
I still believe that a turf package is the best way to solve our field shortage given how these fields are used today. I don't share Commissioner Fraasch's view that the Robb Hollow site is prime for sponsorship/naming rights. I think a better showcase for this sort of branding is the existing field cluster on Cedar, especially since you can take advantage of the entire tennis, ice rink, pool, park complex in making a sales pitch. I don't see much benefit for a naming rights sponsor to branding what is essentially a hidden field up on a hill. Interestingly, Commissioner Fraasch mentioned that a municipal staffer could attend a seminar about corporate sponsorship and naming rights. Coincidentally, I am teaching a portion of a session on that same topic tomorrow at PNC Park for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and I'd be happy to have someone sit in.
With respect to one of the comments made about the Baseball Association previously exploring this site for use, I think you might find that those plans were abandoned given some drainage/runoff issues fromthe bordering streets above.
Ultimately, I don't get a vote. All I can do is offer my opinion as to what I think is the best alternative given my experience with youth sports, scheduling fields, etc. That's all any of us can do. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to be a part of the process. It's a lot more rewarding when you get involved, regardless of the outcome.
What was different about tonight's proposal then what is online?
ReplyDeleteThere were a few new slides, including a couple that discussed a cost comparison between turf and grass, which are not included in the draft that is on Kelly's blog. She also tweaked some of the other slides, but nothing major. It's the new numbers that I want to look at, including her estimates for field costs etc.
ReplyDeletePlus the estimate for the Robb Hollow field has moved from $500-600K to up over $800K and the estimate for the Cedar field is now up over $600K.
ReplyDeleteDave, thank you for the update and keeping us informed. I viewed the Robb Hollow site; it is an appealing piece of land in our community. In my opinion it is best suited for an open space, park type setting than athletic fields. The proposed cost (approx $800,000) is too much. The annual maintenance cost would far exceed the cost for maintaining turf at Mellon.
ReplyDeleteJust how did you arrive at your maintenance conclusion C Slian?
ReplyDeleteNot arguing,'just asking for more info.
C Sloan, that is not what the professionals say. Again, go back to the drawing board on your argument on maintenance.
ReplyDeleteThe plan presented shows an INCREASE in maintenance on each grass field from $6,000 each year to $8,000 each year for future years to be funded by reductions in budgets that have yet to be specified. Are you telling me that it will average less than $8,000 a year for a huge turf field on Cedar for the 8-10 year life of the turf? That will not be the case if you want to keep the warranty intact.
Plus, if $800,000 is too much for Robb Hollow, how can you justify 3/4 of a plan for turf at over $1,200,000?
Dave hasn't gotten around to mention that the jr field on Cedar will actually be able to be regulation size instead.
Except you have to replace the turf and put money aside which is far greater than the cost of retaining all the district fields each year according to the jma
ReplyDeleteAccording to practically every article on artificial turf these are the numbers.
ReplyDelete$1,200,000 - initial installation (8 to 15 year max lifespan)
$ 5,000 - Yearly maintenance
$ 475,000 - turf replacement
$ 150,000 - old turf disposal
$1,695,000 - TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP 15 YR TERM
Natural grass
$50,000 upgrading Wildcat/Middle
$ 8,000 maintenance per year
$ 5,000 incidentals per yr over Kelly's budgeted maintenance
$ 180,000 TCO over 15 years (add a $50,000 resod at 10 years and you're only spending $230,000 at Wildcat/Middle over 15 years.
So CSloan where areyour numbers?
I do not have a chalkboard or numbers to provide. My opinion was based on viewing the RH site and my familiarity with Wildcat & Middle fields. I worked in athletic field maintenance for a number of years in the 90’s. I remain a big fan of grass. The evolution of “astro turf” to what is now used (“field turf” “next turf) has been amazing. The durability, drainage and multi purpose use is what impresses me. In a community short on land, I think this is the best solution. If it is decided that constructing a new field/complex is the best choice, I will be grateful for the improvements. C. Sloan
ReplyDeleteBut C Sloan you found it necessary to declare that the Robb Hollow $800,000 proposal would be more expensive than the annual turf maintenance at Mellon.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you say that if you don't have the numbers?
Thanks for the clarification Mr. Sloan. Hopefully you have some productive meetings with the folks that are supporting Robb Hollow. It seems like a terrific plan and on the surface the maintenance looks like it will be less than turf. Also, nobody can argue that over the 8-10 year life of turf, that grass is more expensive. I think we are on the same page there.You just don't have to replace a grass field every 8-10 years or so.
ReplyDelete"You just don't have to replace a grass field every 8-10 years or so."
ReplyDeleteYou mean, like he grass that is never replaced on any of our current fields? Which is exactly why they are in such poor condition.