posted by Mike Madison at 9:35 AM /
There is one final candidate for School Board with responses to the facilities questionnaire. The following is from Dale Ostergaard. (I received this several days ago but was out of town until today!):
Mr. Reese,
I enjoyed meeting you and your partners for the overview presentation on your private-public joint venture initiative to address the athletic facilities in Mt. Lebanon. As the father of a student on the Soccer and Baseball teams I am well acquainted with the conditions of our current facilities and how Mt. Lebanon’s facilities compare to other schools in the WPIAL’s. You brought many interesting ideas and concepts to the table for refurbishing and enhancing our current sport fields and facilities. Your group has obviously given this a lot of thought and has a passion to make this happen. I am glad to see that there is a sufficient base within the community that is willing to enter into a joint public-private venture. I believe this type of private initiative done in concert with the School Board and Municipality has the best chance to succeed.
We are within 4-6 weeks of seeing the first schematic proposal from the architect on the High School Project. This proposal from my understanding will include new and renovated facilities addressing the needs in academics, athletics, and fine arts. A first estimate on costs will also be presented. No budget has been developed for either the academic, athletic, or fine arts components of the project. It is only after the schematics are presented that dialogue can begin in earnest about the project specifics and costs in all areas. This dialogue will include public forums. To this extent, I would encourage your Partnership to engage in the public forums that will be planned to openly view and discuss the architect’s proposal. The process of reviewing, amending, and consensus building I imagine will take some time. The more your group is engaged, the more informed you will become and your group’s interests heard.
Specific to your questions, here is my response numbered according to your questions.
1) The field house is in very poor shape and should be renovated or replaced with a new facility. The playing surface itself, while correctly sized for football, is undersized for other field sports. The turf is hard and dangerous to our athletes. Any athlete who falls on the turf gets brush burns. The turf is a health risk to our athletes.
2) The High School renovation project was designed to fairly treat all aspects of education. This includes academics, fine arts, and athletics. I believe it is necessary and important to address some components of the athletic facilities as part of a fair and equitable treatment with the academic and fine arts facilities.
3) I do not have a specific plan for prioritizing the athletic facilities upgrade. In talking with a variety of students and parents connected to athletics, I find wide ranging opinions as to priorities. In my mind there is no clear consensus on what the priorities are. I would welcome a clear consensus from the Athletic community as a whole that is agreeable to all. From there, specific projects can be proposed, estimate and plans drawn up, and financing determined. Until then it is premature to talk about financial commitments. Also, the architect’s schematics may in fact address some of the current needs in athletic facilities and point toward a clearer direction that other initiatives could take. Let’s first see what that plan delivers.
4) Again, how much money will be committed to athletic facilities should wait until the architect’s schematic and costs are unveiled over the coming weeks and a first estimate of total project costs are revealed.
5) I would fully endorse any proposal that brings together public and private financing to achieve a goal that enhances our athletic facilities and our student athletes experience. All parties must be fully committed and ready to bring financial resources to the table. The parties also must be able to work together, build trust, be able to gain consensus. The group will need to be able to work with the Commissioners and other township officials depending on the project. The commitment and effort must not be underestimated.
6) Any plan brought before the board would necessarily have to be a plan that has broad appeal and consensus among board members. It would be the Board’s plan, not an individual’s plan. If the plan is in line with the Boards overall mission, has gained broad consensus from student athletes, parents, and the community, has a viable business plan for the private-public partnership, and is financially viable, I imagine that consensus building would be easy.
7) I support funding for an upgrade to the field house. But this may be a mute point if in fact the architect’s schematics cover a renovated or new field house facility as part of the whole package.
8) If renovating building B achieves, in part, the stated goals of the High School project and is more cost effective than new construction then I am in favor of it.
9) Your partnership’s proposal for a revamped athletic field at Mellon is intriguing. Done properly, it could serve the community with a viable competitive sports facility, draw in competitions and spectators, and pump dollars into the uptown restaurants and businesses. Let’s think strategically here and not just ‘immediately turf’ the field.
10) I favor re-turfing the high school field to cut down on injuries and provide a viable playing surface for all field sports. If we just re-turf what is there now, it may well serve the football community, but will it not fall short the expectations of the other field sports? Again, what is the consensus of all the stakeholders? In any case, we need to wait and see if the turf is needed as a construction staging area for the high school project which may delay any decision for next fall.
Private-public ventures have worked in other school districts. I see no reason why it could not work in Mt. Lebanon. They require visionaries and experienced leaders committed to a common set of goals and objectives. It requires a collaborative effort between the private venture, the School Board, the Commissioners, and the community. It requires persistence, patience, process, and financial commitments.
Regards,
Dale Ostergaard
Mr. Reese,
I enjoyed meeting you and your partners for the overview presentation on your private-public joint venture initiative to address the athletic facilities in Mt. Lebanon. As the father of a student on the Soccer and Baseball teams I am well acquainted with the conditions of our current facilities and how Mt. Lebanon’s facilities compare to other schools in the WPIAL’s. You brought many interesting ideas and concepts to the table for refurbishing and enhancing our current sport fields and facilities. Your group has obviously given this a lot of thought and has a passion to make this happen. I am glad to see that there is a sufficient base within the community that is willing to enter into a joint public-private venture. I believe this type of private initiative done in concert with the School Board and Municipality has the best chance to succeed.
We are within 4-6 weeks of seeing the first schematic proposal from the architect on the High School Project. This proposal from my understanding will include new and renovated facilities addressing the needs in academics, athletics, and fine arts. A first estimate on costs will also be presented. No budget has been developed for either the academic, athletic, or fine arts components of the project. It is only after the schematics are presented that dialogue can begin in earnest about the project specifics and costs in all areas. This dialogue will include public forums. To this extent, I would encourage your Partnership to engage in the public forums that will be planned to openly view and discuss the architect’s proposal. The process of reviewing, amending, and consensus building I imagine will take some time. The more your group is engaged, the more informed you will become and your group’s interests heard.
Specific to your questions, here is my response numbered according to your questions.
1) The field house is in very poor shape and should be renovated or replaced with a new facility. The playing surface itself, while correctly sized for football, is undersized for other field sports. The turf is hard and dangerous to our athletes. Any athlete who falls on the turf gets brush burns. The turf is a health risk to our athletes.
2) The High School renovation project was designed to fairly treat all aspects of education. This includes academics, fine arts, and athletics. I believe it is necessary and important to address some components of the athletic facilities as part of a fair and equitable treatment with the academic and fine arts facilities.
3) I do not have a specific plan for prioritizing the athletic facilities upgrade. In talking with a variety of students and parents connected to athletics, I find wide ranging opinions as to priorities. In my mind there is no clear consensus on what the priorities are. I would welcome a clear consensus from the Athletic community as a whole that is agreeable to all. From there, specific projects can be proposed, estimate and plans drawn up, and financing determined. Until then it is premature to talk about financial commitments. Also, the architect’s schematics may in fact address some of the current needs in athletic facilities and point toward a clearer direction that other initiatives could take. Let’s first see what that plan delivers.
4) Again, how much money will be committed to athletic facilities should wait until the architect’s schematic and costs are unveiled over the coming weeks and a first estimate of total project costs are revealed.
5) I would fully endorse any proposal that brings together public and private financing to achieve a goal that enhances our athletic facilities and our student athletes experience. All parties must be fully committed and ready to bring financial resources to the table. The parties also must be able to work together, build trust, be able to gain consensus. The group will need to be able to work with the Commissioners and other township officials depending on the project. The commitment and effort must not be underestimated.
6) Any plan brought before the board would necessarily have to be a plan that has broad appeal and consensus among board members. It would be the Board’s plan, not an individual’s plan. If the plan is in line with the Boards overall mission, has gained broad consensus from student athletes, parents, and the community, has a viable business plan for the private-public partnership, and is financially viable, I imagine that consensus building would be easy.
7) I support funding for an upgrade to the field house. But this may be a mute point if in fact the architect’s schematics cover a renovated or new field house facility as part of the whole package.
8) If renovating building B achieves, in part, the stated goals of the High School project and is more cost effective than new construction then I am in favor of it.
9) Your partnership’s proposal for a revamped athletic field at Mellon is intriguing. Done properly, it could serve the community with a viable competitive sports facility, draw in competitions and spectators, and pump dollars into the uptown restaurants and businesses. Let’s think strategically here and not just ‘immediately turf’ the field.
10) I favor re-turfing the high school field to cut down on injuries and provide a viable playing surface for all field sports. If we just re-turf what is there now, it may well serve the football community, but will it not fall short the expectations of the other field sports? Again, what is the consensus of all the stakeholders? In any case, we need to wait and see if the turf is needed as a construction staging area for the high school project which may delay any decision for next fall.
Private-public ventures have worked in other school districts. I see no reason why it could not work in Mt. Lebanon. They require visionaries and experienced leaders committed to a common set of goals and objectives. It requires a collaborative effort between the private venture, the School Board, the Commissioners, and the community. It requires persistence, patience, process, and financial commitments.
Regards,
Dale Ostergaard
Labels: mt. lebanon school district; mt. lebanon school board; athletic facilities
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home