[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6333360,"mediaKeyId","2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad","parentId",2302974,"title","Council to update Westfield field fees and negotiate longer contracts with users; turf replacement cost flagged","audioSeconds",335,"startMs",4745000,"endMs",5080000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad&start=4745&end=5080","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad/thumbnail_4745000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6333360/Munhall/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Council-to-update-Westfield-field-fees-and-negotiate-longer-contracts-with-users-turf-replacement-cost-flagged","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6333360-c715863fbafe6bf6e9bbf245b4ff036d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776048992&Signature=oqSj5K21MYFhqH0tznLlSAsq1Id0OG3~ySpEHTKEkb8sOxIR6wHRH9B8vTP7j6rWovAZu9V1Mwy01pPA1~pCetnYBJgt0QQKu-p0oc26YU7SPQo1Ezby17qrCrvsOPDtKQqbR9XomSiCiuDqsTHPcYDCTbqk-GFZBhS3mkdMQHeYx1Bsg8KOHsVhpWZ61cKUDmRNDLsnUHxaO8KgDK2EMcBxfVjUmqKTqLr6CtPXI-Zqgw0qevyUGr~iHonxMho~4VNUHjOy5rDTQ-qpn9aytGMpMzrKpk0MBirgDzMU4LmMkcrAjZdY5Gr3ckN2KSZ6HQRT6ijqZR50KHQN7GREfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Munhall Borough, PA","date","2025-02-13T16:37:09.79Z","article","Munhall Borough Council directed staff to update rental fees for the Westfield athletic field, to pursue longer‑term rental agreements with major users, and to continue funding a reserve for eventual turf replacement.

Council packet materials compared Homestead/nearby municipality fees and recommended raising annual payments and daily rates. Council staff proposed increasing revenues from large users (Chatham and others) from roughly $50,000 annually to a negotiated $70,000 annual figure and raising daily rental rates by about 25–30% to reflect maintenance costs and field demand.

Officials reported the borough spent about $60,000–$80,000 on field maintenance in the previous year, including specialized turf cleaning and rubber infill replacement. A borough official said the field will eventually need replacement and estimated a replacement cost on the order of $1 million. Councilors said they want to build the Westfield fund to cover major capital expenses and requested staff prepare updated fee schedules and a contract template for the field's primary users.

Council asked staff to finalize a change‑order fee ordinance recommended by the tax collector (to cover administrative time on fee changes) and to return draft Westfield rates and rental agreements at the next meeting. The borough will also continue periodic maintenance contracts with a turf company that visits roughly twice per year.

Ending: Staff will draft updated Westfield fee proposals and contract terms and return them to council for adoption; council emphasized building reserves to fund eventual turf replacement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Munhall Borough - Workshop Meeting - 2/11/25","oneSentenceSummary","Council discussed updating rental and daily fees for Westfield athletic field, negotiating longer contracts with major users, and the long‑term cost of turf replacement. Staff said the Westfield fund has limited reserves and the replacement could cost roughly $1 million.","taxTitle","Munhall, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania","taxId",71865,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6333364,"Planning commission backs Waterfront Drive subdivision, seeks council direction on repurposing former school and defining 'low‑impact' businesses",470,3403000,3873000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad&start=3403&end=3873","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad/thumbnail_3403000.jpg","/articles/6333364/Munhall/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Planning-commission-backs-Waterfront-Drive-subdivision-seeks-council-direction-on-repurposing-former-school-and-defining-lowimpact-businesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6333364-03406aca47bb82d714dc1e1c0f9de365/orig.mp4?Expires=1776048992&Signature=eEyvE1prX5mqh1BDDDNIq0ubtAGhn1S~ClfJfWoY2Cj6CyDChvmomK-V1Kz2u94nXbjXoNhupk~GEScW7uPnSrnboDd6dR~TohwfgcCTfL2-iQryTC9j5g6g5GQ30snr4ocPoAKlPvap1rDUCERu50fGOK4WppV1vDoATgDYa4eq2TXw9kcfWV2Hb1mfoPCMPMJWq9weCrzKBfBlzGI2qQV9BMDxl5puphFxtu9oEPeiM~TDyDDBdP7rWsNZ8ZtXf3KoEnczSoyWWQl57nJ6dsXdoz7sz1R-tT-2ydZ5q8ozEzxiDQKev3qQKxEXMH5D0Ee9LG58vh9~cfWV-47WFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Munhall's planning commission recommended council approve a subdivision on Waterfront Drive that would split a large parcel into two speculative buildings and begin construction in March, and it asked council for direction on whether to explore legal changes to allow \"low‑impact\" businesses in former schools and churches.

At a planning‑commission report to council, a commission member said developers plan to divide the Waterfront Drive parcel to build two spec buildings, with work expected to start in March. \"It'll actually clean up the property ... it'll be an eyesore no more,\" the member said. The commission recommended approval of the subdivision pending council action.

Separately, the commission asked council whether it wants planners and the borough solicitor to draft a legal definition for \"low‑impact business\" uses in buildings currently zoned for essential facilities (churches, schools, similar uses). The planning commission said a developer had lost funding while waiting for permit and policy questions to be resolved and is now proposing a mix of small, low‑impact occupants such as a robotics office, a carpentry shop and small machine or repair shops. The commission said asbestos and construction costs had driven the developer to consider alternative uses for the school building.

Councilors raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility and the risk of spot zoning. \"Legally, is it allowed to even be put in there? Because ... is it spot zoning putting that business right in the middle of a residential area?\" one councilor asked. The planning commission and solicitor recommended that council decide whether it wants staff and the solicitor to craft a legal definition and return with proposed ordinance language and public‑engagement plans.

Council directed planning staff to consult with the borough solicitor (referred to in discussion as Mr. Vashovic) and to continue work drafting a recommended definition and legal approach, with the expectation of public input and a formal recommendation returned to council. The planning commission also asked council to consider reverting the commission membership from nine to seven members to ease quorum problems; council agreed to consult the solicitor on the ordinance change and to discuss at the next meeting.

Ending: Council asked planning staff and the solicitor to draft a recommended definition of \"low‑impact business\" with legal analysis and public‑meeting plans, and to return the Waterfront Drive subdivision for formal action when paperwork is complete.","Planning commission recommended subdividing a large waterfront parcel into two speculative buildings and asked council whether to pursue a legal definition to allow limited commercial uses in former church and school buildings in residential areas.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6333365,"State DCED official outlines multi‑phase planning/grant program; Munhall staff named as likely manager",574,1263000,1837000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad&start=1263&end=1837","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad/thumbnail_1263000.jpg","/articles/6333365/Munhall/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/State-DCED-official-outlines-multiphase-planninggrant-program-Munhall-staff-named-as-likely-manager","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6333365-0412f49162e37afb2787b81f3d6b8915/orig.mp4?Expires=1776048992&Signature=JL5TD5fnTfz98gQlY0fs96KdJVQkDAswUjBBctdmfzlF7HOAPhv~3lMkJ~lr5GFUymFLQftOx5rAwUmbf9u-MpwCObBBDEd3Qy16OJsON7shfy3SFBbYzee9xzLCJyxsNjQLsQOXu9KK2d1fLC0ymjVC-UaC5I6IScTG00cLv4eQ30~LeQcv4DZhrky90eCbrcLFjTPcPSHfgDTUDrkY-tSJikrz-gLR-O5LrHi6wiiQLKgiZnP6S6dDmYzI3QZH8hRvEhzsLF0xcPIZmpdO9eTQEpzLkmGxVAUCKwCET05ECqNd3kN3-VC~qgSm-M0k9xZycU1fVVzarq2J9maWcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) described a multi‑phase grant program the agency runs to help local governments with financial planning, service reviews and project implementation.

George Newsome, a local government policy specialist with the Commonwealth, told Munhall Borough Council the program helps municipalities take a \"deep dive\" into finances, prioritize recommendations, and then apply for project funding to implement those recommendations. \"Recommendations create projects, projects create the funding,\" Newsome summarized. He said each implementation phase can provide funding in the tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on project scope and cautioned that communities must identify a local point of contact to manage grants and deadlines.

Council members said they would like to pursue a multi‑year financial plan and studies of police and fire staffing. \"We would want to do some sort of a long term plan, financial plan would be good. We want to do a police study and a fire,\" one councilor said. Newsome said he expects to stay engaged through the planning and implementation phases and that the borough's identified contact would coordinate with the state's specialist; he mentioned working previously with borough staff on similar projects.

Newsome described the program process in phases and said a consultant is typically engaged to lead an initial diagnostic, which produces recommended projects. Each recommended project then becomes the basis for an implementation phase that may be eligible for DCED funding; Newsome said the program requires a resolution authorizing the municipality's participation when applying for subsequent phases.

Council discussed next steps and whether to use an in‑house grant writer or the DCED support team. Newsome said he would work alongside local grant writers and managers rather than replace them. Councilors asked about the typical phase size; Newsome responded phases commonly range from roughly $30,000 to $200,000. He added that awards are competitive and that communities must commit staff time so awards do not stall in implementation.

Ending: Council indicated interest in exploring the program further and suggested identifying a borough staffer to act as the local grant manager if the borough chooses to apply.","A Commonwealth local government specialist described the Department of Community and Economic Development's STMP (strategic management/planning) grant program and offered technical support; council discussed long‑term financial planning and possible studies for police and fire staffing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6333366,"Munhall hears pitches from two third‑party inspection firms; staff to compare fees",774,110000,884000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad&start=110&end=884","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2302974-3977f36122078c2641aae16982b022ad/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6333366/Munhall/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Munhall-hears-pitches-from-two-thirdparty-inspection-firms-staff-to-compare-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6333366-cf34bdc117820aa95fd4235b723650b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1776048992&Signature=ZDSXIxhumpF8-3ja~FgErm4-PfThqVctSKr2v3GOM1ZjB5bNNnSwc79MTIc~1OJHTJmRZFIgTvy90qRcVCpXymKtFgcBEQB3k9uaaDbTh7WHQ6eU24Wr5A9D82KRuoAsjJ3sC36WnC0T1bf2Yt3ZFNcv36bENvYQ-pU9DadOnsT6ewDpsXZqYTDizZHbD1Wv~Y15xmSedWMz4tczbLC20SPNOKrHxPwyr9B4~5eH3rbEgBKERrndd3wGPx2Rhy4YsYNCiiw11OUEvgkHnkDwVGXTBBGCqpEsMnxOkmwmKKAtAUcfdaw1hrUj6zhB-gz4~z9BdsBPOFXp9-9FiZEkqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Munhall Borough Council heard presentations Tuesday from two third‑party building inspection firms — Codesys Consulting and Building Inspection Underwriters — as council considers whether to consolidate inspections under a single contractor and how that would affect fees and borough revenue.

The presentations came after staff and council described the borough’s existing practice of accepting certified third‑party inspections and asked for proposals that would centralize permitting and inspection processing. \"We're email driven ... you go on our website, and you click on new project submit,\" Jim Russell, owner of Codesys Consulting, told council as he demonstrated an online permitting workflow. \"We process plans 1 to 3 business days ... everything is visible to the borough and the applicant.\" Russell said Codesys would add a 20% administrative fee in the firm’s proposal that would be shared with the borough as an administrative revenue stream.

Mark Stanton, regional manager for Building Inspection Underwriters, emphasized in-person service alongside electronic submissions and said his firm handles roughly 60 communities in western Pennsylvania. \"We offer personal service. If someone wants to sit down with the inspector, go over their application, we're very happy to do that,\" Stanton said. He described a hybrid model that accommodates design professionals who submit electronically as well as smaller contractors who prefer in‑person assistance.

Council members and residents pressed presenters on three practical points: whether residents would pay higher permit costs, how large file or project data are handled, and whether a single contractor would change the role of the borough’s building code official. Councilor Eads asked whether resident permit fees would rise; Russell said actual permit fee levels would be set in contract negotiations and that his company’s sample proposal shows the 20% administrative add‑on. Council staff asked about technical capacity; Russell said his web‑based service currently handles large institutional projects, including work on UPMC and Pittsburgh International Airport facilities.

During public comment and council discussion, residents and councilors noted the borough already uses multiple certified third‑party inspectors (named in discussion as MDIA, BIU, COSIS and plans examiners) and that moving to a single vendor could simplify scheduling and produce consistent inspections but might reduce the borough’s direct control and change the fee structure for applicants. A resident observed that some contractors prefer dealing with the same inspector repeatedly; supporters of consolidation said a single vendor would standardize procedures across the borough.

Council did not take a formal vote. Instead, Borough staff were asked to compare the two firms’ proposals and existing fee schedules and return a written report at the next meeting. \"Could you give us a report on this for next week?\" a council member asked; staff agreed to do so.

The issue will return to council with staff recommendations and (if requested) a draft contract specifying fee splits, service levels, and termination terms. Councilors said they want clarity on how permit revenue and any new administrative fee would be split and whether the borough should adjust its own permit fees if third‑party fees change.

Ending: If staff recommend a change, councilors said they expect to review a draft contract and fee schedule before any formal vote.","Council received presentations from Codesys Consulting and Building Inspection Underwriters about outsourcing third‑party building inspections. Council asked borough staff to compare fee schedules and report back at the next meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council to update Westfield field fees and negotiate longer contracts with users; turf replacement cost flagged

Planning commission backs Waterfront Drive subdivision, seeks council direction on repurposing former school and defining 'low‑impact' businesses

State DCED official outlines multi‑phase planning/grant program; Munhall staff named as likely manager

Munhall hears pitches from two third‑party inspection firms; staff to compare fees