.

Upper St. Clair Area Health Center Rates Compared

The parks and recreation committee examined facilities similar to the Community and Recreation Center at Boyce Mayview Park.

The parks and recreation committee examined the membership rates of health centers similar to the Community and Recreation Center of Boyce Mayview Park on Monday night.

Director of Recreation and Leisure Services Paul Besterman said St. Clair Fitness was left off of the table provided during the meeting because the facility does not have a pool.

The only local facility on the list below that has an outdoor pool is the Baierl Family YMCA and its outdoor pool is smaller than the outdoor pool at C&RC.

The committee recommends no rate increase for the C&RC members this year. Commissioners are expected to vote on the recommendation March 4.

The table below was generated by Upper St. Clair employees. Rates are per month.


Youth Adult Family Senior Initiation C&RC

$32/resident

$42/non-resident

$46/resident

$58/non-resident

$82/resident

$103/non-resident

$32/resident

$42/non-resident

None LA Fitness $29 Varies from $29.99 to $39.99 N/A $29 $100 Health Trax $69 $119 $200 JCC South Hills $59 $59 $90 $49 Rose Schneider Family YMCA $17 $55 $82 $150 Sewickley YMCA $18 $49 $74.60 $45.42 $150 Baierl Family YMCA $66 $105 $48 $125 W.R. Camerion Wellness Center $61 N/A
William Johns February 20, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Does not include estimated additional taxes incurred by township residents created by the debt service on the $30 million to fund building the rec center. Other facilities are privately owned. Just wondering if the rec center is breaking even? I have not seen any financials published. If losing money, are residents paying for the shortfall as well.?
Becky Brindle February 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Officials mentioned that there is a surplus on Monday night. Therefore, the recommendation to not raise rates.
robert redinger jr February 20, 2013 at 03:38 PM
Definitely not a fair chart when taken in to account that USC residents have already and continue to susidize the center and the rates via additional/higher taxes. For a resident family you would have to add on the additional tax burden incurred to the $82/month rate listed on the chart.
William Johns February 20, 2013 at 04:17 PM
Thanks, Becky.... But need the details. Is this just an operating surplus before debt service, or all inclusive? My bet is that this does not include debt service. Does the township provide other services to the CRC? (snow removal, grass cutting, etc.) Does RC pay for services that USC residents pay for? Too many questions! I find the operation to be very un transparent.
Laura Whitcomb February 20, 2013 at 04:37 PM
It would be interesting to post what other health centers charge for group classes. It is an additional charge at the Rec Center.
Judy February 20, 2013 at 05:33 PM
I wonder why Peters Twp. Rec Center wasn't included in this table. I agree with Laura about questioning charges for group classes. LA Fitness doesn't charge.
Derek Schill February 20, 2013 at 05:53 PM
Thanks for the update Mrs. Brindle. I have not been to any of the meetings, nor have I been following too closely, but an important qualitative factor (at least personally) tied to the per monthly rate amounts is the length of the contract. I apologize is if any of the following information is incorrect as this was based on my own research 6 months ago. For example, the C&RC is $46 a month (‘Monthly Annual Membership Rate’), but providing a one-year contract while LA Fitness’ rate, in its basic form, is the $39.99 month to month. Feel free to let me know if this is incorrect or has been mentioned/clarified before.
Glenn Robinson February 20, 2013 at 06:24 PM
My guess is the incremental tax impact to USC residents is very small. But it is an interesting question. I would hope that information was discussed (and therefore is documented) during the initial project proposal. In this situation, you also have a wide variety of offerings available in the organizations being compared. Many here do not have the water park for kids, etc. So, the table doesn’t tell the whole story. It is always tough to compare government run enterprises against those in the commercial sector. Accounting rules are standardized and pretty robust for private business and non-profits. Government run organizations tend to choose the accounting rules to meet the need at the time.
Dan Range February 20, 2013 at 07:06 PM
Drill in the woods and everything is FREE!
William Johns February 20, 2013 at 08:00 PM
Glenn..... True, depending on the structure of the debt. Probably no more than $100-$200 per year on average. But this is on average. It could be significantly more to some, less to others. But it's more than a rounding error! As memory serves me (not always a good thing in my case!) the entire process was shrouded in secrecy with very little disclosure to residents. The approval, which did not include a referendum, brought the township dangerously close to utilizing all remaining debt capacity as I recall. The lack of such disclosure, coupled with no referendum, gives me pause for concern. Because of this, I don't think it was kosher. Whether it was legal or not is a question I'll leave to people above my pay grade. To me, the facility should be privatized. Then we could establish its real value. (I know the rebuttal would be... "but look how it's enhanced property value!" My response... Not a tinker's damn!) But that's just my opinion.
Duke February 20, 2013 at 08:11 PM
USC's Community & Recreation Center is the only facility that has a "Lazy River!"
Duke February 20, 2013 at 08:18 PM
William Johns - Chuck McCullogh who was USC's legal beagle said at the meetings leading up to voting on the C&RC that it was not legal to have a referedum as this was prohibited in the home rule charter. As far as "enhanced property values" are concerned, that was a lie that the small vocal minority that wanted the C&RC kept repeating. You have probably heard the old saying, if you hear a lie often enough then you start believing that it is true.
Bill Range February 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM
The airport will have it! Soon South Park and North Park too! Why wait get the monies from Range or Consol and make this Center bigger and less expensive by drilling!
Mark Trombetta February 21, 2013 at 01:52 AM
The truth is that the Rec Center [ampersand or not], is not self sustaining. These data descibe the operating expenses only and with all the thousands of members it has [we are told more and more each year], the rates still continue to rise as expenses continue to climb. If you add the 30 million dollar debt service, and the additioanl millions in supporting infrastructure and other development, there is no way the Township can afford to run it without huge tax subsidy. 3000 signatures were not enough to stop the massive overspending. Last year they pounded the young people of the Township with a huge increase since they used it so much. It seems that only a government entity would punish its best customers.
Oren Spiegler February 21, 2013 at 01:57 AM
Thank you, Mark, for reminding the community of the massive grass roots effort that was put together, and of which I was proudly a part, to stop the building of this facility, an effort which today seems to have been forgotten. Among the 3000+ were those who were willing to go along with the construction of a Center, but not one which was this extensive and lavish. With the exception of Commissioner Orchowski, who voted against the project, God bless him, the message from the Board to the masses, was, "We don't hear you. We are going to do what we please." The Founders believed that when the police powers of government are harnessed in order to tax, that the cause must be "extremely compelling". Could they have classified the Recreation Center in that fashion?
Long Range February 21, 2013 at 02:15 AM
It looks to me the only out is to DRILL and take the burden off the taxpayers! Agree?
B February 21, 2013 at 03:55 AM
Oren, you constantly call the rec center 'lavish' and extensive. Can yout cite specific areas of the rec center which are considered as such? The only areas which I would say were overspent (or spent wrong) are the pools. Kids are just fine in a normal pool, there's no need for a million gizmos for kids to play with in a pool. I don't even use the pool, I go to another pool in the summer with plenty of kids who have fun all day and there's not a single slide to be found. I would have liked a 'standard' outdoor pool and kiddie pool which could be utilized just as well by adults and children. The fitness area, average, AT BEST compared to any decent fitness facility. Gym, its a gym, it has a floor and bleachers and basketball hoops and is almost constantly in use. Maybe there are too many 'meeting' rooms? I don't know how often they are used but I am guessing they didn't need them all. Heck, I would love to see a little more childcare space and less meeting rooms since... the childcare space again is just average comparatively speaking. So whats left? Locker rooms? Birthday rooms? Too much glass? Not sure what the major issue is. One last thing, the public area before 'entering' the rec center. It could probably be half of what it is now. Sure, its nice and they hold events every once in a while, but too big. Your turn, what was considered 'lavish'?
Peter Presscott February 21, 2013 at 07:57 AM
Bryan; Can you say LOBBY for starters? Stone façade? The pools are too small with useless amenities.
Peter Presscott February 21, 2013 at 07:59 AM
This guy that keeps writing about drilling foresees the future and he may be right!
Glenn Robinson February 21, 2013 at 05:31 PM
If I were on the Parks and Rec Committee, I would recommend looking at two approaches to the management of the C&RC. Option 1: Gradually move the C&RC to be a community (perhaps member) owned self sustaining non-profit. You would have to restructure the C&RC management and give them time to build revenue streams while slowly transferring financial responsibilities currently held by the tax payer. Option 2: Make it open to all USC residents for free and fully subsidize it with tax revenue. The level of tax subsidies could be offset a bit by fees for non-resident members, room rentals and some limited class fees. Both options would need significant study. The results of the study would be offered to USC residents for comment. That’s what I would do.
Eric Fischer May 03, 2013 at 04:11 AM
The Rec Center is becoming too crowded. I'm probably going to head down to the Kmart in Bridgeville to check out their selection of exercise equipment and build my own home gym.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something