Trafford council puts Fairmont project on back burner
One park project at a time is enough, Trafford Council members contend.
Borough officials said they aren't planning to apply for a state grant to supply the matching funds that Trafford Recreation Board members are seeking to help improve Fairmont Park.
Trafford already is on the hook for about $50,000 to match a $215,120 grant from the Commonwealth Financing Authority to build two new pavilions, remodel the bathroom, improve the parking lot and make other changes to Westmoreland Park.
The rec board has some money available to match a grant from the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, or DCNR, but not enough to make the project work now, council members said last week.
“Unfortunately, if you don't come up with the money, this council has to,” Councilwoman Vicki Megon told Rosemary Frollini of the rec board. “We don't have it at this point.”
Two years ago, an architect estimated that work to redesign Fairmont Park and install new equipment would cost about $100,000. A DCNR grant could provide half of that amount.
Frollini said the rec board has about $28,000 in its account that it wanted to commit to Fairmont Park. Friends of Penn-Trafford Area Recreation Commission also agreed to give the rec board a $5,000 grant last year.
But Councilman John Daykon said borough officials should focus on one project.
“My personal opinion is, can we take it one park at a time?”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.