12/6/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recreation Commission Meeting December 6, 2004 Council can control the expenses, but it's the Commission body that sets the priority list: perhaps a new children's pool; Mr. Miller was not emphasizing any one but put forth a few of the ideas that is needed to be looked at as a Commission and come up with and approve the plan. There should be short-term and long-term plans added and, as each new Member comes on (the Commission), the body of the Commission needs to pass that along so that five, ten or twenty year dreams don't remain dreams. By Ordinance, that is the Commission's charge to do. Ms. Jones said that there were a lot of dreams that never went anywhere, but Mr. DiSalvo has done much. Mr. Miller replied that he absolutely agreed with her; he was merely indicating that Council needs guidance through Rec Commission input. For example, if Mr. DiSalvo has $15,000 next year for capital improvements, does the Commission want it for a bike path, kiddie pool or tennis court review (or whatever). Feedback is fine, and it's a lot of what is done, but the Commission job goes beyond that. The Commissioner pointed out that the way the Rec Center staffs the pool for safety purposes, just by having open swims, money is being lost. The fees are not high enough to cover the payroll expense. The existing North Olmsted pool, compared to other city water parks, indicates that the Rec Center has a dinosaur for its pool. The facilities are fine now; however, it's to a point that, if the condition of the pool continues to worsen over the next two or three years, Mr. DiSalvo said he doesn't know if it would be worth replacing the present pool. A water park under one roof would be an answer. The outdoor water parks are only good for three or four months, and those are millions of dollars. With what Mr. Miller is saying, those are the things the Rec must be thinking about. There is no way the pool will be up and running in the next ten years. Aside from the high school and seniors using it, normal recreational activity does not get that much use. It still must be staffed for safety issues and such. The Rec needs the pool to survive, but it's bleeding the Center at the same time. Mr. Kelley asked if anyone on the Commission had been reading about Fairview Park and its Gemini Project. Mr. Lasko (school representative) is not here to add input on this matter, but Mr. Kelley believes the City of North Olmsted is up for state funding for facilities in 2009. More so in North Olmsted than Fairview Park, the schools use the facilities in the North Olmsted Rec Center: the swim team, hockey team; at the Community Cabin, baseball games, NOSO at the Park. The teams and the younger children in the schools use the North Olmsted facilities. Mr. Kelley would go to the State of Ohio and ask the State, when they provide the monies, what are the chances of combining, at that time, with state funding. The Rec Center facilities are over 25 years old. Build a new Community Center with a brand new Senior Center to draw senior citizens there. Update the ball diamonds. Update everything at the Rec Center anew; build a brand-new facility at one time (grab everyone's load). Go with a bond issue and the state funding, and go new. With the way economics are today, that's the only way it will happen. The school board and the city need to come to community to share interests if the City of North Olmsted will ever get anything passed. (General discussion among the members about other surrounding cities regarding management of Rec Centers by cities and/or schools.) Mr. Kelley Page 6