3/7/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting March 7, 2005 getting into a bond borrowing for capital improvements city-wide related to some pavement issues and also some issues at the Rec Center so that 1 and 4 would be included. As far as the rest of the items on Part 2 and the two remaining items number 2 and number 3, those can be handled through our current capital allocation coming from Council. Mr. Miller asked the dollar amount. Mr. Jesse said, “$60,000.” Mr. DiSalvo said that, with the exception of number 1 and 4, everything else could be done operationally in the Rec budget with those cap improvements. Mr. Miller said that the Law Department has advised the Commission that its responsibility is to look over the list and tweak it as necessary, approve it as is, overhaul it; whatever the case may be. This is a short time frame. This is what the Rec Commission was supposed to be able to do in 2005. With the new accounting procedures that came in, he understood that things are very difficult for all departments throughout the City to get in line with this new program. It’s been a challenge for everyone; it’s been a challenge for Council to understand it. It’s been a challenge for the Finance Director to explain it. Is this the list that this Commission is setting, and is this the priority? Will it be approved, or is it the intention of the Commission to change it, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kelley said that at the last meeting every one… (Mr. DiSalvo interjected by saying that number 8 should be circled as under-borrowed as well with the Rec software – on the first page.) Mr. Jesse said that, with regard to number 9 on page two, he is currently in negotiations on several fronts: one is to the Clague Park Tower, and one is for the North Olmsted Park Proposal. Years ago there was a proposal to put a tower there, and there was pretty strong anti-sentiment from the community. It might be time to revisit that proposal. The City did get an inquiry from Cingular to put a tower within the North Olmsted Park. Mr. Jesse said he was to meet with them next week. He has met with people from two different companies with respect to the Clague Park Tower, and his feeling is to seek to have them supply a restroom there. $75,500 was collected from AT&T to put in new playground equipment there, so there is a similar opportunity here to address number 9 with them. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Jesse was talking about another provider on the same pole on the Clague Tower. Mr. Jesse said, “yes,” there are co-locators, not another addition. Mr. Miller asked if those funds would be used for restrooms at Clague Park. Mr. Jesse said that the co-location funds could be used for the recreation facility. It actually goes into the Rec Fund. Twenty-five percent of the Sprint co-location that’s already there goes to the Economic Development Fund. There was an ordinance or resolution passed after the Co-location Agreement that would pay 25% of their income to the Economic Development Fund. When Sprint came on, they paid $12,000 up front as a co-locator, and they are currently paying $636 a month in rent to the City. AT&T is paying $750 to the City. They paid $75,000 up front and built the Tower. Then they have a right to share in the co-location fees with whoever comes on; they get a 50% share, so in essence, Sprint was the first co-locator that went on in 2002. They came on at $500 a month. The City would get $500 a month that AT&T would get, and it was increased up an escalating scale to a point where the City now gets $636 a month. The total would be $1272. Mr. Miller asked if those funds would be used for restrooms at Clague Park. Mr. Jesse responded, “No, those restrooms are done.” What Mr. Jesse was saying was that the money could go into the Recreation Fund. The restrooms at North Olmsted Park would be met with the new proposal coming from Cingular to build a whole new tower. Mr. Kelley asked Mr. Limpert what his position on what Council would have to say about that. Mr. Limpert said that, Page 15