3/7/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting March 7, 2005 depends on how well we can coordinate this, whether it be this meeting or a series of meetings to follow. Until we, as a whole, decide what direction to take, Mr. Stein can get quotes on what the Rec needs for the existing option proposal, but it may not match what we decide on either tonight or in the future. It’s hard to put something together when Mr. DiSalvo did not know what direction is being taken. Mr. Lasko said that, to some extent, both entities are potentially discussing apples and oranges here. On the apples side of it, if we are talking about the renovation of existing facilities, because of the fact that the schools are a user of the North Olmsted recreation facilities (which is a given because they are residents of the community), the question is how we can work together in connection with the renovation of existing facilities because of the fact that a number of the users are North Olmsted students who happen to attend North Olmsted schools. The oranges side of it would be would be a goal forward, long-range plan which is what the schools have been very much up front about in terms of either renovation or construction of new facilities in a window of what extends a number of years down the road. Mr. DiSalvo followed up Mr. Lasko’s comments. The Commissioner’s concern (as well as everyone in the Rec Department) is if something happens to the rink and the compressors no longer function, the Varsity Hockey Team will not be able to play at the Rec Center because it will take a long time to remedy that problem. This is true if something happens to the pool as well. There is no back-up plan for those two varsity sports. Something must be put in place to remedy this situation. The question Mr. Lasko has, in looking at Part 3, long term capital improvements to the Rec’s facility, is it anticipation that once these renovations are quantified, is it the expectation then that that cost would be presented to the voters as part of a levy request. Mr. DiSalvo replied that Part 3 on the list, depending upon the Rec’s efforts to present a proposal option, would encompass much of the goal. There is $60,000 this year for operational cap improvements. The major items of Part 3 are probably going to be implemented in overall stage planning because Mr. DiSalvo did not know where the Rec would be getting the money otherwise. Mr. Lasko said that, it goes back to his question: is it anticipated that the funding of these capital improvements would be through a request to the taxpayers for additional cap improvement money, or is it anticipated that it would be done just as existing money becomes available. Mr. DiSalvo said that, on Part 3, the improvements exceed whatever money is available, so it would have to go to the voters through a levy. Mr. DiSalvo continued by saying that, e.g., with the outdoor pool filter, the Rec Center can get a new one, but in two or three years, we have to know if it will be compatible with a new pool (water park type pool). If we replace as is, the Rec will still not make money. There must be water slides, swing rings for laps, zero entry, splashing fountains, etc. This is what attracts the customer. At the present time, the Rec is losing close to $100,000 in the pool department alone. The Rec must staff for safety purposes. The open swim times just do not attract families, and that can be remedied by installing the zero depth entry and water park type pools. Although our open swim times are convenient and serve a small percent of the population, overall the Rec is Page 3