5/2/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of a Meeting of The Parks and Recreation Commission May 2, 2005 operating expense and long term improvement, there must be a clear idea of what the agreement is so that if the city is stuck with a major repair bill, the schools will know they must come up with some money to help the city. Mr. Lasko said that the difference here is that the water line was put in for the benefit of a PRIVATE entity; here is a hand-to-hand relationship with two governmental agencies that have 4,000 North Olmsted residents that they are serving, and that’s a major difference. Both entities are accountable to those residents. However, Mr. Lasko understood Mr. Jesse’s concern: get burned once, and another engagement does not look very good. Mr. Kelley asked what the Commission thought about Mr. Miller’s proposal. Ms. Jones said that the schools and the city should be separate. Mr. Miller said that it would be a rate-setting issue and, as a major participant, the city will be letting the schools know what the rates are going to be. It begins a cooperative effort between the two entities. The RFP would be included in the equation. Mr. Jesse moved that the Commission accept the concept of an RFP for the Planning & Design Services for Creation of a Recreation Plan as a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to the Recreation Committee of Council. Mr. Lasko seconded the Motion. Mr. Miller asked if the Commission will table the notion of a survey. Mr. Kelley said that that would be tabled. There were two steps towards the survey: $25,000 would be put to a feasibility study….. Mr. DiSalvo said that that no appropriations were earmarked for a study. Ms. Kanis asked if it would help if a survey would be sent home with the school children. Mr. Lasko said that he did not believe there could be a valid result from that. (Overlapping conversation). Mr. Lasko said the survey pertaining to feasibility and the prospect of looking at the recreational needs of the community has now been rolled up into the RFP. Mr. Miller asked how to deal with the immediacy of the gaps in the walls, heating and ventilation issues, etc. Ms. Wenger said it is until something is in place to try to avoid major expenditures until the RFP is accomplished, to try to keep everything afloat right now. In the interim, this is the best that can be done. (Overlapping conversation). Mr. Miller asked if there could be money aside for a tennis facility survey of properties. That issue still needs to be addressed as to where the logical placement of the tennis courts would be. The reply was that that would be rolled up into the RFP as well. Mr. Miller said that was as Ms. Wenger said, but he did not want the tennis study put aside. Mr. Lasko said that would mean twice the work because it would be part of the RFP. It would mean looking solely at the tennis issue assuming that everything else would remain the status quo. The RFP is saying we’re starting from a clean slate; what is the best possible use of the recreational complex and the land and take the tennis piece as a component of that. Once something else is locked into a site, the parameters are changed of what the land use is. Mr. Miller asked a time projection. Ms. Wenger said that if there was a quick start, it could be done by the end of 2006, with existing conditions, plan development and implementation. Page 11