5/2/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of a Meeting of The Parks and Recreation Commission May 2, 2005 presentation of what their proposed improvements were in their upcoming bond levy in November that would include not just educational facility updates, but also updates to their recreational facilities at their various school sites. Ms. Wenger attended the Rec Commission meeting where the School Board was invited, and there was some discussion as to what types of cooperative efforts could be made between the city and the schools. The schools has had as their plan that they contract with an architect, examine their facilities, look at their needs, and come forward with a plan, set some priorities and attach some prices to it. The schools, from Ms. Wenger’s perspective, were saying that they have a plan at table and were asking the city what it wants from them; how they can cooperate. The city’s position was that it knew it wanted to cooperate but it did not have a good baseline of data to say, “this is what we have; this is what we need; what is in the best interests of both parties.” On that basis, Ms. Wenger and Mr. DiSalvo talked about a better way to approach planning for recreation than waiting for a problem to occur and then try to throw money at it. Maybe that’s not the best way to go for improvements; maybe the Rec Department doesn’t want to spend money on “A” but it wants to spend money on “B” but it would be reacting to a certain problem within the facility. Ms. Wenger and Mr. DiSalvo felt that what was needed was a more long-term approach, understand the costs of recreation, and come forth with a more long-term recreation plan. While all the above was taking place, a consultant that was talking to the City Engineer about the Fire Station project called Ms. Wenger and asked her what was going on in the way of planning in the world of planning in North Olmsted. She started talking about recreation and open spaces (an area where she was interested). Ms. Wenger was trying to get some free advice as to what would be the best approach. The consultants came and took a tour of the Rec Center, and were asked advice as to how they approached other types of recreation planning. From that the city felt that it would be appropriate to put together a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for planning and design services for a consultant (not the consultant the city spoke with, necessarily, but to open up a broader spectrum.) Ms. Wenger then handed out copies of the RFP for the Commission’s review (copy attached). The RFP proposes the creation of a recreation plan. The cover page shows the Rec Center’s construction in 1975; the City was growing at the time, now built out and aging, and help is needed. It describes what the feedback was back during the master plan process. Many of the members sitting at the table were at the Focus Group on Recreation, and so familiar with what the master plan is trying to achieve. The first page of the RFP is merely generic information about who to contact and that the city is not liable to take proposals. The page after that starts to talk about the proposal format and the scope of services puts forth an appropriate approach. This dovetails into what the schools are doing; this is why the Sub Committee discussion is necessary. The first phase under the Scope of Services is an Existing Conditions Analysis that says that the parks and recreation facilities included in this plan would be primarily the Rec Center but also North Olmsted Park, Clague Park, and the Barton/Bradley Fields. Springvale is too far reaching and has too many of its own issues to be dealt with here; it’s another plan unto itself. Note that the Rec Center would be a 75% effort and the focus of the project, and 25% towards the other three parks. Minimally, what is being looked for is an inventory of existing facilities, research and analysis (the city and schools have information Page 3