5/2/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of a Meeting of The Parks and Recreation Commission May 2, 2005 facilities NOW. Was Mr. Kelley correct in that assumption? The maintenance director (Tom Stein) said that there was a 25 year facility; a pool was lost last year for a swim meet; the ice is 25 or 30 years old with old technology. The schools had the direct correlation with the pools and ice. Mr. DiSalvo asked if the schools would begin paying a fee for use of the facility rather than being responsible for paying for repairs or contribute to new facilities. Mr. Lasko believed that there were two components to what the charge (of the Sub Committee) was and is: the first part has to do with the existing and/or ongoing relationship regarding the use and cost of the facilities that are owned by the city and being used by the schools or that’s owned by the schools and being used by the city. If the costs can be quantified (the utilization rates and the costs) that in effect could be something negotiated between the two governmental entities in terms of an equitable arrangement that each party would then bear the appropriate cost of the use of those facilities. That, to Mr. Lasko, is something that could be secured in what he would call the normal course of business between the governmental entities. The second part of the equation (which was presented here tonight by Ms. Wenger) is, as she so ably indicated, that the school district is looking towards the development of under-utilized resources in the district; namely, land, as one of the component pieces of the bond issue. Clearly, a large portion of that will do with the development and construction of new recreational facilities. As a result, it would be very good that the city and schools are on the same page so that ultimately the community comes out with the most value for the dollars that they are going to expend. This type of study can be conducted so that the city can come up to the level of the schools. The schools and city can see what the overall utilization of recreational facilities are in the community and then work together in a coordinated effort to provide the best possible return for the community. The community, the city and the schools will come out ahead. For example, in Rocky River a few years ago, the schools and the city came together and coordinated and redeveloped the revamping of the high school athletic complex with the view towards sharing the city recreation programs with the high school athletic complex. That is the type of hand-to-hand coordination that needs to be before either entity is ready to go to the public and say, “This is our best effort.” Mr. Lasko said that what Ms. Wenger proposes is the way to go. Mr. Kelley asked if this is dealing with the sense of urgency that the Commission expects. Mr. Lasko replied that he understands that the wheels or justice or government turn slowly. The expectation is that the city and schools will be on the ballot in November, but the plans for what that will encompass are still in a state of flux. The plans as they are being developed over the course of the summer, Mr. Lasko said in speaking for himself alone, will be influenced by the city and its desire to work together with the schools. Right now, the schools are waiting for the track the city wants to take. There are certain needs of the schools that are needs of the schools alone. The question of whether or not to build a new Middle School has no bearing on recreational activities per se in the City of North Olmsted. Perhaps the issue will be refined to mean the question of a Middle School or the question of what the existing Middle School may become. Maybe the whole question of the athletic facilities will be tabled. Mr. Lasko could not speak for the board or the Page 6