10/3/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of a Meeting of the North Olmsted Parks & Recreation Commission October 3, 2005 removal of trees. Mr. Lasko said that at the last meeting it was specifically indicated that there be no advertising allowed on the fence. Mr. Miller said that maybe he missed it, but Mr. Carras thinks it’s a great idea. Mr. DiSalvo knows that the Rec is allowed to do advertising in the rink. Mr. Miller reiterated that the matter be run through the Law Department. There are three lawyers there as well as a law clerk. Mr. Baxter said that if they are serious about putting advertising on the fences there, that people can be put in this room who would object to it just as much as those who advocate for it. It would really change the nature of the park to put advertising in it. Mr. Lasko said that on page five of the minutes it says that, … ”As far as advertising goes, Council has approved for the rink right now in the Rec Complex. They are open to extending it to the Parks, but officially it must be approved first.” So when those folks left this meeting last month, there is no doubt in Mr. Lasko’s mind that the marching orders they had were that there was to be no advertising hung on that fence in any way, shape or form until and unless the approval was given by Council along the same lines as it was done for the ice skating rink here in the Rec Center itself. Mr. Miller said that you might have people who hear only what they want to hear, and this matter is open. Mr. Lasko said he would agree with that. There should be no misunderstanding that there should be no signs hung on that fence without prior approval of Council. Mr. Lasko agreed with Mr. Miller that if in some form or fashion that the building permit itself is actually issued it could and should be noted for no signage. It should be specifically indicated no signage on the fences. Mr. Miller said that we do have signage at the NOSO Cup Tournament that has not been authorized. So then you get, if they can, why can’t we. Mr. Lasko said then that’s a matter that needs to be policed as a building issue and enforced. Mr. Miller said that there is a liability issue and the fence is down and someone turns their ankle on one of the fence post holes, then who has responsibility, does the school need to provide insurance to back up the city. There are still legal issues here. Mr. Miller said he doesn’t want to go back like the pool – let’s do it right the first time. Mr. Lasko should opine about the entire thing, but his understanding was that the moment that fence goes in, it’s a donation that the schools are making to the city; it’s no longer school property; it’s something that the schools would maintain. This needs to be clarified yes or no. Mr. Baxter said that if it doesn’t become city property that they are going to leave it there for the Hot Stove kids is odd. Hot Stove is not the school. Mr. Baxter believes the fence should come down after the schools are through using it. If it’s a school fence, they are using it for the high school athletes, but he was not certain it was important for Hot Stove. Mr. Miller said that Hot Stove has been approached by the schools to donate $2,500 toward the purchase of it. Mr. Baxter wanted to know whose fence it would be. Mr. Lasko said that is why Mr. Miller is right in getting the Law Department’s opinion. Mr. Limpert said that what is needed first is something on paper from the schools so the Law Department can work with it. We left the last Rec Commission with the fact that the schools were to supply this. Once that’s provided, then engineering can look for things, and the Law Department can work from there. Mr. Miller was worried about a kid playing up there, falling on the cement in the middle of the grass and hard to see, chips his tooth or knocks his orthodontics out, and there is a major problem. Mr. Lasko said that there are certain things like Assumption of Page 9