My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/20/2006 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2006
>
2006 Recreation Commission
>
12/20/2006 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2019 3:09:07 PM
Creation date
1/23/2019 8:09:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2006
Board Name
Recreation Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/5/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Minutes of a Meeting of the <br />North Olmsted Parks and Recreation Commission <br />December 5, 2005 <br /> <br /> <br />make sure the money is kept intact for the Rec Master Plan purposes. Otherwise, he would have to <br />raise the barbells. The question was raised if Council can approve transfers. Mr. Miller said if it is a <br />line item, but if it’s in the general budget fund as an entire amount, it can be moved as they want. It <br />would have to be a specific line item over which Council has some control. Mr. DiSalvo said $35,500 <br />for the Recreation Master Plan is budged under the line item of “Outside Services” for 2006. Mr. <br />Dailey said that should be a little more specific. Mr. Miller agreed, saying the Rec Department needs <br />to specify what it’s for, because if it’s open for three other things, those three other items could move <br />as they wish. Mr. Dailey suggested that Ms. Wenger be contacted to see that another title could be <br />devised to make it more specific to the project. Mr. Miller said that he’s seen funding that starts with <br />one project that ends up another very frequently, particularly in Recreation, and he does not want to <br />lose those funds. Mr. Lasko asked when, assuming the monies are not appropriated for something <br />else, will the entire process begin; i.e., when is the time frame for completion of all the phases. Mr. <br />DiSalvo said it would take about the entire year of 2006. Mr. Lasko asked when the initial <br />assessment, or Phase 1, would be complete, because that would entail a report promulgated by the <br />Consultant. Mr. DiSalvo replied that when a final agreement is signed a completion date could be <br />better realized. Mr. Miller asked if the City must wait until the whole process is completed or can the <br />Rec Department start phasing in some of the Consultants’ recommendations. Mr. DiSalvo responded <br />that he did not know because he did not know how the Rec Departmeent can implement anything until <br />the entire study is completed. No decisions, other than maintenance or safety, can be completed until <br />then. If there is an emergency decision, it will be addressed, but as far as the long-term position as to <br />what will be put into the Rec Department, the Commissioner could not speak. Mr. Miller asked if, as <br />far as ongoing maintenance, how extensive will that ongoing maintenance be – will it go beyond <br />sweeping the floors or will it be more structurally oriented? Mr. DiSalvo said that a perfect example <br />would be in the tennis area where the ballasts are being replaced based on how noisy they are; so far <br />only the very loud ones are being replaced. Mr. DiSalvo said that they can go at any time – one <br />doesn’t know which ones are going at any time because they are hard to locate – so they are <br />functioning and giving light, but a secondary problem is that they cause noise. So what should the Rec <br />Department do if a problem is not that bad? The Rec Department must be careful with what it is <br />spending money on for replacement when something is still functioning and there are limited funds. <br />Everything must be prioritized; that is the way things have been going at the Rec Department the last <br />few years. Mr. Kelley said that part of the question is, looking at the Master Plan, Maintenance Side, <br />he hoped what the Commission is talking about is a substantial preventative maintenance program – <br />not something to be fixed when it goes wrong. Mr. DiSalvo replied that existing and new items are <br />included in the Master Plan. <br /> <br />The Commissioner was asked when the Consultant’s contract will actually start. Mr. DiSalvo replied <br />that it would be late December or early January. The contract has not been signed yet. There’s an <br />insurance requirement in the contract that’s in the process of being answered right now, and once <br />that’s answered, late December or early January is when the contract will actually begin, and it will be <br />a year-long process. Mr. Terbrack said that it’s a very extensive analysis and should help everyone <br />understand where the City stands. Ms. Powell asked did the Commission really deal with the question <br />of how the Rec Department deals with things in the meanwhile until the Master Plan is in <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.