2/3/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recreation Commission Meeting Page Ten keep it in the park, but the matter is not properly engineered at the present time. The City will pay for the cancellation for what the Contractor accomplished, among which is equipment and materials delivery to the site. Mr. Baxter stated that usually in a normal business situation the contractor's agreement is his agreement, then if he finds out he needs another $20,000 or $30,000 to do it right, that should be his share of the cost, assuming the contract was negotiated correctly. Mr. Jesse stated that the Contractor accepted the job assuming a certain depth of fill materials, which weren't there. The Contractor was not going to assume the cost of good fill. There's a portion of information under the Sunshine Law that you can classify as potential litigation information, and he believed part of this may be classified as that. It's in the City’s best interest to find another site and turn the contract around. There are a number of potential projects that can be undertaken at the park, a track being one consideration, as well as a basketball court. Mr. Limpert asked about the City's crew doing the work. Mr. Gareau replied that he knows of no contractor who will come in, let the City do the prep work, and then complete the job for the City. If the courts start to sink, the first thing the City will do is go back to the contractor. Perhaps at the next meeting the Commission can again bring up other options for the Park. Mr. Jesse brought it back to the fact that the way the matter was handled was the cheapest way out, and the City must live with the result. The money was borrowed. The borrowing notes are very specific as to where you can spend money; the City could give the money back and borrow again to do the tennis courts, the bleachers, a security system and something else, as that would be possible. The terms of the notes tell you exactly where you can spend the money. That is why you put whatever you may want to do within the terms of the specific borrowing note. Mr. Limpert added that he doesn't like the Recreation Department being held up with its projects, but his point is that he hates to spend money to walk away from a project only to return to it again. Mr. Gareau said to bring the maps out for the next meeting and open the matter up once again for Commission member comment. Mr. Jesse concluded that it's in the best interest of the City of North Olmsted to stand pat at this point in time. This concluded the Commission's discussion of New Business. OLD BUSINESS Ms. Hayes brought up cash shortage problems/safety and security/criminal background checks and independent contractor issues, and opened the floor for discussion. Both of the independent contractor issues have been taken care of at this time. Mr. Baxter asked who prepared the agenda. Ms. Ptacek-Roche replied she did it as form for main topics of discussion. Ms. Hayes noted that, because of the transition period between the Commissioners, it was given as a loose guideline until Mr. DiSalvo, as Parks and Recreation Commissioner, resumed this responsibility. Ms. Ptacek-Roche spends approximately 20 hours average a month on the minutes at the Recreation Center, and it's difficult to predict the entire agenda with this nominal background. In the future, aside from the Commissioner’s New Page 10