02/19/2008 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 7, 2008 North Olmsted City Hall 5200 Dover Center Road North Olmsted, OH 440?0 Members of Administration and North Olmsted City Council, It is our understanding from the local newspapers that a final presentation regarding the North Olmsted Recreation Master Plan (the "Plan") will be n shortly. Before this is done, we citizens of North Olmsted and patrons of its recr+e~ional facilities wish to express our serious dissatisfaction, bath with the actual plan ark the in which it has been presented and approved. We strongly urge you, our reprves, to conduct a more trsn~gparent and thorough analysis of the city's recreational neecla before committing our tax dollars to any new facilities. We do not quarrel with the use of the National Recreation and Park Association classifications and allocation standards in assessing North Olrnstexi's needs. However, no set of national standards can replace the input of the community regarding what y want in their recreational facilities. According to the numbers gleaned both firo~n the Plan and from conversation with a city official involved in the issue, input on the Plan was collected fiom fewer than 2S0 people out of over 34,000 who reside in North Olmsted. Some of those who commented were not residents of North Olmsted, and some freety admit to never using one or more of the city's parks or the existing Reere~ion Center. At no time was a survey done at one of the parks or at the current Recreation Center to solicit the opinion of residents who actually use these facilities; soother city official we spoke to said it was unnecessary because they already "knew" what these people would say. How can the city's administration possibly know what the citizens of North Olmsted want without asking? We remain mystifi~l at how the decision to build a new recreational facility was reached. The Plan itself purports to provide an analysis of the decision to build aevv versus renovate (see page 24 of the Plan). But upon closer examination this analysis is little more than a persuasive argument for building a new facility. Cost is identified as a quantifiable consideration, and the "tipping point" at which a new facility becomes a more cost-effective alternative is memaioned. But there is no subsequent discussion of the costs of the various proposed ss;rios in tine Plan and at what stage. the "tipping point" will be reached. Preliminary dollar figures for constriction and renovation are mentioned on page 23 but with no indication of what square footage is being built or renovated, rendering any comparison of the different scenarios meaningless.