02/19/2008 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,~:. Furthermore, the Recreation Conunission approved the concept of a new facility in July 2007 when the overwhelming response of the 250 people polled was not in favor of this scenario. Indeed, more than 70'/0 of those responding to the Recreation Facilities Survey indicated that a new recreation center was not the best scenario. At the March 2007 public meeting, not a single person spoke in favor of a new facility. How did the Plan and the Recreation Commission justify their decisions to recommend a new recreation facility? What factors were used as a basis for this decision? In the absence of any objective analysis in the Flan or in the minutes of the Recreation Commssion meeting, we cannot conclude that the choice of building a new facility was well supported by the community or by the facts at hand. Additional gaps in the information provided in the Plan are readily apparent. No financial study was included to demonstrate whether the new recreational facility would generate the Mme, more, or less revenue than the current facility. Only a general evaluation of the financial s~tstics of other local recreation centers was conducted. Our own conversations with local community recm~aton center officials reveal significant variances in tlurir operational costs differences in their most popular teams. How could a general evaluation reliably predict what the operational costs of a new f~ility would be for North Olmsted? How could a general overview of other facilities provide helpfiil data about what would sell in a ~w recreation center in our community? The general recommendations of the Flag suggest benefits to be gained by c+~operation with the North Olmsted School District. It is suggested that joint use of city and school recreation facilities and joint planning could eliminate redund~t programs and services. However, it would appear that no consultation with the leaders of the North Olmsted School District has taken place. What are the programs and facilities that our schools would find important for a new or renovated park system and recreation center? We have a very recent example of how successful such a parmetshp can be when conducted properly, as seen by the new Gemini recreation facility built in neighboring Fairview Park. Whether building new or renovating the existing Recreation Center, a fiscally responsible assessment would include a life cycle cost analysis. This analysis sets forth the life expectancy of comp~nt systems such as lxating/air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, roofing, pool equipment, etc. aixl enables the city to budget for ongoing maintenance and repairs. It also allows the city to be proactive in its upkeep, an ongoing problem for all of our recreational facilities that was noted by the early focus groups conducted on the Plan. However, there is no mention of this type of analysis in the Flan. It makes no sense to us to proceed with a new recreation center without simulta~ously providing a budget for the repairs and maintenance costs necessary to keep it in good working order. Our final issue with the Plan is the seemingly covert manner in which it has been presented and communicated to North Olmsted citizens. We saw no posted antmuncements of the public meetings in August 2446 and March 2007, despite the fact that we fi~equently use the Recreation Center, subscribe to the local papers, and spend