Loading...
Agenda 08/15/1985 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA August 15, 1985 The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will hold their monthly meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center on Thursday, August 15, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. I. Call To Order II. Introduction of Gary Franco, Park Supervisor III. Approval of Minutes IV. Addendum V. Old Business A. Prioritize facilities on the Marco Island Park B. Update of bid tabulations for North Naples and Golden Gate Community Parks VI. New Business A. Request for assistance from Gulf Coast Little League B. Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) grant for Golden Gate Community Park C. Addendum to Concession Agreement for Caxambas Pass Park VII. Discussion of Addendum IX. Adjournment TSV:pc Naples, Florida, July 18, 1°85 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board met on this date at 9: 30 A.M. in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex, Fast Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Hank Caballero Ron Burton Dan Monaco ABSENT: Steve Price Richard Myers ALSO PRESENT: Elinor M. Skinner, Deputy Clerk ; Tim Vanatta, Parks & Recreation Director ; Pam Brangaccio, Deputy Assistant County Manager ; Don Norton, Public Services Admini- strator ; Murdo Smith, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director ; Ed Torroni, Recreation Supervisor; Tom Peek and Bob Furlough of Wilson, Miller , Barton, Soll & Peek. AGENDA I . Call to Order CII . Approval of Minutes - May 16 & June 10, 1985 III . Addenda IV. Old Business A. Discussion of Marco Island Community Park (requested by Ron Burton) B. Status report on golf course V. New Business A. Review the bids for North Naples and Golden Gate Community Parks . B. Review of 1985/86 budget . VI . Adjournment MINUTES OF 5/16/85 AND 6/10/85 - APPROVED Mr. Monaco moved, seconded by Mr. Burton and carried 3/0, that the minutes of 5/16/85 be approved as presented. Mr. Burton moved, seconded by Mr. Monaco and carried 3/0, that the minutes of 6/10/85 be approved as presented. Page 1 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 SUBCOMMITTEE SUGGESTION THAT PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMEND TO BCC THAT MARCO ISLAND MASTER PLAN BE DISAPPROVED; PARK CONSULTANTS TO BE INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED C WITH A NEW MASTER PLAN LEAVING OUT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND NOT TO FILL IN THE DRAINAGE DITCH TO SAVE MONEY - APPROVED Mr. Caballero asked the participants to limit their com- ments to five minutes and, for the record, to identify them- selves and state if they are representing an association. Mr . Burton reported that his subcommittee met on 6/28/85, with a majority of members in attendance and that the motion was made to suggest that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the present approved Master Plan for the Marco Island Park be disapproved and that Wilson, Miller, Barton Soil and Peek be instructed to proceed with a new Master Plan, leaving out the civic center, to better utilize space and to save money by not having to fill in the drainage ditch. Mr. Burton moved, seconded by Mr. Monaco, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommend the above suggestion to the Board of County Commissioners. Mrs . Karen Yuskaitis, representing the Mothers of Marco Club, suggested that Mr. Burton' s letter recently published in the Marco Island Eagle be read to the people present before this item is opened for discussion because it clari- fied the matter . By consensus, the members decided it was not necessary to read the letter. Mrs . Yuskaitis said there seems to be so much confusion as to what the people of Marco Island actually voted on at the recent referendum, adding that people feel they voted "No" , while they still wanted the community center, because they did not want the other items that were in the proposal for the park issue. She said the money has to be used to develop the park from the landscaping aspect, sprinkling systems, parking spaces and lighting and that $900, 000 was not for the community center, anyway. She said it was her belief that the people of Marco Island want a community center . Mr . Caballero said it was his understanding that the referendum vote was three to one to defeat it . Mr. Burton said there were a little over 2, 000 votes cast with 1, 500 being against and 500 for it. Mr. Caballero said it seemed Page 2 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 difficult to have one or two people speak for 1, 500 people and say they voted against it because of what was in the packet along with the referendum. He said he has only heard approximately five or six people stating that they voted against the referendum because of this and he asked where the other 1, 200 who voted "No" were to confirm this? He said this meeting is the opportunity to have discussion and only a few people are in attendance. Mrs . Yuskaitis said officially her organization is in favor of developing the park and what goes into the park and if space could be allocated for future buildings that would be wonderful. She said the people have waited long enough to have the park developed. Mr. Burton said that his subcommittee felt because the community center has been voted on three times in the past five years and failed that this basically showed the com- munity was not willing to pay for the type of building that was being considered. He said his subcommittee was not eliminating a community center and was talking about planning a multi-purpose building to be used much like the Golden Gate Community Center with an auditorium as well as meeting rooms. He said this building could be used for meetings and recrea- tional activities and could be expanded, at a later date, to include seating for perhaps 400 to 500 people. Mr . Bob Ouandt, Marco Island taxpayer, asked for clari- fication of Mr . Burton ' s remark about the Marco Island people voting against the community center three times . Mr . Burton said that the community center was the largest portion of the park land in the last referendum. Mr. Quandt said that the only thing in the poll booth was a question asking if a person was for or against an additional millage. Mr . Burton said the vote was against paying for the civic center, but Mr. Quandt said it was a vote against everything. Mr. Burton said that the civic center was approximately 5/6th of what the cost being voted on was and said that his subcommittee had public meetings to try and give out information on this item. Mr . Quandt said he thought that the straw vote was the end of it . Mr . Ira Evans, representing the Marco Island Taxpayers Page 3 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 Association, said the question that was on the ballot was dictated by the County Attorney and that he was sure the Attorney did what was legally required and quoted only the title of the ordinance creating the taxing district . Mr . Caballero agreed. Mr . Evans said that any assumption that the vote was for or against the community center is sheer supposition. Mr . Bill Stearns, President of the American Association of Retired Persons on Marco Island, Chapter 3552, stated he attended every board meeting Mr . Burton had. He said at the first meeting it was known about the straw vote but it was evaded because the Committee said yes, there was a straw vote poll on the community center and the Committee would give some thought to priority but suggested doing other things . He said at the second meeting the community center was still a partial priority and at the third meeting more things were added as needed. He read from information that was given to the Naples newspaper which said that there was still a pri- ority for a community center but there was not enough money in the park fund to build one so other things were being planned, otherwise park funds would be taken away from Marco Island by the County. He said during all the meetings MICA, MITA. and AARP tried to stand up for the rights of the regis- tered voters of Marco Island and they were responsible for the Royce defeat and the reduction from 1/3 to 1/4 millage on the park vote while the Marco Park Committee wanted 1/3 millage. He continued reading the statement given the paper that if the ballot had been written properly for the issues at stake item by item and cost of each item plus a yes or no block for each of the items, it would have constituted a fair vote and that now the Marco Park Committee says that the vote was against the Marco community center and for everything else, which could not hold up in a court of law. He said that the registered voters ' straw vote endorsed and funded both a community center and purchase of the Racquet Club. He said that the question now before everyone is if the straw vote was illegal, who made the part of the straw vote legal for the purchase of the Racquet Club and illegal for the community center? He said another question is if the recent Page 4 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 19, 1985 park vote included a community center and all other items scheduled by the Marco Park Committee to be included in the funding and the majority vote was not the whole "ball of wax" , by what law or right does the Committee or Commission have the authority to say the vote is considered to defeat the community center, only, and all other items were approved and that the committee would add a football field and space to assign for the defeated community center? He said fair minded, registered voters on Marco Island should consider if the Marco Park Advisory Committee park plan is approved with the addition of a football field by the County Commissioners, they will never see an adequate community center in the park . He said if this happens and the people of Marco want a community center, the purchase of the land and cost of the center will have to be publically funded by the people of Marco as was the Urgent Care Center . Mr . Stearns said the the Marco Island AARP position closely parallels the MITA/MICA Tax Association on the park issue . ***RECESS: 9: 50 A.M. - RECONVENED: 9:55 A.M.*** Mr . Burton reiterated that this is a Committee decision that he brought to this Advisory Board, adding the Committee was made up of responsible citizens of the community and that two of the Committee are President and Vice-President of the Taxpayers Association and one member was chosen by the Civic Association to sit on his Committee. He said, with the facts his Committee had, they believe that the decision he brought to this Advisory Board, this date, for their recommendation to the County Commission is the one needed to be done for Marco Island . Mr. Evans, of Marco Island Taxpayers association, repeated the proposal of Mr. Burton and Mr. Caballero said that a representative of Mr . Evans ' organization was at the meeting where this proposal was voted on and that it sounds contradictory. Mr . Burton said that the representative, even though he was a representative of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, acted on his own on his Subcommittee and did not act as a representative of the Taxpayers Association. He said the representative reports the decisions to the Tax- Page 5 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 payers Association. Mr . Caballero asked if the Marco Island Taxpayers Association authorized Mr. Evans to come to this meeting as their spokesman and Mr . Evans said that was correct . In response to Mr. Burton, Mr. Evans said there was a quorum of five at the Marco Island Taxpayers meeting out of the 12 members . Mr. Burton said that the Marco Island Taxpayers Association Board of Directors met after his Subcommittee meeting and they are taking objection to what the Subcommittee proposes to have in the new Marco Island park plan, and Mr. Evans agreed. Mr. Evans read a statement which said that the Board of Directors had reviewed the recommendations of the Subcom- mittee for the development of the Marco Island Park and it was the conclusion of the Board of Directors that the present proposal does not reflect the reviews of the majority of the residents on Marco Island and does not represent the most efficient use of funds available. He said the Board of Directors requested that consideration be given to their firm opinion, based on comments from numerous voters prior to the vote, that a vote against the proposition was not a vote against the community center but rather a vote against all of the plan and the other elements which were included in the plan. He said MICA/MITA' s straw poll of registered voters on Marco Island demonstrated conclusively that the residents want a community center but that cannot be built now and that as the newly proposed plan is understood, the layout would preclude the construction of such a building in the future. He said the Board of Directors urge that any plan adopted provide for space for such a building as well as the extra parking it would require. He said that the drainage ditch leading to the lake should be fully covered, as an open ditch would be a repository for refuse, a safety hazard for chil- dren and a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He stated funds would be better spent for this purpose than for some of the items included in the plan. He said in no other park of the five County parks were funds, that were allocated for the development of the park, used for preparing the basic ground . He said the proposed maintenance facility is excessive in both size and cost and funds from the bond issue were sup- Page 6 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 posed to be used for this park and development of the park, only. He said he was informed that the reason for the size of the maintenance facility is that it would be used to ser- vice all the park areas on Marco Island, including the launching ramp on S.R. 951 as well as Tigertail Beach, etc. He said if this were challenged it would probably be outside the denture of that bond issue to use funds for this purpose . He said the Board of Directors did not disagree that there be one maintenance facility, however . He said the proposed cost of $75, 000 for the planned facilities is far in excess of what is necessary for maintenance of the park, only. He expressed his opinion that $45, 000 for a mile of jogger path is excessive, adding that the County has constructed bike and jogging paths all over Marco Island for far less money. He said that the $40, 000 picnic facilities should be also be eliminated since there is no need for such an item because there are present opportunities for picnicking on Marco Island at the Residents ' Beach and Tigertail Beach. He said it is the opinion of his organization that there are problems with respect to planning of the basketball courts . He pointed out that if the 7, 000 square foot covered area adjacent to the multi-purpose building is to accommodate basketball courts the ceiling would have to be unrealis- tically high and would afford little shelter in view of the open sides . He said the building would be impractical to heat for other purposes in the winter time, would be infested with mosquitoes in the summer time and would not provide adequate protection from rain. He said there is no need for a dock on the small lake and there is little likelihood of any fish in the lake. He said any crafts small enough to utilize the lake can easily be launched from the shore. Mr. Evans referred to the multi-purpose facility and said that the idea is excellent, considering that no commu- nity center can be built at the present time, however, the proposed cost of $262, 000 is unrealistic. He said changes in the plan that his organization has recommended would free between $100, 000 and $150, 000 even after completely covering the ditch and adding this amount to the $262, 000 allocated for the building would afford ample funds for a much larger Page 7 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 facility. He said the Taxpayers Association recommends that the new plan for the "Marco Island Park reserve space for a future community center and related parking, that the ditch be fully covered, that the aforementioned useless and/or redundant facilities be re-examined and that augmented funds be made available for use to build a sorely muilti-purpose but at a more reasonable cost than $75. 00 per square foot . He said by adopting this recommendation the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will produce a facility which will more truly reflect the desires of the Marco Island community. He said, in keeping with this proposal, his organization recommends that the proposal to the Advisory Board not include the plan that the Marco Island Subcommittee is proposing, and that the design be temporarily deferred until a more desirable plan can be worked out . He said his organization recommends that the site work, including cover- ing the ditch, be completed as soon as possible, but that no other expenditures be made or committed until the design, cost and augmented multi-purpose building have been determined through obtaining actual bids . He stated that the part of the proposal which has been presented this date to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soil and Peek, Inc. be instructed to re- design be deferred and not include the plan which the Marco Island Subcommittee has adopted. Mr. Caballero asked. if Mr . Evans ' recommendations are at the direction of his Board of Directors and Mr . Evans respon- ded that was correct . Mr. Caballero asked if five persons were present when the recommendations were decided and Mr . Evans responded affirmatively, adding his organization has about 700 members . Mr . Monaco summarized Mr . Evans ' recommendations that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board go ahead with the park but look at the cost of the maintenance facilities, fill in the ditch, look at the cost of the jogging track and basketball facility, take away the picnic area and dock and re-examine the cost of the multi-purpose building. Mr. Evans responded that his proposal is to proceed with grading, gras- sing of the park area and enclosing the ditch but then deter- Page 8 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 mine actual costs of the proposed facilities starting with the multi-purpose community building and then see how much money is left over and then the decision can be made as to what should be done. Mr . Burton said his Committee has dealt with all the things that Mr. Evans is concerned about and which he said need to be evaluated or changed. He said his Committee understands that the cost estimate is just a cost estimate . He said that no one is deciding what a building will cost , because it goes out for bid and the contractors decide what they are willing to build the building for. He pointed out that his Committee is taking the park consultants at their professional opinion, considering that they know more than the Committee members do. He said that his Committee went through the maintenance facility with the Staff and the park planners and the Committee felt that it was necessary for the benefit of Marco Island and Collier County, as a whole. He said it would be good to understand the difference between a community park and a neighborhood park with a community park, as it is envisioned, being for the community not for the neighborhood or a particular area. He said his Committee believes they have a responsibility to the rest of Collier County just as the other parks in the other districts have a responsibility to the people on Marco Island. He stated there may be places for people to have a picnic, if a person is a member of the Residents ' Beach, however, as far as having a picnic facility on Marco Island for anybody to have picnics, unless a person belongs to the Residents ' Beach or the Country Club, there is no facility. He said his Commit- tee consists of one person who was involved in the planning of Marco Island from the original stage with Deltona, a couple of members of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, some members of the Marco Island Civic Association, another woman who is a member of the Power Club, and members of the Chamber of Commerce . He said the maintenance facility has something to do with the rest of the County. He said the other community parks have the same situation which helps the community as a whole, where their Staff goes, etc. He said taxpayers will benefit because of the money saved by having Page 9 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 the maintenance facility. Mr. Burton said that his Committee recommended that the ditch be left open only if the park consultants feel that it is not a health hazard and that it can be asthetically treated to be attractive. He said his Committee is not say- ing that the ditch has to be left open and that this should be left up to the consultant . He explained water runs through the canal or ditch into the lake and the water moves faster than any other part of that body of water . He said his Committee felt if the ditch could be left open $105, 000 could be saved. He said his Committee has talked to people, not at meetings, to obtain answers and information and that it is not possible to go over all the items again. He said no group opposed the Master Plan at the meetings, although his Committee did hear from a few people who did not like it , adding it is not possible to re-hash everything again. Mr . Caballero agreed. Mr . Ken Sanford, Marco Island resident, stated he has listened to both sides of the issues and it does not appear that anybody is going to be 100% satisfied with anything that is designed . He supported the responsible recommendations of the Committee and said he realized that everything could not be obtained. He said he has a couple of children who would like to have a park. Mr . John Puffer , former Director of the Marco Island Civic Association but not representing that association, said that Mr. Burton' s remark sounded like he intended to fore- close any possibility of rehashing anything the Committee has done in the past . He asked if that was true and Mr. Burton said, as a Committee, the members unanimously made the decision and that his Committee has the feeling that they have discussed all of the things enough. He said the Commit- tee had enough information to make intelligent decisions and recommendations to this Advisory Board. He said decisions have to be made. Upon call for the question, the motion carried, 3/0. Mr . Gene Fenelon, Marco Island resident, asked if another straw vote, sponsored by the Taxpayers Association, and Civic Association was taken with all the itemized items Page 10 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 discussed this date would that be favorably received by the Board in their decision? Mr. Caballero said that right now this Board has approved a motion to pass on the motion to the Board of County Commission and he said he did not know if what Mr . Fenelon suggested would have any effect, adding the Advisory Board could not do it right now. STATUS REPORT ON GOLF COURSE Mr. Caballero said the members received in their packet a couple of letters, dated 6/15/85, from the Director of Parks and Recreation, one to the Golden Cate Country Club and one to the Lely Hibiscus Golf Club. Parks and Recreation Director Vanatta said he had hoped to have a response from Lely Hibiscus Golf Club but he had not received one, as yet . He said he did not have the proper information to derive any new figures and that he is in a hold position until responses are received. Mrs . Jean Brooker, President of the Board of Governors of Hibiscus, asked if it was Mr. Vanatta ' s understanding that he would receive a response from Hibiscus, and Mr . Vanatta said that, out of professional courtesy, it was his under- standing there would be a response. REVIEW OF BIDS FOR NORTH NAPLES & GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARKS Mr . Burton said he talked to the County Attorney and he made the members aware that he might have some financial interest in one of the community parks. He said he was instucted that if the Advisory Board had discussions he could participate, however, he should refrain from any vote. Mr . Caballero said that would mean there would not be a quorum. Mr. Vanatta said that he did not anticipate a vote, this date, and this is an update. He said time has not allowed Staff to go through all the proper motions to bring an official recommendation to the Advisory Board. He referred to the official bids included in the members ' packet and the Master Plan and shaded portion of that Plan that was bid out for Golden Gate and North Naples Community Parks. He said he did this so that the members could understand logistically the problems Staff is now going through from the design team' s standpoint. He said Staff is taking the position that they will try to make some reductions and still leave the Page 11 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 prime user facilities as best they can. He said he was not making guarantees, at this time, however,, Mr. Furlough and Mr. Peek were present to respond to questions and give an overview of the situation. Mr. Tom Peek, of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. , said two things of prime interest is the predicament that bids have been received that total more than the amount of money available. He said each of the bids is being analyzed and review is being made for each item in the park in an attempt to retain the usability of the park and yet get the cost within the budgeted amount . He said each of the bids have been looked at and it is thought that there is a representative and good bid for each item. He said the consultants have neared the completion of the Golden Gate analysis and now the North Naples package will be analyzed. Mr. Peek said the bids were opened on 7/30/85 and are good for 90 days, so there is time to complete the analysis. Mrs. Yuskaitis asked if the bids have anything in simi- larity to the bids that would eventually be obtained for the park on Marco Island and, if so, she asked for the approxi- mate range? Mr. Peek said that some of the items such as parking lots and paving are similar to the same sort of item that will be done on Marco Island. He said this type of information came in within 10°% of what had been estimated. He explained that those items that are coming in higher than were estimated are some of the buildings but there are five or six bidders which are all within a tight envelop which makes the consultants think they are good bids. He said those kinds of items are about 20% over budget and that is where the consultants are trying to sort through to see if they can reduce the scope of the services, take out some of the few frills that were left and remove some of the land- scaping costs. He said the consultants are reassessing the ballfield lights and getting information concerning the use of wood poles as opposed to concrete to see if there is any significant difference. Mr.' Monaco commented that the members have heard Mr. Evans discuss items such as the maintenance buildings, ditches to be filled and jogging trails, etc. , however, his Page 12 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 comments are supposition. Pe said he was willing to listen to experts in the area and if an expert was brought in he would be more than willing to listen to him as to what the actual cost could be if they could be cut in any way. He said he did not think this Advisory Board could make a decision and that the members have to depend on their experts in order to make the decision in their recommendations about those things, adding it was his opinion a lot of time is wasted in talking about it unless there is firm backing from an expert in the area, such as Mr. Peek . Mr. Monaco moved, seconded by Mr. Burton and carried 3/0, that it be the policy of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board not to accept opinions unless the person is qualified to give it in the area on which he is commenting regarding economic factors. Mr. Vanatta stated, even though there is a 90 day waiting period, it may be necessary to have a Special Meeting of the Advisory Board to review these bids in making a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners, adding he would let the members know about such a meeting. REVIEW OF 1985/86 BUDGET Mr. Vanatta said that Staff is not looking for any recommendation regarding the budget other than a review to keep the members informed as to the process that Staff is doing. He said he had distributed a two-page overview of the Parks and Recreation existing budgets . He said Mr. Ed Torroni from the Recreational Section and Mr . Murdo Smith from the Parks Section were present to answer questions the members might have. Mr . Vanatta said that the figures do not include any capital improvements from the bond standpoint . He explained there are eight different budgets with Admini- stration relating to his salary and those of the secretary, bookkeeper, Parks and Recreation Coordinator and associated operating costs . Mr . Smith explained the Parks Supervision budget totals S156, 617 and includes the Parks Superintendents, Foremen and operations of the barn for supervision of all the work crews . Mr. Vanatta said that the Parks and Other Properties budget totals $499, 000. Mr . Smith said this budget is for Page 13 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 all the neighborhood and outlaying parks throughout the County for maintenance and employee salaries . Mr . Smith said that the Naples Government Complex, which totals $59, 000, is for mowing the grounds from a private contractor and the upkeep of this facility. Mr. Torroni said that Recreation Supervision encompasses three key people in the recreation program area, a Recreation Superintendent, a Recreation Supervisor and an Athletic Supervisor. He said that there has been a reorganization since Mr. Vanatta has been with the County and, with the upcoming parks, a couple of people have had title changes and the figures represent about a 10% increase from last year . He said the majority of the recreational program is the increase in Staff ' s anticipation of opening the community parks, whether they become a part of this year or not . Mr. Vanatta said it is Staff ' s intention to have one Recreational Coordinator in each of the community parks. He referred to a pro-rated figure of $104, 000 for those individ- uals for six months, anticipating that half-way through the next fiscal year the County will be operating those parks . In response to Mr . Caballero, Mr . Vanatta said that the title of Recreational Coordinator will mean the person will possibly set up tournaments, run after-school programs and work closely with the Administrative Section doing comprehen- sive programs throughout the County. He explained that this is planned for three parks, at this time, with Marco and Fast Naples not anticipated to be oven during the next fiscal year. Mr. Vanatta explained the figure for Vanderbilt Beach parking relates to the operational cost for running the parking lot at the beach access in that area. He said the Marco Island Racquet Club figure is for employees and associated operational cost . Mr. Vanatta referred to the MSTD General and corrected the figure under Inter-Fund Transfer from $860, 467 to $279, 280. He explained there are certain parks that are of benefit to the City of Naples that are taxed accordingly and there are some parks that are of no benefit to the City of Naples . He said the transfer back to Parks and Other Page 14 PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD JULY 18, 1985 Properties Budget takes care of this, and he gave as examples (:: Barefoot Beach and the Immokalee Park items. He said the Caxambas Parks operation is for the park, boat ramp, bait shop and small park area on Marco Island. He said the Tigertail Park operation figure is $36, 949. Mr. Smith explained the Parks and Other Properties in the MSTD is for the anticipation of the three community parks going in and for staffing those with one maintenance person per park plus the equipment to maintain those facilities. He referred to the list of equipment that will be purchased out of the Parks and Other Properties Budget for each park. Mr . Vanatta pointed out those figures are pro-rated anticipating six months opening for three parks . Mr. Caballero referred to a truck at a cost of $8, 000 and a Cushman truck at $7, 200 and asked for clarification . Mr. Smith said that for certain parks where there will not be a maintenance facility and the decision was made that the person would have to be able to get around so a truck was included, otherwise, if there was a maintenance facility, the person would use a Cushman truck to enable him to get to a telephone. Mr. Vanatta said regarding Golden Gate the people will be working out of the County barn and will transport out to the site from there. He said the Immokalee and North Naples Parks have maintenance facilities so no truck is indicated there. Mr. Burton asked if all the capital outlay will be put out for bid and Mr. Vanatta said if the amount is over $2,000 it will have to be bid. Responding to Mrs. Brooker, Mr. Vanatta said nothing has been included for the golf course in the budget . During a short discussion, Mr . Burton said the more services that the public receives from the County will mean more taxes will be needed to pay for them. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was /0'1- adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:45 A.M. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Hank Caballero, Chairman Page 15 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS II. Introduction of Gary Franco, Park Supervisor Mr. Murdo Smith has hired Mr. Gary Franco as our new Park Supervisor. This will be a very key position in the maintenance and upkeep of both our existing facilities and our new community parks. I wanted the PARAB to have the chance to meet this gentlemen. V. A. Prioritize facilities on the Marco Island Park At the Board of County Commissioner's meeting on August 6th, the Commissioners voted to send the existing Marco Master Plan back to the PARAB for review. Specifically speaking, they want the PARAB to prioritize facilities in the Master Plan so that a construction plan for Phase I can be completed. The Commissioners desire to leave the civic center in the Master Plan but it was understood that there is not enough monies to construct any portion of the facility in Phase I. They also desired not to cover the drainage ditch that connects Unit 25 Replat to the park lake, thus, a savings of $100,000. They would also like the PARAB to take a hard look at the indoor multi-purpose facility and would like to salvage as much square footage of that facility as possible. The only other review option is to send the issue back to the Marco Island Sub-committee. I have attached the most recent list of facilities and their associated costs as well as site development costs. Tom Peek will also be present to assist with this matter. V. B. Update of bid tabulations for North Naples and Golden Gate Community Parks An update will be presented at the meeting. VI. A. Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) grant for Golden Gate Community Park Last year the Gulf Coast Little League requested that the Parks and Recreation Department maintain their fields for the 1985 season. They are requesting this year that the Parks and Recreation Department undertake total turf management and field maintenance program for the entire 1985/86 fiscal year (October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986). I have attached a letter from Mr. Larry Brennan, president of the Board of Trustees for the Gulf Coast Little League, outlining in detail their request. I also have attached a memo from Mr. Murdo Smith, Park Superintendent, outlining what the associated costs would be to undertake this project for a twelve month period. As a reminder, last year we were not budgeted for this project and we requested contingency funds from the Board of County Commissioners for approximately $4,000 for material only, labor was absorbed. The material did p not include clay, sod, sprinkler system repair, however, they are requesting these items this year. Due to the timing of the request and the timing of the current budget process, no monies have been requested through the budget process, thus, we need additional contingency funds to be able to undertake this for 1985/86 fiscal year. VI. B. Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) grant for Golden Gate Community Park I have attached a memo from Dan Loubier, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, generalizing the Department's grant strategy. A deadline for the FRDAP is coming up again and the cap has been cut from $100,000 to $50,000. We are requesting permission to apply and to channel all of these monies into the Golden Gate Park instead of dividing an equal share to the other four (4) community parks. I will discuss this issue in more detail at the meeting. VI. C. Addendum to Concession Agreement for Caxambas Pass Park Currently the turf management and maintenance program at Caxambas Park is being done by the concessionaire as called for in his contract. Staff is requesting that the Parks and Recreation Department take over this facility for the upcoming fiscal year. This issue will be discussed in more detail at the meeting. f SITE DEVELOPMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1 . Roadway, Parking and Lights ( 134 spaces) $ 106,000 2. Internal Drainage and Fine Grading 30,000 3. Potable Water System . . 12,000 4. Sanitary Sewer System 40,000 5. Earthwork (Relocation ditch fill and fill for 35,000 drainage, grading and mounding) 6 . Grassing and Landscaping (Irrigation, seed and 150,000 mulch with fine grading and minimum of landscaping) TOTAL $ 373,000 RECREATION/SUPPORT FACILITIES ! . Multipurpose Indoor Facility $ 262,500 (To include Meeting Rooms) (3,500 s.f. ) - $75.00 per s.f. (5,000 s.f. ) $ 375,000 (7,000 s.f. ) $ 525,000 Interior Furnishings 15,000 Landscaping 10,000 2. Maintenance Area 75,000 ( 15,000 s.f. paved area , 1 ,500 s.f. building, fencing and landscaping) 3. Children's Play Area 30,000 (Multipurpose play structure with ground treatment and lot framing) 4. Picnic Facilities 40,000 (One 1 ,600 s.f. picnic shelter, 12 tables, 2 large grills , 3 or 4 regular grills and concrete placement) 5. Site Furnishings 19,000 (Benches, bike racks, trash cans and drinking fountains) 6. Signage (Info. & directional) 10,000 7. Concrete Sidewalls (660 1 f ) 7,000 8. Walking/Jogging Path 45,000 (One mile asphalt path with °"� 18 fitness stations) T 9. Open Play Area $ 25,000 (Bermuda grass sprig) 10. Shuffleboard (No lights or shelters) 10,000 11 . Multipurpose Dock 15,000 12. Covered Recreation Area 60,000 (7,280 s.f. Covered with lights - open sides) 13. Two Basketball & Volleyball Courts 35,000 (Lights, fencing and courts) TOTAL . . $ 658,500 Parks and Recreation 8/6/85 i' ® !" • quit coast .eurigrue ® NAPLES, FLA. PI JULY 30. 1985 rioaio4 PAGE 3 Qum WE OFFER AND HOPE TO RENEW THIS CONTRACT FOR THE YEAR 1986- 1987. WE EMPHASIZE THAT WE HAVE SERVED NOT ONLY AS VOLUNTEERS BUT ALSO TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE STRAIN ON THE COUNTY PARKS BY PROVIDING TWO BEAUTIFUL LIGHTED BALL FIELDS FOR THE LITTLE LEAGUE PROGRAM OF SOME SIX HUNDRED CHILDREN AND ALSO FOR ANY COUNTY PROGRAMS UTILIZING THE FACILITIES IN THE OFF—SEASON JULY THROUGH JANUARY. AS YOU KNOW, OUR BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS FACED WITH AN ANNUAL MORTGAGE PAYMENT OF $20,000 FOR THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LELY COMPLEX. TO CONTINUE OUR LITTLE LEAGUE PROGRAM WE MUST ASK YOUR APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THIS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE BURDEN WE FACE FINANCIALLY. WITH THE ADVENT OF ANOTHER LEAGUE SEASON NEXT FEBRUARY AND THE INCOMPLETION OF THE COUNTY PARKS UNDER THE BOND REFERENDUM AND THE CROWDED SCHEDULING OF PARKS WE FEEL ALONG WITH YOU AND THE ADVISORY BOARD THAT WE DO AND WE ARE A COMPLIMENT TO THE COUNTY RECREATIONAL GOALS IN PROVIDING LIGHTED FIELDS AND VOLUNTEER STAFF FOR ONE OF THE MOST ELITE PROGRAMS : LITTLE LEAGUE BASE- BALL AND SOFTBALL FOR CHILDREN AGES 6-12 YEARS . WOULD ALL MEMBERS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD PLEASE CONSIDER AND VOTE TO RECOMMEND FUNDING FOR: "A TOTAL TURF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE LELY BASEBALL BASEBALL COMPLEX OWNED AND OPERATED BY GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE, INC. , A FLORIDA NON—PROFIT CORPORATION, UNDER CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC USE OF FIELDS, OTHER THAN LEAGUE SEASON, AS DIRECTED AND SUPERVISED BY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, COLLIER COUNTY. " THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND CONCERN IN OUR LITTLE LEAGUE ENDEAVOR FOR THE CHILDREN OF EAST NAPLES, GOLDEN GATE, AND MARCO ISLAND. RESPPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, LARRY BRENNAN, PRESIDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1986 2040 SHEFFIELD AVENUE MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA 813-394-2610 "IAA V cal exalt '-*AV oeittee Reague ® NAPLES, FLA. JULY 30, 1985 poRioq TIM VANATTA. DIRECTOR PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX NAPLES. FLORIDA DEAR MR VANATTA: RE : STATEMENT OF REQUEST TO HENRY L CABALLERO. CHAIRMAN. PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AND FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FOR TOTAL TURF MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AT LELY BASEBALL COMPLEX. WE. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE. WISH TO EXTEND THANKS TO YOUR DEPARTMENT FOR THE SUPERIOR EFFORT DURING THIS YEAR IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LELY BASEBALL COMPLEX. WE ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD FOR GRANTING APPROVAL AND BUDGETING FUNDS ALONG WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE NEW PHILOSOPHY OF THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED EXCEPTIONALLY WELL IN THIS NEW PILOT PROGRAM WHEREBY A VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION MAY FUNCTION IN PROVIDING STAFF AND DIRECTION IN A VITAL SPORTS PROGRAM WHILE THE DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS IN THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES. MAINTENANCE. AND GROUND CARE. WHETHER SAID FACILITIES ARE INDEPENDENTLY OWNED OR WHATEVER : THE PROFESSIONAL HELP HAS BEEN VERY MUCH APPRECIATED AT LELY COMPLEX BY ALL PARENTS AND CHILDREN. AT THIS TIME. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CONSIDERATION AND YOUR APPROVAL FOR A TOTAL TURF MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE BASEBALL COMPLEX AT LELY FOR THE 1986-1987 YEAR B EGINNING FEBRUARY 1ST. 1986. WE WOULD APPRECIATE THIS REQUEST BE PLACED ON AGENDA ON AUGUST 15, 1986, WITH THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, FOR APPROVAL AND FUNDING FROM THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR THIS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO BE INCLUSIVE BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE OF OTHERS IN THE ABOVE PROGRAM AND WE PETITION THAT FUNDS BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE AS LISTED BELOW: 1 . EDGING. DRAGGING. AND REPLACEMENT OF CLAY AS NECESSARY OF CLAY INFIELD WITH CONTROL OF WEED GROWTH WITHIN BY USE OF HERBICIDES . I. I. 1: 1 is 04 cc" ®r,,,, ,, ,Rude Reague 4a) ;"i<s),, ,,, ,, NAPLES, FLA. �•,, JULY 30. 1985 ptoR104 PAGE 2 2. MOWING. FERTILIZING. AND WEED CONTROL OF BERMUDA SOD OUTFIELD. 3. PESTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES AS REQUIRED FOR BERMUDA SOD OUTFIELD. 4. TOP-DRESSING WHITE SAND ON BERMUDA SOD OUTFIELD FOR ROOT STABILITY AND PROTECTION. 5. MOWING OF ALL PERIMETER AREAS AND HERBICIDE USE ALONG ALL FENCES. 6. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND CARE OF INFIELD BASES. 7. DAILY DRAGGING AND LINING OF BALL FIELDS PRIOR TO GAMES MARCH THROUGH JUNE 1986 (LITTLE LEAGUE SEASON) . THE ABOVE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING AS A FUNCTION OF COUNTY INVOLV- MENT IN THE YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM: 1 . VOLUNTEER STAFF CONDUCTS LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL FOR SOME SIX HUNDRED CHILDREN AGED SIX TO TWELVE FROM EAST NAPLES. MARCO ISLAND. AND ALL GOLDEN GATE WITH SOME 38 TEAMS SPONSORED BY LOCAL BUSINESSES. 2. THIS PROGRAM HAS COORDINATED AND SERVED SINCE 1970 TO PROVIDE A BOYS AND GIRLS BASEBALL PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY SUPPLYING AND DIRECTING A GIRLS SOFTBALL PROGRAM. 3. OUR LEAGUE IS THE ONLY INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION TO STRIVE TO EASE THE VERY IMMEDIATE NEED FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS IN THE NAPLES AREA. 4. OUR LEAGUE HAS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS PROVIDED TWO LIGHTED ATHLETIC FIELDS IN FULL USE FOR BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL WHICH IN TURN ALLOWED THE COUNTY PROGRAM TO FULLY IMPLEMENT COUNTY FIELDS FOR THEIR PROGRAMS OF GIRLS SOFTBALL. WOMENS SOFTBALL. AND MENS SOFTBALL. DURING THIS PAST LEAGUE SEASON MARCH THROUGH JUNE. 1985. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS ENJOYED A FINE RAPPORT WITH ALL VOLUNTEERS AND STAFF IN OUR LEAGUE. THE COMPLEX AT LELY IS NOW SUBJECT TO FULL COUNTY USE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND PROVIDES A FINE FACILITY FOR THE PUBLIC OF COLLIER COUNTY. THROUGH THIS CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT ALL LITTLE LEAGUE CHILDREN IN THE GULF COAST AREA AND MANY RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY HAVE BENEFITED. NOT ONLY FROM USE OF THE FIELDS BUT FROM THE DECREASE OF JUVENILE PROBLEMS. gulf Cocza.t ; eittee Reague NAPLES, FLA. FLoRiDA SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1986 BOUNDARIES : THAT SEGMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY INCLUDING EAST NAPLES GOLDEN GATE AND MARCO ISLAND FROM NAPLES BAY ALONG THE GORDON RIVER TO ROCK CREEK NORTH ALONG AIRPORT ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD. ESTIMATED POPULATION: 36.900 COUNTY RESIDENTS. TOTAL CHILDREN SERVED : 678 PROJECTED. 50 TEAMS. LEAGUE PROVIDES : (1 ) SHIRT/CAP OR FULL UNIFORM (2) LIGHTED FIELDS/BATHROOMS (3) VOLUNTEER UMPIRES/STAFF (4) ACCIDENT/LIAB INSURANCE (5) SCHEDULED PLAY FROM MARCH (6) TEACHING LEAGUE BASEBALL/ 1ST THROUGH MID-MAY SPORTSMANSHIP/VALUES. *DIVISIONAL FORMAT : GULF COAST WEST GULF COAST EAST MAJOR BASEBALL-6 TEAMS MAJOR BASEBALL-6 TEAMS MAJOR SOFTBALL-3 TEAMS MAJOR SOFTBALL-3 TEAMS SENIOR SOFTBALL-2 TEAMS SENIOR SOFTBALL-2 TEAMS MINOR BASEBALL-7 TEAMS MINOR BASEBALL-7 TEAMS T-BALL LEAGUE-7 TEAMS T-BALL LEAGUE-7 TEAMS *NOTE: UNDER RECENT LITIGATION GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE WILL RETAIN ITS PRESENT BOUNDARIES THROUGH THE ABOVE DIVISIONAL FORMAT. RECENT ATTEMPTS BY THE CITY LEAGUE TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES AND SPLIT THE GOLDEN GATE AREA WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN GOLDEN GATE CHILDREN BEING FORCED TO PLAY IN CITY PARKS WHILE LIVING ADJACENT TO THE NEW GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK. PRESERVING BOUNDARIES AND DIVISIONAL FORMAT ABOVE WILL ENABLE GOLDEN GATE IN TIME TO FUNCTION ON ITS OWN AS A CHARTERED LITTLE LEAGUE. PRESENT FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AT LELY BASEBALL COMPLEX DETERMINE THEIR SUPPORT FOR OUR LITTLE LEAGUE. FUTURE GOALS ARE THAT RESIDENTS OF GOLDEN GATE MAY GROUP TO THE NEW COMMUNITY PARK AND RESIDENTS OF EAST NAPLES WILL CONTINUE TO USE LELY COMPLEX. GULF COAST TRUSTEES INTEND THE ABOVE FORMAT TO EXIST UNTIL THE MORTGAGE AT LELY IS PAID AND EXPANSION OR BREAK-OFF OF GOLDEN GATE IS NECESSARY DUE TO GROWTH. BUDGET: INCOME $70.000 EXPENSES $65.000 CARRY-OVER $ 5,000 MEMORANDUM TO: Tim S. Vanatta, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: Murdo Smith, Park Superintendent DATE: August 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Gulf Coast Little League request for turf management and maintenance program at Lely ballfield complex As you are aware the Gulf Coast Little League has requested that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department perform turf management and field maintenance of the Lely baseball complex for fiscal year 1985/86. This Department performed maintenance on the Lely Complex for this year's Little League season. This maintenance included mowing, fertilizing, pesticides and weed control. The Gulf Coast Little League brought this request to the Advisory Board and additional funds in the amount of $4,000 was approved for maintenance material. The cost of labor was absorbed. Due to the anticipated closing of the Avalon School facility for construction of the East Naples Park, staff feels that labor costs can again be absorbed by our current budgeted fund, as no additional employees will be required to perform this maintenance. Staff has estimated that the cost for maintenance materials such as clay, top dressing, material, sprinkler repair and chemicals will cost approximately $5,000 per field, giving us a total of $10,000 for this complex. This estimate does not include labor cost, which will be absorbed, nor does it include any funds for capital improvements or major renovation. MS:pc MEMORANDUN TO: Tim S. Vanatta, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: Dan Loubier, Parks and Recreation Coordinator DATE: August 8, 1985 SUBJECT: State grant re-application for the Golden Gate Community Park With the birth of community parks in Collier County, our department has become very active in grantsmanship. Of the last two (2) community park grants for which we applied; the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant for $177,835 has preliminary been accepted and the Florda Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) has been denied. With large grants we have adopted the philosophy of equity, thus dividing the money equally when possible. With grants of lesser value it sometimes is not feasible to divide the money. When applying for grants a great deal of thought goes into which site would be most appropriate for funding through the State and Federal government's strict qualifications. In other words, we determine which site is most likely to receive funding because of location, social economics, lack of facilities or regional significance, etc. We now have an opportunity to re-apply for the FRDAP grant in the amount of $50,000. Whereas the nature of this grant is better suited for water oriented recreation facilities and since the Golden Gate Community Park site borders the Golden Gate canal, we felt that by using the Golden Gate Park site as our grant project our chances of acquiring the grant would be greater at this site, than any other. We are asking the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Golden Gate Community Park site be selected as the FRDAP grant application site and also to recommend that if the grant is accepted, the total funding amount be applied to the Golden Gate Community Park site. DPL:pc