Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgendas/Packets - 1972.10.13 - 39562oakland county service center R. Eric Reickel Director PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION • 2800 watkins lake road pontiac, michigan October 5, 1972 To the Members of the PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Oakland County, Michigan Ladies and Gentlemen: A meeting has been called of the PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION as follows: TIME......................9:30 a.m. Friday, October 13, 1972 338-6196 Frances Clark Chairman Donald W. Nick Vice -Chairman Henry A. Schiffer Secretary • Clarence A. Durbin Emil Jawors William L. Mainland Paul W. McGovern Carl W. O'Brien William M. Richards E. Frank Richardson PLACE.....................Parks and Recreation Office 2800 Watkins Lake Road Pontiac, Michigan 48054 PURPOSE ...................Regular Meeting The meeting is called in accordance with authorization of Frances P. Clark, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Cordially, ��,4_� R. Eric Reickel Director RER:lw OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA October 13, 1972 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of September 22, 1972 4. Approval of Payments - Voucher No. 9-75 thru 9-185 5. Statement of Operations - August 6. Approval - Waterford -Oaks Roof Repair 7. Approval - Siding - Groveland-Oaks Residence Addison -Oaks Farm House (Walker Road) 8. Old Business a. Janitorial Services - Administrative Office b. Program Statement - Waterford -Oaks 9. New Business a. Water Conditioner - Addison -Oaks Shelter Building 10. Adjourn ITEM #6 WATERFORD-OAKS ACTIVITIES CENTER ROOF REPAIR The Department of Facilities and Operations has received three bids for the roof repair of the Waterford -Oaks Activities Center. The attached memo from George Atchison, gives you a breakdown of the bids. It is recommended that we accept the Department of Facilities and Operations recommendation and award the project to Hartford Roofing and Siding Company for the amount of $4,389.00, and all other bids be rejected. J OAKLAND COUNTY INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMO Date, September 28, 1972 Wm. G. Atchison From: To: Eric Reickel Subject: Roof repair at Waterford -Oaks Activities Buildina Attached are copies of the specifications and the three (3) bids received on September 27, 1972, regarding the roof repair of the Waterford -Oaks Activi- ties building. A summary of the bids are as follows: 1. Hartford Roofing Siding Co. $4,389.00 2. Price Roofing 42395.00 3. The Grumwell-Cashero Co., Inc. 6,650.00 Please note that Price Roofing did not meet specifications in that their bid is based on five (5) inch gutters instead of the six (6) inch gutters - specified. It is our recommendation, the low bidder, Hartford Roofing and Siding Co., be accepted. We will await your authorization before proceeding with the issuing of a contract. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Ross or myself. Thank you. Copies: M. Handorf-attachments D. Ross -attachments C. Brown -attachments i OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS & RLECPEATION COMM. SEP N 3 RECEIVED ITEM #7 ALUMINUM SIDING GROVELAND-OAKS AND ADDISON-OAKS RESIDENCES Three bids have been received from three roofing and siding firms for the siding of the Groveland-Oaks residence and the Addison -Oaks residence on Walker Road. The breakdown for the bids are as follows: Groveland-Oaks L & C Home Improvement Savoie Insulation Co. Hartford Roofing & Siding Addison -Oaks L & C Home Improvement Savoie Insulation Co. Hartford Roofing & Siding $ 2,742.00 3,266.00 3,261.40 $ 3,484.00 4,540.67 4,909.00 After reviewing the bids and finding them in order, it is recommended that the bid submitted by L & C Home Improvement for a total of $6,226.00 be awarded and all other bids be rejected. ITEM #8a JANITORIAL SERVICES The Department of Facilities and Operations has submitted the attached estimate for custodial services for the Waterford -Oaks Administrative office. After reviewing this estimate, it appears to be highly inflationary compared to the present adequate service that we have. The cost of our present service is $1,680.00 yearly. This estimate was received at the request of the Commission so it may have a comparison between the present setup and what the County has to offer. OAKLAND COUNTY INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMO Date. September 22, 1972 From:.,, Art Terreaul t - Facilities and Operations To: Pauline McCormick - Parks and Recreation Subject: Custodial Service Cost Estimate - Waterford Oaks Office Facilities Regarding our conversation of September 19, 1972, concerning Custodial Services for the Waterford Oaks office facilities, we feel service can be provided with one Custodial personnel working 4-hours daily. Approximate Cost for remainder of 1972 ---- $2,169.80 Approximate Cost for 1973------------------ 7,310.00 In addition to the estimated cost for 1973 the cost of supplies will have to be added to the $7,310.00 figure. AT: go cc: G. Atchison M. Hand'orf OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS & 4''"ATION CO�r1M. KI ln, p REM ITEM #8b WATERFORD-OAKS POOL PROGRAM The Program Statement for the proposed Waterford -Oaks Indoor Swimming Pool has been prepared for submission to the State's Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Joseph Joachim of Swanson Associates Inc., will be present to review the program with you so a decision may be made as to the magnitude of this project. On your acceptance of the program, we will then submit this statement to the Department of Natural Resources (copy of Program Statement is attached). ITEM #9 ADDISON-OAKS SHELTER BUILDING WATER CONDITIONING Bids have been received from three water softening firms. Tabulation is as follows: Culligan $ 750.00 Water Softener Services Co. 962.49 Superior Water Conditioning Co. 12004.80 These bids were taken on specifications for 120,000 grain capacity water conditioner. Bids have been reviewed and it is recommended that Culligan be awarded this bid for $750.00 and all other bids be rejected. oakland county service center 2800 watkins lake road pontiac, michigan 338-6196 R. Eric Reickel Frances Clark Director Chairman Dnad W. Nick September 21, 1972 VVice'Chairman Henry A. Schiffer Secretary TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Clarence A. Durbin FROM: R. Eric Reickel Emil Jawors William L. Mainland Paul W. McGovern SUBJECT: Liquor Control Commission Hearing for the Carl W. O'Brien Springfield -Oaks Golf Course William M. Richards E. Frank Richardson Gerard Lacey, Manager of Springfield -Oaks, and myself attended the Hearing held by the Liquor Control Commission giving the opportunity to persons protesting the issuance of a liquor license at the Springfield -Oaks Golf Course. The basic intention of my appearing was to hear what the arguments were, seeing that we were not notified by any type of correspondence by the protestors, that they were objecting to this. So in order to become informed and have a background as to the opposition, Mr. Lacey and I attended the meeting. The people attending the meeting in opposition to the issuance of the license were: Mr. Eddy Shepherd, Coordinator of Activities for the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association; Mr. Ed Morey; Mrs. Wanda Rotherwall (one of the applicants for a license in Springfield Township); Mr. Lewis from Bogie Lake Country Club; Mr. R. Walter from Highland Hills Golf Club; Mr. Lloyd Sire from Pontiac Country Club; Mr. Hummond from Arrowhead Golf Club and Mr. Krass from the Detroit Metropolitan Bar Owner's Association. Mr. Shepherd submitted a resolution that you will find attached with this memo, pertaining to the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association's objection to the Parks and Recreation bodies owning liquor licenses. The basic argument sited by most of the people was the fact that they were highly taxed and it was difficult for them to operate, and they did not think it was fair that private enterprise should be challenged by non-profit government organizations. They made a tremendous amount of asumptions as to the fact that seeing we did not have to pay taxes that we probably would undercut them in greens fees and in food and beverage fees. They mentioned that they objected to us getting into the banquet business. They felt that our political clout allowed us to get these liquor licenses over the private enterprise people. They were concerned with who was responsible for enforcing the license once it was issued. Seeing that there was not an individual responsible but an appointed Commission. Liquor Control Commission Hearing Page 2 - September 21, 1972 It was not my intent to testify at this hearing, but to hear the protestors. But in hearing all of the false asumptions that were made on behalf of the people testifying, I felt it incumbent upon myself, in the best interest of the County and the Commission, that I did make a few comments. The comments I made pertained basically to fact and philosphy. I informed the Commission that it was the goal of the Parks and Recreation Commission to be self-supporting and in order to be self- supporting it required revenue producing facilities such as golf courses and the liquor and food that support them. It is not our intent to force anyone out of business, but we intend to remain competitive in the field. It was also stated that our greens fees were lower on the basis of nine -hole golf courses and that the back nine of White Lake -Oaks was just opened the first of August and that our fees were structured according to the nine -holes. Also mentioned was that not a person in the audience who was protesting against this has bothered to contact or come to my office to get the facts straight in reference to what we intended to do, but that everything they had heard was second hand and completely unbased. The basic complaint that was issued at this hearing was not in particular to Springfield -Oaks at all, but the general philosphy of the County not having liquor licenses to be in competition with private enterprise. There was only one argument against the Springfield -Oaks license and that was by Mrs. Rotherwall who said that in 1961 she applied for the license and there was not one available, but as soon as one was available they would be considered. Upon the availability of a license the Rotherwalls applied again and were denied because on the basis that Holly Greens was near their establishment and there was not a need for another license but she said that the County came in and within five seconds was awarded the license. Again a false statement. I cannot speak for how the Commission felt in reference to this hearing but they heard all the arguments and heard my testimony and adjourned the meeting and will notify us in the future as to what their decision was. I do not sincerely feel that the issuance of this license is in jeopardy. ER sln cc: Robert P. Allen, Civil Counsel 1IICHIGAN LICENSED BEVER_kGE ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Michigan Licensed Beverage Association does wholeheartedly support the establishment of public park and recreational facilities for the purpose of family enjoyment and recreation: AND, �41EREAS, It supports the public programs for establishing such facil- ities by governmental agencies; AND, WHEREAS, It is not knowledgeable of any public park system that is licensed to sell liquor on premises under their control; AND, WHEREAS, State law prohibits the addition of liquor licenses on state-owned lands; AND, WHERE,IS, Webster's Encyclopedia of Dictionaries, on pages 364 and 1011 defines "state" as follows: Pages 364 and loll:a "politically organized community; civil powers of such"; AND, WHEREAS, Such definition of "state" covers city, township, village or County, as well as the sovereign State of Michigan and the Federal Government; AND, WHEREAS, It is the unanimous consensus of the delegates of the Michi- gan Licensed Beverage Association, assembled in convention at Lansing, Michigan September 10-12, 1972, that the establishment of liquor licenses for public, governmental bodies is in direct competition with private enterprises whose taxes are used to subsidize park and recreation facilities for the public; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, in convention on this 12th day of September, 1972, oppose the granting of liquc- licenses to any public, politically organized city, village, township, county and any politically established park or recreational facility that is supported by any tax revenue measure or subsidy from tax funds; and, further, that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission adopt this ao policy. Respectfully submitte,a, MICHIGAN LICEITSrD BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION Gruen Cheek, Progide t Eddy erheru, Coordinator of Activities GC - ES,heh