Morningside civic   association

Log in

Parks Committee

Co-Chairs: Eli Stiers & Jacqueline Degwitz


Relevant Resources


City

FOMT

General impression

Status quo

Small group, runs 2 facilities Tamiami and Ehrmann in Pinecrest; does not appear to have big commercial ambitions; knowledgeable and experienced tennis veteran

Facility Culture

Minimally required service, open gates, man cash register, close gates, keep clean

More robust pro shop, vending machines, tables and umbrellas

Youth Programming

Status quo

More robust and professionalized 

Adult programming

Status quo

More robust and professionalized

Price (open play)

$2 city resident  $3 Non-city resident

Same for year 1, then $3 city resident and $4 non city resident for remainder of 3 - 5 year  term

Price (youth programming)

$15 drop in, $90 for month (includes 9 one hour programs)

$13 - $18 per 1 to 1 ½ hour after school activity

Tournaments

None

Desired, but not a must have, parking and infrastructure of facility not necessarily conducive for tournaments

Court open play availability

Status quo

More robust youth programming (assuming demand is there) may reduce court availability from 4 – 6:30 weekday afternoons; if adult leagues are introduced and successful, this may have an impact on availability

Private coaching

Allowed + fee

Only FOMT instructors

Consistency of coaching staff

Rolando, Tim, Lenka

Tim and Lenka would be employed by FOMT and Rolando would not

Impact on neighbors

Status quo

More robust programming creates unknown exposure 

Conclusions:

  1. From a narrow Morningside resident perspective, the status quo poses the least risk.

  2. From a Morningside tennis perspective either adult or families with children that play or desire to play, FOMT offers more opportunities, and the risk of courts not being available for open play during desired times appears low.

  3. While the City beyond Morningside is outside the MCA jurisdiction, the City would derive clear benefits from a more professionally run tennis facility, compounded by the cap on price increase.

  4. Biggest and unknown risk: car spillover due to increased programming.  If parking were required to remain within the park boundaries and not allowed on swale adjacent to resident homes, risk would be minimal if at all.  By way of example, there are family birthday parties and bbqs that attract equal if not more people on a given weekend day as would any of the tennis programming noted above that have no impact on the community, because the activity and the parking are contained within the park.  Enforcing interior parking would be a reasonable request of the city and of FOMT to enforce.

Recommendations

  1. Require contractor to either restrict USTA sanctioned tournaments or to limit i.e. no more than 1 per calendar quarter 

  2. Require contractor to enforce tennis goers for all tennis scheduled programming to utilize park interior parking; consider requesting the City to do the same for all park activity and eliminate swale parking permanently 

  3. Require contractor to elaborate with more clarity court availability, currently contract states “FOMT shall ensure that at least two (2) tennis courts are available for open play at all times.”  

  • 2017 Parks Committee Survey (150 respondents of 450 surveyed): HERE 


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software