Council ratifies three pickleball agreements and directs staff to pursue piggyback construction contract

The Lake Placid Town Council ratified three agreements associated with the Lake June Park pickleball project and directed staff to pursue a piggyback construction contract at its Aug. 11 meeting, despite objections from one council member over a preselected contractor referenced in the design agreement.

The agreements ratified were: a county RPAC interlocal agreement (for Lake June Park Phase 3), a state Firdapse grant agreement (grant document referred to in the packet as "Firdap/Firdapse"), and a Kimley‑Horn design and permitting agreement. Council voted to ratify all three agreements and later separately directed staff to pursue a piggyback construction contract to expedite the work.

Why it matters: The ratified agreements clear key administrative and funding steps for the pickleball and associated park improvements; the construction approach and vendor selection will determine timetables and costs.

Staff presentation and rationale: Town Administrator Charlotte and staff told the council the agreements had been executed earlier under the prior administration and that the ratification was necessary to move the project forward. The town planner, Dana Riddell, told the council the Dollar General plat and other items had similar timing issues under recent statutory changes, but for the pickleball project staff said project documents and grant paperwork are in order and that the state grant is reimbursement-based.

Procurement and preselection concerns: Council member Charles said she supported the RPAC and state grant agreements but opposed the Kimley‑Horn contract because it repeatedly references a private court-builder identified as "Nitti/Nitty" in the design documents and suggested that the contract language amounted to a preselection of a subcontractor. Charles said: "I'm a yes to the RPAC and the FirdApp, and I'm a no to the Kimley Horn. I would like to see the design that's been given to them from us that they're designing. And I have concern of a pre selecting a supplier in this contract."

The town attorney and staff responded that engineers often identify specialist court designers and that a piggyback procurement method or cooperative purchasing arrangement is available under state law; they emphasized that a piggyback would be brought back to council for approval. Town Attorney Bert advised the standard grant and piggyback approaches were common and lawful in similar projects.

Contractor presentation: Jonathan Papp, who identified himself as representing Nitti Sports (corporate office in Longwood, Florida), told the council his firm both designs and self‑performs court construction and said the company had provided cost estimates and technical support during grant preparation. Papp said his firm had held pricing and offered to provide construction under a cooperative/piggyback arrangement. He said, in part, “we are the only company in the state that builds the court ourselves... we will be the primary point of contact for the construction of the pickleball courts.”

Budget and grant amounts: During the discussion staff pointed to Firdapse paperwork showing a $200,000 grant award and an additional $50,000 "ready" waiver for a $250,000 total estimated project amount in early contract pages; staff also said the town match was budgeted in the 2024‑25 plan and would continue into 2025‑26. Council members and the public noted the Kimley‑Horn design contract fee shown in the packet was approximately $53,000, which council members said was higher than an earlier $25,000 estimate.

Votes and outcomes: The council ratified the three agreements (motion carried; Council member Charles recorded a no vote on the combined motion because she opposed the Kimley‑Horn portion). After the ratification, Council member Deborah moved and the council approved a separate direction for staff to pursue a piggyback construction contract and to return to council with a recommended piggyback agreement once design was complete.

Ending: Staff said they would return to council with the piggyback contract and final design details; council members reiterated that any construction contract would require council approval. The project timeline and final cost will depend on the completed design and whether the council authorizes piggyback versus a competitive bid process.