Loading...
Agenda 02/16/1989 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA FEBRUARY 16, 1989 The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting will be held on Thursday, February 16, 1989, 8 : 30 A.M. in the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, Conference Room, 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard. I. Call Meeting to Order II. Changes or Additions to Agenda III . Approval of Minutes from January 26, 1989 IV. Old Business A. Action List V. New Business A. Beach/Water Safety Ordinance B. Renewal of Submerged Land Lease Agreement C. City of Naples Parks & Recreation/ Collier County Recreation Boards VI. Informational Items A. East Naples Community Park Construction Status B. Everglades City Approval of Interlocal Agreement C. Draft Interlocal Agreement for Immokalee Middle School Land Swap I . Call Meeting to Order II . Changes or Additions to Agenda III . Approval of Minutes from January 26, 1989 IV. Old Business A. Action List V. New Business A. Beach/Water Safety Ordinance B. Renewal of Submerged Land Lease Agreement C. City of Naples Parks & Recreation/ Collier County Recreation Boards VI. Informational Items A. East Naples Community Park Construction Status B. Everglades City Approval of Interlocal Agreement C. Draft Interlocal Agreement for Immokalee Middle School Land Swap 888 January 26, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on this date at 8: 30 AM in the Conference Room of the Administration Building at Golden Gate Community Park, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Scott McQuillin Charles Stevens Kim Patrick Kobza Gil Mueller Absent - Leon Williams ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tom Peek, Wilson Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. ; Cliff Crawford, Parks and Recreation Director; Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation Manager; Marilyn McGinty, Recreation Superintendent; Barbara Johnson, Parks and Recreation Secretary. AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Invocation III. Pledge of Allegiance IV. Recognition of Ron Burton V. Changes or Additions to Agenda VI. Approval of Minutes from December 6, 1988 VII. Old Business A. Action List B. Day and time of meeting VIII . New Business A. Bid 89-1350, Golden Gate Baseball Field B. Continuation of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. contract C. Interlocal Agreement with Cities for collecting impact fees D. Proposed Agreement for Immokalee Middle School Exchange E. Discussion of Guidelines for PARAB F. Memorial in Memory of George Pittman G. School Bus Agreement H. Requesting authorization to proceed with replacement for Mr. Leon Williams Remarks pertaining to: VII. B. Day and Time of Meeting The previous Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, to accommodate the scheduling needs of the Immokalee representative, changed the meeting day from the third Thursday of the month to the fourth Thursday of the month. The Board member affected has since resigned from PARAB. By meeting on the fourth Thursday of the month considerable delays are sometimes caused in addressing matters that should be brought to the Board of County Commissioners in a timely manner. Staff would prefer a meeting date other than the fourth Thursday to help alleviate these delays. This matter was discussed with the previous Board members at the December 6th meeting. VIII. A. Bid 89-1350 Golden Gate Baseball Field The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Board of County Commissioners authorized construction of a regulation baseball field at the Golden Gate Community Park. The bids will be opened at 2 : 00 pm on Friday, January 20, 1989. The Bid Summary and Staff recommendations will be presented at the meeting on January 26th. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Scott McQuillin at 8 : 30 AM. Mr. Ron Burton was not present so the plaque recognizing his services as a member of PARAB could not be presented. Minutes of December 6, 1988 meeting were approved. 4-0 Action List Bluebill Boat Ramp: Mr. Crawford - We are awaiting an opinion from the Legal Staff as to questions raised about the ability to construct a boat ramp in a deed restricted area, and we are continuing to review two plans. I took the new PARAB members to visit the site. Mr. Kobza: I have a special interest in that particular issue and would like to be kept up to date on that if possible. I am especially concerned about the ramp to serve putting boats into the canal and the effect it is going to have on the back yards of all the residents. I think very obviously it is going to become an issue before the Board of County Commissioners and maybe we can deflect some of the questions before it gets to that point. Mr. Crawford: You can also set up a meeting with local home owners association; it may be a good format for that to occur. Mr. Kobza: Realtors in North Naples are selling lots without disclosing the park is going in and the boat ramp is to be built. Two sites have gone $140, 000 per lot. Someone could come into the area buying without knowledge of what is going to happen. This would be a position for conflict and we want to be most informed about it. Mr. Crawford: We have two designs available which we can present formally at the next meeting. We are not ready to make a decision yet. Mr. Kobza: I am interested in how much boat traffic it would generate in the canal - 20 or 200. Mr. Crawford: We can address those type of operational plans - Mr. McQuillin: This is also something you can put on the agenda for next meeting. We can talk about it and get some answers to questions and any concerns that people have. If they have input they can come to our meeting and we can in turn go to the Board of County Commissioners. One of our functions is to give the Board of County Commissioners a feel of what citizens feel. I think it would bear some thought. Mr. Kobza: It may be a good idea to place it on the next agenda. I am afraid what might happen is that we get the engineers reports and have to act quickly, particularly prior to getting some input at this point and go forward without placing it on the agenda and seeing what people want - they would have a chance to attend. Mr. McQuillin: The agenda goes through the media and is published in the paper. Mr. Kobza: We could make the local association aware. Mr. Crawford: I agree and make the boating and fishing community aware also - people who would have diversified interests. Park Rangers Enforce Ordinances: We are a non-chartered county and the enforcement of a ordinance requires a change to the State statue. It requires a special legislative act and has to be acted on in order for action to hold up in court. It is included in the legislative packet for local legislators - this session begins in mid April. Construction of Facilities on County Owned Property: This is a policy saying not excluding non- park sites, but using County property as a priority. It will appear on BCC agenda in February. Trophy Bid: This is primarily for athletics - bids were reviewed and the Board of County Commissioners will be acting on it in February. It was delayed due to an analysis Parks and Recreation performed. Bids for East Naples Community Park: Bids were awarded in mid-December by the Board of County Commissioners. The contracts left the County Attorney's office yesterday to go back to Wilson, Miller - it was mainly language changes in insurance. The contracts will then be returned to Purchasing and notification to proceed will be forwarded to Better Roads and Mid-Continent for construction. Mr. Smith: Bob Furlong picked up the material yesterday, will get it to the contractors this week, and back to Purchasing early next week. Willow Run Proposal: Mr. Bonness has submitted a different acquisition proposal with a 7 year time frame. This proposal went directly, as requested by Assistant County Manager Ron McLemore, to the County Manager's office and is being reviewed there. Mr. McQuillin: We had a special meeting with Tom Cook and Mr. Bonness who would like to affect a trade with the County. Mr. Mueller: I do not know where Willow Run is located. Mr. Crawford: It is located near the Swamp Buggy grounds. The Comprehensive Plan originally talked about a bond issue. The proposal by the Assistant County Manager was not a bond issue and was regarding an acquisition with 3 to 5 years of time. Impact Fee Ordinance: Part of the money collected goes to Parks and Recreation. The City is considering annexation, some of which ® is in our service area. The County Attorney's staff is reviewing that portion of the service area which would still be required to pay impact fees. Mr. McQuillin: Has the City started collecting? Mr. Crawford: It has agreed to collect the regional impact fee but not the local community park fee. i I Lely Barefoot Beach Deed Parking Lot: This has been accepted and the County has the title and ownership of the property. City/County Agreement for interim water service at East Naples Community Park: Chris Holley informed me that this issue is on the City Council's agenda next Wednesday. Bid 18-1330 Park entrance Signs - These were sand blasted signs. Bid was awarded to Signs of Naples. Contract for Collier Sports Officials Associations: This was approved by BCC - it is something that has been done every year. This action list show the status of actions taken by PARAB. As items are completed they drop from the list. Day and Time of Meeting: Mr. McQuillin: We talked about this after the last meeting. It appears to be preferred to meet on the third Thursday instead of the fourth Thursday of the month. My proposal is to meet on the third Thursday at 8: 30 AM. Any other proposals? Mr. Kobza: Has there ever been a need to do work shops? Mr. McQuillin: No, not described as a workshop. We could do it if you have an interest. Mr. Kobza: The Board meets once a month, we could have a workshop meeting to be brought up to date for projects currently in progress. What is the scope of our responsibilities and what do we get into? Mr. Crawford: We could make the decision on the regular meeting and when we get down to "8-E" set guidelines as to the work shop, formal meeting or some other approach. You can discuss the role and approach taken by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Meetings will be held on the third Thursday of the month starting 8:30 AM. Mr. McQuillin: We need to elect officers, Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr. Stevens: It is customary but not mandatory to use the older members. I would make a motion that Scott be made Chairman but eliminate me as Vice Chairman. Mr. Mueller: Why eliminate you? Mr. Stevens: Because I am really not interested. You people will be on the Board for a longer period of time. Mr. Kobza: I think it is logical that Scott should be Chairman. Mr. Stevens: I MAKE A MOTION THAT SCOTT BE NAMED CHAIRMAN. SECONDED BY MR. MUELLER: Approved 3-0. Mr. McQuillin: MOTION THAT CHARLIE STEVENS BE MADE VICE-CHAIRMAN. SECONDED BY MR. KOBZA. Approved 3-0. NEW BUSINESS: B. Continuation of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. Contract. Mr. Peek was introduced. Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek has been working the last 5 years on our community parks and we will be addressing the contract. Within the existing contract we have language that provides the opportunity to continue the contract. It was not written for any time period, only specified the five community parks as have been identified - East Naples, Frank E. Mackie, Golden Gate, North Naples and Immokalee. If we were looking for professional services for a new park, it would not be in that contract. We have reviewed the services provided by Wilson, Miller since 1982 . Each of us can look at what we have in place and the quality of the services and facilities. Part of this is having the best possible people to accomplish that task, including professional engineering firms. A special proposal has been submitted by Mr. Peek within the allocated funds for professional services and represents 80% of what is requested for all professional services for the preliminary through the final design. The Master Plan includes all final design. This contract will design the balance of our facilities within the five parks. We will then have completed designs available for bidding purposes, be able to pick various pieces and send them out for contract. What is not included is service during construction. This will tailor it - we can tailor specifically as to what is going to bid for the completion of design for Phase II of all five parks. It is based upon the approved County's Comprehensive Plan. There are some differences between the five parks in this proposal and what is anticipated construction and Master Plans - ie tennis courts - current level of service as approved does not indicate additional tennis courts. Not on Master Plan so would not be included in this contract. It would not include anything not approved for that particular park. Mr. Peek: It shows what facilities are in each park and where they were to be located. Mr. McQuillin: This design work done - I would assume that for East Naples some design work was done. Mr. Peek: Yes, Part I design contract and construction will start when final contract is received. Mr. McQuillin: Any questions? Mr. Crawford: I would like to add something - one provision - in the existing contract is a section where basically the provider of professional services and the County can agree upon to time schedules and accomplishment of professional services. One of the things we had a discussion about was including sitting down, discussing and agreeing upon whatever we do, be it community park or a facility type that a time frame would be set and we would have stages where staff and professional consultants would interact and have bench marks for completion in a timely manner. Mr. McQuillin: Are time recommendations in the contract? Mr. Crawford: Yes, but not utilized to full opportunity. We would be using the approach of a bench mark to insure we are moving forward in a timely manner. Mr. McQuillin: Can we make changes in design? Mr. Crawford: Provisions are made in the existing contract - we would have to allow additional time if it is a new design. We already have those provisions in our 1982 agreement. We have had design changes in ENCP because of requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Peek: 80% of total fee covers design and 20% is construction supervision. Mr. Crawford: We are trying to get as much designed as we can. Mr. Peek: What we are looking at is within the next 9 or 10 months to have the designs laying on the shelf and ready to go to bid when funds become available. We can put a package together and get it on the street and have the bid back. This is what is intended. We will sit down and decide on planning, set up a time table for production of the plan, have plan all set to follow. Mr. McQuillin: Any questions? Mr. Kobza: We are considering this item. Is this a recommendation? Mr. Crawford: Yes, it will go to the Board of County Commissioners and will be under the next available agenda. We submitted this item to the Board. It will have two additional reviews; will have a similar review and be signed off by Purchasing, the County Attorney's office, and then goes to the BCC. Mr. Kobza: No definite date to determine the contract? Mr. Peek: Go through competitive consultant negotiation action by use of advertising for services, respond, go through selection process and then present to the BCC and finally selection. Scope of services was for all five parks; a blanket agreement to provide services for a specific contract. You have the first phase nearing completion and we are working on Phase II now. Phase I comprised six million dollars. Work on construction started, we provided planning and design services. At the beginning the County had identified five locations for parks and in some cases the purchase of property had not been completed. Golden Gate property was selected and we were given the boundaries of the property. County Commissioners had a Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee appointed, then the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee wanted to get input from the local area; a Citizens Committee was formed, they sat down and developed lists of items wanted within their park areas and negotiations continued. We ended up with an approved list and we did a master plan of where facilities would be located, a process that involved the citizens group, PARAB group and BCC. Master plans were adopted - at that time bike motor cross was popular - they had a space set aside for bike racing as shown on the Master Plan. The BCC, after purchasing various property, deducted the land costs from the eight million dollar bond issue and determined what monies were left for construction and this amount was divided among the parks. Priority order was established within each park, monies were allocated and building went on until the money was exhausted. (Map shown of Golden Gate Community Park) Golden Gate has 4 tennis courts, 4 Racquet courts, control building, children's play area, part of parking area, football/soccer field without lights, 2 softball fields with lights, landscaping and other facilities - so that was built in Phase I. The same applied to the four other facilities according to the wants - each park is slightly different. Typically Golden Gate, North Naples and East Naples will have a basic core of facilities for use; the balance of the facilities, proposed field design was an intermediate design under special package. The completion includes the road and parking lot, Little League field and more parking. Over here is where the motor cross would have been, it has gone out of fashion. Additional restrooms, field, another children's play area, along with a 50 meter pool are not only included to serve this park but the coastal Collier County area. Balance of racquet ball courts and some additional baseball fields, the jogging trail around the interior of park are typical of what this phase of development covers. Mr. Kobza: You are going back in and design facilities that are not currently there but in the plan, kind of an overlay. Mr. Peek: Yes. Mr. Stevens: Another thing. Boat landings and fishing docks. Mr. Crawford: Again, with the Master Plan and Level of Services - that along with other types of facilities not called for by citizens - does not limit us - it is not committed to construction because it is on a level of service within that 6 year frame. Mr. Stevens: I thought this was planned for Golden Gate Park and was in there. Mr. Crawford: The levels of services the Board approved have some things that do not interact exactly. The Master Plans approved exceeded in this area by the existing Level of Services in the Growth Management Plan says we have sufficient available tennis courts, so do not need to construct more. It means that at this point in time they will not be constructed. Each year by State law BCC has the responsibility to go over the level of services and they may review and recommend changes. By approaching this in this manner it allows us to have a plan for construction. Basically all it is is a statistical review and Collier County should be providing 80%. Annually we will have the opportunity to review but not currently planned. Mr. Stevens: It is in the final design phase but the level of services shows that we do not need it now. The total inventory is available for public to meet the State 5 year plan. Mr. Crawford: Yes. Boat launching facilities can be fresh or salt water. One of these areas in the plan approved include a recommendation within 6 years to have fresh water launching here in Golden Gate Community Park. It is not a Bayview, and does not show on this plan but needs to be addressed. Nothing is being eliminated from the Master Plan. The Master Plan for Frank E. Mackle shows a civic center. It is in the Master Plan but funding and Level of Services determined that at this point in time we have not met that level of service yet. It means we do not need to construct and design at this time but not to eliminate. The Level of Services is based on the population estimate - if we have some increase in growth it could impact construction of additional facilities. On the other hand if a building moratorium is imposed, we will not be be constructing, but will have them designed. Taking this approach, get the facilities designed and when the Level of Services and funding become available, we can move forward in a timely manner. This procedure will allow us to do that. Mr. Stevens: Golden Gate Parkway - no ramps, but people are putting boats in the canal - if that is cut off people cannot put the boats in. That is on private property. Mr. Crawford: We are addressing that - we had a firm conduct a study of the boat launching facilities. They came back and said the need for boat launching facilities in fresh water canals was there. We have 15, 000 registered vessels in Collier County, where could we put the ramps and where does the boating community want to go? Yes, we are looking for ramp facilities on this site. Mr. Stevens: On private property and if cut off no place for people to put boats in. Mr. Crawford: There is a makeshift ramp being used now on this property. Mr. Kobza: How do you arrive at the numbers? Bill on a per centage basis? Mr. Peek: We have been through a lot of this. We can go back to our records and see the time frame, man hour study, see those that you can reuse or revise. You take that facility to that spot. Some facilities are built new and some never built. We look to see what a 50 meter pool is costing to construct these days, start out using % of cost of construction, then look at our records and then inflate costs from dollar amount from that period of time to today so that we had a comparison. The number you have there represents 5. 6% cost of estimated construction of our facilities. The value of facilities based on prior prices shows you have approximately 8 . 8 million dollars worth of facilities. Mr. Kobza: Give number of man hours for the main facilities. Take man hour number and assign a rate to that for . . .Mr. Peek: Yes and then compare with the last facility built. Mr. Kobza: The 5. 6% takes into account the original work done? Mr. Peek: No. Mr. Kobza: If there is a lag between design and completion of this phase, and beginning construction is not funded for 3 or 5 years, does that lag affect the cost on the final phase? Would there be more design charges necessary between the current design and beginning construction? Say the building standards became more rigid? Mr. Peek: No, generally not. Building codes do not change that much. The ones that are most likely to change are fire codes and electrical codes. Most of our outdoor facilities have not changed. Requirements have not changed for ballfields, etc. An area that would change would be if a site designed specifically for this Master Plan and you want to move a baseball field from there to there if there is a significant difference in topographical map, there would be an additional expense to modify the design. The other side of the coin is that if you decide to move that field 4 years from now, it would cost more 4 years from now than doing it now. I do not think you have a lot of concern by doing the design now and sitting on the shelf. You will never have that many changes in codes. You do have four or five enclosed facilities, basically community centers, Frank E. Mackle being the prototype - four more of those with some slight modifications. Four structures there and one multipurpose facility that will be designed for East Naples. Basically a general type of facility within those kinds of facilities codes have not made any changes in the last number of years. Mr. Kobza: The Master Plan, what is the time table for construction, two years or what? Mr. Crawford: Within the packets provided to you there is an estimated time schedule for construction. Next year BCC approves funding 4 million dollars for constructing two major facilities. At the end of the window are the two pool facilities. Again everything is relative to the population analysis as well as funding. It is anticipated that four million dollars would represent almost all of community park construction funds and the remaining of that is the pool itself so we would be somewhere in the 60% range of completion. Mr. Kobza: Am I correct, design techniques in pools change fairly rapidly? Mr. Crawford: I think the largest change that has occurred in pools - I have been involved with pools - have been implemented by the Health Department. Changes may affect the chlorine systems - only changes I have seen has been going to stainless steel systems. If you designed a 50 meter wave recreational pool and then wanted to have a 50 meter, diving pool, it would not be compatible. There have been no real significant changes - more with staffing, life guards, etc. In the early years there were many changes. Mr. Kobza: I am thinking about decking materials. Mr. Peek: Seen changes in more decorative type for home use. Concrete deck has been traditional, changes have been in filtration, etc. which are exterior to the actual parts of the pool. In a 5 or 6 year window it is hard to predict what is in research. Mr. Kobza: Probably should not be in the position of having an actual design and then not going to use it. Mr. Crawford: In the original Comprehensive Plan, pool construction was expected to be accomplished next year. It was moved into the back window. When preparing the Budget, the County as a whole was looking at the Growth Management Plan. Each Department was asked what could you do to help implement a plan and reduce fiscal impact as a County system. At that point some decisions were made to delay actual construction. An Olympic pool represents a significant dollar amount, it was more of a financial decision than a level of service decision. That may have happened in some other Departments with a large number of facilities. The approach to design is if we are successful in getting outside resources we want to be in a position to move forward. ie. Immokalee Middle School may be an example. If we move forward into this agreement with the School Board and do the design of the pool on the middle school site, and working with the School Board are successful in receiving some School Board capital - we can move forward to take advantage of the pool. The pool was always part of the design for Immokalee. Mr. McQuillin: It has been in the Master Plan, we are paying for specific design work here and we are gambling that there will not be significant changes before implemented. How much of a savings is there by having it done today? How much of a delay to have it ready if funding is available , would wonder how long it takes to do this design? Or say another Heath property situation came along? Mr. Crawford: Remember talking about site adaptation - not talking about construction Mr. McQuillin: We are being general, not specific. We are being asked to recommend we pay for design work that goes out five years in the future and the trade off in terms of paying now is we will save money instead of doing the design work at future time. The down side is we could move into a market and not have people here and not complete it at all. We could have a situation occur and have another property transaction and would need some design work done and you would not have the design work ready. Although it seems to me if you have done these things in the past, I wonder how long would it take to come up with that? Mr. Crawford: If the population changes or standards stay the same, and if purchase should be moved up in construction period we could move forward in construction of the pool in the next fiscal year. I would say that it would be impossible to accomplish designing, construction permitting requirements, etc. It would not be possible in one fiscal year. Mr. McQuillin: Tom, am I making the correct assumption you would be getting paid on an ongoing basis, not paid $495, 000 at one time? How long a time are we talking, is this design work being completed during 1989? Mr. Peek: It will be paid during 1989 . Capital Improvement budget 88/89 design money was set aside. Beginning in FY89 construction money is scheduled. My understanding is facilities that are to be funded in the next October budget, the design fees are all being completed in 1989 . Mr. McQuillin: My concern is we may never need the pool - we paid for design of the motor track. . .Mr. Peek: No, the area was set aside but no design was done. I do not have the design cost of a pool with me - in general terms $1. 5 million dollars, smaller pool 1/2 million dollars, so about two million dollars. Mr. McQuillin: Any questions? Mr. Mueller: I was aware of some modifications in Frank E. Mackle Community Park, could you be specific? Mr. McQuillin: Let us discuss that afterwards. Mr. Mueller: On page three - how were these priorities established? Mr. Crawford: Looking at some facilities that take longer to construct and work your way back out. We are trying to get everyone's level of service up to an acceptable level. Since East Naples is the last on line we start there. On all facilities, recognizing that Heath property is changing and will be a middle school and the Board approves the 3 year funding, that on terms of actual construction it was more economical to move forward on an individual park site on all construction than we do a certain type of facility throughout the County system. Mr. McQuillin: Any more questions? Mr. Kobza: How comfortable do you feel with the fact that we can spend this money and then go forward with it up to a 6 year time frame. Mr. McQuillin: That is a natural question that any tax payer would have. We have have. Mr. Kobza: Have do they arrive at that 3%? Mr. Crawford: When the legal staff designed the community impact fees for the library and parks an analysis had determined a reasonable fee to be collected would be approximately 3-5% of collection of impact fees. If the regional park impact fee were not collected we would have loss of the total dollars. I would suggest you talk directly with Ken Cuyler as how 3% was determined. Mr. Kobza: That dollar should be more related to the time needed - person's time - to put it in the City's treasury and transfer of funds and associated costs. Mr. Stevens: Can't they do that through the County? Most of your construction is going to be outside of the City. Mr. Crawford: We are not being charged by the Clerk of Courts for collection of impact fees. Mr. Stevens: This is specifically within the City of Naples? Mr. Crawford: Yes, People will go to the City for permits and payment of fees. There is no reason to interact with the County itself. It is more convenient for the builder to pay all fees in one place. Mr. Kobza: Another way for the City to administer would be a flat rate opposed to %. Mr. McQuillin: We can relay through the Executive Summary we recommend the BCC question flat rate instead of per centage. Mr. Crawford: The City has already agreed to the situation. I am thinking the BCC would want to move forward. Mr. McQuillin: We could make a recommendation to that effect. Mr. Stevens: How was this determined? (Mr. Peek left meeting. ) Mr. Crawford: An analysis was done by the consulting legal staff not to exceed 5%. Mr. Kobza: 3% or dollar amount - agreement is on the table and should get implemented. Mr. Crawford: The total amount is not much. The regional impact fee is only $245. MOTION BY MR. KOBZA - RECOMMEND TO ENTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITIES FOR COLLECTING IMPACT FEES. SECONDED BY MR. STEVENS. APPROVED 4-0. BIDS FOR BASEBALL FIELD AT GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK - We received bids last Friday on the Golden Gate Community Park regulation baseball field. The BCC approved to move the time table of construction up for the baseball field. We received 4 bids from the construction community - the lowest bid being that of Mid-Continent with the lowest being somewhere around the $568, 000 amount. The estimated amount of construction in our Comprehensive Plan and estimated by our Collier County staff was around $350, 000. What are we going to do? We have a couple of options. 1. We feel that there is some concerns in the area of the electrical. These figures are much higher than those associated with the new construction going on out at Lely. It would appear that we have the ability to make some substitutions or certain types of facilities etc. to reduce the figure. There appears to be substantiation that we could get this figure within the range of the anticipated cost. We have the ability under the bid process to enter into and negotiate with the lowest bidder. I talked with Wilson, Miller who has spoken to one of 0 these bidders. Mr. McQuillin: Has anyone talked to one of these bidders? Mr. Crawford: Yes. There are very good alternatives available to reduce the cost. We do not have the authority to sit down and accomplish this without your permission and the BCC permission. We can reject the bids and start again. County Manager's staff and County Engineer may recommend to move forward and enter into negotiations and bring back the results for your approval. Mr. Kobza: Going to negotiate with each one? Mr. Crawford: No, only with the lowest bidder and if not, you can recommend rejection of these bids, change the standards within that document and then test the market again. Mr. McQuillin: There may be someone new out there - do these people know who the lowest bidder was? Mr. Crawford: It is public record. Mr. Smith: All received bid tabulations. We want to say go back and negotiate to see if we can get the bid back in line. Mr. Kobza: Are you going to break out the portions of each one of these bids? Mr. Crawford: You can look at the individual items. It is a very detailed bid that each contractor has to complete and I feel that there is room to address some of these cost items. Mr. Kobza: You have to be very careful in going back to the low bidder. Sometime not comparing apples to apples. We do not want that to affect other bidders to really have a fair bid process. Mr. Smith: In the past the Board authorized other Departments to go back and negotiate with the low bidder. Mr. Crawford: Purchasing sets the guide lines. Mr. Carnell, Director of Purchasing is in the building attending a training session. Maybe he will speak to us. Request was made for Mr. Carnell to come to meeting. Mr. McQuillin: Let's move on to the School Bus Agreement (ITEM G. SCHOOL BUS AGREEMENT) while we are waiting. Miss McGinty: I checked with the School Bus Transportation Department and we can acquire used school buses, 1983 or 84 models, for at the most 4 or 5 thousand dollars. Previous agreements have been for $9, 000 - we will have to cut 33% of bus trips with the increase in rates. We will not be having as many bus trips. Mr. McQuillin: You will only be going 7 times instead of 10 times. Naples Skatery will lose money and other vendors also, in addition to kids having decreased activities. Miss McGinty: It is better to take an all day trip instead of a short trip. Mr. Stevens: The odd part of this is that if you take a long trip it would cost less. With quick calculations I came up with a 30% increase on local trips. Miss McGinty: Immokalee came out OK. I also checked with Russ Porter in Fort Myers on how much per hour to use the buses - it was not under $20 per hour. Mr. Crawford: This gives us the option to use the buses but does not require us to use them. It will give us a chance to research cost effective alternatives and gives us a back up for bus use. Again, the cost changes were not just for Parks and Recreation but also apply within the school system. It came from the School Transportation Department due to increased cost for operation. Any bus usage within the school system will be paying the same fees. Mr. McQuillin: It gives us the flexibility to look for alternative ways. We are entering into an agreement but it is not necessary for us to use it. Miss McGinty: I am trying to make them aware I will be asking for a bus pretty soon. As the programs begin to grow there will more expenses. Mr. McQuillin: Any more discussion? Mr. Stevens: MOTION MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING SCHOOL BUSES TO TRANSPORT RECREATION PARTICIPANTS. Seconded by Mr. Mueller. Mr. Crawford: If it a concern of the Board you can include in the Executive Summary the recommendation to explore other options. MR. STEVENS: ADD DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK INTO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. MR. MUELLER SECONDED. APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Carnell arrived and discussion was reverted to baseball field. Mr. Carnell, Director of Purchasing, was introduced by Mr. Crawford. The issue was raised regarding the competitive negotiations and process taken with respect to bids received in excess of anticipated construction amounts. Steve will share some information with us. Mr. Carnell: Purchasing policy - where lowest qualifying responsive bid is over budgeted amount the Board can authorize negotiations but prefaced on a couple of things. 1) . Board does not go ahead and budget the difference in funds and 2 , it is confined to the lowest bidder. This is for two reasons - 1) . Origin of Process - competitive bids, this is where we name specifications and you give us your best offers. In turn we will evaluate you based on our needs and what your offer is. Price being a consideration and other factors as well. It is a very constrained two way communication process. You get one shot at them and they get one shot at you and a decision is made. The concept was made possibly opening to one or more bidder. Remember the budget is 350 and the low bidder is 568 . That is $220, 000 for the low bidder alone and more for anyone else. I have had quite a bit of discussion with the Attorney's office about the language in the policy which says the Board may authorize or instruct the Purchasing Director to negotiate changes with the apparent low bidder. We have had discussions regarding what the word changes mean. It is my contention, and at this point the County Attorney agrees, that it means you can modify specs when you are in this extraordinary situation of being over budget. Although I am sorry to say lately it does not seem to be an extraordinary situation. If you go to a situation like this you have to stick with that one low bidder only. What are going to do to bring down the cost? If it is confined to the low bidder you are not straying too far away from the competitive bid process. Also because you want limited negotiations because if you go too far away from the specifications and if problems arise later it is difficult to point back to specifications which are not going to mean as much. It is difficult to be fair in a negotiation situation, say you propose your changes and then go to another and so to be fair need try to limit it. That is why the County Attorney's office says the lower of the vendors. Mr. McQuillin: Over $220, 000 may be worth it to ask different people what proposed changes would be to get some input. Each may have different ways of changing. Use this information and come forth with new criteria and ask for rebidding. I think the fact that talking to one person, if I were one of the other three, I would be a little upset about the situation. Some may not be so interested in bidding in the future. Mr. Carnell: Low bidder has earned right to negotiate because they are the low bidder. All things equal the obvious logic of going with the low bidder is you have less blood to bleed out of the turnip in terms of dollar amount. If you open it to everyone, you stray further form the original idea. I think we are driven by policy that would try all as a second attempt; first, get amount down to an amount where staff would feel comfortable again, stay with the low bidder and you would be under the umbrella of the original bid. If you strike out, then it may be the appropriate time to ask all for input before scraping all bids. Good idea, one that if you are looking at a rebid that input was solicited and would be put in next set of bid specifications. Mr. Kobza: What I am struggling with is talking about $225, 000 from low to budget but between these bidders only talking about less than 24 , 000 plus 10% of that amount between the second and low bidder - start making changes in other lines, because of cost structure, anyone of those bidders - like one guy can be electrical, landscaping, etc. - are we really being fair to all those bidders if we are going to sit down and negotiate with one? I would sit with all . If you had only one bidder or if difference was larger would make more sense. I know it was done with the Justice Center - Kraft was only bidder. Mr. Stevens: $24 , 000 between lowest and second, talking difference by $14, 000 on line items. Did they send this out as a general contractor, or can you get landscaping from one, etc. - it was general contractor and they sub all of this. Mr. Kobza: If it is process of value engineering , let's get input and rebid. Mr. Crawford: I do not agree. I think we have the obligation to try and negotiate with the lowest bidder, and then if we are not successful get input and redraft the specifications and generate more responsive bidding from the construction community. Then the same question goes if between the first and second, why not between the third and fourth? Then you are talking about the complexity of the process and if there is a problem associated with the specifications or the resources available then that would probably be addressed in step two of the procurement after the negotiation process was exhausted, either successfully or unsuccessfully. Mr. Stevens: I agree with what he is bringing up and what he has stated. If its is legal, let's renegotiate then if you cannot come to a compromise reject and re-submit. Mr. Crawford: That has positives and negatives - frankly, I am surprised we had four people bid because there is so much other construction going on. There have been unsuccessful efforts in generating construction interest in multi-million dollar projects and this is a small project. Mr. Stevens: What is deficit? Mr. Crawford: $346, 500 available as line item. Major amount of money is in the electrical. Based upon recent construction that number is extremely high. It is in excess of $100, 000 over the same facilities and in some cases by the same firms. I think it is worth that effort and if not successful to simply revise those specifications and really open it up. Mr. Carnell: What makes you think we would not get four bids if specifications were changed? Mr. Crawford: By the responses received. Mr. Stevens: Four businesses bidding on one project - to get someone to try and cut it down $225, 000, I do not know how you are going to get a ball diamond built. Mr. Crawford: No other companies will bid in my opinion. Mr. Mueller: Does the contractor sub these out? Mr. Crawford: Yes. Mr. Mueller: I thought McGovern might bid - they have all the capabilities, general contractor but sub work and Better Roads as well as Harper Company. Seems that area most suitable is the miscellaneous column. Mr. McQuillin: What is it you are asking from us? Mr. Crawford: Authorization to proceed to negotiate with lowest bidder if not getting within frame work of budgeted amount. Mr. Carnell: Getting PARAB to provide recommendation to BCC would likely result in it coming back here and then to BCC whether it be a contract or rejection. Mr. Crawford: They will get it again. We would like to move in a timely fashion and could have a special meeting. Mr. McQuillin: Any questions? Mr. Stevens: I cannot figure out how you are going to get that down $225, 000 by negotiating with one company. Mr. Crawford: I want to point out in the electrical spec 30-50 likely appears that all companies bidding received very, very high estimates and cost from Musco would appear that there may be equal alternatives that would provide low cost for lighting and again we are just talking this through. Consulting engineers and some contractors seem to think that there is room in that area to provide more cost effective electrical service. Mr. Stevens: $295, 000 is electrical so they can play at night time. How much would the field be used at night? Who is going to be using it? Mr. Smith: It is a regulation baseball field, the foul lines are 20 feet longer, and will be used by Babe Ruth, American Legion, High School kids - have to have enough illumination. Mr. Kobza: Going back to my feeling - To be fair we should go to rebid. Mr. Crawford: That option is still available. There is sufficient information to tell us we ought to proceed, then we can proceed with that option. Mr. Kobza: We may lose our credibility. We need to keep these people around us. If there was more of a difference I would feel different about it. We are talking about 100% over bid, well 70% over bid. Mr. McQuillin: The point made that between the two low bidders if . . . Mr. Stevens: Any plans for playing on Saturday, Sunday, weekends, rather than at night. We could build a diamond and put lights in later. Mr. Crawford: That has been discussed. Based on availability of users and participants a lighted facility is best. Mr. McQuillin: Any more questions? Mr. Kobza: MOTION RECOMMEND TO BCC PROJECT BE REBID - RECEIVE INPUT FROM VARIOUS CONTRACTORS AS TO HOW GET DOLLAR COST TO BUDGET. Seconded by Mr. McQuillin. Discussion of motion. Mr. Stevens: That is for us to start all over and change the specifications? Mr. McQuillin: Request that we discuss with all four bidders how to modify original specifications. Mr. Carnell: If going to rebid you would modify specifications. Mr. McQuillin: We would lose creditability if discussed with only one person. Mr. Mueller: Work on low bidder and reduce bid by $25, 000. Mr. Crawford: If you would reject and rebid with new bid specifications, you could also receive increased costs. Mr. McQuillin: Try to get together with all bidders and see how we can reduce the figure. The need seems to be significant enough to get a lighted field with park and if we are unable to negotiate that we are not going to be able to. Mr. McQuillin: The understanding is we may eliminate bidders. My feeling is that it would be wrong even though it may be a Purchasing Policy. In this situation we cannot do anything about the purchasing policy. If it could be changed, we can not make that recommendation here though we think it would be the best approach. Mr. Kobza: I am not trying to tie your hands here, we are sensitive to your comments, but if you are going to chop $140, 000 - Mr. Crawford: We have worked with everyone of these contractors and it will not happen with McGovern Construction - they have been the highest bidder in the past - very qualified as our other companies. Mr. Stevens: MOTION MADE TO REJECT AND GO FOR CONSULTATION IN THE NATURE OF FIELD ENGINEERS AND THEN REBID. Seconded by Mr. McQuillin. Approved 3-0 with Mr. Mueller opposed. Mr. Crawford: It will be going to the Board that way but the Staff recommendation may be different. Mr. Carnell left meeting. Mr. Crawford: Parks and Recreation construction is general in area and bidding is very high. It would be a mistake to award the bid as it is right now. Mr. McQuillin: Not limit option because we can always go back and negotiate with the bidder. Mr. Crawford: You have added significant time on to the project. To take new bids, come up with different specifications, 4 weeks, 17 days on to that - and we will have to redesign input from general contractors. It will add to the cost because we are going to have redesign costs and add time. Mr. Mueller: Any way of additional bids? Mr. McQuillin: Sometimes you will have a definite position and PARAB will have different opinions. Mr. Stevens: I still feel we would be adding time by trying to go back to this guy and knocking it down. Mr. Crawford: It would not take a week. Mr. Mueller: Any way of soliciting additional bidders? Mr. Crawford: We have explored, through staff efforts, and it is not worthwhile for them. Mr. Kobza: We want to get this built as quickly as anyone. D. Proposed Agreement for Immokalee Middle School Exchange. Mr. McQuillin: What action do you want us to take? Mr. Crawford: The agreement has been drafted for approval by the School Board and Collier County basically. Mr. McQuillin: You are just showing it to us then. How are we coming on the P.E.C.O. ? Mr. Crawford: The purchase exchange has to be completed and master plans done. Mr. Stevens: It is not finalized yet? Mr. Crawford: The School Board approved acquisition and are moving forward on that. There does not seem to be any problems associated with this. This is just information. E. DISCUSSION OF GUIDELINES FOR PARAB (Packets - including guidelines, budgets, locations of facilities, etc. had been distributed to new members - more were available at this meeting. ) Mr. Crawford: This is a complex issue and if you have questions about regular meetings, work shops, etc. would suggest you do not try to handle this in a regular meeting format. Set a definite time to deal with it rather than a regular agenda, more like a workshop. Mr. McQuillin: We talked about this, it came up because there was some Park and Recreation items that went to BCC without going before PARAB. To look at that will take some time. Let us take this issue out and look at it separately when we have more time. Mr. Mueller: I am pretty much in the dark. Mr. McQuillin: I thought it was a dead issue. Workshops have never been discussed. I thought it was clarified as to what are responsibilities were. Mr. Mueller: I understood the scope was going to be discussed at this meeting and if not would like it discussed as soon as possible. Mr. Kobza: I have been talking to the County staff and PARAB was established before 1985 and Advisory Boards have been established by Ordinance with guide lines. Mr. Mueller: It seemed to be a problem in November. Mr. Stevens: We tried to get a resolution or ordinance. We tried it in the past but it never went any where. Mr. Crawford: New members are interested in trying to clarify matters - it would be difficult to try and do as a regular agenda item because of the time involved. Mr. Mueller: I have no problem discussing it separately. Mr. McQuillin: It is vague in some respects and if you want to change or modify it you can. The issue has been brought up before and nothing ever came from it. Mr. Kobza: We could request from the County Attorney a better explanation. Mr. Crawford: The guide lines were written with very broad parameters. Mr. Kobza: Could we have the County Attorney attend Qa meeting? Mr. Crawford: The guidelines are there, are you asking a definite question? It is meant to be very flexible. It is obvious that you do have to be involved with operating policies. Mr. Stevens: The problem was things were getting to BCC before we had them. Under our responsibilities PARAB shall advise on any project going to BCC. Our concern was things were going to BCC and we not been consulted. On something like this it is broad and you do not need details. Miss McGinty: Anything going to BCC you people review. Mr. Stevens: Day to day operations we do not get involved with. We had passed that resolution that we will not review items within two to four thousand dollars. That to expend something we put a limit on. Mr. Smith: That was for construction in regard to Community Parks - change orders, etc. Mr. Kobza: We could send a resolution up to Neil asking that those issues come before us. Mr.Stevens: If they see something that has not been reviewed by PARAB to redirect it. Mr. Crawford: If a matter came up that was brought to BCC the Board has the option to redirect it to Parks and Recreation or PARAB. Mr. McQuillin: You read through the information in the packet again. You can call me and if you want to have a meeting before February we can get together something in the form of a resolution. We can discuss it next meeting. You can prepare anything you want to and we can take care of that. If after reading you find a sense of urgency, we can act on it. Mr. Mueller: I will be in touch with you. F. MEMORIAL IN MEMORY OF GEORGE PITTMAN: Came from the Board, bringing it to your attention so that you will be aware of it. Probably put a memorial in a park. Mr. McQuillin: Probably the one person instrumental in the girls' softball team in Naples and was owner of Pittman's Funeral Home. He used to donate equipment and was very generous. He kept things on an equal footing for the players regardless of economic status and some type of memorial would be in order. MR. STEVENS - MOTION THAT WE ENDORSE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Seconded by Mr. Mueller. Approved 4-0. H. REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH REPLACEMENT FOR MR. LEON WILLIAMS. Recommended that Secretary send a typed letter of resignation for Mr. Williams to sign, then will be able to proceed with process of advertising for a new member. SKATE BOARDS IN PARKS Mr. Crawford: We have had ramps here - a child was injured. Some kids made it and one was injured and had to be transported by EMS. We have had some skate boards in the parks. Risk Management has advised strictly against construction of a ramp and skate boarding in our parks. We had an inquiry about a year and a half ago from Commissioner Glass, Risk Management discussed it with the insurance company and shared information with us. Mr. Mueller: (Looking at budget in packet) Assuming that the Collier County Sheriff's Department has a budget of $4 . 2 million dollars for Marco alone the Park and Recreation budget should be tripled. Mr. Kobza: You mention a member can appear before BCC on issues. Any issues that we address that would apply to that level? Mr. Crawford: Members attend when dealing with some issues. Mr. Smith: As with the construction of a ball field - group comes to you and if you want to speak you can. Mr. Crawford: Regarding Winterberry - interest by some local residents to remove the lights totally. The issue is going to be very important and should be discussed and whatever recommendations are would probably be appropriate for a PARAB representative the be there when discussed with BCC. Mr. Mueller: The taxpayers meeting intention - lighting more than adequate. The hope is that it can be turned off 9 : 30 instead of 11: 00. Mr. McQuillin: I have appeared at a BCC meeting as a representative once or twice. Meeting adjourned at 11: 55 AM. T r s rn Y o 111 N 4 • 2 *It ' 1•W N V •< Z o 0 1 w j I o Z Y N. Q 3. a r N N CC Z w O w O Z U z >" +� W W_ U l0 O O O in .-1 J Q Q.) O M N to r) J ` H O D) 0 CO Wu).---t N In ca 0 N M uN) U N D + �) co W •-i r-I 01 N CO Ul Z CO n O O V�1 N N CO (!) H vN) N .M{ N to Om VD U) U) N O o 2 N N V' N 4 J-1 Q £ O u) O 1D l- co 6) m U ri r) n1 N al In In o in 0 I-1 in o 0 0 U] LL 2 N O O n O O f'- H • 8 8 8 rn 8 i" 0 r "cr rn r In M 4, n rn Z N w N ) a u ai O v. V N o a) CO 2 cc W x .-I c`1 Ina. 2 a LL O o- --I a U r J z W W m a cn•W O m It 0 0 a Q z m U Q A - - 0 CC J D N i Q 111 z D O Z 0 ccnn O Z 0 O w _ w o o H" N > > m Q .1