Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/29/2004 S (Settlement Agreement with Mitchell & Stark) June 29, 2004 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA JUNE 29, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Tom Henning Jim Coletta (by telephone) Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA June 29, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH mE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1 June 29, 2004 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Agenda A. Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement with Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc. to cover their cost increases due to delays in the project for the construction of a Sewer Force Main Interconnect along Santa Barbara Boulevard and Logan Road from Radio Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road; Bid 03-3534, Project 731321, in the amount of$353,249.99. B. It is reQuested that this item be continued to the Julv 27. 2004 BCC Meetine. Board consideration and determination as to Declaration of Emergency and Adoption of Amendment of the False Alarm Ordinance, Collier County Ordinance No., 97-8, as amended. 3. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 June 29, 2004 June 29, 2004 MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. The budget hearing workshop for June 29th will be called to order. Please stand and say the pledge of allegiance with me. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, everyone. Freshly back from St. Louis. What an interesting place St. Louis is. MR. MUDD: Water high? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Huh? MR. MUDD: I heard the water's high because they got lots of raIn. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no, we didn't see very much water. And I was amazed at the rejuvenation that's beginning to take place in the area. With a lot of -- about 40 percent of the city looks like it's without windows and has boarded up buildings and so forth. Anyway, on to what we're here for, and that is we first have a special workshop. MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, we have a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Special meeting. I'm sorry, at this workshop. Thank you. MR. MUDD: I'd like to open that workshop before we do the budget piece. We have one item that we need to discuss. There's two items on the agenda: 2.A and 2.B. Item #2B- Continued to the July 27, 2004 BCC Meeting 2.B at the board's direction, we are continuing that item until July 27th, 2004, and that has to do with the adoption of amendment of the false alarm ordinance for Collier County, Ordinance 97-8, as amended. That's continued to the 27th. And that basically change Page 2 June 29, 2004 the ordinance and also let those particular offenses or fines be collected by our special master, to keep those dollars in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. MR. MUDD: So the item -- MS. FILSON: That was Commissioner Coletta. I was wondering ifhe could hear. MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, are you with us? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with you, sir. MS. FILSON: He said so moved. Item #2A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. TO COVER THEIR COST INCREASES DUE TO DELAYS IN THE PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER FORCE MAIN INTERCONNECT ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND LOGAN ROAD FROM RADIO ROAD TO V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD MR. MUDD: Okay. So moved. The next item is 2.A, and that's a recommendation to approve a settlement agreement with Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., to cover their cost increases due to delays in the project for the construction of a sewer force main interconnect along Santa Barbara Boulevard and Logan Boulevard from Radio Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's bid number 03-3534, project 731321, in the amount of $353,249.99. And Phil, could you please state your name for the record. MR. GRAMA TGES: My name is Phil Gramatges, senior project manager, public utilities engineering department. Page 3 June 29, 2004 This presentation relates to agenda item 1.A, executive summary, entitled Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement with Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc. for $353,249.99. This project is designed to distribute water between the north and south -- between the north and south wastewater regions in order to handle future growth and to allow us to do plant maintenance. This force main will have a capacity between three and four million gallons a day of wastewater. This project is consistent with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as Item 10.C on May 25th, 2004. This project concludes the construction of a 20-inch wastewater force main from the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, going north for about six miles to the intersection of Logan Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road where the effluent will discharge into a new pump station. The main will be installed on the right-of-way on the east side of Santa Barbara and the west side of Logan Boulevard. Construction will begin in the middle of July of this year, and it's estimated to be completed on or before April 1st, 2005. This map shows the approximate location of the force main. And north is to your right on this map. Mitchell and Stark was determined to be the low bidder for this job at 6.1 million, a little bit over $6.1 million. The second lowest responsible bidder was 7.2, more than a million dollars higher. The original construction contract was approved by the board on September 23rd, 2003, but the notice to proceed was not issued until March 26th, 2004 because of delays in obtaining permits. On April 13th, 2004, Mitchell and Stark presented a request for a change order, claiming that the deiay in the start of the project had considerably increased the cost of raw materials. After duly analyzing their invoices at the time of the bid and at the time that they requested Page 4 June 29, 2004 the change order, staff determined that they had added about 10 percent overhead and profit to this particular increase request. The staff didn't allow this, and the increase that is covered by the settlement agreement only allows them for the cost of the actual increase in the raw materials. This settlement agreement also establishes that they are going to be responsible for any increases from now on until the completion of the proj ect. So this caps their increases due to cost to the amount in the settlement agreement. And the staff believes that approving this agreement will give the rate payers the best value for the shortest period of time, so the staff respectfully recommends approving the settlement agreement to the contract to construct the Santa Barbara force main, Bid No. 03-3534, to Mitchell and Stark. The new total amount of the project will then -- will now be $6,479,573.99. I'm open to any questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is still how much cheaper than the second? MR. GRAMATGES: That is approximately $600,000 cheaper than the second lowest bid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which -- what permits are holding up this project? MR. GRAMATGES: The permit that was in the -- that caused the most delay is a joint permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When were they first applied? MR. GRAMATGES: The application was made on April-- on June 26th -- no, I'm sorry, the -- September 9th, 2003. But the process for this particular permit starts way before the application is submitted. Page 5 June 29, 2004 In fact, the process began on May 12th, 2003, because a number of documents need to be presented and need to be collected and a lot of the design has to be done before the application is made. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So September 2003, you came to the board to award the bid. MR. GRAMATGES: The bid was awarded -- the bid was opened on July 25th, and the board approved the contract on September 23rd, 2003. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the application for the permits was in September -- same month. MR. GRAMATGES: Same month, but couple, three weeks before that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think that is prudent business, to apply for permits and award the contract not knowing how long it will take? MR. GRAMATGES: The project manager for this project was trying to save time on the completion of the project, so he was trying to take a risky path, indeed. But he was trying to do the proj ect bidding and the application for the permit concurrently. This, at that time, was an urgent project, and there was a lot of pressure in order to try to complete it as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You still need to wait for the permits. The only point that I'm trying to make is, isn't it better business to obtain the permits before you award a contract? Even though that the prices wouldn't change, I mean, it's not -- not really the issue. I know what you're asking, and, you know, I agree, but I'm not sure if it's good business to -- I mean, it takes a year and a half to get county permits, you know -- you know -- federal permits, I would imagine it would take a lot longer, just because you're dealing with big government. Bigger government, I should say. Page 6 June 29,2004 MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, that certainly is a very valid point. And as I said before, the biggest issue here was one of time. And it was a risky move, indeed, and is one that the facts have shown was being risky. But it was necessary for us to be able to move up the completion of the project. Yes, in most cases I would agree that this is something that would not be advisable. And in fact we rarely do this sort of thing. So this is indeed a very atypical decision for public utilities to take. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been seeing it quite a bit recently, where we're awarding contracts before we have all the permits. MR. GRAMATGES: I submit that I believe this is the only one from public utilities that falls under that category. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to acquiring your permits from the Corps, how many times did the Corps ask for additional information going through this permit process? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, it's typical that the Corps will ask for additional information at least once. In this case I believe they did it once after the application was submitted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long did it take you to round up all that information to submit that to the Corps? MR. GRAMA TGES: In this case, the first -- for the first request, it took several weeks, two to three weeks to obtain the necessary information. Sometimes the information is of a technical nature and it requires some time to be completed and analyzed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, did you anticipate this and could you have possibly acquired all this information prior to the Corps asking you for additional information so that you would have had it at hand? Page 7 June 29, 2004 MR. GRAMATGES: Well, typically our engineering firms try to anticipate such questions. They are not always successful in anticipating or second-guessing, if I may say, what the regulators are going to request. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And my last question is, if we do approve this item, how soon will we get moving into, in regards to construction so that we don't run into any other cost overruns? MR. GRAMATGES: The contractor has already ordered the necessary materials and they expect to receive them in July. So we expect that they will be breaking down sometime in July, most likely in the middle of July. I'd like to assess (sic) as well or to state that they cannot come back for any increases in cost due to raw materials. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you expect the completion time to be on this project? MR. GRAMATGES: The completion time at this time is scheduled for April 1st, 2005. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When the staff briefed me on this project, we discussed a number of things that could be done in the future to solve this particular problem. And since I can't direct the staff to take those actions, County Manager, I'd just like to make sure that the staff will share with you the things we discussed and consider adopting them as a procedure for the competitive -- or the permitting process. There is one glaring example in this particular case where we submitted the request for the permit but did not actually own the property that was partly included in this permit, and the Corps asked us for proof of ownership and we of course didn't have it. Those are the Page 8 June 29, 2004 kinds of lapses that can be solved, and it will take out some of the delay here. So if -- I'm merely asking that, since this is probably the first one of these instances for this particular division, it certainly has occurred in other divisions in county government, and perhaps the lessons learned can be shared among the divisions and a checklist created to try to minimize these kinds of things from happening. But there is merit to try to parallel track some of these things, because you can cut off a tremendous amount of time. If you do it sequentially, you're going to lose a lot of time in the process. You might add six to nine months to the procurement process by doing that. So it's just a matter of doing it sensibly and making sure that you get all the information in the permitting process, the problems ironed out. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, some of the issues with this particular design and operation is the fact that this line, as you saw before, goes down for six miles, and it goes across some of the frontages for people's homes. In some cases, we have asked people to give us a construction easement. We have been successful with some and there's some 10 that said no. And we don't have to go too far to figure out who those 10 are, because they're people that were very adamantly opposed to the Santa Barbara Road proj ect that the Corps has heard about. The same folks have basically said no. So when you don't have a construction easement to do that stuff from the land side, you have to now do those -- this proj ect from the road side. So you have to shut a lane down. So part of the fast track was to try to get this done during the non-high season of Collier County, because you're basically going to take out one of the lanes, and the timing of that particular process. And I've met with the homeowners representative and somebody that was very, very opposed to this project to talk to him about the consequences of doing this thing, either may it be an evening Page 9 June 29, 2004 construction, may it be taking out a lane of road or whatever. So I've mentioned that to him, and just to make sure. And basically told those folks we would try to do a process with construction here that would minimize the inconveniences to the people that live along that road, not only the homeowners but the people that actually use it, to go back and forth to work or wherever they have to travel in Collier County. I think part of that was the problem in order to get it done, because we didn't have those construction easements, and we were trying to avoid the high season. So that's about what I have. What I will do is get with Mr. DeLony based on his conversations with you and other commissioners about lessons learned and take those lessons learned and try to propagate those throughout Collier County so we all learn from this particular issue. One of the other things that I will also say is my staff has told me that they have been in concert with the clerk of courts on this particular item to talk about every aspect of this particular change order. And I believe that's true. And Jim Mitchell can tell me, and he's giving an affirmative nod in the background. So we're trying to avoid any instances where we get back into the Immokalee Road issue. Because it smells a little bit like Immokalee Road. Different Florida statute, I might add. But we tried to make sure that this was just material. And when we saw those overhead costs in there it alerted us, and we got them, the contractor, to take those out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would like to make the observation that from a cost standpoint, the delays in getting the permit and the suggestion that we do the permitting first would have made no difference. MR. DeLONY: In this case, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In this case. The start date would have been -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Page 10 June 29, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- at least the same, maybe longer. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the price increase would have already occurred. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So whether we did it sequentially and got the permit first or whether we did it this way, from a cost standpoint, it's very likely the same result. But it's a lot messier doing it this way. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand. For the record, Jim DeLony. I understand exactly. And we'll get with Mr. Mudd as directed and make sure we've taken those lessons learned in stride. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we've probably beat this horse pretty much to death. I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? I even heard Commissioner Coletta over there. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for a good presentation. MR. MUDD: And Ms. Filson, just for the record, we had no speakers; is that correct? Page 11 June 29, 2004 MS. FILSON: That's correct. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say now that you need to adjourn the special meeting and open up the budget workshop. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, so then -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we do that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- question, the other item being continued. The -- what is the requirement for advertising, is it 10 days prior to the meeting? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, Commissioner, it's 10 days. Although this was set up as a special meeting for consideration of potential emergency ordinance, there's no requirement, Florida law requirement, for advertising if the board declares an emergency by a four- fifths vote. However, I, as always, practice when we are time-constrained, advertise anyway. So if this had gone forward, we had an advertisement that had appeared in the paper this past week, but not 10 days before. Not required by law, but just part of our practice to get as much notice out as can be. At this point with the continuation of July 27th, it will not be advertised as an emergency ordinance but it will be just a regular ordinance amendment in the context of board consideration at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Special meeting is closed. The Special Meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair. ***** Page 12 June 29, 2004 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL (j~, d~~ DONN FIALA, Chairman ATTEST:, ", Dw~~f~~ROCK,CLERK ~~,.:, . i.:/' 'c ":.:,'\: b~ 0 ~ LL-. ().c. ':A us '~.~~I.r. 1~ ~ ~~;;~ ....: . j ~I ' These minutes (Special Meeting of June 29,2004) aBProved by the Board on ~-~/'-OL\- , as presented V or as corrected Page 13