BCC Minutes 08/01/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of
Collier County Commission meeting for August 1st, 1995.
Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and
pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning. We give thanks especially for the weather in Collier County
this morning. We thank you for the apparent sparing of the brunt of
the storm, Erin, and our prayers are with those who are to the
northeast of us as they prepare today. We thank you for the
coordination of yesterday and the good effort on behalf of all the
many people who were involved to protect and insure the safety of this
community. Father, this morning we thank you for the opportunity to
recognize the employees in the many years of long and dedicated
service. We give thanks for this county commission. We'd ask that
you guide their deliberations here today. And we pray these things in
your son's holy name. Amen.
(The audience invoked the Pledge of Allegiance in
unison.)
Items #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, it looks like our
changed list is short.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, on what would appear to be a
short agenda. I wanted to confirm the direction that I had received
yesterday and at the end of the last week. We have one continuance.
That would be item 8-F(1) under emergency services as it pertains to a
unified fire system. And in checking, when I was told to continue
that for four weeks, you don't have a regularly scheduled meeting four
weeks from now, because of a fifth Tuesday in the month of August. So
I'm showing that continued until the following Tuesday, which would be
your first meeting in September, the 5th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And the only other item I have is a
deletion and withdrawal at the request of the sheriff concerning extra
gain time for inmate 64104. There are no other changes to your agenda
this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
Commissioner Norris, do you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'd like to go ahead and
make a record of my abstention on the vote on the consent agenda,
because I have a conflict with the first item there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With item number what?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With 16(A)(1).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I neither.
Could I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
We have no minutes to approve as of yet.
Proclamations. There are none.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Service awards. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have two service awards
this morning, one that has been with solid waste for ten years. And,
Victor, I apologize for the pronunciation here. Albarracin? Am I
close?
MR. ALBARRACIN: Thank you very much, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we also have one employee
celebrating 20 years with the county with planning services. That
would be William Spencer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's some additional things
about Mr. Spencer that we might mention this morning. He's been coach
of the Pop Warner football teams locally for 26 years. In that 26
years he's had a number of teams that did extremely well, a lot of
thirds, seconds, and even two national champions. So we want to
recognize his ability not only as a county employee, but also as a Pop
Warner football coach. It's great for the kids what he does. MR. SPENCER: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #7A
ROBERT L. DUANE REPRESENTING HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES REGARDING A LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE FOR THE TURTLE CREEK PROJECT - STAFF TO BRING
BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
The next item on the agenda is item 7(A), public
petition, Robert Duane representing Hole, Hontes & Associates.
Mr. Duane, you're aware that we don't make any decisions
in a public petition --
MR. DUANE: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that you have 10 minutes
to present your case.
MR. DUANE: Madam Chairman, I don't think I'll need more
than a minute. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane again. I'm
requesting that the board accept my petition for a land development
code change. I requested that on the 10th. The deadline was on the
1st. I would appreciate your consideration. If not, another
alternative is to direct staff, who I think recognize that there's a
need for some standards in the land development code on sharing water
management between properties. That's another option if you don't
want to accept my petition. And I'll be happy to answer any questions
that you may have, or you may want to direct a question to staff
yourself.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hulhere, do you have anything
to add to this?
MR. HULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Hulhere
with district planning. It would be staff's preference, if it pleases
the board, to -- there are some unique circumstances in Mr. Duane's
situation that I think could warrant the allowance of a shared water
management plan. I spoke with Mr. Kuck, and one of the things we'd
like to see is a perpetual easement, and Mr. Duane needs to obtain a
water management district permit in either case -- in any case. But
rather than -- It would be staff's preference not to accept nor to
have to go in and add this LDC amendment to this cycle. We certainly
would be willing to look at it at the next cycle. Since the deadline
is closed, we don't think it's a good precedent to go in and look at
the whole picture for this cycle. I think we can make an exception in
Mr. Duane's case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might make a suggestion,
Madam Chairman. As Mr. Hulhere has stated, this project has some
unique circumstances. I'm a bit reticent to change the code to
accommodate a single petition, but at the same time I don't see a
problem with what the petitioner is requesting here. So I might
suggest that we direct staff to bring this back as a regular agenda
item with a couple of options of how we might proceed and discuss it
at that time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments from the board?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
MS. MAC'KIE: Just that I would not open the door for
amendments at this point. And, frankly, I want to be careful that we
don't direct staff only to address the issue vis-a-vis
Mr. Duane's particular project, but that we ask staff to give us some
advice generally about whether or not does staff -- Maybe it should be
a staff-proposed amendment if it's something that in your judgment you
want to make a recommendation to us. So I think that I agree with
what you're saying. Just -- let's be careful that it's across the
board and not just this particular project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Along the same lines.
Mr. Hulhere, has Mr. Duane's petition or the project he's looking at,
has it shown us where there may be, I guess, a chink in the arm of our
LDC or an area which we maybe aren't covering something that should or
would on a case by case be allowed?
MR. HULHERE: Yeah, I think the LDC is really silent.
It doesn't clearly prohibit what Mr. Duane is asking for; however,
there have been past actions by the board, an interpretation and, in
fact, an appeal of one in '91 and one in '94, one dealing with open
space being located on a residentially zoned property adjacent to
commercial. The other one is actually dealing with infrastructure for
a commercially zoned property located on adjacent residentially zoned
property. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. In your opinion, this
is sufficiently grave that it needs to be addressed?
MR. HULHERE: I think we should take a look at it, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm in support of the
direction given by Commissioner Norris also then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that's it.
MR. HULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
Item #SA1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS REVIEW AND
CONSIDER APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF A PROPOSED STIPULATED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH DCA RE CASE NO. 93-5728GH FILED SUBSEQUENT TO A FINDING
OF "NOT IN COMPLIANCE" FOR ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, DCA
NO. 93-1 - SETTLEMENT OFFER REJECTED AND STAFF TO PROCEED WITH
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item on the agenda,
8(A)(1), recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review
and consider approval or rejection of a stipulated settlement
agreement.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, and
Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MR. LITSINGER: For the record, my name is Stan
Litsinger of the planning services department. Very briefly to bring
up to speed on where we have been in this process for about two years
now, in April of 1992 the board reviewed and deliberated on the merits
of instituting a stormwater utility fee system in Collier County to
implement the capital improvement recommended in the stormwater master
plan.
After reviewing the costs associated with that and to
the taxpayers, a decision was made not to go forward with the
recommended level of service improvements and associated capital
projects in the stormwater master plan. Staff was further directed to
delete all the associated capital improvements. And based on studies
from the capital improvement element, which was a done through the
amendment process, the Department of Community Affairs subsequently
found the amendment not to be in compliance and challenged the board's
position relative to its prerogative to go forward with the
improvements.
In the intervening time period, as outlined in your
executive summary, we have attempted to reach a stipulated settlement
agreement. To that end we thought we had achieved a stipulated
agreement which we could recommend to the board and, as indicated also
in the material we've presented to you, that the secretary, Secretary
Shelley, would accept on that basis. And at the board's direction in
April of '94, we submitted what we believe to be the agreed-upon
stipulated agreement to DCA for finalization of the documents for
presentation to both the board and the secretary. Approximately six
months later we received a revised stipulated agreement from the
Department of Community Affairs indicating a new provision known as
paragraph nine, which staff under no circumstances can recommend to
the board that you accept.
In the interim period since last November, there has
been change in staff, a change of reassignment of staff, the DCA. We
have been unable to move the DCA from their position. As recently as
June they submitted a letter to the county attorney's office. It was
more or less a take-it-or-leave-it offer, including paragraph nine.
We're here this morning to recommend to you that you review this
proposed stipulated settlement agreement, and our recommendation is
that you reject it and direct us to proceed with the administrative
hearing process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Comments from the board?
Questions? Commissioner Hac'Kie.
MS. MAC'KIE: Just one. Having reviewed what's here, I
think I strongly support the staff's recommendation that we not
consider folding at this point.
I would like to ask you, Stan, if you could, let's you
and I get together and catch me up -- MR. LITSINGER: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on what are the funding
alternatives. You know, what were the funding alternatives that were
available? I understand that this is a decision that the board made,
and it absolutely should be stuck to, but I'd like to get to talk to
you about the history of the deal.
MR. LITSINGER: Certainly. I'd be glad to talk to you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Is there a motion?
MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Marlin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
MR. DORRILL: We have Mr. Marlin.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll be glad to make a motion
after Mr. Marlin speaks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Marlin?
MR. MARLIN: I do hope you reject this. I was president
of the East Naples Civic Association at the time that this stormwater
utility came up the last time. I didn't know it was coming up this
morning, so I had to get over here in a hurry.
We considered this at some length. The effect of this
stormwater utility would have been to throw the main burden of paying
for it on East Naples and on Golden Gate, truthfully, but we would
have had no more benefit out of it than any other part of the county.
Now, if it had -- We studied this at great length and
took a strong stand against the stormwater utility. It was our
opinion that if anything of this sort needed to be done, it should be
done. We would not oppose it if it was done as an addition to the ad
valorem tax so that everybody in the county would help pay for it. We
did object very strongly to having the burden of paying for it thrown
on us, and we still feel that way, I'm sure, although I've had no
chance to -- I didn't realize this was coming up, and I've had no
chance to discuss it with our board recently, but that was our feeling
at that time. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Marlin.
Are there other public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There don't appear to be.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I make a motion
that we reject the settlement offer and direct our staff to continue
to negotiate with DCA.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
MR. LITSINGER: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. LITSINGER: To prepare for a hearing, we feel that
their negotiations on a staff level have reached an impasse. We were
talking about the formal quasi-judicial process possibly to be
involved by -- before the administration commission and later the
circuit court.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend the motion to include
that --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and ask to continue that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me restate the motion to make
sure that we understand what we're doing. We have a motion to reject
the agreement, and included in that is direction to staff to prepare
for an administrative hearing; is that correct?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, discussion?
MS. MAC'KIE: My question for Mr. Bryant was do we
anticipate having outside legal fees or other costs in preparation for
the administrative hearing?
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Commissioner Hac'Kie and
Commissioners. No, ma'am, we don't. I'm pleased to advise you, I
represent Escambia County in a three-week hearing with DCA over their
whole conference and plans, and I feel very comfortable in
representing Collier in that. We will have some outside, probably,
expert witness fees that I anticipate using but, no, we will handle
all the legal fees in-house.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Litsinger.
Item #SB1
RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGHENT FOR SETTLEHENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN CASE NO. 92-2547-CA-01-TB INVOLVING PARCEL NOS. 114,
115, 116, T-221 AND T-226, RADIO ROAD IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$163,477.22 - APPROVED
The next item on the agenda is 8(B)(1), a recommendation
to approve a stipulated final judgment in the settlement of an eminent
domain case.
Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda
item 8(B)(1) involves a resolution of an eminent domain case on Radio
Road, specifically, five parcels that are associated with the
Southwinds Mobile Home Park located between St. Claire Shores and San
Marcos Drive. The court case, as noted in the agenda item, dates back
to 1992. The conclusions are outlined in the agenda item and are
finalized in a stipulated final judgment that has been reviewed and
approved by the staff.
At this point in time that staff would summarize those
items, they include not only the property values, which were well
represented at the order of taking hearing, but also final conclusion
of the severances damages and the cures that apply to the property.
In the stipulated final judgment there is also a summary of the fees
that are involved. So this particular judgment not only addresses the
property value, but also the fees involved, and the staff would
recommend that the board consider approving and directing staff to
process the final stipulated judgment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, a motion to
approve staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve
the recommendation of staff.
Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Archibald.
Item #SH1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AWARD BID
#95-2368 AND AUTHORIZE TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE TONY
ROSBOUGH COMMUNITY PARK CONCESSION BUILDING - ALL BIDS REJECTED; TO BE
RE-BID AND BROUGHT BACK IN 90 DAYS AND INCLUDED WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR
The next item on the agenda is under the county
manager's portion of the agenda, 8(H)(1), a recommendation to award
bid 95-2368.
Mr. Conrecode.
MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, if you could just hang on
for just one second. I've been asked to introduce to the board --
Joseph Hemrick, are you here in the rear of the room
this morning? Do you mind standing up for us?
Joseph is a young gentleman from Naples who is a boy
scout. It's my understanding and as an old boy scout, he's here
fulfilling a requirement this morning. As I go back about 30 years, I
would imagine it has something to do with citizenship or whatnot.
But, Joseph, we appreciate you being here this morning and being part
of scouting, and I wanted to introduce to the county commission.
Thank you for being here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you for being
here. I'm delighted to see young people take an interest in local
government.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Lucky for you, Joseph, it's a
short meeting today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. This item
before today you is the award of a construction contract for
construction of improvements at the Tony Rosbough Park in Immokalee.
The bids, with the exception of the low bid, came in over the project
budget, and the low bidder as a result of an exclusion of an item in
his bid has asked that he be excused from the bid as a result of
that. If he is allowed to pull his bid, the county would receive his
bid bond of approximately $5,000 which would go to offset accepting
the second low bid. The second low bid is roughly $55,000 over the
project budget. However, the bid was conducted with three add
alternates which provided for additional improvements at the park.
Funding is available for those three add alternates if the board so
chooses.
So as a result, this agenda item is prepared with three
options. Option one would be to go ahead and award to the low
bidder. He has agreed to accept the award if the three add alternates
are included, and I think that's in large part because his error was
recovered in the add alternates. Option two would be to award the
base bid to someone other than a low bidder and accept the bid bond.
That's not an option that staff recommends. And option three would be
to reject and either not fund the project or rebid the project.
Staff's recommendation at this point is to go ahead and
do option one and provide the additional funding through impact fee
reserves from fund 368.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, assuming we go
with number one, including all three add alternates, this project will
come in how much above what was projected?
MR. CONRECODE: $108,000. So it's nearly a 100-percent
increase over what was the originally proposed. Now, I won't tell you
that that means that we're building the original project. We're
building substantially more than that. As an add alternate, we've
included a team meeting room out there, a picnic area, and a covered
picnic area.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just concerned that when we
approach it with approximately $100 a foot out there and it comes in
at -- one is at 86 and the next one is, I believe, $189, do we have
any idea why that spread occurred?
MR. CONRECODE: It's really a trend that we've been
following in the Immokalee area. The general contractors who are
local and are bidding that work out there are having a substantially
difficult time getting the subs to come out and be responsible to the
project and to perform in a timely way. So that's one of the things
we've experienced on the government center, the Immokalee health
building, and recently with the rec and pool project. So it's a trend
that we can't seem to beat.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it's hoped that as we can get
Immokalee to develop and create the middle-class that everybody wants
to create in Immokalee, that that trend may also be solved.
MR. DORRILL: Well, their current project at the
courthouse is actually ahead of schedule.
MR. CONRECODE: It is about a month ahead of schedule,
yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm hesitant for the
simple reason that the overage of $100,000 is a concern to me on a
project of this size. Even though we're building considerably more,
it's not what we originally intended. In order to build what we
originally intended -- please help me with this. What's the lowest
bid for that without the add alternates?
MR. CONRECODE: $154,444.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And with the add
alternates going with option number one, what is the total amount of
that bid?
MR. CONRECODE: It would be roughly $189,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So for 30,000 more, we get the
add alternates.
MR. CONRECODE: If we get the three add alternates,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, Mr. Conrecode. What
would be your feeling about rejecting all the bids because of an
improper bid submittal and rebidding the project?
MR. CONRECODE: Aside from the time delay, I think there
are some things that we can potentially do from a value engineering
perspective to pare the project down a little bit and bring it into a
lower price.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The reason I'm asking is that
either way we go here, it seems that we're going to spend
substantially more than we had anticipated out there, and we have
recently spent a large sum out there making some improvements. So if
you feel that we could maybe modify and rebid and come in with some
cost savings, that might be the most prudent way to go.
MR. CONRECODE: Okay. And I think what I'd like to do,
if that's the direction of the board, would be to tie this in with the
planned improvements for the next year and potentially bid a bigger
project that includes improvements that were originally planned for
next year. We might get more competitive bids on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
MS. MAC'KIE: I hate to see any delay in a project
that's small from a county budget perspective but extremely
significant to the community. And I need to understand if we're
talking about delay, what's going to be the benefit? I need something
more quantified than we may hope to find some value engineering.
And, Tom, the problem about -- this trend you were
talking about with the subcontractors out there, does that factor into
the idea of whether or not we should rebid this? I hate to see it
delayed.
MR. CONRECODE: My estimate is that we could probably
reduce the total price, the total package, by about 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, because we're going to go back in,
and we're going to look at what we can pare out of the bid from a
value engineering perspective.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that mean you're talking
about reducing the improvements? I mean, I don't want to cut -- I
don't want to, you know, cut out some of the improvements in order to
save the money. I'm trying to decide how I'm going to vote on this,
Tom, and what I'm thinking is I want this with the add-ons. I wanted
to support this with this project, with the add alternates. And if
what you're telling me is the rebid will be so that we can remove some
of the improvements, then I'm not going to support it. If what you're
telling me is the rebid is so that we can get the same improvements at
a less cost, then that's something to consider. So which of those two
are we talking about?
MR. CONRECODE: I think it's a combination of both.
We're moving some items, substituting cheaper finishes, cheaper items
into the project.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then I think that I'm
going to support the staff recommendation that you came in with in the
first alternative, because I don't want to see the projects go back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that even in my
short tenure here that we've dealt with several times, whereas we
expect a certain cost to come in, and due to unforeseen circumstances
in the work force, we're seeing something dramatically different.
When the budget was originally approved and a limit was set or a goal
was set for costs and a project comes in significantly higher, we're
not talking minutely. We're talking significant here. I don't think
it's physically prudent to move ahead on it when we think that we may
be able to back up and take a look at it.
And the truth is that the contractors that submit the
bids, if they know that this board is not happy, this board is not
going to step forward and go ahead and award a bid just because it's
there, just because we don't want a delay. They may be able to find
ways to cut their own numbers back. And I hate to set a trend of
taking whatever bids are given even though they may be 30, 40 percent
higher than what was anticipated, and I don't want to send that kind
of message to the contractors.
The cost overrun or the cost in excess to me is dramatic
enough that the community is not going to fail as a result of this
project being delayed. The project will come off. It will happen.
The question is can we do things such as joint it with other projects
to create a greater opportunity for a bid. I mean, I just think when
you see that kind of cost overrun, we need to step back and take
another look at it because these are tax dollars we're spending, and
if there's a better way to skin that cat, we need to find it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question,
Mr. Conrecode. You were talking about combining this project with
next year's capital projects and possibly picking up on some economy
of scale even. Tell us about it.
MR. CONRECODE: The history of Tony Rosbough Park was
the board accepted the park and has done improvements over the years.
Last year it was lighting. This year it was a concession building.
We had a concession restroom building, and there's some additional
improvements for next year. And at this late stage in this fiscal
year, I would suggest that we combine -- if we're going to rebid this
project, we combine this bid with the improvements that are planned
for next year and perhaps a larger contractor, more competition on the
project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What improvements are planned for
next year?
MR. KARPINSKI: For the record, Bert Karpinski with
capital projects. We had planned an additional parking lot out there
and a lighted parking lot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A lighted parking lot?
MR. KARPINSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may be sufficient enough
additional dollars to bring in some contractors that may not have bid
this project. There's some contractors that set a range that were
going to bid within this area. You know, everyone doesn't bid on
everything. And as much as, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I agree that, you
know, we don't like to delay projects, by the same token I really am
concerned that we have, since I've been on this board, in most cases
ended up paying significantly more on these than we initially had
planned, and that concerns me when it comes to the bottom line at the
end of the year. And if we have the opportunity to rebid this without
causing a severe disruption in service, and it doesn't sound like
that's going happen, in my opinion, that would be financially the
prudent approach.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock, do you want to
make a motion?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before you make the motion, let
me ask staff one more question. If the board today motions to reject
this bid and produce a new RFP or RFB, whatever it is that your
department does, what's the time frame that you're looking at a new
contract coming back to us that would be inclusive of the current
construction and the new construction for the next year?
MR. CONRECODE: I would say 60 to 90 days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sixty to ninety days you
anticipate that coming back?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And with that we could save 10
percent on this plus whatever economy of scale would be available with
the new process.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. KARPINSKI: And it won't have an impact on the play
out there, because the field is still in good shape, and it's
lighted. It just -- it's some of the ancillary items, so it won't
impact the kids out there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you anticipate being able
to finish the concession project before the new season starts next --
What is it? March?
MR. CONRECODE: I think it's February or March when it
starts. I think so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make
a motion that we direct staff to reject all bids on this project and
to combine this project with the next fiscal year's proposed
improvements at Tony Rosbough Community Park and rebid the two as a
whole.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could I ask the motion maker to
include that every effort be made to get that back to the board within
90 days in order to meet next season's --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I will include that we direct
staff that we would like to see this within 90 days, understanding
there are bidding constraints out there to be complied with, but I'll
include that in the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My goal is that we have this
completed before next season starts. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Conrecode.
Item #8H2
RECOHMEND THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE SHORT LIST AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE GORDON RIVER
BRIDGE PROJECT - CH2H HILL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST AND SELECTION
COHMITTEE TO RECONVENE TO RE-EVALUATE THE REMAINING FIRMS
The next item is 8(H)(2), recommendation of the board to
approve the short list. This deals with the Gordon River bridge
project. This was more a legal question, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a quick question
before we get into the substance of this. Perhaps someone can tell me
why we're entering into negotiations on a contract before the voters
say yea or nay on the issue. And I asked it before, and I don't
recall the answer. I asked how much staff time will be spent doing
this just because I hate to have us spend a lot of time in the event
that it does not pass at the polls.
MR. CONRECODE: A minimal amount of staff time. All
we're trying to do is save a couple of months' time and have the
voters approve it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to get into a big
political debate, but I think it's important that we go forward with
this because the vote is on the funding mechanism for the bridge, and
that doesn't necessarily -- the outcome of the vote doesn't decide the
bridge's fate. So we've got to go forward with this either way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Without funding, it's tough
to build a bridge.
But, Mr. Conrecode, do you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have better funding
alternatives available, Tim, and we know what your vote is, but you
don't know what my vote is yet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode has cleared up
my concern; and that is, one, we're not spending a great deal of staff
time with this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, this issue was
before us just a short while ago, in fact, I think just last -- MR. CONRECODE: Two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two weeks ago? And I think our
question and the concern at that time was a letter from Wilson,
Miller, Barton & Peek who had questioned CH2M Hill being ranked first
when the original proposal, the original bid in '88 or '89, said that
the design or whatever it was wouldn't get this portion, and we had
asked Mr. Cuyler to give us an opinion on what's available to us.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Pettit from my office did a very
thorough job looking at this. And although I wished we could have
done what Mr. Barton said in his second letter, which is not spend too
much time on it, we did have to spend a fair amount of time to take a
look at it. I would say that I agree with Mr. Barton and with Wilson,
Miller's position in the sense that something may have come up; and
that is, that advertisement provision that was "not fair", but I think
he acknowledges in his letter and our position is that it's really not
-- you don't have a basis to remove them legally from the process
altogether.
Mike has given me a fairly comprehensive memo, but I'll
just summarize it for you and give you our conclusion; and, that is,
that is the only time that popped up was that in that initial
advertisement for that initial process, which is not the one we're in
now -- it was a previous process -- that indicated that if you do
this, you can't do later engineering services. It didn't pop up in
the contract. It didn't come up anywhere else. And although there
may be a fairness question, we don't think it rises to the level of a
legal situation that would exclude them.
It appears in terms of -- I can't agree with Mr. Barton
that they should be excluded totally. It appears your options are one
of two things. You have a staff ranking which you are being asked to
approve and start the negotiation with the top firms, see if you can
negotiate a contract. If not, then under your usual guidelines you
would go to the second firm.
Your other option, as we see it, and what staff and my
office have always agreed on, and that is, since it is ultimately
always your decision, you can do the ranking yourself. I would
hesitate to tell you that you should switch the rankings base because
you have the executive summary, and the work was done by staff. They
heard the presentations. They're the ones that got information to do
the ranking. If you want to go through that process yourself and
reject these rankings and do it yourself, you have the ability to do
that if you wish to.
Your other option, it appears to me since staff is the
one who has heard the presentations and done the ranking pursuant to
normal procedure your other alternative is to accept this ranking and
direct staff to get in better shape.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What exactly popped up in the
advertisement? Do you have a copy of that? Can you read that to us?
MR. CUYLER: I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And can you also tell me when
that advertisement appeared in this process?
MR. CUYLER: It appeared on November 16, 1989, a
solicitation for a professional design of Gordon River Bridge. And it
said -- There is a sentence at the end of the advertisement that says,
"The consultant selected for this part of the project will not be
eligible for further work on this project."
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because in my mind it is not
solely a question of what's legally required, whether or not we're
required to abide by that. It's a matter of doing what's right. And
if the county put that out as our word, then it seems the county ought
to live up to our own word.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There doesn't seem to be any
ambiguity in there.
MR. CUYLER: Excuse me a minute. Commissioner, was
that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is city.
MR. CUYLER: That was a city RFP.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Again, if the public
sector -- I'm sorry. The bottom line being for this project and if --
you know, if the public sector put that out, then it seems that we
ought to live to our word.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question, Ken, because I
absolutely agree with Commissioner Constantine, that we ought to --
you know, the other bidders didn't know whether or not that appeared
in the contract. I mean, this is how the real world operates. That's
what mattered is what was in that advertisement. But what I'm afraid
to -- I want to be sure I didn't hear you say -- tell me, did I hear
you say that we cannot change the rankings? We should not? I want to
just put a line through number one because, in fairness, they
shouldn't have been allowed to bid. I didn't understand your legal
advice.
MR. CUYLER: I guess the question is can you say in
fairness they should not be allowed to bid. MS. MAC'KIE: That's my question.
MR. CUYLER: I'm telling you that there were a number of
contacts between proposers and the city. And the only place that this
pops up -- and I'm not saying that it's not significant, and I'm not
saying that it couldn't be called unfair. I have some concerns that
CH2MHILL may be able to prevail in a case that says that alone should
not have excluded us from the number-one ranking, that there were
other contacts between the various proposers in the city. It never
popped up again. It didn't come up in any part of any of the other
proceedings. I can't tell you what the answer to that is going to
be. I'm not sure. But we do have some concerns that they should at
least be allowed to stay in the process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How often does CH2MHILL bid
or make proposals on county projects?
MR. CONRECODE: That varies dramatically from year to
year, but I would say we probably hear from them once or twice a year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's our regular
frequency? What's the likelihood that they want to litigate this
particular item?
MR. CUYLER: I usually don't answer those kind of
questions. I would suspect they wouldn't want to, but -- MR. DORRILL: They have a representative who is here and
who is registered.
MS. MAC'KIE: Good. I'd like to hear from them about
why they think they should be allowed to participate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's probably where we
should go next is to hear from CH2MHILL.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fortestel, if you would please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, I think you want to
interject something first?
MR. CUYLER: Let me mention one other thing that might
place some emphasis on, and whether it answers the question or not, I
don't know, but this is not a new issue. The city has been aware of
this issue and this argument for a good period of time, four years, in
fact, and they made a decision in the past to move forward in light of
that. So, I mean, this is not popping up for the first time. There
has been some consideration. Whether it's been the right answer or
not, I don't know.
MR. FORRESTEL: For the record, my name is Ryan
Fortestel, vice president with CH2M Hill. I've been the project
manager on this project, the design phase of it, since its conception
back in 1989. When we responded to the original proposal back in
1989, we were fully aware of that last sentence that was added into
the RFP with a restriction.
The reason that that sentence was added in, and it's
occasionally used, is when there's concern that the design -- or the
study recommendations could influence the recommendations -- or the
study recommendation could be influenced by the notion that maybe we
get more design fees by subsequent phases of the work. So back in
1989 that was the assumption that the city had, and they wanted to
avoid that potential conflict.
We proceeded with a quarter study fully understanding
that this restriction was in place, and we completed the study 24
percent under budget, and it was done on time. And at the time when
we submitted the study recommendations, our work was substantially
complete, and -- or at the time when the proposals were submitted our
work was substantially complete.
When the RFP for the design work was published, we noted
that in fact the restriction was not included in there, and we asked
both city and county staff whether that restriction was in fact
eliminated by mistake or it was purposely eliminated. And they
indicated that that restriction was not binding and that it would not
be enforced on the selection process, and at that time we were
strongly encouraged to go ahead and submit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they give you a basis for,
you know, why they gave you that advice that the city said but the
staff is not going to enforce? I mean, that's doesn't make sense to
me.
MR. FORRESTEL: Yes, there was -- I asked that question
because I didn't want to proceed and expend all of the expenditures to
go ahead and do this. The response we had was two restrictions.
Number one, it's not a legally binding requirement, and it did not
show up in our contract. It did not show up anywhere else. It was
that one place where that sentence showed up. And the second was that
the work that we had done at the time was substantially complete and
that there was no conflict anymore for the potential for CH2H Hill
coming in and modifying their work in order to make the project larger
or something else to increase the subsequent phases of fees on the
subsequent phases of work. Those were the two reasons, Commissioner,
that they gave at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So basically -- Do you mind if
I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, no. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically what you're saying is
that you were cut out of bidding on the second phase but not cut out
of bidding on subsequent phases?
MR. FORRESTEL: No. No, no, no. When we submitted for
the study, part of that in that one little sentence that was read said
that you couldn't do any subsequent work. We were selected for and
completed the study. We went on to the next phase, which is the
design, and that's what we're talking about now. So there has not
been any intermediate step in there that people submitted on that the
proposal that was responded to.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess it just continues to make
no sense to me, and the language seems pretty plain.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fortestel, how long have you
been in the consulting field?
MR. FORRESTEL: Eighteen years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Have you ever not bid a
project because of a similar advertising requirement in hopes of
getting a latter stage?
MR. FORRESTEL: Yes, we have done that and, in fact,
it's a risk, and I've been involved in times when exactly this
circumstance has come up. And because of the scheduling and the
sequencing of the work, that conflict no longer existed in that phase,
or that restriction was waived.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How did that make you feel?
MR. FORRESTEL: Well, I mean, it's a risk. It's not any
different than anything else that we do. It was a risk when we
proposed and submitted on this project, and we were encouraged to do
so. And from my perspective, having gone through that, it's unfair to
us at this point to be excluded when -- and by all rights that should
have been done before, and it was determined that that was not -- that
the exclusion of CH2H Hill was not required. But no, it has happened
before, and that's just the risk of the business.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to make sure I
understand I follow Commissioner Hancock's questioning. There have
been times when restrictions like that existed that you have chosen
not to bid on a study so that you'd be eligible for later phases?
MR. FORRESTEL: Yeah, there have been times when we've
made business decisions that said that we're going to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the notation on this was
if you did this study, you could not do subsequent work on the bridge
project?
MR. FORRESTEL: That sentence said that, right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And you entered the
initial study fully aware of that restriction? MR. FORRESTEL: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: We have an additional speaker at the
conclusion of your questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem with the argument is
two-fold really, one of them being that as soon as the contract was
let in the language prohibiting further or subsequent work was not in
the contract, at that point there was no reason not to try to steer
the contract. And I'm certainly not accusing CH2H Hill of doing that,
but I'm just saying the reason to not try to steer was eliminated.
Now, that's one of the problems with the argument.
The other problem with the argument is what we already
discussed, is that the other firms that may have bid on the initial
phase, there may have been firms that would have bid on the initial
phase but did not because of that prohibition in the advertising.
They relied on that, and in relying on that I think it's important to
me that we continue that prohibition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have another speaker,
Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: We have Mr. Barton.
MR. FORRESTEL: I would like to point out one other
thing if I may.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
MR. FORRESTEL: And that is that CH2H Hill with the team
that we've got is in a unique position to complete this project well
ahead of schedule, faster than anyone else, and at a significantly
reduced cost because of the two years that we've invested in this and
the knowledge and the experience that we have gained.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Mr. Barton.
MR. BARTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bill Barton. I am the president of Wilson, Miller,
Barton & Peek. My comments will be brief.
We did, in fact, rely on that one sentence in the
language in 1989 to make a decision whether or not to include
ourselves in that process. That decision was no, we will not include
ourselves in the initial process, because we would prefer to take the
risk of being successful in the second part of the process.
I will tell you that anytime a firm does the initial
study, they are the most likely firm, presuming they do a good job, to
be successful in the second. However, if it is known that that firm
will not be a part of the second process, then the playing field
becomes level again. We anticipated that in our decision-making
process. We anticipated that the winner, in this instance CH2H Hill
on initial the selection process, would not be a part of the second.
Therefore, it would be a level playing field, and we felt very
confident that we could compete well in that level playing field.
I will tell you further that Mr. Ron Pennington, who I
think all of you know, who is one of the four members on the selection
committee, called me last week after this all came to light and told
me that he was totally unaware that that language was in the 1989 RFP,
that he had no knowledge that that language was there and very
strongly intimated to me that had he known that, his position in the
selection process would have been different.
So I'm sure Mr. Cuyler is correct. There have been
elements of the city that have been aware of this and have discussed
it for quite sometime. In this instance unfortunately one of the four
people that made the final decision was not aware of it, and I think
that's important in this whole process because Ron Pennington was the
only elected official sitting on that selection committee. The other
three were staff members, two of your own and one of the city's. From
my point of view, it is critical that the elected official should have
had knowledge that that 1989 RFP had that language. He did not have
that knowledge, at least so purported to me.
MR. CUYLER: I may be wrong. My understanding is the
RFP itself -- and, Mr. Barton, correct me if I am wrong, the RFP
itself didn't have it in it, but the advertisement did have it in it.
Is that your understanding?
MR. BARTON: I think that's a distinction without a
difference. The advertised RFP is the RFP. What I get sent to me by
a perspective client and receive, if it varies from the advertised
RFP, as you all well know, the advertisement is the one that's to
control that process.
I will also tell you that this is not an uncommon
process. There are many public agencies that take this particular
course of action frequently. Lee County does it almost as a routine.
Anytime they have a project that entails an initial feasibility study
with a later possible design, their position is that the firm
undertaking the initial feasibility study will not be eligible for the
balance of the project. That language never reaches anybody's
contract. I can tell you that because we've been there. That
language does not reach the professional service contract in any
instance. It's simply understood. If it says that in that
advertisement, if it says that in the RFP, done deal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, let me ask you,
there were four members on the selection committee and four voting
members. There was one nonvoting member, that being Jeff Perry
because he had a conflict of interest, so he was a nonvoting member.
Four voting members --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and Jeff Perry?
MR. CONRECODE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. I see on this
executive summary Richard Gatti, Ron Pennington, and Richard
Woodruff. Are those three of the members of the selection committee?
Who were --
MR. CONRECODE: The selection committee was comprised of
George Archibald, myself from the county, and Jeff Perry as the
nonvoting member representing the HPO; Richard Gatti, the city
engineer; and Ron Pennington, who was the councilman that was selected
to sit.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: The copy to Dr. Woodruff was a courtesy
copy.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
MS. MAC'KIE: I just wondered if somebody can confirm
for me. What Mr. Barton said seems to be a real critical point,
Mr. Cuyler, that certainly this is not the first advertisement that
included that line in Collier County's history. Is it our practice to
exclude or include that from the contracts that result from the
advertisement?
MR. CUYLER: I think it's a case-by-case basis. But the
obvious concept is you don't want the person telling you whether
something is going to be there --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CUYLER: -- to have interest in further work on
whatever that is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I understood from your
discussion that you're making a great point of the fact that the only
place this popped up was in the advertisement and didn't appear in the
contract and, therefore, it's not legally binding. And if that's the
practice for it never to appear in the contract and only to appear in
the advertisement, that seems really significant to me.
MR. CUYLER: You may want to ask that of Mr. Conrecode.
I think my point was that there are a number of contacts. The
documentation that was sent to the proposers or which they picked up,
it didn't have it in it. And this is a little bit of a messy
situation. I mean, if it was clear, you wouldn't be sitting here
spending time on it. But I think we had to arrive at some sort of a
conclusion, and that conclusion is what I stated; and that is, I am
not sure there's enough to totally exclude them.
But again, I mean, Mr. Barton makes good points. I
mean, if he can tell you that he in fact relied on that and needed to
see nothing further and needed to have no further contacts and that
alone made their decision, then obviously you need to take that into
account.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Tom, the answer to the
question, what is Collier County's practice?
MR. CONRECODE: It's really rare that Collier County
does it at all, but I can't speak to any specific occurrences where
we've kind of thrown that out after we've advertised it that way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The advertisement that we're
discussing is what we call a legal advertisement; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that means that the
issue -- to me I guess it means anyway that the issue from a strictly
technical/legal aspect, as I understand our discussion here today, is
somewhat cloudy. It might go either way. There's good arguments on
either side. Would that be your assessment?
MR. CUYLER: I would say that it's cloudy, yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The more important factor
to me is not the strict technical/legal aspect here, but the ethical
one. I mean, the advertisement clearly said that the successful
bidder on this will not be allowed to bid on any subsequent work, and
that's very clear. There's nothing ambiguous about it at all, and to
me that's a moral and ethical statement that we should adhere to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine --
MR. CUYLER: The only thing I want to be careful of is,
for example, you may have a contract. You may have something unfair
and say, Mr. Cuyler, this is unfair. And I say, well, there's going
to be a legal answer to this one way or another. It may be a fairness
issue to start with, but ultimately it may become a legal issue.
That's why I was trying to give you the best opinion I could.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as I said earlier, I
agree with Commissioner Norris. There is two distinct things here,
legal and ethical. And I think the important point -- We're just
shooting up attorneys the last couple of weeks, aren't we?
MR. CUYLER: You don't want to be apologizing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the key for me is the
vice president of the CH2H Hill has stood up and said they were aware
of the restriction that sets restrictions, on occasion have caused you
to not make proposals in the past, and yet despite the awareness of
the restriction, you still went ahead and proposed on it. So I think
you entered into that fully aware and knowing that, knowing that
everyone was clear at the time the study was done. It's tough to come
back and try to second-guess.
So I think both on the ethical argument and on the fact
that they have acknowledged they were fully aware, we need to go ahead
-- I'm going to make a motion that -- Ken, I need a little help on
how we do this, but the substance of my motion is to remove CH2H Hill
from the top of the list. My basis is on the question regarding the
legal advertisement for RFP.
MR. CUYLER: Your finding would be that they in fact
have been precluded from the process. I assume you're talking about
an elimination as opposed to a reranking. That leaves you with a
situation you may not be aware of that Mr. Conrecode needs to go
through; and, that is, you have a tied ranking below CH2H Hill's, so
there's going to have to be some further proceedings, as I understand
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion then will to be
remove them on that basis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
remove CH2M Hill from the process, I presume, is what we're talking
about doing. And we have a tied situation, and it will need to go
back for additional consideration.
MR. CONRECODE: It may need to, and I would ask to
provide comment before the board moves on a motion.
Numerically ranked, Wilson, Miller was ranked higher
than Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan. However, there was a second
method of ranking where the total number of number-one votes, the
total number of number-two votes, total number of number-three votes
were scored and ranked as well, and that simply flipped the
arrangement. I would ask the board to direct us to negotiate with a
particular order: for instance, Wilson, Miller; Post, Buckley; and
Greiner are in accordance with CCNA. That's what I would ask the
board to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wonder if it would be more fair
for the board to simply remove CH2M Hill and have the evaluation
committee reconvene.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'd like to support.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add that -- for
the record, this is certainly in no way reflective of CH2M Hill or any
feelings on prior work or what we hope will be future work with you.
It's merely trying to manage some level of integrity in government
when people's confidence is not at an all-time high.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will the motion maker include the
reconvening of the evaluation committee to rerank?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will thusly amend the
motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Mr. Conrecode, when do you think you can get a reranking
back to us so we can get this project moving?
MR. CONRECODE: Two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two weeks?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
Item #8H3
RECOHMENDATION TO LEASE THE EVERGLADES CITY AIRPARK ENTRANCE ROAD TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY - APPROVED
The next item on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the item. I
second the motion even.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is what? You'll second the
item?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The recommendation to lease
the Everglades City Airpark entrance road to the Collier County
Airport Authority.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, that's makes good sense.
Once again, Mr. Dotrill, you've given us an excellent --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- his usual great presentation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
We have a motion and a second to approve item 8(H)(3);
that is, to lease the Everglades City airport park to the airport
authority.
Is there discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Item #8H4
WORK ORDER M-AIP-95-1 WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$182,145.00 FOR THE DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT TO
REMOVE MANGROVES THAT HAVE PENETRATED FAA AIRCRAFT APPROACHES TO THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND CONTINUOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM - APPROVED
The next item is 8(H)(4), a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute a work order to
Dufresne-Henry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second, a
couple of them, to approve item 8(H)(4), which is -- let me see if I
can read this into the record -- a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and execute work order M-AIP-95-1 with
Dufresne-Henry in a given amount and so forth. Is there discussion?
There being none, all those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
The motion passes 5-0.
Item #8H5
JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DOT FOR TWO PATHWAY PROJECTS -
APPROVED AND FUNDS TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES
The next item is 8(H)(5), a recommendation that the
board approve the attached joint project agreement with Florida DOT.
Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners -- and for the record, Tom
Conrecode with your capital projects office. There are two approved
ISTEA-funded pathway projects that we now have to come back to the
board with, a joint participation agreement and a commitment of
funding from the board, and those are Thomasson Drive bike path and
the Golden Gate Boulevard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we interrupt you for a
second?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a quick question,
Mr. Conrecode. These were the ones that we previously saw at the HPO
level, and they're just going forward for board authorization; is that
correct?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir, with two caveats; one is that
we enter into a joint participation agreement or joint project
agreement with the state; and, secondly, it specifies the funding.
And I wanted to advise the board further on the funding. We have
$80,000 available in pathway fund carryforward from last fiscal year
that we would commit. The parks department, because these pathways
serve the parks, will commit $20,000 from their regional park impact
fee funds. And then the balance of the $33,347 would come from a
source that you would identify. The executive summary identified fund
313 reserves as one potential source on that. The other would be a
general fund reserve transfer at the board's discretion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No further questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. CONRECODE: There's representatives of the
consultant, FDOT pathway advisory.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At this point I don't have
any problem with this. Just one fringe question. We had had
discussions during the budget hearings on some specific monies for
sidewalks and bike paths this coming year. Where will that money be
appearing after October 17
MR. CONRECODE: That will continue to appear in the
$100,000 annual funding for pathway work. That's separate from these
two projects.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we had had a
discussion in perhaps elevating that level. The discussion was we
have a list of 23 or 28 or how many ever are left on there that we
seem to be progressing extremely slow on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It'll take 200 years to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Constantine had asked me last
Wednesday or Thursday if I would do a little evaluation and get it to
the board in advance of your first public hearing, to accelerate
construction from a combination of funding sources, and we intend to
do that before your first hearing in September.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt something?
Mr. Drury, you came here for items. They're approved.
You can go back to work.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good work, John.
MR. DRURY: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion on
the pathway items?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move the item.
MS. MAC'KIE: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Conrecode has asked
us to identify a funding source for the remaining amount of money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 313 is what?
MR. CONRECODE: 313 is your gas tax for the general fund
reserve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the other one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll take general fund.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For 500?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this a bidding process?
We have a motion --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move the item including
general fund reserves as the funding mechanism to make up the final
thirty-three --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 33,000.
MR. CONRECODE: $33,347.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which fiscal year will that be
coming out of?
MR. CONRECODE: This fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This fiscal year. Okay. Fine.
Thank you.
MR. CONRECODE: They can start construction immediately.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
MS. MAC'KIE: My question was just why did staff
recommend 3137
MR. CONRECODE: That's your plumpest fund reserve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plumpest.
MR. CONRECODE: Plumpest reserve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we check if that's a word
and see?
MR. CONRECODE: Transportation related as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion that we proceed
with the joint agreement and the unbudgeted monies come from the
general fund reserve. Is there is a second? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
If there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #8H6
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COUNTY HANAGER'S 1995 WORK PLAN - PLAN
PRESENTED
The next item on the agenda is item 8(H)(6), a
discussion regarding the county manager's 1995 work plan.
MR. DORRILL: This was an informational second quarter
summary for the board. I can tell you it was an aggressive quarter,
and 95 percent of all of the originally identified projects were
completed on or in advance of their projected schedule. Other than
that, I wouldn't intend to try and walk you down through the list, but
I'll answer questions in the event that you have any.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any questions on the
plan. And I've enjoyed seeing these monthly or quarterly. I also
like the weekly update that you provided.
MR. DORRILL: We've had a lot of good comments about
that, and those are made available to all of the media on Friday
afternoon or either faxed directly to them and also put in their boxes
for those that pick them up on Monday morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had given Mrs. Filson a note
today to ask you, and there's no reason I can't ask you now. On your
weekly updates can we have like a volume and week number so we can put
them in order, and it would help us progress and --
MR. DORRILL: Sure. I think we show week ending --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we do.
MR. DORRILL: -- but we could sure show volume if you
want to keep those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because if we continue to do it
year after year, it would be an interesting way to just keep track of
all the things that we have accomplished.
MR. DORRILL: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions, Mr. Dorrill. On
the phase one utility building software, it says approved by BCC on
2/21. Is that on line and running yet? MR. DORRILL: That is, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question is on
the completed impact fee study. Are you planning a summary
presentation to the board? You know, did that study require it?
MR. DORRILL: In August -- I spoke to Mr. Hargett about
that yesterday for roads and utilities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions on the work
plan?
There being none, thank you. Good job.
Item #9A
SETTLEHENT IN THE CASE OF CATHY HYERS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF DONALD ALLEN MYERS, DECEASED VS. B & D TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE, INC. D/B/A BUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, GARY G.
GREGORY, WILLIAM D. WILLIAMS, III AND COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CASE NO.
94-0337-CA-01-TB - APPROVED
The next item on the agenda is 8(H)(7), consideration of
modifications. This is continued to 8/8.
The next item under the county attorney's report, 9(A).
This is a settlement agreement, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: That's right. It's a request to approve a
settlement agreement. Mr. Bryant will explain the situation to you.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. May it please the board, this is the companion case to
the Olsen case that we settled earlier. The reason for the increased
amount in this matter is because Mr. Myers died with a wife and two
children. In the Olsen matter it was a single lady that died.
We are recommending this settlement to the board. We
feel it's appropriate. We feel our exposure is the 160,000 that
remains in our sovereign immunity cap, and we believe that we were
able to reach an appropriate and a correct settlement for the county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for
Mr. Bryant?
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After reading through the
item and, in particular, my confidence in Mr. Bryant, I'll move the
item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the settlement agreement. Further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Item #9B
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GEORGE WATSON RE
MOWING OF POWERLINE EASEMENTS - STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ADJACENT
OWNER ON THIS PROBLEM
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
The next item is 9(B), which is a report on the status
of public petition request by Mr. George Watson regarding the mowing
of powerline easements. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, as you recall, this was on
a couple of weeks ago, and you asked that we could check this out and
perhaps call FPL to see if we could get anything done about the
mowing. We did that. We also checked the property ownership. It's a
situation where the underlying fee to the easement is owned by one
individual, and they don't own anything else around there. They
probably owned all of the property at one point. It has sold portions
of it off. So they have no incentive in terms of liens or anything
like that, and we have no incentive to foreclose, because we don't
want a power easement. So from that perspective, there's not much
help.
We did call FPL and said, you know, could you mow this?
Would you be inclined to do this? They started talking funding to us,
intimating to us, you know what we're talking about in terms of
funding. You guys got that same type of problem." They said they did
it once a year. That's all they were going to do it.
We then asked them, would you give written permission to
allow a property owner to go back there and mow that area themselves?
They indicated they would not put that in writing, but people do do
that, and they don't object to that in most cases. That's as far as
we could get with it. I was going to call Mr. Watson yesterday, and
things got hectic, and I didn't get a chance to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we make any contact with
the individual owner who owns that property? Is it Mr. Nichols?
MR. CUYLER: Yes. No, we haven't. We could do that,
but my guess was he's probably not going to have too much interest,
because apparently all he owns is that 100-foot strip. He has no
incentive to do anything, but we would be happy to call him as well if
you want us to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we try it so at
least we've exhausted all --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I think that's a good idea,
to at least say that we have exhausted all alternatives and have found
that the residents feel that it's worthwhile to them and enough of a
nuisance that if they want to mow it themselves, they can do so, but
they're not going to have written permission. I think they need to
know that, but that they have verbal approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comment?
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we maybe put the
owner-of-easement fee in touch with the adjacent property owners and
see if perhaps they want to -- maybe the owner of the fee would want
to convey it to adjacent property owners or to the homeowner's
association there or something.
MR. CUYLER: We were awaiting anything you wanted to say
about it. We're more than willing to do that as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we should continue it to
try to work at it and see if we can find a way to solve it.
MR. CUYLER: And we'll also be in touch with Mr. Watson
and keep him updated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-439 APPOINTING JOSEPH A. CHRISTY, GILES H. GORAL, AND
MICHAEL P. GLIME TO THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY
COMHITTEE - ADOPTED
The next item is 10(A), appointment of members to the
Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Board.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
three here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Madam Chairman, we have three for
We sure do.
I'll move approval. I second it.
We have a motion and a second to
appoint Joseph A. Christy, Giles H. Goral, and Michael P. Glime to the
Marco Island Beach Renourishment Committee. Further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
ITEM #10B
RESOLUTION 95-440 APPOINTING FRANK RODRIGUEZ AND FRANK LONEY TO THE
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
The next item is 10(B).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, two members,
two applicants. I'll move the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to appoint
Frank Rodriguez and Frank Loney to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board.
If there's no further discussion, all those in favor,
please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
That concludes our agenda.
Is there public comment by the public comment portion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're closing in on a record here,
Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we are.
Is there public comment before we finish?
MR. DORRILL: No, no public comment. I have a staff
communications that I need to give.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner communications.
Commissioner Norris, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing today.
Commissioner Hancock?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the items I'm just
going to mention briefly at the joint meeting is the film commission
idea. We've had a very successful meeting between Lee County
representatives, Collier County representatives. It looks like many
of the folks are interested in doing that. I talked to a couple of
the Lee commissioners since then informally, and we may be well on our
way. So that will be a nice first step in doing some economic
development type things together.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if you would, I
in all likelihood will not be able to attend the joint meeting
tomorrow. If you'll please express my apologies to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tomorrow is Thursday.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thursday. Well, I won't be
attending there either. I'm going to be working Red Cross things, or
I'm going to be in Orlando, one of the two.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One of the two. All right.
I had a couple of items that I wanted to bring up.
Number one is to remind the board that we do have a budget hearing
Wednesday evening at Pelican Bay. Presuming that our weather will
stay on the course that's recently been given us, I would imagine that
meeting will proceed.
MR. DORRILL: An important meeting because your
ordinance annually obligates you to go to Pelican Bay to hold that
meeting. And because of the community development type district
format and the special assessment that they use, property owners have
been noticed individually, and usually a pretty good crowd turns out
for that meeting. And only in the event that there's very serious
weather would we then talk to you about cancelling.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, are you
going to be absent from that?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I will be there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He'll be there tomorrow.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think come hell or high water
is the appropriate statement. I will be there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hope it's not high water.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, because of the nature of
the advertisement, whenever we make that decision, we can continue
it. We can't cancel. We'll continue it up to August 15. So we need
to know a little in advance if that's the case. Mr. Dotrill will --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think based on the latest
updates, unless something changes drastically, we'll be there tomorrow
evening.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Matthews, do you need
representation from the Sheriff's Department tomorrow afternoon?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A quick question. You
mentioned assuming everything stays as it was this morning, we have a
12 noon update; is that right?
MR. DORRILL: I believe his update is at 11, and he was
going to have a briefing at noon. I'll leave it to your discretion
whether you all need to be there. If you want to be there, great. If
you have other plans, we will contact you if we need to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also, I guess we declared an
emergency last night. I guess we need to have some information from
you, Mr. Cuyler, on as this progresses, how we actually stand down
from that and undeclare it.
MR. CUYLER: Real briefly, we will do a resolution
evidencing what you did last night next Tuesday. If we don't meet
before then, probably we'll just have a resolution that sums up what
you did, and it takes us off the emergency status.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the board, I'd like to tell
you, I have a letter from the office of the governor. Remember a few
weeks ago we were talking about the blue signs along the interstate
system? They've elected to leave them. Isn't that nice?
And I also have a letter from the Department of
Environmental Protection. Each of us received a copy from Secretary
Wetherell thanking us for the manatee protection plan and that we have
been able to comply with that. And we'll go ahead on that. Staff?
Communications, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, you already covered it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Your district changes were precleared. We
received notice as approved by the justice department. I'll send you
a short memo on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, this is probably an
important question for us with your impending vacation to the private
sector. The process by which this board will take and claim on hiring
a new county attorney, do we need to make a decision in the near
future as to whether that will be an internal or both internal and
external search? How do we go about that? It's been a long time
since this board has hired a county attorney, so I don't think any of
us here are familiar with the process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler and I have begun to
talk about that.
MR. CUYLER: Since Mr. Dorrill and I, I think, and your
airport executive director are the only contract employees, it's
really up to you how you want to proceed and when you want to proceed
and when you think it's in your best interest to start on that
process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So can we expect a discussion
item on that next week?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If not next week, I would say
definitely the week after. The 22nd is the workshop, right, and the
29th we're off? Is that correct, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: I'm not sure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: I know the 29th you're off.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So by August 15th why don't,
Mr. Cuyler, you and I plan to have something to talk about with the
board. Okay.
Anything else? Ms. Filson? We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine,
that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or
adopted 5/0: *****
Item #16A1
COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.420 "BREAKWATER AT PELICAN BAY"
(A/K/A PARCEL "B", UNIT 19, PELICAN BAY), LOCATED IN SECTION 33, TRACT
485, RANGE 25 EAST - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 95-436 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "STARPOINT LANE"
See Pages
Item #16A3
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR GRAND ISLE AT PELICAN MARSH -
WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SWEETWATER BAY AT STERLING OAKS, PHASE
ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A5
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR STONEBRIDGE, UNIT TWO - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A6
A_MENDED FINAL PLAT OF "LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT TWO" - WITH
STIPULATIONS & CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
See Pages
Item #16A7
SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR GREY OAKS, UNIT SEVEN AND UNIT EIGHT -
WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A8
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR GREEN OAK TERRACE - WITH STIPULATIONS
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16D1
AWARD BID #95-2383, ANNUAL DEGASIFIERAND ODOR CONTROL MEDIA CLEANING -
AWARDED TO W.E.S., INC.
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 95-437/CWS-95-5/HSW-95-2/GWD-95-2 RE NEW FEDERAL POVERTY
GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND
APPROVAL OF HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR 1995
See Pages
Item #16D3
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT FOR GARY J. AND GALE E. CALVERT
See Pages
Item #16D4
SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR AZTEC INSURANCE COMPANY, DONALD AND
PATSY BICKFORD, THOMAS H. BOWINS AND CARL AND MARGARET SHEA
See Pages
Item #16D5
CANCELLATION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR BING FONG SU AND HEI YE SU
See Pages
Item #16D6
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR STANLEY J. HOSKING AND GERALD W.
KNIGHT
See Pages
Item #16El
LEASEHOLD AGREEMENT BETWEEN RICHARD B. LANSDALE AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
OFFICE SPACE TO BE UTILIZED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16E2
See Pages
THE PROVISION OF DENTAL INSURANCE THROUGH AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN, INC.
Item #16E3
STATUTORY DEED CONVEYING THE COUNTY'S INTEREST (IF ANY) TO THE
FILLED-IN LAND AREA CREATED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEAWALL ALONG
THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 77, MARCO BEACH UNIT 3 (SEAHORSE
COURT)
Item #16E4
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-438 RE AUTHORIZE AWARDS AND RECOGNITION EXPENDITURES AS A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
See Pages
Item #16F1
AWARD BID NO. 95-2358 FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNIFORMS FOR THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS INDICATED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F2
EHS MATCHING GRANT APPLICATIONS
See Pages
Item #16F3
REJECT BID NO. 95-2389, AVIATION FUEL - TO BE RE-BID
Item #16F4
AWARD BID NO. 95-2390, "AS 350 BS HELICOPTER SPARE PARTS", TO AZZMAC
HELICOPTER CENTER, INC.
Item #16G1
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND NLA/~DATORY TRASH
COLLECTION FUNDS AND APPROVE APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16H1
ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR SUBMERGED LANDS
SITUATED IN TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, SECTIONS 5 AND 6 (FISH TRAP BAY AND
LITTLE HICKORY BAY) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY AND BRIDGE
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG BONITA BEACH ROAD, CIE PROJECT NO. 031 - WITH
STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16H2
AMENDMENT #1 FOR CONTRACT 95-2331 FOR AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC.
FOR THE REDESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVIERA COLONY WATER SYSTEM
See Pages
Item #16H3
BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-387 AND BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-411
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following correspondence as presented by the Board of County
Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as
indicated:
There being no further business for the Good of the
County· the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:24 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING BY: Sharon A. Sullivan
· as