BCC Minutes 10/07/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 7, 1997
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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
ALSO PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going call to order the
October 7th Board of County Commissioners meeting.
The first item on our agenda is an invocation. We're please to
have Pastor Ron Walter of Immanuel Lutheran Church here with us this
morning.
And, Pastor Walter, if I could ask for your invocation this
morning and we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag.
I'm sorry. Apparently Pastor Walter did not make it this
morning, so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll volunteer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Heavenly Father, we thank you for this gathering of community
leaders and of people interested in what happens in Collier County and
to the people of Collier County. We ask your blessing and your
guidance on this board as we deliberate important decisions and we ask
that your hand guide all of the actions of Collier County. We pray it
in your name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
Good Morning, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning.
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do you have for changes today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have four moves and one
continue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about the
first two, in particular. I don't know that in five years we've ever
moved something off the regular agenda onto the Consent Agenda.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I'll go further than that. In twenty-five
years I've never seen it either, but when it came to my attention that
this is something that would be proper, I called Mr. Weigel and found
that there is really no reason why we couldn't.
In our review of the agenda, we figured -- we came to the
conclusion that these are essentially routine items and should have
been on Consent, so I said, "Well, let's go ahead and put it on the
change list and move them to Consent."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's -- I'd like to see more of
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that particular one is in, in
conformance with what the board has asked for in the past when, as Mr.
Fernandez put it to me, halfway through the presentation we interrupt
him and say, "Motion to approve." So, with his discretion, I trust
that and I think it's a good idea.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. So the first item is to move Item
8(A)(3) to 16(A)(1). That's from regular to Consent. The second is
to move Item 8(A)(4) to 16(A)(2). That's also from regular to
Consent. The third is to move Item 16(B)2 to 8(B)2. That's from
Consent to regular. Reject bids received for the NCRWTP 8 million
gallons per day expansion project and authorized rebidding.
The next is to move from Consent to regular Item 16(B)5 to 8(B)3.
This is the reject bid number 97-2665, North County Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant -- Treatment Facility Solids Stabilization
Facility Improvements, Project 73047.
The final one is to continue Item 16(C)5 to the meeting of
October the 21st. This is to adopt the Sugden Regional Park special
event usage policy, and this is at the staff's request.
That completes the list, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Mr. Weigel, did you have anything additional?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Nothing more. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Not today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing today, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have no changes.
I'll make a motion --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. I do have one addition. I have
had some phone calls from individuals who have fezone petitions on
Marco Island in the works. So under County Attorney I would like to
get an update. I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel, if I could interrupt your
conversation for a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like, under County Attorney, to discuss
the Marco Island zoning applications that are in the works now. MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I'm hearing some conflicting
information out there. So under County Attorney if we could get an
update on that, please?
MR. WEIGEL: Very good. Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
With that I have no other changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve the agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1997; EVENING BUDGET MEETING
OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1997; REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 AND EVENING
BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To approval of minutes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of this board for September
9 and September 16, 1997, and both are evening budget meetings of
September 1997.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion. Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Seeing none.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 7, 1997 AS MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS
DAY - ADOPTED
We are to Proclamations under 5(A) l.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, we have a proclamation regarding Mental
Illness Awareness Day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for letting me read this
proclamation.
I'd like to ask Kathryn Leib Hunter if she could come forward to
accept this proclamation, and someone with her? Wonderful.
If you'll just come forward and face the camera, I will read
this.
WHEREAS, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has
proclaimed October 5 through 12 as Mental Illness Awareness Week; and,
WHEREAS, the Collier County affiliate, the Alliance for the
Mentally Ill of Collier County, more commonly known as AMI-CC is a
member in a good standing; and
WHEREAS, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim October
5th through 12th as Mental Illness Awareness Week; and,
WHEREAS, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim the month
of October as Mental Illness Awareness Month; and,
WHEREAS, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim this day,
Tuesday, October 7, as Mental Illness Awareness Day; and,
WHEREAS, AMI of Collier County is a family organization for
persons with brain disorders such as schizophrenia, BI Polar disorder,
depression, ADD, ADHD, OCD; and,
WHEREAS, AMI of Collier County hopes that, in passing this
proclamation, we will raise public awareness about brain disorders,
and reduce the stigma that is attached to these illnesses.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 7, 1997, be
designated as Mental Illness Awareness Day.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 7th Day of October, 1997, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman.
And I would like to move acceptance to this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MS. HUNTER: Good morning, Commissioners.
On behalf of the board of directors of the Alliance for the
Mentally Ill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you,
Commissioners, for your support in this proclamation.
We work endlessly to educate the community about mental
illnesses, commonly know as brain disorders. These disorders affect
one in four families. If we simply look at the numbers of the
commissioners and staff, the statistics will tell us that one of your
families is affected by a brain disorder such as depression, manic
depression, schizophrenia, OCD, Tourette's or ADD.
As we recognize this time, let us recognize those persons who
work so hard at staying well, by taking their medications, not abusing
substances, eating right and getting enough rest. Let us honor those
professionals for the patience and the knowledge in working with them,
and let's not forget their families who are there for them in time of
need.
Our objectives are to provide education, comfort and support to
families, to obtain needed services for the mentally ill and to
advocate for treatment and services necessary for the recovery, to
acquire and disseminate information to families, financial aid and
treatments currently available to the mentally ill. It is only with
the continuing support of persons like yourselves that we can continue
to do this.
And here to speak very briefly is my assistant at the AMI office,
Bob Trebilcock.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I am mentally ill, as one family in four have a
mentally ill member. People who know me say I'm not mentally ill, but
I know that I am.
I work in a volunteer position with Alliance for the Mentally
Ill. I studied psychology and there are quite a few different
diagnoses. I have at various times had different diagnoses. I have
finally been diagnosed right and make sure to take the medicine to
correct this illness. People who are mentally ill can accomplish a
lot if given a chance.
MS. HUNTER: Thank you, Bob.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 6-12, 1997 AS NATIONAL 4-H
WEEK - ADOPTED
Next we have a proclamation proclaiming the week of October 6
through 12 as National 4-H week, and, Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
If I could have Jody Brown and Wendy Carlson? Jody's the
president and Wendy's the vice president of the 4-H County Council.
If you'll turn around and face the TV camera, please, in the back
of the room?
The proclamation reads:
WHEREAS, the goal of 4-H is to provide opportunities for the
youth in Collier County in the areas of leadership, citizenship,
personal development, and practical skills; and,
WHEREAS, these activities have resulted in learning experiences
and accomplishments that have received State and National recognition;
and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
feels this 4-H program contributes to the overall development of our
youth; and,
WHEREAS, the 4-H members receive inspiration and guidance from
interested parents, professional Cooperative Extension Service workers
and volunteer adult and teen leaders, and support from many community
organizations and businesses.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 6th
through the 12th, 1997, be designated as National 4-H Week, and all
citizens of Collier County are urged to join this board in giving
appropriate recognition to the achievements of the 4-H Clubs of
Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 7th day of October, 1997.
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
L. Hancock, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move acceptance of the
proclamation, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
MS. BROWN: My name's Jody Brown, President of the 4-H County
Council. I'm a member and team leader of God's Country 4-H Club.
I've been a member of 4-H for six years.
MS. CARLSON: My name is Wendy Carlson and I'm the Vice President
of the 4-H Council and a member and a team leader at the Outback
Neighbors 4-H Club, and I have been in 4-H for ten years.
MS. BROWN: On behalf of the 4-H Club members we would like to
thank the commission, county administrators and personnel, our
extension agents, civic clubs, businesses, schools and 4-H volunteers
for your time, support and commitment through youth development
through 4-H.
Throughout the past year approximately 4,000 boys ages five to
eighteen boys -- boys and girls ages five to eighteen, and their
families throughout the county, from all backgrounds, had many
learning experiences through participation in traditional 4-H Clubs,
special interest programs, camps, workshops, school enrichment and
leadership programs. Over 300 adults volunteered their time to make
theses opportunities possible.
4-H emphasizes practical skills, public speaking, recordkeeping
and knowledge in a wide variety of project areas. The most popular
projects were in animal science, citizenship and leadership, health
and safety, individual and family resources and environmental
services. Third grade students throughout the county participated in
On Your Own, a 4-H school project that teaches children coping skills
needed for when they may be home alone. Other classes benefited from
4-H money management and embryology projects. Many home school youth
also participated.
Community service is an important part of 4-H. Last year 4-Hers
served the community through beach clean-ups, cleaning fields, to fill
a food pantry, making a quilt to give away, mentoting younger children
who needed help learning to read, helping needy families, visiting
nursing homes, planting flowers at a community center and much more.
In keeping with the theme that youth are an important resource
who have much to contribute, we are excited about the 4-H Youth in
Action campaign that is being launched nationally this week. The
National Advertising Council has selected 4-H as one of the four
organizations to promote.
Youth throughout the country and certainly here in Collier County
are invited to join 4-H as a way to get involved in their community.
MS. CARLSON: Teens in 4-H have many leadership opportunities,
such as serving on our county, district and state councils, officer
training counselor training, the Know Your County Government Program.
4-H legislature, which is held in Tallahassee, 4-H congress, which is
held at the University of Florida, and national 4-H congress in
Memphis. I'm excited to be one of four Collier County teams who
earned the opportunity to represent Florida at national 4-H congress
next month. There are twenty-eight in the delegation and we have the
most from any individual county. MS. MAC'KIE: Great.
MS. CARLSON: Collier teams received statewide recognition in
competition in several categories this summer, including career
exploration, food and nutrition and animal science, poster making and
reported keeping.
4-H helps us develop our skills and knowledge in many areas, but
particularly in working together as a group, making decisions and
following through on our responsibilities, and we have a lot of fun.
4-H clubs are reorganizing this fall thanks to many adults who are
willing to share their time and expertise. 4-H projects are also
being conducted in the classrooms.
4-H also collaborates with other youth-serving agencies to
provide educations and leadership experiences at after school daycare
sites. Several clubs will be participating in the old-fashioned farm
days being held November 1 and 2 at the fairgrounds, and we hope
everyone will attend.
We invite the citizens of Collier County to join us in helping to
make a positive difference.
Again, thank you for your support.
We would like to present each of you with a Partner in 4-H pin.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, both of you. Congratulations and good
luck at the conference.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next, Item 5(B) Service Awards.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we have four employees
who we are honoring with service awards this week. The first two have
each been with us for five years, hanging out down on Horseshoe Drive,
Timothy Stick and also Road & Bridge, Harvey Hall.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't worry. We know you're doing more than
just hanging out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. There seems to be an awful lot
of activity down there.
And celebrating fifteen years with us, currently serving in the
Department of Revenue, Sue Getter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The rare goose down pin.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Real imitation amethyst.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Genuine imitation.
And, as Commissioner Norris would say, with a good start with
twenty years in our ag. department, Donny Fauls.
Item #5Cl
RHONDA SNELL, PURCHASING DEPARTHENT, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER, 1997 - PRESENTED
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as is the chairman's pleasure, once a
month at a certain point during the year we like to recognize
employees who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and done an
outstanding job day-to-day. And this month it's my pleasure to
recognize Miss Rhonda Snell from the Purchasing Department as employee
of the month for October.
So, Rhonda, I need you come up to be duly embarrassed this
morning. If you would be so kind as to come up and face the camera,
I'll read all your accolades that were attributed to this award.
Rhonda, again with the Purchasing Department and the Support
Services Division, has a position that requires her to coordinate with
several departments for contract bidding and execution. She is an
exemplary employee and goes beyond the call of duty to expedite the
work she receives. She is very knowledgeable of purchasing polices
and her professionalism, coupled with her cheerful attitude helps the
bidding projects go much smoother. Rhonda volunteers to correct
problems when discovered and performs her duties with patience and
decorum, even amidst the most stressful times.
Rhonda is furthering her career and adding to her professional
services to the County by going to school after work. Her dedication
and loyalty are why she was nominated and selected as Employee of the
Month for October 1997.
And, Rhonda, for you this morning we have a letter signed by me
as chairman of the board congratulating you for your award. We have a
plaque for you to present and place on your wall to show everyone else
just how good you are and, of course, a $50.00 check and our
congratulations.
(Applause)
Item #5C2
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION'S DISTINGUISHED BUDGET
PRESENTATION AWARD TO COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BY MERVIN TIMBERLAKE,
SOUTH FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE FOR GFOA - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next item under Presentations is a
presentation to the board from the Government Finance Officer's
Association, a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Good morning.
MR. TIMBERLAKE: Good morning. My name is Marvin Timberlake.
I'm the Director of Financial Services for the City of Boca Raton in
Palm Beach County. Today I'm here representing the government Finance
Officer's Association of the United States and Canada.
It is indeed a privilege and an honor that I'm able today to
award to Collier County the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.
The award represents a significant achievement by the entity. It
reflects a commitment by the governing body and staff to meeting the
highest principles of government budgeting.
In order to receive the budget award, the county had to satisfy
nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentations.
These guidelines are designed to assess how well the county's budget
serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operational guide
and a communications device. Your budget has been rated proficient in
all four categories. To receive the award it is reviewed by two
independent judges in other parts of the country who rate your budget
on these four criteria.
You are distinguished. You have received this award in the past,
but just to tell you how hard this award is to get, of the sixty-six
counties in the State of Florida, only a third of the counties
currently possess the award. And nationwide, only less than four
percent of the counties nationwide have received this award. So you
should be indeed proud of your Office of Management and Budget as they
again have brought you this award.
And with that I would like to present the award to the county
chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Timberlake, if I may, it would be
inappropriate for me to receive the award because I didn't do any of
the work. If I could ask the folks from the Office of Management and
Budget, I see a couple people here, Mike Smykowski, and I think it
would be more appropriate for Mr. Smykowski to accept the award on
behalf of the board since it's he and the employees of the Office of
Management and Budget that made it happen.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I am just one member of the Office of Management
and Budget. I'll duly embarrass the rest of them and ask them to come
on up, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, it's nothing to be
embarrassed about, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Mike, if you could come on up here, we
would like to get a picture of the presentation, as our photographer
runs around the room.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Timberlake, thank you for being here.
Mike, well done.
Mike, do you have enough of those to make a coaster set now,
because --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We do. We do.
For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget Director.
I would like to thank Mr. Timberlake. We appreciate the award
and the opportunity to participate in the program and for the input
that we get from peers around the country because our budget is in
fact evaluated by other peers from around the country with suggestions
for improvement that we try to implement and make our document a
little more meaningful, a little more user friendly and just better
overall work for the benefit of all, so we thank you.
I would also like at this time to introduce the staff of the
Office of Management and Budget. Their work is -- there's a lot of
work that goes on behind the scenes, recognize them. Phil Tindall,
Senior Budget Analyst -- give a wave -- Robin Bialkoski, the senior
secretary, Gary Vincent, Budget Analyst II, and Sheila Leith, Budget
Analyst II. Tom Kukulski and Jean Gansel were unavailable today, but
I would also like to thank them for their efforts, and on behalf of
the Office of Management and Budget.
The budget process here is, is very challenging and I expect it
will be no different in the future, and we just appreciate all the
cooperation from the division administrators and the constitutional
officers and the Board of County Commissioners and the input we get
from the public in making our process work. And we look forward to
hopefully receiving the award again in the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mike, you've created your own problem
because you're receiving the award consistently now, and the first
year we don't, we're going to take notice.
But also I want, with Mr. Timberlake here, I want to congratulate
you on the way in which you involved the public and implemented the
suggestions and requests the public had in at least the years I've
served on this board, in improving the process every year, not just
from a financial standpoint but from a public participation
standpoint. You've done a good job and we certainly appreciate it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 97-388 RE THE DELETION OF A CONDITIONFROM RESOLUTION NO.
93-129 RELATING TO PETITION CU-92-16, EVERGLADES PRIVATE AIRBOAT TOURS
- ADOPTED
**CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next on Agenda Item 8(A) l, Community
Development, staff request for direction regarding deletion of a
condition from Resolution No. 93-129. This is regarding Everglades
Private Airboat tours.
Mr. Hulhere, good morning.
MR. HULHERE: Good morning. Bob Hulhere, current Planning
Manager. I also have Fred Reischl and Steve Lenberger here should any
questions come up that I am unable to answer, and I do think there are
several members of the public that will want to speak on this, and I
note that Paul Hinchcliff from the EAB is also here.
These 8(A) l and 8(A) 2 are somewhat related, obviously. 8(A)(1)
is specific to a particular conditional use. There was a condition
placed thereon that required the business owner to submit bi-annually
reports on environmental impact, specifically avian species, and --
over a five year period -- and staff would then review and make a
recommendation to the EAB and the EAB would review it, and
potentially the business owner might have to come up with a plan to
minimize or negate those impacts, if there are any, on the avian
species.
The problem was that we've noted that those, those studies really
do not relate to the impacts on the avian species. They're fairly
costly, and we're not able to derive from those studies any
relationship of the business on the avian species, and this condition
was not placed on, on the other -- I think there are two other airboat
tours operating out there. One has been there for a very long time,
the other one is more recent.
So the EAB, in reviewing, and most recently in reviewing this
stipulation, asked staff to look into eliminating the stipulation from
this particular conditional use. However, the stipulation was placed
on the conditional use by the Board of County Commissioners, that's
why we're here today.
We concur. We do not see the value in this particular study at
this point in time. In fact, something like this really needs to be
reviewed up front, and any conditions should be placed on such
conditional use up front so that we are able to address the impacts.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, the suggestion is to
remove this one condition but the permit would stand, they would still
be allowed to do what they do? MR. HULHERE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This just appears to be unnecessary
work for them and for staff.
MR. HULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for staff?
Do we have speakers on this item, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one. Tami House.
MS. HOUSE: Excuse me. I'm Tami House with Everglades Private
Airboat Tours.
What Mr. Hulhere said, I guess, is correct, with the bird survey.
He did state that there were other operators in the area that were not
required to do this particular stipulation. As you'll see in the
Number 2 item agenda here, there are a couple of other airboat tour
operators that were required to do none of the other requirements that
we have in our conditional use permit as it stands today. The bird
survey, if they would like to delete this item, it's fine with me, it
will be five years in March anyway. But as far as the other items
listed on our conditional use permit, I would like an opportunity to
speak on these when it comes up on the agenda.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Seeing none.
Item #8A2
AMENDHENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPHENT CODE WITH REGARD TO REGULATIONS FOR
AIRBOAT TOUR OPERATIONS - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE SAID AMENDMENTS
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're to Item 8(A) 2. Staff request for
direction regarding possible amendments to the LDC with regard to
airboat tour operations.
Mr. Hulhere, I assume a related item.
MR. HULHERE: That's correct.
The EAB also recommended to staff that we look at creating some
specific regulations regarding airboat tours that we would place into
the land development code and that all future requests for airboat
tour operation would then have to address those specific criteria.
Before we went through the time necessary to do a study to
determine what, if any, conditions might be appropriate, we're coming
before you to get that direction, since it was our opinion that the
EAB direction would take some staff time to develop those criteria.
We certainly want to find out if the board concurs with that direction
first.
There are several options. Obviously we could have -- and no, no
change in which -- before a conditional use for an airboat tour
operation is approved an environmental impact statement is required,
and they are brought before the Environmental Advisory Board. And the
staff is of the opinion that that really is an opportunity for us to
assess on a case by case basis whether or not the airboat tour
operation will have environmental impacts, and, if they will, what
condition should be placed on those tour operators? Obviously there
are several other options. They are listed in your executive summary
packet, including --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, cutting to the chase,
staff recommends that no further regulations be implemented and that
we not amend this?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. We believe the best way to handle
it is on a case by case basis.
I cite, for an example, one of the airboat tour operators out
there, I think it's called Weeks, they operate in an area that is
clear water with no seagrass beds, so there's an example where there
wouldn't be an impact on seagrass beds. In some cases there would be.
By having an environmental impact statement prepared, we can look at
the specific impacts where the tour operator intends to run the boats
and then tailor any conditions to that, to that use. We don't
disagree it's something that needs to be looked at very closely, but
on a case by case basis, it is our opinion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree that there are a tremendous amount of
required limitations or additional limitations, but when I think of
the newer operations, it wasn't that long ago that someone had cut a
trail through some type of mangrove area and actually laid PVC pipe
down to get an airboat across in the dryer times. Who did it and
which midnight date it occurred on and so forth was almost impossible.
In future location of airboats, I think it's important to look at
limiting them to existing open water trails for two reasons. One is
that you can avoid a lot of environmental degradation that way and the
argument relating to that.
The second thing is, if, if, you know -- growing up in Florida,
I've spent some time on airboats and I'd rather be on an open water
trail, personally, particularly if I had just paid fifteen bucks to go
for a ride, because -- you know, we don't run into that much sawgrass
here but when you do, it's not real fun.
But I like the idea of open water trails being a part of the
consideration for the staff side. I don't think that's more
regulation but just common sense.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going say, I assume the actions
taken that were mentioned by Commissioner Hancock would have been
illegal under any scenario.
MR. HULHERE: Yes. And that particular circumstance was an
illegal operation, and I know there's probably still an investigation
going on into that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't necessarily disagree but I
think I agree with Mr. Hulhere that those probably need to be looked
at on an individual basis. There may be some circumstance that
warrants something other than that. I'd hate to just make a blanket
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think one of the problems, and I certainly
have spoken with the Houses regarding this issue and other things
related to their particular operation, but I think one of the concerns
is that there is kind of a level playing field, that if you decide to
go into this kind of an operation, that there are certain guidelines,
perhaps, that you need to follow.
And, yes, probably there can be some areas where you look at, you
know, where they're going to operate and if there's something that's
site specific to that particular area, maybe you can do that. But in
some cases -- in their particular case, they've been in business and
yet someone can be the new guy on the block, and he's not having to
conform to the same regulations that they had to conform to. I think
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry about your ear.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Anyway, that's my concern about this. And
I don't know how you address this in this code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that that different, though, than
any land development code issue where different properties have the
same basic framework but individual PUDs or individual land use plans
are tailored because something on Pine Ridge may be different than
something on 951.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But I'm talking -- actually, Tim, what I'm
talking about here is adjacent property, okay? When you're right next
door and you had to jump through certain hoops to go ahead and have
your particular operation, and the next person comes in right beside
you and they have not had to go through the same situation.
I can understand that, if you're talking about buildings and
those kinds of things, but when you're talking about this type of
operation, I'm not sure how that applies.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wonder if that's not a staff consistency
issue more than anything.
MR. HULHERE: Well, one of the -- I think one of the problems
that enters into this scenario is that we, we did have a situation
where an airboat tour operator was operating out there illegally and
was brought to our attention and has been -- was subsequently
red-tagged and is now going through, after the fact, through the
process, and will be brought before the EAB, I think in November, and
ultimately will come before you, I believe in December, I believe may
be one of the examples of not having gone through a level playing
field.
The problem we have is that, until we're made aware of -- I mean,
illegal acts such as those occur all the time, and as soon as we find
out about them we take the steps that are necessary, but they will in
fact be going through the same process. Whether or not the same
stipulations will be applied to them is what we're talking about here,
and I can' really answer that until the environmental impact statement
has been submitted, reviewed by the EAB and the board, you know, has
had the opportunity to review it and say, should the same conditions
be placed on this operation as has been placed on, for example, the
Houses' operation. And presumably, if they're in the same area with
the same environmental impacts, then the same conditions should apply.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I would like to know more specifically
where the, the faults lie before trying to fix them, and if our staff
is of the opinion that those should be done or are better done
individually, that tells me there's probably not a trend of problems
here. But I -- again, I'm looking for that input from, from you, Mr.
Hulhere as to -- because, you may remember, I -- in the private
sector, I brought one of these things through. I rezoned a -- I was
the agent for a rezoning for an airboat tour, so I know what they had
to go through to get their permits.
MR. HULHERE: There are relatively few areas where this type of
use is appropriate and I presume, you know, a certain level of
regulations will fall naturally from the marketplace on these types of
operations. But anything within the Big Cypress, they are going to
have to -- they're going to have to go through a rigorous review, and
if they even can get approved, because I know that the Big Cypress
Preserve has done some, some review on that type of activity and, you
know, the negative impacts associated.
There are -- there is some -- there are some areas that are not
within the Big Cypress but are also ST. That ST designation, that
special treatment designation provides for a higher level review by,
by the board, by staff, and, you know, I think, again, that gives us
the opportunity, just from the staff's perspective, because there are
relatively few of these. We've only done maybe three conditional uses
in the ten or fifteen years. You know, I think a case by case basis,
and certainly I don't disagree that there are impacts that have to be
reviewed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for staff?
Speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. House asked to speak on
this one as well, Tami House, and also Paul Hinchcliff.
MS. HOUSE: Can I hand these out? It's some pertinent papers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me the whole file and I'll hand
them down for you.
MS. HOUSE: On the current situation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you are going to speak, we need you
on that microphone right over there.
MS. HOUSE: Again, I'm Tami House with Everglades Private Airboat
Tours.
We were probably the airboat issue you were on, Mr. Hancock,
because we were the ones that were responsible for adding the
recreational facilities to the agricultural zoning five years ago.
We did indeed go through the environmental impact studies and all of
the appropriate permits with DEP and Army Corps of Engineers. And the
special treatment permit, which is basically the most important, due
to the ST overlay, the area of critical state concern. I would like
to believe, like Mr. Hulhere said, that all of these permits are
considered on a case by case basis, but, as you can see in the papers
I just dropped off, as was the case last summer, a particular
individual was given permission to run airboat tours on these
environmentally sensitive lands without any of these committees being
notified. I notified staff last October. We've been in the midst of
working with it since but not to satisfy my -- what I think should be
done, let's say.
You know, a lot of the stipulations set forth in our permit are
very specific as in regards to the wetlands. We are limited to
designated trails that we outlined. We are limited to the number of
boats we can run on the little over a thousand acres we have. None of
these stipulations were put on the other operators. As you can see in
the memo, it was stated that if they ever did decide to further
develop the piece of property, they would have to come back and get
permits similar to ours, but in the meantime, there has been
construction and things going on down there.
I just feel that we worked with staff for probably five months
five years ago when we initiated all this, and with Fish and Game and
different input from different environmentalists, and thought we came
up some really good guidelines that were good for everyone, including
the environment, but have a problem with being the only ones adhering
to them.
There are now four different businesses, as you can see on that
chart that I gave you, that are operating in this area of critical
state concerns, two of which have permits. One was the one Mr.
Hulhere spoke about that run in navigable waters. They don't impact
any grasslands. But there are two others that are running in these
areas that either were given permission last summer to do so or do not
have permits at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your basic complaint is that someone came
through the process and really got off easier than you did?
MS. HOUSE: Oh, definitely. And it's not good for the
environment either. I mean, we also leased 950 acres south of us
because one of the concerns was our close proximity to the Everglades
National Park. I mean, should I assume that I can run those acreage
now and add additional boats? I mean --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, can you give any good reasons why
the -- there wasn't more consistency from one application to the
next?
MR. HULHERE: I don't -- that application hasn't come forward
through the EAB and the board yet. They -- they were licensed
originally to operate out of Everglades City. When it was -- when we
found out -- I'm not sure how we found out, but we did find out that
they were operating actually in Collier County, they were red-tagged
and they are going through the process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HULHERE: That's the only one than I can speak of. There is
a second one that Ms. House mentioned. I'm not aware of whether
they're licensed or not. Certainly we can look into that. But the
one, the one last summer that was operating originally was issued a
license out of Everglades City and subsequently, when we found out
that they were actually operating in Collier County, they were
red-tagged and they are going through the process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. House, is that the one that you're talking
about?
MS. HOUSE: No, sir. I'm talking about the one on Highway 41 who
apparently had a Naples office and were told that, because they were
bringing their boats from their office to the boat landing that they
were not required to get any of those permits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the one that's just west of the Weeks
operation?
MS. HOUSE: No. We're just west of the Weeks operation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're just west. Okay.
MS. HOUSE: This particular one is located at U.S. 41 at the
Miller Road Extension, just east of Highway 92, and that is the memo
that you have in your packet there that staff gave them last -- well,
now August, a year ago.
MR. HULHERE: That's the one I'm talking about that is going
through the process that was red-tagged. I think it's Wind Dancer
Boat Tours.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it has been red-tagged by our staff?
MR. HULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it's being brought through the entire
process and will be subject to, we can assume, the very similar
stipulations that the Houses were --
MR. HULHERE: Scheduled for a November EAB and December board
hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like it's in the works, Ms. House.
MS. HOUSE: And it is. I understand that. But the reason it's
in the works is because I brought it to their attention.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you know. We aren't, you know --
MS. HOUSE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- all-knowing and all-seeing, and I don't
think we want to be. But when it is brought to our attention,
hopefully we'll make the correct remedies. Let's let that process do
its job and ultimately it'll come before us, and I am confident we
will hear from you on that matter at that time. Okay?
MS. HOUSE: What about the others in the area that have not
submitted permit applications?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that, if you have individual
complaints or concerns about them, that you take them up with our
staff first rather than airing those here today in this forum. It's
not appropriate.
MS. HOUSE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if you would work directly with Mr.
Hulhere and let us -- and let him know where your concerns are, we'll
see if we can address those at the staff level.
MS. HOUSE: And, you know, I just do want to let everyone know
that I would like to see some of those specific regulations in our
permit that have definitely cost us a lot of money to adhere to, and
also with the restrictions on our business, you know, that everyone
should be at that same level playing field.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it appears the issue is
one of enforcement and just making sure that those folks who are not
complying with the law do as opposed to our staff not treating
everyone the same.
MR. HULHERE: Yeah. And, as I understand, Code Enforcement is
looking into those other issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Obviously if you have one in
action, then you're doing your job on that end do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Mr. Paul Hinchcliff.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: Good morning. My name is Paul Hinchcliff. I am
the newly selected chair of the Environmental Advisory Board, and I'd
like to, to put our appreciation out to the Houses for being here this
morning and acting as sincere and forthcoming as they have been over
the last several years.
You have before you this morning a request for, for your
concurrence on an investigation into what amounts to the
sustainability of a long traditional and highly viable ecotourism
activity in this county. I concur with virtually everything that's
been said this morning with one exception, and that is that, if we
take this on a case by case basis, we're going to end up looking at
each individual business and find, I fully believe, that the impacts
that come from those particular businesses are not necessarily
individually harmful.
But the concern of the Environmental Advisory Board is that, if
we are to sustain this kind of traditional industry in the county,
then we need to end up looking at the resource consumed cumulatively
down in the southern part of the county to understand the cumulative
impacts that several different types of ever increasing businesses,
using the same resources out there, might end up having. It's really
the only difference, and I believe the board's, the Environmental
Advisory Board's opinion than what staff has presented to you this
morning.
I would encourage you to end up looking at the, at the total
resource that we have in the south part of the county as opposed to
the individual impacts of the businesses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Isn't that the purpose of the environmental
impact statement, Mr. Hinchcliff?
MR. HINCHCLIFF: Yes, but it, it ends up being very narrowly
focused very often on the amount of use that individual businesses
would end up having and we rarely end up getting data back that would
allow us to end up understanding the amount of resource that is being
used, where the boundaries on that totally are and the entire amount
of use that that particular resource gives.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I guess I disagree, and maybe it's a
misunderstanding of the process, but you have to show the defined
boundaries of the land in which you intend to operate, unless it is
open water, navigable water. You have to show the -- you know, Ms.
House was talking about having to lease property for use of just six
air boats over a thousand acres. Now, as I understand, if they are
leasing that property for that use, I don't believe the property owner
can lease it to someone else for that use. So we have a limiting
factor on the number of air boats on property that is leased or under
the ownership of the applicant, and I wonder if that itself isn't a
limiting factor on impacts.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: The boundaries of those areas are very
ill-defined down in that part of the county, and the use of particular
individual companies over different areas ends up being a very gray
matter at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is an enforcement issue then.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: To a certain degree it is indeed, and a very
expensive one at that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- well, speaking of expensive, a
cumulative impact study of the entire south region on airboat impacts
is expensive and I'm a little concerned that we, one, don't have the
resources to do that; and two, that doesn't become a living, breathing
monster of its own, you know. I don't know where that is headed.
Maybe you can give us more specific indications from the EAB as to
what type of impacts you're looking for and how to go about
establishing them.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: We would welcome the opportunity to investigate
that, with staff's help, in order to bring back to you a set of
recommendations that might be sustainable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You keep using the word "sustainable". You
may want to switch words.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: I wouldn't want to end up in a position some day
in the future in much the same way the National Parks Service did as
finding out that an area traditionally used by this kind of activity
is no longer useable by that. This is a long traditional use in this
county with a, like I said, a highly viable economic component to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think before doing anything, I'd like to see
how many operators we have in the county and what the boundaries of
their land are, because there's not supposed to be overlap, with the
exception of open water, is my understanding, one property owner can't
lease to two people. So, if I see that, then I have an idea of the
scope and that helps me make future decisions without going into some
long-term cumulative impact study. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, how many applications
have come forward in how many years, ballpark? Didn't you just say it
Was '-
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I don't think more than three conditional use
applications in the last ten years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems like we're saying, well,
something might be a problem some day, so, just in case, we should add
new regulation and investigate new evidence. We've had three
applications in ten years. This is not an overwhelming problem. Our
people on Horseshoe Drive have a heck of a lot to do. This does not
seem like, with three permits in ten years, it's at the top of the
priority list.
I'm very comfortable with staff recommendation and I'll make a
motion we approve staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Ms. House would also tell us, if you
want to make a lot of money, don't go in the airboat business today in
Collier County, so --
(Inaudible response from audience.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's an important issue, Ms. House. We need
eyes and ears out there to help us.
We have a motion and a second.
Is there a discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Mr. Hinchcliff, thank you for being here.
MR. HINCHCLIFF: Thank you for the opportunity.
Item #SB1
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED WITH TOP RANKED FIRMS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FROM PINE
RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60134, CIE NO. 65 -
CONTRACT AWARDED TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at Public Works, Item 8(B)(1),
conduct interviews with the top ranked consultants and select the
number one ranked firm to provide the professional engineering
services for the design of Goodlette-Frank Road from Pine Ridge Road
to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
This is the item I requested we take a look at, and, as a result,
I believe each team has been instructed they have five minutes for a
presentation to the board.
Is that correct, Mr. Gonzalez?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. Adolfo --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, I'll turn it over to you.
MR. GONZALEZ: As requested, two weeks ago we invited the four
short-listed consultants to give you a five-minute presentation on two
issues. One was their experience and qualifications, and the other
one was their approach to ensuring a successful public involvement.
And just before the beginning of this meeting, they drew straws,
essentially to pick the order of presentations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you recognize yourself for the
court reporter?
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
I'm not sure if you would like to have question and answers with
each of the consultants after their presentation or just wait until
the end of the four presentations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought we were going to -- we have all four
__
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- presenting?
Okay. If there are questions, let's try to limit them to the end
of each presentation because there may be individual questions based
on presentation, and then we'll go from there. MR. GONZALEZ: Okay.
The first presenter will be Tom Taylor from AIM Engineering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, would you time it, five minutes,
please?
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Adolfo, and it's my pleasure to be here
representing AIM Engineering and Surveying. We're a nearly
twenty-year-old business serving southwest Florida primarily in the
public transportation area.
I have with me today Dean Heflin. Dean?
Dean brings to this, to our firm, forty-five years experience.
He was the southwest area office for the Florida DOT public
administrator for the six counties. He served that position for at
least seventeen years.
Also with me today, Linda Stewart, who has been in the
engineering, public involvement and permitting business for nearly
thirteen years, and she'll be assisting me in the public involvement
area.
Also, as you see in the organization chart, we have a
subconsultant who we'll be using to assist us in the public
involvement phase. Her name is Kris Cella. Kris is the president of
Cella DeBerry and brings seventeen years of public involvement
experience, specifically she was a project manager for the corridor
study of the County Barn Road for Collier County.
Also on our team for the stormwater management, who will be
managing that portion of the work, as you see on the organizational
chart, starting from the left to the right, is Clayton Miller.
Clayton Miller brings over thirty-eight years of stormwater management
experience. He recently was with the South Florida Water Management
District as their special projects supervisor. He spent over five
years with them in that role and brings twenty-seven years of
experience with the Sole Conservation Service in their hydrology and
hydraulics unit, nationally and in local, regional offices.
Our roadway design group is headed up by Howard Kilgore. Howard
brings over forty-five years experience. He held the position of the
Florida DOT District 1 district senior designer.
Signing and marking and lighting will be headed up by Ken
McCroan. Ken McCroan brings thirty-nine years of experience, also
with the Florida DOT at District 1, Bartow. He was the assistant
district traffic operations engineer.
Bob Brandenburg will be leading up our surveying department, who
heads up our surveying department. He has twenty-six years of
experience in highway surveying and was the District 1 and 5 district
surveyor.
Needless to say, my experience doesn't hold up to some of these
folks. I have only twenty-five -- nearly twenty-five years of
experience in transportation design and I will be your project
manager. I did manage the successful -- get it -- ninety percent
plans for Golden Gate Parkway where we took it from four lanes to six
lanes for Collier County.
Included in our staff also are our sub -- qualified
subconsultants we'll be using for specialty items.
Some of our relevant experience includes projects that you see
listed here, including the project shown in the photograph. That's
County Route 884. That project goes right in front of our office.
We designed it. We had to live with it. It was taking the two-lane
Lee Boulevard to six lanes. And you can see that we're still open.
Our office is in the upper left-hand corner of that photograph.
You'll see listed on here various different projects. One --
very similar projects, Charlotte County, Highlands County, Lee and
Hamilton County. The 1-75 was over thirty miles of six-laning on
interstates. So we know what we're doing with the roadway.
We basically offer you a very experienced design team, local,
with local experience. We serve as consultants in transportation and
other projects for Lee, Hendry, Hardy, Desoto, Charlotte and Glades
County, and unfortunately we've never done a project for Collier
County.
We do not have any public or any private clients in Collier
County and do not do development work here.
We also represent the City of Fort Myers, Sanibel, Cape Coral and
LaBelle.
The public involvement process we have outlined in the following
and will give you an idea of the importance we place upon this aspect
of the project. Our first priority will be to develop an advisory
data base. This basically means we'll develop a data base mailing
list, include property owners and homeowners associations, local
newspapers and the emergency services in the area. A public workshop
will be held, utilizing this data base, to announce the initial public
workshop at the onset of the project, to obtain input from the
concerned citizens and we'll prepare a memorandum outlining county
ideas and concepts, you know, access, nose walls, landscaping.
And you can see that the public notice that we'll have following
that details that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You need to wrap up your components, Mr.
Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
We follow that with a public workshop and then an advisory system
at the end.
We're basically very objective when it comes to this project as
we have no private clients in Collier or on this corridor.
We appreciate this time to be here and present to the commission.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Questions? Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your abilities and experience
clearly speak for themselves. What will your presence in Collier
County be?
MR. TAYLOR: We operate -- our offices are in Lee County. We're
less than forty minutes from the offices, and I specifically have done
that, made that same trip in response from Lee County.
We don't have an office in this county and, unfortunately, we
can't afford to. Because we don't have a private base here, we don't
anticipate and, you know, haven't had that much work in Collier to
open an office. We do have other offices throughout the state,
Tallahassee and also in Bartow and Lehigh. We have project-specific
offices where we do construction inspection work for the state,
basically in all other -- all over the state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Taylor, I noticed most of your experience
was FDOT rural roads, at least in what was listed here. What
experience do you have recently of roadways that are basically right
up against a neighborhood?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think if you look at some of my own
experience and of the firm's, the growth has been to take the two-lane
roads and make them into urban roadways. And the projects we show
there on the prints are similar to that. In fact, most of my
experience and firm's has been working specifically in areas where we
have communities adjacent where we have problems with limited right of
way and those kinds of things.
The built -- the number of and the type of development along a
lot of these roadways is different than where you are, but we have had
some that are, like U.S. 41, where everything's built up against the
-- back a sidewalk, we've had to build those. We have -- I think the
benefit we can bring to you is that our construction group, of which
we have over forty individuals who have over, you know, an average of
thirty years experience, those construction folks review our plans and
maintenance of traffic to be sure that residents are not impacted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Further questions for Mr. Taylor?
Seeing none.
Thank you for being here this morning.
MR. TAYLOR: I'll leave this behind for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Gonzalez?
MR. GONZALEZ: Next firm will be Mr. Chris Hagan from Johnson
Engineering who will be presenting to you. He should be somewhere out
in the hallway. Excuse me.
MR. HAGAN: This about right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think you have enough people.
MR. HAGAN: At your pleasure, Commissioner.
Good morning. My name is Chris Hagan and I'm happy to be here
this morning to make our presentation for the Johnson Engineering firm
on the Goodlette-Frank Road project. We appreciate this opportunity
to present our qualifications to the Board of County Commissioners.
Our team consists of a group of local professionals who have been
specifically selected for this project. We picked our team around the
specific issues and items on this road right of way.
Johnson Engineering will be the project team leader, and I will
be the project manager. Next on the list is Smallwood -- excuse me,
Wilkison Associates. They are on our team to address utility issues.
Smallwood Design Group is on our team to address landscaping and
buffering issues. Tindale Oliver is on our team to address traffic
and transportation issues so that we optimize our intersections and
our roadway analysis. Law Engineering is something on our team to
address how much the existing road right of way, pavement and cross
section can be reutilized through redevelopment. And finally Pelican
Engineering is on our team to address street lighting.
One of the main issues the commissioners brought before us
regarding this project was public involvement. To that end we are
proposing to have a partnering process. This partnering process will
allow the consultant, the county staff, the local residents and the
utility companies to coordinate and meet, so thence the lines of
communications and the goals and responsibilities for each of the team
members and the project goals, that way everyone can responsibly react
with regard to cost and benefits for each of the improvements we're
proposing.
We've utilized this process several times, most recently we used
it on the Midpoint Bridge and Bonita Beach Road project. The Midpoint
bridge is just about to open, and, by all assessments, it's coming in
well ahead of schedule and well under budget, and it's being very well
received, so we're very familiar with this program.
Secondly, the commission asked about qualifications. Our firm is
probably the most qualified firm in southwest Florida to do roadway
and traffic design. A good example of that is County Road 951 which
we most recently finished. That project came in well ahead of
schedule, well under budget and has been extremely well received.
Also, the Florida chapter of the American Public Works Association
recently voted us consultant of the year for roadway and traffic
design.
During the presentation phases of this project, we did
considerable research. What you see in front of you is an aerial
photograph of the northern half of the roadway section. The research
that we did found that the drainage and utility issues in the narrow
corridor were going to be very difficult to address. To come after
this, we've done quite a bit of research with FP&L, the adjoining
property owners and the water management district and found that the
drainage can be rerouted and moved into the adjoining subdivisions,
which they have been designed to accommodate.
Also we've been able to negotiate in the past with FP&L to
utilize their easements for water management and for passive
recreation, such as bike paths, access roads and other items.
This is going to be quite a challenge, considering, with the Pine
Ridge Road subdivision on one side and the FP&L easement on the other,
we do not want to take any right of way. We would like to minimize
right of way takings because of the cost and the obvious political
issues that come up with takings. And that's why we've got ourselves
set up to address that.
Finally, I would like to address the contract. Whoops.
For the last, or since our unanimous selection by staff as the
number one ranked firm on this project, we've been negotiating a
contract, a very detailed contract with your staff. We've spent the
better part of eight months itemizing every item, setting a timeline
and a cost for each task. We've assembled quite an impressive group
of subconsultants who are on contract and ready to begin. All we
await now is the commission's authorization and approval of our
ranking.
At this time I would like to ask if you have any questions.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You mentioned two projects that were on time
or on time and under budget, 951 and also the Midway Bridge. Can you
tell me any other projects that you have been successful in, in
addition?
MR. HAGS: State Road 951, the new section south of U.S. 41,
State Road 29 south of Immokalee, and several others up in Collier --
up in Lee and Charlotte County.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned two key issues for me, right of
way acquisition -- which is something we need to avoid at all costs --
and utility relocation. Those are old power lines to the east. They
would probably be replaced with a monopole. Is that something you
would investigate as a cost associated with the roadway or have taken
a preliminary look at?
MR. HAGAN: We have, and we've talked with FP&L.
Elaine, if you'll get out the Gateway aerial photograph?
In the past we've negotiated with FP&L to allow passive
recreation and drainage inside the right of way. In particular this
is an aerial photograph of Gateway up in Lee County where we were able
to negotiate -- and I don't know if you can see it very well. Elaine,
if you'll point to it -- where the FP&L easement includes treatment
lakes and passive recreation pathways.
So we've been able to do that in the past. And we have looked at
that and we've spoken with FP&L. We understand some of the costs
associated with it and obviously during the design study we'd spend
considerable effort trying to get the most cost effective way to
address this issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have to agree, you do have an impressive
team assembled. I assume there's a cost to that, but restrictions in
the roadway I think really mandate that. I saw four engineering
firms, one, I understand, specifically for lighting. Is that really
an effort to include a local presence or did you find it simply
mandatory to do the job correctly? I mean, I'm looking for the reason
for that many firms.
MR. HAGAN: The reason is, is we wanted to get the best
professionals. Our firm is the lead. We have a local office of over
ten employees. We were planning on doing the work here in Naples.
This project will be the latchpin in keeping our office functional.
To that end, we have all of the support of our Fort Myers firm.
Because of the utility issues, we wanted to bring in Wilkison &
Associates because they've done extensive work recently for the county
and been well received on some utility work they've done. Pelican's
on the team for lighting because we don't have internal lighting
people and they are the best guys locally.
We tried to keep the team local. We have very few of our
consultants from out of town. I think one -- two of the consultants
in our team are out of town. One of them isn't even mentioned in the
listing up there and that's Hartnell and Associates who set up the
partnering process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions?
Thank you very much.
MR. GONZALEZ: Next you're going to listen to a presentation by
Mr. Brundage of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. I think there are more
people out in the hall than there are in the boardroom.
MR. BRUNDAGE: I'm Dan Brundage, your principal with Agnoli,
Barber & Brundage. We're indeed glad to be here today to talk to you
about our experience with the Goodlette Road corridor.
With me today is also Jack HcKenna who will be our project
manager, and also Rick Barber, who is CEO of ABB.
All the firms you'll hear from today are equally qualified
technically to design the Goodlette Road project. We believe,
however, that ABB is uniquely qualified due to our past experience
with roadway and utility design within the same corridor and also the
close proximity of our office to the site, which you can see on the
map. These two strengths, experience in the corridor and a unique
ability to address concerns from the neighboring communities will
guide our project team.
Jack HcKenna will now tell you about our direct project
experience.
MR. HCKENNA: Good morning, commissioners.
Dan's just mentioned to you I had the opportunity to be project
manager on several projects within this Goodlette-Frank Road corridor
as far as utilities. I was manager in charge of the design and
installation of an effluent main and two sanitary sewage force mains.
I was also project manager in charge of the two lane roadway section
north of Orange Blossom, and I can tell you personally it was a real
luxury having a project within three minutes of the office.
As a result of these involvements, ABB has extensive survey
control running from Pine Ridge Road north up to Immokalee Road. We
are also very familiar with the water management and the existing
conditions along that stretch of roadway. Our existing survey and
design data would result in a significant cost savings for Collier
County as well as a better overall understanding of the project.
We see the northern segment as being the -- having the most
challenges due to extensive utilities and the limited area for water
management storage. To the south, water management is available in
the land to the east and utilities are limited to one water main.
Some of the important issues on this project, as we see it, are
certainly the limited right of way available. We were confined on one
side by Florida Power and Light and the other side by Pine Ridge
residents.
Maintenance of traffic, particularly at intersections and
providing access to the subdivisions is going to be a critical issue.
Related to that, and of specific concern, is the safety of the school
children who use the walk along this road on a daily basis.
As Dan will discuss, allowing public participation to guide our
interaction with the existing community is also extremely important
here.
We feel that, given our history within the corridor and our
proximity to the project, we would be in a position to provide Collier
County with unparalleled quality service at a competitive price.
MR. BRUNDAGE: One of our recent very successful projects that we
completed with Collier County was the Naples Park drainage
improvements program. And we believe that one of the things that led
to such a success of that project was our open door policy for the
residents which provided them accessibility to our office as well as
it helped to build rapport and trust and credibility. We made it
clear from the beginning of that project that the residents' concerns
were of equal importance as our technical concerns for improving
drainage.
Our office will be equally accessible on this project because of
its proximity. And we stand committed to you today to balance the
needs of transportation of the community at large as well as the
concerns for the surrounding residents.
As Jack mentioned, maintenance of traffic is very important. We
have just completed a major six-lane design project that was in an
urban area where maintenance of traffic was of critical concern. And
we provided a design for that that was outstanding.
Jack and I will commit the time and resources necessary to make
sure that residents can communicate easily with ABB and that their
legitimate concerns are addressed. Rick?
MR. BARBER: Thank you, Dan.
Good morning, Commissioners. As Dan previously related to you,
all the firms that you're going to hear today are certainly
technically qualified to do this project. We believe, however, ABB is
uniquely qualified because of Jack McKenna's experience within the
road corridor. He's designed the northern part of the Goodlette Road.
He has familiarity with the utilities in the corridor. And we also
have established survey control all the way through the corridor.
These items, this experience, all amounts to cost savings for Collier
County.
We wish to thank you for listening to us this morning and we look
forward to being part of Collier County's team. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for the ABB team?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a question in regards to projects being
on time, under budget. Could you give me any examples?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Well, probably the most recent example was the
Naples Park project that was well ahead of budget and the construction
was completed on time and it was a very tight time frame for
construction. We were -- and our time constraint as far as being able
to get the excessments out and knowing what actual cost of the project
Was.
Also, on the Goodlette Road that we designed before this, the
northern portion, the commissioners at that time had a very tight time
constraint on that also, and we did -- we sort of deviated on that one
from the standard FDOT plans and worked with staff to do a very fast
plan set and accelerated highway design. So that shows you a little
of the flexibility that we have been able to garner with staff in
producing a product that's acceptable and timely and cost effective.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions for this team?
Thank you very much.
MR. GONZALEZ: Next you are going to listen to a presentation by
Mr. Bob Murray of Hole, Montes & Associates.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm very glad to be here. I am
Robert Murray and I represent the team of Hole, Montes & Associates,
and you'll see in your handout on the third page the team that we have
today is David Plummet & Associates, who is a traffic analyst firm,
transportation firm, locally here in southwest Florida. Ardaman &
Associates is geotechnical, construction materials testing, and
Carroll Environmental Services is headed up by a Pat Carroll, who is a
local DBE environmental services company.
The reason we're here today is to talk about our team
qualifications and our experience specific to this project up at the
Frank Road.
First of all, I'd that to, if you don't know me, is tell you
about my experience. I have over twelve years with Hole, Hontes. I'm
a partner and I'm vice president in charge of transportation services.
I will be your project director, and, as Adolfo can attest, I'm very
actively involved in all the projects, project management, on a daily
basis. I'm very involved with what's going on. I bring to the team
over twenty years of design experience and construction services,
which also includes, as I refer to as my tour of duty with three years
with Becko Power Corporation (phonetic).
Moving on about the backgrounds, Hole, Hontes, as you-all know,
this is where we got started over thirty years ago. It's our home, we
live here. Our staff is more than seventy people, perhaps
seventy-five people today. This is our base office here in Collier
County, in the City of Naples.
We have a history of meeting schedules and the budgets. We've
worked openly up front to have a realistic schedule for the project
and the design for construction and budgets are very important and
we're aware of that.
Since we're here, we know and we understand the local issues, and
I'll discuss those further back in the public involvement program.
And also very important, we do not have any conflict of interests
on this project.
Specific related experience within this corridor, we have been
working on, in the past, some utility master planning for some major
force mains and effluent mains within the Goodlette-Frank corridor.
Specifically my involvement has been with the Goodlette-Frank Road
south of Pine Ridge, including the Pine Ridge intersection back in
'93, '94 where we looked at the future six laning of Goodlette-Frank
Road from Pine Ridge south to Golden Gate Parkway, and we also looked
at the drainage outfall issues. Basically there's the five outfalls
outfalling to Gordon River, two through private developments and three
which we worked out some outfall issues to acquire some easement so
the county could properly maintain these outfalls. I was involved in
that personally.
Some key issues on this project which would be similar to what we
did to the south include a limited right of way, so it would be an
acquisition required, utility accommodations, a lot of utilities to
deal with, particularly FP&L on the eastern right of way. Realignment
of the Pine Ridge Road intersection, we worked up a concept on that
about two or three years ago. We looked at that. We know the area.
We always have environmental issues, particularly where there's going
to be -- where we're going to locate our stormwater quality treatment.
We have to deal with that today as every project.
Also we also would like to look up front, particularly on a
ultimate six-lane facility, is an access management plan, so we know
today where a driveway is going to be, median crossings, future
signals, so it helps your development staff with the process of
knowing those and planning for the future. I think it's very key so
you can see basically the whole facility.
A public involvement plan. We know that keeping the public
informed is key, making them part of the team, making them understand
that the project is really for them. We like to have an interactive
public workshop, probably about thirty percent plans. We have enough
concept and details and typical sections so we can show the property
owners really where their lands are, how it's going to be affected,
access, driveways, aesthetics, whatever the issues have to be, and
basically getting their input. We think it's very important.
We try to answer the questions on the spot. If not, we get their
name, write down their issue and ourselves or the project manager will
get back to them working with Adolfo and staff.
The last issue of public involvement there is, I want to talk
about the traveling public. We think it's very important to have,
call it a smart means of traffic plan. And what we do is, is in the
beginning of the project, we think how we are going to design the
project, how we're going to build the project, so as, what we can do
is minimize the expense. You can maintain traffic on the existing
roadway.
I'll wrap up here.
It really helps long term in minimizing inconvenience.
I would like to thank you for being here. And Tom Taylor would
like to make a few closing comments.
MR. TAYLOR: I just wanted to -- for the record, my name is Tom
Taylor. I'm the real Tom Taylor. I don't know who that other
imposter was that came earlier.
I'm president and CEO of the firm. And we wanted to thank you
for the support and the confidence that we've received over the years.
As you're aware, Bob Hurray and myself and some others within our
organization purchased the remaining interests in our company from our
two senior partners last year. We appreciate the support and
confidence that you and your staff have given us over the years.
We have a great working relationship, and you have had -- you have
four very qualified firms here today. We were not ranked number one
by the staff, and going through the first time, we would very much
appreciate it if you did select us today. If you don't, certainly
we're looking forward to having another opportunity to come and speak
to you in the future. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
With that I'm going to ask, do the board members need some time
to do their rankings? Are you ready to do them now? I'm sorry. I skipped right over that.
Any questions for the Hole, Hontes presentation team?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Hurray, could you give me your projects
and your record in terms of timetable and budget, how it's worked in
the past; have you been on time or over time or --
MR. HURRAY: As far as the design aspects or all the way through
construction?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Through the construction of the roadway.
MR. HURRAY: Well, you know, generally I pride myself on up front
setting up a realistic schedule for design through construction. And
I sit down with the county managers and the staff and we do a really
good job estimating construction time. So I've never really had a
construction job that goes over time or over budget, within some minor
construction change orders having to deal with some local issues. But
I pride myself. I can get you some references in respect to that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, would it be your
experience in other areas that has caused you to ask that question?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. Certainly has.
MR. HURRAY: One thing that helps me is I grew up in a
construction family. So I helped build roads when I was in high
school and college, so it kind of helps me know the process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for the Hole, Hontes team?
Okay.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we do our scoring, just to
comment. We've gone through this discussion before and I'm a little
frustrated. If we're going to have presentations and staff has gone
to the trouble of ranking these, and I believe there was more than one
ballot by the time all was said and done, we ought to have some
backup. In addition to the two blue pages we ought to have backup
that shows -- you've just given me now what the grading system is, but
that should be part of the packet so that before I come here, I know
-- I mean, you've got it broken down into approach, expertise of
designated staff, previous performance, office location, ability to
compete on time and ability to complete within the budget -- ability
to complete on time. And then I don't know what the total points
were. I don't know if it was a one-point differential or a
twenty-five-point differential between number one and number four, and
it's just, for me anyway, if I'm going to take staff's ranking into
consideration, I would like to know how they got there and I want to
know who participated and I want to know how they graded them, and I
want to know what the final scores were.
And we've had this discussion on at least a couple of occasions
that we need to have that backup and it's still not there now. So I
know in utilities it always appears now for some reason, and hopefully
it will on these projects as well in the future because it's very,
very helpful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have to chime in with that. I went back and
looked at those and tracked those down myself. I agree. Because if a
board member sitting up here juggling between one and the other, that
is a very important reference for us to know what you considered, how
you considered it and what the spread or separation may have been.
So I'm just simply going to ask Mr. Fernandez if in the future
any of these presentations come before us, that information is a must
for the members of the board. MR. FERNANDEZ: Noted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, start to my right.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, if you could give me a numerical ranking of
the firms.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, my ranking is exactly the same
as the staff's with Johnson Engineering first, Aim, ABB and HHA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They are all very highly well qualified and
very competent firms and I'm sure they would all do a good job. I
like the idea of ABB being close to the work, and we were happy with
the work they just completed for us. I'm going to go three, one, two,
four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So Johnson Engineering third -- am I
hearing you correct?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: ABB first, Johnson second, Aim third, Hole,
Hontes fourth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I'm in the process here, but I would
take ABB, one; Johnson, second; HHA, third; and AIM fourth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things we seem to take the
most pride in is those projects, and we are lucky enough to have an
overwhelming number of them, that come in early and under budget, and
I think that's due in no small part to our staff, but Johnson
Engineering has an extraordinarily successful track record on our
roadways in delivering exactly that. So I'm going to rank them number
one; Hole, Montes, number two; ABB, number three; and Aim, number
four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, with Commissioner Norris, I was
extremely impressed with the participation side of what happened in
the Naples Park drainage system, but what really caught me is Johnson
Engineering's team and how they are approaching and the history they
have and the utility issue. I think they kind of hit the hot buttons
for me for what I think the residents of that area are going to be
dealing with. So I've ranked Johnson first, ABB second, Hole, Hontes
third, and Aim fourth.
What that gives me for a cumulative ranking of the board is a low
score of seven for Johnson Engineering, which would rank them first, a
score of 10 for ABB, which would rank them second, and then I believe
we have -- it's very close. I think Aim is then ranked third and HHA
fourth, and let me see -- 12, 15, 17, 8, 11 -- I'm on cold medication,
so you never know.
Johnson Engineering with a cumulative score of seven is ranked
first, ABB with a cumulative of 10 is ranked second, HHA third at 16
and Aim fourth at 17.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you're going to turn
your hen scratchings in to the court reporter, you need to correct
that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, because my chicken scratch will be a
part of the record. But, more importantly, it's verbally on the
record, so -- okay.
To all the presenters, thank you very much for taking the time to
be here today. This is, as a lot of roadway projects, very important
and we look forward to working with Johnson Engineering on this
project and the others again in the future. Thank you very much.
MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: If I could ask you to include in your motion
today, since you kept Johnson Engineering as the number one ranked
firm, we had essentially completed negotiations with them two weeks
ago when we brought that agenda item to you. Would it be possible for
you to include in your motion a request to execute -- recommend a
contract award to Johnson Engineering for the amounts listed in the
previous agenda item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea. Saves a lot of time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't see any reason to delay that any
further. Since there was no motion, I think we'll have to entertain
one with that in mind.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved.
MR. NORRIS: What was your motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That we, now that we have ranked Johnson
Engineering first as staff had, that what was previously, I believe,
on consent agenda, was the contract that was actually negotiated with
Johnson Engineering, so rather than have to get that back on an agenda
and the resulting delay, my motion is to approve that contract and
authorize the chairman to execute that document on our behalf.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, can we do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that you can. Again, there was no action
taken on that previous agenda item. This agenda item itself, with Mr.
Gonzalez's clarification, had a two-stage recommendation directing
staff to submit the recommendation to execute a contract. If I
understand correctly, that contract is actually in final form at the
present time?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I think actually it might be better, since the board
has not seen that contract, or the numbers, the numbers are not a part
of this agenda item, and the previous agenda item, where it was on the
agenda was not acted upon, that it come back probably as a consent
agenda item for this board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We did have a motion to table, so we can't act
on it within a period, so --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would feel more comfortable, just
because I don't have a recollection off the top of my head what those
numbers were, I'm sure it's not a problem, but I'd feel more
comfortable, and it sounds like the attorney would as well, just
having that.
I assume that's not going to cause an undue hardship if we
continue it a week or bring that back next week?
MR. GONZALEZ: We'll put in on the next available agenda.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll make a motion that we formalize
the rankings given by the board earlier as a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
All in favor signify by saying aye?
Opposed?
(No response).
Motion carries 5-0, and I'll submit my chicken scratchings, my
signed chicken scratchings, with my name clearly place on them.
Okay. That was item 8(B)(1). We only have a couple more items
here.
Madam Court Reporter, are you doing okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and press through
these.
Item #882
BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE NCRWTP 8-HGD EXPANSION PROJECT, BID NO. 97-2690,
REJECTED - STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-BID PROJECT 70859/70828
***Item 8(B)2 was formerly 16(B)2. Reject bids for a north
county regional wastewater treatment plant.
Commissioner Berry, did you ask that this be removed or was it
the other one that you requested?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This is the one. Actually, this is the one
I wanted and I don't know if it got translated to be 16(B)5, if it is
or -- there was some confusion about.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe we had had two requests.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You had two requests?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yours and another. We had already had an item.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Well, the one that I wanted, that I
asked, was 16(B)2.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So if it was somebody else asked the other
one, that was a different situation. This is actually the one that we
wanted.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I had been asked -- there was some concern
regarding this bid, and so I had asked that this be pulled from the
agenda. And I know that there are some people that would like to
speak to this particular item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that because it's a 14 million
dollar bid and there's a $2,020 differential?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I believe they'll be able to explain the
situation on this.
MR. GONZALEZ: For the record, Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects
Director.
In August of this year we opened bids for the expansion of the
North Water Treatment Plant. Out of the four bids received --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute, Mr.
Gonzalez.
Can you either move your microphone or something, Mr. Weigel? I
can't hear.
MR. GONZALEZ: As we typically do, as soon as we receive the
bids, we started checking the references and qualification statements
of the apparent low bidder. Once we did that, we started to find some
irregularities in the bid. That was discussed at great length between
us, the purchasing director and the county attorney's office. After
continuing to get additional information on reference checks and
qualification statements, we also had a questionnaire in the bid
package that had a very specific list of questions regarding a
particular element of the project, the well drilling component, which
is a very critical part of the project.
Again, as we went through the reference checks with our
consultant, we found irregularities or inconsistencies in the
information we were checking.
At that time we started to also look at the information for the
second low bidder. There, we also found some irregularities,
different from the other bidder. It was felt that, since we could --
our critical timeline for completing the project is the peak water
demand season of 1999, we felt that it would be more prudent to reject
all the bids and rebid the project rather than to try to resolve the
irregularities that, upon advice from our counsel, were significant
enough that, rather than trying to go through some court process or
litigation process to prove our point, it would be better for us to
recommend to you that the prudent thing was to reject all the bids and
resubmit bids again.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a general question about an obvious
concern. Once you open all the bids -- I mean, I remember having this
exact same discussion maybe a couple years ago about, once everyone's
numbers are on the table, how can we have a fair rebid? How does that
factor into your recommendation that we reject these and start over?
MR. GONZALEZ: Since the bids were open, we've also received
information that there may be other potential bidders out there. The
bids may come in at the same price or maybe lower, but perhaps not
higher. But how it would affect the bidders that have opened the bids
already, we approached it from the converse of that argument, which
is, do we have the right or the ability to start modifying a bidder's
package to meet our needs? And that's where, again, upon advice of
our counsel, it was better not to start reformulating or restructuring
a bidder's bid, or changing a bidder's team that would then have an
unfair advantage on any of the other bidders.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess this is for the county attorney.
Is there some factor, you know, one percent is a major change and
one-tenth of one percent is a minor change? I mean, how do you factor
in what is a reasonable modification after a bid's been opened? It
seems like that should be part of the process.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it is part of the process in the sense
that the policy provides flexibility in its administration by staff to
determine -- the rules are there, and to determine what is compliant
and non-compliant, and the bid specifications that go out have, you
know, certain specifications that are to be adhered to in the
response.
It's been the practice of staff always to be very careful,
cautious about being involved in post-bid opening changes to a
submission. And in this particular case, when there was a significant
element of the project itself as deep water well drilling, it appeared
that this was not a minor issue, but was a major issue. But with that
in mind, the application of the policy in this particular instance in
regard to, and the recommendation that comes from staff is not
different from the kind of application that they would be providing on
a day in and day out basis for a bid, bid projects over the years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, while I
understand it would be extraordinarily frustrating to go through the
bid process and then have them tossed out, I think staff's just trying
to protect the county's interests and have us not end up in
litigation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my concern is not about the
frustration but just about the fairness that, in this poker game of
bid process, because it is, once you've laid your cards out on the
table, it doesn't seem fair to have, you know -- we have people here
who have shown their cards and now somebody else gets to bid having
seen their hand, and that doesn't seem fair.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess unfortunately that's part of
the process, if they weren't completely compliant, which is what
staff's telling us, and everybody still has their opportunity but also
there's that clause, we reserve the right to reject any and all, and,
you know, that's the risk you run when you do it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question about the
compliance issue.
Was it the bid document not clear or was it just failure on the
part of the respondents to give the information you had requested
their -- in bidding.
MR. GONZALEZ: With respect to the apparent low bidder, the
information was given. It was in our subsequent checking of that
information where we found inconsistencies in not having a consistent
amount of positive reference checks or qualification statements.
With respect to your concern, Commissioner Mac'Kie of, would it
be fair to the bidders, if you have a non-compliant bidder, then the
bid may not be valid anyway.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyway. Okay. I hear you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand we have registered speakers on
this? Do you have those?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do.
Mr. John Stanley.
MR. STANLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, as most of you know, my name
is John F. Jack Stanley with the firm of, law firm of Vega, Stanley,
Zelman and Hanlon, and Mr. Vega was contacted to represent Harry
Pepper & Associates and present our position to you.
Two things I wasn't going to mention until I got up here. Mr.
Constantine, it has nothing to do with the $2,100 that we're the low
bidder, what I have to say.
And secondly, the staff could imply, you could imply from what
staff said to you, that Pepper's made misrepresentations to you.
That's absolutely not true. The questionnaire they were referring to
was a questionnaire sent to one of the subcontractors. There is
nothing derogatory in the county staff file about Pepper & Associates.
Our client was the low bidder for the North Collier Regional
Water Treatment Plant expansion, and staff has recommended that you
reject all bids and rebid the project. I believe a famous American
once said, war is too important to be left to the generals, and we
believe this is too important an issue to be left to staff and it
needs to be decided at the highest level, and that's by the commission
itself.
Their report states, and I quote, "A review of the two lowest
bids found certain irregularities which could deem the bids as
nonresponsive." The key word is "could". It doesn't say it does
render the bids as not responsive, it says it could. There's no doubt
-- Commissioner Constantine mentioned that you had the discussion to
reject all bids, but why would you want to do this? There is nothing
derogatory said in anything in the county files about Harry Pepper &
Associates.
The contract documents speak to criteria for disqualifying
bidders, not subcontractors. It is one of Pepper's subcontractors who
has caused some concern, specifically the well driller. Now,
according to my math, the well driller's portion of the contract is
ten percent of the overall contract. Ten percent to me is hardly a
significant portion because I still think in school if you get 90,
that's an A on any test.
Pepper's, in fact, has agreed to substitute another well driller
if that's the county's desire. He's indicated his willingness to
indemnify the county for anything that may be brought, any action that
may be brought by the well driller that doesn't get the job.
Now, staff doesn't want the county to take any risks. My client
is willing to take the risk. Not only is he willing to indemnify you,
he'll put up a million dollar bond to indemnify you. He'll also, if
you want another well driller and the well driller's bid is lower than
the one that made up the part of our bid, we'll give the money back
dollar for dollar to the county.
What happens if you reject all bids and rebid the project? Well,
two things; it costs time and money. And why is time important? The
current project schedule is based on the construction beginning at the
end of this month, which is critical in order to have the plant built
and in operation to produce the water which will be needed for the
fall of 1998. It's obvious, if you rebid the project, you will be
unable to meet this peak water demand for the fall season of 1998.
The Executive Summary even points out to you that there will be a
fiscal impact. The consulting engineers, your other consultants, will
charge you more to handle the rebidding. There will be additional
staff time, and, if it's rebid, there may be an extra cost, I can't
tell from staff report, there seems to be some concern you may have to
pay some more for the easements.
Admittedly, I may be reading something in that, but at least it
sounds like that's an extra fiscal consideration that maybe you should
consider. And all for what? There's no guarantee that if you rebid
the job you are going to get a lower bid.
When those bids come in, a protest could be filed on those bids
later on and you'll again be considering further delays and more
costs. Now, believe it or not, you all know how hard the Army Corps
of Engineers is to deal with. My client not only has satisfied the
Corps of Engineers on a project they recently completed in Georgia,
they got a letter of commendation from the Corps of Engineers.
Why not avoid the unknowns and award to the Pepper's, who is the
lowest bidder and the best bidder, the job at hand so that we can get
on with it and make sure that your constituents have water next year.
Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: David Pepper.
MR. PEPPER: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to
address you-all. I'm David Pepper, president of Harry Pepper &
Associates. The firm was started by my grandfather seventy-eight
years ago. I'm going to tell you why it's in the best interest of
you-all, you people of this county, to award the job to the lowest and
the best bidder.
Admittedly, I'm an advocate of my own company, but I'm going to
tell you what I believe to be true and what I think is true. I'm the
license holder for our company under six categories with the state.
I hold the general contractor's license, the plumbing contractor's
license, the mechanical contractor's license, the roofing contractor's
license, the underground contractor's license, the pollutant storage
contractor's license.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pepper, I do need your comments to be
pertinent to the suggestion or statement of our county staff on this
matter as opposed to basically the background of your company and so
forth.
MR. PEPPER: I personally have bid over a hundred jobs in the
southeast. I know what it takes to put these jobs together, and I
think that right now you should award this job and not delay, and I
think you've got your best price. Why do I think you've got your best
price? Because the prices were so close. Anybody in construction can
tell you. When you're $2,000 apart, you've cut it to the bone,
especially on jobs of this magnitude.
Also, I would like to tell you some things staff may not have
told you. Your engineer's estimate was sixteen and a half million
dollars on this job. The bid came in at 14.4, and your engineer
recommended award to us.
The electrician, the electrical price on this job was a once in a
lifetime price. You'll never see the price that you got on electrical
again on this job. It was unbelievable. Both bidders used it.
If you bid it again, you're going to have staff costs, you're
going to have engineering costs, your professional people will charge
you, you're going to have time costs and your going to have product
inflation costs. We have already got a jump on the project. We've
already written our purchase orders. We have ample workmen standing
by to do the job.
Now I'm going to tell you what could happen, something that could
be worse. By not bidding this project, you may run into considerable
delay, at least sixty days delay in getting it started. And right at
this point, you don't have a bid protest. You could have a bid
protest when you rebid it, which would be further delays. And the
water treatment plant may not be finished for the '98 tourist season.
And have you ever been in a community where there is a water shortage?
We have. We've worked in them, where there was, and it causes an
economic problem. I don't think you-all want to be into that.
Like a famous coach once said, if you're good -- if you're good,
it's true, it's not bragging. Mr. Stanley has given you-all some
letters from owners that we've worked for, and the one we're most
proud of is the Corps of Engineers. We just finished a project in
this magnitude for the Corps of Engineers. We received our letter of
commendation. It came in unsolicited from Brigadier General Van
Antwerp.
"I want to take this opportunity to thank your company for
outstanding performance on the upgrade industrial waste ....
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pepper, this is not a commercial for your
company. It has to do with the bidding, the bid issue at hand.
Please stick to that.
MR. PEPPER: Okay. And also another letter that is very
important that bears on this issue is one from the Dade County Water
and Sewer Authority where we finished a project similar, 263 days
early.
What I'm really trying to tell you is, we've taken projects of
this magnitude and finished them early and done an excellent job and
been able to work. This is our fifteenth job that we did for Hiami
Dade Water and Sewer Authority. So we can get the project done. And
that's important on this project, because it is such a close time
schedule. And, as the letters that we've sent you show you, we go a
long way to please the owners and to work with the owners.
Mr. Stanley has told you that, even though we feel our well
driller was qualified and met the requirements, we will change the
well driller at your request and give you back any difference in cost.
Also, we have letters -- I think you've seen a letter from our well
driller saying that he will not protest, sue or anything if we change.
I think you've also seen a letter from the second bidder saying if
we're awarded that they wouldn't protest.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Pepper.
MR. PEPPER: Do you have any questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Gonzalez, my recollection of what
you said fourteen minutes ago was that this wasn't about price, and it
wasn't necessarily about Harry Pepper & Associates' ability.
There were some, as it's written here, irregularities in the bid,
you looked not only at this bid, there were irregularities in the next
bid as well. Can you go through the nature of those irregularities
and be specific for us?
MR. GONZALEZ: Absolutely. Regarding Mr. Stanley's statement
regarding no derogatory statements have been made by staff against
Harry Pepper, he's absolutely correct. Our concern was related to the
subcontractor that he submitted as part of the construction package in
that -- he's also correct in that the well drilling component of the
contract is small in terms of price, but it happens to be on the
critical path of the project.
We have temporary construction easements that will expire
somewhere over the next year for -- to construct the well, the various
wells along the project. That is why that component is very
important, that work's started immediately.
Now, since we're going to rebid, we've already contacted the
attorney's office and we're going to get time extensions for those
temporary construction easements. After -- at the end of the process
when we decided to recommend to you to reject the bids, that was
partly based on the recommendation by the Water Department director
that, it's not necessarily the beginning of the 1998 water demand
season that's critical, it's the very tail end. When you approach the
spring of 1999, that's critical. So that allowed us to extend the
timeline of the project. And, actually, we'll be able to give each of
the contractors or the bidders that rebid it more time to complete the
project.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate you answering all those
questions but it still doesn't answer mine. Specifically the
irregularities you found with (A) Pepper and (B) PI, Inc.
MR. GONZALEZ: In the bid specification package there was a
questionnaire for the well drilling subcontractor. The questionnaire
asked, among other things, a list -- a list of projects with similar
experience, contact persons they had worked with before, the names and
experience statements of the key individuals on the well drilling
subcontractor's team.
We started checking those. We received inconclusive or
inconsistent reference checks, both positive and negative, for Harry
Pepper's well drilling subcontractor, Jaffer & Associates. To go
beyond there, we either were four or five references, we checked on,
the construction of the ten well fields are ten deep wells in excess
of 2,000 feet.
The positive reference checks for Jaffer & Associates were for
shallow well construction. The negative reference checks were for
deep well construction. We have been told by our hydrogeologist
consultant on the project, there is a big difference in mobilization,
set-up, working conditions, complexity of the project, between shallow
wells and deep well construction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the well drilling is a critical
part of the project.
Was there anything else, any other irregularity with the Pepper
bid?
MR. GONZALES: No, that was it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said there was also an
irregularity with the number two bidder?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. Either Mr. Pepper or Mr. Stanley mentioned
that the electrical price was a once in a lifetime price. That's
probably true. We have since gotten information from Project
Integration, the second low bidder, that perhaps the electrical
subcontractor underestimated his bid by $500,000. The last thing I
want to do is go into a contract with someone trying to make up
$500,000 by way of a change order. I would rather have you know that
up front, even if it's going to cost 500,000 more, but then it would
be part of a competitively bid situation. That was important enough
for us to consider that one as an irregularity. I don't know how much
follow-up we did on that, but I have that as information received from
the second low bidder.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel, I assume that a change that would impact ten percent,
fiscally impacts ten percent of a bid, and I assume that a change that
would change the fiscal impact of a bid by ten percent and it would be
a, what we're told by our own staff, a critical part of the project
completion would be a substantial change?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. That's correct. And may I state that, in
working with staff, we reviewed the policy. Of course the county
attorney office is pretty familiar with the policy on a daily basis,
actually, but we review the policy and we will not advise the staff
that it can't do something that it can do under the policies that it
has. And that's what's gotten this to the board at the present time,
is the fact that the staff is making recommendation to you. It is a
legal recommendation. The county attorney office has advised and come
in with the opinion that yes, in fact their recommendation is
consistent with the flexibility and the decision-making that is, that
is clearly within the purchasing policy itself.
I will additionally state, though, that, in our discussions with
staff in this regard and a significant number of phone calls with
different counsel on behalf of the prospective bidders, that, sure, we
recognize that time is a factor. Staff -- and it is the staff's
responsibility, and they are telling you, time is a factor in this
project.
We look at a risk analysis, determining, even when these offers
come in, post-bid opening, of indemnification, if time is a factor,
cost is a factor, what is the lawsuit factor? Indemnification, yes,
will make one whole. It is a way of paying dollars or attempting to
contractually put in dollar form the damages that a party may receive
by virtue of an action taken.
Now, dollars may not pay for the loss of time in the true sense
of the word. There is a value that's accorded to it but if time is
truly of the essence, that's part of the decision-making that's
brought to this board right here. You can be paid for the delay, but
there's still a delay, and that went into part of our consideration
with staff. We do not tell them they can't do something that they can
do. We attempt to be result-oriented also, but within the legal
parameters of the process that's in before us now, which is the
purchasing policy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess with that said, I understand
the bidder's frustration with the process, but ultimately it's our
responsibility to protect the public and to protect the integrity of
the bid process, and if our technical staff is telling us, our
purchasing staff is telling us and our legal staff is telling us that
it's in our best interest to rebid, I've got to believe that it's in
our best interest to rebid.
MR. WEIGEL: And I also will say to the board that it makes the
risk analysis also and also looks to what is the best interest
generally and can make a determination that's different than the staff
recommendation, but it's the -- it's in an informed situation that you
do that.
One last comment. It's been stated, alluded to by Mr. Stanley
and by Mr. Gonzalez that the temporary easements that the county has
do have a time duration to them. They were an easement of one
property owner. It was obtained not through negotiation but through
eminent domain, so if the board were to determine to go back forward
in a rebid process, what the direction really is to staff and county
attorney office is to do all things necessary, include go back to
court, in regard to an appropriate valuation, which, frankly, wasn't
very much, but to get the right to extend the construction easement
for an additional period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just trying to summarize. But it
sounds to me like that we are considering the possibility of spending
more money, we are considering the possibility of having to fight
again to get access, to get the -- because of the easements being
temporary, and we're doing this or we're being -- your recommendation
is that we do this, based on the fact that there was what I would not
call an irregularity in the subcontractor, I would call it that, you
know, something other -- irregularity sounds a little bit like there
was something crooked, so I'm glad Commissioner Constantine had that
clarified on the record, because, what it sounds like is that this
subcontractor's references didn't -- were not as positive and perhaps
were not as appropriate, but that's not an irregularity, in my use of
the word.
But we are considering rebidding this despite the fact that we're
-- we know we're going to spend more money and we know we're going to
spend more time and we may lose access because of a problem with the
subcontractor, and the contractor has agreed to change the
subcontractor.
Now, I understand that that may be a modification or an
irregularity in the bid process, but then from a practical
perspective, that irregularity becomes risky if that subcontractor's
going to complain that he lost his deal or if another bidder is going
to complain that we allowed the first bidder to change the deal.
One of these gentlemen represented that both the subcontractor
and the other bidders have waived any right to object. I would ask if
the county attorney has looked at those waivers to be sure that they
are adequate waivers, because if they are, from a practical
perspective, we're talking about risking -- spending more money,
having a time problem and, frankly, not being completely fair, to
address a problem that can be remedied by changing the subcontractor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opening it up to objection and contesting from
the balance, from Project Integration, from Westra, from Stone &
Webster.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why the question I'm asking the
county attorney is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- has he seen these letters saying that
they agree to this change, that they will not file a bid protest if
this change is permitted?
MR. WEIGEL: I have not. I've seen a letter of representation
from the Harry Pepper Company in that regard. But please note that
even the record today does not have these other entities or the
subcontractor going on record. We have representations that are being
made to us. I take them as I hear them and from whom I hear them.
They are not based upon, to my knowledge, contract consideration for
the forgiving or giving up of rights and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's real important.
MR. WEIGEL: So from that standpoint, I only accept them as
statements being made in the process of an informational discussion
before the Board of County Commissioners. But I can't give any
credence to them, that these people will or will not honor the
statements that have been made to us on their behalf.
MR. STANLEY: Well, I gave, I believe, in the packages that I had
delivered to your offices yesterday, a letter from Jack was in there
where they say they won't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have a letter from Project Integration,
a letter from Westra and a letter from Stone & Webster saying they
Won't?
MR. STANLEY: Only the top one, PI, I think that's the initials,
PI. Not from the other three because they were so far out of -- so
much more, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not if you throw 500,000 back into it, they're
not.
MR. STANLEY: We'll put in any contract that we won't submit a
change order for the electrician.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did we get that once in a lifetime
price?
MR. STANLEY: You're going to have to ask him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we're --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would like to know the answer to that
issue on the once in a lifetime deal from the electrical contractor,
and then I'll be done with my questions, Mr. Chairman. How did we get that once in a lifetime deal?
MR. PEPPER: It's an electrician that we've worked with before on
the job, and, as the bidding process works, he gives everybody the
same price. That's the way it works. And he's in a position right
now where he's desperate for work. He needs work very, very badly,
and as a result, he had to try to basically cut some extremely good
deals with his suppliers, get some favorable pricing, call in some
markers to get it done. And he's bidding a lot of other work right
now. If he doesn't get this project, he may not even be able to rebid
it.
But we've worked with him before. We've done major projects with
him before. He'll -- he bonds the project back to us. We'll have a
bond from him. So the project will go forward without him asking for
major money back. He needs it to keep his company going.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, if I please could? Steve Camell,
Purchasing Director.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's be brief, Mr. Camell, because we need
to wrap this up.
MR. CARNELL: I will, but it's very salient, what I'm about to
tell you.
The issue regarding Project Integration and their alleged waiver
of any formal action against Collier County is qualified, and if you
have the letter in your back-up, I can read the key sentence here.
There is a -- it's a very brief letter. The second sentence -- first
sentence says, "Please be advised that Project Integration has not and
does not intend to protest the award of the above referenced project
to Harry Pepper & Associates."
Sounds great. Read the second sentence. "This position is based
on and applies only to the original bid as submitted on August 20th,
1997." That does not -- Project Integration has verbally told me and
in writing that they will object if you allow Harry Pepper to be
awarded the contract with a new well driller.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve
staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to support the motion on the basis
that this isn't Deal Making 101. This is a bid process and the
integrity of the process is key. Our staff followed to the letter.
By finding an irregularity, however you want to refer to it, it was a
reference that didn't pan out for the work described. They went to
the second bidder, found another issue in which there would be
$500,000 in discrepancy, and a bid that's $42,000 apart, that's a
rebid, plain and simple. So, I'm going to support the motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree because, if there were a way to
solve the problem simply without going back through then I'd like to
do it, but I don't think these letters are adequate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pepper, there's a motion on the floor.
Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries 5-0
Mr. Gonzalez, let's fast track this as best we can to make sure
we don't cost ourselves any more money than we have to. Thank you.
Item #8B3
BID NO. 97-2665, NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WSTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SOLIDS STABILIZATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 73047 - REJECTED
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume to Item 16(B)5, we're dealing with
a similar if not the same issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I believe that there was an
oversight in this. There was confusion, really, on this one. I
believe that the only interest in moving it from the Consent Agenda
was my misunderstanding of Commissioner Berry's concern, so with her
clarifying that this morning --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It was my misunderstanding. Don't blame the
county administrator.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a motion on --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
We've got a couple more items. I need to ask you again, are you
okay for ten or fifteen minutes?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
Item #9A
REPORT RE MARCO ISLAND REZONING PETITITIONS - PRESENTED
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
The next item on our agenda under County Attorney's Report was a
late add by me. I received a phone call today from someone who has
been informed that their application for fezone submitted prior to the
incorporation decision on Marco is going to be held.
Mr. Weigel, the last discussion we had in this forum was that
until the city council was seated and an agreement was reached it
would be, quote, unquote, business as usual. Has that changed and, if
so, why?
MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me. It has changed to the extent that we
have determined, with significant discussions over time with the
committee on community affairs of the state, that those decisions that
would otherwise come to the Collier County Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners, sometimes sitting as an original board,
sometimes sitting as an appellate board from the Planning Commission,
that those matters have been divested of jurisdiction from the Board
of County Commissioners and the county generally and do in fact lie
with the City of Marco, which did become a city on August 28th,
whether they have a council in place at that point or not.
A couple other notes. Looking at the charter again and again and
again, particularly Pages 28 and 32, are those elements -- pages of
the charter that specifically talk about that the land use
regulations, zoning codes, et cetera, remain intact as they exist as
of the date of incorporation, August 28th, 1997, but that these
matters are in the province of the city council and the Planning
Commission, if it creates it.
We were concerned about the fact of a quote gap that would
potentially occur for matters that were in the pipeline, but, in our
discussions we found that ostensibly even those matters that were
before the Planning Commission and potentially appealed to the Board
of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals,
matters before the Planning Commission before August 28, would not, in
the regular scheme of things, be able to be heard by, advertised and
heard by the Board of County Commissioners until after the November
6th election date.
Notwithstanding that fact, other matters that were before, or I
should say in the process of application to the county through the
staff and then to go and be scheduled to the Planning Commission,
clearly would not find themselves in a position where either the
Planning Commission could act, and if there were an appeal therefrom,
that there would be an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners,
which is the procedure that exists under our land development code.
That has been removed -- that ability of the board to sit as an
appellant body is removed by virtue of the timing of that election and
by the fact that a city council will be seated.
Be that as it may, we note that the delay that may come, and will
come to some of the petitioners and applicants in the process of
matters that would normally be heard for decision-making by the
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, will only
have a temporary delay.
The August 28th election was in the works and known to all,
whether they applied before that election or did not, and,
unfortunately, by virtue of the way that the charter is written, it
does rest jurisdiction from the county to go forward on those matters.
Another part of the consideration we had was, who does the county
wish to have a challenge from, even if we were to determine to go
ahead with these matters with the Board of County Commissioners. And
I don't see that there is a constitutionally protected right for
individual land owner interests to go forward seeking variations from
the status quo of the county's zoning law, the status quo of which,
for the Marco area, is in fact specifically required under the Marco
charter.
And so they will come forward to the city council as soon as it
gets going after the election on November 6th.
Another matter that we've discussed with the staff development
services staff is the fact that, yes, in fact, county staff has
provided significant work on these petitions and the petitioners have
provided their significant application fee, or permit fee in these
situations. Staff has determined that, on a case by case basis -- and
there aren't that many cases concerning petitions for Marco Island --
but on a case by case basis they will work with the petitioner to
determine if in fact the petitioner wants a refund of the petition fee
for services that may not be completed by the county staff.
Now, there's also the potentiality of interlocal agreements, and
we would hypothesize that there's probably a probability of interlocal
agreements with the City of Marco and Collier County for the use of
the staff of Collier County, for the staff functions that it's already
been doing that would bring these things into, in preparation for,
with staff recommendation, to the city council or at city council's
planning commission of Marco Island. That's yet to be seen or yet to
be known, but there's certainly an endeavor by county staff to work
with the individual petitioners in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a nutshell, some poor soul who worked on
something for months and spent a lot of money on it, submitted it to
the county, got scheduled and so forth, if they haven't been heard by
the Planning Commission, they're in limbo until --
MR. WEIGEL: They are in limbo for a short period. And,
incidentally, in speaking with the Committee on Community Affairs, we
found conflicting interpretation from their counsel, but -- in regard
to, can these matters go forward locally or not. Ultimately we had to
make the determination ourselves, looking to the various sources that
we did to, and I think that, looking at all of the language of the
charter, which talks about it being liberally construed, talks about
the, in the whereas clauses, of the power being and local government
concerns of being importance to the citizens of Marco and local
government.
We think this is ultimately the prudent legal determination and
correct legal determination. It obviously is going to affect some
people. No question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think like the answer but I'm hearing
that more or less our hands are tied by the structure of the charter,
that if we move ahead, in all likelihood the City of Marco is going to
then turn around and invalidate our zoning decision based on the
charter.
MR. WEIGEL: And beyond that, the City of Marco may not recognize
the zoning decision that's made by us, so what have we gained by going
forward at this point in time?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It almost seems like the only thing we
could do worse to these property owners who are in the process is to
give them a decision that may be meaningless.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I agree. I just don't like it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't like it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it puts people who are trying to
operate on a good path in a bad situation and, you know, there's
nothing we can do about it.
MR. WEIGEL: No. That's true. Now, in those areas of
enforcement and those things of mere permit applications at the staff
level, those continue. Those continue. But it's the quasi-judicial
decision-making and the land use decision-making of the Planning
Commission and the board which appear more clearly not to be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the future we've got to get involved in the
writing of charters for future cities because, you know, we're
enforcing all the codes and laws on Marco right now yet we can't
effect them. Well, that makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.
Okay. Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-389 APPOINTING DELORIS J. SHERIDAN, PATRICIA GULLY AND
ROBERT J. RILEY TO THE PRE-KINDERGARTEN INTERAGENCY COORDINATING
COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES - ADOPTED
***Next item under Board of Commissioners, 10(A), appointment of
members to Pre-K Interagency Coordinating Council.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we need to appoint three
members. There are three applicants.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd suggest and even make a motion
that we approve those three applicants. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, what was the date on which you had
to receive resumes by for their consideration? MS. FILSON: September 26th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't know how or why, but somebody
sent something to me instead of you -- the advertisement has your name
in it, doesn't it?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sent it to me. I did not get it to you by the
26th, so they were not considered. I guess there's nothing I can do.
I'll have to correspond with them and just let them know. They sent
it to me on the 19th, so in that week I did not get it to you, so they
were not considered. They should have sent it to you as the
advertisement indicates. So I guess we'll just have to say, give it a
shot next time and next time send it to Ms. Filson.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've had that happen a couple times.
MS. FILSON: They are only one-year appointments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. I'll correspond with them
individually.
We have a motion for Ms. Sheridan, Ms. Gulley and Mr. Riley, and
a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Okay. That one is done, 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - JAMES F. SMITH RE ASSESSMENT BILL -
STAFF DIRECTED TO WAIVE THE INTEREST
***CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: BCC Communications. I'm sorry, we didn't
-- no, not yet.
Under Board of County Commissioners -- okay. I'm not to
Communications yet.
We are to Public Comment.
Any registered speakers today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two, Mr. Chairman. There are James F.
Smith and Ty Agoston.
Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH: Good morning, or good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. I'll make this short and sweet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, I just need your name for the
record, please.
MR. SMITH: That way we'll have all a good lunch.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, can I ask for your name on the
record, please?
MR. SMITH: Jim F. Smith.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: I live at 651 102nd Avenue North in town, Naples.
Some of this situation I'll have to press it with things that
might not sound like you, Mr. Chairman, to be related but they are all
related. They will all be done very quickly.
July 8th of 1997 I was interned in a hospital in Fort Lauderdale,
Cleveland Clinic, for open heart surgery. I had a quadruple bypass,
which is irrelevant. I was supposed to be there in the hospital seven
days. Well, complications arose. I was in there fourteen days, with
the wife in a hotel along with me in that town.
When we come back, which was the 20th, in the afternoon. 20th?
MRS. SMITH: 21st.
MR. SMITH: 21st, my Mrs. tells me. I had a stack of mail
unopened that was unbelievable. We got on it right away. And she
says, "Oh boy, we owe that -- we owe that assessment notice, $627.09."
I said, "Pay the darn thing." I said -- I didn't want the improvement
to start with. I says, "Let's pay it and get it over with, behind
me."
She was so still nervous as a cat, almost had a nervous
breakdown, so she goes up to the bank, tells the lady at the First
Union Bank on the corner of Immokalee and 41 which is where we do our
banking. She said, "I want you to make a check out to .... which I'll
give you a copy of .... a check out to the Board of County
Commissioners for 627.09." It was made out, it was made out timely,
because it was 7/22 when the check was made out, deadline being the
24th, 7/24.
Well, I have no control over what happens to a check after it's
been sent out. The post office is less than responsible at times and
you folks know that. You've dealt with that yourself. So, I said,
"We'll wait a while. It's probably running around, I says. It'll get
there."
So we waited three weeks. So I said, "Hey, that's too long." The
other check that went out the same day for utilities, our water bill,
it was received almost immediately.
So based on that, I went up to the bank and I said, "Well," I
said, "the best thing I could do is put a stop payment on the check
and start all over again." So the payment on the check was stopped,
and I went over to Horseshoe Drive over here to the folks over there,
who were not only very helpful but were very courteous about my
problem.
In fact, the gent over there who I talked to just yesterday, he's
the chief honcho, he told me that, he says, "I can take off the $6.00
that we have," which is an administrative cost to collect the money,
"or I can suggest you go over to the commissioners and see if you can
tell them what the problem is."
It ain't the money. It ain't a lot of money. It's $40.00 and
some-odd cents. But the principle of the thing is what burns me. I
sent it out timely, I've got proof of it here by a check and proof of
it from the bank. I went up to the bank and asked them, "Are you
certain you put it in the mailbox and it's gone?" And they -- I
wouldn't want to press it any further for fear of jeopardizing the
young lady's job that took care of us over there. But I'm certain it
was sent out. But it hasn't been received yet.
So I'm sure all of you at one time in your life have had similar
situations. So when I went over there, they said, "Well, we'll send
you another bill." I got the other bill. It was for $601, and I sent
that. And they said, "This coming November you'll have a bill for
$72.00."
I'm hotter than hell about that because I paid it timely and you
didn't -- folks didn't receive it. I understand the bond from Barnett
is such, they don't care about that either.
I'm hoping you've got some sort of a slush fund that you can get
into mitigating circumstances. We did when I was a trustee in
Chicago, and there's no reason why --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Called it the Daley fund.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fortunately for you and government we can't
have them.
MR. SMITH: I'd rather dip in your pockets than mine. That's
what I'm trying to say.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smith, I'm pretty sure we don't
have a slush fund, but I bet our county administrator would be more
than willing to sit down with you, and if we can do an administrative
correction there of the $40.00, I'm sure he'd be happy to take care of
that, or whatever the administrative correction needs to be.
MR. SMITH: I appreciate it very much.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, quickly, you know, we've heard
check's in the mail before, but this is a little different, because we
actually have proof from a bank it was written on a certain day and so
forth. So, working with Mr. Fernandez, can we take care of this
administratively?
MR. YONKOSKY: Let me explain the process to the commissioners.
The commissioners have always had the -- maintained the authority to
waive interest and that's what we're talking about here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to waive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not sure we can take a motion under Public
Comment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well then how about direction?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That, we can accept.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Direction to waive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. Gone.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So be it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I would appreciate the opportunity for Mr.
Yonkosky to finish describing to the board the implications of that
action. I think that it's important that the board know it.
MR. YONKOSKY: And I'll be real brief and very quick.
When you first set the roll out, we sent the bills out to
everyone and you gave them a thirty-day period in which they could pay
interest-free, actually, that turned out to be a longer than a
thirty-day period, you were given the -- we actually allowed people to
pay interest-free under the board's direction up until the day you set
the interest rate.
Once -- the day you set the interest rate, you actually borrowed
the money. So now you've got the money in hand and it's going to
require "X" amount of interest. And with that bond issue, you did not
have a debt service reserved. If you waive the interest, which the
board can, you'll still have to make that interest up from someplace
else, whether it be general fund or whatever. And we have several
hundred people that have come and paid off, since the day you sold the
bond issue, and they paid the interest for the first year so that you
would be whole. That's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that point. If any of those
people can come forward and can show hospital bills showing two weeks
getting a bypass in the Cleveland Clinic or any other hospital, plus
the date of actually issuing a check prior to, you know -- these
circumstances are such that I think it's so narrowly construed that we
can be a little human today and a little less bureaucratic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, statistically it comes out to
about seven one-thousandths of a penny.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm willing to pay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate your caution. But again, these
folks brought extenuating circumstances forward that I think the board
is sympathetic to, and I think that's the difference between that the
other several hundred that have paid the first year in interest.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. It's appropriate for us to
know that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that makes it narrowly or sufficiently
narrow, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have your
direction.
MR. SMITH: I sure appreciate all the commissioners for their --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Best of luck to you.
TY AGOSTIN RE SPEED LIHITS ON PINE RIDGE ROAD
Our next public speaker?
HR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty, before you get started, I've got
to say, those are some great looking socks you've got on there.
MR. AGOSTON: I didn't understand you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't get to see the socks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great looking stocking you're wearing.
I couldn't help but notice them as you were --
MR. AGOSTON: I have a dozen. I'll sell you some.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston and I
live in the less attractive northern Golden Gate Estates, less
attractive made by your actions by blocking out the sewers and water a
couple of weeks back. I just thought I would mention, just in case
you have any other ideas of making the northern Golden Gate Estates
less attractive.
What I really have to say is somewhat frivolous, but recently I
have been told that you control the speed limits on some of the roads
in Collier County. And on my way home from town, I travel Pine Ridge
Road to 951, and so on. I have a running bet with me that every time
I turn from Logan to Pine Ridge I will see a sheriff's car looking for
speeders.
This is a segment of the road that has no commercial
establishment, very few homes. So it's a relatively free ride to the
next traffic light, which is at 951. I believe that you will ease a
lot of people's guilty conscience, such as myself, who goes maybe
faster than I ought to, but certainly those people's pocketbook who do
get hit with a traffic ticket by a sheriff who, again, invariably
present at that segment of the road. That's all I have.
If you could and you have the authority to make the change, I
would strongly recommend that you do so. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have no advertised public hearings today,
no Board of Zoning Appeals.
Item #14A
LETTER FROM CITY OF NAPLES REQUESTING JOINT MEETING RE BEACH PARKING -
MEETING TO HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1997 AT 8:30 A.H.
***We are to Staff Communication on our agenda.
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I have just two items. The first
is a letter I have received from the City Manager of the City of
Naples, speaking to the issue of beach parking. And if I could very
briefly paraphrase portions of the letter, the letter contains a
three-fold request; request a joint meeting of the county commission
and the city council to occur here at City Hall in the City Council
Chamber within the month of October. Number two, authorize a thirty
day continuance of the interlocal agreement, which technically expires
September 30, 1997. And thirdly, continued issue, beach parking
stickers to city and unincorporated county residents during this
thirty day period.
The letter contains a suggestion of two possible days. I have
since learned that one of the dates is not workable. They had
originally suggested the dates of October the 13th and October the
27th. I received a call from Dr. Woodruff this morning indicating
that the dates of October 13th and November the 3rd are the dates that
will work for them. We have been able to check your calendars. I
think with the exception of Commissioner Norris, the commissioners are
available on November the 3rd. I don't know about Commissioner
Norris.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about October 13th? That would be next
week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I could do either of those.
MR. CONSTANTINE: Give me the choices again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: October 13th.
MR. FERNANDEZ: October 13th and November 3rd. Evidently October
13th is date that doesn't work for a number of commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I thought you said October 27th was the
date.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the date that didn't work for the City of
Naples. They changed. They called back and changed it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, November 3rd is the only option.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 3rd?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Looks like the only option.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner Norris can't be there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. We just don't know about Commissioner
Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think I can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. November 3rd fine with everybody else?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure I can alter the schedule.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's schedule it and let's go see --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What time will that be? I noticed a
couple different times on the original suggestions.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 8:30 a.m. is the time for the November 3rd date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a thought, that, I don't know at
whose prerogative or how -- at one point we were having quarterly
meetings, quarterly joint meetings with the city council, and I don't
know how those fell off or why we came not to have them anymore, but I
wonder if we might need to at least schedule biannual meetings or some
regular communication opportunity with city council. I'd just plant
that for everybody's consideration.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason they fell off is because the
agendas became nonexistent. We were making stuff up to talk about.
I remember the agendas kind of died, you know. There came a point
when each was asked to submit an agenda for the meeting and nothing
got submitted so we decided then, just call them as needed, such as
this issue. So that's my recollection. If there are, you know, more
than one issue out there and a reason to get together, I'm all for it.
But just to do it to shake hands and have donuts, you know, I can do
that on my own.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So, Mr. Chairman, we'll schedule November 3rd at
8:30. That's all right with the commission? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The only item I have is a sad note. I just
wanted to announce to the county commission that Penny Keeling passed
away last week, and I just thought I should mention that to you and
ask that you remember her in your prayers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. We will do that.
***We are to Board of Commissioners' Communications.
Commissioner Mac'kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing.
Item #14B
LETTER FROM NAPLES CITY MANAGER DR. WOODRUFF INDICATING THAT THE BEACH
PARKING CONTRACT HAS EXPIRED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, since I was just speaking you may
have thought I was there.
Two things. Please note that Dr. Woodruff's letter indicating
that the contract has expired. Again, we get the dilemma of the
county attorney attempting to assist in creating a written extension
of a document that's expired. Again we've endeavored to do this in
the past a la the golf contract, and the clerk has not accepted that.
I would expect we would get the same and should look to the clerk's
review if we can do this with this particular --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Just run it by the clerk to make sure
whatever we adopt he can live with.
MR. WEIGEL: And secondly --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt? Mr.
Ehrlichman asked to speak on this subject and I neglected to mention
that when I brought it up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a comment on Comment?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gil, that's just not something under
Communication. We don't open it back up for comment.
MR. EHRLICHMAN: I wanted to ask a question about the beach
parking.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You can ask the staff after the meeting.
They would be glad to answer it for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Since it's not on the agenda today, Gil,
that would be a little out of order.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION RE SUNSHINE LAW AND PUBLIC RECORDS LAW AND DISTRIBUTION OF
SAME TO NEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
In December '95 I distributed a memo to the Board of County
Commissioners and to all of the advisory boards and committees of kind
of a can-do, easy to understand discussion of the Sunshine Law and the
Public Records Law, and that was also distributed to the staff
liaisons with the idea that staff liaisons would have multiple copies
on hand to make sure that when any new members were appointed to any
of these committees that they would receive, I thought, a very
workable, handy document.
I just kind of generally have come to the knowledge that not all
that -- we certainly have many new reappointments, appointments and
reappointments and it is probably an appropriate time as we approach
two years from the initial transmittal of these, to do it all again
and even better. And I'm going to be preparing within the next ten
days and providing to the Board of County Commissioners and all of the
advisory boards and committees and the staff liaisons a revised memo
about the Sunshine Law and the Public Records Law and, in fact, I'll
also provide for those quasi-judicial committees and any other
reporting individuals, due to relationship with committees, a memo in
regard to conflicts and gifts law ramifications and ways to proceed.
I think it will all be a very readable type thing, handy, easy to use,
and we'll hope that the staff liaisons are fully armored with these
and will continue to transmit them to new appointments, and we'll
check on that from time to time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, will that memo also give us, the
board, guidance, because we had all been operating under -- with the
exception of Commissioner Berry, who came on board afterward -- we had
all been operating under what Mr. Cuyler had briefed us on when we
took office regarding gift disclosure and so forth.
I was at an FAC conference last week and I talked to
commissioners from all over the state of Florida, and no two had the
same interpretation. It was just amazing. So what we need is, we
need the new and better approach, because, again, we're -- we have to
act -- we're bound to act really on your advice. That's what you're
there for.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if there have been changes or new issues,
we need a solid, concrete reporting scenario from you on how we comply
with the law, how we best comply with the law. MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, I think we need kind of some
hard and fast rules from you so we can have the best updated advice
possible.
MR. WEIGEL: I think we can get it down to a nutshell few rules
that are pretty clear and then the rest is the discretion of
individuals as to how they wish to apply those rules.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As always.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Any further staff communications?
Seeing none.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. The only thing I might add is, the
easiest way is just don't take anything from anybody.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't accept wooden nickels.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
Item #15A
POSTED BEACH AREA ON MARCO ISLAND
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I couldn't help but notice the article
in today's paper with the CRW and Commissioner Norris' comments, and
we have been through that a couple of times, and I think Commissioner
Norris supplied the board with pretty compelling evidence that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. What are you -- I haven't read
the paper. What's the CRW?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. The posted beach area down
on Marco for birds.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No people?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Because it's the only place on
the planet that the birds plan the nest is in that one specific
location of the beach.
My recollection is you presented pretty compelling evidence that
the state had created that area for a specific amount of time back in
1988. And so, if the comments attributed to you in the paper are
accurate, I think they're consistent with the action this board has
taken in the past. But I for one continue to support that action, and
if you see the necessity -- I know you're on top of the issue, but if
you see the necessity for something to come back to the board and us
to take action with the state, I would encourage you to do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, actually, the Marco Island Beach
Renourishment Committee did discuss a few options of how to deal with
that in response to the drownings that recently occurred there.
There's been three this year. So we may see that on next week's
agenda, some discussion of that. Have you heard anything?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I haven't, Mr. Chairman. I haven't heard
anything.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. They were to forward it up for
perhaps the county commission's discussion at some point in time. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll look for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure anything done there, we can get some
cost contribution from the City of Marco.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In the interim, we did receive -- I guess
you-all received the letter from the Game and Fish about that subject
and I forwarded a memo today to the county attorney's office to check
to see if they agree with the statement that was contained within
there, that the Game and Fish feels that the critical wildlife area is
still in effect, even though the supporting documentation references
one single year. We'll check it out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Now, at least the time I've been on the
board, every year we come to an agreement with Game and Fish and
that's how it should always operate, and we should do that every year.
Just like last year, they were going to block off the whole thing,
which cause people -- it actually would cause people to be a little
impatient and go through the area instead of doing what makes sense,
which is create walkways, you know, so that people can have access to
the most desirable part of beach. So, you know, that arrived -- we
arrived at a very common sense solution last year and hopefully can do
it every year in the future.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION RE PGA CONTRACT ISSUE
I do want to bring everyone up to speed on one thing. The
article in today's paper regarding --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Geez, I should have read the paper.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I was going to bring it up anyway, but the
article regarding the clerk's statements referencing the PGA, I think
the headline was "Clerk threatens to sue PGA ....
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I didn't read the paper.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was a little unfortunate that that's kind
of the taste it left you with because I had a very good meeting with
the clerk last week, on Friday, in which we both agreed that, as we've
discussed, the intent of this board was not embodied in that contract
very well, and the intent is what, in my opinion, should rule the
relationship with the PGA. And if the contract did not reflect that
intent clearly, then we need to deal with that. We tried to do that
once already.
The clerk has agreed to work with me and with the county
attorney's office and we'll be meeting later this week to come up with
a way in which we can get the courts to verify that the intent of both
parties is what rules, and that way he can fulfill his obligation in
completing the contract requirements, and without, you know, losing
any sleep over it. And exactly what we thought we would get and what
we would pay for is exactly what we got and paid for, and all's said
and done.
One of the problems that's coming up is this reimbursement issue,
reimbursement and profit issue. Maybe my recollection -- I've read
the minutes, so I think it's pretty sound -- is that we went, we did a
contract with the PGA because they were not for profit, and under the
structuring at that time, the only way you could do a contract that
was not subject to reimbursement was to do with it with a not for
profit.
There was never any intention to monitor every dollar in and out
of the tournament to determine if someone made some money, that the
500,000 was to be paid back. That's why we contracted with the PGA, a
not for profit, just as we had done with Fillabelly and other not for
profits. We never required, you know, that extent of information
because there was no repayment of the grant.
And that's one thing that the language in the contract doesn't
recognize. So it just creates a problem for the clerk's office.
We're going to work with them this week and see if we can get it
resolved. It'll probably take a little while but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom line is you had a good,
productive meeting with the clerk?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Very good. I was pleased with it and we'll
move forward from here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that too. I just -- one
comment is, the general statement that the contract didn't embody the
understanding of the board, I would think is a little too broad
because there are a lot of parts of the contract that did adequately
represent what were the intentions of the board, and I hope that there
won't be any action taken to state what the board's intention was
without allowing the entire board to have input into that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That action is the record that was created at
that meeting which is exactly what I'm basing my comments on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's perfect. I just -- as long
as the record is what speaks for itself. From my recollection, there
are problems with the contract, but I would not go so far as to say
that the contract doesn't adequately represent what my intentions were
on that day, and, in particular, that the record -- that the contract
does allow us to inquire about all of the incoming revenue and
outgoing expenses, and I think we have to have the right to know that.
And I can articulate that and talk about a battering contract and why
it's important in a battering contract to have all of that
information. But I just want to be sure that -- I just need to say on
the record that I think the contract, as written, gives us the right
to inquire about both incoming and outgoing revenues and expenditures.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it probably would have done us well if
you had raised that concern at the time we approved the contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I think the contract adequately did
that. I don't have that concern. What I'm trying to say is, I do not
have a concern about whether or not the contract is adequate on that
point. It is adequate on that point and it does allow us to look at
both income and expenditures.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me get this straight. Did you require
that as an element of the contract for other not for profits?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. My --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This contract -- and I'm not suggesting
that there's supposed to be a reimbursement element to this contract.
That's where I would agree with you that the contract is in error.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Isn't that the purpose of that element of the
contract though?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: In a battering contract -- okay. Just for
recollection purposes, we could not, under the guidelines, we can't
pay for -- we can't use TDC money to sponsor an event in season. And,
as a way to allow us to sponsor this event that was in the high
season, Mr. Rasmussen was able, through his contacts with ESPN and
otherwise in the industry, to barter for us free something that's been
valued at seven million dollars of exposure, that we got -- we got
this seven million dollars worth of publicity for our $500,000 of
sponsorship fee. And in order to see whether or not we got the
benefit of the bargain, in a battering situation, we have to look at
all of the incoming and outgoing costs in order to analyze the value
of what we exchanged.
There's -- I don't think we have a big argument here because I
think that -- well, let me ask.
Does anybody want us not to be able to get all financial
information associated with the contract? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think there's any reason to get
anything but pertinent financial information. And besides that,
you're confusing the number. We paid $500,000 for coverage within the
three days of the tournament, which total exposure was audited at 7.2
million dollars, or whatever it was. The 12,000 spots were thrown in
as a bonus.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They were actually the tie-in to make it an
off-season promotion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
dollar audited exposure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
But it was not part of the 7.2 million
You're right.
That was in addition.
I did have my numbers wrong.
But for my vote, my vote was that I could sponsor -- I could
agree to the $500,000 expenditure even though it was sponsoring an
event that gave us 7.2 million dollars worth of exposure in season.
But the only reason I could do that was because of what you're
characterizing as an extra, was for me an essential element of the
decision, and that was that there would be promotion of off season
golf packages, off season tourism.
So I want to be able to look at everything relevant to the point
of whether or not we got what we bargained for. And for me, that
second piece is more important than the in season exposure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we got those. We have signed affidavits
that all of those spots ran.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we need to be able to see what the
income and out go related to those was.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where you and I disagree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because, to be honest, if I have a contract
that says I'm going to give you $7.00 and you're going to give me two
bushels of apples, and you give me my two bushels of apples, I don't
care what you paid for them. I don't care where you got them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is where we disagree. Because I do
care, and I do think that, when you do get public money, it opens your
contract. It opens things up to a higher level of scrutiny and that
we should -- my position on this is that we should take -- our
position should be that the contract affords us a great latitude to
get whatever financial information our clerk, our chief financial
officer, thinks is necessary or important. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if someone says we're not entitled to
information, let them go to a judge and prove we're not.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think anybody is saying that, but
the point is, we paid for a certain amount of advertising. We got
that advertising. It's documented that we got it. It's been audited
what the value of that exposure was. But what you're saying is, well,
what did that result in? Well, that's immaterial. I mean, it's
totally immaterial what it resulted in. We got the advertising that
we paid for. If the advertising is not effective, so what?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We disagree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than reliving --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: If anybody should evaluate whether it was
effective or not, I would think it would be probably the chamber and
the hoteliers and the EDC and whoever all was involved in all of that.
They are the ones to determine whether it was effective or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They did evaluate it and that's why --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's why the second year was done
differently than the first year.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that is a recommendation from industry
people that know more than we do, and again, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what. Why don't -- you know,
I'm going to -- I have reviewed the record from the meeting in which
we approved this, okay? I have done it not just once but several
times in an attempt to understand the board's intent. Now, I don't
know what you were thinking unless you said it. I don't know what you
wanted in the contract unless you required it. And if you want to
take a look back at something and say, "Gee, I wish we'd done this,"
or, "I meant to do that," that's fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm saying that what's in the contract --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please let me finish. That's fine. But I met
with the clerk. The clerk and I agree that the problem rests in the
contract. We're going to try and deal with that. Now, when it comes
back to this board, if you wish to object to us resolving that matter
to the clerk's satisfaction and to my satisfaction, then you certainly
have that right. But don't prejudge it before it gets here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my question is simply, there's some
discussion about taking this matter to a judge to ask a judge to
interpret the contract. And my opinion is that the contract is
sufficient as written to adequately allow the clerk to get the
information that he needs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then you differ with the clerk.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know. And I would like to make that
record. I was hoping I could persuade you that that -- to agree with
me instead of the clerk, that the contract is sufficient to allow the
clerk to get any information he thinks he may need.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate that, but I'll work with the
county attorney and the clerk in trying to resolve the matters that
they are forced to deal with.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The clerk thinks he can get all the
information he needs but you don't?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Just the opposite. Isn't that what
you said, Mr. Hancock, the clerk thinks that the contract may need
interpretation to determine whether or not he can get adequate
information?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's not what I said. That is not
what I said.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It will come back in some form and we can
debate it then.
Ms. Filson, anything else?
We are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry,
and carried unanimously, that the following items be approved and/or
adopted under the Consent Agenda
Item #16A1 - Moved from Item #8A3
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FEE TO THE WISHING WELL FOUNDATION
Item #16A2 - Moved from Item #8A4
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERIT FEE FOR RED RIBBON MARCHES
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER (NO. 2) FOR MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY EXPANSION, CONTRACT
97-2643 PROJECT 80254 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $58,321.00
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #882
Item #1683
CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2695, IN THE AMOUNT OF $706,350.80, TO TURNER
TREE AND LANDSCAPE FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUGDEN
PARK, PROJECT NO. 80081
Item #1684 - This item has been deleted
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #883
Item #1686
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT FUNDS
Item #16C1
AGREEHENT WITH THE COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL WORKING THROUGH THE
CHILD PROTECTION TEAM TO PAY FOR THE INITIAL MEDICAL EXAMINATION COSTS
OF CHILDREN WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF ALLEGED PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ABUSE
Item #16C2
BID #97-2714, A TEE SHIRT CONTRACT FOR PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS,
TO TEE SHIRT EXPRESS OF NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item #16C3 - This item has been deleted
Item #16C4
AMEND CHAPTER 89-449, OF THE LAWS OF FLORIDA, TO AUTHORIZE ACTIVITIES
SUCH AS BONFIRES
Item #16C5 - Continued to 10/21/97
ADOPT THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK SPECIAL EVENT USAGE POLICY
Item #16D1
CREATE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PLACEMENT AND USE OF PUBLIC
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 97-380 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 97-381 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 97-382 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 97-383 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 97-384 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 97-385 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 97-386 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D9
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16D10
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16Dll
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT
ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET
Item #16D12
AGREEMENT WITH THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT WHICH
PROVIDES FOR A HAXIHUH EXPENDITURE OF $28,448.89 FROM THE GAC LAND
TRUST
Item #16D13
AWARD BID #97-2720 TO YOUNG PEST CONTROL, INC. FOR PEST CONTROL
SERVICES AT SELECTED GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Item #16D14
RESOLUTION 97-387, CWS-97-6, HWS-97-3 AND GWD-97-3 AUTHORIZING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT, AND THE MARCO WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS
FOR CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1997 TAX YEAR
Item #16D15
SECURE THE SERVICES OF E. B. SIHMONDS ELECTRICAL, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $21,045.00, FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
CABLE ON THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 97-470, 97-473, 97-474, 97-475, 98-001 AND 98-002
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT
OF GOVERNMENT AND ENDORSE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT APPLICATION TO SUPPORT THE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE D.U.I. ENFORCEMENT PROJECT
Item #16J1
BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASING CARRY FORWARD AND THE APPROPRIATION FOR
DEBT SERVICE
Item #16J2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS INCREASING RESERVE FOR DEBT SERVICE, GRANT REVENUE
AND LOAN PROCEEDS
Item #16J3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS INCREASING CARRY FORWARD AND RESERVES FOR DEBT
SERVICE AND RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY:
ELIZABETH H. BROOKS, RPR