Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/20/1994 R Naples, Florida, September 20, 1994 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine VICE-CHAIRMAN: Betrye J. Matthews John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Sue Barbiretti, Marllyn Fernlay and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Bill Hargett, Assistant County Manager; Ken Guylet, County Attorney; Tom Palmar and Hetd~ Ashton, Assistant County Attorneys; Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator; Mike Smykowskt, Acting Budget Director; Robert Mu/here, Acting Current Planning Manager; Tom Conrecode, Office of Capital Projects Management Director; Steve Camell, Purchasing Director; Norris IJams, Emergency Services Administrator; Steve Brinkman, Parks & Recreation Director; Emergency Services Education Quality Control Manager; Deputy Paul Canady; Sheriff's Office; and Sue Fileon, Administrative Assistant to the Board. .. 1300-',: 01 Page September 20, 1994 (50) lte, a #3 AGII:NDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Commissioner Norris commented that Item #12C3 has been continued a number of times. He asked why tt was being continued again? Commissioner Constantine replied that County Manager Dotrill wished to be in attendance when the item was discuseed. Commissioner Norris aoved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unanimously, to approve the agenda with the changes as detailed on the Agenda Change Sheet. Page 2 September 20, 1994 (1211 Item ~3A CONSF~T AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED The motion for approval of the consent agenda is noted under Item #16. (125) Item #3B CLERK'S REPORT - APPROVED Commissioner Matthews moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, to approve the Clsrk's Report. (132) Item #4 MINUTES OF THE SEPTFJ4BER 6, 1994 REGULAR ~EETING - APPROVED Commissioner Volpe moved, seconded by CoaualssAoner Saunders and carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the September 6, 1994 Regular meeting. (143) Item #51 EMPLOYEX SERVICE AWARDS - PRESINTED TO CURTIS ANDERSON, CRUCITO PADILLA AND CHARLES TOMASINO Co~nissloner Saunders presented Curtis Anderson, Cructto Padilia and Charles Tomastno with an Employee Service Award. He thanked them for their twenty years of service with Collier County government. (186) Item BUDGET AHZND~ENTS 94-625, 94-663 and 94-673 - ADOPTED Acting Budget DIrector Smykowskt requested approval of three budget amendments as shown in the agenda packet. Commissioner Matthews moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unsntmously, that Budget Amendments 94-625, 94-663 and 94-673 be adopted. (201) Item #TA R. P. TIMBERS RX BAREFOOT B~ACH PARK PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - STAFF DIRXCTED TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM TO BE HEARD ON OCTOBER 4, 1994 Page 3 September 20, 1994 'Richard TAmhers, VIce President of the Master Association of Lely Barefoot Beach, requested that the issue of excess traffic on Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard be placed on the regular agenda for the meeting of September 27, 1994. He said that the residents are con- cerned with the public safety factor which the Shertff's Office had called to the residents attention and asked if they could be of assistance An addressing this problem. Mr. Timbers stated that in 1992/1993 there were 50,000 vehicles that visited Lely Barefoot Beach. He said they drove from the entrance of the park, through the park, and then if the park was full, they were turned around to proceed back to Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. He said that in 1993/1994 there were 139,000 vehicles that followed the route to the park. He pointed out that there is no where to turn the vehicles around between the entrance and the parking lots which is a distance of 1.7 miles. He said that vitaitors are distressed by the fact that they drive 4 miles at 15 miles per hour, bumper to bumper only to be told that the park is full. He said that this d~sfies rationality. Mr. Timbers reported that the Sheriff~s Office asked the residents if they had any suggestions. He said that the Fire Department has expressled great concern because if a tragedy occurs emergency vehicles will not be able to respond in time. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Timbers confirmed that he would like to see the issue addressed at a public hearing. Commissioner Volpe concurred that this issue warrants a public hearing. Commissioner Norris agreed. It was the consensus of the Board go direct Staff to prepare an agenda item for the meeting of October 4, 1994. {445) Item VIVIJSI STUART RE ST. NATTHEWoS HOUSE RELOCATION - PRIS~D Vtvtan Stuart, stated that she wished to address the location of St. Matthew's House on Llnwood Avenue. She said that the issue seems Page 4 September 20, 1994 redundant after today's announcement regarding St. Matthew's House returning to the original Glades location. She presented petitions from interested citizens to County Attorney Cuyler in the event that the Linwood Avenue location is revisited. She announced that as a group they are In support of Commissioner Norris and Sheriff Hunter's plans for a camp because it will benefit the whole community. Commissioner Constantine asked if the petitions should be kept sealed in the event that the Linwood Avenue location is revisited. County Attorney Cuyler advised that the petitions be held by Administrative Assistant to the Board Ftlson. (512) Item #7C LARRY BASIK R/SAN MARCO PARK FILING - STAFF DIRECTED TO FREPARE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 199& Larry Basik, owner of the San Marco Park, asked the Board to allow Staff to accept his submission for a Subdivision Master Plan (SMP). He said that it was to be presented to Staff on June 19, 1994. He said that the submission was made but it lacked the plat. He said that the plat was delivered to Staff approximately 12 days later. He stated that Staff needs direction from the Board to accept the plat. Mr. Basik praised the changes that have taken place in the Community Development DIvision. Wayne Arnold, Acting Site Review Development Director, reported that on September 8, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners granted a one time extension to Mr. Bastk's preliminary subdivision plat which would have extended to June 19, 1994, at which time he would have sub- mitted a complete plat package for construction plan approval and plat review. He reported that on June 27, 1994, Mr. Bastk submitted construction plans. He said that the plat was submitted on July 12, 1994. In response to Commissioner Constantine, County Attorney Cuyler replied that in his legal opinion Mr. Bastk is late again. He said that Mr. Baslk has not complied with the Board'e requirement and under Page 5 September 20, 1994 the Board's previous direction the present Board does not have the legal ability to allow for the filing. In response to Commissioner Constantine, County Attorney Cuyler replied that under the previous Board direction there were no options available. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bastk replied that he is not in litigation with the County. He stated that he has given the County a mortgage for the funds that were owed for the improvements. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Cuyler stated that the County has accepted a mortgage on the property. He said that he believes that the County has a security interest in the property. Mr. Arnold pointed out that Mr. Bastk was granted three site deve- lopment plans, which are administrative approvals granted through Community Development. He said that Mr. Baslk was granted an exten- sion of the time frame for completing the site improvements until November 30, 1994. He stated that the subdivision improvements will also be critical in meeting that date. He said if Mr. Basik achieves another extension for the subdivision improvements it te likely that he will not have completed those to the point of also being able to construct according to the site development plan requirements, in which case would require Staff or Mr. Bastk requesting an extension of those same plans. Commissioner Constantine suggested that this item be prepared for a public hearing so that Staff can present a recommendation. County Attorney Cuyler suggested that Staff present a history on this project. Commissioner Matthews stated that she has serious reservations based on the information presented by Staff and the County Attorney. She stated that Mr. Bastk has been granted several extensions at this point and has not met any of them. It wms the consensus of the Board to direct Staff to place this item on the a~enda as a public hearing for the meeting of October 4, 1994. .oo. 000-~ 13 Page 6 September 20, 1994 (883) Item ISA1 C-94-3 ~ PETITION C-94-3, V. CARLTON CASE OF THE KIWANIS CLUB OF NAFLES, ~QUESTING A PERHIT TO CONDUCT A CIRCUS ON NOVI~I~BER 4, 5, AND 6, 1994, AT THE FLORIDA SPORTS PARK - APPROVED Bob Hulhere, Acting Current Planning Manager, explained that this ts an annual request for a circus permit. He said that the only exception Is that the petitioner Is requesting a waiver of the surety bond. He said that Staff has no objection to the waiver because the Florida Sports Park will monitor their own site. Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders a~d carried unanimously, that the annual request be approved, thereby approving C-94-3. Page 7 september 20, 1994 (sea) Item #8C1 OPTIONS FOR TIrE IMMOKALEE RECREATION CINTER PROJECT AND DETERMINE WHAT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD PROCEED - OPTION 2 APPROVMD WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IDENTIFY FUNDS FOR OPERATING COSTS Steve Brinkman, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that on June 28, 1994, the Board approved a contract of $1,793,000.00 to construct a swimming pool, activity pool, slide and to renovate existing locker room facility. He said that at that time Staff was directed to con- tact the School Board to see if the school gym facilities might be available and to provide a cost for the gym renovation. He said that the Middle and High Schools were contacted. He stated that the Middle School Indicated that because they are constructing a new gym they have no time available at thei= existing facility. He said that the Middle School principal indicated that their facility would be available after 5 or 6 P.M.. Monday through Friday and some time on Saturday. He stated that would allow, in comparison to having our own gym, one third the gym time. Commissioner Matthews remarked that the second gym for the High School will not be constructed until 1996, therefore the High School is a/ways scheduling many of their activities at the Middle School. Mr. Brinkman stated that in addition there is a problem accessing the gym in the Middle School. He said it is necessary to go through the main entry which allows entrance to citizens after hours which would necessitate a custodian and a additional staff person to be hired. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Brinkman confirmed that in addition to the school Principals he also spoke to the Assistant Superintendent responsible for Immokalee. Commissioner Matthews stated that she spoke to Mr. Quinby, Chairman of the School Board, and other members of the School Board about scheduling and the availability of funds for this project. She said that they indicated that the School Board is a~tempting to borrow $5 million dollars in order to operate next year. She said that there Page 8 September 20, 1994 are claims that the School Board has no money. Commissioner Volpe asked who would be the primary users of this facility? Mr. Brinkman replied that the primary users of the gym would be Senior groups, nursery schools, pre-school children and their parents and after school students. He stated that the facility would provide a great deal of use in the area. Mr. Brinkman announced that the cost estimates to renovate the gym as shown in Option 2 in the Executive Summary would amount to approxi- mately $816,000.00. He said that this would include re-roofing, replacing the gym floor, refurblshing the interior and modifying the entry. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Brinkman replied that Option 1 would give approximately 10,000 additional square feet and Option 2 Just develops a small entry area between the pool and gym- nasium. Mr. Brinkman announced that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board rt:commends Option 1. Commlissioner Matthews stated that she has spent a great deal of time speaking to the citizens of Immoka/ee regarding this project. She said that the entire single roof line could be well used but the citizens have never asked to have that work done. She reported that all the citizens requested was to have the roof redone. Commissioner Matthews moved to proceed with the entire project for a total cost of $1,262,O00.00. Mr. Thomas spoke on the subject. Commissioner Norris remarked that Option 4, which would be to do nothing at all, has not been discussed. He asked what impact Option 4 would have? Mr. llrinkman said that to do nothing would allow an existing gym facility to deteriorate further. He said that the roof is in bad shape and in need of repair. He said that if nothing is done the com- munity will lose out on a 10,000 square foot facility that is not Page 9 September 20, 1994 available anywhere else in the community. Commissioner Matthews pointed out that this a spectator gymnasium with space available for ·any uses. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Brink·an replied that the annual operating cost for the swimming pool and gymnasium is esti- mated at approximately $300,000.00. He said that the operating cost for Option 2 is approximately $250,000.00. Co~missioner Constantine questioned whether there is an oppor- tunity for the community to share in the expense of the operating costs? He said that there is no gym facility elsewhere. questioned what 8250,000.00 comes out to in a ·illage rate or special taxing district. Commissioner Matthews stated that it would come out in Immokalee because of the taxing basis. She stated that she does not believe that the citizens of I··okalee should be asked to fund the operating costs of a gymnasium that is public property in the Parks and Recreation system. She said that no one else in Collier County is being asked to do that. Commissioner Constantine stated that Option 2 seems to be what the citizens of I··okalee are looking for and is approximately $800,000.00. He said that this is approximately $~ ·illion left in the budget which would leave approximately 8200,000.00. He suggested that the remainder be put toward the operating costs for the first year. He said that in the upcoming year the Board can look at alter- nativee~ such as a special taxing district to determine whether it would he appropriate. In response to Commissioner Matthews, Mr. Brinkman confirmed that the gym floor will be refurbished not replaced. ColaJssioner Matthews moved that the existing ~ be renovated at · cost of 8S16,2OO.00 and that the remain~ng 8200,000.00 be dedicated to operating costs for the f~rst year and as the Board of County Comm~es~ioners go through the budgeting process next year, available alternaxt~vee will be examined. Page 10 September 20, 1994 Commissioner Norris asked if that would be mixing capital funds and operating funds? Public Services Administrator Olliff stated it may require a budget amendment because he believes the primary source was impact fees for this particular project. He said that there are 306 funds that can be moved to provide the operating costs. Commissioner Norris stated that a/though he agrees with Option 2 he does not favor the idea of committing operating funds out of this budget. He asked if the motion could be amended to approve Option 2 and proceed with normal operating funds. Co--tssloner Constantine seconded the motion on the floor. Commissioner Constantine stated that the funds are set aside spe- cifically for the Immokalee community and recreational opportunities. Commissioner Volpe stated that he is also concerned regarding the conuningling of operational aspects with the capita] costs. He asked when this facility is expected to be completed and operational. Mr. Olltff stated that the Capital Projects Staff expects eight months from the date that the Board issues a Notice to Proceed. Commissioner Volpe stated that he is unsure as to committing funds that far into the future. Mr. 011iff stated that he does not believe that the decision of the funding for the operating expenses must be made at this time. He said that if the Board commits to refurbishlag the one existing building, Staff can prepare a subsequent Executive Summary identifying funding alternatives. Commissioner Natthaws stated that because only four or five months of operating costs will be necessary, the amount of funds becomes easier to contend with. She recalled the Chairman'a suggestion regarding identifying funding sources. She said that, however, Mr. Olliff has confirmed that funds are available. She stated that if the intent is to proceed with the renovation and reconstruction of the Wmna~sium and the funds are available, she will amend her motion. Cc.mmisstonar ~tthews moved to amend the motion to proceed with Page September 20, 1994 Option 2 and direct Staff to investigate budget amendments for the operating costs. Commissioner Constantine seconded the amended motion. llpon call for the question, the motion carried 5/0. (2160) Item #8C2 I~'VII~ OF EXPENSE REDUCING AND SCHEDULING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE AQUATIC FACILITIES AT GOLDEN GATE AND IMMOKALEE - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE REVE}~IK OPTIONS AND ADVERTISE PROGRAMS Public Services Administrator Olltff stated thai the Golden Gate facility has been open for over a year. He said the expenses for the facility have run approximately $400,000.00 against revenues of approximately $100,000.00. He stated that, In order to clear up any misconceptions, the pool complex was never built with the expectation of turning a profit, so Staff is not surprised with the figures of the first year of operation. He said that in an effort to continually improve revenues Staff indicated that a reduced winter schedule will be presented during this budget season for the Boardes review. He Indicated that the scheduled reductions contained in the Executive Summary provide for the months of November, December and January to have the pool open on weekends only. He reported that in the months of October, February, March and April the pool will be closed only on Mondays and Tuesdays. He said that it is estimated that the reduced schedule will reduce the operating expenses by $50,000.00 annually. He said that Sarasota and Charlotte Counties as well as Cape Coral have municipal pools that are open year round. He stated that Lee County has 10 public pools, five of which are closed in the winter. He said that he believes the City of Naples closes itst pool during the winter. Mr. Olltff reported that the first year of operation was not without difficulty. He said that never having been through a winter resulted in Staffing problems and an undeveloped marketing program. Mr. Olliff announced that there are two ways to approach this; a schedule reduction or improvement of the revenue. He said that should Page 12 September 20, 1994 the Board direct Staff to improve the revenue/attendance side a package of ideas has been developed such as additional swimming classes and scuba classes. He presented the Board with a Revenue and Attendance Improvement Proposal and explained the proposed options. He stated the Board has three choices; reduce the schedule, direct Staff to try to increase revenue and attendance or do nothing at all. Commissioner Constantine stated that most of the problems were related to the fact that the first year is a learning year. He said that one of the points learned is that a thinnet Staff should be sche- duled in the winter months. He said that it is important to take advantage of the asset we have. He remarked that the Revenue and Attendance Improvement Proposal is a good one. He suggested that two things be accomplished; schedule Staff more appropriately during the winter months, have more programs and advertise the programs. Commissioner Matthews concurred. She said that the County has not done a good Job of marketing. Commissioner Volpe agreed. He said that the savings derived from closing the facility does not Justify that activity. Commissioner Saunders moved to keep the pool open on an annual basis, to schedule Staff appropriately in the winter months, and to increase revenue and advertise the programs. Seconded by Commissioner Volpe. The following people spoke on the subject: Jeff Gersonde Ktm Seat Referring to comment made by Commissioner Constantine, Public Services Administrator Olltff remarked that the first step to Improved marketing may be a press release announcing the decision to keep the pool open throughout the winter. U~on call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. see Recess: 10:25 AM - Reconvened: 10:50 AM At this time, Deput~ Clerk Fernlay replaced Deputy Clerk Barbtretti see (2977) Item ~SF1 RFP 9.i-2201 AWARDED TO ERICSSON G.Z. IN THE AMOUNT OF 810,151,360.03 AND STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A COLLIER COUNTY 800 NHZ PUBLIC SAFETY CONNUNICATIONS SYSTEN; BID Page 13 September 20, ~99( PROTXST D~NIED Norris lJams, Emergency Services Administrator, explained that Bruce McPherson of RAM Communications, the County's consultant on the project will make a presentation first, then Steve Camell, Collier County Purchasing Director, will explain problems encountered with the contractual aspect of the project, then the protesters will make their presentation. He acknowledged and thanked all those persons who worked so diligently on the 800 MMz Public Safety Communications System project. Bruce McPherson of RAM Communications Consultants stated that RAM Communications is a nationwide radio communications consulting firm specializing in public safety and local government radio systems design and engineering. He explained that RAM Communications was hired by Collier County to perform a technical evaluation of the pro- posal received for a 800 MHz system. Mr. McPherson mentioned that a scoring matrix was established in order to evaluate each proposal on a point by point basis against the criteria contained in the Request For Proposal (RFP). He indicated that all three (3) of the proposers for the 800 MHz systems, Motorola Communications, Ericsson G.E. and E.F. Johnson Company, meet the mini- mum acceptable standards, the criteria of the Associate Public Safety Communications Officers for a public safety trunking system, and all make very good equipment. Steve Camell, Purchasing Director, distributed pertinent infor- mation which will be covered by himself and Mr. McPherson during their presentations. Mr. McPherson stated that each company was obligated to provide coverage surveys to predict radio coverage in Collier County and RAM Communications took the data provided and prepared an independent coverage criteria. He explained that E.F. Johnson proposed the use of three (3) existing tower sites: Bonita Springs, Lee County; Palmar Communications; and Alligator Alley. He pointed out that significant Page September 20, 1994 concerns were raised for lack of adequate coverage in the eastern and northern portions of the County. Mr. McPherson stated that Ericsson G.E. proposed the use of seven (7] existing tower sites with coverage being very good but there is concern for small coverage gaps in the Golden Gate area and the southeast portion of the County. He mentioned that adequate coverage in the Marco Island area is questionable due to the number of tall buildings on the Island and the distance to the closest tower site. Mr. McPherson stated that Motorola proposed the use of nine (9) tower sites: some are existing and some are new towers. He indicated that the entire County is covered by this proposal with a tower located on Marco Island. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson replied that all nine (9) tower sites proposed by Motorola are existing sites but the towers will need to be upgraded in many cases. Mr. McPherson indicated that another issue of primary concern is the use of a network interconnection system because all sites need to be connected by some means. He stated that E.F. Johnson proposed the use of microwaves only while Motorola and Ericsson G.E. proposed the use of leased circuits from the telephone company. Mr. McPherson explained that the primary offering by Ericsson G.E. was the use of a new County owned system to connect the site and Motorola offered the option of using microwaves or leased data circuits from United Telephone. Mr. McPherson stated that Motorola's primary offering was the use of the leased telephone circuits which represents an overall cost benefit for the County according to a cost analysis submitted with the proposal versus constructing a County owned microwave system. ~Sr. McPherson mentioned that an area of concern was the construc- tion of new sites and towers. Mr. McPherson corrected his earlier statement and informed the Board that Motorola proposed that four (4) new towers be constructed and seven (7) if the microwave option is selected. He stated that Ericsson G.E. and E.F Johnson proposed that Page 15 September 20, 1994 existing towers would be used. Mr. McPherson indicated that the RFP stated that the proposers must provide an engineering analysis to show that the proposed towers would not overload existing towers and Motorola did site work to determine which towers would be suitable and proposed accordingly. He stated that Ericsson G.E. and E.F. Johnson assumed that the existing towers were suitable which is a concern due to size, weight and wind load of antennas for both 800 MHz and microwave systems and the assumption that the existing towers are suitable, creates a risk for the County. Tape ~2 Mr. McPherson explained that all vendors are technica/ly capable of providing the 800 MHz system, have industry recognized equipment but Ericsson G.E. and E.F. Johnson did not fully address some items in the RFP and present a potential risk for the County, not only in the cost associated with construction of new sites, towers and shelters but the delay associated with same; therefore, RAM Communications recommend Motorola as the best overall choice for the County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson explained that the RFP did not specifically request that microwave be provided but did ask that the system be interconnected and if microwave was used certain criteria had to be met. He stated that Motorola offered the County the flexibility of microwave or use of lease circuits; the choice is important because microwave is very expensive and requires extensive maintenance. In response to Commissioner Matthews, Mr. McPherson replied that the gaps in coverage does not mean that a radio will not operate from that site but the level of reliability is lessened. He explained that in the coastal area, 95 percent talk back coverage from a portable radio was required In the RFP but In the eastern end only 90 percent from a mobile radio was required because the area is less populated and building density is less. Mr. McPherson stated that the variable criteria was incorporated In the computer models presented which tndt- Page 16 September 20° 1994 cared what areas under which 95 percent coverage could be expected. Commissioner Constantine stated that the RFP only required 90/90 percent with an option for 95 percent and questioned what the computer models would have shown if the required 90 percent had been utilized? Mr. McPherson indicated that the computer model was based on 95 percent which was the requirement for Area 1 (coastal area). Commissioner Constantine etated that the base requirement of the RFP was 90 percent, not 95 percent. Mr. McPhereon stated that the computer model was completed for a comparison analysis of the three (3) proposers and 95 percent is recognized as an industry standard in public safety. Commissioner Constantine stated that the Board wants the infor- mation based on what the RFP requested which was 90 percent and not the 95 percent standard which is not necessarily accurate for the needs of the County. Mr. Camel1 acknowledged that the base level of coverage requested in the RFP was 90 percent with an option of 95 percent. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that RAM Communications based their computer models on 95 percent. Mr. Camell explained that each of the proposers handled the coverage differently w~th Motorola and Ericsson G.E. indicating that 95 percent coverage could be provided with the same design and E.F. Johnson indicated that additional cost would be associated with 95 percent coverage but could be provided. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. McPherson indicated that the coverage circles would have been a little larger if 90 percent coverage had been used rather than the 95 percent but the significant gap in the southeast portion of the County would remain because there is no site located in the area. He stated that the little gap in the Golden Gate area would have been eliminated. Commissioner constantine stated that he is greatly concerned that the computer models are not based on the same requirements as the RFP. Page September 20, 1994 Mr. McPherson pointed out that the coverage analysis submitted by Ericsson G.E. also indicated the same coverage gap. Mr. McPherson stated that a percent coverage was generated by the computer and the analysis indicated 55 percent County wide coverage by E.F. Johnson, 85.8 percent for Ericsson G.E. and 93 percent for Motorola. Commissioner Constantine questioned if the fact that the proposal submitted by Ericsson G.E. did not have a tower site on Marco Island could account for the four percent (4~) below the 90 percent coverage requirement? Mr. McPherson explained that some of the difference between the percent coverage in the case of Ericsson G.E. could be explained by not including a site on Marco Island. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the hotel roof top site on Marco Island would be available to all proposere? Mr. McPherson etated that any of the tall buildings on Marco Island would be suitable for a tower site but only Motorola addressed the issue in their proposal. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson explained that the microwave option requires more weight and loading on a tower but the total number of towers will be nine (9) in either case as proposed by Motorola. Commissioner Matthews pointed out that the computer model indica- tes that Immokalee has no coverage and questioned what the affect will be in that area? Mr. McPherson explained that coverage in the Immokalee area will be less than the 90 percent required in the RFP which will inhibit communications on a portable radio with a dispatcher while inside a building described as residential or light industrial. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that Mr. McPherson keeps referring to Marco Island as being on a fringe area but with a 800 MHz system, unlike VHF, the signals are clear until a person is outside the range rather than a gradual fade away. He questioned whether Page 18 September 20, 1994 clear communication would exist even in the fringe area if within the range? Mr. McPherson indicated that when the signal level is weak and especially when shaded by a building, the risk of signal loss is real even with a 800 MHz system. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. McPherson reiterated that the coverage difference between a computer model at 90 percent and 95 percent is very small. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson explained that one concern with the Ericsson G.E. proposal was that a request was made to provide assurance that the existing towers would be suitable in the proposed configuration but no evidence that the analysis was performed was presented. He indicated that additional equipment will be loaded on the existing towers and the question of additional cost for reinforcement or construction of a new tower was raised but was not addressed in their proposal. Commissioner Volpe mentioned that at the vendor presentations, one of the vendors had indicated that they would absorb any cost required at the tower locations to bring the towers up to standard to accommodate the additional equipment. He questioned if that vendor was Ericsson G.E.? Mr. McPherson answered in the affirmative but referred to Mr. Carnell to address that issue because it was not part of the base pro- poeal hy Ericsson G.E. but was submitted later. Commissioner Norris pointed out that the area Mr. McPherson is indicating as Marco Island and not having sufficient coverage is not Marco Is/and but an uninhabited area with Marco Island located slightly north. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that the only questionable area then is Golden Gate. Mr. McPherson explained that the coverage analyale indicated a small gap in the Golden Gate area as did Ericsson G.E.~s proposal, both 90 and 95 percent, and in the real world the difference will not Page 19 September 20, 1994 appear as a critical 100 percent dead spot but Is shown in the analysis. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. McPherson explained that In the small gap because the area is less than the 90 percent threshold, a person can expect that at times coverage could not be achieved. Commissioner Constantine questioned what would be needed to correct the deficiency? Mr. McPherson indicated that taller towers, difference locations of towers, amplifiers in the system, etc. will correct thP problem. Commissioner Matthews stated that seven (7) towers currently exist in the Ericsson G.E. plan and they are willing to absorb any additional cost to upgrade the towers. She questioned how much taller the towers would have to be in order to accomplish complete coverage? Mr. McPherson replied that a change would be needed to only one (1) tower and the tower would need not more than an additional 100 feet to fill in the coverage gap. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson stated that Motorola proposed nine (9} sites, some of which are the same as pro- posed by the other vendors and some are different, and the coverage gap is located In the far eastern portion of the County. He explained that coverage does continue outside of the areas shoknl on the computer models, i.e. coverage will go from 90 percent to 89 percent; the models represent a threshold reliability. Mr. McPherson mentioned that the computer model Iljustrates the 800 MHz coverage and the microwave or leased circuits are needed to Interconnect the sites. Mr. McPherson indicated that the Motorola proposal of four {4} new towers at existing sites Is due to the loading on the antenna and the cost of the new towers was Included in their proposal. Hr. Camell explained that the three (3) areas in question rela- tive to the coverage gaps are Golden Gate, Marco Island and the southeast portion of the County which Is sparsely populated but police activities are conducted in the area. Page 20 September 20, 1994 In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Carnell replied that the southeast portion of the County In question is east of Ochopee. Commissioner Matthews stated that only Monroe Station is located out that far east and although coverage is needed, the Board is trying to i~etgh what Is needed against the dollars and cents required. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. McPherson stated that the coverage in the southeast portion of the County will be analhere from 80 percent to 50 percent depending on the proximity from the nearest tower site. Commissioner Constantine requested clarification of the technical differences/superiority of T-1 versus microwave. Mr. McPherson stated that technical superiority is not the question as either media is capable of carrying the Interconnecting data needed but options and flexibility is the difference. He explained that microwave Is expensive and will require the County to build and operate their own microwave system whereas the telephone company lease line alternative has flexibility. He pointed out that both systems are capable of carrying the signals between sites but Motorola is favored in this issue because a choice was offered. Commissioner Constantine questioned if one of the systems is more likely to withstand a hurricane? Mr. McPherson stated that both systems are subject to the whims of nature. He pointed out that even the leased circuits rely heavily on the use of microwave and United Telephone has an extensive microwave system through the County as well as buried fiber optic cable. Mr. McPherson indicated that each site will have to be eva- luated on a case-by-case basis to determine which media is right. Mr. Camell stated that Exhibit C of the August 30, 1994 memoran- dum is the Price Analysis Summary. He indicated that three (3) propo- sals were received from E.F, Johnson with three (3) different conftp~rations; two (2) being variations of the multicast design and one (1) a stmulcast design; Motorola presented two (2) proposals, one (1) proposing the use of the T-1 line for the network connection Page 21 September 20, 1994 system and the other microwave; Ericsson G.E. presented one (1) propo- sal which is the use of microwave. Mr. Camell commented that pricing for equipment and towers is lower for E.F. Johnson, Ericsson G.E. is next and then Motorola. He indicated that Ericsson G.E. offered to trade-in the existing 800 MHz system at a price of $2.8 million but the proposal did not take into account the re-equipping of existing users which will cost approxi- mately $500,000. Mr. Camell pointed out that Motorola offered an initial base price of approximately $14.5 million but offered a $2 discount if the system is purchased in entirety. Mr. Camell stated that the cost of constructing the system was requested, i.e. building the towers, placement of dishes for microwave, placement of equipment for T-1 system, acquiring access to the site for the County for existing towers, etc. He explained that the vendors were given the option of either using the existing or constructing new towers which placed the burden of selecting, ana- lyzing, accessing the availability by the County from the owners and the suitability of the towers to meet the RFP requirements, i.e. wind res;[stance and other structural strength requirements. Mr. Camell referred to Exhibit C and stated that the Base Configuration is the minimum acceptable system with the pricing of Total Base Configuration A representing a fully loaded system. He explained that that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expects licensees of 800 MHz channel to have the systems loaded at ]00 units/radios per channel or in the case of the County, 2,700. Mr. Carnell mentioned that the vendors were requested to price the inven- tory based on a fully loaded system but the system is not expected to be fully loaded on day one; Total Base Conf~guration B is based upon a February, 1994 current VHF user equipment inventory which is approximately 1,300 radios; Total Base Configuration C represents the projected VHF inventory in the year 2000 or 1,700 radios. Mr. Carnell stated that number of radios needed on day one Page 22 September 20, 1994 uncertain but will be known when the contract is presented to the Board for approval in October, 1994. Mr. Camell stated that the fully loaded system price from Ericsson 6.E. is lower than the third E.F. Johnson option but higher than the first two (2) options; the fully loaded system price from Motorola is approximately the same as the third E.F. Johnson option. Mr. Camell indicated that the proposal from Motorola for the T--1 fully loaded system is $12,446,708.00 and the proposal for the fully loaded microwave system is $16,446,110.00. He explained that the Motorola system at $12,446,708.00 includes four (4) new towers but the Ericsson G.E. system at $10,658,360.03 does not include ar,'f new tow~rs. Mr. Camell pointed out that the order in pricing changes under Total Base Configuration B, i.e. Motorola and Ericsson G.E. are both lower than E.F. Johnson's simulcast option (third option), due to the pricing on the user equipment. Mr. Camell stated that for the purpose of this discussion, the County needs to focus on Configuration B because it is the most realistic configuration for the first day the new system is in operation. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Camell replied that the ~ame number of towers is not affected by going from Configuration A to Configuration B. Mr. Camell stated that the Post-Warranty Maintenance will not be required until the third year so funds need not be appropriated the first two (2) years. He explained that the maintenance is elective as the County may elect to perform maintenance in-house but the pricing is included for information and comparative purposes and is based on the fully loaded system. Mr. Camell pointed out that Motorola and E.F. Johnson are comparable in the third year, in the fourth year Motorola has an increase and E.F. Johnson has a smaller increase and they are close again in the fifth year with Ericsson G.E. having a little higher maintenance over the other vendors during the third, Page 23 September 20, 1994 fourth and fifth years. Mr. Camell informed that the vendors were requested to provide lease purchase pricing information and the financial information will be presented to the Board at the same time as the contract. He indi- cated that Staff is confident that an alternative method for financing will be found, i.e., line of credit, commercial paper program, etc., which will produce more favorable rates than offered by the vendors. Mr. Carnell stated that available resources is another element of the evaluation criteria and was requested from the vendor, as well as the names of the people to be assigned to the Collier County project. He indicated that all three (3) vendors listed numerous projects In the 800 MHz field with Motorola and Ericsson G.E. being multi-million dollar corporations and E.F. Johnson is a substantial corporation. Mr. Camell explained that Ericsson 6.E. and Motorola had more public safety projects and similar to the Collier County project. Mr. Camell explained that the qualifications of the project teams was reviewed but none of the vendors fully complied with the request. He stated that Motorola named some project people with impressive credentials but the fine print Indicated that they would not commit the Individuals to the project because those people per- manently assigned to the project depend on when a contract Is signed and who is available. Mr. Camell stated that E.F. Johnson Initially gave no Infor- mation regarding people to be assigned to the project and then pro- vided a list of prospective personnel who would be available for the project. Mr. Camell Indicated that Ericsson 6.E. presented a list of pro- Ject personnel but they did not name the project manager. Mr. Camell explained that it appeared that all three (3) vendors based prospective personnel available for the project on when the contract is executed. Mr. Camell pointed out that the proposed installation plan, design and construction schedule was provided wherein E.F. Johnson Page 24 September 20, 1994 provided a schedule indicating seven and one half (7 1/2) months for completion from the Notice To Proceed, Ericsson G.E. indicated approximately 15 months and Motorola approximately 17 months. He explained that all three (3) are within the timeframe requirements, i.e. approximately 24 months to meet the FCC requirement for completion. Commissioner Volpe questioned the large difference in the timeframes provided. Mr. Camell responded that E.F. Johnson has their system in-p/ace with the County, will only be expanding to the existing system and will load two (2) towers. He explained that Motorola will have four (4) towers to erect and Ericsson G.E. has some analysis to complete as to suitability of the existing towers, as does E.F. Johnson. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Camel1 explained that Ericsson G.E. indicated approximately 15 months for completion but ie predicated on a proposal in which they are not taking responsibility for the availability or suitability of the existing towers or are pro- posing to construct any new towers and this issue will be discussed in more detail later in the presentation. Mr. Camell stated that the systems verification processes or procedures, i.e. testing procedures for assuring the County is receiving what was contracted for, was critiqued and Mr. McPherson assisted in this evaluation. He explained that Motorola provided a total acceptance test plan, Ericsson G.E. indicated that they sub- mttted a representative of their testing in the proposal and E.F. Johnson indicated the same. Mr. Carnell mentioned that post installation service and support was another area of concern: Motorola proposes to support the system through ~helr Naples and Fort Myers existing service sites and Included details of available services and support; Ericsson G.E. pro- poses to open a new service center in Collier County; and E.F. Johnson intends to support a contract through Everglades Communications, their local co=municattons dealer. He pointed out that Motorola provided Page 25 September 20, 1994 the most detail and a strong feeling of factory support capability. Mr. Carnell stated that the vendors were Informed of the dif- ferent areas in which they would be evaluated; technical, price, ser- vice and support capability, Installation plan, general qualifications of the firm and the people assigned to the Collier County project. Mr. Carnell indicated that the RFP was designed to be a perfor- mance oriented document because Staff Is concerned with what the system ultimately does and how the needs of the County are met rather than how It gets accomplished. Mr. Camell explained that a number of performance requirements were established as well as some design requirements which included that any new tower constructed must be hurricane resistant. Mr. Carnell stated that Input and recommendations were received by numerous sources, including the vendors, to a draft RFP prior to creating the final RFP and Instances where language could be perceived as being vendor specific was changed or rawrAttan in such a way that the Interpretation would be a performance standard. He explained that the vendors were notified at the time the RFP was Issued that if the RFP contained anything of a design or technical nature or instructing to perform in a certain way, exception could be taken provided the vendor could demonstrate how the company could produce equivalent performance. Mr. Carnell stated that a number of contractual requirements were established and all three (3) vendors voiced significant exceptions. He explained that contractual negotiations ts basically transferring of risk between parties. Mr. Carnell Indicated that Motorola and Ericsson G.E. took more exceptions than E.F. Johnson which caused some problem with how to evaluate the vendors on the contractual side. Mr. Carnell explained that a letter was prepared shortly before the evahxatton process was completed acknowledging the three (3) ven- dors' contractual exceptions and notifying that the technical aspects were being evaluated separately. He Indicated that the vendors were also notified where the County stood on some of the more questionable Page 26 September 20, 1994 or disputed contractual provisions. bit. Camell stated that Staff is hoping to resolve all the contractual issues after the vendor is selected and negotiations begin; all three (3) vendors have indicated that they are willing to work with the County. He explained that E.F. Johnson was closest to the conditions set forth by the County, Motorola moved much closer than their original stance, with Ericsson G.E. remaining resistant on some very Important Issues. Mr. Camell pointed out that within a week of the deadline to submit proposals, each vendor had copies of each others proposals regarding the exceptions to the contractual issues which put the County in a better position for the contractual negotiation process. Be informed that a legal analysis was obtained from the County Attorney's Office on the contractual exceptions. Mr. Camell stated that Mr. McPherson's report was prepared regarding the technical aspects, the Selection Committee prepared the balance of the analysis and the report was distributed to the Board and the. vendors on August 30, 1994 indicating that Motorola Communications was ranked number one, with Ericsson G.E. second and E.F. Johnson third; a Notice of Protest was received from Ericsson G.E. on September 1, 1994 and the official protest was filed on September 9, 1994. He explained that copies of the Protest were distributed to RAM Communications and the County Attorney; a decision was issued by the Purchasing Department on September 15, 1994 advising that the protest was denied and the process would move forward with the recommendation as originally planned. Mr. Camell stated that on September 15, 1994 after the Protest decision was made and mailed, the Purchasing Department received a letter from Ericsson 6.E. indicating that they would assume the responsibility for the towers, i.e. assume the cost of replacing or upgradtng towers, which was a significant change from their written proposal. Commissioner Constantine questioned County Attorney Cuyler on Page 27 September 20, 1994 whether legally the Board can depart from the recommendation of the Selection Committee? County Attorney Cuyler Indicated that the Board Is not legally bound to follow the recommendation of the Selection Committee but must rely on facts presented to support any decision. He pointed out that the protest does not have to be granted in order to depart from the recommendation either. Commissioner Saunders questioned if consideration can be given to the Ericsson G.E. tower commitment which was received late and is a substantial change from the original proposal in the evaluation pro- cess by the Board? Mr. Cuy/er Indicated that Ericsson G.E. had numerous oppor- tunities to address the tower issue and the concern Is when did the bid process end? Commissioner Volpe stated that Staff Initiated some of the contractual questions through the bidding process and may have opened up the opportunity for this type of proposal to be forthcoming. Mr. Camell indicated that Staff brought closure very quickly to contractual exceptions and all three (3) vendors were given the oppor- tunity to address the contractual issues. Mr. Cuyler stated that whether the issues can be negotiated today could expose the County to liability by the parties. ee. Recessed 12:20 P.M. - Reconvened 1:35 P.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Fernley see Attorney Dudley Goodlette, representing Ericsson GE (EGE) advised that his client has flied a formal protest which ts focused entirely against the report of the consultant, RAM Communications. Mr. Goodlette announced that the last time he spoke to any members of the Conuntsston with regard to this Issue was on August 2, 1994 during the Board meeting when presentations were made. He Indicated that he assumes that all the other vendors have complied with that requirement of the RFP. Mr. Goodlette advised that he believes the lowest compliant bidder Page 28 September 20, 1994 is Ericsson GE. He referred to a handout which was presented by Purchasing Director Carnell (copy not provided to the Clerk). He called attention to the $10,658,000 figure for total base con- figuration "A" from EGE and the Motorola figure of approximately $1,800,000 more. He reiterated that EGE is the lowest compliant bidder and stands by that figure. Mr. Goodlette presented his formal bid protest to be submitted as part of the record. He revealed that selecting EGE as the most compliant bidder would result in a savings of between $2 million and $6 million to the taxpayers of Collier County. Mr. Goodlette announced that the report of RAM Communications is inaccurate, misleading and biased. In addition, he noted that the process was not well served. He pointed out that RAM indicates that the major discriminator between the EGE design and the Motorola design is the number of sites. Mr. Goodlette pointed out that RAM contends that "many of the sites EGE proposes to use have been shown to be not suitable." He affirmed that this is simply not true. Mr. Goodlette remarked that RAM indicates that "none of the ven- dors provided much evidence of detail tower research." He called attention to the first page RAM's report which says "Motorola appears to have carefully considered the placement of sites and then proceeded to do a detailed design of the system." Mr. Goodlette explained that RAM stated that "EGE assumed that every tower would be suitable". He noted that this is simply not true. He advised that the proposed sites will work. Mr. Goodlette stated that EGE is capable of providing an excellent system for the County for an amount between $1.8 million and $5.8 million less than the system proposed by Motorola. Tape #3 Mr. Goodlette stated RAM's response to the protest with regard to sites. He noted that RAM contends that "while EGE has included the cost of an additional tower in its proposal, this tower cost is Page 29 September 20, 1994 included in the optional section and is therefore, not part of their base proposal." He advised that this simply ts not correct. In addi- tion, he remarked that RAM states that "only one new tower is offered and site studies conducted by Andrew Corporation have indicated that seven of the eight sites chosen by EGE would require update to support their proposed antenna configuration." He cited that the site studies conducted by the consultant were done for Motorola. He advised that EGE's sites have not been reviewed by Andrew Corporation. Mr. Goodlette explained that staff is relying upon the consultant, RAM, who is relying upon information provided by Motorola from someone who will be building the towers for Motorola and they have never looked at EGE's sites. He remarked that this is the basis upon which they relied in saying that EGE's protest lacks merit or should not be grailted. Mr. Goodlette remarked that the consultant indicates that EGE's proposal will cost the taxpayers $2 million more ~han Motorola's pro- pos~tl. He confirmed that EGE's proposal will not cost the taxpayers of (:oilier County an additional $2 million. Mr. Goodlette explained that Motorola's alternative proposal specifies $4 million for microwave, however, their estimate for T-1 (telephone) costs is $60,000 per year. Mr. Goodlette advised that EGE is prepared to negotiate. He pro- posed that the County would receive microwave technology for $10,150,000. He stated that the very same technology from Motorola will cost the County in excess of $16 million. Attorney Etleen Mehta, representing EGE, recalled that the con- sultant has stated that her client has proposed an excellent system and questioned why the Board would forego the opportunity to acquire that system for a much lower price than offered by Motorola. She pointed out BGE guarantees 95~ coverage. She requested the Commtsston's unanimous endorsement with regard to EGE's proposal. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Camell explained that the primary difference between the proposals from EGE and Motorola is the Page 30 September 20, 1994 representation with regard to the suitability and availability of the towers. He cited that Motorola contends that towers have to be replaced if they accommodate microwave dishes and this involves money. Mr. McPherson advised that he evaluated each of the proposals very carefully and prepared the evaluation of the technical factors. With regard to the sites, he noted that KGE has not addressed the issue of whether the sites proposed can work without additional costs. Mr. McPherson pointed out that Page 72 of the RFP required that the vendors demonstrate that the existing towers that are proposed to be used would not be overloaded since there is a concern about the cost that would be incurred. He revealed that he does not believe EGE has addressed this requirement properly, however, Motorola did address same, Mr. McPherson indicated that EGE proposes 7 sites and Motorola proposes 9 sites. He remarked that a letter from GTE Mobilnet Indica- tes that two of the towers proposed by EGE are not designed for microwave. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. McPherson advised If the quantity of sites were Identical and if EGE is willing to assume the cost of upgradtng the additional two sites there would be a fairly equivalent circumstance. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that there are three dif- ferent manufacturers stating that they can achieve the requirements as set forth in the RFP and they guarantee the achievement of same. He cited if one manufacturer can aocomplish this with lesser tower sites, it is part of their equipment and they are guaranteeing that they can do that. Mr. McPherson explained that the issue is not only the number of sites, but also the location of those sites. He acknowledged that there are real concerns about Marco Island and past experience indica- tes that there are coverage problems in that area. Commissioner Saunders remarked that it appears that from a tech- nical standpoint, coverage standpoint and dollar standpoint, EGE has a Page September 20, 1994 better proposal, however noting he has concerns with regard to the quality of the financial guarantee. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McPherson stated that the reason the Motorola approach is favored, is because It provides flexi- bility of having either approach. He noted that he believes the EGZ proposal is not capable of working on the leased T-1 system. He revealed that for technical reasons Involving slmulcast, a T-1 circuit would normally Involve a risk of the lines going out of phase due to re-routing and the Motorola offering has proposed a new technological solution which would overcome these changes and re-routing of charac- teristics that the EGE proposal does not provide. Mr. McPherson advised that the leased T-1 approach is the pre- ferred approach from a cost standpoint. Mr. Camell expressed that one of the frustrations with dealing with the protest from EGE is that he does not believe sufficient information was provided in support, from a propagattonal standpoint, or r,mgardlng the availability or suitability of the site. Hr. Camell explained that during the Interviews with all three vendors, questions were asked with regard to the type of Information they had gathered to investigate the suitability and availability of the edtes. He remarked that staff asked for the documentation that was used to form the level of competency for each of the tower sites that were selected, but noted this has not been provided by EGE. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether Mr. Camell has a problem if EGE assumes the cost and responsibility associated with upgradtng and replacing the towers. Mr. Camell replied affirmatively. Mr. Camell stated that staff is concerned about the suitability and vtabtltty issue and EGE assuming the responsibility because there are seven sites that have not been fully dtagnosed. He pointed out that Motorola did provide the required Information. Mr. Camell pointed out that there are exceptions from both ven- dors Mrlth regard to different contractual Issues. He reported that the exceptions from EGE were more significant and more of a problem. Page 32 September 20, 1994 In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Carnell remarked that EGE Indicated that the County would be responsible for paying for addi- tional towers, and replacement towers, In the event that the towers are not suitable. In answer to Commissioner Constantine, County Attorney Cuyler advised If all bids are rejected, the Board would be getting into a new process and noted that the FCC tim#line becomes a factor. Attorney John Stanley, representing Motorola, cited that EGE's proposal did not meet certain overall criteria of the RFP. He remarked that Motorola performed its own tower analysis and provided the results of same with the proposal, noting that EGE did not comply with this requirement. Mr. Stanley stated that EGE did not provide staff with all the technological data and suggested that their proposal should not be considered. He recalled that RAM'e original report points out that the most critical requirement of any radio system Is to provide the requtl'ed level of coverage to the end users and EGE's analysis Indica- tes they will provide coverage to 85~ of the County. Mr. Stanley affirmed that Motorola ranked #1 in every procedure and RAM's recommendation Indicates that Motorola Is the best vendor. He revealed that EGE's proposal is flawed for many reasons. Mr. Tony Sereda stated that he is a Field Engineer Manager with Motorola. He announced that Motorola is the only vendor that provides County wide communications at 90~ throughout the entire County. He remarked that coverage into large, heav~ buildings is a problem. He affirmed that Motorola is prepared to provide all T-1 service and no mtcrow~ve. Tape 84 Mr. Lee Maynard, representing Motorola, advised that he, ae the Project Manager, solicited the Involvement of Andrew Corporation. He explained that Motorola's proposal outlines the criteria, coverage and the facilities that need to be upgraded. He reported that Motorola*s proposal is for nine sites, regardless of the technolo~ that is Page 33 September 20, 1994 selected. He noted that the buildings should be above ground to meet Category 5 storm hurricane surges and these elevated foundations cost Motorola between $50,000 - $75,000 per building. Mr. Maynard advised that the towers will be suitable and the pri- ces in the proposal are fixed and firm for any new structures that will be installed. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Maynard stated that there will be four new towers, and noted the other sites are already in existence and are suitable. Mr. Jim Crinklaw, representing g. F. Johnson, stated that his firm is the only respondent that has previously been awarded an 800 MHz trunk radio system for use by Collier County. Mr. Crinklaw explained that in response to the RFP, three con- ftgurations were provided by which the existing system oan be expanded. He indicated that the first two configurations are variations of the multicast technology and the third is a stmulcast ftguration. He reported that he believes the most cost effective method to address Collier County's communication needs is multicast. He noted that neither the evaluation committee nor the consultant have given much consideration to these con- figurations which represent the two lowest responses to the RFP and represents a considerable savings to Collier County. Mr. Crtnklaw advised that he feels strongly enough about the system design and a performance guarantee will be posted. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Crinklaw stated that he has spoken to the owners of the towers, as identified in the proposal, noting that he has been assured that the towers could be upgraded for microwave use. In answer to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Crlnklaw reported that there are serious differences in the manner by which RAM calculated coverage. He affirmed that he is comfortable that the multicast system, as provided in Options I and 2, can fulfill all of Collier County's needs. Page 34 September 20, 1994 Mr. Robert Roberson recalled that in 1988, RFP-88-1258 was issued for an 800 Wdz trunk radio system for local government usage. He noted that vendors responding to this RFP and the response submitted by Everglades Communications using E.F. Johnson equipment was chosen. He remarked that after several months of heated debate over the ulti- mate capability of the E.F. Johnson system, Sheriff Don Hunter insisted that any radio system purchased by the County must be capable of expanding into a public safety environment. He noted that a system that was capable of eventually expanding into an APCO 16 system was needed to satisfy the Sheriff's requirements. Nr. Roberson stated that E.F. Johnson delivered multinet repeaters, control stations, mobile radios and pottables. In addi- tion, he remarked that a radio network terminal was delivered to pro- vide enhanced public safety functions for a two year evaluation period at no cost to the County. He advised that on June 1, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to purchase the radio net- work terminal. He reported that this system has performed flawlessly since installation and Everglades Communications and E.F. Johnson has consistently demonstrated their Joint commitment to provide state-of- the-art public safety communications for the County. Mr. Roberson pointed out that the maintenance cost for a stmulcast system ie $250,000 tax dollars per year compared to $66,000 tax dollars per year for a multicast system. Mr. Roberson announced that RAN Communications incorrectly substituted components in the E.F. Johnson design, resulting in their statement that coverage from that system would only be 55~ of the County. He indicated that in realty, the existing coverage from the present system is 70~ of the County. Mr. Roberson stated that he is confident that an additional three sites will provide the County the requested 95~ coverage and E.F. Johnson is the only vendor that will guarantee this at no additional cost. He advised that the price difference between the selection com- mittee's vendor of choice and the expansion of the existing system is Page 35 $5.5 million tax dollars. existing system. September 20, 1994 He requested that the Commission expand the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Chief Peterson stated that as a committee member, throughout this process, he kept in mind that the vendor that could provide the requirements of the RFP satis- factorily would be the successful bidder. He noted that the committee has selected Motorola as the number one vendor. Chief Peterson revealed that the key factor from a fire service and emergency service perspective is coverage. He affirmed that County wide coverage is essential, whether in the Everglades or in downto~m Naples. He indicated that all three vendors provided propa- gation studies and noted there are major holes in the coverage. Chief Paterson called attention to the Golden Gate Boulevard Center and revealed there are holes in EGEts coverage, as proposed. Chief Peterson revealed that Motorola is the only vendor that pro- vided direction from the beginning. He suggested If the selection commlttee's recommendation te not accepted by the Board, it would be appropriate to go back to all three vendors to clari/y any unresolved Issues. *** At this time Deputy Clerk Barbiretti replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman In response to Commissioner Volpe, Chief Peterson replied that the T-1 System is recognized for four years. He said that the vendor would be responsible for the performance of the system and would have to solve any problems that may arise for four years. In answer to Commissioner Matthews, Mr. McPherson stated that the T-1 lines can be either fiber optic or microwave. He said that United Telephone and Sprint have been using fiber optic in this area. In reply to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. HcPherson confirmed that the same model and same map scale was used for all three vendors. He stated that all three vendors used a 12 DB antenna. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Camell stated that Ericsson's shelters for their tower sites were proposed to be Page 36 September 20, 1994 constructed out of fiberglass. He said that Motorola proposed concrete. He reported that the specifications called for concrete or ruggedized material. He said that it is fair to say that the Committee members did have concerns regarding the life of the fiberglass. He said that he is unsure as to whether fiberglass is ruggedized or not. In answer to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Camell reported that the documentation submitted by Ericsson did not indicate specifically that the sites would be elevated. He confirmed that the RFP required that the sites be elevated properly for flood plain requirements. In reply to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Camell said that the annual operating cost for the T-1 System would be $60,000.00. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that there is a considerable difference in maintenance between Ericsson and the others. He stated that over the first three years it is nearly $400,000.00 minus the $180,000.00. He stated that over the life of the system millions of dollars could be spent on maintenance costs. Mr. Camell said that it is difficult to determine how the system will grow in the future. Commissioner Volpe asked if all the vendors would provide County wide coverage as required in the RFP? Mr. McPherson replied that the reason that the E. F. Johnson proposal was not given a great deal of technical points is because the Committee felt that the use of three sites compared to the seven or nine sites proposed by the other two vendors was not adequate to pro- vide the coverage needed by Collier County. He said that between Motorola and Ericsson G. E. the Committee felt that the loss of the coverage to the southeastern portion of the County was significant. In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. McPherson replied that the two leading vendors offered their technically most sophisticated systems. He said that he believes that both are capable of providing future growth and expansion. Commissioner Matthews asked what was the maintenance differential 78 Page September 20, 1994 between the three vendors in per unit cost? Mr. Carnell stated that the ratio between each company would be the same. He said that the basic towers and all that go into the sites will not change whether there are 12,000 users or 26,000 users. He explained that he has not run an analysis on the out year main- tenance. Commissioner Constantine stated that Ericsson G. E. has acknowledged that there are gaps in the coverage as it is presented. He asked why a flawed coverage plan was submitted? Peter Allen, Territory System Engineer for Ericsson G. E., stated that his firm does not agree that there are gaps in coverage. He said that some of the issues do change the coverage. Commissioner Constantine asked Mr. Camell who acknow]eged the gaps in Ericsson G. E.~e proposal? Mr. Camell stated that the gaps in Ericcson~s proposal were first acknowleged at the August 9, 1994 interview. He said that their maps depict the holes in coverage. Alex Small, Territory Sales Manager for Ericsson G. E., confirmed that he was at the meeting of August 9, 1994. He said that the maps included in their proposal attempted to comply with the requirements. He said that the map that depicted the holes was not a composite. He said that when Mr. Allen put all the sites together the holes disap- pear. He said that his firm will guarantee County wide coverage. In response to Commissioner Constantine, County Attorney Cuyler replied that in the event that the system does not meet the require- ments as outlined in the request, contract provisions will be built into the contract. He said that if that were to happen it would ulti- mately result in a lawsuit. County Attorney Cuyler explained that the Board can reject all propo~lers. He said if the Board does not reject all the proposers they will be ranking them. He said that would not eliminate a pro- poser unless the Board specifically states that a proposer should not be negotiated with under any circumstances. He said that Staff and Page 38 September 20, 1994 the Committee has recommended Motorola. He stated that there has been a protest and the Board must deal with the protest. He indicated that the Purchasing Director has recommended denial of the protest. He advised that the Board has two options. He said that the Board can agree with the Purchasing Director and deny the protest. He explained that Motorola will not necessarily become ranked Number 1. He said that the Board can find that it is not appropriate to approve the protest but on other grounds find another firm as Number 1. He said that the Board can grant the protest which means that Motorola would not be ranked Number 1 and the Board would have to rank the remaining two. He stated that if the protest is denied, the Board would be required to rank the firms and make the appropriate findings. Commissioner Constantine asked what options were available if all the proposals were rejected? County Attorney Cuyler replied that he believed the safest step would be to request proposals in some form that was appropriate. He reminded the Board that the FCC deadline still has to be met. Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe, to uphold the finding of the Purchasing Director and deny the protest. Commissioner Saunders stated that it is important to minimize the risk of litigation and maximize the likelihood of success if there is litigation. Mr. Cuyler stated that if the Board is comfortable that the speci- fic items of the protest are not sufficient in terms of overturning the recommendation, the Board should leave the ability to rank to itself. He reiterated that the Board does not have to accept the recommendation. He said that the dental or approval of the protest does not force the Board into a decision. In response to Commissioner Matthews, Mr. Cuyler confirmed that If the Board finds that the protest is not valid, the Board still has the legal ability to go through an analysis, make the findings based on record that the Board finds appropriate and to rank the proposers. In answer to Commissioner Matthews, County Attorney Cuyler replied Page 39 September 20, 1994 that if the Board grants the protest it is acknowledging Ericsson G. E. argument that Motorola should not be ranked Number 1. He said that the two remaining firms would then have to be ranked. Commissioner Saunders asked if the Board should simply go to the merits of the bid itself? County Attorney Cuyler replied that the Board can grant or deny the protest and award the RFP at the same time. Commissioner Norris withdrew hie motion, Commissioner Volpe withdrew his second. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Cuyler stated that the Board must decide who is the lowest and responsive bidder. Mr. Camell stated that this is an RFP process as opposed to a sealed bid. He said that we are not attempting to award to the /owest, qualified, responsive bidder. He said that we are attempting to etward to the best overall proposal. In response to Commissioner Volpe and Commissioner Matthews, Mr. Camell confirmed that none of three proposals were 100~ responsive. Mr. Cuyler advised that if the Board chooses one firm as Number l, it does not necessarily eliminate the others that are still considered in the negotiation process. Commissioner Norris stated that there are points regarding the location and siting in Ericsson G. E.'s proposal that has caused con- cern. He said that the concerns seem to be minor and correctable. He pointed out that their proposal could produce a savings of million dollars. Commissioner Norris moved to rank the firms as Number I - Ericsson G. E., Number 2 - Motorola, Number 3 - E. F. Johnson~ to direct staff to enter into contract negotiations for a turnkey operation with Ericsson G. E.= to correct the minor descrepanciee that are found in the siting criterim, and if they are unsuccessful in achieving those goals, then move to respondant Number 2. Seconded by Commissioner !~ttbm~. Commissioner Norris stated that the intent of the motion is to Page 40 September 20, 1994 explicitly cover all guarantees that were mentioned in todays discussion, not only in coverage but functionally. He said that Staff must be directed to insure that the County taxpayers are ade- quately covered for any discrepancies in those areas. County Attorney Cuyler encouraged the Board to make as many fin- dings as seems appropriate, secondly, to determine whether or not the Board will grant or deny the bid protest. Commissioner Norris stated that the following findings are intended to be contained in the motion; that there is a potential savings from 1.8 to 5.8 million dollars, that the technologies are similar in scope, that this is not a modification of the original bid proposal and that although there are some minor antenna coverage and siting discrepancies, those descrepancies should be overcome in the contract negotiation process or move to the Number 2 respondent. Commissioner Volpe stated that he would support the motion assuming that the clarifications that were provided in subsequent correspondence to the Board were simply clarifications, not changes to the original bid. Commissioner Norris announced that he would include this finding in the motion. Commissioner Matthews agreed to amend her second. Con~issioner Constantine stated that he would support the motion because the response to the RFP from Ericsson G. E. guaranteed the 95~. He indicated that it is an upfront savings of $1.4 million. He said that the consultant has reported that Ericsson G. E. is capable of providing an excellent system for the County. CoMmissioner Saunders stated that if there is any variation to the RFP, those variations are minor. He said that he will support the motion. Commissioner Matthews pointed out that the FCC waiver requires that the County must Identify a funding source and have the vendor under contract. County Attorney Cuyler replied that the most recent correspondence Page 41 September 20, 1994 confirms that if the County selects a vendor, the County would still meet the requirements. Ul~n call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. Cc~missioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carriedunanim~uely, that the bid protest be denied. Commissioner Constantine commented that he received a memorandum from Sheriff Hunter indicating that he is comfortable with either of the top two ranked vendors. He thanked all the people who worked on this project. s,e Recessed: 4:30 P.M. - Reconvened: 4:50 P.M. see (2604) Item 08Hl UTILITIES BID NO. 94-2264 FOR CLAM PASS PARE - AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN TH~ AMOUNT OF 8516,054.00 Tom Conrecode, OCPM Director, explained that this item is in regard to the boardwalk reconstruction at Clam Pass and Clam Pass Utilities work for a total of $516,054.00. He said that five bids were received. He stated that Staff recommends awarding the bid to the lowest bidder. He advised that there was a bid protest from the second lowest bidder based on specifications of lumber material, He said that the protest was answered by the Purchasing Director which is included in the Executive Summary. He stated that Staff recommends the award to the lowest bidder and the advancement of $?0,000.00 through a transfer from reserves in order to proceed immediately and complete the work prior to season. Commissioner Volpe remarked that Vanderbilt Bay Construction has been the low bidder on any number of recent Capital Projects. He said that one criteria is the amount of work that any vendor has. Mr. Conrecode replied that recently three contractors have been getting the majority of work being bid. He said that those include Lodge Cons;truction, Surety Construction and Vanderbllt Bay Construction. He stated that it seems to run in cycles. Commis;sioner Matthews stated that she thought that Vanderbllt Bay Page 42 September 20° 1994 Construction had started as a small company. She asked if they have the ability to keep their high standards and quality? Mr. Conrecode replied that Staff has been satisfied with the quality of their work. He stated that Staff is confident that they can handle this project. Comdsstoner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews to award Bid No. 94-2264 to Vanderbllt Bay Construction in the amount of $516,054.00. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/0 (Commissioner SaundersB out ). (2898) Item #8112 RESOLUTION 94-695 RE SPECIFIC CONSULTANT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH TEE EVALUATION OF MARCO ISLAND CABLEeS FRANCHISE APPLICATION AS EXTRAORDINARY COSTS - ADOPTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO BILL MR. GASTON FOR 87,000. OO & DIRECT COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PURSUE 83,000. O0 AS Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager, requested that the Board declare, by Resolution, that costs totaling $7,045.43 are extraordinary costs in the review of Marco Island Cable application. She recalled that on October 5, 1994, the Board determined that an application fee of $10,000.00 would need to be paid by Marco Island Cable. She said that she has reviewed the audio tapes from that meeting that reveal that there was consensus by the Board that any extraordinary costs would be reimbursed by the applicant to the County. She said that the total consultant fee to date is $20,739.44. She stal:ed that it is Staffre recommendation that the applicant is responsible for approximately $17,000.00. She said that he has a/ready paid his $10,000.00 application fee. Commissioner Volpe asked what the consultant fees were from the last fra~nchiee application? Ms. Edwarde replied that the consultant fees in that instance were approximately $40,000.00. She said that.$30,000.00 was requested to be reimbursed to the County. She said that she believed that a ~ettlement of a lesser amount was settled upon. Page 43 September 20, 1994 Ms. Edwards explained that this began at a reasonable amount, the $10,000.00 application fee. She said that there were some extraor- dinary circumstances that caused the cost to increase. She stated that includes such things as the consultant requesting two additional times for information from the applicant. She said that Staff requested that the consultant appear before the Board to present his findings which resulted in travel expenses for over $S,O00.O0. She reported that his overall review of the application was $14,000.00. She indicated that she has requested that the consultant consider a reduction in their fee because Staff disputes one area of their review. She said that the reduction would amount to $3,000.00. She said that has not been resolved at this time. She said that should the issue be resolved the amount will be passed on to Marco Island Cable. William Gaston, President of Marco Island Cable, stated that he objects to paying the additional monies. He referred to a memorandum (not provided to Clerk) which is in support of the Executive Summary for the December 14, 1993 meeting in which the Board retained Miller & Holbrooke. He said that Miller & Holbrooke agreed to review the application for a fee of approximately $5,000.00, which left a $5,000.00 "cushion" for extraordinary expenses. He reported that in addition to the $5,000.00, attorney time would be billed out at $95.00 per hour. He remarked that the example of travel expense for Attorney Tim Lay, the consultant who appeared before the Board, was billed at $~80.00 per hour. He said that he thinks that the whole bill needs to be reviewed. He stated that he would like to hold the County Staff to the $5,000.00 plus the additional $5,000.00 for extraordinary expen- ses. He indicated that he did not understand why a bill can be sub- mitted without having it contested. He contended that at the meeting of December 14, 1993 Staff was directed to report back to the Board in the event that the expenses went over $10,000.00. He said was not done. Commissioner Volpe agreed. He asked if Staff had questioned the Page 44 September 20, 1994 consultant about the billing rate? Ms. Edwards confirmed that each of the billings has been reviewed. She said that two attorneys were assigned to this case. She reported that the Junior partner billed $95.00 per hour and the senior partner billed $108.00 per hour. She said that the senior partner gave the presentation to the Board. Commissioner Volpe asked what the agreement was? Ms. Edwards replied that Staff accepted their service at $180.00. County Attorney Cuyler stated that the understanding was that an associate could do what was necessary, however the Board was not satisfied with information provided so arrangements were made for the consultant to travel here. Commissioner Vo/pe asked if Staff was informed that the person being sent would be billing at a rate of $185.00 per hour? Ms. Edwards replied that they were not informed. She said it was never part of the discussion. She said that Is part of the amount being disputed. Assistant County Attorney Ashton reported that she had reviewed all the invoices submitted. She said that much of the work that Attorney Lay performed was his travel to Collier County and his ser- vices before the Board. She said that amount is in dispute. She said that it was possible to review the amount of time that has been imcurred by Mr. Lay and reduce the fee. County Attorney Cuyler pointed out that Mr. Lay was in support of Mr. Gaston's petition for the franchise. Commissioner Saunders stated that the fees were incurred in an effort to promote competition in the cable industry which will benefit Mr. Gaston and the cable users. C~ateetoner Saunders moved to approve the resolution, seconded by In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Edwards reviewed the Ite- mized bill. U~m call for the question, the motion carried 4/1, (Comm. Volpe opposed) thereby adopting Resolution 94-695. Page 45 September 20, 1994 Ta~e #5 (077) REPORT ON REVENUES FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL 1994 - PRESENTED Michael Smykowskl, Acting Budget Director, reported that there is a slight shortfall in the 7th cent Gas Tax because the State is taking additional administrative cuts for all the gas taxes enmasse. The shortfall in Landfill Tipping Fees are due to reductions in the amount of biomass waste that was received and processed and due to a 85.00 per ton reduction in construction demolition fees. He explained that the EMS Impact Fees are less than budgeted due to the mix of per- mitting types that are being pulled this year. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Smykowski explained that the County is running 55~ ahead of the budget estimate because at the time the estimate was made for FY 95 only two or three months of actuals upon which to base Xr. Smykowski commended Budget Analyst Bob Byrne who is the prin- cipal revenue analyst for doing a great Job. {19S} UPDA~ ON JAR~S SCENIC DRIVE/MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT - CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF S=~x~aEll 27, 1994 Commissioner Constantine reported that a new alternative solution will be presented to the Board at the next scheduled meeting. County Attorney Cuyler confirmed that his Staff is preparing a document for the Board~s review. John Drury, Collier County Airport Authority Executive Director, reported that he has been asked how the grant process will be affected if the Marco Island transfer has not been completed by October. He said that he is heavily involved in the Immokalee and Everglades City capital improvement programs. He reported that the Marco Island capi- tal improvements are on ho3~ until such time as the title is trans- ferred. He stated that most of the projects for Marco Island are Page 46 September 20, 1994 safety related, therefore, If the grant cycle is missed this year the County would vigorously apply for grants next year. He said that since they are safety related they have a high priority. He confirmed that the State will reapproprtate the dollars necessary for next year. Commissioner Constantine stated that ideally this issue will be brought to a conclusion this year. He said that in the event that it is not, the County will still be eligible for grant funds. (337) Item~gB DISCUSSIOR RM BCC'S CURRERT POLICY ON EXTRA GAIN TIME - STAF~ DII~CTED I~) UPD&I~ ORDINANCE County Attorney Cuyler stated that the Board can establish a policy on Extra Gain Time or have no policy on Extra Gain Time. He said that in addition to the offenses listed either in the Florida Administrative Code or set by the Sheriff, If the Board found certain ef2enses did not warrant the granting of Extra Gain Time he would pro- vide a list of what the offenses are for the Board's review. Commissioner Constantine reported that this policy has not been reviewed since 1976 when it was Implemented. He requested that the County Attorney provide a list of offenses so that the Ordinance may be updated. (413) ltem#lOA ~XTRA GAIN TZ]~ FOR IRMATE NO. 81923 - APPROVED Administrative Assistant to the Board Ftlson reported that the first two inmates have already been released. County Attorney Cuyler explained that according to the Shertff's criteria, as long as the inmate works every day and has not caused any disciplinary problems the offense is overlooked. Cosmatestoner Saunders moved, seconded by contssioner Norris to approve Gain TIme for Inmate No. 81923. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/1 (Commissioner Constantine opposed). Page 47 September 20, 1994 (488) Ztem #lOB RAD~R UNITS FOR STATE POLICE PATROL V~HICLES - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPj[RE AGENDA ITEM Commissioner Constantine stated that he requested that this item be placed on the agenda because the Lieutenant who oversees our general area for the State Police has asked if the Board would be interested in purchasing radar units for our local State Police. He said that the total cost ranges from $32,000.00 to $52,000.00. He suggested having the Lieutenant make a presentation to the Board. Commissioner Norris asked why the County would be funding the State Police? Commissioner Constantine stated that he was informed that a number of Counties do this. He asked Assistant County Manager Hargett to survey other counties on the issue. It was the consensus of the Board to have Staff prepare an agenda item on the subject. (BBO) Item~tl2B1 ORDIEIJICE 94-46 R~ PETITION PUD-90-37(2), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 81-25, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE POINT MARCO PUD, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING STIPUrakTIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REFERENCING THE ADDITION OF TWO PARKING LOTS TO BE SITUATED ON PARCEL II - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on August 31, 1994, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Ill response to Commissioner Saunders, Planner Bellows replied that this petition confirms the action taken in reference to the parking lot. Commissioner Constantine closed the public hearing. Commissioner Norris suggested that the Board take the opportunity to gain economy of scale and ask the petitioner if he would be interested in building the County parking lot. County Attorney Cuyler replied that technically he is the peti- tioner. Page 48 September 20, 1994 Commissioner Norris suggested that both lots be built at once. He said that If the property owner is agreeable to that suggestion an exchange of park impact fees with the property owner may be made in lieu of payment for the parking lot. County Attorney Cuyler stated that if the Board wishes to do that it must provide Staff with direction to prepare the appropriate agreement for the Board's review. Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews to authorize the County Attorney to make the offer to the property owner, to compare what Staff feels the cost will be to build the County side of the parking lot for the Boards review and to approve Petition PUD-90-37(2). Upon call for the question, the motion carried unanimously, thereby adopting Ordinance No. 94-46, as entered Into Ordinance Book 67. Item #I4A JOHN DRORY RE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORTS UPDATE This Item heard in conjunction with Item #9A. (650) Item #lSA & #lSB STAFF CO!~INICATIONS Assistant County Manager Hargett Informed the Board that the Utility Workshop scheduled for September 28, 1994, will Include spe- cial assessment software Information. It was the consensus of the Board that the time will be 3:30 P.M. Assistant County Manager Hargett Informed the Board that the IS and DOR workshop is scheduled for October 12, 1994. It was the consensus of the Board that the time will be 3:30 P.M. see Cosnatssioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unanimously that the following Items under the consent a~enda be approved and/or adopted. Item #16~1 AFPROV&L FOR TH~ RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF sLOIS HORTON SUBDIVISIONs Page 49 ~ IIIII III ' I IIII I "' September 20, 1994 Item #16a~ APPROVA~ FOR THE R~CORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WHITE LAKB PHASE I" ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT N0. 59.420 L'AMBIANCE A~ PELICAN BaY* s.. P,ges -/0/ Item 116A4 RESOLUTION 94-690 RE APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF *SUNSTONE ON ~ FAIRWAYS* - WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXI~CUTIVE SUMMARY Pages Item #16A5 APPROVA~ FOR THE RECORDING OF TEN FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN MARSH UNIT FOUR PHlaE ONe* - WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE Item #16A6 APFROVaJ~ OF EXCAVATION PERMIT 59,512, "SRER1400D PARE LAKES A, B, C AND D" -WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE F/ECUTIVE SUMMARY Item#l~A7 PERMISSION TO FURCHASE HEWLETT PACKARD INK JET PRINTER - FROM ENTRE COMPUTE~ IN TH~ AMOUNT OF 88,211.32 PLUS 831.00 PER MONTH MAINTENANCE CONTRACT Item #16BI PETITION AV-94-015 TO EXTINGUISH A PORTION OF AN ACCESS AND DRAINAGE KASKME1TZ LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST (PELICAN BAY, UNIT Item 816B2 - This item was withdrawn Item I1683 A~PROVAL OF A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES FOR ACQUISITION OF DRAINAGI F. ASEM~NTS AND OPERATION OF A WATER MANAGEMENT FUMP STATION FOR ROAD DRAINAGE Itm#lf~l AI?I~ORITaTION OF ~ ~S~R OF 816,800 ~0~ THE COLLIER COUR'I~i' PUBLIC LI~ COST C~ER 15~110, WITHIN ~ S~ COST C~R ~ Pm~e 50 September 20, 1994 OF THE COg~PREHKNSIVE NEWSBANK SERVICE FOR THE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY Item #16C2 A~.,PROVAL OF THE MEDICAID WAIVER MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. See Pages / - Item e16C3 APPROV~kL AND SIGNING OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT #OAA 030.94, 002 WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. Item CONTRACT WITH NAPLES SCOREKEEPERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FROVIDXNG SCOREKEEPERS FOR COUNTY-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES - IN THE AMOUNT OF 813,000.00 Item #16C5 APPROVa, t OF BUDGET AMENDMEET REQUEST FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTI~qlT SUMMER FOOD PROGRAM - IN THE AMOUNT OF 820,400.00 Item #16C6 RESOLUTION 94-691 RE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTNZlTr TO APPLY FOR ~ERSHIP TO THE UNITED STATES S1/IMMING ASSOCIATION Item #16E1 APPROVAL FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRIM - IN THE AMOUNT OF 8787,780.00 Item#l'6E2 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AWARD BID #94-2262 ~E FLEET SERVICE LIFT TO F.A.S.T. EQUIPMEET IN THE AMOUNT OF 823,998.00 Item #16E3 AWARD JUrNUAL BID 894-2230 THROUGH 94-2250 POR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 - 29 IN THE TOTAL ANOUNT OF 85,933,940.00 Item #16F1 BID NO. 94-2251 FOR THE PROVISION OF MEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMEET OF EMERGEN(,~[ MEDICAL SERVICES - AWARDED TO SUNBELT MEDICAL SUPPLY IN THE AMOUNT I)F 821,000.00 Page 51 Xte, 4116P2 A~.~ROVAL AND ~ION OF A L~SE AG~~ BE~EN F~OSPI~, INC, ~ COLLIER ~0~ FOR COaXeD ~ILX~TION SPACE AT ~ NO~ COLLIER HOSPIT~ ~ ROOM BY COLLIER CO~ ~ ~)R ~ ~SE OF PROVIDING ~RGEN~ SERVICES AT SAID SI~ Item ~16F3 ~SOL~ION 94-692 ~ C0~ G~ ~EICATION ~ DIVISION ~ ~R ~ ~UST MONIES Item (116F4 A~~ B~ P~SICI~S BILLING SERVICE, A SUBSIDI~Y OF CO~I~ ~ C~, INC., A EORIDA CO~O~TION ~ ~ COLLIER C0~ ~C ~R USE 0F A CO~RIZKD ~DIC~ BILLING SYST~ TO BE ~ILI~ ~ ~ CO~'S DESIGNATED BILLIN3 DEP~~ FOR ~ - FIRST ~ IN ~ ~ 0F 822,004.00, ~ 820,004.00 Item e1~1 ~SO~ION 94-693 U ~ OF 0~ICE ~R ~ERS ~POI~D TO ~O~~ ~LI~ ~IC~ ~ISO~ ~ It~ ~1~2 ~S0=[OR 94-694 ~ NOTICE OF DELINQ~ SPECI~ ASSES~S FOR SOLID W~ CO~E~IOR ~ DIS~S~ S~VICE FOR ~ 199~ S~ICE 377 Item ~ 0~ ~ AGNOLI, B~ER ~ BR~AGE, INC. ~DER ~ C~ ~AL ~O~SSIOR~ SERVICES AG~~ FOR ~ S~V~ING SERVICES - ROT TO ~CE~ ~ ~0~ 0F 83,500.00 Itn e16H1 ~T E-~I-~zS ~L~ATING ~S BY PRO~CT FOR ~ 1993-94 It~ ~8H2 IR~X IN ~ ~Q~ST ~R ~ C~I~ OF ~E COLLI=R COl It~ 116H3 , ~ICATION ~R ~ 1994-95 EORIDA SHORE ~ B~CH P~S~ATION ~S~IATION 'B~ WATCH' ~SHIP TO PROVIDE ASSIST~CE Page 52 September 20, 1994 OBTAINING STATE FUNDING APPROPRIATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH REefORATION PRO3ECT Itexa #16E4 - This item is continued to 9//27/94 ltesx #163 NIS(,/LLAI~OU8 CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred as presented by the Board of County Commissioners: Page September 20, 1994 Item~1631 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAN ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPEITY~ISKR'S OFFICE 1993 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY No. 176 Dated 8/25/94 Item ~16J2 SATIS~&CTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER see P,ges There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 5:30 P.M. '~"m~a~,~'ap~r~ed b~ t~e Board on BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFPICIO GO RNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIA ISTRICTS UNDER ITS CO L TI Y J. NS INE, CHAIRMAN Page 54