The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 07/06/1989 S j¡ " Naples, Florida, July 6, 1989 i LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Board of County Coamissioners in and for the County of ColLier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the gover~ing b~ard{s) of such special 1istricts as I have been created according to law and having conducted business \ t herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. jn SP~IAL 8&5810. in Building '. "p" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the t :ollowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Burt L. Saunders (Absent) VICE-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRZ3ZHT: John Yonkosxy, Finance Director; Annaliese ~ratt, . Ellie Hoffman, Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County .1 i . Manager; Ron McLemore. Assistant County Manager; David Weigel, ì I As.istant County Attorney; Georqe Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; James Rearjon, E~ergency Services Administrator; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; Jeff Perry, Chief Transportation Planner, William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator, Harold Huber, Technical Services Supervisor, Nancy Israelson, Administrative Assist~nt to the Board; and Deputy ~om Storrar, Sheriff's Department. (":;'.1 Pagel 1 ; JULY 5,1989 I ! ,....-.1 ¡ It- -, \ AJIPItO9AL OW AQDÐA C0881..1oner Shanahan lIOVed, _conded by Co_l..lona-r 11&8.. and carried ./0 Co_l...ion.r Saunders ab..nt, that ~h. Agenda be approved. It.. He1 ft1SOLOTI0R 89-lð7 PIRTAIRIRa TO RORTH RAPLES ROADK~Y MDWICIPAL SKKV1C8 TAXIRG AIm 8DKJ'IT tJJIIT COIØIRMIRa USOLOTIOR RO. .19-U2 OJm81'lI.Ø RIGHT-OJ'-MAY ACQUISITIOR, co.SnOCTIOR OJ' ROAD IMF~O~S, ~ COnTftUCTIOR OW MA~ln IMPROVBMKRTS IN THI UJlIT - ADOPT8D Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on ¡ June 20, 1989. as evidenced by Affidavit of Public~tion filed with \ I the Clerk, Public Hearing was opened to consider a proposed resolution I pertaining to the North Naples Roadway MSTU. ! Transportation S~rvices Administrator Archibald stated that the ¡ ¡ ¡ agenda item is a public hearing to consider the tentative apportion- ' j j ment for the North Naples Roa6way MSTU. He indicated that the project ! dates back to 1985, at which time a petition was s'~bmitted to the Board of County Commissioners to consider road improvements tor a 5 square mile area located North of Immokalee Road, West of 1-75, and East ot the Imperial area and, in addition, a roadway extel1ding North/South from IJllJllokalee Road to Bani ta Beach Road extendin!~ trom Old 41 East to 1 intersect with the new North/South route. He explained that ~ prelimi- t nary study was undertaken and based upon that study, an Ordinance wae I adopted in 1986. creating the district itself. He pointed out th.t following the creation of the district, there was a tentative appor- tionment in October of 1986, based upon a project <:ost of slightly mare than 35.000,000. He noted that at the same time Resolution 86-191 w.s adopted to support this projec:t by insuring four cClmlllitments by ColBer County. He explained that tht! first commitment is for the County to share in the cost of bridge inprovements for this north/south roadway, re~erred to as Livingston Road in the County's Comprehe~~ive Plan, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 or 50 percent of the bl'idlfe construc- tion, whichever i5 less. He :stated that this roadway is identified as , . ¡ Page 2 , . ¡ i ¡ , , ! ¡ \ JULY 6, 1989 \ one of the future roadways makin~1 up the County-wide network. He pointed out that by acquiring by negotiated settlement a series ot ..aller parcels at County expensl! cor the portion outsid~ the needed \ right-of-way, the County would bncome the fee simple owners of the ¡ í re.ainder and be assessed for th.,ir fair share as property owners I within the Municipal Service Tax.lng Unit. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald responded that about a dozen. all the parcels in Section 24 would fall into th&t category. Mr. Archibald indicated that the Resolution also addressed the road j t ! impact fee credits. He explained that under Ordinance 8~-~5, road improve- , ment costs on an arterial network of the County are subject to con- I ¡ sideration for impact fee credits under a ro.ld ,i,mpact fee analysis. He , 1 t stated that the arterial network disc~s~ed today is subject to the provi- ¡ sions of Ordinance 85-5~. He noted that the last commitment is the connec- ! tion of this roadway to Lee County, currently along Imperial Drive, and I explained that the cost of the tie-in of Livingston Road coming fro. ¡ , Collier County and Imp6rial Drive from Lee County would be jncurred by t f t ' 1, Collier County. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald replied 1 that Imperial Drive is in place down and into Collier Gounty, but not vaved ¡ and the connection Into Lee County woulo have to be two-laned and paved into Lee County. Mr. Archibald noted that in 1~186 action to approve the tentative proportionment at that time was not taken because there was no funding, I and in 1987 consideration was giv~n to proceeding with this project by t borrowing gas tax dollars from County revenues and using them to undertake ! J \' the roadway design so that in the future the project could proceed, and the . cost to Collier County could be reiulbursed. He explained that in September of 1987, Hole, Montes & Assoc1z!\tes had done the preli::øinary analysis and were told to proceed wi th the final ,:1esign scheduled to be completed in the next few months, with the exception ,If environmental per'l11tting. CommIs- sioner Volpe questioned if the fir,al design was both the north/south and Page 3 I OOOOG I JULY 6, 1989 , the eant/west corridor? Mr. that in both cases a two-lane roadway was I shown, but since the roadways fall along the future network ot arterial roadways, they are going to be è.esigned to be expanded to 4 or 6 lanes. He ì explained that in April. 1989, the Board approved a rJ~ht-of-way map for J the north/south segment approxiulately 300 feet wide ani:! 17~ to 200 feet wide for the east/west segment. In response to Commis'!Jioner Volpe, he replied that the north/south segment is sufficient for a six-lane roadway, identified in the 2015 Road Plan. He noted th~t the consulting firm has prepared many of the site sketches and right-of-way information necessary to proceed with acquisition, but with no dollars, that phase is at a star.dstill. Commissioner Volpe questioned how much of the gas tax revenues have been committed to this project? Mr. Archibald r~sponded less than $600,000 and that the total cost will be approximately $62ð,00O. He pointed out that the County is look:~ng at the cost of the right-of-way acquisition, the construction cost, updating the previc:lus construction COLt and assuming that 50 percent of the needed right-of-way cost would be donated at no chnrge. He pointed out that ~O percent I:lf the small parcels adversely impacted cost is sho~ß in the cost estimate. Mr. Archibald explained that the tentative apporti(:lnment ha. been updated and a change troll' $5,000,000 to ~12,200,000 is reflected as an assessable cost and the total proje~ted cost exceeds $13,000,000, which is to be considered today. He notl'!d that the difference represents funding to be provided by th., County for items previously outlined. In re.pons. to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald sta~ed the costs would come from gasoline taxes. Commissioner Shanahan q'Jestioned the signiticant change in tigures? Mr. Archibald replied that f i Ire items were added to thl! project and noted he would explain the cost of ea,::h. County Manager DoJ~rill suggested looking at Page 8 of the Executive Summary. Mr. Archibald explained that the cost of road improvements increased 1.~ million dollars, resulting from road conßtruction, drainage improvements and the bridge at Immokalee Road. ¡¡"il pointed out that .4 million dollars for utility improvements include. a Page. O(J{ H)7 . .......~ - - .,,- .JULY 6, 1989 w4terline for current and future needs. In response to Commissioner Volpe, he replied that the waterline is covered under the special , .....sment. He not,.d that the right-ot-way acquisition has increased 1.6 million dollars because land values have increased and smaller parcels impacted will have to be acquired by the County, as well as remainders ot the parcels. He stated that t~e financing cost may have b.en overlooked at the preli&inary stages and the increase ot 3.8 million dollars represents capitalIzed interest for 3 years of 2.7 million dollars and a debt reserve of 1.2 million dollars. Comlllissioner Volpe emphasized that those costs have increased as a result of the project qoing from 5 ~illion to 13 million dollars, rather than being overlooked. County Manager Dorrill commented that the scope of the project has expanded with more interest an~ right-ot- way costs. He explained that capitalized interest and debt reserve are required to meet the obligations. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Archibald responded that 'f the project goes as sche- duled in two years. rather than three, there will be çonsiderable savings. Mr. Archibald pointed out that an increase in the con- tingency based on the dollar allount is .8 million dollars, and the total of the five items account for the large increase. He indicated that people in the MSTU have re!ceived their tentative .ssessment, which has doubled. He pointed out the assessment figure is based on four factors: 1) nul!lber of aCl~efJ, 2) amount of frontage, 3) distance \ the parcel is located from exiotlng roadways, because many of the par- eels are landlocked, and 4) relationship to the new road to be constructed. Commissioner Volpe questioned the diUerence in the assessment for an owner of a 5 acre parcel with frontlige on Livingston Road? Mr. Archibald replied that the 5 acre parce1s ,.,ent from $ð,OOO ( and $10.000 to $15,000 and $25.000 and an assessment .~t $3.500 Ver acre on a 5 acre parcel would be $19,000 over a period ot 27 years. Mr. Archibald stated that the Clerk's office has received two let- t~rs of objection addressed to Jam~s C. Giles from Carl~. Fernstrom i Page ð OOOOS ,...- I JULY 6, 1~89 and Cleda Hedrich (Exhibits A and BI. Comm1s:!oner Volpe noted that I ¡ he had inquiries from the ownflrs of smaller pieces of property and I property owners concerned about the loss of s1gnific~nt portions at 1 their property to right-of-way. He questioned takin7 frontage on the J east side, rather than the weltt side. Mr. Archibald responded that acquiring right-of-way for th~ new road was placed to the west, taking advantage of the larger parcels, and also by moving the right-of-way away from the smaller parcels that would be adversely impacted by a subÐtantial taking. He explained that the final right-of-way map depicts 300 feet of right-of-way go.lng north and south and 2~O teet ot that 1s located to the west of the quarter s6ction line and ~O teet is located to the east and that 50 feet would encumber a number of small parcels. but most small parcels have 300 fee': of depth and Staff I s assump- tion was by taking 50 feet from the smaller parcels they would not be lett with an uneconomic remainder. He pointed out that the Staff will be authorized to negotiate the purchase of the entire parcel it the re.ainder is of no use. In response to Comm;lssioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald stated that two small pal"cels at the north end would be con- sidered a whole take. In response to Commis~ioner Hasse, Mr. . Archibald stated that the only homes are 1n the north end and the i residents in that area go to Lee County and come dotm Bonita Beach Road and Imperial Road to get to their homes. Commissioner Volpe questioned when the notices ",el'e sent to the property owners? Mr. Archibald responded that the notices .,ere sent 2 weeks ago to all the property owners by Jim Giles, the Clerk. ) 1 Conamis6ioner Volpe commented that there a::-e fewer than 200 property 1 owners in the district with Naples addresses, the r(!st are throughout the Uni ted States and oversea.s. Mr. Archibald stat(td that the minlD1UJ11 time required has been met. A discu&sion tollowed about notice in a tim.,ly way. ~o~nty Manager Dorrill pointed out that a secondary s~curity pledge required for road construction financing and as8e'~S:JIent collec- Page 5 OO( jO~j '-'--'- ...-.. JULY 6, 1989 tion .eth~ds proposed should be discussed. Commissioner Volpe questloned where the project is in relation to the ð and 10 year work progrum? Mr. Archibald stated that this pro- 1 ject shows up as an assessment project and the County has allocated so.e funds for its share of the cost. He pointed out that the project will proceed based on the benefitting owners paying their fair share of the total cost. He ~xplalned that the County does not have funds to build the road within the 5 and 10 year time plan from a revenue stand- point. He stated that the HI95 and 2015 needs plan, approved by the MPO, reflect portions of thef,e roads needed for circulation within the County because I-75 and U.S. 41 are the only north/south links. Commissioner Volpe comment'!ld it would be a two-lane rural, four lane tuture plan. Co..ission~r Volpe questioned Livingston Road south ot Immokalee's location in the !ì year program? Mr. Archibald stated that is not in the program. because that is justified upon development in that corridor, of which there is none currently planned. He explained that the 5 and 10 year plan represents dollars available and the 1995 and 201ð plan reflect the County's travel nepds. In re~ponse to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald replied there is a need reflected south of Immokalee Road. He summarized that the 2015 study reflects the need for the north/south corridor, and the 5 and 10 year plan says the need is not funded. Assistant County Manager McLemore stated that the Board 1s being asked to take three specific actions: 1) determining, by virtue of the public hearing, if the p~ople want to pursue this project, 2) it , ; so, approving the motion Quthorizing a covenant to appropriate and enhance th 1.s bond issue and place on the tax assesli;ment rolls, and 3) paøs ~ resolution to collapse, bi-modal bonds. He explained that the ¡ outstanding bi-modal bonds must be terminat:!d and the covenant to j appropriate is the most complex issue. He pointed out tha.t cost increases have had some impact on the marketability of bon'Js ð':~ to the unfavorable project cost to assessed value ratJ.o. He explained t Page 7 . UO(Jl0 ¡ . , ' ..' ", "'.,... . . - ! 1 ~ 1 JULY 6, 198~ that .arketability and potential default make it necessary tor the bonds to be enhanced, and the impacts of that decision are as tollows: 1) not passing the covenant to appropriate affects the cost to the f ¡ property owner because the interest r<J.7¿; will be substantial).; higher. t 1 In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Dave Fischer of SunTrust I I Securities, responded that a 7 percent bond enhanced Triple AAA rating ~ , V8. an unrated bond would cr~ate a $2,000,000 int~rest ditferential I OV8r 27 years. He stated th,st there is a 1 perce~t difterence between I unenhanced totally non-rated bonds and a Triple AI~ enhanced bond. He 1 ¡ explained that, even wi th t:hc, appropr iat ion, there is no guarantee I that Insurance can be obtain,!!d, but he is confident Moody and Standard \ & Poor's rating as an investrnent grade would make a difference in the ì interest rate and be only $700,000 over the life of the bonds. He ¡ pointed out tt,at a non-rated bond and a weak assemJed value VB. the ! I . cost of the project, the dif~e~ence may be greater than 1 percent. Mr. Fischer explained that a water/sewer project on Marco Island, with ,. housee laid out, has an asseused valuation of $50,000,000 va. a .illion dollar sewer project based on a ~atio of 5~ to OnE!; whereas in this J case the assesBed valuation of $38,000,000 vs. $12,000,000 in i.prove- . .ants drops the ratio to 3 to 1, which is quite narrow. . ¡ ! Mr. McLemore stated that, regarding point 1, the impact to the ¡ property owner is 1 percert in the interest rate, but ~ore signiticant t i is the impact to the Count '{. He noted that arbi t~age earnings rel.- ~ tive to the use of bi-modals can be cut in half if the bonds cannot be I ; rated or insured. He emph~si~ed that there is no chance ot insuring; the bonds if the covenant to appropriation i8 not done. I Mr. McLe:nore explained that potential default due to the difficulty in ! tinancing an assessment bund is particularly problematic. He empha- I sized that bond counsel, underwriter, fiscal adv1~.or and th. e finance com- I -- ~~ H ~ ~rt_h~ ~Bu~d ~- - fubM -~y ~ . I ~ det.nlt in the County's total Capital Improvements progr.... anà what It would mean in the future, and it is simply a risk not wc,rth taking. He sum- I Page 8 ! 00011 t ,.,-..-- \ ! ~~'. lO.. ! aar1zed that it ,. coopol11o" to OOyo to tho coy""aot to appropria.. I j ( because of the potent ial deta,ult and its results. He noted that the ( ! ¡ possibll.í.ty of default is lh,ited. and approval of the authority to ; 1 have the issue placed on the Tax Collector's rolls as a lien against the property is one of the strategif's employed. Commissioner V~lpe commented that his question is how badl7 the Board wants to do the project. rather than the risk vs. benefit, and \ I Commissioner Hasse questioned if the County needs the size of the pro- ¡ ! ject contemplated? I~ Tom Giblin of NaborfJ, Giblin, Steffens and Nickerson in Tampa, .' bond counsel for Collier County, noted that this is one ot the riskier' . ì bond issues ColJier County will ever do because assessment bond is.ues f I are not well received in the narketplace as a number have gone into 1 I default. He explained that this particular bond issue has ~ relati- ' ! vely low ratio of assessed valuation to the asseSS2ent itself. He I noted that a Covenant to Budg(!t and Appropriate from legally non ad ! : ! valorem monies was suggested to the County and Finsnce Committee. He I ¡ pointed out that each fiscal year there is a deficit in the reserve 1 ¡ account or amount of money nec;essary to pay the bonds, the County will I budget and appropriate from those legally available non ad valore.. 1 ¡ 8utticient money to make up the det icit. He empha,sized that the abi- I lity to issue senior lien bonds in the future from g&S or sale. tax will not be infringed upon. lie stated that Nabors, Giblin and S.ith Barney made clear to the insurance companies that the County is not i "illing to give negative covenants and ccnstrain the County's abi. lity ! I to issue senior lien debt. H(! responded to Cownis¡ioner Volpe t'\at i I thi8 is the first time Collier County has given a Covenant to Budget 1 I and Appropriate in connection with a bond issue, but it has been done \ i ! t in other counties as a bac¡:up 'nd primary mechanisll for paving bonds. I He stated i t is used to back tIp weak credi t, such ¡IS aSSfløC:IIent tran- ! j sactions not considered creditworthy. In response! to Coll1!llh.sioner ! j Hasse, he noted that the resul ts have been good, de!pending on the i ¡ . I j Page 9 I ¡ ()CHI:2 .__..-- \ I JULY 6, 1989 \ ~ underlying credit. He pointed out that two insurance co.pani.. were! . lukewarll about Covenants to Budget and Appropriatft. but one or two t ¡ \ were enthusiastic. t j Co_is.ioner Volpe indicate'd the I'.inance Committee recommand. ! ~ 1 ¡ adoption because there is a si~~ificant benefit to the public beyond> ¡ ¡ t this MSTU and que5tioned what the significant b~nefit is? Mr. ' McLellore responded that the County will have to deal with develOPing: t ¡ an efficient, safe and effective transportation network in the com- r .unity. He stated that dollars are tied to that goal and undev.l~ped ¡ \ property will have to be made accessibl~ by establishing this c~rridor , , between Lee and Collier County. He explained that bond enhance~.nt . , and lower interest rates should be given to people in the district j , ! because they are helping the County adopt ovftrall tranelportation. He i . , noted that the property owner w:lll get a lower interest rat. although I the cost is higher, a long term important projðct will be i~ place t f and the County will ~enefit frODI the arbitraue earnings on the b1- .odals. Coamissioner Volpe emphasized that a substantial b~nefit to the public outside ot the taxing district is not in the County's ð and 10 ¡ ; year program; Livingston Road South of Immokalee Road is not plannftd ! I on a needs basis and he does not see any motivation tor pledging tax I reve=.. 0' the co.~ity to thio particular projact. Hr. Hc~.ora I responded that the overall mission of transportation to put a system ¡ I in place is of greater benefit than the district itselt. t ! Coaaissioner Volpe asked if there are sufficient monies to carry the debt service? Mr. McLemore ¡itated th~t there i~ and calculations . ¡ are .ade ahead of time to demonstrate the ability to payoff the bonds; ! ~nd thft secur i t ie,s over and be) ond tha t . In response to Commissioner \TaIpe, Mr. Fischer IJtated that the a..e.sllents axceed the debt service by a ratio of 3 to 1; there 1s no growth or 1ntlation factor. Mr. Michael Hole of Smith Baloney indicated that the financing is . Page 10 ¡ j {jUt Þ13 .~ I . -.-......- ,~._. , JULY 6, 198~ ¡ ¡ designed to support itself throtlgh the asl!lessments and the backup ¡ \ COVEnant is designed not to be touched. He explained 'that no aore I revenues other than excess of a million dollars in gas tax revenues should be put into this financing. He noted that if ~he bond issue i was going to go into default, the covenant will keep it out of ¡ default. Commiscioner Volpe quustloned collecting the monies by sal" j of tax certificates, if a detl:lu.lt occurred? Mr. Hole :responded "Y.s." ¡ ¡ He pointed out that the sale of tax certificates is a lengthy process t \ and this is an interim cash flol~ mechanism to keep the payments current and tho bnnde cut 0' dohuH, .0 .-phedzod that without tho . covenant the County would be in technical ðefault. In re.~~~~~ to 't Commissioner Hasse, he stated that the cash f low and a:,sessment analy- i . t sis show approximately $12,200,000 million dollars ass~ssment on ¡ t $38,000,000 of property evaluation. i.e. the 3 to 1 ratio. He ¡ . explained that total evaluation was used, wbich is the market \ ~ value less real estate selling costs. i Finance Director Yonko~ky stated that the assessmel~t roll was I ¡ legally advertised, letters were sent to e-"~ry property owner on June , ! 12, 1989 by regular mail and of the 145 sent. 3 were r'tturned "address ¡ ~ I I unknown" and two letters of objection (previously entered as Exhibits t . I A and B). A discussion followt!'d about the letters retl>lrned. ' .. Co~issioner Volpe pointed out that the profile of the property ,t t are. in this special taxing disltrict are developers wi th signiticant ,.. i acres and tew are Naples reside!ntl!l. . 1 Coamissioner Volpe commenteJd that the County will Joe e.barklng on a ~ignificant road program over the next 5 years and projections show ; } bonded indebtedness in the nei~rhborhood of $25,000,~OO to $30,000,000 lover the next ten years. He stated that he was unsure as to whether ¡ ¡ or not he would support this bclnd issue. t Co_issloner Hasse pointed out that the assessment t.ill be cased 1 against those who beI1ef i t. A"torney George Y.~rnadoe of Young, Van Assenderp, 'i1arnadoe & . t Page 11 ! O()(Jj.l ! I . '.'.'.1--- " 0 .......... ' , " ,--,..,..- 1 1 I JULY 6, 1989 t . I ¡ Bc:l~on, reviewed the past hißtcry of this project tor the new .ember. ¡ 1 on the Board of County Commielsioners. He stated that the primary pur- PQ~e tor thi8 MSTU is to provide ~ ~¡ighway network and is a valid ; pt;t,llc benlttit because it would be part of the CountY-ldde net\'l'ork., ! I th" only existing opportunity for a north/south roadway between 7J.S. ¡ ! 41 ,,;¡d I-15. He pointed out that the Board approved a pro~ect blucking the extension of Airport Road north o~ the pr~mise that I Uvlqd= ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ - ~=" >- - _d ~ U.S. u. I 1 He explained that Livingston Rclad is a better c:orridor tor multi-lanes, t ¡ and other developments south have been required to ded.icate ref'lerve I ~ I t! j ¡ Ï; ¡ right-ot-way for the extension I)f Livingstor. Road, whil::h will run from f RadJo Road north to the County line and west to U.S. '1. He explained ¡ i thdt the Growth Management Plan provides for this road as both ftust/west road going east of I-15 and as a north/south corridor. He t stated that the landowners will underwrite the cost anj Collier County ~ will provide back-up security and assume some of the cost of the pro- j ¡ je~t. He noted that assessed value will increase as access is pro- I I v!ded and the prop~rty is developed for residential purposes. He explained that the County should bear the cost of additional lan&s on I 1 an ørter1al roadway that benefIts the public at large and not the MSTU, . I and acquiring right-of-way for that should be paid tor ~y County . I dol:ars. He indicated that ir.creasing the size of the waterline will I benefit future Tesjd~nts and the hook-up with U.S. '1 will benefit < . people outside the dj~trict. He stated that there is no provision for f ! ' 1 credIts against sys~e~ d~velopment charges. He pointed out that lan- downers are paying twice tor hook-up and development and +he con:~truc- ; tion cost of the oversized waterline should be included as a credit , for utilities. When questioned why the financing cost of capitalized ! : interest is going from 2 tc 3 years, he explained th&t arbitrage ( ¡ ., would pay for the first 2 years, not the 3rd year, ar..d the rese¡ove fund 1 be specified to payoff the amount of the indebtednel!:s when the i ¡ construction psriod is over and the assess.ents have started. , ! Page 12 :t.. . OUt) 1.:; .._- JULY 15, 1989 Mr. Archibald .tated that the road i.pact ordinance allows credits where a developer or property owner builds a pare ot the infra.tructure which is identified in the County's Co.preh~n~ive P1an. He noted that for putting lines larger than needed to be consi.tent with the County's long term plan, the exce~s ~o.t ot the Il1provement 1. considered for credit. He pointed out that the Board -y want to consider a provision for credits for waterline imprf)v.- ..n':s as well. In ¡ espo~~~ to Commissioner Hasse, he noted that all con~truction dolla~ part of an apportionment are subject to a credit. He þl1inted out that the credits are allocated to vacant property and in the future when the property is developed, the credits will go into effect. He indicated that improve.ents are being provided by the lan- downer who i. paying the cost and providing the i~trastructure. He .tated that this should apply both to roads and utilities. A di8cus.ion tollowed about i.pact tees. Co..ie.ion.r Shanahan coaaented that credits should be considered in relationship to the excess cost of a larger waterline. Mr. Archibald indicated that the road credit would be applied based upon the hard cost ot construction in the assess.ent when the project is completed. A discussion tollowed about credits for the waterline. Mr. Archibald pointed out that at the final hearing, when the co.pleted construction cost is figured, the County could break out both the credits that apply to road construction and water line installation. Attorney George Varnadoe indicated that MOuld be satl.- tactory to hi. clients. Mr. Archibalà stated that the increased right-ot-way cost tor going tro.. to 6 lanes, includes the County absorbing. l.rg~ e.K~t of the co.t relative to the first mile north of Immokalee Road i~ Section 2., repre.enting a tair share commit.ent. He explained that th~re -y be a ba.ls tor including right-of-way costs for future credits. Attorney George Varnadoe reiterated the lesser cost of a two-lane road, and anything above 4 lanes should be paid by the County up front or credit P.ge 13 OOU1G - JULY 6, U8~ against road i8pact fees should be available. ~ft Commissioner Shanahan commented that the public at la:r'ge would benetit troa six-Ianing the ar'cer ill.\ corr id"r. A discussion foll~wed about alt.r- native roads in tho Gounty. County Manager Dorrill pointed out that this project is equal to driving the six 8ile Cypress Loop in Port Myers. He explain.d that it you need to Dove north and south in Lee County you Nill recognize what a disaster U.S. 41 is, and that loop is a viable alternative to skirt you around the edge of town and move you to the north Port Myers area. Attorney Varnadoe stated that his clients support this project, but assessments must b~ capable of being specifically related to a special bsnefit derived for the property being assessed. He reiterated his position on road and waterline impact tees. In response to Commissiorer Volpe, he stated that he r~presents about 600 or 700 acrtl.. ... Rece88: 10:.0 A.M. - R8conv*D8d: 10:&0 A.N. at which t.ø. Deputy Clerk K8DyoD repllKled Deputy Clerk Kraft ... In answer to Commissioner Volpe regarding a reassessment risk, Mr. Giblin stated that assessment is for local benetit only, adding that it there is something assessed that has a large amOI1nt ot County-wide benetit, the~e is a risk that someone will challenge this a.......nt. He stated that he does not know how 8Uch ot this road is local benefit versus County-wide benefit. He stated that there is gas tax aoney that is going to this project which is for the County-~1de t~nefit, adding that the Bajority ~t the project 18 being pa.1d trom the a..e..ment. which will be the local benefit. As.iatant County Manager McLemore stated that there has been a preliminary apportionmen, done which will be refined when the tinal cost is known. Transportation Services Administrator Archib.ld stated that in 1986, the Board approved a resolution allocating cert~in costs which aaount to about on~-half million dollars, which is the County's cost Page 1<1 00{ a 7 -...-. .-- .JULY 6, 1989 tor right-ot-way. Co_i.sioner Volp~ .'tate.! that of the total amount, 2ð' i8 being allocated to the publl.;; and 7ð' to those within the special taxing unit for the ria~T' j~ ,way. Transportation S~Tvices Administrator Archibald stated that the 2ð/7ð split is for th~' right-of-way only and the clverall project is confined to a two-lane roadwisy improvement and those two lan~s will not benetit the overall county for many years. Mr. Giblin stated that it is difficult to quantify local versus County-wide benefits in a situation such as this one becau.e the bonds are being backed up which involves County involvement and possible use of county funds, He stated that the assessment Ordinance 86-40 has a provision that states that it the assessments are to be challenged, it ~Gt be done within 20 days af this hearing. Attorney Bruce Anderson representing Tavella Realty Associates of Naples, stated that his client owns 199 acres which are in three par- cels. He stated that the total projected assessment is $536,000. He stated that his client ~UppOl"ts the project but questions the aaaunt of assessment on the three plilrcels because "lOne of them are contiguous to or abut the roadway or water line. He stated that these thr~e par- cels will be pay1ng about 5' of the total cost and he feels that this is excessive. Mr. Archibald stated that these parcels were only assessed for the acreage, not the frontage or proximity to any existing road~. He stated that they were only &ssessed about $42,000 for proximity to the new road and the reason for this assessm~nt was based upon the County obtaining an easement that would connect this parcel of property to the new road. Øe stated that if this easement is not provided, then the a~se.sment would be reduced which is consistent with the apportionment formula that was approved in 1986. ¡.tr. Anderson questioned if any of the cost on these parcels inclu- de. the water line that i3 projected, to which Mr, Archibald replied nega- Page 15 ~UUJlð -, ...-..---"--'" _....-- -_.__. ~ .. JULY 6, 1989 tively, adding thlit it includl!ts the share of the water line that will be placed along the n1W road corridor. Attorney Anderson stated -::hat there is a need to amend the water system development charge ordinance to make a provision for credits for water impact fees in order to encourage the private sector to put the Doney up front and then receive a credit when it is time to develop, He stated that this is a significant benef it to the County. Mr. Jerome Smith of Re-Max Realty Group representing property owners holding approximately 600 acres, stated that his first contact regarding this matter was in 1983. He stated that the property owners in the ar.a wanted to gain access to this area and asked that the County create an MSTU. He stated that over the six year period, there was ov.rwhelming oupport for this district, adding that there was virtually no resiotance whatsoever. He noted that this area is the only area where another major north-south arterial road can be created between Lee County and Collier County. Commissioner Volpe questioned how these property owners teel about the increase in the cost of the project from $5.5 million to $13 million, to which Mr. Smith stated that anyone that he has apoken "ith has no objection, they simply ~ant the road built. Mr. William Po~e, representing the contract purchaser of Tax Parcel 7, stated that his client agrees with the MSTU a~d t~! assessment method. He noted that he also represents 4 o'lhl",r parcel owners which consist of about 30 acres of property and they are also in agreement with the MSTU and the assessment. Mr. John Vaughn, Vice Prel3ident of Coldwell Bankers, stated that he represents two property owners that own 7 parcels in this area who are in favor of the road projl!ct and the assessment. He indlcatad that he also represents other property owners that own a total of 70 acres and they are all in favor of the r~ad project. Mr. Paul Toppino, property owner of 80 acres, stated that he i8 totally in favor of the MSTU und the a~sessment. He noted that he has I Page 16 ¡ -- ._"""-- ------ JULY 6, 1989 been involved in trying to develop this project since 1983. Mr. Carl Fernstrom. Tru8t~e and individual owner of an 80 acre parcel. stated that he has concerns about the assessment because he does not have access to the east/west road, but feels the project is a good one and it should go forward, A~torney Geor~o Varnadoe, representing Naples Interstate A.sociates, stated that his client owns 240 acres in Section 19 which is the Carlton Lakes PUD. He stated that his client is in favor of this project but they are not in agreement with the assessment because they do not have road frontage. He stated that they are aBking for some adjustment prior to the final assessment. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Va~nadoe stated that based on his analysis, the consultants have been on the high side in their assessments. He stated that if only two years of interest reserve i. us~d by the time the proje~t is complete, the other years interest can be used to retire bonds and it would make the assessment on the pro- party less. He stated that the figures should not go ap at this point, but only down. CO88i..loner ShoILnahan 8OVtId, .econded by C0881..10D8~ Goodnight aDd carried ./0, (Ccl_l..1onezo Saunders ab.ent), that the ~bl1c beariDg be cloee<l. Commissioner Volpe stated that most of the major property owners have been heard from and all of them have been notified. He ctated that he favors this type of initiative by the property owners to create an MSTU and pay for this type of improvement. He noted that the project has increased significantly and the cost has gone from $5.5 .illion to $13 ~illion. He stated that his greatest concern is the risk and the pledge of the bonds. He stated that he would feel much better about the project it it was simply going to cost $5.5 million. He stated that what has driven this project is the tact that there is $70 million of bi-modal bonds that will collapse when this project is approved. He stated that he asked the Assi~tant County Page 17 OOl}Z{) .j' . '.- . . .' .' '. .. .. , .......".- , ~ "... . JULY 6, 1989 Manager it there are any other proj.cts that could utilize those bi- modal bonds and he was told th~t this is the only proj'lct. Commissioner Shanahan state.! that he 1s encouraged by the response of the property ownnrs, adding that these roa"-s are extremely impor- tant to the future ot the County ana the overall growth. He stated that he would like to find a way to amend the resolution to include i mp¡¡,c t fees on the water and th~ right-of-way acquisitions. He stated that he feels that it is the ri¡;¡ht thing to do. Commissioner Ha6se questioned if this bonding will have any impact on the future bonding in the County, to which Assistant County ~anager McLemore stated that 11' there was a default. it would have a tremen- dous impact on the County, but enhancements have been taken to make sure that this does not happen. He stated that everyone has reached the comfort zone and the issue has been put together in such a way to protect the County. ec-l_ioner SMn.h.n 8JV8d, eecr:Jnded by Co_l_ioIMr Goodnight ud CUTied ./0, (Co~a.ione:' Saunci..-, abaent), that Jlteeolutlon 89-117 ~ain1ng to the -Rorth Rapl.. Roadway Municipal Service Taxing aDd aenefit Unit- and confiraing the R.aolu~lon 89-1.2, order the COD8tractloa ot the roadway aDd water 11ne laprovetaenta by the "".L88Ðt ..thod to ba tlnance4 with epeclal _...~~t. against the baDefJtbld p81"C81a of property for 8Uch iapr0V88811te bl adopted. Page 18 OQ()"~l . .,., (, c . . .' .. . .. . . . \ /. '. , - ._," - ---".'" ...- --._-- ...-...--- " JULY 6, 1989 It- fiB1 IIIJLIJICDID'!' 01' TO KORTH IlAPLKS ROADWAY MSTU ASSESSMJœT BOJIDS WITH AJf UPIWPltIATIOW Pt.&1)OI - Ü'PROVED ec-l_iona-r Sban-ttAn 8OV8d, _conð.ed ~, Co_i.. loner Goodnight and car~led 3/1, (Co..i.sioner Volpo oppo.ed and Co..i..ioner Sa\~re ~t), that the utilization of a non ad valore. ;t.pprop1:'iation p)l.odge to enhance the Rorth .aple. Roadway Iaprove..nt boJC1d. be apprOV'".~; to li.it the U88 of appropriation pledge. to ...e....nt project. that have a tlcmat1dc! public benefit.. detenaina-d by thlt I'lnance CO8aitt- and. ..b8eq1aently ratified by the Board; and to authorize the p18C888l1t ot the project .....888nt roll on the Property Tax Roll. tor collec- tlon.. provided ~D Chapter 197, J'.S. Commis8~oner Volpe stated that the Commission .is being asked as a matter of policy i;~sed upon what the Finance ComÞ,ittee has determined, which is that thl~ project provides substantial benefits outside the taxing district and he has reservations about the risk in doing this. It.. fiBS -- USOLOTIOR '9-1I~1 raR REDEMPTION OJ' URUTILIZED BI-llenAL Z'.oJfDS - &DO P'ßD. PIUnING 01' OI'l'ICIAL STATBMERT AWARDED TI) PACDRD PROS Co..i..ioner Sb~~_han moved, .econded by Co_i,.sioner Goodnight and carried ./0, (Co..i..ioner Saunders ab8ent) , that Re80lutlon 19-1&8 tor red88ption of UDutilizec1 bi-8Odal bol~, be ad.op t ed. County Manager Dorrill stated that there is bound to be confusion over the Board's interest or concern referencing other agreements relative to impact fee credits. He stated that it would probably help him if he could have some action reJative to a separate agreement or desire on the part of the Commission concerning impact fee credits for both the advanced right-or-way purchase and the dij~ference between the basic trunk s,!st'-'m and the upsizing of the trunk sysl:em for the water main in conjunc~ion with the master plan. Attorney ~arnadoe stated that he would suggest that there be a staff recommendatIon and this be addressed at the time the final assessment roll is addressed. H~ noted that Staff has not addressed Page 19 00054 .-.--..- .JULY 6, 1989 this matter. c-J._lcmer SMriahen aovwd, .eçonded by Co_is8.1oner Goodnight aad carried ./0, (C~..10D8r Saunders absent), thlllt I:!tatf be directed to prepare an analY81. of appropriate credlt. and br1nv It M.ck to the Board. Mr. Dave Fischer, SunTrllst Securities, stated that bids were received !or the Official Statement that will need to be print~d. He stated that the best bid was from Packard Press Corporation. Finance Director Yonkosky stated that he is asking that the Board award th& bid for printing of the Official Statement to Packard Press Corporation. Mr. Fischer sta~~d th~t it will cost approximately $6,200, but it the official statement has to be printed on Saturday, it will cost another $5,000. C---4--1oner Sb.na~.n 8OV8d, .econded by C0881..iODfl' Goodnight 8Dd carried ./0, (Co8al..ioner Saunder. ab88nt), tba't the prinUnv of the official .t:at:...nt be awarded to Packard Pres. Corporation. Commissioner Shanahan stated that it should be made very clear that the Board prefers not to print on Saturday. Page 20 O{)( )55 - .--------- . JULY 6, 1989 It.. ~1 ISSOLUTIOR 89-1&9 OB.Jll:CTIRG TO OIL DRILLIRO AJlD EXPLCIR.l.TIOR OR TO ~:OA81' OW rLORIDA - J.t)OP'nD Environmental ServIces Administrator Lorenz statl!d that thif.' is '1 ¡Iroposed r~solution to oppose plans for offshore exploration of p~tro- leum development in any waters of the Gulf of Mexico that would ~igni- ficantly influence the natural coastal systems in Collier Cou~.ty. He :tated that on June 13, 1989, ~oe President's Outer Continental Shelt {,easing and gevelopment Task Force mt;¡t in Lee County to solicit ~ublic c:ollUllents concerning this item, adding that Staff was present and pro- ~'ided certain information conçarning objections with regard to the County's natural resources and protection of the comm~rcial and r'ecreational fisheries and because of the tourism industry based upon the beach system. He stated that for these reasons, Staff is rec.')m- IIlending that the BoaNl oppose any offshore drilling ,;)f petroleum pro- d:ucts in the Gulf "-'L Mexico. CO881..10ner Shanahan aoved, .econded by Co_i..loner Good.nlgtlt and carried ./0, (Co..i..ioner Saunder. absent), that Resolution 1:9-1&9 objectlD!1 to 011 dr11l1~ and exploration off tba C088t ot 1'10r1da, be ".~~ted. Page 21 0 (}(J;')R ---...---- . JULY 6, 1989 'rape n Itea .1U STU"J' DIUC'r..,a) TO nKPARE I'URTlllft ARALYSIS or I'URIH.G OPTIORS ),!,)R SOU"X"aaK8 PORTIOR OJ' S. ft. 9ðl; ftOADNAY RES~)RSIBILXTY J'OR S.ft. 9tJ.1 UD C.ft. tel TO R8MAIW STATUS QUO; I1IVJt:!:TICJATJ: "JU'luxH IT SHOULD 81 ~"1:ATJ: ruJmG BIGJmAY UD MHD AJfD IF IT CAR BE r.D1fDED IJID BUILT; UD a1'1.Y7 TO PftUAU AR UALYSIS RJ: BEST OTILIZATIO. or STA~rE AJfD nDDAï.. FOKDIRG ALLOCATIO. FOR S.R. 9!H TO ASSURE 'IIfAXIIrnM KOMBU OD' IJ.wJ: MILES ARK PROVIDED raft AVAILABLE DOLLARS Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that this is a report on the analysis of different toll scenarios for financing the S.R. 9~1 project and subsidizing those tolls \iith a combination of State dollars, impact f~es, and County gas taxes. HI! stated that there are a number of different outlines presented in the backup material attached to the agenda item. which consiut of four different scenarios. He stated that the first scenario was assuming that the County would handle the first three contracts by Hay of a toll project, which would mean having a toll for 23 years. He ntated ~hat if the County added to the toll re'¡enues. the State fundn which would be about $11 million in five years. then the number of years for the toll would be about 12 years. He stated that if the toll is supplemented with State dollars and impact fees, it would mean that the tolls would only have to be collected for about 10 years and :if the small amount of gas tax ,.,as added, it would be reduced to 8 years for collecting the toll. He stHted that the analysis gives everyone some ~dea of the change in the period in which the tolls would be in effect if certain additional revenues beCOmE! availäble to the County or if the County makes certain pl~dges against that project or debt service. He stated thllt the first option would be to go ahead with the three major contracts; the s~cond option Iwuld be to go ahead with the three major contracts and algc include the bridge; the third option would be undertake and finance the northern two contracts, assuming that the State already has the third contract (the southern contract) in its plans; and the fourth option is to f inallce the nor'thern two contracts with only County funds without a toll. He stated that under option four, the County does not have the funds from the combination of Page 22 OOOGJ - ---.-...._- JULY 6, 1989 i.pact fefrs and the gas tax to pay the debt service on a bond for the northern two contracts. He noted that recently, information hen become available as to whet ',!r the State's share, their $11 lIIil lion, is compatible wi1:h the toll project. He stated that the FDOT ha:) indicated that they are allocating Federal dollars and some State dollars to the southern portion of S.R. 951 and in the State's flve year plan. they are funding the southern portion with a combination of State and primarily FedeTal dollars. He stated that this information i. constrained by the fact that Federal dollÐrs cannot be used tor a revenue producing project, which means that if the COUllty wants to undertake that project in two, three, or four contracts and have a toll project, then the Federal do lla,rs cannot be applied to that job which amounts to $') or $10 million. He stated, therefore, that the Federal dollars would not be compatible in developing S.R. 951 as a toll project, which means that if the County il1Ulledi,!l.tcly develop" all three phases of this road as a toll project, it will take 23 years to payoff the debt service. He stated that he is hoplng that at the end or the five years, when the State comes up with their $11 million and it is put against the debt service for the bonds, it would reduce the period in tfhic:h the tolls would apply, from 23 year" to 12 years. He stated that if these are Federal dollars coming frODI the Stl'.te, the gonieo would not become available for the project and, therefore, would not reduce the debt servic~ or the number of years the toll would be in effect, which means that the project would have to continue as a toll project tor many ~ore years, He stated that the dollars from the State would be one of the important ingredients in assuring that if the County used the tc 11 route. the tolls would only be in place the ohortest period of time, but now he is finding that all the different options are not available to the County and as a result, if the Coun~y continues to consider tolls. they will have to be in place tor 23 or 24 years. He stated that this in~ormation has recently become avalleo.ble to stëlff. Page 23 ( on ('.? JULY 6, lSB9 CoamisAioner Shanahan stated that he has worked closely on this matter and based on what he undf".rstands, the Coun-cy cannot mix I!.¡,d match a toll road and State and Federal funds. He stated that jf the County elects to toll S.R, 951, they would lose $10 million. He noted that it also means that they would have to toll the entire road from U.S. 41 to the bridge and then ultimately the bridge. He stated that based on this infor'dlation. the people in that corridor would have to pay $40 million for the road, the bridge and the financing. He noted that it is not practical to think this way, adding that he feels that the whole idea of to lling the road from U.S. 41 south should be forgot- ten, He stated that he feels that the best way would be for the County to consider asking the State and the U.S, DOT to allow the County to determine what would be the best :::ourse of action in uti- lizing those funds as quickly as possible in order to help with the Growth Manage~ent Plans and in being in compliance with those plan.. He stated that he feels that the best action would be to reverse the dollars with regards to the expenditures. He stated that the money has been allocated in the five year FDOT plan for 1993-94 on the southern end of the bridge to MainsaU Drive, adding that he would sugg~~t that the County ask the FOOT to allow the County to change that construction project and do the first and second sections of the road from U.S. 41 to Mainsail Drive and the funding that the County has for the southern section would cover that construction. He stated that this would provide considerab1.e lane mileage that would help the County with regards to DCA an~ compliance with the Growth Management Plan. He stated that these lanes would approximate about 2/3 of S.R. 951 and would reduce a considel'able amount of traffic pressure plus alleviate three significanT problems with regard to side pressure and turning lanes at Manatee, Port-Au-Prince and Mainsail D>:,ive. He stated that he feels that FDOT wouid see the value in that kind of approach and he teels that the citizens would also welcome this kind of approach. He stated that the County should also continue to urge Page 24 Ut)( JG3 '.' .', ,,' "...:.' ,.' , -. .. ..', " .--.""'" ---.- JULY 6, 1989 the Federal Governlllent and the State to find the remaining fun""'!!! necessary to complete the southern section and ul~imately the bridge. He stated that it: is the responsibility of the Sta'", and they shollld be the ones tr> do it. He tltated that with regards to County Road ~51, Senator Dudley he.s indicated that this should be a state road because it is spur to I-75, adding that if the State wants to take over County Road 951 and fund it tor four-laning, the County should consider it. He noted that if this is done, then the $10 or $12 million that has been allocated for this road could be placed elsewhere in the County. Commissioner Hasse stated that hiD only prnblem with this idea is there is no telling ..,~en the State would complete that section. In answer to Commissioner Hasse. Transportation Servi~es Administrator Archibald stated that there are a number of advantages with regards to the two northern contracts, adding that the existin~ two lanes will no'c be changed. they will only be reconstructed. H.-. stated that south of Mainsail Drive. the entire alignment of the road will change and foul' new la.n~s will have to be built. He noted that the northern cont~act would be to reconstruct two lanes and build two lar.'~s, adding U.at there may be some real advantages in going ahead with that construction, He ::>1ated that FOOT has indicated that there may be real advan'cages to gettlng those contracts underway versus the contracts for the southern section because of thp environmeLtal problems and becallse of the bridge structures that would be involved in the southern portion, Commissioner Volpe questioned if the County is contemplating bonding in order to move forward with the construc~ion or is the County simply goir.'\1 to ask the State to reallocate those dollars from the southern one-third to the northern two-thirds, to which Commissioner Shanahan replied affirmatively, ac',ding that the County can then ask the State to find the funds for the rest of the project. 1<11'. Jerry Meyer questioned why FOOT will act now when they have said time and time again that there are no State funds available? He Page 25 U()( )(;.1 . . . . '," .. JULY 6, 1989 .tated at the town Ileat ings, it was decided to go forth with a toll as S.R. 951 has to be ",ideneð, for safety reasons. He noted that this has to be done ilUlediate'ly, not five years from now. He noted that it the northern section is four-laned first. it will provide all the ent:ran- ces and exits for the Deltona project, the Marriott golf course, and the Frank Harris golf community. but will not provide the needed roller for the southern section to the bridge or the additional bridge over to Marco Island. He stê'.ted that jf life is important, he would like to see the funds for the section of C.R. 951 north of u.s. .u reallocat~d to S.R. 951 south of U.S. 41. He noted that people need to be protected now and the dangerous conditioll~ of this road must be addressed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Volpe stated that safety i19 an issue and there have been discussions with regard~ to moving some of the truck traffic from 9151 to alternate Route 92. Ht, stated that there were discussions regarding reducing the spe~d llmit. He noted that there are things that cau be done and the County should continue to explore them. He stated that one of the real issues is that this road is an evacuation route. Mr. Meyer sta~ed that when thIs tfJSUe was previously bro'lght up, it was not voted on becau~e the Chairman was absent that day and since he is not present this day, he would ask that this be taken into con- sideration. He ~3st1<::med if there are any State funds that could be used to strengthen certain parts of C.R. 92 so that alternate construction traffic could be brought over that road which would relieve a great amount of traffic that is on S.R. 9517 Commissioner Volpe stated that the Commisslon has responsibilities tor their constituents and their safety is a concern, but S.R. 951 is a State highway and the County does not have the immediate respon- sibllity. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he wants to get the road done as quickly as poÐsible and he feels that this is the quickest way to get Page 26 O()( JG;> ~._ ' "'- - .-. .-- ... ._~-_._.-._.~.._~ - .-.~. .- .... JULY 6, 1989 it done, which is why he is encouraging the Commission to he,l.r hi.. viewB. He stated that if the State wants to take over C.R, 951 and fund the fo~r-lanin!¡ to I-75, it would give the County another $12 million for use in the County which he would ask !~r a fair shar~ to tiniBh this road, He stated that he wants to get commitments from the U.S. Government and the State to finish the road because everyone shares the view ot safety, evacuation, convenience, and emer~ency. County Manager Dorrill stated that Mr. Oate8 left a copy of a resolution that was, prepared by the Board of Director~, which was not presented to the Clerk, Co8ai..ioner Shanahan 1IOVed, .econded by Co_i.eioner Volpe, that Staft be directed ~o further analyze funding option. particularly with regard to future r~l'V8nue .ouree. for the .outhQrn portion of S.R. 9&1; t~.t COD81deration of roadway responaibility for S.R. 9~l and C.R. 9~l r...tn atatua quo, but inve.tigate whether thiB should be a State fund.4 hlgbMey and inve.tigate when and if it will be built to alle- viate 8088 of the financial pre.sure. that the County baa; and that the .pacific analy.i. be taken into consideration for the be.t utlli- zatioD of the current State tundlng allocated to S.R. 9ðl to -.uT. that .t:b8 ..xi-- nwabcar of lane ~ll..s are provided for the avallabl. c1allu'8. Co_issioner Volpe stated that all part of the recom.mE"ndation, Commissioner Shanahan may want to include the use of C.R. 92 as an alternate route. Commissioner Shanahan stated that there has been approval from the State that would allow the County to make th~s road an alternate route. He stated that in so fer as truck traffic, the FDOT would con- sider moving trucks that are permitted to C.R, 92 during heavy traffic hours. Tranaportation Services Administl'ator Archibald stated that the County has shored up the brid~e on C.R. 92 and the capacity has been increased, adding th~t it will handle a certain amount of truck traf- Page 27 (){)()GG I : í .' :,1' ì': . . .' ¡ I- " ,~ " ~ ".,,;',~ ,,"'c."... "':~"I' ,oj ..",', .,......,-".- JULY 6, 1989 tic. He noted th.,.t there is some leveling to this roadway that is schedu]ed next year. Commissioner Goodnight stated that with regards to the second 9art of his motion, sh,! has a pro~lem with the State taking any more roads in her dlstrict bncauBe the ol\ly thing that the State has done in her district so far i J move a roaè over so that the panthers could see oncoming traffic. She stated that they have not applied any money to roads that need i 1: or to help in saving II ves. Commissioner Volp~ asked with regards to C.R, 92, does the Board need to give Staf I: &uiï,E' direction, to which Commissioner Shanahan stated that at th:.s time, it is a separate issue and should be addressed later. Commissioner Volpe questioned who controls the Epeed limit on S.R. 9~1. to which Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated. that the FDOT has undertaken some speed studies and there are speed zones that have bE'en established, adding that in many areas the speed has been reduced from 4~, m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. He stated tha't th~re is one segment that is still at 55 m.p.h. Commissioner Shanahan stated that from Mainsail Drive north to Manatee, th~ speed limit is 55 m.p.h., trom Manatee to U.S. 41. the speed liui t 1s 45 m.p.h.. and from the bridge to Mainsail Drive, it is 40 m.p.h. Mr. Archibald stated that the County can request that the State revi~it this issue, but he feels confident that the speeds that have been established have good basis. CoJUl!lssioner Shanahan stated that he would suggest for the safety of those concerned, that the speed limits be revi~ited. Commissioner Volpe questioned if some expenditures can be made with regards to deceleration lanes. to which Mr. Archibald stated that there are two locations where he is working with th6 FOOT to come up with n turn-lane plan, which ia at Manatee and S.R. 951 and at Port-Au-Prince and S.R. 9~ 1. He stated that this is still under discussion at this time. Upon c.~l tor the qu.stion, the aotion carried unaniaou8ly. Page 28 UU( )G7 -.- - 81 ..AII- .. - " .- --- -- JULY 6, 1989 e.... Deputy Clerk HoffJl.8\I\ replaced Deputy Clltrk lCenyon at this ti.e - 1:00 P.M. ..... ¡te. '13A RESOLUTIO. 8i-laO, UTILIZING COKPISCATION TRUST ~JNDS MATCH ~DERAL DOLLnS TO PftOVItIJ: FOR THE CORTIlfOATIO. 01' A COMPIU:HJ:.SIVE DRUG ABUSE P1lEVSJIT I o. , APP1lUIDSIO. MID TREATM!I:NT COALITIOK PROGRAM - ADOPTED Deputy Tom Storr~r of the Sheriff's Office, advised that this is a request to appropriate tunels in the amount of $68,743 tram the Law Enforr.ement Conflscation Trust Fund for matching Federal Funds for th~ Comprehensive Su~ntance Abuse Grant. He fur~her requested that a Resolution be adopted, whereby, the Board of County Commissi~ners will continue to be the flub-grantee for that Federal grant. Co..i8sioner Goodnight aoved, 8econded by Comaiss10ner Volpe and carried 3/0 (Co..ais',,';"":lOer Shanahan not present and Co_issioner Saunders absent), to apprcwe the Sheriff'. request to utilize Confi8cation Trust l'und8 for the continuation of the Drug Abuse Prevuntion, Apprehen8ion and Treat..nt Coalition Prograa, and that Resolution l1i-l60 be adopted. Page 29 ()()( JGB 8. ---- _11_"0.- I ..,., ..- .,....,....-..- JULY 6, 1989 ... C0881'fliclner Shanahan returned at 1:05 P.M. ... X t- "B2 PtRGIDD.IRG SEftVICKU I'OR THE COLLII:R COU1f'!Y BEACH !!OURISBMJ:1n' PROGRAM :: AMAJtDKD TO COASTAJ~ I:KGIDERIRG CÇlKSULTARTS OJ' RAPLES Technical Services Supervisor Huber explained that as a result of the Commission's ac ': i:Jn on June 13. 1989. presentations will now be ¡;,rov ided by t:he conllulting firms of Coastal Planning and Engineer1ng of Boca Raton, and Coastal Engineering Consultants of riaples, regarding engineering serviceß for the Collier County Beach NouriRhment Program. ... Recess 1:05 P.M. - 1:15 P.M. ... Mr. Tom Campbell, President of Coastal Planning and Engineering of Boca Raton, introdu,:ed his firm's consulting team members: Richard Spadoni, Vice President; Susan Bume.ll. Permitting Specialist; Dr. Cliff Truett, former Chief Engineer' with the State of Florida, who )#1.11 be directing t:~~ dredge and f i 11 studies for the project; and Cheryl Cranke11. Marine Biologist. !-1r. Campbell adv Ü;ed that for the past two years, the Naplp.s pro- ject h1\s been in a pending process with the State of Florida, which means th8,'l the Department ;:)f Naturô,l Resources cannot recommend this project for funding to the Legislature until the pending status is removed. He explained tn::.c the requirements for the authorized status in to find an acceptable offshore ~Iand source, and to determine or evaluate the environmental aspects of the project. Mr. Campbell stated that hi~ f.:.rm has offices located in Boca Raton, Sarasota, arid Jacksonville, and they are the most experienced consultant in the country in putting together beach re9toration planning. He indicated that ,gince 1965, there have been a total of .6 beach restoration pr01e<.:ts in the :aate of Florida, and his firm has engin~~red 20% of 1:hese projects. Co:nmissioner Hasse questioned the anticipated amount of sanð that is to be placed on the beach? Mr. Campbell replied that approximately 2-1/2 million cubic yards of sand is required for the Naples project. Mr. Campbell r,:!ported that his firm's largest project was for the Page 30 ( )()( "~3 -- .. ..... JULY 6, 1989 Corps of Rngineer~ which entails the design of a 21 mile project in New Jersey, wi th a cost of $225 nlilllon. He advised that his firm's regional and west coast experience also includes studies in beach restoration management plan for Manatee County, an erosion control plan for Anna Maria Island. and a funding st"J.dy for Long ßoat Key. Mr. Campbe 11 advised that he d'Jes not anticipate that a continuous office would be required for thisyrojec.:t, however, during the study phas~. a local base would be established tor operations. He indicated that .analyses can be done from the firm's office. He not....i that during construction of the project. a field office will be provided. Commissioner Volp~ question~d whether Mr. Campbell's firm has ever undttrtaleen a $15-16 million 'oench renourishment project? Mr. Campbell replied that a Pompano Beach pro j e,: t in 1983 covered an area of !5 miles, and the cost wat; $10 millio:'1. He noted that currently his firm has three projects in-house: Palm Bea,:h in the amount of $13 million; Hollywood/Ha'lendale in the amount of $10 million; ~nd Delray Beach in the a:nount of $6 million. In answer to Commissioner Volp'~, Mr. Campbell advised that 90% of his firm's worle is beach l'estora': iQn, and 10% of the work is coastal related. Mr. Campbell stated that the Naples project involves the Vanderbilt Beach area and the annu.",l erosion rate is extre~ely slow; the Parle Shore area has an annual ~rosion rate of 1 foot per year, as compared to 2-5' feet per year in other projects within the state; North Naples has an erosion rate of 1-1/2 -2' per year; and in South Naples 1/2 of the erosion of all of. the Naples headline area has occurred in the southern 3.000-4,000 feet, next to Gordon Pass. MI'. Campbell indicated that the major design consideration for the project will be to protect the high quality homes in Naples, an(~ to .ake sure that there will be re'"'reational areas for the residents and tourist!!!. He noted that the previous consultant hils proposed the beach to be 150' wide. He advised that the same job can be Page 31 (J U U;'.l - ..-- . .----.---. JULY 6, 19B9 accomplished with less beach. noting that sa\,ings can be afforded by trimming the beach back to a more efficient design. He indicated that when the Corps of Enqlneers studied the Naple3 beach in 1972. they proposed a 25' wide beach. Mr. Campbell adviRed that in doing the offshore investigations, one of the first steps is the sid.e scan sonar. He' indic""ted that this has been done, and rock has been located for the Naples project. He noted that the seismic survey sends sound waves to the bottom and locates pockets of sand. Commissioner Volpe asked how important it is to find compatible sand? Mr. Campbell stated that this is probably the most important element of the project. adding that witi\out beach compatible sand, there really is no project. He indicated that th~ offshore bottom must be identified very closely, and noted that Steadfast Ocean Enqineerinq. of Ft. Lauderdale. and Exmar. of Norfolk, Virqinia ar;:. the subcontractors who will provide the seismic and side scan work. He explained the prQcedure for seismic record taking, as depicted in his slide presentation. Mr. Campbell statE:d that the last element of the offshore investi- qation is the physical probing and the vibracorino of the offshore sands. He indicated tha": this operation is the most expensive of those to be performed. He explained that the core is extr~cted from the bottom. and then it i6 analyzed to cteterminc the compatibility of the sand. He further explained the various surveys as shown by cc.m- posite, in the slide presentation. He noted that 70 cores have been taken offshore, but there has only been a :0% success rate. He indi- cated that his firm's success rate is 90%. rape'. Mr. Campbell advised that one of the other findings has been that the offshore material 1s finer and no sand has been found off of Naples proper, therefore, 40% more material will be required. He indicated that a 150' design project has been identified, with a base Page 32 UO( )'75 ', ' ~, .. j (i '. ..--. ~-.- ~ ~. .,- --.-..-... --....,.-... .... . - JULY 6. 1989 line cost of $15.5 million. with a potential cost over-run which brings the total to $25.9 million. He advised that if uning the beach design of 56 '. and given the offshore ccr:-ections of volume, the total cost for the rroject will be $12.6 million, Mr. Camp be 11 reported that his firm has secured eKten~ive funding for their clientfl. aòdir.g that they work with the individual city or county lobbyists, Commissioner Volpe stated that the County does not have a lob- byist, Mr. Campbell not...d that he would then be working with Ms. Debbie Flack, who works for the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association (FSBPA) , He advised that the cost to join the FSBPA Lobbying Program would b~ $3.000, Mr. Campbell indicated that a breakdown of funds for the Naples project, in which the State will participate is as follows: Vanderbll t - 26%. and Ifaples/Park Shore - 56~. for a total or about $6 million. Commissioner Shanahar. questi~ned what the difference is between Vanderbilt and P;3.rk Shore? Mr. Campbell stated th,3.t the difference is accessibility and parking. Mr. Rick Spadoni advised that permitting for the project revolves around environmental issues. He noted that the Naples area has more environmental is:5ues than any other community on the west coast of Florida. He indicated that the reef areas offshore can also cause environmental im;¡:¡acts. He reported that no firm within the State of Florida has more experience in achieving permits in areas of hard bot- toms. ,is do".!s hi3 firm. He indicated that his firm is the only firm in the State of :~lorida that has ù".!signed and constructed mitigation for beach res tor,3.t ion proj ects. Mr. Spadoni indicated that the local DER was contacted to discuss the Naples project. anå they advised that they would not accept sand with a silt clay of higher than !,%, He stated that Naples sand con- tent cnntaina a 511 t clay of 12%, noting that there are major problems Page 33 U()()';"G '",,',1, <', .. .,. ' " < I .. ~. ,! ,. . " ::r. . .'..' , '.. . \ ' . . . .. - " .--~.. -.,. JULY 6, 1989 which must be overcome. He note,! that the Dredge and Fill Section at the State level was contacted, alld they are unaware of this project. In answer to Commissioner Vo~pe, Mr. Spadoni replied that permits are not required for the vibracore operation, but permits will te required for the reach restorati~n. Mr. Spadoni ~xpluined that if there is n borrow area and the material is environmentally unacceptable, selective dredging of the borrow area can ~e performed to hold down the silt clay content, and this will be acc~ptable to the State agencies. He noted that unfor- tunately, the vibracore record in Naples is very poor, and he is uncertain as to '~hether this can be done. He added that Naples has reef systems which are fairly rare on the west coast of Florida, and this also complicates the permitting process. In closing, Mr. Campbell stated that the reasons Staff selected his firm as the ~~mber One consultant are as follows: 1. Extensi?e experience in beach restoration en&bles them to put the projects together and to obtain the funding. 2. Design ;~pproach will optimize the benefits to the community and reduce the overall cost and size of the project while accomplishing the needed storm protection. 3. Extensive experience in securing State and Federal funding for clilmts, at the highest level possible. 4. A track record of protecting the environment and securing the necessal'y permi ts. nee Reces. 2:10 P.M. - 2:1~ P,M. eee ~OI..tal Engineering ConsultaJ:1t8, Inc. Mr, Kris Dane, President of Coastal Engineering Consultants, lnc" stated that he and Mike Stephen ~tarted his firm in 1977. He indi- cated that their goal was to build the best qualified marin~ and engi- neering consulting firm, poBsibll!. He advised that their stra'tegy was to acquire, find and hire the be!Jt, and ~ost ~echnical people that they could. Dr, Mike Stephen advised tha~ Coastal Engineering has a staff of 49, with professionals in coastal engineering, environmental planning. and ~arine survey. He indicated that his firm also has a civil engi- Page 34 00( Jí'? ,:.'.'..'",...,.,'.-.. .__1 r.I...:..'....'.:' 'w:.,..,".'. . -.......---- . ..-,-. JULY f., 19B9 neering division, and a real estate ~epartment. Dr. Stephen indicated that this project will involv~ ev~ry facet of the Coastal Engineering staff: "he principle design, permitting, and construction observation will be performed by the coastal and sur- vey divisions; the real estate division will participate i'1. plan eva- luations for conlJuctinQ' storm pr~tection values; the civil engineering division will participate with m~nicipal drainage pipe lines and con- dominium drainaQ'n pipe Itneß which will need to be addressed. Commissioner Volpe questioned the number of beach renourishment projects in which Coastal Engineering is currently involved? Dr. Stephen advised th",t currently, his firm in involved with one active beach renourishment proj~ct in Charlotte County, adding that they h:'\ve conducted 10 major projects in the State of Florida within the past 10 years. Dr. Stephen explained that bl!ach nourishment requires a number of sequer.tial steps. He advised that his firm has produced the Beach Manager.lent Plan ! or Collier County, and they were subsequently hired by the State Depê\r t men t of Natural Resources to produce their State-wide Beach Management Plan for Co 11 ier County. Commissioner Volpe qucRtioned whether a source of compatible sand has been ident if i ed, based upon the work that has been done to date? Dr. Stephen replied affirmatively. With regard to funding, Dr. Stephl'n reported that as of yesterday, Governor Martinez siQ'ned a Bill a.pproving $225,000 in State funds for this ¡:roject, and $100,000 has bef'.n committed by the City of Naples. Commissioner Volpe questioned when this project will be removed from the the pending status to a project which can move forward? Dr. Stephen replied that this will occur upon the completion of the env.1ronmental anè. sand source data. Dr. Stephen eKplained that the DNH numerical gr~ding system which takes projects fr'Dm the pending statuI! to the complete status is as follows: Page 35 I. )(: ( ,.78 ., J. :" .'.. .. I:. . ; "', . . '.' .,:; .,'~',' : I ' ; .' \ '! ':. " ' ~: ' ',' . . .'; , . .~.. .'.' '. \" . , I~ ,;/,;:,'....' ¡.' ' , ",. " '. . .. ,~- JULY 6, 1989 1. Public pa.rklng 2. Length of public êICCeSE: 3. Deachfront length ". Demand 5. Ul'3er occasions served by re'storation 6. Property threaten~d by e~oRton 7. Nourishment interval 8, Extent of local publi::: snppGrt and commi tm,!!nt 9. Construction COD~" 10. The exist~nce of ~~e Lighting and Sea Turtle Ordinances Dr. Stephen st,3.ted that there are two methods of cost sharing by the DNR: 1) 75' of non-federal share of federal projects, and 2) ~0-50 cost sharing, if the minimum parking and acceBsibility qualifi- cations are met. Co~misÐioner Volpe asked how . ong it will take to get this project from project pending to a completed project? Dr. Stephen advised that he believes this will happen by the end of the the next Legislative Session. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Dr. Stephen explained that this project is currently under review by the DNR Beach Management Program. He noted that the initial tleismic data collection was per- form~d at approximêl te 1 y 1/2 miles apart, and now the spacing of the seismic data must be more closely placed. Dr. Stephen referred to a photo of the project's current geolo;;¡ic 8tudy which evidences that at depths of up to 18 feet from the flur- face, there are continuous cores of very clean sand, which will provide stable beach material. He indicated that 70 vibracores were per- formed, noting that 15 were successful for compat ibllity. He notf'..d that seven broad areas have been identified from Vanderbilt, to nouth of the Gordon Pass, wh.ich suggests that there is viable sand in the comp:-:ession to build the Froject. Dr, Steph~n stated that the CO¡'PS of Engineers gives a blanket Page 36 UtHf79 ~ .' .. I:' .1' .' ,.'1 I ' :.. :,' ....," :!", ~ ~", . "".~ ,', " . ':..' .".:, ,J , " :. " : ..,.\ - ..-.-.,..-,---------. . JULY 6, 19B9 permit for scientific studies offshore, HI". stated that once a borrow area i6 defined, and the beach has been designed, permits are then submitted. Dr. Stephen indicated that biological surveys have been performed, but this is not sufficient informat~,on to obtain a permit, He referred to photos of a reef south of Wiggins Pass that contains soft corals, spon¡;¡e, and beautiful marine habitats. He advised that this is one of the reasons that this prc'ject is not approved as of today, noting thl\t CER has concerns about knowing the extent of that type of biology, and the precise sil t quality of the sediment. In response to Commissioner Ha!;:ue, Dr. Stephen replied that if there is not suffici'~nt sand for the project, an alternative borrow source will be considered. or the "':.dth of the project may be modified. Commissioner Volpe queutioned ,,'hether mitigation is anticipated for this project? [I:~. Stephen advjsed that the project is to be approached systematically, and at this point he is trying to get past the current env:lronmental dat¡;\. He stated that once the character of the borrow material iE: known, and if thl~ natural con- centration is similar to wha twill be created, no mitigation will be required. Dr. Stephen explained that biologic transmi t5 ar,:! required as part of thf! study, notin!l that a video tape with a diver will be run up to 2,500 feet offshore. which will detail the exact tYpt~ of habi tat. He in~':'";,,,i.ed that some of the samples will be sent to a marine lab. He noted that if problp.ms are detecteð., mitigation measures will then be considered. Mr. Brett Moore. Senior Coastal Engineer, reported that there are three criteria to b,e reviewed for the preliminary d~sign of the beach reno'.:.rishment: sediulent compatibility, beach profile analysis, and storm protection. He indicated that sediment samples will be collected from the borrow area, and the data will det~rmine the com- Page 37 UUí)SO ,- ...,. .!.. '. " .",,--.. _.0._'. JULY 6, 1989 patibility to the be:lch material. He stated that it: is important to understand how the m:lteriaJ will respond once it is placed on the beach. He noted that if t~le material is similar to the native beach IIIsterial, the profil!! is an ideal situation. He explained that by fine tuning the de'si;;¡n, adjusting the width of the beach, and the height of the berm, the storm capacity can be optimized. Mr. Ken Humiston, Senior Coastal Engineer, state,d that there are two inlets \iithin the project area going through Doctors Pass. He advised that the inlets are very important since the,y interact with adjacent beaches. He referred to a graphic illustrating tidal currents in the traffic areas and the movement of the sand. He indi- cated that the gr)ss estimate of the project is based on the design. Dr. Thomas Curtis, Professor of Economics. Uni ve,rs i ty of South Florida, stated that from an economico point of v 1e,,', this project has storm protection benefits. recreational benefits. and community bene- tits. He ir.di C'3 tE!d that the storm protection benefits are developed along with the enç¡in'!!ering, since the engineering ifl the computer lIIodel which provides economists with the data relating to the bene- ~~ts. He noted that recreational benefits are determined by be~ch surveys. He stated that he suggests that the benefits be approached il1 d. pnased situation: storm protection and recreational first, and then move to the final phase of the cost porportionate of the plan, as tr) who pays for the benefits. Mr. Humiston advjsed that the final design of the project will be addressing any concerns of the agencies which require modifications to the plans. Commissioner Volpe questioned Coastal Engineering's experience in similar types of projects dur ing the past 4-5 years'? Dr. Stephen advised that the firm performed i1:5 first full beach restoration in 1979. He stated that the project I'equired 250,000 yards of material, and it was done for the Charlotte County Board 01' County ColJUissionElrs. He indicated that they recently ~ehired his firm. He Page 38 (JooSt ~,- --- ---. -- _0- --, JULY 6, 1989 added that another project involving 2,000 LF of be-ach was done in Long Boat Key in 1981. He fJtated that his firm dr~dged Wiggins Pass and placed the sand on t~e Wiggins State Park beach, and they are now ready to begin confitruct ion on Marco Island. He further advised that his firm was involved in the early 3tages of design in liùllywood, Florida. Commissioner Shanahan que~tioned whether it is possible, at this point in time, far Dr. Stephen'!) firm or any other firm to advise the County that it needs 75' of beach or 150' of lJeé\ch for "x" amount c.'f dollars? Dr, Stephen explained that he doe!:. not believl". that he can stand before the Commission today and state exactly what 1:he final product can be. He advised that the preliminary design phase allows the consultant to collect data wlth the required basic in1~orma t ion, and then present this as a decisJon making tool to the Board, i. e., $15 million will provide for a 1 !¡O I beach which will last 50 years, or $10 million will provide a 100' be;!ch which will last 40 years. fie indicl!ted that those kinds of tradl~-offs will be presented to the C:1mmission. wi th arl~as of conflict. ... .....Deputy Clerk ~ratt replaced r..puty Cltlrlt Boftaan at thin ti-..... Commissioner Volpe questioned whether the desi!ln took the budget cc.:p into consideration and Mr, Stephens responded "No". He stated that their initial design was baE'ecl upon DNR crite;~ia involving the width of the beach, the amount 01 beach access, the public benefit created by that beach, and the amount of storm proëection, He explained that first level basic equations were used and acc~pted by DNR. He indicated that they wanted to be able to) recaptu:~e some of the dollars spent and were told by the State that they have some of the best public access. He indicated that the problem lies in the quality of the offshore material. Commissioner Shanaha~ questioned on a scale of 10 how much quality compatible sand will be in the area necessary to complete the job from Page 39 (J{)( )82 ..\,. '.0 '. ~'..'" ,;. . ~ ',,' .. .. _0__-' --,- JULY 6, 1989 Vanderbilt Beach to Gordon Pass? Mr, Stephens responded "8", Commissioner Volpe questioned jf th... work for th~ County was operated within the burlget established? I"¡r, Stephens stat,~d that the beach management plan, offshore enviro~mental and sand ~ource work. current work with funding, and Marco Isl,3.nd preliminary dl~sign we're all under budget and on time. He explained that the final design ,",'as on time, but an additional $48,000 was SQ11ght to handle ce=tain testing. He emphasized that the construction cost on Marco Island was cut by $300,000 by eliminating a DER permit criteria stipulating the area dredging would take place, He p'Jinted out that they were successful in presenting reasons why that concern was not valid and also con- vinced DER to eliminate é.. fish monitor,tng requireloent, A discussion followed about 'the point system and determining the winner. County Manager Dorr ill pointed out that the h,lghest collective votes become the Number 1 choicE;, Commissioner Volpe indicated that in his view the only difference i:'l in terms of experience. but continuity in the Hark completed is anot:le¡o factor. Commissioner Shunahan pointed out: that, in addition to continuity and permitting fac1:ors concerning the Marco Island beach ,.'enour ishmen t, he alse, took experience into consideratio~ as well as continuity and permitting factors concerning the "(arco Island beach renourishment and used that to WE'ight the exper i er,ce factor. He explained that the fact that they aloe a local f L~m, experienced and I{nowledgeable in the needs of this community also came into play. Commissioner Hasse stated that he also weighted the amount of experience first and Coastal Planning has done several projects, while Coastal Engineering has done only one in this are;:\, Tape #15 ^ discussion followed about the point spread. County Manager Dorr ill stated that on a first second place ranking, two first place votes were tallied for Coastal Engineering Consultants of Naples and Page 40 UU~ )83 III .', 1......'..."'.-- .. . ...-.' , .', ." .,(, ,: .~~'.' ;', '." " :. .. , °, ,I ". ','.', - -"-"-.. --, ~. JULY 6, 1989 two first place votee for Coastal Planning & Engineering Consultants of Boca Raton, and based on the total point spread, Coastal Engineering Consultants of Naples received 372 points, Cclastal Planning & Engineering Consultants received 350 points and Coastal Engineering received more numerical points. Commissioner Shanahan qu",-stloneõ if Coast<:.l Engineerin;¡ Consultants had been elected and County Manager Dorr 111 concurred. Commissioner Volpe questioned if all the factors were given the 5,3ome weight and County Manager Dorrlll stated that that is why total maximum points were assigned within the matrix of categories. A discus~ion followed about staff evaluation and the point sys'.em. C0881..1oner Goodnight aoved, seconded by Co_i.eiontlr Sh.".han, that: coaat:al Engineering Consul tiante of Naples be a-rdeèl the cont:ract: for engineering .ervices for the Collier County Beach Renouri8h8ent: Progr"', Carried 3/l. {CO_i38ionvr Haese opposed and (:o_1..1oner S81mdere ab8ent). """ í:nere be ing no further busin~6S for the Good of the County, the !ø(~eting was adjourned by Order of the C!1air - Time: 3:30 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~~~4. AT'rEST: JAHES~,\\'~~~S. CLERK .",'.' ."'1./ " . '. 0 4;; ~;...- ,?17~. 0,- " . (;I ...:. I ¡¿ .,/ .5; /7 ¡: J ~7he..'~Dutes,approved by the Board on: ~. as presented ~ or as corrected. , Page 41 \I 'r ,~~ .,