Backup Docs 10/23/2012 (CR) a G
I- GL
-a Z W
m�O Z
y. U Vr
o m O N
OJ 0 Q m
O <Ow U W Ui
rN < w
a �
U w z w Z W
Cli CYw En O
i. Coo Ct 0C
QO O Nce
Ao° < a
ce / oI- z
H ,� • ° w° < o
4 z � O
0 QED Q CL
TS I- Ln J O O
C 01
C C am
p Q Q
i d- O
z H m°Gl h <
Q U m m W =CD
Z w Z I-
.� N U 0
tn E 3 C do N
mZ �, G
c Q Q W m H Q w O
> Y.
i z LU O
Q Q6O
15
wt
(n Q Z
W 0 _ - Q uj
. I eO 4...- cos z
,r, 15:1 V M o0
U 1 omw " Q
M., OOI- W Li,
N J = � I
Z zQ � I- Z
J Uzce O O
Ce O. U 2 a� z z 41 0 0
W o pZ � W
C7 � N Ow
Vl W F. a a O w Cn J
W
W G w ) W
c o' z a a
O20 E
N V Z Q ce m d w 0 0 N
1" W
U E C. JQZ
= 0 Q
Z Q Z O 0n
4a 0
sai to
at ce
'a ® (n z Q
W
m o -
r J U CO LL Z
O O co F∎F w
u).0 --I ° Q m
. ( JaIL: = F
O Q m E W W
�l Q w I- X m
J H F < >- D
.0 wz0 Z W 0.
2 iV) 2 0 I
k °a u r4 ix
a N Q D O
a
cu 0`- ° I- z Q °'
H - W o °w � �O 0
w W 0
0 < J a re es
ma ~ LI1J � G c
_ D d'- O0 a a
V\ \o z
(0 w
CD
m
al f 0 Z (,(j
Q O U CO CO W =
Y Z w Lr I--
L U) z°• H O 4
V.i () ° H V
-
O U ° O
/'\ D Q a'
C m a >'� W
>' 14
Q m 0 H di J _
o
re
Q u ° = HI
Q (n Q 1 Z W
J
W - ¢ zw ' uj
J ``11 ; L >U M m
0 M m W .r Q
po j , OOI— W W
2 N >- = ce I
Z m i zap ~ Z
wzLu 0 0
CL
U � w Z
al < OH o IX
° Z Z 4 W
. 0 (9 O
W - "� Q � � W
CA W 1 ° .. LL.I (n W W ti
1.1.1 '+ O w + u. O
J Z a a " m v)
O
v n >.
a ° in
I= z
W L � 1 U
u MI a < oCD 0 1 0 5
7
aaw 0
C1 Q
=I- z W
00 � 0 I
U w
0 CO co N
° 0 a m
O Q 0 W W W
3 QwI = m
H EJ
U w z in Z W
O
0 I
4t tn aW � n 0
Q ce z
0 O
CU 131
W N o � o Q
O a
N
R3 12.
TU s z F - O
o QED a a
t•- Ln J � 0 0
= Ti" O 0 a a
*+ o
tv NI- ¢ Fes- 000
Cn W
i wD0 Z w
Q O U CO CO W =
Z w E 1_
L (17 F- 0 H
ail
E ~ U 0
cd 0 O U O 0
�� f 0 m "Q } W
!'' a 0 (I) CO 0 F
z > H. LT 0
Q -u QQe N
W s -� J b J
co-Z ,.
U � u !i_.i. o m = v 4
3 OOF— W W
N J 2 CL I
Z OzQ !- Z
N
Q C7 F- 0 CL
/
ii C zF z,, w 4 W O
W O OU N u.
W H a oz -i W
CC ~
I••• W ∎� C Z I z a a
W 0 w f•,, ri O 0 0 ,
J Z a 1 a5i - mom 0 V 0 CL .4 y >' W
`.• W W Z O. JQz V
u a.
E Q Z CC ucnnu
/
}+ �-- 0
cu
al Clb'G cn z W CC
ea 2 c~n 0 2
0
1n U
C v '
co 0 w
90 Q W
i -` - J ¢ z U 1-
O < O w U
< QwH hII m
IS— S = _ CC
iC d ~ F- a J 0
U w z w Z W
j
NI
r 1 S- O I— a
H { 0
w IL) 0
C✓ 0 < : D a ce
F- Jz p
cu c ,L. 002 a Q
CA O CI. & N I- O Z CO
QUCOm W =
r) g- z �= z
L. z � I- o Z
v L oo < U
CS W ado =O 1 cn
_ `0 4 m `0 et W ca
>I' ° Ww 0
> _
J > o I- I-
Ck QU1 IS
Wa w v) <4111 Z
zw E M uj
_i L U M
m
V � om = LU
001- ujj W
i >- H 1 F-
Z n) '. Oz < I- Z
N ' 41 v , ce O 0
Cecc) /✓ c z0F' W O
Cm W 0 p C7 w w U.LLI
/� _ -J a= ce a x 0
w W F- C-) a. O w � LU W
W
< 4 W - Z w 4 a
p I-- C n 0 z Q f
W 1- 40 *' o o
J z a - a cem � O 0
I- ' -a- I- Z W
: U
W W C. Q
u W z ° (no -I LU w
Z
o
l .L M a fek (,)
W
CO (n O I
U
O m co 0 W Z
oo a W
< V) L 2 m
i • J Q z I U
O Q O w
�_ & QWI- Z m
E-
R 0 F- F- <
ct. > u)
� wzo Z W
Z
% p� ° U) Q
I-U 12 O 14 E o I- uJ c U DC DQ ce Q 0
CI) a N o a a w .c1:. I-• L ° oa
E
C7 W
eai
W Q
r
W
, '� 0 < 2 = a ce
17 '"' o.) „ J 0 0
_ isn der- Op a a
a) o
W 20 , N F- Q I.. m
U m m W =
Q U= E
V � qJ 18 F- 0 Z
0 0 U w
U) I -- O ) < U 4
U
^ 0 m �a Ce O w ig~..- a a Qwm
LL1 LL
0 F
1i cl E ~ O !W- Q
A Q U 1. Z L
< / Q ¢ J
C, �I
J � co- m
V V : QOF- W W
1 N -I = a I
Z . . ° Q F- Z
�/ w 0
li 0 1� U ~ W 0 E
G7 < OH W CL
CIN W 0 p C7O ,~., O.
�W Ia o z ° �°,
U) W ~ d. w Cn W W
Q a { C1 Zeal a
W 0 E- _ � pz a
,.., ++ OwO 0
J z a a cemLo 0 u
W
`■ W W a. JQE U
E a Z Ce OUC=nUU a.
a
-a ;'N) cn z w
CO � 0 I
7 j v C7
O. ` co oO c4 H
O
o H
= 0 a m
O aOw W W
< w F- H m in
U wzl1J Z W L.
A'E 3 "✓' d' Q cL Q 0
W � NI
„4. Q
1 a-
nima o H z
L ° o < 0 2
>. 0 < D c a
H z 0 0 -1 0
CU *� o O o Q Q
Cn w ° 1— ¢ Fes- m
Q 5
w D 0 Z W
CD U m CO 5 F
U z ~ ~ 2 H
w ES" u (�
ce O d o R N
z O
0 La G
ewi ^ Q :J O W
o cJ 0 I
o W (,L L~L
s■I Y._.. fn Z H _
�/ I- L 0
li r
QHH
IL J Q -1, q ( Z
W tzJ -J_ „ x
Y1 ----__ 14� j -� 1 U c j co
U rA 3 C) m = W 1-
N O F- W W
F. _ cc I
. 7 T d z F- I 1-
Z z < 1- Z
H `; u z 0 0
0
a \Y c z H
0
LLJ j O 'a' r--19 L_
I- 73 oQ c
W �
W ~ _ 0. UJ J W
< Q W Z w a CC
D H C D 0 Z Q E
W z a a ° m ° =o 0
J `” �' w
Q- H 0 W F. � _5 V
`/ W W
a
2 < < a' 0 (1W ° a
- r
,� � a
m ( o =
• j U (.9
O co L Z
m O eL N
svf OJ 0 a m
i I _ ~
f- 00z I ILI n
,.i' Q w ~ H m
To F=- F- < J
.V (n C7 Lu Z W
a A , Ce � o O I
`n aw ° (I) 0
a� NQ , G O
A00 < Z
Nia W 0 o I- z 0 o.
o Q E
1� a� N o F-
a. 5 2 'FE oC 0
0 Q5D Q GL
C =
W 400 a <
'_ o o z °
CA cu PO W m QO Z W
a a (9= Z I-
cn 8 0H U Vf
1 • ado R 4
0 _ mzQ G
a CD
(f)'-'
w u.
O 11-
=
J Z cn
o O
Ce 1 Q6o IS
ICE v cn Q Y Z W
J
Q U w iii W
oi
U M CO I-V om = .
O O H W W
S 2 c _
z za I-
z
Z � O 0
am W O 6-' C7 N OW
W ~ t O0 ~ H
W
d >- w 'J
a G W
-
Z 1 - C
a f
W Z . O _ 0� mQ
I-1 O w O V
EL W a JJz LW Q U
`_ L W u z z a o v u
a.
•
cu ( 0
rn
-a W
CO c~n O =
O m u Z
CO N w
O a W
�� � QE _ I-
0 4 v a0w U V
-.D 46 Q ° F z 2
F- m
is <% � � �
�� tnUW Z W
W z
It m j 5 Q � � I-
�� moo °CC 12 r
L
c,- -D D (., o
Q
0 a4
. �
^ O Q a C
Hcc ol— z 0 a
f- � � � D
C CI
o 0
0 a a
a) .471 y o 0 0
CA g W � 0 Z w c.Q i QU = X I-
0 W '6 - Q U
D ° J0 0 ~
0�� m ~0 > W
"`l
�. W W I-
° r = W
ce 3 z ° i_ o
Q �,�,/
W" Q▪ ¢ � Z W
H J
W z _
c. ' n j U ^ 00
V •5---c' MmW a
0 0 H W W
Il •
5 ° I I-
Z scj • 1 z < I- z
n� UAW 0 0
Ce O C (,� a z can 0 t
/L I ' J C z z . W 0
CL W a O (� L. N 2
W 1"' r Oz � N W
~ f � °' c Z � z a El.
Q 0 ,. � '++ O0O < x
W z a�; da um D 0 U
O. 3 W
`� W W � JQE U
x a z cc oho O.
a) c
0C
. �- r (f) Z W
= ..". H
CO l 4 0 C9
fl. 0 cc 1
y �7 OJ 0 a m
. Jaz V 1-
O O Lu . U
"� In W
v � u') C.9 Lu Z W
a R= io O I
I* w 2 (n 12 O
3
N a Z
c wW y ° °
o
^ O p Q
c --� o I- Q O a
N _ o 0 H f
.-. (2) w c!)
s��,, _..) g 0 < ZD a
LnJ � G o
C al
4o0 Z a
++ C. o
a� r� /'fin o z ° cn O
Q E �f- V J W O Z W
G7 f UCO CO W =
,/
L Z w X H
-v ,Z_, I ~ 0 1 4
� � 00I-- u
W O d Q O N
� >'
. /) G mQ
_ a O ce
W
CO O ~c ow
o w u.
J J i UJ> H W O
Q - ∎ aa �
W c � _ jjj
tn5-2U ^ CO
_1 -e_ Cid V • a °00H W W W in
N J = rt _
Z ( OZ Q I- Z
/N �� U4 W O O
�i i• = ZZ ( W O ce
CL ■ W O Pi (j W N LL.
J ¢ ' x 0 i-i
) W I - C. W VI J W ILJ
Q Q W d Q1 Z it, ct a
D I- C D O Z Q v•
W Ou0
..1 Z a C c m cn O v
i-i a ~' Z W E ~ J z W
`/ W W J ¢ u
O. J E a
E < < oC UU V) UU a
cG
-a v) z a
m O =
y U
co LL
O CO 0 N N
LA OJ p a m
-t I
I- m Z W W
W
\ R I- ~ Q J =
�� wz0 Z W
O =
CYwQ vd 0 0 LLI I—
E
IC Q p u0 Cd CL
d'Q ce 0 0
41a W AO ° a a
H L ON p Q W
0 < 5D a w
c _ ° 1— z Z ce
a) k 0M0 Z W
Q
CA 2
a) U m m W =
Z W E H
2
C..) � � ~ 0 N
... W i Q U
G \� >- O p
�1 1" W ce a owm O F=-
,p L u. IL
CC i W 1- W O
i-Qa6 °
,- (n < Y Z J
W Qw E
W
V v M m W a
• n °o O H W to
N J = _
Z - ` � � O >- t I-
1c % zQ I- Z
uz O 0
O. z I z W O
W p U W N W
(/) Z �: J F.
W H W (r)
W
D F4 ui c Doz a a
W c� _ 020 n 0 Lij J Z a W fm (LJA O U
I_ Z Ca 0 W , . J ~ W
W W M i DI 2 U
W
a. DI a
Z a Z o Z c uo czn uu a
/
o
01 CL
'G (f) Z W
CO � 0 I
y. U (.7
0 )o m 0 CL N
O
0 M QmW W w
�_ = 2 H I_ m
°' (a H I- a J
.U w z W Z W
0 I
0.4 aw0 (n 0
-. W a' W I-
R Q w 0 O
NQce 0 2
an Q a
Ela r J ° Iz
H a� N ° � i- f
a) '>- t O I w O
Q. 0 0 Q2D a 0
I- \ Ln J z 0 0
C _ ° oz Z a
o
CM f e,,� 6 w 0 O Z w
< a) z ,w X i=-
L c/f L z � F fp IZi
(1) o D ° I— u
=OU0 O G 0 2 m � Q ,.
o
..\ ` O a>- i-P
.1 ,q ce
J 0wm o 1E z > H I 0 ILI
a a (f) < Z
W Q
~)
C7w f W
Z J J
� U m
V (-) (41 Ea W F-
Z W
N J = W _
Z _ ~Z
imil `-N ( L ' U H in I .0 0
Ow s L < U � 0 CL
C Z 2 W 0
W 0 p (6w N LL
LU J a= O a H W in
V/
J W I-' • }}}--- LJ (f)
uj a ID Q W C ce Z Q 0
.
W J ▪ O ° � E
0
. J w a " ma !) c
CL _ >'
I- Z W CD JJ2 W
u U
ILI a <z 020 5
w Q
en re
.0 _ z W
m \1 O =
U
Fa`1 OJ 0 N
0 O a m,_
I
< 0 W W OO W
0. z w of ILI
b vq. .. . . =
O. ._, (n U) H
0 Lu 1 X00 ce cc
w (t ,-.:9 Q o
~ \re
I a� ,Now o�uj g n.
�°z� 0
Ts 10.,. 1 " � zz a cc
G1 Ln J �, Q Q
CD i= V '�' - 0 0 a a
0
01 °7 'J o F- o z °°
a .�1 V OO m W =
z w X E-
m zi ~ 0
cn o o E- U
W a U 0 = H
_ Q m �Q Ce O W
>"' a owm ° H
t 0 w W LL
CeQ
cn < z W
(n Q Y N J
W MzW 4
V c } U M m
L , CO w ., a
CD Ca =- W R O H W
W
F" V� _^ O H. _ ~! 2 Ce X
I-z ~ Z
7 Q z W re j 0° f W a a0 W 0
J
C. W )
H LIJ
Q a W _ m 0 z a D.
Q 1— ■ ,a,+ 0 uO 0 X
W
J z a a7 � m � 0 U
Q. ~ Z W L JJE U
W W x Q. J < 5
u ILI a <0 = 0 a.
4
EASTERN COLLIER PROPERTY OWNERS
October 22, 2012
Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller
DonnaFiala @colliergov.net GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net
Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Fred W. Coyle
TomHenning @colliergov.net FredCoyle @colliergov.net
Commissioner Jim Coletta
JimColetta @colliergov.net
Dear Commissioners:
In 2007, Collier County began its required Five Year Anniversary review of the County's landmark
strategic plan for eastern Collier County, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program ("RLSA"). In April
2009, after almost two years of work by a citizen committee appointed by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (the "BCC") and more than 25 public meetings and hearings, the BCC voted to
accept the Citizen Committee's Report and to move ahead with the review and adoption of
recommended GMP amendments.
In its Executive Summary for the public hearing before the BCC on December 14, 2011, the
Comprehensive Planning Department recognized "that the amendments to the RLSA serve a greater
public purpose and were arrived upon through a collaborative process to improve the overall
effectiveness of the optional RLSA Overlay." "In addition, the amendments are establishing a new
agricultural stewardship credit to protect an additional 40,000 acres of land from residential
development, and will establish a definitive cap in the amount of stewardship receiving area
development." The BCC accordingly directed staff to move the RLSA amendments forward as part of the
GMP EAR-based amendments.
At the December 14, 2011 meeting, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida offered funding to hire an
outside consultant to provide review and analyses of the RLSA Amendment package. In making that
offer to the BCC,the sole caveat imposed by the president of the Conservancy, as stated on page 366 of
the transcript of that public hearing was, "But we would want you to have independent consultants who
don't do business with my organization or any other organization in the RLSA." (the "Stipulated
Criteria"). The BCC accepted the Stipulated Criteria and the Public Notice for Invitation to Bid ("1TB")
was issued accordingly on May 2, 2012,
Now, however, over 10 months after receiving direction from the BCC as to how to proceed, staff is
coming back to the BCC with a recommendation to reject all bids submitted in response to the
01)/ Aft,
\' .v)
October 22, 2012
Page 2
solicitation. Their reasons for doing so, as stated on page 1 of the Executive Summary for the upcoming
public hearing and documented in the trail of emails that accompany the Executive Summary, are
justified. On May 25, 2012, over three weeks after the ITB was issued, the Conservancy's lawyers, in
presumably good faith, but apparent inadvertence, submitted language for a proposed donation
agreement with the County prohibiting the County from hiring a consultant currently or previously
engaged by the County to provide services to it. This language contradicted the Stipulated Criteria;
ignored its requirement that the consultant did not"do business with my organization"; undermined the
intended effect of the Stipulated Criteria offered to and accepted by the BCC; rendered the ITB moot;
and disqualified the firms that submitted bids which otherwise met the Stipulated Criteria because they
were currently or had previously been engaged by the County to provide services to it. Unfortunately,
no one realized any of that at the time and through apparent mistake the language was included in a
donation agreement entered into by and between the County and the Conservancy on or after June 13,
2012.
One of the options (Option 1) staff is now recommending in the Executive Summary for Tuesday's BCC
public hearing is to "direct staff to repost the ITB with the conditions of the contract clearly articulated
within the posting." Staff offers Option 1 notwithstanding its "concern that a second round of proposals
may also not be successful in identifying a firm that would satisfy all clauses of the contract between the
County and the Conservancy." We urge the BCC to reject this tail wagging the dog exercise in futility. It
will simply perpetuate the repudiation of the Stipulated Criteria offered to and accepted by the BCC in
the public hearing last December; promise little likelihood of success in securing an independent
consultant; further delay review of RLSA GMP amendments at advertised public hearings before the
EAC,the CCPC, and the BCC; and provide no corresponding public benefit to justify the delay.
The County recognized its obligation to complete the EAR-based amendment cycle and the BCC directed
staff to move the RLSA amendments forward as part of the GMP EAR-based amendments over 10
months ago. Option 2 proposed by staff in the Executive Summary directs staff to take responsibility to
initiate the RLSA amendment process to finalize the EAR-based amendments. It is a clearly preferable
alternative for getting on with such an important task in the public interest in a professional,
businesslike manner. We urge the BCC to select it.
Florida's growth management overhaul in 2011 and resulting changes at the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (formerly DCA) have significantly streamlined the GMP Amendment process and
requirements for local governments. Coupled with the extraordinarily thorough and well documented
5-year review process conducted by the County, County staff can prepare and process this plan
lJ`
October 22, 2012 `/ 47 51/"
Page 3 GCA'
amendment in the same capable manner as they have with all other EAR-based amendments, without
an outside consultant.
We therefore respectfully request the Board select option 2 as described in the BCC Executive Summary,
directing staff to initiate the RLSA Amendment process without further unnecessary and unproductive
delay.
Respectfully Yours,
EASTERN COLLIER PROPERTY OWNERS:
Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.
B
Collier Enterprises
By: (\/v-4 /1� —✓
Y / 1
Half Circle L Ranch Partnership
C _ By: ,f-Le_LeA
English Brothers
.
By: mt. —.IL ! _
Barron Ilier Companies
By:
Consolidated Citrus, LP/Kin: R:nch, Incorporated
By" PA/ itet`t— ate! tf
N w
Alico Land Development Corporation \4
By: gar 1 a
Russell1riddy 1
cc: County Manager, Leo E. Ochs,Jr. (via email: leoochs @colliergov.net)
6434-13239-Doc#301
nO� DO 13 3 CI m n
m arm m m Z H
70 m p
O C H � n rt N G1 rn
m z m D
I- �w
M rn S rn tin
-I r
ri MG)D 0 \ r
O m G) ~ z M m
73 0 -IG) D X.79_ z
O O � zrn~
Z —1 * zz '• '��` (4� Z
—I 2 7 -< O ` `4 ^\ imml
m rn -I Oo t
> .-. M m w
w
oro .. r- z W M
rn C '
r Z? DV) (�
-I rn 0 � 3 ( 70
m rn '`
I co n
■
m
p > z -< 0 4
2 O n o
H 0 -D-I O � tn \ n
-I 3 rn � z n.
X m co co 3 cD
M rn
c um
co "1 0 -1 N fD
> a - o ° J
73 z 3 -� 0 va M
0 p r- �
O > c _ z 0
O m rnrn CDD `D
D O ry
3 0 z —I t x
co r"!'
x > o0ri s tQ
O p
C; 70 rn 0
7
2
0 xi n0 p rn
O ( o � cn it
m
= O oz �
C
NN
M 0
-1 2 H 70 D n
m D p r S I J
ZOrn co
G) n
I O -I co
D
X rt
O� DOr -ate 3 m m n
m 3rrr- rn m m 2 H
n -< W c y z r
O a pmp �; H n ni
3 > zoc 5 rn o
m m rn \ m tn
-I z o CD -1
0 3 x > x �; r T
r-i p m
O m � zz C 1111 0
ma
X 0 - C) D Li -, X
0 0 x z H H
-I = o '-'^ ? ? Z
= 70 m r N ry
m m H O c i
= co o 61 r_ � 6 V"
rn � w r.
r rn z w
r Z D
m O < rn 'i
O X
o --� z r..ci)"„ 17 m . p _▪ 0 I 7G O, p a `�
m
-< Dz � 0
o
-I o
1 �n
0 7 -
3
-I rn� z n n
3 �i
m ,-,, I
m -1 > Ho 1 C U2
O � zo
C� CD_r
a a O r,
2
1 72 z 3 -� 0
C)
a c ' D 0 'C Ow
o
--I
,.._, z .
-a
0 m u rn p CD
p A
D p N
-a O z —Io ��'' C
N a o0N �n
O 0 m p A J 3
▪ m p 73 m P• . ,
O 4*
- m o �O ! cn 41:
2 o p z
r7,m 1- -o cn �) E.
C -< x _ _
C
-Irn > j
A n z O r- o
'1 -I X r N-
i
m H p rO
Z TOW o
G) n ('
= OC --I � G C co
m -G (I) cfl
a
0
-o ncnn p z a 3
n O� > rO 13 > m m
r r
m � rrn m C ,..,
RV
O C T n ,9. - N G1
3 3:„, O O O = m G
m m m rn i m
m rr+ M O �` --II rn
m D o - m
X O H G) c4
3 -I m I--I n
O O � zrn '■ N H
Z ozz ^ --W ` z
-I = -I -< O r •�
I m = r ry , ."H l�
-I m _ , o I� r/
a rn CO en)
0, n � L1 r
✓ r- z W
G� iiii • \\) 51)1
-Z-1 0 - 3 ul
��l
p m � G m 73
m 0 m C r
I ,,
`/co C
n v
-< v
a C oo
D c x m
(1' n H n
z 3 = zD to c -t'
-I m� z n
m Z OCry 3 0 00 -I D --I o CD
O Z o rt
73 >2 =
E -I o
G 0 z � Ln
p > -C-I 3 z 0
O m r an CCD
N
3
-c, O z -1 ° c� r*fp
O 0 mom c
-1 m O70rn 1�
1 1*
O m o o t)
= O ozz)m 'a
vG� cn r.
-t 7J _ _
00 -I --I m >
LI _ H
rn m m
A-I = zI � D N -
m N oo 0
z Om m '0
I
GI O � 03
rn o 0.
a
0 rM-•
'a n cn n x z D 3
n o > O -aa 3 m m /'1
3rrH
n r
3 a zoo s X1'1 = v C)
RI
m
m m (1) rn 1 m
-I r
III - n p � - rn
D 3 x el: r
O _1 G� - p a m '�,i
m U, z z a
G H G) z xi
O O � zDm ■ 7 I••1
—I• I H -< o re''
'� ? J z
i m -I O No 2 vv mml
-I "' = W C - 0
D maoW l J
CCI w
I-
I- rz .
m N � D � -NI rn
-n -I O z ' /V
Om tmn = .4 z (Ns
'n moo '
°zm D 0
O n � O
i 0 C o m D c
(I) n Ho0 cn
z
u
z
z -t
3 rnc) z f,
m co co n
z rn up
co - O H N fD
x.• a o o CD
X z 3 -I 0 0
D 0 z i- cn —I CI.
O x m l o S C
O m (n rn N
(t) H 3 zO -1c' X ! •
Ti
• D 0OV rD, fp
O O m 0. �, 0T! 3
pa m O 0 xj rn t
• cri 0 u it
'a
m Z o M n M Eir
Li 2 m
n m m pop D 0
_1 I 71XI- 0
CC GI I-0 s
ZOrn CO
I OC -I _
m 0.
D
0 rt
. n cn n
n > r -a > rn m n
pi ( m G m H �
Z N
I--n p � g 0 171 o c O -n O rt -I 0 0 m
m m � rn � v '` 3 m
m ~
O _r
cD �
D 3 rnDZ rt r R1
IVH
03 0 � ,z m \ Q H
H z Z
z
1-
x = o
m m --IOo \�
m /�
D m W � r r-
w .. u,
m 3 m w C I ti rn
r Z � > V)
m
o m _, < z n 70
M m IT! id p
0 I x O CO �D `..
m
0 o
-< ono 0
D C D c 70 m
Z0 = 2 w--ne'
-I 3 rn6) z n A
m rn
D D p0 �
73 Z 3 -1 o to
H Lfl -I
� �
xi D � 3z o w�'
0 m � rnp / % `p iY
3 -I > o :1 Iii
. 0 z --I 2 f"P
xi > p O CD
,_,,,--1
0 D rn °�
-I
Er 3
m � xrn -,
OU' c �� U
H
Z 0 p z 12:)ri CD
co H m >
Li I
3 co --1
rn
rn N 0 o
O op rn
I
GI
O _
m z U, 0.
D rp
-a ncnn 74 Z D 3
I:, ODO -a 3 m m
F r Ti
m zrrn m ��,
O c�i) D F
rn
3 C 2 oO p =* -i Dm' rn
m m cn rn -1 m 1
M 3 rn D rt CD
r rn
O m ~ z 0 m
3 p mnz 54 54 �^ XI
-I z n 1■1
i xi = r ,�, ' N ""'i
m m = o l/) `N ^
aW moow1 C:,. .. l J
co r .. mz.w r. ..
�- r
m
� t rn
I- Z D W Ti rI
-I C O �, S\
O "' i m R�1
m O m , ril
N O onp p
a
_1'- p � ° tn n
LI
-I 3 m� z
m O m
x m co co n
o' _I nHNo cD
0 � z o 1 " CD
D > moo ? C 0
X Z E -I 6 La
-I CLI
X -ci3z O .0 a)
O m cnrn o � :°.
3 -I o r•' :? H
- 0 z -Ic) X !"f•
x > oOv rD CD
,..,1-I
p m
X
ET 3
� prn
0 U, 0 �� U it
-I 2 O p z a
m Z M � �
to -< 7) _ = E.I.
CC 2 -Im >
3 H
m
I D ;
M H o o S
0
Z O CO
G) n �
I o ( 0'
M v, tO
D
X rh
1
r- 0 _ 0
flu . .
C)m 0 FIV
n p c�"„ p0 a 2 r-
° c o -n o ,''. �' RI
m 7Dv rnmz , 3 -DI ci
-I r z H m
M I4 O _r
p H m > O rr r-
-n m z z 0 m (�� Til
z. v m 73
z
O p 70 zrn 0 H
D z Z
-I m o - --I
I m = r- N
m m -boo y,
-1 .. = CO O n
I:, n co
co w
z . �r
m~ � DCDn '� in
n
-I m O C 3 (J 7p
u_ °
m o�
D
p � z -< p
D ° O
N
o Ho '
m n
Z Hzz -'t
-I 3 rn- z fD
o -Zi ° Ho C
O 0zo rt CD
a a ° o - =
x z 3 --I 0
H L
D p z LT, "'
z O --pz D c H -I ell
O m rn , fD O fD z � � f f"•
xi >
°p cD CD
O p m °D -i'
7
3
0 x n ° �
m O 0
m r'
'O �O o-I cn tn
-a
I 0 ° z rn ` n
r rnG� cn J
cn _ = a� t
m m 3 co H /
_ m z0D 0 C�
I Herr- c
m ,a., ° p CO
"O a e4 CA �G n - 0 I Oc -I c
M Z cn C.
73 fD
MI
p r-r /
1:, n cn n
n O� DO -0 3 rn rn
m ,_,!- rn 0 m 0 H 1-
n o v) 7 m y z 1-
° v =0 TO ": C' rn
3 z O c S CSI -i v
\ 3
rn z � v
r CD -I
1171 m " n - I v 3 D 70 rr r rn� Ho = m v O m
p HG) z CD•- .k ■1- N
Z * D z w z
-i I -_1 O -
I
_ _ r- N
m
m m = W c) r
a .3 n � tr-
mL'J
m 3 rnzW
r Z � Dc-nn
m - '
-I O fi
O rn r r=T H o
_
70 O (1) ° c a `..
DZ p (�1< v
H
ii)z
1-1 ° --Izz a S.
-I 3 riiPz m
= m cu co
n
m c rn �
0o -ZI > H r CDD
o rt LIM
0 a Ln - O rD CD
70 Z H p c L
v
-
CD al)
lag 0 o
D
,H '-2.11 O O m � rn N
CD `•
Oz� °o H
xi > p O J m CD rim
O 0 m0, 9 =tr 3 m x x n0 0 rn
0 U) O (`� � 4*
-I v) cn . -G
2 O oz , CD
M Z n
---I-I rn D
m
CO m 300 _1
rn
el = p D R
m r =
Z 71 00 "CS
G) n
I Z -I c C
m ■
a 2.
v rt CD
W 1/61/
To whom it may concern:
In June 2002 my daughter (age 10) and I pulled my boat up to Hideaway Beach,
approximately six houses from the main club house, when we were approached by a
white male in his late 50's early 60's dressed in casual beach attire. He said the beach
was private and asked us to leave the beach.
Having lived in Collier County for the past 35 years, I knew that this beach was open to
the public. It is one of the few beaches were very few people take their boats.
I mentioned to him that this was a public beach and that we were going to stay. He then
answered back that we could be removed by the authorities and he proceeded to walk
away.
We felt uncomfortable, staying only 20 minutes and left for Little Marco.
Bill Collins
171 Kirtland Drive
Naples, Florida 34110
(239) 272-7496
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of May, 2004 personally
appeared William D. Collins M.
I . I'
OTARY
# C, Meetnj Cat,: /1)124‘
ed/ dI j�A TROYF24
Q2
I1CCIP
IC' t
nn;ip kit►.
rtrecron to(iongs7t re r3Jrmn iind Ivar1i*If:
beech tvxlek.here hash er itl
sera era d said :re t✓►•;'.: '
n
Groins h�usc
Groins are shore-protection structures built perpendicular to the shoreline to restore an
eroding beach; they are usually rubble mound or rock (rip-rap) construction. Groins trap
sand on the upcurrent side of the groin because they are a total to partial barrier to the
longshore current (which, if you recall, carries both water and sand). Groins may trap
sand on the up current side but they encourage erosion on their downcurrent side
(remember, the longshore current is created by wave action, so as new waves come in
on the downcurrent side, they pick up sand from the beach - that sand would normally
be replaced by the sand carried from upcurrent, but the groin blocks that, so erosion is
intensified on the downcurrent side).
July 4, 2012 - Upham Beach, St. Pete Beach, FL
.5
Fez_
. .- a
L .• ,� J L ..
Y}.
may,
t1.5 A
p
I_, , : ..
w ncnn 73 z a
r 020 m a G) m
n 3 D 'a 3 rn m la
m
-< �. ,t,-,1 0 m 2 Z I-
n O v) Rol rD r% a 0
O c OTo * rn
3 > zOc m -I O �>w rn X z La
-m-1 r ITI v) rn , 'o 3-I
m
z CD ,..,
0 3 XDX r, r � rn
O m ( ~ z = :. m N Ti
z
O O 73 z rn _ — 1■1
m m H O 7 2p7 :3>c) n a 3 rnoo S �„�. -
1-
07 .. n m N m Z � D
rim
O oomm
m X 0,. a u
C D CD 0
c m ..
n -Io0 U) n
O � zz rn
-I 3 rn� z n)
00 -Z-I > - N m 0
O X 00 1 , fD
a a C7 0 -I Pr. CD
Z 3 - co. 0
x > � 3z 0 I. . �.
O m crnn rn � m ;? EU
N n
'p 3 —I z --1 c) ` x rim
a oo - vco CD
rn
O
(I) 0 `O T U rn it
-I cncn � .. 'a
= 0 ozrn ti)
m V) ? v O a�' ---
W 7322
-n-1 n m0 > D hi
I H xr N-
W a r ~� S
Z xi Orn W .
0
61 n
m O _
m z U, a
a
X CD
VV
0
n o D O 7a > m rn n
m � rrn cD m z IV
O O � rnn C a 2 r
C p T O rt r-i rn
"° a rn � z m >
m m � rn � -a , -I -I
-1 I- O rt s -
rn i-i m
v z XD70 rt r J
p m G) o 0 m 13
Z
0 0 f. zrn ` H
z -I < > 2 ....
-kJ 2 i = � 0 .► S
m m = • o W
Fri n
a .. rnmw t�
03 r r- zu'
r
c,
m Z DUD)
--II --I O 3
- o` X
m < rn - r m rn-n H0
.a
-I O op crnnp ': .`
2
■
v o > I- v u
v
D C
0 H 0 •• _
F n _1> gox U, - n
O z cn
-1 3 rn� 3 S A
m
0o -1 > -1 c N
O
UM
, CD
> > - O -i. �► =� CD
x z 3 -10 - �
D v z � "�' • Mt
C 3 D 0 • A'
0 70 ,H '4 z 5 'G CU
rn -I �
0 m mrn O CI ..
3 ° r'F-o 0 -1 o f
D t CD
~O U o (�-I � � .
it
'a
C -< D --I -I ii. -
CO --IIrrnn >
m
el Illb
m rnI � /--I
v H a. tn
M pi g
z 73 oco ilik 13
c) n
_ c � _
rn z cn Q
D La
v •. rt
r O = O (D > G) m n
n3Drr m m
m I-, rD m Z H
n 0 � � j g C y Z r
O c ~ ,min '. G)
O O
'3o
> rn , Z o' rn a
m m (7i) ni 13 m
3 _ D70 e r
xi D -i ,,,= Is � \
-I G7 >Z .z
F-1 z m O 0 Al1►
Z \► � Z
_ * moz
m m H O o
m 17: rT,= W ° `—I D
M Z � DcDn
m -1 0 - .S X
m < rn
O _ z —t-
m rn � o ,
� P
Nom/_ O D m D �v ;z! 0 v
D
CA n -Dios m r)
Z
1-1 0 Hzz cn �.
—I 3 r=rrn z
D > op ° `�=* CD
x z 3 —I o -o ce
O
xi >v z `n _
O m m ,, (D ► v
sw
3 0 zH n ~Xl
x > 0O V � CD
-I m o 7, rn
O (/) rn it
I 0 0zm fD
D1 -I
C 70 -- ■
Co _ --Ir=nD
m m mOD -I 0
CO H o r0 .\ o
Z ed m0 'G
G) n 1
I 0 ( 0
D bk/m z v, a
ua
v rt
IN
n oD Z a 3
o
3 m m n
m Z,rr- rn cD m Z H '13
2 v
`� r
o � a
3 v o _ v III
mm m m xi z m a
r^ ccnrn � R -3j m
-I r � z co
m N 0 O rt -I nil
CI 3 rnD70 _* i r
-n o m
0 rn v, zz = k
3 rn � ( •" ► Z ,
Z
O O X z M 1 \• H
Z -H * zz � 3 c Z
z x = ,- o
m m r' r" ( ^ /I
am co o r tNi V l J
V, m 5Y
CO r �. pzw G \ r
m Z D \ ITI
- -▪ C 0 1 03 4 XI
ow
o (" - o N
= ' 17
m rn O oomnp
F= o - a4
m � vv
n O vv-
Z A -Dion (Jo ,t n
►-+ 0 H 1-, z cn
-1 3 mG) z n.
m m 0cm W
c�
co -Zi ° —c+ o
z
C0 CD ZO _r� � � =z 0 �,`� `°o v z .7i a c3O 0)
m-irn O S 4 a
0 m ' ,
'•(\ rN rim
.v O
zHo
7i > �� V
( CD
• v >,.-1=, u 70 x 7, °� - t
-I cn cn H
m• Z- mv -' n
C 70 = = N
co v =
H n z DO D
Z f' OT W
CI
I O V
m
73 C 1144 _a Z U, a
MI
v
ED
-v n cn n
3
I:. 3 D 1 'a 3 m m /�
m rn 0 m C H IV
O cu) a r
3 o00 = \ii v m
1:1 73 rn-I m u) rn � " m Iw
Ill I-I I''' a) o rt N Vrn1
v 3 rnD rt
m0 -4 G.) Ui � O m
N
3 0 rnnz 1 -
20zn .�
Z 0 . zz Z
-1 x H -< o L 2
m m HI O N N
-I = 0, o '`
CI
a
0o n -< � • ! r.
r mzW
m
m Z ? DN m
p m HO < z& 70
m OT mH 0 Z. r•
o
a
C D c 0 v
x m
H 0 _i . � !1` .� n
-1 3 rn- z
co _II DO -I N v, (D
O z o � CD
a a o -A =
v v z "'
o 7) --Ii .4z ° .0 a)
O m rn 0 CCD ;D
D0N H
73 O z -I o 7o Ms
xi a oo " _CD CD
O v m 0 -A 3
X porn
O m 0 cn
-1 v) . -a
m 0 0Zrn cD
m 2 m " n
C -< D -I -I d
CO _ --IIrrnn >
---I
M m z0pD O
W n 0 r =cn
M H 0 0
2 O CA
T V
O n H
m O --I-I c
m
a z u, a.
t0
v
CD
0- VII
RaineyJennifer V'
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:28 AM
To: RaineyJennifer
Subject: Re: Ian Mitchell's Conntract and Proposed Termination
Please print
With thanks - •
Commissioner Georgia Hiller
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:23 AM, "RJ Con" <bluffnaples @gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Commissioners:
> Today you are considering the 3rd iteration of a resolution pertaining to the employment of
Ian Mitchell. The first resolution considered by the board as done in tandem with Mr.
Mitchell's employee evaluation as well as the consideration at that of extending his employee
contract for two years. During that public hearing Mr. Michell indicated that he was fully
capable of continuing doing this job but he had major concerns pertaining to the function of
the Board. However, when asked what that dysfunction was pertaining to the Board he refused
to discuss this matter. Instead Mr. Mitchell offered his resignation and a desire to be
bought out of his contract. Mr. Mitchell was informed by the County Attorney that under this
scenario that this severance would only consist of accrued leave.
> Subsequent to this resolution the Board has considered two resolutions and would consider a
third today under Board Agenda Item 12(B) which is a County Attorney Board Agenda item. The
three resolutions subsequent to the initial resolution where Mr. Mitchell chose to resign
instead of continuing his position now state that the Board is terminating Mr. Mitchell
without cause. It is apparent to any reasonable person that these resolutions have been
drafted with forethought in an effort to pay Mr. Mitchell over $65,000 when under the initial
resolution where he indicated he was able to undertake the functions of his job that he would
receive a mere pittance in comparison as it only accounted for his accrued leave. This
action by the entirety of the Board, if voted in the affirmative, is fiscally irresponsible
and contrary to the general tenets of fiscal responsibility as delineated by the national
Republican Party, the State of Florida Republican Party, and the Collier County republican
Party. In essence this is a give away of Collier County Tax dollars during a time of
depleted revenues and trying times affecting the entirety of Collier County's Government.
The question at hand is why are Commissioners Coyle, Coletta and Fiala supporting a fiscally
irresponsible action of the Board and a smokescreen when it is quite apparent that this
expenditure of tax dollars is not necessary given Mr. Mitchell's admission that he can
undertake the general tenets of his employment agreement. This is an employee that is no
longer happy with is current position and wants to quit just like any other employee and
should be treated like any other employee that voluntarily resigns. The elimination of the
Mr. Mitchell's position and his termination as proffered by Commissioner Coyle constitutes
blatant disregard for sound fiscal policy and is only designed to circumvent the requirements
for payment by the Clerk of the Court of severance in an amount much larger than is required
pertaining to Mr. Mitchell's desire to resign. The Clerk should carefully scrutinize the
record as this effort by certain Board Members to be fiscally irresponsible and pay Mr.
Mitchell this huge severance is an attempt to convince the clerk to pay severance contrary to
Mr. Mitchell's contract and admissions on the record. Under no circumstances should the
Clerk of the Court pay this huge amount when it is clear that certain members of the Board
are only undertaking this change in posture to pay this large amount.
1
> The confidentiality agreement required in Mr. Mitchell's contract is a part of a bi-lateral -
contract which neither the County or Mr. Mitchell entered into and was a requirement of the
contract. Therefore, Mr. Mitchell and Collier County are both in breach of this contract by
failing to adhere to the general provisions as set forth in the contract. Moreover, the
County Attorney's Office drafted the contact executed by the Board and Mr. Mitchell and the
non-execution and not even drafting the confidentiality agreement for over 2 years brings
into question the competency within the County Attorney's Office. The confidentiality
agreement and the resolution to sever employment under any circumstances are inextricably
intertwined. If Mr. Mitchell does not sign the confidentiality agreement as suggested by
Commissioner Hennin tg hen he is in breach of contract and not entitled to any severance pay
except for accrued leave,.
>'
> Mr. Mitchell would appear to be holding the county hosta:e or in more explicit terms
blac<`TmalEing the coun . . no.- no si:n the confidentia 1 y ag -- - - the
Clerk of the Court agrQe to pay Mr. Mitchell 5 000. is re uc ance on r. 'i c e
part to execute the confidentiality agreement borders on has the appearance of extortion as
any reasonable person could construe this action as Mr. Mitchell's effort to disclose
information that would be subject to the confidentiality agreement unless he is paid $65,000.
His reluctance to sign the confidentiality agreement under no uncertain terms constitutes a
substantial breach of his contract. Any concerned citizen, who considers the totality of
what is being done by certain members of the Board to pay Mr. Mitchell $65,000 when his
accrued leave and payment should be under $5,000 begs the question that certain commissioners
are trying to hide information from the general public that might be detrimental to their
political existence. Why else would Mr. Mitchell refuse to sign the confidentiality
agreement unless the Clerk of the Court pays Mr. Mitchell $65,000.
> The County Attorney has gone on record saying that the Board can act on the resolution
terminating Mr. Mitchell's contract without considering the confidentiality agreement. How
can this be true when Mr. Mitchell has not met the terms of his contract by entering into
ta3-7Olifidentiality agreement as required b his contract. Granted the County Attorney's
Office might take this position as it has been derelict in its duties by not immediately
drafting the confidentiality agreement which was included in the contract by the County
Attorney so a lack of knowledge and not expediting this requirement is inexcusable.
> On a related member, Mr. Mitchell in his lame duck position terminated Evelyn Prieto's aide
for disseminating a public record to her immediate supervisor Commissioner Henning. Mr.
Mitchell has described the dissemination of a public record as insubordination. In fact, if
Mrs. Prieto had not provided Commissioner Henning with the letter from Mayor Sorey regarding
beach renourishment she would have been derelict in her duties and then subject to possible
employee discipline. This was a witch hunt by Mr. Mitchell and one County Commissioner to
terminate Ms. Prieto as she had verbally alleged to the County Human Resources that she had
jeen subjected to a [1777117-717k environment. Instead of Human Resources investigating Ms.
Prieto's allegations, which are extremely serious labor law related matters which could
expose Collier County to extreme financial exposure, Mr. Mitchell in retaliation used the
County Attorney's Office and the County Human Resources Department to terminate Ms. Prieto.
This termination should be discussed during this item on the agenda.
>
> Commissioner Coyle also wants to eliminate Mr. Mitchell's position and reorganize the
Office of the County Commission. Does that mean during the tenure o Sue Filson and Mr.
Mitchell that the expenditure of over one million dollars was unnecessary and these functions
could have been undertaken by other Collier County employees? This would appear highly
unlikely given the glowing evaluations of Mr. Mitchell in the performance of his duties.
Moreover, Commissioner Coyle is uni atera y proposing file reorganizing the Office of the
Board of County Commissioners contrary to the official action of the Board 3 meetings ago.
If you recall, the Board directed that the County Manager come back as a subsequent meeting
with different options pertaining to the organization at the Board of County Commissioners
Office. However, the County Manager was derelict in his duties because he did not present to
2
het.t/i iv
the Board the respective options at the next meeting or at the subsequent two meetings. If
you also recall, this direction was provided after the county manager indicated that he did
not want this function under the direction of his office.
> In closing, this entire scenario pertaining to Mr. Mitchell has an extremely foul odor and
is contrary to every action of the Board where every member of the Board repeatedly states on
the record that actions are being undertaken in the context of fiscal responsibility. In
this situation, every effort has been made by certain members of the Board to do what is pure
blasphemy in terms of fiscal irresponsibility. These Board members should be taken to task
on this issue and under no circumstances should the Resolution be acted on inn the
affirmative. if the Board does take this action, under no circumstances should the Clerk of
the Court pay Mr. Mitchell $65,000 in severance pay as this resolution is a charade and an
effort to circumvent the truth pertaining to Mr. Mitchell's resignation which was his desire.
If certain members of the Board vote on this matter they should be investigated by the
Commission on Ethics with consideration of suspension or removal of office.
> Please introduce the entirety of this letter in the record and I respectfully request that
the entirety of this correspondence be read into the record.
> Very truly yours,
> A very concerned citizen.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
3
a 03 D Or -a > m m n
n r r m 73
_3 r �-+ rD m Z -I
n -< hi v Z r
O C rn a
fil r m •
-
CA
.I r ;-- 2 CD i-,
M N O cr
v 3 ,77i DCD -' T rte-
- "'1 ~ z o / m iv
U, z
3 0 rrnn � n " n�
x z (° H
O O m
2 -I * zz r p
I m = 0o (Al
rn W w ' ni
m 3 rrrrn � w z 9 la rn
Z
� D (
m I„
--II -I-I O Z XI
O
m I Z
'TI rn 0 j>73 p `O_ CO� � D
..< Dz
v
D
C D C X m �I ,.
Z
1-1 0 = � D r, n
-1 3 n1nz --
I m Comm rJ
m
co -ZI DO H m .n 6 L
` #' 3 fD
O X z o
o r
> > 3 OI O i
�
um
v v zG "' / . -
I
CL
> z O m 0 r„--1 '4 ( �D O m N CD
z 0 z - 12 _ H
•x D o0 t , o to rim
CD
7C ,n °ox 27 I
Om 73 mrn ,p
o �� F it
= 0 p z rn m
C 1 D --I -I 1
m m mm �
CI n zoD C ,
2 r r - s
mF..� O O
Z . -n CO (A.) 'a
I • CC
n t a.
v •g' rt
2/14/2012 Item 16.C.1.
0.1 A
#1,3 r 70t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NJ"t. '/f
Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and to enter into negotiations with
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith Inc., and Hole Montes, Inc. for three contracts for
Request for Proposal No. 11-5782, "Wastewater Basin Analyses," Project Numbers 70043, 70044,
70046,70050,70051,and 70064.
OBJECTIVE: To provide expert professional engineering services to ensure proper and sound
analysis,design and construction of wastewater collection systems. The intent is to provide end
results that are high quality, best value projects to serve our wastewater customers with full
regulatory compliance, reliability, and sustainability.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 24, 2008, as Agenda item 10G, the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) adopted the 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update that identified the
general requirement for rehabilitating wastewater collections systems. The proposed scope of
work will be executed under multiple projects shown in the attached Table 1. These projects are
consistent with the 2010 Wastewater CIP Update, pages 2 and 3, as identified in the 2011 User
Fee Rate Study.
The Planning and Project Management Department is incorporating multiple technical support
projects into a series of Wastewater Basin Analyses investigations to analyze, design and
construct wastewater system improvements efficiently and cost-effectively by thoroughly
examining the current and ultimate wastewater infrastructure needs within each basin.
Request for Proposal No. 11-5782 Wastewater Basin Analyses, was posted on November 18,
2011, with 963 notices sent out and 108 firms downloading full document packages. Seven
responsive proposals were received on December 16, 2011. The selection committee met on
January 9, 2012, and by consensus selected three firms to provide the required professional
engineering services; 1) AECOM Technical Services, Inc., 2) CDM Smith Inc. and 3) Hole
Montes, Inc. The final rankings are shown below.
Name of Firm Final Rankin
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) 1
CDM Smith Inc. (CDM) 2
Hole Montes, Inc. (Hole Montes) 3
Tetra Tech, Inc. 4
Greeley and Hansen, LLC 5
Agnoli, Barber&Brundage,Inc. 6
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 6
On January 19, 2012, the selection committee reconvened to short-list and rank the firms for
each of the three basins to be analyzed. The committee reached a consensus ranking for the three
basins. A short list was selected for each of the three basins. Based on the selection committee's
ranking, staff will proceed to negotiate three fair and reasonable contracts for this work and will
Packet Page-1413-
2/14/2012 Rem 16.C.1.
C/PA
adreturn to the Board for approval of the resultant contracts. The selection committee ranking for 'It I
each basin is as follows: 2�
Rankin Basin
g MPS 101 MPS 305 MPS 306
1 CDM Hole Montes AECOM
2 AECOM AECOM Hole Montes
3 Hole Montes CDM CDM
The three top-ranked firms are qualified and have extensive experience analyzing, designing and
inspecting wastewater collection systems. Staff recommends approval of the short lists.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Once negotiations are completed and
approved, funding is available in, and is consistent with, the FY2012 Capital Budget approved
by the Board on September 22, 2011. The source of funding is Wastewater User Fees, Fund
(414).
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action—JW.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project meets current Growth Management Plan
standards to ensure the viability of public facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-officio the Governing
Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve the selection committee rankings and
authorize entering into negotiations with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith, Inc.,
and Hole Montes, Inc., for three contracts for Request for Proposal No. 11-5782, "Wastewater
Basin Analyses"Project Numbers 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051,and 70064.
Prepared By: Craig Pajer, PE, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities Planning and Project
Management Department
Attachments: Table 1,Funding Sources Reference Table
Packet Page-1414-
3/27/2012 Item 11.C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve Contract 11-5782-with AECOM
PP OM Technical Services, Inc., CDM.Smith
Inc. and Hole Montes,Inc.,for three contracts for"Wastewater Basin Analyses,"Project Numbers
70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and 70064, in the estimated amount of$2,000,000 per year for
each consultant, or a total annual amount of $6,000,000 with a contract length of six years, to
perform professional engineering services with one engineering consultant being assigned to each of
the three basins selected for analysis. (Craig Pajer, Principal Project Manager, Planning and
Project Management Department,Public Utilities Division)
OBJECTIVE: Provide expert professional engineering services to ensure proper and sound
analysis, design,and construction of wastewater collection systems. The intent is to provide end
results that are high quality, best value projects to serve our wastewater customers with full
regulatory compliance,reliability,and sustainability.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 24, 2008, as Agenda item 10G, the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) adopted the 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update that identified the
general requirement for rehabilitating wastewater collections systems. The proposed scope of
work will be executed under multiple projects shown in the attached Table 1. These projects are
consistent with the 2010 Wastewater CIP Update, pages 2 and 3, as identified in the 2011 User
Fee Rate Study.
The Planning and Project Management Department is incorporating multiple technical
support projects into a series of Wastewater Basin Analyses investigations to analyze, design
and construct wastewater system improvements efficiently and cost-effectively by thoroughly
examining the current and ultimate wastewater infrastructure needs within each basin. Three
engineering consultants were selected; one for each of three wastewater basins to be studied.
On February 14, 2012, as Agenda item 16.C.1, the Board, as Ex-officio the Governing Board of
the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approved the selection committee rankings and
authorized entering into negotiations with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith, Inc.
and Hole Months, Inc„ for three contracts for Request for Proposal No. 11-5782, "Wastewater
Basin Analyses"Project Numbers 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and 70064. At this time
staff is seeking the approval of the proposed contracts for each of the Board approved
engineering consultants.
Each firm's contract is based on an annual "Not To Exceed" $2 million dollar amount, but
required services will be ordered on a strategic, as-needed basis as determined by the County.
For cost containment purposes,prior to the issuance of a Purchase Order,the firm must submit a
formal Quotation for the work. The County will review the Quotation, and upon reaching
agreement on pricing, schedule and deliverables, a Purchase Order will be issued to the firm with
the Quotation as backup documentation. The County will then issue a formal Notice To Proceed
(NTP)to initiate the services.
Packet Page-95-
'3/27/2012 item 11.C.
FISCAL IMPACA Funding is available in, and is ionsistent with, the FY2012Xapital Budget
approved by the Board=September 22, 2011._ source of funding is TWastewater User Fees, cpicf1111
Fund (414). The exact funding required will ri upon the extent of wort.required in each
basin.
LEGAL Sagiallann This item has bail reviewed and opvited by the County
Attorneys g and islogally sufficient for Board siction--JW.
GROwt FiNIAGgAWNT IMPACT% This project is consistent with and furthers the goals,
objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan to ensure the iwierpmcy and availability
of viable public fricilities.
BrocRoutzganizt That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio, the-Governing
13oard of the C.ollier County Water-Sewer District
1. Award Contract 11-5782 to AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith Inc, and
Hole Montes, Inc., for professional enginaering services in the estimOted amount of
82,000,000 per year for each consultant,or&total estimated annual amount of SC000,000
with a contract length of six years,to perform professional engineering services with one
engineering consultant being assigned to each of the three basins selected for analysis.
2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the contacts with each selected vendor after approval
by the County A.ttomey's Office.
tu"")
Prepared By Craig Pajer, PE, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities Manning and Project
Managanpnta*Oattment
Attachments:Table 1,Funding Sources:2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update and 2011:Wastewater CI?
Update Reference•Table
1
t*Th
Packet Page-96-
9/11/2012 Item 11.E.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY )�/�C
Recommendation to approve Contract 11-5782 for three design contracts for the "Wastewater v�.
V
Basin Program," Project Numbers 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and 70064, in the total
amount of$5,730,468, with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith Inc., and Hole Montes,
Inc. to perform professional engineering services; and authorize a budget amendment in the
amount of$1,648,267.31.
OBJECTIVE: Obtain contract approval for expert professional engineering services to
rehabilitate mission critical infrastructure in the wastewater collection system.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 24, 2008, as Agenda item 10G, the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) adopted the 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update that identified the
general requirement for rehabilitating wastewater collection systems. The proposed scope of
work will be executed under multiple projects shown in the attached Table 1. These projects are
consistent with the 2010 Wastewater CIP Update, pages 2 and 3, as identified in the 2011 User
Fee Rate Study.
On February 14, 2012, as Agenda item 16.C.1, the Board, as Ex-officio the Governing Board of
the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approved the selection committee rankings and
authorized staff to enter into negotiations with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith,
Inc., and Hole Montes, Inc., for three separate contracts under Request for Proposal No. 11-5782.
Multiple technical support projects, Project Numbers 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and
70064, are being combined to fund this portion of the Wastewater Basin Program. At this time
staff is seeking the approval of the proposed contracts for each of the Board-approved
engineering consultants.
On March 27, 2012, the Board requested staff to return with revised contracts that were more
explicitly defined and demonstrable. The resulting scopes of work will now provide tangible,
complete engineering designs and construction drawings for the following prioritized worst-first
areas of the infrastructure:
• Rehabilitate eight aging master pump stations, adding overflow containment and
updating them to meet current Florida Department of Environmental Protection and
Florida Building Code Standards.
• Rehabilitate 111 pump stations, eliminating below grade leak hazards, adding
containment where feasible and emergency back-up pumping at critical pump stations.
• Alleviate potential overflow conditions that exist in Basin 101 (Naples Park).
• Replace a 40-year-old sub-aqueous force main crossing with an aerial crossing at the
111 th Street bridge.
• Provide an alternative path for wastewater to reach the South County Water Reclamation
Facility (SCWRF). Currently, 80 percent of the flow to the SCWRF goes through one
force main. Reconstruction of Master Pump Station (MPS) 306 and a force main from
MPS 306 to the SCWRF will provide a parallel path for needed reliability and
maintainability(Sabal Bay).
Packet Page -1234-
9/11/2012 Item 11.E.
01/
• Replace 22,865 feet of gravity sewer clay pipe.
,, e.
• Replace 660 clay pipe service laterals.
• Replace 14,275 feet of wastewater force main.
The infrastructure being addressed represents the highest priority, worst-first areas based on
internal condition assessments.
Each contract contains a scope of work that has been customized based on the tasks requested in
RFP 11-5782 in order to fit the needs of the particular basin that each vendor is to be working on.
Although not all requested tasks in the RFP are needed for each basin, all of the tasks in each
scope of work were requested in RFP 11-5782.
Subsequent contracts for construction of the required infrastructure as developed under these
engineering designs, as well as construction, engineering and inspection services (CEI), will be
presented to the Board for review and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is available in, and is consistent with, the FY2012 Capital Budget
approved by the Board on September 22, 2011. The source of funding is Wastewater User Fees,
Fund (414). A budget amendment is required from Project Numbers 72552, Lift Station Facility
Rehab, 70064, Collection System Lightning Protection, 73050, Wastewater Line Technical
Support, and 70021, Energy Efficiency Studies, all from Fund 414, in the amount of
$1,648,267.31.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved by the County Attorney's Office, the
contracts are each legally sufficient, and the contracts require a majority vote for approval. - ERP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project is consistent with and furthers the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan to ensure the adequacy and availability
of viable public facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-officio the Governing
Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District,
1. Approve Contract 11-5782 to AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith Inc., and
Hole Montes, Inc., for professional engineering services, and authorize funding for the
initial contract phase in the amounts of $1,870,468, $1,940,000 and $1,920,000,
respectively(a total of$5,730,468); and,
2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts with each firm after approval by the
County Attorney's Office; and,
3. Approve the necessary Budget Amendment to transfer funds in the amount of
$1,648,267.31 from Project Number 72552 (Lift Station Facility Rehab), Project Number
70064 (Collection System Lightning Protection), Project Number 73050 (Wastewater
Line Technical Support), and Project Number 70021 (Energy Efficiency Studies) to
Project Number 70046 (Wastewater Pump Station Technical Support).
Packet Page-1235-
9/11/2012 Item 11.E.
n /Iv
i"
Prepared By: Craig Pajer, PE, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities Planning and Project ,192/1111itt Management Department Ut(
Attachments: ,
1) Table 1,Funding Sources: 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update and 2011 Wastewater CIP
Update Reference Table
2) Solicitation Document for 11-5782
3) Proposed Contracts
Packet Page -1236-
September 11-12, 2012
Item #11E 'V
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT #11-5782 FOR
THREE DESIGN CONTRACTS FOR THE "WASTEWATER
BASIN PROGRAM," PROJECT NUMBERS 70043, 70044, 70046,
70050, 70051, & 70064 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,730,468
WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., CDM SMITH
INC., AND HOLE MONTES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES; AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT $1,648,267.31 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.E is a recommendation to approve contract
11-5782 for three design contracts for the wastewater basin program to
award in the total amount of $5,730,468 with AECOM Technical.
Services, Incorporated, CDM Smith, Incorporated and Hole-Montes,
( Incorporated to perform professional engineering services and
authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $1,648,267.31.
Mr. Craig Pajer, Project Manager for Public Utilities Division,
will present.
MR. PAJER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Craig
Pajer, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how many slides do you have?
MR. PAJER: I have nine.
MR. OCHS: He's over the limit.
MR. PAJER: I can either just answer your questions or go
through the very brief presentation. I'll make it brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, what's your
preference?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could I have some questions first
before?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
Page 1
CPO"
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this the same project? And I
asked Leo and unfortunately I have not gotten the information back
when I had my conference with him reviewing this information.
Is this the same project that was brought to the Board earlier
where the estimated construction -- I'm sorry, engineering cost for each
basin was 12 million and the total construction cost for each basin was
approximately 20 million? In other words, 36 million in engineering
cost or 60 million in construction cost? Is that the same project that
we're talking about?
MR. PAJER: The RFP for this project is the same. However,
based on the feedback that we received from the Board on March 27th,
we've gone back and stepped back and decided to begin with the end in
mind and just focus on the needs of those basins. So what we have is a
program that is not -- it's $5.7 million in engineering fees, with an
estimated construction cost of $39 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But what you say in our
executive summary is that it is antia cost of 5.7. y
And the other thing that I'm Very concerned about is, you know,
as a function of a number of questions I asked again through Leo and
information he provided back to me is that you already have three
camera trucks and that you have the ability in-house and already had
the ability in-house to inspect these pipes with these camera trucks. So
I'm not really sure I understand why we're going out and having this
work done when we have the means to do it ourselves. And wh
we taking advantage of the savings we can achieve through why aren't
equipment that we have that we've paid for? gh the
MR. PAJER: We are doing all of
g that TV inspection in-house. It
was included in the RFP for consulting services in case some of that
needed to be supplemented. But that's not included in the contracts
that we have before you today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I want to go back then to my
Page 2
• Ard3tit 11
September 11-12, 2012 V,W
first question. You're now talking about 5.7 million initially. I want to
know what the total is. And you have revised the project downwards
by 20 million, from 60 million to 40 million. That is a material
adjustment just by virtue of our discussion here at the Board at the last
meeting.
I need an explanation as to what's going on. I mean, how can you
drop from 12 million to seven million and, you know, 60 million to 40
million? And why wasn't that done in the first place?
MR. PAJER: The approach that we're taking is to look at the
worst first as far as our wastewater infrastructure is concerned. So
we're focusing on those facilities that could potentially fail in the near
future. So we're focusing on those worst facilities first and updating
the entire collection system in each of the three basins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do they have the potential to fail
or do we know they're failing?
( MR. PAJER: They have the potential for failure. We would do
our best not to allow anything to fail, and we are proactive in updating
assets before they fail.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have a real concern. I
mean, I'm not sure that the scope of what we're proposing is the right
first step. I think there really needs to be an evaluation of, you know,
what we've got out there, what has the potential to fail and at what
point in time, and basically make a decision accordingly, which goes
back to the asset management plan which should be approved and
finalized before we go forward and approve what now would be based
on these totals almost a $50 million project.
MR. PAJER: We've done an internal condition assessment of our
wastewater facilities in each of these basins. And we know from just
visiting these pump stations and these facilities on a weekly basis
which ones need to be rehabilitated. So there's really no need to go
and study the systems again, because we know from our daily
Page 3
$0V
September 11-12 201
P ,
operations that they're in need of repair. ( ---
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is not potential, we know
for a fact that they're in a state that they need repair immediately?
MR. PAJER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I just have a real concern
with a project which in effect is a $50 million project and having been
as materially changed coming forward in this manner.
MR. PAJER: Let me add something else. We have eight master
pump stations in these three basins, and these master pump stations are
25 years old and older. And we're having a difficult time getting spare
parts for the pumps that are currently installed. Normally these pumps
have a useful life of about 12 years, and they've been in the pump
stations for 25 years.
So when we get to the point where we can't buy spare parts for
our pumps that are essential for operations, it's time to do something
and we need to update them so that we can use pumps that are
available today and that are more efficient in their operation.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, perhaps it would be instructive if
Mr. Pajer went briefly through his slides. That might answer some of
the questions that the Board is anticipating.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would appreciate that. I did
want to ask these questions ahead to make sure they are addressed.
In short, last meeting you came forward asking for in effect what
would be 96 million. Now you're coming forward and you're asking
for what is in effect 50 million. And so I'm looking at a $46 million
change as a consequence of this Board's objection to your last
proposal. That's material. So I'd like to hear your presentation. Thank
you.
MR. PAJER: The objective today is to obtain your approval for
engineering services to rehabilitate our mission critical wastewater
infrastructure. And we're using an industry standard basin approach.
Page 4
•
September 11-12, 2012
3 Our wastewater system is being addressed based on the highest
�� y g g
priority of facilities that we have and we're looking at worst first, based
again on our internal condition assessment.
And we've received feedback from you on March 27th and we're
addressing those issues.
The three basins that are included in these contracts are the 101
basin which consists mainly of Naples Park and the Vanderbilt area.
Master pump station 305 which consists of the Gateway Triangle;
the old Glade wastewater system that we purchased, it's one of the
oldest wastewater areas in the county; as well as the Naples Industrial
Park, Flamingo Estates and River Reach.
The 306 Basin is located along the Bayshore Boulevard corridor
and along Thomasson Avenue, and that's the area south of U.S. 41 .
And again, the pumps, the master, all these facilities were built
about 25 years ago.
( These are some samples of field conditions of our existing
infrastructure on the upper left-hand corner. You have a broken clay
pipe which allows infiltration to our system.
The lower left corner is a picture of the piping and the complexity
of the piping associated with our master pump stations that require
very sound engineering to complete these renovations.
And to the right we have a corroded wastewater force main that
was going into one of our master pump stations. You can see there's a
hole in the pipe, and that's just not acceptable for our infrastructure.
The results, based on the outcome of these contracts, are tangible
complete engineering design and construction documents to fully
rehabilitate eight aging master pump stations, fully rehabilitate 20
aging duplex wastewater pump stations, updating 91 other pump
stations in these three areas. We'll be eliminating the potential for
sewer system overflows in the Naples Park area, we'll be replacing a
subaqueous force main underneath the 111th Street Bridge, and we'll
Page 5
September 11-12, 2012
be replacing almost 23,000 feet of gravity sewer pipe in the Vanderbilt
finger street area, along with 660 clay correction.
We'll be extending and/or replacing about 14,000 feet of force
main and we'll be providing an alternative force main path to the south
wastewater treatment plant.
Based on historical engineering fees that we've been paying for
infrastructure improvements, our estimate of the engineering cost is
$8.1 million to do this work. The contract before you today totals $5.7
million, which results in about a $2.4 million savings in engineering
costs.
We've estimated the construction cost to be $39 million, and we
anticipate at least a 10 percent cost savings by bundling up the
construction projects into multiple projects into one to get some
economies of scale.
Staff recommends that you approve the contracts as stipulated in
the executive summary, we ask the Chairman to execute these
contracts, and we request the budget amendment that's included in
your executive summary.
I'm available for additional questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the slides answered my
question. Thanks, Leo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know that during our
recession we were very careful about not spending any money to
maintain anything unless it was a dire need to do so. And I was also
concerned at the time thinking I hope that we can get back to a point
where we can rehabilitate some of these things before they burst on us
and it cost us a heck of a lot more money. And although you could
never guess how much more we have saved by -- or we would save by
Page 6
Nb
`#
Se ptember 11-12, 201
r,1,-
not waiting till a break completely, I think this is an excellent project, I
think you've cut back remarkably, you've done a great job and I make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you've materially changed
the scope of this project. Again, before when you presented this to us it
wasn't the numbers you've got here. You said it was going to be a total
of 96 million, now we're down to 50 million, and I'm combining the
engineering and the construction.
As a consequence, shouldn't this be rebid? You've got a very
different project here than what you had before. I understand that you
( applied the CCNA to the other project, but this is not the same project.
And I'm not sure that under the circumstances selecting the same firms
for a project that is reduced in scope by almost 50 percent is
appropriate. And I'd like Mrs. Kinzel to weigh in on that.
MS. KINZEL: Sorry. Commissioner, I'd have to review it from
each of those. And obviously originally it was posted. I don't know
what purchasing has done or legal on that, but I think it's a legal
question that Jeff may want to answer as to the scope. It's obviously a
reduction in the scope and it was handled under the fixed term to select
the vendors and ranked. And so the reduction I think you're okay, but
I'd like to go back and look at that legally. I had not reviewed it for
that question. Maybe purchasing and legal can answer it more --
MS. MARKOWITZ: Joanne Markowitz, your Interim
Purchasing Director.
Commissioners, all of the scope of work that Mr. Pajer spoke
about and several other items were included in the original
Page 7
0/tc.54S;10
September 11-12, 2012
specification. It's at this point at the last meeting that you requested
that we refine that scope. But all of the tasks that he has addressed
have been included in that scope originally.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were they individually priced?
MS. MARKOWITZ: They were not. Remember, this was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you have a problem.
MS. MARKOWITZ: -- this was CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MS. MARKOWITZ: -- so we competitively solicited it based on
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if you -- well then -- okay,
now, let me restate my point then. If you based it on qualifications and
the scope has changed, there might be other firms better suited to the
revised scope than they might have been to the overall project. So we
may have made selections for the overall project based on a certain set
of qualifications. Now you're looking at completely different
parameters.
I'd be very concerned about approving such a different project
without rebidding it. And we're looking at -- like I said, we're not
talking about a small dollar amount, we're not talking about small
changes, we're talking about almost $50 million.
DR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Your comments are well taken. We went through that process
and went through the due diligence and worked with our county chief
financial officer, Clerk of Court's financial officer and office to make
sure that, working with Bonnie, and went through the review of the
new scope and negotiated scope. And -- but furthermore, we went
through working with our purchasing department very closely.
So what we have is we have engineering contracts competitively
procured and awarded by the Board. Now, we could negotiate set of
Page 8
September 11-12, 2012 I(4, �11
scope for the engineering work with tangible results. In this case
yourself, Commissioners, along with other commissioners provided
feedback to the staff.
We took that back. And what you have before you is tangible
deliverables. Everything we could do in-house we will do. Everything
we cannot do in-house we will outsource. What we have also, it is the
prerequisite to five-year CIP program.
We're looking at close to, if I might, on basin-by-basin studies,
we're looking at -- we're looking at 18 to 25 years in terms of
construction rehab cycle and replacement cycle. Currently, given the
pace we have.
We know what we have in the field that is subject to fail any time
under our watch. What that means is that we do not want to have any
wastewater nor water infrastructure fail and be subject to consent order
under this Board's and leadership watch.
So your question was right on the target, Commissioner Hiller.
Are we dealing with things that will fail? Those are the things we go
home and we are concerned that they will fail. They are at level 3-F.
That means red subject to fail.
One example, master pump station 107. We have external diesel
pump station to handle peak flows. We're not able to handle peak
flows. And that's a walk-around. That's not a reliable sustainable
Board-desired infrastructure that our customer base deserves.
So we're doing everything we can operationally. However, we
need to get to the point that we have a robust good competitively
procured engineering firms coming in with experts on board, three of
them, designing what needs to be designed so that we can move the
construction.
We will come back to you with construction bids and lets. They
are competitive. They will be competitive. This is simply prerequisite
to engineering design. The engineering design is based on what we
Page 9
ekIW.2(
September 11-12, 20f2
know. They will not be out there telling what
g us to do. We are telling (41,7-
them, here is the scope, this is what you need to do in terms of gap
analysis we have done. Gap analysis based on our current utility
standards. Y
And what we have in the ground has a gap between what is there
and what we need to have if we had to build them now. And engineers
will design -- as you have seen some of the pictures, we have many of
them, we have chosen just two pictures -- for us to be able any of
back to you and say here is the gap analysis, here is the engineering to come
design. This is the shovel ready. We can now move the construction.
As we can move and as fast as we can move, financial si easib e
and also operational feasible and also industry ( c) feasible
if not five industry standard leading associations� standards. At least four
and more recently suggesting this g the organizations. More
g e way we need to do it, bundle
it. Otherwise we would have, for instance, instead of world
master pump stations (sic), we will be working on these three bon nassns,
s,
eight master pump stations. When we bundle eight master pump
stations, then we can synchronize our operations, minimize the
to our customer base. impact
Along with one other example, without taking more valuabl
of our board members. Force mains. Under this program ' e yme
ram
designing or reengineering 7.6 percent of our force g ere only
mains. This is just
the start. In our replacement cycle under the schedule
That means if you go with the pace we'r e going, was 66 years.
p we will get to all of
our force main, which is about over 400 miles. Sixty years --
maybe 70 years. tY Y 66 years,
And one more example I want to give you. In terms of um
station other than master pump stations, we're looking at 35 e p
replacement cycle. And those are bare minimums for us Y
ear
good start, address what we know potentially might s have a
watch. Which we will do everything Y ght fail under der our
rY g �,�,e can 24/7. That's not going to
Page 10
• *-2A
September 11-12, 2012 ttl ;0j(
Nl +
I happen. That's my commitment to my chief executive.
But we do need your help. Have the engineering design based on
the gap analysis and our assessment, what is worse, which is level
three red F, that every week in all these systems has a potential and
chances are will fail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Jeff, are you concerned about the
legal aspects of the procurement?
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I guess I have a very simple
question, George.
You put out an RFP?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're now getting to a contract.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your contract ties into your RFP?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Has the scope changed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Materially.
MR. OCHS: No, the scope of engineering services, all tasks, as
Ms. Markowitz mentioned a minute ago were in the original
specification. Obviously the scope of the projects that will be
constructed has been narrowed, but again, these are engineering --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's the construction cost, that comes
later.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that.
My question is the RFP you put out is tied into your contract.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you have not changed the engineering
scope?
MR. OCHS: No.
Page 11
September 11-12, 2012
DR. YILMAZ: No, we have not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The scope has changed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The scope has changed.
engineering scope has changed. g The
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: George?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We went from -- they're
engineering something completely different than what was
proposed to be engineered. That is a change in scope.
originally
MS. MARKOWITZ: Commissioner, our RFP w as inclusive of
all of the potential engineering tasks that we may h ave used. We
w
moved from the short list to the negotiations and
to you a narrowing or a selection of those tasks we are bringing back
As Dr. Yilmaz mentioned, We went from the RFP.
�,�,
could do in-house and what we could nt back and reevaluated what we
ould do in an outsource sort of way.
All of the tasks were included in the original RFP as
potentially the
tasks we would need to use in the resultant contract.
We now have taken the contract and refined it based o
from all of you. on feedback
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is for a design contract,, it s not for
Now, Jeff, does that answer your question?
MR. PAJER: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sort of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a lack of clarity, I've of
My understanding then is that the RFP went g to tell you.
you're coming back to the Board saying out for 10 things but
it? Y g �,e�11 do five; is that essentially
MR. PAJER: Essentially, yes.
Page 12
•
September 11-12, 2012V`
MR. KLATZKOW: Did your RFP mention that the scope might
be reduced?
MR. PAJER: Pardon?
MR. KLATZKOW: Did the RFP state that the scope might be
reduced?
MR. PAJER: It says that it includes but it is not -- well, that they
may be used but not necessarily will be used.
MR. KLATZKOW: So when this R -- okay, I'm okay with it
then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say it -- they might not be
used, what are you talking about?
MR. PAJER: The tasks. The scope of work. It was a very
complete scope of work so that we could pick and choose what we
needed. We only chose those tasks that we needed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
( continue this to allow the Clerk of Courts to review this They have
not reviewed this in light of this information that was brought forward
today.
And while I appreciate what Jeff is saying for the benefit of our
Board, Jeff doesn't represent the Clerk. And what I don't want to see
happen is either that there is a bid protest that comes as a consequence
of this or that B, the Clerk does not make payment because a
determination is made after the fact that the CCNA was not respected.
At the end of the day it may turn out to be, you know, perfectly
fine and the Clerk may say yes, it's good, we can go for it.
So I'd like to continue this to the next meeting and then have
confirmation from the Clerk's Office at the next meeting that there is
no problem from the clerk's perspective.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we already have a motion on the
table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second.
Page 13
September 11-12, 2 2
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't hear it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And being that Crystal's been talking
with you privately, why don't we just hear what she has to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly what I just said, that they
have not had time to review it.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I'll confirm that that's
exactly -- she asked me if we had reviewed it in detail based on the
information that's come forward today. And I told her we have not.
You know, we rely first and foremost on purchasing and county
legal on the agenda items. We've not been presented with a pay
request. But in light of these items, if you wanted us to further review
and work with staff, we certainly can do that. It is apparently more of
a legal question, first for the Board staff and then when the pay request
comes to the Clerk to evaluate.
But we certainly would look at any of these in light of --
obviously some on the fly from the County Attorney and us, we'd be
willing to review it for you further if that's necessary.
MR. OCHS: Again, Commissioners, if I might, this is an item
that was submitted as part of the agenda package, went through the
same review window as all the other items. The Clerk and your staff
all have the same opportunity to review those things and question them
before they go on the agenda. In fact, we have a meeting the prior
Wednesday that includes Ms. Kinzel. I hadn't heard any concerns at
that point. I don't know that I heard anything from your County
Attorney that changes the recommendation from staff at this point.
MS. KINZEL: But Leo, excuse me. Just on the record, simply
because we don't raise an issue at that time, if additional information
comes forward to the Board that places a question in our minds, we
certainly reserve the right to review it further. But that can be done
Page 14
0)' t/
September 11-12, 2012 '
before or after a decision is made here and we can communicate that.
It is up to you.
But I would like to say, you know, when we do those review
meetings, it is not a blessing of every agenda item. There still may be
additional information that would come forward that we would be glad
to either consider, look at or review based on the Board's direction and
request.
MR. OCHS: Sure. I understand. I don't know what the
additional questions were that haven't been answered is all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney is still okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked staff whether or not the RIP
exclusively said that the work could be reduced. They're telling me on
the record that the RFP did say that. I don't have a chance right now to
go through this in detail. If you'd like the detail, that would require a
continuance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, would the original motion maker
be willing to add a condition to approval and that is the legal basis for
taking this action will be reviewed before the award of the contract?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're asking me, and I -- but I have
my button on anyway.
So just to rephrase everything we've just said very simply, what
we said is initially we had this entire scope of work that we want
designed. We went out and we sought the engineering firms that could
do this, this complete design, each and every different item in here.
We established the firms. The one was selected. And they could do
every single thing.
MR. OCHS: Three were recommended, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, three.
We also said that we might not use everything.
We've now talked to the County Attorney. And as long as it's
been said and these same companies have said yes, we can do each
Page 15
el:401164-
September 11-12, 2Q1
project, I don't understand why we would have to delay this when
they've already said they could do it all, when we've said we'll just cut
it back. We're going to save ourselves $45 million in the end, because
of course this doesn't include construction right now. And I don't
understand why we would want to delay it any further.
Now, if you can tell me why I should pull that back when they've
already said they can do every single facet of this, we've just chosen to
do less, what is the holdup?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I can't tell you why you should
delay it. I can only tell you that interpretations by the Clerk are
sometimes totally unpredictable and you don't have any idea where it's
going to go. You might award the contract and start the work and then
find the Clerk isn't going to pay it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal just said they could review it
until the next one. I mean, so if we pass it now and being that it's been
everything -- there's nothing new added, absolutely nothing new added
to this at all. So if we pass it right now you could still review it, right?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that wouldn't -- I mean, being
that it's not -- we're not talking about anything new or different.
MS. KINZEL: Well, the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Go ahead, staff.
MS. KINZEL: We'd be glad to review it.
MS. MARKOWITZ: Commissioners, if I could, I'd like to quote
task 1.1. For example, identify, analyze, prioritize and recommend the
rehabilitation program for the basin region. Tasks may include but are
not limited to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't hear. Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Read it again.
MS. MARKOWITZ: One example in the solicitation document:
Identify, analyze, prioritize and recommend the rehabilitation program
Page 16
September 11-12, 2012 tP.
for the basin region. Tasks may include but are not limited to. And
then it lists the tasks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's good. And that says it
all.
And we clearly remember when back in the Nineties when they
kept delaying and delaying and then we had a wastewater treatment
plant seeping at the seams, and then the state came in and shut us down
and said you're not responsible to handle your own wastewater
treatment plant repairs anymore, you have to get a consent from us,
and from here on in we're going to tell you what to do.
And I would hate to get into that position again when everything
has already been cleared, everything has been approved and we're just
choosing to do less of a project that was already approved. I cannot
see -- if somebody can tell me why I should withdraw this motion, but
not just because it's somebody's idea to do it but, you know, give me a
( " valid reason. Nothing's changed except that it's reduced.
MR. PAJER: I'd like to add that two county attorneys have
reviewed the contract before it got placed on the agenda. Scott Teach
and Emily Pepin have reviewed the contracts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Hiller, one last
time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Including but not limited to, is the
opposite of what Jeff is asking. It's not that it can be less, it means that
it can be more. So I'm sorry the wording isn't what you represented to
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- County Attorney Klatzkow.
MR. OCHS: -- excuse me, it said may include but not limited to.
So it's permissive on both ends as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not me. But that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll call the motion. All in favor of
Page 17
rtt,t*
September 11-12, 2012 _
the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 3-2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to add as a
postscript to this that from the last time this was presented the
engineering cost as a consequence of the challenge that I raised went
from 36 million to 6 million. A $30 million change that had I not
raised this back then would have been approved.
Page 18
glj)‘ 01'
Legal Notice
Pursuant to approval by the County Manager, Sealed Proposals to provide Professional Engineering Services for v"
Wastewater Basin Analyses will be received until 2:30 pm.Naples local time,on December 16,2011 at the Collier
County Government, Purchasing Department, 3327 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112.
CCNA Solicitation# 11-5782
Wastewater Basin Analyses
Services to be provided shall include, but not be limited to the following: Develop the Wastewater Basin
Program for each basin region including, but not limited to the following three (3) phases of work performed by
the consultant:
• Phase 1: Wastewater Collection System Analyses
• Phase 2: Design rehabilitation program
• Phase 3: Post Design Services
Brief Description
The selected consultant(s) shall perform a comprehensive analysis of the County-owned wastewater system
within specified basin boundaries to establish the basis of design for system renovations. Upon completion of
the analyses, the selected consultant(s) will perform design and construction-related support services.
Initially this program will focus on the engineering evaluation and analysis of the collection system after which
will come the improvements design and construction phases.
Detailed Scope of Work
The County is interested in contracting with the most qualified firm(s) to develop and implement a
Wastewater Basin Study Program for three initial distinct geographical regions. Each Wastewater
Basin Study shall include three general phases of work (as described below), and the contract will not
be completed until the County has accepted final construction completion on each geographical
area.
• Program Timeline - Describe the firm's timeline for completing the three phases of work in the
Wastewater Basin Study Project.
• Provide Team Member Profiles - Provide resumes for all of the full time staff members assigned to the
Collier County Wastewater Basin Study Project for all of the three phases of work: identify the specific
staff assigned to each of the phases.
• Provide the percentage of subconsultant percentages expected to use for the three phases and
describe the discipline/work.
If services to be provided involve or are related to a physical site(s), including, but not limited to: design
services for construction, physical monitoring, environmental studies, inspections or other similar activities,
prior to submission of proposal, proposers shall visit the site(s) with the County project manager to become
familiar with local conditions that may in any manner affect performance of the Work. This site visit shall be
documented in writing by the proposer with sign-off by the County project manager; this documentation shall
be submitted with the proposal. The proposal will be deemed non-responsive if the site visit documentation is
not presented to the County in the proposer's submitted proposal materials.
4:1)1 1-i a i k 0 i
117(
CORRELATION BETWEEN RFP TASKS AND CONTRACT TASKS
RFP 11-5782 Tasks Approved Contract Task Number
(Scope of Work Outline) CDM Hole-Montes AECOM
TASK 1.1-Identify,analyze,prioritize,recommend the rehabilitation program Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3
1) Determine/confirm the pump station(PS)service area(basin)for each pump station 2 4.1 3.1
2) Determine existing and ultimate theoretical wastewater generation 3 -
4.2 3.2
3) Collect the necessary information to confirm the build out flow conditions 3 4.3 3.3
i 4) Determine current wastewater flow 5 5.6
3.4
5) Eva' ate •historical pump station operation 5 6 - 3.2
6) Physically examine condition of all collection system components 6 1.1 4.1a
7) The inventory of conditions include a physical survey of the collection 10 2.1 4.1d
8) Perform a Sewer System Evaluation Survey as defined by USEPA.
9) Prepare exhibits for each pump station service 7 2.5 3.6
10) Perform an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the study area including smoke testing.
U) Prepare a Technical Memorandum for each pump station service area 8 25
12) Pump Station Evaluations 121
9.1 5 4.2
a. Survey each pump station site 9.2 2.4 4.1a
b. Provide regal sketches and legal descriptions 9.2 1.2 4.1b
c. Develop a pump station checklist
9.2 7
d. Visit each pump station and document conditions. 4.1c
9.2 7 4.1d
e. Estimate the hydrogen sulfide levels at pump station.
f. Gather available information related to each pump station 9.2 7 3.4
g. Stake out the easements and/or property boundaries 9.3 1.2 4.1f
h. Perform an overall evaluation of each pump station. 9.4 1.5 4.1g
I. Pump Station Evaluation Report Preparation 9.5 5.7 4.2
1 Prepare a draft"Fence to Fence"Evaluation Report(Report) 9.6 5.7 4.2
2 Summary memorandum will be prepared for each pump station 9.5 7.4 4.2
3 The deliverables anticipated 9.6 7.4 4.2
24 'Number of Tasks/Sub-tasks-ANALYSIS 21 21 21
Task 2.1 Final Design and Permitting Phase
z. Prepare final drawings,specifications,and opinion of probable construction cost 11 1.4,3 5.1
b. Prepare permit applications 11* 8
C. Present Contract Documents reviews 5.2
11* 6 5.1
I d. Respond to a request for additional information(RAI) 11* 8
Task 2.2 Bidding and Award Phase 5.1
a. Assist in preparing addenda
1.7
b. advise County as to the acceptability of the contractor and subcontractors
c. determine the acceptability of substitute material and equipment i
d. Conduct a pre-bid/quote conference
e. Attend the bid opening,review bids,quaiificat ons,
f. Provide a recommendation of award.
i
I
10 Number of Tasks/Sub-tasks-DESIGN I -
i 4 5 4
*Included in Task 11 25 I 26
25
74% 7696 74%
1 .1 A 0/
4k 19) 1117'
BASIN PROGRAM Comments Relative to Comments Relative to
(Basins 101,305,and 306) RFP 11-5782 Board-Approved Contracts
Engineering Expertise/Qualifications Comprehensive in nature Comprehensive in nature
Create designs for up to 4 MPS Create designs for up to 4 MPS
and their tributary systems and their tributary systems
within a basin in within a basin in
synchronization with each synchronization with each
other other
Quantity of Engineering Tasks/Sub Tasks
Analysis 24 21
Design 10 4/5/4*
Post-Design Services 2 0
Quantity of Full Rehab Designs
Master Pump Stations 8 8
Regular Pump Stations 111 20**
Quantity of Partial Rehab Designs
Regular Pump Stations 0 91
Quantity of Force Main Design 168,960 feet 14,275 feet**
(Entire 3 Basins)
-- --- — f _ (8%of 3 Basins) _
Quantit y Gravity g of Gravit Main Design I
549,120 feet f 22,865 feet**
(Entire 3 Basins)-- --- i �ni
(4%of 3 Basins)
Quantity of Lateral Design 8,497 j 660**
(Entire 3 Basins) (8%of 3 Basins)
*CDM-4, Hole-Mantes-5,AECOM-4 — -
**Included what we know to be the worst case, which still requires the same engineering expertise
and qualifications. Quantities changed, requirements did not.
1- nO = O m z M rn /'�
fad D r rn m wa
m !- rn m m Z t�-i
I-
n p v) c° CD D z r
G7 O C O T n ,?t N
rn
70 z
° m -I
r m 1, -I rn
tn
-I r
:' z rD
th
rn H O ,*
rn °
H m
O m n '-' z =
X v -`sic D
_ z q 1 70
O O � zrn H
z —1 * zz _ Z
_ X _ .< 0 (o,
r N
\rn Wm n_1 o
> W me W \J r
co C� ~ LA
m 3 rzW '
rn
I- Z � DcDn
O
-I -I l O < z I-
rn ,n rn � °
CI ^ °2 72 co D �m - v D zO
U, nn 0 -Dino m �=.
-1 z z
-1 3 rn - 2 CD
m m porn 3
CO -I > H crj CD 0
fD
D >CA ° O � v rt
o D z
> C 3 z O O Si ° C
13 IN
~z °O :�O rn CD N -, rill
H o x cD° O
c CD
-I m O m �I- e ET 3
O LA ° u'c U it
-I v) cn . 'a
m Z n cr,
C D --I -I ��
03 _
rn m 3 � >
_1 n z O I- O
_ 71 x r n
m ,a., ° p Y, S
Z W �, -tea
G) n ti
2 Oa W
rn c _
X m fD
D
n (nn
3 > ° m
^r . > m n r D m -1 m -< � rn D -O z f 6W Ti
O C O TO g. G) rll
-0 > � rnz to 3 --I-1
m � rn � ,v -a m
F
- z
rn O C t ti III v 3 rn D Xi rr r J
( = m Lk)O m -1 '-' z
X c
r X
3 O 70zm G 1--1
1.
Z
I- _ = r N `/ _J .. Immil
m m = WO !� (v n
a Vj rnoow
rn L'' �-) rn
r' z c....(D �
m c�
O l O '<" z
T rn
I 7v ( o
m O a
v > z � v°
a C c m
" n .)2i od (n n
z 0 = zD n
-I 3 rn - z a ril co -ZI D --I NJ tel
0 ° CD a - o
m G z -I ° =
v z ,-,
O - 3z O ''CI 0.
O m rfn, m CDD ;D
3 O z -I ° Rl H
p o row a
o
to CD
ET 3-1 m O m -�
O ((% o �� 1 1 cn it
' 1 (n (n ,-, =
I Z pzrn i�
r m O v'
C .‹ › _ _ _
m rn m _ H
m N p p s
Z p O W 0
G) n v U
I O 1( 1` 0
m C .
z
v � tQ
rh
n 3D0 r •0 3 > m /1
3 r iD m Z id Ti
m -< W CDD(A v Z r
O m ( a M
O C OTn0 rt �> ti G7 ci
rn
m m cu�nrn - 'a 7 -I m Vl
m -'-I O _r
v 3 � D � 1-1 rn
N rn
TI X v -I 1 fD
o o � zm ~
z -1 * zz
Z
-I - O C
mm = rN 'S
m / n cc,
rr z W Lrl p,
rn
G
r Z D
-Im
D
-I oo z
X
o
-I . z
z 73 ono ., a u
m � D z 7 v
v o ,703n0 v
a
xi
N On H " z U n
2 3 = FD1 n
-1 z m. z M Xli
m m
co --1 OD -1 No ` cD Lo
o cn z o % ;�.
o CD
X z 3 -I ° . 0 =
O
Ix c3D O
O m Fri rnNj as .
0 N CD
3 G z -lo 7
xi > pON CD
- m L) m
Er
3
O ci N 0 it
2 O 0 z rn <. CDD �`F
m Z riG) i n
CU —1 H rn D
m m rnco -I
-A�I A z p D1 O
I
I-
rn N ° O �. S
1"I 0 CA ``� 12
6) n -
_ T
m Oc _
�
a in
v r
ncnn
n03 > rr -ma 3 rn m n ma
m ,{ r rn m H
O C O -nOn rt • _ G) n1
m
> mXz c\ k 3
m (r) rn � -0 _ m in
-I r
m -1 O _•r
fD N
D 3 > 0 cr. , r ;�, rn
O ~ z = m
X D -Hi G > (1:: X
030 70 z m `1 H
Z "I * z2 Z
_ _ -� ° ' "ii
m m 0 ry
-I m = WO
> w rn WW N r
0o ., n . Lrl
w
rn H 7 D
m z D cn
O m O < rn �a
m = � z r
_ x Oro D `/
m
D O 0n0
0 n z 0 0 U1 f
Z 3 = zD n'
-1 3 rn� z 1 m co co iii
co —I > - Ip 1 fD
O CA z o rt CD
y > 0 is =•
X Z H O to
D D z � LI
p -1 3 z 0 'a C.
O m � mNJ CD ;D
z -I oN n
0 z -Ic,1 m rt
D , CD
o 0 n o J =^,
y -
m O rn , . -e
O � 0 (j J �u ii it
I 0 n V n
C > _ _ �•
LI rn I 3 co H
m rn
'i n -z{ DOr ` R-
_ Vf
m H o 0 0
0
Z 'G
G) n
=
co
m z "• \ a.MI
D rf Dr
A 3 D 0 - > GI m
3 r m m Z -I 15
RI 0 v'� 70 CD D z r"
O v) c° a
O• C [Li ei f�- ,..,
rn m rnrn � 3 m (n
; rn x D N rn D r r
m• m � � i o m ,J MO
� zz = ..X 0 � G) z Li
03 0 7' zrn,., H
-I = � � P z
I m -10 66° \_.
a
r m2W
m Z � nD �
-▪1 --1 m o " z 73
O = . z
m rn °
I X o,° a u
m
v
-< o 0
0
O C C 77) m D, 0 U
n
-i 3 m z n
3 cI)
rn m o c
CO -ZI D -I N CD up
a (n 7v a d`' fD
> ° o .° (U> z �D
xi z z -I b -
• p z � Lrl
73 > _ ' z 0 ,.
.Zi CL
O m 71 rn ° CDD M
D ° N
3 -I z -I 9 x P1•
pa > p0N 0 CD
O p Fri ° -p
m o ET 3
-I „ rn
O U) p
rJ 1*
m Z mG n co
L = 3rn
' �
G m m moD
0
m ,- o 0 0 �W 4.Z -n CO
C n
I o - c
a
0 rt
a 30DOr -0 3 CI m n
m m fp m Z H ma
n 0 W D z r
O C o T o rt i„, G1 rn
r° ornz 3
m m cn rn 'v ...1 m CA
m r 1-1 ;' z CD -0 3 rn D ° rt- r rn
O 14 di 6--) 0 > m L."
X 0 � nz 94 (- 11i 73
O O � zrn C `i H
z -1 � zz r I
_ 70 _ 0 r ` 11
m m 16 ry SJg
_ ° � c. n
00 ■Wi n
r- r- z W 4
rn
M
..... ADC
-"--(O m O < m 7v
m • rn id 0 r
m
0
0 o O
o n
D
(I' n —Dion v
Z 3 = zD _t
x m rn coz ffl
rn 00 -I > -I ry fD 0
O (n Xzoo \ rt
D D 0o -? c
x z 3 --I 0 in _
0 0 z "' CL
O m H - z O - -0
� rn0 ffD \ ,
3 -1 DONO n /1 1M
-o 0 z H ej l X rill
xi >
00 0 CD
LO 0 n0. 2
-I m o , rn
0 � x rn ro k it
-� U) 0CCnc - (A
fi -0
2 O Dzrn co
m z TG U n
L.. m -, W H FA
_1 _ z-I D T
02 D 0 r- 4 N
m E.4 o
TOW '0
Z p
0 n
I CO _
70 r^ 2 cr) a
D L0
0 rt
/
lily
Add On Item 16E10
October 23, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to grant an extension to the current Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity approved by the Board to Ambitrans Medical Transport, Inc., until
December 13, 2012 or until such time that this renewal may be scheduled on the Board's
regular agenda.
OBJECTIVE: To grant an extension to the current annual Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity issued by the Board of County Commissioners to Ambitrans which is set to expire
on October 24, 2012. The extension of Ambitran's current certificate is being requested until
December 13, 2012 due to a staff oversight on the Certificate's anniversary date.
CONSIDERATIONS: Chapter 50 of the County's Code of Ordinances — Emergency Services
defines the process by which a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) may
be obtained. Staff erred in recording the annual anniversary date for the annual certificate. Staff
inadvertently recorded Ambitran's service start date as its certificate renewal date. Ambitran
was granted an annual Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on October 25, 2011 by
the Board. Ambitran's service start date was on or about January 6, 2011 and staff inadvertently
recorded that date as its annual anniversary date for the certificate granting.
Staff received Ambitran's renewal application for 2012 recently in a timely manner for its annual
renewal. Staff was in error scheduling that renewal to come before the Board in December in
anticipation of a routine renewal for its start date anniversary as opposed to its certificate
granting date as noted above.
Staff will review controls and processes to mitigate this error and regrets the inconvenience to
the Board and the applicant.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the Board for the granting of this temporary
extension.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney. The
Medical Transportation Services Ordinance provides, in relevant part, as follows:
"Each certificate holder shall file within 90 days of expiration, an application for renewal
of his certificate. Renewals shall be based upon the same standards, as the granting of the
original certificate along with such other factors as may be relevant. The renewal
application shall be accompanied by a$250.00 renewal fee.
The renewal certificate may be approved routinely by the board, upon advice of the
administrator, or the board may hold a hearing on same." (Ord. No. 04-12, § 10)
Staffs request falls squarely within the parameters of the ordinance. Accordingly, this item is
legally sufficient, requiring majority vote for approval. -JAK
tP"/
Add On Item 16E10
October 23, 2012
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated
with this executive summary.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners grant an extension to the
current Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Ambitran's Medical Transport, Inc.,
set to expire on October 24, 2012 until December 13, 2012 or until such time that this renewal
may be scheduled on the Board's regular agenda.
Prepared By: Dan E. Summers, Director of Emergency Services
o Rae/ CEC
\O)D3\\›—
Collier County Tax Collector
September 21,2012
Honorable Fred Coyle
Chairman,Board of County Commissioners
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303
Naples,FL 34112-5746
Re: 2012 Tax Roll
Honorable Coyle,
Due to the volume of Value Adjustment Board petitions this year,the Value Adjustment
Board hearings will extend into 2013. As a result,this will delay the date upon which the.
Property Appraiser's Office will be delivering the final 2012 tax information to the Office of the
Tax Collector.
Based on these circumstances,I am requesting that the Board of County Commissioners
order that the tax roll be extended pursuant to Section 197.323,Florida Statutes.This extension of
the 2012 tax roll will allow my office to resolve any tax liability issues that are subsequently
altered by the Value Adjustment Board using the same procedures for the correction of errors.
Si erel
L;rry y, ax Collector
C Alier Coun Florida
LHR/sh l
cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,County Attorney
Leo Ochs,County Manager
3291 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112-5758
239-252-8171 www.colliertax.com