The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 09/02/1986 R Nap~es, Florida, September 2, 1986 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: 30hn A. Pistor VICE-CHAIRMAN: Anne Goodnight Frederick 3. Voss Max A. Hasse C. C. "Red" Holland ALSO PRESENT: 3ames C. Giles, Clerk: Maureen Kenyon and Carmen Ruiz (2:15 P.M.}, Deputy Clerks: Donald B. Lusk, County Manager: Neil Dorrill, Assistant County Manager: Ken Cuyler. County Attorney; Bruce Anderson, Assistant County Attorney; George Archibald, Public Works Administrator; David Weeks, Planner; Tom Crandall. Utilities Administrator; Dave Pettrow, Zoning/Planning Director; Jane Pitzpatrick, Budget Analyst; Nina Small, Acting Community Development Administrator; Nancy Israelson, Administratative Assistant to the Board: and Deputy Chief Ray Barnett, Sheriff's Department. aDaK 096 mt 522 Page 1 aODK 096 ~A!j£ 531 Tap. .1 lb. .1 AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES September 2, 1986 Comai8sioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the agenda be approved with the following changes: a. Item 12C added - regarding water agreement amendment between the City and County. b. Item 12D added - discussion of purchase of Pelican Bay Utilities. c. Item 12E added - regarding University of South Plorida's proposal on Organizational Climate Survey. d. Item 14B1 moved to 9B2. It.. .2 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD PRESENTED TO PATRIC~ MERRITT, PARKS & RECREATION POR ð YEARS SERVICE Commissioner Pistor presented an employee service award to Patrick Merritt, Parks & Recreation, for 5 years service. Ite. .3 PETITION PDA-86-10C, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORP. - CONT'D TO 9/16/86 Commissioner Pistor indicated that Staff is requesting that this item be continued to September 16, 1986, due to advertising require- ments. Item ." ORDINANCE 86-69 ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE _ ADOPTED AS AMENDED. RES. 86-149, 86-151, 86-152, APPOINTING GARY MASTRO, J. C. SMELKO AND ROBERT THURSTON TO THE PVAC, RESPECTIVELY, - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on August 1, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with Page 2 - - - 9 . September 2, 1986 the Clerk, public hearing was continued from August 26, 1986, to con- sider an ordinance establishing the Public Vehicle Advioory Committee and appointing two affiliated members and one unaffiliated member to said committee. Assistant County Attorney Anderson stated that this item sets up in ordinance form the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee consisting of three members of the Motor Vehicle for Hire Industry and two members from outside the Motor Vehicle for Hire Industry. He noted that there has been an amendment made to Section Seven of the ordinance, adding the following language for the Punctions, Powers, and Duties of the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: "To review and make recommen- dations to the Public Vehicle Board regarding issues related to the motor vehicle for hire business and regarding alleged violations of the County's ordinance regulating motor vehicles for hire". He stated that he also has a suggested change for Section Six which has to do with reimbursements, adding that the members of the comMittee shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to receive reimbur- sement for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties. He stated that at the end of the word "duties", he would like the following words added: "upon approval by the Public Vehicle Board." Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co~issioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below ,. aool( 096 p~o;t 532 Page 3 096n"~ 533 September 2, 1986 be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book .2" and that Resolution 86-149 appointing Gary Mastro to the PVAC; Resolution 86-151 appointing 3. C. Smelko to the PVAC: and Resolution 86-152 apPointing Robert Thurston to the PVAC be adopted: ORDINANCE 86-59 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PVAC); PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF THE PVAC; PROVIDING FOR COMPOSITION; PROVIDING FOR TERMS OF OFFICE, INITIAL APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS OF MEMBERS; PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL FROM OFPICE AND FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS; PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, QUORUM AND RULES OF PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR REMIBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; PROVIDING FOR FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PVAC; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Page " - - - .~ 096n~ 531 September 2, 1986 It.. .5 NORTH NAPLES RÓADWAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT _ COHTIWUED TO OCTOBER 1. 1986 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on August 11, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a resolution per- taining to the North Naples Roadway Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Commissioner Pistor said that a telegram was received from Mr. Ralph Poston or Miami, Florida, indicating that he would like the Board of County Commissioners to vote in favor of this roadway district. Public Works Administrator Archibald stated that this is a confir- mation of the act~on taken by the Board of County Commissioners on August 5, 1986, wherein the Board of County Commissioners approved two resolutions and one Ordinance addressing the cost and proposal to proceed with the final design and construction of the North Naples Extension of Livingston Road. He stated that this is a north/south and east/west extension, adding that the road alignment has been con- firmed as shown on the overhead drawing. He stated that the cost estimate has been accepteG and the feasibility study as prepa~ed by Hole, Montes « Associates, Inc. has also been accepted. He indicated that the assessment procedure was developed by Attorney Pickworth and has been approved. He reported that the groundwork of the project has Page ð .. - - September 2, 1986 been set to proceed into the final design and construction stages, and this public hearing is to gain input from those concerned citizens and to consider a final resolution. He noted that there are three problem areas; one involves a Florida Power and Light right-of-way and pro- perty within the district boundaries; the second problem area involves Pelican Bay Improvement District properties within the District boun- daries; adding that both utilities will be making a presentation requesting an exemption from the assessment or a reduction. in the assessment. He stated that generally speaking Utilities are exempt from the assessment in many cases, adding that this one is a little different in that the property holdings are substantial to a degree. He noted that the properties that are owned fee simple by FP&L exceed the area of the Gxisting utility lines so they may have some benefit from possibly road access or land uses. He noted that Pelican Bay has a very narrow easement along the east side of the proposed road from C.R. 846 to the northwest corner of Section 19, noting that their benefit would be primarily access. He stated that this area is where their wellfields are and from the usage standpoint this property would not derive much benefit. He stated that the third problem area refers to the parcels in groen along the west 8ide of the proposed roadway on the overhead map, noting that the road right-of-way will adversely impact the parcels and the remainder will have limited value or use. He stated that approximately 200 feet of right-of-way is being taken from the east side of those parcels and the remainder of the parcel is aaDK 096 Pq 538 Page 6 096n1:!539 September 2, 1986 aftected not only by the taking of the right-of-way but also by an PP&L easement, adding that there is a question as to whether there should be an exemption ~r reduction in assessments for the properties that lie along the west side of the roadway and that would be adver- sely affected. He stated that two alternatives were considered in addressing this problem; one is to re-establish the district boun- daries so that they would fall along the right-of-way line of the road and exclude those properties completely and in such case, the right- ot-way would have to be acquired and the estimate for the construction project does include funds to acquire rights-of-way in certain loca- tions. He noted that the other alternative would be to leave the boundaries the way they are and recognize that these parcels do have some benefit, but reduce their ovp.rall assessment by the effects of the taking on th& parcel. He indicated that depending on the total results of either reducing the assessments or exempting them, the remaining property owners in the district would have an increased assessment between $30-50 per acre. Mr. Scott Glaubitz of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., stated that if FP&L and Pelican Bay are excluded the increase would be in the neighborhood of $40.00 plus or minus, and if the people in Section 24 are excluded, the net result is about $1~0-170 per acre more on the remaining property owners within the MSTU. Mr. Archibald stated that one of the concerns is that these pro- perties have legal access to the new road and it may be a benefit to ~. Page 1 - - - --- September 2, 1986 them to address that during the construction stage to assure that either access roads are provided or improved access is available to those owners, adding that there is some benefit but they will be adversely affected by the taking. He stated that if the County does acquire this right-of-way, the property owners will be reimbursed based upon the fair market value of the property. He stated that bet- ween the proposed road taking and the eXisting easement, there is a 15 toot strip of property and since there is very little value to that strip, the County is planning on acquiring 275' and one of the requirements that can be met by that additional 75' is to mitigate environmental impacts within that area. He noted that he has received 16 letters from property owners that are in full support of the pro- ject and one that is against the project. Mr. 3erome Smith stated that he is representing a lot of the pro- perty owners in the district that are in favor of the roadway, and request that this item be approved. Mr. Harold Wahlman stated that he is representing 11 other part- ners for a total of 300 acres who are all in favor of the roadway. He stated that they would be willing to help the people that are in the lower section that have the smaller parcels by increasing their assessment by $40-60 per acre. Mr. Paul Toppino, property owner in Section 13, stated that he supports the road district and concurs that if there is a need for an additional assessment on his property, he is still in favor of the &DOK 096 f'Jr.' 540 Page 8 September 2, 1986 project. He stated that it the assessment was raised $150-160 per acre, the benefits would still outweigh the price. Tape .2 Mr. Ralph Knight stated that he owns one of the smaller parcels and his assessment for the proposed road is $10,074.40 but the total assessed value according to the tax roll is only $10,275. He stated that his property is bounded on the west by the railroad tracks. Mrs. Boucher stated that she is against this project and also thinks that the utilities should pay their share. Mr. Ralph Nickerson stated that his property is in the lower sec- tion and this is a residential district and should not have a four- lane road through it unless it is going to be a commercial road. He stated if this right-of-way property is going to be purchased the five acre tracts all the way up this proposed roadway should be purchased. He noted that out of the five acre tract he would only be able to use 120 teet of his property. He stated that the assessment on his pro- perty tor the r~Gdway is $9,800 and his property i8 valued at $36,000 but last year it was only assessed at $20,000. He stated that if the assessment is reduced, he is still concerned with access to the pro- perty as he would have to cross the FP&L easement. Mr. Archibald stated that in determining the assessments the prospective values of the different conditions would have to be looked at and if, in fact, a road was provided under the power line for adja- cent owners then that would be a substantial improvement and that may Page 9 - .. .. "'~'^"'- September 2, 1986 b. something that is necessary in order to work out solutions for those owners. He stated that it would also be a benefit to them. He stated that when the situation is re-analyzed there would be a reduc- tion in the assessment if the owner was assessed only for the remaining usable property. Assistant County Manager Dorrill questioned what the cost estima- tes are per lane mile, to which Mr. Scott Glaubitz stated that the costs were developed based on recent historic bid prices received by the County for construction of roadways within the County. He stated that the proposed cost for the roadway itself is $326,000 per two lane roadway per mile, adding that the waterline is $200,000 per mile. He noted that due to the concern 1n Sect10n 24, his firm met with the individual property owners. He noted that within the overall cost of the MSTU there ld $860,000 tor acquisition for adversely impacted pro- perties and that cost does not include acquisition along the entire corridor. He reported that the formation of the MSTU 1s predicated upon people expressing a desire to donate the right-of-way to put the roadway in so that they gain access to their property. Mr. Tom Peek of Wilson, Miller, Barton, SolI « Peek, Inc., stated that his firm 1s the project engineers for the parcel of land outlined on the overhead map that is colored in yellow, which is 362 acres of Section 18, T48S, R26E, adding that the property is owned by Stephen Tavilla and M. C. Hall, which is part of the Regency Village PUD that was approved in October, 1985. He stated that at the time of appro- aDOK 096 p~r·r 542 Page 10 ,. 096~)r~ 543 September 2, 1986 val, there was a stipulation that the roadways within Regency Village be connected to the future Livingston Road contiguous to Section 18, adding that at that time the proposed location ot the roadway was to go north and south along the west side of Section 19, along the south- west corner of Section 18 and then bear northwest into its present alignment. He reported that for reasons of design the roadway is pro- posed to be relocated and start to turn west, sout~ of the southwest corner of Section 18, taking it away from leing contiguous to Section 18. He stated that if he understands the proposal, it is necessary tor the property owners that do not have adjacent access to the road- way to pay for the construction at some future date of whatever access they get from their non-contiguous properties to the roadway. He stated that when Mr. Tavilla wa. in agreement in October to the origi- nal proposal, he controlled the property through Regency Village which he owns and the proposed roadway but, by its relocation, it will require him to build an additional half mile of roadway to get from hi. property to the proposed roadway. He stated that the proposed assessment on his property tor the roadway is $463,000 and he objects to the roadway being removed or access to the roadway being removed from his property at this point, which will cause him to incur addi- tional expenses at some future date. He stated that also in the PUD, it gives a cut-oft point when building permits would cease if the access is not in place. He indicated that Mr. Tavilla's request is to construct the roadway or access to the roadway to his property. He ~. Page 11 - - - September 2, 1986 indicated that there is an easement along the section line in Section 13 that would give him access and he i. requesting as part of the construction that he be given access to the roadway adjacent to his property if he remains within the district. Mr. Archibald stated that this project is very important and these kinds of problems should be addressed one at a time, adding that if the County could obtain the necessary easements, two problems could be solved. He noted that when the rights-of-way for the project are acquired, that would be the best time to ad'lress this concern. He stated that the County is legally required to provide access and it could be provided by the extension of the existin~ north/south road. Commissioner Holland questioned why it was necessary to realign the road and move it west from its original location, to which Mr. Archibald indicated that it was primarily due to environmental con- siderations as there is a lot of cypreøs in the area. He stated that the westerly alignment involves less cypress than the easterly align- ment. He noted that the consultant has met with officials from DER and the alignment has somewhat of a blessing from certain personnel there. Commissioner Holland questioned if the permits could be obtained tu put a road in at the south end of the property that Mr. Peek has been referring to? Mr. Archibald stated that every time they run into these problems, the question that has to be answered is what has to be mitigated. He BOOK 096 P~q 544 Page 12 096!'J~545 September 2, 1986 stated that whatever route is taken, the adverse impact on the cypress will have to be mitigated. Commissioner Holland stated that if the cypress heads are cut in two with two roads, it will only be a matter of time before they are dead. He stated that it the original design was used, more cypress trees may have to be removed, but that may not be as much impact ver- sus putting crossroads in. Tape .3 Commissioner Hasse questioned if Livingston Road could be extended straight northward, to which Mr. Glaubitz sT.ated that the alignment was selected based on wetland evaluation, soil characteristics, geometric considerations, and the impact to small property owners. He stated that the western alignment impacts fewer small property owners than does the eastern alignment. He stated that running the alignment straight northward puts an overall jog in the intersection for the roadway continuing northward into Lee County, adding that it was their recommendation not to do that. Commissioner Hasse stated that there seems to be too many questions arising and he is not prepared to vote on this matter. Mr. Glaubitz stated that there are many alternatiaves but from an environmental standpoint, he teels that this alternative or alignment is the best. He stated that if the alignment went northward, it would run into large cypress heads and also the Florida Power & Light par- cels. -. Page 13 - - - ! September 2, 1986 Mr. 3erry Owens of Florida Power & Light stated that they are ..king to be exempt from the taxation on the road assessment for the property that the company holds in the area, adding that the property is strictly for a transmission corridor for bringing transmission ser- vice into the area. He stated that it is non-developable land and does not have an impact on the growth, nor would the road have an impact on PP&L. Mr. Norm Hedrsch, property owner of Parcel 95 an1 67, questioned if PP&L permits people to cross the easement~, to which Mr. Owens replied affirmatively, adding that there are conditions with regards to crossings but they are not a problem with FP&L. Mr. Hedrsch stated that he also represents the property owner of Parcel 68, noting that all three parcels compose 23~ feet of FP&L easement. He stated that if this is approved it would isolate 150' of property on the western section of their property. He stated that he wants to be sure if the land is taken away, that there is an access to the property. Mr. Owens stated that FP&L would have to review the property owners design because there are existing structures in the area. He stated that there are requirement setbacks that they like to keep roads and right-of-ways from their pole lines for safety reasons, adding that generally crossings are not a problem. He stated that if there is a conflict with the facilities and the roadway could not be altered, FP&L is willing to relocate their facilities, but it would be done at the owner's expense and not PP&L's expense. BOOK D96 ",.." 546 Page 14 _'d""_'..··.""...."..,,..·~,,·.. ,._._... ,t'<" ':...;: ~?: .:..:~~ tOOK 096f'm547 September 2, 1986 ¡ ! ! I I I I I Attorney Tracy Bolesky, representing Pelican B~y Improvement District, stated that he is requesting an exemption from the assessed tax on the District property, which is a narrow piece of ground approximately 40 feet wide and one mile long. He stated that the district's wellfield is on that piece of property and that is where the water is obtained from. He noted that the assessment is for waterlines and roadway, adding that they do not nee" waterlines on the property. He stated that as far as the roadway, the District currently has access to it's property off Immokalee Road by way of a dirt road. He noted that there are approximately 15 wells on the pro- perty supplying approximately one million gallons of water to the District. He stated that the water that the District is currently seeking to purchase from the CitY/County combination is in addition to the water that is being supplied from the wellfield. He noted that the wellfield will be there for many years to come, but even if the District could nn longer use that wellfield, the property would have very limited value as it is only 40 feet wide. He stated that they would receive no benefit from this particular roadway and it would probably be a detriment to them as they would probably have to provide eecurity for the wellfield. Mr. Steven Kushner of Cummings & Lockwood stated that he is repre- senting John Mario who is a small parcel owner in the corridor. He stated that there are concerns of the property owners with regards to aCCess to the property located on the west side of the FP&L easements. Page 15 - - .. -_.._...,,""",,",.~, September 2, 1986 He reported that there are 9 parcels that would be affected, which would mean that there would be a minimum of two roads that would be necessary to cross the FP&L easement. He stated that if the easement of 215' were taken, it would leave 150', adding that as far as his client is concerned, what was 11.3 acres of useable property would now be reduced to 4 acres. He noted that this 4 acres is also subject to a 30' right-of-way easement which leaves him with only a 120' strip which mayor may not have access directly ~cross the FP&L property. He stated that the Commission has been addressing some manner to migi- tate the taxes that will be assessed with regards to the proposed roadway, but what has not been discussed is the impact on the property as a whole. He stated that this property has been substantially impaired as a whole as it will have a significantly adverse impact on the ability to market the land. He stated that with regards to impact on the environmental concerns, there should be more studies on this as there may be a better approach; adding that there are a number of issues that need to be resolved before the Commission accepts this proposal as requested. Mr. Scott Glaubitz stated that as far as access under the FP&L lines, he has received a letter from them indicating that they cannot give approval for access until they review plans, adding that access will not be denied. He noted that the property in Section 24 is zoned RSF-3, which is 4.4 units per acre. He stated that a lot of the pro- perty would have 150' left after the taking and they could be sub- divided. uo~ 01Jô",',; 548 Page 16 · 096nrl549 September 2, 1986 County Attorney Cuyler stated that his understanding is that the Board of County Commissioners is not gOing to consider final adoption ot this resolution as there is a conflict between the resolution and the ordinance that needs to be resolved. PUblic Works Administrator Archibald stated that after hearing all the registered speakers, he would ask that the Board of County Commissioners continue this item to a set date where Staff could come back to the Board of County Commissioners and provide some resolutions to some of these problems. Mr. Norm Hedrsch stated that he is in favor of the road as he feels that it is detinitely needed, but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before anything is finalized. He stated that he owns Parcel 95 and would like to have that exempt from the district because it is a five acre parcel and he feels that the $9,800 assessment is extremely high and he has access through a minor ease- ment to the west of the property. He stated that with regards to Parcels 67 and 68, he feels that they should be treated equitably and they would like to pay based on the property taxes that were paid last year, which had a $60,000 value on the five acre parcel. He stated that he received the proposed tax bill for this year and the value of the property was dropped to $36,000. He stated that he has been paying taxes on the $60,000 value and he does not feel that it would be fair to drop the taxes now when the County plans on purchasing the easement or property. Page 17 - - - September 2, 1986 Commissioner Pistor stated that the Board of County Commissioners has nothing to do with the taxes placed on property values, adding that this is handled strictly by the Property Appraiser. Mr. Hedrsch stated that he would prefer to sell the whole five acres instead of jusc a portion of it. Mr. Archibald stated that the change in assessed value of property is the result of recognizing the FP&L easement by the Property Appraiser's office. He stated that with regards to the County acquiring right-of-way, an appraisal is performed and that appraisal takes into consideration damages, and the value of the remainder. He stated that in that process it would be determined what affect the taking has on the remainder and it it would be feasible to purchase the entire five acres depending on the damages or simply purchase the 21ð' that is proposed. He stated that the decisions with regards to value is left t~ an appraiser in accordance with County requirements. Attorney George Varnadoe, representing Naples Interstate Associates, owners of a larg~ parcel adjacent to Immokalee Road which is separated from the proposed Livingston Road Extension by the Pelican Bay Improvement District wellfield land, stated that within the entire MSTU district, Staff hu~ provided access through some existing easement or proposed easement except for this ~ne. He stated that there is no access from the improvements to the property at all proposed in the plan. Tape .4 BOOK 096 PA~! 550 Page 18 · ... 0961'J1".{ 551 September 2, 1986 Mr. Varnadoe stated that the owner 1s actively planning develop- ment on the property, adding that he has no objection to the formation of the district or to be assessed a fair share if it benefits his land and if the Board of County Commissioners can guarantee some reasonable access to the property for ingress and egress and for extension of waterlines. He stated that if there is not any access, then his client should be excluded from the District. He noted that both of the roads that will have an MSTU on are shown on the Comp Plan as major arterial roads this County will build between 1993 and the year 2000, adding that to the extent that the land owners are going to par- tially build them, some recognition should be given in tte way of cre- dits against impact fees because a by-County corridor is being built. He noted that the reason for the alignment is because of the hook-up with the Lee County Road and the reason for the alignment in the southern end is because of the hook-up with Livingston Road, other- wise, you could go through the middle of the MSTU and run the road. He noted that also to go beyond the last property owner to the County line i8 not benefitting anyone in the MSTU, adding that this is the County's responsiblity. He indicated that in the Regency Village PUD, there was a commitment made that a road would be built along Section 18 and 19 to the proposed Livingston Road, but this land is not in the District and he questioned why this piece of land is not included in the District? Mr. Varnadoe stated that he is also representing the Leonard Coats Page 19 .. .. - September 2, 1986 tamily, who owns the 80 acres in the northwest corner of the District, adding that the proposed access to their property is through a pro- posed easement 3/4 of a mile long. He 8tated that historically the way of assessing tor roads is if there is direct access to them you are assessed and if there is not direct assess, then you are not assessed. He stated that he would agree in this case that people that do not have direct access to the road are benefitted but some recogni- tion needs to be taken for those that do not have direct access. He reported that Parcel 12, Section 12 has direct access off the road and direct waterlines to the road and it is being assessed $146,400, yet Mr. Coats is 3/4 of a mile away from the nearest road with a waterline and is being assessed $102,000. He stated that at the cost that is in the analysis and for which everyone is being assessed, it cost $300,000 a mile to build 24 feet of pavement and $100,000 a mile to put in a waterlirle. He stated that for this property it would cost $400,000 to run the waterline and put in a road and yet the same size parcel in a different location with a waterline and a road adjacent to it only costs $102,000. He stated that a counter argument is that some people have agreed to give an easement for the construction of the road and some people have not had to give any easement. He stated that he does not teel that the assessment is being utilized as fair, equitable or supportable. Commissioner Pistor stated that if the road goes to Lee County, the people in this area would benefit because they would be able to get to Lee County without any problems. aDOK 096 p,r.! 552 Page 20 -~.,'~ 'OK 0961>J~ 553 September 2, 1986 Mr. 3. S. Weinfeld stated that he is a trustee of a large tract of land which consist of 330 acres in the northwest quadrant. He stated that they were asked to give easements of 100' by 3,760' along the north/south portion of the road, which is 8.63 acres; and 200' by &,280' along the east/west portion of the road for a total of 24.24 acres; which amounts to almost 10' of the property to facilitate the construction of the road district. He stated that they are pleased to donate the 100' right-of-way on the north/south seg~ent of the road since the same has been asked of many owners of the property fronting on each side of the south segment of the property. He stated that they are positive of the public good that will be derived from the proposed road network and, therefore, they are willing to donate the 200' corridor alooq the southern boundary. He noted that the property owners in Section 13 who have ro&d frontage on the east/west portion have not been asked to donate any right-of-way. He indicated that it is requested that when he or the successors apply for rezoning, the applications be considered on the basis of 330 acres and not 330 acres minus what has been donated. He stated that he accepts the assessment and sees some good from the roadway, but there will be an adverse impact if the property is rezoned and the total 330 acres is not con- sidered. Public Works Administrator Archibald stated that he would request that in consideration of some of the concerns that the resolution be considered at a set date in the future of approximately 4 or 5 weeks ,. Page 21 - .. .. ..--.,......;-.,""'-'" September 2, 1986 fro. now and that during that interim, certain revisions could be con- sidered and Staff could come back to the Board of County Commissioners addressing some of the concerns that have been brought out. Commis.ioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimouSly, that this item be continued to October 7, 1986. ..... Reces.: 10:4ð A.M. - Reconvened: 10:55 A.M. ..... Ite. .6 RESOLUTION 86-1ðO RE PETITION CCCL-86-4C, GEE & JENSON, INC. REPR. CAN-AMERICAN SHELTER SEAGATE CORP., REQUESTING A VARIANCE POR EXPANSION OP EXISTING BEACH PACILITY AT PELICAN BAY FOR THE REGISTRY HOTEL AND RESTORATION OF THE DUNE SYSTEM - AOOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on August 11, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL-86-4C, filed by Gee & 3~(laOn, Inc., rep~esenting Can-American Shelter Seagate Corporation requesting a variance for the expansion of the existing beach facility at Pelican Bay for the Registry Hotel and restoration of the dune system. Natural Resources Management Director Proffitt stated that the petitioner is requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Control Line to add some expansion to the existing Pelican Bay Beach facility. He stated that they are proposing to expand the southern- most beach pavilion to be a true pavilion with restroom facilities for the Registry Hotel and to also add a tram through some mangrove areas that will impact approximately 12 mangroves which they agreed to miti- aDOK 096 pv.r 554 Page 22 -..--......, · ~;, tOt( ß96:$'J".~ 555 September 2, 1986 gate. He stated that he walked the site with the petitioner and the DER and recommends approval of the variance with the stipulations as outlined in the resolution and the Executive Summary. Mr. Richard Erin, representing Shelter Seagate Corporation, stated that this is the residents of Pelican Bay's beach facility and has nothing to do with the beach facility that the hotel is bUilding tor the County which 1s south of Clam Pass. He stated that the only people that have access to this facility wi21 be the hotel members and the residents of Pelickn Bay. Mr. George Keller stated that he has no problems with the petition since it has been explained, adding that it bothers him when variances are granted beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line. He stated that there is not enough control over the beaches as it is. Dr. Proffitt stated that this is simply boardwalks and beach faci- lities and they are designed primarily to be temporary structures that can be destroyed by a hurricane, if necessary, and would not result in the loss of people's lives or homes or personal property damage. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-150 re Petition CCCL-86-4C, Gee & 3enson, Inc. representing Can-American Shelter Seagate Corporation be adopted subject to th~ stipulations contained in the resolution. _. Page 23 - .. - .- .- It.. ., September 2, 1986 RESOLUTION 86-1ð3 R! PETITION V-B6-11C, TIMOTHY L. STONE OF ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES CORP., REPRESENTING UNITY OF NAPLES, INC., - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on August 17, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of PUblication filed with the Clerk, pUblic hearing was opened to consider Petition V-86-11C filed by Timothy L. Stone of Architectural Resources Corporation, representing Unity of Naples, Inc., requesting an ~12~ variance for property located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, 1/4 mile east of County Barn Road. Planner Weeks stated that the Unity of Naples, Inc. is requesting an 8'2" variance from the required side yard setback of 30' to 21'10", adding that they plan on constructing a church building on the site. He stated that the property is zoned Estates with a provisional Use tor a church and the surrounding properties are also zoned Estates. He stated that to the north is a school which also has a provisional use and to the east and west are single-family dwellings that are scattered and to the south 1s a borrow pit. He stated that the pro- perty contains approximately 10 acres, and according to the site plan there are 28 existing parking spaces, a driveway and a one-story .> bUilding. He stated that they are proposing to add parking facilities to increase the number to 240, as well as providing an additional driveway area and another one-story building as well as the proposed sanctuary. He indicated that the roof that is shown on the design is &DDK 0961':':1 5ïO Page 24 .1OIt 096.~571 September 2, 1986 · little over 11 feet in length and the Zoning Ordinance provides that a 3 foot roof could encroach into the setback area, which is why they have the need for the 8'1". He stated that they are requesting an 8'2" variance for 1" of leeway. He noted that the sanctuary is shown at the proposed location due to aesthetic and practical con- .iderations. He noted that in reviewing the variance petition under the criteria set out in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not find that · land-related hardship exists as it appears to be a design location type hardship. He noted that the site contains approximately 10 acres and the majority of the site is undeveloped. He noted that there are alternatives, adding that the size of the structure could be reduced or the .ize of the overhang could be reduced. He noted that another alternative woulù be to rotate tne building 90· which would meet the setback requirement or move the sanctuary north 8'1" and comply with the setback requirement. He indicated that no correspondence was received tor or against the petition and the recommendation of Staff is for denial. Tape .ð Mr. Lowell Benson, Architect, representing Unity of Naples, Inc., ref.rred to a layout sketch of the property with the buildings, noting that the point of the roof is why a variance is needed. He stated that along the south property line is a lake, which is simply a borrow pit and is a substantial size that is a year-round lake and is very attractive. He stated that the lake extends almost to the property Page 25 - - September 2, 1986 line. Re referred to the existing church that is L-shaped and indi- cated the location of the proposed sanctuary as being south of the L-shaped church and north of the lake. He indicated that the area around the church is pine and palmetto and they would like to save as many trees as possible. He stated that the whole area is very beauti- ful and the lake and trees function as part of the church. He stated that they are asking for an additional 8'2" into the setback line which is strictly walkway and overhang. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Benson stated that the size of the sanctuary is pretty much fixed accor1ing to what is needed. Commissioner Voss questioned what difference it would make if this bUilding encroaches on the lake, to which Planner Weeks stated that as tar as the health, safety, welfare issue it would not have any effect. He stated that it is doubtful with the existing borrow pit that any development could occur adjacent to the sanctuary. Commiosioner Hasse questioned why they do not rotate the building 90·, to which Mr. Benson stated that if the building was rotated, the walkways would not connect architecturally, adding that they wrap around tor circulation and it is sited diagonally for lighting. Mr. Benson stated that there would be no adverse affect on the surrounding properties, no adverse impact on the public health, satety, and welfare, and there is no adverse impact on the legal viabilities of the existing Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Estates zoning has larger setbacks. Page 26 !OIlK 09R·w.s 572 -.----",'.. --~ ,,-~- J'" 096"',1573 September 2, 1986 Reverend Kern stated that they have made a great effort to building something beautiful as far as landscaping, adding that this is a peaceful place. He stated that they tried to take advantage of the existing lake for a view as well as for a tranquilizing effect. He stated that the bUilding works much better in this position according to the Architect for reasons of cirr.ulation, walkways, win- dows, exposure, etc. He stated that they are requesting that they be able to go over the line with the walkway and overhang in order to take advantage of the lake that is there. Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimou~1y, that Resolu~ion 86-153 re Petition V-86-11C, Unity of Naples, Inc. requesting an 8'2" variance for property on the south side ot Davis Blvd., 1/4 mile east of County Barn Road, be adopted. (See Pages ~7t-~77 ) Item .8 PRESENTATION BY DONALD ARNOLD OP NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK, LTD., RE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES - CONTINUED POR ONE WEEK Mr. Don Arnold, representing Naples Industrial Park, Ltd., stated that Naples Industrial Park, Ltd. built its own sewer system and lines, lift stations, and plant in 1974. He stated that he has been negotiating with the County to have them take over the service of this area and there are still a few things to be resolved. He stated that ~. Page 27 .. - - "'--~... September 2, 1986 he has always sold the property with no impact fees for people to tap in and the sewer plant has been operated at a loss for 12 years. He stated that the County had something like a defactn franchise situation the entire time that dues were paid to the County and the plant was operated. He noted that there were no tap-in fees or system development charge to the customers. He reported that when he got his PSC franchise, it states within the PSC operating license that no customers that are served in the area are charged with system develop- ment charges, impact fees, or the like. He stated ·'hat they simply pay 8 monthly charge for the sewer system. He indicated that it was his understanding that when the force main was run that there would be a continuation of the same program, adding that he would turn over approximately 60 customers and the future customers in the Naples Industrial Park area as well as the area to the south side of Mercantile Avenue. He stated th~t he is still operating the plant at this time and is still holding his PSC license, adding that he has had several contractors and developers apply for bUilding permits and they were told in writing, that they cannot get building permits without paying system development charges. He stated that this is contrary to everything that he understood and contrary to the agreements that these people entered into with him, as well as being contrary to the agreement with the County, originally, and the PSC. Commissioner Pis tor questioned where he came up with such an understanding and if it is in writing, because Staff does not indicate the same thing? ~ODK 09Ôw.1574 Page 28 .. 096...,..575 September 2, 1986 Mr. Arnold stated that he originally asked the County to take over service in his area and at that time he was told that the County had no interest. He indicated that the Glades, East Naples Water Systems, Inc., had agreed to run a force main at no charge to him and they would take over the customers with no impact fees. He stated that all this testimony was heard at the PSC meetings and the Glades and .everal other parties attested to this. He stated that prior to East Naples getting their franchise to extend into his area, the County went into negotiations with the Glades. He stated that he would not have agreed to let the County come in and charge his customers impact fe.. after he has been telling his customers for the past ten years that there woul<! be no impact fees. He stated that the original draft he saw with the Glades was that the County would observe any and all written or oral contracts with the Glades. He stated that in the final agreement, it states that oral contracts will not be honored and there is a mistake on his part for not having everything in writing, but there is no mistake in the way he has operated for ten years and all the testimony that was heard at the PSC hearings. Commissioner Voss questioned if this applies to new hook-ups only or to the existing hook-ups, to which Assistant County Attorney Anderson stated that the County may be talking about collecting a system development charge from people who have been connected to Mr. Arnold's system for prior years. Commissioner Voss stated that he would have to witdraw from this matter because of possible conflict of interest as he owns a building there. (Conflict of Interest form filed). (See pages.fjiJ/. -Sf...s} Page 29 - - - , .( September 2, 1986 Commi.sioner Pistor stated that the County has never accepted oral contracts, to his knowledge. Commissioner Holland questioned what the investment was in the sewer lines in the Industrial Park, to which Mr. Arnold stated that the sewer lines are between $350,000-400,000 including the force mains, the pumps, the maintenance of them, along with a loss of opera- tion which is not included in that number, for 12 years to service the customers. He indicated that all the lines are still in service. Commissioner Holland stated that it was Lis understanding that this was very similar to the permits that were given to East Naples Utilities in lieu of money tor connection permits at that time. He stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Arnold did not receive any return on his investment as tar as the lines in the Industrial Park. Mr. Arnold stated that this is true except that the properties were more valuable, but a lot of them Were sold at a low price and the bUy~rs have benefitted from the service. Commissioner Holland stated that he understood that the people that were in that area would not have to pay Sewer impact tees because lots had been sold with the understanding that they would be served by the sewer service that was there. He stated that no one is going to give the County $300,000-400,000 worth of sewer pipe with nothing in return. Mr. Arnold questioned if Commissioner Voss could comment as an . individual as he is not going to vote on this matter, as to whether &DOK 096 W.! 576 Page 30 BOOK 09B~'·'577 September 2, 1986 Commissioner Holland's statement was ever quoted to buyers, to which County Attorney Cuyler stated that under the new amendmen~s to the l~gislation. Mr. Voss is not allowed to participate in proceedings. Assistant County Attorney ~ndcrson stated that he is reluctant to go into any great detail because Mr. Arnold has indicated that he might want to file suit over this and under those circumstances he does not want to express himself too much on the record. He noted that he talked with Mr. Arnold last week and he is going to be bringing in some contracts and other documents to review. He stated that if the Board of County Commissioners directs, he will continue his discussions with Mr. Arnold to try and resolve this matter. Mr. Arnold stated that a suit is one of the alternatives that is always a possibility, adding that he has people that are trying to get building permits this date that arf' being charged system development tees. He stated that he has been told by these people that the pro- perty was sold with this included and if they cannot get their building permit without paying these fees, he is going to be sued. He indicated that he has been discussing this with the County Attorney, but the critical problp.m is that people want to build to create jobs in the County. He stated that this property is under his PSC license and is being served by him and if someone wants a building permit and he fills out the proper forms stating that there is sewer service available and capacity and he meets all State. Federal and County requirements, those people should be allowed to get their building Page 31 - - - September 2, 1986 permits without paying system development charges to the County when they have already paid their cost for sewer to him, adding that his PSC license states no impact fees. County Manager Lusk stated that as far as turning over $300,000 Worth of lines to the County, in every PUD that this County approves, the developer turns over lines, which is a condition of the PUD and is nothing new for the developer to turn over lines. He stated that one of the problems that he has is that the County is not able to waive system development charges and not even the Board of County Commissioners is able to waive those charges. He noted that the only time that there was ever any effect on system development charges was when actual negotiations wpre done with the Glades and they were given a certain amount of credits, but the system development charges are still being collected from the Glades through the credits. Mr. Arnold stated that it is true that the County cannot waive system development charges, but that applies to an area that is being served by the County. He stated that the County does not have a license to serve in his area, adding that he is serving his own custc- mers. Mr. Lusk stated that the County is not regulated by the PSC and therefore, does not need a license to service an area. He stated that Mr. Arnold also had a sewer plant that had problems and the DER was getting ready to fine them, which is why he wanted someone else to service it. ~OO( O[]f)"~: 578 Page 32 m~ 09ôw.¡ 579 September 2, 1986 Mr. Arnold stated that he also had a separate alternative, a writ- ten agreement, to solve the waste problem. Mr. Lusk stated that the only contract he has seen with one of the customers specifically states that when the County took over the system, the contract would be void. Mr. Arnold stated that he has other contracts and this was the only contract that was written in that manner. Tape #6 Mr. Lusk stated that the County charges impact fees in areas that they are not serving, adding that there have also been places where double impact fees have been charged. He stated that the County still collects the impact fee as the County has no way of waiving it, there- fore, the customer has to pay the County and try and get his money back from the Developer or not pay the Developer for the same service. Commissioner Holland questioned if a developer has a PSC permit to service an area can the County charge an impact or system development charge? Mr. Anderson stated that it is his position that where the County had an approved plan indicating that service was going to be provided at a date certain, and the timp.tables were in the approved master sewer plan, then the County has the authority to charge system deve- lopment fees or impact fees. He stated that the PSC does not have any regulatory authority over the County as far as contracts and what can be done. Page 33 - - - September 2, 1986 Commissioner Holland stated that he would like to have this question answered by the State before any action is taken on this matter, because he has been told differently. Mr. Arnold stated that under Service Availability Charges, his PSC certificate states that: "The Utility is essentially built out, it has never charged a service availability fee and does not anticipate doing so for the few remaining undeveloped lots in this service area. therefore, this utility shall have no service availability fee." He stated that he has a customer that has bought a lot with sewers included and is going to build a 5,000 square foot building and the County wants $8,900 system development charge before they will issue him a building permit. He stated that he has to vacate a bUilding that he is currently renting and purchased under the basis that he would have sewer service, adding that he goes to the County with a letter supplied from him indicating that the sewer service is available and he is ready to build and the County wants money for the system development charges. He stated that he cannot afford another $10,000 for these charges as he is a small businessman in Naples. 4e stated that everyone wants to charge these people twice. He indicatea that he willing to negotiate something that is workable and fair, but he has a problem with these people not being able to obtain building permits now. Commissioner Pistor stated that he thought these people did not have to pay these fees. MOK G9R W' 580 Page 34 aDDK 09f)rn 581 September 2, 1986 Mr. Arnold stated that there was no tap-in fee, adding that it was included in the purchase of the lots. He stated that the County is actually stopping growth. In answer to Commissioner Holland, Mr. Arnold stated that there are 64 lots built on and 20-23 lots that are not built on. He noted that a lot of people have purchased but have not started bUilding yet. He indicated that th~re are four or five in for permits right now. County Attorney Cuyler stated that he would like to point out that this is a presentation by Mr. Arnold under the P'.1blic Petition part of t.he agenda, therefore, the Board's real response would be limited to list~ning to the petition and having it brought back. Commissionar Holland questioned if it would be legal if the County withheld the charges for system development fees until a ruling was received from the PSC, to which Utilities Adminiatrator Crandall stated that the PSC has indicated that they do not wish to ~e involved in any litigation that might be pending. Mr. Anderson stated that he does not know if the PSC would give a~ answer as to the County's authority. Commissioner Holland stated ti1at he wants the County Attorney's office to write a letter to the PSC. Mr. Cuyler stated that the Board needs to be aware that if a building permit is issued and construction begins, the County would not have the ability to collect the fee later on. Commissioner Holland stated that he is looking for a way to get the matter resolved so that the people can proceed with their Page 35 .. - .. September 2, 19B6 ~uildings and at the same time get a legal answer on it as he feels that the people that bought property in the Industrial Park should have the benefit of knowing whether it is legal or not to collect these fees. Mr. Anderson stated that he would write to the PSC and try to obtain an answer. Mr. Crandall stated that these people could pay under protest and Mr. Anderson agreed, indicating that this way the people could get their money back if it was determined at a later time that it is not legal to collect the fees. Mr. Arnold stated that he thinks that the matter can be resolved with Staff, but he wants the people to be able to build their buildings without paying those charges. He stated that there are several ways to work this matter out. Commissioner Holland stated that he believes that the people should be treated fairly. Commissioner Hasse stated that he feels that there are a lot of grey areas and questioned if Mr. Arnold could pay the impact fees for the particular party that he is interested in or possibly arrive at some solution with the Legal Staff and the Utility Staff, and then come back to the Board with an answer. Mr. Arnold stated that he would supply whatever needed documents are necessary and also work with the County Attorney and the Utilities Staff in whatever way he can. ~JO~ O~)f)w: 582 Page 36 UOK 096 <:',1 583" September 2, 1986 Mr. Cuyler stated that this item should be continued for one week )n order for Mr. Arnold to talk with Staff and him to evaluate the mechanisms that the Board has been discussing, and come back with a Possible solution. Commissioner Pistor stated that he needs to see something regarding this matter in writing, and al~o feels that the item should be continued until next week. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like the Board to be aware that the problem will be discussed during the next week to come up with a temporary solution for the people that have bUilding permit applica- tions pending, adding that the larger problem is going to take more than four or five days to resolve. It was the general consensus that this item would be continued until September 9, 1986. Page 37 September 2. 1986 Item #9 PETITION MP-86-4-C, FREDERICK T. BARBER III OF AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING GEORGE RUBINTON, RE A VARIANCE FOR THE GEORGETOWJL.PJ!;Y~~9J:tI.E~J·_~~PROVED Planner weeks stated that the subject property is on the west side of Ridgewood Drive and south of Gulf Park Drive within Pelican Bay PUD, adding that the petitioner is proposing to construct a gate house five feet from the front property line. He stated that the setback in the PUD document is 30 feet and they are requesting a 20 foot variance. He noted that the gate house would be 10cated at the inter- section of Ridgewood Drive and the proposed entrance road in Georgetown Development, adding that due to the location of existing water management lakes adjacent to and partially on the subject pro- perty as well as the proposed street design and project entrance security concerns, the 30 foot front setback requirement cannot be met. He noted that the PUD district regulations, sets forth that the Board of County Commissioners, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, may approve minor changes in the location or siting ot buildings. He noted that this would not have a detrimental effect upon adjacent properties. He indicated that the CCPC recommended approval of this variance subject to a "Letter of No Objection" being received prior to the Board meeting from Pelican Bay Improvement District or proof that the easement has been vacated. He noted that this proof has been provided. He indicated that he has not received any correspondence other than from Westinghouse indicating they have no objection. He reported that Staff is recommending approval. ~OO( QOô 0)'1 586 Page 38 600~ 096 w.: 587 September 2, 1986 Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Petition MP-86-4. George Rubinton, requesting a 25 toot variance for property located on the west side of Ridgewood Drive at the entrance to Georgetown Development be approved. Tape #7 Item .10 STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AN ANALYSIS REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 36, R26E, T49S, ADJACENT TO THE NAPLES LA~DFILL Commissioner Holland questioned if any appraisals have been made on this property, to which Assistant County Manager Dorrill stated that there are none. Commissioner Holland stated that he would like to have this matter withdrawn for consideration and have it brought back in the proper manner. Assistant County Manager Dorrill stated that Staff is not authorized to get appraisals in advance of authorization from the Board of County Commissioners. Public Works Administrator Archibald stated that this is a planning item and one segment would be to find out the cost of the land in order to make an analysis of two alternatives to serve some future needs. He stated that the existing landfill has been used for 10 years and as a result of taking a look at resource recovery. in five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, one of two alternatives will have to be considered. He noted that one alternative would be to expand the eXisting site and the second alternative would be to consider the Page 39 - - - September 2, 1986 purchase of a new site. He stated an economic analysis of the two alternatives is listed in the Executive Summary. He stated that he is in the process of doing some long-term planning and the two biggest items are the cost of the land and the cost of financing the land. He stated that what he is asking is to be able to better determine the value of the land of the adjacent properties, adding that if the County ever wants to consider expanding the existing site. the only direction for expansion is to the west. He st~ted that he is simply asking to do an overall analysis to determine if there is any economic advantage to purchasing property to the west in the immediate future. Commissioner Pistor stated that the County is not being obligated to spend any money if Staff is simply authorized to look into the matter. Public Works Administrator Archibald stated that he would bring back a report indicating which alternative is feasible and why, as well as the dollar amounts, but to come back with that report, he needs to better determine the land cost and financing. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss, that Statt be directed to proceed with an analysis and bring it back to the BCe at a later date with a report. Mr. George Keller stated th~t he would appreciate it if the motion was made that the Staff is authorized to make a study and no nego- tiation proceedings should be taken. Commissioner Goodnight stated that her motion did not include anything to do with negotiations. ~oo~ OOR r:',1 588 Page 40 ~ODK 096 ~'.1 589 September 2, 1986 Mr. Bob Krasowski stated that he was at the Appraiser's office and asked for an appriasal on this report, adding that he was told that the property was worth $603,000 and 1s zoned agriculture. He stated that he feels that Staff should give a complete and sufficient review of all the factors involved. He noted that this property is also next to a landfill and other residential properties in the area are also losing value. He stated that if the incinerator is built, this pro- perty will be worth even less. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/1. (Commissioner Holland opposed) , Item #11 BID #86-1012 FOR ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND PLATE GLASS - REJECTED. STAFF DIRECTED TO REBID FOR WI~DOWS AND TINTING ONLY - APPROVED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 24, 1986, aÐ evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received for Bid #86-1012 until 2:30 P.M., August 6, 1986. Facilities Management Director Camp stated that this item is to replace the jalousie windows and the plate glass in the front and around Building "B", adding that this does not include the back doors. He stated that this would make it more energy efficient and would also he the same type of windows that will be in Buildings "C" and "D". He stated that there is a visual transmission of 41-42% of light penetra- tion so that a lot of air conditioning cost will be saved in the next Page 41 - - - September 2, 1966 two years. He stated that as part of the master plan, Building "B" will be renovated to accommodate the Board of County Commissioners' boardroom. Commissioner Pistor stated that his concern was to find out why the plate glass walls were going to be taken down, adding that he understands replacing the jalousie windows. Mr. Camp stated that it will save a considerable amount on the air conditioning as well as in keeping with the final use of the bUilding. Commissioner Holland questioned if anyone has looked into the possibility of tinting the windows, to which Mr. Camp stated that tint seems to last for only a certain period of time and then it starts to bubble. He stated that if the same smoke grey is used, it will be uniform with the rest of the County buildings at the compound. Commissioner Goodnight moved. seconded by Commissioner Voss tha~ Bid #86-1012 be approved. Commissioner Hasse stated that if this building is going to be renovated in the near future, this would be a waste of money, Mr. Camp stated that the windows will remain the same and the plate glass on the front of the building would remain the same as this will be the lobby for the bUilding. Upon call for the question, the motion failed 2/3, (Commissioners Hasse, Holland, and Pis tor opposed). Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/1, (Commissioner Goodnight opposed), that Bid #66-1012 be ~OO( ŒJß 0:.1 590 Page 42 «""--_."'~.,-~..~'""',-"'---_..".- 1troK 096 ~"( :591 September 2, 1986 rejected and Statt be directed to rebid for the windows and tinting only. Item .12 CONTRACT WITH PRC CONSOER TOWNSEND FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY AND BUDGET AMENDMENT ~ITIAk....Q¡;:SIGN SERVICE..~-K9..!!~º-,-º-ºo - APPROVED Utilities Administr~tor Crandall stated that on July 22, 1986, he was authorized to negotiate a contract with PRC and at the same time, he was authorized to negotiate a contract with Hole, Montes & Associates, which is the next item. He stated that he negotiated with PRC and they will perform engineering services related to the design, contract drawings, specifications. contract documents, and inspection services for the South County Sewer Treatment Facility. He stated that design will be for 8 million gallons a day with an estimated cosi of $7 million. He noted that a preliminary budget amendment of $150,000 has been requested to get the project started, adding that he did not want to delay until the first bond issue was done. He reported that man, projects have been done this year that have drawn many dollars from the reserve account which needs to be replenished. Commissioner Pistor questioned if $1 million is a high fee for a $7 million project, to which Utilities Administrator Crandall stated that it is a high figure, which is an estimated cost, and is a compli- cated issue. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the contract with PRC Consoer Townsend for Page 43 - - .. September 2, 1986 engineering services tor the South County Regional Sewage Treatment Facility and Budget Amendment for initial design services for $150,000 be approved. ~\JO~ mm..;c·,5g2 Page 44 Septemoer 2, 1986 It~m #13 CONTRACT WITH HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL SEWAGE TRANSMISSION AND EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, PHASE I AND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR INITIAL DESIGN <; ERV I CJ!:S _ Lº-~_~º-,-º-O-º-=-Arl'!:WVE D Utilities Administrator Crandall stated that this is the second portion of the project. which is the sewage transmission and effluent distribution lines associated with the Phase I sewer construction of the South County Regional Sewage Treatment facility. He stated that Hole, Montes & Associates have presented a contract that was nego- tiated and came to terms with. He noted that in accordance with the sewer master plan review, the pipe sizes will be made in the design report. He noted that the maximum estimated cost of the project is $17,500,000 if it is in accordance w1th the pipe sizes that are shown in the sewer master plan, adding that there is a possibility that some of these lines would be recommended for downsizing in accordance with what 1s needed for the next twenty years. He stated that the design report will be presented periodically. He noted that a budget amend- ment of $200.000 is requested to get this project started until reserves are replenished from the anticipated bond issue. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that the contract with Hole, Montes « Associates, Inc. for engineering services for the South County Regional Sewage Transmission and Effluent Distribution System, Phase I and the budget amendment for the initial design services tor $200,000 be approved. ~OOK 096 WI 618 Page 45 ~oo~ 096 I'.'.< 653 September 2, 1986 ..... Recess: 12:35 P.M. - Reconvened: 2:35 P.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Ruiz replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon ..... Tape #9 Item #14 ROUTINE BILLS - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Pursuant to Resolution 81-150 the following checks were issued through Friday, August 29, 1986, in payment of routine bills CHECK DESCRIPTION CHECK NOS. AMOUNT $516,142.70 Vendors 147517-147858 Item #1(\ BUDGET AMENDMENTS 86-408, 410/412 - ADOPTED Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that Budget Amendments 86-408, 86-410/412 be adopted. Item #16 RESOLUTION 86-154 APPOINTING OCY RICHARDSON TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Administrative Assistant Nancy Israelson stated that upon the resignation of Mr. Rob~rt Griffin from the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, a press release was issued and letters of interest were received from Messrs. James Boney, owner of Tropical Taxi and Veterans Cab, and Russell E. Baisley owner of Courtesy Cab. She added that in addition, a letter from Mr. Gary Mastro, President of Southwest Regional Ground Transportation Association, was received recommending Mr. Ocy Richardson, owner of Yellow Cab, for the vacancy. Page 46 - - - .m_"'__..~ "'~'__"_---"""'_"~"."'''''--''''''~~'''''''''''_'~'.,._~,".",."......._~._~,_...~,"'.,,~---, September 2, 1986 She indicated that the recommendation is that the Board consider the adoption of the Resolution appointing one of these gentlemen to fill the vacancy for the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee as an affiliate for a term of 3 years, expiring S~ptember 2, 1989. Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-15. appointing Ocy Richardson to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee for a term of 3 years, expiring on 9/2/89, be adopted. ~oo~ 09R WI fi54 Page "7 September 2, 1986 Item #17 RESOLUTION 86-1~~ REAPPOINTING JOSEPH CHRISTY AND APPOINTING RONALD BURTON TO TH~__~OL~IER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BO~~~ADO~~~p Nancy Israelson stated that the Board io aakad to consider a reAO- lution that will reappoint Joseph Christy in the "engineer" category and appointing either Ron Burton or James Matteel to represent the "subcontractor" category on the Code Enforcement Board. She added that each category will serve a three year term, expiring August 16, 1989. Commissioner Pistor stated that he has received a request to con- sider appointing a member of the building labor union to the Code Enforcement Board, and asked Mr. Cuyler if there was any problem with such appointment? County Attorney Cuyler stated that such a person must fall within one of the categories required by the statutes and the Ordinance which was ~nacted under those statutes. Commissioner Pistor requested Mr. Cuyler to investigate the matter. Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-1SS renppointing Joseph Christy to represent the "engineer" category and appointing Ronald Burton to represent the "subcontractor" category on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, for three year terms, expiring 8/16/89, be adopted. BOOK 096 PJ~r 656 Page 48 September 2, 1966 It~m #16 WATER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE COUNTY RE WATER SUPPLY TO PELICAN B~Y - APPROVED Commissioner Pistor stated that the ~elican Bay Improvement District is in need of an aUKiliary water supply because when the Registry Hotel opens on November 17, 1966, the water will be n~~ded. He said that the City of Naples has agreed to run a pipe up Crayton Road not only for their own use, but to be able to supply the hotel by the opening date. He added that since the County has already authorized the Utilities Department to put in a 36" water line from the plant on C.R. 951 up to North Naples to supply and improve the situation there and supply Pelican Bay from that line, plus the pro- posed plant on Immokalee Road, the County will be in a much better position with a fee base if Pelican Bay is a permanent customer. CommiBsion~r Pistor stated that according to the agreement, the City of Naples will supply water to Pelican Bay for two years and after that time they will disconnect their system and the County will be the sole supplier of water to Pelican Bay, unless Pelican Bay deci- des to go to a bigger water system than now eKists. He indicated that th~ agreement also specifies that certain areas of the County sewer system will be provided for permanent City sewer service, and there are certain points at the end of the agreement that by mutual understanding will have to be discussed. County Manager Lusk stated that a few weeks ago when the City was about to sign a contract with Pelican Bay, the Board's action at ðOOK 09ô rJ':< 658 Page 49 &r,o~ 096 W.' ß59 September 2, 1986 that time was for the County not to authorize any permits for crossings and the County Attorney's office was to take any necessary action to prevent such an agreement taking place. The present agreement, he noted, is the best offer the County can make. County Attorney Cuyler stated that there are a few exhibits referenced in the agreement that need to be attached. Commissioner Holland asked if the City will agree with the terms of the agreement? Commissioner Pistor stated that some changes were made in the initial agreement and this present agreement says what the Mayor of Naples, Mr. Lusk and others agreed to, and the Mayor has requested that it be sent to him as quickly as possible because the City of Naples has scheduled a meeting at 5 o'clock today. He added that the City is having a meeting with Pelican Bay on 9/4 to sign an agreem~nt to supply the water, but their agreement hinges upon the City of Naples and the County having an agreement to let them supply the water. Commissioner Pistor stated that North Naples has had a water pressure problem for a long time, and this agreement spells out that the City will agree to supply 47 psi pressure at all times. Commissioner Holland asked if there has ever been a sewer agreement between the City and the County? Mr. Lusk stated that there is an approved 201 Plan and that lays out the County service areas for sewers and he believes the City also has an approved 201 Plan. He said that the service area outlined in the agreement is something that the City can presently service. Page 50 - - - September 2, 1986 Commissioner Holland stated that he would like to see a guarantee that the water pressure will be kept at an acceptable level. Commissioner Voss moved, secpnded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the agreement between the City of Naples and the County to supply water to Pelican Bay be approved. County Manager Lusk asked if the City of Naples does not accept this agreement, is the BoarG's past action still binding? Commissioner Holland stated that he would like to have an opportunity to have input on this matter because the Board is being asked to approve something that has not been discussed, and there is more in the agreement than just supplying water. Mr. Lusk stated that the County is giving away some sewer service area but the City also has to agree that the Pelican Bay area is the County's to serve if they do not serve themselves. Commissioner Holland asked if the City will collect impact fees for hookup? Mr. Lusk stated that originally the City was going to charge $192 per unit, but in the last negotiations the City will only charge the cost of line expansion to get to Pelican Bay. He added that the County would not be collecting fees until it took the system over. County Manager Lusk asked if the agreement does not proceed, is the Board's action. that the County Attorney will take whatever action is necessary, still binding? Commissioner Holland stated that that action needs to be changed because it is not fair for this Commission to be put in that position. and it would be in the best interests of !OOK 096 WI 660 Page 51 T""'_ ..,,11... _ m( 09öW., fiG1 September 2, 1986 both parties to have a Joint meeting. Mr. Lusk stated that if it is not changed, then staff still has the same direction. Commissioner Holland asked if staff is setting policy? Commissioner Voss stated this Commission voted on it. Page 52 - - - September 2, 1986 Item #19 ~ISCUSSION OF PURÇHASE OF PELJ&~~AY UTILITIES Commissioner Pistor stated that he would like the Board's approval to authorize Mr. Fischer, the County's financial advisor, to investi- gate the feasibi¡ity of the County taking over the Pelican Bay Utilities, either by assuming its present debts or floating a bond issue. Commissioner Holland stated that the Board han just agreed for the City to serve them water. County Manager Lusk said that it would not cost anything to explore taking over Pelican Bay Utilities as one more part of the utility system. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight, that the staff be directed to investigate the feasibility of the County taking over the Pelican Bay Improvement District for water and sewer and to have Mr. Fischer offer advise. George Keller, president of the Collier County Civic Federation, stated that he did not understand why the County would buy inadequate equipment, which will soon be obsolete, when it is about to build a plant on Immokalee Road. Tape #10 Commissioner Piator stated that the Immokalee Road plant will be for the whole area and if it is feasible to buy the Pelican Bay Utilities it would provide the County with more customers and a bigger fee base. MO( 096 w' 6GB Page 53 &001, 091) W'( 067 September 2, 1986 Commissioner Holland asked if any fi~ure was mentioned? Commissioner Pistor replied $20 million, approximately. Commissioner Voss stated that at this point their charges support their indebted- ness and it can be set off as a separate district to continue to sup- port it. Mr. Lusk stated that the $20 million includes the drainage and that is why Mr. Fischer should investigate the matter. Upon call fo~ the question, the motion carried 4/1 (Commissioner Holland opposed). Item #20 PROPOSAL IN THE SUM OF $17.535.00 FROM UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY - APPROVED Commissioner Piator stated that he has received a proposal from the University of South Florida to do a climate survey for the County at a cost of $17,535.00. He said that he has received a telegram from the University in which they indicate that they are amending the proposal dated August 28th to provide for an interim report on the results of the survey by November 1, 1986, assuming that the Board of Commissioners approves their going ahead today, and a final report will be available mid-November. He indicated that the report outlines the work that will be done as well as the background of the people who will conduct the survey. Commissioner Pis tor indicated that if the Board approves, he will notify the University today to proceed. Commissioner Hasse asked if the proposal was for a fixed price, because it states that additional service~ beyond the date of November Page 54 - - - September 2. 1986 15th could involve faculty overload? Commissioner Voss stated that that applies only if they are authorized to do other studies. Commissioner Hasse stated that 517.535 is a big sum for a school to do a survey that could be done by local people, adding that the County has knowledgeable people who can do it. Commissioner Goodnight moved. seconded by Commissioner Voss. that the proposal in the amount of $17,535 from the University of South Florida for an Organizational Climate Survey. be approved. County Attorney Cuyler stated that the Board may want to direct his office to draft a contract incorporating the proposal, and if the Board wants to direct the University to go ahead then it may want to set a certain amount of money for that while the contract negotiations are carried out. Commissioner Pis tor stated that if the Board authorizes this proposal, the County Attorney can prepare a contract incorporating all of the necessary language. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 3/2 (Commissioners Hasse and Holland opposed). ~OO( 096 w' ôô8 Page 55 &OOX 096 w.~ 671 September 2, 1986 **... Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the items unðer the Consent Agenda be adopted and/or approved: **... Item #21 RESOLUTIONS 86-1~6 AND 86-1~7 RE AGREEMENTS WITH FL. DOT AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY CROSSINGS AT THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT LIVINGSTON ROAD See Pages 6~hgS Item #22 * CONTRAUT WITH DYNATECH CORP. FOR LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES FOR CORE SAMPLES OF SOLID WASTE AT COUNTY'S LANDFILL See Pages 6.!Z~_::2QQ. Item #23 CHANGE ORDERS IN THE SUM OF $14,323 and $17,810 TO KRAFT CO~¡STR. FOR DEVELOPING THE UTILITIES IN EAST SECTION OF GOVERNMENT COMPLEX , Item #24 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTH. fOR MAINTENANCE, STORAGE AN~_YLIGHT OF COUNTv ~~LICOPTER See Pages ~O.L - '7 (ì b Item #2~ CONTRACT BETWEEN STATE OF FL. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR RADIOLOGICAL FUNDING FOR FY 1966-87 See Pages ~~-~~~ Item #26 COMMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND AWARD AGREEMENT FOR OPERATIO!: OF REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSN. CARE CENTER See Pages ·7.a....::JÂº- Item #27 CONTRACT BETWEEN COUNTY AND COLLIER SPORTS 0., ICIALS ASSN. POR PROVIDING OFFICIATING DURING COUNTY OPERATED RECREATION « A~!!LETIC PROGRAMS Page ~6 - - .. o..,~."";~.~.,,,.;..,.;,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.~..".,,,,_.._____....... .... See Pages 2»- 7:<. 3 September 2, 1986 Item #28 BID #86-1014 IN THE SUM OF $37,000 AWARDED TO MARINE TANK COATING INC. FOR S~AGE PL~~T REM~BILITATION Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 24, 1986 as evidenced by Affidavit of PUblication filed with the Clerk. bids were received until 2:30 P.M., August 8. 1986 Item #29 CONTRACT WITH AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4.87~ FOR ENQINEERING SERVICES FOR THE LELY SEWER SYSTEM See Pages -.JmE~_J:Q~t not received in Cleric's office "as of 9/11/86 Item #30 AGREEMENT WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL & PEEK, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 4 76~ FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CLAM PASS PARK See Page& 7~ -f - U Item #31 CONTRACT WITH WATER RESOURCES CORP. IN THE SUM OF $66,196 FOR PUMPING EQUIPMENT AT CAPRI AND MANATEE ROAD WATER PUMPING STATIONS Item #32 PAYMENT IN THE SUM OF $2,S40.69 TO BOB DEAN SUPPLY FOR EMERGENCY UTILITY REPAIRS AT THE EAST REGIONAL WELLFIELD Item #33 EASEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS FOR ACQUISITION OF LELY ESTATES SEWER SYSTEM See Pages QR Book 1216, Pages 11-77 Item #34 SURPLUS COUNTY ASSET #81215, OFFICE TRAILER - STAFF AUTHORIZED TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR SALE Item #3~ REORGANIZATION AND APPROVAL OF PROMOTIONS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS IN THE BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT ðOOK 096 p¡r.! 672 Page S7 ·"'.Þ."'.'''..·''~'ri''''''>·"''".~'~'''=_'_"' ~OO( 096 W.[ 673' September 2, 1986 Item #36 RECLASSIFICATION OF CLERK II TO CLERK III IN ANIMAL CONTROL Item #37 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO TAX ROLL 1982 703 8118/86 Item #38 EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 49001 Item #39 TAX SALE CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING TAX COLLECTOR TO ISSUE DUPLICATE TAX CERTIFICATE NO. 4271 TO V. PALMER BECAUSE OF LOSS S"!e Page --.:L;;(2_ Item #40 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chair directed that the following correspondence be filed and or referred to the various departments as indicated below 1. Letter dated 8/21/86 from Tom Lewis, Jr., AlA Architect, Department of Community Affairs, forwarding a copy of pro- posed Rule 9J-12, Schedule for Submission of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Procedures for Early Submissions, and advising of Public Hearing on Sept. 8th in Tallahassee. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Nina Small and tiled. 2. Letter dated 8/20/86 from Bobbie Glover. Admission and Release Administrator, Dept. ot Corrections, regarding Community Service to Be Served Following Incarceration and attaching copy of Committee Subs~itute for SB 511 which delete the provision which allows the Court to impose com- munity service in lieu of court cost. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Kevin O'Donnell and filed. ,. Page 58 .. .. - September 2. 1986 3. Received 8/26/86 Order regarding State of Florida vs. Charles T. Yearty, Defendant. Misdemeanor Division. County Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit. Case No. 86-0125-MM-A-42. Referred to Ken Cuyler and filed. 4. Letter dated 8/21/86 from Douglas L. Fry, Environmental Supervisor, DER. enclosing short form application (File No. 111240015. Mangrove Alterations). which involves dredge and fill activities. Referred to Neil Dorrill. Nina Small, Dr. Proffitt and filed. 5. Minutes: A. 7/24/86. Collier Soil & Water Conservation Dist. B. 7/16/86, Pelican Bay Improvement District 9. 8/20/86 Notice to Owner and Intent to Rely from Architectural Products Division Stottlemyer and Shoemaker Lumber Company, informing that they are furnishing hollow metal doors and frames for the Collier County Wastewater Treatment Plant under an order given by Widell Assoc. Referred to Neil Dorrill. Bob Fahey and filed. . 10. 8/18/86 Notice to Owner by Marguerite A. Bodie. Regional Credit Manager for Interarch Design. Inc. informing of roofing materials furnished for Collier County Gov't. Center, Renovation to "c" and "D" Building, Addition to "c" Building and New Warehouse Building, under order given by Sutter Roofing Co. of FL, Inc. Referred to Np-il Dorrill. Skip Camp and filed. II. 8/20/86 Order Making Certificates Permanent and Specifying Further Action Regarding Site of Sewer Plant Facilities, Public Service Commission. Docket No. 860046-WS, Order No. 16496, regarding North Naples Utilities, Inc. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Bruce Anderson, Tom Crandall and filed. 12. Letter dated 8/18/86 from Robert L. Patton, Controller, Tax Collector. informing cf Current Ad Valorem Tax distributed to the BCC, and attaching distribution recap showing YTD totals for 83/84, 84/85 and 85/86. Referred to Lori Zalka and filed. 13. Letter dated 8/12/86 to Ms. Alice W. Dorn from Deena L. Kimbrel, Right-of-Way Specialist, Transportation Dept., regarding North Naples Road Assessment District MSTU Dedication Form, stating that they are still awaiting a completed form, and enclosing an additional form. Referred to BCC and filed. eoo( 098 W.I 674 Page 59 tOOK D9ô ~'.f 675 September 2, 1986 14. Received 8/25/66 fully executed Project Schedule Agreements, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants, Project Numbers C120597020, Collier County; Treatment/Transmission Facilities and C120597030 (sewers). Referred to Tom Crandall and filed .... There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. by Order of the Chair. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL (? ~:-;;;- FISTOR, CHAIRMAN "..,II"'" ."....., "",\ .,.' "~'~"', . k't'Ti~;:/' ....;::':'IJ '. -,jAMJ;S ;ê'. . ~YLgi-..· CLERK i~'41~ .Q.C ....... ":··:'i:~~s:' ~l~~tes approved by the Board" on / ~,,: . /'" ~ t""'~ "~ ~ as presented or as corrected Page 60 - - -