BCC Minutes 08/08/1980 S
. Naples, Florida, August B, 1980
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for
the County of Collier, and also acting as the Governing Board(s) of such
special districts as have heen created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 A.M. in Special
Conference Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the
following memhers present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Cl i fford Wenzel
Thomas P. Archer
John A. Pistor
C. R. "Russ" Wimer
David C. Brown
ALSO PRESENT: Wi1liilln J. Rea9an, Clerk; Harold L. Hall, Chief Deputy
Clerk/FiSCil1 Office':; Ednil Brenneman, Deputy Clerk; C. William Norman,
County Manager; Donald ^. Pickworth, County ^ttorncy; Clifford Barksdale,
Public \~orks ^dministriltor/En9ineer; William McNulty, Sheriff's Depilrtment;
and Frank Spence, County Consultant.
Representing the City of Naples ~Iere the following:
Roland Anderson - Mayor
David Rynders - ^ttorney
Wade Schroeder - Councilman
Russell l(e1 ton - Ci ty Consul tant
AGENDA
1. Discussion of l'eport prepared by Consultant Frank Spence
regarding the Dual Taxation situation.
DISCUSS ION OF REPORT PREPARED BY CmlSULTANT FRANK SPENCE RE DUAL
TAXATION IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DATED AUGUST, 1980 - ACTION TO BE
TAKEN BY BCC AUGUST 12, 1980
Mr. Frank Spence, President of Frank Spence & Associiltes, Inc.,
Local Government Consulting Services, served as the County Consultant
on the matter of Dual Taxation and prefaced his commp.nts by noting t.hat
copies of his report entitled Report on Dual Taxation in Collier County,
Florida, August, 1980, bad pre;vio'Jsly been d1~,tributed to the Goard of
County Commissionners for their review prior to the discussion being he7d
this date. He ~alled the Board's attention co Page 31 of the Report and
commented that there has been no disagreement on th~ first six items
p,o~~ 054- PAr.F 38t'i
BOOK 0.54 PAGE.385
August 8, 1980
as being services benefitting the unincorpordted areas only in such areas
as COlll11unity Development, Planning, ~ui1ding Inspection, and the like,
and should be funded from fees generated by those activities and from
t
ad valorem taxes to be levied in the unincorporated area of the County.
Mr. Spence said, with regard to the Engineering activities in the
second group of services on the subject page of the Report, tllere is
agreement with the Llty and noted that a disclaimer clause was 4r.,uded
to the effect that he was working with the proposed 1980-81 budget figures
which are still being adjusted or amended. He touched briefly on the
Parks cdtegory, 1II0St of which are classified neighborhood parks and are
mJin1y for the benefit of the unincorporated areas of the County.
Mr'. Spence said that tile tllO main categories remaining are the
Sher'i ff' s DCpdrtl11cnt and tile ROJd and Bridge Department which ar-e before
till! Ilo,\I':! fOt' 1:I1r'ir <I~cisio'l to accept some settlement or to take the
matter into court. He ca lIed attention to an error on Exhibit I per-
t'lininrJ to t:". ':;:leriff's r~STD Worksheet, on Page 28, noting that the
fi<Jun~ for the MJrco SuilstJtion, Total Wages and Benefits, should he
$244,197 instead of $144,197 as shown, but pointed out that the Total of
$1,0135,30n is correct. lie suid that, ill his orinion, the activities
of tile Sheri ff's Dep,lrllllent ill and drolmd Naples is of benefi t to the
citizens and propc;ty o~ners of the City of Naples and, therefore, does
not recOllnlend that such services be included in the District. However, he
said that it is the City's position that all of the Sheriff's Road Patrol
activities - 100% - sllou1d be put in the MSTO. Mr. Spence explained that
the Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the County, elected
County-wide and, therefore, such activities having to do with Courthouse
functions, such as narcotics and drug traffic, warrants, processing, bailiffs,
and the like, arc definitely of County-wide benefit andnntfor the sole
benefit of the unincorporated Jrea and are and should be funded on a
County-wide bases.
Continuing with regard to the Sheriff's activities, Mr. Spence pointed
out that, because of the vast geographic area encompassed by Collier County,
August 8, 1980
he could philosophically agree to "go along" with recommending that portion
of rural unincorporated law enforcement activities to be placed in a MSTD.
Pursuant to this recommendation, Mr. Spence said that he has identified
the true costs, using figures supplied by the Sheriff, of employee costs
and has determined that there is a 30% employee factor involved for those
persons devotin9 lQO% of their time in the unincorporated area. He
silid that the 30% factor has been applied against the other eX-~oI.>es of
the Department. Further, said Mr. Spence, with regard to vehicles, 29
vehicles out of a ~leet of 80, or 36% of the fleet, are assigned to the
substations in the rural area, noting that a smaller percentage of 30% is
being used to identify the costs of eJch vehicle for charging to the
District. He sumnarized by stating that all of the figures for the
recommended Sheriff's ~ISTD add up to $1,322,000 which he believes is a
fair ilnd equitable distribution of the Sheriff's costs ilnd represents
25% of his total budget.
Mr. Oavid Rynders, Attorney for the City af Naples. st~terl th~t th~
City has a considerable difference of opinion with regard to the real
and substantial benefit derived, the County's Consultant's figures being
lower than those of the City's Consultart; however, he said that, in an
effort to compromi se, the City wi 11 "go" with the County's Consultant's
figures on a settlement basis since they are more or 7ess in the ballpark.
Chai:;nan ~Ienzel stated that since both parties are in agreement with
the recomnendation on the Sheriff's budget the discussion car, continue
with the remainder of the Report.
Mr. Spence said that the other major area to be discussed is the
Road & Bridge Department MSTD JS contained on Pages 33 and 34 of the Report.
There are between 1,300 and 1,500 miles of roads, said Mr. Spence, 185 miles
of which qualify under the St?te system for funding from tax revenues
rebated to the County. The balance of the roads, constituting 82% of the
total road network, said Mr. Spence, are "local" and include a broad
category of limerock roads, sandy roads, and the like, and are rough rural
"r-II
:"--r"ol""'"\
~OD;c. 054- PAGE 387
AlI~ust 8, 1980
roads. In his opinion, continued Mr. Spence, the County was not in
violation of dual taxation by spending County-wide funds on these roads,
but noted that this could be contested and definitely arguable if it went
into court. He said thilt the City's position, as~contained in the
Southern-Kelton & Associates' Report, is that those local roads are of
no real and substAntial benefit to the City and, therefore, the people
living there should be paying for their own local roads. Mr. ~pence
said that if the Board takes the position to "fight" this ma~ter and that
it is not in violation, Alternate I would be the approach taken. If it
is deemed desir~ble by the Board, or if the Board is found against in
Court, A1ternilte II would be the approilch to take with the unincorporated
areas paying for 82% of the roads ilnd noted that the available sources
of rflvpnllP Arp olltlinprl in F~hihit, VII (Altprni1tp IT) on P<l!J~ 34. He
said that such funds are restricted and limited with $1,932,205 having to
be raised from ad valorem tilxes levied in the unincorporated areas of the County.
lie cited Chapter 79-87 of Section 125.01(7) FS, enacted by the State
Legislature ill 1979. which basically provides thilt "no county revenues, except
those der-ived specifically from or on behalf of an MSTU, special district,
unincorporated area, service or program area, can be used to finance
a county service pl'oviding no rCill or subs:antial benefit to residents
within a municipality."
Mr. Spence sunvnarized by referring to Page 35 of the Report, Exhibit VIII
for a compilrison of Alternates I and II for the Proposed Road & Bridge
MSTD and the Estimated Millage Impact which he said, based upon the 1979
property appraisal roll and using Alternate II, would be an .8283 mill
increase; however, he silid that the "picture" will be better due, in part,
to applying the growth factor and any appreciation in property values,
noting that the dollars will be the same but that the base will be broader,
Mr. Spence said that Commissioner Wimer had expressed some concern
about the funding for urban services, as noted on Page 32 of the Report,
explaining that the figure of $500,000 was developed, via an audit trail
August 8, 1980
over J five-yedr period of Huilding and Zoning funds that originated in
the unincorporated area only, and could qualify for this purpose for
the first year. However, if the money is left in the surplus fund,
the difference will have to generate through tax levies with Mr. Spence
pointing out that the aim was to minimize the impact upon the taxpayer.
He said that the City did not like this and feels that it represents
a profit as a result of dual taxation in the past, but he sairl _hat he
feels "comfortable" with the recommendation.
County Attorney Pickworth said that from the standpoint of litigation
there are area~ of uncertainty, citing various examples of parallels
and differences which have been adjudicated in the courts. He said that
some of the questions Ciln be determined between the two entities or
retuse to deter"mine them and let the court make a decision which might
not be the Silme decision the two parties would make. For instance, said
Attorney Pickworth, the decision might be that the aforesaid cash carry-
over cannot be used. He dlso pointed out the expenses involved in litigation,
noting tile time required and the additional counsel which would be
necessary.
The matter of applying the same formula to the other incorporated
area of the County, as well as the possible incorporation of Marco
Island, was discussed with Mr. Spence stating that, even if there were
a dozen cities, all of them would receive the same rights. Chairman Wenzel
suggested that the establishment of the districts could be resolved later
after a determination of the subject at hand is made. County ~'anager
Norman said that the difficulties of drawing boundaries, defining services,
and establishing real and substantial benefit for every corner of Collier
County has been discussed and that it appears to be a tota17y impossible
task to try to develop a recolTJI1endation at this time other than to establish
1
a single taxing entity encompassing the entire unincorporated area. Attorney
Rynders pointed out that the figure of 82% of the roads being of no benefit
to the inr.orporated area was the same in the City's study as in the County's.
~oo~ (;~ P^Gc~!)
August 8, 1980
Concerning the Everglades City matter wherein the Sheriff's Orp~rtment
provides law enforcement, Mr. Rynders suggested that the service could
be contracted to that area. With regard to the road issue, Mr. Rynders
said that court rulings have been "rolling" towar~ the cities' points of
view, despite the cloudiness of language contained in an eight-year-old
case which wns previously mentioned.
Fiscal Officer Harold Hall said that the mechanics of implementing
~ither Alternate I or Alternate II have been finalized with ~roperty
Appraiser Co1ding and such implementation can be applied to the coming
budget as long a~ the boundaries are kept the same as the existing
boundaries, which ei ther Al ternate does do. Responding to Commissioner
Brown, Mr. Hall said that he has no recorrrnendation on which Alternate
to adopt. Further, said Mr. Hall, Ile has worked with Mr. Norman and that
a point has been reached wherein the recommended MSTO's can be provided
for ln thr HO-81 budget. It was his suggestion that the direction of
the County's legal counsel should be followed since he would be the one who
would be directin~ the entire staff in the event Alternate is decided
upon and the matter goes to litigation. He further stated that, in his
opinion, Mr. :pence did a "real good job" in his evaluation and expressed
his pleasure that the City understood the County's position which, in some
cases, was not very acceptable to them. In general, Mr. Hall continued,
the MSTD's are in keeping with the Board's philosophy of setting up
geographical areas in which the benefits are matched with the costs of
services provided.
Attorney Pickworth expressed his recommendation for the proposed
Alternate II, stating his belief that the County's position legally in
Alternate I is very, very weak. He said that he would call the County
Attorney's office in Sarasota County to inquire about the case mentioned
by Attorney Rynders which he said is the type of adverse decision which could
le thrust upon the County.
Commissioner Wimer inquired of the County Attorney what the chances
are in the event a citizen from the County should bring suit following
his receipt of an increased tax bill from the County. Attorney Pickworth
,
i
I
I
I
August 8, 1980
responded that the County's chances would be better of defending the
action because of the fact that one of the defenses would be that both
the City and the County hired expert people, that the matter was thoroughly
analyzed and discussed, and that thoroughly knowledgeable people have
been involved. He said that it does not foreclose the issue because
any taxpayer can file suit but said that, in his opinion, the chances
of their prevailing are lower.
MI". Norman pointed out that the City has accepted and t .:cll cooperative
in terms of the County having less than fully adequate acc0unting information
which he said ir no way is critical of the accounting process, because
the issues involved have not had to be dealt with in the past and there
was no reason to generate such information. He said that such information
will be developed to a finer degree in the future. He expressed his
I
\
appreciation to Mr. Spence and said that he was confident that Mr. Spence
has exceeded the amount of time he expected to on the project in order
to make the Report responsive to the issues which the staff raised and
to the staff's efforts to develop as goorl information as possible to make
the Report as equitable as possible.
Mayor R0land Anderson stated that, in his viewpoint, there has
been a very objective review hy professionals and by both the City's
and County's professional staffs. Also, said the Mayor, while there has
been disagreement with some of the judgments and numbers, the City has
nevertheless, on a settlement-type basis, chosen to ignore the differences
and "go" for the overall settlement. He said that the City is thoroughly
in accord with Alternate II, noting that the Council wi7l have to take
official action on the matter. He said that if the County acts affirmat~/el)
on Tuesday, August 12, 1980, supporting Alternate II, he expects to put
an emergency item to this effect on the Council's agenda and, likewise,
get it passed and that this w~ll be "the end of the discussion for sometime
to come."
There bein~ no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 11:04 A.M.
Local Government Consulting Services
502 NA 75th St. Suite 317
Gainesville, Florida 32601
I9O4) 373.0606
August 5, 1980
Chairman and Members
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
Naples, Florida
Gentlemen:
On May 8, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners engaged Frank
Spence & Associates, Inc., to assist the Board and staff in
reviewing allegations by the City of Naples that current County
practices result in Collier County providing services which are
paid from general County revenues which are not of "real and sub-
stantial" benefit to the residents and taxpayers of the City.
My report with recommendations is attached.
I want to express my appreciation to all County staff for their
cooperation andrassistance, particularly the long and time-
consuming efforts of County Manager, Bill Norman, Fiscal Advisor,
Harold Hall, and Public Works Director, Cliff Barksdale.
Very truly yours,
�f
Frank R. Spence
President
FRS:bl
Attachment
V. _
FRANK SPENCE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0
REPORT ON DUAL TAXATION IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AUGUST, 1980
s
t
c
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction....................................................1
The Issues......................................................4
Recommendations................................................14
Community Development, Planning, Zoning & Building Inspection..15
Airports.......................................................15
FireControl/Forestry..........................................16
Sheriff........................................................16
Engineering....................................................17
Road & Bridge/Transportation...................................18
Parks..........................................................20
Aquatic Plant Control..........................................21
Overhead Expenses..............................................22
r
MSTD Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects..................22
MSTDReserve for Contingencies.................................23
Disclaimer on Figures...........................................23
Summary........................................................24
Exhibits.......................................................27
i
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
I.
Sheriff's MSTD Worksheet................................28
II.
Engineering MSTD Worksheet..............................29
III.
Road & Bridge MSTD Worksheet............... ...........30
IV.
Comparison of SKA & FSA Summaries of Services
Benefitting Unincorporated Areas Only...................31
V.
Proposed Funding of Unincorporated Area Urban
Services MSTD...........................................32
VI.
Proposed Funding of Road & Bridge MSTD Alternate I......33
VII.
Proposed Funding of Road & Bridge MSTD Alternate II .....
34
VIII.
Comparison of Alternates I & II for Funding Road &
Bridge MSTD; and Estimated Millage Impact...............35
IX.
Inventory of Parks & Recreational Facilities ............
36
X.
Footnotes...............................................37
r
ii
INTRODUCTION
On August 2, 1978, the City of Naples petitioned the
Collier County Commission by resolution claiming that certain
specified services provided by Collier County are funded from
county -wide revenues but are of no real and substantial benefit to
the residents of the City of Naples. The County responded on
October 31, 1978, denying all claims. On March 20, 1979, the City
of Naples filed suit in Circuit Court against the county. The
case is now awaiting a hearing before the Court. Hopefully, a
mutually acceptable resolution to this problem can be found before
the end of this fiscal year, September 30, 1980.
This resolution and the subsequent suit were filed pur-
suant to Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes, as amended, which
reads as follows:.
The governing body of a municipality
or municipalities by resolution, or
the citizens of a municipality or
county by petition of 10 per cent of
the qualified electors of such unit,
may identify a service or program ren-
dered specially for the benefit of the
property or residents in unincorpo-'
rated areas and financed from county-
wide revenues and petition the board
of county commissioners to develop an
appropriate mechanism to finance such
activity for the ensuing fiscal year,
which may be by taxes, special assess-
ments, or service charges levied or
imposed solely upon residents or prop-
erty in the unincorporated area, by
the establishment of a municipal ser-
vice taxing or benefit unit pursuant
to paragraph (q) or subsection (1), or
by remitting the identified cost of
service paid from revenues required to
be expended on a county -wide basis to
the municipality or municipalities
within 6 months of the adoption of the
county budget, in the proportion that
county ad valorem taxes collected
within such municipality or municipal-
ities bears to the total amount of
county -wide ad valorem taxes collected
by state law.
The county must respond to these petitions as provided
in Section 125.01(6)(b), Florida Statutes, which reads as fol-
lows:
The board of county commissioners
shall, within 90 days, file a response
to such petition, which shall either
reflect action to develop appropriate
mechanisms or reject said petition and
state findings of fact demonstrating
that the service does not specially
benefit the property or residents of
the unincorporated area.
r
What is "Dual Taxation"?
The legal basis for questions concerning dual taxation
center around Article VIII, Section 1(h) of the Constitution of
the State of Florida. This provision reads as follows:
Taxes; limitations. Property situated
within municipalities shall not be
subject to taxation for services ren-
dered by the county exclusively for
the benefit of the property or resi-
dents of the unincorporated areas.
Basically, this section provides that the county should
not levy taxes on property within an incorporated city to raise
funds to support services which exclusively benefit the residents
of the county living in the unincorporated areas.
-2-
Questions concerning dual taxation have been the subject
of numerous lawsuits between cities and counties throughout the
State of Florida for the past several years. The many questions
r
regarding this issue are not static. Rather, they are dynamic in
substance with the problem being inherent in the changing nature
of local governments' financing and delivery of local governmental
services.
Until recent times, county government was not in the
business of providing municipal -type services. Rather, county
government primarily functioned as an administrative arm of the
State providing courts, law enforecement, property assessment, tax
collection, and election services. Questions concerning dual tax-
ation did not arise when county government only provided these
administrative -type functions.
Within/the past twenty years, however, Florida and
especially Collier County have experienced a population explosion.
Many of these new residents have chosen to live outside the estab-
lished municipalities, resulting in many cases in the rapid urban-
ization of the unincorporated area. For example, the latest esti-
mates of distribution of population are as follows:
Total population Collier County: 84,255 (100%)
City of Naples: 17,796 (21.1%)
City of Everglades City: 587 ( .7%)
Unincorporated: 65,872 (78.2%)
Thus, the vast majority (78.2%) of the people live in
the unincorporated part of the county. This rapid urbanization in
-3-
19
the unincorporated area has placed a demand on county government
to provide municipal -type services. County government has
responded to this demand, but raising the spectre of dual taxa-
tion.
THE ISSUES
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
The Florida Constitution clearly prohibits dual taxation
in Article VIII, Section 1(h) which was quoted earlier. Addition-
ally, the State Legislature has attempted to provide a mechanism
to help clarify and resolve dual taxation issues through the
enactment of Section 125.01(6)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, which
was quoted earlier. Also, in 1979, the Florida Legislature
adopted House Lill 1568 enacting Section 125.01(7), Florida
Statutes. This provision will be discussed later in the report.
Over the years, interpretation of the above provisions
has been the subject of numerous court cases. While judicial
Idecisions have clarified many of the issues involved, some ques-
tions have still not been answered and will remain the subject for
future debate as well as additional litigation.
Exclusivitv Principle
A cornerstone question in the dual taxation issue has
been the interpretation of what "exclusively for the benefit"
-4-
i
means. The duty for this interpretation has been left to the
courts.
One of the first cases in this regard was in Dressel v.
Dade County, 219 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); cert. den., 226
So.2d 402 (Fla. 1969). In 1969, the Third District Court of
Appeal considered a case relating to fire protection services in
Dade County. The court ruled "that residents in the unincorpor-
ated area of Dade County received substantially more fire protec-
tion from the county's program than did -residents of the cities.
However, the court said, these cities, many of which operate their
own fire departments, benefit --if only potentially --from the
county's service".1 (Emphasis added.) Thus, no dual taxation.
However, "the court did not base its decision solely upon the
notion of potential benefit. Another circumstance entered into
the decisions: the Dade County Charter requires County government
to provide a uniform system of fire and police protection through-
out the County. The court also attached considerable significance
to the County's willingness to provide total fire services to any
municipality".2
A second major case involved the State Supreme Court in
City of St. Petersburg v. Briley, 239 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1970). The
focal question in this case revolved around the issue of whether
county -wide levied tax monies could be used to finance the plan-
ning of a sewage treatment facility to be constructed in the unin-
corporated area. The basic decision of the court was that such a
-5-
use of funds did not violate the Contitution's dual taxation pro-
hibition. While the residents of the City of St. Petersburg would
not directly utilize the sewage system, the court said "the bene-
fits received by the city and its residents --namely, reductions in
water pollution from open sewage discharge --need not be direct and
primary, only real and substantial and not illusory and inconse-
quential".3 (Emphasis added.)
The same line of thought prevailed in the Supreme
Court's 1973 decision in Burke v. Charlotte County, 286 So.2d 199
(Fla. 1973).
At issue in this case was whether county -wide ad valorem
tax revenues could be used for the construction and maintenance of
roads in the unincorporated area. The court ruled that "good
roads in the unincorporated area of the county would in some man-
ner, actually or potentially, benefit city residents"4 thus,
this would not be in conflict with the prohibition against dual
taxation.
To this point, the consistent position of the Supreme
Court's interpretation was that dual taxation was prohibited only
when the service provided by the county offers "no real or sub-
stantial benefit" to the property owners in the city. However,
there are still differences among the circuit court decisions as
to what services provide "no real and substantial benefit". For
example, a decision in the Sixth Circuit case of Gallant v.
Stephens, (6th Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Circuit Court
W-M
Case No. 75-8681, Dec. 19, 1975) "found that a range of services --
street maintenance, fire protection, sheriff's patrol, trash col-
lection, waste disposal --were directed by the county in such a way
as to exclusively benefit the unincorporated area of the county.
The fact that city residents might coincidentally or collaterally
benefit from these services, the judge ruled, did not make them
any less exclusive". While the State Supreme Court has been seem-
ingly consistent in Dressel, Briley, and Burke concerning those
services providing "real and substantial benefit", the difficulty
in this differentiation is clearly pointed out by the decision
relating to "coincidental benefits" in Gallant.
The Sheriff's road patrol provided in the unincorporated
area has been one service that many authorities in the dual taxa-
tion area seem to agree did not provide "real and substantial
r
benefit" to city residents. However, on July 11, 1979, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal in Alsdorf v. Broward County, 333 So.2d
457 (Fla. 1976); case 78-233 (4th DCA opinion filed July 11, 1979)
issued a "decision, which among other things, upheld a trial
judge's ruling that the county's MSTU (Municipal Service Taxing
Unit) created to provide Sheriff's road patrol services was
improper".6 The trial judge's ruling in this instance over-
turned an agreement between the county and several of the cities
that the Sheriff's road patrol provided "no real substantial
benefit" to city residents and to fund this service from taxes
levied in the unincorporated area. In this instance, the trial
OVAL
judge's decision was apparently made in light of the "exclusivity
_
criterion established in St. Petersburg v. Briley, supra, (benefit
need not be direct and primary, only real and substantial and
1
illusory and inconsequential)...."7
r
Because of the structure of the state court system where
d
a ruling in one circuit or district is not binding on decisions in
another circuit or district, some confusion has developed regard-
.
i
ing the dual taxation question based on the differences in judi-
v
cial interpretations. However, since rulings of the State Supreme
Court carry state-wide authority, its decisions must be used as
the benchmark in attempting to arrive at a uniform application of
the prohibition against dual taxation.
Creation of Municipal Service Taxing Units or Districts.
Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes, previously
I
cited presents counties with several alternatives that can be
used to eliminate dual taxation. Of those presented, the creation
of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) [or District (MSTD),
these terms are interchangeable] seems to be the most popular
vehicle being used.
In essence, the MSTD is a special taxing district
created by ordinance of the County Commission and would cover
either the entire unincorporated area or a portion thereof,
depending upon the service or program to be funded. Once a
service is identified as being "exclusively for the benefit of the
property or residents of the unincorporated area", the creation of
i
an MSTD is probably the easiest mechanism to use to eliminate any
dual taxation. Once an MSTD is created, that part of the unincor-
porated area that "exclusively benefits from the service" is
r
responsible for paying the taxes necessary to support the ser-
vice.
The mere creation of an MSTD, however, does not neces-
sarily solve the problems of dual taxation. For example, one
major area of controversy has been what sources of county revenue
were not to be used for services that "exclusively benefit the
residents of the unincorporated area". In 1978, the Supreme Court
in Manatee v. Town of Longboat Key, 352 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA
1977), ruled that "Article VIII, Section 1(h), only limits the
power of the county to levy and expend ad valorem taxes".9
While the Supreme Court was aware that a county might use non -ad
i
valorem monies to fund a service for the "exclusive benefit of the
unincorporated area", it felt this potential loophole was an area
that needed to be addressed by the State Legislature.
In 1979, the State Legislature enacted Chapter 79-87
(House Bill 1568). This legislation, which became effective July
1, 1979, basically provides that "no county revenues, except those
derived specifically from or on behalf of an MSTU, special dis-
trict, unincorporated area, service or program area, can be used
to finance a county service providing no real or substantial bene-
fit to residents within a municipality [Section 125.01(7), Florida
Statutes] .10
-9-
The MSTD is the most commonly used method to help
resolve and eliminate dual taxation. However, the question :rust
be raised as to whether or not a new inequity results when an MSTD
encompassing the entire unincorporated area is created. While the
problem of dual taxation with regard to municipal resident is
solved, the rural property owners question whether or not they
should be equitably taxed for "municipal- type" services that pri-
marily serve rapidly urbanizing areas of the unincorporated area.
While such county -wide MSTD does not seem to legally violate dual
taxation legislation, it could create in some instances a very
real inequitable situation.
Benefit v. Equity.
As stated in the beginning of this report, a focal legal
question in the dual taxation controversy has been the interpreta-
tion of "exclusively for the benefit of" as contained in Article
VIII, Section 1(h) of the State Constitution.
The Supreme Court's definition of "benefit" is most
clearly stated in St. Petersburg v. Briley, supra: "benefit need
not be direct and primary, only real and substantial and not illu-
sory and inconsequential".11
Several of the major legal questions regarding the dual
taxation prohibition have been addressed by the courts. However,
many communities in addressing this problem have taken a somewhat
different approach and have looked at the question as being one of
"equity". Basically stated, equity can be most simply defined as
-10-
"for each dollar of taxes paid there should be an equal dollar of
benefits received".
Using the equity approach, however, has several pit-
falls. Several, of the common methodological problems encountered
in studies of this type are as follows:
1. Attention is focused on the cost/benefit ratio based
on a division of the incorporated area versus the unincorporated
area. More properly, the primary focus should be on whether or
not a service is provided on a county -wide or non -county -wide
basis.
2. The use of population and property taxes based on
assessed valuation to allocate the cost of service between a muni-
cipality and the unincorporated area can lead to an assumption of
dual taxation when the real question is whether the service is
provided county -wide or non -county -wide. Additionally, the per-
centage of population and taxes paid often have no relationship to
the cost of services delivered or the benefits received.
The foundation of the property tax and other taxes, in
general, are based upon two principles: The benefit received and
the ability to pay.
In early times, when the scope of governmental services
was very limited, the use of the property tax as a measure of the
benefit received in terms of police, fire, and other basic hard
services, was probably a fairly good indicator. However, as
government has grown more complex and now is in the business of
- 11 -
delivering softer services such a pollution control, planning, and
other administrative and regulatory functions, the benefit
received is difficult to tie directly to a specific parcel of
I property. However, it is conjectured that the property tax is no
longer a fairly reliable indicator of the ability to pay. Addi-
tionally, by the very nature of the "community -type" services
funded on a collective basis, a funding inequity is created
because often those that are providing the revenues to fund a par-
ticular "soft" service are not the consumers of that particular
service.
In reality, the question of equity with regard to
governmental services is one that can never be finally resolved.
As stated in a recent 1979 report concerning dual taxation issued
by the State Department of Community Affairs:
I
Many public services yield benefits beyond
the boundaries of the political jurisdic-
tion delivering the services. This makes
precise, clear-cut connections between
taxes paid and benefits received virtually
impossible to identify. This difficulty
is further compounded when attempting to
trace taxes and benefits back and forth
between two overlapping governments --the
county and the city --which separately tax
and spend for some of the same type of
services. Clearly, tax and benefit
'spillovers', so prevalent in local public
service delivery, render judicial inter-
pretation of 'exclusively for the benefit'
an imprecise science, rir for disagree-
ment and contradiction.
Frig
Future Considerations
The problems of dual taxation are inherent in the
dynamic and fluid nature of the organization and funding of local
governmental services. The rapid growth and urbanization of the
unincorporated areas has placed a demand on county government to
provide municipal -type services. City and county governments now
provide services that sometimes overlap, often are parallel, and
sometimes clearly different and distinct.
While litigation is one path for cities and counties to
follow with regard to dual taxation questions, lasting solutions
will not necessarily be found by using this method.
The fundamental problem of dual taxation is deeply
rooted in the nature of local -service delivery responsibilities.
Changes are needep in the service delivery system.
This approach is not simple. As pointed out by the
State Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations:
Practically, there is no rational guide for
deciding, categorically, what services
should be performed by municipalities and
what services should be performed by
counties. The allocation of service
responsibilities among counties and muni-
cipalities is more likely to be dependent
upon the degree of urbanization of a
county; adequacy of tax base; existence of
service benefit spillovers or spillins;
and other factors peculiar to a specific
county and service.13
The real and permanent solution to dual taxation prob-
lems will only be found by making substantive changes in the
delivery and financing of local governmental services.
-13-
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. There is a definite necessity that a Municipal Ser-
vice Taxing District (MSTD) be created .for the unincorporated area
of Collier County. In fact, the Board could justifiably create
three MSTDs--one for the Sheriff/Law Enforcement, one for Roads
and Bridges, and one for all other municipal -type services; how-
ever, it is neither practical nor feasible to create one for the
Sheriff at this time. Therefore, the creation of two MSTDs is
recommended.
2. Services, functions, and programs to be included in
the MSTDs will be briefly identified first, with a more detailed
analysis to follow:
Community Development
Planning
Zoning
Building Inspection
Airports
Fire Control/Forestry
Sheriff (Part)
Engineering
Roads and Bridges/Transportation (Part)
Parks (Part)
Also, I have determined that some county departments which are
funded out of county -wide millage levies do work for other MSTDs,
improvement districts, lighting districts, water and sewer dis-
tricts, and fire districts, all of which are for the sole and
exclusive benefit of the users and property in those districts in
the unincorporated area of the county, and for which there are no
charges for services made. Provision should be made for these
-14-
county departments to bill these districts for all services ren-
dered and eliminate any cost or burden on the county -wide tax
levy. The county has already begun to do this.
3. Community Development, Planninq, Zoning and Building
Inspection.
There is no doubt that these services are for the exclu-
sive benefit of residents in the unincorporated area of the county
and I, therefore, recommend that they be placed in the MSTD. Con-
currently, all revenues and fees generated by these services will
likewise be credited to the MSTD and will no longer be deposited
in the general fund.
4. Airports
Under normal circumstances, airports are considered to
be, by their very nature, regional in function and appropriately
r
of county -wide benefit. However, after inspecting the airports at
Immokalee and Everglades, considering whose cargo and private air-
craft are located there and being serviced there, and applying the
rationale of "reasonable availability" to the locations (applied
against the residents of the City of Naples), I must recommend
that all expenses of operating both of these airports be funded
throuqh an MSTD. I have also recommended elsewhere that airports
be established as a separate Enterprise Fund. This should be
reviewed in the future, however, because, as the county continues
to grow, there is a good chance that these will revert to county-
wide in benefit.
=E7C
G
5. Fire Control/Forestry.
Inasmuch as fire control payments to the State Division
of Forestry are based upon an annual assessment of $.03 per acre
for "all forest and wild lands within said county", and all of the
assessed acres lie in the unincoporated area of the county, there
is no doubt that this cost should be included in an MSTD.
6. Sheriff
It is my recommendation that the following functions of
the Sheriff be funded out of an MSTD:
Immokolee Substation 35 employees
Everglades Substation 8 employees
Marco Island Substation 12 employees
55 employees
In addition to the salaries of these 55 employees,
should be added all associated costs relative to operating these
substations, including fringe benefits, all operational expenses,
including vehicles and supplies, and any captial expenditures to
be made at these sites. This would exclude any activity or
expense dealing with the jail, which is a county -wide function.
Since the Sheriff's current budget shows a staffing level of 182,
these 55 employees would represent almost 30% of the Sheriff's
Office.
It is not possible to breakout the Sheriff's Road Patrol
activity and expense and put it into an MSTD for a number of rea-
sons, including the fact that the Sheriff does not utilize or
organize his uniformed personnel as a separate, independent Road
-16-
Patrol, but instead they are "Full Service" deputies, assigned to
duties on an as -needed basis including those activities and
responsibilities that are county -wide in nature. Secondly, there
' is a benefit to the City because of the activity of Sheriff's
deputies, particularly those assigned to the Naples District which
has two zones going into the City, whereby they do drive through
the City, are present and visible, and do answer some complaint
calls and act as a backup and reserve to the City of Naples Police
Department when the need arises, which it frequently does. The
Sheriff's law enforcement activities in the urban "donut" around
Naples is of benefit to the residents and property of Naples in
that pockets of crime and lawlessness are kept away from the
borders of the city. For this very reason, the trial judge in
Alsdorf v. Broward County would not permit the Sheriff's Road
r•
Patrol activities to be placed in an MSTD. However, in view of
Collier County's vast geographic difference (from Broward County),
I have no difficulty in recommending these three outlying substa-
tions be placed in an MSTD. (See attached worksheet.)
7. Engineering
After reviewing this function with the County Engineer,
it is my recommendation that the following engineering sections
(functions) are for the exclusive benefit of residents and prop-
erty in the unincorporated area of the county and should be funded
in the Roads and Bridges MSTD:
-17-
Administrative Section (50%)
Design Section --Local Road System (82%)
Subdivision Review Section
Special Assessment Section.
8. Road and Bridge/Transportation.
I must respectfully disagree with the Southern -Kelton
report's opinion dealing with "local" roads and transportation
wherein they say that, since such services, activities, and func-
tions are provided wholly within the unincorporated areas of the
county, they are of no "real and substantial benefit" to Naples
city residents. This position is completely contrary to the
Supreme Court's decision in Burke v. Charlotte County (see page 6
of this report). The court ruled that "good roads in the unincor-
porated area of the county would in some manner, actually or
potentially, benefit city residents", thus, such expenditures
would not be in cAnflict with the prohibition against dual taxa-
tion.
Further, the Burke case merely continued the line of
thought that prevailed in the Supreme Court's decision in City of
St. Petersburg v. Briley, to wit: 'I ... [T]he benefits received by
the city and its residents...need not be direct and primary, only
real and substantial and not illusory and inconsequential".
Based upon the above, it is my opinion that Collier
County is not in violation of any dual taxation prohibitions.
Notwithstanding the above, which permitted the use of
county -wide ad valorem tax revenues to be used for road and bridge
activities, I would not be adverse to recommending,
philosophically, that no county -wide ad valorem tax or similar
revenues be used for truly local road improvements and maintenance
(for example, in subdivisions which are for the exclusive benefit
of the people who live there) located in the unincorporated area
of the county. Therefore, I am recommending that a separate Roads
and Bridges MSTD be created. A worksheet is attached in the
Exhibits.
I have presented two alternate methods of funding the
Road and Bridge MSTD for the Board's consideration. Alternate I
would be used if the Board gook the position that "local" roads
and bridges expenditures in the unincorporated area are not in
violation of dual taxation prohibitions and are of county -wide
benefit. The Board could then use the revenues that I have sug-
gested since many are county -wide in nature.
r
Alternate II would be used if the Board decides that
"local" roads and bridges are of benefit only to those living in
the unincorporated area and of no real and substantial benefit to
residents living within the City of Naples. The available sources
of revenues and fees would be restricted to only those funds gen-
erated in the unincorporated area with the majority of funds com-
ing from the ad valorem property tax levied in the unincorporated
MSTD.
Legal ramifications are involved in which alternative
you choose. The County Attorney will detail his opinion to the
Board in a separate memorandum. I have discussed these with the
-79-
County Attorney and he believes that the risks are higher and the
defense weaker if Alternate I were selected and it went to court.
Alternate II is neater and more clear-cut, and would probably be
acceptable to the City of Naples and, therefore, would not be
litigated. It is for these reasons that I am recommending the
adoption of Alternate II.
Also, notwithstanding all of the foregoing, Collier
County has already taken progressive steps towards the solution of
this problem in that they have already created a number of road
improvement special assessment districts and MSTDs throughout the
county whereby the benefitted property or user pays the full cost
of the improvement.
9. Parks
The Collier County Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on May 8, 1979, provides the following standards for
parks:
"A. Neighborhood Parks
Size: 2 to 10 acres, or 2 acres/1,000 persons
Population Served: Up to 5,000 persons
Service Area: 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius.
"B. Community Parks
Size: 10 to 50 acres, or 2 acres/1,000 persons
Population Served: Up to 25,000 persons
Service Area: 1/2 to 3 miles
-20-
"C. Urban -District Parks
Size: 50 to 250 acres, or 5 acres/1,000 persons
Population Served: Up to 50,000 persons
Service Area: 30 to 40 minutes driving time."8
Based on the county's own criteria, it is my opinion
that 10 of the 10 Neighborhood Parks, 6 of the 12 School Sites,
and 1 of the 3 Regional Parks, do not provide "real and substan-
tial benefit" to the property or residents of Naples and, there-
fore, should be funded in the MSTD.
As for the eight Beach and water Oriented facilities, I
believe that 5 of the 8 are reasonably available to the residents
of Naples and are not for the sole -and exclusive use of residents
in the unincorporated area and, therefore, should continue to be
funded out of county -wide millage. In the future, any capital
r
improvements made to MSTD-identified sites should be funded out of
the MSTD. A complete index of these locations is provided in the
Exhibit section.
10. Aquatic Plant Control.
I disagree with the SKA report that this is of "no real
and substantial benefit" to the City of Naples. This service
meets the legal test in that it is not for the sole and exclusive
use of residents in the unincorporated area. Any service that
deals with the environment and drainage systems along county roads
is of value county -wide to all residents. The county staff plans
-21-
to place this item of $227,387 in the Water Management budget next
year.
11. Overhead Expense.
I personally reject and do not accept any allocation of
any kind of administrative or overhead cost factor to an MSTD.
The law does not mention it and the courts have certainly never
required it. For example, there is no way you could allocate a
portion of the Sheriff's salary to an MSTD. He is the chief law
enforcement officer of the county and an independently -elected
Constitutional Officer, elected county -wide, even though some of
his Office's functions are performed solely for the benefit of
residents in the unincorporated area.
12. MSTD Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects.
All expenditures identified to date are for current or
r•
proposed operating expenses and do not include any money for capi-
tal improvement projects. There is definitely a need for capital
improvements in the unincorporated area of the county such as
neighborhood Parks and recreational facilities and bike paths
which will have to be funded by the MSTD. With all of the growth
taking place in the unincorporated area of the county, there is a
clear need for such local improvements. Therefore, I recommend
that a Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects in the amount of
$500,000 be created for and funded totally by the MSTD.
-22-
13. MSTD Reserve for Contingencies.
Since this will be the first time that an MSTD is being
established for urban services in the unincorporated area of the
county, and since some of the revenues are highly volatile and
subject to economic fluctuations like the building fees, I recom-
mend that a Contingency Reserve be established in the amount of
$260,000 to compensate for unknowns and undercollection of
revenues as well as providing a reserve for salary increases for
those employees working in departments funded by the MSTD. For
this same reason, I am recommending a Reserve for Contingencies in
the Road and Bridge MSTD in the amount of $100,000.
14. Disclaimer on Figures.
Although it is quite clearly implied and logically
present, I wish to specifically state that the figures used in
r
this report dealing with proposed and requested 1980-81 budgets
are the best available estimates that could be used at this time.
However, departmental requests continue to be modified and are not
yet final. Also, certain salary increases for employees are still
being negotiated and will not be final for some time. All figures
for the 1980-81 budget are subject to adjustment and final
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. However, the con-
cepts and amounts reflected in this report should establish
clearly the principles recommended by this consultant for imple-
mentation by the county.
-23-
15. Summary.
This report and whatever the Collier County Board of
Commissioners finally approves in the way of MSTDs represent the
first serious attempt to resolve the dual taxation problem in
Collier County. It is not perfect and it is not exact. It
represents a good faith effort on the part of Collier County to
resolve its differences with the City of Naples amicably.
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the resolution of
dual taxation differences in this state is far from being clear-
cut. Even the courts have not specifically said what each and
every service is or is not of benefit to people and property in
the incorporated and unincorporated areas of a county; only on a
case by case specific basis. We have tried to be fair and reason-
able in our recommendations dealing with services and distribution
of revenues to pay for these services, both on a county -wide basis
and in the unincorporated area only. There are interpretations of
law and policy, assumptions and presumptions in the City's
Southern -Kelton report, some of which neither I nor my legal
advisor agree with. I am sure they will say the same after
reviewing this report. This again points up the fact that this
process of evaluation is not a clear and concise science. I think
we do agree on the areas to be addressed. We only disagree on the
degree to which they should be satisfied.
The bottom line, however, is that my report, if adopted
in whole or part, with the creation of one or more MSTDs, repre-
sents a giant step forward towards resolving the differences and
-24-
inequities that may exist between the taxpayers residing within
the corporate boundaries and those in the unincorporated area.
This is not the end of the resolution, it is only the beginning.
I believe that.it will take at least two or three more years
before the county can develop, produce, and refine true cost
accounting figures and a better functional cost distribution sys-
tem in order to determine that there are no dual taxation viola-
tions, or at best, that the attribution and distribution of
revenues and expenditures is as good as you can get at this time.
It will take time, money, and people. The Sheriff's Department
has a particular need for additional computer and human resources
in the financial and accounting section before any further sophis-
ticated functional data can be developed. The financial section
of the Clerk's Office as well as the Data Processing Department
have come a long way in the past three years, but they will need
additional resources to move forward in the next three years.
Finally, the question of utilization and distribution of
state and federal revenue sharing funds is still not clear and
subject to broad interpretation and debate. In fact, in 1979,
the Legislature and its staff recognized this and, in enacting
Chapter 79-87 (originally HB 1568), specifically ordered:
"Section 2. The Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
is hereby directed to study the relationship of federal and state
shared revenue programs, municipality utility charges, and other
fiscal aspects to the double taxation issue. The council shall
-25-
file a report of its findings and recommendations with the
Governor and the Legislature by March 1, 1980." As of July 20,
1980, this report still has not been filed. I believe my recom-
mended distribution and use of federal and state revenue sharing
is as valid as that proferred by SKA. At such time as the law may
be changed or clarified and/or the above study is completed, I
would then feel free to recommend additional changes.
-26-
J
EXHIBIT I
SHERIFF'S MSTD WORKSHEET
FY 1980-1981 (Proposed)
Substations No. Employees
Immokalee* 35
Everglades 8
Marco 12
55 TOTAL
Total Wages
and Benefits
$ 656,693
184,418
144,197
$1,085,308
55 of 182 employees=30%
29 vehicles out of approximately 80 are assigned to these substa-
tions, or 36%
Other Expenses
$866,122 Less jail expenses of $268,967=$597,155
$597,155x30% employee distribution factor to be allocated to
MSTD=$179,146
Equipment
Since it is difficult to ascertain at this time where each new
vehicle went, or uniforms or other pieces of equipment, I used the
30% employee distribution factor. This type of informtion or
assignment can be readily developed in the future.
$197,503x30%=$57,751
Total to MSTD=$1,322,205
This figure represents almost 25% of the Sheriff's proposed budget
for FY 1980-1981.
*It is my opinion that employees involved in detention/corrections
(6) and 911/communications system (6) perform services of a
county -wide benefit and should not be included in the MSTD.
a
EXHIBIT II
ENGINEERING MSTD WORKSHEET
FY 1980-1981 (Requested)
Using the criteria of benefit on a county -wide basis or
exclusively for the benefit of residents and property in the unin-
corporated area, based on my discussions with the County Engineer,
I recommend the following:
County -wide Benefits
Administration Section (50%)
Design Section --County Connected Road System (18%)
Permit/Site Plan Review Section
Service to Unincorporated Area Only
Administration Section (50%)
Design Section --Local Road System (82%)
Subdivision Review Section
Special Assessment Section
Total to Urban Services MSTD
-29-
$ 40,796
85,052
4 3, 307
13,986
$183,141
EXHIBIT III
PROPOSED ROAD AND BRIDGE MSTD WORKSHEET
Proposed Expenditures 1980-81
I tem
Traffic signals
Maintenance Material
Transp . Di r. & Sec.
City Rd. & Br. Payment
Capital Equipment
Tax Coll. Com.
Prop. Appr. Com.
Traffic Signs
Subtotal
Total
County -wide Unincorporated Only
$140,598c
89,539 (34%)
45,206
150,000
270,500e
15,000
6,541
42,500
$759,884
$933,695
$ -0-
173,811 (66%)d
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
$173,811
Combined Costs $473,157 (18%)* $2,155,494 (82%)*
Total $1,233,041a To MSTD=$2,329,305bg
Grand Total of Proposed Road & Bridges Fund (a+b)=$3,562,346
*Initial Road & Bridge Fund $3,562,346
Less: Direct Cqunty-wide Costs 933,695
$2,628,651
Estimated County -wide Exp. x18%f
County -wide Combined Costs $ 473,157
Unincorporated Combined Costs $2,155,494 (82%)f
(Estimated Unincorp. Area Expense)
cAll Traffic Signals are on County Secondary Road system and are
of county -wide benefit. we disagree with the SKA report statement
that it is not.
dRoad Maintenance Materials. 66% of these materials are used on
"local" roads. $263,350x66%=$173,811.
eEquipment is used interchangeably on county connected road
system and is of county -wide benefit.
fPercentage is based on actual usage records maintained by
County Engineer's Office.
9I will also recommend an additional $100,000 be placed in the
Road and Bridge MSTD for Contingencies.
-30-
I
EXHIBIT IV
Comparison of Summaries of Services Benefitting
Unincorporated Areas Only
and FSA-Recommended Funding Levels in an MSTD
Based on Proposed FY 1980-1981 Budget Requests
Community Development
Planning
Building Inspection
Zoning
Airports
Division of Forestry
SUBTOTAL
Sherif f
Enqineering
Transportation
Parks
(Rd. & Br.)
SUBTOTAL
SKA
(FY 1979-80)
$ 111,961
121,856
448,221
184,371
41,000
23,425
$ 930,834
$1,858,810
229,903
2,754,840
404,835
$5,248,388
Aquatic Plant Control $ 227,387
Public Works 37,544
Administration & Overhead 122,691
SUBTOTAL $ 386,622
TOTAL $6,566,844
*FSA Proposes:
FSA-Recom.
(FY 1980-81)
$ 116,568
158,240
450,008
192,483
63,713
23,425
$1,004,437
$1,322,205
183,141
2,429,305*
256,670
$4,191,321
-0-
- 0 ---
-ri-
_ -u-
$5,195,758*
Road & Bridge MSTD--$2,429,305
Urban Services MSTD-$2,766,453
Plus 500,000 Reserve for Capital Imprv. Proj.(1)
Plus 260,000 Contingency & Salary Increases(2)
$3,526,453
SKA=Southern-Kelton & Associates, City of Naples Consultants
FSA=Frank Spence & Associates, Collier County Consultants
FSAs recommendation reflects those services and costs that would
be funded out of an MSTD, using the proposed 1980-1981 budget
requests. They would become effective October 1, 1980.
( 1 ) See Recommendation No. 12 for explanation.
(2) See Recommendation No. 13 for explanation.
-31-
3
EXHIBIT V
Proposed Funding of Unincorporated
Area Urban Services MSTD
Estimated 1980-81
1. Franchise Fees --Cable T.V.
2. Occupational Licenses
3. Building and Zoning Permits
4. Lot Clearing
5. Engineering Fees and Permits
6. Sales -Planning & Community Dev.; and
Fees for Review & Zoning
7. Fines and Forfeitures
8. Airport Fees
Subtotal Fees
9. Building & Zoning Fees Surplus
Subtotal
Proposed Expenditures & Reserves
Amount to be generated by ad valorem taxes
in MSTD (net after mandatory 5% reserves)
$ 60,000
65,000
837,000
3,000
65,600
30,755
9,370
400,000
6,901
$1,477,626
500,000*
$1,977,626
$3,526,453
$1,548,827
*Note: Actually, there is $704,109 available from surplus build-
ing fees realized 'over the past five years; however, three of
those years had a deficit and the general fund had to carry this
operation plus absorbing overhead expenses. After discussion with
staff, it was felt that this figure was fair and conservative.
-32-
EXHIBIT VI
Alternate I
Proposed Funding of Road and Bridge MSTD
FY 1980-1981
Source Amount
1. Federal Payments/Lieu of Taxes* $ 4,200
2. State Revenue Sharing (53.5%)(* Part) 500,000
3. Mobile Home Licenses 98,000
4. Alcoholic Beverage Licenses* 23,000
5. Race Track Funds (25%)* 114,000
6. Gasoline Production Tax* 120,000
7. Gas Tax Pour -over Trust (7th V) (82%)* 656,000
Total Intergovernmental Revenue $1,515,200
8. Interest --other $ 20,000
9. Reimbursements 4,000
10. Insurance Payments/Property Damage 1,000
11. Other Payments/Property Damage 500
Total Miscellaneous Revenue $ 25,500
12. Federal Revenue Sharing (78%)* 507,000
13. Cash Carry Forward 320,942
Less 5% Reserve Requirement-104,885
SUBTOTAL $2,263,757
Proposed Expenditures $2,429,305
Amount to be raised from ad valorem
property taxes in MSTD $ 165,548
Note: This alternate method of funding would be used if the Board
took the position that local roads and bridges expentitures are not
in violation of dual taxation prohibitions and it would, therefore,
be appropriate to use the above funds, most of which are county-
wide in nature (indicated by an *).
-33-
EXHIBIT VI I
Alternate II
Proposed Funding of Road and Bridge MSTD
FY 1980-1981
Source Amount
1. State Revenue Sharing (40%) $ 373,600
2. Mobile Home Licenses 98,000
3. Interest --Other 20,000
4. Reimbursements 4,000
5. Insurance Payments/Property Damage 1,000
6. Other Payments/Property Damage 500
Subtotal $ 497,100
Proposed Expenditures $2,429,305
Amount to be raised from ad valorem
property taxes in MSTD (net after 5%
reserve) $1,932,205
NOTE: This alternate method of funding would be used if the Board
takes the position that it will use only revenues generated in the
unincorporated area of the county and the MSTD to fund these Road
& Bridge activities.
-34-
d
EXHIBIT VI I I
Comparison of Alternates I & II
for Proposed Road & Bridge MSTD
and
Estimated Millage Impact
This comparison uses proposed 1980-81 revenue and
expenditure figures from the preceding worksheets.
Since the 1980 property appraisal roll has not yet been
receivbed, I will use the 1979 roll so that some common denomina-
tor can be used to develop a general estimated millage figure for
illustrative purposes.
1979 County -wide Assessed Value: $2,154,203,834
1979 City of Naples Assessed Value: $ 705,540,591
The City of Naples contains approximately 330 of the
total county taxable assessed value, therefore, 670 of the value
lies in the MSTD area--$1,448,663,243.
Alternate I
Urban Service MSTD $1,548,827
Road & Bridge MSTD 165,548
$1,714,375
Plus 5% Reserve 90,230
Total Funds Levied $1,804,605
Millage in MSTDs 1.2457 mills
Reduction of county-
wide millage .8377 mill
Net Increase for Property
in MSTD .4080 mill
Alternate II
$1,548,827
1,932,205
$3,481,032
183,212
$3,664,244
2.5293 mills
1.7010 mills
.8283 mill
-35-
i
EXHIBIT IX
Inventory of Parks and Recreational Facilities
Maintained by Collier County
Neighborhood
Parks
Park Acreage
1.
Coconut Grove*
1.2
2.
Golden Gate City*
3.2
3.
Oil Well Park*
5.5
4.
Palm Springs*
6.7
5.
Piedmont Circle*
5.0
6.
Poinciana Village*
.4
7.
Rock Harbour*
.5
8.
South Immokalee*
3.2
9.
Marco Island Ballfield #2*
4.8
10.
Isle of Capri (Lots)*
1.0
Total County -owned Neighborhood Parks
31.5
School Facilities
1.
Avalon Elementary
2.5
2.
Golden Gate Elementary*
1.7
3.
Immokalee High School*
2.5
4.
Naples High School
3.0
5.
Naples Park Elementary*
2.5
6.
Poinciana Elementary
3.0
7.
Seagate Elementary
2.5
8.
S'nadowlawn Ejementary
2.5
9.
Tommie Barfield*
2.5
10.
Barron Collier High School
4.0
11.
Everglades High School*
4.0
12.
Lely High School �e
3.0
Total County -maintained School Facilities 33.7
Regional Parks
1. Immokalee Park* 19.0
2. Fakahatchee Strand 1950.0
3. Gran Property 60.0
Total Acreage for Regional Parks 2029.0
Beach and Water Oriented
1. Bayview Park 4.2
2. Boa t Ramp .5
3. Four -acre boat ramp site 4.0
4. Lake Trafford Boat Ramp 4.0
5. Tigertail Beach Park* 31.6
6. Barefoot Beach* 2.5
7. Vanderbilt Beach* .5
8. Horizon Way .5
Total Beach and Water Oriented Acreage 47.8
*Sites to be charged to and funded by an MSTD.
-36-
1.
Michael
Richardson, Dual Taxation in Florida:
An Update
(Tallahassee,
State Department of Community
Affairs, 1979)
p. 4.
2.
Ibid.,
p. 4.
3.
Ibid.,
p. 5.
4.
Ibid.,
p. 5.
5.
Ibid.,
p. 6.
6.
Ibid.,
p. 6.
7.
Ibid.,
p. 6.
8.
Collier
County Comprehensive Plan; Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space
Element. (Naples, Florida, May 1979)
pp. 108-109.
9.
Richardson,
Dual Taxation in Florida: An Update, p. 12.
10.
Ibid.,
p. 13.
11.
Ibid.,
p. 7.
12.
Ibid.,
pp. 7-8. f
13.
Florida
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental
Relations, The
Double
Taxation Issue (Tallahassee 1978) p.
10.
-37-
f
m
&
/