Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/12/1980 R Naples, Florida, August 12, 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 been created accor'ding 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 with the following members presen t: CHAI Rt"J\N: Cl i fford Wenzel VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thomas P. Archer John A. Pistor C. R. "Russ" Wimer David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clerk; Harold L. IIall, Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Edna Brenneman, Deputy r.lr.rk; C. William Ilorman, County Manager; Donil1d A. Pickwoi'~h, County Attorney; Irving Berzon, Utilities Division Director (10:10 A.M.); ThomilS Hafner, Public Safety Administrator; Clifford narksda1e, Public Works Administrator/Engineer; Tprry Virtil, C:orTrnunit.y Orvplopmpnt Aciministr,ltor; Donny Crew, Planning Director; Mary Morgan, Administrative Aide to the Board; and Deputy Sam Bass, Sheriff's Department. BOAfUl OF CO~JNTY CO'1M~_~<;J.Q.~~EIi~ AGErWA August 12, 1980 tIOTICE: ^L L P E H SON SSP [M~ I t' G 0 rl ANY AGE N 0 A ITEM r.w S T REG] S TE R PHI 0 H TOT H E I IE 11 [l EI N G II E A H [) . REQUESTS TO ADDHESS TIlE BOAHD ON SUBJECTS 1-1111 CH ARE NOT 0 NTH I SAG E N [) A 11 U S T [l E SUB MITT E n I N \~ R I TI N G lH T Ii E X P LAN A TI 0 N TOT Ii E C 0 U N TV 11 A NAG E HAT I.E A 5 T 1 30M S P R ] 0 n T CJ THE D kr E 0 F T /I E 11 E E TIN G 1\ IW H] L L B E H E 1\ iW U N D [I~ "P U II LI C PET IT ION S" AT 1 1 : 0 0 A. H . 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: l 5. pnOCLAMATIO~ AND PRESENTATION OF AWARDS 5. SOCIAL SE~VICES BOax 054 PJlr.F 392, August 12,1980 ^GENDA - APPROVED WITH FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND DEFERRAL Conlnissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the Agenda be approved with the following additions and deferral: 1. Consideration of resolution for grant application re CJIS Step 5, LEA^, for Clerk - Added to Clerk's Report; 2. Authorization for expenditure of funds for Charter Commission activities - Added to Clerk's Report; 3. Consideration of BCC Departmental Budget Review Schedule - Added La Clerk's Report; 4. Creation of Bay and Fern Street Road Improvement District - Added under Requests for Advertisinq; 5. Public hearing re ordinance repealinq Ordinance 76-68 and act0pti' ) 1979 Building Code with Amendments scheduled to be heard August 19. 1980 - Public hearing to be continued until September 23, 1980 at request of Contractors Association of Collier County; 6. Resolution authorizing sale of $6,000,000 Improvement Revenue Bonds - AddEd to County Attorney's Report; 7. Consideration of Amended Agreement with Imperial Golf Estates re limitation of sewer hookups - Added to County Attorney's Reporl; R. Approval for Chairman to execute Quit Claim Deed in rrttll"n for small Drainage Easement on North Tr~'l - Added to County Attorney's Report; 9. Revision to Agreement allowing Frank Johnson to occuPY certain County property for additional period - Added to County Attorney's Report. ORDINANCE NANDATING DEVELOPERS TO DEDICATE LAND FOR SCHOOLS - IHTHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 24, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a proposed ordinance mandating deve 1 opers to ded i Cd te 1 dml for schools. Chairman Wenzel advised that a request has been received from the Attorney for the Call ier County School Board, James Siesky, that the subject 'i ordinance be withdrawn. There being no persons registered to spe~k concerning the ordinance, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. BOOK 05~ PACE397 Augus t 12, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved that the request of the Petitioner for the withdrawal of the subject ordinance be accepted. The motion was seconded by Conrnissioner Pistor and carried unanimously. '1 ORDINANCE 80-78 RE PETITION R-80-19C, CRAVEN THOMPSON ENGINEERING, INC.. REQUESTING REZONING FROf.l "E-GH" TO "E" FOR PROPERTY IN SlO, T51S, R26E _ ADOPTED P'JRSUANT TO STAFF STIPULATIONS; PETITIONER'S AGREEMENT TO STIPULATIONS - ACCEPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily N.:?'" on July 11, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Pub1 ication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-80-19C, filed by Craven Thompson Engineerng, Inc. for Edward J. Kant, requesting rezoning from "E-GH" Estates Group Housing to "E" Estates for property located in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Community Develorment Administrator Terry Virta located the property involved, referr'iny La a map rrovided, as being a 21.5 ilCn:~ pilrce1 one-half mile south of Manatee Road and arproximately three-quarters of a mile east of SR 951. He said that the petitioner rroposes to use the property for individuill 210i ilcre lots rather than cl condominium plat with 210i ilcres in common ownership. The loastill Area Planning Commissioner, at the public hearing held on July II, 1980, reconm~nded forwarding the retition to the Boa rd wi th a reconvnenda t ion 0 f a pprova 1 subjec t to the ya ri ous s t i pu- lations by the staff. Commissioner Pistor. noting that the area is in the Isles of Capri water system, inquired if there has been assurance for the wilter supply. Mr. John Gargis, representing the firm of Craven Thompson & Associates, Inc., explained that the utility finn has been contacted and has agreed to serve the development; however, he added that the lots are of sufficient size tt,at individual wells could be utilized. ^ further concern expressed was the lack of an entranC2 road with Mr. Gargis pointing out that there are no plans at the present time to move forward with deve1orment; however, when development is considered, the questions concerning water supply and access road would have to be answered in order to have the plan approved, Augus t 12, 1980 Mr. Virt.:l conculTed wi Lh the comment that the Subdivision Hegu1ations would be reviewed for compliance with regard to plans for development. There being no persons indicating a desire to address the matter, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Co~nissioner Pistor and cilrried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Corll11issioner [JrOl..n moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that the Ordinance, as numbered and entitled below, be adopted and entered into Ordinance [look No. 11, pursuant · staff stipulations, ilnd that the Petitioner's Agreement to said stipulations be accepted. ORDINANCE 80- 73 AN ORDINANCE J\t1ENDING ORDINTlNCE 76-30, 'rIlE CO;'lPREIIENc;IVE ZONING REGULA'rIONS FOn THE UNINCOJ\l'ORATED ARETI OF THE COASTMJ TInEA PLTlNNING DIS'l']UCT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORID1\. BY Tlj1EI~DIN(; TilE 7.0NING 1\.TL1\S 111\P NUMnr:R 51-26-2 BY CIlTlNGING TIlE ZONING CLTISSIFIC1\TION FRml "E-CII" ES'l'TlTES GROUP HOUSING TO "E" ESTATES ON THE FOJJLOIHNG DESCRIBED PROPERTY: SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/1} OF THE SOUTH- EAST 1/1} OF SECTION 10, '1'515, R26E; TlND BY PROVIDING TIN EFFECTTVE DTlTE * * * * * * * P.ugust 12, 1980 ORDINANCE 80-79 Rf. PETITION NZ-80-IIC, COUNTY PLANNING STAFF, REQUESTING AMENOMENT TO SECTION 41 OF ZONING ORDINANCE RE POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - ADOPTED Legal notice havin9 been pub1ishp.d in the Naples Daily News on July 24, 191 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held to consider a proposed ordinance with regard to Petition NZ-80-11C, filed by the County Planning Staff, requesting an amendment to Section 41 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Development Administrator Terry Virta explained that the proposed amendm~nt is intended to clarify and expand the language so that the subject Board will have more direction in considering variances and not to actually modify an existiny provision in the Ordinance. He pointed out that the actual modification, as included in the final draft, should include additional underscoring with the second line of Paragraph 3, B (4), (a) of Section 41 to read as follows: "to the-Loci1tJ.2..n--L..size, and charilcteristics of the land, structure".... It was noted by Mr. Virtil thJt the COJsta1 Al^eil Planning CUllulli~~ion held their public hearing on July 17,1980 and recommended forwilrding the Petition to the Boare with il recommendntion of approval. There beinq no persons registered to speak on the matter, whereupon Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried by unanimous v0te, that the Ordinance, as numbered and entitled below, b~ adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 11. t. ORDINANCE - 80 - 79 AN ORDINANCE NIENDING ORDINANCE 76-30, SEC- TION 41, PLANNING CONHISSION: l'OIYEHS AND DUTIES UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE, PARAGRAPIl 3. B, (4), (a) AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ro_ . BOOK 054 PACE 401 August 12,1980 PETITION R-80-20C, HIDEAWAY BEACH, INC., REQUESTING REZONING FROM ~RS-3" AND "PUD~ TO "PUD~ FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS HIDEAWAY BEACH AND ROYAL MARCO POINT, MARCO ISLAND - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 19, 1980 TO PERMIT FURTHER REVIEW OF BEACH ACCESS PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE, AND ALSO TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TIGER TAIL BEACH COMPLIES WITH SAID PROVISIONS ! Legal notices having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 11, 1980 and in the Marco Island Eagle on July 17, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing. was opened to consider Petition R-80-20C, filed by Hideaway Beach. .nc., requesting rezoning from "RS-3~ and "PUD" to "PUD~ for property known as Hideaway Beach ar~ Royal Marco Point, Marco Island. COrrfTlunity Development Administrator Terry Virta located the general area of the development as that portion of the map displayed shown in pink explaining that the petitioner' is adding the Royal Marco Point area to Hideaway BeClch and relocating the multi-family units of the latter pruj~ct to the Royal MJrco Point area. He referred to the Executive Summary prepared by staff to provide the Board with a brief history of the project and ltfha tis h"i",n ......... "';j proposed in the subject petition. He noted that the CAPC held their public hearing on July 17, 1980 at which time the Staff Report was considerc~, along with the Petition, the PUD document, description of changes, analysis of clearing the Royal Marco Point area. and the variance request. It was the CAPC recommendation that the Petition be approved subject to the staff's stipulations and amending of the PUD document as outlined in the Staff Report with the understanding that the building height would be limite1 to 6 living stories in the multi-family area, as contained in Items 6 and 7 of Page 4 of the Staff Report dated July 8, 1980. Mr. Virta responded to Commissioner Pistor's query regarding 1ensit) by stating that the overall density will be reduced to 2.17 units per acre, Commissioner Wimer reported that he has had several inquiries ;ecently addressing the beach access question with Mr, Virta stating that the beach that is located landward of the coastline is not considred beach as far as the Ordinance is concerned for beach ?ccess and, therefore, there is no requirement for public access, Mr. Virta filed for the record letters from August 12, 1980 Phillip O'Reilly, dated August 7, 1980, and from the Isles of Capri Civic Association, dated August 6, 19BO, both in opposition; and a letter from the Marco Island Civic Association, Inc., dated August 8, 1980, stating that the Association directors have no objection to the revised plans for the deve 1 opmen t. The question regarding beach access was further pursued with Commissioner Wimer requesting clarification of the provisions of the pertir'1t ordjnance. Mr. Virta stated that, as defined in the Ordinance, the beaches under discussion are not considered coastal beaches in terms of public access, adding that t~e matter is an aspect of the ordinance which probably needs further review. Mr. Victor DeKonschin, Architect, a member of the Apell Design group which was retalned to do the planning for Hideaway Beach, stated that the two platted developments were brought together when the owners of Hideaway Beach were able to acquire Royal Marco Point at which time his firm was asked to re-study the total land available and make suitable recorrrnendations. He explained, by referring to maps displ~yed. the plan which was forthcoming and which the Board is being asked to consider, toucning briefly on such aspects as the two entrances provided, the large open space in the middle of the project planned for the golf course but also designed as a retention area for the natural flow of water, the design of the road system and housing pattern so that it would not interfere with the natural flow of water, a~d the fact that the development will only use 150 acres of the available 211 acres, leaving the balance in a natural state, Other details of the project were described by Mr. DeKonschin including the location of the buildings in a manner which will least affect the natural terrain. The mangrove area will be left intact, by plat, he said, and noted that the setback from the beach vegetation line has been increased from 100' in the residential lots to !. 150' for the mid-rise buildings, said area being reserved and platted as undisturbed natural area with access to the be~ch from the buildings being restricted to wooden walkways located in the area which "have been given to us n r::- I '.n"1 il0~K 054 PAGE 403 Augus t 12, 1980 by nature and are somewhat cleared." He further stated that all of the hui1dings on the project will be built above the ~round because of the flood plain. Responding to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. DeKonschin said that a marina is not part of the "PUD" ordinance, nor is it being requested. -r Mr, Richard Hahn expressed the opinion that the people of Collier County arc continually being denied access to beaches and said that calling the aforesaid areas not beaches is a manipulation of the Zoning Ordinance. He requested that the Board reject the Petition until there ..- provisions for beach access. Mr. OeKonschin observed that the project is just north of Tiger Tail Beach which is a public beach. Mr. Leigh P1UJT11ler, president of the Marco Island Civic Association, Inc., said that the petition was reviewed about two months previously and felt that the change was a desirable one in that it would make the golf course a fu11-f1edg~d nine-hole course instead of an executive course and will lower the density in the ~rea. He said there were no problems with beach access and no requests since the matter was worked out before at the south end of Hideaway Beach. Corrrnissioner Brown stated that he would like to be apprised of how much beach access ~xists on Marco Island, stating that he would like to be provided with such information for presentation at the next Board Meeting - including the amount which has been dedicated and set aside from the Lee County line to the tip of Marco. To his knowledge, said the Commissioner, there hcs been a tremendous amount delegated for public use, Mr. Plummer observed that Tiger Tail Beach is approximately one-half mile long, and the public beach for Marco Island residents is 14.4 acres on 1,000 feet, commenting that those meet the requirements of th" Ordinance and, in his opinion, there are adequate beaches. Commissioner Brown reiterated his request for the information mentioned. The Chair di,ected that such information be forthr.oming. Conlnissioner ^rcher said that the beach in question has always been, historically, a boaters' beach, there has been very little access to the beac August 12, 1980 and that the drawings displayed are misleading. He described the physical luyout of the beach and said that it is a beach that is not conducive to normal beach activities. Conrnissioner Wimer requested that the petition be deferred until the ordinance can be reviewed to make sure it is being adhered to with the further request that the Attorney provide a legal opinion as to whether or not the Beach Acccss Ordinance applies to the subJect piece a,' 1and. Mr. DeKonschin said that he would like to have a decision this date but will comply with the suggestion mad~ by Commissioner Wimer. Commissioner Wimer noted that he does not wish to cause the developer any hardship but that he would like t.o hilve a legal determination and commented that it would be to the developer's benefit also. Commissioner Wimer moved that ~he public hcaring bc continucd for one week with COITTTlissioner Brown seconding the motion. In the discussion which followed, Commissioner Wimer asked for a further legal opinion as to whether or not Tiger Tail Beach meets the County Ordinance particularly with regard to parking provisions which is the main requirement. Upon call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 80-152 RE INTENT TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENf OF CLAIM OF "DOUBLE T AXATI ON" BY C!TV OF !{APLES, I N ACCORDANCE WITH ALTERNATE I I IN FRANK SPENCE & ASSOC.~NC. REPORT DATED AUGUST, 1980 - ADOPTED County Manager C. William Norman advised that the item to be discussed was placed on the Agenda at the Workshop meeting held August 8, 1980 at which time the Board indicated that they would be prepared to make a decision with regard to the proposed recommendation by Consultant Frank Spence. of Frank Spence & Assoc., Inc., included in h;s Report dated August, 1980. Responding to Chairman Wenzel's request for comments, Commissioner Wimer stated his preference to have'~he various portions of the recommendation handled in separate motions; i.e. Community Development through Division of Forestry (as 1iJted on Page 31 of the Report in Exhibit IV). To explain, August 12, 1980 BOOK 054 PAGE 405 Co~~issioner Wimer said that, like Commi~sioner Brown stated, he ha~ also "done his homework" and that he will have to cast negative votes on different segments, pointing out that this is no reflection on the individuals involved and, in his opinion, the persbns in the City attempted to follow the law. He said that he has no problem with the various activities referred to above since these services are not performed within the City; however, it is with the Sheriff's and Road Departments that he is concerned. He expressed his viewpoint that at some point in the future it ~11' be cheaper to 1 ive within the City than the County with an extra tax burden placed upon the County residents which will eventually lead to increased annexation and proliferation of incorporations. He voiced disagreement tha t the Sheriff's act i v it i es do not benefi t the City and has the same opinion concerning road~ in the County, commenting that, in :;hort, he does not agree wi th the philosophy put forth. At t~lis point, Chainnan Wenzel stated that there will be separate motions - one for the Sheriff's Department, another for Roads, and the third for the general departments of government. COlTrnissioner \~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the first six items on Page 31, Exhibit IV, be approved, ~s services benefitting the unincorporated areas only. COITTllissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer, that the Sheriff's Department allocation be included in the urban service area, pursuant to recommendation. ConTllissior,er Pistor asked that the Sheriff be instructed tu keep records in such a manner that, in the event there is further consideration on the matter, that charges can be assigned even in the unincorporated areas according to the services received. The Chairman requested Fiscal Officer Harold Hall to confer with the Sheriff's Department in this regard. Commissioner Brown stated that was not the intent of his motion with Corrmi ss ioner Archer withdrawi ng hi s secondi ng thereof. County Attorn~y Pickworth clarified the actions being taken by stating that the Board has de~ided that the first six items mentioned will August 12, 1980 be included in the MSTU and that the matter being deliberated will be to includ~ that portion of the Sheriff's budget recommended in the Report in the MSTU. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Sheriff's Department portion of the recommendation for inclusion in the MSTD, following the suggestion put forth by Attorney Pickworth. Comnissioner Archer seconded the motion which carried 4/1 with Commissioner Wimer voting in opposition. Attorney Pickworth questioned what will be gained by motic~;ng separately on all of the items; however, he said to be consistent with what has been started, the next motion would be to approve the Engineering and Transportation (Road & Bridg~) portions of the recommendation. At the request of Commissioner Brown, Attorney Pickworth worded the motion that the recommendation be adopted for establishment of a MSTU for Road and Bridge and funding it a long the 11 nes sugges ted ; n 1\ lterna te I I u f Lite Spelll;e ReJ-iuJ'L. The Clld i I' seconded the motion to bring it on the floor. Attorney Pickworth explained that Alternate II would provide for funding the Di s tl'i c t from S ta te Revenue Shari n~, Mobil e Home Licenses and vari ous other small items, and not from Federal Revenue Sharing, and the like, as suggested under Alternate I of the Report. Upon call fa r Lhe ques t i on, the motion carr; ed 411 wi th Commi ss i oner Wimer voting in opposition. Attorney Pickworth pointed out that no action has been taken with regard to Engineering, in the amount of $183,141. and Parks, in the amount of $256,670. Commissioner Brown moved for acceptance of the reconmendatiun for Engineering. Commissioner Pistor seconded the motion which carried 4/1 with Comnissioner \~imer voting in opposition. Commissioner Brown moved for acceptance of the recommendation with regard to Parks, with Commissioner Pistor seconding the motion. The motion carri~d i. 4/1 with Commissioner Wimer voting in opposition. At this point, Attorney Pickworth stated that the next step to be taken is the adoption of a resolution which will declare the Board's intent August 12, 1900 BD~K 054 PAGE 407 to resolve the Double Tax dispute with the City on the basis of the reconrnendation contained in the Frank Spence & Associated, Inc. Report dated August, 1980 by establishing the MSTU's as described therein, including the funding of the Road and Bridge MSTU"in accordance with Alternate II; and second, that the settlement will be conditioned upon the ultimate adoption of the necessary ordinances and budgets to effectuate it, and shall also be conditioned upon the dismissal with prejudice of the Suit - Wei1 vs Collier County - which is currently pending in the C,rcuit Court. Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that Resolution 80-152, as detailed above, be adopted. Mayor Roland Anderson, City of Naples, observed that the settlement has been 2~ years "in the making" and expressed his regret that Commissioner Wimpr rnll1rl nnt MJrpp with thp spttlpmi>nt in ite; i>ntirpty. Fnllnwin9 iln exchange of handshakes, Chairman Wenzel voiced his appreciation to the Mayor with the hope that the City Council will take action at their next meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * 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 & / BOOK 054 PAGE 409 Aug'JS t 12, 1980 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RLCESS: 10:03 A.M, until 10:15 A.M. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 80-18 BY CORRECTING THE LANGUAGE OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT ADOPTED FOR BARNETT BANKS & TRUST COMPANY FOR PROPERTY IN S32, T50S, R25E - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that an ordinance amending Ordinance 80-18 by correcting the language of the Planned Unit Oevelopment document adopted for Barnett Banks & Trust Company for property located in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 2~ ~ast, acro~s from Naples Manor, be advertised for a public hearing September 9, 1980. PETITION BD-80-2C, JOSEPH E. WATERS, REPRESENTED BY ALLIED CRANE SERVICE, RCQUCSTING EXTENSION OF BOAT DOCK TO 29' ON LOT 11, BLOCK 403, ~NIT 13, MARCO ISLAND - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Connlissioner Archer' lIIuved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition BD-80-2C, filed by Jo~eph E. Waters, represented by Allied Crane Service, requesting extension of a boat dock to 29 feet on Lot lj, Block 403, Unit 13, Marco Island, be advertised for a public hearing S~ptember 9, 1980. PETITION BO-80-3C, PAT PARKER, REPRESENTED BY MARCO DOCK & PILE, REQUESTING EXTENSION OF BOAT DOCK TO 35' ON LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, OLD ~ARCO - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FuR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition BD-80-3C, filed by Pat Parker, represented by Marco Dock 0 Pile, requesting extension of a boat dock to 35 feet on Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Old Marco, be advertised for a public hearing on September 9. 1980. PETITION BD-80-4C, DON RIDDLE, REPRESENTED BY COLLIER MARINE, REQUESTING EXTENSION OF BOAT DOCK 30' ON LOT 812, UNIT 2, ISLES OF CAPRI - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Conmissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Petition BD-80-4C, filed by Don Riddle, represented by Collier Marine, requesting an extension of a boat dock 30 feet on Lot 812, August 12, 1980 Unit 2, Isles of Capri, be advertised for a public hearing on September 9, 1980. PETITION BD-80-5C, FRANCIS SHAW, REPRESENTED BY COLLIER MARINE, REQUESTING EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK TO 63' ON LOTS 102 j~ND 103, UNIT 1, ISLES OF CAPRI - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition BD-80-5C, filed by Francis Shaw, represented by Collier Marine, Inc., requesting an extension of a boat dock to 63 feet on Lots 102 and 103, Unit 1, Isles of Capri, be advertised for L public hearing on Septcmber 9, 1980. PETITION BD-80-6C, PAUL GRAVER, REPRESENTED BY GARLAND & GARLAND, REQUESTING BOAT DUCK EXTENSION TO 22' ON LOT 10, BLOCK F, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition BD-80-6C, filed by Paul Graver, represented by Garland " Garland, requesting a boat dock extension to 22 feet on Lot 10, Block "F," Littlc Hickory Shores, t.e advertised for il public hearing on September 9,1980. PETITION BO-80-7C, MIC MUSSllUUGH, REPRESENTED BY COLLIER MARINE, REQUESTING EXTENSION OF BOAT DOCK TO 24' ON LOT 627, UNIT 3, ISLES OF CAPRI SUBDIVISION - ADVERTISING AUTHORrZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition BD-80-7C, filed by Mr. Mossbough, represented by Collier Marine, requesting extension of a boat dock to 24 feet un Lot 627, Unit 3, Isles of Capri Subdivision, be advertised for a public hearing September 9, 1980. PETITION R-80-28C, ROBERT BYE, FOR THE SHELTER CORPORATION, REQUESTING REZONING FROM "GC" AND "RM-l" TO "RM-l" AND "GC" ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN S26, T49S, R25E - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBtR 23, '980 Co~nissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Petition R-80-28C, filed by Robert Bye, representing The ~helter Corporation, requesti~g rezoning from "GC" Golf ('nurse and "RM-l" Multi-Family to "RM-l" and "GC" on property located in Section 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, be advertised for a public hearing on September 23, 1980 BOO'tl o 54 PAGE 41f August 12, 1980 PETITION CCCL-80-6C, INK ENGINEERING, INC. FOR VANDERBILT SURF COLONY ASSOCIATES, LTD., REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE CCCL FOR I.or 5, BLOCK A, BAKER-CARROLL POINT, UNIT NO.2 - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Petition CCCL-80-6C, filed by Ink Engineering, Inc. for Vanderbilt Surf Colony Associated, Ltd., requeft{ng a variance from the Coastal Construction Control Line for Lot 5, Block A, Baker Carroll Point, Unit No.2, be advertised for a public hearing September 9, 1980 PETITION CCCL-80-7C, SUNSET HOUSE, INC., REQUESTING VARIANCE TO PLACE ADDITIONAL RIPRAP, ET AL. ON LAND LOCATED AT 220 SEAVIEW COUR~, ~ARCO ISLAND - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimo~sly carried, that Petition CCCL-80-7C, filed by Sunset House, Inc. requesting a variance to place additional riprap, increase height of seawall and replace walkway on land located at 220 Seaview Court, Marco Island, be advt:rLisd fur d ~uul il. lit:dl'illY UII S~~L~llIu~r' 9, 1980. CREATION OF MOST SOUTHERL'I 270 FEET OF FERN DRIVE AND BAY STREET PAVING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - AOVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 r.0mmi~si0n~r Prcher moved, seconded by Comnissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the creation of The Most Southerly 270 Feet of Fern Drive an~ Bay Street Paving Improvement District be advertised for a public hearing September 9, 1980. RESOLUTION 80..154 RE PETITION TO CHANGE THAT PORTION OF ESTEY AVENUE LOCATED IN FLAMINGO ESTATES 10 FLAMINGO DRIVE - ADOPTED Community Development Administrator Virta provided the Board with an update on the request by Flamingo Estates' residents to chanr~ a portion of Estey Avenue to Flamingo Drive, action by the Board having been continued from June 10, 1980 with the request that the staff meet with the owners to determine if the residents desired to change the entire portion of the subject roadway. He saic1 that t-Ir. Warren Seagraves, repre- s~~ting the Flamingo Estates' owners, met with the staff on July 25, 1980. August 12, 1980 and indicated that changing the entire length of Estey Avenue to Flamingo Drive would not change the notoriety that Estey Avenue has received of late. It was pointed out to Mr. Seagraves, said Mr. Virta, that the regulation pertaining to one street having two names was established for easier location of areas by emergency services. such as fire, sheriff and ambulance service. The recommendation by staff, he continued, remains one of denial. Ms. Catherine Brignolo, representing approximately 55% of the homeowners on Estey Avenue, pxplained that Flamingo Estates is separate from the other developments along Estey Avenue, having a natural line of demarcation at the intersection of the existing Flamingo Drive, which is to become Lakewood Blvd., and Estey Avenue. Also. said Ms. Brignolo, the change to Flamingo Drive will be in keeping with the tenor uf the Subdivision since all of the other streets are nam~d for birds. She asked the Board to give favorable consideration to t~e re~~est. Co~"issioner Wimer read, in part, from the letter dat~d August 12, 1980, submitted by the speaker, and noted his agreement with the persons who signed the letter and with the reasoning set forth. He moved that Resolution 80-154, confirming the street name of Flamin~o Drive in the Flamingo Estates Su~division, Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, be adopted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried unanimously. * * * * * i. * * * * August 12, 1980 RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT GRANTING LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, INC. RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TIGER TAlL BEACH PARK - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Following brief explanation by County Manager Norman, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Easement document granting Lee County Electric Co-Operative, Inc. utility right-of-way for Tiger Tail Beach Park, as reconrnended in the Executive Summary dated JUlY 23, 1980 prepared by staff. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. * August 12. 1980 RECOMMENDATION THAT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS BE ISSUED PERMITS TO MANUALLY POSSESS A FIREARM AND RECEIVE FIREARMS TRAINING UPON RECEIPT OF PERMIT - APPROVED Public Safety Administrator Thomas Hafner reviewed briefly the Executive Summary prepared by staff with regard to the recommendation that all Animal Control Officers be issued permits to manually possess pistols and repeating rifles setting forth the reasons for the recommendation and citing the legal authority and Collier County Ordinances pertaining thereto. Mr. Hafner noted that Animal Control Officer Gene Staudenmaier is ~ qualified firearms instructor and, with coordination with the Sheriff's Department, will conduct the training of all of his staff upon issuance of the permits. During the discussion which followed, various concerns were expressed by the Commissioners, with COlTvoissioner Brown stating that he was on the Game and Freshwater Fish Committee when the ordinance was passed to a I low uame \~a rdens to ca rry p 1 S to I s anJ sa 1 d tha t the same concerns \~ere expressed; however, he said that it is necessary, following which he moved that the recommendation, dptailed above, be approved. The motion was ~~conded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried. ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 76-68 AND ADOPTING 1979 BUILDING CODE WITH AMENDMENTS, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 8/19/80, PUBLIC HEARING DEFERRED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 1980, AT REQUEST OF CONTRACTO~~SSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Comnissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance 76-6B and adopting the 1979 Building Code with Amendments. advertised to be heard August 19, 1980, be deferred until September 23, 1980, as requested in the lptter dated August 4, 1980 from Bill Shearston, Executive Secr~~ary of the Contractors Association of Collier County. It was pointed out that duri~g the interim period the ^ssociation would be reviewing the matter and preparing input on the various facets of the proposed ordinance. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COLLIER COUNTY - ACCEPTED FOR RECORDATION 1 As recommended in the Executive Summary dated August 1, 1980 prepared by staff, Comnissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and ~OOK 054 PAGE 41.9 August 12, 1980 unanimously carried, that the following Drainage Easements for the installation of drainage facilities for certain areas of the County be accepted for the record following their recordation: ! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IK 054 PAGE 42.3 Augus t 12. 1980 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PERSONNEL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Assistant County Manager John Walker explained briefly the Assignment ! Agreement with the Office of Personnel Management for the provision of Personnel Technical Assistance, as set forth in the Executive Summary dated August 4. 1980 prepared by staff. He pointed out that the Agreement calls for a Consultant to spend up to twenty on-site days assisting the r"unty and providing guidance and assistance in: 1. Developing and implementing a performance evaluation system to be utilized by BCC employees; 2. Oeveloping and implementing a procedure for analyzing and calculating fringe bcncfit information; 3. Revision and maintenance of Personnel Policies and Procedurcs, County Manager Nornldn brought to the Board's attention the difficulty encountcred in hiring a qualified per'~ull Lo rill the Personnel Specialist position previously approved by the Board and said that the staff is under con~trilint~ to hilve the performilnce eva1utation system by the beginning of thc next fiscal year. Funds are available, said Mr. Norman, due to the open position, fo,' the cost of the Mobility Assignment under the subject Agreement. Commission~r Archer moved to accept the staff recommendation, as detailed above, wlth the comment that funds are available due to the vacant position, which has been budgeted, and the necessity to complete the project and program for the Personnel Departnent. Commissioner Pistor -,(~conded the motion. Hr. Walker apprised the Board that the basi( purpose in the classifi- cation study was to train in-house staff and, when the evaluation system is devised, that will be performed ill-house also. Commissioner Wimer observed that, in retrospect. the classification plan contains some "glaring" errors in some classifications which need to be re-addressed with Commissioner Pistor concurring with the statement. Mr. Walker said that in the semi-annual reclassification procedure such errors August 12, 1980 will be "gone over." Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/1 with Commissioner Wenzel voting in opposition. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I * , 054 PAGE 429 Au~ust 12, 1980 CONTRACT MODIFIC^TIONS TO FISCAL YEAR 1980 CETA CONTRACTS - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE CETA Director A, James Meerpohl presented for Board consideration recommended CETA Contract Modifications for Fiscal Year 1980, stating '1 that, by approving the documents, funds contracted for with the State are being de-obligated. He noted that the specific amounts are listed on the Executive Sunvnary dated July 31, 1980, and explained that approx- imately $27,000 are being de-ob1 igated from the Private Sector Tral',lng Program due to a specific class being disbanded because of lack of parti- c;pants. Mr, Meerpohl also pointed out that one item, not included in the agenda material, is a modification to the Summer Youth Employment Program pursuant. to the request by the State and the new Affirmative Action Plan; however, he saici that there is no change in the dollar amounts of the activities. He also added that, in essence, what happens is that these funds wi 1 J be re-progranmed back to the County next year. As noted by County Manager Norman, Mr, Meerpoh1 said that a further recommendation to the Board is for authorization for the ChiJ'rmarl to sign the Affirmative Action Plan, mandated by the StClte, as developed with the Department of Labor, He s~id that the papers have been completed and observed that the local CETA office is in full compliance. Conmi S5 i one!' Archer i nqu ired if, in the new contracts, there will be any way to reverse the Public Sector Employement amount with the Private Sector Training. Mr. Meerpoh1 said that there will be a substantial increase in the Private Sector area and that, due to the local office's successful programs, about $2,000,000 will be received, as oppos~d tv tile anticipated $1,500,000, of which about $1,200,000 will be in the Public Sector. Commissioner A~.;her moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor, that CETA Contract Modifications for Fiscal Year 1980 be approved and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Affirmative Action Plan, as recommended. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/1 with COlnmissioner Wimer voting in opposition. August 12, 19BO WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN KINGS LAKE UNIT II - ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT; CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE LEASE RE SAME; AND PERTINENT DOCUMENTS FILED FOR THE RECORD AND/OR RECORDATION WHERE APPLICABLE PurslJant to bri ef exp 1 anat i on by Ut il it i es Di rector I rvi ng Berzon, as contained in the Executive Summary dated July 30, 1980 prepared by staff, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the Board accept the ownership and responsibility for the water and sewer improvements within Kings Lake Unit II, on behalf of the County Water-Sewer District; that the Chairman be auth',rized to sign the Sewer Facilities Lease leasing said facilities back to Kings Lake Ltd.; that th~ Utility Division be authorized to collect all applicable connection charges prior to connections being made to the water system; and that the following documents be accepted for the record, and/or authorized for rrcorci~tion whrrp ~prli~ilhlr: 1. Deed for the Se\~er Fac i 1 i ties; 2. Deed for the Water Facilities; 3. Bill of Sale for the Sewer facilities; 4. u,)! at Sale tor the \~ater Facilities; 5. Affidavit of No Liens; 6. Contractual Guarantee; 7. Sanitary Sewer System Infiltration Test Results; 8. Water Main Pressure Test Results; 9. Bacteriological Test Results; 10. Letter from the Engineer of Record certifying that all Water and Sewer Facilities are located within the public right-of-way for dedicated e~~eme~ts; 11. Letter from the developer certifying that there was no contribution in aid of construction; 12. Verification of Final Costs; 13. Current List of Property Owners within Kings Lake Unit II; all presently owned by Kings Lake Limit~d; 'j 14, Letter from the OER certifying that the wat<:f lirles are bacteriologically cleared and approved for public water supply; COJ~ ~.1 P^GE 459 August 12, 1980 RESOLUTION GW 80-4 APPROVING CONDITIONS OF FMHA GRANT AGREEMENT RE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT - ADOPTED; CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AGREEMENT Pursuant to recommendation set forth in the Executive Summary dated July 30, 1980 as prepared by Utilities Division Director Irving Ber7.on, Commissioner Pistor moved to accept such recommen~ation; that the Board adopt Resolution GW 80-4, approving the conditions of the FmHA Grant Agreement, as revised on July 25, 1980, with regard to the Goodland Water District; and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Association Wa ter or Sewer Sys tem Gran t Agreement re same. The mot i or, Nas seconded by COlllTlissioner ArcheI" and unanimously carried. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * August 12, 1980 RESOLUTION 80-153 RE SALE OF $6,000,000 IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS - ADOPTED As recommended by County Attorney Pickworth, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Resolution 80-153 pertaining to the sale of $6,000,000 Improvement Revenue Bonds be adopted. Commissioner Pistor said that he has had comments from residents i nqui ri ng about purchas i ng bonds, with regard to previous how' issues, and asked if there is any way to have some of the subject bonds made available locally. Attorney Pickworth advised that the bonds will be advertised locally, as well as in The Daily Bond Buyer, and said that there will be a public m~eting held September 3, 1980 to award the sale, at which time the underwriters could be approached regarding the matter. * * * * * * * * * * * * nr~ ...'"" .... ~nK 054 PAGE 4&7 August 12. 1980 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH WHISPERING PINES, INC. RE LIMITATION OF SEWER HOOKUPS BY IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE County Attorney Pickworth explained that under an Agreement with Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates the Board approved a ! temporary small sewage treatment plant until such time as the developer hooks into the County system with the capacity not to exceed 25,000 gpd, He said that the developer sold a piece of property in Imperial Golf Estates to a condominium developer and worked out a deal wit~ ~(,R whereby a hookup could be made to the subject plant but in return for that the developer will h~ve to limit the number of single~family residential homes that can be ~uilt, until he hooks in, to 55 units. Essentially, said Attorney Pickworth, the Agreement is a three-party agreement which inr.1udes the County and added that it puts an obligation on the developer to get the plant constructed and hooked into the County system, referring to the provisions in the Alilendment in this regard. Corrrnissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously carried, that the Amendment to Agreement. as referenced above. be approved for the Chairman's signature. * * * * * * * * * * BOOX 054- PAGE 473 August 12, 1980 CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE QUIT CLAIM DEED IN RETURN FOR DRAlriAGE EASEMENT ON NORTH TRJl.IL County Attorney Pickworth explained that the County has a small drainage easement on the North Trail for which a Quit Claim Deed has been provided for the conveyance document. He said that he has cheCKed with the Engineering Sta and been infornled thClt nothing more than an Easement is necessary - there is n need to hold title to the property. Attorney Pickworth said that, from the owner's standpoint, he cannot count that portion of the prope:'tv as part of hi square footage in the event he is desirous of "doing anythir,g" with the proper and for this r~ason, Attorney Pickworth is proposing that the owner be provide a Quit Claim Deed in return for the Easement, Con~issioner Archer moved, seconded by Corrmissioner Pistor and unanimousl r t i ! ! carried, that the Chairman be authorized to pxecute a Quit Claim Deed in retur fot" a Drd i Ild<Je Ed~elllell L fur eet' Ld in property on the North Tra i 1 as recorrrnended CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY WATER SEWEK DISTRICT AND FRANK JOHNSON ALLOWING TENANT ACCES~ TO CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR ADDITIONAL SIXTY DAYS GEYOND TERM OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT County Attorney Pickworth explained that under the terms of an Agreement between the County Water-Sewer District and Frank Johnson, d/b/a Johnson Farms (Licensee), said Licensee had the right to occupy a farm headquarters site on certain property for five years, said tenacy expiring on July 10, 1980. Howev1 said Attorney Pickworth, the tenant needs additional time to move his equipmen from the property and it is being recommended that the Board approve an instru ment granting the additional period of time. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconued by Commissioner Pistor and carried una irnously, that the Chairman De authorized to sign License Agreement, as detaile above. 600~ 054 PAGE 475 August 12, 1980 ROUTINE BILLS - AUTHORIZED FOR PAYMENT Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and unanimously carried, that the bills, having been processed following estab1ised procedures ~ with funds available, be approved for payment as witnessed by the following chcrks issued from August 6, 1980 through August 12, 1980: FUND CHECK NOS. 11 028 - 11201 3058 - 3324 County Checks BCC Payroll - CETA MEMBERSHIP FEE RE ECONOMIC DEVELOP~1ENT COUNCIL FOR PERIOD 10/1/80 THROUGH 9/30/81 - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 ri~cJ1 Officer Harold Hall brou~ht tn thp Rn~rd for its approval a bill from tile Economic Development Council for membership fee for the period October 1, 1980 through September 30, 1981. Conrnissioncr Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the aforementioned bill be approved for payment in the amount of $1,000. Augus t 12, 1980 BUDGET AMENDMEUT 80-156 TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO COVER COST OF ADDITIONAL PRINTING OF COASTAL AREA ZONING REGULATIONS - ADOPTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner P1stor and unamimously carried, that Budget Amendment 80-156, to transfer funds from Contingencies to cover the cost of an additional printing of the Coastal Area Zoning Regulations, be adopted. nO^Rn OF C0U~~Y C0~MISSIONERS COLLll::R COUNTY, FLORIDA BUD GET A 11 END r1 E N r . E!l Reqlli res DoC! rd J\pproV<"11 D Does Not Require Board lIpproval (transfer within object code ran~ FUND GENE{{lIL" . . DEPT. . : . : ~ONING DFSCRIPTTON: " TransEcr fund~ from Contingencies to cover. cost of an noditic printing of the CO<lst:<l1 lIr:ca Zoning Regulations, v,hich cxpenditurE will bc offset by revenues derived from the sale of this pub1icatj '. TO (Increase): Printing & Reproduction 001-515-1-16-12-010-470 $ 1,500 FROM (Source of Funds) : Contingencies 001-519-1-00-05-010-990 $ 1, 50~ DIS'l'HHIUTION: 'L.J DO;lnl Hcco:ds (Original) L:7 Fiscul Off1cer L:7 Depurtrncnt(s) nffcct~l Bo"rcl~ of County commJBUDG J\::>provLll: Date: AUJ~.~~t 12, J.980 ~~ n J\CCOllnting Department V rurcha!;;il\C] (Equipment Only) n l1utlgct. 1\nillyst - Rev. 12/17 BuO~ OS.} PAGE 477 August 12, 1980 BUDGET AfolENDMENT 80-157 TRANSFERRING BEQUEST TO LIBRARY TO EXPENDABLE TRUST FIIND - ADOPTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $77 ,517 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Budget Amendment 80-157, to transfer bequest to the Library to th Expendable Trust Fund, be adopted in the amount oft$77,517, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BUD GET A MEN D MEN T . Q Requi res Boa rd l\pprovCl 1 D Does Not Require Doa:r:d Approval (transfer within.object code ran FUND EXPENDABLE ~RUST FUND DEPT. 'J;.I~RARY LJl::SCHl L''l'lON: 'I Transfer of Rees bequest to Library to the Expendable Trus to campy \-lith gcncrLllly ucccptcc1 .:\ccounting principals and audi recommendation, to close out Fund 601 (Grant-s, Gifts & Trusts), '. TO (Ine Lcase) : Transfer to Expendable Trust Fund 601-571-1-15-86-010-916 ~_ Reserve for Future Expend, 606-571-1-15-86-010-892000 1- ADD TO REVENUE: Cash Carryforward 601-1-15-86-010-399.999 $ Transfer from Grants & Gifts 606-1-15-B6-010-381.001-8S2UO $ CO\JnLy MY!/DL'~&' Vir, rFi~~ill O~fl;J)' ccr Appr9Yil:).::( ,. .... APPYfic'O~ Jf'\ ( '.(. L. .(. ( ,'.. .:.. ,'.<.....--.---- N. Dnte: .1 7..Ju DilL '. r....) ....fv DlfoTHllI'.ll'ION: .n Board P-t,corcl:; (Originill) 77 Fi~cill Officer n Dep.,rtrncnt(~) J\f:(ccteu Board of County Camm. nUDGI J\P9r.ovDl: Date: August 12, 1980 N<AO- n J\ccol1ntin<] Department n l'urchilsino;] (Equipment Only) n B\lClget. J\ni\ ly::: L Rcv.J.2/.l7 August 12, 1980 RESOLUTION 80-156 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES RE SEWER AREA "8" SOUTH HALF - ADOPTED Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained that the proposed resolution authorizes the issuance of Tax Anticipation Notes in the amount of $500,000 for the design- ing and engineering work on Sewer Area "B" South Half, noting that this will re- place into the General Fund the funds which have been expended on the project, as authorized by the Boa~d earlier in the year. He said that the Financial Consult- ant on the project discussed the matter briefly and it was thought that obtain, ;19 the funds locally would be a better approach than to obtain '.ne interim financing elsewhere. Utilities Division Director Irving 8erzon added the comment that the finilncing will be paid through the pertinent MSTD. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, thal Resolution 80-156, as explained above, be adopted. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * )A 054 PAGE 483 August 12, 1980 BOARD APPROVES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT OF 19~ PER MILE FOR TRAVEL, EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 1980, AS AUTHORIZED BY FLORIDA STATUTES Fiscal Officer Harold Hall reported that the IRS has now moved the mileage allowance from 18~~ to 19 per mile, effective July 15, 1980, and that Board approval is necessary for the implementation of such reimbursement for travel. ! Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that 19t per mile travel reimbursement be authorized. POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING AOVANCES FROM GENERAL FUND TO OTHER ~UNDS REVIEWED; RESOLUTION RE SAME TO BE PRESENTED FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION AUG'~, 19, 1980 Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained that the Memorandum dated July 29, 1980, as prepared by him, is a draft of a Po1;cy Statement with regard to ad- vances from the General Fund to Other Funds, pursuant to various discussions pertaining to the status of such advances and in recognition of the memorandum from Commissioner Wimer in this regard. He said that general direction from the Board is needed accepting such General Policy and that, upon receipt of same, a resolution will be drafted, in coordination with the County Attorney for input on the proper legal terminology, and brought back to the Board for formal adopt;, Corrrnissioner Wimer poir.ted out tllat one of the problems has been the amount of time it has taken to repay the General Fund for such advances, noting the re- ference contained in the P'ilic.y Statement wherei'l tile General Fund is to be repa when the special district has funds avai-db1e. Utilities Division Director Berzl explained that it should he made clear that when funds are not available, such funds, when advanced from the General Fund, should be lent with interest charged by the General Fund against the District, Mr. Hall stated that an attempt is being made to devise an approach which makes it as reasonable as possible for the special districts and noted that At- torney Pickworth has stated that, unless there is "seed" money provided to :'t:::: the districts started, the districts can never be started becasue the districts cannot borrow unt i1 there is a source 0 f revenue. To further c 1 a rify J Mr. Ha 11 said that what is being proposed is to try to keep the entity looking as much like an enterprise as possible bu~ recogl:izing that the Board has a responsibili to the people of the County to help get the various water and sewer district stu. to determine if it is feasible and, secondly, move on with the money required to August 12, 1980 such district to the place where there can be a bond issue. Following additional brief discussion, the Chair directed that the pertir document be prepared and brought back to the Board for finalization. RESOLUTION 80-157 RE C,lIS STEP 5 LEAA GRANT APPLICATION - ADOPTED; STATEMENT COMMITMENT RE SAME - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained that there is a need for some addit" core and storage for the Criminal Justice Information System in order to make system more effective and faster. He said that approximaco1y $45,000 has becI available through LF~A and that the staff moved quiCkly to submit an applicat" The money was allotted, said Mr. Hall. and recommended that the Board approve resolution in this regard and to authorize the Chairman to sign a Statement C( mitting matching funds in the amount of $2,539 for the project. Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimousl cJrricd, tnut f\e~vlllLiull 80-157 with regard to the atorementioned LEAA Grant I adopted, and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the accompanying Statemer of Connni tment. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * August Ii, l~bU EXPENDITURE NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 APPROVED FOR CHARTER COMMISSION; BUDGET RE SAME TO BE ESTABLISHED Following brief explanation By Fiscal Officer Harold Hall, Commissioner loIimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that an appropriation not to exceed $10,000 be approved for Charter Commission expendi- tures, and that a budget for this purpose be established. BOARD APPROVES DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW SCHEDULE AS SUBMITTED BY FISCAL OFFICE The proposed Departmental Budget Review Schedule submitted by Fiscal OfficI Harold Hall, dated August 12, 1980, was discussed briefly. It ~u~ the consensu~ of the Board that the Schedule be approved, subject to alterations and changes where necessary. RESOLUTION 80-158 RE DONATION OF SITE FOR MARCO ISLAND HOSPITAL TO THE COUNTY BY THE DELTONA CORPORATION - ADOPTED Mr. James Apthorp. Vice-President of the De1tona Corporation, expl~ined that for approximately l~ years Deltona has been attempting to identify a hos- pital site for Marco Island. He said that there was one site so identified but that the company sold it ilbout two years ago. Referrinq to the map provided, Mr. Apthorp pointed out the two sites scheduled for conveyance free of charge to the County for use as a park ilnd a governmental facility, the former consist. ing of 5 acres ~nd the latter 4~ acres. He said that, in attempt to resolve thl matter, the purchaser of the hospital site was contacte~ and has stated that he would be willing to make an exchange of the park and governmental facility site~ for the hasp ita 1 site if the Coun ty woul d agree to zoni ng such sites as "GRC" which is the zoning on the surrounding properties. The matter is being brought before the Board, said Mr. Apthorp, for review and a determination if the Count: is willing to participate in the proposal. Mr. Leigh Plummer, President of the Marco Island Civic Association, st~ced that it is the position of the !Joan! of Directors that the proper plac{ hospital site is at the intersection of Routes 92 and 953, the original site. He said that the Island would1not suffer the loss of the park space since the suggested site is not considered suitable for this purpose and, secondly, becau' there is no need for additional park areas. He stated his support for the pro- posed exchange. ;,UG^ UV':i l'A~t":lUv AUYU5 l I L, I ~OU Mr. Ira Evans, Marco Island resident, suggested that many people on the Islanrl would disagree with Mr. Plummer's corrments and, since it is a matter of community interest, everyone should have the opportunity to express their pre- ference, The matter of the rezoning suggestion was discussed with Commissioner Pistor t pointing out that the site to be considered for rezoning is in the middle of a co~nercial area and would require considerable expense on the part of the County to fence it in, and the 1 i ke, for use a s a pa rk. Wi th rega rd to the governmenta 1 site under discussion, the Commissioner stated that is of mir:. importance to the County because if the decision is made to build a satellite building there is an abundance of spac~ available. He stressed the need for a hospital faCility. Chairman Wenzel said that he, personally, would go along with the request to let the affected people decide whether or not to make the transfer or the zoning change. ConYllissioner Wimer pointed out that there would be ample input because of the number of publ ie hearings on the rezoning portion of the proposal and pointed out that, regarding the site exchange, the County would obtain title to ten acres of appropriately-located land for the hospital which, if the Board approved, application can be made for the rezoning. Dr. Louis Nightingale, representing the Marco Island Satellite Hospital COllll1ittee, ob~erved that a piece of land for a hospital was always supposed to be dvailable in the plat, along with churches, schools and t~e like, and said that the people were upset whe~ the site was sold. He noted that within a few days the purchaser offered to sell the site to the hospital for over $1,000,000 profit and said that there is no way a hospital can be built to keep costs down if it would have to pay such an amount. Following additional comments, Dr. Nightingale said that anything that can be done to get the original parcel of land will be appre- ciated, stressing the need. The proposed resolution was read by County Attorney Pickworth following which he cOlTlllented that the Board is not corrlllitting itself in advance of any zoning - that will have to follow the normal process of public hearing, and the like. If the Board should ultimately decide not to do the rezoning, everyone would be relieved from their obligations at that point, he continued, adding that the subject at issue on the rezoning is not the swap but strictly the rezonins Conmissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that Resolution 80-158 with regard to the donation of a site for a Marco Island hospital to the County by The Deltona Corporation be adopted, . Augus t 12, 1980 BOARD APPOINTS WILLIAM BLEDSOE AND FRANK RICH AS ALTERNATES 1 AND 2, RESPECTIVELY ON CAPC Pursuant to recommendation by William Walters, Chairman of the Coastal Area Planning Commission, in his letter to the Board dated July 28, 1980, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that Willi Bledsoe be appointed as Alternate #1 on the CAPC; and Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried 4/1 with Commissioner Wimer voting in opposition, that Frank Rich be appointed as Alternate #2 on said Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE RE PROPOSED GOLDf~ GATE REZONING - APPROVED Planning Director Danny Crew reported that, pursuant to Board direction, recorrmendations have been prepared for the notification procedure with regard to the proposed Golden Gate estates rezoning. Referring to the Executive Summary prepared by him, dated August 4, 1980, he said that the Florida Statutes' require ments, as amended by the board, sets forth general procedure with regard to large rezoning projects; however, with respect to the proposed rezoning of Golden Gate Estates, the followir.g recommendations are being presented: 1. That the present rezoning notice requirements be retained. 2. That the staff be directed, in addition, to notify by mail all individual property owners with an official Notice of Rezoning. 3. lhat the staff be directed to place at least five 4' x 8' bill- board rezoning signs on major entrances to the proposed rezoning area. 4. That the Fiscal Officer be directed to prepare the necessary budget amendment. At the request of Comnissioncr Brown, Dr. Crew explained briefly the reason~ why the subject artJ is being rezoned citing the estab1ishmert of the Golden Gatl Estates Study Conmittee which was formed for the purpose of studying the massive area and the results of th~ Tabb and Heald Report which was forthcoming. Variou: recommendations were made, said Dr. Crew, not only for reducing the density, whil originally was zoned to contain 5,000,000 people, but to solve other problems as such as the provision of Coun~y services, and the like. He said that there is much more work to be done before the rezoning can be finalized, comnenting that some of the area is appropriate for development and some has problems and that the staff is attempting to identify those areas. Chairman Wenzel expressed the I I I I ~on^ 054- pm 493 August 12, 1980 hope that in the letter to be sent to the owners that it is stated that they will not be denied the right to build on their land. if feasible. Dr. Crew said that the proposed letter will explain the zoning districts, and the like, and that more information will be set forth than is the normal procedure with rezoning. ! Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer. that the staff reconlllendatlol1s, as stated above, be approved. Ms. Mary-Frances Kruse, representing Golden Gate Estates Residents and Supporters, voiced support of notification to the proper'.j owners and inquired why "E" Estates zoning has not been considered rather than "A" Agriculture, Dr. Crew said that would be a proper question to ask at the rezoning hearings, noting that it is a long and complicated matter. Concerni"g the cost for the mailing, estimated to be $16,000, Ms. Kruse conmented that Property Appraiser Colding has estimated that $2,500,000, conservatively, in property taxes is derived from the area and, therefore, $16,000 is not too much to spend. Ms Nancy Bisbee, Golden Gate resident. expressed her appreciation for the Board taking the proposed Jction and in'luired if the staff lidS cunsidered using bulk I11Jilings for this purpose. It was pointed out that bulk mail is sometimes t~lrown away by the recipient and, also, that such mail is not fOll<larded by the Post Office. Upon call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDIriANCE PROHIBITING GLASS AND CERTAIN PLASTIC CONTAINER' IN RECREATION AREAS; DRAFT TO BE PREPARED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR PRESENTATION AN, FURTHER DISCUSSION DURING WORKSHOP SESSION It was suggested by Commissioner Archer that the matter of control over di~posable beverage containers in recreation areas be discussed durinq a future Workshop Session, as set forth in the memorandum dated August 8, 1980, from COlTlnissioner Pistor. Conmissioner Archer said that there are some valid points that need to be addressed such as whether or not control should be placed on the individual who manufacturers it, the retail seller or the people who consume it. August 12, 1980 Commissioner Pistor said that there are some problems, commenting that the State law says that nothing can be done abcut regulating the manner in which products are packaged, and the like. lie pointed out that if an ordinance is properly written prohibiting carrying glass containters onto the beach, such ordinance can be enforced. Commissioner Wimer agreed that the matter could be discussed during a Workshop Session, and suggested that the County consider adopting the City's Ordinance with regard to the matter or to at least have it available during the discussion. The Cha i rman di rec ted the County Attorney to dra ft an appropri a te ordinance for further discussion during a Workshop Session. Mr. Egan Hill voiced his co~cern over unenforcement of the ordinance prohibiting dogs on beaches and asked that this be given some consideration also. CHMRM1\N Atl.THOR!ZED TO SIGN CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO TM: )lOLL~ Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and unanimously carried, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the following Certificates for Correction to the Tax Rolls: .ROLL NOS. 1979-214 1979-215 DATED 81l/BO 8/11/80 1979 Tangible Personal Property lyaO Tangible PersonCll Property APPOINTMENT OF STANLEY BROOKS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PELICAN BAY lMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - RATIFIED Pursuant to the request by Gary L. Moyer, District Manager, Pelican Bay Improvement District, as set forth in his letter to the 30ard dated August 8, 19BO, Conmis~ioner Archer moved, ser.onded by Commissior~r' Brown and unanimously carried, that the appointment of Stanley Brooks to the Board of Supervisors of the Oistrict be ratified. DONATION OF $500 TO GREATER NAP~ES LITTLE LEAGUE GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM - APPROVED Commissioner Archer mover;!, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously carried, that the Board approve the donation of $500 to the Greater Naples nr;- l "\orM~ti BOOK 054 PAGE 495 August. 12, 1980 Little League Girlr, Softball Team, as requested by George B. Pittman in his letter to the Board dated Auqust 11, 1980. COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO OFFFICIALLY NOTIFY M1ERICAN Ar~BULANCE THAT THE FIRM HAS TWENTY DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY AUDITING FIRM Commissioner Pistor moved that the County Attorney be directed t~ officially notify American Ambulance that the firm has twenty days in which to respond to the questions raised by the auditing firm of Peat, Ma rwi ck & Mitchell pursuant to audit performed. Commi ss i oner Arc"lr seconded the moti on with the commen t tha t it be unders tood that the fi rm is not asking for more information but for a response to the questions raised in the subject audit report. Upon call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. BOARD ArrROVES rOSTrONEHENT OF rUHLIC HEARING PE FISHERMAN'S COVE DEVELOPMFNT (SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 19, 1980) UNTIL SEPTEMBER 16, 1980, AS REQUESTED BY PETITIONER Commissioner Brown rroved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and unanimously carried, that the request by Michael F. Stephen, Vice-President of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., for the defennent of Petition R-80-16 with regdrd to Fisherrnan's Cove until September 16, 1980, be approved, as contained in his letter dated Auqust 7, 1980 setting forth the reasons for the reques t. 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: 1. Memorandum dated 8/4/80 from Florida Senate, requesting that a form be filled out and returned if the County wishes to continue to receive copies of the Senate Journals. XC Co. Attorney; Filed. 2. Letter dated 7/29/80, from the Department of Community Affairs, re notification that Collier's Witness Assistance Program LEAA application is being withdrawn pending receipt of State A-95 approval. XC Clerk; Filed.