Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/13/1992 W Nap/es, Florida, Jmnuary 13, 1992 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Com~issioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. with the City of Naples in JOINT WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: · CHAIRMAN: ~ VICE-CHAIRMAN: COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Patricia A. Goodnight Max A. Hasse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders (Absent) CITY OF NAPLES: MAYOR: Klm Anderson COUNCILMEN: R. Joseph Herms John Passidomo Fred Sullivan Paul Muenzer Alan Korest Bill Barnett Page Deputy Clerk; Neil Dorrlll, County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Richard Woodruff, City Manager; Maria Chiaro, City Attorney; and Bill Harrison, City Finance Director. January 13, 1992 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on January 12, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, a Joint workshop of the City and County was held to discuss beach parking. ! .,~. Item#3 ~ DISCUSSION REGARDING BEACH PARKING County Manager Dorrlll commented the Board of County Commissioners has received from the County Managerts Office, an analysis of the associated correspondence as it concerns the costs and the process utilized at the Staff level to resolve the dispute concerning beach parking. He said both he and Dr. Woodruff have worked through their respective chief fiscal officers as a way of identifying specific costs and revenues charged or accrued against this program. Dr. Richard Woodruff, City Manager, introduced the new City Attorney, Maria Chiaro, and Bill Harrison, City Finance Director. Dr. Woodruff recalled three years ago, the City and County entered into the first agreement on beach parking, which has benefited both City and County residents. He said he and County Manager Dorrlll ahare several concerns from an administrative standpoint about the ex/sting agreement. He said the f~rst problem is that it is a very open-ended agreement as to the financial responsibilities of the which are assigned by the City, stating there is no incentive on the City's part to do a good Job collecting them. He explained al/ money comes from parking meters, fines or from the County. Therefore, he said, if the City does a great Job collecting fines, the County bene- fits while City Staff puts forth the effort. He indicated regardless of the dollar figure to be worked out, important changes need to be made to this program. He said the County should be set up on a flat fee for a certain number of years, with the City being totally respon- ' Bible for collection of the fees. He said an a]ternatlve would be to Page 2 County. He mentioned another problem concerns the parking tickets January 13, 1992 authorize the County to be responsible for al/ those fees. He men- tioned keeping all policy matters restricted to the City Council will enable the City to do a better Job of coordinating the program. He referred to a packet of information provided to the group, explaining the three revenue sources consisting of parking meters, fines and the County contribution for 1989/90 through 1991/92. He indicated although the budgeted amount for the County contribution increased by $113,000 for 1990/91, it has declined in 1991/92. He next referred to the expenses, pointing out that solid waste fees have increased ftcantly. He remarked total expenditures for 1989/90 were $630,000 while revenues totaled $565,000 and the balance came from the City reserves. He said the same situation occurred during the next year, however, not all the money has been collected because part of it is tn question by the County. He indicated the proposed budget for 1991/92 shows $704,000 in projected expenses compared to $?11,000 in revenues. Commissioner Volpe commented the report is showing a deficit in both 1989/90 and 1990/91. Dr. Woodruff stated there were indirect costs for support services, such as a portion of City staff time, that were included and are questionable. He directed attention, however, to the next page of the report, which shows the proposals of both City and County staffs who have come close to working out a compromise. He said the main difference ts the City's intention to include an amount for the union contract, tipping fees and salary for a billing clerk to collect the fines. He concluded from a management staff standpoint, they hope to items noted above, and come up with a reasonable amount of money for the program. He said that amoun~ ts definitely less than what the City ha. asked for tn the past. ~n response to Commissioner Volpe, Dr. Noodruff recommended tA~t figure be agreed upon as the base amount and for the next three years, apply the Consumer Price Index to that amount. Dr. Woodruff referred to the last page of the report which indica- 03 Page 3 3cn, tary 13, 1992 "tea an overview of the manpower provided by the City for the beach :!~}{:'-.'- maintenance program. Commissioner Hasse commented that the 1991 ~sue needs to be lettled. He recommended the Board use the County Staff proposal f~re of $124,064, subtract ~he $96,200 already pa~d to the to make a final payment for the ~99~ pro,ram of be to add the $15,000 tn tipping fees to the $124,064 proposed by the County. County Manager Dorr~ll communicated h~s confusion w~th that re.est, because the County was charging $~8 per ton since the Incep- tion of this agreement and continued charging that amount until the 1991 when the fee was adjusted ~o $~4 and subsequently to $25 per ton. In answer to Councilman Herms, County Manager Dorrtll stated the County has not charged $5 per ton in garbage tipping fees since some- time In the 1970's. He said it seems the City underbudgeted within that one expense item, because the County was billing at a higher rate than the City was charging itself tn that area. Commissioner Volpe commented this discussion assumes that it will be in the mutual best Interest of the City and County to continue tn this Joint participation beach parking sticker program. Dr. Woodruff agreed that It Is In the best Interest of the citi- zens to continue the program. He indicated his hope that regardless of the dollar amount, the two elected bodies will reach a compromise. Commissioner Volpe Inquired if the program envisions that any part of the cost of the program will be borne by the residents of the City I':i':~" of Naples? assessed value and subsequent i~.,. ad valorem taxes generated from the City have been paying a portion of i'~:i., ' the fund the County pays back to the City. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorrtll stated he will not suggest changing from using the County-wide General Fund monies for the program at this time. He said since City property I?? ~ Page 4 values are contributing approximately 26~ of County-w/de General Fund taxes, that ts the most fair and equitable fund to use. Finance Director Yonkosky commented the largest percentage of solid waste taken to the landfill came from the City of Naples Pier and Lowdermilk Park and is generated by concessionaires. He said the fees from the concessions have not gone Into this fund. He agreed with the posttto~s of the City a~d County Managers regarding the flat fee approach. Sue Smlth relayed her concerns with the continued use of residen- rial areas for beach access and the related parktng and security problems in her neighborhood. John Keschl urged the Board to follow the advice and recommen- darlene of both Finance Director Yonkosky and County Manager Dorrtll. Councilman Muenzer pointed out a few factors of concern to him. dents with beach parking permits will be using the parking meters, County will see an Increase tn revenue, because when the metered spa- cee are filled, people will pay fees at the County park. He added another area that has not been addressed is the depreciation factor to the City's capital investment. He indicated deterioration of the asphalt, wooden walkovers and landscaping should be recognized and factored into the agreement based on the percentage of users. He concluded that the agreement as proposed does not satisfy him as looking after the City's interest. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Councilman Muenzer stated he factored in. Dr. Woodruff said that factor may be a very valid point tn establishing a flat fee structure. He reminded the group, however, that the agreement is for three years and can be changed as conditions warrant after a valid analysis is conducted to establish such deli- ~:" ctenctes. 05 Page 5 January 13, 1992 Councilman Korest proposed to enter Into an agreeme;~t by which the ~',?~City charges the County on a per sticker bas~s with a billing cycle of Councilman Muenzer concurred, adding his suggestion that County residents be charged one-half the fee, with the County bt/led quar- terly for the remaining portion. · After separate and lengthy discussions by the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council, as well as together as a group, the following consensus was agreed upon by both bodies: That a three-year Joint agreement be entered Into by the City of Naples and Collier County to participate tn a beach parking permit progran, whereby the County will pay a flat fee of $155,000 per year funded from the County-wide General Fund; the fee may be adjusted based on an increase or decrease tn the percentage of perm~ts being given to County residents; the fee shall be adjusted during the second and third year of the agreement based on the federal Consumer Price Index; and the payments will be due November 1st and May 1st of each year, with the Consumer Price Zndex adjustment Included In the May lit i~:![~::~. It was alao the consensus of both groups that the County's total :~f?~"obllgatton for the beach parking program for 1990/91 will be $131,000. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the ~eettng wac adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 4:22 P.M. Page 6