BCC Minutes 05/06/1980 C
Naples, Florida, May 6, 19BO
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and
for the County of Call ier, and also acting 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 1:30 P.M. in Conference
Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Clifford Wenzel
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thomas Archer
John A. Pistor
C. R. "Russ" Wimer (1:3B P.M.)
David C. Brown
ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clerk (2:15 P.M.); Harold L. Hall,
Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Edna Brenneman, Deputy Clerk; C.
William Norman. County Manager; Donald A. Pickworth, County Attorney;
Irving Berzon, Util ities Division Director; Cl ifford Barksdale, Public
Work~ Administrator/County Engineer; Thomas Hafner, Publ ic Safety
Admini~trator; and, Deputy Chief Raymond Barnett, Sheriff's Department.
AGENDA
1. Discussion of "Double Taxation" with City of
Naples' repr~sentatives, City's Consultant
and staff.
2. Presentation of Water Supply, Treatment and
Distribution System for Western Collier County
by staff and Consultant.
3. Discussion of water pressure problems in
northern Collier County.
BD~K 053 PAGE 204
BO~K
053 pm205
May 6, 1980
PRESENTATION ArID DISCUSSION OF "AN ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE DOUBLE TAXATION
IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA" REPORT PREPAREO FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES BY
CITY REPRESENTATIVES ANn CONSULTANT - STAFF DIRECTEO TO CONFER WITH CITY
REPRESENTATIVES RE ACCURACY OF FIGURES AND TO PROVIDE RECO~~ENDATIONS
City of Naples Attorney David Rynders introduced Mr. Thomas Pellegrino,
of Southern-Kelton and Associates, Inc., which firm, said Mr. Rynders,
prepared the data collection for the Report entitled "An Analysis of
Possible Double Taxation in Collier' County, Florida" (dated February, 1980).
Attorney Rynders provided the Board with a brief resume of Mr. Pellegrino's
qualifications, noting that he has had a considerable amount of experience in
dealing with county level finances and that such insight into the County
operations would be helpful to all concerned parties.
Mr. Pellegrino reviewed the provisions of the Statutes, and the
amendments thereto, addres~sing the matter of "double taxation" which he
defined as a situation where a county is financing services primarily
of real and substantial benefit ~o the unincorporated area through the
use of revenues derived, or generated, fr~m a county-wide basis; i.e. "Who
is paying for services and who is benefiting from those services". In the Report
to the City, said Mr. Pellegrino, the revenue sources have been identified
and, based on a review of Florida Statutes, the Report sets forth an
opinion regarding the revenues strictly derived from the unincorporated
area which. he said, are the only revenues that can be used to finance
services that are evaluated as "targeting" primarily the unincorporated
area. The second half of the Report, he continued, provides a professional
opiniorl as to service levels, extent and scope of service, in terms of
the act ivities of the County and whether or not such service primarily benefits
the unincorporated area of the County or is of benefit to the entire county.
Once the expenditure side has been arrived at and the revenue side, as well,
a comparison can be made as to whether or not there are sufficient revenues
to support the service~ evaluated as benefiting the unincorporated area. If
there is a revenue shortfall, he continued, it is obvious the services are
being financed by county-wide revenues - ad valorem taxation, Federal
Revenue Sha ring, and the 1 i ke - accru i ng to Colli er County.
May 6, 19BO
.
Mr. Pellegrino called the Board's attention to that portion of the
Analysis setting forth ~he County's revenue sources and reviewed with the
Conmlssioners the figures and revenue categories as contained on Page 22
of the subject document, which he said were derived strictly from the
unincorporated area of the County. In summary, Mr. Pellegrino said that in
1979-RO, and the previous years, over $2,000,000 has accrued in revenues
derived strictly from the unincorporated area which he said are the revenues
which can be used to finance the services to the unincorporated areas of'
the Cou~ty. These services, he said, are identified in Section 6 of the
Report - rage 68.
Mr. Pellegrino pointed out that Florida Statutes 125 mandates that the
County reflect within its budget the valuation between the county-wide
revenues and the unincorporated area revenues, as well as reflecting this
with regard to expenditures, county-wide and non-county-wide. As indicated in
the Report, he said the 79-80 Budget for Collier County did not reflect
that division as required by State law but rather reflected a former law
which was amended in 1979 which provided for an allocation of dollars without
con~ideration as to whether or not the revenue sources were county-wide or
non-county-wide.
Referring to Page 71 of the Report, Mr. Pellegrino said that Table 7
shows a comparison between revenues and expenditures - the former reflecting
approximately $2,000,000 on the revenues side and approximately S5,500,OOD-
$5,500,00 en the expenditure side. Therefore, said Mr. Pellegrino, the
County is raising, strictly from the unincorporated area, $2,DOO,OOD while
its activities, benefiting the unincorporated area, "run to the tune of
approximately six :,d one-half million dollars for Fiscal Year 79-BO" and
that there is a deficit in the revenues supporting the services of around
$4,300,000 which is the identifiable amount of Double Taxation. He said
that an analysis of the. amount the municipal ity is paying, based on
assessed valuation and population, is contained on Page 72 - Table VIII.
Focusing on just the 79-80 fiscal year, he said that the figure is
approximately $1,200,000, representing the Naples contribution to
unincorporated services. At County Manager Norman's request, Mr. Pellegrino
reviewed the calculations used to determine the figures shown in the subject
Table.
BoaK 053 rAGE 206
BD~~
053 PACE 207
May 6, 1980
During the lengthy discussion which followed, such matters as:
1) Determination of which roads are of county-wide benefit; 2) Lack of
benefit to the City of the Sheriff Road Patrol activities; 3) Legal opinion
by Attorney Qavid Rynders regarding determination of real and substantial
benefit; and other like matters were deliberated upon.
It was pointed out by Commissioner Wimer that the entire County
benefits by the zoning and other ac'tivities of the County, with Commissioner
Pistor suggesting that the City also benefits from the residents of the
unincorporated areas of the County using the City's commercial establishments.
Mr. Norman expressed his desire to review some of the figures contained
in the Report, particularly the source from which they were obtained.
At the conclusion of additional discussion, Commissioner Archer moved
that, in vipw of the COllTTlents made throughout the session, that the staff
be directed to begin a concerted effort, or some beneficial conversation,
with representatives of the City, clarifying the figures, determining if
the figures suppl ied to Mr. Pellegrino are, in fact, "good figllres"
and tha t there is agreement that the figures withi n the Report are sub-
stantially correct figures; and to report back to the Board with a recommenda-
tion, or at least another series of discussions, on how the problem can
be apP,'oached to determine how much or if there is any, monies due back
to the City in the way of past Double Taxation. Commissioner Wimer seconded
thp. motion wi th the cOlrlllent that there should be compl iance with the law and,
if there is di~agreement with the law, steps should be taken within the
legi~lature in this regard.
It was suggested by Mr. Norman that efforts concentrate first on an
understanding of "wherp. the numbers came from in the Report" and,
secondly, that concentration be placed on next year's budget as a basis
for whatever solution is arrived at without attempting to "do" two or
three years at one time, noting that the law provides "pretty good grounds"
for such appro~ch. A further suggestion from Mr. Norman, recalling that
tne coard directed the staff to seek thf' services of "someone" who could
assist the County with an analysis of "duplication of services", that he
proceed with a proposal and estimate of costs involved which will meet
the time-frame involved f..Jr presentation to the Board. He noted that he
May 6, 1980
is not prepared as yet with a definite proposal. 'In this regard, Commis-
sioner Archer expressed the opinion that it might be preferable to hire an
expert to become a member of the County staff since the matter will be
a cr,ntinuing one.
Commissioner Wimer reiterated his desire to comply with the law and
said that if there are areas in which the County is not in compliance,
~here should be a solution forthcoming - whether it be a special taxing
district, or other means, to place the County in'compliance. Commenting on
the law, County Attorney Pickworth said that terms such as "real and
substantial benefit" are very subjective terms and that whether or not
the County is in c0mpliance with the law is very much an opinion "type
of thing". He said that it has been his feelin~ that, with regard to
allocating the costs of law enforcement, roads, and the like, if the
Board is "uncomfortable" with, or not willing tn. concede, for the purposes
of settling a matter with the City, the fact that the Sheriff's Road
Patrols, and the like, are not a real and substantial benefit, those kind
of questions should be liti9ated. However, he continued, if the Board is
"comfortable" and feels that, in fairness to all concerned, that such
allocations be made, there would be "no sense" in litigation because in
such cases there would only be discussions concerning the mechanism through
which the dollars would be adjusted and that the courts, in his opinion,
could not do much "good" in that type of endeavor. He said, in response
to Chairman \..'enzel, that the County could proceed on those items upon
which both entities agree.
Cormlissioner Archer questioned whether or not an agreement can be
reached between the present date and the end of June at which time the
County will be going into budget hearings for the BO-B1 Fiscal Year.
Attorney Pickworth commented that he is not convinced that the date the
County has set for such hearings is the crucial time factor involved.
Conmissioner Archer reiterated that he would like to have as much
information as possible, and as soon as possible, in order to make a
determination on how to approach the County's budget for the next fiscal
year. Fiscal Officer Harold H~ll pointed out that the budget should be
approved by the middle of September. The timetable for submission of
the Sheriff's budget was discussed with Commissioner Pistor observing that
\
II'
"
~
<,j
'~.
"
"
f'.......
,."
~'.
..
IiI
'......J "J ..-
BO~~
053 rAGE 209
perhaps that budget will have to be figured differently due to the Double
Taxation issue. City Attorney Rynders advised that the Sheriff's Budget
should be presented without any regard to the Double Taxation issue since
the Sheriff needs to inform the Board of his needs in order to provide his
services in the County - the only problem involved is how to raise the monies
which is the responsibility of the County Commission. Deputy Chief Barnett
agreed that the Sheriff's budget will b~ the same regdrdless of Double
Taxation, noting that "the things we have to do in the City will still
have to be done" and that the Commission "is the only people we're allo~led
to takp. money fr~m".
The motion was restated with Commissioner Brown adding that, if a
consul tant is deellred advisable. such matter will be considered. Upon call
for the question the motion carried unanImously. (It was noted that the
action taken was unofficial due to the Board sitting in Conference
Session. )
*
*
*
NOTE: Copy of Report on file in office of Clerk of the Board.
*
*
*
The meeting was recessed at 2:25 P.M. to reconvene in Regular Session
for continuation of discussIon with regard to request by the Attorney
for the Bayberry Patio Homes development. The Conference Session was
reconvened at 2:45 P.M.
PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM FOR WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY BY STAFF AND CONSULTANT - ~~TTER CONTINUED
UNTIL 5/13/BO TO PERMIT F~~THER REVIEW OF PROPOSALS
Utilities Division Director Irving Berzon recalled that during a
previous Workshop Session with regard to the matter of the Water Supply,
Treatment and Distribution System for Western Collier County two "extremes"
were pres~nted in the way of alternatives - one being a cGmplete revenue
system, and the other an assessment program over the entire District area,
neithp.r of which was considered to be acceptable, feasible or viable. As
a result of the previous discussion, said ~lr. Berzon, the Board expressed
a willingness to consider system development charges in the $600 - $700 r~nge
and also a rate increase to the present users of up to 50% in the next
three years - or about 15% per year compounded. A further consideration
l-lay 6, 1980
expressed was for ai, a5sessment program wh1'ch would show a direct benefit
to the persons being assessed, he continued, and that, with those guidelines,
the Engineer prepared three alternatives, which Mr. Berzon described
briefly. He noted that COllsultant Ted Smallwood, of CH2r1 Hill, was in
attendance to explain the effect the subject alternatives will have
financially, as well as development potential, for the.entire area. Mr.
Berzon referred to the letter dated May 5, 1980 from Mr. Smallwood, trans-
mitting detailed information with regard to the alternatives, which Mr.
Berzon said dcscribes the various plans plus his analysis of the impact
or effect of having a water plant in the North County Area.
Mr. Snlallwood reviewed briefly the three alternatives under discussion
and as contained in the information previously mentioned, as follows:
Al terna ti ve
System that would serve the existing County users only - and
would not take into consideration the acquisition of any
existing utilities from either GAC or Capri system. It would
provide a method of taking raw water from the City of Naples,
treating it and distributing potable water to the users in East Naples
by 1982 and continuing to purchase treated water from the City for
thc C',': um01'S in the North end of the County in accordance with the
existin~ City/County Agreement.
Al ternative II.
Inclurl~s the acquisition of the Capri system, in addition to
serving the present County customers, as outlined in Alternative I.
Mr. Smallwood said there has been a "meeting of the rrinds" at
the staff level with regard to reaching agreement with the
owners of the subject system, and that this Alternative
was developed to see what impact that would have on the total
cost of the present users as well as the future users cf
th(' system.
A lterna ti ve I II
Involves the developm~nt of a shallow ground water well-field just
east of C-95l, south of Alligator Alley, and construction of a
4-million gallon per day treatment plant, providing service to the
users of the County system in East Naples and the Isles of Capri
system.
I~r. Smallwood explained that the purchase of the GAC system was
excluded from the Alternatives primarily because the acquisition, at
prescnt, is not an economically fcasible alternative; however, he said
that if a reasonable acquisition of the system could be negotiated in the
future, such acquisition would be consistent with the plans under discussion.
BO~K 053 PAGE 210
..:
..:
'.
~Ai
:.:~
':,
~
Boa~
053 PACE 211
May 6, 1980
Mr. Sm~llwood continued by stating that the information provided
presents the equivalent residential connections projected, as shown on
p,'()P. 1 of the attachments, corrrnenting that Alternatives II and III
present t"e best financial "picture". The cost estimates for each of the
Alternatives, said Mr. Smallwood, as contained in Pages 2 through 7,
p\-ovidc t:',,, tota1 prGt;jrams necessary to be con:;tructed under the alternatives.
Also submitted, said Mr. Smallwood, is a s~mmary of the operation and main-
tenance expenses, plus the purchase of both potable water and raw water from
the City of Naples, together with annual bond service for each of the Alterna-
tives, as shown on Pages 8 through 10 of the attachments. He explained how
thl~ "financial 1ll:'lIbers" were developed for each of the plans and what factors
were considered in sunwnarizing the System Revenues for each Alternative, as
contdined on Pa()es 11 through 16 of the attachments. To further clarify
how the acqlllsition of the Isles of Capri system would affect the user
ci1i1rge, which he said would not have a significant effect until 1YB9 or
1<)90, ~1r. Smallwood directed the Board's attention to a chart displayed
for t~is purpose. He said that such acquisition does not affect the cost
effectiveness of the suhject Alternatives and, therefore, it is being
,-eCOl1ll1ended that under either Alternative II or III, that the Capri acqui-
sition be pur~ued and included as part of the program. He said that the
benefits In proceeding with such program would be to provide needed service
now necessary in the Capri service area but which has not beef! permitted
to develop because of limited restrictions the Capri system has on its
abll ity to provide that service which could now be provided without causing
an economic impilct on the present users or the future users of the system.
In fact, said Mr. Smallwood, in 1989 or 1990 it could prove to be a benefit
to all users in that the annual llsers' charge would be reduced as a
result of the acqusition by approximately $20.00 per year.
[n comparing Alternatives II and III, Mr. Smallwood said that Alternative
III Is more costly in the earlier years and would not be beneficial until
the year 1989-90 at which time the costs of developing the wellfield would
have proved more economical because the major investment would have been
made earl ier in the program, as opposed to deferring it until 1989 or
May 6, 1980
1990 when it would be necessary, in Alternative II. to develop the East
Golden Gate weilfield.
Responding to Chairman Wenzel re9arding the plans for the years
1990 - 2000, Mr. Smallwood explained that there will have to be a con-
tinuous eApansion program; however, the intent in formulating the plans,
said Mr. Smallwood, was to project for a "reasonable"'period
Conmissioner Pistor expressed concern over the "jump" in the annual
user charge in the year 1989-90 with 11r. Smallwood explaining that until
that time period, with or without the acquisition of the Capri system,
the annual cost will be basically the same. However, he continued, by the
year 1989-90, under the City/County Agreement, the County has to take over
the responsibility of providing water in North Naples with a sizable investment
hilving to be made with a significdnt "jump" in the revenues required. There-
fore, as a result of the acquisition of the system in 1982-83, Mr. Smallwood
said the cost increase per connection will be minimized.
Mr. Smallwood agreed that under Alternative III the users will have
invested in revenues i1pprox"imately twice V1hat they would have gained as a
result of tile investment made in 1989 dollars; however, from an engineer's
point of view, he continued, there are some economical benefits in the
overall user base. He further agreed thilt Alternative II provides assurance
of a good, reasonable water supply; provides for a plan for development
of that Alternative in the future to meet the needs under the present
connlitments which have been made; and provides for a lower annual investment
initially at least for the next six years.
When requested by Commissioner Archer to provide the Board with a
recommendation, Mr. Smallwood reiterated that Alternative III will be more
economical, in the "long run", realizing that there are investment and
impact on present and future users to be considered.
Mr. Berzon was also asked to provide the Board with a recommendation. lie
said that it is his recorrroendation that Alternative II be considered for the
following reasons: Lower initial investment and lower initial cost to the
users; Provides for Board's corrroitments with regard to City/County Agreement
BD~~ 053 PAGE2.12..
BOOK
053 PAGE 213
May 6, 1980
.!~ I
' '
i.
requirements for 1982 and for 1990, as well; Apparent economic benefit
with regard to Alternative III in 1990 is presently speculative; and
Alternative II is more flexible than Alternative III in the area of making
changes between the presen~ time and 1990. He said that either plan is a good
sound engineering plan, but that Alternative II is his recommendation.
At Conn1issioner Pistor's request, Mr. Smallwood explained how thc
assessments were determined and said that under any of the three Alternatives
~ '11/1-<' ",
the assessment rate would be approximately $l.B5 per front fob'tf <1fnortized ..,.., '7;'
for 20 years at 8X i.e. for a 1,000 front footage parcel, the property'
owner would pay approximately $1,850 annually for twenty years. Also,
said Mr. Smallwood, on top of the assessment, the property owner will pay
a user chargc if he connects. Responding to Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Smallwood
said that the Question of "growth paying for growth" will be answered, as
much as possible.
Discussion followed concerning what effect a reduction in investment
costs and/or an increase in systems dev~lopment charge would have on the
assessments and the users' fees with Mr. Smallwood advising that some of the
assessment portion can be transferred to impact fees anu vice versa.
It was Mr. [Jerzoli's closing conrnents that, a:; urgent and as important
as the matter under discussion is, it is his opinion that the Board should
not make a ~ecision until the Commissioners have had ample opportunity to
review the information and figures which have been provided, suggesting that
at least a week would be necessary since the information was not received
in time to r'ermit close scrutiny. There were no objections forthcoming to
Mr. [Jerzon's suggestion.
DISCUSSION OF COMPLAINT RE WATER PRESSURE PROBLEMS IN NORTHERN COUNTY AREAS _
COMPl.AINANT ADVISED TD MONITOR WATER PRESSURE AND REPORT aACK TO THE BOARD
IF THERE IS NO IMPRUVEMENT FOLLOWING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO WATER
SYSTEM
C(w.missioner Wimer reported that he has received many complaints regarding
the water pressure in the North Naples areas, the pressure being consistent at
about 256. He said it was his impression that the pressure is being built
back up. Mr. Irwin Arlitz, affected area resident, concurred with the
Commissioner's statement with the COl1l11ent that the pressure averages between
15# and 30# throughout the day. Mr. Arlitz said that he was informed that
\
~~
J.~
\~
.....
;~?
..'
:<J
~
~l
i
.~
It ,i
I
May 6, 1980
the water pipes were going to be increased in size. which would improve
the situation ~ut, a5 yet, there has been nothing done. Furthermore
said tne speaker, he has determined, by conferring with representatives of
the Naples Water Works, that water is being distributed at 85# pressure
at the present time, with max~mum capacity, and that plans to increase the
water supply are a year off. lie noted the ongoin9 construction in the subject
nrea which will further increase the problems, and said that, in his
opinion, the only solution would be to declare a moratorium on highrise
building until the necessary utilities can be supplied, concluding with th~
comment that as soon as the BIJilding Depilrtment issues a permit, they're
cOll1nitting the County to supplying ~Iater and sewer service.
Mr. William Savidge, Director of Public Works for the City of Naples,
concurred that 8SH of pressure is carried at the plant; however, he said
that there will be better capacity when the 20" line is placed into service,
at which time the problems will be taken care of. Utilities Division
Director Irving Berzon added a further explanation, stating that when the
water line is connected to the new water tanks in the northern area there
will be a tremendous effect on the quantity of water and the pressure. He
said that this should be accomplished within a week or two.
Followinq additional discussion, it was Chairman Wenzel's suggestion
that Mr. Arl itz monitor the water' vessure, taking a pressure reading every
hour, and keep the Board informed as to whether or not there is any improve-
m2nt in the near future.
*
*
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 3:55 P.M.
80~K 053 r/,GE 21.. 4