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.