Item B1
...- ..-.-..-------,~~-.~...--,.~..-... . ^.. ........."...','"_.~.........._'"'.....A~_._'.~~_~......._.~......._~._._
Revised 2/95
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: June 12.2001
Division:
County Administrator
Bulk Item: Yes
No -X-
Department: County Administrator
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Discussion of issues that will be part of the proposed Fiscal Year 2002 Budget with guidance from the
Board of County Commissioners concerning how they wish to approach these issues including a
discussion on the Capital Projects Plan for 2002.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
In a number of discussions over the past few months, the Board of County Commissioners has
indicated its interest in reviewing certain issues prior to the initiation to the budget process. It is the
Board's intent to give instructions to the Administration concerning how it wishes to proceed in the
forthcoming budget. The four primary issues involved are the history of nonprofit funding, utilization
of performance measures, the capital program, and fund balances. Some discussions have already
occurred.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
As above. At the February 22,2001 County Commission meeting, the Board postponed this item to
their special meeting on March 13,2001. Further postponements occurred on March 13,2001, March
22,2001, April 19, 2001, and May 17,2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion and instructions to the Administration.
TOTAL COST:
-0-
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY: -0-
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
DISPOSITION:
Included To Follow Not Required X
Please include all previous agenda items for this discussion.
(2-HIIH2 from 2/22/01 meeting, 2-J2 from 4/19/01 meeting.)
AGENDA ITEM # 8/
Frederick-Debbie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~
Fitzgerald-Ranny
Thursday, May 31,2001 3:52 PM
Frederick-Debbie
Special BOCC Meeting
There are five items Commissioner Spehar would like to be considered:
1. Fire Hydrants throughtout the Keys
2. Fire Station for Stock Island (possible sites)
a. County property - Stock Island
b. County lot on Cross & 6th Avenue
c. J. Weekly's property next to Murray Marina
on US #1 in Stock Island
d. Key Haven commercial property
3. Build Medical Examiner Facility on County Stock
Island property using the existing chapel as one of the three needed structures.
4. Government Center in Key Largo
5. Improve and enlarge Key West Airport Terminal (90% FAA funds 10% Monroe County
Cost).
Page 1
20.
21.
22.
Additional Proiects to be Considered for Caoital Proiects Plan Revised 6-11-01
1.
Public Works Facility at the Public Service Building property on Stock Island
2.
Stock Island Fire Station at the Public Service Building property on Stock Island
3.
Records Storage Facility at the Public Service Building property on Stock Island
4.
Records Storage Facility in the Middle Keys
5.
Records Storage Facility in the Upper Keys
6.
Animal Control sewer connection & recent infrastructure requests
7.
Medical Examiner Facility
8.
Big Pine Park (includes land)
9.
Renovate Key Largo Recycling Yard for Public Works offices and garage
10.
Big Pine Roller Hockey/Basketball
11.
Higgs Beach
12.
Big Coppitt Park
13. Library Improvements
14. Fire Station - North Key Largo
15.
Cudjoe/Sugarloaf FirelEMS Facility
16. Dedicated Emergency Operations Center
17. FirelEMS Vehicle Replacement Program
18.
OJ] Build Out 2nd Floor
19.
Harry Harris Park Master Plan
Harry Harris Park Site Lighting
Old Tavernier School Renovation
North Key Largo Fire Station
~~~
,....
{JJJ-~ ~
Mvu0 VCf~
e({/GI;;~Ur(~
2.50 mil.
1.80 mil.
0.50 mil.
0.50 mil.
0.50 mil.
0.25 mil.
1.75 mil.
4.50 mil.
1.00 mil.
0.15 mil.
3.00 mil.
1.00 mil.
1.00 mil.
2.5 mil.
0.03 mil.
0.16 mil.
1.00 mil.
1.80 mil.
BJ
Frederick-Debbie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fitzgerald-Ranny
Thursday, May 31,2001 3:52 PM
Frederick-Debbie
Special BOCC Meeting
There are five items Commissioner Spehar would like to be considered:
1. Fire Hydrants throughtout the Keys
2. Fire Station for Stock Island (possible sites)
a. County property - Stock Island
b. County lot on Cross & 6th Avenue
c. J. Weekly's property next to Murray Marina
on US #1 in Stock Island
d. Key Haven commercial property
3. Build Medical Examiner Facility on County Stock
Island property using the existing chapel as one of the three needed structures.
4. Government Center in Key Largo
5. Improve and enlarge Key West Airport Terminal (90% FAA funds 10% Monroe County
Cost).
Page 1
Jun 11 01 04:27p
O~~~~~E
(30:1) 294.4641
,-.'---.
Murray E. Nelson
COllUllissioncr, District Five
Damaron Building, Suite II
99198 Overseas Highway.
Key Largo, FL 33037
PHONE (305) 852-7175
FAX (305) 852-7162
Email: boccdis5@maiI.state.fl.us
'1ler-lmce ..011
Jlle n 1181
TO:
County Administrator James Roberts
IJ"ttJ
Commissioner Murray E. Nelson
District Five
'FROM:
SUBJ:
p. 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MA fOR George Neugent, Districl2
Mayor Pro-Tem Nora Williams, Dislrict4
Dixie Spehar, District I
Charles "Sonny" McCoy. DIstrict 3
Murray Nelson, District 5
ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE
CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
I would like to have the following items to be considered
under the capital projects program
1. Fire and Emergency Medical station in North Key
Largo
2. Government building in Key Largo
3. Emergency Operations Center in Key Largo
4. Fire hydrants in population centers
5. Fire station on Stock Island or mutual aid
agreement with KeyW est Fire
6. Big Pine community park
7. Big Coppitt park
8. Library improvements
""l.~\i:-;'.~;:';J!'~:3't.":": ".
Department of Community Affairs
Overview of Economic Analysis and Assessment of
Potential Land Acquisition Costs
,'.
Policy 4 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires that Monroe County, with
assistance from the Department of Community Affairs and the Environmental Protection
Agency, address the following:
;,. determine the full fiscal cost of implementing the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan;
;,. recommend funding shares for local, state and federal government;
;,. identifY funding sources to meet projected needs;
;,. compare the cost of acquiring land versus the cost of providing services for continued
development.
Attached is the fiscal report completed by Monroe County, including an assessment provided by
the EP A comparing the cost of land acquisition and development services. The report reaches
several key conclusions:
Implementation of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan could cost as much as $1.5
billion, including about $1 billion for acquisition of buildable lots which are not
developed and $382 million for wastewater improvements. However, our analysis
indicates acquisition costs could be reduced by up to 50% by avoiding acquisition of the
most expensive properties as further discussed in this report.
Storm water costs fall in two categories: private and government. The analysis projects
$300 million in private costs to upgrade storm water facilities over time as properties are
redeveloped. Government costs involve $5.5 million to retrofit USl and unquantified
costs for retrofit of local government facilities.
Evacuation improvements to US 1 are projected as $24 million. However, this figure may
underestimate the cost significantly, depending on the final design of US 1 and whether
bridge improvements are required.
Monroe County recommends a 1/3 equal share ofland acquisition costs among local,
state and federal governments, 50/50 shares for central wastewater between local and
state/federal and 60/40 shares for on-site wastewater systems. The report identifies
significant funding gaps, particularly for the state's wastewater share and the federal land
acquisition share. Funding sources are recommended to meet local funding shares.
The EP A analysis compares a no-growth scenario (eg. acquisition of all lands in Year
2000) to a limited growth scenario (eg. growth at our current rate through Year 2010
after which all remaining vacant land would be acquired). The analysis confirms that fig
',' ':--":-'.(:;';~:: '\'
growth would cost about 34% more than short term growth. However, most of thIs
difference is due to debt service on land acquisition that is included in the no-growth
scenario but not in the growth scenario. The report emphasizes that the growth scenario
would most likely result in higher costs than the no growth scenario if further evacuation
improvements, school expan~ion and debt service for land acquisition are included. If
property values increase at S:S% or more, which is significantly less than recent years
which average around 10%, the growth scenario will cost more. This occurs because the
no growth scenario involves bonding and purchasing at today's property values, while the
growth scenario involves purchases at future values.
Overall, the report substantiates that both the no-growth and limited growth scenarios involve
high costs due to land acquisition. Although the report does not evaluate long term of costs of
sustained growth, preliminary indications of the carrying capacity study (CCS) suggest that the
carrying capacity could not support build out of the nearly 14,000 remaining vacant lots, but
more likely a very limited amount of growth. The fiscal report also emphasizes that any desired
land acquisition should occur as soon as possible to avoid further increases in land values. Given
these findings, the Department believes discussions must begin in earnest to develop a consensus
on land acquisition needs in recognition that growth cannot continue indefinitely. While it is not
possible to determine the build out potential of the Keys until the CCS is complete, we can
evaluate the land acquisition needs for various levels of development, project the potential
funding burden and identifY possible funding sources. Even under a relatively high growth
scenario, substantial land acquisition costs occur which grow over time. Therefore, we must act
now by developing a land acquisition strategy to minimize costs over the long run.
Our goal is to reach consensus on a long term build out plan for the Keys which can eventually
be implemented through the comprehensive plans and land acquisition programs. To reach this
goal, we must address several key questions. What is an acceptable level of build out based on
carrying capacity? What should be the annual rate of growth? How much will various
development scenarios cost in terms of infrastructure and services? How much will land
acquisition cost to support a given development scenario? How will funding needs be
addressed? These are challenging policy issues which must be addressed jointly by local, state
and federal government. Monroe County has already prepared a conceptual 20-year build out
and land acquisition plan which is under discussion. In support of this approach, the remainder
of this report provides refined cost projections for land acquisition based on various
development scenarios involving different levels of land acquisition.
How much land should be acquired?
The Carrying Capacity Study (CCS) will help further define acceptable levels of development in
the Keys based on our ability to ensure adequate hurricane evacuation and sheltering, improve
and maintain acceptable water quality and habitat conditions and provide for a desired quality of
life. The CCS report will be completed next year, but preliminary results suggest future growth
must be limited significantly in order to achieve the public objectives just described. The
2
"-"_."_"""'l~.".
Hurricane Evacuation Study of the Keys prepared by Miller Consulting for the
FOOT also suggests similar constraints specifically related to evacuation. The following tables
provide some perspective regarding the potential land acquisition burden:
Table 1.0 Developm~:nt Potential of Remaining Vacant Lands
" Year 2000 Data
Land Parcel Inventory Lower Middle Upper Total
# of Parcels 26,183 9,343 24,903 60,429
# of Vacant Parcels 10,544 2,974 7,435 20,953
# of Vacant Buildable Parcels 5,486 2,211 6,091 13,788
Potential Increase in Developed Lots 35% 35% 35% 35%
1. # of parcels includes unincorporated areas, Marathon and Islamorada.
2. # of Vacant Parcels includes unbuildable mangrove parcels and properties already acquired.
At this point, significant growth potential exists in the Keys with the remaining lots constituting
35% of the existing developed lots. Given the information we already know concerning
evacuation and water quality conditions, it is reasonable to assume for future planning needs that
only a limited percentage of the remaining vacant lots could be developed and only in select
areas. The following table shows the number of lots requiring acquisition for various
development scenarios, ranging from low development with only 10% of the vacant lots built to
high development with 50% of the vacant lots built. The current development rate is also
provided as a scenario for comparison.
Table 2.0 Acquisition Need Based on Various Development Scenarios
Development # of Vacant Less Number Less 10% For Potential
Scenario Buildable Developed Lots Acquired Acquisition
Parcels Under By Neighbors (# of Lots)
Scenario
Low (10%) 13,788 1,379 1,379 11,030
~
Moderate (25%) 13,788 3,447 1,379 8,962
Current Rate 13,788 5,100 1,379 7,309
Over 20 years
(255/year)
High (50%) 13,788 6,894 1,379 5,512 "
3
". """-'i7...",~~.....
What are the potential costs of land acquisition?
This is a difficult question to answer because it depends greatly on future economic conditions
well beyond the time frame which 91n be forecasted. The cost will depend on four key
variables: .'
number of lots acquired - this depends on the selected development scenario (depends
on CCS) and the number of lots acquired by neighbors and private trusts;
the cost of debt service due to bonding - bonding could significantly increase the cost of
land acquisition, depending on the amount of debt and the interest rates;
future costs of property - this depends on whether real property values increase at a rate
above the rate of inflation (ie. net inflation which has occurred in the Keys);
selective acquisition - costs could be reduce significantly by avoiding lots which are
particularly high-cost, such as ocean front parcels. If these lots are not acquired, it must
be assumed that they will be developed under the selected development scenario.
The land acquisition strategy must weigh the trade off between buying over time at higher future
market rates or bonding to buy at current market rates and paying debt service. Ideally, the
recommended strategy is to buy as many lots as we can potentially transact each year and
to budget that level of funding. This minimizes bonding and related debt service and
minimizes risk with future market values. The maximum level of transaction will depend on
funding, staffing and willingness of sellers.
Table 3.0 provides land acquisition cost projections for each development scenario. According
to the EP A Fiscal Analysis, the average assessed value of remaining vacant lots is nearly $30,000
per lot. However, actual market value appears to be significantly higher. The EPA's consultant
obtained sales values for all parcels (321) sold in Year 2000 to determine current market value.
The average sales value is $90,271 per lot. Using this average, cost projections are provided for
acquisition of all vacant lots under each development scenario. As shown by the table, this
approach results in the highest cost projections. However, the average lot value of$90,271 is
based on sales values which varied across a wide range with small unplatted parcels selling for
as low as $1,600 to large unplatted tracts selling for up to $600,000. Thus, this projection is
appropriate only jf we are not selective about the type of lots that are acquired. If the-most
expensive lots are avoided, the potential costs decrease significantly.
Two adjusted cost projections are provided based on the selective acquisition strategy. The first
adjustment excludes lot values within the highest 10% of recorded sales values, resulting in an
average lot cost of $61,481, or about 2/3 of the average cost when all types of lots are acquired.
The second adjustment excludes lot values within the highest 20% of recorded sales values, b,ut
4
'_........~..-~.._u_~."""~
also excludes the lowest costs using the average appraised value of $30,000 as the minimum.
The lowest cost lots are excluded in order to avoid unrealistically lowering the average by
including very low cost lots that are not representative of platted lots which make up the
majority of all lots which must be acquired. This adjustment results in an estimate average lot
value of $76,650, which is about h~lf way between the highest cost estimate and the first
adjustment. For planning purposes;'we recommend considering a range between the two
adjusted values for each development scenario as indicated by the shading.
Table 3.0 Projected Range of Land Acquisition Costs
for Development Scenarios
Development
Scenario
Potential
Acquisition
(# of Lots)
Assessed
Value @
Average of
$30,000/ Lot
Market
Value of All
Lots
(Average of
$90,271/Lot)
Low (10%)
11,030
330,900,000 995,689,130
Moderate
(25%)
20 years @
255
units/year
8,962
268,860,000 809,008,702
7,309
219,270,000 659,790,739
High (50%)
5,512
165,360,000 497,573,752
What build out period should be considered?
Adjusted
Market Value
Excluding 10%
Highest Cost
Lots (Average
of$61.481I1ot)
Adjusted Market
Value Excluding
20% Highest
Cost Lots and
Lots less than
$ 00 (Average
6t650not)
This depends on the outcome of the CCS. However, the acquisition strategy should be designed
to acquire all undeveloped lots through the build out period of the lots developed under any
given growth scenario. This approach ensures that additional development would not be
permitted beyond the limiting carrying capacity and ensures property owners are treated
equitably. Otherwise, if development capacity is exhausted and significant vacant lots remain,
delays would likely occur in providing equitable payment to property owners or legal actions
could force permitting beyond the carrying capacity. Both outcomes should be avoided. Upon
completion of the CCS, we should be able to recommend a build out level of development for
the Keys which ensures our public objectives our met. The next step will be to determine how
many years over which the development will be allocated to reach build out. This should
determine how many lots are acquired annually through build out. For example, if the CCS
determined that our current rate of growth at 255 units/year could be sustained for 20 years, then
we could determine the annual land acquisition budget.
5
Table 4.0 provides projected annual costs for land acquisition for each development scenario
based on a 20-year build out scenario. The cost ranges are based on the adjusted average market
values from Table 3.0 for each sceI1J1rio.
..'
Table 4.0 Projected Annual Land Acquisition Costs in Year 2000 Dollars
for a Twenty Year Build Out Scenario
Development Annual # of Development Annual Land Equal Share for
Scenario Lots Acquired Rate For 20 Year Acquisition Local, State and
For 20 Year Build Out Budget in Federal in Millions
Build Out Scenario Millions (as recommended
Scenario by Monroe County)
Low (10%) 552 69 $33.9-42.3 $11.3-14.1
Moderate (25%) 448 172 $27.5-34.3 $9.2-11.4
Development at .."'..{.....:l'.L..,
255 units/year 365 255 ,...iF .3
High (50%) 276 345 $16.9-21.1 $5.6-7.0
These estimates do not account for debt service or inflation of real property values. Debt service
could possibly be avoided by budgeting enough recurring annual funds to avoid the necessity of
bonding. However, inflation will occur and must be considered. Due to the difficulty in
predicting inflation rates over an extended time period and for ease of comparison, all costs are
expressed in Year 2000 dollars. If property values increase at the same rate as inflation, the
present value of future expenditures would equal the Year 2000 figures. Thus, future costs in
purchasing price per dollar (real cost) would equal current costs even though actual budget
demands will be higher in future years. What happens if property values increase above the rate
of inflation? The Appendix to this document provides cost estimates for each year over a twenty
year period, comparing the cost in Year 2000 dollars for increases in property values at the
inflation rate versus costs if property values increase at a rate above inflation (eg, net inflation).
Table 5.0 provides a summary of this analysis.
As the table indicates, net inflation rates impact substantially on potential land acquisition costs. ~
For example, ifllet inflation occurs at 3%, real land acquisition costs will increase by 38.4%
over twenty years. This is the reason that the EP A analysis recommends that any desired land
acquisition occur over as short a time period as possible to avoid potential increases in property
values. How does this impact on a plan for build out and acquisition? The build out period and
annual rate of growth should be determined based on our ability to acquire undeveloped lands
remaining for the amount of development allowed each year. We should limit the build out.
period to avoid the potential for net inflation which means that our annual land acquisition needs
6
increase as the build out period is shortened.
Table 5.0 Projected Land Acquisition Shares Over Twenty Year Period by
Development Scenario for Various Inflation Rates ($ millions)
Development Cost at Base Cost at Net % Cost Cost at Net % Cost Cost at Net % Cost
Scenario Inflation Rate Inflation Rate Over Inflation Rate Over Inflation Rate Over
of 1% Inflation of 2% Inflation of 3% Inflation
Rate Rate Rate
Low (10%) 254.0 282.4 11.2% 314.7 23.9% 351.5 38.4%
Moderate (25",{,) 206.0 229.1 11 .2% 255.3 23.9% 285.1 38.4%
Development at
255 units/year 168.0 186.8 11.2% 208.2 23.9% 232.5 38.4%
High (50",(,) 126.0 140.2 11.2% 156.1 23.9% 174.4 38.4%
;"
,
1. Costs are in year 2000 constant dollars. The total costs are based on the median value from the ranges
shown in Table 4.0
2. Based on equal 113 share for local, state and federal governments as recommended by Monroe County.
How should our approach to land acquisition change?
Currently, land acquisition efforts are focused almost exclusively on acquiring habitat through
the CARL program and Land Authority. To acquire platted lots at the rate required for the
various scenarios, we will need to consider a new program based on different funding sources.
The CARL and Land Authority programs in the Keys are not funded to address this level of need
and should not be diverted for this program in lieu of habitat acquisition. As reported by the
EP A, the CARL program had acquired 758 out of 1133 parcels in the Coupon Bight and Florida
Ecosystems projects as of year 2000. By contrast, a limited build out plan for the Keys would
require acquisition of at least 5,500 lots with a funding level starting at $17 million per year (see
Table 4.0). Moreover, significant funding would be required for staffing, administration and
land management. Thus, a more comprehensive land acquisition program is needed in order to
meet this level of funding, while ensuring habitat acquisition efforts continue under our current
programs. Staff envisions a one year planning process to develop such a program and to define
budget needs for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. The following recommendations are provided as the
starting point for developing and implementing the program:
Recommendations
1. The Administration Commission endorse the development of a land acquisition plan.
2. The Administration Commission direct staff to engage in discussions with local government
and the federal government to develop a draft partnership agreement for shared funding. The
draft would be submitted to the Administration Commission for review and approval.
7
~
3. The Administration Commission direct staff to work with the partners to develop an
implementation plan for the program based on the agreement. The plan will address:
Funding
Define funding sources for a~quisition needs.
.J,;.
Determine acceptable funditig shares and whether certain funding sources, such as the
US 1 toll, would be considered local, state or federaL
Determine whether bonding is necessary or whether recurring dedicated revenue sources
could be established and acquisition occur on a cash flow basis;
Staffing
A team of land acquisition agents will be required in order to acquire lands at the annual
rate to limit the impacts of rising property values and/or limit the bond period. Staffing is
a critical factor which could reduce the total costs of the program;
Administrative needs must be addressed.
LandAlanage~mandOwnenh~
Land management is an important factor to ensure the lots are managed in perpetuity~
this is a significant cost factor. According to the EP A analysis, if all buildable vacant lots
were acquired, land management could cost nearly $3 million annually. However, this
cost could be reduced in the long term by restoring land to natural habitat conditions not
requiring maintenance.
Ownership issues must also be addressed among the partners.
Cost Alinimization
The plan should also include innovative ways to reduce the potential land acquisition and
management costs. For example, the analysis assumed only 10% of all lots would be
acquired by other parties, such as private interests and neighbors. Other methods could
further reduce the government burden such as sharing acquisition with adjacent
neighbors with the deed and management responsibilities remaining with the neighbors,
working with neighborhood associations on management agreements, establishing
conservation easements and working with private trusts and philanthropic organizations
on land acquisition and management.
-
Define criteria and priorities for land acquisition to minimize cost and achieve the
greatest net benefit. For example, priority acquisition areas might include buffer areas
around habitats, areas lacking infrastructure and less developed areas, while low priority
areas would include more' urbanized areas with higher levels of infrastructure where
development should be encouraged in proximity to employment opportunities.
8
... -.~ - - - - - - - - - .-..&.&."--"-"J.I......... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
OFFICIAL BALLOT
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
PRESIDENTIAl PREFSI!NCE PRIMARY
MONROE COUNTY, FL
MARCH 141 2000
(
BOLET A ORCIAL
PARnOO DEMOCRATlCO
PREFERENClA PRESlDENCIAL PRIMARlA
CONOADO DE MONROE, FL
14 DE MARZO, 2000
-
-
-
-
DIRECTIONS:
~. in !he oval apposite lhelll8lll8 or each c:andidate or issue you wi..~ to vote for .
1N8TRUCCIONES:
Uene ~menle eI 0vaI0 que II encueAba ~ II nomtwe de c:Ida candidlIo 0 prapuesta pgt ios que usted desea volar.
EXAMPLE/E~O .
-
-
-
-
STATE - ESTADO
-
FOR PREIIOENT
PARA PRESIDENTE
(Vote for On~) {Vole par Uno)
BILL BRADLEY
ALGORE
r"
"
..... .
COUNTY. CONDADO
REFERENDUM. AEFERENDO
REFERENDUM ON emHDtNG THE ONE
CENT INFRA81'RUCTUAESALES TAX
THROUGH 2018-
S!taII !he one C8IIt InIrastnJCklre sales tIIJt be
19lteAded ~ 2018 fit oIherwise ~ In
2004) .. 1he".... I1Sed for the fcilIowIna
projei:ts: _"llllJ.* faciIiIies. reaaalion ana
CORMrYation lands. marinas. ccurthouHs,
p'arkl",g. oIflCM, roads. bridges. airports,
lIbrarieS. pieri, lUditofiums. npra0Jse8wa1la.
soIi<I wll$l., ilHa. poIicelfire faclities, land
~. stOrm w*. and maintenance of
~ and recreatlonallands, and any
JUlie purpoee IIAhorIZ8d by law?
~EFER!NDO SOBAI LA P~AOGA
A EL Mo 2,018 DEL IMPUESTO DE
I UN CENTAVO SOIAI LAS VENTAS
, PARA OIRAS EN LA
INFRAESTRUCTURA
i. Debera prOl'f!)garse el impuesto de un
centaw sotn IaI ventas Pata obras en Ia
Inlraestructura hIsta el ano 2.018. que de otlB
forma vene.r. en 81 2.004, Y cuya
recaudacii6n 18 usarla en IDs proVectO&
siguienles: centroa pati! ellratamiento de IaS
aguas neg,.., terrenos dedieados a Ja
reaeaci6n y ~ marina$, il.tZallms.
0Stacion&lRieltol. oflcinas. vias pU6lical.
po8Rle$. ~s. bibIOIecas. muelles.
auditorios, 'scolladeros y rompeolas.
aelvlcloe relBClOnados con 101 desechoe
s6lid01. GM~f~ .~t8ciones de polid. y
~J_~n de terrenos. seNlcloi:
rel~ con las aguaa de tormMta Y
marrtenimienIo de tetrenOs ~ a hi
recreatj~ 0 de con$erVacKtn asf como
~ cira &nIIdad pUblica adorIzada por
ley?
For the one cent ... '*1
A tavor del ~ de un
centavo IotiIIaI vemas
~ h_ CIftlsales III
Eli canIrt del..... de un
centavo..... v...-
MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
DE ELECClON MUNICIPAL
I fSLAMORADA, VILlAGe OF ISlANDS
fSLAMORADA, MUNICIPIO DE LAS
ISLAS DE
-
-
-
.-.-----. .. - "-. -
-
CITY COUNCIL SEAT t
CONCEJO MUNlCtPAL,. ESCANO EN EL 1 -
(VOle lor One) (Vote pa Uno)
KYM COUINS
MARK GREGG
AlLEN "AL PAL It AOSEN
-
-
-
-
-
CITY COUNCIL SEAT 5
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL, ESCANO EN EL 5 _
(Vote for One) (Vole por Uno)
JOHN CIOFFI
GEORGE GEISLER
-
-
'_.~~ :
SAMPLE (3AUor-
.
ill
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\'1 ! f f ,
i If If rf rf .ii If f
t . - I
~ II Ii II If If J .. I
. c
I f I ,i II I
I } I' U
j f
,I i
;1 ,
..
I I ~ I- I
I I I ~ I i ~
I I i I I
'" ... .
I ... I ! .. . I ~
; ;; .IS
l "i I I
. i i f -
I ~ . ~ I ~
i , 5 i -
I -
i ~ ..
r .. << ~ ~ ~
~
iI E .. ! I
'" i ... I
I . . . . '! ~
i: .. -; ...
... i J I . ~ . .
I
i ~ .. ~ f - i a
J J . . j I 010
:i 5 ; 5 5 Ii ;x ! i I
..
i . ~ ~ ~ Ii I
. . .. J
a I r a e ! [,
- ,. i I
! .. .. J Ii
~ !
! I ~ I ;;
...
I i i i is '11 f
ltl i ; i
...
i ! i iO
j i ~ ; I 5 ~ l
I i i . f
IS i ~. i
I J ~ << ~ ,
I .. I
'...
..
.. .. s
r a . i ! ~ J
I i i *I
il 5
.. ~
I .. ! J ~ II
~; p .
I ... .. i W
.. ~ . ..
..
... ,. I I
I i ! . ~ Ii
."
- ti a I
I i I 4- ! I I ~
.. . t ! III
I I
; J: ! f .1 ;:
.. i i
J ~ ; it
! :: ~ .. $ i
. . s: