Item E2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: AUGUST 16,2001
Division:
Bulk Item: Yes X
No
Department: TDC
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of policy reflecting Florida Statute 125.0104 5(a)(4) wherein each district shall not
exceed 10% funding of beach and beach park facilities based on the district's three penny
bed tax revenue from the previous fiscal year.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
TOC approved the above proposed policy at their meeting of February 14, 2001 as per
attached. SOCC at their meeting of March 22, 2001 tabled pending input from the County
Attorney regarding one district "loaning" another district TOC funds. Reference Assistant
County Attorney Suzanne Hutton's memo dated June 25, 2001... "accordingly, it is my
opinion that in order to allow a portion of any districts' percentage of the 10% cap for beach
spending to be permanently expended (no loan possible) by another district; the County
Commission would have to enact an ordinance allowing same. This may be an issue upon
which an Attorney General Opinion should be sought as there is no clear statement of law
dealing with "loaning" one district's share of a capitation on expenditures to another district.
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
SOCC approved FY 2001 budget at their meeting of September 21,2001.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
BUDGETED: Yes
No
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
- -
~~
(Lynda Stuart)
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No
APPROVED BY: County Arty _
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
To Follow
Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM # ~-E=02-
Revised 2/27/01
MONROE COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
MEMORADUM
DATE:
February 1, 2001
TO:
Monroe County Tourist Development Council
FROM:
Harold Wheeler
RE:
Ceiling on expenditures for beach park facilities.
Within F.S. 125.0104 (5)(a)(4) it states.... To finance beach improvements, maintenance,
renourishment, restoration, and erosion control, including shoreline protection, enhancement,
cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as those uses
related to the physical preservation of the beach, shore line, or inland lake or river. In
counties of less than 100,000 population, no more than 10 percent of the revenues from
the tourist development tax may be used for beach park facilities.
The attached document outlines beach park facilities projects within each district that have
already been funded in FY 2001 together with proposed projects throughout Monroe County.
Calculating the above formula is based on district three-penny collection of bed tax in FY 2000
for a total of $11 ,259,706.
With the proposed applications for funding related to beach park facilities, Districts I & III would
surpass the threshold outlined in the F. S. 125.0104 if fully funded.
Staff recommends the following guideline:
· Each District shall not exceed 10% funding of beach and beach park facilities based on the
district's three-penny bed tax revenue from the previous fiscal year. The calculation as
noted above is to ensure equity for each District.
. 03/22/01
2001/106
1
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCn..
Motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Spehar to
reappoint Winston Burrell as an "at large" appointment to the Tourist Development Council
District I Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. , ;
Lynda Stuart, Office Manager for the Tourist Development Council addressed the-Board.
After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner
Spehar granting approval and authorizing execution of an InterIocal Agreement between Monroe
County and the City of Key West for the Kitsos-Berg Beach Walkway-Walkover Project in an
amount not to exceed $150,000, DAC I, Capital Resources, FY 2001. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
Ms. Stuart addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and
seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Williams to table to the next Key West meeting for input from the
County Attorney and Tourist Development Council approval of a policy reflecting Florida Statute
125.010 5(a)(4) wherein each district shall not exceed 10% funding of beach and beach park
facilities based on the district's three penny bed tax revenue from the previous fiscal year. Roll
call vote was taken with the following results:
1
Commissioner Nelson
Commissioner Spehar
Mayor Pro Tern Williams
Yes
No
Yes
..
Motion carried.
DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Mr. Hendrick referred the Board to the Growth Management Litigation Report from
Attorney Karen K. Cabanas of his firm dated March 21 and 22, 2001.
Mr. Hendrick discussed a request by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority that Monroe
County join with PinellasCounty as an Amicus Curie in the Supreme Court of Florida on the issue
of supporting the right of the sewer authority to issue bonds for multiple sewer projects. After
discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Spehar
authorizing the County Attorney to file the Amicus Curie. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hendrick also discussed a ruling by Circuit Court Judge Sandra Taylor concerning a
Florida Sunshine Violation by the Technical Advisory Panel for the selection to evaluate and rank
proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP to build and/or operate a
wastewater treatment system on Key Largo. The Board requested that this matter be added to
agenda for the Special Meeting of the Board scheduled for April 4, 2001 at 10:30 AM. at the
Marathon Government.
O~~};Y~~~E
(305) 294-4641
"'liVtLU JUL 2 I..jl lD01
Office of the County Attorney
P.O. Box 1026
Key West, FL 33041-1026
305/292-3470 - Phone
305/292-3516 - Fax
lmAR15 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAYOR George Neugent, District 2
Mayor Pro tern Nora Williams, District 4
Charles McCoy, District 3
Murray Nelson, District 5
Dixie Spehar, District 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Harold Wheeler, TDC
Suzanne A. Hutton, Assistant County Attorn4
June 25, 2001
DATE:
RE:
10% Beach Funding cap.
You have asked for clarification with respect to what can be done between
the tourist development funding districts with respect to the allocation of funds for
beaches. More specifically, it is my understanding that you want to know that if
the County Commission adopts the rule that the statutory 10% cap on beach
park expenditures is applied on a district by district basis, can one district "loan" a
portion of its cap to another district? My opinion is no. For purposes of
discussion and clarification, I will set forth an example and assume certain
percentages and dollar amounts of Tourist Development taxes received from
each district. The assumed numbers are not intended to be accurate
representations of actual collections but are for discussion purposes only.
Assume that the total receipts for all three cents before any statutory or code
with holdings for reserves or administrative expenses (Clerk of Court or
otherwise) is 12 million dollars. By statute, the most that can be expended from
Tourist Development Funds for beach park facilities, including the waters
adjoining the beaches, is $1,200,000.00 for the entire County. Assume further,
that District 1 generates 50% of the taxes; District 2 generates 8%; District 3
generates 15%; District 4 generates 12%; and District 5 generates 15%. Utilizing
the formula which would result from the proposed policy, i.e. that each district is
limited to 10% of its gross receipts for beaches, the most which could be
expended by each district based on the 10% would be: District 1 - $600,000.00,
District 2 - $96,000.00, District 3 - $180,000.00, District 4 - $144,000.00, and
District 5 - $180,000.00. Since the capital projects money can be used only from
the third cent, and there are statutory provisions for reserves and administrative
costs as well as code provisions regarding the administrative costs let us assume
then that of the third cent totaling 4 million dollars, and there are additional
1
extractions for promotion and advertising, there is available for capital projects
the following: District 1 - 1 million dollars, District 2 - $160,000.00, District 3 -
$300,000.00, District 4 - $240,000.00, and District 5 - $300,000.00. If District I
elected to spend $500,000.00 of its 1 million dollars capital funding on beaches,
theoretically they would have $100,000.00 of the beach cap going unused. So
the question would be whether that $100,000.00 of beach cap could be utilized
by one of the other districts, such as District 3 desiring to use $280,000.00 of its
$300,000.00 capital funding on beaches. Under the policy, the answer would
be no. The statement of the policy was developed to comport with the code
provision that the third cent be spent only in the district where raised, and the
understanding that this gives each district an assurance of fairness with respect
to those expenditures which appear to primarily, if not exclusively, benefit a
single district. This rationale seems important in terms of allowing the districts
to use their funds for beach expenditures since there is such a significant
restriction on beach funding under the TDC statute.
The County could, under the statute alone, allocate the $1,200,000.00 to
be used in any fashion that it seems fit. However, having established a
limitation on the third cent being spent in the appropriate district and the third
cent being the only cent available for capital projects, the County seems to
have limited itself to allocate the funds within the same scheme. There are
several cases which specify that "Counties are not permitted to juggle
accounting and budgetary procedures" to defeat or circumvent the law. City of
Orlando v. Orange County 2767 SO.2d 41, 44 (Fla., 1973). The cases in
question addressed permanent funding and not the question of "loaning" one's
cap to another district.
However, the only state statute which seems to allow a transfer of funds
on a loan or temporary basis requires that the funds be transferred back by the
end of the fiscal year. F.S.215.18. If this rule were to be applied, it would
probably be of little benefit, since the district overexpending its share of the
10% cap would still have to find another source of funds in order to transfer
back the excess.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that in order to allow a portion of any districts'
percentage of the 10% cap for beach spending to be permanently expended
(no loan possible) by another district, the County Commission would have to
enact an ordinance allowing same.
This may be an issue upon which an AGO should be sought as there is no
clear statement of the law dealing with "loaning" one district's share of a
capitation on expenditures to another district.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
SAH/ak
2