Item S2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 18 December 2002
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes ---X-. No
Department
Marine Resources
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to adopt an ordinance to impose a Monroe County Vessel Registration Fee pursuant to Section
328.66.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Florida Statutes 328.66 allows Counties to impose an additional vessel registration fee of up to 50 percent of the
amount ofnonnal boat registration fees paid to the state as defined in Section 328.72, F.S. At the same time the
statute requires that $1.00 of the additional fees must be paid into the state Manatee Trust Fund. For
recreational vessels under 26 feet in length, the amount of the boat registration fee paid to the state is $18.50.
Thus, this ordinance would impose an additional $9.25 for each vessel of this class registered in Monroe
County. One dollar of this amount would be paid to the Manatee Trust fund, leaving the County with $8.25.
The estimated total amount of funds generated through this ordinance is approximately $294,000. Fees will be
utilized for making water quality improvements or other actions allowed under the Statute related to boating
activity.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
21 November 2002 - approval to advertise adoption of ordinance
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS;
Approval
TOTAL COST:
None
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY: None
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes ---X-. No
AMOUNT Per Month
Year $294.000
APPROVED BY: County Atty ---X-.
Risk Management
rowth Manageme t
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included ---X-. To Follow _ Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM NO.: (~/
BC021210
11/25/02 1 :27 PM
Marine Resources
ORDINANCE NO -2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY.
FLORIDA. PURSUANT TO SEC. 328.66. F.S.. IMPOSING A MONROE COUNTY VESSEL
REGISTRATION FEE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMOUNTS OF THE VESSEL REGISTRATION FEE;
PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE VESSEL REGISTRATION FEE BY THE MONROE
COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; PROVIDING FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE VESSEL
REGISTRATION FEE MAY BE SPENT; PROVIDING THAT THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ENTER INTO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE MONROE
COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE VESSEL REGISTRATION FEE AMONG
THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE MUNICIPALITIES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES
INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE MONROE COUNTY
CODE OF ORDINANCES: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS. Monroe County. the Florida Keys contains one of the longest shorelines in the State of
Florida; and
WHEREAS. the waters surrounding the Florida Keys contain extensive and valuable shallow
water resources worthy of protection; and
WHEREAS. boating activity in the Florida Keys is extensive, with over 25.000 registered vessels
and an unknown, but comparably large number of out-of-County boaters; and
WHEREAS. it is the County's desire to protect its shallow marine resources and to provide for safe
access of boaters to waters of the County and for safe passage of boaters through the waters of the
County; and
WHEREAS. Sec. 328.66, F.S., allows Counties to levy a County vessel registration fee in addition to
those described in 328.72. F.S.
WHEREAS. the revenue generated by a County vessel registration fee could be used to support
the No Discharge Zone in the state waters of the County to provide funds for vessel mooring fields and
additional pump-out facilities; or to support other boater related projects involving water quality
improvements; or to support other boating improvements such as channel marking, regulatory zones,
and boating access areas; now. therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Imoosition of County annual vessel reGistration fee.
a.) Pursuant to Sec. 328.66( 1), Monroe County hereby imposes an annual registration fee
on vessels registered, operated or stored in the water within Monroe County, Florida. The fee shall be
fifty (50%) percent of the applicable state registration fee. However, the first One ($1.00) Dollar of
every County registration fee imposed pursuant to this ordinance shall be remitted to the state for
deposit in the Save the Manatee Trust Fund created within the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
b.) As authorized by Part II, Chapter 328, F.S., the Monroe County Tax Collector shall collect
the County annual vessel registration fee imposed by this ordinance and remit the fees to the County
and the state as provided by law. Provided, however, the Tax Collector shall not be required to
collect the County annual vessel registration until three (3) months after the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 2. Use of the County annual vessel reGistration fee.
The County annual vessel registration fee may be used for any purpose authorized by law.
Section 3. County authorized to enter into interlocal aGreements with municioalities for
distribution of fees.
Pursuant to Sec. 328.66(2), F.S., the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners is
authorized to enter into interlocal agreements with any of the various municipalities within the County
for the distribution of the proceeds of the County annual vessel registration fee between or among the
County and a municipality or municipalities according to any formula the parties may agree upon.
However, the interlocal agreement or agreements may not provide for the expenditure of the County
annual vessel registration fee on any purpose not authorized by law.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 5.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 6.
The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in Chapter
5.5 as Article VI of the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition or
amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering
system of the Code.
Section 7.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon receipt of official notice from
the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida that this ordinance has been filed with said
Office.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a
regular meeting of said Board held on the _ day of
,2002.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro T em Murray E. Nelson
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
By
Deputy Clerk
Mayor/Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
~~^;
BY
Attorney's Office
,~.;;"-: -....~.":'I;'-~..'~."....,.,.....
MEMORANDUM
Deoartment of Marine Re30urces
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289 2507
FAX: (305) 289 2536
Emai1: 28ITettlZ@mail.state.fl.us or
lZarrettlZeo@hotmail.com
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, Dm. 1
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Commissioner George Neugent, Dist. 2
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Commissioner David Rice, Dist. 4
DATE:
10 December, 2002
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
George Garrett, Director of Marine Resources
SUBJECT:
Monroe County Vessel Registration Fee Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
The Board of Commissioners has requested staff to advertise an Ordinance that
would increase the Boater Registration fees as allowed under Section 328.66
Florida Statutes.
The basis for this request is two fold. First, with the creation of a No Discharge
Zone within the State waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
additional boat registration fees would provide for the development of pump-out
facilities and boat waste haul-out in Monroe County. Second, Boating
Improvement Funds derived from existing boat registration fees, are largely
utilized in the coarse of a year. With two additional municipalities and three
existing cities, each with marine related project requests, the limits of the Boating
Improvement Fund are being stretched.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached Ordinance. The
Ordinance will add an additional 50% of the State's portion of the Boat
Registration fee to County revenues under Section 328.72, F.S. Revenue
projections, based on 2001, indicate that approximately $294,000 would be
generated.
BACKGROUND
BC021211.doc
12/06/02 5:06 PM
There are two principle issues that make adoption of a boater registration
fee ordinance appropriate at this time. First, the establishment of a No Discharge
Zone within the State waters of the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary has created
need for additional means to provide or augment pump-out services. Second,
reasonable demands on the Boating Improvement Fund are exceeding the annual
revenue generated currently.
No Discharge Zone
Effective 19 June 2002, the state waters of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary became a federal No Discharge Zone.
There has been broad support for the establishment of a Discharge Zone.
By Resolution, all jurisdictions in the Florida Keys supported the adoption of the
No Discharge Zone regulations. On behalf of the Keys, the Governor's office then
requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopt a No Discharge
Zone within the State waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
The No Discharge Zone regulations are specific that no vessel may
discharge within the state waters of the Sanctuary. They are non-specific as to
how to accomplish this. Thus, no specific requirements exist for the use of
particular types of wastewater holding facilities on boats. However, the most
logical and practical solution is to provide adequate pump-out facilities
throughout the County so that compliance with the requirements of the No
Discharge Zone regulations is easy for the average boater with waste handling
facilities.
The Clean Vessel Act funding program provides for the development of
pump-out type facilities throughout the state. It is administered by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. The program is very flexible in
providing funds for the installation and/or improvement of pump-out services.
However, it limits the cost of pump-outs to five dollars ($5.00) per pump-out. A
number of assessments indicate the actual cost of providing these services in the
Keys exceeds fifteen dollars ($15.00) per pump-out. Most of the additional cost
associated with pump-out practices in Monroe County is attributable to the cost
of hauling out pumped-out sewage. Haul out costs run about 20 cents per gallon
depending on location in the Keys. Thus, staff and other agencies have been
looking at ways to reduce the cost of such services. This can be accomplished in
a number of ways, purchase of pump-out facilities for County or other
government properties, funding the haul-out, or adding pump-out capabilities to
existing treatment plant collection systems (such as in Key West or Key Colony
Beach) .
2
The option being considered by staff is the use of funds that can be made
available through Chapter 328.66, Florida Statutes. Through this Statute, the
Commission is able to adopt an ordinance that would provide up to an additional
fifty percent (50%) of the amount returned to the State for each boat registration
fee accepted by the County. In general the Commission could focus its attention
on using the funds to make water quality improvements related to boating
activities. For other components of the No Discharge Zone implementation, the
state and the federal government, as well as other granting entities, have
provided significant dollars to the County, primarily for public outreach efforts
and the development of mooring fields.
In addition, the same statute that establishes the source and regulations for
use of Boating Improvement Funds guides use of these funds. As such, these
funds can also be utilized to complete additional boating improvement projects,
such as boat ramps, channel markers, or regulatory zones.
Boating Access and Safety
Boating access or safety related projects throughout the County and its
municipalities are expanding. In previous years, the Boating Improvement Fund
was under spent. In the past several years, the Boating Improvement Fund has
been largely expended each year, with little rollover. For instance in FY 2002,
the County received approximately $273,000 and expended approximately
$250,000. Based on project current project priorities within the cities and the
unincorporated area, staff has determined that the County would clearly exceed
available funds if all requests were honored.
Attached for the Board's review is a spreadsheet which provides funding
projections based on calendar year 2001 boat registrations in Monroe County.
The estimated funds made available as a result of establishing an ordinance
predicated on Chapter 328.66, F.S., is approximately $294,000. We suggest that
the funds be focused on boating related projects that serve to create water quality
improvements in the first two to three years.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of proposed Ordinance
3
Monroe County Comm. Meeting
MGC
S-')...,
Dec. 18,2002
Again we hear the old cry that the real purpose is for near shore water quality
improvements. The 250 thousand plus boaters in Monroe county are asked to increase
their registration fee by 50% or $9.50. At least 95% of the 250 thousand boaters do not
use mooring fields or pump out service. Private industry is in the pump out business and
there is no need for the county to get in it. People bringing registered boats into the keys
from other counties are not being charged this increase. Twenty years ago it was
established that anchoring is a navigation right. Again you are trying to take that right
away for more and more government control. Next year I will receive $13.00 for my
COLA increase and you want to take $9.50 of that for registration of one boat. We want
smaller government not a larger one. f/- T P ~
H T. Pontin
,//
FKNMS MEETING 17 OCT 2000 MARATHON FL.
FROM CHAIRMAN CHANNEL MARKING COMMITTEE
WARREN JOHNSON
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
305 872 3440 (h)
305 296 7653 (w)
Dear Members and Staff,
I submit to the record the following eighteen pages regarding
channel marking and the various issues. There have been no
meetings held, as pertinent information, has not been supplied.
What has been supplied to you, has been as a result of trying
to extract, costs $$$, liability and jurisdictional questions,
that remain unanswered.
Please pay attention to the Propeller Club minutes of meetings
enclosed dating 12 March 1998, regarding the specific question
of liability to Mr.Jones, note the answer at that time. Then
as a reply, to again ask dollars,liability to county taxpayers,
which Mr. Jones stated at the March meeting , he would check.
In an effort to relieve myself of dogged pursuit of the costs,
the Propeller Club Key West sent a letter to Mr .Roberts, from
the outgoing president and new president (17 July 2000). To
my recollection Mr. Jones response to the club on liability
(no copy avail) was to ask Mr.Hendricks??
If you review the list of working groups, and find "Channel
Marking" for the advisory council, you will see that Mr. Jones
is co-staff member? Meaning= I cannot get an answer from a member
of the working group?? And as you review the material provided
the questions have been asked for quite some time as my letters
reflect and minutes prove.
The Marine Resources Department, either, do not know the answers,
or bring doubt upon themselves, if the answers are not provided
clearly by them, concise and to the point.
I hope you realize
that the "servants
information becomes
meeting.
the frustration, by the writer, on an issue
of the public" refuse to answer. If more
available, I will present it at the December
S'.~
cc; prop club kw / fknms / county commsnrs/county admin roberts.
EC: That is against the Jones Act. But, ships come here because we are simply a "port of call". Plus, if
we did allow cruiseships to discharge passengers here, we'ed have to upgrade airport to fly them home.
W.J.: (unclear) : I move that foreign flag vessels be allowed to carry passengers in coastwise trade in
U.s. waters, providing that the route is not already served by us Flag vessels. (BA 2nds, ALL = " AYE"
WJ: National dealt with this, but they took no stand, esp if the differential in crew pay goes to escrow.
EC: Well, that would shut down cruise ships here. They wouldn't need KW as a port of call anymore!
DP: I recommend HT. and EC research this issue, and report back later. Now, here's our guest speaker...
Richard Jones: I run the County's program to mark channels, and to reduce prop. scar damage (slides).
I've surveyed most of the Keys. At least 30,000 acres of seagrass have been damaged by propellers. We
will be installing more channel markers, and better maintaining existing ones, to improve navigation
(GIVES DETAILS, CONCLUDES TO APPLAUSE).
*, H.T.P: The USCG should be doing the markers, not ih~ CoUnty. Plus, we need more, not less prop scars.
The scars improve water [fow and circulation. As to County maintaining markers, have you checked int
the liability issues involved? .
RJ: No, but I'll check with Legal. \
CWO Carlson: I ran USCG aids to navigation/marker program in Tampa Bay, now I'll do it here. The I
County will be solely liable for any markers it installs (as is USCG for its markers). ~
DP: We need a committee to nominate club officers. I appoint E.c. and H.T. P. to do this for 3/98 meet.
WJ: I move we adjourn (2nd=all), [meeting ends at 1330].
Submitted 12 March 1998
~~ /hct
Edward J. Little Jr.,
Secretary{Treasurer
- _':. "_'~_h "._<_ ___... ~
PRO?EtLER CLUB OF U.S.
Port :;f ;<.~'J West
p.o. Bo::< 6503
Key 'Nest, FL. 33041
~.-
;(?'~;:i:-'::~\
\, .~l
. - -. - .:-'j
~. .' -.. ,-. ." ,'~
......-=-.:- . .....
'I"::7"::~_______-
:::.;;:.-:-:. ;z.,,,-__ ........____-- -,. .
.;.-.:.:.-~, ,...---- ------
....~_.. - --....----
. _.-:..._~----- ----
Warren Johnson
P. O. Box 2322
Key West, FL 33045-
-2322
W Ul I C'l I JUI II J.)VI I
P.o. Oox 2J22
I~ey West Florida J.:C45
(,))5) '296-765J
'l;~
P -rl-;\
6. qi
INFORMATION ON AIDS TO NAVIGATION
FROM KEY LARGO TO DRY TORTUGAS
20 APRIL 1999
it L.jC.I
UO
The Uni ted Sea tes Coast Guard I Group Key West I Hara thon /
'....
Islarnorada.
The USCG a""~ tasked to maintain the following in this area;
280 day beacons
126 lighted beacons (night blinkers)
<"'-.......
"
61 buoys
5 major reef lights (racon beacons installed)
Monroe County Taxpayers (same area):
240 day beacons *86* day beacons down since George(s)*
200
day
beaco!!s
to be installed according to HC
which will total 440 day beacons
original 750 daybeacons proposed).
master
(down
plan
from
'"
I
Note*' It is the USCG that determines where and when markers""
.of any kind are needed through a Wate!r Management An:llysis
System (WAMS). Costs of maintaining and upkeep ~f markers
is available from Group Key West. The liabili ty to all
tax~ayers (County) is NOT limited to just lOOK (per markerJ
limi ta tlons (mari time) bu t on a case by case on placement
and neglect (care) of markers parties own (p=ivate!public).
Most counties,cities and/or" private agencies getting approval
to place/own markers, relatively speaking OWN a handful of
markers appro'ied by USCG (mandatory). The "master plan" fror.:
MC marine resources division reauests omore day beacons (ligheec
and not lighte~) than the USCG has in the area.
'. 9''' PROPELLER CLUBo/d~dekt-&J
.' TO PROMOTE. FURTHER AND SUPPORT
i _ . AN AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.
TO AID THE DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER
GREAT LAKES AND HARBOR IMPROVEME~TS
PORT OF KEY WEST # 154
P O. BOX 6603
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
CHARTERED AUGUST 22. 1973
17 July 2000
Mr. James 1. Roberts, County Administrator
Monroe County B.O.C.C.
5100 Junior College Road
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mr. Roberts:
The Propeller Club of the Port of Key West is a local chapter of a nationally based maritime trades action group and
forum. We have long tried to stay infornled about the County's initiative for additional channel markers (and other
aids to navigation or regulatory measures) in Keys waters. And, we have long been concerned that the agency \\ith the
most expertise in approving, installing, and maintaining such aids and in enforcing regulations, that is the U.S. Coast
Guard, seems not to be involved as the principal agent in carrying out the County's initiative.
Don't get us \\'Tong. We understand that local governments should, in some special, limited, circumstances, make their
waters safer, and less prone to boating impacts. But, the scale and scope of what we hear the County plans to do
concerns us. We know that the Coast Guard already has at least 280 daybeacons and 126 lighted beacons to maintain
in the Keys. That makes a total of 406 (not including buoys and reef lights). Yet the County plan calls for maintaining
all 240 existing County owned beacons plus installing another 200 beacons. The County would have to develop or
fund infrastructure that surpasses the best that the Coast Guard can field.
What \..ill this cost the County (for installation and for continued maintenance)? Where \vilI the money come from? It
would seem that the hands-on involvement of the Coast Guard with the County's initiative would be a good way to
reduce project costs, and to minimize duplication of effort.
Ne:-..'t, \ve are concerned that if the County does get into an expanded level of marking channels (or with involvement in
other navigational initiatives), it may also expand the County's exposure to lawsuits or other liability. As we
understand it, those that suffer marine casualties as the result of missing or damaged markers (or even just "bad"
advice), can sue to recover damages. A 100 % operational senice level would be difficult to achieve for all County
markers in nonnal conditions, not to mention in the aftennath of a major hurricane. Thus, we seek assessment and
clarification by you regarding
any increased level of liability exposure (including total dollar value) the County would incur by virtue of the existing
markers, and proposed plans for additional markers.
The presently unresolved nature of the various costs to the Public that the County's involvement with navigational
matters involves, has prompted the Club (via a resolution at our meeting of 6/21) to ask you to consider transferring
the County's involvement in the "channel marking business" to the Coast Guard, or at the very least, suspend that
involvement until ''ie have had time to comment on your response to the infonnation we have requested.
Sincerelv. i./ ~
~~~~~
Capt. Finbar Gittleman, Propeller Club President 1999-200-0
Capt. Sean Rowley. Propeller Club President 2000-2001
County of Monroe
Deoartment of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon. Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Shirley Freernm. Disl. 3
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugem. Disl. 2
Wilhelmina Harvey. Dist. I
Commissioner Nora Williams. Disl. 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Disl. 5
August 22, 2000
:.
Propeller Club of the United States
Port of Key West #154
P.O. Box 6603
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Capt. Gittleman and Capt. Rowley:'''--
Thank you for your 17 July 2000 inquiry regarding Monroe County's role in channel marking in
the Florida Keys. It is important that concerned citizens understand the projects the Department
of Marine Resources is involved with, and what services we provide to the boating community.
The County has maintained Aids to Navigation (ATONS) for over fifteen years in the nearshore
waters of the Keys. In the past this service has been directed by Extension Services as well as
Community Services. In the early 1990's citizens of the County recognized the need to use
channel marking as a management tool to help minimize propeller scaning in seagrass beds.
This concern was included in the Sanctuary Management Plan, and was designated as the
'Channel/Reef Marking Action Plan'. This plan assigned the research and implementation of the
project to the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources (DNIR). In 1996 the BOCC had
the DNIR move ahead with the development of a channel marking master plan. In 1997
intensive field surveys were conducted by DNIR staff and recommendations were made for
channel marking, as outlined in the 'Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys'. Many
of the 348 markers recommended for installation fall within federally or privately maintained
channels. Recommendations were given to the USCG, who will use the information to upgrade
their systems as they see fit (the USCG has been involved throughout the master plan process
and have stated that they will reference the master plan when they conduct their Waterway
Analysis and Management Study for improvements in federal channels).
The County plays an increasingly important role in maintaining marked channels throughout the
Keys. The USCG has historically been tasked with routing commercial traffic throughout the
coastal waters of the United States. In the Keys the USCG maintains all A TONS for the
Intracoastal Waterway, Hawk Channel, and the reef line. In addition, the USCG also maintains
the primary crossing channels (Channel 5, Snake Creek, and Moser Channel). Private
individuals, such as marina or condo owners, maintain private A TONS to help boaters into their
businesses or developments. The County fills in the gaps by marking channels which are heavily
used by recreational boaters, but do not fall within the objectives of the USCG. This system of
federal, county, and private markers is utilized throughout the state. In fact, several counties in
Florida maintain more than 400 A TONS. The USCG relies heavily on the counties doing their
September 19, 2000
To:
From:
Re:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Commissioner George Neugent
Richard Jones, Marine Resources Planner
Questions concerning the County Aids to Navigation System
What is the number of aids to navigation the County owns?
The County owns 238 markers as of today.
How many have been given to private parties?
We have transferred markers to other government agencies where the markers are within
their jurisdictional boundaries:
John Pennekamp- 6
Lignumvitae Park- 18
City of Lay ton- 3
City of Key Colony Beach- 9
We also have transferred 7 markers to the Tamarac Park Property Owners Association at
their request. Those markers were installed years ago with an agreement that the POA
would do all maintenance on the markers. The POA earlier this year requested to take
over the markers so that they may make changes and additions to that marked channel.
What is the status of downed markers from hurricanes and other storms?
All damage from the Ground Hog Day storm and Hurricane Georges have long been
corrected. There are only 3 markers down from Hurricane Irene in County waters that
are yet to be repaired. Those piles should be replaced within the next month. (Hurricane
repairs take longer than any others, unfortunately, due to policies and procedures
involving FEMA and going through the BOCC for approvals. I am currently working on
streamlining this process.)
What are the costs of installing downed markers?
Generally in the neighborhood of $1300-1500 for piling, signs, and hardware.
Since the beginning of the County plan of 750 markers, what does the plan reflect
now as the number of aids desired?
The number 750 was never used. We never planned to put in that many markers. The
Propeller Club has always been confused on this point. In the master plan I stated that
around 500 markers were recommended (so they incorrectly added 500 to our existing
250). However, less than half of those markers recommended are within County
channels. The remaining recommended markers are for the USCG to choose to install in
their channels at their discretion. Currently, we are looking at approximately 180
markers to be installed by the County.
6. What has been the overall costs, to the taxpayers, for the County plan?
A grant paid for the costs of the Channel Marking Master Plan to be produced. Boating
Improvement Funds pays for all our channel markers. A grant paid for our boat. There is
no significant costs of any kind to County tax payers (from ad valorem taxes) for the
County Aids to Navigation System.
7. Does the County plan to install and maintain any markers for the Sanctuary?
No. About fifteen years ago the County installed markers on the reef line off of Key
Largo for the Sanctuary. We are in the process of handing those markers back over to the
Sanctuary.
8. Will the County taxpayer have liability for the FKNMS aids?
This is a moot point, as the County will no longer have any FKNMS aids.
9. If 22,000 boats are registered in the Keys, has this been a consideration in placing
84,0000 taxpayers to be liable for the enjoyment of 25 % of the residents?
It is important to remember that more than just the 22,000 registered Keys boaters benefit
from the County's Aids to Navigation System. All boaters, including tourists, reap the
benefits of channel markers, and most citizens reap the benefits of tourism. However, if
there is a law suit all the County citizens will pay for the settlement. You should contact
the County Attorneys Office regarding how this will work. It is my understanding that
there is a limit on any lawsuit in Monroe County. Also, please realize that almost every
County in Florida provides channel markers to it's citizens. That service is more
important in the Keys than anywhere else in the state, considering the nature of the
bottom here and the need to provide aids to navigation. This is no different than all the
taxpayers paying for street signs, even though not all citizens drive cars.
10. \Vould this practice attract more boating tourists to the waters of the Keys?
Tourists and all non-locals rely heavily on the Aids to Navigation System throughout the
waters of the Keys. If not for the County, there would be numerous unmarked channels
in the Keys where the USCG does not have an objective to mark. Increasing numbers of
boaters have made it imperative to expand channel marking in the Keys to take a more
comprehensive approach by improving navigational safety and protecting the adjacent
shallow water resources. This is the reason why the Sanctuary created the channel
marking action plan and the Department of Marine Resources has taken the lead role in
that objective. This project to create the Channel Marking Master Plan was approved by
the BOCC in the early 1990's and was fully supported by the public. ~ (?
. .
part to help provide navigational aids for the general recreational public. All entities, whether
county or public, must go through the same permitting process as the USCG. The Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) ensures that all permitted markers meet the
requirements of the Florida Uniform WateIWay Marking System.
Now that the County DMR has qualified permanent staff to oversee the implementation of
ATONS in the Keys, the County ATONS system has become a comprehensive system- from
design to installation. We now have channel markers that are built with the highest quality
materials which prolong the life of the marker and are designed to better withstand storm events.
Our A TONS system, along with a variety of other marine resource data, is part of our
Geographic Information System (GIS) which allows us to provide spatially related database
information to other government agencies. The FWC is considering using the County's newly
designed markers as the standard for t~e private ATONS throughout Florida.
'--'--
- --,
In regard to your concerns of liability, the County Attorneys Office has on several occasionQ
stated that the County is aware of, and accepts the liability for, the County marking system. In
regard to funding, installations and repairs are funded from Boating Improvement Funds, as well
as a variety of grants.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely;
. l J
/.' ./---
Richard Jones
Marine Resources Planner
cc: Mr. James Roberts, Monroe County Administrator
Mr. Timothy McGarry, Monroe County Growth Management Director
Mr. Joseph Embres, USCG
Warren Johnson, Propeller Club
Monroe County Marine Resources
1. What is the number of aids to navigation the county owns?
2. How many have been given to private parties?
3. What is the status of "downed markers" from hurricanes and
other storms, since the county plans beginning?
4. Costs of installing the downed markers?
5. Since the beginning of the county plan of 750 markers, what
is the plan reflect now as the number of aids desired?
6. What has been the overall costs, to the taxpayers, for this
county plan ?~--
7. Does the county plan to install and maintain any markers/
buoys for the FKNM Sanctuary?
8. Will the county taxpayer have liability for the FKNMS aids?
9. If @22,000 boats are registered in the Keys, assuming they
are "taxpayers", has this been a consideration in placing
@84,000 "taxpayers" to be liable for the "enjoyment" of
@ 25% residents? Meaning for the "few" not the majority?
10. Would this practice attract more boating "tourists" to the
waters of the Keys?
WAJ9800
To: Richard Jones 6 Oct 2000
Marine Resources planner
Monroe County
Marathon Gov't Center
305 289 2805 T
289 2536 F
Subject: County Aids to Navigation System dated 19 Sept.2000.
Dear Mr.Jones,
At this time, I would like to "thank you" for some numbers and
informa tion regarding my inquiry to your "navigation system".
As you know, I have been active in obtaining the "numbers" of
markers and costs to the taxpayer since my conversation with
you and Mr.Garretts, at a meeting in March 1998, the same meet-
you presented your letter concerning millions of dollars being
spent potentially for this "system".
Question five (5) conveys an alleged inquiry about the number
750 markers, which was presented to MPAC, which, as I recall,
you did not attend. You furthur state a comment about the
Propeller Club being "confused". I do take issue with this,
as my inquiry to Commissioner Nugent, was related to Propeller
Club, nor presented as such. It was presented to you, Mr.Jones,
on no letterhead and in fact, an inquiry by myself, as the
"chairman" of the "channel marking committee" for the sanctuary
advisory committee. I had been asking for information from the
USCG and Monroe County, on certain actions you had taken for
some time. Needless to say, you partially provided information,
at your convenience, which I am sure you can understand, would
add to any confusion you may have on issues.
The question before the "house", as has been my task to "find
out", is "What are the costs to the county taxpayers for your
program?". This means dollars $$$, if there are NONE, as you
allege in your answers for upkeep and Maintenance, state NONE,
Mr.Jones. Surely, this program is not FREE, is it?
According to you there are @238 markers owned by the county
taxpayers, the USCG states 247 (Embres). Your letter reflects
another 180 markers to be "placed" in the county taxpayer's
hands, meaning @ 418 markers will be the burden of county
taxpayer. As provided at previous "meetings" !. attend, with
you present, the USCG maintains @ 426 markers from Key Largo
to Dry Tortugas. The county taxpayer will OWN and MAINTAIN 8
markers less than the USCG, which has "their hands full" with
their "operations of money and manpower and equipment. Does
the county plan to have a Monroe County Coast Guard? What will
these costs be to the taxpayer in addition to what the NUMBERS
are already?
I look forward to a quick response before 17 october, for an
upcoming meeting.
Regards, Warren Johnson taxpayer
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
County of Monroe
Department of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway. Suite 420
Marathon. Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Shirley Freeman. Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent. Dist. 2
Wilhelmina Harvey, Dist. 1
Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist. 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich, Dist. 5
October 10, 2000
Warren Johnson
P.O. Box 2322
Key West, FL 33045-2322
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I received your inquiry, via fax, dated 6 October 2000 regarding the County's channel marking
program.
I would very much like to clear up any misunderstandings regarding the County's role with
channel marking. As I stated in my 22 August 2000 letter to the Propeller Club, the channel
marking program was approved by the BOCC in the mid 1990's. We have had the full support
of the County, the Sanctuary, and the US Coast Guard. As the channel marking program
progressed the Department of Marine Resources held numerous meetings to discuss the
objectives of improving navigation and minimizing propeller scaning throughout the Keys. At
this time we are only carrying out the tasks assigned to our department by the BOCC.
? ~ Please do not compare only numbers of aids in regards to County vs. USCG. The USCG
maintains numerous lights and light towers throughout the Keys. The County maintains no
lights, only daybeacons. So, our initial costs, maintenance, and liability are not comparable with
the USCG. As I have stated before, the USCG supports Monroe County, as well as other
Counties, doing their part in providing A TONS for the recreational boating public.
As far as costs to the citizens, I explained before that installations and maintenance costs come
out of Boating Improvement Funds. The only costs that I am aware of to the tax payers is salary
for the time that Marine Resources Department staff puts into the design, contracting, and
surveying of our marker system. I expect there to be no increase in staff time with the
implementation of markers indicated in the 'Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys'.
After implementation is completed there will be no more time used for design, which frees up
time for surveying. To answer your question about a County coast guard, no we do not have
plans to create a Monroe County Coast Guard.
I hope that after my recent presentation to the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and several letters to
both yourself and the. Propeller Club, that you now have all the facts concerning the County's.
role in the channel marking in the Florida Keys. -
Sincerely,
~--
RiCIfard Jones
Marine Resources Planner
Mr.R.Jones Planner
Dept Marine Resources
Monroe County
305 289 2805
305 289 2536 F
14 Oct 2000
subject: Non responsive answer to inquiry/ your letter dated
10 Oct 2000.
Dear Mr.Jones,
It is obvious to me, that no answer is forthcoming to :
a) the costs to the county taxpayers for your "navigation system"
or channel marking program.
b) the liability incurred by the county (taxpayers).
(including FKNMS markers that have been on the "local" county
taxpayers burden, instead of a "national" burden as a
national treasure)?
c) the jurisdictional and question if the county has the
authority to place markers, which have been placed 5-7 miles
"out".
The "history" you state in both your letters (10 Oct/1 9 Sept)
on the USCG role and other historical rhetoric, is refreshing.
However, as a member and current or past officer of two maritime
organizations and as the president of the Lower Keys Property
Owners Organization (which you made a presentation @two yrs
ago), as a planner,as a servant to the public, you should have
an anwer to the costs,liability and jurisdictional problems
to the public.
I have written to Keith Douglas,George Garretts, George Neugent
and yourself on this issue (as you are aware) for no less than
three years. Your letter of March 199a presented at MPAC,
stated the fact of "favors" and the costs of tens of thousands
of dollars to the County?
Currently I serve voluntarily on the FKNMS as a vice-chair,
chairman -'of the "channel marking" group. Information that has
been asked for, but not given by your department, hinders
progress to people and organization members, that ask me, what
I have been presenting for @ three years to the county? Draw
your own conclusions as to the non responsive answers I have
received from your department.
Certainly the questions deserve a definite answer for the county
taxpayers burden to COSTS (incl maint&equip), county jurisdiction
and taxpayer liability in case of loss of life or inj ury per
marker that is owned.
In closing Mr.Jones, I invite you to attend the following:
1. Lower Keys Property Owners Association meeting Nov 6,2000
Bogie Rd, BPK @ 6 pm to 8 pm, to give an explanation.
2.
Propeller Club, noon at Perry's Key West
15 Nov 2000.
3. FKNMS meeting 17 Oct or the Dec 2000 meeting.
Please call and confirm if you plan to attend meetings. I was
hoping to have answers, the numbers and dollars, from your depart
men t to present at these meetings. Hopefully, I can relay to
all that a telephone call or fax, asking the same questions
to your office, may bring better results than I have been able
to determine.
Please "make it
costs, liability
of Monroe County
in your letters.
perfectly clear" that this
or jurisdictional problem
and that this is a "free"
program is at no
to the taxpayers
program as alleged
Regards,
Warren Johnson
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
305 872 3440 (h)
CCi commissioners
roberts
fknms
orgs
encl" letters WAJ9/8/00
jones 9/19/00
WAJ10/6/00
jones 10/10/00
LKPOA
FKNMS
PROP
RKYC
Board of County Commissionen
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Dist. I
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley Freeman. Disc. J
Commissioner George Neugent, Dist. 2
Commissioner Nora Williams. Dist. 4
Commissioner Mat)' ~ay Reich. Disr. 5
\
\Jounty ot
Department of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon. Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-25]6
IVlonroe
March 26, 1999
To: Marine and Port Advisory Committee
From: Richard Jones, Channel Marking Planner
Re: Channel marking and regulatory ~king projects
Recently it has become apparent that past and future channel marking/regulatory marking
projects need to be looked at on a comprehenSive scale, rather than piece meal projects, in
respect to the significance of the projects as far as County responsibilities and objectives are
concerned. 1 have had numerous inquiries in the last six months from residents and/or property
ovmers associations in locations where theCQunty has installed either channel markers,
regulatory markers, or both. Typically the citizens feel that the channels leading into their
development or the perimeter canal need additional markers.
Relying on the knowledge { have acquired from my numerous surveys throughout the Keys, I
have observed that there are hundreds of residential areas that have dredged approach channels
leading into them, sometimes with a dredged perimeter canal surrounding the area. These
channels and canaIs were dredged decades ago by developers. 1J:1ese channels are neitherownc:..d ~.v~ '<
I!...or maintained by the County. Historically. the residents in these areas would often mark the .,J 110'--
entrances or boundaries with unpermitted markers, typically PVC. [n the last ten years some .
residents, resort owners, marina owners, etc., have approached the County to ask if the COWlty
could please help them by installing and maintaining markers at the CountY's expense. Most
recently these types of projects have gone through the MP AC- some have been approved, others
have not. Currently the County has markers of this type at Duck Key, Hammer Point., Layton
Channel, Ninety-Seventh Street Channel, Ramrod Key Channel, Summerland Key Channel,
Tarnarac Park Channel, Upper Matecwnbe West Channel, and Windley Key ChanneL
What I want to point out is that there are many more subdivisions/associations that could or
would approach the County asking for assistance if they knew we do this sort of thin&: Currentlv ~
it costs the County tens of thousands of dollars to install and maintain these markers. {[we were
to implement markers at all the sites in the Ke s that could use the~ it would cost in the millions
,of dollar2- However, the pro em t we are having at thiS time is more markers are being
requested in some of the:"private channels that we have currently marked. In fact, s<>mc people
have actually requested that the County dredge-their approach channels further out to deeper
water! The perception appears to be that it is the County's responsibility to properly mark
private channels (what started out as a faVOT h}l..lhe.Department of Marine Resour~es is now
considered. by some as a responsibility and that we owe it to them). In some cases, the personls
requesting the markers use the environment (seagrass beds, etc.) as their purpose for request,.
when really (upon funher investigation by our department) the motive appears to be self servmg-
as in the case of a resort owner having the County establish a marked channelle<"ding into the
resort.
r have already discussed with the MP AC members my push for relinquishing ownership of some
,of the County marked areas~ore appropriate entities. I have been fairly successful at this so
tar, tor example: Bonefish Bay, Port Largo, Reefline markers off Key Largo, Ohio Key
Channel. and a few others. However, after the County has installed markers leading into a
pri~ate area it is often ~ifficult to convince the homeovmer' s associ~tion. (or other appropriat:"(
entHy) that we would I1ke to hand the markers over to them. ti,-. \.,..)\0...'-\ '0-"_ \'^- ~ b~.:>..-.J t::-S~ .. 5
.J"
rz... Now that we have a comprehensive channel marking plan for the County we have described the ~
t:.., objectives for marking, the criteria, and we have indicated those areas that meet those criteria. ~/C.i( C. ."
,< ~' Basically we, want to try to mark areas that: 1) need markers to help minimize propeller damage:) \ '0 C U,I
."i(} 2) need modIfications to eXIstIng marker chains to Improve naVIgatIon. and; J) most Importantly? ~
./ ~those areas that serve all the boating publi.....c (not just homeovmers or businesses in a subdivision).)
This jfvery important to acknowledge thai-Boating Improvement Funds are used for the
populace, and not a select group of individuals. In many areas of the Keys residents have
installed their own permitted markers. It is not fair to those peo Ie that install their own markers,
or people in other areas that have no markers t the County continues to prov, e mar ers that
only serve small subdivislons~ Now that w': have a comprehensive marking plan and statt to
Implement the plan and oversee these pro.iects we must ensure that funding and marker
tnstallations are used appropriately. We only have so much funding. and it is critical that we use "
the funds in the most cost effective manor which best serves the public. 5e~ iTEfI e f-r...ct' c..w...'o
- .- \ )......:JA"I i 'lCl'"1 ~ 3
I The Department of Marine Resources feels it is not a responsibility of the County or any other
agency to mark private channels and canal systems any longer. The MP AC needs to
acknowledge and address this concern. Only by making some decisions and policies regarding
this matter will I be able. with authority, to ten people (in certain situations) that the County is
not responsible for marking or adding markers to their private channels. We want to be able to
use funding to implement marking systems that benefit all the citizens of the ~, t~s,
and cruising boaters aLike. This means marking nearshore areas, through channels, an~
improvil~g existing systems, and harbors that are used by everyone.
)
---
Please take the time to think this matter over. This issue wiH be added to the April MP AC
meeting agenda. r will be available to discuss the matter.
. ~ ----..:--.
\
51,{ PROPELLER CLUB o/d LtiJa;-ed
-,.
PORT OF KEY WEST '1 S4
P.O. BOX 6603
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
CHARTERED AUGUST 22, 1973
TO PROMOTE. FURTHER AHD SUPPORT AH
AMERICAN MERCHANT M...RINE .
TO AIO THE CEVELOPl.cENT OF RIVER,
CRCAT LAKES AHD HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
'..
12 January 1997
3.1 ~ groundings and navigational hazards
The Sanctuary was initia~~d to preclude reef damage by offshore
vessels and mineral extrac~ion, from the Keys.
a. Keep the areas to be avoided, as they stand.
b. Increase lighthouse and marker intensities, and re-establish
color sectors (lights). Install "Racon" beacons.
c. Coastal buoys with "Racon" beacons installed at areas to
be avoided.
d. International Maritime Organization (London) re-establish
ships traffic separation.
e. Local County Issue: Day Beacons
1. Reinstall day beacons for narrow passages through the
islands that were removed in the 1980's.
2. Continue to use boating fund income to maintain and improve
channel marking.
3. Routes through narrow passages be marked to avoid
groundings of small local fishing vessels.
f. Proposed boundaries: Water area involved; defined as one
mile offshore and inshore from the offshore edge of the
reef.
g. Government Agencies involved; Federal and State.
Local county government for item (e.):'
h. Funding; Fines from ships groundings and oil spills.
Redirection of "Sanctuary" funds already in place.
Boating improvement funds.
i. Results; Reduced damage to the reef, from ships groundings,
oil spills, ships collisions at sea and loss of life.
Warren Johnson
P.O. Oox 2.322
I<.ey West Ronda .J.J045
(.J05) 296-765.3
872 3440 (h)
12 August 1998
Subject: Liability of Monroe County/Taxpayers for markers &
daybeacons.
Mr.Douglass,
:.,
After attending several port and transit (county) meetings since
the fall of 1997, my specific issue was the markers and the
liability and costs to the taxpayer( see lttr dtd Feb 18 1998
PROPELLER CLUB in your file). I received a letter from G.Garretts
about relationships and working together etc., but no answers
as to the liability and costs"to the county taxpayers?
Example; If a storm hits the keys and 20% (150 daybeacons) are
damaged and down, is the county liable for replacement? How
long does the county have to replace the downed/damaged markers?
What procedure is used and what agency designates when these
markers /beacons should be "in place". Mr. Garretts stated "he"
(county?) has all the time "he" needs to replace these markers
or beacons (Aug 98 meeting/Marathon).
If Home Associations put in markers/beacons, who will be respons-
ible, the county taxpayer or the association?? If these markers
are NOT replaced wi thin a certain time frame, what is the cost
to the taxpayer of Monroe County? Mr. pokorski states that the
Federal Government will pay for damaged markers under FEMA?
Is this a true statement? If it is, why are they not paying
for them now?
The County Commissioners have been informed about this issue
for some time, please answer the COST /LIABILITY ISSUE TO THE
TAXPAYERS OF MONROE COUNTY for this logistical nightmare that
has been chosen to undertake meaning the upkeep and maintenance
and costs to the taxpayers once these markers are in place.
Example: If a county owned/permitted marker/beacon
replaced in a reasonable amount of time and a mariner
or loss. of life occurs, what are the ramifications of
instance?
is not
is hurt
such an
I attended these meetings to take issue with the intent to inform
the county and port/transit, only to find that it is considered
interference 'Nith information provided. Please respond to these
important issues.
70 my /(.ecof.f.ecLi..on , t.he t.i4..ot. t.ime I .opoke t.o t.he count.y on
"ma/(.ke/(..o", t.he count.y pLanned pn 750 ma/(.ke/(..o!! I add/(.e.o.oed t.hi.o
at. a flPAC meet.ing in eit.he/(. 'jp/(.....ng ot. 1997 0/(.1998. I a.6ked
to/(. a copy ot t.he minut.e.o ot. t.hat. meet.ing, and neve/(. /(.eceived
them. I am .ou/(.e you can acce.o.o t.he "pu!Lic /(.eco/(.dW.
I add/(.e,j.oed t.he "doLLa/(./j"
and maint.ain 750 ma/(.ke/(..o.
aa.d aL1J 0 Log i.o t.i C.o
....-........
--
o t. t/(.ying to
own
At. .ou!.oequeni meet.ing.o in 1998 & 1999, i1.. wa.o evident. !y the
"ove/(.ma/(.king" ot. t.he uppe/(. K.ey.o, t.hat. NO PRIORI7IeS we/(.e given
t.o "LocaL" t.i.oh.e/(.man !y ma/(.king NARROW PASSAqeS 7H.ROUqH.OU7 7H.e
K.eijS. 7hi.o wouLd in.ou/(.e p/(.udent. ma/(.ine/(..o vi.oi!iLi1..y t.h/(.ough
t.he pa.o.oage.o t.hey aL/(.eady t./(.an.oi1.. daiLy/weekLy.
At. t.he Ap/(.iL and flay 1999 mee1..ing, I p/(.ovided t.he int.o/(.mation
t.hat t.he uscq maint.ain.o ~06 "day!eacon.o" o/(. 6ma/(.ke/(..o" which
126 a/(.e "Lighted" t.o/(. night t.ime navigat.ion. 7he "a/(.ea" ot. the.oe
~06 ma/(.ke/(..o a/(.e t./(.om K.ey La/(.go t.o D/(.y 70/(.t.uga.o. 7he uscq admit.o
to t.he f.o gi'5ticaL nightma/(.e and t.hei/(. Lack ot. men, money and
equipm2nt., not. onLy t.o in.ot.aLL and maint.ain the "ma/(.ke/(..o".
AL.oo add,r.e.o.oed wa.o t.he "/(.e.opon.oe" ot not. onLy t.he County, &.ut.
aL.o 0 t.he US cq 0 n /(.epai/(.in g" " ma/(.ke/(..o " at.t.e/(. .0 to /(.m,j / hu/(./(.i cane,j .
tV 0 into/(.mation wa.o p/(.o vided !y eithe/(. agency t.o my inqui/(.ie'5,
a.o to ma/(.ke/(..o 6down" and when t.hey wouLd ge /(.epLaced.
7he K.eith DougLa.o.o Let.te/(. wa.o neve/(. /(.e.o~onded to, and at. a flPAC
meeting, I pe/(..oonaLLy add/(.e.o.oed fl/(.. DougLa.o.o, a,5 to why he had
not. an.owe/(.ed my Let.1..e/(. /(.ega/(.ding ma/(.ke/(..o, he ment.ioned that
he /(.eceive.o "thou.oand.o". ot. ,juch f.et.t.e/7..o pe/(. day, and couf.d not
an.owe/(. t.hem aLL. H.e aL.oo .ougge.oted t.hat. I add/(.e,M t.he Let.te/(.
to "Keit.h", not. fl/(.. DougLa.o.o (pe/(..oonaL view).
In my v.i.ew, the County ha.6 taken on a g/(.eat /(.e,jpon.o.i.&.if.ity,
without thought to the t.ax:paye/(..o. 7he upkeep and maintenance
.i.n the t.utu/(.e, i.o ove/(.wheLming. A &.ott.omf.e.o.6 p.i..t... 7he lKNf'1S
pf.acing the &.u/(.den on flONROe COUN71j 7AXPAijD?S i.6 yet, anothv'..
twi.6t to the muf.ti t.aceted i.6.oue.
Wa/(./(.en "WW" John.oon
305 872 3440
POB 2322