Login | Contact Us | Feedback | Customer Service | Site Map | Archives | RSS | Subscribe to the paper

HomeIsland NewsLocal News

Council proposes November election, tables public service tax

STORY TOOLS
Share on Facebook

In a surprise move Monday night, the Marco Island City Council requested city staff to draft an ordinance to move the March 2008 council election to the November presidential election date.

The action angered several citizens in the audience, including Joe Batte and Roger Hall who recently announced their candidacy for council based on a January or March election date.

“Trying to extend your term by ordinance almost seems like a tremendous miscarriage of justice,” Batte said after the meeting. “They know how concerned the public is about their past actions. They just want to nail down their own program no matter what the people want. Only the electorate can extend your term.”

Councilor Glenn Tucker asked City Attorney Rich Yovanovich whether the council could change the date to November. Yovanovich said it could by ordinance, referring to two opinions given by former Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist on the issue (see sidebar).

After discussion, the council voted 4-2 to recommend that the city staff draft an ordinance which would extend the terms of Tucker, chairman Mike Minozzi and councilors William Trotter and Terri DiSciullo. All four councilors voted to draft the ordinance. Council members Chuck Kiester and Rob Popoff voted against it. Councilor Ted Forcht was absent from the meeting.

Minozzi and Tucker cannot run in 2008 because of term limits. DiSciullo’s and Trotter’s seats are also up for election. Both said they haven’t decided whether to run again.

The council election is usually held the second Tuesday in March, the day of Florida’s Presidential Preference Primary. This year, however, the state Legislature approved moving the primary up to Jan. 29.

Marco Island City Manager Bill Moss said the city’s cost for the mail ballot election in March would be $25,000 to $30,000. Gary Beauchamp, chief deputy supervisor for the Collier County Supervisor of Elections, said his office recommended the city change the election date to Jan. 29 to save the cost.

The ordinance will likely be ready for first reading at the Aug. 6 council meeting. By holding the council elections during the November presidential election, the councilors’ terms would change from the current two years to four years.

Public service tax tabled

The City Council voted 5-1 to table the first vote on a public service tax after several citizens vehemently voiced their opposition to it. The ordinance would raise rates on electricity, metered natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and manufactured gas by 7 percent. Councilor Glenn Tucker voted against the postponement.

The council decided to discuss the proposed tax during the 2008 budget meeting on August 20.

The state Legislature called a special session last week to discuss property tax reform. The council and city staff began looking at the public service tax as an optional revenue source during the City Council five-year Capital Improvement Program meeting May 21.

Florida statutes allow municipalities to levy taxes on utilities. The tax cannot exceed 10 percent of the payments received by the seller of the service from the purchaser for the purchase price.

The effective rate on electric service would be 4.5 percent, according to Marco Island City Manager Bill Moss; because the 7-percent rate increase only applies to approximately 65 percent of a Lee County Electric Cooperative utility bill. LCEC provides electrical service to the island.

Legislators passed a tax reform package Thursday that would reduce local government revenue from 3 to 9 percent. The package on paper totals $31.6 billion in tax relief over the next five years.

As part of the tax reform, the Legislature also passed an amendment that would let homeowners replace the Save Our Homes tax protection with a homestead break that would reduce the taxes on a $500,000 home up to $195,000. If the voters approve the amendment by a 60-percent vote, homeowners could elect the homestead break or stay with the Save Our Homes program.

By making the homestead choice optional, Legislators estimated the $31.6 billion tax reduction would be closer to $24 billion.

Moss said the tax reform would likely cut the city’s property tax revenue from $14.3 million to approximately $13.1 million, or 9 percent, based on property values for fiscal year 2007. Moss added a 7-percent public service tax would produce approximately $1.2 million in revenue.

He recommended the tax be implemented on Jan. 1, 2008. Any public service tax must begin on the first day of a fiscal quarter.

365 days to hookup

During Monday’s meeting, the council approved an ordinance that allows property owners with septic tank systems to connect to the city’s expanded wastewater utility system within 365 days after being notified that the service is available. The Marco Island City Code of Ordinances had stated property owners must connect within 90 days of being notified.

The vote was 5-1. DiSciullo voted against the ordinance.

The amendment to the city code also states that monthly billing for water, wastewater and reclaimed water service will begin either when the water meter is installed, the property is connected to the wastewater system, or 90 days after notification that the wastewater or reclaimed water service is available.

Payments to the utility company must be made concurrently, according to the amendment. Moss said property owners would begin seeing the monthly wastewater base charge on their July utility bills. If any portion of the service bill is not paid, the city could discontinue the service.

Once a property is connected to the new system, any septic tanks, cesspools or other private wastewater disposal systems must be cleaned of sludge and filled with materials.

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion

Number: AGO 2003-52, Date: November 3, 2003

Subject: Municipal charter, change in election date

“Section 166.031, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedures to be observed in amending municipal charters, including a requirement that a proposed amendment shall be subject to approval by referendum of the voters. For charters adopted prior to July 1, 1973, and not subsequently readopted, section 166.021, Florida Statutes, repealed or changed into ordinances many of the limitations contained in such charters. Subsection (4) of the statute, however, provided that nothing in Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, was to be construed as permitting any changes in a special law or municipal charter that affect certain subject matters set forth therein, including “the terms of elected officers,” without referendum approval as provided in section 166.031, Florida Statutes.

Thus, for charters adopted after July 1, 1973, and for charter provisions relating to the terms of elected officers adopted prior to that date and not subsequently readopted, any amendment of those provisions would be subject to the procedures in section 166.031, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, this office concluded in Attorney General Opinion 94-31 that the city commission of the City of Tallahassee could not amend its charter by ordinance to provide for a change in the date on which municipal elections will occur and extend the terms of the sitting officers affected by the change.

During the 1995 legislative session, however, legislation was introduced to amend section 166.021, Florida Statutes. Section 1 of Chapter 95-178, Laws of Florida, amended section 166.021(4) to read in pertinent part:

“However, nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any changes in a special law or municipal charter which affect . . . the terms of elected officers and the manner of their election except for the selection of election dates and qualifying periods for candidates and for changes in terms of office necessitated by such changes in election dates, . . . without approval by referendum of the electors as provided in s. 166.031. . . .” (e.s.)

In addition, Chapter 95-178, supra, created section 100.3605, Florida Statutes, relating to the conduct of municipal elections.[1] Subsection (2) of section 100.3605 provides:

“The governing body of a municipality may, by ordinance, change the dates for qualifying and for the election of members of the governing body of the municipality and provide for the orderly transition of office resulting from such date changes.”[2]

Accordingly, this office in Attorney General Opinion 00-61 concluded that a city may amend its city charter by ordinance to move the dates of city elections from April to November to coincide with federal, state, and county elections, and to extend the terms of the sitting commissioners to November.[3]

Thus, as noted above, prior to the 1995 amendment to section 166.021(4), Florida Statutes, and the creation of section 100.3065, Florida Statutes, a change in the charter prescribing the qualifying and election dates for municipal officers, and the resulting change in the term of office for sitting officers, required amendment according to the provisions of section 166.031, Florida Statutes, regardless of when such provisions were adopted. The legislative history of the 1995 legislation amending section 166.021(4) and creating section 100.3065, however, indicates an intent that municipalities are authorized to amend their charters, whether those charters were adopted before or after July 1, 1973, to change the election dates and qualifying periods for candidates, including any changes in terms of office necessitated by such amendment, without a referendum.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the City of Lauderdale Lakes, pursuant to sections 166.021(4) and 100.3605, Florida Statutes, may amend its city charter by ordinance to move the dates of city elections from March to November to coincide with federal, state, and county elections, and to extend the terms of the sitting commissioners to November, when the existing charter was last amended in January 1998.”

— Charlie Crist, Attorney General

Comments

This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.


I could have sworn that this article had at least 12 comments when I last read it. Does the City of Marco Island Manager have so much clout that he is now able to censor our hometown newspaper?

#1 Posted by Hawke1 on June 20, 2007 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hawke1, why do you automatically assume it is the CM who had something to do with it? don't be paranoid like the rest of them. CM has no powers over this paper. anyone can request removal by clicking on the (suggest removal) line above.

#2 Posted by patton1 on June 20, 2007 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Patton1, have you been following the events in Marco Isand? It is becoming evident even to the casual observer that the City Manager is a puppet master. As such he has put himself in the spot light. I am assuming nothing, I am looking eactly where the CM intends me to.

#3 Posted by Hawke1 on June 20, 2007 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's with this? There were pages of blogs yesterday late morning, then they all disappeared, then strike3 and I posted complaints about the blogs disappearing. Shortly after they reappeared but without our complaint blogs ... and now they're all missing again.

Also the article that appears above is NOT the same article that appeared yesterday morning. Who modified it? Why? When? Under whose orders? Without a clear explanation from the Editor or Publisher of the Marco Island Eagle of what's been going on, I intend to file a complaint with the paper's owners. And I have little patience right now!

Ed Foster

#4 Posted by EdFoster on June 20, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you kidding me? It is an insult to our intelligence to suggest moving the election to November, especially under the GUISE that it would be ONLY to save us money!!!!!! to further allow this unnessary STRP project along. No.....saving us money would be having the election when it stands, electing the proper people, and stopping the STRP ASAP! Ohmygod....the CM and council really do think we are stupid! They just don't give up! Is it because they are so deep in this doo-doo, they can't allow it to stop under any conditions? How deep are they? Really? Then to remove the comments and adjust the article?? Is this the good 'ole USA 'cause I feel like I'm living behind the iron curtain!!!!!!! I am incensed!

#5 Posted by heebeed on June 20, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed,
You can see the posts that were removed from this story by looking at your old post from yesterday by clicking on your name above.
I still think the NDN should but them back.

#6 Posted by 15yearsmarco on June 20, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if the city would give us a permit for 2000 people to hold a protest rally at city hall?

#7 Posted by 15yearsmarco on June 20, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I smell a boycott a brew'n

#8 Posted by lowus on June 20, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

everyone i know is ready to march on city hall lets have the rally. Oh yes and were can we get nazi flags to let fly around city hall.

#9 Posted by bluebill2 on June 20, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nazi flag may be a little over the top. Maybe the Cuban flag with pictures of the CM and Castro shaking hands smiling at one another. What will we boycott? I have no ideas. Anyone?

#10 Posted by strike3 on June 20, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about bumper stickers that say "Welcome To Communist Marco Island"? we can put them on the trash receptacles too and show support twice a week for this banana republic, I bet the city would love that.

#11 Posted by 15yearsmarco on June 20, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

15years, Good idea. We need more ideas!!! Those of us without a real estate signs in our yards could put up signs with that phrase and with a picture of the CM with a caption reading "Castros Replacement?"

#12 Posted by strike3 on June 20, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have any suggestions about boycotts, but I do know that an ethical person who is up for re-election, or not able to run again whould have said that the question of when Marco's elections should be held in the future should be left to the incoming council and could be revisited then. Those four people on the council that want to extend their terms for 8 months are not behaving ethically.

How convenient that Mr Moss and Mr Jovanovich had the law researched,and that option well prepared for the councils consideration.

#13 Posted by karenglaub on June 20, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ethical? Here? On Marco Island? In city hall? Have you lost your mind? Did you expect anything different from these clowns?

#14 Posted by strike3 on June 20, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. We should hold the election while the STRP IS an issue !!! There are 5,500 homes still not sewered, with only 1,000 of those registered voters on Marco Island. We need to hold this election as soon as possible so the 13,000 registered voters that are condo and home owners (14,000 minus the 1,000) that are on sewer can express their choices as to which candidates they want to lead them into the future. Do they want candidates that will stop the STRP and leave them holding the bag, temporarily or permanently (depending on when the State steps in), or candidates that favor every voter on Marco sharing in the cost and benefits of sewer and wastewater treatment, etc. So, count me in !! The sooner the vote the better, especially if the timing keeps the STRP a hot issue !!! With the utmost sincerety.
Ed Issler

#15 Posted by lauralbi1 on June 20, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is great Ed! I knew you would come around! Please call your friends at city hall and tell them you want to vote in January! They will listen to you! I knew you would see the light....how ever dim the light may be at least you are seeing it.

#16 Posted by strike3 on June 20, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will say though that I just contacted the Supervisor of Elections Office for Collier County. There is some reasoning to hold elections at the same time as the General Elections. Collier County runs about 38% voter participation for Primary Elections (those scheduled in March or in this case, January). For the General Elections (those in November), we run about 64%. In addition, for Primary Elections, those voters that are registered as Independent or not Repubican or Democrat do not get to vote in the Primary Election, Marco issues or not. So, from that standpoint, wouldn't we all want to have our future determined at a time when history shows us we get the most turnout ?? Just a question. Could someone forward this comment to Bob Brown. I promised him I would check into this and this is the only way I know to communicate the information.
Ed Issler

#17 Posted by lauralbi1 on June 20, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed,
This is a Marco issue. There will be more people on Marco in January than in November. There will be a big turn out for this election. I guarantee it. Make it so #1.

#18 Posted by strike3 on June 20, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed Issler
No one needs to forward anything to me as try to keep up with the issues. It is disappointing to see that yesterdays comments have disappeared. I still feel it is important to have everyone vote on our island issues sooner rather than later. Our councilors should not look at extending their own terms as this smells of politics at its worst. If we want to clean up this mess, we need our voters to be strong and come out and vote. January still seems like a more reasonable time as most tempory residents who are registered voters will be back.
Bob Brown

#19 Posted by rcbauburn on June 20, 2007 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

has anyone noticed the "webcam" site that is sponsored by the mariott.....one web cam is inside "capt briens"....bill's son-in-law....graft and corruption are now on webcam.

#20 Posted by van on June 20, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

15yearsonMarco:

Clicking on your name only brings up your own postings. I don't need to know what I posted; I want to see what others posted.

WHAT HAPPENED TO YESTERDAY'S POSTINGS?

Ed Foster

#21 Posted by EdFoster on June 21, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed when you click on your old post you can then click on the story at the bottom and it will pull up the old posts.
I just did it and here is the link.
http://marconews.com/news/2007/jun/18...
public_service_tax_proposal/#c169726

#22 Posted by 15yearsmarco on June 21, 2007 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

#23 Posted by 15yearsmarco on June 21, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

15yearsmarco:

Thanks! The second link seemed to work; at least I recognized some of the postings that appeared after it. But that doesn't answer the question why the postings are not present on this thread. Does anyone besides you know how to find them? I sure didn't!

Ed Foster

#24 Posted by EdFoster on June 21, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

marconews blog lovers in Florida, the United States, Germany, England, etc. . it's time to CELEBRATE! The original 101 blogs can be found on the June 18 story under Island Currents section on Home Page!

#25 Posted by businessguymarco on June 21, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone want to surround and storm Castle Moss. . . . aka City Hall. . . with giant sling shots and fireballs? Maybe that will get their attention.

#26 Posted by businessguymarco on June 21, 2007 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)



Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn: