User profile: wwaldack
Joined: March 15, 2007
Comments posted: 56
Contact wwaldack (log-in required)
Comments by wwaldack
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on September 20 at 7 a.m.
NtJstUrMarco
Janet got up an identified herself, I did not use her address, her name, her tax Id. Nothing was said by me to identify her. ww
Posted on September 20 at 6:55 a.m.
dc5799
your memory is a little foggy. i missed joey's due to prior committment. he neglected to communicate with me. WW
Posted on September 1 at 11:56 a.m.
More on Avenger:
Reply to your comment, "So you can cut and paste from 2008 Lighthouse Point resolutions all you want".
Fact: My extraction from the 2008 Lighthouse Point resolutions was a direct excerpt without being edited. It was not intended to discredit your point that Lighthouse Point has had a fire assessment in place for 10 years.
The following extraction "3. Preliminary Resolution establishing estimated non-ad valorem assessment rate for fire
protection services for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2008 and ending September
30, 2009. (continued)
The resolution as adopted carries the following title:
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-1636
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE
POINT, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE POINT,
FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE FOR FIRE
PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1,
2008; DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL; AUTHORIZING
A PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE THEREOF;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE" could and probably did lead someone to believe that October 1, 2008 was a beginning date.
I guess the tangent issue is that Lighthouse Point, FL does have a Fire Assessment Fee.
Posted on September 1 at 8:01 a.m.
More on Avenger's Request:
City of Lighthouse Point July 8, 2008
Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4
3. Preliminary Resolution establishing estimated non-ad valorem assessment rate for fire
protection services for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2008 and ending September
30, 2009. (continued)
The resolution as adopted carries the following title:
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-1636
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE
POINT, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE POINT,
FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE FOR FIRE
PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1,
2008; DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL; AUTHORIZING
A PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE THEREOF;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
4. Resolution amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
A motion to read the resolution was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
LaMarca, and CARRIED unanimously. City Attorney Cirullo read the title of the resolution.
A motion for adoption of the resolution amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008
was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner LaMarca, and CARRIED 5:0 as
follows:
Yes: Commissioners Long, Gordon, Hasis, LaMarca, and Johnson
The resolution as adopted carries the following title:
Posted on August 30 at 6:49 p.m.
Avenger:
Perhaps, Mr. Issler is not as far off (lighthouse) point as you assume:
FY 2008-2009 Tentative Budget. First Public Hearing and consideration of adopting the tentative annual budget of estimated receipts and expenses for all funds of the City of Lighthouse Point, Florida, for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 2009, and setting the date, time, and place for the second public hearing.
When: Friday, September 12, 2008 at 5:05 p.m.
Where: City Hall Complex, Fletcher Hall, 2200 NE 38 Street
Public Hearing. This is a public hearing at which time the City Commission will receive and consider any comments on the Fire Protection Assessments from the public and affected property owners regarding imposing Fire Protection Assessments for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2008, and collecting such assessments on the same bill as ad valorem taxes.
Lighthouse Point is a fine city confined to much smaller footprint. Some would understand that a more densely populated area is more economical in cost of employees. Not as much open area to maintain, fewer miles of underground utilities to maintain thus fewer employees needed to service different utilities, less fire, police, utility, etc. equipment and personnel required.
I understand Ms. O'Connell's concern but comparison of Apples and Oranges is difficult. Both are considered desirable and healthy fruits but yet very different.
Wayne Waldack
Posted on August 29 at 11:55 a.m.
Fossil (Dr. Ray Parrot):
I admit that John Arceri is a good, honest citizen of Marco Island who has extensive experience (40 plus years) in the electric utility field and served the Citizens of Marco Island as a City Councilman for 8 years. His advice is honest and worthwhile of consideration and he expects and asks for nothing in return. As a concerned citizen, Mr. Arceri has the right to offer his expertise, and he does so without a fee or expected payback.
Mr. McMullen and Fay Biles also seem to be active in offering their advice. Is that also wrong?
It is my duty to seek correct answers and solutions for items that come before me for consideration. John is just one person that I seek advice from and he is a dear friend and he never requests or looks for something in return.
If you have a problem with that, it should remain to be your problem and not mine. I might have sought advice from you, but you always seem so negative. I opt for friends with a more positive outlook.
Why is it that you always seem to attack a people on a personal basis rather than on a factual data?
Wayne Waldack
Posted on August 29 at 8:11 a.m.
Mr. Amadeo Petricca:
I guess that I am beating a dead horse when I call, request and/or suggest that the Marco Island Taxpayer's Association (MITA) should expend some efforts to lobby some or all of the various Collier County Taxing Districts to reduce their budgets.
I would assume that as a Board Member of MITA that your answer to my request is that MITA is going to abdicate or shy away from lobbying the various Collier Taxing Districts with a comment that means "IT IS NOT MY (our) JOB".
What is the purpose of the Marco Island Taxpayer's Association if it is not to lobby for lower taxes wherever they exist?
The surcharges you describe and are paying for on your water utility bill is a.) The 8% subsidy for the STRP is a cost which should have been billed separately; b.) (4) two percent charges are being added to your water bill are for repaving streets. 2 of the two percent are currently on your water bill. Another two (the 3rd of 4) percent is scheduled to be added in October. This is also a cost that should have been billed separately.
It is just less costly to have one bill prepared. In October these should be line itemed on our water/sewer bills. It is important to note that these two items are designed to sunset after the STRP is completed.
The Fire Assessment is designed as a fair and just way for everyone to pay the same for the same service. If you and I go into a grocery store and buy the same item, we both should pay the same amount. You should not pay more and I should not pay less. Same holds true for Fire/Rescue.
Your comment "We as taxpayers on Marco Island can only lobby our elected officials to do what feel is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Marco Island" seems to abdicate and dismiss the mission, purpose and intent of a Taxpayer's Association.
I object to a Taxpayer's Association's Board Member denial of responsibility by saying "It is the responsibility of our elected officials to lobby the Collier County Commissioners to do what is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Collier County. As an elected official, I speak out against the abuse that Marco Island taxpayer's endure by the County Taxing Districts receiving 89% of Marco Island's total tax base.
MITA should lobby the Collier County Taxing Districts more, not less!!!
Wayne Waldack, Marco Island
Posted on August 29 at 12:04 a.m.
Dear Avenger:
It would be my suggestion that you look at the 2007 tax bill which are real numbers.
Again what did you get for 89% of your tax dollars. Figures show that Marco Island again was a donor on Public School Tax dollars. Maybe that does not bother you but it does bother me.
Figures also show that Marco Island, again, was a donor on SWFMD and mosquito control dollars. Maybe that does not bother you but it does bother me.
County taxes, 89% of your tax bill, has dropped its millage rate by 28% since 1996 while the City of Marco Island (11%) has dropped a more substantial 35% since 1997.
If you wish to perceive that the County is doing more for you, God Bless.
The City has given you more for less and the County has given you less for more.
If your are satisfied, good! I am not.
Wayne Waldack
Posted on August 28 at 4:47 p.m.
Dear Fossil and Avenger:
It is my understanding that I am still free to choose my friends. Mr. Aceri did serve the City of Marco Island as a City Council Member with honor and class for 8 years and has approximately 40 years of experience in the electric utility business. I did and do look to Mr. Aceri for advice and council because of his past and vast experiences. He offers me advice only upon request and does not want or ask for anything in return.
It is my feeling that a wise man does not necessarily always have the answer to a question, but does know where to find the answer.
Any comments that I have made in rebuttal to LCEC's presentation, I take full responsibility for their accuracy.
It seems that you have a problem with Mr. Aceri and I will let that remain as your problem.
Have a brighter tomorrow.
Wayne Waldack
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on September 20 at 7:21 a.m.
Fossil = Ray Parrot
Does your car also run on assumption. With no evidence of impropriety you are assuming McMullen.
His email and his letter indicates his major concern is that "the hammer" is to get lower electrical costs for consumers. Is it that you prefer to pay more or would you prefer for the study to get LCEC to charge you less?
LCEC, while being a good service orientated company, has for two years not paid equity checks and has increased your cost of electricty by 39% over 4 years.
If this what you want, stay and defend Mr."I want to pay more".
Someone just wants to stay outside the "Government in the Sunshine" Laws so he can cast negativity on any and all positives. WW
On Letter to the Editor: On resignation