| | | | | | | |  | ITEM 4.
County Attorney - Consent |
|
| | | | | | | | | DATE: | February 18, 2020
| | DEPARTMENT: | County Attorney
| | REQUESTER: | John Fredyma
| | TITLE: | Adopt a Resolution Ratifying and Affirming the Method of Collection for the Gasparilla Island SIU |
|
| | | | | | | | | I. | MOTION REQUESTED | | | Adopt a resolution ratifying and affirming the method of collection for the Gasparilla Island Special Improvement Unit utilizing collection of funding based upon ad-valorem property valuation and assessment to fund the benefit unit. |
|
| | | | | | | | | II. | ITEM SUMMARY | | | When adopted, the stated intention of Lee County Ordinance No. 07-37 was to have the benefit unit become a Municipal Service Benefit Unit, relying on non ad-valorem Equal Unit Assessment of benefitted properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 2007 Ordinance specifically retained the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) assessment terminology and methodology to continue to use ad-valorem property valuation as the basis for property assessments.
The requested resolution will simply ratify and affirm the continued use of MSTU ad-valorem property valuation as the method of assessment. There will be no substantive change to the type or level of services nor any change to the cost of securing funds to cover the expense of those services. |
|
| | | | | | | | | III. | BACKGROUND AND IMPLICATIONS OF ACTION |
|
| | | | | | | | | | A) | Board Action and Other History | | | | In 2007, Lee County Ordinance Number 07-37 was adopted, repealing the earlier Lee County Ordinance Number 06-03. The 2007 ordinance purported the replacement the Gasparilla Island Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) with a Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU), although the established benefit unit would still continue and provide the same services of street lighting and invasive exotic species control within the same boundaries of the existing MSTU.
Notwithstanding the stated intention to have the benefit unit become a MSBU and continue to perform the same services within the same benefit boundaries, Ordinance No 07-37 specifically retained the MSTU assessment terminology and methodology to continue to use ad-valorem property valuation as the basis for property assessments.
Since 2007, the resulting benefit unit has continued to be operated utilizing MSTU ad-valorem property valuation as the basis for assessments to cover the cost of services provided to the properties within the benefit district. The requested resolution will simply ratify and affirm the continued use of MSTU ad-valorem property valuation as the method of assessment within the benefit district to obtain those funds necessary to cover the cost of services being provided to the properties within the benefit district.
There will be no substantive change to the type or level of services provided to the properties within existing benefit unit nor any change to the cost of securing funds to cover the expense of the services provided pursuant to the benefit unit as established under Ordinance No 07-37. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | B) | Policy Issues | | | | There will be no substantive change to the type or level of services provided to the properties within existing benefit unit nor any change to the cost of securing funds to cover the expense of the services provided pursuant to the benefit unit as established under Lee County Ordinance Number 07-37. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | C) | BoCC Goals | | | | Assures timely payment for the services authorized by Ordinance No. 07-37. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | D) | Analysis | | | | The requested resolution will ratify and affirm the continued and appropriate use of ad-valorem property valuation and assessment to cover the necessary costs of the benefit unit. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | E) | Options | | | | Approve the requested resolution to allow continued assessment of properties within the benefit unit to generate the funds necessary to continue providing services authorized by Ordinance 07-37. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | A) | Current year dollar amount of item:
| No funding required. | | | B) | Is this item approved in the current budget? | N/A | | | C) | Is this a revenue or expense item? | N/A | | | D) | Is this Discretionary or Mandatory? | N/A | | | E) | Will this item impact future budgets?
If yes, please include reasons in III(D) above.
| No | | | F) | Fund:
Program:
Project:
Account Strings: | | | G) | Fund Type? | Unincorporated MSTU | | | H) | Comments:
CAO will route final item for execution |
|
| REVIEWERS: | | Department | Reviewer | Action | Date | | County Attorney | Wesch, Richard Wm. | Approved | 1/28/2020 - 7:13 PM | | Budget Services | Henkel, Anne | Approved | 1/29/2020 - 7:24 AM | | Budget Services | Winton, Peter | Approved | 2/3/2020 - 1:54 PM | | County Attorney | Fredyma, John J. | Approved | 2/3/2020 - 2:16 PM | | County Manager | Winton, Peter | Approved | 2/7/2020 - 8:37 AM |
|
|