06-13-1978 Supporting DocumentsCITY OF CLERMONT
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
A Regular Mooting of the City Council of the City of (Vermont was held in
the Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 13, 1978. The meeting was called to
order ut 7:30 P.M. uy Mayor Clnuda E. Smoak,,lr., with the following members
present: Councilman Colo, Schroodol, Byrd, and Haney. Other officials pre-
sent wore: City Manager Tiffany, City Attorney Baird, City Clark Carroll,
Pinanco Director Sanchez, and Chief of Police Tyndal. Others present were:
Mrs. Iloney Joan Smoak, Mr. f Mrs. Gerald Wood, Mr. & Mrs. Ruh Wines, Mr.
P, Mrs. Guorgo Smith, and the Messrs. Linscott, Denham, Czech, Evans, and
Sargent.
The invocation was offered by Councilman Byrd, followed by repenting of the
Pledge of Allegiance in unison by those present.
no Minutes of the Regular Meeting hold May 23, 1978 were approved as
written.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council, sitting as a Board of Adjustment, considered the request
of Goovge 0. Smith for a Variance to Section 26-20 (H)(2) (RIA
URBAN RESIDENTIAL IIISTRICT-SIDE YARD SETBACKS) of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to construct a carport on his property des-
cribed as Lots 261 $ 262 in Indian lulls Subdivision (1055 West
Minnehaha Avenue) that would penetrate into the required side
yard setback by 416". Mr. Smith appeared before Council in support
of his request, advising that lie could construct a carport within
the required setback by extending from his roof line, but in order
to have a free standing structure that he felt would be more en-
hancing, it would be necessary to penetrate the side yard setback.
Mrs. Betsy Wilkes, the abutting property owner of Mr. Smith to tlic
west, appeared before Council in opposition to his request, opining
that the rules and regulations in the City's RIA zoning districts
should be strictly adhered to in order to preserve the neighborhood
values as intended for RIA areas, and because of the close proximity
of her residence and that of the proposed construction, she felt it
would be detrimental to her property. Motion was made by Councilman
Bad seconded by Councilman Schroedel and carried that the re.auest
fin don;nd- Mayor Smoak voted in the negative on passage of the motion,
advising he did so inasmuch as a carport extended from the roof line
would be allowed as previously mentioned by Mr.Smith, and if a variance
would allow for a more desirable appearing structure that that which
is presently allowed, lie was in favor of the request being granted.
A Variance to the side yard requirements for corner lots had been
requested by Mr. Gerald Wood in order to construct a residence on
his property located on the corner of Third Street and Minneola
Avenue, however, upon being advised by Mr. Wood that the proposed
construction would face Minneola Avenue and the abutting property
to the rear would also be a rear yard, City Manager Tiffany advised
that this would be allowed as provided in Ordinance 167-C and a
variance would not be necessary. Motion was made by Mayor Smoak._
seconded by Councilman Iloney and carried that the required filing
fee as posted by Mr. IVood for the variance request, be refunded.
SEMINOLE WELL
City Manager Tiffany advised of several problems which had
arisen when the Seminole Well was connected to the City's water
distribution system, and that they had been turned over to the
Project Engineer, Dawkins f, Associates, for their analysis and
recommendations. City Attorney Baird was requested to research
He contractual agreement with Dawkins $ Associates regarding the
liability of the project engineers in the matter.
CITY IIALL/POLICE STATION WORK
City Manager Tiffany advised that no bids had been received for
the proposed conversion of jail space to offices at the Police
CITY OF CLRRd10NT
MINUTES
Station, and the City hall exterior ropairs, and he would thereby
recommend that separato quotations be sought for the panel scaling
and uxtorior painting at City hall, and that the staff be authorized
to contact qualified contractors and attompt to nogotiate for the
Police Station work. Motion was made by Mayor Smoak, soeondod by
Councilman lionay and cart that t to Mrutapor s recommen nt ens ba_
accepted._
COUNTY WID11 LIBRARY SYSTEM
Councilman Sehroodol, liaison representative to the Library Board,
advised of a communication rocei.ved from Mr. Mike Willet, County
Planning Director, wherein it meeting would he called the lattor
part of June to further discuss a possible county wide library
system.
SEWAGE PRETREATMENT
Mayor Smoak advised that the City was urged by the Lakc County
Pollution Control Board to initiate advanced treatment of phos-
phorous removal from the City's effluent, and following considerable
study by the city staff, City lingineer Springstcad, and Pollution
Control Director Wicks, it was their recommendation that the chemical
FOS be used in the sanitary sower collection system for phosphorous
treatment and also for hydrogen sulfide control, which is presently
being treated by hydrogen peroxide. City Manager Tiffany submitted
a proposal from Mavis Meter f, Supply to install the necessary tanks,
on a rental basis or direct purchase, and to supply tite PeS chemical,
commercially sold as Odophos, as follows:
Install 2 - 2,500 gallon tanks to remain tilt
property of Davis Chemical Company for sole
use of Odophos storage 0 $1500;
Sell direct and install 2 - 3000 gallon tanks
@ $3,000 each
It was tite suggestion of Mayor Smoak, and Council was in agreement,
that City Managcr Tiffany seek further proposals from other suppliers
in order that a competitive cost might be obtained, before any
action is taken.
ALARMS
City Managcr Tiffany inquired of Council approval to advertise
for proposals from alarm service companies to install and maintain
a central alarm monitor console for the Police Station to replace
the complex arrangement of 13 alarms and variety of electronic
gear now existing and terminating at the Police dispatch desk.
lie further advised such installation and maintenance would be at
the alarm system owner's expense, and all would be previously
notified of the proposed change. Motion was made by Councilman.
Byrd, seconded by Councilman honey and carried that the necessary
LABOR DAY FIREWORKS DISPLAY
Mayor Smoak reported on a communication from the Chamber of
Commerce wherein they advised they had voted to drop the
sponsorship of the annual fireworks display on Labor Day,
and inquired if the City would desire to take over the project.
They further advised that tite cost for last yea rI.s_display had
been $700. Motion was made by Councilman Schroedel, seconded by
Councilman Cole and carried that the City not participate in
funding a fireworks display, Councilman Honey voted in the
negative on passage of the motion, opining that it was a
popular traditional annual event that was looked forward to by
many people in the community.
CITY OF CLSR,110NT
MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A step- y-scup review of the proposed Comprohonslvo Plan Summary
was made by Council whereby many amendments were introducod In
order to reduce the many specifics that are proposed and create
a more generalized plan that would better enable future Councils
during the next twenty your period to cope with. Motion was mad
by Dl::yar Smoak that Cit Dlnna or fan be rccuesto to submit
cnunri I :,t his earl est on»orto'ity, n cam»loto tantati
allahassee that contains all the ossential elomonts of the
hat p,ivos the Cit tho greatost degree of floxibilit in a
io mot on wa:, secon c by Councilman Ilonoy and unan
ADVANCE REFUNDING
Mr. Ben Benham of Southeastern Municipal Bonds,Inc. and I1ond Counsel,
Jerry Linscott, appeared before Council to advise that tl:e possible
problem of a refunding issue because of the existing issue with
Farmers Home had been resolved inasmuch as it could be defoased
legally, and that in conjunction with the City Staff, the proposed
Resolution had been re -drafted for Council's consideration. They
advised further that time is of tl:e essence for execution of tl:e
Resolution inasmuch as the recent U.S.Treasury mandate set a dead-
line date for closing as of September 1st which requires publish-
ing and appeal period time prior to that, but that the Resolution
could be still further amended, if desired by Council, prior to the
validation hearing. They advised the issue would present a front
end present value savings 0 $36,000 and $120,000 at term. Finance
Director Sanchez inquired if the Council could withdraw their
decision for a refunding issue after the Resolution is adopted,
whereupon Messrs. Benham and Linscott advised that this could be
done without obligation on the part of the City up to tl:e time
that the bonds are signed. It was the request of Mayor Smoak, and
Council was in agreement, that Bond Counsel furnish to Council in
writing their legal opinion and recommendation that every area being
addressed is legal and that no bond covenants of existing bond
ordinances would be violated, and that such opinion and recommendation
be submitted to Council prior to the validation hearing. The re-
quest was accepted by Mr. Linscott. Councilman Honey tl:ereu»on,
offered and moved the adoption of A RESOLUTION pROVIDING FOR Tl1r
n une nr.
REVENUE 60NDS SERIES 1978, OF T118 CITY OF CLERMONT. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Byrd and unanimously. carried. The Re-
solution was read by Gity Clerk Carroll, by title only, and the
Number 313 assigned to it.
CLERMONT'S REVENUE: STRUCTURE:
Following a suggested priority item for fiscal year 78-79 by
Mayor Smoak that the City Manager and Finance Director review
the city 's funding structure to determine if an additional ad
valorem tax reduction could be initiated, Mayor Smoak advised
of a most complete and informative report of the City's current
revenue structure, detailing all taxing areas within the authority
of the City, as presented by them in writing for an informational
guide in their 78-79 budget deliberations. In a summation of the
report, Mr. Tiffany advised of suggested areas for further study
and possible revisions by Council as follows:
(1) Restructure utility Tax to a flat
rate, with or without a cap;
(2) Increase effective Utility Tax rate
and reduce ad valorem taxes pro-
portionally;
(3) Restructure sewer service and sanitation
charges to eliminate possibel unfair ad-
vantage for multiple -family and mobile
home residents;
CITY OF CLERMONT
MINUTES
(4) Increase rates to cover full cost of sowor
service, or alternatively place It new utility
tax on water service to hall) reimburse the
gonoral fund for its annual subsidy;
(5) Investigate grant funding, pos:;ibly with the
assistance of a consultant spocializing in
this complicated aroa; and,
(G) Review so-called minor revenues for possible
adjustments.
PARK LAND ACQUISITION
-With regards an important roc ommendntloll of the currant Compre-
hensive Plan, as it also was in tl;e 1967 Plan, wherein the City
attempt to obtain additional property adjacent to existing city
owned recreational facilities, it was the City Manager's ro-
commendation that he be authorized to negotiate for purchase of
the property, reporting his findings back to Council for action.
Motion was made by Mayor Smoak, seconded b Councilman Ilono and
cnrrio t;at tis recommen ation a uccc to
RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES
Councilman Honey offered and moved the adoption of A RESOLUTION.
UNITS,OF�LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE ORLANDO METROPOLITAN "208"
PLANNING AREA IN T11E IMPLEMENTATION OP TIIE "208" PLANNING PRO-
GRAM anti the motion was seconded by Councilman Byrd and unani-
mousl carried. The Resolution was rend by Lity Clerk Carroll
y title only, and the Number 312 assigned to it.
Councilman Schroedel introduced AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, PROVIDING FOR FRONT YARD
SETBACKS FOR DWELLINGS, AND THE ORDINANCE. was read for a first
reading by City Clerk Carroll, by title only.
=ROAD AND BRIDGE TAX
Mayor Smoak reported on a communication from the Lake County
League of Cities wherein they were soliciting Resolutions from
the various County municipalities as to their positions on the
County Road and Bridge Tax in order to forward the results to
the County Commissioners during their budget preparation
hearings. They further advised that last year eight cities
favored retention and six cities favored deletion. Inasmuch
as it is State mandated that the County Commission levy a
Road and Bridge Tax, motion was made b Councilman Byrd,
seconded by Councilman Iloney an carric ttat a Resolution
be ldopte urging a reduction in the County Road and Bridge
Mil.la.ge for fiscal year to -IV.
There being no further business to be brought before the Council at this
time, the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Smoak at 9:45 P.M.
NA XUA
r,
Dolores W. Carroll - City Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
Pursuant ,to, State Law notice is hereby given
that the City Council sitting as a Board of
Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing in the
Council Chambers located on the corner of
W st Avenue and DcSoto Streets on Tuesday,
June 13, 1978 at approximately 7:30 P.11.
'ilia following purpose:
To consider a request by George 0. Smith
for a Variance to Section 26-20 (E)(2)
(R-IA URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT -SIDE YARD
SETBACKS) of the Zoning Ordinance in order
to construct a carport on his property de-
scribed as:
Lots 261 f. 262
Indian Hills Subdivision
(1055 W, Minnehaha Avenue)
All interested parties will be given an
opportunity to express their views on the
matter.
Dolores W. Carroll,City Clerk
City of Clermont, Florida
.June 1, 1978
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEy„.,,;.
l ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF iNE CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA
APPLICANT
NAME: George 0. Smith
ADDRESS: 1055 W, Minnehaha Ave.
Gentlemen:
Having posted the necessary $25.00 appeal fee with the City Clerk, I hereby make
application to your Board for relief from a decision of the Building Official of the City
of Clermont, whereby I was refused permission to:
Repair ( ), Add to ( ), Alter ( ), Construct W ), Move and Place ( ), a (sign) building
on lot/s 261, 262 , Block -----------
Subdivision Indian Hills , Address 1055 W. Minnehaha Ave. ,Zone RI A
Section of Code RI A Section 26-20 E 2 in the City of Clermont, Florida.
The reason given by the Building Official for the decision in refusing to issue a
building permit is:
Penetration of nine (9) foot required side yard of four (4) foot six (6) inches.
My appeal to your Board is based on my contention that this decision creates a
hardship on me for the following reason, or reasons:To be able to park my 31 foot travel
trailer beside my home. The trailer must be protected from moisture, tree sap and
mildew caused by the very large oak trees. Without the requested protective shelter,
it would be necessary to remove a number of limbs and I'm not sure that would get the
job done. This trailer represents an approximate $14,000 investment. Thanks for your
considerationP.
Seven (7) copies of all necessary floor plans, plot plans, and other pertinent infor-
mation are attached hereto, on paper size 831" x 14" minimum size.
I submit that I qualify for this variance because I have an exceptional and unique
hardship on my particular parcel of land that is not shared by property owners in my area.
A strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives me of the reasonable use of my land
and the granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
I have been notified that this Variance Application must be filed with the City Clerk
no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, two (2) weeks prior to the Council meeting at which time
Variance will be considered. I also understand that when any variance is granted, construction
of the structure must be completed within one year from date of grant.
Date: May 24, 1978
Very truly yours,
0
s/ George 0. Smith
5/17/77
PLEASE PRINT OTYPEr
' 9
1 >: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF ONE CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA
APPLICANT Goorge 0. Smith
NAidE • ..�. —
ADDRESS: 1055 W.. Minnohaha Ave.
Gentlemen:
Having posted the necessary $25.00 appeal fee with the City Clerk, I hereby make
application to your Board for relief from a decision of the Building Official of the City
of Clermont, whereby I was refused permission to:
Repair ( ), Add to ( ), Alter ( ), Construct (X ), Move and Place ( ), a (sign) building
on tet/s 261--262 Block ..._
Indian Hill 1055• W. Minnehaha Ave _,Zone H_
Subdivision Address
Section of Code_ / A q °ii�l� 2 4 " z a e 2 in the City of Clermont, Florida.
The reason given by the Building Official for the decision in refusing to issue a
building permit is:
Paw a?'t aT� s M
My appeal to your Board is based on my contention that this decision creates a _
hardship on me for the following reason, or reasons: To be able to park my 31 foot
travel trailer beside my home. The trailer must be protected from moisture,
tree sap and mildew caused by the very large oak trees. Without the requested
protective shelter it would be necessary to removeha number
o rlimbsents
and I'm not sure that would get the Pb done.
an approximate $14,000 investment. Thanks for your consideration.
Seven (7) copies of all necessary floor plans, plot plans, and other pertinent infor-
mation are attached hereto, on paper size Bn;" x 14" minimum size.
I submit that I qualify for this variance because I have an exceptional and unique
hardship on my particular parcel of land that is not shared by property owners in my area.
A strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives me of the reasonable use of my land
and the granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
I have been notified that this Variance Application must be filed with the City Clerk
no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, two (2) weeks prior to the Council meeting at which time
Variance will be considered. I also understand that when any variance is granted, construction
of the structure must be completed within one year from date of grant.
Date: 5 —,? #- 78
Very truly yours.
George 0� Smith
5/17/77
IX, SITE OR PLOT PLAN For Applicant Use
N�
~"^~~~'-^' ~° 1101 �°""°""CODE °~~~~"DII^'~,^~IOIAL.INC.
F
-)d1l n/ Ovollold
u 1 Wool, Onlo ploro • Clormort, Florldo 02711 ■ Phono! (004) 394,3141
Nay 26, 1978
SEE REVERSE
ItE: LOTS 261, 262, INDIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION
(1055 W, Hinnehaha Avenue)
Dear Sirs:
As an abutting and/or adjacent property owner within 150' of the
above mentioned property, you will please be advised of the attached
described request for Variance that shall be considered by the
Clermont City Council, sitting as a Board of Adjustment, on Tuesday
June 13, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
All such requests are considered in Public Hearing, .and.you are ?
invited to be present to express your views on the matter.
Si cerely,
Dolores W. Carroll
City Clerk
DWC/js
Attachment
FLORIDA'S FINEST INLAND RESORT -RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Mr. Bobby L. Wilkes
1059 W. Minnehaha Avenue
Clermont
Ms. Cynthia Schuster and
Ms. Sandra Schoenholz
1623 4th Street
Clermont
Nina C. Smith
368 Montrooe
Clermont
Opal Bailey
c/o Clermont Motor Lodge
P. 0. Box 842
Clermont
John C. Smith
1070 W. Minnehaha
Clermont
Veryl Blystone
1060 W. Minnehaha
Clermont
Cecil D. Misner
1050 W. Minnehaha
Clermont
z
'I
LEGAL NOTICE
Pursuant to State Law notice is horehy given
that the City Council sitting, as a Board of
Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing in the
Council Chambers located on the corner of
onuc and DcSoto Streets on Tuesday,
June 13,'4978 at approximately 7:30 I'.M, for
Md fo'llowing purpose:
To consider a request by C. Gerald Wood for
a Variance to Section 26-45 (SIDE YARD SET-
BACKS ON CORNER LOTS -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
construct a residence on property described as
Lot 11 and W 25' of Lot 12
City Block 21
(corner Third Street and
Minneola Avenue)
All interested parties will be given an opportunity
to express their views on the matter.
Dolores W. Carroll, City Clerk
City of Clermont, Florida
June 8, 1978
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.,.,
Tl ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF TIIE CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA
APPLICANT
NAME:__ G- Gornld Wood
ADDRESS: 401 4th Street, Clormont,Plorida
Gentlemen:
Having posted the necessary $25,00 appeal fee with the City Clerk, I hereby make
application to your IBoard
for relief fromsa decision of the Building Official of the City
of
used
Repair ( ), Add to ( ), Alter ( ), Construct (xx), Move and Place ( ), a (sign) building
Lot 11 and W 2., of Lot 12 Block 21
on lot/s ��
Subdivision City Blocks , Address Corner 'third $ Minneoln Ave. ,Zone I12
Section of Code 2645 (side Yards Corner Lots) in the City of Clermont, Florida.
The reason given by the Building Official for the decision in refusing to issue a
building permit is:
15- setback instead of required 25' setback
on Third Street corner lot.
My appeal to your Board is based on my contention that this decision creates a
hardship on me for the following reason, or reasons:
Destroys view of Lake and close to trees.
Part of building would be over setback
on back, also less fill required.
Seven (7) copies of all necessary floor plans, plot plans, and other pertinent infor-
mation are attached hereto, on paper size B!i' x 14" minimum size.
I submit that I qualify for this variance because I have an exceptional and unique
hardship on my particular parcel of land that is not shared by property owners in my area.
A strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives me of the reasonable use of my land
and the granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
I have been notified that this Variance Application must be filed with the City Clerk
no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, two (2) weeks prior to the Council meeting at which time
Variance will be considered. I also understand that when any variance is granted, construction
of the structure must be completed within one year from date of grant.
Date: June 2 1978
Very truly yours,
s/ C. Gerald Wood
5/17/77
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE .......
TL 1 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA
APPLICANT� /
NAME: 11-_��* f - a Lc�G.;( v c� ten-- J _
ADDRESS: /Df ?7-
7//
Gentlemen:
Having posted the necessary $25.00 appeal fee with the City Clerk, I hereby make
application to your Board for relief from a decision of the Building Official of the City
of Clermont, whereby I was refused permission to:
Repair ( ), Add to ( ), Alter ( ), Construct (�'), Move and Place ( ), a (sign) building
on lot/s 4o-6 I I �(211_,f / n t /a ,Block /
Subdivision--L-L4 .%3/= yL' , Address__, � Zone��
Section of Code(, �� J�4/a' i�irA��01R AO/Jin the City of Clermont, Florida.
The reason given by the Building Official for the decision in refusing to issue a
building permit is:
/S � JCT �/ �c� /•�'S/ c�c� � �$, � S�� ��c:�t� o -cam
.3 )-57_ G'oli ,v e v
My appeal to your Board is based on my contention that this decision creates a
hardship on me for the following reason, or reasons: z Ozz'5/ofC��4�� �e C)c>'�
a te' ./ o'/'- X -Z > 5 : // )-If u t )- e
Seven (7) copies of all necessary floor pland, plot plans,Cand other pertinent infor-
mation are attached hereto, on paper size 8," x 14" minimum size.
I submit that I qualify for this variance because I have an exceptional and unique
hardship on my particular parcel of land that is not shared by property owners in my area.
A strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives me of the reasonable use of my land
and the granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
I have been notified that this Variance Application must be filed with the City Clerk
no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, two (2) weeks prior to the Council meeting at which time
Variance will be considered. I also understand that when any variance is granted, construction
of the structure must be completed within one year from date of grant.
Date:
Very truly yours,
Pj
5/17/77 t
C. CERALD WOOD Va
8 i Wuul auto plono ■ Clmmonl, Plmldn 32111 ■ Phoim; (004) 004.0141
June 5, 1978
SU 1114VERSE
RE: LOT 11, AND W 25' OF LOT 12, CITY BLOCK 21
(Corner of Third Street and Minneola Avenue)
Dear — — — — —
As an abutting and/or adjacent property owner within 150' of the
above mentioned property, you will please be advised of the attached
described request for Variance that shall be considered by the
Clermont City Council, sitting as a Board of Adjustment, on Tuesday
June 13, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
All such requests are considered in Public Bearing, and you .are......
invited to be present to express your views on the matter.
Si cce(r�ely,
Dolores W. Carroll
City Clerk
DWC/js
Attachment
FLORIDA'S FINEST INLAND RESORT -RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Ralph E. Milbrath
284 Minneoln Avenue
Clermont
Edward J. Schoenholtz
285 Osceola Street
Clermont
Phillip F. Rorabaugh
297 Osceola
Clermont
Clarence Kepple
1184 Lakeview Drive
Clermont•
F. F. Fling
550 Third Street
Clermont
Alger P1. Granger
330 Minneola Avenue
Clermont
Albert M. Johnson
329 Minneola Avenue
Clermont
C""•
,.�4 �1 ��
y `' T ate.
._ � '�o� `Y p.
`� � �.
,��.
��'i ��� �-��
>� �<.
� ���.
c3^`^c �`
lip j
� o_ ~� .�
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: City Hall/Police Station Work
DATE: June 9, 1978
Sid openings were scheduled for two projects on June 8: (1)
conversion of jail space to offices at the Police Station; and (2) City
Hall exterior repairs. No bids were received.
We seem to have three alternatives:
(1) Delay the projects indefinitely;
(2) Re -advertise after a brief time, perhaps with
project changes; or,
(3) Negotiate for the work with one or more qualified
contractors.
The City Hall work could be reduced in scope to two separate jobs -
sealing panels and exterior painting. I recommend that we seek quotations on
this reduced scope of work.
— - We have a serious space problem at the Police Station and I consider___
additional space to be an urgent need. The scope of the work could be reduced
somewhat, however, by deleting some cabinet work.
I recommend that you authorize the staff to contact qualified con-
tractors and attempt to negotiate for the Police Station work.
Gord n Tiffany
� Gl�
cc: City Clerk (6/13/78 Agenda)
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Sewage Pretreatment
DATE: May 31, 1978
For over a year we have been adding Hydrogen Peroxide (Hp02) to the
raw sewage in the collection system to treat for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). This
chemical pretreatment is necessary because sewage becomes septic before reaching
our treatment plant due to the long detention time in the collection system.
Sewage becomes septic when the aerobic (oxygen -using) bacteria use
up all of the oxygen, allowing the anerobic bacteria to take over. The anerobic
bacteria produce hydrogen sulfide which not only smells bad, but forms an
explosive gas and an acid which will seriously deteriorate the collection system
if not controlled.
Adding controlled amounts of Hydrogen Peroxide provides enough oxygen
to control these problems. This chemical pretreatment costs about $30 to $35
a day.
Alternative methods of H2S control have been considered, including
mechanical aereation and chlorine pretreatment, but their cost is also high.
We now recommend using the chemical FeS, commercially sold as Odophos._._._...:._.__.
This chemical not only controls H2S, but it reduces the phosphorous content of
the effluent. Phosphorous is one of the two pollutant elements that must be
controlled to protect water quality.
Attached are two letters from Davis Meter and Supply outlining their
proposal to supply Odophos. If we purchase the necessary tanks instead of
renting them, we would be able to use another supplier if one becomes available
offering a better price for the chemical.
The cost of this pretreatment would be about the same as we are now
spending for Hydrogen Peroxide, plus $3000 to purchase, or $1500 to rent, the
required two tanks.
Pollution Control Director Ted Wicks has reviewed this plan with Preston
Davis, John Springstead, and I. After study, we all recommend that the chemical
be tried as a phosphorous -treatment and H2S control measure. We have already
started the chemical monitoring required to see what happens to phosphorous when
Odophos is used.
When John Zoltek was consulted about this proposal, he stated that the
Marshland Study can be carried on with only minor adjustments, to recognize the
better quality effluent.
I recommend that the City Council authorize purchasing necessary tanks
and accessories from Davis Meter. as outlined in the attached May 26 letter, and
the use of Odophos in the collection system to control Hydrogen Sulfide and to
reduce phosphorous. Awm_'
'Gordon Tiffany
cc: City Clerk w/attachments (6/13/78 Agenda)
DAVIS METER & SUPPLY dims.
51"c 19311 werni _ ....—__....__...__.....-
1�. o. is„x 1at��
'm1011ASVII,I.,1{, GISORGIA 31792
1'hnnr 912-226-5733
April 25, 1978
Mr. Preston Davis
Superintendent of utilities
City of Clermont
Clermont, Florida
Subject: Odophos Application
Hydrogen Sulfide and Phosphate Reduction
Dear Mr. Davis:
Hydrogen Sulfide is one of the severest problems in the wastewater
field. Odophos can aid your collection system of most all odors and
corrison from application point on.
- Odophos not only will reduce your hydrogen sulfide to less thanll_Mg/L,
but will also do the following:
(a) Reduce the phosphate as (P) in treatment plant effluent to
less than 1 Mg/L.
(b) Increase the solids concentration in the digester to more
than 30,000 Mg/L or 3%.
(c) Improve sludge density and thereby improve the sludge de -
watering capaW iti.es.
(d) Improve the solids removal through the additional floeculants
provided by the Odophos.
All of this can be achieved by using Odophos in lieu of any other pro-
duct on the market today.
The cost for achieving the above will be approximately $33.00 per day.
If you only wanted to reduce hydrogen sulfide, the cost will be approxi-
mately $25.00 per day. These figures are based on 10 PPM of hydrogen
sulfide and 10 PPM of phosphate as (P), with an average daily flow of
400,000 GPD.
SERVICE CENTERS
• THOMASVILLE, GEORGIA • FT. LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA • ORLANDO, FLORIDA • NASHVILLE, TENNESSE E
• KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE • TUCKER, GEORGIA • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
• RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA • COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA • CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA
• MEMPHIS,TENNESSEE • VIRGINIABEACH.VIRGINIA
i
Pago 2
Mr. Preston Davis
DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY would propose to install 2 - 2,500 gallon tanks
in the collection system for a charge of $1,500.00. These tanks would
have concrete decks and a manway covered by plywood (26" x 2611). These
tanks are approximately 12' 6" x 9' 6" x 5' 0". Also would be all piping
to drip Odophos in manhole or wetwell by gravity. These tanks would
remain the property of DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY for sole use of Odophos
storage.
There will be a 30-day trial period, at the end of which the City of
Clermont will accept the Odophos and pay for the installation and Odophos
at that time refuse and DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY will have 30 days to
remove the storage tanks.
DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY can begin delivery within 2 weeks after receiving
this signed letter by you and/or a purchase order from the City of Cler-
mont.
Yours truly,
DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY
Hal Davis
Sales Representative
HO/mmb
Date:
DAVIS METER, & SUPPLY div.
May 26, 1978
RCCEIVEp
MAY 3 0 1978
P. 0. Ilex 1,119
TIIONIASVII,LE, CI OaGIA 31792
I'll IV 912.226-5733
P. 0. Box A
Tallevast, FL 33588
Mr. Preston Davis
Director of Public Works
City of Clermont
Clermont, Florida
Ref: Odophos Storage Tank Sale
Dear Preston,
Per our telephone conversation on May 25, 1978, Davis
Chemical agrees to sell the City of Clermont two (2)
3,000 gallon top half inverted concrete Odophos storage
tanks. Each tank will be installed on City property
with all necessary piping and valves for Odophos feed,
for gravity system. This will not include any excavation__.
of the tank, but will include burial of all piping. The
cost of each of these tanks is $3,000.
Thanking you,
DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY
Hal Davis
SER VICE CENTERS
• THOMASVILLE, GEORGIA • FT. LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA • ORLANDO, FLORIDA • NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE -
•KNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE • TUCKER, GEORGIA •JACKSON,MISSISSIPPI •JACKSONVILLE,FLORIDA
• RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA • COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA • CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA
� y
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Alarms
DATE: May 24, 1978
Attached is a legal ad and list of proposal requirements for a
central alarm monitor console for the Police Station. We now have 13 alarms
(3 residential, 10 business) terminating at the Police dispatch desk. The
alarm terminals cover a wall with a variety of electronic gear.
Most cities find, as we now do, that a point is reached when alarm
monitors must be standardized. The attached sheets give details of how we
propose to do this. In brief, the City would select a single qualified alarm
contractor to install and maintain alarm equipment at the Police Station at
the alarm system owner's expense. Equipment at the home or business could be
installed and maintained by any qualified company.
Most cities which have gone to this setup have found that the
initial fee to alarm system owners is $40 to $80 with a monthly fee of $5 to
$10 for equipment maintenance and rental.
With your approval, we will advertise for proposals from alarm
service companies, and notify all alarm system owners of our intentions.
Gordon Tiffany
cc: Chief of Police
City Clerk (6/13/78 Agenda)
007110111
8 I Wou1 Cate Plaza ■ Clermont, Florida 32711 0 Phone: (004) 394.3141
LEGAL NOTICE
The City of Clermont solicits proposals for the installation and
maintenance of an alarm monitoring console to be located at Clermont
Police Headquarters. Installation and maintenance to be at vendor's
expense. The latter will provide alarm service to alarm companies
and local businesses on a fee basis.
The City will consider all aspects of proposals including, but not
limited to: customer rates; compatibility of equipment with
existing alarms; ability of vendor to provide timely installation
in compliance with U.L. specifications and to provide timely
repair service for console and users.
Detailed listing of proposal requirements is available from City
Manager, City Hall, P. 0. Box 219, Clermont, Florida 32711. Proposals
will be accepted by the City Manager at City Hall until 2:00 P.M.,
July 7,. 1978, at which time they will be publicly opened. The
City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals.
Gordon Tiffany, City Manager
City of Clermont, Clermont, Florida
June 22, 1978
FLORIDA'S FINEST INLAND RESORT -RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
r
+ CITY OF CLERMONT
Polka DepprtmenilL armor toying Units
Proposal Requirements
1. Provide an effective Alarm Monitoring Unit at the Clermont Police
Station, located at West Avenue and OeSoto Street, Clermont, Florida.
2. The unit must have capability to handle minimum of 50 subscribers, must
be recognized by Underwriters Laboratories as meeting industry standard and
safety requirements, should have fire and burglary reporting capabilities.
3. Installation, service and maintenance will be at no cost to the City
of Clermont.
4. Panels, cabinets, and consoles must have minimum space utilization
design and must not require any major remodeling or alterations of the building.
5. Receiving display panel must require minimum indoctrination period
for dispatchers.
6. Attach brochures, pamphlets or any informative data available on type
of equipment you propose to install. Include model numbers and their specific
functions and capabilities.
7. Include specific breakdown of rates to be charged to subscribers in
addition to a guaranteed subscriber rate structure over a period of 5 years.
U. Include statement regarding ability to provide timely installation
of equipment and repair services to subscribers as well as to centralized Police
monitoring unit. Include maximum response time for service to alarm monitoring
unit at Police Station.
9. Vendor must agree to provide services to any and all firms or individuals
in the City of Clermont on an impartial basis, and must agree to cooperate with
current subscribers and alarm companies in transferring the monitoring function
to new location without interruption of service. (Present location is currently
monitoring fifteen stations.)
10. In addition, the following specific information must be provided:
a. Time between authorization and complete installation
of monitoring equipment.
b. Legal name and address.
C. Location from which technical and repair services
are dispatched, and method of dispatch (radio, telephone).
d. Statement of ownership.
e. Copy of most recent financial statements by an
accredited accountant.
nt that
rm is in
pliance with
fEqualmEmploymeitiOpportunitynrequirements. Federal
g, Statement of whether or not firm would be willing
to post a Performance Bond during first year -of
service if required.
h, State whether or not your representative would be
available to make a personal presentation, elabor.
ating on your proposal before the City Council, if
required.
i. Statement of your understanding that the City of
Clermont reserves the right to accept or reject any
and all proposals.
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Special Report of Clermont's Revenue Structure
DATE: June 9, 1978
"To taa: and to ptcaoe, no more than to Zove and be wise, is not given �totitannund Burke
This special report is an overview of our current revenue structure. It
is intended to stimulate City Council discussion and consideration of our total
revenue structure, perhaps leading to policy changes.
Revenue Sources. Our current budget breaks down nineteen General Fund
revenue sources under these four classifications: City Taxes; User Fees; Shared
Revenues; and Other Revenues. Additionally, the Utility Fund has two major and six
minor revenues. The City Council has direct control over the first two General Fund
classifications and all Utility Fund revenues, but this control is limited by State
law.
Budgeted Revenues. Table I shows revenues budgeted this year as a percentage
of their respective fund's revenues and as a percentage of all City revenues.
Note that the three taxes (ad valorem, utility, franchise) that count toward
"local tax effort" account for about a third of our City revenues, and that of these
three items, ad valorem taxes account for 20% of our total budget. The concept of,.....
local tax effort is explained later in this report. Water sales, sewer service, and
sanitation fees total about 40% of our revenues. Intergovernmental revenues, including
Federal and State Revenue Sharing, and County Road and Bridge Tax, total over 20% of
our budget.
Principals. A review of basic tax concepts helps put our various revenue
sources into perspective.
A progressive tax distributes the cost of government according to ability
to pay. Under this concept, the higher a person's income, or property value, spending,
etc., the higher the percentage that is taken in taxes.
A regressive tax is the opposite - lower income persons pay a higher tax
rate than those with higher incomes.
A proportional tax takes an equal percentage of income from all. Higher
income persons therefore pay more dollars under a proportional tax than lower income
persons, even though the rate is the same.
Generally, tax economists feel that proportional taxes (equal rate "across
the board") are proper for local finance, leaving to State and Federal government
progressive taxation.
Although the concepts of progressive, regressive, and proportional taxes
generally are thought of in terms of income (as for income tax), the principals apply
equally whether the tax base is spending (as in sales taxes and utility tax), property
value (ad valorem), or other tax base.
1
When the benefit received can be fairly measured, user fees are appropriate.
Attached is a list of six generally accepted "criteria of a good revenue
system" from the standard municipal finance text.
AD VALOREM TAX
J
The non -voted milage cap in Florida is 10 mils. Clermont's 5 mils is
therefore half of the legal maximum. Of the fourteen Lake County municipalities,
Clermont's milage is sixth highest. This tax provides about 20% of our total City
revenues.
City taxpayers pay 18.996 mils total, so our City milage is 26.3% of the
property tax bill.
Our current 5 mil tax rate is expected to yield about $237,000 this year
on an assessed valuation of about $47.5 million. We budget only 95% of the total
levy to account for assessment adjustments and non -payments. Our budget therefore
anticipates $232,094 in ad valorem taxes, which includes funded homestead exemptions
(94% reimbursed by the State), and mobile home license fees.
The chief disadvantage of the ad valorem tax is its position as probably
least popular local tax. Reasons for its unpopularity are that it is highly visible,
appearing all at once on a single tax bill, and that it is inflated by increased
assessments which relate to increased property values. Of course,property_ values
as reflected by assessments tend to rise most rapidly during times when the taxpayer's
real income is most erroded by inflation. Other taxes, such as the State s sales
tax, may take a larger portion of individual income, but they are not as visible
as the local ad valorem tax.
A significant advantage of the ad valorem tax is that it is deductible
from Federal Income Taxes. For those taxpayers who itemize deductions there may be
a significant advantage to paying a tax instead of an equal amount in non -deductible
user fees such as water, sewer, and sanitation fees.
According to newspaper reports, a recent state-wide study showed that the
ad valorem tax was the local tax most closely related to ability to pay.
UTILITY TAX
Clermont charges utility taxes on electricity, local telephone service,
metered gas, bottled gas, telegraph service, and fuel oil. The fuel oil tax is
not collected, however, because of a ruling in 1958 that it was not authorized by
the Statute.
Chapter 21 of our Code of Ordinances, passed in 1957, levys these monthly
utility taxes as 10% of the first $10 plus 1% of amount over $10 monthly. Therefore,
anperson with a $10 electrical
$83 bi11 wiII pay$1.73tax (211%)i11Theyhigher xthe ubill, the s the $10 l�person th
owerthetax rate�.
This regressive tax apparently falls more heavily on those persons least
able to pay. Because the percentage of tax decreases as consumption increases, it
does nothing to encourage conservation.
2
,I
Most Florida cities now levy a flat across-the-board percentage tax, which
avoids the regressive nature of the tax and better ties the tax to increasing costs
of government. A flat percentage will yield proportionally increased revenue as
utility bills are increased.
The following table illustrates the effect of our Utility Tax formula:
Individual dill Tax Effective Rate
$ 100 $ 1.90 1.9%
80 1.70 2.1
60 1.50 2.5
40 1.30 3.25
20 1.10 5.5
10 1.00 10
Clermont's Utility Tax rate has not been changed for over 20 years and it
no longer reflects either modern taxing theory or common area practice. A typical
monthly electrical bill is 1957 was closer to $10 than it is now, so the effective
rate was much higher then.
Attached is Table II which is a list of selected area cities showing their
Utility Tax formulas. Note that Clermont is tied with Mascotte as having the lowest
effective and most regressive tax of these area cities.
The most common tax formula in the State is a flat 10% on utility bills.
Because of our graduated rate scale, the effective tax rate on electrical service
here was about 2.5% in 1976-77.
Florida Statutes 166.231 is the authority for this municipal public
service tax' (utility tax)authorizing a rate "not exceeding 10% of the payments received
by the seller", excluding fuel adjustment charges. Although there has been a movement
in the State Legislature toward a tax based on units consumed (kilowatt hours, therms,
gallons) instead of monies collected, the Statute appears not to authorize such an
approach now, and no Florida city uses a unit base for the tax.
Last year we collected $63,308.63 in Utility Taxes from these sources:
Florida Power $ 35,566.42 56.2%
Florida Telephone 22,317.21 35.3
Lake Apopka Gas 4,043.33 6.3
S.E. Public Service 1,086.01 1.7
Edge Merchantile 251.94 •4
Suburban Propane 43.72 .1
TOTAL 33,308.63 100.0%
Our bond covenants pledge utility tax revenues to debt service if proceeds
of the water and sewer system are insufficient, and prohibit us from decreasing these
taxes.
In summary, our Utility Tax structure is regressive and because it is so
low compared to other area cities, it forces higher ad valorem taxes than would other-
wise be needed. Revision of this tax warrants serious consideration.
3
FRANCHISE• FEES
In addition to ad valorem and utility taxes, the other City tax collected
is the lly not
e t
franchise
This fee is
to doabusinessrinlly a tax at Clermont anda,
tousetCityhright-o
of -way for utility purposes.
The following is a list of franchise fees collected during 1976-77:
Florida Power $ 86,171.96
Florida Telephone 904.50
Lake Apopka Gas 5,515.90
Teleprompter 3,613.70
Dunip-Al 1 12483.35
TOTAL $ 95,689.41
Franchises are granted for a number of years by franchise ordinances, which
include the fee formula. Since none of our franchises are due for renewal, we do
not have the option of changing them now.
CITY UTILITY CHARGES
jy y1 Utility Rates. For the current year we expect to subsidize the water and
vr'sewer fund from general fund revenues by about $60,000. Our water system is self-
i supporting (indeed, it helps support the sewer system), but sewer rates are too low
Y' to cover costs.
Our sewer service fees are based on a formula which is intended to
approximate the cost of providing these services to each account.
One possible flaw in the sewer rate formula is the considerable "break"
that multiple -family buildings and mobile home parks receive where the full charge
applies only to the first apartment or mobile home space, and all others are charged
only 50% of the base fee. This exception does not appear to be reasonably related
to the cost of treating sewage.
Sanitation Rates. Total sanitation revenues appear to be fairly related
to the total cost of providing this service. We will be able to better document
the actual cost of this service after another year, because we plan to separate
sanitation into a separate fund for the 1978-79 fiscal year, as we implement the
new uniform accounting system.
Like sewer rates, there appears to be an inequity in our sanitation rate
schedule. Mobile home spaces and multiple -family units served by individual water
meters are charged the full single-family sanitation fee, while apartments and
mobile homes served by a central water meter are charged only half the regular fee
(except for the first unit charged at the full rate). This exception does not appear
to be related to the cost of providing sanitation services.
Utility charges are not deductible from individual income taxes, nor do
these revenues count toward our local tax effort (discussed later) to increase our
share of Federal Revenue Sharing and Anti -Recession funds.
4
1111111®I�10®
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Intergovernmental revenues are an increasingly important source of income
for Clermont, now contributing over 20% of our total budget.
State Revenues. State Revenue Sharing, consisting of cigarette and gasoline
taxes, will total $150,000, or over 12% of the budget, this year. We do not control
any factor of the State Revenue Sharing formula.
Federal Revenues. Federal Revenue Sharing and Anti -Recession Fiscal
Assistance wfTT tota per aps $90,000 this year, nearly 7.5% of the budget.
Federal Revenue Sharing (FRS) is allocated to municipalities by a complex
formula which relates population, per capita income, and local tax effort. In a
sense, municipalities compete with each other on a county -wide basis for FRS funds.
Cities with higher local tax collections and lower per capita income receive more
money per capita. The only one of the three factors that we control is tax effort.
We roughly estimate that one mil in ad valorem tax collections influences
the FRS formula so that FRS "matches" the $49,000 ad valorem tax with about $2300 in
revenue sharing that would not be received otherwise.
The Federal Anti -Recession Fiscal Assistance (ARFA) formula is the FRS
formula plus an unemployment factor. We therefore also receive increased ARFA by
increasing local tax effort.
The important thing to remember here is that only local taxes are matched
in this way, not user fees, water, sewer, or sanitation charges, permit fees, etc.
Only ad valorem taxes, utility taxes, and franchise fees count toward local tax effort.
Grants. Revenue sources which Clermont has not used significantly (except
for Sewage Treatment Plant construction) are Federal and State grants.
Grants are available for a wide range of special purposes. They have
become an increasingly important source of funding for special projects in cities
across the country.
The chief arguments for not seeking Federal grant money are (1) loss of
local control ("strings") and (2) time and expense of seeking grants and administering
them.
Prime arguments in favor of seeking grants are (1) they make possible programs
and facilities that could not be financed locally, and (2) in reality, the money is our
federal taxes, and if we don't get it back with grants, it will go elsewhere.
If we decide to seek Federal grants, a grant consultant could make our
efforts much more effective. Grants that are consistant with local priorities that
are not unduly burdened with "strings", and that are not unreasonably difficult to
administer should be considered to provide facilities in Clermont.
5
j
County Road and Bridge Tax. The County levies a special ad valorem
milage (currently .82 mils) county -wide to build and maintain county roads and
bridges, and under State law, must return one-half of the amount collected in each
municipality to the respective City. In effect, our residents are paying .41 mils
to the County and .41 mils to the City for road and bridge maintenance.
MINOR REVENUES
Occupational Licenses. A State law freezes local occupational tax rates
at the level charge in 1971. Although our rates are badly outdated and no doubt
contain inequities, we cannot effectively review them unless this freeze is lifted.
Other Minor Revenues. We have many categories of permit, application,
license, rental, sales, and service fees. Individually these fees fo not account
for much revenue, but each should be periodically reviewed for fairness and adequacy.
SUMMARY
This brief review of our revenue structure suggests areas for further
study and possible revisions:
(1) Restructure Utility Tax to a flat rate, with or without a
cap; _.
(2) Increase effective Utility Tax rate and reduce ad valorem
taxes proportionally;
(3) Restructure sewer service and sanitation charges to eliminate
possible unfair advantage for multiple -family and mobile home
residents;
(4) Increase rates to cover full cost of sewer service, or alter-
natively place a new utility tax on water service to help
reimburse the general fund for its annual subsidy. (A new
utility tax instead of increased rates would add to our local
tax effort.);
(5) Investigate grant funding, possibly with the assistance of
a consultant specializing in this complicated area; and,
(6) Review so-called minor revenues for possible adjustments.
ordo�h'l iffany
cc: City Clerk (6/13/78 Agenda)
6
�J
L
rn
M
m
O
C
�
C
c
m
�a
a
�r�o a
-�
onmmtnv,ov mcb
roIOD-
w
c
r
>•s rr
a
r
rro C
�c aaw
'D
• •
r rr m o •., �
m
S
r,v,rn`v
m
I all
o� n� •t o
"I
0
m
r�
7, ro w
z
fD :0 w ro . N
roOro�ro
.�
OGo>=.,a
-{
-f j ry m
ro w 7 ro O w N a w B
C T m X
m
•C
a
-G
IG • N C
m n
r7
O
c �• to ;n m m
m
m
N T
w fl,IDN P,
-n
C
T
C
N C. N N ro N (D N
m
mc
m
(AzO
N
VI
p
c0 N N N —I
VCmI
C h w m x
C
CA)
O N N
m
m
ro > >
o
c
m
rro c
rn
N
'•c a
N
fn
C3333
9
N
I-�
W
mW
1-+ F+
V Ol
00 m
L11
F-• F-• N N
W 1-• al W !-• A W O Ol W
O
l0
t0
A O to
O
O O to O A to Ol cn V N
O
O
O W OOOONUlOOO
c
10
N
00
N
NOO
N O O
O O O O O O O O O O w
0
l0
O1
O
000
rT
OOONOOOOOOA
C+
ra
V W
m
m
v
c�
m
m
m
Cl
a
�7
m
C
c
o
m
z
o
�o rna
1IA
O
W NO V AW UI p1NV W
m.
0 a,
o
W O1 0 0 01 W I--• A l0 VQ
a o
< -h
rn
2OE
CltJl
D
az
0
c
ro
N
[7
rF
O
CDO
N
N W W
Il0
O
l0
N1-+OAN t0 W-'0���
ZQ
O
W
l0 fil
(.Tl OVA l0 V VlV NQl Vt NM'
M
32
32W
ZA
r
�
G
rD
N
J
I;.
CRITERIA OI' A GOOI) RL'VENl1E SYSTEM
'I'hc cfficlency and vitality of lord self-government dolItend a great licit[ on
how local govermnent is financed. As municipalities scclt to wcogthen and
broaden their rcvcnuc systems, they need to observe certain considerations to the
best of their ability, among them the following;
I. The revenue system should be adequate to meet it local government's
reasonable needs. 1•11is means that the yield of important sources of
revenue should not be unduly sensitive to cyclical ccononmic fluctuations
and, therefore, a hazard to fiscal stability, Local governments havc little
opportunity for deficit financing (except in capital project financing)
and, thus, trust ordinarily maintain balanced hudgets, An inconmc tax, for
example, either as a local tax or as a shared state tax, is cycle -sensitive
and may not produce the sanmc stability of yield as sonic other taxes.
'nnii is particularly true if liberal exemptions and deductions from
income are allowed.
?. A revenue system that stirs tear consciousness anfog all the Voters is
much to be desired. If all arc clearly aware that they have sonic share
in financing the cost of their local government, they are likely to be
:note responsible in staking decisions on the purposes and methods of
spending. On the other hand, political leaders nyay, at times, find it more
convenient to enact revenue nirtsures that tend to obscure cite rrditics.
i. Features of the local revenue .system that are barmful to the local econ-
omy are shortsighted. 'I'hc system should have as little adverse effect as
possible till economic growth, Also, frequently t•ondeumed as unjust
and shortsighted, however, is the use of discriminatory local tax excnp-
tions and preferences for economic promotion.
4. 7'here is wisdonn in avoiding very bfgb tax rates. Very high rates can
create economic distortion, fecal:cn rcvcnuc sources, and generate ad-
ministrative problems. ['hey cola be pardilk, avoided in large cities
through time use of more than one major source of revenue; in most
small lord governments, they are less successfully avoided without
great local ingenuity and good state -local cooperation.
s. [lase of administration is an important test of the suitability. To be
acceptable for a given municipality, any source of revenue must be
susceptible of fair, efficient edminisn•ation svirhout undue administrative
expense or undue cost and inconecnience resulting from taxpayer non-
compliance. In this regard, Troth the size and the administrative com-
petence of the governnmentsl unit are also decisive factors.
r. Faiets of equity most be brought into or souse of balance. On the one
hand, many students of the problem loot; only at the incidence of the
taxes and,accordingly, can point to many kinds of local revenue
nmc•asures which are regressive in character; that is, the contributions of
lower income groups are greater proportionately to their incomes than
those of middle and higher income groups.
1b counterbalance this consideration, however, there is another
major facet of equity which is frequenrly overlooked by those who advo-
cate tax rates that are proportionate, or even progressive, in relation to in.
conic. This much overlooked consideration relates to the services being
received. 'Thus, the lower income groups are frequently the major
recipients of, or the cause of, local government expenditures. Hence,
if rases were levied in relation to bcoclits received, the rites upon the
lower income families as a group would be substantially higher.
Of even greater importance is the fact that several levels (local, state, and
fcder l) of "progressive" taxation pyramid"I one on top of cite next can produce
very adverse cunnlative effects. 'There is a respectable body of thinkers who
believe that proportionate taxation at the local level is suflicicnt, leaving to the
state and federal governments (perhaps only the latter) the responsibilitq• for
serious attention to progressive raxation and income redistribution.
The rCS0IUti0o of these conflicting concepts of equip• is a political problem
of the first order. This work does not attempt to offer a solution, but merely
to call attention to these competitive concepts of equity.
8
I
C i ty
TABLE II
SELECTED AREA UTILITY TAXES
Utility*
f t�
Rate
Apopka
E,
T,
W
10%
up to $7.50
Astatula
E,
T,
P
5%
CLERMONT
E.
T.
G. F.
P
10%
first $10; 1,%„thereafter
Eustis
E,
T,
W, G,
F, P
10%
first $100
Fruitland Park
E,
T,
P
B%
Groveland
E
4%
T
10%
to limit of $3
Leesburg
(City
Owned
Utilities)
Maitland
E,
T,
W, F,
P
10%
Mascotte
E,
T,
G, P
10%
first $10; 1% thereafter
Minneola
E,
T,
G, P
10%
Mount Dora
(City
Owned
Utilities)
Ocoee
E,
T,
W, F
10%
Tavares
E,
T,
W, P
10%
Umatilla
E,
T,
W, P
10%
first $25; 5% next $975;
2%
thereafter
Winter Garden
E,
T,
V
10%
first $75; 5% thereafter
W
10%
G
$.34
per 1,000 gallons
* Utility: (E) Electricity
(T) Telephone
(W) Water
(G) Natural Gas
(F) Fuel Oil
P Propane
(V) Cable T.V.
Source: State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, 1976-77