The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12112002 REGULARCITY OF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 2. 3. 4. SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002 -7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Father Morrissey of St. Sebastian Catholic Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL City Council Present: Mayor Walter Barnes Vice-Mayor James Hill Mr. Joe Barczyk Mr. Edward J. Majcher, Jr. Mr. Ray Coniglio Staff Present: City Manager, Terrence Moore City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Airport Director, Jason Milewski Stormwater Engineer, Ken Jones Finance Director, Mark Mason Growth Management Director, Tracy Hass Police Chief, James Davis Public Works Director, Terry Hill Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Two 02.194 02.133 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS) Items not on the written agenda may be added only upon a majority vote of City Council members (R-99.21) None. PROCLAMATIONS~ ANNOUNCEMENTS Completion of Advanced Institute for Elected Municipal Officials Certificate to Councilman Coniglio Mayor Barnes presented Councilmember Coniglio with his Certificate of Completion. B. Pride in Sebastian Award for New Construction to the Sea Crest Building 02.133 J 02.249 02.249 Mayor Barnes presented the Pride in Sebastian Appreciation Award to Vance Houdyshell, for the Sea Crest Building on US 1. C. Pride in Sebastian Award for Renovation to The Villaqe Mayor Barnes presented the Pride in Sebastian Appreciation Award to Mr. Robert Bruno, for Phase I of the Village on US 1. ELECTION MATTERS Reading of Mayor's Election Proclamation - Calling 3/11/03 General Election (Proclamation) Mayor Barnes read the proclamation calling the March 11,2003 General Election. Bo Resolution No. R-02-52 - 3/11/03 General Election Matters (City Clerk Transmittal 12/1/02, R-02-52) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL POLLING PLACES AND OFFICES TO BE FILLED DURING, AS WELL AS AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE AND DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATION FOR, THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 11,2003; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Three 02.044 The City Attorney read the resolution by title. MOTION by Hill/Coniglio "Move approval of Resolution No. R-02-52." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 PRESENTATIONS/AUTHORIZATIONS Presentation by REG Architects, Inc. Relative to the New City Hall And Police Station Expansion Rick Gonzalez, REG Architects, Inc. gave a brief presentation on the proposed new City Hall and Police Station expansion. Authorize New City Hall & Police Facility Expansion & Renovation Project, and Authorize Phase II & III Architectural Services with REG Architects, Inc. (GSA Transmittal 12/4/02, Exhibit A & B) MOTION by Barczyk/Hill "Move to authorize the New City Hall and Police Facility Expansion And Renovation Project, and authorize Phase II & III Architectural Service with REG Architects, Inc." ROLL CALL: Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Four 02.080 B. 13-14 Presentation by Henry Iler of lPG, Inc. Concerninq the Findinq of Necessity Report for the Proposed Expansion of the City's Existing Community Redevelopment ^,qency to Include the "Trianqle" Bounded by CR512 and the FEC Railroad (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, Report) Henry Iler, lPG, Inc. briefly presented his finding of necessity report relative to the CR 512 "triangle" and the possibility of including it in the existing Community Redevelopment District. The Growth Management Director said incorporation into the existing redevelopment district would be the next step upon acceptance of the finding which occurs later in this agenda. He then responded to questions from Council regarding existing uses, stating that once a property was abandoned it would have to come into compliance with future zoning regulations by a new owner. Mr. Iler said master planning will be conducted and it will take into consideration how industrial zoning can be made compatible with other zoning designations. Council members expressed concern that current business owners in this district are protected as this planning process moves forward, and that public involvement in this process and other city planning projects is imperative. Mr. Barczyk requested that CR 512 be referred to as Sebastian Boulevard. MOTION by Coniglio/Majcher "1 move we accept the finding of this report and authorize staff to proceed with contract negotiations with Mr. Iler for implementation of phase II of the CRA expansion project." ROLL CALL: Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 4 Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Five 02.016 C. Presentation by CDM, Relative to the Stormwater Master Plan Eric Groetke, CDM, introduced Doug Moulton and Danielle Gephart, who distributed a draft of the Stormwater Master Management Plan to City Council and gave an overview by power point presentation. Doug Moulton presented the Hydraulic Modeling Results and cited specific problem areas and recommended solutions as cited in the report; and Danielle Gephart reported on the Pollutant Load Analysis. Mr. Groetke responded to questions from City Council relative to whether hard piping of swales would reduce maintenance needs, noting there is currently a shortfall in detention areas, a need which would be increased by piping. The City Manager said staff will be coming back with a recommendation to adopt the Stormwater Master Plan in January which will include recommendations specific to appropriate methods. Mr. Hill said he did not see anything here that touched on maintenance of the front yard swales and said average citizens want to hear what their stormwater assessment is going to do to relieve their individual problems. Mr. Moulton said the models only show the primary system which does not include the front swales, but the idea is that fixes to the primary system will relieve the secondary systems. Mr. Groetke said scenarios can be presented in the final report which exhibit what different methods can relieve and will cost. 9. CONSENT AGENDA All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a member of City Council so requests; in which event, the item will be removed and acted upon separately. A. Approval of Minutes - 11/13/02 Regular Meeting 02.262 Authorize Councilman Coniglio's Attendance at Florida League of Cities Local Government Leadership Class VIII - 2003 (City Clerk Transmittal 11/21/02, Form) 02.250 Co Resolution No. R-02-56 - Vacation of Easement - Duffy, Lots 6 & 7, Block 221, Sebastian Highlands Unit 8 (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, R-02-56, Map, Staff Report, Application, Letters) Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Six A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENTS OVER LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 221, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 8; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR RECORDING; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. 02.080 Resolution No. R-02-57 - Finding Deteriorated Economic Conditions In the CR512 Triangle Area (GMD Transmittal 12/5/02, R-02-57) 02.251 53-58 02.210 59-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, FINDING BLIGHT IN THE CR 512 TRIANGLE AREA AND DECLARING A NECESSITY FOR REHABILITATION AND REDEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. Authorize the Release of the Unity of Title - Ed Arens, Lots 19 & 20, Block 226, Sebastian Highlands, Unit 6 (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, Release, Letter, Surveys) Authorize the Mayor to Execute Interlocal Agreement Between Indian River County and the City of Sebastian for Small Business Impact Fee Abatement Program (City Attorney Transmittal 11/15/02, Agreement) 02.252 63-80 02.253 81-84 Authorize the Execution of the Proposed Legal Services Consultant Agreements with both NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A. and SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP (City Attorney Transmittal 12/5/02, Agreements) Approve Thursday Night Bridge Group Christmas Party Request at Yacht Club on Thursday, December 19, 2002 from 6:30 to 10:00 p.m. NB (Public Works Transmittal 12/4/02, Application) 02.254 85-88 Approve Wedding Ceremony at Community Center on February 1, 2003 from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. NB (Public Works Transmittal 12/4/02, Application) 02.255 89-90 Waive Bidding Procedures and Authorize a Three Year Contract Between the City of Sebastian and Total Print, Inc. for the Printing of The City's Community Newsletter (Pelican Brief) in the Amount of $8,700.00 Per Year (City Manager Transmittal 12/3/02) 02.256 Authorize the Expenditure, Not to Exceed $62,000 for the Purchase of Diesel and Unleaded Fuels from Port Petroleum as Per the St. Lucie County School BOard Term Contract as Described (GSA Transmittal 12/4/02, Bid Tab, Bid Award, Contract) Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Seven 02.257 L. Authorize the Purchase of a Long Arm Tractor from Nortrax for $95,278.11 Pursuant to State Contract and Appropriate $20,278.11 from the Discretionary Sales Tax Un-appropriated Funds (Stormwater Engineering Transmittal 12/4/02, Quote, Picture) 02.258 M. Authorize Three Year Unit Price Contract Between the City of Sebastian and Allied Tube and Conduit, Lowest Bidder to Supply Traffic Sign Posts and Accessories on As Needed Basis (Engineering Transmittal 12/4/02, Bid Tab) 02.259 N. Authorize the Appropriation of $7,500.00 and Approve the Purchase of Integrated Security Management Software and Video Badging System from Security One Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $10,067.40 (Airport Transmittal 12/5/02, Bid Tab) 02.260 O. Authorize the Payment of $25,650 to Environmental Land Management Corporation for Off-Site Wetland Mitigation at Sebastian Municipal Airport (Airport Transmittal 12/5/02, Invoice) Mr. Barczyk removed item A. MOTION by MajchedBarczyk "1 move to approve consent agenda items B-O." ROLL CALL: Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 Item A Mr. Barczyk noted on the last page of November 13th minutes he meant for the yacht club boat ramp to be pressure cleaned. Also he would like to see a permanent prohibition of parking on one side of Coolidge Street. MOTION by Barczyk/Hill "Move to approve agenda item A as amended." Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Eight ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 10. PUBLIC HEARING 02.053 Second Public Hearing - Resolution No. R-02-50 Authorizing the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Neiqhborhood Revitalization Application (City Manager Transmittal 11/4/02, R-02-50, ad) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN--S FISCAL YEAR 2003 FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, The City Attorney read the Resolution by title and the City Manager briefly explained the re-submittal of the grant application. Mayor Barnes opened the public hearing, however there was no input. MOTION by Majcher/Coniglio "Move to adopt resolution No. R-02-50." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 · Authorize the Commitment of a $350,000 Match from the City of Sebastian's FY 2002-2003 Budget for the Louisiana Avenue Area CDBG Improvement Program (City Manager Transmittal 11/4/02) MOTION by MajchedConiglio "Move to authorize the commitment of $350,000 matching grant from the City of Sebastian's FY2002/2003 Budget for the Louisiana Avenue Area CDBG Improvement program." Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Nine ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor' Barnes - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 02.005 127-156 Bo First Public Hearing Ordinance No. O-02-18 -Implementinq a Telecommunications Tower Regulatory Ordinance - 2nd Hearing Scheduled for 1/8/03 (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, O-02-18) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO CREATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 54-6, ARTICLE XXIII STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 1St reading 11/13/02, PH 1/8/03 The City Attorney read the ordinance by title and the Growth Management Director briefly described the ordinance language. Mayor Barnes opened the public hearing, however there was no input. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "Move to hold a first public hearing for Ordinance No. O-02-18 and schedule a second public hearing for January 8, year should be 2003, I believe, as corrected." ROLL CALL: Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 Mayor Barnes called recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:43p.m. All members were present. Mayor Barnes reported that the motion on the City Hall complex did not include the amount or appropriation and asked for a corrected motion. Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Ten MOTION by Barczyk/Coniglio "Correction then on my motion. Move to authorize new city hall and police facility expansion and renovation project, further authorize agreement for architectural services for phase II and III with REG Architects, Inc., for a fee of not to exceed $607,078 as described, and appropriate funds for the same." ROLL CALL: Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 02.247 157-162 Second Reading and Public Hearinq Ordinance No. 0-02-19 - Modifying the Accessory Structure Requlation Section of the Land Development Code (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, O-02-19) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CITY CODE SECTION 54-2-7.5 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 1st reading 11/13/02 The City Attorney read the ordinance by title and the Growth Management Director briefly described the ordinance language. Mayor Barnes opened the public hearing, however there was no input. MOTION by Barczyk/Coniglio "Hold second reading and public hearing and move to pass Ordinance No. O-02-19. ROLL CALL: Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 ]0 Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Eleven 02.224 D. First Readin,q and Transmittal Hearing for Ordinance No. O-02-20 - An Ordinance Amendinq the Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, 0-02-20, Improvements) AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY Of SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the ordinance by title and the City Manager said the recommendation initiates the capital improvements program and will bring the City into full compliance with the Department of Community Affairs. Mayor Barnes opened the public hearing, however there was no input. MOTION by Coniglio/Barczyk "1 move 'staff recommendations'." Mr. Coniglio pointed out the motion included transmittal to the Dept. of Community Affairs. ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 02.124 Resolution No. R-02-55 - Uniform Method of Collectinq Non- Ad-Valorem Assessments (Finance Transmittal 12/5/02, R-02-55) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES; STATING A NEED FOR SUCH LEVY; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the resolution by title and the City Manager stated this allows the City to collect non ad-valorem assessments if the question relative to solid waste collection passes. Mayor Barnes opened the public hearing, however there was no input. Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Twelve MOTION by Majcher/Barczyk "Move to adopt resolution No. R-02-55." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC Item that has occurred or was discovered within the previous six months which is not otherwise on the agenda - sign-up required- limit of 10 minutes each speaker None. 11. COMMrl-FEE REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Construction Board 02.051 Interview, Unless Waived and Appoint One Regular Member, Engineer or Architect, Position (City Clerk Transmittal 11/19/02, application, ad, board member list) City Council interviewed Michael Wolf. MOTION by Barczyk/Coniglio "Move to appoint Mr. Wolfe, to the--is he going as an alternate or regular member--regular position on the construction board until 9/30/2003." ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Thirteen B. Temporary Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee 02.115 Interview, Unless Waived and Appoint One Regular Member Position Who Resides in District B and One Reqular At-Large Member Position (City Clerk Transmittal 11/19/02, applications, ad, board member list) It was noted that both applicants were qualified to apply for the at-large position, however, neither was eligible for District B and that position will be re-advertised. Ms. Keaton was interviewed by Council. MOTION by Coniglio/Majcher "1 make a motion to appoint Ms. Keaton to the regular member position--I'm sorry the regular at-large member position to expire January 1st, 2005." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 12. OLD BUSINESS 02.079 Ao Authorize the Purchase of the Velocity Service Center Facility from A & B Enterprises, Inc. for a Lump Sum Payment in the Amount of $280,000, Subject to all Conditions as Outlines in the Attached Proposal (Airport Transmittal 12/5/02, Agreement) The City Manager recommended authorization and the City Attorney noted the submittal of page two of the agreement during the recess, and described a layout map (see attached) which shows how the agreement will be set up. MOTION by Coniglio/Hill "1 move to approve the purchase of the Velocity Service Center Facility from A & B Enterprises, Inc. for a lump sum payment in the Amount of $280,000.00 subject to all conditions as outlined in the attached proposal." Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2002 Page Fourteen ROLL CALL: Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 The City Manager advised council a written proposal was submitted to the other project tenant before the Thanksgiving holiday. 02.261 Bo Request by Herbert Sturm to Remove Recorded Lien on Property Located at Lot 4, Block 62, Sebastian Hi.qhlands Unit 2 - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 92-6345, 92-6348, 92-6418, 92-6436 (City Manager Transmittal 12/2/02, 11/14/02 Sturm letter; 9/13/00 minutes; 8/23/00 transmittal; 5/27/98 Settles memo; 5/27/98 minutes; chronological list; recorded orders) The Chief of Police reported that Code Enforcement looked at Mr. Sturm's property from his driveway and everything appears to be in compliance at this time. The City Attorney said Council can forgive whatever it wants, and asked that any such motion be to remove the debt rather than releasing a lien on specific property. MOTION by Coniglio/Majcher "1 make a motion to forgive." Mr. Hill expressed concern that this was the catalyst of all Mr. Sturm's problems and wondered why it could not have been done earlier. ROLL CALL: Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 14 Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Fifteen 13. 02.044 NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. R-02-53 - Reaardine Reimbursement of Certain Costs Relating to the Acquisition and Construction of Certain Capital Improvements Involving the City Hall Complex Expansion (Finance Transmittal 12/3/02, R-02-53, Memo) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, REGARDING INCURRENCE OF DEBT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVING CITY HALL COMPLEX; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager discussed this and the next agenda item relative to bond opportunities for the proposed capital improvements at this time due to Iow interest rates. The Finance Director said cost efficiency and reduction of insurance costs is the reason for doing both of these bonds at the same time. He described the process which will result in selling the bonds in March or April. In response to questions from Council he cited a current rate for the city hall complex of 3.97% and 4.45% for stormwater, said the 9.5 million for the complex will include all improvements for the new city hall, existing city hall building, police facility expansion, furniture and funds left over for improvements to the nine acres behind city hall. Discussion followed on EPA 319 grants and other agencies moving projects ahead in light of current economic conditions. The City Attorney said the stormwater money would have to be used or else it would have to be returned as stated in the ordinance. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "Move to approve Resolution R-02-53." ROLL CALL: Mr. Majcher - aye Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 ]5 Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Sixteen 02.016 B. Resolution No. R-02-54 - Regarding Reimbursement of Certain Costs Relatinq to the Acquisition and Construction of Certain Capital Improvements Involving Stormwater Utilities (Finance Transmittal 12/5/02, R-02-54, Memo) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, REGARDING INCURRENCE OF DEBT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVING STORMWATER UTILITIES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the title. MOTION by Hill/Majcher "1 move to approve Resolution No. R-02-54." ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye Roll Call carried 5-0 14. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS The City Attorney said the Supreme Court requires attorneys to do so much pro bono work per year and he requests to represent his church in a probate matter. He asked Council's permission to act as the attorney on record to probate an estate which will benefit his church. VOICE VOTE carried 5-0. 15. CITY MANAGER MATTERS Wished everyone a happy holiday. 16. CITY CLERK MATTERS Wished everyone a happy holiday and peaceful 2003. Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Seventeen 17. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS A. Mayor Barnes Wished everyone a happy holiday and peace on earth. 02.010 Appoint Member to IRC Parks & Recreation Committee Mayor Barnes said this should be advertised, was advised that Mrs. Barczyk and Mrs. Jessup from the City Parks and Recreation Committee were interested, and he requested that this item be put on a January agenda for interview of applicants. 02.235 Report on Strategic Planning Process Mayor Barnes briefly reported on the Strategic Planning Process that he attended on November 14, 2002, and which will result in a one page vision statement which will be presented in the near future for Council. 02.067 Appoint Two Additional Members to MPO Technical Advisory Committee Appointed Tracy Hass and Jason Milewski as the additional technical committee members. 02.067 Appoint One Additional Member to MPO Citizen Advisory Committee Advised that this item also be advertised and brought back in January for interview of applicants. Congratulated the City Clerk on achieving her second sustaining level with her certification. He recommended drafting a letter to MPO requesting that Fleming Street extension project be moved up a notch on the proposed plan and received full consensus of Council. B. Mr. Hill Wished everyone and safe and happy holiday. ]7 Regular City Council Meeting December 11,2002 Page Eighteen C. Mr. Maicher Reported on a call about the committee formed to review the County water assessment and inquired of the Attorney what they had found. The City Attorney said the group found the City had pretty much given away its authority and the group fell apart. D. Mr. Barczyk Described handouts he distributed prior to the meeting relative to growth in Indian River County, and St. Johns River Water Management. Said he attended a FAA Study on Noise Abatement meeting this morning and that Jason Milewski will be a member of the board. There will also be another member from the city announced in late January or early February along with meeting times and dates. E. Mr. Coniglio Asked about placing Tut Connelly's letter regarding advisory committees on a future agenda. Concern about FEC Railroad barricades on Main Street. The City Attorney said they are asserting their turf on the east side of the tracks. Mr. Coniglio suggested a letter be sent asking for breakaway access for emergency vehicles. The City Attorney said the City could legally not require it since access to the buildings is from the front. The City Manager stated he would continue verbal discussions with the Railroad. Requested that committee reports and recommendations be moved up on the agenda so people won't have to sit and wait for interview so long. Council agreed to move it to right after the consent agenda. He wished everyone a merry Christmas. 18. Being no further business, Approved at the Jan. 8, 2003 Walter W. Barnes Sa-'~A. ~lai~, cDc City Clerk~ Mayor Barnes adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Regular Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET December 11, 2002 Resolution No. R-02-50 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET December 11, 2002 Ordinance No. O-02-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO CREATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 54-6, ARTICLE XXlII STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NAME NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET December 11, 2002 Ordinance No. O-02-19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CITY CODE SECTION 54-2-7.5 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO CREATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 54-6, ARTICLE XXIII STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET December 11, 2002 First Reading and Transmittal Hearing for Ordinance No. O-02-20 - An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element (GMD Transmittal 12/4/02, 0-02-20, Improvements) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET December 11, 2002 Resolution No. R-02-55 - Uniform Method of Collecting Non- Ad-valorem Assessments A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES; STATING A NEED FOR SUCH LEVY; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC SIGN-UP SHEET DECEMBER 11, 2002 REGULAR MEETING "New Business" as used herein, is defined as an item that has occurred or was discovered within the previous six months USE THIS FORM ONLY FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS NOT OTHERWISE ON THE PREPARED AGENDA*- LIMIT OF 10 MINUTES PER SPEAKER If the item on which you wish to speak is on the printed agenda, do not sign this form. The Mayor will call for public input prior to Council deliberation on each agenda item. Please raise your hand when he calls for input. Name: New Subject: Name: New Subject: Name: New Subject: Name: New Subject: Name: New Subject: Name: New Subject: 2. That the closing date for said transaction is January 2, 2003, at which time Tenant shall present City with a Bill of Sale and an Affidavit of Ownership for all said improvements with the exception of the following fixtures: a) Overhead lights b) Compressor c) Office HVAC system d) Storage racks e) Alarm system Said excepted fixtures may be removed and retained by Tenant upon vacating the premises as set forth below. 3. Tenant may continue to occupy the improvements purchased hereunder until January 1, 2004. After said date, all items of personal property and retained fixtures must be removed or the same may be demolished. 4. During the extended occupancy period set forth above, all remaining terms of the Southern Lease shall continue in effect, and Tenant shall make only the rentals payments required under said lease. 5. There is an additional parcel of land contained in the Northern lease that shall have its use severely restricted as a result of the Project, containing 0.2878 acres more or less as depicted in the schematic attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Tenant shall also cease to occupy said parcel as of January 1, 2004. 6. The parties have agreed that Tenant's operations impacted by the Project shall be reestablished on a parcel located at the northeastern comer of the intersection of Runway 9 and the western taxiway. The general layout of said replacement parcel is shown on the attached Exhibit "B". 7. Upon closing of the transaction hereunder, Tenant is hereby given an irrevocable license enter onto the lands depicted in Exhibit "B" for purposes of preconstmction activities and site preparation for reestablishment of the impacted facilities. ONTENTS ge 1 )2 Legislative Highlights 2002 Legislative Highlights ge 2 · ector's Message ge 3 mmary of Growth tnagement. Legislation ge 6 int School ~nning Initiative "There is no issue more important to Floridians than dealing mith the impacts of our groining population. Addressing the impacts of Florida's gro~vth is not an option; it is a necessity, and me must do better. I~ith the strong s~port of Governor Bush, the Florida Legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation containing comprehensive revisions to growth management statutes. V~e kok forward to carrying it forward zvith our public and private partners." ge 7 w Plan' Amendment 3cass ge 8 w. Plan Amendment )w Chart ge 10 chnical Assistance ;lhlights New Waterfronts Florida Communities ge 12 ljor Plan Amendments ider Review tl Clay County- Branan Field Sarasota County- Planning for 2050 · ~ge 14 'ban Land Use location Model ~ge 16 ~blications Update cting on the recommen- dations of Florida's 2001 Growth Management Study Commission, the Department of Community Affairs began efforts last year ro streamline processes and reduce duplication m growth man- agemenr programs, while providing greater hands-on technical assistance (see Community Planning, Fall 2001, Retooling Review Procedures). Many of the recommendations con- tained in the Commission's report have now been adopted with the passage of Senate Bill 1906. These include creating more liveable com- munities by integrating schools and water supply into community plan- ning, enhancing citizen involvement and providing incentives for urban revitalization. Unusual for growth management debates, there was broad consensus - Steve Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs April 2002 surrounding the bill. The bill streamlines growth management processes, contemplates alterna- tive funding sources for school construction, broadens citizen standing, strengthens manatee and natural resource protection through boating facility siting plans, and furthers a better analysis of annexations and local government service delivery. The bill spans 154 pages and contains significant changes. Two critical elements of the bill deal with better school and water supply planning. Coordinated School Planning The hill r?__quires 1.o..~- ernments and district school boards to enter into an enforce- 'able interlocal a-greement that-' addresses school siting, enrqll- ment forecasting, school capac- i~, and infrastructure and safety n~-ds. Both the Department 'of Community Affairs and the Department of Education will review the interlocal agreements. Failure to adopt the agreements will subject the governments to financial sanctions. As Jane Gallucchi, imme- diate past president of the Flor- ida School Board Association, noted, "When local governmen,ts collaborate on school projects, the big winner is the safety and security of our students." Integration of Compre- hensive Planning and Water Supply Planning The bill requires local govern- ments to amend their compre- hensive plans to better integrate Continued on page 3 New Director fOr Division of Community Planning The Department of Com- munity Affairs, Division of Community Planning extends a warm welcome to its new Division Director, Henry E. "Sonny" Timmerman. Born and raised in Greenwood, South Carolina, Sonny brings a wide range of public and private sector planning experience to the Department. His past experience includes serving as the Director of Planning for South Caro- lina's Department of Trans- portation, as well as working directly for local government as the Executive Director for the Carolina's Transportation Compact in Charlotte, North Carolina. His private sector experience includes working for Post Buckley Schuh and Jerni- gan, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia, where he was Division Director for Planning, and URS Corpora- tion in Tallahassee, Florida, where he was Vice President. Community Planning interviewed Sonny for this article. Considering your career in private industry, what moti- vated you to re-enter the public sector? It was a two-step process. First, having worked in both the public and private sectors, I realized I wanted to return to a role where I could influ- ence public policy and land- planning decisions for Florida's future. I missed that aspect in the private sector. Second, I found the opportunity to lead Florida's growth management efforts exciting and challenging. I'm delighted to be involved in the many good and positive things happening here at the Department, particularly the successful technical assistance efforts the Division is provid- ing to local governments. Fur- ther, I'm impressed by Secre- tary Seibert's proven expertise in advocating innovative and cutting-edge planning and coor- dination techniques. I am proud to be part of his team. What goals have you set and what are your priorities for the Division? My primary goal is to create more partnerships within the Department, as well as among state, regional and local govern- ments. The Department's mis- sion commits us to help local governments coordinate and partner with governmental enti- ties to build stronger and sustain- able communities. Although many effective partnerships already exist, my goal is to ensure we extend partnerships in Flor- ida communities through addi- tional intergovernmental coor- dination. My first priority is to allocate our staff resources effectively to local governments that most need our planning expertise. The Division has many talented planners and managers who are here to help. My second priority is to ensure we continue Secre- tary Seibert's department-wide communication and coordina- tion efforts. - Sonny Timmerman, Director Division of Community Planning What are your initial impressions of Florida's Growth Management Act and how do you think it could be improved? Florida is a national leader in growth management. I believe Florida needs the growth man- agement law as a mechanism to guide and manage growth. We have the amenities and lifestyle that attract people and growth will continue. I believe Florida has the right approach to help manage the impacts of growth. However, we also need to evalu- ate the approach periodically to see what's working and what's not, learn from the past to Continued on page 15 Legislative Highlights, continued from page those plans with the water management districts' regional water supply plans. The legislation also requires local governments to include in their comprehensive plans a ten-year work plan for building water supply facilities that are considered necessary to serve existing and new development. /The bill also creates the Local Govern- ment Comprehensive Planning Certification Program, a successor program to the Sus- tainable Communities Pilot Project of 1996. It allows responsible local governments the ability to operate with less state and regional oversight of their comprehensive plan process if they meet certain criteria and agree to implement exemplary planning practices. Certification is implemented Ithrough execution of an agreement with the Department, with revocation of the1 certification under specified conditions:~ The bill addresses urban revitalization and redevelopment in three areas. Local governments ma), grant urban infill exemp- tions for concurrency for n'on-~ansporta- tion related infrastructure when public health and safety will not be impaired. Local governments with lands within a coastal high hazard area are required to address redevelopment feasibility, taking into account whether any past reduction in land use density impairs the property rights of current residents. Economic investment is promoted through site specific changes for the size and placement of enterprise zones. This legislation is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It builds on the knowl- edge gained over the past 17 years of implementing the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Devel- opment Regulation Act. The legislation focuses on two important areas for new initiatives: school and water supply plan- ning, and leaves room for locally tailored responses. "Many of us believe we need to start with better planning and better coordination of services at the local level," said Secretary Seibert. "Build the strongest case possible to the people in the com- munity for how to address their most important needs." I Summary of GroWth Management Legislation school boards re enter into a mandatory interlocal agreement that addresses school siring, enrollment forecasting, school capacky, infrastructure and safety needs of schools, schools as emergency shelters, and sharing of facilities by adopting parallel requirements in both Chapters 163 and 235, Florida Statutes. Interlocal agreements must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Affairs with assistance from the Department of Educa- tion. Failure to enter into the interlocal agreement subjects both the local govern- ments and district school boards to financial sanctions. Citizen challenge and oversight methods also are addressed in the legisla- tion. The interlocal agreements will be sub- mimed on a schedule adopted by the Depart- ment of Community Affairs beginning March 1, 2003, and concluding December 1, 2004. Waivers from specific aspects of the interlocal agreements are available for counties that are nor experiencing growth in school-age populations. Exemptions are available for similarly situated municipali- ties. The Department will prepare model interlocal agreements and notify local governments and district school boards of the dates of compliance and sanctions for non-compLiance. The legislation also provides that a local government may adopt an optional educational facilities dement, and amends Chapter 235, Florida Statutes, to combine the educational plant survey and school district work program into an educational facilities plan. Integration of Land Use and Water Supply Planning R~res local governments to amend their comprehensive plans to better inte- g~ans wit~"t~ the wat_er.tllan~ agent districts' regional water s_upply r ' By January 1~1 nrn~nt'S 15valuktion and e, the legislation reqNlres loc_al governments to i~r potable water element_a lO-yearwork~ fo~ng water supply facilities that are considered necessary re serve exisung and new development and for which the local government is responsible. Educational Facilities Benefit Districts Authorizes the creation of optional educational facilities benefit districts pursu- ant to an interlocal agreement between the district school board and the local govern- ment. The benefit district is an alternative mechanism for funding the construction and maintenance of educational facilities. Creation of a benefit district requires ~he consent of the district school board, the jurisdictional local government and all property owners. If created, the benefit district will assist in the construction andJ Continued on page Summary of Legislation, continuedYrom page 3 maintenance of school facilities with a levy of a non-ad valorem assessment. The district school board would contribute impact fee revenue generated by development within the benefit district, and one half of the remaining construction costs, up ro the cost-per-student criteria established by the School Infrastructure Thrift Program. School construction by the benefit district may occur on publicly owned land or on private land leased to the district school board. Interlocal service Delivery and Annexation Reports Requires local governments in counties with a population greater than 100,000 to prepare an inventory of existing or proposed interlocal service-delivery agree- ments and identify deficits or duplication in service delivery. These reports must be submitted to the Department by January 1, 2004, and the Department must coordinate a regional meeting to discuss the reports and potential strategies to remedy deficits or duplication. The legislation also requires the representatives of cities, counties and special districts to provide a recommenda- tion to the Legislature on annexation law changes by February 1, 2003. ~ Urban Infill Concurrency Waiver Gives local governments in urban in fill and redevelopment areas the ability to grant, by comprehensive plan amendment, exemp- tions from concurrency for non-transpor- tation related infrastructure when public health and safety will not be impaired. Existing options for transportation concur- rency were not modified. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Streamlining StreamLines the timing of comprehensive plan amendment review in several ways: Agency review will become a one-step process rather than the current two-step process; and non-controversial amendments will be reviewed more quickly. In addition to placing Notices of Intent in the legal notices portion of the local newspaper, the bill provides for notice~ to be placed on the Department's intemet site, with direct courtesy notices to interested citizens. See page 7 for a summary of the streamlining procedures. Citizen Standing Broadens standing ro challenge com- prehensive plan amendments to include abutting property owners outside the local government's jurisdiction. Presently, such challenges are precluded. Developments of Regional impact Removes acreage thresholds from office and retail development and creates a bright- line threshold for all Developments of Regional Impact categories by removing language stating that developments that are 80-99 percent of the threshold are presumed not to be Developments of Regional Impact. Marinas located in local government jurisdictions that adopt a boating facility siting plan or policy within their compre- hensive plan will be exempt from Develop- ment of Regional Impact review. The Department is required, with the Depart- ment of Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to provide guidance in the form of model plans and policies to assist local governments to develop boating facil- ity siting plans. Petroleum storage facilities are also exempt if they are consistent with the comprehensive plan or included in an approved port master plan. Redevelopment within the same parcel is exempt from Development of Regional Impact review if the land use remains the same and the intensity and density of the use is unchanged. The bill requires biennial rather than annual reports unless annual reporting is required in the development order. The Department is authorized ro designate a lead regional planning council when a proposed Development of Regional Impact is m more than one jurisdiction. The bill amends the definition of devel- opment for the purposes of Chapters 380 and 163, Flor/da Statutes, to include electr/city in a list of types of work that are exempt if conducted in the right-of-way. Includes vesting and other provisions to address how previously approved but now exempt Developments of Regional Impact will be treated. Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program Establishes the successor to the Sustain- able Communities Pilot Project. The bill allows responsible local governments the ability to operate with less state and regional oversight of their comprehensive plan process if they meet certain criteria. Local governments must have a demonstrated record of effectively adopting and imple- menting their comprehensive plan, and commit to implementing exemplary plan- ning practices. The certification area must be defined, compact, contiguous and appropriate for urban growth and development. Public infrastructure must be available or planned within a 10-year time frame. Certification is implemented by execu- tion of an agreement with the Department, and the legislation provides for review of the performance of the local government and revocation of the certification under specified conditions. A citizen may initiate a review of the certification, if the local government is not substantially complying with the terms of the agreement. Otherwise, certification expires 10 years after execu- tion of the agreement. The Department is Limited to approving eight new certifica- tions per year. The Department must adopt rules regarding the processing and review of applications. Redevelopment in Coastal High Hazard Areas Requires local governments with areas within a coastal high hazard area to address redevelopment feasibility, taking into account whether any past reduction in land use density impairs the property fights of current residents. Such property fights must be balanced with public safety considerations. Judicial Review Allows a local government to establish a special master process to assist with challenges to development orders for consistency with the comprehensive plan. The special master process must follow certain guidelines. The special master submits his or her recommendations to the local government. In reviewing and revising the special master's proposed order, the local government must act within certain limitations, but may reach different conclusions based on interpretations of local plans. Any appeals from such decisions are reviewed by the court through a petition for certiorari. Such a petition is based on the record established in the special master process and the local government's decision is accorded greater deference. If a local government establishes such a special master process, k will be the only method to challenge development orders for consistency with the comprehensive plan. If no such procedure is adopted, circuk court challenges will be allowed by any aggrieved party, and the case will be treated as a trial "de novo," a hearing that is not based on the record established by the local government. Density and Intensity Require- ments for Future Land Use Plans Clarifies that each land use category in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan must define the uses allowed, and must include standards for the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensi- fies. Intensity and density standards are not required for uses not involving residential or other buildings or structures. Transportation Related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Exempts certain comprehensive plan amendments from the twice-a-year limita- tion. These include transportation improve- ment amendments that enhance life safety on Controlled Access Major Arterial High- ways identified in the Florida Intrastate Highway System with a serious traffic fatality problem. Such amendments shall not include any modification to the designation on a land use map, nor any modification to allowable densities or intensities of use. Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills Amends Section 163.3194, Florida Stat- utes, regarding the legal status of a compre- hensive plan to prevent a local government from denying a development order for a construction and demolition debris landfill when the facility has a Department of Environmental Protection permit and the local government has previously approved a land use change in its comprehensive plan or rezoned the property to allow such ,~andfill. Enterprise Zones Makes several site specific changes to current requirements for the size and placement of enterprise zones. Specifically, the bill authorizes Miami-Dade County to nominate the Little Haiti and the Miami River Commission areas experiencing pervasive poverty and unemployment as enterprise zones, excluding areas used for the benefit of a professional sports franchise. It also authorizes the commum- ties located within Brevard County, Leon County and Pensacola to nominate areas aS enterl~rise zones. Airport Master Plans Authorizes airport master plans ro be incorporated into local government comprehensive plans. The bill requires such amendments to address land use compat- ibility, the provision of regional transporta- tion facilities, consistency with the local government transportation circulation element and MPO long range plans, and the execution of any interlocal agreements to maintain adopted level of service stan- dards. It provides that development or expansion of an airport that is consistent with the adopted airport master plan that is incorporated into the local comprehensive plan and airport-related or aviation-related development addressed in the comprehen- sive plan is not a Development of Regional Impact. Transportation Concurrency Amends the provisions of Section 163.3180, Florida Stat-utes, to specify that transportation facilities designated as part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System needed to support new development are required to be in place or under actual construction no more than five years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. Other transportation facilities would need to be in place or under construction no later than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or irs functional equivalent. [] Joint School Planning Initiative ~ he Joint School Planning Initiative is a technical assistance outreach effort of the Department of Com- munity Affairs to assist selected local governments and district school boards in a pilot program to more effectively integrate land use planning and school facilities planning. The Governor has identified school planning as a critical issue facing the state. Through technical assistance and out- reach, the Department will assist communities to reduce school overcrowding; provide adequate, supporting infrastructure; and coordinate school siting and land use decisions. The lack of effective mecha- nisms to meaningfully integrate land use and school facilities planning has contributed to problems of suburban sprawl and urban disinvestment. Currently, many local governments plan for and approve new development without considering its impact on or the need that is created for schools, while school boards make decisions regarding the timing and location of new schools without considering its impact on the community. Three district school boards and their counties, along with their municipalities, have been selected for voluntary partic- ipation in this effort: Lee County, Polk County, and Pasco County. These communities were selected based on their high growth, or the likelihood they may soon experience substantial growth, a significant percentage of overcrowded schools, heavy use of portables, and because they were representative of cir- cumstances that exist in many other areas of Florida. The Department of Com- munity Affairs has partnered with the Department of Educa- tion in this effort and is focused on achieving three objectives: (1) Direct assistance to the selected pilot communities. The Department is facilitating joint meetings between local govern- ments and the district school boards, providing wtitten guides and model interlocal agreements, and funding local school-related planning studies. (2) Develop staff expertise that can be used in other parts of the state. The Department is seeking to create an interdepart- mental team that has the experi- ence and know-how to assist other communities in the state to improve the coordination of school facilities and land use planning. (3) Identify possible statutory or regulatory changes. As a result of its grass-roots efforts, the Department is learning what requirements, obstacles, or flex- ibility should be introduced, modified, or removed to improve the ability of local governments and district school boards to interact effectively. Since September 2001, the Department has held meetings in all three pilot communities. Below are the highlights of what the Department has learned and the status of its assistance. Lee County During the Department's initial meeting with Lee County and its municipalities, they indi- cated that school siting has not been a problem to date because the school system was under a desegregation order, supervised by the federal courts, which forced the district school board to concentrate on locating and refurbishing schools in existing urbanized areas. With the order being lifted and court supervi- sion no longer required, some local governments feaied the district school board would be inclined to look for new sites outside the urban area, thereby contributing to the pressures for sprawling development. In the meeting with the district school board, members acknowledged that while coordination with the local governments did occur on new school sites, it was ad hoc and lacked structure. A more formal, mutually agreed upon process was needed to ensure that as Lee County grows, regular involvement by the local governments in the school siting process will occur. The Depart- ment has held joint meetings ~vith the local governments and the district school board to refine the issues identified in the previous meeting and to develop strategies for addressing them. Work group members are writing an interlocal agreement setting forth procedures for coordinating land use and public school facilities planning. Pasco County In Pasco County, the primary issues identified are the need for better coordination on school siting and to identify who is Continued on page 15 he growth management law (SB 1906) streamlines the timing of compre- hensive plan amendment review in two ways: agency reviews and requests for review of compre- hensive plan amendments will become a ne~v one-step process rather than the current two-step process; and non-controversial adopted amendments will be reviewed more quickly. In addi- tion to legal notices in the local newspaper, 'SB 1906 also pro- vides for Notices of Intent to be placed on the Department's internet site, with direct courtesy notices to interested citizens. SB 1906 takes effect upon the Governor's signature, expected in late May 2002. Any proposed or adopted plan amendment received by the Department prior to the new law taking effect will be processed using the old procedures. Plan amendments submitted after the effective date will be processed using the ne~v procedures. After the effective date, local government must confirm the adopted amendment is eligible for expedited review. The flow chart on page 8 illustrates the new process. The Department will revise the pro- cedural rule, Chapter gJ-11 Govern- ing the Procedure for the Submittal and l~eview of Local Government Com- prehensive Plans and Amendments, to incorporate these streamlining provisions. The following is a summary of changes to the current process. Proposed Phase · Requires local govern- ments to transmit plan amend- ments directly to the Depart- ment of Community Affairs and all review agencies. The review agencies include: the appropriate regional planning council and water management district, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Depart- ment of Environmental Protec- tion and the Department of State, the appropriate county for munic, ipal plan amendments, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for county plan amendments, and the Department of Education for related public school facilities elements. · Reduces the review time- frames for the Department to complete its Objections, Rec- ommendations and Comments (ORC) Report so that in no case does the time frame exceed 60 days. · Requires local govern- ments to request a review at the time of transmittal of the proposed amendment if the local government wants the Depart- ment to review the amendment. · Requires the Department to review the amendment if an affected party or the regional planning council requests that the Department review the amendment and the request is received within 30 days after transmittal of the proposed plan amendment. · Requires review agencies, including regional planning councils, to review the amend- ment and provide comments within essentially the same time- frame as the request to review 00 days from receipt of a com- plete amendment). · Requires the Department to notify the local government of its decision to review the amend- ment'within 35 days after receipt of a complete kmendment. Adopted Phase · Reduces the review time- frames for non-controversial adopted amendments from 45 days to 20 days. · Requires the Department to issue its Notice of Intent for non- controversial amendments within 20 days of receipt of the com- plete amendment package when the local government confirms that the adopted amendment is unchanged from the proposed amendment, was not subject to review, and no objections were raised by an affected party or the Department. · Requires the local govern- ment to maintain a mailing list of interested citizens for direct courtesy notices. · Requires the Department to publish the Notice of Intent in the portion of the newspaper of general circulation where the legal notices appear. · Requires the Department to post the Notice of Intent on its web site and provide direct courtesy notices to interested citizens. · Requires local govern- ments with internet web sites to post a copy of the Notice of Intent within, five days after receipt of the mailed copy. [] Quick TiPs... ...for Local Governments · SB 1906 becomes effective immediately upon the Gover- nor's signature, expected in late May 2002. · Proposed and adopted amend- ments received prior to the effec- tive date will be processed under the old procedures. · After the effective date of SB 1906 local governments must confirm the adopted amend- ments are eligible for an expe- dited Notice of Intent. · Any amendment submitted after the effective date will be processed under the new proce- dures as illustrated in the flow chart on page 8. · Local governments must post Notices of Intent on their web- sites within five days of receipt. ...for Regional Planning Councils and Affected Parties · The Department is required to review a comprehensive plan amendment if the Regional Plan- ning Council or an Affected Party requests the review and the request is received within 30 days after transmittal of the proposed amendment. ...for all other Review Agencies · The Department has five days to determine if the amendment package is complete and to set the deadline for the 30-day agency review and comment period. Written comments or recommended objections must be received within 30 days of receipt of a complete amendment. [] J New Waterfronts Florida Communities n July 20, 2001, Secre- tary Seibert designated Panacea, Homosassa Springs, and Port Salerno as new Waterfronts Florida com- munities. The communities were selected based on their commit- ment to revitalize and renew declining waterfront districts that have traditionally focused on water dependent economic activities. The designation enti- ties these communities to cus- tomized training workshops designed to address each com- munity's specific waterfront revitalization needs, as well as technical and financial assistance to support the communities' planning, environmental protec- tion, revitalization and redevel- opment efforts. Division of Community Plan- ning staff have partnered with the communities to conduct visioning workshops and assist in other technical assistance activities to identify goals, needs and strategies. Following are summaries of planning efforts to date. Panacea, Wakulla County Panacea's selected waterfront area extends along Dickerson Bay. As a Waterfronts Florida community, Panacea intends to enhance ks traditional economy, capkalize on and maintain the city's history, develop a welcome center, gnd redevelop Woolley Park. The committee is writing a work plan based on the high- est ranked ob}ectives from its Panacea Vision 2020 Plan. The community has con- tracted with Dr. Andrew Chin, Assistant Professor with Florida A&M University's School of Architecture, to lead a visioning and long-range planning effort to accomplish the identified projects. Combined with the expertise of members of his architecture class, Dr. Chin, his students and Division of Community Planning staff will guide the visioning and planning process in a series of charrertes. One of Panacea's immediate needs is to redevelop Woolley Park, located in the communi- ty's central district. In coordi- nation with Dr. Chin's class, staff of Poole Engineering have designed a site plan that incorpo- rates a boardwalk and establishes a community "gateway," includ- ing signage and landscaping. Another need is to establish a Visitor's center. Proceeds from Panacea's annual Blue Crab Fes- tival have been dedicated to refurbish a building to serve as the center and provide office space for the Waterfronts Pro- gram management staff. Rock Landing, Panacea, Florida Additionally, citizens and civic organizations have part- nered with Waterfronts staff to taclde beautification and cleanup proiects. For additional information, contact Para Portwood, Pana- cea's Program Manager, at (850)926-0909, e-mail: para. grants ~nettally. com. Old HomoSassa~ Citrus County Old Homosassa is a beautiful reminder of an almost forgotten Old Florida lifestyle. The water- front district is a "traditional" Florida village located along the Homosassa River, a spring- fed waterbody that is a state- designated "Outstanding Florida Water." To date, a steering com- mittee has been appointed and goals have been prioritized. The steering committee's maior focus areas include preserving the identity of the Old Homosassa fishing community, protecting the fishing industry, and creating a community vision. Community workshops have identified other priorities including maintaining Old Homosassa's lifestyle; tecting natural resources; provid- ing public access to the river; developing parks, walking and bike paths; and furthering eco- nomic development. Once compiled, the Old Homosassa Community Plan will be adopted as part of the county's comprehensive plan and will guide future planning and development. For more infor- mation contact Margaret A. Beake, AIA, Old Homosassa Waterfronts Florida Program Manager, (352)527-5261, e-mail: margaret.beake~bocc.dtrus, fl.us. ~ ~ Port Salerno,: Martinc°unty Port Salerno is a historic com- mercial fishing community that surrounds Manatee Pocket, a natural harbor approximately 1.5 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Once a municipality, the depres- sion and a major hurricane led to the city's demise. Neverthe- less, commercial fishing has continued to characterize the area. In 1997, Martin County established a countywide Com- munity Redevelopment Agency and identified Port Salerno as an area 'to which resources should be focused. The county- appointed Port Salerno Neigh- borhood Advisory Committee, planners and consultants wrote a community redevelopment area plan that was adopted into the county's comprehensive plan in 2000. The current focus of atten- tion is the Manatee Pocket Walk, a pedestrian path traversing the waterfront and anchored at each end by county-owned parks. The Waterfronts Florida grant is funding the engineering design and permitting and a Coastal Partnership Initiative Grant will help fund construction. One business has incorporated the Pocket Walk into its develop- ment plan for a new waterfront Entrance to Port Salerno, Martin County restaurant, creating approxi- mately 40 new full-time jobs. The county plans to establish a lease agreement with local com- mercial fishermen to dedicate an area for use by the fishing industry. Other future projects include improvements to the Port Salerno Civic Center, recon- struction of Highway A1A fea- turing a more pedestrian friendly streetscape, and improvements to the commercial docks area. For more information, contact Hank Woollard, Program Man- ager, (772)288-5495, e-mail: hwoollar~martin.fl.us. other Waterfronts Florida:Communities In addition to the newly desig- nated Waterfronts Florida Com- munities, six other communities received designation in recent years: Mayport, Duval County; St. Andrews, Bay County; San Carlos Island, Lee County; Vilano Beach, St. Johns County; Cortez, Manatee County; and Oak Hill, Volusia County. For more information about the Florida Waterfronts Pro- gram,.visit the Florida Coastal Management Program website, www. dca.state, fl.us/ffcm, or contact the Department of Community Affairs at (850) 488-8466. [] Fishing boats at Old Homasassa, Citrus County Several large-scale comprehensive plan amendments with long-term planning horizons are under consideration 'in various regions of the state. Community Planning will summarize these proposals in a series of articles in the coming months. Following are highlights of two such amendments. Clay County Branan Field lay County has become a magnet for residential development due to growth in Jacksonville and con- struction of major roadways. Branan Field Road not only provides a third link to the Jacksonville urban area, it is proximate to Cecil Commerce Center, a former military base turned business park. The County began planning for development of the 20,000-acre Branan Field District in 1997 and adopted the Branan Field Sector Plan in April 2000. The County recently submitted to the Department its Specific Area Plan amendment that proposes more detailed planning strategies for the area. The Depart- ment will issue its Objections, Recommenda- tions and Comments Report in May 2002. Branan Field is located north of the unin- corporated Clay County communities of Lake Asbury and Middleburg, west of Orange Park, and south of the Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact. Planning for the Specific Area Plan included public meetings, workshops and design charettes with the partidpation of hundreds of citizens, developers and design professionals. The Spedfic Area Plan will guide and manage growth in the area for at least the next 25 years. The plan proposes an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that sets aside land for 20 miles of new roads, 14 new schools, 856 acres of parks, a library and two fire protec- tion facilities, and requires a fee in lieu of dedicating lands. To reduce the high percentage of residents who travel to work in Jackson- ville, the county is seeking to reduce residential development potential and to increase opportunities for employ- ment and shopping. Multi-family devel- opments are proposed within the ]Employment and Community Center districts and around Neighborhood Centers. Three types of single-family neighborhoods are proposed: Rural Residential communities containing between one dwelling unk per five acres and one unit per acre; Master- Planned Communities with an overall gross density of two dwelling units per acre; and Traditional Neighborhoods, with a gross density of five dwelling units per acre. The Traditional Neighborhood district proposes a mix of housing types and inter- connected streets with well-defined perim- eters. It will use new urbanism design elements such as alleys, front porches, and narrow streets. Schools or other public facili- ties w/il serve as neighborhood focal points. Streets will be designed with sidewalks to encourage pedestrian uses. Rural Residential districts are proposed to be comprised of residential development on water well and septic tanks. The Master Planned Community district is proposed to consist of complete and integrated neighbor- hoods containing a mix of housing, shops, Traditional Neighborhood Design schools and parks. Seven million square feet of non-residential development is proposed in the Employment Centers. The plan proposes to protect the site's 4,640 acres of contiguous wetlands by establishing an interconnected system of greenways and wildlife crossings. TNs Prknary Conservation Network, implemented through density bonuses for land preservation, will connect Jennings State Forest with the conservation lands of Little Black Creek. For more information, contact Thad Crowe, Clay County Planning Department, (904)284-6375, e-maik tha&crowe~co.day, fl.us or visit wvew.mscwinc.com/Brananfield, or contact James Stansbury, Division of Community Planning, (850) 922-1818, e-mail:james.smmbmy~dca.state, fl.us. [] I I Sarasota County Planning for 2050 ee -king a better form and func- tion of land use than currently provided in its Comprehen- sive Plan, Sarasota County has been working on ways to encourage a more livable, sustainable form of develop- ment. This vision led to the creation of the incentive-based Sarasota 2050 plan. The Department currently is reviewing the proposed amendment and will issue its Obiections, Recom- mendations and Comments Report in May 2002. The amendment is an overlay to the current Sarasota County compre- hensive plan and, with few exceptions, does not affect existing property rights. Conformance with the overlay is voluntary and uses incentives to achieve public benefits, such as liveable communities and the preservation of open space and environmental lands. It also strengthens the transkion from urban to rural character between the county's coastal western portion and the rural agricultural eastern portion. The amendment consists of six geo- graphic overlay areas called resource management areas, with associated goals, objectives and policies that cover most of unincorporated Sarasota County: * Urban/Suburban (neighborhoods inside the urban services boundary); · Economic Development (commercial centers and corridors inside the urban services boundary); · Rural Heritage/Estate (existing, platted or remnant large-lot com- munities outside the urban services boundary); · Village/Estate/Open Space (unde- veloped lands outside the urban Aerial view of the City's Central Bayfront services boundary not designated Rural Heritage, Agricultural Reserve, or Greenway); · Greenway (environmentally impor- ant lands and linkages between them); · Agricultural Reserve (approximately 30,000 acres in the extreme eastern portion of the county currently des- ignated Agriculture). A Transfer of Development Rights program has been identified as the key tool to achieve the county's open space and liveable communities goals. In exchange for permanent protection of greenways and open spaces, landowners may receive development rights for use in specified locations under specified conditions. The development rights are intended primarily for use in villages, designed according to village design principles and approved through a master plan process. Economic Development areas also are eligible receiv- ing areas. The amendment seeks to coalesce a patchwork of existing neighborhood plan- ning and revitalization efforts into a corn- prehensive neighborhood planning program. Additionally, it strengthens the county's environmentally sensi- tive lands protection program by identifying additional eligible lands for acquiskion and protection. The amendment embodies previous and ongoing planning efforts, such as the Master Trails Plan, and createi a framework for future plans, such as the Parks and Open Space Master Plan. Since the plan amendment is incentive based, the county has forecast population growth and housing demand as a range rather than a single forecast, and considers development potential in various scenarios. Such sce- narios ensure that the county conservatively over plans for growth rather than under plans, especially for infrastructure. A key component of the amendment is its requirement for fiscal neutrality, which applies to villages, hamlets and settlement areas. While similar to full-cost accounting, fiscal neutrality requires not only the full cost of development be calculated, but also that such development be fiscally neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County government, the district school board and residents outside the development. As part of the master plan approval process, developers must demonstrate fiscal neutral- ity case by case considering location, phasing and the project's development program. For more information, please contact Dennis Wilkison, (941)861-5140, e-mail: dwilkis~co.sarasota.fl.us; or Olga Ronay, e-mail: oronay~co.sarasota.fl.us, or visit the county's webske, www. co.sarasota, fl.us/, or contact Jeff Griswold, (850)922-1824, e-mail: jeff. griswold~dca.state.fl.us. [] Florida. ULAM County & Regional Models ~-~ Treasure Coast Regional Model ~ Tampa Bay Regional Model ~ FDOT District County ~ Non User ~ Current User ~ Future User Urban Land Use Allocation Model n response to the need to incorporate transportation and land use planning, the Florida Department of Transporta- tion funded the development of an Urban Land Use Allocation Model for use in transportation planning. Originally devel- oped to generate population and employ- ment data required for Florida's travel forecasting model, the model currently is being used by 15 of the state's Metropolitan Planning Organizations. In addition, multi- county regional models have been imple- mented in the Tampa Bay and Treasure Coast areas, and several local governments in Florida and other states have begun using the model. Other applications include testing akernative land use and transporta- tion scenarios, assessing the impacts of land development proposals, determining public facility needs, and fiscal impact analysis. The model provides an automated process for allocating future land use within an urban area. The model allocates future development into traffic zones or sectors of an urban area based upon such factors as: availability of developable vacant land, allowable densities, local government comprehensive plans, local land development regulations, availability of public facilities, concurrency restric- tions, and travel time and accessibility to major land use activity centers. The model is compatible with existing Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) data files. The model land use planning package consists of over 60 separate programs used for a variety of planning applications in addition to the allocation of future growth to traffic zones. All model programs are accessed through a series of Windows- based "point-and-click" menus. From the main menu the user can access the refer- ence library that provides access to all the documentation and reference materials. An important feature of the model is its Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, which allows visual inspection of the model output as well as editing capabilities of the input files within an ArcView GIS environment. The interface allows the model to be used as a land use visualization tool that can be used with other GIS coverages and applications, such as the ArcView/FSUTMS network editing package developed by the Department of Transportation, or with the GIS-based transportation management systems. An additional objective of the model is to provide a basic land use inventory and monitoring system of past, present and future land use trends. Finally, one of the most important aspects of the model is the Statewide Land Use Modeling Support System. This sup- port system provides software, documenta- tion, hands-on training courses, technical support, a Statewide User Group and local user groups, as well as future enhancements to the model. The model was developed by Mike Brown, AICP, Land Use' and Transporta- tion Modeling Research Program, Depart- ment of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida. He can be reached at (352) 392-0997, extension 425, e-mail: mmb~ufl.edu. Local governments and other public agencies may obtain tlxe model, as well as the FSUTMS, at no cost from the Florida Department of Transportation. Contact Harry Gramlin, (850)414-4928. Visit www. ulam.org for more information, i School Planning, continued from page 6 responsible for off-ske improve- ments needed to support local schools. Local governments felt they had not been adequately involved in the process of iden- tifying and selecting sites for new schools. They generally learned when and where a new school was going to be built after the dec/sion had been made. Respon- sibility for off-site improvements has been another issue, with the local governments contending that if they were more involved in the site selection process they would seek to locate schools where existing infrastructure is already available. On the other hand, the district school board contends it has been restricted regarding the use of its fun'ds for off-site improvements and believes the local governments need to do more. The Department is working wkh Pasco County's local gov- ernments and the district school board to develop an interlocal agreement to specify the points at which the local governments will be involved in site selec- tion, and to establish a process for determining responsibility for off-site improvements. The Department also is providing funding to the county to evaluate opportunities for collocation and shared use of facilities, and to help identify opportunities to develop a GIS-based plan- ning tool to analyze sites based on long-range school facility, transportation, regional parks, and utility plans. Polk County Polk County and the district school board agree there is a lack of uriderstanding about how they reach their rekpecrive decisions. They agree there is a need for formal points of coordination to develop understanding and trust to achieve a greater degree of mutual support. The Department is assisting the county and district school board to develop an interlocal agreement that specifies how coordination will occur. The Department also provided fund- ing to the county to develop a public school facilities element for inclusion in the comprehen- sive plan and is assisting the county to develop a scope of work to guide its preparation. The county and the district school board have jointly funded a school impact fee study, which may lead to the adoption of a school impact fee on new devel- opment. Although the county is participating in the study, the commission is not necessar- ily committed to adopting the impact fee unless it is convinced the district school board is utiliz- ing existing facilkies efficiently. For more information con- tact Mike McDaniel, (850)922 -1806, e-mail: mike.mcdaniel~ dca.state.fi.us. [] New Director, continued from page 2 improve the future, and deter- mine how state government can best serve Florida's citizens. You were quoted in the press release announcing your appointment that you wanted to deal more effectively with Florida's expanding popula- tion. Could you elaborate? I think we need to took at different ideas, and continue looking outside the box when providing planning assistance to local governments as we deal with growth. We are not wedded to what's been done in the past. Florida certainly is going to grow. Dealing with growth requires state govern- ment to evaluate what works and what can be done better. The state is comprised of diverse interests. We need to develop approaches to address this diver- sity. What would you like to share with readers concerning your vision of growth manage- merit in Florida? If we are to provide current and future generations a choice of desirable lifestyles, growth management ts here to stay. The state has a responsibility to deal with issues of statewide signifi- cance; however, the pendulum is swinging back from the original emphasis on state oversight and regulation to that of ensuring local governments play a larger role and take responsibility for their land-use planning deci- sions. It is certainly correct to evatuate the legislation periodi- cally. To that end we need to remain flexibte and adaptable as the law evolves. Again, I return to the issue of partnerships, of which I'm a firm believer. All of us, the Department, other state and regional agencies, and local governments, must partner to accomplish shared goals. I envi- sion local governments viewing the Department as a partner, rather than an impediment to achieving good growth manage- ment. The other day I was talking to a friend about my role at the Department, and I said, "Wouldn't it be great if, when local governments identify a land-use planning concern, their first response would be, 'Well, let's call DCA! They can help us!'" My vision is to ensure that local governments view the Department as one of their primary resources as they evalu- ate growth management deci- sions. ~ Primer on School Plan- ning and Coordination Thc Division has prepared a Primer on Srhool Planning and Coor- dination that provides a snapshot of school coordination issues facing school boards and local governments. The Primer also summarizes best practices that local governments can incorpo- rate into comprehensive plans to coordinate the location of new schools with community devel- opment patterns. The Division is developing a more detailed Best Practices Guidebook that will be available later this year. The Primer has been distributed to county commissioners, county and city planners and school ,boards. It also can be viewed on line at www. dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/ &p/resources/publications. For more information, contact Mafia Abadal-Cahill, (850)922-1781, e-mail: mafia.abadal-cahill~ dca. state.fi.us. Revised EAR Guidebook The Division has prepared A Guide to Preparing an lEvaluation and Appraisal Rqort, to assist local governments comply with Section 163.3191, Florida Stat- utes, as revised in 1998. The Guide is available online at www. dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp. The Department will conduct workshops around the state beginning later this year. For more information, contact Walker Banning at (850)922- 1785, e-maih walker.banning ~dca.state.fl.us. How to Obtain Publications Statutes, rules and other publi- cations produced by the Division of Community Planning are avail- able at www. dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/ &p/resources/publications. If you are unable to access the information online, contact Vicki Morrison, (850)922-1815, e-maih vicki.morrison~dca.state. fi.us. [] Community Planning is published by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning to provide technical assistance to local governments in the implementation of Florida's growth management laws. Material in Community Planning may be reproduced with credit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Jeb Bush, Governor Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Sonny Timmerman, Director, Division of Community Planning Jim Quinn, Chief, Bureau of State Planning Charles Gauthier, AICE Chief, Bureau of Local Planning Maria Abadal-Cahill, Administrator, Bureau of State Planning Vicki Morrison, Editor Lida Maxwell, Design and Layout Subscriptions to Community Planning are free and available upon request. To be added to the distribution list, call Vicki Morrison, (850) 922~1815, SIC 292-1815, e-maih vicki.morrison @ dca.state.fi.us Visit our website at www. dca.state.fl.uslfdcpldcp or call (850) 487-4545 Printed on recycled paper Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 PRSRT STD US Postage PAID Permit No. 181 Tallahassee, FL 32399 The Press Joumat Sunday, October 27, 2002 VEROSCOPE New subdivisions Here's a list of subdivisions that have broken ground since Oct. 1, 2001. The number of units is in parentheses. Unincorporated Indian River County 1. Pelican Bay Estates (5) 2. Kenwood Village (110) 3. Arbor Trace Phase 2 (151) 4, Legend Lakes (164) 5. Old Orchid Phase. 3 (32) 6. Emerald Estates (67) 7. River Island (7) 8. Bel-Aire (22) 9. Windsor Plat 28 (58) 10. Windsor Plat22 (§) 11. Pine Ridge C]~ub ~42) 12. Carriage Lake at Veto (64) 13. Village Walk S0/~th.,of Vero (27) :'.'.; ~ 14. Windsor Plat-2'l'(4) 15. Sunset'Cove at Gr ,a~. d Harbor (11) , 16. Sunset Trace at.Grand Harbor (6) - ~ ..,:,,¥,;.~ ~ "17, Compa .s~,. Poin~.'~ 18, Marsh ~slaAd ,19, Wmdidr Eque~ Center Pha~e 1 (7)~ ~;~'~'~' 20, Hunter's R~(~) 21. M~ma v~ies;,(~ 22. River Bend (650): ~. Citrus Springs V~age A (102) 24. Citrus Sprigs V~age B (55) 25. Citrus Sprigs V~age C (58) 26. Eagle Trace (40) 27. Parks Agric~turE Planned Development (2) 28. Grace Pines (28) 29. Terra L~es Phase 1 (12) 30. Ocean Oaks West (21) Indian River Shores 1. Palm Island Plantation (15~) 2. River Club at Carlton (!99). 3. Sea Colony (28) Vero Beach None Sebastian None "'. Fellsmere None Orchid None Source: Local governments. PAGE2 ENVIRONMENT &CLIMATE NEWS ! NOVEMBER2002 Floridians battle bureaucrats to save their homes, property BY DANNY E. MEEK, ESQ. Ten years ago, Hurricane Andrew blasted the coast of Southeast Florida with the force of a Level Five hurricane, only one of three of that magnitude to hit the United States during the twentieth century. Residents of Homestead took the brunt of ,4.ndrew, which had sustained winds in execs s of 145 miles an hour. Their homes were destroyed and their lives were devastated. They fought back and they rebuilt. Now, those same residents are once again threatened with the potential loss of their homes, and they are fighting back once more. Only this time their enemy is not nature: It is their own government. On August 25, hundreds of vocal South Florida residents gathered to express their anger, disappointment, and distrust of gov- ernment officials at C.B. Smith Park in Pembroke Pines. The event, part of "The Sawgrass Rebellion" sweeping Florida, was sponsored by The 15,000 Coalition, Inc., the Everglades Protection Society, the Dade County Farm Bureau, and the 8.5 Square Mile Area Legal Defense Fund. This regional event was a prelude to a property rights rally in Naples, Florida on October !7 and 18 and in Homestead on October 19.Thousands journeyed to Florida from all across the country to take part in The Sawgrass Rebellion, Which now boasts participation by more than 700 groups. The movement reflects growing opposition to the unwarranted taking of private property by local, state, and federal government agen- cies. The Sawgrass Rebellion is an umbrella organization founded to protect the proper- ty rights of South Florida residents through legislation, litigation, and public education. Alamogordo, New Mexico's Paragon Foundation sent jay Walley to the August 25 event in Homestead. Walley introduced lead- ers and representatives of various local groups involved in the Rebellion to an enthu- siastic crowd. Parents came with children and grandparents. Picnic lunches were spread out on blankets as families prepared to spend the afternoon learning and hstening. Local area activist and well-known writer Alice Pena, Jan Michael lacobson of the Everglades Institute, and Frank Denninger of the Everglades Protection Society joined other speakers, as Suzette de Armas provided Spanish and Enghsh translations. Gerardo C. Morales, president of The 15,000 Coalition, told the crowd he and his family were reliving th,e, horrors of 40 years ago. "We lost our property then to Castro and the Cuban government," said the Golden Gate Estates landowner.'!I can understand how this might happen in a communist country, but not here, not in the United States." When Dave Friedrichs of the Dade County Farm Bureau addressed the landowners, he said he was present at the rally to show everyone The Sawgrass Rebellion was alive and kicking. He said the battle must be for all farmers, ranchers, landowners, and recreational sportsmen."I have seen farm- =rs lose their land to flooding and drought and financial devastationj' said Friedrichs. "But I will not stand by and see anyone lose their land due to some bureaucrat." When he finished his message, Friedrichs left the stage and shook hands with each person in the crowd to solidify his pledge to each landowner that he would fight to the end of the battle with them. G.B. Oliver, executive director of Paragon, flew in from New Mexico the night before to take part in the rally and explain his organi- zation's mission. "Some 40 years-ago, the Army Corps of Engineers took approxi- mately 92,000 acres of ranch land from my grandfather~' shouted Oliver."I am here to fight the battle with you, to see that we stop the Corps from doing the same thing to the good people of Florida." Pena said the meeting was a "baby step" in a long fight that would be revisited at the October rallies. "We have an uphill battle,but we are going to win this fighC said Pena. "We must win this fight if we are going to keep our homes and our land. We need the support of !andowncrs cver yTvhere. We need thousands to make the journey to Naples and Homestead." Danny E. Meek is an attorney with Hollingsworth, Meek, Miller and Minglin in Indianapolis, Indiana. BUSI VOL. 18, N012 For years, real estate expert Brad 'Hunter has pr~icted the Treasure Coas~ was m line for a housing t~om.. '~'ne record'numOer oJ homes now being built in the region proves Hunter -- a 15-year economist with American Metro Study, a real-estate con- suiting firm in Boc~ RaWn -- was on the money. Hunter has a keen grasp on housing issues throughout Florida, as well as the pitfal~ that could accompany devel- opment. The Florida native. '.~ adept at pinpointing housing ~renas ana preazc~zng Julare _boom areas. Despzre tocul growing pains, .r-fuhrer ~ he doesn't anticipate the Treasure c;oasz vecomzn~ a.n- other congested South Florida anytime soon. · Hunter Sl~Oke re~ntly with Robin Pollack, a Business Journal contributor and business writer for Scripps Treasure Coas~ Publishing Co. The following is an edited transcript of that interview. Q: There's been a lot of talk about ~ housing bubble. Do you think that's going to happen in South Florida, and if so, is that bubble going to burst soon? A: I don't t~hink there's a bubble in South Florida real estate in the same sense that See HUNiH...R. A58 ;AGE 58 TREASURE COAST BUSINESS JOURNAL OCTOBER 2002 Real estate expert Brad Hunten "The destiny of the Treasure Coast really is within the hands of the people who live there, the people who plan for the development " HUNTER FROM A1 there was a bubble on Wad Street. For one thing, ~housing is a user-based asset -- something that you a_c_mally !ive in -- as opposed to a mece of paper [hat represents a bit of ownership ina 6~-ni-p~?-People more readily catch aberrations ~n when it comes to something like that, as opposed to stocks. Stock values got way out of comrol because of speculation, because how you value a stoct~ is really according to what you think the future earnings potential of that company is. It's very different from saying, "This is [he part of town I want to Live in." or "This is the size house I want," or "This is the quality of house I want." You can pretW well tell what the value of a house should be. There's also perhaps more of a market to compare with. If you are shopping for a home. you can look down me street and see what's selling, and quickly tell whether something's out of whack. With stocks, it was very different. People were putting money into it, because they wanted to put money somewhere. Now, to some extent, people are putting money into real estate because they want to put money somewhere, and so that's why there is a little bit of concern out there that there may be too much money flowing into real estate. The way I see things in the South Florida market, home prices are going up very rapidly, and mat is ]ust~tiea 0y me supply-ann-demand b~ilance that we have here. when you create Jobs, you have to nave someplace tot these worl~ers to ,IiV~i Hence: 'housin~--fl~ffi-Ah~; ~s very s-T_r-ong.-g~I~e mppty of housh-~g ii'SA~r~iy keeping up, ann that's why home prices are %ein~'~-Ud~-p--s-o high. And [hat's Likely to continue, and maybe even accel- erate. That's what a lot of people are speculating on. Q: When do you think prices might peak? It looks as if some people still are holding onto homes to try to sell them later for even more money. A:_I really don't beLieve there's a peak in sight. It's a fallacy to say that housing prices never go down. because we've seen it happen in Boston, in Los Angeles, but those are markets where an un- usual set of circumstances of supply and demand occurred that are different from what we've seen Q: Such as? A: Condos m~ke themselves sort of an obvious vehicle for investors, because you only have to put a deposit down initially, and then you don't ac- tually have to close on the unit until the building £mally is built, and that may be a vear or two down the road. It gives them a chanc~ to leverage their investment that way: Single-fmnily homes don't allow quite that much leverage as that, al- though they're a pretty leveraged investment type, because you can put your 10 percent down or 20 percent, and the lender knows you are buying it as an investment property. But, that's a lot different from putting down a $10,000 deposit on a $500,000 condo, where it's extremely leveraged. Q: Regarding the demand for housing and how that must meet the number of new jobs being created, what scenario do you see along the Treasure Coast? A: The jobs pressure is actually pushing up from Palm Beach Counw, and that ~s causing rapid escalation in Mat-tm County. There's a fa_trly low amount of new construction of homes in Martin, compared to how many there is a demand for. Q: Because of Martin County's zoning and growth restrictions? Those are helping to push people farther north along the Treasure Coast? A: Yes, but as you get further north, anytime yqu're ~alking about someone Who worgs in West p~lm Beacll alia commutes Irom ~T. Lucie, ~t gels to be pretty long. But~ it's not too long mr some joeople. There are people who Live in St. Lucie and work in Miami What's happening in m~rkets like St. Lucie and indian River is there's a lot more oI the retiree movement up into that region, and less of that-goin~g-bh-m~' oB"b--~on---'Beach in me last yea~ or twO, -~?z:id that's '~iih~)I~; b~Af].se kloynton Beach is running out of land. Boynton Beach is probably peaking right now, in terms of its new con- struction~ For the next couple of years, people are going to have to look elsewhere for that place to live. and some retirees will think, "I can spend 20 percent less for the same house in St. Lucre and. why not? Why do I need to be close to the em- ployment center? I don't care about CityPlace. and I don't want to be near all the traffic that's down in South Florida." So, they will go up to St_ Lucie for a slower pace of life, a less expensive home. per?~s more people their age in the active adult c:. :.~zrnties they have up there. And. they can happen around here. if there is any overpricing in ;::.. ? _' same quahW of house, and the same ~e market, it's probably limited to certain areas, c~.-: .:'/commumry_ up there as T. hey can ¢et down cermm t~-pes or properues. ". ~: Not to mention a better quality of life. The Treasure Coast is touted, for its quality of life, a g~-een environment and more affordable lc housing. What, if an,ythin~, is the Treasure Coast in danger of doing wrong when man- aging growth? A: There's no right or wrong. On the Treasure Coast, every county has a different philosophy. St. Lucie, perhaps~ would say, "It would be wrong to exclude the growth, because it's bringing in money. It's develonment_ and it's inevitable, and let's welcome m" Whereas Martin would-say, "Let it go somewhere else." _Il!dian River, I think, is welcoming growm. Then, there are mental reasons lor slowing, down growth, or rna~mg sure growth doesn't hurt the envi- ronment, ann nobody ]s against mat. i~ven uae builders and developers are accustomed to building in sensitive wetlands. Martin won't allow ~_hat at am omer counUes say ~t can De done _ not m a prnsune wet[a~d, but in a distresseci wetland that's been in a horrible state for 50 years, and you have to restore, acre for acre, whatever you have disturbed, or pay some environmentalists to maintain that wetlands area. Every time you have a irontier, people say, "Oh, I want to live out here Ln the country." What always happens? Q: Everyone else starts heading to that country? A: Yes. There is always an encroachment. Q: And then it's not quite "the country" anymore? A: Nobody should kid themselves that this area is always going to be a little farm town, be- cause it's not going to stay that'way. A lot of .~eople buy a home in the country, and then go and _re. axe some noise every time someone appears ~efore a CiO' Council or a County CommiSsion wanting to bring in a new development. The resi- dents just want the area~to stay the way it was when they bought a house there. It's not realistic. It's not going to happen. Q: Some__oeo_p_ii tout mixed-use develqp- ments where people ca~ walk to do their er- rh~,-~ill~-~--~iiices. Is that concept real- istic? Are people really going to want to give up their cars? A: I ]~link. so far. that type of development -- traditionally called TND, traditional neighborhood development -- has its niche. But, I don't think it ,u_-0rt~s everywhere, and I don't think it's a manic goiution, in fact. a lot of buyers don't want that See HUNTER. A59 OCTOBER 2002 TREASURE COAST BUSINESS JOURNAL PAGE 59 HUNTER.. FROM A.58 _type of develonment They want to have a backyard with grass where their-kids can play. People don't want their kids playing in an alley behind the house with cars and asphalt. There's also the fact that TND deveiooment often costs a;~more, because of different infrastructure factors. Bu~-mlt that being said, there are some people .... who say, "That's great, that. reminds me of up North." But others come here to get away from that. They come from New York. New Jersey. Con- necticut, and they don't want that. They want a big yard where their kids can play. That's what they expect from a Florida home. Right now, 10 or l%.percent of the market is in favor of TNDs. A TND makes more sense in an re:ban setting, rather than a rural setting. Q: How is the current sellers market af- fecting affordable housing on the Treasure Coast? This region is more affordable than the rest of South Florida, yet prices are going up here. ~, A: T~he affordable housing problem is going to get worse and worse. You can see it going up the coast m ~rowarcl Count-,, for example. Broward, $300.000 is a normal price for a new home. That's commonplace. Most of the new housm~ that's built in Broward is in that price range. Broward is the ulumate example of a lack of supply. Because of that lack of supply, as com- pared to demand, prices are higher. People think of Palm Beach County as the expensive county.. but Broward actually sells more new homes in the $,300.000 price range than Palm Beach. ---qT'NIore pig nauonal ~unaers are eyeing our region. What effect might that have on our housing market? A: They're coming. I don't know whether ~ that's good, bad or indi2erent, but riley are coming, and they are going to be bringing decades 'of experience, DxLaons or' dollars worth oI capital, '_~_n.d-~ried. and-Ume floor plans and designs and community-center ideas they've been developing for many years. They are now saying it's £maliy tnUe for this to happen here. I've been in this business for about 15 years, and during that whole tune. I was saying, "The Treasure Coast's time will come." And, people were saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've been saying that for years." Ail of a sudden. Broward is running essentially out of land. and Palm Beach will be rurming shor~ of ~ except for what WCI (Communities) has, pret~/ soon. Dade also is running out of land. So, either you go all the way down to Homestead. ~h~re ~here's p~enty ot lan(L or you jump up to the TreAs~ff-~--Cbast4~ The time has come for the Treasure CoastTAll of my clients are asking me for data or market studies on the Treasure Coast. ~: How many more requests are you getting for that type of informa~inn? A: I'm getting at least twice as many inquiries lately than I have had before. Q: What kind of effect will national builders have on prices here? A: Theoretically, bringing in more supply should reduce the costs. Maybe a big developer will have the wherewithal to develop larger com- munities all at once. To placate the people that are nervous about growth, they can create a huge com- munity with its own preserves and walking trails to acknowiedge the environment, and work within me environment. But. even when a big deveioper comes into a new community, the:' usuafiv neighborhoods to a variety of sma~ ~o medmm- sized builders, so it's not like you are ¢om~ ~c ME/.ANIE ~ cormsDon~-~t 'l think the Treasure Coast is going to remain relatively suDutoan, less intensively developed," said Brad Hunter with American Metro Study, a real estate consulting firm. have a cornmurnty of 2,000 units with only one builder. Westchester is an e×ample: You've got three or four builders in place, and there's. probabt¥ some more yet to come. ! don't know- thatl[ tl~e fac~ tha~ national builders are coming makes a difference, one way or another, as far as pricing. The mare thing that ts gotng to determine pricmg is supply and demand. A~ long as budders are coming m and meeting the supply, it will keep the prices from skyrocketing as much. Prices are going to go up. but it's a matter of how fast. And. if we artificially constrain the supply too much. we are going to end up with no affordable housing at Q: How do you see the Treasure Coast's housing market shaping up 10, 20 years Down the ro~d? --'-A:--T-suppose the patterns are pretty, pre- dictable. Certain areas that are countrified w~ become less so, but it all depends on how they decide to manage the ¢rowth. As long as the ~rowth isn't bad, as long as it's managed properly ..... you can deny it, or you can manage ~t so mat works. For example, m ~rowarcl County., mere are some mumclpallues that say mey omy want acre lots~tor smgle-iamny homes. Or you have bum:ise. where the growth is vertical, where they pack the densiw in. ,-~ The destiny of the Treasure Coast reaJJv is Wit~uin the han~--of the people who live there~ the p~ople who pm tor the development -- planning and zoning, and County comrmssioners ' '~c~--p~o-~lb who are grading those forces. You cah'f stop growth, but you can make your zoning logical, and go with that. Q: Some residents worry, about the Treasure Coast becoming more of a metro- politan area. Do you eventually envision a major metro area that stretches from Miami to Orlando? You know, that worst-case sce- nario that people are worried about? A: I don't think the Treasure Coast is ever going to get as cievelopect as Faire ~eacn. ~roward and Dade. The uransportatlon m_trastrucmre isn't tt~e~: Y6-u do-ffTh-~-an mternauonal au-pon or ,umversm'. The growth engines mat are heeded to really ~rn an area into a hub of buzzing activiw. with tons of people w~n? are living and working, re- ..qmres a universiw anti a ma~or a~r~ort and big coraorauons. I ~r~k--F~'~ Treasure (~nR~t to rema~_n reiatn'elv SLIDUrD3ffi. less ]ntensix'eix- Q: Where do you see the next big boom area in the state of. FAorlda? A: ~he Treasur~ Coast is in for a boom in~' housing. Lee Counw would De anomer Doom ar~a, ~---a-'-~%--rt~dn in Sarasota County..Also. thC-area north of Tampa and the outskirts of Orlando con- tmue to expand. Those are probably the main areas that are poised for a big increase in devel- opment activin.,. ~: What do those areas have in common? A: Land. a willingness to allow develovment, interest from bigger builders and developers. Those generate more demand in an area. They nl~r, are eood places to retire, good Ofaces to live. more inexoenslve. . O.: Yet, Census figures showed Martin and Indi~-l~iver counties were two of the top five Fl°rida;:~bunties where hom~s' .are $500.000 and ~m"~.,; · - ".~,;:::.'.":-::. :~;' _ A?: Becfluse you haw so ~u~:'h WeaI~ (ioming., into Martin and indian" Rtver ~at ~s coming ri'om outside. Brad remember, the Vero Beach market has~n~consTder~d a play~founa mr me ncn tor yearsU-I~ got some very old anti established country cluOs, very exclUSlVe markets, so you do have a number of developments there that ake very.' high-Price6UTb--a deg~bu-~at is df'V~ure to new residents. They like that n-nage, that cache. Q: Florida's retiree market has been very strong. Now. other states -- Georgia. North Carolina -- are trying to lure re~rees. Could Florida lose its grip on retirees? A: Florida definitely faces mere competition now than it did in the past, from other states. Southern states, that are courting retirees. I do think that Florida will lose some share over time. but at the same time. it will be getting a shrinking share of a growing pie. The whole market is goin¢ to be growing so massively over me next ~ years ~vith a huge increase m ret~-ee ana pre-retn:ee de-r~md, and second-home demand, trom me DaSy 550ffi-~'~ That's me one-two punch for the Treasure Coast: a combination of demographics fa- voring reurement, and the second-nome aemand. Q: How long do you foresee the current re- financing boom lasting? A: .It's going to keep 8oing, as long as interest rates keep going down. and ~ey probably aren't going to go down much further. So, 'we are probably nearing the end of that now. Q: How do you see interest rates shaping up? A: They could conceivably fall a bit more. partly because the Fed seems to be pretty, predis- posed to helping the economy along at this point. And, partly because people are pulling money out of the stock market and putting it into bonds, and when people do that, it tends to drive interest rates down. But, that has pretty, much almost played itself out by now. We are probably near the bottom on interest rates, and probably some time next year, when the economy starts to gain some mo- mentum and grow again, there will be more demand for borrowed money. That will in turn drive up interest rates without the Fed harms to do anything about it. Once that happens, the refinancing boom stops. and the money that people are pulling out of their homes with that vehicle wLU dry up. People who took out loans that they can barely afford, with ad- justable-rate mortgages, w21 get foreclosed upon because they won't be able to make their mor~ga? payments. So. there are some shadows lurkm~ next year as a result of the interest-rare picture. con't want to overstate that. but there are De-~ative tnLq~£ tDat al'e ii2 store wllel] intereF7 Fates go u~. 70.001 Private property rights protection.-- (1) This act may be cited as the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Proper~y Rights Protection Act." The Legislature recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and political entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of private property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property. (2) When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this section. (3) For purposes of this section: (a) The existence of a "vested right" is to be determined by applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or by applying the statutory law of this state. (b) The term "existing use" means an actual, present use or activity on the real property, including periods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature or type of use or activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use or activity on the real property. (c) The term "governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority. The term does not include the United States or any of its agencies, or an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority, when exercising the powers of the United States or any of its agencies through a formal delegation of federal authority. (d) The term "action of a governmental entity" means a specific action of a governmental entity which affects real property, including action on an application or permit. (e) The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" mean that an action of one or more governmental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large. The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include temporary impacts to real property; impacts to real property occasioned by governmental abatement, prohibition, prevention, or remediation of a public nuisance at common taw or a noxious use of private property; or impacts to real property caused by an action of a governmental entity taken to grant relief to a property owner under this section. (f) The term "property owner" means the person who holds legal title to the real property at issue. The term does not include a governmental entity. (g) The term "real property" means land and includes any appurtenances and improvements to the land, including any other relevant real property in which the property owner had a relevant interest. (4)(a) Not less than 180 days prior to filing an action under this section against a governmental entity, a property owner who seeks compensation under this section must present the claim in writing to the head of the governmental entity. The property owner must submit, along with the claim, a bona fide, valid appraisal that supports the claim and demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the real property. If the action of government is the culmination of a process that involves more than one governmental entity, or if a complete resolution of all relevant issues, in the view of the property owner or in the view of a governmental entity to whom a claim is presented, requires the active participation of more than one governmental entity, the property owner shall present the claim as provided in this section to each of the governmental entities. (b) The governmental entity shall provide written notice of the claim to all parties to any administrative action that gave rise to the claim, and to owners of real property contiguous to the owner's property at the addresses listed on the most recent county tax rolls. Within 15 days after the claim being presented, the governmental entity shall report the claim in writing to the Department of Legal Affairs, and shall provide the department with the name, address, and telephone number of the employee of the governmental entity from whom additional information may be obtained about the claim during the pendency of the claim and any subsequent judicial action. (c) During the 180-day-notice period, unless extended by agreement of the parties, the governmental entity shall make a written settlement offer to effectuate: 1. An adjustment of land development or permit standards or other provisions controlling the development or use of land. 2. Increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development. 3. The transfer of developmental rights. 4. Land swaps or exchanges. 5. Mitigation, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation. 6. Location on the least sensitive portion of the property. 7. Conditioning the amount of development or use permitted. 8. A requirement that issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis than a single proposed use or development. 9. Issuance of the development order, a variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief. 10. Purchase of the real property, or an interest therein, by an appropriate governmental entity. 11. No changes to the action of the governmental entity. If the property owner accepts the settlement offer, the governmental entity may implement the settlement offer by appropriate development agreement; by issuing a variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief; or by other appropriate method, subject to paragraph (d). (d)l. Whenever a governmental entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section which would have the effect of a modification, variance, or a special exception to the application of a rule, regulation, or ordinance as it would otherwise apply to the subject real property, the relief granted shall protect the public interest served by the regulations at issue and be the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the governmental regulatory effort from inordinately burdening the real property. 2. Whenever a governmental entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section which would have the effect of contravening the application of a statute as it would otherwise apply to the subject real property, the governmental entity and the property owner shall jointly file an action in the circuit court where the real property is located for approval of the settlement agreement by the court to ensure that the relief granted protects the public interest served by the statute at issue and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the governmental regulatory effort from inordinately burdening the real property. (5)(a) During the 180-day-notice period, unless a settlement offer is accepted by the property owner, each of the governmental entities provided notice pursuant to paragraph (4)(a) shall issue a written ripeness decision identifying the allowable uses to which the subject property may be put. The failure of the governmental entity to issue a written ripeness decision during the 180-day-notice period shall be deemed to ripen the prior action of the governmental entity, and shall operate as a ripeness decision that has been rejected by the property owner. The ripeness decision, as a matter of law, constitutes the last prerequisite to judicial review, and the matter shall be deemed ripe or final for the purposes of the judicial proceeding created by this section, notwithstanding the availability of other administrative remedies. (b) If the property owner rejects the settlement offer and the ripeness decision of the governmental entity or entities, the property owner may file a claim for compensation in the circuit court, a copy of which shall be served contemporaneously on the head of each of the governmental entities that made a settlement offer and a ripeness decision that was rejected by the property owner. Actions under this section shall be brought only in the county where the real property is located. (6)(a) The circuit court shall determine whether an existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property existed and, if so, whether, considering the settlement offer and ripeness decision, the governmental entity or entities have inordinately burdened the real property. If the actions of more than one governmental entity, considering any settlement offers and ripeness decisions, are responsible for the action that imposed the inordinate burden on the real property of the property owner, the court shall determine the percentage of responsibility each such governmental entity bears with respect to the inordinate burden. A governmental entity may take an interlocutory appeal of the court's determination that the action of the governmental entity has resulted in an inordinate burden. An interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay the proceedings; however, the court may stay the proceedings during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. If the governmental entity does not prevail in the interlocutory appeal, the court shall award to the prevailing property owner the costs and a reasonable attorney fee incurred by the property owner in the interlocutory appeal. (b) Following its determination of the percentage of responsibility of each governmental entity, and following the resolution of any interlocutory appeal, the court shall impanel a jury to determine the total amount of compensation to the property owner for the loss in value due to the inordinate burden to the real property. The award of compensation shall be determined by calculating the difference in the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time of the governmental action at issue, as though the owner had the ability to attain the reasonable investment-backed expectation or was not left with uses that are unreasonable, whichever the case may be, and the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time of the governmental action at issue, as inordinately burdened, considering the settlement offer together with the ripeness decision, of the governmental entity or entities. In determining the award of compensation, consideration may not be given to business damages relative to any development, activity, or use that the action of the governmental entity or entities, considering the settlement offer together with the ripeness decision has restricted, limited, or prohibited. The award of compensation shall include a reasonable award of prejudgment interest from the date the claim was presented to the governmental entity or entities as provided in subsection (4). (c)1. In any action filed pursuant to this section, the property owner is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the property owner, from the governmental entity or entities, according to their proportionate share as determined by the court, from the date of the filing of the circuit court action, if the property owner prevails in the action and the court determines that the settlement offer, including the ripeness decision, of the governmental entity or entities did not constitute a bona fide offer to the property owner which reasonably would have resolved the claim, based upon the knowledge available to the governmental entity or entities and the property owner during the 180-day-notice period. 2. tn any action filed pursuant to this section, the governmental entity or entities are entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the governmental entity or entities from the date of the filing of the circuit court action, if the governmental entity or entities prevail in the action and the court determines that the property owner did not accept a bona fide settlement offer, including the ripeness decision, which reasonably would have resolved the claim fairly to the property owner if the settlement offer had been accepted by the property owner, based upon the knowledge available to the governmental entity or entities and the property owner during the 180-day-notice period. 3. The determination of total reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to this paragraph shall be made by the court and not by the jury. Any proposed settlement offer or any proposed ripeness decision, except for the final written settlement offer or the final written ripeness decision, and any negotiations or rejections in regard to the formulation either of the settlement offer or the ripeness decision, are inadmissible in the subsequent proceeding established by this section except for the purposes of the determination pursuant to this paragraph. (d) Within 15 days after the execution of any settlement pursuant to this section, or the issuance of any judgment pursuant to this section, the governmental entity shall provide a copy of the settlement or judgment to the Department of Legal Affairs. (7)(a) The circuit court may enter any orders necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section and to make final determinations to effectuate relief available under this section. (b) An award or payment of compensation pursuant to this section shall operate to grant to and vest in any governmental entity by whom compensation is paid the right, title, and interest in rights of use for which the compensation has been paid, which rights may become transferable development rights to be held, sold, or otherwise disposed of by the governmental entity. When there is an award of compensation, the court shall determine the form and the recipient of the right, title, and interest, as well as the terms of their acquisition. (8) This section does not supplant methods agreed to by the parties and lawfully available for arbitration, mediation, or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and governmental entities are encouraged to utilize such methods to augment or facilitate the processes and actions contemplated by this section. (9) This section provides a cause of action for governmental actions that may not rise to the level of a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. This section may not necessarily be construed under the case law regarding takings if the governmental action does not rise to the level of a taking. The provisions of this section are cumulative, and do not abrogate any other remedy lawfully available, including any remedy lawfully available for governmental actions that rise to the level of a taking. However, a governmental entity shall not be liable for compensation for an action of a governmental entity applicable to, or for the loss in value to, a subject real property more than once. (10) This section does not apply to any actions taken by a governmental entity which relate to the operation, maintenance, or expansion of transportation facilities, and this section does not affect existing law regarding eminent domain relating to transportation. (11) A cause of action may not be commenced under this section if the claim is presented more than I year after a law or regulation is first applied by the governmental entity to the property at issue. If an owner seeks relief from the governmental action through lawfully available administrative or judicial proceedings, the time for bringing an action under this section is tolled until the conclusion of such proceedings. (12) No cause of action exists under this section as to the application of any law enacted on or before May 11, 1995, or as to the application of any rule, regulation, or ordinance adopted, or formally noticed for adoption, on or before that date. A subsequent amendment to any such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance gives rise to a cause of action under this section only to the extent that the application of the amendatory language imposes an inordinate burden apart from the law, rule, regulation, or ordinance being amended. (13) This section does not affect the sovereign immunity of government. History.--s. 1, ch. 95-181.