|
The Chapter Office is receiving comments, both solicited and unsolicited, that we wish to share with you on a few pieces of legislation, as well as bring to your attention a few newly filed bills.
HB 1495 & SB 2774: Wireless Emergency Telephone Service
HB 1495 and its Senate companion, SB 2774, are two controversial bills that address wireless emergency telephone service. The bills provide minimum standards applicable to local government regulation of placement, construction, or modification of wireless communications facilities; limit imposing fees or fines by local governments on wireless communications providers; and provide for square footage and height limitations, which supercede current local government limitations. The bills encourage the co-location of wireless facilities, thereby preempting various aspects of local government zoning and land use regulations. Here are some of the comments we have received:
- The proposed legislation gives the appearance of an assist towards the completion of the State's E-911 system. However, the language dictates how local government must govern towers, and that E-911 should not be taken into consideration when rendering determinations on towers. Much of the language is vague and not enforceable.
- It inhibits a local government's ability to regulate antenna support structures, including their aesthetic appearance.
- If passed, this bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any application fees or siting fees on applicants for wireless communications facilities and thereby placing the cost associated with tower siting control on the local government.
- These bills would result in far reaching restrictions on local governments' regulatory authority and revoke, in some instances, all local authority to regulate the placement of wireless communications facilities.
- In one subsection, the bill states that height limitations must have a rational nexus with the projected need for towers and consumer use, yet earlier the bill states that the local government is prohibited from considering business need, service quality or network design. How is a local government to determine what the projected need for towers and projected subscriber use will be if it cannot inquire from the provider as to its business need, service quality issues or network design? If passed, the bill will tell local governments to grant permits but not to ask any questions or impose any fees.
We've appreciated all of the comments and concerns shared with us. FAPA's Legislative Platform states that FAPA supports local government authority to implement sound planning practices and opposes any preemption of local government authority. Lester Abberger, FAPA's Legislative Representative, is sharing our concerns regarding the preemptions in this legislation with the appropriate Legislators and interested parties.
HTR 4: Transportation Planning/Metropolitan Planning Organizations
This proposed committee (Transportation) bill is scheduled to be heard by the Transportation Committee on Wednesday, March 9, 2004. The Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) is expected to oppose the bill.
HTR 4 is a committee staff derivative of legislative recommendations from FDOT, the MPOAC, and the Florida Transportation Commission (FTC). FTC's recommendations were based on their December 2003 study, Assessment of Florida's Regional and Intermodal Transportation Planning Process.
HB 1513 & SB 2548: Platted Lands
These two bills are identical and are the result of perseverance on the part of the Southwest Florida RPC and the Promised Lands Section of FAPA. The bills provide for the assembly and readjustment of certain land plats; limit actions to recover certain property after a tax deed has been issued; revise requirements of future land use plan elements of comprehensive plans to address antiquated subdivisions and consolidation of certain properties for certain purposes; and include antiquated subdivisions under certain community redevelopment plan requirements. The bills were officially filed on March 2 and have not yet been referred to committees. At its February 20 meeting in Tallahassee, FAPA's Executive Committee, voted to support the legislation.
HB 539: Developments of Regional Impact
This short, three-page bill has already moved through the House. It was heard on February 17 and unanimously passed the House on March 5. It is now in the Senate, where is will be referred to the Senate Comprehensive Planning Committee. The bill creates the presumption that the extension of the date of buildout of an areawide DRI by more than five years but less than 10 years does not create a substantial deviation, which requires additional review. It also provides that both the applicable individual use guidelines and standards for residential, hotel, motel, office, and retail developments and the multiuse guidelines and standards will be increased by 100 percent for multiuse developments which have a qualifying residential land use and which are located in an urban central business district or a regional activity center of a local government whose comprehensive plan is in compliance. According to the staff analysis from the Local Government and Veteran's Affairs Committee, proponents of the bill state as follows:
- The bill affects only Areawide DRIs, of which ten have been approved statewide (seven active). Thus, the effect of the bill on the overall DRI program is minimal while the positive impact for Areawide DRIs is significant.
- Recent economic slowdowns have altered the development pace of Areawide DRIs. Projects are being scaled back, delayed or abandoned. Vacancy rates have increased in existing commercial facilities.
- Approaching buildout and phase completion deadlines in existing development orders creates additional uncertainty that is devastating to investors in already uncertain economic conditions.
- Rebutting the substantial deviation presumption for extensions beyond the seven year maximum generally requires completion of an expensive traffic analysis that could result in additional costly mitigation measures.
- The bill provides limited relief from the buildout and phase deadlines and is consistent with existing incentive based treatment of Areawide DRIs in rule and statutes.
To date, there has been no opposition to the bill.
HB 1509 & SB 2554: Smart Growth Management Commission
These bills create a 2005 Smart Growth Management Commission; provide for its membership & requirements for voting; provide for appointments by the Governor, President of Senate, and Speaker of House of Representatives; require the Secretaries of the Departments of Transportation, Community Affairs, and Environmental Protection, and the Agriculture Commissioner or their designees to serve as ex officio nonvoting members; require DCA to provide staff support, and appropriate $300,000 for this effort. The legislation states that the commission shall review the implementation of the state's growth management programs and laws, including Chapters 163, 185, 187, and 380, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of making numerous recommendations as spelled out further in the legislation.
HB 777 & SB 2294: Working Waterfronts
These bills define the term "working waterfront" to mean a facility that requires direct access to or location in marine waters, including public marinas, public boat ramps, boat hauling and repair facilities, waterfront recreational facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and boating facilities. The bills require counties, through their local comprehensive plans, to provide a sufficient number of boat ramps to achieve a boat trailer parking capacity of five percent, and also state that if a governmental entity removes a working waterfront facility or limits public access due to development, it must provide a replacement facility. Finally, the bills require DCA to commission a study on the economic trends of working waterfronts of the state and on the impact that the loss of working waterfronts would have on the state's economy. The one difference between the bills is that the HB 777 appears to capture recreational boating through a surcharge on boats of a certain length.
The bills are the products of the Marine Industries Association of South Florida. The Broward Section of FAPA held a workshop in January with the Marine Industries Association of South Florida to engage its section members end encourage support of the legislation.
Members of FAPA's Legislative Policy Committee have reviewed the bill and expressed comments and concerns. It was felt that the definition of "working waterfront" was unclear and that as currently defined could include ocean front use, such as condominiums, hotels, etc. It was suggested that since the bills appear to focus on marine-oriented businesses, the definition should narrowed and simplified.
Several members expressed confusion regarding the section of the bill that requires a local government to replace a facility and that this section should be clarified. For instance, is it only intended to address an action by a local government to close a working waterfront facility? Is it only referring to publicly owned property? Could it be construed to refer to a land use amendment?
Suspicions regarding the need for the legislation were also raised. One member stated that "working waterfronts" were supposed to be for preserving traditional harbourside uses such as fishing boats, ship building and repair, etc., and not for pleasure boating and certainly not for boat trailers and ramps for weekend recreational boaters. Another stated that a working waterfront implies commercial activity, but limiting the surcharge (HB 777) to trailered boats less than 40 feet in length seems to capture primarily recreational boaters. The surcharge referenced in HB 777 was also questioned. Finally, a question was raised as to whether the legislation was trying to address a statewide problem or a situation unique to South Florida.
The bills have been referred to their respective committees, but have not been placed on any agendas.
Other Items to Watch
The Florida Association of Counties/Florida League of Cities Joint Annexation Workgroup held its last meeting on February 20, 2004. The workgroup will be recommending an alternative process for developing interlocal service boundary agreements with regard to service delivery, capacity issues, and boundary changes. A subcommittee is in the process of drafting legislation, and the workgroup is soon expected to present their recommendations to the Senate Comprehensive Planning Committee.
SB 1712, which provides a cause of action under the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act, was revised in the Senate Agriculture Committee meeting last week to remove consumptive use permitting provisions, and is expected to be revised again at its next committee stop to clarify language regarding agricultural enclaves.
Governor Bush announced that he intends to end guaranteed state funding for affordable housing programs. Unlike last year, the Legislature must pass legislation ratifying the trust funds and affordable housing programs, which makes them susceptible to the Governor's veto powers.
Finally, FDOT's legislative proposal, HB 1477, seems to be stirring up controversy. It eliminates the County Incentive Grant Program, the Transportation Outreach Program, and the Small County Road Assistance Program. The funds used to support these programs will be shifted to Strategic Intermodal System projects and as well as create the Transportation Rural Initiative Program. The bill also revises the current transportation planning and project selection process by imposing a regional transportation planning model on MPOs and local governments.
|
