|
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
Glitch Bills on SB 360
(2005): SB
1858 by the Senate Committee on Community Affairs chaired
by Senator Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton), among its other
provisions, expands the membership of the Century Commission
for a Sustainable Florida; provides an additional sum to the
State Transportation Trust Fund; and appropriates a
nonrecurring sum that was vetoed for the 2005-2006 fiscal year
for the Strategic Intermodal System. Since the filing of
this bill, an amendment was passed that appropriates $870,000
in recurring funding to the Century Commission. HB
7167 is the House companion, filed by the Committee on
Growth Management chaired by Representative Randy Johnson
(R-Winter Garden). This bill revises requirements and
procedures for public school interlocal agreements and revises
concurrency requirements. SB
1858 still has two more committee stops while HB
7167 is about to clear its committees and proceed to the
House floor. Both Senator Bennett and Representative
Johnson are committed to limiting these bills to SB
360-glitch issues.
Developments of
Regional Impact: SB
1020 (Bennett, R-Bradenton) and HB
683 (Traviesa, R-Brandon), primarily address revisions to
the DRI process but are expected to be the bills to which
other non-glitch related items are amended, in spite of the
best efforts of the Association of Florida Community
Developers and others to keep them "clean." FAPA has
members that support these bills and others that have concerns
over various provisions. FAPA continues to be contacted
by Committee staff for analyses of the implications of the
various proposals. Much credit goes to
Senator Bennett and Representative Traviesa for their
willingness to bring the stakeholders to the table on numerous
occasions to hammer out a bill that could be reasonably
supported by consensus. The bills eliminate marinas from
DRI review but require comprehensive plans to include policies
related to the siting of marinas. DEP is also directed
to establish an alternative permitting process for marina dry
storage. The bills have also been amended to include
provisions related to workforce housing in DRIs including a
requirement that affordable housing remain available for a
minimum of 20 years. One of the most controversial
provisions was a proposal that would have exempted a "new
town" from the needs and urban sprawl requirements of Chapter
163 and Rule 9J-5. However, as a result of
extensive negotiations and good faith meetings, the most
objectionable language has been removed. These bills
will continue to be fast moving and should be closely watched
through to the last day of their pending passage.
Other
Growth Management Bills: HB
7229 and HB
7253 were filed by the House Committee on Growth
Management to address growth management issues not raised in
the bills mentioned above. HB
7229 creates a new "trip-fee" concept and requires FDOT to
create a model ordinance containing a methodology to implement
that concept. It also weakens water concurrency
provisions and undermines the Bay Point decision, which
requires that if changes are made to a DRI, those changes must
be consistent with the current comprehensive plan. HB
7253 removes the requirement that the entire local
comprehensive plan be financially feasible; authorizes local
governments to continue adopting land use plan amendments
during challenges to its plan; weakens transportation
concurrency; weakens school concurrency; provides that school
capacity would no longer be the basis for finding a
comprehensive plan amendment not in compliance; assigns the
Century Commission to DCA; and creates a partial DRI exemption
for urban service, infill and redevelopment, and rural land
stewardship areas. To date, HB
7229 has not been heard in committee. However, HB
7253 has cleared its final committees of reference and
will soon undergo deliberations in the House.
Transportation
Concurrency: SB
1862 (Saunders, R-Naples) and HB
905 (Goodlette, R-Naples) address exceptions and
alternatives to transportation concurrency and
proportionate-fair-share mitigation and allow local
governments to adopt more stringent transportation concurrency
standards under certain circumstances. DCA has concerns
with these bills because the provisions would circumvent the
proportionate fair share (pay and go) provisions of SB
360 (2005). However, some argue that the adoption of
the proportionate fair share provisions weakened the
concurrency standards as they existed at the time and thereby
lessened local government authority in the first
place. FAPA continues to support allowing local
governments to adopt more stringent standards than provided
for in state statute. The bill sponsors may also look to
SB
1020 and HB
683 as a vehicle for this issue. Currently, HB
905 cleared its committees of reference and SB
1862 has one more stop before it can be deliberated in the
Senate.
Water
& Sewer Concurrency:
HB
749 (Bowen, R-Haines City) and SB
1874 (Argenziano, R-Crystal River), eliminate the
requirement that new development hook up to existing water and
sewer services and allow the use of septic tanks to meet water
and sewer concurrency requirements. There are also provisions
that exempt the extension of new sewerage system construction
that was previously approved or which is not located in an
urban services area from the detailed feasibility study
requirement (also provided for in the bill). There are
several groups opposing this bill, including the Florida
Association of Counties.
EMINENT
DOMAIN
While there are
more than 15 bills filed relating to eminent domain, the bills
to watch most closely are HB
1567 by the House Select Committee to Protect Private
Property Rights, chaired by Representative Rubio (R-Miami),
and SB
2168 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator
Webster (R-Winter Garden. HB
1567 passed the House unanimously on April 6. The
House appears to have taken a "here's what you CAN'T do" mode
by declaring that eminent domain cannot be used for economic
development purposes and that the elimination of a slum or
blighted area is not a legitimate public use for the purpose
of eminent domain. The approach taken by the Senate in
SB
2168 appears to be coming from a "here's what you CAN do"
perspective. While the bill restricts the use of eminent
domain by local governments and preempts the power of eminent
domain to the state, it lists out the circumstances under
which eminent domain may be used. Public uses include
roads, parks, public works and rights-of-way. In
addition, the bill prohibits all eminent domain for
redevelopment purposes. SB
2168 is waiting to be placed on the Senate Community
Affairs Committee agenda. Additional guidance from the
Governor is also expected.
Additionally, Representative Rubio
also filed HB
1569 and HB
1571 to propose two constitutional amendments. The
first would prohibits the transfer of ownership or control of
private real property taken by eminent domain to any other
person or entity and the second transfers the "Save Our Homes"
property tax protection to a new homestead when an
individual's original homesteaded property is taken through
eminent domain. HB
1569 passed the House of a vote of 92 yeas and 23
nays. HB
1571 passed unanimously. TAKE ACTION: Contact your
Legislators and tell them that no constitutional amendments
are needed and to reject these bills, which are an
"over-reaction" to the Kelo decision. APA's Property Fairness
Campaign is very helpful in this regard.
For more information, click here or go to http://www.planning.org/domesticagenda/2006/mar06.htm
(login required).
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
(CRAs)
HB
1583 (M. Davis, R-Naples), SB
2364 (Baker, R-Eustis) incorporate agreed upon language by
the cities and counties related to CRAs, with Charter counties
having more stringent requirements. As filed, these
bills will only apply to new CRAs or to the expanded
boundaries of an existing CRA. The Florida League of
Cities is working to make sure that any CRA that was protected
through the "grandfather" provisions in the 2002 legislation
will not be subject to the new law. Both bills have
cleared their committees and will now be deliberated by the
House and Senate.
SB
2582 (Bennett, R-Bradenton) is the Florida Redevelopment
Association's proposal on CRAs. Since there is no House
companion to this bill, many of its provisions have been
incorporated into the above-referenced bills, including
provisions related to affordable housing, clarification of
existing law, and more stringent timelines. FAPA endorsed the positions of the
Florida Redevelopment Association and
Florida League of Cities on these issues and
is supportive of these bills.
COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT
SB
2256 (Clary, R-Destin) requires that the coastal
management element of a comprehensive plan outline principles
for the protection of property against the effects of a
natural disaster. It also requires a local government to
meet an extensive list of criteria in order to amend its
comprehensive plan to allow for redevelopment within a Coastal
High Hazard Area. Another bill, SB
1948 (Smith, D-Gainesville) requires the seller of
property located in whole or in part seaward of the Coastal
Construction Control Line to give potential buyers a written
disclosure statement that the property is subject to coastal
erosion and to federal, state, or local regulations, which
govern coastal property. There's been no movement on SB
2256. However, SB
1948 has proceeded to the Senate floor. Its
companion, HB
1621 (Mayfield, R-Vero Beach), is being deliberated in the
House.
HAZARD MITIGATION FOR COASTAL
REDEVELOPMENT
HB
1359 (Benson, R-Pensacola) and SB
2216 (Clary, R-Destin) originally addressed coastal
armoring after hurricanes. However, this
well-intentioned legislation has now been expended to require
new development in Coastal High Hazard Areas to meet either a
minimum 12 to 16 hour evacuation time or appropriate
mitigation standards. It is believed that these
requirements could result in a type of "evacuation
concurrency" that could make new development more difficult in
urbanized coastal counties but easier in less developed areas
such as the Florida Panhandle. The sponsors appear
willing to consider amendments to address many of the concerns
raised by stakeholders. DCA is also proposing
amendments. These bills
should be closely monitored due to the potential for
unanticipated consequences.
ANNEXATION
For the third
year in a row, two bills have been filed creating the
"Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act" - SB
1194 (Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs) and HB
1357 (Altman, R-Melbourne). Many of the provisions in
these bills originated in the recommendations of the Florida
Association of Counties/Florida League of Cities 2003
Workgroup on annexation. The bills provide for the
creation of interlocal service boundary agreements by a county
and one or more municipalities or independent special
districts along with related procedures and implementation
activities. Both bills are scheduled to be heard in
their final committees of reference.
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
It appears that this may
be the year for sweeping changes in the affordable housing
arena. Representative Mike Davis (R-Naples) and Senator
Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) are taking a lead role in this
regard with the filing of HB
1363 and SB
136. These bills provide for grants and incentives
to address workforce needs and provide for the inventory of
surplus lands for affordable housing purposes. FAPA's
Affordable Housing Work Group has been closely following these
bills and providing expert feedback to Representative Davis
and Senator Bennett on these issues. HB
1363 must be heard in one more committee before moving to
the House floor. To date, SB
136 has not been heard.
In addition, while it first appeared
that there was a move to "scrap the cap" that was put in place
by the 2005 Legislature on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund,
the momentum appears to be shifting back in the other
direction. FAPA supports full funding of all trust
funds. TAKE ACTION:
Contact your Legislators and encourage them to "scrap the
cap."
IMPACT
FEES
SB
1196 (Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs) and HB
1431 (Cretul, R-Ocala) create the "Impact Fee Act" and
reflect the recommendations of the Florida Impact Fee Task
Force. Among their many provisions, the bills authorize
local governments to adopt an ordinance levying impact fees to
fund infrastructure necessitated by new growth and in that
ordinance, include criteria for calculating and imposing
impact fees. Both bills also include an impact fee
credit, which prevents home buyers from paying twice for the
one impact that they may have on their community. The
Florida Home Builders Association supports the bills but
expects the Florida Association of Counties to oppose the
credit issue. Both bills are making the rounds in their
committees of reference and are expected to proceed to the
House and Senate Floor for further deliberations.
SITING: ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATIONS
SB
980 (Alexander, R-Lake Wales) and HB
431 (Littlefield, R-Zephyrhills) address the siting of
electrical substations. Provisions state that
substations are permittable in all land use categories.
1000 Friends of Florida, in conjunction with other
environmental organizations, were successful in gaining an
exemption for conservation and preservation lands and are
continuing to work along with FAPA toward inserting provisions
allowing local governments to adopt local standards regarding
the location of power substations. FAPA does not support
any action that preempts local government planning
authority. We are continuing to work to amend this
bill. TAKE ACTION:
Contact your Legislators and ask them to either oppose these
bills or amend them to allow local governments to adopt
standards regarding the location of power
substations.
AGRICULTURAL
ENCLAVES
For the third
year in a row, bills are filed relating to agricultural
economic development: HB
1015 (Pickens, R-Palatka; Poppell, R-Vero Beach) and SB
1880 (Argenziano, R-Crystal River). FAPA continues
to oppose these bills because they create the presumption that
a comprehensive plan amendment is not urban sprawl and in
effect supersede the urban sprawl provisions of Rule 9J-5,
F.A.C. Furthermore, they would preempt local government
decision making authority, could result in the premature
conversion of agricultural lands for speculative development
and promote urban sprawl. The bills limit the size of an
agricultural enclave to 2,560 acres unless the density at
buildout is at least 1,000 residents/square mile, in which
case the acreage may not exceed 5,120 acres. This bill is
backed by the Florida Farm Bureau and would benefit a single
owner of a 5,000 acre grove in Palm Beach County. FAPA,
Audubon of Florida, 1000 Friends of Florida and others
continue to oppose these bills. TAKE ACTION: Contact your
Legislators and ask them to oppose these
bills.
FLORIDA
KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE
CONCERN
SB
2098 (Bennett, R-Bradenton) and HB
1299 (Sorenson, R-Tavernier) originally called for DCA to
provide a written report to the Governor and Cabinet that
described the progress of the Florida Keys Area of Critical
State Concern in accomplishing the tasks in its work program
and if it were determined that significant progress had been
achieved, the Area of Critical State Concern designation could
be removed as of October 1, 2009. According to the
Audubon of Florida 82% of surveyed Keys residents said they
opposed lifting the designation and only three of Monroe
County's five commissioners support these bills. A compromise
has since been reached pushing back the dates for
consideration and de-designation from 2006-2007 to
2008-2007. The amendment also makes it easier for
citizens and conservation groups to challenge the decision of
the Governor and Cabinet. This compromise is now
incorporated in the Senate Bill, which has to clear one more
committee. The House bill is moving to the House floor,
where this revised language will likely be incorporated.
FLORIDA SPRINGS PROTECTION
ACT
HB
693 (Stansel, D-Live Oak) and SB
2538 (Argenziano, R-Crystal River) create the "Florida
Springs Protection Act" and establish a task force to assess
the conditions of first and second magnitude springs in the
State of Florida. The bills require that the task force
recommend strategies for protecting the springs and develop a
model springs protection plan. If passed, the task force would
expire on July 1, 2010. Both bills are being favorably
heard in their committees of
reference.
OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING/BILLBOARDS
Local
government authority is being preempted in HB
273 (Mayfield, R-Vero Beach) and SB
566 (Haridopolis, R-Melbourne). These outdoor
advertising bills require local governments to allow
reconstruction of billboards even if that reconstruction
conflicts with local regulations. If the local
government refuses to do so, it must pay just compensation to
the sign owner. TAKE ACTION:
Contact your Legislators and ask them to oppose these
bills.
LOCAL CONTROL OF
GROWTH
HB
949 (Arza, R-Hialeah) and SB
1608 (Bennett, R-Bradenton) protect the ability of
municipalities to govern under their home rule powers without
the potential conflict or preemption from a charter
county. However, this is seen by others as allowing
small municipalities to limit the ability of their county to
coordinate responsible growth within their boundaries, in
effect possibly negating county-based planning efforts and may
be counter-productive to regional planning efforts.
These bills appear to cause a
potential conflict among FAPA's various membership
interests. Please review these bills and share your
thoughts with us.
FLORIDA FOREVER
COALITION
House and Senate
appropriations bills contain $300 million for the Florida
Forever Program. FAPA is a member of the Florida Forever
Coalition and is a strong advocate for the continued funding
of this nationally renowned land buying program.
TAKE ACTION: Contact your
Legislators and ask them to support this
funding.
BABCOCK
RANCH
SB
1226 (Dockery, R-Lakeland), SB
2102 (Bennett, R-Bradenton) and HB
1347 (T. Williams, R-Ft. Myers) are the vehicles for the
$310 million purchase of 74,000 acres of Florida's Babcock
Ranch. If passed, this will be the largest conservation
land acquisition in Florida's history.
Please continue to provide feedback to
us on these bills and other legislation being followed in
FAPA's Bill Tracking Report. The input that you provide
to the Chapter Office building up to and during the
Legislative Session on the numerous bills that impact growth
and development in this state is of enormous value. Even
though there may be varying opinions within the organization,
FAPA is often in the position of being able to share all
points of view with Legislators and Legislative staff.
Their appreciation of that input and expertise is
tremendous. You add value to legislative deliberations
and creditability to FAPA as a resource and statewide network
of planning professionals. Thank you!
--Lester Abberger, FAPA Legislative
Representative
--Sheri Coven, FAPA Executive
Director |
