Okaloosa County BOCC — September 3, 2013 — FAC Growth Management, Agriculture, Environment — reading text

2013 Growth Management, Agriculture & Environment Policy Committee Meeting Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. Meeting Room: Regency East (DE) Co-Chairs Co-Vice Chairs Jean Monestime, Miami-Dade County Scarlet Frisina, Columbia County Fred Hawkins, Jr., Osceola County Rebecca Bays, Citrus County AGENDA 1:15 p.m. INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS 1:20 p.m. OVERVIEW OF FAC POLICY PROCESS Eric Poole, FAC Staff 1:30 p.m. GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION Eric Poole, FAC Staff 2:15 p.m. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STATEMENTS Stephen James, FAC Staff 3:15 p.m. CLOSING REMARKS / ADJOURNMENT Marriott West Palm Beach ♦ Palm Beach County Updated 9/9/13  Growth, Environment & Agriculture Policy Committee 2013-14 Policy Statements Eric Poole, Assistant Legislative Director Growth Management Email: epoole@fl-counties.com Phone: 850-922-4300 Fax: 850-488-7501 CONSENT ITEMS GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Expedited State Review: SUPPORT changes to the Community Planning Act that would allow small counties to request the “State Coordinated Review Process” be used for the review of complex plan amendments. Explanation/Update: Under the growth reforms of 2011, two review processes were created for local plan amendments: the Expedited Review Process; and, the State Coordinated Review Process. The more robust State Coordinated Review process is used for Sector Plans, DRIs, EAR amendments, and amendments located in Areas of Critical State Concern. However, in some circumstances complex development proposals requiring plan amendments are submitted to small counties that have no professional planning staff. As such, these proposals often do not receive an appropriate review. This policy proposes a change in law allowing small counties to submit amendments of a certain size under the State Coordinated Review Process. Concurrency: In the absence of state-mandated transportation concurrency, and to ensure that the roads needed to support new development are concurrent with the impacts of development, SUPPORT county home rule authority, and current statutory provisions, which allow counties to retain their current transportation concurrency systems, as adopted by local ordinance. Explanation/Update: As a result of the 2011 legislative changes, transportation concurrency is no longer mandated by the state but may be maintained by local option. Currently, only a few local governments have elected to withdraw their concurrency ordinances. During the 2013 session, the House passed a bill (HB 321) that would have prevented counties from applying transportation concurrency for three years (from July 2013 – July 2016). This policy statement is intended to ensure counties can maintain their concurrency management ordinances without interference from the legislature. 1 Developments of Regional Impact: SUPPORT the purpose and intent of the DRI program, which is to evaluate – and potentially mitigate – the impacts of large scale developments have on communities outside the approving jurisdiction. However, recognizing the high cost of the DRI process, the potential for duplicative reviews, and the lack of mitigation enforcement outside the jurisdiction, SUPPORT revisions to the DRI program under the following conditions:  That a coordinated review by the RPC’s be retained for DRI-sized projects to specifically examine extra-jurisdictional impacts;  That the review process be limited to environmental issues and impacts on the infrastructure, particularly roads; and  That a mandatory mitigation component be included if it is found that a project will have impacts on the environment or infrastructure outside the host jurisdiction. Rural Growth: FAC recognizes that rural areas play an important role in our state’s economy, environment, agriculture, and cultural history. However, from a planning perspective, these areas have received much less attention than their urban and suburban counterparts. In view of this, SUPPORT the following:  Restoring the full amount of local technical assistance monies ($3.2 million) to the Department of Economic Opportunity, as originally provided under SB 360 (2005);  Targeted technical assistance to small counties for specific comprehensive planning functions, including Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) issues; and REGIONAL PLANNING Regional Planning Councils (RPCs): SUPPORT full funding of regional planning councils to, at a minimum, cover the costs of statutory responsibilities, and to support enhanced economic development activities. OPPOSE legislation prohibiting or restricting the ability of a regional planning council to provide planning and technical service to its local governments. Explanation/Update: Historically, the state’s 11 RPCs receive approximately $2.5 million in state general revenue funds. For the past three years, RPCs have not received any state funding. 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable Housing: SUPPORT retaining the full amount of dedicated documentary tax revenues to fund state and local affordable housing programs. Explanation/Update: For the last three years, while some affordable housing assistance funds have been appropriated, essentially no housing funds have come from the primary funding source for affordable housing: The State and Local Housing Trust Funds. In fact, in 2011, the Legislature permanently diverted $75 million per year of the doc stamp revenues to a newly created economic development program. For the current State Fiscal Year, the Legislature swept $204 million from the State and Local Housing Trust Fund to General Revenue. However, attempted to offset this sweep by appropriating $100 million from the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement to the SHIP ($40 Million) and SAIL ($60 Million) programs. NEW AND REVISED ITEMS GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Growth Management Reform: The growth reforms of 2011 represented the most significant changes to the state’s planning laws in more than 25 years. While FAC does not oppose the revised planning process, it believes that no further revisions should occur without first evaluating the impact the 2011 changes have had on the economy, the environment, local and regional infrastructure, and community development. Accordingly, until such an evaluation takes place, OPPOSE any further reductions in state planning oversight or other efforts preempting local planning decisions. Explanation/Update: Only two bills were filed during the 2013 session impacting home rule. Of those, one was signed into law that affects the timing and use of so- called mobility fee systems in lieu of traditional concurrency. While FAC does not anticipate any major legislation for 2014, efforts to limit certain planning and land use decisions are possible. Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation: SUPPORT major revisions to the proportionate share statute to ensure that: (1) the funding formula and its application are clear and unambiguous; (2) local governments can determine if the payment is adequate to satisfy the concurrency management system; (3) each development can be charged its proportionate share of road improvements when the road is deficient or when development causes the road to become deficient; and, (4) development is not charged for existing deficiencies or backlog. 3  Explanation/Update: This funding process – which is akin to an impact fee – has undergone numerous legislative changes over the last several years. Problematically, the statute has various interpretations among developers, local governments and state agencies. In short, the statutory language needs to be clarified, with an outcome that creates a balance between the identified transportation needs created by new development and the apportioned construction costs associated with those needs. Rural Growth: SUPPORT Restoring state funding to the Small County Technical Assistance (SCTAS) program, which has provided essential technical assistance to Florida’s small counties for more than a decade. 4  Eric Poole, Assistant Legislative Director Transportation Email: epoole@fl-counties.com Phone: 850-922-4300 or Fax: 850-488-7501 CONSENT ITEMS TRANSPORTATION FUNDING State Transportation Trust Fund: OPPOSE any effort to divert revenues from the state transportation trust fund for non-transportation purposes. Explanation/Update: For the past two years, and a result of an improving state economy, the Legislature has not redirected revenues from the State Transportation Trust Fund (STTF) to the General Revenue fund. In fact, as a result of the Legislature increasing tag and title fees in 2009, the STTF received an additional $200 million for FY 13/14. A portion of these new revenues are allocated to SCOP ($10 million); Transportation Disadvantaged ($10 million); Seaports ($10 million); Turnpike Connectivity ($35 million). As for overall transportation funding for FY 13/14, the FDOT Work Program is funded at $8.4 billion. Regional Transportation Finance Entities: SUPPORT legislation that authorizes the creation of regional transportation finance authorities, who may be authorized to use tolls, or pledge a portion of the capacity improvement funds from the State Transportation Trust Fund to finance eligible transit or transportation improvement projects. Explanation/Update: During the 2013 session, FDOT’s legislative package included language allowing the creation of the regional transportation finance authorities (RTFAs). The legislation, which ultimately failed, authorized a county, or two or more contiguous counties, to form a regional transportation finance authority for the purposes of financing, constructing, maintaining, and operating transportation projects in a region of the state, if approved by the Legislature and the county commission of each county that will be part of the authority. Rural Transportation Funding: SUPPORT state funding for the Small County Road Assistance Program (SCRAP). SUPPORT continuing enhanced state funding for the Small County Outreach Program (SCOP). Explanation/Update: FAC has seen success in its broad support of these programs before the Legislature. For FY 13/14, both SCRAP and SCOP received significant funding increases. Specifically, SCRAP was funded at $27.6 million, an increase of $2 million over last year’s appropriation, while SCOP was funded at $46.2 million, which represents a $20 million increase from last year. 5 Urban Transportation Funding: To help reduce