HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 03 25 Letter to Jack M. Schluckebier, City Manager City of Casselberry City Of Casselberry
Inter Office Memorandum
TO: Jack M. Schluckebier, City Manager
FROM: Dick Wells, Community Development Director
DATE: March 25, 1997
SUBJ: Intergovernmental Planning Coordination Agreement
The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners is proposing modifications to the
Interlocal Agreement adopted in 1985 by the County and all seven municipalities within the County.
The original agreement provided for notification between the cities and the County and to adjacent
cities of significant land development actions that may affect the adjacent governmental entity.
The Board of County Commissioners is now proposing changes to the agreement that would
significantly expand on the scope and detail of the notification procedures. I have reviewed the new
version of the document and found it generally to be unacceptable because it would cause the City a
great deal of work and time in meeting the new notification requirements, and the extra notification
would generally be of marginal benefit to the notified governments. My comments below are related
to specific portions of the proposed agreement.
Page 3. last paragraph. New notification items include variances, telecommunication towers, and
public service facility expansions and contractions, as well as any other land use actions which may
impact the parties to the agreement. Overlooking the poor language, this potentially includes every
single action the City undertakes, including building permits or even budget decisions.
Page 4, last paragraph, Section 2(b). Same problem as above, only expanded further. Also,
requires "sufficient distribution and dissemination" for adequate notice this is open to
interpretation and establishes not firm time lines. Also, "initial transmittal" is not supposed to take
place prior to notice this makes no sense? Also requires notification to all other local governments
this is completely unnecessary for the vast majority of projects and much too burdensome on any
one local government that must provide such notification.
Page 5, top paragraph, Section 2(b)(2). States "adequate review time shall be provided" without
any time lines. WE cannot be aware of adequate review time of all other local governments in the
County.
Page 5, Section 3(b). Ties notification to 14 days after receipt of application and 14 days prior to
official action. Official action is undefined (could be P &Z /BOA/CEB /CRA or City Commission).
Also could restrict our ability to act quickly on a particular application. Does this section override
other sections that require only "timely notification" or "adequate review time
Page 5, Section 3(d). This wording could cause problems and should be deleted.
Page 1 of 2
Page 6. Section 4(b)(1). March 3, 1997 cannot happen.
Page 6. Section 4(b)(2). This task is a time consuming operation and one which is not related to
joint notification. It appears to assist the County in setting up its Intergovernmental Coordination
Element (ICE) of the Comprehensive Plan. (See also second -to -last comment below). We probably
cannot complete it by June 1, 1997, as called for.
Page 7. Section 4(c)(1). Highly objectionable. Establishes a new committee to accommodate joint
planning. Also includes School Board representative as a voting member, as well as non voting
membership by Orange County, Maitland, and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Establishes no committee operating parameters, such as quorum, officers, by -laws, etc. Major duty
is to review intergovernmental coordination report.
Page 7, Section 4(c)(2). Leaves new committee open to any other duties that may be assigned.
Page 7. Section 4(e). Mentions the EAR process, apropos of nothing, except that this is apparently
the County's substitute for the ICE element of the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above [see
comment regarding Page 6, Section 4(b)(2)]. The focus of the agreement is supposed to be joint
notification, not assisting the County produce a EAR. This paragraph is a goal or purpose statement,
not an action item should be a "WHEREAS."
Page 7. Section 4(f). What does "at management levels" mean? Also references "such management
interaction" while leaving it undefined. Leaves too much undefined in terms of conflict resolution.
At this time, I would recommend that this instrument not be signed by the City. Please let
me know if I can provide any additional comments or insight on this issue for you. Please also let
me know if you would like me or someone else to negotiate the terms of this agreement.
Page 2 of 2