Title: Materials for the Next Meeting of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Scheduled Monday, March 21, 1994
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004768/00001
 Material Information
Title: Materials for the Next Meeting of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Scheduled Monday, March 21, 1994
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Materials for the Next Meeting of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Scheduled Monday, March 21, 1994 (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 2 ( Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 ), Item 9
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004768
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


STATE OF FLORIDA

Pfficr of tte (Goternmr
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001
LAWTON CHILES
GOVERNOR

March 11, 1994


TO: Members, Land Use and Water Planning Task Force

FROM: Teresa B. Tinker, Policy Coordinator, Growth Management and Strategic
4 Planning Policy Unit


The next meeting of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force is scheduled for
Monday, March 21, 1994, in Room LL-24 House Office Building, The Capitol
Complex, Tallahassee, Florida, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

The following materials are enclosed:

Meeting Agenda;

Description of the State Land Development Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan;

Strategic Regional Policy Plans, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Rule 27E-4,
F.A.C.);
Intergovernmental Coordination Rule (9J-5.015, F.A.C.);

Evaluation and Appraisal Report Rule (9J-33, F.A.C.);

Regional Governance Recommendation Framework, Report of the Advisory Council
on Intergovernmental Relations;
Updated DRAFT Outline of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Report
and Recommendations (updated to reflect February 25, 1994 meeting); and
Schedule of Future Meeting Dates.

The Summary Report of the February 25, 1994, meeting will be distributed at the meeting.

The agenda calls for a working lunch. We have arranged for sandwiches to be brought in
for the Task Force members and staff at a cost of $5.50 per person. Transportation from
the Tallahassee Regional Airport is available, however we must know your flight schedule as
soon as possible. Please call Paul Carlson at (904) 488-7793 with this information.

The April Task Force meeting is scheduled for April 29, 1994, in Orlando (specific
location to be determined). Further details will be discussed at the March meeting.

I look forward to seeing you on the 21st. Please call me at (904) 488-7793 if you have any
questions, comments or concerns about the upcoming meeting or the enclosed agenda
materials.




'a


Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Meeting

March 21, 1994
10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m.
Room LL-24, House Office Building
The Capitol Complex
Tallahassee, Florida

AGENDA

10:00 am Introduction by Chair Vicki Tschinkel
Welcome by Doug Barr, Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water
Management District
10:30 Presentations

State Land Development Plan, Henry Bittaker, Department of
Community Affairs
Florida Transportation Plan, Bob Romig, Department of
Transportation

11:45 Update: Dwaine Raynor, Chief Analyst, Growth Management and Strategic
Planning Policy Unit, Executive Office of the Governor

State Comprehensive Plan Revision

Strategic Regional Policy Plan Rule

12:00 pm Public Input

12:30 Break and Working Lunch

12:45 Regional Governance Report and Findings, Mary Kay Falconer, Executive
Director, Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations

1:00 EAR/ICE Rules, Processes and Linkages, Department of Community
Affairs

1:15 Discussion by Task Force Members
Problem Statements

Linkages

2:45 Administrative Matters and Other Business

3:00 Adjourn






Land use and Water Planning Task Force Meeting

March 21, 1994

AGENDA

Page 2

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC



Public comments regarding the Task Force charge and issues for consideration by the Task
Force will be taken at 12:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to:
Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
Attention: Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator
Growth Management and Strategic Planning Policy Unit
Executive Office of the Governor
Room 2105, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001









STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN


I. BACKGROUND

The State Land Development Plan (SLDP) sets forth comprehensive, statewide land
development policies for Florida. The plan translates selected State Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies into agency specific objectives and operating policies. The State Land
Development Plan is not adopted by rule. The plan establishes land use and development
guidelines for balancing economic prosperity with protection and enhancement of Florida's
natural and historic resources and provides a policy framework for state and regional
agencies in conducting their planning programs in a consistent, coordinated manner.
Additionally, the plan may be used in certain local and state decisions related to
developments of regional impact.
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in its role as the state land planning agency,
develops the SLDP as an element of the integrated state comprehensive planning process
established in the State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 (Chapter 186, Florida Statutes).
Although Florida Statutes define the SLDP (section 380.031(17), Florida Statutes) and set
forth a revision schedule (section 186.021(4), Florida Statutes), the statutes contain little
guidance on how the plan is to be developed.

The DCA developed the first and subsequent version of the SLDP following the guidelines
issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting for preparing the early agency
functional plans. In developing the SLDP, the DCA requested the participation of other
state agencies, regional planning councils, water management districts, and local
governments. The draft SLDP was made available for public comment, including a public
hearing, prior to its adoption.

II. RELATION TO THE SCP AND OTHER STATUTES

The SLDP is built upon 19 goals, and their related policies, of the State Comprehensive
Plan that address land use and development.* As one of the three translationall plans," the
SLDP's objectives and operating policies are designed to be consistent with and further the
State Comprehensive Plan (section 186.021(1), Florida Statutes).

Florida law specifies the following applications of the SLDP:
* Florida Quality Developments must be consistent with the plan
(section 380.061(3)(a)(7), Florida Statutes);
* Local governments must consider whether and the extent to which a development of
regional impact "unreasonably interferes with achievement of the objectives of an
adopted state land development plan applicable to the area" (section 380.06(14)(a),
Florida Statutes);







* The DCA may appeal a local development order issued by a local government
certified to conduct development of regional impact reviews on grounds that the
development order is inconsistent with the plan (section 380.065(3)(b), Florida
Statutes);
* The DCA's rules for grant programs funded by the Growth Management Trust Fund
must specify that work performed by grant recipients must be consistent with the
SLDP (section 186.911(3), Florida Statutes);
* Regional Planning Councils are to make recommendations to local governments on
Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) based upon the extent to which the
development will have a favorable or unfavorable impact to state or regional
resources or facilities identified in the SLDP (section 380.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes);
and

* Once the DRI process is terminated, DCA may appeal a local government
development order for a project that otherwise would have been a DRI based upon
the development order's inconsistency with the SLDP or the development order
results in inadequately mitigated adverse impacts to state or regional resources or
facilities identified in the SLDP (section 380.07(3), Florida Statutes).

III. SIGNIFICANT DATES AND ACTIVITIES

The State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 requires the DCA to adopt a State Land
Development Plan within six months of the effective date of the State Comprehensive Plan
adopted in 1985. The DCA adopted the first SLDP in March 1986. The second, and
current, version of the plan was adopted in March 1989. Preliminary work to revise the
plan began in 1990 but ceased with the change in gubernatorial administrations.

The 1992 legislative amendments required the DCA to complete updates of the SLDP within
six months of the effective date of revisions to the State Comprehensive Plan or by June 1
of every even-numbered year, whichever is later (section 186.021(4), Florida Statutes).
Therefore, the SLDP is scheduled to be revised in June 1994, unless the State
Comprehensive Plan is amended, which would postpone the next revision until six months
after the effective date of the revisions to the State Comprehensive Plan.







* The goals include: Goal 5, Housing; Goal 7, Public Safety; Goal 8, Water
Resources; Goal 9, Coastal and Marine Resources; Goal 10, Natural Systems and
Recreation Lands; Goal 11, Air Quality; Goal 12, Energy; Goal 13, Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Materials and Waste; Goal 14, Mining; Goal 15, Property Rights;
Goal 16, Land Use; Goal 17, Downtown Revitalization; Goal 18, Public Facilities;
Goal 19, Cultural and Historical Resources; Goal 20, Transportation; Goal 21,
Governmental Efficiency; Goal 22, Economy; Goal 23, Agriculture; and Goal 26,
Plan Implementation.









FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLAN


I. BACKGROUND

The planning and development of the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) has changed due to
passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991,
the Florida ISTEA (CS/SB 1328, Laws of Florida) and the state's ELMS III legislation
(Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida).

ISTEA calls for a national transportation system that links all forms of transportation,
requires improved planning and programming, and provides flexibility in using federal funds
for transportation options. In addition, the 1993 Legislature required the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) to provide stronger policy direction, enhance public
participation, and strengthen the link between state goals and policies, and the FDOT Work
Program. This program is a list of transportation projects to be carried out over a five year
period.

The FTP is one of the three translationall plans of the State Comprehensive Plan" and must
be consistent with and further its' goals (section 186.021(1), Florida Statutes). To meet the
new federal and state requirements, future editions of the Florida Transportation Plan will
(section 339.155(2), Florida Statutes):
* contain a long range plan, short range plan and a glossary,

* establish the FDOT's long range goals to be accomplished over a twenty year period,

* define the relationship between long range goals and the short range (five to ten
years) objectives and policies to be implemented through the FDOT Work Program,
* provide examples of projects or programs in the Work Program that achieve short
range objectives and policies,
* be reconciled, to the maximum extent feasible, with the long range plans of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and
* provide an examination of transportation issues likely to arise in the ensuing 20
years.

FDOT's long range plan will be a comprehensive plan, with a horizon of 20 years and will
be updated every three to five years. The short range plan will be a strategic plan, with a
five to ten year horizon. The short range plan will be published annually and will serve as
the FDOT Agency Strategic Plan, required by section 186.021, Florida Statutes.

The FTP is intended to be as a consensus plan developed with input from all transportation
planning entities, including MPOs, local governments, other state agencies, and public and
private sector interests.








H. RELATION TO THE SCP AND OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) which serves as the agency's strategic plan, "shall be
consistent with and shall further the goals of the State Comprehensive Plan" (section
186.021(1), Florida Statutes).

In developing the FTP, the Department shall consider: "consistency of the plan, to the
maximum extent feasible, with strategic regional policy plans, MPO plans, and approved
local government comprehensive plans so as to contribute to the management of orderly and
coordinated community development." (section 339.155(2)(b), Florida Statutes)

"The transportation goals and policies (of strategic regional policy plans) shall be consistent,
to the maximum extent feasible, with the goals and policies of the metropolitan planning
organizations and the Florida Transportation Plan... Metropolitan planning organizations
plans and other local transportation plans shall be developed consistent, to the maximum
extent feasible, with the regional transportation goals and policies" (section 339.155(4)(b),
Florida Statutes).

The attached graphics provide an overview of the relationship of the FTP to other planning
documents, and the relationship of the Florida transportation planning process to other plans.

III. SIGNIFICANT DATES AND ACTIVITIES

FDOT's first long range plan to satisfy recent federal and state requirements will be
published in early 1995. This long range plan will be reconciled with the long range plans
of other governmental entities and will assess the state's twenty year transportation needs.







'TO -e9 s S

IM 9 1 -oi I p





















CONSISTENCY
I


I Federal Law
State Transportation Code
Other Relevant Statutes
ii... .


COMPLIANCE

1


Program &
Resource Plan
,


State Comprehensive Plan
Goals
Policies
Objectives


Growth Management Portion of
State Comprehensive Plan
Stale Transportation Policy
Land Development Policy
Water Resource Policy
Air Quality Policy


SUMMARY
Long Range Short Range
Component Component / ASP
Goals Priority Issues
Policies Objectives
Strategies
GLOSSARY


I .- :* .. '.. 10 .. 'r, ,- I 1;. -


/










NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Executive Office of the Governor

RULE CHAPTER TITLE: RU:

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE PERTAINING


LE CHAPTER NO.:


TO STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLANS 27E-4

RULE TITLES: RULE NOS:

General Scope and Application. 27E-4.001

Definitions. 27E-4.002

Purpose of Plan. 27E-4.003

Content and Format. 27E-4.004

Procedures for Plan Development. 27E-4.005

Procedures for Plan Submission and Review. 27E-4.006

Rule Adoption and Approval. 27E-4.00 1 ton

Evaluation and Modification of Plans. 27E-4.008,'



PURPOSE, EFFECT, AND SUMMARY: The purpose and effect ofithes._

amendments to Rule 27E-4, Florida Administrative Code, is. 'to--

establish minimum criteria and a uniform format for strategic

regional policy plans (SRPPs) as required by section 32 of

Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida. Strategic regional policy plans

are intended to replace the existing comprehensive regional

policy plans and shall address affordable housing, economic

development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of

regional significance, and regional transportation, and any other

areas which relate to the particular needs and circumstances of

the region. These plans must identify and address significant

regional resources and facilities. In addition to establishing


-:3
f-
-,-










the minimum criteria and definitions for SRPP plan components,

this rule establishes procedural guidelines for SRPP plan

development, review, adoption, and evaluation.

SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: Section 120.53(1) (b), 186.507(2), 186.511

F.S.

LAW IMPLEMENTED: Section 186.002, 186.502, 186.507(2), 186.511

F.S.

History--New 1-2-86, Amended-










SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULE: The

estimated economic impact of the proposed rule will include the

administrative costs of promulgating the rule and costs

associated with the implementation of these changes. Since

regional policy plans were first required in 1986, state,

regional, and local agencies have been involved in their

development and review of regional plans and the majority of this

planning effort can be undertaken within existing resources.

However, several state and regional agencies are in the process

of developing cost estimates concerning the development and

review of strategic regional policy plans. A more detailed

economic impact statement on this proposed rule will be available

on April 1, 1994.










IF REQUESTED WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THIS NOTICE, A HEARING WILL BE

HELD AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 P.M. to 5:00 p.m., April 11, 1994

PLACE: Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services, Emergency Medical Services Center,

2002 Old St. Augustine Road, Building D,

Tallahassee, Florida

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE, ECONOMIC

IMPACT STATEMENT, OR TO REQUEST A HEARING ON THIS PROPOSED RULE

IS:

Ms. Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator

Executive Office of the Governor

Growth Management and Strategic Planning Policy Unit

Room 2105, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Phone: (904) 488-7793 or Suncom 278-7793









(Substantial rewording of Rule 27E-4. See Florida Administrative

Code for present text.)


27E-4.001

27E-4.002

27E-4.003

27E-4.004

27E-4.005

27E-4.006



27E-4.007

27E-4.008



27E-4.001


General Scope and Application.

Definitions.

Purpose of Plan.

Content and Format.

Procedures for Plan Development.

Procedures for Plan Submission and Review. e4

Proposed Plan.

Rule Adoption and Approval.

Evaluation and Modification of Plans.



General Scope and Application.


(i) The purpose of this rule is to establish minimum

criteria and a uniform format for eeeh strategic eemprchcnzive

regional policy plans and a -niform plan fC-rmat. This re

provides the process by which comprehensive regional policy plans

will be developed and th minimum intent of uh plans.

Strategic Regional Policy Plans, required by section 186.507,

Florida Statutes, means a long range guide for physical,

economic, and social development of a comprehensive planning

district which identifies regional goals and policies. These

plans shall be developed through a collaborative process that

emphasizes consensus and coordination between local governments,

regional entities, state and federal agencies, other appropriate

organizations, and the public. Thus, the plan is a plan for the

1









region, not merely for the regional planning council. Regional

goals and policies shall be used to develop a coordinated program

of regional actions directed at resolving identified problems and

needs. At a minimum, these plans shall contain regional goals

and policies that address affordable housing, economic

development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of

regional significance, and regional transportation and shall

identify significant regional resources and facilities.

Strategic Regional Policy Plans shall be strategic rather than

comprehensive in nature and need not address all goals and

policies in the State Comprehensive Plan. However, goals and

policies included in a Strategic Regional Policy Plan shall be

consistent with and further the State Comprehensive Plan.

(2) For the purposes of the State and Regional Planning Act

of 1984, Chapter 84-257, Laws of Florida, the Strategic Regional

Policy Plan, upon its adoption, shall replace the comprehensive

regional policy plan. However, the regional planning council may

engage in activities not addressed by the plan so long as it is

not otherwise prohibited from such activities.

(3) The Strategic Regional Policy Plan shall not establish

binding level of service standards for public facilities and

services provided or regulated by state or local governments.

(4) Strategic Regional Policy Plans shall serve as a basis

to review the resources and facilities found in local government

comprehensive plans.

(5) Other uses and applications of Strategic Regional Policy

Plans are identified in section 27E-4.003 of this rule.









Specific Authority 120.53(1), 163.3184(5),

186.5071).l (2),(4),(13) FS.

Law Implemented 186.002, 186.502, 186.507(2).

History-New 1-2-86, Amended-


27E-4.002 Definitions.

Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

(1) "Council" means the regional planning council created

pursuant to section 186.504, Florida Statutes.

(2) "Goal" means the long term end toward which programs and

activities are ultimately directed.

(3) "Executive Office of the Governor" means the Office of

Planning and Budgeting of the Executive Office of the Governor or

its designee.

(4) "Natural Resource of Regional Significance" means a

natural resource or system of interrelated natural resources,

that due to its function, size, rarity or endangerment retains or

provides benefit of regional significance to the natural or human

environment, regardless of ownership.

(5) "Plan" means the Strategic Regional Policy Plan as

defined in Section 186.503(10). Florida Statutes (1993), and the

associated maps required by 27E-4.004(3) (a), F.A.C.

(6) "Policy" means the ways in which programs and activities

are conducted to achieve identified goals.

(7) "Significant Regional Resource or Facility" means

resources or facilities identified by the council as being of









regional importance and meets one or more of the following

criteria:

(a) A resource or facility that due to its uniqueness,

function, benefit, service delivery area, or importance is

identified as being of regional concern.

(b) A resource or facility that requires the participation

or involvement of two or more governmental entities to ensure

proper and efficient management.

(c) A resource or facility defined to be of state or

regional concern or importance in state or federal statutes.

(8) "State Comprehensive Plan" means Chapter 187, Florida

Statutes.

(9) "Strategic" means proactive, future, and results

oriented with a focus on important long term priorities, needs,

and problems of the region.

(10) "Strategic Regional Subject Areas" means the identified

subject areas that from a regional perspective have potential to

affect the region's significant physical characteristics or the

quality of life within the region. At a minimum, these strategic

regional subject areas shall include affordable housing, economic

development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of

regional significance, and regional transportation. Additional

subject areas related to the particular needs and circumstances

of the region or which represent major regional problems or

opportunities may be included as strategic regional subject

areas.










(11) "Trends and Condition Statement" means a background

analysis of factors describing present conditions and trends with

respect to the strategic regional subject areas addressed;

forecast future conditions and trends based on expected growth

patterns of the region; and analyze the problems, needs, and

opportunities associated with growth and development in the

region. Where appropriate, these statements shall identify and

address significant regional resources and facilities.

(12) "Vision" means a description of the intended future

physical appearance and the qualities of the region.

(1) "Goal" the long term end toward which programs and


, _


tIV- )eltLeylael anL thnc ways -in wnicn


are conducted to achieve id


cntified eoals


pregrano and activiftics

or a principle on which


a mesuroeor curoc action is aase.

(3) "Emeeutivc Offrice of the Governor" n

its dceignec.

(4) "Plan" mcans the Comproehenive Regia

defined in Section 186.503(2), F.C.

(5) "State Comprehensive Plan" mcans the


icans that office or



nal Policy Plan



goals and policies


contained within the State Comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to

CSection 186.008, F..

(6) "Policy Cluster" moano those related policies within a

specified goal of the State Comprehensive Plan that identify an

issue or theme and which arc enumerated in a publication entitled

"Policy Clusters", dated Septomber 18, 1985, hereby ineorporated


__ ._ __ ___~ ____ __


t j t ly uirt jjujjumu.










by reference and iosued by the Extcutivoe Offic of the Goveornr,

Office of ilannirg and Budgeting;. t

(7) "Regional lisuc" means a pr-blem, opportunity, or action



individual local government boundaries.

() "Significant Regoinal Roco.urce" m.an.: an

(a) A resource or facility whoso area, extent or service



jurio dictino.


(b)ec Au resrcity 1r facility whos, un en fun, cti(n,
benef186.507it r ip(2),rtan idntif it a bing f gratr t (13 FS.

local concern.

(e) A resource or facility defined to be of greater than

local concern or importance by state or federal legislative or

administrative action.

(d) A resource or facility whose proper and efficient

management involves the participation or involvement of two or

more governmental entities.

(e) Facilities or resources identified as being of regional

or state significance in an adopted state agency functional plan

or state rule, or in the comprehensive regional policy plan or

other rule of the regional planning council.

(9) "Councill" means the regional planning council created

pursuant to Section 186.504, F.S.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.003(2),(4).










Law Implemented 186.502(l)(a),(b),(e), 186.507 FS. History-New 1-

2-86. Amended



27E-4.003 Purpose of the Plan. The purposes of a strategic

eemprehensive regional policy plan include:

(1) To implement- and further- the goals and policies of the

State Comprehensive Plan with regard to the strategic regional

subject areas and other components addressed in the plan. ain

accurately reflect the goals and policies of the state

comprehensive plan.

(2) To provide long range policy guidance for the physical,

economic, and social development of a region.

(3) To establish en.uniate public policy for the resolution

of disputes over regional problems, needs, or opportunities

eisses through the establishment of regional goals and policies

and to provide a regional basis and perspective for the

coordination of governmental activities and the resolution of

problems, needs, and opportunities that are of regional concern

or scope.

(4) To establish enumeratC minimum goals and policies,

standards, and criteria, in addition to other criteria

established by law, that provide a basis for the review of

developments of regional impact, regional review of federally

assisted projects, and other regional c-vrview and comment

functions activities of the regional planning council. In

addition, the plan may recommend specific locations or activities










in which a project, that due to its character or location, should

be a development of regional impact within the region.

(5) To establish goals and policies to assist the state and

the council in state the determination of consistency of local

comprehensive plans with regional and state comprehensive plans.

Strategic Regional Policy Plans shall serve as a basis to review

the resources and facilities found in local government

comprehensive plans.

(6) To establish land development and transportation goals

and policies in a manner that fosters region-wide transportation

systems.

(71 -6-- To serve as .ientify a the basis for decisions by

the regional planning council.

.(7) To provide a r-gional basis and perspective for the

coordination of governmental activities and the resolution of

problama and issues that arc of greater than local concern or

seeope.

(8) To guide the administration applieetion of federal,

state, regional, and local agency programs and activities

functions in a region to the extent provided for by law.

(9) To identify significant regional resources and

facilities, infrastructure needs, or other problems, needs, or

opportunities issues of importance to the region.

(10) To identify natural resources of regional significance

and promote the protection of those resources. To aszurc, where

required by law, all actions taken by governmental officials

within the region shall be consistent with the adopted plan.










(11) To set forth economic development goals and policies

that promote regional economic growth and improvement.

(12) To set forth goals and policies that address the

affordable housing and emergency preparedness problems and needs

of the region.

Specific authority 120.53(1), 186.507(2),(8).(17). FS.

Law Implemented 186.502, 186.505(23),(24).

186.507(1),121,(4),(5),(8),(9), FS. History-New 1-2-86, Amended-




27E-4.004 Content and Format.

Each regional planning council shall adopt a strategic

comprehensive regional policy plan which shall contains the

following eeetion components:

(1) Executive Summary. Each plan shall contain an executive

summary that briefly describes the plan's vision statement (if

provided), strategic regional subject areas and selected gdals

and policies of specific concern to the region. In addition,

important elements of the trends and conditions statements may be

summarized along with other vital plan components.

(2) Vision Statement. An optional statement which describes

the intended future physical appearance and the qualities of the

region. The vision should be developed through a collaborative

planning process with meaningful public participation.

(3) Strategic Regional Subject Areas. Each council shall

identify and address subject areas that from a regional

perspective have potential to affect the region's significant










physical characteristics or the quality of life within the

region. At a minimum, these subject areas shall include

affordable housing, economic development, emergency preparedness,

natural resources of regional significance, and regional

transportation and shall identify significant regional resources

and facilities. Additional subject areas which relate to the

particular needs and circumstances of the region or which

represent major regional problems or opportunities may be

included as strategic regional subject areas. In identifying

strategic regional subject areas, the council shall consider

existing requirements in other planning or regulatory programs of

state, federal, or regional agencies within the region.

Strategic regional subject areas related to natural resources of

regional significance and regional transportation shall address

the following:

(a) Natural Resources of Regional Significance. Each

council shall address natural resources of regional significance

through the development of goals and policies and identify these

resources by specific geographic location and not solely by

generic type using the best and most recent data and information

available. When identifying these resources, the councils may

consider data and information from the following sources: (1)

future land use and conservation elements in appropriate local

government comprehensive plans; (2) water management district

data, plans and information; (3) Florida Department of

Environmental Protection data, plans, and information; (4)

Florida Natural Areas Inventory Element Occurrence and Site










Database; (5) Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas and Range and Habitat maps;

and (6) Department of Community Affairs Area of Critical State

Concern Program data, plans and information. These resources

shall be identified on maps at a scale of 1 to 100,000. These

maps and identified natural resources of regional significance

should be used for planning purposes only, and shall be amended,

updated, or revised as new areas are identified or new data

becomes available.

(b) Regional Transportation. The plan may recommend minimum

density guidelines for development along designated public

transportation corridors and identify investment strategies for

providing transportation infrastructure where growth is desired,

rather than focusing primarily on relieving congestion in areas

where growth is discouraged. This provision is not intended to

inhibit regional or local mass transit activities and efforts to

revitalize urban areas.

(4) Trends and Conditions Statement. For each strategic

regional subject area, a background analysis of factors that

describe current conditions and future related trends or

projections shall be included. These factors, conditions and

trends shall specify why the strategic regional subject area is

of concern to the region. These statements shall identify and

address significant regional resources, facilities, and systems

relevant to the strategic regional subject area. The analysis

shall include descriptions of the existing status of regional

resources, facilities, and systems relevant to the strategic









regional subject area. The analysis shall also evaluate how

these subject areas and associated factors relate to pertinent

goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan and shall

provide a basis and framework for regional goals and policies

necessary to address the strategic regional subject area. All

trends and conditions statements shall be based on expected

growth patterns of the region and analyze the problems, needs,

and opportunities associated with growth and development in the

region.

(5) Goals. For each strategic regional subject area, goal

statements that describe the long term end toward which programs

and activities are ultimately directed shall be included. These

goals shall be related to and developed from the problems, needs,

and opportunities identified in the trends and conditions

statements. Such goals shall be consistent with and further the

State Comprehensive Plan. Regional indicators shall be

associated with each goal and shall include current baseline data

and information against which progress can be measured in the

region's five year evaluation and appraisal report.

(6) Policies. The plan shall identify general policies that

have regionwide application and more specific policies that

describe the ways in which programs and activities are conducted

and the actions needed to achieve an identified goal. Policies

shall seek to promote and develop coordinated governmental and

private sector agency programs and actions which are directed at

resolving identified problems and needs. Such policies shall be

consistent with and further the State Comprehensive Plan.










(7) Coordination Outline. The plan shall contain a

coordination outline that provides an overview of the council's

cross acceptance, dispute resolution, public participation and

related regional planning and coordination activities. This

outline shall be used for information purposes only, describing

how local governments and citizens are involved in developing,

implementing and updating the plan and how the council helps to

resolve local, state, and regional plan inconsistencies.

(8) Glossary. The plan shall contain glossary that defines

terms, key words, and acronyms found in the plan.

(2) -Regional Issues. Using tho policy cluster as a minimum

statement of the issues, the council shall identify issues

related to significant regional infrastructure needs, or other

issues of importance to the region. Some regional issues will be

used in r.vi.wing developments of regional impact, and regional ,

issues so specified shall be consistent with any statutes, rules,

or policies that specifically relate to or govern a regional

issuc or criteria adopted for development of regional impact

review. For all regional i cssu, the following information hall

be- included!

(a) A background analysis that identifies the present

conditions and trends, analyzes the regional problems, needs, and

opportunities, and forecasts future conditions and trends based


on- the expected growth patterns of the r.egion. The analyi -

shall include descriptions of the existing status of rogiona


rocurcs, fa-cilities, and systems relevant to the solectod

issue. The analysis hall also rofleot how this isccu related to


13


I










the other goal and policies ef the State Comprehensive Plan and

shall provide a basis for regional goal and pollices necessary

to address the isfu1.

(b) A statem ent of known public and private agnci

involved in creating, eliminating or addressing the issue.

(3) nRegional Goal and Pclicies. Using the format of the

state eomprehonsive plan and addressing each of the goal in the

State plan, tho Council shall develp regional goal which

establish a long -end towards whih programs and activities are to

be directed in addressing the regional ic ssues. n order to

ahieve theo regional goals, poliic that establish prinoiplea on

which programs and activities arc to be baaed shall be

identified. Luch policies shall be consistent with and shall

further the State Compr ehenive Pl:an; and i hall implement and

rEfleot the goal and pplicies'of the state plan..

(4) fRegional Performance Standards. Those standards and

measures which the council will uso to give effect to regional

policies shall be identified and established. Measures shall be

developed for all regional politics and shall bo decigned to show

the projected outcome and effectivencss of a policy as it

implemented over tima cc that progress can be tracked.-The

method by which the performance standard is developed and the

application of that standard to roach to each regional function

shall be identified. In those instances wh.re there arc no

existing standards and measures and it is determined such arc

needed but cannot be established because the effort is beyond the


rllocated by the legislature, this element


res..oaurces crrently a










shall se note for further action in the implementation atratogy

seetien..

(5) Imploemntation strategy. The implementatin strato gy

ohall coniat of three identifiable positions growth managemcntt-

intcrgovcrnmer.tal coordination, and on going planning activi tice

(a) Theo growth management portion hall describe tho manner

in which the regional g als, issues, police s, and standards

shall be applied to onhanco and encouraged the preferred patterns

of physical, social, and economic growth, especially as it

relates to land use, water resources, and transportation system

development. The portion shall also describe specific council

actions in the use of the plan's goals, issues, policies and

standards in carrying out responsibilities in regard to Chapteor

186.163 and 380, Florida Statutes.

(b) The intergovernmental ooordination portion shall

identify federal, state, regional, or local actions necessary for

implementation of the plan. This portion shall sock to promote

the coordination of plans and progr-ams of governmental agencies

and shall identify the agencie- involved and describe the

relationship between thcse agenciC-. ThoCs prograIms shall als

include the coordination between the Regional Planning Councils

and between local governments needed to implement the plan.

(e) The ongoing planning activities portion shall:

1. identify those aroas where the goals, issues, policies or

standards indicate that further long term planning, policy or

programmatic workl is needed and shall eliminate the time period




15










cmplcte the "ubjeCt w.rk. -Suez


2186. d503(1ri0) mnit86.507ing yt(2) (3)thd whih shall b uImplemend by the

regional planning council to meaaure and document pregress toward

meeting the regional gpalr, ptliie, and pcrfieno e rtaedai sh.

behi givenit an adequate oppo wrtuld nitrv to partvid the inf theratn for

th c un preparation thf te valuatil p .f the plan aity forv d

in 27E4 000(1).

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.003(2). 186.502(4),

186.503(10). 186.507(1), (2),(3),(11).(12), FS. Law Implemented

186.502, 186.507 FS. History-New 1-2-86. Amended



27E-4.005 Procedures for Plan Development.

(1) Public participation. The citizens of the region shall

be given an adequate opportunity to participate in the

preparation of the regional plan. Adequate opportunity for

public participation shall include, at a minimum:

(a) Oneene workshop within the-region at the regional level

during the early stages of plan formulation to describe the

regional planning effort and to receive input from the public

regarding the content, structure, or application of the plan or

comments regarding the process of plan formulation and adoption,

and;

(b) Threethee public meetings in addition to the

procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida StatutesFS.-,

to describe the content of the proposed plan submitted to the

Executive Office of the Governor and 'to receive public comment


fr


. ... ... _... _. ) f t.










regarding the proposed plan. These public meetings shall be

located to facilitate citizen participation considering

geographic and population distribution. These public meetings

shall be prominently advertised throughout the region in

newspapers of general circulation in the region. Such

advertisements shall not be placed in that portion of the

newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements

appear.

(2) Local government participation. In preparing the plan,

the council shall seek the cooperation and assistance of local

governments to identify strategic key regional subject areas,

issues- and shall involve local governments as fully as possible

in the development of the plan's trends and conditions statements

and the goals and policies. The draft regional plan shall be

circulated to all local governments in the region, and the local

governments shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment

on the regional plan. Local governments, within their respective

regions, shall also receive notice of all workshops and meetings

scheduled to receive public comment on the proposed plan.

(3) Participation by other governmental agencies. To

enhance areawide coordination and related cooperative activities

of federal, state, regional and local governments, the council is

encouraged to provide a copy of mayI a- cirul-~ate the draft

regional plan for review and comment to other public agencies

operating within the region that may be affected by the plan or

that have some information or expertise useful to the development

of the plan.










(4) Existing plans. The council shall give consideration to

existing state, federal, regional, and local plans in preparing

the eemprehensive strategic regional policy plan. The council

shall specifically consider those plans required by sections

373.036, 339.155, and 380.031(17), Florida StatutesF.S., after

such plano are approved by tho Exocutive Office of the Governor

pursuant to Soction 186.021, F.S. The council shall also

consider those plans required by 17-40.520. F.A.C. The council

shall ensure that approved voluntary resource planning and

management programs adopted pursuant to sGection 380.045 and

principles for-ef guiding development adopted pursuant to

s-ection 380.05, Florida Statutesf--S, for areas of critical

state concern are given full effect to the maximum extent

possible.

(5) Data and analysis used in the plan Backgro.und analysis

and studies. In preparing the trends and conditions statements

background analysis for the regionall issues sct of the plan,

the council shall use, to the extent applicable, data,

assumptions, forecasts, projections, studies, and analyses

prepared by the Executive Office of the Governor or at its

direction pursuant to section Ghapter 186.006, Florida

Statutes.S.-, and as established in Chapter 27E-2, Florida

Administrative Code, Data Standardization for Planning and

Building. Budgeting- The council shall also coordinate with the

Department of Community Affairs in order to achieve uniformity

and consistency in land use information and data collection

efforts in this state and to provide a usable and accessible data









base to local governments and the private sector. Studies,

reports, analyses and data upon which the plan is based shall be

referenced and cited included aa an appendix to in the proposed

plan submitted to the Executive Office of the Governor and shall

be made accessible to the public.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.006, 186.507(2),(5) FS.

Law Implemented 186.507 FS. History New 1-2-86. Amended



27E-4.006 Procedures for Plan Submission and Review. of Prpsed



(1) State review.

(a) On or before July 1, 1986, each council hall submit a

report outlining ito progress to date on ito plan including the

trend, conditions or a..umptiono upon which the plan is based,

for review by the. Em-tivT office- of the G.overnor. The purpose

of this review i to inur that the issues outlined in the plan

adequately addros the goal and policies of tho ctatce

Comprehensive Pan. The Council may moot this ruirement by

supplying the Emeekitive Off ic of the Cov oror with a photoCop

of a working draft of ito plan. The Ex-eutive Office of the

Governor hall have forty five (45) dayo from receipt of the

working draft to respond to the council, and make recommendations

for changoo it dooms necessary. It shall be the responsibility of

the EBeeutive Office of the Goverrnor to oclicit cemmcnto from

other appropriate state agancioc.-This review is to serve as an

interim status report and should not inhibit on going plan

development.









(a)fA+ Proposed Plan Distribution and Submission Schedule.

On or before the date specified in this section November -0,

1986, each council shall submit its proposed plan and maps

required by 27E-4.004(3)(a) simultaneously to the Executive

Office of the Governor, appropriate state and regional agencies,

and state agency district offices. At a minimum, one copy of the

proposed plan and associated maps shall be submitted to the

Departments of Community Affairs, Health and Rehabilitative

Services, Environmental Protection, Commerce, State, and

Transportation, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission,

adjacent regional planning councils, appropriate metropolitan

planning organizations, and appropriate water management

districts. Three copies of the proposed plan and one copy of the

associated map shall be submitted to the Executive Office of the

Governor. Additional copies of the proposed plan and associated

maps shall be provided upon request to any designated review

agency or interested person at a reasonable charge, not to exceed

the per sheet reproduction cost to the council. Prior to the

5zubrnif ion of its proposed plan, the council shall havy consulted

with the Exeeutive Office of the CGovernor to ensure that the

proposed plan iz sufficiently complete and contains infermflation

neesff ary for review. The proposed plans and associated maps

shall be submitted on or before the following dates:



Council: Submission Date:

South Florida March 1, 1995

Southwest Florida March 1, 1995









Withlacoochee May 1, 1995

Tampa Bay June 1. 1995

Treasure Coast July 3, 1995

East Central Florida August 1. 1995

North East Florida September 1, 1995

APalachee October 2, 1995

West Florida November 1. 1995

Central Florida December 1, 1995

North Central Florida January 1, 1996



(b) State and Regional Agency Review Schedule. The

Executive Office of the Governor shall have sixty ninety (60)994)

days from receipt of the proposed plan to review it for

consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 186,

Florida. Statutes, and this rule. The Executive Office of the

Governor shall solicit review comments from any federal, state,

regional or local agency it deems affected and shall coordinate

all state agency responses to the proposed plan. The Executive

Office of the GCvernor may consider whether the proposed plan is

in compliance with this rule. Within 30 days of receipt of the

proposed plan by'the Executive Office of the Governor, the state

and regional agencies referenced in 27E-4.006(1)(a) shall review

the proposed plan and submit comments and recommendations to the

Executive Office of the Governor. The state and regional agency

review shall be based on the standards set forth in 27E-

4.006(l)(c) below. The Executive Office of the Governor shall

consider the comments and recommendations of the state and









regional agencies in making its decision as to the proposed

plan's consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and the

determination of compliance with this rule. The Executive Office

of the Governor shall transmit its findings and recommendations

to the council within 60 days of its receipt of the proposed

plan.

f---(c Standards for Sstate and Regional Agency R-eview.

The proposed plan shall be reviewed for consistency with the

State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 186, Florida StatutesP-.-, and

compliance with this rule. In addition, tghe state and regional

agencies shall review and shall review-may comment on

inconsistencies with other plans, policies, and statutes and

identify areas where coordination with other governmental and

private actions would assist effective application of the plant

however, such coumment4 zhall net alter the Consristcney of the

regional plan with the state Comprehensive Plan.

Id-f3-) State Findings and Recommendations Rreport. The

Executive Office of the Governor shall report within sixty ninety

(60) 940) days of its the-receipt of the proposed plan, the

results of the state and regional agency review and evaluation,

including any-agency comments it elects to include, in an

Evaluation Report Findings and Recommendations Report. The

report shall set forth a4- state, federal, and regional comments,

including proposed revisions necessary to make the proposed plan

consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, and shall be

forwarded to all agencies which reviewed the proposed plan as

well as to the regional planning council.










(2)a 4- Local review. Concurrent with submittal of its

proposed plan for state review, the [regional planning] council

shall also submit a copy to all county and municipal governments

within the region., and water management di.triect with


juriadictian cver the area overed.- The proposed plan shall al!z

be provided to any interested person at a reasonable charge, net

to eccd the standard per page copying -harg-e f the regional

planning council.

(a) In addition to submitting a proposed plan, the council

shall outline, in a cover or transmittal letter, the state review

process and the time review schedules for each county and

municipal government within the region. This outline shall

stipulate, that the county or municipal government has 30 days,

from the council's date of plan submission to the Executive

Office of the Governor, to provide comments to the Executive

Office of the Governor for consideration in the state review of

the proposed plan. The council shall also specify the

appropriate office ind contact person within the Executive Office

of the Governor to which their comments may be submitted.

(b). In addition, a copy of the proposed plan shall be on

file for public review at the office of the council and at each

regional library in the region. Local governments and water

manageme nt districts shall have sixty (60) days to provide

comments to the council. The council shall inform the local

governments of this sixty day comment period to submit comments

to the council. In addition to other comments, local governments

are encouraged to identify any potential conflicts with adopted









local comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and

capital improvement programs and to recommend changes to the plan

that would resolve identified conflicts.

(3) Other Interested Party Review. Proposed and adopted

plans shall also be provided to any interested person at a

reasonable charge, not to exceed the standard per page copying

charge of the regional planning council. Other interested

parties may submit any comments to the Executive Office of the

Governor as long as they comply with the same procedures and time

schedules as described in 27E-4.006(2)(a).

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.006(6), 186.507(2)FS.

Law Implemented 186.507(1),(3),(5),(6),(7),i8),(9), 186.508,

186.511 FS., History New 1-2-86. Amended

Library Refferences Grumbling and Earl, Cleaning Up After

FedeCral and Srtatz Pollutiocrorcgrafms. Local Goverrnment Hazardouz

Waste Regulation. 17 Stetson L. Rev. 6C9 (Sumfmer 1300)).



27E-4.007 Rule Adoption and Approval.

(1) Upon receiving the Evaluation Repert Findings and

Recommendations Report, the council may amend the proposed plan

to reflect any changes recommended in the Evaluati-n Report

Findings and Recommendations Report or by public or local

government comment and shall then notice and conduct rulemaking

to adopt the plan pursuant to the procedural requirements of

Section 120.54, Florida StatutesF-G. The rules shall be adopted

by the council within 90 days after receipt of the Findings and

Recommendations Report submitted by the Executive Office of the









Governor. Any rule adopting the plan shall not be subject to a

rule challenge pursuant to section 120.54(4), Florida

StatutesF.S., or to drawout proceedings pursuant to Section

120.54(17), Florida StatutesF-S- The council shall comply with

the notice requirements in Section 120.54, Florida StatutesF,-r-,

and shall make available copies of the Evaluatin RepoTrt Findings

and Recommendations Report and other materials developed in

conjunction with the proposed plan in accordance with the

requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.F.-6

(2) The plan or any amendment thereto shall be adopted by

rule by a two-thirds vote of the membership of the governing body

of the council.

3) -f2-) The council shall submit the rule adopting the plan,

and associated maps required by 27E-4.004(3)(a), to the Speaker

of the House and the President of the Senate no later than thirty

(30) days after the plan is adopted by the governing body of the

regional planning council prier t- the next regular- sesszin ef

th legislature. By attachment, the council may indicate where

revisions recommended by the Executive Office of the Governor to

ensure consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan were not

adopted and provide a brief explanation for rejection of those

recommendations. The council shall simultaneously furnish to the

Executive Office of the Governor and the agencies referenced in

27E-4.006(1)(a) a copy of such plan, and associated maps required

by 27E-4.004(3)(a), and any accompanying documentation. The rule

shall take effect as provided for in Section 186.508 Florida

StatutesFi.-








Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.507(2),(15), 186.006(7),(8) FS.

Law Implemented 186.508 FS. History New 1-2-86. Amended



27E-4.008 Evaluation and Modification of Plans.

(1) Evaluation of plans. Each council shall prepare an

evaluation report on its plan at least once every five three

years assessing the successes or failures of the plan and

preparing necessary amendments, revisions, or updates to the

plan. The evaluation reports shall primarily be based upon the

region's progress toward attainment of strategic regional policy

plan goals using the indicators described in 27E-4.004(5). The

evaluation reports shall identify plan amendments which may be

necessary as a result of changing regional conditions, changes to

the State Comprehensive Plan, and other statutory changes. The

evaluation reports may also recommend amendments to the State

Comprehensive Plan and other statutes. The first evaluation

reports shall be submitted on or before the following dates, and

every five years thereafter:


Council: Submission Date:

South Florida March 1, 2000

Southwest Florida March 1, 2000

Withlacoochee May 1, 2000

Tampa Bay June 1, 2000

Treasure Coast July 3, 2000

East Central Florida August 1. 2000

North East Florida September 1, 2000









Apalachee October 2, 2000

West Florida November 1, 2000

Central Florida December 1: 2000

North Central Florida January 1, 2001



(2) Plan changes. All amendments, revisions, or updates to

a plan or the maps required by 27E-4.004(3)(a) shall be adopted

in the same manner as the original plan and shall be prepared as

needed because of changes in the State Comprehensive Plan or law

or as a result of modifications recommended in the evaluation

conducted pursuant to 27E-4.008(1).

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 186.507(2), 186.511 FS.

Law Implemented 186.511 FS. History New 1-2-86. Amended








Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Rule Chapter Title: Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of
Compliance
Rule Number: 9J-5
Rule Title: Intergovernmental Coordination Processes
Rule Number: 9J-5.015
9J-5.015 Intergovernmental Coordination Processes.
(1) through (3) No change.
(4) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PROCESSES.
(a) The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
establish a process to determine if development proposals would
have significant impacts on other local governments or state or
regional resources or facilities identified in the applicable
state or regional plan, and shall establish a process for
mitigating these impacts.
1. Identification of Resources and Facilities
a. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
identify all regional and state resources and facilities
identified in the State Comprehensive Plan and the applicable
Strategic Regional Policy Plan(s) (SRPP) (or the Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan until adoption of the SRPP). The regional
and state resources and facilities shall be identified which are
located within the local government, within the local
government's area of concern as defined in 9J-5.015(1) ("adjacent
local governments" hereafter), and beyond the area of concern,
based upon the characteristics of the resource or facility, which
could be reasonably expected to be significantly impacted by
development within the local government's jurisdiction ("other
affected local governments" hereafter) and identified by a
specific geographic location and not solely by generic type.
Identification may be accomplished by adequately referencing
other elements of the comprehensive plan, other documents, or
specified portions thereof.
b. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
identify any local resources and facilities outside the local
government's jurisdiction within adjacent and other affected
local governments (as described in paragraph a. above) which
could be significantly impacted by development located inside the
local government's jurisdiction. This identification shall
include a generic description of the resource or facility, a
specific geographic location for physical resources and
facilities, and a listing of the local governments which could be
significantly impacted. Identification of local resources and
facilities may be accomplished by adequately referencing the
comprehensive plans of adjacent and other affected local
governments, other documents, or specified portions thereof.
c. In an effort to assist adjacent and other affected
local governments in identifying local resources and facilities
within the local government's jurisdiction, the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element shall consider whether any local resources









and facilities within the local government's jurisdiction could
be significantly impacted by development located outside the
local government's jurisdiction. If the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element identifies any local resource or facility
which could be significantly impacted by development located
outside the jurisdiction, this identification shall include a
generic description of the resource or facility, a specific
geographic location for physical resources and facilities, and a
listing of the local governments which could permit development
and the types thereof, which could significantly impact these
resources and facilities. Identification of local resources and
facilities may be accomplished by adequately referencing other
elements of the comprehensive plan, other documents, or specified
portions thereof.
d. In addition, local governments may identify any other
community issue or characteristic that is identified in the
goals, objectives and policies of the other elements) of the
comprehensive plan ("community characteristic" hereafter) within
the local government's jurisdiction which could be impacted by
development within another local government. These community
characteristics do not have to be geographic, but must be clearly
identified and/or defined within this element. Identification of
local community characteristics may be accomplished by adequately
referencing other elements of the comprehensive plan, or
specified portions thereof.
2. Definition of Significant Impact
a. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
contain a definition of significant impact for each identified
resource, facility and community characteristic located within
the local government's jurisdiction. The definitions of
significant impacts may be quantitative, locational, and/or
qualitative. The definitions shall be designed to ensure that
the identified resources, facilities and community
characteristics are protected and/or maintained in accordance
with the provisions and criteria of the State Comprehensive Plan,
the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plans (SRPP) (or the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan until adoption of the SRPP),
and the other elements of the comprehensive plan.
b. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
identify the types of developments and development permits which
shall be deemed by the local government not to cause a
significant impact. Such development proposals shall not be
subject to the development review process pursuant to paragraph
(4)(a)5.
3. Description of Mitigation Criteria
a. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
generally describe the criteria or standards for appropriate
m~itic .io.. of significant impacts on each identified resource,
facility and community characteristic located within the local
government's jurisdiction. The criteria or standards shall be
designed to ensure that the identified resources, facilities and
community characteristics are protected and/or maintained in








accordance with the provisions of the adopted local comprehensive
plan.
b. Mitigation should be accomplished in the jurisdiction
in which the impacts occur, with an option for regional
mitigation when preferable. Regional mitigation alternatives may
be determined to be preferable by the local government in which
the development is located based on the intergovernmental review
process described in paragraph 5.a.3., below.
4. Intergovernmental Compatibility
a. This Element must demonstrate consideration of the
particular effects of the local plan upon development within
adjacent and other affected local governments. Local governments
are encouraged to accomplish this by demonstrating compatibility
between local government Intergovernmental Coordination Elements,
including the compatible identification of resources, facilities
and community characteristics, definition of significant impacts.
and description of mitigation criteria or standards, pursuant to
above paragraphs (4)(a)l., 2. and 3., in one or more of the
following ways.
Lil. Local governments can and are encouraged to demonstrate
compatibility through incorporation of any relevant portions of
the Strategic Regional Policy Plan(s) (SRPP) (or the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan until adoption of the SRPP)
which includes the compatible identification of resources,
facilities and community characteristics, definition of
significant impacts, and description of mitigation criteria or
standards. If the applicable SRPP contains a model/optional
element which can be adopted by local governments which
adequately addresses the requirements of paragraphs (4)(a)l., 2.
and 3, then a local government can demonstrate compatibility with
regard to paragraphs (4)(a)l.a., 2. and 3. by incorporating those
provisions of the SRPP into the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element of the local comprehensive plan. Local governments which
utilize this method of demonstrating compatibility for regional
and state resources and facilities can utilize the provisions of
paragraphs 4.a.ii., 4.a.iii, and/or 4.b., with respect to any
identified local resources, facilities and community
characteristics.
(ii). Local governments can demonstrate compatibility by
submitting a joint resolution executed by the local government
and one or more other local governments which certifies that the
final proposed Intergovernmental Coordination Elements are
compatible. Such certification shall establish that the local
governments have reviewed the contents of the Elements and agree
on the compatible identification of resources, facilities and
community characteristics, definition of significant impacts, and
description of mitigation criteria or standards, pursuant to
above paragraphs (4)(a)l.. 2. and 3.
(iii). Local governments can demonstrate compatibility
through completion of the cross-acceptance negotiation process
established by the applicable regional planning council(s)
pursuant to ss. 186.503(2) and 186.505(22), F.S., or through









other local procedures.
b. If compatibility is not demonstrated pursuant to
paragraph 4.a., above, then, this Element, when transmitted to
the Department for compliance review must be accompanied by
documentation which clearly demonstrates that during the
preparation of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, all
adjacent and other affected local governments were provided an
adequate opportunity to review and comment upon the proposed
Intergovernmental Coordination Element. This documentation must
clearly demonstrate that the final proposed Element was
transmitted to all adjacent and other affected local governments.
A certified return receipt for U.S. Mail shall be prima facie
evidence of transmittal. The documentation must also demonstrate
consideration of the particular effects of the local plan upon
development within these other local governments, including
consideration of their comments upon the proposed Element. An
explanation of the points of agreement and disagreement, and the
comments from other local governments shall be included in the
documentation.
5. Development Review Process
a. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
expressly provide for and clearly establish a development review
process, to be implemented by the local government in which the
development is located, to determine if development proposals
would have significant impacts on the identified resources,
facilities or community characteristics, and to mitigate such
impacts. This intergovernmental coordination review process
should be incorporated into the local government's usual
development review process. Multiple development orders for the
same project shall not be individually subject to this review,
provided that one review is conducted prior to the approval of an
application for a development order or permit which contains a
specific plan of development, including the densities and
intensities of development. Any subsequent changes to the plan
of development which are likely to result in significant impacts
also shall be subject to this development review process. If the
applicable SRPP contains a model/optional element which
adequately addresses the requirements of this Rule section, then
a local government can and is encouraged to demonstrate
compatibility and comply with the requirements of this Rule
section through incorporation of those provisions of the SRPP
into the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The development
review process shall meet the following standards.
i). The development review process shall include an impact
analysis by the local government of a proposed development's
potential for significant impacts upon an identified resource,
facility or community characteristic. The local government is
encouraged to coordinc.e with appropriate local, regional and
state agencies in conducting the analysis. An impact analysis
must be prepared for all development proposals, except for those
developments identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element which shall be deemed not to cause a significant impact.









The definition of significant impact used in the impact analysis
shall be the definition contained in the Strategic Regional
Policy Plan(s) (SRPP) (or the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan
until adoption of the SRPP). or the local government
comprehensive plan where the resource, facility or community
characteristic is located.
(ii). If the local government determines, based on the
impact analysis, that a development proposal will not result in
significant impacts, this finding shall be included in a listing
of development applications. The listing shall include, at a
minimum, a general description of the development proposal and
the geographic location of the project. This listing shall be
transmitted to adjacent and other affected local governments (as
described paragraph l.a., above) and made available upon request
on a regularly scheduled basis. The frequency of this
transmittal shall be either identified in the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element or defined by interlocal agreement.
Additional information regarding a development proposal shall be
provided upon request for a reasonable cost of reproduction. The
transmitting local government shall give the adjacent or other
affected local government, at least 15 days after transmittal of
the listing to indicate in writing that it disagrees with the
finding of no significant impact. The transmitting local
government and the adjacent or other affected local government
may agree upon a time period shorter than 15 days for the written
indication of disagreement. If an adjacent or other affected
local government disagrees with the finding, the matter shall be
subject to dispute resolution, pursuant to paragraph (b), below.
(iii). If the local government determines, based on the
impact analysis, that a development proposal is likely to result
in significant impacts, then a description of the development
proposal and any proposed mitigation conditions shall be
transmitted for intergovernmental review. This description shall
include a general description of the development proposal and the
geographic location of the project. Additional information
regarding a development proposal shall be provided upon request
for a reasonable cost of reproduction. This intergovernmental
review shall provide a reasonable opportunity for review and
comment by adjacent and other affected local governments. In
addition, local governments are encouraged to involve appropriate
state, regional and local agencies in the intergovernmental
review, including affected parties as identified in 9J-
5.015(1)(a), the regional planning council, water management
districtss. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Florida Department of State (Division of Historical Resources),
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida Department
of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the
school board.
(iv). The development review process shall indicate that
if, based on the intergovernmental review, agreement regarding
the mitigation of impacts of a proposed development cannot be
reached between the local government and an adjacent or other









affected local government, then the matter shall be subject to
dispute resolution pursuant to paragraph (b). below.
(v. Based on the intergovernmental review, conditions for
mitigation of significant impacts shall be included in the local
government development order and shall be consistent with the
provisions and criteria of the State Comprehensive Plan. the
applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan(s) (SRPP) (or the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan until adoption of the SRPP),
the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plans of adjacent
and other affected local governments in which the impacts occur,
and with the other elements of the local comprehensive plan of
the issuing jurisdiction.
(vi). The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
identify the monitoring and enforcement procedures that will be
used to ensure that the identified mitigation is provided.
b. If a local government opts to retain the development of
regional impact (DRI) process pursuant to s. 380.06(27)(c). F.S.
(Ch. 93-206. Laws of Florida), then the DRI review process
(Section 380.06. F.S.. and its related administrative rules) may
be used in lieu of the above development review process for
developments of regional impact pursuant to Section 380.0651,
F.S.. and Rule 28-24, F.A.C.
(b) The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
establish a dispute resolution process for bringing to closure in
a timely manner those disputes that pertain to development
proposals that would have impacts on other local governments or
identified state or regional resources or facilities.
1. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
incorporate the dispute resolution process of the applicable
regional planning council(s) established pursuant to Section
186.509. Florida Statutes, into the local comprehensive planning
dispute resolution process established pursuant to this section.
2. The local comprehensive planning dispute resolution
process may include additional dispute resolution alternatives-
which are not included within the applicable regional planning
council process, provided that the alternatives are consistent
with and further the regional resolution process. These
alternative dispute resolution processes may be implemented prior
to, or in conjunction with, the implementation of the regional
process so long as the resolution of the disputes) are achieved
in a timely manner consistent with the regional resolution
process schedule.
3. The permitting local government petitioned by an
adjacent or other affected local government under (4)(a)5.a.(ii)
and (iv) of this rule, must respond in writing to any petition,
indicating its willingness to participate in the dispute
resolution process within fifteen (15) days of receipt of said
petition. The reply must indicate h~:. ..tatus of the proposed
development order and include the expected date of issuance of
the development order at issue.
(c) The Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall
establish a process for modification of development orders issued








pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, without a loss of
recognized development rights.
(d) In addition, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element
shall include a provision for the local government to render to
the Department of Community Affairs every development order and
accompanying supporting documentation for developments which meet
or exceed the thresholds established by Section 380.0651, Florida
Statutes, and Rule 28-24, Florida Administrative Code, and any
amended development orders as described in paragraph (c) above.
As used in this section, render means issuance of a written
development order and transmittal of a certified completed copy
of the order by the local government with jurisdiction, together
with all pertinent attachments. The rendition shall be by first
class certified U.S. Mail or other delivery service for which a
receipt as proof of service is required to the Department of
Community Affairs, Bureau of State Planning, the regional
planning agency, and the owner or developer. A certified return
receipt for U.S. Mail shall be prima facie evidence of
transmittal. A development order will not be considered to have
been rendered if it is transmitted by facsimile machine, or if
all pages, exhibits, references, and attachments are not included
or are not legible. Local governments are encouraged to
coordinate with the Department of Community Affairs regarding
such development proposals prior to approval of the development
order.Development orders in regard to any such projects are
subject to appeal by the Department of Community Affairs in
accordance with Section 380.07, Florida Statutes.
_e) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a local
government from including provisions in the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element which do not conflict with the requirements
of this rule.
Specific Authority 163.3177(9)(10) FS. Law Implemented
163.3177(1).(4).(5).(6),(h),(8).(9).(10) FS. History New 3-6-
86. Amended 10-20-86.








DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Division of Resource Planning and Management
RULE CHAPTER TITLE: Schedule for the Tranmission and Submission
of Local Government Evaluation and
Appraisal Reports
RULE CHAPTER: 9J-33
9J-33.001 Purpose and Effect
9J-33.002 Definitions
9J-33.003 Local Governments with Populations
of Fewer than 2,500 Persons
9J-33.004 Early Submission
9J-33.005 Local Government Transmittal and
Submission Schedule
9J-33.001. Purpose and Effect. The purpose of this chapter
is to establish the schedule for transmittal of the draft
evaluation and appraisal report by the local planning agency to
the department and the local governing body, and the submission
of the adopted evaluation and appraisal report by the local
governing body to the department pursuant to Section 163.3191,
Florida Statutes. The evaluation and appraisal report process is
the principle process for updating local comprehensive plans to
reflect changes in local conditions and state policy on planning
and growth management. Some or all of the municipalities within
a county are scheduled to submit their evaluation and appraisal
reports in the same month as the county, and any remaining
municipalities in that county are scheduled to submit their
evaluation and appraisal reports in the immediately following
month or months. The schedule is arranged so that the workload
for the department is consistently divided over the submittal
period, and the local governments meet the required deadlines set
in Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes.
Specific Authority 163.3191(8), F.S., Law Implemented 163.3191,
F.S., History-New
9J-33.002. Definitions. As used in this Chapter:
(1) "Department" means the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
(2) "Evaluation and Appraisal Report" means an evaluation
and appraisal report as provided by Section 163.3191, Florida
Statutes
(3) "Local government" means any county or municipality.
For purposes of this chapter, the Reedy Creek Improvement
District shall be considered a municipality.
Specific Authority 163.3164(12). 163.3191(8), F.S., Law
Implemented 163.3191, F.S., History-New.
9J-33.003. Local Governments with populations of fewer than
2.500 persons
(1) If a local government has a population of 2,500 or
fewer persons as established in the 1992 Population Estimates of
the Executive Office of the Governor, it shall submit its first
evaluation and appraisal report no later than 12 years after the
adoption date of its comprehensive plan, as set forth in the
schedule below. Subsequent evaluation and appraisal reports shall









be submitted every 10 years thereafter, provided that the local
government's population remains below 2.500 persons. If,
following the submission of its first evaluation and appraisal
report, the next available Population Estimate of the Executive
Office of the Governor shows a population of over 2,500 persons,
then the local government shall submit subsequent reports on a
five year interval.
(2) If a local government has a population of more than
2.500 persons as established in the 1992 Population Estimates of
the Executive Office of the Governor, it shall submit its first
evaluation and appraisal report no later than 7 years after the
adoption of the comprehensive plan, as set forth in the schedule
below. Subsequent evaluation and appraisal reports shall be
submitted on a five year interval thereafter, provided that the
local government's population remain above 2.500 persons. If,
following the submission of its first evaluation and appraisal
report, the next available Population Estimates of the Executive
Office of the Governor shows a population under 2,500 persons,
then each subsequent report shall be submitted on a ten year
interval.
Specific Authority 163.3191(7), F.S., Law Implemented
163.3191, F.S. History-New.
9J-33.004 Early Submission.
(1) The schedule adopted by this Chapter does not prohibit
a local government from transmitting and adopting its evaluation
and appraisal report prior to the established schedule dates. A
local government may transmit its report in advance of the
transmittal date established by this rule if it:
a) Provides the public with notice of transmittal of
the report at least 120 days prior to actual transmittal and,
b) Provides the department with notice of transmittal
of the report at least 60 days prior to actual transmittal.
(2) When a local government elects to transmit its report
prior to the due dates established by this chapter, the local
planning agency shall transmit the draft addendum to the
evaluation and appraisal report to the department and to the
local governing body 90 days prior to the submission schedule
established in this rule, and the local governing body shall on
the established due date submit to the department an adopted
addendum to the report which addresses any changes in the report
including, but not limited to, changes in local conditions,
revisions to Chapter 163, part II, Florida Statutes, the state
comprehensive plan, the appropriate regional policy plan and
Chapter 9J-5 made subsequent to the early submittal of the
report.
Specific Authority 163.3191(1), 163.3191(8), F.S.. Law
Implemented 163.3191. F.S. History-New.
9J-33.005. Local Government Transmittal and Submission
Schedule. Local governing bodies shall submit their adcpted
evaluation and appraisal reports to the department for
sufficiency review based on the schedule set forth below. Local
planning agencies shall transmit the proposed evaluation and









appraisal report to the local governing body and to the
Department of Community Affairs 90 days prior to the submission
schedule set forth below:
(1) November 1. 1995: Dade County. Bal Harbour Village,
Biscayne Park. Miami Shores;
(2) December 1. 1995: Bay Harbor Island, Miami. Miami
Springs. South Miami, Surfside, Sweetwater; Charlotte County.
Punta Gorda;
(3) January 1. 1996: Coral Gables. Florida City, Hialeah
Gardens. North Bay, North Miami, North Miami Beach; Collier
County, Naples;
(4) February 1. 1996: Hialeah, Homestead. Miami Beach, Opa-
Locka. West Miami; Lee County, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Sanibel;
(5) March 1. 1996: Broward County. Cooper City, Davie,
Lauderdale Lakes, Lauderhill, Pembroke Park, Pembroke Pines,
Plantation, Sunrise, Sarasota County, Longboat Key, North Port,
Sarasota City. Venice, Citrus County, Crystal River, Inverness;
(6) April 1. 1996: Dania, Fort Lauderdale. Hallandale,
Hollywood, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. Miramar. Oakland Park, Wilton
Manors, Hernando County. Brooksville;
(7) May 1. 1996: Coconut Creek. Coral Springs. Deerfield
Beach, Lighthouse Point. Margate, North Lauderdale, Tamarac,
Parkland, Pompano Beach, Manatee County, Bradenton, Holmes Beach.
Palmetto;
(8) June 1. 1996: Palm Beach County. Belle Glade, Lake
Clarke Shores, Pahokee. South Bay. Pasco County. Dade City. New
Port Richey. Port Richey, Zephyrhills;
(9) July 1. 1996: Greenacres City. Lake Worth, Lantana, Palm
Springs, Royal Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Hillsborough County,
Plant City. Tampa, Temple Terrace;
(10) August 1. 1996: Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Delray
Beach, Highland Beach, Palm Beach, Pinellas County, Belleair,
Clearwater, Dunedin. Oldsmar. Safety Harbor. Tarpon Springs;
(11) September 1. 1996: Jupiter. Lake Park. North Palm
Beach. Palm Beach Gardens. Riviera Beach, Tequesta, Indian Rocks
Beach, Kenneth City. Largo, Pinellas Park. Seminole;
(12) October 1, 1996: Gulfport, Madeira Beach, St.
Petersburg. St. Petersburg Beach. South Pasedena, Treasure
Island;
(13) November 1, 1996: Martin County, Stuart;
(14) December 1. 1996: St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Port
St. Lucie;
(15) January 1. 1997: Indian River County, Sebastian, Vero
Beach. Levy County;
(16) February 1. 1997: Dixie County. Brevard County, Cape
Canaveral. Cocoa Beach. Indialantic. Indian harbor Beach,
Melbourne Beach, Sattelite Beach;
(17) March 1, 1997: Cocoa, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Rockledger
Titusville. West Melbourne. Volusia County, Deland, Orange City,
Franklin County, Apalachicola;
(18) April 1. 1997: Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach Shores.
Edgewater. Holly Hill. New Smyrna Beach. Ormond Beach, Port









Orange. South Daytona. Bay County, Callaway, Lynn Haven, Panama
City, Panama City Beach, Parker. Springfield;
(19) May 1. 1997: Okaloosa County. Crestview, Destin; Fort
Walton Beach. Mary Esther. Niceville, Valparaiso. Flagler County,
Flagler Beach;
(20) June 1. 1997: Taylor County. Perry, Leon County,
Tallahassee;
(21) July 1. 1997: Gulf County. Port St. Joe, Jefferson
County, Monticello;
(22) August 1. 1997: Wakulla County, St. Johns County. St.
Augustine. St. Augustine Beach;
(23) September 1. 1997: Duval County, Atlantic Beach.
Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach. Santa Rosa County, Gulf
Breeze, Milton;
(24) October 1, 1997: Escambia County. Pensacola;
(25) November 1, 1997: Nassau County, Fernandina Beach;
(26) December 1, 1997: Walton County, Defuniak Springs;
(27) Janaury 1, 1998: Highlands County, Avon Park. Sebring;
(28) February 1. 1998: Osceola County. Kissimmee, Saint
Cloud, Baker County, Macclenny, Monroe County, Key West;
(29) March 1. 1998: Polk County. Auburndale, Bartow. Fort
Meade. Frostproof. Haines City. Lake Alfred, Lake Wales.
Lakeland. Mulberry, Winter Haven. Hendry County. Clewiston.
La Belle;
(30) April 1. 1998: Washington County, Chipley, Glades
County, Hardee County, Wauchula, Desoto County, Arcadia;
(31) May 1. 1998: Lake County. Clermont. Eustis. Fruitland
Park. Lady Lake, Leesburg, Mount Dora. Tavares, Holmes County,
Bonifay;
(32) June 1, 1998: Columbia County, Lake City, Jackson
County. Graceville. Marianna;
(33) July 1. 1998: Orange County, Apopka. Belle Isle,
Eatonville. Maitland. Ocoee, Orlando. Reedy Creek, Winter Garden,
Winter Park, Hamilton County;
(34) August 1. 1998: Liberty County. Lafayette County;
(35) September 1. 1998: Seminole County, Altamonte Springs,
Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood. Oviedo, Sanford, Winter
Springs, Suwannee County. Live Oak;
(36) October 1, 1998: Alachua County, Alachua (City),
Gainesville. High Springs;
(37) November 1, 1998: Gadsden County, Chattahoochee,
Quincy, Gilchrist County. Madison County, Madison (City);
(38) December 1, 1998: Union County, Putnam County, Palatka;
(39) January 1. 1999: Marion County, Belleview, Ocala.
Bradford County, Starke, Clay County, Green Cove Springs, Orange
Park;
(40) February 1. 1999: Sumter County. Wildwood, Okeechobee
County, Okeechobee (City), Calhoun County, Blountstown;
Note: This is the end of the schedule of counties and
municipalities over 2.500 persons. For smaller cities, those with
fewer than 2.500 persons, the schedule of evaluation and
appraisal report submissions resumes in August. 2000.




v*':%"~~J~.r C~ F


(41) August 1. 2000: None;
(42) September 1. 2000: None
(43) October 1. 2000: None
(44) November 1. 2000: El Portal. Golden Beach. Indian Creek
Village. Islandia. Medley. Virginia Gardens;
(45) December 1. 2000: None
(46) January 1. 2001: Everclades City;
(47) February 1. 2001: None
(48) March 1. 2001: Lazy Lake;
(49) April 1. 2001: Sea Ranch Lakes, Weeki Wachee;
(50) May 1. 2001: Hillsboro Beach. Anna Maria. Bradenton
Beach;
(51) June 1, 2001: Briny Breezes. Cloud Lake. Glen Ridge.
Golfview. Golf Village. Gulf Stream. Hypoluxo. Jupiter Inlet
Colony. Manalapan. Mangonia Park. Ocean Ridge. South Palm Beach,
Saint Leo. San Antonio;
(52) July 1. 2001: Atlantis, Haverhill;
(53) August 1. 2001: Juno Beach. Palm Beach Shores, Belleair
Bluffs;
(54) September 1. 2001: Belleair Beach. Belleair Shore.
Indian Shores, North Redington Beach, Redington Shores;
(55) October 1, 2001: Redington Beach;
(56) November 1. 2001: Jupiter Island, Ocean Breeze Park,
Sewalls Point;
(57) December 1. 2001: St Lucie Village:
(58) January 1. 2002: Bronson, Cedar Key, Chiefland. Inglis,
Otter Creek, Williston. Yankeetown. Fellsmere. Indian River
Shores. Orchid;
(59) February 1, 2002: Malabar, Melbourne Village. Palm
Shores. Cross City, Horseshoe Beach;
(60) March 1. 2002: Lake Helen. Oak Hill. Pierson. Ponce
Inlet. Carrabelle;
(61) April 1. 2002: Cedar Grove, Mexico Beach;
(62) May 1. 2002: Beverly Beach. Bunnell. Marineland. Cinco
Bayou, Laurel Hill. Shalimar;
(63) June 1. 2002: None
(64) July 1. 2002: Wewahitchka;
(65) August 1. 2002: Hastings, St. Marks, Sopchoppy;
(66) September 1. 2002: Baldwin, Jay;
(67) October 1. 2002: Century;
(68) November 1, 2002: Callahan. Hilliard;
(69) December 1. 2002: Freeport. Paxton;
(70) January 1. 2003: Lake Placid;
(71) February 1. 2003: Glen Saint Mary, Key Colony Beach.
Layton;
(72) March 1. 2003: Davenport, Dundee. Eagle Lake, Highland
Park. Hillcrest Heights. Lake Hamilton. Polk City;
(73) April 1. 2003: Moore Haven. Bowling Green. Zolfo
Springs. Caryville. Ebro, Vernon. Wausau;
(74) May 1. 2003: Esto. Noma, Ponce de Leon. Westville.
Astatula. Groveland. Howey-in-the-Hills. Mascotte. Minneola.
Montverde. Umatilla;









(75) June 1, 2003: Fort White. Alford. Bascom. Campbellton.
Cottondale. Grand Ridge. Greenwood. Jacob City. Malone. Sneads;
(76) July 1. 2003: Jasper. Jenninas. White Springs. Bay
Lake, Edgewood, Lake Buena Vista, Oakland. Windermere;
(77) August 1, 2003: Mayo, Bristol;
(78) September 1. 2003: Branford;
(79) October 1. 2003: Archer. Hawthorne. LaCrosse. Micanopy,
Newberrv. Waldo;
(80) November 1. 2003: Greensboro. Gretna, Havana, Midway.
Bell, Fanning Springs. Trenton. Greenville, Lee;
(81) December 1. 2003: Crescent City, Interlachen, Pomona
Park, Welaka, Lake Butler, Raiford, Worthington Springs;
(82) January 1, 2004: Brooker, Hampton, Lawtev, Keystone
Heights, Penney Farms, Dunnellon, McIntosh, Reddick;
(83) February 1. 2004: Altha, Bushnell. Center Hill,
Coleman, Webster.
Specific Authority 163.3191(4), 163.3191(5), 163.3191(8), F.S.
Law Implemented 163.3191. F.S., History-New













Regional Governance Recommendation Framework


Reviewed and Approved by the
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
October 19, 1992, in Tampa, Florida



October 21, 1992







The contents of the Framework include the following:

1) Overview and Preamble
2) Figure Depicting Recommendation Framework
3) Recommendations Specific to Each of the Regional Entity Types
Listed Below:

Regional Planning Councils (RPC)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)
Water Management Districts(WMD)
Regional Water Supply Authorities (RWSA)
Local Health Councils (LHC)
Area Agencies on Aging (AAA)
Private Industry Councils (PIC)










Overview of Final Regional Governance Recommendations Approved
by the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
October 19, 1992, Tampa, Florida

As directed by the ACIR on November 4, 1991, an ACIR Task Force on Regional
Governance and Water Supply Policy was appointed to review current statutory
requirements that address organizational dimensions (status, boundaries, governing boards,
and accountability), functions, and funding for seven types of regional entities in Florida
(regional planning councils, metropolitan planning organizations, water management
districts, regional water supply authorities, local health councils, area agencies on aging, and
private industry councils.) In addition, the Task Force was directed to identify current
activities that allow integration and coordination among existing regional entities, and
finally, to develop alternatives to the current structures, functions, and operating procedures
for regional entities included in the purview of the Task Force. Legislation passed during
the 1992 Session, HB 1061 (Chapter 92-182, Laws of Florida) directed the ACIR to conduct
a review of the Regional Council Planning Act. Provisions in that legislation guided the
review and the related requirements were incorporated in the work of the Task Force.

The members of the Task Force represented three state agencies (Department of
Community Affairs, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Environmental
Regulation), the Office of Planning and Budgeting in the Executive Office of the Governor,
regional planning councils, water management districts, regional water supply authorities,
metropolitan planning organizations, local health councils, county government, municipal
government and special districts. Officials affiliated with area agencies on aging and private
industry councils were invited to participate in the proceedings of the Task Force. The
Task Force met four times between the end of April and August.

Consideration of the recommendations submitted by the Task Force to the ACIR
occurred during two ACIR meetings. The first was on October 1, 1992 in Tampa. At that
meeting, ACIR staff presented approaches reviewed by the Task Force and the final
recommendations developed by the Task Force. After testimony was heard and the views
of the Council members were shared, the chair of the ACIR appointed a subcommittee to
discuss the regional governance recommendation framework and develop, if necessary,
revisions. The subcommittee met on October 13 in Tallahassee and was composed of
Senator Jeanne Malchon, Representative Mike Langton, Secretary Linda Shelley, Mayor
Bill Evers, and Jim Shipman. Revisions to several recommendations relevant to
coordination between regional entities, generally, and regional planning councils and water
management districts, specifically were developed by the subcommittee and considered by
the ACIR on October 19, 1992 in Tampa. After further discussion and revisions during the
meeting on October 19, the Council approved the regional governance recommendation
framework.

Preamble
For several decades, Florida has experienced excessive population growth
and the accompanying pressures such growth inflicts on physical and social
infrastructure. Regional entities with a variety of governing structures and


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92









responsibilities were created, in part, to respond to the overwhelming
demands confronting the state and local levels of government as they
attempted to accommodate this growth. Regional entities served as
opportunities to address issues and problems that extended beyond the
boundaries of local jurisdictions and ensured an appropriate nexus between
federal, state, and local levels of government. As such, regional entities
became a vital component in the development and implementation of federal,
state, and local policies and programs. To a large extent, the policies,
programs and issues addressed by the varying types of regional entities have
been singular in scope and purpose. The limited scope of regional entities
did not require coordination with each other. Although efforts have been
made by some regional entities to coordinate activities, there has been no
formal or binding commitment to direct the coordination of specific activities
across these regional entities, including their planning functions, policy
development and program implementation. Recognizing the above, ensuring
regional entities coordinate with each other and function in a manner
consistent with sound governance principles and practices is of the utmost
importance.

The final selection of recommendations approved by the Council lend support to
the following:

1) Regional planning provides an opportunity to assess conditions, disseminate
information, and develop policies that have a greater than local impact and are
sensitive to variations in infrastructure, natural resources, and social service needs
across the state.

2) While there is variation across types of regional entities and regions, there are
several general issues that should be considered in attempts to improve regional
governance. These include:

a. The adequacy of the accountability of regional entities to the citizenry and
the funding entities (state and local government);

b. The stability and appropriateness of funding for regional entities;

c. The integration of related or relevant functions of different types of
regional entities, particularly those with a planning component;

d. The extent to which functions of regional entities have a duplicative and/or
contradictory nature;

e. The extent to which regional entities have sufficient flexibility to address
their responsibilities while accommodating the diverse needs across regions;

f. The coordination among the state, regional and local levels of government;

g. The extent to which boundaries of regional entities are coterminous and
based on criteria that are arbitrary or inconsistent;


RPC Recommendations


A


ACIR 10/21/92










h. The appropriate level of government for regulatory functions; and

i. The insufficiency of the authority or mechanisms for regional entities to
perform or implement their functions and services.

3) In an attempt to share resources, expertise, and concerns or innovations related
to issues of interest to more than one type of regional entity within one region,
communication between different types of regional entities should be encouraged
and facilitated. In order to accomplish this communication, the ACIR approved the
following recommendation which also appears as Component 1 in the figure
depicting the recommendation framework:

As a step toward eliminating duplicative functions or conflicting policies
between regional planning councils (RPCs), metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), water management districts (WMDs), regional water
supply authorities (RWSAs), local health councils (LHCs), area agencies on
aging (AAAs), and private industry councils (PICs), RPCs should be directed
by statute to perform a coordinating function among these regional entities.
Coordinating mechanisms should be developed by the RPC that allow for the
participation of at least one board member from each regional entity in a
comprehensive planning district, evaluation of the RPC regional policy plan
at the appropriate time, and ongoing communication between regional
entities.

Coordinating mechanism options that allow for improved coordination among
regional entities are the following:
1) Holding joint meetings to discuss regional issues;
2) Holding public hearings for the purpose of developing and amending
the "regional plan" (the CRPP or its replacement) using a time frame
consistent with the required CRPP evaluation cycle specified in s.
186.511, F.S.; and
3) Scheduling workshops called "Regional Forums" for the purpose of
sharing expertise, resources, policies in plans, and innovations for
improving coordination among state, regional, and local governmental
entities.

Mechanisms developed by the RPC for improving coordination should cover
the following planning and policy categories: Growth Management,
Transportation, Natural Resources, Health, Economic Development, and
Education.

4) With the exception of several recommendations offered by the ACIR that address
regional boundaries, governing boards, accountability, and several functions of each
type of regional entity, the regional entities included in the purview of the ACIR's
study should continue as viable forms of regional governance in Florida. Consistent
with this view but specific to regional planning councils and local health councils, the
Regional Planning Council Act as amended in 1984 and, as amended consistent with
ACIR recommendations, should be preserved. Implementation of this


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92








recommendation would require legislative amendments to the existing Act, other
statutes, if necessary, and a repeal of the general law provisions that call for a sunset
of sections of the Act.

5) In future legislative review of regional governance issues, including the review
of the Regional Planning Council Act required in Chapter 92-182, Laws of Florida
and other required statutory reviews addressing regional entities, the Governmental
Operations Committees (or their successors), in consultation with the other
appropriate substantive committees, should be assigned the responsibility to develop
and consider relevant legislation.


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92








FINAL REGIONAL GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATION FRAMEWORK
(Approved by the ACIR on October 19, 1992 in Tampa)


COMPONENT 1:
As a step toward eliminating duplicative functions or conflicting policies between regional planning councils (RPCs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs),
water management districts (WMDs), regional water supply authorities (RWSAs), local health councils (LHCs), area agencies on aging (AAAs), and private industry
councils (PICs), RPCs should be directed by statute to perform a coordinating function among these regional entities. Coordinating mechanisms should be
developed by the RPC that allow for the participation of at least one board member from each regional entity in a comprehensive planning district, evaluation of
the RPC regional policy plan at the appropriate time, and ongoing communication between regional entities.

Coordinating mechanism options that allow for improved coordination among regional entities are the following:
1) Holding joint meetings to discuss regional issues;
2) Holding public hearings for the purpose of developing and amending the "regional plan" (the CRPP or its replacement)
using a time frame consistent with the required CRPP evaluation cycle specified in s. 186.511, F.S. ; and
3) Scheduling workshops called "Regional Forums" for the purpose of sharing expertise, resources, policies in plans, and innovations for
improving coordination among state, regional, and local governmental entities.


Mechanisms developed by the RPC for improving coordination should cover the following planning and policy categories:


Policy and
Planning
Categories
(Regional Entities;
Dept. of Transp.;
Dept. of Environ.
Regulation; Dept. of
Commerce)


Growth Natural Health Economic
Management Transportation Resources (LHC, AAA, Development
(RPC, MPO, (MPO, RPC (RPC, WMD, RPC, Health and (RPC, PIC,
WMD, LHC, WMD, AAA, RWSA, Human Services RWSA, DOC,
DOT, DER) DOT, DER) DOT, DER) Boards, DER) DOT, DER)


Education
(RPC, LHC,
PIC)


COMPONENT 2:
This component contains modifications relevant to each type of regional entity included in the purview of the Task Force. The objective is to improve
regional governance through consideration of the regional governance problems/issues identified by the Task Force.


Regional
Planning
Council
(RPC)
Recommendations:


Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(MPO)
Recommendations:


Water
Management
Districts
(WMD)
Recommendations:


Regional
Water Supply
Authorities
(RWSA)
Recommendations:


Local
Health
Councils
(LHC)
Recommendations:


Area
Agencies
on Aging
(AAA)
Recommendations:


Private
Industry
Councils
(PIC)
Recommendations:









Regional Planning Councils


Condition: Recommendations that require regional planning councils to
perform an additional responsibility or function or incur additional costs
shall be contingent upon sufficient funding from the state or another
appropriate funding source.

Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status)

No recommendations.

Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current regional boundaries and possible
alternatives)

In order to implement section 186.506(4), F.S., the Governor should establish, by executive
order, an advisory committee to:
1) define comprehensive planning district(currently serves as the region for the
regional planning councils);
2) develop criteria for establishing districts that are consistent with criteria specified
in the statute or that suggested by officials participating on the advisory committee,
including consideration of MPO boundaries; and
3) apply the criteria and evaluate current district boundaries before January 1,
1994.

Rationale: This recommendation specifies a method for the implementation of an
authority and responsibility currently in general law. Based on concerns raised
during interviews with regional and local officials in five regions, a review of the
current boundaries for regional planning councils(comprehensive planning districts)
is warranted. Implementation of this recommendation would require an amendment
to section 186.506, F.S. in the Regional Planning Council Act which addresses the
powers and duties of the Executive Office of the Governor. An additional
amendment in another relevant section, section 186.006, F.S., might be advisable as
well.

Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

No recommendations.

Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry, and
other entities)

1) Require each RPC, by rule, to establish a "user friendly" procedure that allows
for and encourages citizen input and public education.

2) Require each RPC, by rule, to establish a procedure that will allow for evaluation
of the RPC by member and non-member local governments, appropriate state agency
officials, and other public interests.


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92









Rationale: The recommendations intended to improve the accountability of regional
planning councils are justified based on observations communicated during interviews
with regional and local officials in five regions and suggestions offered by members
of the Task Force. By enacting these recommendations, there should be ample
opportunity to raise issues, concerns, and problems that can be appropriately
resolved or remedied at the local and regional levels of government.
Implementation of these recommendations would require an amendment to section
186.505, F.S. of the Regional Planning Council Act which addresses powers and
duties of the RPCs.

Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications, and additional
functions)

Existing Functions--

Content and Application of a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan-
1) The Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP) shall become a Strategic
Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) that includes only regional issues and policies
identified by each region. These regional issues shall include natural
resources, transportation, health, and affordable housing and may include
others as decided by the region. To the extent a SRPP addresses issues in
the State Comprehensive Plan, the SRPP shall be consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Legislature.

2) The SRPP shall be applied in reviews of developments of regional impact
and local comprehensive plan amendments for the purpose of identifying the
impacts on regionally significant resources.

Rationale: While maintaining, with further qualification, the current
applications of the CRPP, these recommendations call for a strategic regional
plan and a limitation on the plan's scope to address only regional issues and
policies identified by the region. In addition, four policy areas are specified
as the minimum that must be addressed in the regional plan. Justification for
these recommendations is based on interviews with regional and local officials
in five regions. While recognizing that CRPPs have addressed items that are
considered, by some, to be only appropriate for local government
comprehensive plans, such as levels of service in transportation or buffer
zones and setbacks for protecting natural resources, if the necessary
limitations are specified in law, the application of the CRPP or its
replacement for reviewing amendments and developments of regional impact
is still viewed as appropriate. Implementation of these recommendations
would require an amendment to section 186.507, F.S. to clarify "regional
issues and policies".

Development of Regional Impact Review

1) The DRI review procedures (s. 380.06, F.S.) and the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan procedures (Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes)
shall be integrated in a manner that ensures appropriate applications are


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92









combined and timing is aligned, if same can be done without undue delay
for applicants. In addition, this integration shall maintain the facilitation
and review responsibilities currently performed by the RPC's;

2) Require the RPC to work with DCA and member local governments in
developing review requirements and procedures that promote certification
of local governments for conducting DRI reviews when local governments
have demonstrated a sound planning record and permitting consistent with
their plans. The RPC shall promote inclusion of the relevant procedures in
the intergovernmental coordination elements of local government
comprehensive plans in the region.;

3) A single set of review standards shall be used in the review of DRIs and
shall be developed by DCA. However, different review standards could be set
within a comprehensive planning district by the DCA with the approval of the
RPC in that district.

4) RPC DRI appeal authority shall be repealed.

5) DCA shall receive additional resources for the purpose of enhancing RPC
monitoring of DRI development orders issued by local governments in the
region.

Rationale: The series of recommendations addressing the review of
developments stemmed from several of the major criticisms of and benefits
derived from the DRI review process communicated to ACIR during the
interviewing sessions in five regions of the state. Some of the
recommendations encourage the promotion of DRI procedures in current
authority (local government certification for DRI review RPC facilitation
and review responsibilities), others call for an enhanced role of the RPC in
particular aspects of the DRI process (monitoring of approved local
government DRI development orders and developing review standards for
submission to and approval by DCA), and the remaining recommendation
calls for the repeal of the RPC authority to appeal local government DRI
development orders. The implementation of the DRI recommendations
might require an amendment to section 186.505, F.S. for the purpose of
clarifying the role of the RPC in the review of developments of regional
impact and amendments to section 380.06,F.S. which specifies DRI review
requirements.

Conflict Mediation--
1) Require the RPC to develop procedures relevant to conflict mediation for
a wide variety of conflicts (outside of review of developments of regional
impact). Require the RPC to promote this inclusion of these procedures and
requirements in intergovernmental coordination elements of local government
comprehensive plans in the region.

Rationale: This recommendation is addressed in current law, section 186.509,
F.S. However, the wording of this recommendation encourages application


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92









of a conflict mediation procedure for conflicts beyond those issues related to
comprehensive plans. Implementation of the recommendation would require
an amendment to s. 186.509, F.S.

Other Existing Functions--
1) Clarify or expand responsibilities related to review of federal grant
applications;

Rationale: Currently, section 186.006(7), F.S. requires the RPCs to be
designated as the regional clearinghouses for the purposes of complying with
federal and state review requirements for federal grants. This
recommendation allows for the possible expansion of these responsibilities
in efforts in the Governor's office to streamline the review process and perfect
coordination across the numerous entities involved in the review. In addition,
the recommendation could require RPCs to assume a role in improving the
targeting of available federal grants. Implementation of this recommendation
might require amendments to section 186.505, F.S. in the Regional Planning
Council Act and section 186.006, F.S. which identifies the regional planning
councils as the regional data clearinghouses.

2) Maintain role in designation of regional hazardous waste storage or
treatment facility sites;

Rationale: Currently, Part IV, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, requires the
RPCs to perform a number of tasks related to the review of hazardous
management assessments and the citing of hazardous storage facility sites.
This recommendation supports and adds emphasis to this responsibility of
the RPCs.

3) Clarify or reconfirm role in hurricane evacuation plans or emergency
management plans;

Rationale: Currently, section 186.505(11), F.S. requires RPCs to "cooperate,
in the exercise of its planning functions, with federal and state agencies in
planning for emergency management under s. 252.34(3), F.S." This
recommendation supports this responsibility of the RPC. Relevant
amendments might be required in section 186.505, F.S. of the Regional
Planning Council Act and in Chapter 252, Florida Statutes, which
encompasses state law regarding emergency management.

4) Conduct studies identified by the region, the EOG, or the Interagency
Management Committee (i.e., central city/suburban fiscal disparities,
affordable housing).

Rationale: Currently, RPCs may conduct studies for the EOG, a state agency,
local governments, or other public entities. This recommendation highlights
this function of the RPCs and encourages its application on a more frequent
basis. Implementation of this requirement might not require an amendment
to the statutes.


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92










A New Function for All RPCs


1) RPC assumption of responsibilities related to the review of local
government comprehensive plan amendments that are specifically delegated
by the Department of Community Affairs upon request by the majority of the
member local governments in the RPC.

Rationale: While several possible new functions for all RPCs were considered
by the ACIR, the only new RPC function formally endorsed by the ACIR was
the assumption of local government comprehensive plan amendment review
responsibilities delegated by the Department of Community Affairs.
Implementation of recommendations related to a new function for the RPCs
might require amendments to section 186.505, F.S. of the Regional Planning
Council Act which addresses powers and duties of the RPCs.

Funding: (Considered the need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels
for responsibilities assigned to RPCs by the state)

1) Ensure state funding is recurring and adequate to cover specific RPC
responsibilities in the statutes;

Rationale: Currently, general revenue for regional planning councils is
nonrecurring.


RPC Recommendations


ACIR 10/21/92










Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status and options)

No recommendations.


Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current boundaries and possible consideration of
alternatives)

1) Boundaries of MPOs and comprehensive planning districts (RPCs) should be
considered in the review, evaluation, and possible modification of their boundaries
for the purpose of avoiding the division of the jurisdiction of a single MPO into
more than one comprehensive planning district.

2) In any procedure to identify and evaluate MPO boundaries, strong consideration
should be given to merging MPOs into a single entity where their jurisdictions are
within a single "urbanized", "metropolitan statistical area (MSA)", or a
"consolidated" metropolitan statistical area (CMSA).

3) If a new urbanized area is identified in a county contiguous to an existing MPO,
strong consideration should be given to expanding the existing MPO to include the
emerging area unless compelling reasons exist sufficient to require the creation of
a new, separate MPO.

Rationale: These recommendations address the need for better coordination,
between MPOs and comprehensive planning districts or RPCs and among MPOs
within urbanized, metropolitan or consolidated metropolitan statistical areas.
Currently, Florida's MPO structure relies heavily on county boundaries and staff.
Of the 21 current MPOs, 14 are staffed by 14 counties. Of the 7 new urbanized
areas identified in the 1990 U.S. Census, 4 new MPOs will be staffed by counties.
Requirements in federal legislation (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act) also support the integration of planning between appropriate MPOs in the
Florida MPO structure.


Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

1) Amend ss. 339.175(2) 339.175(3), F.S., to ensure the governing boards have a
"balanced" composition which represents a combination of county and municipal
elected officials and, if in existence, elected officials from each type of independent
local and regional transportation authority whose jurisdiction is within the
metropolitan area boundaries, including port, transit, airport, aviation, and
expressway authorities in a manner that is also consistent with federal law.

Rationale: Currently, ss. 339.175(2) through 339.175(4), F.S. specify requirements
for MPO board membership. An MPO board may not have less that 5 members


MPO Recommendations


rL


ACIR, 10/21/92








or more than 18 members. All members must be elected officials. With some
minor exceptions, county representation must be at least 1/3 of the board
membership. A "dependent" transportation authority is represented by the local
general purpose government on which it is dependent serving on the MPO.
"Independent" transportation authorities combined may have 1 representative on
an MPO board. Currently, 6 MPOs have at least 2 or more independent
transportation authorities in their jurisdiction. Because the statutes authorize the
creation of independent transportation authorities, such as expressway authorities
and regional transportation authorities, the need for their direct participation in the
MPO process should be ensured. The recommendation calls for a more balanced
representation on the MPO board that includes municipalities, counties, and
potentially all independent transportation authorities within the MPO jurisdiction
and is consistent with the intermodal emphasis in ISTEA.

2) Preserve appointment of technical and citizen advisory committees that serve as
ex-officio and represent transportation planning staff in local government, state
agencies, and other "transportation" authorities.

Rationale: Currently, section 339.175(16) and (17), F.S. requires the appointment
of these committees. These committees, particularly the technical advisory
committee, are viewed as essential in the transportation planning responsibilities
assumed by MPOs.


Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry, and
other entities)

1) The Florida Department of Transportation should conduct an evaluation of the
current MPO reporting requirements in order to identify opportunities to eliminate
duplicative reporting or consolidate reporting to public entities.

Rationale: Currently, MPOs have an abundance of reporting requirements, most of
it federally mandated. The need for additional reporting required by the state or
other entities should be carefully evaluated and eliminated if determined to be
duplicative, not essential.

2) The Florida Department of Transportation should continue to monitor
"agreements" entered into by each metropolitan planning organization and each
metropolitan planning organization should provide the Florida Department of
Transportation with an annual update or summary of changes to these agreements.

Rationale: Subsections 339.175(13) and (14), F.S. require the execution and
maintenance of agreements between the MPO and the regional "intergovernmental
coordination and review agencies serving the urbanized area". In addition,
agreements between MPO and "publicly owned operators of public transportation,
port, and aviation services" are required. The objective of all agreements is to
specify how "transportation planning and programming will be part of the
comprehensive transportation planning process for the urbanized area". Because of
the importance of these "agreements" in ensuring coordinated transportation


MPO Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









planning, an annual update of these agreements by MPOs and subsequent
monitoring by the Florida DOT is recommended.

3) Enhance the implementation of financial reporting and administrative guidelines
to ensure that administration and planning dollars for metropolitan planning
organizations are used to fund appropriate functions, and not to support extraneous
planning activities that are outside the MPO program.

Rationale: This recommendation is a response to concerns raised by municipal
officials during interviews conducted in 5 regions. The objective is to ensure that
MPO funds are not used to support planning functions performed by a county or
another entity staffing the MPO to meet requirements outside the MPO process
and in areas outside the MPO boundaries. The enhanced implementation of these
guidelines could be included in the MPO certification process required at the federal
level.

Functions: (Evaluated existing functions and recommend modifications, and additional
functions)

1) Maintain and improve administrative procedures that ensure the three required
plans of the metropolitan planning organization: a) the comprehensive (long-
range) transportation plan; b) the unified planning work program (UPWP); and c)
the transportation improvement program (TIP) are consistent with transportation
elements included in:
i the local comprehensive plan;
ii. local government land use regulations;
iii. the comprehensive regional policy plan;
iv. the Florida Department of Transportation transportation plan and
programs; and
v. transportation plans prepared by other transportation authorities
within the jurisdiction of the metropolitan planning organization.

Rationale: Currently, section 339.175, F.S., requires some degree of consistency
between MPO plans and local government comprehensive planning. However, this
consistency is qualified by stating that the consistency should occur "to the maximum
extent feasible". Clarification of the qualifier, "to the maximum extent feasible," is
an appropriate next step in improving consistency between these transportation
plans. One possibility in achieving this clarification is to require that MPO long
range transportation plans be consistent with the future land use elements of local
government comprehensive plans. Because MPOs are the boards that set the
priorities for federal transportation funding, it might be appropriate to then require
the MPOs to set "preliminary" funding priorities for a "preliminary review" that
would require the MPO to document inconsistencies between the preliminary MPO
funding priorities and each local comprehensive plan with jurisdiction in the most
inclusive of the appropriate MPO boundaries. This documentation would be
completed within a time period that would allow for review and comment by the
officials in the local governments impacted. The next step could be the MPO setting
the final funding priorities. A subsequent or final step in the process would require
regional plans(possibly the CRPP) and local government comprehensive plans to be


MPO Recommendations


I


ACIR, 10/21/92









consistent with the final TIP or UPWP approved by the MPO.


2) Require metropolitan planning organizations to prepare and maintain an
inventory of transportation facilities based upon adopted local comprehensive plans
for the area within its jurisdiction. The inventory should encompass levels of
service, roadway conditions and locally adopted concurrency management systems.

Rationale: In order for the MPOs to fulfill their federal obligations, maintenance
of an inventory of transportation facilities should be an appropriate responsibility
to assign to them. In addition, this recommendation requires the MPOs to base
this inventory of transportation facilities on local government comprehensive plans.

3) Require metropolitan planning organizations collectively to prepare and maintain
a transportation needs assessment for the entire metropolitan area within which
their jurisdiction lies.

Rationale: The responsibility specified in this recommendation is closely related
to current functions performed by the MPOs for their three major plans. This
recommendation requires the needs assessment to refer to the entire comprehensive
planning district, which varies from the current practice.

4) In areas where multiple MPOs exist in single air quality non-attainment areas
or in single SMSAs, these MPOs should develop jointly a regional long range
transportation plan and regional congestion management system plan covering the
entire air quality non-attainment area. This jointly prepared plan should be
adopted as "regional components" of each MPO's plan and consistent with other
components in the MPO plan.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the need to coordinate ISTEA planning
requirements and the current Clean Air Act standards that apply to non-attainment
areas. Currently, Florida has 3 non-attainment areas (Duval, Hillsborough-Pinellas,
and Palm Beach-Broward-Dade). There are 6 MPOs in these 3 non-attainment
areas. This recommendation also speaks to the need to ensure coordinated planning
between MPOs in metropolitan statistical areas of the state that are not in non-
attainment areas.


Funding: (Considered the need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels
for responsibilities assigned to metropolitan planning organizations by the state)

No recommendations.


MPO Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92











Water Management Districts


Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status)

Amend s. 373.019, F.S. (Definitions) ""Water management district" means any flood control,
resource management, or water management district operating under the authority of this
chapter." by deleting "flood control" and "resource management" and specifying that the
definition includes only those districts enumerated (with legal descriptions) in s. 373.069,
F.S.

Rationale: The existing definition of a "water management district" still includes, as
a relic, "flood control districts" and the term "resource management district".
Currently, neither term has any relevant meaning. Without the proposed
amendment, the possibility exists that a district calling itself one of these types could
attempt to exercise specific authorities in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.


Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current regional boundaries and possible
alternatives)

Amend s. 373.046, F.S. (Interagency agreements) to require formal agreements among
water management districts whose boundaries split counties in order to assign such
districts' responsibilities to specific sections of counties.

Rationale: Many situations exist where one county falls in more that one water
management district (three WMDs in Polk County). Current WMD boundaries are
based on surface hydrologic basins rather than political boundaries and ad valorem
taxation on specific land parcels has been implemented for years. The section cited
above already contains one such specific requirement for an agreement between
Southwest WMD and St. Johns River WMD. This amendment would clarify the
specific authority for all of the water management districts to enter into similar
agreements.

Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

Two-thirds of the governing boards of water management districts should be composed of
elected local government officials.

Rationale: The issue of gubernatorial appointed governing boards that levy ad
valorem taxes has been discussed in a number of different policy forums. During
ACIR staff interviews in five regional planning council areas this summer, many
complaints (especially from local officials) of "taxation without representation" were
voiced. The Task Force considered but did not approve any alternatives regarding
this issue. The ACIR approved the above recommendation. Current statutory and
constitutional limitations on dual office holding should be addressed in the
implementation of this recommendation.


WMD Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry and
other entities)

No recommendations.


Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications and additional
functions)

District Water Management Plans--

1) Amend s. 373.0391 (Technical assistance to local governments) to include a
specific date (November 1, 1994) for the completion of District Water Management
Plans;

2) Amend Ch. 17-40, F.A.C. to require all five DWMP's to follow a single basic
format while remaining tailored to respective regional needs;

3) In cases where the DWMP is not to be adopted by rule, require an equivalent
processes for soliciting input from local governments, other regional entities and
the public during the preparation and subsequent amendment of DWMP's;

4) Amend Ch. 17-40, F.A.C. to require DWMP's to address the need for, formation,
and boundaries of potential regional water supply authorities within each water
management district;

5) Amend Ch. 17-40, F.A.C. to require water management districts to maintain an
inventory of estimated future water supply demands resulting from the adoption and
amendment of local government comprehensive plans within the district and in a
format compatible with comprehensive planning districts; and,

6) Amend Ch. 17-40, F.A.C. to require water management districts to maintain, in
a format useful for local comprehensive planning, an aggregate inventory of water
resources committed by current consumptive use permits.

Rationale: During the development of ACIR's State Water Supply Policy
Study, a significant "gap" between land use planning and water use planning
became evident. This "gap" was discussed at several Task Force meetings and
various approaches were proposed. Since each of the five WMDs is currently
preparing a District Water Management Plans (DWMP), and those plans are
being coordinated among the five WMDs and DER, they provide an excellent
opportunity for relating water use planning and land use planning in the
State's growth management system. The current DER rule amendment to
Chapter 17-40, F.A.C, requiring DWMPs to be adopted by November, 1994,
would be elevated to statutory status, while various interagency agreements
and "conventions" regarding the DWMPs would be elevated to rule status in
the above recommendations.


WMD Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









General Powers of Water Management Districts--


Amend section 373.196(2) to allow water management districts to engage only in
those functions that are incidental to the exercise of their flood control and water
management powers and to supply water consistent with conditions specified in s.
373.1961(3), F.S. Amend Section 373.1961(3), F.S. to state that a water management
district may supply water in cases where no regional water supply authority exists
or where local governments do not choose to create such an entity consistent with
s. 373.1961(3).

Rationale: The current statutory wording in section 373.196(2), F.S. appears
to limit water management district powers and separate them from those
allocated to regional water supply authorities. In ss. 373.1961(3), however,
WMDs may provide most, if not all of the services that such an authority may
provide. Because of the wording in these two statutory sections, the statutes
are inconsistent. Testimony at Task Force meetings indicated that WMDs
need to retain this "overlapping" authority to provide water in cases where no
regional water supply authority exists or where local governments do not
choose to create another such entity. Under current interpretation of the law
by WMDs and DER, "Water management powers", as stated in ss. 373.196(2),
above, include supplying water. This being the case, the ACIR recommends
adding language to clarify that "water management powers" include that
specific authority. In addition, the ACIR approved language to restrict the
conditions under which WMDs could exercise the power to supply water.

Funding: (Considered need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels for
responsibilities assigned to water management districts by the state)

Amend the Florida Constitution and Chapter 373, F.S. to remove or raise the constitutional
and statutory millage cap currently placed on the Northwest Florida Water Management
District.

Rationale: Ad valorem millage limitations are imposed on all five water management
districts. The Constitutional (Section 9, Article VII, Florida Constitution) and
statutory limitations (ss. 373.503(3), F.S.) on Northwest Florida WMD are much
more restrictive than on the other four. The constitutional millage cap for
Northwest Florida WMD is .05 mill, while the other water management districts
have a 1.0 millage cap. Section 373.503(3), F.S. specifies further restrictions on the
millage levels authorized for each water management district. These restrictions are,
as follows:

Northwest WMD .05
Suwannee River WMD .75
St. Johns River WMD .60
Southwest WMD 1.0
South Florida WMD .80


WMD Recommendations


ACKR 10/21/92









Because of these restrictions, the ability of the Northwest WMD to provide a full
range of services is substantially curtailed. Currently, the Northwest WMD is unable
to carry out some statutory responsibilities and DER-delegated responsibilities to the
point that DER must provide some services that are typically provided by WMDs.


WMD Recommendations


ACnrk 10/21/92









Regional Water Supply Authorities


Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status)

Amend s. 373.1962(1) (Regional water supply authorities) to change "...the Governor and
Cabinet as head of the Department of Natural Resources..." to "...the Department of
Environmental Regulation..." as the approving agency for new regional water supply
authorities.

Rationale: The existing language was erroneously carried over when some
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) responsibilities were transferred to the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1975, by Section 11, ch. 75-
22.

Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current regional boundaries and possible
consideration of alternatives)

No recommendations.


Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

No recommendations.


Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry and
other entities)

Amend s. 373.1962 (Regional water supply authorities) to clarify that all regional water
supply governing board meetings require prior public notice pursuant to Chapter 120,
Florida Statutes.

Rationale: During the Task Force meetings, there was considerable discussion
regarding the roles of regional water supply authorities versus those of water
management districts. One concern raised was that Chapter 373, F.S., does not
specifically require RWSAs to follow Administrative Procedures Act requirements.
Subsequent to the last Task Force meeting, ACIR staff determined that RWSAs are
addressed in ss. 120.52(1) as a defined "agency", and are, therefore, required to
follow appropriate public notice and rule-making procedures. The inclusion
recommended above should, by cross-referencing, clarify such requirements.


Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications and additional
functions)

No recommendations.


RWSA Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92










Funding: (Considered need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels for
responsibilities assigned to water management districts by the state)

No recommendations.


RWSA Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









Local Health Councils


Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status and options)

1) Clarify in statute that local health councils are agencies of the state and function as
private, non-profit entities under contract to the state.

Rationale: This recommendation specifies the status of local health councils as
private, non-profit entities under contract to the state. Concerns were expressed
by Task Force members and by local health council representatives during interviews
in five regions that such a designation permits flexibility to pursue external funding
while recognizing their authority to execute statutory and state contractual activities.

2) Prohibit the creation of new local or regional health planning organizations, without
the prior review of the statewide health council.

Rationale: This recommendation is based on the concern expressed by Task Force
members to avoid the future proliferation of health care planning organizations. In
addition, the recommendation enhances the ability of local health councils to fulfill
their statutory responsibility to conduct health care planning for an entire region.


Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current local health council boundaries and possible
alternatives)

Allow adjustments in current boundaries of local health councils (established to coincide
with the 11 districts of pre-1992 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services) based
on: a) current workloads; b) projected workloads; and c) budget projections.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the concern of Task Force members
that local health councils require flexibility to maximize their limited resources in
providing health care planning and acknowledges the benefits to adjust boundaries
in order to adapt to fluctuations in client population.


Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

1) Require health and human service boards to have ex-officio membership on local health
councils.

2) With the inclusion of ex-officio membership noted in recommendation "1)", maintain
current composition requirements, but encourage county commissions to appoint
individuals to local health councils who represent other health care organizations that
exist within the county jurisdiction.

Rationale: These recommendations are based on concern of Task Force members
that health planning organizations need to coordinate their activities and integrate
appropriate elements of health care plans at the local and regional level.


LHC Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92











Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry, and
other entities)

No recommendations.


Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications and additional
functions)

1) Clarify role of local health councils in relation to other local and regional health
planning entities.

2) Outside of specified state programs, designate local health councils as the lead regional
entity in regional and local health planning.

Rationale: These recommendations are based on the concerns of Task Force
members that a comprehensive local and regional health care plan should be the
responsibility of a single health planning entity or a single coordinated effort among
existing health care entities. Currently, local health councils have statutory
responsibility to develop comprehensive regional health plans and assist local
governments in the development of a relevant element in their local comprehensive
plan. While recognizing the role of organizations which administer single-purpose
health programs, designation of local health councils as the lead regional entity for
regional and local health planning will enhance coordination in health planning and
could facilitate efforts to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of state funding
in health care planning.


Funding: (Considered the need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels
for responsibilities assigned to local health councils by the state)

Increase the amount of funding for local health councils by identifying new source of
revenues that are generated from a broader sector of health care services.

Rationale: Although local health councils are involved with a broad range of health
care services and programs, their state authorized funding is limited to revenues
generated by application fees for certificates of need and by assessments on selected
health care facilities. This recommendation is based on the Task Force members
concern that local health councils require an increase in funding and that the source
of funding be generated from other health care services in which the local health
councils are involved.


LHC Recommendations


8 =


ACIR, 10/21/92









Area Agencies on Aging

Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status and options)

Clarify in statute whether area agencies on aging are:

a) agencies of the state created by the state unit on aging (an entity required under the
Older Americans Act; or

b) an entity created by state statute.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the concerns of the Task Force
members, staff from the Department of Elder Affairs, and discussions with
representatives from area agencies on aging regarding the statutory authority for
area agencies on aging to administer state programs in addition to administering
programs established under the Older Americans Act.


Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current area agencies on aging boundaries and
possible alternatives)

Allow adjustment in current boundaries of area agencies on aging (established to coincide
with the 11 districts of pre-1992 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services) based
on: a) current caseloads; b) projected caseloads; and c) budget projections.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the concern of Task Force members
that area agencies on aging require flexibility to maximize their limited resources
in providing health care planning and other services for the elderly in Florida and
acknowledges the benefits to adjust boundaries in order to adapt to fluctuations in
client population.


Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

Clarify whether the composition of the governing boards for area agencies on aging be
established:

a) by statute; or

b) by rule by the Department of Elder Affairs.

Rationale: This recommendation reflects the concern of the Task Force members
and staff from the Department of Elder Affairs of the need to ensure that the area
agencies on aging have quality and balanced leadership on their governing boards.


AAA Recommendations


ACR, 10/21/92









Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry, and
other entities)

No recommendations.

Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications and offered
additional functions)

Evaluate additional programs for transfer to the area agencies on aging through the
Department of Elder Affairs.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the concern of the Task Force members
and staff of the Department of Elder Affairs to better utilize area agencies on aging
in administering programs for the elderly population in Florida without duplicating
similar programs for younger Floridians that are administered by other state
agencies.


Funding: (Considered the need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels
for responsibilities assigned to area agencies on aging by the state)

Include all appropriate factors in the funding formula for area agencies on aging.

Rationale: This recommendation is based on the concern of the Task Force
members regarding the equitable and fair allocation of funds among the area
agencies on aging given the diverse demographic and geographic profiles of their
regions.


AAA Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









Private Industry Councils


Legal Status: (Considered clarification of current status and options)

No recommendations.


Boundaries: (Considered rationale for current private industry council boundaries and
possible consideration of alternatives)

Consolidate existing private industry councils which share common labor and job markets
as determined by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security and the
Florida Department of Commerce.

Rationale: Based on concerns expressed by Task Force members, this
recommendation should maximize resources, reduce duplication, and eliminate
dysfunctional competition among PICs in client recruitment and job placement.


Governing Boards: (Reviewed governing board representation and offered additional
requirements or limitations)

Establish in statute, provisions to ensure equitable local government representation on
private industry councils while continuing to meet the private sector representation
requirement of the Federal Job Training Partnership Act of 1983, as amended.

Rationale: This recommendation addresses the concerns of the Task Force members
that there is a need to increase the level of coordination in overall economic
development initiatives undertaken by local governments within the jurisdiction of
PICs with PIC activities regarding job training and job development.


Accountability: (Considered accountability to the state, local governments, citizenry, and
other entities)

Reduce current reporting to the state which exceeds federal program reporting
requirements.

Rationale: This recommendation reflects the Task Force members concern that a
reduction in unnecessary reporting requirements and documentation efforts will
increase the ratio of PIC personnel directly involved in client training, job
development, and client counselling activities.


Functions: (Evaluated existing functions, recommended modifications and offered
additional functions)

Adjust private industry councils' policies regarding selection of direct service providers


PIC Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92









to ensure an equitable distribution of program funding among local governments within
their jurisdiction.

Rationale: This recommendation is based on Task Force members concern that to
the maximum extent feasible, program clients are drawn from, and prepared for job
placement within all communities that are within the PICs jurisdiction.


Funding: (Considered the need for stable funding and appropriate compensation levels
for responsibilities assigned to private industry councils by the state)

1) Establish statutory limitations on contract negotiations between the Florida Department
of Labor and Employment Security and the private industry councils after contracts are
awarded.

Rationale: This recommendation is based on the concerns of the Task Force
members that such contract negotiations result in reduced levels of funding for PIC
programs. Increase in PIC program funding will enhance the quality of job training
and placement activities and lead to a reduction in the level of recidivism among
PIC clients.

2) Identify other methods for funding private industry councils which incorporate
participation by private business and industry within the jurisdiction of the private
industry councils.

Rationale: This recommendation reflects the concerns of Task Force members that
the private sector can supplement government funding for PIC activities. The
private sector benefits from PIC programs that improve the skill level in the region's
workforce, and more directly from recruitment and screening of job applicants.


PIC Recommendations


ACIR, 10/21/92







DRAFT outline FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
as of March 11, 1994
Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
Report and Recommendations


I. PURPOSE

A. Problem Statements

B. Charge to the Task Force
Legal relationship between district water management plans, strategic regional policy
plans, local government comprehensive plans, state comprehensive plan.
Future role and scope of the state water use plan
*Options for integrating/coordinating translational plans -- water use plan, land
development plan, transportation plan.
Status/relationship between natural systems and water resource management



II. FLORIDA'S PLANNING PROCESS EXISTING LINKAGES

A. Identify existing linkages, both formal and informal
1. Substance
2. Legal status of plans (adoption process)
3. Legal effect How do the plans have to be considered in other planning and regulatory
activities? (Regulation versus information)
4. Timing (Coordinated Plan schedules, Proactive versus reactive planning)
5. Adequacy of linkages


June -
August




August L IV.
September


OPTIONS

A. Identify and evaluate options for creating/strengthening linkages
(advantages and disadvantages; statutory amendments)
See attached list of options identified at previous Task Force meetings


RECOMMENDATIONS


* Added language is underlined


February
March












March -
May







DRAFT Outline FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
Report and Recommendations



V. APPENDIX FLORIDA'S PLANNING PROCESS

A. State Planning

1. State Comprehensive Plan/Growth Management Portion
a. Purpose and effect
b. Source and use of data and information
c. Existing linkages required by statute
d. Existing informal linkages
e. Opportunities

2. Water Use Plan
a. Same as above

3. Land Development Plan
a. Same as above

4. Transportation Plan
a. Same as above

5. Others need to identify
a. Same as above

B. Regional Planning

1. Strategic Regional Policy Plans
a. Purpose and effect
b. Source and use of data and information
c. Existing linkages required by statute
d. Existing informal linkages
e. Opportunities

2. District Water Managemerit Plans
a. Same as above

3. Others need to identify
a. Same as above

C. Local Planning

1. Local Government Comprehensive Plans
a. Purpose and effect
b. Source and use of data and information
c. Existing linkages required by statute
d. Existing informal linkages
e. Opportunities







DRAFT outline FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
Report and Recommendations




Options Identified by the Task Force


A. Identify and evaluate options for creating/strengthening linkages
(advantages and disadvantages; statutory amendments)
1. Provide consistency linkage between the district water management plans and the
strategic regional policy plans
identification of regional areas of environmental significance
2. Improve coordination between water management districts' regulatory authority and
local government comprehensive plans
determine legal status of the district water management plans
DWMP and EAR process
Consumptive Use Permits and Local Government Comprehensive Plan link
3. Improve technical assistance provided by state and regional agencies to local
governments for comprehensive planning
4. Provide for the state planning process to resolve conflicts between transportation,
water and land use planning
5. Require consistency between district permitting activities and the district water
management plans
6. Increase citizen understanding of planning issues
7. Remove regulatory duplication between state, regional and local authorities
8. Retain Flexibility
9. Don't limit development due to water
10. Improve CIP
11. Improve water related issues in the ICE need mechanism to resolve conflicts between
WMD/RPC/WSA
12. Will DWMPs provide GIS. specific data and information?
13. Does the Task Force want to get into water allocation issues?
14. Land use should conform with available water
15. Water management districts should say where the water is located and not dictate
local government land use decisions
16. Look at agriculture
17. Develop clear natural systems voice in land use and water planning
18. Develop economic mechanisms


Cc




















TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE


PLEASE NOTE:


Due to concerns raised at the last Task Force meeting, some of the
future meetings have been rescheduled. Please check your schedule
and see if the new meeting dates are acceptable.










Land Use and Water Planning Task Force


Work Schedule and Tentative Agenda Items


Monday, March 21
Tallahassee, Florida


Friday, April 29
Orlando, Florida


Friday, May 13


Monday, June 20


Friday, July 8


Friday, July 22


Friday, September 2

Friday, September 16


Adopt problem statements and begin identifying existing
linkages/gaps/duplication and possible options

* ICE, SRPP, EAR

* Water management districts' role in the development and review of
local government comprehensive plan EARs


Continuation of linkages discussion

* Agriculture

Continuation of linkages discussion

SEcosystem Management

Estuarine Systems

Formulate options with advantages
and disadvantages

Present and discuss options for integration
and linkages

Finalize options and develop
recommendations

Approve Final Report and Recommendations


If needed




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs