Item No: 5C.
Meeting Date: January
28,
2013
From: Bill Wiley, AICP, Community Development Director
Subject: Resolution
authorizing execution of an Interlocal
Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) among the City of Leesburg, City of
Groveland, City of Clermont, Town of Howey-In-The-Hills, City of Mascotte, City
of Minneola, and Lake County
Staff Recommendation:
Staff requests City Commission approval
of the Resolution authorizing execution
of an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) among Leesburg and the
referenced Cities and the County.
Analysis:
The Legislature adopted Part II of
Chapter 171, Florida Statutes known
as the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) process as an alternative to
the standard methods for local governments to annexation property into their
municipality. As a result, the City of Groveland adopted Resolution 2010-03-01
initiating the ISBA process pursuant to Chapter 171.203, Florida Statutes for negotiating an ISBA and invited the referenced
cities and county, including Leesburg, to participate. As an invited municipality, the City of
Leesburg was required to adopt a responding resolution in order to participate
in the negotiation process for an Agreement.
Per state statutes, if an
invited participant fails to accept the invitation by not adopting a Responding
Resolution, they would be bound by any agreement that was reached by the other
local governments. On December 10, 2010, the City of Leesburg adopted Resolution
8652 (Attached) responding to the City of Groveland initiating Resolution to
start the ISBA process. Numerous meetings and negotiations during the last 30
months have resulted in the final proposed ISBA Agreement. Attached is an Executive Summary that
highlights the Agreement.
The principal
goal of the state legislation establishing the Interlocal Service Boundary
Agreement Act Section 171.20, Florida
Statutes is to “encourage local governments to jointly determine how to
provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective
manner while balancing the needs and desires of the community.” It is also
intended to provide “a more flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries
and to address a wider range of the effects of annexation” . . . “to encourage
intergovernmental coordination in planning, service delivery, and boundary
adjustments and to reduce intergovernmental conflicts and litigation between
local governments” . . . “to promote sensible boundaries that reduce the costs
of local governments, avoid duplicating local services, and increase political
transparency and accountability” . . . and “to prevent inefficient service
delivery and an insufficient tax base to support the delivery of those
services.”
As required by the act, Cities and the County have identified
lands that are logical for future annexations into Cities and land that will
not be annexed into Cities but will instead remain unincorporated
(“Unincorporated Service Area”) unless and until municipal services can be
provided in an efficient and cost effective manner (See attached Exhibit A). The overall goal of the ISBA process is
to establish agreed upon standards for annexation and service delivery in the
unincorporated areas of the County.
Each City is
preparing to adopt the proposed Agreement in February 2013 in preparation of
the County’s adoption in March 2013.
Options:
1. Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Interlocal
Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) between Leesburg and the referenced Cities and the County.
(Note: Any changes to the Agreement will require that all local
governments will need to readopt the Agreement with changes)
2. Other such action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Fiscal Impact:
There is a positive fiscal
impact to the City through future development brought into the City under new
provisions of this agreement.
Submission Date and Time: 1/23/13 5:58 PM____
|
Department: Community
Development Prepared by: Bill Wiley, AICP Attachments: Yes__X_ No ______ Advertised: ____Not Required ______ Dates: __________________________ Attorney
Review : Yes_X_ No ____
_________________________________ Revised |
Reviewed by: Dept. Head __BW_____ Finance Dept. __________________ Deputy
C.M. ___________________ Submitted by: City Manager ___________________ |
Account
No. _________________ Project
No. ___________________ WF No.
______________________ Budget ______________________ Available
_____________________ |
RESOLUTION
_____________
RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LEESBURG, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL
SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT (ISBA) AMONG THE CITY OF LEESBURG, CITY OF
GROVELAND, CITY OF CLERMONT, TOWN OF HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS, CITY OF MASCOTTE, CITY
OF MINNEOLA, AND LAKE COUNTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,
the Legislature adopted Part II of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes as an
alternative for local governments regarding annexation of real property into a
municipality; and
WHEREAS, in part, the intent of the Legislature
is to “encourage intergovernmental coordination in planning, service delivery,
and boundary adjustments”; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by §171.203 to participate
in negotiations with other local governments;
WHEREAS, the City of Leesburg desires to participate
in negotiations initiated by the City of Groveland for a Interlocal Service
Boundary Agreement with Lake County, the City of Mascotte and the Town of
Howey-in-the-Hills concerning an unincorporated area of real property and
service delivery for that unincorporated area;
WHEREAS, Cities and County find that the benefits
of intergovernmental communications and coordination will accrue to all
Parties.
WHEREAS, the elected officials of Cities and
County have met and negotiated in good faith to resolve issues relating to
annexation, joint planning and provision of infrastructure and wish to reduce
their agreement to writing as set forth in this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the ISBA Agreement is entered into
pursuant to the authority of Article VIII of the Florida Constitution and
Chapters 125.01, 163.3177, 166.021 and 171.203, 190.011, Florida Statutes (2009).
BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, as follows:
The City
Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida does hereby authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the attached Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA)
Agreement dated December 11, 2012 between
the City of Leesburg, City of Groveland, City of Clermont, Town of
Howey-In-The-Hills, City of Mascotte, City of Minneola, and Lake County.
THIS
RESOLUTION shall become effective immediately.
PASSED
AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, at a regular
meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2013.
THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA
__________________________________
Mayor
David Knowles
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Betty
M. Richardson, City Clerk
Executive
Summary
City
of Leesburg
Interlocal
Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA)
The overall goal of the ISBA process is
to establish agreed upon standards for annexation and service delivery between
the Cities and the County. Each City
is preparing to adopt the Agreement in February 2013 in preparation of the
County’s adoption in March 2013. Any changes to the proposed Agreement will
require that all local governments re-adopt the Agreement extending the final
adoption schedule. The following sections from the ISBA agreement are
provided as summaries:
2. INTERLOCAL
SERVICE AGREEMENT BOUNDARY
The Exhibit A map is
the boundaries of the ISBA area for each City and the County.
3. ANNEXATIONS. The agreement governs any annexations that
may occur within the ISBA area:
a.
Unincorporated Areas. Areas shown on the map as
unincorporated areas can not be annexed by any City unless approved by the
County.
b.
Designated Municipal Areas. These are area which are
designated as a future annexation area for a one City which not be annexed by
any other City unless approved by the affected City and County.
c.
Annexations Within Designated
Municipal Areas.
Annexations by a City within that City’s designated municipal area is
subject to the following:
i. Part I Chapter 171
F.S.. City shall continue to annex any property as
currently permitted F.S.
ii. Enclaves. County consents to the
annexation of any enclave or the creation of any enclave which is the result of
an annexation, so long as City agrees to provide services to such enclave, and
the City holds public hearings with proper notice. (Note: This is a
benefit to the City)
iii. Annexation of Properties Which Do
Not Meet Part I, Chapter 171, F.S.. County consents to the
annexation of listed properties for each
of the Cities and Leesburg properties designated on Exhibit B-1 map. Properties
listed in Exhibit B-1 may be annexed at any time. Properties listed in Exhibit
B-2 may only be annexed by a city with an agreement relating to the provision
of fire services.
1. The County and the City of Leesburg, Annexation of noncontiguous
parcels outside of the referenced area in Exhibit B-1 (City of Leesburg) may
not be annexed without approval of the County; however, voluntary annexations
of parcels contiguous to the City limits shall continue to be permitted. In
addition, the County consents to the future annexation by Leesburg of the
noncontiguous parcels located at the Ronald Reagan Turnpike (North access) and U.S.
Hwy 27 as shown on Exhibit B-1 (City of Leesburg). Prior to the
annexation of this area, Leesburg and the County need to approve a concept plan
for the area, (Note: This is a great benefit
to the City to defend our future southern gateway to the City)
iv. Annexation of Properties Which Do Not Meet Part I, Chapter 171, F.S;
Not Listed in Exhibit B. The annexation of any property which does not
meet Part I, or not listed on Exhibit B-1, Exhibit B-2, approval of County
required. County will consent to annexation
only when it creates jobs or other economic activity other than residential
construction.
v. Annexation
of Right of Way. County will not
oppose the annexation of right of way located in the ISBA area of a City, where
at least one side of the road will be bounded by property located within the
City after the annexation, or which meets other annexation requirements of the
Agreement. The City agrees that at the time that it annexes any property which
abuts a roadway, that, to the extent possible, it will also
annex the adjacent road right of way to avoid the creation of roadway enclaves.
Annexing
the right of way does not require City to accept maintenance responsibility for
such road. (Note: The City is not required
to accept maintenance responsibility)
4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS. In order to minimize difficulties, the Cities and County agree as follows:
a.
Development Applications. Any application for
development which is within five hundred feet (500’) of land that is located in
the unincorporated area shall be treated as a joint development
application. City and County shall work
together to minimize any conflicts in regulations and to make the permitting
process as efficient as can be. (Note
staffs have informally coordinated for many years)
Land Development Regulations. Cities and County will work together to compare their respective
Land Development Regulations, and where there are inconsistent regulations;
work towards eliminating such inconsistency, to the extent possible with in
eighteen (18) months. (Note staffs have informally
coordinated for many years)
a.
Comprehensive Plans. Cities and County
acknowledge that City Comprehensive Plans will have to be updated as
annexations occur, and that the County Comprehensive Plan may need to be
amended to accommodate future growth plans of the Cities within their
designated areas. Cities and County
agree to work together on Comprehensive Plans to avoid incompatibility between
uses in the City and County. (Note staffs have informally
coordinated for many years)
5. SOLID WASTE. This section clarifies
solid waste disposal through 2014 for the Cities and County. (Note: This has been reviewed by City staff)
6. FIRE HYDRANTS. This section clarifies
fire hydrant use for the Cities and County. (Note: This has been
reviewed by City staff)
7. SHARING OF EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES. This section clarifies the joint use of
equipment and resources of the Cities and County. (Note: This has been
reviewed by City staff)
8. E 911 SYSTEM; COUNTY ADDRESSING SYSTEM. This section clarifies the standards for the
County E 911 addressing system as shown in Exhibit
C. (Note: City already complies with these
requirements)
9. UTILITIES ISSUES.
a. Extension of utilities into unincorporated areas. Cities agree that they
will not extend public utilities into areas on the ISBA map that are designated
as unincorporated areas without approval from County. However, a city’s public
utilities may be extended without County approval if such placement is
necessary to serve the city’s designated municipal area.
i. City of
Groveland and City of Leesburg: The Cities of Groveland and Leesburg will
amend their planning area, if necessary, to be consistent with the map attached
as Exhibit E.
iv. City of Leesburg and City of Mascotte: The City
of Leesburg will decide whether or not to provide services to the City of
Mascotte.
10. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Cities and County
acknowledge and agree that the area stretching from Minneola to Leesburg along
the US 27 and Florida Turnpike corridor provide the opportunity to plan for a
commerce center/industrial center area which will have the effect, if properly
developed, to bring high quality high paying jobs to Lake County. Cities and County agree that they will work
together along with the business community to look at this entire area, with a
view towards planning infrastructure such as roads, utilities including
traditional (water/wastewater) and nontraditional (fiber), and land use in
order to maximize the economic potential of this area with in eighteen (18) months.
Note:
Text highlighted
in italic bold is for emphases
Text highlighted in italic
black is document text
Texts highlighted in italic red
are staff notes