Item number: 5.C
Meeting Date: March 11, 2013
From: Bill Wiley, AICP, Community Development Director
Subject: Ordinance adopting an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) among Leesburg, Lake County, the City of Groveland, the City of Mascotte, the City of Clermont, the City of Minneola, and the Town of Howey-In-The-Hills.
Staff requests the City Commission approve the ordinance adopting the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) between Leesburg and the referenced Cities and the County.
Note: Staff has resolved the issues regarding the Bar-Key Groves property and has revised the agreement to permit annexation of their property when utilities are available.
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 annex 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, it is bound by any agreement reached by the other local governments. On December 10, 2010 the City of Leesburg adopted Resolution 8652 (Attached) responding to the City of Groveland’s 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/March 2013 in preparation of the County’s adoption in March/April 2013. Any changes will require each city and the county to re-adopt the agreement and will delay the process further.
1. Approve the ordinance adopting the 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 re-adopt the Agreement)
2. Other such action as the Commission may deem appropriate.
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Bill Wiley, AICP
Attachments: Yes__X_ No ______
Advertised: ____Not Required ______
Attorney Review : Yes_X_ No ____
Reviewed by: Dept. Head __BW_____
Finance Dept. __________________
Deputy C.M. ___________________
City Manager ___________________
Account No. _________________
Project No. ___________________
WF No. ______________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT AMONG LEESBURG, LAKE COUNTY, THE CITY OF GROVELAND, THE CITY OF MASCOTTE, THE CITY OF CLERMONT, THE CITY OF MINNEOLA, AND THE TOWN OF HOWEY IN THE HILLS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Florida 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; and
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, Groveland, the City of Mascotte, the City of Minneola, The City of Clermont, and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills concerning an unincorporated area of real property and service delivery for that unincorporated area; and
WHEREAS, these Cities, and Lake County, have determined that the benefits of intergovernmental communications and coordination will accrue to all Parties; and
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; and
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).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA:
The City of Leesburg does hereby adopt the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement in the form attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit “A” and the City Commission authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Leesburg.
All ordinances or part of ordinances which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, to the extent necessary to alleviate the conflict, but shall continue in effect insofar as they are not in conflict herewith, unless repeal of the conflicting portion destroys the overall intent and effect of any of the conflicting ordinance, in which case those ordinances so affected shall be hereby repealed in their entirety.
If any portion of this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable, and to the extent that it is possible to do so without destroying the overall intent and effect of this Ordinance, the portion deemed invalid or unenforceable shall be severed herefrom and the remainder of the ordinance shall continue in full force and effect as if it were enacted without including the portion found to be invalid or unenforceable.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and adoption according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, held on the day of , 2013.
THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA
DAVID KNOWLES, Mayor
BETTY RICHARDSON, City Clerk
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/March 2013 in preparation of the County’s adoption in March/April 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 on the 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 after executing an agreement with the county relating to the provision of fire services. 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). (Note: This is a great benefit to the City to define 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, requires approval of County. 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)
b. 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)
c. 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.
Text highlighted in italic bold is for emphases
Text highlighted in italic red are staff notes