HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 10D_8/14/1997 _ A 5=1
Memorandum
i •
To: Village Council
From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager / 7
Date : August 5, 1997
Subject: Commission on Local Government III Suggestions and
Comments; Agenda Item
At the Finance and Administration Committee Meeting held on
July 22, 1997, I showed the Committee members a video concerning
the Commission on Local Government II . In the video, the
Commission Chairman, Sam Bell, specifically asked for the input
of each and every local government in Florida relative to
challenges and concerns that they are faced with. The Committee
members recommended that I draft a response on behalf of the
Village of Tequesta for the Village Council ' s consideration. The
Commission on Local Government II is accepting comments until
September 1, 1997 .
Accordingly, I have prepared the attached draft letter for Mayor
Schauer' s signature . Please review the same and feel completely
free to edit it in any way you desire. It has been placed on the
agenda for your meeting on August 14, in order to meet the
deadline for comments.
It is recommended that the Village Council, by motion, approve
the letter, with or without modifications, arid authorize Mayor
Schauer to sign the same on behalf of the Village Council .
TGB/mk
Attachs .
•
o , 4
st Office Box 32,3 • 357 Tequesta Drip e
`'' o` Tequesta. Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6200
• ;l1i got Fax: (561) 575-6203
4
CrCiy C y
,August 7, 1997
The Commission on Local Government II
Commission Staff
Florida Institute of Government
325 John Knox Road
Building 300
Suite 301 EC
Tallahassee, FL 32303 .
RE: Suggestions and Comments
Dear Commissioners :
The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta is aware that the
Commission on Local Government II was created during the 1996
Legislative Session for the purpose of recommending appropriate
reforms to the organization, structure, powers, creation, duties,
financing and service delivery capacity of Florida Local
Governments. The Village Council has reviewed the informational
video distributed to all city and county commissions.
In light of the above, the Village Council of the Village of
Tequesta wishes to offer the following suggestions and comments
for Commission consideration:
• What are the three greatest challenges facing our Village?
1. The ability to annex adjacent. incorporated enclaves for
continuity in service delivery, equity in the
distribution of service costs and benefits and to provide
greater financial resources to meetigrowing service
demands is Tequesta' s biggest challenge.
i A
Page 2 -
2 . Federal and state environmental mandate compliance
is often onerous and therefore untimely and
expensive. Resources are needed in order to face
these environmental requirements particularly as
they relate to potable water and• stormwater
discharge.
3 . State mandated Police and Fire benefit
requirements . There is no predictability or
stability relative to Police and Fire benefits,
particularly as they relate to retiremlent issues.
Florida needs to limit the benefit. ame'ndments or
provide funding in each and every instance where
benefits are increased.
•
• What constitutional, legislative or other tools would help
meet these challenges and give our Village the ability to
provide its services and govern more efficiently and
effectively?
• Liberalization of annexation laws to give
municipalities the unilateral capability to annex any
enclaves, regardless of size, sufficiently surrounded
by the municipality or to which unincorporated
residents must traverse through the municipality to get
to the enclave.
• Additional designated revenue sources to meet current
demands.
• Strict adherence by the Federal and State government in
avoiding unfunded mandates .
• What recommendations or testimony would you provide to the
Commission on Local Government II on intergovernmental
relations, internal structure, duties, powers, financing,
creation and dissolution, and service delivery capacity as
its specifically relates to our Village?
Page 3 -
• Intergovernmental relations: Counties have a tendency
to want to tell municipalities how to ,conduct their
business . Counties and municipalities' should be
required to engage in written intergoviernmental
communications on designated issues. Special districts
. should be penalized for failure in advlising local
governments of infrastructure repair and
replacement plans and programs.
• Internal structure: Maximum flexibiliy should be
granted to local governments to decide how they wish to
structure themselves. Competition should be encouraged
through facilitation of contractual services as a
service delivery option.
• Duties: The provision of basic services, including,
but not limited to, police, fire-rescue, building
inspection, plan review, water, sewer service and
stormwater drainage should be essential services within
the exclusive domain of municipalities. Counties should
be allowed to provide the same only in the absence of
municipal willingness to provide the same to
unincorporated areas or when municipalities cannot do
so in remote incorporated areas in an economical
fashion.
• Powers: Maximum provision of the various powers to
the municipality should be provided with flexibility
limited only by the constraints of the state and
federal constitution.
• Financing: Financing is a tool to achieve service
delivery. Maximum flexibility is called for. Any
financing vehicles currently not authorized to
municipalities by statutory constraintshould be
allowed.
• Creation and Dissolution: So long as the legislature
remains amenable, the current municipal creation
process appears satisfactory. However, it should be
1
Page 4 -
made easier for citizens so inclined to create
separate and distinct counties to do so.
• Service Delivery Capacity: Establishing adopted
levels of service (LOS) should be the inherent right of
every local government, county or municipality. Home
Rule is paramount in this issue. One local governments
unwillingness to go beyond its adopted service
delivery capacity should not be cause for another
local government to provide such service.
Transportation` infrastructure is best provided
by counties as it relates to regional roadways since
counties currently have greater fund raising
capabilities to provide and maintain for such. The
roadway functional classification system process
should not allow counties unilateral designation of
regional roadways as local roadways to suddenly be
maintained and provided for by cities.
Thank you for the opportunity to allow the Village of Tequesta to
comment on the issues facing Tequesta. We are most appreciative
of your willingness to tackle the fundamental ,issues and concerns
facing Florida' s local governments.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Schauer
Mayor
EAS/mk
Council.laealuev...•