Bay Park under threat of commercialization, and a Control Growth Now Picnic

Development interests have their eyes on our parks. 

Both Warm Mineral Springs in North Port and The Bay Park in Sarasota are at risk.  Unfortunately, some in both City governments are supportive of plans to convert public lands to private gain.

Most immediately, on Monday March 20, the Sarasota City Commission will consider measures to facilitate opening up the 53 acres of City-owned bayfront known as The Bay to extensive private development.

The City Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial.  The City Commission should do the same.

Phase 1 of The Bay project has been wonderful, with environmental and civic improvements consistent with the present limits on development.

However, the private interests behind the Bay Park Conservancy, represented by Bill Merrill and Phil DiMaria, an attorney and planner respectively for developers including Benderson, are seeking changes that would open the door to extensive commercial and other private development in The Bay Park moving forward.

At present, most of The Bay Park is limited under the City’s Comprehensive Plan to “Recreation, Entertainment, Museum, and Cultural Facilities - (Civic Center Complex).”  That is exactly what is planned there now, in the City’s Master Plan for The Bay Park.

The north end, now called Centennial Park, is instead designated “Open Space-Recreation-Conservation.” Only “minimal” development for “food, beverage, and entertainment uses” is allowed, but “the type and scale of activities which have been associated with the ‘Marina Jack’ facility” are prohibited.  Again, this is consistent with the present Bay Park Master Plan, which includes only one modest “food and beverage” building in that area.

All of this would be replaced by the Comprehensive Plan amendments up for public hearing and approval Monday morning.

The new wording provides broadly for a “flexible mixed-used district” for all 53 acres.  Without any limits, the following would be allowed (emphasis added):  “uses including but not limited to parks and open space, government uses, restaurants, performing arts centers, museums and cultural facilities, galleries, retail, and mixed-use development with a maximum residential allowance for 10 live/work units within (The Bay Park).”

At present, the City Charter requires a supermajority vote of the City Commission (at least 4 to 1) to loosen the present restrictions on development in The Bay Park, as a Comprehensive Plan amendment.  If the amendments up on Monday are approved (by that supermajority vote) then any limits will only require a regular 3 to 2 vote, in the Zoning Code.

This is the same move in which development interests and their supporters in City government failed (by one vote short of a Commission supermajority) to move limits on downtown building heights from the Comp Plan to the Zoning Code.  It is the same as what they tried and succeeded (4 to 1) for density increases in much of the City.

Already, the Bay Park Conservancy has proposed massive restaurant development on the north end of The Bay Park, far more than in presently allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. In a Powerpoint to the City Commission, they presented plans for three-level restaurant buildings on all three sides of the boat basin, totaling 26,000 square feet of rooftop dining and 14,750 square feet of indoor dining, for a total of 40,750 square feet. Compare for example, the large Selva Grill restaurant in the UTC Town Center, at 5,000 square feet.   

Who knows what other commercial development they have planned in our public park?

The amendments would also eliminate public hearings and votes of the Planning Board and City Commission for Bay Park site plans and replace them with backroom administrative approval by supportive City staff.   

Although those site plans would have to be consistent with a one-page graphic which is the “Master Plan” adopted by the City Commission, already the Bay Park Conservancy shows how they can depart from that if they get administrative approval.  Amazingly, they contend that their extensive restaurant plan is consistent with the Master Plan when clearly it is not.

BPC leaders have also said that the Master Plan is “outdated” and should be changed in ways they do not disclose.

A requirement for a “public community workshop” prior to administrative approval “for structures of less than 10,000 square feet” was added.   That’s an obvious typo in that “less” should be “more.” Not only is that meaningless due to that size (none of the BPC’s restaurant buildings are over 10,000 square feet) but a workshop is no substitute for public hearings and Commission votes.

City Commissioners should vote NO on Monday.

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.
2033 Main Street, Suite 403
Sarasota, FL  34237
(941) 955-5622

=======

Control Growth Now Annual Potluck Picnic

Saturday, March 25

11:30 am – 2 pm

Colonial Oaks Park, 5300 Colonial Oaks Blvd, Sarasota, FL

 

Please register today:  https://www.eventbrite.com/e/571055280717

 

Free and Open to the Public!  Come to Control Growth Now's Annual Meeting and Potluck Picnic at beautiful Colonial Oaks Park Saturday, March 25 from 11:30 am to 2 pm.  

Please register for yourself and anyone you are bringing with you. Enjoy our grilled burgers, hotdogs, veggie burgers and drinks -- bring a side dish or dessert to share if you like -- in the good company of people who care about the future of our community.  

At a short meeting in the clubhouse we will honor Valerie Buchand as our Citizen of the Year for her good work in bettering the quality of life in the Newtown Community and throughout Sarasota. Join Control Growth Now if you like, or renew your membership for 2023-24 (annual dues $20 – an option on the Eventbrite registration) or just be our very welcome guest!

                                                                                        -- Dan Lobeck    

One way to get growth under control

 Elect leaders who favor controlled growth

Letter to the Editor, Herald Tribune, 6.28.22

Are you concerned that the rapid population growth and unrestricted development in Sarasota County will cause this region to become just another congested, sprawling urban area? If so, there are two things you can do.

One, elect local leaders who prioritize preserving the unique character of our local environment and who aim to safeguard our precious natural resources.

And two, do not vote for candidates who receive much of their funding from developers and those who stand to gain from runaway growth.

Now is a good time for voters to research the priorities and funding of the candidates running for city or county commissioner in August.

For example, early research shows that city commission candidate Dan Lobeck, president of Control Growth Now, has for decades fought developers’ big-money influence. That's why he has my support.

Meanwhile, county commission candidate Lourdes Ramirez also fights for growth law protection and strategic infrastructure planning – so she also has my support.

In contrast, county commission candidate Joseph Neunder – according to the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections website – received tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from developers* and real estate-related firms. I will not be voting for Neunder.

Nick T., Sarasota

*Citizens for Sarasota Editor's note: More about the huge inflow of developer money to Neunder here.

Also:

Ramirez is running against Fredd Atkins, Hagen Brody, Mike Cosentino, and Mark Smith. District 2 Incumbent Christian Ziegler is not running again for the seat. 

"That final loophole is astonishing" -- Lobeck on Hi Hat Master Plan

Letter sent March 19 from attorney Dan Lobeck to the Board, offering salient reasons why the Master Plan for Hi Hat Ranch, which will be addressed Tuesday March 22, fails to be sufficient in many ways. The text has been redacted to put the focus on Mr. Lobeck's last point, regarding road sufficiency and traffic:

Hi Hat Ranch

Honorable County Commissioners:

I and my firm represent Saddle Creek Owners Association, Inc., which operates the Saddle Creek Subdivision directly adjoining the proposed Hi-Hat Ranch Village development (and sharing a border about a mile long), which is before you for public hearing this Tuesday, March 23 .

We greatly appreciate the outreach, communications and cooperation of Jim Turner in the review and preparation of the proposed Master Development Plan.  In particular, we appreciate the relocation of the proposed Regional Sports Complex away from Saddle Creek, to a more suitable location north and east of the original site near Saddle Creek.

<A section relating to future high school, sporting areas, and another section on ground water have been elided> 

Transportation

Access to Saddle Creek is from Clark Road.  We are alarmed that the Transportation Conditions in the Master Development Order fail to address the need to maintain adequate capacity on Clark Road to handle the huge increase in traffic from the proposed Hi-Hat development, and to make the developer pay for needed road improvements for that purpose, as a Condition in the Master Development Order and as required by the Sarasota 2050 policies of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.   The same problem exists as to impacts of the development on many other east County roads.

Proposed Transportation Condition 11.B.7 provides that each rezoning in the development shall evaluate the need for widening or building only four road segments: two segments of Bee Ridge Road, North/South Roadway B, and Fruitville Road between that roadway and Lorraine Road.  That is despite the fact that the Traffic Study has identified sixteen road segments which will need improvements to handle the traffic from the Hi-Hat Ranch development, including the need to widen Clark Road from two lanes to four in the vicinity of Saddle Creek and elsewhere. 

Further, Transportation Condition 11.A.6 provides that no Development Orders throughout the development shall be approved if certain biennial monitoring of traffic impacts show a roadway becoming congested below the adopted level of service unless “funding commitments” are made sufficient to resolve the deficiency (with the developer paying its proportional share for the new capacity and the taxpayers paying the rest) or – now get ready for this, because it is actually in there -- if the Development Order includes “other traffic mitigating measures” including “the promotion of telecommuting, ride sharing or transit” acceptable to Sarasota County and “that are intended to eliminate the impact from Hi Hat Ranch development on the deficiently operating facility(ies).”

That final loophole is astonishing.  If the developer commits to promote ridesharing and telecommuting (perhaps with flyers given to purchasers), and “intends” -- intends -- that to be enough to take care of the traffic, and if County staff signs off on that, the developer is good to go gridlocking County roads in reality.   (“Whoops, sorry about that, but we really, really intended our promotion of ridesharing to keep the roads drivable.”)

Policy VOS 2.9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (in the Sarasota 2050 provisions) requires that each Village development “shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the level of service standard adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or Fiscally Beneficial.”

Instead, the Conditions now before you are woefully inadequate to comply with that requirement.  And the County has not even done a study showing who is going to pay for all the road improvements that will be needed and are in part planned east of I-75 that the County Commission is in the course of approving. 

Ben Franklin and others said that a failure to plan is a plan to fail.

More planning is needed in and for this Master Development Order, for the protection of the people of Saddle Creek and very many more, before it deserves to be approved. 

Thank you very much for your considerations.

  

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Condominium and Planned Development Law

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street, Suite 403

Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622

Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

www.lobeckhanson.com

Lobeck: Don't repeal affordable housing requirement for developers

Commissioners,

As in my July 23 email to the Planning Commission (which I copied to you), this is to urge that at your meeting Tuesday [September 22] you vote against transmitting to the state a Comprehensive Plan amendment to delete the requirement of affordable housing as a trade-off for the incentives of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

The claim that this is required by state law is flatly false.  The law allows a requirement for affordable housing in exchange for voluntary incentives which fully compensate the developer for the lost profit.  It is beyond question that the Sarasota 2050 Plan does that.

The amendments would repeal the current requirement that in order to receive the incentive under the Sarasota 2050 Plan to build at urban densities and commercial uses rather than rural densities, not less than 15% of the units must be affordable housing, that is sold to families at under 100% of Area Median Income (with 2/3 of those homes at 80% AMI).

Instead, a developer would be allowed to build at up to 5 dwelling units per acre in the developed area with no affordable housing.  All that would be left is the current “incentive” that a developer could go up to 6 dwelling units per developed area acre if the extra units are affordable housing.

Given the densities that developers have been building in Sarasota 2050 developments, the 5 units per acre will not be exceeded and developers will have no desire to get the 6th by affordable housing.  So, goodbye affordable housing in Sarasota 2050 developments if this is adopted.

The affordable housing standard would be further weakened in the UDC because this amendment provides that while 2/3 of the homes must be for families with 80% of AMI, half of the remainder would be for 100% AMI and half of the remainder would be for 120% AMI.  This would unlawfully conflict with VOS Policy 1.4 in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a goal that at least 15% of the housing will be available “for families with incomes below the median family income for Sarasota County.”

These changes are based on a complete misunderstanding or mischaracterization of new state legislation as applied to the current affordable housing requirements of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

Section 125.0155, Florida Statutes now bans a requirement for affordable housing, sometimes known as “inclusionary zoning.” Instead, it allows a local government to seek affordable housing by “incentives.”  Paragraph (2)(a) of the statute provides that the incentive may be “allowing the developer density or intensity bonus incentives or more floor space than allowed under the current or proposed future land use designations.”  [Paragraph (2)(c) broadly includes “granting other incentives.”]

Sarasota County is already complying with this requirement today.  The entire Sarasota 2050 Plan is a voluntary incentive which grants developers increased urban densities and commercial (“more floor space”) uses on land which is otherwise limited to rural densities, if the developer complies with various requirements in return.  One of those requirements is that 15% of the housing be for persons below the Area Median Income.  The incentive has been enhanced since adoption by exempting affordable housing from Greenway density transfer requirements and any fiscal neutrality requirements (although those measures have not been enforced and are proposed to be weakened as well, such as by including the 120% AMI standard).

Lobeck: Road Plan opens way to more urban sprawl

After the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners approved a new plan for Lorraine Road on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, attorney Dan Lobeck sent this follow-up to his earlier analysis, which found the plan lacking required elements and details which are required by the Comprehensive Plan. Below is the complete follow-up email. The earlier analysis is here.

County Commissioners today followed through on their evident commitment to political kingpin Pat Neal and other development interests by approving a Plan amendment intended (as County staff stated) “to open up new areas for development”, for even more urban sprawl east of I-75 and south of Clark Road.

(A full explanation of the now-approved Plan and its problems is in my email below)

No one addressed my point that this will be hugely expensive and that the agenda records omit any calculation of that cost or who will pay for it, in violation of the requirement that the road network be “financially feasible.”

That is, other than Pat Neal, in his comments urging a “Yes” vote. He stated that he and the other four large landowners who will benefit from this road scheme “have a pretty good idea of what this is going to cost” and that they are prepared to contribute perhaps $20 million towards that expense.  (Typically, they would get that back in impact fee credits, in a “Developer Agreement”).  However, he did not state what portion of the total cost that will be and, again, no numbers are included in the County records for the meeting and none were discussed at the meeting other than that statement by Neal.

Most shockingly, in defending the Plan amendment, Commissioners made demonstrably false statements.

Commissioner Hines stated, “We’re minimizing environmental impacts.” The exact opposite is true, as they are re-routing Lorraine Road directly through an environmentally sensitive Greenway and a County preserve instead of having it hug the Interstate as it does in its current route.

And several Commissioners falsely claimed that the amendment creates a new, much needed north-south arterial east of I-75 as an alternative to that highway.  In fact, however, that arterial is already in the adopted planned road network – Lorraine Road hugging I-75 and connecting to Ibis Street (recently added) to the north and Rustic Road to the south, which then proceeds into east Venice.

 What the Plan amendment does is push Lorraine Road to the east, in order to open up more land to urban sprawl development, runs it entirely through the Greenway and connects to a new extension of Knight’s Trail deep into the County’s wildlife-rich Pinelands Reserve.

Indeed, the new route for this four-lane Lorraine Road is much less direct than the one in the existing Plan, pushed out east as the amendment does to facilitate new sprawl development.

Then there’s Christian Ziegler’s comment, after voting for the amendment.  This sort of “proactive planning” will actually “alleviate traffic later on,”  he claimed.  As if rerouting and adding roads to open up new areas for urban sprawl will not create more traffic, much of which will find its way into existing urban areas.

It is disappointing enough that we have a system in which big developers, led by Neal, invest tens of thousands in their hand-picked candidates and then reap millions from favors like this in return, at the expense of the taxpayers, the environment, traffic mobility and neighborhoods.

That is made even worse, however, when our elected representatives not only betray our interests but then refuse to be transparent and honest about the motivations and effects of their actions.

Fortunately, we have choices in Commission elections, and the benefit now of single member districts.  We all need to be working hard for our chosen candidates, now.

The future of our community is at stake, and its integrity.
  

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in
Condominium and Planned Development Law
Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.
2033 Main Street, Suite 403
Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622
Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

New Lorraine Rd. extension violates Sarasota's Comp Plan

Analysis of Future Thoroughfare Plan for Pubic Hearing of 5.20.20
Agenda Item #30

From Dan Lobeck to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners

(Emphasis has been added in a few places below - otherwise this is the complete email without changes or omissions).

==

I have now fully reviewed this Comprehensive Plan amendment and all agenda materials, for the County Commission's public hearing on Wednesday.

I see that it is an amendment to the Future Thoroughfare Plan and related maps and not yet (as I had initially thought) an amendment to the Capital Improvement Element (which would be the next step, after this amendment).

The issue of funding remains critical.

With capital facility revenues now plummeting and remaining uncertain for the future, and huge unfunded needs for transportation improvements to serve the people here today, how can County Commissioners justify adding massive new road construction to its plans east of the Interstate and on and south of Clark Road, admittedly (as the staff report states) "to open up new areas for development" and to "serve future developments"?

Objective 1.1 of the Transportation Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires that the road system in the County's Thoroughfare Plan be "financially feasible."  Yet the County has done absolutely no review at all of the potential cost of these very expensive new road improvements or where the County may get the funds to pay for them.  That clearly violates the requirement of financial feasibility.

And already the County Commission has granted approvals of Sarasota 2050 developments in the area of these new roads without requiring the developers to pay for them, in violation of the "fiscal neutrality" requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for Sarasota 2050 developments.  Contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission's approved "methodology" for fiscal neutrality makes it optional whether the County requires a developer to pay for new or expanded roads to serve that development, beyond normal impact fees, and that has not been done as new Sarasota 2050 developments in this area south of Clark Road have been approved.

The County's requirements for a Comprehensive Plan amendment explicitly require "a narrative describing the justification for" the amendment, "including how the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the" County's Comprehensive Plan "are met or furthered."  The County purports to comply with this requirement merely by listing applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, but omitting any narrative or other commentary, and no justification of how they are met or furthered.

Because they are not.

In addition to the violation of the financial feasibility requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment violates Policy 1.1.4 of the Transportation Chapter, which requires that transportation planning consider the impacts on land use planning and "Land use strategies and development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled will be encouraged."  This creation of miles of new and expanded roadway "to open up new areas" for urban sprawl east of the Interstate is the exact opposite of that Comprehensive Plan requirement.

Another Comprehensive Plan requirement that the County identifies as applicable to this amendment but for which it provides no conclusion of compliance, is Goal 1 of the Transportation Chapter.  It not only requires a transportation system that "recognizes present demands" (not developer desires) but also that the system "respects the integrity of environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat."

Again, this amendment would grossly violate that requirement by rerouting Lorraine Road away from hugging the east side of the Interstate as it travels south toward Venice, to instead create a new, wide crossing of protected Greenway on its way to opening up new areas for urban sprawl, and then piercing miles into preservation lands to join up with a new extension of Knight's Trail in that preserve, then on south to Venice, all east of the Interstate.

Amazingly, the staff report concludes, without any stated evidence, that this Greenway crossing "largely avoids or minimizes impacts to protected native habitats" despite the fact that the crossing is entirely absent in the present Plan and that the Greenway by definition consists of environmentally sensitive lands which should be protected from disturbance by a new four-lane arterial road.  Adding insult to injury, the staff report dismisses that intrusion by observing that this major new road "generally follows existing historical trails," as if such trails are in any way equivalent to the impacts of a four-lane arterial road serving new developments made possible by that road.

In addition to the controversial rerouting of Lorraine Road, the amendment would widen Clark Road from two lanes to six from I-75 east to Ibis Road and then to four lanes east to Lorraine Road and then back to two lanes headed east.  This expensive road widening is added to serve new development but is largely on the backs of the taxpaying public.

The amendment would also add an extension of Dove Avenue from Clark Road to Lorraine Road (initially at two lanes) to open up that area for new development.

It would also, again without any data and analysis or idea where the funding will come from, add a full Interchange at I-75 and Clark Road, to help serve new development to the east.  Although this is characterized as a mere correction of a "scrivener's error" created when that Interchange was deleted in the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan, that is false.  That deletion was obvious and known in that update, as I clearly recall, in part to reflect that it would no longer be needed due to the removal of a Sarasota 2050 Town Center east of I-75 at that location, partly due to environmental constraints.  One just does not remove an  Interstate Interchange from maps and plans without realizing that one is doing that.  Because of the requirement for data and analysis in state law, this part of the amendment is legally not ready for adoption.

Megadeveloper Pat Neal

Indeed, due to the lack of any analysis of financial feasibility or any competent considerations of environmental impacts, as well as the very bad policy of facilitating even more urban sprawl than is accommodated today, as well as the bad form of considering and approving a controversial policy change during a pandemic when public gatherings and attention are limited, this Comprehensive Plan amendment should be denied or at least delayed.

If it is instead approved, it will be just another entry into the mounting evidence that Commissioners sit more to advance the fortunes of certain development interests, such as that of Mr. Neal, than to protect the public who Commissioners should - in a better world - be elected to serve.

Dan Lobeck, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified in
Condominium and Planned Development Law
Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.
2033 Main Street, Suite 403
Sarasota, FL  34237
Telephone:   (941) 955-5622
Facsimile:    (941) 951-1469
www.lobeckhanson.com

UPDATE: Lobeck to Gruters: Stop this train wreck in its tracks

Update following changes made to Florida SB 1077 after communication from attorney Dan Lobeck to Sen. Joe Gruters. The original Feb. 26, 2020 post is below this update.

In response to objections to his bill to tie the hands of local governments in levying impact fees, State Senator Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) has withdrawn all major problems in that bill. He did that with an amendment approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee at his request, unanimously on March 3.

Gone from the bill are measures to limit what impact fees can be charged for – prohibiting impact fees for many purposes now levied by Sarasota County such as libraries, courts and jails, and a requirement that local governments load their impact fee committees with members biased towards development interests. Also gone is a measure to remove the right of local governments to decide what roads and other facilities may be built by a developer to get an impact fee credit.

A very bad companion bill - in some ways worse than Gruters’ original bill (partly because of the powers it would give to the biased committee) remains pending in the Florida House. With the Senate and the House now on opposite tracks, the fate of the legislation remains uncertain. It seems unlikely to pass unless House and Senate leaders agree on the wording and it becomes a priority to the leader of either chamber. The legislation was initially drafted by the Florida Homebuilders Association, which prefers that the taxpaying public, rather than builders and developers, pay for the facilities needed to serve new growth.

The amended Senate bill.

Dan Lobeck
President, Control Growth Now
www.controlgrowthnow.org

 ==================

Senator Gruters:

This is to urge that you either pull your SB 1066 regarding impact fees or at least have it amended to correct serious flaws. 

As it now stands, it is a very bad bill.  The House companion, in the form of its current Committee Substitute (pending second reading in the House) is in some ways even worse.

Dan Lobeck

 As you know, this is a Homebuilders Association bill. Certainly, any attempt to tie the hands of local governments on impact fees paid by those homebuilders should be suspect as to whether it serves the public interest or instead serves that special interest contrary to the public interest.

Also, this is one in a long line of legislation in recent years (and before) which would subvert home rule, substituting state strictures for control of commissions closer to the communities they are elected to serve.

Your bill is up for consideration by the Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning at 9.  That would be a good time – among others – to stop this train wreck in its tracks. I am copying the members of that Committee for their consideration.

Others have pointed out problems with the legislation, including with regard to the transfer of impact fee credits; limiting the discretion of School Boards and their professional consultants in formulating impact fee methodologies; and removing the right of local governments whether to agree to “contributions” (such as construction of a road) for which a developer will get an impact fee credit.

Joe Gruters

This is to focus on two severe problems in the bills.

Eliminating Impact Fees for Some Public Facilities

Both bills limit impact fees to certain public facilities listed in what is now s.163.3164(39), Florida Statutes, that is “major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities” and certain others.  Those others in the Senate bill are “any fire and law enforcement facility.”  The House bill adds “public libraries, parks” and “emergency medical services.”

Sarasota County, and perhaps other jurisdictions, levy impact fees for public facilities not on that list.  In Sarasota County it is judicial facilities and public administration buildings.

For both of those purposes, Sarasota County has a severe funding shortfall, for both current and future needs.  As such, both impact fees were recognized as inadequate and were increased.

The word “including” and “includes”, without the phrase “but not limited to” may be construed as words of limitation rather than of example.

As such, if your bill becomes law as now drafted, or in its House companion, it may be cited to eliminate Sarasota County’s impact fees for judicial facilities and public administration and (but for the House language) libraries and emergency medical services.

Other Counties and Cities will be similarly limited, for no good reason.

Two other problems with the wording in both bills: what is a “major capital improvement” is ambiguous and as such may be unduly limiting, and “fire and law enforcement facility” should be “fire or law enforcement facility.”

A Biased Impact Fee Committee

Both bills would require each County and City to form an Impact Fee Committee with a mandatory composition guaranteed to be biased towards the builders and developers who pay impact fees.

The Homebuilders Association knew what they were doing when they drafted this.  By serving their special interest, it guarantees that the interests of the taxpayers – on whose backs the cost of public facilities to serve new growth will fall if growth is not made to pay its own way – that is the public interest, will be given short shrift.

The Senate bill states that the Committee shall consist of two persons “who represent the business community” (such as Chamber of Commerce representatives, who in my experience typically ally with builders) and two “local licensed general or residential contractors” (e.g. builders), together with one “at large member.”

The House Bill adds to the Committee two members employed by the County or City which levies the impact fee, one of which must be a School Board employee if there is a school impact fee.

The Senate bill has been amended to allow a local government to instead “use an existing committee which contains representation from the building or development community and reviews building or development projects.” Not only is that option oddly limited (for no apparent reason) to “existing” committees, the killer is the final clause: “and reviews building or development projects.”  That eliminates any existing impact fee advisory committee which does not also perform that secondary function.  As those are two different functions, it is unlikely that any committee does both.  In Sarasota County for example, the Public Facilities Financing Advisory Board advises on impact fees but it does not review building or development projects.  So that committee, whose members are selected to represent not only business interests but also civic organizations, would be replaced by the biased committee mandated by this new law.

In the Senate Bill, the Impact Fee Committee reviews and recommends not only the impact fee methodology but also the impact fee consultant, studies, calculation changes and expenditures – all of the significant determinations of the County or City on impact fees

The House bill goes even further.  It would vest the power to “establish a policy and methodology for determining impact fees on new developments” in the Impact Fee Committee.  Not “recommend” but “establish”, thereby stripping that important power from the local elected officials and instead giving it to a committee which is guaranteed to be biased in favor of those who pay impact fees.  Also, the House bill would require that the Impact Fee Committee submit a recommendation to the governing body of the county or city each time that an impact fee on a “new development” will be discussed and voted upon (whatever that means).

An Albatross

This terrible legislation will be an albatross around the neck of any Senator or Representative who votes for it – providing clear and demonstrable evidence that person serves development interests contrary to the interests of this or her constituents, who will face higher taxes or inadequate public facilities (or both) when impact fees are too low to make growth pay its own way.

Please change course before it is too late, and kill or at least dramatically modify this very bad bill.

Thank you for your considerations.

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Condominium and Planned Development Law

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street, Suite 403

Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622

Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

www.lobeckhanson.com

Questions regarding the wording of the bill were raised earlier by Mr. Lobeck and were posted here.

ReplyReply allForward

Questions raised about legislation revising impact fees

Letter to State Rep.Margaret Good from Sarasota citizens regarding a new bill revising how impact fees are defined and administered. One of the bill's sponsors is State Sen. Joe Gruters of Sarasota. In part it would require counties to create a new bureaucracy to administer, review, and approve such fees on developers. Text of the bill which is still pending.




To: The Honorable Margaret Good;
From: Dan Lobeck, Glenna Blomquist
Date: 02/05/20

Dan Lobeck and I have reviewed this pending legislature (related to HB 637 and SB 1066). Following please find relevant comments:

One problem is that it limits impact fees to “public facilities” defined (by reference to another statute) as “major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities.”

While the bills then add, “and includes any fire and law enforcement facility”, it is not clear if the word “including” in the referenced statute is meant as a limitation or as providing for examples. If the former, Sarasota County’s impact fees for libraries, courts and administration facilities would be rendered illegal. (Case law would need to be researched on statutory construction of the word “including” in the absence of “but not limited to”).

Also potentially problematic is that impact fees would be limited to “infrastructure,” that is the “construction, reconstruction, or improvement of a public facility …” and (again under the above referenced statute) “major capital improvements,” thereby potentially preventing impact fees from being spent on school buses or mass transit, as they are today.

The requirement that impact fees be based on local data gathered within the past 36 months (apparently on a rolling basis) imposes a burden on local governments to gather that date every three years. However, if done right that is not an entirely bad idea, as Sarasota County has long based its transportation impact fees on outdated national data from the last recession (which the County then seeks to apply through a methodology to local conditions) which understates trip length and frequency.

Truly local data, if done correctly, may be more reliable, although that could be subject to manipulation to keep the fees artificially low.

The composition of the local committees is unfairly loaded to those favoring lower impact fees, with most seats reserved for contractors and other business representatives and only one for the general public. (In Sarasota County, this would not much change the makeup of the Public Facilities Financing Advisory Board, which mainly advises on impact fees, as it is typically loaded with development interests and their allies).


===

News about the bills from Joe Gruters (Sarasota) and Nick DiCelglie (Pinellas):

Florida House panel OKs bill overhauling local government impact fee levies

The bill would require local governments segregate impact fee revenues into accounts for each improvement category, calculate impact fees with data no older than 36 months, create seven-member committees to review how fees are allocated and exclude costs from fees that don’t meet a revised definition of infrastructure.

Tighter restrictions on impact fees are one step closer to House passage

Some lawmakers expressed reservations about the current language and cautioned they may vote it down if it makes it to the House floor if some concerns aren’t addressed. That includes fears about the fiscal impact to local governments as they are faced with additional administrative burden when levying fees.

CONA Sarasota Forum Oct. 8: Commission Race and Single Member Districts

Update: Go here for video of the single member vote debate and condidate panels from CONA's October meeting.  Monday, October 8, 2018         -  general election forum  -  county commission races single member districts         All candidates competing on the general election ballot for our county commission districts have been invited to participate in the CONA forum on October 8, 2018 that also will address a ballot initiative of particular interest to county voters. The forum will be divided into two panels.                  The first panel will feature Jack Brill and Dan Lobeck in a discussion of an initiative on the ballot that voters will consider regarding a change of county government form, from at-large election to single-member-district election of commissioners.               The second panel will combine county commission candidates Ruta Maria Jouniari and Christian Ziegler of the district 2 race with Wesley Anne Beggs and Alan Maio of the district 4 race.        Written questions may be submitted in advance or at the meeting to be included, as time allows, following the questions posed by our moderator.           Candidates appearing on our ballots for any races are welcome to attend the social before the meeting in order to make contact with voters and to distribute literature and yard signs, even if not scheduled as a member of a panel for the forum. Information about initiatives appearing on the ballot also may be provided to inform voters.                   The meeting will open with brief neighborhood updates about their issues, including Chris Bales on Arbor Lake Preserve, Ben Cannon on Bath and Racquet Club, Sura Kochman on Siesta Promenade, and Tom Matrullo on the Celery Fields.                                                                             See www.conasarasota.org/meetings.html for more information.                 social 6:30 p.m. -  meeting 7:00 p.m.          neighbors helping neighborhoods since 1961                        anniversary party  -  honoring John McCarthy  -  November 5, 2018 make your reservation at the meeting ticket purchase information is on the 'contact us' page of our web site

CONA meetings are free and open to the public as well as members of the more than seventy associations the organization represents and its individual members. Unless otherwise noted, the meetings are held at the Sarasota Garden Club, 1131 Boulevard of the Arts in Sarasota, which is at the intersection of Tamiami Trail, south of the Municipal Auditorium. Parking and the entrance are reached from Van Wezel Way. Socials precede the meetings at 6:30 p.m., the meetings begin at 7:00 p.m.

Update: Unprecedented risk: Urban Service Area could effectively be at an end

Update: The hearing has been postponed.  The petitioner has requested an indefinite continuance.

Urban Service Boundary at Risk

On March 14, the Sarasota County Commission will consider a really bad proposed amendment to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan amendment.

It would allow pockets of urban development beyond the Urban Service Boundary (USB). 

On February 1, the Planning Commission, which is packed with development interests, recommended approval of the amendment by a vote of 8 to 0, with one recusal.

The amendment would set a precedent to allow individual urban developments outside the Urban Service Boundary (and outside of the Sarasota 2050 areas and Overlay Districts), by approving them in individual Comp Plan amendments, making exceptions to the USB. It has never been done before but if it happens now than developers will be clamoring for the same treatment in the rural lands.

This would get around the requirement of the Sarasota County Charter for a unanimous County Commission vote to move the Urban Service Boundary or to expand or create an Overlay District as well as the requirement of voter approval to eliminate the Urban Service Boundary.  The staff analysis specifically acknowledges this “objective,” noting that the Charter requirement for a unanimous County Commission vote has prevented any movement of the Urban Service Boundary since the Charter limits were enacted by voter referendum in 2008.

The present proposed Comp Plan amendment would specifically allow a Light Office development across from Sun N Fun on Fruitville Road, about 1.25 miles east of the Urban Service Boundary, for influential builder Lee Wetherington, and elsewhere that certain criteria are met.  The staff analysis states that could include other parcels in that corridor. 

Although the amendment’s criteria include a requirement that “adequate existing public infrastructure is available to serve the subject property” it would allow the subject office development even though there is no public infrastructure available to provide sewage treatment and a septic tank will be used instead. The staff report does express some concern about this, but the obvious violation of the amendment’s own criteria somehow did not prevent the staff from endorsing it.

If this loophole is allowed by the County Commission, the Urban Service Boundary is effectively gone, as it can be breached any time by a site-specific amendment. This threatens all subdivisions beyond the Urban Service Boundary east of I-75 and in south County, as well as all of us impacted by urban sprawl and its increase in traffic, infrastructure expenses, environmental degradation and other public concerns.

The Charter requires at least four of the five County Commissioners to approve any Comp Plan amendment which increases the density of intensity of development. County staff agrees that this applies to the proposed amendment.

This very bad Comprehensive Plan amendment should be defeated by the County Commission.

What good is an Urban Service Boundary if it can so easily be violated and ignored?

This piece by Dan Lobeck first appeared in the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Group newsletter.

Growth again tops Public Concern: Lobeck

Via Dan Lobeck:

County Opinion Survey Shows Growth as Top Public Concern

The Sarasota County 2017 Public Opinion Survey will be released Tuesday.  It shows a public very concerned about growth and traffic congestion and strongly opposed to a tax hike to be considered by the County Commission on September 11.

For the fourth year in a row, residents cited “population growth/new development” as the top issue facing the County, by far.  Taxes came in second, pushing out the 2016 second place issue of “economy/jobs.”

Here’s another finding, in a quote from the Survey’s Executive Summary, on the question of what is the biggest threat to Sarasota County’s economy:

The biggest change from last year’s survey was a sharp increase in mentions of growth-related threats—from 44% to 55%, the biggest increases being traffic congestion (+5%) and environmental deterioration (+4%). The steepest decline was in the percent identifying the lack of industry and jobs as the biggest threat (-4%).

The public’s rating of our “quality of life” declined from 2016, with the percentage saying “excellent” dropping from 59% to 47%, with merely “good” going from 38% to 50%.  The Executive Summary did not reveal the votes for "fair" or "poor", saying they stayed "roughly constant" from 2016.

The percentage of people saying that they trust County officials to do the right thing “almost always” or “most of the time”, while still a majority, dropped from 2016 – a fact not mentioned in the Executive Summary.

The Survey showed that 61% of respondents are opposed to any tax increase by Sarasota County government. This should be a message to County Commissioners as they consider a large new “public service” tax at a public hearing on September 11 at 5:30 pm at the Anderson Center in Venice.  The tax would add an estimated $50 a year on average to water, sewer and electricity bills for every home and business in the unincorporated County, plus more for those who pay for gas, amounting to about $11 million a year.  The County says it needs the money for public facility projects which are underfunded, because impact fees on developers have been too low.  Until all impact fees are raised to the full rate allowed by law (including for transportation, which are only half of the full rate throughout most of the urban area) and the County cuts wasteful spending, the County Commission has no business considering any tax hike, particularly by creating a regressive tax on utilities which will hit the poorest among us the hardest.

And in what the Executive Summary calls the biggest change in public opinion, people rank “development/business” as the subject on which the County spends too much money. 

Quoting from the Summary:

                Closer Look at Where “Over-Spending”: Development/Business Tops List

                Over 70% of the respondents pointing to over-spending cite just four general spending categories: “development and business” (33%), “County officials, pay, benefits” (23%), “parks, art, and beautification” (9%), and “low priorities, waste” (6%). Twenty percent of those upset about too much spending did not identify a specific category. The biggest change over the past four years has been the growing proportion of respondents citing development/business as the spending category on which the County spends too much. From 2016 to 2017 alone, the “development/business” citation rate almost doubled (16% to 33%). During that same period, there was an increase in citations of County personnel costs (+4%), but fewer mentions of “parks, art, and beautification” (-11%) or “low priorities/waste” (-6%) as examples of excessive County spending.

Even more than in prior years, this Survey shows that the developer-controlled Sarasota County Commission is out of step with its constituents.  Instead of treating growth and development as a concern to be controlled, Commissioners are doing almost everything they can to make it easier for developers, gutting regulations which have stood for decades and now considering doing it in others matters such as traffic studies, densities and the environment.

Two County Commissioners will be up for election next year and the others in 2020.

The public will then have an opportunity to put their opinions into action.

  -- Dan Lobeck

www.controlgrowthnow.org