Loading...
Miscellaneousbe �ake .1 N,o *e� VISIONING FOR THE FUTURE WORKSHOP Report of Proceedings FEBRUARY 26,1997 Prepared By The South Florida Regional Planning Council P.W1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..................................................................................................1 LowerMatecumbe Key............................................................................... 3 Why A Visioning Process........................................................................... 4 From Ideas to Implementation.................................................................. 5 NextSteps..................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A: Workshop Agenda............................................................10 Appendix B: Small Group Discussions.................................................11 Appendix C: Participant List..................................................................17 Appendix D: Lower Matecumbe Key 1990 Census Profile ................18 Introduction This report summarizes the proceedings of the Lower Matecumbe Key Visioning for the Future Workshop held on February 26,1997, at the Boy Scouts of America Florida Adventure National High Sea Base on Lower Matecumbe Key. The Workshop was organized by the Lower Matecumbe Key Visioning for the Future Steering Committee. Coordination and facilitation was provided by the South Florida Regional Planning Coun- cil staff. Workshop Organizaflon. The Lower Matecumbe Key Visioning for the Future Workshop brought together more than 60 persons for an evening workshop. The purpose of the Workshop was to gather broad -based community input concern- ing the future of Lower Matecumbe Key (LMK). At the start of the Workshop, participants were asked to introduce them- selves and indicate whether they were there on behalf of any particular organization. Participants identified themselves as: • interested permanent or seasonal residents; • property owners who may or may not reside on LMK; • neighborhood or condominium association representatives; • business owners or their representatives; • community group representatives; and/or • local government. Staff persons from Monroe County and the Florida Department of Com- munity Affairs were there to observe and provide technical assistance as needed. Reporters from the Keynoter and the Reporter were also present. The opening session continued with a brief presentation on the workshop's format and purpose. Immediately thereafter, the partici- pants were arranged into three smaller groups. The small groups then concurrently discussed questions developed by the Steering Committee with the assistance of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. A facilitator led each small group discussion and a recorder took notes that reflected, as closely as possible, the points of view articulated by the par- ticipants. The Appendices to this report contain the Workshop agenda, small group discussion questions and responses, list of participants, and census data about Lower Matecumbe Key. Acknowledgments Special thanks goes to the individuals and organizations that provided assistance and support critical to the success of the Workshop. The Steer- ing Committee oversaw and assisted in designing, organizing and pub- licizing the Workshop. The Committee included Hal (H.B.) Barrett, Mike Bier, and Sue Miller, and was chaired by Mayor Keith L. Douglass. The Boy Scouts of America Florida National High Adventure Sea Base do- nated the use of their conference facilities. The Florida Department of Community Affairs provided funding for the Workshop. Monroe County provided funding and staff support. Monroe County Administrator, James L. Roberts, Project Manager, Sam Mahnowski, and Maureen Neal, Administrative Aide to Mayor Douglass, assisted greatly. Lower Matecumbe Key Primarily a residential community, Lower Matecumbe Key's population is better educated, older, more likely to be retired, and has substantially higher incomes than those of Monroe County residents as a whole. LMK housing units are relatively new and cost significantly more than else- where in the Keys. There are more seasonal than year-round residents. The information below is drawn from the 1990 Census, the most recent available. • The 1990 resident population of LMK was 974, only 1.3% of Monroe County's population. Of these, only 60 (6%) were under 16 years of age, while the comparable percentages countywide (16%) and state- wide (20%) were much higher. The proportion of the working age population actually in the labor force (51%) was low compared to the county as a whole (68%), indicating a predominantly retiree popula- tion. • LMK residents are better educated than most in Monroe County and the state of Florida. Almost six out of every ten adult LMK residents in 1990 had some college education, compared to 51% in the County, and only 44% in the state of Florida. Conversely, only 11% of LMK residents had no high school diploma, compared to 20% for the County as a whole and 26% for the state. • The median household income for LMK residents ($40,417) was 38% higher than in Monroe County and 47% higher than in the state of Florida. Only 8% of LMK residents in 1990 were determined to be under the poverty level, compared to 11% countywide and 13% in the state. • The homes on LMK are of recent construction and are relatively ex- pensive - 69% of the 857 homes in 1990 had been built in the previous 20 years, and 56% of the homes were valued then at more than $200,000. 3 Almost half of the units were vacant at the time of the 1990 Census. Owners lived in 77% of the occupied housing units. • The resident population has moved to LMK relatively recently — more than two-thirds of 1990 residents lived somewhere else only 5 years earlier and almost half lived outside of Monroe County. Less than 10% of the resident population in 1990 was foreign -born. Why A Visioning Process Lower Matecumbe Key citizens are concerned about their Key's future. They want to actively participate in developing and implementing strat- egies to ensure its continued environmental and economic health and vitality while improving the quality of life for those that live or work there. LMK faces many of the same challenges that the rest of Monroe County — protecting and sustaining the uniquely beautiful environment for which the Florida Keys are famous while ensuring a healthy and growing economy. A community vision can be thought of as a scrapbook in which the com- munity defines how it wants to live and work in the future. It can be expressed in words, images, or both. The visioning process begun with the LMK Workshop which can help the citizens of LMK ultimately de- fine a strategic plan for their future. The Workshop is the first step in a consensus -building process that brings together diverse interests to: + define shared values and concerns; • develop a consensus vision of the future; • define and develop strategies and partnerships to realize the vision; • implement the strategies; • periodically assess progress; and • refine and adjust the vision and strategies to deal with changing cir- cumstances. The participants in the Workshop have taken the first step in this pro- cess. 4 From Ideas to Implementation The plenary session provided each small group the opportunity to present its findings to the general body. A participant made each presentation with the assistance of the facilitator. Afterwards, the entire group dis- cussed the findings and looked for common themes and contrasts. The Workshop was primarily directed at gathering input from partici- pants on the future activities of Lower Matecumbe Key, so that a master strategic plan can be developed. It is hoped this report will be consid- ered and consulted when planning for the future of Lower Matecumbe by Monroe County as a course of action for implementation. Common Themes Certain common themes ran throughout. Each group discussed zoning and land use, residential and commercial density, absentee ownership, water quality issues, and community design and beautification. There was no clear consensus regarding the issue of the proposed incorpora- tion of Islamorada. All groups called for increased citizen participation as a way to help keep Lower Matecumbe Key the way it stands pres- ently. In discussing a potential vision for Lower Matecumbe Key, the follow- ing themes were identified as significant by at least two of the three groups. • Restricting the widening of US 1. The subject of preserving US 1 through LMK as a two-lane road was a consistent topic of discussion among all groups. It was felt that this might help discourage any further large-scale development on the key, reduce the number of day - trip tourists, and help protect the area's natural resources. It was sug- gested that a beautification project or a master landscaping plan be developed for the US 1 corridor. Concepts to consider in a plan could include creating a gateway feature, minimizing or eliminating bill- 5 boards, minimizing new signage, and screening certain commercial or manufacturing uses. It is important to note that the Workshop dis- cussion in all three groups focused only on the US 1 corridor through Lower Matecumbe Key. • Maintaining balance between residential and commercial uses. A common theme running through all the groups, was the desire to re- main a low -density residential area island with a minimal number of small commercial uses. Other suggestions to help maintain the beauty and character of LMK included renovation of existing commercial building facades. • Maintaining the status quo. All the groups expressed the desire to maintain and protect Lower Matecumbe Key's current character and quality of life for future generations. Many participants felt more strin- gent code enforcement combined with increased citizen participation could help LMK maintain its present beauty. Enhancing Water Quality. All three of the groups strongly agreed that current and future water quality is a major concern. The groups discussed various aspects of water quality including sewage treatment, using treated waste water for landscape irrigation, and increasing the water flow in existing canals. All groups realized that water quality was an issue that would require the combined action of many inter- ests and could not be solved by LMK citizens in isolation. Strategies to Consider The groups discussed potential strategies and partnerships that should be considered in developing the vision for Lower Matecumbe Key and implementation measures. The ideas and suggestions listed below re- flect the thoughts of two or more of the small groups. 6 • Better communication. There was an overall consensus among the participants that more effective communication between neighbor- hoods, businesses, residents, newcomers, and visitors was needed. One suggestion was to consider using the Lower Matecumbe Key Associa- tion as a vehicle to increase communication among all sectors of the community and to welcome newcomers to the area. The groups also recommended holding community forums or other activities that would encourage the people of LMK to get to know one another. Additionally, believed that LMK citizens should take an active role in educating visitors about the Key and its environment. • More citizen involvement in local government. All of the groups strongly expressed the need for greater citizen involvement in issues affecting Lower Matecumbe Key. The participating residents and business owners recognized that they would need to be involved in both planning and implementation of any future vision for the Key. While there was no clear consensus regarding the potential incorpo- ration of Islamorada and its neighboring keys, both residents and busi- ness owners agreed that continued community participation in the discussion process was important. Other strategies were put forth for consideration by at least one group. They included assessing existing residential and commercial zoning; developing and maintaining a close working relationship with county staff and elected officials; and forming a LMK advisory board made up of residents, business owners, and others to provide recommendations to elected officials about matters affecting LMK. Workshop participants recognized that any future vision of LMK could not be achieved in isolation. All of the groups recommended that the business community and residents must work out their differences and identify solutions to their problems in order for all to grow and help enhance the community. The small groups agreed that respecting and recognizing each other's rights as residents and business owners was crucial. The need to continue communication efforts with government representatives and other state agencies is essential in order to make Lower Matecumbe Key's vision a reality. Potential partners who could be involved in future efforts to plan for Lower Matecumbe Key include designated representatives from each commercial establishment and every neighborhood or condominium as well as agencies such as the Florida Department of Transportation that have jurisdiction over or in- terest in particular aspects of LMK. Finally, the participants agreed that the workshop was a good begin- ning in the process of defining and implementing a consensus vision for the future of Lower Matecumbe Key. They agreed that much consensus building remained to be done and that they were very interested in con- tinuing with the visioning process. Next Steps This report of proceedings was reviewed by the Lower Matecumbe Key Vision Steering Committee and forwarded to the workshop participants, the Monroe County Commission, and other interested parties. On March 19, 1997, in Marathon, the County Commission will have an opportu- nity to learn about the LMK workshop. There are a number of options to consider both for Lower Matecumbe Key and Monroe County as a whole. The visioning process that has begun on LMK could be continued as a pilot project. The visioning process could begin in other communities throughout the Keys. The results of such a visioning process could greatly assist Monroe County in defining its future vision and a strategic plan to achieve it. 1.1 be c4"� _q, v VISIONING FOR THE FUTURE WORKSHOP Appendices Prepared By The South Florida Regional Planning Council APPENDIX A LOWER MATECUMBE KEY'S VISION FOR THE FUTURE WORKSHOP Agenda MEETING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION: Wednesday, February 26,1997, 6:30 p.m.- 9:30 p.m. Boy Scouts of America Florida High Adventure Sea Base Convention Center, Mile Marker 73.8, Overseas Highway, Islamorada, FL. Registration 6:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Welcome & Introductions: Keith L. Douglass Mayor Monroe County Commission 6:30 p.m.-6:45p.m. Overview of Project/ Charge to Participants: Carolyn A. Dekle, Ex- ecutive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 6:45 p.m.-6:55 p.m. Small Group Discussion 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Break 8:30p.m.-8:40 p.m. Plenary Session 8:40 p.m.-9:20 p.m. Closing Remarks 9:20 p.m.-9:30 p.m. io APPENDIX B SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS This appendix contains the recorded notes from the small group discus- sions at the workshop. The discussion questions are listed first and fol- lowed by the participants' responses. ;,iu£sstio£ ,< I'4'S:kat is `4'€::€.€ . vie ii n for L£3w€'r ''.''aIs'ztet:umbe Kev €":#. €£l_e e .. RESPONSES: • Maintain Residential land uses and allow minimal commercial uses • Clean up trap storage areas • Eliminate or screen trap storage areas • Keep existing residential land uses • No change • Maintain US 1 as 2 lane road with minimum additional signs • Require uniform trash barrels for entire Key • Eliminate existing and restrict future billboards on the Key • Resolve Captains Cove Issues • Identify acceptable commercial development • Keep land development as it is, with less heavy commercial fishing (i.e. Captain's Cove) • Lower Matecumbe Key should maintain the heritage of the Keys • Keep things as they are today • Keep fishing traps because they represent the heritage of the Keys • More communication is needed between residential subdivisions • Eliminate commercial fishing equipment production/manufacturing or screen them from view • Balance land uses and maintain the character of the Keys • Impose design standards on future buildings (i.e. Pro Bass Building on Islamorada) • Require existing buildings to be upgraded including facade and inter- nal structure improvements 11 • Require absentee property owners to maintain their property • County should seek needed powers and authority and enforce exist- ing powers and authority to have property owners to clean up their properties • The county should clean it, bill the owner, and if bill is not paid, if property owners fails to clean up their property • Eliminate the trash problem • Maintain the size and design of US Hwy. 1 • Low density residential island • Clean — less pollution • Equal taxes for everyone • Prevent island from becoming like Key Largo - limit commercial sprawl • Recreational • Focal point to town center identifiable as LMK • Remove FDOT plastic stakes (delineators) • Enhance natural environment - water quality and fisheries • Improve US 1 landscape - include bike path • More responsiveness from county • Over regulation - i.e., Key Colony Beach - no more level today okay • Best place to live in U.S.- sewer system added to improve water qual- ity • Parks, recreation for local residents only • How to spend local tax dollars - no new layers of government • Protect wilderness areas • More community involvement • Does LMK need its own government? Can we afford it? • Water quality - all related to it and depend on it • Wastewater treatment which recycles landscape water • Zoning for LMK only • Concentrate development in certain areas • Visitor education (environmental, recreation activities, boating) • Removal of billboards and signage • Turtle nesting grounds limit activities on private property • Enforce existing regulations instead of adding new ones 12 • Additional police protection • No low income housing • Rapid people moving through - MK; i.e., people mover - too many cars • No short term rentals • Property owners right to vote with or without residency • Maintain residential area with only two-lane highway. Keep it the way it is now. • Good balance between residential and commercial land uses • Maintain status quo • Keep the present zoning • Low density residential with a master plan for areas presently not developed (common areas) single family units • Preserving the water (Keep LMK water clean and pretty). Keeping the canals clean. Increase water flow. • Maintain beauty of the Key • Hurricane shelter built on the island supported by the residents by subscription and donation for 1,000 (minimum) people. Support given by people who want to have a place to go. • Highway beautification project (eliminate billboards on Sea Oaks Beach) • Ban on building/constructing any more billboards • Have designated islands as residential, islands designated as com- mercial (primarily); no more commercial building on this island. • Narrow definition of commercial use. • Restricting the expansion/growth (widening) of US 1. • Declaring the road on LMK as a historical district road and do a mas- ter road beautification/landscaping plan. • Hurricane shelter placed on LMK and on all other islands, thereby not having to widen the highway (safety factor critical) 13 Question 2 - How can. Lower MatecumEbe Key achieve this vision? What are the challenges? How can; we get from here to there? RESPONSES: • If vision is to be achieved it must be used and enforced (general state- ment) • Implement existing or amended plan for Lower Matecumbe Key • Local implementation is needed • Go to a local government such as an incorporation of Islamorada as opposed to County -wide control • Hold elected officials liable for addressing LMK community issues • Change land use codes to reflect community wishes and needs • Improve community involvement • Implement regulatory changes based on community needs and on review of existing regulations • Assure that LMK residents get their fare share of services back from taxes, fees, and public programs • Meet as a group more often and relay results to elected officials • LMK steering committee • Prioritize LMK agenda • Need more community involvement leading to a plan and send to authorities • Time span for plan — time frames with individual stages • Major hurricane • Land use plan that would take into account majority interests • Prioritize and make commitment to spending money • What will effects be • Formal advisory board • Not to increase the number of county commissioners to achieve better districting • More focus on each issue, then move on • Do not make a tourist island; i.e., ban jet skis — can we have an isolated island when 10,000 coming through • Identify county responsibilities • Are we willing to give up things to achieve above -mentioned goals? 14 • We should not give up anything to move on • Will property owners give up smaller lots to create low density com- munity with large lots • Active community involvement and rezoning • Maintain close relationship with bureaucrats and elected officials to include the code enforcement. Cooperation from bureaucrats in re- turn. • Keeping the status quo and keeping the same or present zoning. Hav- ing vested rights to what we currently have. Grandfather clause for zoning. • Hurricane shelters supported/funded by residents • Have water studies done on water flow from the ocean to canals. (Need water pumps to increase the water flow.) Sewage treatment studies • Create a beautification highway and common area plan. Designate highway as a scenic/historic district sites. • Sign ordinance: controlling size, placement, etc. • Maintain LMK as primarily residential, with existing commercial de- velopment to remain as is. • Change zoning (implement some zoning changes) • Grandfather in current property owners Question 3 - How can residents and business people of i._MK work together to create a. sustainable cornet€ ni.ty? RESPONSES: • Improve neighborhood communication • LMKA - Property Owners Association • Express desires through better representation with LMKA • More communication between residents and business community re- garding vacant undeveloped land • Design Master Plan Strategy • Invite Mayor and Commissioners to LMKA meeting • No conflict between residents and business community; must honor zoning to protect residents' rights • Get community together to work on issues; i.e., island clean-up 15 • Each group handles their own problems • Each business has their own agenda which serves different residents • Join together in a town forum • Mutual respect • Cooperation, education process to support each other — more com- munication • Equality of services provided • More town meetings (business and residents) • Zero growth by both groups. Keep wilderness wild • Can't deny use of property — pay equitable amount for land • Recycle development (adaptive re -use) • Work together (business and residents) to enhance community; local courts; keep money local (as in New England) gives your vote more power — will lead to a better quality of life • Work together (business community and residents) to identify and work out problems • People getting to know one another. "Welcome Wagon" to greet new- comers (neighborhood parties, homeowner associations, etc.) • LMK Association monthly meetings to encourage newcomers to meet LMK residents, annual picnic, newsletter sent to all residents. • Respect/recognize each other's rights as a resident or commercial owners. • Community center/commercial center on island where you can meet and greet friends, neighbors, newcomers on a regular basis (ex.: post office on UMK) • Maintain commercial or residential property. Take interest in your property. • Continue or let island continue to grow and look great. 16 APPENDIX C LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS NAME Anne Cohan Truett Moore Annie Robbie Pat McNeese Augie Leo Priscilla Teasdale Barbara Aschenberg Ray Lazano Don Aschenberg Raymond Johnson Bruce Williams Richard Greenfield Catherine A. Carey Richard Hanson Charles Ambrogio Robert Schailler Charles E. Carey Roger Sheffield Dick Spohn Roland Moore Don Ashenberg Ruth Starck Donna Hanson Sam Wampler Gene Moriarty Sue Miller George Kaplan The Honorable Keith Douglass Glenn Taylor Theodore J. Miko H. B. "Hal" Barrett Tim McGarry Jay Miller Tom Pennekamp Jeani Pennekamp Tony Starck Jill Zima Ty Symroski Jim Lindeman Vic Patron Joe Noha Walt Eggers Kay Lindeman Walter Starck Luciann Niebler William C. Spare Mary Jane O'Brien William Greenwald Maureen Neal William Spare Michael Brown William Stevens Michael Robbie Mike Bier 17 APPENDIX D Lower Matecu.mbe Ivey —1.990 Census Profile . The 1990 resident population was 974, only 1.25% of Monroe County's resident population. Of these, 914 (94%) were 16 years and over, while the comparable percentages countywide (84%) and statewide (80%) were much lower. • Educational attainment in LMK was higher than in Monroe County and the state of Florida. Almost six out of every 10 adult LMK resi- dents (59%) had some college education, compared to 51% in the County, and only 44% in the state of Florida. Conversely, only 11% of LMK residents had no high school diploma, compared to 20% for the County as a whole and 26% for the state. • The majority of LMK residents in 1990 were newcomers. Fully 45% of 1990 LMK residents lived outside of Monroe County in 1985, and an- other 24% lived in another house in Monroe County. In other words, in 1990, less than one-third of the residents of LMK had lived in the same house only five years earlier. This compares to a slower pace of change for Monroe County as a whole, where 41% lived in the same house in 1985. Only 9% of 1990 LMK residents were born abroad, slightly lower than the County average of 10%. • The ancestries reported in the 1990 Census identify German, English and Irish as the primary cultural strains among residents of LMK, simi- lar to the results for Monroe County. • The percent of residents 16 years and over in the labor force in 1990 was very low (51%) for LMK residents, suggesting a larger -than -aver- age proportion of retirees. In Monroe County, the labor force partici- pation rate was 68%. • LMK residents had to travel farther to work than Monroe County resi- dents as a whole, averaging a 22-minute commute, compared to the countywide 15-minute commute. • Out of 452 employed persons 16 years and over, the most popular occupations for LMK residents were sales, executive, administrative 18 and managerial, administrative support, precision production, craft and repair and services. • The 1990 median household income for LMK residents ($40,417) was 38% higher than the countywide average ($29,351). These compare to a statewide average of $27,483. A relatively low household size trans- lated into much higher -than -average per capita incomes: LMK $26,098, Monroe County $18,869, Florida $14,698. • Of 478 households in LMK, 65% reported wage and salary income in 1989, 26% reported self-employment income, 34% reported Social Se- curity income, and 24% reported retirement income. Only 2% had public assistance income. Compared with the County as a whole, there were more self-employed and retirees, and fewer wage workers and public assistance recipients. • Only 77 LMK residents were determined to be below the poverty level in 1989, representing 8% of the population. This compared to 11% countywide and 13% statewide. • A total of 857 housing units were identified on LMK in 1990, of which 461(54%) were occupied and 396 were vacant. Countywide, only 27% of units were vacant. Of the vacant units, 303 (77%) were for seasonal, recreational or occasional use, 51 were for rent, and 22 were for sale. • Most of the occupied units on LMK were occupied by owners (77%), with only 23% occupied by renters. More than half of the owner - occupied units (54%) were not mortgaged. Countywide, there were just slightly more renters than owners, and 47% of owner -occupied units were not mortgaged. • Most of the housing units on LMK were built after 1960, with 143 (17%) built in the 1960s, 254 (30%) built in the 1970s and 334 (39%) built in the 1980s. Most housing units (688, or 80%) used a septic tank or cess- pool, with only 156 units hooked up to a public sewer. • Median monthly owner costs and renter costs in 1990 were higher on LMK than in Monroe County as a whole. No housing units were iden- tified on LMK with a value inferior to $75,000, and more than half of the units (56%) were valued at more than $200,000. FJ: i Lower Matecumbe Key in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Planning Area / Enumeration District (PAED) 12 • Planning Area / Enumeration District (PAED) 12 includes Craig, Lower Matecumbe and Windley Keys, but not Upper Matecumbe Key. Population estimates for PAED 12 show a resident population of 1,096 in 1990 and a seasonal population of 1,650, for a total functional popu- lation of 2,746. This population was projected to grow to 1,684 per- manent residents and 2,335 seasonal visitors by the year 2010, for a total functional population of 4,019, an increase of 46%. • Planning Area 29 includes Craig and Lower Matecumbe Keys. The 1991 Platted Lands Survey identified 15 subdivisions with a total of 1,224 lots, 1,060 of which were zoned IS/URM/CFV at the time the comprehensive plan was developed. A total of 690 lots had been de- veloped, and 370 vacant platted lots were considered buildable. 20 ... %4.. South Florida Regional Planning Council MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #13a DATE: JUNE 2,1997 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: LOWER MATECUMBE KEY VISIONING WORKSHOP PHASE II Background Monroe County proposes to conduct two meetings on the island of Lower Matecumbe Key from June 1997 to September 1997. The purpose of these meetings is to formulate a vision statement and to begin the implementation phase of the strategic plan for Lower Matecumbe Key based on the outcome of their Vision Workshop held on February 26,1997. Monroe County has requested that Council staff provide facilitation services for the Lower Matecumbe Key Vision for the Future Meetings. Attached is a draft of the contract for services in the amount of $5000.00 offered by Monroe County. At this time, the Executive Director is negotiating the exact contract terms and scope of services. Recommendation Permit the Executive Director to finalize and sign a contract with Monroe County to conduct and provide staff support for " Lower Matecumbe Key Visioning for the Future Workshop." 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (305) 985-4416, Area Codes 305 and 407 (800) 985-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX (305) 985-4417, SunCom FAX 473-4417 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made and entered into this 2nd day of JUNE,1997, by and between the SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, a body corporate and politic and an agent of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "SFRPC" and MONROE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the SFRPC was created pursuant to Section 186.501, Florida Statutes (1982), as amended, and known as the "Florida Regional Planning Council Act" (the "ACT"); and WHEREAS, Section 186.505, Florida Statutes, provides that the SFRPC may enter into contracts to provide, at cost, such services related to its responsibilities as may be requested by local governments within the region and which the SFRPC finds feasible to perform; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to engage professional services, such as meeting planning, organization and facilitation relative to the activities associated with its Workshop; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed upon a Scope of Services for work to be performed hereunder by the SFRPC and attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, the mutual covenants, conditions, provisions and undertakings herein contained, and for other good and valuable considerations, the parties do mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows: 01 ARTICLE I COMPENSATION 1.1 The COUNTY agrees to employ SFRPC as a MEETING PLANNER, ORGANIZER AND FACILITATOR for the dates and times hereinafter referred to, consistent with the terms, conditions and provisions of the Act and other applicable, professional and ethical requirements imposed upon the SFRPC, existing COUNTY Rules, or existing agreements as they may be amended from time to time. 1.2 The COUNTY agrees to pay and to compensate the SFRPC consistent with the terms, conditions and provisions set forth on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a specific part hereof. 1.3 The COUNTY shall reimburse the SFRPC for actual expenses incurred that are directly related to the SFRPC's performance under and pursuant to this Agreement, but in no event at rates or in amounts in excess of those rates/charges set forth in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, as amended from time to time. 1.4 Both the COUNTY and the SFRPC agree that the SFRPC shall at all times act as an independent contractor in the performance of its duties under this Agreement, provided however, that the SFRPC shall represent the COUNTY and identify itself in the performance of its duties set forth on Exhibit "A". In no event, however, shall the SFRPC be considered an employee of the COUNTY. Accordingly, the SFRPC shall be responsible for the payment of all taxes including Federal and State taxes arising out of the SFRPC's activities in accordance with this Agreement including by way of illustration but not limitation, Federal income tax, Social Security tax, Unemployment Insurance taxes, and any other taxes or business license fees as may be lawfully required of a consultant performing such services. 2 ARTICLE II TERM AND CANCELLATION 2.1 This Agreement shall commence on the 2nd day of JUNE, 1997 and shall terminate on the 30th day of SEPTEMBER,1997. To the extent that the SFRPC has been directed by the COUNTY to perform services hereunder, prior to the execution hereof by the COUNTY, then, in that event, Exhibit "B" shall reflect such total compensation as may be earned and payable to the SFRPC in accordance with Exhibit "B". 2.2 It is anticipated that the SFRPC shall fulfill its obligations under this Agreement with concentrations of professional time which may vary from day to day, or week to week. 2.3 Either party may cancel this Agreement on not less than fifteen (15) days notice to the other party in writing, by certified mail, personal delivery or facsimile transfer. ARTICLE III GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 It is understood and agreed that this document incorporates and includes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and that the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements, or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements whether oral or written. 3.2 It is further agreed that no modification, amendment or alteration of the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and with equal dignity herewith. 3.3 This document shall be executed in at least three (3) counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be a duplicate original. 3 3.4 The Agreement is executed and is to be performed in the State of Florida, and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 3.5 In connection with any litigation arising out of this Agreement, including any administration, trial level, or appellate proceedings, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred, including a reasonable attorney's fee and paralegal costs. 3.6 If any clause, section or other part or application of this Agreement shall be held by any Court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutional or invalid part or application shall be considered as eliminated and so not affecting the validity of the remaining portions or applications remaining in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the respective dates of each signature: the SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, through its Executive Director, authorized to execute same by SFRPC action on the 2nd day of JUNE,1997. 9 4 SFRPC: ATTEST SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CAROLYN A. DEKLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Approved as to legal form: SAMUEL S. GOREN, ESQ. General Counsel to SFRPC MONROE COUNTY: JAMES ROBERTS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 7 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES The SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SFRPC) shall assist MONROE COUNTY in the areas of meeting planning, organization and facilitation for the COUNTY'S "LOWER MATECUMBE KEY VISIONING FOR THE FUTURE" PHASE II. Phase II will consist of two meetings. 1. The first meeting shall be two hours in length and is designed to reach consensus on: a) a vision statement; b) the priority of the issues developed at the Vision Workshop in February; c) the formation of work groups for priority issue areas and the identification of membership, duties and responsibilities; and d) the identification of ways to measure progress. After the formation of the work groups, each group will be responsible for convening themselves to address implementation strategies for accomplishing their goal(s). An SFRPC staff member will be assigned to each work group for guidance and assistance, however, their presence will not be required at work group meetings. ,, 2 The second meeting shall be fours hours in length and consist of: a) First half of meeting will allow the work groups an opportunity to meet with their respective SFRPC resource person to finalize their implementation strategy report before presenting it to the full body, and b) The last half of the meeting will consist of all the work groups and other interested participants. Each work group will report on its proposed implementation strategies and which strategies to initially pursue. The meetings will take place on dates acceptable to all parties, to be determined. The SFRPC shall provide the following assistance and support: • Meeting Planning, Organization and Facilitation: Planning, organization and facilitation of the above noted meetings shall be the responsibility of the SFRPC. The SFRPC shall work in conjunction with the COUNTY to establish the format for the meetings and provide all materials and staff support necessary. • The SFRPC shall produce copy -ready invitations, event packets and agendas. • The COUNTY shall be responsible for the meetings' RSVP lists, follow-up phone calls and assuring that the SFRPC obtains a copy of the final RSVP lists and a copy of the mailing lists of all participants. Additionally, the COUNTY shall be responsible for all duplication and mailing of all materials. • The SFRPC shall be responsible for drafting and producing a questionnaire to be mailed to the participants in the February 26, 1997, Vision Workshop and preparing a report showing the results of the questionnaire. • Facilitation Services: The SFRPC shall provide one facilitator and 2 recorders for each meeting. There will be one (1) staff person assigned to be a resource person for each work group. Two (2) staff persons from the COUNTY will be needed to assist at the meetings. • The SFRPC will provide facilitation and recording services for up to three smaller work groups and provide a structured agenda for discussion. The SFRPC will work with the COUNTY staff to formulate agenda questions and other logistical information necessary. • Facilities: The location of the workshop and provision of facilities shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall ensure the facility includes one large general assembly hall and three breakout rooms to accommodate 3 groups of twenty persons (20) each. If the number of participants should exceed 60 persons, it shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY to provide one additional breakout room. • Legal Notice and Advertising: The COUNTY shall be responsible for providing proper public notice of the workshop. The SFRPC shall prepare copy ready press releases and display advertisements. The COUNTY shall be responsible for all submission of press releases and advertisements. • Concessions: Provision of refreshments and similar concessions shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall be responsible for providing one break for each meeting. Any other catering requested shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. A EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION For tasks outlined in Exhibit "A" MONROE COUNTY shall pay the SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL a fee in the amount of $5000.00. Payment shall be made in installments as shown below. A. Contract Execution $2000.00 B. Completion of 15t Meeting $1000.00 C. Completion of 2nd Meeting $1000.00 D. Within 30 Days of Completion $1000.00 P]