Item D2N
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 26, 2013 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and approval of the Eighth (81) Amendment to the agreement for
professional services with Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the Coastal Barrier
Resource System (CBRS) Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Development Code regulations.
ITEM BACKGROUND: K&S was retained to complete an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the
Comprehensive Plan (CP). The EAR was completed; however, on 12-12-12, the Commission requested K&S
complete an addendum to the EAR as stated above. On January 16, 2013, the BOCC discussed a contract
amendment with K&S, and requested further public input on additional analysis to be included in the scope of
services. See attached memo.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
December 16, 2009 — BOCC approved contract to update the Monroe County Year 2010 Technical Document,
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Land Development Code.
September 15, 2010 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 1 which amended the work program and deliverable
schedule.
October 20, 2010 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 2 amending Master Schedule `B" referencing the work
program timeline and deliverable schedule.
May 18, 2011 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 3 amending Exhibit "A" Scope of Services for Phase II to
include services relating to the Environmental Impact Statement.
August 17, 2012 - BOCC approved Amendment No. 4 amending Exhibit "A" Scope of Services and Exhibit `B" to
increase compensation $96,183.00, for additional services related to data collection, development of existing
conditions to prepare the technical document (primarily existing land use mapping and acreage/density/intensity
information), population projection approval by the Department of Community Affairs, and timeline
adjustments due to recent statutory amendments to Chapter 163, F.S. (HB 7207).
June 20, 2012 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 6 amending Exhibit "A" Scope of Services, for additional
services identifying any potential deficiencies in the County Comprehensive Plan policies and land development
code relative to State regulations on mining operations, including minimum permitting requirements for mines
and the minimum legal requirements for remediation and restoration after a mine if officially abandoned and an
increase in compensation by $7,500.00.
September 21, 2012 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 7 amending the timeline for processing the EAR based
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendments to be simultaneous.
January 16, 2013 — BOCC discussed a contract amendment for additional services to evaluate the CBRS policies,
and directed staff to take public input on the recommended services.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: Addition of potential analysis items based on public input.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of contract for $40,600 with tasks 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7,
13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.15, 13.16, 13,17, 13.18, 13.20, 13.21, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24, 13.25,
13.27, 13.28, 13.29, 13.33, 13.39, 13.40, and 13.49.
TOTAL COST: Between $16,760 and $148,260
INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: Between $16,760 and $148,260 SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required D I -
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract with: Keith & Schnars, P.A. Contract #
Effective Date: 02/26/2013
Expiration Date:
Contract Purpose/Description:
Amendment No. 8 to the contract with Keith & Schnars (K&S) for additional services to
evaluate the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) Comprehensive Plan policies and
Land Development Code regulations. Total contract amount, before Amendment 8, is
$1,128,108.
Contract Manager: Christine Hurley 2517 11
(Name) (Ext.) (Department/Stop #)
for BOCC meeting on 02/26/2013 Agenda Deadline: 02/22/2013
CONTRACT COSTS
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $ $16,760 -
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted? Yes❑ No
Grant: $ N/A
County Match: $ N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs: $
(Not included in dollar value abol
$148,260
$270,000 for a portion of Phase III and IV
Account Codes: 148-51000-530340-
ADDITIONAL COSTS N/A
/yr For:
CONTRACT REVIEW
salaries, etc.
Changes Date Out
Date In Needed Reviewer
Division Director Yes❑ No❑
Risk Management Yes[-] No❑
O.M.B./Purchasing Yes❑ No❑
County Attorney (3 YesPWfiNo❑ 2-22-/3
I Comments:
JN4B Form Revised 2/27/01 MCP #2
2
3
4 MEMORANDUM
5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
6 We strive to be caring, professional and fair
7
8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
9
10 Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management
I 1 Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
12
13 From: Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Director of Planning
14 Emily Schemper, Senior Planner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Date: February 22 2013
Subject: Additional information requested by BOCC regarding approval of the Eighth (8th)
Amendment to the agreement for professional services with Keith and Schnars,
P.A., for additional services to evaluate the Coastal Barrier Resource System
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding infrastructure extension.
Meeting: February 26, 2012
BACKGROUND:
The County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Code which both
discourage 'and prohibit the extension of utilities to or through areas designated as units of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).
For example:
Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.8.5
Monroe County shall [take] efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and
services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of
electricity and telephone service to CBRS units...
37 Land Development Code Section 130-122. - Coastal barrier resources system
38 overlay district
39 (a) Purpose. The purpose of the coastal barrier resources system overlay district is
40 to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan by prohibiting the extension
41 and expansion of specific types of public utilities to or through lands designated as
42 a unit of the coastal barrier resources system.
43
44 On January 16, 2013, BOCC discussed a contract amendment for professional services with Keith
45 and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the CBRS Comprehensive Plan
46 policies to determine whether they add any additional protection to land over and above
47 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code policies that govern the Tier System, including
i of 12
I an analysis of the percentage of land and number of parcels within the CBRS units by Tier
2 Designation and whether infrastructure extension to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas
3 increases a parcel's likelihood of being able to obtain a favorable recommendation, based on Tier
4 criteria to change a tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or III -A.
5
6 At the January 16, 2013 BOCC meeting, several speakers suggested that additional analysis be
7 conducted, beyond the tier designations policy review. The BOCC requested staff to review the
8 public input provided at the January meeting and requested staff to contact those who commented
9 at the BOCC meeting for a description of the additional analysis they suggest should be added to
10 the scope of services for the proposed K&S contract amendment.
11
12 The County received multiple public comments for the scope of services and K&S has provided a
13 price estimate for each potential additional scope of service item. Staff has reviewed all potential
14 scope of service items, and indicated in the table below which items they consider necessary to
15 determine whether or not the Comprehensive Plan policies and/or Land Development Code
16 regulations related to the CBRS should be amended. The total cost for items recommended by
17 Staff (including those in the original scope of service presented to the BOCC at the January 16,
18 2013 meeting) equals $40,600.
19
20 Staff recommends that items indicated in the table below (indicated by a "YES" in the "Include per
21 Staff' column, and highlighted in red) be included in the revised scope of services for the proposed
22 Eighth (8th) Amendment:
23
24
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY — THIS TABLE IS NOT THE SCOPE OF WORK
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
Task 13
Original tasks
Request
Source
Pricing
Include
per
Staff Comments
Staff
13.1
K&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of
Requested
parcels within the Coastal Barrier Resource System
by BOCC
(CBRS) units that are designated Tier I or other Tiers
on 12/12/12
such as: II, III, or IIIA; (Data to be provided by County)
13.2
Using existing tier criteria, determine whether extension
Requested
of infrastructure to outlying neighborhoods or other
by BOCC
$16,760 for
Original tasks to
platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood of obtaining
on 12112112
tasks 13.1,
change in tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or
13,2, and
YES
be kept, Already
IIIA; and
13.3
directed by
combined
BOCC.'
13.3
Review the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and/or
Requested
Land Development Code provisions related to CBRS
by BOCC
units and determine whether the existing CBRS policies
on 12/12/12
add any additional protection to land over and above
those policies and code provisions that govern Tier 1
land.
2of12
Additional tasks requested at 1116113 BOCC Meeting by Public
Request
Pricing
Include
per
Staff Comments
Speakers, and subsequent public input
Source
Staff
13.4
How many lots and how much undeveloped acreage is within
Deb Curlee
$6,720
NO
Covered in 13.3
the CBRS areas
2/8/13
and Addition B to
Review and determine any potential impacts of referencing
Beth Ramsay-
13.1.
the original 2010 Comp Plan Technical Document Table 3.21
Vckrey 2/4/13
as it relates to "undeveloped" CBRS units. Review and
provide a list of the current "undeveloped" areas within each
of the unincorporated County CBRS units, utilizing the term
"undeveloped" as defined within the Federal legislation for
CBRS units. Compare and contrast with original 2010 Comp
Plan Technical Document Table 3.21 and provide a
summary.
13.5
Comprehensive accounting of parcels and acreage
Last Stand
$2,400
YES
Provides
located in CBRS units in Monroe County (including areas
comprehensive
that would require new infrastructure to pass through a
218113 Naja
D
Data to
data on all
CBRS unit). To include: CBRS Unit #, Parcel RE #, size
Girard
be
parcels and
of parcel, Tier, FLUM, district, location within Monroe
provided
existing
County, publicly or privately owned, vacant or
by
conditions.
developed, description of existing development (single
County
family, multi -family, commercial, etc), type of
infrastructure presently available (electricity, water,
sewer, telephone, cable) Including date the Infrastructure
was brought to the area.
13.6
An analysis of how the establishment of full
Last Stand
$0,
YES
Included in 13.2
infrastructure in an area (under current laws) could
2/8113 Naja
Included
affect the assigning of points in the ROGO and NROGO
Girard
in 13.2
system and how it could affect the Tier designation for
properties in Monroe County.
13.7
How are the numerous CBRS Goals, Objectives and
Solar
$0.
YES
Included In 13.3
Policies of the Comp Plan being implemented today?
Community
Included
of NNK
in 13.3
2/8113
13.8
Are there any disincentives to build in an area without
Solar
$0.
YES
included in 13.3
utilities beyond the designationlclassification of Tier 1
Community
Included
lands?
of NNK
in 13.3
2/8113
13.9
Is there any variation of protection of the CBRS units
Solar
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
within the Tier System without the CBRS Overlay
Community
Included
ordinance?
of NNK
in 13.3
218113
13.10
How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Goals
Solar
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
Objectives and Policies in the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Community
Included
Land Use Plan were to be weakened or removed?
of NNK
in 13.3
2/8/13
3of12
13.11
How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS
Solar
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
Overlay Ordinance In the Monroe County Code were to
Community
Included
be weakened or removed?
of NNK
in 13.3
218113
13.12
How can Monroe County remove CBRS Goals Objectives
Solar
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
and Policies from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Community
Included
and weaken or remove the prohibition in the Overlay
of NNK
in 13.3
Ordinance, and continue to provide the same level of
218/13
protection we have had for CBRS units throughout
Monroe County?
13.13
How are CBRS properties treated differently from other
Joyce
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
Tier 1 lands in the County?
Newman
Included
2/8/13
in 13.3
13A4
Does the Tier System provide for different levels of
Joyce
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
protection for lands targeted for acquisition?
Newman
Included
218/13
in 13.3
13.15
Does the Tier System adequately Implement the intent of
Joyce
$0,
YES
Included in 133
the Comp Plan with regard to lands within CBRS units?
Newman
Included
218/13
in 13.3
13.16
What protections currently exist for CBRS areas in the
Deb Curlee
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
Comp Plan and LDRs
2/8/13
Included
In 13.3
13.17
How protections for CBRS areas would change if those
Deb Curlee
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
lands were subject only to the Tier System
2/8/13
Included
in 13.3
13.18
Review and determine any potential impacts if all CBRS
Beth
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
Overlay policies and corresponding LDR language be
Ramsay-
Included
stricken entirely.
Vickrey
in 13.3
214113
13.19
What mechanisms are in place that discriminate between
Solar
$3,180
NO
Several of these
and accommodate variations in the level of environmental
Community of
issues are
sensitivity of Tier 1 lands? (i.e. ACCC,
NNK 2/8/13
covered in other
threatened/endangered species, infrastructure availability,
items; the other
platted infill bonuses, CBRS, acquisition areas, etc.) In other
issues are not
words:
community -wide
How are CBRS properties treated differently from all other
or comprehensive
questions.
Tier 1 lands in the County?
• How are lands targeted for acquisition treated differently
from all other Tier 1 lands in the County?
• How are off -grid areas treated differently within the Tier 1
system?
• Were the protections offered by the historic PAS lost with
the adoption of the Tier System?
4of12
13.20
Review and determine any potential impacts of adding
Beth
$0,
YES
Included in 13.3
the term "undeveloped CBRS areas" to the Comp Plan
Ramsay-
Included
and Code.
Vickrey
in 133
Example of suggested change: Add the word
214113
UNDEVELOPED as so noted (highlighted) below: In
general, future development in the County should be
directed to the maximum extent possible away from the
UNDEVELOPED Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) units. This should be accomplished through land
use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Its
implementing LDRs. Other actions which the County
should take to discourage further private investment in
UNDEVELOPED CBRS units include
(1) no new bridges, causeways, paved roads or
commercial marinas should be permitted to or on
UNDEVELOPED CBRS units;
(2) shoreline hardening structures should not be
permitted along shorelines of UNDEVELOPED CBRS
units;
(3) public expenditures on UNDEVELOPED CBRS units
should be limited to property acquisition, restoration
and passive recreation facilities;
(4) privately -owned undeveloped land located within the
CBRS units should be considered for acquisition by
the County; and
(5) the County should coordinate with the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) and private providers of
electricity and telephone service to assess measures
which could be taken to discourage extension of
facilities and services to UNDEVELOPED CBRS units.
13.21
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
Beth
$0,
YES
Included in 13.3
with the suggestion to: Add the following (below
Ramsay-
Included
highlighted) CBRS Executive Summary statement, and
Vickrey
in 13.3
direction (not to harm existing communities), to all
214113
sections of the Comp Plan which reference the CBRS
Act so there is no future confusion as to the exact
Federal Intent of the Act (undeveloped status was the
underpinning of the law), and the Federal direction
regarding what actions the County should NOT take
(harming of existing communities).
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page 1,
Introduction
http:llwww.fws.govlhabitatconservatlon/TaxpaysrSavin
gsfromCBRA,pdf
'The undeveloped status of System lands was an
important underpinning of the law. The idea was to
help steer new construction away from risky,
environmentally sensitive places where development
was not yet found, not to hurt existing communities
where serious commitments of time and money had
already been made."
5of12
13 22
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
Beth
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
with the suggestion to: Add the following (below
Ramsay-
Included
highlighted) statement, again from the CBRS executive
Vickrey
in 13.3
Summary, Page 1, Introduction so as to further clarify
214113
the Federal intent of the Act for the reader of the Comp
Plan.
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page 1,
Introduction
hftp:Ilwww.fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavi
ngsfromCBRA.pdf
The Act is the essence of free-market natural resource
conservation; it in no way regulates how people can
develop their land, but transfers the full cost from
Federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose to
build.
13.23
The Comp Plan Update references the establishment of
Beth
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
the CBRS Act in 1982, and does not to reference the
Ramsay-
Included
Reauthorization of the Act in 2000 which codified the
Vickrey
in 13.3
criteria for determining the developed (or
214113
"undeveloped") status of an area for purposes of
Inclusion under the Act.
13.24
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
Beth
$0.
YES
Included in 133
with the suggestion to: ADD the (following) legal
Ramsay-
Included
definition of "developed" for purposes of application of
Vickrey
in 13.3
the CBRS Act and any local overlay, as is so noted in
2J4113
the CBRS ACT reauthorization of 2000, page 18,
reference 6.
http:liwww.fws.gov/habitatconservation/CBRA Digital_
Mapping Pilot Proiect.pdf)
"47 FR 35708: "A density threshold of roughly one
structure per five acres of fastland is used for
categorizing a coastal barrier as developed... All or part
of a coastal barrier will be considered developed, even
when there is less than one structure per five acres of
fastland, if there Is a full complement of infrastructure in
place ... A full complement of infrastructure requires that
there be vehicle access to each lot or building site plus
reasonable availability of a water supply, a waste water
disposal system, and electrical service to each lot or
building site."
"50 FR 8700 states "A man-made structure is defined as
a walled and roofed building constructed In
conformance with Federal, State, or local legal
requirements, with a projected ground area exceeding
two hundred square feet." This criterion is codified in
P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2, where a structure is defined as "a
walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid
storage tank, which Is principally above ground and
affixed to a permanent foundation; and covers an area
of at least 200 square feet."
6of12
13.25
Precedent:
Sheila
$0.
YES
Included in 13.3
We need to keep in mind that any additional permitted
Mullins
2J8113
Included
in 13.3
development or intensification of a current use on
coastal barrier islands will set a precedent that may
prove to be costly and indefensible In court should it
appear that there was "spot zoning" or other
irregularities.
13.26
Review infrastructure expansion in areas designated as a
Alicia Putney
$22,280
NO
No Name Key has
CBRS unit and evaluate whether allowing infrastructure
representing
unique community
expansion would change the community character in any of
Solar
character that
the areas that are designated CBRS units or where
Community @
needs to be
infrastructure would run through other areas to a CBRS units.
BOCC
addressed — see
meeting
13.29.
13.27
What non-CBRS policies in the Comp Plan will help
Kandy
$0. See
YES
While staff
protect No Name Key's community character as an off —
Kimble
Item
believes this
grid island if the CBRS policies in the Comp Plan are
2/8/13
13.29
evaluation
removed?
below.
should be of all
CBRS land,
because the
Comprehensive
Plan applies to
all CBRS land,
13.28
What non-CBRS ordinances in the Monroe County Code
Kandy
$0. See
YES
the only known
will protect No Name Key's community character as off-
Kimble
Item
area with unique
grid if the CBRS overlay ordinance is weakened or
2/8/13
13.29
character within
removed?
below,
CBRS land is No
Name Key with
Its off -grid non.
electrified
community.
13.29
List the aspects of community character that could
Putney/
$2,400
YES
Items 13.27 and
change on No Name Key if the island were to be brought
Kimble
13,28 reworded
onto the electric grid (visual effects, noise, etc),
comments
by K&S.
Qualitatively identify whether these aspects would likely
reworded by
have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on community
K&S 2112113
character,
13.30
Historically, how have the LDRs and the development review
Solar
$0.
NO
This is related to a
process enhanced community character of low energy
Community of
included
different
consumption residences and off -grid residences in low-
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.26
topic1question: low
density natural areas within the Florida Keys? (i.e. energy
energy/off-grid
conservation elements in design, acquisition areas, etc.)
residences.
7of12
13.31
Historically, how have the LDRs and the development review
Solar
$0.
NO
Included in other
process protected the natural resources of CBRS units? (i.e.
Community of
included
items.
Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC),
NNK 218/13
in 13.26
threatened/endangered species, infrastructure availability,
platted infill bonuses, CBRS, acquisition areas, off -grid,
energy consumption elements, etc.)
13.32
How is the Year 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan land
Solar
$6,320
NO
This is related to a
use determinant "enhancement of community character"
Community of
different
being implemented today?
NNK 2/8/13
topic/question:
implementation of
LCP/CP/LDR.
13.33
What data and analysis was used to justify the various
Solar
$6,040
YES
This relates to
changes in the ROGO and NROGO, which served to
Community
the protections
weaken the Code regarding the existing level of
of NNK
the LDC
protection of Community Character and Coastal Barrier
218113
provides via
Resources System units within the County, with the
CBRS versus the
adoption of the Tier System in 2007?
Tier System,
13.34
What data and analysis could be used to justify changing the
Solar
$0.
NO
Outcome of data
Comp Plan or the Code regarding the current level of
Community of
included
will determine
protection of Community Character and Coastal Barrier
NNK 218/13
in 13.26
Resources System units within the County?
13.35
Protect Community Character: The No Name Key Solar
Sheila Mullins
$0.
NO
This is specific to
Community and its unique character need to be nurtured and
2/8/13
Included
No Name Key.
protected. This community is living an ideal to which we can
in 13.26
all aspire, the reduction of our carbon footprint.
13.36
Carrying Capacity: In 1998 or 1999 the Army Corps of
Sheila Mullins
$0.
NO
Will not affect the
Engineers did an exhaustive Carrying Capacity Study. I think
218/13
Included
evaluation of
this study should be referenced in any decision making
in 13.26
CBRS policies.
process because in the time that has elapsed since the
study, things have gotten worse, not better, from a
development standpoint.
8of12
13.37
1 see many consequences to the environment if any
Anne Press
$0.
NO
There is not a
additional changes are made.
2/4/13
Included
specific data task
The concerns I have are as follows:
in 13.26
for this item.
1. The Florida Keys has developed quickly over the last
century and trends are to encourage further development
without responsible consideration to study the impacts to our
native plants, wildlife and people's additional construction
development over this time period.
2. The build environment impacts the natural habitat for
plants and animals by effecting their fragile ecosystems.
These changes cause plants to be destroyed and animals to
loss their food supply. Often times our fragile natural water
supply systems is changed forever because of water runoff
and tidal currents which carry sedimentation and pollution out
to sea.
3. Additional human construction causes additional traffic,
safety concerns because of limited road availability to include
hurricane evacuation. The death toll for our protected species
would go up along with humans and our native plants would
be compromised.
4. The Federal programs that are in place as of 2012 would
be compromised because the county is making decisions
without all governmental departments working with the
process for additional direction to new modifications on the
Land comprehensive plan and the LDR polices regarding the
CBRS plan now in place.
5. Any building construction effects water quality. Our bridges
and roads and buildings create the ground to becoming
impervious. The water is running back into the ocean without
the natural filtering effect of the land. The results are long
lasting and degrading to water quality.
In conclusion, do not change what is in place regarding the
land comprehensive plan other Governmental agencies need
to be involved and plan studying on cause and effect for
years to adjust our present plan. Making this land
comprehensive change can jeopardize the future of the
Florida Keys.
13.38
I have had my home on No Name Key for 20 years. In that
Anthony
$0.
NO
This is specific to
time the Comp Plan has helped protect the nature of No
Harlacher
Included
No Name Key.
Name Key. The character of No Name is very special. We
218/13
in 13.26
are only here for a moment in time, so why change the
character forever? Solar can provide all the power any of us
need without adding to global warming or our rising sea
levels. The mistake of some who bought on No Name Key,
knowing that there was no power, should not be corrected by
changing the Comp Plan.
9of12
13.39
Determine whether the availability of infrastructure
Naja Girard
$5,680
YES
Evaluates how
increases potential of development desirability in an
representing
Infrastructure
area that current does not have infrastructure.
Last Stand @
impacts CBRS
BOCC
land.
meeting
13.40
Evaluate the definition of "development" and determine
Bart Smith @
$2,840
YES
Affects whether
whether it Includes infrastructure (water, sewer, roads,
BOCC
policies are
electric, cable, telephone), thereby being an
meeting
applicable to
improvement requiring County permitting or compliance
utilities.
with County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Policy
13.41
Review and determine any potential impacts associated with
Beth Ramsay-
$1,640
NO
Included in 13.39
the suggestion to: Remove all references to utility
Vidvey 2/4/13
companies, or utilities as being development, in the CBRS
sections of the Comp Plan and LDR's.
13.42
Determine whether the FWS issued coordination letter with
Alicia Putney
$1,640
NO
A letter from
the Electric Company indicates no further review under
representing
Suzanne Hutton
County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code is
Solar
to Keys Energy
necessary relative to environmental impacts of extension of
Community @
Services, dated
utilities to or through CBRS areas.
BOCC
April 29, 2010
meeting.
(Exhibit A), states
that the County
does not need to
issue permits for
placement of
utilities in the
right-of-way. A
letter from FWS
dated August 10,
2011 (Exhibit B),
also covers this
issue.
13.43
Determine whether Chapter 163.3194 Florida Statutes "(b)
Joyce
$6,240
NO
This is a legal
All land development regulations enacted or amended shall
Newman @
question that our
be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.....
BOCC
attorneys have
During the interim period when the provisions of the most
meeting
studied and are
recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion
prepared to
thereof, and the land development regulations are
answer.
inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently adopted
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall
govern any action taken in regard to an application for a
development order." voids the County portion of the Land
Development Regulations which 'prohibits" utility extension
"to or through" CBRS units, when the County Comprehensive
Plan "discourages' utility companies from expanding
infrastructure in CBRS areas.
13.44
What is the basis, both legal and non -legal, for amending the
Kandy Kimble
$1,640
NO
Outcome of data
CBRS policies and the CBRS Overlay ordinance now? What
218/13
will determine.
is the justification for a change now?
10 of 12
13.45
What are the advantages of modifying the existing policies
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
NO
Outcome of data
and regulations regarding CBRS units in Monroe County?
2/8/13
will determine.
What will be gained by a change now?
13.46
What has changed since 1996 that would justify a
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
NO
Outcome of data
modification of the CBRS policies in the Monroe County
2/8/13
will determine.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
13.47
What has changed since 2001 that would justify a
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
NO
Outcome of data
modification of the CBRS Overlay ordinance in the Monroe
2/8/13
will determine.
County Code?
13.48
History of CBRS federal legislation including the date of
Last Stand
$1,640
NO
This request is
enactment and a description of the justification for the Act,
2/8/13 Naja
related to the
and a summary of data and analysis leading to the Act
Girard
CBRA passed by
(human life, property damage, environment) as well as how
the Federal
the Act is implemented to affect development of properties
Government,
within CBRS units.
which is still in
effect, and which
the County does
not regulate.
13.49
Comprehensive history of Monroe County legislation
Last Stand
$4,480
YES
Evaluates the
pertaining specifically to CBRS units. Include date of
218/13 Naja
protections the
enactment and description of each particular Comp Plan
Girard
Comp Plan and
provision and LDR. Include a description and history of
Code provide via
how CBRS properties have been treated by the County in
CBRS policies
the ROGO point system, NROGO point system and the
compared to
Tier System, including all pertinent changes to those
other policies
laws from the version In place at the time of enactment
such as the Tier
to the current version and how each of those laws was
System.
Implemented to have an effect on development of
properties within CBRS units,
13.50
Comprehensive accounting showing history of the number
Last Stand
$26,600
NO
Necessary data
and type of development permits issued annually to
2/8/13 Naja
covered by 13.3.
properties within CBRS units (including those which would
Girard
Full audit of
require infrastructure to pass through a CBRS unit). Begin
permits is not
three to five years prior to the date that the federal Act was
necessary for
adopted (November 16, 1992) and continue to present.
these purposes.
Show data indexed by CBRS unit number and indicate the
year when each type of infrastructure became available, if
infrastructure is present for each CBRS Unit number
11 of 12
13.51
Resource Protection
Sheila Mullins
$26,160
NO
The County is
Study what regulations and definitions regarding the Coastal
218113
taking on this type
of analysis and
Barrier Resource System need to be in place to maintain or
research as part
increase the protection which the barrier islands provide to
of the process to
the Keys in the face of climate change, rising water levels,
create the newEnergy
and storm surge.
and
The Comp Plan should PROHIBIT rather than
Climate Element
DISCOURAGE any development on coastal barrier islands. it
in the
would be in our interest to compare our regulations with
Comprehensive
those which other coastal communities are now considering
Plan.
since the advent of Hurricane Sandy.
Our mangroves and barrier islands need increased protection
and not to be compromised by any further development.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
COST SUMMARY
Total Cost of All Proposed items (BOCC and All Public Requested)
$148,260
Items Requested by BOCC on 12/12/2012
$16,760
All Additional Items Requested by the Public
$131,500
Total Cost of Items Recommended by Growth Management Staff
$16,760 (BOCC) + $23,840 (Staff Recommended Additional Items)
$40,600
Exhibit A — Letter from Suzanne Hutton (Monroe
Energy Services), dated April 29, 2010.
Exhibit B — Letter from Spencer Simon (US Fish
Putney, dated August 10, 2011.
County Attorney) to Lynne Tejeda (Keys
and Wildlife Service) to Alicia Roemmele-
12 of 12
OUNTY�MONROE EKEY WEST i10A DA 3W40
(305)294.4441
Swtanne A. Hutton, County Attorney**
Robert B. Shillinger. Chief Assistant County Attorney •
Pedro J. Mercado. Aasiatent County Attorney ••
Susan M. (kinnley, Assis=L County Aluwxy ••
Natilecrte W. Cassel, Assinvu County Artomey
Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County Attorney
Christine UnAwA-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney
Derek V. Howard. Assiomf County Attorney
Lisa Granger, Assistant Counly Attorney
`• Bard Cenilied in City. County R Local GoYL LA,
April 29, 2010
Lynne Tejeda
Keys Energy Services
1001 James Street
PO Box 6100
Key West, Fl. 33040-6100
RE: No Name Key
Dear Ms. Tejeda:
Exhibit A
Mayor Sylr4a 1 Murphy, Dis AU 5
14WW Tern Heather On ftington, Disvict ICamrtl+as oistrxt 3
GWW 1ldrgent, D1sW 2
Marto DI Gennaro, DQ&t 4
Oitke of the County Attorney
1111 12" $treat. Suite 40S
Key West, FL 33W
(305) 292-3470 — Phone
(305) 292.3516 — Fax
On March 11, 2010, you emailed me that KES had opened bids on the No Name Key project, and was
analyzing the bids as well as the FWS letter (of January 20, 2010]. You asked if the County was
reviewing the issue raised by FWS in Comatent 06 of that letter, particularly the last sentence, i.e.
"Based on our preliminary review, we believe the extension of electrical service to No Name Key is
inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan." You asked the following two
questions:
a) Does the County interpret "discourages the extension of utilities" as "prohibits the extension of
utilities?" and
b) Who determines a projects consistency with the plan and what is the process for such a
determination?
The short answers to those questions are: (a) no, with respect to the Monroe County Comprehensive
Land Use Plan [hereinafter "Comp Plan"], although there is a IWW development code provision, Sec.
130-122, MCC, which prohibits extension or expansion of utilities in a CBRS overlay district, which
raises a question re permitting of individual homes, discussed later in this letter, and (b) the County has
no authority for determining consistency of placement of utilitieR in or on established rights -of -way with
the Comp Plan as the County does not issue development permits within a right-of-way j hereafter
"ROW"]. Further explanations of the answers follow.
NNK Ext, Electric
Issue re Consistency with Comp Plan
There remains for the County additional questions regarding the permitting of connections of individual
Properties to the utilities, in light of a separate land use regulation, which questions are still under review
and being researched. However, it has been over a month since you raised the issues re the Comp plan,
and the legal and Growth Management administrative staffs have concluded that review and discussion.
Comp Plan Policy 102.8.5 states:
"Monroe County shall initiate efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services by the Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone service to CBRS units.
These efforts shall include providing each of the utility providers with:
1. a map of the areas of Momne County which are included in the CBRS units;
2. a copy of the Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System
published by the U.S. Department of the interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group, which
specifies restrictions to federally subsidized development in CBRS units;
3. Monroe County policies regarding local efforts to discourage both private and public
investment in CBRS units."
Attempts in 2008 to amend that policy to reduce the scope of the policy to undeveloped properties
within the CBRS and to clarify the related land use regulation failed upon a DCA appeal of the County
Commission action.
Accordingly, the County is still dealing with provisions which were in place in the late 1990's when
various County officials wrote letter. about the inconsistency between the Comp Plan and extension of
utilities to No Name Key, a great deal, but not all, of which is in the CBRS. However, none of those
letters address the definition in Section 380.04(3xb) excluding from the term "development:"
"Work by any utility and other persons engaged In the distribution or transmission of gas,
electricity, or water, for tfie purpose of Inspecting, repairing, renewing, or constructing on
established rights -of -way any sewers, mains, pipes, cables, utlUty tunnels, power lines, towers,
poles, tracks, or the like. This provision conveys no property interest and does not eliminate any
applicable notice requirements to affected land owners.
Electricity was added to the sub -section by Ch. 2002-20, S. 94, Laws of Florida,, as well as Ch. 2002-
296, S. 29. Under this statute, the County clearly has no authority to issue permits for, or otherwise
regulate, the installation or construction of electric utility litres on the established ROWS. Accordingly,
notwithstanding prior interpretations of the Comp Plan Policy 102.8.5, it is clear that the County acts
solely as a messenger with respect to public or private utilities and can do no more than "discourage"
activity by informing utilities as to the boundaries of CBRS units, federal policies against subsidizing
development in CBRS units, and the County's discouragement of public or private investment in CBRS
units. The County has no regulatory authority under Ch. 390, F.S., over the placement of utilities in the
ROW. Any County regulatory authority over the ROWS exists pursuant to Ch. 316 (re traffic control)
and Ch. 336, F.S. (re construction & improvements, maintenance, closing and abandoning of county
roads). Since the installation of utility lines in or on the ROW is not deemed development by state
statute, the County's Comp Plan Policy 102.8.5 cannot be deemed to be a prohibition, but only that
which it specifies — discouragement.
This conclusion then moots out the question as to who determines consistency with respect to the issue
of installing the utility lines in the right-of-way.
NNK Exi. Electric
issue re Consistency with Comp Plan 2
You may find it useful to review the various orders in the case of
Name Key,Inc. et al v Monroe C'o11nty Pr al,yers for the Electrification of No
Case No. 99 819-CA-18. They are somewhat difficult to
follow due to amendments and vacations, but it appears brat the July 12, 2002 order and find' ngs were resurrected by the 6/13/03 vacation of the Amended Order Granting Summary Judgmenttherein
6/11/2003 nuns pro tune 6/11/2002 & which had amended the 2002 order) and the entries ofthe6✓13/2003 order vacating the amended order and the Final Summary Judgment. The case of City of
Ovie n v i-Inrl. 699 Sa.2d 316 (FLa In DCA 19974 seems to be right on point in holding the PSC had
to consider the Comp Plan but was not bound by it.
Since the County does not have authority to regulate as development the installation of utilities in the
ROW, and since, as the January 20, 2010 letter from DVS notes, the Big Pine Key Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) excludes extension of utilities to No Name Key and ttte associated Incidental Take permit
(ITP), if the proposed extension has any impact to the silver rice rat, Stock island tree snail, Gerber's
spurge, the County believes that would have to be addressed through a separate 1TP issued to KES, as
determined by FWS. Similarly, any mitigation required as a result of the proposed electric installation
would not be the County's responsibility.
As previously mentioned, Buse still remains a question as to the effect � � regulation in Monroe
County Code section 130-122 and whether that will require that the Catnty deny permits for the
connections to the individual buildings on private property twat covered by the land use
rcguWions. As soon art we react a definitive conclusion, I will advise you.
Sincerely,
A. nttoa
County Auerney
Cc:
County Commissioners
Roman Gastesi
Christine Hurley
Susan Grimsley
Derek Howard
Bob Shillinger
Townley Schwab
Dale Finigan
Paul Souza
Anne Morkill
Jim Reynolds
Rebecca Jetton
NNK Est. McCtrk
Issue re Comiuttncy with Comp Plan
Exhibit B
a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
South Florida Ecological Services Office
Rq 0 pep 1339 20'' Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
August 10, 2011
Alicia Roemmele-Putney
President
The Solar Community of No Name Key
1934 No Name Drive
No Name Key, Florida 33043
Service Federal Activity Code: 41420-2011-CPA-0269
Date Received: December 10, 2010
County: Monroe
Dear Ms. Roemmele-Putney:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 2010, regarding the extension of new infrastructure
into No Name Key Unit FL-50 of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).
Your letter references the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) October 15, 2010, letter to
Keys Energy Services (KEYS), the local utility company proposing to extend electrical service
to No Name Key and your concern that the Service's letter is being used as a justification for the
local government to no longer discourage the extension of new infrastructure into the CBRS
units in Monroe County. Our October letter was issued in response to a biological assessment
and other information submitted by KEYS related to the Endangered Species Act. However, it
did not address the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or whether or not the proposed
project is consistent with CBRA.
Your letter contains several questions concerning the CBRA consistency consultation process.
Section 6 of CBRA states "the appropriate Federal officer, after consultation with the Secretary,
may make Federal expenditures and may make financial assistance available" within the CBRS
for certain exceptions. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated the consultation
responsibilities under CBRA to the Service. The Federal agency proposing to spend funds
within the CBRS is responsible for submitting a formal consultation request to the Service in
writing. The Service is then responsible for providing technical information and comments on
the question of consistency with CBRA. The final determination on whether the Section 6
exception applies rests with the consulting Federal agency, not the Service.
The Service receives inquiries from local communities and other interested parties seeking
information about whether Federal funds can be obtained for specific projects within the CBRS.
The information provided in response to such requests does not replace the CBRA consultation
requirements for Federal agencies that propose spending funds within the CBRS. The Service
engages in formal CBRA consultations only with other Federal agencies proposing to spend
funds within the CBRS. To date, the Service has not received a request from any Federal
TAKE PRIDE®
INAMERICA
Alicia Roemmele-Putney Page 2
agencies for a CBRA consultation concerning the proposed project to extend electrical service to
CBRS Unit FL-50.
Your letter states that KEYS purchases electricity from Florida Power and Light (FPL) and owns
jointly with the Florida Keys Electric Cooperative (FKEC) the transmission line from Florida
City to Key West, Florida. You also indicate FPL and FKEC are active borrowers of Federal
dollars; specifically that FPL receives Federal money for its Turkey Point nuclear energy plant
and FPL received Federal stimulus dollars in 2009. Your letter contains questions about whether
utilities receiving Federal dollars can extend and supply electrical service to and through a CBRS
unit.
Section 5(a)(1) of CBRA generally prohibits new Federal expenditures and financial assistance
for any purpose within the CBRS, including expenditures or financial assistance for "the
construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or related infrastructure," which
would apply to electrical service. Areas that are excluded from the CBRS (including the
"excluded" area within Unit FL-50) are not subject to CBRA's prohibitions on Federal
expenditures and financial assistance. However, areas located within the CBRS, including those
areas located within Unit FL-50, are subject to CBRA's prohibitions on Federal expenditures and
financial assistance. Section 5 also prohibits Federal funding of activities outside the CBRS that
have purposes within the CBRS. CBRA, however, does not prevent private or State or local
governments from funding such activities within the CBRS.
It is our understanding KEYS has not used any Federal funds to construct the substation or
distribution system that would be used to provide electrical service to No Name Key and does
not intend to use Federal funds to construct the No Name Key electrical extension. However, in
order to comment on whether power that is transmitted by a federally funded utility can be
extended to and through a CBRS unit, we would need specific information regarding how the
utility is using the Federal funds it receives (e.g., are the Federal funds for general operating
expenses or for a particular project that is unrelated to the provision of power to No Name Key).
Such an information exchange normally happens as part of a CBRA consistency consultation
between the Service and the Federal agency proposing to fund a particular activity within the
CBRS.
Your letter also asks whether Federal funds can be used to improve a bridge (including
improvements to the structure of a bridge to facilitate electrical transmission lines to and through
a CBRS unit), to repair or replace power transmission lines and poles, or to improve roadways
within a CBRS unit. Section 5(a)(2) of CBRA generally prohibits new Federal expenditures and
financial assistance for any purpose within the CBRS, including expenditures or financial
assistance for "the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility, or other
facility on or bridge or causeway to, any System unit." There are two exceptions in Section 6 of
CBRA that could potentially be applicable to bridge, road, or electrical infrastructure projects,
depending on the nature of the project. The two exceptions are:
Alicia Roemmele-Putney
Page 3
• "The maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of
publicly operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential links in a larger network
or system." [Section 6(a)(3)], and
"Maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion (except with
respect to United States route 1 in the Florida Keys), of publicly owned or publicly
operated roads, structures, and facilities" if the project is consistent with the purposes of
CBRA, which are to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal
Revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources." [Section
6(a)(6)(F)]
Once again, the Federal agency that proposes spending funds within the CBRS is responsible for
consulting with the Service and describing how the project is consistent with CBRA. In order to
determine whether a specific road, bridge or electrical infrastructure project meets an exception
to the prohibitions of the CBRA, we would need specific information about the proposed project
from the Federal agency proposing to fund the project.
Your letter asks whether Federal funds can be used for clean-up, repair or replacement of
damaged transmission lines and power poles within a CBRS unit after a hurricane. CBRA
contains an exception for "[a]ssistance for emergency actions essential to the saving of lives and
the protection of property and the public health and safety, if such actions are performed
pursuant to sections 5170a, 5170b, and 5192 of title 42 and section 1362 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4103) and are limited to actions that are necessary to alleviate
the emergency" (16 U.S.C. 3505) and the action or project is consistent with the purposes of
CBRA (i.e., minimize the loss of human life, wasteful Federal expenditures, and damage to fish
and wildlife resources). The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster assistance
regulations related to CBRA are found in 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart J.
Your letter asks whether loans from banks that are federally insured can be used for the
construction and installation of electrical service to homes that are within the excluded area of
Unit FL-50 or that are within Unit FL-50. Section (3)(3) of CBRA defines financial assistance
as "any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance, payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of
direct or indirect Federal assistance," other than certain specified exceptions. One of the
specified exceptions in Section 3(3)(A) of CBRA is deposit or account insurance for customers
of banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, or similar institutions.
Your letter contains questions concerning how the provisions of CBRA are enforced including
who is responsible for oversight and enforcement. CBRA assigns responsibilities associated
with the administration of the CBRS to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), who has delegated
these responsibilities to the Service. Compliance with the prohibitions of CBRA rests with the
Federal funding agency. Section 14 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-591)
requires that each Federal agency affected by CBRA certify annually to the Secretary that it is in
compliance with the provisions of CBRA.
Alicia Roemmele-Putney
Page 4
Your last question asks what the repercussions are if actions that are inconsistent with CBRA are
taken by a private party or local government. CBRA prohibits most new Federal expenditures
and financial assistance that have the effect of encouraging development, including Federal flood
insurance, within the CBRS. This expenditure limitation does not prohibit private financial
transactions or the construction of facilities and structures with private funds or funds provided
by state and local governments.
This response has been coordinated with our regional and Washington Offices. The information
provided in this letter is intended to assist you in understanding the provisions of CBRA and the
potential implications for Federal financial assistance. Please note the information contained in
this letter in no way replaces the CBRA consultation requirements for Federal agencies that
propose spending funds within the CBRS.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Craig Aubrey at 772-469-4309
Sincerely yours,
Spencer Simon
Acting Field Supervisor
South Florida Ecological Services Office
cc: electronic only
Service, Arlington, Virginia (Kristy Hatch)
Service, Atlanta, Georgia (Cynthia Bohn)
Service, Big Pine Key, Florida (Anne Morkill)
EIGHTH AMENDMENT
to
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
with
KEITH AND SCHNARS, P.A.
This Eighth Amendment (Amendment) to the Contract for Professional Services dated
December 16, 2009 between Monroe County (County) and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
(Consultant) is made and entered into this 26th day of February, 2013,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Consultant was retained to update the County's Comprehensive Plan
Technical Document (Phase 1), complete an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of
the Comprehensive Plan (Phase II) , complete Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
(Phase III) and EAR based Land Development Code amendments (Phase IV) over a
four year period; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested an amendment to the Contract to determine
whether the County's existing Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) policies add
any additional protection to land over and above those policies and code provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that:
Section 1. The scope of services relevant to Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS)
listed on Exhibit D: "Additional Services" of the contract shall be established and
incorporated into this Amendment.
• Under PHASE If — EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, add a new
task:
TASK 13, COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS —
K&S will perform the tasks agreed to by both parties in Exhibit D to the
Contract. Evidence of both parties' agreement to have K&S perform a
particular task is the presence of initials by both K&S and the County
Mayor in the appropriate designated section of the table contained in
Exhibit D.
Consultants Fee for this task will be as outlined on Exhibit D of the Contract. Only
those items that are initialed by both the County and Keith and Schnars, P.A. will
be considered to be valid portions of the Eighth Amendment to the Contract. The
fees for each item initialed by both the County and Keith and Schnars, P.A is
contained on a line item basis in Exhibit D and those fees are expressly agreed
to and accepted by both parties upon both initialing Exhibit D and executing this
Eighth Amendment to the Contract for Professional Services.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Eighth Amendment,
ATTEST:
AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK
Clerk of the Court
Witness
Witness
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mayor George Neugent
KEITH AND SCHNARS, P.A.
Michael L. Davis, Vice President
Date
MO ROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
A P O ED A8 1S3 FORM:
l
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Date 2 -,22 - / S
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
PHASE I -TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
TASK 1-PROJECT INITIATION
1.1 K&S Team will meet with the project managers from the County to review
work tasks and the project schedule, establish reporting relationships and
review expectations of the project. The development of the Public
Involvement Plan (PIP) will also be discussed at this meeting, including: key
issues, audiences, communication materials, communication venues, and the
County/K&S roles, including how comments will be managed; and the key
messages that need to be communicated in all communication materials.
1.2 K&S will initiate data collection, including a data gap analysis. County staff
will work with K&S to identify and gather the necessary data.
1.3 K&S will develop a database of information or resources, including source
and status.
1.4 K&S will, in coordination with the County, identify stakeholders and potential
candidates for interviews; develop an Intergovernmental Coordination Plan
(ICP) and Public Involvement Plan (PIP); and, establish the project website.
The PIP will address public participation/input and include a media outreach
plan relating to the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, the Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and the
development of the revised Land Development Code.
Based on the meeting in Task 1.1 above, K&S will prepare strategies for
identified audiences and phases.
A draft public participation plan will be prepared for County review. K&S will
support the County staff to present the public participation plan at the
Planning Commission and the BOCC briefings, noted in Tasks 2.2 and 2.3.
Following County review, and teleconference coordination as needed, a final
public involvement plan will be prepared.
The ICP will identify the applicable agencies and other jurisdictional bodies
as stakeholders and establish the primary contact and/or board members. It
will also identify the appropriate stages of the process in which they will be
engaged and how they will be notified.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agenda;
• Kickoff meeting between County and K&S;
• Detailed Project Schedule;
• Information data base, updated throughout Phase 1;
• ICP;
• PIP;
• Written meeting summary; and
• Establish project website.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 1 Task 1........................................ $ 72,090.00
TASK 2 -MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
2.1 For the duration of Phase I, K&S will participate in up to two (2) meetings per
month, either in person or via telephone, with County staff to discuss the
statusof the project and to solicit comments and feedback.
2.2 K&S will provide one briefing of the BOCC during Phase 1.
2.3 K&S will provide one briefing of the Planning Commission during Phase 1.
2.4 K&S will maintain and update the project website monthly, at a minimum.
2.S K&S will conduct one (1) general public/stakeholder outreach event
/program during Phase I.
This outreach event shall include a presentation at three locations, to be
determined at a later date with County input. As part of Task 1.4, K&S will
establish a specific event strategy that will include a Commissioner greeting
and comments at each location; County and K&S staff will be available to
discuss the upcoming activities, take feedback and answer questions.
2.6 K&S will prepare monthly project progress reports.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Meeting participation;
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summaries;
• Update project website;
P
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
General public/stakeholder outreach event; and
Monthly progress reports.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 1 Task 2................................................$ 65,560.00
TASK 3 — DRAFT UPDATED DOCUMENT
3.1 K&S will analyze existing conditions to update the Comprehensive Plan
components listed below:
• Population and Housing;
• Community Facilities and Services, including the Public Education and the
Public Health Systems;
• The Capital Improvement Program;
• Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater and Potable and Reclaimed Water
Services;
• Transportation, including Ports and Aviation services;
• Land Use;
• Planning Areas and the Areas of County Critical Concern;
• Coastal Management and Natural Resources;
• Economics and Employment; and
• Historic Structures and Sites.
The analysis will determine trends that are emerging; the suitability of
existing land use regulations, relevant growth management laws and rules,
public/private facilities and services to meet the changing needs of the
population; and, where public and/or private initiatives will be necessary to
maintain and improve services and facilities. This task shall involve an
examination of the intergovernmental organizations that the County
participates in with regard to regional affairs. The analysis will also identify
and evaluate the consistency among and between local plans, studies and
ordinances, as identified in Task 1.
3.2 K&S will prepare a Draft Technical Document, updated to the 2010-2030
planning period, meeting the requirements of 9J-5 F.A.C., Chapter 163.3177,
F.S. and Chapter 380.F.S. for each element. The Technical Document will
establish the appropriate level of standard for each service/infrastructure
and; will identify the projected needs, based upon population projections and
level of service standards, in five (5) year increments throughout the
planning period.
3
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
K&S will retain the same element headings and subheadings, as may be
appropriate, within the existing Technical Document, and will include those
that may be required by Statue or Rule in order to be current and consistent
with new requirements.
3.3 K&S will conduct up to two (2) meetings with County staff to review the Draft
Technical Document. These expanded meetings will be a part of the regular
bimonthly meetings identified in Task 2.1.
3.4 K&S will organize and participate in one (1) County/DCA joint workshop to
review the draft Technical Document noted in Task 3.2, above.
3.5 K&S will participate in one (1) public presentation with the Planning
Commission (LPA) to review the Draft Technical Document.
3.6 K&S will participate in one (1) public presentation with the BOCC to review
the Draft Technical Document,
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Draft Technical Document (20 copies with 1 electronic file);
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
• Written meeting summaries;
• One full size (11"x 17") and one reduced copy (85'x11") of each map; and
• All text, tables, charts, and maps provided in digital format. Mapping shall
be prepared in a format compatible with the County's GIS.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Task 3....................................................$ 214,730.00
TASK 4 - FINAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
4.1 Utilizing the results from Tasks above, K&S will prepare a Final "2010-2030
Technical Document". This document is the basis for the remaining phases of
the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the future Comprehensive
Plan update.
4.2 Prior to the presentation of the Final Technical Document to the BOCC in
Task 4.3 below, K&S will submit the material to the DCA for a Courtesy
Review.
4
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
4.3 K&S will participate in one (1) public presentation of the Final Technical
Document before the BOCC.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
• Written documentation of Commission direction items;
• DCA Courtesy Review;
• Final Technical Document Update (20 copies with 1 electronic file);
• One full size (11"x 17") and one reduced copy (8.5"x11") of each map; and
• All text, tables, charts, and maps provided in digital format. Mapping shall
be prepared in a format compatible with the County's GIS.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 1 Task 4................................................$ 40,460.00
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE I .............................................. $ 392,840.00
Optional Services (not included in total)
Additional Public Outreach Events: K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the County, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each event shall not exceed................................$9,960.00
Other Meetings/Hearings as Coordinated by the CountX K&S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meeting/hearing shall not exceed............ $3,760.00
5
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
PHASE II - EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR)
TASK 1- ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The purpose of the public information workshops will be to discuss and receive
public input on the key local "major" planning issues that will be addressed in the
EAR.
1.1. K&S will meet with key County staff and officials to gather input on major
issues affecting the County.
1.2. K&S will coordinate and conduct three (3) public workshops, and prepare
presentation and handout materials for the workshops, which may include
comment sheets, descriptions of the EAR process, and mounted aerials.
1.3. For the duration of Phase II, K&S will participate in up to two (2) meetings
per month, either in person or via telephone, with County staff to discuss the
status of the project and to solicit comments and feedback (Originally 30 staff
meetings scheduled; addition of 10 staff meetings; for a total of 40 staff
meetings). This subtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the
retainage clause in Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services
between the County and K&S.
1.4. K&S shall conduct other coordination efforts to include meetings with
elected officials, appointed officials, County staff, and other government
agencies, including the DCA.
1.5. K&S will update the project website monthly, at a minimum. Progress
reports shall include details of website updates completed every month. This
subtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainage clause in
Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services between the County and
K&S.
Tasks 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting participation;
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summaries;
• Information data base, updated throughout Phase 2;
• Updated project website;
• Public involvement materials such as comment sheets and handouts
outlining the EAR process;
6
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
• Presentation materials for workshops (e.g. PowerPoint presentation,
mounted aerials);
• An issues matrix providing details on the identified major issues; and
• Monthly progress reports.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase II Task I ....................................$ 145,735.00
TASK 2- INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING AND COMPILATION REPORT
Interagency coordination is a critical component to the success of the EAR process.
Agencies that are part of the coordination effort during this Task (and throughout
the process) will include, but not be limited to: adjacent municipalities; FDOT,
SFRPC, N.A.S. - Key West, SFWMD, Monroe County Public Schools, FKAA, National
Park Service, the DCA, and other agencies identified by County staff.
2.1 K&S will coordinate and conduct an interagency scoping meeting with adjacent
local jurisdictions and State, regional and county agencies to receive their
input on the key issues that have been identified, and to identify additional
issues that should be addressed. In addition, this meeting will serve as an
opportunity to identify and collect the data that needs to be received from
these agencies in order to conduct the EAR.
2.2 K&S will prepare a compilation report that summarizes all issues identified for
further research and updating. This report will be submitted to the County for
review and consideration.
2.3 After County approval, the compilation report will be provided to DCA in order
to receive a Letter of Understanding. Any and/or all of the issues identified in
this task will be addressed in the EAR document (see Task 5).
Tasks 2 Deliverables:
• Meeting participation;
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summaries;
• Presentation materials for workshops (e.g. PowerPoint presentation,
mounted aerials);
• An Issue Compilation Report, composed of: a Scope of Work that outlines
the identified major issues, and the manner in which these issues and the
other EAR statutory requirements, will be addressed;
• An issues matrix providing further details on the identified major issues;
• Monthly progress reports.
7
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task 2.......................................$ 14,260.00
TASK 3 - REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
3.1 K&S shall perform a comprehensive review on an element -by -element basis
of the Comprehensive Plan in order to identify successes or shortcomings in
achieving the County's goals, objectives and policies and identify
goals, objectives and policies with old dates or out dated tasks.
Task 3 Deliverable:
• A report summarizing, in tables and text, progress in achieving the
Comprehensive Plan's objectives since the date of the last EAR and goals,
objectives and policies which include old dates or outdated tasks . This
report is not intended to be a stand-alone document, but will be
incorporated as a Chapter in the draft EAR (see Task 5 Deliverable).
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task 3.......................................$ 17,560.00
TASK 4- PUBLIC MEETINGS
4.1 The K&S Team will conduct one (1) presentation to the Planning Commission
to obtain feedback on the report generated during Task 3.
4.2 The K&S Team will conduct one (1) presentation to the BOCC. This
presentation will provide the BOCC with a "report card" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Task 4 Deliverable:
• Meeting agendas, if necessary;
• Meeting participation; and
• Written documentation of Commission and BOCC direction.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task 4..........................................$ 16,520.00
TASK 5 - DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF EAR
The purpose of this Task is to develop and prepare, in coordination with County
staff, an EAR (an evaluation and appraisal of the 2010 Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan).
8
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
5.1 The issues identified in Tasks 1 and 2 will be: described, analyzed, and,
evaluated by K&S for potential social, economic, and environmental impacts.
5.2 Along with the statutory requirements, K&S shall prepare a series of
Comprehensive Plan amendment recommendations to address these issues.
5.3 In addition, the EAR prepared by K&S shall include:
• Description of the process used to ensure public participation;
• Updated population estimates;
• Changes in Land Area;
1. Vacant land for future development
2. Demands of growth on infrastructure
3. Location of development, including infill and redevelopment needs
• Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)/Property Rights Assessment;
• List of changes needed in the comprehensive plan due to changes in State
law, in particular HB 7207, and the results of the Element by Element
Assessment and an analysis of the major issues; and
• Other issues as may be required by County staff.
5.4 K&S will organize and attend two (2) meetings of the Planning Commission
(LPA) on the EAR for the purpose of obtaining comments on the EAR. One
(1) Planning Commission meeting to present the 1st portion of the EAR and
one (1) Planning Commission to present the 2nd portion of the EAR.
5.5 K&S will organize and attend two (2) meetings of the BOCC on the EAR for
the purpose of obtaining comments on the EAR. One (1) BOCC meeting to
present the 1st portion of the EAR and one (1) BOCC to present the 2nd
portion of the EAR.
Tasks 1 through 5.3 will result in the development of the EAR. This draft will
be submitted electronically to the County for preliminary staff review. Any
comments or suggestions received from the scoping meeting, the public
meetings, the Planning Commission and BOCC meetings noted in Tasks 5.4
and 5.5 will be addressed prior to K&S submitting the final version (see
Deliverable section below) of the EAR to Monroe County. The final version
will be submitted to the BOCC for adoption as data and analysis for potential
comprehensive plan amendments and for submission to the state planning
agency and appropriate agencies, as data and analysis when transmitting
proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
E
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Task 5 Deliverable:
• Meeting agendas;
• Presentation materials;
• Meeting participation;
• Written summary of PC and BOCC direction;
• 1 electronic copy of the EAR for preliminary internal staff review; and
• 1 electronic copy and 20 hard copies of the EAR for the Planning
Commission and BOCC meetings noted in Tasks 5.4 and 5.5.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task 5.....................................$ 47,460.00
TASK 6 - FINAL PUBLIC MEETING ON EAR
6.1 K&S will organize, attend and coordinate one (1) adoption meeting before
the BOCC.
The purpose of the BOCC hearing is to adopt the EAR.
Task 6 Deliverables:
• Meeting and hearing agenda coordination;
• Presentation materials;
• Meeting participation; and
• 1 electronic copy of the EAR and 20 hard copies of the Final EAR for the
BOCC adoption hearing in Task 6.1.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task 6...............................$ 5,400.00
TASKS 7 and OPTIONAL TASKS 8, 9, 10, and 11 were deleted by the 4th
AMENDMENT to the SCOPE OF WORK (Exhibit A) on AUGUST 17, 2011.
TASK 12 - MILITARY COMPATIBILITY COORDINATION
12.1 K&S shall provide support to the County's Environmental Impact Study
Oversight Committee (EIS Committee) and for all activities related to NASKW
for NEPA issues affecting the County. This includes participation in EIS
Committee meetings or other meetings as authorized by County. This
support will be provided primarily by K&S Vice President Michael L. Davis.
10
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Consultant's Fee for this Subtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed $215.00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
County's request
12.2 K&S shall assist the BOCC, County Administrator and the EIS Committee in
the review and preparation of comments in response to two Draft (DEIS) and
two Final EIS (FEIS) documents published by the Navy that potentially affect
the County. This may include organizing the County's review and comment
response team and drafting the official County response to Navy NEPA
documents. Consultant shall provide copies of all documents to County.
Consultant's Fee for this Subtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed $215.00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
County's request
12.3 K&S may use sub -consultants as appropriate to collect and analyze data from
the DEIS and FEIS. Specifically, K&S will utilize a sub -consultant to collect
and/or review noise data, including noise monitoring at various County
owned locations which may include: Stock Island, Rockland, Big Coppitt,
Shark Key, and/or Key Haven, as applicable to the 2007 AICUZ, review of the
Navy EIS, and/or EAR. Consultant shall provide a copy(ies) of any data and
analysis report from a sub consultant and one electronic copy.
Consultants Fee for this Subtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed $235.00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
County's request
12.4 US as requested by the BOCC or County Administrator shall represent the
County with State and Federal agencies in matters relating to the draft and
final EIS documents or other Navy NEPA documents that potentially affect
the County. K&S will attend a Navy Public Hearings concerning these
documents, as authorized by and at the County's request.
Consultant's Fee for this Subtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed $215.00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
County's request
12.5 Work performed under this Task (Task 12) shall not be subject to contract
provisions in Section 4.2 and are to be paid monthly with no retainage.
11
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
12.6 The parties acknowledge that this task is not shown on Exhibit B and will
exceed the time frame for Phase II.
Task 12 fees shall not exceed Ninety Six Thousand Dollars ($96,000.00) and
are not included in the Lump Sum Phase II total.
The hourly fees include Consultant's expenses and reimbursables other than
the deliverables (materials) stated above. Travel outside of the state of
Florida shall be reimbursed according to County policy and ordinance
governing travel.
TASK 13 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
:' U11IMPITINTIMM #76 1 1
►_ 1 : u 1' 1 '
Consultants Fee for
this task
will be as outlined on Exhibit D
of
the Contract
Only those items
that are initialed
by both the County and Keith
and Schnars
P.A. will be considered
to be
valid portions of the Eighth Amendment
to the
Contract. The fees
for each item
initialed by both the County
and
Keith and
Schnars P.A is contained
on a
line item basis in Exhibit D and
those
fees are
expressly agreed
to and accepted
by both parties upon both
initialing
Exhibit
D and executinE
this Eighth
Amendment to —the Contract
for
Professional
Services,
Task 13 fees are not included in the Lump Sum Phase II total or in the Total
Lump Sum Fee for the entire contract.
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE II.....................................................$246,935.00
Additional Public Outreach Events: K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the County, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each event shall not exceed................................$9,960.00
Other Meetings/Hearings as Coordinated �,ty v the Coun• K&S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meeting/hearing shall not exceed ............ $3,760.00
IF,
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
PHASE III -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2010-2030
TASK 1 - PHASE III KICKOFF
1.1 K&S will meet with the project managers from the County to review work tasks
and project schedule, and establish expectations of Phase III.
1.2 K&S will update the Public Involvement Plan (PIP).
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
• Written meeting summary; and
• Updated PIP.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 111 Task 1.............................................$ 5,580.00
TASK 2 - MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
2.1 K&S will participate and coordinate meetings (in person and telephonically)
with County staff up to two times per month for the duration of Phase III. This
subtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainage clause in
Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services between the County and
K&S.
2.2 K&S will participate and coordinate (a total of 4 hours) meetings with the state
land planning agency during its informal and formal review process
(telephonic).
2.3 K&S will update the project website monthly, at a minimum. Progress reports
shall include details of website updates completed every month. This subtask
is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainage clause in Section 4.2 of
the Contract for Professional Services the Monroe County and K&S.
Tasks 2 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting and public event participation;
• Written meeting and public event summaries, including the state land
planning agency recommendations and comments;
13
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
• Information data base, updated throughout Phase 3;
• General public/stakeholder outreach events; and
• Updated project website.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase III Task 2........................................$ 87,567.00
TASK 3 - PREPARATION OF DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
3.1 Utilizing the recommendations contained within the EAR; and input gathered
through the public involvement process and preliminary meetings with the
state land planning agency, K&S will draft amendments to the Plan to
implement the goals of the County, that meets the requirements of Chapter
380 and Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S., and Rule 28-20 F.A.C., and all other
applicable studies or plans. During the drafting process, K&S will work
closely with County staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of County
Commissioners, the state land planning agency, and other agencies as
necessary, to assure that the amendments are acceptable and to work
through issues prior to submission of the final amendments.
3.2 K&S will provide additional amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Policy
Document based upon the updated Technical Document and any impending
statutory requirements; and shall delete any goals, objectives and policies
which are out-of-date or no longer applicable.
3.3 K&S will participate and coordinate three (3) meetings with the
Development Review Committee (DRC) to review the draft amendments.
These expanded meetings will be a part of the regular bimonthly meetings
identified in Task 2.1.
3.4 K&S will coordinate and participate in three (3) meetings before the Planning
Commission to review the draft amendments.
Task 3 Deliverable:
• DRC meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
• Comment Response Form documenting comments and direction from the
Planning Commission and DRC; and
• 20 copies and 1 digital file, in draft ordinance and strikethrough and
underlined format, of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Such amendments shall include those based upon the results of the
Evaluation and Appraisal report, the updated Technical Document;
14
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
impending statutory requirements; and, the deletion of, or revision to, any
goals, objectives and policies which are out-of-date or no longer applicable;
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 1l1 Task 3...........................................$ 57,062.00
TASK 4 - PREPARATION OF FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
4.1 Incorporating the comments and feedback received on the draft amendments
during Tasks 2 and 3, US will develop a final set of amendments in
underline-strikethrough to be reviewed during the public hearing process by
the Planning Commission (LPA) and the BOCC during both the transmittal
and adoption hearing process.
4.2 US will participate and coordinate one (1) public hearing before the
Planning Commission (LPA).
4.3 K&S will participate and coordinate two (2) public hearings before the Board
of County Commissioners for the review, transmittal and adoption of the
amendments to the reviewing agencies pursuant to 163.3184 (b)(1)(2) F.S.
Task 4 Deliverable:
• Hearings participation;
• Comment Response Form documenting the direction from the hearings
before the LPA and the BOCC;
• 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments in Final Ordinance and strikethrough and underlined format
which incorporates recommendations received from the LPA during Task
4.2.
• 35 (15 for distribution to agencies identified under Ch. 163, F.S., and 20
copies for Monroe County use) copies and 1 digital file of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Final Ordinance and strikethrough
and underlined format for transmittal.
Agency and municipality comments are due to the County within 30 days
after receipt of a complete comprehensive plan transmittal package. Such
comments will be forwarded by the County to the state land planning agency
no later than 30 days after receipt of the complete transmittal package by the
state land planning agency.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 111 Task 4.......................................$ 32,015.00
15
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
TASK 5 - FOLLOW-UP AND MODIFICATION
5.1 K&S will analyze the state land planning agency response in its Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report to the transmittal of the
Plan amendments and, shall prepare a written response to each item.
5.2 If necessary, K&S shall make the necessary adjustments or modifications at
the direction of the County and will be provided in underline-strikethrough
format. K&S will participate and coordinate a public hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners for the adoption of the amendments, as specified in
Subtask 4.3.
Task 5 Deliverables:
Written response to the ORC addressing each item; and
35 copies (15 for distribution to agencies identified under Ch. 163, F.S., and
20 copies for Monroe County use) and 1 digital file of the final
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, in strikethrough and underline format,
for adoption and enactment.
1 digital file and 20 tabbed copies (for Monroe County use only), without
strikethrough and underline, of all of the goals, objectives and policies of
the complete "2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan".
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 111 Task 5.........................................$ 39,555.00
TASK 6, Mining Regulations Consultation-K&S will summarize existing State
regulations (FDEP and SFWMD) regarding mining. K&S will compare the
County Comprehensive Plan policies and land development code to the
State regulations with the goal of identifying potential deficiencies in the
County Comprehensive Plan policies and land development code. K&S will
provide recommendations on how to reconcile differences between the
Comprehensive Plan (CP) and the Land Development Code (LDC). K&S will
provide recommendations on how to improve the CP and LDCs with
respect to mining operations, including minimum permitting requirements
for mines and the minimum legal requirements for remediation and
restoration after a mine is officially abandoned. K&S will participate in up
to three (3) teleconferences with County staff. Scope does not include
developing an inventory of existing or abandoned mines. The update to the
CP policies and LDC to address mining permitting and reclamation
determined through this consultation will be completed based upon
existing contract provisions and fees in Phase III and Phase IV.
16
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Consultants Fee for this task will be a lump sum...............................$7,500.00
Task 6 lump sum shall not exceed Seven thousand Five hundred dollars ($7,500.00)
and is not included in the Total Lump Sum Fee for Phase 111 total.
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE III ..............................................$ 221,779.00
Note: If further proceedings are necessary (e.g., mediation, litigation), it is
anticipated that K&S will be available, pursuant to an amendment to this contract, to
provide additional services.
Optional Services (not included in total)
Additional Public Outreach Events: K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the County, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each event shall not exceed................................$9,960.00
Other MeetingsfHearings as Coordinated by the CounOL K&S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meeting/hearing shall not exceed ............ $3,760.00
17
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
PHASE IV - REVISED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING
AMENDMENTS REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TASK 1 - PHASE IV KICKOFF
1.1 K&S will meet with the project managers from the County to review work tasks
and project schedule, and establish expectations of Phase IV.
1.2 K&S will update the Public Involvement Plan (PIP).
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summary; and
• Updated PIP
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 1...........................................$ 14,535.00
TASK 2 - AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 K&S shall prepare a report that will include recommended revisions and
amendments to create LDCs based on existing code, Comprehensive Plan and
Florida law. The results of this analysis will establish the focus for drafting
the new land development code. The draft Recommendations and Revisions
Report (R&R Report) shall be provided in electronic form to the County staff
for review and input. The final report shall incorporate the input received
during Task 2.2, below. K&S will submit twenty (20) hard copies and one (1)
digital file of the final R&R Report for PC and BOCC review.
2.2 K&S will conduct up to two (2) meetings with County staff to review and
provide input on the Recommendations and Revisions Report generated in
Task 2.1, above
2.3 K&S will coordinate up to two (2) presentations before the Planning
Commission to obtain input on the issues and recommendations identified in
Task 2.1.
2.4 K&S will coordinate one (1) presentation before the Board of County
Commissioners to obtain input on the issues and recommendations
identified in Task 2.1.
Task 2 Deliverable:
18
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
• Meetings agendas, as necessary;
• Meetings participation;
• Presentation materials;
• Comment Response Form documenting comments and direction received
from County staff, the Planning Commission and the BOCC; and
• Recommendations and Revisions Analysis Report (20 copies and 2
electronic files).
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 2...........................................$ $52,304.00
TASK 3 — MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3.1 For the duration of Phase IV, K&S will participate in up to two (2) meetings
per month (for up to a total of 14 meetings), either in person or via
telephone, with County staff to discuss the status of the project and to solicit
comments and feedback. This subtask is an ongoing activity and is not
subject to the retainage clause in Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional
Services between the County and K&S.
3.2 K&S will participate in one (1) general public outreach event/program
during Phase IV.
3.3 K&S will update the project website monthly, at a minimum. Progress
reports shall include details of website updates completed every month. This
subtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainage clause in
Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services between the County and
K&S.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summaries;
• Monthly progress reports;
• General public outreach event; and
• Project website update.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 3...........................................$56,871.00
TASK 4 - PREPARATION OF DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
19
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
4.1 Utilizing the results of the Tasks 2 and input gathered through the
community involvement process and scoping and review meetings with
County staff, K&S will prepare amendments to the County's LDCs. The
regulations shall be reorganized to unify the various requirements and
consolidate subject matter into a user-friendly, simple to administer and
enforce, land development code that will implement the adopted
Comprehensive Plan; the EAR.; Chapter 380 and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.;
and Rule 28-20 F.A.C; and conform with other applicable studies and plans.
4.2 During the drafting process, K&S will work closely with County Staff, the
Planning Commission, the Development Review Committee (DRC), the BOCC,
the state land planning agency and other agencies as necessary, to assure
that the amendments are acceptable and to work through issues prior to
submission to the County of the final amendments.
4.3 K&S will coordinate three (3) presentations before the DRC to review and
discuss the draft amendments as noted in Task 4.1
4.4 Subsequent to the DRC meetings, K&S will coordinate one meeting with the
DEO to review and discuss the draft amendments as noted in Task 4.1
Task 4 Deliverable:
Comment Response Form documenting the comments received during the
DRC presentations and the state land planning agency Informal Review
• 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 4........................................$ 90,892.00
TASK 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOCC HEARINGS/ INITIAL REVISIONS
5.1 K&S will present and provide an overview of the planning and regulatory
documents prepared in Task 4 at up to three (3) public hearings of the Planning
Commission; solicit the comments of the Commission members; and, develop a list
of the concerns and suggestions provided at the meetings. K&S will coordinate with
the County regarding public notice of the meetings.
5.2 K&S will present and provide an overview of the planning and regulatory
documents prepared in Task 4 at up to three (3) public hearings of the Board of
County Commissioners; solicit the comments of the Commission members; and,
develop a list of the concerns and suggestions provided at the meetings. K&S will
coordinate with the County regarding public notice of the meetings.
20
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Task 5 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas, as necessary;
• Presentation materials;
• 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments, incorporating
direction received at the Planning Commission hearings during Task 5.1;
and
• Comment Response Form documenting the comments received during the
PC and BOCC presentations.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 5........................................... $ 18,328.00
TASK 6 - FINAL DRAFT ORDINANCES
6.1 Based on the comments provided in Task 5, K&S will prepare a final draft of
the proposed LDC amendments.
Task 6 Deliverable:
• 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 6...........................................$ 24,960.00
TASK 7 - PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 K&S shall present the final land development code at a one (1) public hearing
before the Planning Commission and two (2) public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners for adoption and enactment.
Task 7 Deliverables:
• Hearing participation;
• Presentation materials; and
• Comment Response Form documenting comments and direction received
from the PC and the BOCC at the public hearings.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task 7........................................... $ 8,664.00
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE IV ..............................................$ 266,554.00
Note: If further proceedings are necessary (e.g., mediation, litigation), it is
anticipated that K&S will be available, pursuant to an amendment to this contract, to
provide additional services.
21
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, December 19, 2012
Optional Services (not included in total)
Additional Public Outreach Events: K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the County, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each event shall not exceed................................$9,960.00
Other Meetinas/Hearings as Coordinated by the County• K&S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meeting/hearing shall not exceed............ $3,760.00
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE...................................................................$ 1,128,108.00
22
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
EXHIBIT D
Eighth Amendment
To Contract for professional services
With Keith and Schnars, P.A.
TASK 13, COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
BOCC
K&S
Request
Approval
Agreement
Task 13
Original tasks
Source
Pricing
(initial
(initial
required)
required)
13.1
K&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of
Requested by
parcels within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS)
BOCC on
units that are designated Tier I or other Tiers such as: II, III,
12/12/12
or IIIA;
0
13.2
Using existing tier criteria, determine whether extension of
Requested by
f or tasks
for tasks
infrastructure to outlying neighborhoods or other platted
BOCC on
13.,
areas increases a parcel's likelihood of obtaining change in
12/12/12
13.2and
tier classification from Tier I to Tier 11, 111, or IIIA; and
13.3
combined
13.3
Review the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and/or
Requested by
Land Development Code provisions related to CBRS units
BOCC on
and determine whether the existing CBRS policies add any
12/12/12
additional protection to land over and above those policies
and code provisions that govern Tier 1 land.
Additional tasks requested at 1116113 BOCC Meeting by
Request
Pricing
Public Speakers, and subsequent public input
Source
13.4
How many lots and how much undeveloped acreage is
Deb Curlee
$6,720
within the CBRS areas
2/8113
Review and determine any potential impacts of referencing
Beth Ramsay -
the original 2010 Comp Plan Technical Document Table
Vickrey 2/4/13
3.21 as it relates to "undeveloped' CBRS units. Review and
provide a list of the current "undeveloped" areas within each
of the unincorporated County CBRS units, utilizing the term
"undeveloped' as defined within the Federal legislation for
CBRS units. Compare and contrast with original 2010
Comp Plan Technical Document Table 3.21 and provide a
summary.
13.5
Comprehensive accounting of parcels and acreage located
Last Stand
$2,400
in CBRS units in Monroe County (including areas that would
require new infrastructure to pass through a CBRS unit). To
2/8/13 Naja
Data to be
include: CBRS Unit #, Parcel RE #, size of parcel, Tier,
Girard
provided
FLUM, district, location within Monroe County, publicly or
by County
privately owned, vacant or developed, description of
existing development (single family, multi -family,
commercial, etc), type of infrastructure presently available
(electricity, water, sewer, telephone, cable) including date
the infrastructure was brought to the area.
1of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.6
An analysis of how the establishment of full infrastructure in
Last Stand
$0.
an area (under current laws) could affect the assigning of
2/8/13 Naja
Included
points in the ROGO and NROGO system and how it could
Girard
in 13.2
affect the Ter designation for properties in Monroe County.
13.7
How are the numerous CBRS Goals, Objectives and
Solar
$0.
Policies of the Comp Plan being implemented today?
Community of
Included
NNK 218113
in 13.3
13.8
Are there any disincentives to build in an area without
Solar
$0.
utilities beyond the designation/classification of Tier 1
Community of
Included
lands?
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.3
13.9
Is there any variation of protection of the CBRS units within
Solar
$0.
the Tier System without the CBRS Overlay ordinance?
Community of
Included
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.3
13.10
How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Goals
Solar
$0.
Objectives and Policies in the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Community of
Included
Land Use Plan were to be weakened or removed?
NNK 218/13
in 13.3
13.11
How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Overlay
Solar
$0.
Ordinance in the Monroe County Code were to be
Community of
Included
weakened or removed?
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.3
13.12
How can Monroe County remove CBRS Goals Objectives
Solar
$0.
and Policies from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and
Community of
Included
weaken or remove the prohibition in the Overlay Ordinance,
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.3
and continue to provide the same level of protection we
have had for CBRS units throughout Monroe County?
13.13
How are CBRS properties treated differently from other Tier
Joyce Newman
$0.
1 lands in the County?
2/8/13
Included
in 13.3
13.14
Does the Tier System provide for different levels of
Joyce Newman
$0.
protection for lands targeted for acquisition?
2/8/13
Included
in 13.3
13.15
Does the Tier System adequately implement the intent of
Joyce Newman
$0.
the Comp Plan with regard to lands within CBRS units?
2/8/13
Included
in 13.3
13.16
What protections currently exist for CBRS areas in the
Deb Cudee
$0.
Comp Plan and LDRs
218/13
Included
in 13.3
13.17
How protections for CBRS areas would change if those
Deb Cudee
$0.
lands were subject only to the Tier System
2/8/13
Included
in 13.3
2of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.18
Review and determine any potential impacts if all CBRS
Overlay policies and corresponding LDR language be
stricken entirely,
Beth Ramsay-
Uckrey 2/4/13
$0.
Included
in 13.3
13.19
What mechanisms are in place that discriminate between
Solar
$3,180
and accommodate variations in the level of environmental
Community of
sensitivity of Tier 1 lands? (i.e. ACCC,
NNK 2/8/13
threatened/endangered species, infrastructure availability,
platted infill bonuses, CBRS, acquisition areas, etc.) In
other words:
• How are CBRS properties treated differently from all other
Tier 1 lands in the County?
• How are lands targeted for acquisition treated differently
from all other Tier 1 lands in the County?
• How are off -grid areas treated differently within the Tier 1
system?
• Were the protections offered by the historic PAS lost with
the adoption of the Tier System?
13.20
Review and determine any potential impacts of adding the
Beth Ramsay-
$0.
term "undeveloped CBRS areas" to the Comp Plan and
Vickrey 2/4/13
Included
Code.
in 13.3
Example of suggested change: Add the word
UNDEVELOPED as so noted (highlighted) below: In
general, future development in the County should be
directed to the maximum extent possible away from the
UNDEVELOPED Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) units. This should be accomplished through land
use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and its
implementing LDRs. Other actions which the County should
take to discourage further private investment in
UNDEVELOPED CBRS units include
(1) no new bridges, causeways, paved roads or commercial
marinas should be permitted to or on UNDEVELOPED
CBRS units;
(2) shoreline hardening structures should not be permitted
along shorelines of UNDEVELOPED CBRS units;
(3) public expenditures on UNDEVELOPED CBRS units
should be limited to property acquisition, restoration and
passive recreation facilities,
(4) privately -owned undeveloped land located within the
CBRS units should be considered for acquisition by the
County; and
(5) the County should coordinate with the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) and private providers of
electricity and telephone service to assess measures
which could be taken to discourage extension of
facilities and services to UNDEVELOPED CBRS units.
3of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.21
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
Beth Ramsay-
$0.
with the suggestion to: Add the following (below highlighted)
Vickrey 2/4/13
Included
CBRS Executive Summary statement, and direction (not to
in 13.3
harm existing communities), to all sections of the Comp
Plan which reference the CBRS Act so there is no future
confusion as to the exact Federal Intent of the Act
(undeveloped status was the underpinning of the law), and
the Federal direction regarding what actions the County
should NOT take (harming of existing communities).
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page 1,
Introduction
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservadon[TaxpayerSavingsf
romCBRA.pdf
"The undeveloped status of System lands was an
important underpinninq of the law. The idea was to help
steer new construction away from risky, environmentally
sensitive places where development was not yet found,
not to hurt existing communities where serious
commitments of time and money had already been
made.'
13.22
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
with the suggestion to: Add the following (below highlighted)
Beth Ramsay-
Vickrey 214/13
$0,
Included
statement, again from the CBRS executive Summary, Page
in 13.3
1, Introduction so as to further clarify the Federal intent of
the Act for the reader of the Comp Plan.
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page 1,
Introduction
hftp://www.fws.govlhabitatcon servaflon[TaxpayerSavingsf
romCBRA.pdf
The Act is the essence of free-market natural resource
conservation; it in no way regulates how people can
develop their land, but transfers the full cost from Federal
taxpayers to the individuals who choose to build.
13.23
The Comp Plan Update references the establishment of the Beth Ramsay-
$0.
CBRS Act in 1982, and does not to reference the Vickrey 2/4/13
Included
Reauthorization of the Act in 2000 which codified the criteria
in 13.3
for determining the developed (or "undeveloped") status of
an area for purposes of inclusion under the Act.
4of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.24
Review and determine any potential impacts associated Beth Ramsay-
$0.
with the suggestion to: ADD the (following) legal definition Vickrey 214113
Included
of "developed" for purposes of application of the CBRS Act
in 13.3
and any local overlay, as is so noted in the CBRS ACT
reauthorization of 2000, page 18, reference 6.
hHp:/1www.fws.gov/habitatconservaflon/CBRA Digital Map
ping Pilot Proiect.pdf)
'47 FR 3570R "A density threshold of roughly one structure i
per five acres of Eastland is used for categorizing a coastal
barrier as developed... All or part of a coastal barrier will be
considered developed, even when there is less than one
structure per five acres of fastland, if there is a full
complement of infrastructure in place ... A full complement
of infrastructure requires that there be vehicle access to
each lot or building site plus reasonable availability of a
water supply, a waste water disposal system, and electrical
service to each lot or building site.'
"50 FR 8700 states "A man-made structure is defined as a
walled and roofed building constructed in conformance with
Federal, State, or local legal requirements, with a projected
ground area exceeding two hundred square feet." This
criterion is codified in P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2 where a
structure is defined as "a walled and roofed building, other
than a gas or liquid storage tank, which is principally above
ground and affixed to a permanent foundation; and covers
an area of at least 200 square feet."
13.25
Precedent:
Sheila Mullins
$0.
We need to keep in mind that any additional permitted
2/8113
Includedin 13.3
development or intensification of a current use on coastal
barrier islands will set a precedent that may prove to be
costly and indefensible in court should it appear that there
was "spot zoning" or other irregularities.
13.26
Review infrastructure expansion in areas designated as a
Alicia Putney
$22,280
CBRS unit and evaluate whether allowing infrastructure
representing
expansion would change the community character in any of
Solar
the areas that are designated CBRS units or where
Community @
infrastructure would run through other areas to a CBRS
BOCC meeting
units.
13.27
What non-CBRS policies in the Comp Plan will help protect
Kandy Kimble
$0. See
No Name Key's community character as an off —grid island
2/8113
Item
if the CBRS policies in the Comp Plan are removed?
13.29
below.
5of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.28
What non-CBRS ordinances in the Monroe County Code
Kandy Kimble
$0. See
will protect No Name Key's community character as off -grid
218/13
Item
if the CBRS overlay ordinance is weakened or removed?
13.29
below.
13.29
List the aspects of community character that could change
Putney/ Kimble
$2,400
on No Name Key if the island were to be brought onto the
comments
electric grid (visual effects, noise, etc). Qualitatively
reworded by
identify whether these aspects would likely have a
K&S 2/22113
positive, negative, or neutral effect on community
character.
13.30
Historically, how have the LDRs and the development
Solar
$0.
review process enhanced community character of low
Community of
included
energy consumption residences and off -grid residences in
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.26
low -density natural areas within the Florida Keys? (i.e.
energy conservation elements in design, acquisition areas,
etc.)
13.31
Historically, how have the LDRs and the development
Solar
$0.
review process protected the natural resources of CBRS
Community of
included
units? (i.e. Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC),
NNK 2/8/13
in 13.26
threatened/endangered species, infrastructure availability,
platted infill bonuses, CBRS, acquisition areas, off -grid,
energy consumption elements, etc.)
13.32
How is the Year 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan land
Solar
$6,320
use determinant 'enhancement of community character"
Community of
being implemented today?
NNK 2/8/13
13.33
What data and analysis was used to justify the various
Solar
$6,040
changes in the ROGO and NROGO, which served to
Community of
weaken the Code regarding the existing level of protection
NNK 218/13
of Community Character and Coastal Barrier Resources
System units within the County, with the adoption of the Tier
System in 2007?
13.34
What data and analysis could be used to justify changing
Solar
$0.
the Comp Plan or the Code regarding the current level of
Community of
included
protection of Community Character and Coastal Barrier
NNK 218/13
in 13.26
Resources System units within the County?
13.35
Protect Community Character: The No Name Key Solar
Sheila Mullins
$0.
Community and its unique character need to be nurtured
2/8/13
Included
and protected. This community is living an ideal to which we
in 13.26
can all aspire, the reduction of our carbon footprint.
6of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.36
Carrying Capacity: In 1998 or 1999 the Army Corps of
Engineers did an exhaustive Carrying Capacity Study. 1
think this study should be referenced in any decision
making process because in the time that has elapsed since
the study, things have gotten worse, not better, from a
development standpoint.
Sheila Mullins
2/8/13
$0.
Included
in 13.26
13.37
1 see many consequences to the environment if any
Anne Press
$0.
additional changes are made.
2/4/13
Included
The concerns I have are as follows:
in 13.26
1. The Florida Keys has developed quickly over the last
century and trends are to encourage further development
without responsible consideration to study the impacts to
our native plants, wildlife and people's additional
construction development over this time period.
2. The build environment impacts the natural habitat for
plants and animals by effecting their fragile ecosystems.
These changes cause plants to be destroyed and animals
to loss their food supply. Often times our fragile natural
water supply systems is changed forever because of water
runoff and tidal currents which carry sedimentation and
pollution out to sea.
3. Additional human construction causes additional traffic ,
safety concerns because of limited road availability to
include hurricane evacuation. The death toll for our
protected species would go up along with humans and our
native plants would be compromised.
4. The Federal programs that are in place as of 2012 would
be compromised because the county is making decisions
without all governmental departments working with the
process for additional direction to new modifications on the
Land comprehensive plan and the LDR polices regarding
the CBRS plan now in place.
5. Any building construction effects water quality. Our
bridges and roads and buildings create the ground to
becoming impervious. The water is running back into the
ocean without the natural filtering effect of the land. The
results are long lasting and degrading to water quality.
In conclusion, do not change what is in place regarding the
land comprehensive plan other Governmental agencies
need to be involved and plan studying on cause and effect
for years to adjust our present plan. Making this land
comprehensive change can jeopardize the future of the
Florida Keys.
7of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.38
1 have had my home on No Name Key for 20 years. In that
Anthony
$0.
time the Comp Plan has helped protect the nature of No
Harlacher 2/8/13
Included
Name Key. The character of No Name is very special. We
in 13.26
are only here for a moment in time, so why change the
character forever? Solar can provide all the power any of
us need without adding to global warming or our rising sea
levels. The mistake of some who bought on No Name Key,
knowing that there was no power, should not be corrected
by changing the Comp Plan.
13.39
Determine whether the availability of infrastructure
Naja Girard
$5,680
increases potential of development desirability in an area
representing
that current does not have infrastructure.
Last Stand @
BOCC meeting
13.40
Evaluate the definition of "development" and determine
Bart Smith @
$2,840
whether it includes infrastructure (water, sewer, roads,
BOCC meeting
electric, cable, telephone), thereby being an improvement
requiring County permitting or compliance with County
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Policy
13.41
Review and determine any potential impacts associated
Beth Ramsay-
$1,640
with the suggestion to: Remove all references to utility
Vckrey 2/4/13
companies, or utilities as being development, in the CBRS
sections of the Comp Plan and LDR's.
13.42
Determine whether the FWS issued coordination letter with
Alicia Putney
$1,640
the Electric Company indicates no further review under
representing
County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code
Solar
is necessary relative to environmental impacts of extension
Community @
of utilities to or through CBRS areas.
BOCC meeting.
13.43
Determine whether Chapter 163,3194 Florida Statutes "(b)
Joyce Newman
$6,240
All land development regulations enacted or amended shall
@ BOCC
be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.....
meeting
During the interim period when the provisions of the most
recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, and the land development regulations are
inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently adopted
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall
govern any action taken in regard to an application for a
development order." voids the County portion of the Land
Development Regulations which "prohibits" utility extension
"to or through" CBRS units, when the County
Comprehensive Plan 'discourages" utility companies from
expanding infrastructure in CBRS areas.
8of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.44
What is the basis, both legal and non -legal, for amending
Kandy Kimble
$1,640
the CBRS policies and the CBRS Overlay ordinance now?
2/8/13
What is the justification for a change now?
13.45
What are the advantages of modifying the existing policies
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
and regulations regarding CBRS units in Monroe County?
2/8/13
What will be gained by a change now?
13.46
What has changed since 1996 that would justify a
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
modification of the CBRS policies in the Monroe County
2/8/13
Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
13,47
What has changed since 2001 that would justify a
Kandy Kimble
$1,200
modification of the CBRS Overlay ordinance in the Monroe
2/8/13
County Code?
13.48
History of CBRS federal legislation including the date of
Last Stand
$1,640
enactment and a description of the justification for the Act,
2/8/13 Naja
and a summary of data and analysis leading to the Act
Girard
(human life, property damage, environment) as well as how
the Act is implemented to affect development of properties
within CBRS units.
13.49
Comprehensive history of Monroe County legislation
Last Stand
$4,480
pertaining specifically to CBRS units. Include date of
2/8/13 Naja
enactment and description of each particular Comp Plan
Girard
provision and LDR. Include a description and history of how
CBRS properties have been treated by the County in the
ROGO point system, NROGO point system and the Tier
System, including all pertinent changes to those laws from
the version in place at the time of enactment to the current
version and how each of those laws was implemented to
have an effect on development of properties within CBRS
units.
13.50
Comprehensive accounting showing history of the number
Last Stand
$26,600
and type of development permits issued annually to
2/8/13 Naja
properties within CBRS units (including those which would
Girard
require infrastructure to pass through a CBRS unit). Begin
three to five years prior to the date that the federal Act was
adopted (November 16, 1992) and continue to present.
Show data indexed by CBRS unit number and indicate the
year when each type of infrastructure became available, if
infrastructure is present for each CBRS Unit number
9of10
Feb. 26, 2013 Special BOCC meeting
13.51
Resource Protection
Sheila Mullins
$26,160
Study what regulations and definitions regarding the
2/8/13
Coastal Barrier Resource System need to be in place to
maintain or increase the protection which the barrier islands
provide to the Keys in the face of climate change, rising
water levels, and storm surge.
The Comp Plan should PROHIBIT rather than
DISCOURAGE any development on coastal barrier islands.
It would be in our interest to compare our regulations with
those which other coastal communities are now considering
since the advent of Hurricane Sandy.
Our mangroves and barrier islands need increased
protection and not to be compromised by any further
development.
10 of 10
Solar Community of No Name Key
1934 No Name Drive
No Name Key, Florida 33043
Monroe County Board of County Commission Special Meeting
February 26, 2013 — Marathon, Florida
Agenda Item D-2
Dear Mayor Neugent and Fellow County Commissioners:
We would like to commend Keith & Schnars and members of the public for a doing such a
comprehensive job of outlining the questions that will help determine whether or not the
existing level of protections for CBRS lands will be decreased if amendments are made to the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County code.
Task 13.29 states:
"List the aspects of community character that could change on No Name Key if the
island were to be brought onto the electric grid (visual effects, noise, etc.) Qualitatively
identify whether these aspects would likely has a positive, negative, or neutral effect on
community character.
There are areas other than No Name Key that lie with CBRS units and are off -grid
communities with a unique community character based on the off -grid lifestyle and the
various elements of the habitat. One such example would be the north end of Big Torch Key,
which lies within CBRS unit FL-38.
Some of the elements of community character are mentioned in the scope of work such as
visual effects and noise. Other elements of off -grid communities within CBRS units are not.
We are wondering if there is any way that some of the elements of community character,
as described in the attached Planning Commission Resolution P17-1999, could be included in
the scope of work.
Elements mentioned in Resolution P17-199 include: Refuge setting, alternative energy
sources as a form of development, lifestyles based on conservation, rural setting, public
ownership, large expanses of undisturbed native lands, sensitive habitat, endangered plant
and animal species, low impact lifestyles, unique quality of life, etc.
Thank you for you interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alicia Roemmele-Putney, President
The Solar Community of No Name Key
8'72-8888
Attachments:
• Planning Commission Resolution P17-99, 8 pages.
RESOLUTION NO. P17-99
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
BY THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION OF
NO NAME KEY, INC., THEREBY UPHOLDING THE
POSITION OF THE COUNTY AS STATED BY THE
DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING 1N A LETTER OF
UNDERSTANDING, DATED MAY 13, 1998, WHICH
STATES THAT THE PLACEMENT OF ELECTRICAL
POWER LINES TO NO NAME KEY WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH CHAPTERS 163 AND 380 OF
FLORIDA STATUES, AS WELL AS WITH THE MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-43, Monroe County Code (MCC), states an applicant for
development approval may request a pre -application conference with the development
review coordinator to acquaint the participants with the requirements of these [Monroe
County Code] regulations and the views and concerns of the county; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, some owners of property on No Name Key, known
as "Taxpayers for Electricity", requested a pre -application conference in order to,
according to the application, discuss a development proposal for "the installation of
electrical service transmission lines from Big Pine Key to No Name Key to provide
electrical service to the already permitted and built single family homes on No Name
Key and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1998, a pre -application conference was held with the Monroe
County planning department's development review coordinator, the attorney for the
applicant, the court reporter for the applicant, and several No Name Key homeowners
and property owners; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-43, MCC, states that after a pre -application conference, the
applicant receives a "letter of understanding" signed by the director of planning that
sets forth the issues raised at the conference and states the county's position in regard
to those issues; and
WHEREAS, Timothy J. McGarry, AICP, Director of Planning for Monroe County, signed
such a letter on May 13, 1998, concluding that the proposed development is
inconsistent with both Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes and with the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and should therefore, be discouraged;
and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-521, MCC, allows affected property owners to appeal any
order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official within 30
days of such action; and
or
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1998, the Planning Department received
payment or f rican
administrative appeal of the letter of understanding from the Taxpayersty,
referred to as the appellants
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was noticed for
December 1, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1998, the Planning Department received the rest of the
application for the appeal containing the written basis for the appeal; and
red a
WHEREAS, the Planning Department
he Planninalyzed the Comm Commissionested dated appeal and November 23pa1998,
staff report and packet tand
recommending that the appeal be denied;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on December 1, 1998
and on February 3, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the appellants provided testimony and evidence along with arguments
made by their attorney, Mr. Frank Greenman, Esq.; and
WHEREAS, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power (represented
by Ms. Alicia Putney and her attorney, Mr. Richard Grosso, Esq. in absentia) were
granted legal standing on the basis that these residents are third party beneficiaries of
the decision under appeal; and
WHEREAS, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power provided
testimony and evidence alnEs iin aena
t arguments made by Ms. Alicia Putney and her
attorney, Mr. Richard Grosso,q
WHEREAS, Ms. Debra Harrison of World Wildlife Fund, was tendered as a planner and
an expert witness on Florida Keys land use, the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and
the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and provided testimony in support
of No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff presented evidence and provided expert
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after carefully considering all of the evidence
and testimony submitted by the appellants, the Planning Department staff, No Name
Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power, Ms. Debra Harrison and members
o
the public at the public kesethe following FINDINGS OFs, as well as the Ice of FACTtheir attorney,
th
Coller, Esq., hereby
1.) Based on the testimony of the Planning Department staff, the issue of the public
hearing was whether the May 13, 1998, letter of understanding accurately
concluded that, based on the requirements of Chapters 163 and 380, Florida
Statutes, and based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Plan, the placement of
electrical power lines on No Name Key should be discouraged.
2.) As a matter of law, it is the appellant's burden to provide evidence and testimony
that the conclusion reached in the letter of understanding is inaccurate and that
instead, the 2010 Plan does he t iscourage vis on of othe
mmercial electrical powerinfrastructure on No
Name Key and in particular, pro
Page 2 of 8
ment
roved
3.) Pursuant to Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes, dcomprehens comprehensive plan wheelocalthe
government is considered consistent
development and the timing
ofa thevcomment isive plantible with and furthers
the goals, objectives and policies
4.) As a matter of law, the Planning Department considered the original development
proposal and the appeal based on the overall goals, objectives and policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
come comprehensive plan, lo'as a the goalstter of objectives and
when
reviewing consistency withthe p
policies must be considered as a whole.
5,) Based on the testimony presented
nthewho,
bythe
Planning
eDepartment stseeks to lim and
increas g
Debra Harrison, the 2010
development expectations of vacant property owners throughout the County, in
part because developments already allowed by Monroe County have exceeded
the carrying capacity for nearshore water quality of the Keys, as reflected in part
by the Administrative Hearing Officer's Final Recommended Order.
6.) Based on the testimony of the Planning Department staff, Ms. Debra Harrison
and No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power the 2010 Plan
contains additional measures in its goals, objectives and policies to specifically
ensure that development and the expectation of development is directed away
from critical areas within the Monroe County. No Name Key, where the carrying
capacity of the Key Deer has also been exceeded, as reflected in part by the
Administrative Hearing Officer's Final Order, is one of those specific areas
according to the testimony Harrison and
a d evidence
Nameented Key by the Property nOw ening Drs partment
Against
staff, Ms. Debra
Commercial Power.
7.) The measures contained ishdirec directed that
from No Name Key fall in three areas
and that the
expectation of developmenti
as cited by the Planning Department's staff report:
1. Discourage public and private Resourcesstment Systemnd limitOb a tivev102 8,elomePolicy 102.8 1,
in the Coastal Barre
Policy 102.8.5, Goal 209; and
2. Discourage development that would adversely impact environmentally
sensitive lands: Policy 209.3, Goal 101, Objective 101.1, Goal 102, Objective
102.9, Policy 102.9.3, Goa! d 15, Objective 215.2, Policy 215.2.1, Objective
1301.7, Policy 1301.7.12; an
3. Discourage development that woPol Policy adversely 1� impact
cy 103 110, Goal 207,
Deer. Goal 103, Objective 103.1, y
Objective 207.7, Policy 207.7.1.
8.) According to the expert testimony of Ms. Debra Harrison, infrastructure availability
is often the basis for offering to a landowner the expectations that he may
develop. Based on the testimony of Ms. Debra Harrison, limiting infrastructure is 9
widely utilized mechanism for managing growth
owthpotential
63, and
d i Statu es the basis for the
concurrency management requirements pt
er 9.) According to the testimony of the No Name Key Property Owners Against
Commercial Power, limiting infrastructure is a widely used Growth Management
tool utilized by all local governments in Florida and by all levels of government. an
addition, they testified that !ur sdlction of the Coathis stal atis Barrher Resources e basis of theprohibition
on development under the j
Page 3 of 8
-Va)6-
10.) Policy 1301.7.12 of the 2010 Plan specifically requires that Monroe County assess
measures, which could be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities to
areas within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). In addition, Policy
102.8.5 of the comprehensive plan requires that Monroe County initiate efforts to
discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by private providers of
electricity to CBRS units.
11.) According to the Planning Department staff and as also evidenced in Department
of Interior and FEMA maps submitted by No Name Key Property Owners Against
Commercial Power, most of No Name Key, including areas to which appellants
desire commercial electricity, is within Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
FL-50 and therefore, has been under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (CBRA) and the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) since
October 24, 1990.
12.) While the appellants argued that the Coastal Barrier Resources Act does not
apply to them, they did not provide any evidence of this.
13.) While the appellants argue that Chapter 366, Florida Statutes, contains language
that requires Monroe County to allow for the provision of electricity, we find that
the language is specific only to the providers of electricity and not to Monroe
County. In addition, the language places no burden on local governments nor
does it negate the requirements of the County's comprehensive plan.
14.) The appellants argued that the Monroe County Building Code's requirement to
wire their homes with 110 VAC (volts alternating current) and the installation of a
weather head suggests that commercial electricity is going to be provided.
15.) Instead, we agree with the position espoused by the No Name Key Property
Owners Against Commercial Power and the Planning Department staff that
Monroe County's Electrical Codes are standard electric codes based on the need
for fire prevention and that they are necessary even for solar powered homes
which require 110 VAC wiring to run 110 VAC appliances such as full sized
refrigerators, washers and dryers, televisions, computers and power tools that are
used successfully in many of No Name Key's solar powered homes.
16.) Merely requiring all homes to provide for electrical service does not obligate the
County to approve the extension of commercial electricity to No Name Key. As a
matter of law, prior actions and services provided by Monroe County or any other
agency do not obligate Monroe County to provide electricity. In addition,
information provided in the packet demonstrates that the Planning Department
has consistently indicated that provision of commercial electricity would violate the
2010 Plan.
17.) The appellants argued that the County's Permit Allocation System for residential
development, or the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO), in combination with the
duties of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, National Marine
Sanctuary, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Florida Department of
Community Affairs, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, prohibited any future development on No Name Key. The
appellants indicated that the planning director's testimony supports this argument.
Page 4 of 8
18.) Instead, however, we find that the Permit Allocations System for residential
development, or the ROGO, was specifically crafted to ensure that development
was not prohibited and that opportunities for successful competition were made
available to all property owners. In addition, the appellants provided no evidence
of such governmental regulation by any of the aforementioned agencies
prohibiting development on No Name Key.
19.) The appellants argue that the lack of commercial power on No Name Key
diminished the value of the appellant's homes. Additionally, the appellants
testified there is no market for solar homes. However, at the time that all
appellants moved to No Name Key, the island had no commercial power. In
addition, according to Exhibit A, tendered by No Name Key Property Owners
Against Commercial Power, a majority of the appellants either moved to or built
their homes on No Name Key within the last four years.
20.) We find that the testimony regarding cost, health risk or potential environmental
degradation do not address or negate the 2010 Plan's current requirements nor
provides evidence that the conclusion reached in the letter of understanding was
inaccurate.
21.) We concur with No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power's
arguments that sustainable developments that utilize alternative energy sources
are a more appropriate form of development which aligns particularly well with the
Refuge setting, the unique character of No Name Key and the goals, objectives
and policies of the County's Year 2010 Land Use Plan and should be encouraged
by local governments. In addition, such developments fit in with Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes, which recognizes the need to move away from reliance on non-
renewable resources and that solar powered homes with cisterns should be
encouraged, not diminished.
22.) No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power and members of the
public testified that they moved to the island for the alternative lifestyle it offers
and that commercial power would adversely affect that lifestyle which can only be
found on No Name Key. They also argued that they had the most to lose in the
decision because of this, adding that many of them would not have bought or built
homes on No Name Key if commercially supplied power had existed on the island.
23.) No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power testified that they
enjoy living a life of conservation in solar powered homes and had built and
purchased their homes on the island to practice it, that the shared life style had
encouraged a close knit community and a sense of place.
24.) Planning Department staff, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial
Power and members of the public testified that the existing development patterns,
along with the minimal infrastructure, which lack both commercially supplied
electrical power and aqueduct supplied water, along with the rural setting and
public ownership of the lands in the National Key Deer Refuge makes the
character of No Name Key unique not only from a local perspective, but from a
national perspective, making the island a national treasure as well.
Page 5 of 8
25.) We find that as a matter of law, it is within the police power of Monroe County to
pass rules and regulations to protect areas with unique character and
circumstances. .
26.) As indicated by the 2010 Plan and based on the testimony of residents from the
island, No Name Key is a unique island in that it lies within a National Key Deer
Refuge. Large expanses of undisturbed native lands contain sensitive habitats
that are critical to many endangered plant and animal species, including the Key
Deer and provide a rural setting for the homes on the island.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW:
1. The appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof by showing that the
Planning Department reached the wrong conclusion in their letter of understanding.
2. The appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof by providing competent and
substantial evidence that contradicted the May 13, 1998, letter of understanding or
the conclusion reached therein. Appellants' testimony regarding cost, potential
health risks and potential environmental degradation was insufficient or irrelevant
given that it is the duty of this Board to make decisions based on the applicable laws
and regulations of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Land
Development Regulations.
3. Monroe County has consistently held, beginning prior to the adoption of the 1986
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and increasingly so with the adoption of the 2010
Plan, that future growth and the expectation to develop must be directed away from
No Name Key.
4. Infrastructure availability will increase the development expectations of the owners
of vacant land. The comprehensive plan specifically directs Monroe County to
assess measures that can be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities
to No Name Key. Therefore, supporting such an action through the approval of this
appeal would be a County action that is inconsistent with the 2010 Plan.
5. Planning Department staff, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial
Power, Ms. Debra Harrison, the appellants and members of the public provided
compelling testimony and evidence indicating that the extension of commercial
electricity to No Name Key would be yet an additional County action that would
increase the development expectations of property owners of vacant lots on an
island where the County is mandated by the comprehensive plan to decrease them.
6. The Planning Department accurately interpreted the overall goals of the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan in its letter of understanding of May 13,
1998, when it concluded that extension of electrical transmission lines to No Name
Key must be discouraged. The letter of understanding is an accurate interpretation
of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. There was no compelling
evidence presented by the appellant to contradict that interpretation. Increasing the
development expectations of vacant lot owners on No Name Key would be
inconsistent with the overall objectives of the comprehensive plan.
7. Testimony regarding the benefits of solar powered homes over generator powered
Page 6 of 8
home as an alternative energy source was compelling, but not relevant. All the
reasons appellants gave regarding potential negative environmental impacts and
potential health and safety concerns resulting from Monroe County not allowing
commercial power to No Name Key are a direct result of the appellants' choice to
use generated power rather than solar power. In addition, the testimony provided at
the hearing suggests that lifestyles that rely on alternative energy sources such as
renewable resources, should be encouraged. There is no risk to public health and
safety by limiting the extension of commercial power, given that other viable
alternatives exist.
8. It is not the direct impacts of commercially supplied power versus the direct impacts
of power supplied by fossil fuel generators on the Key Deer that are at issue, but
rather the secondary impacts associated with risk of increased development
expectations and the resulting vehicular trips and loss of habitat due to increased
development.
9. All of appellants moved to No Name Key with the knowledge that commercially
provided electricity was not available. These property owners have the ability to
move anywhere else in the Florida Keys in order to have such a service provided to
them. In contrast, other No Name Key property owners moved to the island
expressly because of the lifestyle that is offered to them there, including the fact that
infrastructure is minimal and commercial electricity is absent. The community
character of the island is unique, in part, due to the lack of commercial power and is
a special enclave in the Florida Keys that provides a unique quality of life that must
be nurtured, protected and prolonged.
10. The testimony provided at the hearing regarding the need to protect such
community character, was compelling in that granting the provision of commercial
power would degrade the unique character of No Name Key and those who chose
to move to the island stand to lose a unique and worthwhile lifestyle. Appellants
could move anywhere else in the Florida Keys to have commercial power, whereas,
those property owners who have successfully and knowingly adapted to the lifestyle
on No Name Key have no such choice. No Name Key is a unique island in the
Florida Keys and in the United States both because of its significant natural
resources and its unique character.
11. There is no constitutional right to electricity. There is a valid police power basis to
treat No Name Key differently than other areas in the Florida Keys due to the unique
conditions of the island with the presence of sensitive habitats critical to a variety of
endangered plant and animal species, including the Key Deer, the expansive
undeveloped areas as part of a National Key Deer Refuge, and the rural character
of the developed portions of the island that relies on renewable alternative energy
sources. It is the right of the legislature to provide different areas, which allow for
different lifestyles treated differently.
Page 7 of 8
12. While we find that there are valid reasons for requiring that all houses must meet the
standard electrical code, it may have been an oversight that No Name Key was not
exempted from the electrical code's specific requirement of a roof -top weather head.
This oversight in no way provides sufficient equitable or legal basis for overriding the
mandates of the Plan and the Land Development Regulations.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that the preceding findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law support its decision to DENY the administrative appeal by the Taxpayers for the
Electrification of No Name Key, Inc.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, at a
regular meeting of said Board held on the 3rd day of February, A.D. 1999.
Chair Gorsuch
Yes
Vice -Chair Mapes
Yes
Commissioner Aultman
l�o _
Commissioner Hill
No
Commissioner Stuart
Yes
Resolution passed by the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular
meeting of said Board held on the 3rd day of February, A.D. 1999.
By: --
Billy G rsuch, Chair
Signed this 16�day of Tj&6 , 1999
Page 8 of 8