Item J1
Hugh J. Morgan
James T Hendrick
Karen K. Cabanas
Robert Cintron., Jr.
LAW OFFICES
MORGAN & HENDRICK
317 WHTTEHF.AD STREET
KEy WEST, FLORIDA 33040
TELEPHONE 305.296.5676
FACSlMlLE 305.296.4331
37
w. Curry Harris
(1907~1988)
HilaJy U. Albury
(1920-1999)
FAX TRANSMISSION
TO: COMMISSIONER SONNY MCCOY
COMM rSSIONER GEORGE NEUGENT
MAYOR DlXlE SPEHAR
COMMJSSIONER DAVID RICE
MAYOR PRO TEM MURRAY NEJ~SON
RICHARD COLLINS, ESQ.
JIM ROBERTS
BELLE DESANTIS, CLERK'S OFFICE
TIM MCGARRY
FAX #: 292-3S77~
872-9195. ~
292-3466,,/ I.
289-630V....
852-7162~
292-3516 .//
292-4544-"
295-3663
289-2536
FROM: KAREN CA8ANAS, ESQ.
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2003
SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT LmGATION REpORT
TRANSM..rrl'ER:
Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 4
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT(S):
WILL NOT BE SENT
REGULAR
COMMENTS:
WILL BE SENT
OVERNIGHT
Our File # 161.01
l'he information eontlincd in this facsilIlile messagc i~ lltIDrnllY privileged and coDfklcrnial, inn:ocit:d onl)' for ~ uge of tht: individWll or entRy
natotd above. If the Teader of lhis message is nOt The intllnUt:U recip~lll, you arc bcrchy nolifil:d !bar any disscminal:ion, disttibudon or eopy ofdri.~
communicatloll is strictly pTohibit.:d. If you have received dW wmmuaicatiOIl in errOT, (llcuc immediately notify ug by td~OJie and remm till:
original message TO 1L~ at Thll above address VlA the U. S. Postal Service. IfyOll do not n:ccivll all pages, plcuc call back lIS soon as possible 305-
296-5676. The following is aur fax IlUn1j)eT 305-296-4331.
P.O. Box 1117, KevWEST, FL 33041 s TELEPHONE 305296-5676 !;i FACSIMILE 305296-4331
j.t
GROWTH MANAGEMENT LITIGATION REPORT
TO:
BOCC; Richard Collins; Tim McGarry; Jim Roberts
FROM:
Karen Cabanas
DATE:
November 14,2003
(This report will now set forth any new developments in underline font).
Vacation Rentals
Nenmont (Federal Class Action) - Federal class action case alleging vacation rental ordinance was
prematurely enforced, is an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs' properties, and was adopted in
violation of due process_ The Court has either dismissed or entered judgment in favor of Monroe
County on all counts. Awaiting entry of fmal order and resolution of motions for fee-shifting
sanctions relating to discovery. Plaintiffs have stated that they intend to appeal to the 11 th Circuit.
($77,878.75 as of October 31,2003).
Takin2s Claims
Galleon Bay - Two cases: Appeal of vested rights decision and taking claim. Awaiting ruling from
3rd DCA on vested. rights appeal. Taking case: As set forth in mv Drior letter. Judge Payne has
entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on liability. Case '.v)1l proceed with iury trial as to
damages_ County has filed Motion for Leave to File 3rd Party Comnlaint (against State of Florida)
and various discovery reQuests relating to damages. ($23,622.75 as of October 31,2003) (does not
include prior Galleon Bay matters).
Phelps/Hardin - Claim brought in federal court for due process and inverse condemnation based on
code enforcement proceedings that resulted in a lien on Plaintiffs' property. Federal court has
entered judgment in favor of Monroe County due to reinstatement of state cowt appeal of code
enforcement order. ($6,059.00 as of October 31, 2003).
Good - Seeking declaratory relief and takings claim for ~ 16 acre Sugarloaf Shores property due to
commercial moratorium which began January 4, 1996. County's motion to dismiss is being held in
abeyance until Plaintiff obtains a pre-application letter of understanding as to the level of
development that is permissible on each parccl ofproperty. ($9,780.00 as ofOctobcr 31, 2003).
Emmert - Complaint seeking inverse condemnation based on partial granting of Beneficial Use
application. Plaintiffs were granted partial beneficial use from wetland regulations, thus expanding
the buildable area oftheir vacant Ocean ReefIot from approximately 1,800 to 2,500 square feet.
However, Plaintiffs cannot build within this area due to Ocean Reef Association deed restrictions
requiring setbacks in excess of those required by Monroe County. Plaintiffs allege that Monroe
County's actions have resulted in a denial of all economic use of their property, despite expressly
allowing a 2,500 square foot buildable area. Monroe County's motion to dismiss was denied on
grounds that court has original jurisdiction over constitutional claims & cannot be bound by Hearing
Officer's findings. Parties are proceeding with discovery. ($2,957.50 as of October 31, 2003).
Kalan - Takings claim filed as to residential property in Cahill Pines & Palms subdivision for failure
to obtain ROGO allocation in 4 year period. Based on CountYs motion to dismiss. the parties have
agreed on entry' of an order holding the case in abeyance while Plaintiff seeks a beneficial use
detennination, as reouired to exhaust available administrative remedies and ripen the case for
iudicial review. ($22.50 as of October 31,2003).
Other Matters
Clay (Big Pine Moratorium) - Complaint filed against Monroe County alleging various claims
(takings, vested rights, etc.) based on the de facto building moratorium on Big Pine due to the traffic
level of service and concurrency mandate. Judgment was entet"ed in favor of Monroe County on
basis that concurrency is a state-imposed mandate, not a County regulation; also based on fact that
FDOT is responsible for upgrading U.S. 1, not Monroe County and issuance of any building permits
by Monroe County may vio late state concurrency and Endangered Species Act provisions. Plaintiffs
appealed to 3rd District Court of Appeals, which affumed the trial court's mling in favor of County.
Plaintiffs have filed with the Florida Supreme Court Tequesting it to accept jurisdiction over case
based on alleged conflict between 3d DCA's judgment and other DCA & U.S. Supreme Court
opinions on the issue of ripeness and futility. Jurisdictional briefs have been filed, awaiting ruling as
to whether Fla.S.Ct. will hear case. ($22,791.50 as of October 31,2003).
Ambrose - Declaratory action claiming vested rights under 9380.05(18) based on filing of
subdivision plats. Pursuant to summary judgment proceedings and his previous orders, Judge Payne
ordercd that Plaintiffs prove ownership ofa single Plaintiffs' lot so that legal issues maybe appealed
rather than spend extensive time in trial eourt litigating ownership issues as to each lot at issue.
Various environmental groups were also granted leave to intervene. Court entered final summary
judgment for approximately 75 Plaintiffs. Final Order has been entered by Court and all Defendants
have filed notices of appeal. Oral argument was held February 5, 2003. Awaiting roling.
($56,018.75 as of October 31,2003).
Industrial Communications & Electronics - Federal case alleging wiTeless tower moratoria were
unconstitutional on various grounds and violated Federal Telecommunications Act. Case was
dismissed by trial court based on claims being identical to those brought in state court action and
failure to reserve federal claims therein. Case is pending on appeal with 11 th Circuit. Filing of
County's brief has been extended to January 2. -pending confidential mediation discussions.
($3,915.00 as ofOetober 31, 2003).
Upper Keys Citizens Association ~ Appeal to Div. of Admin. Hearings of Planning Commission's
approval of North Key Largo sub-station for Fla.. Keys Electric Co-Gpo Hearing officer's ordet"
upholding planning Commission resolution was upheld, but Plaintiffs have filed further appeal to
circuit court. Oral argument took place on November 13; ruliug anticipated in 1-2 weeks.
($12,375.00 as ofOetober 31,2003).
2
Lawson - Appeal of Monroe County Planning Commission resolution. Oral argument is scheduled
for November 24. ($112.50 as of October 31, 2003).
Johnson - Writ of Mandamus challenging Director of Planning's detennination that application for
"boundary determination" by alleged errOT requires zoning map amendment application. Applicant
applied for boundary detennination based on allegation that BOCC previously adopting change in
zoning. Director's determination was based on review of records failing to show any error or prior
consideration of such zoning change. Director rejected application and informed Owner to properly
file for zoning map amendment (Boundary detennination may be placed on BOCC agenda without
the public notice required for a zoning change). Pursuant to oral argument. Monroe County has
agreed to re-process application for denial or approval (application was previously returned as
incomplete) and Plaintiffs may appeal as 'Provided by Code if denied_ ($1,280.00 as of October 31,
2003)_
Department of. Community Affairs v. Monroe County - Case before Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission alleging that County has failed to comply with various Comp Plan
requirements by failing to routinely amend endangered species maps, and vegetation surveys as to
high & moderate quality hammock areas. Also alleges that County has allowed higher ROGO scores
that should have been allocated due to failure to amend maps, thereby allowing more residential
development than should have been approved. DCA has recently given notice that case will proceed
to administrative hearing in January. ($2,R70.00 as of October 31,2003).
Eads v. Monroe County - Three pending cases: (1) Appeal ofBOCC decision to deny rescindment
of designation and original declaratory action alleging de-designation criteria is violation of due
process because it is unduly oppressive fOT failing to consider financial burden & condition of
structure (2) appeal of code enforcement order finding property in violation for unsafe condition and
(3) appeal before hearing officer of HPC decision to deny application for demolition &
reconstruction. BOCC's decision to deny rescinding historical designation was upheld by Judge
Garcia. Code enforcement appeal and demolition/reconstruction appeal are being held in abeyance
pending final ruling on due process claim. Trial on due process claim was held August 22. Court
has issued final. judgment in favor of County. holding that application of historic preservation
ordinance did not result in a denial of due process and was not arbitrary OT oppressive. (Plaintiffhad
argued that ordinance was oppressive because cost of reconstruction was more than cost of
demolition and construction of new non-historic bldg_ ($20,912.50 as of October 31, 2003).
Quay Appeal (parker v. Monroe County): Appeal of Planning Commission resolutions granting
conditional use, receiver and sender site commercial square footage transfer. Oral argument has
been set for November 17-
NROGO Allocation appeals (Smart Planning v. Monroe County): Smart Planning Coalition
challenge ofNROGO allocations based on allegation that allocations violate NROGO/Comp Plan
provisions because Key Largo Communi Keys Master Plan not yet adopted. Case was dismissed by
DOAH fOT lack of jurisdiction. New complaint has been filed in circuit court on same grounds.
County has filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that plaintiff is not an
"aggrieved party," as required by statute. Party's interest must be greater than that of general
community.
3
County of Monroe
Growth Mana9;ernent Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, norida 33050
Voice: 305.289. 2500
FAX: 305.289.2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, District 5
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
Cornrn. George Neugent, District 2
Cornrn. David Rice, District 4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy J. McGarry, AIS!::i2
Director of Growth Manapn;nt
November 18, 2003
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Progress Report and Proposed Approach Regarding
Shadek Settlement, Galleon Bay v. Monroe County, and
Other On-going Growth Management Litigation
As requested by the Board, attached is a legal strategy memorandum drafted by Robert Freilich, of
the law firm of Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle. This memorandum suggests approaches for the
County to follow in avoiding potential future liabilities, potential reimbursement arrangements for
the Shadek Settlement and a strategy for securing State participation and responsibility for
defending law suits resulting from policies and regulations imposed upon the County by the State
and some concerns that could be addressed in a "Global Agreement" between the State and
County.
This memorandum provides the Board with a starting point for discussion of possible strategies in
addressing growth management litigation issues and forming the County's response to the
Secretary of DCA's proposa1. In that regard, the staff would appreciate receiving further direction
from the Board on whether or not it wants to further pursue the approach proposed in this
memorandum.
Attachment
cc: James L. Roberts, County Administrator
John R. Collins, County Attorney
Mark Rosch, Executive Director, Land Authority
J ames Hendrick, Morgan and Hendrick
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Spehar and Members of the Board of County Commissioners
From: Robert H. Freilich; Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
Date: November 18,2003
Subj: Progress Report and Proposed Approach regarding Shadek Settlement, Galleon
Bay v. Monroe County, and other ongoing litigation
We have prepared an approach for seeking state reimbursement of the funds used
by the County in settling the Shadek case. Reimbursement of all or a portion of these
monies requires us to take into account two additional matters: the recent "partnership"
proposed by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs and the importance
of avoiding future liabilities as the County continues to operate under the state's Area of
Critical State Concern (ACSC) designation. These three components are interrelated and
we recommend that they be addressed comprehensively. Specifically, Secretary
Castille's proposed partnership should address past and future County liabilities that have
resulted or will result from the state imposed ACSC designation.
The approach set forth here is broad in its scope. We do not expect the Board to
evaluate or commit to it prior to the Secretary's November 19th visit. However, we do
recommend that any "partnership" include an agreement between the State and County,
which addresses future liabilities that have or may arise as a result of the partnership that
the State and County have had since the ACSC designation was made. This concept may
be discussed with the Secretary, even if the details of such an arrangement are not
finalized at this time.
Following the Secretary's visit, we will seek the Board's direction on how to
proceed. We will assist County staff as much or as little as the Board wishes with regard
to implementation of the approach set forth herein.
doc.#59747 /90355.011
1
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Proeress Report
Since the Florida Keys were designated as an Area of Critical State Concern, the
State has, through the ACSC legislation and by rule, mandated that the County adopt
comprehensive plan provisions and land development regulations that severely restrict
new development. As a result, the County has been named as the primary defendant in
numerous lawsuits launched by property owners impacted by these regulations. Despite
the underlying State mandate, the burden of defending these cases has fallen to the Board
of County Commissioners. The liability that arose in the recent Shadek case is but one
example of the County's exposure to the legal risks that can result from this State driven
system of land use control, especially because State purchases of restricted lands have not
been accompanied by general releases of the County from liability accruing prior to the
purchase.
The actions that gave rise to the claims in Shadek stemmed directly from the
State's ACSC designation and the resulting eight-year delay in the final adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan. When the Board settled the Shadek
case, it directed Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle to explore opportunities for seeking
reimbursement from the State for these costs. Since that time, the dynamic at the State-
level has been in constant flux, both politically and administratively. The State's recent
proposal to earmark as much as $113 million for the purchase of environmental lands in
Monroe County poses serious problems unless an agreement with the State can be
worked out that resolves a number of important issues.
On November 6, 2003, we met with County staff, Attorney Jim Hendrick, and
Mark Rosch of the Land Authority to develop a strategy not only for securing
doc.#59747/90355.011
2
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
reimbursement of settlement funds for the Shadek case but, more important, for
establishing a methodology to allocate future liabilities that arise out of State-mandated
regulatory controls. In other words, to correct the inequitable condition that currently
puts the County in the position of defending suits brought pursuant to State-mandated
Plan policies and State purchased lands without general releases.
We recognize the sensitive position in which the Board finds itself. The County
is a political subdivision of the State and State law effectively supercedes County
regulations. We also recognize that it is patently unfair, and we believe contrary to the
Legislature's intent, to force the County to defend State imposed policies that result in
great administrative expense and costly litigation damages. Although we would counsel
against an unnecessarily adversarial posture at this time, we do recommend an approach
that will require the State to accept the liabilities that arise from its mandates upon
Monroe County.
This memorandum sets forth a suggested approach and a time table for addressing
past, current, and potential liabilities that have arisen or may arise as a result of the
County's ACSC designation and the suits filed against the County as a result of that
designation.
A voidine Potential Future Liabilities
State Land Acquisition Activities
The State, through various acquisition programs, continues to purchase parcels
within the County that have been subject to State-mandated policies and regulations. In
order to protect the Board from another Shadek, we began discussions with the regional
office of the State Attorney General last spring to ensure that whenever it purchases land
doc.#59747/90355.011
3
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
in the County, the property owner releases the Board from any claim that arises from
regulatory restrictions in place prior to the State's purchase. Had the State taken this
simple step in 1986 and 1990 when it purchased the two portions of the Shadek property,
the case against the County would have been barred. We are preparing letters to various
State agencies to ensure that this blanket policy applies to all future acquisitions by the
State. The problem is complicated by the fact that the Division of State Lands, the DCA,
and Attorney General all have separate attorney offices and do not appear to consult each
other and have not prepared a unified policy for protecting either the State or the County
from ongoing liability.
Pending Cases
Over the past year, Mr. Hendrick's office has filed third-party claims against the
State in cases that arise from Plan policies or regulations imposed by the State. Since the
County actions complained of in these suits stem from State imposed polices, the State
should bear complete responsibility for the costs and liabilities that result. None of these
third-party claims have been resolved, but this approach may reduce significantly the
County Commission's future legal liabilities.
Galleon Bav v. Monroe County
At the Board's direction, Mr. Hendrick's office has filed for leave of court to file a
third-party complaint to join the State in the litigation between the County and Galleon
Bay. This case presents an egregious example of a claim arising directly from a State
imposed requirement. Prior to 1996, the plaintiffs in this case likely would have had
sufficient points to secure a building permit under the rate of growth ordinance (RaGa).
However, pursuant to State rule, in 1996, the County was forced to amend RaGa to
doc.#59747/90355.011
4
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
assign significant negative points to certain environmentally sensitive lands. As a result
of the State's amendments, the plaintiffs score dropped immediately to approximately
minus 70 points, making them ineligible for permits under the ROGO point system. On
November 3,2003, Judge Payne granted Galleon Bay's motion for summary judgment,
finding the County liable for an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
The 1996 Plan amendment was adopted by rule of the Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the Administration Commission, not by the Board of County Commissioners.
Nonetheless, the amendment became a part of the County Plan and the County became
the named defendant when Galleon Bay brought suit. For present purposes, the County
does not dispute the legality of the State's power to mandate the ROGO amendment. The
County seeks only to shift responsibility for the State's actions to the State. If the State
Legislature or Administration Commission wishes to increase or maintain current
regulatory restrictions on County property owners that result in regulatory takings or
exposure to Bert 1. Harris claims, the State should be prepared to assume the liabilities
that arise from those restrictions.
Potential Reimbursement Arraneements
In addition to resolving future claims against the County, the State's recent
funding proposal presents opportunities for the County to secure reimbursement of
Shadek settlement funds, either directly or indirectly. It is unlikely that the State will, in
light of its recent proposal, earmark funds for direct Shadek reimbursement outside of the
parameters of its proposal. However, there are several ways that the settlement may be
leveraged to the County's favor through indirect contribution in the context of the
proposal.
doc.#59747/90355.0 II
5
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
First, during negotiations with the State over wastewater treatment and the
purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, the Shadek settlement should be viewed as a
contribution already made by the County for purposes of environmental preservation. In
order to settle the Shadek case, the County had to appropriate funds that would have
supported its wastewater treatment efforts and its ability to enter into the arrangement
now proposed by the State. Accordingly, $5.9 million should be contributed by the State
to the County's wastewater treatment efforts. These funds may come from DEP's
contribution for environmental protection or another source.
Second, implementation of a countywide wastewater treatment system will
implicate other planning issues and will have to be preceded by an extensive
infrastructure planning effort. The County will be faced with Comprehensive Plan and
land development regulation amendments made necessary by its agreeing - should it do
so - to develop a countywide wastewater treatment system. The costs of the Shadek
settlement have hampered its ability to cover these costs and the State should reimburse it
for all or a significant portion of these costs.
Third, the State may, as an alternative, direct additional funds through the County
Land Authority, either to offset the costs of the Shadek reimbursement directly or to
facilitate future environmental land acquisition projects. Even if the State's recent
proposal comes to fruition, the Land Authority will continue to have a role in achieving
localized acquisitions for environmental and affordable housing purposes. Since the
State failed to secure a general release against the County when it purchased the Shadek's
land, the cost of settling the case amounts to a cost of dealing with "the challenges of
implementing comprehensive land use plans developed pursuant to the area of critical
doc.#59747/90355.011t
6
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
state concern program..." making reimbursement through the Land Authority
appropriate. See ~380.0661, F.S.
At the Board's direction, we will explore these and other potential funding
arrangements during any negotiations that result from the State's current funding
proposal and the development of a Global Agreement.
Global Aereement
The partnership proposed by the State should be premised on the execution of a
comprehensive written agreement between the State and County, which addresses all
issues implicated in the Secretary's proposal, in addition to those discussed here. For
example, this "Global Agreement" should establish a policy that requires the State to
assume the responsibility of defending lawsuits that result from the policies and
regulations that have been or are in the future imposed upon the County by the State.
Other issues must be resolved, including the following:
(a) Shadek settlement reimbursement funds;
(b) a policy of requiring a general release from property owners in
future State land purchase agreements;
(c) the State's proper role in pending and future lawsuits against the
County;
(d) the status of the pending Notice of Violation regarding the
County's administration of its Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) and
other environmental standards; and
(e) the allocation of funds and RaGa permits as described in the
partnership recently proposed by Secretary Castille.
We suggest that the idea of the Global Agreement be discussed with Secretary
Castille on November 19th as a prerequisite for entering into the proposed partnership.
Should the State agree to negotiate an agreement, the County should attend an upcoming
staff meeting with Cabinet aides to discuss the substance and timeframe for completing a
doc.#59747/90355.011
7
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
draft Global Agreement for the consideration of the Administration Commission. We
would like the Administration Commission to adopt this approach by resolution on
December 16,2003, and to direct appropriate State staff to negotiate such agreement with
the County.
Proposed Approach and Timeline
In order to facilitate the approach set forth here, we suggest the following
approach.
1. We will continue to work with relevant State agencies to ensure that future
State purchases of County lands include general releases protecting the County from
subsequent claims by property owners.
2. Any resolution of the Board, agreeing to explore with the State the
partnership it proposes, should include, in addition to the feasibility of wastewater
funding, a condition that the State agree to proceed with the development of an
agreement similar to the one described above. The County's eventual agreement to enter
into the proposed partnership would hinge on the actual appropriation of the funds
described by the Secretary in her letter of November 10,2003 and the execution ofa
Global Agreement.
3. The County should attend the Cabinet aides meeting prior to the
December 16, 2003 hearing of the Administration Commission, to propose and discuss
development of a Global Agreement.
4. The County should prepare a resolution for the Administration
Commission's consideration on December 16th, which directs the County and State to
submit a draft Global Agreement for the Administration Commission's consideration.
doc.#59747/90355.011
8
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
5. The County should attend the December 16,2003 hearing of the
Administration Commission to urge its support for the resolution.
6. Following the Administration Commission's adoption of the resolution,
the County should prepare a draft Global Agreement to be presented to the State for
consideration and the eventual consideration of the Administration Commission. The
Agreement should be comprehensive in its scope and must shield the County from future
liability as provided under the law.
7. We will work with County Staff and the Board as it considers the State's
recent funding proposal. Reimbursement of Shadek settlement costs may be achieved
within the context of the Global Agreement, but other important objectives should be
resolved as well.
Following the November 19th meeting, we will confer with the Board to seek its
direction and will proceed accordingly.
Conclusion
This is not the time or place to dispute the need for the ACSC designation or the
policies the State wishes to implement in the Keys. For present purposes, that need not
be the expressed position of the Board. Rather, as we view Shadek, Galleon Bay, and
other pending cases, the issue is one of assigning to the State the responsibility of
defending and indemnifying the County. The current arrangement unfairly puts the
County between the State and the property owners its policies impact.
Secretary Castille's November 10th letter may constitute a starting point for a
viable "partnership" between the County and the State. However, that partnership must
include the State's assumption ofliability in future litigation and must be based on a
doc.#59747/90355.011
9
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
meaningful and enforceable agreement between the State and County for addressing all
issues implicated in the Secretary's proposal. A resolution from the Administration
Commission should direct the development of a Global Agreement establishing a long-
term approach to future development rights, ROGO allocations, land acquisition, and the
allocation of responsibility in future lawsuits.
At the Board's direction, we will, together with County staff and Mr. Hendrick,
undertake the above steps to protect the Board from future claims that properly should be
directed to the State, not the County, and to see that a proper allocation of State funding
be made for environmental purchases and affordable housing.
doc.#59747/90355.011
10