Loading...
Item M10 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDAITEMSU~Y Meeting Date: Wed. May 19,2004 Division: BOCC Bulk Item: Yes No XX Department: Commissioner Rice. District 4 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of appointment of Commissioner David Rice to the Combined Structural and Operating Plan (CSOP) Advisory Team of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force regarding Everglades restoration issues. As a government agency, this would be a non-voting membership for informational purposes only. ITEM BACKGROUND: The CSOP is a stakeholder advisory group to the Task Force and will assist in providing recommendations to the Corps during key phases in the CSOP process and increase stakeholder participation in the CSOP development process. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force must approve membership on the CSOP. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC passed Resolution #465-2002 in support the Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ ~'i~ (David P. Rice, Commissioner, District 4) DOCUMENTATION: Included ~ To Follow Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #~ Revised 1/03 MAR 1 6 2004 COMBINED STRUCTURAL and OPERATING PLAN ADVISORY TEAM CHARTER BACKGROUND: The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Jacksonville District, is proceeding to develop a Combined Structural and Operating Plan (CSOP). with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). for the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Water) and the Canal III (C-lll) Projects with the assistance ofthe South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Everglades National Park (ENP) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Currently. the two projects are partially completed and are operated in accordance with the Interim Operating Plan (lOP) that was approved in July. 2002. In general, the Corps is using the CSOP study to develop the final operating plan for the two projects and, if necessary, to recommend structural modifications to the authorized C-III and Mod Water projects. Representatives from federal, state. and local governmental agencies and tribal nations, as well as a number of nongovernmental entities. have expressed interest in participating in the CSOP process. To improve and increase the involvement of the affected stakeholders, the Working Group has been asked to establish an advisory committee to provide advice and recommendations. This advisory group is established in response to that request. The CSOP Overview and Project Purposes and Objectives is attached. PURPOSE: The purpose of the CSOP Advisory Team (Team) is to assist the Task Force in providing recommendations to the Corps during key phases in the CSOP process and, by doing so. to increase stakeholder participation in the CSOP process. MEMBERS: The Team consists of voting stakeholders and non-voting agency/tribal team members as follows: StakeholderN oting Members: Carol Rist - League of Women Voters - Chair John Adornato - National Parks and Conservation Association Medora Alleman - Resident, Grower Tad Burke - FL Keys Fishing Guides Assoc. Loly Espino - St. Thomas University Freddy Fisikelli - Former President Everglades Coordinating Council Madeleine Fortin - Resident Cynthia Guerra - Executive Director. Tropical Audubon Society Arnie Harris - Environmental Advisory Task Force for Miami-Dade County 12/1/2003 1 Deborah Harrison - World Wildlife Fund James Humble - Dade Agricultural Landowner Tom MacVicar - Agricultural Consultant Alice Pena - Resident Barbara Jean Powell- Everglades Coordinating Council Reginald Walters - Resident. Former Miami-Dade Planner Governmental/Non- voting: 001 - Rock Salt ENP - Bob Johnson FDACS - Linda McCarthy FDEP - Ernie Barnett Florida Atlantic University - Jim Murley FWC - Joe Walsh FWS - Barry Rosen Miami-Dade County - Roman Gastesi Miccosukee Tribe of Indians - Terry Rice Seminole Tribe (Have decided not to participate as a member) SFWMD - Shawn Sculley USACE - Dennis Duke USDA - Bill Reck GUIDANCE: 1. The Team is charged to provide advice and/or recommendations at various steps of the CSOP planning process. In general, the Corps. in coordination with the SFWMD, ENP and FWS, will provide input to the Team as described below and the Team will advise the Task Force and its Working Group as indicated. 2. The following list consisting of expected input to the Team, Team deliverables and the deliverables' schedule is provided as the initial work plan for the Team. a. At the initial Team meeting, the Corps, in conjunction with the SFWMD, ENP, and FWS, will present the CSOP Overview and Project Purposes and Objectives and brief the Advisory Team on the CSOP. Task 1. The Team will identify key issues and concerns and provide to the Working Group and Task Force the list of issues identified along with any suggestions on how to proceed to resolve issues and concerns. b. The Corps will provide draft performance measures to the Team. Task 2. After receipt of the draft performance measures, the Team will identify key issues and concerns and provide comments to the Working Group and Task Force on those performance measures. 12/1/2003 2 c. The Corps will provide an initial array of Alternatives to the Team. Task 3. The Team will review the Alternatives, identify issues and provide their recommended improvements to the array, either as recommendations for new alternatives or adjustments to any of the alternatives in the initial array. d. The Corps will furnish detailed Alternatives. along with necessary technical information.. to the Team for review. Task 4. The Team will review the detailed Alternatives and identify issues, improvements and recommended changes associated with each. The Team will provide progress reports to the Working Group and Task Force every two (2) months, or as otherwise directed, until the task is completed. e. The Corps will provide the Team with its alternative analysis, including the initial conclusions on the preferred plan. Task 5. The Team will review the preferred plan and report to the Working Group and Task Force with its fmal recommendations. 3. All of the Team reports to the Working Group and Task Force should be written. The Working Group. and as appropriate the Task Force. will schedule time at its fIrst meeting after each report to allow a presentation by the Team and a discussion of the report. 4. The Working Group will forward its recommendations to the Task Force as appropriate. ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS: 1. The Team will serve in an advisory role to the Working Group and Task Force. Participation on the Team does not constitute participation in the Corps' formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public comment process and does not preclude Team members from fully participating in the NEP A public comment process. Neither does participation on the Team modify the independent decision- making authorities and responsibilities of any agencies participating on the Team. 2. It is intended that the Team provide advice to the Working Group and Task Force to assist the Task Force in providing its input on CSOP. 3. All Team meetings will be open to the public and time will be included on the agenda for public comment. Meetings will be advertised in accordance with the Task Force/Working Group's Public Affairs Procedures. 4. It is not intended that the deliverable schedule necessarily be done sequentially. The Corps and the Team Chair will coordinate the schedule and allow for flexibility when necessary. 12/1/2003 3 5. The meeting schedule will be adjusted as necessary to respond to the planning guidelines. 6. The Team shall strive to develop consensus recommendations to the Working Group and Task Force and use the Task Force/Working Group protocol for approving its reports. When complete consensus is unattainable. a 2/3 majority vote will suffice for final Team actions. Actions other than final approvals may be taken by a simple majority vote. If there is not complete consensus, the comments/recommendations of dissenting members shall be indicated as such and included along with the majority recommendation. 7. Meetings of the Team will be facilitated by independent professional facilitators. 8. The Office of the Executive Director will work closely with the Team, the facilitators and the Corps and its partners to provide assistance as needed. Attachment: CSOP Overview and Project Purposes and Objectives - to be provided 12/1/2003 4 Cofnmissioner 6eorge Neugent ~ON NO. 465 -{002 A AESOWT:rON OF THE BOARD " COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FL.ORtbA CONCERNtN6 THE PROIRAMMAnc RSU.AlTONS OF THe COMPAEHEN51VE ~ letTORAlION ~ WHEREAS; Monroe Couftfy includcs the Fiori. f(&yt island chain as wen as a subltantial porno,. of the tnainIand Ever"JbIes; WHEREAS; The ~ Evergfadea Restoration PbI.. an $8 bill.... federaHtate endeavor that aims at restoring America's EYergtad.s inetudbtg Florida Bay. WHeREAS; Florida 8cly IS an aquaflc nursery fhat provides the breeding grounds for commercielty and rccreationally important flSh- tIS well as faN birds; WHEREA.5; The Florida K&ys ar& haene to a $2 biltioft...o.yar tourism ~ largely bGsed on JpOrtflshing and scuba diving. both dcpMdent on clean water and a healthy South Fforida EcosysteM; WHEAEAS: Th& Florida keys en also home to ItOtIrat ~ of intcrMtionaI signif;CGnee including the third-1Grgut barrier cora' reef in tM world -1IIGinkInd Alnlricds MIy 'iving conal reef - three llGtionaJ parks, the nation's most-YiJited nationat marine SGnCtuafy, five rtQtiONt wildlife r-efuges, Florida's most-visited stat. perk and the nation's largest and most protected ..._ ....erve.; WHEREAS; Th. FforfdClICays ere hoIne to Ftorfda.s IIIOSt vaJuoble eommerc:iaI fishay, which in IcIrtcI;"gs VGIue regularly ranks in the top five In the country; WHEREAS; Th. PrugrammatH; Regulations are the blueprint for bllilding and operating the Comprehensive Eva-gladcs Ratonrtion Pfan proJec1S; WHEREAS; It is in the interest of the Florida keys - both the natural resources and the residents who depend on the tCKrism economy - that this blqeprint provide strong guidance towcrd Q healthy. restored ecosystem; WHEREAS; 80th Flori.'s senators have Joined in Q bipartisan pocition of Senators Oft the Progranunatic Regufcations including IUppOrTing independent Scientific reva cn:t strong publie outreach efforts as well CIS the reinstatement of the 80/20 spilt of wet.,. for the natural JyStem and a strong role for the OepcIrt'meItt of Interfof; now, therefore 8E IT RESOLVED. THAT THE MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION hereby agrea to send this letter fa the U.S. Army Corps of EngIIN!eI'S endorsing the Senators' position and ceIling for the ~tic Regulations to be ~ so as to provide stronger,..dance tOf" ecaJystan restoration.. PASSED AND ADOPl'ED by the Board of Cowtty Commissioners of Monroe County. fronda. at Q regular meeting of said 80crd held Oft the 16th day of October. 2002. yes yes yes Y.. yea BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONEAs :--I jlfP.af'.... J L tr.. Q cr o to) L&J a::: IX o l.t... Q W :::! l.t... Q ..:r N =-= ~ o C") -- (..) Q ..... ~ a.J C ct -a <r: ..... %:1-">= 3~~ ~!:!:-. 'Uc; , .U :...1r:....1 ,.;c:jo .- ~ .~ ;; :t: 5-20-2004 2:44PM M.~ 18 04 10:52. FROM P.l L Roberts Co Admin Jam@s ~OS-292-4544 p.2 .-. . ... FLO_ .. ASSOCIAJj ': D ~ COON .5" .. MEMORANDUM rA~ To ~~ <:..-c.- fQ..d:, If..f P.O. Box 54911a11a~ FlmiJa^!J:.2:~~ ,:;~. _u__..; Phone: 8$O/'Zz.4J(J(J :~ 2~_- : ~~o/4(J8.y~ ~itl': wWrr.ff-cotln~.com .. 1 TO: County Commissioners County Administrators County Attorneys County lObbyists MAY 1 7 2004 . l FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director i ,,' DATE: May 11, 2004 Veto Request for SB 2564 - Dept. of Juvenile Detention Facilities Cost Shift Legislation RE: F AC is submitting a veto request to Governor BuSh on the Dept of Juvenile Justice Delenlion F acfiities cost shift Pl'Oj)Osal and WOUld strongly encourage all COUnties to -k a Veto and make J>h<mecalls to the Governor as soon as llOSS/b/e. In)'OUr county's Veto request. please highlight lite S<lveroe implications this cost shift will have on yOur local prope~ lal<payers (e.g.,lncr_ in property laxes, cuts in local services and programs. particularly to juvenile prevention programs). Although 1110 legislation has not bean OtliClally SUbmitted to the Governor, ij is critfcallhat each COUnty weigh in on 1IIls Issue now. A copy of FAC's ""to letter and summary of S8 2564 is etfached for your reference. It is i01jlOrtanl to note lItat 1IIe Govemor and members of 1IIe legisJatura will argue lhat counties will realize significant savings from Article VI Revision 7 implementation to justify this $90,2 million DJJ cost shill. According It! the Senate's financial analysis of the AtticIe V legislation Passed this seSSion, the State Is f)rOjllClect to realize a $1.4 m~1ion revenue gain: 111. state ....s able It! implement the Article V constitulional amendment with no general revenue Impact, Th. real jusllfication for shift/ng the DJJ costs is not as the Govemor and legisJatlve Jeaaers have argUed, ".. .due to a re~ alignment of court funding reSponsibilities belwet;n the state and counties..." but rather a recurring revenue source from counties to help fund the state coffers. The voters _ad Re.islon 7 III Miele V of the Stale COOstiMJon In 1998 10 pn,.lde court funding relief for countia. so 10<:81 property taxes could be re-dlrected to support county servic.s or provide tax relief. In the Inlerim, F AC will be WOIIdng on several different fronts, including gallteting information from the Dept. of Juvenile Justice on how it plans to PfOCeed on IlllpIem.nting SB 2564; meeting with the Chief Financial OtIicer Tom Gallagher on PIOP<>sed pOlicies to withhold stat. funds anliUed to a county lItat does not submn full rvlmbllrsement to the state; and meeting with the Govemor's legal slalT. AcIdilionally. FAC will PU,"ue diSCUssions with county lIlfomeys On comPliance issue.. Should lI1e MA.V NA"IARIS~O E"ECUtl~'E DIRECTO!i I <: PI Ii POSt..;,. Fax Note 7671 "1'0 aELc...~ Co./DePl a ~ PhOiie. .L.4 I CHUCI( DUfllNlCI( is/DENT fM/lIItDfAlli PAST PFU$IDfNT o.~U 1,i '(Y'. "ax * ~~ 5-20-2004 2:45PM Ma~ 18 04 10;S2a FROM James L Roberts Co Rdmin 305-292-4544 Veto Request for SB 2564 May 11, 2004 Page Two Governor sign this legislation, FAC will provide implementation options for counties to consider prior to the October 1 effective date. Finally, please publicly thank and acknowledge those legislators who opposed SB 2564 (see House and Senate vote sheet on back of summary). Equally important, counties should engage in discussions during the summer with legislators who suPPOrted this historic unfunded mandate. CQUnty officials should continue an ongoing dialogue with our state lawmakers so there is a better understanding and appreciation for how these cost shifts and unfunded mandates hurt our communities. This was one of the toughest legislativ~ sessions in recent years, and I want to thank each of you for all of yOur letters, phone calls, emails, and visits with legislators on behalf of FAC. Your support and Involvement in the Association's legislative work is important to our collective success. MKC/clb Attachments P_2 p.~ 5-20-2004 2:45PM Ma~' lH U4 lU:52a FROM James L Roberts Co AdMin 305-2S2-4544 Shared County and State Responsibility for Juvenife Detention CSISB 2584 by Sen. Crist Creates a new section of Florida law, section 985.2155, F.S., providing for shared county and state responsibility for the financial support of juvenile detention care. The bill defines detention care 83 "secure detention." Each COunty must incorporate into its annual county budget SUfficient funds to pay its eosts of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition based upon the prior use of secure detention as determined by the Dept. of Juvenile Justice. TOO estImated statewide impact is $,90.2 mUlion. Each county must pay the department the estimated costs at the beginning of each month and shan have differences reconciled at the end of the state's fiscal year. Total costs paid by the ~nty are to be based on calculations published by the department with input from the counties. If the department determines that any county is remitting less than the amount required. the Chief Financial Officer is directed to withhold from such county a portion of state funds that the county is entitled to equal to the difference between the amount remitted and the amount required to be remitted. The department will determine each quarter whether the counties are remitting their share of the costs of detention as required by this law. The Dept, of Revenue and the counties are required to provide technical asai$nee as necessary to the Dept. of Juvenile' Justice in order to develop the most cost-effective means of collection. Counties will not be required to pay for juveniles whose residence is out of state or who have no residence. The bill provides that the state shalt pay for costs of detention care for juveniles for COunties that are "fiscally constrained" if sufficient funds are appropriated by the Legislature. A "fiscally constrained" county is defined as ~a county designated as a rural area o.f critical economic concern under $. 288.0656, F.S.. for which the value of a mHl in the county Is no. more than $3 million, based on the property valuations and tax data annually published by the Dept of Revenue under s. 195.052, F.S." 'By October 1. 2004. the department must have a method developed for detennining the fiscally constrained counties' costs for which they are entitled to reimbursement. If fiscally constrained county matching funds are required by the state to offset aPPropriation Shortfalls, then that match must be allocated proPOrtionateJy among all fiscally constrained counties. The LegiSlature has appropriated $3.5 million in FY 2004.-2005 for fiscally constrained COUnties. The Dept of Juvenile Justice is authorized to adopt lUres to administer this section. Effective date: 10/01/04 (SEE VOTE SHEET ON BACK) P.3 p.4 5-20-2004 2:57PM - Ma~ IS 04 10:54e FROM Jam@s L Robe~~s Co Admin P_ 1 305-292-4544 p.6 ...,". FLO. " ASSOCIA .. 5!! COO ..11' p.o. Box 54' /TII'/~, Florida 32302 . PItone: 8$0/922-4300 Sctnamt: Z92-43tJO IiU: 850141111-7501 ~te: W\4l....fI-aNnm~.CfJIfI May 11. 2004 The Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor State of Florfda The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: sa 2$4 Dear Governor Bush: The F'loricIa Association of Counties is writing to express its opposition to S8 2564. The bltl has catastrophic impacts on the counties of this state and establishes a disturbing precedent on the management of sIgnifICant policy issues. Specifically, SB 2564 shifts approximately $90 million of the Department of Juvenile Justice's bUdget to the countIes of this state; this shift is over 17 percent of the Department's total general revenue budget. While the counties will write the check for this cost shift, there is no control over the implementatiOn of the juvenile justice programs or facilities by the counties; all control remains with the State of Florida. A<<IY /<<1' CUIStO ,Co GUy MAXCY EXECuTIVE DIRECTOR PRESlotNT' HlQ4ANl111 Under S8 2564, each county must budget for and submit payment to the State on a monthly baSis for the predisPOSition detention costs for juveniles who reside in their county. AIly difference Will be reconciled at the end or the state fIScal year, which is June 30. If the state believes that a county is not submitting full payment, then the Chief Financial Officer is authorized to withhold any portion of state funds entitled to that county. The Proposal also provides that the state win pay for the predisposition costs in "fIScally constrained" counties as determined by the department, and If appropriated by the state annually_ This bl" will force many coufltie8 to either increase property taxes, on behalf of the state, or reduce county services, Including current county funded preventive juvenile programming. because of this cost shfft While the largest urban counties of the state will reoeive the largest share of this shift, with Miami-Dade County estimated at $11.7 million and Duval COunty at neany $4 million, the medium and smatler counties of the state will be significantly impacted as well. For example, in Bay County alone, sa 2564 wm cost $1.1 million; Seminole County will see a $1.5 milUon shift; and Sarasota County wi" receive a $1_1 million bill under SB 2564. In addition to the devastating financial impact to the counties of this state from SB 2564, this bill establishes a disturbing precedent for the resolutton of significant policy issues. The probJems of juvenile justice in this state have been recentty highlighted and are CUrrently being examined. The Office of Program POlicy Analysis and Governmental Accountability (OPPAGA) mQently issued a report addressing several critical areas In the Department of Juvenile Justioe needing improvement (~eport No. 03...76, December 2003). Further, the Speaker of the House a-eated a Select Committee on Detention FaCUities to address a host of administrative problems in the detention centers. After hours and hours of testimonY, however, that select axnmittee has not issued any , alFlJH.t<<L =DENT- EUtT J WfLroN G. (:AOWfzL , SUSAN I.A'WALA I CHt/(J( OuNN#OC T STVlCE PREStDfNT 2NO Via PRES/OENr IM\1EDIATE PAST PR.lSIDENr MICE ",^'~w OSClDtA 5-20-2004 2:57PM Ma~ 18 04 10:55a FROM Jam~s L Rober~s Co Admin 305-292-4544 The Honorable Jeb Bush Page Two May 11, 2004 findings or recomrnendatiOlls. The only decision that has been made, by tf1e Legislature, In the area of juvenile justice and a result of all these investigations is for the counties to fund 17 percent of the state's Department of Juvenile Justice general revenue budget. It is simply not appropriate for ptcpertY' taxpayers to subsidize a state program that is under sud'l intense scrutiny by state policymakers without the opportunity to participate as partners in the pursuit of solutions to the problems. Furthennore, the Association of Counties has grave concems about the constitutionaUty of SB 2564. As was Indicated in the Senate staff analysis of the bill, 5B 2564 is a mandate on the counties of this state. However, unlike the Senate staff analysis, the Association of Counties believes that a 2J3 vote of each house of the Legislature was required for this bin to be binding on the counties. The House of Representatives passed S8 2564 by slgniflC8ntly less than 213 of ils membEtrshlp. FinaHy. much has been said on linking S8 2564 and its financial impacts to the Article V implementation proc;:e$S. Even under the Senate's own calculations, as presented on the Senate floor, the State of Florida will reali28 iI $1.4 million revenue gain as a result of the Article V implementation. This gain results from revenue sharing alreadY taken from the counties, other coet shifts in recent. years, and the fees that wi" be paid by the users of the state court system. There will be no f,"anaalless to the State of Florida as a result of Articfe V, Revision 7. FurthelTYlOre, the Department of Revenue Collection Report Indicates that an additional $218.2 mRllon has been collected over the March General Revenue Estimates used to develop the 20~5 budget The Slate of Florida has sufficient revenues to fund the costs in S8 2564. A veto of this bill would not aeate a deficit In the state's budget In light of these concerns, the Florida A$$Ociation of Countie5 respectfully req~ts that you veto SB 2564. (t.,.~ .. ., ~ ~~eo Executive Director MKCllp cc.: County Commissioners COunty Admlnlstrators COunty Attorneys County Lobbyists County Sheriffs P.2 p.?