Item J2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
'2..~O
~
Meeting Date: January 21,2004
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: N/A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution expressing support for a partnership with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to meet the State's and County's obligations under Rule 28-20.]00,
Florida Administrative Code and the County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; committing the County to specific
implementation actions; requesting reciprocal commitments from the DCA; and directing County staff to prepare an
interim moratorium ordinance pursuant to guidance from legal counsel.
ITEM BACKGROUND: On January 6, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners met in a special workshop
meeting with DCA Secretary Colleen Castille and her staff to resolve concerns raised by the DCA and the Governor
and Cabinet about the lack of substantial progress by the County on the Work Program required under Rule 28-
20.]00 (F.A.C.). The primary issue that remained to be negotiated was "habitat protection".
At that meeting the Growth Management Division presented a conceptual proposal for a cooperative agreement that
addressed the habitat protection issue and presented in more detail actions taken by the Board on December 10,
2003, regarding funding for wastewater construction, acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and affordable
housing sites, and need for more affordable housing ROGO allocations. The Growth Management litigation counsel
presented the Board with a legal paper outlining provisions 'required for any moratorium ordinance to be legally
defensible.
After staff and public testimony, and dialogue between the Board and Secretary Castille, the Board deliberated and
voted to approve the conceptual proposal offered by staff with an amendment to the proposed habitat protection
provisions of the conceptual proposal. The Board voted to support a moratorium on any new ROGO/NROGO
allocations in upland native vegetated habitat of 2 or more acres within designated Conservation and Natural Areas.
The attached resolution reflects that action taken by the Board and directs staff and legal counsel to prepare the
necessary ordinance to enact the moratorium.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Approved conceptual proposal on January 6, 2004
CONTRACT/AGREEMENTCHANGES: NM
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
NIA
BUDGETED: Yes
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
No
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
Year
APPROVED BY:
County Atty ~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM # -:::r - 2.
Revised 1/03
County of Monroe
Growth Mana!Zernent Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: 305.289. 2500
FAX: 305.289. 2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Murray Nelson, District 5
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
Comm. George Neugent, District 2
Comm. Dixie Spehar, District 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy J. McGarry, AIC:d:l;
Director of Growth Mana~~ll'l./
January 15,2004
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Resolution on Cooperative Agreement with the DCA and
Moratorium on Upland Vegetative Habitat (Tropical
Hardwood Hammock and Pinelands)
Overview
The Board of County Commissioners is asked to adopt a resolution that ratifies its preliminary
decision made at a January 6, 2004, special meeting to approve a "Conceptual Proposal for a
Cooperative Agreement between the DCA and Monroe County to Address Significant Outstanding
Work Program Issues". The Growth Management Division staff with assistance of its legal counsel
has prepared a draft resolution for consideration by the Board that approves a paper entitled
"Cooperative Agreement between DCA and Monroe County to Address Significant Work Program
Issues", based on the previous action taken by the Board.
Background
At a January 6, 2004, special workshop meeting with the DCA Secretary Colleen Castille, the
Board approved with revisions a conceptual proposal for a cooperative agreement between the
DCA and Monroe County prepared by the Growth Management Division staff. A significant
element of the Board's deliberations and dialogue with Secretary Castille regarded a temporary
moratorium on new ROGO/NROGO allocations in environmentally sensitive upland habitat until
such time amendments can be made to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations to better protect environmentally sensitive habitat.
The Board discussed three main options for a moratorium that involved Conservation and Natural
Areas and a fourth option proposed in the draft conceptual proposal prepared by staff that modified
a moratorium on high quality hammocks (Option #3) by including a moratorium on all native
Page 1 0[5
upland vegetated lands of four or more acres regardless of quality. After a suggestion by Secretary
Castille that she would prefer a minimum of one acre or more to be covered by the moratorium,
Commissioner Spehar offered a two-acre or more minimum as a compromise from the proposed
four-acre minimum. In addition, the wording of the description of the habitat subject to the
moratorium was revised to "native upland vegetated land". The Board then approved the proposed
conceptual agreement that commits the County to a moratorium on new ROGO/NROGO awards in
areas containing two or more acres of native upland vegetated land.
Subsequent Events
Unfortunately, immediately after the January 6, 2004, meeting, the Growth Management Division
staff became aware in discussions with members of the environmental community that there may
be some misunderstanding of Board's action by Secretary Castille. This concern was confirmed by
the DCA staff and in an exchange of e-mail with Secretary Castille.
Subsequently, Secretary Castille sent a letter to the Commission (attached), which clearly spells out
her interpretation of the Board's action. In her letter, Secretary Castille states that she believes that
the Board voted for an interim moratorium on all areas containing two acres or more of native
upland vegetative habitat throughout the County, not just within Conservation and Natural Areas.
The Growth Management Division does not believe that the Secretary is correct in her
interpretation of the events as the Board never discussed any options that involved a moratorium
outside of the Conservation and Natural Areas. The official minutes from the meeting support the
staffs position. Therefore, the staff and legal counsel has prepared a resolution that is based on
this official reading of the Board's action with the full understanding that this issue will be
officially settled by the Board on January 21,2004.
Staff Evaluation of Secretary Castille's Letter of January 13,2004
In her letter to the Commission, Secretary Castille indicated that the Growth Management Division
Director had agreed to use the data available from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Council to identify the habitat areas to be protected by the moratorium.
Although the Director agreed to utilize these maps at the January Commission meeting, upon
further review by staff, concerns were raised about the scale of these maps and their suitability for
application to individual parcels and lots.
The staff would rather rely on the Florida Marine Resource Institute's ADID maps, supplemented
by the most recent aerial photographs and site visits; however, the County staff does not believe
this is a major issue and is willing to work with the DCA on any set of habitat maps as long as they
are at a suitable scale. The major issue is not about maps, but whether or not the moratorium
should be expanded to include habitat outside of the Conservation and Natural Areas.
The Secretary's call for a moratorium on permit allocations in areas containing two or more acres
of native upland vegetated land, which she now recommends to be defined as "tropical hardwood
hammock and pinelands", causes concern for the County staff. Her proposal conflicts with the
Page 2 of5
position she advanced in her letter to the Board of November 10, 2003, that calls for applying
negative [ROGOINROGO] points to properties located only within Conservation and Natural
Areas. I
No mention is made in the Secretary's November letter regarding any upland habitat outside of
Conservation and Natural Areas, which is one reason the staff only drafted various options for
moratoria solely within the boundaries of these designated areas. Her interpretation regarding the
needed scope of the moratorium begs the question: "What conditions or assumptions have changed
since November that warrant an interim moratorium and special habitation protection outside of
the County's current strict regulations for habitat situated outside of the Conservation and Natural
Areas?"
It should again be noted that the building block for designation of Conservation and Natural Areas
was based on the four-acre minimum of upland habitat considered by the experts who did the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study as the minimum threshold for a viable habitat. The
designation of the boundaries took into consideration the need for buffers, opportunities for
connectivity of isolated patches through restoration and re-growth, distribution of developed lands,
presence of canals, etc. Within these boundaries are small patches of habitat between two to four
acres in size or smaller.
Any small isolated patches of upland habitat outside of these areas are not considered to have long-
term viability as habitat of any regional, state, or national importance, but may be of neighborhood
or local importance. These patches are isolated, impacted by development, and/or can not be
connected with other habitat areas, therefore, they did not warrant being designated within
Conservation and Natural Areas. This policy decision is directly supported by the science in the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and corroborated by the County's consultant, Dr. Ricardo
Calvo, who was the project director for that study.
The County's Growth Management Division staff believes the current regulations, supplemented
by minor regulatory revisions and land acquisition programs will help preserve those small isolated
patches that may be of significance to local neighborhoods. Therefore, the staff believes it would
be inappropriate to place any type of moratorium on upland habitat outside of the designated
Conservation and Natural Areas, as such a moratorium would conflict with the policy basis for the
establishment and designation of the Conservation and Natural Areas and good environmental
SCIence.
I The staff's preliminary analysis indicates that approximately 154 acres of privately-owned tropical hardwood
hammock and pinelands in patches of two acres of more are located outside of Conservation and Natural Areas,
excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key. As the maps used to identify these areas are more than ten years old, the
staff will need to review each patch based on the most recent aerial surveys and site visits. With the development and
further fragmentation of these patches that has occurred since the habitat maps were prepared, the number of acres of
tropical hardwood hammock and pine lands within patches of two acres or more will be significantly reduced upon
closer examination. The staff is conducting this research and expects to have this information available at the
Commission's meeting on January 21,2004.
Page 3 of5
To expand a moratorium to include habitat that is of local significance with little long-term
viability or value for sustainability of protected species and maintenance of ecosystem integrity
may seriously undermine the legal and public policy basis for the moratorium. The staff believes
that no public interest is served by placing a moratorium on development within areas, which in all
likelihood would not be significantly affected by proposed amendments in the habitat protection
regulations expected to be enacted at the end of the moratorium.
Staff Response to Secretary Castille
As stated previously, the staff does not recommend expanding the moratorium to include any
habitat outside of Conservation and Natural Areas. However, in consultation with the County
Attorney and legal counsel, the Board may want to consider as a sign of good faith to Secretary
Castille to make further commitments to accommodate her concerns without undermining the
County's legal and policy position.
The staff suggests that the Board of County Commissioners may want to consider including the
following additional commitments in its proposed partnership:
o County's Land Authority will target for voluntary purchase appropriate hardwood
tropical hammock and pinelands of two or more acres located outside of the
designated Conservation and Natural Areas and commit to setting aside up to $1 to
$2 million in funds reserved for acquisition ofland under RaGa for this purpose.
o County will entertain proposals from the DCA for amendments to the boundaries of
the Conservation and Natural Areas to protect significant tropical hardwood
hammock and pinelands that may have been inadvertently left out of the initial
boundary designation. [The proposed resolution calls for the County Growth
Management Division staff to review the existing boundaries of the Conservation
and Natural Areas and provide opportunity for public input prior to adoption of the
moratorium ordinance. The maps will be included as part of the moratorium
ordinance. ]2
Proposed Resolution
The draft resolution prepared by the Growth Management Division staff for consideration by the
Board is based on the conceptual proposal as tentatively approved by the Board on January 6,
2005. Exhibit One of the resolution contains the revised conceptual proposal, now entitled
"Cooperative Agreement between the DCA and Monroe County to Address Significant Work
Program Issues".
2 The Growth Management Division staff intends to have its consultant Dr. Ricardo Calvo review the existing
boundaries of the Conservation and Natural Areas to recommend any needed boundary amendments prior to the
Board's action on the moratorium.
Page 4 of5
Other than minor word changes, the staff has made the following changes to the initial concept
proposal approved by the Board:
Commitments by the County
o Habitat Protection. 1 : As suggested by Secretary Castille the term "tropical
hardwood hammock and pinelands" replaces the term "native upland vegetated
land". The staff had no problems with this change, which is more specific than the
previous language.
Language has been included that specifically addresses the mapping resources to be
used in determination of the lands to be covered under the moratorium. The maps to
be used will be the habitat map series prepared by the Florida Marine Resources
Institute, which were augmented by work of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to form the basis of the County's ADID maps. The
information in this map series is in a GIS format. These maps will need to
supplemented by aerial photographs and site visits to ensure currency.
Commitments by DCA
o Habitat Protection. 5: The wording has been revised to include an additional method
for consideration by the DCA to resolve the County's problem with its ROGO
backlog due to lack of nutrient reduction credits. This option would allow any
ROGO allocations be rolled over if nutrient reduction credits are not available. The
roll-over option would not authorize permits to be released until nutrient reduction
credits became available; however, the County would not be penalized by the loss of
any future ROGO allocations.
The Board may also want to consider further revising the proposed "Cooperative Agreement" in
Exhibit One by adding language or similar language proposed by staff in the previous section.
Recommendation
The staff recommends the favorable consideration of the proposed resolution, including additional
language to accommodate some of the DCA's concerns.
Attachment
Page 5 of5
01/12/2004 20:50
8504883309
COMM PLANNING
PAGE El2/El3
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
nDedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
GoIfemar
COLLEEN CASTILLE
SecrlllS ry
January 13, 2003
The Honorable Murray Nelson
99198 Overseas Highway, Sui tc 2
Key Largo, Fl.orida 33037
De~~:
r want to take this opportunity to thank you and the other members oftht:: Board for their support
at last week's meeting regarding tbe proposed cooperative agreement between Monroe County
and the Department of Community Affairs. I was very pleased with the overall outcome and I
truly believe that we are on the verge of accomplishing many great things hy working together.
In that spirit of cooperation, I took the first step and withdrew the Notice of Violation as
requested. I am now asking that we properly clarify ~intc:nt ofthc: Board of County
Commissioners related to the proposed moratorium on upland vegetated habitat. I clearly
understood that the proposed moratorium would a.pply Countywide to an areas containing two or
more acres of native upland vegetated habitat.
I spccifically requested clarification regarding the motion and was informed by Commissioner
McCoy that the proposed motion represented a hybrid of the six options approved by the County
on December 10, 2003 and Option 3 from the conceptual paper provided by Tim Me Garry
further modified by Commisioner Spehar to include the two acre threshold of contiguous upland
native habitat. As discussion progressed, I requested and Mr. Me Garry agreed that the County
would utilize data available from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Council to identi fy this habitat.
Commisioners Spehar and McCoy indicated the previous tier maps were not definitive or
prioritized and that a precise description of lands subject to the moratorium would be essential.
There was no verbal discussion of utilizing existing County maps identifying Conservation and
Natural Areas, which were mapped. based on a minimum threshold of four-acre patches of
contiguous hardwood hammock in addition to lands targeted for acquisition by the Department
of Environmental Protection by the Florida Forever Program.
Subsequent to this meeting I received an ernail from Tim Me Garry asking for clarification on
this issue. He felt that the Board had intended to protect only that habitat located within
Conservation and Natural area formerly referred to as Tier One. J believe that we must apply the
:l555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD . TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 3~399.2100
!'hone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0181/Suncom 291.0781
InlornClt addross: htlolJwww.dc3.lIll1te.II.!.Ll...
CI'ITICAL STAT~ CONCtftN FlELO OFfICE
2798 O~seo! H,~. Su"~ 212
MMo''''''. n 33050.2227
(JOG) 289.2.0'
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2SSS ShulI'Qrd 0... Baulev1Jl"d
T:lI"'""..oe. ~L 32399-2100
(150) 'I..n~&
EMERGENCY MANADEI't1ENT
266~ Shu.....'d 0.. .....__
T:tI~:I<::;~~l'". J:L 1'-2tq..'100
(B!:D) ~, ]~ns1lt
HOUS'Nll . COMMUNITY DlPivet.Or'Mfl'lT
.S$~ Shumo", 0IIl< 1l~.1<l
T.II.""..H. Fl ~23l11l-2'00
(850) ~e8-7VS8
01/12/20e4 2e:50
Bse4BB33El9
COMM PLANNING
PAGE 03/113
Commissioner Nelson
January 13, 2003
Page Two
moratorium countywide to ensure the habitat protection consistent with the direction of the
Governor and Cabinet. The taped results ofthc meeting support my position that the motion was
to institute an interim moratorium on ROGO and NROGO in areas containing 2 acres of native
upland vegetated land. In retrospect, I recommend that the language that will be finalized for the
January 21 meeting not use thc tcnns native up/and vegetated land, but instead use thc tcnns
"Tropical Hardwood Hammock and Pi"-t?lnrcfb ".
With regard to the full restoration of the County's building permit allocation, you may recall that
I indicated that I nceded to conduct additional research to ensure that the total n\Unbcr of penn its
proposed for allocation continue to fall within the parameters of the hearing office.r's
recommendations and our ability to safely evacuate citizens during hurricanes. I hope that we
can quickly resolve these questions and move on with our conceptual agreement. 1100k forward
to your response regarding this item.
Yours truly,
~#l.~
Colleen M. Castille
Secretary
cc: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
RESOLUTION ~2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COM:MISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) TO
MEET THE STATE'S AND COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER
RULE 28-20.100, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, AND THE
COUNTY'S YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
COMMITTING . THE COUNTY TO SPECIFIC
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS; REQUESTING RECIPROCAL
COMMITMENTS FROM THE DCA; AND DIRECTING COUNTY
STAFF TO PREPARE AN INTERIM MORATORmM
ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GUIDANCE FROM LEGAL
COUNSEL
WHEREAS, Monroe County is obligated to implement a "rork Program as
required by Rule 28-20.100, Florida Administrative Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Work Program is intended to provide guidance and a schedule
of objectives that must be completed to implement the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan; and)
WHEREAS, the Work Program, the County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, obligate the State in assisting the County; and,
WHEREAS, Rule 28-20.100 requires that the DCA, and the Governor and
Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Administration Commission, annually review the progress
being made by the County in accomplishing the objectives set forth in the Work Program;
and,
~
WHEREAS, on December 16, 200)Y,' the Florida Administration Commission
upon the recommendation of the DCA, has determined that Monroe County has not
made substantial progress toward meeting the objectives of Year 7 of the Work Program;
and,
WHEREAS, the Florida Administration Commission has directed the DCA to
prepare proposed rules to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Commission
consideration on January 27,2004; and,
~
WHEREAS, after the December 16, 200,f,' Florida Administration Commission
meeting, Secretary Castille reiterated her previous offer to secure grant funding
assistance for wastewater constmction, land acquisition, and affordable housing for
C:\Documents and Sellings\jth\LocaI Scttings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\resol-fac-OI-04Rdoc
Page I of 4
Monroe County and to fonn a partnership between the DCA and Monroe County to work
toward satisfaction of Work Program goals; and,
WHEREAS, in an effort to reach agreement on a partnership between the DCA
and Monroe County, Secretary Castille and the Board of County Commissioners met at a
special Commission workshop meeting held on January 6, 2004~ and,
WHEREAS, at that workshop meeting the Growth Management Division
Director presented for discussion purposes a "Conceptual Proposal for a Cooperative
Agreement between the DCA and Monroe County to Address Significant Work Program
Issues" (the "Conceptual Proposal"), which modified the Growth Management Division
report dated December 31, 2003, and recommended one of the six options for interim
protection contained in that report; and
WHEREAS, the Board received and considered at the workshop meeting an
opinion letter of Growth Management Division litigation counsel dated January 6, 2004
(a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit Two" and made part of this resolution)
that recommends inclusion offour specific provisions in a moratorium ordinance to make
it legally defensible (the "legal recommendations"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered the
recommendations of its Growth Management Division and Secretary Castille and
approved the Conceptual Proposal in substance with revisions, including the legal
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, both the Board and Secretary Castille recognize that the existing
maps utilized to delineate the extent and location of Conservation and Natural Areas will
require further refinement in order to protect valuable habitat and to avoid overbroad
restriction on lands suitable for development, and that the public should have the
opportunity to review and comment on the maps before they are incorporated into a
moratorium ordinance and other growth management regulations; and
WHEREAS, the County Growth Management Division staff and its legal counsel
prepared for Board consideration a "Cooperative Agreement betweer. the DCA and
Monroe County to Address Significant Work Program Issues" (the "Cooperative
Agreement") based on the revised Conceptual Proposal as approved by the Board on
January 6, 2004, with other nunor revisions recommended by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the draft
Cooperative Agreement and has received further public input at a special meeting held
January 21, 2004;
C:\Documents and Settings\jth\Local Settings\Tempo:rary Internet Files\OLKC\resol-fac-Ol-04R.doc
Page 2 of4
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNlY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1: Monroe County commits to a cooperative relationship in the natuce of a
partnership with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, to accomplish the shared
purpose of meeting joint obligations under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Rule 28-
20.100, F.A.C., and the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2; The Mayor of Monroe County is hereby authorized to execute the
Cooperative Agreement which is attached hereto as "Exhibit One" and made part of this
Resolution.
Section 3: The Cooperative Agreement is intended to link the respective
commitments of Monroe County and DCA t.o achieve Work Program objectives of
creating wastewater infrastructure, workforce/affordable housing, and habitat protection.
The extent of the County's bonding commitments and financial expenditures corresponds
to the State's performance in fulfilling its commitments under the Cooperative
Agreement.
Section 4: The County Administrator shall direct the Growth Management Division
with the assistance of legal counsel to prepare a Moratorium Ordinance for habitat
protection in conformity with the Cooperative Agreement, incorporating therein the legal
recommendations.
Section 5: The County Administrator shall direct the Growth :Management Division
to review and to propose appropriate revisions to the Conservation and Natural Areas
maps, and in that process shall invite input from DCA and the public_ The Conservation
and Natural Areas maps, including proposed revisions thereto, shall be included in the
public hearings on the Moratorium Ordinance.
Section 6: A copy of this resolution is to be transmitted by the Mayor to Secretary
Colleen Castille, the Governor and Cabinet, Senator Bullard, and Representative
Sorensen.
[TIIE REMAINDER OF TIllS PAGE IS LEFT INfENTIONALL Y BLANK.]
C:\Documents and Senings\jth\Local Settings\Temporary InLemct Filcs\OLKC\resol-fac..ol-04R.doc
Page 3 of 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe
County, Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 2151 day of January, AD.,
2004.
BOARD OF COUNTY CONIMISSION"ERS
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mayor Murray Nelson
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
BY:
MAYOR/CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST: DANNYL K KOLHAGE, CLERK
BY:
DEPUTY CLERK
Exhibits
C:\Documents and Settings\jth\LocaJ Settings\Tcmpol'll1)' Internet Files\OLKC\resol-fac-()l-04Rdoc
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT ONE
Cooperative Agreement between the DCA and Monroe County to Address
Significant Work Program Issues
This Cooperative Agreement sets forth the reciprocal commitments of the Florida
Department of County Affairs ("DCA") and Monroe County ("County") to implement
the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Work Program and the recommendations of the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study. The specific commitments of each party are
linked to, and dependent upon, performance ofthe other party's commitments hereunder.
WASTEWATER
Commitments by the County
1. The County will initiate and take all steps legally necessary to obtain up
to $40 million in bond financing secured by infrastructure tax funds to
match $10 million in grant funds from the State in 2004 and $20 million in
Federal/State grants in 2005 for construction of wastewater projects.
2. The County, in cooperation with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,
will initiate and take all steps legally necessary to obtain up to $80 million
in bond financing secured by connection fees, to fund construction and
expansion of wastewater projects.
The total amount to be bonded by the County would be up to $120 million, which
is 50 percent of estimated total costs of remaining projects.
Commitments by DCA
1. Secure $10 million in grants to match the $20 million to be bond-financed
by Monroe County for wastewater projects in FY 2004.
2. Secure $20 million in Federal/State grants to match $20 million to be
bond- financed by Monroe County for wastewater projects in FY 2005.
The above are minimum commitments by DCA; Secretary Castille has committed
DCA to endeavor to secure additional state funding and to work with the County
to obtain additional federal funding. DCA has already identified $18 million in
Governor's FY 05 Budget for Florida Keys wastewater construction.
Page 10f5
EXHIBIT ONE
WORKFORCE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Commitments by the County
1. The County will initiate and take all steps legally necessary to obtain up
to $10 million in bond financing, secured by its half-penny of the tourist
impact tax, to purchase land for workforce housing .
2. The County will initiate and hold public hearings on amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations regarding
affordable housing allocations and assignment of these allocations, to
increase and more effectively distribute such allocations in order to
address affordable housing needs.
3. The County will assign to a workforce/affordable housing pool at least
234 ROGO allocations; such allocations to be obtained from the
following sources: 53 (existing unused allocations); 156 ROGO restored
allocations lost in ROGO Years 9 through 12 due to reductions in the
County's annual allocations made by Administration Commission
rulemaking; and 25 allocations lost in ROGO Year 10 due to lack of
nutrient reduction credits. This commitment requires that DCA
recommend to Governor and Cabinet the restoration of these lost
allocations.
4. The County will identify potential sites for workforce/affordable housing
and will include appropriate sites in the Land Acquisition Master Plan.
Commitments by DCA
1. Secure $20 million (including the $3 million in grant funds already
identified by the Secretary as being available) for purchases of land for
affordable/workforce housing over the next two years.
2. Restore to Monroe County the 181 allocations lost between ROGO Years
9 through 12 due to reductions in the County's annual allocations made by
Administration Commission rulemaking and lack of nutrient reduction
credits in Year 10; those restored allocations are to be assigned to
affordable/workforce housing.
3. Restore Monroe County's annual ROGO allocation of 197 units, with the
number of market rate units not to exceed 126 per year and the number of
affordable housing units being increased to at least 71 per year. [The
current allocation is a total of 158, of which 126 are market rate and 32 are
affordable. ]
Page 2 of5
EXHIBIT ONE
HABITAT PROTECTION
Commitments by the County
1. The County will draft and hold public hearings to adopt an interim
moratorium on ROGO/NROGO allocation awards in areas containing
tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of two acres or greater within
Conservation and Natural Areas, such moratorium to extend for up to one
year or until amendments are made to the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations for protection of those habitats. To assure
precise identification of those lands warranting special protection, the
County Growth Management Division staff will prepare a map of
Conservation and Natural Areas, utilizing Florida Marine Resources
Institute ADID Maps, the most recent aerial photographs, site visits as
necessary, and input from DCA and the public.
2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan and/or Land Development Regulations
to:
a. Adopt Tier Overlay Map designations;
b. Revise ROGO/NROGO based on Tier System utilizing a positive
point approach that predominately relies on land dedication and
aggregation;
c. Revise the environmental regulations using the Tier system rather
than the existing Habitat Evaluation Index.
3. Prepare a Land Acquisition Master Plan including strategies, funding, and
non-funding sources for acquisition and management of conservation
lands, retirement of development rights, and acquisition of affordable
housing sites. DCA participation in this effort will be needed to secure
assistance of state and federal agencies in this effort.
Commitments by DCA
1. Secure $93 million for the purchase by the State of environmentally
sensitive lands under CARL.
[Secretary Castille has publicly committed to request the Legislature to
provide up to $93 million in Florida Forever Funds for acquisition of
sensitive lands.]
2. Actively assist and support the County's efforts to expand CARL
boundaries to include a majority of vacant privately owned lands within
the County's Conservation and Natural Areas.
Page3of5
EXHIBIT ONE
3. Facilitate and cooperatively work with the County in the preparation of a Land
Acquisition Master Plan.
4. Actively participate in, and assist the County with, the legal defense of any
takings claims and Bert Harris Act claims arising from the Comprehensive
Plan or actions contemplated by this document. Help the County secure state
funding grant assistance to cover these claims.
5. Authorize the County either to borrow 41 "future" nutrient reduction credits to
be generated from the expansion of the KW Resort Utility facilities on Stock
Island to retroactively eliminate the backlog of ROGO allocations, or to allow
ROGO allocations to be rolled over. [County will lose these allocations in this
ROGO year if the backlog is not eliminated or roll-over is not authorized.]
6. Authorize the County to borrow, at least for affordable housing allocations,
"future" nutrient reduction credits to be generated from wastewater projects in
Stock Island, Bay Point, Conch Key and Key Largo.
REPORT TO GOVERNOR AND CABINET
Commitments by the County
1. Commits to implementing these reciprocal agreements in cooperation with
the DCA.
2. Commits to a partnership between the DCA and County to effectuate these
shared objectives.
Commitments by DCA
1. Report to the Governor and Cabinet that the County has made substantial
progress on its Work Program based on the mutual commitments set forth
in this agreement.
2. Make recommendations to the Governor and Cabinet for rule amendments
necessary to implement these commitments.
APPROVAL
Approval of this document by Monroe County will be evidenced by the signature
of the Mayor of Monroe County pursuant to Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners. Approval by DCA will be evidenced by either the signature of the DCA
Secretary of a counterpart original hereof or by written communication of assent to the
terms hereof, signed by the DCA Secretary.
Page 4 of5
EXHIBIT ONE
Executed by the undersigned Mayor of Monroe County pursuant to Resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting of
said Board held on the 21st day of January, A.D., 2004.
BY:
MAYOR
FICIENCY:
Page 5 of5
. .
EXHIBIT TWO
Karen K. Cabanas
Robert Cintron
James T. Hendrick
Derek V. Howard
Hugh J. Morgan
LAW OFFICES
MORGAN & HENDRICK
317 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
W. Curry Harris
(1907-1988)
Hilary U. Albury
( 1920-1999)
January 6, 2004
J. Richard Collins, Esq.
Monroe County Attorney
HAND-DELIVERED
Re: Potential liability for short-term moratorium
Dear Mr. Collins:
Monroe County Growth Management Division has informed us that Monroe County is
contemplating adoption of an ordinance (the "Moratorium Ordinance") that would
establish a moratorium of short duration (i.e., not exceeding one year) on the issuance of
ROGO/NROGO allocations involving clearing of "high quality hammock" lands within
Conservation and Natural Areas. We have been directed to render to you our legal
opinion concerning Monroe County's potential liability for enactment of the Moratorium
Ordinance, under both the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (F .S. ~
70.001; "the Harris Act") and the provisions of the U. S. and Florida Constitutions
requiring just compensation for governmental actions that "take" real property ("takings").
Our opinion is based on the premise that the Moratorium Ordinance will include the
following provisions, the absence of which might subject the Moratorium Ordinance to
potentially successful challenge:
1. Proper purpose: the purpose of the Moratorium Ordinance must be legally
justifiable, e.g interim protection of environmentally sensitive lands for the
minimum period required for the drafting and adoption of land development
regulations restricting development of those lands and assuring just compensation
for owners of lands that may be rendered unbuildable by those regulations.
Because there would be takings implications if the County were to adopt a
moratorium solely to gain sufficient time to acquire those lands, we recommend that
the Moratorium Ordinance expressly disclaim such a purpose!. The Resolution
I This would make it clear that the County is acting for rea6fis other than effectuating DCA's recommendation that the
County "protect high quality habitat until acquisition funds become available."
'.
should also state the reasons that these particular lands are being subjected to the
moratorium (i.e., their unique habitat and environmental values) to the exclusion of
other lands (e.g., wetlands are already adequately protected).
2. Administrative relief: in order to afford relief to any property owner who might
have a legitimate basis for vested rights, and to deter unfounded judicial challenges
to the Moratorium Ordinance, the Moratorium Ordinance should include an
administrative procedure for determination of vested rights. Although GMD staff is
of the opinion that there are few, if any, potential applicants for such relief, the
existence of an administrative remedy will afford dual protection for property rights
and against spurious litigation.
3. Clear definitions: to assure due process, a precise description of those lands subject
to the Moratorium Ordinance is essential.
4. Limited term: takings jurisprudence holds that moratoria of short duration (such as
6 months to a year) do not constitute a categorical taking. As noted below, the
Harris Act excludes temporary measures such as short-term moratoria.
Provided that the above recommendations are included in the Moratorium Ordinance, and
that the Ordinance is enacted in accordance with the provisions of Florida law and
Monroe County LDRs, we are of the opinion that the adoption of the Moratorium
Ordinance will not subject Monroe County to substantial risk of an adverse judgment
under either the Harris Act or takings litigation. As the BOCC has previously been
advised, the Harris Act expressly excludes liability for "temporary impacts to real
property" F.S. S 70.001(3)(e). That exclusion encompasses the Moratorium Ordinance.
The United States Supreme Court's Tahoe decision holds that moratoria complying with
the above recommendations do not constitute a categorical taking. Although it is
theoretically possible that an affected property owner could allege an as-applied taking,
the prospect of recovery under such a theory is remote, because a short-term moratorium
would not strip the property of essentially all value.
We will be pleased to address the BOCC on the subject of this letter, at your direction.
Sincerely,
County of Monroe
Growth Mana2:ernent Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, TIorida 33050
Voice: 305.289. 2500
FAX: 305.289. 2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Murray Nelson, District 5
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
Comm. George Neugent, District 2
Cornrn. Dixie Spehar, District 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP /1J
Director of Growth Manage~~
FROM:
DATE:
January 20, 2004
SUBJECT:
Staff Analysis of Small Tropical Hardwood Hammock
and Pinelands Patches Outside of Conservation and Natural Areas
The Planning staff has completed its detailed analysis of tropical hardwood hammock and
pinelands of two or more acres in size located outside of the County's designated Conservation and
Natural Areas. The results of this analysis with supporting maps and specific recommendations on
the purchase of some ofthese habitat areas are included in the Planning Director's attached report.
Based on the Florida Marine Resources Institute habitat maps, the staff identified 33 patches of
habitat meeting the two acre minimum covering a total of 111 acres. Upon further analysis of the
aerial photographs and property tax records, only 15.5 acres were suitable for protection or
acquisition. The remaining habitat patches was either fragmented into patches of less than two
acres by development, cleared for new development, required open space for residential
development, or of limited value due to configuration. The staff is recommending that the three
patches containing 15.5 acres, all greater than 4.5 acres in size, be acquired by the County for
conservation purposes and/or be considered for designation within the Conservation and Natural
Areas.
In addition to the Planning Director's report, attached is a report from the County's environmental
consultant, Dr. Ricardo Calvo providing the scientific basis for the County's decision on
designation of its Conservation and Natural Areas. As Dr Calvo's memorandum attests, size does
matter when it comes to viability and functionality of habitat.
Attachments
J:~
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 em conaway(@,mail.state.fl.us
January 20, 2004
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
K. Marlene Conaway, Directo'r'Y\ ~.//
TO:
RE:
Hammock and Pinelands of two acres or greater, not included in the
Conservation and Natural Areas.
Some questions have arisen since the Commission meeting last week as to the comparative
quality of hammock areas not included in the County Conservation and Natural Areas boundaries.
The Planning staff was requested to do a preliminary review of all hammock and pinel and areas
of two acres or greater not included within the Conservation and Natural Areas!. The FMRI
habitat maps produced in 1996 were used to identify the habitat areas. These maps are the basis of
most mapping projects completed for the Florida Keys including the Florida Keys Carrying
Capacity Study. The FWCC GAP maps are at too large a scale to be useful for a parcel by parcel
analysis.
Using the GIS, the habitat maps were over-laid on recent aerial photography, the current Property
Appraiser maps and the Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier) map. The staff evaluation resulted
in a recommendation to acquire 3 of the 33 hammock patches identified, a total of approximately
15.5 acres. The majority of the patches were not recommended for acquisition because they are
comprised of parts of large lots that are currently developed or additional residential and
commercial development has reduced the patch size to less than 2 acres and fragmented the
hammock. The results of the staff evaluation can be summarized as follows:
A total of 33 patches containing approximately III acres were identified on the FMRI maps.
. Three patches containing 15 Y2 acres are recommended for acquisition because they are of
sufficient size and additional development has not occurred.
. Twelve patches containing 44 acres are primarily comprised of the open space areas of
condominiums and developed subdivisions lots and should not be considered for
acquisition.
. Fifteen patches containing 44 Y2 acres, are in IS subdivisions, bisected by roads and have
been substantially developed since the FMRI mapping. They are appropriate for infill.
. Three patches containing 7 acres are commercially zoned, linear, located between
US#land residential uses and are a low priority for acquisition.
Attached are map sheets and recommendations concerning areas identified on the 1996 FMRI
maps as containing two acres or more of hammock outside the Natural and Conservation Areas.
Attachments
cc. Tim McGarry, Director Division of Growth Management
Mark Rosch, Executive Director of the Land Authority
Jim Roberts, County Administrator
I Big Pine and No Name Keys were also excluded because development is controlled by the HCP.
IHabitat Review of Upland Hammocks and Pinelands
Of two acres or greater, not in Natural and Conservation Areas
Map 1 (a): One 3 acre patch on Cudjoe Key was identified: two roads bisect the area, the
IS lots are on canals and most of the lots are currently developed reducing the size ofthe
patch to less than 2 acres.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 2 (a): An isolated linear 2.7 acre parcel on Cudjoe Key was identified south and
adjacent to US #1. A residentially developed local road is on the opposite side of the SC
lots. The aerial shows that some of the area is currently cleared (note: storage lots may
show as vacant on the GIS)
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 3 (a) (b): Three patches were identified on Summerland Key.
(a) The 2.3 acre patch consists of vacant lots and an area identified in the plat maps
as Summerland Park.
No acquisition is recommended.
(b)(c) The 3.6 and 2.8 acre patches south of US #1 on Ocean Drive are part of
developed IS lots on the ocean.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 4 (a): This 2.2 acre isolated patch on Ramrod Key has a canal on two sides and an
access road in the middle. At lease one of the IS lots are developed and all are disturbed.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 5 (a): Several undeveloped lots and part of a large developed lot are contained
within a hammock patch of approximately 4.7 acre. The area is recommended for
acquisition in the draft LCP. (MM 91)
Acquisition is recommended.
MAP 6 (a )(b): Two areas are identified. Both the smaller 2.6 acre patch and the
unconnected 3.5 acre patch are developed. The larger patch appears to be the open space
for the Sunset Hammock Condominiums. (MM 94)
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 7: Three hammock patches are identified. (MM 95)
(a) The 6.1 acre patch north of US #1 consists ofthe south side oflarge SR lots that
are primarily developed on the bay to the north.
No acquisition is recommended.
I Note: Big Pine Key and No Name Key are not included -currently no permits are being issued until an
HCP is approved.
(b) The 2.4 acre patch north of US #1 is partially developed and contains roadways
reducing the patch to less than 2 acres.
No acquisition is recommended.
(c) The 6.1 acre IS zoned patch on the ocean side is linear, contains existing
development that has occurred since the habitat maps were drafted reducing the
patch size and is surrounded by development.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 8 (a): The 2.5 acre patch is comprised of developed large SR lots. (MM 96)
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 9: Eight patches two acres or greater, are identified. (MM 97 and MM 98)
(a) A large 5.1 acre patch north of US #1 currently consists of vacant and developed
IS lots and is further divided by roadways reducing the contiguous hammock.
No Acquisition is recommended.
(b) The 2.1 acre patch north of US #1 is zoned SR and is developed.
No acquisition is recommended.
(c) A 4.6 acre SR patch north ofUS#1. A site visit is required to determine if the
area should be included in Conservation and Natural areas.
Acquisition is recommended.
(d) A 3.5 acre patch south of US #1 is part of developed SR lots.
No acquisition is recommended.
(e) A 2.1 acre patch south of US 1 is part oflarge developed SR lots.
No acquisition is recommended.
(f) An isolated vacant 2.6 acre patch, adjacent to a mobile home park, south of US 1
is part of one large SR zoned lot. The hammock is protected by clustering
requirements.
No acquisition is recommended.
(g) (h) A 4.9 acre patch north of US #1 and a 2.4 acre patch within the medium of
US #1 are part of the developed SR subdivision with open space is within the
medium of US #1.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 10: Two patches south ofUS# 1 are identified. (MM 99)
(a) The 2.2 acre condensed patch to the north is in an IS subdivision, this area
consists of sparse development, a roadway and is isolated.
No acquisition is recommended
(b) The 2.5 acre isolated linear patch consists of infilllots in an IS subdivision with
roads on two sides.
No acquisition is recommended.
Map 11: Three patches are identified on this map. (MM 100)
(a) (c) The two patches north of US #1, 7.1 and 4.5 acres, consists oflarge SR lots
the majority of which are developed. Any development on the remaining four lots
will require clustering and preserve the majority of the hammock fragment.
No acquisition is recommended.
(b) One leg of the 2.9 acres in this IS patch south ofUS# 1 is currently developed
reducing the size to less than 2 acres.
No acquisition is recommended
Map 12: Four patches between two and three acres are identified. (MM 103)
(a) The 2.4 acre linear patch south of US #1 is on Adams Waterway and the IS lots
are currently being developed.
No acquisition is recommended
(b)(c) The 2.2 acre IS and SC patch and the 2 acre SC patch north and adjacent to
US #1 provide a vegetated buffer to the residential communities behind. But with
roads on both sides these linear patch are of low habitat value.
No acquisition is recommended.
(d) The 2.1 acre patch currently contains developed IS lots and is divided by roads.
No acquisition is recommended
Map 13: Three patches are identified on this map. (MM 105)
(a) The 2.3 acre patch north and adjacent to US #1 is zoned Urban Commercial (UC)
and is at least partially developed, reducing the acreage to below 2 acres. Staff
review of the Conditional Use will be needed to determine if the remaining
parcels are developable.
No acquisition is recommended.
(b) This 2.9 acre patch north and adjacent to US #1 consists of several large IS
subdivision lots divided by two roads leading into the subdivision and reducing
the size of anyone patch to below 2 acres.
No acquisition is recommended.
(c) The 6.2 acre patch was previously identified for acquisition in a Conservation
and Natural Area. This is a drafting error.
Acquisition is recommended.
-
co
-
:a
co
:I:
"C
c::
co
c..
:;:)
.....
Q.
co
:E
Z
LL
Q.
:c
f
CD
c
~
o
>-
CD
<<i
>
'C
a..
'E-g
~ c
cu :;:
>0
a
~.~
~
- ....
Qj .92 F
~iDI
c:: >>
o _ ~
'r;; c:: '"
'> 0 ~
.... cu 0
o > ....
.... '-~'" vi =
c:: - 0
cu cu ....
e '" u (is
cu..2 ta s::
~:= ~ t::
~ '" vi ,q
Cd'" Q,)......
::s .~ '5 .~
..=....'00
~] s'~
0'0 0 Ut""l
-'= CU.t:) t+= ~
r..:;;.s U'~ lI"l
oS.... 5~
c:: c:: go '0 .....
= 0'0....
o U >> ....
U s- 0
(\S cu ~
cu'O~~
o 3 (\S
g ~ u ~
::s ~ '0
....>.O,E
..s "2 c:: .~
'" 0 >>'1:
.... ~ (\S
fJ'",e
.; l~
E5
-
as
-
:c
as
J:
19
:0
cu
::I:
"C
C
cu
a.
::>
10
...,
:c
ca
::E:
"C
C
ca
Q.
:J
. .
N
C.
ca
:E
1
...
o
~.~
~
>-
2
C\3
>
'C
a..
.....'0
C Q)
~ C
C\3 3:
>0
a
= >>
0..... ~
'{ii = VJ
'> 0]
.... u 0
t:l > ...
1:: .~ .!i g
u ::l u....
eVJ~~
u..2~=
tlO;,:: Q. r::
Cd ~o
c: VJ VJ .,_,
Cd .... u .....
~ 'E 'fa .~
..c:"'''00
~ u =....
"..c: ::s ~
0"0 0 c)l"'l
"'u.ot+::Q
o.S O'.;:lll")
C ~ 's.. ~ ~
==ou"O.....
::s "0 ....
oC)>>...
u~Qjo~
g"Oe~
e u ::s Cd
o..c: C) ~
~~~~
... >>0 ....
..s==~
VJ 0 >>'J:
.... VJ Cd
g.~e
e e. "0
.~ a ;j
~
a.
:c
f
Q)
c
:c
o
~ ~ Q)
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
-
J!
:c
ca
:I:
19
:0
C\3
J:
'0
C
C\3
0..
::>
...
ns
...
:c
ns
::J:
"C
s:::
ns
c..
:::)
. .
M
Q.
ns
:E
c.
:c
f
CD
c
~
o
>-
2
ro
>
'I::
a..
- -c
I:: Q)
~ c
ro ~
>0
C
:: ~ Q)
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
't;
-
:s
co
:I:
19
:0
ro
:I:
-c
I::
ro
a.
::::>
~.~
~
= >-
o _ ~
.;;; = '"
'S; 0]
.- 0 0
Cl > ....
-= .~ .!i g
o.::l 0._
S '" 0 ~
o.E!!as::
00:-;:: c:l. I::
ClS ~o
= '" '" ..-.
ClS'- 0.....
~ .~ 'fa .~
..= .... "l::l 0
~ 0 =.~
::s;..= ::s ClS
O"l::l 0 0 M
J:::! o~t::::!;2
Q .5 tl .= lt1
~ ;g.- E ~
= =0 fr"l::l....
::s "l::l._
o 0 >- ....
u;g_o
ClS 0 ~
8"l::l e ~
!3 0 ::s ClS
o..=o~
::E~~'C)
5~o.:d
C+:i==oo
'" 0 >-'1:
.- '" ClS
c:l.OS
ClSlS"l::l
; ~ ta
.- c:l.
~
...
ns
...
:c
ns
:I:
"C
s:::
ns
Q.
:::)
. .
'IIIIlt
Q.
ns
:E
~.~
~
>-
Q)
-
~
"C::
D..
- "0
C::Q)
~c::
~~
a
c.
:c
~
Q)
c
~
o
c:: ;>..
o _ ~
'r;; c:: CI}
's; o-g
..... u 0
Cl > ....
-= .~ .!f g
u ~ u.....
13C1}Co)1U
u..e !il l=l
00:= 0.. c
~ CI} ,n.~
Cd.-' Q,) .....
::s .~ .~ .S
.... "0 2$
'€ ~ c::.....
:S-='1U
o "0 0 Co) c-')
-'= u..o t.;::: e
Q .5 t} ..= V")
;>"~'a ~ ~
-=C::u"O_
=' 0 "0 .....
o Co) ;>......
u ~_ 0
tl:I U ~
8"Oe~
13 u =' tl:I
ot::Co)~
~ ~ '0
,.0::; ......
~~o.:E
<+=<c::c::oo
CI} 0 ;>"'1::
..... CI} tl:I
o..U13
~ ~]
..... 0..
t::
- ....
(j) (j) "~
~iDi
't;
-
:c
ca
::E:
-
S
:0
co
J:
"0
c::
co
Ci.
:J
..
co
..
:c
co
:J:
"
c
co
Q.
::)
~
It)
c.
co
::IE
~ ~
Q.
:c
~
Q)
c
~
o
>-
Q)
......
co
>
'C
a..
...... "0
C Q)
~ c
co ~
>0
a
~.~
~
:: L. Ci;
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
5 ~ ~
';;J = rn
'S: o-g
.... II) 0
Cl > I-<
= .~ .!i g
II) .::: 11)....
S:g~~
11)_ t\l ~
bI):;:: Q. r::
~ rn vi.9
Cd.... II) .....
~'E'~ .~
..s::t"S!o
~.c: .......
0"O5~~
J:: 1I).r:Jt+:::Q
Q .S t> '';:: on
C ~ 's.. 5 ~
==011)"0-
:::l "0 ....
o U >- I-<
U ~_ 0
tIS II) ~
8"Oe~
13 II) :::l t\l
o..s:: U ~
::EE-<~~
I-< :>.0.....
..si3=~
rn 0 >-'1:
....... (/) ~
Q.II)S
e ~]
.~ &.
E5
-
ca
-
:c
ca
:J:
19
:.0
co
J:
"0
C
co
a.
::>
-
co
-
:c
co
:E:
~
t:
co
Q.
::)
. .
CD
Q.
CO
::E
Q.
:E
f
Q)
c
~
o
>-
.$
ro
>
'i::
a..
- '0
C Q)
rl C
ro ~
>0
a
~.~
~
~ ~ Q)
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
I:: ;>..
o _ ~
';J I:: tI.l
'S: 0 ~
.... ~ 0
Cl > I-<
'!::.~ <Ii l:l
... - 0
~e tl ~....
tI.l .... "'Cij
~.E;S=
b():;:: p. c::
~ tI.l <Ii.o
Cd...... u ~
::s .S .~ .S
~ ~ I::
'€ ~ 1::.9
~- ::3"'Cij
o ~ 0 (.) M
)~ ~.o t::: ~
Q .S t) ',= II')
c ~ 's.. 5 ~
I::l::o~"O-
::3 ~....
o (.) ;>.. I-<
U ~_ 0
ell ~ ~
~~ e ~
!:l ~ ::3 ell
o,.l:l (.) ~
::S~~'5
I-< ;>.. 0 1:
tSi3l::b()
tI.l 0 ;>"'1:
.... tI.l ell
P.~e
ell ~ "0
~ ::3 ta
.... p.
~
1;
-
:a
ca
%
-
S
:0
ro
:c
'0
C
ro
a.
:::::>
....
co
....
:s
.CU
::E:
"C
C
co
C.
::J
I'
C.
co
:E
~.~
~
>-
Q3
+-'
ctl
>
.~
a..
+-' '0
~ (I)
~ c
ctl ~
>0
a
Q.
:c
I!!
CD
c
~
= >>
o _ ~
'r;; = rJj
'> 0 ~
a~e
'!:: .~ en c::
... ... - 0
s t; 8.~
Q).E~~
QO:::: p. c
~ rJj en.~
Cd.... Q)....
::g .~ .~ .S
.c:~"gS
~ .c: .......
:S"05~l"'l
J~ Q),Qt;:::::~
Q .S t) .~ II')
o ;g 's. 5 ~
==Q)"O......
::3 0 "0 ....
0(,)>>...
u;g_o
Cd Q) ~
~"Oe ~
l:l Q) ::3 Cd
o ~ (.) ~
::g"~"O
... >'0 -
~i:3=-a
rJj 0 >>'C
.... rJj Cd
p.Q)S
S ~]
.~ ::3
~p.
-: ..... CD
(I) (I) ._
~iDi
-
ca
-
:s
ca
:J:
19
:c
ctl
:I:
'0
C
ctl
i5..
::::>
...
co
...
:c
co
:J:
"C
I:
co
Q.
::::)
co
CL
co
:E
c.
:c
f
Q)
c
~
>-
$
cu
>
.C
CL
+-'"0
C a>
~ C
CU ~
>0
a
~.~
~
L- L- L-
a> .~ a>
i= I- i=
~
~IDI
s >>
.c.;; = ur
.... o~
.::: u ~
Cl > 8
....~ ui' =
s:: ....- 0
u..,u...
e ;g ~ .~
u - ~ s::
~:;:: c:l. t:
rn ~ 0
t:l.... rn c+:;
Cd s:: U s::
:::s 'i) .~ ....
..&::~~S
~..&:: S.;::
O~OrlM
-'= U.J:J tt:l 0
Q .S "0 .;:: ;n
>. ,S.... s:: _
tr s:: fr ~ :::;
::3 8~....
o "'"-....
U,S.,!::;'o
~ U ~
~~ e ~
l:3 U ::3 ~
o..&:: u ~
:::sE-o~.....
. 0
.... >>0 -
..s~s::~
rn 0 >>'1:
..... CI) t':S
g.~e
e e.~
.~ ::3 ~
~c:l.
-
J!
:s
ca
:J:
+-'
S
:0
cu
:I:
"0
C
cu
a.
:::>
-
cu
-
:c
cu
::J:
"C
c:
cu
Q.
::J
. .
en
Q.
cu
:E
~!
- ....
Q.
:c
f
CD
c
~
o
>-
(6
-
~
'1::
a..
--0
c: CD
~ c:
cu 3:
>0
II
:: L... CD
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
1i
-
:c
ca
::J:
-
s
:c
cu
:I:
-0
c:
cu
a.
:::>
~l
~ .
h+
t'l
~.~
~
= >-
o _ ~
'r;; = '"
'S: 0]
.- ll,) 0
Q > ....
'!:: .~ <Ii d
.... - 0
ll,) .b ~._
S '" - ~
ll,) .z ~ =
OIl:;: p.. I::
CI:l ~O
s::: '" '" .._.
CI:l'- ll,).....
~ '5 'fa .~
..c:: ~ -g 0
~..c:: .,,~
o '"Cl 0 u C")
....ll,)~t.;::O
o .5 t) -.c ;n
>- ~.- ~ ~
-= = fr'"Cl-
., 0 '"Cl ._
o u >- ....
U ~_ 0
CI:l ll,) ~
g'"Cle~
S ll,) ., CI:l
o..c:: u ~
'o::'E-<uto-.
,..:; CI:l 0
....>,o.E
<E"2 = OIl
'" 0 >-'1:
.~ {/} C"S
~~S
S e.]
:26-
E-<
...
ftS
...
:a
ftS
:J:
'C
C
ca
Q.
:J
. .
Q
~
Q.
ftS
:E
Q.
:c
f
CI)
c
~
o
>.
Q)
...
~
.t:
a..
"''''0
t: Q)
~ t:
ca ~
>0
a
:: L... Ci;
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
-
S
15
as
::I:
...
S
:0
ca
::c
"'0
t:
ca
0-
::)
t.~
~
s:: >-
0...... ~
'r;] s:: fI)
'> 0]
..... Q) 0
Cl > ~
<;::'~ vi d
... ...... 0
~ ::: ~.....
l=O fI) ~ ~
Q)..e !a s::
00;,:: Q,. t::
~ fI) vi.~
Cd..,...ol Q)......
::E .S 'fa .S
~ "0 5
'€ ~ s:: .....
:s-~~
O"OOUM
~Q),o~~
o .S U ',= lrl
>- tU..... s:: ....
==fr.g;:::;
~ 0"0.....
ou>-~
u.g~o~
Q)tU_fI)
O"O~>-
~ Q) ~ tU
S::..du~
oE-<u.....
::E . ~ 0
~>-o.E
~=s::oo
fI) 0 >-'1:
..... fI) tU
Q,.Q)S
tU fI)
S e.]
.~ a
~
....
co
....
:a
co
:E:
"C
C
.!!
c..
:)
or"
or"
c..
co
:E
.e.
~
f
C>>
c
~
o
>.
.s
l\:l
>
"C
Cl.
--0
C Q)
~ C
~~
a
~.~
~
~ ~ ~
Q) .~ Q)
~ i= ~ i=
~IDI
5
....~
.~ = rn~
>000
.... u tIS
Cl > 8
.........
= ta ~ "
u .t:l:a =
6 rn 8 .g
u.E~1U
~:= c. 1=1
= rn ~ a::
tIS.... rn 0
'<:'.s.~ ~
~ Q,) (ij....
..s:: "'" 00 =
~ .,g s .g
000"'1U
""'u]U('f')
c.:I= t+::o
.'1""1 ..... ...... .........
c ~ .~ "E on
S 5 j'~ S
o u .., ....
U ~ >>"'"
tIS "0 0
8"O~~
2 u :s tIS
o..c:u~
::sE-<~.....
"",' 0
.g~g.E
.~ 0 >>.~
c.rntlS
tIS ~ 6
6000
.~ ~ fa
E5C.
-
J!
:s
ca
:r:
E
:0
l\:l
J:
-0
C
l\:l
Q,
:::>
....
co
....
:c
co
:J:
"'C
c::
co
c..
:)
. .
N
~
C.
co
:E
c.
:E
f
G)
c
~
o
:>.
.$
ro
>
"t::
a..
+-'"0
t:: Q)
~ t::
~~
a
~ L. Ci;
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
'1a
-
:c
ca
:I:
E
:0
ro
:I:
"0
t::
ro
c.
::>
~.~
~
= :>.
o _ ~
'r;; = 00
';> 0 ~
.- u 0
Cl > ....
-<;:: .~ vi ~
... .. - 0
~ .... ~.-
~00""1U
u.E!a~
00:= Q.. l:
~ 00 vi.~
Cd.-- Q).......
~ .~ '!a .~
.c: .... "C 0
1::' ~ =._
:S-=1U
o"Coo("t')
....u,cf+::O
Co:) .s ts '+:l ;r;
:>. ,S 's.. 5 ~
-==u"O....
= 0 "0 ._
00:>.....
U,S_o
tU u ~
g"Oe~
.... u = tU
=..s::: u ~
o E-< 0 '-
~ "~o
....:>.o:d
~==oo
00 0 :>"J:
.- 00 tU
Q..us
tU 00
s e.]
00 _ tU
:Es..
E-<
...
cu
...
:c
cu
:J:
"C
C
cu
Q.
::)
M
.....
~
CU
::E
~.~
~
>-
Qj
-
co
>
'C
a.
- '0
C Q)
~ C
~~
a
Q.
:c
l!!
CD
c
~
o
s= >.
o _ ~
';;} s= <I)
'> 0]
..... Q) 0
Cl > ....
~.~~ g
Q) .::: Q).....
e <I) CJ ~
Q).E~s::
OIl:;::: (:l.. t:
~ <I) ui.P
Cd.1I'I'l QJ....-!
::E ,~ '/a .~
..s= .... "0 0
~ ] S '+:l
::>"OO~M
8Q).ot+::~
o .S U '+:l lI"l
>. ~..... s= _
... s= (:l.. Q) ;::;
So-8:-S
oCJ>.....
U ~_ 0
C'I:I Q) ~
g"C~~
l3 Q) ::l C'I:I
o..s= CJ ~
::EE-t~"S
.... ;>.. 0 ...
<E=s=~
<I) 0 >"1::
..... <I) C'I:I
g.~e
e e.]
.~ ::l
~(:l..
-: .... CD
Q) Q) .-
~iDi
-
RS
-
:c
RS
J:
E
:0
co
J:
'0
C
co
15..
:::::l
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2202 N Westshore Blvd, Suite 250
Tampa FL 33607-5755
Phone: 813.282.23941 Fax: 813.282.2440
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Ricardo N. Calvo, Ph.D.~
TO:
Marlene Conaway, Monroe County
DATE:
January 19, 2004
RE:
Ecological Consequences of Small Habitat Patch Size
In 1967, MacArthur and Wilson predicted that larger islands are more likely to have a greater
diversity of habitats, allowing a wider variety of species to co-exist (MacArthur and Wilson
1967). This prediction has been extended to address the effect of habitat fragmentation,
particularly where developed areas surround habitat fragments. Models predict that smaller
patches would have fewer species than larger patches of the same habitat type.
Biodiversity and ecological functions can be affected in three main ways with decreasing
habitat patch size: a reduction in the number of species, an increase in the relative intensity of
edge effects, and an increase in the patch's vulnerability to secondary human effects.
Smaller patches provide less room and
habitat diversity for species. Therefore,
fewer species can co-exist in smaller
patches. Bancroft et al. (1995) showed
that fewer forest-nesting bird species
occurred in smaller hammock patches in
the Florida Keys. Several species in the
Florida Keys require minimum patch
sizes of several acres for breeding or
other key life history events. For
example, white-crowned pigeon
(Columba leucocephala) fledglings
require patches larger than 12 acres for
their initial dispersal (Strong and
Bancroft 1994).
u
~
w
Number of Species
Edge Effects
Secondary Impacts
SmalllIsolated
Patch
Large/Connected
Patch
Patch Size and Connectivity
Figure I. General depiction of the effects of
habitat patch size/connectivity
Forest edges are subject to different conditions than forest interiors. Light exposure,
temperature gradients, and other biophysical conditions are more extreme along the edge of
the forest. Strong and Bancroft (1994) suggested that, in the Florida Keys, forest patches of
less than 13 acres experience edge conditions throughout.
Finally, small forest patches are more vulnerable to secondary human effects, such as noise
and light pollution, than larger patches. A summary of the literature on the extent of
secondary effects into forest interiors suggested that secondary effects extend at least 500
feet into forest patches (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2003). To illustrate this effect,
consider that the entire area of a circular forest patch with a diameter of 500 feet
(approximately 18 acres) would be affected by secondary impacts.
In the Florida Keys, development has severely fragmented upland habitats; nearly 90% of the
remaining patches are of 10 acres or less. A total of 33 patches of privately-owned upland
forest remain outside Tier 1 in unincorporated Monroe County, excluding Big Pine Key and
No Name Key. The ecological value of most ofthese small fragments is minimal. They
occur mainly in subdivisions, adjacent to developed lots or roads and canals. A few of these
patches represent green portions of developed parcels.
Conservation Implications
Because fiscal resources for land acquisition are limited, potential lands for conservation
must be prioritized. Conservation and acquisition should focus on larger, connected habitat
patches because they provide for a) the protection of a larger number of species, b) the
preservation of ecological processes, and c) a buffer against the secondary impacts of human
activity on native areas.
Efforts to preserve biodiversity and the ecological value of upland habitats in the Florida
Keys should give priority to larger patches and those smaller patches that are or can be
connected to larger patches. Tier 1 lands were delineated based on these criteria.
References
Bancroft, G.T., A.M. Strong, and M. Carrington. 1995. Deforestation and its effects on
forest-nesting birds in the Florida Keys. Conservation Biology 9:835-844.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of biogeography. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J. 120 pp.
Strong, A.M. and G.T. Bancroft. 1994. Postfledging dispersal of white-crowned pigeons:
implications for conservation of deciduous seasonal forests in the Florida Keys. Conservation
Biology 8:770-779.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Final Report.
131 pp.
Page 2 of2
County of Monroe
Growth Mana~ement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, norida 33050
Voice: 305.289. 2500
FAX: 305.289. 2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Murray Nelson, District 5
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
Comm. George Neugent, District 2
Comm. Dixie Spehar, District 1
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP /'1/1//
Director of Growth Mana~
TO:
DATE:
January 16, 2004
SUBJECT:
Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement:
Agenda Item J-2
The staff apologizes, but a reference to the "Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District" was
inadvertently left out of Exhibit One of the Resolution. To rectify this omission, the staff requests
that the County's second numbered commitment under the Wastewater section of Exhibit One, be
amended as follows (new language underlined):
"2. The County, in cooperation with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Key
Largo Wastewater Treatment District, will initiate and take all steps legally
necessary to obtain up to $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees,
to fund construction and expansion of wastewater projects."
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
cc: Danny Kolhage, Clerk of Circuit Court
James L. Roberts, County Administrator
John R. Collins, County Attorney
K. Marlene Conaway, Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
James Hendrick, GMD Legal Counsel
:::s. ~
II
.J
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Monroe County Commission
Rebecca Jetton
DCA Proposed amendments to the cooperative agreement:
January 21, 2004
Page 2, Workforce Housing, item 3:
The county will assign a workforce/affordable housing pool at least 187 RaGa
allocations: such allocations to be obtained from the following sources: 53 existing
unused allocations, 109 RaGa restored allocations lost in years 9 through 12 due to
reductions in the county's annual allocations made by the administration commission
rulemaking; and 25 allocations lost in RaGa year 10 due to a lack of nutrient credits.
This commitment requires that DCA recommend to the governor and Cabinet the
restoration of these lost allocations.
Page 2, commitments by DCA, items 1:
Secure 3 million and initiate all steps necessary to secure an additional 17 million in grant
funds for affordable/workforce housing over the next two years
I'
Page 3, Commitments by DCA, Item 2:
Restore to Monroe county the 134 allocations lost between ROGO years 9-12 due to
reductions in the County's annual allocations made by the administration commission
rulemaking and lack of nutrient reduction credits in Year 10; those restored allocations
-rr~ vO(CMT~ S~((~
Page 3, Habitat Prote lOn, commitments by the county, ailtl item 4:
The CNA maps, incl ing any proposed revisions thereto, shall be included in the public
~ hearing on the mora rium ordinance. The Monroe County Land authority will target for
YGl\Ultary purchas appropriate environmentally sensitive lands that are contained within
upland native habitat of2 acres or more outside the CNA. The county will set aside $2
million of reserve RaGa funds for this purpose.
Page 3, Ad<J Item 5:
Prepare and submit to DCA an expeditious schedule of public hearings, comprehensive
plan amendments, and land development regulations to ensure that moratorium is
terminated within one year.
Page 4, Item 6, DCA Commitments:
County shall identify the specific number of nutrient credits needed.
jb~
Page 4, DCA commitments, add item 7:
-
Any borrowing of future nutrient credits shall be contingent upon the County's adoption
of a bond and financing as proposed under the County Wastewater Commitments.
FYI: The Governors budget contains a line item allocation of 18 million dollars for
wastewater in the Fl Keys
].~
~~d~
J
7Y)~ ~ ~ ~ -fu ~ ~
p3) :r:~ ~ ~ C01\\ ",,:r,-+s
:: "rk ~ uiJl ~~ ~~
.. fI)~~>\ of 'f7 ~ - ~ ~,
..,0--_ ~ F~ H~ (111Mid- . ~
iWI~ ~ r~ c- ~. ;~~
"1~\tAii It.J.~- JI~~_' th. -. ...~ ... ".-
,.~,...:t~. ~0!\. Mr,,-).e~ "'d --(J""f"'AA-J ~~ rJ~
~~j,~~~ ,
]; p:) I I~ ~, DcA ~ Cf)""JV\:+~
J -t. frJJ
.;, ~ J>-€ft LJi lA ~ 1ft luvvJ4 fu
.U~~Uf~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~o.fl.d
.'''t
"'...
.0;....
l1 \ ~ pr..
.;.~"
....~
,
..~
....
~".'!
J.~
Edwin O. Swift, III
suite 224
20/ front street
key west, n 33040
(305) 294-4/42
MEMO
TO:
Mayor Murray Nelson,
Monroe County
FROM:
Ed Swift, In
DATE:
January 21,2004
REF:
Affordable Housing
....................................... ..... ......... ........ .... ............... I
Please read the attached letter into the record a:ttoday'sco11Ul).ission meeting as part of
my testimonial on the subject at hand.
3 , 0 (>
-----
~_...-._. .
. Ii
Cf. /.'\ ~) (,",
l"",.. ( . "
January 20, 2004
suite 224
201 front street
key west, n 33040
(305) 294-4/42
Edwin O. Swift, III
Governor Jeb Bush
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-0001
The Honorable Ken Sorensen
Florida House of Representatives
District 120
P.O. Box 699
Tavernier, Florida 32399-1300
Dear Governor Bush and Representative Sorensen:
During the course of the year recently past (2003) I ga
serve as an affordable housing advocate as part of the
Work Group which was created by Rule 28-20, Flo ",
officer.
The DCA led by Jim Quinn, a gentleman for w
builder, administrated this process and the .
" Preserve and acquire all privately owned, individual or contiguous parcels that make up
patches of hammock and pinelands of 4 acres or more or transitional wetlands above the
MHW line, along with buffer areas where appropriate."
The county under extreme pressure for DCA recently agreed to moratorium language, for
one year, for "2 acres or less" and the Secretary is now (I understand) asking that be
reduced to one acre. Governor Bush and Representative Sorensen this acreage size of 4
acres was debated long and hard by the Work Group and 4 acres was the number agreed
to. Mr. Grosso and Ms. Harrison were, as I recall, the only folks fighting for one-acre
parcels. Again the consensus was for 4 acres.
My objection to the "2 or 1" acre parcels is that the land in question is some of the very
last sites available for affordable housing and under this settlement agreement the
environmental interests will be armed with $93,000,000 which they will certainly use to
buy up the sites where we can hope to place our affordable housing thus forever stopping
us from our goal to have adequate housing for people vital to our communities well
being.
The current needs for affordable housing are now pegged at 6,491 units by the DCA and
we are losing teachers, nurses, etc. as the need has now reached into the median and
moderate-income areas. Those of us who see this as a threat to our children's education,
safety and general ability to function in the future are in direct competition for these
small parcels and fringe areas that are now being sucked into the black hole of a
moratorium and being threatened by the $93,000,000 budget to remove them as possible
housing sites. By doing this DCA makes solutions more difficult, if not impossible. It
should be noted that in the "Carrying Capacity Study" itself that the 4 acres was
considered the minimum for habitat sustainability and viability.
2. The need for affordable housing of 6,491 units was made clear to the Governor by
Secretary Castille's recent DCA report to him. Secretary Castillo stated, "Based upon the
affordable housing needs assessment, a total 6,491 affordable housing units are needed
for workforce-age .... Actually 6.491 affordable housing units is a total, and for
workforce-age families in Monroe County its about half of that."
In the settlement now being considered a grand total of "1 56 ROGO (building units) will
be created for affordable housing."
This does not address the need or the crisis at hand. We can provide extensive testimony
and/or examples that this allotment flies in the face of reality and every report and
documentation that has been provided to anyone with an interest in the affordable
housing shortfall. We are losing workingmen and women at all levels now! The Navy's
civilian workforce (civil service) is critically short, our teachers are leaving, nurses, even
doctors, cannot be enticed to stay or attracted to here, our electric utility cannot get
replacements for linemen who have moved away.
3. On page 20 of the 28-20 Report it states, "The Principles for Guiding Development
under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, requires the provision of adequate affordable
housing. "
In spite ofthis statement and the mandate of the 380 (Critical Concern) enabling
legislation in 1975 and forward the State has categorically and systematically ignored the
plight of the working man and or woman in favor of environmental protection and by
implementing a "no growth is good growth" policy for 28 years.
4. On page 23, #7 of the document it states: "For every $2.00 of funding secured for
environmentally sensitive land, $1.00 should be secured for affordable housing needs."
Considering the above it is strange and even outrageous to me that the funding being
suggested by the report is for providing $93,000,000 for environmentally sensitive land
purchase and perhaps $20,000,000 (maybe?) for affordable housing. Hardly a two for
one.
5. On page 24 it states:" We recognize that the current ROGO system may favor the
wealthy. Therefore, should an adequate funding source for land acquisition for the
purchase of terrestrial habitat be secured, the section ofthe ROGO ordinance that allows
for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land to gain permit (ROGO) points should
be eliminated."
It is also amazing to me that in this agreement (settlement) there is no relief from the
unfair ROGO system championed originally by DCA and now recognized by almost
everyone as morally bankrupt and even against the very principles of our government,
our democracy and our inherent sense of fair play. (Only the richest person now gets a
permit to build their home.)
After a year of my personal dedication to this task and after 28 years of Critical Concern I fmd
again it does not matter what sensible people come together to debate and decide but only what a
few decide behind closed doors and what the DCA dictates that we shall do or face dire
consequences.
Personally I feel a lot like Charlie Brown when Lucy tells him that she will hold the football "this
time" only to snatch it away. I once again find myself flat on my back feeling foolish for being
tricked "AGAIN"! I really believed that what we did meant something and that the outcome
would be fair, habitat for the animals and habitat for our citizens of the Keys.
Sincerely,
,j./'~- -- ~
Edwin O. Swift, III
EOS/mhc
(Just as a disclaimer I own no property effected by the moratorium whether 2 acres or 4 acres.)