2010 ALACHUA COUNTY STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Alachua County Board of County Commissioners Cynthia Moore Chestnut - Chair • Lee Pinkoson - Vice-Chair Mike Byerly • Paula M. DeLaney • Rodney J. Long Randall H. Reid - County Manager • Dave Wagner - County Attorney www.alachuacounty.us
ALACHUA COUNTY POLICY ISSUES
POLICY ISSUES 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ALACHUA COUNTY POLICY ISSUES.................................................. Page Continued from Prior Year Springs Protection..........................................................................................4 Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement.............................................4 State Funding for Homeless Assistance Programs........................................5 Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Deadlines . .....................................................5 Florida Forever and Conservation Trust Funds..............................................6 Florida Hazardous Materials Community Protection Act................................7 Wetland Protection and Mitigation Banking....................................................8 Affordable Housing Funding...........................................................................8 New Policy Statements Energy Conservation Strategies.....................................................................9 Solid Waste Flow Control.............................................................................10 Biodiesel Production at Schools...................................................................12 Community College Student Fees................................................................13 Election Equipment Deadline Extension......................................................14 APPENDIX Florida Association of Counties 2009-2010 Guiding Principles....................15
3
Springs Protection SUPPORT/SPONSOR reintroduction of the Florida Springs Protection Act.
Issue – Springs Protection During 2002 and 2003 a working group of local citizens formed an action team to study the relationship between existing regulatory programs and the status of Florida’s springs. The action team drew two major conclusions: 1) There currently exists no “top-down” law that specifically states the uniqueness of Florida’s springs and the fact that they need special protection, and 2) There are existing gaps in existing legislation and regulatory practices which result in inconsistent protection. These gaps appear to result from the fact that water quality regulation is generally based on surface water protection concepts that do not always provide for adequate protection for springs. The proposed legislation originates from a sense of deep concern about Florida’s unique and vulnerable springs that is much broader than just Alachua and Marion Counties. It focuses on the protection of water quality (rather than flow standards) in springs. Improvements in springs protection for the Floridian Aquifer is critical as this is the predominant source of public drinking water in much of the state. The legislation, as proposed, is the result of approximately one year of collaboration between the University Of Florida Levin Law School Conservation Clinic and the Silver Springs Working Group.
Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement SUPPORT the appropriation of funds for the Safe Neighborhoods Program/Safe Neighborhood Trust Fund from which Neighborhood Councils and local government planning agencies are eligible to receive funds. Also, SUPPORT Front Porch initiatives that encourage citizens and faith based institutional programs involved in solving community problems and strengthening neighborhoods.
4
State Funding For Homeless Assistance Programs SUPPORT continued and enhanced state funding for Homeless Assistance Programs including the Challenge Grants Program and funding for Local Homeless Coalitions.
Issue – Homeless Assistance Homelessness in Florida continues to grow. According to the Florida Department of Children and Families, an estimated 68,000 men, women and children are homeless in this state on any given night. Current levels of funding for homeless programs constitutes less than 1/1000th of one percent of the State budget, yet these programs effectively serve tens of thousands of Floridians who fall into homelessness each year. State funding for homeless programs directly reduces the strain on other publicly-funded systems, including the child welfare system, the correctional system and the community mental health system. Each dollar of State funding appropriated for homeless programs allows, at least, four dollars of federal homeless funds to flow to Florida.
Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Deadlines SUPPORT legislation that gives counties the option of using the “Truth in Millage” (TRIM) deadlines as the non-ad valorem assessment deadlines. Issue- Non-Ad Valorem Assessments Alachua County uses the uniform method (Chapter 197, Florida Statutes) for the levy, collection and enforcement of non-ad valorem assessments. In Alachua County, the non-ad valorem assessment database resides within the Property Appraiser’s database. Notice of the public hearing for non-ad valorem assessments is included with the Notice of Proposed Taxes (TRIM), which is mailed the middle of August. The notice requirement for the uniform method and the timing of the TRIM notice are virtually incompatible. Compliance with current statutory deadlines for the uniform method, as well as with the ad valorem tax deadlines, causes time constraints. The window of time for the public hearing (to adopt and certify the roll) is less than one week. As there is no statutory provision for extending the deadlines for the uniform method, there is a possibility that adoption and certification of a non-ad valorem assessment will miss the statutory deadline. Florida Statutes do not allow local governments the option of using TRIM deadlines for non-ad Valorem assessments as an alternative to the uniform method time deadlines outlined in Chapter 197.
5
Florida Forever and Conservation Trust Funds OPPOSE any legislation that attempts to redefine the terms of the enabling land conservation program legislation to make eligible for funding, projects that do not meet the spirit of the voters when they approved the original referenda creating and extending these land conservation programs. OPPOSE legislation that violates the trust of the state electorate by reallocating, diverting, or removing funds from the State’s management and land acquisition trust funds for purposes other than those intended in the originating legislation; OPPOSE any legislation that removes the linkage between the excise tax on documents and funding for the environmental trust funds pursuant to Ch. 201, FL Statutes. SUPPORT legislation that preserves or expands current funding levels for State land conservation programs especially legislation that provides State funding assistance to counties for management of conservation lands. SUPPORT legislation that creates stability in the State’s funding for locally important environmentally significant lands. These smaller tracts (between 50 and 2,000 acres) when protected, are visible and accessible to a more local population creating local support for Statewide land conservation priorities. SUPPORT legislation that requires the State to share title with local governments if lands are jointly acquired.
Issue – Florida Forever and Conservation Trust Funds Beginning in 1990, twelve successive legislatures and three governors pledged to fund $3 billion worth of land preservation projects that protect water resources, wilderness lands and open space. In 1998, 72% of voters approved a constitutional amendment to authorize the new conservation bond program, Florida Forever. The 1999 Legislature responded by pledging to spend an additional $3 billion on land conservation when it passed Florida Forever in 1999, with the intention to fund the Florida Forever Program for 10 years and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Because of the real estate market in Florida, the State has had to spend five times as much per acre in 2005 as it did in 1999. Over the last 16 years, the State’s overall budget has increased 17% without an increase in the amount spent on land conservation despite constant popular support Statewide for it over the same period demonstrated by the passage of over 75% of the local open space protection referenda. In January 2006, the Florida Forever Coalition released two reports detailing a total need of over $19 billion to bring Florida’s parks and recreational facilities, wildlife and wilderness protected areas, and other public-benefit open space to a level necessary for the state’s 18 million people. Specifically, the two reports are:
6
“Florida Parks in the 21st Century: A Sound Investment for a Growing State,” co-produced by The Trust for Public Land, Florida Recreation and Park Association, and the Florida League of Cities, found that about $9 billion is necessary to create and improve parks and recreational facilities sufficient for Florida’s surging population. “Protecting Wild Florida: Preserving the Best and Last Wilderness of Florida, Forever,” produced by The Nature Conservancy, determined that $10 billion is needed to protect threatened and endangered plants, animals, wildlife habitat, clean water, and other ecosystem functions across Florida to keep our state functioning as voters wish. Under the last 16 years of Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever, there have been two trends developing: First under FCT and with the advocacy of TPL, and FRPA, spending has increased to meet urban infrastructure needs. There has been an increasing emphasis on smaller more urban sites, active recreation, stormwater components, and coastal high-hazard areas. Second, the FDEP Florida Forever Program has pursued large eco-regional projects such as Babcock Ranch, and Avatar encumbering funds at the expense of locally significant, smaller environmental lands. This is creating a gap in the protection of the State’s conservation lands portfolio. The FDEP refuses to share title with local governments when projects are jointly acquired resulting in either local partners being turned down, or local taxpayers not owning the asset for which they taxed themselves and purchased.
Florida Hazardous Materials Community Protection Act SUPPORT legislation to fund regional hazardous materials teams through regional Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).
Issue-Florida Hazardous Materials Community Protection Act Not all counties throughout the State have the capability to respond to a hazardous materials emergency in their communities, or to assist their neighbors in such an emergency. To date, the only State funds provided have been for training. Legislation to create and fund District Hazardous Materials Response Teams would result in additional funding and support for LEPC-designated regional teams to respond to hazardous material emergencies throughout a region.
7
Wetland Protection and Mitigation Banking OPPOSE legislation that would eliminate the wetlands cumulative impact consideration. SUPPORT legislation that requires effective functional mitigation as close as possible to area where wetlands impacts occur. OPPOSE legislation that facilitates the transfer of mitigation outside county boundaries or makes it more difficult to retain mitigation within a county when adequate mitigation opportunities are available within the county.
Affordable Housing Funding SUPPORT broadening the allowable uses of the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax to include affordable housing projects.
Issue – Affordable Housing Funding The economic slowdown of the past several years has negatively impacted state and local revenues as well as real estate transactions. This situation has impacted funding coming into Florida’s two housing trust funds. At this point in time, housing trust fund revenues are not projected to be back up to the trust fund cap level of $243 million until Fiscal Year 2013 -14. Also, during the 2009 Legislative Session, the State Legislature continued to sweep most of the funds coming into the trust funds to assist in addressing the state’s budget deficit. It is unclear how much longer this may occur as overall state revenues are projected to remain lower over the next two years and Sadowski Act programs funded with documentary stamp tax revenues are projected to rebuild slowly over the next several years. Broadening the allowable uses of the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax to include affordable housing projects would give local governments another avenue by which to generate significant funds for this purpose. As this tax is only implementable by referendum, it would allow local governments through its citizens to decide the amount of locally generated funds desired to be utilized for affordable housing purposes.
8
Energy Conservation Strategies Local governments are increasingly taking a leadership role in response to growing concern about rising fuel costs, climate change and the need for more aggressive local actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With well over a decade of leadership on this, at their March 27, 2007 meeting the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners stated that [they] “want to do their part to reduce or mitigate the effects of Global Climate Change and promote the long-term economic security of [our] citizens through the implementation of policies that enhance energy efficiency.” To this end, the Board created a citizen’s advisory group titled the Alachua County Energy Conservation Strategies Commission (ECSC). The ECSC completed its assignment on December 2, 2008 with the presentation of a comprehensive report which contained both short and long-term energy conservation strategy recommendations for local, state and federal government. The following pertain to those energy conservation strategy recommendations at the statewide level. SUPPORT legislation that will allow for the implementation and funding of county-wide weatherization and energy efficiency upgrade programs for existing residential and commercial building stock. According to the US Department of Energy, for every $1 million invested in weatherization, 52 jobs are created. Weatherization leads to local, green-collar jobs for large numbers on unemployed construction workers as well as youth employment opportunities. Potential funding sources include the Governor’s Energy Office and DCA. SUPPORT legislation that will allow for the creation of community employment opportunities and grow new local businesses (“relocalization”) around discarded and recyclable materials. According to estimates from the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a regional population base of 1 million people could support waste-to-reuse operations creating 1,500 jobs while generating $250 million for the local economy. Potential funding sources include the Governor’s Energy Office and FDEP. SUPPORT legislation that will foster the development of a sustainable mobility infrastructure (focus on public transportation). Not primarily dependent on fossil fuel consumption. Potential funding source – FDOT. SUPPORT legislation that will allow for the maximization of local food production not dependent on fossil fuel based herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. Potential funding source – FDA&CS SUPPORT legislation that will provide incentives to maximize local, renewable (non-fossil fuel based) energy production. For much of Florida, this translates to solar power. Per megawatt, solar panels have the potential to generate more jobs (15.2 in the manufacturing sector and 7.1 in the construction fields) than wind, geothermal of biofuel energy. Potential funding source – Renewable Portfolio Standards.
9
Solid Waste Flow Control SUPPORT legislation that gives counties the ability to control the flow of solid waste generated within their borders.
Issue- Solid Waste Flow Control Counties in Florida appear to be unable to institute flow control unless they operate a wasteto-energy facility. Under Florida Statutes, counties have the responsibility to provide for solid waste disposal. Alachua County’s solid waste program uses the New River Landfill as its disposal site with the Transfer Station as the collection point. The County’s contract with the Landfill requires the County to deposit all Class I waste under its control. The County’s tipping fee at the Landfill is based on the amount of waste deposited. The less waste deposited, the higher the tipping fee. Without the ability to direct that all solid waste generated within the County be deposited at the Landfill, the County has no adequate alternative to meet its contractual obligations. In a manner consistent with the United States Supreme Court decisions on flow control, amending the Florida Statutes to more clearly authorize the County to direct the disposal of solid waste to the Transfer Station would assure that the County can meet its financial commitments. The attached draft legislation clarifies that counties with an integrated solid waste management system may control the flow of solid waste within its jurisdiction. Current law County Responsibility. Section 403.706 (1) states: “The governing body of a county has the responsibility and power to provide for the operation of solid waste disposal facilities to meet the needs of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county….” In addition, Section 403.7032 (2) requires 75% recycling by 2020. Without control of the flow of waste generated in a county, that county will not be able to ensure that all possible recycling is taking place, nor will they be able to accurately count the recycling. United States Supreme Court. In United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, the United States Supreme Court decided that a local government could direct the disposition of waste if the facility to which they were directing waste was publically owned and publically operated. Therefore, it appears logical that counties in Florida should be allowed to direct waste generated in that county to a publically owned and publically operated facility, but the statute quoted above does not clearly provide guidance on county authority to impose flow control.
10
Current Flow Control Provision. Florida Statutes, Section 403.713 (2) (a) states: “Any local government which undertakes resource recovery from solid waste pursuant to general law or special act may institute a flow control ordinance for the purpose of ensuring that the resource recovery facility receives an adequate quantity of solid waste from solid waste generated within its jurisdiction.” Resource Recovery Defined. Section 403.703, Definitions, (28) states: “‘Resource recovery’ means the process of recovering materials or energy from solid waste, excluding those materials or solid waste under the control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” “Resource Recovery” has been interpreted as wasteto-energy only and that this section prohibits a county from instituting flow control if they use any other method to process solid waste. Other Definitions from Section 403.703. (28) “Resource recovery” means the process of recovering materials or energy from solid waste, excluding those materials or solid waste under the control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (29) “Resource recovery equipment” means equipment or machinery exclusively and integrally used in the actual process of recovering material or energy resources from solid waste. (36) “Source separated” means that the recovered materials are separated from solid waste at the location where the recovered materials and solid waste are generated. The term does not require that various types of recovered materials be separated from each other, and recognizes de minimis solid waste, in accordance with industry standards and practices, may be included in the recovered materials. Materials are not considered source separated when two or more types of recovered materials are deposited in combination with each other in a commercial collection container located where the materials are generated and when such materials contain more than 10 percent solid waste by volume or weight. For purposes of this subsection, the term “various types of recovered materials” means metals, paper, glass, plastic, textiles, and rubber.
11
Biodiesel Production at Schools SUPPORT legislation that would exempt educational institutions producing and utilizing alternative fuels such as bio-diesel as part of a science curriculum from the taxation and reporting requirements of Section 206, Florida Statutes.
Issue – Biodiesel Production Beginning in 2006, a local high school student at the Oak Hall School, Erich Christian, developed a science fair project that detailed and explored the production of biodiesel from used vegetable oils. As a result of Erich’s work, the school initiated a science curriculum based around biodiesel production. The intent was to manufacture relatively small amounts of biodiesel from the donations of used vegetable oils from local restaurants and to utilize the product as a supplement for school grounds equipment (such as lawnmowers). A committee to lead the Biodiesel Program was formed consisting of students and faculty members. Erich and the committee envisioned this biodiesel initiative as a potential model for schools throughout Florida and the nation and the students are producing a “how-to” manual to this end. Upon presenting the plan to Alachua County in the spring of 2008, necessary permits were obtained and the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners ultimately appointed Erich to the Energy Conservation Strategies Commission. In the fall of 2008, the school constructed a small building for the production of biodiesel and, under the guidance of science teacher Mike Winslow, the biodiesel committee produced the first test batches. However, after researching the Florida Statutes and contacting the Florida Department of Revenue, the Biodiesel Committee was told that the school would have to abide by the provisions of Section 206 of the Florida Statutes regarding taxation and reporting requirements, placing an undue administrative burden on both the school and the state agency. By providing an exemption from these requirements for educational institutions pursuing a science curriculum, the Legislature could help to foster alternative energy development and practice applications for science curricula across the state of Florida.
12
Community College Student Fees SUPPORT an amendment to Section 1009.23, Florida Statutes that would permit Community Colleges to charge a fee for transportation services.
Issue – Community College Student Fees On February 16, 2009, the Santa Fe College student government adopted a resolution petitioning the Florida Legislature for a statutory amendment to permit the Santa Fe College Board of Trustees to implement a transportation fee. The resolution proposed that the transportation fee could increase the frequency and length of service of two existing bus routes, add a new route, and provide free ridership on all regular Gainesville Regional Transportation System (RTS) routes for anyone with a valid Santa Fe College ID card. University Transportation Fees Under s. 1009.24(112), F.S., state universities are authorized to charge a fee for traffic and parking fines, charges for parking decals, and transportation access fees. As an example of how a university may use the transportation access fee, the University of Florida and the City of Gainesville entered into an interlocal agreement as part of a growth management agreement. The goal of the agreement was to mitigate the impact of university transportation related issues specifically by taking cars off the road and by reducing the demand for on-campus parking. To accomplish this goal, the university has contracted with the RTS to provide students unlimited access to the city bus system, and the university contracts for bus service. It is estimated that approximately 50,000 riders per day, when school is in session, use the bus system and that 73 percent of its daily riders are university students. A committee of students and administrators assisted RTS in determining which routes and service will be included in each annual contract. The higher the number of routes and level of service requested, the higher the cost. In general, busy stops are served every 10 to 15 minutes. Most stops are visited at least every 30 minutes. Routes are designed per student requests to visit specific apartment and condominium complexes, businesses, and university sites. In addition, there is an intercampus route allowing students to travel from one part of campus to another. In general, hours of service are from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. During the 2009 Legislative Session, this proposal was passed by the House and Senate (SB 622/ HB 739) but was vetoed by the Governor. For the 2010 Session, Senator Oelrich and Representative Chestnut have once again introduced this proposal (SB 208/HB 255).
13
Election Equipment Deadline Extension SUPPORT legislation that extends the deadline for the replacement of ADA compliant voting equipment from 2012 to 2016.
Issue –Election Equipment In 2007 the Florida Legislature voted to make Florida a “paper ballot” state. For thirteen counties in Florida, this 2007 legislation resulted in the second voting system purchase since 2001 (punch cards to touch screens and then to optical scan). Part of the legislation (F.S. 101.56075) required the conversion of the ADA voting equipment to a “paper ballot” based system by 2012. The hope was that by 2012 additional ADA voting systems would be developed and certified in the state. The Federal 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required all counties to purchase a voting system for each voting location that would be accessible to persons with any disability. The majority of the counties purchased touch screens with audio ballots. At the time, touch screens were the only certified accessible voting system in the state. Currently, there is only one certified optical scan (paper) system that meets this requirement - the AutoMark. Today sixtythree (63) counties use touch screens and four (4) counties use the AutoMark. The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections has conducted a survey of the counties required to make the voting system change by 2012. The estimated cost will be nearly $35 million dollars. This does not include existing debt that many counties have incurred from the 2001 and 2007 voting equipment changes. The Association has been working with the disability community on accessible voting equipment since the enactment of HAVA, voter education on the accessible voting systems used on Election Day, and with concerns associated with the 2012 requirement. The disability community is disappointed that development of new technology, especially to encompass all types of disabilities, has not occurred since this legislation passed and that the AutoMark is currently the only “paper based” option available to election officials. Given the choice between continuing to use the touch screens or convert statewide to the AutoMark, the preference is to stay with the current systems in the counties and focus on encouraging voting system vendors and the Department of State to focus on development of a system that would serve persons with any type of disability during the voting process, especially with absentee ballots. Due to the economic pressures on Boards of County Commissioners around the state, the operational impact to Supervisors of Elections’ budgets, the fact that new technology has not developed to allow any person with any disability to vote independently, the replacement requirement needs to be delayed from 2012 until 2016.
14
APPENDIX Florida Association of Counties 2009-2010 Guiding Principles
APPENDIX 15
Florida Association of Counties 2009-2010 Guiding Principles Alachua County is a member of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC). Representatives of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners participate in the FAC legislative policy setting process and the Board generally supports the policy positions of FAC. Alachua County Commissioner Rodney J. Long currently serves as the President of the Florida Association of Counties and each Commissioner serves in various leadership positions in FAC. Throughout the Legislative Session, Alachua County representatives will communicate our position on specific legislation and our concurrence or difference with the FAC position. Fundamentally, as a Charter County, Alachua County supports the Home Rule authority of local governments. The Alachua County Board of County Commissioners endorses the following FAC 2009-2010 Legislative Program Guiding Principles.
HOME RULE County officials are dedicated to the preservation of democratic principles, specifically that the government closest to the people is the appropriate authority to serve the needs and requirements of the community. Home rule is the right of the people to determine and implement a public purpose at the grassroots level. Home rule power is conferred to Florida counties by Article VIII, Sections 1(f) and 1(g) of the Florida Constitution (1968), and by Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. The preservation of this fundamental democratic concept is essential to the operation of county governments in Florida. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of county home rule power, both administrative and fiscal, which allows counties to develop and implement community-based solutions to local problems.
UNFUNDED MANDATES A state directive that compels local governments to provide a service, program, or benefit without providing the appropriate monies or a funding source is regarded as an unfunded mandate. County officials recognize that some state-funded mandates are justified because they achieve agreed upon statewide policy goals. However, many, if not most, mandates on counties are imposed without the consensus of local governments or the resources for implementation. Mandates drain the financial lifeblood from county governments and impede their ability to adequately deliver the fundamental services required by law. Mandates also compromise a county’s ability to provide discretionary services requested by the local community. Thus, the Florida Association of Counties opposes any state or federal actions that limit the ability of local elected officials to make fiscal and public policy decisions for the citizens they represent. Furthermore, counties support the establishment of an agreed upon course of action whereby state and county elected officials deliberatively evaluate the appropriate funding and delivery of intergovernmental service responsibilities between counties and the state.
16
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The strength and vitality of local and state economies are built upon the foundation of infrastructure and services provided by county government. Furthermore, our economic prosperity rests on the stability of community leadership and the tools that are made available to county officials. Lastly, our community’s quality of life requires even more cooperation and teamwork between public and private sectors. Therefore, counties need flexible tools to develop economic strategies that target local strengths, enhance and expand employment opportunities, and maintain adequate infrastructure. While economic development occurs primarily at a local and regional level, it is imperative that the state assists local communities by providing its resources through incentives, marketing and technical assistance. Accordingly, incentives at the state and local level should be based on need and provide for a return on public investments.
REVENUE FLEXIBILITY The ad valorem tax is authorized to Florida counties by Article VII, of the Florida Constitution, and implemented by general law. Within limitations, the Constitution authorizes counties to levy up to 10 mills on all taxable property for county purposes. This tax is the primary revenue source for the operation of county government. However, the revenue generated by this tax has not kept pace with the demands and requirements of modern government in a rapidly growing state. As a result, counties have to resort to other tax and non-tax revenue sources to meet their demands. The Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to protecting the integrity and fairness of the ad valorem taxing authority, as well as that of the other locally imposed revenue sources. Also, FAC encourages the creation or enhancement of alternative public financing mechanisms to meet the ever-increasing demands on county government service delivery.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The impact of growth and development in Florida during the last 30 years has brought significant benefits and costs to county government. Given Florida’s substantial growth during this period, the Florida Association of Counties supports a comprehensive planning framework with state oversight, regional coordination, and minimum local requirements. At the same time, this planning framework must recognize that many local land use decisions result in little to no impact on state and regional interests. Furthermore, because Florida’s communities are remarkably diverse, this planning framework must also allow maximum flexibility to Florida’s counties to address unique local concerns and conditions. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, the state’s comprehensive planning framework must defer to local decision-making and include an incentive-based approach to better growth management.
17
The Florida Association of Counties supports the right of county officials to responsibly perform their planning, police power, and other functions to address local issues at the local level. County officials must have the ability to make reasonable decisions for the advancement of the local community on zoning, comprehensive planning, and infrastructure issues without being subjected to prohibitive claims for damages for infringement on private property rights. Additionally, and consistent with counties’ home rule powers, county officials must have the latitude to develop and impose revenue sources that allow growth to pay its fair share. Conservation and protection of our natural resources is critical to managing growth, promoting economic development, and maintaining a healthy environment to ensure a high quality of life for county citizens. Accordingly, and in keeping with home rule authority, the Florida Association of Counties supports the right to adopt local environmental regulations to protect a community’s unique natural resources. Finally, increased demands on Florida’s water supply are forcing many diverse interests to work with county government to plan the future of water policy in Florida. In an effort to achieve the best possible result, county government should continue to expand partnerships with the agricultural community, urban water users, regional government agencies, and environmental organizations to encourage water conservation, water resource, and water supply development projects. The primary goal of such water resource planning efforts should be ensuring resource availability for all reasonable beneficial uses, consistent with the protection of water and related natural resources.
FINANCE & TAXATION The backbone of good government is financial accountability. For public officials to be accountable to taxpayers, the decision to tax should occur at the same level of government where the decision to enact a new program is made. County governments have a responsibility to raise the necessary revenues to finance a wide variety of critical, basic public services. Counties need a revenue base that adequately finances the services and programs required by the state, and the programs and services needed locally. If counties are to succeed in meeting their responsibilities, an adequate and fair local tax policy that is commensurate with the many responsibilities of modern county government must be developed.
HUMAN SERVICES County officials recognize the importance of adequately providing for quality human services to protect and assist citizens in need. Counties have demonstrated this commitment by providing preventive services, medical assistance, social and aging services, and housing assistance. While most human service programs and the laws that govern these programs are established by federal and state governments, many of these services are being provided through community-based services at the local level.
18
As a critical link in the federal/state/county human services partnership, counties must be included in formulating and implementing policies that protect the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the state; allow for flexibility within communities to achieve the desired level of services based on local needs and priorities; and encourage the integration and coordination of human services. Counties support expanding health care access and believe that efforts to refine and enhance state and local programs that provide access to affordable health care are essential. The Florida Association of Counties supports limiting county funds expended under the Health Care Responsibility Act mandate for emergency room services as defined by law. Additionally, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a vital role of county government. The Florida Association of Counties supports county commissions maintaining authority to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity at the county level to ensure countywide uniformity of the EMS system. In addressing critical social services needs related to child welfare and long-term care, the Florida Association of Counties strives to increase state funding for child protective and dependency case services and other state-related programs. Furthermore, counties need the capacity to define local systems of care and increase funding flexibility by removing budget categories so that monies can be directed locally to meet community needs. The Florida Association of Counties supports enhancing the state funding for elder and long-term care services and directing existing funding from institutional care to communitybased care programs such as Community Care for the Elderly, Home Care for the Elderly, Medicaid Waiver, Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative, Senior Centers and the Assisted Living Waiver programs, respectively. Availability of services and funding in the area of behavioral health are also important to our county officials. The Florida Association of Counties supports the establishment of integrated systems of care for individuals with co-occurring behavioral and physical health problems in addition to efforts to enhance prevention and intervention services for children and families to divert children from the child welfare system. The Florida Association of Counties believes that developing a comprehensive services act of mandatory planning, development, funding, implementation and evaluation of mental health and substance abuse services for elder Floridians is also necessary to ensure continuity of care. Given the varying capacity and funding capabilities of counties, the Florida Association of Counties supports adequate federal and state funding to ensure uniformity in the human services continuum.
19
PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURITY Protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry are of paramount importance to county officials. County governments have a long tradition of ensuring the public’s safety and security through operating county emergency management centers, providing fire and rescue services, and assisting in funding the state’s court system, sheriffs offices, juvenile programs, victims’ assistance, and the jail system in each county. Florida’s citizens and visitors look to county government as the first line of defense to ensure their communities are safe and protected in times of natural and man-made disasters, terrorism, emergencies, and public health threats. It is imperative for state policy to maintain county government control of emergency management systems during such emergencies and public health threats. It is equally important that, as Florida’s population continues to grow, that the state provide a dedicated funding source for hurricane shelter space. It is only through a county partnership with the other levels of government that a full-scale comprehensive and coordinated approach may be taken to address crime and public safety problems. It is of utmost importance to maintain and seek out open lines of communication between all parties involved to ensure the public’s safety and security. Adequate resources must be in place so counties are in the strongest position to protect their communities. Increased funding for security enhancements are needed to support measures which include, but are not limited to, airports, seaports, public buildings, public health infrastructure, and preparedness training for emergency personnel. Increased federal and state funding is essential to ensure that effective public safety systems are provided throughout Florida. Since 1972, statutory changes and case law have expanded county court-funding responsibilities to include an ever-increasing multitude of costs. Those costs include providing office space for judges, public defenders, and state attorneys, expert witness fees, court appointed counsel costs, and many other related expenditures. Accordingly, the Constitutional Revision Commission proposed Revision 7 to require the State of Florida to fund a larger portion of the state court system, allowing counties to more ably meet local needs. That constitutional revision was approved by the Florida voters in 1998. Since 1998, the Florida Legislature has been implementing the constitutional revision, having completed that initial process on July 1, 2004. Some elements of the state court system have remained a county responsibility. For some of those responsibilities, the Legislature has provided some revenue sources but these sources are grossly inadequate. The revenue from ad valorem taxes still funds a significant portion of the county’s mandated share of the operation of the state court system. The counties’ long-held policy is that funding of the state court system is the responsibility of the state. County funding of the state’s courts causes ad valorem taxes, intended to fund programs truly local in nature, to be used for state programs over which counties have no control or accountability. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties opposes the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the state’s judicial responsibilities and supports the continued implementation of Revision 7, which provides for a more equitable manner of court funding.
20
21