Does State & Cities Share Legislative Priorities?

With the 2011 Legislative session only a couple months away the Florida League of Cities (FLC) policy committees have set their legislative priorities for the upcoming year. The “buzz” at the FLC Legislative Conference is that it’s going to be an interesting session…to say the least! Economic recovery and job creation, TORT reform, illegal immigration, Medicaid and Pension reform are on the minds of Florida’s legislators. All while trying to balance a budget with a $3 billion deficit (and no federal stimulus dollars to plug the hole), without raising taxes. In fact, Governor Elect Scott has continued to press his agenda of reducing taxes by 19%.

So how does the state’s priorities compare to those of its cities? In the next few blogs I‘ll breakdown some of the top priorities and share how cities stand on these issues:

Growth Management - Scheduled to sunset in 2011, The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is undergoing intense scrutiny by state and local officials to determine if and how the agency should continue. Current DCA Secretary Tom Pelham submitted his resignation only weeks ago, and Governor Elect Scott has the responsibility of appointing someone new to head the agency…assuming it continues.

This is a divided issue for cities. Some state officials favor dismantling the agency altogether and many city officials support this idea. In lieu of a state agency, they support moving the comprehensive planning review and approval process to the Regional Planning Councils who better understand the unique characteristics in each region and can more readily respond to economic opportunities in their specific regions.

For brand new, smaller or fiscally constrained cities, the DCA has played an invaluable role in guiding them through the comprehensive planning process, providing staffing assistance and technical assistance. So in recognition of their needs as well as the desirous of larger cities to change DCA’s authority, The FLC supports the following changes to the growth management system:

• Legislation that defines a role for the Florida Department of Community Affairs or its equivalent to provide local governments technical assistance while limiting regulatory powers to only those issues requiring interregional coordination;
• Streamlining the growth management processes, including reporting requirements, particularly for fiscally-constrained or built-out municipalities; and
• An acknowledgement of municipal home rule powers in the local application of the pending ordinance doctrine as established by the courts.

City officials are also hopeful that should the agency continue, Governor Elect Scott will appoint a new Secretary that has extensive municipal government experience and thus has a thorough understanding of local government needs and issues.

While the future of DCA is uncertain, one thing is crystal clear for both city and state officials…the Agency in its present form will be changed. And the hope of cities is that this change will be for the better and allow communities throughout our state to grow in a manner that’s prudent and recognizes the unique characteristics of each region.

Non partisan politics….alive and well in Florida!

Last week I attended the Florida League of Cities (FLC) 50^th Annual Legislative Conference. At this event municipal officials from across the state gather to discuss and debate in committee the top priorities facing Florida’s cities. These committees, comprised of  40-50 elected municipal officials have met twice before and come together one final time to vet different issues such as the protection of home rule, growth management, transportation, pension reform, etc.  At the end of the discussion, they determine the top two priorities which are presented to the Legislative Committee and voted upon for adoption by the entire FLC membership (412 cities in the state of Florida).

While the discussions are lively and opinions vary, at the end of the meeting all are in agreement. I’ve had the privilege of serving as Chair of the Growth Management & Transportation Policy Committee for two years, and this year as the Board Liaison. The undertaking can be daunting at times with so many issues to discuss. To prioritize and determine the most important is challenging to say the least. But the most impressive part of the entire process is that at NO time is party affiliation discussed or become an issue. In fact, I can honestly say I have no idea the political party any of my colleagues on the committee

THIS is politics in Florida’s cities. The decisions we make locally can’t be stymied by political discord. Oft referred to as the “government closest to the people”, municipal officials “get it”. They understand it’s absolutely necessary for Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve problems, meet challenges and plan for our city’s economic vitality. And it’s amazing what we accomplish. Balancing ever-shrinking budgets while protecting our citizens, promoting economic development and most importantly, working TOGETHER as a united body focused on our citizens and not whether we have a “R“ or a “D“ behind our name. 

Too often we witness in Tallahassee how politics gets in the way of making sound decisions or any decisions at all. And the result is that Floridians pay the price. I’ve always found it incredible during the election cycle when Florida’s politicians come before their local elected officials and talk of reaching across party lines for the sake of Florida’s citizens. What they don’t realize is in our cities we do that every day.

It’s a process that works remarkably well because it has to. So as the political chess game begins again in Tallahassee, perhaps between now and the start of the 2011 session, our state lawmakers can learn a valuable lesson…non partisan politics is more than alive and well. It‘s working and thriving in Florida’s cities!

Florida’s cities and counties join forces to say “Enough is Enough”

In an historical event, last Wednesday city and county elected officials and leaders held a press conference on the steps of the old capital building in Tallahassee to send a strong message to our state legislature…ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I’m talking about unfunded mandates.  This proposal, entitled  the “Local Savings Act” if enacted, will save local taxpayers $270 million each year!  This initiative outlines a bevy of unfunded mandates that can be eliminated, delayed, repealed or denied simply because they are not necessary.  Below are two:

• Public Notice Requirements* – Support more options for noticing public meetings. Currently cities and counties are quired to publish (purchase) meeting notices in local newspapers. New technology and changes to media communciations suggest that local governments can more efficiently notice public meetings by utlizing internet and cable based communications. Fiscal Impact: $33 million. Does this mean eliminating all forms of published notices in local papers? NO! It just gives local government more options if they so choose.
• Sovereign Immunity* – Oppose expanding the current waiver of sovereign immunity of governmental entities in tort actions. Expanding sovereign immunity will result in significant increased costs to ALL governmental entities. Sovereign immunity is especially important to local governments, so they can carry out their police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Fiscal Impact: Indeterminate. The immediate costs will be insurance rates and could open up local government to frivolous lawsuits that would have to be defended in court at the TAXPAYERS’ expense!

If it is the desire of our state legislature to continue to pass mandates to cities and counties, we need to send a strong message that funding MUST accompany these mandates! Local governments cannot continue to provide quality services for our citizens, keep our tax rates low and balance our budgets as long as unfunded mandates continue to be the “norm”.

*Thank you to the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida League of Cities for providing the above information.

No one immune as state works to balance budget

This morning I’m setting in the gallery of the Senate listening to a lively debate regarding a bill related to merit pay for teachers in the public school system.  As I listen I’m reminded of a briefing last week by some of our state legislators. Obviously, the budget (and trying to balance it) is their number one priority . Even with the influx of $3+ billion of federal stimulus funds put in reserve after last year’s session, the state is still facing a $3 billion deficit.

In his presentation, Speaker Designate Dean Cannon indicated that if all budget related items for education, healthcare and public safety were separated, the remaining budget for ALL other services is $1 billion. When you do the math, balancing this year’s budget is going to require cuts in all services. The goal is to minimize the impact on education, healthcare and public safety.

Some state trust funds, such as the transportation trust fund have already been raided to the tune of $427 million with the money being transferred to general revenue for the purpose of balancing the budget. And there’s no doubt this is only the beginning.

During my time in Tallahassee, I’ve been and continue, to work hard to tell our legislators that imposing unfunded mandates on local government is NOT part of the solution. We are working in the SAME economy, in the SAME state, trying to do the SAME thing…balance our budget with minimal (if any) impact on services.  Remember, unfunded mandates result in increased costs for local services, PAID BY LOCAL TAX DOLLARS!

That’s why encourage citizens of Apopka to let your voices be heard all the way up in Tallahasse. Send a message to allow the government closest to the people do their job and remain fiscally responsible for our citizens.

Sovereign Immunity cap increase being considered

Sadly, there are two bills moving in the House and Senate that would once again place a considerable unfunded mandate on local government.  HB 1107 and SB 2060 significantly expand the current waiver of sovereign immunity of governmental entities operating under the current waiver of sovereign immunity caps of $100,000 per indivdiual claim/$200,000 per incident.

These bills place a much greater burden on government entities and as a result taxpayers. Below is an outline of some of the concerns of these bills:

1. Significant Increase to Liability: The bills (or strike everything amendments) will increase the current waiver of liability from $100,000/$200,000 up to $250,000/$1,000,000 (up to a five-fold increase in liability exposure).

2. Doubling the Total Caps: Under current law, the state, its agencies and its subdivisions can be held liable for no more that $200,000 collectively in liability that arises out of a single incident. The bills (or strike everything amendments) will separate the liability of the state and its agencies with a cap of $1,000,000, and also separate the liability of subdivisions with a cap of $1,000,000. Therefore, if an accident involved negligence by a state agency and negligence by a subdivision in the same incident, the combinded potential waiver of sovereign immunity would no longer be $200,000 under current law, bu tcould be up to $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 on behalf of the state and its agencies, and $1,000,000 on behalf of subdivisions). (Up to a ten-fold increase in liability exposure).

3. Uncertainty in the Insurance Market:  Because sovereign immunity is a fairly settled area of the law, there is a good amount of certainty in terms of the risk involved. The bills create new uncertainty in terms of risk and will have the effect of increasing insurance premiums. Additionally, any governmental entities that are self-insured would be left particularly vulnerable under the cap increases.

4. Circumventing the purpose of Sovereign Immunity:  One of the reasons governmental entities, and particularly local governments, need sovereign immunity is so that they can carry out their police powers and provide for the health, safety and welfare of the general public without the constant threat of lawsuits putting taxpayer dollars at risk.  The bills provide uncertainty as to when sovereign immunity would apply and have the potential to create many unintended consequences, such as increased numbers of lawsuits brought against governmental entities, increased liability insurance premiums for governmental entities, increased liability insurance premiums for governmental entities, proliferation of frivolous lawsuits against governmental entitis, or a potentially inflated pay-out on claims and an increase in the overall cost of lititgation for governmental entities.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THE TAXPAYERS WHO HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!

Thank you to Kraig Conn, Florida League of Cities for providing this information.

Senate debates resolution on federal spending

As I sit in on a session of the Florida Senate today, I”m listening to a debate about a resolution to send to Washington DC to encourage a cap and some control on federal spending. Is this really what we elected our state Senators to do?  It would seem much more logical, effective and prudent for them to be concentrating on how to bring jobs to our state, balance our state budget (which currently is facing a $3 billion deficit) and focus on legislative issues that will affect our state.

Spending state taxpayer dollars to debate how to control federal spending should only be considered after state issues are debated and solved!

Public Construction Projects Bills deserves support

For anyone or any business that has had to “live through” a road construction project, you know the challenges it presents. And repeatedly, we have seen many businesses so adversely affected by the construction that they close their doors permanently because access is nearly impossible. In today’s difficult economy, government at all levels should be doing what is neccessary to help businesses survive and thrive. That’s why there are two bills currently moving through the House and Senate that deserve our full support.

SB 1842 (Bennett)and HB 1331 (Abruzzo) prohibit the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) from designing, constructing or maintaining public streets, roads, highways, and bridges in a way that impedes the existing access of adjacent property owners. The FDOT is prohibited from dividing state highways or erecting median barriers in areas that are zoned for business use within a county or municipality without the approval of such activities by a majority vote of the governing body of the county or municipality.

Will these bills make it more difficult to complete a road project? Possibly…but maybe not. That is yet to be determined. What they will do is help local businesses remain in business and continue to bring jobs and economic growth to their communities.

Kudos to Senator Bennett and Representative Abruzzo for sponsoring these bills!

 

 

 

Good news on SB 1742

Just received word from the Florida League of Cities that SB 1742 (Bennett) – Transportation Concurrency Preemption was heard in the Senate Community Affairs committee today with substantial amendments that removed nearly all of the objectionable language causing concern to local governments.  Hallelujah!!

The Invasion Begins Again!

Less power, less power, less power. It seems to be the on-going motto for some of our state lawmakers as they once again attempt to chip away at the Home Rule Authority of local government! An example is SB 1742 (Bennett) scheduled to be heard by the Senate Community Affairs Committee this afternoon. This bill is a preemption of municipal Home Rule powers relating to transportation concurrency and mitgation of transportation impacts. Specifically the bill:

1. Removes the “Home Rule” protection language included in last year’s SB 360 (which by the way, was sponsored by Senator Bennett)

2. Prohibits cities from imposing more stringent transportation mitigation requirements beyond the minimum standards in state law – Because of course, the state knows much better than the local government what is GOOD for the local government!! 

3. For local governments that are not in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), if an applicant for development pays its proportionate share fees, the city MUST approve the development EVEN IF there are insufficient monies to fully fund the needed transportation improvement. Which begs the question…where is the additional funding supposed to come from? Local taxpayer dollars, or the “money tree” that apparently all cities have growing in abundance! 

Our cities and state are faced with serious transportation problems that can only be fixed with the right legislation, the necessary dedicated funding AND some creative implementation of multi-modal transportation. Requiring cities to constantly do more and more with less and less (money and authority) is NOT the solution and will only exacerbate the problem.

Amendment 4 – Make an informed decision

Likely to be one of the most significant constitutional amendments to affect the state of Florida in decades, Amendment 4 is scheduled to appear on the ballot during the 2010 general election in November. This very complex, very controversial issue will determine how our state will grow (or not grow) going forward. So before you go to the polls, spend time educating yourself on what this amendment means. The two primary web sites (one supports/one opposes) are very comprehensive and provide a lot of  information that can help you make a decision.  Only YOU can decide how to vote, but  before you do…study both sides of this issue, so whatever your decision, it will be well informed!

Vote No on Amendment 4 web site: http://www.florida2010.org/home.php

Florida Hometown Democracy web site: http://www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/