1995-11-16 Joint Wksp""Woo,-
l' OKEEcy
f O
V rn
f-7 ;_
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE � COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE
JOINT WORKSHOP * PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
A. Call Joint Workshop to order on Novmeber 16, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. III County Commission Chairperson Betts called the joint workshop to order on Novmeber
16, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.
B. Mayor and Council Attendance:
Mayor James E. Kirk
Present
Councilmember Noel A. Chandler
Absent
Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor
Present
Councilmember Robert Oliver
Present
Councilmember Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Present
Staff Attendance:
City Attorney John R. Cook
Present
City Administrator John J. Drago
Present
Deputy Clerk S. Lane Gamiotea
Present
County Commissioners Attendance:
Commissioner John Abney
Present
Commissioner Cliff Betts
Present
Commissioner Clois Harvey
Present
Commissioner Susan Hughes
Present
Commissioner Gene Woods
Present
Staff Attendance:
County Attorney John Cassells
Present
County Administrator George Long
Present
County Administrative Assistant Bonnie Dyga
Present
County Planning Director Bill Royce
Present
County Deputy Clerk Debra Lewis
Present
1:1
PAGE 1 OF 7
►_4
065
C. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
This meeting is intended for informational purposes only. No action
will be taken, but discussion will be encouraged.
NOVMEBER 16, 1995 - CITY/COUNTY JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 2 OF 3
Commission Chairperson Betts explained the purpose of this workshop was to
encourage discussion between the City Council and the County Commission in order
to identify the specific obstacles blocking the way of an Interlocal Agreement being
adopted by both parties that would continue one planning and development department
for the entire Okeechobee.
There was much discussion from both sides, the two obstacles are daily interpretation
of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and money
($35,000.00).
Mayor Kirk is to add this issue on the City Council agenda for the November 21, 1995
meeting and Council will then determine if the interpretation and money issues can be
resolved that would allow the Council to be comfortable with an Interlocal Agreement
that would give the County complete control of the planning and development
department. If such an agreement cannot be made, the County Commission is to
reconsider the Interlocal Agreement that was turned down at their November 2, 1995
meeting.
The Council and Commission received a letter from the Okeechobee Contractors
Association, there was some confusion on what they intended to say in the letter, Mr.
Close, President of the organization apologized for the confusion and clarified for them
that the Contractors want one planning and development department and then
encouraged the City to allow the County to continue running it.
Commission Chairperson Betts asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment
before the workshop is adjourned. Bill Jackson commented that the building department
has had some problems but they have worked through quite a bit of them and are
currently "on an all time high' and to dissolve this department into two would not be the
right thing to do.
066
NOVMEBER 16, 1995 - CITY/COUNTY JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 3 OF 3
Adjournment. III Commission Chairperson Betts adjourned the workshop at 9:00 p.m.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by
the City Council or County Commission with respect to any matter considered at this workshop,
he/she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. A tape recording of this meeting
is on file in the City Clerk's Office and the County Clerk's Office.
ATTEST:
James E. Kirk , Mayor
4
t
h%� cia: Faaw Qndc�%N. c.9 `d
�dw�k�d V�ks,_. �e�. �uv�� �uw. lIm
�- woA•dd
e� �lou'xU
(DAL
Q-,o�
C4 �c9-�C�iDl,ehC.�j
kuAta
O
Board of County Commissioners
Okeechobee County
November 9, 1995
VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL
(941) 763-1686
Mr. John J. Drago
City Administrator
City of Okeechobee
55 SE Third Avenue
Okeechobee, FL 34974
RE: Planning and Buil
Dear John:
The Board of County Commi,,
requested the attendance of the
Administrators, and affected staf
to development of a new interlo,
provide planning and building
The workshop has been tent,
November 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.n
Please confirm the participatioi
Sincerely,
George A. Long
County Administrator
cc:
Board of County Commissioners
City Council
John Cassels
John Cook
Bill Royce
Joe Crum
Go M Mi/S
S E A L.
1917
Susan B. Hughes Gene Woods Clif Betts, Jr. John W. Abney, Sr. Clois J. Harvey George A. Long
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 County Administrator
Working Paper
Consolidation of Cityxo�nty
Planning and Building Services
November 16,1995
I. Introduction
A. History
B. Present situation
1. Black Hole?
2. Current Deadline
C. Purpose of Joint Meeting
II. Philosophy of Consolidation
A. General Considerations
B. Dogmatic Truth
C. City Considerations
1. Advantages
2. Disadvantages
D. County Considerations
1. Advantages
2. Disadvantages
III. Required Committment
IV. Converting Philosophy into Action
A. The "Options"
I. Option A
2. Option B
3. Option C
B. Fourth Option?
V. Implementation
A. Interlocal Working Group
B. Planning Board
C. City LDR Committee
VI. Conclusion
1
L Introduction
This outline has been written in an effort to
focus on the many issues
surrounding consideration of a meaningful and mutuaUy
beneficial consolidation
of the community Planning and Development s
rvices. Although few would
doubt that a single department would enjoy a significant
cost savings over two
separate operations, there are many non -monetary
considerations for both
governments. Where these considerations are valid
philosophical concerns, they
should be debated. Where they are merely misunderstandings,
they should be
dispelled.
A. History
In 1985, the City and County entered
' to' an interlocal agreement
whereby the City abolished its building
department and the County
amended its code to provide for an expanded
Planning Board to hear
zoning, variance and special exception
petitions. Additionally, the
County began permitting and inspecting
construction within the City.
This arrangement worked relatively well f
r a number of years until the
enactment of the Growth Management Act t
ly the State. This act required
all governments in the state to write and ado
t a Comprehensive Plan and
update their land development regulations
(LDRs). Unlike a previous
state attempt to manage growth, this tit
ie they meant it, and local
developement issues became extremely complicated
overnight. Hurricane
Andrew also had a direct impact on Olc
echobee by forcing a state
reevaluation of the building standards that
must be enforced at the local
level. Andrew and the "deemed to comply"
rules promulgated by the
State complicated the construction permitting
and inspection rules in a
manner similar to the way that the Growth Management
Act complicated
the Planning functions of local governments.
B. Present situation
1. Black Hole?
There are few functions of local go
eminent that draw the ire of
the public more than Planning and
Development services.
Although there are as many opinions
as to the nature of the
problem as there are opinion makers,
it is suggested that the
mission of the department responsible
for these functions is likely
the greatest irritation. The function
of any Planning and
2
development department is to conti
a manner which balances individual
good of the community. SometimE
the overall good is immediately app
that adequately engineered trusses
other cases, the overall good is in
case of attempting to maintain pr
conflicting uses. In any event, th
affected landowner may be that suc
upon their right to "do what I want v
least, someone seeking to develop
result of new construction code
engineer more projects than ever bef
between individual property n,
government to protect the general he
whole community, will remain the
whether the functions are perform
combination of both. When the mess
embrace the messenger. Without wi(
mission, people will continue to
Permitting functions regardless of d
This discussion does not inte
and Development department need
governing bodies are helpless to im
The goal should always be to prow
service. The Planning and Deve:
improved. Unfortunately, some resi
is synonymous with rudeness or inei
however the interlocal issue is resolve
an extra effort to educate the publi
Professional planning, enforcement ai
as well as the decisions resulting froi
31 and regulate development in
property rights with the overall
s regulation that contributes to
trent as in the case of ensuring
are used in construction. In
lirect and long term, as in the
Terty values by discouraging
immediate perception of an
i regulation is an infringement
ith my property". At the very
will face increased cost as a
requirements and the need to
)re. This fundamental friction
hts and the obligation of
11th, safety and welfare of the
major source of controversy
awd by the City, County or a
age is unpopular, it is hard to
espread public support of the
criticize the Planning and
e justification.
id to imply that the Planning
be a black hole, or that the
)rove the services provided.
de more efficient, courteous
opment department can be
cents feel that the word "no"
Eiciency. It is suggested that
1, the City and County make
on the positive aspects of
id construction requirements
a the workshop.
2. Current Deadline
Unless there is further action by the two governing bodies, the
current arrangement will expire December 31, 1995.
C. Purpose of Joint Meeting
The purpose of this joint workshop should e:
3
To determine whether there are sufficient common philosophies
and goals to support a consolidation of the Planning and
Development functions of our common tv.
H. Philosophy of Consolidation
0
General Considerations
It should be noted that the word "consolidation"
"integration"
is used as opposed to
or "servicing". As stated above,
should result in
any interlocal agreement
a meaningful relationship tE
betterment of our community. The
at has as its common goal the
City,
for providing planning and development f
of the County, is responsible
unctions within its corporate
limits. Despite the possible unpopularity of
the basic truth that must serve as the
the preceding statement, it is
startir
government has a duty to provide planrlg
point for discussions. Each
and construction related
services in its respective jurisdictional area
With this in
but no primary duty beyond.
mind, why would the Co
obligation and responsibility given the
unty entertain extending its
cknowledged headache that
accompanies the Planning and Building fima
the City not be interested
'on? Conversely, why would
in shedding itself o
the obligation at almost any
cost? Although some advantages and disadvantages
will be discussed
below, it should be noted that an arrangement
as complicated as that
contemplated by a consolidated Planning and
Development department
needs to be beneficial for both parties. The
County should have little
interest in an agreement that merely hires out
provide a service at a deficit. Neither the City
county staff or continues to
that it is being forced into an undesirable arrangement,
nor the County should feel
but neither should
shy away from an opportunity to provide
a single, unified department
which is governed by a unified code for the
benefit of all residents.
B. Dogmatic Truth
The following is underlined in the hope that if no other part of this
document is read, the next sentence will be
4
LN
Because of this, fixation on the issue of daily functional control is not only
counterproductive but may prevent discussion of the real issues and the
prospects for an agreement. Regardless of any arrangement, the City
would always have to vote to change a City ordinance, amend its comp
plan, rezone a City parcel or continue with the interlocalagreement itself.
The City (and County) would have the right to cancel the interlocal
agreement should it not continue to be beneficial-
C. City Considerations
1. Advantages
a.
Significant cost savings over
separate department.
b.
Knowledge pool and experience
of larger, established
department.
C.
Not competing with County f
Dr qualified personnel.
d.
Integration of Planning and
Development philosophies
throughout entire Okeechobee
community.
e.
Integration of Planning and Development
codes throughout
Okeechobee community.'
f.
Consistent level and style
of code enforcement efforts
throughout Okeechobee commUnity.2
g.
Utilization of experienced
planning board for special
exceptions and appeals.
h.
Utilization of experienced planning
board as LPA for the
development of recommendations
as to ordinances and
comprehensive plan amendm
nts.
i.
Avoid confrontational contact
with contractors, developers
and residents.
j.
Continuity of development review
and approval processes
when personnel are sick, on leave
or quit.
2. Disadvantages
a.
No direct control over planning
and development personnel.
b.
Perception of some residents
that Council is not doing its
'Unified LDRs should allow for meaningful differences between the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the county but not be different merely for the sake of being different.
2This could be either an advantage or disadvantage depen ' g upon your viewpoint.
5
job or is not in control*
C. Loss of an opportunity to uti ize resources or personnel left
idle by sale of the utility.
d. Lessens separate City identi y.1
e. Certainty that on occasion, e County method of handling
a situation may not be the ' proaach that would have been
selected by the City.
f Concern that export of another City function will lead to
eventual total governmental consolidation.
g. Uncertainty as to the quality ofjob that will be performed by
County.
h. Direct out of pocket cost payable to County.
D. County Considerations
1. Advantages
a. Additional staff depth resulting
from addition of new City
Specialist position.
b. Reduce criticism of County staff
for problems originating in
City.
C. Enhanced opportunity to streamline
the planning and
inspection process.
d. Avoid possibility of conflicting
development patterns with
City.
e. Meaningful implementation
of the intergovernmental
cooperation element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
f. Reduce the number of instances
where City and County
duplicate effort and work at doss
purposes.
g. Strive toward a unified develo
ment code that will be easier
for contractors and residents to
use.
2. Disadvantages
a. Additional responsibilities for
a department that already
receives critical scrutiny.
b. Enhanced expectations from City
and public as a result of
new specialist position and a
eem' ent in general.
3This is listed as a disadvantage on the premise that the City does, in fact, have a separate
cultural identity from the community at large. It is suggested that: most don't identify themselves
as city or county residents, but merely "from Okeechobee". If th re is no separate city /county
cultural identity, duplication of services in an area the size of Okeechobee may not be cost
justified.
CI
C. Complexity of the details of
have to deal with such are
administration, Comprehens
d. Uncertainty as to level of i
role to the ultimate legislati
administration.
e. Realization that City fun,
cover the true cost of
services to the City.4
III. Required Commitment
The list of advantages and disadvantages is
indicated, depending upon one's viewpoint, an
considered a disadvantage in another, and vice v(
the Planning and Development functions will
philosophy that the future of the Okeechobee
advanced by unified codes, planning and enforce:
government feels it is being forced, coerced or 1
then it will not endure. Each governing body sl
feels is best for its constituency and not apologia
IV. Converting Philosophy into Action
A. The "Options"
There remains some confusion as to the optic
and press. Following is a brief descriptio
detailed listing of the specific functions ii
appendix.
I. Option A - Consolidated department
Vor example, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Adminis
consultants to assist in ordinance research and preparation can be
building cost, utilities, staff support to lay boards, legal and admit
considered.
interlocal agreement that will
as indemnification, appeals,
Plan and code enforcement.
Y commitment to confine its
function as opposed to daily
Of a position will not begin to
viding professional planning
)y no means complete. As
dvantage in one area may be
sa. A decision to consolidate
equine a commitment to the
ommunity will be positively
ent. In other words, if either
essured into an arrangement,
,uld 'make the decision that it
thereafter.
ins discussed in the meetings
n of these options. A more
involved is attached as an
hearings with DCA,
Overhead items such as
re support also need to be
7
This option of total consolidation
in this report as it is the optic
discussion by either governing bo,
examined the concept of Option �
viable option as its basic philosc
rejected by the City Council. Nan
"City Specialist", designating the co
LPA, and beginning an earnest eff(
and County LDRs as possible. Gi
discussion of the mechanics of c
implied above, this option has the
community. However if it is to be si
have to be committed to get of
development business. Although
ordinance recommendations woulc
continued rejection of proposed c
interlocal agreement and the unific.-
3 given the most consideration
i that has received the least
y. The working group briefly
, however, dismissed this as a
phies appeared to have been
ely, funding a new position of
my planning board as the City
t to unify as much of the City
,en this rejection, no detailed
)tion A has been made. As
gealtest potential to unify the
,Wcessful, the City Council will
of the daily planning and
the final decision to accept
always remain with the City,
ian$es would jeopardize the
ion process.
2. Option B - Separation of Planning
functions from construction
permitting and inspection.
This is the option that was reduced
to a proposed interlocal
agreement. As many of the existing Problems
stem from planning,
zoning and land use issues, it was
felt that this option was a
workable compromise between the
"all"
two, more radical options of
or "nothing". Although this op
'on did not have the promise
of the efficiencies of option A, it was
not as politically, emotionally
and economically shocking as option
C. This option was drafted
by county staff and initially approved
by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC). When a
forthcoming from the City, the BO
po8itive response was not
C removed this option from
the table. At that meeting, the BOCC
discussed and announced a
position that a simplified system is in
the best interest of the users
and that they wished to either do the
entire function or none of it.
Option B was further refined by the i
working group, approved by
the City Council and resubmitted to
the BOCC where it was
rejected. Option B essentially avoids
all issues of city control,
destiny and self determination by
returning the problematic
planning functions to the City. Opport
ziity for mis-communication
as to the inspection function is '
'zed by specific notice and
8
communication procedures.
3. Option C - The City takes back all functions
This is the default option if there is no Interlocal Agreement. This
option entails the City providing its own planning, building,
inspection and code enforcement services. Although to many this
is a step backwards, it is only truly unfortunate if the decision was
made without examining all the advantages and disadvantages.
B. Implementation
Should the two governing bodies return to
implementation is outlined in the latest draft of 1
Option C be the choice, no joint implementz
chosen need the implementation of the agreen
detail.
C. Interlocal Working Group
The working group reached agreement d
be worked out once the Council and I
consensus. It is submitted that once the sl
both, the mechanics of the interlocal
submitted to the Council and the BOCC.
D. Planning Board
Under Option A, the Planning Board m
mandate to begin reviewing the City Md Cc
the goal of a unified document. Difference
development patterns could be accomm
Differences should be preserved where they
based merely on historical or proprietary n
E. City LDR Committee
The City LDR Committee has served a valua
some instances has produced a concept t
County approach. Where appropriate, ti
adopting some of these approaches. The
encouraged to continue its involvement
appointed Planning Board which is corn,
2
e compromise Option B, its
interlocal agreement. Should
a is required. If Option A is
t must be discussed in further
implementation issues could
CC reached a philosophical
e course has been charted by
Bement can be written and
uld need to be provided a
my development codes with
necessitated by unique City
Ddated by overlay zones.
erve a valid purpose but not
function and the result in
�t may be superior to the
County should consider
committee itself should be
ider the auspices of the
sed of City and County
residents.
V. Conclusion
In the final analysis, indecision can be more des
the best choice based upon the options available
the knowledge that either the Council or the E
whole agreement, it would seem that little can b
by attempting a real, rather than cosmetic, con
Development services. Despite this, if both th
firmly committed to the philosophies surrounding
everyone's time and resources.
10
uctive than resolving to make
nd ,move on. Reassured with
)CC can pull the plug on the
lost and much may be gained
Aidation of the Planning and
City and the County are not
ie cffort, it will be a waste of
�J
c�
Mv
v COD
a �e
Atz
m• O
a�
r. y
�A•f O H ►�"►+. ►"! O ►y W Q+ A A O � iD �� ram..
vAiprA
• FQ W
0 O
O � �� � H ►va
y A
(IQ
.O•t
17
CA
O ►O"ti n C � i7
O rA
_n II
00
17
`. O ,..�. n ►� p Oq m
i R � � �• A � o•
ao o A
A Cs.
ts. ►./. A
wo
o ... Po
e�
A �* A
A O
Oq
n is CL y
►'�+. R' A
�.0
y m
C7
C
C
OQ
a
►� tpia
NN CD
{ cD o
on On.
rJQ CIQ
ti ccpp
o
rA
y ' �.
O V-► ►+. O. (D fy
yCD
rA
�.
W CD CD
rn per'. urn f3. G
O
cv n c� p C? n C� b7tp
CD Mo
CD n
r
a�=�'
' o 0 0 �� !��• you
CD
G7a a c�c�� n n too abdf� n
5�. a o •. ►off ; o to f�
o cD a� n CD Q'
� cs, C a � a o -- co co
MIT a IT a
aqo`•a y Mv
cq
°ai
Sao y� 1.
�.ro
rJQ
CD tz
n bd 92 ^ '+ n a bd n
tz CD CD
'+ cDn �. CD
ai
~0 >aQ
y ro
rna � CD P P--
lz
aA�Ao
p CA
a � torA
...
°�aea.m
0
m s• ja
a � A
0
Sao
a��F
�-EA
CD
sm
`D
a. °�
tio
"" °
O
�
VJ
CD
O'
O
w..
n
Ut
tz
u
C
O C�
cv
m
C R
OQ
O O
�
ty
a
A. �
�
�•
^" si 'C3 D
OQ l
UQ
r.
i q isC CS
fA
o
0
fA
o f
o
n
c 0 F
0 0
(7
CD
a
(OD
"y
�•o2to
oal
CD
M
o.
O ►y
C.
Q. �D
CD
'm
R. i
n i l
k
m r► n
D C M. mR
�O+
O►t
n�
'7 O
C
0
y fir. A fir.
CD p a•
O
O
O
O
OQ r?„ �t vi
y
c
O
�+
C A
C.
O
n A
y
H
�° fD
° G
W (�
C]+ n
n
SSi A
�
O' (D
(D C
a
n
O
N
p A A
vOi tv
O O
p
li
R
O" p• ►`�»�
CF4Di
K
O y
rs aM
e,
CD
CD
CD
�.
:]+
N
y
QQ
OKEECHOBEE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, ANC,
September 26, 1995
Mayor James E. Kirk
Okeechobee City Council
City of Okeechobee
55 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Okeechobee, F1. 34974
P.O. Box 1519
Okeechobee, FL 34973-1519
Telephone:(813) 763-2442
FAX (813) 763-3042
Re: Interlocal Agreement on Planning & Building Services
Dear Mayor Kirk,
The Board of Directors of the Okeechobee Contractors
Association, Inc. would like to express d r support of the County
Department of Planning and Development' to continue providing
planning and construction permitting services for the citizens of
Okeechobee.
Permitting and licensing is already ',a complicated issue. We
must streamline the process, improve the Services and try to solve
the existing problems. We feel the amended ','nterlocal agreement may
be the best avenue for reaching this objective.
We will continue to monitor the situ
resolved in the near future. If we can be
don't hesitate to contact us.
Cordially,
Tommy Close, P sident
Okeechobee Contractors Association
tion and hope it can be
q any assistance, please
cc: Okeechobee Board of County Commissions
OCA/cf
rs
. .. 4
OKEECHOBEE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, J
September 26, 1995
Mayor James E. Kirk
Okeechobee City Council
City of Okeechobee
55 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Okeechobee, F1. 34974
C.
P.O. Box 1519
Okeechobee, FL 34973-1519
Telephone: (813) 763-2442
FAX (813) 763-3042
Re: Interlocal Agreement on Planning & B�ild'ing Services
Dear Mayor Kirk,
The Board of Directors of the Okeechobee Contractors
Association, Inc. would like to express our support of the County
Department of Planning and Development! to continue providing
planning and construction permitting services for the citizens of
Okeechobee.
Permitting and licensing is alreadyla complicated issue. We
must streamline the process, improve the :services and try to solve
the existing problems. We feel the amended'linterlocal agreement may
be the best avenue for reaching this objective.
We will continue to monitor the s'tu'tidn and hope it can be
resolved in the near future. If we can be of any assistance, please
don't hesitate to contact us.
Cordially,
Tommy Close, Pre 'dent
Okeechobee Contractors Association
cc: Okeechobee Board of County Commissione
OCA/cf
rs