My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/19/2008 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
06/19/2008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2022 10:56:44 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:19:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/19/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
City of Vero Beach
Town of Indian River Shores
City of Sebastian
City of Fellsmere
Town of Orchid
Archived Roll/Disk#
4019
Subject
Interlocal service boundary agreement
LDR for land annexed by Fellsmere
Sebastian 4,000 acre reserve area
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7247
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Sebastian City Attorney Rich Stringer <br />revealed that subsequent to the County’s <br />exploration of Charter Government, the Cities became aware that Charter would impact <br />everyone, and began looking at a new Statute, Chapter 171, Part II, which provides for Interlocal <br />Service Boundary Agreements, to govern the rules for growth. The first major step in this <br />process began at the Vero Beach City Hall, wherein it was decided to initiate the Interlocal <br />Agreement process, and to try to establish an alternative to Charter Government. At that time, a <br />Stand Down Agreement was enacted, during which time (over the past year), no annexations <br />would be allowed. <br />Attorney Vitunac <br /> requested Attorney Anthony Garganese to provide an overview <br />of the new Florida Statute, Chapter 171, Part II. <br />Attorney Garganese, <br /> representing Orchid & Indian River Shores, reported that <br />the intent of Chapter 171, Part II (adopted in 2006), was to:(1) Encourage intergovernmental <br />cooperation regarding the efficient delivery of services and to prevent an insufficient tax base to <br />support services; (2) Promote sensible boundaries that reduce costs to local governments, and <br />allow for boundary adjustments by agreement; (3) Reduce intergovernmental conflicts when <br />growth related issues are presented; (4) Avoid duplication of services; and (5) Increase political <br />transparency. Attorney Garganese detailed the negotiation process, which begins when an <br />Initiating Resolution is adopted (such as was done by Fellsmere) and concludes with an <br />Agreement or an impasse. He thereafter conveyed that the maximum term for the Interlocal <br />Agreement was twenty (20) years, with the requirement of periodic review. <br />County Commission Chairman Bowden asked how many successful Interlocal <br />Agreements had been signed. After learning from Attorney Stringer that one Agreement had <br />reportedly been signed (in Sarasota), and another one was reportedly in process (elsewhere), <br />Commissioner Bowden voiced interest in viewing a signed Interlocal Agreement. <br />4 <br />June 19, 2008 <br />Special Call Jt. Mtng/Interlocal Agrmnt <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.