2010-252A (14) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element at websites and local governments are informed by e-mail messages. In the future, the county should continue with its current coordination policies and utilize websites as appropriate to gather information. Extra -jurisdictional Impacts Although the county has many written intergovernmental coordination agreements with municipalities and other entities, there are no formal agreements on planning related issues such as maintaining established level of service standards, addressing extra jurisdictional development impacts, providing up front coordination on land use amendments, rezonings, and annexations, and establishing a dispute resolution process. Formal intergovernmental coordination agreements could: ■ clearly identify issues, responsibilities, and important resources and facilities ■ define significant extra jurisdictional impacts; ■ establish quantitative, qualitative, and locational criteria to measure significant impacts ■ develop measures to mitigate impacts, and ■ establish a formal process to resolve disputes when issues arise. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a formal intergovernmental coordination process. For a local government, it is easier and less time consuming if the local government approves all development projects, rezoning requests, and land use amendments within its jurisdiction without considering extra jurisdictional impacts and without coordination with other jurisdictions. Since actions of one local government often affect other governments, however, it is important for local governments to coordinate to ensure that one jurisdiction does not negatively affect another. While coordination can be done informally on a case by case basis, this type of coordination is highly variable and largely depends on the people doing the coordination. At this time, most staff level coordination efforts are done informally. On the other hand, a formal intergovernmental coordination process could clearly define what issues should be considered; identify which resources and facilities must be protected; identify which jurisdiction has the responsibility to notify others of development projects or land use amendment requests; specify which jurisdiction has review responsibility; and identify to what extent comments from other jurisdictions must be addressed. It is inherent that an additional intergovernmental coordination process would add to the time needed to review projects. Therefore, an efficient intergovernmental coordination process must define what is considered to be a significant impact and concentrate coordination efforts on those projects which create significant impacts, not all projects. Due to anticipated growth within the county, it would seem that issues and problems will become even more complicated in the future. For that reason, the county's policy should be to establish formal intergovernmental coordination agreements and procedures with adjacent counties and municipalities. Recently, the state legislature passed SB 360. That bill now requires that each local government's Intergovernmental Coordination Element provide for a dispute resolution process, as established pursuant to S. 186.509, F.S. for bringing intergovernmental disputes to closure in a timely manner. Community Development Department Indian River County 2 4