TITLE
title
Proposed Resolution Inviting City of Brooksville to Negotiate an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement
body
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Both Hernando County (the “County”) and the City of Brooksville (the “City”) have received requests from the same developer to provide utility services to the entirety of a proposed development that, if constructed, will straddle the current demarcation line between each government’s exclusive right-to-serve areas. Upon information and belief, the City conditions its provision of such services on property owners’ consent to the City’s voluntary annexation of the properties to be served. While the County does not intrinsically oppose the City providing utility services to the entire proposed development, the County fears that the annexation of the properties to be served would inevitably result in the inefficient provision of municipal services by both local governments.
Additionally, the County believes that it would be in the best interest of both governments to designate areas of unincorporated territory within which the City can annex parcels without being opposed by the County. (The County has challenged annexations by the City at least three times in the last two decades.)
Municipal annexation is addressed in Fla. Stat. Chapter 171, Parts I and II. Part I of Chapter 171 deals primarily with the procedural and form requirements for annexation by municipalities (i.e., reasonably compact, contiguous to city, and does not create enclaves). Part I currently governs the City’s annexations, however, it does not provide a mechanism to address service delivery and other issues associated with municipal annexation.
Fla. Stat. Chapter 171, Part II, which is known as the “Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act,” provides a mechanism for counties and cities to cooperatively address service delivery considerations associated with municipal annexation in addition to the form requirements. See “Summary of ISBA Act” that is attached to this agenda item for more detail on Part II.
The legislative intent of Part II, according to Fla. Stat. § 171.201, is “…to provide an alternative to Part I of this Chapter for local governments regarding the annexation of territory into a municipality and the subtraction of territory from the unincorporated area of the county. Fla. Stat. § 171.201 further states that the principal goal of Part II of the annexation statute is to:
• Encourage local governments to jointly determine how to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner while balancing the needs and desires of the community.
• Establish a more flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries and to address a wider range of the effects of annexation.
• Encourage intergovernmental coordination in planning, service delivery, and boundary adjustments.
• Reduce intergovernmental conflicts and litigation between local governments.
Fla. Stat. § 171.201 goes on to say that, “It is the intent of this part [Part II] to promote sensible boundaries that reduce the costs of local governments, avoid duplicating local services, and increase political transparency and accountability. This part is intended to prevent inefficient service delivery and an insufficient tax base to support the delivery of those services.”
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 171.046(2)(a), the City and the County can provide the latter’s annexation of developed enclaves of 110 acres or less in size existing within its borders by mutual agreement.
Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements (“ISBA”) have been used by local governments throughout Florida as a mechanism to comprehensively address annexation and service delivery issues. An ISBA can provide a procedural and policy framework for dealing with some of the annexation issues that the County has experienced in the last two decades, such as identifying the local government responsible for providing services and facilities within certain areas or identifying strategies for dealing with existing enclaves.
In order to formally initiate the ISBA negotiation process, Fla. Stat. § 171.203 requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an “initiating resolution” which identifies the issues and the area to be discussed as part of the ISBA negotiation process. The adoption of an initiating resolution starts the clock on a series of statutorily prescribed steps and timelines (per Fla. Stat. § 171.203(1)-(5) as outlined in the attachment hereto) for transmittal of the initiating resolution to the City.
If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to begin the process of negotiating an ISBA with the City, it can adopt the proposed resolution attached hereto. That being said, the Board of County Commissioners can also, given the procedural complexity and statutory timelines involved, direct the County Administrator to send the draft initiating resolution to the City Manager for review and feedback. This would allow an opportunity for communication with the City about the expectations for the process and the issues to be discussed prior to adoption of an initiating resolution which would start the statutory clock on the timelines, formal notification, and response requirements for all cities. This is an approach that was used in at least two other counties in Florida.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
NA
LEGAL NOTE
The Board has the authority to enact the proposed resolution pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 125.01 &171.203.
recommendation
RECOMMENDATION
This agenda item presents an issue of pure public policy.