In celebration of Earth Day, I have written this message to share a link with you to a video entitled "The Story of Stuff."

The subject of the video is our pursuit of personal "stuff" and the impact, in the global context, of our current consumption on the environment and fellow citizens. Some of you may not agree with all of its commentary and explanations, but consider it food for thought and reflection. Talk with your coworkers as to what you think of this video, its message, and how it relates to sustainability and our way of life. In this way we can all perhaps share in a common Earth Day experience this year from the convenience of our workspaces throughout our communities.

Earth Day is a celebration focused on our environment, and in the final analysis the day is all about the individual choices and decisions we make, most frequently, as consumers and citizens. As individual employees and heads of American households we play an integral part in the bioregional and international systems of resource extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal that has a global impact on the planet and our fellow human beings.

As government employees, many of us deal daily with issues of solid waste management, recycling, construction management, energy conservation, transportation, maintaining infrastructure, remodeling of buildings, purchasing goods and resources, and environmental protection. We each also experience the rising costs of materials we purchase and have to dispose of everyday. We are all, therefore, local participants in the global and increasingly interrelated system highlighted in the video. Think upon this fact today or tomorrow as you are able to watch the video at work.

The first step in addressing our global yet limited bio-capacity is to understand what we are consuming today through the "stuff" we buy. One of the best explanations I've come across is "The Story of Stuff."  This humorous and well-written film is engaging enough for children and powerful enough to create change in just 20 minutes of viewing time. Political commentary is minimal.

I encourage you to view this at your workspace during our Earth Day events and show it at your staff meetings to those not electronically linked to email. Share www.storyofstuff.com/index.html as you will with other folks outside your organizations in order to increase their awareness of the impact of the "stuff" in their lives and especially our younger generation who have a lot of "stuff" ahead of them.

In Public Service, Randall H Reid, Alachua County Manager, rhr@alachuacounty.us.

All of us in Alachua County Government extend our condolences to the family of Specialist Christopher Todd Neiberger.  Chris lost his life while serving with the United States Army in Iraq on Monday, August 6, 2007.  He was the son of Mary June Neiberger of the Alachua County Equal Opportunity Office and Dr. Richard Neiberger.  Chris graduated from Gainesville High School in 2003.  He was a member of Boy Scout Troop 454 and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout.  He joined the Army after spending two years at Florida State University.

In addition to having worked with Chris' mother I am familiar with the Neiberger family and their commitment to their church and to scouting.  It is difficult for a young man to reach the rank of Eagle Scout today, more so than in my generation due to the many competing activities offered to young people.  However, anyone who reaches the rank of Eagle has internalized a set of values that reflect America at its best.  These values are reflected in the Scout Oath and Scout Laws that a scout recites at every meeting and must demonstrate for advancement many times in his scouting experience.  As a frequent speaker at Eagle Scout ceremonies, I know many elderly men who use scouting values as an ethical guide their entire life.  Chris showed his commitment to those values by making the ultimate sacrifice for his countrymen.

Christopher was a patriot who served his country.  He will be deeply missed by his family and friends.  His compassion for others, love for his family, and camaraderie with his fellow soldiers will not be forgotten.

A memorial service was held on Sunday at Trinity United Methodist Church and a proclamation from the County Commission honoring Christopher was read.

I often blog about civic education.  Sometimes civic education means coming to a public meeting, attending a class, or working on a community issue that interests you.  Unfortunately, there is no better civic lesson than attending the funeral of a young man in the military who died in the line of duty to his country.

Civic Thought

But, the real way to get happiness is by giving out happiness to other people.  Try and leave this world better than you found it, and when your time comes to die you can die happy in the feeling that at any rate you have not wasted your time but have done your best.

Lord Baden Powell of Gilwell
Founder of the Boy Scouts

This has been an ongoing goal for the County Commission and is a progressive alternative to the annexation conflicts occurring regularly around the State. I have encouraged such an effort to develop a transition process here  having been both a city and county manager in Florida. I have experienced being on both sides of the issue having the need to annex and felt the impact of annexations. Since taking this position in 1999 there was little forward movement due for most part to an existing fire service agreement known as the DAA which did not recognize annexation in its format. Until the arrival of Russ Blackburn as City Manager who early on agreed to enter into a new fire service agreement allowed us to both facilitate bringing this "third way" approach to annexation transition to reality. Dispute free annexation is certainly not yet a reality in Alachua County, but our jurisdictions are being recognized for our local efforts at conflict management by our peers who similarly struggle with this issue.

Last week I returned from Richmond Virginia attending the National Association of Counties meeting www.naco.org . This is the association that represents County Officials in the United States and focuses on lobbying the federal government on policies of concern to US county governments, provides joint programs of benefit to the residents, employees and elected officials around the country and provides educational opportunities for elected officials through publications and conferences. Both Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut and l were speakers at this year's annual meeting, she on health issues and I on the annexation transition agreements in room side by side on Monday morning.

Our annexation documents were selected by the National Association of Counties because of the early implementation of and firm enforcement of the Boundary Adjustment Act and the subsequent creation of the Annexation Transition Agreement and the new Fire Services Agreement. These represent a highly desirable home rule based alternative to legal challenges of annexations, bitter referendum debates or consolidation efforts and lack of planning that is common place around the Country. The presentation was made more interesting for me as my co-presenter was Harry Hayes of the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of government. Harry has been here in Gainesville and discussed the consolidation of Alachua County and Gainesville at the request of Ron Cunningham of the Gainesville Sun. We both recognize that inter-local agreements are a step short of consolidation of jurisdictions but far more likely to be implemented locally.

Many audience members, County officials from across the country were surprised that city and county officials could set down together to work out what we have worked out here. I pointed out that having three former Mayors of Gainesville on our County Commission may not be typical nor the sincerity which planning is held here. The recognition exists every where that personalities can warp or enhance inter-governmental issues at any time. The pressure to annex on a city is great. It is not unusual for a city manager to describe that their greatest accomplishment to be annexation of tax base from unincorporated areas.

On behalf of professional local government managers I discussed the fact that managers of jurisdictions must often adopt the personalities of their commissions on the issue of annexation. The assigned role is more often that of "gladiator" for your jurisdiction rather than one of diplomatic envoy or "helping hand." Usually most managers are more comfortable in a role of civic educator where you simple make sure the facts being presented are balanced.

For information on how the three agreements work might be able to work here in Alachua County you may obtain copies of these documents from the County website. We are one of the few governments that can show efforts to change State Law on this issue(our 1990 boundary adjustment act), hand out a written transition agreement and a specific written service delivery agreement (fire in our case) that links annexation and service provision. As local governments are really laboratories of democracy it is always exciting to bring what your jurisdiction is doing and hand out examples of it to your peers in other governments attending the conference.

Boundary Adjustment Act - http://library1.municode.com:80/mcc/home.htm?view=home&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=4b18bc8224bc8bab90de2fe2f896eeba&infobase=10343

Annexation Transition Agreement - http://www.alachuacounty.us/documents/bocc/agendas/2007-06-12/Gainesville-Annex-ATA%20Agreement.pdf

Article IV - MSTU-Fire Protection Services - http://library1.municode.com:80/mcc/home.htm?view=home&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=1fbe0dfc8f5772ecb936d41fa2dff1ce&infobase=10343

The link for the Fire Services Assistance Agreement (10/10/2006 BOCC Agenda) is:

 http://www.alachua.fl.us/documents/bocc/agendas/2006-10-10/e-agenda/Fire%20Services%20Assistance%20Agreement%202006%20Final.pdf

The FSAA map can be found at this link:

http://www.alachua.fl.us/documents/bocc/agendas/2006-10-10/e-agenda/FSAA%20Map.pdf

In June in a chaotic and historic action, the Legislature according to the Florida Association of Counties,

"adopted a significant property tax reform plan during Spe­cial Session B that consists of two components. HB 1B statutorily rolls back property tax rates levied by counties, municipalities and inde­pendent special districts and caps them on a going forward basis, unless the caps are overridden by a super-majority vote of the governing body or by referendum.  Failure to adhere to the rollback and cap will result in significant financial penal­ties for local governments.  The other component offers a constitu­tional amendment to the electorate at the Presidential Preference Pri­mary on January 29, 2008 that will provide (1) large increases to the homestead exemption, (2) a choice for existing Homesteaders to switch from the existing Save Our Homes protection to the new super home­stead exemption (3) targeted tax relief for certain types of properties, and (4) a mandate that the legisla­ture restrict property tax increases by counties, municipalities and inde­pendent special districts."

The special legislative session resulted in a statutory change that caps local government property tax revenue this year in a rollback.  For Alachua County, it means a 5% rollback reducing FY07 property tax revenues in the General Fund by approximately 3% or approximately $3 million. The MSTU for Law Enforcement and the MSTU Unincorporated area would also receive a 5% rollback. This budget is anticipating that the Fire MSTU in Alachua County's case is limited to a 3% rollback.

The recent special session was successful in providing immediate property tax relief at the cost of local government service levels. But it did not fix the principle problem of the valuation of property on the "highest and best use," and it will take until the January 29 referendum to address the Save Our Homes issue. Citizens should check out our Property Appraiser's website to determine how much you will receive from the tax reform.

However, something else significant happened this year in the special session besides the reduction and future capping of property taxes - perhaps something more important to the history of the State than the tax cut itself. That was the deliberate erosion of the civic and legal principle of "home rule" by the actions of the State Legislature. The 1968 Constitution of Florida formally established the "home rule" principle which basically says local governments can run their operations and set tax levels locally, provided they do not conflict with state law, a local special act, or the Constitution. Charter Counties in the State, of which Alachua County is one, were given a broad constitutional authority and power to do so. By design the State Legislature is not the County Commission and the Governor not the Mayor or Chair of a local government. This year, the tenets of home rule became very unclear in the media, in the Capital, in the Governor's Mansion, and in the civic understanding of perhaps a majority of Florida residents.

"Home rule" is as important a word in government as "academic freedom" is at the University or "sovereign nation" is in international diplomacy. The concept is a double-edged sword much like freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which causes some occasional discomfort to folks, but provides a great security to individual rights. Local autonomy of decision making by locally accessible elected representatives has been a treasured source of community strength, accountability, and innovation in local government in America for years. We believe that local elected officials, making decisions locally, in open government meetings, based upon local knowledge and concern for their community, tend to make the best decisions.

It has been a concern to both academics and practitioners of local government to listen to State Legislators make hasty decisions this year about the historic, principle source of local government financing. Then came the populist rhetoric, designed to devalue local government services as "dog parks," local government officials as "drunken sailors," and threats of our Governor participating in local campaigns "against any local official who lays off a firefighter" as a result of the State's intervention in local governmental finances and operations. It was clear that many reformers didn't know some basic facts about how local governments, the diversity and interconnectedness of local government structures in different places, or how the fiscal resources or programs of local government are used and limited by law. 

There should be more of a concern about the erosion of home rule by the State Legislature and the powerful regional delegations within the State that can now cause unfunded mandates on city and county governments, alter their expenditure levels, and control their principle and historic source of revenue.

As I wrote my budget message on July 4^th 2007, I was reminded of the fact that it was the local residents of Concord and Lexington that came out of the taverns, public meeting houses, and churches and took to the town green or commons to resist the authority of a Colonial Governor who was controlled by a far away King and Parliament.

The result was an American tax revolt. But our Founders had the ingrained wisdom to debate if the states and their hamlets and towns should be ruled by a centralized few or preserve the relationships of autonomous states and localities where local representatives made decisions with knowledge of local needs, environment, and culture. We need that home rule debate again in Florida.

The voice of the people is always most likely to be heard on taxes and community needs more often by neighbors holding the local government offices than by those in higher offices, farther away in larger political bodies or in geographic areas represented by stronger political delegations.

In this extremely difficult budget season, if this Commission chooses to reduce taxes and reduces programs, then the County organization recognizes that is the policy of the Commission and  must do so.  It is far more preferable to our management team, employees and hopefully our citizens that it is decided here in Alachua County, rather than by politicians in Tallahassee, most of whom our citizens will never know personally as a neighbor or friend.

• Imagine a Season of Hurricanes like or worse than 2004
• Imagine Katrina hitting our coast and continuing to Alachua County
• Imagine now our response with 10 to 40 per cent less budget resources, reduced staffing and reduced reserves...
• Imagine how few citizens understand this reality like those of us gathered in this room (the EOC) who share this public safety responsibility
• Imagine there is more to leadership than political popularity...

Florida's 67 county and 412 municipal governments are at a critical crossroads in the debate playing out in Tallahassee over how to reform Florida's current property tax system. Some state leaders have cast local governments as the villain in this issue. Indeed, some proposals would impose state mandated caps on local government spending and cut billions of dollars that counties need to pay for critical local programs and services for our citizens. Governor Crist's proposal would reduce our $125 million County Government General Fund by $31 million.

Citizens need property tax relief. Local governments are ready to assist in a careful, well-planned effort to reform the tax system. However, the answer does not lie in creating a second crisis through forcing cuts in essential county programs and services citizens depend on.

Counties provide crucial everyday support for Florida's citizens. Proposed cuts will affect REAL local services such as deputies, fire/rescue, emergency management, social services, growth management, environmental protection, road maintenance, parks, animal services, veteran's services, poverty reduction, waste management, just to name a few. Capital projects are in jeopardy This Commission has made historic strides in dealing with roads maintenance projects. Our history demonstrates that deferring capital projects, such as roads, geometrically increases future costs.

I want to share with you a letter from Alachua County Fire Chief Will Gray May to Senator Ken Pruitt, President of the Florida Senate. Chief May's thirty-one years of experience, that includes day to day fire/rescue, wildfire suppression and hurricane response, brings clarity to the ramifications of the reckless, politically expedient, tax plans being discussed in Tallahassee.

I urge you to read Chief May's letter to Senator Pruitt and Senator Haridopolos.

In public service,

Randall H. Reid
Alachua County Manager

We are in great company with places known for high quality of life such as Bellingham WA., Portland, OR., Colorado Springs, Co., to name a only a few of the top fifty communities that are listed inside the cover. Cities were ranked on nine criteria: economy, cost of living, climate, education, health, crime, transportation, leisure, and arts and culture. The City of Gainesville (actually the surrounding area known as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which includes all of Alachua County was ranked #1. Significantly this was not because of us being first in all categories but strong in all or most. This represents synergy and balance and not overly concentrating in a single attribute and the forsaking of others. The ranking is also certainly a tribute to the University of Florida/City of Gainesville/Alachua County dynamics that allow college towns to do well in such national rankings. Personally for me it was nice to see my personal feelings in my heart about this place was objectively confirmed by the most recent community ranking effort base on statistical comparison.

This area is not a stranger to such national recognition as a community nor did our citizens have to have an out of town consultant's rating tell us this place is special. In the past dozen years we have been named "Best Place To Live In America" in 1995 by Money magazine, eighth in the "Top Ten Value Towns for Those Considering Retirement in 2007," eleventh in the "Best Places to Reinvent Your Life" by AARP, number twelve in Forbes' Magazine on where to do busness and the "Most Technologically Advanced City" in Popular Mechanics Magazine. Some of our assets like healthcare facilities are the result of the hard work of many of our citizens and others like our climate is the blessings of place.

We citizens of Alachua County know that this is a special place many of us choose to live in or frequently return to after living here at earlier periods in our lives. If you had witnessed the recent several months of debate and public meetings over a major development like SpringHill's you would recognize both our citizen's emotional and intellectual concern about the sustainability of this place and note that national real estate investors like PREIT recognize it is a venue good for their commerical, office and residential development opportunities. The purpose of the "Cities" book is actually to designate excellent communities for people to move to from their current communities to enjoy a better quality of life. This national  recognition is then a confirmation of our success and a future challenge for Alachua County.

There are lessens to be drawn from such ratings like those in the new "Cities" book and questions to ask ourselves as well. First, to those who are never satisfied or desire the atmosphere of other larger metropolitan places is the need for appreciation for what we have here in this community now and how we should first guard those things we cherish about it. Gainesville is the envy of many places for what it is and the attraction of maintainining our existing highly desirable niche of our college oriented, culturally rich community with a small town feeling. We do not have to plead for growth and development opportunities. So what kinds of growth and development will continue to enhance our community? What things do we cherish that we will not give up?

Secondly, what are the strategic efforts that we need to undertake to truly address our weakest community indicators such as crime, poverty and air transportation? How can we strategically improve upon our weaknesses?

Thirdly, what new forums of inclusive collaboration can be developed to assist guiding the process of self improvement that this community needs to deal with the growth that our own attractiveness will bring?

Finally, what kind of governance structures, tax base and public financing can we put in place to maintain and construct the necessary infrastructure to deal with increasing population growth that the positive national  publicity like this "Cities" rating will bring to Alachua County? Do current tax reform discussions enhance our low tax ratings or weaken our local communities ability to finance community improvements and services that address our weaknesses?

Tomorrow is another day to address these challenges and questions. Today, as this new book hits the shelves at bookstores let us enjoy the chance to once again enjoy being national champions of a different kind and enjoy this time and place as citizens of Alachua County.

Civic Thought

The Apostle Paul answered   "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city." Acts 21:39

The approval of a Comprehensive Plan change for this project, due to its size and land use mix, is a difficult decision for the Alachua County Commission. The County desires economic growth and assuring sustainable commercial areas are developed around the county. These are called activity centers and there is a need for additional tax base. The SpringHill DRI  is a prime location for development at the northern most interchange of the City of Gainesville. The land uses and vision for this piece of property at the NW 39^th Ave interchange is included in an existing SpringHills DRI approved in the 1990s. That DRI already permits development of the area. It is significant that the existing DRI was approved for a different mix of office and retail commercial than contained in the newly requested Comprehensive Plan amendment being requested by the new owner and is considered to be a more intense development.

PREIT is a well financed firm that specializes in commercial malls and big box development of reputable quality which is highlighted on its own corporate website. From our conversations with the developer, if the project is financially feasible, it is planned that the retail commercial area will be developed into several large retail centers by PREIT and the traditional town center in a new urbanism concept.  PREIT may have other firms actually develop the residential areas in stages.

The positive impacts of the project will be felt through job creation, construction activity and the opportunity for additional shopping opportunities. It will generate additional taxes through expansion of the sales taxes and property taxes generated by the development and since developed as a DRI is likely to be more cohesive in design that multiple separate developments and subdivisions, each of which would need to coordinate infrastructure in a more incremental fashion. If current Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Development regulations are followed there is every reason to expect an attractive facility will be created with the appropriate design standards possible for large retail boxes and town centers. County staff can not yet assure these designs will be followed, if  requests to grandfather the project under older regulations are permitted. The design process comes after the consideration of the comprehensive plan amendment approval process so the public will not see specific firm designs at the meeting.

However, there are serious negative impacts that the SpringHills project creates or existing situations the project may aggravate. Primarily the project has a serious impact on the local traffic system.  Neighborhoods in proximity to the development are concerned with the increased density and traffic, particularly in the area of the scenic Millhopper Road. The new DRI  will also absorb or capture over 20 years worth of commercial use allowable county wide in the future, resulting in the limiting the commercial expansion in other areas the county and /or city. Concerns also exist that this large scale retail commercial use may generate larger vacancy rates for similar existing retail structures leading to vacant empty large box commercial sites to rehabilitate later in older areas.

Common to the majority of greenfeild developments (open land not requiring redevelopment) in Florida PREIT would be required to put in the infrastructure needed for its approval. However in this case the SpringHill developer  is seeking the county to reimburse the company from the revenues generated from the development. They are also seeking exemptions from development requirements of the current Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Reimbursement incentives are often offered to encourage investment in brownfeild redevelopment sites such as those that involve older industrial areas, deteriorated plazas or older central business districts. It is legitimately debatable if this prime greenfeild site requires such incentives. PREIT has stated it is a condition of development. The county's financial adviser has cautioned the County regarding reimbursement commitments to the developer impacting the County's future bonding capacity.

According to the Regional Planning Council the project will generate $120 million in needed transportation improvements based upon a methodogy that was agreed upon by the developer and the FDOT. Alachua County has in past decades found it difficult to finance road repair, much less construct new roadways and the cost of construction is increasing annually with right of way acquisition leading the increase. The DRI doesn't include adjacent roadways that will be also pushed over their traffic capacity, such as NW 23 Ave and Fort Clark Blvd. Concurrency laws in the state will require as these roads fail that their capacity be increased or future development orders be denied. This may have a negative impact on other property owners and smaller developments in the localized area. The Regional Planning Council has indicated in a public meeting that it will be recommending that the project be reduced in scope or size due to this impact and the uncertainty of this infrastructure funding. They will be attending the May 1, 2007 meeting also.

Alachua County has no significant means of financing new road construction. At this time the State Legislature is discussing major taxation changes that would further limit County tax revenue options. For this reason  the County Commission is both concerned with both the cost of the impacts to county transportation system and how we will fund other requirements of the impacts in off site areas.

County staff has worked diligently with PREIT on project design and impact up until February 23, 2007. On that date, PREIT provided the staff with a non negotiable, "final offer" package of 16 conditions for the project to be able to move forward. Many of these "final offer" demands were in direct conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and therefore illegal for staff to waive, ignore or accept as a part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff advised the developer that we could not accept such conditions as a package but recognizing the significant investment PREIT has in the project would allow the project to proceed to the Commission for the May 1^st public hearing with a staff recommendation of denial.

A series of recent and coordinated local editorials prepared by the Attorney for PREIT and PREIT's Doug Grayson, as well as the Gainesville Sun editorial staff  has lauded the projects benefits and vilified the County staff for suggesting denial.  Our planning staff's  actions have been expressed as a "knee jerk reaction" due to a surge of citizen opposition to the project. That is a misleading and unfortunate analysis of staff's actions.

We believe staff is attempting to uphold Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Regulations, insure presentation of accurate information on the projects impacts are provided to the Commission and the legal requirements this huge DRI should meet are enforced. No effort was made to confirm comments in the PREIT sponsored editorials. Nor did the media report the facts of the PREIT letter of February 22, 2007 outlining that 16 non-negotiable conditions had been presented to the County staff by the developer. As a newspaper boy for the Dayton Daily News I quickly learned my objective was to sell more newspapers.

The lengthy text below outlines the "final offer" presented to the County staff by PREIT and the reasons why each of them could not be agreed to as a non-negotiable package. The Comprehensive Plan amendment being requested by the developer is the primary subject of the May1st hearing. The issues of the appropriate land use, scale, size and impacts of this project are appropriate to consider in making this decision and the law requires the Commission considers the most relevant data and analysis in rendering their legislative decision. In this process the developer is looking out rightfully for his stockholders and the County and Regional Planning Council need to look out for all the stakeholders, present and future.

Thanks for reading. See you at the May 1^st public hearing. Call your Commissioners and let them know what you think.

Staff Response to the February 22, 2007 Proposal from PREIT

SpringHills DRI

After receiving final information from the applicant and evaluating the proposed DRI, County staff released a draft Development Order in December 2006.  In response to that Development Order, on February 22, 2007, the SpringHills applicant submitted the attached letter.  The following is a point-by-point explanation of why staff could not accept this "final offer" from the applicant.

SpringHills will agree to construct the list of improvements with the exception of the Fort Clarke Boulevard improvement that was transmitted to the Developer by Jonathan Paul on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 subject to the following conditions:

Response:  The result of the Regional Planning Council's analysis of the traffic impacts is that SpringHills would require an estimated $120 million of transportation improvements in order to meet concurrency. The proportionate share attributable to SpringHills is $58 million.   The list of improvements (Appendix A) sent to the applicant on February 21, 2007 is a result of Staff's determination that these projects are the best return of investment on the $58 million proportionate share. Fort Clarke Boulevard, if constructed as part of this, would be expenditure above and beyond the proportionate share, and, in that event, would be available for discussion of reimbursement to the Developer.

The adoption hearing for both the Development Order and Comprehensive Plan Amendment will take place on May 1, 2007 and the notice for such hearing will be issued in a compliant and timely manner.  County staff will recommend and offer their best effort to ensure that the hearing and any continuances for both items be concluded no later than the end of the third week of May 2007.

Response:  The hearing has been scheduled and advertised for May 1, 2007.  May 3rd and 15th have been reserved on the Commissioner's calendars for continuation of the hearing if necessary.

The Developer will receive a reimbursement of $18,000,000 from the County in accordance with terms similar to those agreed upon at Transmittal.

Response:  If the developer constructs the list of improvements but not Fort Clarke Boulevard, then they will have only met the statutory requirements for proportionate share , therefore no reimbursement from the County would be necessary.  It is important to recognize that even if the list of improvements were completed, both Fort Clarke Boulevard and Northwest 23rd Avenue would still fail concurrency, and would remain an obligation for construction by the County in the near future. If the applicant agreed to pay more than their proportionate share at this time, the County would have to look at any proposed reimbursement very carefully.  Concerns were previously raised by the County's Financial Advisor regarding the impact any payback agreement will have on the County's bonding capacity.  Any agreement would have to be reviewed in light of the recent decisions to  issue new bonds for long term capital improvements.  It is also premature to thoroughly evaluate the potential impact of any reimbursement proposal given the discussions taking place in the State Legislature that could result in significant changes to traditional revenue streams.

The Developer will receive a 100% credit of all transportation impact fees.

Response:  A blanket statement that grants the developer 100 % credit for impact fees would be premature and inconsistent with the County's Impact Fee Ordinance and State Statute, especially as it concerns the site-related improvements. Any agreement to allow full credit for the impact fees not directly attributable to off-site improvements would be showing preferential treatment to this applicant.  However, the development would be eligible for substantial impact fee credits in accordance with the County's ordinance.

Developer's off-site right of way costs will be capped at $750,000.  This amount will be in addition to the construction of the list of roadway improvements described above. Right of Way acquisition will be the obligation of the County.

Response:  The estimated cost for all necessary roadway modifications is based on and includes an estimate of the cost of the right-of-way, design and construction of the roadway modifications.  Further, though there is uncertainty when calculating right-of-way costs, it is clear that $750,000 would not come close to the development's share of these costs.  Any such cap would increase the County's future liability to contribute funds toward the applicant's proportionate share.  In the discussions regarding the reimbursement proposal that were conducted during the transmittal public hearing, the Board did acknowledge that increasing right-of-way costs were an important issue.  As a result, the Board tentatively agree to add a maximum of $1 million to the potential total it would consider reimbursing the applicant, thus capping future County liability at that amount.  This is a significantly different approach compared to the current proposal related to right-of-way.

The Board did express a willingness to exercise power of eminent domain for the acquisition of right-of-way during these discussions at the transmittal hearing.

Trips will be vested in perpetuity with respect to all improvements constructed by the Developer.  With respect to other facilities, vesting will be for 10 years subject to extensions allowed by then current law.

Response:  Vesting trips in perpetuity would be inconsistent with State Statute for DRIs.  Vesting will be in accordance with State Statute providing for the same treatment as any other DRI applicant, provided the applicant remains in compliance with all aspects of the Development Order.  To do otherwise would be showing preferential treatment to this applicant.

Developer has the right to place any part of the project in service once the obligation for funding the roadway improvements has been met.

Response:  Timing of the roadway construction that is required to meet concurrency is more complicated than simply saying once funds have been committed for transportation improvements, the applicant may build any part of the project. County staff is willing to discuss specifics, but the timing of actual construction needs to be considered.  The transportation analysis is based on a mix of land uses. If the applicant were to simply put commercial in place without other uses, the study would no longer be valid and this would also not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  For example, if the applicant built big boxes first and just the road improvements to provide direct access to these but did not build other parts of the transportation network until some time later, this would have unintended adverse consequences and make the situation worse on 39th Avenue.

Approve JPA and CDD

Response:  The applicant is referring to a Joint Participation Agreement and a Community Development District.  It would be premature to approve a Joint Participation Agreement before zoning is in place for the project.    At the transmittal hearing, the Commission was willing to discuss the agreement and instructed staff and the applicant to work out a joint participation agreement in the context that the applicant was fronting the money for and constructing roadway modifications above their proportionate share.  Based on the completion of the professionally accepted transportation analysis, there was no need to continue this discussion because the County would no longer be asking the developer to contribute above their proportionate share amount.  As for the Community Development District, the County enacted an ordinance to allow creation of CDDs, in partial response to the anticipation of one being created in SpringHills.

Developer will have met its affordable housing obligation by providing 100 for sale units onsite in a location at the Developer's sole discretion using the MAP program as proposed by Hank Fishkind, plus payment of $250,000 to NHDC or other County designee to mitigate the 34 lowest income units.

Response:  There is a deficit of 167 housing units that would be affordable to low and very low income families.  This is based on the information provided by the applicant regarding the wage structure of the jobs that would be offered in this development. All but 34 of these units could be met through a Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), though not as proposed by the applicant.  The 34 units needed by the lowest income group cannot be satisfied by for-sale units or by a one time payment of $250,000 dollars.  These units, of necessity, would be rental units.  Florida Administrative Rule requires when mitigating for affordable housing with rental units, the mitigation must be sufficient to ensure the units remain affordable for 15 years.  The applicant stated that the $250,000 was a lump sum number and did not provide calculations or any other basis to support this amount. $250,000 would not be adequate to mitigate for 34 rental units. 

County approves the deviations from the Comp Plan design language to permit large format retailers including but not limited to building orientation to roadways, large surface parking lots and single use buildings.

Response:  If the applicant is suggesting that large format retailers in SpringHills will be permitted to have large uninterrupted expanses of paved parking and will be exempted from the design standards in the Comprehensive Plan, it would be inconsistent with staff's interpretation of the negotiated policy language and would amount to preferential treatment.  Staff's interpretation of the policy language and recollection of the discussions with the applicant's Planner is that the policy will afford some flexibility for large format retailers while still applying the design standards of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Fire and life safety mitigation will be impact fees only.

Response:  The SpringHill's applicant  offered land for a station in the northeast quadrant at both the transmittal hearing and in the SpringHills Status Report to County Commission dated 1-29-07 they asked that the County Commission direct staff to accept the offer of land.  The Fire Service Master Plan locates a fire station adjacent to SpringHills as a future need.  The SpringHills development accelerates the timing of this need but is not the only development creating the need.  However, if the applicant were to provide a site this would be consistent with this Master Plan and would further Fire/Rescue's ability to maintain level of service in this area of the County.  Any donation of land would receive full impact fee credit. 

Restore 1999 Comp Plan language with respect to parks, wetlands and set asides.

Response:  In discussions with the applicant, the language above was supposed to read restore 1999 Development Order language.  In any case, this would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations as it concerns wetland buffers and parks and recreation levels of service.  The applicant's proposed Development Order is a complete rewrite of the old Development Order.  In the applicant's opinion, some items should not be subject to the current Comprehensive Plan requirements.  The applicant cannot pick and choose which policies and regulations the development will adhere to.  This would be inconsistent with State Statute requiring development order consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and would amount to preferential treatment of this applicant.

Delete ongoing water quality management requirement.           

Response:  Both the St. Johns Water Management District and the Regional Planning Council have stated the necessity of water quality monitoring in this area and for this development.  The proximity to residential developments using wells and the amount of run-off, including from large fertilized areas, make water quality monitoring essential for this development.  The applicant's own proposed Development Order states that it is consistent with the Regional Planning Council's report and recommendations (as required by Statute).  The RPC report recommending the monitoring requirement as a condition.    There has been no request to consider modifying this condition, only to completely eliminate it and staff cannot support that.

Delete obligation to tie into stormwater reuse system unless such system is created by GRU prior to any construction by the Developer.

Response:  The Comprehensive Plan encourages reuse of water. In fact, the County has required other developments such as the Oakmont Planned Development to extend lines to be available when water reuse becomes available for that development.  Rather than having the future uncertainty of having to retrofit and reconstruct areas, this condition allows planning ahead for the future hookups.

County Agrees that Map H issues have been resolved in accordance with Developer requests. 

Response:  The County agrees that while the exact language shown on the Maps has not been finalized, the issues related to the request have been addressed.

Existing Housing Units and affordable housing units can be replaced on-site in any location without additional mitigation obligation.

Response:  These are two separate issues.  What the applicant refers to as existing housing units no longer exist, however staff agrees that Springhills could replace those in any location designated for housing.  Separately, staff agreed with an earlier request of the applicant to allow them to place the affordable housing units and the additional density in the NE quadrant and staff agreed that no additional traffic impacts would be assessed for those units.  The only reason the location requirement was in staff's proposed Development Order was because the applicant requested it.  Staff is willing to discuss flexibility on this issue.

Conclusion

The above bullet points were presented by the applicant, as stated in the final paragraph of the letter attached, as a proposal that should be viewed in its entirety, and not as a menu of choices.  As so stated, and as no progress was made in discussion of the points with the applicant, staff has no choice but to reject this "final offer" for the reasons cited above.   

Consolidation of services is similarly difficult to implement. Even with a greater likelihood of being more efficient than government consolidation there maybe little proof of major savings or assurance of efficiency, and again these efforts have the problems of existing entrenched public personnel, partisan labor interests, and the threatened loss of the local autonomy Americans cherish. In practice and with even the best intentioned folks one can never seemingly start out with a clean sheet of paper when one determines who is the most efficient, appropriate or best regional provider of a service. Local history is powerful. The more cities or service providers involved in the consolidation the more complicated the process.

Rusk's report highlight's Charlotte-Mecklenburg as a good example of this type of division of services. I am an advocate of that approach and our County Commission has the past invited the City of  Gainesville to visit that community as Mr. Rusk has suggested to see a potential model to explore of collaborative service delivery coordination. However that progressive locality continues to have urban sprawl and has a centralized power base in the business community leadership of regional banking executives we do not. It is not the much decentralized power structure that exists in Gainesville which is dominated by our government agencies, service institutions and academic based economy.

Annexation of large areas requires people first desiring to annex into a community because it offers them something financially attractive, better services, or protection from something they fear than where they live now and then voting for that action. Rusk's census tract addition and subtraction equations showing over all improvement of central city conditions don't address the important "why" issue. Why would people personally feel a need to annex into the central city from a suburban development they choose to move into based on its appeal or affordability? Business location aside, many do not wish to live under the government that they perceive is not aligned with their values. Residents typically are not motivated by small economic incentives to risk annexing if it results in additional uncertainty. Most economically successful people are content and recognize it as a successful personal achievement in their advancement to move to better neighborhoods and addresses that offer amenities or conditions they didn't enjoy before.

Thoughtful residents of unincorporated areas also recognize that without transition agreements and coordination, such large scale annexations or cherry picking of revenue producing areas can and does impact other governments negatively.  County services are focused not only on rural or suburban areas but central city citizens where there are concentrations of those requiring transportation improvements, poverty elimination efforts and social services, criminal justice services or incarceration and substance abuse treatment. Finally, public unions can freely campaign against annexation efforts despite the best political agreements of cooperation and the benefits of elastic boundaries.

Urban densities are highlighted as the key threshold to require annexations of unincorporated residents into cities in some States but this is yet to be an enacted legislatively imposed requirements in Florida. Candidly, even honest urbanites recognize that these densities are seldom met, except in the CBDs of most cities the size of Gainesville. You will know urban densities when you look up to multistory buildings, dynamic street level social interaction and occasionally see usable public space. That doesn't describe the majority of Gainesville nor certainly Newberry, whose city limits are larger than Gainesville or in our unincorporated area fringe.

Joint planning bodies have a mixed success rate around the country as well. I have frequently looked at the wisdom of more small area joint planning of the area to the east of I-75 as it should be densely urbanized. Much of the fringe area around our "central city" is already developed and unless forced by State legislation, currently not enacted, to annex in the future it is beyond the practical reach of annexation. In Florida, the urbanized charter counties' unincorporated areas frequently are as well planned as the central cities areas themselves and are using mixed use and higher density development patterns to the same degree as the already built out municipalities. It is hard to justify the relevance of joint planning to area residents living in areas such as Haile Plantation or Town of Tioga, which are award winning unincorporated developments. 

Any Joint Planning Commission, if only advisory in authority, is only going to be as effective as their governing elected officials allow them to be. It is always the political sustainability of elected officials who run for office that ensures a government's own growth management vision of containing urban development or sprawl is successful. Long term visions are implemented incrementally in planning decisions over years. Property rights, pre-existing  zonings and campaign financing make that effort to implement growth management decisions difficult and puts the political sustainability of  those elected officials at risk who take the actions to control development patterns in the face of the huge economic sector involved in local land development and transfer processes in our communities. Most central city advocates view containment of development and sprawl necessary to force development back into the urban city to implement infill development and redevelopment of aging (and affordable) housing stock. Invisible growth management lines in the sand are difficult to hold. The economics of growth and housing demands drives the political process in the long run towards the developable green spaces and in our case westward more than eastward.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent article that modern metropolitan areas, particularly in the northeast and mid-west, no longer have as a rule a healthy suburban ring of cities. The problems of aging housing stock, immigrant and poor population concentrations, lower performing schools are edging further out into the first ring of older suburbs. Land in the outer reaches of our suburban fringe it is easier to develop and has sufficient raw land and to meet the range of choices for housing and commerce in a single large development than multiple smaller high density infill projects in cities. It should be noted that these essential higher destiny infill projects in central cities are often opposed by neighborhoods and City Commissioners.

Books and ideas like those articulated by Mr. Rusk are important. I would recommend a book called "When Cities and County Collide" by Tom Daniels to understand more of the practical issues of fringe area development controls. A reviewer on Amazon.com suggests readers of Mr. Rusk's works also read Ray Suarez's book "The Old Neighborhood" which addresses many of the root causes of urban blight better than Rusk's work. "Suburban Nation" by DPZ and Speck covers many of the flaws related to the inefficiency of suburban design. Finally, Jane Jacobs' "The Economy of Cities" does much to debunk some of the assumptions made in the city elasticity theory, based on economic models and history. I agree these works would be good for civic minded citizens.

It is very clear to me that as American's we need to recognize while there remains  a huge amount of rural land in this country there is no more "frontier" to move to where existing inhabitants can be forced out of the way so we can flee our urban problems. These urban problems follow us and the expanding development circles around our core cities can destroy fertile agricultural lands and ecologically valuable watersheds. The historical "we will just move on" way of American thinking is costly to our society and is not sustainable. As a country we lacked for years a national urban policy and national energy policy that respects the need and role for sustainable urban places and central cities.

Locally for any success to be made in changing the status quo in existing central city dynamics there needs to be a desire to regionally work together. I have decided the incremental approach is the only way it will happen as whenever there tends to be progress being made someone goes "nuclear" damaging the fabric of cooperation required for the time consuming collaboration to take place. Revenue sharing agreements and service agreements come when we dump the "us" and "them" rhetoric and agree on the "we" of collaborating jointly to define service responsibilities county-wide beyond urban service areas. To expect a State Legislature to do top down urban planning and regional fiscal planning fails to be very believable in Florida.  Recognize that the State doesn't even allow city and county commissioners here the local revenue autonomy as elected representatives of people to raise revenues for capital projects they know are needed without citizen referendums. Proposed new 50 year roadway planning in Florida threatens to open more rural areas for access by urban populations.

The real new "frontier" lies in working together to redevelop our existing urban cores, constructing better designed sustainable residential and commercial places, and the preservation of the rural landscape and accessible natural urban areas that makes the "urban" setting unique and attractive to a greater number of people. That frontier still will require however the American frontier custom and spirit of community barn raising and rural cooperation that had folks working together for the common good and good neighborly concern for each others wellbeing.

Civic Thought:

Only if life is perceived as pleasant and affordable by the real human beings living farther in, will there be any hope of relieving the pressure on the land farthest out.

Joel Garreau, The Edge City

The City of Gainesville is a central city surrounded by rings of cities or rural towns and suburban unincorporated areas to be precise. It is far smaller than many of the examples, such as Baltimore, included in Mr. Rusk's research and the data base used to justify conclusions or provide examples of suggested solutions. The 2006 update of the Rusk Report is very thought provoking and would be a good discussion piece for a community dialogue involving non-Gainesvillians and residents of the surrounding cities.

Folks interested in the Report should contact the City of Gainesville for a copy or read more about Mr. Rusk and other "new regionalism" authors and advocates at http://www.citistates.com/lib_reviews/wallisreview.html .

Most of us believe the health of the City of Gainesville, our central core city, is vital to the County and that it serves as a hub for a larger area than just Alachua County. It hosts the County's and Region's largest employers. As a county manager and a former city manager of two other "county seats" (that title still means something to communities) I have a stronger belief in regionalism than many. I have given out the Rusk report to new Commissioners and staff frequently in our efforts to deal with annexation and the delivery of services in Alachua County. I agree with much of the Report's observations, particularly on the need to assure central city schools necessary resources. This is  despite some valid criticism of his work and the theory of elasticity (http://www.demographia.com/db-rusk.htm ) and its relevance to cities of different sizes, suburbs and unincorporated places.

From the County perspective, I question "what about the rest of the county, the remenant citizenry of the realm" when the central city can grow no further or the cherry picking of revenue producing areas through piecemeal annexation by all cities leaves county resources limited. What  happens when self interested central and suburban cities collide and compete for tax base brought by development and race to annex the unincorporated greenfeilds? Do we expect the State government be the referree or enforcer to assure central city stability by new laws? Do citizens have a voice or choice?

Basically, I believe Mr. Rusk's new regionalism too self-servingly defines "regions". I consider regions far more dynamic and organic than just a central city and her vassals. Commercial markets and health service areas around Gainesville are regional and consist of multiple counties far beyond their urban service area. Our watershed and environmental systems or bio-regional systems are multiple county and fit into no uniform central city limits. Our transportation systems are a grid of local, regional and state roadways of which all are underfunded, yet  allow more growth and define growth patterns. Such regional man made and natural systems, involving combinations of governments, non political geographical boundaries and a series of interrelated cause and effect requires governing and problem solving that is not answered by solely a focus on the centrality or supremacy of a central city but may truly necessitate and require new forms of governance. Perhaps stronger County government. Perhaps fewer city governments that can not afford to provide municipal services. Perhaps stronger regional councils of governments.

It was this concern that lead to Charter counties in Florida with home rule authority. Nowhere, other than California, do more folks live in charter counties than in Florida. Alachua County could just as well claim to be the hub County for the North Central Florida region, with the existing authority to provide by law both traditionally extended state and municipal services within a 920 plus square mile area.  Yet, we face regional issues beyond the scope of the County government and recognize our municipalities are apart of that County.

So what is the proper role of the county? A regional full service provider, with an economy of scale and scope of authority to deal with problems of the region, governed by a commission elected by all residents? Or a limited extension of state government attending the needs of the shrinking  population in rural enclaves, while fragmentation of urban service delivery grows with expanding and competing local municipalities? Surely the answer lies in between and could be arrived at rationally.

There are reasons for the common growth patterns we see in this country Mr. Rusk describes. Some are political, some are social, and some are related to freedom of choice American's enjoy. To live the lifestyle they wish and where they wish. It was interesting to note that during county wide visioning the single most common desire by all participants was to perserve the green spaces between our municipalities to denote an edge to one city and the beginning of another. The opportunity to do that dims with each passing year.

No one should dispute that we need to assure the health of all our municipalities is important and encourage cooperation. Our smaller cities will continue to grow and continue to be activity centers in Alachua County. A top down solution to growth by State government is not likely to be pleasing to many citizens with property rights and a community identity of their own and most of Mr. Rusk's solutions require State law changes in this state to be effective.

Tomorrow lets look at consolidation of government and service issues.

Civic Thought:

....wanting good government in their states, they first established order in their own families; wanting order in the homes, they first disciplined themselves....         Confucius, The Great Digest