Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity's Response to DCA's CommentsFollowing incorporates City's responses to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and their Objections, Recommendations, Comments (ORCs) Report dated January 4, 2008. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMZIII $NT_11 VA IRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to cal ome " CHARLIE CREST THOMAS G. PELHAM Governor Secretary January 4, 2008 The Honorable Manny Diaz Mayor, City of Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mayor Diaz: The Department has completed its review of the City of Miami proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment DCA 08PEFE-1, which was received on October 30, 2007. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-.5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and has prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. The Department has identified eight objections to the proposed amendment: the absence of a required objective to include in the City's 5-year schedule of capital improvements those school facility projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and to meet future needs; need to adopt a uniform level of service standard; absence of standards for modification of school concurrency service areas; insufficient detail on mitigation of school facility impacts; inadequate provision for intergovernmental coordination regarding the update of the Public Education Facilities Element; inadequate provision for joint processes regarding collaborative planning; insufficiency of the interlocal agreement for school concurrency; and omission of certain required maps. My staff and I are available to assist the City in addressing these objections. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Paul Darst, reviewing planner, at (850) 922-1764. Sincerely, 1 /1/ -C;j2Z2- Mike McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MM/pd Enclosures C: Ms. Ana Gelabcrt-Sanchez, Director, City of Miami Planning Department Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director, South Horida Regional Planning Council 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • T A L L A H A S S E E, FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9. 2 1 0 0 Phone: (850) 488-8466/Suncorn 278-8466 FAX (850) 921-0781 /Suncom 291 -0781 Internet address: http//www,dca-state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CCNCERN''iFLD OFFICE 2796 Cv Jrsoas Highway, Su/in 212 Marathon, FL 33050-222/ (305) 289-2402 • COMMUNITY PLANNING 2555-311,mo 1 Car 5c )ovcjrd To1Ichctee, FL 32399-2102 (850) 485-2356 EMERGENCY MANAGEMEN f 2555 S umurd Oak Bou!evorr7 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 f8y3) 413-9969 'r'C Ui0I1G ,°s COMMUNITY ^EVEI.( MENT 2555 ' r:<�rci Gak Rot levrjrd Ta�4Z}ioS Ee. t. 32399.21C0 (850)488-7956 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI AMENDMENT 08-PEFE1 January 4, 2008 Division of Community Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 91-11.010, F.A.C. INTRODUCTION The following Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report is based upon the Department's review of the City of Miami proposed 08-PEFE1 amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Any objections discussed relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each objection must be addressed by the City and corrected prior to the amendment being resubmitted for the Department's compliance review. Objections that are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government may consider not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying the local government's non - applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments that follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by the Department's reviewers, The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Miami has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of paragraph 163.3189(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Within 10 working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to the Department: 1. Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments 2. A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed 3. A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance 4. A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), Florida Administrative Code, please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that paragraph 163.3184(8)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information to the Department. Please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. In the event there are no citizens requesting this information, please inform us of this as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report for City of Miami Amendment 08-PEFE1 January 4, 2008 I. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rules 9J-5 & 9J-11, F.A.C. The Department has completed its review of the proposed City of Miami Amendment 08PEFE-1 and has the following objections and comments. Objection No. 1: Amendment does not ensure that school facility projects will be in schedule of capital improvements to address deficiencies and meet future needs The proposed Educational Element does not meet the requirement in Rule 9J-5.025(3)(b)3, F.A.C., that it contain an objective to ensure the inclusion in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements of those school facility projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and to meet future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted Ievel of service standards for each year of the 5- year planning period. Proposed Objective EDU-1.2 states only that the City shall coordinate new residential development with the future availability of public school facilities consistent with the adopted level of service standards for public school concurrency. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(b)3, F.A.C.; section 163.3177(3)(a), F.S. Recommendation: Revise proposed Objective EDU-1.2 or include a new objective within the Educational Element to ensure -the inclusion in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements of those projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and to meet future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted level of service standards for each year of the 5-year planning period. Objection No. 2: Inappropriate level of service standard Miami Educational Element Policy 1.2.1 establishes a level of service standard of 100 percent utilization of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity with relocatable classrooms. Policy 1.2.2 prescribes that schools which achieve 100 percent of permanent FISH capacity should no longer utilize relocatable classrooms to achieve the level of service standard except as an operational solution. This establishes a two-part level of service standard which may lead to inequities in the application of the concurrency management system. Although the desire of the City to eliminate the need for relocatable classrooms is laudable and the Department agrees with the School Board and the local government's intended outcome, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 have the unintended effect of creating a level of service standard that will not be uniformly applied within a school type. The School Board and the Miami -Dade County local governments should consider other alternative approaches such as a two -tiered level of service standard associated with a long-term concurrency management system for schools. Rule 9J-5.0055(2)(d), F.A.C., provides for a Ioca1 government to establish a two -tiered approach for the level of service standard. To utilize a tiered approach, the local government must adopt an initial level of service standard as a comprehensive plan policy, and then a second policy may be included which adopts a higher level of service standard by a date certain to be utilized for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. The specific date for this second policy to become effective must be included in the comprehensive plan. The plan must set forth the specific actions and programs for attaining the higher level of service by the specified date. If the identified actions and programs are not attained by the specified date, the local government comprehensive plan must v be amended to specify the level of service standard that will be utilized and be binding for the purpose of the issuance of development orders a.nd permits. Citations: Rule 9J-5.0055(2)(b) and (d), F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(b), F.S. Recommendation: Revise the description of the Public schools level of service standard in Educational Element Policy 1.2.1 and Policy 1.2.2 to make clear that there is only one level of service standard to be applied during concurrency review. Alternatively, revise the two -tiered level of service standard to comply with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Objection No. 3: Standards for modification of school concurrency service areas not established The Educational Element does not satisfy the requirements for school concurrency in s. 163.3180(13), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025(3), F.A.C., in that it does not contain a policy which establishes guidelines and standards for modification of school concurrency service areas, as required pursuant to Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, F.A.C. The proposed Educational Element does not contain any such standards for revision of school concurrency service areas. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(e), F.S. Recommendation: Revise the Education Element to include a policy which establishes guidelines and standards for modification of school concurrency service areas, including standards for revision of concurrency service area boundaries. Objection No. 4: Amendment does not establish mitigation options for impacts on public school facilities The Miami proposed PEFE amendment does not meet the requirements of s. 163.3180(13)(e), F.S., in that it does not establish the available options for proportionate -share mitigation of impacts on public school facilities. Proposed Educational Element Policy EDU-1.2.3 describes the conditions that must be met for a development to proceed in situations where the public schools LOS standard cannot be met as a result of the development's impact. Sub -Policy EDU-1.2.3.2 refers to the options listed in s. 163.3180(13)(e)1, F.S., for proportionate -share mitigation of impacts on public school facilities; however, the statute requires that the options be "established" in the PEFE and in the interlocal agreement pursuant to s. 163.31777, F.S. The Educational Element should identify in a policy the proportionate -share mitigation options and state that these options must include execution by the applicant, City, and School Board of a development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate -share mitigation for any additional residential units approved by the Town in a development order and actually developed on the property. The Educational Element also does not include a policy assuring that any mitigation funds provided as a result of the public school concurrency system are utilized by the school board for appropriate school facilities, as required by Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)9. F.A.C. Pursuant to s. 163.3180(13)(e)3, F.S., any proportionate -share mitigation must be directed by the school board toward a school capacity improvement identified in a financially feasible 5-year district work plan that satisfies the demands created by the development in accordance with a binding developer's agreement. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)9, F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(e), F.S. Recommendations: 1. Revise the Educational Element to specifically identify the proportionate -share mitigation options and require that these options tnust include execution by the applicant, the City, and the School Board of a development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate -share mitigation for any additional residential units approved by the City. 2. Revise the Educational Element to require that any mitigation funds provided as a result of the public school concurrency system are utilized by the School Board for appropriate school facilities. Objection No. 5: Joint processes for collaborative planning.not described The proposed revision of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element does not meet the requirement in s. 163.3177(6)(h)2, F.S., that it must describe joint processes for collaborative planning and decisionmaking on population projections and public school siting, the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities with countywide significance. Much of this is addressed in the draft revised interlocal agreement between the School Board and all non-exempt local governments in Miami -Dade County; however, these joint processes should also be described in the comprehensive plan. Citation: section 163.3177(6)(h)2, F.S. Recommendation: Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to describe joint processes for collaborative planning and decisionmaking on population projections and public school siting, the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities with countywide significance. Objection No. 6: Educational Element does not provide for adequate coordination on annual review The proposed Educational Element does not meet the requirement in Rule 9J-5M25(3)(c)3, F.A.C., that it contain a policy addressing coordination of the annual review of the element with the school board, the county and applicable municipalities, coordination of annual review of school enrollment projections, and establishing the procedures for the annual update process. Policy EDU-1.7.5 in the proposed Educational Element provides for the annual review of the element by the City and Miami -Dade County Public Schools; however, it does not address coordination with the county and other municipalities, review of school enrollment projections, or procedures for the annual update. These issues are included in the draft interlocal agreement, but they should be included in the educational facilities element. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)(3) F.A.C.; section 163.3177(12)(g)(1), F.S. Recommendation: Revise the Educational Element to include a policy or policies addressing coordination of the annual review of the element with the Miami Dade School Board, Miami -Dade County, and applicable municipalities, coordination of annual review of school enrollment projections, and establishing the procedures for the annual update process. Objection No. 7: Interlocal agreement does not include all non-exempt local governments in the County as signatories and is not executed The proposed Educational Element includes, in Appendix A, a draft revised interlocal agreement between the local governments in Miami -Dade County and Miami -Dade County Public Schools, which is required pursuant to s. 163.3177(12)(c), F.S. The draft interlocal agreement is deficient in that not all of the non-exempt municipalities in Miami -Dade County are listed as signatories. According to s. 163.3180(13), F.S., all local governments within a county, except for those satisfying the exemption criteria provided in s. 163.3180(13)(f), F.S., must be signatories to the interlocal agreement. A Citations: Sections 163.3177(12)(c), 163.31777, and 163.3180(13)(f), F.S. Recommendation: Include with the adopted amendment the executed interlocal agreement between the district school board and all of the local governments within Miami -Dade County, except for those local governments exempted through the procedure authorized in s. 163.3180(13)(f), F.S. Note that the executed interlocal agreement must be submitted to the Department for review and approval pursuant to s. 163.31777(3), F.S. Objection No. 8: Omission of required maps The proposed Educational Element does not contain future conditions maps which depict the anticipated location of educational and ancillary plants, including the general location of improvements to existing schools or new schools anticipated over the 5-year or long-term planning period, which is required pursuant to s. 163.3177(12)(h), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025(4)(b), F.A.C. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(4)(b), F.A.C.; section 163.3177(12)(h), F.S. Recommendation: Include with the adopted amendment the required maps of future conditions. II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The above cited amendments do not further and are not consistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.): Public Facilities Goal and Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 Urban and Downtown Revitalization Policy 8 Revise the amendment to be consistent with and further the referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. This may be accomplished by revising the amendment as recommended for the specific objections above. III. COMMENTS Adoption of annual plan amendments The proposed Educational Element does not meet the requirement in Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)2, F.A.C., that it contain a policy which requires the adoption of annual plan amendments adding a new fifth year, updating the financially feasible public schools capital facilities program, coordinating the program with the 5-year district facilities work plan, the plans of other local governments, and, as necessary, updates to the concurrency service area map. The requirement for annual plan amendments is intended to help ensure that the capital improvements program continues to be financially feasible and that the level of service standards will continue to be achieved and maintained. This requirement is addressed in the text of the Capital Improvements Element (see pages 10 and 11 under the "Concurrency Management Program" in the amendment package). Therefore the Department recommends that this same policy guidance —requiring annual plan amendments, updating the financially feasible public schools capital facilities program, coordinating the program with the 5-year district facilities work plan, the plans of other Local governments, and, as necessary, updates to the concurrency service area map —be inserted in the Educational Element as a policy. South Florida Regional Planning Gc �.anc E ORA DU 7 2Oo A GENDA ITTM #6ei DECI 1BI R TO: COUNCIL NitFJ S FROM: STAFF SUI3)ECI': PROPOSED PUBLIC EDUCATION FACH.ITIES ELEAMENT!CAPIT/' ELEMENT UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS VEMENTS Introduction Council staff has received proposed plan amendments from the municipalities of 141iarni and Pembroke Pines for review of consistency with the Strategic Regional .Policy Plank South Florida (SRPP), Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S_), and Rules 9J-5 and 9)-11, Florida Administrative Code )F.A.C.). No proposed Capital Improvements Element Update Comprehensive Plan Amendments were received for review this month. Background The proposed Public Education Facilities Element and related text amendments have been transmitted pursuant to the 2005 Growth Management legislation. The legislation requires that local governments and school boards adopt a school concurrency program, to update existing public schools interlocal agreements, establish level of service standards to define school capacity, and adopt a Public School Facilities Element into their comprehensive plan to implement a school concurrency program. The school concurrency program must ensure that adequate school capacity to support new development either exists or will be in place or under actual construction within three years after the issuance of final subdivision or site plan approval, or the functional equivalent. The interlocal agreement establishes procedures that will be followed in coordinating land use and public school planning. Since the legislation was passed, working groups have been formed in both Miami -Dade and Broward Counties to develop the proposed amendments. Each working group included representatives from the applicable County Public Schools, ail affected local governments and the development community. Because of the efforts of the Working Groups, within each county the amendments have been coordinated and each local government is adopting similar amendments. Summary of Staff Analysis For Miami -Dade County Amendments Miami -Dade County and the 27 non-exempt municipalities in the County must adopt the Public Education Facilities Element, related comprehensive plan text amendments and the Amsrded and Restated interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning in Ai/awl-Dade County (ILA) by January I, 2008. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 447 and 561 (800) 965-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX 985-4417, SunCorn FAX 473-4417 ernment Rey. o Amendment Number O8PEFH1 €cal G rexer Meeting October 16, 2.007 Find proposed plan amendments from the municipalities of °,liar i uid Pembroke Pines related to the new Public Education Facilities Element and other related to:t amendments generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. Approve this staff report f©r transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Sportsman Douglas Buiidinm 3900 Commonwe�3It.1h Boulevard "i alial sec, Fl rida 32399- G o DQ.c.rrIber :, 2007 ;fir. D. Ray Eubanks Man Review and DRI Processing Fear:} Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2I0O RE: City of Miami 08-PEFEI Dear Mr. Eubanks: On behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of Intergovernmental Programs has reviewed Miami's public schools facilities planning comprehensive plan amendments in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As required by law, the scope of our comments and recommendations is limited to the environmental suitability of the proposed changes in light of the, Department's regulatory and proprietary responsibilities. Based on our review of the report, the Department has found no provision that requires comment, recommendation or objection under the laws that form the basis of the Department's jurisdiction and authority. If the report pertains to changes in the future land use map or supporting text, please be advised thPt at such time as specific lands are proposed for development, the Department will review the proposal to ensure compliance with environmental rules and regulations in effect at the time such action is proposed. In addition, any development of the subject lands will have to comply with local ordinances, other comprehensive plan requirements and restrictions, and applicable rules and regulations of other state and regional agencies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If I may be of further assistance, please call me at (850) 245-2169. Sincerely. .16, Christopher J. Stahl Environmental Specialist Office of Intergovernmental Programs lcjs •' 1 Pre 7i . C>iARLIGCS's-ER Nop t i Florida Department of Transpo tior D4tiict Six Cr ae„ i ltwi9a:, 305-470-546 } November 20, 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Fliarida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: R1:CRE T,tR3 Sub.': City of Miami proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive neighborhood Plan In accordance with your request, and the provisions of Chapter 10, Florida Statutes and Chapter 93-5, Florida Administrative Code, this office has completed a review of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Amendment for the City of Miami, which was forwarded to our office on November 5, 2007. No additional impacts to the Florida Intrastate Highway System facilities are anticipated to result from this amendment. Therefore, the District has no specific objections or recommendations at this time Please contact Phil Steinmiller at 305-470-5825, if you have any questions concerning our response. Sincerely, Mice N. Bravo, P.E. District Director of Transportation Systems Development Cc: Aileen Boucle, AICP Phil Steinmilier A EPA ENT F UCAT N S Al RD OF EDUCATION T. 'WILLARD FAIR, [.hai.mw=n bf ,Ease=s DONNA <f, C:,ALS.AW AY fly AKSki„At £w .s ro; 4ARI-0EEZ FHi4 terg RAULER_SON �SA3'HEILFAN SF4AtiAHAA LJNDA K. TAYLOR December 6, 2007 D. Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator Division of Community Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shurnard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr, Eubanks: Re: City of Miami 08•PEFE1 Ua. Eric Carmuis$4,unkr nrEducation Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed public educational facilities element for the City of Miami, The Department of Education appreciates the city's coordination with the Miami -Dade County School Board and commends the city for its preparation of proposed educational facilities element that is responsive to school concurrence requirements. On behalf of the Department, I have completed a review. The draft interlocal agreement, the data and analysis, and the proposed goals, objectives and policies are nearly identical to those proposed by Miami -Dade County. Therefore, I have only a few comments beyond those already provided following the review of the Miami -Dade County proposed amendments. They are as follows: 1. Data and Analysis. --- The city's submission appears to be identical to that of Miarni- Dade County, The city, however, appropriately included the current district facilities work plan, which was adopted by the school board on September 21, 2007. As a minor point, I note that the maps provided in Appendix F are not legible. It would be helpful to the final review to encourage the city to provide maps with facility labels that are more distinguishable from the background shading. 2. Interiocal Agreement. -- Again, the city's submission appears identical to that of Miami -Dade County, and 1 did not prepare a separate checklist for the city. During the review of the county's transmittal, the Department noted that several cities are not proposed as signatories to the agreement and have not received letters of SPEssM o BOAOR1GIaT rats rtcrcu_E1-r'it,sOF EDUCATIONAL FACI! STIES 325 W. G„INEs STEFFT TALLAF.ASSEE, FL 32399.0400 = {85©) 245-0494 www.tldoc.org D. Ray Lubtmks December 6, " 007 Page 2 of 2 exemption frorn the Department of Community Affairs. While this coalment sh,( not reflect adversely on the City of Miami's participation in the agreement, I rerg concerned that there appears to be no progress in ensuring that this condition is addressed. 3. c `ve arid Policies. -- Generally, the City p.r zposes policies similar to the county's. While the city does not propose to adopt every policy proposed by the county, the omissions do not interfere with the uniform, districtwide implementation of school coneurrency. The city should, however, provide a supporting explanation of why certain county policies are not included. Like the county, the city proposes a level of service standard that appears to have the effect of establishing a dual standard. The city also fails to propose level of service standards for magnet schools. Asnoted on the enclosed checklist some required policies and maps are not included, Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tracy D. Suber Digitally stgrtcd by Iraq a Suber DN: cneTracy Cl. 5ubrsr, vv,ilorkla DetaArtment if EducaCiorr, ouzOffice of Ed Ronal EA{IIICie s, enlait>irasy-lubtrigldor.org, a.US Date: 7Q07, i 7.66 17:7753-05'06' Tracy D. Suber Educational Consultant -Growth Management Liaison TDS/ Enclosures cc: Mr, Ivan Rodriguez, Miami -Dade County Public Schools Mr. Paul Darst, Principal Planner Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs 3urisdicticin °. City of Miami GOALS The element shall contain one or more goals which establish l the long-term end toward which public school programs and activities are ultimately directed [163.3177 (12)(d) F.S.) and [9.)-5,025(3)(a) FACI OBJECTIVES The elements shall contain one or more objectives for each goal, setting specific, measurable, intermediate ends that are achievable and mark progress toward the goal [163,3177(12)(e), F.S..1 and [91- 5,02.5(3)(b) F.A.C.] and whkh Address correction of existing schc)ol facility deficiencies and facilities needed to meet future needs [93-5.025 (3)(b)1. F.A.C.1 Ensure adequate school facility capacity consistent with the adopted level of service standard for each year of the five- year planning period and the long term planning period of the host county [93-5,025 (3)(b)2. F.A.C.] Ensure the inclusion in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements of those projects necessary to address existing deficlend•es and to meet future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted level of service standards for each year of the 5 year planning period [9.)- 5,025 (3)(b)3. 12/6/2007 Fiorido Department of Education Objectives EDU-1, and EDU-2 partially address the requirement Objectives EDU-1, and EDU-2 partially address the requirement Not found Neither the objectives nor the associated policies, however, dearly specify that deficiencies will be corrected and future needs met. The city should clarify the objectives to respond to the requirements. Neither the objectives nor the associated policies, however, clearly specify that deficiencies will be corrected and future needs met. The city should clarify the objectives to respond to the requirements. FDOE FDOE Miami PFFE GOPs.doc Page 1 of 7 b Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs fiction. City of Miami * Coordinate the location of public schools with the future land use reap or map series of the relevant jurisdiction to ensure that existing and proposed school facilities are located consistent with the existing and proposed residential areas they serve and areproximate to appropriate existing and future land uses, The use of schools to serve as community points should also be addressed. 1163.3177(12)(g)6, nd [31-5.O25(3)(b)4. F.A.C.] x Coordinate existing and planned public school facilities with the piens for supporting infrastructure and means by which to assure safe access to schools, including sidewalks, bicycle paths, tom lanes, and signalixation. [163.3177(12)(01. '.S.j and [91ry5. l25(3)(b}S.F.A.C.J dinate location of public school facilities relative to the other public facilities such as parks, libraries and community centers to the extent possible, [163,3177 (1.2)(9)5. F.S.j and [9J-5.025(3)(b)6, F.A.C.) POLICIES The element shall contain one or more policies for each objective which establish the way in which programs and activities wili be conducted to achieve an identified goat. ri163.31 7(12)(f), F_S.? end.[91-5.o25 (3)(c) F.A.C.] At a ruin, the policies shall include: x Is the school concurrency service area less than district - wide? if yes, then apply the following 3 questions, .if no, and then skip the next 3 questions, [93-5,025(3)(c)1. F.A.C.) Docu Reference EDU-3 Policies EDU-1.7.4, 1,7.6, 1.7.7, and 1.7.10 EDU-1.3,2 EDU 1.2,1 Li +r s° the oticy establish guidelines and standards for No, rrtodrftron of schcof concurrency service areas and changes rrt the use of schools? 12/6/2 07 Fforiaia Department of Education Reviewer C >mmen The current objective generally addresses school siting but does not address the specific requirements; those details are addressed in the related policies. FDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPS.doc Page 2 of 7 Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs Jurisdiction: City of Miami Does the policy ensure that the adopted level of se/vice standards will he achieved and maintained by the end of the 5 year planning period? Does the policy include standamis for revision of concurrency service area boundaries to ensure that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible, taking into account transportation costs, k.-ourt approved desegregation mans, as well as Other faCtOrS? No. No. The policies establish a long-term goal of achieving LOS at 100% of permanent FISH capacity by 2018. The plan does not include data and analysis to demonstrate the financial feasibility of a long-term concurrency management system. In the interim, the policies provide for a LOSS of 100% of FISH capacity (including relocatables). The policy appears, however, to set a separate LOSS for facilities that reduce or eliminate the use of relocatables at a school facility. In those cases the LOSS is 100% of permanent FISH capacity. This may not be consistent with the statutory requirements to adopt a uniform standard for each facility type [s. 1613180(13)(03., F.S.), Policy EDU-2B sets a December 2010 target for assessing the viability of modifying the LOSS to 100% of permanent FISH capacity. This date coincides with the expected due date for the next EAR, There is no LOS for magnet schools or other school types. This should be addressed in a new policy. This requirement is, however, addressed in the ILA. 12/ 6/ 2007 Ftorida Department a Edur,atiort PDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPs.,doc Page 3 of 7 iu F Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs ,diction: City of Miami A policy which requires the adoption of annual plan amendments adding a new fifth year, updating the financially feasible public schools capital facilities program, coordinating the program with the 5-year district facilities work plan, the plans for other local governments, and , as necessary, updates to the concurrency service area map. The annual plan amendments' shall ensure that thecapital improvements program continues to be financially feasible and that the level of service standards will continue to be achieved and maintained, I9 5.O25 (3)(c)2. F.A.C„1 and [163.3177(12)(q)1, F.S.) Not found. This requirement is, however, addressed in the ILA. A. policy addressing coordination of the annual review of the element with the school board, the county and applicable municipalities; coordination of annual review of school enrollment projections, and establishing the procedures for the annual update process, [9J-5.025(3)(c)3. F.A.C.) and j153,3177(121.(g)1. F.S,) Policy EDU-1.7.5 This policy provides for an annual review of the element and amendment, if necessary, It does not address coordination with other local governments, review of school enrollment projections, or procedures for the annual update. These issues are, however, addressed in the HA. A policy addressing coordination of school site selection, permitting, and collocation of school sites with other public facilities such as parks, libraries and community centers. (9)- S.025(3)(c)4. F.A.C..) and 1E33.3177(12)(g)1., 2., and 5. F.S.) Objective EDU-1.3 and related policies. A policy addressing provision of supporting infrastructure such as water and sewer, roads, drainage, sidewalks, and bus stops for existing and projected public school facilities; and measures to ensure compatibility and close integration between public school facilities and surrounding land uses. i9.1-5.0.25(3)(c)5. F.A.C.) and (I63.3177(12)(g)6, and 7. F.�.1 17/15/22.007 FloridaDepartment of Education Generally, the policies related to Obj. EDU-1.7 address infra- structure and the policies related to Obj, 1.3 address siting, The policies related to infrastructure improvements could be strengthened by amending them to recognize the limits , 1013.51, F.S., imposes on school boards to pay only for those infrastructure improvements that are located on -site or contiguous to an educational plant. As an advisory comment, the Department of Education encourages the school board and local governments to consider including a policy to implement requirements of s. 1013.36(5), F.S, related to local government responsibility to correct hazards identified by school boards. FDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPs.dc, Page 4 of 7 Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs JurEsdiction: City of Miami policy addressing coordination of the long range public school facility map with the local government's comprehe.nsive plan, including the future land use map. 93- S.025(3)(c)6. F.A.C. and 163.3177(12)(g)9. F.5.1 Not found. An analysis of the current plan's designation of adequate sites for public school facilities would be helpful in reviewing the proposed PEFE. * A policy establishing level of service standards for public school facilities which can be achieved and maintained throughout the 5-year panning period. Local governments adopting evet of service standards using a measurement of capacity other than FISH shall include appropriate data and analysis in support. of•such alternative measure. (91- 5,Cl25(3)(c)7. F,A.C,1 EDU-1.2.1 and rterrcy is not applied district -wide, a policy providing that development can proceed if the level of service standards is exceeded for a project, but capacity exists in one or more contiguous school concurrency service areas as adopted by the government. (91-5.025 (3)(0)8. F.A.C.1 EDU-1.2,3./ Policies specifying types of mitigation that a school board will i allow to meet concurrency, and policies assuring that any mitigation funds provided as a result of the school concurrency system are utilized by the school board for appropriate school facilities, (9)-5.025(3)(c)9. A policy establishing measures to ensure compatibility of school sites and surrounding land uses. [9i-5.025(3)(010. F.A.C.1 and [163.3177(.12)(g)7. F.5.1 • . A policy addressing coordination with adjacent local governments and the school district on emergency preparedness issues, (93-5.025(3)(c)11. F.A.C.1 and f163177(12)(9)8 F.5.I 12'5/2007 Florida Department of Ed“cation Not found, EDU-1.3 and related EDU-1.3.7 See comments above related to a du& LOS standard and lack of standard for magnet schools. The ILA specifies mitigation options. The plan does not, however, include a policy to ensure that mitigation funds are used by the district for school facilities. FDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPs_doc Page 5 of 7 }t.ErisdictUoni City of Miami Legal Requ i /.. A, MA.P Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs A map or maps depicting existing location of public school facilities by type and existing location of ancillary plants. [ 5.025(4)(a) F.A,C.] A future conditions map or map series which depicts the planned general location of public school facilities and ancillary plants and renovated facilities by year for the five year planning period, arc; for the end of the long range planning period of the host county. j93-5.O25(4)(b) F.A.C.] and [163,3177(12)(h) Fa,j EQUIREMENT$ FOR THE CAPITAL "Exhibit A" of' the ordinance (Figures 1A, 2B, 3C) Not found OVEMEfifTS ELEMENT Level of service standards shall be included and adopted into the capital improvements element of the local comprehensive plan and shall be applied district -wide to all schools of the same type. [16i3.3180(13)(b)2. F.S.] The element shalt set forth a financially feasible public school capital facilities program, established in conjunction with the school board that demonstrates that the adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained. [163_:3180(13)0.)1. F.S.] Fk rich Elepa tme t of Eddvcation licy CI-1.2.3 and See above comments related to dual LOS standard and 3,5 lack of a standard for magnet schools. FDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPs.doc Page 6 of 7 jurisdiction: City of Miami Checklist for Review of PEFE GOPs -LROIN*7.004 en establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, ocagovernment shall satisfy the requirements for intergovernmental coordination 1163.3180(13)M F.S.3. 11-1 ICE should show relationships and state principles and Not found guidelines to be used in coordination of the adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of school boards [1.63.1177(6)(h)1. and 2., F,S,3 ▪ The ICE shall describe joint processes for collaborative planning and decision making on population projections and public school siting, the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities with countywide significance. [163.3177(6)(h)2. F.S.3 • Local govern ments must execute an interlocal agreement with the district school board, the county, and nonexempt municipalities pursuant to s. 163.31777. The local government shalt amend the intergovernmental coordination element to provide that coordination between the local government and school board is pursuant to the agreement and shail state the obtigations of the local government under the agreement. [163.3177(6)(h)4.a. F.S.) General Comments: Not found. The requirement is addressed in the ILA. While the policy does not require the adoption of an ILA, it requires following the procedures established in the agreement. The proposed element revisions do not state the obligations of the city under the agreement. The proposed Education Element includes objectives and policies that appear to direct action by the school board. While the city makes clear its policy to cooperate with the school board it does not establish policies to guide its land use decisions related to providing adequate sites for future schools or related to ensuring that its capital improvements program is developed in a manner to ensure that infrastructure improvements needed to support a new school or facility expansion are available in time to meet school needs. 12/6/2007 Piorida Department of Education FDOE FDOE Miami PEFE GOPs.doc Page 7 of 7 City of Miami Response to Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report DCA. 08PEFE-1 Addressing the Application to Amend the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) Dated: January 4, 2008 This report contains responses of the City of Miami to the objections referenced in the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) dated January 4, 2008. The DCA issued objections to the Application transmitted for review and comment by the City of Miami Commissioners on November 2, 2007. These objections must be addressed since they form the basis of potential determinations of non-compliance by DCA. The DCA objections and corresponding recommendations are summarized below, followed by the City's responses. DCA Objection No. 1: Amendment does not ensure that school facility projects will be in schedule of capital improvements to address deficiencies and meet future needs The proposed Educational Element does not meet the requirement in Rule 9J- 5.025(3)(b)3, F.A.C., that it contain an objective to ensure the inclusion in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements of those school facility projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and to meet future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted level of service standards for each year of the 5-year planning period. Proposed Objective EDU-1.2 states only that the City shall coordinate new residential development with the future availability of public school facilities consistent with the adopted level of service standards for public school concurrency. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(b)3, F.A.C.; section 163.3177(3)(a), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Revise proposed Objective EDU-1.2 or include a new objective within the Educational Element to ensure the inclusion in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements of those projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and to meet future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted level of service standards for each year of the 5- year planning period. City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise Objective EDU-1.2 and add the following three new policies, two in the Educational Element (EDU) and one in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). These policies address the inclusion of projects into the 5-year schedule of capital improvements that are necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs based upon achieving and maintaining the adopted level of service standards throughout the planning period. (Double underline and double strike out represent modifications to the original document) Educational Element Objective EDU-1.2: The City of Miami shall coordinate new residential development with the future availability of public school facilities1 consistent with the adopted level of service standards for public school concurrency, t ensure the n f th se pr IIeets viccssav :atoad0desaAltistt19gdelittie.91eath'tbe.5!!!!!Yearshed0!!!e.0tPaPita!!!j103Protte.111e111tat and meet 'future deeds based !Itua achteming and mallstMlythig the ad pted 1Vdath sersabe standard !Itu..g...b.spithepalanningtheriact„.. and MOaroIL-1,,,,,,)ade Coo .nty 11"")o,IIII1Oc Schooll c e s 11"") ro r a m for edo„f ca o n II fa t O es , h II II .,...„„,,,„„„„„„„„„,,,,,„„„„„„, oxv resodentoall devello.o2ment at the adollted Ilevell of servoce (POS) standards throo,fghoo„ft the 1)11annong per'oed 'Lhe 5 yam sphatiulls ham 'La II ompr'QVOIMIQInt:6 Coo, .nty 11"")o„IbIlIt Schoolls 11"""'acOOOtOes 11"")rogram wO00 be te Q..0 an an n u ll sQ to be achOeved and maOntaIned throughout the 1)11annOng .o;'.)lerOod„ Capital Improvements Element 0111a111t1111„ vitigt.tei 104.0too0i1,4040.010446004.ov,i...i,004,Hftftb DCA Objection No. 2: Inappropriate level of service standard Miami Educational Element Policy 1.2.1 establishes a level of service standard of 100 percent utilization of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity with relocatable classrooms. Policy 1.2.2 prescribes that schools which achieve 100 percent of permanent FISH capacity should no longer utilize relocatable classrooms to achieve the level of service standard except as an operational solution. This establishes a two-part level of service standard which may lead to inequities in the application of the concurrency management system. Although the desire of the City to eliminate the need for relocatable classrooms is laudable and the Department agrees with the School Board and the local government's intended outcome, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 have the unintended effect of creating a level of service standard that will not be uniformly applied within a school type. The School Board and the Miami -Dade County local governments should consider other alternative approaches such as a two -tiered level of service standard associated with a long-term concurrency management system for schools. Rule 9J-5.0055(2)(d), F.A.C., provides for a local government to establish a two -tiered approach for the level of service standard. To utilize a tiered approach, the local government must adopt an initial level of service standard as a comprehensive plan policy, and then a second policy may be included which adopts a higher level of service standard by a date certain to be utilized for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. The specific date for this second policy to become effective must be included in the comprehensive plan. The plan must set forth the specific actions and programs for attaining the higher level of service by the specified date. If the identified actions and programs are not attained by the specified date, the local government comprehensive plan must be amended to specify the level of service standard that will be utilized and be binding for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. Citations: Rule 9J-5.0055(2)(b) and (d), F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(b), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Revise the description of the public schools level of service standard in Educational Element Policy 1.2.1 and Policy 1.2.2 to make clear that there is only one level of service standard to be applied during concurrency review. Alternatively, revise the two -tiered level of service standard to comply with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise Policy EDU-1.2.1 by removing the second provision in the policy and incorporating said provision into policy EDU-1.2.2. By incorporating this revision into EDU-1.2.2 it will make it clear that there is only one level of service standard in EDU-1.2.1 to be applied during concurrency review. The revised policies will read as follows: Policy EDU-1.2.1: Beginning January 1, 2008, the adopted level of service (LOS) standard for all Miami -Dade County public school facilities is 100% utilization of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Capacity (With Relocatable Classrooms).This LOS Standard, shall be applicable in each public school concurrency service area (CSA), defined as the public school attendance boundary established by the Miami -Dade County Public Schools. A4,11.p.u,,,,,dalie.seheei.faelliities-s.11qekfll.d, „,. Policy EDU-1.2.2: It is the goal of Miami -Dade County Public Schools and The City of Miami for all public school facilities to achieve 100% utilization of Permanent FISH (No Relocatable Classrooms) capacity by January 1, 2018. :11;04N,,,,,' "4„AJJ k01 „.. go,do Go ny ThDo Sckwi1.4 : hello achlleve the desred 1(l)(l)940. of Iljerrnanent 11"""lll S e0QC.b0eC.0aSS!..'QPDI11SQYeltjE11e1'''')...1!JbiicschQP011a0!!itiest0a'1",000ievg.1),',)YQ1!,Ji01zatPIPli Rellocatablic classrooms may It)c used In): the Ntliami-11)ade Courot,i Pubhc Schook as an oporatlionall sod.utlion achinve the Ilevoll onscr\ice standard du iling repllacoment, remodefing, renovatlion or expacNion °Fa 1)1..tbfic schooll Facffity. Il'ill, the Glty ainS ldis Ceusat Il usll lliSchodis illll assess theill ills of uTi inc, the. l'It I OS c,;C ni" to lllllcfo usCilli tIon of Il")eroTh neat DCA Objection No. 3: Standards for modification of school concurrency service areas not established The Educational Element does not satisfy the requirements for school concurrency in s. 163.3180(13), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025(3), F.A.C., in that it does not contain a policy which establishes guidelines and standards for modification of school concurrency service areas, as required pursuant to Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, F.A.C. The proposed Educational Element does not contain any such standards for revision of school concurrency service areas. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(e), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Revise the Education Element to include a policy which establishes guidelines and standards for modification of school concurrency service areas, including standards for revision of concurrency service area boundaries. City Response: City of Miami proposes to add the following new policy to address guidelines and standards for modification of school concurrency services areas, including standards for revisions to the concurrency service area boundaries (CSA): oadtui re S A.i"ens sha011 Ilse . Ilun sated usu , uiotuu c:.H ut";, uslllusi" Il and d'ilversty olIolectIves and) ach'ileve other ll nt olbject'ilves deterollinedOn the a P o ll E3oard's IDollty on oThaxinizatIon of capacty II) i"iod ji]stoThent to the lhou„Indary or area of a. GSA os II osa.de....Sy the Schooll.l " ...to a.,c.ildheste the aboyestaled l .:t l .i" , rsote tii ll aoThendoThents to the CSAsP IIII II cons'ildered annulaIlllyt the Staff vNor inn (";rood) uTi Cinq to take Ileach yeas" 11Q II .0 i" tha.nf 11 i"ill Il i" Qctollder 31,, odosilstent CI'Sec.don 9, of the Intent . f�Iwli u�uu�l ��i"„ II �usll�llua�,,,a�ll����ll„ II a�ullul II �Ilu�u�uu��l,,, This new language tracks language currently in the Interlocal agreement Section 9 of the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning outlines in detail the procedures for establishing and revising concurrency service area. DCA Objection No. 4: Amendment does not establish mitigation options for impacts on public school facilities The Miami proposed PEFE amendment does not meet the requirements of s. 163.3180(13)(e), F.S., in that it does not establish the available options for proportionate -share mitigation of impacts on public school facilities. Proposed Educational Element Policy EDU-1.2.3 describes the conditions that must be met for a development to proceed in situations where the public schools LOS standard cannot be met as a result of the development's impact. Sub -Policy EDU-1.2.3.2 refers to the options listed in s. 163.3180(13)(e)1, F.S., for proportionate -share mitigation of impacts on public school facilities; however, the statute requires that the options be "established" in the PEFE and in the interlocal agreement pursuant to s. 163.31777, F.S. The Educational Element should identify in a policy the proportionate -share mitigation options and state that these options must include execution by the applicant, City, and School Board of a development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate -share mitigation for any additional residential units approved by the Town in a development order and actually developed on the property. The Educational Element also does not include a policy assuring that any mitigation funds provided as a result of the public school concurrency system are utilized by the school board for appropriate school facilities, as required by Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)9. F.A.C. Pursuant to s. 163.3180(13)(e)3, F.S., any proportionate -share mitigation must be directed by the school board toward a school capacity improvement identified in a financially feasible 5-year district work plan that satisfies the demands created by the development in accordance with a binding developer's agreement. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)9, F.A.C.; section 163.3180(13)(e), F.S. DCA Recommendations: 1. Revise the Educational Element to specifically identf the proportionate -share mitigation options and require that these options must include execution by the applicant, the City, and the School Board of a development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate -share mitigation for any additional residential units approved by the City. 2. Revise the Educational Element to require that any mitigation funds provided as a result of the public school concurrency system are utilized by the School Board for appropriate school facilities. City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise policy EDU-1.2.3 in the Educational Element to include language specifying the type of mitigation that Miami -Dade County Public Schools will allow to meet concurrency. The additional language also directs the School Board to apply all mitigation funds provided as a result of the school concurrency toward a school capacity improvement identified in the 5-year district tentative facilities work plan thus satisfying the demands created by the development in accordance with a binding developer's agreement, the modified policy EDU-1.2.3 follows: Policy EDU-1.2.3: In the event the adopted LOS standard of a CSA cannot be met as a result of aproposed development's impact, the development may proceed provided at least one of the following conditions is met: 1.2.3.1: The development's impact can be shifted to one or more adjacent CSAs that have available capacity located, either in whole or in part, within the same h.......� o U+oin II I. 2?.o doe �!!� ou�ofrt �l111111Neeriet....."No..rtp o t Id.pi tl' oa :t dourtllr ao t oi� dou„ tl' oa (�,. see II c uri o t d and dd' shown 11n °1 ,rP ") as the proposed development; � �rillrit or 1.2.3.2: The development's impact is mitigated, proportionate to the demand for public schools it created, through a combination of one or more proportionate share mitigation options as defined in Section 163.3180 (13)(e)1, Florida Statutes l pig inton...cf tl' o p olw)tioi3 to Il i"ooido foi tl o u iitiwta ion of rd idontiall doadllo11 u i int iu ill act on lwrurllrllio od'rooll facillitioguaranteedby IIlegall I11D0nd0nq agreement through reechan0smo that PrOurd one or °wore of the fo11110 Ong contirrllrusCi i1 of Il i1 CI' construsct11on expansvon, or payrn nt :for,; ai d do iuri itioi� oi� don tiurct n of d p e OTII anent 11 urI1rllic d'rooll facillity or: the creation of uEiitiwwta,[ioi3 Ilra111 Ilra gd o15 t1' o coi1o,[i"urotioi of 11 di a iai3d,i3t I�wrur11rl1uo ol'rod11 faoilli d ii , o,rol�ra p�rr�to foi� tl'�ro i�rr.tll,�t to ollll oa11.raditd oi�oftit l �o p.iopwdiioir�d wrid uiiifl„,[ioi�. aflidement i urllrtodt to ap lw i�oaall Il d I iau ii ado d'o1!„intd dd'roo11 toai�d and I.1icurii ).add e�uMru�r�d I toai� ��� e�uMru�rtd f�'d�u�uu�uuolou�r au�r, u�uuMro� Ilfe udeu�r(ufued uu�r„tll�re I��udu�uu I �) 'our,u�rtd . II �urllrllio dol'rooll II aoillltio �di I� II �i�o�ti�au�i �. DCA Objection No. 5: Joint processes for collaborative planning not described The proposed revision of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element does not meet the requirement in s. 163.3177(6)(h)2, F.S., that it must describe joint processes for collaborative planning and decision -making on population projections and public school siting, the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities with countywide significance. Much of this is addressed in the draft revised interlocal agreement between the School Board and all non-exempt local governments in Miami -Dade County; however, these joint processes should also be described in the comprehensive plan. Citation: section 163.3177(6)(h)2, F.S. DCA Recommendation: Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to describe joint processes for collaborative planning and decision -making on population projections and public school siting, the location and extension of public facilities subject to concurrency, and siting facilities with countywide significance. City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise policy IC-1.1.2 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, to address the requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(h)2, F.S., as follows: Policy IC-1.1.2: The City, d'urnty and Ssh0011 1'1k)hrd a llll coallia a aaaealatwoa Adios[ida er,r,ocl�eted vval Ira1111 fo011ow tP o procodurros o ta11r111 P od tllho ado11 tcd Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning in Miami -Dade County, ;.... d, including, but not limited to, coordinating sty, anti Scl.... :, based upon col prop:a:oa:2 of the araiio+rpt, tdpc. And du tiul usCu0p of pop ur[etroa growth and shiesolt oprolllraueuct pa0 treupatuact dOCIISK) a.,uaral nd, throuloh fk atrril t mouarllooroprrpo on the Scl ooll lfoai d'o Schooldrte P a icii acme roli :Pee, raorardlno p otoi tawa foo now wac ooki and psi of o,,all,; for worsfucent reaveCoa the loeatroa of irolecetalrleoor add tuorl to errww chq belldlwctw , @old poteritA u �w r u r.• � w ��u uwllr��w w w�� w Y^!W"„ww^ ww„J'0..Y ww r,...�„^�w a w� �.w.u.y R uw w„J I N sR.�,y.��,�q„„�.�,,,,y.�wY� R.,r w ww �r...�^w a u w w� �...�� eccouowrcii prated r,tu,rdoi o 0rl dareal oo .: o oated so l.ir r ew �i�r�rt,lal. colIllabolativoIl � i�i�ii� i�docicloi Inflating of Il i d ticoc,. sata000 fatowttios anind laifInd on 1, oll uull Lion Plotootions 00oation and oxfonsIon of Il uull lli f u ulluO„ Iullb, a 1n'Lc conclIfoitcy aid Poing of facollfidc MPcouifywodo cogiofocanco DCA Objection No. 6: Educational Element does not provide for adequate coordination on annual review. The proposed Educational Element does not meet the requirement in Rule 9J- 5.025(3)(c)3, F.A.C., that it contain a policy addressing coordination of the annual review of the element with the school board, the county and applicable municipalities, coordination of annual review of school enrollment projections, and establishing the procedures for the annual update process. Policy EDU-1.7.5 in the proposed Educational Element provides for the annual review of the element by the City and Miami -Dade County Public Schools; however, it does not address coordination with the county and other municipalities, review of school enrollment projections, or procedures for the annual update. These issues are included in the draft interlocal agreement, but they should be included in the educational facilities element. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)(3) F.A.C.; section 163.3177(12)(g)(1), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Revise the Educational Element to include a policy or policies addressing coordination of the annual review of the element with the Miami Dade School Board, Miami -Dade County, and applicable municipalities, coordination of annual review of school enrollment projections, and establishing the procedures for the annual update process. City Response: City of Miami proposes to add the following new policy to address an annual process for coordinating with the school board, the City and the municipalities on the element and enrollment projections on requirements of Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)3,F.A.C., as follows: glllui„II II���� I' iC illll CI'i�uul' CI' vy•i�lii� uulllli I'llII illiC„i�i��C fl' Iiuii aad IluulllliIl�wullillll iti C i; a anuMu llll IIliu I ,)uMu lu uu l umi uut nd. hoot sauna°Illlpm uut y }' lu a „, DCA Objection No. 7: Interlocal agreement does not include all non-exempt local governments in the County as signatories and is not executed The proposed Educational Element includes, in Appendix A, a draft revised interlocal agreement between the local governments in Miami -Dade County and Miami -Dade County Public Schools, which is required pursuant to s. 163.3177(12)(c), F.S. The draft interlocal agreement is deficient in that not all of the non-exempt municipalities in Miami -Dade County are listed as signatories. According to s. 163.3180(13), F.S., all local governments within a county, except for those satisfying the exemption criteria provided in s. 163.3180(13)(, F.S., must be signatories to the interlocal agreement. Citations: Sections 163.3177(12)(c), 163.31777, and 163.3180(13)(f), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Include with the adopted amendment the executed interlocal agreement between the district school board and all of the local governments within Miami -Dade County, except for those local governments exempted through the procedure authorized in s. 163.3180(13)(, F.S. Note that the executed interlocal agreement must be submitted to the Department for review and approval pursuant to s. 163.31777(3), F.S. City Response: City of Miami proposes to supply an executed copy of the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Miami -Dade County Public Schools along with the adopted amendments. DCA Objection No. 8: Omission of required maps The proposed Educational Element does not contain future conditions maps which depict the anticipated location of educational and ancillary plants, including the general location of improvements to existing schools or new schools anticipated over the 5-year or long-term planning period, which is required pursuant to s. 163.3177(12)(h), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025(4)(b), F.A.C. Citations: Rule 9J-5.025(4)(b), F.A.C.; section 163.3177(12)(h), F.S. DCA Recommendation: Include with the adopted amendment the required maps of future conditions. City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise the Maps Section in the Educational Element, to address the requirement of Section 163.3177(12)(h), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025(4)(b), F.A.C. as follows: FLuture Yrreot Conditions Maps Consistent with Section 163.3177(12) (q), Florida Statutes, maps showing existing andtuutuui'e conditions are included in the element. A map series (Figures 1A, 2B and 3C shown in "Exhibit A") indicate the euuf1:e;,t, public school and ancillary facility locations as December 31, 2007. Figure 'IA Carty of Miami Public Educational and Ancillary F cilities September 2007 °:eacy. a /N��� .Ian . R, w rmr , 6',n Ilan r N.rn cgs r 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 MIAMI JAL iiilles hddPWm'4 IlhdtltlA III i; ,,,,, AILLA IP ,TT 'll 4,1 A1H11GEL1l... .th. %'r 0Alff C C LAI „„ ---EN116 APARTNER • Area IMap Cray or Miami lu Seheels IVA PHYLA MIIILLE* "an Feu Figure 2IB City of Miami Public lEducational and Ancillary F citifies September 2007 C.Ity Of Vola11714: REF11110flq dRICPA":. Tape 04:ar.ASTAICCOS 0 01.25 0.5 ¶ 1.5 Miles Legend watilan FA0111111111fiers A.1111 Other IRK Mies :FIEmMari : Htpri McNeil Area, IMap 2 Calf cr Miami PURR Seheals RUS GROVE CITRUS GROVE Sli,ENANCOrkill 411 Mol.,4.1111 tOALWA '114 O.. Figure 3C City of Miami Public lEducational and Ancillary F citifies September 2007 C.Ity Of Vola11714:CEXTIMNIIIIIIIV dRICPA":. 04:ar.ASTAICCOS 0 0.25 0.5 1.5 111.A.01,,,11111, Legend watilan FA01111111111fters A.1111 Other IRK Mies :FIEmMari : Htpri McNeil Area IMBip Pt1ary of Miami Schools KINLOCH PARK KINUOCH PARK IKEINSIINGTON PARK 4'0 FAIIFtLAM 1fo• 1(191' ,4r 7 1 ,1u1 9v.oxf 644 ms1 drcl/IN,41 1,1111 424/f 60014E, 11,01K I 'MO • • ; 40111,10 #14' 2141-LUF v'EFk vh,ok, 7 (11; vy,r1,p, JT