The Lake County, FL County Board of Commissioners will be voting Tuesday morning to approve a new and revised "Comp Plan" that is over 350 pages of new regulations affecting County zoning laws, rights of property owners, and land use regulations. Think of it as a GIANT wish list for environmentalists who want to restrict property rights by implementing 350 pages of regulations while ignoring the costs of implementation.
There is an uproar between developers who don't want land use regulations, property owners who don't want new environmental restrictions on the use of their land, and environmentalists who want to restrict various uses to "protect the environment" etc.
But, I am not writing here about those issues - there are enough people on both sides who will be at the Tuesday 9am meeting to provide public input to the Board.
My concern is that there is inadequate information about the potential implementation and future litigation costs related to those 350 pages of regulations.
Below is the memo I just sent to the Board today that explains these issues. You thought the Niagara Water legal blunders were bad... just wait until
the County cannot keep up with required regulatory compliance and they get sued by liberals, which happens all over the country. I was going to research this further, but why isn't the Board and the County legal department disclosing these fiscal and litigation risks. Why should I do the staff's job? Are the Board and staff just going to avoid defining the expected fiscal and legal costs and then blame someone else when they are not budgeted, and hit taxpayer's wallets.
Here is an ARTICLE about how local environmental activists who sued a town because they did not update the plan as the environmentalists expected. I found it and over 1-million other articles just by searching in Google on "comp plan lawsuit" (Some were related to salary compensation plans, however).
HERE is an ARTICLE about how a group of land owners sued a city for allowing another developer to plan a community that did not follow a comp plan.
Here is another: Dewey Beach, DE
So, read this memo, and if it gets to you, contact YOUR Board member and ask for clarity on these issues. The Board members and contact info are HERE.
Their names are: Welton G. Cadwell, Jennifer Hill, Elaine Renick, Linda Stewart, Jimmy Conner.
================================================
To: Lake County
Commissioners;
Subject: FiscalRangers.com
Recommendation regarding the fiscal and litigation risks of the upcoming Comp
Plan Revisions
Date: Sunday, May 23,
2010
I am not writing about the RPA issue, but three Comp Plan issues
that will affect the taxpayers, the County Budget and the FUTURE County fiscal
condition. This memo will be posted to
FiscalRangers.com.
1. 1.
COMPLETE FISCAL COSTS for COMP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
NEED TO BE DEFINED AND ADDED TO THE UPCOMING BUDGET: Please
ensure there is COMPLETE transparency on the expected salary and related
operational costs of implementing the 350 pages of regulations. The “feasibility study” by a consultant last
year estimated NINE full time people would be needed to handle compliance with
the new regulations. That is socialism
and not a method to “limit government
size”. The consultant said in his own letter he did
NOT obtain agreement from County managers, which means they might need even
MORE people. My experience with
government is that costs can be up to DOUBLE any cost estimates. Who is putting their name on the accuracy of
the cost and staffing estimate, and will they be held accountable for
restricting costs to just NINE ( or EIGHTEEN) people? There should be a page in the plan that
clearly describes the cost estimate, who is accountable for meeting that goal,
and it should be signed by ALL Commissioners who approve the plan. The final estimate also needs to be formally
added to the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
2.
2. LEGAL RISKS:
Was there any analysis of the LEGAL RISKS for this Comp Plan. Did the legal department research case law
and other comp plans to identify the risk of lawsuits if the County does not
have the resources to IMPLEMENT some or many of the REQUIREMENTS in the plan. Did they then prepare a litigation plan for
the expected lawsuits when some of the rigid plan requirements are not
implemented? Every time the plan says the County should do
something increases the risk of lawsuits.
I lived in California and once liberals passed these types of
regulations, and the local or State government did or could not implement them,
they got sued by liberal attorneys. A
good example is the California Coastal Commission. Before approving this COMP PLAN and sending
it to Tallahassee, the Board must require that the entire legal department
research all the legal risks AND SIGN OFF that there are no potential fiscal
lawsuit damages that will result from the regulations, and/or prepare a
transparent, competent estimated budget needed to handle increased litigation. Again, all Commissioners need to also sign
the document that they adequately researched the legal risks of the Comp Plan
and state a budget for potential lawsuits based upon Case research and reviews
of other similar plans in Florida and elsewhere. The budget to cover possible litigation for
non-compliance needs to be defined and ADDED to the upcoming annual budget.
3.
3. BUDGETING:
Just to reiterate, the forecasted fiscal costs for each future year for
the above two subjects, compliance implementation AND litigation, need to be added as line
items to the upcoming budget for fiscal year 2010-2011 AND each future budget year.
Mount Dora, FL 32757
352-638-3578
www.FiscalRangers.com