The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutLegislative Policy 89th Ann. Conf. BookletGUE Op o A a � A W C1 rife 89th Annual Conference Legislative Policy Committee Meeting Urban Administration Committee Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. New York/New Orleans World Center Marriott 8701 World Center Drive Orlando, FL 32821 Phone: (407) 239-4200 FLC Staff Contact: Casey Cook Florida League of Cities Urban Administration Policy Committee Meeting Thursday, August 13, 2015 — 1:00 p.m. -3:00 p.m. World Center Marriott, Orlando, Florida AGENDA I. Introductions & Opening Remarks H. FLC Policy Committee Process .................Honorable Dan Daley, Chair City of Coral Springs Casey Cook, FLC Staff M. Legislative Process 101 /Key Dates..........................................................................Casey Cook IV. Discussion of Proposed Priority Recommendations ..................................... Member Discussion a. Public Records b. Vacation Rentals V. Draft Policy Statements..............................................................................................Casey Cook VI. Approval of Committee Priority Recommendations ........................................ Chair Dan Daley VII. Federal Issues.............................................................................................................Casey Cook VIII. Key Contact Program / Advocacy.............................................................................Casey Cook 113L Announcements................................................................................................. Chair Dan Daley X. Closing Remarks................................................................................................ Chair Dan Daley XI. Adjournment a :```°`0'r,. 2015-2016 Florida League of Cities Legislative Policy Committee Urban Administration NAM Staffed by: Casey Cook, Senior Legislative Advocate The Honorable Allie Biggs CHAIR: Commissioner, City of Pahokee The Honorable Dan Daley 207 Begonia Dr Pahokee Commissioner, City of Coral Springs Pahokee, FL 33476 9551 W. Sample Rd Phone: 561-9245534 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: 954778-3304 Email: ddaley@coralsprings.org VICE CHAIR: The Honorable Dawn Pardo Council Chair, City of Riviera Beach 600 W Blue Heron Blvd Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Phone: 561-845AD95 Email: dpardo@rivierabch.com MEMBERS: The Honorable Vinny Barile Commissioner, Town Of Sewall's Point 17 Fieldway Dr. Sewall's Point, FL 34996 Phone: 772-3704403 Email: vbarile@sewallspointorg The Honorable Linda Bartz Vice Mayor, City of Port St Lucie 121 SW Port Saint Lucie Blvd. Port Saint Lucie, FL 34984 Phone: 772-871-5159 Email: districtl@cityofpsl.com; bbuchanan@cityofpsl.com Mr. Michael Beedie City Manager, City of Fort Walton Beach 107 Miracle Strip Parkway Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Phone: 850-833-9504 Email: mbeedie@fwb.org Ms. Teresa Begley City Clerk, City of Groveland 156 S. Lake Ave Groveland, FL 34736 Phone: 352-429-2141 Email: teresabegley@groveland-fl.gov Email: ahbiggs@aol.com The Honorable Richard Block Councilman, Village of Virginia Gardens 6131 NW 40th Terrace Virginia Gardens Florida, FL 33166 Phone: 305-979-1772 Email: mariestl@comcastnet The Honorable Christine Brown Councilmember, City of Gulfport 2401 -53rd Street South Gulfport, FL 33707 Phone: 727-893-1000 Email: cbrown@mygulfportus The Honorable Gary Bruhn Mayor, Town of Windermere 108 Forest Street Windermere, FL 34786 Phone: 407-876-1732 Email: windermeremayor@yahoo.com The Honorable Roslyn Buckner Councilwoman, City of Miami Springs 201 Westward Drive Miami Springs, FL 33166 Phone: 305-985-8375 Email: bucknerr@miamisprings-tl.gov The Honorable Rick Butler Councilman, City of Pinellas Park 5635 park blvd Pinellas Park, FL 33781 Phone: 727-541-7713 Email: bude--dty@aol.com Ms. Rosemarie Call City Clerk/Legislative Liaison, City of Clearwater 112 S Osceola Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-562-4092 Email: rosemarie.call@myclearwater.com The Honorable Brad Dantzler Commissioner, City of Winter Haven PO Box 2277 Winter Haven, FL 33883 Phone: 863-289-9947 Email: bdantzler@mywinterhaven.com The Honorable Rhonda DiFranco Mayor, City of North Port 4970 City Hall Boulevard North Port, FL 34286 Phone: 941-429-7073 Email: rdifranco@cityofnorthport.com The Honorable Brad Doyle Council Member, Town of Hypoluxo 164 las Brisas Circle Hypoluxo, FL 33462 Phone: 561-585-3034 Email: bradagd@yahoo.com The Honorable John Duncan Commissioner, City of Lake Alfred 155 E. Pomelo St. Lake Alfred, FL 33850 Phone: 863-291-5747 Email: jduncan@mylakealfred.com The Honorable Betty Erhard Council Member, City of Brooksville 201 Howell Ave Ste 300 Brooksville, FL 34601 Phone: 352-410-1588 Email: berhard@cityofbrooksville.us Mr. Lee Feldman City Manager, City of Fort Lauderdale 100 North Andrews Ave Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-828-5959 Email: I£eldman@fordauderdale.gov The Honorable Tem Finnerty Vice Mayor, City of St Pete Beach 155 Corey Ave St Pete Beach, FL 33706 Phone: 727-641-2314 Email: t£innerty@stpetebeach.org The Honorable Robert Ganger Vice Mayor, Town of Gulf Stream 4600 North Ocean Blvd Ocean Ridge, FL 33435 Phone: 561-274-6491 Email: rwganger@bellsouth.net Mr. Lee Garner City Manages, City of Chattahoochee 115 Lincoln Drive PO Box 188 Chattahoochee, FL 32324 Phone: 850-663-4475 Email: citymgr@fairpointnet The Honorable Kimberly Glas-Castro Vice Mayor, Town of Lake Park 535 Park Avenue Lake Park, FL 33403 Phone: 561-758-7551 Email: kglas-castro@lakeparkflorida.gov The Honorable Mary Hoss Vice Mayor, Town of Ponce Inlet 12 Kelly Bea Court Ponce Inlet, FL 32137 Phone: 386-761-7731 Email• maryhoss@cfl.rr.com Mr. Peter Iglesias Director of Building, City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-416-1102 Email: piglesias@miamigov.com; DArteaga@miamigov.com The Honorable Joanne Krebs Deputy Mayor, City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Phone: 407-699-4391 Email•jkrebs@winterspringsfl.org Ms. Pamela Latimore City Clerk, City of North Miami Beach 17011 NE 19th Ave North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Phone: 305-948-2994 Email• pamela.latimore@citynmb.com The Honorable Rita Mack Vice Mayor, City of West Park 1965 South State Road 7 West Park, FL 33023 Phone: 954-889-4156 Email• onepache@yahoo.com The Honorable Bob Margolis Mayor, Village of Wellington 12300 Forest Hill Road Wellington, FL 33414 Phone: 561-791-4000 Email rmargolis@wellingtonf -gov The Honorable Scott Maxwell Vice Mayor, City of Lake Worth 7 North Dixie Highway Lake Worth, FL 33460 Phone: 561-586-1730 Email• smaxwell@lakeworth.org The Honorable Dominick Montanaro Vice Mayor, City of Satellite Beach 565 Cassia Blvd Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Phone: 321-501-4316 Email: Dmontanaro@satellitebeach.org The Honorable Lenny Nesta Councilmember, City Of Cape Coral PO Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915 Phone: 239-242-3232 Email• Inesta@capecomLnet The Honorable James Norwood Commissioner, City of Palatka 201 N. 2nd street Palatka, FL 32177 Phone: 386-329-0944 Email: Jnorwood@gapac.com The Honorable Karl Nurse Councilmember, City of St Petersburg P.o. Box 2842 St Petersburg, FL 33731 Phone: 727-572-9311 Email: KarLnurse@stpete.org The Honorable Jean Peelen Commission Vice -Chair, City of Holmes Beach 6400 Flotilla Drive #16 Holmes Beach, FL 34217 Phone: 941-896-5827 Email jpeelen@hohnesbeachfl.org The Honorable Lesa Peerman Commissioner, City of Margate 5790 Margate Blvd. Margate, FL 33063 Phone 954-935-5326 Email• cityclerk@margatefl.com The Honorable Michael Petruccelli Councilman, Town of Indian Shores P.O. box 1041 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 Phone: 727 422 6644 Email• sunsandscript@yahoo.com The Honorable Patricia Plantamura Councilor, City of Seminole 10013 118th Way Seminole, FL 33772 Phone: 727-392-2193 Email: pplantam@hotmail.com Mr. Richard Radcliffe Executive Director, Palm Beach League of Cities P.O. Box 1989, Governmental Center West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-346-5085 Email: rradcliffe@pbcgov.org Ms. Beth Rawlins President, Florida Business Watch 2845 Chelsea Place S. Clearwater, FL 33759 Phone: 727-797-9333 Email: Rawlins@floddabusinesswatch.com The Honorable Kelly Reid Council Member, Town of Bay Harbor Islands 9665 Bay Harbor Terrace Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone: 305-335-1087 Email: kreid@bayharborislands.org The Honorable Peggy Rice The Honorable Scot Sasser Vice Mayor, City of Daytona Beach Shores Mayor, Town of Lauderdale -By -The -Sea 2990 S Atlantic Avenue 4501 N. Ocean Drive Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118 Lauderdale -By -The -Sea, FL 33308 Phone: 386-763-5373 Phone: 954-640-4200 Email: price@cityofdbs.org Email: scotsasser@lauderdalebythesea-fLgov The Honorable Jamie Robinson The Honorable Ralph Schoenherr Vice Mayor, City of Largo Councilman, City of South Daytona PO Box 296 PO Box 214960 Largo, FL 33779 South Daytona, FL 32121 Phone: 727-587-6700 Phone: 366-566-7451 Email: jarobins@largo.com Email: Rschoenherr@southdaytona.org The Honorable Patrick Roff The Honorable Robert Shalhoub Councilman, City of Bradenton Mayor, Town of Lake Clarke Shores 101 Old Main Street 101 Old Main Street 1701 Barbados Road Bradenton, FL 34205 Lake Clarke Shores, FL 33406 Phone: 941-932-9453 Phone: 561-762-1969 Email: patridtroff@dtyofbradenton.com Email: rshalhoub@lakedarke.org The Honorable Cal Rolfson The Honorable Willie Charles Shaw Council Member, City of Mount Dora Mayor, City of Sarasota 510 North Baker Street 1565 First Street Room 101 Mount Dora, FL 32757 Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: 352-552-4200 Phone: 941-954-4115 Email: rolfsonc@cityofrnountdora.com Email• diane.taylor@sarasotagov.com The Honorable Donald Rosen Ms. Audrey Sikes Deputy Mayor, City of Sunrise City Clerk, City of Lake City 10770 West Oakland Park Blvd. 205 North Marion Avenue Sunrise, FL 33351 Lake City, FL 32055 Phone: 954-253-1506 Phone: 386-719-5756 Email: drosen@sunrisefl.gov Email• sikesa@cfla.com The Honorable Greg Ross The Honorable Iris Siple Mayor, City of Cooper City Vice Mayor, City of Pembroke Pines PO Box 290910 City Hall 10100 Pines Blvd Cooper City, FL 33329 Pembroke Pines, FL 33026 f Phone: 954-434-4300 X260 Phone: 954-436-3266 Email: mayor_ross@cooperdtyFL.org Email: isiple@ppines.com Mr. Mark Ryan The Honorable Suzy Sofer City Manager, City of Indian Harbour Beach Commissioner, City of Belleair Bluffs 2055 S. Patrick Dr. 2747 Sunset Blvd Indian Harbour Beach, FL 32937 Belleair Bluffs, FL 33770 Phone: 321773-3181 Phone: 727-584-2151 Email: mryan@indianharbour.org Email: suzyfl@aol.com Mr. Mike Staffopoulos Asst City Manager, City of Largo City of Largo PO Box 296 Largo, FL 33779 Phone: 727-587-6700 Email: MStaffopQlargo.com The Honorable Myra Taylor Mayor, City of Opa locks 3400 NW 135th Street Building B Opa locks, FL 33054 Phone: 305-953-2800 Email• mtaylor@opalodmfl.gov Mr. William Thrasher Manager, Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Phone: 561-276-5116 Email: bthrasher®gulf-stream.org The Honorable Kenneth Thurston Commissioner, City of Lauderhill 5811 W. Oakland Park Blvd Lauderhill, FL 33313 Phone: 954-730-3018 Email: cdixonQlauderhill-il.gov Mr. James Titcomb Town Manager, Town of Melbourne Beach 507 Ocean Avenue Melbourne Beach, FL 32951 Phone 321-724-5860 Email: townmanager@melboumebeachfl.org The Honorable Teresa Watkins Brown Councilwoman, City of Fort Myers 2210 Second Street Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone: 239-321-7001 Email: twatkinsbrown@dtyftmyers.com The Honorable Annette Wexler Commissioner, Town of Pembroke Park 3150 SW 52 Ave Pembroke Park, FL 33023 Phone: 954-966-4600 Email: awexler®townofpembrokepark.com oQt AGUE pF rl 2015-2016 League's Legislative Policy Process Each year, municipal officials from across the state volunteer to serve on the League's Legislative policy committees. Appointments are typically a one-year commitment and involve developing the League's Legislative Action Agenda which addresses priority issues that are most likely to affect daily municipal governance and local decision making during the upcoming legislative session. Policy committee members also help League staff understand the real world implications of proposed legislation and are asked to serve as advocates throughout the legislative process. In an effort to get a broad spectrum of ideas and to more fully understand the impact of League policy proposals on rural and urban cities of all sizes, it is ideal that each of Florida's cities be represented on one or more of the League's Legislative policy committees. Due to potential Sunshine Law issues, only one elected official per city can be represented on each committee, but a city could have both an elected and a non -elected city official on each of the five policy committees. League policy committee appointments are confirmed in writing by the League president each year. With the Florida Legislature convening the 2016 Legislative Session in January instead of March, the policy committee meetings will commence in June instead of September. This accelerated timeline means the proposed priorities adopted by each policy committee will then be submitted to the Legislative Committee and then ultimately the FLC membership for consideration and adoption at the FLCAnnual Conference instead of the FLCLcOlative Conference. These priorities then become the League's Legislative Action Agenda. The Legislative Policy Committee Meeting Dates for 2015-2016 are: • June 25-26, 2015 — Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport • July 17, 2015 — Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport • August 13, 2015 — Orlando World Center Marriott (FLC Annual Conference) • November 19, 2015 — Embassy Suites Orlando Lake Buena Vista (FLC Legislative Conference) • August 11, 2016 —The Diplomat, Hollywood (FLC Annual Conference) Policy committee members are expected to attend the committee meetings scheduled in person. While agendas and materials are shared with committee members in advance, the League is unable to accommodate requests to participate via conference call or webinar. In addition, the League is unable to reimburse travel costs. If you are interested in serving or learning more, please contact Holly McPhail at (850) 222- 9684, ext 3604 or hmcphafl@flcities.com. The Florida League of Cities' Legislative Policy Development Process More than 3,000 bills are filed each year and League staff typically tracks more than 800 for potential impact on municipalities. Florida's legislative session is regularly scheduled for 60 days a year. Because of this compressed timeframe, it is important for city officials and League staff to focus on a limited number of legislative priorities and ensure the priorities: • Adhere to the League's paramount goal of preserving municipal home rule powers; • Are issues that directly affect the functions of municipal government (as opposed to affecting municipal citizens generally); • Are issues of statewide, rather than local or regional, interest; • Require state legislative action rather than seek changes to constitutional or federal law; and • Do not seek legislative authorization for something that municipalities already possess the power to do under their home Wile powers, if they so choose. The League's purpose is to focus on those legislative issues most likely to affect daily municipal governance and local decision making. The Municipal Home Rule Powers Act and the Florida Constitution provide that cities in Florida have the authority to govern themselves locally, independent of state control. Preserving Home Rule, educating citizens on this valuable right and maintaining a focus on those issues that directly affect self -governance, service delivery and the quality of life of each municipality are essential goals of the Florida League of Cities. Legislative Policy Committees The business of the League is conducted by its Board of Directors, but the League's legislative policies are shaped through a grass roots process beginning with recommendations from "Legislative Policy Committees" and culminating in adoption of a "Legislative Action Agenda" by the League's general membership. Legislative Policy Committee members, their chairs and vice -chairs are appointed each year by the League president. Any city official is eligible to serve on a Policy Committee. Appointments are usually based upon a city official's support and advocacy of the League's adopted Legislative Action Agenda, as well as their participation at meetings, Legislative Action Day and other legislative -related activities. The Policy Committees typically meet in August, September, October and November to discuss potential legislative priorities. There are currently five standing legislative policy committees: Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee: This committee addresses policies specific to municipal concerns with coastal management, energy, environmental and wetlands permitting, hazardous and toxic wastes, recycling, solid waste collection and disposal, stormwater, wastewater treatment and reuse, water management, water quality and quantity. Finance, Taxation and Personnel Committee: This committee addresses municipal roles in general finance and tax issues, Home Rule revenues, infrastructure funding, insurance, local option revenues, pension issues, personnel and collective bargaining issues, revenue sharing, tax and budget reform, telecommunications and workers' compensation. Growth Management and Economic Affairs Committee: This committee addresses policies specific to municipal concerns with community redevelopment, economic development, growth management and land use planning issues, annexation, eminent domain, tort liability and property rights, as well as ethics and elections. Transportation and Intergovernmental Relations Committee: This committee addresses municipal concerns relating to transportation and highway safety, as well as affordable housing (and foreclosures), billboards, charter counties, charter schools, rights-of-way and gaming - Urban Administration Committee: This committee addresses municipal concerns with building and fire safety codes, building codes and construction, code enforcement, emergency management, homeland security, public meetings, public property management, public records, public safety, purchasing and special districts. The League encourages every city to participate in legislative policy committees and strives to balance the committees' with respect to geographic location and the size of the cities represented. In reality, not every city is able to participate and, therefore, it is possible the policy committees may not be truly reflective of the full diversity of the League's membership. The Legislative Committee can help balance any potential imbalances in policy committee representation. The Legislative Committee A key component to the final adoption of the League's Legislative Action Agenda is the Legislative Committee. The Legislative Committee is comprised of each legislative policy committee chair and the chairs of the other standing committees; the president of each local and regional league; the presidents of several other municipal associations; chairs of the municipal trust boards; and several at - large members appointed by the League president. These officials typically meet at the Legislative Conference to review the recommended priorities of the five Legislative Policy Committees. For 2015- 2016, the Legislative Committee will meet during the Annual Conference. The role of the Legislative Committee is to provide a "big picture" perspective to ensure that issues are truly representative of statewide municipal interests, not duplicative or in conflict, and are timely and properly presented. The Legislative Committee may limit, reject, prioritize or rank recommendations. The policy priorities as adopted by the Legislative Committee are then recommended to the general membership for approval as the League's Legislative Action Agenda. The Business Session The proposed Legislative Action Agenda is then brought before the full general membership for consideration, possible amendment and adoption at a Business Session during one of the League's conferences. The general membership may limit, reject, prioritize or rank recommendations. Typically, the Business Session is held on the final day of the Legislative Conference but for 2015- 2016 will occur during the Annual Conference. The Advocacy Committee The Advocacy Committee is a standing committee that is responsible for building support in the Legislature for the Action Agenda adopted by the Florida League of Cities. Members are responsible for making direct contact with state elected officials on behalf of the policy issues and provide strategic direction on the Leagues' lobbying initiatives. The Advocacy Committee is appointed by the League president The Resolutions Committee The Resolutions Committee is appointed by the League president and meets during the League's Annual Conference in August The composition of this committee is similar to the Legislative Committee. The League's by-laws provide that only state legislative issues are to be considered by the Legislative Policy Committees and federal and state constitutional and commemorative issues are to be considered by the Resolutions Committee. Federal Issues The Federal Action Strike Team (FAST) is a standing committee that addresses federal issues that affect municipalities. FAST members are appointed by the League president and each member works closely with the League and the National League of Cities to influence federal legislation affecting cities in Florida. 2015 -2016 FLC Legislative Policy Committees Energy, Environment & Natural Transportation & Intergovernmental Resources (Ryan Matthews) Relations (Megan Sirjane-Samples) • coastal management • affordable housing/foreclosures • energy • billboards • environmental and wetlands . charter counties permitting • charter schools • general utilities • gaming • hazardous and toxic wastes • rights-of-way • recycling • transportation and highway safety • solid waste collection and disposal • stormwater Urban Administration • wastewater treatment and reuse (Casey Cook) • water management . building & fire safety codes • water quality and quantity • building codes and construction • code enforcement Finance, Taxation & Personnel • emergency management (Amber Hughes) • homeland security • general finance & tax issues • public meetings • home rule revenues • public property management • infrastructure funding • public records • insurance • public safety • local option revenues • purchasing • pension issues . special districts • personnel and collective bargaining issues • revenue sharing • tax and budget reform • telecommunications • workers' compensation Growth Management & Economic Affairs (David Cruz) • community redevelopment • economic development • growth management and land use planning issues • annexation • eminent domain • tort liability • property rights • ethics/elections `'ecu[ orr oar„ j� 2015-2016 Key Legislative Dates 2015 August 10-21 Legislative Special Session "B" Congressional Reapportionment (Districts 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27) 13-15 Florida League of Cities Annual Conference (FLC Policy Committee Meeting on august 13) — Orlando World Center Marriott (Contact Person: Holly McPhail/Melanie Howe) • FLC Board of Directors Meeting • FLM Roundtable and Board of Directors Meeting • Local/Regional League Directors & Officers Meeting September 16-18 Legislative Interim Committees October 5-9 Legislative Interim Committees 7-8 FAST Fly -In —Washington, D.C. 19-23 Legislative Interim Committees 19-31 Legislative Special Session "C" Senate Redistricting November 1-6 Legislative Special Session "C" Senate Redistricting 2-6 Legislative Interim Committees 4-7 NLC Congress of Cities — Nashville, TN 16-20 Legislative Interim Committees 19-20 Florida League of Cities Legislative Conference (FLC Policy Committee Meeting on Nov. 19) — Embassy Suites Lake Buena Vista (Contact Person: Holly McPhail/Melanie Howe) • FLC Board of Directors Meeting • FLM Roundtable and Board of Directors Meeting • Local/Regional League Directors & Officers Meeting 30 Legislative Interim Committees December 1-4 Legislative Interim Committees (over) 2016 January 12 Legislative Session Convenes February 2-3 Florida League of Cities Legislative Action Days (Contact Person: Holly McPhail) • FLC Board of Directors Meeting • FLM Roundtable and Board of Directors Meeting Local/Regional League Directors Meeting March 5-9 NLC Congressional City Conference —Washington, D.C. 11 Last Day of Regular Session "a// dates subject to change" Public Records Proposed Priority Statement: The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS public records reform to discourage or eliminate schemes designed to generate violations of public records laws as well as limit harassing or unreasonable public records requests. Background: Cities, as well as numerous other governmental entities, are required to comply with the public records laws in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. While every city incurs some level of expenses in complying with public records requests, numerous cities frequently incur extraordinary or unreasonable costs. The reasons for these extraordinary costs can vary, but include: records requests dearly designed to be harassing in nature (either by the frequency of requests or the extent of any particular request); requests designed to generate a technical violation of the public records laws; and requests designed to do nothing more than serve as the basis of a lawsuit, typically with offers to the city to settle and pay attorney's fees and costs. Several individuals and entities around the state have developed a "cottage industry" designed to produce technical violations of the public records laws. These individuals have a standard method of operation. They will frequently enter into a public office, or the office of a private entity providing services to the public entity, and demand to inspect frequently remote documents (such as insurance coverage documents). The persons working in these offices may not be used to receiving public records requests, and are dearly not the statutory designated custodian of public records (for cities, the custodian of public records is typically the city derk). In attempting to comply with the public records request, these persons may technically violate the public records laws (asking the requestor for their name and contact number, asking the requestor to sign an entry log, stating that they believe the information requested is not subject to the public records laws, etc). Typically, the next communication from the person making the public records request is service of a lawsuit alleging violations of the public records laws. Undoubtedly, these lawsuits are then followed by a request for settlement, demanding attorney's fees and costs. Various individuals and entities have filed thousands of public records requests and hundreds of lawsuits. As the attached article from a Florida Bar publication indicates, a judge in Duval County denied a request for attorney's fees in a public records lawsuit and called a plaintiffs actions "a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records," and "nothing more than a scam." Under section 119.0701, Florida Statutes, private businesses that enter into contracts with public agencies to provide various services become subject to the public records laws. Many private businesses have also fallen victim to the scam identified above. These schemes are designed to do nothing more than raid the public treasury at the expense of tax payers. Examples of various issues with public records laws: " Town of Gulf Stream: Since 2013, Town has received 42 different public records lawsuits. Expended over $350,000 in litigation defense. Received over 1,500 public records requests since 2013 (primarily from the same several requestors). " Two related "public records" seeking entities have filed more than 140 lawsuits in 27 counties within one year (against governmental entities and those having contracts with governmental entities). " A "public records" seeking individual claims to have filed almost 200 lawsuits over a seven year period. " The Palm Beach State Attorney's office received over 1,300 public records requests from the same several requestors. " The following governmental entities have been named defendants in recent public records litigation (settlement amounts noted): Municipalities Greenacres Orchid Atlantis Gulf Stream Orlando (Fire) Aventura Hallandale Beach Otter Creek Baldwin Hialeah Palatka (Police) Boynton Beach (Police) Jacksonville Beach Palm Coast Cape Coral" $12,500 Key Biscayne Pembroke Pines (2) Coral Gables (Police) Lake Park: $4,000 Pinecrest Cutler Bay: $2,000 Lakeland (Police) Punta Gorda Dade City Layton Sarasota Eagle Lake: $10,000 Macclenny Southwest Ranches (2) Eustis (Police): $1,500 Miami (3) (2 -City; 1 -Police) St Cloud Fernandina Beach: $5,000 Miami Beach (2) St Petersburg (2) Florida City Miami Lakes: $2,000 Tampa (3) (2 -City; 1 -Police) Fort Myers Naples Venice $2,600 Fruitland Park New Port Richey Zephyrhills (2) Counties Miami -Dade (4) Palm Beach Clay (BOCC, Police, Water & Pasco Collier Sewer Dept) Pinellas Highlands: $9,000 Orange Volusia Lake Osceola (2) (County, Supervisor of Elections) School Boards Hardee Miami -Dade Broward Hendry Orange Charlotte Hillsborough Oseola Clay Lee Polk (3) Duval Manatee St Johns Flagler Martin: $20,000 St Lude Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate 850.222.9684 ccook@flcities.com Sheriffs Hardee Osceola Broward Hillsborough (2) Palm Beach Charlotte Lake Pasco (2) Clay (2) Lee Pinellas Flagler Manatee St Johns • City of Cooper City: One individual has made approximately 600 public records requests in one year, requiring extensive time by city attorney, city manager, city clerk, and other managers to properly respond. • Cities of Belleair Beach, Greenwood, Indialantic and numerous others have received public records requests for city personnel information from 2008-2013, specifically seeking name, position, mailing address, salary, etc. in a specified format • City of Oldsmar. A frequent public records requestor sends long emails and email strings containing public records requests "embedded" within the emails. CS/CS/SB 224 (Simpson) and CS/CS/HB 163 (Beshears) were filed in 2015 to address the public records laws when private entities enter into contracts to provide services to public agencies. The contracts between the private entity and the public agency are required to provide a notice giving the contact information for the agency's custodian of public records. The bills would have provided a process that must be followed to award attorney's fees and costs to an individual claiming a violation of the public records laws. The party filing the action would have been required to provide written notice of the public records request, including a statement that the public agency has not complied with the request, by certified mail to the public agency's custodian of public records at least eight business days (under CS/CS/SB 224) or three business days (under CS/CS/HB 163) before filing the action. The party would have also been required to provide this notice to the contractor if the contractor is a named party in the action. CS/CS/SB 224 was amended to require two days' notice to the custodian of public records of a records request before a person alleging a violation of the public records law may obtain attorney's fees and costs. This time period would not have been a requirement to comply with the public records request, because, depending upon the circumstances, fulfilling a public records request may take less or more than two business days. Rather, the time period is designed to provide the custodian of public records with notice that the public records request has been made, and allow that person to take the appropriate steps to fulfill the request. CS/CS/SB 224 would have required public agencies to provide training to its employees, the extent of which is up to the agency, on the public records laws. The senate bill also would have required the agency to post the contact information for the custodian of the public records in any building in which public records are sent, received, created, maintained, and requested. Both bills failed to pass the legislature in 2015. Current Status: No bills have been filed on this issue at this time. Revised: 7/27/2015 Contact Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate— 850.222.9684— ccook@flcities.com `EpGUE 0A i 2016 LEGISLATIVE ACTION AGENDA Vacation Rentals Proposed Priority Statement: The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that repeals the state preemption of the regulation of vacation rental properties in order to allow local governments to regulate such properties to protect the health and welfare of residents, visitors and businesses. Background: In 2011, the Florida legislature prohibited cities from regulating short-term vacation rentals. A short- term vacation rental is defined as a property that is rented more than three times a year for less than 30 days at a time. The legislation passed in 2011 included a provision that "grandfathered" any ordinance regulating vacation rentals prior to June 1, 2011. Since that time a number of cities, both "grandfathered" cities and those who did not have an ordinance in place, have experienced problems with these properties. The effect of the 2011 bill is that two separate classes of cities were created respective to vacation rentals, those with home rule authority and those without. In 2014, the legislature passed SB 356 which loosened the preemption on vacation rentals. The bill allowed local governments to adopt ordinances specific to vacation rentals so that they could address some of the noise, parking, trash, and life -safety issues created by the proliferation of vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, SB 356 left in place existing statutory language stating that cities cannot "prohibit" vacation rentals, or regulate the duration or frequency of the rental. Those cities fortunate enough to have an ordinance in place prior to the 2011 preemption are still allowed to regulate vacation rentals, but the questions remains whether these ordinances will remain valid if amended. Some city attorneys believe that these ordinances are "frozen" and any future amendments would cause a loss of the "grandfather." The problem with this is twofold. Fust, with the rise of popular rental websites like I/awdon Renta! by Owner (VRBO) and AirBnB making it easier to advertise and rent these properties, the number of vacation rentals in Florida has exponentially increased in the last four years. Second, as a result of this enormous growth in the vacation rental market, the scope of the problem has changed and ordinances adopted before 2011 may no longer be effective. It is important to note that many of our larger cities (with a larger professional staff) fell into the grandfathered category. They have retained the ability to regulate these properties through zoning and may have duration and frequency requirements. Some may still want to amend their ordinances to adjust to a changing -problem. They are reluctant to do so out of fear of losing their existing ordinance and with it their home rule authority. Recognizing that the ordinances on the books are no longer effective, cities want the ability to come up with solutions that work for their respective community, but because of the potential loss of the "grandfather," they are unable to do so. It is important to note that any potential amendments to existing ordinances would be vetted through numerous public Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccook@flcities.com hearings that allow neighboring homeowners, vacation rental owners, vacation rental managers, and local businesses the ability to weigh in on proposed legislation. Cities without vacation rental ordinances in place prior to June 1, 2011 have had their zoning authority stripped and are now seeing vacation rentals completely overtaking residential neighborhoods. Long- time residents are moving out as a result and the residential character of traditional neighborhoods is slowly being stripped away. The impacts of problematic vacation rentals on neighboring residents are felt in a number of ways: The Hotel Next Door — Commercial Activity in Residential Neighborhoods Houses that sleep 26 people are now present in what were once traditional neighborhoods. Because of the inability to regulate the duration of a renter's stay, these houses could experience weekly, daily or even hourly turnover. Obviously, the constant turnover of renters creates a number of issues for cities and neighboring property owners. Prior to the preemption, local governments were able to regulate this activity through zoning. Vacation rentals have become increasingly popular in the last five years and because a city cannot "prohibit" these properties, they are powerless to exclude vacation rentals from residential neighborhoods. As a result, investors, many of whom are located out-of-state or even in a different country, have purchased or built single-family homes with the sole intent of turning them into vacation rentals. Loss of Zoning Authority Cities use zoning as a tool to prepare for future growth in their cities and also use it to control where commercial and residential properties are located. Hotels have different infrastructure needs than single-family residential properties. As residential neighborhoods are developed, the infrastructure installed is designed for the future use of the properties. Many neighborhoods have infrastructure in place with capacity for up to eight people per house. Now there are houses in these very same neighborhoods that sleep more people than the number originally planned for, placing a significant strain on existing infrastructure. Commercial properties like bars, hotels and restaurants typically need more parking than a single-family property as well as have different operating hours and experience greater noise levels. The current law removes important land use and zoning tools that will impact how a city plans for future growth and levels of service. Noise Complaints Many neighboring residents complain of the noise generated by the vacationing renters next door. When people go on vacation, often their behavior changes - they may stay awake later, consume more adult beverages throughout the day, or participate in recreational activities that they wouldn't participate in while at their own homes such as swimming at midnight while listening to music. Residents complain of the noise generated as a result. Many of these complaints are generated by neighboring houses. For those homes located near the beach or on a canal that leads to the ocean or even a lake, it is important to note that sound travels over water — and residents located hundreds of yards away may be the ones calling and complaining to the police and their local elected officials. Some cities have noise ordinances, but these have proved problematic to enforce. One such example is Lighthouse Point. Their ordinance requires sustained noise over a certain decibel threshold for 10 minutes. Many times after the police arrive at a residence, the noise dies down. These renters may leave the next day with new ones replacing them. The new renters are often Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccook@flcities.com unaware of the noise ordinance or past complaints and may cause the same problems. The out- of-state property owner may not even be aware of the problems created by their renters and with the constant turnover, the problem ends as one renter leaves and begins again as new renters arrive. This causes a significant drain on law enforcement resources. When law enforcement officers are called to respond to noise complaints, one less officer is on the street either preventing crimes or solving crimes. Parking Many vacation rentals are located in single-family neighborhoods for families. The parking available in the driveway was built for two or three cars. When you now have a renovated house that sleeps acts as a small hotel, there will be more than three cars needed to get these renters to the property. As a result, many of these cars are parked on the street. Cars parked on the street make it tough for emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies and cause increased response times to emergencies in these neighborhoods. Cities have begun to adopt ordinances creating parking standards for vacation rental properties. Unfortunately, these ordinances only solve the parking issue and not any of the other issues created by commercial activity in a residential community. Revenue Issues There are approximately 16,000 licensed vacation rentals in Florida, but a quick search of VRBO reveals tens of thousands more that are advertised. As stated earlier, a property rented more than three times a year for less than 30 days at a time meets the vacation rental definition and should be licensed by the state. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) is tasked with investigating unlicensed vacation rentals, but they lack the resources needed to investigate these complaints. Unlicensed vacation rentals could be costing the state of Florida millions each year from licensing revenue. Licensed vacation rentals are also required to charge a sales tax to renters and then remit this back to the state. Many licensed vacation rentals are not doing this and the unlicensed vacation rentals are most likely not collecting these sales taxes either. Again, DBPR and DOR have limited resources and cannot adequately investigate complaints from local governments. The loss of sales tax revenue from these properties is likely costing the state millions in sales tax revenue. Some counties impose a tourist development tax (TDT) and vacation rental owners in these counties are required to collect and remit this money to the Department of Revenue (DOR). DOR also has limited resources and does not have the resources to track down vacation rentals that are not paying the TDT despite numerous requests from cities around the state. The legislature began the conversation on vacation rentals in 2014 and the League of Cities supported both HB 307 and SB 356. The bills were a step in the right direction, but only partially restored home rule to Florida's cities. Cities are still prevented from regulating the duration and frequency of the rentals and local zoning does not apply to these properties. Legislation was filed in 2015 that would have restored more power to local governments in dealing with vacation rentals, but the bills were not heard in either body. Current Status: No bills have been filed on this issue at this time. Revised: 7/27/2015 Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccook@flcities.co F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 735 A bill to be entitled An act relating to vacation rentals; amending s. 509.032, F.S.; revising the permitted scope of local laws, ordinances, and regulations with respect to vacation rentals; providing an exemption for subsequent amendments of certain provisions of existing local laws, ordinances, and regulations adopted on or before a specified date; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 2015 Section 1. Paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 509.032 Duties.— (7) PREEMPTION AUTHORITY.— (b) A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals, e -r regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals, or set a minimum stay requirement of more than 7 days for vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any provision of a local law, ordinance, or regulation which is otherwise prohibited by this paragraph but was adopted on or before June 1, 2011, or to any subsequent amendment of such a provision. Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2015. Page 1 of 1 CODING: Words stficken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0735-00 NATIONAL LEAGUE of CITIES Federal Advocacy Update JULY 17, 2015 In this issue: • E-faimess Gains Momentum, More Local Voices Needed • National League of Cities Leadership Goes to the Hill to Make the Case for Transportation Funding • FY 2016 Spending Bills in Doubt • Labor Department Proposes Changes to Overtime Rules • Senate Finance Working Group Report Maintains Status Quo For Tax Exemption • Following Supreme Court Decision on Fair Housing, HUD Finalizes New Rules • Free Webinar August 19: Revising Sign Ordinances After Reed v. Town of Gilbert • Proposed NLC Policy Resolutions and Amendments Due August 14 • Make a Difference This Summer! E -fairness Gains Momentum; More Local Voices Needed Pnya Ghosh Ahola, 202.626.3015 In a meeting with Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R -UT), lead sponsor of the Remote Transactions Parity Act (RTPA, HR 2775), last week, Mayor Becker thanked the Congressman for his leadership in putting forth a solution to this issue and pledged the support of cities and towns to seeing it get resolved this session. If enacted, the RTPA will give states and local governments the flexibility to require remote online retailers to collect the sales taxes that are already owed on remote purchases. Closing this online sales tax loophole would not only level the playing field between online sellers and Main Street brick and mortar ones who are required to collect the tax, it would also mean resources for local governments to fund much needed local services like infrastructure and public safety. It is estimated that this loophole costs states and local governments $23 billion annually, which is why its passage is a top priority for NLC. Hundreds of city leaders have sent letters to their representatives, as have state municipal leagues. So far, as a result of your efforts, more than 150 House members have been contacted about supporting RTPA. The number of co-sponsors on the bill has more than quadrupled from the original eight to 38. This is good; however, more are needed to move the legislation this year. If you haven't already, please contact your House members and thank them for their support if they are already a co-sponsor, or urge them to cosponsor the bill if they have not. If you would like to send your representative an official letter from your city, you can download sample letter language to use. You can also view a current list of organizations who have endorsed the bill online. Do your part to get e-faimess legislation passed this year. National League of Cities Leadership Goes to the Hill to Make the Case for Transportation Funding Mike Wallace, 202.626.3025 NLC President Ralph Becker meets with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cafif.), Ranking Member of the Senate EPW Committee, to urge support for the Wicker -Booker STP amendment to the DRIVE Act. View a slideshow of the full visit. As the deadline approaches for transportation funding to run out, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Jim Inhofe (R -0K) and Ranking Member Barbara Boxer (D -CA) unveiled the bipartisan "DRIVE Act" (S 1647), the long-awaited Senate proposal for a new long term transportation bill. The DRIVE Act would authorize funding levels for programs supported by the Highway Trust Fund over six years. "For cities and towns, the DRIVE Act is an improvement over the status quo. The bill would improve local control of funding under the Surface Transportation Program and the Transportation Alternatives Program. But there is much more that could - and should - be done. The National League of Cities looks forward to continuing our strong partnership with Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer to achieve our goal of enacting a forward-looking, long-term, multi- modal transportation bill," said NLC Executive Director upon the bill's introduction. The current short -tens authorization for federal transportation programs under the Highway Trust Fund will expire at the end of July, and additional short term extensions will likely be necessary so that all the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate can complete work on their sections of the transportation bill. In the Senate, three Committees have jurisdiction over the Transportation Bill - the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (Commerce), and the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (Banking). A fourth, the Senate Finance Committee, is responsible for raising revenue to pay for programs authorized under the transportation bill. In the House, two committees have jurisdiction over the Transportation Bill - the House Ways and Means Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. While the DRIVE ACT supports many of NLC's transportation goals and has now passed the EPW Committee, NLC is working on a Floor amendment with Senators Roger Wicker (R -MS) and Cory, Booker (D -NJ) to increase the percentage of funds allocated to local jurisdictions under the Surface Transportation Program (STP). In addition, in meetings on the Hill last week, NLC President Ralph Becker met with EPW Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and others to brief them on the city perspective on the importance of a long term bill and to urge their support for an increase in the STP allocation when an amendment comes up on the Senate Floor. Mayor Becker thanks Chairman Inhofe forintroducing the DRIVE Act, a long-term transportation bill, and discusses support for multi -modal and active transportation projects that drive development and job creation in cities and towns today. Following EPW approval of the DRIVE Act, earlier this week, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 2015 IS 1732), which would authorize rail and highway safety programs in the Transportation bill. Among other things, the bill authorizes Amtrak funding and requires new safety mandates on speed, grade crossings, and train control in response to recent derailments and explosions. The Senate Banking Committee has indicated that it will introduce a bill soon that covers the transit portion of the bill. One area of concern for NLC in the Commerce bill are changes being proposed to the popular TIGER Grant program that has provided millions in funding for local transit priorities, including light rail and streetcar projects. The Commerce bill would authorize a "TIGER -like" program that may eliminate the multi -modal approach to rail and focus TIGER funds much more narrowly on projects benefitting freight infrastructure only. NLC urged the Commerce Committee to reconsider this in light of the successful multi -modal approach. The Senate Banking Committee, which holds jurisdiction over transit, may also be able to enact a fix. In the House, lawmakers conceded the impossibility of passing a longterm bill before the August recess by approving a five-month extension of surface transportation programs that would keep projects funded for the rest of the year. The extension, sponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R -WI) and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R -PA) would provide $8 billion through a combination of tax compliance measures and reduced spending of Transportation Security Administration fees in 2025 and 2026. Of that amount, $6.07 billion is for the Highway Account and $2 billion is for the Mass Transit Account. Despite the short -tens extension, leaders in the House and Senate have said approval of a long- term ongterm bill will remain a priority for this year. FY 2016 Spending Bills in Doubt Mike Wallace, 202.626.3025 Despite the efforts of congressional leaders to "return to regular order", it appears that the annual federal appropriations process is headed for another break down. Under regular order, Congress would complete work on all appropriations bills before the new fiscal year begins on October 1. To date, the House has passed six of 12 appropriations bills, the Senate has passed none, and it is unclear if any additional new spending bills will be voted on before the August recess. If Congress fails to approve the spending bills before the new year begins, as appears likely to happen, local officials should expect to operate under another series of funding extensions as has become common in recent years. Missing the deadline also raise the prospects of another government shutdown if consensus on an omnibus bill or continuing resolution cannot be reached. Complicating the ability to reach a bipartisan consensus on any spending bill this year are the spending caps imposed by sequestration. Cases in point are the Transportation -Housing and Urban Development spending bills approved by the House and the Senate, where both chambers were forced to make difficult choices in order to stay under the caps. Among local priorities, one key difference between the House and Senate bills is the treatment of the HOME Investment Partnership program. The House bill would raid federal funding set aside for the National Housing Trust Fund to maintain existing levels of funding for the HOME program. As a result, the House bill would effectively cancel the Housing Trust Fund. The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, protecting the Housing Trust Fund but cutting the HOME program by 93 percent from $900 million to $66 million and seriously jeopardizing local commitments to the construction of affordable housing. The HOME Coalition, of which NLC is a member, is advocating against cuts to HOME and is maintaining a HOME advocacy page on the Habitat for Humanity website. Labor Department Proposes Changes to Overtime Rules Carolyn Coleman, 202.625.3023 The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would extend overtime protection to millions of workers by increasing the salary threshold at which workers are eligible for overtime. NLC plans to file comments to the proposed changes. The FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime pay standards affecting workers in the private sector and in federal, state and local governments. As a general rule under the FLSA, unless they are exempt, workers must be paid at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours they work beyond 40 in a work week. Under the "white collar" exemption, certain executive, administrative, and professional employees are excluded from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime protections. To qualify for the exemption, a white collar employee "generally" must: 1. be salaried; 2. be paid at least a specific salary threshold (currently $455/week or $23,6601 year) (salary threshold test); and 3. primarily perform executive, administrative, or professional duties as provided in the Department's regulations (duties tests). The proposed rule would nearly double the salary threshold at which workers would earn overtime pay whenever they worked more than 40 hours in a week. Last updated in 2004, the salary threshold would go from $23,660 a year to $47,892 a year. In the first year of its implementation, the Administration projects that 5 million more workers would become eligible for overtime pay. The number of workers in each state that would be affected by this proposal can be found here. For additional information about the proposed rule, click here. Besides changes to the salary threshold test, the department is seeking comments on whether the current "duties tests" are working as intended to screen out workers who are not bona fide "white collar" exempt workers. It also seeks comments on the possibility of including nondiscretionary bonuses to satisfy a portion of the standard salary requirement. Comments are due on or before September4, 2015. To assist in developing and coordinating on our responses to this proposal, if your local government is considering filing comments in this proceeding and/or has collected information regarding the specific impact the changes would have on your local government, please send an email to coleman@nlc.org. Senate Finance Working Group Report Maintains Status Quo For Tax Exemption Priya Ghosh Ahola, 202.626.3015 Last week, the Senate Finance Committee released the reports from the five working groups established by the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee as it begins to examine the federal tax code. NLC was particularly interested in the report of the Infrastructure, Community Development and Energy working group's report related to the tax exemption for municipal bonds. In March, Senator Michael Bennett (D -CO) invited NLC to participate in a roundtable discussion of the Senate Finance Committee's Infrastructure, Community Development and Energy working group. Through its participation in the roundtable and in formal comments submitted to the committee, NLC underscored three priorities for local governments in the tax reform process: (1) maintaining the federal tax exemption on municipal bonds to promote job creation and improve the nation's infrastructure; (2) ensuring that state and local governments retain the authority to set their own tax policy; and (3) opposing federal pre-emptions that would grant preferential tax treatment to certain industries and threaten the fiscal health of state and local governments. NLC also reminded the Senate Finance Committee that, when considering any changes to the federal tax code, it is important to respect local authority and promote intergovernmental partnership by authorizing a- faimess or the collection of local taxes already owed to state and local governments on Internet and mail-order sales. While the Infrastructure, Community Development and Energy working group's report highlighted the significant usage of tax exempt bonds with over $384 billion being issued between 2002 and 2011, there were no specific policy recommendations in the report regarding the tax exemption. While there were no recommendations in the report, NLC will continue to urge the preservation of the tax exemption in any federal legislation. Following Supreme Court Decision on Fair Housing, HUD Finalizes New Rules Mike Wallace, 202.626.3025 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the release of a final rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The new policy is intended to provide state and local governments with clearer guidelines, new tools, and data to meet fair housing obligations established in existing law. NLC previously commented on the rule in coalition with other local government group on the implications for local control. Community stakeholders, including local officials, have remained divided on the rule since it was first proposed two years ago. HUD has provided the following guidance on the new rule: What the Rule Does: For HUD grantees, including cities receiving CDBG, the rule will mean replacing the existing Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) with a new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The key differences are that HUD is providing data and a template for conducting a fair housing analysis, grantees will incorporate fair housing planning into the consolidated plan, and HUD will review assessments up front as part of the planning process. By making these changes, HUD can better partner with its grantees by providing a clearer path to meeting AFFH requirements, easing some of the burden of analysis by providing and packaging relevant data, and integrating fair housing into planning and investment strategies. The rule will be implemented on a rolling basis. The due date for the first Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) is 270 days prior to the program year that begins on or after January 1, 2017 (or January 1, 2018, depending on grantee type) for which a jurisdiction submits a new consolidated plan. HUD will also provide grantees at least 9 months from the publication of a final AFH Template applicable to the grantee type before the AFH is due. " Where to Find Additional Information: HUD will post the rule along with all official guidance and technical materials to the following HUD Exchange website: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/affW. In the coming weeks and months, HUD will continue to provide guidance and additional resources as well as information about training opportunities for grantees via the HUD Resource Exchange AFFH website. In addition, grantees will be able to pose specific questions through the "Ask A Question" feature on that website. Free Webinar August 19: Revising Sign Ordinances After Reed v. Town of Gilbert Carolyn Coleman, 202.626.3023 In Reed v. Town of Gilbert the Supreme Court ruled that Gilbert's sign code violates the First Amendment. Many, if not most, communities must now revise their sign codes. Most sign codes apply different rules to different categories of signs based on content, which the Supreme Court now generally prohibits. Discuss the practical implications of this case for local governments with John M. Baker, Greene Espel. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about join ing the Webinar. Revising Sign Ordinances After Reed v. Town of Gilbert Wednesday August 19, 1:00PM - 2:15 PM EDT Register Online Now Proposed NLC Policy Resolutions and Amendments Due August 14 Carolyn Coleman, 202.626.3023 As part of its annual policy development process, NLC invites all member cities to submit National Municipal Policy (NMP) amendments and resolutions for consideration. The deadline for submissions is Friday, August 14. Each proposed policy amendment or resolution should also include a document that provides background on the issue, as well as a discussion of its applicability to local governments nationwide. The NMP is a permanent statement of NLC's position on federal policy matters that directly affect local governments. Resolutions address timely issues or specific pieces of federal legislation and are annual statements of position. Unless action is taken to renew a resolution or incorporate it into the NMP, each resolution expires at the Congress of Cities Conference following its adoption. All proposals submitted by the deadline will be forwarded to the appropriate policy and advocacy steering committee for review. Upon further action, voting delegates will consider the committees' work at the Annual Business Meeting during NLC's Congress of Cities Conference in Nashville, Tenn., in November. Proposed policy amendments and resolutions should be submitted in writing to Avery Peters via email at peters@nlc.org or mailed to him at the National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20004. Make a Difference This Summer! Angelina Panettien, 202.626.3196 You don't have to come all the way to Washington to be an effective advocate. Before you head to the beach this summer, stand up for your city and lobby your members of Congress during their August recess. Senators and representatives will be home for the month of August, and this is a great time to meet with your legislators and let them know how much your city needs e-faimess legislation. Spend time with your congressional delegation, and ask your senators to cosponsor S. 698, the Marketplace Fairness Act, and yourcity's representatives to cosponsor H.R. 2775, the Remote Transactions Parity Act. It's easy to take action! Download our one-stop guide to meeting with your legislators at home to get started. Once you've gotten your meeting planned, download our one-page fact sheets on the Marketplace Fairness Act if you are meeting with a senator, or the Remote Transactions Parity Act if you are meeting with a representative. Have a great meeting! Don't forget to share what you do - email us at advocacy@nlc.org with the details, take photos, and tweet using the hashtag ffefaimess. 02013 National League of Cities 11301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Sufte 550, Washington, DC 20004 Q" 2015-16 Legislative Key Contact Information An essential part of the Florida League of Cities' advocacy strategy is the legislative key contact program. City officials with a strong relationship with a particular legislator(s) are asked to sign up as a legislative key contact. Key contacts are responsible for keeping in constant communication with their legislator to keep him/her updated on key municipal issues being considered by the Legislature; responding to urgent calls to action and other legislative alerts during the legislative session; and strengthening the relationship with legislators and their staff. Please complete with your preferred day -time contact information to receive timely legislative information. Name: City/Town/Village: Title: Phone # (cell): (where you can be reached during the day) E-mail: Do you wish to receive text alerts? Legislative Contact Information Senator/ Representative: Type of Relationship: Check the box that you believe most accurately describes the type of relationship you have with this Member. ❑ Political ❑ Business ❑ Personal ❑ Other Strength of the Relationship: Check the box that most accurately reflects the strength of your relationship. ❑ Close ❑ Acquaintance ❑ Distant Senator/ Representative: Type of Relationship: Check the box that you believe most accurately describes the type of relationship you have with this Member. ❑ Political ❑ Business ❑ Personal ❑ Other Strength of the Relationship: Check the box that most accurately reflects the strength of your relationship. ❑ Close ❑ Acquaintance ❑ Distant Please send to Allison Payne at the Florida League of Cities via fax 850-222-3806 or e-mail: apavne()flcities.com Florida League of Cities Keeping You on Track for a Healthy Advocacy Checkup As your "advocacy coach" for the summer, we're here to keep you focused and on track for perfect advocacy health by the start of the 2016 session! Throughout the summer we've been sharing strategies to help you j 1s4 '•+1�— develop a successful advocacy plan. One component of that plan should include education. And by this we mean educating legislators about your community before they go back to Tallahassee for the 2016 session. So in this issue we'll address question five of our Advocacy Checkup: Question #5 - Do you believe your legislators are better informed after the 2015 session about yourcily/town and local government? If you answered "yes" to this question... congratulations! You've done an excellent job at increasing awareness about your city. If you answered "no" or "I'd like them to know more", below are some great strategies to keep you on the path to advoacy success. Take them on a tour - If it's been awhile (or if you've never do so) take your legislator on a tour of your city. This is especially applicable if a lot has changed over the past few years. Whether those changes are positive or negative, they need to know about it and physically see what's been going on. This strategy is so beneficial for a variety of reasons: • It provides your legislators a "mental picture" they can take with them and recall when it's time to vote on legislation affecting your city. • It helps them understand and appreciate the multitude of services you provide your residents on a daily basis that affect their quality of life. This is home rule in action! • It demonstrates how, how many and who benefits from the many programs you offer to your shared constituents. This is so important for them to know so when you talk about how potential legislation may result in the redution of loss of these programs, they'll understand the implications. • A tour is a MUST if you are asking for any state appropriations for project or program funding! Legislators need to see the project or program AND fully understand it so they can work on your behalf to secure the funding. Schedule a meeting with your senior staff and police department -This can be done separately or in conjunction with the city tour. This strategy not only helps your staff build relationships with legislators, but provides both parties an opportunity to talk in-depth about issues such as development, service upgrades or expansion. your annual budget and any appropriations requests you want them to sponsor. A meeting with your police chief is the perfect opportunity to talk about crime in your city. and what you're doing to combat it through officer training, new or expanded public safety programs. etc. Focus your "education" on their legislative priorities - It you Know what your legislators priorities are (and you should, if you've been building a relationship), spend time showing them what your city is doing that aligns with those priorities. This demonstrates you are ready to work as partners to advance their priorities... as long as they don't negatively affect your city. Share a copy of your city's Welcome Guide with legislators -This is a great resource for them to have readily available that highlights the services you provide and the contact information of key officials within your city. Often, legislators have concerns that cities are not spending the publics tax dollars wisely. Educating them about your community will go a long way to overcome this misconception and prevent legislation resulting in unintended consequences that will affect your city. HERE'S TO YOUR HEALTH! Want to talk more about advocacy? Contact: Allison Payne, Advocacy Programs Manager or Kathy Till, Advocacy Programs Coordinator