Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01142009ISBAINTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday, January 14, 2009 -1:30 p.m. City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, Vero Beach, Florida PRESENT: Indian River County: Assistant County Attorney, Michael Zito and Community Development Director, Bob Keating City of Fellsmere: City Manager, Jason Nunemaker and City Attorney, Warren Dill Town of Indian River Shores: Town Manager, Robert Bradshaw City of Sebastian: City Manager, Al Minner (arrived at 1:40 p.m.) and Interim City Attorney, Bob Ginsburg Town of Orchid: Town Manager, Deb Branwell and Town Attorney, Anthony Garganese (arrived at 1:35 p.m.) City of Vero Beach: City Attorney, Charlie Vitunac; City Manager, James Gabbard; Planning and Development Director, Tim McGarry and Records Retention Specialist, Heather McCarty 1. CALL TO ORDER Today's meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A) October 15, 2008 The minutes of the October 15, 2008 ISBA Committee meeting were unanimously approved. Mr. Nunemaker made a motion to add the December 15, 2008 Joint Workshop Minutes done by the City of Sebastian to the record. Mr. Dill seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. DISCUSS SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WERE MADE AT THE JOINT MUNICIPALITY /INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 2008. Mr. Minner said the items they need to discuss are Sebastian contiguity issues, Fellsmere Exhibit F, the Poison pill, the rewrite of the extension on the agreement, the new town issue, the majority clause and unanimous agreement change, and the reference to Citrus Highway in Sebastian. The Committee went through the latest revised version dated October 23, 2008 (on file in the City Clerk's office) of the Interlocal Agreement section by section, beginning with Section 1, Adoption of the Interlocal Service Boundary Area Map. Mr. Dill said on the map, they needed to include the 87 acres of environmental property that Fellsmere purchased. Mr. Keating said that he would revise the map to include that. The Committee had no issues with Sections 2, 3, 4, or 5. Under Section 6a), the members discussed the issue on contiguity. Mr. Keating said they are making the exception for the contiguity, but they don't want to do both the contiguity exception and the creation of 40-acre enclaves. He said they don't have a problem getting the Graves property in the City. Where they have a problem is the several 40-acre tracts shown on the map in blue. He said they don't have a problem as long as they are not creating enclaves and they could write that in the agreement. Mr. Keating suggested that they write up language identifying the Graves property specifically with the provision that they won't create enclaves with the annexation of that property. Mr. Minner felt that it would be easier to refer to a map and state not to do enclaves. Mr. Ginsburg said that they would put together a description of it with the no enclave provision and send it to Mr. Keating for his approval. There were no objections with the remainder of Section 6. The Committee continued with Section 7, Annexation of Property Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, to which there were no objections. Under Section 8c), it referenced Exhibit D and Citrus Highway. The Committee members agreed that Citrus Highway would be referred to as 82nd Avenue and that Citrus Highway would be taken out of Exhibit D. Under Section 9, Changes by the County to the Urban Service Area Boundary and Comprehensive Plan Changes for Land Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, the Committee discussed Exhibit E. Mr. Keating referred to the two maps he handed out entitled Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Map (on file in the City Clerk's office). He explained that the map with the red line showed aone-half mile buffer from the existing City limits and the one with the black line was athree-mile buffer. Mr. Keating said the one-half mile buffer puts constraints on the County in dealing with the Graves property and it keeps them from having any development along County Road 510 in certain parts of the Graves property. He said the three-mile buffer essentially wipes out almost everything East of the marsh and North of SR60 from being a county new town. Mr. Vitunac asked if everyone agrees that the three-mile buffer is too much. Mr. Keating said that the County certainly thinks so. 2 Mr. Vitunac asked if the half-mile buffer is too little. Mr. Keating explained that it is a mechanism to get good development. He said if they didn't have this provision and they were just expanding the Urban Service Boundary, it would be sprawl. Mr. Minner said it comes down to the County and the City of Sebastian. He asked why don't they just adjust the Urban Service Boundary and then they could potentially throw out a lot of the exceptions in there for Sebastian. Then they wouldn't have to battle over the Graves property and Sebastian would have some breathing room to the South. Mr. Keating explained that the best thing they have done with Sebastian is have the Urban Service Area. He said to expand it, they would have to go through the same process that Fellsmere is going through now and would have to show DCA why they need to do that. Mr. McGarry said that is why he feels there should be a USAC review of these. Mr. Keating said he supports that idea. He said the reason to have the buffer is that there should be some differentiation between jurisdictions, which is not the case. He said Sebastian's reserve area is adjacent to the County's developed Vero Lake Estates and Fellsmere's city limits. Mr. Vitunac asked what his solution would be. Mr. Keating answered to keep it as it is and not have a buffer. Mr. Vitunac asked about having new towns go through USAC review and not have a buffer. Mr. Keating said he is 100% for that. Mr. Vitunac asked if they could change it to a mandatory advisory USAC review and no buffer. Mr. Minner said that would not work for Sebastian. Mr. Nunemaker explained that they removed the barrier for the new towns and they allowed the point-to-point to go forward. Mr. Keating said they are still in support of that. They just don't want the point-to-point contiguity to create enclaves. He said they are on board with the point-to-point to get the Graves property in. Mr. Minner said then they are essentially putting back the same document that some of the elected officials didn't like. Mr. Nunemaker pointed out that Sebastian would get carte blanche point-to-point within their reserve area. 3 Mr. Keating questioned the rational objective reasons of why there should be a separation distance. He said it would not be urban sprawl if they concentrate the development and if they provide greenbelts and peripheral buffers. He pointed out that there was not a separation between Vero Beach and Indian River Shores. Mr. Minner said if this is the best they can do, they should vote on it and let their vote reflect how they feel. Mr. Zito said if it is going back to the same product, it is after contemplation of the two maps. Mr. Keating summarized that they are looking at having no separation distance between new towns and municipal boundaries, but requiring new town proposals to go through an advisory USAC process. Mr. Minner asked with the point-to-point contiguity, if they don't have to put in the enclave language. Mr. Keating said they can't have 40 acre parcels created in the middle of municipalities. Mr. Nunemaker asked practically speaking, what is the conflict that is going to develop. He felt that there shouldn't be an issue with emergency vehicles and crossing borders. Mr. Minner explained that they are fixing the problem by annexing, not making it worse. He said that the City of Sebastian responds first to everything in their area. He questioned how enclaves hurt service providing. Mr. Keating explained that there is a responsibility as to what agency has to respond. He talked about primary and secondary responders. Mr. Vitunac suggested as a compromise an advisory USAC review of the new town issue, that point-to-point is okay, but issues of enclave require unanimous vote to approve or disapprove. Mr. Ginsburg said that he is not okay with unanimous. He said that if they have a new town with no buffer, they don't have new town. Mr. Keating said there would be a buffer from the developed area of the town to the rural area, but not necessarily the urban area. Mr. McGarry agreed that if the new town is right up against it and there is no buffer, it is not really a new town. Mr. Nunemaker said that currently the County tells people who are outside the Urban Service Boundary to expect diminished levels of service because of where they are. He asked if you have a new town outside the Urban Service Boundary, would they tell them not to expect fire or police services in a timely manner. 4 Mr. Keating explained that they have several exceptions to providing services outside the Urban Service Boundaries and new towns are one of those exceptions. Within those exceptions, residents can expect a full range of service. Mr. Dill asked if the County is satisfied with Sebastian's Exhibit D, and if Exhibit D would create a similar type community as a County new town, then what is wrong with a buffer and just letting Sebastian implement it. Mr. Keating said the bottom line is they don't want to be precluded from allowing the Graves property to develop if they meet all of their criteria and new town criteria. He said the whole issue here was to give that landowner another option by going into the City. He said that he doesn't see why they would want to preclude him (Graves property owner) from developing in the County and just saying he has to in the City. Mr. Nunemaker felt that presently neither scenario was workable for him. Mr. Dill said this is a Sebastian and County situation as far as what is going to be on the border. Mr. Nunemaker asked about a joint review process between the County and Sebastian where both entities have to approve it. He said Sebastian would still get the tax base because it would be in Sebastian. Mr. Keating said that right now Sebastian and Fellsmere are the only municipalities that have the option of having an annexation reserve area on lands that are outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, which is why all issues have been between the County and those two cities. Mr. McGarry said they are still concerned about the new towns because they do affect what occurs in the County and might have impacts on their City and other cities. Mr. Keating said whether or not there is a separation distance doesn't affect new towns in general. Mr. Dill said the issue is for Sebastian not to have a new town on its border. He said if there was a new town there, they might be hooking up to Sebastian's existing streets, which would clearly have an impact on Sebastian. Mr. Keating said that he doesn't care what jurisdiction development is in, as long as it is good development. He said basically they are taking away options from a landowner and they are taking away the options from one jurisdiction having that development. He thinks the impacts are going to be the same regardless of whose jurisdiction the development is in. 5 Mr. Dill asked what if Sebastian agreed to develop under the County's new town concept like Fellsmere did. Mr. Keating said they are trying to take that area and say it is going to be Sebastian's jurisdiction regardless. He said that is not how this has worked from the beginning. He said a landowner could opt to stay in the County and develop. Mr. Ginsburg said they don't want to create exactly the same situation for a municipality that you would have under a Charter government. Mr. Keating said they are not restricting the municipality. They are just not restricting the County. He is talking about not putting any more restrictions on the County with respect to new towns then they have right now. He said right now Exhibit D is the only exception. Mr. Dill asked if Exhibit D could be modified so the County feels comfortable with it. Mr. Keating said the problem he has is Sebastian wants the exclusive authority in this area and he thinks the County should have just as much opportunity to allow landowners to develop there. Mr. Nunemaker asked what if Exhibit D turns out to be unworkable. Mr. Keating said they could always come back to unanimous consent. Mr. Keating said there are three options: use Exhibit D and you don't need any approval from anybody; don't consider Exhibit D and get unanimous approval for a development plan; or get unanimous approval to modifications to Exhibit D. Mr. Dill said there is a two-issue dilemma here. He asked how they would get around it. Mr. Minner suggested that they give them time to think about this and that they move on to the other issues they might be able to resolve today. He suggested that they meet again in two weeks to discuss it further. The Committee moved on to Section l Of). Mr. Keating said that they had a problem with the Fellsmere Joint Venture and Ansin properties. He said that was one of the issues that was left unresolved from the Elected Officials meeting. Mr. Nunemaker explained that they are working on Exhibit F right now with DCA and are making progress. Mr. Keating said if they are amenable to changing Exhibit F to correspond with what DCA is going to require, then they will be meeting what they want lOf) changed to. Then Exhibit F would apply to those properties. 6 Mr. Nunemaker said once they meet DCA's issues, he feels they've met the County's issues. He said they just want to make sure that if they do want to make changes in 15 years within the spirit of good development, they should be able to make those changes. Mr. Keating said they think Exhibit F should incorporate that spirit. He said the issue is that there maybe changes down the road and he thinks everyone should have the comfort level that what is agreed to now with DCA and incorporated within Exhibit F applies to future changes. The Committee agreed to discuss this further after they get a resolution from DCA. The Committee had no issues with Section 11, Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Annexed Property Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary. The Committee continued to Section 12, Restrictions May be changed by Unanimous Agreement. Mr. Minner said their elected officials think that unanimous is too much. He thinks they would be happy with majority. Mr. Vitunac said then it could always be the four cities over the County. He said that he likes unanimous because the cities are giving up a lot of power. They are saying from now on, they are only going to annex in the reserve area and in return, they get a veto of other cities and the County of doing stuff that is bad. And if they make it majority vote, he feels they are giving up a major thing and may be over ridden by five out of six forever. The Committee agreed to leave it unanimous. Under Section 13, Right of Enforcement, the Committee agreed to add "or court order" at the end of the paragraph. The Committee discussed Section 15, Term and the Poison Pill. Mr. Dill suggested they add, "which would preempt any municipal home rule powers" to the end of "To continue with this agreement while an attempt is made to establish a charter form of government" at the top of page 14. Mr. Nunemaker explained that it doesn't cover all the areas of preemption. He said they maintain that when they see the Charter taking the legal steps necessary to get implemented, they want to have the option to exit the agreement. Mr. Vitunac said there has to be enough time between that decision and the right to annex property. He agreed with adding what Mr. Dill suggested. 7 Mr. Garganese explained that any movement to preempt municipal authority or any movement to a transfer of power that maybe unilaterally adopted by the County should be the poison pill. Mr. Vitunac asked him to provide some language in that regards. Mr. Garganese felt that what they have has a good framework, but he could provide some additional language. Mr. Zito referred to Item 15b)1. He said there is about 18 months between the appointment of the commission and the adoption. Mr. Nunemaker said they are making it much more restrictive about what would kill the agreement. He added that it could take up to 18 months but it doesn't have to. Mr. Garganese said that he thinks Items 2 and 3 are definitive. He said if they put the additional restriction in there about preemption or transfer of power, that would help. If they are going to limit it to those additional limitations, then Item 1 might not work and would need to be tweaked. He questioned if they needed Item 1 in there. Mr. Dill said that they do need Item 1 in there. Mr. Ginsburg asked why it is a problem as it is written. Mr. Nunemaker felt that it was too broad. Mr. Ginsburg agreed with putting in the limiting provision preempting municipal home rule power, but felt that was enough. Mr. Vitunac agreed. He suggested that they leave it the way it is and add the language Mr. Garganese provides. Mr. Nunemaker explained that it should be a Charter or subsequent Charter amendment. Mr. Minner said that would justify keeping Items 1, 2, and 3 in there. The Committee had no issues with Section 16, Effective Date. The next meeting was scheduled for January 28, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. 4. ADJOURNMENT Today's meeting adjourned at 3:22 p.m. /hm 8