04-11-2005 - Joint Mtg
.
'-"
""""
Joint Meeting of the Volusia County Council and the Edgewater City
Council
5:00 P.M.
'I~c
4/J/? 1:', V ~
01,/,,_ (J / la ()
r J!? t7J
~ 1\1"1
GS'1y
April 11, 2005
Edgewater Community Center
102 North Riverside Drive
Edgewater
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION BY THE MAYOR AND
CHAIR
III. REMARKS BY EDGEWATER CITY MANAGER AND VOLUSIA
COUNTY MANAGER
IV. PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE -
OVERVIEW OF PLAN AND PROCESS
V. DISCUSSION BY CITY OF EDGEWA TER CITY COUNCIL AND
VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL
VI. DIRECTION TO STAFF AND IDENTIFICATION OF NEXT STEPS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
.
Inter-Office
Memorandum
'-"
I/~C'~
~/V~
;JPIT (j 7 ~()
Cr,. IIJIJS
y -11..qN..q
G~Fi
@...............
...... ,.....
. .
.....~. .....
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
. - .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
....' . ....
. .
...... .....~.. ............
TO:
Honorable Members of the County
Council
DATE:
April 7, 2005
FROM:
Cynthia A. Coto
County Manager
FILE NO:
SUBJECT: Joint Workshop W/City of Edgewater
The City of Edgewater had its first reading for annexation of about 5,600 acres of land on
October 4, 2004. However, the City delayed the second reading of the annexation. The second
and final reading of the annexation was scheduled to occur on March 7, 2005. The City of
Edgewater agreed to delay the second reading of the annexation until May so that the elected
officials for the City and County could attend a joint meeting. The meeting has been scheduled
for April 11 at 5:00 p.m. at the Edgewater Community Center, 102 North Riverside Drive.
Backoround
The property is owned by the Snowden family and the annexation application was initiated by the
development company Highway 442 Partners, LLC. Most of the Snowden property proposed for
annexation is located well west of 1-95 and is situated just to the south of the existing corporate
limits of New Smyrna Beach. A map of the area is attached.
Currently, most of the property proposed for annexation located west of 1-95 is designated on the
County's Future Land Use Map with non-urban, low intensity land use categories (Environmental
Systems Corridor, and Forestry Resource) that reflect the environmentally sensitive character
and silviculturally oriented use of the property.
The City Planning and Zoning Board on September 15, 2004 recommended to the City Council
that the Snowden property be annexed into the City.
The City and County Manager have discussed options for the respective councils' consideration,
which will be presented at the Workshop for direction by the respective Councils.
CAC/db
Attachment
c: Dan Eckert, County Attorney
Montye E. Beamer, Director, Growth & Resource Management
Ben L. Dyer, Manager, Comprehensive Planning
Ron Paradise, Planner III
........
1
...
Joint Meeting of the Volusia County Council and the Edgewater City
Council
April 11, 2005
5:00 P.M.
Ii~
Cf:.
4PiP IV i::
CIJ-J.' # )' ?~~. lJ
"z,41\t.
~G~1y
Edgewater Community Center
102 North Riverside Drive
Edgewater
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION BY THE MAYOR AND
CHAIR
III. REMARKS BY EDGEWA TER CITY MANAGER AND VOLUSIA
COUNTY MANAGER
IV. PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE _
OVERVIEW OF PLAN AND PROCESS
V. DISCUSSION BY CITY OF EDGEWATER CITY COUNCIL AND
VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL
VI. DIRECTION TO STAFF AND IDENTIFICATION OF NEXT STEPS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
",-.
--:-
~ Inter-()J71ce
Memorandum
r@/"\)
.~_.
. .
. - .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
........' . .........
". . ,"
.................
Jyl$c~
4{;lv~ .
4P/?!! 7. ~IJ
C/""y , 1IJfJJ
M.q/V4
G€"1f
~
TO:
Honorable Members of the County
Council
DATE:
April 7, 2005
FROM:
Cynthia A. Coto
County Manager
FILE NO:
SUBJECT: Joint Workshop W/City of Edgewater
The City of Edgewater had its first reading for annexation of about 5,600 acres of land on
October 4, 2004. However, the City delayed the second reading of the annexation. The second
and final reading of the annexation was scheduled to occur on March 7, 2005. The City of
Edgewater agreed to delay the second reading of the annexation until May so that the elected
officials for the City and County could attend a joint meeting. The meeting has been scheduled
for April 11 at 5:00 p.m. at the Edgewater Community Center, 102 North Riverside Drive.
BackQround
The property is owned by the Snowden family and the annexation application was initiated by the
development company Highway 442 Partners, LLC. Most of the Snowden property proposed for
annexation is located well west of 1-95 and is situated just to the south of the existing corporate
limits of New Smyrna Beach. A map of the area is attached.
Currently, most of the property proposed for annexation located west of 1-95 is designated on the
County's Future Land Use Map with non-urban, low intensity land use categories (Environmental
Systems Corridor, and Forestry Resource) that reflect the environmentally sensitive character
and silviculturally oriented use of the property.
The City Planning and Zoning Board on September 15, 2004 recommended to the City Council
that the Snowden property be annexed into the City.
The City and County Manager have discussed options for the respective councils' consideration,
which will be presented at the Workshop for direction by the respective Councils.
CAC/db
Attachment
c: Dan Eckert, County Attorney
Montye E. Beamer, Director, Growth & Resource Management
Ben L. Dyer, Manager, Comprehensive Planning
Ron Paradise, Planner III
CITY'S COMMITMENT
1. Land will be entitled through Development of Regional Impact (DR!)
process.
2. The Smart Growth Implementation Committee's recommendation
will be utilized in development of the property.
3. Roadway improvements (Williamson Boulevard and Airport Road)
will be the responsibility of the developer.
4. City will contract with County's Environmental staff for review and
permitting related to wetlands/wildlife.
5. Based on a preliminary Environmental Assessment, up to 45% of the
property is wetlands and shall be preserved through conservation
easements (SJRWMD, County, City).
CITY/COUNTY GOAL
Develop a Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement; this is beneficial to City
and County.
I:\liz _ docs\CityHallSitemotesfor0411 05
,. ...,
t.
Annexati'on
REceIVED
D · t OCT 1 1 2001
IS P U e5Develorment
and the Joint Planning
~~" Area Agreement
,
..
Background
Annexation, the statutory pro-
cess whereby municipalities
expand their jurisdictional
boundaries, has become an area of
increasing tension between many
cities and counties in Florida.
On one hand, municipalities are
eager to expand their boundaries and
provide a larger base for- providing
services. Property owners are often
drawn to smaller and potentially
. more responsive local governments.
For undeveloped parcels, annexation
can mean flexibility with land use
regulations and comprehensive plan
requirements.
On the other hand, counties have
expectations of revenue streams, in-
cluding permitting fees, utility con-
nection charges, monthly utility
charges, impact fees, public service tax
revenues and gas tax revenues. Facili-
ties, such as fire stations, servicing
unincorporated areas can be ren-
dered obsolete in the face of massive
and unexpected annexations. Nei-
ther cities nor counties can efficiently
plan for future utility infrastructure.
The provision of police and fire ser-
vices becomes complicated when an-
nexation creates enclaves resulting in
a checkerboard pattern of jurisdic-
tions.
S6 Florida League of Cities
The annexation laws in Florida
(Chapter 171, Florida Statutes) are
premised on the idea that as areas in
rural counties seek to develop and ur-
banize, it is necessary to annex into
a city in order to receive services to
accomplish these goals. However, the
emergence of non-ad valorem fi-
nancing mechanisms for counties
and other statutory changes have re-
sulted in modern urban counties,
many of which have their own char-
ters, that have become a kind of "su-
per city," providing the same services
as municipalities.
Joint Planning Area
Agreements
One of the most viable solutions
to avoid inevitable annexation dis-
putes is the use of a Joint Planning
Area Agreement ("JPA Agreement")
between a city and county. The JPA
Agreement is an interlocal agreement
between two or more jurisdictions
designed to spell out in advance how
land use decisions, service provision
and ultimate jurisdictional control
in the areas between jurisdictions
will be handled. The agreement es-
sentially escalates intergovernmental
coordination from that of a well-in-
tentioned catch phrase in a compre-
hensive plan to that of a contrac-
tual obligation between parties.
Cities and counties have the gen-
eral home rule authority to enter into
JPA Agreements and also now have
specific statutory authority (and leg-
islative encouragement) to become
parties to these agreements. Specifi-
cally, Section 163.3171, Florida Stat-
utes, provides that:
(1) . . . Unincorporated areas ad-
jacent to incorporated municipali-
ties may be included in the areas
of municipal jurisdiction for the
purposes of this act if the govern-
ing bodies of the municipality and
the county in: which the area is
located agree on the boundaries
of such additional areas, on pro-
cedures for joint action in the
preparation and adoption of the
comprehensive plan, on proce-
dures for the administration for
land development regulations or
the land development code appli-
cable thereto, and on the. manner
of representation on any joint
body or instrument that may be
created under the joint agree-
ment.. .
....
.......
~
Furt~ermore, Section 163.3177
(},~) La, Florida Statutes, requires com-
prehensive plans to identify and
imp1ement joint planning areas, par-
ticul,arly for annexation and joint
infrastructure and services.
A checklist of items that maybe
appropriate for a JPA Agreement in-
clude the following:
· Future annexation areas
· Utility territorial areas
· Identification of police and fire ser-
vice and infrastructure areas
· Joint concurrency
· Revenue sharing (example: county
retain's portion of public service
tax upon annexation of an area)
· Restrictive zoning in unique/his-
toric/rural settlement areas
· Implementation of joint ordi-
nances to ensure consistent regu-
lations in corridor enhancement
or other similar "viewshed" areas
· Joint land use map or compatibil-
ity matrix
· Mutually agreeable clarification of
terms such as "contiguity," "com-
pact" and "enclave"
· Implementation of city's land de-
velopment regulations and issu-
ance of development orders after
annexations, but prior to compre-
hensive plan amendments
· Use of city regulations or overlays
for enclave areas
· Provisions for dispute resolution
(example: multi-jurisdictional
planning council)
· Identification of potential joint
grant opportunities
· Reciprocal notice of development
applications
. Remedies for noncompliance
Other Alternatives
The benefits of a well-drafted JPA
Agreement are real and substantial.
Fixing a Joint Planning Area bound-
ary fosters long-term capital facilities
planning and predictability, mini-
mizes inter-jurisdictional land use
conflicts and helps identify oppor-
tunities for joint projects and fund-
ing.
What happens, however, when
jurisdictions lack the resources or
political will, or otherwise can't agree
on ways to solve or preempt annex-
ation and related inter-jurisdictional
land use disputes? One remedy be-
ing sought in Sarasota County is use
of a charter county's authority un-
der Section 171.044(4), Florida Stat-
utes, to establish an "exclusive" pro-
cess for voluntary annexations.
Sarasota County seeks in a Nov. 7,
2000 special election to create the
following annexation requirements:
(1) the creation of a detailed report
chronicling existing and planned
service provision, land uses and re-
lated information; (2) consent by the
county (unless waiver of this require-
ment is provided for in an interlocal
agreement between the county and
annexing municipality); (3) referen-
dum approval by the annexing mu-
nicipality (unless waived by the
county); (4) the ability of the annex-
ing municipality to override the
county's denial of an annexation by
referendum.
At the time of print of this article,
it is not known whether Sarasota's
charter amendment has passed.
However, the proposal is an interest-
ing and rather dramatic example of
one county's attempt to fill some of
the voids in the annexation statute
by mandating annexations mutually
agreed to by the county and annex-
ing jurisdiction when a JPA Agree-
ment cannot be reached.
Conclusion
The Growth Management Study
Commission appointed by Gov. Jeb
Bush, which is currently meeting, is
in a unique position to study the is-
sues mentioned in this article and
provide recommendations for legis-
lative change. In the absence of such
change, it is likely the scenarios such
as that in Sarasota County will be-
come more frequent unless jurisdic-
tions can muster the political will
and technocratic competency to
implement a comprehensive Joint.
Planning Area Agreement._
Alison Yurko is a board certified local
government attorney who has written
and lectured extensively on the topic of
annexation, property rights and related
local government issues. She has previ-
OilS served as an assistant county attor-
ney for Orange County and was a part-
ner at the Gray, Harris and Robinson
law finn. She now works from her home
in Orlando and can be reached at
tpcallan@aol.com. Ms. Yurko wishes to
thank Chris Testerman, interim Orange
County planning manager, for providing
background information for this article.
I
Quality Cities - November/December 2000 57