Loading...
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