Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint Meeting Minutes 03-30-2009BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE Date: Mazch 30, 2009 Convened: 1:00 p.m. Adjourned: 5:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Paula A. Lewis, Chazles Grande, Doug Coward, Chris Dzadovsky, Chris Craft Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk City of Ft. Pierce Commission: Mayor Benton, Christine Coke, Edward Beck, Reginald Sessions, Rufus Alexander City of Ft. Pierce Staff: Mr. Recor, City Manager, Rob Schwerer, City Attorney Opening remarks were made by the Ft. Pierce City Manager. Annexation Issues Pursuant to Chapter 171,Part II, The Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act Mr. Recor alluded to the discussion regazding the Resolution action taken by the County and what it would take for the City not to annex the Research Pazk and their response. The County Administrator addressed the events which took place regarding the County's initiating the Resolution and the City's response to the Resolution. Mr. Recor alluded to the fact the city had brought forward over 190 parcels now 200 pazcels scheduled for annexation within the last yeaz and it is a matter of circumstance that they became adjacent or contiguous to the property at the Reseazch Park. These annexations were scheduled. They had the first reading however the second reading has been postponed at the county's request to allow them the opportunity for the Boards to get together and identify the circumstances where the city would be willing to postpone or not annex the Reseazch Pazk property. Mr. Recor pointed out the FPUA retail service area noted in yellow on a map provided as well as others azeas noted in different colors. The yellow azea noted was pointed out as where the annexation agreement is in existence but aze yet to be annexed. The city is interested in what they call turning yellow to green. The areas in green identify the current municipal boundaries. The city would postpone annexing the Research Park if the yellow azeas can be turned green i.e allow them through legislative annexation to bring those properties in yellow within the retail service azea to green. Com. Coke recommended starting some place where they have a common ground and move forward on a more positive note. Com. Craft stated he concurred with Com. Coke's comments and noted there is no support on the Board of County Commissioners regarding the legislative amnexation. He would like to start somewhere in between and identify a core azea of infill to work with the city. He felt they could start there. Mr. Recor stated the question would be, is it enough? Is that enough for the city to postpone annexation. Com. Grande stated he would like to get the concept of annexation and municipal growth unintelligible comments. Com. Beck -unintelligible comments Com. Craft stated he believes all the issues will be addressed. He stated if they can work out a meaningful strategy for the county and the city to work together and attempt to enhance their annexation policy and bring more revenue into the city and turn yellow to green and some of the purple gray areas to green. He would like to stick to the action and discussion between these two Boards and not anticipation of what another Board may be doing. He does not want to continue with a competing strategy but have a common strategy. He would like to work on a comprehensive strategy for economic development in the areas of Kings Highway, Midway Road and work with our municipal governments also in order to do so. Com. Coward stated he does not believe any of the Commissioners are against turning yellow to green. It is how it is to be accomplished. The first issue was on involuntary annexation and as a matter of principal the Board does not support this. There are additional ways this can be achieved however. The County wishes to promote diversifying the taxbase and providing quality jobs in the city of Ft. Pierce and the County. There are ways the county can work with the city and there are ways they cannot. If the city's annexation has a detrimental way of affecting the county's ongoing projects then that is something they would not support. There is a void, a missed opportunity where the city and the county could be working together to bring more economic development. He believes this can be done in and around the Research Park and they need to identify their goals in order to do this. Com. Coward stated they had gone from countless lawsuits in the past years to the uncontested annexation today. It shows the county indeed wishes to work with the city. Out of 200 lawsuits there is only one issue that remains. It may not be a give away but it shows a flexibility. The county would be interested in working with the city on voluntary annexations in infill areas. Com. Sessions stated the real issue is the Research Park. He requested justification showing that it was detrimental for him not to vote the annexation in at the next meeting. He proposed legislative annexation as being the only way to achieve what the city wants unless he can be convinced otherwise. Com. Dzadovsky stated the County is not saying they will not let the annexation of the Park take place, the County would like to have only one governmental entity handling certain aspects of the Research Park. He has always been asked by those interested in the Park how many governmental bodies are involved. The Board would like control of the Park due to the funds allocated by the County. He believes the Park is not a bargaining chip here today. He is concerned with corporations coming in and not wanting to deal with more than one entity. Com. Craft stated he is more concerned with the question of is the timing appropriate;. He believes they need to work together. Com. Coward stated the key issue is competitiveness of the community. They are competing with other states. The City annexation strategies should mirror St. Lucie County in order to bring in companies. He sees this now as a millage issue for the city. Com. Alexander stated he is not in support of the annexation of the Research Park. Com. Grande stated they should take the park as the block of contiguity off the table. The Park will not bring in income in the short term. What it will bring you if you would like to partner with the county is our bill and he believes this is not in the best interest of the city today. He believes they need to work together with the Park Board to work out a long term solution. The Park is in their service area and will probably wind up in the city of Ft. Pierce, however as long as it is not blocking contiguity to the type of properties they would like to get to, why should they be get hung up on the Research Park today. 2 Com. Coke stated the city would like to work as a partnership. They do not want to tie up economic growth. She stated they had stated last year as a board that whatever the tax abatement County was willing to give these people the city would also enter into an identical agreement with them. She would like to see if they could enter into an agreement to jointly work on the planning of what will be coming into Ft. Pierce, and jointly work on a tax abatement program. If they have no input and then it is there, the city would be responsible when a hurricane hits and if FEMA would not pay for repairs. Mayor Benton stated they needed to model what the County has done on the tax abatement program and the city should have one mirrored to the countys. Com. Coward stated if they can remain competitive on the tax abatement progams then it would help with the surrounding areas of the Research Park. There is a tremendous opportunity to draw additional jobs adjacent to the park. They need to make sure the surrounding property owners, community and the two bodies are working together on the land use plan. Com. Craft stated they want to make sure the city knows the county wants to work with the city on a common policy. Com. Grande stated he would like to take apart the concept of the park having to be annexed to participate in the planning of it. (Ba-ance of comments unintelligible.) Com. Lewis stated the concept of dual jurisdiction bothers many people. They need to discuss deferrals, she is not sure the city is contiguous to the Research Park point to point according to the statute. She cannot see it being of great benefit to the city. Com. Beck stated the point to point issue will need to be discussed. He sees more of a problem with the deferral annexation issue than with the dual taxation issue. He has concerns with the planning, but is not interested in creating a new code just for the Park. He questioned how do they permit things that are going to happen in the Research Park whether they annex it or the county keeps it. Com. Craft he would rather develop a common strategy so that there will not be a need for it to be submitted to the city. They can have a common code with the city and it would be a matter of the county's interpretation being the right way. Com. Coward stated the best thing may be the city review those standards and make recommendations and come up with one standard everyone can be happy with and once it is in place rather than having dual permitting they should have one entity to implement that code. Once they get the Park standard established, then they can work collectively on the surrounding areas of the Park. The County Attorney advised the Board and those present it is his opinion that Chapter 171 permits waving contiguity and compactness but not waiving consent. Com. Craft stated he could not see the benefit of annexing the jail. Com. Coke stated her understanding was that you would look into establishing an overlay district when it can annex the park in a deferred time frame. Com. Coward stated the entire park was not in the urban service boundary and it was not appropriate to annex outside the urban services boundary. The annexation plan should mirror what is in place. He expressed his concern with annexation jumping out into the agricultural areas. Mayor Benton stated annexing outside the urban service boundary should be off limits. Com. Beck stated he disagreed with this position and expressed his concern with the City of Port St.Lucie expanding north and annexing. Com. Alexander stated he concurred with Com. Coward. Com. Coke stated she believed when an area reaches a certain population density it should be made part of the city. Should the land use change, she believes it needs to become part of the city. However if it should remain agricultural she would not recommend it be annexed. Com. Beck stated he would like to move forward with the agreement. The City Manager stated he could still like to review 171 Part II and identify properties the city would waive contiguity if a legal opinion can be obtained. Com. Dzadovsky recommended making the 4 properties part of the agreement that can be used and contiguous. Com. Beck stated he would like a report as to what it would mean if the County is permitted to do all the planning. Com. Coward stated there are bigger issues that have not been adequately addressed today and would like to look at the broader issues. He has trouble with the city annexing agricultural areas outside the urban service boundary. He believes there is not need to change Ag lands when they have a lot of land in the urban service bounday that is undeveloped. He believes the issue is how the city is growing not that you should. He does not believed more rental units and housing will deversify the tax base and he would like more jobs in the county rather than roof tops. Com. Beck stated he was very concerned with Port St. Lucie attempting to tie the city's hands. He would need an "opt out "clause if the city of Port St. Lucie moves forward. Com. Craft recommended the County pursue an agreement with the city of Port St. Lucie and believes they can work it out and stated he would support an opt out clause. Utilities discussion unintelligible Item VI -County development of Harbour Point property adjacent to Port of Ft. Pierce. Discussion: Com. Beck addressed the RFQ for this property and stated the county had one response ..... anon-responsive two years ago. His point being that he would like for the county not to lose site of this resource and asset... would like to make a go of it.... the little diamond...... part of the Ft. Pierce waterfront . Com. Craft stated he believes.... the county knows and the property is going to be developed in the vision adopted by both the city and the county. However, until they know what will happen with the greater property, it's really difficult to have someone come in and set the tone because they don't know what the neighbor is going to do. When they have Mr. Bell in the right position to move in that direction, the county will at that point move forward and he would be happy to send out an RFQ again. Comments unintelligible Com. Grande's comments were unintelligible Com. Beck stated he appreciated the county sending out the RFQ but he thinks there is less danger in the county setting the tone than they believe. They all have had individual conversations and the county could set the tone if they could some how get someone interested in the property and give us $10 million for the infrastructure. Com. Lewis stated they were not as concerned as some of the folks with the devised plans were a few years ago who asked what Mr. Bell was going to do and she replied they did not know. 4 Com. Beck stated the city of Port St. Lucie; the County and the City of Ft. Pierce wit: Representative Gayle Harrell all went up to cabinet and fought to prevent him from doing something they felt collectively was inappropriate development..... If the developer does not understand .....If he does not buy the acres..... Com. Lewis stated this may be true but she was unable to convince the folks they needed to take a stand. Com. Cowazd stated he agreed with Com. Beck (comments fade in and out) stated they had the mind set that they wanted to develop it as one entire azea and worked with Mr. Bell for 10 yeazs with no progress .... and had anon-responsive, if they want the county to put it back out he would agree to do so but what aze they going to get its timing. Mayor Benton stated in the past he remembered when the county was looking at having and had several joint meetings and presentations........ If they could put something out together and if the people came to city and the city could submit the zoning around them especially as re-development and there aze a lot of azeas that they will support what they aze doing getting that from the city. Having the city at the table itself they may feel not comfortable. Doing joint presentations together maybe start the project together. Com. Coward's response unintelligible. Mr. Recor stated the city just went out for RFP on the Fisherman's Whazf property... (I think Com. Craft stated this) maybe the CRA can build the project on the property and lease it out or sell it. Mr. Recor stated that would have been a great discussion 3 years ago but not today. Com. Dzadovsky commented on possible using available grants for road development. Com. Coward commented on grants that may be available or Port Council dollars for infrastructure purposes which would make the RFQ and the opportunity for development more likely. Com.Craft commented that last yeaz he had requested looking into a revenue source at the Port by chazging a fee for cazgo for infrastructure and also charging an aggregate for road improvements of a $1.00 ....per ton or something in that order for road improvements. Com. Cowazd stated they have a master plan but questioned if they had a design. Com.Grande comments unintelligible (very low). Someone asked about the language in the referendum. The County Attorney stated it had specific language..... Other comments unintelligible. At this time Com. Lewis moved on to item number seven. VII: County adoption of quantifiable objective mathematical formula to determine "fair share"contributions Unintelligible: It was the consensus to have county staff and city staff schedule a worksession to discuss this issue. VIII: Paving and drainage of County roads within or adjacent to City limits. Com. Alexander addressed the 50% + 1 outcome for providing water to any area. He stated the city was pursuing annexation for Sheraton Plaza and it would be on the ballot in November. He requested the County to join in the effort to inform the general public about annexation costs. Staff was directed to come back with a report of specific roads and infrastructure. The meeting was adjourned. 6