Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/2007 (3)INDEX TO MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP REGARDING CHARTER GOVERNMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER - 9:00 A.M. 1 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 3. PRESENTATION ON CHARTER GOVERNMENT IN FLORIDA2 KURT,SPITZER, KURT,SPITZER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 A. DRAFT OF HOME RULE CHARTER — FOR USE AS A DISCUSSION GUIDE 2 4. BOARD DISCUSSION/COMMENTS 4 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS 13 7. ADJOURNMENT 13 April 12, 2007 9am 1 Charter Government Workshop April 12, 2007 PUBLIC WORKSHOP OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING CHARTER GOVERNMENT The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in a Public Workshop at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., to discuss Charter Government. Present for Indian River County were Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chair Sandra L. Bowden, Commissioners Wesley S. Davis, Joseph E. Flescher and Peter D. O'Bryan. Also present were County Administrator Joseph A. Baird, County Attorney William G. Collins II, and Deputy Clerk Athena Adams. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 9:00 A.M. Chairman Gary C. Wheeler called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE County Attorney William Collins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. April 12, 2007 9am 1 Charter Government Workshop 3. PRESENTATION ON CHARTER GOVERNMENT IN FLORIDA KURT SPITZER, KURT SPITZER & ASSOCIATES, INC. A. DRAFT OF HOME RULE CHARTER - FOR USE AS A DISCUSSION GUIDE Consultant Kurt Spitzer informed the Board that he would first recap some of the basics on Charter government for the people who were not at last week's Workshop. Thereafter he would go over the revisions that have been made to the Draft Charter. Mr. Spitzer thought that fundamental to the discussion for Charter government in Indian River County is the understanding of Home Rule in comparison to Dillon's Rule, which provides a local government with only those powers that are specifically granted to it by the State (by Constitution, Statute or Special Act). He advised that authorization is provided under Dillon's Rule and Pre-emption is provided under Home Rule. In 1968 Home Rule replaced Dillon's Rule and out of the 67 counties in Florida 19 have adopted Charters. Mr. Spitzer stated that under general provision it is important to remember that Charters are only adopted, amended or repealed by the voters of the county. He outlined the four (4) primary areas that the Charter covers, namely: Legislative/Executive Branch, County Constitutional Officers, City -County Relations, and Powers reserved to the people of the county. He also compared charter and non -charter counties and cities under Home Rule. Mr. Spitzer then presented the "Discussion Draft" of the Charter (copy on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board). He informed the Board that since they last looked at the Charter document there has been a lot of language that have been deleted both in the section dealing with the Powers and Duties of the Commission and the Powers and Duties of the County Administrator. He assured the Board that those deletions were already covered in General law or served to operate as limitations on the County's Legislative body or the County Administrator. He said the current April 12, 2007 9am 2 Charter Government Workshop Draft does not reflect any substantive changes from the previous version and there were no significant changes (in the current draft) as to how the Legislative body or the County Administrator operates. The Discussion Draft establishes a Commissioner/Administrator form of government where the Commission Legislative body is responsible for setting Legislative Policy and the Administrator is responsible for the implementation of that policy, and there is a separation of power between the two branches of government. Mr. Spitzer then reviewed changes to the Legislative Branch (County Commission) regarding meetings and powers of the Board. He also reviewed changes to Articles III and IV (Administrative Branch and Departments), which provide that general law and policy set in the Administrative Code will control, and there was also a non-interference clause, which attempts to prohibit commissioners from giving direct instructions to employees. Other revisions pertained to the County Attorney's reporting responsibility, and there were no changes to Constitutional Officers positions or authorities. There were changes in terms of county/city relations regarding prevailing ordinance. Mr. Spitzer explained that under the Initiative Process citizens are authorized to propose ordinances by a petition process, which requires signatures equal to 8% of the registered voters. Citizens' ordinances will be limited by a "single -subject" rule and certain subject matters are prohibited. He advised that Proposed Charter Amendments may be by a Special Act of the Legislative Delegation, and the three most common ways an amendment to an existing Charter is proposed is by an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners, by Petition process (requiring signatures equal to 12% of the electorate in each of the five Commission districts) or a Charter Review Commission (CRC). April 12, 2007 9am 3 Charter Government Workshop He stated that the Charter Review Commission requires that the Board appoint a Charter Review Commission every 10 years, with 15 members who operate independently of the Board of County Commissioners; they are given one year to complete work; they work independently and recommendations go directly to the ballot. He also stated that the Planning Process empowers the Board of County Commissioners (if voters agree) to adopt ordinances regulating building height for new construction that are effective countywide. In the same process, the County's Comprehensive Plan existing on the effective date of the Charter would prevail in the areas outside the urban service boundary even after a city annexes that particular area. Mr. Spitzer concluded stating that amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan adopted by an ordinance may be amended only by a majority -plus -one vote of the county commission. Mr. Spitzer then invited questions from the Board. 4. BOARD DISCUSSION/COMMENTS Commissioner O'Bryan had the following comments/questions: (1) Under Section 1.8 which reads "in the event a county ordinance and a municipal ordinance shall cover the same subject matter without conflict, ...", seemed a little vague. He asked if there was a way to tighten up that wording to make it clearer. (2) Under Section 2.3 (Qualifications and Election) regarding a commissioner's removal of residency from a district, he wanted to know if they could put a clause in that says "... remove from the residence except for causes by natural disaster (fire or hurricanes)." (3) Under Section 3 regarding Powers and Duties (county employees becoming at -will employees) it seemed the wording has changed from when he last read it. April 12, 2007 9am 4 Charter Government Workshop Mr. Spitzer promised to look at Commissioner O'Bryan's concerns and get back to him. To the third concern, he explained that the current practice would remain and the only at -will employees would be the two charter officers (County Attorney and County Administrator). County Attorney William Collins also addressed at -will issues. Discussion then ensued regarding whether direction/approval was needed from the Board for certain staff positions. Board members did not like the possibility of the Board approving personnel/department heads and wanted to leave it non-political. It was pointed out that the Board did not have the option to change the powers and duties of County Administrator if Charter is adopted by ordinance. Administrator Baird voiced strong opposition to the seemingly lack of choice he would have in the matter. Mr. Spitzer suggested that the Board could investigate whether the fact that this Charter is being proposed by a Part IV process forever lock the citizens of Indian River County into this particular system, or once the Charter is adopted or simultaneously with the presentation of the Charter, could an amendment to the Charter be considered to remove the requirement of consent. Attorney Collins did not believe they could have an amendment that would be inconsistent with General Law, and changing that provision in General Law could give rise to an inconsistency. Commissioner O'Bryan inquired if, under Sections 6.1.3 and 7.3.2 regarding limitation on changes by Petition, there could be additional language stating that changes to the powers, duties and functions of the Constitutional officers are also excluded from changes by Petition. Mr. Spitzer believed this already prohibits ordinances by petitions dealing with Constitutionals, and the real effect of that question is that they could do Charter by Petition. April 12, 2007 9am 5 Charter Government Workshop Commissioner O'Bryan's intent was to protect the Constitutional Officers as much as possible so they retain their powers. He asked if the 10 -year Charter Review process could be done every eight (8) years to coincide with the Presidential election cycle. He also inquired whether allowing the scheduling process to begin July 1st would allow it to be placed on the November ballot. To the former question Mr. Spitzer said it could be done and to the latter replied, "Yes." Mr. Spitzer responded to Commissioner O'Bryan's question of whether the Board has any options as to what they want on the ballot. He explained that the CRC is an independent body and their final actions are not subject to the operational rejections or amendments of the Board and they are not bound by a single -subject rule. Mr. Spitzer revealed that in addition to the Planning Supplement given the Board yesterday, there was a "housekeeping" change to subsection 3.3 in relation to the powers of the County Administrator. He recommended that the following revised sentence be added to the beginning of subsection 3.3: "The County Administrator shall be head of the executive branch of county government; shall have the executive powers and duties that are now and that hereafter may be granted to the County Administrator by the laws of the State of Florida and this Charter; ...". Commissioner Bowden asked why the section was initially revised. Mr. Spitzer said they had deleted a significant portion of those provisions and this was just an oversight. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Cadden, Mayor of Indian River Shores, had concerns with Section 1.5 (Transfer of Powers) because he had heard that we have Constitutional protection for both assets and people April 12, 2007 9am 6 Charter Government Workshop movement between municipality and county. Now, there is seeing a difference of opinion between Attorneys who disagree that transfer of function would be protected. He then asked for dual referendum protection of the language, which he submitted to the Board. He was told the Comprehensive Plan could be changed without an Ordinance. Mayor Cadden wanted to add language to Section 1.8 regarding heights and densities. He commented that if heights and densities are changed and they are increased over what the municipalities' Comprehensive Plan call for then the municipalities would rule. Under Charter Review he also wanted language added stating that each municipality is represented on the Charter Review Commission. Commissioner O'Bryan asked Mr. Spitzer if "elected officials" applied to the municipalities or just the County elected officials. Mr. Spitzer said it applies to city, county and county constitutional officers. He advised that they could change the section (in the Charter) to require that there is at least one resident from each city within the county. Chairman Wheeler liked the idea. Mr. Spitzer made clear the constitutional mandate for transfer of policies versus powers. Discussion then ensued among Board members regarding dual referendum. Mayor Tom White, City of Vero Beach, wanted municipalities to have the option to vote on anything that would affect them. He urged the Board to look at dual referendum. Commissioner Davis remarked that it is the same thing that Fellsmere is asking. John Higgs, Indian River Shores, wanted to be sure the County could not increase height restrictions in Indian River Shores. He believed the language that is drafted now makes that clear. He also agreed with Mayor White that it was a good idea for a Charter Review Commission to April 12, 2007 9am 7 Charter Government Workshop have at least one representative from each municipality. He felt the more difficult issue was dual referendum. He stated that the Indian River Neighborhood Association (IRNA) believe dual referendum is a good idea and believed a good argument could be presented to show it is legally permitted. He believed there were two different issues to be looked at: (1) the transfer of powers that is permitted under the Constitution and should be put in by dual referendums; and (2) could dual referendum be required for Comprehensive plan amendments. Jason Nunemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere, asked if it would be possible to apportion the Charter Review Committee based on district. He asked the Board to consider that so they could all have equal representation from each city should the Charter go forward. Chairman Wheeler thought it might not be a bad idea to have representatives from each District and of the 15 members, five would be nominated from each county municipality; each Commissioner would nominate one (1) person from his/her District and there would be five (5) members at -large. Commissioner O'Bryan agreed. Mr. Spitzer believed that the wording suggested by Chairman Wheeler could be put in the Charter. John Williams, 1535 Smugglers Cove, understood the motive for the "12% of electorate" provisions, but was concerned that this is not a proper move for the County to take and wished the Board would look at 8% or 6%, which seemed more agreeable. He shared his views on the Powers of the County Administrator, Charter Review Commission and Dual Referendum. He believed dual referendum should not give Fellsmere veto power over the future of every resident that wants to and could come here. April 12, 2007 9am 8 Charter Government Workshop Chairman Wheeler questioned how it could be stated if the Board did not want to be in a position to give advice and consent to the County Administrator in policies. Attorney Collins explained how that could be done through adoption of a resolution. Administrator Baird voiced his concerns believing that it takes the professionalism out of government and makes it political. Nancy Offutt, representing Treasure Coast Builders Association, found it ironic they were talking about how politics would affect and influence staff's decisions or planning, which is their whole objection to Charter government. She thinks the disparity between the 8% for adoption initially and the 12% thereafter are valid criticisms of what the County is looking to do right now. Ms. Offutt also an irony in pushing Charter Review through by ordinance instead of giving it the broad base public input it deserves. She believed Charter was not protecting municipalities but exercising more jurisdictions and autonomy. In the matter of development rights for new constructions she questioned whether we were making existing structures non -conforming, and at what point would expansion of the Commission be considered. Commissioner O'Bryan, Ms. Offutt and Chairman Wheeler exchanged views on expansion of the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Offutt wanted to see broader representation by the County because she saw a concentration of influence among Board members. Don Studley, Vero Beach, argued that just because others do not want certain infrastructure does not mean the people of Fellsmere do not want it. He believed the man -in -the -street did not understand Charter government. Chairman Wheeler addressed the seriousness of the proposed annexation and how it could change the face of Indian River County. April 12, 2007 9am 9 Charter Government Workshop The Chairman called a break at 10:31 a.m. and reconvened the Workshop at 10:52 a.m., with Vice Chair Bowden absent. George Christopher, Vero Beach, strongly endorsed Mayors White and Cadden's requests. On the Supplemental provision, Section 1.8.1, which deals with development outside the urban service line, he had asked that the draft be looked at carefully by Attorney Collins and Director Keating to make sure that (1) it seems to be applying to any Comprehensive Plan amendments; and (2) the only ones it should apply to is those that change land designations in the rural lands. (Clerk's Note: Vice Chair Bowden rejoined the Meeting at 10:55 a.m.) Mr. Christopher discussed parcel restrictions and suggested the Board give consideration and debate if there is to be any increase in the densities over and above what is permitted under the current Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Davis thought it would be hypocritical not to let the cities have input in what the County does. Mr. Christopher also had concerns about timing issues. Commissioner Davis believed the annexations coming to the City of Fellsmere were not developers but farmers. He agreed that time was of the essence but did not know if the process could be stopped. Mr. Christopher believed that once development rights are created there would be a three times increase in density. Mr. Christopher and Commissioner Davis debated Fellsmere's proposal to annex lands and who would decide on such developments. April 12, 2007 9am 10 Charter Government Workshop Administrator Baird suggested that the City of Fellsmere and the Board of County Commissioners have a workshop to clear up misinformation about annexation. Chairman Wheeler was willing to have a workshop with Fellsmere. City Manager Nunemaker, for the record, responded to comments regarding his City vehicles. He remarked that the assumption on the 230,000 is predicated on annexations that are currently not contiguous, and those properties do not have the ability to come into Fellsmere, so it was ingenuous to use the assertion that it is a net addition. He believed the collective actions of this Board have pushed certain reactions in Fellsmere. Mr. Nunemaker was willing to have a workshop with the County. Chairman Wheeler thought there might be concerns and a lack of credibility on both sides and wanted a legal document drawn up that says we are going to set things aside. Vice Chair Bowden suggested they try to work out the Interlocal Agreement jointly. Commissioner Flescher inquired what could be expected of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) from Fellsmere. Mr. Nunemaker explained that at tonight's meeting they would be initiating a broad resolution, which should provide the initiating parameters. Commissioner Flescher asked Mr. Spitzer whether an ILA was forthcoming or being initiated and how that would affect the Charter government aspect of the application. Mr. Spitzer thought they could move, for the time being, on a parallel track and then at some point in time maybe one or the other option would be dropped. Commissioner Flescher's concern was that an ILA may have varying levels of opt -out or participation levels for each municipality, and believed that might contradict some of the elements of the Charter. April 12, 2007 9am 11 Charter Government Workshop Chairman Wheeler was willing to freeze everything and continue dialogue if Fellsmere was willing to take annexation off the table. Discussion continued among Board Members and City Manager Nunemaker regarding the realistic potential or outcome from workshops, and whether it was a possibility for Fellsmere if the Board freezes its Charter process and they move forward from there. (Clerk's Note: Vice Chair Bowden was excused from the Meeting because of a prior commitment - 11:29 a.m.). Andrew Kennedy, 535 Eugenia Road, saw it as "a kind of an abdication of duties" leaving things to the people to decide what should happen. He felt it was a lot to understand about urban service line and Charter government, and there was a lot more to be looked at. Ital Veron, Indian River Shores, urged the Board to consider "speed" because things were out of their hands resulting from the aggressive moves made by Fellsmere. He felt the one great thing that happened to this County 33 years ago, was not done by government, it was by the people, by referendum, and it created height restrictions and what we have today. Mr. Veron and Commissioner Davis engaged in further discussions regarding increase of density, height limits, and changes in land use designation in Fellsmere. Mr. Nunemaker pointed out that there was no approval in Fellsmere in excess of 35 feet, that was a fundamental misstatement of fact, and they do have the ability to grant as a conditional use but that was not how it was being portrayed. In relation to costs, he felt another discussion needed to be had on the ability to negotiate from a vested rights perspective. He also argued that the City of Fellsmere has increased the net usable acreage for commercial/industrial and that was not pointed out in a recent presentation. April 12, 2007 9am 12 Charter Government Workshop There were no others speakers and the Chairman closed the public comments. 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS There were no concluding remarks from the Board and the Chairman declared the Workshop adjourned. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the Chairman adjourned the Workshop at 11:42 a.m. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman Minutes Approved: April 12, 2007 9am 13 Charter Government Workshop