HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/1984i
r
Tuesday, April 10, 1984
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County
Commission Chambers,, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Absent was Margaret C. Bowman due to illness. Also present
were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced
that it was for the purpose .of clarification of the County's
position regarding the proposed South Beach annexation by
the City of Vero Beach. It appears there has been a great
deal of misinformation on all sides as far as the County's
position, the City's, The Moorings, the property owners,
etc., are concerned. There has been a suggestion that the
County Commission initiated the request for annexation, and
that is totally untrue.. There is question about why the
Commission signed the consent card, and the Chairman
believed the obvious reason is that at the time there seemed
to be a very strong movement for annexation. The County
then became concerned about what would happen to the land we
acquired in that area fora public park if the annexation
did occur.: We, therefore, agreed to sign the consent card
based on the City entering into an agreement that we would
continue to develop that park under our master plan and the
City would not interfere. To ensure our long range develop-
ment plans, it was felt it was in the best interests of the
County to sign the agreement and agree to sign the consent
card. The Commission, however, took the position that we.
BOOK 56 PAGE` 67 3
4
AR -10_19
F -
APR 10 1984�+
BOOK 56 PAGE 674:'
would neither support nor oppose annexation, but basically
would let the people speak. Chairman Scurlock noted that
when this action was taken, Commissioner Wodtke was not
present, and Commissioner Wodtke felt there was need for
additional discussion on this issue since we now are seeing
a great deal of opposition. Chairman Scurlock then
expressed concern about a suggestion that the agreement
which would require the future development of Round Island
Park to be in the hands of the county might be invalid and
asked the County Attorney if he had any change in position
as to the validity of that agreement.
Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that one of the major
reasons the County entered into the agreement to begin with
was because the only input an absentee owner has is whether
or not to consent to the holding of a referendum, and the
County recognized it was conceivable that the City could
annex its park whether or not the County consented, in which
event the County would have no assurance whatsoever that we
would not be hampered in our development of the park.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he had assured the County
the agreement was legal and binding and that still is his
position; the City Attorney has indicated that is his
position also.
The Chairman asked the Board members for their
comments.
Commissioner Lyons wished to restate his position,
which is that he voted for the agreement and signing the
consent card only on the basis that we should not stand in
the way of the citizens having an opportunity to say yes or
no; he took no stand for or against annexation.
Attorney Brandenburg wished to note that although the
County signed and entered into this agreement, the County
can be for the annexation, against it, remain neutral, or
M
2
M
even actively work against it and still not violate the
terms of the agreement.
Commissioner Wodtke thanked the Chairman for calling
this special meeting to revisit the issue. He explained
that at the time this first came up he had concerns that the
County's 90 acres could be just the amount needed to put it
over the edge to allow the referendum to be held. He
understood why the Commission did agree to sign the consent
card in an effort to avoid future problems over park
development, but also understood why the property owners
could misconstrue this action as indicating that the County
favored the annexation and felt they were being "thrown to
the wolves." Commissioner Wodtke, therefore, wished to have
an opportunity to say that the South Beach area is about the
nicest area in the county, the best developed and with the
highest values; it is a very important asset to the County
and a significant part of our tax base, and he saw no real
need to have this County land in the City of Vero Beach as
he believed the utility problem can be solved whether this
land is in the City of Vero Beach or not.
Commissioner Wodtke continued that although he could
not make a Motion to reconsider the Board's action because
he was not present at the time it was taken, he would
strongly urge that they do reconsider. He personally would
like to rescind the card and the agreement, and then if the
remaining amount of the property in the South Beach is
enough to justify a referendum and annexation does occur, he
would hope and expect that we can sit down with reasonable
City Council members and work out our problems.
Chairman Scurlock felt it is obvious that things have
changed since the Commission took action, and he personally
would.like to ask the City to return our consent card and
let the annexation stand on its own merit, but not
necessarily take away the agreement regarding development of
3
APR 10 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 67,5,
APR 10 1984 BOOK 56 PACE 676
our park property. He did believe the agreement is legal
and did not want to break it. The Chairman believed that
some individuals in the area have asked for their cards back
and that they have been returned. In any event, he would
like to ask for the County park to be removed from the
annexation area and actively work towards this. The
Chairman continued that he would like to have a Resolution
clarifying our position, and stated that he personally was
in opposition to the annexation.
Commissioner Bird concurred with Commissioner Lyons
that at the time we agreed to send in the card, the County
was trying to let the democratic process work and not
interfere with it. We -also were trying to be cooperative
with the City since there are so many areas where we need to
cooperate, and it is only the taxpayers who suffer when we
aren't able to. Since that time, however, it now appears
that a large majority of the people in the South Beach area
want to stay in the County, and this makes him feel proud.
He also felt that Commissioner Wodtke hit it on the head
when he pointed that this area is a vital part of our tax
base in the MSTU fund with some 246 million in property
values. Commissioner Bird did feel that we have the ability
to accomplish providing services to the remaining part of
the South Beach area and stated that he would support the
concept of asking the card to be returned in a spirit of
cooperation, and if this can't be done, he would at least
like to see the County's portion of the property deleted
from the area to be annexed.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that whether or not we
get the card back, if the City does include our acreage, it
would be annexed with or without our permission, and that
was one of the reasons for the card and the agreement so
that we retain some control over our property. He then
raised the question of when is an enclave an enclave, noting
4
that we have an enclave now in the broadest sense between
the end of the City of Vero Beach and the South County line.
Assuming we can avoid annexation of our property, might that
not, in effect, negate the annexation of the remainder of
the area as the area could become so small that it would be
impractical to provide it with services?
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the law
regarding annexation was written in a very strange way and
is very easy to misunderstand. You don't necessarily have
an enclave because you are separated by a natural body of
water from the remaining properties, but a part of the
statute indicates if the area that is left is such that it
is very difficult to provide it with municipal services,
that then becomes a prohibitive factor also. This could be
an argument against annexation.
City Councilman William Cochrane asked for a chance for
some rebuttal from the City. He emphasized that he has
always felt that annexation must.be a two-way street; both
sides must want it in order for it to be successful.
However, he felt the actual issue today is that of not
allowing the people to vote. Mr. Cochrane believed that in
a way the County has led the City down a garden path - first
they vote one way and then withdraw the card, and he did not
feel that the County could withdraw the card without with-
drawing the contract. He continued that they have had a lot
of meetings on this subject, but most of them have been
dominated by what he calls the "have-nots"; the people who
are against it since very few who are for it attend the
meetings. Mr. Cochrane stated that he has not expressed an
opinion one way or the other and he does not intend to, but
he felt strongly that we should follow the democratic
process and give the people the opportunity to vote.
5
i 4
APR 10 X984
BOOK 56 Face 677
APR 1.0 1984 BOOK W"PAGE 678
8
Michael O'Haire took the floor and stated that he lives
in the area proposed to be annexed and.represents a number
of those who live there. He felt that the County's agree-
ment with the City, in effect, indicates their consent to
the annexation on the basis that City leaves them alone, and
it does seem to the property owners in the area that the
County has thrown them to the wolves. He further was tired
of hearing the "flag raising" bit of "follow the democratic
process and let them vote," when, as a matter of fact, only
8.6% of the land area of the area proposed to be annexed
will determine what happens to 100% of the area, and this,
in effect, is taxation without representation. The resi-
dents in the area do not view this as giving the democratic
process a chance. They rely on the county and are perfectly
content to be county residents, and they hope the County
will remain truly neutral and remove their card.
Sam White, President of The Moorings Property Owners
Association, next came before the Board and reviewed the
history of how the subject of annexation arose, citing The
Moorings problems with Hutchinson Utilities which have not
been resolved as yet. He noted that the County's proposal
to bring water across the river to the South Beach area
apparently has died, and therefore, when he learned from a
City engineer that there is a sewer line almost down to The
Moorings, it appeared the logical thing would be to get tied
into the City sewer system. Further, in regard to security,
the City has indicated to them that they would hire five men
and purchase two vehicles and provide them with a 24 hour
patrol. Mr. White then noted that the proposed extension of
Indian River Boulevard north to the Hospital to provide them
quicker access to the hospital in an emergency also fell
through. They must consider all these things and ask what
the County is doing for them, and they have concluded there
are more plusses to annexation. Mr. White emphasized that
6
r
they have no malice towards the County; they are merely
trying to solve problems; and whether annexations goes
through or not, he hoped the County will help them solve
their problems. He did believe, however, that what is
proposed this morning is crass politics and felt if the
Board does withdraw their consent card, it is highly
unlikely there will be an election.
George Hamner took the floor and stated that he
resides at 650 South AlA; he is one of the "have-nots"
referred to by Mr. Cochrane, and he is very much opposed to
the annexation. He noted that while the City Manager is out
pushing the annexation, the County is being democratic and
gentlemanly, and he would like to see a little push on the
County's part. Mr. Hamner asked the County Attorney exactly
how the City counts the votes consenting to hold the
referendum, i.e., how would his one acre compare to the 90
some acres of County land - is it determined by minimum size
lot or what?
Attorney Brandenburg believed he should ask the City
how they are looking at this, but felt that Mr. Hamner's
acre of property has the same vote as the County's one acre,
and, therefore, the County's property would count 90 times
more towards the consent than Mr. Hamner's. If for
instance, there were 100 acres involved altogether, you
would have to have 51 acres consent for the referendum to
occur.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that when Mr. Hamner
went to vote, however, his vote would count as one, but the
County wouldn't have any vote.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that statement, explain-
ing that if you live in the area, or if you rent in the
area, you get a vote. If you own a large piece of property
in this area, but live somewhere else, you don't have any
say at all.
7
A�, R 10 X1984
BOOK 5� PAGE 69
F
APR 10 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 680
Mr. Hamner stressed that his problem is out of town
owners who buy the land, develop it, and run - he felt the
people who should vote to hold the election should be legal
residents of the county. He did not want some corporate
board member who happens to own some property in Indian
River County dictating what happens to the property around
him.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that in other words, Mr.
Hamner's concern is that the absentee owner has a say as to
whether or not the property is voted on, although he cannot
vote. Unfortunately, that is the way the Statute was set up
by the State legislature. There have been efforts to change
the annexations procedures for years now, and actually there
is an effort by the Municipal League of Cities to loosen up
the requirements and do away with the need for a referendum
altogether.
Commissioner Lyons stated that Mr. Hamner has to a
certain extent convinced him to consider making a change in
this situation. The fact that the absentee owners can bring
about the election even though they have nothing to do with
it, bothered him.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, for the
Board to reconsider their previous action
in sending in the consent card.
Commissioner Bird reaffirmed that at the time we felt
we were taking a neutral position and that was the way to
let the democratic process work, but with the additional
information presented, it seems that we inadvertently did
place some of our people in a bad situation. He stressed
that he hates to go back on his word with the City, but in
light of the changing situation and additional information,
8
he hoped they will bear with us and feel for the position
the county is in.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to clear up some state-
ments made by Mr. White regarding wastewater. He informed
those present that two million dollars was given by EPA to
the County through the City of Vero Beach to expand a
"regional" wastewater facility, and everything he has read
in his research shows that the South Beach area always was
considered as a service area of the City of Vero Beach.
Further, EPA's legal counsel confirmed this in an opinion
written to the then City Attorney Tom Palmer in 1980.
Chairman Scurlock believed that, in any event, there is an
ability re wastewater that does not necessarily have to rely
on annexation, and stressed that he is going back to EPA to
get this situation clarified. He agreed it is a two-way
street, and maybe we haven't been as diligent and active as
possible in getting into the utility business, but he wished
to point out that the City moved ahead on its own and
created the enclaves by expanding its boundaries for utility
service significantly without taking into consideration
those in between or beyond certain lines. The Chairman
believed the main thing is to work together and talk about
people as opposed to City vs. County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on
the Motion to reconsider. It was voted
on and carried unanimously (4-0).
Hepburn Walker of St. Christopher Beach stressed that
he would hate to see the County waffle on this issue. He
believed that we all agree that we would like to see the
democratic process proceed, and he would like to see the
County stay neutral and not pull their acreage out. He
APR ): 0 1984
9
Baa 56 RAGF.681
F'T..._
APR 10 1994 BOOK 56 PAGE 60
emphasized that if enough acreage is represented, there will
be a vote and a vote only of property owners.
Mr. Byers, resident of the area, expressed the feeling
that the City Council has tried to ram this thing down the
citizens throats willy-nilly and told a little fable about a
farm wife feeding her chickens to demonstrate the point that
the City gets all the benefits while the.people just get
chickenfeed.
Cynthia Peterson, resident of west Indian River County,
made the point that she owns property in Castaway Cove, but
she will not be allowed to vote on the annexation.
Chairman Scurlock noted that his suggestion at this
point was only to request the City to return our consent
card. He did not want to break our contract with the City,
but would like to reconsider the issue.
Mr. Cochrane re-emphasized his feeling that the card
and the contract go hand in hand. He felt it is paradoxical
that on one hand the County wishes to renege on one contract
while, on the other hand, they wish to enforce another. He
wondered how the City will know what to believe in the
future when they sign a contract with the county.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is a shame that the County
government and the municipal government can't work together
and that we get so fearful that some municipal government
will not allow us to control the park as we want to, that we
can be blackmailed to the extent that we have to send a card
in to assure this cooperation. Commissioner Wodtke stressed
that he can overlook the past and say let's just talk about
the annexation and not worry about the park situation. He
would like to look at the annexation on its own merit.
MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to rescind
the Board's previous action and ask the
10
17- J
City for our consent card back; if the City
wishes to continue to honor our agreement
separate and apart from the card, that is
fine, and if'not, then that is how it will
have to be.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like to have
the Motion indicate that in view of the misunderstanding
about our action in signing the card to indicate a neutral
position, we now find that taking the action of withdrawing
the card will be the best way we know of to indicate a
neutral position. Commissioner Lyons felt strongly that we
should take a neutral position, and after listening to Mr.
Hamner, he did feel that the deck is stacked to a certain
extent with the way the absentee landowners are represented.
Newly elected City Councilman Gary Parris agreed with
Councilman Cochrane that if the County pulls back their
consent card, they take the agreement back, too. He wished
to reassure Mr. White that the City does realize The
Moorings has a serious problem. He believed what the County
Commission is saying is that City and County must start
working hand in hand, and he would like to see them work
together to solve the problem. He assured those present
that although he may not agree with the way the annexation
is being proposed, he is one Councilman who will be looking
into their problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously
Attorney Brandenburg asked if the Board wished to
request that the County Park property be eliminated from the
annexation area, and the Board indicated they did not.
11
APR 10 1984
BOOK 56 PACE 683
BOOK a 56 'TPACE 684
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:18 A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
12
Chairman