The second conflict assessment meeting between the City and the County was held on 7/19/16 at the Government Center. The tone of this meeting was set by City Attorney Tom Hogan’s statement about the refreshments provided – donut holes and Vienna fingers, a callback to County Attorney Garth Coller’s concerns that the City’s annexations left enclaves, or donut holes, with an expansion map that looked like fingers.
The short agenda was agreed upon quickly, containing the purpose for the meeting, and four options from which to select the next course of action. Concurrent with the conflict assessment is the court case, which has continued to move forward.
A major part of the issue between the city and county is section 7 of the lawsuit, in which the county accuses the city of being motivated by race in not choosing to annex certain areas.
Coller stated that the County is not in favor of removing “Section 7” due to concerns that there may be litigation with the federal government over what is termed “underbounding,” whether it is on a city or county level. He stated it is the County’s intent to “ensure that there are no intentional – or unintentional – cases of racism.”
Hogan responded that the City would want to address any instances of discrimination. The point of annexations, Coller stated, is to provide good service to the community through proper municipal underbounding. Assistant County Attorney Jon Jouben described this as drawing municipal boundaries to the effect that some areas, predominantly held by minorities, are not provided sufficient services.
While an executive session was held with the City Council on 07/18/16, Coller stated his office met with the commissioners individually. The consensus received is that the BOCC feels the situation to be a serious point of contention with the City and determined to “proceed as is” due to the “prickly and divisive” nature of the issue.
Hogan stated that the City has tried to provide services to the residents, but admitted that the south side of Martin Luther King does have deficiencies the city “would rather not inherit.” At the City’s executive session, the Council advised that they would welcome any citizen into the City boundary that met the requirement of contiguity. According to Hogan, as long as the requirements are met, then race, color, creed, etc., are not an issue for the City Council.
The City’s response is that Item 7 includes language that is “unnecessarily inflammatory” by using supporting documents from 1925 ordinances and newspaper articles. Hogan and his colleagues, as well as the City Manager, have been instructed by the Council to “stand their ground” on the issue if the County refuses to change the language into less inflammatory terms or to remove Item 7 altogether as the language is “disingenuous and in bad faith.”
Hogan noted that the judge is expecting a responsive pleading from the City, but suggested requesting a status conference to advise the judge where the City and County are in the negotiation process. According to the options listed, both Coller and Hogan agreed they could either schedule a joint meeting between the BOCC and the City Council, or proceed to mediation. Jouben understood that no pleadings were due until the end of the dispute resolution process.
Normally, a negotiation is held prior to the filing of a lawsuit, Hogan stated, but the County filed the lawsuit first. Therefore, if a joint meeting is held, the attorneys would be the only ones talking, due to the litigation already in progress. A professional mediator could be helpful, but Hogan stated the City Council was “adamant they did not want to go forward until the County dismisses the count of paragraph seven.” Coller agreed that this meant both parties were at an impasse.
Both attorneys will report to their clients and then request a status conference with the judge to confirm whether or not the City’s response is due. Coller suggested a third option – set another conflict assessment meeting, giving Hogan time to research the process. Jouben will approach mediators with experience representing and persuading public entities will be contacted and then a date for mediation will be set. Though no specific date was given, another meeting will occur in 60 days.
Hogan’s final statement on the record was to relay the City Council’s desire to resolve this and include everyone, including those currently referred to as the “black community,” into the City boundaries. “We think that a united community could speak with a louder voice. We believe in Jeffersonian government, a government closest to the people is best.”
As the meeting was advertised as open to the public, there were members of the public present, but they were not allowed to speak on the record. Shirley Miketinac expressed concern that while the annexations are described as voluntary, some of those being annexed do not know it until after it occurs. She stated that is the greatest concern, that people are not contacted beforehand.
Hogan responded that residents are notified via a letter that if they signed a utility service agreement, then the city is granted power of attorney to annex them after a period of time. Residents want to be annexed because of the discount on water and sewer fees and the ad valorem does not change. Hogan stated he was not aware of any complaints from residents who were being, or had been, annexed.
“You do have one,” stated Viennessee Black. Her son, whose property is being annexed, did not receive a letter. Black’s family has lived in the aea for nearly 200 years, she stated, “and all of a sudden we’re in the city?” She contacted City Manager Norma-Vacha and the BOCC and advised them that no one contacted them, or many of their neighbors, in person or by mail. Black stated many of the residents are over the age of 80, and without access to or knowledge of computers.
A quiet, soft-spoken woman, Black inquired of both Hogan and City Development Manager Bill Geiger whether they had annexed property on Fenwick Road. Geiger stated they would have annexed only properties for which they had power of attorney. Speaking on behalf of those elderly neighbors, Black asked to see those documents as well as the transcripts for city and county meetings. Black reviewed Florida Statute 121 which stated that a resident’s signature must be obtained in order to annex a property in an unincorporated area.
Hogan responded, stating the documents were in the City’s possession, including the letter that was sent to Black’s son. They have city water only, Black stated, and do not use the city sewer or trash pick-up. “It was very convenient for somebody to knock on our front door the day the [law]suit was announced in the newspaper,” Black stated. “I’m concerned about how things are handled. I keep hearing mention about ‘Jeffersonian’, but this is a new day and age, and you need to make sure that people are aware of what’s going on.”