The lawsuit and strong language that have characterized portions of local government meetings lately led to a conflict assessment meeting at the Hernando County Government Center on 06/20/16. Florida Statute 164.1053 states that government entities that have opposing views or conflicts can meet in order to conduct an open discussion of the situation. They are required to get together and try to work it out. This can be done with or without a facilitator.
In the conference room, the County and City attorneys sat across from one another. County Attorney Garth Coller was flanked by County department heads to his left and Deputy Attorney Jon Jouben and County Administrator Leonard Sossamon on his right. Attorney Tom Hogan had attorneys on one side, and City Manager T. Jennene Norman-Vacha and Community Development Director Bill Geiger on the other.
The parties agreed to discuss only the annexations, and not the entirety of the lawsuit. The crux of the matter is the annexations. In the City’s opinion, they have been compliant. The County sees them as “holes in the donuts,” with the City acquiring only portions of the available land which creates pockets, or enclaves. The City grows around the enclaves, which are under County jurisdiction.
Coller suggested that a more reasonable means of growing the City would be in concentric circles, like a target, and not leave fingers or a serpentine appearance to the City’s boundaries. Hogan stated that he did not believe his client, the City, would be very flexible as long as item 7 (of the lawsuit) remains. It was “sort of a slap in the face” to infer that the City deliberately did not annex certain portions of land because of the population that lived there.
Hogan agreed that growing the City is a natural process, and that the way things have been done need to be remedied, perhaps in a more “geometric planning process,” as Coller suggested. Services need to be provided to all areas, and that means more than just utilities, which is why the City and County had been engaged in negotiations for an interlocal service agreement.
Hogan returned repeatedly to the issue of “Item #7,”stating that while opening a dialogue is good, he still had to bring an answer to the client. Coller admitted the goal was to bring the annexation issue to light, but the language used may have been inflammatory. And it was, as the negotiations for the interlocal agreement abruptly stopped.
If the County refuses to dismiss or remove item 7 of the lawsuit, a stalemate in the negotiations will continue. Coller contends that item 7 is a “geographical fact that needs to be dealt with,” which Hogan acknowledges, but returning to court using a 1925 ordinance “would be as rancorous as the section [item] 7.” The 1925 ordinance segregated the neighborhoods in the city of Brooksville.
Knowing that the City would be taking on some pollution and drainage problems, the County advised that there had been some contamination but a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) had been completed and approved by the FDEP.
Hogan did not believe the City was aware of the approval by FDEP. Coller stated that there has been a disconnect between the two buildings, located just two blocks from each other, and thought because it is a matter of public record that the City was aware.
Jouben provided an updated, amended version of Florida Statute 171.046 which became effective 06/01/16. The new language allows a larger enclave to be annexed, so that instead of being allowed to annex less than 10 acres, a City can annex up to 110 acres.
Coller stated that the concern in watching the City grow is that it is taking on the shape of Italy as it incorporates more land along US 41, but leaving alone smaller properties. It is an inefficient plan. Hogan countered that the City wants to feel it is part of the County and also wants to grow, and might have grown as far as Powell Road if not for the economic decline in 2005 or 2006.
Hogan then returned to Item 7, stating that he needs the County to move their position on this. According to Jouben and Coller, this item was far down the list of concerns and not the prime issue for the County. Hogan’s preference is that the County dismiss the litigation and that two sides debate the issue without involving the court. Litigation is not Coller’s first choice, either, but stated, “…sometimes you have to.”
The City and County are not resolved, but they are at least talking. A response is due to the court in 45 days. The attorneys will talk with their clients and a second meeting will take place on 07/19/16 at 9 am in Room 265 at the Government Center.