- November 4, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Should a developer who wants to put shops on vacant land near the county airport — and in the county's jurisdiction — have to have that land annexed into the city to get the city water service the development will need? The city government believes it has a right to annex land it provides water to in that area, but the county government disagrees.
Flagler County's administration believes that the parcel of land slated for development near the airport is in a zone of county jurisdiction where the city government can't — according to a 2007 agreement between the county and city governments — force annexation into the city. But Palm Coast officials think the proposed commercial development isn't in the area covered by the agreement, and therefore should have to annex and pay city impact fees if it gets city water.
That's a big deal for the developer, who's said through representatives that that could cost the development company, City Construction and Development, $180,000. The city's proposal would also require the developer to built a lift station at a potential cost of another $250,000.
THE AGREEMENT
The issue has pitted the county and the city against one another as the two sides determine whether to move toward mediation or litigation. The city's attorney has told the City Council that it could take the issue to court to enforce the city's interpretation of the agreement. But both governments are also preparing for a possible meeting involving elected officials from the County Commission and City Council.
"I’m not sure were going to reach a compromise because we have a basic disagreement ... on annexation," County Administrator Craig Coffey said as he explained the issue to the County Commission May 7.
The locations that are under the county government's jurisdiction but in the city's water service area have caused tension between the two governments in the past, and the 2007 agreement was supposed to be the solution.
But the current problem, as Assistant City Manger Beau Falgout explained it May 8, results from some vague wording in the 2007 agreement.
The agreement states that Palm Coast "agrees that it will not require annexation as a condition of providing retail water and wastewater service in those areas depicted on the map that are currently in the Palm Coast's Chapter 180, Florida Statutes, Service Area, south and/or east of the existing Palm Coast city limits, and lands east of the Intracoastal Waterway."
The county believes the land near the airport is covered by that provision. But that requires "a very liberal reading of 'south and/or east' of the city limits," Assistant City Manger Beau Falgout said May 8."That's the basis of the issue. They see the doughnut hole, the airport area, as being southeast; we totally disagree with that."
IMPACT FEES
Impact fees, which are levied on development by local governments, provide money that is used to pay for infrastructure costs arising from the development, such as road repairs.
Palm Coast levies them, but Flagler County, Flagler Beach and Bunnell do not.
For the developer, Coffey said May 7, there's not much benefit to annexation into the city. Services like policing and fire rescue are provided by county personnel, he said.
Other than water and sewer, he said, "There’s not a city service that they would gain by coming into the city that I would know of."
CITY TAKES ACTION
As Coffey explained it to the County Commission, Palm Coast City Manager Jim Landon had proposed in a May 9 email to Coffey that the parcel could be hooked up to city wastewater through lines connecting to the county airport, and that the city could provide water, but would then require impact fees and annexation.
Aside from the annexation issue, Coffey said, the city and county staff were largely in accord; the developer had already agreed to meet city standards for architectural issues, landscaping and signage.
But then the next day, Coffey said, Landon presented the issue to the City Council without advance notice or any input from any county representatives, and the council, after hearing Landon's presentation on the matter, was inclined to push to annex the property and levy impact fees.
City Council members said in that meeting that it could look like favoritism if one particular development were given city water but, unlike other commercial developments in the area, got out of paying city impact fees. Plus, the developer would be evading paying for the infrastructure burden their development would be creating, leaving residents to potentially pick up that cost through their tax dollars.
Meanwhile, county commissioners at the May 7 meeting expressed concern about property owners under the county's jurisdiction being forced to annex into the city against their will.
"I feel a direct obligation to protect the rights of the unincorporated property owner … against a government entity," County Commissioner Nate McLaughlin said. "So it sounds like we need to sit down with the City Council and kind of hammer this thing out."
WHAT'S NEXT?
The city administration has now asked the county to stop the development approval process or face legal action, and sent what Coffey referred to as a "sweeping" public records request that the county attorney said was "very aggressive" and looked like the kind of request that would be filed for the discovery phase of litigation.
Falgout said city officials had acted quickly to present the issue to the council and request that the development approval process be paused out of concern that the county could simply approve the development at an upcoming Technical Review Committee meeting, limiting the city's options.
"Basically, the impetus for that was as soon as the development is approved, the city sort of loses some of its rights or its ability to challenge this," Falgout said. "Raising this issue with City Council was, 'Listen, if the county does approve this development, we may lose some of those rights,' ... and so that's why those actions were taken."
The purpose of the city's records request — which sought records of communication concerning the property since April 17 — was, Falgout said, that "We wanted to basically find out if they are planning not come back to the TRC to get it approved, because if they do, again, once that happens we lose some of our rights. So we're just preserving some of our ability to challenge it."
He said the water and annexation issue is something the elected officials from both government bodies should meet about in person.
"I think it's a good idea that we have this conflict resolution process," he said. "There's obviously a pretty big disagreement about what that section ... says and means. It's obvious we have two different points of view, so it would be good if the elected officials can resolve that issue."
