MEMBERS PRESENT:

K. Blount, H. Budd, P. Denton, R. Estes, R. Hawkins, P. Hanrahan, C. Martin, J. Massey, F. Peterkin, B. Thomas, J. Wootten and S. Wright

DJ Williams (Staff Liaison), Terri Hutchinson (ESSA)

Doris Bardon, Chris Bird, Kathy Cantwell, Doug Hornbeck, and Jim Konish

Summary:

After confirming a quorum, the meeting was called to order at approximately 5:40 p.m. by Chair Wootten. A motion was made by Member Estes/Peterkin to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously. A motion was made to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously after several amendments.

Citizen comments were received from the following:

1. Doris Bardon representing Women for Wise Growth - supports County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
2. Kathy Cantwell representing Sierra Club - supports County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
3. Jim Konish - commended the CRC for hiring George Nickerson and addressed attendance of CRC members;
4. Doug Hornbeck - wants to listen to the discussion on single member districts.

Chris Bird was recognized to explain the impacts of the proposed language regarding County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances. He distributed a memo explaining his position.

There was concern raised regarding discussing an agenda item under citizen comments. A motion was made by Member Denton/Massey to move issue six (County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances) to the first discussion item. After some discussion the motion passed 9-3 (Peterkin, Martin and Budd dissenting).

Citizen Hornbeck was given the opportunity to speak on single member districts. He declined, preferring to listen to the discussion.

Mr. Bird was requested to continue with his comments. He stated that he recommends that any proposed language should limit the prevalence of county environmental ordinances over municipal ordinances to air and water.

Members Wright, Thomas and Martin distributed copies of proposed language for County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances. Member Wright explained her proposed language in detail. There was consensus to support Member Wright’s proposal with some amendments. The proposed language reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, any County ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict regardless of whether such municipal ordinance was adopted or enacted before or after the County ordinance, provided that the County ordinance shall prevail over municipal ordinances whenever the County shall set minimum standards protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution. In the event a County ordinance and a municipal ordinance shall cover the same subject matter without conflict, both the municipal ordinance and the County ordinance shall be effective, each being deemed supplemental, one to the other.

There was agreement that the proposed language addressed the following points:

1. Municipal ordinances will prevail over county ordinances except in the case of environmental ordinances as described.
2. Language such as the last sentence in Broward’s section will be included to assure that if a city enacts a stricter ordinance but then fails to enforce their ordinance, the county’s minimum standard will still apply and be enforced (ordinances are supplemental; the weaker ordinance will be a fallback should the stricter ordinance not be enforced).
3. Exceptions will not be prohibited.
4. Does not include the court’s interpretation.
5. Will not limit ordinances to addressing “point source” pollution. The consensus was that air and water pollution be covered in the broader sense which includes non-point source pollution.
6. The words “for the purpose of” will be inserted into the Broward section (or into an equivalent section that Mr. Nickerson drafts) to specify that prevailing county ordinances be for the purpose of protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution. The revised Broward sentence would then read: “Whenever the County shall set minimum standards for the purpose of protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution”

There was extensive discussion regarding voting related to ranking the study issues. Concerns were expressed regarding the procedure for selecting issues.

After some discussion, there was consensus that the CRC would continue considering the following issues: conflicts in the charter and joint planning structure.

A motion was made by Member Martin/ Peterkin to use the following language proposed by George Nickerson:

Each municipality shall be responsible for land use planning within its respective boundaries and the county shall be responsible for land use planning in the unincorporated area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the county and any municipality may enter into an inter-local agreement to provide for joint planning in the area reserved for annexation by such municipality.

After amending the motion read:

Each municipality shall be responsible for land use planning within its respective boundaries and the county shall be responsible for land use planning in the unincorporated area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the county and any municipality may enter into an inter-local agreement to provide for joint planning in the portions of the unincorporated areas adjacent to, or within such municipality.

There was generally no support to continue consideration of the issues which follow:

1. requiring fees for the use of all governmental services;
2. empaneling the CRC more frequently; and
3. County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances.

The issues which follow are to be scheduled on the April 11, 2000 agenda:

1. independent auditor;
2. single member districts; and
3. County Commission salaries controlled locally.