Sjrwmd Southern Rac Meeting Report

[N. Cook]

There was a standing room only turnout and the meeting revealed that the public had been late in the game and the train was rolling. The protests from the public did buy a little time as the pertinent governing board member, Mr. Kerr, agreed to ask for a 30 day delay to allow further comments and review. Members of UW-F...please check out the Yahoo Group site emails that have been sent out as they are the letters going to the principals from UW-F. Thanks to all who came out.

The crutial issue is the "petitioning to de-annex" system in case Palm Bay changes the laws protecting hunters' rights on the marshes. If Palm Bay changes the laws, the SJRWMD Governing Board must vote to petition to de-annex. We believe future boards would be loath to do so because of the cost and trouble, leaving hunting out in the cold.....Also, there would be little chance a board would vote to de-annex as laws were changed in an incremental fashion over time. Therefore, some safer system to protect the laws is needed. We are suggesting an AUTOMATIC de-annexation if any of the laws are modified in any way and a vigorous requirement of steps to re-annex allowing another round of public input. Newton

[Converted]

I really would like to get as many members opinions as possible. This is not an easy item to take a position on either side of. I do feel however that the current proposed language does need some tweeking before it would be acceptable.

Please respond with your comments:

June 25, 2004
Mr. Lee Feldman, City Manager
City of Palm Bay
120 Malabar Road, SE
Palm Bay, Florida 32907

Dear Mr. Feldman:
Thank you for taking the time to explain the proposed annexation of the St. John’s River water management district lands. I appreciate your thorough review of the subject, and want to assure you that my current opposition to the plan has nothing to do with any of the individuals involved in formulating that annexation proposal. I have every confidence that as long as you are City Manager for the City of Palm Bay, and as long as the current City Council and Staff are involved, and as long as the St. John’s River Water Management District governing board and staff members are still on the job that everything you have detailed will come to pass, and hunting and public use will only be enhanced on those wetlands.

The concern that I have arrives from the possibility of the following scenario:

Imagine if you will a time 25 years from now, the year is 2029. All the lots along the western border of Palm Bay are developed. It is a thriving City. Some vocal new residents decide that they have had enough of the airboats and shooting of shotguns out in the neighboring marsh. Where do these people go to seek a redress of their grievances? They go to the city government in the city in which they reside. If this marsh is annexed, they will be able to bring tremendous pressure to bear upon the government to have the area made "SAFE". If that land is not annexed by the City, the City will correctly be able to take the position "you must contact the Water Management District, we have nothing to do with that land".

The organization I belong to is tailored to influence the decisions made by Water Management Districts, and other State agencies. Our system of government is set up for advocacy groups and stakeholder organizations to have public input, and help steer activities on public land. I am aware of no city in the State of Florida where an organization such as ours, can exert this type of influence. Cities are governed by the will of their citizens. I do not believe state owned lands, especially protected wetlands, should be appropriately annexed within a city, no matter what the original intentions. The resource belongs to the people of the State of Florida and in my opinion, as much decision making as possible should kept at the State level.

I see a potentially fatal flaw in the proposal which was presented at the RAC meeting last evening. The staff, I believe, was very well intentioned to add the clause "if the City should revoke or amend any of the laws which the district required to be put into place prior to the annexation, that the district could petition to have the area de-annexed". I do not believe it likely that a governing board in the future would vote, or act as they most often do on a consensus basis, to de-annex property regardless of what that city council had voted to change. You may be able to calm the well founded fears of the stakeholders of this property by making the de-annexation automatic if a future council went back on the deal. I believe no action should be required by the governing board. If some future city council voted to disallow the discharge of firearms in that area, as an example; the city attorney would be sitting off to the side advising that council that they would also be undertaking the de-annexation of the 25 square miles of the St. John’s River Water Management District lands if they vote in the affirmative.

It was correctly pointed out that currently the County or the District could eliminate the discharge of firearms on the property completely. While this is a true statement, I do not believe the governing board, acting on its own, would ever take the initiative to take such a vote. Additionally, the constituency at the County level is much different than the constituency at the City level. The rural parts of the county, and the large landowners in the county hold great sway over the decisions which are made countywide, and it is much less likely, in Florida, to have the county voting to eliminate discharge of firearms than it is to have a city voting that way.

Permit me to take a minute of your time to make a suggestion to keep in mind for the future. I spend a great deal of time… too much time if you ask my wife… sitting on public workshops formulating public policy on public lands. When that policy is formulated completely in the open from its very inception, with all interested parties and stakeholder groups coming to consensus on each and every line of a proposal, it has been my experience that the large groups which turn out for the governing board meetings are there to congratulate a job well done, rather than react in fear to issues which have not been fully understood or vetted from multiple perspectives.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or ideas you may have. I will gladly take your proposals to our membership, and share with you the reactions of a very large group of stakeholders for the wetlands in question.
Yours very truly,

David Lithgow
United Waterfowlers - Florida, Inc.
2802 SW Fluvia Street
Port St. Lucie, FL 34953
(561)818-7539

P.S. Just so you know my perspective and motivation, I’ve hunted for my entire life. My dad took me out every time he went out from the time I was 10 years old. I routinely hunt with my 13 year old son and I’m trying to pass on the gift that was given to me. I joined United Waterfowlers, and take part in these workshops so that when my son has a 13 year old son and they are looking for a place to hunt, that place still exists.

C: Mr. Wm. Kerr
SJRWMD
325 Fifth Avenue, Suite 204
Indiatlantic, FL 32909

[duckmanJR]

Newton, I wish to thank you and David for attending this meeting with the "local" membership. Both you and David made excellent points when you spoke. This is a very slippery slope with a "city" being involved with such an important piece of the upper basin. I still feel that the city brought little to the table with the promise of "streamlineing permits" ...but only for the specific area? Not much if you ask me.... :(

[Fyrestorm]

Very nice letter Dave. We also need to find out the addresses for the SJRWMD board of trustees and write them too.

The meeting I thought went well. Lots of good questions and plenty of opposition.

This annexation has been in the works for a while now. The public has obviously been left out in the dark untill now. There also is some proof that they meant to never bring this up to the public. It was leaked out, and with the attention it got they had to.

My concern is that Mr. Kerr already has his mind made up. It was clear during the meeting that he had. I believe we won't change his mind nor will we change the city's mind. We need to start hitting the other board members and get this out in the press. They have hid it well enough to keep it from them already and will continue to do so.

I also want to know if anyone is familiar with the laws of annexation. Or does anyone know someone who is??? I have heard that there maybe a law that stops city's from annexing state owned lands. Now......the state purchased the land and turned it over to the SJRWMD. SJRWMD is a state agency. We need to find this out if possible.

[N. Cook]

I believe if you go to their web site you will find the other governing board members listed....and I agree an email and mail campaign needs to begin asap......www.sjrwmd.com

[eddy]

Aaron, check with Jorge (jpg2esq) from DuckCentral, he may be able to help you out with the Legal issues.

[Converted]

Fyre, see if you can get a copy of the City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan. All municipalities in Florida had to submit future annexation plans to the State about 6 or 7 years ago. I'm told that if this land is on the plan that was submitted, it may be very hard to stop.

Some other leg work for you local guys...

Does the Treaure Coast Regional Planning Council have an opinion on this?

Does the FWC have an opinion on this?

Does the County have an opinion on this?

Is the State of Florida Dept of Community affairs the last word on proposed annexation plans?

Want something to investigate? How does this proposal impact the amount of pervious vs. impervious (read grass vs. pavement) that can exist within the city limits?