City Attorney Bob Anderson advised Venice City Council Tuesday that a third draft of a proposed joint planning agreement with Sarasota County had been largely agreed upon at the staff level.

But Anderson also informed council members there were a couple of issues that had come up just in the past few days they needed to be aware of.

"At the last joint meeting," Anderson said, "the county requested the requirement of a 'super majority' vote to approve any future changes to the agreement. North Port had already stated that their charter would not allow them to take such a position."

"I have now researched the Venice City Charter," he said, "and must advise you that chapter 3.09 (C) states that four affirmative votes (a simple majority) are required for any such action, so Venice cannot agree to a super-majority provision."

Anderson advised council to strongly object to any proposal by the county that they simply impose the super majority rule on themselves.

"The effect of that," he explained, "would be to increase the difficulty in amending the agreement, and that reduces my level of comfort with it."

City Manager Marty Black agreed, saying that he had already advised facilitator Linda Shelly that Venice planned to object if the county seemed set on pursuing the concept any further.

"All the legislative bodies need the ability to exercise their authority to amend the JPA in the future if that becomes necessary," Black said.

How long?

Another issue regarding the JPA is the term of the agreement. The county had initially proposed that it run until 2050 (43 years after adoption next year). The city responded with a proposal for an initial term of 25 years, with extension by mutual agreement of 10 and then five years, for a total of 40 years.

At the last joint session that proposal seemed acceptable to both sides, but the attorneys have learned there is case law that may limit the term of the agreement to 20 years.

"Florida Statute Chapter 171 is the Interlocal Service Boundary Act," Anderson said, "and we feel the JPA would fall under that legislation. There are a couple of case decisions, referred to as 'Safety Harbor' and 'Ormond Beach,' which would indicate that our JPA would have to be limited to 20 years or less."

Since the applicability of both the law and the case law has been questioned by some, Anderson has drafted language for a "saving clause" that provides that, though the JPA states a term of 25 years or more, if that provision is subsequently found to be illegal, the term will automatically revert to the 20 years prescribed, rather than negating the whole agreement.

"Providing we get the county to approve it next month," said Anderson, "this may very well be the first agreement created under F.S. 171."

When the discussion concluded, several council members expressed their appreciation for the hard work that has been done to quickly negotiate with the county and develop a workable plan.

http://www.venicegondolier.com/Newsstory.cfm?pubdate=121506&story=vn3.htm&folder=NewsArchive3