The audience watches as the commission votes.
Once again, the Belle Jeffords property took a spotlight at a City Commission Meeting. On May 21st, City Attorney Neil Malphurs recommended that the Commission reject the latest settlement agreement proposed by the County. The agreement basically said that the city would enter a consent order "quashing and rendering invalid" the ordinances that annexed the property from the County into the City. The County's point of view is that by annexing that land, the City created an illegal enclave as defined by the Boundary Adjustment Act. The City does not share that view, and has gone before the Eighth Judicial Court in an attempt to prove the County wrong.
On the May 21st Commission Meeting, Mr. Malphurs made the suggestion that he would like to see the City not enter into this agreement. The next step would be to enter mediation. "David Wagner said it would cost each commission $500. I think that would be money well spent. There are a couple of questions I would like the mediator to look at because I think we could be facing these same questions at a future time. "
James Lewis: "I certainly agree that we owe it to Belle and the citizens of Alachua to take it to the mediator. I know I have been wrong. Everybody who makes decisions makes bad decisions sometimes, and I would like to see it go to the mediator to get a second opinion."
Mayor Coerper said he has had long conversations with Ms. Jeffords about this, and he would personally like to see it go to mediation. He said it would provide a sense of closure.
David Robbins: "I have two questions, and then couple comments. Question for you Mr. Mayor is that I would like to know your reasoning why you want to go to the next step of mediation."
"I feel personally that there was a nice compromise offered to Ms. Jeffords, that she would have most of the properties left to annex into the city, but not the frontage properties along 441 that create an enclave. Once again, this is something that in the future could have been remedied, that could have been annexed overtime. But for some reason she wants this property in now, and is not willing to wait to get those other two parcels in."
"It has cost the city a great deal of money. Nobody has said why there is such a rush for this. I think the city has gone way out on a limb already, and has spent a lot of money and time on this. I think that since she didn't want to compromise on this and get 80 percent of it in, we should go along with the recommendation of the county and deny this. Thank you."
Mayor Coerper: I will tell you the reasoning. During the talks I have had with her, I certainly have made my point well known as "Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." You've got the majority of the property in. I know she is very staunch on wanting the whole piece of property in. My thought on bring this to arbitration is that is a finalization. You have a ruling from someone who has absolutely no vested interest on this."
Commissioner Hills agreed, saying "At least we will get an independent decision."
Robert Perez said "Mediation is going to put you in an adversarial position with the County." He made the point that the city has spent a lot of time on this already. He asked the commission to pass a motion to abide by what the mediator decides. "Mrs. Jeffords has been offered an olive branch for over 90% of her acreage to be brought into the city, annexed in here, and she refused. There is a reason for that. That reason is her business. But her business is not something that the taxpayers of this city need to pay for. That is her business, and she needs to pay for it." He asked the commission to "protect the taxpayers of this city for a change!"
Commissioner Robbins agreed with Mr. Perez. "I am not willing to spend any more taxpayer money on this issue. As far as I am concerned, the property owner can continue to go to mediation, she could be asked to pay for that. I don't know why the taxpayer needs to fight for some private landowner's interest." But she did say she would support the idea if the city agreed to go no further than mediation.
Mayor Coerper said that was his intention, that mediation would be final.
Commissioner Robbins asked the city attorney if "the outcome would be a final decision, or is there action that could be taken from either side."
Mr. Malphurs said that it depended on what the city and county commission decides. "If the county commission is not satisfied, they could go further with the litigation." The same goes for the city.
Mayor Coerper said "I would like to personally see a motion put on this table that would put this as a final decision, for us to bring closure to this."
Commissioner Lewis: "Mr. Mayor, how bout if the County Commission doesn't agree with the mediator? We can't put that to a vote. Let's wait and see what the mediator says and then we can decide if we want to proceed. I know that is what the County wants to do."
Commissioner Robbins said "I see an enclave in the situation." She said she would not support any motion for mediation that did not accept those results as final.
David Jakupko: "Please correct me if I am wrong..."
David Jakupko spoke. "Please correct me if I am wrong, but there are two separate processes." He went on to say that a mediation process was just two parties sitting down and the mediator attempts to help to bring both parties together. "A mediator does not have any enforcement or determination power."
"There may be no conclusion. You have to take it to another step or you are in a lurch."
Mr. Malphurs: "Usually a mediator is experienced in legal matters, he listens to the arguments of both sides, he points out the strengths of each side, and the weaknesses of each sides. From this, he may suggest solutions or settlements."
One of the things I would like to get out of mediation if he says that the County's position is strong and he thinks they would prevail in a circuit court, there are some alternatives that he might suggest to us, especially since this man will be very experienced be annexation problems. One of those alternatives may be a solution to the problem that we have not had before us before."
Busy Shires: "There are two alternatives."
Busy Shires: "There are two alternatives. One is to de-annex Ms. Jeffords property that was illegally annexed through the boundary adjustment act. Or, the second alternative, there are only two, is to annex 90% of her property and exclude the two parcels that are along 441. So there are two option. They are the only two ways to solve the problem."
Bob Bieniek: "I think we should go for it and spend the $500.00 bucks. It may be cheaper in the long run. Lets just see what the mediator has to say, and then come back and make a decision."
"I think, Tamara, it may just be a learning experience for everybody. We will have some expert advice. It is only $500 bucks. In the long run that is not that much money." He urged the commission to make a decision after the mediation process.
Susan Murray: "I just thought I'd give my two cents since all the realtors in this town seem interested in the property. I too feel that there is something up with this property. I don't know what it is. One day I turned on my television set and I was amazed because I saw our attorney Mr. Malphurs sitting next to Ms. Jeffords at a County Commission meeting all day long. From what I understand, that was on city time. I have a real, real problem with our counsel representing a private citizen."
She concluded with "I don't think that mediation is going to do anything but make it more clear what [the County's stance] is."
Mayor Coerper defended Mr. Malphurs by saying the attorney did not break any laws by attending.
Mr. Perez asked if he was paid. Mayor Coerper said he was.
Mr. Malphurs stated that he was at the County Commission meeting to present the City's side. "In some ways, I feel like Mr. Reed feels tonight. I sat through a long time to get to that place on the Agenda."
Commissioner Lewis made a motion to deny the County's settlement agreement, and to go forward with mediation. "That is my motion."
"Get a good attorney to go to that mediation!" Mr. Perez shouted.
Commissioner Hills: "Second!"
It was seconded by Commissioner Hills.
Commissioner Robbins said "I don't understand why we would go through a mediation process when we already know what our choices are." She cautioned that the City was going to wind up in court over this. "For some reason, there is a strong push to get this property into the City."
Mr. Malphurs: "One thing about this mediator is he doesn't know Ms. Jeffords from any body else in this community. He will be looking at the legal issues. The law in the state of Florida is set by the legislature, and is also determined by circuit court decisions. There are a lot of question in any legislature past, and how it is interpreted is often settled by the circuit court. Those are things that circuit court is there for, to settle questions such as this. If it wound up in the circuit court, I think it would be beneficial. It would help the County and the city, it would help the state at large, because there would be a decision interpreting the law as it relates to these facts. And it may be something that would avoid litigation in the county later on, it may be something that might avoid litigation in the state later on, because it would be law that the courts will follow. So I think that it is a model question, and one day if it did go through the court for ultimate decision would not be a losing situation. It would be a clarifying and definitive interpretation of the law."
Mayor Coerper said that there was a motion on the table, and called for a roll call vote. Commissioners Lewis, Burgess, Hills and Mayor Coerper voted 'aye', with Commissioner Robbins voting 'no'. | 
