11/01/2004 WORK SESSION ONLY ITEMS
Work Session Agenda
Clearwater City Council Work Session - Monday, November 1, 2004 9:00 AM
Presentations
1. Update on Economic Development and Redevelopment Steering Committee - Pinellas County
Commissioner Karen Seel
Purchasing
1. Don Reid Ford - 20 each 2005 Ford Crown Victoria Police Cruisers.
2. Zabatt Power Systems - 11 each Generac 80kw portable generators
3. Water Specialist Technologies LLC - T-50 copper precipitant during the contract period:
November 5,2004 through November 30,2007.
4. Pinellas County Solid Waste, Management Department - Disposal of normal solid
waste and storm debris during the period: November 5, 2004 through October 31, 2005
5. Angelo's Aggregate Materials, dba Angelo's Recycled Material - Disposal of
construction and demolition debris during the period: November 5, 2004 through
October 31, 2005.
6. Angelo's Aggregate Materials, dba Angelo's Recycled Material - Increase the City
Manager's award from $100,000 to $350,000 for disposal of storm debris during the
period October 1, 2004 through November 30, 2005.
Parks and Recreation
1. Accept grant funding and approve the corresponding agreement from the Juvenile
Welfare Board totaling $105,616 for funding of three teen programs.
2. Consider Parks and Recreation Board recommendation naming City property located at
3035 Gulf to Bay Blvd. to "Bayview Park".
Public Communications
1. Discussion re Public Engagement
Solid Waste/General Services
1. Award a contract to Broyhill,lnc., Dakota City, NE, for the purchase of one,new Load N
Pack Refuse Collection vehicle at a cost of $1 03,160, in accordance with Section
2.564(1 )(b),Code of Ordinances-Sole Source; increase the Capital Improvement
Program project lease purchase budget; increase the Solid Waste Operating budget
for debt service expense; authorize funding under the City's Lease Purchase
agreement; and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute the same.
Engineering
1. Approve the final plat for "Murphy's Place", located at 322 Jasmine Way,
2. Approve the final plat for "Ewing Place", located at 415 Ewing Avenue,
Work Session Agenda 11-01-2004 - Rev 01
Page 1 of 3
3. Adopt Resolution 04-27 and authorize appropriate City officials to execute
Subordination of Utility Interests agreements with the Florida Department of
Transportation ("FDOT")regarding portions ot blanket water and gas main and utilities
easements in Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East conveyed to the City by
Trizec Properties, Inc. as recorded in O. R. Book 7172, Page 1500, and by New Plan
Excel Realty Trust, Inc. in the plat of CLEARWATER MALL, as recorded in Plat Book
125, Pages 21 through 29, all in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, as said
easements may encumber FOOT parcels 800.02,801.02 and 802.02, WPI/SEG
4149981, State Road 55.
Planning
1. Discussion and Policy Direction on Proposed Revisions to Pinellas County Ordinance
No. 00-63.
Official Rec and Legislative Svc
1. Reappoint Councilmember Hamilton to serve as Representative to Pinellas Planning
Council tor the two-year period, January 2005 through December 2006.
2. Appoint one member to the Community Development Board with the term expiring on
February 28, 2005.
3. Appoint one member to the Marine Advisory Board with the term expiring on November
30, 2008.
City Attorney
1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 7348-04 on second reading, vacating Wilson Boulevard street
right-ot-way from the South right-ot-way line of Sedeeva Street to the Westerly
extension of the South property line at Lot 22, Block B, Floridena Subdivision, subject
to a Drainage and Utility Easement which is retained over the full width thereof.
2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 7347-04 on second reading, vacating Harold Court street
right-of-way from the West property line of Lot 10, Block 20, Magnolia Park, West to
the Northerly extension of a line parallel to and 20 feet west of the East Property line at
Lot 10, Marchall and Brandon's, subject to a Drainage and Utility Easement which is
retained over the full width thereat.
3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 7343-04 on second reading, amending the Downtown Plan and
adding Design Guidelines to the Downtown Plan.
Other City Attorney Items
City Manager Verbal Reports
Council Discussion Items
Other Council Action
1. City Manager's Salary Adjustment
2. City Attorney's Salary Adjustment
Adjourn
Work Session Agenda 11-01-2004 - Rev 01
Page 2 of 3
._____n~
Presentationes) for Thursday Night
1. Nagano Teachers
Work Session Agenda 11-01-2004 - Rev 01
Page 3 of 3
>-
LL
o
>-
o
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
Date:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Cyndie Goudeau, City Cler@
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin,
City Attorney
October 29,2004
To:
From:
CC:
RE:
Revisions to Agenda Packet for November 1, 2004
The following changes/additions are provided:
. Revised Worksession Agenda - Purchasing Memo #6 has a change of date
. Purchasing Memo - Item #6 - Angelo's Aggregate Materials - Increase City
Manager's award from $100,000 to $350,000 for disposal of storm debris during
the period _ through November 30, 2005. - Revised item provided
. Public Communications -Item #1 - Public Engagement - Report and
presentation copy provided.
. Official Rec and Legislative Svc - Item #2 - Appoint one member to Community
Development Board - revised item provided to show addition of John Freeborn to
list of applicants.
Memo to Council for 10-18-04 Work Session - revisions.doc
>-
LL
o
I-
u
I nteroffice Correspondence Sheet
Date:
Mayor and Council members
Cyndie Goudeau, City Cler@
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin,
City Attorney
November 2,2004
To:
From:
CC:
RE:
Revisions to Agenda Packet for November 4, 2004
The following changes/additions are provided:
. Agenda for November 4 Council Meeting
. Minutes of October 21 , 2004 Council Meeting for approval
. Item #11.6 - Appoint Dana K. Tallman to the Community Development Board with
the term expiring on February 28, 2005. Revised item provided.
. Item #11.7 - Appoint Frank L. Dame to the Marine Advisory Board with the term
expiring on November 30,2008. Revised item provided
. Item #11.8 - 11.13 - Purchasing items - 11.9 - Item revised in description to show
. Generac 80kw portable generators. Revised items provided.
. Item #12.3 - IAFF Union negotiations update - title added
. Item #14.1 - Recommendation of the Selection Committee for Jack Russell
Stadium Site RFPQ Process - Memo provided.
. Item #15.1 - American Public Gas Association - Public Gas Policy Council
Member - added as discussion title.
Memo to Council for 10-04-04 Work Session - revisions.doc
~; PC,:L
City of Clearwater - Public Involvement Report & Recommendations
Background
In May 2004, the city of Clearwater conducted a random telephone survey of 400 regular voters.
The questions centered around the public's interest in various components of a proposed
downtown waterfront improvement plan, which failed to pass in a March 2004 referendum as a
"package" of improvements. One of the key findings of this survey was that voters preferred
more, not less, information on projects and that citizens seemed to desire an active dialogue with
the city on projects and priorities.
As a result, the Public Communications Department was asked to provide recommendations on
future strategies for public engagement. This report provides suggestions for consideration, with
the reminder that every service enhancement requires a repositioning or reallocation of resources
in order to fully implement.
This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of current public information
processes, but rather to look at existing processes and provide recommendations that will
improve or complement those activities.
Methodology
The Public Communications Department met with department directors and staff who have been
actively involved in some of the city's most high-profile projects over the last few years to
determine if there were some commonalities between each project that may have affected the
public's perception of each. The department also looked at best practices from other cities around
the nation through resources like the Innovation Group and the City/County Communications
and Marketing Association (3CMA).
Information Dissemination, Public Participation
and Official Notification
The recommendations included here fall in to three basic categories of involvement:
Information dissemination
Public participation
Official notification
Each of these plays a part in keeping citizens actively engaged in local government. Information
dissemination consists mainly of one-way communication with citizens. The city's Annual
Report, regular publications like C-News or ClP Update, media releases and regular programming
on C- VIEW 15 are examples of information dissemination. Some project information meetings
and Town Hall meetings could fall under this category, as well, depending on the extent of actual
public dialogue allowed for during those meetings.
Public participation includes public hearings, public meetings, workshops and other forums that
provide citizens with an opportunity to provide meaningful input toward government decisions.
The key elements of successful public participation are: 1) two-way dialogue, 2) ongoing
feedback, and 3) adequate notification and flexibility for multiple avenues of input.
Official notification could be considered part of the public participation process, but should be
considered as a separate element, since not all official notification necessarily leads to active
public participation. Official notification is, however, one of the only elements considered here
that is in most cases legally mandated by either local, regional or state legislative action.
Information Dissemination
The city currently has a wide variety of tools for providing information to citizens. The Public
Communications Department coordinates most of these communication efforts. These include:
Biweekly C-News advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times
Quarterly CIP Update newsletter
Media releases
Annual Report
Citizen's Academy
Sunshine Lines utility bill newsletter
C- VIEW programming and meeting coverage
C-Mail e-mail newsletter distribution
City website, www.myclearwater.com
Production and distribution of program brochures, flyers and promotional materials
Targeted marketing campaigns (for events, elections, special projects, etc.)
Speaking engagements with neighborhood and civic groups
In addition, each department may have additional means of distributing information, from the
Parks and Recreation Department's FITS Magazine to the Police Department's monthly Blueline
newsletter. In this respect, the city of Clearwater is providing a fairly high level of service.
Residents have a variety of choices in how they receive information, and critical information is
distributed in a timely manner.
If there is a shortcoming in our current communication efforts, it is that most require the resident
to "find" information or "opt-in" to distribution lists. No single communication piece is distributed
city-wide on a regular basis.
Recommendations:
Neighborhood communication
One way to meet the challenge of direct communication to residents is to regionalize
information and reconsider the distribution of a neighborhood newsletter directly to
residents' homes. The newsletter could be distributed according to the seven regional
boundaries established by Development & Neighborhood Services Department, and
would include information of citywide interest, complemented by information on
projects specific to the region in which they live. The challenge in doing this has always
been cost, as the price of distribution to 50,000+ households on a meaningful schedule
can be high (about $50,000 annually, plus printing costs).
Regular presentations/Speakers' bureau
Establish a schedule of regular presentations to Clearwater civic groups on items of
current interest/ importance to residents and businesses. The challenge is to identify a set
of core subjects of interest and primary presenters for each. The first choice for these
types of presentations is almost always a Councilmember, but this may become
prohibitive if the city actively solicits opportunities to speak. This would require more
thorough examination if the city chooses to move forward with it.
The benefit of this type of engagement is that it generally reaches community members
who already have a sense of civic responsibility, but may not understand the details of
particular projects or activities the city is involved with.
Public Participation
Public presentations have been the traditional "bread and butter" of civic involvement. What
we've found over time, though, is that we have an increasingly difficult time getting citizens to
attend public meetings. We've also heard on several occasions that the public feels that, while
public presentations do offer a chance for input, it is not necessarily acted upon afterwards.
While we have had successes in certain cases with public meetings and project planning, getting
residents to participate remains a moving target. In many cases, involvement can be tracked
directly to personal interest in a subject and/ or ability to influence for meaningful change. The
hope is that by lowering the barriers to entry and rethinking the process, we may be able to
increase public knowledge, if not involvement, in these processes.
An important fact to remember is that public presentations do not equate to public participation.
By their very nature, they can quickly establish a "we" and "they" environment that isn't
conducive to public dialogue. This could, in fact, be part of the reason that we often have
difficulty getting citizens to attend these forums. Another challenge is the continued engagement
of affected residents throughout the project planning process.
Currently, the city conducts project planning meetings with affected neighborhoods at the outset
of the project and again when 30% drawings are complete. The challenge with this schedule is
that many residents may not understand or realize the scope of a project at its outset. As a result,
very few residents come out to some of these initial meetings. This is much more prevalent for
smaller projects than larger ones, where there may be multiple conceptual meetings before design
begins. Their next chance for input is upon completion of 30% drawings, at which point they can
see the scope of the project. This gives residents something to react to and, at times, they do so in
a negative manner.
Typically, the larger projects are discussed in a formal presentation format, smaller projects may
have 3-5 staffed stations where residents can get questions answered. These are usually followed
up with another meeting at the 30% stage to address any perceived issues. What seems to be
missing from the process is a formal mechanism for continued one-on-one communication after
this point. Project managers (or the contractor) are in contact with residents as needed, but
information is not always relayed to affected residents in a timely manner unless they are vocal
in their requests. In some cases, the next time a member of the neighborhood learns anything of
the status of the project, it's when the contract is to be awarded.
It's important to note that project managers have been good about staying in direct contact with a
designated neighborhood representative if they express the desire to be involved. But it's
uncertain if this contact is fully informing or accurately representing his or her neighbors in the
process.
Recommendations:o
Town Hall meetings
Re-establish the Town Hall meeting schedule, but design them around the most salient
issues of the moment, and design them to maximize one-to-one interaction with
Councilmembers and senior staff members. Clearly define the objective and anticipated
outcomes of the meeting at the outset and actively engage citizens. Provide some
mechanism to provide feedback reports after the meeting to those who have participated.
Offer them other opportunities to get involved, and keep them involved. Citizens need to
know that their participation has had some meaningful effect on the city's decision-
making processes.
Project presentations
This process could be improved in two areas. First, the actual forum for public input, like
that of Town Hall meetings, doesn't necessarily facilitate active, meaningful feedback.
Studies have shown that most citizens tend toward a debate-style model of discussion
rather than a collaborative style of discussion. It is our responsibility to establish and
maintain formats that move toward a more collaborative model. It is difficult to establish
common goals and consensus in a traditional public presentation setting, which places
parties opposite each other in a room, thus fostering a debate-centered approach. Small
group discussions on smaller projects and facilitated focus group discussions on larger
issues may be more effective if the project requires public feedback and buy-in.
Second, there should be some mechanism for continual feedback after the 30% meetings.
This could be person-to-person contact, direct mail, door hangers or local association
newsletters. These are covered in more detail in the next two recommendations. Some
continued feedback loop should be in place, even if the fundamentals of the project aren't
likely to change. One of the reasons that affected residents push back against projects is
that they don't feel included in the process. This would help mitigate some of these issues
by demonstrating a desire to communicate and, when possible, accommodate within
reasonable means.
Personalized contact
Active, ongoing involvement with affected parties is vital to successful project
management. It does come with its limitations, though. Keeping several dozen merchants
on Mandalay Avenue in the loop is much easier than doing the same with a project that
may affect hundreds (or thousands) of homes. The same level of face-to-face interaction
is challenging without a significant outlay of resources. It takes considerably more time
to knock on dozens doors to explain the timeline for an upcoming reclaimed water
project than it does to send dozens of letters announcing a public meeting, to which only
a handful of the affected residents attend.
What is important is that residents have a central point of contact for the project, and that
information is provided in a real-time manner that fosters two-way communication.
While Engineering has an assigned project manager for every project, that project
manager's time is primarily spent managing the technical aspects of the job. On larger
projects (Mandalay, Causeway Bridge) communication is facilitated through a project
hotline where residents can call with questions or concerns. It would be helpful to have
someone whose primary responsibility is to act as an "ombudsman" of sorts on projects. It
would be someone who knows the key neighborhood contacts as well as the latest project
information, and would actively engage the residents throughout the planning, design
and construction processes.
The challenge in doing this is assigning primary responsibility and allocating appropriate
resources, whether it is the department originating the project, Public Communications,
Neighborhood Services or some other department.
Neighborhood communication
An alternative, and less personal, option would be to use the existing regional
neighborhood "sectors" and provide a regular, monthly newsletter to each, detailing the
status of projects within that area of the city (see full explanation in previous section).
The advantage of this method is that it would be an avenue for providing other
important information to residents beyond just current projects.
Establish a plan
There should be a standardized plan for communicating on/ about projects affecting
neighborhoods. Currently, much of the initial burden for communicating construction
issues to neighbors lies with the hired contractor, per the city's Project Planning Manual.
Once the project commences, city staff is responsible for ongoing interaction and
resolution of issues. While this should work in theory, contractors often fail to keep city
project mangers up to speed on projects, much less the affected public.
The existing planning manual provides a good start, but may need to strengthen the
emphasis on communication, from public notices to project presentations to update
procedures, and clarify responsibilities. Implemented effectively, a strong plan can
minimize negative reactions and help to build neighborhood connections. The challenge
is getting the contractor to play along - some are much better than others in this respect.
Citizen Notification
As previously mentioned, citizen notification is one of the only legally required methods of
communication with residents. This legal requirement can come with an unanticipated burden,
though. Posted legal notices can be difficult for citizens to read or understand the consequences
of the proposed action of which they are being noticed. This can diminish its value as a
communications tool, and can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretation that creates
difficulties for both residents and for staff before any public meeting is held on the subject.
The challenge is to determine exactly what is legally required, and how these messages can be
condensed to reader-friendly, easily understandable notices that motivate involvement.
Recommendations:
Public Hearing notification
The Public Communications Department recently had the opportunity to judge for a
national awards program organized by the City/County Communications and
Marketing Association (3CMA). One. of the entries was an innovative public notification
system designed by the city of Scottsdale, Arizona. The automated system provided
streamlined postcards for notification of public hearings on zoning/land use or other
changes that may affect neighborhoods. Public Communications has had some
preliminary discussions with Information Technology on the possibility of replicating
this project locally. If feasible, this shift in notification methods could reduce staff time
and mailing costs, while increasing citizen awareness.
Public Hearing advertising
A consistent criticism of Clearwater when it comes to noticing meetings, hearings and
other legally required advertising is that they only appear in the Tampa Tribune, which
has a very low circulation in Pinellas County - under 19,000 countywide. While these
advertisements meet the legal requirement for notices, they don't necessarily achieve the
core objective, which is public awareness. The difficulty is that the same advertising in
the St. Petersburg Times, which has a Clearwater circulation of over 50,000, costs from
three to four times as much. This is a financial consideration that cannot be overlooked.
On an annual basis, this would increase the City Clerk's advertising budget by $80,000 to
$90,000 per year. If negotiated, the increase could be brought down to $60,000 to $80,000.
Other considerations: Technology and constituency building
For the purposes of a full discussion, these two categories are presented separately. The first,
technology, covers aspects of all three areas of public engagement. The second takes a longer-
term view in how best to educate and motivate potential voters to participate in the process.
Technological tools
Explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of technology as it relates to this particular subject.
Recommendations:
Customer service tracking system
Information Technology and Customer Service are currently working on a (Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) system that will allow Customer Service to log, track
and provide better response to citizen inquiries. The system will allow staff to enter
inquiries in to the system, route them to the appropriate city representative, then follow
the status of the inquiry to conclusion. In the future, this system may serve as the
foundation for a larger "knowledge-base" system that would build a database of
customer inquiries and appropriate responses.
3-1-1
This system is best applied countywide, and it presents a great opportunity to provide
enhanced real-time service to residents. A single-call service center, the most effective
3-1-1 systems combine knowledge base software, tracking systems, dedicated staff and
expanded hours for support. Startup costs for an effective 3-1-1 system are fairly high,
and 3-1-1 is subdivided by area code, not by city. Without participation from the majority
of Pinellas communities, it would be prohibitive for Clearwater to address this on its
own. This is further complicated by the fact that St. Petersburg currently holds the local
rights to the number.
If successfully implemented, though, the 3-1-1 system has the potential to significantly
streamline citizen response times and to provide measurable, ongoing feedback.
Online "Quick Polls"
Public Communications and Information Technology are currently working on a system
that would allow the city to conduct online opinion polls from the home page of the city
website. Updated and reported monthly, these polls would consist of a single question
and a window for comments. This would provide a quick "straw poll" on subjects
currently under debate by the Council, like downtown traffic (Do you think parking
should be removed from Cleveland Street?) or Coachman events (Do you think the city
should do more, smaller events or continue to provide larger concerts?).
While the results are nonscientific, they do provide an additional avenue for comments
by those who may not have the time or desire to attend other types of meetings. Like the
recent downtown redevelopment survey, respondents would be limited to a single vote,
or could be verified through a pre-registration system.
Online surveys
Clearwater's first online survey could be considered a success. Over 300 individuals
completed the survey, and over 250 indicated a willingness to participate in future focus
groups on downtown redevelopment. While the data collected from online surveys
cannot be considered statistically viable, it does provide additional insight from residents
who may not otherwise participate in government. It also provides additional anecdotal
comments that can give decision makers further perspective on issues.
Any public surveys should continue to be translated for the web whenever possible. In
addition to the feedback, this forum allows us to continue building a database of citizens
interested in future engagement activities (almost 300 signed up for future information as
a result of the last online survey). The key, as with many of these recommendations, is to
be sure to keep them involved and informed after their initial contact.
Instant feedback tools
This could include integrated "comment cards" attached to each project description
online. LT. has already built this interface in to the project update pages, which are
managed by Engineering, but is holding off on launching them until the new CRM
system is in place. This will help the city avoid duplication of efforts on project inquiries.
Once established, the location of this page can be incorporated in to any communications
to neighborhoods on a particular project. This achieves two things: First, it points
residents to the site for project updates; and second, it gives residents a forum for
immediate comment. The key to making this successful is monitoring and timely
response to questions and comments generated by the site.
GIS project notification/information
Provide an interactive map linked to project information based on a map, so residents
can easily identify projects near their home that may affect them. Chandler, Arizona has
integrated their GIS system with their long-range capital plan to provide residents,
businesses and prospective residents with an idea of where and when infrastructure
projects will take place. The city currently has project information posted, but no
geographic reference for neighborhoods to identify what's happening immediately
around them. Integrating a mapped system in to the existing project update pages will
allow residents to more easily access this information. This could also be used for
information on pending development proposals in the Planning Department.
Constituency building
The best examples of the constituency building function in public engagement for Clearwater are
the Neighborhood Services Division, Main Street and the Citizen's Academy. These functions
help to organize groups of citizens and motivate them to increase involvement in local
government affairs. These programs help to break down the barriers that can impede regular
citizens from becoming involved. By facilitating the communication between these
constituencies, we can help to build a more informed, involved public in Clearwater.
Recommendations:
Facilitate connections
We have a responsibility to continue to foster forums outside of direct government
involvement for the sharing of ideas and taking action on a grassroots level. Both local
organizations and regional/national organizations like the League of Women Voters,
Creative Tampa Bay and the National Conference for Community and Justice have the
capacity to engage the public in a way that government may not be able to. The results of
their involvement can give the city a more complete perspective on local issues. They
also have the capacity to organize constituencies around issues in a way that is clearly
outside of the governmental spectrum. Fostering these types of forums will help with the
free flow of ideas when considering Clearwater's direction.
Youth involvement
Eleven percent of Clearwater's population is between 15 and 24 years of age, yet their
involvement in civic affairs locally is extremely low. This is not necessarily unique to
Clearwater, but other communities have found ways to significantly raise the awareness
and involvement of this age group through comprehensive youth involvement
initiatives. While we currently have youth involved on a "micro" scale in Parks and
Recreation, Library and working with Neighborhood Services projects, we don't have a
mechanism to get meaningful input from young people on a more comprehensive scale.
Devising a well-organized youth council with input on projects and future planning
provides the city with a different perspective, and helps to build the next generation of
public leaders. They can also help to motivate young voters to the polls for local
elections.
Downtown strategies
With the number and potential impact of downtown construction projects due to begin in the
next 18 months, an effort must be made to better communicate how each piece fits in to the
whole. Interestingly, the top five "decision factors" regarding the future of downtown had to do
with information, not with processes. Respondents want information on funding, specific design,
exclusions (what will and won't be included in the project), benefits and overall vision. It shows
that past efforts at improvement may have more to do with information and engagement than
with the substance of the plan.
The delays related to bridge construction provide a unique opportunity to spend an extended
period fine-tuning plans and prioritizing elements in the plan. It also gives us the opportunity to
more clearly articulate the benefits of the plan and how the improvements fit in to the overall
vision for the city. The results of the online redevelopment survey clearly showed interest from
citizens in participating in the process, as more than 250 of the respondents gave mailing
addresses for involvement in future planning for downtown.
Recommendations:
Focus groups
Facilitated focus groups can help to build understanding and consensus on priorities
relating to downtown. They also provide an opportunity for citizens to engage one
another and, hopefully, form some consensus based on shared goals. While there's no
way to expect all citizens to agree on all things, this type of forum helps to smooth out
some of the rough edges created by a lack of understanding or a feeling of exclusion from
the process. In a best-case scenario, it can also help build champions for the project inside
neighborhoods and identify key leaders for future involvement. As is done with project
planning meetings, participants should receive some form of ongoing communication
after the process to keep them involved, engaged and in the loop.
Downtown branding campaign
Several communities, including San Diego and Greensboro, NC, have conducted
successful campaigns to put a "look" and "feel" to the activities taking place in their
downtowns during periods of significant construction and redevelopment. The
motivation for branding the downtown was to show how each project physically fits in
to the overall vision from downtown. Today, few residents may understand how Myrtle
construction ties to downtown redevelopment, or how private residential construction
fits in to the planning process for the downtown waterfront. Common signage for
projects that tie them to downtown, and common design elements carried through other
communication materials, can help reinforce the synergy between all of these projects.
A publication that details the entire downtown plan/projects and how they all fit
together, including how certain decisions have been/ are made, what the challenges are
and what the long-term vision is should be part of this campaign. A decision must be
made regarding whether to create a new publication for this purpose, or to utilize an
existing publication such as Main Street Update for this purpose.
Regular presentations
How the downtown pieces fit together should be a key subject for future presentations to
civic groups. This can be incorporated in to print, video and promotional materials
related to the branding campaign.
Conclusions
As with any initiative, there are time and cost considerations. In addition, some of these
recommendations require a shift in organizational approaches toward the community. The hope
is that, through discussion, these proposals can be reviewed and prioritized for action. We must
identify where the responsibility lies, what we're willing to fund and clearly define the processes
so that everyone understands their role. In an environment of limited resources, it can be a
challenge for an engineer, planner or a project coordinator to also fill the role of public liaison,
information distributor and consultant. This is not necessarily due to a lack of interest as much as
a lack of time or resources to fulfill this role.
There has been some discussion of engaging consultants to facilitate the citizen engagement
process. While consultants certainly have value, there is a potential for resistance by residents
due to the cost associated with their services. The argument has been made that engaging the
public and understanding their issues should be the responsibility of the city's leaders, and not
that of a consultant who may not have the same connection to the community. There are also
inherent trust issues, in that some citizens believe that consultants' results may be influenced by
the hiring organization.
Actively engaging the public throughout any project can be time-consuming and, at times,
frustrating, and no initiative will completely eliminate negative feedback. These proposals are
designed to mitigate and manage that feedback and provide additional public perspective for city
leaders and elected officials. We should also be mindful that, in many cases, additional projects
bring with them additional costs, either in staff time or funding. This is the first step in deciding
how best to increase our dialogue.
eLDi
City Council
Cover Memorandum
Tracking Number: 944
Actual Date: 11/04/2004
Subject / Recommendation:
Discussion and Policy Direction on Proposed Revisions to Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63.
Summary:
Pinellas County is proposing amendments to Ordinance No. 00-63 which regulates voluntary
annexation in Pinellas County. Proposed revisions will have a dramatic impact on the City's ability
to process voluntary annexation petitions. Attached please find a memorandum detailing the
proposed revisions.
The Pinellas Planning Council will discuss the proposed revisions at its November 17th meeting.
The Planning Department is seeking policy direction on these amendments in order to properly
represent your position at that meeting.
Originating: Planning
Section: Other items on City Manager Reports
Cateaorv: Other
Number of Hard Copies attached: 4
Public Hearina: No
Financial Information:
~ Purchase
Review Approval
Cvndie Goudeau
10-22-2004
13:00:09
Sue Diana
10-25-2004
09: 14:28
Garrv Brumback
10-22-2004
11:24:58
Bill Horne
10-22-2004
22:32:43
LL
o
>-
f-
o
TO:
Bill Home, City Manager
FROM:
Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director
DATE:
October 21, 2004
RE:
Proposed Revisions to Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63
Pinellas County is proposing amendments to Ordinance No. 00-63, which established the
planning boundaries and criteria for voluntary annexation in Pinellas County. This
ordinance was developed by the Pinellas Planning Council, with the support of the Board
of County Commissioners (BCC) and the 24 municipalities, between 1998 and 2000. In
August 2000, the BCC approved the ordinance and map that established the planning area
boundaries for all municipalities in the County subject to referendum. In November
2000, the Pinellas County electorate approved that referendum.
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63 specifies that property may be annexed on a
voluntary basis if the property is located within a municipality's planning area, is
contiguous, is compact and does not create an enclave. These terms are defined in the
ordinance and are consistent with Florida Statutes (see Section 4 Definitions in the
attached ordinance).
Due to concerns that the definitions of compact and contiguous are not specific and could
possibly result in different interpretations, Planning County is proposing to amend
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63 to add numerical standards to these definitions.
The County is proposing the following revisions:
. Contiguity would require that 50% or more of a boundary of the annexation area
be coterminous with the boundary of the annexing municipality.
. Compactness would require that a.) the portion of the boundary of the annexation
area that is coterminuous with the annexing municipal boundary be at least 18%
of the total perimeter of the annexation area; and b.) the "pockets", which are
prohibited, be defined such that any unincorporated area enclosed along more
than 95% of its perimeter, including right-of-way, would be considered a
"pocket;" and
1
. The new standards be applied to any combination of individual annexations such
that their aggregation would comply with the new individual standards.
The Planning Departments has several concerns with the proposed amendments and how
they apply to property located in unincorporated areas in the Clearwater planning area
that are not part of an enclave (noncontiguous annexation may still occur in the enclaves).
. The application of the proposed criteria disregards the concept of the voluntary
annexation planning boundaries established in Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-
63 and approved by the voters of Pine lIas County.
. The addition of the proposed criteria will greatly restrict the ability of many
County residents to voluntarily annex into a municipality and significantly slow
down the rate of voluntary annexation. As a result, many County residents will
lose rights they currently enjoy under the existing ordinance.
. In 2002, the PPC considered making amendments to the definitions of contiguity
and compactness but opted to leave the ordinance as currently written. At that
time, the Council felt that because the planning area boundaries were established
based on the ability to serve, contiguity/compactness should not be a major issue.
After this determination, most communities have interpreted contiguity to be
anything more than a point-to-point connection.
. The proposed numerical standards will prevent the annexation of very large
property.
. The proposed amendments will impact the City's ability to exercise its contractual
rights with regard to previously approved Agreements To Annex (ATA). This
will slow down the possible annexation of ATAs and will require County
residents to continue to pay additional costs to obtain municipal services.
. The proposed amendments would establish a new concept in annexation that
would require a voluntary annexation request to be evaluated on an individual
parcel basis as well as a cumulative basis.
. From November 2000 to July 2004, the PPC staff reviewed a total of 798
voluntary annexation requests throughout the entire County. Of those, 761 or
95% complied with the ordinance provisions. A total of 10 requests for full
review of voluntary annexation petitions have been filed with the ppc. Six were
found to comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 00-63, two were found not
to comply and two were withdrawn.
. It is unclear whether or not the proposed amendment can be made through the
ordinance process or whether a referendum will be required.
2
PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 00-63
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PINELLAS
COUNTY; PROVIDING A PURPOSE; PROVIDING
FOR AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR TERRITORY
EMBRACED; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR PLANNING AREAS
DELINEATING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANNEXATION;
PROVIDING CRITERIA FOR PETITIONS FOR
VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION; PROVIDING FOR A
LIMITED REVIEW OF PROPOSED
ANNEXATIONS; PROVIDING FOR REQUEST BY
AFFECTED PARTY FOR FULL REVIEW OF
PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS; PROVIDING A
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION PROCEDURE AND
APPEALS THEREFROM; PROVIDING FOR THE
EFFECT OF ANNEXATION; PROVIDING FOR
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FOR URBAN
SERVICES AND ANNEXATION; PROVIDING FOR
EXEMPTION FROM STATE PLAN AMENDMENT
REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY
ARISE FROM REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE AT
PUBLIC HEARING.
WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated
county in the State of Florida, with twenty-four (24) incorporated
municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds (2/3) of the total county
area; and
WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the
incorporated municipalities is an on-going significant occurrence that
has important growth management and service delivery implications
to the unincorporated county, the incorporated municipalities, and
the citizenry; and
1
WHEREAS, annexation is a routine process whereby
municipal boundaries may be expanded in order to meet the
citizenry's growing need for urban services; and
WHEREAS, it is essential to a workable planning and
annexation process that the representatives of both the
unincorporated and incorporated jurisdictions coordinate their
respective interests in a fair and cooperative manner that respects the
rights and interests of individual property owners and the respective
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas
County, Florida, deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of
Pinellas County to implement a more rational, uniform, and clear
method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to
address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies, and
unpredictability of the current voluntary annexation process; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas
County, Florida, declares it essential to a well-planned and balanced
system of governance in Pinellas County that the method of
annexation provided for in this ordinance and subsequent charter
amendment constitutes the exclusive means by which voluntary
municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas
County, Florida, has determined that the municipalities located
within Pinellas County have the ability to provide urban services to
the planning areas designated herein, and that said determination was
based upon sound planning considerations; and
2
r--
WHEREAS, pursuant to s 171.044(4), F.S., the Board of
County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida has the authority
to provide the exclusive means of voluntary annexation for
municipalities located within Pinellas County through its Charter;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Pinellas County Charter s 6.01, the
Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida has the
authority to amend the Pinellas County Charter by ordinance passed
by an affirmative vote of not less than majority plus one, subject to
countywide referendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of
County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida:
Section 1. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to establish a uniform,
equitable, and integrated procedure with clearly defined criteria to
provide the exclusive method for voluntary annexation of property by
an incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida.
Section 2. Authority.
This ordinance is promulgated pursuant to the home rule
powers of Pinellas County, Florida, and s 171.044(4), F.S. (1999), as a
county ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of the County Charter
that would provide for exclusive method and criteria for voluntary
municipal annexation and planning areas that delineate the
geographic area eligible for annexation by a municipality.
3
Section 3. Territory Embraced.
This ordinance shall be effective in the incorporated as well as
unincorporated areas of the county. To the extent that this county
ordinance conflicts with a municipal ordinance, this ordinance shall
prevail.
Section 4. Definitions.
The following terms and phrases shall have the following
meanings, unless some other meaning is plainly indicated:
(1) "Ability to Serve" means the municipality that
proposes to annex property has the authority, responsibility, and
capacity to provide police, fire, sewer, water, solid waste, and local
road and drainage facility services. If the annexing municipality does
not have the authority, responsibility, and capacity to provide anyone
or more of these seven (7) requisite urban services to the property
proposed to be annexed, then it shall, by either interlocal agreement
or written authorization, obtain agreement of the service provider
that is charged with providing such service(s), attesting to that
provider's ability and willingness to provide said service(s).
(2) "Annexation" means the voluntary addition of real
property to the boundaries of an incorporated municipality pursuant
to the Pinellas County Charter, such addition making such real
property in every way a part of the municipality.
(3) "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of
Pinellas County, Florida.
( 4) "CPA" means the Board of County Commissioners
sitting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority.
(5) "Compact" means concentration of a piece of property
in a single area and precludes any action which would create pockets,
4
finger areas, or serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in
Pinellas County shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that
the area will be reasonably compact.
(6) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a
boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is
coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The
separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing
municipality by a publicly-owned county park; a right-of-way for a
highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water or
watercourse; or other minor geographical division of a similar nature,
running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed
and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under
this ordinance, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a
practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the
annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to
municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating
and trading with each other, socially and economically. However,
nothing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility
easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a
corridor fashion to gain contiguity; and when any provision or
provisions of special law or laws prohibit the annexation of territory
that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of water
or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this
ordinance.
(7) "Council" means the Pinellas Planning Council, as
created by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida (1988), or its designee.
(8) "County" means Pinellas County, Florida.
(9) "Enclave" means any unincorporated area that is
5
enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality.
(10) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant
to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s.2 or
s.6, Art. VIII, of the State of Florida Constitution.
(11) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning
property that is proposed for annexation to a municipality, or any
governmental unit having jurisdiction over such area.
(12) "Urban services" means those services required to be
available and provided by a local government, either directly or by
contract, to properties located within its present boundaries and areas
proposed for annexation, including but not limited to police, fire,
sewer, water, solid waste, and local road and drainage facility
services.
Section 5. Planning Areas - Delineating Eligibility for
Annexation.
(1) Planning areas have been determined and depicted in
map form as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference. The purpose of each planning area is to allow the
respective municipalities to consider the area in their Comprehensive
Plan and delineate the geographic area eligible for annexation to each
such municipality. Each planning area was determined and delineated
consistent with the purpose and provision for establishment of
planning areas, as provided for under s 163.3171, F.S. and is
specifically intended to replace the review for ability to serve for
annexations of ten (10) acres or more now conducted independently
by the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida.
6
(2) A municipality may annex only that property within its
respective planning area as delineated on Exhibit 1, as such Exhibit
may be amended from time to time. Unincorporated area that is not
located within a defined municipal planning area, as delineated in
Exhibit 1, shall not be voluntarily annexed by any municipality unless
and until Exhibit 1 is amended to include such unincorporated area in
the annexing municipality's planning area.
(3) The planning areas as delineated herein on Exhibit 1
may be amended by County ordinance upon recommendation of the
Council and approval by the CPA. Any deviation by the CPA from
the Council's recommendation shall be by at least four votes.
Consideration of an amendment to any planning area by the Council
and CPA shall be based upon the following criteria:
(a) the nature of the request and interest of the
affected property owner(s);
(b) the ability of affected municipality to provide
urban services;
(c) the uniform and consistent relationship of the
proposed area to existing municipal boundaries, existing
unincorporated neighborhoods, and related areas eligible for
annexation; and
(d) the interest and relationship of adjoining
unincorporated areas and service providers.
(4) In the event that a municipality receives a petition to
voluntarily annex property that lies outside that municipality's
planning area, said petition shall be reviewed as an amendment to
that planning area in accordance with this section. So long as a
proposed amendment of Exhibit 1 is consistent with the criteria in
7
subsection (3), no such amendment which results from a petition for
voluntary annexation shall be unreasonably denied without just cause.
(5) The Council shall periodically review the planning
areas set forth in Exhibit 1, as it may be amended from time to time.
Any amendment to Exhibit 1 resulting from this periodic review shall
be as provided for under this section. The first review shall take place
no longer than five (5) years after final adoption of this ordinance.
Each subsequent review shall take place no longer than five (5) years
after the previous review.
(6) Any annexation that may occur in Pinellas County
pursuant to the referendum process provided for in Chapter 171, F.S.,
shall not automatically amend the planning areas provided for under
this section, but may be considered, in addition to the criteria listed in
this section, for purposes of amending a planning area. Failure to
amend the planning area to reflect the referendum, in whole or in
part, shall not affect the validity of the annexation.
(7) Any area duly incorporated and within the boundaries
of a municipality on the effective date of this ordinance, but not
included within its designated planning area, shall continue to be a
valid part of said municipality with all of the rights and
responsibilities attendant thereto; and the location of such
incorporated area outside the planning area shall in no way alter or
compromise its corporate status.
Section 6. Petition for Voluntary Annexation.
(1) The owner or owners of real property, or his or her
agent, in an unincorporated area of the County, may petition the
governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the
municipality if the subject property meets the requirements set forthc
8
in either (a) or (b) below:
(a) the property is located within the annexing
municipality's planning area as set forth in Exhibit 1, is contiguous to
the annexing municipality, is reasonably compact, and does not create
an enclave; or
(b) the property is located within the annexing
municipality's planning area as set forth in Exhibit 1, is located within
and reduces an enclave existing on the effective date of this ordinance,
and neither involves a property that is subject to an existing
annexation agreement nor provides the basis for annexing an
adjoining property that is subject to an annexation agreement.
(2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for
voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation
pursuant to a previously executed and valid agreement, the annexing
municipality shall notify the County, Council, and all parties affected,
of said proposed annexation with a copy of the petition for annexation
and a legal description of the subject property. Notwithstanding the
five (5)-day notice period provided above, the annexing municipality
shall provide said notice prior to the first reading of the annexation
ordinance.
Section 7. Limited Review of Proposed Annexation.
(1) Upon receipt of a petition for a proposed annexation to
a municipality and a legal description of the subject property, the
Council shall review said proposed annexation for compliance with
the following criteria:
(a) whether the subject property complies with the
criteria and procedures set forth in Section 6; and
(b) whether the legal description provided conflicts
9
with previously-established municipal boundaries or creates an
inadvertent gap between governmental jurisdictions.
(2) Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt, the Council
shall notify the annexing municipality if the proposed annexation is
deemed inconsistent with the criteria and procedures set forth herein,
or if a valid request for a full review has been received from an
affected party. Absent any such notification, the annexing
municipality may proceed with the proposed annexation.
(3) If the proposed annexation is deemed inconsistent with
the requirements of this ordinance by the Council, or a valid request
for a full review has been received by an affected party as set forth in
Section 8, a full review shall be conducted.
Section 8. Request for Full Review by Affected Party.
(1) Any party affected by the proposed municipal
annexation may petition the Council and CPA to review the proposed
annexation for consistency with the criteria and procedures set forth
herein. Said review shall be conducted pursuant to the following
criteria and procedure:
(a) A petition requesting review shall be filed with
the Council within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the notice
provided by the annexing municipality under Section 6(2). Upon
receipt of said petition, the Council shall notify the annexing
municipality and forward a copy of the petition to said municipality.
(b) The petition shall set forth the specific objections
and manner in which the proposed annexation is inconsistent with the
criteria and procedure set forth herein.
(c) Within five (5) days of receipt of a petition
requesting review, the Executive Director of the Council shall
10
determine the validity of said petition, specifically whether the
petition alleges legitimate grounds upon which the annexation does
not comport with the procedure and criteria set forth herein. If an
applicant requesting full review disagrees with the determination of
the Executive Director, the validity of the request shall be considered
and determined by the Planning Council at its next scheduled
meeting.
(d) Upon receipt of a valid petition for review, as
determined pursuant to subsection (c) above, the Council shall
consider the petition at its next regularly-scheduled meeting and
forward a recommendation to the CPA. The CPA shall, within thirty
(30) days of receipt of the Council's recommendation, render a
decision as to whether the application is consistent with the required
criteria and shall notify the annexing municipality of said
determination.
(2) The filing of a valid petition for review under this
section, or the initiation of a full review by the Council under Section
7, shall prohibit the annexing municipality from proceeding with the
second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance until after a
decision has been rendered by the CPA.
Section 9. Municipal Annexation Procedure; Appeals.
(1) Upon receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation that
comports with the criteria set forth in Section 6(1)(a) or (b), a
municipality may, at any regular meeting, adopt a non-emergency
ordinance to annex the property that is proposed for annexation and
re-define the boundary lines of the municipality to include said
property. Said ordinance shall be passed consistent with the
procedures for adoption of ordinances provided in s 166.041, F.S. The
11
notice required by s 166.041, F.S., shall give the ordinance number, if
available, and a brief general description of the area proposed to be
annexed. The description shall include a map clearly showing the area
and a statement that the complete legal description and the ordinance
can be obtained from the office of the municipal clerk.
(2) An ordinance adopted under this section shall be filed
with the Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Pinellas
County Administrator and with the Department of State within seven
(7) days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must
include a map which clearly shows the annexed area and a complete
legal description of that area.
(3) Any party affected by the annexation or the CPA, upon
recommendation of the Council, shall have the right to file a petition
in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by
certiorari. Said petition must be filed within thirty (30) days of
adoption of the annexation ordinance by the annexing municipality.
An appeal filed by the CPA shall be subject to the Florida
Governmental Conflict Resolution Act. In any action instituted
pursuant to this section, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
Section 10. Effect of Annexation.
An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality, pursuant to
the criteria and procedure set forth in this ordinance, shall be subject
to all laws, ordinances, and regulations in force in that municipality,
and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts
of that municipality upon the effective date of the annexation. Any
voluntary annexation that does not comply with the criteria and
procedures set forth in this ordinance shall be null and void, and the
12
property shall continue to be considered unincorporated for both tax
and regulatory purposes.
Section 11. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services and
Annexation.
(1) The County and each municipality shall have the
authority to enter into interlocal agreements to provide services as an
alternative to annexation. Such agreements are encouraged where
they would provide a cost-effective, mutually-advantageous
alternative to annexation, or where annexation is not achievable
under the criteria and procedures set forth herein, or where
annexation is not desirable on the part of the property owner or
municipality.
(2) Consistent with the intent and provisions of s
171.046(2), F.S., existing enclaves of ten (10) acres or less may be
annexed into the appropriate municipal jurisdiction by interlocal
agreement between the County and the appropriate municipality.
Section 12. State Plan Amendment Review Process.
Any area voluntarily annexed into a municipality pursuant to
the criteria and procedures set forth in this ordinance that is located
within a municipality's designated planning area shall be deemed to
comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F.S. with
respect to the exemption from state review of comprehensive plan
amendments as a function of said annexation. Specifically, upon
adoption of an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may
immediately apply the municipality's comprehensive plan and land
use standards to any such area if said comprehensive plan provides
for use characteristics and intensity or density standards which are
13
consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for said area,
as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan
amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is
specifically intended that the provisions of this section shall supersede
those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the county
and certain municipalities, pursuant to the authority of s 163.3171(3),
which provide for joint planning areas. However, nothing contained
in this ordinance shall affect the right of the County or its
municipalities to utilize the otherwise applicable provisions of s
163.3171, F.S.
Section 13. Effective Date; Referendum.
This ordinance shall take effect only upon approval by a
majority vote of the electors of Pinellas County voting in a
referendum election which shall be called and held by the County
Commission prior to November 30,2000 to amend the County
Charter so as to enable this ordinance.
Sectionl4. Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof,
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not
affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared severable.
14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: August 24, 2004
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
o
Regular Agenda
o
Public Hearing 0
County Administrator's Sianature:
Subiect:
Draft Criteria for Reviewing Voluntary Annexations
Department:
Planning
Recommended Action:
I RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD, SITTING AS THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, REVIEW AND
DISCUSS THE ATTACHED DRAFT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS
AND FORWARD THE DRAFT CRITERIA TO THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL (PPC) FOR THEIR REVIEW
AND COMMENT PRIOR TO FINAL ACTION BY THE BOARD IN YOUR ROLE AS THE COUNTYWIDE
PLANNING AUTHORITY.
Staff Member Responsible:
Brian Smith
Summary Explanation/Backaround:
On July 13 and August 10 of this year, the Board reviewed three proposed voluntary annexations by the City of
Largo. One involved the Country Park Mobile Home Park, and the other two involved the Seabrooke Area and the
Foxbridge Apartments, both located in the High Point community. County staff had questioned whether the three
annexations met the requirements of County Ordinance 00-63 with respect to contiguity and/or compactness.
During both of the public hearings on these proposed voluntary annexations, the Board expressed concern over the
lack of clear, agreed-upon criteria to evaluate whether a proposed annexation is in compliance with the
re9t,uirements of County Ordinance 00-63. At the August 10th public hearing, the Board requested that their August
24t agenda include a discussion of draft criteria and ~uidelines that would more clearly define when the Ordinance
requirements have been satisfied. At the July 13 h public hearing, County staff distributed draft criteria for
evaluating proposed voluntary annexations. These draft criteria have been refined and are attached to this agenda
memorandum for your discussion and consideration. Once the Board has had an opportunity to discuss these draft
criteria, it would be appropriate to forward them to the PPC for their review and comment. Since annexation is also
a topic of discussion in the Pinellas Assembly process, the Board may also want to send the draft criteria to the
Mayor's Council for their consideration and comment.
The two proposed annexations on August 10th involved sewer indentures. It was noted that a property owner is
often not aware that his/her property is subject to a sewer indenture, which may require annexation (at times
against the property owners wishes) when the property becomes contiguous to the City of Largo's municipal
boundaries. The Board discussed the potential public benefits if the City of Largo were to inform unincorporated
property owners that their property is subject to a sewer indenture. The Board may want to continue this discussion
and recommend the City of Largo take such action on a regular basis (perhaps annually) so that unincorporated
property owners are not caught by surprise when they are forced to annex into the City based on a sewer indenture
that may have been entered into years ago by a prior property owner.
Fiscal Impact/Cost/Revenue Summary:
None.
Exhibits/Attachments Attached:
Draft Voluntary Annexation Review Criteria
Revised 07-18-03
Page 1 of 1
DRAFT CRITERIA DEVELOPED BY PINELLAS COUNTY STAFF
FOR EVALUATING
PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS
(September 8, 2004)
Background:
In Pinellas County, voluntary annexations are subject to the provisions of County
Ordinance No. 00-63 as a result of an amendment to the County Charter
approved by the electorate in November 2000. Ordinance No. 00-63 requires
that a proposed voluntary annexation meet the following basic requirements:
(a) that the property proposed for annexation is located within the
annexing municipality's planning area, is contiguous to the annexing
municipality, is reasonably compact, and does not create an enclave;
or
(b) that the property is located within the annexing municipality's planning
area, is located within and reduces an enclave existing on the effective
date of the ordinance, and neither involves a property that is subject to
an existing annexation agreement nor provides the basis for annexing
an adjoining property that is subject to an annexation agreement.
Proposed voluntary annexations must also comply with the procedural
requirements of County Ordinance No. 00-63.
The County ordinance allows for a limited review of proposed voluntary
annexations by the Pinellas Planning Council, and provides an opportunity for an
affected party (which includes Pinellas County) to petition the Council and the
Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) to conduct a full review of a proposed
voluntary annexation for consistency with the criteria and procedures of
Ordinance No. 00-63. Currently, the criteria for determining whether a proposed
annexation is consistent with the basic requirements for annexation rely upon
terms that are not clearly defined. While "compact", contiguous", and "enclave"
are defined in the Ordinance using definitions from the Florida Statutes (the
definition of "enclave" was simplified), these definitions leave considerable room
for differences in interpretation. Consequently, there are no clear and agreed
upon criteria that have been established by the CPA for determining when these
annexation requirements have been satisfied. (See attached definitions from
County Ordinance No. 00-63.)
Establishing such criteria would enable the County, the PPC, and the
municipalities to review proposed annexations using a common set of
parameters. For example, the Ordinance states that in order to meet the
contiguity requirement, a substantial part of a boundary of the area sought to be
annexed must be coterminus with the annexing municipality. Some
1
municipalities and the PPC interpret anything greater than a point-to-point
connection between an annexed area and the municipality as representing a
substantial connection. County staff does not agree that this meets the
requirement for substantial contiguity. Lacking clear criteria, there will continue
to be these divergent interpretations of the Ordinance requirements.
Recommendation:
County staff would recommend that the Board transmit the following proposed
draft review criteria to the Pinellas Planning Council and request that the Council
review the proposals and submit a recommendation to the Board for CPA
consideration and action. The draft criteria are as follows:
1. "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the area to be
annexed is coterminus with a part of the boundary of the annexing
municipality. This requirement would be satisfied when 50% or more of a
boundary of the annexation area is coterminus with the boundary of the
annexing municipality.
2. To ensure that annexation results in a municipal area that is reasonably
compact, the following criteria would be used:
. That portion of an annexation area that is coterminus to the
municipality must be at least 18% of the total perimeter of the
proposed annexation area. This percentage is based on the typical
dimensions of an R-3 residential lot (60' by 100'), which would meet
the 18% requirement if its shortest side were adjacent to the municipal
boundary.
. Annexations are prohibited from creating pockets. A "pocket" would be
created when an unincorporated area is enclosed along more than
82% of its perimeter by a single municipality. Pockets would include
public ROW.
3. Experience has shown that, while individual annexations may satisfy the
Ordinance requirements for contiguity and compactness, the cumulative
impact of annexations over time in a specific area can result in municipal
boundaries that are arguably inconsistent with these requirements.
Therefore, the expansion of municipal boundaries through the aggregation
of individual annexations in a specific area will be evaluated using the
above criteria as applied to the aggregated annexation area. While
implementation of this requirement will require some judgment and must
be reasonably applied, it would generally require that proposed
annexations be evaluated in the context of the aggregated annexations
back to where they have their smallest connection (as a percentage of the
total perimeter of the aggregated annexation area) with the rest of the
2
municipality. If the aggregated annexation area with or without the
proposed annexations does not meet the voluntary annexation criteria,
then expansion of this area through further voluntary annexations could
not occur unless the proposed annexation would reduce the size of an
existing pocket or increase the contiguity of the aggregated annexation
area with the rest of the municipality.
4. The prohibition about creating "finger areas" should be adequately
addressed through use of the proposed voluntary annexation criteria
discussed above.
Attachment
G:/ AnnexReviewCriteria9-08-04
3