ANNEXATION ENCLAVES, FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - 2001
Annexation
Enclaves
Florida Legislative
History
2001
~ani, Cyndi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tarapani, Cyndi
Tuesday, July 24, 2001 9:48 AM
Murrin, Lisa; O'Brien, Kelly; Ruscher, Amy
Quillen, Michael; Bahnick, Glen; Sickler, Dave; Udoh, Etim; Dougall-Sides, Leslie
RE: Enclave Annexation sewer extensions
Lisa and Kelly-I think we need to talk about the first parcel on K Street with Legal. I believe that our obligation is to extend
sewer to the property and if we do not do so, we will not be following the special law. Further, I think that the owner does
not have to hook up since this was a special law enacted by the Legislature which would probably supercede our local
regulation, especially since we have not consistently required people to hook up as I understand it. I understand that you
all are trying to be customer friendly but we do have specific obligations on this program and I want to be sure that we are
meeting them.
through this e-mail, lamaskingAmytosetupameetingwithLisa,Kelly, Etim, Leslie Dougall-Sides and me to discuss
this. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Murrin, Lisa
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 4:18 PM
To: O'Brien, Kelly
Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bahnick, Glen; Tarapani, Cyndi; Sickler, Dave; Udoh, Etim
Subject: RE: Enclave Annexation sewer extensions
Kelly,
After consideration of the information provided, and our subsequent discussion regarding these issues, I would
proceed as follows:
Parcel 292A (108 K Street) - Proceed with your initial recommendation and send notification to the new property owner
explaining the events that have transpired to date. Give them the opportunity to hook up to the City's system, and if
they choose to decline they waive their rights under this special program and we will not extend our system at this
time. If they decide to hook up in the future, they will follow standard procedures and incur the usual costs.
Parcel 246B (2827 St. John Drive) - It appears that the most reasonable and feasible solution would be to extend a
line from the existing manhole located in the green area and provide access in the front R/W. The property owner is
being offered significant cost savings through this program, and the cost to run his service line to the front instead of
the rear should be minimal when taking the entire savings into consideration.
I appreciate your efforts on this project, Kelly. I know you're managing a heavy work load right now (quite successfully)
and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Let me know if I could provide further direction with these issues. Thanks again, Lisa
nmOriginal Messagemn
From: O'Brien, Kelly
Sent: Friday, July 20,2001 3:14 PM
To: Murrin, Lisa
Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi; Sickler, Dave; Udoh, Etim
Subject: Enclave Annexation sewer extensions
During a field review of the 5 sites requiring main extensions, a couple of issues came up that I need some
direction on.
First, Parcel 292A (108 K Street). The property has recently been sold, and the fact that the property was
annexed was not disclosed to the new owners. This issue is between the buyer and seller. The new owner does
not want to hook up to sewer at this time. Cindi told me that we should make sewer available since that was our
end of the deal. The problem is, if we make sewer available, by ordinance, they have to hook up to it. It is my
understanding that the City chose not to force anyone to annex to avoid negative PRo Now that the property is
annexed, do we want to force the new owners to hook and risk the negative PRo
Here are three possible solutions in order of my preference:
1. Send a letter to the new owners explaining our agreement to extend sewer for free, and request a written
commitment by a certain date. Then, if they chose not to hook up, we will not build the line, and they will pay the
same fees as anyone else if they decide to hook up in the future.
1
2. Note the agreement in the assessment book as a perpetual agreement, and build it when they want it at no
charge to them. (If funds are available)
3. Build the line up to a point where it is close to, but technically not available to the property. Then, when they
decide to hook up, they could do so by running a long service line.
Next, Parcel 246B (2827 St. John Drive) The current design calls for a 293' main extension with 2 manholes
through a 12' rear easement that is occupied by a continuous fence, trees, power poles, a gas main and 5
encroaching sheds. This design will also require obtaining additional easements from 6 property owners thus
compounding the encroachments on 4 of the sheds. I stood in the easement and tried to imagine a backhoe
working in the area, and I don't think that would be feasible.
I then located an existing manhole near the South right of way line of St. John Dr. in a green area well away from
the road pavement. It appeared to have enough depth to accommodate a main extension of 140' with one
manhole to serve 2827 St. John. The line should be able to be built without impacting the road, and the only
obstacles are 2 small trees and 2 concrete driveways.
There are some drawbacks to moving the line out to the front R/W. In the rear esmt., we can serve four additional
customers ( one is already annexed and has a private pump station) while in the front, we can only serve one
additional customer. Also, I spoke to the owner, and he told me he was planning on a short run from his pluming
outlet in the rear of the house to the rear esmt. He thought the City should pay the additional cost to bring the
service line around to the front. I told him that the City was already covering most of the cost and I did not have
the authority to make that type of decision.
Please let me know what you think.
Kelly J. O'Brien
Engineer I
PW A1Engineering
(727) 562-4591
2
l2!::Pani, Cyndi
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tarapani, Cyndi
Thursday, July 26,2001 11 :19 AM
Stone, Ralph
FW: Enclave annexation questoins
Sorry-I inadvertently left you off the cc list. I will keep you posted on answers. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarapani, Cyndi
Sent: Thursday, July 26,200111:18 AM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hayman, Jane
Cc: Akin, Pam
Subject: Enclave annexation questoins
Leslie and Jane-thanks for your help today in discussing the enclave annexation issues. I have the following questions
that would be helpful to understand prior to our meeting on Aug. 9 with the Engineering Department.
1. Situation: A property owner has been annexed pursuant to the Special Act.
Must the owner connect to the City's sewer system? (See Section 8, Exemptions of Special Act.)
2. Situation: A property owner has been annexed pursuant to the Special Act. The property owner does not connect
to the City's sewer system prior to expiration of Special Act on June 30, 2001.
Must the City pay the impact fee or does the property owner pay the fee when the property owner does connect at
some future date? (See Section 6, Financial Incentives of the Special Act.)
3. Situation: The City Sewer system does not exist adjacent to a property owner who has been annexed pursuant to
the Special Act. The current property owner does not wish to hook up to our system.
Must the City extend the sewer line to be adjacent to the annexed property? (See Section 6, Financial Incentives,
Special Act.)
Again, thanks for your help. I think it would be helpful for you all to have time to review these issues against the Special
Act prior to our meeting on Aug. 9.
FYI - the property that has recently been sold is at address 108 K Street. This is the new owner who does not wish to hook
up to our sewer system now. Hope this helps. Thanks.
Cyndi Tarapani
E-mail: ctarapan@clearwater-fl.com
Phone: 727-562-4547
1
--
.
Ch. 98-4S4
Ch. 98-4S4
LAWS OF FLORIDA
CHAPrER 98-484
House Bill No. 3851
An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a short title; providing
background and purpose of the act; providing for the annexation of
certain small enclaves within the municipalities of Pin ell as County;
providing for the act to apply to a specified type of enclave; providing
prerequisites for annexation; requiring the governing body of a mu-
nicipality to provide certain incentives within the area to be an-
nexed; providing for certain exemptions; providing for expiration of
specified provisions of the act; providing severability; providing an
effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of F1orida:
Section 1. Short title.-This act mav be cited as the "Act to Provide for
the Annexation of Certain Small Enclaves in Pinellas County,"
Section 2. Back2Tound, Consistent with the exoressed oolicv of the
state to eliminate small enclaves. as set forth in section 171.046{))' F10rida
Statutes. the Pinellas County Lelrislative Dele2'ation established an Annex-
ation Study Committee, The Annexation Study Committee conducted oublie
meetin2's and received detailed reoorts and inout and established that:
(1) Certain small enclaves are a sirnificant oroblem of a lon2'-standinsz
nature in Pinellas County.
(2) The existin2' orovisions of law are inadeauate and do not resolve the
problem concernin2' such small enclaves.
(3) The continuation of certain small enclaves is counteroroductive to
effective 2'Towth mana2'ement and the strai2'htforward provision of uniform
and c0molete urban services.
(4) The current oattern of unincorporated small enclaves surrounded by
an incoroorated municioal iurisdiction is confusin2' and inefficient and re-
sults in disoarate re2'Ulations and services.
Section 3. Puroose.-It is the ouroose of this act to orovide a limited. one:
time solution to the oroblem of small enclaves in Pin ell as County bv e~
ablin2' the 2'overnin2' body of a municioality to annex certain small enclaves.
m...Qi~~ to the oarameters set forth in this act and distinct from the reauir~
ments set forth in chaoter 171. F10rida Statutes.
Section 4. Authoritv. The 2'overn.in2' body of a municioalitv within Pi-
nellas County mav annex. bv municioaJ ordinance. a small enclave sur-
rounded by the resoective municioal iurisdiction in accordance with. and
limited to. the followin2':
(1) This act aoolies only to a tvue A enclave in existence on the effective.
date of this act. The term "'tvDe A enc1aye" means an unincoroorated im-
124
-
.
e
r
j. Ch. 98-484
LAWS OF FLORIDA
Ch. 98-484
enclave to be annexed throu2'h the prescribed orocess for adoptin2' a munici-
pal ordinance. as set forth in section 166.041. F10rida Statutes.
Section 5. Prereauisites.-The authority for municipal annexation pro-
vided under this act is subiect to the followin2':
(1) A new tvDe A enclave may not be created within Pinellas County after
the effective date of this act. In order to ensure that a new enclave is not
created. each annexation durin2' the effective oeriod of this act must be
reviewed by the Pinellas Plannine- Council and the CountYWide Plannin2'
Authority who shall determine whether an annexation is consistent with
this subsection. If a tvDe A enclave is created after the effective date of this
act. the enclave may not be annexed under this act.
(2) This act is only available to. and may only be used by. a municioal
2'overnin2' body that has established a comoletely defined and exclusive
Dlannin2' area in accordance with the aoolicable orovisions of section
163.3171. F10rida Statutes. Each annexation authorized under this act must
be within the defined. exclusive olannin2' area of the resoective municioal
iurisdiction that is subiect to annexation.
(3) A municioal 2'overnin2' body that initiates an annexation oroeedure
under this act must determine that it has the caoabilitv to orovide. in a
timely manner. the reauisite urban services to the area to be annexed.
consistent with the established need and an identified schedule for urban
services.
Section 6. Financial incentiyes. In order for the l!overnin2' body of a
~~~ic;~:N~:~abi{:~~:~~J~:~~~hi~~d: ~r~;~:;u::~t~~~~J~ee~~~
8DpHcable to an existinl! develoDed proDertv within the area to be annexed.
which incentives must include the followinl!:
(1) The municioal iurisdiction shall Day for all of the initial cost of ex-
tendinv. DubHe water and sewer service to a DroDerty for which such services
are not currently Drovided.
(2) The municiDal iurisdiction shall oav the total cost of anv 8DDlicable
imoact fees for an existinl! structure.
Section 7. Interoretation.-This act shall be construed to be consistent
with and further the puroose of chapter 171. F10rida Statutes. and the Home
Rule Charter for Pinellas County.
12S
It
e
Ch. 984M
LAWS OF FLORIDA
Ch. 98-485
(1) This act does not limit the availability of the otherwise aDDlicabl~
provisions of section 171.044. Florida Statutes,
(2) The words and terms used in this act are consistent with the defini-
tions contained in section 171.031. F10rida Statutes.
Section 8. Exem'Otions.
(1) The 2'overnin2' body of a munici'Oalitv within Pinellas County may not
annex by munici'Oal ordinance any unincoroorated area that contains more
than 1.000 residential dwellin2' units manal!ed. or to be manal!ed. by a sin2'le
condominium association. unless each condominium unit owner in the area
proDOsed to be annexed sims a 'Oetition 'Oro'OosinlZ that the area be annexed
by munici'Oal ordinance.
(2) Any water well or se'Otie tank within the enclave to be annexed which
meets state health standards on the effective date of this act shall be deemed
to meet the munici'Oal code reQuirements of the annexinlZ munici'Oal iurisdic-
tion. The annexine- munici'Oal iurisdiction may not reQuire a Derson who
owns 'Orooerty within the enclave on the date of annexation to connect to the
municipal water system or wastewater system fOT the Deriod that the 'Oerson
continues to own the 'OroDerty if the well water or se'Otic tank. as a'ODlicable.
receives a satisfactory biennial ins'Oection conducted at the 'Oro'Oertyowner's
eXDense.
Section 9. Sunset Drovision.-This act is desimed to address the existinlZ
enclave 'Oroblem in Pinellas County and to allow sufficient time for 8 strue-
tured and equitable solution to be 'Out in place, Sections 1-6 of this act shall
eXDire June 30. 2001.
Section 10. SeverabilitY.-If any Drovision of this act or the aD'Olication
thereof to any 'Oerson or circumstance is held invalid. the invalidity does not
affect other Drovisions or a'O'Olications of the act which can be !riven effect
without the invalid 'OTovision or a'ODlication. and to this end the Drovisions
of this act are declared severable.
Section 11. This act shall take effect on July I, 1999.
Became a law without the Governor's approval May 29, 1998.
Filed in Office Secretary of State May 28, 1998.
CHAPrER 98-485
House Bill No. 3853
An act relating to Pinellas County; repealing chapter 69-1490, Laws
of F1orida, relating to the creation of the Pinellas County Industry
Council; providing for assumption of assets and obligations of the
council; providing an effective date.
126
House Bill 3851 e 1
.
e
House Bill 3851el
CODING: Words strickeR are deletions; words underlined are additions.
HB 3851, First Engrossed/ntc
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a
3 short title; providing background and purpose
4 of the act; providing for the annexation of
5 certain small enclaves within the
6 municipalities of Pinellas County; providing
7 for the act to apply to a specified type of
8 enclave; providing prerequisites for
9 annexation; requiring the governing body of a
10 municipality to provide certain incentives
11 within the area to be annexed; providing for
12 certain exemptions; providing for expiration of
13 specified provisions of the act; providing
14 severability; providing an effective date.
15
16 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
17
18 Section 1. Short title.--This act may be cited as the
19 "Act to Provide for the Annexation of Certain Small Enclaves
20 in Pinellas County."
21 Section 2. Background.--Consistent with the expressed
22 policy of the state to eliminate small enclaves, as set forth
23 in section 171.046(1), Florida Statutes, the Pinellas County
24 Legislative Delegation established an Annexation Study
http://www.Ieg.state.fl.us/session/1998/house/biIIs/biIItext/htmI/billtext/hb3851 e l.htmJ
Page 1 of6
3/18/99
House Bill 385lel
e
e
Page 2 of6
25 Committee. The Annexation study Committee conducted public
26 meetings and received detailed reports and input and
27 established that:
28 (1) Certain small enclaves are a significant problem
29 of a long-standing nature in Pinellas County.
30 (2) The existing provisions of law are inadequate and
31 do not resolve the problem concerning such small enclaves.
1
CODING: Words ::;triclrcn are deletions; words underlined are additions.
HB 3851, First Engrossed/ntc
1 (3) The continuation of certain small enclaves is
2 counterproductive to effective growth management and the
3 straightforward provision of uniform and complete urban
4 services.
5 (4) The current pattern of unincorporated small
6 enclaves surrounded by an incorporated municipal jurisdiction
7 is confusing and inefficient and results in disparate
8 regulations and services.
9 Section 3. Purpose.--It is the purpose of this act to
10 provide a limited, one-time solution to the problem of small
11 enclaves in Pinellas County by enabling the governing body of
12 a municipality to annex certain small enclaves, subject to the
13 parameters set forth in this act and distinct from the
14 requirements set forth in chapter 171, Florida statutes.
15 Section 4. Authority.--The governing body of a
16 municipality within pinellas County may annex, by municipal
17 ordinance, a small enclave surrounded by the respective
18 municipal jurisdiction in accordance with, and limited to, the
19 following:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session! 1998/house/bills/billtext/html/billtext/hb3 851 e 1.html
3/18/99
-
House Bill 3851el
e
e
20 (1) This act applies only to a type A enclave in
21 existence on the effective date of this act. The term "type A
22 enclave" means an unincorporated improved or developed area
23 that is enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single
24 municipality.
25 (2) A type A enclave that is one acres or less in size
26 and is not otherwise exempt under section 8 of this act may be
27 annexed by the governing body of the surrounding municipal
28 jurisdiction upon notice, public hearing, and adoption of the
29 requisite ordinance, in accordance with the otherwise
30 applicable provisions of municipal law set forth in section
31 166.041, Florida Statutes.
2
CODING: Words Gtrickcn are deletions; words underlined are additions.
HB 3851, First Engrossed/ntc
1 (3) In exercising authority under this act, a
2 municipal governing body shall determine the eligibility of,
3 and legal description for, each type A enclave to be annexed
4 through the prescribed process for adopting a municipal
5 ordinance, as set forth in section 166.041, Florida Statutes.
6 Section 5. Prerequisites.--The authority for municipal
7 annexation provided under this act is subject to the
8 following:
9 (1) A new type A enclave may not be created within
10 Pinellas County after the effective date of this act. In order
11 to ensure that a new enclave is not created, each annexation
12 during the effective period of this act must be reviewed by
13 the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/sessionl1998/house/bills/billtext/html/billtext/hb3 851 e l.html
Page 3 of6
3/18/99
House Bill 385lel
.
e
3
CODING: Words atricl,en are deletions; words underlined are additions.
HB 3851, First Engrossed/ntc
1 Section 6. Financial incentives.--In order for the
2 governing body of a municipality to exercise the authority
3 provided under this act, the governing body shall establish
4 incentives by which to mitigate anyone-time costs applicable
5 to an existing developed property within the area to be
6 annexed, which incentives must include the following:
7 (1) The municipal jurisdiction shall pay for all of
8 the initial cost of extending public water and sewer service
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session! 1 998/house/bills/billtext/htm1/billtext/hb3 851 e 1. html
Page 4 of6
3/18/99
House Bill 3851el
e
e
9 to a property for which such services are not currently
10 provided.
11 (2) The municipal jurisdiction shall pay the total
12 cost of any applicable impact fees for an existing structure.
13 Section 7. Interpretation.--This act shall be
14 construed to be consistent with and further the purpose of
15 chapter 171, Florida Statutes, and the Home Rule Charter for
16 Pinellas County.
17 (1) This act does not limit the availability of the
18 otherwise applicable provisions of section 171.044, Florida
19 Statutes.
20 (2) The words and terms used in this act are
21 consistent with the definitions contained in section 171.031,
22 Florida Statutes.
23 Section 8. Exemptions.--
24 (1) The governing body of a municipality within
25 Pinellas County may not annex by municipal ordinance any
26 unincorporated area that contains more than 1,000 residential
27 dwelling units managed, or to be managed, by a single
28 condominium association, unless each condominium unit owner in
29 the area proposed to be annexed signs a petition proposing
30 that the area be annexed by municipal ordinance.
31
4
CODING: Words otrickcn are deletions; words underlined are additions.
HB 3851, First Engrossed/ntc
1 (2) Any water well or septic tank within the enclave
2 to be annexed which meets state health standards on the
3 effective date of this act shall be deemed to meet the
~
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session/1998/house/billslbilltext/html/billtext/hb3 851 e l.html
Page 5 of6
3/18/99
I
I
House Bill 3851el
.
e
Page 6 of6
4 municipal code requirements of the annexing municipal
5 jurisdiction. The annexing municipal jurisdiction may not
6 require a person who owns property within the enclave on the
7 date of annexation to connect to the municipal water system or
8 wastewater system for the period that the person continues to
9 own the property if the well water or septic tank, as
10 applicable, receives a satisfactory biennial inspection
11 conducted at the property owner's expense.
12 section 9. Sunset provision.--This act is designed to
13 address the existing enclave problem in Pinellas County and to
14 allow sufficient time for a structured and equitable solution
15 to be put in place. Sections 1-6 of this act shall expire June
16 30, 2001.
17 section 10. Severability.--If any provision of this
18 act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
19 is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other
20 provisions or applications of the act which can be given
21 effect without the invalid provision or application, and to
22 this end the provisions of this act are declared severable.
Section 11. This act shall take effect on July 1,
23
24 1999.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
5
CODING: Words otriclccn are deletions; words underlined are additions.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session/1998/house/bills/billtext/html/billtext/hb3 851 e l.html
3/18/99
.
.
/cUf /!Iu#
~. Z~q'1
t11JJ /!t:/lT'-~ -dJlld-lPw/6 #/)/VfY4/( .ew~~
. ffWj ~ 1040 nD)te
/m~~
/!f~~4"-~t#9/~
~~ff??//W-
~~--$.JP;/~k~~4"
h>>r/B -t17~~
jtrJJu.~~ ~~~~~~
~
~/tJ ~ tu~/J7 z~ -;.::u-- ~0
~7-~~~
~ f
(/f!~~~~~~
.
.
~/~
/; i7~" ~- fl to/~.&;~1 ~
llfr- J~5vpo .?
~~ /??~~ --~~.. ~h~ 10
j/JJ~~ ?
Z ~/~tJjlr>>;J~~
~ ~ ~ a;y~ j/~ ~/m/"ko
-a:o~~~~~ /t)W??~ ? ~
~~~l/h?
- ~a1a/rt?t#~ fZd~,/,j/~
~~:;:; ;;;:~w ~;;~~ PH
j/n#l~ j/J1J}? -~ ;eao /t> ~
4- ~ /oao q#~~?
fr; ~ hJdo -;;- '" ~h~
'1~~a? ~
.
.
Summary Fact Sheet for
Enclave Workshop
A Follow-up to the Enclave Annexation Bill
Passed by the Florida Legislature in 1998
October 28, 1998
Prepared by:
The Pinellas Planning Council Staff
.
.
INTRODUCTION
This document is intended to provide a summary of the facts that were prepared by the
PinelIas Planning Council (PPC) pertaining to enclaves of one acre or less within PinelIas
County. This summary includes information as developed by the PPC beginning with their
first report concerning enclaves in July, 1997 entitled Enclaves and Related Annexation and
Service Area Considerations in Pinellas County and ending with the Estimate of Impact and
Connection Costs, October, 1997 as listed below:
1. Enclaves and Related Annexation and Service Area Considerations in Pinel1as
County - July 16, 1997;
2. Appendix. A Follow-up to the Enclave Report Issued July 16, 1997 by the
Pinellas Planning Council - August 25, 1997;
3. Summary ofIssues Pertaining to the Draft Enclaves Bill- September 24, 1997;
4. Residential Sewer and Water Connections for Municipalities with Type A
Enclaves - Draft, October 16, 1997; and
5. Estimate ofImpact and Connection Costs - Draft, October 16, 1997.
Copies of each report can be made available by contacting the PPC. These reports deal with
the enclave issue in a comprehensive manner and include sorting of facts based upon enclave
type and size. These reports inventoried enclaves by groupings of less than 3 acres, 3-10
acres, and greater than 10 acres; while this summary parallels Chapter 98-484, Laws of
Florida, in dealing only with "Type A" enclaves of one acre or less in size.
Throughout this process the PPC staff has responded to numerous questions raised by
citizens of Pinellas County, the PPC, the Board of County Commissioners, the Pinellas
County Legislative Delegation, municipal officials, and the media. These questions were the
impetus for creation of the work products above, key points of which are summarized in a
question and answer format on the following pages. This document summarizes the
numerical data from the preceding reports, but leaves much of the analysis and discussion
surrounding each of the issues to the complete reports.
Summary Fact Sheet for Enclave Workshop
.
.
ENCLAVE ISSUES
A number of the issues related to enclaves have been identified, researched, and analyzed in the
reports listed in the Introduction. The six main issues pertaining to enclaves discussed throughout
these reports are:
· Confusing, Disjointed Patterns of Incorporation
· Complex and Inefficient Service Provisions
· Cost and Service Inequities
· Regulatory Differentials
· Right to Self Determination
· Financial Impact
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
What is a "Type A" enclave?
A Type A enclave is any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed
within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality.
How many Type A enclaves of one (1) acre or less in size are there in Pinellas County?
There is a total of 196 of these enclaves.
What is the cumulative size of these enclaves of one (1) acre or less and how does that compare to
the total acreage in Pinellas County?
There is a total of 84.5 acres in these enclaves. This compares to 179,314 acres in Pinellas
County or five one-hundredths of one percent (.05%) of the total county area.
How many people reside in these one (1) acre or less enclaves and how does their number compare
with the total population in Pinellas County?
There is a total of 418 people residing in these enclaves. This represents five one-
hundredths of one percent (0.05%) of the total estimated population of 888,612 in all of
Pinellas County.
How much Municipal Service Tax Unit (MSTU), Fire, and Library tax revenue does the County
collect from enclaves that are one (1) acre or less in size, based upon current millage rates?
A total of $40,692 will be collected from these enclaves as they are situated in
unincorporated Pinellas County for the current year (1998).
Summary Fact Sheet for Enclave Workshop
2
.'
.
.
.'
If the residential enclaves were annexed to the surrounding municipalities what would the difference
be in the amount they would pay in ad valorem taxes vs. the taxes collected for unincorporated
Pinellas County as noted above?
The total difference in ad valorem taxes (using residential taxable value only) for
residential enclaves would be seven hundredforty dollars ($740) - ($34,123 in the cities
~ $34,863 in the unincorporated area = $704).
What percentage of the residential units in these enclaves are not connected to public sewer and
water facilities?
82% (or 176 of 196 units) are no1 connected to a public sanitary sewer system. 28% or (59
of 196 units) are no1 connected to a public potable water system.
Where can I obtain additional infonnation concerning enclaves in Pinellas County, including copies
of the PPC's Enclave Report and Appendix?
You can write, fax, or call:
David P. Healey, Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council
14 South Fort Harrison Avenue
Suite 3010
Clearwater, FL 33756
Phone (727) 464-3855
Fax (727) 464-3827
Summary Fact Sheet for Enclave Workshop
3
.
.
For the items listed on the previous page what are the specifics by municipality?
County
number enclave MSTU, municipal
Municipalityl of acreage:! population residential Fire, and ad valorem
taxable Library tax
enclaves value3 tax revenue3
revenue3
Clearwater 97 43 192 $3,667,300 $16,683 $18,761
Dunedin 46 16 109 $1,546,700 $7,014 $6,367
Kenneth City 1 0.5 2 $30,000 $215 $113
Largo 10 6 10 $236,500 $1,082 $804
Oldsmar 1 0.5 0 $0 $0 $0
Pinellas Park 1 0.5 2 $24,500 $114 $124
Safety Harbor 31 13 90 $1,697,000 $7,852 $5,861
Seminole 4 1.5 7 $154,300 $767 $536
Tarpon Springs 5 3.5 6 $285,400 $1,136 $1,557
Totals 196 84.5 418 $7,641,700 $34,863 $34,123
INine of the twenty-four municipalities in Pinellas County contain Type A enclaves.
2Inc1udes vacant and non-residential lands.
3Vacant and non-residential lands are not included in this column.
Summary Fact Sheet for Enclave Workshop
4
.
.
What are the specifics by municipality for residential water and sewer connections?
Residential Sanitary Sewer! Potable Water!
Municipality units
(with
residential public % private % public 0/0 private %
units in sewer system water well
enclaves only) system system
Clearwater 103 21 20% 82 80% 92 89% 11 11%
Dunedin 59 4 7% 55 93% 30 51% 29 49%
Kenneth City 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0%
Largo 6 0 0% 6 100% 4 67% 2 33%
Pinellas Park 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0%
Safety Harbor 38 10 26% 28 74% 23 61% 15 39%
Seminole 4 4 100 0 0% 4 100% 0 0%
%
Tarpon 3 0 0% 3 100% 1 33% 2 67%
Springs
Totals 215 39 18% 176 82% 156 73% 59 28%
IAs provided by each municipality or other service provider.
Summary Fact Sheet for Enclave Workshop
5
C'-.
.€
-
~
c..
'u
.~
e
eo
Q
.2
'0
.=
"i
Q)
-5
o
...
Q
o
.~
><
Q)
~
Q
o
c..
::3
"t:l
~
'S
[
Q)
.0
..9
~
..c::
...
~
Q)
~
Q)
~
U
Q
Q)
~
Q
.-
.~
3
...
Q
Q)
"t:l
.fii
~
~
..9
I/)
.....
I/)
o
(.)
Q
.2
.....
(.)
Q)
8
o
(.)
~
I/)
Q)
~
.....
~
c..
e
.-
.s
~
~
~
~
fI}
o
U
-
"
...
o
Eo-
=
o
..
-
u
~
=
=
o
u
~
fI}
o
U
..
~
...
"
~
-
u
"
e.
e
..
-
=
o
-S ..
'i ~
~ ~
'j;
=
fI}
...
fI}
o
U
..
~
~
~
rJj
...
=
o
-= ..
= G.l
~ ~
fI} ~
... fI}
'j;
=
-
"
..
-"'fI}
" = ...
..... Q.}..
o 'e =
Eo- 'i;J ~
~
- fI}
" ~
..e-; >
.. = "
-~-
"'eU_
e... = >>
.- (IJ ~ -
.~ ~ = =
= .... 0
= -= ~
~ i'j;
-=
=
o
..
...
u
~
=
=
o
u
...
u
"
e.
e
..
.
00
\0
~
-
00
~
N
00
00
00
C"f
~
o
00
C'i.
11'\
~
-
-
o
~
o
o
oo~
l""l
r-
~
N
00
l""l
o
-
..
~
...
"
f
"
~
u
'"
\0
o
~
11'\
N
-
~
o
~
\0
~
-
~
-
l""l
~
0\
N
o
11'\
-
r-"
~
o
-
o
r-"
00
~
11'\
11'\
0\
11'\
=
:a
~
=
=
Q
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
~
o
~
-
-
..e-
U
-=
...
~
=
=
~
~
o
~
...0
~
o
N
l""l
~
o
11'\
\0
~
N
o
l'
o~
11'\
~
o
~
\0
\0
o
ell
..
"
...;l
b
00
N
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
00
N
~
o
~
-
-
~
..
"
~
fI}
"
-
-
~
=
is:
11'\
t--
l""l
r-"
-
~
11'\
r-
l""l~
l""l
~
o
~
11'\
-
o
~
o
o
o
~~
-
~
00
N
00
l""l
..
o
.Q
..
"
=
..e-
~
"
rJj
'"
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
~
o
~
o
~
~
-
o
=
'E
~
rJj
.
\0
\0
N
N
r-~
~
lI'l
0\
~
ClC
~
M
fI)
o
~
l""l
00
Ii}
\0
~
N
\0
C'i.
-
~
00
l""l
l""l
00
l""l
~
c-
.~
.......
0\
l""l
~
11'\
~
-
I/)
...
.2
~ ~
~ 0
..g a..c::
Q) ~ I/)
"t:l Q)
'fii ~ a
Q)-
'"' 'i) S
0\ Q I/)
11'\'- 0
...: '"' ~ (.)
Q) c.E~s
~ Q >.':;:
~ ~ 0.-::: ~
r- a .:;: U ....
Q) ~ Q) 8
o Q)~-5 8
~ >. 0
o .0 s::
>. Q I/) Q)
... 0 - '"'
u c.. 8 c.E
Q) ~ ~ ~
\0-5 =-Q)
r- Q "t:l eo..c:
- - Q ...
:c tIJ..... 10.-4"
... Q) >< Q)
.~ ~ Q) ~
"t:l ~ ~ ~
~ c.. '"' "t:l
(.) e c.E ~
11'\.9 '8 as ~
- ~ .- > ~
N Q) 'O'a ~
..c: c.. ~ 0
~ '"' >....
Q c.E-"t:l
o o~.B
~ g. l""l e g
.s eo ~oa
o Q ~ Q 0
Eo-] I/) Q) (.)
Q) .g a e
p--~=I/)~
....Q)-Q)I/)
"t:l t+=i (.) ~ .-:::
I/) Q.5 Q) Q
.g.- I/) I/) =
Cij c...- Q)_
>~E5..c:<
- N 1""\ ~'"
<Il
ll)
>
os
U
c::
~
...
~
u
ll)
~
U)
-
(.)
.,
~
i
U)
N
0\
11'\
o
o
\0
~
o
o
-
M
-
~
~
\0
~
11'\
~
-
o
00
-
~
l""l
l""l
fI}
ell
=
..
..
e.
rJj
=
o
e.
..
"
Eo-
.
.
SUMMARY OF
"A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH
THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ENCLAVES"
OCTOBER 28, 1998
I. Welcome and Purpose
David Healey, Executive Director, Pinellas Planning Council opened the workshop by
welcoming all those in attendance and recognized Pinellas County Commissioner Sallie
Parks. Mr. Healey indicated that this workshop was to be an informal approach to
providing those local governments who are interested with the information and guidance
they may need on whether, and how, to use the new legislation. He then introduced
each panel member.
II. Highlights of the Legislation
Jewel White-Cole, Assistant County Attorney provided an overview of the new legislation
pointing out the main requirements for local governments to address, as well as
procedural options for submitting such annexations for review. Ms. White-Cole added
that the local governments of Clearwater, Dunedin, Tarpon Springs, and Safety Harbor
are the only municipalities that she is currently aware of who meet the requirement of
exclusively defined planning areas.
III. Legal Issues from the City Perspective
Mr. John Hubbard, attorney with the firm of Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, as well
as the attorney representing the communities of Dunedin, Tarpons Springs, and Belleair
Bluffs, provided his interpretation of the new legislation and its potential use by local
governments. Mr. Hubbard discussed the issue of properties eligible to be annexed under
this legislation and certain exemptions. He advised those interested in utilizing this
legislation to first decide what enclaves they are interested in annexing and organize their
ability to provide public services to those areas. He urged participants to refer to their
respective charters and ordinances about impact fees pertinent to their local government
and the means by which to waive or pay these fees. In drafting ordinances, Mr. Hubbard
advised local governments to include findings and to follow notice of public hearing
requirements contained in Chp. 171.044, F.S. inclusive of the requirements of Chp.
166.041, F.S.
An outline of Mr. Hubbard's comments was distributed and a copy is attached.
.
.
IV. Management Issues from the City Perspective
Mr. Rick Hedrick, Assistant City Manager for the City of Clearwater spoke in terms of
the City of Clearwater's anticipated of utilization of this new legislation. Mr. Hedrick
indicated that the City of Clearwater has 96 enclaves potentially affected by the new
legislation. An in-depth cost!benefit study was undertaken by the City which established
that the City would see a return on their initial investment in 10 years and would double
their investment in 20 years. The City has discussed avenues for providing the funds
necessary for payment of impact fees, which will vary greatly with each local government.
Mr. Hedrick's closing remarks were centered around the idea of organizing a technical
committee to continue discussions and idea-sharing amongst local governments
concerning the issues and solutions surrounding the new legislation.
An outline of Mr. Hedrick's comments was distributed and a copy is attached.
V. Questions and Summary Observations
A question and answer period followed the panelists presentations. Many of the
questions voiced by those attending concerned impact fees - which ones applied and how
they were to be accounted for. There was general consensus that only those impact fees
that would be otherwise due upon annexation would be applicable and that the best
policy would be for these fees to be paid from the city's general fund to the particular
account established for the respective impact fees. Questions dealing with the public
notice requirements and submission to the county after a local government approved an
annexation were also voiced and discussed. Several citizens in attendance voiced their
concern with the legislation and urged caution in its implementation.
VI. Close and Distribution of Maps and Data to Individual Cities
Mr. Healey closed the workshop by thanking attendees, urging that every effort be made
to coordinate this effort in a fair and uniform fashion and indicating that a copy of a
map of their municipality was available at this time for them to take with them. Mr.
Healey also expressed his willingness to see a committee formed, if those attending
agreed, to follow-up on some of the issues brought forth during this workshop.
A copy of the agenda, attendance sheet, the legislation and summary fact sheet
distributed at the meeting are attached.
..
.
.
I. HOUSE BILL NO. 3851
A. The drafters of this legislation took the general procedure of Section
171.0413 -1nvoluntary Annexation - and then added the political issues.
B. Type of enclave.
1. "Small" enclave - Section 4
2. "Type A" enclave - which is in existence on July 1, 1999 - Section
4(1)
(a) Enclave must be in the unincorporated area and must be in
an "improved or developed area". This is the same definition
as is found in Section 171.031(13). Section 7(2) of the
Special Act provides that this Act is to use the same
definitions as are found in Section 171.031 F.S. The terms
"improved or developed" are not specifically defined in
. 171.031. The term "developed" is discussed in Section
171.043(2) and it may be the general concept of an "area
developed for urban purposes" that gives guidance as to what
the term "improved or developed" is to mean in this Act.
(b) Enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single
municipality. This is the same definition found in Section
171.031(13)(a) which also uses the terms "improved or
developed". Interestingly, the enclave defined in
subparagraph (b) of that same Section is not included.
Therefore, the physical layout of the enclave area will be of
importance.
(c) One acre or less in size - Section 4(2)
II. PREREQUISITES
A. The City has defined an exclusive planning area pursuant to Section
163.3171 F.S. - Section 5(2). Some Pine lias cities have not accomplished
this.
B. The City has adopted a schedule for provision of urban setvices to the
property in a timely manner - Section 5(3).
C. Establish incentives to mitigate one-time costs - Section 6 - Must include:
1. City pay to extend water and sewer setvice.
2. City pay total cost of impact fees for an existing structure.
.
.
D. These matters must be accomplished before annexations can commence.
The time that annexations can be accomplished is between July 1, 1999 and
June 30, 2001. The prerequisites should be in place before the July 1, 1999
date.
III. FORM OF ORDINANCE - REQUIRED NOTICE
A. Section 4(2) of the Act provides that the ordinance annexing the enclaves
be noticed per Section 166.041 F.S. This Section requires notice, a public
hearing and an adoption of the ordinance. Section 3 of the Act does
provide that procedures in this Act are distinct from the requirements set
forth in Chapter 171 F.S. However, Section 7 of the Act requires that the
Act will be construed to be consistent with and further the purpose of
Chapter 171 F.S.
B. The notice provision in Section 166.041 F.S. is substantially different from
that set out in Section 171.044 F.S. dealing with voluntary annexation. To
be safe, the more extensive notice and filing provisions of Section 171.044
F.S. should be used as long as they are inclusive of the requirements of
Section 166.041 F.S.
C. The ordinance must set out the legislative authority, eligibility and legal
description.
D. There should be findings in the ordinance as follows:
1. The enclave was created before July 1, 1999.
2. Annexation was reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council and the
County- Wide Planning Authority, each of which determined that the
annexation was consistent with subsection 5(1) of House Bill 3851.
3. The City has established a completely defined and exclusive
planning area in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Section 163.3171 F.S. and the property annexed is within the defined
exclusive planning area of the City.
4. The City has the capacity to provide, in a timely manner, the
requisite urban selVices to the property annexed consistent with the
established need and has identified a schedule for the provision of
urban seIVices. It is likely that the urban selVices, as long as they
are scheduled within a reasonable time to be available to the
property, may be scheduled to be provided even after the sunset of
the Act on June 30, 2001.
. .
.
.
IV. EXEMPTIONS - Section 8
A. Top of the World
B. . Water well or septic tank. Present owner cannot be required to connect.
1. Contrary to 171.062(1) F.S.
2. Contrary to Department of Health Regulations - Limit on City, not
Department of Health.
V. QUESTIONS
A. Must the property be occupied?
B. Can property that does not contain a residential structure be "improved or
developed"? Section 171.043(2) requires a resident population except in
subparagraph (c) which seems to require that sixty percent of the land be
divided into lots or tracts of five acres or less in size. F.S. 171 does not
give any clear guidance on this. However, Section 6(2) seems to imply that
a property without an "existing structure" could come under the terms of
the Special Act.
C. Can you just waive impact fees rather than pay them? There exists some
limited case law which appears to justify the waiving of impact fees for
educational or charitable organizations. The better practice may be to
have the City pay the impact fees from the general funds of the City to the
trust fund set up for the specific impact fee. The waiver of impact fees is
applicable only to properties containing an "existing structure". This does
include all impact fees, including police, fire, library, land dedication, water,
sewer, etc.
.
.
ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
October 28, 1998
Weare in the early stages of analysis of our enclaves.
The analysis includes:
1. Identification of property owners.
2. Development of an informational brochure explaining the new
legislation and our program.
3. Assignment of a staff member to be responsible for the program.
4. Assessment of individual properties concerning the exemptions.
5. Identify the total cost to implement the program.
6. Identify the funding sources to fund the program.
7. Develop a schedule for annexing the properties (Legislation requires an
ordinance adoption for each property).
8. Develop and implement a follow up procedure to insure that the police,
fire, EMS, etc. are aware of the newly annexed areas.
9. Evaluate the feasibility of one or more special Commission meetings to
annex large groups of properties.
10. Explore the feasibility of working with other Cities to establish a
technical committee to share ideas and develop uniform policies for
implementation of the new legislation.
-
.
.
WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH
THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ENCLA YES
October 28, 1998
SIGN-IN
f{ n) ") 1)/ltJ9
-<.
~
-'
:J5 /,Ifi'~(;(~, l5.lh !7~
'c
'7
,
rf
...'
-;
. _J
21
-. ~-
--
2
~ '.
"'-~
.. + - -
'-~
'27
Best-Cou
AvaIlable-
.
.
"A Workshop To Discuss The Legislation Dealing With
The Annexation of Certain Enclaves"
AGENDA
I. WELCOME AND PURPOSE
Dave Healey, Executive Director, PineIlas Planning Council
II. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LEGISLATION
Jewel White-Cole, Assistant County Attorney
III. LEGAL ISSUES FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE
John Hubbard, Esq., Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask
IV. MANAGEMENT ISSUES FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE
Rick Hedrick, Assistant City Manager, City of Clearwater
V. QUESTIONS AND SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
PANEL AND WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
VI. CLOSE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MAPs AND DATA TO INDIVIDUAL CITIES
e
~l.rwater
()
Central Permitting Department
Interoffice Correspondence
TO: Steve Moskun, Cash and Investments Manager
Bob Perkins, Civil Engineer II
Juan Butler, GIS
Art Kader, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
FROM: Sandra E. GJatthorn, Planning Administrator Jr}J
SUBJECT: Applicable Fees for Annexing Enclaves
CC: Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting.
DATE: October 1, 1997
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) is working with local governments in Pin ell as
County on the analysis of enclaves. Attached is a letter from Mike Crawford of the
PPC, asking for us to review their analysis offees and calculations. Also, Mike is
asking for assistance with the three questions listed at the bottom of his letter.
He would like a response by October 10, 1997. Please send your comments to me
and I'll coordinate them with Mike Crawford.
s.-J1- plJ "'--J~'r
September 29, 1997
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilmember Chuck Williams, Chm.
Commissioner Tom Osborne, Vice Chm.
Mayor George M. Jirotka. Treas.
Mayor Tom De Cesare, Sec.
Commissioner Karen Brayboy
Mayor David Coyner
School Board Member Barbara J. Crockett
Commissioner Don Fletcher
Commissioner Jean Halwrsen
Councilmember Robert Kersteen
Council member Jeffrey Sandler
Commissioner Karen Seel
Commissioner Barbara Sheen Todd
Mr. Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting
City of Clearwater
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Fl 34618-4748
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
Re: Applicable Fees for Annexing Enclaves
Dear Mr. Shuford:
As a continuation of the analysis of enclaves, the PPC is conducting an analysis of fees
that would be due upon the annexation of a parcel with existing built structures into the
City of Clearwater. We ask that you please review the attached information to
determine if it is reasonably accurate and represents your community's current situation
(i.e., are there impact or connection fees that we haven't accounted for, are the fees that
we used correct, and are the serviced/unserviced unit counts reasonably accurate?).
This attached calculations were based, in part, on data received from Juan Butler, of the
City's GIS Department. The data was collected for enclaves within Clearwater, by size
category, for those residential units connected to City or County water or City sewer
services. These serviced units (connections to public systems) were subtracted from the
total number of residential units in each enclave, as provided by the Pinellas County
Property Appraiser's Office. The unseIViced units were then multiplied by the fees
shown, as provided by Sandra Glatthom of your Department.
In addition to your review of the attached information, would you please review the
following: .
1. Does CleaIWater collect/bill for County water in enclaves? If not, where
does the City's GIS Department obtain County water connection figures?
(Note: A review of the CO\mty's "as-builts" revealed that more residential
units in enclaves were connected to County water than shown in the
information provided).
2. Are impact fees for mobile homes different than single family? If so, we
will need to revise the attached calculations to reflect mobile homes that
14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (813) 464-3855 FAX (813) 464-3827
o
e
e
~.Page 2
September 25, 1997
are in the enclaves.
3. Would Cleanvater require an annexing parcel currently operating a
"package" sewage treatment plant to connect to City seMces, therefore
requiring the payment of applicable impact and connection fees?
If possible, please let me know what the results of your review are by October 10, 1997.
If you need to have further detail, please let me know and I'll make myself available to
explain the analysis and the methodology that was used.
Thank you for your attention and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
~t~
Michael Crawford, A.I.c!t.
Principle Planner
Enclosure
t/)
CD
~
U
c
w
<(
CD'
Q.
~
.s::.
...
oi
t/)
CD
0-
...
0-
-
as
C-
O-
(.)
0-
c
::s
==
...
0
....
t/)
c
0
-
...
(.)
CD
C
C
0 G)
0 e
... g
CD (0)
as C
3: (U
.c
-
"t:J ~
C ~
as
... G)
; ~
(U
CD "ij
C
en w
e
...0 ...0...0 0 0 0
00....0....~9':::~~~~~~~~
~0'<t00 WO 0 0 ~o 0 COCO
(')'<t 10000(\100(')(')
it Bi!ti a;; a s:::<< :b.l t:~:. [$ if: m
:-t J.f:, 'm :<<<.:.:t!) .:w ~"," :Q~ >.W~ ~M~ <,"':': W' m
.. L. 1:" ;r.l~ F ~<ol. F'W m ii ~ffi $; il t#
CD ;~: 10/;t:: i, II Ht t~)~ II: i~.'
;e ~~:~: ';.' L ~ ,,; $.~I!51III.Wi' C.
;> m ~M ~# ~~m~: . ~~;.: t1f:wnw. oo.lml :.
~
(U
-
e.
OO~O ~ o~ 00
o~~O~~b~~b~~~
~o<o8'<tbobO>ob'V'<t
.....LO~'<t ~ .....~ <0<0
Ire iDle. ,f!:. .~m ~ts. ':<' \b ~ ii m (5
I:g ~. '1iQ .:;<-, :Qil t~f :~tf '{i. ~t9 :~~J. ::':;':: :.:;::::, !!!!IIi
:111111111111
o o~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
~~~b~~b~~~~b~
OOOlOCOOOOOooo'V
O)co~"'" ~ <0 ~co
e
o~ 0 ~ 0
~~b~~~~~~~~b~
0~000000&;000f8
~ ~
'I;'" ~w ..m <<<< .:.".:< :.:.:.:< ;.".:.: ~/.<< ~&J.1if l' .:.:<,:.' if
~ :". ;:~~I~;:~_'~I ~I:I
- . K~'% ~ Y. I. I...... ':'. "~" .:.'*:.
~ ~j ~~ ~t .i.. ;~~i ;; Wf<. :S~.: ~ .i l~: I
~
as 0 ~~ ~ o~ 0
o~~~bb~b~~b~~~
p:O~oooooo~ooO'<t
,...~,... ,...
~llllllllnll
o~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0
~~b~b~~~~~~b~
oc;;oooo~o~oooJ:::
~ ~ ~
m ~':.. ;W[1l ti ~ :B ~::m. .' a: [~ s. mi.
, :" I~. f& t$litll'["" m ; m :It :ID: 1i
:1 ~51}1t ~ ti.IWd~ : #: ;% Jt ;W Fm; ~ -
.. ,:~::; m~~: :ffi. ii!-il om' ~<- :ow.; :: . ': :.;$::: ~,@ :It. :~. : ..
; : . :';:1i~ ;;~;:; :it' :it' ~:$' t# ;~'?i:: ::::";; Ii q:: :~l~ fu ;
..111111111111" ~
%:".. .'ii: .'jW:'.. ~~I'~~"'<::~ is.A~'I~
:...- ."" <'..::< . ,~::~ rn : ....; m. tt
,. '''!~ ~ . r~4 ;. ' :. . : ~ ~: ': :::.~ ~~ ~. . '.;
~. ::::::::i::" :. ':': :,~~~~ ;:::;:. :::.... l>; ~:ll> w.i: if
. ... :;:::...... :. ........::x::::...;......,-.:v. :::::..: .......-=:m;.. "
. ;,) q~ ~ ~. <-: *1' f':'. po:. f$ fi'~ ~l f$.' ~J
~f:fi- :~~%~~. ~ ~ :<..~ ;;. . m ~. : ~;..: m ~~. ~~~
fi W~ ~~i kw.111 d~ IlK ~h it ?m
w ~I fit ~~ fit ~il ~~1f ~f. ;1 $: ~~l ii ~>>
as
~
Ii 0 0 0 o~ 0
,"1, ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~
V~ 0" 0 ~ b 'V b b boo b b <0
~~ (\I '<t~ ~
IM::~.:~.~ w.-~. :a'~:m p: :8~: @
:;"". .....W. """ m. .,... ~ ..... :~. .,... ~, ~
: ':~'l~:~I~w!I'III!II~ :jf~
. . ..%"~ .m: .'$i.., )ill' ..",..ll,.. @'':'' t1' ..~,.'. IN,.
'. .:;,.'~i'1ii_{~:~1~1:~1 ~
"." .[~ 11. fl.. "<~" ..m. .,.W .m. <% .w...ll',w m
1i
;:;
CG)
CD='<tCO 10 (\I ~<O
"C<OO)~It)O~O'<t'<to~.....
-::l~ C')
I
a:
(/J
Q)
.... (/J
... ~,gQ ei~
.... ~ <<I C/) i:! .5 'C
Q) 0 a.. C <<I Q) (/J Ij;j
cu .5 .c ~ (/J ~ J: (5 ~ C/) (ij
~ -g ~ g ~ :.51~,cE- ~6:g
CDcc~"OC"O_~.u
- ::3 CD (U 0-'- Q) (U Q) ....: <<I ::1
OCl~-' a..a:C/)C/)C/)!-C/)
~ 0 o~ 0
~O ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~
^"'oo oOLOOt\! 00_
00)0000(\10(')000(\:1
~ ~
1M: fi: :al' :<. a:~ w; a ~m ifU$. m
. n ......". .....<. .......... .~. w.',: :"~""'I :<<l .......... ...:.... ~
..I >III'III~-~;III'
() N>: ..... ..... ^ muw...N '.' .... ..,,,... .... ..9.1:
ala;
0:;:
....cG)O) C\I
"CD=O<OCOLOO'<tOCO(')O....!a
C :2 C (\I ~ (\I (') "J
asl::l
(0) a:
C
CD
!
.8
'6
G)
~
as
"ij
C
W
(/J
~
~ ~,gQ gg
....:t:: <<I C/) i:! .5 'S:
Q) 0 a..C(UCD~cI)
cu.5 -= ~ (/JI~ J: (5 Q) (ij
~ -g ~ 2 ~ :.5 ~ .cE- ~ a 2
Q)cc~"Oc"O- ~.o
- ::1 Q) <<I 0'- Q) (U Q) ....: <<I ::1
OCl~-' a..a:C/)C/)C/)!-C/)
e
e
000 ....0....0
O~Q:;~~~~~~O'~~O"'"
~",,(\I~o~8)~bC')~&)O
It)('') C\I ~ (")
O~
'0'((\1
(")
.......,....,.-.
"''-.
lli
..-
UC~lt)..... <0 co.....~lt)....O)
as~'2&l<>>olDo~C\I~""""'''''~
O-:JC\llt).... C')........(")C\llt)
....1
~a:
z::.
-
..
CD
as
!
OJ
~
as
U
C
W
'ii
:;::
C......
CD=i
'DC
-:J
1
a:
1
>
as
U
C
W
c(
CD
~
-
<
Cii
-
{!.
..
".
"
"
e
ooe
-,..(\1
CU,,..
0(') -
.lSolSE;;
~(I)
en v
t-
u-
<(
cc
o
co!
0-
._ c
~:)
i
c
'gn
aI aI
~E
CU_
D.
to
....
0.....
-.... -
cu,a>
o(l)~
.lSolS
~(I)
env
~
..
CD
Q,
.. en
CD
0 E ..!
en G)
... " c
CD 5 0:
..J
- e e
en
CD
(,)
.~
CD
en
C)
c
.-
"C
CD
CD
C
en
....
.-
c
~
>-.
-
.-
E
as
III-
jI!
C)
c
.-
en
a...
0
III-
en
....
en
0
()
c
0
"C
CD
en
as
..a
- '0
en I
....
en
8
c c
0
0 i
.-
....
()
CD g
C j
C
0 :2
0 i
"C
C 15
as i
.... c
(,) i
as
a. l!
E I
=
III- ~
0
~ 8
l3
E ~
-
.... Q.
en ~
W ~
... (3 ~
CD III
- C J: en
as
! :0 -
CD
CD c
as c c
CD
(3 ::J ~
C
e
OT'"
- T'" ....
CUtO
1St"),..:
.15~C\I
::Jt")~
OOv
a-
::J
.a
f!
CD
-
CD
Q.
,..J
e
...
I--
u-
<:(
a:
o
J J
I I
oS oS
'5 '5
- -
i lii l-
I E
i
LL
g 6 <C
i i
a:
8 8
J J 0
:!i! :!i!
a ~
.. ~
, c g
t i
CD
c c
i i
i !
.E
!
! CD
oS
~ ~
5 5
0 0
gj !
tn .., =
CD CD
CD j;i j;i
a- n. , n.
0 ~ ~
.c ' 8 a-
U) 0 I
,g
c ~ I-
0 CD as CD
U) :I: U)
- 0
c
E
CD
e
tit
00
Cii~8
~~~
::J C') ~
(/)V
e
Shuford, Scott
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Glatthorn, Sandra
Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1 :42 PM
Goudeau, Cynthia E.
Shuford, Scott
Enclaves - Taxes....
tit
Just got the Taxable $ figures from Mike Crawford at PPC and computed the taxes as follows:
less than 3 acres: $14,933,800 x .0051158 = $76.398.3340
3 - 10 acres: $15,495,800 x .0051158 = $79,273.4136
Greater than 10 acres: $150,771,100 x ,0051158 = $771.314.7934
s~
Page 1
9-10-1997 2:37PM
FR~CENTRAL PERMITTING 813 562 45~
P.1
Appendix
, "
A Follow-up to the Enclave Report Issued July 16, 1997 by
the Pinellas Planning Council
Prepared by the Pinellas Planning Council
AutUBt ~, 1997 -Draft
NArURE SAVER'M FA" MEMO '
TD 01516 I Date
~':6++.' I 1#01 ~
C C S j,.,. .Ei From&::L" , p~"" I .:J I
Q.lD~ t.-:-::' ----j
rr" ~... "..." ~ r
e
e
9-1B-1997 2:37PM
FROM CENTRAL PERMITTING 813 562 4576
P.2
APPENDIX
A. IN1'R.ODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . I
B. NUl-tfBER AND AREA OF ENa.A 'YES ......... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table A-I.. Area ard Number of'J'ype A EDclaves ..... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chart - Number of Typo A Enclaves.. by Size Category. . . .. . . . .,. . . ... .. .2
Chan - AJea ofTypc A Enclaves.. by Size Category. . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . - . . . . 3
C. ENCLA VB roPUL.A nON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s
Table A.2 - Population within Type A Enclaves ............ - . . . . . . . . . . - . 4
O1art .. Enclayc Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . S
D. EN'CI..A VB TA.XABLE VALUE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table A-3 .. Taxable Value in Type A Bnclaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chart - Taxable Value in Type A Enclaves ............................. 7
E. ENCLA. VB TAX REVEN'UES ....................................... - . . . 9
MSTU vs. City Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 9
Table A-4 .. Yearly Tax Revenues from Type A Enclaves ........ . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chart.. Yearly Ad Valorem Tax Revenues from Enclaves. . . . . . . . . . . . - · . . . . 9
MSTU, F'1IC., Library vs. City Reyenues ........ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A-S .. Yearly Ad Valorem Tax Revenues from Type A Enclaves ....... 10
O1art .. Yearly Tax Revenues from Bnclayes . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . · . . . . - . . 10
F. glJ'lVJlaAAR.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Enclaves In Pine11u CoUDty. AppeIldix
iii
Draft
e
e
9-10-1997 2:38PM
FROM CENTRAL PERMITTING 813 562 4576
P.3
A. Introduction
The PineUas Planning CoWlci1 (PPC) prepared and distributed a rcpon addressing annexatioD. in
particular the issue of enc1avcst and related service deUvery-considerations dated July 16.1991.
The following infonnuion ha:s been degeJoped in re&p01lSC to quemODS raised by the PiDellas Cooney
Legislstriye Delegatk>D Anoexation Study Committee at their July .10. 1 W1mecVng. 'Ibis follow..up
information has been orga.nized as an Appendix to the Enclave Rcpon IDd has been reviewed and
authorized to be forwarded to the Annexation Study Committee by the Annexation Subcommittee
of the P .P. C. at their meeting held on August 25. 1 m.
'Ibis Appendilt tabulates the mnnbcr and &izt of enclaves as well as population. taxabIo value and taX
reyenues attributable to the a:reas identified as Type A encla.ves within Pinellas County.
Best Copy
Available
Enclaves i.u PineDas Count)' - AppeQdix
A-I
Draft
e
lest Co
A1faiJabPY
PERMITTING 813 562 4576 Ie
P.4
9-10-1997 2:38PM
FROM CENTRAL
o
..
644
29
2:Z1
24
22S
21
95
Number of Enclaves. by Size Category
300
~2S0
~
~200
~lSO
llOO
Z SO
o
. <3 Acres .3..10 ACfe$ 0 10+ Acres
Enclaves iD PineUas County - Appendix
A.2
!>taft
e
e
9-10-1997 2:39PM
FROM CENTRAL PERMITTING 813 562 4576
P.5
B. Number and Area of Enclaves
~ infonmtion co1'q)Ucd on the accompanying cable and charts illustrate the relative proportion of
the total number and si2:e of Type A enclaves that would be addressed through anncution at the less
than 3 acre, less than 10 acre, and greater than 10 acre level.
The approximate area of pjncJlas County is 280 square miles or 179.314 acrca. Of Ibis total.
approximately 80,0'0 8CR$ or 45 percent are irll1Dincotpon.tCd Pi:DeDas County aDd 99,264 ICtCI
or 55 percent are within the twel1t)'..four incorporated municipalities.
The annexation of Type A enclaves of ~ than 3 a...-ec; would affect:
. 260 enclaycs (70% of the number of Type A enclaves);
. 203 acres (6% of the acreage of all Type A enclaves). or
. 0.3% of Pinellas County's unincorporated area.
"[be annexation of Type A enclaves of l~ than 10 acres would affect:
. 307 enclaves (83% of me l1umber of Type Aenclayes);
. 473 acres (14% of the acreage of all Type A enclaves); or
. 0.6% of Pinenas County's unincorporated area.
The annexation of.all Type A enclaves would atrect:
. 371 enclaycs;
. 3,384 acres; or
. 4.2% of Pinellas County's unincolporatcd area.
Area of Enclaves. by Size Category
3.000
2,000
!
1.000
o
. <3 Acres II 3-10 Ames 0 10*- Acres
Enclaves hi. PineUas CoWltY . AppeD(Six
A-3
Draft
9-10-1997 2:39PM
~
d
~
-<
~~
<I
~
~
~
~
~
s
~
~
e
e
FROM CENTRAL PERMI TTING 813 56"~S t :; ~ py
Avaii;.~.~~e
HiJ
... o~ 5.
t~~:
~rn::;
Ib
2~
1
FiI
g
.
=
I!
:.:
0>
;i;
I
P.6
~
f~~~~~~~~~
~C"id";dO::!;M~d
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ c ~ ~ - ~ ~
IOVlW'\t"\~C"'IC"'Ir--C"lt:1;o.
""l. '"l ~~ Oti C"l ~ ~~ eo'!. "1 r-:.
~ Vl ~ ~ 0. . ~ ~ 0. ~ t:1;
~ M \C . ~ ~....
"lilt
I
-<
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
C"'I
~<"'ll"O:::~$1
:g E ... ~N ~.
t"'l -
1
I
J
i
.s.
g
~
~J
1140\ i.i ~ ~ ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ -' _ ~ Wt
j tlJ.e~L~~~~~~aaa
='
1. ~~~~~~~~~~~
t~ it ii ~ i:! l'l ii ~ i:! il i:! ~ i:!
~,e
;::I
e
e
8e~t C
PERMITTING 813 562 457. ".. ~ Op
..V~'." L L P.7
(k.,iltaule
9-10-1997 2:40PM
FROM CENTRAL
c. Enclave Population
The infonnation compiled on the accompanying table and chart illustran:S the number of persons
currently residing in Type A enclaves by size category and relative size of tbcse populations to the
unincOEporatl!d county and affected municipal populations (those rn\1n\cipa1i~ with enclaves).
The total estimated 1996 populatiol1 of Pine11as County was 888,612. Tbc UDiDcoIpOrated County
population was Z78.264. or 31 percent oftbc tatal population. The population of the 11 incorporated
~ with Type A coelaves was 554.314. or 62 percent oftbc total popuWion (the rerna.ining
7 percent reside in municipalities without Type A enclaves).
The armexation of Type A Cl1claYCS of less th~ ~ acres would affect:
. 724 people in those enclaves; or
. 0.9% of Pinenas County.s unincorporated population; or
. 0.1 % of the population in municipalities with enclaves.
The annexation of Type A enclaves of J~ than] 0 acres would affect:
. 1.301 people in those enclayes; or
. 0.5% of PineUas County's unincorporated population; or
. 0.2% of the population in municipalities with enclaycs.
The annexation of.all Type A enclaves would affect:
. 9.603 people in those cnclaycs; or
. 3.5% of the unincorporated population; or
. 1.7% of the population in municipalities with enclaves.
Enclave population. by Size Category
10.000
8,000
i~
o 4,000
~
2.000
o
. <3 Ams
gj3-10Acrcs 010+ Acns
Snctaves in PineUas County - Appendix
A.S Dmft
e
e
ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
- Background Information for Commission W orksession -
The proposed Special Act prepared by the Pinellas Planning Council provides
for the involuntary annexation of "Type A" enclaves (enclaves totally
surrounded by a municipal jurisdiction) of three acres or less subject to:
· The City paying for all impact fees for existing structures.
· The City paying for all water and sewer extension and connection fees.
· The Special Act sunsetting in two years.
We have examined the fiscal impacts of these conditions and have determined
that a roughly 10 year payback period would be required for us to recoup City
infrastructure investments for single family properties (see the attached chart).
A lesser time period would be required for most nonresidential enclaves. Staff
feels that this is a reasonable period for return on investment for the long term
benefits of service efficiency, expanded customer base, and achieving unified
community character.
We also have considered the need for unanimity on this issue on the part of the
affected cities in the County. The political reality is that legislative support will
be reduced if the cities themselves are divided in their support of the legislation.
We are checking to see what the level of unanimity of support is among the
various communities and will report our findings to the Commission at the
Monday worksession.
, I
e
e
~
Draft of Local Bill
Re: Annexation of Enclaves
with Proposed Revisions 9/25/97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
e
e
A bill to be entitled
An act relating to Pinellas County, Florida; providing
for the annexation of certain enclaves within the
9
10
11
12 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
13
14 Section 1. Short TItle. This chapter shall be known and may
15 be cited as the "Act to Provide For The Annexation of Certain
municipalities of Pinellas County~ providing for the
definition, and process for annexation, of said
enclaves; providing for prerequisites to the utilization
of this process; providing for financial incentives bx::
the municipalities; providing for exemptions;
providing for the sunset of the act~ and providing for
an effective date.
16 Enclaves in Pinellas County".
17 Section 2. Background. Consistent with the expressed
18 policy of the State to eliminate enclaves, as set forth in Chapter
19 171.046 (I), F.S., the Pinellas County Legislative Delegation
20 established an Annexation Study Committee. The Delegation
21 Annexation Study Committee has conducted public meetings and
22 received detailed reports and input that have established the
23 following:
24 2.1. CeIUlin small enclaves are a significant problem of a long-
2S standing nature in Pinellas County.
26 2.2. The existing provisions of law are inadequate and have
27 not been able to resolve the problem concerning such small enclaves.
28 2.3. The continuation of certain small enclaves is
29 counterproductive to effective growth management and the
30 straightforward provision of uniform and complete urban services.
31
-1-
2.4. Th' current pattern of unincorporated 4!,all enclaves
2 SUITOWlded by an incorporated municipal jurisdiction is confusing,
3 inefficient and results in disparate regulatory and service provisions.
4 Section 3. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to provide
5 a limited, one-time solution to the problem of enclaves in Pinellas
6 County, Florida by enabling a municipal jurisdiction to annex
7 certain small enclaves, subject to the parameters herein set forth,
8 and distinct from the requirements set forth in Chapter 171 ,F.S.
9 Section 4. Authority. The municipal jurisdictions within
10 Pinellas CoWlty shall have the authority to annex, by municipal
11 ordinance, enclaves surrounded by the respective municipal
12 jurisdiction in accordance with, and limited to, the following:
13 4.1. This Act shall apply only to Type A enclaves in existence
14 on the effective date of this Act. Type A enclaves shall be defined
15 consistent with enclaves as described in Chapter 171.031 (13)(a),
16 F.S.
17 4.2. Type A enclaves that are three (3) ten (10) acres or less
l8 in size, not otherwise exempt under Section 8 of this Act, may be
19 annexed by the surrounding municipal jurisdiction upon notice,
20 public hearing and adoption of the requisite ordinance in accordance
21 with the otherwise applicable provisions of municipal law as set
22 forth in Chapter 166.041, F.S.
23 4.3. In exercising the authority under this Act, each
24 municipal jurisdiction shall determine the eligibility of, and legal
25 description for, each. Type A enclave to be annexed through the
26 prescribed municipal ordinance adoption process as set forth in
27 Chapter 166.041, F.S.
28 Section 5. Prerequisites. The authority for municipal
29 annexation provided under this Act shall be subject to the
30 following:
31
-2-
-
1 5.1. e, additional Type A ~nclav~ tan be creat~d
2 subsequent to th~ effectiv~ date of this Act. In ord~r to ensur~ that
3 no such additional ~nclaves will be creat~d, all ann~ations during
4 th~ eff~ctiv~ period of this Act shall be revi~wed by th~ Pin~llas
5 Planning Council and Countywid~ Planning Authority who shall
6 make a d~termination that each annexation is consistent with this
7 provision. In th~ event that any such Type A ~nclav~ is created
8 subsequent to th~ effective dat~ of this Act. the authority and
9 provisions of this Act shall not be applied to allow for its annexation
10 hereunder.
11 5.2. The authority and provisions of the Act shall only be
12 available to. and utilized by. a municipal jurisdiction that has
13 established a completely defined and exclusive planning area in
14 accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 163.3171. F.S.
15 All annexations authorized under this Act must be within the
16 defined, exclusive planning area of the respective municipal
17 jurisdiction effecting the annexation.
18 5.3. The municipal jurisdiction initiating an annexation
19 procedure under this Act shall determine that it has the capability
20 to provide the requisite urban services to the area to be anrtexed in
21 a timely manner, consistent with the established need and an
identified schedule for said service. In particular. each municipal
jurisdiction shall prepare a plan for the extension of public water
24 and/or sewer service to those properties to be annexed under the
25 authority of the Act that are currently without such service(s). This
26 plan for extension and subsequent connection to the public water
27 and/or sewer system(s) shall allow any existing. built structure the
28 option of connection to the public system(s). upon the service(s)
29 being made available by the municipal jurisdiction or designated
30 service provider. as follows:
31
-3-
!!l u'n the request of the property own' or
2 ill when the aistin& private system(s) fail or otherwise
3 need to be repaired or replaced. the cost of which repair or
4 replacement exceeds one-half( 1/2) the cost of the public system(s)
5 impact and connection fees; or
6 !9. when title to the property is transferred;
whichever of these three options were to occur first.
8 Section 6. Financial Incentives. In order for a
9 municipality to exercise the authority provided for under this Act,
10 the municipal jurisdiction shall establish a series of financial means
@ by which to mitigate anyone-time municipal costs applicable to an
@ existing. built structure, developed property. which incentives shall
13 include the following:
14 6.1. The municipal jurisdiction shall pay for all of the initial
15 cost of extending public water and sewer service to a property not
16 currently provided such seIVice(s).
6.2. The municipal jurisdiction shall pay not less than one-
half( 1/2) the total cost of any applicable impact and connection fees
for existing. built structures.
20 6.3. The municipal jurisdiction shall establish a payment plan
21 to assist the property owner with the owner's share of any applicable
impact and connection fees, which provisions may include. but are
not limited to, the following:
(a) A payment plan which allows for payment of applicable
impact and connection fees on a regular basis over an extended
period of time; and
27 (b) Provision for delayed payment through a lien on real
28 property. which lien would be satisfied at a specified future date or
29 upon transfer or sale of the property. whichever were to occur first.
30
31
. .
-4-
6.4. & required municipal cost-sharingLgement and
payment plans shall be established by each municipality in
consideration of the size of the area and number of properties to be
served, the timing of the services to be provided and the total and
proportionate share of such cost, to assure a fair and balanced
formula that does not unduly burden an individual property owner.
Section 7. Interpretation. This Act shall be construed to be
consistent with and further the purpose of Chapter 171, F.S.,
Municipal Annexation or Contraction and the Home Rule Charter
for Pinellas County, Florida. Nothing herein shall be construed to
limit the availability of the otherwise applicable provisions of
Chapter 171.044, F.S.
7.1. Definitions of words and terms used herein shall be
consistent with the definitions contained in Chapter 171.031, F.S.
Section 8. Exemption. A municipal jurisdiction within
Pinellas County shall be prohibited under the terms of this Act from
involuntMily annexing by municipal ordinance any unincorporated
18 area that contains more than 1,000 residential dwelling units
19 managed or to be managed by a single condominium association.
20 Section 9. Sunset Provision. This Act is designed to address
21 the existing enclave problem in Pinellas .County and to allow
22 sufficient time for a structured and equitable solution to be put in
@ place. Sections 1 tIu-ougn 7 of This Act shall expire and be of no
24 further force and effect on June 30, ~200 1. This Act shall not
@ be amended or extended.
26 Section 10. Severability. It is declared to be the intent of the
27 State Legislature that if any section, subsection or provision of this
28 Act is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
29 remainder of the Act shall not be affected.
30 Section 11. Effective Date. This Act shall take effect upon
31 becoming a law.
-5-
. ,
e
e
ENCLAVE ISSUES SUMMARY
Introduction
The purpose of this issues summary is to identify and highlight the reasons for several
suggested revisions to the draft local bill considered by the Legislative Delegation
Annexation Study Committee at its public meeting of September II, 1997.
The principal proposed revisions to the draft bill are as follows:
· Address Type A enclaves of ten( 10)acres or less;
· Allow for the incremental connection of existing structures to public
water/sewer systems;
· Provide for an equitable, shared payment of impact and connection fees;
· Clarify and limit the exemptions; and
· Extend the sunset date and stipulate the Act shall not be amended or
extended.
The issues summary also addresses the underlying issue of "self-determination".in an ____
attempt to provide a more balanced perspective of this issue.
Enclave Size
The inventory and analysis of enclaves supports legislation that includes Type A enclaves
of ten( 10) acres or less. At 10 acres or less, the legislati?n would include 307 (83%) of
the 371 Type A enclaves; while affecting only 473 of the 3,384 acres and 1,30 I of the
9,603 persons in Type A enclaves.
1
-
e
e
A threshold of 10 acres is also supported by the distinction in existing law (Chapter
171.046, F.S.) that provides for involuntary annexation by interlocal agreement at 10
acres or less~ and is further supported by the inventory of water/sewer service which
shows that approximately 81 percent of the residential units in enclaves under 10 acres
are not connected to the public sewer system and 46 percent are not connected to the
public water system.
By allowing for annexation of enclaves of ten( 1 0) acres or less, the legislation would:
. Enable the majority of Type A enclaves to be incorporated within their
respective city boundaries~
. Provide public water/sewer service in areas where significant numbers of
residential units are not now selVed; and
. Mfect relatively few people and a small percentage of the total acreage in
Type A enclaves.
Simply said it would address the small, fragmented pockets of unincorporated area which
comprise the most obvious problem, while leaving those unincorporated -endavesiarger~------- n
than 10 acres in size intact.
Financial Incentives
It is proposed that the annexing cities pay the entire cost of extending sewer and water
lines to seNe the areas to be annexed and one-half(l/2) the cost of any impact and
connection fees. This is not only fair, but generous on the part of the cities, for the
following reasons:
2
e
e
· In most other circumstances, a property owner must share in the cost to
extend sewer/water lines to serve a particular property requesting service
that is not otherwise available. In this instance, the city will pay that
entire cost;
· Impact fees are designed to offset the specific marginal cost of the
particular service or system attributable to each additional property
connected. To require the city residents who have already paid not only
their fair share, but in a real sense the carrying cost of the system in order
to provide the capacity to accommodate the enclaves, to now subsidize the
entirety of the enclaves share of this system, is truly inequitable.
Remember, there can be no waiver of the impact and connection fees. The
impact and connection fees must be paid to the designated fund providing
for the particular service and any reduction or subsidy granted to the
annexed properties must be paid by the existing city taxpayers.
· The proposed addition of a "grartdfatheringa. provision which allows
existing, built properties being annexed to keep the private sewer and/or
water system in place until (I )they choose to connect to the public system;
(2)the private system fails or needs substantial repair; or (3)the property
is sold, mitigates any immediate financial impact to the property owner;
· The proposed availability of alternative payment plans further reduces any
immediate one-time burden on the property to be annexed;
3
I
e
e
. Further, since some properties within enclaves are already served by public
water and/or sewer, for which they may have paid impact and connection
fees, not all properties in the less than 10 acre enclaves need to be
connected to the public system and thus will not be faced with any
additional costs related thereto; and
· Fmally, the value of the annexed property will most likely increase be~use
of the connection to the public utility system(s). In all fairness, at least a
portion of the cost that produces the increased value should be borne by
the property owner.
Exceptions
If it is necessary at all to reinforce the applicability of the bill to only those Type A
enclaves under the designated threshold size, specified exceptions should clearly apply
only to the extent of this bill itself and expire with the remainder of the bill. In making
clear that certain larger properties ca.nnot-be-annexed-under-the terms of this bill, no
continuing special privilege should be granted outside the otheIWise applicable general
law.
Expiration
In order to properly plan for and carry-out the several prerequisites of the bill, it would
be particularly helpful to have three(3) years to implement the provisions of the bill prior
to its sunset. H we anticipate an effective date of mid- 1998, it is recommended the bill
not be sunset prior to mid-200 I in order to allow for an orderly and well-considered
implementation process.
4
e
e
Riiht to Self Determination
Since objections have been raised to the proposed legislation based on the preceived
"right" to self-determination, it may be helpful to examine this issue.
There is no inherent "riiht" to absolute self-determination in the matter of annexation.
The right of an individual property owner to choose to join a city or remain in the
unincorporated area is not an absolute right, but rather one that must be balanced
against the larger good of the majority in the community of which that property owner
is a part.
Our democratic system is based on majority rule, but the fact of the matter is that the
current provisions of Florida's annexation law don't provide for that majority view or
rule. Rather, it allows individual property owner(s) located in an enclave to frustrate and
subvert the will of the majority. This ability of a small minority of property owners to
impede the will of the majority is all the more onerous when this minority interest is
subsidized, both directly and indirectly, by the majority as represented by the residents
in the surrounding municipality.
It is neither logical or equitable that someone located in the middle of what is clearly the
community of Dunedin or Largo, for example, can unilaterally decide that they do not
want to be a part of that municipality.
An examination of how other states and the courts have treated the issue of self-
determination helps to put it in perspective.
s
-
e
e
A number of other states recognize the need to balance the interest of the individual
property owner with the interest of the larger community. The following stAtes, for
example, provide in some form for the involuntary annexation of enclaves:
. Oregon - Oregon Rev. Stat. Sec. 222.750 (1985) -,-.",
. Colorado - Colorado Rev. Stat. Sec. 31-12-106 (1986)
. Idaho - Idaho Code Sec. 50-222 (1988) .if..
. Kansas - Kansas Stat Ann. Sec. 12-520{a){ 4) (Supp. 1990)
. lllinois- Illinois Ann. Stat. Ch.24, Sec. 7-1-13 (Smith - Hurd
1990)( < 60 ac.)
. Indiana - Indiana code Ann. Sec. 36-4-3-1 to 24 (Burns 1981
and Supp. 1990)
. North Carolina - North Carolina Gen. Stat. Sec. 160A-33-42 and 45-51
(1987 and Supp. 1991)
. Oklahoma - Oklahoma Stat. Ann. TItle II, See. 21-103 (West Supp
1992)
~_. ---~ --
. Tennessee - Tennessee Code Ann. Sec. 6-51-102 (Supp. 1991)
. Texas - Texas Local Gov't. Code Ann. Sec. 43.021 (West
1988)
In addition, an article appearing in The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 24, No.2, Spring 1992
entitled "Rethinking Municipal Annexation Powers" I noted the following with respect
to the principle of self-determination:
I Rethinking Municipal Annexation Powers by Laurie Reynolds,Professor of Law,
University of lllinois College of Law. Published in The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 24, No.2
Spring 1992.
6
e
e
"Perhaps the strongest motivating force in determining the shape of
state annexation statutes is the notion that individuals should have
the right to choose the government under which they live. Cose
examination, however, reveals that the principle simply does not
justify granting virtual veto power to residents in outlying areas who
object to municipal annexation. Those who live on the fringe of a
municipality have in fact exercised their right of self-determination;
they have chosen to live in and be apart of an urban area. Having
made that choice, the municipality's exercise of its annexation
power would merely confirm the reality that this land is already
urban. The nonresidents on the fringe should no more have the
power to opt out of the responsibilities of urban life than should city
residents be able to claim an exemption from taxes to support
services they do not use. In many instances, then, the self-
determination principle merely provides nonresidents a way to
protect themselves from assuming the burdens, while letting them
enjoy the benefits, of being part of a municipality."
(Emphasis added)
This issue was also addressed by the North Carolina Municipal Government Study
Commission2 which stated:
"We do not believe that an individual who chooses to buy a lot and
build a house in the vicinity of a city thereby acquires a right to
stand in the way of action which is deemed necessary for the good
of the entire urban area".
This same principle, that the interest of individual property owners cannot be served at
the expense of the larger community, was noted by the Florida Supreme Court in,
Gillette ~ City of Tampa, 57 So. 2nd27, quoting from Henrico Co. ~ City of
Richmond, 177 Va. 754,15 S.E.2nd 309,321,
2 Report of the North Carolina Municipal Government Stut{y Commission, in Selected
Materials on Munidpal Annexation 36 (Wicker Ed., 1980)
7
-
e
e
"Moreover, it is no answer to an annexation proceeding to assert
that individual residents of the county do not need or desire the
governmental servi~ rendered by the city. A county resident may
be willing to take a chance on police, fire and health protection, and
even tolerate the inadequacy of sewerage, water and garbage service.
As long as he lives in an isolated situation his desire for lesser
services and cheaper government may be acquiesced in with
complacenc:;y. but when the movement of population has made him
a part of a compact urban community. his individual preferences c.m
no longer be permitted to prevail. It is not so much that he needs
the city government, as it is that the area in which he lives needs it."
(Emphasis added)
Summary
The draft bill, with the proposed accompanying changes, is a necessary, fair and limited
solution based on docwnented conditions, existing State policy and legitimate precedent
that will allow the cities to better control their destiny, provide essential public services
and balance the interests of the citizenry in both the incorporated and unincorporated
areas of Pinellas County. It is essentially a means of correcting a fundamental flaw in our
governmental structure that will provide a more sensible arrangement for the delivery of
public services in highly urbanized Pinellas Co~ty.
I:\USE.RS\WPDOC~PI-NlNCLA~MAR.Y.922
8
,
. .. . Deb- ~.
~ PINElLAS PLANNIN~t-..~~ c.r; r;vl~ 5, t3
:r vaW.ahle. ;..11>.......
mO\\Or 4- Co{'Y)n ~'(J COUNCIL MEMBERS
\ ~ -.. /\ CouncIlmember Chuck W1111ame, awn
r ,CD tv' ~ ~ ConvnIssIoner Tom Osborne, VIce awn:
" r 0 l"" . MEMO RANDUM Mayor George M. JIrolka, TI888.
Mayor Tom De Cesare. Sec.
Commltsloner Karen Bcayboy
Mayor DavId Coyner
School Board Member Barbara J. Croc:btt
, Cornmasioner Don ReIcher
CommIsaIoner Jean I-faMnen
Cotn:IImember Robert KerIteen
CouncIImember Jeffrey SMcIer
Comn lIs$Iuner Karwt See!
CommIssloner BaIbara Sheen Todd
To:
P.P.C. Annexation Subcommittee
Commissioner Jean Halvorsen
Commissioner Tom Osborne
, "
Commissioner Karen See!
From:
David P. Healey -:z:4/
DavId P. HeaI~ A1CP
ExecutIve DIrector
Copy:
Councilmember Chuck Williams,
PPC Chairman
COPIES TO:
COMMISSION
,i.,' -
, , , S.ubject:
Follow-Up on Enclave Bill .
SEP 2 6 1997
Date:
September 24, 1997
PKt;.,~
CLERK I ATTORNEY
~:,.. ..
In follow-up to the Council's discussion and direction at our September meeting, I have
prepared and enclosed the following for your information and review:
, ,
1.
2.
Draft of Enclave Bill with Proposed Revisions; and
Enclave Issues Summary
,,~-,' -.- ""..-;1. ,-
With'respect to the draft bill, I have identified specific changes related to enclave size
. qo acres ~ 3) financial inc;entiv~J(lP vs. all impact f~es), exceptions (1imitedtQ.tN~:~,;;~~-.
. bilI,only) and sunset ~te_(an.a~~~~a,1 year) that.! beli,evereflect the thoug~ts_of.~$~'.,
CoUncil, while'iIying to work Within '~e fraIn6Wrk of the draft bill. Pio~sed additio~l.f1~' ,
. are underlined and deletions lined ~.. _ . , ; - "';.:. '':-):' ~. .' ~;~;~~4:'; .::
. w >_ .:-1" ._ . - . - . ,-> ~
":i~'.-..- ' .~ -~";{~f;l_' .
-.: - - . .' - , ;/.~- " , '.' .; . ."<'~;~l~~t~.
With respect to the IssUes Summary, I wanted~t.ry and reduce t<? writing some keY/" .~
points in suppOrt of th~ pro~ ~~gesJo th~ draft bill, as well as" ~ addr~ ~~'t3'~~:
baCkground i~ue.~(.~-d~~.~~_?n..._~~~, this ~d of'~.:will1i~~<~
helpful in prese~ting the, Council's,P.OInt o( YIew In support of ~e le&1~lationand Jts~;:,' .~. .
refirtein~t. ~. '~" .. ~i,:-: .~,. . ',' .l:~~ii;~;;j;~' ~-';~L . ~, ):::'.:~','.t~_-..~..',.f...~_:~.:."...:;';_...';"'_:.:.->, .~.<>;~_t_~_.,~.:_ :l.,
- ..:-:-~~~-~..-~. .>~_:. ::" . ',..,. - ~ ~ -
Please let me know yOur thoUghts, ~d in particular whether yoU think this issues o~e .
accurately represents,<~e Council's ~tioJ.1... < . " . '..~
, .~. .~ ~ +:~:';.::/ ~'. - .
14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., S(jrTE3010 · CLEARWATER, flORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (813) 464-3855 FAX (813) 464-3827
.ft..
-
e
e
Page 2
September 24, 1997
I am in the process of scheduling a follow-up meeting with each of the members of the
Delegation Study Committee and it is my intent to share these materials with them
unless you suggest otherwise.
We have also prepared a detailed breakdown of the impact and connection fees for each
city and the estimated total cost of these fees based on how many residential Wlits in the
Type A enclaves would need to be connected to the public water and sewer systems,
respectively. This data has been fOlwarded to each city for their review and comment,
with a copy'to you under seperate cover. The objective is to give us a definitive dollar
estimate of the cost of underwriting all or some portion of these fees as has been
suggested in the draft bill.
Thanks for your continued assistance.
LWSl!RS\WI'OOC9.DPtNlNaAVIl9.SUMCVL T1U'PC
Udoh, Etim
To:
Subject:
Tom Mahony
~~
Tom, please direct your staff to print the Zoning Atlas Map pages as indicated below for me to provide to the Consultant
currently working on our enclaves annexation. Need by noon Wednesday 12/22/99. Thanks
Etim
1. 2518 11. 2698 21. 292A
2. 252A & 2528 12. 270A &2708 22. 299A &8
3. 253A 13. 271A 23. 3008
4. 254A & 2548 14. 273A & 2738 24. 301A
5. 255A & 2558 15. 2808 25. 307A
6. 2608 16. 281A 26. 308A &8
7. 261A 17. 283A 27. 3158
8. 262A & 2628 18. 2898 28. 3178
9. 263A 19. 290A
10. 264A &2648. 20. 2918
~3J"h
-' f~" -' 1r.~
II~\ uJllT'
ty' ~.
/ J1;Jr: r H!i
~V~r ~
'M ~'1
h p;:~
( ;:;r
---/'2- ~
-S Ii> In-
f/(/y-~ ~ ;;;;
. IT'? ~
~v~
Septic Tanks and City of Clearwater Annexation Program
Page 1 of 1
Udoh, Etim
From: CORNELIUS, BRADLEY [BCORNELlUS@WadeTrim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 11:19AM
To: 'chardin@c1earwater-fl.com'; 'eudoh@c1earwater-fl.com'
Cc: GilDERSLEEVE, DAVID
Subject: Septic Tanks and City of Clearwater Annexation Program
1/12/00 11:15am
~c/~
p
~~ I tFV--
< <clea rwaterseptic.doc> >
Dear Cindi and Etim:
The attached file is a summary of the meeting I had with Wayne Wyatt of the Pinellas County Health
Department concerning septic tank systems and the City of Clearwater.
J'. (1) Obtain comments from City of Clearwater regarding public information
fact sheet/letter/mailout.
J!. (2) Information obtained by the City of Clearwater regarding code
enforcement cases.
(3) Intent of the language "improved" and "developed" within the special
enclave annexations.
legislation for Pinellas County
(4) Information regarding City and County franchise fees, public service
fees or taxes.
taxes and other applicable
(5) Septic Tanks/Utility Expansion
We would also like someone from the City of Clearwater Utilities Department to attend the meeting to discuss
the septic tanks/utility expansion topic,
Pleas call or e-mail me to confirm a date and time for the meeting next week.
Thank you for your assistance,
jJt~ / o/hhA"?V
(!0,g 'p-H~~--'
...---".:..
1.'Jb -t.-h--? ,'"
~
~,. ~~~ w/
r-
-Ir~ P- dJ< )&-?;A.
~ ~S~~ ~
%/~~$ ~~~
pi^- " ~4~.s
-;q;:: 7 l h-'f 7~
Brad Cornelius, AICP
Wade- Trim
(813) 882-8366
bcornel i us@wadetrim.com
--~
-=----
01/13/2000
7
/
(
Wade-Trim
1:131VMH\f31:>:JO A1'~
S3:>IM;J3S
IN3Wd013^30 ~ 8NINNV'ld
r I
(;;::;lo il tool 821M I ~
\~~. W..n c:l'I,~q 01:/
~ .. ....Uc::;'. !IS' '
d U Ii I c:-:J \::.:) d.... !
FAX Transmission
Attention: Cindi Hardin
Etim Udoh
Total Number of Pages
Including This Page 2
Firm:
City of Clearwater
Fax No.:
(727) 562-4576
From:
Brad Cornelius. AICP
Date:
January 28, 2000
Re:
City of Clearwater Annexation Project - Septic Systems
Job No.:
CLW2034
Comments: FYI. Copy of letter sent to Wayne Wyatt with Pine lias County Health.
Engineering · Landscape Architecture · Planning · Sciences · Survllying ~3~'
r::. _:I
4919 Memorial Highway. Suite 200. iampa, FL:33634. 813.882.6366.868,499.9624. FAX: 813.SS4.5990. WNW,wadetrim.oom ...~.
2/I: 'd
WI~l 3a~M Wd60:21 00, 82 N~f