ANNEXATION LARGO HISTORY OF ANNEXATION - 12/99
Annexation:
Largo/History of
Annexation
12/99
810 Fla.
258 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d sERIES
Court of Appeal at 2-\.7 So.2d 753 (1971).
The district court affirmed the trial judge's
final decree which found with the appellees
(as a class of the city's water customers in
the area known as the South Peninsula,
south of Frazar Road outside the limits of
the City of Daytona Beach.) Fla.Collst.
art. V, ~ -\.(2) F.S.A. and Rule 4.5(c), Fla.
App. Rules, 32 F.S.A.
Appellees rely upon, and seek to hold the
city to, a 195-\. agreement made by the city.
The agreement was initiated for the city to
~ obtain the private water system then operat-
Gling in that area under the name of South
D. .- Peninsula Water Co. This was a favorable
" /i' acquisition to the city which enabled it to
f <\ ' "f expand its system and it was very willing
~ :. J in the agreement to extend a maximum rate
... which might be charged to the customers of
,.., &i_ that system not to exceed 0 more than
III :I what was charged to those in the city itself
'. ~. > (1330%). This was a real concern to the
! W ~ users, not knowing what the change of
, m ~ ownership might bring, and wishing at least
I to iix a reasonable add-on to the rate to be
charged by a city in which it would have no
other voice.
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
i
The city has now by ordinance levied a
rate of 200%, or double, what city dwellers
are paying and this is what the trial court
declared invalid, holding the city to its
agreement.
Among the more serious contentions of
the city are twO that are mentioned in the
dissent of District Court Judge Dewey M.
Johnson:
(1) The agreement is an unreasonable
limitation upon the city in charging its
rates which would restrict the city in
updating and expanding its water sys-
tem.
(2) The agreement is an unlawful at-
tempt by private agreement contrary
to public policy to limit the legislative
(governmental) authority of the city.
(1) City of Safety Harbor v. Pinellas
County, 218 So.2d 528 (2nd DCA Fla.l969),
stands for the principle that so long as such'
a contract does not require the city to sup-
ply water at less than cost, then the contract
is not invalid on the grounds contended.
Here the facts clearly show that even the
rate of 125% of the in-city rate which was
being charged before the attempted in-
crease, was more than the cost. It would
also appear to be inherent in the iormula of
o more than in-city rates that the charge
to appellees could never be less than the
cost unless the city chose to charge rates to
its own residents which were less than cost,
inasmuch as the ;'3 more of whatever the
city rate, assures an excess charge.
Actually the reasonableness oi rates is
deferred in this litigation until the present
question before the court regarding the
contract is resolved. Court scrutiny of the
reasonableness is of course subject to re-
view. Cooper v. Tampa Electric Co., 154
Fla. 410, Ii So.2d i85 (19~). and Clay
Utility Co. v. City of Jacksom;lle, 227 So.
2d 516 (1st DCA Fla.1969).
(2) The fact that different rates may
be charged to other outside users not cov-
ered by the original agreement does not
defeat that agreement's purpose and validity
for those who are beneficiaries of it.
(3) The flexibility allowed here is dif- COr
ferent from the inflexible 5~ flat rate in
the contract held so inflexible as to be in-
valid in City of Clearwater v. Bonsey, 180
So.2d 200 (2nd DCA 1965). There must of
course be such flexibility as would avoid a
loss to the city. The prerequisite flexibility
is present under the formula here, as in',
Safety Harbor, supra. It is thus seen that
the second objection regarding the alleged ,
unlawful limitation on legislative authority
of the city is not factually supported. "
(4) A further point urged by appellant.
that the contract is unenforceable turnS o~n
the contention that the termination date is
not specified and that under the gener~
rule it is therefore terminable by eithd'
party upon reasonable notice. Collins ,7['
Pic-Town Water Works, Inc., 166 5"
BRITZ v. LeBASE
Fla. 811
Cite aR. Fla., 258 !lo.2d 811
760 (1st DCA Fla.1963). Here, however,
the circumstances fall within the exception
to that general proposition. i. e., where there
is a continuing benefit to the city.
In City of Gainesville v. Board of Con-
trol, 81 So.2d 314 (Fla.1955), our late, dis-
tinguished colleague, Thomas, J., for a
unanimous court reasoned: (at pp. 318-319)
"\Ne do not think that the circum-
stances considered as a whole warrant the
construction that the obligation was to
exist perpetually, or forever. The time
was to be measured by the existence of
the university in Gainesville. We take
judicial notice of the location as perm-
anent but we do not indulge the clair-
voyance that it will be perpetua1. Her-
culaneum and Pompeii were permanent
but history records that they were not
perpetua1.
*
*
*
*
*
*
"The contract contemplated a free
sen'ice so long as the university remained
in Gainesville, a continuing considera-
tion being the exchange ot the service
for the continuing advantage. The Ii fe
of the contract is unalterably 'connected'
with the e."istence of the university as
presently located. \\' e find nothing in
the record to support the position that the
city was bound only to furnish water as
long as it could afford it. or until some
arbitrary period subsequently to be de-
termined."
The remaining contentions including the
one attacking this as not being a proper
class suit are without merit.
The able trial judge was properly affirm-
ed. The opinion below appears to be con-
sistent with earlier authorities on the sub-
ject, leaving no problem of conflict and
as certified is correct. Certiorari is accord-
ingly discharged.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARL-
TOX, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Joseph M. BRITZ and sylvia Britz, his
wife, Petitioners,
v.
Shelby Jay LeBASE, a minor, by and
through her next friend, Delores LeBase,
and Delores LeBase, Individually, Re.
spondents.
No. 40623.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 8, 1971.
On Rehearing :\Iarch 21, 1972.
Suit was brought on behalf of minor
child who suffered loss of eye when she
ran into yucca plant located about six to
eight feet beyond defendants' property line
on an adjacent lot. The trial judge di-
rected verdict in defendants' favor, and re-
view was sought. The District Court of
Appeal, Fourth District, 240 So.2d 819, re-
versed and petition was made for writ of
certiorari to review decision. The Su-
preme Court, Dekle, J., held that where
there was no evidence that defendants had
actual knowledge of danger of yucca plant
and the danger did not exist on property
owned or legally connected to defendants,
plaintiffs were not entitled to recover
against defendants.
Decision of District Court quashed
and cause remanded with directions to
reinstate judgment of trial court.
Adkins, J., dissented with opinion in
which En'in and Carlton, ]J., concurred.
I. Negligence e=>48
Before host can be held liable for in-
juries to a social guest, the host must have
actual knowledge of dangerous condition,
host must realize that it involves an unrea-
sonable risk to his guest and host must
have reason to believe that guest will not
discover the condition or realize the risk.
2. Negligence e=>48
Where there was no evidence that de-
fendants had actual l-.'1lowledge of danger
;,,;';'
t "
, '.
I .
" !
~ t
, \1
: ~ t
tH
~ II
l'
~l i
'\; !
l
CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH v. STANSFIELD
Fla. 809
ClIP ft". Fla.. 258 !\o.Zd ROll
limits a maximum diiferential of 133\'3% of
rates charged to in-city customers for same
services did not defeat agreement's purpose
and validity for those who were benefici-
aries under it.
CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH. Petitioner,
v.
Mary Jo STANSFIELD et al., Respondenb
No. 41182.
Supreme Conrt of Florida.
Feb. ~3. 1972.
Hl'hearin!r Denied :\lareh ~S, 1972.
Appeal by city from final decree of the
Circuit Court, Volusia County, James T.
);' elson, J., permanently enjoining city from
charging certain water customers outside
city limits water rates in excess of maxi-
mum rate differential agreed to by city.
The District Court of .\ppeal affirmed, 24i
So.2d i53, and city petitioned for writ of
certiorari. The Supreme Court held that
so long as a contract setting maximum dif-
ferential of rates to be charged certain
water customers outside city limits in excess
of rates charged in-city customers for same
sen'ices does not require city to supply
water at less than cost, contract is not
::1\'alid on theory that i: places unreasonable
Fmita~ion upon city ir. char~ing- its rates
which would restrict city in updating and
expanding its water system.
Certiorari discharged.
;
i
,
I
1
I. Waters and Water Courses C=>203(7)
So long as a contract setting maximum
diiferential of rates to be charged certain
water customers outside city limits in ex-
cesS of rates charged in-city customers for
same services does not require city to
supply watcr at less than cost, contract is
not im'alid on theory that it places unrea-
sonable limitation upon city in charging
its rates which would restrict city in up-
dating and expanding its water system.
1
t
,
,
.;
!'
~.
~
~'.
2. Waters and Water Courses c=>201
Fact that different rates might have
been charged to other outside users not cov-
ered by original agreement limiting city to
charge certain water customers outside city
258 S, 2~-51lj2
l
,
r
3. Waters and Water Courses C=>203(i)
Inherent flexibility of contract under
which city agreed, at time it acquired water
system previously servicing subject terri-
tory outside city limits, to charge maximum
differential of 1331/3% of rates charged to
in-city customers for same services refuted
contention of city, which sought to impose
against certain water customers outside city
limits a rate of 2ooc;-;;, or double, what city
dwellers were paying, that agreement was
an unlawful attempt by private agreement
contrary to public policy to limit legislative
authority of the city.
4. Waters and Water Courses c=>201
Where there was continuing benefit to
city under contract by which city, in con-
sideration of its agreement to limit maxi-
mum diiferential with respect to rates
charged customers outside city limits to
133: 3~ or rates charged in-city customers
for same sen'ices, acquired water system
previously sen'ing subject territory outside
city limits. contract which did not speci ry
termination date was not unenforceable \m-
der general rule that contract as to which
no termination date is specified is termina-
ble by either party upon reasonable notice.
\\'illiam :\1. Barr of Raymond, Wilson,
Karl, Conway & Barr, Daytona Beach, for
p~titioner.
Cobb, Cole. Sigerson, :\1cCo)', Bell &
Bond, Daytona Beach, for respondents.
PER CURI:\l\l :
Petition for certiorari by the City of
Daytona Beach on certification as being of
great puulic interest (without a specific
certified question) brings before us for
review the opinion of the First District
; ....---;: . PORTER v..-STATB .~' - - - .,
'., ---'-- . "Clte'u:i'IL, 81 80.24 6i.' -'. . - ~
\t ,is unalterably'. 'connected" with the error, if any, in admitting two photographs
'stence of the university as. presently 'taken in home where victim was shot' was
~ted. We find nothing in the, record harmless when jury viewed premises at
sppport the position that the city was close of testimony.
d only to furnish water as long as .it
pld affqrd it, or until some arbitrary
. od subsequently to be determined.
. concluding our observations on the
. "Cmd question we have decided the last,
d third, one in which the appellant asks
hether the city has now discharged its
,},- '
bhgation even assuming that the city
ag1-eed to furnish' water for an unspecified
'me.
')'1
.,Affirmed.
;.-
statemen
.ere i.ViU't
ations :oVl
Clmishingf
.. .:.. 'II
'.
does not!"
do thlit'c'
It is"na?,
said that.:(
mid end.i.'
lmstmCes.
,
construc-'
2xist per-.
:as to' be:
miversity .
notice oc:
'e do not.
: will be'
peii were
:hat they.
c. J., and TERRELL,
RI?\~" HOBSON; ROBERTS
1'HOR.~--'\L, JI., concur."
Urcle PORTER, Appellant,
v.
ST A TE of Florida, App1lllee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Division B.
June :!9,1955.
icipate or,
:1ster wilr~
f Florida!
t circum-)
\'al of the!
utwe do'
. .
:-lot so 111-
t ca'n b~t"
'I
'. -: )
~e service
;ained )~r '::
sider~tio~,~
'e for ,the '1;-,
......, ,~
f the coJlo'."
Prosecution for murder in the first
egree alleged to have been committed by
hooting victim with a pistol. From ad-
erse judgment of the Circuit Court, Duval
,T"unty, W. A. Stanly, J., the defendant
pp'ealed. . The Supreme Court, Thomas,
. held that the evidence was sufficient to
tain the. conviction.
Criminal Law €=>1169(2)
" ,In prosecution for murder in first
eg~e~ by shoot~ng victim with a pistol,
Fla.
519
,2. Criminal Law ~784(5)
'In prosecution for murder in the first
degree by shooting victim with a pistol,
instruction that no greater degree of cer- 11--1,
tainty in proof was required where evidence t,
was circumstantial than where it is direct f
for in either case jury must be convinced of "
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ~.
was not erroneous. f
3. Homicide €=>253(I)
,.
Evidence was sufficient' to sustain con- '
SE- viction for' murder in the first degree.
and
\.
.{:: \;
. tW
Frank T. Cannon a~d Zach H. Douglas, ~.~
Jacksonville, for appellant.'
-.
- 'Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart
L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellant was charged with murder
in the first degree alleged to have been com-
mitted by shooting one Hazel Rowland with
a pistol while he entertained a premeditated
design to kill her. He was found guilty of
murder in the second degree and was sen-
tenced to serve the rest of his life in prison.
[1] In his appeal the appellant submits
three questions for decision: the propriety
of admitting two photographs in evidence,
the correctness of a charge on circumstan-
tial evidence, and the sufficiency of the evi-
dence to establish his guilt.
The photographs wer:e taken in the kitch-
en wher'e Hazel Rowland f,ell victim to ap-
'pellant's gun fire and in the living room in
the same house. In general, the appcll:mt
contends that these pictures were not an
'accurate portra)-al because blood stains had
been removed since the homicide. was al-
l~ged to have been committed, the furniture
'clnd furnishingswer'e not the same and one
I
l
1
J
t
.f
1
, 'I
'\f(
CITY P~j~~~~~[I!~~~f: .<;>~ qe~~OL
na:.. 517,
. rd of Education,were "vested, wi,th.an. stances, ,required contributions from city
,,_ ..... _ _ ., -,_. ,.' .' -, I ;
: rute discretion",' Acts 1905, c.. 5~j ~, treasuries ~f monies as a condition to the
j to be exercised, however, within certain establishment~ and, maintenance of institU-,
siderations detailed in the law, to deter- tions of learning within their borders.
t'the location of the University of the Further evidence of the attitude of the
, tt ~f Fl?rid.a. . Since some of the cities legislature' with regard to such donations
,whIch mst!:utlOns were then located, is found in Chapter 5498, Laws of Florida,
Id ~pon actlo.n. of the boa.res lose those Acts of 1905, expressly empowering the
/~?tl~~S, provISIon .was. m~de .for refund City of Gainesville to issue bonds for such
th~ CItIes from .Whl~h tnstltutIO?~ woul.d amount as the city council should deter-
,ov:d of contnbutlOns made .f~om the~r mine "for the purpose of securing educa-
~.sU~les to the" scho~ls. For Inst~nce. It tional advantages and facilities in or ad-
~ st~pu1a:ed: And In case the saId ~Ity jacent to such city." F.S.A. ~ 282.01.
~GamesVl!le [site of The East Flonda , .' ,'.
n1i~ary] s!1all not be selected by said And as lat~ as 1953 the legislature in a
ards as one of the places for the location footnote to Item No. 62 of the appropria-
'r one of said institutions, then the said tion bill "*Provided that none of these
'd of Education shall refund to the said monies shall be used to purchase water from
l:pLGainesville; out of the a~sets an~, the City of Gainesville." Chapter 28115,
. ~!1Y of the abolished institution located Laws of Florida 1953, F.S.A. ~ 282.01, item-
'such place, so much of. the lands and 62. Of course, we realize that this was
., erty of the same, or its equivalent at long after the promise of the citizens' com-
t}1~n_ value, as was donated to the said mittee was made but it does indicate to
~ee' by the said City of Gainesville us that the legislative intent forty-eight
~j *." Acts 1905, c. 53&t, ~ 18. years aftex:ward harmonized with the p~t-
t . d d th t . f T 11 h tern we thmk was set by the acts to which
,was prov: e a I a a assee, we have referred.
He The FlOrIda State College, formerly
~gitated The \Vest Florida Seminary,
, ~_ then located, should not be selected
1.3,' site for one of the new institutions
r;r tbe plan, The Florida State College
ving b~en abolished bv the Act, the
o ' .
te Board of Education, upon returning
f'
the' city any property, delivered by it
r use of the school, should charge the
1:1 a _proportion of any money required
be paid under Section 325 of the Revised
tutes of Florida, 1892, which the city
,:.not paid. Turning to this section we
'that a seminary for Florida west of
'Suwannee was located in Tallahassee
~ondition that the city convey certain
erty to the Board of Education and
, t the said city, by its proper authorities,
c. guarantee to said board of edu~-
the payment of the sum of two thou-
d. dollars per annum forcver · ~ *."
lics supplied.)
"", ' "
. L iI1 the Buclanan Act and in Se~tion
:q"f.the Revised Statutes of F1.~r,ida,:the,
,Iature. creator. of municipalities" rec",:
" ~d.. approved and, at least in Some in-::
By the express terms of the Buckman Act
the Board of Control was given the power
"to receive donations" and we construe this
provision to authorize acceptance of dona-
tions by the City of Gainesville. We have
been directed to no provision of the city
charter, expressly granting to the city the
power to enter such an agreement as was
executed by the "committee of citizens."
~or has our research revealed express au-
tho'. ity so to contract.
After a careful study of this record, we
conclude that the whole pattern for re-
organizing and maintaining the educational
s)'stem offered an opportunity for legal con-
tributions by cities from their funds in or-
der to secure to the citizens the obvious ad-
yanta~es of having institutions located in
their midst." Trite; no express' grant of
power so to contribute' appeared in' thr
Gainesville charter but it was properly im-
plied from' the powers expressed.'.
[1] ,^ municipality, can exercise the
pOwers expressly, granted and such' po\"ers.
. ,f ....: - - ,.< --
~.
o
U
..
en
G)
CD
5i8~ ~
JOsI'''soumiN'iBfbiTii;:tcr'SDIBS 71T)
"-1.'.0 U..d('. 1~ ..C. \ ...._ JJi.J
f .
ct ,IS UP
i~te~c~' (
- ted. \'
- ~5Upport
und ~Iy
uld affor
..,wod subs.
.! In conch,
~cond que~
~and third, c
. '..hether th
, ~bligation
- :agreed to f
" ~me.
: Affirmed.
as 'may 'bee implied 'from'or' as may be in';' nieitf'was' not void; 'that'itwis~
cident to those granted. -=State eX reI. 'Coli: bOth 'by the city and the State. -I:>'
v.-Keller, 129 Fla: '276,-176 '50. 176. -- '.
[4] 'Then we come to the ap
second question: Whether the city,
to furnish water to theuniversiti'
charge "in perpetuity"? ' " t!
. ""'"\-.'!v
Hav10g concluded that by its acti
city h?nored the agreement of the,!:ii'
committee and mad~ the committee's'"
i~e its own, we need, in treating - q{
question, only to determine wheth"
contract was one to last forever.-jji.
petuity,or ad infiuitllm which app" 'J
considers synonymous. - ~ .;.~
The appellant is candid in the Stat~:'
that it was not suggesting that there "
no connection between the negotiatiOrl~'
, the Citizens' Committee and the furnf'
of water to the University . r*
But the appellant insists that it does~
follow that the cty intended to do'
"in perpetuity ,,;thout charge."- It 'is'
clear to us just ~here it could be sara:-
the obligation, once ratified, would.:;'
We do not think that the' cir~!
considered as a whole warrant the cOD'
tion that the oblig-a::on was to ci;l.
!he donation was, in effect, one for :he ' petually, or forenr. The time was:~
benefit of the State, as well as the CIty, d b th - + f th' ~l
" , . _ measure y e ex:s.ence 0 e 111l1V
and was made to agents of the State WIth . G" '11 \\. k' di'a1 u.....
'. ' .' . m amesvI e. e ta. e JU CI no....
apparent sanchon of the State. -ThIS, of th I 't' t b t ' i
, , " ff' e oca Ion as permanen u we uO
course, would apply to any CIty 0 enng . d I th 1 ;--~ . 'th t 't will' .Do
.. . ' ' ,'. _. 10 U ge e c a.L , '.J\ ance a 1
a SImIlar mducement. . And there IS nothmg t 1 HI' 'd 'p ,~~
.' '1 " " ' :.th-thd' . ''vV' perp~ ua.. ercu ~eum an om~l
mnate y wrong WI .. '.e onatlOn. ' e permanent but history' records :th'lt
would have to hold It 'of suc,h character t a1 :.5q
'. were no perpc.l .
on the ground that no express power m that J
regard was given and none was given from We dO' not dare or wish to antici
which the power could be implied' or to apprehend that misiortuneor'disastJt
wl).ichthe power ~o. ~p~nd w.as incidentaL overtaKe" either the University of ,
We~not find,inJ:he history.ofjh.e, trans-, or the City of Gainesville ar that"..
action such ,defects or; ,in the law such a stances will bring about the removal:,
lack th.at would justify tllis abSolute deci-: institution from its present site bud~
sion. Not an1y dO' w:e reje~t this conclu,:" say that theph)'sical situation is no!:
sian but we think, t~e: actiOJl of ,t,h.~.jegis-, exorably' fixed that the, contract"
lature in dealing ;with..thl: ,educational .SY5- condemned as one to last ,forever;- ;;;0.'
tern far half a centurymanifeste_4 a sanc-,'
tion byth.at body of ~e actian of the city",:,""
or an behalf af the city. '
~;We'end the discuss'i~n on'this poin't~by
remarkin~ that in aur opinion the commit- ~
[2] We think that the power to' expend
money of the city by furnishing a utility
as an inducement, to ~establishing a uni-
versity in the city is inherent in the powers
granted to the City of Gainesville. Certain-
ly the very purpose of. a municipality is
to further and foster the welfare and pros-
perity af those who constitute its citizenry. '
Suche.~nditures ,must be kept" within
bounds so that public funds may not be ad-
vanced to promote purely private' enter-
prise. State v. Town af North Miami, Fla.,
59 5a.2d 7i9. But such is not the case here.
State v. Board of, Control, Fla., 66 So.2d
209.
[3] It is the rule that if a city exceeds
its powers the legislature can ratify what
has been dane beyond the scope of the
powers actually granted, if it could have
legalized it initia~ly. ' ,Ebersbach Const. Co.
v. Charles Ringling Co., 100 Fla. 1270, 131
Sa. 148; Newman v. City of Ope1ika, 224
Ala. 70,139 50.242;..10 NcQuillin, Mun.
Corps. 3rd Ed. Sec. 29.109.,
,..~ '~.-- ~f ,.""".-".....,." --,..",~
-
Urc
STA
Sup
The ~antract cantemplated a free ' "
so 'tong "as the" university' "rema'
Ga'mesville;: 'iI." 'cOntinuing' 'cohsMe
being the' :hchange' crl the service:.J,
co~tinuirig 'advantage. Th~ life' of tb
-~'.
~J~ l1Ai
.IOI'I-.l19J7't~. ~~QI~a ~tlJUJU rr:J
l 1;'1 o:.u3 ~j ..A!l.... ').;.:..
to the university "ren~er~ ..,. .. .\he
waterworks * * · incapable of pro.
dueing suffici~t' revenue * * · to re-
tire principal and interest charges on loans
which [the city] must obtain 'to finance'
improvements and extensions * * *."
To continue with the analysis of the
complaint: The enrollment at the univer-
sity in 1905 was one hundred thirty-five
and in 1950 had increased to more than
eleven thousand. 'Subsequent to the effec-
tive date in the resolution of its commis-
sioners, the city sent to the university bills
for water consumed which the university
refused to pay.
Hence the dispute.
On the one part it is contended that the
city is bound to furnish water as long as
the university remains at its present site;
on the other, that the contract was void
from the beginning and, if not, the "spirit
and intent of said agreement was long ago
fully discharged" and the "agreement has
now become void as a contract to con-
tinue in perpetuo." (Italics supplied.)
, We attach no importance to the pheno-
menal growth of the university as itself
a reason to relieve the city of the burden.
From a moral standpoint it seems to us
that the inducement to secure tll.e advan-
tage of a university of one hundred thirty-
five students is shown to have been justi-
fied by the presence of a university with
eleven thousand. So, were we to stop here
we would hold that the citizens in 1905
struck an excellent bargain and that the
present size of the institution is all the more
reason the city should be held to it.
But we must decide the controversy up-
on the legal points involved.
In his decree the circuit judge reviewed
the history of institutions of learning in the
State and the purpose in enacting Chapter
5384, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1905, com-
monly'called the Buckman Act, F.S.A.
fifi 239.01 et seq., 240.01 et seq., 241.01,
241.03, 241.21. ).241.40, 241.41, 242.33,
242.34, 242.37 to 242.39, to establish a Un i-
versityof Florida ,and to create a Board
ot _ Control ",hich ahouldaet}~ ecpj
with the State Board of. Edu~~i9~ "
ing a location for the instituti~n.:_",-ll
cities of the State . were attemptlhg.
come sites for the UDiversity ,,,nd, - .
competition the citizens of Gai~
whom we have referred, evidently
lively, and clearly successful.pa~.
,C
The circuit judge thought there'j
be no serious contention tha.t the- 0 : .
not either authorized the contra~_l"
first place, or ratified it when it hollO
the agreement f~r about fifty year~'ic~'"
he felt that a city could not be esto
to assert the invalidity of a contr~~t
was ultra vires, he found that the factl
the municipal officials, as well as the~ ;
bers of the Board of Control, consf'
that the city was acting within its ~.
higWy "persuasive to the conc1usioI!g
the City did have power to makethe;J
tract." '.
The city, of course, was the trel
of the legislature. Under the Corist(:
the legislature has the "power to esiafl
and to abolish, municipalities to,:.pi"
for their government, to presCribe 1
jurisdiction and powers, and to,' ~i
amend the same at any time." seCti
Art. VIII, F.S.A. Constitution of the S'
of Florida. So the power in the Ci
Gainesyille, and the other cities of FIo
was reposed by the legislature unde.
Constitution. Now let us look at the; B
man Act, as the circuit judge did,.tO
certain the attitude of that body, wh
the power of the city sprung, toward
tions by cities to induce the 10cation,~~1
institutions within their boundaries....
. ~ ,'"
,rd of
lute
. , to be
'derc
. ethe
te of '
'.whid:
would up
stltutior
,..~\. .
.t(j \Ue Clt
. "'moved
'9~- .
.,trtjlsurre<
;as sti pI
~'f'G .
:q' ..amt
iStininar:-
Boards a
_ oJ one c
: Bpard of
9ty of (
P!'operty .
';,i. s'Jch :
Jl!;operty
. ;t!1en'
. .te : by
;:.: '.."
By the Bucknian Act theieiis
abolished The Florida Agricultural
at Lake City, The West FIoridaS
at Tallahassee, The White NonnaF
at DeFuniak Springs, The East
Seminary at Gainesville, The South ,
College at Bartow, and The F1oti4a~
cultural Institute in OsceolaCo~ I
created and established the Univer
the State of Florida and The Flori
mal.e .College. The Board of Co .
created by the Act and it and .the,
CITY "01 aAInsvtLUr...:"BOARD of'OON'i'lr.oL
CIte... J'la., 81 80.24 6U '
\ited: to' c:ity?-aDd agreement:-betWeen)
rdof control and cori1mlttee of citizens
CitY: to furnish water without charge!
, nof void, and was ratified by both city
state by' furnishing of water with-
I charge for about 45 years.
~".,- ~
-. Affirmed. "
\1. .. ,
.,.
,f!'Iunlclpal Co.rporatlons C=>57, 59
Ifj A municipality can exercise the powers
'^"ressly granted and such powers as may
,t; 1mplied from or' as may be incident to
;'~e granted;
'Munlclpal Corporations p76, 870
Waters and Water Counes C=>203(1)
~'Pciwer ~f:"city to ~pend ~o~ey' by
~. ishing water to university without
,l;ge as inducement to establishing. ~i-
;'~ty:in' city' was inherent in 'p~wers
J ted to city, and agreement between
..
, d of control and committee of citizens
.city' to furnish water without charge
" 'not vOId ,and was ratified by both city
,-- state by furnis~;"g of water without
'ge . for about ~5 years_ Acts 1905,
5384; a~d ~ 17; F.S_<\.Const. art. 8, ~ 8;
}... .~ 282.01, item 62.
': If a city e..xceeds its powers, the Legis-
. re can ratify what has been done beyond
. scope of the powers actually granted,
it could have le2<1lized it initiallv.
.J ~ .
rW $15
:THOMAS~ ]u'stlc.er' '"
:"lr~~ r,t
-- -: '/ ~ r. ~ ;
? '.~ ;
, The City of Gainesville filed in the Circuit
Court of Leon Cou~ty - a ~~mplaint' co~-.
ta.i~ing a prayer for ~ decree d~clario'g,"th~:
l~gal rights and o!>ligatfons' of,thc:re~pec,":
tive parties [the city and the Board of
Control] in dispute-'arising from [a] con-
tract of 1905; and for such other' * ...-,.,
relief. as the premises may require.": ::;:
We now condense the material allegations
upon which th~ city relied as bases for the.
relief, From a time prior to the yea~.l905~
the city in a proprietary capacity has co~...
tinually operated its waterw~rks and chargl':
ed rates for the service. On 19 July 1905
a committee of citizens of Gainesville';md
the five then members of the Board.of Con-
trol 'enter~d' an ag;~einetit by which. the
committee undertook to " 'cause water to 'be,
furnished for the use of the." .. .. Uni;,
versi ty ... ~ ," without charge.''' . The
purpose of,' the undertaking," whiCh 'was'
coupled with other promises to donate land;.
provide temporary housing for students and
so on, was to induce the Board ,of Control
and the State Board ot' Education, th'e
bodies charged with choosing a site for
the 1.)niversity. of Florida, to locate the
university in Gainesville. In: 'the agreement
the parties of the first part were designated
simply iTa committee of the citizens of the
City of Gainesville." The university was
established in Gainesville and has since
remained there.
..
According to the bill, the city never rati.,
'!Vaters and Water Courses e=o203(1) fied the contract, nevertl1eless" it did until
,!>Where City agreed to furnish water to 1 October 1950 supply water ~o, ~e univer~
. ersity without charge as an inducement sity \Vi~out. charge. On 5 June 1950, the
city commission adopted a resolution pro-
'~ablishing of university in that city,
viding that effective l'October 1950 the
. )',y;as obligated to furnish water to uni-
university would be charged for water at
~ty'. witl,1out charge for as long as uni-
.io/: remained located in the city.. ' the rate ,of }5;. pe~. t.~~us:7nd gallons.,
t'K: ~ In the complaint is the averment that in'
,~1A':.h, ,:',~' , " ' ,1948 and 1949 the city ~pended a. large..
_ sum of money in the installation of a water:
o~by; Dell" Graham & Mills, Gaines~
,~" II treatment': plant. and to finance the project.
n 40r appe ant. . d' ' 'fi d led d- h' "
'{1fe"', , ' ,., Issue revenue' certr cates an 'p ge. t c;
chard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Frank J:: receipts of the utility to the payment or the':
'tt. and, Wm. C. Morris, Asst.. Attys.' obligation., Loss of revenue~by.rea.son, of:
~for'Clppellee. :..": " ,~ .,,;z;r' the, large amount of water~now supplied!
..
II
I>>
III
;51' J'lL
I1:S0,lJTlIEBN BEPO&TEB,' 8d SDDS
I.::' ~.(.~ ~3 ,.~ri ,d4~'::'-~
the appeal ~taken 'Test was named as a
party appellee. .. llut nowhen; in .the record
can .we find that Test ever.made any objec-
tion in the court. below to the injunction
order that was contained in the tinal decree,
nor can we glean any information' from
the record as to the nature of the chancery
suit, the relief sought, or the issues in-
volved. Indeed, all that we have been able
to learn about the matter is stated by Test,
in his brief, wherein he poses the question
"Is the final decree as enter~ by the lower
court in conformity with petition of the
appellee City of Fort Lauderdale as filed,
and does the lower court have the right to
enlarge upon the relief or remedy sought by
the petitioner, and in the event the decision
is in the negative, is the lower court e:'tceed-
ing its authority?"
Under this question, the appellee Test
sets out in general language that makes no
reference to the page numbers of the record,
that gives no precise information about the
nature of the chancery suit or issues in-
volved, and that fails to disclose in what
particular he claims to have been injured by
the injunction order, "that the injunction
particularly contained in the final decree is
-in excess of that sought." And the appellee
concludes this portion 'of his "argument"
with the statement that "the Lower Court
in its final decree with full knowledge tha.t
there existed in the Circuit Court of the
'Fi fteenth Judicial CirCuit, a suit in chancery
entitled J. Arthur Test v. City of Fort
Laude'rdale, No. 22095; that said suit was
in another division other'than the division
in which cases are gem,rally heard by the
[circuit judge] w~o signed this final decree;
and that inasmuch as the City Attorney for
the City of Fort Lauderdale had prepared
the final decree and presented it' to the
Court for signature upon his declaration
that he would validate the bond issue, was
unaware to what extent the provisions of
the final decr.ee went to."
:- ~.
" [8], We have the view that neither the
question posed by the appellee nor the
argument submitted thereunder conform
with the requirements of 30 ,F.S.A.Supreme
.Court Rule 36 pertaining to appellate briefs.
.Any answer that we mightattem
to the question posed .wouldnec" -
sheer guesswork. ,This is not the' ~
which an important decisi~::SI1'
rendered. Under the circumstan'
must decline to consider' the .,u
Hunter v.Tyner, 151 F1a. 707,10 SQ
. ' :'>
We have e.,"tamined all other)torir
. - -' '........~
advanced by the appellant and find'th
be without merit. . , :; ,; YT' '
~ ted to>; tit
rd of conk
:city'to'fu
. not void,
, state by
t charge for
;, Affirmed.
-:~ 251
The appellant having failed to maki
clearly appear the decree appealed,:
.should be affirmed. ' .
It is so ordered.
....
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL; TH
AS, HOBSON, ROBERTS and,Tif
NAL, JJ., concur.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE,. Mia.lcfp
Corporation, Appellalit, d,~
',.':'; j['
v... . r.. ri:mJ
BOARD OF CONTROL of the state'
Florida, a body corporate: APp!l!e' ..
, ,. '" ",',
'Supreme Court of FlorliiA.:lil. '
,.. . ""',r
En Bane. . ,:<U,:: '~~~l'
Jqne 22, 1955. -, ';('1
" " " 'il
Action' by city for decr'ee '.J.
rights and obligations of city and bo
. ,_.... .~ ,._. A
control in dispute arising under
whereby <;ity was to furnish JV~terG
versity without charge as, jndQC;.,
establishing, ,W1iversity in the ~i~i ^
adve.rse ,decree of the <:;ircuit . Co ',-
County, Hugh M. Taylor,J., the.,p
pealed. The Supreme Court, :r_
held that power of city to expen~~
by furnishing water to university:
charge. as inducement to establis .
versity in city. was inherent, in ~'
178 Fla.
540 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
[5] Finally, we reject appellee's conten-
tion that Mullan has no cause of action
b~use he failed to strictly follow the pro-
cedural rules outlined in his contract for
the resolution of disputes. Mullan peti-
tioned the local Board of Education for
relief after the principal rejected his com-
plaint. Appellee contends that the contract
requires submission to the Diocesan Office
of Education after rejection by the Board
of Education, which step Mullan concededly
did not take. However, the contract pro-
vides that the Board of Education will pro-
vide its decision to the teacher within five
days after hearing the teacher's objection,
yet the Board did not submit its decision to
the appellant for some five weeks after the
hearing. Having failed to follow its own
rules, appellee should not be heard to com-
plain that Mullan did not strictly comply
with them.
Because disputed issues of fact exist, the
summary final judgment is reversed and
the cause is remanded for further proceed-
ings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., C.J., and COBB, J.,
concur.
The CITY OF WINTER PARK,
Florida, Appellant.
v.
SOUTHER."i STATES UTILmES, INC.,
et al., Appellees.
No. 88-242.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
March 16, 1989.
City brought action against utility com-
pany and landowners alleging that utility
company was providing sewer service to
landowners within city's exclusi.e sewer
service zone and that city would have ca-
pacity to serve landowner's property in ap-
'. proximately 17 months and thus. sought
declaratory judgment to effect that land-
owners would be required to disconnect
from utility company's sewer system and
connect with city's sewer system at that
time. The Circuit C~urt, Orange C~unty,
Volie A. Williams, Jr., J.. denied city's pray-
er for declaratory judgment and city ap-
pealed. The District Court of Appeal, C0-
wart, J., held that city had no right to
prevent utility company from serving con-
suming public or to require public to dis-
connect from utility company now serving
it and to connect with city's system if and
when city got around to meeting its duty to
provide service that it had undertaken to
provide through enactment of ordinance.
Affirmed.
1. Public Utilities e=>Ul
All corporations which voluntarily un-
dertake to engage in performing service of
public nature whether governmental agen-
cy, such as municipality, or pri>ate corpora-
tion, assume obligation implied by law to
render, for reasonable compensation and
without discrimination and to all of public
in area sought to be served, serviee reason-
ably adequate to meet just requirements of
those sought to be served.
.,t' .
'.." .-:
.;~.:....",--
: i
2. Municipal Corporations $=712(3, 5)
City had no legal right to prevent utili-
ty company from serving consuming public
nor did it have right to require public to
disconnect from utility company now serv-
ing them and to connect with city's sewer
system if and when city became equipped
to provide service that it had undertaken to
provide by enacting ordinance extending its
corporate power over its municipal sewer
service zone outside its corporate limits;
city was not permitted to extend its service
franchise beyond area it was able to serve
and thereby prevent public from being
served by anyone else.
WINTER PARK v. SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES
Cite .. 540 So.2d 178 (Fla.App. 5 Dtst. 1989)
Frederic B. O'Neal of Winderweedle, city sewer treatment capacity was available
Haines, Ward & Woodman, P.A., Orlando, at the time it was needed by the land-
for appellant. owners and found that there was no mate-
Thomas A. Cloud, Philip H. Trees, Ste- rial issue as to the fact that the city did not
phen A. Hilger, and Forrest S. Fields, Jr. of have the present ability to provide sewer
Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Orlando, service to the landowners' property and
for appellee Southern States Utilities, Inc. that, accordingly, the utility company was
Terry C. Young and Matthew G. Brenner free to contrac~ to provide s.ewer s~rvice to
of Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & the landowners property WIthout mterven-
Reed, P.A., 'Orlando, f~r appell~es Golden- tion (interference] from the city. Although
rod Partners Ltd. Mark E. Harris and not affinnatively expressed, the effect of
James B. Ta~. ' the trial court's denial of the city's prayer
for a declaratory judgment that the land-
owners would be required to disconnect
from the utility company's sewer system
and connect with the city's sewer system
when it became available and entry of sum-
mary judgment against the city was that
the landowners would not be required to
tenninate their sewer service contract with
the utility company and connect to the
city's sewer system if and when it became
available to the landowners' property. The
city appeals.
Interestingly, this litigation is somewhat
of a shadow of a prior litigation as to the
same issue between the same parties that
came about as follows: earlier, the utility
company applied to the Public Service Com-
mission to amend its certificate of public
necessity to provide sewer service to the
property now in question and other proper-
ty. The city objected. The PSC, by order
numbered 18525, and dated December 9,
1987 (87 FPSC 12:125), found that the city
had more demand for sewer service than it
had capacity and that while the city expect-
ed to be able to provide sewer service at
some time in the future, the city would not
execute a commitment to provide sewer
service and desired to place those needing
service on a list to wait until the city could
provide sen'ice while the utility company
had existing unused sewer treatment ca-
pacity and was willing and able to serve
the public. As to the city's claim to the
exclusive right to serve the property in
question under its municipal service zone,
the commission noted that it is not bound
by the city's ordinance extending its corpo-
rate power beyond its eity limits, nor by a
local comprehensive plan enacted under
.;;:
("
COWART, Judge.
Appellant, City of Winter Park, enacted,
pursuant to section 180.02(3), Florida Stat-
utes, an ordinance extending its corporate
power over its municipal sewer service
zone outside its corporate limits so as to
require property owners outside the city
but within such senice zone to connect to
the city's sewer system when it became
available. Appellee Southern States Utili-
ty, Inc., a non-governmental utility compa-
ny (public senice corporation) with a certif-
icate issued by the Florida Public Sen'ice
Commission (PSC) pursuant to section 367.-
031, Florida Statutes, authorizing it to pro-
\ide sewer senice, entered into a contract
\\ith appellee landowners to supply sewer
senice to a traet of land lying \\ithin a
portion of the area embraced \\ithin the
city's ordinance where the city does not
presently have sewer senice capability.
The city filed this action against the utili-
ty company and the landowners alleging
that the utility company was pro\iding
sewer service to the landowners within the
city's exclusive sewer service zone and that
the city would have capacity to serve the
land owners' property by a date about 17
months in the future from the date the
action was originally filed. The complaint
prayed for a declaratory judgment to the
effect that the landowners would be re-
quired to disconnect from the utility compa-
ny's sewer system and connect with the
cit).,s sewer system when the city could
pro\ide sewer sen'ice.
The trial court held that the city under
its ordinance could compel the landowners
to connect with its sewer system only if the
Fla. 179
180 Fla.
540 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
sedion 163.3161, Florida Statutes, stating
that the test was who was in the best
position to provide the needed sewer ser-
vice which the commission found to be the
utility company rather than the city. The
commission expressly declined the city's re-
quest that the utility company's certificate
for authority to serve this area be issued
subject to the condition requiring discon-
nection when the city became able to sup-
ply sewer service, noting that the commis-
sion had no jurisdiction over the city sewer
system.1 The city appealed the Public Ser-
vice C1lmmission's order to the First Dis-
trict C1lurt of Appeal which aff"mned. See
City of Winter Park v. Southern States
Utilities. 530 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA
1988),
[1] We agree with the Public Service
Commission and the trial court. All corpo-
rations which voluntarily undertake to en-
gage in performing a service of a public
nature whether a governmental agency,
such as a municipality, or a private corpo-
ration, assume an obligation implied by law
to render. for reasonable compensation and
without discrimination and to all of the
public in the area sought to be served, a
service reasonably adequate to meet the
just requirements of those sought to be
served.!
[2] A city cannot undertake to extend
its service franchise beyond an area it is
able to serve and thereby prevent the pub-
lic from being served by anyone else. The
public is entitled to be served and served
by the entity best able to serve it. In this
case, the utility company is able to provide
the public with the service that the city is
unable to provide. The city has no legal
right to prevent the utility company from
1. Section 367.022(2), Florida Statutes. exempts
utility systems owned. operated. managed or
controlled by governmental agencies from the
jurisdiction of the PSC. It is said that the legis-
lature reasons that it is unnecessary for the PSC
to exercise regulatory power over a municipal
utility because the people own the utility and it
functions for their benefit and they have
elective control over the officials operating the
utility. Sa generally 43 FlaJur.2d Public Ser-
via Commission ~ 37 [Jurisdictionl Over Mu-
nicipalities and Cooperatives (1983). When a
municipal utility operates beyond its corporate
limits. the residents there being served do not
serving the consuming public and no right
to require the public to disconnect from the
utility company that can now serve it and
connect with the city's sewer system if and
when the city gets around to meeting its
duty to provide the service that it has un-
dertaken to provide.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ..
concur.
Muriel J. KReEGER. Appellant,
v.
SCHOOL DlSTRICf OF HER.'iANDO
COlmY, Florida. Appellee.
No. 88-270.
District C<>urt of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
March 16, 1989.
Teacher appealed from order of rein-
statement issued by county school board,
pursuant to recommended order of Division
of Administrative Hearings, challenging
amount of back pay awarded. The District
Court of Appeal, Sharp, C.J., held that: (1)
teacher had right to receive back pay for
entire time she was entitled to receive sala-
ry, and (2) teacher was entitled to back pay
for period of leave without pay which she
was forced to take.
own the utility and are not electors in that city.
Query: Who regulates the municipal utility in
the interest of those served outside the munici-
pality?
Z. See Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57
Fla. 249. 49 So. 556 (1909); Hildreth v. Western
Union TeL Co., 56 Fla. 387. 47 So. 820 (1908);
State ex reL Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line It Co., 53
Fla. 650. 44 So. 213 (1907); and In re Sanford
and Wmter Park TeL Service. 26 Fla.5upp. 21
(1965).
. .,---.---~..~~'_._.--
I
\
r
;,.:.
, ~.
CUSAN & WAKEFIELD v. SAVERS FED. S..-
Cite.. 519 So.2d 15 (f1a.App. 2 Dbt. 1981)
enforcement of its injunctive relief and to
determine costs. This timely appeal fol-
lowed.
Our review of the record discloses suffi-
cient evidence to sustain and support the
judgment against the City. It is not our
role to reweigh the evidence on appeal.
See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.
1981), affd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211,72
L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Tsavaris v. NCNB Na-
tional Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA
1986).
We have considered the other issues
raised on appeal but because of our resolu-
tion of this matter, we need not address the
remaining points.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
judgment.
DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J.,
concur.
CUSHMAN AAl> WAKEFIELD OF
PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,
Appellant/Third Party Defendant,
v.
SAYERS FEDERAL SAVINGS A..1Itm
LOA.1ItiJ ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Third
Party Plaintiff,
and
Connecticut Savings Bank, Heritage Sav-
ings & Loan Association, Connecticut
National Bank, and First Home Sav-
ings, Appellees, Third Party Plaintiffs.
No. 87-1781.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
Dec. 2, 1987.
On Motion for Rehearing or Clarification
Jan. 20, 1988.
Appeal from a nonfinal order from the
Circuit Court for Collier County; William
C. McIver, Judge.
Edward K. Cheffy of Frost & Jacobs,
Naples, and Patrick J. O'Connor, Anita B.
Fla. 25
Weinstein, and Michael Minsker of Cozen
and O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for appel-
lant.
O.H. Storey, III, of Hoover, Jacobs &
Swrey, Little Rock, Ark., and Robert E.
Doyle, Jr., of Asbell, Hains, Doyle and
Pickworth, Naples, and Alice Blackwell
'White of Broad and Cassel, Maitland, for
appellee Savers Federal.
Frank X. Kowalski, Jr., and Patricia A.
Thomson of Gillette, PHon and Richman,
P.A., Naples, for appellees Connecticut
Sa v. Bank, et al.
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Cushman and Wakefield of
Pennsylvania, Inc. (Cushman), challenges a
nonfinal order denying its motion to dis-
miss appellee Savers Federal Savings and
Loan Association's complaint pursuant to
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.l40(b)(2).
The t.,;al court determined that it could
exercise personal jurisdiction over Cush-
man, basing its ruling solely on section
48.193(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), since it
found Cushman was engaged in service
activities in this state.
In Aetna Life and Casualty Co. v.
Therm-D-Disc, Inc., 511 So.2d 992 (Fla.
1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that
there is no personal jurisdiction under sec-
tion 48.193(1)(f) arising out of an act com-
mitted outside this state where the eom.
plained of act caused financial injury within
the state but caused no personal injury or
physical property damage within the state.
Aetna was decided subsequent to the trial
judge's order in this case, and it compels
reversal of the trial court's order. There-
fore we do not reach the merits of Cush-
man's argument regarding whether or not
it had minimum contacts with the State of
Florida.
Reversed.
RYDER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR
CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Savers seeks to have our De-
eember 2, 1987, opinion clarified to indicate
24 Fla.
519 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
Waters and Water Courses p201
City was obligated under contract with
county to provide water service to unincor-
porated property in water service area.
M.A. Galbraith, Jr., City Atty., Clear-
water, for appellant.
John T. Allen, Jr., of John T. Allen, Jr.,
P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee County
of Pinellas.
No appearance for appellee Metco Devel-
opment Corp.
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.)
Judge.
Appellant City of Clearwater (the City)
challenges a final judgment in the form of
an injunction restraining the City from re-
quiring annexation of unincorporated prop-
erty as a condition to supplying water ser-
vice to appellee Metco Development Corpo-
ration (Metco). We affirm.
Metco owns unincorporated property
which is located in the City's water service
area. This water service area is designat-
ed both in an agreement between Pinellas
County (the County) and the City, and by
resolution of the Pinellas County Commis-
sion. The northern portion of the Metco
property contains three commercial build-
ings which have been served by the City's
water system for ten years or more. Wa-
ter service is rendered to the northern por-
tion of the property without any require-
ment of annexation. The southern portion
of the Metco property contains sixteen resi-
dential units which are served by well wa-
ter. Two water lines, two fIre hydrants,
water taps and water meters exist on Met-
co's property which would facilitate the
connection of water service on the southern
portion of the property by the City at mini-
mal expense. However, the City refused to
grant water service to Metco unless it
agreed that its property be annexed into
the corporate limits.
That refusal prompted Metco to bring an
action against the City, the County, and the
Florida Department of Health and Rehabili-
tative Services seeki,g a declaration of its
rights and obligations relating to the provi-
sion of water service on its property and
injunctive relief. The complaint flIed by
Metco requested the trial court to deter-
mine whether the City or the County
should be required to grant \\"1lter service
to the property. Pinellas County flIed a
cross-claim against the City for declaratory
and injunctive relief, alleging that the City
is obligated to provide water service to the
property pursuant to a 1976 written agree-
ment entered into between the County and
the City. Further, the County alleged that
the City's policy of requiring annexation
into the City as a condition to supplying
water is illegal and improper. The County
filed an amended cross-claim against the
City. which alleged that the City"s policy of
requiring annexation as a condition to ob-
taining City water service is contrary to a
1975 resolution of the Pinellas County
Commission, sections 180.06 and 171.044,
Florida Statutes (1985), and the "organic
law" of the State of Florida.
Pinellas County's cross-claim against the
City was tried at a nonjury rr.al on April
16, 1986. After extensive teStimony and
legal arguments were presented, the trial
court entered a fInal judgment on the
County's cross-claim only. Among the trial
court's fIndings was its determination that:
Contractually the City has also agreed
to serve the entire water service area
which includes Metco's property. The
Court construes the cont:ract and the in-
tent of the parties to follow the estab-
lished law required of public utilities and
quasi-monopolies in providing water ser-
vice to their customers in the water ser-
vice area at the lowest possible cost with
the most efficiency. In fact the parties
have stated in a provision in the contract
that it was their intent by executing the
agreement to avoid a duplication of capi-
tal investment and maintenance cost and
to provide water service to the public as
effIciently as possible.
Hence, the trial court permanently re-
strained and enjoined the City from requir-
ing annexation of Metco's property as a
condition to supplying water service. The
court retained jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties for the purpose of
t
t
CITY OF CLEARWATER v. METCO DEV. CORP.
Clteaa 519 So.2cl 13 (Fla.App. 1 J)lat. 1981)
ate from the guidelines sentence unless a Jared G. Anton. Hollywood.
scoresheet which contains the appropriate lants.
recommendations is available for its consid-
eration. Tucker v. State, 464 So.2d 211
(Fla. 3d DCA 1985), overruled on other
grounds, State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045
(Fla.1986); Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 82
(Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jaggers v. State, 492
So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In this
case, the fact that no scoresheet was pre-
pared without removing points for the inap-
plicable robbery conviction requires that
Moore again be sentenced after the defect
has been cured. This is because the trial
court may well not wish to depart, or to
depart so extensively, from a guidelines
sentence whieh is presumably substantially
lower than the one which it previously con-
sidered when it imposed the original ten-
year term. See Davis, 493 So.2d at 83 ("A
trial eourt must have the benefit of a prop-
erly prepared scoresheet before it can
make a fully informed decision on whether
to depart from the recommended sen-
tence.").
Because it has been indicated that Moore
has already been in prison longer than the
recommended guidelines sentence, we dis-
pense v;ith rehearing, direct the immediate
issuance of our mandate, and order that
the resentencing hearing required by this
opinion be conducted forthwith upon re-
mand.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
2d
~n-
.de
de
:>t-
ed
!d. ,--
of
-a-
th
:>n
n-
:Ii-
re
~
e-
.d
ld
r- ~
:>-
'Y
~
d
lr
t
Donato DEL MONICO and Estel Del
Monico. his wife and Donald Pinder
and Jean Pinder, his wife, Appellants,
v.
Jose VALLE, Jr., Appellee.
No. 87-267.
Distriet Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Nov. 17, 1987.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1987.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade
County; Murray Goldman, Judge.
t
'..
..'~
Fla. 23
for appel-
Kimbrell & Hamann and Robert K. Tuck-
er and Timothy M. Ingram, Roy Wasson,
Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and
BASKIN and DA..."IEL S. PEARSON,
JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Landers t.. Milton, 370
So.2d 368 (Fla.1979); Hull & Co. v. McGe-
trick, 414 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
CITY OF CLEARWATER. Appellant,
v.
METCO DEYELOPME~"T CORPORA-
TlOS and County of
Pinellas, Appellees.
So. 86-2864.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
Dee. 2, 1987.
Injunction restraining city from requir-
ing annexation of unincorporated property
as condition to supplying water service to
such propertY was entered in the Circuit
Court, Pinellas County, Thomas E. Penick,
Jr., J., and city appealed. The District
Court of Appeal, Boardman, Edward F.
(Ret.), J., held that evidence was sufficient
to sustain judgment determining that city
was obligated pursuant to contraet with
county to provide water service to unincor-
porated property within water service area.
Affirmed.
1174 Fla.
679 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
SEWER SERVICE TERRITORY ES-
TABLISHED PURSUAXT TO INTER-
LOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH
NEIGHBORING MUNICIPAL SEWER
SERVICE PRO\'1DERS~
fa. at 543. We have jurisdiction. Art. V,
~ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the ques-
tion in the affirmative based upon the gener-
al role that a municipality has no duty to
supply services to areas outside its bound-
aries. See All.state IlIsu/'U/l(:e Co. u. City of
Boca Raton, 387 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA
1980); C.C. Mal";el. Annotation, Right to
Compel Municipality to Extend its Water
System, 48 A.L.R. 1~. 1230 (1956). Allen's
Creek Properties Cllien's Creek) contends
that the facts in this case establish an excep-
tion to this general rule and that eonsequent-
ly, Clearwater's refu.sal to pro\;de sen;ces to
unincorporated property located \\;thin its
sen;ce area was improper. For the reasons
expressed below, we disagree.
Allen's Creek owns a parcel of land located
in the unincorporated area of Pinellas County
immediately adjacent to Clearwater's city
limits. In September 1990. Allen's Creek
submitted to Pinellas County a site plan for
the development of this parcel. Pinellas
County officials directed Allen's Creek to
apply to Clearwater for se':\'er sen;ces be-
cause the parcel was located within Clear-
water's sanitaIJ. sewer service district.
Upon receiving the request for sewer ser-
vices, Clearwater officials infonned Allen's
Creek that, pursuant to City of Clearwater,
Florida, Ordinance 68-97 (August 5, 1968),
the developer would have to consent to an-
nexation before receiving sewer senices.
Allen's Creek refused to allow the City to
anne.x the property and tiled suit for declara-
tory and other relief.
The trial court held that Clearwater,
through the Central Pinellas County 201 Fa-
cilities Plan (the 201 Plan) and its interlocal
agreement with the City of Largo, had as-
sumed an obligation to provide sewer service
in its designated sel'\;ce area. That service
I. Those entities included the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. the L'nited Slates
Environmental Protection Agc:ncy. the Cily of
Largo, the City of Safety Harbor. the Town of
Belleair. and Pinellas County.
area included the land owned by Allen's'
Creek. Further, the trial court concluded~"
I.'
that the record did not present a rational
basis to require anne."<ation as a condition. to ;
service. '.,;j'
..
Clearwater appealed the trial court's deci- .
sion, and the district court reversed. Allen 1
Creek. 658 So.2d at 542. The district court
examined each of the documents on which
the trial court based its decision. The first
document, the 201 Plan, was de\ised pursu-
ant to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972, Pub.L. No. 92-500, ~ 2.86 Stat.
816. Ai; a primary goal the Act sought to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into
na\igable waters by 1985. To meet this goal
the federal government pro\;ded funding for
the research and development of wastewater
treatment management plans. Pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Act these management
plans were a prerequisite to the receipt of
additional grants for constnIction of treat-
ment facilities.
Clearwater, along with the several other
entities, I participated in the development of a
201 Plan for its geographic area. The Plan
delineated sen;ce areas for Clearwater as
well as the other local entities involved in
developing the Plan. The service areas were
designated in order to determine the scope of
facilities needed in the future. Clearwater
approved these service area designations "
when it approved, by resolution,2 the 201 .
Plan. Allen's Creek fell within Clearwater's :,'
designated sen;ce area. .
The 201 Plan also recommended "deep wen :'
injection" as the best method of sewage!;
treatment. The Environmental Protection:.
Agency did not favor this method of treat.'
ment and consequently rejected the Plan. In "
response. Clearwater discontinued its stUdy
of "deep well injection" and developed, with
its own funds. an alternative method' hf
wastewater treatment. Clearwater thusne.!~
. J. "6.
er implemented the 201 Plan.
The district court determined that CI
water's participation in the 201 Plan did .-
."I!P~
2. City of Clearwater, Florida, Resolution 7i.~
(December 7, 1978). til~fJ
~ ,,;
~~
.'!1;;.
.l"~' .
require
corpor"
ignatec
So.2d ,
201 PI
state 1
387 So
Creek,
court d
Palm
Board.
~aton
Boca F
absolu\
providl
munici
The ..'
"[n]oth
nated ,
collecti,
-lSO. P
other s
a desig
the 20
contain
court CI
in inter
and cor
establis
Creek.
The l
local ag
and thf
section
agreem
City of
consiste
for thos
to thes(
vides:
The r
to PI"
sewer
such r
with f
sewer
area.
The dist
ment be
teITelati
bearing
Fla. 1175
ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES v. CLEARWATER
Cllus679 So.2d 1172 (Fta. 1996)
require it to provide sewer service to unin- Finally, the court noted that Allen's Creek
corporated areas within the service area des- development plan, while in confonnity with
. ignated by the 201 Plan. Allen's Creek, 658 the requirements set by Pinellas County, was
~. So2d at 542. Rather, the court found the not consistent with the more restrictive re-
201 Plan was analogous to the plan in All- quirements set by Clearwater. Id. Accord-
state Insurance Co. v. City of Boca Ralrm. ingly, the district court recognized that if the
387 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Allen's trial court's decision were approved, Clear-
Creek, 658 So.2d at 542. In Allstate. the water would be forced to provide sen;ce to a
court detennined that a plan issued by the project that was inconsistent \\;th its compre-
palm Beach County Regional Planning hensive use plan and would ultimately suffer
Board, which designated the City of Boca a loss of revenue. Id. The city's economic
Raton as the "Designated Agent" for the need, the court concluded, pro\;ded a suffi-
Boca Raton Service Area, did not place an cient basis for the annexation requirement.
absolute duty on the City of Boca Raton to Id. The court noted that if Allen's Creek
~ provide services to landowners outside its chose not to annex it could seek serdces
municipal boundaries. 387 S02d at 481. from alternative sources. Id.
The Allstate plan expressly stated that
"[n]othing is stated or implied that the desig-
nated agency shall be required to pro\;de
collection or transmission facilities." Id. at
480. Additionally, the A.llstate plan offered
other suppliers that could pro\;de serdces if
oa designated agent would not. Id. Although
the 201 Plan in the instant case did not
contain these e.xact prO\;sions, the district
court concluded that the 201 Plan was similar
in intent and procedure to the .4.llstate plan
and consequently that the 201 Plan did not
establish a duty to pro\ide senices to Allen's
Creek. Allen '8 Ctwk. 6.58 So.~d at 542.
The district court ako e."'{amined the inter-
local agreement that the City of CleaT\\Citer
and the City of Largo entered pursuant to
section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1983). The
agreement designated sen;ce areas for the
City of Clearwater and the City of Largo
.. consistent with the sen;ce areas designated
for those cities in the 201 Plan. With respect
to these service areas the agreement pro-
vides:
The parties shall have the e."'iclusive right
to provide wholesale and retail sanitary
sewer service \\ithin the area allocated to
such part and further agree not to compete
with each other as to the pro\ision of such
.. sewer service outside their designated
area.
The district court concluded that this agree-
ment between the municipalities had no in-
(
,terrelation with the 201 Plan and had no
bearing on the issues presented. I d.
[2-5] Allen's Creek maintains that this
case establishes an exception to the general
rule that a municipality cannot be compelled
to supply sen;ces to areas outside its munici-
pal boundaries. We recognize that excep-
tions to this general rule do exist. For e."'{-
ample, a municipality may be required to
extend its sen;ces if it has agreed to do so
by contract. A contract may require the
municipality to serve only a particular entity
outside its municipal boundaries. Such a
contract does not necessarily require the mu-
nicipality to sen'e other similarly situated
entities. On the other hand. a contract may
require the municipality to senice an entire
area outside its limits. In such eases the
municipality "ill be required to serve all the
public in that area at the lowest possible cost
with the most efficiency as demonstrated by
the decision in City of Clearwater v. Meteo
Development Corp., 519 S02d 23 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1987). relJiew denied. 525 So.2d 8i6
(Fla.1988).
In M etco, the developer owned unincorpo-
rated property located in Clearwater's water
sen;ce area. 519 So.2d at 24. The City was
already sening the northern portion of the
developer's property but refused to serve the
southern portion unless the de\'eloper agreed
to anne.xation. I d. The court determined
that the City by contractually agreeing to
serve the entire water sen;.ce area, which
included the developer's land, became obli-
gated to do so. I d. at 24-25. A contract like
that relied on by the court in M etco does not
1176 Fla.
679 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
exist in the instant ease.3 This e.'Cception is
therefore inapplicable.
Some jurisdictions recognize another ex-
ception to the general rule for those munici-
palities that through their conduct hold
themselves out as public utilities. According
to the jurisdictions that recognize this excep-
tion, a municipality that holds itself out as a
public utility for a particular area outside its
city limits has a duty to supply everyone in
that area. t Allen's Creek contends that
Clearwater held itself out as a public utility
by entering an interlocal agreement that des-
ignated certain unincorporated areas as a
part of its senice area 5 and by supplying
sewer senices to certain nonresidents. Ac-
cordingly. Allen's Creek contends that Clear-
water has a legal obligation to pro"ide sewer
service to nonresidents located within its ser-
vice area.
[6,7] We agree that through its conduct
a municipality may assume the legal duty to
provide reasonably adequate services for rea-
sonable compensation to all of the public in
an unincorporated area. See City of Winter
Park v. Southern States Utilities. Inc.. 540
So.2d 178, 180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(city's
passage of ordinance requiring property
owners outside the city but "ithin a zone
designated by the ordinance to connect to the
city's sewer senice when available was con-
duct sufficient to bring into effect law appli-
cable to public utilities). We add however
that the conduct must expressly manifest the
municipality's desire or intent to assume that
3. We recognize that section 163.01(5), Florida
Statutes (1989), refers to interlocal agreements
as contracts. Even if we recognize the interlo-
cal agreement in this case as a contract, the
agreement does not indicate that Clearwater will
unconditionally supply the service area located
outside its city limits. It merely states that
Clearwater, as opposed to the City of Largo, has
the exclusive right to serve this area.
4. See, e.g., Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Pro-
tection Dist. No.12 v. City of Yakima, 122
Wash.2d 371. 858 P.2d 245, 251 (1993); 48
A.L.R at 1230.
5. The parties and the district court refer to Clear-
water's service area as "exclusive:' but neither
the 201 Plan or the interlocal agreement refer to
it that way. We find the term "exclusive" mis-
leading here beca~, as the district court point-
duty. A municipality's decision to provide.
service without restriction in an area outside
:its boundaries would meet this requirement:
The 201 Plan and interlocal agreement relied>
on here do not. Like the plan in Allstate, !;.
nothing in either the Plan or agreement affir-
matively states that Clearwater will proVid~
senices to the unincorporated area. Nor do
these agreements preclude those located ou~
side Clearwater's city limits but within it,
senice area from seeking services from an
alternative source.6
tion mL..
Comm 'n.
508 So.2 .
not intel
cise of it
ty does
its Custl
justificat
515 So.:':
Clearwa:
both the
policy is
area "i'
Additior
of rever
adequat
were r€
ation CO~
Accol"
the dist:
ments e:
not affi]'
supply ~
portion
Clearwa
expresst
general
require~
in the af
Itis~
[8,9] Allen's Creek also contends that
the City has acceded to the status of a public
utility because it provides services to others
outside its city limits. Allen's Creek, howev-
er. has not demonstrated that Clearwater's
prO\ision of sen;ces in these instances was
not one of the limited exceptions it makes to
its general policy of providing only residents
with sewer senice. Providing sen;ce out-
side its boundaries in only limited situations,
as Clearwater has done here,7 does not
amount to an affinnative expression of intent
to serve all in the area. Clearwater there-
fore has not accepted a duty to pro,,;de ser-
"ices to the unincorporated land located in its
senice area.
[10] Because Clearwater has no duty to . -
pro"ide senices to the unincorporated land
within its service area, we conclude that the
City may condition upon annexation the land-
owner's receipt of sewer services. That con-
dition however must be applied consistently,
and a reasonable justification for the condi- .
OVEF
HARDI:
concur.
,
ed out, there are other sources of sewer service!
available to Allen's Creek. Allen's Creek could. :?
with Clearwater's approval, seek services from
the City of Largo. With approval from the p~.
er agencies Allen's Creek could also constrUct its
own treatment facility. Accordingly, we do not
use the term "exclusive" when referring to Clear-
water's service area. ~
Me(
J
6. We do not address whether a refusal by Clear-.
water to allow Allen's Creek to apply for services.
elsewhere would amount to conduct sufficient tD.
manifest the intent to serve all in the service area
as this issue is not presented to us for ~;.
Susan
Tel,
vider C
e
Fla. 1177
.
~lcCAW Co~~nnCATlONS v. CLARK
C1lus679 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 19%)
tion must exist. SN' Seining Utilities
Comm'n. r. Hr/me Sat'i,(g.~ .-t~.~',l. of Florida.
508 So.2d 26, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA)(,'Court3 ",ill
not interfere \\;th a municipal utility's exer-
cise of its authority as long a." the municipali-
ty does not arbitrarily discriminate between
its customers and can present reasonable
justifications for its actions."), review denied,
515 So.2d 2.30 (Fla.19Si). We find that
Clearwater's condition of annexation meets
both these requiremer.t5. The annexation
policy is applied to the en:ire unincorporated
area \\ith only specific limited exceptions.
Additionally, Clearwater "ocid suffer a loss
of revenue and would be ur.able to ensure
adequate sen;ces to its own residents if it
were required to dispen5e \\;th this annex-
ation condition.
Accordingly, we appro\'e the decision of
the district court. \\' e find that the agree-
ments entered by Clea.."water in this case did
not affinnati\'ely express the City's intent to
supply sewer sen;ce to the unincorporated
portion of its sewer senice area. !\ or did
Clearwater engage in any other conduct that
expressed the intent to ".,'.e this area. The
general rule thus still apY;le,: to this case and
requires us to answer t.'>1e certified question
in the affirmati\'e.
It is so ordered.
on:RTO~. SIBW. GRDIES,
HARDI~G, 'WELLS and A~STLill, JJ..
concur.
:\lcCAW CO)nlr~Ic..\TlO~S OF
FLORIDA, I~C _ Appellant,
Y.
Susan F. CL.\RK. etc., et al., Appellees.
~o. St,%6.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 26. 1996.
Telecommunications mobile senice pro-
\'ider ~)'ISP) appealed Public Sel,ice Com-
mission (PSC) order governing rates paid by
mobile S€nice pro\;ders to telephone local
e.'Xchange carriers (LEC) for s\\itching ser-
vice. discontinuing practice followed in prior
order of having such rates fluctuate with
access charges paid by telephone interex-
change carriers (lXC). The Supreme Court,
Shaw, J., held that: (1) Commission's order
was supported by competent substantial evi-
dence and met essential requirements of law,
and (2) order did not \;olate doctrine of
administrative finality.
Affirmed.
1. Telecommunications (;::::>330
Public Sen;ce Commission's (PSC) or-
der, discontinuing practice of having rates
paid by mobile sen;ce providers (MSP) to
ttlephone local exchange carriers (LEC) for
S\\;tching sen;ce fluctuate \\ith access
charges paid to LECs by telephone interex-
change carriers (lXC). was supported by
competent substantial e\'idence and met es-
sential requirements of law, where \\;tnesses
testiried at length concerning ad\'antages of
se\'ering link between s\\itching senice
charges and access charges, and evidence
showed that mobile communications industry
was undergoing significant change and that
:XC arce,:s charges were being influenced by
factors unrelated to mobile interconnection.
') Public Utilities (?19.t
In re\ie\\;ng Public Senice Commission
\PSC) order. Supreme Court \\ill not reweigh
or ree\'aluate e\'idence presented to Commis-
sion but, rather. \\ill examine record only to
determine whether order complained of
meets essential requirements of law and
\\'hether agency had a\'ailable to it competent
substantial evidence to support its findings.
3. Telecommunications (;::::>336
Public Sen;ce Commission's (PSC) or-
der, discontinuing practice followed in its
prior order of ha\ing rates paid by mobile
sen-ice pro\-iders (MSP) to telephone local
exchange carriers (LEC) for switching ser-
\'ice fluctuate \\ith access charges paid to
e
1172 Fla.
679 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
order itself contemplated the issuance of a
specific set of written guidelines for a partic-
ular roadblock. It is the failure to comply
v.ith that mandate that is fatal to the road-
block here. JOlles was decided in 1986, many
years before this roadblock was established.
and the J01l€S mandate is clear. It is also
apparent from the standard operating order
here that the police were familiar v.ith Jones.
but failed to comply v.ith its directive in this
instance.
The requirement of written guidelines i~
not merely a formality. Rather. it is the
method this Court and others have chosen to
ensure that the police do not act with unbri-
dled discretion in exercising the power to
stop and restrain citizens who have manifest-
ed no conduct that would othen\ise justify an
intrusion on a citizen's liberty. In this coun-
try the police are not vested v.ith the general
authority to 5et up "routine" roadblocks at
any time or place. Rather, law enforcement
was placed on notice by our holding in Jones
that the stopping and detaining of a citizen is
a serious matter that requires particularized
advance plar.ning and direction and strict
compliance thereafter.
Accordingly, we find that the limited police
directives prepared in this case did not suffi-
ciently circUr.li'cribe the field officers' discre-
tion and fell far short of the '\vritten set of
uniform guidelines" we required in Jones.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the documentation used
by the police officials, which patently did not
comply with the State v. J01les requirement
for written guidelines, rendered Campbell's
stop fatally defective under the Fourth
Amendment and article I, section 12 of the
Florida Con..<<titution. We quash the district
court decision below and approve the deci-
sion in Harf4ield '1,', State, 629 So.2d 1020
(Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW,
GRIMES, IB.RDI~G, WELLS and
A.'\STEAD, .JJ" concur.
ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES
,
INC., etc., Petitioner,
2. Mu
A
plan j,
pated
neighl
ers die
to SUI
portio!
and a.,
ment (.
al rulte
ply se
and c
servic'
city b
:;ervic,
annex:
:ently.
an d ir.
its ref
annex;
tion (
C.S.C.
v.
CITY OF CLEARWATER,
etc.. Respondent.
~o. 86123.
I. .
~~
~.
~,
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 19, 1996.
O\~er of property located outside city
boundarIes brought action against city for
declaratory relief. seeking pro\ision of city
sewer services for property without annex-
ation of property by city. The Circuit Court,
Pinellas County. John S. Andrews. J., en-
tered judgment for O\\l1er. detennining that
city had assumed duty to provide sewer ser-
vice outside its municipal boundaries. City
appealed. The District Court of Appeal. Pat-
terson, J., 658 So.2d 539. reversed and certi-
fied question to Supreme Court on motion for
rehearing. After granting re\iew, 663 So.2d
628, the Supreme Court, Kogan, C..T., held
that: (1) area wastewater treatment manage-
ment plan. in whose development city had
participated. and city's interlocal agreement
v.ith neighboring municipal sewer service
providers did not come within exception to
general rule that municipality has no duty to
supply services to areas outside its bound-
aries. and city was not required to provide
sewer service to owner but, rather, could .
condition provision of senice upon city's an- :.'
nexation of property, and (2) city's provision
of sewer sen;ce outside its boundaries in "
only limited situations did not amount to '
affirmative expression of intent to serve all in .'
area so as to require city to pro\;de sewer
service to owner.
. <if
~.f.'f.
~!,~~..
}
,"1:
3. :\Iu
M
its ser
it has ,
.t. MUJ
Cc
serve 0
ipal bo
municil
entitie~
5. Mun
In
tytos
municir
public i
with mc
District Court of Appeal decision
proved.
6. Mun
Thl
assume
quate s
to all 01
however
municip:
duty.
1. Municipal Corporations 0=>271 .
General rule is that municipality ~ J!l!.
duty to supply services to areas outsid~"
boundaries. -,
ALLEN'S CREEK PROPERTIES v. CLEARWATER
CIleu679 So.ld 1172 (Fla. 1996)
2. Municipal Corporations c:>i12(4) 7. Municipal Corporations c:>277
Area wastewater treatment management Municipality's decision to provide sen;ce
plan in whose development city had partici- without restriction in area outside its bound-
pated and city's interlocal agreement ~th aries would meet requirement, for city to
neighboring municipal sewer service pro\;d- have duty to provide service to unincorporat-
ers did not affumatively express city's intent ed area. that municipality's conduct expressly
to supply sewer ser.-ice to unincorporated manifest its desire or intent to assume such
portion of its seJ'"\ice area referred to in pIan duty.
and agreement and. thus, plan and agree-
ment did not come \\ithin exception to gener-
al rule that municipality has no duty to sup-
'ply services to areas outside its boundaries,
and city was not required to provide sewer
service to owner of property located outside
city but, rather, could condition pro\;sion of
service upon city's annexation of property;
annexation policy had been applied consis-
tently, and city's potential loss of revenues
and inability to ensure adequate seJ'"\ices to
its residents was reasonable justification for
annexation condition. Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972, ~ 201(g), 33
U.S.CA S 1281(g); West's F.SA ~ 16.3.01.
3. Municipal Corporations c:>2ii
Municipality may be required to e.':tend
its seJ'"\;ces to areas outside its boundaries if
it has agreed to do so by contract.
4. :\lunicipal Corporations c=>:277
Contract that requires municipality to
seJ'"\'e only particular entity outside its munic-
ipal boundaries does not necessarily require
municipality to sen'e other similarly situated
entities.
5. Municipal Corporations c:>'!.77
In case of contract requiring municipali-
,ty to service entire area outside its limits.
municipality \\ill be required to serve all the
public in that area at lowest possible cost
with most efficiency.
6. Municipal Corporations c:>'!.77
Through its conduct, municipality may
assume legal duty to provide reasonabl~' ade-
quate services for reasonable compensation
to all of the public in unincorporated area;
however. conduct must expressly manifest
municipality's desire or intent to assume that
duty.
Fla.
1173
8. Municipal Corporations c:>712(4)
City's provision of sewer seJ'"\ice outside
its boundaries in only limited situations did
not amount to affirmative expression of in-
tent to serve all in area so as to require city
to pro\ide sewer service to owner of property
located outside city boundaries.
9. :\lunicipal Corporations c:>277
Municipality's provision of seJ'"\ice out-
side its boundaries in only limited situations
does not amount to affirmative expression of
intent to seJ'"\'e all in area so as to render
municipality under duty to provide service to
all in area.
10. :\lunicipal Corporations c:>712(4)
City, which was not under duty to pro-
\ide sewer seJ'"\ice outside its boundaries,
could apply annexation condition to pro\ision
of such seJ'"\ice, if condition was applied con-
sistently and if reasonable justification for
condition existed.
R. !\ athan Hightower and Susan Fox of
Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen.
Clearwater. for Petitioner.
Paul Richard Hull, Assistmlt City Attor-
ney, Clearwater, for Respondent.
KOG~1\l", Chief Justice.
[1] We have for review City of Clear-
water v. Allen's Creek Properties. Inc., 658
So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the
district court, by separate order, certified the
follo\\ing question to be of great public im-
portance:
MAY A MUNICIPALITY REFUSE TO
PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE, OR
CONDITION THE PRUVISION OF
SEVv'ER SERVICE ON ANNEX-
ATION, AS TO NONRESIDENTS LO-
CATED WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE
F1a. 457
THE FLORIDA BAR Y. MacMILLAN
Cite.. 600 So.2d 457 (FIa. 1992)
253 So.2d ';' U ';'48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) ORDER OF REMAND
(citations orr.:::i:J) (emjJhasis added); see, The decision under review, Wright v.
e.g., BMW oj S. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 State, 592 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), is
So.2d 585, 58i (f1a. 4th DCA 1985), review quashed and remanded to the Third District
denied, 484 So.2d 7 (FJa.1986); 17A C.J.S. Court of Appeal for further consideration
Contracts ~ 328 (1963) ("A term which the in accordance with our decision in Jefferson
parties have not expressed is not to be v. State, 595 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1992), and
implied merely because the court thinks it Brooks v. Mazaheritehrani, 595 So.2d 37
is a reasonable term, or because the con- (Fla.I992).
tract is advantageous to one party or un-
just to the other. . . .") (footnote omitted)).
Here, because tr,e intention of the parties
cannot be deterrrcined from the e\;dence,
the contract must be terminable at will.
.~;
Admittedly. it may be better policy to
find that the con:ract is not terminable at
will. However, that is a separate question
from whether the parties to the contract
intended for the contract to be enforced
indefinitely abs~:1t PSC approval. In the
absence of some tangible proof of the par-
ties intention, I would give them the bene-
fit of their bargain as set forth in the plain
wording of the contract. In this case, be-
cause the contract is silent as to duration, I
would follow :h~ rule as stated in Gulf
Cities and find that the contract is termina-
ble at will.
l
KOGA,;,\; and HARDING, JJ., concur.
~i
{
I
,
~
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Kenneth WRIGHT. Respondent.
::\0. 79166.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 14, 1992.
Eliiot H. Sche!"ker, Asst. Public Defend-
er, for respondent.
Charles Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for
petitioner.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON,
McDONALD, BARKE'IT, GRIMES,
KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Hugh MacMILLAN, Jr., Respondent.
No. 76563.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 21, 1992.
The state bar brought disciplinary ac-
tion against attorney for alleged miscor:-
duct relating to his duties as guardian of
property. The referee recommended that
attorney be suspended from practice for
two years, and attorney petitioned for re-
view of referee's recommendations. The
Supreme Court held that two-year suspen-
sion is appropriate sanction for misapprcr
priation of funds and failure to disclose
transfers in guardian's report.
Report of referee approved.
1. Attorney and Client e=>51
Referee's findings of fact in attorney
disciplinary action are presumed correct
and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous
or lacking in evidentiary support.
2. Attorney and Client e=>51 .
If findings of referee in attorney disci-
plinary action are supported by competent,
~
I
456 Fla.
600 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
tracts. H
Finally, the majority's reliance on Full-
er15 is misplaced. Fuller involved a contro-
versy over jurisdiction. The issue there
was not whether the City had the right to
terminate the agreement, but only whether
the proper forum to determine that issue
was the circuit court or the PSC. Thus,
Fuller is not dispositive of the question in
this case because any statements made out-
side the context of the jurisdictional issue
are dicta. Consequently, for the foregoing
reasons, the effect of the PSC order was to
confIrm and validate the terms of the con-
tract, thereby adopting and incorporating
those terms into the order, including what-
ever rights of termination were contained
therein.
The only remaining question is whether
the contract that existed between the par-
ties was terminable at will. According to
Williston:
"The general rule is that when a contract
provides that one party shall render ser-
vice to another, or shall act as his agent,
or shall have exclusive sales rights with-
in certain territory, but does not specify
a definite time or prescribe conditions
which shall determine the duration of the
relation, the contract may be terminated
by either party at will. It is true that
such a result does not follow in every
instance, because it is the intention of the
parties which is the ultimate guide, and
in order to ascertain that intention, the
court may take into consideration the
surrounding circumstances, the situation
of the parties, the objects they apparent-
ly have in view, and the nature of the
subject-matter of the agreement."
9 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law
of Contracts, ~ 1017A, at 150 n. 11 (3d ed.
1967 & Supp.1991) (quoting Lubrecht v.
14. Indeed. 10 construe the 1974 amendment as
authorizing the PSC to alter the Citis termi-
nation rights under the contract by conditioning
their exercise on a showing of good cause would
constitute an impermissible impairment of con-
tract under article 1. section 10 of the Florida
Constitution. See Park Ben:iger & Co., In&. v.
Southern Wme & Spirits, Inc., 391 So.2d 681
(Fla. 1980); Yamaha Parts Distribs., Inc. v. Ehr-
man. 316 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1975). Although an
exception to the general rule allows for the
impairment of a contract upon a showing of an
Laurel Stripping Co., 387 Pa. 393, 127
A.2d 687 (1956) (citations omitted)); see
Sound City, Inc. v. Kessler, 316 So.2d 315
(Fla. 1st DCA 1975); 17A C.J.S. Contracts
~ 385(1) (1963); 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts
~ 545 (1991).
In this case I am not persuaded by the
majority's conclusion that the parties' in-
tent with regard to duration can be divined.
The majority's primary explanation of the
parties' supposed intentions is derived from
the "nature" of the agreement. Although
the majority's arguments have some merit,
I do not think that this Court can ascribe
an intention to the parties in the absence of
any evidence whatsoever of their trUe in-
tentions. The Fourth District's reasoning
in Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park
Service Co. is instructive on this point:
Where the language of a contract is
ambiguous or unclear as to a particular
right or duty, the court may receive evi-
dence extrinsic to the contract for the
purpose of determining the intent of the
parties at the time of the contract. How-
ever, where a contract is simply silent
as to a particular matter, that is, its
language neither expressly nor by rea-
sonable implication indicates that the
parties intended to contract with re-
spect to the matter, the court should
not, under the guise of construction,
impose contractual rights and duties
on the parties which they themselves
omitted. In our opinion the contract be-
fore the court was "silent" as to the.
duration of the defendant's duty to pro-
vide gas to Tangelo Park Subdivision. -In_
that circumstance the normal rule is that
the duty is terminable at will. And this
rule should have been applied. - '
"overriding necessity for the state to exercise itS:
police powers," Park Benzjger. 391 So.2d at 683.
there is no "overriding necessity" in this case'
because the PSC would still be required to ap-
prove any new territorial agreement negotiated
by the parties. See ~ 366.04(2)(d), Fla-Stat:
(1989). I~
15. Public Serv. Comm'n v. Fuller, 551 So.2d 12io
(Fla. 1989). ';"~
~~..
~.
ll~.
I,
~."
454 Fla.
600 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
. j'
! .
j
.; I
!\j
!' ~: d
~ r ~ I
i
lack of mutuality of obligation or certainty
of consideration.' These contracts, by
their inherent nature, implied that the par.
ties intended some period of duration and,
therefore, were considered terminable at
will in the absence of an express provision
to the contrary.
[6] In contrast, the instant agreement
involves the settlement of a territorial dis.
pute. There is no mutuality of obligation
problem and neither party owes the other
any further affIrmative obligation, but
merely has the negative duty to refrain
from entering the service area of the other.
Parties usually enter into settlement agree-
ments with the intention of permanently
resolving their confliets with respect to the
subject matter of the agreement. Further,
PSC orders are generally considered final
absent the commission's inherent authority
to modify or terminate them in a proper
proceeding. See Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v.
Mason, 187 So.2d 335 (Fla.1966).
In Storey, we stated that FPL and the
City had executed the agreement "[i]n or-
der to end the unsatisfactory effects of
this type of expensive, competitive activi-
ty." 217 So.2d at 306 (emphasis added).
The purpose behind settlement agreements
is to end the dispute, not to delay the
dispute until one of the parties decides it is
advantageous to begin competing again.
The benefit of territorial agreements is the
elimination of competition and the unneces-
sary duplication of facilities and services.
Utilities Comm'n, 469 So.2d at 731. If a
I
I ~
\
\
able implication indicates- what the parties in.
tended).
7. Florida-Georgill Chern. Co. v. Nationlll lAbs.
Inc., 153 So.2d 752, 754 (F1a. 1st DCA 1963)
("exclusive sales contracts 50 lacking in mutuali.
ty of obligation or certainty of consideration
may be terminated by either party at will");
Perri v. Byrd, 436 So.2d 359. 361 (Fla. 1st DCA
1983) (employment contracl terminable at will
upon the giving of reasonable notice).
8. FPL transferred 35 colIUDel'cial and 363 resi.
dential customers to the City. and the City trans.
ferred 12 commercial and 66 residential cus-
tomers to FPL Storey v. Mizyo, 217 So.2d 304,
306 (Fla.1968), cut. denied. 395 U.s. 909, 89
S.C!. 1751, 23 LEd.2d 222 (1969).
9. In City of Gainesville v. Board of Control, 81
So.2d 514 (Fla. 1955), this Court held that an
party could terminate the agreement as
lOOn as it was favOrable 'to do so,' the
benefit to the publie mterest, as well as' to
the parties, would be impaired.
[7] A party would be hesitant to make
substantial investments in franchised areas
if the other party could terminate the fran-
chise at will. In the instant agreement,
FPL refrained from competing with the
City for twenty years, transferred a large
number of its customers to the city,S and
made investments in territories in which it
believed it had an exclusive franchise.'
The detriment to FPL as a result of these
acts cannot be undone and it is unlikely
that FPL intended to place itself in a posi.
tion in which the City could unilaterally
deprive it of its franchised areas under the
agreement and, thus, impair its investment
in those areas. 10 Therefore, as distin-
guished from agreements which, by their
inherent nature, imply the parties intended
the power to terminate the agreement at
wil~ the nature of the instant agreement as
the settlement of a territorial dispute and
the fact that it was incorporated into a PSC
order, is evidenee that the parties intended
the agreement to operate with finality ab-
sent an express provision ~ the contrary.
Finally, in construing a contract, it is
well established that "the laws existing at
the time and place of the making of the
contract and where it is to be performed
which may affect its validity, construction,
discharge and enforcement, enter into and
become a part of the contract as if they
agreement to furnish water to the University of
Florida without charge. in order to induce the
University to locate in the City, was not termina-
ble at will despite the lack of a provision as to
the duration of the agreement. The Court held
that because the University had performed un-
der the agreement. the agreement was to remain
in effect until the University left Gainesville.
10. FPL. as a regulated utility, cannot terminate
the agreement without PSC approval regardless
of our construction of the agreement. Thus. the
City is, in effect, claiming a unilateral right to
terminate the agreement. Su Southern Crane
Rentals, Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So.2d 771
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (a provision for the right to
cancel a contract unilaterally must be expressly
provided for in the contract).
,.llt\f'
y.\"'"
j:
:J
were eXJ:
ied or ir.
Dural C
1954).
provided
approval
approval
Therefor.
the eontr
ed to ine
ing PSC
After
cumstan'
agreemf
the agrE
that. at
'*..
agre€mf
rour:dint
a PSC
territorii
fore. thE
bie at v.
modifiec.
proper !
Gas. 12
of the I
It is ;c
SHAV
GRnlE~
B.llil<
in whid
concur.
BARl<
The h
whether
by the F
forth a
nation, i:
The rr
that ma'
has. in (
11. The
aclmov.
the FloI
it will
approv;
further
sion is '
order t
bie. ea(
tamers
CITY OF HOMESTEAD Y. BEARD
Cllua 600 So.2d 450 (FIa. 1992)
Fla. 455
were expressly referred to or actually cop-
ied or incorporated therein." Shavers v.
Duval County, 73 So.2d 684, 689 (Fla.
1954). The instant agreement expressly
provided that the parties would seek PSG
approval, and the parties knew that such
approval is provided by PSG order. II
Therefore, in the absence of a provision to
the contrary, we assume the parties intend-
ed to incorporate the general law govern-
ing PSG orders into the agreement.
After considering the surrounding cir-
cumstances, the nature of the instant
agreement, and the law existing at the time
the agreement was executed, we conclude
that, absent an express provision in the
agreement to the contrary, the law sur-
rounding the modification or termination of
a PSG order is applicable to the instant
territorial settlement agreement. There-
fore, the instant agreement is not termina-
ble at will by the parties and may only be
modified or terminated by the PSG in a
proper proceeding as set forth in Peoples
Gas.n Accordingly, we affirm the decision
of the PSG in the instant case.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, G.J. and OVERTON and
GRIMES, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, J., dissents "ith an opinion,
in which KOGA...~ and HARDING, JJ.,
concur.
BARKETT, Justice, dissenting.
The issue to be resolved in this case is
whether a territorial agreement approved
by the PSC prior to 1974, which did not set
forth a specific duration or date for termi-
nation, is terminable at will by either party.
The majority concludes that any contract
that may have existed between the parties
has, in essence, been replaced by the PSG
11. The agreement provides that "[tlhe parties
acknowledge that the Company is regulated by
the Florida Public Senice Commission and that
it will have to apply to the Commission for
approval of this agreement." The agreement
further states that "[ilf an order of the Commis-
sion is entered appro\ing the agreement and the
order becomes final. then as promptly as possi-
ble. each party shall transfer" facilities and cus-
tomers located in the other's service area.
order, which can only be terminated or
modified in accordance with principles of
regulatory and administrative law. Majori-
ty op. at 452. Although, by its terms, PSG
approval was a prerequisite to the validity
of the contract. there is a vast difference
between approving the contract as valid
and inferentially declaring, as the majority
does, that the contract no longer exists. I
cannot accept the majority's theory that
the contract and the rights of the parties
thereunder disappeared because PSC ap-
proval was needed to make the contract
enforceable. Contracts are signed every
day subject to the approval of a third party
or a state agency and no one suggests that
the approval requirement makes the con-
tracts void once that approval has been
obtained.
More importantly, in 1988 FPL sought
and obtained from the PSC a declaratory
statement that the 1967 territorial agree-
ment was a valid, binding contract. t3 It is
therefore inconsistent for FPL to now ar-
gue that the contract was subsumed in the
original order.
Furthermore, in 1967 there was no statu-
tory or decisional authority empowering
the PSC to deprive a party of its contractu-
al right to terminate a territorial agree-
ment, or to require the party to demon-
strate necessity for termination due to
changed conditions. Nor can any such au-
thority be derived from the 1974 amend-
ment. The proviso in that amendment spe-
cifically provides that "nothing in this chap-
ter shall be construed to alter existing ter-
ritorial agreements as between the parties
to such agreements." Ch. 74-196, ~ 1,
Laws of Fla. Thus, clearly, the legislature
did not intend to authorize the deprivation
of rights acquired under preexisting con.
12. See supra note 5.
13. In re Petin'on of F70rida Power and Light
Company for a Declaratory Statement Regarding
Territorial Agreement with the City of Home-
stead. 88 F.P.S.C 12:15 (1988). The Declaratory
Statement uses the phrase "valid. binding agree-
ment."
.'
I
{;.:
.~
,
CITY OF HOMESTEAD v. BEARD
Cite.. 600 So.2d 450 (FIa. 1992)
[2] In Fuller, we expressly stated that by examining the surrounding circum-
there was "clear commission authority over stances and by reasonably construing the
these territorial agreements." 551 So.2d at agreement as a whole. See Southern Bell
1212. This regulatory authority enables Tel. & TeL Co. v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co.,
the PSC to carry out its statutory purpose 399 F.2d 854 (5th Cir.1968); Triple E Dev.
and to fulfill its "responsibility to ensure Co. v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., 51 So.2d
that the territorial agreement works no 435 (Fla.1951); Sound City, Inc. v. Kes-
detriment to the public interest." Utilities sler, 316 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
Comm 'n v. Florida Pub. Servo Comm 'n, (citing 17 A C.J .S. Contracts ~ 385, p. 457);
469 So.2d 731, 732 (Fla.1985). PSC approv- see also Institute for Scientific Info., Inc.
al of a territorial agreement, in effect, v. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.
makes the approved contract an order of Inc., 931 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir.), cert. de-
the PSC. City Gas, 182 So.2d at 436. nied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 302, 116
Merely because the agreement is to be L.Ed.2d 245 (1991). If a period of duration
interpreted under the law of contracts does can be inferred from the nature of a con-
not mean we are to ignore the law sur- tract and the circumstances surrounding its
rounding PSC orders. execution, the contract is not terminable at
will and a court should give effect to the
manifest intent of the parties. See South-
ern Bell; Sound City.
The City cites cases which hold that a
contract for an indefInite period, which by
its nature is not deemed to be perpetual,
may be terminated at "ill upon the giving
of reasonable notice. Perri t'. Byrd, 436
So.2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sound
City; Gulf Cities Gas Corp. t'. Tangelo
Park Sen'. Co., 253 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1971); Florida-Georgia Chern. Co. t'.
.Vational Labs. Inc.. 153 So.2d 752 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1963\. However. these cases, and the
cases upon which they were premised, in-
volve either contracts in which the courts
were unable to constrUe a period of dura-
tion from the circumstances surrounding
the execution of the agreement and the
parties would be obligated to perform in
perpetuity 6 or contracts in which there is a
[3] The City was able to enter into the
instant agreement only by obtaining PSC
approval. The City may not accept the
benefits flowing from antitrust immunity
for a territorial agreement by obtaining
PSC approval and then claim the agree-
ment is not subject to the laws governing
PSC orders.. Therefore, the law governing
the modification or termination of PSC or-
ders was applicable to the instant agree-
ment to the extent it did not contradict the
express terms of the agreement. 5
[4.5] Moreover, even if we were to hold
that the law of contracts should be strictly
applied to the agreement, we would not
construe the agreement to have granted
the City the right to terminate at its discre-
tion. When a contract does not contain an
express statement as to duration, the court
should determine the intent of the parties
4. If the agreement had provided for termination
after a certain period of years. it would have
terminated at the end of that period. In such
case, general case law governing the modifica-
tion and termination of PSC orders would have
given way to the express terms of the order.
S. The law at the time of the agreement set forth
that PSC orders could be withdrawn or mod-
ified at the initiation of the PSC, a party to the
agreement. or an interested member of the pub-
lic "after proper notice and hearing. and upon a
specific finding based on adequate proof that
such modification or withdrawal of approval is
necessary in the public interest because of
changed conditions or other circumstances not
present in the proceedings which led to the
Fla. 453
order being modified: Peoples Gas 5)'5.. Inc. ,'.
Mason, 187 So.2d 335. 339 (FlaI966).
6. See Southern Bell Tel. eft TeL Co. v. f10nda E.
Coast Ry. Co., 399 F.2d 854, 856 (5th Cir.1968)
(if the court can not ascertain the intent of the
parties, it can Mrely on rules of law which pur-
port to determine what ... the parties intend.
ed"); Sound City, Inc. v. Kessler, 316 So.2d 315,
318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (agreement to continue
to sell products to a party held terminable with.
in a reasonable time when, after considering the
surrounding circumstances, the court could not
ascertain the intent of the parties); Gulf Cities
Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park Serv. Co., 253 So.2d
744, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (agreement to
supply gas held to be terminable at will when
"its language neither expressly nor by reason.
i,
, ;
,
t'
I
t
l
452 Fla.
600 SOUTHERN REPORTER,' 2d SERIES
the agreement was executed, the territorial
agreement should be construed pursuant to
the law of contracts rather than the law
governing PSC orders. The City further
asserts that, under the law in existence
when the agreement was executed, a con-
tract lacking a defmite period of duration
was terminable at will by either party.
Thus, because the instant agreement did
not have a provision governing its duration,
the City had a contractual right to termi-
nate the agreement at will and the PSC had
no statutory or case law authority to de-
prive the City of its right to terminate. We
disagree. In the absence of an express
provision to the contrary in the approved
agreement, the statutory and decisional
law surrounding the modification or termi-
nation of PSC orders governs the territorial
settlement agreement in the instant case.
In Fuller, this Court held that the terri-
torial agreement between the City and FPL
"has no existence apart from the PSC or-
der approving it and that the territorial
agreement merged with and became a part
of" the PSC order. 551 So.2d at 1212. We
further stated:
Any modification or termination of that
order must first be made by the PSC.
The subject matter of the order is within
the particular expertise of the PSC,
which has the responsibility of avoiding
the uneconomic duplication of facilities
and the duty to consider the impact of
such decisions on the planning, develop-
ment, and maintenance of a coordinated
electric power grid throughout the state
of Florida. The PSC must have the au-
thority to modify or terminate this type
of order so that it may carry out its
express statutory purpose.
Id. (emphasis added). While these state-
ments were made in the context of a juris-
dictional issue, the principles set forth are
applicable to the instant case.
In City Gas Co. v. Peoples Gas System
Inc., 182 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1965), this
Court held that territorial agreements be-
tween public utilities were not violative of
antitrust law based on the premise that
"the public welfare does not need Ch. 542
for protection against this kind of agree-
ment. . .. because the public interest is'ade-
quately' protected by an alternative ar-
rangement under F.S. Ch. 366, F.S.A." 'We
further concluded that the "agreement
could result in monopolistic control over
price, production, or quality of service only
by the sufferance of the commission" luid
that its "statutory powers are more than
sufficient to prevent any such outcome if
properly employed." Id. at 435. In Sto-
rey, which upheld the PSC's approval of
the instant agreement, this Court "recog-
nized the importance of the regulatory
function as a substitute for unrestrained
competition" and commented that "a regu-
lated or measurably controlled monopoly is
in the public interest." 217 So.2d at 307.
Therefore, our decisions exempting territo-
rial agreements from antitrust legislation
have been premised on the existence of a
statutory system of regulations governing
the public utilities that is sufficient to pre-
vent any abuses arising from the monopoly
power created by the agreements.
[1] We recognize that when the agree-
ment was executed, municipally owned
electric utilities were exempt from state
agency supervision under section 366.11,
Florida Statutes (1967), and that they en-
joyed "the privileges of legally protected
monopolies within municipal limits."
Storey, 217 So.2d at 307 (emphasis added).
However, in this case the City sought PSC
approval of an agreement which extended
its territorial monopoly beyond its munici-
pal boundaries to adjacent areas. Unlike
the residents of the City, the customers
residing outside the municipality lack a
voice in the City's political process. By
accepting the additional franchise granted
under the PSC order approving the agree-
ment, the City submitted itself to the PSC's
regulatory authority with respect to the
subject matter of the order. See Miami
Bridge Co. v. Railroad Comm 'n, 155 FIa.
366, 376, 20 So.2d 356, 361 (1945) (no 'Un- ,
proper impairment of the obligation of eoD-
tracts when the franchise was "accepted
with the full knowledge of the existenee of
the police power which authorizes regula-
tions in behalf of the public"), cert. denied.
325 U.S. 867, 65 S.Ct. 1405, 89 L.Ed. 1987
(1945).
l~) .
.i!.',
[2]
there
these .
1212.
the P
and t
that
detrir
Comr,
469 S,
al of
make,
the F
~lere l
inter;
not r
rount
.....)...
". j;-'
~~.
~~;i'
~f.h
'.,"lj
!:.
[3]
insta.
apprc
bene!
for,
PSC
ment
PSG-
the Ii
ders
ment
expn
[ 4.
that
applil
const
thee
tion.
expn
shoul
4. If
afte.
terrr
case
lion
give
5. n
that
jfiet:
agrt
lic ..
spe<
suet
neCt
cha:
pre~
t
i
t
''l
I
!
CITY OF HOMESTEAD v. BEARD
Cite .. 600 So.1d 4:50 (F1L 1992)
Fla. 451
(FPL), a privately owned utility company.
The agreement defmed the geographic
boundaries of their respective service areas
in and around the city of Homestead. At
the time of the agreement, the City's mu-
nicipally owned electric utility was exempt
from the regulatory jurisdiction of the
Florida Public Service Commission (PSC).t
However, because of the PSC's regulatory
authority over FPL, the parties submitted
the agreement to the PSC for approval.
The agreement did not provide for a speci-
fied duration or tennination date. The
PSC, in Florida Public Service Commission
Order No. 4285, issued December I, 1967,
approved the agreement. In response to a
petition for certiorari filed by customers
whose service was being transferred pursu-
ant to the new agreement, this Court up-
held the PSC's order approving the agree-
ment. Storey 1,'. Mayo, 217 So.2d 304 (Fla.
1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct.
1751, 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969).
In a letter to FPL dated May 11, 1988,
the City gave formal notice of its intent to
terminate the agreement effective August
7, 1988 and invited FPL to negotiate a new
agreement. FPL responded that the agree-
ment remains in full force and effect until
a mutually acceptable change is approved
by the PSC. On July 22, 1988, FPL filed a
petition for declaratory statement with the
PSC seeking a determination as to the
rights and obligations of the parties under
the agreement. On December 2, 1988, the
PSC issued the declaratory statement re-
quested by FPL, stating that the territorial
1. ~ 366.11, Fla.Stat. (1967). In 1974 the legisla-
ture amended chapter 366 to confer upon the
PSC limited jurisdiction over municipally
owned electric utilities for certain purposes.
Ch, 74-196, ~ I, Laws of Fla. Among the pow-
ers granted was the authority "[t)o approve ter-
ritorial agreements between and among rural
electric cooperatives. municipal electric utilities.
and other electric utilities under its jurisdiction
or any of them; provided. nothing in this chap-
ter shall be construed to alter existing territorial
agreements as between the parties to such
agreements." Id.
2. The pertinent portion of the Commission's or-
der read:
When a territorial agreement is approved
by the Commission, it becomes embodied in
the approving order which may only be mod-
ified or terminated in accordance with the
agreement was a valid and binding agree-
ment, but denying FPL's demand for pro-
hibitive or injunctive relief against the City.
In response to a subsequent motion for
reconsideration or clarification by FPL, the
PSC stated that the agreement is subject to
modification by the PSC in a proper pro-
ceeding, but declined to elaborate further
because the City had filed an action in
Dade County Circuit Court seeking a judi-
cial declaration that the agreement is ter-
minable upon the giving of reasonable no-
tice. After the circuit court's denial of
FPL's motion to dismiss and motion to
abate on grounds that the PSC had exclu-
sive jurisdiction in the matter, the PSC
intervened and filed a petition for writ of
prohibition in this Court. In Public Ser-
vice Commission v. Fuller, 551 So.2d 1210
(Fla.1989), this Court held that the circuit
court did not have jurisdiction to conduct
further proceedings on the City's complaint
for a declaratory judgment.
On September 4, 1990, the City initiated
the present proceedings by filing a petition
to "Acknowledge Termination or in the Al-
ternative, Resolve Territorial Dispute" with
the PSC. FPL responded by filing a mo-
tion to dismiss, which the PSC granted in
Florida Public Service Commission Order
No. 23955, issued January 3, 1991.2 The
City then filed a notice of administrative
appeal to obtain review of that order by
this Court. 3
The City's position is that because it was
not subject to the PSC's jurisdiction when
Commission's express statutory purpose. &e
Fuller at 1212. Therefore, in order to \\ith.
draw or modify Order No. 4285, Homestead
must make a showing that, "such modifica-
tion or withdrawal of approval is necessary in
the public interest because of changed condi.
tions or circumstance not present in the pro-
ceedings which led to the order being mod-
ified." Peoples Gas System, ["e. v. Mason. 187
So.2d 335, 339 (Fla. 1966) Homestead has
failed to allege facts sufficient to support a
modification of Commission Order No. 4285
consistent with Peoples Gas and Fuller. Con-
sequently, we grant FPL's motion and dismiss
Homestead's petition without prejudice.
3. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, S 3(b)(2). Fla.
Const.
450 Fla.
600 SOUTHERN REPORTER. %d SERIES
CITY OF HOMESTEAD, Appellant,
v.
Thomas M. BEARD, etc.,
et aI., Appellees.
No. 77352.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 7, 1992.
The Public Service Commission grant-
ed utility company's motion to dismiss
city's petition to terminate territorial agree-
ment with utility company, and city appeal-
ed. The Supreme Court. McDonald, J.,
held that: (1) city submitted itself to Com-
mission's regulatory authority, and (2) ter-
ritorial settlement agreement was not ter-
minable at will.
Affirmed.
Barkett. J., filed a dissenting opinion in
which Kogan and Harding, JJ., concurred.
1. Electricity cS=8.1(2)
City, which sought Public Service Com-
mission approval of territorial agreement
with privately owned utility company for
areas beyond its municipal boundaries, sub-
mitted itself to Commission's regulatory
authority under Commission's order ap-
proving agreement, though at the time
agreement was executed, municipally
owned electric utilities were exempt from
state agency supervision and enjoyed privi-
leges of legally protected monopolies with-
in municipal limits. West's F.S.A. ~ 366.-
11.
2. Public Utilities e:>114
Public Service Commission approval of
territorial agreement between city and pri-
vately owned utility company makes ap-
proved contract order of Commission, and
makes law surrounding Commission orders
applicable in interpreting agreement.
3. Public Utilities e:>114
City may not accept benefits flowing
from antitrust immunity for territorial
agreement with privately owned utility
company by obtaining Public Service Com-
mission approval and then claiming agree-
ment is not subject to laws governing Com-
mission orders.
4. Contracts e:>215(1)
When contract does not contain ex-
press statement as to duration, court
should determine intent of parties by exam-
ining surrounding circumstances and by
reasonably constrUing agreement as a
whole.
5. Contracts e:>215(1)
If period of duration can be inferred
from nature of contract and circumstances
surrounding its execution, contract is not
terminable at will and court should give
effect to manifest intent of parties.
6. Public Vtilities e:>169
Public Senice Commission orders are
generally considered final absent Commis-
sion's inherent authority to modify or ter-
minate them in proper proceeding.
7. Electricity <p8.1(2)
City and privately owned utility compa-
ny did not intend settlement agreement to
be terminable at will, and could be modified
or terminated only by the Public Service
Commission (PSC) in a proper proceeding,
where utility company refrained from com-
peting with city for 20 years. transferred
large number of its customers to city, and
made investments in territories in which it
believed it had exclusive franchise, andc
where agreement was incorporated into'"
PSC order.
Michael L. Rosen, D. Bruce May and "
Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight, Tal- .,
lahassee, for appellant.
David E. Smith, Director of Appeals,'
Florida Public Service Com'n, and J. Chris-"
tian Meffert of Bryant, Miller & Olive,'
P.A., Tallahassee, and K. Crandal McDou-
gall, Miami, Florida Power & Light Co., for ,
appellees. ..<
McDONALD, Justice.
On August 7, 1967, the city of Ho~
stead (City) entered into a territorial agree-:
ment with Florida Power & Light Com~
C1IO~/~CDU 2U:~:
t.. ;:,.:. I .....C'
, - .. -
e
e
EDWARD D. FORE(':~;l.P.A.
F AnKJANfRWNSMISSION
CITY OF PINELLAS PARK. Cm MA~.~GER'S OFfiCE
P. O. 60)( 1100
PINt.:..l..A5 PAI'lK. fL 33780-1 100
727-541-0708
;1.)(: 727-5~4'7448
from:
894-1915
Je1'!j' Mudd
Pages:
,
January 3, 20(,0 i
... . 1 d" _I..; I. h
-', me u mg uuS elver s e~t.
rl'
.10:
ThO[fu'\S E. Reynolds, Asst. City
Attorney
Date:
ruN;
~;ubiect: Draft _ Assessment of Conflicts Listed In Largo Resolution No. 1702
COMMENTS:
Please review and COll13ct me with any corrunentslchanges.
I.
i
'I
II
rl/0:'~~UU ~U;~1
t: J. ..)..r"'t..... (....- ~
,
,
,(1)
e el
ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICTS LISTED IN LARGO RESOLUTll ~ 7~ [jJ ~ V
"f.,'hether the CiIy of Largo. Florida may terminate the 1984 lnterlocal Agr emen! betwun
the City of Pinellas Park. Florida and the City of Largo. Flan'ria. paining to the
provisions of samtary sewer service by the City of Largo to the area 1m as Tract "A ..
'which is generally located within the area enclosed by 34th Strut North 125rh Avenue
North. 28th Street North and 188th Avenue Norlh in Pinellas County. F orida. whether
said Agreement is perpetunl and whether the City of Largo can ever chan I e the rates for
sewer ser....ice provided to Tract uA" from the rares stared in said A.gree en!?
(2)
It is my understanding that the Interlocal Agreement for Tract "An is
order, that the interlocal agreement is, tht~efore, perpetual and may no
unless both cities agree to terminate the interlocal agreement and Largo ca never change
the provision in the agre:ment for billing Pinellas Pa:k at sevent)' ent of Largo's
established r-...tail rate schedule fer properties outside the Largo munici al boundaries,
unless both cities agree to cha.'1ging this provision in the 1nterlocal Agree]' en~. It should
also be noted that the southern boundary for Tract .. A" is 118th A venu and not 188th
Avenue as listed in L:u-go's Resolution No. P02.
'f'/Mther the City of PinelIes Parl\ violated the hblic Records Law, Chapt ,f 119, Florida
Statutes. when it failed to provide all of the doc:.lments that are Pu!iUc Records in
response to Public R<<ords requests made by the City of Largo City AttOnfe}' on July 14,
1999 and on Oerober 14, 1999 and the Ory of Largo Ciry Clerk on Aug,q 17. 1999 and
on August 23. 1999? I
I
I
On December 8, 1999, when I met with Mr. Stanton in my offic~, he cPIDplained that
Pinellas Park allegedly did not forward copies of all its P.Jblic Recor~s which were
responsive to Largo's Public Records requests. Specifically, Mr. Stanto~ s?Oke of First
Union Bank documents. Subsequently, I spoke with the staff member'who had been
involved in providing the Public Records to the PineUas Park City Cle:'~ and the staff
member felt that he had proYided the documer.ts encompassed within L~~o's requests.
1 then requested that all document,> cor.tamed in the annexation file pe~ing to First
Union National Bank property, located at 5005 Ulmerton Road, be provided to Largo.
On December 17, Assistant City Attorney Tom Reynolds tranSmitted that irlrormation with
a letter to Largo City Attorney Jane Hayman. In Mr. Re>'nolds OctOber~2' 1999 letter
to Ms. Hayman and again in his December 17, 1999 letter, ~1r. R~yn Ids offered to
coordinate !\ physical bspect.ion of Pinellas Park records, in order to be s e that Pincllns
Park had provided !ill of the Public RecOIds which Largo had wanted. I Eeve that any
perceived conflict which may exist rega.~ing Largo'!i Public Records rjequests can be
resolved through the physical inspection of the records s~gested by ~ . Reynolds. I
strongly recommend that an inspection of the records ~ coordinated by argo with Mr.
Reynolds in the very near ful'Jr~.
i:: 1 ; -. . .' q.. ~
'- 4 I' -' .,
_' ~2i:C0J :a:~l
I
I
:a)
,~H~ !}\ ~ li
Whetiler 1M City of Pifl<'llas Park .n[""fully annexed rerraill prop"'\ I'"",ed by Wiley
Proper/ies pursucnl to an annaDlion agreement entered into by tile Cil)' t Pinel!a" Park
and 'Wiley Properties 011 August 12. J 999. and whether s..,id annexatio1l bY Pine/las Park
cons:ilU!es roni.aus illterferenclt in cl CO.'llractual relariomhip tl:at existed b~rwet1l th~ City
of !.Argo end WjJ~ Propenies? I
1
Se:tion 2.2(a) of the Annexation Agreement between the City cf Largo bd Mr. Wiley,
specifie~ that, ''the PROPERTY O\VKER hereby consevts to an.:lex into the City. and no
other mW1icipality..:' Should Mo:her Cit)' annex all the :eal property ~rroundicg Mr.
Wiley's propeq, Iv1r. Wiley's Fope~1 would b:(on~~ <1Il en.:iave in th~l other City in
pe~etujty. TI-is situation would adversely afYect Mr. W:ky's ablity to ~idly utilize his
re-.u property fer an ume2S0nable FerkJ<i of time - p~rpctuity. Se;::ticm lrl.046, Florida
Statutes specifies that, "the legislature recognizes that elldave~ can ctfJ.te signifi~ant
Fobl~ms in pla:l.'1ing. growth m:rr:age:nent, ar.d servi:::~ delivery, therefore, declares lh".t
it ~s the policy of the:: State to eliminate encle.v~~, Therefore, Section 21::?(a) in Largo's
Annexation Agre~ment is un::nfr:rceable and Mr. Wiley can L1\o\'full:{, ent~ into a'l
AiL1exation Ag:~eme:lt V,;t.1 another Cit)' if a clause is provided in ~te Al1.'1exction
Agree:nent with the other City :hat provides tb~.t in the -:v,:r.t thet 1\1r. \Yiby's property
beccoes contg'.lous to Largo, M:. Wiley is l~pl!y requi:ed to aruex into r.argo. Section
8 of the Annexation Agreement between the City of ?inella:) Park and ,.r.k. Wilt::; sets
forth t:at, "In :he event t.lut (1) tt.e property becom~s :::ontiguous to a:}oth~r r.1enici~ality I
and (2) th~ O\VNER(S) are legally requir::d to anr:ex in.:o ~irl IT.\.~.icipa1ity, upon
nctificetion and reques't to the CITY by the O\~11er of the a::c:err.enticned conditio:1s. theACITY shall assist OWNER(S} in their efforts to have t~': proFerty mn~xed in the said
municipality b the manner required by iaw. r
I'
i
e
e
A~s~smellt of Ccnflicts Listed in
LllrgO Resolution;; 170:
Page 2
t~ l .' I'l':'./ : L 1~1';j ~',J: 1:.
: .. . : '. ~ . I ":
e
e
init:ating Court prccc:dir.gs a;air.st the Cit)" cf Lugo. Florid:. \0 ;~sol'/~ ti:: fcllpw:r.g tonr'::ct:
I
\Vhet~er ti:e Cry o:"br;o. Fl.xida may l.:1\vfully re:1;'j~ t:J provide S;.I..'1it1, s~-':/e; se:-,';:e \0
real pro?env lo",ed wnhin \OS ;am tarv ,,,...er arel but OU" id, 0 f tIS 11"'"; c t pal bocfdar;e s udes, :i;,
')\'\i1er(s) of such ;e~l Fopen\ ag:-ee TO \cluntariiy annex such re;o.! ?rI)F~ny ir.to [~e Ci;y ofLar~o.
I
florid3. \
I
SECTTO.:"i TWO. Tl~: tr.e CC'Jnty Admmistntor 15 he~e'-'y dlre:teC, within fi\e (5) cays
I
after passage ofth:s Res-:rl'j{j,:);:. :0 ser.c a ce::ifie:l copy o:this F',~:;(<uticn and the lette: ~e~t.:::-e:i by
;
Florida S~atutes. ~: 1)4.1052. :~ tn: Ci~y Mal':uge:- of the Ci~:, of Lar~0- Florid~, se~ing fcr;~ 1=1 said
I
,
ette: th: r..mimuf.u:;:u:reme:::s of ~ I E4.1 05 2( 1). Florida S :alUtes. S~d: lerte: ar.~ ~~esobt:or. !f,all
i
I
Je s~nt bv certif:ec: r.:.ll;. ret;;~:; recei,,: reoucsa:c. Copies ,:,1' such lett~; .3.!'.d Re.;~lution sh"l1 ~ls('
. t' ~ I
I
')e :;t.nl to Ci~y of ?inell:s P3;~:. a.'1C t::e City of Ceanvat::r. Flori...!J. I
SE en 0'" TH?EE. ~:1a: thi, ?'<so, uti" n shall be ;n full f c:" and eff,:r ,l"""di,'el) "POO
I
ts adoption and a;pro\a! :n ::~~ man.;.e:- :,;ovil:ec by law. j
i
ADOPTED th:5 21~-.:
.:iJyof De\;ember
. 1999.
.\. YES Parks) T~:.d ana r.uI'is.
:-JA YS: Nor.e.
I
I
I
I
,
.
I
- ., ';.::' II 'v,;" c;; '.~;:; C:;;',\
, "_;,,>' ::co:,; F ".t', G.' \. .. . ,... ."tV
~~ " '~-~. '~:'i:\l .E~-0~,.-j. 00SJ'd 01 -""~.
'. .)_.1 . . J . ~_. to{ ....8\ ,I'll
("rl"'mfi~I(''''.Jr~, ':J il.H....., ...tJ.' =1
. .- . . ~ ... I n".,,,'i",'~ !: ..!r":llI one ecrt:'3...
~~()'.,~ ...,'1\; ')0 - J.... . r ;r~. o~a1
. . ",..' 5$ It .oV ~.,
':\..,,~ ,':rc; !.11~ '. - ......_- .".:.r.ErO
',. .... -. 01 (""l,r, "".......",-
"\~O_" I ~., "".~j" '
-.- ~ ! . "II
": ~U' '} r'!.;~,j C<llfty. r;,:1l,;. ~ Coun~
. ''''4n~rnYll.nc:~''-'' "9
~ ,VY':"4." .J'-~' . A.O. 1Q' .
'; .,,~ ~1Il"'of ~ , . oj tM C'rr.l.lI
. :... ,~U:::O::~j F :>.l' f';,,).i<EF-., ~-. "'tl
. "".' - IJI it> e,.,o.rO,I...........
~ C?,:,:1 ffli' " . 00 ~t~ ..f"G:10a
. corrJT: '1lJ~
'. r .' ~u-~.....
D .., .
- j',:.. . ." . OiH'vt'1 1l,rI<
ABSENT: Stew&::,t and SeeL
r ,l.5~J.~", n'''4"r'(,".~~",r")(.,r:\.\:::''1Il'l.~)r~o~f'''lC5..(:rn ~ J.- "I"l~" DJI ~
Cl,02/2COO 28:13
::13~~:' '~~:!
~ll~ u'-' rr
e
e
I
I:
. I
RESOLUTION NO. -2.1-2b8 I
A RESOLCTION STAIT'G THE INTE~TrON OF THE BOA.tn
OF COt.J1'TY COMMISSiONERS OF PIN'CLLAS COUN r
FLORIDA TO INITIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTI
PROCEDl"RES PROVIDED UNDER THE FLORI
GO\'ER.;'JME>:T AL CO~r'fUCT RESOL\..'TION ACT PRlOR
rNITlA TP.-iG COeRT PROCEEDrNGS AGAINST THE CITY F
LARGO. FLORIDA: SPECIFYING THE ISSUES OF CONFLl T
WITH THE CiTY OF LARGO. FLORIDA; DIRECTING T
COU1\TY AD~lI~lSTRATOR TO PROVIDE A STATtlTORIt Y
!~L~'\"DA TED LETTER AND A CERTIFIED COpy OF T~IS
RESO:"CTION TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
LARGO. FLORIDA: PROVIDING FOR A)l" EfFECTIVE DATE.
I
I
I
1
I
\VHEREAS, ~he City of Largo) FloI.da adopted a policy. statj.g that ~~e City elf Large.
i
Florida would r.ot prcy:de smitary sewer service to any 1":-cr~r:y located wiihin\i:s ~.ita:-y s~wer
I
area b'Jt outside of its :numci?al o:Jt:nda::es l:nless the Qwr.er(s} ~ereof ag.r~=d to ~.r.ex such
i
I
p:'operty into the Ci:y of Largo, Florija; a.'1d i
I
\VHEREAS. 3v:lid of CO'...:nty Commissic.'ners of Pim,ll:.s CQunty, Florda f:!ld; ~hat the
above ~ction C)' :h~ Ci~\' ofLanro. FJcrida ffie;.terialh' ad\'~:"3elv i:np<lcts Pindas C~umv. i~ residents
- - .' . I .
and b'.lsinesses. as we:! as the lands;n the '.lni~cCrpora1ed aiea 0fP:~el;as CO'..lniy.
I
WHEREAS. Boc:..rc d Ccun!"'j Comm:ssior;ers ()fPinellas Cell!:.)'. Florida does not ,elieve
i
that :he City of Largo. FlClnda has the lawful aut:lc:i:y to take action. I
I
I
~OW, THEREfORE, BE rr R.ESOLVED BI' Board Cof Cou.."lt). qOIr.JI1i:5ioners of
!
P:~c:;las County, FlorIda: I
I
~ECT10N O,,"E. That ~ursuant to Florida Statt:tl!s, Sl64.10S2, the ~oard of Coun:y
I
I
: COl1lInis;ior.ers of P inell as. C ouot]. Florida hereby state, i:s in'entlOn to ir.] ina te the <on[ leI
: lesolutlon procedures FrO\'lded by the Flonda Go'\cn:mental Codllcl Resol' t:on Act pnor to
I
t~ J. I U.:. i ...L '.P) 4.-l.J.... 'oJ
..... J_ 1 ,. I ....
e
e
I Largo' s actions have the potential to undennine SL:.ch public goals.
I
I
I
The County h;1S therefore adopted resolution 99-268 a ce:-tiried COP)' of \ hich is enclcsed.
! stati.cg the intentio~ of Pine lIas County. Florida to imtiate conflic~ resolution prece ures as provided
! under the Florida Go\'enunental Cod1ict Resclutions Act prior to initiatir:g c ur: proceedings
: 3bsir.st the City of Largo, Florida.
I
;
Pmellas County proposes that a conflict asses~ment meeting, in confcrman ,e ....ith 164.105 J,
Florida Statutes. be held at 1.00 p.D, cn JaGuar)' 4. :WOO in mom 425. Pinellas Co I :1ry Courthcuse.
315 Court Street. Clearwater. flerida. Pinel1a~ County 5uggests :hat the Cit ~lanager, City
I Attorney. and CO!I'JIluruty Development Administrator of Largo and LI1e County.\ nager, Assistant
: Coc.nty Attorney and Director ofPianning for Pinellas County be present at the c =u1ict assessment
:. meeting. This is ~he same time ar:d pls.ce suggested in L'le Pin~l!as Park Confltct esolution letter.
FEM:JAM'lml
Enclosure
(cenified copy oi Resolution No. 99-268)
I
I
I
L
cc: City of Cearwater City Manager
Pinellas Palk City r-,'Ianage:-
"l:!V.~'''''~1Y'.f,,-,:,~;,'',\~)C~.'','O;'~lSSi'.a).li'-lOH<;.-' ~:!-
01/02/2000 20::8
813:o.;~74~8
'. _ I 't Lt. t-t""
e
e
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMI[SIONERS
I
PINELlAS C UNTY, FLORIDA
31~ couRT S-~iET
CCS"""'". <LO" "" "'''
::)MMI~I9I.iR3
SAL;'IE P*IlKS . C"1AIAAl,\Jo,
'lOBERT ~ STEWAR, . \' C~ <:11"'"1,V.N
,:Al.VIN O~ -iARRIS
-v..REN W,ll.lIAMS SEeL
ElARSARII :,HEE" TODD
~HONE ;72l) ~e~'3J54
FAX, (,Z714e~."14i
SwSAN H CHL'RL-
:Ol..fHY A7TORNEY
December 22 1999
~Certified Mail Return Re'~eipt Rt!ques~e~
\
I
,1;1r. Steven B. Stantcr~ City :Ylanager
,City of Largo
:P.O. Box 296 !;
I:
larp, FL 33779-0296 r
RE; PiccU.. County's Inte,.t'on to Initiate Contlic! R "olution P:04duces PrIor to
. Initiating Court Proce<dings to R,solve Cor~1ict I
jD;.'~ M~~::'0~eatened to rerUse "",ita:y ,ewer service to. undeveloped ?fOpei\" in the Largo
:samtary sewer ar~4. .
,
; The City of Largo policy pro'vlc:.s that Largo will no lor.ge: provide sanitary sewer service
it:) any propert)" located within its sani:arj sewer area but outside of its murjcipal bO~' '1da:ies, unless
:t:1~ owner(s) the~eof.agreed to annex, :-:..~ prc~rty into Largo. Therefore, ~he fo lowing conflict
:tXiSts bet\....een PmC'h<u: County and tf.e .~lty 01 La:go: .
: Whether the City of Largo. :lor:d. m'y lawfully refuse to prov:de sanit+. sewer
service to real property :oc;1td wlthin its saniuty sewer area tur outside its
municipal \:Iou:1daries unless the (jwnds) of such r:al ;:Jroper.y agree to \o!t.::.ntarily
annex such real proFe11Y into ::re Cit:- of L:r3o, Fiorida? . ~:
No other governmental ager.ci:s are currentiy in c~nfljct wi~ Pinellas CO'J " y on this i:lsue.
!Howevcr, the City 0: Pinellas P3rk hi13 initiated contlict reso:'Jtio:l proc~ding_llwi:l: Largo for
:t:ssentially the same reasons. I.
, The issue of forced annexauor. ='1 th~ City of Largo ':1as bee~ a matte: OfC01tir.uws concern
,1(\ Pinellas County. The County pro\'\:es whc1ksale sewer service to the Ci:y of P ne:!as Park. and
I Plnellas Park Ms initiated conDie: :esolutioll prc.c:-ed:!1gs against L<!!go. The respective
i:~ovtnune11ls sewer service area we:e e~~abli5hed a number ofyears ago to provijelror efficient use
'"f federal monie, and for effective pM. ,SlOn of sewer "'tvice to the dtizel1s of tin,uas Count,..
: 1\
.P,,'"" Cc,,~ " " Eq-'" ()pJ:Ollun'ty Emp'ol'l' · tJ...,ber. 'i..I'" ',,~.'s'P 'or . Orug F,,' W",,,,,,,. ~J p'.~' " rocy,I., "p"
el/02/2COO 20:18
E135.H7~~8
~~
-- --
, ,
....
e
e
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SIGNERS
PINELlAS C UNTY, FLORIDA
SALL'e P....f ($ . CI1AiRht~N
fl,08E.P.T 91' 3-EW,A,~T -,I::.c CHAfo.":.A~,
C,A,LI/IN D. r..~.RIS
KARE.[\; VVI\J,IAMS SEE~
8Ar<!lARA &HE'=~ TODD
.FRED E. MARQUIS. COU TV AOMINISTRATOR
PHor~:: \~2") 4e4.J..a5
F,,<: (n"j 464.4::84
~.~ CGJR7 STREET
l,,"~,^,"'I!~, ~_O~ 0,0. Z3iS6
!
("~'Ai,s,o~,:RS
. ,
December 21, 1999
I
I
I:
I
I
f'crtified Mail Rerurn Receipt Requested
~,fr. Jerry Mudd, City Ma.T1age~
City of Pine lIas Park .
5141 78th Avenue:
Pinellas Park, FL 33780
, .
I
I
RE. Pinella;; Park s IntentiC1n to Init~ate Conflict Resolution PrQ;;edJ,.;,l es P ior to IIlitiati~g
Court Proceedings to Res01ve Ccnflict
I
I:,
[ear Mr. Mudd: I
: . Pil1ellas COlll1ty is il1 receipt of YCl:! lette: of Decem ber 12, 1999 in~".til1g <O~ict ",so lution
p;'oceedings with the City of Largo. Pursuant to Section 164.1052(2) F.S., Pineaa4 Count)' elt:cts
tl' join the conflict resolution, process as a primary conflicting governmental ~Dtityj. Enclosd:s :1
c\ lPY of our letter to the City of Largo anj a copy of our Conflict Resolution kn:r.\
I,
I
I
I
I
E . .1arqu'
CO'Jnty Admimstr.t:r 1:...
~c. /I1~1o'~ f C-fr I'~""c: I
ClOt ., c./e"'- J{ I .
Co' +t A+ft>"'t4~'I1
A .. ~. 6/1~. a;""
tt<.1 ~/~. !.
!
I
. fSM:JA1vl/lcl
F \ j~:u", r.Y ^ TYlUlowr;lO(S'.'1Ic\W,;'<: ::M~\IO~M'J:lc :r.: ~
!'
\
p.~(,Ila'j .)ur~:5 ~' E.Q~(j! Opp'JrtUfil'j tlT,P:lYc-( . M~"lt~r'Pll'<l13& PJtllIilr~hip for a CrJg FI1I9 'v'.'o~kJ.l:c~ . ~ pl;nle~ Nl 'ijC)-c,e~ ~aW
C1i02/28BO 20:18
l:1.J:';~ ;...'-0
". , ~...
e
e
Rl"I l"I fOr-t.r\;..~t? .~.
E.D\'l f... u u.
'i"~~ JMl-~TRANSMISSION
CI1Y OF P1NEUAS PARK. em MANAGER'S OFFICE
PO. Box I I 00
PltlEu...a.s PA"'K. 1'"1.. 337eo-: I c';)
7Z7.!j4 I 00708
F'JoX" 727'544'7446
Pages:
I
J anuaI)' 3, 2000 \
I
6, incLlding this c+ver sheet.
I
,
I
I
!
I
1
i
I
I
i
I
Fax #:
Th(lmilS E. Re}1101ds, Asst. City
Attorney
894-1~H5
Jerry Mued
Date:
:~.ro:
3rom:
~;ubject:
Lener from Pinellas County. Conflict Resolution i'rocedures
,COM~NTS;
!~or your infomlation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. I
I
I
l.
I
I,
I
I
" I
I .i
: \:
.'
I.
, .
e
e
City M nager Mudd stat~d ~ha; the arJ1cxation study prepared by Staff extends to Lake
Semino .
COl.:.nciltan Butler askec. \..tli.;h Fire Department wadd be affected by annexations going
to Lake r,eminOle.
City M~ger Mudd statd :hat on Starkey Road the Seminole Fire Department operates a
station that servl<.es the u:Jir.:::orporated area (similar to Highpoint). It is possible that it
Pinel:a~ Park "~"I..'exe~ Lrth~: west these propeni:s could become part of the City and a
recom.niendatio:1 cO!.lld ~e made by tr.e County for PineUas Park to take over that station.
councilmali But\~: sTat:a that :,ased on this information he feels the c~ncem over thE
Highp at Fire Sta~icn$ is put to rest.
I
City Y\'1anager Mdd st.'3ted that \\i~h tho:': information the City now has. the poinl
Councqt1'lat: Bt:~.!er makes is \"did.
i
counciirr.an Bu~}~r stJt:d that h: feels t,1.is proposed agreement with Largo makes s~nse anc
he agref5 Wil'11t
i
counCt~ man Williams :;t.1tcd tbt he does riot like to be blackmciloo and feels that has taken
pla;;c t. OUghOl.'1 the negotiation process. f1nd would like iO go with altem.1tiv~ four and take
both ar of con;:.m.
Mayor ~1bd'Jzr stat~d <,::.t he carillot tig!-e~ wib ~hat, an:! is DC'! willir.g to gamble it.
Bob Jley. O\\T,er at ?ydra Spa, (a property that was arJlexed into P:nellas Park) stated
he had I a previous a.-.nexatklJl af;reement wi.th Largo that stipulates that if Largo become;
adjace1 to his propcny he must annex into Largo. He stated that Largo denied hi.m sewer
service,unless he signee the arUlexation agreement.
Ci~y ~anager ~"ludd !Statei the letter dated December 2. 1999, received from the City of
Largo ty t-.-1r. \Viley st~.ted his sewer ser.ice would be disCOlUlected December 7, 1999.
Counc Iman Taylor st2\tcd there already is a Tract A agreement in affect that Largo is net
bonori g.
CITY OF PlNELLAS P Are {
6 REGULAR WORKSHOP MEETING
DECEMBER 7t 19~9
1:1 :;1)11::<') ,0-1:::3
E 1 ~j ~~'I .. .\ 7..;':: 8
(_ 1 r / - r.r
~ . ,f.,r~ '_ J.
e
e
Attorney Re>'nolds stnted that when Ihe settlement agreement (inlcrlocal grecment) was
derived, Pinellas Park, at its expen~, constructe~ the col;ection sys:em wit in Tract A. As
a consideration for tha. c;xpe:1se Largo tl.greed to provide sewer sen':ce t Tract A at the
same rate that service is provided to Lugo Cit)' custGmers. Therefore,:f Ie rates within
Largo raise, then the rate~ for Pinelias P;uk would ri~e :Usa
Sewer Director LeVan stated w~~n the CO\Ulty rates arc lai5ed it i:; pr iested on the
addition and updating of the Cross Bayou lift station, whe~ Largo has no done that. The
other factor is that when the Cc,unty raises their rat~, the :-ales in Trazt A r'm also rise.
City Manager Mudd stated th;3.1 he has ~:n infonn~d by La;~o City Mana~er Stanton that
the current rnt: paid to Largo is r.ot indusive of t.~e :ost to maintain an provid~ waste
water treatment
I
Councilman WilEaInS asked, ift.1e City .....as to ignore the ;~:!eased rate e;Juid the service
I .
be disconnected? I
Attomey Rey1101ds staled tllat if Largo was to threat:n to dis:;Ol1tioue servi, ~, than th, City
would immediately apply to the Cout'.s for a."l injuncric-n that would prev~nt iscontinuation.
,
Councilman Williwns asked Anomey Re}'nolds fv!' his opinion as to wha cour~e to take,
Attorney Re>llo1ds stated that if Council is not inclined to pay tr.e mcreasf, mea Pineltas
Park should initiate the dispute resolution process.
Citf Manager Mudd s~ted that whichever party in.iti~tes the dispute reso!ut1Jn process gets
to choose the site where the joint :T'.e.etings are held.
Consensus OfCOUDCi} wJS that the City of Largo r:ll:St honOI the interlocJ.llagreement and
not raise the sew~r I'J.tes until a consul~ant has cO!lSidert.d it justifhbte and made a
recommendation as such. I
I
At<~m~ Reynolds stat~d that in order for th;;:'IC to be an :ldjust:n~t to the r tes in Tract A
area, Largo inust have the legal authority to tennins~e th~ interlocal agree en!, regardless
of what a consultant reports.
CITY OF PIN , LLAS PARK
8 REGULAR WORKSH ,P MEETING
DECE' HER 7,1999
i i i:;~ 11 :-.<1 :'1: :C'::
:: j >j,l1.i..~('.rj
(. I .
f., ,( .~_ ,1 .
e _I
I
Counci1WOIlWl Bailey stated that bcclc in 1978 many meeting, were held and thJ plannil1g am
was laid out for the citie.. The City of St. Petersburg was supposed to te the eastern
boundaries over by Feathersound, but now in the letter from Largo, it menti1ns taking over
that planning area of St. p~Jurg. Councilwoman Bailey stated there is Ii lot of trurlgs
coming out of Largo which j~ not in the best interest of Largo citizenry, our it:zenry or 5t.
Petersburg's citizenry and feels court is the only way to ~ettle it.
Cecil Bradbury. 9400 50th Way. stated h. felt Council has bCl1t over backwlrds a little bit
farther than we would have in trying to deal v.ith this matter. Mr. Bradbury btated the City
of Largo has a sewer district and the reason that district is devised the way t~jS, is to allow
them to go out and bond the indebtedness of that district in order to provide se'wer. Largo
only provides one service out off our, yet they feel they should be able to dictat what happens
and felt it was time for the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County and PineH Park to join
together in an effort to set the re::crd straight.
MOTION was made by Co~man W~liams, and SECONDED by Counei man Taylor to
ADOPT Resolution ~o 99.97.
Roll can Vote:
Voting Yea: Councilwoman, Pa:.ricia L. Bail~y
Councilman. Rick Butler
Councilman. William E. Taylor
Councilman. Charles 1. Williams
Mayor William F. Mischler
Vo~ing Nay: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: None
MOTION CARRIED
~USCELLANEOITS
Ml JBAl''KYOU NOn;
Mayor Mischler read a thank you note from Samantha Krenek and Katie Moriarty from
Pinellas Park High School who were presented with II Procla.ma.~ion for . ationa! French
Week. at the Council Meeting of October 28, 1999.
24 em OF PIN LLAS' PARI<
REGULAR eOUN R,l\1INUTES
DECE' ER 9,1999
I
I
1 ~' I;':~ I 1 ~ ~1'J ':', I: 2;'
:'.1 3 ';:"ill.I';-~
(_; , - t- rJ
-\
I
e
Mayor Mischler stated that he is willing to settie ifth: exchange of the two roposed parcels
is achieved. Cmfficilnuul Butler Stated that he is wilHr.g to settle also, but a etter of apology
must be given to Mr. Wiley and unless thaI lett.er is sent he ",ill s ppcrt nothing.
Councilwoman Bailey stated that to choose al~emntive four could leav the City with
nothing, and she prefers to negotiate, under the SlmlC terms as Mayor 1....1isc ler, along y,ith
the guarantee that everything will be in place for the new P..1diss:>n Ho 1. Vice Ma)'or
Taylor stated that he will support nothing that in\'olv~s swapp:ng planni g areas one for
another, Councihnan Williams agreed with Councilman Taylor. Councilm Bl,.tler stated
he is .....illing to support the proposed agreeoc:nt if th: properties are exc an~,:d, but Mr.
Wiley's situation must be resolved
Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stated that the last Largo City Commi sion Workshop
the CO:1Set1SUS wu to continue talking with the Pinellas Park Staff about t se issues. \l;1lh
the suggestion made to continue the boundari~s along Ulmerton Road to Cr~ss Bayou down
to 126th Avenue and to talk atxl'.l.t the triangular parcel of land which b.1~nds to 62nd
Street. \
COW1cilwoman Bailey requested that Largo Assist/m.t Cit)' Mmager Ross have a response
to Co\U1cil's concerns by the regular COW1cil Meeti.'1g on December 9, 19t9.
City Ma.nager Mudd st.ated that the Largo Cit)- Comlnission has indicat:d th y are n~ ionger
honoring the Interlocal Agreor..ent as of Jar.uary 1,2000. The sewer rates cr Tract A will
be i:1creased at an addit\onal cost of $26.735.00 per year.
City Manager Mudd proposed the following foW' alternatives for the T ra A sewer i:;sue;
1. Pay the increase, whil;h has t.ie- a:hmtc.ge of ~vaiding !itigati i.n, whereas th~
disadvantage would be :he add~t1one1.;ost. I
2. Do not pay the increased ccst.
3. Install a local waste water eoilectio:1 system that would flow to L"1e Pinellas
County Sewer system. at a cost of 5371,000.00. The CLUTCnt whole e mtes for the
County woi1ld save PL"lellas Park $740.00 It year in wastewater ent cost, but
Pinel~as County 'will be raising their wb;;>lesale 11ltes as cf October 1,2000, which
would then cost the City $26,401.00, which is >:lore than Largo' s increase,
4. Don't pay tl)e increase and purs1,l: ~ proc~ss that leads to litigatio which has the .
disadvantage of legal fees.
I
CITY OF PI LLAS PARK
7 REGULAR WORKSH . P MEETING
DECE '1BER 7,1999
l~/~;t1/1.':')'j .~'.1:'L.1j
~ 1 ;. '-:', ~ 1 / (1 ~~:
'. . I' - - .'
e
,f
e
Voting Nay: None
Absent: None
Ab$taining: None
MonON CARRIED
R6 RESOLUTION NO. 99-97. A RESOLUTION ST A lThG THE l1'lEN IO~ OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO INlTIA TE CO~FLICT RESOLFnON P OCEDURES
PROVIDED UNDER THE FLORIDA GOVER..~ME!\lAL CONFLICT
RESOLUTION ACT PRIOR TO INI11A TING COURT PROCEEDIN S AGAINST
THE CIlY OF LARGO. FLORIDA.
FIRST A.~D FINAL READrNG.
Mayor Mischler stated many people may have already read the a."1icie in th St. Petersburg
Times regarding the conflict between Pinellas Park and Largo where an agree~ent was trying
to be reached for annexation boundaries. Largo bad a meeting a fe"'\/ weeks ~go where they
made some comments and PineUas Park Council addressed those COInr.1er:ts th~y made during
the Tuesday. December 7, 1999 Workshop. The City of Pine lias Pa:1c co.mtertf1 to Largo and
asked their Assistant City Manger to please get back to Pinel1as Park thi~ c\ ning. A letter
wa.s received from Largo City Manager Steve Stanton in which i: aj:iress the comments
that were made at the Pinella! Park Workshop and stated he was not in agr ement with the
proposal made by Pinellas Park. In the St. Petersburg TUnes Seighborh ad Edition on
Wednesday. there is a triangular tract, in the proximity of Llmerton Road d U.S. 19 that
PineUas Park "'-as willing to forego and give to Largo providing ~ey would gi e Pinellas Park
the tract east of Roosevelt Boulevard and ~--m ofL1merton, which is where Hampton Inn
is located. Based on the letter received from Largo, Mayor Mischler st~tedlhe wiU have to
agree with o~her members of Council for litigation proceedings.
CounciL-nan Taylor stated that the City did not go looking for this and ! is Council has
continued to have dialogue '.\lith Largo in good faith, but e\'ery tirr:e Council t~ought they had
a deal, it changed and has come back again. Councilman Taylor stated tht City has :,een
forced to make this decision for litigation and there is a process to go thro~gh before it is
brought to court, but it could be resolved before it reaches the CO"Jrt stage. I
Assistant City Attorney Todd stated there is a procedure that is mandated y Florida Law
before a case between two municipalities can go to court to be litigated. Chap et 164. Florida
Statutes requires a number of steps be taken by the municipalities before th matter can be
taken to court. The first step is to notify the City of Largo thst mele is a co iet and that is
the purpose of the Resolution to give formal notification to them thlit there e two issues of
conflict betw::n Pinel1as Park and Largo to be resolved.
23 CITY OF PIN . LLAS PARK
REGrLAR COUN L ~UTES
DECE 'IBER 9, 1999
12 i :::) / l~ j '3 '} I ; n
: 1-;':,4.:17.1,:8
Clt'l Cl:"- F.r:-
rI-1','"
e
.
3. Withdraw the offer presently made to Largo. This would sult in m~re
annex2ltions. however, sewer service would still be denied to the disson Hotel
(Uld sewer indentures and annexation agreements would not be ca celed.
4. Withdrawal the latest offer and pursue a course of action tha would lead to
litigation. If this action was successful the advantages woul be increased
annexation, no loss of service area for the High point Fire Station, go would be
requ:red to provide sewer service to all the undevelopei pro rties and their
annexation iDientur~s would not b: of any value at that point. disadvantage
would be Attom:y's fees which are estirr.ated at between 15,000.00 and
$25,500.00. Tn:se fees are lower because the disag;eement w.th L go is based on
,
legal issues.
Mayor Mischler requested that Largo Assistant City Manager Ross j(lin C
al'1d stated for the record that Largo Assistant City r\'fanaoer Ross is not
Commission.
City Manag:r Mudd stated that the R11disson Hotel has agreed to allow th
easement on their property to construct a lift station) which would have
0($225,000.00.
Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stated thet the t\'.'o outstanding issues f concern to the
Largo City Cornxnission are the prope'rty by the Cross Bayou Canal an the Largo Fire
District.
Mayor Mischler su:.ted he would really lik~ to put a .:;!ose to this issue an
Bailey ag;eed. Mayor Mischler asked if a boundary agreement was reached
that properties souL'1 of UImerton Road, Tract A and all parcels within the
Park, would be able to hook into the Largo sewer system.
Councilwoman
uld that mem
ity Of Pinellas
City Manager Mudd stated Tract A is a separate issue.
Mayor Mischler stated that any agreement would have to be inclusive of an property south
of Ulme."'ton Road and the First Udon and the property east (If Ulmerton oad in cxchanic
for the property by Cross Bayou Canal.
Vicc Mayor Taylor stated he is very uncomfortable discussing swapping I d that the City
has no ciaim to. He stated these are private property owners that have rig 15 to choose and
Council has no right to talk about swapping parcels.
CITY OF PI ELLAS PARK
5 REGULAR WORKS : P MEETING
DEe MBER 7, 199'
COWlcilman Butler stated that these arc planning areas and only for pi
asked how far west the City's planning area extends.
ll/'jt.'l l':<j'j 0(l:'~~
~ 1 ::~:"..l :'4(:8
(~ ! T' I=i- :-1
I,., .
e el
I
Mayor Mischler st.l'~ thDt h' is wi \ling 10 s::ltle if the exchange of the twO JropoSed parcels
~ IlChieve<.1. Councilman Butler ~tated tb.at he is willing to s~tle also, but a letter cf apology
must be given to Mr. \Viley and unless that 1c:tter is sent he will ~., pport nothing.
Councilwoman Bailey stl'.ted ~E1t to choose alte:native four could le.a the City w~th
nothing, and she prefers t..:> negotIate, under the same t:nns as Mayor MIS tier. along Wlth
the guarantee that everything will be in place for the new Radisson HoteL Vice Mayor
Taylor stated that he ",ill ~upport not."ling that involves swapping plan.'1ihg areas one for
anot.'1er, Councilman Williams agreed with Councilman Taylor. Councilntar. Butler stated
he is willing to support tbe p:'oposed agreement if the properties are exchanged: but Mr.
Wiley's situation must be resolved. I
Largo Assistant City IVlanager R\).i3 stated that th~ hsr La! &0 City comm~.: sion 'N ork",hop
the consensus v;as to contir:ue talking with the Pinellas Park Staff about ese iS3U:S. with
the st:.ggestion made to ccntlnue the boundaries along Ulme.r:on Road co C :>ss Bayou down
to 126th Avenue and to talk about the L-iangular parcel of land which bxtends to 62nd
S~reet. \
Councilwomm Bailey requested that Larso Assistant City ;vlanager Rosslhave a response
to Council's concems by the regular COi,mcil Meeting on December 9. 1 ~99.
City }"hnager Mudd stated that the L.rgo Ci~y Co:n:nission has indicatt:d ~ey are no longer
honoring the Interlocal Agreement as of January 1,2000. The sewer rates' fc,r Tra.:! A will
be increased at an additional cost of S26.i35.00 per year. I
I
City ~lanager Mudd proposed the iQUoYlil1g four al:eroatives for the Tr.lt A seW" issue,
I
1. Pay the mc,,""e. which has the advantag' oi avoidil1g JitigaJol1' whereas th,
disadvantage would be the additicnal cost. I
I
i
2. Do not pay the increa~ed cost. I
I
3. Install a local waste water coUection system that would flo\~ to the Pinellas
COlmty Sewer system, at a cost of $371,000.00. The CUlTent whol~sa1e rntes for the
County would save PineUas Park $740.00 a year in \wstewater l:atment cost, but
Pinellas County \\;11 be raising their wholesale rates a3 of Octo r 1, 2000, which
would then cost the City $26.401.00, which is more than Largo s increase,f
4. Don't pay the increase ~d pursue a process that leads to li~~ati D., which has the .
di~vantage of legal fees. I
I
I
I
CITY OF rI. ELLAS PARK
7 JU.G'ULAR WORKS .or MEETING
DEe MBER 7, 1999
~ ~~.' ~~) I : ':. 'j J :~4: :'~
~ 1 ~.".j I i,I'';
I I i I ~-
'1..1
e
City Manager Mudd requested Community Deveiopment Administrator G 'tafson arrange
for the Staff of the Planning Division to CO:ltact Mr. ~.1orris in reg d to obtaining
information on locating an engine.
Mayor Mischler request Police Lieutenant Gre~n contact Mr. Monig in regard to theft
occurrir,g at H&R Trains.
W3 Ar'l~EX.\TIONBOIJNDARY AND TRACJ "A" SEWER RATES
City Manager Mudd r.'lade a presentation on issues related to annexation boundaries and
Tract "A" sewer f(ites and requested directior, f:o:n City Council on a cou se of actiuD for
the City ~o pursue on each of these items.
I
City Manag:r Mudd stated that within the last few mJr,ths property owner north of 126th
A venue have decided to voluntarily alIDeX i.r.~o ,he City of ?i:1ellas Park, ausing Largo to
threaten that sewer service would no IO:1ger oe provided to that area an also that sewer
rates in Tract A would be raised. On Octab:r 19, 1999, the Largo C y Commission
indicated that they would no longer recognize the interlocal agreement, etween Pinellas
Park and the City of Largo for Tract A sev,.er service. TIle next day E let er was received
formally indicating that Large would Dot provide sewer s~:vice to the L.t'W d:sson Hotel.
City ~anager Mudd Stated tbat at the Works1:op of November 9, 1999, he presented an
annexation boundary of Uhnerton Road, 'J.'hich Council agreed with. S bsequently, the
Largo COn\.-nissioD met again deciding they liked the Ulmerton Road bo' dary, b'Jt the)'
would like to move the bound2.ry h1 the vici:uty of 62r:d Street and C ss Bayou so it
folk:ws 126th Avenue. The reason given for the change was that area is w: hin Largo's Fire
District. The Largo Commission indicated the '.\'illingness to negotiate do this piece and
possibly a parcel on the east side ofRoo5e\elt Boclevarc. City Ma.il.agerI1udd presented
the follo\l,ring four alternatives:
1. Accept Largo's latest offer, allowing t.he targ:ted property to becoro~ part of
Largo's planning area. The advantages of accepting the offer i that Largo has
indicated it would serve the Radisson :totd and that Largo would cancel aU sewer
indentures and annexation agreen:ents within Pinellas Perk's puling area. The
disadvantages would be that over time:he accep:ance of this offe would limit the
annexation potential of Pinellas P3l'K, ~ Largo annexes further st of the Cross
Bayou Canal it would reduce the High Point Fire District.
2. Make a counter offer which would have the same adva11tages/dis vantages as the
previous altmlBtivc. Additional adYanw~es would be that if the unter offer was
successful, then more properties would be obtained over tim . An additional
disadvantage would be that more time would pass before Lill'g would agree to
provide the Radisson Hotel with sewer service.
CITY OF PI. ELLAS PARK
4 REGULAR WORKS OP MEETING
DEe ;MBER 7, 1999
l:'/3'JIl':'JJ ').1: L'O:
S 1 './:, .... ~~.;: ,j
_ i r I I~- I 1
t- ~ , Jt.
Council directed St>!o meet with coo "atT of Lnr,o "J work Olt~ "&,c,ment 011
the issues.
City Man.ager Mudd stated that he: will preper.re a lett:r to Larg City ~1anager
Stanton on what has beetl agreed upon at this me:ting,
Community Development Admini5:rato!' GustJ.ff,OO will revie ~ the propo~ci
boundaries with LaIgo staff to confinn accura~y.
MJSCEI"I,ANEOUS ITEMS
Ml PROPOSED CLOCK TO\VER
Ma)'or MiscrJer presented Council ',\1t:1 il popo::.d cl;)ck tower
49th Street and Park Boulevard at a C('I3t or $65,000.
I
r th~ corner of
Vice Mayor Taylor st('.ted that t..~e l~nds,;apin~ done ':JD that prop
)' h)oks rice.
ConsenS'JS of CO'.L.'1cil ',\")5 not to purcb~~ ~he clock.
thecting was adjourned at 9:41 P.M.
/-t (: , . \,/1
( ~ I 11 .: f
; 1 . /. I. "'\ I .
___...-C.l l l:Jdl3=(lr'U' L
Chri~,ti!1e Goul.l'
Staff Assistant
I
I
I
I
7
CITY OF PI LLAS PARK
WORKSHOP MEET G MINUTES
NO BER 9. 1999
1::1 ;.)il'::O;1'~:;.I: :(1
~.l :.'j~ ~ /.:.: ;.~
.. ~;: J
......
I .
e
e
W6 lltVJS!ON OF HEI.EN HO\J{ARTH rARK MASTEH PJ~..
Direc:or Oarren and Equestrian Trail Study Commission prc:~idc: t Will Bickne:l
were present to discuss the revision of the Helen Howarth Maste PIau irduding
the equestrian amenities.
Di:-~c~or Garren stated that the Equestrian Commission !\tld Recre ion Boad have
reviewed the Mas.er Pla.'1 for Helen Howarth and is no longer ac urate.
lbe proposed revision to the Master Plan addresses the northeast c mer uf the park
where additional bill fields were oiiginally planned. 'The revis n calb for the
location of equestrian amenities in that comer.
Consensus of COlUlcil was to proceed v..ith this plan.
Largo Assistant City Manager Ross joined Council at the table
Largo Assistant City Manager Ross stateu that the Largo Co ission held a
meering that evening at which it was decided tbat the Commiss on is \\;11ing to
meet with Pinellas Park Council for discussion on annexation.
City Manager Mudd stated that the annexation goals of the ity ir.clde the
a:-w.exir.g of two square miles over a ten year period, 1998-2008 The anr.exation
gcals include providing better services withir. the unin~orporated ~a to generate
revenues for t"te City. Competition has been taking place with Lar 0 regs:ding the
pmperties nolU of 126th A v~ue, which ~ within the LDJ"go sew r district. Largo
has accumulated numerous sewer indentures on these properties would li~e the
annexation boundary to be Ulmerton Road.
City Manager Mudd stat~ that PineUas Park staff is confident. the
can be met with the annexation bo\L"l.dary at Ulmerton Road.
importance of sewer rates staying reasonable and the need to ens
the Highpoint Fire District.
exation goals
stated was the
~ no change to
s
CITY OF pJELLAS PARK
WORKSHOP MEETTG M~UTES
NO' ~mER 9,1999
I
I
i
1 d.'..' l ; ; J .1.1: 1 I
, I
~
'_",. 1 .('11.,-,
e
City :-'bnager Mu~rj prcfi')scd to Cotl:~cil (0 g~Ilcrally rc:co(,aiz~ U nertG:1 Road a5
an anncl.alion boundary with the exception of the Exxon, the nrst ,mon propcrties
and the ?arcels in between. Sewer service would hl...e to be provi ed by Largo at
a reasonable rate after a rate analysis is per1<.;rr;1ed. Any agreem : t reached \\ith
Largo would have to be contingent OD a tn-party agr:ement whi h provides thut
Highpoint fire Sta~on would continue to service it's area and th ' Cour.ty would
f'r~vide revenUC5 to Pinellas Park for lhe portie'n oftlult di:;trict Yo ,~ch :s Largo.
Councilwoma.'1 Bailey asked if Managel tvbdd ft::lt that tbi : f.roposal was
achievable. i:
City Manager Mudd stated that this was more achievable than p. .iou'l proposalS.
Councilr.1an Williams asked if this would protect the newly
Hotel.
'.:xed Radisson
City Manager Mudd stated t.h.c.t lte hctel is already within the Cityil' fPindbs 'Park
and '.vill contL'1u~ to be withir. the annex5tioi'l boundary. '
Cowi~jlma.'1 WilliaII~s asked if Largo is willing to give tip the inde. tured properties
\\1thiO PinelIas Park's area. r
I
Cil)' Manager Mudd sta!ed t1tat from convers:.itions witb Largo Cit Manager Steve
Stanton, it appears thet Largo would be -Nil!ing to give up in entures within
Pinellas Park's an!'1exation area.
City Manager Mudd stated that the yalue of the properties betwee: 125th Avenue
and Ulroertofl Road are ~bout twice the value oftbose properties b 'f':er. Uimerton
Road and 140th Avenue.
La:go Assistant City Manager Ross stated that the La:go Conuni sion ,J,'ould like
Cit)' Council tJ not ar.nex any prop:rty oorth of Ulmerton Road U:,' an agreement
can be reached. It was suggested that Council table the anr~ext~in of the Exxon
station at the Novemb::- 10, 1999 Council Meeting.
Mayor Mischler stated that t.~ property owner for the Exxon 51atio bas volunta.rily
agreed to 3OJ\exa!ion and there is a signed agreernent at tHs poin I
;
I
Largo Assist3.'1t City Manager Ress stat~d he would report th~ C '$ position on
annexation lmd the City's willingness to withhold from future ann' xation north of
Ulmerton dn:ing this negotiation process.
Councilman Williams asked if C0lll1cil agreed witb the informati City Manager
Mudd presented regarding this issue.
6
CITY OF PI LLAS PARK
'VORKSHOP MEETI 'G MINUTES
NO MBER 9, 1999
I
I
!
f
i _. / .' i." ,i,.'. .1') ,_Hi: l'~
":. ...,,' 'i-1'"'"..1
e e
CO'.lnCil req"Jes:d Mr. Gohovae'; itJorm Anthony M~t:n.a, MOUl Development
Corporation, about a possible law:luit or the building of a lift stltti n.
city Manager Mudd stated that Staff will continue to collect infonn tion to provide
to Council at the next workshop.
W8
I
For a number of years Cty Council has suspended the bidding d advertising
reqdrement3 of Chapter 2 "Administration", Article 6, City P chases, for the
period after and the expected arrival of an approaching hurricnn , by adopting a
Resolution declaring a state of emergenc.y that included language (I r suspension of
acvertising and bidding. This has been done to provide City Co eit input as to
w~eo these provisions would be suspended. However, Section 2-6 2 does contain
language that suspends the advertising and bidding requirements the event of a
lo~ d:~st:r of catastrophe. Section 2-602 specifies that 1his prQ:eC.ure requires
v.7itten Mayoral approval to enter into contracts; 'Jiith Council bbing notified of
s\:.ch action as soon as possible. Another way to suspend the ~dvertising and
bidding requirements would be to add language in Section 2-602 t~pro\'ide for this
su..~.sion of the ad"ertising and bidding in conjunction with the tinellas County
Board of Coumy Commi~sioner's declaration of a state of emergwncy. The thre:
al.emati...es outlined here are: (1) Adopt a Resolution decl ~ng a state of
eoergcr.cy. (2) Follow the procedu.ooe in Section 2-602, (3) Add bn uage to SectiO:l
2-602 v:aivi."lg advertising and bidding requirements in the event f a declaration
cf stat: of emergency being declared by the Board of County Co . ssioners. City
Manag:r M"Jdd asked dire..'tio:1 from City Council regarding the preferer.ce of a
prccedure to follow for suspension of advertising and bidding for uture expected
states of em~rgeney.
Consensus of Council was to follow the provision tJ.uit is currentl . in the Coce of
Ordinances v.i1ich states that if there is a state of emergen:y then ovisions of the
orcU:a:lce are waived and ail that is required is the Mayor's signa e.
l\HSCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Ml FIRST READING OF CHARTRR ORDINANCES
Assistant Attorney Todd stated the first reading v.ill take place at e City Council
Meeting on Thursday, October 28, 1999. Inclusive ....i11 be the ch ges previocsly
discussed by Council at the last L'Iu'ee Workshops. A prominen change is seeD
wi~n the Police provision which makes it morc consist~nt ith the Florija
Statutes defmition of Law Enforcement. The PBA h.as been notifie of the change.
I
CITY OF PIN LLAS PARK
i
WORKSHOP MEETI. ~G MINUTES
OCT BER 26, 1999
I
I
I
9
e
Largo Assistant City Manager Ross joined Council at L'1e table and stated that a lot
ofthjs issue could be resolved if Ulmcrton Road was agreed upon 0iD annexation
boundary .
e
I
I
Councilman Williams asked if Largo is required to provide wer service to
everyone within that bolL"ldary, no matter what City they belong t ,
Attorney Reynolds stated yes they are.
I
Largo Manager Ross stated the policy of Largo is that sewer ser"ic is provided for
properties within th~ir City.
I.
Coun.;ilrnan Butler stated the purpose of annexation is to gc erate fees anJ
revenues so before court cost are spent. this issue shoull! be r~c~1Sid~l."ed by t.'1e
Largo City Commission, r
Largo Manager Ross stated fr.e La.-go Commissio:1 would lIke Council to
reconsider the proposed Ulrnerton Road annexatio:1 lir.e. '
Councilman Taylor stated it is important to know no'" c'ose to ca~ity the Largo
sewer treal'Ilent plant is.
Largo Manager Ross stated he wi] take the infonnation he has obt 'ned back to the
Largo City Officials. .
Council requested Largo Manager Ross convey to the Largo Ci . Officials their
willingness to meet and explore different means to resolve this istue.
Largo Manager Ross stated he \~ill also convey to Largo Cffici.ls that Coencil
treated him nicely end listened to what he said. t
Housh Ghovaee ofNorthside Enginee:ing, (~dissoo Hotel) exp:e~'ed his concerns
over Largo's refu.sa1 to provide serfice. The plans for the hetd are cunently being
reviewed and with the lack of sewer v""ill the construction plans be ,Ie to cor.tinue?
The hotel wiii be constructed Y\ithin 12 to 14 months and th bank needs a
commitment by the end of November on the sewer iss:.u~.
Attorney Reynolds stated that if a letter of conunitment is given the City would
then be contractually obligated to provide sewer service within 'timely manner.
The two ways he sees to acco:nplish this would be to build a ift sta~ion or t~
proceed \\'ith court proceedings.
Mr. Gbovaee stated that another hotel is being built in the Cit)' ofS . Petersburg but
the sewer is provided by Largo and the service is being honored. ,
I,
8
ClTYOFPIN LLASPARK
WORKSHOP MEE !G MINUrES
OCT I BER 26, 1999
,; I ...- J .1
, , c'
_". i-4
" . :. t',... t i "..>
I
City 1<b,"^&"!Udd ,bdd he ",ei"d u iet"" froro >.rg!",. Jar.,gOr Stal1lr,.,
stating thf.t Largo City Commission voted to ~rminale the inter' 411 fl~reem~rrt
with the City. Tr.is agreement pl'Ovides sewer servic.e for Tract A a I d beginning in
January 2000, Largo will be charging the City at a rate of 125%, ich would be
an increase of about $27,0:)0 per year. The [emr also stated that L 'go hus revised
Resolution 16-43 which cl~arly indicate!! that r. argo is "lot obli . ted to provide
sewer s~rvice to properties incorporated into a.'1y other City.
Manager Mudd st:ded that Largo has sent a letter indicating that t~, City of Largo
would r..ot provide sewer service to the new Radi350n Hotellh t ....vas recently
annexed into pir.ellas Parle I,
I
\,
Manager MuJd stated the alternatives to ~ontend \\ith the cha.'1ge,in Tract A are,
10 pay the incr~a.sed rate or ;;O[J~truct a lift ~tatio:l that would t10W~t(l OUI syS'i:m
then into CounTY or St Pe~ersbU1g. Arloth::r alt~:nal:ve is not to ay the increas:
and continue to honor the agreem~t that has be=n ~:l piace since 1 84 a.c.d c.harge
Largo a service charge for reading the water m~t=r3 end C31c:.1lc..tilg the flow.
Attorney Reynolds stated '..bat in the 1980's finellas County g....slltOd Pinellas Park
a sewer district which in~luded the Tract A area, Largo tl)er. p2Ss~J an ordinance
iffipler.1en~ng a st'\vel" district it:cluding Tract A. P:neHns Paik thcl1lSued Lm-go and
PinelllS County to establish the exclusive r.ght to provide Sl::W1: se:vice in Lut
area. Settlement of the lawsuit includ:d a.'1 int~rlocal agreement ~tween Pinellaa
Park and Largo which S'.ated thaf Pin~Uas Park wo~ld baild the 90 cetions system
and Largo would tr"...at the sewag~. Tnis interlocal agTe~rnent no terrnin:u:on
,
date. !
I
Attorney Reynolds stated th3t in his opir.ion Largo has no legal rilM to temnnale
the interl~al agreement and the City is only oblii3ted to co:\tinue '0 pay the 70%.
Attorney Reynolds stated thaI he doe' not ,,,,litigation over this i i ue costing sy
more than $20,000 or takLl1g ~y mo:r~ than nine months to resol"~.
r
City J\tar.ager Mudd stated the alternatives svaiUb!e to Pinelias ~k in reenrd to
Largo not providing sewer service are, not to ann~x intO Largo's s~wet distri.:t, cr
s~ek legal recourse to build a new lift station &ince La."'go is near ca~ac. i ty, or pIJ."Sue
an annexation policy focusing on developed prope~es. I,
,:
COWlcilOliU1 Williams stated he would like to see the Cit)' build ~Uft station that
would enable Pinellas Park to service these pro?erties. I!
I
City Mana~er Mudd stated a lift station would sol\'e the probl of Tract A, the
hotel and Scherer Drive, but would nct. co\':t' the ar~ north ofUl' erton Road.
Mayor Mischler asked if the City moved the ar.nexation lines b ~k to Ulmerton
Road, would Largo still increase the sewer fates? II
7 CITY OF PIN LAS PARK
I
WORKSHOP MEETI G MINVl'ES
OCT 'HER 26, 1999
!
,:/>> 1 :.<~ j,;; 11
r: : ~,::..I'. ~ '"-\" :}.
. . I,
COWlcilman Taytor returned to the Work~hop ot 8:59 P.M. !
Councilman Buller returned to the Workshop at 9:00 P.M.
Mayo~ Mischler stated he has received resident concerns over reli ious functions
for local churches being lis~ed in the City ca1er.dar community ev nts section.
I
Attom~y Reyno:ds stated thot to determine the legality of pu~ng religiously
oriented articles in official publications from 10';31 gO'l:tTh"ll n~S'. a general
proposition it is not to have religious advertising 0:' enn'JUI!ceme ~s in anytrjng
sponsored by the City.
Councilman Taylor staId it woul1 be shorn. nn' to notify th, ~ub\iC of these
community eve:lts or to limit the City's participaticn. I
Consensus of CO'Jncil was to ieave the infonnation in the CitY. Calendar E.l1d
Newsletter. I
Attorney Todd ~tated thB.t if the Ne'.\'sletter has contents wl-.i;h cau$e concern then
those contents could be surroWlded by quotation marks in an atte~pt to '"sanitize"
the production. I
I'
Mayor Mischler p:esented Director Hasburgh ,vith crgarjzer/plar~rs that could be
presented to the members of the Advisory Board. 1\
I'
Consensus of Council was to purchase the orgaDizers/plorJ\crs f1,th. Board.
<4- CITY MANAGER ·
I
\\'7 A1'1'I"'EX.\TlO~S NORTH OF Ill.MERTON ROAD
I;
City Manager Mudd updated City Council on recent develop ents regarding
annexations north of Ulmerton Road and provision of sanitar)' s er service by
Largo for properties ill this area and in Tract A.
City Manager Mudd stated that Largo .~~i~t City Manager \eye Ross was
present and invited him to approach Council with any remarks he ~)' have.
Largo Manager Ross stated he wusjust observing to return a feel' to Largo City
Commission as to where City Council is coming from on this iss e.
I
I
I.
,
I:
I
I'
"
"
i.
I
I
6
CITY OF PIN LAS PARK
WORKSHOP MEETl ' G MINUTES
I
OCT SER 16, 1999
I
I;
I
"
i'
I'
1 ; < ;, '1'.'1
>~.1'. :~_,~~~i:',;-~:;
;_;. i I oJ
e
Cll, 01
T') I '\.. . r:.: T l . '. ~
r . '" 1_. ...J ._& \ ...,,'
, \. F\j<
~14~ 7aTHA'JE' po. BOX 1100
..;~.ELL^S i'A~-<. FL 33780-\ :VC
TRAN8~ITTAL COVBR SHZBT
PLEASE DEL1VER T~E FOLLOWING PAGES
TO: NAME: /C'rn '--;Jey no/d'S
FIRM:
CIn':
TEL. NO.
!,'ROM:
TELECOPIER NO.
y/', I.lA
NAME: .c/ I fI :[1
. , f
CITY:
t r (I '1--./1
1/ rrt1-e ( / f'1{jiV I ~
TEL. NO.
(727) 541-0706
TELECOPIER NO.
(727', 544-7448
-\
''""/( \
. '\ rL
',4f~~
i
I
i
I
I
F'l-jOP@-\
,
;
?>1C~ll-; .
FAX .
SiJNcclA.
I
i
I
,
:
18t:>, ~4~~700
\81J, ~.t/,.7ue
~>H)l~
:.c
r'
r.-t
o
--;
--
:>
o :::v
M"1 0
n 0
w ""71
o 0
:::::J
::~
~
.~
i:
-
-0
U1 ::>
.
I
I
I
I
~
I
.
.
1:;2 ,3t) L'jq i
to{L/C:5>lfd .7]1fOfi11(:titat. !jD/c-y;)e.
(Ct"/ / --10 Crn f1r rN ~-I/t-t 5 ).5 /':/ It a.1-
If ' I l&.
t -" ! . r If
l.,.jr5U. IL/~ c:t..P d. ~, /1 {./.-!'/{.5 Ct
J :
I
DA'4E:
DESCRIPTION:
I --
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ~~__f :NCLUD~NG THIS COVER
PAGE. IF yOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE
THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT. (727-541-07q6)
I
I
I
DOC: TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
DISK: C:\WP51\DOCS
ft
U PAINTCCCN REC"CLEO PAP$R
j',
I:
I .
FR~: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
e
PHONE NO.
~ Dec. 05 1999 11:55AM P2
,-..
--
.
Citv of Largo Florida
Post Oflfre Box 296, LllrgO. tJqrid$ 33779.0296
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
DECEMBER 7. j 999
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation . Commissioner Mary Laurance
B. Pledge ot Allegiance
III. CEREMONIAL
A. Recreation and Parks Department Accreditation Presentation
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES
.
A.
B.
C.
Agenda. Regular Meeting of December 7, 1999
Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 16, 1999
Minutes. Special Meeting of November 23, 1999
V. CITIZEN COMMENT (Any item except public hew"ings.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Procedure for public hearings: motion to hear it.ern,; reading
ofltem; motion 1:0 adopt/deny; discussion; public inPlltlCommission. action.)
A.
Ordinances Second Reading:
1. Ordinance No. 2000-11 -
3. Ordinance No. 2000-20 '
A Voluntary Annexation of Chili's Restauranl
Located at 5430 East Bay Drive, Largo, Upon
Petition by Kimco Largo 139, Inc., and Brinker
Florida, Ine" Case No. A5-37-99
A Voluntary Annexation of a Vacant Tracl of
Land Located Approximately 900 Feet East of US
19 N on the North Side of 142nd Avenue N Upon
Petition by Wayne D. Wallace, Case No. AS.39.
99
Amending the FY 2000 Community Development
Department Budget Adopted by Resolution No
1692 by Appropriating $100,000 of the
Undesignated General Fund Balance to the
Community Development Department for the
Purpose of Funding Two Economic Development
Associate Positions and Associated Equipment
and Operating Costs
2. Ordina~e No. 2000-16 .
.
VII.
CONSENT DOCKET
A. Authorization to Renew GrMt Funds from the Department of Community Affairs, 2000
Stop Violence Against WomM Grant Program, in the Amount of $83,7"
"
FRat1': PanaSoni c FAX S'y'STEM
.
JllIII~
< CD
DI tit
_. fill
-n
II 0
2:"
CD'C
.
VIII.
e
e Dec. 05 1999 11:55AM F3
PHONE NO. :
B.
.~ ,-..,
Approva. Commission Travel Expenses in the Amol. )f $721.52 Incurred by Vice
Mayor Robe~. Jacks~n a~d Commissioner James Mites While Attending the Florida
League of Cltres LegislatIVe Con1eltlance Herd in Orlando, FIQrida, November 18-19
1999 '
Authorization to Purchase 75,000 Pound lift from Steril-KonilOmer, U.S.A., in the
Amount of $63,362 PQr State 01 Florida SNAPS Agreement 522010741-001
Authorization to IS$u~ a On..Year Blanket Purchase Order tor Publications, TradG
Books, Audiovisual Materials, and Other LibralY Services from BakGr and Taylor, Inc.,
for an Estimated Expenditure of $125,000, Ingram Library Services, Inc., for an
Estimated EXpenditurQ of $80,000, the Gale Group for an Estimated Expenditure of
$55.000, Recorded Books, Inc., for an Estimated Expenditure of $22,000. and
E6SCO Subscription Services for an Estimated ExpGnditure of $20,000, in
Accordance with Florida State Contract #715.001-98-1
Authorization to Purchase Two Toro Triplex Tee and Greens Mowers, from Wesco
Turf, Inc. in the Amount of $32,990 in Accordance with City of St. Petersburg Sid. No.
5548
Authorization to Purchase Three Toro 72 Inch Rotary Mowers, From Wesco Turf, Inc.
in the Amount of $31,500, in Aocordance with State of f:"lorida Contract No.
515-630-99-1.
Resolution No, 1700 Amending as Hereinafter Set FOl1h Certain Sections of the
Official City of Largo Legislative Policies Manual
Resolution No. 1701 Accepting a Highway Beautification Grant and Authorizing a
Highway Landscaping Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement for West Bay Drive
with the Florida Department of Transportation
Approval of Bid Exemption and Award of Contract to Designs and Development to
Conduct an Analysis of the Largo Cultural Center and Prepare Business Plan and
Staffing Model in the Amount of $16,000
Authorization 10 SettlQ David Upton's Worker's Compensation Claim fer $23,000
Appointment of Barbara Sotarofti as a Member of the Code Enforcement Board
Appointment of Commissioner Martin Shelby as the City of Largo's Representative
to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council from December 7, 1999, Through March
14,2000
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
OTHER LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
A. Authorization 10 Revise Personnel Rules and Regulations
8, Approval of the Proposed Northward Extension of 119th Street to 16th Avenue S.W.
by Pinel/as Counly .
c. Circulation of Petition for Approval of, and Financial Contribution for, Implementation
of Traffic Improvements on Valentine Trail
D. Approval of the Proposal to Operate the Largo Golf Course Snack Bar by Nick Lalios
and Authorize Staff to Negotiate a Contract in the Amount of $6,000 10r One Year
E. Approval of the Lease Extension to Mid America Festivals Corporation Through June
1, 2000
F. Approval of Renovation of Highland Pool and Proposed Design of the Pre-School
Activity Pool and Award of Contract to Bacon Group, Inc.
G. Approval of Change Order No. 8 to Contract No. 99.C.587, Largo City Hall
Renovation, to J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc., in the Amount of $98,392.35
H. C)'dinances First Reading:
1. Ordinance No. 2000-11-. A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at
2140 Bellesir Road, Clearwater, Upon Petition by
the Owner, Mr. Jurg Weiss, Case No. A5-45-99
2. Ordinance No. 2000-21 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at
15579 US Highway 19 North, Case No. A5.44.99
IX. ITEMS FROM MA VOR, COMMISSION, BOARDS, ADMINISTRA liON, CITY
MANAGER, CITY A TTORNEV
X. ADJOURNMENT
.
; FR'3"1"': Panason i ~ FAX SYSTEM
e
1""..
PHONE NO.
e
Dec. 05 1999 11: 57Ai"1 P4
1"""'"\
.
NOTICE TO PUBUC: City Charter S€Ctlon 2. II(e) reqr,Ji1'SS a ~ prsva/ling Commission vote of 4 to eff~ct 8et,'01l,
ConsequenrJy, any non-City-Initiated action attempted which doss not r~lvB a vot9 of 4, either lor or against. is svo-;;;tiO
reConsideration lJpon writl9n rBqU6$t. By Commission policy, COnsideration of Citv.lnltlatl1cf items, r~olutions 8f/d ordinances r9sulting
In Sf lack of 4 l'Ot9$, either for or against. shall be oontinwrJ (Including public hearing, if sny) at the next r9{}ulsr ~rfng.
No items, IJXCGpt those of ~n introductory nature to be conl>idered al ii later date, sf/all be addgd /0 the Comtr.isl>ion meeting aget'l<ia
except by., two-Ihif'ds (2/3) vote of ttJe S8Ven (7) membBr Commission.
The public may speSk on all IIPms listed on the agenda. P#1rsons wishing to sp9ak on IJn agenda item shaN (ill out a Speaker's Card
aM submit It to thB City Clerk prior to the issue being hHrd by the Commission. Public dltbatB by incfividtJa/ $peak9rS from the
audience shall be limJled to three (3) minutes. RlJp/'f$entatives of reClOgnized grovp8 shall be I1mited to ten (10) minutes, and total
debate on a single Issue shalf bf1 Omited ro thirty (30) mirlutes. Only one (1) pr9simtation per p9rson per Iswe shall be allowed.
Speakers will confine thf/lr comlTlflnts to the agenda item being discussed. DlsCvssion from the pu/J/ic shall be consJdflred only alter
th9 Comm/ulon has debaTed the iUue. The Chair shan recognlz9 all speakers ane aN comments shaff be directed to the Chair,
Questions from 1/1$ pl.Jblic: will be directed by the Chair to the City Mana{J9l'. who w;J/ respond or direct the question to the ~proprlare
staff person. If the question 9tlnnot be answsr9(j at the m.elfng, the c:hair will dlr9Ct the City Manager to provide the information at
a later date or sohedule a m99t1ng with the citize/J.
Any pflrson who decides 10 appeal any d6Cislon af th. Govemlng body with respect to ilny m~t1er COfl$/derec at ItJls meeting WJIIIl99d
a record of /he proceedings, which record ;Mludes /he testImony and .vidence upon which rhe appeal is based.
The City of Largo Is committed to providing I'9Il$onable accommodation for aeesss fOf the disabled. Anyone nelldlng a$~i$~nC9 with
~g8.rd to a City Commission me.ting should contact the City CI9rf<'$ Office (587-6710) or l.ibralY TiJ,tJ, Line (587.1j.778) at IBllst one
W66k prior to the mesting,
.
.
1""""
."~~~LO' 11/( ",
\.~ ~'I"""""~X-
..'!'".., -~.~~
:c:s~\ .1/ 7f'.rT1 ~ ~.
:2.(-'-~~
..... . - ~~..
-~'" . ,,~\
~ ~/A:' 4.'S:: \\
':T'J'J '''11'' ~ ~\
""")1TE~,,,,'.
"II"
e
C
e
ITY OF
CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE Box .f7 -i8, C LEAR\'(A TER, F LORlOA 337 58-'.p 48
CITY Hill, 112 SOLTH OSCEOL\ .\\1::\LE, CLEo\R\XATER, FLORIDA 33 -56
TELEPHO:\E C2, 562..W'iO F,,"x (-2":') 562-4052
Cm CO~~lISSIO\
December 3, 1999
The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster
City of Largo
Post Office Box 296
Largo, Florida 33779-0296
The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks
Board of COtulty Commissioners
315 Court Street, Room 501
CleaIWater, Florida 33756
The Honorable Cotulcilmember Robert Kersteen
Chairman, Pinellas Planning Cotulcil
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850
CleaIWater, Florida 33755-4160
Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen:
I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case A5-45-99) by the City of Largo north of
Bellelli- Road adjacent to the municipal botuldaries of the City of CIeJ.rwater and within the City of Cbrwater's
Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts. The City of CleaIWater opposes the proposed annexation and would like
to share with you our concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this matter.
The City of CleaIWater believes that the proposed annexation by the City of Largo violates or is inconsistent '\\~th the
Interlocal Agreement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas Cotulty; the Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of
Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas COtulty ("the Tri-Cries Agreement"); Water and Sewer Service Area;
the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida Statutes regarding
municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described below.
Interlocal A~reement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas Cotulty
On January 14, 1992, the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas Cotulty entered into an agreement that established a
formal CleaIWater planning area according to a map and legal description. The Interlocal agreement granted CleaIWater
the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city boundaries. In
addition, the Agreement grants the City of CleaIWater the ability to annex properties within the designated planning area
and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed.
O:\E (In O:\E FLTIRE.
BRl\."i J. Al\GST, MAYOR-CO.\l.\\lSSiO"iER
ED HOOPER, VICE ~1.\YOR-CO.\I..\\lSSIO\ER
ED HART. CO.\l.\\lSSIO\ER5
*
BOB CL\RK. Cml.\IIsSIO\ER
],B IOH\SON. Cml..\\lSSIO\ER
"EQL\.L E.\IPLm~.!E';T .\.\D AFFIR..\l.\TI\T ,\C'>',\ E':PLC','?,"
....
e
e
The southern edge of Clearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however, there are several parcels south of
Belleair Road which, according to City records, had previously been annexed and were included in the Planning Area.
These parcels south of Belleair Road were annexed by dearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of
Belleair Road approved in 1989. There has been some speculation that the City of Clearwater annexed properties south
of Belleair Road after the 1992 agreement. Both the City derk's office and the Planning Department research this and
fonnd that no annexation to dean vater south of Belleair ocClliTed after the interlocal agreement.
The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and clearly within the Clearwater
Planning Area as defmed by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed annexation were approved, it would represent an
intruSion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park. St. Petersb~ and Pinellas Coonty ("the Tri-Cities
Agreement")
On November 13, 1990, the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County entered into an
agreement which established the T ri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area. Similar to the City of Clearwater's Interlocal
Agreement with the County, the T ri-Cities Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning
area in the individual city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no
change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed.
The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area establishes Belleair Road as the
northern boundary reflecting deaIWater's Planning Area beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation,
if approved, would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the T ri-Cities
Agreement.
Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority
On October 1, 1999, the City of dearwater entered into a ten-year agreement with the Pinellas Coonty Fire Protection
Authority which establishes a specific geographic area within which dearwater will provide fire protection service,
whether or not the property is \\o~thin the City boundaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas
Connty does not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated properties. In general, the
municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire Service Authority to
provide the service. The general boundaries of Clearwater's exclusive fire service area are Curlew Road on the north to
Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater Bay to Old Tampa Bay.
In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments have an automatic aid agreement
which provides response when the primary fire department is not able to respond or when additional service is needed
for an event. The location of the proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to
respond for an event. Funding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of unincorporated
areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values. Therefore, if this property is annexed by the
City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to
pay for the fire protection sen~ces.
Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the proposed annexation is in
conflict with the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas
Connty. In addition, the funding formula would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other
agreements would compel the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding returned to
dearwater.
e
e
Water and Sewer Service Area
In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the Gty of Clearwater's sewer and
water districts. The Gty of Clearwater developed long-range utility plans based on the bO\.ll1daries of the sewer and
water districts and has entered into financing arrangements and expended funds to provide utility service to the sewer
and water serv~ce districts. The City also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area
agreement benveen the City of Clearwater and the Gty of Largo which also defmes Belleair Road as the service area
boundary.
Clearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort regarding a wide range of
services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal boundaries. In the absence of these kinds of
boundaries and agreements, local governments and its citizens are hanned through inefficient expenditures for services
and/ or litigation that should be avoided. The City of CleaIWater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent
with State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation.
In summary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the City of Largo and requests the City to
carefully consider these objections.
Sincerely,
i3~ j .~;3f-
Brian J. Aungst
Mayor
cc: Gty of Clearwater Commission Members
Michael Roberto, City Manager
Pamela Akin, City Attorney
""","
,"Q..(. ~LOF 111E ",
,.-\ \)\:'.,,,,,, ~~*-
\L",- I._I ",~...-
\~,". ~.._~~
"~.' I, ~ 0-
,~~,"~ ..:-..
:C":l::- '." c:x:~
':.~\ ~\
':.~ .... .... ~~
_"l>/";;,, ,.,~'\.<:::s"
':Tfy~ "" "{V \
..,.,)1TE~. III'
"'~IIII
e
C
e
ITY OF CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-47'-!8
Cll! H-\lL. 112 50lTH OSCEOL-\ A\;'E\LE, CLF..-\RW.-\TER, FLORIDA 33 -56
TELEPHO\E C2"l 562--1050 F.-\X C2"l 562--1052
CrTI' CO~I~!!SSIO'.;
Decembed,1999
The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster
City of Largo
Post Office Box 296
Largo, Florida 33779-0296
The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks
Board of CoWlty Commissioners
315 Court Street, Room 501
deaIWater, Florida 33756
The Honorable Councilmember Robert Kersteen
Chairman, Pinellas Planning CoWlcil
600 develand Street, Suite 850
deaIWater, Florida 33755-4160
Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen:
I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case A5-45-99) by the City of Largo north of
Belleair Road adjacent to the municipal bOWldaries of the City of Clearwater and within the City of Clerrwater's
Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts. The City of CleaIWater opposes the proposed annexation and would like
to share with you our concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this mauer.
The City of CleaIWater believes that the proposed annexation by the City of Largo violates or is inconsistent with the
Interlocal Agreement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas CoWlty; the Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of
Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas COWlty ("the Tri-Cities Agreement"); Water and Sewer Service Area;
the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida Statutes regarding
municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described below.
Interlocal A~eement between the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas CoWlty
On January 14, 1992, the City of CleaIWater and Pinellas CoWlty entered into an agreement that established a
formal CleaIWater planning area according to a map and legal description. The Interlocal agreement granted Clearwater
the ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city bOWldaries. In
addition, the Agreement grants the City of CleaIWater the ability to annex properties within the designated planning area
and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed.
O\E CrTI'. O\E Fl"TIRE.
BRl\.", J. AC:-;GST, .'o1AYOR-Cml\;IlSSIO:-;ER
ED HOOPER. VICE MAYOR-CO\;l\;llSSIO:-;ER
ED HART. CO\;1\;llSS10:-;ER
*
BOB CL\RK. CO\;l.\llSSIO:-;ER
J ,B. JOH\SO\, Cml.\IlSSIO:-;ER
"EQL',-\I. E.\\PLOY\\E\T ,\.'.;D ..\.FFIR.\;l-\ m 'E :\CT:O\ E\\PLOYER"
e
e
The southern edge of Clearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however, there are several parcels south of
Belleair Road which, according to City records, had previously been annexed and were included in the Planning Area.
These parcels south of Belleair Road were annexed by dearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of
Belleair Road approved in 1989. There has been some speculation that the City of Clearwater annexed properties south
of Belleair Road after the 1992 agreement. Both the City Clerk's office and the Planning Department research this and
found that no annexation to Clearwater south of Belleair occurred after the interlocal agreement.
The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and clearly within the Clearwater
Planning Area as defined by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed annexation were approved, it would represent an
intruSion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement.
Interlocal A eement amon the Cities of Lar 0 Pinellas Park St. Petersb
A~eement")
and Pinellas Cam "the Tri-Cities
On November 13, 1990, the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County entered into an
agreement which established the Tri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area. Similar to the City of Clearwater's Interlocal
Agreement with the CotU1ty, the T ri-Cities Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning
area in the individual city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no
change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed.
The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area establishes Belleair Road as the
northern boundary reflecting Clearwater's Planning Area beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation,
if approved, would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Tri-Cities
Agreement.
Fire Services A~eement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority
On October 1, 1999, the City of Clearwater entered into a ten-year agreement with the Pinellas Coonty Fire Protection
Authority which establishes a specific geographic area within which Clearwater will provide fire protection service,
whether or not the property is within the City boundaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas
County does not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated propenies. In general, the
municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire Service Authority to
provide the service. The general boundaries of Clearwater's exclusive fire service area are Curlew Road on the nonh to
Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater Bay to Old Tampa Bay.
In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments have an automatic aid agreement
which provides response when the primal)' fire department is not able to respond or when additional service is needed
for an event. The location of the proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to
respond for an event. Funding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of unincorporated
areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values. Therefore, if this property is annexed by the
City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to
pay for the fire protection services.
Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the proposed annexation is in
conflict with the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas
County. In addition, the funding formula would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other
agreements would compel the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding returned to
Clearwater.
. ..
e
e
Water and Sewer Service Area
In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the City of Clearwater's sewer and
water districts. The City of dearwater developed long-range utility plans based on the bonndaries of the sewer and
water districts and has entered into financing arrangements and expended funds to provide utility sen~ce to the sewer
and water service districts. The City also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area
agreement between the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo which also defmes Belleair Road as the service area
bonndary.
dearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort regarding a wide range of
services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal boundaries. In the absence of these kinds of
boundaries and agreements, local governments and its citizens are hanned through inefficient expenditures for services
and/ or litigation that should be avoided. The City of Cleanvater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent
with State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation.
In summary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the City of Largo and requests the City to
carefully consider these objections.
Sincerely,
13~ j .Ih- vr-
Brian J. Anngst
Mayor
cc: City of Clearwater Commission Members
Michael Roberto, City Manager
Pamela Akin, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
9. Recreational Facilities: The City is currently providing adequate recreation facilities.
The level of service will be maintained for the area to be annexed, based on the City's
Comprehensive Plan standards. This annexation has the potential to result in
approximately 52 new residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and
would place a burden on the Largo Recreation Department proportionate to this
potential population increase.
10. Libraries: The City's library is located at 351 East Bay Dr., and could provide service
to this area. The only change caused by annexation of the site will be that the existing
millage (ad valorem) levied for County Library Services (Co-op) (currently .5 mills) will
be eliminated the City will now pay for library service to the area from their general
fund with the use of the additional revenues received from the City of Largo millage
(currently 3.4000 mills). This annexation would result in approximately 52 new
residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on
the Largo library system proportionate to this potential population increase.
11. Other Comments: The subject annexation area is located entirely within the City of
Clearwater Planning Area, water service area, wastewater treatment plant area, and
fire district as set forth in Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan and interlocal agreements
between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County.
The proposed annexation represents the extension of Largo's municipal jurisdiction
into that area planned for, served by, and proposed to be annexed by the City of
Clearwater. This annexation represents a clear conflict with the available means by which
a municipality can logically plan for its ultimate boundaries as Clearwater has done in this
case and is counterproductive to the efficient delivery of services and meaningful
intergovernmental coordination.
Largo should reconsider and not proceed with this annexation.
5
--
, ..', .:.,:~ "'~:'",.,:;""."" '........ PASCO COUNTY
.....' .. ,<". f;" .<, .:;:"""'; ,'."
"; ?";?l:"J?J(}0,"Oc'<',:: ;';'~?'s,:':".;:'<~':';;~~ (' m-
\i:;:;^V,: ,:,>".-. ..~'::.:,'+:~ I)F: -- ~ """'-1-4<.
';-S' ,.:,<~'<",2~:~~~ o.r 1"("
. ;:,"'::'.,,-,...' _ :..' II
,;, ;'-". ,;~,,',;' -"- .
".'" > "ir, ;' f' ,i;> '" Ir' ; ~ i
">~; ~~- .-' y
~2{~ . '"
-- ~
:~~
_"n ...... ':Y
/' i 1~.7:6
:1 II) ~;0;:;A..
:} .~ - III --- - ~::~~~;~
fi "- I ,';;;:'"
... ' ~7e ~~-,.- ~.. ~ ~
;J/J---' ~ \i.
r Ie ...," J ~ IOn .n ..
;;:i~',;r ·
~ f ~ ..~,... ....
~
8
I
~.~~:~~
11
;'
1",
F
'.'
;,
;'-~"
%:
....,t:
ijr>;:.
JlOOIO[1.T ::';;-*5:
" V
i~
\ t ~~
!
\i/~
lJ ,,_ _ f/
.
. .,.
j-: I ~
~.' 1_ L"
'~:~:?.:'
~~
.' ~. .
,'J:>..! ~; ;=
.'",,"""II:"lIII .... ,';'! ~ i... .... !! c:
1~~C"":" ~ ~ ~.... ~
,,~': ,.; , ....,.., ... i!
G l\l p'~
.J'. ~lfj1' ~ (. :-~ I:~
;'..:~.: ~
lR;~f i ~. -'::;'
.;;" ': ,,,:' il~J,r .~.':"." }j:'
./.::,.:", ~;,c.'. ,<.;J . . ,'" ." .. 111 '..
:;:,.,;,., ff~~~~~ .;'.<",;';';.,' ,::,' :'. '~:Ci'-'
'.':~' ',-',' ";,<",.,,-,,:,,,~. :-:. :":,.; 0,';'::-.'.,' < ""
c. 'C.;.' ,,-. ,',"'<,.";':' 'c.:.',::; ......"". ........ " :.,':,:....,,;,......>c:.,,;::~c' .:,
~..Y["
(
'-",?5:~--~'--:
i~ > :~~::.~
...,
C'.'
'E
',' 'c
. .
nGURE 1
CASE NO. ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10
LARGO
~
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
~~
~ .;....
~"
{.
}
~:.
'.'
:~ ~,
.-,..>
~~
...
~.,
" .:....._,-....,-:.'.--.
:;x>: :~.<.,..,
~
GIW'WCS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF nlE PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. lU( SKITH
Produced bylltDlT V2,1. Cop)'ricbl 11l91.18g2 PineUu County. Florida Property Appraiser. All Riahta ae.er.ed.
e e
TI1 I ' I
I 11 '1 I ~
I AAcn"'" !lA'<\: ,
J I
I l I IS
, , ~ IS
..
! =
IS "')
i - L
f-- ~
IS f-- ~
-
-
OAKAOtA CAlVE
f- _ I
(7 ....
f--
I-- f-- "^' ~
I-- IS~' !I--~ I!i
~-lf ht~J IS
. - >-- .
. I--- IS
. iJ == .....; .....
Jft
'r I/-- IS
If
a iG
e
~ ~ y .
i I~ ~K\
~=
f--
ilU
f--
I ..
~ '
_~...~:.:.....' Jt,~..d '"" .; c;: ,.;;' ~ I ..
~ \;~i';~~';.. ..~'~~:~~~ .\'" .) rJ' '121 -; .' JlR .. .<,'. .' ~ J~~I I I
,~,;,.: t:,'. . > ,.. 2;\,' /...,' <:, :::'fil,,',>,:1NS ,.'~ i I :1 i
..", 1<',:;7 '.:'~' .",:-.c,..,;>,.uo" ."-
~,.>; :....' ..1'/91.\ W'. "~ .'.;;, ...-:. .'~ . "
.~,,~,"'., .. Uti"-', >:e... .1' i\I!!I.Fl [(':. '::. L'<,.: ~.,". ;'. "-
..,.":' . ': :ytll';T,l';-'/ ',-'1,:' :..' ,"\.
_"" .. ., 1--:- ,\ ~'.. . .'.' .. . ."\.
~.".'.'~ :~I"~~;;~~':Y'> -':>'..>-<.": ~.~':)~'(lL-.,.s'.'l" ",', :.'"\. "'TIC[~'j /< lOJ.()
~ ,... ,_; .,.as ' ,_, I'\: '.. I 'C
:~t.{ ';".:-;~{; .....;:..: '- ~ ." .' X -- ""'"
#c' ',... " . 7~:.._.;:, .''--,- ' . 'I ":'1.' ,'C.:;' r:--
: ~- 'i ~ 'jj ~::\~.. if :;:~ .:;:,:.< to. t,l' ( ~..... ~T$ :;)
~ ~;~,t:? ., '"~.;~:".>' ~'..J_ I,~ R:7alotLrl'
1~~~.~~1I2.,<---- ~ C> <J, ~".: ...:-;~jlJJesl+ ~ I I at \~
t~
'. ~/'
~.
,",,'1
,0<;.":
IS IS
..TlR as
\
...,,'"
, ..,,:<,~.;~
\\
"
Kit I L
- I--
IEl..LEAlR
...~
.
-
I I RIj
[PlVE
pu. I
I I
--,... ~"'---
I I 1 ~
...(/
II-
............-............
:au
C"-~'':'''\
_.:'~
I-
INS
~
I ~III
F[~
- on
~
.uu _
~
~ ~;=
FIGURE 2
ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10
LARGO
_ CITY OF CLEARWATER
~~!.flf'J{:,
,-"v.'",'C',,"'" CITY OF lARGO
r'-"~.4::;:'''' --:' ;.--;::- ~
~
SCALE: 600'
~
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFF1CE OF PINEWS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. 1IM SWJTH
GRAPHICS CREATED USING WEDIT VERSION 2.1 0
..
e
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
While there will be no additional sewer impact directly associated with the annexation,
sewer use could increase by approximately 5,334 gpd subsequent to development of
the subject site.
Additionally, since the proposed annexation is outside of Largo's defined sewer
service area and within Clearwater's defined sewer service area, the City of Largo is
may be precluded from extending sewer lines outside the City of Largo's legally
defined sewer boundaries into Clearwater's sewer service area in order to serve the
subject site.
4. Solid Waste: Collection of solid waste can be provided by the City of Largo. The City
has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County for the disposal of solid waste. All
of the City's solid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County Resource Recovery
Plant.
5. Transportation: The site is located on the northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and
Belcher Rd. The Level of Service for the portion of Belcher Rd. from Belleair Rd. to
Nursery Rd. is LOS E and LOS B from Belleair Rd. to East Bay Dr. The Level of
Service for the portion of Belleair Rd. that serves the subject site is LOS F from Keene
Rd. to US Highway 19. Because the site is not developed, additional traffic impacts
will not be generated as a result of this annexation, but could occur as a result of
subsequent development.
Belleair Rd. is currently a County road (CR 116) and this annexation would not affect
the County's jurisdiction or responsibility for maintenance of the road.
6. Police: This area is now served by the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office; however,
upon annexation, the City of Largo can assume responsibility for police protection.
This annexation is expected to result in approximately 52 new residents within the City
(22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on the Largo Police
Department proportionate to the increase in area/population represented by this site.
7. Fire: The area proposed to be annexed is currently within the Clearwater Fire District.
While the fire district boundaries will not formally change, annexation will affect the fire
and rescue services that are currently being provided, because the City of Largo
proposes to take over those responsibilities. After annexation, the fire service millage
collected in unincorporated Pinellas County for the City of Clearwater, would be
eliminated and the subject property would be assessed the City of Largo millage
(currently 3.4000 mills), a portion of which is dedicated to funding the Largo Fire
Department.
8. Emergency Medical Service: EMS is already provided to this site and the current
countywide EMS millage of .7130 would continue to be levied on an ad valorem basis
to support this service which is provided on a countywide basis.
4
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW
PPC ANNEXATION REPORT: No. 99-10
CITY: Largo (A5-45-99)
ACREAGE: 14.24 Acres ( 0.046% of City)
GENERAL LOCATION: Northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd.
REVIEW COMMENTS:
1. Contiguity/Compactness: The site is contiguous to municipal boundaries on the site's
southern boundary. However, the site has more of its periphery adjacent to the City
of Clearwater. The site is contiguous to Clearwater to the north and east.
Additionally, annexation of the site into Clearwater would be more compact (as
defined in Chp. 171, F.S.) than if it were annexed into Largo (See Figure 2).
The site is not currently an enclave nor would its annexation create an enclave.
2. Water: Citywide Capacity: While there will be no additional water impact directly
associated with the annexation, water consumption could increase by approximately
5,334 gallons per day (gpd) (based on 8.89 acres X 2.5 units /acre X 240 gpd/unit)
upon development of the subject site. Additionally, whether or not the subject site is
annexed or not, the subject site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater water
system service area and will remain as such.
Moreover, the City of Clearwater Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal No.
27 states that the City of Clearwater seeks to coordinate the delivery of urban services
and annex all of the property in its water service area. Given this goal and the
associated judicial rulings relative to the City of Clearwater's authority to require
annexation as a condition of providing water service, the City of Largo cannot provide
water service to this site absent Clearwater's specific agreement to provide water
service.
The City of Largo does not own or operate a water service/delivery system and
therefore cannot provide water to the subject area. Largo receives its water service
from Pinellas County. Pinellas County's water service area is currently south of
Belleair Rd.
3. Sewer: Citywide Capacity: Whether or not the site is annexed, the subject property
is located entirely within the City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer district. Wastewater
treatment would normally be provided by the City of Clearwater's East Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which has an average daily flow of 3.34 million gallons per day (mgd)
(FY1995), and a capacity of 5.0 mgd.
3
Jl
...
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
See attached annexation review form for details of each municipal service to be provided.
Based upon the accompanying data and analysis, staff submits the following findings for
consideration regarding the subject request:
1. The subject property is contiguous to the existing City boundaries on the subject properties
southern side. The property is also contiguous to the city of Clearwater on its northern and
eastern sides.
2. The City has the ability to provide police, fire, solid waste disposal, recreation, and library
services for the site being annexed. Emergency Medical Service will continue to be
provided on a countywide basis.
3. The City does not have the ability to provide water or sewer service to the site.
4. The parcel is within the City of Clearwater Planning Area and has been designated on
Clearwater's Future Land Use Map pursuant to Chp. 163.3171(1) and 163.3177(6)(a),
F.S., and as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between the County and Clearwater.
5. The subject parcel is located outside of the area delineated under the Tn-Cities Interlocal
Agreement between Largo, Pinellas Park, St.Petersburg, and the County.
6. The parcel is classified Residential Suburban and WaterlDrainage Feature under the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan and is not proposed to change as a function of this
annexation.
Based on the considerations set forth in this report and the accompanying findings, it is
recommended that the Council find the City does not have the ability to serve the subject
annexation area as to water and sewer pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Section 5(12).
Additionally, Largo should not proceed with this annexation absent formal agreement with the
City of Clearwater to provide said services.
2
I AGENDA ITEM: IV B.
I MEETING DATE: December 15,1999
..
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Annexation Report No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
RECOMMENDATION:
Council, Based on the Accompanying Finding No.3, Adopt a Finding that the City of Largo
does not have the Ability to Provide Water and Sewer Service to this Area and Authorize this
Finding be Transmitted to the City.
Further, given that this site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater Planning Area,
and also within the water, sewer, and fire service areas of the City of Clearwater, it is
recommended that the City of Largo not annex this property, absent formal agreement with
the City of Clearwater to provide said services.
BACKGROUND:
Section 5(12) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, requires the Council to review and
make a recommendation to the affected municipality for each annexation of ten (10) acres or more
as to the ability of the municipality to provide municipal services to the territory to be annexed.
Annexation No. 99-10 is a 14.24 acre tract (comprised of 8.89 acres of upland, 3.36 acres of
water, and 2 acres of Belcher Rd.) located on the northwest comer of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd.
The subject area is currently vacant.
The annexation's final public hearing before the Largo City Commission will be held on January
4, 2000.
The City of Largo has indicated in its staff report that either it will provide, or agreement with
another service provider will be obtained for: water, sewer, solid waste collection, police, fire,
and Emergency Medical Services. City recreational and library facilities will also be available
to this area.
I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
tI\.!SERS\ WPDOCS\LL!\CASES\99 ANNIAIo'l'"99-1 O.lar. wpd
I I -c-.-H
, :'
II' ill. i i 'j I-~:.:,.
1, rl"I\~ i j I,
{eN\1t IY idr i I ;[
l- ffiHj' I
f-- .--r'
:=" I ..~~~
VI ~~"
0NP!CIHE GT en' - ~L,-,N~ [DI~
!!iJ. \ ,
~ t 1, \ I I
:!j1,\2==\- \, ccA 1 A I ,., [
-ti
____,-el
-t\
W~Y -+:
--..J..
I
I '\ I
I I '\ NURSERY RD
e
l,IL-L .1.lI..liA I HRJ' II
I
=EBffi
/
J
,. l~.L_ I ^
- -
~I
- - i I- --.I.~f-
j) ~)f-
PA~Dlf CR -I f--~ ~
--f J: -;
y/ ==i ~
-'t ~
< 0
~~
>iJ I '"
~~ ~.-
BELLEAIR ROAC
f---<
'--
,,:.' ;"1
., . '. ,
..':Ul,.' .
;;>~ I) .~
>:':;;~ ,
"f",' ;~.
,:'"''
.,'
,...:...- ,,'~ .e: I "
I;",,:I}.;:: VI> ,. '..
I---. ,,\ ,....-.:
~~~~ I:. -. 6
'~'.<:4% _I,
Case:
Subject:
Location:
A5-45-99
Jurg Weiss Annexation
2140 Belleair Road
24t2S15{)000Q/4400600 and R-O-W
I
I I
I
I I I
_' I
I
,
I[ia-!
'il~
Ilrlf5-
-=-
i I I I :
J
[
I
-I
I I
,
C
-
c~
-
f--
L--
I
<: .,. I
..' '.'~' i
-'^~
, j I.
..':
1;/ i
.... I BA~~f1Al R i
.<;
':~ I I I I
;',:
. 1<
, ,.,';- ':,",'
WIK ~n L
. n~~ JR
T r1'
IIIII
~ V ,L 'i'05 I--~--
I, i- ~~_
I .-- - f--ff
f--g-wri
I ~F:~ =t; 8=
\ ~-= -~
~ -- -r-i
J...., ..:::z",--_"
,.....
a:
L
en
~
~ ~
....
a:
~ 1t
- -
z/
I
I
I
./...........
:= WJ II
=,' .>
~ f-I
I ;~+__J-
'W
,\7-
(\
I I
\-.J
1--
/
. .' :." /"., I. "
. ~:. 2)SJ;:'
.. ~~~'~~~ .
I- "
o :;';;;'1:'"'"
;~';L~:/. I." ",:
" ;
'.,
;",::\...
.',
-
r--
-
~
--'
ffi I - =
t; -')--
w ::::r---- ,--
~ 1: --(J-
z
3:
v
~
;;=:::
--
I r:.\ f
I{ I. \(~
I I II \~
I-fmHffil--
l-- I- l-
I- t-
I--
I--
I--
I--
I--
t---
t---
I----
~ N
Subject Property ~
Largo City Limits Scale: 1" = 500'
{J/(Jtlruh/erlA . It>>; I is-
,./
CD
(p
@
@
@
([;)
...
e
e
ANNEXATIONS SOUTH OF BELLEAIR ROAD
BUSINESS LOCATION ADDRESS DATE OF REASON FOR ATLAS
NAME ANNEXATION ANNEXATION PAGE #
&
ORDINANCE
No.
Bellegreen Place 1601 South Greenwood 12/18/1986 & Sewer service 322A
(1-5) * 1103 Belleair Road 04/20/1989
1149 Belleair Road lI()rd.~. 4251-
1153 Belleair Road 86 & ~764-88 - -t//ttJ/ U
1155 Belleair Road :J --
1604 Missouri Avenue ItfJB/80
(Walgreen)
1610 Missouri Avenue
(Barnett Bank)
~ 18167 US 19 North 12/19/1985 Sewer service 326A
Properti . 41/1.1.... > (AT A) No. M&B
tt1 pi r ..... 85-35-257 22/02
Southridge * * 1400-1498 Southridge 2/01/65 Sewer service 323A
Subdivision Drive ~rd. No. 1048
Belmont Trailer 901 Belleair Road 12/8/58 Sewer service 326A
Park *** Ord. No.803 M&B
22/01
Allen Creek C/o 2535 Success Drive 07/16/98 Sewer service 318A
Properti Odessa, FL Ord. No 6284- M&Bs
/hj//'!t!A/ If 98 22/01 &
33/07
Belleair Amoco 1495 Belleair Road 12/8/58 Sewer service 323A
Ord. No. 803
Pitter Patter 833 Belleair Road 5/16/60 Sewer service 322A
Preschool Ord. No. 864
Manovic Ahmed 835 Belleair road 5/16/60 Sewer service 322A
Ord. No. 864
Note:
* This property is located south of Belleair Road running from Greenwood Avenue to Missouri Avenue
and more particularly including Lots 3, 4, 14, 16, 18, 19,20,21 and 22 , Loveland Subdivision
together with right-of-way of Belleair Road abutting Lots 16, 18, 19,2021, & 22 of said Loveland
Subdivision. And right~of-way on Missouri Avenue. Lot 15 was annexed 4/20/89 per ordinance no.
4764-98.
** Plat approved on October 18, 1965 by the City Commission
'------
e
LOCATOR MAP:
TOR EXCHANGE PARCELS
e
--------
.
i j
~
~ LOT#34 1
..
~ J
~
,
:
--:.~"
- --;.:-
.
....--
_..3
't
I
.
I
I
/
/
/
.".Qr.-I!
Ii !i 1 i
',' c::?~LJ (r~i
.11 1/1 ~i
" Ii Ii I .. i
, !i Ii I \ \
i I' ,,: \ ~:--=:"
. ji J!! ."
I S~ ~( ~ \ \ (', (eo...,- .....)
! ii Ii J \\: (,.-iJ ."..
:.,ti.;,.J" j: i !
O l'r\I..~<::j_.'! 'or.
- c---- , j i ,?-<J
(\\"\ lj '.
\ ~\ ", !' ! I
\ \ I ~
\~~~"~;;f
':::>.
'<.:::::::>.
SAND K['r PARK
"".
..<:....
~.-..'::..::,<:::\,
.if
!
i
I.
'.
"
<:::::<'
".::':",,;;,.::.-,:.,":;:;'':
.;:><':"..{
%"
'I
l ~
!i:J-..f +/
-
'.M~ ·
-= I
n
.
e
Clearwater City Commission
Agenda Cover Memorandum
e
Worksession Item #:
Final ARenda Item #
Meetin!:! Date:
12-09-99
SUBJECT/RECOM M ENDA TION: Declare as surplus to City needs development riohts for 9
residential dwellino units appurtenant to City Parkino Lot #34 (BARBOUR-MORROW SUB..
Block A. Lots 5. 6 and 40) for the purpose of conveyino said riohts to JMC Communities of
Clearwater III. Inc.. oeneral partner of Mandalay Beach Club. Ltd. by special warranty deed in
exchange for conveyance to the City by special warranty deed development rights for 9 unused
residential dwellino units appurtenant to Meridian of Sand Key. 1200 Gulf Boulevard. from JMC
Communities of Clearw ater, Inc.. subiect to approval of the exchanoe by the City's Community
Development Board and Commission approval of the proposed Land Assembly Assistance and
Reimbursement Aoreement (the II Aoreement") between the City and Mandalay Beach Club,
Ltd. documenting the exchange,
1&1 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
SUMMARY:
· One of the major elements of the City's One City. One Future community revitalization
effort is implementation of the Strateoic Redevelopment Plan for Clearwater Beach (the
"Plan" ).
· One of the areas identified in the Plan for priority redevelopment as a unit is a portion of
CLEARWATER BEACH PARK SUB. and all of FOUR SEASONS LANDINGS. a condominium
abounded by North Mandalay on the East. Papaya on The South. San Marco on the North
wand the westerly limits of said plats on the West (" project area" ).
. JMC Communities III. Inc. (" JMC" ). d/b/a Mandalay Beach Club. Inc.. proposes to construct
not less than 140. nor more than 200, residential dwellino units within the proiect area.
The project may also include retail and restaurant uses with related p.edestrian walkways. A#--
streets, parking and infrastructure improvements. /lff f20'5z1i:?JJt. '5?/bpleJ/J( -----CtJ6~, /4'"
· The proposed Aoreement. amono its other provisions, provides in Section 5.04(e) that the
City wi!: transfer to JMC development riohts sufficient for JMC to construct a total of~
residential dwellino units within the project area. In exchanoe. JMC will transfer to the City
development riohts for an eQual number of unused residential dwellino units from its
Meridian on Sand Key project.
· The proposed actions are ooverned by and comply with provisions of Section 2.01(d)(5)(iv)
of the City Charter. They also implement ooals, obiectives and policies of the Coastal Zone
Management element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and further realize the vision of One
City, One Future.
Reviewed by: Originating Dept: Costs NA
Legal Info Srvc ....NA- Public Works Total
Budget ~ Public Works ....NA- User Dept. Funding Source:
Purchasing ~ DCM/ACM Planning & e . Services Current FY CI
sk Mgmt .-l!A- Other ~ Attachments OP
Other
Submitted by:
City Manager
[X ] None
Printed on recycled paper DEV RIGHTS XCH AGN. ewb1199
Rev. 2/98
.
.
.
e
e
Clearly, the combination of these points leads to the conclusion that a great deal of effort
regarding a wide rage of services has been expended to develop sensible well- planned municipal
boundaries. In the absence of these kinds of boundaries and agreements, local governments and
its citizens are harmed through inefficient expenditures for services and/or litigation that should
be avoided. The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with
State law and will review legal options that preclude the proposed annexation.
In summary, the City of Clearwater opposes this proposed annexation by the City of
Largo and requests the City to carefully consider these objections.
Sincerely,
Brian 1. Aungst
Mayor
cc: City of Clearwater Commission Members
Michael Roberto, City Manager
Pamela Akin, City Attorney
I-
-
-
e
e
Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority
On October 1, 1999, the City of Clearwater entered into a second ten-year agreement
with the Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority which establishes a specific geographic area
within which Clearwater will provide fire protection service, whether or not the property is
within the City boundaries. The Fire Service Agreement is necessary since Pinellas County does
not have a fire department and therefore, cannot serve unincorporated properties. In general, the
municipality located closest to the unincorporated properties has an agreement with the Fire
Service Authority to provide the service. The general boundaries of Clearwater's exclusive fire
service area are Curlew Road on the north to Belleair Road on the south and from Clearwater
Bay to Old Tampa Bay.
In addition to the fire service agreement, Clearwater and many other fire departments
have an automatic aid agreement which provides response when the primary fire department is
not able to respond or when additional service is needed for an event. The location of the
proposed annexation will most likely trigger the need for the City of Clearwater to respond for an
event. Funding for the fire service is based on a formula comparing property values of
unincorporated areas served by the City as a relationship to incorporated property values.
Therefore, if this property is annexed by the City of Largo, the City of Clearwater may be
required to respond but will not realize the additional funding necessary to pay for the fire
protection services.
Although there are mechanisms in place to avoid any disruption in fire protection, the
proposed annexation is in conflict with the public purpose of the Fire Protection Authority to
provide comprehensive fire protection in Pinellas County. In addition, the funding formula
would reward the City of Largo by annexing the property while other agreements would compel
the City of Clearwater to respond in an emergency without fair funding returned to Clearwater.
Water and Sewer Service Area
In addition to the above-cited issues, the proposed annexation property is in both the City
of Clearwater's sewer and water districts. The City of Clearwater developed long-range utility
plans based on the boundaries of the sewer and water districts and has entered into financing
arrangements and expended funds to provide utility service to the sewer and water service
districts. The City also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Sewer Service Area
agreement between the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo which also defines Belleair
Road as the service area boundary.
-
e
e
.
Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County
On January 14, 1992, the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County entered into an
agreement that established a formal Clearwater planning area according to a map and legal
description. The Interlocal agreement granted Clearwater the ability to plan for all property
within the planning area, whether or nor specifically in the city boundaries. In addition, the
Agreement grants the City of Clearwater the ability to annex properties within the designated
planning area and simplified the annexation process provided no change in the Future Land Use
Plan is proposed.
The southern edge of Clearwater's Planning Area is generally Belleair Road; however,
there are several parcels south of Belle air Road which, according to City records, had previously
been annexed and were included in the Planning Area. These parcels south of Belleair Road
were annexed by Clearwater beginning in 1950 with the last annexation south of Belleair Road
approved in 1989.
. The property proposed for annexation by the City of Largo is north of Belleair Road and
clearly within the Clearwater Planning Area as defined by the 1992 Agreement. If the proposed
annexation were approved, it would represent an intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a
potential violation of the Interlocal Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo. Pinellas Park St. Petersburg and Pinellas
County ("the Tri-Cities Agreement")
On November 13, 1990, the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Pinellas
County entered into an agreement which established the Tri-City Extraterritorial Planning Area.
Similar to the City of Clearwater's Interlocal Agreement with the County, the Tri-Cities
Agreement also granted the three cities the ability to include the planning area in the individual
city's plans and to annex property within the planning area in a simplified process provided no
change in the Future Land Use Plan is proposed.
The important feature of this agreement is that the Extraterritorial Planning Area
establishes Belleair Road as the northern boundary reflecting Clearwater's Planning Area
beginning north of Belleair Road. The proposed annexation, if approved, would represent an
intrusion into Clearwater's Planning Area and a potential violation of the Tri-Cities Agreement.
.
.
.
.
e
e
~
December 3, 1999
The Honorable Mayor Tom Feaster
City of Largo
Post Office Box 296
Largo, Florida 33779-0296
The Honorable Chairperson Sallie Parks
Board of County Commissioners
315 Court Street, Room 501
Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Honorable Councilmember Robert Kersteen
Chairman, Pinellas Planning Council
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850
Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160
Dear Mayor Feaster, Chairperson Parks and Chairman Kersteen:
I am writing in regard to the proposed annexation (2140 Belleair Road, Case A5-45-99)
by the City of Largo north of Belleair Road adjacent to the municipal boundaries of the City of
Clearwater and within the City of Clearwater's Planning Area, water, sewer and fire districts.
The City of Clearwater opposes the proposed annexation and would like to share with you our
concerns in preparation for the upcoming pubic hearings on this matter.
The City of Clearwater believes that the proposed annexation by the City of Largo
violates or is inconsistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Clearwater and
Pinellas County; the Interlocal Agreement among the Cities of Largo, Pinellas Park, St.
Petersburg and Pinellas County ("the Tri-Cities Agreement"); Water and Sewer Service Area;
the Fire Services Agreement with Pinellas County Fire Protection Authority; and with Florida
Statutes regarding municipal annexation. The specific bases for our objections are described
below.
10.
RECREA TION
FACILITIES:
11.
LIBRARIES:
e
e
Annexation into the City of Largo would present recreational
opportunities at reduced cost to the residents of the property. As
residents of the City of Largo, all persons can enjoy the programs
offered through the Recreation and Parks Department at in-City
rates.
The Largo Library is a member of the Pinellas County
Cooperative and, therefore, it is open and available to all persons
living within Pinellas County regardless of the location of their
residence.
12. OTHER COMMENTS: None.
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
I AGENDA ITEM: IV B.
SUBJECT:
Annexation Report No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
RECOMMENDATION:
Council, Based on the Accompanying Finding No.3, Adopt a Finding that the City of Largo
does not have the Ability to Provide Water and Sewer Service to this Area and Authorize this
Finding be Transmitted to the City.
Further, given that this site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater Planning Area,
and also within the water, sewer, and fire service areas of the City of Clearwater, it is
recommended that the City of Largo not annex this property, absent formal agreement with
the City of Clearwater to provide said services.
BACKGROUND:
Section 5( 12) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, requires the Council to review and
make a recommendation to the affected municipality for each annexation of ten (10) acres or more
as to the ability of the municipality to provide municipal services to the territory to be annexed.
Annexation No. 99-10 is a 14.24 acre tract (comprised of 8.89 acres of upland, 3.36 acres of
water, and 2 acres of Belcher Rd.) located on the northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd.
The subject area is currently vacant.
The annexation's final public hearing before the Largo City Commission will be held on January
4, 2000.
The City of Largo has indicated in its staff report that either it will provide, or agreement with
another service provider will be obtained for: water, sewer, solid waste collection, police, fire,
and Emergency Medical Services. City recreational and library facilities will also be available
to this area.
I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
(:\USERS\ WPDOCSILU\CASESI99ANN\ANN99-1 O.lar. wpd
e
e
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
See attached annexation review form for details of each municipal service to be provided.
Based upon the accompanying data and analysis, staff submits the following findings for
consideration regarding the subject request:
1. The subject property is contiguous to the existing City boundaries on the subject properties
southern side. The property is also contiguous to the city of Clearwater on its northern and
eastern sides.
2. The City has the ability to provide police, fire, solid waste disposal, recreation, and library
services for the site being annexed. Emergency Medical Service will continue to be
provided on a countywide basis.
3. The City does not have the ability to provide water or sewer service to the site.
4. The parcel is within the City of Clearwater Planning Area and has been designated on
Clearwater's Future Land Use Map pursuant to Chp. 163.3171(1) and 163.3177(6)(a),
F.S., and as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement between the County and Clearwater.
5. The subject parcel is located outside of the area delineated under the Tn-Cities Interlocal
Agreement between Largo, Pinellas Park, St.Petersburg, and the County.
6. The parcel is classified Residential Suburban and Water/Drainage Feature under the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan and is not proposed to change as a function of this
annexation.
Based on the considerations set forth in this report and the accompanying findings, it is
recommended that the Council find the City does not have the ability to serve the subject
annexation area as to water and sewer pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Section 5(12).
Additionally, Largo should not proceed with this annexation absent formal agreement with the
City of Clearwater to provide said services.
2
e
e
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW
PPC ANNEXATION REPORT: No. 99-10
CITY: Largo (A5-45-99)
ACREAGE: 14.24 Acres (0.046% of City)
GENERAL LOCATION: Northwest corner of Belleair Rd. and Belcher Rd.
REVIEW COMMENTS:
1. Contiguity/Compactness: The site is contiguous to municipal boundaries on the site's
southern boundary. However, the site has more of its periphery adjacent to the City
of Clearwater. The site is contiguous to Clearwater to the north and east.
Additionally, annexation of the site into Clearwater would be more compact (as
defined in Chp. 171, F.S.) than if it were annexed into Largo (See Figure 2).
The site is not currently an enclave nor would its annexation create an enclave.
2. Water: Citywide Capacity: While there will be no additional water impact directly
associated with the annexation, water consumption could increase by approximately
5,334 gallons per day (gpd) (based on 8.89 acres X 2.5 units /acre X 240 gpd/unit)
upon development of the subject site. Additionally, whether or not the subject site is
annexed or not, the subject site is located entirely within the City of Clearwater water
system service area and will remain as such.
Moreover, the City of Clearwater Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal No.
27 states that the City of Clearwater seeks to coordinate the delivery of urban services
and annex all of the property in its water service area. Given this goal and the
associated judicial rulings relative to the City of Clearwater's authority to require
annexation as a condition of providing water service, the City of Largo cannot provide
water service to this site absent Clearwater's specific agreement to provide water
service.
The City of Largo does not own or operate a water service/delivery system and
therefore cannot provide water to the subject area. Largo receives its water service
from Pinellas County. Pinellas County's water service area is currently south of
Belleair Rd.
3. Sewer: Citywide Capacity: Whether or not the site is annexed, the subject property
is located entirely within the City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer district. Wastewater
treatment would normally be provided by the City of Clearwater's East Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which has an average daily flow of 3.34 million gallons per day (mgd)
(FY1995), and a capacity of 5.0 mgd.
3
e
e
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
While there will be no additional sewer impact directly associated with the annexation,
sewer use could increase by approximately 5,334 gpd subsequent to development of
the subject site.
Additionally, since the proposed annexation is outside of Largo's defined sewer
service area and within Clearwater's defined sewer service area, the City of Largo is
may be precluded from extending sewer lines outside the City of Largo's legally
defined sewer boundaries into Clearwater's sewer service area in order to serve the
subject site.
4. Solid Waste: Collection of solid waste can be provided by the City of Largo. The City
has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County for the disposal of solid waste. All
of the City's solid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County Resource Recovery
Plant.
5. Transportation: The site is located on the northwest corner of Belleair'Rd. and
Belcher Rd. The Level of Service for the portion of Belcher Rd. from Belleair Rd. to
Nursery Rd. is LOS E and LOS B from Belleair Rd. to East Bay Dr. The Level of
Service for the portion of Belleair Rd. that serves the subject site is LOS F from Keene
Rd. to US Highway 19. Because the site is not developed, additional traffic impacts
will not be generated as a result of this annexation, but could occur as a result of
subsequent development.
..
Belleair Rd. is currently a County road (CR 116) and this annexation would not affect
the County's jurisdiction or responsibility for maintenance of the road.
6. Police: This area is now served by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office; however,
upon annexation, the City of Largo can assume responsibility for police protection.
This annexation is expected to result in approximately 52 new residents within the City
(22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on the Largo Police
Department proportionate to the increase in area/population represented by this site.
7. Fire: The area proposed to be annexed is currently within the Clearwater Fire District.
While the fire district boundaries will not formally change, annexation will affect the fire
and rescue services that are currently being provided, because the City of Largo
proposes to take over those responsibilities. After annexation, the fire service millage
collected in unincorporated Pinellas County for the City of Clearwater, would be
eliminated and the subject property would be assessed the City of Largo millage
(currently 3.4000 mills), a portion of which is dedicated to funding the Largo Fire
Department.
8. Emergency Medical Service: EMS is already provided to this site and the current
countywide EMS millage of .7130 would continue to be levied on an ad valorem basis
to support this service which is provided on a countywide basis.
4
e
e
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 99-10, Determination of Ability to Serve: City of Largo
9. Recreational Facilities: The City is currently providing adequate recreation facilities.
The level of service will be maintained for the area to be annexed, based on the City's
Comprehensive Plan standards. This annexation has the potential to result in
approximately 52 new residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and
would place a burden on the Largo Recreation Department proportionate to this
potential population increase.
10. Libraries: The City's library is located at 351 East Bay Dr., and could provide service
to this area. The only change caused by annexation of the site will be that the existing
millage (ad valorem) levied for County Library Services (Co-op) (currently .5 mills) will
be eliminated the City will now pay for library service to the area from their general
fund with the use of the additional revenues received from the City of Largo millage
(currently 3.4000 mills). This annexation would result in approximately 52 new
residents within the City (22 units X 2.34 persons/unit) and would place a burden on
the Largo library system proportionate to this potential population increase.
11. Other Comments: The subject annexation area is located entirely within the City of
Clearwater Planning Area, water service area, wastewater treatment plant area, and
fire district as set forth in Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan and interlocal agreements
between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County.
The proposed annexation represents the extension of Largo's municipal jurisdiction
into that area planned for, served by, and proposed to be annexeo by the City of
Clearwater. This annexation represents a clear conflict with the available means by which
a municipality can logically plan for its ultimate boundaries as Clearwater has done in this
case and is counterproductive to the efficient delivery of services and meaningful
intergovernmental coordination.
Largo should reconsider and not proceed with this annexation.
5
~
z
~
o
u
==
'"
~
5l
o
'"
~
!a
nGURE 1
CASE NO. ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10 LARGO
~
~
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
GRAPmcs PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEUAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, JIM SMITH
Produced by NEDIT V2.1, Copyright 1991,1992 Pinellas County, Florida Property Appraiser. All Richts Reserved.
e
e
I ""I
T I I I 0
I I I <'i
a;
BARCQONA DRIvE
\ I L.J I
\ I I RS
A I I l- RS
Ul
'"
[lj
"-
RS ---J
~ L
:I
l. - '"
- I-- ~I-- >
- I-- 5
- I-- RS 5_ -
RS ~~ 'f '1'- -
- = 'j
- 1----1 ~ RS ;0
OAI(....OIA DRIVE ..... ~ ~
_I I I - - ~ RI
- =.:.. ~ -----
=-
C7 9 ,. "":-:--..
'" I _5 =
- "\ I " RS ~ r-1 F
~-.
~n "'0
i ~tf -
" @ ~ ~ RS RS
- I--- r
~ I S -:: WATER RS
~
BELLEAIR
ROAD
R/f T L
IU(
R
- ____________1.____
I I I ImJ I~/ !RU
B_ aliVE C~.:!C~
j" I pu. f-
f-
-"....~'-.....
INS I I ~
KERSEY ROAD
i I LIII
~ = IT-=:
, , 0
----. llIA~ : f--<'i
ALICE ~.tE.~ ~a: - ---
I I ~ .----. -
f--
I RI ~ Er I ~ RL
i\
FIGURE 2
ANNEXATION REVIEW 99-10
LARGO
CITY OF LARGO
CITY OF CLEARWATER
~
SCALE: 600'
~
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
GRAPlliCS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM SMITH
GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 @
e
o 1905 p~
o ..,~... 0
~ .'~ ~
'< ~I:::::I Q
~ .... iii .... I"""""
City of Largo, Florida
Post Office Box 296, Largo, Florida 33779-0296
e
: ,....)}
; i '~~~.
Community Development Department
Richard P. Goss, A.I.C.P., Director
Administration (727) 587-6749
Licenses/Permits (727) 587-6712
Inspections (727) 587-6711
FAX (727) 587-6765
November 15, 1999
Mr. David P. Healey, AICP, Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council
600 Cleveland Street, Ste 850
Clearwater, FL 33755-4160
Re: Proposed annexation by the City of Largo
Case no. A5-45-99: Jurg Weiss property
Dear Mr. Healey:
Please be advised that the City of Largo will be annexing the above referenced property pursuant to Chapter 171,
Florida Statutes. For each property which is ten acres or more in area (excluding right-of-way), the PPC's
Municipal Annexation Review form has also been completed and enclosed.
Public meetingslhearings for this annexation are scheduled before the Largo City Commission on December 07,
1999, and January 04, 2000. ..
The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and all necessary municipal
services are available to serve existing development.
If an annexed property is identified as a nonconforming use with respect to either Pinellas County or City of Largo
land use regulations, the annexation ordinance will ensure the property owner's right to maintain its existing legal,
nonconforming use status.
If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 587-6749.
s~ncerk. {J"'1
\l 1\ \I) .. ~It-'"
Richard P. Go is, AICP
Director
RPG/JO/es
enclosures
/home/comdev/dev _services/annex/1999/ A5 _ 45_99/PPC _anx_ltr
e
e
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW
PPC ANNEXATION NO.:
CITY:
GENERAL LOCATION:
REVIEW COMMENTS:
A5-45-99
Largo
ACREAGE:
14.2453 acres, m.o.1.
Northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road.
1. CONTIGUITY: The property is contiguous along its south side to the existing
City boundary, making the property legally eligible for annexation.
2. ENCLAVE:
3. WATER:
4. SEWER:
The property is not part of an enclave; nor does the annexation
of this property create an enclave.
Formal concurrency approval for water service capacity will be
required as part of the site plan review process for any future
development of this property.
The property is adjacent to the City of Largo Sewer District. As
a part of the annexation agreement, the City has agreed to
"construct a lateral sewer line on Belleair Road to the
PROPERTY in order to provide sanitary service to the
PROPERTY line."
5. SOLID WASTE: The property currently contracts with private solid waste
collectors. Upon annexation, private collection could continue until
such time as the contract between the property owner and the
private collector terminates. At that time, the City of Largo would
initiate solid waste collection service.
6. TRANSPORTATION: The property is located on the northwest corner of Belleair
Road and Belcher Road and formal concurrency approval
for traffic impacts will be required as part of the site plan
review process for any future development of this property.
7. POLICE:
8. FIRE:
9. E.M.S.:
Upon annexation, the City of Largo Police Department will serve
the property in place of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
The property is adjacent to the Largo Fire District. Upon
annexation, City of Largo Fire Rescue would provide fire and
rescue services.
EMS service is provided to this property through the countywide
EMS system.
I
-11
Ili~
--=-
I ill I : I
\ ) I
/--
. "",/ - '----ji, 'n_~
i ~ -;-z e-
~: -'ii -]J =:J
- -1-" ---f~ I
-~ ~ -~
..). <{ ~
\ "" '3 : --;1
:3-tr. I I
-
= -1Jl:
. u,
.~.
. 1.1'.1 I i I r
l" d..J,-iv I dr pi'
Ii-Y . ~
-I EffiE' ~ . I I
I I I
:=. . - -! L I,I~~.iA~'JltU II_U I II
1-- . ~r---.., , 'nR I I .-
/ I I ~.trrJJmmmJml
~1\rkiiE GT -wr- I. IIEi.<\R(:~~~~
f--rnmll'~'\ i I II
- I IW "r ~ I ~j rA N, OR I
- ~.
/' T i I ~:::=1t i ~ I;,
L L-! WAY a,: II ~~'t-....l
I I i I i ~ Il~, ~ ~ <i)~~
I 1 I I I 1'\, NURSERY RD I A'I (~. 'y~ I
~~ /.
I I U I r/
_ _, i ~I j f- I _ "l/j II L i
;t ~) _r-- ". I~ --.J
b - If ;:;:- . 'Z't (,tJ \ -
AKADlt OR Lip ~~. (' -...i. ' I
.JV I-- ---4 ) 0- LLJt~ ,- "". -
~~~f) : ~
;. ttJ I ~ _ ~
~~ I I ,\ I ,~c
BELLEAIR ROAL
e
-,
c
j
,.... - /'
~ ~\-L
en I ~.~l
~ : rI\4-
~l' I \,r--
~ -f'~ I (\;:[1 '~
~ ~~ ~,--.) ,
~ p I l'
L- I I ,;
H e- ~
~o--J = =:
~!r~
~I \ i
3= '
.,
"..r~
,; 'c .'
t>-
:... ( ...
. .' ~
'- ....-
~, L'
h.
D
v
__ ~ ~ ~;~;~~t~ , II" Ii
'- .. -~ \ ~ (i- l(," (~ .G: I\\"{>,!-
~ '. II! ! I;=;=!
'- ,II , ,I r+
"""\ ~~.r>~'.... L.....: I IIH-
,,~ II _::r
- -'=.
I -
i -
, -
fil ~~ = I
BAR~I qR: : I I I r-\I
"'\/ '"\ \\,.--.
T III1 i, II >- - II ~
I i I >- =rmnTlT)~
, /, - OJJIIJJJJ t1
,.-.
I
f.-
~
v
.--
.-'-
.. '
A/ /
/"1 .J.'
u=' __
" .... >-
Lf . ~
~<~.
:......~,
Ci
I
.-
,~
. 'co' ,.
-..... :-..
_....~~..
~\
~..' h~ .
--'
Case:
Subject:
Location:
A5 - 45 - 99
Jurg Weiss Annexation
2140 Belleair Road
24t2S15{)000<Y4400600 and R-O-W
Cu.~ A l'f /(
N
~
W//A
Subject Property
Largo City limits
Scale: ,. = 500'
I' I I . IT--i1~' -~.
-L- i.. I I ~, : :
. 1:. )~-i-;- ~----4;
1 J::NV(W CT I ,{
..... Y . r
,-~ Ii Wf---i
~~1- I . -J V l,'!.-U.ll..l.!l JI-L111 jI I
I-r-- -e::--.:.. ---.., ! nHl . .
v . 1::=. CmrrmrrrJ:ImJJ
~1kACH-iE CT Cf)' ~ I [r~~~q:>fJt\r~~ QJ]]]
~1' ITTTTl ~r-j\ III I I'
= OJIIJ IW I\==---\.\ ,I ~A:rAII~ OR I.
/, i ~:\ C
~
.. .LJ,. Lao
,W'p..Y f---- ,
'---
"" ~I
\
I I I T ~\ NURSERY RD
II r--f--71I-I--L J
!--- ~ I ~ ---
A ----!I ~
b I I-- ~ /~' ---l ) '--
AKADIA OR ).17 _ ~ ~
. '---p _tI: ---(-
I y/ ... ==i =
~' { - U~
UtiI ~ ~
J~ '1\ ,- ~ ~
BELLEAIR RUJ\[ I / / /
fi" i ~ '-Tr ~ e-~
I ~~-w
i J I. L _}-'-I _____--c: ----L-....
· I I , i : ! ~I :: I'II~-,~ =ii' =:!
) ~ j.ti=.=ij
I [I . ~ ~l :,! :
~ - i
cr.! J /f\ '
ff ' ~.-=r-
q : 'Wr
I ~ H\~ I \~
.... #- (I +-
i ~ 1 tj U=--f~'
'--' II
LU" U
. ' IN' /L hJ <: - I
--r::lf i f) . cr' r-~I f--I
~ ~i ...::-- ---\ ___________w f-- f--
t; ~ f--
L ~~)- ---tR1
f t " I 1> ~ "\ .
':- IV {, (' ~ c\.~~F 3:
./ ,,~.~L-.t.l-=--
1\ '\t) {;'1:1 Sj !:~, V
~~
01::1 ~ 1-(..:t-j
/1 [I I I I I I : ! ~\ c., "-- ( . k
;1
: I BARBARA I qR I i
....
.~ 1 I i I I I
e
i
r--'
r--;- , I
~I:!
,t '
I I I
1
I I
II
\ I I ~
II
j
pr\yc-'h \
L..;~ ~ \,<". '--4..f:-U
-(C.
-
.. .....
.r ":.. .. .
..\~~p
~ ,~...r
.
""'\
~ i- .':~.
.4.:
:,.
..J-
.~
j
..:- . .,::~
I-
~
,c..': \
+ ~\ .'
~~~..
....<
Ci
I
Case:
Subject:
Location:
AS - 45 - 99
Jurg Weiss Annexation
2140 Belleair Road
24129115Q00QOl4400600 and R-O-W
W//A
-..
l..-
~
!
'Tn
~u~
- !
I
l
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I
/.....1 T ':.\,
./ I~ \lr-'
~ -T I I~---=-
J ~ = rTTl1TTTJJ t
~........... - QI]]]J]J f-
--..J
!
j
I
.s-r' Ci/ r ;(
Subject Property
N
~
Largo City limits
Scale: 1. - 500'
~
.
len, Michael
e
e
Hardin, Cyndi
Monday, Decembe
Quillen, Michael r 06, 1999 4:46 PM
:tet: Stone, Ralph
Proposed L
argo Annexation
lu probably know we .
~st comer of B 'II .are In a war (at least .
r,sest City of Cle~':'~~e~oad and Belcher. ~.::~r~kinniSh) with the City of La
per came to. the . sewer and water lin ng you a map of the ruG re their proposed
r shOop rememOO City of Clearwater and WI ~ are that could serve thlsproposed .ne. I need to. kn anenxatio.n at the
row (sorry fo.r t": :trt "::~~~~:~:bout t~is~ ~~ :: :lu~lnOl serv=:::~~~~ Is c1a:::~r ;:ere
.--. y. at 7 pm. Thanks Mike. p greatly appreciated. Thes;:r o.r water. Anyo.ne
___ C . publIc heMng Is
.~ <: t.L' iC ( ..
I:
;>\::: c.) c;-I-" ""-l< f'-~ '- 0" \3 ~ k I....~ r f" -{.~"\- -' " \'
c.' "r-- p'. \ ",..., r
~,-d1?""" ~~'\s k-- '-t-Sl' '-L J \' L
\bt. C;~l\6w .~ r 0 ~'" 1"'- 0 T- S~ <u prof"-' '"":jJ
J ~\J I h COI'-"~ ~"\-t \..c:e
'f:(.s-'t. vIr L ~ c ~ \)'" h \: ~ J 51'!:<1'''' "^ I ,,-,..J
I t b,..
.b.) c ~ ~ ",-.~ 'net... IS" l,," s;-~.\ \j.:> tt. \k, v" (j::: 3 M:/ .
"c.~t- " +- ~.. ~ ~ ~, i-'-j . AJ '" ," ~0 5" \0..<>1\ O..0~' J r-"'" t:J ·
c ,I \> r ~ v 0 ~ r-o...~ ,,"-co\. ~ ;--" \5e \ ( I.... OJ '\' t....u 6- l \"D' ~"c t-h
. i-- ('''''1' r "J . 5' J." "-\' I ( · ..,l,\ fO~s;- \, ~ J",t- t~ u....
~) 'J 'J 'l'-~ . 1'--')
j\\{c ~ dQ~ r,~'\-- .s-~\.t.'c.o
LQJ~' .,
-
"*
c(,~.-r-iJ
~, L...o.- r.J 0
<; Q... J-I Q...r,
".~ ]$" (,"l-j W~~ ~i- <;..1t.~ 6{, ~e.~"~r
I..) b'l C :t:>.J tyo.~( eu.., 1- S\~ 0 {' ~ d ~.\.-..~r
c . ) \ io" C:l:J tp.;kr (\if ih sl<.\.u t 1> ~[t"t ,,-,...,.. 1w ~ 'J 1& 16i
d ;) g' Ciw.*:l \.JJ ;;\:-.., dL5;- 'S ~l'. " f- ~ ...\.c.h if
<<.~ G I t C <>~ ~ i:J lL ",i'", So u -u" <;., ~ '- ,,{- If QJb:.o. \ ·
-(....\, t<'; U; \-L ,/' C.\)v~i) u..,;:\-u ~u \,. ~ -h. -\-<...1' ,'>-"1-<, J
~ R €. l.~~ e ....:l. eI. ';::;"-.N"\\. "- loc.","", "'^ .
L (). f'.. -{... ~ ,,-" 6"- <:.. ~...r-e. lOJ \..., cp: <J ., 't "-,,,-, /'-.l:> 1- I <)~!;, ~ /<;.
l..L~ ....L< ~ \d 'v--L" "- e-~ t 1 f 0 '';'' W oeJ\- <' f t-\ oh') )
~.~
..:
t
"<
\.
'\
'\
,
.',
I ~-=-
, .. r----1l
I!!,.:i ~\
I ! , , I I
I ----11:
~.. __ ~!.J. 1m' I'
I ",,~NV(}Y:, --:
3=Y i 1 i · ': · ·
-r- ! i I.. Err--.. WI AI:!-U.11..L~A IH~' I II I Ii..
IV I I~\ = I! I I I Iii I i"
~TrACHE GT 00\ I IBAR~ELOM\ rp~ I I I i
~ nml in ffirrmTrmTml
- ITDJJ ~~~
~/I i i I =:\ I ~
i,.' , WAY f- i
'---
! I' i~ ,'"
I
I I I I \\ NURSERY RD
. :
e
f..---J
i
: c~
! \ -{P-
.......
I I I I I I
)
1 !
h
.
[
i
i
I
I
l!lLU
r- ~I
1
I
~~
I I
LI
, 1 I
II >-- >-- " I ~~f-
I I -------' ~ I--
t ~f-I;) --4.J1--
OA.I<ADI~ C R ht;l - ===;: [S-
71--. -~ ;~1-
~~I--
=H I--
~
1
I
tf ~
~~~
l1
>--
~
~
~ I-- f--
\\ I
BELLEAIR ROt ,...
/ / / /)
.
..' -
.~'~ .: .:.
" - ~:- .".:.
I---
.~.~
' .'
..- -.;
. '-.'c
~.
~
~ I
-
:J
:
~ .'
,.-
";
':~, .
'=-- .'
'I-'
~
: '1
- .~
~ . .
I-- ... '\~' ..
:=l~~
'.
.....:
.'~
"
. .
Case:
Subject:
Location:
A5 - 45 - 99
Jurg Weiss Annexation
2140 Belleair Road
24'2S15D00OCY4400600 and R-O-W
~
~
L-
l/\/ili 1-1 II I
".....,.. J .....
! ~1,~f~;~R
I: I: I, I I
~
P.;~ -
1 BAR BABA 1 RI 1
to-
b: I I I 1 I
p. I
W//L/J
II":Y L ~ ~=J
I t ~ ::~ ~j
r~ ~ ~ t-j
I" \ ""~ ~ ~. i
I -:j I '
....) [3.tc. I
Ii' ,
I-- -\. !ii I
I-- N
~ '\
~J vr~-L
en I ~._.i
w
~ i ',Vr
i-I \\~
~ ~ ~t (\ -JIJ-
I~ ~ u '
~ -rr~
'--
---
i
I
,L--I
~
a: ~-
w -
t; ~~
w~ 1 'I
J: ~ f- .....v-.
~ \
3:
v
I
I
I
I
~
i
i
\ r ~6:'l
~ - --I
D= Ul. L--; \( ~ i
~I II ~
)\~
I- := lil1TTTIO f- .
~ tIIJIIIIIJ ~
/
'\./
1-
/-........
Subject Property
N
~
Largo City Umits
Scale: 1. - 500'
PPC ANNEXATION NO.:
CITY:
GENERAL LOCATION:
REVIEW COMMENTS:
e
e
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION REVIEW
A5-45-99
Largo
ACREAGE:
14.2453 acres, m.o.1.
Northwest corner of Belleair Road and Belcher Road.
1. CONTIGUITY: The property is contiguous along its south side to the existing
City boundary, making the property legally eligible for annexation.
2. ENCLAVE:
3. WATER:
4. SEWER:
The property is not part of an enclave; nor does the annexation
of this property create an enclave.
Formal concurrency approval for water service capacity will be
required as part of the site plan review process for any future
development of this property.
The property is adjacent to the City of Largo Sewer District. As
a part of the annexation agreement, the City has agreed to
.construct a lateral sewer line on Belleair Road to the
PROPERTY in order to provide sanitary service to the
PROPERTY line."
5. SOLID WASTE: The property currently contracts with private' solid waste
collectors. Upon annexation, private collection could continue until
such time as the contract between the property owner and the
private collector terminates. At that time, the City of Largo would
initiate solid waste collection service.
6. TRANSPORTATION: The property is located on the northwest corner of Belleair
Road and Belcher Road and formal concurrency approval
for traffic impacts will be required as part of the site plan
review process for any future development of this property.
7. POLICE:
8. FIRE:
9. E.M.S.:
Upon annexation. the City of Largo Police Department will serve
the property in place of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office.
The property is adjacent to the Largo Fire District. Upon
annexation, City of Largo Fire Rescue would provide fire and
rescue services.
EMS service is provided to this property through the countywide
EMS system.
10.
11.
RECREATION
FACILITIES:
LIBRARIES:
e
e
Annexation into the City of Largo would present recreational
opportunities at reduced cost to the residents of the property. As
residents of the City of Largo, all persons can enjoy the programs
offered through the Recreation and Parks Department at in-City
rates.
The Largo Library is a member of the Pinellas County
Cooperative and, therefore, it is open and available to all persons
living within Pinellas County regardless of the location of their
residence.
12. OTHER COMMENTS: None.
e
o \ 905 FI ,...,
~O .r~~ ;:--O...()
I- . V"
< ~I:::::I d
-J .... . .... ~
City of Largo, Florida
Post Office Box 296. Largo, Florida 33779-0296
e
, ,
Community Development Department
Richard P. Goss. A.I.C.P., Director
Administration (727) 587-6749
Licenses/Permits (727) 587 -671 2
Inspections (727) 587-6711
FAX (727) 587-6765
November 15, 1999
Mr. David P. Healey, AICP, Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council
600 Cleveland Street, Ste 850
Clearwater, FL 33755-4160
Re: Proposed annexation by the City of Largo
Case no. A5-45-99: Jurg Weiss property
Dear Mr. Healey:
Please be advised that the City of Largo will be annexing the above referenced property pursuant to Chapter 171,
Florida Statutes. For each property which is ten acres or more in area (excluding right-of-way), the PPC's
Municipal Annexation Review form has also been completed and enclosed.
Public meetingslhearings for this annexation are scheduled before the Largo City Commission on December 07,
1999, and January 04, 2000.
The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and all necessary municipal
services are available to serve existing development.
If an annexed property is identified as a nonconforming use with respect to either Pinellas County or City of Largo
land use regulations, the annexation ordinance will ensure the property owner's right to maintain its existing legal.
nonconforming use status.
If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 587-6749.
~!er~ " ~rc"
I
Richard P. Go s, AICP
Director
RPG/JO/es
enclosures
/home/comdev/dev _services/annex/1999/ AS _45 _99IPPC _anxJtr
..
"./~ .
e
EXHIBIT B
.
,
I I
I ~ .f5 lll!\
.~~~ Ii I
'il?: ~ C2 I! 1.'
: ~: ~ q " I
· z: Ii: ,J
: Z. . I' \ 1
. : ~: d 'I!
~ J
,
II
'I
I
-~~
I ~
. I "
. .
I
&
.
6
,.
..
., sit. ,...-
~"J c::l
.
I)
.
. ~
. 0
.1 . , c
. . p
<<" -
0" I
-
0 \ ID
'I
.
---~::;.......
s
.
c:
.
.
. ~
....... --- G i
\ . · AID').!
r .. ~&~/~'V/v (41\....
. " -?'" -::",,: I tC'r'\. ~ . .'_ .
.....-" -,,,,~. (... v J ~-:J.,;v' ..
I ...~'----- ;-'" ~_".
\ --:-"',... . ... . -
N __
.(~
\ i
I :
.
.
-1 I
I
I.
o
....~~-=~t.ll':r.~..;;:;~
JJ.-' <.'
rl
6
Q
o
o
o
/,
.,
.~i'
q
""t:JtI
~
- --....--
- "-"-
.. ..-.-..
-.----" .-....--
-"'--
---
-..--"
-....---
, \
e
e
concerns regarding the inconsistency of the proposed Largo annexation with Clearwater's
planning area agreement and with sound planning principles.
The Planning Department recommends that the City Commission approve a resolution
opposing the proposed City of Largo annexation for the reasons cited above. Further, we
recommend that the Commission authorize the City staff to express these concerns at the public
hearings to be held by the City of Largo and in subsequent hearings with the Pinellas Planning
Council and Countywide Planning Authority.
I will be available at the work session to answer any questions that you may have. Thank
you for your consideration of this matter,
Attachments:
City of Clearwater Planning Area Map (from Interlocal Agreement)
City of Largo StatTReport on the Belleair Road Annexation
cc: Michael Roberto, City Manager
John Asmar, Planning and Development Services Administrator
Richard Baier, Public Works Administrator
~ cL-nUI/I
lYe...
;3ce
c:/1U:'C
~
e
c c:"
. ;2/ni
. rl/l{? I'Y'-St. /J1;1'-1.4J
. l-'-' 1"J1l:.1b /{,L-1V6.~'lZ--
~
l (;/6v!t" /Je lIen
~ Clearwater
c
l f/ll ~c
1/6 S
~ ! ft/1{; /l. C'~<-' /It-
_~ " <-ont' "",,,,' Interoffice Correspol1del1ce Sheet
MAYOR AUNGST AND COMMlSSIONERS
CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY COMMlSSION
~) 71:r7~
TO:
.
'"1
FROM:
RALPH STONE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
!.' .
. Pile.
'"
RE:
PROPOSED CITY OF LARGO ANNEXATION
DATE:
NOVErvtBER 29, 1999
j ) <
(/f~~' ,dr.f)cl
~v ~CZ-
I am wntmg to provide you with background information regarding the City of
Clearwater's annexation policies as they relate to the proposed City of Largo annexation on the
north side of Belleair Road. The City of Largo proposes to annex approximately 14.2 acres
located at the northwest comer of Belleair Road and Belcher Road. The City of Largo has
scheduled public hearings on December 7, 1999 and January 4, 2000 to consider this matter.
As you are aware, the City of Clearwater has an interlocal agreement with Pinellas
County which was approved on January ] 4. ] 992. The agreement established a formal
Clearwater planning area according to a map and legal description and granted Clearwater the
ability to plan for all property within the planning area, whether or not specifically in the city
boundaries (Copy of Planning Area Map attached). In addition, the agreement allows a
simplified process for voluntary annexation applications that are 10 acres or less in size. The
simplified process eliminates the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Agency
review if the property is annexed into the City with no change to the plan category as on the
Countywide Plan. The City of Clearwater has honored the interlocal agreement through
planning for all property in its planning area and pursuing annexations of properties only when
located within the planning area.
The City of Largo's proposed annexation is clearly within the City of Clearwater's
planning area as Belleair Road is the southern boundary of Clearwater's planning area. The
proposed annexation can currently be served by the City of Clearwater water and sewer services.
The Planning Department believes that this proposed annexation is inconsistent with the City's
approved planning area and is in direct conflict with the planning area concept to promote long
range, consistent, non-duplicative provision of services in this very urbanized county. The City
Manager and I have met with David Healey, Executive Director of the Pinellas Planning Council
and expressed our concerns about this proposed annexation. Mr. Healey also expressed grave
rr
i' I
,.,.l,
FROI,': Panasoni c FAX SYSTEM
It
PHONE NO.
~ Jan. 03 2000 12:05PM P2
\
.....,
"'\ :',
, .J ) l::=C '(J
") jf
j U I JAN
I
~_~J U U '-__--i
---'---,
!
0\905 PI.
o ..':.::~~ O~
-'<;- . :.' . "::, l'"~
;~ ;V':
~ ,!,.., -, ~
""~~ V
,....l ....Iil.... ~
City of Largo Florida
Post OffIce Box 296, Largo, P<\orida 33779..0296
'"\
i
~..__..~.._.".. -.......
PLANNING & DEVL:: (JPUcJ'
SE;"RVICFS
CITY OF CLE"A.rw,,'l\,T[;'
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
JANUARY 4. 2000
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation - Commissioner Jean Halvorsen
B. Pledge of Allegiance
III. CEREMONIAL
A. Recognition of Largo Golf Course Employee Gordy Gundle
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Agenda - Regular Meeting of January 4,2000
B. Minutes. Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999
V. CITIZEN COMMENT (Any item except public hemiI1gs.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Procedure Jor public hearings: motion to hear item: reading
oJitem; motion to adopt/deny; discussion: public input/Commission action.)
A.
Ordinances Second Reading:
1. Ol'dinance No. 2000-17 -
A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at
2140 Belleair Road, Clearwater, Upon Petition by
the Owner, Mr. Jurg Weiss. Case No. A5-45-99
A Partial Vacation of Easement Located at 1927
Oro Court. Largo, Case No. YS-Q3-99
2. Ordinance No. 2000-18 -
VII. CONSENT DOCKET
A. Authorization to Purchase a Speed Detection/Monitoring Trailer in Accordance with
Bid No. 99-8-615 from Kustom Signals in the Amount of $14,440
B. Approving the Elimination of Certain Work from Requiring a Building Permit and
Directing Staff to Prepare an Amendment to the City's Fee Ordinance Incorporating
the Proposed Fee Changes
e. Authorization to Contract with St. Petersburg Junior College Corporate Training
Center to Develop and Implement Leadership Training for the Police Department in
the Amount of $26.713
r:
'-
, FRO~~: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
e
PHONE NO.
~ Jan. 03 2000 12:09PM P2
D. Authorization to Purchase Two New Flat Bed Dump Trucks from Atlantic Ford Trucks
in the Amount of $97,950 in Accordance with State Contract #070-700-230
E. Award of Bid No_ 99-B-642, Agricultural Chemica.ls to Southern Agricultural
Insecticides in the Estimated Amount of $52,303.90, Southern States Cooperative,
Inc. in thg Estimated Amount of $39.660.12. and to Harrell's FertilizQr in the Estimated
Amount of $30,418.13
F. Award of Bid No. 00-8-057, One 72 Inch Zero Turning Radius Mower, to Royal Edger
and Mower in the Amount of $14,967.15
G. Award of Bid No. 00-B-661. Truck Brakes and Related Parts, to Fleet Products, Inc.,
in the Estimated Annual Amount of $20,000
H. Award of Bid #00.6-667, Emergency Lighting Systems, to Central Public Safety for
14 Whelen Lighting Systems in the Amount of $20,927.90
VIII. OTHER LEGISLATIVE MA TIERS
A. Award of Contract to Wade Trim, Inc. for Phases 2 and 3 Design of East Side of
Largo Central Park in the Amount of $78,845
B. Annual Review of Non-represented Education Incentive Program
C. Approval of Purchase of New City Hall Nstworking Equipment from AUtel in the
Amount of $146,097.12
D. Authorization to Award Contracts for Miscellaneous Engineering Services
e. Final Ranking of Consultants for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment
Inventory Project and Authorization for Staff to Proceed with Cost and Scope
Negotiations
F. Final Purchase Agreement, Including Attorney's Fees, for Delashaw Property.
G. Ordinances First Reading:
1. Ordinance No. 2000-13 - A Voluntary Annexation of Property Located at
2086 Long Bow Lane Upon Petition by the
Property Owner, Case No. A5-46-99
2. Ordinance No. 2000-19 - Adopting a Revised Comprehensive Development
Code for Consistency with the City's 1999
Comprehensive Plan
3. Ordinance No. 2000-23 - Amending the FY 2000 Public Works Department
Budget by Appropriating $92,000 of the
Undeslgnated Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Balance for Improvements to 101$1 Street
4. Ordinance No. 2000.24. Amending the FY 2000 Community Development
Department Budget by Appropriating $12,000 of
the Undesignated General. Fund Balance for the
Purchase ofa Compact Pickup Truck
5. Ordinance No. 2000-25 - Amending tM FY 2000 Recreation and Parks
Department BUdget by Appropriating $300,000 of
the Undesignated Local Option Sales Tax Fund
Balance to Design and Construct a New Bath
House at the Highland Pool
H. Approval of Donation in the Amount of $1,500 to the Pinellas Trail Torch Event for the
Millennium Scheduled for January 8, 2000
IX. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COMMISSION, BOARDS, ADMINISTRATION, CITY
MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY
X. ADJOURNMENT
1'-
\
~..~~U \ _:~\ \-\
r-------- ~) \
\ :
I ' ,
\ JAN ".
\
~'&OE:j'Ul):';~>;~ '4 II
P SERW;tc::',
1"'11'( nF ClFAR\'J~~_f:-!_',______-
\J
\
Annexation:
Largo/History of
Annexation
12/99
'.
" ,
...
'J:~~'';':'...),'~\'\.:;.i,I~'f''';';lt~R'ltN-''',~~.E(';'';,~ .:.' ':".' . ,'. '. . '
. ~""",~_"",!,,,,,,,,,,,~~":':ICUU"'~:'~
~R&98~\214 1
s~~tlcn 5. This ordiM;1CP' shAll tc.l'~ effeet Itnme<1lotel~' upon Its Ilrloptlon. ™
City Clcrk shall CUe one certlned copy with the Clerk of the Clreul t Court of Pinella$
County, Florida, and shall file another certified copy with the Florida Department of
State within 30 days of adoption.
I
1
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
--!ebruary 16, 1989
April 20, 1989
/s/ Rita Garvey
-rliijOr-Com missioner
Attest:
/s/ Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Approved as to form
Md;:~~
City ttorney
I hereby certify th"lt Ihls is !I true and
corrccl CIJPY of Ihl! or:Q1nal ac; II
a~pcars in tI!1! !i!n.:: nl ~:1'~ Cit'j 01
Clearwale~. \~/lt"C::':: ,..,v I'ard and
ollicial seat of 1M Clty of ClC2rwater.
Thi~:OuJt};t):'7n .
Deputy City c:;;'T~- ...,
~
1
I
I
!
-2-
_-.~(_......"....~_...~__ .-r
',.~~~~~~,.";":'~w'~:...:-~~...; '....i......:. '.:- \ --- ..-~.__...,.__.~-
----l
I
l"oj
f"J
~:1
1 :
I
I
I
\
\
I 2 V '\'_ ~\ \ r M · ~ r-;-:- \;
r-'- L \- ,
c. ~.. ~\ ~ _' \ -:--. \~.;
~ I"' . 1\ 1-- :
I z ~
~~ ~ ._..~
VI I ~\.E x 0
u
: \ ~L1
I;' \ 16 ~!' I)~! ,~ -:-11
8 1 I I 'i
~ ff. 1/1, "I It I I,e. 1'4 ~
11I.1'" il.1 \ -;1..1/4 11 r.;~
J I C '1~
, ,..,
22 \ ~
\ -~l
l~
-',1;!
- "
,:;
'"
.~
ti.
I'~
r::j
i'i
l.)
I '..:I
\ 0:1\ ,~~
. ~ -:~
\ <Il ~c4
~\-~i
~i;!
~
[:;
~
l.UP 8~-~3 .~
H!
r'"
l~
I:'
t'~
r:~
tG988~ \ 215
r
.8
12 II
to' to'
'0
::
..
!.Al.B
21.01
L
>
...
RM
12
ME.B
21' 011
G-C
I-
\
-
. M & B
, '. 21.02
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT and ZONING
A 88-44
OWNER
APPl.ICANT
F 0 L E'( ,
A~t.J
PROPERTY DES~JHPTIOH ,n::::,~
LOi" \S
L.CV e:'- A\'J ~ 5 '-''5
. LAND USe PLAN
ZONtNG
CITY COMMISSION
.~
j;
~~
~
~
~
~.~.
A;:: ~I ~L "3 ~ c;. .~.
'.
','
FROIl
NO N~
COUNTY 'R.-l../
O.\5"ACRF.S
OF WAY~
.e.cLL€.-AI"R ~1)
o.oS J.CRES
TO
C.OM lVI EQ..c. \ AL (Tr
c.c..
R :GHT
\ ?A~\
Pl....HHIHO Dnd ZOHINC BO.&..F\O
\
I
RANOE \ 5 E
.&..';'\.1.5 PI.O=:
~s
'-steTIOt-i '2..7
';'OWH5HIF' 2Q s
r
-,.
C' Sln~l~ F.",lIy
T ,t6
=-:--=-=_~ r
... ~~r",",~::;-, '
~~~
-::::::-.::..__.r.____"...~~-~
. e .6988PG 1273
,~ !1r;COROI~ 091 03!!GI~
"C':;T/O~.E.!20 ORDINANCE NO. 4764-88
__._ c..o.'.I,.._
lire lS":cLV- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. FLORIDA,
Ft[:; ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
'"" ~., F SOUTH SIDE OF BELLEAIR ROAD, 475 FEET ~'lEST OF
..Q ~ ~ I'T<) MISSOURI AVENUE, CONSISTING OF LOT 15, LOVELAND
1 lo( ,- I>I,~ SUBDl'/ISION, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, INTO THE
!.; ~ J 1"'C CORPORATE LIMITS OFrHE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE
t 4 ;., 0 ~ IIJT -.--- l.r BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID
~ ~.~ ~~. ;., TOTAL ISOU V' ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIvE DATE.
~~~~~
S:.; :.. ~ .:
s~B;=
2...; f.:'
-... - c;
c: '- :-1
.: :.6
c
~
.. ..
1\0
Cl)
~r
~ ......
~ ro"f
'<3" co
r- .-
;j ..:- CD
..~x~
'c~ 00::0
-5 .....wco
Z...Jw-l
O::UuLl..
~r:U:a:
o::c:;~~
.' . .....~
en 3:
~~
UJ
....J
U
:
\
I
i
I
I
i '"
,
j
~.: ''-''"':I#-,'';.''i.-''',
~.'.J~,~~.,..,_ _'''I~~'_ ,{..-.\.,,~-.t';';"Jt'-~~.1-::tth...~ ._r..'" ..~..-~;:.
'. - -..~".j~~ ~ ...~~,~., ~~
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater, Florida, has received a petition rrom the
owner or the real property described lae:,eln requesting the City to annex the real
property described herein into the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City CommLision, at a regular meeting held on December 15,
1988, ./()ted to accept the petition and authorized the preparation ot an ordinance to
annex thB property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission held a public hearing upon the proposed
annexation prior to or at the time of first reading of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all applicable requirements or Florida law, Including the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and the
law relating to annexation, have been complied with In connel!tion with this ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Sectionl. Pursuant to Section 171..044, Florida Statutes, the following described
property Is hereby annexed into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, and the boundary lines of the City are redeClned to include the following:
Lot 15, Loveland Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 28, Page 20, or tl1e
public records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with that 3D-foot
portion of Belleair Road lying north ot Lots 14 and 15 ot said Loveland
Subdivision.
Section 2. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the measures
contained in this ordinance are consistent with, the CIty'S Comprehensive Plan an~
individual elements thereof.
Section 3. The City Commission hereby accepts the dedication of all easements,
streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public wl-Jch
have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the areas so annexed.
Section 4. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the Planning Director are
directed to include and show the property described herein upon the otficIal maps Rnd
records of the City.
.J . .:: ~~;:."
".J
~ --",J
:--)
....-~
- 1-
'"::I
.)
#-4~7
~=~~ s/3/Z1@U,l1-7rA-W
..--~ .
,.
Lots 3, 4. 14. 16. 18, 19. 20, 21 and 22, LOVELAND SUBDIVlSlO,. according to
Hap or Plat thereof recordeo in Plat Book 28, Page 20, of the Public Records
of Pinellas County, F1or1da.
TOGETHER WITH that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section
27, Township 29 South. R&nge 15 E~st described as follows: From the Northeast
corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Nosthwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 29
South. Rangs 15 East, run THENCE S.Ol 31101" W, along the North and South
centerline of said Section 27, 680.~2 feet; THENCE H,8gG 32' 46- W, 50..01 feet
to the Westerly R1ghs-of-way line of Missouri Avenue for a Point of Beg1nn1ngi
THENCE continue Nb89 321 46- W, 471.56 feeti THENCE ~oOO 57' 07- E, 273.05
feat; THENCE N.89 16' 39- W, 581.95 feet; THENCE S 00 57' 07- W. 275.74
feet; THENCE N.890 32' 46- W, 198.01 feet; THENCE H 000 551 08- E along She
Easterly Right-of-Way line of Gseenwood Avenue, 546.53 feet; THEH~E S 89 16'
39M E, 857.15 feet; ~EMCE S 01 31' 01M W, 300 feet; THENCE S 89 16' 39M E,
400 feet; THENCE S 01 31' 01M W along the Westerly Right-of-Way line of
Missouri Avenue, 240.76 feet to the Point of 8eg1nn1ng. LESS AND EXCEPT: That
part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, Town~h1p 29 South, Range 15 East,
described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Lot 22 of said LOVELAND
SUBDIVISION, Run Thence West along the South line of Lots 16 through 22,
fnelus1vE of said LOVELAND SU8DIVISION, 400 feet for the Point of Beginning;
THENCE South, parallel to the West line of Missouri Avenue 300.0 feet; THENCE
West, parallel to the South line of Belleair Road, 49.31 feeti TriENCE Horth,
parallel to the West line of Missouri Avenue, 300 feet to the Southwest corner
of said Lot 16 of LOVELAND SUBDIVISION; THENCE East along the South line of
said lot 16, 49.31 feet to the Point of Beginning.
ALSO
That part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 29 South, Range 15
East, Pinellu County, F1orida. described as follows: From the Southeast
corner of Lot 22 of said LOVELAND SUBDIVISION, run THENCE West along the South
line of lots 16 through 22 inclusive, of said LOVELAND SUBDIVISION, 400.00
feet for the Point of Beginning; rrlENCE South, parallel to the West line of
Missouri Avenue, 300.00 feet; THENCE West, parallel to the South line of
Bel1ea1r Road, 49.31 feet; THENCE North, parallel to the West line of Missouri
Avenue, 300 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 16 of LOVElAND
SUBDIVISION; THENCE East. along the South line of said Lot 16, 49.37 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
TOGETHER with the abutting right-of-way of Missouri Avenue,
AND TOGETHER with the right-of-way of Selleair Road abutting
Lots 16, 1S, 19, 20 21 and 22 of said Loveland Subdivision.
~XHIBIT A
WHEREAS, the City Commission or the City or Clearwater, Florida, received a
swom petition rrom Barnett Bank or Florida. Inc. and Barnett Banks or Pinellas, N.A.
requesting the City to annex a certain parcel or real property described herein, owned
by them, into the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, arter due consideration or said request for
S ;! annexation, at a regular meeting held on May 15, 1985, voted to a~ept the petition ~
}.. J ~ and authorized the preparation 01 an ordinance to aonex lhe properlTo and i
~~ ~.~ ~ WHEREAS, on June 19, 1986, the City Commission held a public hearing upon ~
i 3 ~ ~ ~ the proposed aMexation; and
~ -. ~ ..
~ ~ G ~ F WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCP A)
~... w ~
- '" 3
._ '0 _ requires that all development regulations and amendments thereto related to an
:,...,U
U
adopted comprehensive plan or element thereof be reviewed by the Local Planning
~.
...
..0 tVt',"""., j. / ';;-,/_.~ ../
~~:':';~.i,~ _....~..',:<~
y.
8700'7013
a., @
-6 ~ O~rlGE
134
e
11 CH~~-ro Q!!!IINANCB 110. 4251-88
. ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
:~ ~ec~}- FLORIDA, ANNEXING PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH
" OF BELLE Am ROAD, RUNNING FROM GREENWOOD
TotRL AVENUE TO MISSOURI AVENUE, PINELLAS COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS DESCRffiED MORE PARTICULARLY
HEREIN INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY,
AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDiNG AN
EFFECTIVE DA'r'E.
~
t.
,.
2::
'"
.. '"
o~~'"
~ == ~ .
t;.J -<
Z...lX...l
wo\>.<
0:: .......
::>><,,":P=:
I-<~Ow
i.t.l 0 . ~
p:: llo~
p::
~
;.;
d
Agellcy (LPA) for conformance with plans adopted pursuant to the LGCPA; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Planning Council (PCPC) has been designated the
Local rl~nning Agency for Pinella.'l County and this Ordinance has been referred to and
considered by the PCPC in accordance with its guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, the following described
property is hereby annexed into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, and the boundary lines of the City are redefined to include the following:
See Exhibit A attached hereto.
Section 2. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the measures
contained in this ordinance are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
individual elements thereof adopted pursuant to the LGCP A, aM directs that Ii copy
hereof be forwarded to the LPA for their receipt and appropriate action.
Section 3. The City Commis.crion hereby accepts the dedication of all easements,
. c-- --::;
... z-" .
streets1 parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way and other dedications to the puoifc w~h r
. \.Q '; .:; f:-
.~.. -, r'
(.11 ~~ ~ ~;J
..... ~;, b
0) _"4''''~-
-1- ~ :,-; ~
. ". it'
~ ~:_:~ t.
~(!, ~ {oq 9rd., ~51-86 12/18/86
0', , . ,II J , , ,
7.
.~
#l
:..
.;
, .
,:
':~ .'. - '
..I_>';~ ~..
~. -"-'
',- .
~ ~ :", ~ ': ,,_. \
.....-;~ t........
i.-~~.;~.;." .
, : . , . ~
.'.."'....'
'....
8_
O.R,6lif/llGE
135
have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the areas so e.nnexed.
~!.o.!!...!. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the PlaMlng Director are
dlrectlld to Include and show tho. property described herehl upon tho offlelal maps and
records of the City.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take e!tect Immediately upon Its adoption. The
City Clerk shall file one certified copy with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Plnellas
County, Florida, and shall me another certified copy with the Florida Department of
State within 30 clays of adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
December 11, 1986
December 18, 1986
Attest:
/s/ Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
/s/ Kathleen F. Kelly
Mayor-Commlssioner
Approved as to form &; correctness:
~~
..... ~
-2-
I~,~'~'l;
,if~..~"'t':--:
.f "..,..it.:l- fl,
';" : If'" .. .~( =.' t:"
i~i.,':/:~
~tf.%"
I~k:~.;;
. ".,,:,J,.
~ (.....,:-.~~i- ~.
,~ ~'';' .-. tf.;
~'r""'p;"
~~ ~ ~-~ ~" ~- ;~ ~,. .:~
,,;
':~_-,'i ~'"
::f,~{1 :l
,f~.t..;:. '~., . i~
;1~.;"':~~H;~j~J~~
. e:~.o}~.1;: ~
I~~~.t~~;-
~f'(.;~
~;~~;-~j.~~
~..;:,;;.~!.'"
~tii,~.~;
..~:'~ ~-," ...... ~..~.
~~~;~:.~< ;,
lij,:. ",.- ,
IttH.
~:;.'" .,.
~~t~;:i~
(~; ~~.
t~~:. ~:>
i:Jt:-;.~':( ,
Ill;.... '.~
I~~J,~~.~~{.
- ..~- :~ ::,
~~~J-<:~-~ :
~d""
~.t()f~:,'
~;lt;
i!.~~:: t/:'.'
I~"'<"" .,~
~.i1:~~...;;
~,,"
th.......,...(
.~~;:.>~:t..
'I' ~,i',:.; l..\
. " .~;t(.:~.-;.;.
. :4fhit.';~.
IN.,~ji.~
&' . .~,~~.~
--:.
'-.
.
.
:e
...
I
Section Z. The City Engineer and the City Clerk arc directed to
Include and set out and show upon the official zoning map and other official
maps of the City of Clearwater thtl foregoing property.
Section 3. Thi. ordinance shall become eHective immediately upon
its pauage.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND READING
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINA l.
READING AND ADOPTED
Attest:
published: Proof of publication
. .
..
-~
.
[ebruo.rv 1. 1..2R~
Februarv 1. 1965
Februarv 1. 1965
/1
~~<;tl~;'.~.d'~U/
Mayor-Commissioner 7
.
.
-z-
;.:~~ ~j:,~~.~;;i'i~ri
, ' ~ .'0- ~!t--.i.J;" .'
!::;bJ~tj
l,.;..."tc;~:;f~ ~
Ii ;::((:':;j:;
f. .' ~
I
f
4!r~;';,o;.;t .,
.
.
e
.
ORDINANCE NO, 1048
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OF BLOCK H OF
REPL-AT OF BLOCK H, MONTEREY HEIGHTS FIRST ADDITION,
AND A PORTION OF' SECTION Z6, TOWNSHIP Z9 SOUTH,
RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO-
GETHER WITH ALL ABUTTING STREETS INTO THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171. 04, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1963. AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
nJ\"F. ()F "Hl~ ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
enacted OrdInance No. 1045 on December Z I, 1964, which Ordinance declared
the intention of the City to annex the parcel ht'reinafter described into the
corporate limits of the City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for fo\\r
consecutive weeks in the Clearwater Slln. a newspaper published in the City
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto C\ttached; and
WHEREAS, more than thirty days have expired since the enactment
of Ordinance No, 1045, and no Tf-gistercd voter of the City of Clearwater, no
owner of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no person whomsoever
has objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court of the
Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Florida, setting forth any
objections to said annexation; and
WHEREAS, all of theprovisions of SE:ction 171. 04, Florida Statutes,
have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDI,INED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its City
Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section 171. 04,
Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater. Florida, and redefines the bO\1ndary lines of said City so as to
include the following parcel:
:-
Lots Six (6) and Seven (7) and Lot Three (3) less the West
lZ5 feet thereof, in Block H of the 'Plat entitled Replat or
Block H, Monterey Heights First A.ddition as recorded in
Plat Book 43, page Z8 of the Public Records of Pinellas
County, Florida, and the right of way 0: Hillcrest Avenue,
as shown on the Plat entitled Monterey Heights First Addition
as recorded in Plat Book 33, Ilages 43 and 44, Public Records
of Pinellas County, Florida, together with all abutting streets.
AND
The South 1/4 of the NW -1/4 of the NW -: 1/4 of Section Z6,
Township Z9 South, RangE: IS East, Pinellas County, Florida,
together with all ab'lttmg 8treeto.
The above described property is hereby zoned R-lD (Singl\)
family) &nd deAignated a8 Fire .District No. Z.
Ord.:l.OijR
-1-
-.... - '.
'. "
'. .: . r j ~ 1, ':'
" .
~.J . ,"" .
"\..
,;'~?:-1. :Ji.tI.;~i" ''fl~1~ l~..;J-~ij
" '.
:~t,(' .
':f1i<
.
.
....'6wll:.."..v'"'
.,
.
e-
e
The above descrl.bed property I.s hereby zoned PRt (Pro!oul.onal
and Related r;.ervl.ces) and designated aI Fire DI.trl.ct No. 1,
AND
Lot 17, LOVELAND SUBDlVI~ION, according to the map
or plat the roof &I recorded in Plat Book 28, page 20 of the
Public Records o! Pl.nellas County, Florida, together with
that portion o! the South l/l of the Right o! '/lay o! Belle"ir
Boulevard, a180 known as Bellcair Road, I.mmediatelyadJacent
the reto.
The above described property is hereby zoned PRS (Profeuional
and Relatel1 ~ervices) and designated as Fire District No. 1.
AND
Lot 3, Sunset Highlands, Unit 2, according to map or plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 41, pages 70 and 71, of
the Public Records of Pindlas County, Florida, together
with all abutting streets.
The above described property is hereby zoned R-IE (["ingle
Fafl"lily) and designated as Fire District No.2.
AND
The Y:est One-Quarter (y.,-I/4) of the ~outhwest Quarter (f.'r:-
1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW-I/4) of Section 17, Town-
ship 29 South, Range 16 East, LESS the right of way for U.S.
Highway 19; and LESS that portion of the following described
tracts that may overlap or encroach upon the first described
property herein, to wit: Begin at a point 110 yards E of the
SV: corncr ofSV!-1/40fNV..-l/4 of Section 17-Z9-16; run
thence E 110 yards; thence N ZZO yards; thence 'If, 110 yards;
thence S 220 yards to P. 0. B.; and 5\;'-1/4 of NV,''';I/4 of
.scction 17-2<]-16, less V.'. 330 feet thereof, and less beginning
330 feet E of f:,W corner of said ~W-l/4 of NW-I/4 of Gection
17-Z9-16 run N 660 feet; E 386 feet; S 660 feet; V,. 386 feet
to P. O. B. ; and lES~ the South 330 feet thereof which is
prcsently in the corporate limits of the City.
The above described property is hereby zoned PKB (Parkway
Business) and designated as Fire District No. 1.
Section 2. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are directed to include
and :iet out and show upon the official zoning map and other official maps of
tht: City of Clearwater the foregoing property.
Cection 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
its passage.
PASSED ON FIRS'! READI~G
July 6, 1964
PASSED ON SECOND READING
July 6, 1964
...
'..
PASfED ON THIRD AND FINAL
READING AND .ADOPTED
.' ,
~ "
lerk .. 'i' /.
i.ehCld: Proof o! Publication
Or~t nOli
'.'z-
i 1.~
1i'
'/...
r ~'
"
,1'" r'
, ,.'" ')~.'/"'~".~".::'~.~".'.-'.'.~'.:....~.,,:~,",
\;\~;., '. .
.....i.',' .
.. ......,
..
.
.
",
tee
..
ORDINANCE NO, 1017
-...--..-.
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A P()RTION OF ~ECTION Z7,
TO "NSH1P Z9 SOUTH, RANGE IS EAST, PINELIAS C,JUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOT 17 IN 1 OVE1AND SUBDIVISION, PINEI1A1:
C,1UNTY, FLORIDA, LOT 3, SUNSET HIGHLANr..S, UNIT lo,
PINELLM C.)UNTY, FIORICA, AND A PORTION .:')F ~ECTIuN
17, TO.!NSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, PINEllM~
C':)UNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER \,IITH All ABUTTING
STREETS INT.) THE. CORP.:>RATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
CLEAR', ATER, FI ..jRIDA, AND R~DEFINING THE BOUNDARY
lINES OF THE CITY TO INCI UDE SAID AI:DITION, ACCORD-
ING TO THE PROVl~IONS OF' SECTI0N 171. 04, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1963, AND PROVmING FOR THF. EFFECTIVE
DA TEjF THl~ ORDINANCE.
:HEREAS, the City Co,,',mic.;sion of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
~nacted Ordinance No. 1015 on May 13, 1964, which Ordinance declared th~
int;:ntion of the City to annex th~ parcels hereinafter described into the corporate
li.'l".its of the City of Clearwat('r; and
'y,HEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four consecutive
weeks in the Clearwatcl' Sun, a newspaper published in the City of Clearwater,
Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attachedj and
"'HEREAS, mor<. than thirty days have expired since the enact~lent of
'.)rdinance No. 1015, and no regist~red voter of thl" City of Clearwater, no own~r
of real estate in the tErritory to be annexed, and no person whomsoever has
objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, setting forth any objections
to said annexation; and
':HEREAr., all of the provisions of C ~ction 171. 04, F .orida Statut.~s,
have been con'.plied with;
NOV!, THEREFORE, BE IT")RDAINED BY THE CITY
COMW:I.SSION OF THE CITY OF CIEAR~,ATER, FlORICA:
C:ection 1. The': City of Ciearwater, acting by and through its City
~0.-_H;1ission, by the authority and under the provisions of ~ection 171. 04,
Florida ~tatutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said City 60 as to
include the following parcels:
That part of the Northwest Quarter (NV.' -1/4) of fection 27,
Township 7.9 South, Range 15 East, described as follows:
Begin at the 1:;outheast (SE) corner of Lot 22, LOVELAND
SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 28, page 20, of the Public Records
of Pinellas County, Florida, and run thence [outh along
the "t'f~st hne of Missouri Avenue a distance of 300 feet;
run thence ~. est parallel to the South line of Belleair
Road, a distance of 400 feet; run thence North parallel
to the '1" est line of lIlissouri Avenue a distance of 300
feet to the Southerly boundary of Lot 16, Baid LOVELAND
::;UBDIV1~IO.N; run thence East along the ~cutherly boundaries
of lots 16 through 22 inclusive, said 1 OVELAND SUB-
~IVI5ION, 400 feet to the point of beginning, together with
all abutting streets.
-1.
Ora. n017
r
,
:. ~.:~i
';..;'j
.-
.
e
.
I
" f'
.
I
ee
Section), This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
itl pauage,
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND READING
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINAl
READING AND ADOPTED
Attest: .
If?tY~..:L
~~lerk
Published: Proof of Publication
f
Ord.nOll
April 20, 1964
April 2.0, 1964
April 20, 1964
.....
~
-).
I,;";
)
,
,
&
,
~'1IY...-.,...,
--~
j'i ~.'''' ":~~""'~H,....t.ri;t
. .
.
..
-.
AND
The North 3Z0 feet of the South 650 feet of the West 400
leet 01 the Eut 500 leet 01 the NE.l/4 of Section 18,
Township Z9 South, Range 16 Eut, Pinellas County,
Florida, together with all abutting streets.
The abOve described property i. hereby zoned "B" Business and
designated as Fire District * 1.
AND
From the NW corner of Section 19, Township 29 South,
Range 16 East run S 0001'41" E, along the Wcst line of
said f:ection 19, 669. 43 fe~t to the NW corner of the S-
1/1. of the NW-1/4 of the NW-1/4 of said Section J9; thence
ru.n S 89058'35" E. 1391. 35 feet to the NE corner of lot
Z 1 of Morningside Estates Unit I (See Plat Book 59, pages
58 and 59, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida)
for a Point of Beginning; thence continue S a9058'35"E
1086.57 feet to the NE corner of the S-l/Z of the NE-l/4
of the NW -1/4 of said Section 19; thence run S 0051'06" W,
along th.~ N-S centerline of '3aid Section 19, 676.46 feet
to tht: SE corner of the NE-1/4 of the NW-l/4 of said Section
19; thence run N 89008'54" W, 110 feet; thence S 0051'06" ~{,
99.71 feet; thence S'ly and SW'ly along a curve to the right of
a 160 foot radius (chord bearing S 23008'40" W, chord dilltance
IZ 1. 39 feet) 124.51 feet; thence run S 450Z6'15" W, Z74.45 feet;
thence run N 44033'45" W, 305.07 feet to the Easternmost corner
of Lot 126 of said Morningside Estates Unit I; thence run along
the boundary of said Morningside Estates Unit I on the following
nine coursCI and distances N 450Z6'15" E, 80 feet; N 44033'45"
W, 29.93 fcet; N 45026'15" E, 110 fect; N 44033'45" W, 400 feet;
N 36052'50" W. 177.52 feet; N 89058'35" W. 240 feet; N 0001'25"
E, 110 feet; S 89058'35" E, 5.00 feet and N 0001'25" E, 170 fcet
to the Point of Beginning. together with all abutting streets.
The above described property is hereby zoned R-ID Single Family
and designated as Fire District No. Z.
AND
Lots 4, 5. 6. 7, 8, 11 and ll, Block I, Greenwood lawn
Subdivision. according to map or plat thereof recorded in
Plat Book 16. page 73 of the Public Records of FinellalJ
County, Florida, together with all abutting, '8 treets.
The above described property is hereby zoned "MH" Mobile Home
Park and designated as Fire District No. Z.
Section Z. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are directed to include
and set out and :;bow upon the official zoning map and other official mapa of
the City of Clearwater the foregoing property.
-2-
Ord.11011
.' (./ ....,
I:~
"'l;~m'.
~.1,;W~;..'
'~" o(1..~I~;'
'i., .~'~;~i.<;"y.....
Z""';"~~"~~:
I '\.,'r:....
I' ~,. '~. ,,,,.,~~.'
;':~ ~"'_~'~l.o-i' :.
, .
I .'
I
t
I
{.
i
--,....~
~ h
.... " 14
.
e
.
ORDINANCE NO. 1011
.'-----
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OF SEC7'ION 11,
TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANCE 15 EAST, PINELLAS r:OUNTY,
FLORIDA, A PORTION OF SECTION 18, TOVfNSHIP'~~ SOUTH,
RANGE 16 EAST. PINELLAS COUNTY, FlORIDA; A PORTION
OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP Z9 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST,
PINELLAS COUNTY. FLORIDA, AND LOTS" THRU 8, AND
11 AND l:t, BLOCK 1, GREENWOOD l.AWN SUBDIVISION.
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH ALL'
ABUTTING STREETS INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF ClEAR~'ATER. FLORIDA. AND REDEFININC
THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID
ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
171.04, FLORIDA STATUTES, 1963, AND PROVIDING FOR
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
1~.1 .
WHEREAS, the City Comrniuion of th.:! City of Clearwater, Florida,
enacted Ordinance No. 1006 on March 16, 1964, which Ordinance declared the
intention of the City to annex the parcels hereinafter described into the corporate
limits of the City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four consecutive
weeks in the Clearwater Sun, a newspaper published in the City of Clearwater,
Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attached; and
WHEREAS, more than thirty days have expired since the enactment of
Ordinance No. 1006, and no registered voter of the City of Clearwater, no owner
of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no person whomsoever hat
objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, setting forth any objections
to said annexation, and
WHEREAS, all of the provisions of Section 171. 04. Florida Statutu,
have been complied with;
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section I. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its City
Commiuion, by the authority and under the provisions of Section 171. 04,
Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater, Floridil, and redefines the boundary lines of said City so as to
include tbe following parcels:
Begin at the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter
of Section II, Township Z9 South, Range IS East;
thence run N 89014'36" W, a distance of 801. 01 feet
to the point of beginning; thence run N 89014'36" W, a
distance of 53Z. 54 feet to a concrete monument, said
monument being the Southeast corner of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 11; thence run
N 89020' 16" Wa distance of 136.58 feet to a point, thence
run N 0027 'z I" E, a distance of 976. 12 feet to a point;
thonce run S 890Z0 '39" E, a distance of 669. lZ feet to a
concrete monument, thence run S OOZ7'ZI" W, a dist.'1nce
of 977.07 feet. to the point of beginning, and containing
IS.00 acre. more or leu, together with all abutting streets.
The above delcribed property i. hereby zoned "P" Public and
de.ipated &I Fire Dlltriet No. Z.
-1-
ORD .110 11.
.;'! '"
'~:i"~';.::
;.... '14
\, ',1"".
. ;.t.(-~'
..~( ,~.. ,~~
.'. .'1'
~~;;~":
:\~J. "if
~__-~":l-!>
~.,~ .
:-'f-",....;
:l"-~\
''''l\'.'~
.~f,.'
;.,~1
,,\.\
.f ~t"
.1~ ..
'~i'
~~~
':'~.,J
,,~"'~\l
,,:..';!
Ar-
.-J.:,{.!.
-:""'f~
,":.--.t>
........s.
~t~~~
"\~.
."~.
. -r.-<'
iti!;
,f ....
"..."',
I
.~~
~~';~
~f.fb
;,,-.."=--,:
:;~
.~....~
~rj-?l
~
.:i'f:
..fti
.~~;
......
~,
~~i
x.t~.
.':':~~;'
~.~
:~t4~
~~
~.1.\ .
,,'\.'"
.~~i
. 0.1.
'):?,:
_.
~ .i.~::
a:~:..'~
," ...
...' ~ ":',
-~~ .
..:'\ :
'~::;;j:
r.""2~
~~- ~
.;...)::
';,'~ ~~~
'0,
."...:..~ .'
1. "'.'
-~-....:
..:.~~,~
;;,,:,'.
....../< ~
."
.' -.
... .
~- -;?(J
,;, -'.r
i
.,
".\
i~;.
,;'
'-;-~--.Gf':' ~-.l~{i'ilji~;:.... > i:~.'-'-
.;......~,_-1.....'*:~;..i'~~-tf'~~ ~..tt.... ~.'!J\.,..~.~.. .
~'O:.
.If
((e-
--
.'
Sedtion 2. The m.ty Enq1non and the City Clerk are direo~
: :1d to include and let out and shm; Upon the official llIonj.nq map aud ':>ther
~ffioial ~ps of th. City of Clearwater, the fo~eQOinq property w1th its
zoninq as indio4t~d.
Section S. This Ordinance shall beoome effective immediately
.' upon i h passage.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND READING
tt~y ]6, 1960
MAv If:, 196Q
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINAL
READING, AND ADOPTED Ml'IY 11>, 191>0
CfldkiL
Attest:
R.G. Whitehead,. City Ch'L:
. ,\tfn;r t~'~ ~r~~(~hJ -2:?,/, L
Published: Proof of PuHi<':.ltion
.
"';."
:,
'.
I
:.
OX'd. 864
. -2-
') <1
I',
:~'1"'.1!"" ~,,\.A\':
~.~.: ~~,. bo~':'
~~~~~,:-:'~l~ 4
~,"~:IJ:-~:~/_~~!t'" .
;.,.,~ 'If':', '" ,'_}:t;...~
...; f ,;,,-,..':'
: :"j,~ .:.; t"
.t.,.:..~~'f;.\~
.~.j4~;,:;'.
,;~("~; ff.:i: 1I .
"':'f..'O~.(n~....:
':,,~-:a- ~;
f:':-7(."'.~ .l""
\....;<;--.'t:'iW
~,.~.. .. ': ~ s:.... ,f ,_,.
\k'iEJl~
~")7.;"-".-;." .. ~'",~""
-A , .,' "J""'" ?"
.~it, ~ ..;, ,.:;.~ f~:
i ~;::,';j>>~
..
'~9-M~~:\..b.f~...":-<t~......",~;:41i~;~:!.'1h~) ... 3:tiz""
... -~- 1~~~~~~~=t'fJ'!l~~~~;Y. -. .. - ~~
e
.-
ft. j,{ .
JI
,.. \
/
.
ORDINANCE NO. 864
7.:"1t""':;~":::";"';"I'.-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY HEREINAF"rER DE-
SCRIBED WHICH IS TO BE INCMN AS SUNSET LAJCE MANOR
SUBDIVI~XONL LOT 8 AND LOT 34J_~NSET HIGHLANDS NO.
2 AND WI' ~, LOT 4, AND '!HE wWJ.' HALF (Wi) OF LOT
6' LAURETrA TERRACE AND ALL ABUTTING STREETS INTO
mE CORPORATE LIMIT~ OF THE CITY OF CLEARWAT~L._
FLORIDA, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF ~nL
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION ACCORDING TO '!HE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171.04 'FLORIDA STATUTES
1959; ZONING '.mE ANNEXED PRO~ERTY AS HEREIN PRO-
VIDED; AND PROVIDING FOR '.mE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS the City Commission of the City of Clearwater,
Florida enacted OrdInanoe No. 861 on April 4, 1960, which Ordin&\ce de-
clared the intention of the City to annex the property hereinafter de-
scribed; into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater; and,
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a weak for four
consecutive weeks in the Clearwater Sun, a newspaper published in the City
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attached: and,
WHEREAS, more. than thirty days have expired since the enact-
~ent of Ordinance No. 861, and no registered voter of the City of Clear-
water, no owner of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no
person whomsoever has objected to such annexation or has applied tc the
Circ~it Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County,
Florida, setting forth any objections to said annexation; and,
WHEREAS, all of the prOVisions of Section 171.04, Florida
Statutes, have been complied with:
NCM L..THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
OF Tl1E CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through ita
City Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section
171.04, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the
City of Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said
City to include the following:
That part of the Southeast Quarter (SEl) of the
Southeast Quarter (SEl) of Section 2, Township 29
South, Range 15 East, lyinq North of the T & G C
Rai1roa~l_Pinella8 CountYL Florida, to be known as
SUNSET uu..E MANOR SUBDIVI~ION, and all abutting
streets.
Said property is hereby zoned R-l (Residential).
Lot eight (8) ar.d Lot thirty-four (34) of SUNSET
HIGHLANDS NO.2, and all abutting streets.
Said property is hereby zoned R-l (Residential).
. .
Lot 2 Lot 4, and the West half (Wi) of Lot 6,
LAURETTA TERRACE, Section 27-29-15, according to
map or plat thoreof recorded in Plat Book 19,
Page 11, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida.
Said proporty is hereby zoned R-2 (two-family
Residential) .
Ord. 864
:-1-
'?)
;
.
l ,:,.f'~~
, :.. ':.~ .-~::~,~;\t4~ 'I'
" '.' ., " .' "","'-fI
,',~~.l,':.:_~,..~ > ',1~~I't~
,,,,0';.' "..,..~ .',
. ;:i}i:,fr!ii~~.;,:.. " r ~~ ::-:,'
:.ot..i,L.;..,........,~)r;". .... '...
. -,.'~~)~...{>~4~ ;... . . ",.~
'J ,;.~.,\..~'-"\.'.i. "", A- .
a." '1. '1. 1:,''/:..... . ,. "
.~,.;-;.'ii..t'.....;.,:::."...~~ ~'.' >.(:t
'.. ....':,. "",....1.;".;, "l~.
..~\.> '.';:.{~},~".'f.f,~:.a;\ :~
~', <?'~:. '?:...../{~~~
.. -.:.t.~t.iJ.."../ .,~.~:).
'~, ;~~..;::':.2:~;<fr.~\;
',. . ""'.""J i\.~..'t~.,-
,., -. .~'~ ';,~~/ft.~~
t . .,": . ::;::'j;~f: . .
I .'.... .; ,.~.At~.
1 . ':: ". ..' ,.,~,~i
~ . ,.'.', ._dTo. ~';,..'Wl... ~..'"
I . .-~~~-~~..~.'~J,~.~ ,', ,~. J ,. -
. '.. . . '.;,"?" .;"
~ ':..~~~N~ ~<>
f"~~;.:,... ,.....:~~~ : -. .
'.' '., ' ..' >.,' ~,~ r.' .'
l.;>:! ..,:..:;;:~~'.;;l '. - . ..
r -"....... l' >1 ...."..:-
f;,:~1~it~~~ .~;; f
I :.....,.:,-.i'\~..;~:t..j
J. '..._"..:.,~ ".: --\-~...~~.~S.:~.f~
I.~';~;r!~~i '-,-
",.' ,'", ".' liS 'i
;. ..:::.'rf:.:~;?g~$t~
I""w"" .. .,,_. ~.':";l
1'~(H:Jit.i:~
.,~}~ft~~~
I;~~f~
r ,~~~::~~:...~~f{I~
I .,.~' .~'.' .,'}. "'~
.~iH';:~&~
Ord ,!/eYC'> -I <-q. . I:' '1,,( ~;':C':'I'\~:!..
......><""~. "'. . . ">:'l!J>."":""::1'i/o"T"'T~.' ~. .' .'':r .'1~~~',n.,:":-,..".""""~"~7~:~i':"."..'O.,~.'- ,{.,.?, ~,:O;''':;"L-;';t~~
- '.'..""'""",,..:'.~~ ~.t ~ .~~':'-~~'...\Jo.~..,'~'"~...""~,.....~...N~~~~......~~~~""'t:,~~,~,~*"'b>.i~.--.~
, -
j
i
!
1.
" '. ,
.,".. .~
~
1
~
J
.
4
~
-';' ,
~. ". 1
.,. j
.:~ ",' '/'. ~
.. " ~
. "'."~',' -
\',
:::y~, :
~:;?~:(;
,.;::>..~:.
.j~{f:;+:
....'t I. .. - ~
:/A~' .~:.,~
i~t~:~.~
~,~..
!.if.~""'!.\' ~.::..
,..~~....
~F'4.."
~~(~
~. -:-~
,.r 1:;';~\':1
"Y'.' . ,,.;.\
.'4....,."""".'.
:i~~.r,:.,:.~
1,<<-~Y"i :.'1
~~~~fl,,'
~:~;~~
.-t.U;..._
,,'..'fY:l \.~
"'1,
:,
f1
0,
.~.._'
too..'
'-.
:, /, /
.I ,1("
ORDINANCE NO. 803
7. :'..-.:
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY HEREINAFTE~ DESCRIBED
LYING n: TilE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TONNSHIP 29S, RANGE l5E, AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, TOGETHER WITH LOTS 13 AND 14 BLOCK
1 OF GREENWOOD LAVIN SUBDIVISION, INTO nm CORP6RATE LIM-
ITS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AND REDEFINING
TilE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIO~S OF SECTION 171,04, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1957: ZONING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS HEREIN
PROVIDED: !.ED PROVIDING }o'OR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TillS
ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
enacted Ordinance No. 794 on November 3, 1958, which Ordinance declared
the intention of the City to annex the property hereinafter described, in-
to the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater, and,
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four con-
secutive weeks in the Clearwater Sun, a newspaper published in the City
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attached: and,
WHEREAS, more than thirty days have expired since the enactment
of Ordinance No. 794, and no registered voter of the City of Clearwater,
no owner of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no person whom-
soever has objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court
of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, setting
forth any objections to sa:ld annexation; and,
WHEREAS, all of the provisons of Section 171.04, Florida Statutes
have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDA:::NED OY THF; CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its
City Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section 171.04,
Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said City so as
to include the following:
The "lest 1/3 of the East 3/5 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4
of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 27, Twp. 29 S, Rge. 15E, and Lots
)J and 14, Block 1 of Greenwood Lawn Subiivision, according
to map or plat thereof recorded among the Public Records of
Pinellas County, Florida.
The followingdes\~ribed property is zoned B-Business:
The West 1/3 of the East 3/5 of the NE 1/4 of the 1M 1/4
of the mI 1/4 of Section 27, Township 2<) South, R-'\ne;e l5E.
The following described property is zoned R-l Residential:
Lots 13 and 14, Block 1 of Greem/ood La'trrl Subdivision, ac-
cording to map or plat thereof recorded among the Public
Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
The City Engineer and the City Clerk are directed to include in
and set out and show upon the official zoning map and other official map~
of the City of Clearwater, the foregoing property with its zoning as in-
dicated.
...
.
~~"~" ,: , ..
I:.~};;-':'
:.....;,..".
<)2~,:'
"":-/:';:~":
~ ..1''\'_
.." ~. .. .',
;... ~.--, - ...:~
.-'.....l '.
.. - ...
...k,:.~:~~
i~t\~
.. ........."-;-:i
......:--.,..Jo...'
~ ;'" !.~:;. ~,~
':;r~:~:~
'-~:'--;,::~
;~I;;'
.~~~~.
.:-.,.--J:.....
..~~}}SJ1'
ffJ::...: ~,
'b.'-~'A.
.#,,~,..
~~;~~
~:-:.:-~.:- ~;~
:,.;:-;:7:'..~
~. ...1
~;".:;'-~1
t ,'. ~.;\ <-
, "'- , .
e e
SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST
SUBDIVISION OR AREA PAGE . ANNEX ORD DATE ACREAGE
K Ie B 21-01 322-A '-:1017 07/06/64
K , B 21-011 322-A 86-15-- 4251 12/18/86 10.2500
K , B 22-01 322-A -- 803 12/08/58
Greenwood Lawn Lots 4-8,11 & 12 Blk 1 322-A "- 1011 04/20/64
Greenwood La',m Lots 13 & 14 Blk 1 322-A _ 803 12/08/58
Hillcrest Av. - Belleair - Ponce DeLeon 322-B ......1048 02/01/65
Lauretta Terr. Lots 2, 4, & W 1/2 of 6 322-A _864 05/16/60
Loveland Sub Lot 3 & 4 322-A 86-15 -4251 12/18/86 0.0000
Loveland Sub Lot 14 322-A 86-15 .-4251 12/18/86 0.0000
Loveland Sub Lot 15 322-A 88-:-44 __~764 04/20/89 0.2342
/
Loveland Sub Lot 16 322-A 86-15 -4251 12/18/86 0.0000
Loveland Sub Lot 17 322-A -i.017 07/06/64
Loveland Sub Lot 18 - 22 322-A 86-15..... 4251 12/18/86 0.0000
Monterey Hgts 1st pt Blk H 322-B - 1048 02/01/65
Monterey Hgts 1st pt Blk H (DEANNEX) 322-B 69-54 lIB! J.N' 06/24/70 -1.1576
/Ut1ht ();~ ~
e
v~~(C~v
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST
( -", SUBDIVISION OR AREA PAGE ANNEX ORD DATE ACREAGE
M " B 22-02 323-A - 1048 02/01/65
H " B 22-03 323-A -1048 02/01/65
Clearview Heights Lots 43 thru 46 323-A ~ 04/22/65 1.5650
Southridge 323-A -1048 02/01/65
,)\
J'
-j
I
)\
--l
1
:P
~ ~
"
'j
'J
~
II
\ )
I '\
)
': j
~:1
o
tt 1
I'
tl
; )
t \
( ,
,.;
r
t
'(
<'
!
.}
"
~
:!
C'
,
...
~
l'
C
}
(
,I
I
I
,
'!i
0\
CO
1(\
ri
I
0\
ri
~
---.J
ri
I
0\
ri
'0
Q)
.p
C)
Q)
or"J
Q)
H
.p
C
(D
.p
.::
'd
.::
a
orl
.p
tCj
~<
GJ
.::
c
m
H
a
~
c
a
'rl
.p
e;)
()
',-1
rl
P.
0.
<<
llO
'0
H
+-'l
Cf)
rl
'C
CJ
en
Cf)
cD
o.
['--
u\
','i)
'd
H
o
-"",
\.0
rl
--
(Y)
(Y)
Cf)
4~
a
t-=l
.p
a
H
rl
o
--
C:l .p
a
oH
.-1
P::l "'
Q)
--rl
00
.DH
::Sorl
(})O
Cf) Q)
rl>
ria
m H
(})O
rl
P4
--
.0
::s
U)
Cf)
rl
r-i
m
(})
o
\D
I
LC\
r---l
I
C\J
o
\0
I
t'-
I
(1-')
(Y)
\0
rl
I
0\
rl
.p
s::
Q)
.p
s::
."
bD
'd
H
'd
H
(Y)
cB
'"0
s::
C\J
t'-
Lf\
co
'd
H
o
'"0
Q)
Cf)
Cf)
m
~
rrl
\0
rl
I
0\
01
co
L(\
co
't:l
'H
o
bD
s::
."
"d
m
Q)
H
.p
Cf)
rl
'd
GJ
V)
Cf)
m
~
0\
\.0
01
I
0\
01
tf.l
t:O
s::
on
"d
m
Q)
H
(Yj
"d
Q)
tf.l
tf.l
CIS
0.
rl
\0
co
'd
H
o
01
I
01
co
01
I
0\
r-I
.j..)
s::
Q)
.j..)
s::
..,
--. s::
s:: 0
o on
on .j..)
.j..) ctS
ctS ~
~ (1.)
(1.) s::
fa ~
ctS i'
-.- I
rJ)
bO bO
'"0 '"0
H H
'"0 '"0
H s::
(Yj (\/
~ c3
'"0 .j..)
s:: rJ)
(\/ r-I
co C\J
l!\ \D
co co
.0 'J': .0
H, H
0.0
"d 'd
Q) Q)
tf.l CIl
tf.l tf.l
CIS ctS
~ ~
-"---------- - . :;:~..;.-:.:::=:-....~-.~:-_.:.:.~:..-.:..
.j..)
0.
(\/
.D
::s
(})
tf.l
:--1
01
m
(})
01
.j..)
a
f-i(Yj
Q).j..)
rlO
OH
~
on "
00
Q) .
>01
oP=l
H
o
o
\0
I
01
C\J
I
(Y)
0\
tf.l
.j..)
o
...-=1
"
"
H
H
.j..)
."
s::
:::>
tf.l
"d
s::
CIS
01
.c:
b()
orl
:r:o
01
.j..)
Q)~
tf.l
s::
::s
(})
o
\D
I
01
C\J
I
(Y)
tf.l
"d
01
.c:
b()
;:j
s:: .
::S.j..)
tlJo.
&f~
mE-!
~
(1j
Q).j..)
~.j..)
ClSQ)
HH
::s
o CIS
CH
:::S
(})
o
01
.a
::$
CI)
c3
rJ)
0\ r-I
r-I
CIl ctS
.j..);~i~. CI) ~.
Or" .~,
I....:r . ,,"i
r-1;~\
~ ,~-(
~ ~r'
H'
(Yj
0)
'"0
01
.c:
bO
:I!
f ~ ~,~>~
..:::j- J" I
I (\/ (\/
..:::j-e~ ~
(\/
co
r-I
I
0\
rl
"'
.
\D
co
01
I
0\
01
\D
co
r-I
I
0\
r-I
.~~'
1~ ..~~ (\/
. 0\\ C\J
" rlJ' (\/
. I" J
0\'0\
rl r-I
-~- --,. - --
..'f,
o 0
('1'\ 4
N N
1 1
~ ~
r-i r-i
s:: s::
o 0
'or-t ..,
.j..) .j..)
m Ctl
~ ~
Q) Q)
s:: s::
s:: s::
ex: ex:
C\J (\/
\0 \D
co co
'"0 'd
H H
o 0
"d 'd
Q) Q)
.j..) .j..)
0. 0.
a 0
'"0 '"0
c:x: c:x:
.j..)
o
H
,'H
\D
I
\D
01
I
l!\
to-
'co
rl
J
0\
r-I
':~~. t
.~; ,
l '!\\.;
.~~~{r:'~;;<-;
s::
o
~'.' or-!
'*.p
.f.; .~:,'.;.'...p :;........... ctS
: '" s:: .. ~
, .' (1.) '." Q)
";.j..) :' s::
s::f" s::
H"t c:x:
"~
(Y)
.j..)
o
H
I
',~;\t;i. _ t
..:::t 'lC"\,.' 0
\D \0 :;!;; r:-
eo CO .};:r CO
"1fpl, .
'2 'gf' 'g
00 0
'd .,.."" 'd 'd
Q) " ].,;;:' Q) Q)
.j..):::: .j..) .j..)
, 0. "0. 0.
o 0 0
'"0 '"0 '"0
c:x: c:x: c:x:
'"
f '
0.
(\/
CIl
'"0
01
.c:
bO
@
"
s::
o
oM
CIl
"' on
i:~ ~." ~
OH H".a
H "'::$
oM" 0 CI)
~~ ,~
:> rl.,'o
2~/1;1~
('~
I
\0
01
I
Lf\
"
o
r-I
C:Q
CIl
r-I
r-I
(1j
CI)
bO
.~
'oM
'C
~
(1)
c...
~
(t)
r-i
'C
C>
(t)
(t)
~
~
r-i
r---
'(0
I ·
'C
~
o
1ri 1""'1
r-i
I.
'"
N
1
('1'\
N
...-4
oM
:I:
'C
~
~
r-i
.=
hO
OM
,'., ::c
,-
J:+"
'..
~
~
..
bO
~
oM
'C
~
(1.)
H
~
(t)
r-t
),."
'C
CD
(t)
(t)
ctS
~
('f'\
r---
'(0
,I
~
o
-
l.t\
r-i
I
~
N
1
4
r-i
.
o
(1.)
CI)
o
4
N
1
0\
r-i
-
~
~
~
~
~
eM
-
'~4;t1
bO
~
oM
'C
ctS
(1)
~
~
(t)
r-i
'C
(1.)
(t)
(t)
ctS
~
N
r---
'(0
.
'C
H
o
-
.
~
(t)
r:q
~
~
~
o
~
o
-
\0
r-i
1
'"
N
I
-:0
r-i
.
o
(1)
CI)
..
~
08
::=:
o
\0
I
l.t\
M
.
'to
o
4
N
1
~
r-i
-
l.t\
...-4
r-t
oM
~
~
t"\
o
H
~
~
~
..
~
~
(1)
~
~
oM
-
r-4
r---
'(0
".
'C
S
"d
Q)
~
A.
o
'C
<
"..
r-i
1
'"
N
1
('1'\
N
CD
bO
~
(1)
~
o
~
..
....,
At
...
(t)
~
~
o
'C
~
~
r-i
~
bO
OM
:I:
o
\0
1
l.t\
r-i
1
'(0
N
....:t
N
I
~
r-I
...-4
l.t\
N
1
~
r-I
-:t
\,()
N
I
0"-
r-!
-
f/)
~
~
OM
'C
~
(1.)
0::
'C
H
('1'\
~
'C
~
N
~
o
'C
(1)
CI)
CI)
~
Po.
N
r---
-co
ll"\
r-l
I
~
N
I
P,
N
'0
CQ
6D
~
orl
s::
o
N
o
.j..)
'0
Q)
H
~
Q)
Ct-4
Q)
~
+>
(I)
Q)
;:j
0-
Q)
~
s::
o
t.-f
+>
m
><
Q)
~
c
-::x:
.
o
Q)
(J)
-
~
o
'M
+>
m
~
Q)
I::
I::
~
...
-:t
r---
-co
.
'0
S-4
o
.
'0
~
o
'C
Q)
CIl
tf.l
CT1
P-.
><
(1)
~
s::
<
o
+>
~
s::
Q)
~
~
H
Q)
bD
ro
Q)
S-4
t>
(1j
~
()'\
r-I
~
~
ro
P-.
.
r-l
orl
CIS
~
~
-
..
-co
r-l
tf.l
+>
o
H
----
-.0
r-l
I
0'
N
I
t'-
r-I
.
o
Q)
CI)
Q)
bO
ro
Q)
~
t>
~
o
'-0
I
t'-
r-l
I
o
rl
(
,
...
+>
(I)
P::l
>,
m
CQ
I
o
+>
I
4-i
...-4
:::1
d
..
tf.l
~
m
o
'0
I::
m
r-!
..c
M
on
::z::
.
..!
o
'-0
I
N
N
I
00
o
'-0
I
0'
rl
I
0'
Lt'\ W ~'
..::t Lt'\ ~ ~ ~
'.[) --0 --0 --0 r:-- r:--
N N N N N N N
. I I I I I I I
Q'\ (J'\ (J'\ (J'\ (J'\ (J'\ Q'\
rl r-i rl rl rl rl rl
.-...
C
0
~, . 'r-!
:0 .-... .f-)
Xl .f-) (1)
~. ><
~ Q) Q)
, .~ .f-) s::
;r-! s:: s::
s:: 'r-! C\S
cO -
~ hJ) hJ)
0 ~ s::
.., .,... 'r-!
'd "0
"0 C\S C\S
Q) Q) Q)
~ H H
~
Q) +-> +->
'+-4 U) U)
ill ,..~ rl
~ ~
s::
.., 0 0
(/)
(\) 'd "0
P Q) Q)
(J" U) U)
(j) U) U)
~ C\S C\S
P. P.
5::
0
,~ C'- 'to
i" L..... C'-
ro 'to 'CO
X
Q) . .
C "0 'd
C H H
~ 0 0
~
.""
,~
~
;'0
\~
.,' .
\"-i
\'-1
\~ll
.....
'" ...
t.....
, ,)
\ ..
I~
1'<1
l~
\~
'".
~
\,~
..
1>
)0
'n
:J
~
;)
~ ~
() 0
'J --0
, I
l'~ C'-
/"1 rl
J I
() 0
I I rl
~
.-...
--0 s::
r-i 0
I .,...
(J'\ s::
N ::J
I
"to 0
r-i .f-)
-
~
U) 'r-! Q)
(]) C\S .f-)
+-> Q) C\S
(1j r-i .f-)
+-> rl U)
U) (]) J::4
~Ll I::Q () ~
(]) >> $...t ()
>-. ... (f) C\S cO (])
C\S ~ I::Q CL.. U)
P=l ........... ... I "0
I ~ (]) 0 s::
0 hJ) .f-) (lj
+-> (J'\ cO I r-i
I ~~ Q) 'H .c:
~ $...t r-i bO
r-i (f) () ".' ::s "", 'r-!
;j . < ,S' t:, ::r:
c-' ::J -".t." '
0 0 0
--0 --0 '"
I I I
C'- 'to r:--
rl r-i I
t I r-i
0 0 rl
rl ...-l
-".
s::
o
.,...
s::
~
o
+->
$...t
.,...
C\S
(])
rl
rl
(])
P=1
..
~
~
(J'\
...-l
.
Cf)
.
~::>
.-...
..::3
"0
~
N
"0
(])
tf)
If)
C\S
0..
...
r:--
r:--
'CO
.
"0
~~
o
.-...
hO
s::
.,...
"0
C\S
(])
H
~
s::
'r-!
.f-)
Q)
..::3 ~ (])
E
-g "0
s:: +:>
N N ><
f~ Q)
"0 's::
Q) ~.
If) ; U)
tf) U) .,-f
cO cO +:>
Po 0.. s::
::1
... ..
w ~ '0
C"- C"- Q)
'to "to M
M
. . Q) .
'd "0 'H
H ~ lU
0 0 0
'.,,,;
+>
tf)
rl
"0
Q)
If)
If)
C\S
0..
...
r-i
W
W
.
"0
H
o
""
OIl
ro
n..
U),
~
:::> z
Z ~
...... E-t
~~
.. ril
U),Z
tt:Z
~<
Z
o ..
......U)
U),f-.
U),u
......U,l
~..
~~
OU)
U~
.......
.. ~
~O
o ....l
~5
Ou..
~~
1o%.tU,l
~:f 6
~ U
E-tP-l
~o
.~ A:
~ @'"
~Cl
~z
u.......
U)
.......
~::r:
Of-.
~
......
u
o
E-t
::<
~
Q
Z
......
,.;
-Ii
~ ~ I.J, I.J,
I ~ A-!! ~ ~
/8 Ii I I
l~~~ ~,__ ~
I i
I
.
C"\ C'- ~
o. O~' -:t
C"\ C"\ C"'\
I I I
0'\ 0'\ 0'\
r-l r-l r-l
N It'\
'D 'to
r;'. 7
0'\ 0\
r-l r-f
'D
~-:t
, C"'\
-t.1
0\
r-f
" . r-f '''I'' tt'\1' C"'\
fl.'.... ~ '..... ~.."...~
','''....:.. I ..... '.'.' I '.'; '.' I
.... ,0\ ';'O\.~O\
. r-f~r. r-f
oi:
0'\
It'\
C"'\
I
0'\
r-f
':~,,;:
1/)-
bOS::
S::0
o~"'"
'tj~
cd cd
Q)X
MQ)
CD u" s::
0 - 'tjs::
z s:: Mcd
D 0 C"')- d
~ o~ c:d 0
11.I ~ - .....
Co) ~ ~ 'tj bO ~
0 >< !:: ~ ~ cd
a:
A- Q) Q) r.'l on ><
!:: ~ ... ~ Q)
LL. !:: !:: ~ Q) ~
0 Ct1 or-! I/) Q) ~
11.I - "-" r, S cd
a:
:J !:: ~ I.
I- ~ Ll'\ 0 I/) .~
c( 0'\
z I 't{) 't{) .~
't{) 't{) 'tj 't{)
I Q) ~ 't{)
. . I/) .
"0 "0 :1) C 'tj
S-i S-i CU ~ S-i
Ij 0 0 0.. 0
'I 'tj 'tj
"C "C C'- Q) 'tj Q)
Q) Q) 't{) S-i Q) S-i
~ ~ 't{) M ~ S-i
0.. 0.. . Q) 0.. Q)
I 0 0 "0 c.... 0 c....
I "0 "0 S-i Q) "0 Q)
II < < 0 0 < 0
~ -- ~
Ll'\ .. fE':/
r-f s:: M'>'
I - I CUQ)
I !:: 0'\ ':-~;/i- S~
0 (\l ~O
o~ I OQ)
~ ~ C"\ 00
a: l:) N ~
"-"
ii: 0
a: ~
0
.J M
-rl
c( ('Ij
:J
D Q)
:; r-f
r-l
Q Q)
z a:l
"-"
...= ~
Co)
11.I ............
., ~
to
::> 0'\
en
r-f
~~
rci,B~*.
. I" 'tj
M S-i
o 0
'tj 'tj
Q) Q)
.;..) ~
0.. 0..
o 0
'tj "0
< <
11.I
l-
e(
D
<~. ;~o
I d." I .' ^
.,i~ ~t........
r-l ':(';...c~I;;.': I
C\l Nt' 0'\
I I r-f
r-f r-: I
r-l r-f N
r-l
--'--
co
0\
(Yj
I
0\
rl
/....'
:I
, '~;
s:: s::
0 0
...; . -rl
~ ~
m m
>< ,1 ><
Q)
Q) s::
E s::
< c:x:
l:'-
0\
CO
s::
m
~~
C)~
on
HQ)
~~
'~J)~~~ r,
r-f ."; ch
(\J
I
l:'-
rl
l!\
.
I-=l
, >....-1
\0
I
rl
I
l!\
0\
0\
(Yj
I
0\
rl
C"\
~
~
I
0\
r-f
bD
~.
o~
"C
('Ij
Q)
M
...,
I/)
S-i
on
~
s::
0
"C
Q)
I/)
tt)
('Ij
0..
0
0
0'\
.
"C
M
0
Y"
I
Q)
M
0
cd
..
C'-
C"'\
~&l\
.s7
0\
"N
N I I
~ C"\
N
"0
s:: ..
mLl'\
r-lr-l
..c: I
bDO\
o~N
::c: I
('t'\
.J.)r-f
Q)
l/)Q)
S::bD
::Sm
CI)
r-t I
\0 ,
I
l:'- "(
I
'to "(
" ;,
,~
... .j...)
1) I::
.i.l (ll
"
l~ -IJ
I::
!. .~ 'rl
t)
(:)
i''\ bO
. .j...) C
'M
~., ~ -0
.. (l) {lJ
() ~ (ll
! C s..
.....
:p ~
U)
. rl
I ':i 0
(: .1 0 "0
" 0' a>
l_) U)
; 1 U)
;U 'U (lJ
H p.
\ . 0
. .
n -:t
-H "0 0
C1> 0'\
t " .j...)
Ii P-
H 0 "U
II "0 H
~ j <( 0
~
"'-.
~
rl
(ll rl
0
bJ) (.)
C11 0
(ll s.... ~
s.... 'J s....
() C11
C11 p...
\...; ... \.0
~~ C'- rl H
,.ll ('Y"\ I 0
I. 0'\ U)
0- ~ N "0
~ Ol.t'\ I s:::
, Hrl -::0 'rl
rr " ... I rl ~
:'\ NO'\
~ ~N ~
I
J~ "O('Y"\ \.0 l.t'\
.J rlN rl rl
l. .c: I 1
j,. bJ) ... 0'\ 0'\
... . rl l.t'\ N N
I ::r:rl I .
oj' I C'- N
~.) 0'\
(llN ...
d' U) . en cn
tii S:::('Y"\ ~ ~
(, ::Sri ....... ......
CI) ,..::. .~
rl
\,() rl
1 \.0
o I
rl LA
I I
"to 0'\
~
; ',,\
,'4->
IS:::
+') Q)
I:: .j...)
(ll s:::
~ 'M
s:::
'rl I
b.D
I s:::
'rl
bO "0
s::: C11
'M Q)
"0 H
ct1
(ll "0
H s:::
'N
~
U) s:::
r-i 0
\.0 ...;t-
O 0
0'\ 0'\
"0 "0
H s....
o 0
"0 "d
(ll (ll
U) U)
U) U)
ct1 ct1
p.. p...
,-l
'0
I
11)
r-i
I
0'\
----
:to
r-l
rl
o
U
cne,". "
~.
~-"_.
,..~-;:
,i'
C'- .t.
!
I
\0 \0 \0 0
0 0 0 r-I
Lt\ l.t'\ l.t'\ l.t'\
I I I I
0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\
r-I r-I r-I r-I
~~ ~y~
Lt\,: Lt\ ..... f Lt\
~ . '}~;~:(~
r-I r-f r-I
'l~i~
r-I
N
l.t'\
I
0'\
r-I
lO
('l')
I./)
I
0')
r-l
I./)
.::t
I./)
I
0')
r-l
N.
H
~
H
r-: i'ct 2-
('Y"\l.t'\
r-I
.j...)'" r-l
00\ I
HN 0'\
...\ N
N('Y"\ I
~~ N 'to
r-I
4->
s::: s:::
o Q)
'rl ~
+> s:::
C11 'M
X
C1>
s:::
I::
ct1
-
'-0
r-i
\
0'\
N
I
W
r-I
~
\0
r-I
.
0'\
N
\
C'-
"d~
rl
.c:l(\
hOrl
'rl \
::r:0'\
N
+>,
(1)('\"\
U),-l
s:::
::s
CJ:l
b.D
s:::
'M
"0
ct1
C.l
s....
~
U)
rl
'"CI
~
U)
U)
(lJ
p.
b.D
s:::
'M II j""
"0 I
C11
(1) 'b!) bD bD bD
H s::: s::: s::: s:::
.,.., OM 'M .,..,
'd 'd 'd "0 :..'0
H C13 C13 C13 tm
'M (1) Q) (1)
.c: H H f..4 if H
+> ~:i'
's::: 'd 'd 4-> fg
s::: s::: (/)
0 N N r-I N
"d '0 'd 'd 'd
C) C1> (1) (l) Q)
f/) U) U) U) (/)
U) U) U) U) (/)
C11 C13 C13 C11 11
p. P.. Po Po
-:t Lt\ \0 '00 'to
0 0 G 0 0
0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\
. . :~;---. .
"d 'd 'd
H H H
0 0 0
'0
H
('l')
s:::
0 '0
'1"'4 s:::
~ It1
':\{ ~ '0"
,.,...., (1) s:::
s::: N
's:::
It1
,JZ .....
.1 U)
M
'0
Q) '0
+.J Q)
Po lJ)
0 U)
'0 rtl
It1 Po
.:T I./)
M M
0') en
. 0
'0
H
0
...
cn
~
~
,-l
\.0
\
W
rl
\
0'\
l.t'\
o
0'\
o
"0
s....
o
.
i
.g
CI)
'J,;":.r
.....~.
'...,i"')'"..H
Lt\"l", i:\,% C13
0\,() r-I N ;..~ tl. .
I ~ .!~.,
0'\ .....~
N 'di} 0 0'\
IS::: '{''l,:,'N
('\"\ C13 'die I
Nr-I s::: 0'\
..c:: .,.., r-i
c:d b.D :a:
c:d 'M
Lt\::r:
-.() r-I
r-I I~
\ 0'\(1)
0'\ N U)
"t ~3
t'- /. r-I CI)"
~.i~(yr,-,,~~.t
.' cn j:Q
~ ~
-
.
r-I
r-I
o
U
..
s:::
+'
It1
X
Q)
s:::
!:
.....1t1
:_,....
':: 1
;:Jj!
l.t)
M
I
en
N
I
N
...
t'-
cY\
.
.
~,
H
lO
;r-I F~~M
, "I" \
0'\ ~
'N \
I r.:n
'to M
r-I
..~
"'"
~
H
It1
p..
I./)
M
\
. en
N
\: 'H
. ';:fg
. ,'0
!Xl,:":! s:::
~t;i:, ~
d. ~~~~;1~}L:!:ll.):' M
>'~ ;:::=.t"..:l lO
'-0 lO I
",' , '" '1 . \ . \ co
r-I r-f, r-I N \.0 = M
I I I 'I' .' I \ \
00 b,:~r-fNN
. ~~____""r-:l_~... r-f _r:t_m_~
-3 r-f r-I
I \0 '"
'00 I I
~ ~ <"t
-~=. ~
-. .. , .. - . - .
I
I Ie G'I
I LLI ~.1 0\ 0)
I co.' \0 4 C\J (Y") .:::t 0\ 0'\ Lf\
I a: t- t- .:::t .:::t r-f .:::t .:::t
I 0 lr\ \0 t- t- r-i r-f I r-f r-f rl
I O. I I I I I I 0\ I I I
I LL1~ ~ ~ 0'\
, 0\ 0\" 0\ 0\ rl 0'\ 0'\
I a:m r-i r-i r-f c-l r-f r-f r-f rl rl
I ,- --.--------.-.
I
I'
I
C\.I t/) :! "
biJ .
~ ~ II,
n.. " ~
Ii ~ s::
P h- 0>
Z 'I l' ~
:<:: I, X s::
t-l II ..-t
~ 0 u
H , ( '-
E-1 II ~ I So '0
.. ~I I , '.: -\j OJ
t/) I .~ <;; >.. ~
A:: ~ 'S t> ~
. 0>
t:J . s::
~ z "'"
:-;::; z bO ".. b() 'rJ 0>
- '0 s:: 0>
<t: c ~
0 LLI ;,,~ ..-t H s::
LLI f1l '~ 'd
t-l .. 0 Cf) ~ "C ... 0> <II 'd ro CI) s::. 'r-!
CJ) bO
U) f-c 0 s:: :C'd '0 S s:: OJ bO 0
U} a: ..-t Q) 0> (\J H s:: ..-t bQ
U 0. ori 'd H ~ ro ..-t ~
~ ~ lL "0 ro s:: s:: 'd '0 Ctl '0
.., 0 co Q) ("f"'\ ro 0 0 H Ctl ~ H
~ Q) H H~ (Y) 0> 0>
~ LLI H I: "C ~
a: 'w7,. Q) bO '0 H s:: CI)
0 V) ::l I ('() ~ 0> -+-,;; !::
t? t- I rt'\ Cf) . ... Cf) ~s:: "' Cf) tn~ (Y) Ctl rl
t) Z < h 1./'"\' bD 'd ..::t I!'\ Cf) 0> 0> (\J 0) OJ '0
z !I s:: 'I) .:::t .:::t C'd s:: ~ I!'\ ro \0 H
..... Q)
.. ~ Ii C"\ ..; CI) OJ OJ p.. s:: s:: CO p.. . Lf\ 0 CI)
~ !I to "0 CI) Ctl..-t 'd CO <+-t
0 co CI)
Q !i ro . . ~ . ..::t H Ctl
....l . <U p.. 'd '0 -::r 0 I '0 I!'\ 0 . s::
t-l ....l 'I "0 H H H H OJ '0 0 p..
~ :[ to +>
0 H (Y") 0 0 0 ~ 'd H ori t'-
0 ~ 'I 0 C"\ .:::t . t;~ 0> . 0> 0 ~ I!'\
. OJ 'd '0 '0 'd s:: 'd 0) <IS CO
H CI) "0 "0 'd 0> 0> H 0> H 0> s:: H 0) '0 t>
~ ~ Q) Q) H ~ ~ 0 :i CI) ro 0 <IS 0> or-!
r.Ll CI) CI) 0 'd p.. p.. , Q1~ 0) Poi CI) rl
.. > CI) CI) H 0 0 0> 0) ro 0 CI) p.. '0
fJ::j 0 ro C'd 0 '0 '0 ~c-l Poi+> '0 C\l p.. H
0
~ U A. A. ~ ~ ~ H ... '0 Poi <I:
r.Ll ----ti')-p- . -4l ~'~=M
a . H (Y)
~ t? "0 p.. ~ CO Ctl
s: o:x:: r-i ("'\ ro. 0>, rl Poi CI)
~ .c . .:~~ r-f S Q)I!'\
~ bD,o ~ 0 . ~ S::rl
~ X OM ;j ori .~. ~ ro r-f rl+> ..-t I
..:: r.Ll ::CCl) S::", ',:'\i-;- 0 p:j..-t P-.O\ \0
.~ Cl :l: =:> "--' ~'" H 0 ~ 0) C\J rl
+> Q) ,.,.-. '0
H' Z... a: s:: +> "'H I
..... OJ b(\ . Q) .. 0\ rl 0> rl(Y) .. (Y)
() LI. lIl'CI ~lr\ :> .c C\J (Y)
~ CO
CI) a: s::.fi lIlr-i s:: rl oPor-! bO ~
.....
~ ::c 0 ;:l~ ~ I ..-t os:: @ . CI) 0
0 f-c -l CI) ~ HP t> ~ H
..~ Q) N .. Ie," 0> 0
< t";:'} .W H I
::l ~ .I.....,\~ .... ... ..
~ l:'- OM jN".' s::
c ' ,--.; -'..-- .:-,.>, .,- .- . .;::,>., 0) 0) oP<t.:. ~.
> A. q..., , O>O>I!'\ Poi +>\ '0
~ +> 's:: r-f Pi '0 0
~ . 'i~).j!,,;'- -'f\" .
t-l C OM ...,p "~.o ro..-t.1 ~ o I
() 0" r-~
' , Z s::("'\ p.. <l:Q) +> Poi 0\ oP
. i ... p:.)
=:>r-i Cf)CI) CI) C\J CI) ~ .c rl
0 .: lr\ S"~ ....... IJ.:l '0 I IJ.:l P-t ~ p:.) ..,
0 Cf) ~r-i ". ~ . - .,; ~ ".,;-. --. .'.; ..., r-f (Y") .::t
E-t LLI Q).s I CI) Q) 'Q) .c C\J 0> ~ .. ,0
~ s:: ~ I bD H bO HoP CI) ,0
m :J .
~ ::l OM N 'to ro :2@ . or-!..-t ~ :J U) i
J:::I f/) A. ... I rt'\Q) 0 .c CI) Ctl U)
NN 'to H CI) 0> CI) H 0 CI)
Q "0 0 ~ oW ~ 0> CI) rl
Z r-i ,p . . Cd . 0 s:: t> :> H rl rl
..c OM 0 -e~ 0 ro'O . roori ori r-l Ctl
t-l MS::Q) r-1'O ~ r-I S Ctl Ctl
Q) U) i
'M =:> CI) 0 W p:j~ p.. p:.) IIi U)
::r:
~ ,...., 0\ ,-;(~'F 0 0 0 0
LLI '" lr\, 0\ 0\ ;:ji I!'\ 0 \0 \0 \.0 \.0
1./'"\ I I!'\ l!'\iY I~; ".\0 I I I
t- I \0 Lr\ I!'\ Lr\ I
I..~ I I~'t-.;; '';', I t'--
N M t- t-. ; 1<, 'rl rl rl rl I
I I ~ I I Y C\J. I I , I (Yf
M C\J C\J r-I C\J C\J C\J C\J
1 M rl rl
i
I..'
"1
:l;'
.....~
~.
~:
t
~:
,
",
.-'
~,
,
~.
~.
t:
t
1\
~ "
E
~.
I;'
, ,
t'
:/'
_. ~-- -
~
4
c.
K
~
>.;
"
-
~
~>
J
..:
f
~. '"
I'" "'"
t m
,. Q)
q ~
,.' m
t,
~J
,..
~
~.
ri
~
t~
~,
L
..
~j
"
r..
i
rl'(Y)
(Y)'
. (Y\
"-I 1 :-:1
~o C(},,'y:CO
r-i r-ilir-i
"",,1
rcl
ll>
~
en
ll>
~
0'
ll>
~
s:::
o
.,.-1
~
<11
X
ll>
5
m
4.l
-,.-I
.
'd
o H
[-I 0
en
ro
Q)
~
<lj
X X It';
Q) Q) s:::
s:: s::: 0
s:: s:: .r-t
eel eel .J.)
o /0" ..... ro
.J.) . .J.) .. x
.o",,! Q)
.J.)ir;'~, .;; s:::
S::;'i',b S::'",,';" s::: o. .
Q) .. . '.:." <1> "'-. .,...:d
.J.) ~' .J.) "'. fd '"
s:: ''',; s::: \ '. ~,
-rl. .
, ,,;;,'-
.. :~~f,
<~;
.\\;~:
~
Q)
f3
o
~
}~ 'i,
,en s::
~'d
s:: 'd~,.
m c:x:
rl
..c::
b.!)
.,.-1
::r::
p
Q)
en
s::
~
CJ)
.'-.-.tA,:
--i~J1:r,<,;l
.J.) ,/~l. :
tJ)p
rl ~;.~I"
'd '0 '~~*"i
o iE'\::(::
~'IIQjc.;I~~
H '. S::;<t.<i :>
eel -rl '(0/ C)
P-t P-t <:E:
"CO
L(\' co
I U\
rl I
N U\
I I
-.::T U\
4Ml
'~'~-.,l'
co
U\
I
U\
I
Lr\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
bll
~ . r_'
0.... . ~
,/...:H
II""'~
,~:?~~~' .....,
. .,*,-z,O
. "',f4 ~ ". H
,., :~t::a: Eoot
M:if.........~ ::L ,
.. .';k','~ frl' )
~Fti; 001 ~.t ~ .'
,.,....:c.'-"~".,.,..'., :' -'... .w.... I.::"
, ',:--' ,;~~ii~~ ,..,.< Ji>' I
M. ...."..!ij".'...~..'.. ~'.'~.. it
, \j ',' ......"" '",
". .... t-Ji..
. .... .~. l
0.........."'....'.'.'.'..:.....0...... '.....
0',;';" . . /'
-a.............................'..................... ~....'...........' elL !...:.....oo....'.
,gO'.. \.1.1, f-4 . i 0: i
,~' j. 00' u :. 0. ;
I &.I. ...'.'::...'.'..;....':..'..'.'.:..,...~~ " ~.". ....&Lit.........'
IiJ ~':;:~ : "~'ol
11 ' '. '., . l:Q~~"" "
~, "" I--.. I~' IIJ~'
,. '...... r' .-,
'" .'.......'.0 tI) " ;.0: !i..
"\'0 I ;~t
~'..' U Z .'<1
.W;.... ,.Z'
" ......
. -. ~
~O
0....:1.
~<5
O~
ti~
".. ~
"'t. >
IX: 0
~u
H~
<0
~A:
~~
<~
~Q
~Z
U......
tI)
~.... 5::
O)~
i.J.{
-,.~:
~
U
.....J..
0'
E-<<.
....."
~
~...
o
z
....
,
it'
,\i,
t
.,
,1
11
~
tI)
bO
s::
-n
'\ ' 'd
", Ctl
,., <l>
w
~. , H
(
~. (Y)
I: (Y)
'd
:,'~ <l> 'd
~. rJ) <l>
).
CI) CI)
;; Ctl CI)
i\, ~ Ctl
0 ~
0 C\I
CO 0
CO
'V .
H 'd
0 H
0
....". -
><:
<l>
s::
s:: s::
Ctl 0
-n
0 +>
+> Ctl
><:
+> <l>
~ s:: s::
<l> s::
~ +> .~
s::
-n CI)
) s::
J CO <l>
~ 'd
+> H
~ 'rl '"CIS
., S
d
..
... CI)
I <l>
Q H
of C) 0
) ex: +>
~
3 ~ 't-4
of Ctl rl
~ 0 :J
b~ , 0
'-l l'i
co 0-
LC\ ~
I I
co 0
;' rl I N
1 rl C\I .
rl :,0~/~
.-
.~
i
~
~,
,1
I~
t.
r:
ii
t~
,
[;
~,
-'
.:j- <:'Ii' "--",~-
rl C\J CY) "
LC\ LC\ C\l
I I Ln
CO CO Jr.... I
rl ....-I \'1' CO
.....-1
~s
.~.,
i':. ,
'\'
~,
r
lJ'
t
. c.'
1
~ ....
~~
~~.
) :.
;;N
~.
~ '; .
. () '. ~
~~i'.a
l'.ctt.7
D M,;{' (I)'
it .4.~. "d
~ Q)""M
~ H ii,.s:::
!t o%" b.O
& iCUr:E ~
:L~ 0
~ " ..., OM
~V .' Q)""
f. ..., (I) CU
, :CO s::
:1.~ ::s
. Cf)
.,
..c: 0>
~ s... '"d
s..., .rl 'U IU h
... Q) Q) 0> S Cfl c.> 0, ej
"l s:: .1 ..D en cu U 0> s...
I ~ ..lJ ~'-.... cU s... CU 0
o .rl 0 ~ s... '''''rl o,rl U
Cfl . Q) . P-. ;:j Cfl
0> Cfl >:: ..D h (I) 0 bD h
C.rl 0 ;:l 0 ~ 0> ~ 0> H
;-; S.rl 0') .rl :.r~ ..D s...
s... -w UJ '"d s...
O>(1jCflCfl'"d+-'O>+-'O>
. . 0., U ~ .rl h .,-j ~ X s::
) --... '.-1.r:: S ca U 0> 0
) M +) rl bl! S rl +-' ::1 s:: .rl
s:: 0 (:l,'rl O..'x:: IU ~ Cfl
) .rl s:: p, 0> Cl ca..c: +-> 0> Cfl
: s... (1j ~..c. 0 ~ (J)..c: .,-j
) ::1 Cfl s:: +-' E
~ .rl 0> '"d . ~ '"d .rl S
)U '-c:S::hWS:: +-'0
~ .cu .c: .j..J cu 0 0\ ca 0> cu Cl
. 'M 0 rl .rl ..D
1 ;j'rl .j..J ~ .j..J ~ '"d ..'x::>>
). ~ -c. (1j IU s... 0> +-' u..o
I'J ~ ..c: 0 0 ('- ? s:: ca
.j, l:"': +J 0..0\ 0 0>..0 '"d
i)-~ s...G 0>
I) :>. '"d"tO b.O Cfl 0., +-' +-' 'U
I) N .j..J Q) 0\ C .j..J P-. s....rl C
:; . I, s....j..J .rl 0 lu rJ 0
j ,:::, 0> Cfl '0 ~.-1 o.. b.O U
IJ o.. 0> h 0 0> 0> h 0>
~ '0 0 ;j oj N ~ .D I-l .rl (I)
:j Q) ~. C' 0 s...
r.: p, Q) ('- 0> no rl,O Cfl
> 0 1-< \'\.r:: h h ej CU
>I N Q) ..) O.rl WY0 ~
\j C' 0) U) 'rl C 0> h
1l U) '~3 .rl .j..J h .j..J O.-:t In s::
~ .,-j ii~ O.rl cu N 0
C ~ X 0) h .rl
.I. :>. 0 . .~ 0> ---..c: 0 ~
~l t: .$..J biJ U) S Cfl ~.) .rl ,q
(; c. 0....:. h Cfl ~ UJ -W ,.;:.,
;:-J 0 Ti OJ ,0 Q) +J CJ
~, o. c :.: >:~ ~ IU X
Ji c..) U) . QJ.d l-~ .rl..c: Q) .
~\ bO s.:.~ Cfl 0 Cfl .j..J s:: s::
~. III +) ~: C: ;:l C'-i;:l C 0
" S::: Q)'r i Cl1 (I") (r~ '"d en',-j
!; p >:: c ~ ~ ~ s:: tfl
'r1 0 s.... Cfl Qi cH Cfl
a ,-:.0 N 0 rLi 0> ,1~ O.rl.
, 'r'j l\l 4--j ;:l rl E>>
u 0 o' 0 -Il:::: Q) 8 rl
U)Ot)O>+J OOCfl
tflO $... ~hCl;:l
QJ 'r-I (1,1 CTl U cu 0
. c; ~) s:: r::r: OJ :r. 'n s:: OJ E
U .> orl t-.O .r:: s.... .rl ,r:: .rl
( 'r i (\1 tfl H [: t,) E +J 'U .j..J e:
c .(-:.C: ~i 0 0 Cfl s... (15
f.:~ ~ll. s... j..) s....r1 0 CM s::
('! O~~<';(HcU~q o;:j
. ~~> ~J ..c: s...
c! +-> (1:1~.) 'U +l '0 0> 0.) tJl 'U
s... {!) .: tV 0> s... 0, s:: 0>
~ Q) (1) l-~ Q) '"d "d '"d .rl o.,-j .,-j
d P. .C:: Q) U s:: C.l s:: f;r... s... +-> s...
~ 0 ui 'i:j s:: QJ :> C.l p-. (jJ h
; ~,.rl ~-: 'ri E 0 E s:: (jJ CU
"t (:1.,:~;j > (D E cU.rl cU E U
-....
h Cfl
~ 'r! III
(
h
it
"d
C.l
3 -g'E
? 0
h 0 U
o h 0>
+l 0, Cfl
cU . 0,
:> C.l cu Cfl
C.lU cU
rls::C.l>
r~l cu.:)
s:: s::
Cfl Q) r.. 0
.,-j +-' Q).,-j
+-' s:: b.O +-'
O'rl cu 0
cas::~
C.l S cU
~ ~
+-' h
o >>'"d
..c: (H +-' Q)
+-' . rl s::
.,-j .r:: Cl .rl
;:+-' rl
S::C.l+l
+-' Q,G ;:j
us+-'o
cu
s... s... ~ Cfl
~C.lOCU
s:: p,
o s::
u--:tO .>>
li\.rl 0 rl
cU . +-' Cl Cfl
Q".CU ;:j
rl--:t'Us...O
cUrl S::O E
? -(f} C.l +-> .,-j
o ~(us::
s... ~ t:; ? lU
p-.00C.ls:.:
r.... u rl ;:l
(\5 +-' C.l W
s:: l-. 'Cl
s... 0) Cfl C.l
o 8 o>.,-j.,-j
~ >>.r:: +l s...
(n +-' 0 s...
"d 0, cU
Q) ~ou
+-'cUcU.j..J
s:: .r:: '"d
C.l .c +-' '"d s:.:
Cfl.j..J C.lcU
Q) .,-j '"d 'Cl
s... ;; C.l s... Cfl
P. ? cu s:.:
.. 0 ;: C.l
s... rl E cU.r::
C.l rl 0,
Q()cUS::Q)O>
cU X C.l ,a +-'
s:: bO en
cU :>. ;:j +-'
~+-,ous...
. ri::r: ca Q)
:>'0 h s::
+l s...+-,o
. ,-j ;.: (jJ s:: . rl
ClC.lS::OCfl
~OUCfl
Q) .,-j .,-j
,C:: 0> Cfl C.l ~
E-<..c: (f)..c: a
.j..J .,-j +-' 0
h~"dO
ooe::>.
4. 115.D
::r:: 'D
s::
. I I CU
'J .,-j .,-j
rlrlCfl
.o,o,s::
S-t ~ p.. 0>
~ ca cu.r::
0.,
SQ.lQ.lQ)
OCfl~.j..J
S-tQ)+->(f)
Ct-l .c ~
, +Jf+-> s...
[.1) cU Q)
+-> '"d.c s::
'M Q) +-> 0
S Cfl 'M
S-l Cfl '"d Cfl
Q.lQ)Q.lU)
P. U ?'M
o 0 ~
'M s... E E
><: P-. 0
ca ,C: D
+->+-,.j..J
s::.,-j :>.
-:to>E~
Een
S-t+-> 'Cl
o s... s... Q)
Ct-l cu 0> '"d
P.~ s::
+->C.l00
Cfl (::l .,-j U
Q) Cfl C.l
;:j C.l Cfl Cfl
O'u.,-j
O>.rl E Cfl
Hrl E: cU
o 0 ;;
rlP-,O
cU s::
:> C.l 0
o ,C:: ..rl
s... (~ e .j..J
0, C.l0
s:::.. ~~
ca .'~
:>.
s... r-i :>. .
0s...S::'"d
Ct-l0>C.lC.l
~~'"d-g
Q)0>0Q)
~~+-'~
C.l .s::o
Cflr~ 0 U
0> Cfl C.l
HO>cUs...
o,bDO>
s... s... Cfl
HO CU
Q)C.l0
b.O c.'J s:: 'd :>.
CU O>rl
s:: . 'd ? Cfl
cU s... s:: 0 ;:j
~~;:ls...o
o p., E:
:>. 'd (H o,.,-j
+J s:.: I-U c:
. M ca '"d ('j
o s:.:Q)S::
s:: CU.D ;:j
Q) s...
.c :j Cfl U) '"d
E-tPC:S::o>
~ 0 O'M
U'M',-j H
CU+->+->S-l
rl CU <15 cU
~!:1 U U U
Cfl
s::
o
.,-j Q)
+->.0
ca '"d
E: u Cfl Q)
o.,-j S::'M
s...r-l0S-l
Ct-l o,.,-j s...
0, +-' CU
U)CU('(lU
+-' U
'M (l)'M '"d
E: Cfl rl s::
HQ)o,('(l
C.l.r:: 0.,
0, +-> ('(l U)
s::
..D "d Q) .Q)
('(lQ).c.c
u U) +-' 0..
.,-j Cfl Q)
XQ)+-'+->
\i1U en
+-> cU
e'5 s...
00, C.l
~ '"d~
+-,+-'0>0
~ :>.,-j
s...o>OCfl
o E E Cfl
4--i +-' 'M
~.r:: S
+-'cU+-'S
Cfl P..,-j 0
C.lQ)Eo
;:j(::len
o~ :>.
C.lC.lh..o
h U C.l
.,-j ~ "d
r-lrlOQ)
cU 0 .,-j '"d
:> il-. Cfl s::
o CflO
s... Q).,-j U
o,.r:: ~ C.l
0.. E-< t.:: Cfl
cU 0
OCfl
cU
;:
h .
o C.l
Cr-i uO .
'"dSe:
'"dC.lQ)0
0> rl ...c:: .,-j
+->+-'+->-!J
C:::1 0
0> ~ :>.~
Cfl e:
Q) s:: C.l
s...0'"d .
o,Cfl '"d
.,-j 0 0>
S-l'"d+-''"d
0> ~l s::
b.O S::C.l
ca Q) 0 E
s:: u Cfl E:
cU s:: cU 0
~Q)C.lU
P-.s...Q)
:>. en s...
+-> 0
'M '"d s:: Cfl :>.
os... cUr-l
CU 'd Cfl
Q) s:: s:: "d ;:j
.r::0;:jQ)0
E-tQ)O?E
H Cr-i O'M
.'"d ~~
~@g.8
'Cl
Q)
?
01
Q) s...
.r:: 0, s...
+-' 0, C.l
CU s::
s:: 0
.,-j Cfl'M >>
CU U),D
~ ;: Cfl
o .,-j '"d
'M.r:: E C.l
CflUS'd
.,-j'M 0 ~
:> .r:: 0 0
.,-j ~ U
'd Q)
..0 .. . Cfl
;:j .......... +->
(f)S::S::Cfl
. C.l CU
Q) ~ F. ;:
b.Os...+-,
'Clo::ls...s::
.,-j CU 0
s... . o,.rl
.r:: c.~ C.l +-'
.j..J (::l 0
::1....1 ~
o rl b.O
(f)C.lS::
Cfl'M .
4--i Cfl s... '"d
o ::l C.l C.l
P::C.l'"d
+-,....... s:: ~
cU .,-j 0.>
rl ~ t.O E
o,li\ ~ E:
rl W 0
rl I U
CU 0' :>. C.l .
:>N+-'s...:>.
o I',-j rl
s... '.0 0 Cfl Cfl
P.N CU::l
0, C.l 0
cUs::.r::'"dE
o .j..J C.l.rl
h '1-1 :> s::
o +-> '"d 0 cU
Cr-ius::s...s::
Q) cU o,;:j
"d en 0,
0> 'DcU'"d
+->Cr-is... C.l
s:: 0 cU C.l.,-j
0> 0..Ds...
Cfl --:t o::l s...
C.l ........... +-' cU
s...rlb.Ocuu
0, S::rl
~ .,-j o,'d
h Z s:: s::
C.l 0 C.l <U
0.0 ~ N .r::
cuo .j..J.s.::
s:: ~ +-'
CU --:t +-' .,-j
~........... bO cU S
rl c:.s.::U)
:>. 'rl +-'
.j..J-~S:: s...
'M Z s:: "d Q)
o (\5 C.l s::
Cr-irl:>o
(l) 0 p... o.,-j
.c ECfl
E-t--:tQ.l Cfl
............c o.,-j
rl+->uSi
Cfl a
:=:: :>. s:: 0
en..oHO
+.)
.rl I
c:: E
:.J :>. 0
+l U
s....rl (j)
Q) 0 s...
+-'
CU C.l Cfl
;: _C CU
s...+l
CU 'D.
C.l'0 Q) :>.
rl s:: ? rl
OCUOCfl
s... ;:j
Cr-i 'C C, 0
Oho,E
CU ca.,-j
~ci5Q)~
+J .D s::
CU b.D ::l
+-'C::+-'
Cfl.,-j CU 'D
W s:: rl C.l
o o..,-j
UN s...
s:: C.l s...
CU ~.c:: rJ
rl -wU
Ulb.O
HS::+-''d
.,-j CU c::
~ s::.r:: cU
OC::+-'
<u ..c:
+-'rl'"d+-'
(U Il, Q) .,-j
rl ?E
o,Q)oen
.r::S
rl+-' s...
CU 0 Q\
:> :>. U s::
O,DCflO
s... c::.,-j
0, "'0 H Cfl
0, Q) Cfl
cU? s.....rl
s... 8 ~ ~
0P-.00
Cr-i o,'rl 0
cU Cfl
'"d Cfl:>'
0> Cfl . rl ..D
+-'cU~
C:;;t:;'"d
C.l 0C.l
Ul .r:: 0 '"d
0> U s::
s....rl 0
0, .r:: . U
;;.j..JQ)
h c:: Cfl
C.l ~Q)
bo...--... S Cfl
cu ..j..J cu
s::o~.~
en Cl cU
";' 0, s:.:
"'-<:>'C.l0
:>. cU c:::l .,-j
+-' f.-U +-1
.,-j b.O 0
o.cs::~
+-"M
Q) s... s...
.r:: 0 0> .
E-<ZC.l'"d
....... s:: C.l
.,-j "d
~b.OS::
o::lS::Q)
'.OWS
t;i
~ .
,~"
t
I
.
~~..
q'
f
]:
-"
"'~
i-i
..:::t
t-
.
'd
H
o
t~
~...
~
f-~
::E
"
l&.
"
o
:.J
<
:>
o
>
o
z
s::
0
'n
.j..)
ro
X
" (j)
s::
s::
ro
t/)
Q)
.j..)
ro
.j..)
t/)
t/) J:z:j
Q)
:> tf.l
0 <i-l
H <i-l
t:l ;:J
r-I
tf.l'd P=l
'O)'n
.j..);:J ~
roH ro
t:lA P=l
t- t- t'--
lI\ lI\ lI\
I I I
0 t- O
C\l C\l rl
I I I
lI\ lI\ \..0
,,~
,I-
\.~
\ .
~\?;;~,:..!.
I l.l\ '
'to I
2.
:","";'
;,'
ch;~f
(C\I' ' '
. "r I.
'";J': ~
. ,.." ..:::t
C'--
l.l\
I
-:t
I
N
in
{)
......0
.,: I
it--
i,~ r-t
&
I;
r.
li \ C\J "
0\ 0 r-l
\0 t'- C\J 0
I -'- I 1 (Y)
t'- ""1:"-' r:x) I
r-l r-l r-l m
r-l
.:::t
C\J
r-l
I
CO
r-l
Lf\
(Y)
r-l
"I M
CO,.; I:
'.M ~.CO
.:J~; ';;,~
ell ~~
b.') <l)
!:: !::
-M C W
'd ctl ~
, (1j ...;
;\
K' , G.l 0 '0
!~ ~-I .p ctls
<iJ
;,~ '0 ~ H"';
'u H 0 ~
~.~ (Y) -r-! 'O('j
,11 .,p s::K
P'I ~ ~ OQ)
.. Q) Q~
f~' . 'd .p Q)~
: ~ !.3
~J.l c: C tI)(tj
" -i C\J ...;
" ,~
j, "(Y) "
\:1 '0 ,,(Y)
.1) OJ o .:::t.:::t
J.l rJ) ..::t t'- t'-
J.l ~'l t'-
'tJ (TJ . .
a.. ~l, 'd '0'0
, H HH 1)..;
,:oj rl 0 00 \0 r-l r-l
.'t -'- Lf\ In ~~.
-.1 ..::t 'CO
I- t'- '0 'd'd t'- t-- t-- U'\
Q) cuOJ
I..; rJ) rt;, rJ) . . . . t'--
'd (I) . '0 'd
~) ~'l '0 'U '0 .
H ('J ('j('j H H ro .
\.-4 H H H "0
D 0 f.4 0., f.4 0 0 0 0 0 H
0 H
, .. 0
.
~
)
. 'i
.'
\:l
\-.1
, -.,
, )
i~
i ~
Ii
l;
Il
~)
t~
.p
t I
~~ 1
~i
~ I
~ j
(I'
pI
!, .
.'>
t I
rn
=
.. =
. . .
rJ) ~ ~ ~
OJ 'd '(l 'U
,.j..) 'd 'd 'd
ctl -~c.-:x:<
.p
rJ) .j..) .0l ~
ril rJ) (/l rJ)
r-l r-l r-l
rJ)
G--t rJ) rJ) rJ)
G--t '," v~
~ .-. ....., cd
ctl ('j 0
r-l 00
~ H H H
~ -r-! -M-rl
cd cd cd cd
r.Q Iii ~ Iii
..
'it.
~I
I
",
,",
.'
s::=
o
-rl
~
cd
v
"
Q)
c
~
('j
><
OJ
~
C
('j
o
.p
H
m
Pi
(])
H
.,...... ":. PI
\0.. 'CO . ..
\0;\0 i~." 0
. . C:"':.',,~._..:l._.~..,.:.;.,';
~;f~.Ci~ ~~. ~
o.~'" 0 ;..;..0 o;i: ~
l:.:1 '.' . . ""'f
-i?<<
,"~ ~.I' ~
'c:. s::: ,"; ..c:
;":' s::: ~.p
\ (Ij ., ~
:~;}.:: 'j ~
,;;,'
'.~;:.:~ r-/
Q)".Cf)
.j.> '. .p
s::: ". ..-/
'rl .:. s:::
..~
· : " rJ)
'd'dm
'"d s::: OJ
...
~
o
'rl
~
(tj
><
Q)
~
~
cd
~
o
-rl
~
!::
<l)
-l-'l
c:
rJ) -01 CQ
Q) Q)
.p ....p
ro ,0 cd
.j.) ::J .j.)
CQ CI) CQ
r:Ll 'd r:Lli".; .
o 0 01'~;: 'd
1'. 0 1'.$.".,,0
M "..,. M.;,~"O
o f~" ()r.~i~
r-l ,I' ." r-l:'i~;.~
_.' M..,,&I'.
(lJ >,' cd ~, Q)~?'i;l1' M
""' . 1'\." ""'.~~;; cd
I-t ..... I-t "..' P-4
t'-l'-
l.!\ L (\ r:---
! I L(\
.::j" 0\ I
(\J C\J U\
I I I
\.0 t~CO
L!\
I
r- ; Lf\
~ I 7 0'\:
o r-l r-l I I'
rl =- r-l C\J.
r-l "
--------- ----
t--
lC\
I
0\
I
0'\
,"-
In
I
(Y)
C\J
I
0\
,~J.t:,
'CO '~' 'CO
Lry,:, U'\
I I
("'\ ("'\
r-I r-I
I I
r-/ r-I
~~~~\
~,~'
. l.l'CO
';J' U'\
C\! 'c "l::ff;t;t. "l::ff.w I
) I .'f.: ~~~.. ~ ....~.. ("'\
._-~~-~. .
'C:O 'to "CO
U'\ U'\ l.(\
I I I
r-/ r-I r-I
("'\ ("'\ N
I I I
("'\ ---.-l"'l..____~ .
co
lC\
I
lC\
I
Lf\
l'-
L[\,
I
t"--
rl
I
\.0
t
*
.l;~' 'd
,"~~ Q)
. ~:i~'+>
:;:ttt;: ~
0'
Q)
H
J::
o
..-/
~
('j
><
OJ
5
ro
~
.rl
ro
bO
s::=
-rl
'd
('j'
b..')Q)
S::;H
-rl
~(Y)
-rl
. H'd
S:::;;:Q)
ro CQ
I (l)S:::CQ
- rl cd
OJ 0.
'd
'rl 0
:> t--
o r.-
'H
.~
o
(-1
.
'd
H
o
~
Q)
@
cd
0
.j.)
H .p
(]) ~
-B (lJ
.j.)
0 s:::
-rl
~
rJ) .@
"0
s::: 'd
cu <
r-I
..c:: .p
b.D CQ
'M r-l
::r::
'd
~ 0
OJ 0
(I) :::
s::: ~
;:::J H
Cf) cd
P-4
""
~ ~
..Y._~. nO Q) 'M ~ '0 h U)
~ s::..o s:: cu s:: co s::
. ,...1-" o.c co r-i Q)
Q) +-1~N.;J ;::l.c
~ rl U) h >. bD 0.,
>-, 'M Q) co Q) '0 h Q) Q)
CI,) ..0 ::; ~ ...c: ~ co h .;J
rl.. 0 c .;J co U) IJ)
".Q)Q) U).;J
Q)':'::''O h S +.)C\l Q) X h
[: ). . 0 co::04:: U Q) Q)
o :.r: co s:: ~ .c Q) ~ ~
::::;i:; 0 CU ~ ~ ~ 0
co E Q) U Q) 'M
Q) h .;J r-i '0 'r-! U).c U)
r-~ 0 t.D.c 'r-! s:: h bD +.) U)
.,.1 C'-1 \:: hD.o co +.) s:: 'r-!
,.~) 'M'M 0 U) 'M +.) E
o - r:: ~'!: ~ h 'M...c: co E
~: '-D 0 Q) c:l .;J 0
rl ~-J . h +-1 ~'-.:: 0
).. I 'en 0 co Q) r-i U
o (1'\ ,~~ .D;3: h r-i CU >,
.0 N . h h OM co..o..o
)., I bi) E co co r~
ill C'-- s:: : ~: ::c Q) 0 +.) '0
:1.: rl 'M rl s:: '0 OM Q)
s:: C+-t :>.0 OM 'U
>. h s:: 0 ~ 0 bO s::
_y. 0 CU U) C+-t 'd .;J h 0
U) 'M r-i r.: 0 Q) OM 0
-!-J Cl.. 0 C+-t '0 '0 h (l)
'H 0 or-! 0 :>';::J Q)..o U)
OQ)(j).;J .;.Jr-i+')
U) .c OM .c OM 0 0 '0 U)
QJ -I.) +.) +.) 0 r.: ;::l h co
'0 '+-t Q) h 'M h CU :~
-r1 0 :>. p, 0 Q) .;J
U) ..0 z.c (j) U) (j) r.:
-:t Q) ~..o ~~ E: 0
.r:: ''-. r-i.S:: Q) 'M CU 'M
,-) ,., CU .;J ..c C+-t ~ U) .;J
).-, :> -I.) 0 oM~"" 0
0:-<:: ow .0 X;'~
~:. en ).~ CU bO U) .;J (j) (j)
s..l...c h -I.) (q s... s..-:
(1) (j) P. -I.) OM 'M.r, 0) s:: .
. C. .r: co -I.) E -I.) .C:~ m s.:;
,J ,J 'O.;J .r! 0 .
s.... ell ;::l r-i '0 U) 0.,.1 :>.
c ).~ 0 >.0 s:: 'M .;J U) r-i
o -,-1 Ct-j 0 CO :>. (1) U) U)
E .;J P Q) 'r~ ;::J
P. ).~ '0 P-..r!........ s:: 0 F; 0
'r1 ;0 QJ O'r! U (j) ell s:: E E
).. [~'O 0 h B 6 CO O.rl
,.) +-J r~ U) .;J QJ 0 P cue
UJ ,Co (j) s:: U).c.:::L-: h.rl III
sO F: H P m '0 (j) C
r}) .,j G . (j) P,)...,.c ;::l
'u >:.= 0 h .;J 0 r-i (j) 0 .;J
- ,-j () (j) C+-t -IJ . rl (:::l '0
:<: . (j))...~ s:: ..0 r.:: '-H (j)
Ul h 0 -:t'rl .0. r-i CU 0 orl
orl '.0 .~ <0 ).~
tJ . - U) 'd --- bD (j) l..O h
"1 :::z 11J U) lO Q) (j)).... s:: CU
)., .rl X :I: H m .,-1 ()
-:l e .rl ~ .;J (j) ~ P..;J
,0 0 s:: ~ m C QJ (j) (j)'O
.~ 0 o.r:: s:: (j)..c::: ).., OJ s.::
.,,; (.j' 1"-1 C;:J...;J <0.0 -1-) p, L~ rj
i .
, :.-....\
.-1
1U)
l. ;::l
1.0
, f.;
rl
r.
<U
~;
:J
tl
Q)
,-1
)..
~ .
"5
I)
C~
C
;t:
C
1-'
rl
t;
))
~.
(LI
~. ~
o
,-i
t:)
If)
,I
U
,. (;
10
S )
,L)
~
.c Q)
Q);< +.) h "d
bD.c i s... .r! '0 m C
s:: I ~ Q) It Q) Q) Q) E U) (j) Pi <U
OM E .c >. s:: r-i ..0 CI) m 0 (j) h
~oC~..o~..o4-i mhcuO
U) U'r-! s... o.r-! 0 ... h "'rl Pirl U
Q)Q) bDcu U) .Q).p, ;::lU)
;::lhcuCQ)Q)U)~..o~U) ObD~
0' Q)'M s::..c::'M 0 ;:l 0 +.) Q) ~ Q) H
Q) h h +-> .~ E-i E'M CI) 'M :r. ..0 H
hQ)CU~M H~ U) "d h
:> Q)Q) Q)coU)U)"d~Q)+'Q)
... Q) Q) U)..c:: · 0. U +,'M C'M +' >< ~
o ): +-> Q) +' - 'r!..c:: s cu U Q) 0
U 0 ll1 h O. bD ~ rl till S rl +' :j S::'M
'M.c ..4 At ~ 0 P-.'M 0 ~ co H U)
~ '0 Q) Q)'M C P. Q) 0 en..c:: +' Q) U)
bD'O Q) h..c:: h CU :r. 0 +.) CI)..c::'M
HhS .w;::lU) S::+'E
mE+"M Q) '0 . ... '0 .r-! S
. 0 .rl >, Q) U .c s:: C '00 s:: +' 0
~ r:n Q) U CO ,C:: ~ CU 0 (Y\ ('j Q) en 0
Q) C r::: C+-t U r-i orl ..0
.;J b.O.c h'M ;::l OM ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 ~:>.
C C.;J 0 U) c.c m CU.h Q) +.) 0..0
(j) 'M ~ ('j ~.c 0 0 C'-- :> s:: CU
u s:: Q) ~ -- E .;J P-. (Y\ 0 (j)..o '0
S::O(J)~U)--... hG Q)
'r! N;::J U) :>. 'd '00 bD U) 0.. +.) +.) 'd
:> m... Q) N .;J Q) (Y\ s:: ~ P-. H 'M s::
<-B 0 Q) C I h ~ 'M 0 en CO 0
E1 Q) .rl 'M ~ Q) U) 'd C H P-. bD 0
o bD..o r:n U) 0. Q) C 0 Q) Q) s:: Q)
h C ;::l '0 0 ;::l CU N C+-t ..0 c:l'M U)
C+-t'r! ... ~ r:n Q) h 0' 0 h
s:: -- lJ1 s:: 0. Q) C"- Q) bD,.....j..o U)
... s:: U) E :>. 0 h (Y\.c s:: C en CU
. en U) h :> N (j) ~ 0 or-! bD 'd ~
.0 r-i Q) 0 n1 ..c:: (j) U) 0 r-! s:: Q) ~
;:j Cl.. C Z Q) U) -I.) .rl +.) s:: .;J 0 H <0 C
U) .,-i :r. OM mOor-! m N 0
Q) U) . -- s:: H X (j) ~.r-!
U)..c:: ;:j s... :>. O. ,-,. (j).........c 0 .;J
.;J E.... m ~ r:n .;J s.... b.O U) h U) .;J or-! 0
.c :r. s:: o,~::: s:: U) h U) ~ ~
bD ;:j 0 'M Q) CO (j) ~ CO
.rl . en . 'd O..c::: X C s:: l1) X
Q) no -- Q) 0 U) . Q) or! h'rl.c (j) .
::r: C Q) U)..c:: t.o C U) 0 U) +.) C s::
or-!.D U). u:l Q) +.) s:: C ;::l 4.-l;::l s:: 0
'0 C Q) 'M.c Q)'M CU r:n r:n '0 CU OM
S::Oh1)C~.;JS::h ---~--h U)
CU N S::'r! 'M 0 h CI) n1cH U)
r-i orl U) Q) ~..o N 0 r:n Q) r:n O'r-!.
~........ s:: ::J.c'M CO C+-t ;::l rl 8:>'
cO U) 0 CQ u ........ 0 0' o:-:tk Q) 6 r-i
Ou)N---~U) U)O.;JQ)~ ooU)
(j) m 'r! m U) u h +.) s:: 0 ;:j
- s:: Q) r:n ~ Q) orl r:n r:n 0 C1j 0
'to or-! .c.-: ~.c Q) s:: s:::r. Q):r.'rl C Q) E
(Y\ U) .;J 'd 0 > .rl tJ) .c h .r-! .c .r-!
;::l Q) 'd'rl m U) H E ~ S ~ 'd ~ s::
'0 r:n .;J s:: (j).c.c;:j 0 0 U) h (1)
s::: n1 0 ~ ~ CQ. h ~ h .r-! 0 C+-t s::
cu >...c:: N cu 0 --- <<: 4-i cu C+-t c:l o;::l
>~ ~:>.+.) .c h
('-- cu U) U) +:> r:n ~ 'd ~ '0 Q) (j) bJ) 'd
(Y\ (j) '0 . r-! h U) r.: (j) Q) h P-. C (j)
:r. (j) h Q) (1) h (l) '0 '0 '0 'rl O'n .r-!
U) -- '0 :>. Q) o,.c (l) 0 s:: Q) s:: ~ h +.) h
.;J s...~ .w s:: 0 U) '0 C Q) > (j) P-. Q) h
OCQ WOM): hOM S:::'n E 0 E s:: Q) CO
.....::j :r. E: U 0 P-. ~ ;:j:> m E m orl n1 S u
o
e
'd
Q)
~'E
:> 0
h 0 0
o h Q)
+.) P-. U)
cu . 0.
:> Q) cu U)
(j) () cu
rlS::Q)~
r~ cu.D
~ ~
U)Q)hO
'M +' Q)'M
+' s:: bD +:>
O'M cu 0
CUS::~
(j) S cu
l'~
..c:: ~
.;Jh
o >.'0
..c::C+-t.;J(l)
.;J or! s:::
.r-! ..c:: 0 .rl
~~ r-i
~Q)+'
+:> o..c:: ;::l
US.;JO
m
H h C+-t U)
.;JQ)oco
co,
o s::
() -:t 0 .:>.
,^.r-! 0 r-i
cu .~u U)
CJ".(Tj ;::l
rl-:t'OhO
mr-iS::OE;
> -(f} (j) ~ .rl
o g <-0 s::
h C+-t t::; :> n)
P.Oo(j)S::
p.. 0 r-i ;:j
co.;J(j)J:Ll
s:: s... '0
h (j) U) (j)
o S Q)'rl'rl
C+-t :>..c .;J h
co +:> 0 h
'00,. m
Q) +,)00
~CUco.;J
s:: .c '0
(j).c~'Oc
U) ~ Q) cO
(j) . r-! 'd '0
h~Q)hU)
0.. :> m s::
"'O~(j)
h r-i S cO.c
Q) r-i P,
bDmS::(j)(j)
n:l:r. Q), 0 .;J
C bO en
CO :>. ;::l ~
~+')OOh
o rl:r. <tl (l)
>.0 h s:::
+.) h~O
or-! ~ (j) s:: 'n
O(j)S::OU)
zooU)
Q) o,-i .rl
,C: Q) U) (j) E
E-1.cU)..c::s
.;J .rl .;J 0
g (.)
ht::;"O
o oS:::>.
C+-t U l1)..o
o
o
e
::r::: '0
C
. I I <tl
t-,) 'rl .r!
r-ir-iU)
.0,P-'S::
h p.. 0.. QJ
~~ CO C1j ~
P.
S Q) Q) (l)
0U).c+.)
hQ)~CI)
4.-l..c::
+:>~h
(I) cu Q)
~'O.cs::
'M Q) ~ 0
S U) OM
h U) '0 U)
Q) (j) (j) U)
0..0 :>.r-!
00;=
.rl h E 8
XP.. 0
CO .C: (.)
.;J.;J+-1
S::'M :>.
-:t 0) E.o
Een
h.;J '0
o h h (j)
C+-t m QJ '0
r~. s:: C
.;J (j) 0 0
U) c:l . r-! 0
Q) U) (j)
;::l Q) U) U)
O'O'rl
~~ ~ ~
o 0 ~
r-ip-.o
m s::
> (j) 0
O.C: ..rl
h E.... 8 .;J
P-. ())O
P l,,-i
e\5 ' .'.5 F--t
:>.
H r-1 :>. .
OhC'O
C+-t OJ Q> QJ
E 'c '0
'OE s::
Q) Q) 0 (j)
~::'::::.;J5
C E:
(j) . s:: 0
U)f.i1 0 0
(j) U) Q)
h (j) <tl h
P-. nO (l)
h )..., U)
h 0 co
Q) (l) 0
t-J) c.':> s:: '0 :>.
cu (j)r-i
s:: .'O>U)
co h ).::: 0 ;:j
:'::;~;:js...,O
OP..E
:>''0 CH o,'r!
~ s:: l1.1 C
.rl CU '0 (\)
o S::WS:::
s:: (U.o ;::l
(j) h
t: :::S U) (J) '0
1:""'.0 s:: s:-~ (j)
~ 0 O.r!
O'M.rl h
cO .;J -1-) h
rl <tl l1) cO
(0 0 0 0
CJJ
s::
o
'rj (
+J.!
lU
E u l
o .rl ~
>-, r-i (
C+-t p... r
0.. -I-
UJ cu r
.;J (
.rl (l) or
B U) r-
h(j)~
(j).c~
0,.;J(1
.o'da
m (j)...c
o U) -I-
.rl U)
X (j) .-
CU 0 (1
-IJ 0,(
h -I-
00,
> '(
+J .;J a
h ;::
h QJ C
o E E
C+-t+J
h.c:
.;J CU -I-
U) P,'r
Q) (j) E
::sqC/
C'
(j) (j) >-
hOG
.rl )..
r-ir-iC
m O'r
:> 0.. U
o U
)... Q)'r
P..c: E
p.. E-< E
cU C
C
h .
o (j)
c,-l bO
'd E
'0 (j) 0
(j)r-i.r:
.;J -I.) -I-
s:: ;:j
(j)~:::
U) !:
(l) s:: Q
h 0 '(
0.. U)
.rl C
)..., '0 -I-
(j) rJ 1
bD !:
(1) (j) C
s::ou
<tl r~ (1
~(j)O
(:1, )...
:>. U)
.;J C
.rl'd s.:
oh
CUT
(j) s::: s::
..c:: 0 ~
E..... (j) C
,....::j~
. '(
h r
,..:.-~ C1
~
-....
>--
~
r J
\1
c
"\ 'f'
't, :
'\
~
.~?
,,-~
H
r<'i\
~ \[)
rrl C;\
;S r-i
"<
'c. (~
"
?: ...
C'tO
Hrl
:n
'J) h
I H (j)
r\l ,!-~ ::J
I .- 0
(J +-J
00
o
>-t
E-i
1.-1
U
.~
v
] . ~
l~
, .
~~
..~
.
..J
.,
~
- .)
~.
)
-....
~
.:>.
,"
.~
'0
Q
......
e
o
o
Q)
U)
U)
:oJ
'..
~
e
o
.rl
+-J
o
, ~
~
'U
.rl
.c
'C
e
e15 .
:>.
U)r-i
~ U)
o ;::l
,,-1 0
.;J B
CJ-rl
o s::
'rl CU
C+-tS::
.rl ;J
o
'lJ '0
P-'(j)
u)'rl
h
'0 h
h CO
(15 0
U)'O
C 1::
nj CO
r-1
Cl. U)
(j) QJ
.c ,C;
+-1 ~.
OJ
.c.;J
+-J U)
.rl
;; s...
(j)
OJ s::
o 0
C'rl
. CU U)
'..aU)
h.rl
o E
o E
o 0
mu
....
...
>-. h I
H <lJ:>. 0 P.. C
-H rl .c '0 C+-t 0 'rl
U) .rl e h
Q) +-) h e (lj ... ~ Q)
+-J h c::l .rl C ~..o
:-J :'J b!)'rl CV
'rl ;... C+-t '0 h 'd r-i
o 0 Q.1'M Q Q) r-i :>.
o h h.c C.C (lj..o
U)OehU);J+.)'-c
tI) C+-t 0 ;::J 'rl c:l U) '0
...~ 'rl 0 s:: +-' Q)
....;J s:: h C+-t co.c '0
~ .COo;::lO.cuC
o 'U 0 ~ +-1.rl 0
'dOC .cO
r-i Q)...... 0 'd ~<; Q)
.rl s:: S .;J +.) 0 C U)
~ 0 ~.; s:: 0 CO +-1
.r-! 0 Q) Q) ~ u U) t...
....;J 0 W)'O: 0 '0 CO CU l
:>'0 Q)~~ O.r-!'M h ~
Q) ;J h h .;J .n +-'
r-ih b:Cl..0 S::C
.rl .;J .;J s:: ;::l Q) 0 0
h U) C 'M h h rl O'M
CD C . M U) Q) +-1 ..0 .;J
o 0 ,"" +-1 u).rl '0 0
E u 'r~~ m s:: U)'M ~
o o:;OS::CO
heQ)s... UOU)
'+--1 Co..r: ;J l1\ P,
+-= .;J p., '-0 C U) Q) '0
s:: d 0> 0 Q) +.) .r-!
O.-i e . r-i .;J h ;::l..o
'rl.r:: 0 W rl U
~j 0 (.l. rn I'M.;J Q) '0
CO ;JU) .cU)XC
'0 C+-t ~ H U Q) Q) CO . 1:
s:: 0 '0 H..o :>..
(j) (j) ~0 0 0 U) r-if
G'O:>e+.).;J"d+')CU)
S'rl 0 m h e O;::l
0..0 G CU 'd <u '0 'rl 0'
o - Cl.. Q) (j) .;J E
Q) Q).c U) "d.;J N <O'rl
h .c .;J h s.., h U) 'M U C
.;J 'rl Q) 0 CU (j) h .rl m
CU E: (j) c...l ~ > 0 C+-t s::
W)U) s:: CU o.c'r! ;::l
s:: e . r!.;J r-i.;J 0
'M.rl h bn 0 Q) ;::l (j)"d
.;J (j) C cv.o (j) CU p, (j)
"d P-. s:: ~1 s... .C: U) 'M
Q) (j) 0 +-' -.;J OJ h
h O'rl b.Q s:: U) .0 '0 h
HO(f)S::O.PU) S::CV
;::l CO U).r! 0 E'r! :>. CO 0
o .rl +-' ;::l .;J
e h ~ r-i (j) p.. .c.rl U) 'd
o 0 ~ ;j,r-.: 00 s:: C
o C+-t 0 U) +J Q).rl co m
UC 0.cQ)r-i
s... - O.;J .rl ;?-.c P.. U)
~~ .UlSt _.;JQ)~
<u QJ -I) -.;J (j)...;t C+-t .c .c
>.=: (j) 0 U) U) N 0 ~ P-.
cuS::(j)Q)h (Y\ Q)
~ .rl 'r).;J (j).c ... U) .c ~
!;,J 0 <0 W) b.Q'\O r-i .;J CI)
:>-, e s....rl CU.rl N CU 'r-!
.;J ~~ Cl.. 0 ~;J.~ -v}- 'rl ;:: h
.rl 0 rU 0 Q),
U bD h U) ~ bDC+-t'rl Q) C
C(j)U) eoC+-toO
(j) . r! p.:x; >.. rl C+-t S::. M
...c:.;Jm .;Jr-iS0CUU)
E--t r-i ~ Od . rl r-i;::l 'd U)
;::l U lO U) (j) h'M
U) l1\ '0 .;J +.) 0 E
s:: '-0 r-i (j) U) Q) <0 U Ei
o O','r-!.c ~.c.r-! U 0
Or-i~.;JH.;JhcoO
e
U)
):
o
r-i
r-i
o
C+-t
U)
CV
s::
o
.rl
+-1
m
y,
Q)
e
s::
CU
h
o
C+-t
.c
() '0..-1
"d ~ '5 ~ ~.g
Q) .c 'r-! 0 Q) :>.
.~ ~O ~ Z.H -g..o
C .r-! "d ... O. Q) CU "d
;:) s:: Q) ~ CO.c Q)
0-1.)0 ~">Q)'O
.c N .rl.r-! Q) () ~
+-' S::.;J..o.;J~O
'r-! ~ ::::l .r-! CU CU U
CU 'd" .c:: ~ Q)
~ bD...c '0 '0 .;J 'M U)
C'~.3...~ h '0
S .d 'r! lU 'd h U)
Oecu'OOS::OCU
he~hmcu ;s:
C+-t CU C'\ h
rl 4-i W)N (j) C
-~ 0 . s:: .:;\::: P-. 0
e ..0 'M 0 .r-!
OQ)+.);::lC.;Jh+.)
.rl.c U) en 0 0 P-. 0
.;J .;J (j) N .rl ~
.rl ;::l Q) h Q)
'0 :>. a' 0 o(l .;J .c
'0..0 Q) CO U) ~ .
~ h h bD.r-! :>..
'0 hS::c:lQ)~~
"d Q) Q) Q)'r-! h h r-i
h:>.cHCQ)COQ)U)
(Y\ 0 +.) s:: h P-. P, ;::l
h '0 co'rl Q) 0 0
Q)r4.,~Or-i~hhG
o r. co 0 p.... P-. D"M
m <.1.c;s: 'd s::
h .;J.;JQ)(j)OU)CU
h s:: U).c s:: .;J . rl s::
(j) Q) 'd CU .;J 0 .c;::l
(-l (j) (j) ~ N 'd .;J
..0:> :>-. Q) '0
'0 0.....0 (j) .;J ~ (j)
o U) G ~ .0 0 (j).rl
oco '0 ;::lCh
~.cO~(j)Os....S::h
.;J 0 0 '0 U) ~ CO ell
U).c U) 0 s:: r-i U) 0
<0 U s:: r-i Q) CU s:: 0
~ .r! H m S .r-! ~ 'd
.c s>> s.::
...;; h ... 0 ~ :>-. >. ell
~ Q)("--Oh..oh
-C Q)Q)Q)CU.c
~...;t OOd h O~h (fJ P
o I .rl 0 Q) u).rl
o ~ U) '-0 'd h ,C (j) E
r-i U) s:: p. 0 en
CLl '0 . rl U) CO U) OJ
Q) ~ .;J Q) .rl s:: h
- s.:: ~ 0 -.c QJ
C'-- 0 0 H till +) +.) U) C
NOs.:: C bD 0
~ ~ 'r-! +.) Q) s:: .rl
Q) C co E .r! U)
'-O.c . s:: o.c .;J .c~ U)
u 'd s:: N .;J ~~ .;J 'r1
U) h H CO CO ~
+.) ;j CO ...;t"d P, r-i E
o.c 0 0 I s:: (j)r-i 0
H U ro .;J p:: CO c:l CU (.)
U)
+.)
U)
Q)
;:l
0'
Q)
h
Q)
Q)
h
.c
+'
'0
(j)
.;J
C
Q)
U)
(j)
h
P-.
h
<l.l
bD
CU
s::
CO
~
>.
.;J
'rl
U
Q)
.~
E--t
m
~ ~
o bD (j) .rl ~ '0 h U)
:I: c..o s:: cu C CO s::
.rl o.c m r:;::::l--iD
Q) .;J ~ N.;J (;::l.c
~ r-i U) h >. bD 0.,
h 'M Q) CO Q) '0 h Q) (j)
cu..o ;::l~...c:CCOh.;J
p..o C .;JcoU) IJ)
~~ .Q)Q) U)~
Q)- '0 h S +' N Q) X H
S h 0 cu::04::u Q) (j)
o:r::cuC~.c Q)es::
:I:~OCU ~+-'C 0
en E C) 0 OJ 'M
Q) h ~ r-i 'd .rl U).c U)
rl 0 b.O.c . rl s:: h b.O.;J U)
'M C+-t C till.o m .;J s:: .rl
.0 .rl 'rl 0 U) .rl .;J E
o - C ~~ ~ h'rl.c CO G
~~ '-0 0 (j) c:l .;J 0
r-iN . h +-1 ~'-.::u
h I 'en 0 CO (j) r-i 0
o 0> <~ .0;3: h r-i CU :>,
.0 N . h h.rl m..o.D
h I bD E CO CU r".
CO C'-- s:: :~::r:: OJ 0 .;J '0
:I: r-i . rl r-i C '0 . rl (j)
C C+-t :>.0 .rl '0
:>.eCO~ obDS::
~ 0 CO CI) C+-t "d .;J s:: 0
CI) .rl rl C 0 (j) .r-! 0
+.) p.. 0 C+-t '0 '0 h (l)
4-i 0 .rl 0 :>. ;J Q) .n U)
o Q) (j).;J .1--' r-i .;J
CI) .c .r! .c .rl 0 0 '0 U)
Q) +').;J~oe;::leco
'0 C+-t Q) h .rl h CU :';
.rl 0 :>, P.. 0 Q) .;J
U) ..0 z.c(j)U)(j)S:::;
...;t Q) ~..o >.:: E: 0
.c .......... rl.c Q) .rl CO .rl
.;J ,- I CO .;J ..c <+-t .;J U) +-J
h :> -I.) 0 .rl::--" 0
0:-:<: 0 .;J .0 X;'~
z en h CO bD U) .;J (j) (j)
O,.c C +.) q~ 5., 5--:
OJ Q) P. +-' .rl 'M.c 0) s:: .
.c.c CO .;J E .;J ,C m s::::
.;J.;J "d.;J . rl 0 .
h (j) ;::l r-i '0 U) 0 .rl :>.
s:: CO> ..0 C 'M .;J U) r-i
o . rl C+-t 0 CO :>. (1) U) tI)
E .;J .;J (j). rl ;J
P-. s:: '0 P-..r-!........ s:: 0 R 0
.r-! ell Q) o'r! 0 (j) OJ s:: E E
h E '0 U h E E CO O.rl
+-'~cU)~(j)O+Js::ur.:
U).c Q) s:: U).c::r:: h.rl III
tJJEH .;J m'OQ)S:::;
(j)'M E . (j) 0., ~-t.c ;j
'0 ~~ 0 h .;J 0 r-i (j) 0 .;J
.r-! () (j) C+-t P .rl (:::l "d
:.: . (j) >-.-: s:: ..0 r.:: '-H QJ
UJ h 0 -:t'rl 0 r-i CO 0 'rl
. r-l '.0 ::S en ).~
+.) . ... U) '0 --- b.Q 0) bO h
crl;; bD U) eo Q) OJ ~-t s:: CO
s:: .rl X ::r:: H CO'r-! U
-=t E .rl S .;J QJ ~ P. .;J
'-0 0 s:::: S CO s:: Q) (j) (j) '(j
h 0 o.c s:: (j)..c::: ~., 0) )..:;
...c: Crl N 0 .;J CO ,0 -1-) P-. L~ rj
(
bD ..l
~ I -I
.rl E
.;J 0 I
U) 0 .,
Q) OJ
;:j h
0'
OJ s...
~. (j)
:>
-(j)i
O:s:~
001
.rl .c .,
e '1
bD'Ol
H h 1
ml
. 0 "
.~ rn
I
P bO..!
s:: s:: ~
QJ'rl
C) s:: I
~ 0 I
,,1 l'--J
':>
. ,.'-5 I
E: ....
o bO ~
>-< e
c,..j .,-1
s::~
-s::
. (\j
or-i
';:J p~
U)
0)
U) .c;
~..) (-< r
,C:
bll
'rj . r
OJbD
::r; s::
'rl.
'0 h
).~ 0
<U N
rl
~~
l1) U)
O(f)
QJ
-s:::;
tu .r: .
(Y', U)
;::l
'd ~L~
C
ell >..
~>
l'-- (u
C"\ (j) ,
:r:
(f)-~'
IJ
om
.--=l :r.:
..0
o
e
,'..-~_'..;;..;;, '......-
C? f;ivr"f!1~
.i~ ~ 4/;Y#vZ-
~/lftJ/~
............,.
1:\'~':i:A
V"''i;''''1
~:.:.~Ji
e
~ANCE NO. ~~.!
~.--..';:-.
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY HERtlNAFTER DE-
SCRIBED WHICH IS TO BE KNOWN AS SUNSET I.JIJ(E MANOR
SUBDIV!~tONf. LOT 8 AND LOT 34, SUNSET HIGHLANDS NO.
2, AND L<Yr z, Lar 4, AND '!HE \VEST HALF (Wi) OF u:tr
~. LAURETTA TERRACEL AND ALL ABUTTING STREETS-L INTO
'niE CORPORATE LIMITb OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATlli
FLORIDA, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF tHE
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION ACCORDING TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171.04L'FLORIDA STATUTESL
1959: ZONING THE ANNEXED PROpERTY AS HEREIN PRu-
VIDED; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS ORDINANCE.
WHEREASf the City Commission of the City of Clearwater,
Florida enacted Ord~nance No. 861 on April 4, 1960, which Ordin&lCe de-
clared the intention of the City to annex the property hereinafte= de-
scribedf into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater; ~~d,
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four
conSecutive weeks in the Clearwater Sun, a newspaper published in the City
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attached; and,
WHEREAS, more'than thirty days have expired since the enact-
ment of Ordinance No. 861, and no registered voter of the City of Clear-
water, no owner of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no
person whomsoever has objected to such annexation or has applied to the
Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County,
Florida, setting forth any objections to said annexation; and,
WHEREAS, all of the provisions of Section 171.04, Florida
Statutes, have been complied with:
NOWL THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COW~ISSION
OF ~HE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its
City Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section
171.04, Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the
City of Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said
City to include the following:
That part of the Southeast Quarter (SEt) of the
Southeast Quarter (SEt) of Section 2, Township 29
South, Range 15 East, lying North of the T & G C
Railroad, Pinellas County, Florida, to be known as
SUNSET LAKE MANOR SUBDIVISION, and all abutting
streets.
Said property is hereby zoned R-l (Residential).
.
':'
Lot eight (8) and Lot thirty-four (34) of sm~SET
HIGHLANDS NO.2, and all abutting streets.
Said property is hereby zoned R-l (Residential).
~Lot 2~ Lot 4~ and the West half (\'it) of Lot 6,6Jf~/J("/,
~ LAURETTA TERRACE, Section 27-29-15, according to~f'C: . P.-fJ/t(i /
map or plat thoreof recorded in Plat Book 19, <r, J?' . .
Page 17, Public Records of Pinellas County-( -1' (I I
Florida.
Said property is hereby zoned R-2 (two-family
Residential) .
/,:) toI4- ::,'i{P
/ ,1.;',';:i
/, liI!"V-
Ord. 864
~1-
~:'J
Of
~
~.~
e
.
'.I,:
Seotion 2. The C3ty EnginGer and the City Clerk are direo~
: :~d to include and 8$t out and ahnw upon the official 2:on!nq map and ':>ther ! '
dficial maps "f thQ City of Cleahtater t the fo:r.egoing property ",1 th its
zoning a~ indicated.
Section S. TI\is Ordinance shall become effective immediately
" upon i tEl paSS&Qo.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND READING
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINAL
READING, AND .l\DOPTED
ll.ttest:
R.G.~~Litehead, City Cl~: :
, ~r ~ik~""..1 -;tt?,,/ p L
Atirq 1; 1 ~ Y C !'
Published: Proof of Purl J.L dtirm
~
'..
"
Ord. 864
. -2-
May] fi....lliQ
?vIa\" 1!' 196,Q
M~ lr., 19RO
q;!:~
r) ,-)
I I
~
--r;:.".
A"J.A~ ,o46.t.$.t.2. A
e
~/1J7OJtf IP; f/tJ1A.
. 117~"
.~
.c
~~
(G)-A m--.e:-sf'/tfflO
-. ...... IIQ 1 I "".
~& ~ at I J3 IIQ , .1 ... at
/),.tf ~ ~... /91Gu
(!j) .,rt: IP~ 314A
D Of 'I I ~ 2S I ~ I D I I I
2J IIQ, 40' 011 241 ill' J3 ~
i8
y 15~4
~
~,..~. '.
~~,~t'w
'.. ,..::,..,'< }i?~ . si
:-,:.~, :: \'-~ .~~{:.
1.3(J 1595 D I ~ \ -\ \ \ \ : i-
~ ~ /"I~ARWAT!R
I --"'y.1. ",t, . fT<ol-rY ":"_";;;i;,~)$'~"
. ~';'lf.j{';. .' :\,l.A", ,"',',,)'\':~i~ '..
It~: ~ ~'.i:~t ~~'~i'"
.. ,'~ " , '. ';-1'~.,t
. . , -~I,';' . '1" '.~ 'P.I,," ,I fi.,;' .:,...
':~'i~~.,',."..''':,;;-M; ...':.. ..1.;: .:;? ::~\'
I ~""N ':~.'..";')'" ;"'i,!-."
.~ ~ . '. :~. ~.'~J<~ ' .~.'''.t.'',..~.F_~,:.,,'
t-. ,-;''';''.'' C '.,' -/\"':01 '"' '.~_
" :~~t~,~,iZ.}t, (~'i,
.~ .".-"i,;'.'F1J./;";J' ~~"" ,., ":'l
."~(Sr g",>:,~: "', ~'. ~.' . .~: t) :{~i;:-'
.,y.:, ,11~ "~ . ..,. \
;t:~.'~1.fA'{ ':~}~. '; .t. ,a 1~.1 ;S..";:
\;;Xi;~:.~~, .r' ~\.8 ',' ;j"''' 'ai:~l
d'i.;'~\~~i~'. ,'.;~'.-;" "".~' ~ iii.". -.; i ~;'~~'.~\'c'
"::';':,,':"~',,: .;....;.;: '. ) :' " d .tti~ ".~
~~. 'l-l.:: ,';.... ,,\, v' ~. ": ': ~':<' ~~t' ,,;'
'~:'itf;:;'\:'f : ~ ',',"~:-"~' ',~... \> l ". ~ ?(
"'-; Pt.. ..... .t.....'.. ~,.~.....-.ttl..t.- ""' <"'~ii:T:" ...~':t, - \ '.
~;~~:~~ '~(,'-'~i~~~~~' " .;: ,,"~ Z., }r~$, c1.
,,3~..,: ..~f'v" "if::'. .~}..... .,ji;" I... ,~, ;..t. t.. {. <,!,: ''<.10;'. $
..-......'..... .' '. ' ,"1;"' ~ F'
,\~i{: '~l'~> ,~~;:;; ~ ~ · ; ~~~'~"
,t:..,~;(, '- , .~,' ~ra\ " ,'110.: li.c'lS .,
. .. ~'" ".' . '!it~"\".' '. ^ . ..... ~
$1". t{t~/.. ~ '" ..".~, ..uti,,' "
~~ -.;,~~-" ", ' , .' . - ~
~"~~:':';:1::':t::" -,";:,~' ," :", .:. :' : " ~ ;, :...'; . ,,'\';:
.~;~ ..~ T,"/~lj.. ,...;.; -*. ~ ... ~':,i' ,',; :- f ~:
..4 ,'~1 ~ ~ 1"';0 :' ~CJ."; . ~.':, . - tA,' i/.'~l~; 'to
-'. . . e -;.. ~,: ::,'" ~' . '1l1~'f-:.'4>>"" :5- ~~. '.".'~~. ,~
~..... .. .._ .." -.....,...,' ,..#. ....:.\ "Q1i4. '"W!'..j;. 4-
. 4.~ ... . .' . _., _. ~~. ,
11~. -~i' ".,:",-'~ ",~ >,c' ~"';;"'.' ,.",.r.
.' c' i,~ l .. <.."..~.:~ _'. :... " '.' . ,~.. ,;- :.
.~'t~'t~~., ....~\ ~ .,).~.,-.~ '_-1. .. '-,~'. ___~ -':->\"'-~;~ ~-'~<
".",~ .' '7, -) { .. . ':.. .: ";,j ,. .. , . ..,,, ....,
.T-~.: . '. "."' ,..' _I" .... j. ,:'. ~ a. .'\\:~1. ~..I
,.r:" "" .>>' " -', ~O~ .", ,.. . ,,':~ i,l~,1
'i~'.,N~~ ... .' '- ".s
.", ~"-1..';'c'." . _.:. ~ ;I ~ " d I"~~ ( P.\" ..-
'. ..,.. ",. ...' . ., ~ ; ..
'" ,.,.. ..
:~..." '. ;:~...., 'f
;',.'. " L ':,' ., ''i.! . ..' , ,.1, I<-
,.' .... '" .'"" '~''''.' ;:t:i,it;..
..., >> " - : ..,;., , it." . ,~;.. ~~ f\j ~t "'. ..
:... -..1'[.... ",' '.' ..< .....,:...'{,.......~",:,?!J.'"."~j".,>,,..;~....<.
'" "'" -.,~'~: --\;._~~~t,:'.~~'~;y,I';:~~~~.l~y: ,
As .. i,t " kb\''{ ~.,
"~;M ., ",' I ".:: ',':'~ 1,'. ~;" ,:
;:f-,. ,,;. I ~-;
t '.'" -'~. ... ~ ~;. . J. .' :: J- " '" ~,~. ' ,
". ..;:... .. <0 '1 !. "'. J' <
. l/.:'\ ,..~
;' ~E.l." :: .' ,Iii ~~
:II .
~ ">-,,"-'
..i;.,~.,:~.;~-l~'
.~:
i
..;>:
:~ 'k;
is
A '.
"
,;;:..oo"w. "
~;- ;.
\
't
,~.
; .,.
:l"j
'"J;."r
:.of'
,,<
';i; ,
. ~;
:'1 ..
ll'jl~
~~~'~, -;~. ,',"
'f",.;",:..~ -;
<', . .,,:'IJC
.:1'.. ",jl
.: i.3Cl"
.,
''''!-J ~'.-,
,.,'...4;. '.'
214:' 1
,;...~,
:~Cf::'
,~
& .'
&
-~
" '..
'..,'.'..
,l,c
.'
Q
Jr;1
, ID:I". .
..'1 f' I :
'J-.:i
I
I
.;-
~~:' .'
.: .;;:
, .1 ~
b .~ I~' f..';,
.. "'$,; 1 {'Ol'
.; h .: ~ .. ~:;
.
,6
..
42
, ,.
"
...,. .." ;,.:-
PAIIUQ(.d ,,- -:'-'" :i ;'1;';... '.
.... I , ,., h"; 7: ~
· ~ " · .. " .j" · · · '. · : ; ''l~<'t.,\ ~, .'
:. ~ ..~
ftlRO. ! ~~.' . t,'1\>;'., ~'If' .~~ ':',:t~ Ii"~:r,f,~>....", /,
= ~ ~
b ~,o::: 1 at '., "~.',~ \[: tfOl ~
~ a~ .. " ,~, <Of:;; ...
4!l..t. 2 i ~ ""'-1-. ~:' - ::~ 5'"
. 17 -.... . , .
';..:J ",.
.',
1'8' 4 ",~-.~
19l~~ ~~;!},'~
20 ~"61" '" ~'~.r.' ,.. ...... 'B 1
i 21 7lII ~7Iu~ .~ ;~.,
'22 ~ ~,.. ' .~..,
23 9 ',. 1Ft:, :V:
., .. ,~ 1_-..... .ti)'it". ~I
~ ". ..,
4 r.; 1 ~ 1116
25 11 1
12 ~_-l'!,
13 it A.
1
.:f ""
:~
....
>"
:.,..
~.
: -~
6
7
8
9
'i:..-
~1i:}-'''" ".~~
1
'-~' ;', ..~:
-&ii~:<<"Jo
.~:..~
':!I-'"!';:
~''''
~~~
~
.;::~;,t,.,~
v~.-'
.'
to;
"'~;.
.-jl-
t:'!r
l.~::, .~..
. '" Fj~ r
~;~ ':f
J~r;, ,; '!s*,li,
}j
;. ~tt...
:'loJ..-
1;;
"
~~~1:
f(~,
h.",
'>-"!" :~
~'t:
"
i'
~
~-'
..
,\ e . ). :~I.;>:..'.' " .'..
: j~ rJ n~ J~ ~
!,. l ;~ ".' t .~
.~. .~ ,"" ~: '. f
..'~ .~ ~ 'tic; r ~ i;',~, .~~ ;
I~~l~'.i ~!:, <t' '. t' j.
~,. .." ..,. ~ Ii'" ~
" Jt,,:\.r:~ :i. ;~ ?i~ "'~~:ll,,":
'~'~:l-~' :;;;~ ;~t~'~~. '~J
'loi'~~~~-.~~;~',,;-\\;;,,~.~~l'"
" I:
,1.:: .: L" \( .or,) .~
~.~~~ .~ ~~B <~ _:~ :~
.. ~. .,.~~C . {,)\~7~ '
...."4 '~.. '~....
.,.... " Jii,!'" "'(--'t.
...
~~~~'
~. ,
,~ ......
..~
..~
; ~~.~'~<'I_~':''''
~~t
;~! .'
~~i'll'
"c~~:~':,~~ift.#., '~ '
,i~;!f~li':;~~l1 ~
. .~t ....,.~. "',"'.".."..... ..;~
, ,:!%t~t~~~~::;~:~i.)tt~t~ ~.,' "!:::c
* ~ .. . . .i" .. "', Li .,".... 'AA boI.
...;,= ":.: ,j , .:'._'~-t;; t-.~:~:'::~~:"~~_.., ,-~ ~'.:'.""_'~
,', ./t ,'~ ".j~'F;,i"
J
..."""
I
e
~~ ~~~/~
i' ~ ,
@ ~,.;-."13d1Jl6ld-.
~~/~ I
r
ORDINANCE NO. 80)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY HEREINAFTE~ DESCRIBED
LYING U; THE fl!ORTHEAST 1/1+ OF THE NOHTHvffiST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 293, flANGE 15E, AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, TOGETHER vlITH LOTS 13 AND lh, BLOCK
1 OF GREENWOOD LAWN SUBDIVISION, INTO THE CORPORATE LIM-
ITS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, A~D REDEFINING
TEE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171.04, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1957; ZONING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS HEREIN
PROVIDED; M:D PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TillS
ORDINAl-1CE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
enacted Ordinance No. 794 on November ), 195$, which Ordinance declared
the intention of the City to annex the property hereinafter described, in-
to the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater, and,
WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four con-
secutive weeks in the Clearwater Sun, a newspaper published in the City .
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto attached; and,
WHEREAS, more than thirty days have expired since the enactment
of Ordinance No. 794, and no registered voter of the City of Clearwater,
no o~mer of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no person whom-
soever has objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court
of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, setting
forth any objectior.s to said annexa-t.:ion; and,
WHEREAS, all of the provisons of Section 171.04, Florida Statutes
have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDA:;:~jED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
.~
;
J
~
j
1
';1
A
1
,;1
c,1
.J
I
"
1
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its
City Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section 171.04,
Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said City so as
to include the following:
6t~}r' ,
''iy(,!-
The West 1/3 of th8 East. 3/5 of the NE 1/4 of the mv 1/4
of the ~w 1/4 of Sec. 27, Tv~. 29 S, RGc. 15E, and Lots
13 and 14, 'Block 1 of Greenwood Lawn Subiivision, according
to map or plat thereof recorded amon8 the Public Records of
Pinellas County, Florida.
The followingdescribed property is zoned B-Business:
The \oJest 1/3 of the East 3/5 of the t-'S 1/4 of the 1::V1 1/4 w/m)
of the N\'J 1/4 of Scction 27, Township 79 SQuth, R::lne;i" 15E.
-/
The following described property is zoneu R-l Residential:
Lots 13 and 14, Block 1 or Greemlood La'.'l1; Subdivision, ac-
cording to map or plat thereof recorded among the Public
necords of Pinellas County, fIorica.
The City Engineer and the City Clerk are directed to include in
and set out and show upon the officiQl zoning map and other officiril MaDS
of the City of Clearwater, the foregoing property with its zoning as in-
dicated.
uj/ /-r/jl
, . / {.It. -" ; /.,;;~~
c'
J
,
~-
..
<
i
.
'~
'l
.~~
~l
'~
~.
'1
~
I
,~
"
\~
i
1
1
J
~
,
~
,~
.~
,~
,,",
~\'
"~
;:'
*
,;~.,<..;':c:';_~
""-,,,'
:.~'.~",!.:;":.-::,,'.
.,....;, -. '-'.'
, , 1
I
e
e
r\.
... ...- - .
....,......_'\
Ordinance roo 803 - 2nd page
Section 2.
upon its passs~e.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
PASSED ON FIRST READING ,U~ 8' I 1 5&
PASSED ON SECOND READING '_Ou c~ o..L"\. R. 175 k
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINAL ~ ~. ,] ~ ~
REilDIKG AND ADOPTED
Attest:
?i(t/#~
?ltCiC1erk
PUBLISHED: PROOF OF PUBLICATION
..
,
.
,
'-
1
..-
.
.,
~.
t
t
{
r
..
u
(!~
\~~l'e
N)
e 'V.,:,)'; ~
~Y-:f/;J/~
ORDINANCE NO. 1048
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PORTION 010' BLOCK H OF
REPl-AT OF BLOC1~ H, MONTEREY HEIGHTS FIRST ADDITION,
AND A PORTION OF' SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH,
RANGE 15 E.:"ST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO-
GETHER WITH ALL ABUTTING STREETS INTO THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDIT!ON, ACCORDING TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171.04, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1963, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
D"\ 1'F. OF THTS OR DlN^NCE.
WHE.REAS. the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida.
enacted Ordmance No. 1045 on December 2.1, 1964, which Ordinance declared
the int~ntion of the City to annex the parcel hereinafter des c ribcd into the
corporate limits of the City of Clearwater; and
'WHEREAS, said Ordinance was published once a week for four
consecutive weeks in the Clearwater Sun. a newspaper published in the City
of Clearwater, Florida, proof of which publication is hereto <'.ttachcd; and
WHEREAS, more than thirty days have expired since the enactment
of Ordinance No. 1045, and no r...gistered voter of the City of Clearwater, no
owner of real estate in the territory to be annexed, and no person whomsoever
has objected to such annexation or has applied to the Circuit Court of the
Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, setting forth any
objections to said annexation; and
WHEREAS, all of theprovisions of Section 171. 04, Florida Statutes,
have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDf.INED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Clearwater, acting by and through its City
Commission, by the authority and under the provisions of Section 171. 04,
Florida Statutes, hereby annexes into the corporate limits of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, and redefines the boundary lines of said City so as to
include the following parcel:
Lots Six (6) and Seven (7) and Lot Three (3) less the West
125 feet thert:of, in Block H of the'Plat entitled Replat of
Block H, Monterey Heights First A,ddition as recorded in
Plat Book 43, page 2.8 of the Public Records of Pinellas
County, Florida, and the right of way of Hillcrest Avenue,
as shown on the Plat entitlt,d Monterey Heights First Addition
as recorded in Plat Book 33, pag'~s 43 and 44, Public Records
of Pincllas County, Florida, together with all abutting streets,
AND
V The South I /4 of the NW -1 / 4 of the NW -: 1/4 of Section 2.6,
{:!J/ Township 29 South. Rangt-, 15 East. Pinellas County, Florida,
together with all abutting fltreeto.
The above described property is hereby zoned R-lD (Single
family) and deFlignateu as Fire ,District No. Z.
Ol'\t.10~8
-1-
;(~"r _, "'-4': ''''''''r'~''~~V_.''':''~''''',f;-,*,,~ "
,"'":,,.~...Z'~
:1
, I
,~~s-
.
.... ,.
c~."'."
"';,' ',.''\j ~,\:--.,'
~"'j:'\"':~~
",u e
....
. t'J/
Section 2. The City Engineer and the City Clerk arc directed to
includ~1 and set out and show upon the official zoning map and other official
maps of the City of Clearwater th~ foregoing property.
~on 3. This ordinancn shall become dfective immediately upon
its paosagc.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
,
P,flSSED ON SECOND READING
PASSED ON THIRD AND FINAL,
READING AND ADOPTED
Attest:
Published: Proof of Publication
.'
.~ __,~,"':"~ ::.....~ .',!.~~i(r7','..r",
,/<f~~_
1" e b rua TV 1. 1.2k.2..-
Februarv 1. 1965
Febl'uary I, 1965
/!
~'/A";" /
" //rl.'" ../>{/. / ..-? ... .r~" .t'
(., ~/l' 't. -1;":;' <. "" .. ..... c.
Mayor-Commissioner J'
,
.
-2-
'1(-4
.,.4 ... .
oJ
,
t
:"'../: >"'..,.,-
.' "..-.
-;. -;,-.\'1,'
"'l' ,,', >"
{:>;' {I,i\,'I{l
,.l(.,~'::'i'.ii "
. -~;~c' i/~,
"
.1.,
co,
{'
\,' ,~,"
..
';,t)
AOI
1:
:::IIIt
tin
tl
e~
C)
2:
(f)
.c
u
OJ
.....,
~'
::"
O'l
c
, .,;'~ ; ~___ i
" ,
'U.'-'
e--
.'. - "
}'-- \ (\~ l 'A ,I, I;' ).. ~ 'Il~\ ::~" ~ ~ \ ~).
: '.,~;C...'.:~~..~~ ~.t~: ~u~'~''l~'':' \~ At
,.~
, ' .;,;,y" ," '., \,::;)r:?,.:~~:;;:\)<,~,
rf .....J"i't,;l~.'.H' \. .';\: ~ \ ~"1;t ~11'l'}'~'S~~h:'_(;."")o'
~:L'lJ~~(~~ ::. > i: ~:" · "'"'OJ.::c" .
~;,{." ,{~~~~~5~~' ~:,~~~ ;~"
A t,!,l'
~ 3178
,.',,p. ~" , ,,;~*
_"' T'1 - ,...,
, >"j ,.".1 <
..3,~Z t~?lt,
~,~}.~~{~~:t'.
."
o
33/06
'840'
l
f
A rL,+
'<
~.-
_~:..' ,."..,..I.':..J,,~~ :_~'.: ">-:LJ>.#"~;'u~J.,~,:. .~;:;~, ' ~', ",,:,: ,; ,,' " ' " " , : :' '- ",,' ", '
I 1",~" " _,..,.,. _., JjJ .,/ .~'.J!" ,',.,' ,'.', .. '- L ,1I~,t~,(" ,
. 1._;'" ,.' " - ....1-.... n'a"'1>.~",""':J,,:3~:.;.\1;~~~~': .;'
'f~-::: ". I "..,.:" .,.... ....:~ . ,.,,:r--' p" ~ .
J . ~!,,;:,,- ,,;j,..o:, -ivW ." . J
I :A~f1t ' ,-
--'
... 318A
e
~f't
;1-L.4/f1l ~t!?F.K
22/01
MD'R
tN
.......
~
CD
.. ~
0
'3 ~
14
'4 ~
'"
~
...
, 1lt
'413 !
1412 ~
i '4
1411 ~ U11J ~
'484 C\,
'411 ~
'411
~~
~"'I, '. l',~.4
\;~'4'! ~,.., "rib. V
.,
Ado:) :asaS
t~
~'
~~
\
(]) ~~
OR Ei 9 8 8 PG I 2 7 3 (f/1Of 9fI
~
It
e
11 RECOnOr-GO
^Ccr/o~
. _ e-u..U--
n r c / .s:o..il-
89 I tJ3'~GI~ e
ORDINANCE NO. 4764-88
ro
.,.
(. ro
~ .,. .,.
~. ~ ~
~~ ~o:
~..:::t'O~
= ,M
~ ;:: ;~..
;;~~~G:
l~sl ~
= ~ :.; E
'~ ~,j
Illr _
lOT,\L /suu tJ/-r
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF BELLEAIR ROAD, 475 FEET WEST OF
MISSOURI A VENUE, CONSISTING 0
SUBDIVISION, PINELLAS COUNTY, , E
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE
BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID
ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
- '.1
.. .
rr r.~
>-
'l
MIl'
T'ln
r'/r
f)n(~
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater, Florida, has received a petition from the
owner of the real property described herein requesting the City to annex the real
property described herein into the corporate limits of the City; and
c;
,....
WHEREAS, the City Commission, at a regular meeting held on December 15,
1988, voted to accept the petition and authorized the preparation of an ordinance to
annex the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission held a public hearing upon the proposed
co
oq-
,.....
co"'f
oq- co
,.....~
oq- CD
..~X~
Oa:O
I-WCO
Z...J ...J
a:U~lI..
:::>>u:: .
I-I-u.a:
~UO~
1-.:(
Cf)~
ace
O-..c:(
UJ
...J
U
annexation prior to or at the time of first reading of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all applicable requirements of Florida law, including the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and the
law relating to annexation, have been complied with in connection with this ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, the following des~ibed
property is hereby annexed into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, and the boundary lines of the City are redefined to include the following:
Lot 15, Loveland Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 28, Page 20, of the
public records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with that 3D-foot
portion of Belleair Road lying north of Lots 14 and 15 of said Loveland
Subdivision.
Section 2. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the measures
contained in this ordinance are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
individual elements thereof.
Section 3. The City Commission hereby accepts the dedication of all easements,
streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public which
have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the areas so annexed.
Section 4. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the Planning Director are
directed to include and show the property described herein upon the official maps and
records of the City.
. , T' : ~
J
, ,J
,
,:)
- 1-
-,
)
~ 4,"""",
e c, :;}'f> '.:j/3/67
Y'l (PL\ -~ ~
.
I
1.
............". .
e
O_88PG \ 214
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The
City Clerk shall file one certified copy with the Clerk of the Circui t Court of Pinellas
State within 30 days of adoption.
County, Florida. and shall file another certified copy with the Florida Department of
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Attest:
/s/ Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Approved as to form
and correctness:
1
,
,
!
I
I
~
I
f
.
,~
'J
c~,
;/
.
'':
:ji
~
,
I
,1
t
I
<'1
!
t
~t
r,
.r,
February 16, 1989
April 20, 1989
/s/ Rita Garvey
Mayor-Com missioner
I hereby certify th",t th;s is " true and
correct C'lpV of thl) cr'q'nal as it
aDpears in n:~ files "I 'h':l City of
Clearwater. \~!;t'1es:;""'v ranj and
official seal of the City of Clearwater.
ThiSiW day Of--~~,if'1f-lfk~' e.. 195..1-.
~__J1If, ~
Deputy City Clerk
i
:'.iit
~.~
:"t
'"it
:;~
~.
i
~',
.f,.
~,
'~
~;
- 2 -
, .r~
\.
. "';,
\
\
,
\
l
\
\
\.
e
to988PG \ 215
-----1
.IE
oo:r
z
0
~ --,
"
z
-
:r
<II
c( :l!
;t
.,; l.
<II / I
:
R - Ip' r
16 S 9
8 1 1 I
s..... ". .. u I ,.!. 0/'
"."'.1/4 27 I ltol/4 Z1 C
J
12. 22 ,
N 0
19
'0 .0' >0'
'.1(, B ~
RM I 2 21,01
"'EoB
21, 011
w
>
c(
a ( I
81 l.. -I
a::
~ :;j
~l 0
<II
\ <II 20
~
--
"'~B Ig r-:-
21.02
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT and ZONING
OWNER
APPLIC"NT
F 0 L E'-() A "'" N
LUP 8~-~3
PROPERTY DESC,RIPTlON '';;;07
LO'" IS
L0V EL. (:"t-J D S V'B
LAND USE PLAN
ZONING
FROII. No N S COUNTY 'Q,,-l../
O.,:;-ACRES
RIGHT OF WAY~
'?A RT 6€LLE,.A lK. R'D
0,08 J.CRES
TO c..OM IVI E~c. \ AL rT'F c..c...
PLANNING and ZONING eO....RO
CITY COMMISSIOI<
S=.C,IO" L 7
,OWNSHIP 2q s
RANGE 15 _
J."LJ.,S PAGE ~ g A::~I AL 3:, G
C'Sln<;-'. FEmltl'
1
8700 'i' U 13 (]) f3d/~ /I /hz..
.. ....; q 0 q FAGE 1.... I.
11CH /fOOO~ .,' U";t /tj)&j~
40 R~~ L AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
46 PO; OCr FLORIDA, ANNEXING PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH
I ~A ~, OF BELLEAlR ROAD, RUNNING FROM GREENWOOD
Total .:/0'0_ AVENUE TO MISSOURI AVENUE, PINEL LAS COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY
HEREIN INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY,
AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE D ATE.
...
.-'l
.."
<;
..
~ ..;
~~ ==06
t..: ~O ~
~ .~ E c.; M
~ = Q ...
::::~t~
:; ~.: ~
E ~ .~ ~ i
E<u~;
E:i of
": Q ~
t''''
to< U
:0
..,.
r--
..,.
cO
'"
.. ""
o~;;""
f-o~~<
z...l><...l
ex:uo'"
:::>>" ~ d
f-ot:o;:.l
u.J u ,t-'
ex: ~~
>::
--:
~
,..l
u
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, received a
sworn petition from Barnett Bank of Florida, Inc. and Barnett Banks of Pinel1as, N .A.
requesting the City to annex a certain parcel of real property described herein, owned
by them, into the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, after due consideration of said request for
'"
..,.
r--
..,.e:>
S~
annexation, at a regular meeting held on May 15, 1986, voted to accept the petition
and authorized the preparation of an ordinance to annex the property; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 1986, the City Commission held a public hearing upon
the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Local Gc';ernment Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA)
requires that all development resuJations and amendments thereto related to an
adopted comprehensive plan or e:ement thereof be reviewed by the Local Planning
Agency (LPA) for conformance wit.~ plans adopted pursuanUo the LGCPA; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Co~~ Planning Council (PCPC) has been designated the
Local Planning Agency for Pine11e= County and this Ordinance has been referred to and
considered by the PC PC in acco~-:ce with its guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE: IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE::ITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Pursuant to Sectic-:l 171.044, Florida Statutes, the following described
property is hereby annexed into :he corporate limits of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, and the boundary lines of c-e City are redefined to include the following:
See Exhibit A attached ::ereto.
Section 2. The City of Cl~arwater does hereby certify that the measures
contained in this ordinance are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
individual elements thereof adopted pursuant to the LGCP A, and directs that a copy
hereof be forwarded to the LPA for their receipt and appropriate action.
Section 3. The City Commission hereby accepts the dedication of all easem~nts,
, .......,. -
s:- z""" .
streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of-way and other dedications to the pUb~ W~~h f
Con =.~ ~"
.- ~.~ r~
C) ::.;; ~
~_I~V"
C'c ~
"'-" tl--
co c-' ~
--.J .....::.
-1-
~e ~ ~;)1 '
I ):J) /
....;L ",'
1.)
i .. I
I I
)/1- :: '
l:
\ . Illllll'rI'Ul1'1 '_ J. J).-tt
_H.
'1 IT
. All ,.1J
e
.,6qo~mE 135
have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the areas so annexed.
Section 4. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the Planning Director are
directed to include and show the property described herein upon the official maps and
records of the City.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The
City Clerk shall file one certified copy with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas
County, Florida, and shall file another certified copy with the Florida Department of
State within 30 days of adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
December 11, 1986
December 18, 1986
Attest:
/s/ Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
/s/ Kathleen F. Kelly
Mayor-Commissioner
Approved as to form & correctness:
~~
. .; ~ . .
'.:
-2-
['."1lj." H 1
iI!-'.nr~ f. 1.: liJ :of' ..~;w.... 't I.
.
"
-
O,R,~ () 4 f~GE
136
.
SUBDIVISION according to
. age 20. of the Public Records
of Pinellas County.
TOGETHER WITH that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section
27. Township 29 South. Range 15 East described as follows: From the Northeast
corrier of the Northeast 1/4 of the N05thwest 1/4 of Section 27. Township 29
South. Range 15 East. run THENCE ~01 31' 01- W. along the North and South
centerline of said Section 27.680.52 feet; THENCE N,89s 32' 46- W. 50.01 feet
to the Westerly Righs-of-way line of Missouri Avenue for a Point of Beginning;
THENCE continue Nb89 32' 46- W. 471.56 feet; THENCE ~000 57' 07- E. 273.05
feet; THENCE N.89 16' 39- W. 581.95 feet; THENCE S 00 57' 07- W. 275.74
feet; THENCE N.890 32' 46- W, 198.01 feet; THENCE N 000 55' OS- E along She
Easterly Right-of-Way line of G5eenwood Avenue, 546.53 feet; THENSE S 89 16'
39- E, 857.15 feet; TijENCE S 01 31' 01- W. 300 feet; THENCE S 89 16' 39- E,
400 feet; THENCE S 01 31' 01- W along the Westerly Right-of-Way line of
Missouri Avenue, 240.76 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT: That
part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Township 29 South, Range 15 East,
described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Lot 22 of said LOVELAND
SUBDIVISION. Run Thence West along the South line of Lots 16 through 22.
inclusive of said LOVELAND SUBOIVISION, 400 feet for the Point of Beginning;
THENCE South. parallel to the West line of Missouri Avenue 300.0 feet; THENCE
West, parallel to the South line of Bel1eair Road. 49.37 feet; THENCE North,
parallel to the West line of Missouri Avenue, 300 feet to the Southwest corner
of said Lot 16 of LOVELAND SUBDIVISION; THENCE East along the South line of
said lot 16, 49.37 feet to the Point of Beginning.
ALSO
That part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Township 29 South. Range 15
East. Pinellas C:unty, Florida, described as follows: From the Southeast
corner of Lot 22 of said LOVELAND SUBDIVISION, run THENCE West along the South
line of lots 16 through 22 inclusive. of said LOVELAND SUBDIVISION. 400.00
feet for the Point of Beginning; THENCE South, parallel to the West line of
Missouri Avenue. 300.00 feet; THENCElIlest. parallel to the South line of.
Belleair Road. 4S.37 feet; THENCE Horth. parallel to the West line ~f Missourt ~
Avenue, 300 feet to the Southwest Corner of said- Lot 16 of LOVELAND' -'
SUBDIVISION; TH~CE East. along the South linecofsaid lot 16; 49.-37 feet to =
the Point of Be~'ning.
TOGETHER with ~he abutting right-of-way of Missouri Avenue,
EXHIBIT A
JI
j.nLl.~
"
.
FKOM :-~anasonic FAX SYSTEM .
PHONE NO. :
4It Dec. 03 1999 02:50PM Pi
. '
o t905 f;;
r.... "'ill If__
~ :.<~.~~~~ ~
~:',:;:::;?\I?0. ~
~~~".., d
~ ..~~Iiil.... ?
Citv of Largo Florida
Poet orYrCQ Box 296, Largo, ~orida 33779.0296
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Sue OIQ na
LOCATION: ('\PN\(1...Ri~ r
TELEPHONE NO:
FAX NO: ~() d - 40<6 b
PAGES TO ~OLLOW, '5 (~\)
Comments;
FROM: Diane L. Bruner
LOCATION: City Clerk's Office
TELEPHONE NO: (727'l 587-6710
FAX NO: (727) 586.7420
DATE: \(i \~ \C(~
S\Je ( -t\~((
of De.\~€~\f
t e B0 \ "":J c:;['1
~Q. --\- \\,
0'(\ \'( O~~\ Of\E2 '} 'rI1:;:,~ f\olih
'\ s &~(I<;).f.l <(jC\ V\J ~, 1s1 __
ld-.\' \ ~ \ \ Sf~x \ '\ 10 l\ 00 uJ h\'(\ 1
~ MJtJJbj
FROM; Panasonic FRX ,~~
PHONE NO. ;
~03 1999 02;51PM P2
I
'~"
75086991
-
,Ii. ~,4307 PACE 208
ORDINANCE NO, 75-770
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ,OF LARGO, FLORIDA, AXENDING
ORDINANCE NO. C~,410 TO CORRECT AN INADVERTENT ERROR
IN THEDESCRI~TION' CONTAINED THEREIN TO CERTAIN POR~
TIONSOF BELLEAIR AND NURSERY' ROADS THEREBY ANNExED
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LI.MtTS OF THE CITY (FORMERLY
TOWN), OF LARGOj REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY 'LINES OF THE
CITY OF LARGO ACCORDING TO SAID AMENDMENT; PROVIDlNG
EFFECTIVE DATE,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No, C-410 adopted October 10, 1967,
certain po~tions of Belleair and Nursery Roads were inadvertently
included within property anneied thereby; and
WHEREAS, the City of Largo is now desirous of amending said
Ordinance No. C-4l0 and description of certain portions of Belleair
and Nursery Roads contained therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF LARGO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT:
1. Ordinance No, C-4l0 be and the same is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Section 1. The Town of Largo. acting by and through
its Town Commission, by the authority and under the pro-
vis.ions of Chapter 67-1623 Special Acts of Florida 1967
(House BillN6, 672) hereby annexes into the corporate
limits of the Town of Largo, Florida, and redefines the
boundary lines of said Town so as to include the following:
D
')~
Y)
~~8
jb~~
s 1:--, ~
~~ ~'
t>~- r~
~ ~)b
All of Bel1eair Park Estates Subdivision 4S
recorded in Plat Book 63 page 39 of the public
records of Pinellas County,. Florida; and also
those portions of BelleairRoad, Lake Avenue
and Nursery Road contiguous to the north, east
and south boundaries of the above described
Belleair Park Estates Subdivision. lying and
being within the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township
29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida.
'-
1=,
..
'-
The foregoing property i6 allowed a variance so
that side set backs shall be a minimum of 10%
of the width of the lot or six and one-half feet
whichever is less and so that the rear set back
for a main structure Shall be a min~um of 10
feet; and subject to such variance.
<LQ
C" j;..- :E
;~ ~
:: ~ ~;~
;; '~ -,:: r:
-r"".. -, C~ i,
~ ')-) ;:.?
r' to '
" ',~,'<',:--
~ [.-,
~..>
This property is hereby zoned "R-l Residential "
in accordance with the Town Code of the Town of
Largo.
Section Z. The Town Manager is hereby directed to
include and set out and show upon the official zoninp. mAn
and other ot~ic1al maps of the Town of Largo, the fore- .
going property and is hereby directed to record this
Ordinance among the public records of Pinellas County-,
Florida. in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
:N
'VI
,(T\
....,.,
:x
-::;
~
i
j
Section 3. The Town Commission hereby formally and
accord~ng to law accepts the dedication of all easements,
streets, parks, plazas, places, rights-of~way and ,other
dedications to the public which have heretofore been: made
by plat, deed, or user within the area so annexed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective
immedutely upon its passage.
,r-
~
...'.-7 ·
\...,
FROM: Panasonic
FAX SYSTEMe
p,
PHONE NO.
D....03 1999 02:52PM P3
~,
'-'
, II 1
\ \ of\t'\
co-( ..1#
O~ 0:'-
IO/C. .l~9/ l' -/93
&>7 ?~313
ORDINANCE NO. C- 410
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY Ha~EINAFTER
DESCRIBED LOCATED IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING TOWN LIMITS OF
THE TOWN of LARGO, FLORIDA, INTO THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF LARGO, FLORIDA, AND REDE-
FINING THE BOU~~ARY LINES OF THE TOWN OF LARGO
TO INCLT..'DE SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE
PROVISIONS of CHAPTER LAWS OF FLORIDA
OF 1967 (HOUSE SILL NO. 672) AND DESIGNATING '
THE ZONING FOR SUCH AREA AND ACCEPTING THE
DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS AND EASEMENTS IN SUCH
AREA AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
\VH~REAS, a Petition h~s be~n duly filed with the
Town Co~~ission of the Town of Largo, Florida, pursuant to
Chapter Laws of Florida 1967 (House Bill No. 672)
which Petition seeks the annexation of the property herein-
afte~ described into thQ corporate limits of the Town of
La~go, Fl~rida: and
WEEREAS, all of the rGquir~ments of said Act
have Deen complied witL' and' it has 1?een made to appea.
to the Town Commission of the Town of Largo, Florida, th~t
all of the owners of tha real property within the said area
to be annexed have consented to such annexation, and that
such Pot it ion has been approyed' by the affirmative vote of
the Board of Co~~issioners of the Town of Largo:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 'By THE TO~~"N
CO~~~SSION OF THE TOWN OF LARGO, FLORIDA
~
II..\' '
f~
Scc~ion l. The Town of Largo, acting by and through
its Town conmlission, by the authority and under the provisior.s
of Chapter Laws of Florida 1967 (House Bill No. 672)
hereby annexes into the corporate limits or the Town of L~~go.
Florida, and redefines the l>oundary lines of said Town so a~
to include the following:
All of BeJleair pa:.:k Estates S.\.l~divi$ion as recorded i::.
Pla~ BOOK 63 page 39 of the public records of Pinellas
County, Florida: and also those portionB of BellGair Road,
La.ke :~venuc ~:'l~';,d Nursery Road lying and being within t!1e
Ea.st: 1/2'o.z:::'le Southeast 1/4. of. the SouthNes,t 1/4 ,of
Section 23, ~ownship 29 South. Rang. 15 East, Pinellas
CO~!1ty, Florida."
........\', .......-:"..
: ~....,. ,......'..,.'..-.-..
..
;:::::.~" ..
A
"
- FROM: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
e
PHONE NO.
e 03 1999 02:52PM P5
C E R T I FIe ATE
I, the undersigned. CARL G. ECKLUND, Town Manager of the Town of Largo,
Florida. and the Town Clerk. hereby certify that Ordinance No. C-410 . of
the Town of Largo, Florida, being AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIB
LOCATED IN PINELLAS COUNTY. FLORIOA AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING TOWN LIMITS OF THE
TOWN OF LARGO. FLORIDA, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF LARGO, FLORIDA, AND
REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE TOWN OF LARGO TO INCLUDED SAID ADDITION, ACCORDING
TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER LAWS OF FLORIDA OF 1967 (HOUSE BILL NO. 672) ANO
DESIGNATING THE ZONING FOR SUCH AREA AND ACCEPTING'THE DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS AND
EASEMENTS IN SUCH AREA AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE,
has been legally promulgated as required by Section 165.20, Florida Statutes,
1961, by posting a copy thereof at the door of the Town Ha11 of said TOlin, and
by posting a copy thereof on the bulletin board in the United State Post Offica
;n said Town on the .!ll!:L.. day of October . 1967, which said copies remained
posted thereat until and including the 12th day of November
. 1967.
DATED this 13th' day of November
, A. D., 1967.
TO~oJN SEAL
Subscribed and sworn to before me
C'OOll!li ss'i :O,ntxpi res: 10...... 'at Large
- " , bllc. St;ate of F ...... .
,>"" Notary PU ..,....._ Mev. ,18. 1969
, , ',,' MY COl\'lnllsslOll ~....
.
,,r----...
~,
1
f ~
I
([)
(p
@
@
@
6J
. .
e
.
ANNEXATIONS SOUTH OF BELLEAffi ROAD
BUSINESS LOCATION ADDRESS DATE OF REASON FOR ATLAS
NAME ANNEXATION ANNEXATION PAGE #
&
ORDINANCE
No,
Bellegreen Place 1601 South Greenwood 12/18/1986 & Sewer service 322A
(1-5) * 1103 Belleair Road 04/20/1989
1149 Belleair Road v6rd,~. 4251-
1153 Belleair Road 86 & ~764-88 - ~1itt;/U
1155 Belleair Road .j, --
1604 Missouri Avenue It/N/80
(Walgreen)
1610 Missouri Avenue
(Barnett Bank)
Har~ 18167 US 19 North 12/19/1985 Sewer service 326A
Propertl , f'1t,,'!... , (AT A) No, M&B
?t1 f! 'Y '...... 85-35-257 22/02
Southridge * * 1400-1498 Southridge 2/01/65 Sewer service 323A
Subdivision Drive v6rd, No,1048
Belmont Trailer 901 Belleair Road 12/8/58 Sewer service 326A
Park *** Ord, No,803 M&B
22/01
Allen Creek C/o 2535 Success Drive 07/16/98 Sewer service 318A
Properti Odessa, FL Ord, No 6284- M&Bs
/11;// ff /7/1~ ~ 98 22/01 &
33/07
Belleair Amoco 1495 Belleair Road 12/8/58 Sewer service 323A
Ord, No, 803
Pitter Patter 833 Belleair Road 5/16/60 Sewer service 322A
Preschool Ord, No, 864
Manovic Ahmed 835 Belleair road 5/16/60 Sewer service 322A
Ord, No. 864
Note:
* This property is located south of Belleair Road running from Greenwood Avenue to Missouri Avenue
and more particularly including Lots 3, 4, 14, 16, 18, 19,20,21 and 22, Loveland Subdivision
together with right-of-way of Belleair Road abutting Lots 16,18,19,2021, & 22 of said Loveland
Subdivision. And right-of-way on Missouri Avenue, Lot 15 was annexed 4/20/89 per ordinance no.
4764-98.
** Plat approved on October 18, 1965 by the City Commission
~-
(
r
;,
n
o
o
F
c
'l
I'
-
L-
0')
-
Ul
:>
VI
I
I ,'I" 11,--- \ ~C::::;f=+-JI' \ c..il~' <
r------+- 11- r=i?=rr ~~ G ; \, \ I I
I I I I . ~, ~~,.....<;::dNi=1 I c.."-. ,~,
~ · ,,' --;--- r-""" u....: u _ I ',E3 ~ ''( \" ;:';:::::!
~,.,I;I:" ()! , ~ '~H 'I ',/r-<u-- \ \"', __' ','~'
), ="" '1: 'T'LL ,,::::::;:( i=::::i \ ;,' , i
~:Jj , 'rT"_-'..,------ ------..>~,~ . _ ," 1 .
'~<~I : ____<'-"~~'~\~ ' ,------. \~/ -',,: ~ " "
(X" ----..i....;, 'v/'j,-, '.:::, "\"', ~ . ;y8',' ',t:::I / "" \ i ('" ";' (
, , I,' ,~~ ,~ ,'L.L:= N _,~' 'rl " ~,___
~ I! "~'mmy-,.,, ,",' (~
- =- ~ r-,- -,- ~ V-"'_, 1/. / .- ,~~~'~,!
~' " ~ ~ ::;:;; ~ ~ ~,?--, I\~ 1fJ7, X 11. f \.. " &:':~
-- ruH M= i== I --t'....- I ' I' '-c
'e I, ,r-r-r--_r--"~',' ','------:', ,'_, ___ ,"_
,,1/' to] I I ,::::':::::;:::;$;:::=:: 1/ ,~. ~_
~! I I I 1 ~ $ r---- ~,/ I ,I ~"\', ,~..~_,
W I I 1 :::- FE / l.. '<:J l......-
i- !,~P~r------< " 1\:'\
CLEARWATER/LARGO
CITY LIMITS
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
'.~
I\~
J;;/ q::
'ff!t'",.~,\,,\'."\
"E!~
;;; a_(
'~'^-, it r= 1\\
I i;il~.~ c: c:
,~.i=::::
~ii;:::d
I =, '<:, c:~~,
~Jt"'! _::...
SCALE: 1" = [500' .......
DATE: 5-DEC-[999 ~ ~ ~
GRAPHICS PREPARED BY TH! OmCE OF THE
PINEI..LAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.
JIM SMITH
~oo'Uc.... b7 la:D:l ~~,., Co;:;rrip"- ~~~ PiIl...u.u C~t.]. rtond.. P'''\1.rt..~ A.iJlIr-.in!', All Itic.hu !"W"f'V~
".::::-.~:..... ....~""O"''lOl-1 n-<IS w.J> P,...! 'l,U'OESE....-,-' ~ SJ\ih/I~'CM""_' -0'" ;E.>RE! ::F ~':O"I>...':" *.c :l)..f':-~.':NE:Y$.OlJT
~A.$~~F~ ~~,,:~~~~-?~t:~~~~) ~;;~~~1:~~~~~",~ ~~~t~~,~~iF
;';;:'~.~:"" :E**~.;"p'~' ;:~"":..,.~~5;??~5~f~ ~":'~;;E~.~O ~sc~ ~ ~ ~~M:..gES. ~
~, Mil.,. J.,L I:,~.. nw L.,:;. bJ.l ~;;;,IBtJ= ~tL,t lUJ tc;;J[rt.e~.:"(;",,,..J '