The URL can be used to link to this page

PPC NEW ANNEXATION PROCESS, 1999/2000, VOLUME 1 (2) PPC New Annexation Process Volume 1 1999/2000 e e area will be reasonably compact. (5) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a publicly owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, ", watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and ~ " between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically. However, nothing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity; and when any provision or provisions of special law or laws prohibit the annexation of territory that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of ,.. "-", water or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this Act. (6) "Council" means the Pinellas Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida (1988). ",k '(7) / \ "County" means Pinellas County, Florida, tlS) "Enclave" means: {~/' (a) ./Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality; or (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of 3 e e (c) annexation of the property by the annexing municipality will not create an enclave. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation pursuant to a previously executed, valid agreement, the annexing municipality shall notify the Council of said proposed annexation and fOIWard the petition for annexation and a legal description of the subject property. ~" Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by Council; Appeals. t i (1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a petition for a proposed annexation to said municipality and a legal description of the subject property, the Council shall review said proposed annexation for compliance with the following criteria: (a) whether the subject property complies with the criteria set forth in Section 6(1); (b) whether the legal description provided is accurate and does not conflict with previously established municipal boundaries; and (c) whether the annexing municipality has the ability to provide necessary urban services in a timely and cost-effective manner, The review provided for under this subsection is specifically intended to replace the review for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or "-,', more now conducted independently by the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, (2) Upon completion of its review, the Council shall transmit a determination of either ,/ , ", r compliance or non-compliance to the annexing municipality, A municipality that receives a determination of compliance may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below, A ~ /,..t> tpunicipaiity that receives a determination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation, '~-(3) Any party affected by the proposed annexation and who is aggrieved by the final determination of the Council shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for 5 e e Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari, In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees, Section 9. Effect of Annexation. An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and'procedure set forth ... , in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and regulations in force in that municipality and , shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as ~other parts 'of that ~unicipality upon the effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexation that does not comply with the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and yoid and the property shall continue to be " considered unincorporated for both tax and regulatory purposes, Section 10. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services. The County and each municipality shall have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements to provide services as an alternative to annexation. Such agreements are encouraged where they would provide a cost-effective, mutually adyantageous alternative to annexation or where annexation is not achievable under the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. .; 4, " " Section 11. State Plan Amendment Review Process. Any area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth'in this Act shall be deemed to comply with and satisfy the requirements ofs 163,3171, F,S. , ' " upon aOoptIon of an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately appiy the I ,/ City's comprehensive plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity of use or density which is equal to or less than the Countywide future land use plan for said area, as detennined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions of this section shall 7 .. '. . . - BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article n, Sees. 2.04 and 2 07 of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County and enable the county to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation to each respective municipality, as specifically enumerated by this special law? /; '... [] YES FOR APPROVAL [] NO FOR REJECTION Section 15. Severability. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared severable, I: I L'SERSI WPDOCS\DPHlANNEXl99IANNEXACT Drllft~d 12/1 7/98 .~ -.;. * " ), ,.. i / \ ", 9 e e An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for designation of areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations and appeals therefrom; providing a municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban services; providing for state plan amendment review process; providing for amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; providing an effective date and referendum question; providing for severability. "- WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated County in the State of Florida, with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds of the total County area; and WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the incorporated municipalities is an on- gomg significant occurrence that has important ,growth management and service delivery implications to the unincorporated County, the incorporated municipalities and the citizenry; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Pinellas County to implement a more rational, uniform and clear method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and '-,~^ t unpredictability of the current voll.!lltary annexation process; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and " balanced system of governance in Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this . ~ act constItute the exclusive means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas ,l / ,,.. ,/' County, l "', NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures .~. . neJ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL Cf-t0 ~~ COUNCIL MEMBERS r:l!- r. ~ 1\' r: ~, Councilmember Robert Kersteen. Chm, Mayor Tom De Cesare. Vice Chm, Councilmember Chuck Williams. Treas, Commissioner Nadine S, Nickeson. Sec, School Board Member Lee Benjamin Commissioner Karen Brayboy Mayor David Coyner Mayor Robert DiNicola Commissioner Janet Henderson Commissioner Ed Hooper Commissioner Robert Jackson Commissioner Robert Stewart Councilmember Babe Wright May 19, 1999 MAY 241999 The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 ...i :y MANAGeR David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Dear Mayor Aungst: As you may be aware the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) has spent considerable time and effort over the past two years dealing with several aspects of annexation and the related provision of services. We concluded last year that there needed to be a more logical, fair and efficient way of dealing with the issues attendant to annexation. As a result, we identified and recommended an eight-point plan that included the following major points: 1, Advance Notification - to all relevant parties; 2, Verification of Legal Description - to avoid technical flaws and delays; 3, Compliance with State Law - relative to contiguity, compactness and the creation of enclaves; 4, Determination of Ability to Serve - to replace the current PPC review process; 5. Provision for Contracts for Service - by mutual agreement between a city and the County, as an alternative to annexation; 6. Defined Areas Eligible for Annexation - to establish predictability as to' jurisdiction and service delivery; 7. Required Consistency with Countywide Plan - to avoid after-the-fact conflict and need for resolution; and 8. Exemption from State Amendment Review Process - to preserve the central purpose of the current interlocal agreements, The Council further directed staff to examine the available means by which to implement such a procedure. Staff has proposed draft legislation, a copy of which is attached, that would be part of a three-step process to provide for an exclusive means for voluntary annexation in Pinellas County that would seek to accomplish the Council's eight-point recommendation, The three steps required to implement this process are as follows: 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE" SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 · FAX (727) 464-3827 '~~'{ ,/ l., . \\ \\ ~I ~t~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~:<;t'-\~ . j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ "'-~ } LJ "' ~ ~ 'A ~ \:9 ~ ~ 1:~~~ ~ t ~ 0 ~ \ G;::- ~ U1 . " , e " r I f r; ~. r ro ~ft~t I ~' r;- ~~ ~-o- v 11f ? ~ ~ r- ~ '. . . 7~ff - ? t&mJj(,~-~ J1&tJ/)?C!/iwnbJr NU/o/O~~~.~ ~pl:jJ~-1:~ ~~$ jPlPt!- ~ ate. ~ AJ /?e -/ ~ ~~~ 1~P~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ttn/;tut '. )W/b tJ&1~ #h np;$ I1J .Lr~=" ~.~~~ (/~~h~) ~PW~ ~ .. {I) ~ -tH1/lx'dJ.~6 -/b-~b--4Ud- ~~~ ~,' . dmth~.h /?'uJ;r ~ in :/M//C!. - ~kt:J/~ th-Me t7 {/~--r ;11- ~~/,d~~?/I ~- . fM~-fcJ~A)~~~ ~ Mitt (/11 ~ a~/U a6 ~ kat ~ - 41ff ~ l4i~/1fll It>>-- /JtJ/uR ~~~ ~~,.~at!C ν/1&dI~/W/l~~ + ~ . . &i137--1 ~ - ~~ /'P6J1J{f c/O ~ ~ . -I-tbm~mv . , /:1Jta~,u; ,~OjP~b JWI: I1Jta ~ ~~ , ~~tq#~ a:o ~,~~~I>>1-r ~~ -fZ) hwe/7l4'p ~a6~t} ~-~~ ~~~? ~ /)() " Ij;)~ ~ ::1:1:,/0 ~x~ /1ffiXfJD~ tu7;~ ~ . )1&a~ ~~~~ ~~~- ~;}U-if~ ,7 ~ ~a plkW~ 11PI-~~ 4oA?-~~/b toltJ ~.~, ~,. ~ fWljJtm;1JY C! )1t/l1~,a/7~ //'~,~kk Plf /<<!W'p5 ~6 -H~kj&l1~ Irh~((,~(.)l!j &~~~l'e;!/ /W 1~~M&t /OtUJ ~ ;t;r-~~ ~-:::;t;; J:j~ ~ ~fredt4~ ~ID J:;e jUJm ttml~~ . - . ?tlft 1t! 1)t11!! - fI l1d //loth. ~~b~ fJ~-f!j-~ - (I~9J~ ~),~~, I;r//f! &//~//$yt7J7ck ~:.~/O~~~//tV ~4$/;;;~/v~ ~~/;lfW)7~~h~ ~. 0 a /J////?/o/!~~ M/q~t!- ~j/e ~/);- 8p-:.84A- ~J $- /'/C! ~w 25J liP- dap'c:g /~ f!E-~g?rjJ)~ . /l#~~~;~ Sut- ~ 71:ab /If ~~~ tj5mf!. ftfY t?I/~2fh~. ~/o /7J2:e:/ ~zw/ ~tlu--~ ~/?c!, ;tI~~ 4MJ ~~~~IO~~ -11J1~ /J;; / - ~ . ~~Jt> ~~~ at6~ 4~~/ . ~ Pio)?,~tif --'~ k; /~ ~./~~ ~~~ Ir _,A..V' ~ ~ ;:::J/tV~~ /tfJn 7121~~ #, j};J~ ~ /JWr~ ~ -/1Ja6 . . 5'1/1 ~z, JttrIJJWd-~~ /fiJ#);o~ ~u!&!. ~-I~~ L/? ~~~IYJ!-~. -~~~~~, . ~/f/~gyCt~ tUUL~~/.J~ ft~ R;hc/t?-~~~ ~ M~ ~Jz, ~~~~~ /}tM~ -ffJ/We J1/Ut/tJ~~~~ ~ , , ~m/fi>>c ~/t; ~ .) . ~ /tfe-af~ /Jt)J1&J>>/]' -#MJf !fJf~ ~ . -h~~~ /b~j;~ h~~ /h~~ 1W~11'~1fc-6 ~-~~ ~ de ~~ ~pp?-~- . ~1tJ,je6 ~/9~~ _ tJd7p-.~t:e,~~ &~/tJ~6- . /f-V ~ L.!ti.e. -rttt:td ,MeAl . -~~~~~~#t~ -/()a~ " . fl~/1tWcl-~./ir4a//g A?~' -- 4mjt1/llW 4/ir /lff~- MJ7Ck:. /V if. ~~- /J{;7h~ ffe t/h4/Jzp - J1()~~ ~m~1~ th/7t ~~ ~~ ~ :t:~r - :,I1Pe1'l71/ftN:4?"~.:. ,O~ :lbcm~~ ~ftJtjthJ~~~4r~ /Wp' I ~/O~fry~m?&?'~..~ ~ (ktttr/iJrC/;h~ U#NJ~~~- ana f?llftWa ~/6 Ht1>- ~ -:::/heh7AUiZ /py /~ ~E~/If - /G -9~:ffk qJftr~ ___~?J~~~?~ t;bhlb U/tJ /III ~ -- ~/t/~ JJJ{lte ~/~ ~~ N PARK, '~~)\\. . lA/a ...-,r I / Cilyof f-'LO 5141 78TH AVE,' P,O, BOX 1100 PINELLAS PARK, FL33780-1100 PHONE . (727) 541-0700 FAX . (727) 544-7448 SUNCOM. 969-1011 May 26, 1999 David p, Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveiand Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: Draft Annexation Legislation PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear David: The City of Pinellas Park follows State Law when we annex a parcel into our City. All our annexations are voluntary, The Pinellas County property owners have the choice of staying in the unincorporated County or annexing into Pinellas Park. It has been the philosophy of past City Councils and is the philosophy of our current City Council that the property owners, as customers of services, should be allowed to retain the right to choose their service provider, We believe that annexation into Pinellas Park is a customer's choice and right; and we support that right. It is also the service provider's responsibility to provide the best service possible. This philosophy is reflected in the City of Pin ell as Park's Mission Statement, "To provide superior yet cost-effective services to our community through teamwork, a "can do" attitude, continual improvement and genuine respect for all people," This is how Pinellas Park earned the reputation of being the City in the white hat. We believe there is a problem, The State Law is violated when a Pinellas County property owner is essentially coerced against his or her will into annexation, The way we understand the State Law, it does not provide for annexations through the use of coercive tactics or for the annexation of property which does not qualify therefore under State Law (e.g, "balloon annexations"). Unfortunately, this seems to be occurring on a regular basis. I would suggest to you that the solution lies in the enforcement of the existing State Law rather than in the creation of additional layers of red tape to the annexation process. Specific penalties need to be established and enforced, We agree with Ronald F, Pianta, AICP, Planning Director for the City of Safety Harbor, in his letter of May 12, 1999, In it, he stated, "I see no need to complicate the annexation process, extend the time required for annexation to be completed, make the procedure more bureaucratic, or require a Planning Council review (staff or otherwise) for those communities that are not having service A ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - . . David P. Healey, AICP May 26, 1999 Page 2 problems or competing for adjacent land," Pinellas Park is one of those communities that is competing for adjacent land and we agree with Mr. Pianta, In closing, I would like to state that the majority of municipalities have no problems with annexation procedures. We feel it is important to keep the process streamlined. What is most important is protecting the property owners' rights and ability to choose annexation into a municipality of their choice. Therefore, address the problem of enforcing the Florida Statutes regarding annexation. This will satisfy the issues at hand and ensure the freedom of choice for Pinellas County property owners, Sincerely, 0- %~.E. ~ger JHM/ssp cc: Sallie Parks, Chairman, Pinellas County Commission Robert B. Stewart, Vice-Chairman, Pinellas County Commission Calvin D. Harris, Commissioner, Pinellas County Commission Karen Williams Seel, Commissioner, Pinellas County Commission Barbara Sheen Todd, Commissioner, Pinellas County Commission Fred Marquis, County Administrator William Mischler, Mayor, City of Pin ell as Park Ed Taylor, Vice-Mayor, City of Pin ell as Park Patricia Bailey, Councilperson, City of Pin ell as Park Richard Butler, Councilperson, City of Pin ell as Park Charles Williams, Councilperson, City ofPineiias Park Michael B. Gustafson, Asst. City Mgr./Comm, Dev,i)dministrator, City of Pin ell as Park Ralph Stone, Planning Director, City of Clearwater / Kevin Campbell, Community Services Director, City of Dunedin Richard Kephardt, Planner, City of Gulfport Mikel Nadeau, Building Official, City oflndian Shores Ric Goss, Community Development Director, City of Largo Nick Staszko, Community Development Director, City of Oldsmar Brian Smith, Planning Director, Pinellas County Ron Pianta, Planning Director, City of Safety Harbor Dave Goodwin, Manager of Planning Programs, City ofSt. Petersburg Chris Brimo, Director of Licenses, Inspections, & Planning, City ofSt. Pete Beach Roy Otto, General Services Director, City of Seminole Jim Miller, Director of Real Property, Pinellas County Schools Tom Shevlin, Assistant Community Development Administrator, City of Pin ell as Park . , . . I' BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Sees. 2.04 and 2.07 of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County and enable the county to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation to each respective municipality, as specifically enumerated by this " ~ / special law? [] NO FOR REJECTION / I I' t' t \. '. ....., l " t"" /~' '" "1 '" "....~.. .,.... ,r" [] YES FOR APPROVAL ,. ''"''< Section 15. Severability. . ,.J~ ", ~~~ <;i ", If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held , . invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given . \; :' l ,., effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared severable. , ,( I ,,OJ ,.. t; /' ~{ 1:\LlSERS\ WPDOCSIDPHWVNEX\99IANNEXACT Drllft~d 12117/98 "" ..,~\ ,,~ ,/',.~, " , ~, )'''. / !i /'. j /~: , -' F , i, ,,~.. 9 .. . . Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari, In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees, Section 9. Effect of Annexation. ,I " I /: An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the cri~a and"procedure set forth /~ ~ ' in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and regulations in force in that municipality and shalJ be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as!ther parlS,1that~eiPality ~. the effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexa\on that does not comPl~~th the criteria ... , and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and ~~id imd. the property shall continue to be - ''', ,'p "- considered unincorporated for both tax and reguJatciry purposes, '-t, / " (l' $'" Section 10. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services." "<< " The County and each municipality shall have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements ( i' r . A to provide services as an alterna!ive to annexation, Such agreements are encouraged where they t t. A \ " , would provide a cost -eff':Jive. mutually ad\:.tageous alternative to annexation or where annexation is not ac"evable under ~'~riteria and procedures set forth in this Act. '~ " sect~ 11. State Pla:Amendment Review Process. ~.A-" ' " Any area vol~tarily annexed'to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth'this Act shall b}deemed to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F ,S. /" j. ' . ' lJPoD ariopnon of an ayDexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately appjy the ~~'S comprehensiCPlan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity ~ otUse or density which is equal to or less than the Countywide future land use plan for said area, as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions of this section shall 7 I. I . . (c) annexation of the property by the annexing municipality will not create an enclave. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation pursuant to a previously executed, valid agreement, the annexing municipality shall notify the Council of said proposed annexation and foryard the petition .f' #/'. for annexation and a legal description of the subject property;, /' i Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by:CounciI; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt from a municipality 'of a pL~on for~:opo~exatio~~'::aid t' , ~ ' municipality and a legal description of the subject propertY, ,the Council shall review said proposed ,- annexation for compliance with the following criteria:.f' < ." '<J- (a) whether the subject property.cO~~lies with the crit~a set forth in Section 6(1); /, "\ / ' /- f ,~ (b) whether the legal description proVideq is accurate and does not conflict with / I~. fi L ,. previously established municipal b~undaries; ~d / ,. / ( c) whether the aniexing murii~ipality has' the ability to provide necessary urban , t ' / .' L r l services in a 'timely and cOst-effective mariner. The review provided for under this subsection is " ~, ",-, ' specific~IY intended to r~ace the review for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or " '\: more now c~~uctedindep~ndentlx.~y the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, /(up:,~:on of its :eview. the Council shall transmit a detennination of either coppliance or non-compliance to the annexing municipality. A municipality that receives a le;ermination o7lance may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A ~ty :::.:::::a::np::::::::::~::::::::::eb7:'::; determination of the Council shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for 5 .. . . 1 will be reasonably compact. (5) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the tenitory sought to be annexed by a municipality is cotenninous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by ~ publicly owned t ,/ r'~ , county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, /' <- watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a ~iini1ar nature, ~g parallel with and " /.," ' t.1 ,.'., '-'- ~ between the tenitory sought to be annexed and the fmexing m~cipa1itY",~all not prevent ~ ~ annexation under this act, provided the presence of such ~ division does not, as a practical matter, .I prevent the tenitory sought to be annexed and the annexing niw,licipality from becoming a unified -, '-;;, whole with respect to municipal services or preyent their inhabitants from fully associating and /' '"" r "-f,- ",It<- ......\.""~.. /""~ trading with each other, socially and eC0Iivu.~",..~~y, However, nothing herein shall be construed to I' i'- .,~/. , ';..; allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-Of-way, or like entities to be annexed in fi ~ a conidor fashion to gain contig~ty; and w~en any provision or provisions of special law or laws r l or} ; t. it" ~ ~~ . prohibit the annexation ofJemtory that is $eparated from the annexing municipality by a body of "/ ' L,." '-,- ~" . , ~,~ water oiwatercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this Act. '- '" (6) ':~Council" means }e?inellas Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws , "'- of Florida (1988).-"" '. ~', ~\,; I~' (7) "County" nie,~'Pinellas County, Florida, ! t l ~) .. Enclave'~;ffieans: f (a) ,iunincorporated improved or developed area thai is enclosed within and \> ; bciunded on all sides by a single municipality; or (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of 3 . . An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for designation of areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations and appeals therefrom; providing a municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban services;" providing for state plan amendment review process; providing for amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; providing an effective date and referendum question; providing for:severability. I .~- j WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most denseltpulated-ity ~- State <>fLda, t: '" ,. \,,~ ~- - t:~" ~,: with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds of the total County ~ ." area; and l// '<;, " /.- " WHEREAS, annexation ofunincorporate<.i area by the incorporated municipalities is an on- , ' ./ ' '\:.. /' .'" ", ",.' going significant ~nce that has/"important",~o~ management and service delivery implications to the unincorporated Comity, the inc~~ora;~ municipalities and the citizenry; and ,,~' ';;' : WHEREAS, the Legislarortofthe Stat{~fFlorida'~~ems it to be in the best interests of the ~ I . citizens of Pinellas County,fu iniplement a:more rational, uniform and clear method for voluntary . '" ....., annexati~n on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and . "', unpredictabi~t)jQfthe current ~untary annexation process; and .,..;:: "- . ",' .':~....--."",.,:: '-..~ < WHEREAS:tbe Legislature of the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and balan~~ system of gOV~ in Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this ac;coosl1tute the exc1Je m~ by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas tAluntv. ,~. '::!lOW~~;EREFORE. BE IT ENACfED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures JUN 02 1999 08::.4 P.02 . . Mav 19, 1999 . Page 2 . Approval of a Special Act by the State L<gislature to Authorize Rderendum and Charter Amendment. Target Date: 2000 Legislative Ses~ion; . Referendum on Charter Amendment to Establish Authority for Annexation Procedures Exclusive to Pinellas County. Target Date: Nov., 2000; and . Preparation and Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Specific Procedures and Criteria for Annexation Pursuant to Charter Amendment. Target Date: Early 200 1. We are forwarding the enclosed draft legislation which would be the first step in this process for your information and Input. I am avanable to diSOlS' this with you and would like to encourage a meeting with you, your key staff, PPC representAtive Commissioner Ed Hart, and our Executive Director to discuss this measure and seek your City'S input and support for this effort. The draft legislation has also been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners who will be holding an open workshop on this issue on Tuesday. May 25th that you may want to attend or have a representative attend on your behalf, Please let us know if we can provide additional infonnation and thanks for your interest in this impolUnt matter. Sincerely, ~~- Councilmember Robert Kersteen. Chairman Pinellas Planning Council Enclosures cc: Commissioner Ed Hart. Pinellas Planning Council Representative Michael Roberto, City Manager lit ' '. ,~ "~''''' 'llo TOTAL P.02 I JUN 02 1999 08:54 ~\ PINELlASaANNIN(j LUUN. P,01 COUNCIL MEMBERS ~C"'\Y' \-\or-t- co"'':;S :0 Couneilmember Robe" Kersteen. Chm Mayor Tom De Cesar.. Vice Cl'1m, Counc:ilmember Chudl Williams. Treas. Cornrnissiener Nadine S, NIckeson. See, SchOOl Board Member Lte Benjamin Commislionlll' K.Jren Brayboy Mayor Olvid CCyf'ler "aVO' Robert DiNicola CclmmissiOl\er Janet Henderson Commissioner cd Hooper Commissioner F1obe11 JackSon CorMlissiofltl' RObert Stewart Council~l Babe Wrt9ht May 19, 1999 MAY '2 ,19g~ The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor City of Clearwa~r P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 CLEf'lK . AiTOj:ll\;': David P. H"ley. A1CF' Executilll! Director Dear Mayor Aungst.: As you may be aware the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) has spent considerable time and effort over the past two years dealing with several aspects of annexation and the related provision of services. We concluded last year that there needed to be a more logical. fair and efficient way of dealing with the issues attendant to annexation. As a result, we identified and recommended an eight-point plan that included the following major points; 1. Advance Notification - to all relevant parties; 2. Verification of Legal Description. to avoid technical flaws and delays; 3. Compliance with State Law. relative to contiguity, compactness and the creation of endaves: 4, Determination of Ability to Serve. to replace the current PPC review process; 5. Provision for Contracts for Service. by mutual agreement between a city and the County. as an alternative to annc:xa.tion; 6. Defined Areas Eligible for Annexation . to establish prediCUbUity as to' jurisdiction and service delivery; 7. Required Consistency with Countywide Plan. to awid after-the-fact conflict and need for resolution: and 8, Exemption from S~te Amendment Review Process ~ to 'preserve the cenual purpose of the current interlocal agreements, The Council further directed staff to examine the available means by which to implement such a procedure. Staff has proposed draft legislation. a copy of which is attached, that would be part of a three-step process to provide for an exclusive means for voluntary annexation in Pinellas County that would seek to accomplish the Council's eight-point recommendation, The three steps required to implement this process are as followS: 14 SO, FT. HARRISON AVE.. SUITE 3010 · CL,EARWATEA, FLORIDA 33756 TILEPHONE (727) lI64.3855 · FAX (127) 464.3827 :.~ e ec PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ':/jl ,4 'I t COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Ronald Pianta, AICP Planning Director City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Council member Robert Kersteen. Chm, Mayor Tom De Cesare, Vice Chm. Council member Chuck Williams, Treas, Commissioner Nadine S, Nickeson, Sec, School Board Member Lee Benjamin Commissioner Karen Brayboy Mayor David Coyner Mayor Robert DiNicola Commissioner Janet Henderson Commissioner Ed Hooper Commissioner Robert Jackson Commissioner Robert Stewart Council member Babe Wright May 20, 1999 Dear Ron: David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director I want to respond to your letter of May 12 with reference to proposed legislation dealing with annexation procedures, By way of background, as you are surely aware, the Planning Council has been actively addressing a number of issues related to annexation and service areas over the past two years, The Council specifically approved going forward, subject to the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners, with an eight-point plan to address these issues in July, 1998 and the proposed draft legislation is in response to this direction, With reference to your specific comments and concerns, I will attempt to address them in the order you identified them, 1. Re: PAC Role - Two points are pertinent to your observations. First, the draft is exactly that, a "first-cut" by staff that was brought to the Council for a policy-level determination as to whether to continue to pursue this approach at all. Second, the Council has not endorsed this preliminary draft, but rather forwarded it to the Board of County Commissioners with a request for a joint workshop to pursue discussion of the matter. The Planners Advisory Committee was provided a draft copy and discussed this matter at their May lOth meeting and has been invited to review and comment on the technical issues involved, 2, Re: Tri-Cities - The concerns over annexation are not limited to the "tri-cities" rlanning agreement, but rather are inherent to the process itself and have certainly occurred throughout the County, We can not and should not be selective in our attempt to deal with the issues of efficient service, predictability and fairness to all parties of interest. 3. Re: Chp. 171, F.s, - The language in the proposed legislation is not redundant as you suggest; rather it is intended to replace the current statutory provisions as the exclusive means by which voluntary annexation would occur in Pinellas County, 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 · FAX (727) 464-3827 . .' 4. Re: Special Act - You appear to misunderstand what is proposed. The draft legislation is a special act that would provide for a referendum on an amendment to the County Charter to enable adoption of the procedures and criteria outlined in the draft legislation. The proposed special act is merely the means to provide for a referendum on the issue which I have to believe is an abundantly straight-forward and fair means of proceeding, It does not and need not deal with the special act that established the Pinellas Planning Council. -, 5, Re: Existing Planning Area - As you know, the current interlocal agreements you reference serve a very limited purpose, extend from year to year, can be terminated by either party on 30 days notice and expire on September 30, 2000, I would expect that every consideration would be given to those cities that have defined their planning areas relative to any delineation of areas eligible to be annexed, but do not agree that they should be exempted. 6. Re: Creation of Enclaves - I agree that there is some merit in modifying the absolute prohibition on the creation of enclaves, once areas eligible for annexation have been delineated, Perhaps if there is an agreement with the County on how these enclaves are to be served, this provision could be modified. The Council has already discussed this issue and it will be pursued, 7, Re: Procedure for Review - Your assertions about added procedure and bureaucracy for the average citizen are presumptuous and inaccurate. The Council, in its deliberations, has repeatedly said that it is committed to making this process efficient and that it will be carried out so that no additional time will be added to the local government annexation process providing the annexation meets the stipulated criteria. What the draft legislation requests is merely a copy of the petition for annexation be forwarded to the PPC for review, I think you're significantly overstating the implications of what is required. 8, Re: Publication Requirement - As noted previously under number 3., if the proposed process is ultimately put in place it will stand on its own and therefore would not replicate State statutes. If legal counsel agrees that it is not necessary to include this provision here, I have no objection to its elimination, 9. Re: Attorneys Fees - It is my understanding that this is a statutory provision, rather than "common law" as you suggest, and is dt:':signf"'d to offer protection for the individual property owner who may be a party of interest, I would leave this to legal counsel to determine the appropriate legal reference and the elected officials as to the policy issue of whether an interested property owner who has to litigate to protect his/her interest should be reimbursed legal fees if successful. . . 10. Re: State Review - The point here is that these individual agreements, which exist only with four individual communities and the three "tri-cities" communities, and which serve a very limited purpose, are scheduled to expire September 30,2000, The one legitimate objective they serve, to exempt annexations from State review as to plan amendments, is intended to be preserved under the draft legislation, The proposed legislation is therefore not redundant; it would supersede and preserve the current exemption upon expiration of those existing agreements and extend this same exemption to the 17 other local governments that have no such agreement. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns and I will be happy to discuss this further with you should you desire. I do urge you and the City of Safety Harbor to take an open-minded and cooperative position on this matter and give you my personal assurance that I will work with the City to address any legitimate concerns it may have, Sincerely, ~~ealey. AICP Executive Director cc: Members, Pinellas Planning Council Fred E, Marquis, County Administrator Steven J. Wylie, City Manager Alan S, Zimmet, City Attorney Members, Planners Advisory Committee . . ~\ ':,-a\etV Harbor, t -v~ . - ,') -........----- - ~ ~ ~ --:,'''\ ~': III "-..-vz~,,-,,. ~ ,~ r; I,r',,,,,-.: ~.-","":,\-r'"'). .,,~ of .,-,.0..,- ,l''Q' fI1p ~Llil\(!~(\C -;1 f:'/. 0..... ~. 0- Q) . Oily oj 0afely J{ar6or !Jloricla HOME OF ESPIRITU SANTO MINERAL SPRINGS 750 Main Street t Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 t (813) 724-1555 FAX 724-1566 May 25, 1999 David p, Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755 ~ow~ p ,~, v ') " 1999 P"...l ... '" PLANN!~'G & DEVELOPMENT SVCS CITY OF ClEARWATER Dear Dave: Thank you for responding to my correspondence so promptly, Please allow me to further articulate my points as follows: 1, Information which is available should be distributed with the PAC agenda, In addition, the Planners Advisory Committee should not be limited to discussing technical issues, but should have the right to discuss policy issues which affect the individual Cities, 2, You are right, fairness is a valid issue, However, my point is that if the tri-cities planning agreement established clear geographic build-out boundaries as originally intended by the planning agreement process, then the annexation procedure would be much less controversial. 3, Understood, 4, I have read all the back-up material you provided at the PAC meeting (including the County Attorney's legal opinion), and clearly understand the process selected to implement the proposed legislation, My point is that the annexation issue was very controversial and contentious when the Special Act was drafted and the legislative delegation was holding public workshops in 1990, and I would prefer to see this issue addressed by amending the Special Act if it was determined that new legislation was necessary , 5, Understood, However, if specific geographic planning areas are agreed to there would be no need for an outside review of annexations which comply with the substance and intent of the agreements, 6, Thank you for conceding this point. . . 7, Whether the proposal would add extra time to the process is not the main point; the issue is more fundamental. Adding an extra layer of review and regulation increases bureaucracy, and is neither presumptuous nor inaccurate, The fact that the proposal subjects municipalities to additional requirements, requirements that are more stringent than current state law, is not overstated. 8, Understood, 9, I would request that the City Attorney's be solicited for comments on this issue, and any other legal issue that may arise, 10, Regardless of the legislation, planning area agreements and build-out boundaries should be included in the affected communities comprehensive plans, As you can see, the City of Safety Harbor feels strongly that the current annexation process works in our situation given existing service areas and geographic circumstances, However, it is understood that other areas of the County may not be so fortunate, Possibly one way to handle these issues is through an updated interlocal agreement process, which would not involve new legislation. Regardless, the final proposal that evolves from this process, its impact upon Safety Harbor, and the City's ultimate position is a policy issue that must be discussed and decided upon by the City Commission. Ronald F. Pianta, AICP Planning Director cc: Commissioner Nadine S, Nicheson, Planning Council Representative Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator Steven 1. Wylie, City Manager Alan S, Zimmet, City Attorney Planners Advisory Committee Members I · tJlfice of u.. f1i4 IJ~ City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, FL 34695 . . RESOLUTION 99-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR, FLORIDA, OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO PINELLAS COUNTY; OBJECTING TO CERTAIN TASKS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPOSED PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Safety Harbor has a defined geographic planning area; and WHEREAS, the City of Safety Harbor planning area represents the City's ultimate build-out boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City of Safety Harbor planning area has been agreed to by Pinellas County through an Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the annexation process has been smooth and noncontroversial in Safety Harbor due to the Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Safety Harbor is not competing for adjacent land with other jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, adequately governs rules and procedures for annexation; and WHEREAS, a special law pertaining to voluntary annexations for Pinellas County is not necessary; and WHEREAS, a review of all annexations regardless of size or circumstance by the Pinellas Planning Council would lead to unnecessary duplication, needless procedure, and more bureaucracy; and WHEREAS, annexation problems should be dealt with by Pinellas County directly with those communities that can not agree on build-out boundaries using existing procedures and laws; and WHEREAS, the Pinellas Planning Council is considering the study of, and ultimate establishment of, procedures to achieve consistent countywide zoning; consistent building code inspection and enforcement procedures; and consistent countywide redevelopment objectives; and (!)/Iice oj tIN ~IJ~ City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, FL 34695 . . , WHEREAS, each local community in Pinellas County has its own character and needs; and WHEREAS, a "one size fits all" approach to development will not work in a diverse environment; and WHEREAS, a consistent countywide approach to development will interfere with each community's right to self determination; and WHEREAS, the City of Safety Harbor has the ri~~ht to determine what codes and procedures are best for its citizens; and WHEREAS, consistent procedures will not necessarily lead to quality public service for the local communities; and WHEREAS, quality public service is all about a positive attitude and effective communication; and WHEREAS, the study of, and establishment of, consistent development codes/procedures/objectives countywide and a special voluntary annexation procedure for Pinellas County is beyond the powers, scope, duties and expertise of the Pinellas Planning Council; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR, FLORIDA, IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEMBLED THAT: Section 1 The City Commission of the City of Safety Harbor is expressly against, opposes, and objects to any effort by the Pinellas Planning Council to prepare and propose special voluntary annexation legislation for Pinellas County, and specifically opposes any efforts to require annexations to be reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Councilor Pinellas County. Section 2 The City Commission of the City of Safety Harbor is expressly against, opposes, and objects to any effort by the Pinellas Planning Council to include In Its future work program any effort to study and establish a process to achieve consistent countywide zoning, consistent building code inspection and enforcement procedures, and consistent countywide redevelopment objectives and procedures. Section 3 This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon final passage and adoption. tJ/jiu 0/ "" ~Il~ City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, FL 34695 " \ . . PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR. FLORIDA. THIS /)1JAY OF ~ .1999. ATTEST: k~ Bonita Haynes, City C erk ~. c; ~~ , ayor IJ(~ dLk:. Commissioner ' q~ d01~~ Commissioner . . \ ~a\e\Y Harbor \) ,~ .~ -VA 10 u -:,.. . _ 0- /' ,~-~~- Q) ./. - . ~/ :-;(',-/ ' ,~. '" /, 'j" "/\.' -~ ~ r; ''-"".- "7.' :.:::"~~ ',-'\:- /II , , ",,"Ar l' "- t!.r JUil\r'lC1CJ"Y Oily of 0afely ]{arbor :Jlorida HOME OF ESPIRITU SANTO MINERAL SPRI1\GS 750 Main Street i Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 i (8]3) 724,]555 FAX 724,1566 May 12, 1999 David p, Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 14 South Fort Harrison Ave, Suite 30!0 Clearwater, Florida 34616 RE: Proposed Voluntary Annexation Legislation and related procedures Dear Dave: I have reviewed the handout provided to the Planners Advisor)' Committee on May lOth for the May 25th County Commission workshop, and would like to convey to you the following comments and concerns: 1, The Planners Advisory Committee has not had the opportunity to adequately discuss the proposed legislation as a group, In additIOn, the Planning Council should not have been asked to endorse thiS legislation without providing tht.: local jurisdictions staff the opportunity to review the specifics of this proposal. This is not the example of intergovernmental coordination we should be promoting given the recent efforts we made as a group in preparing a model Intergovernmental Coordination Element. 2, Ifthe concern over annexations is related to the area covered by the "tri-city" planning agreement, then an attempt should be made to work out a solution with those affected jurisdictions prior to imposing new requirements on all jurisdictions, and proposing a special act. One of the functions of the Pinellas Planning CounciL as identified in the modellntergovernmental Coordination Eieme;:m, is to proviue;: a forum fUf Jisputc rcsolution, maybe resohing proulems \\i~h th.: "tri-city" planning agreement is a good place to start, 3, Much of the language in the proposed legislation replicates the language currently contained in Chapter 171, Florida Statute, and is therefore redundant. 4, The review of annexations less than 10 acres by the Pinellas Planning Council should rightfully require an amendment to the Special Act, not through a new general law of local application for Pinellas County, 5, Proposed Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexation.-those cities that already han a defined planning area that meets this reqUirement should be specifically exempted from having to renegotiate a new agreement with the county, . . 6, Proposed Section 6,Petition for Voluntary Annexation,(l )(c)-a strict prohibition against creating new enclaves may not be always practical in the sense that existing enclaves may be reduced in size or redefined, and new enclaves may be created in the short term while a1mexations evolve; and does it really matter if the affected cities and county have agreed on the ultimate boundary of the city (meaning that these areas will ultimately be annexed an~'\\'ay), 7, Proposed Section 7, Review of Proposed Annexation by Council; Appeals.-this section imposes a new requirement that all annexations, regardless of size or circumstance, be reviewed by the Planning Council. This requirement increases procedure and bureaucracy for the average citizen, especially those who want to annex one lot to take advantage of city services, This appears contrary to the direction and philosophy expressed by both the Planning Council and County Commission (ie-eliminating duplication) in recent months, In addition, we often have emergency situations where septic systems are malfunctioning, where we should be allowed to make accommodations without waiting for an additional level of review by an outside body, 8, Proposed Section 8, Municipal Annexation Procedure; Appeals.(I)- there is no need to replicate a publication requirement that is currently contained in Florida Statute. A statement that the ordinance shall be published in accordance with law is adequate, 9, I see no need for Section 8.(3), which is covered by common law, and should not provide the complainant with the right to collect attorney's fees, 10, Proposed Section 11. State Plan Amendment Review Process,-this section is also redundant and unnecessary because this is presently covered by each individual agreement, and has been reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs as a part of each city's comprehensive plan and future land use map, As you know, these comments are consistent \\ith my previous position on this xssue which were conveyed to you as a part of the model ICE preparation, At that time we were implicitly asked to support new annexation procedures through language contained in the model element, which I objected to, The annexation process works well for the City of Safety Harbor under the current interlocal agreement \\ith Pinellas County that defines the extent of the City's planning area, I see no need to complicate the annexation process, extend the time required for annexation to be completed, make the procedure more bureaucratic, or require a Planning Council review (staff or otherwise) for those communities that are not having service problems or competing for adjacent land, In other words, address the problem with those communities that can not agree on build-out boundaries, ~/f~ Ronald F, Pianta, AICP Planning Director cc: Commission~r l\'adine $, Nickeson. Planning Council Repres~ntativ~ $t~wn J Wyli~, City Manager Alan $, Zimmel City Anom~y Plann~rs Advisory Commine~ Memb~rsc .~ . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS May 20, 1999 Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Chm. Mayor Tom De Cesare, Vice Chm. Council member Chuck Williams, Treas. Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson, Sec. ScMol Board Member Lee Benjamin Commissioner Karen Brayboy Mayor David Coyner Mayor Robert DiNicola Commissioner Janet Henderson Commissioner Ed Hooper Commissioner Robert Jackson Commissioner Robert Stewart Council member Babe Wright Mr. Ronald PiantA, AlCP Planning Director Cit\, of Safet\' Harbor .I .I 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Dear Ron: David P Healey. AICP Executive Director I want to respond to your letter of May 12 with reference to proposed legislation dealing with annexation procedures. By way of background, as you are surely aware, the Planning Council has been actively addressing a number of issues related to annexation and service areas over the past two years. The Council specifically approved going forward, subject to the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners, with an eight-point plan to address these issues in July, 1998 and the proposed draft legislation is in response to this direction. \Vith reference to your specific comments and concerns, I will attempt to address them in the order vou identified them. .I 1. Re: PAC Role - Two points are pertinent to your observations. First, the draft is exactly that, a "first-cut" by stAff that was brought to the Council for a policy-level determination as to whether to continue to pursue this approach at all. Second, the Council has not endorsed this preliminary draft, but rather forwarded it to the Board of County Commissioners with a request for a joint workshop to pursue discussion of the matter. The Planners Advisory Committee was provided a draft copy and discussed this matter at their May 10th meeting and has been invited to review and comment on the technical issues involved. 2. Re: Tn-Cities - The concerns over annexation are not limited to the "tri-cities" r!anning agreement, but rather are inherent to the pnx:e<;<; itself and have certainly occurred throughout the County. We can not and should not be selective in our attempt to deal with the issues of efficient service, predictAbility and fairness to all parties of interest. 3. Re: Chp. 171, F.S. - The language in the proposed legislation is not redundant as you suggest; rather it is intended to replace the current StAtutory provisions as the exclusive means by which voluntAry annexation would occur in Pinellas County. 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 · FAX (727) 464-3827 . . 4. Re: Special Act - You appear to misunderstAnd what is proposed. The draft legislation is a special act that would provide for a referendum on an amendment to the County Charter to enable adoption of the procedures and criteria outlined in the draft legislation. The proposed special act is merely the means to provide for a referendum on the issue which I have to believe is an abundantly straight-forward and fair means of proceeding. It does not and need not deal \\rith the special act that estAblished the Pinellas Planning Council. 5. Re: Existing Planning Area - As you know, the current interlocal agreements you reference serve a very limited purpose, extend 'from year to year, can be terminated by either party on 30 days notice and expire on September 30, 2000. I would ex-pect that every consideration would be given to those cities that have defined their planning areas relative to any delineation of areas eligible to be annexed, but do not agree that they should be exempted. 6. Re: Creation of Enclaves - I agree that there is some merit in modifying the absolute prohibition on the creation of enclaves, once areas eligible for annexation have been delineated. Perhaps if there is an agreement with the County on how these enclaves are to be served, this provision could be modified. The Council has already discussed this issue and it will be pursued. 7. Re: Procedure for Review - Your assertions about added procedure and bureaucracy for the average citizen are presumptuous and inaccurate. The Council, in its deliberations, has repeatedly said that it is committed to making this process efficient and that it will be carried out so that no additional time will be added to the local government annexation process providing the annexation meets the stipulated criteria. What the draft legislation requests is merely a copy of the petition for annexation be forwarded to the PPC for review. I think you're significantly overstAting the implications of what is required. 8. Re: Publication Requirement - As noted previously under number 3., if the proposed process is ultimately put in place it will stAnd on its own and therefore would not replicate StAte stAtutes. If legal counsel agrees that it is not necessary to include this provision here, I have no objection to its elimination. 9. Re: Attorneys Fees - It is my understAnding that this is a StAtutory provision, rather them "common law" as you suggest, and is designed to (lff~r protection for the individual property owner who may be a party of interest. I would leave this to legal counsel to determine the appropriate legal reference and the elected officials as to the policy issue of whether an interested property owner who has to litigate to protect his/her interest should be reimbursed legal fees if successful. . . 10. Re: StAte Review - The point here is that these individual agreements, which exist only with four individual communities and the three "tri-cities" communities, and which serve a very limited purpose, are scheduled to ex-pire September 30, 2000. The one legitimate objective they serve, to exempt annexations from State review as to plan amendments, is intended to be preserved under the draft legislation. The proposed legislation is therefore not redundant; it would supersede and preserve the current exemption upon expiration of those existing agreements and extend this same exemption to the 17 other local governments that have no such agreement. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns and I will be happy to discuss this further with you should you desire. I do urge you and the City of Safety Harbor to tAke an open-minded and cooperative position on this matter and give you my personal assurance that I will work with the City to address any legitimate concerns it may have. Sincerely, .I ~. ~eale\'. Aler .I Executive Director cc: Members, PineUas Planning Council Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator Steven J. Wylie, City Manager Alan S. Zimmet, City Attorney Members, Planners Advisory Committee .._ '..; .- ~C" 0_... ~ . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS May 1 9, 1999 Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Chm. Mayor Tom De Cesare. Vice Chm. Council member Chuck Williams. Treas. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson. Sec School Board Member Lee Benjamin Commissioner Karen Brayboy Mayor David Coyner Mayor Robert DiNicola Commissioner Janet Henderson CommisSioner Ed Hooper Commissioner Robert Jackson Commissioner Robert Stewart Council member Babe Wright The Honorable Jack Donlon Town of Belleair 90 I Ponce De Leon Blvd. Belleair, FL 33756-1096 David P Healey. AICP Executive Director Dear Mavor Donlon: As you may be aware the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) has spent considerable time and effort over the past two years dealing with several aspects of annexation and the related provision of services. \\'e concluded last year that there needed to be a more logical, fair and efficient way of dealing with the issues attendant to annexation, As a result, we identified and recommended an eight-point plan that included the following major points: 1. Advance Notification - to all relevant parties; 2 . Verification of Legal Description - to avoid technical flaws and delays; 3. Compliance \\;th StAte Law - relative to contiguity, compactness and the creation of enclaves; 4. Determination of Ability to Serve - to replace the current PPC review process; 5. Provision for Contracts for Service - by mutual agreement between a city and the County, as an alternative to annexation; 6. Defined Areas Eligible for Annexation - to establish predictability as to jurisdiction and service delivery; 7. Required Consistency \\;th Countywide Plan - to avoid after-the-fact conflict and Jlf'ed for resolution; and 8. Exemption from StAte Amendment Review Process - to preserve the central purpose of the current interlocal agreements. The Council further directed staff to examine the available means by which to implement such a procedure. Staff has proposed draft legislation, a copy of which is attAched, that would be part of a three-step process to provide for an exclusive means for voluntary annexation in Pinellas County that would seek to accomplish the Council's eight-point recommendation. The three steps required to implement this process are as follows: 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 · FAX (727) 464-3827 . . Mav 1 9, 1 999 .I Page 2 · Approval of a Special Act by the StAte Legislature to Authorize Referendum and Charter Amendment - Target Date: 2000 Legislative Session; · Referendum on Charter Amendment to EstAblish Authority for Annexation Procedures Exclusive to Pinellas County - Target Date: Nov., 2000; and · Preparation and Adoption of Ordinance EstAblishing Specific Procedures and Criteria for Annexation Pursuant to Charter Amendment - Target Date: Early 200 1. We are forwarding the enclosed draft legislation which would be the first step in this process for your information and input. I am available to discuss tl1is with you and would like to encourage a meeting with you, your key stAff, PPC representAtive Councilmember Bill Smith, and our Executive Director to discuss this measure and seek your Town's input and support for this effort. The draft legislation has also been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners who will be holding an open workshop on this issue on Tuesday, ~l1ay 25th that you may want to attend or have a representAtive attend on your behalf. Please let us know if we can provide additional information and thanks for your interest in this importAnt matter. Sincerely, ~~- Council member Robert Kersteen, Chairman Pinellas Planning Council Enclosures rC" \ouncilmember Bill Smith, Pinellas Planning Council RepresentAtive Stephen J. Cottrell, Town Manager . . \e\Y Harbor ,.. ~'3 . "'/, (;)\ -vA. o~. '" c; '- . u _---... c. . --- ..' , . ,~ .'/, ..-r', ~ ,-," ~ ", .".. ""~. "', l' \' /11 r 'I"",. '"y\... C] n( 1/.(. ""UIl,r,(l Oily oj rSajely ]{ar6or Jlar/cla HOME OF ESPIRITU SANTO .\iINERAL SPRJ~GS 7?;U ~laill Street t S:Jfd,\ fbrl",r. FltllJd:J 341)~:) t ,~J:, -:!4-]"C, F.,';,X 724-156G May 25, 1999 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street Suite 8.5G CJeaf\.vater, Florida 33755 Dear Dave Thank you for responding to my correspondence so promptly Please allow me to further articulate my points as follows: 1. Information which is available should be distributed with the PAC agenda. In addition. the Planners Advisory Committee should not be limited to discussing technical issues. but should have the right to discuss policy issues \vhich affect the individual Cities 2 You are right. fairness is a \'alid issue Ho\vever, my point is that if the tri-cities planning agreement established clear geographic build-out boundaries as originally intended by the planning agreement process, then the annexation procedure would be much less controversial. 3. Understood. 4 I have read all the hack-up material you provided at the PAC meeting: (including the County Attorney's legal opinion), and clearly understand the process selected to implement the proposed legislation. My point is that the annexation issue was very controversial and contentious when the Special Act was drafted and the legislative delegation was holding public workshops in 1990, and I would prefer to see this issue addressed by amending the Special Act if it was determined that new legislation \vas necessary . 5. Understood However, if specific geographic planning areas are agreed to there would be no need for an outside review of annexations \vhich comply with the substance and intent of the agreements 6. Thank you for conceding this point . . 7. Whether the proposal would add extra time to the process is not the main point; the issue is more fundamental. Adding an extra layer of review and regulation increases bureaucracy, and is neither presumptuous nor inaccurate. The fact that the proposal subjects municipalities to additional requirements, requirements that are more stringent than current state law, is not overstated. 8. Understood. 9. I would request that the City Attorney's be solicited for comments on this issue, and any other legal issue that may arise. 10. Regardless of the legislation, planning area agreements and build.-out boundaries should be included in the affected communities comprehensive plans. As you can see, the City of Safety Harbor feels strongly that the current annexation process \vorks in our situation given existing service areas and geographic circumstances. However, it is understood that other areas of the County may not be so fortunate. Possibly one way to handle these issues is through an updated interlocal agreement process, which would not involve new legislation. Regardless, the final proposal that evolves from this process, its impact upon Safety Harbor, and the City's ultimate position is a policy issue that must be discussed and decided upon by the City Commission. Sinc~ //a,~vr# wZL Ronald F. Pianta, i\ICP Planning Director cc: Commissioner Nadine S Nicheson, Planning Council Representative Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator Steven 1. Wylie, City Manager Alan S. Zimmet, City Attorney Planners Advisory Committee Members . . "_ C' I V o \905 PI. o..~~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~I:::::I cJ ......:l .... iii .... > City of Largo, Florida Post Office Box 296. Largo, Florida 33779-0:96 Office of the Mayor and Commission (813) 587-6702 FAX (813) 587-6797 May 25, 1999 The Honorable Sallie Parks Chair Pinellas County Board of Commission 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Dear Ms. Parks: During the past two years, the City of Largo and Pinellas County have had extensive conversations regarding annexation and the need for reform to better assist all cities within Pinellas County to promote cost-effective City services. As you are aware, this issue has been contentious as a result of the City of Largo's ambitious annexation program over the past two years. Approximately two weeks ago, the City of Largo received a copy of the proposed bill from the Pinellas Planning Council which is the first major attempt in the past 20 years to comprehensively address the issue of annexation reform within Pinellas County. While the City of Largo feels the current proposal by the PPC needs extensive revision, as Mayor I am very pleased with the effort on behalf of the PPC to address this issue. I am also very pleased to see the Pinellas County Board of Commissioners addressing the creation of future service boundaries within Pinellas County for incorporation into cities to promote better government service. As a city in the central part of Pinellas County, the City of Largo has struggled for many years in determining jurisdictional boundaries for every facet of city services. As you are aware, the issues confronting Pinellas County and every city within the County regarding annexation and the delineation of clear service boundaries are very complex and will need comprehensive discussion on behalf of Pinellas County, all affected cities, citizen groups, and special service districts that are affected by this legislation. As indicated, the City of Largo has not had an extensive opportunity to analyze the PPC's proposed bill regarding annexation. However, the City would like to establish a working relationship with Pinellas County to address the following points of concern with this bill: General Comments: This bill contains very few good and many bad provisions for cities. First, determination of the area from which a city can have exclusive rights to annex is good. However, once this is done as proposed in the proposed bill, it does not follow that a city, with exclusive annexation rights for municipal growth, must then annex only contiguous parcels. In fact, once exclusive areas are established, there are a number of other state statutes, some involving growth management statutes, that offer alternative solutions. For example, North Carolina's annexation statute contains provisions very similar to this exclusive area concept proposed in the draft bill, but North Carolina permits noncontiguous areas to be annexed into a city. Service provision to unincorporated areas within the exclusive designated service area is contracted with the responsible city. In the alternative, if this is unacceptable, the Illinois statute permits annexation agreements for service provision for those lands not contiguous to the city but within the exclusive planning . . The Honorable Sallie Parks ppe Proposed Annexation Bill May 25, 1999 Page 2 \ ~ service area. Once the boundary of the city reaches the land subject to the annexation agreement, the land is automatically annexed into the city. Unfortunately, this draft bill appears to have been prepared unilaterally without input from local governments that the draft bill intends to regulate, The North Carolina, Illinois, and other altE3rnatives should have been examined and possibly permitted under the proposed bill developed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). Failure to do so makes this proposal, given the added provisions, even more clifficult than annexing under F.S. 171. If anything, this proposed bill can be fairly characterized as placing E:ven more constraints upon municipal annexation powers than less. On balance, this proposed is desig!ned to solely regulate and frustrate city annexation efforts. As presented, this proposal preserves the interest of unincorporated Pinellas County to a greater degree than it promotes a city's multi-interests in: 1) regaining control of its service district for operational efficiencies; 2) sustainable growth; and 3) community identity. With these central precepts in mind, the review of the proposed bill incorporatE3s suggestions which make annexation more favorable for cities which have a tremendous financial stake in providing urban services outside of their municipal boundaries. These recommended changes are the City's unilateral response to the Act. Specific Comments: 1. Preamble: The preamble infers that this draft bill is for cities to annex in a logical, coherent, and progressive fashion. Progressive makes sense if the outer area of the urban service district can be characterized as non-urban; however, this is not the case. The current State Statute for annexation and special districts has encouraged sprawl, denuded community identity, and has made cities irrelevant. Consequently, since this draft should support sound growth management principles of which many are conterminous with municipal interest in annexation, it is the City of Largo's opinion the following purposes should be incorporated into the preamble: "1) This Act will enable the city to provide superior, coordinated servicl::s to its exclusive planning service area; 2) This Act will provide the cities an ability to grow as the population increases and urban development intensifies within the exclusive service area of the city; 3) This Act will ensure that fringe development proceeds according to sound principles of land use planning and important health and safety regulations; and 4) This Act advances the concept that the annexation of an exclusive area would confirm current and proposed developments are already a functional part of the city from which urban services are or will be received." 2. Purpose: Since this bill has been written exclusively for cities, not for unincorporated Pinellas County (note definition of urban services does not recognize unincorporated Pinellas County's MSTU as an urban service provider), the following additional statement of policies should be added to the purpose section of the proposed bill to further the suggested preamble statements: 1) A commitment to the policy that cities are the best units of local government for providing a lliU range of urban services. 2) A declaration that recognizes the need for municipal power to annex property, regardless of contiguity, requiring city services irrespective of wishes of the owners and residents. 3) A statement ensuring equal services to those areas annexed from the reserved planning service area. 4. Definitions: A city should be able to annex land that is developed for urban purposes and is a functional part of the municipality even if it does not physically touch a city's boundary. Consequently, the proposed bill should delete the expanded definition of contiguous and other definitions related to compact and enclave. In the alternative, an extraterritorial sphere provision should be added that incorporates the application of the city's development regulation and the concept of voluntary noncontiguous annexation. . . The Honorable Sallie Parks PPC Proposed Annexation Bill May 25, 1999 Page 3 Parties affected are redefined for the purposes of this proposed bill to give the broadest appeal rights possible, This means the current property owner affected by the annexation, as well as those property owners who become contiguous after completion of an annexation, and government units having jurisdiction, Le" Indian Rocks Fire District, Pinellas County Airport Authority, etc. 5. Areas Eligible for Annexation: This provision establishes an exclusive annexation area for a particular city which is very similar to the North Carolina annexation statute. The exclusive annexation area will be recommended by the PPC with final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. While establishing an exclusive planning service area is a good provision, permitting the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve this will be problematic in light of the past policy actions. Ordinarily, such a provision which establishes exclusive annexation areas with the county board acting as an unbiased arbitrator is good. However, since Pinellas County is a selective urban service provider and has been the architect in establishing Special Districts to provide urban services in lieu of incorporation, a question arises whether a fair and equitable, from a city perspective, service plan can be obtained. 6. Petition for Voluntary Annexation:This provision does not recognize annexation agreements as a valid alternative instrument to a separate annexation petition. Also, this proposed bill places into jeopardy all of the City's previously recorded indentures. Voluntary annexation pursuant to an annexation agreement for service should be incorporated if the City wants to preserve its annexation agreements. This is not a unique provision, since the State of Illinois recognizes that a city with exclusive areas should require annexation when contiguous and, when not, a promise to annex in the future when the boundary eventually abuts the property. The first choice is to permit voluntary noncontiguous annexation when within a designated exclusive extraterritorial sphere. Requiring annexation for service provision is considered voluntary in this context. 7. Review of Prcposed Annexation by Council: Appeals. The PPC has managed in this proposed to gain a role in annexation they perform now, but without legal authorization. The PPC would be tasked with determining whether the annexation meets the definitions of compact and contiguous and whether or not an enclave is created; determine whether the legal description is correct; and make a service determination. Unfortunately, this service determination will follow the same current procedure where the information for service availability will come from the city performing the annexation, not the Council. All annexations would be subject to this review, not just the current requirement of annexations involving 10 acres or more. Without the service provision requirement, this proposed bill establishes the PPC and the countywide planning authority (Board of County Commissioners) as the annexation police. This approach, if implemented, begs for an unbiased third party to arbitrate, such as Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council through its Dispute Resolution Process. Upon issuance of a Determination of Compliance, a city may proceed to annex. If a noncompliance determination is issued, the city cannot annex. AppealS by a third party aggrieved by the Determination is provided in this section and in Section 8. This section g~ants the second avenue for appeal at the countywide level. However, there is no time limit for an a;::peal specified in this section or elsewhere in the proposed bill. 8. Municipal Annexation Procedure: Appeals. This section sets forth the advertising, notice, and filing requirements. The first avenue of appeal is granted at the municipal level. No time limit for appeal is established. It establishes the right for the complainant to collect attorney fees if he or she prevails, but fails to authorize the cities to collect from the complainant if the city wins, This will cause affected parties to always consider an appeal. 9. Effect of Annexation. Any voluntary annexation that does not meet the criteria of the Act as determined by the PPC, with delegation to staff, shall cause the city's annexation ordinance to be null and void. The section fails to address whether the city can discontinue service to the illegally annexed property. . . The Honorable Sallie Parks PPC Proposed Annexation Bill May 25, 1999 Page 4 10. Interlocal Agreements for Urban SeNices. This provision has been added to permit cities to provide urban seNices that the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners will not provide, or does not provide adequately, through the MSTU. This provision should only be exel"cised if cities are granted the ability to annex within their extraterritorial sphere regardless of contiguity. To include this option, while requiring cities to annex only contiguous lands, enables the unincorporated portion.of the County to receive subsidized seNices, as they currently do, without paying the full cost of a seNice including capital outlays, start-up costs, and operating costs. On behalf of the City of Largo, I am very enthusiastic about working cooperativl31y with Pinellas County to finally find a long-term solution to address the complex issue of annexation and the establishment of realistic, equitable, and logical boundaries for government seNices in Pinellas County. I commend the County Commission for assertively taking a positive step in addressing a very emotional, but complex, issue which has been the source of much confusion throughout Pinellas County. I look forward to developing a workable solution which promotes good government in the entire Pinellas County area. Thomas D. Feaster Mayor TDF:bjf c: City Commission Steven B. Stanton, City Manager Ric Goss, Community Development Director Jane Hayman, City Attorney F)/\ F\J5 . ~ , t.' .- _ u . City of 1 - ,. ~ -~ I 1 \.:...~ , t, .--'\ .., ~ ..... _ ... 1....... !. "'_ F."' I~O RlO/\ 5141 78TH AVE. . P.O. BOX 1100 PINELLAS PARK, FL33780-1100 PHONE . (727) 541-0700 FAX . (727) 544-7448 SUNCOM' 969-1011 May 26, 1999 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: Draft Annexation Legislation Dear David: The City of Pinellas Park follows State Law when we annex a parcel into our City. All our annexations are voluntary. The Pinellas County property owners have the choice of staying in the unincorporated County or annexing into Pinellas Park. It has been the philosophy of past City Councils and is the philosophy of our current City Council that the property owners, as customers of services, should be allowed to retain the right to choose their service provider. We believe that annexation into Pinellas Park is a customer's choice and right; and we support that right. It is also the service provider's responsibility to provide the best service possible. This philosophy is reflected in the City of Pin ell as Park's Mission Statement, "To provide superior yet cost-effective services to our community through teamwork, a "can do" attitude, continual improvement and genuine respect for all people." This is how Pinellas Park earned the reputation of being the City in the white hat. We believe there is a problem. The State Law is violated when a Pinellas County property owner is essentially coerced against his or her will into annexation. The way we understand the State Law, it does not provide for annexations through the use of coercive tactics or for the annexation of property which does not qualify therefore under State Law (e.g. "balloon annexations"). Unfortunately, this seems to be occurring on a regular basis. I would suggest to you that the solution lies in the enforcement of the existing State Law rather than in the creation of additional layers of red tape to the annexation process. Specific penalties need to be established and enforced. We agree with Ronald F. Pianta, AICP, Planning Director for the City of Safety Harbor, in his letter of May 12, 1999. In it, he stated, "I see no need to complicate the annexation process, extend the time required for annexation to be completed, make the procedure more bureaucratic, or require a Planning Council review (staff or otherwise) for those communities that are not having service #9T. @ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . . David P. Healey, AICP May 26, 1999 Page 2 problems or competing for adjacent land." Pinellas Park is one of those communities that is competing for adjacent land and we agree with Mr. Pianta. In closing, I would like to state that the majority of municipalities have no problems with annexation procedures. We feel it is important to keep the process streamlined. What is most important is protecting the property owners' rights and ability to choose annexation into a municipality of their choice. Therefore, address the problem of enforcing the Florida Statutes regarding annexation. This will satisfy the issues at hand and ensure the freedom of choice for Pinellas County property owners. Sincerely, %~(2 ~ger - JHM/ssp cc: Sallie Parks, Chainnan, Pinellas County Commission Robert B. Stewart, Vice-Chainnan, PinelIas County Commission Calvin D. Harris, Commissioner, PinelIas County Commission Karen Williams Seel, Commissioner, PinelIas County Commission Barbara Sheen Todd, Commissioner, PinelIas County Commission Fred Marquis, County Administrator William Mischler, Mayor, City of Pine lIas Park Ed Taylor, Vice-Mayor, City of Pine lIas Park Patricia Bailey, Councilperson, City of Pine lIas Park Richard Butler, Councilperson, City of Pinellas Park Charles Williams, Councilperson, City of Pin ell as Park Michael B. Gustafson, Asst. City Mgr.lComm. Dev. Administrator, City of Pine lias Park Ralph Stone, Planning Director, City of Clearwater Kevin Campbell, Community Services Director, City of Dunedin Richard Kephardt, Planner, City of Gulfport Mikel Nadeau, Building Official, City of Indian Shores Ric Goss, Community Development Director, City of Largo Nick Staszko, Community Development Director, City of Oldsmar Brian Smith, Planning Director, Pinellas County Ron Pianta, Planning Director, City of Safety Harbor Dave Goodwin, Manager of Planning Programs, City ofSt. Petersburg Chris Brimo, Director of Licenses, Inspections, & Planning, City of St. Pete Beach Roy Otto, General Services Director, City of Seminole Jim Miller, Director of Real Property, Pinellas County Schools Tom Shevlin, Assistant Community Development Administrator, City of Pin ell as Park , . . . PPC Annexation Initiative City of St. Petersburg Comments June 1, 1999 page three Second, as stated previously, if the proposed annexar{on is within the established annexation area of the annexing municipality what need is there for compliance review? Third, the appeal burden should be reversed. If there is any needfor compliance review, the burden to appeal the outcome of such a review should be on the ppc. If the PPC finds a proposed annexation to be not in compliance, the PPC should have to initiate all appeal if the annexatioll is ultimately adopted by the local government. This is the case in many planning oversight arrangements betvveen DCA and locul municipalities (comprehensive plans and amendments, DRl development orders and amendments). The current proposal is onerous for the private property owner. 5. Gives the PPC the authority to develop the rules and standards that will implement the review process, such process may be delegated to PPC staff. The rules and standards are of utmost importance. These need to be drafted and reviewed prior to the proposed legislation moving forward for referendum, othen-vise support is not recommended. 6. Finally the City of St. Petersburg offers the general concern that the proposed program creates no incentives and only further restricts annexation activities. If the objective is to have logical annexation practices and defined areas that should be annexed by particular municipalities, then incentives are needed to make it happen. Elimination of the contiguity requirement within established annexation areas, and perhaps a limited abatement of the municipal portion of the property tax millage within the designated annexation areas or at minimum within enclaves (as a local government option) should be considered. . . PPC Almexation Initiative City of 51. Petersburg Comments June 1, 1999 page two 3. Establishes review process for proposed annexations by the ppe that has the following criteria: a. compliance with the criteria described above see previous comment b. an accurate legal description that does no conflict with previously established boundaries c. whether the annexing municipality has the ability to provide necessary urban services in a timely and cost-effective manner Two concerns with this proposal. First, conceptually this criteria has obvious importance. The difficulty would arise in the implementation. How would this be administered as it applies to water and sewer service boundaries? Would Tierra Verde (which appears to be an enclave by the proposed definition) have to remain unincorporated because it is served by County Water and the Sheriff or would it be eligible for annexation by the City because of current City sewer and fire service provision? The ability to serve review needs much explanation as to the mechanics and criteria of the review before this proposal is supportable. Second, if the property is within the annexation area of the annexing municipality wouldn't the ability to serve already have been determined, thus eliminating the need for an ability to serve review? 4. Gives the PPC compliance review authority. If the PPC finds that the proposed annexation is not in compliance the annexation may not go forward. PPC compliance determinations are final and binding on the local jurisdiction unless appealed to the Circuit Court. Three concerns with this proposal. First, this is a level of authority not currently approached by the PPC in any other area. The compliance review function is clearZv administrative and can probably be legally conducted by a lIOn-elected body. However, given the current lack of even draft standards and rules for conducting the reviews and the lack of established annexation area boundaries for municipalities, it may be premature to provide the authority to the PPC through the proposed legislation. ,- . . , -~ ,~.. .:::- CJTY OF 5T. PETER5Bl'RC] CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG Office of the Mayor David J. Fischer, Mayor June 1, 1999 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 RE: Annexation Proposal Dear Mr. Healey: Thank you for the opportunity to review the annexation proposal that is being distributed for discussion by the ppe. A comprehensive approach to annexation is a worthy planning initiative for Pinellas County given the complexity and problems created by the current situation. Attached are the City's initial comments regarding the proposal. Your review and consideration of our conm1ents is greatly appreciated. We look forward to working with you as this proposal is further developed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dave Goodwin at 893-7868. Sincerely, ~l~ David J. Fischer Mayor Attachment cc: Robert Kersteen, Chair, Pine lias Planning Council 51. Petersburg City Council Darrel Stephens, City Administrator Rick Mussett, Administrator, Economic Development Steve Wolochowicz, Director, Development Services Dave Goodwin, Manager, Planning Programs Rick MacAulay, Planner II Mark Winn, Assistant City Attorney Herb Polson, Director, Intergovernmental Relations Pine lias County Commission Fred Marquis, County Administrator Planners Advisory Committee Members CITY OF ST PETERSBURG, PO. BOX 2842. STPETERSBURG. FLORIDA 33731 TELEPHONE (727) 893-7201 . . City of St. Petersburg Comments on the PPC Annexation Initiative June 1,1999 The following lists the major components of the PPC proposed annexation legislation as presented to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on May 25, 1999, and provides the City of St. Petersburg's comments in italic. 1. Areas eligible for annexation by each respective municipality would be identified. The PPC would make recommendation to the Board as to the establishment of these boundaries. Any deviation from the PPC recommendation would require a majority plus one vote of the Board. This is a keystone element of the proposal and is a responsible planning objective. However, the boundaries have not been established and are proposed for establishment after the legislation is adopted. Without agreed boundaries the proposed legislation should not go forward and should not be supported. 2. Voluntary annexation would have to be: a. consistent with the established boundaries b. contiguous to the municipalities current boundary c. can not create an enclave as defined in the proposal. Criteria band c may be counter productive if the goal is to actually encourage annexation of particular areas by particular municipalities. Criteria band c only create roadblocks for that process. Annexation without contiguity is practiced in other areas and is a viable alternative if overall annexation goals are furthered. In other words, if the proposed annexation is within the identified annexation area of a particular community it should not be subject to contiguity or enclave restrictions. What if the proposed annexation did not meet the contiguity criteria but reduced the size of an existing enclave? This option should be explored further. The definition of enclave as described in (7)(b) of the proposal should be slight~v modified: (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the municipality or an ad;acent Countv. ~&I < CD f' tn ." flit. .'S ~. m \1 cro -" CD'( . . ;.g~1 ~o ~. ._~ ~ ]~aE t,-e ~-5 ~ ~ j i' ~ ~ ~ ] I ~ II: ]~ ~.p ~ ~ S g S ~ u~ ~. 0 a] 6 ~ ~'>> ~ ~ ~ E ~ '1:l :a ~:8 ts ~ ~ t .s OJ . ~ ~ ~ :I: '0 ~ 0 ~ ... jO . ~ ~ .~ ::'S 11).5 !E t:: ~-5 -s.~ ~ .t;1iI...] ~ t . ~ ~ .~ li 0 -5 co'" U 9 8 g ~ 2..2 >. .~ A ~ ~~a~!~~ ~ll~ta) j ~ ~.~ ~ ~.: ] ~ ~ '1: ~ g ~ 0 .~ :l L. .......~::l E g ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 1-5 ~ ~ POU~..o :3 t 0 c:J3 till E o-:i &.l ~ ~..:: . ~ 4J E ti c: IJ.Q. e ~ . ~ 0 .g ~ ~ 8 .~ ....;a ::I a:J '2::0 ~ 5 'i ~}j E ~.g j;.!!l Il) fJ g b .~ -5 s ~ ~.!2 0 0 ~~ .t:.~ ~ ~] ~ 8 ~ ~ _~ ~ f b ~ S ~ ~ :;1 ~ . u.~ ~ ~ ~ C >c . (l ~ :g . > 8 . o1l E ~ ~ l:I~ o~ "0 7l ~ 1 :l ~~ ~Ji ~ cfh; ~ l '~~ 3 ~ g 'il.~ ~ J~ ;1 ~ ~ -e s ~ 3 5 <<J 8 4J 0 f3 _ ~ ~ ~.~ ~'p '01 ~ ~ ~ ~ .'~ ~ ~ i 3 &.l.M :I: ~ n ~; ~ ~ t3 i e 8 _~ ~.~ a r- .se~ ~:f ~ f ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 'v ~ "2 v u ~ -B ~:; ~ = .s E ~; . ~ en CD .- .. ca -a c ::s .8 C ~ ~ ~'Ql ~'Ii..8 ~ ~~ jj. ~l a II,E .8 ~ 0. ~o o ~ 'fi ~ ~ f >. ~ ~ ~ . 1;>:Z:: tlC :).S( ~ ~ 0- .... '0 .-~ ~ e -5~~ .~"t: --!li" 1I::l ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ e .~ e 3 r.s~ ;I ~ ! ii n~ ]. i .- V~~aCl~ oJ!l-S ~~t !j~~'S;I-e.9 iJO~ .QE 1; snU:g S-i! .ai i!:Ull~1 j~j~..~j ~~!>C ~!~il"~ 1~; ;.I~ ~lqtiH Hi!,; v--' ~~ei~!i !:!~ ~~l !.I~! g~! ~ ~~i;~8 o g..!~ I!, 'B ~ (j! ~ ~ ~ ... lJ III ~-s ~ II ~ . ~ C ~ ~ ~~~~.~:2~ t~ ~ ~-B ~1! 8 3 ~t ;;.5 j'~ .~ · ~ h" H?I.& ~ [ ,!I 11 o.!i ..-fi.f o9~Il~. ~f:'" ~ ~ ca ~ ~i~th~i~ l~;1~n~~~~1:.~~ ~l~ ~ en ~i e 8 8~ 8~ ~ -e,&i .6~ ~ e ~8~ [Sii ~ ~ ~.s : -5~11 g~ ~Eg~~; .N~ ~ CD ~ ~ s .~ .. c 0 ~ ~1 E ~] t: ~ I 81 ; i'! a3 o9ix a ~b l~l ~j .:l.a i ,!; . " ~ il g ~ ; B ~ ~ 1 a ~ 11 ]l: a 3 I ~.I l~'~ . iH~~ ~.. l>~it-gj ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ts'~ ~ ~ ~ 71!t ~ 81~ 1 -5'O~-5 5(Cl 88~ j~~'ll1 'i I \ ] .sll ig~~ tl... l -"18 "-ll '0 ~ ... ]~!~ ! ~.dI.;:i ifJll~~j~] ! ... 'ala - ~ I ~i~lUI ..~t~]at Cr~ .; _0 :i -~ .. Jli~B~tEjl~~~~ij~~t3 '.1' U ~:~~~ ~ ,8B~ ~6 ~l:h8 ih SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation Legislation. Follow-Up Discussion BACKGROUND (continued) The conclusion and direction of the Board of County Commissioners from the May 25th workshop may be fairly summarized as follows: . The matter is sufficiently important to warrant pursuing, whether through the proposed legislation or other means; . There remain a number of issues and details with the draft legislation that need to be clarified and refined; . Request that the Planning Council provide an opportunity for additional input by the cities, preferably in July, and report back to the Commission in August; and . It will be essential to make a first attempt at delineating planning/service areas as part of the consideration of the draft legislation - and requested the County Administrator and Council to initiate work on this delineation. The specific action requested of the Council at this time is two-fold: . To establish a date and time to provide an opportunity for the cities and any other interested party to provide input on the draft legislation; and . To authorize staff to begin a preliminary evaluation and delineation of possible planning/service area boundaries in concert with the County Administrator. 2 . . Attachment I . Many cities do not have a problem with annexation and do not want to be burdened with additional procedures. . The problems that do exist result from failure to comply with existing state law and from property owners being coerced to annex against their will. . It should be the property owners right to annex into the city of their choice. . A comprehensive approach to annexation is a worthwhile objective. This is a step in the right direction. )f:- Area eligible to be annexed should be delineated before legislation is adopted. . If areas eligible to be annexed are established, it should not be required that future annexations be contiguous or that enclaves be prohibited. . The areas eligible to be annexed must be defined so as to be clear who will provide service and on what basis, both within and outside the defined areas eligible to be annexed. Once this is done, ability to serve should be a moot point. . Concern with authority of PPC to determine if annexation is in compliance and lack of definitive standards or procedures for this review in advance of authority to do so. . Process for appeal from a decision of the Council is directly to court. Two distinct suggestions (1) provide for appeal to the Board of County Commissioners or (2) place burden of appeal with the Planning Council. . Overall process doesn't provide sufficient incentive to encourage annexation. . While the draft bill needs extensive revision, the delineation of annexation and service boundaries is needed. . Needs to affin11 the valid, positive purpose associated with annexation. . Definitions need to be revised, including definition of affected parties. 1 I . . . Question whether Board of County Commissioners can objectively set limits of area eligible to be annexed. . Should recognize annexation agreements. . Appeal process needs to provide time limit and perhaps provide for neutral third party, e,g. TBRPC Dispute Resolution Process. . The provision for interlocal agreement to provide services may be counter productive to annexation. . It will delay the annexation process and create additional bureaucracy. 1.\USERSIVVPDOCS J)PH\ANNEX\991A ITCH .ONE 2 - . . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUN~L AGENDA MEMORANDUM I AGENDA ITEM: IV B. I MEETING DATE: June 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation Legislation. Follow-Up Discussion I RECOMMENDATION: Council Review Attached Materials, Establish a Date to Receive Additional Input, and Authorize Staff to Initiate Delineation of Annexation Areas BACKGROUND: The Council reviewed draft legislation designed to initiate the implementation of its recommended comprehensive approach to annexation at its April meeting. The Council forwarded the draft legislation to the Board of County Commissioners with a request for a joint workshop. The Board reviewed the information forwarded by the Council and held a special workshop on the draft legislation on May 25th. A number of Council members attended the May 25th Board workshop at which comments and suggestions were offered by individual city representatives and the public. The minutes of that meeting are not yet available from the Clerk's office, but will be distributed to the Council upon receipt. Attached is a newspaper article describing some of the discussion at the Board workshop. Attached are copies of correspondence with St. Petersburg, Pinellas Park, Largo and Safety Harbor on this issue (Please note that since copies were previously forwarded to the Council and are included here this correspondence has not been recopied under correspondence). At the risk of omitting or misinterpreting some of the ideas put forward, a summary of key observations from this correspondence is included as Attachment I for Councils information and discussion at the June meeting. PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: I I :\USERS\ WPDOCS\....ll SClTE:\1\REGITEMS\lV~99PPC\99Al'';NEX.LEG - . . From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Tuesday, June 22, 1999 2:29 PM Stone, Ralph; Baier, Richard Akin, Pam ppe Annexation Proposal High Is anyone from the City commenting on the PPC proposal re municipal annexations? It has several disturbing features, including the establishment by the PPC of areas "eligible" for annexation, a veto by PPC appealable only to Circuit Court, the definition of enclave [apparently would prohibit some of our annexations where continuous muni roadway does not lead to property], and demonstration of ability to provide muni services IN A TIMELY and cost-effective manner [Rich--comments?]. After looking at 81. Pete's [am faxing to you] and other comments, I am wondering if we want to provide any written response? Page 2 Hardin, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: . . Baier, Richard Thursday, June 24, 19994:31 PM Stone, Ralph; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hardin, Cyndi Asmar, John; Arasteh, Mahshid RE: PPC Annexation Proposal High We may not need a meeting but the wording in the last paragraph of the item is not acceptable from a PW perspective....lleft a msg from John on his cell phone as I do not want to give his staff direction.....Also....normally PW signs off on annexation items to keep track of these impacts....Thx...R From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hardin, Cyndi Tuesday, June 22, 1999 4:37 PM Stone, Ralph; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Baier, Richard Asmar, John; Arasteh, Mahshid RE: PPC Annexation Proposal Rich, there are not any incentives being offered in the proposed Special Act. Neither are there any costs associated re infrastructure because we only annex (and only voluntarily) within our planning area where it has already been determined that we can serve. The proposed Special Act does not put any new responsibilities on annexing municipalities only adds another layer of responsibility for review by PPC. I do not think we need a meeting to discuss unless you reallv reallv think so. Thanks. From: Baier, Richard Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 5: 18 PM To: Stone, Ralph; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hardin, Cyndi Cc: Asmar, John; Arasteh, Mahshid Subject: RE: PPC Annexation Proposal Importance: High AII...We reviewed the study sent to Mike...but I think we need to have a meeting between the depts to go over any costs to the provision of the infrastructure and or incentives being offered.Pls set this up...thx..R From: Hardin, Cyndi Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 4:09 PM To: Stone, Ralph; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Baier, Richard Cc: Akin, Pam; Asmar, John Subject: RE: PPC Annexation Proposal I have been tracking this item, have attended the Board of County Commissioners meeting on it and had numerous discussions with PPC staff on alternatives. I have also prepared an agenda item for the July 15 CC meeting to get input from the Commission and will send a copy of the item to all who want it. I am aware of the issues of concern and we propose that cities such as Clearwater that have a defined planning area be exempt from PPC review- there are other possibilities to streamline the process for cities like us who have a defined planning area. At this point, I do not think there is much else to do until we get direction from the Commission. If you want to discuss further with me, please call.Thanks. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Baier, Richard Tuesday, June 22, 1999 4:46 PM Stone, Ralph; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hardin, Cyndi Akin, Pam RE: PPC Annexation Proposal High Ralph....Cyndi...pls send over a copy of this asap....R Page 1 . . . . . An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for designation of areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations and appeals therefrom; providing a municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban services; providing for state plan amendment review process; providing for amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; providing an effective date and referendum question; providing for severability. WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated County in the State of Florida, with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds ofthe total County area; and WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the incorporated municipalities is an on- gomg significant occurrence that has important growth management and service delivery implications to the unincorporated County, the incorporated municipalities and the citizenry; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Pin ell as County to implement a more rational, uniform and clear method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and unpredictability of the current voluntary annexation process; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and li'I:'~. balanced system of govell~l h Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this act constitute the exclusive means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures . . . . . and Criteria in Pinellas County, Florida," hereinafter referred to as "this Act." Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose ofthis Act to establish a uniform, equitable, and integrated procedure with clearly defined criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation of property by an incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida Section 3. Authority. This Act is promulgated pursuant to the Home Rule powers of Pine lias County, Florida and s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to authorize placement of a ballot question before the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas County Charter, pursuant to the provisions for amendment thereof, that would enable Pinellas County to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation by each respective municipality and establish the exclusive procedures and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation. Section 4. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following terms and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless some other meaning is plainly indicated: (1) "Annexation" means the adding of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, such addition making such real property in every way a part of the municipality. /,1 . (2) (3) "Board" m~lIDs~e Board of County Commissioners of Pin ell as County, Florida. ~.} "', 1" "CP A" means the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. (4) "Compact" means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in Pinellas County shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the 2 . . . . . area will be reasonably compact. (5) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a publicly owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically. However, nothing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity; and when any provision or provisions of special law or laws prohibit the annexation of territory that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of water or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this Act. (6) "Council" means the Pinellas Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida (1988). "County" ni:~Pinellas County, Florida. ~'.y v (8) "Enclave" means: (a) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality; or (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of 3 . . . . . vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the municipality. (9) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s.2 or s.6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution. (10) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning property that is proposed for annexation to a municipality or property that is or may become contiguous to the annexing municipality upon completion of a proposed annexation, or any governmental unit having jurisdiction over either such area. (11) "Urban Services" means any services offered by a municipality, either directly or by contract, to any of its present residents. Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexation. The geographic area eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality shall be determined and delineated in both map form and by legal description. Said determination shall be made consistent with the purpose and provision for establishment of planning areas as provided for under s 163.3171 and shall be established by ordinance by the Board, based upon the recommendation ofthe Council. Any deviation from the Council recommendation shall be approved by the Board by a majority vote plus one. Section 6. Petition for Voluntary Annexation. (1) The owner ciro\'\lllers ofreal property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area of the County may petition the governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality if the subject property meets the following requirements: (a) the property is located within the previously defined area eligible for annexation to the annexing municipality; (b) the property is contiguous to the annexing municipality and reasonably compact; 4 . . . (c) annexation of the property by the annexing municipality will not create an enclave. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation pursuant to a previously executed, valid agreement, the annexing municipality shall notify the Council of said proposed annexation and forward the petition for annexation and a legal description of the subject property. Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by Council; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a petition for a proposed annexation to said municipality and a legal description of the subject property, the Council shall review said proposed annexation for compliance with the following criteria: (a) whether the subject property complies with the criteria set forth in Section 6(1); (b) whether the legal description provided is accurate and does not conflict with . previously established municipal boundaries; and (c) whether the annexing municipality has the ability to provide necessary urban services in a timely and cost-effective manner. The review provided for under this subsection is specifically intended to replace the review for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or more now conducted independently by the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida. (2) Upon completion of its review, the Council shall transmit a determination of either /- _ _ ~'>:..:f+1<-;--.i<'~~' compliance or non-compliance to the annexing municipality. A municipality that receives a determination of compliance may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A municipality that receives a determination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation. (3) Any party affected by the proposed annexation and who is aggrieved by the final determination of the Council shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for . 5 . . . . . Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. (4) The Council shall have the authority to develop rules and standards that will implement the review process described in this section. Such rules and standards may allow the Council to delegate review authority to its staff. Section 8. Municipal Annexation Procedure; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt of a determination of compliance from the Council pursuant to Section 7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular meeting, adopt a non-emergency ordinance to annex the property that is the subject of the detennination of compliance and redefine the boundary lines ofthe municipality to include said property. Said ordinance shall be passed after notice of the annexation has been published at least once each week for 2 consecutive weeks in some newspaper in such city or town or, if no newspaper is published in said city or town, then in a newspaper published in the same county. The notice shall give the ordinance number and a brief, general description of the area proposed to be annexed. The notice shall give the ordinance number and a brief, general description of the area proposed to be annexed. The description shall include a map clearly showing the area and a statement that the complete legal description and the ordinance can be obtained from the office of the city clerk. (2) An ordinance adopted under this section shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court and the chief administratiy~<officer of the county in which the municipality is located and with the ;:t?>{ ~ Department of State within 7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include a map which clearly shows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area. (3) Any party affected by the annexation and who believes that he or she will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of the municipal governing body to comply with the procedures set forth in this section for annexation shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit 6 . . . . . Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Section 9. Effect of Annexation. An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedure set forth in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and regulations in force in that municipality and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of that municipality upon the effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexation that does not comply with the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and void and the property shall continue to be considered unincorporated for both tax and regulatory purposes. Section 10. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services. The County and each municipality shall have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements to provide services as an alternative to annexation. Such agreements are encouraged where they would provide a cost-effective, mutually advantageous alternative to annexation or where annexation is not achievable under the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. Section 11. State Plan Amendment Review Process. Any area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set fortg.in this Act shall be4e~!Ded to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F.S. t:-'~> '^ ... Upon adoption of an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the City's comprehensive plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity of use or density which is equal to or less than the Countywide future land use plan for said area, as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions ofthis section shall 7 . . . . . supersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the County and selected communities pursuant to the authority of s 163.3171 (3), which provide for joint planning areas. Section 12. Article II, Sec. 2.04 ofthe Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: (t) All powers necessary to designate the geographic areas of the county that will be eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality. In the event of a conflict between a county ordinance adopted pursuant to the county's authority to designate areas eligible for annexation as provided by special law and a municipal ordinance, the county ordinance shall prevail over the municipal ordinance. Section 13. Article II, Sec. 2.07 of the Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: Nothing in this Charter shall prevent a municipality from annexing an unincorporated area into its municipal boundaries in accordance with the provisions of general law, except that all voluntary annexations shall be in accordance with the exclusive procedures set forth by special law. Section 14. Effective Date; Referendum Question. This act, except for this section which shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take effect only upon approval by a majority vote of the electors of Pin ell as County voting in a special refei"epdum election wh1~I)"''S~ll be called and held by the county commission prior to November /y__,i ft-i ~i 30, 2000. The question on the ballot shall be: BALLOT TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOUJNT ARY MlJNTCTPAL ANNEXATION. ENABLES C01JNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION. 8 . . . . . BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Secs 2.04 and 207 of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County and enable the county to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation to each respective municipality, as specifically enumerated by this special law? [] YES FOR APPROVAL [] NO FOR REJECTION Section 15. Severability. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications ofthe Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared severable. I: \ USERS\ WPDOCSlDPHlANNEX\99\ANNEXACT Drafted 12/17/98 9 . . 1!/;/~ -'~Ltt/l:o~-. ~h(;ff~~~ f;J1~~ JJk~ tarto- IV1 W7~ ~~~Nj.~ ~/htpP};tJ? ~ ~~'pA~/~IJ7~ w&/Ji& 4//~/ic;I:J;/r~ - ~~;ue' ~~A7 /Pit! //~~ --- ~/d/ZR-: -~~fr--7~~~ - at/# -#7d~ ~6Wmj- r::b ~ $l/J#Y:/~~ . . 1//1/ tB~ dJ); JU;fJlt ~ !J/IJ1lr 4 ~~ ~ Okft2:?4 ~~~?1~ (I IV?JJJtff.~#r / ~ /Jth~6- r#jj~ ,7 ~learwater City Commission .orksession Item #: Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: July 15,1999 . SUBJECT IRECOMMENDA TION: Establish the City of Clearwater's position regarding the proposed Special Act on Annexation to exempt cities with defined planning areas from the Pinellas Planning Council's review of proposed annexation. Provide authority to staff to represent the City's position to the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners. o and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: In July 1998, the Pinellas Planning Council prepared an issue paper identifying problems with the current system of annexation. Primarily, these concerns are the lack of a comprehensive approach, lack of predictable municipal borders for property owners, little evaluation of ability of annexing jurisdiction to provide utilities and the lack of notification to adjoining municipalities and Pinellas County. The Council evaluated several alternatives to resolve the concerns and determined that the best solution is a Special Act to establish a comprehensive system of annexation for the entire county (See attached July 15, 1998 memorandum from David Healey to the Pinellas Planning Council). On May 25, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners met to discuss the proposal and requested that each municipality review the proposal and provide the Board with their official position. In addition, the Pinellas Planning Council has scheduled a public hearing for July 21, 1999 to discuss the issues. Currently, annexations of property greater than ten acres require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council. The proposed Special Act would require that all annexations, regardless of size, be reviewed by the Council for consistency with state law on annexation, correctness of the legal description, consistency with the Countywide land use plan and the ability of the annexing municipality to serve the property with urban services. The proposed Special Act further states that a geographic area for each city will be established which comprises the future area .gible to be annexed by that city. A city must refrain from annexing outside of this future area and also must not nex properties that the Council determines to be inconsistent with the Special Act. The Planning Department has reviewed this Special Act as it relates to the City's annexation policies and provides the following analysis. First, the City of Clearwater is one of only four municipalities in the county who have a defined planning area. This planning area is constrained by the Dunedin city limits on the north, the Largo city limits on the south, and Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay on the east and west respectively. Over the long range planning horizon, the City has the ability to serve (and currently does provide some urban services) for all property located within this planning area. The City's planning area currently implements the goals of the proposed Special Act; therefore, the proposed legislation will add an additional layer of review to the City's current process. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Planning & Costs: Not Applicable Devlpmt. Svcs. Admin. Legal Info Srvc Nt ~ Total ~ Budget NtA Public Works User Dept.:.g Funding Source: Purchas- N/A DCM/ACM Current FY CI ing Risk NtA Other Attachments OP Mgmt Draft Special Act July 15, 1998 Memorandum by David Healey to PPC Othe Submitted by: o None City Manager A ro riation Code: 4 . . . As an alternative, it is suggested that cities with a defined planning area be exempt from annexation review as proposed by the Special Act. The incentive that this alternative creates would allow the City's current process to continue as well as encouraging a comprehensive annexation program in other cities of the County. There is one aspect of the Special Act which deserves support: the provision that allows the creation of enclaves as cities pursue annexation within their planning areas. This provision recognizes that enclaves may be created as a short- term byproduct of an active long-range annexation program and this exemption will assist in pursuing voluntary annexation. . . . . EXHIBIT I: P.P.C. Recommendation Concerning Annexation Issues .. .' . September 15, 199R #54 PRESENTATION REANNEXATION PROCEDURES - PINELlAS PLANNING COUNCIL TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE COUNTYVVIDE SYSTEM Executive Director of Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) David P. Healey appeared and related that the issue of annexation had been discussed by the ppe in an attempt to identify and assess alternative means of addressing the ,., _ problems; whereupon, he reviewed the issues and recommendations contained in Exhibit 1 which has been filed and made a part of the'record. Following discussion, Chairman Todd noted concurrence that the prc move forward with the proposed establishment of a comprehensive count)'\\~de system; and that the matter be placed on a future BCC V\'ork Session agenda. 1830 . . . t... . . September 16, 1998 . . ... ... Chairman Brayboy deviated from the agenda and directed, there being no objection, that inasmuch as the public hearings have been scheduled for 9:30 AM., the Council will address "Executive Director Items" under agenda item VI as time permits. ... ... ... . EXEClTfIVE DIRECfOR ITEMS A Budget Line Item Transfers - Received David P. Healey, Executive Director, recommended that the 1997- 98 budget be adjusted to reflect a line item transfer in the amount of $5,000 from Legal Services to Telephone ($2,500) and Contractual Services ($2,500), to be reflected in the September 1998 Financial Statement; and advised that a motion is not needed at this time. B. Enclave Bill Workshop - Approved . David P. Healey, Executive Director, requested approval for the PPC to hold a workshop on October 28, 1998, to assist local governments in the implementation of the "enclave bill" (Chapter No. 98-484, Laws of Florida), effective July 1, 1999, by providing a forum for information and disOlSsion with city staff regarding the preparation and ground work needed to prepare for the effective date. . School Board Member Benjamin moved, seconded by Commissioner Nickeson and carried, that the Enclave Bill Workshop is approved to be held on October 28, 1998 (Vote 11-0). C. Annexation Issues Follow-Up - Received and Discussed 350 . . . . ~ .. ..... .. September 16. 1998 Mr. Healey said that in response to the Council's July 1998 action, the Annexation Issues follow-up had been brought before the BCC on September 15 and had been very well received; that members of the BCC haa indicated a desire to schedule a workshop to disross the issue in greater detail; that concerns and reservations had been expressed by the BCC and included a query of the Council's role in the process; that the BCC had expressed an interest to continue to be involved; that he had offered assurance that the ppe views annexation as a joint process and welcomes the input of the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA); and that the BCC would like to see a balanced approach to annexation to protect against annexation where appropriate. Commissioner Stewart stated that with few reservations, the BCC is supportive of the ppes effort regarding annexation; that the majority of the members felt that staff "needed to put some teeth into it" prior to holding a workshop on the issue; ~at the BCC had expressed (:oncem regarding the protection of residents in unincorporated areas who wish to remain outside of a municipal boundary; that procedure and structure are needed; and that the BCC is looking forward to working with the PPC on these iSSU4~. Commissioner Hooper said that the City of Oearwater Commissioners have a concern that involves Item No. .;5, as set forth in Alternative No.3, Contracts for Service; and queried as to whether the intent of the PPC and the BCC is to force cities to accept contracts for service; whereupon, Mr. Healey related that the PPCs intention is for this to bc~ an enabling provision to offer an alternative for certain areas and would require agreement from both parties. Commissioner Hooper stated that the City had requested him to relay that if contracts for service are provided for when mutually agreeable between the City and the County, the entire City of Oearwater Commission would be supportive. Commissioner Nickeson related that the City of Safety Harbor Commissioners had requested clarification on the size of properties to be involved in annexation; whereupon, Mr. Healey related that only armex.ations not meeting the enumerated criteria would be reviewed by the Council and the BCC. 351 . . TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator FROM: David P. Healey, Executive Director ~ /1 / Pinellas Planning Council ~ SUBJECT: September 15,1998 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Re: Other Adminim-ative Matters: Annexation Issues! PPC Recommended Follow- l.1p DATE: September 8, 1998 RECOMMEND A nON: THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THE BOARD CONCUR IN AND SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ISSUES CONCERNING ANNEXATIoN AS SET FORTH IN ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3 IN THE ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS AND OUfLINED BELOW: + Exhibit I: P.P.C. Recommendation Concerning Annexation Issues - The Planning Council recommends a comprehensive countywide approach that would establish a single, integrated process for annexation that would include the following principal components: 1. Advance Notification - to all relevant parties; 2. Verification of Legal Description - to avoid technical flaws and delays; 3. Compliance with State Law - relative to contiguity, compactness and the creation of enclaves; 4. Determination of Ability to Serve - to replace current PPC review; 5. Provision for C..ontracts for Service - with the County, as an alternative to annexation; 6. Defined Areas Eligjble for Annexation - to establish predictability as to jurisdictiQn and service delivery; .' . . . 7. Required C..onsistency with C..otmtywide Plan - to avoid after-the-fact conflict/resolution; and 8. Exemption from State Amendment Review Process - to preserve the central purpose of the current interlocal agreements. . . DISCUSSION: The Council has been concerned, as has the Board, with an increasing array of problems associated with the annexation process. You will recall that over a year ago the Council attempted to fmd ways to make the review process for annexations often (10) acres or more for the "ability to serve" a more meaningful process - without success. The recent spate of annexations that have raised questions concerning requirements for contiguity, compactness, annexation agreements/indentures and to preclude the creation of enclaves has exacerbated the situation. The Council examined three basic alternatives, as outlined in the accompanying materials - (1) maintain the existing system, (2) modify the existing system to the extent possible, or (3) establish a .comprehensive countywide system. They recommend the latter. The objective is to establish a clear, consistent and predictable annexation policy, consistent with and in furtherance of State law, that would rely on administrative approval for all annexations that meet the basic requirements to be set forth under the above-listed components. Review and recommendation by the PPC and final detennination by the Board, acting as the CPA, would need to occur only when an annexation is found not to be in compliance with the established guidelines.. In order to establish such a process, the County Attorney's Office has determined it will require a Special Act of the State Legislature, applicable to Pinellas County~ with said Special Act subject to countywide referendum. If the Board endorses this approach, the special legislation would be prepared for consideration by the Legislative Delegation for the 1999 legislative session and if approved, be placed on the ballot in the fall of 1999 or as otherwise stipulated in the act The Pinellas Planning Council recommended unanimously that the approach as outlined herein be taken, subject to and only with the concurrence and support of the Board. . .. . REGIDJAR AGENDA OTHER ADMTNISTRA TIVE MA TIERS Annexation Issues! P.P.C. Recommended Follow-Up . .. .~ . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS Commissioner Karen Brayboy. Ctvn. Councllmember Robert Kersteen, Vice Chm. Councilmember Chuck Williams, Treas. Mayor Tom De Cesare, Sec. , Mayor David Coyner School Board Member Barbara J. Crockett Commissioner Jean HaJwrsen CommlssIoner Janet Henderson CommIssIoner Ed Hooper Mayor George M. JiroCka CommIssIoner Nadine S~ Nickeson Corrvrissloner Robert B. Stewart CounclImember Babe Wright FROM: Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator David P. Healey, Executive Director :;;;(' Pinellas Planning Council . David P. Healey. A1CP 8cecutlve Director TO: SUBJECT: Transmittal of PPC Items for the Board Meeting of September 15, 1998 Re: Other Administrative Matters: Annexation Issues/PPC Recommended Follow-Up DATE: September 8, 1998 I am transmitting herewith thirteen (13) agenda packets related to follow up discussion " with the Board on annexation issues at their meeting of September 15, 1998. This item is for incorporation in your complete agenda, under other A~trative Matters. The agenda plemorandum and memorandum from legal counsel "that were reviewed by the Planning Council in July are attached as an Exhibit to the accompanying cover memorandum to the Board. In brief, the Council is recommending that a comprehensive approach to the annexation issue be formulated as outlined in the accompanying materials, providing the Board of ~~ty Commissioners concurs and is supportive of this approach. The County Attorney's Office has indicated that to enable such an approach, a special act authorizing 'such legislation will need to be approved by the State Legislature and submitted to a countywide referendum. 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TelEPHONE (727) 464-3855 FAX (727) 464-3827 .~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL . . AGENDA MEMORANDUM ~ I DATE: September 16, 1998 I IAGENDA ITEM: VI C. ~ I SUBJECT: Annexation Issues - Follow-Up RECOMMENDATION: Council Receive and Discuss Attached Materials as Determined Appropriate BACKGROUND: In follow-up to the Council's review of and recommendation concerning annexation issues at the July Council meeting, the attached materials will be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting of September 15th - the evening before the Council's September meeting. The Council recommendation to pursue alternative 3., a comprehensive countywide approach that will necessitate special state legislation, was made subject to the concurrence and support of the Board of County Commissioners. The Boards discussion and position on the Council's reCommendation will be reported verbally at the Council meeting. PINELlAS PlANNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council received and discussed this item. COUN1YWIDE PlANNING AUTHORIlY ACTION: 1:\USERS\WPDOCS\MISClTEM\REGITEMS'SEP98PPC\ANNEXISS.UES Page 1 . . e . TO: Dave Healey, Director Pinellas Planning Council Jewel White Co~,--C Assistant County~orney FROM: RE: Annexation Procedures DATE: July 7, 1998 In conjunction with the Council's desire to explore alternatives for establishing an integrated approach to annexation, I have reviewed the legality of the alternatives you have outlined, paying particular attention to alternative number three, which would establish a more comprehensive review process under the auspices of the Countywide Plan. It is my opinion that the proper approach to implementing alternative number three would be to either amend the Special Act that created the Council in order to specifically grant it the authority to review all annexations in Pinellas County for consistency with Chapter 171 or to enact a new general law of local application setting forth specific review procedures to be followed for all annexations within Pinellas County. As you know, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedures that municipalities must follow in order to annex unincorporated territory. The Legislature states as its intent in enacting Chapter 171, to "provide viable and usable general law standards and procedures for adjusting the boundaries of municipalities in this state." It further made clear its intent that those .' procedures be uniform throughout the state. Fla. Stat ~ 171.021 (2). The Legislature did, however, provide an exception to this propensity toward uniformity in ~ 171.044,' which sets forth procedures for voluntary annexations. Subsection (4) states that "the method of annexation provided by this section shall be supplemental to any other procedure provided by general or special law." Thus, while the Legislature did contemplate an modified process for annexing land, it specifically stated that any such modification be by general or special law. The Special Act conferred the power to review annexations upon the Council in ~S(12). However, that power is limited to reviewing annexations equal to or greater than 10 aCres in'siZe and is furth~ limited to making a recommendation to the affected municipality of the ability of that municipality to provide municipal services to the territory proposed to be annexed. It has long been held by Florida courts that when controlling law directs how a thing is to be done, that is, in effect, 01 prohibition against its being done any other way. Alsop v. Pierce. 19 So.2d 799 (F1a. 1944). This basic legal tenet, coupled with the specific grant of authority to the Council to review annexations in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Special Act, would likely provide a convincing legal argument against any attempt by the Council, or the Countywide Planning Authority, to supplement those review procedures via countywide ordinance. This is especially true given the cowts' tendency to strictly construe the iequirements of Chapter 171. See Town of Magnonia Park v. Homan. 118 So.2d S8S (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). . . . , Based upon the above conclusion that any supplement to the annex2ltion procedures set forth in Chapter 171 must be accomplish~ via general or special Jaw, I recommc~nd the Council consider either (1) pursue an amendment to its Special Act, granting the Council eXp2111ded authority to review annexations, or (2) explore the option of legislative enactment of a new general law of local applicatio~ setting forth expanded procedures for annexations in PineUas Countr, specifically conferring authority to review said annexations upon the Council. .... ~ ,.. e . g. An integrated procedure that provides for: (1) advance notice to interested parties; (2) administrative approval on an expedited time- frame for all annexations that meet the basic requirements and; (3) review and recommendation by the PPC and final dett;nnination by the CPA where the annexation is determined not in compliance at the administrative level. - nus should minimize any delay in the normal annexation process; - It provides for all routine annexations to be processed administratively; - It ensures an appeal process, including an advisory .recommendation and decision, by elected officials charged with the administration and enforcement of this process on a countywide basis. The advantageS of this alternative are that it would address all pertinent aspectS of the annexation process, would apply uniformly throughout the County and would enco~ge a more balanced and thoughtful approach to the provision of services. The disadvantages of this approach are that it would require municipalities to adhere to uniform procedures that they may not :want to subscribe to and i~ will apparently require special legislation to enable. 6 . . RECOMMENDATION. It is recommended that alternative number 3 be pursued as thc~ only course of action that has the potential to provide a comprehensive, fair and efficient means of dealing with annexation issues that are fundamental to an enlightened growth ; management process. It was my initial thought that this could be undertaken as a component of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan by the Council and Countywi.de P~anning Authority under the auspices of our special countywide planning act (Chp. 88-464, Laws of Florida). Upon review by Legal CoWlSel, it appears that it is not that simple. Please see the attached memorandum from Assistant County Attorney Jewel White Cole. Legal Counsel has suggested that if it is the desire of the Counsd to pursue alternative three, that special legislation be developed to either amend the special countywide planning act or enact a separate special act applying to Pinellas County to provide specific authority for such annexation review. I concur with JewrJ's ariaIysis and would suggest that of the two options: the separate special act w~u1d be more direct and involve fewer potenti~ complications with respect to the special countywide planning act. . I recommend we invite the Board of County Commissioners to review these materials and if they concur in the recommended approach, that we agrec~ to work jointly in the preparation of the requisite special legislation for the 1999 legislation session. " L-VSUS\~1UNTV.ANX 7 " Cilvhh~ ~ 1/a~~ ~I {JIU/r-' e . b. Modify the County's current Interlocal Agreements to address notice provisions and defined planning areas. _ Would apply only to the cities who have interlocal .' agreements (four plus the tri-cities at present). _ Could address issues related to advance notice and require defined planning areas, as well as planning objectives; _ Only incentive for the cities to agree is to avoid State review of pIan amendment at annexation, which is likely not sufficient to produce meaningful modification of Interlocal Agreements. c. Expand PPC review for "ability to serve" to ensure compliance with State law. . _ No specific' authority or ability to achieve compliance; _ Would track with new enclave legislation which is not effective until JUly, 1999, with respect to enclaves only; ~ At present, would only apply tg annexations of 10 acres or more; _ Fails to address other issues such as notice, legal descriptions, and plan consistency. . nus approach would have the advantage of modifying existing procedures and seeking voluntary agreements to help address some of the most obvious problems. The deficiency with this approach is that it doesn't address all the jurisdictions or all the annexations and leaves the process fragmented as to responsibility and without authority to require compliance. 3. Establish Comprehensive Countywide System - A third option is to explore a more complete and integrated approach that would establish a single process that could include the following: a. A means for the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) to review and validate the legal descriptions for all annexations. _ This could be done automatically and correct technical problems before they occur by bringing the P AO into the review loop. 4 . tit b. Definitions and examples by which to detenlline compliance with the State law for contiguity, compactness, enclaves and procedures for annexation agreementsfmdentures. _ This would provide more exact and consistent interpretation of the current State law. c. Pre-detennined or administtative means to establish ability to serve. _ This would eliminate any need to take amendments of 10 acres or more to the PPC for this particular component of the review process. d. Enabling provisions for the County to enter into agreements with the municipalities to provide selected servioes to unincorporated properties within designated areas. _ This would ptovide an alternative to ~exation, while allowing the County and municipalitY to agree to provide requisite or desirable services in the most efficient manner. . e. The delineation of areas eligible to be annexed. by each jurisdiction. _ This would establish those areas that would be eligible to be annexed by a particular jurisdiction; _ This could address the planning objectivc~ of the designated jurisdiction for its planning area; _ It would provide predictability for both the citizen and service providers. f. A requirement for consistency with the Countywide FLUP ana, on that basis, waiver of the requirement for plan amendment pursuant to Chapter 163.3171(3), F.S. _ This would accomplish the same thing as, and eliminate the need for, the existing Interlocal Agreements with selected communities. . -It would eliminate the current issue with respect to the requirement for consistency as contained in the InterlocaI Agreements. 5 (;) @ ~@ ALTERNATIVES . . 5. Contracts for SeIVice - Provision to enable Pinellas County to~enter into an agreement with a municipality to provide selected services to designated unincorporated properties; -=- Predictability - A means of delineating what areas are eligible for, or may in the future be subject to, annexation by specified jurisdictions; Consistency - A means to insure that areas to be annexed are, or will be made to be, consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan; and Exemption From State Plan Amendment Review Process - A procedure, consistent with the pwpose of the rorrent InterlocaI Agreements and pursuant to Chapter 163.3171(3), F.S., for allowing cities to annex designated areas without having to go tlrrough the land use plan amendment review process otherwise required by the State. The alternatives available to the Council and the Board of County Commissioners appear to be several, including the following three major options: 1. Maintain Existing System - One option is obviously to simply continue the current annexation procedures, which include several unrelated and incomplete provisions as follows: . a. V oluntaIy annexations initiated by property owner with municipal jurisdictions. _ No requirement for notice to county or adjoining jurisdictions; _ No particular relationship to planning or service area parameters. .. b. Annexation agreements or '"indentures" in return for providing selected services. _ Inconsistent requirements relative to requiring annexation; - Varied procedures for consummating agreements; _ No requirements for notice to county or adjoining jurisdictions. 2 . . c. Review by PPC for "ability to seIVe" only. _ Review for ability to serve is largely unrelated to real issues being witnessed with annexation; - No substantive authority even if issues are noted. · d~ InterIocal Agreements between County and selected cities to preclude need for processing plan amendment with the State. - No advance notice provisions; _ Outdated with respect to land use plan consistency; - Do not all define a singular planning area; and _ Do not require the cities to have established overall planning intent for areas to be annexed. The advantage of the current system is that it leaves annexation largely to the discretion of the individual cities without any oversight or meaningful requirements for coordination. The disadvantage is that the current process leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of a countywide perspective or any degree of predictability, with review being largely piecemeal, uncoordinated and incomplete. 2. Modify Components of Existing System. A second option is to rework and . supplement individual procedures now in place. Modifications could be made to the individual parts of the existing system that could, for example: a. Seek clarification and agreement on State law re: contiguity, compactness, enclaves, and prerequisites forvoluntary ann~tion. , _ Seeking an Attorney General opinion on specific current cases may or may not be achievable in the first place, lOr helpful beyond the particular case(s) in question in the long run; _ Voluntary agreement in some formal fashion, with all local governments. if it could be achieved, could make the process more uniform. 3 . . BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Sees. 2.04 and 2 07 of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County and enable the county to designate the geographic areas of the county eligi~le for annexalion to eacb respective municipality, as specifi~lIY 7erated by this specIal law? / -. [) YES FOR APPROVAL ./ r,' ~ . .. #0" .-...~,... . .' " [) NO FOR REJECTION .:;,.. Section 15. Severability. rson or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other " . is:end the provisions of this Act are ....- . ... .: 9 PIN ELLA S PLANNING COUNcn... . . AGENDA MEMORANDUM I (AGENDA ITEM: VI B. ~ I DATE: July 15, 1998 I SUBJECf: Annexation Issues - Follow Up RECOMMENDATION: Council Review Attached Discussion Outlirie and Memorandum From .Legal Counsel and Provide Direction As Determined Appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Council discussed recent annexation issues at its June meeting and approved two letters - one to the City of Largo raising certain concerns with recent annexations by the City, and one to the Board of County Commissioners expressing the Council's interest and willingness in helping to find a solution to the issues which have been raised with respect to annexation. The Council specifically asked that this matter be put on the July agenda to pursue discussion on the avenues that might be available to address the several issues which have been identified. Attached is a discussion outline of alternative approaches to annexation which describes the issues, examines alternative approaches and suggests a recommended approach. Also attached following the discussion outline is a memorandum from Legal Counsel reviewing the legal parameters of the recommended course of action. In brief, it is reconunended the Council reoonunend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Council and Boani work together to develop a more comprehensive and integrated approach to annexation reView and that the preferred vehicle by which to establish the legal authority to do so be in the form of a local bID applicable to Pinellas County and approved by the State Legislature. PINTILLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council received and discussed the information as presented. Th~ Cou."lcil approved pursuit of Alt. 3. subject to the concurrence and support of the Board of County Commissioners. (Vote 13-0) COUNTYWIDE PlANNING AUfHORfIY ACTION: ., l:\USER.S\WPDOCS\MlSClT'EM\REOJTEMS\JUL9SI'PC\ANNEX WPD Page 1 - . f3ff.lU3. . · ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEMBER$ Commissioner Karen Brayboy, CIvn. . ,Co\xICImefnber Robert Kersteen, VIce CIvn. Co46lcI1member ChucK Wdliams, Treas. . Mayor Tom 0. Cesare, See:. , Mayor David Cotner School Board Member Barbara J. Croc:kett CommIssIoner Jean HaMnen CorrvrissIoner Janet Henderson CommIssioner Ed Hooper Mayor George M. JiroIka CommIssIoner Nadine S. NidIeson Cornrrisslonef Robert B. Stewart Cooo::IImember Babe Wright Members, Pinellas Planning Council Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chainnan David P. Healey. Executive Director ~ SUBJEct: Outline of Alternative Approaches to Annexation DATE: ISSUES David P. Heale~ AlCP EJlecutiw Dlreaor July 15, 1998 In order to identify' and assess alternative means of addressing several interrelated annexation and service area issues, I have first listed several of the common issues or problems that should be addressed in any comprehensive approach to annexation. These issues include: ~ c9 ~ o~7~ . Otto 6}?lf~-:- . .3. (9 Notification - An advance, systematic means of noti.fication to interested . parties: _ including the annexing municipality, property owner, adjoining municipalities and PineI1as County; 2. Accurate Legal Description - A means of verifYing and correcting incomplete, inaccuiate or overlapping legal des<;:riptions: . .Compliance w/State Law - The ability to define and verify. comp~ce with state requirements for contiguity, compactness and absence of enclaves, as well procedures for consummating annexation agreements or indentures consistent with voluntary annexation procedures: AbUitr to Serve - A procedure that is consistent with and includes the current requirements of the countyWide planning act relative to annexations of ten (10) acres or more: 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE.. SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER. FllORIOA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) ~3855 FAX (727) ~3827 ^ . . supersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the County and selected communities pursuant to the authority of s 163.3171 (3), which provide for joint planning areas. Section 12. Article n, Sec. 2.04 of the Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: (t) municipal ordinance. Section 13. Article n, Sec. 2.07 of the Pin Laws of Florida, is amended to read: m annexing an unincorporated area , .if " 'visions of general law, except that all . n the ballot shall be: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY MUNICIP AL ANNEXATION. ENABLES COt JNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE .A,.REAS ELIGffiLE FOR ANNEXATION. 8 . . Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. (4) The Council shall have the authority to develop rules and standards that will implement the review process described in this section. Such rules and standards may allow the Council to . Section 8. Municipal Annexation Procedure; App' also /" . ~. . . . " "..) :. ~ :> delegate review authority to its~taff. - ::::--- (I) Upon receipt of a determination of compli 7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular me ).,,~' a~ ,.,;J.""'.. ..,- ~...'2. '. annex the property that is the subject of the determinatio "'~mpliance and redefme e boundary '~r lines of the municipality to include said property. Said in such city or town or, if no newspaper . . published in the same county. The inance number and a brief, general e nof'shall give the ordinance number and a to :beannexed. The description shall include a map 7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include ~. hows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area. .. '., ';~~:'~'" i.~... ,) ~ c . . .: . . ., y party affected by the annexation and who believes that he or she will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of the municipal governing body to comply with the procedures set forth in this section for annexation shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit 6 . . Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees. in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and re Section 9. Effect of Annexation. /" An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant 0 the cri .'a an4"'rocedW"C set forth shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as .. effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexa - ;1hat does not comply WI the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and Jhe property shall continue to be to provide services as an alterna;e to anne/ tiony greements are encouraged where they would pro "-<:Ie a cost-e Jiv'~ mutual ,,:~~vantageous alternative to annexation or where der the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. . .:'State Plan . .endment Review Process. ~;;... .':~ this Act shall be ........ ed to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F .S. E adoption of an . exation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the . ; '_4X>mpreh ve"plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity _;!J~i:~hiCh is equal to or less than the Countywide future land use plan for said area, as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions of this section shall 7 ~, ~tflt . ,.A/~<~JV 01r~~ . (jJY' JPY' 'Pi pflfJJIY @ annexation of the property by the annexing municipality will not create an enclave. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation pursuant to a previously executed, valid agr~ement, the annexing municipality shall notify the Council of said proposed annexatio~and fO?.tftd the petition for annexation and a legal description of the subject property ,', .,/':- municipality and a legal description of the subject prope Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by, . ~~. . . txatloil 10 said (1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a p annexation for compliance with the following criteria: (a) (b) the ability to provide necessary urban review for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or more now con :Prea~~~~nden '1he,Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida. Mf1Jie ,tf!1~ Upon co ';?~~~~;Pf its review, the Council shall transmit a determination of either /idlt& ~~ .~. ~ ::~co iance or non-co ,cia ..ce to the anne~ing muniCipa~ity. A munici.pality :mt receives a ~ !~! ': matlon of co ., ance may proceed Wlth the annexation as set forth m Section 8 below. A Al//U?/I' ,~~ (/f/ vr,: . '~~,. <' .. .... ."eives a determination of non -compliance shall not proceed with the annexation. ...~.~ ~"~'~:..:~~ J ~.._'.."1:.~_~ . f~ Any party affected by the proposed annexation and who is aggrieved by the final determination of the Council shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for 5 . . vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the municipality. (9) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to 5.2 or s.6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution. (10) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning property tha~roposed for annexation to a municipality or property that is or may come c tiguo~:' the annexing under 5 (11) "Urban Services" means any services offer irectly or by ~\~ -: ~~i~i~lity upo~ completion of a proposed annexaf . ;rt;;, any ,." .,,_.;:~tal unit ba~ junsdlCtIon over either such area. - . tt!;-t ~ contract, to any of its present residents. Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexaf determined and delineated in both ma . -. -C!l.i.~y deviation from the Council recommendation shall be vote plus one. .~ .". oi1.J~r Voluntary Annexation. ':".r. ers of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area (\ ".. rnl1t'\ty may pet' on the governing body of a municipality tbat said property be annexerl to ~]!rici ali . e subject property meets the following requirements: f i1k' ~ir the property is located within the previously defined area eligible for ~t.: -,<- th . .. I' - /;?f'Jf to e annexmg munlclpa Ity; ~-/}() ., th . .. l' d bI ~~ (b) the property IS contiguous to e annexmg mumclpa Ity an reasona y compact; 4 . . area will be reasonably compact. (5) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part ofa boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by ~bliclY owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, c aI, or ity;.I'.. ~y of water, annexation under this act, provided the presence of such ~ivision does not, as a praCtical matter, c.ipality from becoming a unified watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a between the territory sought to be annexed and the prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the aIm . whole with respect to municipal services or pre .~: ..... eir inhabi .inellas"Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws ~inellas County, Florida. (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of 3 . . and Criteria in Pinellas County, Florida," hereinafter referred to as "this Act." Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to establish a uniform, equitable, and integrated procedure with clearly defmed criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation o~perty by an incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida ~,..,,~., amendment thereof, that would enable Pinellas '., :~.to designa-;- .e -geographic areas of the - - ...:. .. -.-" ," county eligible for annexation by each . tiv '~.~ '~ipa1iD'~d establish the exclusive Section 3. Authority. .nL This Act is promulgated pursuant to the Home s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to auth the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas C ,'Pursuant to the provisions for Section 4. Definitions. ~ l... " .: ~tj,on" m -, e ,adding of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated . \;r.~,i"'~, . ~. such a . "~"9A~~~lng such real property in every way a part of the municipality. '\'~~; '.' "Board" m 'e Board of County Commissioners of Pine lIas County, Florida. any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or fmger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in PinelIas County shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the 2 , . . implications to the unincorporated C r An act relating to PineIlas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for designation of areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations and appeals therefrom; providing a municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban serviceV providing for state plan amendment review process; pr tiding)Or amendment to the PineIlas County Charter; p ovidingeffeCtive date and referendum question; providing fo . v:~rabil' . .... '. ..:,. ~. :tate~ . , WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densel .',: ' .-...- with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that ' ~f1prise nearly two-thir s' of the total County area; and WHEREAS, annexation ofunincorporate .. going significant occurrence that has WHEREAS, the Legisla 'ofF,~eems it to be in the best interests of the . ore ~tional, unifonn and clear method for voluntary is in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and . AS, ..' " '. lature 0 the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and ~~:i./~: ~~ )~ d system of gove.,'~'" . '- Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this .. e means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas ....itF ....~~.... ,'*-. . . '" rJtV:-THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures - CIiIf , ,.- I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM I AGENDA ITEM: VII D." . I MEETING DATE: April 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Annexation Issues - Implementation of Recommended Approach RECOMMENDATION: Council Endorse Recommended Approach to Implementation of Annexation Measures and Forward to Board of County Commissioners for their Concurrence. BACI(GROUND: The Council has addressed a series of annexation and related service area issues over the past two years. Two specific actions by the Council have resulted as follows: . Adoption of Chapter 98-484, Laws of Florida, a Special Act providing for the annexation of enclaves of one (1) acre or less, effective for a two-year period beginning July 1, 1999; aI1d . Approval of a comprehensive countywide approach to annexation as outlined in the Council agenda memorandum of July 15, 1998 (Alternative No.3), subject to the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners. Following the Council's direction, the proposed comprehensive approach to annexation issues was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on September 15, 1998. The Board indicated preliminary support for the process outlined by the Council, subject to developing the particulars, and urged the Council to pursue the means by which this process could be implemented. The Council reviewed the Board's input and discussed the issues. further at their September 16, 1998 meeting at which time it was agreed staff would pursue how to put the recommended approach in place. Copies of this prior discussion and action are attached for.the .Council's information and reference. .' .. .. ... - . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: COUNTYWIDE PlANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: I 1:\USERS\WPDOCS\MISCJTEM\R.EGtTEMSW'R99PJ>CV.NNEXATI.ON . . ,. - SUBJECT: BACKGROUND (continued) Council staff and legal counsel, Jewel White Cole, have explored the legal and planning issues involved in constructing a procedure to implement the recommended approach to annexation. The result of that research and analysis is a preliminary draft of speciallegislat)on to carry out the Council's recommendations concerning annexation for your review and direction. The procedure, which will be outlined in detail at the Council meeting, involves essentially three major steps to implement as follows: . Approval of a Special Act by the State Legislature to Authorize Referendum and Charter Amendment (2000 Legislative Session); . Referendum on Charter Amendment to Establish Authority for Annexation Procedures Exclusive to Pinellas County (Nov. 2000); and . Preparation and Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Specific Procedures and Criteria for Annexation Pursuant to Charter Amendment (Early 2001). Mter discussion and input by the Council, it is recommended the Council endorse the approach as outlined in the attached preliminary draft and forward same to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and concurrence. Upon concurrence by the Board, a final draft will be prepared for joint consrderation and submission to the Legislative 'Delegation. 2 . . Hardin, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stone, Ralph Monday, July 12,19996:26 PM Hardin, Cyndi; Asmar, John; Goudeau, Cyndie Horne, Bill; Norman, Lois RE: 7/12/99 Work Session follow up the bill would not preclude the ability to create another "Island Estates as long as the area is within Clearwater's planning area boundary and is within the defined city limits (ie portions of our city limits extend into the bay) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Goudeau, Cyndie Monday, July 12,19995:18 PM Stone, Ralph; Hardin, Cyndi; Asmar, John Horne, Bill; Norman, Lois 7/12/99 Work Session follow up Please provide the following information by noon tomorrow: 1) Can it be determined if the annexation local bill would preclude the ability to produce another subdivision like Island Estates? Page 1 . ~ P r:/&7hC/) ,IAI /J /p" )L. If- 7J /. . - V~/lfi-// /IF..' .///(//'//'/.<. I 1/ ~ A' I ,. /., l ,,/ j - (. . . . /l ~ L) VJZ://'F/il./{J 0/(1 ~ t2:;; a.i/~;?;::" u- ,... /' - / / -v )2{/j..- C;<& . .. ... . . . . ACTION AGENDA - CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, July 15, 1999 - 6:00 P.M. - Commission Chambers 1. 2. 3. 4. Invocation - Rev. Jan Blissit, Trinity Presbyterian Church. Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor. Service Awards - 1 award presented. Introductions and Awards Employee of the Month 7/99 - Millie McFadden, Parks and Recreation. Proclamation: US Coast Guard Auxiliary Day - 6/23/99. Presentations a) Sand Key Civic Association - Bob Henion - Millie McFadden & Mark Roether presented with plaques in recognition of their efforts in the Sand Key beach vegetation project. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting 6/17/99 & two Special Meetings of 6/18/99 (attorney/clientHFire Assessment Item) - Approved as submitted. Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda 5. 6. 7. Jean Stuart requested the United Daughters of the Confederacy be allowed to retain the sign on their property which generates revenue for their organization. Tom Sehlhorst complained several provisions in the new land development code are unfair. Sheila Cole recommended Mandalay Avenue on-street parking be retained. Susan Richards. Jack Alvord. and Loren Westenberoer opposed a pending zoning change application for the Connolly property and requested the City take steps to safeguard the Bayview area from development. Bob Lannina and John Lee made recommendations related to the Fire Department's budget. Janie Youna. Nancy Beavers. Farrah Clements. and Willie Rickter related the benefits of the Jasmine court recreation center to area children and requested it not be closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Not Before 6:00 P.M. V Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6418-99 & #6419-99 - Annexation & LOR Zoning for property located at 1810 Brentwood Dr., Lake Lela Manor 1st Addition, Lot 9 (James & Racine Hall, A99-11) (PLD) ACTION: Approved. Ordinances passed 1st reading. ~~ Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6420-99 & #6421-99 - Annexation & LOR Zoning for D property located at 2250 & 2260 Nursery Rd., SWv. Pinellas Groves, part of Lot 11 (Larry & Gladys Hilkert, A99-10)(PLD) ACTION: Approved. Ordinances passed 1st reading. .15/99 1 . . 10. Public Hearing on City's 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan - Receive Public Input (PLD) ACTION: Received input. 11. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6423-99 - Vacating northerly 4' of southerly 10' drainage & utility easement, Countryside Tract 56, Unit 1, Lot 102 (Cruz / Lucas, V99-08HPW) ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. 12. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6424-99 - Vacating easterly 0.5' of 18' drainage & utility easement lying west of Lots 1 & 2, Map of Belleair, Blk 25 (Denker, V99-09HPW) ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. 13. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6425-99 - Vacating south 70' of Parkstream Avenue r-o-w lying west of Lot 19, Blk G and east of Lot 5, Blk H, Countrypark Sub. (City, V99-10HPW) ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. 14. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6426-99 - Vacating 20' r-o-w of Grove Street, lying east of Myrtle Avenue & west of North Prospect Avenue, subject to retaining the full 20' as a drainage & utility easement (Arnold, V99-06) (PW) ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances . ... . 15. Ord. #6380-99 - Relating to dishonored checks, drafts and money orders, amending Sec. 2.528 to impose a service fee not to exceed service fees authorized under Florida Statute 166.251 or . 5% of face amount of check, draft or money order, whichever is greater, for collection of a dishonored check, draft, or other order for payment of money to a municipal official or agency ACTION: Ordinance adopted. Ord. #6413-99 - Annexation for property located at 2684 3rd Ave., N., , Chautauqua Section A, Unit 1, Blk 47, Lot 10 (Jennifer Elin Cole, A99-09) ACTION: Ordinance adopted. Ord. #6414-99 - LOR Zoning for property located at 2684 3rd Ave., N., , Chautauqua Section A, Unit 1, Blk 47, Lot 10 (Jennifer Elin Cole, A99-09) ACTION: Ordinance adopted. 18. Ord. #6415-99 - Amending Operating Budget for Fiscal Year ending 9/30/99 ACTION: Ordinance adopted. 19. Ord. #6416-99 - Amending Capital Improvement Program Report and Budget for Fiscal Year ending 9/30/99 ACTION: Ordinance adopted. 7/15/99 2 . . . CITY MANAGER REPORTS . CONSENT AGENDA (Items #20-28) - Approved as submitted. . _/15/99 20. Approval of Purchases & Declaration of Surplus per 6/22/99 memorandum: Fountain Motor Company, d/b/a King Truck Center, one 1999 GMC Model C7H042 chassis with National Crane Model 228 crane, $80,800; funding to be provided under City's Master Lease- Purchase Agreement (GSS) Anacom Inc., precision solar control signal lamps for installation on Gulf to Bay Blvd., est. $45,000 (PW) Florida Green Resources, cypress wood chips to be used in parks and recreation facilities throughout City, 8/1/99-7/31/2000, est. $50,000 (QOL) Penny's School of Dance, Baton and Gymnastics, Inc., dance, baton & gymnastic instruction at Morningside & Countryside Recreation Centers, 7/16/99-9/30/2000, est. $30,000 (QOL) Oakhurst Construction, labor & materials for construction of restroom / shelter building at Eddie C. Moore West Complex, $188,099.56 (QOL) Florida Power, rental, maintenance & power for 25 street lights & poles to be used at Cherry Harris Park, 8/1/99-9/30/2005, est. $50,000 (QOL) Armstrong Environmental Services, pond maintenance including nuisance & exotic vegetation control service for all City lakes, ponds & channels, 7/16/99-9/30/2002, est. $90,000 (PW) EK Phelps and Company, new pumps & repair service for existing pumps used throughout City at all lift stations, 7/16/99-12/31/2000, est. $145,000 (PW) Tampa Armature Works, Inc., pump & motor repair for PW/Waste Water, 7/16/99-12/31/2000, est. $50,000 (PW) Thompson Goodis and Thompson, continued legal services in previously approved litigation, 7/16/99-9/30/99, est. $30,000 (CA) Declare surplus to City needs and authorize disposal through trade-in or transfer to Solid Waste the following: Trade Design Jet 650C, Model HP 1055CM Plotter (trade-in)(PW) and Unisys A4F mainframe, MD8-4 external disk, and PE tape drives & misc. supporting equipment (transfer)(GSS) Authorization to settle workers' compensation indemnity claim of Samuel McBride for $200,827 (FN) Joint Project Agreement with Pinellas County to install natural gas mains during County improvement project Dansville Redevelopment Area, Phase I, at no cost to City (GAS) Contract to Shamrock Building Services, for custodial services, 8/1/99-7/31/2000, $122,809.68 (GS) Lease Agreement with Clearwater Housing Authority, 2931 Sandlewood Dr. (Jasmine Court Substation), 8/1/99-7/31/2000 (PO) Lease renewal, Sgt. Allen Moore Community Partnership, Inc., 1996 Ford Econoline, 15 passenger Club Wagon, 1 year commencing 9/20/99, renewable for up to an additional year, at annual lease payment of $1 for each period (PO) Approve recommendations for Special Events Grants Funding Program, granting a total of $50,000 to ten Clearwater non-profit organizations for new special events or enhancements to existing special events (TR) 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 3 . . . 27. Approve release of funds to Miles Media Group for purchase of advertising in the year 2000 Visit Florida Vacation Planner and the St. Petersburg 1 Clearwater Area Visitor Guide, in an amount not to exceed $35,000 (TR) 28. Water main easement for installation & maintenance of fire protection water line and consent to easement and subordination of interest, Sec. 20-29-16, part of Government Lot 3 (Robert G. Daniel, fee owner of property leased to Crown Acura of Clearwater)(CA) OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT 29. Update regarding Beach Entryway (Roundabout) Project (CM) ACTION: Update given. 30. Set TRIM Millage Rate - Adopt tentative millage rate of 5.7158 mills for Fiscal Year 1999-00 and set Public Hearings on the Budget for 9/14/99 & 9/28/99 to be held no earlier than 6:00 p.m. (BU) ACTION: Adopted tentative rate of 5.6158 mills; public hearings set. 31. Joint Project Agreement with FDOT, street lighting at US 19N/Drew Street interchange; Res. #99-30 - authorizing execution of agreement (PW) ACTION: Approved. Resolution adopted. 32. Approve amendments to Code related to establishing an Industrial Pretreatment Program; First Reading Ord. #6393-99 - relating to wastewater collection, repealing Div. 2, Discharge Restrictions, Sees. 32.211-32.224 and creating new Div. 2, Sees. 32.211-32.225, Pretreatment and Discharge Restrictions; and approve interlocal agreement with Safety Harbor (PW) ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. Approved agreement. . 33. Contract to Tampa Bay Engineering for Sanitary Sewer System Evaluation & Self Audit, Phase II, $1,996,253 (PW) ACTION: Approved. ~ Establish City's position regarding proposed Special Act on Annexation to exempt cities with V defined planning areas from the PPC's review or proposed annexation; provide authority to staff to represent City's position to the PPC and Board of County Commissioners (PLD) ACTION: City's opposition to Special Act as currently written to be conveyed. 35. Provide direction re Sister City funding request ACTION: Denied. 7/15/99 4 . · 36. . . e . First Reading Ord. #6435-99 - Appointing a board of commissioners to the Enterprise Zone Development Agency (ClK) ACTION: Ordinance passed 1st reading. Appointed EZOA Board of Commissioners 1) John Connolly/Chair - business operating within area category - 4-year term; 2) Bob Kinney/Vice-Chair _ local chamber of commerce category - 4-year term; 3) Ralph Linn - resident residing within area category - 4-year term; 4) Steve Bell - non-profit community based organization operating within area category - 4-year term; 5) Rev. Mack Sigmon - non-profit community based organization operating within area category - 3-year term; 6) Cheryl Wade - local financial or insurance entities category - 3-year term; 7) Donald Rutledge - local Private industry Council category - 2-year term; 8) Lt. Don Hall - City of Clearwater Police Department category - 2-year term; and 9) Rick Rosa _ City of Clearwater Community Response Team category - 1-year term. 37. Appointment to Long Center Board of Directors (ClK) ACTION: Appointed Scott Tyler for term 10/1/99 to 9/30/2002. 38. Other Pending Matters - None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS 39. Res. #99-34 - Assessing property owners the costs of having mowed or cleared owners' lots ACTION: Approved. Resolution adopted. 40. First Reading Ord. #6427-99 - Relating to money purchase pension plan; amending Sec. 2.510.2 of code and amending Sec. 8.9 of plan document to provide for withdrawal from employee contribution account ACTION: Approved. Ordinance passed 1st reading. 41. Other City Attorney Items - None. 42. City Manager Verbal Reports - None. 43. Other Commission Action Hooper expressed concern the Federal Religious Liberty Protection Act legislation would erode City rights. Hooper offered to lead a committee to address Fire Department needs. Commissioners to submit names and determine committee membership and a sunset date on 8/5/99. Hooper expressed concern regarding contracting for services and recommended an ordinance be drafted requiring City Commission approval of contracted services. It was suggested a policy addressing this issue be developed instead. The majority requested the City Attorney draft a policy requiring notification regarding contracted services. AunQst reported a women's health forum will be held at the Harborview Center on 7/23/99. 44. Adjournment - 9:26 p.m. .1 5/99 5 . . . . . and Criteria in Pinellas County, Florida," hereinafter referred to as "this Act." Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to establish a unifonn, equitable, and integrated procedure with clearly defined criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation of property by an incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida Section 3. Authority. This Act is promulgated pursuant to the Home Rule powers of Pine lias County, Florida and s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to authorize placement of a ballot question before the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas County Charter, pursuant to the provisions for amendment thereof, that would enable Pinellas County to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation by each respective municipality and establish the exclusive procedures and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation. Section 4. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following tenns and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless some other meaning is plainly indicated: (1) "Annexation" means the adding ofreal property to the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, such addition making such real property in every way a part of the municipality. (2) "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of Pine lias County, Florida. (3) "CP A" means the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. (4) "Compact" means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in Pinellas County shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the 2 . . . . . area will be reasonably compact. (5) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a publicly owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically. However, nothing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity; and when any provision or provisions of special law or laws prohibit the annexation of territory that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of water or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this Act. (6) "Council" means the Pinellas Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida (1988). (7) "County" means Pinellas County, Florida. (8) "Enclave" means: (a) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality; or (b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of 3 . . . . . vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the municipality. (9) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s.2 or s.6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution. (10) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning property that is proposed for annexation to a municipality or property that is or may become contiguous to the annexing municipality upon completion of a proposed annexation, or any governmental unit having jurisdiction over either such area. (11) "Urban Services" means any services offered by a municipality, either directly or by contract, to any of its present residents. Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexation. The geographic area eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality shall be determined and delineated in both map form and by legal description. Said determination shall be made consistent with the purpose and provision for establishment of planning areas as provided for under s 163.3171 and shall be established by ordinance by the Board, based upon the recommendation ofthe Council. Any deviation from the Council recommendation shall be approved by the Board by a majority vote plus one. Section 6. Petition for Voluntary Annexation. (1) The owner or owners of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area of ~;!':f the County may petition the governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality if the subject property meets the following requirements: (a) the property is located within the previously defined area eligible for annexation to the annexing municipality; (b) the property is contiguous to the annexing municipality and reasonably compact; 4 . . . .. . (c) annexation of the property by the annexing municipality will not create an enclave. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation pursuant to a previously executed, valid agreement, the annexing municipality shall noti the ouncil of said proposed annexation and forward the petition for annexation and a legal description of the subject property. Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by Council; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a petition for a proposed annexation to said municipality and a legal description of the subject property, the Council shall review said proposed annexation for compliance with the following criteria: (a) whether the subject property complies with the criteria set forth in Section 6(1); (b) whether the legal description provided is accurate and does not conflict with previously established municipal boundaries; and (c) whether the annexing municipality has the ability to provide necessary urban services in a timely and cost-effective manner. The review provided for under this subsection is specifically intended to replace the review for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or more now conducted independently by the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida. (2) Upon completion of its review, the Council shall transmit a determination of either compliance or non-compliance to the annexing municipality. A municipality that receives a determination of compliance may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A municipality that receives a determination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation. (3) Any party affected by the proposed annexation and who is aggrieved by the final determination of the Council shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for 5 . . . . . Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. (4) The Council shall have the authority to develop rules and standards that will implement the review process described in this section. Such rules and standards may allow the Council to delegate review authority to its sta~f. Section 8. Municipal Annexation Procedure; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt of a determination of compliance from the Council pursuant to Section 7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular meeting, adopt a non-emergency ordinance to annex the property that is the subject of the determination of compliance and redefine the boundary lines of the municipality to include said property. Said ordinance shall be passed after notice of the annexation has been published at least once each week for 2 consecutive weeks in some newspaper in such city or town or, if no newspaper is published in said city or town, then in a newspaper published in the same county. The notice shall give the ordinance number and a brief, general description of the area proposed to be annexed. The notice shall give the ordinance number and a brief, general description of the area proposed to be annexed. The description shall include a map clearly showing the area and a statement that the complete legal description and the ordinance can be obtained from the office of the city clerk. :,,-:,' (2) An ordinance adopted under this section shall be filed with the clerk ofthe circuit court and the chief administrative officer of the county in which the municipality is located and with the , ~"<" Department of State within 7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include a map which clearly shows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area. (3) Any party affected by the annexation and who believes that he or she will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of the municipal governing body to comply with the procedures set forth in this section for annexation shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit 6 . . . . . Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Section 9. Effect of Annexation. An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedure set forth in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and regulations in force in that municipality and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of that municipality upon the effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexation that does not comply with the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and void and the property shall continue to be considered unincorporated for both tax and regulatory purposes. Section 10. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services. The County and each municipality shall have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements to provide services as an alternative to annexation. Such agreements are encouraged where they would provide a cost-effective, mutually advantageous alternative to annexation or where annexation is not achievable under the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. Section 11. State Plan Amendment Review Process. Any area voluntarily annexed'to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be deemed to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F .S. Upon adoption of an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the City's comprehensive plan to any such area ifthe City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity of use or density which is equal to or less than the Countywide future land use plan for said area, as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions of this section shall 7 . . . . . supersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the County and selected communities pursuant to the authority of s 163.3171(3), which provide for joint planning areas. Section 12. Article II, Sec. 2.04 of the Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: (t) All powers necessary to designate the geographic areas of the county that will be eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality. In the event of a contlict between a county ordinance adopted pursuant to the county's authority to designate areas eligible for annexation as provided by special law and a municipal ordinance, the county ordinance shall prevail over the municipal ordinance. Section 13. Article II, Sec. 2.07 ofthe Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: Nothing in this Charter shall prevent a municipality from annexing an unincorporated area into its municipal boundaries in accordance with the provisions of general law, except that all voluntary annexations shall be in accordance with the exclusive procedures set forth by special law. Section 14. Effective Date; Referendum Question. This act, except for this section which shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take effect only upon approval by a majority vote of the electors of Pinellas County voting in a special referendum election whiqh spall be called and held by the county commission prior to November 30, 2000. The questio),1 on the ballot shall be: BALLOT TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ENABLES COUNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION. 8 . . . . . BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Secs. 2.04 and 2.07 ofthe Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County and enable the county to designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation to each respective municipality, as specifically enumerated by this special law? [] YES FOR APPROVAL [] NO FOR REJECTION Section 15. Severability. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared severable. [: I USERS! WPDOCSlDPH.\ANNEX199IANNEXACT Drafted 12/17/98 9 . . . . . An act relating to Pine lIas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for designation of areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations and appeals therefrom; providing a municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban services; providing for state plan amendment review process; providing for amendment to the PinelIas County Charter; providing an effective date and referendum question; providing for severability. WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated County in the State of Florida, with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds of the total County area; and WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the incorporated municipalities is an on- gomg significant occurrence that has important growth management and service delivery implications to the unincorporated County, the incorporated municipalities and the citizenry; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Pinellas County to implement a more rational, uniform and clear method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and unpredictability of the current voluntary annexation process; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and balanced system of govemans~ in Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this act constitute the exclusive means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas County . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures . . . . . Based upon the above conclusion that any supplement to the annexation procedures set forth in Chapter 171 must be accomplished via general or special law, I recommend the Council consider either (1) pursue an amendment to its Special Act, granting the Council expanded authority to review annexations, or (2) explore the option of legislative enactment of a new general law of local application, setting forth expanded p~ocedures for annexations in Pinellas County, specifically conferring authority to review said annexations upon the Council. . . . TO: Dave Healey, Director Pinellas Planning Council FROM: Jewel White Co~"C Assistant County orney RE: Annexation Procedures ' DATE: July 7, 1998 In conjunction with the Council's desire to explore alternatives for establishing an integrated approach to annexation, I have reviewed the legality of the alternatives you have outlined, paying particular attention to alternative number three, which would establish a more comprehensive review process under the auspices of the Countywide Plan. It is my opinion that the proper approach to implementing alternative number three would be to either amend the Special Act that created the Council in order to specifically grant it the authority to review all annexations in Pinellas County for consistency with Chapter 171 or to enact a new general law of local application setting forth specific review procedures to be followed for all annexations within Pinellas County. . As you know, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedures that municipalities must follow in order to annex unincorporated territory. The Legislature states as its intent in enacting Chapter 171, to "provide viable and usable general law standards and procedures for adjusting the boundaries of municipalities in this state." It further made clear its intent that those procedures be unifonn throughout the state. Fla Stat. ~171.021(2). The Legislature did, however, provide an exception to this propensity toward unifonnity in ~ 171.044, which sets forth procedures for voluntary annexations. Subsection (4) states that "the method of annexation provided by this section shall be supplemental to any other procedure provided by general or special low. " Thus, while the Legislature did contemplate an modified process for annexing land, it specifically stated that any such modification be by general or special law. The Special Act conferred the power to review annexations upon the Council in. ~5(12). However, that power is limited to reviewing annexations equal to or greater than 10 acres in si.U and is further limited to making a recommendation to the affected municipality of the ability of that municipality to provide municipal services to the territory proposed to be annexed. It has long been held by Florida courts that when controlling law directs how a thing is to be done, that is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done any other way. Alsop v. Pierce. 19 So.2d 799 (Fla 1944). This basic legal tenet, coupled with the specific grant of authority to the Council to review annexations in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Special Act, would likely provide a convincing legal argument against any attempt by the Council, or the Countywide Planning Authority, to supplement those review procedures via countywide ordinance. This is especially true given the courts' tendency to strictly construe the requirements of Chapter 171. See Town of Ma~onia Park v. Homan, 118 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). . . . . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that alternative number 3 be pursued as the only course of action that has the potential to provide a comprehensive, fair and efficient means of dealing with annexation issues that are fundamental to an enlightened growth management process. It was my initial thought that this could be undertaken as a component of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan by the Council and Countywide Planning Authority under the auspices of our special countywide planning act (Chp. 88-464, Laws of Florida). Upon review by Legal Counsel, it appears that it is not that simple. Please see the attached memorandum from Assistant County Attorney Jewel White Cole. Legal Counsel has suggested that if it is the desire of the Counsel to pursue alternative three, that special legislation be developed to either amend the special countywide planning act or enact a separate special act applying to Pinellas County to provide specific authority for such annexation review. I concur with Jewel's analysis and would suggest that of the two options, the separate special act w~uld be more direct and involve fewer potential complications with respect to the special countywide planning act. . I recommend we invite the Board of County Commissioners to review these materials and if they concur in the recommended approach, that we agree to work jointly in the preparation of the requisite special legislation for the 1999 legislation session. " I:VJSDS\WJ'OOCS\DPHV.NNlUNTV .AN)( . 7 . . . g. An integrated procedure that provides for: (1) advance notice to interested parties; (2) administrative approval on an expedited time- frame for all annexations that meet the basic requirements and; (3) review and recommendation by the PPC and final detennination by the CPA where the annexation is determined not in compliance at the administrative level. - This should minimize any delay in the normal annexation process; - It provides for all routine annexations to be processed administratively; - It ensures an appeal process, including an advisory recommendation and decision, by elected officials charged with the administration and enforcement of this process on a countywide basis. . The advantages of this alternative are that it would address all pertinent aspectS of the annexation process, would apply uniformly throughout the County and would encourage a more balanced and thoughtful approach to the provision of services. The disadvantages of this approach are that it would require municipalities to adhere to uniform procedures that they may not want to subscribe to and i~ will apparently require special legislation to enable. . 6 . . . b. Definitions and examples by which to determine compliance with the State law for contiguity, compactness, enclaves and procedures for annexation agreements/indentures. - This would provide more exact and consistent interpretation of the current State law. c. Pre-determined or administrative means to establish ability to serve. - This would eliminate any need to take amendments of 10 acres or more to the PPC for this particular component of the review process. d. Enabling provisions for the County to enter into agreements with the municipalities to provide selected services to unincorporated properties within designated areas. - This would provide an alternative to annexation, while allowing the County and municipality to agree to provide requisite or desirable services in the most efficient manner. . . e. The delineation of areas eligible to be annexed by each jurisdiction. - This would establish those areas that would be eligible to be annexed by a particular jurisdiction; - This could address the planning objectives of the designated jurisdiction for its planning area; - It would provide predictability for both the citizen and service providers. f. A requirement for consistency with the Countywide FLUP ana, on that basis, waiver of the requirement for plan amendment pursuant to Chapter 163.3171(3), F.S. - This would accomplish the same thing as, and eliminate the need for, the existing InterlocaI Agreements with selected communities. - It would eliminate the rorrent issue with respect to the requirement for consistency as contained in the InterlocaI Agreements. . 5 . . . . . c. Review by PPC for "ability to serve" only. - Review for ability to serve is largely unrelated to real issues being witnessed with annexation; - No substantive authority even if issues are noted. d; lnterlocal Agreements between County and selected cues to preclude need for processing plan amendment with the State. - No advance notice provisions; - Outdated with respect to land use plan consistency; - Do not all define a singular planning area; and - Do not require the cities to have established overall planning intent for areas to be annexed. The advantage of the current system is that it leaves annexation largely to the discretion of the individual cities without any oversight or meaningful requirements for coordination. The disadvantage is that the current process leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of a countywide perspective or any degree of predictability, with review being largely piecemeal, uncoordinated and incomplete. 2. Modify Components of Existing System - A second option is to rework and supplement individual procedures now in place. Modifications could be made to the individual parts of the existing system that could, for example: a. Seek clarification and agreement on State law re: contiguity, compactness, enclaves, and prerequisites for voluntary annexation. - Seeking an Attorney General opinion on specific current cases may or may not be achievable in the first place, or helpful beyond the particular case ( s) in question in the long run; - Voluntary agreement in some formal fashion, with all local governments; if it could be achieved, could make the process more uniform. 3 . . . b.. Modify the County's current Interlocal Agreements to address notice provisions and defined planning areas. _ Would apply only to the cities who have interlocal agreements (four plus the tri-cities at present). _ Could address issues related to advance notice and require defined planning areas, as well as planning objectives; _ Only incentive for the cities to agree is to avoid State review of plan amendment at annexation, which is likely not sufficient to produce meaningful modification of Interlocal Agreements. c. Expand PPC review for "ability to serve" to ensure compliance with State law. . _ No specific' authority or ability to achieve compliance; _ Would track with new enclave legislation which is not effective until Jilly, 1999, with respect to enclaves only; ~ At present, would only apply to annexations of 10 acres or more; _ Fails to address other issues such as notice, legal descriptions, and plan consistency. . This approach would have the advantage of modifying existing procedures and seeking voluntary agreements to help address some of the most obvious problems. The deficiency with this approach is that it doesn't address all the jurisdictions or all the annexations and leaves the process fragmented as to responsibility and without authority to require compliance. 3. Establish Comprehensive Countywide System -A third option is to explore a more complete and integrated approach that would establish a single process that could include the following: a. A means for the Property Appraiser's Office (FAO) to review and validate the legal descriptions for all annexations. _ This could be done automatically and correct technical problems before they occur by bringing the P AO into the review loop. . 4 . aJ~ ~ ~6. ~ ~. ~8. {)JJIJWif jJJr?~ .At TERNATIVES . . 5. Contracts for Service - Provision to enable Pinellas County to enter into an agreement with a municipality to provide selected services to designated unincorporated properties; ~ Predictability - A means of delineating what areas are eligible for, or may in the future be subject to, annexation by specified jurisdictions; 7. Consistency - A means to insure that areas to be annexed are, or will be made to be, consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan; and Exemption From State Plan Amendment Review Process - A procedure, consistent with the purpose of the current Interlocal Agreements and pursuant to Chapter 163.3171(3), F.S., for allowing cities to annex designated areas without having to go through the land use plan amendment review process otherwise required by the State. . The alternatives available to the Council and the Board of County Commissioners appear to be several, including the following three major options: .. 1. Maintain Existing System - One option is obviously to simply continue the current annexation procedures, which include several unrelated and incomplete provisions as follows: a. Voluntary annexations initiated by property owner with municipal jurisdictions. _ No requirement for notice to county or adjoining jurisdictions; _ No particular relationship to planning or service area parameters. b. Annexation agreements or "indentures" in return for providing selected services. _ Inconsistent requirements relative to requiring annexation; _ Varied procedures for consummating agreements; _ No requirements for notice to county or adjoining jurisdictions. 2 . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ., TO: FROM: SUBJECf: DATE: ISSUES MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS Commissioner Karen Brayboy. Ctvn. . CouncIImember Robert Kersteen, Vice Chm. Councilmember Chudc. Williams, Treas. Mayor Tom De Cesare, See. Mayor David Coyner School Board Member Barbara J. Crockett Commissioner Jean HaIYorsen CommIssIoner Janet Henderson Commissioner Ed Hooper Mayor George tot Jirotka CommIssIoner Nadine S. Nickeson Commissioner Robert B. Stewart Councilmember Babe Wright Members, Pinellas Planning Council Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chairman David P. Healey, Executive Director ::JI5i. Outline of Alternative Approaches to Annexation David P. Healey. A1CP Executive Director July 15, 1998 In order to identify' and assess alternative means of addressing several interrelated . annexation and service area issues, I have first listed several of the common issues or problems that should be addressed in any comprehensive approach to annexation. These issues include: ~f1 ~ctfl1 I N'fi' An d . f tifi. . d ~1 t:flJ:f1 " . . Oti cation - a vance, systematic means 0 no cation to mtereste 'iMJdt{;fR. _ parties; - including the annexing municipality, property owner, adjoining IIr -V - municipalities and Pinellas County; C1~~~ (}1'M~fJj Jv ~/O (loW ()h~.t4. . (fA pIng . am1rr? 2. Accurate Legal Description - A means of verifying and correcting incomplete, inaccurate or overlapping legal descriptions; ,: 3. Compliance w/State Law - The ability to define and verify compliance with state requirements for contiguity, compactness and absence of enclaves, as well procedures for consummating annexation agreements or indentures consistent with voluntary annexation procedures; Ability to Serve - A procedure that is consistent with and includes the current requirements of the countywide planning act relative to annexations often (10) acres or more; 14 SO. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 3010 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 FAX (727) 464-3827 o . . . . . . Question whether Board of County Commissioners can objectively set limits of area eligible to be annexed. . Should recognize annexation agreements. . Appeal process needs to provide time limit and perhaps provide for neutral third party, e.g. TBRPC Dispute Resolution Process. . The provision for interlocal agreement to provide services mav be counter productive to annexation. . It will delay the annexation process and create additional bureaucracy. I LSERS,\\'PDOCS DPH A)'o;:-<EX99 A TTCHO:-<E 2 . . . Attachment I . Many cities do not have a problem with annexation and do not want to be burdened with additional procedures. . The problems that do exist result from failure to comply with existing state law and from property owners being coerced to annex against their will. . It should be the property owners right to annex into the city of their choice. . A comprehensive approach to annexation is a worthwhile objective. This is a step in the right direction. ~ Area eligible to be annexed should be delineated before legislation is adopted. . If areas eligible to be annexed are established, it should not be required that future annexations be contiguous or that enclaves be prohibited. . . The areas eligible to be annexed must be defined so as to be clear who will provide service and on what basis, both within and outside the defined areas eligible to be annexed. Once this is done, ability to serve should be a moot point. . Concern with authority of PPC to determine if annexation is in compliance and lack of definitive standards or procedures for this review in advance of authority to do so. . Process for appeal from a decision of the Council is directly to court. Two distinct suggestions (1) provide for appeal to the Board of County Commissioners or (2) place burden of appeal with the Planning Council. . Overall process doesn't provide sufficient incentive to encourage annexation. . While the draft bill needs extensive revision, the delineation of annexation and service boundaries is needed. . Needs to affirm the valid, positive purpose associated with annexation. . Definitions need to be revised, including definition of affected parties. . 1 SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation Legislation - Follow-Up Discussion BACKGROUND (continued) The conclusion and direction of the Board of County Commissioners from the May 25th workshop may be fairly summarized as follows: · The matter is sufficiently important to warrant pursuing, whether through the proposed legislation or other means; · There remain a number of issues and details with the draft legislation that need to be clarified and refined; · Request that the Planning Council provide an opportunity for additional input by the cities, preferably in July, and report back to the Commission in August; and · It will be essential to make a first attempt at delineating planning/service areas as part of the consideration of the draft legislation - and requested the County Administrator and Council to initiate work on this delineation. The specific action requested of the Council at this time is two-fold: · To establish a date and time to provide an opportunity for the cities and any other interested party to provide input on the draft legislation; and · To authorize staff to begin a preliminary evaluation and delineation of possible planning/service area boundaries in concert with the County Administrator. 2 PIILLAS PLANNING COUN AGENDA MEMORANDUM I AGENDA ITEM: IV B. I MEETING DATE: June 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation Legislation - Follow-Up Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Council Review Attached Materials, Establish a Date to Receive Additional Input, and Authorize Staff to Initiate Delineation of Annexation Areas BACKGROUND: The Council reviewed draft legislation designed to initiate the implementation of its recommended comprehensive approach to annexation at its April meeting. The Council forwarded the draft legislation to the Board of County Commissioners with a request for a joint workshop. The Board reviewed the information forwarded by the Council and held a special workshop on the draft legislation on May 25th. A number of Council members attended the May 25th Board workshop at which comments and suggestions were offered by individual city representatives and the public. The minutes of that meeting are not yet available from the Clerk's office, but will be distributed to the Council upon receipt. Attached is a newspaper article describing some of the discussion at the Board workshop. Attached are copies of correspondence with St. Petersburg, Pinellas Park, Largo and Safety Harbor on this issue (Please note that since copies were previously forwarded to the Council and are included here this correspondence has not been recopied under correspondence). At the risk of omitting or misinterpreting some of the ideas put forward, a summary of key observations from this correspondence is included as Attachment I for Councils information and discussion at the June meeting. I PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 1:IUSERSIWPDOCS\.\11SCITEMIREGITEMS\JUN99PP099ANNEX.LEG PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL . . AGENDA MEMORANDUM r I DATE: July 15, 1998 I IAGENDA ITEM: VI B. ~ I SUBJECT: Annexation Issues - Follow Up RECOMMENDATION: Council Review Attached Discussion Outline and Memorandum From Legal Counsel and Provide Direction As Detennined Appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Council discussed recent annexation issues at its June meeting and approved two letters - one to the City of Largo raising certain concerns with recent annexations by the City, and one to the Board of County Commissioners expressing the Council's interest and willingness in helping to find a solution to the issues which have been raised with respect to annexation. The Council specifically asked that this matter be put on the July agenda to pursue discussion on the avenues that might be available to address the several issues which have been identified. Attached is a discussion outline of alternative approaches to annexation which describes the issues, examines alternative approaches and suggests a recommended approach. Also attached following the discussion outline is a memorandum from Legal Counsel reviewing the legal parameters of the recommended course of action. In brief, it is reoommended the Council recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Council and Board work together to develop a more comprehensive and integrated approach to annexation review and that the preferred vehicle by which to establish the legal authority to do so be in the form of a local bill applicable to Pinellas County and approved by the State Legislature. PINELIAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council received and discussed the information as presented. The Council approved pursuit of Alt. 3, subject to the concurrence and support of the Board of County Commissioners. (Vote 13-0) COUNTYWIDE PlANNING AUTHORIlY ACTION: . 1:\USERS\WPDOCS\MlSCIlEM\REGJTEMS\JUL9IPI'C\ANNEX. WPD Page I . Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum . Worksession Item it: Final Agenda Item it PL-- b ~ Meeti ng Date: July IS, 1999 . SUBJECT/RECOMMENDA TION: Establish the City of Clearwater's position requesting a provision, exempting cities with defined planning areas from the Pinellas Planning Council's review of proposed annexations, be included in the proposed Special Act on Annexation and authorize staff to represent the City's position to the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners. CJ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: In July 1998, the Pinellas Planning Council prepared an issue paper identifying problems with the current system of annexation. Primarily, these concerns are the lack of a comprehensive approach, lack of predictable municipal borders for property owners, little evaluation of ability of annexing jurisdiction to provide utilities and the lack of notification to adjoining municipalities and Pinellas County. The Council evaluated several alternatives to resolve the concerns and determined that the best solution is a Special Act to establish a comprehensive system of annexation for the entire county (See attached July 15, 1998 memorandum from David Healey to the Pinellas Planning Council). On May 25, 1999J the Board of County Commissioners met to discuss the proposal and requested that each municipality review the proposal and provide the Board with their official position. In addition, the Pinellas Planning Council has scheduled a public hearing for July 21,1999 to discuss the issues. Currently, annexations of property greater than ten acres require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council. The proposed Special Act would require that all annexations, regardless of size, be reviewed by the Council for consistency with state law on annexation, correctness of the legal description, consistency with the Countywide land use plan and the ability of the annexing municipality to serve the property with urban services. The proposed Special Act further states that a geographic ."rea for each city will be established which comprises the future area eligible to be annexed by that city. . A city must. refrain n annexing outside of this future area and also must not annex properties that th~_Counci,1 pet~rmines to b~ inc<?nsistent with the Special Act. -:!!,#.i;;Ih~ -7h ~f7~:?izMh -/~ptJ)J~~' t#I~~,P,~ The Planning Department has reviewed this Special Act as it relates to the City's annexation policies and provides the ~ /10/ following analysis. First, the City of Clearwater is one of only four municipalities in the county who have a defined planning IWi:/ area. This planning area is constrained by the Dunedin city limits on the north, the Largo city limits on the south, and Tampa I Bay and the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay on the east and west respectively. Over the long range planning horizon, the City has the ability to serve (and currently does provide some urban services) for all property located within this planning area. The City's planning area currently implements the goals of the proposed Special Act; therefore, the proposed legislation will add an additional layer of review to the City's current process. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Planning &. Costs: Not Applicable Devlpmt. Svcs. Admin. Legal 1Jd- Info Srvc NI ~ Total ~ Budget N/A Public Works User DePt.:~g Funding Source: Purchas- N/A DCM/ACM Current FY CI ing Risk N/A Other Attachments OP Mgmt Draft Special Act July 15, 1998 Memorandum by David Healey to PPC Othe Submitted by: o None City Manager A ro riation Code: . . As an alternative, it is suggested that cities with a defined planning area be exempt from annexation review as proposed by the Special Act. The incentive that this alternative creates would allow the City's current process to continue as well as . encouraging a comprehensive annexation program in other cities of the County. There is one aspect of the Special Act which deserves support: the provision that allows the creation of enclaves as cities pursue annexation within their planning areas. This provision recognizes that enclaves may be created as a short-term byproduct of an active long-range annexation program and this exemption will assist in pursuing voluntary annexation. . . " . . t>>/I ,~~ 11d<J1] ~ VY}1[ ~ (J/J tJ)M UJ7fJ U.. o~ /.fMt;~ 0/1butP1 ~ i YI C/A'Yh tU? ~ ~ ~ l"fJ01awJ WI I VI P) lJ 0Vl/0-- VYJap7-f ruUo pn/~ ad! .10 ~ ,I> Md. arf11d ~ -1'n(r kJ If ~ ~ '-' v V ~ IJN7@h tJdth,40 ~ b2'#~ ~~,0! lJJI7JzC6 . ~ #/J/~ QJ:JtI~Z?(5U 1JJ:p.e I, Ill- /}J ;:;/4' #ci/ ~}/. C;f'?~ (/)7# ~~~ :izJ ~j;)td ?J?e ~~ ? ~~C/~~~&J'ffJe, -~4/~ ~ .tJlM~.~M~aPh ~~k ~/~~~ &:t~ ~ ~i2-.j:?J jr$2A:L Iok~ IJt ~~ . . f;U-- ~ Jk;n11;m/t?-~~~ JJ.hf;uM,~ 1:7 'Pq!c:>>t/~ f1/lJ11b ~~ /b Lr3'Jo~ ~/hJlJtA;1-.dAI~ /!Z ~ /J?ftvj7/f~~/7~ ~m~~~itdd& ~~~ .~ ~ ? #71~ -/ 9J~?I~ -V?~ ~~MJ1~g;/dt!5 .:...>- ~~ (ltJ?J~uJ~ ~$- pIlJl_ Ct;J;Jm9>>~'-~~ fl~? . uk/~4~~/JlM~/:Jab MUt #JfW;~ ~ &/n4II ttN:' calf );Jw~~ 1r:: ~-: m/l)/g ~~p-~/ftf d2M- /Y' N/- ;5J~-/Zo~~ -Yd4?P~ . /~ M W'PuM~?1r~~ /VbdK/~ 1JI~ - ~ ~/r~~~pv/~/;S. - . . ~&>>J/7?~ ~dd- uk ffld~ l/JatnhtU- f7)J&/~ /~ /~~~~??iJ/ /j /}1~ cJ J/)Jt-bV #J ;o~ ~ -J ~ ___ /;Jjlo. ~~ ~~yq- a~~ #~ tJUl~/ae- IlIAflIb --'~~~---(}oP0~~;;q , -~--o ~/~d~p~~~~ /;~~ 'Y CY"''''~V~ ~~@//~ /0 ~ /tM~~ --~ao~~~~~A:;? I ~ j1//4Jo ~ !JJ7d JwJ2L>>t /6Y t: ~/JIx!V~-+~h.e.~ ~ fffY ad ~ Wltl J?hf tUk1 ) ~~~#lvf ~ i0c.~/c) ~ uf;Jr P7i~ /;?~~ . tJj,/4J~ PU:J&~ /61,Yt2PyJt&T -g/jM/bY~/zAU ~~OJ/a. j!YfWd'~>~ C/if"?do. 1h~-~ >JJUJJ'!M'~ mc:y ~ a ;;:k7 bd' W~~L . . 12./.41 j7P{! -~b-h~ //J/tP-- Jrj;i/e!M-ad ~~/fwd/ Pe~~ ~ Ii: /1te fl;Ze~-'~/J'/1#<< ifWI./e/Jjt?I7f/'~ IUJ J~t%1f;MM:7' /iJY /h/PY ~/ ~qth-;it' &MC/Uh~ ,fJ)7f ~rf · Ot)j~~'2oji#J?~ P /'/{!~ ~ //1 ~hi?//~ . ~~P:/W~cd?CJ~~ ~ -' ~ /1;Jt;}Ja::W ~/<; ~Je uj?a):) t:uhj~ 1Uf~ I::f ~ tJ} tV?~;;- - ?J7l& J'UJ ?/~~a~~ /J 1j/)J{JfJ- .. )w()tia/~ CIj ~ ICY hL ~5 -:P/t"~ ~Jit ~/~ · ~- ~Jl PjG..1Jtr: ~ -. /~Iff 'tZ;:l~ 1:y;:p-llaifO ro'/,;{@. ~ /J1 ~m7jz, JYJi1 ~-b;,t}7j~0 /jJ1~/Ib ~ tlif ib /);!/o/tP/J/tVtr ffi ~~~ tJt>>!.t )JJ IPJJrX -- ffJ 101e~~& IUJ~~#~ /tt~~d . . PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL \ AGENDA ~ AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 9:00 A.M. WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1999 PINELLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 5TH FLOOR, BOARD ASSEMBLY ROOM 315 COURT STREET, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes ofJune 16, 1999 Meeting B. Financial Statement for June, 1999 iiO)~-(C~~~~ f\ :\\ n \i JIlI91l99lQ). IU 'l~' \' \ P~NNING & DEVELOPMENT \ SERViCES \ CITY OF C\ EARWATER ) I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE l,_.,~_, IV. REPORTS AND OTHER ACTION A. Annexation Report No. 99-4: City of Seminole B. Annexation Report No. 99-5: City of Largo C. Annexation Report No. 99-6: City of Largo D. Local Assistance - Quarterly Status Report E. Annual Plan Map Adjustments - Official Acceptance r'r-. nl~n l'.'{__ An-en-l--1--" nI-~-e~- St-..u- ne-o-" ne. C'''r~nml:-1.ng J...ldl IVldP l 1 Ull ClLl .I.. VL ;);) - al;) n. p IlJ.'\. . Jl La lUlU l V. PUBLIC HEARING - To begin at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as agenda permits A. Public Hearing Format Announcement and Oath B. Proposed Amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Group 1: Subthreshold Amendments 1. Case #CW 99-29(OA): Pinellas County 2, Case #CW 99-30(OA): Pinellas County 3. Case #CW 99-31 (OA): Pinellas County 4. Case #CW 99-34(OA): City of Indian Rocks Beach I :\USERS\ WPDOCS'Jo.\1 SCITEM\REGITEMS\AGENDA Page 1 . . Group 2: Regular Amendments 5. Case #CW 99- I: Pinellas County 6. Case #CW 99-32: Pinellas County 7. Case #CW 99-33: Pinellas County 8. Case #CW 99-35: City of St. Petersburg 9. Case #CW 99-36: City of Oldsmar C. Proposed Amendment to Countywide Plan Rules - Rehearing Re: Personal Service/Office Support Use VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ITEfvrS A. Strategic Plan Summary Report - Preliminary Draft B. Preliminary September Agenda C. Verbal Reports VII. OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS A.,' G:hairman/Member I terns I , B. Correspondence ~ SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING AT II :00 A.M., RE: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE C7 APPROACH TO ANNEXATION - DRAFT LEGISLATION IX. ADJOURNMENT Note: Dependent upon the length of the agenda, the Council may recess for approximately ten (10) minutes at 10:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as is convenient. "Persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at this meetinglhearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based." If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance. Within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Ste. 300, Clearwater, FL 33756. (813) 464-4062 (VITDD). I :IUSERSI WPDOCSIMI SCITEMIREGITEMS\AGENDA Page 2 . . Community Development Department Richard P. Goss, A.I.C.P., Director July 28, 1999 Administration (727) 587-6749 Licenses/Permits (727) 587-6712 Inspections (727) 587-6711 FAX (727) 587-6765 Ms. Cyndi Hardin PAC Representative City of Clearwater PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 34618-4748 RE: Draft Special Act on annexation DeElr Ms Hardil'1: As a member of the Planners Advisory Council for fifteen years, I do not recall ever writing each of you to discuss an issue and hopefully influence you to speak to your respective elected officials. The topic is the special draft legislation establishing distinct planning service areas. Since many communities have their own individual planning service areas, there is no reason why these areas could not be used as the established service areas alluded to in the draft special act. Assuming this could be done, many of the objections by individual municipalities to the special act could be addressed. As a result of the PPC meeting of July 21, 1999, an opportunity exists to have meaningful changes to annexation locally that represent the interests of cities, rather than solely those of unincorporated Pinellas County. To that end, let me offer the following key features to a Special Act that, in my best judgment, should be supported by the PPC and recommended to the CPA. First, any establishment of a distinct planning service area equates to recognition that the individual city can or will provide service upon demand. Consequently, there is no need for the extensive review procedures to ensure service provision as outlined in the Special Act. Second, once a planning service area is established, the creation of enclaves, the voluntary annexation of noncontiguous parcels, and the use of annexation agreements are actions that can be legitimately supported because the planning service areas are essentially urbanized. The requirement to annex only contiguous parcels within an established planning service area is to ensure a rational extension of urbanized services. Since the planning service areas can be fairly characterized as urban, the only reason for requiring contiguous annexation is to preserve the unique financial advantages that unincorporated areas currently possess at the expense of incorporated areas. Finally, by establishing planning service areas and permitting municipalities to annex noncontiguous parcels, it logically follows that contracting with Pinellas County to perform various city functions in incorporated areas advances the Cities' and County's interests. I hese interests vary. For the County, contracting for municipai service can occur without paying the full share of a service which includes the initial start-up costs, operating costs, and capital outlays. For cities, the interests are 1) providing coordinated services; 2) ensuring sustainable growth; 3) development outside the city proceeding according to sound principles of city land use planning; and 4) the concept that an exclusive planning area confirms current and proposed developments are already a functional part of the city from which urban services are, or will be, received. In my view, the Special Act should support sound growth management principles of which many are coterminous with municipal interest in annexation. I hope you see the importance and long term potential effects this Special Act has on the future of your City if annexation occurs in your city. Should you have questions regarding this correspondenc~..!.~9.LWsbJo-meot to fu, t11t:lrfl}'~sn:out!heSe important concepts for inclusion in the Special Act, I am of service. r. . '\ ~ rr ~ ~ VJ IE \ n\. ~t regards, ) _'0 Ii \ : ~lM~~ r JJ-' 0819 \ l:::' . Ri hard P. Goss, AICP , , --1 Dir ctor '-;--,. ~ -&DEVElOPMENT : Lh'>lNINl. - SFRVICES RPG/kmf CITY 0>= CLEAR\NAT~~_ ...---~- . . . If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof, to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Act are declared severable. l:\USERS\ WPDOCS\DPH\ANNEX\JJO\ANNEXdraft#4. wpd 11 , . . . agreements to provide services as an alternative to annexation. Such agreements are encouraged where they would provide a cost-effective, mutually-advantageous alternative to annexation, or where annexation is not achievable under the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. (2) Consistent with the intent and provisions of s 171.046(2), F.S., existing enclaves often (10) acres or less may be annexed into the appropriate municipal jurisdiction by interIocal agreement between the County and the appropriate municipality. Section 12. State Plan Amendment Review Process. Any area voluntarily annexed into a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act, or involuntarily annexed pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth in s 171.0413, shall be deemed to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F.S. Upon adoption of an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the municipality's comprehensive plan and land use standards to any such area if said comprehensive plan provides for intensity of use or density standards which are equal to or less than the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for said area, as determined by the Council, without first submitting a land use plan amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs. It is specifically intended that the provisions of this Section shall supersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the county and certain municipalities, pursuant to the authority of s 163.3171 (3), which provide for joint planning areas. Section 13. Article II, Section 2.04, of the Pinellas County Charter, as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: (t) All powers necessary to designate the geographic areas of the county that will be eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality. In the event of a conflict between a county 9 . . ordinance adopted pursuant to the county's authority to designate areas eligible for annexation as provided by special law and a municipaJ ordinance, the county ordinance shall prevail over the municipal ordinance. Section 14. Article II, Section 2;07, of the Pinellas County Charter, as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: Nothing in this Charter shall prevent a municipality from annexing an unincorporated area into its municipal boundaries in accordance with the provisions of general law, except that all voluntary annexations shall be in accordance with the exclusive procedures set forth by special law. Section 15. Effective Date; Referendum Question. This Act, except for this Section which shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take effect only upon approval by a majority vote of the electors of Pinellas County voting in a special referendum election which shall be called and held by the County Commission prior to November 30, 2001. The question on the ballot shall be: BALLOT TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY MUNICIP ALANNEXATION AND DESIGNATES THOSE AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION. BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Sections 2.04 and 2.07, of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide an exclusive method for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County, and designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation to each respective municipality, as specifically enumerated by this special law? [ ] YES FOR APPROVAL Section 16. Severability. [ ] NO FOR REJECTION 10 . . (a) A petition requesting review shall be filed with the Council within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the notice provided by the annexing municipality under Section 6(2). Upon receipt of said petition, the Council shall notify the annexing municipality and forward a copy of the petition to said municipality. (b) The petition shall set forth the specific objections and manner in which the proposed annexation is inconsistent with the criteria and procedure set forth in this Act. (c) Upon receipt of a valid petition for review, the Council shall consider the petition at its next regularly-scheduled meeting and forward a recommendation to the CPA. The CPA shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Council's recommendation, render a decision as to whether the application is consistent with the required criteria and shall notify the annexing municipality of said determination. (2) The filing of a valid petition for review under this section. or the initiation of a full review by the Council under Section 7. shall prohibit the annexing municipality from proceeding with the second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance until after a decision has been rendered by the CPA. Section 9. Municipal Annexation Procedure; Appeals. (1) Upon receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation that comports with the criteria set forth in Section 6(1), a municipality may, at any regular meeting, adopt a non-emergency ordinance to annex the property that is proposed for annexation and re-define the boundary lines of the municipality to include said property. Said ordinance shall be passed consistent with the procedures for adoption of ordinances provided in s 166.041, F.S. The notice required by s 166.041, F.S., and Section 6(2) herein shall give the ordinance number and a brief general description of the area 7 . . proposed to be annexed. The description shall include a map clearly showing the area and a statement that the complete legal description and the ordinance can be obtained from the office of the municipal clerk. (2) An ordinance adopted under this Section shall be filed with the Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Pinellas County Administrator and with the Department of State within seven (7) days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include a map which clearly shows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area. (3) Any party affected by the annexation, the Council, or the CPA, shall have the right to file a petition in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking review by certiorari. Said petition must be filed within thirty (30) days of adoption of the annexation ordinance by the annexing . municipality. An appeal filed by either the Council or CPA shall be subject to the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Section 10. Effect of Annexation. An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality, pursuant to the criteria and procedure set forth in this Act, shall be subject to all laws, ordinances, and regulations in force in that municipality, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of that municipality upon the effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexation that does not comply with the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and void, and the property shall continue to be considered unincorporated for both tax and regulatory purposes. Section 11. Interlocal Agreements for Urban Services and Annexation. (1) The County and each municipality shall have the authority to enter into interlocal 8 e . lies outside that municipality's geographic area eligible for annexation. said petition shall be reviewed in accordance with subsection (2) above. in addition to the regular criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. @ The Council shall periodically review the geographic areas eligible for annexation to each respective municipality. The first review shall take place no longer than five (5) years after final adoption of this Act. Each subsequent review shall take place no longer than five (5) years after the previous review. Section 6. Petition for Voluntary Annexation. (1) The owner or owners of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area of the County, may petition the governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality if the subject property meets the following requirements: (a) the property is located within the area eligible for annexation to the annexing municipality set forth in Exhibit 1; (b) the property is contiguous to the annexing municipality and reasonably compact; exc.ept tllC~t a mUIl~c.ipaljtJ Ina} be c.xempt flom this IcquiiGmwt UpOll establlslling that. (i) the 11HUlic.ipa:lity lias tile ability to sel vC tIle. plOpGlty as deElled llele~h, ahd (ii) tIle. allhexatioll is 110t based upon, al1d doe.s not iil vol ve., all al1l1exatiol1 agleGIn'-ht 01 ihdGnhllG eXGc.utGd pliol to tile dfec.ti vG date of th16 Ac.t. (2) Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a petition for voluntary annexation or the initiation of a voluntary annexation, pursuant to a previously executed and valid agreement, the annexing municipality shall notify the County, Council, and all parties affected, of said proposed annexation with a copy of the petition for annexation and a legal description of the subject property. 5 -. . . Notwithstanding the five (5)-day notice period provided above, the anne:xing municipality shall provide said notice prior to the first reading of the annexation ordinance. Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation. (1) Upon receipt of a petition for a proposed annexation to a municipality and a legal description of the subject property, the Councilor its designee shall review said proposed annexation for compliance with the following criteria: (a) whether the subject property complies with the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 6; and (b) whether the legal description provided conflicts with previously-established municipal boundaries or creates an inadvertent gap between governmental jurisdictions. (2) Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt, the Council or its designee shall notify the annexing municipality of any disputed issue with Section (l)(a) or (l)(b) above. (3) If the proposed annexation is consistent with the requirements of this Act, the annexing municipality may proceed with the voluntary annexation as hereinafter provided, subject to a request for full review as set forth in Section 8. (4) If the proposed annexation is deemed inconsistent with the requirements of this Act by the Council, a full review shall be conducted. Section 8. Request for Full Review by Affected Party. (1) Any party affected by the proposed municipal annexation may petition the Council and CPA to review the proposed annexation for consistency with the criteria and procedures set forth in this Act. Said review shall be a matter of right and shall be conducted pursuant to the following criteria and procedure: 6 . . (1) "Ability to Serve" means the municipality that proposes to annex property has the authority, responsibility, and capacity to provide police, fire, sewer, water, and solid waste disposal service. If the annexing municipality does not have the authority, responsibility, and capacity to provide anyone or more of these five (5) requisite urban services to the property proposed to be annexed, then it shall, by either interlocal agreement or written authorization, obtain agreement of the service provider that is charged with providing such service(s), attesting to that provider's ability and willingness to provide said service(s). (2) "Annexation" means the adding of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, such addition making such real property in every way a part of the municipality. (3) "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida. (4) "CPA" means the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. (5) "Compact" means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create pockets, finger areas, or serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in Pinellas County shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact. (6) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a publicly-owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water or watercourse; or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent 3 . . annexation under this Act. (7) "Council" means the Pinellas Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida (1988). (8) "County" means Pinellas County, Florida. (9) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s.2 or s.6, Art. VIII, of the State of Florida Constitution. (10) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning property that is proposed for annexation to a municipality, or any governmental unit having jurisdiction over such area. (11) "Urban services" means those services required to be available and provided by a local government, either directly or by contract, to its present residents and areas proposed for annexation, including but not limited to police, fire, sewer, water, and solid waste disposal. Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexation. (1) The geographic area eligible to be annexed by each respective municipality has been determined and delineated in map form as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Said determination was made consistent with the purpose and provision for establishment of planning areas, as provided for under s 163.3171, and is specifically intended to replace the review for ability to serve for annexations of ten (10) acres or more now conducted independently by the Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida. (2) The geographic areas eligible for annexation designated herein may be amended upon recommendation of the Council to the~. Any deviation from the Council's recommendation by the CPA shall be by a majority vote plus one. ill In the event that a municipality receives a petition to voluntarily annex property that 4 - . . DRAFT #4 An act relating to Pinellas County; providing a short title; providing a purpose; providing for authority; providing definitions; providing for areas eligible for annexation; providing criteria for petitions for voluntary annexation; providing for a review of proposed annexations; providing for request by affected party for full review of proposed annexations; providinga municipal annexation procedure and appeals therefrom; providing for the effect of annexation; providing for interlocal agreements for urban services and annexation; providing for state plan amendment review process; providing for amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; providing an effective date and referendum question; providing for severability. WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in the State of Florida, with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise nearly two-thirds (2/3) of the total county area; and WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the incorporated municipalities is an on- going significant occurrence that has important growth management and service delivery implications to the unincorporated county, the incorporated municipalities, and the citizenry; and WHEREAS, annexation is a routine process whereby municipal boundaries may be expanded in order to meet the citizenry's growing need for urban services; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Pinellas County to implement a more rational, uniform, and clear method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies, and unpredictability of the current voluntary annexation process; WHEREAS, the Legislature ofthe State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and balanced system of governance in Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this Act constitutes the exclusive means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas County; and . . WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida has determined that each municipality located within Pinellas County has the ability to provide urban services to the geographic areas of the county designated as eligible for annexation by each respective municipality, and that said determination was based upon sound planning considerations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Act to Enable Countywide Voluntary Annexation Procedures and Criteria in Pinellas County, Florida," hereinafter referred to as "this Act." Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to establish a uniform, equitable, and integrated procedure with clearly defined criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation of property by an incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida. Section 3. Authority. This Act is promulgated pursuant to the home rule powers of Pinellas County, Florida, and s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to authorize placement of a ballot question before the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas County Charter, pursuant to the provisions for amendment thereof, that would establish the exclusive procedures and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation and designate the geographic areas of the county eligible for annexation by each respective municipality. Section 4. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following terms and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless some other meaning is plainly indicated: 2 . . - ff~~ w~ rf!JtZf / /:lJ9)95}~,6,1t> /JJtJ)? -~4?76 Clr)tJ/7;~iff jllf~ I7Mph /' /o!jz? - ~.~mtJ2e ~~ aIJN~1f- -/)ym ~ O/~/&J ~ . ~/D~ ~?J:C~~ -~b~/#/?l& It!} f?~ 7/0~ b/l$Jn~thre~ -~ i?~~~ t/#Jft& jdsJM ;!j;~dpf. -~ ated~7'"...{~~" /tJ ~ ?5 tr>>h/~ ~~ /JtflJh~*~~~ ~ ~~d?lt' ~at~~ tJU; {JtJ?/h CIJ/I~-~~ - . . ~1Jf!~ ~ j?UJZ1$~~/tY- g~ /1J ~cur . . /~ -f:nJ W 6~Pk /:!lI}f- JIM ~ ~j( ~-IUJ Jtr7Im2:lZ Io~~ f/lW-" /to ~ ~- /tJ/.P<:!:. ~ ~/(Tt:k5.-~~tb~~ )f- ()/~ LN,) 8Jt- #Ojm~ r' -. t/'"' n.{b $Qlqptg- bttJ/dW~/ae.. ~ ;V/mj@;~~~~rhhb~;e ~~~ Rt>>JIlllR.. a/de ~ ItJff~ 1- ~ ~ tNJ~Jy'~~ /tbI;>>r- ~ flUb t}.P& ~ ~ .#- .J7~- ~ /ti4d~ ~-~~:m~~ ~~JU- ~~ ~~ ur/~q}~ ~ -~h~/~ ... ~ ~L &J1 />1Ue /~-tJ~ /o/~/<../I7~~t73~- w/~m~~g--~ ~~ Jo~~? . /I!:w-/-IIoIJ~ - # 2 0)97~a'" ~ -~~A- ~h~ ~. o/j7U7/~?t' o//t:J:Yd: ~ ~~~ ~-ff~ . . ~/1-Z, ~~/an~~~ ftY55 J/()~~ -~j?~ tuJ/~ ~~ !J~ ~J/76- ~ ~.CPl /;t1/Jte'~~5. t .;<-?Otib ~ (}Ih~ ~ /7~;Jjb jtJ~ ~ at/JJ ~//& I~ !/UfPat1~ #Y;v:m~#/(Wa'lP~) . -f~?C!~4/Ja' ~~~. , ~ ~~1'JJ1IJ~j?~/O~ t/?1 /JJ,rJp4? ~ . hMIY MJlU?6)1-7JJ~ ~ ~ 7J &1~~ ~~ !I;):p /" t14~~ E:: mp-;# / . . ;./~ g:ooZJ < 1'/I!-1J1~-bA ~~mt- ~~ Mnff h ~~~ ~b tlJJY ~ ~tP~ _ 1- ()o/l1#l7pfy~ ~ ~ ~ cijh~~~ tPJ1 t1/l)< -/0 at/ U/J/)It%}P~ ~~ ()f./l.$A' ./t);Jffltt tlJai &Jm~m ~~ /8 --5)ft!/t f?/(! !/t.atr r ~ aIb J7}C ~M~') tilth . -f I?4e IJ1hn ~ ) ~ __ ( A?JJP- it; ~ tJt::fll Q /Jlddk/ #1 ad, ) [;2tI- m.IJ wj ~ ?) ~~t!orJ6JJI/f,l zap/Ur~~~7/ /?J uJ~ &J W~/. If /IX. ~~~/!?7#~ 1fiiVW lJ7iJl/!{- tMf - //iP~/JX ~---c:Ju4;;;qV C?JJ/7;d)/r~ 7b /(/J//OMJcJ- ~4?I- ~~) ~ /J1Pm~ tJ1}J?~/ ~ ~-Sr~~1;f7 .~ ~~ ft~d /0 /)/4 ~~~. J:t0te -1&1 ~tfJM tJ1h~~ >>J?/b- . /hi- h g;~ ~/rtUt.#;)o /!hf~/> ~//J a ~tf- ::J::C) /I 7W/ /PhJ I- ~ /J1 p~, 4fJ"~a<~V;;-~ ~ ~ ~aw /tJ ~paI'- ~ 'lflntf //1 ~~dP M)I ~~ /)tJfjp (//J t?~/O{!/"/J.) ~- /~ (fit &u/U~~ dl Klt//;J1/ -~JtabMj() ii7m'p~ --ad('/r~~ -~ fZl ~ Jnt:lp /1J /?ld~~ ~/ ..L_.,# ~ f /L-n.lH -/uJJ7&ftl1j-:iUtt( ~~ ~ VV~~. ~~.ht ~/? ~~ I ...1 PINELLAS ~ PLANNING AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 9:00 A.M. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19,2000 PINELLASCOUNTYCOURTHOUSE 5TH FLOOR, BOARD ASSEMBL Y ROOM 315 COURT STREET, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA I. CALL TO ORDER n. INVOCA TION AND PLEDGE m. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of March 15, 2000 Meeting B. Financial Statement for March, 2000 IV. REPORTS AND OTHER ACTION A. Annexation Report No. 00-3: City of Largo B. Annexation Report No. 00-4: City of Dunedin C. Local Assistance Quarterly Status Report V. PUBLIC HEARING - To begin at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as agenda permits A. Public Hearing Format Announcement and Oath B. Proposed Amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Group 1: Subthreshold Amendments 1. Case #CW 00-19(OA): Pinellas County 2. Case #CW 00-20(OA): City of Largo 3. Case #CW 00-21(OA): City of Largo 4. Case #CW 00-22(OA): City of Largo Group 2: Regular Amendments 5. Case #CW 00-23: City of Largo . . 1:\USERS\ WPI>OCSIMISCl1EMIREGITEMSIAGENDASlageuda-apr. wpd Page 1 . . VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ITEMS A. Proposed Annexation Draft and Map - Continued Consideration B. Rule Amendments - Draft Ordinance - Re: Streamlining Recommendations C. Mid-Year Budget Report D. Work Program and Budget - Discussion Outline for 2000-01 E. Preliminary May Agenda F. Verbal Reports VII. OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS A. ChairmanlMember Items B. Correspondence VIll. ADJOURNMENT Note: Dependent upon the length of the agenda, the Council may recess for approximately ten (10) minutes at 10:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as is convenient. "Persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at this meetinglhearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, forsuch purpose, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based." If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance. Within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Ste. 300, Clearwater, FL 33756. (813) 464-4062 (VrrDD). (:\USERS\ WPDOCSIMISCI1EM\REGITEMSIAGENDASlagencla.apr. wpd Page 2 . . PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Public Hearings before the Pinellas Planning Council are governed by Pinellas Planning Council Resolution No. 96-2 which is outlined on the reverse side. Because this process encourages and provides for testimony to be submitted in writing in advance of the hearing, the following guidelines are expected to be sufficient to accommodate efficient presentations: . The applicant should complete their presentation in ten (10) minutes. . Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization or group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group will waive their time. . All other persons may speak up to a total of three (3) minutes each. The Planning Council procedure provides that, at the conclusion of each of the respective presentations by staff, PAC, applicant local government, proponents, opponents and other citizens, an affected party may seek the Chair's permission to ask questions or seek clarification from the respective presenter. The applicants rebuttal shall only address testimony subsequent to their presentation. Only points of law or fact will be entertained by the Chair following rebuttal. Please see reverse side for order of presentation. OPENING PROCEDURES Explanation of Hearing Process - Chair Swearing In - Reporter STAFF PRESENTATION 10 minutes nux. PAC COMMENTS - AS NECESSARY 5 minutes nux. APPLICANT LOCAL GOV'T. 10 minutes max. PROPONENTS ~ PRESENT A TIONSIINOUIRIR<; Applicant Property Owner - 10 minutes max. Public - Dcsig. Repres. - 10 minutes max. - Individual - 3 minutes max. OPPONENTS - PRESENT A TIONSIINOUIRIR<; Subject Property Owner- 10 minutes max. Public - Dcsig. Rep. - 10 minutes max. - Individual - 3 minutes nux. OTHER CITIZENS - COMMENTS/OUESTIONS (Other Than ProponentslOpponents) 3 minutes max. REBUTI' AI. BY APPLICANT Local Government - 5 minutes max. Applicant Property Owner - 5 minutes max. STAFF RESPONSElSUMMARY S minutes max. COUNCIL QUESTIONS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Mr. David P. Healey, AICP Annexation Legislation - Revised Draft November 24, 1999 Page 2 We feel it is important to keep the process streamlined for the property owners who want to annex into a municipality. What is most important is protecting the property owners' rights and ability to choose annexation into a municipality of their choice. Address the problem of enforcing the Florida Statutes regarding annexations. This will address the issues at hand and ensure the freedom of choice for Pinellas County property owners. Sincerely, Michael B. Gustafson Assistant City Manager cc: City Manager and City Council Ralph Stone, Planning Director, City of Clearwater Kevin Campbell, Community Services Director, City of Dunedin Richard Kephardt, Planner, City of Gulfport Mike Nadeau, Building Official, City of Indian Shores Ric Goss, Community Development Director, City of Largo Nick Staszko, Community Development Director, City of Oldsmar Brian Smith, Planning Director, Pinellas County Ron Pianta, Planning Director, City of Safety Harbor Dave Goodwin, Manager of Planning Programs, City of St. Petersburg Chris Brimo, Director of Licenses, Inspections & Planning, City of St. Pete Beach Roy Otto, General Services Director, City of Seminole Rick Dodge, Assistant County Administrator, Pinellas County Linda Hallas, City of South Pasadena Walter Fidio, City of Tarpon Springs Bob Bray, Planning Director, City of Pinellas Park Tom Shevlin, Asst. Community Development Administrator, City of Pinellas Park Anne Lindberg, St. Petersburg Times (L - I /Vtt? 6051 78TH AVE. . P.O. BOX 1100 PINELLAS PARK, FL 33780-1100 FLORIDA C;tyol PINELLAS PARK PHONE . (727) 541-0700 FAX . (727) 541-0780 November 24, 1999 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 RE: Annexation Legislation - Revised Draft Dear David: I have reviewed your draft <;locument dated October 7, 1999. I am still wondering why the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) is bringing forward draft legislation on annexation. There is no reason to further complicate or bog down the government process of annexation. After reading the proposed revised draft, I am still not sure what it does for Pinellas County . Yet, the PPC is asking municipalities to buy in without showing the most important part, which is the annexation boundaries. The draft legislation authorizes the PPC to decide if a proposed annexation is located within an area eligible for annexation to the municipality and that the property is contiguous to the annexing municipality and reasonably compact. So, what does this do for the public or even a municipality? These are the same requirements in the current Florida Statutes. Why does our County need special legislation when the rules are in place in State law? The current problems in annexations have nothing to do with this proposed legislation. Most of the municipalities have no problems with existing voluntary annexation procedures. State law is very clear on what is allowed. If there is a problem, it is because there is no enforcement of State law . Voluntary annexations are not the problem. Coerced or refusal of services until a property owner signs an agreement to annex is the problem. Also refusing sewer service when the property is annexed into another City is an economic and property owner's rights disaster. ... ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~. The bill establishes an ad.minisrrati...-e re' "ie\'\- of :mne.xauons by the Planning Council sta.if. Tb.is re,iew is limited 1:0 contiguity and the planning a..rea requirement (Section 6). The City is responsible for tranSIDining me 3.TID~X2tion to the PPC ',\ithin 5 days and must also notify the County, other local go'-emments that \\;11 become contiguous,. and other uniJlcorpoJ<lted property o\'ners that ~ill become contiguous. Howe'-er, under proposed new Section 8 of the bill any '"'affected party'" (neighbors or local governmentS who will become contiguous and the Coumy) can request a full hearing before both the Planning COllIlcil and COUDty Commission~ven if the staff detennines the annexation complies \\;th the Emite<! re\iew criteria.. This action would prohibit the City from completing the annexation. Further, e...-en though these bodies are limited to a re,iew for compliance . \\ith the criteria, any affected pany or the PPC'COUnIY Commission. "Q,ithout limitation,. can request that the annexation be referred to the R~gional Planning Council for mediation. Thus, a simple anne..xauon can be held hoStage to a neighborhood dispute or inTer-jurisdictional politics- Further, we have yet to receive any justification for creating a right for neighbors and others defIned. as affected parties by the legislation to challenge annexations. These same parties are now giyen the righ1: 10 file suit to try to block an annexation. Properry o'''ncrs who '.\ill become contiguous upon a ,.olunw)' annexation should Dot be given equal stmding as an ~affected party". 4. House Bill 7?~ (Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act) establishes a mediation and dispute resolution process for annexations and service areas- This bill has been passed by the legislature. Local governmentS are required. to follow the procedures set fonh in this Act prior to proceeding \\ith any Coun action,. thus making any review of anne..xation disputes by tlle Planning Council,. Board of County Commissioners and Regional Planning COlIDcil unproducti\'e and unnecessary. 5. The Planning Council Staff is required to complete a re\iew of the legal description for accuracy. Pinellas County staff currenuy does this type oftechnicaI re\iew, and the Planning Council staffis not presenuy qualified to complete this re~iew. 6. The re\ised bill does nQt pro\ide for Don contiguous annexations. Son-contiguous annexations should be allowed if the planning areas and build-our boundaries of municipalities are agreed to b)" the County. 7, The re\ised b1I1 pro\-ides thar the pre\"ailing pany in any litigation brought pursuant to the bill ,'..ould be entitled to anomey's fees, This is n01: a great threat to an "affected party" who W311tS to delay an annexation because frequently such parties do not have the ability to pay such ajudgment or can file for bankruptcy. Often. the threat ofha'\ing to pay a ci{\'~s anomev~s fees is meaningless. On the other hand.. since the City cannot file for - ~ - ... bankruptcy and has the ability to pay, the threat ofhavIDg to pay anom~y's fees is a '\iabl~ thre3t. 8. Essentially, the revised billlcgislales the ~tablishment of planning areas. Although not presently mandaIOI')' this planning tool can now be accomplished by interlocal agreement and we ha"e no reason to believe that the County "ill not renew these agreements in some acceptable form when they expire. Therefore, th~ proposed legislation appears to be oflinle benefit to the City. To: From: Date: Subject: Cc: Memo Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Alan S. Zimmet, City Attorney and Ronald F. Pianta, Planning Director 10-12-99 Proposed PPC VOlunt31]" Annexation Legislation Ste....e V."ylie, City Manager As you are aware, the City AnoIDe)' recently made a public records request to Pinellas County regarding the re'\isions proposed to the draft bill pertaining to ....oluntary annexations. It has been the Commission's position that the present annexation procedures which are govemed by Chapter 171, FS, are adequate and that there is no need for additional legislation on the matter. We ha.ve re~iewed the propo~d revisions to the original draft bill and would like to provide the following comments for the Commission's re..i~~" '.. - ---- . - . - - ~- ~ -- ':. ".'':' <.;.;, '-~....~' -:::'"1:'.'~ L The re\ised draft bill waSschedilledfor diSCtissionby .the pranneriAih1so~rY:Cooim.ittee (pAC) on lO~11-99. The-bill was r~ei'red laIe aftem~n on meFri~y-befofe~~arid some- of me PAC members did not have time to re\"iewthebilrs cbanges priOr to themeeting-" However. the PAC voted 8-2 (Safety Harbor and Pinel1as County not supporting the motion) to give preliminary endorsement with the understanding that the individual cities would still have the right to comment on the bill Planning Council review is scheduled for 10-20-99- Thus, the Planning Council does not have the benefit ofa complete and thorough PAC discussion on the matter. The bill continues to require the establishment of planning areas~ and includes the planning area limits as an attachment, yet to be decided- Indeed. in its present fo~ the main thrust of the bill is the limitation of annexa nons to properties ~ithin each city's planning area. The draft bill allov.'S only limited opportUnity to amend the planning areas established by the map that is to be attached to the bill. The map can only be altered by a vote of a super maj orit)" of the County Commission. In ow- opinions, this limitation is tOO restrictive. Thus.. as the bill is now drafted, the attachment is very important. The PPC staffhas ad"ised us that the 3.tt3chment has not been prepared and is not expected to be prepared until th~ fall 0[2000 after the draft bill has hero endorsed by the ppe. We can not recommend that the City consider a bill that subjeas its planning area to amendment only by a super majority of the Count:- Commission, especially \\ithout prior establishment of the plann.i.ng area boundaries, These planning areas should be established and agreed to prior to consideration of the draft legislation. It was our understanding that both the Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners pre..iously established this position as well. 2. {.:__, y_ -:._0..;.. ._" .~. .. ',: ..; TEW, ZINOBER, BARNES, ZThU\IET & L~CE ArrOR..~t.YS AT LAW JOf:l R. n:w FllDRIC S- ZI~OB[Jl. ROBERT 1.- BAAA'LS. JIl- .UA'" S-lJ'"."lI:T T. R. l;"'~ JR. ..\. '"DI\Dll- J. S. u.D4...." Jtrra~.r.~. LEI: WM.AT)J"/SO!'i D01'o1'<A 1. nLD~"'>; Cu:u.\\An:.OO1('[ hUSnG [ n.OflSSl()"(~ l P AJU.: 2'55 t,4(O:~)()CK Dllln ~.A~ noRlDAm~ CI.L~Jl.WAT'l:A orFIct. (n1) 19"-1831 llDI. 'U. "DO 0tTlCt 73'1 f OIUST o.u:s )tl. 'll. ~ HIll. n..o-rru~ fAX 1'"1'1) 1] '-OOSI i1""t ,."... ~ I~~ ~" "- CO!'<. -..ou ,. BIU;TT. J.~t'CI: OIIlIS'TOf1n:.R~. AlUl.O ROBtaT L nrHU..... JOSUH A. coastoao:a KAREN .. Cl..4u.: RICltARD C. MILLl~ nU;USA A. DED ~lCOLt (.. woss ~.uJ1.YTO: r.o. Box !~ CJ..LurlIl..l Tn. noRlDA 33751 ~"t: (1':7) 'm-1JIl HOl"-,"''DO Omcr (J5J) W-f5'" rA.~ (JSJ)~101 Of COGl'tstJ.: snMlA.NJI: A. V Al'CtlAS LAAA" J. CONZAUS ~ .w.-..cMi'ab'u.cw- 'J1DoooA ~..o lU:SaO'T p AJIIT'<D October 19, 1999 Re: Proposed Pioelltj Planning Council Yol\1nw-y Anne:u.tion LegiJbtioD. Dear Honorable Mayor: Member of the PinelJas Planning Council'Planners Ad,isoJ)" Committee: The City Commission of the Cit)" of Safety Harbor has requested that I forward to you the enclosed memorandum. which sets forth the City ComTn;~~Qn'$~V~-coDCerns ~ith regard to the proposed annexation Iegislarion to be considered by the Pinellas Planning Council at tomorrow's meeting. The City Commission strongl)" believes that the Pine~ Planning Coun~ should once . and for all "ote to reject ~s proposed Ie~latio~" Al~~"ely~-~~~on:,!owd request that ' the PPC delay cOJ1S1dcranon of the draft bill UJitiltl1ee.'<hi~~fI1lt1he pJannmga:reas.for each. city has been prepared. t:ndcrthis dtaft~ill, the planni,ngarcasa.retheJQOSljmpo~t a.spectofthe. bill. Yet, the Council is being requested 10 consider this bill "ithaut the exh.ibit that will establish the planning areas for each city. Since it is ourund.crstaDding that it is no longer the intent to have the Legislative Delegation consider this bill in the upcoming LegislatiYe session, there \\"ill be no harm in delaying consideration of this dJaft bill until the plamring areas bave been delineated. The Safety Harbor City Commission thanks you for your consideration of their concerns regarding this draft bill" . ~... ~ ,,..:.'. '~ry.. ~ --. ~ ,-."'~ . - - Sincerely )'OUI'S. ASZljas cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Steve Wylie, City Manager Ronald F. Pianta, Planning Director AOI7SIH,V.l'O Honorable Mayor JacK Doolan, To\\'ll of Belleair . 588-3768 Honorable Mayor William L. Atteberry - 593-1409 Honorable Mayor Hunt:K.. Brand. City of Belle air Bluffs - 584-6175 Honorable John Robertson, Town ofBelleair Sbore - 593-~96 7 Hooonble MayOf Brian Aungst. City of CIeaf'A.alt1' - 562-<<l52 Honorable MayorThomasADderson,. City of Dunedin -73&-1927 Honorable Mayor ~fich.ael J. Yakes. City of Gulfport - 893-1008 HonofClble Mayor Bob DiNirola. City ofTndian RC'Ck.s Beach - 59~627 Honorable Mayor Robert G. McEwen~ TO'tloll of Indian Shores - 595-7~91 Honorable Mayor J.,tR Jack Knox, Town of Kenneth Cit)" - 547-2038 Honorable Ma).or Thomas D. Feaster, City of Largo - 586-7420 Honorable Mayor Thomas DeC~re, City of~fadtira Beach - 399-1131 Honorable Mayor Harold Radcliffe, To'tlon ofSorth Redington Beach - 393-0803 Honorable Mayor Jeffre)' S. Sandler. City ofOJdsmar- 813-891-9152 Honorable Mayor William F. Mischler, City ofPineUas Pari: - 544-7448 Honorable ~h}or Jerry Reitz, Tov.n of Redington :Bach - 397-6911 Honorable Mayor 1. J. Beyrouti, To~n of RedingtOD Shores - 392-9470 Honorable Mayor Ron .!w1cKenney, City ofSt. Pete !k3ch - 363-9236 Honorable Mayor David J. Fischer. City of SL Petersbw'g - 892-5102 Honorable Mayor Dottie K. Reeder. City of Stminole - 391-5458 Honorable Mayor Fred Hel~ City of South pasadena. - 3-t5-0518 Honorable Ma:yor Fran\: DiDonato, City of Tarpon Springs - 942-5619 Honorable Ma)or Leon Atl;nson. City ofTrt:3SUl'e lsJand - 547-4582 Ms. Cynthia Hardin, Planners Ad"isory Committee. Cit)" of Cit)" ofCIearv--ater - 562-4052 Mr. Kevin Campbell. Planners A~isory Commi,me.Cit}. OfD\medUF 131-1927 . . - Mr. Mike Konefal: Planners A<hisory Coromfuee..Cit\.'ofGulfPort.~'893-rOO8 . ,.. - . ::~::~ '-'..', ~ ," Mn. Gina Cla)10n.. Planners Ad"sol)~ Com-mjn~~ci~.rlpf~~~.~k$~}j~ - ~9S-4627..:3 :: ::T.'~-~;:~:'"", Mr. Mike Na~~ Plann~~~i50J)' Commjt1ie.'TJl~~ of.lDdWiShor(s~~S:1491..' :. Mr. Bill Banholome"": Planners AdvisoI:'" Committee; 10;'u of Kenneth citY :547-203'-.- Mr. Rick Goss. Planners AdviSOr)" Committee: City of Largo - 586-7420 Mr. Nick Staszlo, Planners Ad\isoJ)' Committee, City of o Idsm at - 813-891-9152 Mr. Tom Shevlin. Planners Ach;sory Comminee. City of Pine lias Park - 544-7-4.41 Mr. Gordon Beardslee.. Planners Ad'ltisory Committee. PineUas County Planning.. 446-3022 Mr. Roy Otto, Planners Ad\-isof)' Comm inee, City of Seminole - 391-5458 Mr. Chris Brimo, Planners Advisory Comminee,. City ofSt. Pete Beach - 363-9236 Mr. Daye Goodwin,. Planners Ad, isoT). CommitIee. Cit;. of $t. Petersburg - 892-5102 Mr. Walter Fufi<lio, Planners Advisory Comminee, City of Tarpon Springs - 942-5619 Councilmember Bob Kersteen, Cit,. ofSt. Pete~burg - 892-5102 Councilmembtr Chuck Williams. Cit)' of Pin ell as Park - 544-7448 . Councilmember lee Benjamin., Pinellas County School Board - 588.6477 _> Commissioner Ed Hart, Cit)" of Clearwater - 562-4042 Commissioner Janet Heoderson, City of Dunedin - 738-1871 Commissioner Robert Jackson, City ofl.argo - 587-6797 Commissioner Karen Williams Sttl Pinellas Count). - ~3022 Coullcilmember William Smith - 547-203& Councilmember Babe Wright, City ofOldsmar - 813-854-3121 ~~-:~;3.:-:?:::" .. --. ". . p' . .':-- ,~ <. - ~~ - - . - ~. - . - -- - - -- TEW, ZNOBER BAR."'iES, ZD1]\lET & Th'1CE A TTOR.'..EYS AT LAW ~ Ct~"'Alu.oma: f1U:Sl1C [ ... 0 rISSlO"W. r AJUo,; Jill .'f c<: ()Il.)()C).: DIU'"[ QL\R9'A T[lI. fLOtUDA n1" BDL ,'- '1l() 0fnC[ ~ I f ()C.[ST o.u:s Il.' 1). SrU'CllD.L ~~ COPIES TO: COMMISSION ClLUlWATtM Oma: (n1J '''-110 JOEL It. n:w FltDJUC S. Zt"O'8r.a ROBERT I.. B........U. Ja. ..\LAN S. 2J~o:T T. JL t::'11CL JR- .\., '\DItDIl' ~ SAUX'-" J t:.t'"fU:\. r. CA,a1<>- LU" M. ."n:1'ol~ DO~" J. R1D~,-'\ C~.,- 1 9 fAX fY21) 7J~ (:-:1) ."..,.,. i:1) ~J PRESS CLERK I ATIOANEY ~u:.,,- C~,. BUTT. Juoc..,r OtIUSTOftIn ~ .UllJ-O ROBDIT L H.n~,-'\ ..osu1l A.. C()e.SlOI(lLI. K~ ... C\..d.II: RJ(]iAJU) C. Nn.UA." Tla'.lltSA A- lKUI :"i~[LWDSS hL~ nn..,'TO: r. O. 110:< 5U~ ClL~.'.' ~ FLOtl.JIH Jr.5I- n1~ HlA'-'-'OO orna: (lSl) 6I3-tSn f.'-X (lSl) ~1 Of'COl~ S'TD'R '-...."'II A. "".' t:C ti.' S L~Y J. GO.'\7.u.ES n~~ ~\.rYl 1l<cJ!- .~ ~P.urT'IItA The information contain~d in 1his tranSmission is attomey prh 1.1eged and confidential. It is intended only for the ~ of~ indhidual or entity D3I11ed below. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipien~ you are hereby notified that any dissemination,. distnbution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you hare recei..-ed this communiC3.tionin error. please notify us imroediarcly by telephone collect and return the origiTlal message to us at the alx)\'e address via the IT.S. Postal Sm'ice. We \\ill reimburse you for postage. Thank you. "'PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLO~lNG PAGES TO** ~ - S~ AttacltU1 List - ._._;_..~ ~ +_ __~ -T-r-~ ;...._n. ' . !:"j[\- ,},- .", . ~ ~,' -:; -~ ~ ." - :.'. - '."'-:- ?'-. .;:;..:._-- .~.: ~." ,";'...-' --- :; ... .~]S~-~(=--'" "';~:-.;.':::-'" ~.:a.~j,: f_~::.-=--~~: .-...". -- - -.~ '-" . -' ... L" ,-, __ '_ ~....:-:.' ~ .. ._~ ~ ..'""': ... j - , '.., FROM: Alan S. Zimmet, Esq. FILE #: 7810.00 DATE: October 19, 1m # OF PAGES: 5 We are tran!mitting . tot21 or 5 pages indud.in~ our coyer letter from an automatic Dex 785. H)"ou do not rue~.e.n o(the p.ge!, pJe1Se caU back 1J soon as possible: PBO~"E: (721) 799- 2882; FAX: (71.7) 71.6-0058 Original Documents wilJ Dot follow b)' mail. CO~Ll\fENTS: .. . Cindi: The Mayor received the attached information regarding Voluntary Annexation Legislation. Would you please prepare a response for the Mayor's signature. Thank you. Denise \ 0 \~J~~~~~ ..~ SERVICES \ Cln' OF CLEARWATER f . BALLOT TITLE: AU1HORIZES TIffi COUNTY TO ESTABLISH EXCLUSIVE METHODS, CRITERIA, AND GEOGRAPIDC BOUNDARIES FOR VOLUNTARY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION. BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Sections 2.04 and 2.07, of the Pinellas County Charter be amended to provide the County with the authority to adopt by ordinance the exclusive methods and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation within Pinellas County, including the delineation of the geographic areas eligible for annexation to a municipality with such County ordinance prevailing in the event of a conflict with a municipal ordinance? [ ] YES FOR APPROVAL [ ] NO FOR REJECTION Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof, to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared severable. F:\USERS\A lTY\A TYKB07\ WPDOCS\Ordinances\Pinellas COlUlty Charter Arnendrnent\Pinellas County Charter Amendment Final.doc 4 '. ..' RECEIVED SEP U R 2000 C\TY CLERK DEPARTMENT APP~OVED AS 10 ~M OF,FICE OF C~ ATTOlNoI.EY By / / ~r .. . Attorney ~ Section 2. Amendment of Section 2.04. Article IT, Section 2.04, of the Pinellas County Charter, as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to add: (t) All powers necessary to establish by ordinance the exclusive method and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation, including the delineation of areas eligible for annexation, to the extent provided by general law. Section 3. Amendment of Section 2.07. Article II, Section 2.07, of the Pinellas County Charter, as created by Chapter 80-590, Laws of Florida, is amended to read: Nothing in this Charter shall prevent a municipality from annexing an unincorporated area into its municipal boundaries, except that all annexations shall be in accordance with the exclusive method and criteria for voluntary municipal annexation, including the delineation of areas eligible for annexation, adopted by ordinance under the authority elsewhere provided for in this Charter. Section 4. Effective Date; Referendum Question. This ordinance, except for this section which shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take effect only upon approval by a majority vote of the electors of Pin ell as County voting in a referendum election which shall be called by the County Commission prior to November 30, 2000. The question on the ballot shall be: 3 .. ~ . WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, deC?ms it to be in the best interest of the citizens of Pinellas County to implement a more rational, uniform, and clear method for voluntary annexation on a countywide basis in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies, and unpredictability of the current annexation process; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, declares it essential to a well-planned and balanced system of governance in Pinellas County to amend its Charter to provide for an exclusive method of voluntary annexation by authorizing the County to enact an ordinance establishing a uniform process and criteria for voluntary annexation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Pinellas County Charter s 6.01, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida has the authority to amend the Pinellas County Charter by ordinance passed by an affirmative vote of not less than majority plus one, subject to countywide referendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Pine lIas County, Florida: Section 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Charter amendment to provide for an exclusive method of voluntary municipal annexation by authorizing the County to enact an ordinance establishing procedures and criteria for voluntary mumcipal annexation of property. These procedures and criteria will include the delineation of geographic areas eligible for such annexation by a municipality . 2 r. ." PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 00-66 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PINELLAS COUNTY; PROVIDING A PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF TIIE PINELLAS COUNTY CHARTER TO ESTABLISH TIIE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT BY ORDINANCE TIIE EXCLUSIVE MElHOD AND CRITERIA FOR VOLUNTARY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION, INCLUDING TIIE DELINEATION OF lHOSE AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION, IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND REFERENDUM QUESTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY ARISE FROM REVIEW OF TIIE ORDINANCE AT PUBLIC HEARING. WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in_the S~e of -0 c:::> 'F rr\ c:::> Florida, with twenty'-four (24) incorporated municipalities that comprise near~~o~ir~ -'- --< C"> _ >-..' ej) "-, W -:-- (2/3) of the total county area; and Vl ~i - i ~-: -0 rni . C' WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporated area by the incorporated munteij5ali~ iO 0--\ .. ~> C> an on-going significant occurrence that has important growth management ~~ service delivery implications to the unincorporated county, the incorporated municipalities, and the citizenry; and WHEREAS, annexation is a routine process whereby municipal boundaries may be expanded in order to meet the citizenry's growing need for urban services; and WHEREAS, it is essential to a workable planning and annexation process that the representatives of both the unincorporated and incorporated jurisdictions coordinate their respective interests in a fair and cooperative manner that respects the rights and interests of ,. iTIdividual property owners and the respective jurisdictions; and 1