PPC NEW ANNEXATION PROCESS, 1999/2000, VOLUME 1
PPC New Annexation
Process
Volume 1 -1999/2000
, ~ C / 1/1/(:'0
l~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
1\;~; RECEIVED
:~~
COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEe - 3 \~ ~
Council member Robert Kersteen, Chm,
Mayor Tom De Cesare, Vice Chm,
Councilmember Chuck Williams, Treas.
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson, Sec.
School Board Member Lee Benjamin
Mayor Robert DiNicola
Mayor Frank DiDonato, D.C.
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Commissioner Robert Jackson
Commissioner Karen Williams Seel
Councilmember William B. Smith
Council member Babe Wright
COMMUNIlY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
November 30, 1999
Mr. Michael B. Gustafson, Assistant City Manager
City of Pinellas Park
6051-78th Avenue
Piliellas Park, FL 33780-1100
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
RE: Annexation Le~islation/Your letter of November 24th
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your letter referenced above.
The straight forward answer to your question is that the PPC continues to work on a more
comprehensive approach to annexation because the current process is inadequate, inefficient
and inequitable.W e have spent considerable . time and effort attempting to. find a . means to...
overcome these deficiencies in the current law and process and I'm somewhat surprised that
you would maintain that the current provisions to deal with annexation inPinellas County are
adequate - if only the state law were enforced. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You suggest that voluntary annexations are not the problem, but rather any problem rests with
"Coerced (annexation) or refusal of services until a property owner signs an agreement to
annex. " You fail to acknowledge that what you describe are in fact "voluntary" annexations
under the law and that the underlying issue is the failure to have a definitive understanding in
place regarding who can annex where and the rights and responsibilities of service delivery as
it relates to the annexation process.
I agree it is important to have a streamlined process for annexation - when the annexation is
appropriate based on a predetermined set of criteria. The draft legislation under consideration
by the PPC is consistent with that philosophy and, providing the criteria are complied with,
would pose no delay to the current processing time for annexation.
600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160
TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212
Page two
November 30, 1999
I disagree altogether with your essential premise that "What is most important is protecting the
owners rights and ability to choose annexation into a municipality of their choice." While this
may have a nice populist ring, it is the antithesis of our responsibility as public servants to
establish a predictable, cost-effective and equitable annexation process and the attendant
delivery of services for all concerned. To suggest we continue the undisciplined and chaotic
annexation process we have witnessed in Pinellas County is to admit that there are not, and
ought not to be, any logical parameters to the process for municipal annexation.
I think we can and should do better than this and urge you to support the rational process the
Council continues to work toward.
Sincerel!! /'
~/ -/
~~~;~-.wl/
Executive Director
c: Members, Pinellas Planning Council
Pinellas Park City Council Members
Mr. Jerry Mudd,.City Manager
Members, Planners Advisory Committee
I: \U SERS\ WPDOCS\OPH\NOV99COR\l\ISUf'son.ltr.wpd
.
.
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;
6. 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
8. Exemption From State Plan Amendment Review Process - A procedure,
consistent with the purpose of the current Interloca1 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.
ALTERNATIVES
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
.
.
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. Interlocal Agreements between County and selected Clues 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 July, 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 (P AO) 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
.
.
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 and, 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 Interlocal Agreements.
5
.
.
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 determination 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 it will apparently require special legislation to enable.
6
.
.
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 would 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:\USERS\WPOOCS\DPH\ANNEX\ALTERNfV.ANX
7
.
.
TO:
Dave Healey, Director
Pinellas Planning Council
Jewel White Col,e/iz-c
Assistant County~~rney
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 PineIlas 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 S5(12).
However, that power is limited to reviewing annexations equal to or greater than 10 acres in size 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 Magnonia Park
v. Homan, 118 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).
.
.
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 procedures for annexations in Pinellas County, specifically
conferring authority to review said annexations upon the Council.
~
. .
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBERS
MEMORANDUM
Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chm.
Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Vice Chm.
Councilmember Chuck Williams, Treas.
Mayor Tom De Cesare, Sec.
Mayor David Coyner
School Board Member Barbara J. Crockett
Commissioner Jean Halwrsen
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Mayor George M. Jirotka
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson
Commissioner Robert B. Stewart
Councilmember Babe Wright
TO:
Members, Pinellas Planning Council
Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chairman
David P. Healey. Executive Director ~
SUBJECT: Outline of Alternative Approaches to Annexation
FROM:
DATE:
July 15, 1998
David P. Healey. AICP
Executive Director
ISSUES
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:
1. Notification - An advance, systematic means of notification to interested
parties; - including the annexing municipality, property owner, adjoining
municipalities and Pinellas County;
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;
4. Ability 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, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 464-3855 FAX (727) 464-3827
(}
PINELLAS
PLANNING
COUNCIL
. .
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
r
~
I DATE: July 15,1998
I lAGENDA ITEM: VI B.
I
SUBJECT:
Annexation Issues - Follow Up
RECOMMENDATION:
Council Review Attached Discussion Outline 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.
ttached 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 recommended 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.
PlNELlAS PLANNING COUNCILACfION:
The Council received and discussed the information as presented.
The Coundl 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:\1JSERS\WPDOCS\MIscrn:M\REG1TEMS\JUL9SPPCIANNEX. WPO
Page I
PINELLAS
PLANNING
COUNCIL
. .
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
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 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 recommended 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.
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
I:\USERS\ WPDOCS\MISCITEM\REGITEMS\JUL98PPC\ANNEX. WPD
Page 1
.
.
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 of ten (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 determination 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.
J
.
.
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 Administrative Matters: Annexation Issues/ PPC Recommended Follow-
Up
DATE:
September 8, 1998
RECOMMENDA nON: THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THE
BOARD CONCUR IN AND SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSNE APPROACH TO ISSUES
CONCERNING ANNEXATION AS SET FORTH IN ALTERNATNE NUMBER 3 IN THE
ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS AND OUTLINED 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 Contracts for Service - with the County, as an alternative to annexation;
6. Defined Areas Eligible for Annexation - to establish predictability as to jurisdictiQn and
service delivery;
7. Required Consistency with Countywide 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.
~
. .
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chm.
Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Vice Chm.
Councilmember Chuck Williams, Tress.
Mayor Tom De Cesare, Sec.
Mayor David Coyner
School Board Member Barbara J. Crockett
Commissioner Jean HaM>rsen
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Mayor George M. Jirotka
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson
Commissioner Robert B. Stewart
Councilmember Babe Wright
TO:
FROM:
Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator
David P. Healey, Executive Director ~
Pinellas Planning Council .
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
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 Administrative Matters.
The agenda memorandum 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
County 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
A!ENDA MEMORANJt.M
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:
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
I:\USERS\ WPDOCSIMISClTEM\REGlTEMSISEP98PPClANNEXISS.UES
Page I
1 I" 1 I
.
.
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.
* * * *
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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 discussion with
city staff regarding the preparation and ground work needed to prepare for the
effective date.
School Board Member Benjamin moved, seconded by CormrJssioner
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
-
J
.
.
, .
.. '..
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 haG indicated a
desire to schedule a workshop to discuss 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 PPC 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 PPC's 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; tI:at the BCC had expressed concern regarding the
protection of residents in unincorporated areas who wish to remain outside of a
municipal boundaIy; that procedure and structure are needed; and that the BCC
is looking forward to working with the PPC on these issues.
Commissioner Hooper said that the City of Qearwater
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 ppes intention is for this to be 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 Clearwater 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 annexations not meeting
the enumerated criteria would be reviewed by the Council and the BCC.
351
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.
"4~.. ......_.
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
The Council received and discussed this item.
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
I:\USERS\ WPDOCS\MISCITEM\REGITEMS\SEP98PPC\ANNEXISS.UES
Page 1
'~
. .
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBERS
MEMORANDUM
Commissioner Karen Brayboy. Chm.
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 Hal>AJrsen
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Mayor George M. Jirotka
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson
Commissioner Robert B. Stewart
Councilmember Babe Wright
TO:
Fred E. Marquis, County Administrator
David P. Healey, Executive Director Y
Pinellas Planning Council .
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
FROM:
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 Administrative 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
County 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
^
.
REGULAR AGENDA
OTHRR ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Annexation Issues! P.P.C. Recommended Follow-Up
.
..
.
.
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 Administrative Matters: Annexation Issues! PPC Recommended Follow-
I1p
DATE:
September 8, 1998
RECOMMENnA TION: 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 OUTLINED 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 Contract" for Service - with the County, as an alternative to annexation;
6. Defined Areas Eligible for Annexation - to establish predictability as to jurisdictiQn and
service delivery;
7. Required Consistency with Countywide 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 questioris 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 fmal determination 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. .
..
.
.
EXIllBIT I:
P.P.C. Recommendation Concerning Annexation Issues
. .
.
.
September 15, 19<JR
#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 I which has been filed and made a pan of the record.
Following discussion, Chairman Todd noted concurrence that the
ppe move forward with the proposed establishment of a comprehensive
countywide system; and that the matter be placed on a future BCC ""ork Session
agenda.
1830
(;)
@
~@
ALTERNATIVES
.
.
5.
Contracts for SeIVice - Provision to enable PineIlas 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 purpose of the current InterlocaI Agreements and
pursuant to O1apter 163.3171 (3), F.S., for allowing cities to annex
designated areas without having to go through the land use plan
amendment review process otheIWise 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 oluntaty 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 ppe 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: Interlocal Agreements between County and selected aues 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 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 allloca1
governments; if it could be achieved, could make the process more
uniform.
3
(/itvhh ~
~ fa ~tf!!!f~
~I ()rp/r~'
.
.
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 JUly, 1999, with respect to enclaves only;
~ At present, would only apply tQ 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.
- nus could be done automatically and correct technical problems
before they occur by bringing the P AO into the review loop.
4
-
.
.
b. Definitions and examples by which to detennine 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 ptovide an alternative to 3.!U1exation, 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 tbe 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 Interloca1 Agreements with selected
communities.
_ It would eliminate the rorrent issue with respect to the requirement
for consistency as contained in the Interloca1 Agreements.
5
.
.
g.
An integrated procedure that provides for: (I) 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 detc:rmmation by
the CPA where the annexation is detennined 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 unifonnly 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
-
.
.
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 P~anning 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 inalysis and would
suggest that of the two options: the separate special a~ would 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 agree to work jointly in the
preparation of the requisite special legislation for the 1999 legislation session.
"
L-'iJSEJlS\WPDOCS\DPlMNNEX\ALTEJlNTV .AN)(
7
.
.
TO:
Dave Healey, Director
Pinellas Planning Council
Jewel White Co~-l..-c
Assistant County~~rney
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 unifonn throughout the state. Fla Stat ~ 171.021 (2). The Legislature did, however,
provide an exception to this propensity toward unifonnity in 9171.044,. 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 ~5(12).
However, that power is limited to reviewing annexations equal to or greater than 10 acres in "siZe 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,
:l prohibition against its being done any other way. Alsop v. Pierce. 19 So.2d 799 (pIa 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 Magnonia Park
v. Homan. 118 So.2d 585 (Fla 2d DCA 1960).
-
.
.
Based upon the above conclusion that any supplement to the annexation procedures set forth
in Chapter 171 must be accomplish~ 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 procedures for annexations in Pinellas County, specifically
conferring authority to review said annexations upon the Council. .
--
.
.
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 IT, Sec. 2.04 of the Pinellas County Charter as created by Chapter 80-590,
(t)
municipal ordinance.
Section 13. Article IT, Sec. 2.07 of the Pin
Laws of Florida, is amended to read:
om annexing an unincorporated area
. visions of general law, except that all
; n the ballot shall be:
TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION. ENABLES COUNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE AREAS
ELIGffiLE FOR ANNEXATION.
8
.
.
BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article II, Secs. 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 10 each respeQliye municipality, as Specifi~aIl7g(eral<:d by this
specIallaw?~, .,'
[J YES FOR APPROVAL
./
l:~';.0""~'. --:"'M-'
[J 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
PINELLAS
PLANNING
COUNCIL
. .
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
I DATE: July 15, 1998
I (AGENDA ITEM: VI B.
~
I
SUBJECT:
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 recommended 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 prefened vehicle by which to establish the legal authority to do so be in the form of a localbill applicable to
Pinellas County and approved by the State Legislature.
PINELIAS PL\NNING COUNCIL ACTION:
The Council received and discussed the information as presented.
Th~ Council approved pursuit of Alt. 3, subject to the concurrence and support of the Board of County
Commissioners. (Vote 13-0)
COUNfYWIDEPIANNING AUTHORIlY ACTION:
I:\USERS\WPIX>CS\MISCITEM\REGTlEMS\JUL98PPC\ANNEX. WPD
Page I
-
f3ff,f~. .
· [~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
Members, Pinellas Planning Council
Commissioner Karen Brayboy, Chairman
David P. Healey. Executive Director ~
SUBJEct: Outline of Alternative Approaches to Annexation
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ISSUES
COUNCIL MEMBERS
MEMORANDUM
Commissioner Karen Brayboy, ChIn.
. 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 Halwrsen
CommIssIoner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Mayor George M. JilOtka
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson
Cornrrissloner Robert B. Stewart
CouncIlmember Babe Wright
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:
~
cD
~ 0k11J8'
Or 10 ()}?lf~-:
3.
C9
Notification - An advance, systematic means of notification to interested
. parties; - including the annexing municipality, property owner, adjoining
municipalities and Pinellas County;
2.
Accurate Legal Description - A means of verifying and correcting
incomplete, inaccurate or overlapping legal descriptions;
::
.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
^
.
(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
~I
dj"()PII'
annexing municipality sban notifY the Council of said proposed annexatio~ and fO'r the petition
for annexation and a legal description of the subject property..";:>
municipality and a legal description of the subject prope
(a)
(b)
'! the ability to provide necessary urban
,...\:'. ,
~er.frhe review provided for under this subsection is
'\.ereview for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or
~:,~,
':p"y1he.Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida.
~ance may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A
~~!y-.;", eceives a detennination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation.
. -", .. '~~.i2i#'~!"
, Any party affected by the proposed annexation and who is aggrieved by the final
detennination 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~taff.
---
Section 8. Municipal Annexation Procedure; App als.
(1) Upon receipt ofa detennination ofcompli
7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular me
annex the property that is the subject of the determinatio
lines of the municipality to include said property. Said
annexation has been published at least once each,,:..., "'f.or2 consecu;'~'eweeks in some newspaper
},- ..i;:;-'.i.':..'- ',,":.-.:>
,- '~,E...
, aid citx.,p{town, then in a newspaper
published in the same county. The
}linance number and a brief, general
tement that the complete legal description and the ordinance can
"'Llllellt of State . ~n 7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include
. hich cl c::Shows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area.
;~-?ti c:~tJ
.fu1y 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 0 the cri ,1.a an~~.cedure set forth
::i:~::::~ h: s::: ::::e::::::: .,::0: in f:rili~~::Z
effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexa '-n,1b.at does not comply WIlli the criteria
'~~
and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and
considered unincorporated for both tax and regll;;; ...fypurposes. .
to provIde Servtces as an altern a ,e to anne,tiony",greements are encouraged where iliey
would pr~~'i1e a cost-~tiV , mutual '",~v:intage~us alternative to ~exation or where
annexatI Sll..otaC.h..1 e.. v.~~Cj.', ~~ ili. ... ..e...... cntena an~ procedures set forth In thIS Act.
-~State Plan ,endment ReView Process.
. . .....--.
" ~. , - ,"
.1' <if';;' vo" '. 'Y.llDIlexed to a municipality pursuant to ilie criteria and procedures set
f7 tills Act sball he ~ed to comply wiili and satist)> the requirements of s 163.3171, F $,
I" adoption of an " exation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the
.' ~GOmp~eh" ~ ve plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity
~__j'-"~ .~_~~,t..'t.'_~~'_:'v
"".(i~ensity 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
.
.
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 tha~roposed for
annexation to a municipality or property that is or may b come c, liguod{:" the annexing
(11) "Urban Services" means any services offer
en.. tal unit ha.v v.j(B ..'c~
A'
.;-~; ::~i~i~ ~!,*~; '.:"~~~: .~~:~.
.,..,.....;,.,'.
municipality upon completion of a proposed annexal' ~.p~'~or any
jurisdiction over either such area.
irectIy or by
contract, to any of its present residents.
under s
Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexaf~~:')l.
:i~~,jS.':-,~~);;",.;~", ~(:":':~'.>: - ..:: .
The geographic area eligible to - ::~ch,:r~~~p~ti~e municipality shall be
~);,,<.-
Said detennination shall be
approved by ill . oard by a maj vote plus one.
;.' (1; The owner l~e~ of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area
l~~;;~~~Y,P: su:::ep:::in~::::f :::::~:i:=:~ property he .~;:o ~ +
"(a) the property is located within the previously defined area eligible for annexatit
- /nph(
to the annexing municipality; ~.- /}<)
4W:&O
(b) the property is contiguous to the annexing municipality and reasonably compact;
4
.
.
and Criteria in PinelIas 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'perty by an
incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida/'"
Section 3. Authority.
ty~
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 Pine lias C
"' ,.er,':pursuant to the provisions for
amendment thereof, that would enable PinelIas
county eligible for annexation by each
procedures and criteria for voluntary
Section 4. Definitions.
, such a '.':~~~!i?aking such real property in every way a part of the municipality.
'~~~~~~\.~. '.~
"Board" m '>;;':;: e Board of County Commissioners of Pine lIas County, Florida.
8ns the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the
any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or fmger areas in serpentine patterns. Any
annexation proceeding in Pine lias 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 ofa boundary of the territory 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 munici~lity :.~liclY owned
county park; a nght-of-way for a hIghway, road, raIlroad, c aI, or . Ity;.Jfa body of water,
watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a
between the territory sought to be annexed and the
annexation under this act, provided the presence of such~ivision does not, as a pnictical matter,
prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the ann ,g m "~~c.ipality from becoming a unified
. whole with respect to municipal services or pre
trading with each other, socially and econo ,. ~ally, ': ~:r,nothin{herein shall be construed to
allow local rights-of-way, utility ~e. ~t:," ad'righ;i;,;-way, or like entities to be annexed
in a corridor fashion to gain contif aud'.'. en au~on or provisions of speciailaw or laws
prohibit the ,. exation of 'tory that is '. arated from the annexing municipality by a body of
.....t,. ...i
,t:Jaw shall prevent annexation under this Act.
o }nellas1>lanning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws
"
a _ .'Y unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and
~~}~;;J'
~~n~ll 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 service7/
providing for state plan amendment review process; prtidingJ>r
amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; p ,oviding effective
date and referendum question; providing fo eyerabil".
:tate~
,
WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densel
with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that
County area; and /.>-"'_. _
WHEREAS, annexation OfuninCOrporat:i~"Y the inCO~tedmuniciPalities is an on-
gomg significant occurrence that has i ortant . Whman(igefuent and service delivery
is in order to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and
,... . 'lature 0 the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and
. Ct system of gove . ')'~:~:Jin Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this
... e means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas
Of"
';1:..:. -~->,:c/~g
c~~W: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
,
.
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; and
· 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 "th-e "Council's information and reference. ." " ".... . "
I PlNELIAS PlANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
I COUNTYWIDE PlANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
I 1:\USERS\WPDOCS\MlSClTEM\REGITEMS\APR99PPCv\NNEXA Tl.ON
.
.
"
SUBJECT:
BAC](GROUND (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 speciallegisla~ion 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 Legislat.ive 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 200 I).
After 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 consideration and submission to the Legislative
"Delegation.
2
.
.
· 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
pany, 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.
I,L.SERS,WPDOCS DPH ANNEX 99\AITCH.ONE
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 affirm the valid, positive purpose associated with annexation.
. Definitions need to be revised, including definition of affected parties.
1
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
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 fonvarded 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 fOlwarded 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 fonvard, 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:
I I :IUS ERSI WPDOCS\>..1ISCITEMIREGITEMS\JUN99Ppa99ANNEX.LEG
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
.
-v.1 2
o 1905 PI.
~0~~%
~ ~I:::::I Q
-J .... ii .... .,Y
City of Largo, Rorida
Post Office Box 296, Largo, Florida 33779-0296
.
Community Development Department
Richard P. Goss. A.I.C.P.. Director
Administration (727) 587-6749
Licenses/Permits (727) 587.6712
Inspections (727) 587-6711
FAX (727) 587-6765
June 17, 1999
Mr. David P. Healey
Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council (PPC)
14 South Fort Harrison Avenue
Suite 3010
Clearwater, FL 34616
RE: Comments on Draft Special Act on annexation
Dear Mr. Healey:
On June 16, 1999, the Largo City Commission reviewed the draft Special Act establishing exclusive planning service
areas and approved forwarding the following comments for consideration.
General Comments:
The draft Act contains both good and bad provisions. First, determination of the area from which exclusive rights to
annex can occur addresses many service delivery issues. However, once this is done, it is fairly debatable to limit
annexation only to contiguous parcels. In fact, once exclusive areas are established, a number of other enlightened state
statutes, some involving growth management statutes, offer alternative solutions.
For example, North Carolina's annexation statute 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 approach represents a drastic departure from current practice, the Illinois statute permits
annexation agreements for service provision for those lands not contiguous to the City but within the exclusive planning
service area. Once the boundary of the city reaches the land subject to the annexation agreement, the land is
automatically annexed into the city. North Carolina, Illinois, and other alternatives should be examined for possible
application to the proposed Special Act developed by the ppc.
The City's review and recommendations for amending the draft bill incorporates suggestions which make annexation
more consistent with the primary reasons for establishing exclusive planning service areas.
Specific Comments:
1. Section 1, entitled the Preamble, infers that annexation should occur 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 district legislation has encouraged sprawl. denuded
community identity, and has made cities irrelevant. Consequently, since this Act should support sound growth
management principles of which many are coterminous with municipal interest in annexation, the following purposes
should be incorporated into the preamble:
A. This Act will enable the city to provide superior, coordinated services to its exclusive planning service area;
B. 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;
C. This Act will ensure that fringe development proceeds according to sound principles of land use planning and
important health and safety regulations; and
.
.
Mr. David P Healey
June 17, 1999
Page 2
2. Urban service provider as defined in the Purpose section fails to recognize Pinellas County as a provider of services.
Consequently, the following additional statement of policies should be added to the purpose section of the Act to further
the suggested preamble statements:
A. A commitment to the policy that cities are the best units of local government for providing a full range of
urban services,
B. 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.
C. A statement ensuring equal services to those areas annexed from the exclusive planning service area.
3. 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 Special Act should delete the words contiguous,
compact, and enclave in the Definition section. In the alternative, an extraterritorial sphere provision should be added
that incorporates the application of the city's development regulation to the exclusive planning service area. In addition,
the definition of voluntary noncontiguous annexation should also be added. Parties affected are redefined for the
purposes of this Act 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, i.e., Indian Rocks Fire District, Pinellas County Airport Authority, etc. This definition should
reflect the more common definition of affected party.
4. Areas eligible for annexation should be any property within the established exclusive planning service area regardless
of contiguity. Since this exclusive annexation area concept is very similar to the North Carolina annexation statute, we
recommend noncontiguous annexation should be permitted.
5. While establishing an exclusive planning service area is a good provIsIon, permIttIng the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) to approve this will be interesting in light of their past and current 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 the Board of County Commissioners
can fairly separate their functions as Countywide Planning Agency from that of Board of County Commissioners. We
have no recommendation to improve this since we understand the level of authority derived through the Special Act
establishing the PPC and CPA. However, this is a concern of the City.
6. The petition for voluntary annexation section does not recognize annexation agreements as a valid alternative
instrument to a separate annexation petition. Also, this Act places into jeopardy all of the City's previously recorded
agreements. Voluntary annexation pursuant to an annexation agreement for service should be incorporated into the Bill
to recognize past and current practice. It should be noted this will assist other cities who practice the same procedure.
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 recommendation is to permit voluntary noncontiguous annexation when within a designated exdusive
planning service area. Requiring: 1) annexation for service provision when noncontiguous and recognizing the validity
of past annexation agreements; or 2) requiring annexation agreements that automatically annexes a parcel upon contiguity
is recommended to be voluntary in this context.
7. In the review of annexations by the PPC and appeals section, the PPC has managed to gain a role in annexation that
they perform now, but without legal authorization. All annexations would be subject to this review, not just the current
requirement of annexations involving 10 acres or more. If the City performing the annexation must provide the
infonnation for a service determination, why is this provision needed at all?! What if service is contingent upon a project
contained in the City's Capital Improvement Program? If the project is in the fourth year, can it be said the service is
timely? Who makes the determination that the service provided is cost effective - staff of the Pinellas Planning Council?
Finally, what if the City's designated area is less than its service area? What in this Act requires the City to provide
service to an area within its Sanitary Sewer District but outside of the area eligible for annexation? To take it one step
further, will the PPC make the determination that service is not available and the annexation cannot occur? If so, the
City could take the posture to never provide sanitary sewer service outside of its exclusive area, even if the area is within
the Sanitary Sewer District. Since this position is ridiculous, would the Bill prevent the City from abandoning a portion
of the Sanitary Sewer District which is outside the eligible area for annexation? Is this latter approach any more
palatable? This Act creates more questions than it provides answers; consequently, unless the Act is revised to address
these issues, the courts will be needed to furnish many of the answers.
,
Mr. David P Healey
June 17, 1999
Page 3
.
.
of the Sanitary Sewer District which is outside the eligible area for annexation? Is this latter approach any more
palatable? This Act creates more questions than it provides answers; consequently, unless the Act is revised to address
these issues, the courts will be needed to furnish many of the answers,
While this Act establishes the PPC and the Countywide Planning Authority (Board of County Commissioners) as the
Annexation Police, how will enforcement occur? What and where are the civil and/or administrative penalties to enforce
each City to remain solely in it's planning service area? It should be noted that the City had both fonnal and informal
agreements recognizing service areas, but this did not prevent encroachment into the City's service area, This approach,
if implemented without amendment, 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. There is no need for a two tier level appeal process. One would be sufficient. Finally,
a time limit for an appeal must be specified in this section or elsewhere in the Act. Currently, an appeal by an affected
party could occur any time after final action.
8. The lirst level of appeal is at the municipal level. No time limit for appeal is noted again. 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. This needs to be revised
to discourage frivolous appeals.
9. Any voluntary annexation that does not meet the criteria of the Act as determined by the PPc, with delegation to
staff, shall null and void the City's annexation ordinance. The section fails to address the process needed for a city to
discontinue service to an illegally annexed property.
10. The Interlocal Agreement for Urban Service provision permits cities to provide urban services that the Pinellas
County Board of County Commissioners will not provide, or does not provide adequately, through the MSTU. This
provision should only be inserted in the Act 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 Pinellas
County to leverage its Charter power to receive subsidized services, without paying the full cost of a service including
capital outlays, start-up costs, and operating costs.
11. Unrelated but yet related to the Act, is the planning service area boundary. At the City Commission work session
and regular meeting, the City Commission chose not to act on a staff recommended planning service area map at this
time.
In the final analysis, in its current form, the Act fails to address the long running issues cities have had regarding
annexation in Pinellas County. In fact, the Act falls substantially short in addressing the inherent inequities that exist
between Pinellas County, as a Charter county providing urban service, and a city as a service provider. This Act needs
to address issues whil:h are unique to Pinellas County and its 24 municipalities. Many of the piOvisions contained within
the Act are unincorporated Pinellas County issues. Substantial and meaningful corrections must be made to this proposed
Act to advance more of the interests and concerns of the cities.
Should you have questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact me.
c: Steven B. Stanton, City Manager
Mayor Thomas D. Feaster
City Commissioners
-
Sf1 b l\
. .
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
\
COUNCIL MEMBERS
June 24, 1999
Councilmember Robert Kersteen. Chm
Mayor Tom De Cesare. Vice Chm.
Councilmember Chuck Williams. Treas.
Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson. See.
School Board Member Lee Benjamin
Mayor Robert DiNicola
Mayor Frank DiDonato. DC
Commissioner Janel Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Commissioner Robert Jackson
Commissioner Karen Williams See I
Councilmember William B Smith
Councilmember Babe Wrtght
Donna Carlen, TO\\11 Clerk
Town of Belleair
901 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Belleair, FL 33756-1096
David P Healey. AICP
Executive Director
Dear Ms. Carlen:
The Pinellas Planning Council wi.ll hold a public hearing on July 21, 1999 at II :00 A.M. on draft
legislation that would provide for consideration of a comprehensive and exclusive means of
voluntary annexation in Pinellas Count\'.
. .
Copies of the legal advenisement and the draft bill prepared by the Planning Council are
attached for your reference.
The purpose of the hearing is to solicit the input and panicipation of all interested panies. No
action on the draft legislation can or wi.ll be taken by the Council at the public hearing. Rather,
it wi.ll serve to provide infonnation, based on which the Council may direct staff to evaluate and
identify recommended changes to the initial draft under consideration.
The interest and panicipation of your Town is welcomed. If you have \\Titten materials you
would like to submit in advance, they will be provided to the Council as pan of their agenda
package if you will forward them to this office at least seven (7) days in advance of the July 21 st
hearing date.
Thank you for your interest and if I can answer any questions your community may have
concerning this matter, please call me.
Sincerelv,
~~ea~
Executive Director
enc
cc: The Honorable Jack Donlon, Mayor
Stephen J. Cottrell, Town Manager
Councilmember William B. Smith, Pinellas Planning Council Representative
600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160
TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212
.
.
unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and
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
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 cotenninous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The
separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a
county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, c
watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a
between the territory sought to be annexed and the
annexation under this act, provided the presence of suc
prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the ann
whole with respect to municipal services or pre fully associating and
trading with each other, socially and econo erein shall be construed to
allow local rights-of-way, utility ease , or like entities to be annexed in
a corridor fashion to gain contig y pro .on or provisions of speciallaw or laws
m the annexing municipality by a body of
lanning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws
.
e
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. vm of the State Constitution.
(10) "Party affected" means any persons or finns owning property that.
annexation to a municipality or property that is or may b come c
municipality upon completion of a proposed annexaf
jurisdiction over either such area.
(11) "Urban Services" means any services offer
contract, to any of its present residents.
Section 5. Areas Eligible for Annexa .
The geographic area eligible to
determined and delineated in both ma
of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area of
e governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the
~ect property meets the following requirements:
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
Said determination shall be
made consistent with the purpose
under s
ent of planning areas as provided for
ainance by the Board, based upon the
eviation from the Council recommendation shall be approved
.
.
the ability to provide necessary urban
review provided for under this subsection is
'ew for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or
e Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida.
its review, the Council shall transmit a detennination of either
e to the annexing municipality. A municipality that receives a
ce may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A
eives a determination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation.
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
(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 fo
for annexation and a legal description of the subject property.
Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation by.
(1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a p
municipality and a legal description of the subject prop
annexation for compliance with the following criteria:
(a)
(b)
and does not conflict with
previously established municipal bo
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; App' als.
(1) Upon receipt of a determination of compli
7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular me
annex the property that is the subject of the determination
lines of the municipality to include said property.
annexation has been published at least once each
under this section shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court
er of the county in which the municipality is located and with the
7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include
hows the annexed area and a complete legal description of that area.
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
S 10 some newspaper
in such city or town or, if no newspaper'
published in the same county. The
description of the area proposed
ce number and a brief, general
shall give the ordinance number and a
exed. The description shall include a map
nt that the complete legal description and the ordinance can
~
.
.
exed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set
d to comply with and satisfy the requirements of s 163.3171, F.S.
xation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the
plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity
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
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 0 the cri
in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and re
shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits
effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexa
and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and
considered unincorporated for both tax and regu
Section 10. Interlocal Agreemen
to provide services as an aIterna .
o enter into interlocal agreements
greements are encouraged where they
temative to annexation or where annexation
.
.
supersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the County and selected
communities pursuant to the authority ofs 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:
Section 13. Article II, Sec. 2.07 of the Pin
Laws of Florida, is amended to read:
Nothing in this Charter shall
into its municipal boundaries in
m
municipal ordinance.
exing an unincorporated area
isions of general law, except that all
ch shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take
ajonty vote of the electors of Pin ell as County voting in a special
be called and held by the county commission prior to November
n the ballot shall be:
T TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY
MUNICIP AL ANNEXATION. ENABLES COUNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE AREAS
ELIGTBIJE FOR ANNEXATION.
8
~
.
.
BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Article IT, 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
special law?
[J YES FOR APPROVAL
[J NO FOR REJECTION
Section 15. Severability.
If any provision of this Act or the applica .
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other
effect without the invalid provision
declared severable.
circumstance is held
9
.
.
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; pr . ing
amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; p oviding
date and referendum question; providing fo abir
WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densel
with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that co
area; and
WHEREAS, annexation ofunincorporate
gomg significant occurrence that has
and service delivery
implications to the unincorporated C
cipalities and the citizenry; and
WHEREAS, the Legisla
eems it to be in the best interests of the
aI, unifonn and clear method for voluntary
der to address the inadequacies, inequities, inefficiencies and
exation process; and
e of the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and
Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this
e means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas
, 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 unifonn, equitable, and integrated procedure with
clearly defined criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation of
Section 3. Authority.
incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida
This Act is promulgated pursuant to the Home R
s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to autho
the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas Co
amendment thereof, that would enable Pinellas
county eligible for annexation by each resp
and criteria for voluntary municipal
Section 4. Definitions.
ases shall have the following meanings,
g of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated
.ng such real property in every way a part of the municipality.
:;;;'~\
Board of County Commissioners of Pine lIas County, Florida.
s the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the
ompact" 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
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL P4
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
I AGENDA ITEM: VIII.
I MEETING DATE: July 21, 1999
SUBJECT: Special Public Hearing Re:Proposed Comprehensive Approach to Annexation -
Draft Legislation
RECOMMENDATION:
Council Receive and Consider Input on Draft Annexation Legislation
BACKGROUND:
As discussed with the Council at the April and June meetings, the Council has identified a
possible approach to, and draft legislation that would initiate, a more comprehensive and
definitive annexation procedure.
The Council forwarded the draft legislation to the Board of County Commissioners who held
an open workshop on the draft bill on May 25th. The Board received considerable input and
was asked to provide additional opportunity for input by the cities, in particular to the Pinellas
Planning Council. At their June Council meeting, correspondence that had been received and
a brief synopsis of the issues raised to date was reviewed with the Council. The Council in turn
agreed to schedule this public hearing for today's meeting to provide an opportunity for
additional input on the part of all parties of interest.
The specific purpose of this hearing is to solicit suggestions on changes to the draft legislation,
for the Council to consider such suggestions, and to provide appropriate guidance to staff as
to the nature of changes the Council would like to see addressed.
It is anticipated that staff, based on Council's direction, will prepare revisions to the draft bill
for subsequent review and discussion by the Council at the September, 1999 Council meeting.
A copy of the draft bill, a copy of the notice mailed to each jurisdiction, correspondence
received subsequent to the June meeting, as well as the materials that accompanied the June
agenda memorandum meeting, are attached for the Council's information and reference.
I PINELIAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION;
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
I :IUSERSI WPDOCS\MI SClTEMIREGITEM SIJUL99PPCIDRAFT. LEG
."
.
.
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
Pinellac; County and enahle the county to designate the geogr:qJhic areas of the county
speciallaw?
[] YES FOR APPROVAL
[] NO FOR REJECTION
Section 15. Severability.
If any provision of this Act or the applica .
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other
effect without the invalid provision
declared severable.
circumstance is held
9
l, '"
-
.
..
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.
t Review Process.
exed to a municipality pursuant to the criteria and procedures set
to comply with and satisfy the requirements ofs 163.3171, F.S.
xation ordinance, the annexing municipality may immediately apply the
plan to any such area if the City's comprehensive plan provides for intensity
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
Section 9. Effect of Annexation.
An area voluntarily annexed to a municipality pursuant
in this Act shall be subject to all laws, ordinances and re
shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits
effective date of the annexation. Any voluntary annexa
and procedures set forth in this Act shall be null and
considered unincorporated for both tax and regu
Section 10. Interlocal Agreemen
The County and each municip
o enter into interlocal agreements
greements are encouraged where they
to provide services as an alterna .
temative to annexation or where annexation
.
.
upersede those existing interlocal agreements entered into between the County and selected
ommunities 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,
aws of Florida, is amended to read:
(t)
Section 13. Article II, Sec. 2.07 of the Pin
Laws of Florida, is amended to read:
Nothing in this Charter shall
into its municipal boundaries i
ed by Chapter 80-590,
exing an unincorporated area
. sions of general law, except that all
ch shall take effect only upon becoming law, shall take
ajonty vote of the electors of Pin ell as County voting in a special
be called and held by the county commission prior to November
T TITLE: PROVIDES AN EXCLUSNE METHOD FOR VOLlJNT ARY
MlJNICIP AL ANNEXATION. ENABLES COUNTY TO DESIGNATE THOSE AREAS
EUGffiLE FOR ANNEXATION.
8
.,
.
.
the ability to provide necessary urban
review provided for under this subsection is
.ew for ability to serve for annexations often (10) acres or
e Council under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida
its review, the Council shall transmit a determination of either
e to the annexing municipality. A municipality that receives a
ce may proceed with the annexation as set forth in Section 8 below. A
ives a detennination of non-compliance shall not proceed with the annexation.
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
(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 agreements the
annexing municipality shall notify the Council of said proposed annexation and fo
for annexation and a legal description of the subject property.
Section 7. Review of Proposed Annexation b):
(1) Upon receipt from a municipality of a p
municipality and a legal description of the subject prop
annexation for compliance with the following criteria:
(a)
(b)
previously established municipal bo
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; App' also
(1) Upon receipt of a determination of compli
7(2), the annexing municipality may, at any regular m
annex the property that is the subject of the detennination
lines of the municipality to include said property. Said
annexation has been published at least once each m some newspaper
in such city or town or, if no newspaper'
published in the same county. The ce number and a brief, general
description of the area proposed shall give the ordinance number and a
exed. The description shall include a map
nt that the complete legal description and the ordinance can
under this section shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court
of the county in which the municipality is located and with the
7 days after the adoption of such ordinance. The ordinance must include
hows the annexed area and.a complete legal description of that area
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
.
.
unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and
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
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
county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, c
watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a
between the territory sought to be annexed and the
annexation under this act, provided the presence of sueD
prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the ann
whole with respect to municipal services or pre
fully associating and
erein shall be construed to
trading with each other, socially and econo
allow local rights-of-way, utility eas
a corridor fashion to gain conti
, or like entities to be annexed in
on or provisions of special law or laws
m the annexing municipality by a body of
Planning Council, as created by Chapter 88-464, Laws
.
.
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. vm of the State Constitution.
(10) "Party affected" means any persons or firms owning property that.
annexation to a municipality or property that is or may b
municipality upon completion of a proposed annexaf
jurisdiction over either such area.
(11) "Urban Services" means any services offer
contract, to any of its present residents.
Section S. Areas Eligible for Annexa .
The geographic area eligible to
detennined and delineated in both m
Said determination shall be
under s
ent of planning areas as provided for
ainance by the Board, based upon the
eviation from the Council recommendation shall be approved
rs of real property, or his or her agent, in an unincorporated area of
e governing body of a municipality that said property be annexed to the
~ect property meets the following requirements:
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
.
.
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; p . ing
amendment to the Pinellas County Charter; p oviding
date and referendum question; providing fo abir
WHEREAS, Pinellas County is the most densel
with twenty-four (24) incorporated municipalities that co
area; and
WHEREAS, annexation of unincorporat
going significant occurrence that has
and service delivery
implications to the unincorporated C
WHEREAS, the Legisla
exation process; and
eo the State of Florida declares it essential to a well-planned and
Pinellas County that the method of annexation provided for in this
e means by which voluntary municipal annexation may occur in Pinellas
, 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 unifonn, equitable, and integrated procedure with
clearly defined criteria to provide the exclusive means for voluntary annexation of
incorporated municipality within Pinellas County, Florida
Section 3. Authority.
This Act is promulgated pursuant to the Home R
s 171.044(4), F.S. (Supp. 1998), as a special law to autho
the electorate to consider amendment of the Pinellas Co
amendment thereof, that would enable Pinellas
county eligible for annexation by each resp
and criteria for voluntary municipal
Section 4. Defmitions.
ases shall have the following meanings,
g of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated
. g such real property in every way a part of the municipality.
Board of County Commissioners of Pine lias County, Florida
the Board of County Commissioners sitting in its capacity as the
ompact" 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
.
0' . .
~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
June 25, 1999
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Chm.
Miyor Tom De Cesare, Vice Chm.
Councilmember Chudc Williams, Treas.
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson, Sec.
School Board Member Lee Benjamin
Miyor Robert DiNicola
Miyor Frank DiDonato, D.C.
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Commissioner Robert Jadcson
Commissioner Karen Williams See!
Councilmember William B. Smith
Councilmember Babe Wright
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
Ms. Shelley Tedeschi
Legal Advertising Department
Post Office Box 191
Tampa, Fl 33601
Dear Ms. Tedeschi:
Re: Legal Notice for July 21, 1999 Pinellas Planning Council Special Meeting
Concerning Annexation
Attached is the legal notice for the July 21, 1999 special meeting which must be published
on Saturday, July 3, 1999. Please follow our standard procedure utilizing no less than a
quarter page ad in the Saturday Pinellas edition of the Tampa Tribune. This notice should
not be placed in the legal or the classified sections of the newspaper.
Please follow our standard procedure utilizing no less than a quarter page ad in the
Saturday Pinellas editions of the Tampa Tribune. This notice should not be placed in the
legal or the classified sections of the newspaper.
The headline for the notice should be in type no smaller than 18 points.
Please send affidavit and bill to Dolly Deal, Pinellas Planning Council, 600 Cleveland St.,
Ste 850, Clearwater, FI 33755.
Sincerely,
~y,~
Executive Director
Allacfvnents
I:\USERS\WPDOCS\LlMDNOTICE\RULEADS\ANNEXPPC.AD
600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160
TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212
.
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER lEGISLATION
DIRECTED AT A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH TO ANNEXATION
The Pinellas Planning Council, will conduct a public hearing on draft legislation that would
enable the consideration of a comprehensive approach to, and provide for the exclusive
means of, annexation in Pinellas County.
The Pinellas Planning Council public hearing will be held on July 21, 1999 at 11 :00 A.M.
in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County
Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida.
The purpose of this public hearing is to gather information and provide an opportunity for
all interested parties to comment on the draft legislation prepared by the Pinellas Planning
Council. The Planning Council will take no formal action on the draft legislation at this
public hearing, but rather will consider the comments and information presented so as to
formulate a final recommendation that may subsequently be transmitted to the appropriate
parties for formal action according to the requisite process.
The draft legislation is in the form of a special law that would authorize a referendum to
consider amendment of the Pinellas County Charter that would establish the exclusive
means by which municipal annexation could occur in Pinellas County and is entitled as
follows:
AN ACT TO ENABLE COUNTYWIDE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 CHARGER; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND REFERENDUM
QUESTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
The 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 enable Pinellas County to
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 .
.
.
The Pinel/as Planning Council will consider the information received at the pubic hearing
and direct staff to evaluate this information and prepare any recommended changes to the
draft legislation for Council review and further consideration at a later date. The Council
is not authorized to, and will not, take any formal action on the draft legislation at this public
hearing.
Copies of the draft legislation to be considered at public hearing are available at the office
of the Pinel/as Planning Council, 600 Cleveland St., Suite 850, Clearwater, Florida; further
information about the draft legislation can be obtained by calling (727) 464-8250.
Interested parties are invited to attend the hearings to present facts or express views on
the draft legislation identified in this advertisement.
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. Fl Harrison Ave., Suite 300. Clearwater.
FI 33756. (727) 464-4062 (VITDD).
~ min' .
\).l'MWIIauIT1
.
s
Ii
il
!s
~.
~
i
PINELLAS
PLANNING COUNCIL
I
I
l!
~
GIW'IIICS PRlPAJtID n '111I orriCK or
I'DlIlUS COUNTY PIlOPDIT AI'PIlAJBD,
JD( lDIl'III
........ .... .-r IL&, ........ ... .......... ....... ......... ..... . ..... ---.
.~ PINELLAS~
JUL - \ \<::)99 . LJ J
U l ,.-/
L---
,LAN N iI<
S
Cl'TV 0 F
N~IL
tL:~~
7h1//)e~) t-W0
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\[~n
Councilmember Robert Kersteen, Chm.
Mayor Tom De Cesare, Vice Chm.
Councilmember Chuck Williams, Treas.
Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson, Sec.
School Board Member Lee Benjamin
Mayor Robert DiNicola
Mayor Frank DiDonato, D.C.
Commissioner Janet Henderson
Commissioner Ed Hooper
Commissioner Robert Jackson
Commissioner Karen Williams Seel
Councilmember William B. Smith
Councilmember Babe Wright
June 24, 1999
~'A;~.' ".1\.\ EH
<~-'~r~-IVEI)
F:'~~\ ," ~ \._) J;:~ ....
JUN 28 1999
Ms. Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33758-4748
"IT, V nU=.:\K DE?T.
lJ' . .;
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
Dear Ms. Goudeau:
The Pinellas Planning Council will hold a public hearing on July 21, 1999 at 11 :00 AM. on draft
legislation that would provide for consideration of a comprehensive and exclusive means of
voluntary annexation in Pinellas County.
Copies of the legal advertisement and the draft bill prepared by the Planning Council are
attached for your reference.
The purpose of the hearing is to solicit the input and participation of all interested parties. No
action on the draft legislation can or will be taken by the Council at the public hearing. Rather,
it will serve to provide information, based on which the Council may direct staff to evaluate and
identify recommended changes to the initial draft under consideration.
The interest and participation of your City is welcomed. If you have written materials you would
like to submit in advance, they will be provided to the Council as part of their agenda package
if you will forward them to this office at least seven (7) days in advance of the July 21st hearing
date.
Thank you for your interest and if I can answer any questions your community may have
concerning this matter, please call me.
Sincerely, .
~.:Ieal~
. Executive Director
enc
cc: The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor
Mr. Michael Roberto, City Manager
Commissioner Ed Hart, Pinellas Planning Council Representative
600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160
TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212
I AGENDA ITEM: VI B.
I SUBJECT:
Annexation Bill - Revised Draft
I MEETING DATE: September 15,1999
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL PAt
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:
Council Review and Approve Revised Draft of Annexation Bill
BACKGROUND:
The Council prepared and considered draft legislation that would initiate a more
comprehensive and useful approach to the annexation process in April. The draft legislation
was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, who held an extensive workshop on
the draft in May and requested the Council provide an opportunity for additional input. The
Council considered this request at the June PPC meeting, including a summary of the
comments reviewed to date. At the June meeting the Council scheduled a public hearing for
July and authorized the staff to initiate work on delineating potential annexation areas as
called for in the legislation.
The Council conducted a special public hearing at the July PPC meeting and received
considerable input which is summarized in the minutes of the July meeting. Many of the
comments and positions were as previously communicated to the Council and provided as
back-up material to the Council at the June and July meetings. '"
The Council concluded the public hearing by indicating that the comments received would be
considered. Based on the comments received and discussion by the Council, staff and legal
counsel have completely revised the first draft of the proposed legislation and bring it back to
the Council for your review and direction. The principal changes to the revised draft are as
follows:
I PINELIAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
1:IUSERSIWPDOCS\\.1ISCITEMIREGITEMSISEPY9PPaANNXBILL. REV
SUBJECT: Annexation Bill - Revised Draft
BAC](GROUND (continued)
. Emphasizes that annexation areas to be established are a function of planning
and service considerations and stipulates that areas will be established at the
same time (as opposed to after) the process is put in place.
. Simplifies administration so that annexation proceeds as otherwise provided for
in law as long as the property being annexed is contiguous to existing municipal
boundaries and within the prescribed planning/service area for that municipality;
. Only additional requirements are that advance notice be given and that legal
description be confirmed; -f tzo!J??'.ty ~ )7C ~ ~
. Reverses the responsibility for appeal to place the burden for appeal with the
ppe rather than local government and provides only one place for appeal;
. Removes the objection to and the need for detailed rules/procedures since there
will be none other than as provided in the bill itself;
.
ElimiI}~tes the prohibition on the creation of enclaves;
/rM:Jh,t?1 t/t1/J/1/r~
Eliminates ability to serve review- it will ge im'plicit in the mapped areas
established f?~ .k:7hyi2 t8 ~:y ff(!', ~
.
. Legal details - attorney fees, appeal period etc. addressed as requested.
. ~P. J11UU4~ ~
f;;// Iv P f7!!2e~ ~?~
~UlE cg- -I1iW ~~~
()PJ/.al!M n6f1~hh}u11 ;!-?Ye fo J2t jPUfl//tv/
/71 IW/:Jt!h~ ~~/W(. (/e.- <i1/(!~H -Jr~~
-tlbJ/;Jr fo~tznie I2hha ~~
i~/I)ttVtJYZ0!fYhc>>t~ -
/JuJ1ff.;WO:tutt:l IS- ~." ~quJ,
'jilJ/le ~ ~/6 a;;d~
~ ~ ~ Lbprl:--fad4'S'&/s'
7-"1 ~7J)L7iJJ/1&t 0'"911
2
=
o
.,..
....
=
N
.,..
=
=
0lJ
~
o
=
=
~
~
~
'e
.,..
~
~
....
=
=
o
U
.....
c:
CD
c:
o
c.
E
..... 0
t: 0
CD
t: -
o S
c. c:
E CD
o E
o E
CD CD
In >
::J 0
C)
-c J...
t: CD
as .....
..J.E
. .
c. ~
-- ....
.c c:
f: en ::] en
l- f: 0 CD
CD
0 CJ en
..... ::]
..... --
..... -
ca ca ca -c
c. - ....
..... CD en c:
f: I- ca ca
0 -
CD c: 'I-
E 0 (.) 0
~
-- J..
= C. .... ::] ><
ca
0 --
aJ .... 0 E
- I-
= CD 0 'I-
> C. 0 -c
0 CD en CD s::
~ -c c: J.. ca
e -c ca ::] c:
I- ....
CD -l..: ca 0
0 .c s:: --
CD ....
en ::]
U en -
-- ca .c
- ::]
.c --
CJ --
QJ ca -c J..
CI) ....
..... c:: en
\11 en c. --
ca
~ CD en -c
-
en CD CI) CD CI)
~ CD .c .c .c .c
~ I-- I-- I-- I-
= en
en A A A A
~ -
~ .
~
=
aJ
=
o
~
e
o
u
-
m
(.)
o
-
o
.....
c: ~
as I..
- (l)
C. >
.-
(l) -
-c (l)
.- -c
3: (l)
~ (.)
..... tn .-
c: c: >
:J as I..
o - (l)
(.) C. tn
'I-(l)-c
o > c:
.- m
c.tn
.- c: c:
J: (l) 0
tn.c: .-
c: (l) CO
o I.. ><
+:c.(l)
tn ~ E c:
(l) (l) 0 c:
:J a: (.) <c
tn
tn A A
~
=
~
=
aJ
e
=
~
aJ
~
o
OJ:)
~
aJ
~
=
~
-
.
tn
(l)
tn
:J
-C -c
c: c:
as as
C) ~
c: C)
.- c:
..... .-
.- .....
tn .....
.-
~ E
.- '-
== ... (l)
(.) c: C. tn
m (l) ~ (l)
'I- E ~'-
.~ c. (l) ~
:c 0 .S; G)
:J Ci) (l) (.)
c. > '- 0
..!. (l) E Q.
tn -c (l) ,..
as (.) E J..
:J.- 0
C- E c..-
----- 0 1:)
(.) 0 - (l)
:E 5 ~ C.
:J (.) (l) ~
c. w C._
A A A
8
=
~
.0lJ
o
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
....-
=
'-e
~
;:J
=
=
~
~
.....
~
o
e.
CD
~
~
~
ca
t:
--
E
-c
t:_____
::::J tn
o CD
~ --
C)(.)
~=
(.) 0
cae.
.c~
CD ~
tn=ca
tn e._5
CD S S
(.) 0 -_- ,... C\I
000
J..O~ 0 0
c.. I e. C\I C\I
..... 0 · ·
5i 0 8"1:: 0. 0._
S 0-0 Q) Q)C5
C\I CD> e. en -c en__
e.. CD 0 0-=
o .....e. CD ~ 0 -_ ,,,
- -c .....J............
CD CD tn 0 CD ,... c:
> en -c _~ 0 c. 0 CD
Q) O:amo:s: oS
C - Q) C\I Q) C\I Q)
J.. C S 10 ....; -- ...; c..
m nsnsb 06) oE
> J -c tn 0 J.. 0__
I A A A
M
.
c:
ca
-
c.
CD
...
ca
--
-
CD
~
c..
--
...
--
c:
-
I
I
aJ
'e
.,...
~
~
~
=
=
o
U
'e
aJ
~
=,.::
'e:=
~~
aJ =
,.c: =
~5:
I
CD C
-c Qi
__ UJ >
~ c 0
~ .! C)
... 0. J..
C CD
::1 CD...
o > c
u ----
o ~ ~
... CI.) c:
C .t: CO
.2 ~ J:
... 0. C
S E CD
c 0 1;
_~ U.t: c
o Cii'" 0
en 0 m+=
11\ 0 -- co
~ - u C
::1 CD ----
UJ ... (5-c
tn co c.~
-- u 0
cUJ::.t:o
co E c. tn u
~ CD ::1 :: Cii
c.o"C.c-
c.c:-SC:
AO 0 UJCD
.........uzwE
. ..
'I-
o
~
CI)
--
>
CI)
~
~
u
c
CI)
...
tn
-- tn
tn C
C co
0-
uo.
~ CI)
o >
'I- --
tn tn
__ C
tn (I.)
co.t:
.cCD
cae.
.c:E
_~ 0
-u
.c
ca-
..... ca
u.
tn 0
w_
.
'e
QJ
~
~
'e
~
;J =
QJ ~
~5:
~ QJ
O:S=
QJ ~
rI1 ~
o~
~ ==
~
= 0
~u
-
~S
..., c:
c: (1)
::s E
o c:
o i..
o (1)
ns >
= 0
(1) C)
c: ~
.- (1)
a. ...,
c:
~ .-
o
'I-
"
c: c:
o ns
.- (1)
.! tn
> ~
..., "
I: c:
CD ns
..., -
o
.- "
o (1)
I: i..
o ca
(.) .c:
ns tn
.0
~ U) U)
.- ~ (1)
> " ::s
~ " 0
a. <C.!
. .
I:
ns
-
(1) C.
"
.- 0 CI)
3:(1):2
~::s ~
..., 0 ;>
c: 0 ~
::s.- E
0..., ::s
(.) 5i 0
.s E U
(1) ~
mC)~
I: ns 0
o I: .-
C. ns 0
o E ns
(1) .c
i...c: ~
(1)"" (.)
.c:~=
..., 0 O.!
(1) C, c. c:
..., ----- ns (1)
CO C') E
.5.5 ~ 'C
~ c: .- c:
01: >(1)
o ~ ~ E
Oc.a.ns
. .
(1)
o
:J
ns
(.)
o
...,
-
ns
.-
...,
I:
S 0
0""
c. .2
-
(1)'1-
J: I:
..... 0
.c: (.)
..... -
.- ns
3: c:
tn .2
(1)...,
::J .2
tn"
.! 0
.-
~:;
.- .~
..... .-
c:~
(1) ~
~E
.
.
.
~
=
=
JIIIIIIIIIf
~
~ ~
.,.. ~
~s
~ 0
=u
=.
o ~
u=
QJ ~
~ .,..
~~
e1J~
= 0
~~
=
~
Q.c
~
....
~
o
-c
c:
as
:I:
-
.-
(.)
c:
~
o
o
C)
c:
.-
c:
c:
as
-
c.
tn
co
-
-
Q)
c:
.-
C.
-
as
c:
o
.-
....
as
E
I-
o
\l-
e:
-
c:
<C
.. '
~.rwater
To:
Community Development Board Members
From:
Ralph Stone, Director of Planning
Date:
May 1, 2000
RE:
Countywide Plan Update
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) is undertaking an update of the Countywide Plan and is
seeking input from all Pinellas County local governments. The Plan is a document designed to
guide the planning efforts of the twenty-four local municipalities and the unincorporated county
and was developed by the PPC 1979. The Plan has not been substantively updated since that
time.
Larry Pflueger, Principal Planner of the PPC, will make a presentation to the Board regarding the
plan update process at the May 16th meeting. Information will be presented on the purpose of the
updated plan, the work program, and the plan organization. At the meeting, Mr. Pflueger will be
seeking your comments and ideas on improvements to the Plan.