HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 01 14 Regular 602 Information Re: Existing Enclaves in the City and Legal Options for Annexing Said EnclavesCOMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 602
January 14, 2008
Meeting
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular x
~-~ , ~ o$
Mgr. / Att. / Dept.
REQUEST: The City Attorney presents information regarding existing enclaves located within the
City and the legal options for annexing said enclaves under Florida law. The City Attorney also
requests that the City Commission provide formal direction regarding the available options.
PURPOSE:
The purpose ofthis Agenda Items is to provide a summary ofthe current "enclaves" located within
the City and to outline legal options for eliminating said enclaves in furtherance of the public policy
expressed under the annexation laws of Florida.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
1. Chapter 171, Florida Statutes.
2. City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan.
3. Interlocal Agreement between the City and Seminole County, dated February 9, 1987.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The City and Seminole County previously entered into an Interlocal Agreement, dated
February 9, 1987, regarding internal County enclaves located within the City of Winter
Page 1 of 6
Springs. ("1987 Interlocal Agreement"). The 1987 Interlocal Agreement identifies certain
"Areas of Concern" and states that "at the time of development, the County will encourage
the property owners to seek Annexation into the City." Further, the County agreed not to
sue challenging an annexation of any of the enclaves based on the grounds that the annexation
creates an enclave, provided the annexation complies in all other respects with the annexation
laws of Florida. In exchange the City agreed to provide all life safety services to those Areas
of Concern and also agreed to indemnify the County for any injury or damage resulting from
the City not or negligently performing these services. The City is not compensated for
providing life safety services to these areas.
2. The 1987 Interlocal Agreement provides that it will not terminate unless mutually agreed to
in writing by the parties and until all property within the area of concern is annexed into the
City.
3. During the past twenty (20) years as Winter Springs developed, it appears that the City has
made some progress annexing parts of the Areas of Concern identified under the 1987
Interlocal Agreement. It appears from comparing the map attached to the 1987 Interlocal
Agreement and the November 2007 map of existing enclaves attached to this Agenda ("
Enclave Map"), parts of the enclaves identified in 1987 Interlocal Agreement along
Tuskawilla Road and north and south of S.R. 434, Orange Avenue, and north of S.R. 434
adjacent to the Seminole Expressway Interchange (S.R. 417) have been annexed into the City.
However, as depicted on the Enclave Map, numerous smaller enclaves now exist.
4. During the past twenty years, said annexations were predominantly voluntary and consented
to by property owners. It appears that these voluntary annexations were not driven by the
provisions contained in the 1987 Interlocal Agreement. Rather, the motive for annexation
was likely driven by land development and the corresponding need for City water and sewer
service. The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that unincorporated property owners enter
into an annexation agreement with the City as a condition of receiving potable water and
sewer service from the City. In addition, there is also one instance of an annexation which
was partially involuntary (re: southwest corner of S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road -Jesup
Reserve/Ondick properties) where one entire enclave was annexed by a vote of the parcel
owners who were seeking to develop more than 50 percent of annexed land.
5. In sum, based on the experiences of the past twenty years, there appears to be very little (if
any) incentive for enclave property owners to annex into the City unless the property owner
has a need for City water or sewer service. Therefore, two general conclusions can be made
regarding the future annexation of the Areas of Concern identified in the 1987 Interlocal
Agreement:
a) The enclaves that are currently developed or improved and that are utilizing
functioning wells and septic tanks will likely remain enclaves indefinitely unless some
other steps are taken to compel annexation in furtherance of the State's policy to
Page 2 of 6
eliminate enclaves.
b) The enclaves that are vacant and unimproved land or subject to major redevelopment
will likely be annexed at the time that the enclaves are developed and City water and
sewer service is required, provided the enclaves meet the other requirements of
annexation.
6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, there are other legal ways to expedite the annexation of
"enclaves" located within the City: (1) the Florida Legislature can adopt a special act which
incorporates the enclaves into the City; and (2) under certain conditions, the City and
Seminole County can enter into an agreement that incorporates the enclaves into the City or
adopts more flexible annexation consent requirements. This Agenda Item will not address a
special act, but will address the possible legal strategies involved in entering into an agreement
with Seminole County.
7. In addition to the more frequent ways of annexing land through the voluntary and involuntary
procedures set forth in chapter 171, Florida Statutes, Florida law provides special provisions
for cities and counties to agree on the annexation of "enclaves" under Part I and Part II of
chapter 171, Florida Statutes. In order to understand these provisions, it is first important to
understand the definition of "enclave."
8. Section 171.031 (13), Florida Statutes, provides that the term "enclave" means:
a) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and
bounded on all sides by a single municipality; or
b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and
bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows
the passage of vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the
municipality.
9. Given this limited statutory definition, it appears that the areas identified on the Enclave Map
as enclaves 17 through 20 and enclaves 21 through 2g do not meet the statutory definition
of enclave, even though they are pockets ofunincorporated areas surrounded on all sides by
two different cities. However, enclaves 1 through 16 appear to generally meet the statutory
definition of enclave because they are surrounded on all sides by the City of Winter Springs
or surrounded on all sides by the City of Winter Springs and a natural obstacle (Lake Jesup),
provided it can be demonstrated that each enclave is improved or developed.
10. Section 171.046, Florida Statutes provides:
(1) The Legislature recognizes that enclaves can create significant problems in planning,
growth management, and service delivery, and therefore declares that it is the policy of
Page 3 of 6
the state to eliminate enclaves
(2) In order to expedite the annexation of enclaves of 10 acres or less into the most
appropriate incorporated jurisdiction, based upon existing or proposed service provision
arrangements, a municipality may:
(a) Annex an enclave by interlocal agreement with the county having jurisdiction of
the enclave; or
(c) Annex an enclave with fewer than 25 registered voters by municipal ordinance
when the annexation is approved in a referendum by at least 60 percent of the
registered voters who reside in the enclave.
(3) This section does not apply to undeveloped or unimproved real property.
1 L In 2006, the Florida Legislature adopted Part II of chapter 171, Florida Statutes, entitled the
"Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act." ("Act"). The Act is intended to provide for
a more flexible and supplemental approach to annexations by Interlocal Service Boundary
Agreements ("ISBA")between counties and cities. While the full scope ofthe Act is beyond
the scope of this Agenda Item, several key provisions of the Act apply to enclaves. In
relevant part, section 171.205 provides:
Notwithstanding part I, an interlocal service boundary agreement may provide a process for
annexation consistent with this section or with part I.
(1) ... The interlocal service boundary agreement may not authorize annexation unless the
consent requirements of part I are met or annexation is consented to by one or more of
the following:
(a) The municipality has received a petition for annexation from more than SO
percent of the registered voters who reside in the area proposed to be annexed.
(b) The annexation is approved by a majority of the registered voters who reside in the
area proposed to be annexed voting in a referendum on the annexation.
(c) The municipality has received a petition for annexation from more than 50
percent of the persons who own property within the area proposed to be annexed.
~~*
(3) For all or a portion of an enclave consisting of more than 20 acres within a designated
municipal service area, the interlocal service boundary agreement may provide a flexible
process for securing the consent of persons who are registered voters or own property in
Page 4 of 6
the area proposed for annexation, or of both such voters and owners, for the annexation
of property within such an enclave, with notice to such voters or owners as required in the
interlocal service boundary agreement The interlocal service boundary agreement may
not authorize annexation of enclaves under this subsection unless the consent
requirements of part I are met, the annexation process includes one or more of the
procedures in subsection (1), or the municipality has received a petition for annexation
from one or more persons who own real property in excess of 50 percent of the total real
property within the area to be annexed.
(4) For all or a portion of an enclave consisting of ZO acres or fewer within a designated
municipal service area, within which enclave not more than 100 registered voters reside,
the interlocal service boundary agreement may provide a flexible process for securing the
consent of persons who are registered voters or own property in the area proposed for
annexation, orofboth such voters and owners, for the annexation ofproperty within such
an enclave, with notice to such voters or owners as required in the interlocal service
boundary agreement Such an annexation process may include one or more of the
procedures in subsection (1) and may allow annexation according to the terms and
conditions provided in the interlocal service boundary agreement, which may include a
referendum of the registered voters who reside in the area proposed to be annexed.
12. Many ofthe statutory enclaves identified on Enclave Map and Matrix as 1 through 16 are less
than 20 acres. Although verification by on-site inspection is required, many of the enclaves
also appear to be "improved" land based on Department of Revenue coding. Given these
facts and the statutory provisions cited above, there are possible opportunities for the City
and Seminole County to expedite the annexation of these enclaves into the City of Winter
Springs by use of a standard interlocal agreement (ch. 171, Fla. Stat., part I) or an Interlocal
Service Boundary Agreement (ch. 171, Fla. Stat., part II).
13. In addition, a more flexible approach for the future annexation of the enclaves greater than
20 acres and the areas identified as enclaves 17 through 20 and 21 through 28 may also be
negotiated related to the annexation consent requirements. In other words, the City and
County can agree to an easier way to get the property owners or registered voters to agree
to the annexation. See §171.205(1), Fla. Stat.
14. These opportunities can only be explored and implemented if Seminole County was willing
to modify the provisions ofthe 1987 Interlocal Agreement. The modifications could compel
the annexation of the enclaves to the extent possible under either an interlocal agreement or
Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement and/adopt more flexible consent requirements for the
future annexation of the enclaves as provided in an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement.
Unless Seminole County was willing to negotiate a modified agreement, the enclaves can only
be annexed through the voluntary and involuntary annexation procedures contained in part
I of chapter 171, Florida Statutes or by special act of the Legislature.
Page 5 of 6
15. A substantial amount of complex legal and planning work will be required to negotiate and
prepare such an agreement. Land Title and Surveying work may also be required.
16. Before proceeding with preparing a modification of the 1987 Interlocal Agreement, it seems
that both the City Commission and Seminole County Commission should provide clear
direction to proceed with negotiating a modification of the 1987 Interlocal Agreement.
17. The City Commission should also be aware that there are procedural formalities that must be
complied with before the City and County can proceed under the Act to negotiate an
Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement including the adoption of an initiating resolution.
Moreover, under the Act the City could compel Seminole County to negotiate an amendment
to the 1987 Interlocal Agreement by adopting an initiating resolution identifying issues for
negotiation which may include, but are not limited to, annexations, land use planning, and
delivery of services. However, while the Act requires good faith negotiations after the
adoption of an initiating resolution, the Act does not require the County to enter in an
Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement. No such formalities exist for a standard Interlocal
agreement which is contemplated under section 171.046, Florida Statutes, for the annexation
of enclave that are 10 acres or less.
18. If the City Commission desires to proceed with attempting to modify the 1987 Interlocal
Agreement, it is recommended, as an Interlocal government courtesy, that the City
Commission first approach the Seminole County Commission to broach the possibility of
modifying the agreement before proceeding with an initiating resolution under the Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney requests formal direction from the City Commission regarding whether or not to
explore with Seminole County the possible modification ofthe 1987 Interlocal Agreement in order
to expedite the annexation of enclaves located within the City.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Matrix and Map of existing "enclaves" located within the City that was prepared by Eloise
Sahlstrom, Senior Planner. (Note: some ofthe enclaves identified do not meet the statutory definition
of "enclave.")
2. Interlocal Agreement between the City of Winter Springs and Seminole County, dated February
9, 1987.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission previously directed that the City Attorney prepare a report on the possibility of
working with Seminole County in order to eliminate the existing "enclaves" located within the City.
Page 6 of 6
N
`~ ~ _.. ~ ~ ~ Iii
~ ~ S
_ ~_:
i' ~-V
~` f
~~ ~ {
......~,. _.... o ,.._
_ _
% 1
~~ 2 x+t "'~.~ ~f r' ' 4
r ~i i~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ -
n a ~ {r
~ ~ t 4~. ~ ~. ~~~ ~ r rar,", . i --
a
~ R3 f
i ` ~ i
~ ~ ,~ ~' F , ,~,~ ~. ,! .t ~ ~,~
r ~ y t ~- i ~, > , ,
~N ~ r ~` ~ *,~~ r - i m
CJ O 0 t ,~ ,r ,, ~ J 1~ r~ ! ~ 'M ~~ ,f
~r ~ ~ ~ ~. s
T `Q, ~ ~ '
Z ~;~-fir
,,` ,~'
w
° ~ -- ~1
9~~$ k „ t^~ }y _
1
a
~ ~ ~ x ~
~ ~ M
~
~L ~
C ~ ~
Q H
(~
U O O rn ~ d' ~' ~ .b
J '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 3 N ~ O N N ~ R~ ~ N M ~
w ~ Ri 01 ~ ~ c~ Q ~ Q Q Q ~ "" ¢ Q' ~ 3 V N N N N
~ cn
Q ~ a~ ~ b
~ ~
bA a~
bA ~
b4 a~
bA ~
bA ~ 3
3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O a
O ~, i
v~ ~, o
'"~ rn
~ ~
~ o,
~ o,
~
s., 0 .--~ M M O l l l [
~ ~ o o ~. ~, ~, ~. ~. ~ o a. G4 ~ ~ a~ ~ Gq ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 ~ ~' ~, ~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 E-~ v~ v~ r~ v~ L ~1 a, ~ x ,..a ~ ~ 'a ~
N p
~ O_
~
~
~ n
y O
O
d ~'-
y
.~ ~
N
~ O
O ~
~ ~
~ N
3 ~
Z N
N
N
N
O
O
O
V
N
00
N
0
~
N
N
N
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W
~ ~
~ w
~~
~
M
N
N
N
h
f~
~
t1y
M
V
N
~
O
Q
to
N
V
M
O
~
M
~
E a
a~
~ o
:a o
C n
0
Q.
~
O
~
L ~ r
O
V
~ h O
n
~
N
v rn u°~ °~
~
~
r ~
d Q ~ N
~ ~ ~
W N ~
W O
C
d O
N
N
C
~ N f~ (O 000 ~
~
~
r" M ~ N
V
W O M O N 00 N O to O M N N O O f~ O
~ ~ M ~I7
W n O O M .-- M V O 0 N N O O V 0 0 M CO
- M N 0 ~ m 0D ~ R 0 0 N M M ~ Ln ~ N O M 0
N V' a O O O O
~j %v o o ° ~0 0 0 ~ o 0
~'' ~~ N ~ N n ~
...
~ M ~ ~ M ~ V N
0 N ~ n
Z mo
~
'o a o a o o -
o a o a o a o 0
~ ~ a ~ a a ~~ ~ a ~ a ~ a a
~ c U ~
- U ~ ~ ~ c U ~ U ~ U ~ ~
j ~ j > - - j ~ j - > - j - -
~ 4k
V N M ~ 0 O n 00 O) O N M ~ u7 (~ I~ aD Cn O N M ~ N 0 n 0
C N N N N N N N N N
W
M
O
O
N
O
D\
M
a~
V
N
03
Y
~
~ *~
c
~ ~ a
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ rn ~ ~
~ a~
'
~ ~
~-' ~ ~
C ~
Y ~ ~ c~
''''
-O N L, ~ (O
C
N
V O
'~ ~
~
N
~~( V
KJ ~ ~ ~ •L ~ O xx V
v^~
W
^,
W
~ ~
~ ~ ^`
~ W
O ~ ~ U
~
S O ~
N
~ vim- ~ tB
O 'C O
~ c ~
N
O
U U
C O
C O O O
O S O
U
U
C
V/ ~ _
•
Y •V ~
~ ` ~i
Q ~ ~
~ U t0 p- ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~
N .O ~ «S C G O N E (B °~ C
~
O
O N
~
f0 N
t
6
~ •Q_"
O N
~
O N T O `
~ 0 ~ O N U O
O N
Q O
O
~ ? O
O 0
fA ~
(~ 0 0 _-
3 0
~ O _
fq
V ~ •~ ~ (.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N-- •~ ~ V
N O O ~ f0 Y ~ fA
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fB N O N ~ ~
LL
~
c a~ ~
vi ~
cv
~ ~ E
~ 3
N vi C
c~
_
U O~ U ~ p N U t (6 O
N O O
~ O
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
O i
> cn
> Q ~ u
i u
i
> c
a Q ~ i
v
O ~- N O I~ O ~ O ~
O O O W N ~ 'ct ~ N
W
A
O
U
a
O
A
rr11 ^ ~t~
IJ~~. r..
[
iNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Engincerinr,~ Oc;~:cr[r„ait
Seminole Cuw,ty
TfIIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
th day of. FGBxUARy 19f37, by and between SEMINOLE
COUNTY, a political subdivision of tl~e State of Florida, wtrose
address is Seminole County Services Building, 1101 East First
Street, Sanford, Florida 32771, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY,
and CITY OF WIN'£ER SPRINGS, a Florida municipal corporation, whose
address is Ii26 East State Road 934, Winter Springs, Flocida 3270fI,
hereinafter referred to as CITY. •
WITNESSE'£fl:
WfIEREAS, COUNTY and CI'£Y desire to cooperate in terms of
the provision of essential governmental services to ttre citizens
residing in the COUNTY and in the CITY's area of impact; and
WEIEREAS, COUNTY and CI'£Y recognize that cectain expan-
sions of t}ie CITY's jucisdictional boundaries have caused irregular
boundaries and areas wherein residents of tl~e COUNTY, altl,ouglr
residing in unincorporated Seminole County, have a natural geo-
graphical relationship with CITY and that this relationship makes
provision of governmental services by CI'£Y logical in view of the
particular circumstances whic}r exist; and '
W[lEREAS, Chapter ].71 of tare Florida Statutes provides for
the lawful means whereby municipal corporations may expand by
annexation oc contract their municipal boundaries; and
WIiEREAS, CITY and COUNTY do not desire, and believe it
would not be in ttre best interests of the citizens of Seminole
County, to engage in a multiplicity of lawsuits pertaining to tl~e
CITY's boundaries; and
WifEREAS, CITY is willing to provide all necessary govern-
mental services within unincorporated areas of tt,e COUNTY located
in tt,e area of concern; and
WIIEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes; acid
-1-
. ~i ~/
W}{EREAS, COUNTX and CITY 4zave determined that it is in
the best interests of the citizens of Seminole County, Florida,
that this Interlocal Agreement be entered into.
NOW, TIIEREFORC, in consideration of the premises and the
promises herein contained, it is mutually agreed between the
parties as follows:
1. MAP. COUNTY and CITX agree that the map attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by its reference
shall be used for the purpose of this Agreement to describe and
determine affected areas and to establish the rights and responsi-
bilities associated with such areas.
2. AREA OF CONCERN. The area of unincorporated
Seminole County shaded in red on Exhibit "A" is hereby identified
as ttie area of concern.
3. COVENANT OF T[IE CITX. In consideration of and
exchange for the covenant of the COUNTY set forth in paragraph 4,
below, CITY covenants to:
(a) Provide the following governmental services to
citizens residing in the area of concern:
1. All Eire protection services which shall
include first response fire fighting services in ttie same manner.
that CITY provides to residents of CITY.
2. All public safety services in the same
manner that CITY provides to residents of CITY.
3. All emergency services that CITY provides
to residents of CITY.
4, All law enforcement services in tt~e same
manner that CITY provides to residents of CITY.
5. CITY shall provide tt~e same level of road
maintenance within the area of concern that it provides to
residents of CITY.
-2-
(b) Provide in each annexation ordinance pertain-
ing to property within tl~e area of concern a "covenant with the
County" to the effect that the annexation is subject to this Agree-
ment and that in the event of CITY breaching this Agreement such
annexation shall be rendered null ernd void.
(c) Assume liability and indemnify COUNTY for any
injury or damage sustained by any reason and resulting from the
failuce of CITY to perform t}~e above referenced services and for
the negligent or wrongful performance of such services.
4. COVENANT OF TFIE COUNTY. In consideration of and in
exchange for the Covenant of the CITY set forth in paragraph 3,
above, COUNTY covenants to:
(a) Not sue CITY challenging the validity of any
annexation ordinance enacted by CITY and pertaining to unincorpo-
rated COUNTY areas within the area of concern on tiie grounds that
any such annexation ordinance creates an enclave provided the
annexation otherwise complies with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes,
and this Agreement.
(b) That it will, at tfie time of development of
parcels of land within the area of concern, encourage the property
owners to seek annexation into the CITY.
5. TERMINATION. This Agreement shall not terminate,
unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties, until all
grtgpert~ wi~t`h,in the area of concern is annexed into CITY.
..: ... ~
~1TT+8ST: ~~, CITY OF WINT•R SPRINGS
=~ ~ ~
~^ .~
••••.~SNORTON C ty~Tc-- !iN V. T RCASO, Mayor
~~
Ddte:_ Fein. 9, 1981
(SEAL)
1' • t.]L1ITEST ~~ ' 1
,fir;. ``~, l
r.~. ~ .
. ~~ DAUB N,~.B ~RRIEN
",' C~~rk titb'~t ~e Board of
- Cou{tiGS' Com issioners of
,'p~Seminole.County, Florida.
~ ,, ~
DOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
~ ~
By~~ _
FRE REE M N, JI2.
Chairman
Date: January 27, 1987
-3-
~)u~a x_17 i°~.r~. Z. (~fi - Y~ ~
Tor tite use and reliance
of Seminole County only.
Approved as to form and
legal,~..``suf€iciency.
oun~--~ ocn, -
NC/lE ~'/
Rev 01/05/87
RAM/gg
Rev 01/22/87
As authorized for execution
by ttie Board of County Commis-
sioners in their January 13
19 87, regular meeting.
• .,-.- ~~
~`.~~~
. l l~
O
v
NJJ
I
,_. I
v ~ - w ; .
+ ~ ~ ~~ 'qi+~~~A; aid,:, _
"~ ;I ~i
~~ !, ...
. .,
r ~ ,;
.:
_.
..
,. ._ _ _
-.
...i .............. f .
--- -- - ~ .
~. ..
~ .I. .. ~ IE fl //l
z ~I r
,i
~ ~i ~
~L ~ rr ~~
' ~,' : ~ ~
'~ ii
i,
~ ~,
~~_....... ,. ~ ~ - r-.
jr-I: -' - - 1ii:~~i'--~
i i
.{` '- r
~ _
,` . ~
i _ ~;.
t
ay
...'a
y
/~}'u,.
i _ .., '.
~.., ; j
fr~
:,yam; . -
-T., 2G~~- ~ ,