Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 4_3/14/1997 . .• -:/ . :: 77- N TER m_. �� . OFFICE village of Tequesta To: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager From: Damian Peduto - ' MAR - 6 1997 Subject: Annexation Staff Report Update Date: March 6, 1997 Village Manager's Office Attached to this memorandum, please find a copy of the updated Annexation Staff Report for the Finance and Administration Committee meeting on Friday, March 14; 1997, 8:30 a.m. This updated report reflects the most current change, recommending that the committeelcouncil authorize staff to proceed with a special bill for presentation to the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation for review during the 1998 legislative session. If you would like to make additional changes, please,let me know. Also, if you need multiple copies of the original, please let me know how many I should prepare and anything else you think I should have prepared for the upcoming meeting. Thank you. c. Scott D. Ladd, Building Official, w/attachment Village of Tequesta Community Development Department Planning Division Annexation Staff Report Introduction and Background The Village of Tequesta has previously attempted to annex portions of unincorporated Palm • Beach County. At the time of this previous attempt none of these areas were successfully annexed. The time, now, has come for the Village to consider annexation of unincorporated areas again. With current data resources and information taken from the previous annexation attempt by the Village, staff has a better understanding, regarding attitudes of residents toward annexation, of the specific unincorporated areas surrounding the Village of Tequesta jurisdictional boundary. In the previous annexation attempt there were five specific areas. Each area, Areas"A"through "E", represented votes"for" annexation of less than 51%(51% of the votes"for" an annexation subject area is the minimum proportion required in order for an annexation to be successful). The Areas were represented as follows: 1. "A" = 11% for annexation 2. "B" = 33% for annexation 3. "C"= 15%for annexation 4. "D" = 18% for annexation 5. "E" = 38% for annexation The Village staff, in order to further analyze these areas, should be allowed to conduct surveys in specific neighborhoods within the areas. This demographic research of the specific neighborhoods, in conjunction with further research, should take place in order to make the most • accurate projections of the outcome of a new annexation referendum for the corresponding areas. Also, it will be necessary to establish new, redefined boundaries for those areas mentioned, in order to more closely reflect the requirements of the appropriate state annexation laws. After all research is completed a formalized report of the data and findings of staff, including a recommendation to the Village Council for the most viable direction for the Village of Tequesta to take regarding annexation of the subject areas, could be made. Specific Issues Regarding Annexation Areas Other than the"Yes"vote percentages for each previous annexation area, what do we know about the strength and weakness of the"Yes"vote in each area geographically? 1. In the previous area"A", the"Yes"vote appeared stronger in the western portion of that area, west of the intracoastal waterway. Along the island to the east of the intracoastal waterway, the 1 votes for annexation appeared weak. 2. In the previous area"B", the"Yes" vote also appeared to be stronger in the western portion of the area, Waterway Village subdivision west of the intracoastal waterway. Most of these votes appeared to have come from younger residents. A number of elderly residents, apparently, do not pay homeowner's assessments to their neighborhood homeowner's association. Due to the failure to pay the required assessments, a lean for assessments take place for each party who chooses not to pay. The neighborhood needs the assessments for infrastructure repair. The existing infrastructure of the neighborhood is old and'deteriorating. This area has a strong need for local government. Palm Beach County is not responsible for the improvement of deteriorating infrastructure in this neighborhood,the homeowner's association is. 3. In the previous area"C", there appeared,to be very few"Yes"votes., This area did not support annexation and was a weak area as a whole. Staff projects that, being a waterfront community, the residents in this area fear higher taxes that accompany annexation. 4. In the previous area"D", the whole area appeared to be primarily weak in its support for annexation. This area, however, was so large and diverse that it was hard to decipher where the "Yes" votes were coming from. Recently, there have been other issues in this area that have brought new understanding regarding annexation support. Portions of the area fronting the Loxahatchee River probably fall in the same unsupportive group as the entire previous area"C", and for the same reason, fear of higher taxes. The southwest portion of this area, Bermuda Terrace, has shared the recent sewer installation mandate problems with Tequesta residents in nearby neighborhoods and present a need for local government support to win over the ENCON initiative. The north portion appears to have a general negative attitude toward annexation. Other portions of this area are difficult to read. 5. In the previous area"E",the area could be divided on the railroad tracks. The eastern portion appeared to strongly support annexation, as the western portion appeared to be strongly opposed to annexation. The townhome and apartment population along Countyline Road, east of the railroad, was strongly in favor of annexation, primarily for the police protection. Many residents in the townhome community are seasonal residents. This area, as a whole, was the strongest supporter for annexation of all five areas. • Are there other factors known about each of the previous annexation areas that could help define a viable alternative to the original area boundaries for annexation purposes? 1. As the previous area"A"did not show much support as a whole, for annexation into the village, staff realizes that it is necessary to pursue boundary redefinition for this area. Although this area does not provide the support necessary to make it a priority annexation, redefining the area by dividing it along the intracoastal waterway, creating an east subject area and a west (I/'97)annote.out-DAP Planning Division 2 7 _ 1 subject area, would allow the village to remain consistent with the proposed boundary redefinition for the previous Area`B" to the south. 2. The previous area `B" is a strong candidate for boundary redefinition. This area, as mentioned earlier, has shown higher support (33%) for annexation. This is the area in need of infrastructure renovation, where there is aging infrastructure that is continually deteriorating. Other local concerns of this western portion of area`B"are: (1)the retention of an existing common area belonging to the homeowner's association that the residents of the area don't want to see disappear, and (2) the private streets becoming busy with through traffic upon public dedication, a feared nuisance. 3. The previous area"C" is not a candidate for boundary redefinition. It is a small area that cannot be divided further. This area does not provide the necessary evidence to place it higher on the annexation priority list relative to the other annexation areas. 4. The previous area"D" is a very strong candidate for boundary redefinition, as the southwest portion of this area, Bermuda Terrace, has a strong possibility of being an independent annexation subject area. Other local concerns of Bermuda Terrace include: (1)an existing local common area, used for parking boats and trailers, not being allowed by the village for continued use, (2) the current speed limit of 30 m.p.h., the local residents would like to see it reduced to 25 m.p.h., (3) current drainage problems throughout the neighborhood,which could be addressed through the Tequesta Stormwater Utility with a proposed drainage improvement project, and (4) neighborhood residents are concerned with code enforcement issues, fearing strict and harsh enforcement of village codes by the Village of Tequesta upon annexation,which are purported to be the same relative to parking boats, trailers and recreational vehicles but are not currently enforced by Palm Beach County. 5. The previous area"E"is a very strong candidate for boundary redefinition, as the railroad right-of-way might serve as a dividing point. The only specific"Other Concern"known or perceived by staff in this area is that the properties east of the railroad right-of-way may not be impacted heavily by additional taxes, if annexed, and the residents of this neighborhood appear to understand that they will be gaining valuable services by annexing into the village. The previous annexation appeared to reveal greater support for annexation from the east side of this area and a strong opposition from the west side. If a division of this area is legitimate,the east section would be a priority annexation subject area. What is the most feasible and positive direction for the Village of Tequesta to take regarding the annexation of unincorporated areas, previously identified as"A",`B", "C". "D"and"E"? The Village of Tequesta must, through analysis and data research,identify the possibilities of (t/97)annote.out-DAP Planning Division 3 redefining the annexation areas of 1995, mentioned earlier in this document. There must be a legal and beneficial planning strategy to the method of annexation taken, as the annexations must be designed in a way such that they are performed as successfully as can be expected, and completed appropriately. Provided that the proposed redefining of the most effective annexation areas meet the standards set forth by the State of Florida and Palm Beach County, the Village of Tequesta must identify those areas that would be most likely to successfully annex into the village. With regard to the annexation areas that have the highest potential for annexation,: 1. The previous area"A", as mentioned earlier, did not provide the support for annexation necessary to immediately pursue. Therefore, would probably rate 4th or Sth of all areas targeted for annexation. However, this area is important to have annexed into the Village of Tequesta and following the successful annexations of areas higher on the priority list would be a candidate for an annexation by special referendum. 2. The previous area"B",Waterway Village subdivision, provided a redefinition of the subject area boundary meets all of the appropriate regulations and subject to annexation incentive agreements with Palm Beach County, would probably be 3rd on the list of priority annexations. Ideally, this area would only include the western portion of the previous area, the Waterway Village subdivision. In light of the concerns mentioned earlier of this neighborhood, the Village of Tequesta could pursue the Palm Beach County Annexation Incentive Program, which provides for infrastructure renovation payable by the County, 33%, the homeowners of the neighborhood, 33%, and the Village, 33%. The Village, however, would offer to pay the 33% that the homeowners ofthe neighborhood would be accountable for, increasing the village's expense to 66%, leaving the County with 33% of the cost for that project. Since the homeowners of Waterway Village have also expressed concern over dedicating all of their rights-of-way to the Village upon annexation, which they fear will increase traffic in their neighborhoods, the Village proposes to eliminate this concern by accepting for public use, only the rights-of-way the homeowners want to dedicate. This would allow them to keep certain rights-of-way private, eliminating any perceived, adverse traffic conditions that would impact the neighborhood. Also, the Village of Tequesta will appropriately designate the common areas of concern in the neighborhood, as such common areas, and correspondingly identify them in the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate land development regulations. A special, stand-alone referendum located at a designated polling place within the Village of Tequesta during the Summer of 1998 may be the optimal situation for annexing this area. 3. The previous area"C",as mentioned earlier, did not provide the support for annexation necessary to immediately pursue. Therefore, would probably rate 4th or 5th of all areas targeted for annexation. However,this area is important to have annexed into the Village of Tequesta and, following the successful annexations of areas higher on the priority list,would be a candidate for an annexation by special referendum. (1/97)annote.out=DAP Planning Division 4 • 4. The previous area "D", provided a redefinition'of the subject area boundary meets all of the appropriate regulations, would probably be 2nd on the list of priority annexations. Ideally, this area would only include the southwest portion of the previous area, Bermuda Terrace subdivision. In light of the concerns mentioned earlier of this neighborhood, the Village of Tequesta, as an incentive to the neighborhood for annexation and addressing their concerns, should propose to adjust the current speed limit from 30 m.p.h. to 25 m.p.h. Also, the Village of Tequesta will appropriately designate the common areas of concern in the neighborhood(boat parking areas), as such common areas, and correspondingly identify them in the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate land development regulations. A special, stand-alone referendum, located at a designated polling place within the Village of Tequesta in the Fall of 1997 may be the optimal situation for annexing this area. 5. The previous area"E", provided a redefinition of the subject area boundary meets all of the appropriate regulations, would probably be 1st on the list of priority annexations. Ideally, this area would only include the eastern portion of the previous area. In light of the concerns mentioned earlier regarding the residents of this neighborhood,the Village of Tequesta will provide the needed and sought after police and fire-rescue protection for this more seasonal neighborhood. A special, stand-alone referendum, located at a designated polling place within the Village of Tequesta during the Winter of 1998 will be the optimal situation for annexing this area. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the top areas for pursuit in order of annexation priority are: 1) Previous annexation area"E"- East; 2) Previous annexation area"D"- Southwest, Bermuda Terrace: and 3) Previous annexation area°`B"-West, Waterway Village. What should the Village of Tequesta residents_elected officials, and public officials be aware of during this annexation process? • 1. The Village Council should encourage citizens to create a political action committee (PAC) directing energy and resources toward a successful annexation. This PAC would also play a very important role of informing the prospect citizens of the Village about services and benefits by being located within the Village. An active group of citizens and public officials should be stationed at the polling places to inform prospect citizens of important issues of concern to them, and holding informational meetings for prospect citizens, as well as current Village citizens. 2. The PAC would also be responsible for informing the prospect residents and current Village residents of persons and organiz Lions opposed to all annexations, such as the Palm Beach County Fire Fighter's Union, and the motivations behind their opposition. 3. The Village of Tequesta will need to review issues of legality of entering into, or proposing to (1/97)annote.out-DAP Planning Division 5 •1r enter into an agreement with the applicable homeowner's associations, or other affected groups, regarding a proposed annexation area, up front, so all will know precisely what the Village proposes to do and at what point in time upon the effective date of the annexation. 4. The Village cannot create lower taxes for the properties in this area, but could work with a delayed tax assessment plan for the residents in the area by deferring the effective date of the annexation. Conclusion/Staff Recommendation In conclusion, regarding annexations within the Village of Tequesta, staff recommends that the Village Council: • Authorize staff to proceed with a limited public opinion survey to verify annexation interests and concerns; • Redefine annexation areas as approved by village attorney's office; • Direct staff to verify the use of agreements,to address actions of Tequesta upon successful annexations; • Adopt a priority annexation schedule subject to the public opinion survey verification; • Direct staff to pursue an annexation agreement and the Annexation Incentive Program with Waterway Village and Palm Beach County; and • Authorize staff to proceed with a special bill item for the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation to petition legislation(for the 1998 legislative session)for specific annexation criteria, regarding smaller annexation areas. (1/97)annote.out-DAP Planning Division 6