 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Council rejects Lealman annexation
By ANNE LINDBERG, Times Staff Writer LEALMAN -- A divided group of elected officials from various county governments says the County Commission should reject St. Petersburg's request to expand its planning area to annex one property. The Pinellas Planning Council voted 8-5 Wednesday to deny St. Petersburg's request to move the boundary lines so it could annex the property. The council does not have the final say. That belongs to the Pinellas County Commission. If commissioners also turn down the request, county planning council staff members have suggested St. Petersburg needs to come up with a plan that would allow a much larger annexation in the Lealman area. The prospect that St. Petersburg might want to annex a large chunk of Lealman is not a surprise to activists there, who have long been aware of that city's interest in the lucrative Joe's Creek Industrial area. But that interest is unwelcome to Lealman residents who fear that the loss of the tax money could further damage an already poor community. "I think they made the right decision," said Ray Neri, president of the Lealman Community Association. "But I think that's just like the start of the war. I don't doubt that St. Petersburg is going to come back following the recommendation that they take a bigger chunk, a bigger look at the area. It's not over yet." St. Petersburg's request is one of two efforts to change the boundary lines of the county's annexation planning areas. Lealman activists have asked that the commission enlarge the area protected from annexation. The Lealman request is, in essence, the opposite of the St. Petersburg plea. A county staff report on the Lealman request is scheduled to come before the County Commission on Tuesday. But commissioners will not even discuss the report until their Jan. 29 meeting, said Gay Lancaster, assistant county administrator. Lancaster declined to reveal what the staff's recommendation might be, saying, "At this point, I don't know. We're still formulating it. ... Because of the implications countywide, we want to be sure the procedures we set in place set a positive course for the future." The report, she said, should also include a section discussing whether the county should conduct a study to determine the feasibility of Lealman becoming a city. "I don't think we're close to addressing that," Lancaster said Friday. "It's a work in progress." St. Petersburg's request to move the boundary line will likely come before the County Commission on Feb. 5. If the commission grants the request, that would allow St. Petersburg to annex unincorporated land on the north side of 40th Avenue about 145 feet west of 32nd Way N. The property is vacant and being used for vehicle storage, said Mike Crawford, principal planner for the Pinellas Planning Council. The owner wants to build a 15,000-square-foot building to be used as a cabinet shop. It's located in the unincorporated Lealman area, which is generally located between St. Petersburg and Pinellas Park. Much of that area is within one of the annexation-free zones set up by a countywide referendum in November 2000. Although those boundaries were established by that referendum, the rules allow the County Commission to change those lines provided four criteria are met. St. Petersburg met two of those: The property owner wants to annex into the city, and the city is able to provide services, such as water, police and fire protection, to the land. However, planning council staff members said that St. Petersburg did not meet the other two. Annexation of the property would cause an irregular city border. Staff members also said the city failed to meet the fourth criterion of not harming the interest of the unincorporated area. In this case, they said, the county has prepared a revitalization plan that includes that property. In addition, the Lealman Fire District would lose the tax revenue from the property while still having to provide "first-response" service to the land. That means Lealman would be primarily responsible for the fire protection while St. Petersburg would be the backup. St. Petersburg council member Bill Foster, that city's representative on the planning council, disagreed with the staff, saying it was a "stretch" to say the request did not meet the criteria. The ordinance setting the boundaries needs to be flexible, he said, urging fellow council members to vote to move the line. "The only reason the staff is recommending denial is because this involves the Lealman area," Foster said. "This particular case will have little impact to the Lealman area." Foster added, "The service providers, with the exception of the Lealman Fire District, and here we go with that, would not appear to be significantly affected or impacted by the change. ... (The) tax base will be decreased by a small amount, and I stress a small amount." County commissioner Calvin Harris disagreed. "I think that if we pass this motion, then we might as well just throw the ordinance out," Harris said. "Every jurisdiction will have some piece of land that they would like to pick off ... that will not hurt anybody, except it will destroy the fabric of the ordinance. ... I think it would be very bad if we let this happen."
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times South Pinellas desks |
