A plan to exempt some Pinellas County property from city codes and fees has drawn the ire of city officials.
By MICHAEL SANDLER
Published April 14, 2004
CLEARWATER - Pinellas County commissioners took a step to quell tension between city and county officials Tuesday by indefinitely postponing a proposal to exempt some county property from city regulations.
County Administrator Steve Spratt wants commissioners to designate dozens of properties as "facilities of countywide significance."
But county commissioners called his timing premature and said his effort was misunderstood. They asked Spratt to give the cities more time to review the ordinance and offer suggestions.
"I just don't think there's a comfort level out there," County Commissioner Karen Seel said.
The list of affected county properties would include the landfill, parks, the criminal justice complex and a proposed Cracker Barrel restaurant at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport.
Some of the properties are in cities; others are in unincorporated areas but within the cities' annexation boundaries. All could be exempt from city codes and fees if the proposal is passed.
An assembly task force studying annexation made recommendations that mayors and county commissioners are expected to vote on in June.
Commissioners agreed it would be better to consider Spratt's proposal after those votes.
"I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding out there we could have averted," Seel said. "The various city councils are suspicious. Why now? Why the hurry?"
The commission's unanimous decision relieved city officials, who have criticized Spratt's proposal as vague and overreaching.
"This ordinance should not be adopted at all," said Dave Goodwin, St. Petersburg's planning director. "This ordinance puts the county in the position to have complete authority. We think it is inappropriate in a long-term relationship between city and county government."
Spratt said the concept of designating facilities of countywide significance was included in the county charter in 1980. He said it is needed to protect those properties from city regulations that could conflict with their operation.
"We are essentially trying to put some legs on a charter power that exists," Spratt said. "The issue certainly won't go away. As cities approach properties with possible annexation, the question will be there."
