Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Confused council flip-flops on suit settlement

Confused by procedures, Pinellas Park council members vote first for, then against ending the Lealman Fire District furor.

By ANNE LINDBERG
Published March 12, 2006

PINELLAS PARK - After mistakenly voting in favor, council members reconsidered and unanimously defeated a proposal to settle a lawsuit with the Lealman Fire District.

"There you go. We're at war," Pinellas Park council member Rick Butler said after a confusing discussion and four votes during Thursday's meeting.

Had the proposal passed, it would have settled an annexation dispute that has brewed between the Lealman Fire District and Pinellas Park for the past six years. The district and community activists have complained that Pinellas Park's annexations have deprived the fire district of needed tax revenue while forcing it to provide first-response fire service to the annexed areas.

The decision to turn down the settlement pleased city resident Mike Allen, who said he didn't know "why we want to get involved with people like that." Allen was referring to Lealman fire Chief Rick Graham, who Allen said made a negative comment on TV recently.

"That fire department is just horrible," Allen said.

John Frank, a suspended Lealman fire commissioner who also owns property in Pinellas Park, spoke to the council after the vote.

"I am from the infamous Lealman community," Frank said, jokingly. "I would like council to guarantee my safe passage back to Lealman tonight."

Annexation has been a contentious issue since the late 1990s. It grew more intense in 2000 when the Legislature passed a bill that would force any city annexing into the Lealman area to pay the district its fire millage for five years to allow Lealman officials to plan for the loss of revenue. The bill had a sunset provision that Lealman has been wanting to lift.

Last year, Lealman sued Pinellas Park and St. Petersburg over annexations that took place after the legislation passed. Fire officials said they wanted the tax money due to them for the annexations.

In recent months, Butler negotiated a settlement that called for Pinellas Park to refrain from annexing inside the borders of the Lealman Fire District for 10 years unless the district is dissolved or becomes part of a consolidated fire service covering unincorporated Pinellas. The city would also have agreed to the extension of the state bill.

In return, Lealman would have forgone the $262,900 in taxes officials say is owed to them for the annexations. Pinellas Park has said the figure is less than half that.

Both parties would have paid their own attorneys.

Before the council could sign off on the agreement, state Rep. Frank Farkas, R-St. Petersburg, introduced a bill earlier this month that would have removed the sunset provision from the law passed in 2000.

"Things have changed all of a sudden," Mayor Bill Mischler said. "I cannot support this because of what's happening in Tallahassee now."

Not only that, at least 23 Lealman residents have asked to annex into Pinellas Park and Mischler said he wanted to support their "right to live where they want."

Still, Butler wanted to settle.

"I think what we're doing, and the public needs to know this, is we're declaring war again," he said. "We're not going to win this war."

Against Pinellas Park, said Butler, are the state, the county and "outside influences (that are) very actively involved."

Besides, Butler said, Lealman has little to offer Pinellas Park. "There's nothing there I want to annex."

But he could see where the vote was going Thursday: "Obviously, we're going to go down in flames tonight (which considering) we're dealing with a fire district is kind of cute."

If the proposal failed, Butler said he wanted to make sure an accounting was announced at each council meeting about the amount of attorneys' fees that are being spent on any dealings with Lealman.

Council member Ed Taylor said the blame doesn't fall on Pinellas Park.

"They declared war on us," Taylor said. "I think we're going to successfully defend ourselves. . . .I think it's going to disappear very quickly."

The confusion began when it came time to vote during the meeting.

Surprisingly, Butler voted against his motion to sign the settlement. Mischler, Taylor and Sandy Bradbury voted to adopt it. Patricia Bailey-Snook was not at the meeting.

As an open-mouthed audience looked on, council members realized what they'd done.

"We all did the reverse of what we were supposed to do," Mischler said.

Bradbury said, "It got passed."

Butler: "Thank you very much."

As the council pondered how to change their minds, former Mayor Cecil Bradbury gave directions from the audience: "The majority can make a motion for reconsideration."

Taylor made the motion and Bradbury seconded it for discussion, as she had done with the original motion.

"That's what got you in trouble last time," Butler told her.

Bradbury withdrew her second.

Mischler: "I'm going to second. I have the prerogative to second."

The motion to reconsider passed 3-1 with Butler dissenting.

Then Bradbury moved to table the whole matter, saying she wanted to wait until Bailey-Snook was there.

Butler: "I'm just a happy participant here. Ya'll decided what you want to do. There's no reason to talk about it. ... Let's go to war."

Bradbury and Taylor voted to table. Mischler voted against and Butler said, "Not a chance."

The motion to table failed.

Then Butler said, "I make a motion we deny the damned (settlement) right now."

The motion passed unanimously.

[Last modified March 12, 2006, 01:18:21]