Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Some proposals are lukewarm while others inspire red-hot debate

Changes to a charter review panel and a dual vote provision are causing the biggest stir. There are also annexation issues.

By WILL VAN SANT
Published October 31, 2006

County charter overhauls seldom stir the blood.

But the seven proposed amendments on the Nov. 7 ballot have spawned aggressive public relations efforts by a coalition of Pinellas cities opposed to the changes and county leaders who support them.

Last week, a circuit court judge denied a motion by the cities to block a vote on the amendments.

Some of the proposals are yawners, while others have had both sides yowling like dogs about to enter a fighting pit.

Here's what each would do, if approved.

QUESTION 1: Would abolish Pinellas County's Water and Navigation and Mosquito Control districts as creations of the state Legislature and resurrect them under the full authority of the county, which already runs the districts and sets their budgets.

THE CONTROVERSY: None. While the cities are urging a "No" vote on all measures, this amendment has not been a focus for them. It's a housekeeping item.

QUESTION 2: Would allow the county administrator to fire senior staff without cause and without County Commission approval. In 2004, voters overwhelmingly defeated a similar measure. This time around, the amendment would also make references to the administrator in the charter gender-neutral.

THE CONTROVERSY: Very little. Among those opposed to an administrator being both judge and jury, the amendment has raised eyebrows, but the county says the measure describes how business is already done.

QUESTION 3: Would make several changes to future Charter Review Commissions, which get together to recommend charter changes. The amendment's most controversial measure would bar elected officials from sitting on future review commissions. Also, if approved, the commission would convene every eight rather than six years, as is now the case.

THE CONTROVERSY: Currently, review commissions have four elected officials, including a county commissioner and a city leader. County leaders say getting politicians off the review commission will return the process to residents. The cities don't buy that. They point out that the County Commission appoints review members and say the measure is aimed at silencing cities.

QUESTION 4: Calls for eliminating the so-called dual vote provision.

For a charter rule that's never been invoked, the dual vote has sparked some shrill controversy. The dual vote was not a proposed change supported by the Charter Review Commission back in 1998, but at the request of the cities, the county's state legislative delegation revised a proposed amendment to include the requirement. It was approved by Pinellas voters, but the ballot language for the amendment didn't mention a dual vote, let alone what one is.

The provision requires that when a countywide regulatory rule is voted on, the results are tallied twice, once Pinellas-wide and again at the municipal level. Even if voters countywide supported a rule change, it would not apply in a municipality whose voters had rejected it. Of the state's 19 charter counties, only Pinellas has a dual vote requirement.

A "yes" vote on this amendment would remove the dual vote from the charter.

THE CONTROVERSY: The cities see the dual vote as protecting their home-rule powers and don't want it gone. For proponents, it restores to the Pinellas electorate a power granted in the state Constitution to those who live in charter counties.

QUESTION 5: The first of three amendments that deal with annexation procedures in the county, this amendment would require that when a property owner gives consent to be annexed, it must be given in writing. Also, cities would have to wait seven years after a failed annexation referendum to again subject a property to possible annexation, unless the property owner gave consent. Finally, when cities send notification to property owners and residents that an annexation is pending, it would have to be by certified mail.

THE CONTROVERSY: The cities argue that they already follow state law when they seek to annex and that they should not be held to a higher standard by the charter.

QUESTION 6: Would bar cities from attempting to get property owners to agree to an annexation by using inducements like installing new or energy-efficient windows or cash payments. When taxpayer-funded inducements are offered, it would have to be shown that they serve some broader public purpose.

THE CONTROVERSY: Charter review and county leaders say some of the inducements used amount to nothing but bribery, but again the cities say their behavior is entirely consistent with state law.

QUESTION 7: This amendment deals primarily with annexation by cities of commercial and industrial land. It has two requirements. First, at least 50 percent of the property to be annexed must be surrounded by a combination of consenting property owners and the city seeking the annexation. Second, the total percentage of consenting property owners in the area proposed for annexation must exceed 67 percent both on a parcel and acreage basis. Under current state law, it's 50 percent.

THE CONTROVERSY: The review commission took testimony from angry business owners who had been annexed into cities against their will. This measure means to curb that practice. "Tough," the cities say, returning to their common theme. "We are following the laws of Florida."

[Last modified October 30, 2006, 23:33:30]