Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Politics

Coalition files an amended lawsuit

By WILL VAN SANT
Published December 4, 2006

When voters rejected four of seven proposed changes to Pinellas County's charter on Nov. 7, it was a huge victory for a coalition of 21 Pinellas towns.

The united front had waged a months-long legal battle against the committee that developed the proposals and its county government allies.

Now the city group has filed an amended lawsuit that targets two of the changes voters approved. Both could limit the power of cities to annex unincorporated land.

But enthusiasm among the towns for continued litigation varies, and some municipal leaders want to end the spat and talk through remaining their conflicts with Pinellas County officials.

Clearwater Mayor Frank Hibbard chairs the Pinellas Mayors Council and plans to schedule a meeting of the group to discuss the issue. Hibbard said he can't speak for the mayors' group or Clearwater's City Council, but he's ready to make peace.

"I think the voters have spoken and we need to move on," Hibbard said.

County Commission chairman Ken Welch agrees. He suggested that some lawyers involved in the fight might not be getting the message from elected officials.

"I think it's a legal train that is kind of running without a conductor," Welch said. "We need to get control of this train and make it stop."

Those cities and towns with an interest in preserving their right to annex land, such as St. Petersburg and Largo, are the most enthusiastic about continuing the litigation, which has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It was St. Petersburg's legal office that drew up the amended complaint and filed it Tuesday.

Like the original lawsuit, it alleges that the state's Sunshine Law was violated when the proposed charter changes were developed and that some amendments are inconsistent with state law.

St. Petersburg assistant city attorney Jeanne Hoffmann said she sent a draft of the amended complaint to the other 20 municipalities involved in the case, asking for a response if there were problems or questions.

Hoffmann said she didn't hear a peep.

"We have to at least file the complaint to preserve our rights," she said. "And if parties want to drop out afterwords, that is their right."

For a city like Treasure Island, which doesn't border any unincorporated land, protecting annexation privileges is not a priority. Elected leaders there have told city attorney Maura Kiefer they want the litigation over.

Yet the city remains a party to the lawsuit.

A sticking point for Kiefer and attorneys for other towns with little interest in annexation is a counter-claim the county filed in the earlier lawsuit.

It alleges that the charter's dual vote requirement, which allows towns to opt out of county wide regulations their voters reject, violates the Florida Constitution.

One of the proposed amendments would have gotten rid of the dual vote provision, but it was defeated by voters.

Kiefer said if the county doesn't drop the counterclaim challenging the dual vote, then her town is likely to remain involved in the lawsuit.

"If they insist on litigating that, we don't have any choice really," she said. "The cities would be just as united as before."

County attorneys insist they can't drop the counterclaim until the cities drop their lawsuit. And attorneys for the cities say they can't drop the lawsuit until the county drops its counterclaim.

Attorneys for both sides are scheduled to discuss the litigation before a circuit judge on Tuesday. Perhaps then the game of who will blink first will end and the frustration felt by some elected officials will lessen.

"If we both say we want to put the guns away and cease fire, however that has to be done in a technical legal respect, that has to be done," Welch said.

Will Van Sant can be reached at 727 445-4166 or vansant@sptimes.com.

[Last modified December 3, 2006, 22:51:50]