Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Six sensible changes for the city charter

By Times Editorial
Published January 18, 2008

Last year, a committee of Clearwater residents was appointed to review the city charter - a task tackled every five years by law - and to suggest changes that Clearwater voters might want to consider. Way at the end of the ballot in the Jan. 29 election, voters will find six such questions the committee suggested.

The city charter is a body of local laws that establishes the framework for city government. For example, the charter spells out the duties and powers of the city's elected and appointed officials, how long elected officials may serve, the procedures for hiring and firing employees and how to change city laws. The charter originally was approved by voters and can be changed only by them. To view it, go to myclearwater.com/gov/codes/pdf/City_Charter.pdf.

The St. Petersburg Times has studied the charter questions and makes its editorial recommendations here. We urge all registered voters in Clearwater to go to the polls Jan. 29.

Question 1

Workforce housing

In the last couple of years, residents and officials in Pinellas County have come to understand the enormous need here for more housing that working people can afford. Several local governments, including Clearwater, have instituted programs to encourage construction of more affordable housing, also known as workforce housing.

Some local governments are creating more workforce housing by donating small parcels of publicly owned land to companies or organizations such as Habitat for Humanity that build affordable housing. Because there is no land cost, these organizations can build nicer housing units and sell them for less to people who otherwise could not afford to buy housing because their incomes are too low.

These remnants of government-owned land typically are too small or awkwardly located for public use, yet the government must pay to maintain them. Clearwater is hamstrung in donating such properties because the city charter says that no public land can be given away without conducting a citywide referendum, and land that is sold must go to the highest bidder.

The Charter Review Committee decided there should be an exception when the donation is for the construction of affordable housing. Some safeguards were added to the proposed charter change: The parcel to be donated can be no bigger than half an acre, and housing built on the property must be affordable to people whose annual income does not exceed 120 percent of the area median income - a definition typically applied to workforce housing. The City Council also would have to conduct a public hearing before donating the land.

This change would not allow the city to give away land that is zoned for recreation or open space. Other sections of the charter protect those lands.

More affordable housing is desperately needed, and with government costs rising and revenues falling, local governments do not need to be spending money to maintain useless parcels that could be returned to private ownership.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 1.

Question 2

Utility easements

When a local utility wanted to extend service to a condominium and retail project being built downtown by connecting to an existing underground line on the waterfront, the utility discovered it couldn't be done. Coachman Park was between the existing line and the new building. And because of a provision of the city charter, the city couldn't grant the utility an easement to tunnel underground in Coachman Park and connect to the existing line.

Question 2 on the ballot addresses that problem. If the new wording is approved, the city could grant a public utility an easement across Coachman Park or other city-owned property on the downtown bluff, but only for installation and maintenance of an underground line. And the utility would have to put the ground back the way it was before the trench was dug.

With so much new construction downtown, it makes more sense for the handful of public utilities to be allowed to put a line under the grass of Coachman Park or the City Hall property and connect to existing main lines than to tear up downtown streets or sidewalks to lay new main lines. A public hearing would be required before the easement was granted.

In 2003, residents voted to allow the city to grant such easements across other land zoned for open space or recreation.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 2.

Question 3

Four-year terms

Should Clearwater City Council members, who now serve three-year terms, get four-year terms?

Four-year terms are becoming the norm in local government, especially with fewer and fewer people interested in running for office. For example, local voters have approved four-year terms for the Pinellas County Commission, the St. Petersburg City Council, Tampa City Council, school boards and other boards.

Converting to four-year terms would allow Clearwater to conduct elections every two years, rather than the current schedule of two years on and one year off, and would enable city elections to routinely piggyback on the presidential primaries, thereby saving money. Council members would be limited to two terms, as they are now.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 3.

Question 4

Charter reviews

The current charter requires that a Charter Review Committee review the city charter at least every five years. It is a laborious process, and some believe it occurs more frequently than necessary. Last year's committee felt that every eight years would be enough.

We agree, especially since the City Council still would retain the authority to appoint a committee and initiate a charter review any time it deemed it necessary.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 4.

Question 5

Canvassing board

Under the current charter, a canvassing board consisting of three members of the City Council must certify the results of city elections and is called upon for duties such as reviewing questionable ballots cast in the election. On occasion, canvassing boards have included a City Council member whose name was on the ballot. Charter Review Committee members thought that was a bad idea, so this charter change would allow residents to be appointed to the canvassing board to take the place of a council member when necessary. This is a good change.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 5.

Question 6

Revenue bonds

Years ago the voters built into the city charter a provision that if the city wanted to issue revenue bonds for a project that was going to cost more than $1-million, a citywide referendum was needed to get residents' permission. The only exception was when a project was for the public's health, safety or welfare.

The provision seems outdated in today's world, when even a relatively small project can cost $1-million and the monthslong delays required to schedule and conduct a referendum can kill a project or result in major changes in interest rates.

Revenue bonds, unlike general obligation bonds, are bonds paid back by specific, identified sources of revenue such as Penny for Pinellas sales taxes or user fees, not by property taxes. State statutes require a local referendum when local property taxes are obligated to pay back a general obligation bond, but there is no such requirement in state law for revenue bonds.

The city of Clearwater has demonstrated a careful, conservative approach to bonding, and it seems unnecessary to make the city take the expensive and time-consuming step of a referendum when the state does not require other local governments to do so.

The Times recommends a yes vote on Question 6.

[Last modified January 18, 2008, 07:33:22]