Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Some debate, however, surrounds a proposal to allow the city to renew leases on city land without voter permission.
By CHRISTINA HEADRICK
© St. Petersburg Times, published March 12, 2000
CLEARWATER -- As elections go, the city contest on Tuesday is a snoozer. There are no candidates on the ballot, only two questions.
The first asks voters to approve changes to the city's pension plan that will modestly increase benefits to employees at little visible cost to the city. The city plans to cover the better benefits out of unused reserves from the pension plan.
Among the pension improvements: Retirees who earn as little as $300 monthly would become eligible for a 1.5 percent cost-of-living increase annually in their benefit payments.
The second, more debated question asks voters to give city officials greater leeway in negotiating longer leases of city property than the city charter allows.
Commissioner Bob Clark sums it up this way: "I think it's a trust issue. If you trust the people you elect to make decisions, you vote for it. If you don't, vote against it."
Commissioners decided unanimously to seek elimination of the limits, which cap the length of leases of city property to 30 years at a time and no more than 60 years total for any tenant.
City officials use the upcoming renewals of leases for the Clearwater Country Club and Long Center as examples of how the charter limits are burdensome. Renewing the leases could require a referendum under the current rules.
But voters have rejected the change before, most recently in a referendum held last year.
The city has about 50 leases for its property that could be affected by the rule change. In addition, the city is contemplating a long-term lease for development of a large chunk of waterfront property downtown.
A grass-roots opposition group to the downtown project, Save the Bayfront, has sent out fliers urging residents to vote against the removal of lease limits. They think the removal of the restriction will make it too easy for the city to agree to a long-term lease of public, waterfront property -- without asking the voters to approve the deal.
"To approve this would put the commission into a situation where they could use city land according to the way that a handful of people are pushing them to use it, to put all kinds of things on it, without regard to the wishes of the people," says Save the Bayfront spokeswoman Anne Garris.
City officials say that their waterfront land is protected by numerous restrictions in the city charter. They renewed promises last week that they will have a referendum before developing the land -- no matter what voters say Tuesday.
"The change just makes it easier for our government to handle some things, like the country club lease," Mayor Brian Aungst said.
But one commissioner was slightly uncomfortable with giving the city greater leeway on leases. Commissioner Ed Hart, who objected to some recent decisions on three city golf course leases, said he thought the city potentially could have worked out more profitable deals.