 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Ruling fails to appease City Hall deal critics
By AMY WIMMER © St. Petersburg Times, published April 8, 2001 ST. PETE BEACH -- City Attorney Jim Devito says the State Attorney's Office has affirmed that the city can use a local developer to build City Hall without publicly bidding the project. "There is no legal trouble you can get in over this," Devito told city commissioners Tuesday night. "Is there political trouble over this? Sure. Are those people who have complained against this going to go away? No." The plan's opponents agree with Devito on one thing: They aren't going anywhere. "I think this is an obvious attempt to circumvent ordinances and state statutes," said Ralph Lickton, who took his complaints about the city's deal with developer Paul Skipper to the State Attorney's Office last year. "And it's an amateurish one." Lickton's complaint didn't go far. The state attorney opened a file on the issue, interviewed the city manager and city attorney, and "saw no evidence that there was a criminal violation of any statute," Pinellas-Pasco Assistant State Attorney Robert Lewis wrote in a March 28 letter to Devito. The city is moving quickly on plans to resurrect its contract with Skipper, who owns land at the Corey Causeway entrance to the city, across 75th Avenue from the current City Hall complex. City officials worked with Skipper throughout 2000 to hammer out details of the arrangement, in which Skipper planned to donate his property to the city in exchange for the more than $3-million contract to build a new City Hall there. That deal fell through in early January but resurfaced last month, two days after the city election, when City Manager Carl Schwing announced a new plan to pay $3.3-million for the land and a Skipper-built City Hall. Devito suggested to commissioners that, in response to fervent opposition to the project coming from a segment of residents, he would ask the State Attorney's Office to verify that the deal did not violate Florida statutes. He said the State Attorney's response does that. Opponents say the letter does not indicate the state attorney reviewed the new contract, only the old one. On Tuesday, District 4 Commissioner Lolly Kreider asked Devito whether the Attorney General's Office might be a more appropriate place to direct the question. A state attorney represents the state of Florida in prosecuting criminal cases. The Attorney General, among other responsibilities mentioned in state statutes, may "give an official opinion and legal advice in writing on any question of law relating to the official duties of the requesting officer." Devito informed commissioners that they may collectively request the attorney general's opinion, or one of them may ask for an opinion as an individual elected official. "Frankly, I feel if we went to the attorney general, we'd get the same opinion," Devito said. Kreider said questioning the attorney general about the city's non-bid deal with the developer might help "appease the people's doubts." But Mayor Ward Friszolowski said he is comfortable with the city attorney's judgment. Also Tuesday night, District 3 Commissioner Peter Blank questioned the legal bills for the six city committee members who last year faced allegations of violating the Sunshine Law. The members of the commission-appointed City Hall Advisory Committee, which picked apart the City Hall deal throughout last year and ultimately was disbanded by the City Commission, were accused of violating the Sunshine Law when the members met individually with their chairman to initial a letter calling attention to faults in the project. City Manager Carl Schwing turned in the committee to the St. Pete Beach police chief, who forwarded the matter to the State Attorney's Office, which investigated and found no criminal intent. The City Commission offered to pay the committee's legal bills because the members were acting as commission-appointed volunteers. Blank complained Tuesday about the $5,846 price for representing the six committee members. Specifically, he questioned why the city paid for one committee member to hire an attorney for $2,600, while the other five used an attorney who charged $3,246. "I don't understand why we had two attorneys," Blank said. Devito explained that the first lawyer contacted would represent only one of the committee members because he believed there would be a conflict of interest in representing all of them together. The reply didn't satisfy Blank's distaste for paying two separate attorneys to represent a committee that publicly criticized a City Hall plan the City Commission supported. "In the future, and I know we did this very quickly, and it was a very emotional thing, but we need to do this very specifically. We shouldn't make emotional decisions," Blank said.
March 28, 2001 Dear Mr. Devito: Bernie McCabe, State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, has asked me to respond to your letter of March 21, 2001, concerning our investigation of a complaint concerning a possible violation of Florida Statutes in connection with a contract to build a new city hall at St. Pete Beach. We made a preliminary inquiry to determine if there appeared to be any violation of criminal law by reviewing the statutes, reviewing relevant documents and talking with the individuals who complained about the alleged violations as well as the city manager and you as the city attorney. We saw no evidence that there was a criminal violation of any statute and, therefore, did not open a criminal investigation. Shortly thereafter, the matter appeared to become moot with the cancellation of the contract concerning the construction of the new building. I trust this answers your inquiries, but, if I can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert M. Lewis Assistant State Attorney
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times South Pinellas desks |
