 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
County reiterates: We won't pay for Park
By ANNE LINDBERG
© St. Petersburg Times, PINELLAS PARK -- It is unlikely that county commissioners will give the city any money to help fix drainage along Park Boulevard, at least in the foreseeable future. Interim County Administrator Gay Lancaster said Friday that is the response she will send in writing to city officials. Lancaster also cited examples in the public record that reinforce her position that the county never agreed to such a financial commitment. "This is quite a puzzle," Lancaster said. "I hate to keep saying, "No, we disagree. No, I believe you're wrong.' But that's what I have to keep saying. . . "People are just wondering where the perception came from because it wasn't communicated by anyone I can get information from, except for Jerry (Mudd, city manager)." Lancaster said that she is tired of telling Mudd that the county is not planning to give the city any money. "I'm struggling with a way to make it plainer," she said. On Tuesday, Mudd wrote Lancaster, "requesting . . . the current position of the County Commission regarding funding for the Park Boulevard drainage improvements." Mudd repeated his contention that former County Administrator Fred Marquis had agreed the county would contribute toward the improvements. "My sense was that a tri-party partnership continued to exist even though there was no formal contract to support a full, formal agreement," Mudd wrote. Under the alleged verbal agreement, the state, county and Pinellas Park each would pay one-third of approximately $12-million. For almost a month, the city and county have debated whether such a deal ever existed. Public records on file in Pinellas Park say no. For Lancaster, who spent years as Marquis' second in command, this tale began in the mid-1980s, when Pinellas Park wanted to establish a redevelopment area along Park Boulevard. Lancaster said she sat in on meetings between the County Commission and Pinellas Park officials and remembers that city representatives were warned then that establishing the redevelopment area would probably "negate any further work on the road." More recently, the city listed Park Boulevard repairs as its top priority for Penny for Pinellas funding. Lancaster said the city never indicated in any of those documents that Park would be a shared project with the county. Lancaster also pointed to the debate earlier this year over the county's capital improvements budget. Park Boulevard was not among the road projects presented to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mayor Bill Mischler, an MPO member and former head of that panel, never mentioned the omission of Park from the budget. Mischler instead argued over the delay in the widening of 62nd Avenue N. Each example indicates that the city was not upset over the lack of county funds for Park, Lancaster said. While there have been discussions in the past couple of years about a county-city-state partnership, the county's only commitment was $100,000 toward project design. The county further pledged that it would talk about the possibility of contributing to construction costs. But that is all there was: a pledge to negotiate, Lancaster said. "That was the deepest commitment that was made: After the design, we're open to talk about it," she said. When design was finished earlier this year, Lancaster said the city did not approach the county with the idea of talking about further financing. "It's never been presented that way. It's been presented as a demand," Lancaster said. "What they've said is, "You've promised; now deliver.' " The reaction among commission members was instantaneous. They resented being cast as villains with faulty memories. "I can't find any record to back up any other recollection. I'm going by the record. I guess he'd like for the record to be different, but it isn't," Lancaster said. "I've told Jerry this many times. Mudd said that he is not the one at fault for the dispute; the City Council has ordered him to take these recent actions. "It is possible that you may have misinterpreted my role in this matter, which I again wish to make clear has been, in most recent years, that of the messenger responsibly following reasonable and appropriate direction by City Council, which has been in the public interest," Mudd wrote in his letter. Mudd's letter made no reference to a solution that at least two council members have considered: Withdrawing city funding from the project and forcing the county and state to pay for the whole thing. The threat failed to impress Lancaster. "They're free as a city to make their own determinations," she said. "It seems to weaken their commitment, doesn't it? It doesn't support the prominence they place on the project." Lancaster also denied allegations some Pinellas Park council members have made that the county is backing out on its deal because of money woes. If there was a lot of money, it might be simpler to negotiate with the county, she said, but if the commissioners do not see the project as a priority, then no deal would be made anyway. "I think that's an inappropriate connection," Lancaster said. "(Even) if there was enough money to go around, there still was no commitment made."
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times South Pinellas desks |
