Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
The County Commission considers the Keene Road expansion and the new Memorial Causeway Bridge today amid questions on Clearwater's support.
By ROBERT FARLEY and CHRISTINA HEADRICK
© St. Petersburg Times, published June 26, 2001
CLEARWATER -- Strained relations between Pinellas County and Clearwater city officials over the width of an extension of Keene Road appear to have spilled over to another project, replacement of the Memorial Causeway Bridge.
Last week, Carl Barron, the county's director of general services, sent Clearwater a seven-page letter detailing a host of county concerns about the bridge project that he said the city has failed to address.
Clearwater's Interim City Manager Bill Horne and City Attorney Pam Akin suggested that Barron's troubles with the bridge are related to anxiety that county officials have felt as the city has pressed them to revise plans to extend Keene Road from Druid Road to Drew Street, scaling back the project from six lanes to four lanes this year.
"I do know there's some frustration on the part of county staff," Horne said. "The county staff has been frustrated with the city's Keene Road resolution, and that's something that's been programmed for a number of years."
Interim County Administrator Gay Lancaster said county officials are frustrated over the Keene Road project. The roadway is already designed with six lanes and its construction was approved by the Pinellas County Commission in March. Although on the books for years, just last month the Clearwater City Commission asked the county's road board to reconsider the six-lane Keene Road design.
Both issues -- Keene Road and the Memorial Causeway Bridge -- will come to the forefront at today's County Commission meeting. First, the commission will consider whether to forge ahead with the six-lane Keene Road plan over Clearwater council's objections. Then, the commission will decide whether to release the first of two $5 million grants toward the bridge project.
The two projects are related, Lancaster said, in the sense that the county now has concerns over the city sticking to its agreements.
"We are not trying to strong-arm them," Lancaster said. "But given their city council's inconsistency on some past issues, we want to make sure we have some sort of guarantees they are going to do what they said they'd do."
Barron said Monday the agreement between the city and county calls for the city to submit final plans for the bridge project for review by the county prior to the two governmental agencies swapping land to make the project work.
But while the city has submitted plans it calls final plans, Barron said, "they are not final plans."
Horne said the situation amounted to intergovernmental "arm wrestling" and said it was unfortunate.
City officials said they were concerned that Barron called the city's plans incomplete and deficient, even though the state is scheduled to seek bids in mid-July for a contractor to build the bridge. The tall, fixed-span causeway, which will replace an aging drawbridge, is supposed to be under construction by year's end.
"The county is being a little difficult, but we think that we'll get past it," said City Engineer Mike Quillen said.
Barron suggested the county put the $5-million into an escrow account and that it not be spent until the issues between the two agencies are resolved.
As for Keene Road, the commission will decide whether Clearwater's objections to the six-lane plan came too late.
Although the county's road board, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, recently voted 6-5 to reconsider the six-lane plan, the County Commission may decide to override the MPO and move forward with the six-lane plan.
The prospect arose last week when County Commissioner Bob Stewart asked the county attorney whether the county had final say over the project. At Stewart's request, county staff members today will present a history of the Keene Road project and how much has been spent on design and purchase of land for the six-lane extension.
County attorney Susan Churuti said she has concluded the County Commission does have exclusive authority to decide how wide the road should be and can override the MPO. Churuti said she has not yet determined whether a $3.5 million state grant is legally tied to the six-lane plan.
County commissioner Susan Latvala said the county has to draw the line on when to raise objections to a road plan. The county has already spent several million dollars on land and design of the project as a six-lane road, she said.
"It appears this is not the time to do this (change the plan)," Latvala said. "I'm concerned because it changed because of the objections of a small number of people."
Lancaster said the county's engineering staff is uncomfortable building a road it is convinced would be inadequate.
"We don't see a reason to spend all that money on a road that would be outdated the day people start driving on it," Lancaster said.