Establishment
1. The
Community should be heard, by referendum, within the proposed “Protected
Community” boundaries which shall be legally described, depicted on a
map and referred to as the
"Lealman Community Protection Act Area".
2. Upon
successful completion of a minimum of three open public hearings, the
County and the Legislative Delegation will assist the community with the
referendum process. The referendum is to determine the will of the
people as it pertains to protection against annexation through the
enactment of the CPA.
3. The
initial establishing CPA referendum for East and West Lealman would
require a 55% “Yes” vote of the voters within those proposed community boundary lines. The boundary lines to be concurrent with the
existing boundaries of the Lealman Fire District.
Comment:
The ballot should be of a simple “Yes, to the establishment of an
annexation protected area to be named ”The Lealman Community Protection
Act” or “No, to reject the establishment of an annexation
“protected” area within Lealman.
The
requirement, of a greater than simple majority approval, for the initial
referendum, will assure the support comes from more than a simple
majority of the residents within the requesting community.
4. The
Act should contain a “sunset clause” the length of which should be by
mutual agreement and made part of inter-local agreement of the parties,
but should not be less than 20 years nor exceed 30 years, and renewable by
a simple majority vote of those residing within their respective “Protected
Communities”. The “renewal” referendum will appear on the ballot 2
years prior to its sunset date or on the ballot of the first
Presidential election prior to the sunset date.
Comment:
Renewal of “protection” will be by ballot held on a Presidential
election cycle, held two years prior to the “sunset date”. Should the voters within an existing “protected area”
elect NOT to renew “protection” of their community, the protected area
would be dissolved and eligible to be annexed by the terms of inter-local
agreement and pursuant of state law. No reestablishment of the protection
will be allowed once it is rejected by the voters.
<>In
effect, the failure of the referendum to renew “protection” would
allow annexation by an abutting city or cities as per state law and /or the
terms of any inter-local agreement pertaining to annexation establishing
the protected area.
<>The
term of a minimum of 20 years is necessary so that the County can
implement long term planning within the protected area.
5. The
“Community Protection Act” is a fair and equitable solution to
addressing the current turmoil and doubt within communities caused by
annexation but still allows for future annexation opportunities should the
protection not be renewed by referendum.
6. The “Community Protection Act “would protect the
interests, choice and property rights of the people within of the
community through the referendum process.
7. With
the assurance of “protection” unincorporated communities, opposed to
annexation, will not be driven to seek protection by incorporating.
8. Areas
and facilities of county-wide significance should continue to receive
permanent exclusion from annexation, the status of which may be
unilaterally changed by a vote of the County’s Board of Commissioners.
A recent
challenge by our cities, which took legal action against the Charter
Review Committee (CRC) members, the County and the Supervisor of Elections
because of the recommendations of the CRC being placed on the ballot and
passed by the voters, has further eroded our confidence in the political
process and raises
concerns as to being fairly dealt with.
Comment:
The above proposals are suggestions. We welcome input from all the
parties involved so that an equitable solution can be found.
I am sure we can agree that enough time and energy and tax payer
money has been wasted because of governmental tension caused by annexation
inequities and anomalies.
We are
asking that the Pinellas County Commissioners and Pinellas County
Delegation provide the leadership and support needed to arrive at an
equitable solution.
Because of the late
start and the upcoming deadline to report the result of the Task Force
discussions and agreements to the Legislative Delegation, a ONE YEAR
EXTENSION should be requested and all current restrictions to annexation
to be extended for the same period
The Task Force’s
recommendations will have a significant impact on the lives of 40,000
residents of Lealman. Thoughtful deliberation, with as much public input as
possible, is critical to achieve an acceptable solution. A rush to decision
to meet some arbitrary deadline date could only create more havoc than the
Task Force was empanelled to avoid.
