Critical Info
State of Lealman Report
The
following is a chronology of events from th inception of the Lealman Community
Association. This will be updated periodically so that anyone can see the
journey we have traveled on our way to becoming a city.
The Lealman Story
The Lealman area predates the creation of Pinellas County.
It was an agricultural and farming area producing milk, oranges,
turpentine and eggs. The railroad
had a loading depot in Lealman to pick up farming products.
About the time that St. Petersburg and Clearwater were
formed, it is rumored that Lealman had applied for a charter of incorporation,
but was never followed through with.
For many years, like much of unincorporated Pinellas County
the Lealman area remained sparsely populated and remained rural in nature. Most
of the roads consisted of crushed oyster shell (marl) and ditches were the main
form of flood control. The area was
allowed to develop at it’s own pace and no formal development was undertaken.
Many of the homes were owner built and code enforcement was applied only
to the most basic of standards. The
area grew slowly until the late 60’s when the building boom hit. Much of
Lealman’s farming, ranching and orange grove properties were subdivided into
subdivisions with lot sizes of approximately 50X130 feet and sold at reasonable
prices. Low to medium-low cost housing soon filled those lots with low
affordable housing.
By 1990 the area was as densely populated as any of the
adjoining cities. Federal grants
enabled the county to pave and provide storm sewers and curbing to selected
areas of the Lealman but many areas still have deep ditches and lack curbing.
The people of Lealman, made up largely of retired and
blue collar workers, have historically made few demands on the county for
services, and the county, for the most part, ignored the Lealman area.
With rapid growth and development taking place in North County, the
interest of county government was not focused on Lealman.
Today Lealman is all but fully developed.
The old low cost of housing has turned into rentals, which in many cases
are substandard. We have decaying
and antiquated trailer parks and an out of proportion ratio of rentals (53%) to
home ownership. Much of the existing housing stock is old and in need of
repair. But Lealman now also contains many houses over $100,000 and go as high
as $850,000.
Neglect and lack of general and building code
enforcement has created the perception among many of the residents that Lealman
was the place to move to if you wanted low taxes and avoid code restrictions. The lack of county zoning and building code enforcement has
resulted in single-family houses becoming duplexes and triplexes creating a
hodgepodge of illegal zoning violations. The county’s policy of code
enforcement "by complaint" deteriorated into a situation that pitted
neighbor against neighbor. Left unmonitored for years the perception now is that
there are little or no restrictions or codes that apply in Lealman.
A well entrenched vocal minority wants to maintain the
status quo however the majority of the residents want improvements of servives
and have become active in demanding change.
Chronology of Events:
In 1997 the Lealman area was paying the second highest tax
rate in the county and receiving little or no financial reinvestment from the
county. In the past 9 years the total sum of two million dollars of
“Penny” money has been invested in Lealman. All of which was to repair
Joe’s Creek.
In 1999, an independent taxing district was
formed to support the newly formed Lealman Fire District. This was done to keep what was historically a volunteer fire
department under the control of the Lealman community and not St.
Petersburg or Pinellas Park. The
rational for this was to protect the careers of the firemen that had served our
community but has resulted in a 5-mil addition to our tax bill. This millage
rate is the highest of any fire district in unincorporated Pinellas County. The
average millage of other fire districts in Pinellas County is about 2.5 to 3
mills.
In 1999 the Board of County Commissioners
(BBOC), directed the County Planning and Community Development Departments to
assess the needs of the Lealman area under a redevelopment initiative.
On Oct of 2000 the Community revitalized its
Community Association who initially established four attainable short-term goals
to address the most obvious and pressing needs of the community.
- To
get better selective code enforcement and to rid our community
of derelict inoperable, unlicensed cars.
- Obtain
street lighting through the petition process.
- Develop
green space for our residents, in particular the Joe’s Creek right of way
as well as the property on which the county retention pond and old cement
plant was located (Sierra Industries property).
- Provide
reasonable trash collection costs by selecting one carrier to service our
area instead of 3 or 4.
The LCA’s four initial projects have been
addressed. Code enforcement:
Working in cooperation with the Sheriff’s Community Police Officers we have
make some headway on the derelict car issue.
However, we are concerned that in the process of addressing the derelict
car issue, our residents are going to face the full force of all county code
violations. We feel this is unfair
since it was the neglect of the county and its lack of code enforcement over
many years that caused much of the problem.
We have asked for the “selective” citing of the derelict car
violations as opposed to the broad paintbrush approach of citing for all
violations. We agree that all code violations have to be addressed but
the “broad brush” approach, at this time, may hinder our progress in getting
voluntary compliance of the other violations. In fact, the broad-brush approach
could tear apart the fabric of the community.
We feel that the implementation and targeting of the code
violations should be directed by the County’s Community Development Department
and in cooperation with the code enforcement and community representatives.
Lighting: As of 12/1/01 we have completed four
of nine” lighting districts”. This represents approx. 60% of the area to be
lighted. We expect to complete the
remainder of the project within the next six months. We also expect to have all
street lighting installation completed before the end of 2002.
Lighting installation has already begun and is already making a
difference. This project was taken on by one man, Tony Clark.
Garbage Collection: We attempted to negotiate
an equitable rate with the garbage collectors.
We currently pay over twice as much for our trash collection than our
neighboring cities do and we receive a lower level of service. Since we are not
a city, we have very limited negotiating power nor the ability to offer
exclusivity or to centrally collect fees from all the residents.
These were brought up as the reason for the higher rates.
We have asked the BOCC to look into the trash collection situation not
only of Lealman but the entire unincorporated area of Pinellas County. The BOCC
directed Mr.Tally, Utilities Administrator, to address this issue and report
back to them before the end of the year.
Frank Bowman, Community Development, Rebecca Harriman from the LCA and
myself met with Warren Smith, head of Solid Waste Management, Deb Bush and the
attorneys for Solid Waste and the Development Dept. As yet there has been no
determination as to how to proceed.
Green Space: The County Commissioners were
sympathetic to our plea for the development of the Sierra Industries property as
a park site. They have undertaken a study of a contamination problem of the
parcel sandwiched between two county owned properties that make up the proposed
park site. The one park we do have
is small and will be further reduced in size when the new fire station is built
on its east end. The Lealman Park has not been adequately maintained. All of the
equipment and amenities it once had are gone. One major concern that has emerged
about the building of the fire station is how much of the park property it will
take? To date there is no one that can show us the footprint of the proposed
station and how it will impact the park.
The people of Lealman have rallied around these 4
projects and awareness of the community about the issues has been greatly
increased. There concerns are mainly voiced through the Lealman Community
Association, (LCA).
The LCA joined forces with the County Planning and
Community Development Departments to do a comprehensive survey of the Central
Lealman area. The survey was
completed over a period of eight weekends and countless follow up meetings. The
survey allowed us to notate the physical condition of all buildings, houses,
streets, sidewalks, curbs, storm sewers, ditches, alleys and fire hydrants.
The Revitalization Plan for Lealman was presented and accepted by the
BOCC on August 2001. HUD grants can
now be applied for but we are told those funds will not be available until 2003.
With the economy downturn, caused by the September 11 event, there is no
assurance that any money for Lealman’s redevelopment will be available.
Annexation Issue:
It was not long into our involvement with the
four original community improvement projects that a fifth, and more serious
issue arose, annexation.
The annexation issue has now become the main
community issue before us. Because
Lealman is in an independent fire district, our taxes rise as properties within
the district are annexed by neighboring cities.
This has set off a wave of apprehension throughout our community.
Already burdened with the highest ad valorem tax, the people of Lealman
cannot sustain the increase in tax that annexation will cause. The people of
Lealman do not wish to be annexed into any of the abutting cities, and we
foresee serious taxing pressures for us in the near future. To date the
properties targeted for annexation have been the higher tax producing commercial
properties. We have brought our concerns, on this issue, to each member of the
BOCC as well as formally before them at BOCC meetings.
We do understand that annexation is a state issue.
The state has traditionally held that unincorporated areas are reserved for the
growth of cities or for the formation new cities.
Annexation is not controlled, but rather supervised, by the County.
To assist the county with annexing issues the state
mandated the formation of the Pinellas County Planning Council. The Council is
funded by a countywide tax. The make up of the council are representatives of
the cities plus a member of the BOCC and a member of the Dept. of Education. We
do not feel the unincorporated area is adequately represented on this council
and in fact we are precluded from being members of the council.
In 2001
the State Legislature passed statute (171.093) to address the financial hardship
Special Districts incur when they are annexed into.
While the statute offers only temporary financial relief the Pinellas
County Planning Council legal advisor is of the opinion that the statute is in
conflict with other statutes and therefore unenforceable. It is also their
opinion that the resolution of this statute would require court action to
resolve. At best, statute 171.093
was a temporary fix and would not serve the long-term needs of Lealman or the
county.
We went before the County Board of Commissioners and
suggested a remedy. Work with the
Legislature to create a new entity in which communities in an unincorporated
area, wishing to remain unincorporated, could by referendum, establish a legally
recognized entity with inviolate boundaries and free from the threat of
annexation. At least one Commissioner, John Morroni, felt there was little hope
of the adoption of this idea and that if it were to go through the Legislature,
severe annexation damage would already be done before it could become a reality.
Left with very few options Lealman pursued a merger with
Kenneth City. The merger with
Kenneth City would have resulted in creating the fourth largest city in the
county. This was a reasonable
solution to both our short-term problem of annexation and Kenneth City’s
long-term problem of economy of scale. Rhetoric from both communities escalated
and the benefits and logic of the merger got lost on emotional issues. We also
feel a faction in the county did not want this merger to happen and the Mayor
and Council members of Kenneth City summarily turned down this initiative.
I believe if we had been able to share our vision of what we could
accomplish together they would have at least understood what they were turning
down.
We have finally come to the only remedy left to us,
incorporation.
We feel we have the right, both moral and legal, to
self-determination. The challenges
will be great but they are surmountable. The
people of Lealman are fiercely loyal to the Lealman Community and have expressed
a clear desire not to be annexed by St. Petersburg, Seminole or Pinellas Park.
They want and deserve their right to develop their community without the
threat of over taxation and annexation as well as a more responsive form of
local government to address their needs. The people of Lealman want to have a
level of service every city in the county enjoys and to have those services
delivered in a timely manor at a reasonable cost.
We contacted the Florida League of Cities and asked
for information and assistance with the process of incorporation.
We were given the basic information and requirements which we then
presented to the attendees of the LCA monthly meeting.
We carefully outlined all our options. It was the overwhelming
majority opinion that we should pursue incorporation.
We went to our State Representative, Frank Farcas,
and expressed to him our desire to make Lealman a city and asked for his help.
He said he would look into what was necessary to accomplish this. He and Senator
Sebesta attended one of our LCA meetings and saw and heard the will of the
people. Both Mr. Farcas and Mr. Sebesta donated $20.00 each to the fund to raise
$25,000 for a "feasibility study", which is a basic prerequisite for
incorporation.
The feasibility study is a compilation of current and
projected expenses and revenues for 5 years of the proposed incorporating area
as well as future projections of growth and the plans for that growth; the study
also requires a metes and bounds survey of the proposed incorporating area.
The problem we were presented with was how to do an
accurate survey and collect reliable financial information if we are annexed
into on a daily basis. We needed a moratorium on annexation for the period of
the feasibility study in order to have accurate information to determine if
annexation was feasible.
Representative Farkas agreed with logic of our
request and drafted a home bill requesting that a moratorium on annexation for a
period of 2 years, or until the feasibility study showed that incorporation was
not a viable option. It was the community’s, as well as Representative
Farkas’s understanding, that Senator Sebesta supported the bill.
We were scheduled to present our home bill for the
moratorium before the Pinellas County Delegation on November 15, 2001. However
because of the political pressure applied by the annexing cities, Sen. Sebesta
pulled his support and Rep Farkas had no choice but to follow. A bill was passed
for the Lealman Fire Dept. to insure they would receive fire taxes from annexed
properties of Lealman for 5 years starting in 2003. All mention of the
“annexing moratorium” provision was removed from the bill prior to its
presentation to the delegation. We
don’t feel anything substantive was accomplished with the fire department's
bill since the loss of fire tax revenue to the annexing cities will not hurt
them considering the Lealman Fire District will still have to provide the
service to those properties. In any case at the end of five years the annexing
of all the valuable taxable property would have been completed.
We met with County Commissioner Ken Welsh and asked
for his support for Lealman’s incorporation as well as his support to have the
county perform the feasibility study. He
asked that we obtain 1000 signatures on a petition, which we completed in 2
months.
At the November 20,2001 BOCC meeting, Commissioner Welch
proposed to the board members that the Planning Council fund and direct the
feasibility study for Lealman.
At the Nov. 20, 2001 BOCC meeting, we also proposed
that the boundary lines for annexation be moved back to the original lines that
conformed to the fire district’s lines. This was within the authority of the
BOCC under article 0063. The County
has initiated hearings on both our proposals. A meeting with all the departments
involved with the many issues within Lealman was held on Dec. 6, 2001.
Gay Lancaster, Jake Sowers, Mark Woodard, Carol
Seaman, Brian Smith, Dave Sadowsky, Frank Bowman, Gordon Beardslee, Rick Graham
and myself attended the meeting. We voiced our concerns on many issues and
suggested some remedies. Ms Lancaster scheduled a follow-up meeting to further
define the options. I was assured I would receive a copy of this meeting.
St. Petersburg has declared its intention to move the
lines of annexation so that both they and Pinellas Park will absorb all of
Lealman. They recently passed a resolution of their intent to annex property
abutting the Joe’s Creek Industrial area. This is a forerunner to the annexing
of the Joe’s Creek Industrial area. This move will both seriously cripple
Lealman’s opportunity for self-determination and, in effect, will make the tax
burden on the residents of Lealman more unbearable since the commercial areas
provide the Lealman Fire District with approximately 10% of the fire budget.
December 3, 2001 the new County Administrator, Steve
Spratt, took over as County Administrator. We hope that he has time to become
familiar with the annexation issues affecting the Lealman area and the county in
general. We are hopeful that the
experience he has in the area of annexation will help resolve our issues and the
annexation issue of the county in general.
On December 11, 2001, I was informed that Pinellas
Park has filed for annexation of properties that will close off the corridor to
west side Lealman. Our ongoing nightmare continues. The properties to be
annexed are currently horse ranches and will be developed into 67 homes and a
complex of approximately 130 apartment units.
What does that mean in human terms? Everyone west of Kenneth City may lose
his or her right of self-determination.
On Jan 16, the city of St. Petersburg is attempted to cross
the annexing boundary to the north side of 40th Avenue. This would give them
access to property near Joes Creek. St. Petersburg’s move was denied by an 8
to 5 vote of the Planning Council and non-recommendation of Planning’s staff.
This was the first sign of a break in solidarity of their voting.
On Jan 23, we met with Steve Spratt and Gay
Lancaster. Many of our unresolved were because of lack of precedent dealing with
them. Mr. Spratt told us that he had resolved similiar issues in Dade. He saw no
barrier to becoming a city or any other remedy that could protect the viability
of Lealman should we remain in the county.
In the final analysis it will be the political will
of the county commissioners that will determine the direction and future of the
county. It is the consensus of Mr. Spratt that the American Assembly process
will have a great influence on the future direction of the county. This may
result in the political mandate that the commissioners need to act.
On Jan 23, I also met with Commissioner Welch and got
reassurance that the study process will continue and he will address it again at
the Jan. 29th BOCC meeting.
On Jan 25 the first meeting of the American Assembly
Steering Committee met. Absent was Pinellas Park who did not want to
participate. I was given the honor of representing Lealman and the
unincorporated area on this committee.
On Jan 29, 2002 the BOCC will rule on our request for
the movement of the annexation lines back to the original boundaries except for
those properties already annexed.
Most of the issues within the unincorporated area,
and in particular Lealman, have been complicated by many of factors not least of
which are the mind-sets of county government, unincorporated county and the
cities.
Pinellas County is at a crossroads. The county
leadership has to make a determination whether or not there is a future for an
unincorporated area in Pinellas. Solution solving by historical precedence
simply won’t work in unprecedented times and with unprecedented challenges.
This is a time for new and creative unprecidented solutions and the will to
accomplish those solutions.
Feb and March - We had a series of meetings with Mr Spratt
and Commissioner Welch voicing our concerns of several major issues facing
Lealman. The new park site, the building of a Community Center in place of a new
fire station, code enforcement and their inability to cooperate in the process
of redevelopment, zoning issues about the incorrect zoning of many of our
residential properties zoned as commercial instead of residential. We also aare
committed to the American Assembly and its outcome. THis process should be
completed in the next 4 months.
2-11-02 The date of the first meeting of the Steering
Committee for Lealman's Feasibility Study. Brian Smith, Dave Healy, Mark
Woodard, Ray Neri, Marcie Lauster and Rick Graham will form the committee.
