- May 4, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
At the end of a nine-hour meeting that offered few opportunities for breaks, the City Commission decided Monday to skip the final item on the agenda.
The board was scheduled to discuss an ongoing conflict resolution process with the county. The two have been fighting over the end of the downtown Community Redevelopment Area since 2015, when the county ended the funding mechanism despite the city’s requests to the contrary.
Following a lengthy dispute, the city and county commissions met April 26 in an attempt to settle the discord. Both boards shared a desire to find room for compromise, setting the goal of holding another joint meeting within 75 days to resolve the dispute.
On Monday, the City Commission planned to give direction to City Manager Tom Barwin on how to proceed in negotiations with the county. But the board assumed its colleagues would be willing to hold off on hearing the City Commission’s desires for another two weeks.
“Hopefully, they would understand, since it’s 11:30,” said City Attorney Robert Fournier.
When the County Commission met to discuss the topic Tuesday, it wasn’t as understanding as city officials had hoped.
“If this is their level of cooperation, I don’t know that I want to pursue any further projects with them,” County Commissioner Nancy Detert said.
County Administrator Tom Harmer mentioned the city was unable to discuss the CRA resolution, but he did not refer to the length of the meeting as a mitigating factor. The County Commission’s displeasure highlighted the still-raw division between the two governments on this topic.
The downtown CRA was created in 1986, setting aside city and county property tax revenue from within the district’s boundaries to be reinvested in that same area. Once the county let the CRA expire, the city contended the county still had to pay its share into the fund for one more year, a $4.7 million obligation. The county rejects that claim.
On Tuesday, multiple county commissioners reiterated their confidence that the county had no remaining duty to the city.
“The evidence was overwhelming,” County Commissioner Mike Moran said. “We don’t owe them anything.”
The board suggested the city could pursue county funding for any projects it wanted through the competitive Community Reinvestment Program. Any municipality in Sarasota County is permitted to seek funding through that program.
Moran also suggested any resolution should involve the transfer of a parcel of city-owned land at 2050 Ringling Blvd. The city agreed to transfer the land to the county in a 2003 memorandum that City Attorney Robert Fournier called “a sham” in 2015.
“Frankly, a fifth-grader could understand that memorandum, and it should be lived up to,” Moran said.
Barwin did not watch the county’s discussion as it happened — city staff was in its own meeting — but he was taken aback when he learned about the conversation.
“My gosh,” Barwin said. “I’m almost speechless.”
The city manager pointed to the circumstances behind Monday’s marathon meetings, the agenda for which included several items that drew big crowds. He said the city was still willing to meet the 75-day timeline for a follow-up meeting. He was mystified why the county assumed the city was acting in bad faith.
“You jump to that conclusion, that’s Olympic-style jumping, right there,” Barwin said.
Moran said the city knew it didn’t have a solid legal argument to the remaining CRA payment and suggested the county should “call their bluff.” Barwin said the city was working to follow through on the goals of the CRA, which include redeveloping blighted portions of the city.
Despite the county’s complaints, Barwin still thinks the city has a solid case. He doesn’t want it to come to that, but he held firm in the face of skepticism.
“If they want to just toss the dice and go to court without a serious attempt to resolve the dispute, that’s their call,” Barwin said. “We’re in this in a serious, sincere effort to negotiate a fair settlement.”
Staff writer Cassidy Alexander contributed to this story.
