After months of planning and preparation, the Pinellas Assembly convened on Thursday, May 16, 2002. Over the following two and one-half days, representatives from virtually all segments of the private and public sectors in Pinellas County discussed, debated, reached consensus, and maintained differences of opinion on how best to solve the myriad problems facing the county.

	Mayor Jerry Beverland and other participants discuss countywide issues at the Pinellas Assembly.

The Assembly was organized by a steering committee that worked with Professor Lance deHaven-Smith to identify participants and select the issues to be addressed. The approximately 150 representatives were divided into six groups, each led by a facilitator and recorder who took notes. All of the groups discussed the same subjects concurrently, which included:

1. Goals and principles for governments in Pinellas County
2. Urban service delivery and financing
3. Economic development and community redevelopment
4. Governing intergovernmental relations
5. Annexation
6. Targets of opportunity
7. Next steps

In order to provide focus for the participants in their discussions, questions had been prepared by the steering committee. A sampling includes:

Mayor Robert Jackson and Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith chat about ways to address key countywide issues.

Consensus was reached on several important issues. There was general agreement that enclaves (those unincorporated areas completely surrounded by a city) should be annexed. Additionally, urban service delivery efficiency and financing equity were recognized as needing improvement. Finally, participants agreed that there were potential opportunities for code commonalties that could limit confusion in a redevelopment environment. As expressed by one participant, the goal with regard to the codes should be to achieve “consistency where possible.”

Perhaps most importantly, it was agreed that the Assembly was the first step in a long journey and that if a more healthy and productive intergovernmental environment is to become a reality, the onus for starting the improvement process is on the political leadership. Likewise, it was recognized that political leaders need to provide their staff members with the ongoing support and backup necessary to foster the change embraced by the leadership.

The participants envisioned that future actions would include continuation of the original steering committee to provide assistance to the county commissioners and the mayors in their efforts to formulate task forces to address specific issues. The task forces will initiate in-depth studies of the issues identified in the final policy statement with the goal of reaching conclusions and formulating solutions to the complex intergovernmental and service delivery issues which were the focus of the Assembly.

While new to the PPC, Mayor Beverland has a long history of local government experience, beginning with his first term on the Oldsmar City Council from 1970 to 1972. He served as councilmember again between 1990 and 1994, then as mayor from 1995 to 1999. After a brief hiatus due to term limits, he was elected mayor again in March 2001.

The mayor states that he has only recently come to appreciate the role—and potential—of the PPC. The makeup of Pinellas County has changed greatly over the last several decades, as once-isolated rural communities have grown together and become more urbanized, and a majority of the population has shifted to incorporated areas. With these changes, he feels that it is increasingly vital for local governments to recognize that they have common interests, and to speak with one voice. He would like to see the PPC become even more proactive in encouraging local governments to work together, and to seek bold solutions to countywide issues.

When not representing the city, the mayor deals in antiques, which he describes as both a hobby and a business. He and his wife, Wanda, have raised four children and have four grandchildren.

Elected in March 2002, Ms. Bradbury is serving her first term on the city council and on the PPC. However, she has a thorough understanding of land use issues, having previously served on the city's Board of Adjustment. Through her appointment to the PPC, the councilmember states that she hopes to learn more about the county as a whole, and welcomes the opportunity to work with her counterparts from other jurisdictions.

Ms. Bradbury acknowledges that the county's 25 local governments have both strengths and weaknesses when it comes to intergovernmental cooperation. She cites the most recent disagreements over annexation and fire service as areas where improvement is needed. However, she feels that the PPC can encourage cooperation by providing a venue where all communities—both municipalities and unincorporated areas—are treated fairly, according to a common set of rules.

She is the second generation of her family to participate in Pinellas Park government, following her father, former Mayor Cecil Bradbury, who also served on the PPC. Outside of her political career, she is employed as the metro marketing team leader for Sam's Club, and is engaged to be married.

Mr. Hamilton was elected to the city commission in March 2001, marking his first foray into public office. A lifelong Clearwater resident, he brings a great deal of local perpective and enthusiasm to the countywide planning process.

While quality of life remains high in Pinellas County, the commissioner recognizes that there are challenges on the horizon. With its supply of developable land nearly exhausted (he prefers the term “geographically challenged” to “built-out”), local governments will need to work harder to encourage quality redevelopment and maintain economic growth. He feels that the county's greatest asset is its people—a diverse population, many distinctive communities, and a willingness to work together to solve common issues. Even though each community is unique, he believes that they face many of the same redevelopment issues, and can find common solutions without compromising their individuality.

In addition to his activities on the city commission and PPC, Mr. Hamilton is the general manager of the Palm Pavilion Inn on Clearwater Beach. He and his wife, Sheryl, have two sons ages 14 and 16.

Rehabilitation efforts in the county, such as the one shown above, may be inadvertently discouraged by the new code.

In March 2002, a new statewide building code took effect in Florida. Consolidating and replacing more than 400 local documents, the Florida Building Code was developed by the state-appointed Florida Building Commission, which consists of 23 representatives of the construction industry, its suppliers and consumers.

The legislation has generated controversy, due largely to its increased emphasis on natural disaster resistance. For example, the document requires new standards for windows and glass doors, including water resistance, air leakage, mandatory load deflection, and structural tests. While these measures succeed in making structures safer, they can also significantly increase construction costs.

For Pinellas County, an even greater impact will likely come from Chapter 34, which regulates rehabilitation of existing buildings. Prior to March 2002, all jurisdictions in the county were governed by a countywide rehabilitation code. The 216-page document took into account the structural limitations of older buildings, and provided more flexible standards than those imposed on new construction. In contrast, the Florida Building Code is primarily concerned with new construction, and devotes only four pages to the rehabilitation of existing buildings.

Following a conventional standard known as the “25/50 percent rule,” the new code divides rehabilitation projects into three categories, based on the ratio of the cost of the alteration to the replacement cost of the existing structure. The three categories include projects with ratios below 25 percent, between 25 and 50 percent, and above 50 percent. Different standards apply to each category, with most projects above 50 percent required to comply with the same codes as new construction.

While these provisions are consistent with national standards, the experience of many jurisdictions around the country has shown that the 25/50 percent rule is not the most effective way to encourage rehabilitation, and may inadvertently discourage it. The cost of retrofitting an older structure to meet current codes is often so prohibitive that for many property owners, it is more cost-effective simply to maintain structures in an unimproved condition, or to tear them down and build new structures.

Adoption of the statewide code is likely to have a significant effect on Pinellas County, which is almost completely built-out, and is therefore dependent on redevelopment to remain economically sustainable. In practical terms, as long as the county remains an attractive destination, some form of redevelopment will occur. However, the new code may mean that older neighborhoods and districts, which could be preserved and revitalized, will instead see many buildings go unimproved and fall into disrepair, or be demolished and replaced with new construction. Over time this trend could significantly alter the character of established local communities.

For the time being, there is little that Pinellas County jurisdictions can do to change the situation. Local governments are permitted to make their own amendments to the statewide building code, if they can demonstrate that there are local conditions that warrant the proposed changes. However, the altered standards must be more stringent than the statewide equivalent. Therefore, it is doubtful that a redevelopment-friendly amendment would be approved.

Fortunately, the Florida Building Commission Report to the 2002 Legislature acknowledges that the new standards for existing buildings are insufficient, and endorses the need for a separate rehabilitation code with more flexible standards. The report states that “numerous other states and local jurisdictions have realized the benefits of developing and adopting a rehabilitation code. It was discovered that rehabilitation codes encourage the use and reuse of existing buildings...promote community redevelopment and promote the rehabilitation of affordable housing.”

Perhaps the best-known example of this trend is the State of New Jersey, whose groundbreaking Rehabilitation Subcode was designed to streamline the rehabilitation process while ensuring that buildings continue to meet a minimum level of safety. The new process requires a higher level of subjectivity and judgement on the part of building officials, but has been well-received by the development community, and redevelopment activity has increased by as much as 84 percent in some cities.

Inspired by New Jersey's experience, jurisdictions in Masschusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Kansas, and Missouri have all developed or begun development of similar codes. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has developed model language to assist these efforts, and the International Conference of Building Officials is developing a similar Uniform Code for Existing Buildings. In the coming years, this trend is expected to have a significant impact on the way in which local governments regulate rehabilitation.

These efforts have not gone unnoticed by the State of Florida. During its 2002 legislative session, the legislature directed the Florida Building Commission to develop provisions that may be added to the statewide code to facilitate the rehabilitation and use of existing structures. The commission will study the various issues, and present a report containing the proposed additions by no later than January 1, 2002. Given the importance of encouraging rehabilitation in Pinellas County, local governments should follow these efforts closely and the PPC will continue to monitor this issue as part of its efforts to facilitate redevelopment.

• Commissioner Barbara Sheen Todd, Chairman
• Commissioner Karen Williams Seel, Vice-Chairman
• Commissioner Calvin D. Harris
• Commissioner John Morroni
• Commissioner Susan Latvala
• Commissioner Robert B. Stewart
• Commissioner Kenneth T. Welch