The following are MY viewpoints on the settlement situation.
As you know, the Plaintiffs in the multiple litigations against US, the Residents of St Pete Beach, recently rejected what I consider to be our most considerate and final offer to settle those lawsuits after months of informal discussions and formal mediation. A settlement could potentially save US, the taxpayers of St Pete Beach, thousands of dollars over the next months, perhaps reduce the divisiveness that seems to exist and allow us to position the city in a more positive manner as the economy slowly strengthens, tourists return and as we vie for vitality with other beach destinations. These are all very important factors for a creating a healthy future but they must be balanced against the terms of any settlement. Many, many residents voiced their opinions of settlement to me. The vast majority (I’d say over 100 to 1) were not in favor of settlement, of having their vote discarded, of having the City Charter ignored, of having fringe groups plan the future of St Pete Beach, or simply of caving into what was termed “blackmail”, “extortion”, or “bullies”. It is important that you understand that my objective through all of this is to listen to all the input I’ve received from residents together with my own observation, experience, analysis and judgment and take a position that I believe is in our best interests.I believe that includes the possibility of settlement IF acceptable terms could be created in the agreement. I believe the City’s final offer did present terms that would have protected those best interests and could have still have been acceptable within the larger picture.That offer still contained the plaintiff’s desire for an advisory “Bridge to the Future” Committee. It required committee membership with representation I feel is nearer to the overall distribution of resident viewpoints as opposed to skewing membership to the special interests.As you can read in Appendix D of the agreement, here on my website, our proposed make-up was to be 3 people offered by the plaintiffs, 3 people offered by SOLV, 3 people offered by the Commission.This final offer even included (and this one I only grudgingly accept) non-resident membership. It did NOT allow anyone who was named in any legal actions to be a member or that committee. However, the Commission was to retain final approval over all appointments.I could not condone allowing the plaintiffs, who are suing US, to have the final say in specific membership. That goes against our Charter.I could not condone giving anyone veto power OVER the Commission.YOU elected the Commission as YOUR representative government to manage YOUR City. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs and their out-of-town lawyers (full disclosure, our lawyers are out-of-town too, but answer to US) chose, in the end, after months of discussions, delays, and mediation expense, not to agree to our terms. This is unfortunate but the protection of the sanctity of OUR vote is imperative.If we must defend it in court, then so be it. I hope the documents I put up on this site give you all the facts (I value facts) you need to clearly see where we are. I am always here to get your input, discuss viewpoints and to answer your questions.