Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 11, 2007
9:00 a.m. session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:05:29 [Sounding gavel]
09:05:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Good morning.
09:05:35 We will now call the Community Redevelopment Agency
09:05:39 for the City of Tampa to order at this time.
09:05:42 We will first stand for the invocation, remain
09:05:47 standing for the pledge of allegiance.
09:05:48 We are delighted to have reverend harness from Hyde
09:05:52 Park United Methodist Church to come give us our
09:05:56 >>> Let us unite together in prayer.
09:06:00 Almighty God, you gave your servants the vision of a
09:06:04 holy city in which death and crime and pain would be
09:06:07 no more, a city whose gates are open to all, and in
09:06:11 which grows the tree which leaves are for the healing
09:06:16 of the nation.
09:06:16 Grant to these your servants, fresh vision for the
09:06:19 welfare of this city, and energize them to fulfill
09:06:23 that calling for the life and healing of all your
09:06:33 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:06:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will now have roll call.
09:06:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:06:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:06:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:06:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:07:01 Let me recognize a memorandum from councilwoman Linda
09:07:06 Please be advised that I will be out of town and
09:07:08 unable to attend the morning and evening council
09:07:11 meeting scheduled on Thursday, October 11th, 2007.
09:07:14 Thank you.
09:07:15 That's from councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena.
09:07:17 The chair will now recognize councilman Miranda.
09:07:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:07:23 It's my pleasure this morning to introduce a group
09:07:26 from the mayor's youth corps headed by Rebecca
09:07:31 Hochstead, mentoring these kids who will be the future
09:07:38 leaders of the City of Tampa, and Christian Nunez
09:07:42 would like to say a couple of words, just a very short
09:07:44 message, Mr. Chair.
09:07:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, Mr. Miranda.
09:07:49 >>> I'm Christian Nunez, a senior at freedom high
09:07:52 school, member of the class of 2007 mayor's youth
09:07:55 We would like to let you know how pleased we are to be
09:07:58 here this morning.
09:07:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:08:00 Would you all like to stand so we can recognize each
09:08:04 one of them?
09:08:06 [ Applause ]
09:08:11 >> In three and a half years, they will be candidates,
09:08:14 Mr. Chairman.
09:08:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you all for being here today.
09:08:20 Mr. Huey, are you ready to proceed with our agenda?
09:08:24 Good morning, sir.
09:08:25 >>MARK HUEY: Good morning.
09:08:28 We have in terms of previewing the agenda, the main
09:08:30 activity that we have for you in terms of approvals
09:08:33 are budget.
09:08:35 And in addition to that, the service agreements that
09:08:38 are related to that.
09:08:39 We have a number of other items to cover.
09:08:41 I do have one agenda change item, and that is the last
09:08:46 item, item number 17, we have scheduled a presentation
09:08:50 update on the Heights.
09:08:52 We would like to defer that to a future date.
09:08:55 The developers made that request.
09:08:56 So we'll honor that.
09:08:58 And with that, the first item, item, I believe -- is
09:09:05 there anything that needs to be done on item 1 and 2?
09:09:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to continue to November.
09:09:12 >> Second.
09:09:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilwoman Miller, seconded
09:09:17 by councilman Miranda.
09:09:19 Let it be known by saying Aye.
09:09:21 Any opposes?
09:09:23 Moved and ordered.
09:09:25 >>MARK HUEY: The next item, item 3, is a discussion
09:09:28 relating to our advisory board policy.
09:09:36 First I remind you that today this is not about an
09:09:38 approval of a policy, but discussion.
09:09:41 We originally had a workshop on this item in June.
09:09:45 We then presented after that workshop in July a draft
09:09:49 policy and received input from the board.
09:09:53 We are now bringing back another draft policy that I
09:09:56 had a chance to provide to you on Monday for your
09:10:01 I do have extra copies if anyone needs extra copies.
09:10:04 One of the things that I certainly want to highlight,
09:10:07 that I covered in my cover memo, is this is the policy
09:10:11 that is coming from the staff and has not been
09:10:13 reviewed by any of our community groups, not been
09:10:17 reviewed by the presidents of those groups, or their
09:10:21 boards and representatives.
09:10:22 It is simply a reaction and a reflection back to you
09:10:25 from some of the feedback that you gave us in the
09:10:28 month of July.
09:10:29 Our plan is to take your input today to also convene
09:10:34 and work with the various community organizations, and
09:10:38 hopefully bring to you a final policy during the month
09:10:41 of November for approval.
09:10:43 So with that, does anyone need a copy of the policy
09:10:48 that was provided to you?
09:10:51 If not, what I would like to do is just -- there are
09:10:54 two significant modifications for the policy, and to
09:10:59 start our discussion I would like to focus on those.
09:11:06 Item number 3, the advisory committee appointment
09:11:08 process was changed significantly, and that came
09:11:11 primarily out of further reflection on our discussions
09:11:14 from June and July, as well as statewide research that
09:11:18 we did relating to other cities and other communities
09:11:22 and how they put together redevelopment advisory
09:11:27 The next addition, substantial addition to the policy,
09:11:31 was item 13 regarding conflicts of interest.
09:11:37 As you might recall, this was an area that was
09:11:39 discussed significantly at the workshop, and in July.
09:11:46 In the course of that conversation, one of the board
09:11:49 members, I believe it was Mr. Dingfelder, asked if the
09:11:54 ethics ordinance applied.
09:11:55 Sal Territo subsequently has done some research.
09:11:58 At this point I'll turn it over to him.
09:12:00 But the end result of it is what you see as item 13 in
09:12:03 the policy.
09:12:11 >>SAL TERRITO: Ordinances dealing with ethics policies
09:12:15 for all city employees, elected officials and advisory
09:12:18 I don't know if you have any questions on it but
09:12:23 that's where we got this provision.
09:12:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Have you had conversation to bring up
09:12:31 to date all those on the advisory committee at this
09:12:34 >>SAL TERRITO: No, we wanted to have you review it
09:12:37 Because you are not required as a CRA to follow the
09:12:40 city's procedures.
09:12:41 But since we have a set of procedures out there that
09:12:43 all city employees and elected officials use the
09:12:48 existing policies, but since you are a separate agency
09:12:51 you are not bound by those provisions.
09:12:53 We just use those as a way of getting them to you.
09:12:56 We haven't reviewed these with any of the boards
09:12:59 except for the East Tampa group which I spoke to about
09:13:01 a week and a half ago and brought some of these issues
09:13:06 >> MARK HUEY: I want to emphasize, no, we have not
09:13:09 formally discussed this.
09:13:10 It's really coming to you first, and then we'll be
09:13:13 taking your feedback.
09:13:15 We certainly want to have your feedback on it before
09:13:19 we can interact with the board further.
09:13:21 But we will be.
09:13:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I had a question about the ethics
09:13:28 policy, and how are we going to be reviewing that or
09:13:33 making certain that each member does not have a
09:13:39 Would the appointment to those boards be coming in
09:13:42 front of us so that we know who is --
09:13:44 >> Yes, good question.
09:13:45 And you're right.
09:13:46 And I'll come back to that.
09:13:48 But if you do want to turn to it very quickly, item 3
09:13:52 in the policy, the new appointment process, if you
09:13:55 look at bullet number 2, interested parties, those who
09:14:02 might be considering membership on an advisory
09:14:04 committee would execute it, sunshine with conflict of
09:14:09 interest acknowledgment form which would simply cite
09:14:12 the provisions of chapter 13 and they would
09:14:15 acknowledge their willingness to comply with those.
09:14:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
09:14:18 I was more wondering about checking on --
09:14:24 >> Afterwards, yes.
09:14:25 >>MARY MULHERN: That they are going to sign onto that,
09:14:28 but someone outside the committee.
09:14:31 >>SAL TERRITO: What will happen, if there is anyone
09:14:38 who has a doubt whether they have a conflict they can
09:14:40 take it to the city ethics commission, they will make
09:14:42 a ruling on it.
09:14:43 I could make the initial assessment if I think there's
09:14:46 a problem if they may want to raise that issue.
09:14:48 The same way you would ask Marty if you have a
09:14:51 conflict on a particular issue.
09:14:52 And we spelled out in pretty much detail the kinds of
09:14:55 things that might be conflicts and the people with
09:14:58 whom they deal that might cause a conflict.
09:15:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think clarification, it's my
09:15:06 understanding, a person can serve, disclose a conflict
09:15:12 and abstain from voting.
09:15:14 So we want to make sure that those who want to serve,
09:15:17 they can serve on the advisory board.
09:15:19 When it comes to voting on the items that they have a
09:15:23 conflict, and abstain from voting.
09:15:26 What I have been hearing, I can't serve, I have a
09:15:29 conflict, I think that we have to make that clear
09:15:33 about how they can participate, disclose any conflict
09:15:37 they have.
09:15:37 >>SAL TERRITO: It's an attempt to basically try to
09:15:41 balance the two issues.
09:15:41 You want to have people on these committees that have
09:15:43 an interest in the area.
09:15:44 At the same time you don't want anybody in the
09:15:46 community that's going to get a special benefit.
09:15:48 So if the issue does come up.
09:15:49 Other thing in the policies is you can have a
09:15:53 continuing conflict.
09:15:54 If it's a conflict that comes up over and over again
09:15:56 then there's a way of dealing with that.
09:15:58 You may not be able to serve on that board, if you
09:16:00 have 50% of the issues come up, 40% that you have an
09:16:02 interest northbound these areas, that would be a
09:16:04 problem obviously.
09:16:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a.
09:16:17 I don't know if it will be a quick answer.
09:16:19 Do or legal have --
09:16:23 >>SAL TERRITO: Generally there's so many of them that
09:16:24 I would be a running around sitting in these meetings.
09:16:28 If there's a special issue coming up, and I'm aware of
09:16:31 it beforehand, I will be there for those meetings.
09:16:33 I generally don't go to all because there's just too
09:16:36 many of them.
09:16:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I do agree with
09:16:42 council member Mulhern.
09:16:44 However, we are talking about getting people on the
09:16:46 CRA and what the parameters are.
09:16:48 Just as important, I believe, I don't think we have a
09:16:50 regulation of getting people off the CRA in case
09:16:54 something does happen that for whatever reasons they
09:16:57 may not be as qualified as we thought they were, in
09:17:02 their application, they have applied and we put them
09:17:04 on, and for whatever the reason, not that this means
09:17:07 that anybody that's there now, certainly that doesn't
09:17:09 mean that I think that, I don't.
09:17:12 I think they are all doing a great job and certainly
09:17:14 giving of their time free and willingly.
09:17:17 But I think there ought to be a provision not only in
09:17:19 the CRA but in other boards.
09:17:21 How do you get people off?
09:17:23 And I don't think we have those provisions.
09:17:24 >>MARK HUEY: That was an issue that was talked about
09:17:33 in some of the earlier workshops and meetings.
09:17:37 Item 9 is where we ended up, which really created an
09:17:43 attendance requirement, and that was it.
09:17:47 I think what we have seen in some of our review of the
09:17:51 statewide regulations and especially as we are now
09:17:54 going to an appointment process, and in the first
09:17:57 policies that we had, that wasn't the case in every
09:18:02 I would suggest yet that we might incorporate it if
09:18:06 it's the will of the board.
09:18:08 Some blanket statement that just affirms the appointed
09:18:12 boards are at your discretion.
09:18:15 And at any time if you feel like -- and we did put
09:18:18 that in one area relating tied to boards so we have
09:18:22 already sort of noted that in a little way but we
09:18:25 might come back to that if it's the desire of the
09:18:29 And make some blanket statement to the effect that at
09:18:31 any time you as the appointing body have the ability
09:18:34 to review the effectiveness of a board and its board
09:18:37 members, and that's part of your direction.
09:18:43 We would anticipate that.
09:18:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that and I appreciate
09:18:47 But what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
09:18:49 CRA here, is that I think there ought to be a reason,
09:18:52 a cause, a conflict of interest, for instance, or
09:18:56 something, not only -- missed 18 meetings in a row.
09:19:01 That's fine and dandy.
09:19:03 But other than that I think there ought to be a set of
09:19:05 rules, not rigidly so they can be flexible, but at
09:19:09 this CRA board, which is us, has the authority to
09:19:14 somewhere and somehow remove individuals for reasons
09:19:17 of being, not just because of the whims that we don't
09:19:20 like somebody.
09:19:21 And that's what I would like this board to work on.
09:19:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you have that?
09:19:31 >>> I hear what's being said and we'll try to address
09:19:34 that before the final draft.
09:19:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:19:37 Mr. Huey, are we having those problems now?
09:19:40 Have you had the problem in the past?
09:19:44 >>MARK HUEY: With ineffective board members?
09:19:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:19:48 Any conflicts?
09:19:51 >>> I would hate to make any characterization of any
09:19:54 I think we have appreciated all of the volunteers who
09:19:56 have gotten involved and the efforts they have put
09:20:00 Are there situations right now, if we had this policy
09:20:02 in place, which wouldn't have been appropriate?
09:20:05 Yes, there are.
09:20:06 I can tell you that.
09:20:08 But, again, there was no malice by those parties
09:20:13 If these policies weren't in place.
09:20:15 But, yes, I can tell you that if these policies would
09:20:19 have been in place, there would have been issues where
09:20:21 maybe conflicts would have been in play when voting
09:20:26 But, again, our volunteers have always worked hard in
09:20:33 trying to do the best job for you and for their area.
09:20:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:20:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Sal, can we write into this, this is
09:20:41 our ethics policy that we are creating, our board.
09:20:45 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes.
09:20:46 >>MARY MULHERN: So that's something we can write into
09:20:48 it, reasons.
09:20:49 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes, it is.
09:20:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Like Mr. Miranda said we want to have
09:20:53 specifics about why we would do that.
09:20:55 So it doesn't appear that we would be doing it
09:21:01 But I hope you talked to David Smith, because we are
09:21:04 having some questions about that on some of our
09:21:07 council boards.
09:21:09 And how we could have a mechanism.
09:21:12 >>SAL TERRITO: We are looking into that issue as well.
09:21:15 Some of your boards as council members, you have
09:21:17 control over -- it was set up by ordinance, some of
09:21:20 them set by state statutes over which we have little
09:21:23 So we are looking at that issue.
09:21:25 And here, a survey was done statewide to see what kind
09:21:28 of removal policies there are.
09:21:30 And they run the gamut from very difficult to four
09:21:33 members don't want you on there, assuming you have a
09:21:35 7-member board, you're off.
09:21:37 So it could be arbitrary, and there's a balancing
09:21:40 there as well, because you don't want to have people
09:21:42 afraid to make decisions or come to you with
09:21:45 suggestions if they are going to be thrown off the
09:21:48 board if you don't like their suggestions so it's kind
09:21:51 of a balance act for cause, that we'll have to decide
09:21:53 the cause you think is necessary to remove somebody
09:21:56 >>MARY MULHERN: But at this point bee don't have any.
09:21:59 >> No, all we have now is an attendance procedure.
09:22:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you, I served on a lot
09:22:06 of boards the last two years, some of them have an
09:22:09 automatic mechanism in place if you miss two meetings
09:22:13 without cause you are automatically off, and then you
09:22:16 have to go back to reappointment by then the county
09:22:19 commission was doing the pointing body.
09:22:21 So you may want to look at something like that.
09:22:23 >>MARK HUEY: That's what we presently have under item
09:22:27 9 in the policy.
09:22:28 Based on the discussion on this item previously.
09:22:31 That's where we ended up.
09:22:33 But we hear what you're saying.
09:22:35 I think we can amplify that in a number of ways that
09:22:39 will be respectful both to communities and to your
09:22:44 interests as the pointing body for boards.
09:22:46 So I hear you.
09:22:47 Got it.
09:22:49 We'll do our best to come up with some good criteria.
09:22:52 I think certainly conflicts of interest, sunshine law
09:22:54 provisions, those kinds of things will be part of it.
09:23:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: In terms of -- I'm sorry, yes.
09:23:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry, I got here a little
09:23:10 On paragraph 5 it speaks to the background and
09:23:14 expertise of the members, expertise in the
09:23:20 redevelopment process, which is neighborhood planning,
09:23:23 real estate development, real estate finance, and I
09:23:25 know it's important to have that type of professional
09:23:27 expertise as part of the group.
09:23:32 But what if somebody is just a neighborhood leader, a
09:23:37 neighborhood, you know, just a neighborhood person,
09:23:43 and that concerns me a little bit that we are not kind
09:23:47 of -- we are not mentioning that type of person, we
09:23:49 are not emphasizing that type of person, because we
09:23:52 all know those type of people in our respective
09:23:55 neighborhoods and that they have a lot to offer to
09:23:57 this type of group.
09:24:00 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, I would just point out that some
09:24:03 committee members.
09:24:04 What we are trying to strive for is a board advisory
09:24:07 committee that balance the great neighborhood
09:24:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: When you look at the first sentence it
09:24:19 kind of opens that up for that, what you are looking
09:24:20 at, councilman Dingfelder, says must live or work in
09:24:24 the redevelopment area, and/or have significant
09:24:27 interest within the CRA.
09:24:28 I think that will cover that.
09:24:30 Then it goes on to say additional member backgrounds
09:24:33 such as -- I think the first sentence you covered
09:24:35 under that.
09:24:36 >> As long as it's clear that it's not our intent to
09:24:39 be exclusive in that regard.
09:24:44 I think that's the most important thing.
09:24:45 >>MARK HUEY: And what we had done was attached to the
09:24:50 policy that we sent you, the application process that
09:24:54 is presently used by the clerk's office.
09:24:56 You may be familiar with it.
09:24:57 You may not.
09:24:58 That's why I included it.
09:25:00 What we will plan to do before we have a final policy
09:25:03 is modify that application, so we might get a little
09:25:06 bit more of folks' qualifications in these areas.
09:25:11 We haven't taken the liberty to do that because I
09:25:13 first wanted to get your feedback. That would be part
09:25:16 of how we might mod I if I the application process.
09:25:19 So you have some of these qualification issues.
09:25:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was a little surprised about --
09:25:25 thank you, Mr. Chairman -- on item 6, it says the
09:25:28 length of term shall generally be two years.
09:25:31 And it just seems to me with the complexity and type
09:25:35 of issues that many of these committees are going to
09:25:40 be dealing with, are already dealing with, that three
09:25:45 or four years might be a more appropriate term
09:25:50 especially because if you think about in paragraph 7
09:25:53 it talks about how you become a chair and a vice
09:25:56 chair, and then after that you're a past chair.
09:25:59 A lot of that, I don't know how you would, you know,
09:26:02 go in.
09:26:02 I mean, you would have to go in the first day and
09:26:05 become chair or become vice chair and move your way up
09:26:07 into chair, and then you wouldn't even have another
09:26:10 year to be past chair.
09:26:12 If you just go on a two-year cycle.
09:26:16 So --
09:26:18 >> MARK HUEY: I understand what you're saying.
09:26:20 And we need your direction on that.
09:26:25 Two-year terms allow for more community involvement
09:26:27 over time.
09:26:28 And so you need to give us direction.
09:26:31 Do you want to have a board that is standing in place
09:26:36 where the ability to have new leadership come onto
09:26:38 that board is a part of the process and a part of the
09:26:41 Or I think generally -- and again you have all been on
09:26:47 boards, all involved in boards, so you appreciate the
09:26:50 benefit of stability.
09:26:52 And I think you also appreciate bringing the -- the
09:26:55 benefit of bringing new energy and --
09:27:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are really never going to
09:27:09 institute much knowledge --
09:27:14 >>> we are trying to have staggered terms, and that's
09:27:18 why that's been done.
09:27:19 And relating to the chairperson, I think you made a
09:27:21 great observation, we added a sentence under number 7
09:27:24 to try to accommodate that, because you are very
09:27:27 And that's why we added that last sentence under
09:27:30 number 7 to really accommodate the particular role of
09:27:33 the chairperson within the constraints of the terms
09:27:38 under number 6.
09:27:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's not clear to me.
09:27:43 It says "will be modified."
09:27:46 Will be modified by who, I guess will be a little bit
09:27:51 of a concern.
09:27:53 I would like to hear from the community on this issue
09:27:56 and from some of the folks who have actually been out
09:27:58 there serving in these capacities.
09:28:00 >>> Okay.
09:28:02 >> Before we decide on that.
09:28:03 >>> Again I know you weren't here when I introduced
09:28:05 this, John, but this is for discussion today.
09:28:07 No community groups have been exposed to this.
09:28:10 I will be doing that in the course of November.
09:28:12 And I'm sure -- I'm not quite sure how I will get that
09:28:16 input to you, whether they will provide it or I'll
09:28:18 provide it to you, but you will all have the benefit
09:28:20 of their wisdom and insight on this before you vote on
09:28:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 10, be reappointed for two
09:28:33 >>MARK HUEY: What we have done is we have suggested
09:28:37 single terms.
09:28:39 Let me go to that.
09:28:40 Terms of service.
09:28:43 Terms of membership services.
09:28:45 What we suggested is one terms, and a gap for
09:28:51 additional terms of service.
09:28:53 But in the last sentence, we have acknowledged it, in
09:28:56 some redevelopment areas, you may not have new members
09:29:00 And so under those circumstances, the board could ask
09:29:05 existing board members to continue to serve through
09:29:07 the appointment process.
09:29:11 And in some case that is might be true.
09:29:12 In the case, for example, of East Tampa, we have a
09:29:15 whole new group who has come in.
09:29:17 So you can see how there can be vitality, in some
09:29:20 communities, and maybe not in others.
09:29:23 And we tried to have that flexibility in the policy.
09:29:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Mulhern.
09:29:32 >>MARY MULHERN: That was going to be my question, but
09:29:34 I have another question.
09:29:35 Currently, what is the current way that the terms are?
09:29:42 >>MARK HUEY: I'm sorry, you're in which paragraph?
09:29:44 >> I'm still looking at 6, the terms of service, the
09:29:47 way that these agencies are working right now, these
09:29:53 Do they have term limits?
09:29:54 Are we changing this?
09:29:56 >>> I'm going to come in a minute.
09:29:59 Each group operates a little bit differently.
09:30:01 Most of them don't have bylaws.
09:30:04 So it's been a kind of ad hoc process.
09:30:08 And I want to talk about item 3 in a minute, and I'll
09:30:11 have some information for you on that.
09:30:14 But that's my quick answer.
09:30:19 Can I talk about item 3?
09:30:21 Because this was an area of major change in the policy
09:30:23 as well.
09:30:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:30:24 >>MARK HUEY: If you recall in the first policy draft,
09:30:28 it was more conceptual and it contemplated a
09:30:34 grassroots process of creating advisory boards.
09:30:39 And it contemplated that if there wasn't a grassroots
09:30:44 process that somehow the board would establish another
09:30:46 process in those areas.
09:30:47 So again it was rather broad and general.
09:30:51 Based on the research that we did statewide, which one
09:30:54 of the conclusions was that virtually every other
09:30:56 redevelopment area, the boards do appoint their
09:31:00 advisory boards.
09:31:02 We then really shifted our direction on this policy
09:31:05 and had put in place basically the principle that you
09:31:09 as the board will be pointing the advisory boards,
09:31:13 through the process that you currently use to appoint
09:31:17 enterprise zone, all of the other boards that you help
09:31:21 to appoint representatives to, two exceptions.
09:31:25 And what I have contemplated in this policy is I
09:31:28 suggested that there are two communities, one East
09:31:31 Tampa and the other Ybor City, who would, because of a
09:31:36 variety of reasons, among which they had various
09:31:39 established community organizations that represent
09:31:43 appropriately stakeholder interest, they don't have
09:31:45 fees for membership, et cetera, that as long as their
09:31:50 bylaws are consistent in all material respects with
09:31:54 your major policy concerns in this policy, that would
09:31:58 you recognize their appointed representation of their
09:32:02 advisory committee.
09:32:05 So that's what this is saying.
09:32:09 So the basic principle is the board appoints all
09:32:14 advisory committees.
09:32:14 The caveat, though, is in the case of these two
09:32:17 communities, I suggested that they are treated
09:32:21 differently, and that you are ratifying their
09:32:25 And, if you could, I have got a handout on this.
09:32:27 And I just want to take you to a little bit more why I
09:32:31 came to that conclusion.
09:32:33 I take full ownership.
09:32:34 And anyone can take -- and I'm sure, not making
09:32:43 friends in some places because of this recommendation,
09:32:45 but I'll give you the benefit of my thinking.
09:32:48 And I would be glad to hear yours.
09:32:53 And I'm sure I'll get the benefit of the community's
09:32:55 thinking over the next month.
09:33:00 Essentially I'm handing out a matrix to you that shows
09:33:04 you all of the seven redevelopment areas.
09:33:11 It recognizes who might be considered a primary
09:33:13 community organization in that area, and that I asked
09:33:18 a series of questions.
09:33:22 Is there an organization that recognized and is
09:33:25 required in the CRA plan?
09:33:27 Does the organization charge a membership fee to be
09:33:30 part of it?
09:33:33 That's important because you are dealing with public
09:33:38 Secondly, does that organization generally have broad
09:33:43 stakeholder participation reflective of what I've
09:33:46 heard and what our policy is speaking to?
09:33:50 And do they have existing bylaws?
09:33:52 That was a way to give us sort of a litmus test about
09:33:57 board member Mulhern was asking a little bit, how
09:33:59 organized a structure might they be.
09:34:03 So I provided you this information, and I don't know
09:34:06 if you want me to walk through it, you know, starting
09:34:10 in downtown.
09:34:10 And I have got to make a disclosure here, I'm on the
09:34:13 Executive Director of the downtown partnership, and
09:34:15 it's an honor to serve on that role.
09:34:18 I love the downtown partnership, and we are amazingly
09:34:21 blessed to have an organization that strong and
09:34:23 effective promoting our downtown.
09:34:28 And that is the only organization here that I'm an
09:34:30 official member of.
09:34:35 The only organization that you can see that is
09:34:38 recognized in a CRA plan is the East Tampa
09:34:47 They are in their CRA plan of the recognized community
09:34:49 stakeholder group.
09:34:50 And because of that, that's one primary reason why I
09:34:56 isolated them in a way that I did in the existing
09:35:02 You can see different organizations charge different
09:35:04 membership fees.
09:35:06 On a scale here, it's clearly the downtown partnership
09:35:09 has the highest fees to become a member.
09:35:14 Others are a little bit more nominal, like the Tampa
09:35:17 Heights civic association is a very nominal amount.
09:35:23 Do they have broad stakeholder participation?
09:35:25 You can see my observations there about the different
09:35:28 organizations, from the partnership, which
09:35:32 historically has had a very business orientation, to
09:35:38 YCDC, who I would say without doubt is the standard in
09:35:43 trying to establish very broad community development,
09:35:47 and they represented the nightclub business, the
09:35:51 development business, the retail business, and
09:35:55 residence as well.
09:35:56 They really worked and have a broad -- you can see the
09:36:00 others, the Channel District has he involved over the
09:36:05 four or five years that I have had the chance to work
09:36:07 with them.
09:36:08 They were actually initially residence based.
09:36:11 Then they transformed to more of a development focus.
09:36:14 And now I think they are evolving again to bring more
09:36:20 residence involved.
09:36:21 East Tampa has been a residence and nonprofit focus.
09:36:24 They are now working hard, I believe, to integrate a
09:36:27 little bit more of the business community.
09:36:31 And you can see my observations on other elements and
09:36:35 whether the organization has existing bylaws.
09:36:38 So it was really based on this kind of thinking that
09:36:43 we isolated YCDC and East Tampa community
09:36:48 revitalization partnership uniquely.
09:36:51 The only other thing I'll say, if I could, in Drew
09:36:55 Park, for example, where there is no recognized
09:36:59 communities group of any kind, what we have been
09:37:01 working on there is sort of an informally appointed
09:37:05 board, that is representative of a number of
09:37:07 organizations like the Westshore alliance, with Mr.
09:37:10 Rotella, HCC, the Sports Authority, as well as
09:37:14 businesses and residences.
09:37:18 The same is occurring in the Heights area where the
09:37:20 Tampa Heights civic association is very involved in
09:37:21 that board, but as are other stakeholders like Stetson
09:37:26 Law School, the new Bush Ross law firm coming into the
09:37:32 neighborhood, and so forth.
09:37:33 So I think those are my comments to you at this point
09:37:38 about the approach we have taken to item 3.
09:37:43 And with that I'll turn it back over to you.
09:37:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
09:37:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, I think that part of the process
09:37:55 of clarifying how these were going to work and how
09:37:57 they are going to be appointed and overseen was to
09:38:02 create sort of equal treatment, and make them
09:38:04 accountable and do it openly.
09:38:06 So I don't really see any reason to exclude two of
09:38:11 them from the little bit -- the oversight we are
09:38:18 talking about is approving the appointments, or making
09:38:22 the appointments.
09:38:23 And I think that that's not a whole lot of oversight
09:38:28 especially we are talking about we don't have any
09:38:30 mechanism to take anybody off the board.
09:38:32 I just don't -- I think this is kind of counter to
09:38:36 what we wanted to do, to make it kind of even playing
09:38:39 field and make sure that we, as a board, we are
09:38:43 overseeing what's going on with these committees.
09:38:45 So my feeling is that they shouldn't be excluded.
09:38:48 I don't know, I would like to hear how other board
09:38:52 members feel about that.
09:38:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other conversation?
09:39:01 Councilman Dingfelder?
09:39:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The question that I would have on
09:39:06 that same issue, paragraph 3 speaks to -- it says
09:39:15 therefore the elected advisory committees of East
09:39:16 Tampa, CRP and YCDC will require only board
09:39:24 ratification, and I guess I'm curious of, A, how you
09:39:30 envision that process as it goes to them and comes
09:39:34 back to us, and, B, Sal, just to hear your ideas, you
09:39:43 know, in terms of confirming whatever mark had to say.
09:39:51 >>MARK HUEY: A couple of items.
09:39:53 One, I think very important, if I could respond to
09:39:57 Mary's observation, criterion in policy is the last
09:40:01 statement in paragraph 2 that these organizations will
09:40:06 be so recognized, as long as their bylaws reflect the
09:40:12 principles, and I can tell you that in both cases they
09:40:16 presently do not.
09:40:19 Both organizations, even if you were going to move
09:40:21 forward on this, would need to reflect -- and that's
09:40:25 part of what we would be hearing in November and
09:40:27 that's an important part of the accountability that
09:40:30 you would still be placing on these organizations,
09:40:32 even if you were to move forward on a policy as I
09:40:36 I just wanted to make that clear.
09:40:38 That's a very important condition.
09:40:41 And then, John, what I would envision, again, up till
09:40:46 now you have never ratified or done anything relating
09:40:49 to advisory boards.
09:40:51 And to my knowledge, you know, we are about to approve
09:40:54 our CRA budgets, and you are not going to hear any
09:40:57 advisory board saying, we didn't appropriately engage
09:41:01 them and there wasn't good community input, I don't
09:41:05 It's not happened to date at least.
09:41:08 So I just want to also point that out.
09:41:10 So what I would envision is actually something more
09:41:13 form an than you do now, where let's use the case of
09:41:17 East Tampa that has just elected its new board, and
09:41:20 that's what their bylaws provide for, is that the
09:41:22 community, which is x-rayed of the East Tampa
09:41:26 partnership, which is -- they had a vote, and they
09:41:29 elected who they wanted to represent them as their
09:41:32 leadership as their advisory committee, in effect, to
09:41:37 you all, that you would simply receive that from the
09:41:39 community, acknowledge the vote of the community, and
09:41:43 unless you saw something significantly wrong with who
09:41:46 they brought forward, that you would formally accept
09:41:51 them in a way that you don't presently do as your
09:41:54 advisory board.
09:41:55 So that's what ratified means.
09:41:58 I don't know if that's a good word to use, but that's
09:42:00 what I would envision.
09:42:02 YCDC also has a process they would go through and so
09:42:06 you would simply, in those places where there's a well
09:42:10 established, community-driven process, you would
09:42:14 recognize that community process.
09:42:17 Does that clarify?
09:42:20 Whether it's right or not -- whether it's right or
09:42:23 not --
09:42:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where I think you're headed.
09:42:28 My concern is, if there's -- if the process came to us
09:42:31 like that, here's our three new members for this
09:42:35 cycle, we are going to rotate around, and the East
09:42:44 Tampa, for example, says we have already approved
09:42:46 this, I'll just ratify it.
09:42:50 I'm concerned that it ties our hands.
09:42:52 Because what if all of a sudden some information came
09:42:54 out about an individual or something like that, the
09:42:57 community -- other members of that community came
09:42:59 forward, and said this person shouldn't be approved,
09:43:01 and then -- and this goes to you, Sal -- do we have
09:43:06 the ability, would we have the abilities to carve out
09:43:08 that person?
09:43:10 Would it be extremely awkward for us to be carving out
09:43:13 that person?
09:43:13 Or do we even have the legal ability to carve out that
09:43:16 person if that board has already given us their entire
09:43:23 The alternative could be that they would just
09:43:25 recommend a slate to us, and then we could perhaps
09:43:29 approach it like that.
09:43:30 So we might soften it a little bit.
09:43:33 Their recommendation might be a little less than here
09:43:36 is our group.
09:43:37 They could just say here is our recommendation of the
09:43:40 And then we could deal with it.
09:43:41 I don't know.
09:43:42 >>MARK HUEY: And I think part of the response, Mr.
09:43:51 Dingfelder, does dovetail with the conversation we had
09:43:53 I think I'm hearing you say we want more language
09:43:56 about your ability to intervene where aboard situation
09:44:00 isn't quite right.
09:44:01 So I think that might address a little bit of what you
09:44:03 are talking about.
09:44:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me hear what Sal has to say.
09:44:06 >>SAL TERRITO: You have total discretion on who is
09:44:08 going to serve as your advisory committee.
09:44:10 Where it gets confusing and it's only confusing
09:44:13 because you have two existing organizations that are
09:44:15 ongoing for many years.
09:44:16 You can't tell them who they can have on their
09:44:19 But you certainly can decide who is going to represent
09:44:21 your board as the advisory body.
09:44:24 East Tampa is slightly different because it's in the
09:44:26 CRA plan, but there's nothing to prevent you if you
09:44:28 wanted to do this, to set up an advisory body
09:44:31 independent of them, but you have to take East Tampa's
09:44:34 input in the CRA plan for East Tampa.
09:44:36 These are independent organizations that choose their
09:44:39 If you decide you don't care for the members they have
09:44:44 chosen you can't really take anybody off that
09:44:46 organization because it's their organization, but you
09:44:48 certainly can choose an alternative body to represent
09:44:50 you if you think that they are not representative.
09:44:54 Anybody who wants to come down here and speak to the
09:44:56 CRA obviously can do that.
09:44:57 But you are going to end up with two separate
09:44:59 bodies -- the official one that they have chosen
09:45:03 because they are an organization like any neighborhood
09:45:06 organization, and the one that you have chosen.
09:45:08 So it gets confusing mechanically but not legally.
09:45:12 You decide who you want to be your advisory body.
09:45:14 It's totally within your discretion.
09:45:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sal, you just -- I don't think so.
09:45:26 Go ahead.
09:45:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I feel that when the group gets
09:45:31 together, they are going to know who they are going to
09:45:34 They know what's in that person's background,
09:45:37 whatever, how they can lead that leadership and it's
09:45:40 going to come up before the election, that first night
09:45:46 they talk about it and so this is why they don't have
09:45:53 the election the first night, they have the board come
09:45:55 up to slate.
09:45:58 If they really are involved they are going to know the
09:46:00 person that they feel is the best to represent them,
09:46:03 and they are not going to say just because that person
09:46:06 has been there so long they are going to elect them.
09:46:08 No, they are not going to do that.
09:46:10 They know just what that person can do and they know
09:46:12 the background and know they are going to participate,
09:46:15 and they are sincere about their decision and they are
09:46:17 going to choose the right person.
09:46:18 And I think they have done that all along.
09:46:20 And I think they will continue to do that.
09:46:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just follow, to move from this.
09:46:29 Council just raised an interesting point, and that is
09:46:32 this -- that the East Tampa board is organized, and we
09:46:45 have an issue, and we have established our own
09:46:49 advisory board.
09:46:49 >> What I am saying you are you are trying to have it
09:46:54 both waits.
09:46:54 You want total control over who you appoint as your
09:46:57 advisory body for particular areas.
09:46:59 That's one thing you want to do.
09:47:00 We have two existing organizations that have been
09:47:02 serving in that capacity for many years.
09:47:04 East Tampa is different because it's in the CRA plan.
09:47:07 The CRA plan doesn't mandate that that is your
09:47:11 advisory body exclusively.
09:47:12 The CRA plan mandates that you have to listen to their
09:47:16 input because you have it in the CRA plan.
09:47:18 If you choose -- and that's going to be obviously a
09:47:21 decision made by the entire board -- if you choose to
09:47:23 have an advisory committee separate from that body,
09:47:27 you are going to have two people providing you with
09:47:31 That's what's happening.
09:47:32 That's where the confusion is coming in because you
09:47:34 have to have total control over your advisory bodies.
09:47:37 Yet you have two bodies, or existing out there that
09:47:40 are doing work, you want to ratify them?
09:47:43 You can do that certainly if you want to.
09:47:44 If you decide that they are very representative of
09:47:46 those two areas, you simply have them come in, this is
09:47:49 our membership, accept it.
09:47:52 But you still have control on who serves on your
09:47:55 advisory body, not on their organization because they
09:47:58 are separate organizations.
09:47:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I don't want to make it
09:48:03 I think one is the reason East Tampa partnership is in
09:48:05 the plan is because this body approved it.
09:48:08 Is that right?
09:48:11 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, the original CRA plan.
09:48:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's number one.
09:48:14 So we are through with that.
09:48:16 So this body approves that.
09:48:17 So the reason they are in the plan is because we
09:48:21 approved it which again means we are subject -- they
09:48:25 are subject to this body.
09:48:27 Secondly, I don't have a problem with them.
09:48:29 I think councilman Dingfelder makes a valid point.
09:48:32 That is that they provide a slate before the election
09:48:34 that we sign off on, then we move forward.
09:48:37 I think that may be the best way to go, that they
09:48:40 provide a slate, and we have okayed it and they move
09:48:43 forward in the neighborhood or the community just vote
09:48:45 on it and move forward.
09:48:46 I think that may lend itself to a lot more input in
09:48:51 terms of this board.
09:48:55 >>GWEN MILLER: If this is a slate and we don't a
09:48:58 profit, you are saying we want them to could go back
09:49:00 and bring another slate to us?
09:49:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, what I'm saying, it allows up
09:49:05 front, if there are issues about anybody on the ballot
09:49:08 then you raise it.
09:49:08 I would raise that at the front end as opposed to the
09:49:10 back end.
09:49:11 Because once the committee has gone through the
09:49:13 process of electing somebody, how can you come back
09:49:15 and say, you know, I disagree with this person.
09:49:19 I would rather say that up front, say, okay, here is
09:49:22 an issue with you this person.
09:49:23 Go back and look at and talk and see, okay, on the
09:49:29 front end as opposed to the back end.
09:49:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to probably talk to you,
09:49:39 mark and Sal, just individually to get a better
09:49:43 understanding of the history of these.
09:49:44 But my feeling is -- and I would go along with that,
09:49:47 if we could ratify the vote.
09:49:49 But I don't understand why, just because these two
09:49:52 groups are already in existence as advisory
09:49:56 committees, we can't include them in the policies.
09:50:04 I mean, maybe we are changing the policies that they
09:50:06 are going by.
09:50:08 I just don't understand why they should have this
09:50:12 different treatment of, you know.
09:50:16 >>SAL TERRITO: I think it wasn't to try to change your
09:50:18 policy or bylaws.
09:50:19 We are trying to have a recognition that there are two
09:50:21 existing bodies out there that long-term have been
09:50:24 doing work out there for many years and it's a
09:50:26 recognition that they are there.
09:50:28 They are going to be bound by these bylaws.
09:50:30 Where the problem is going to come about is a problem
09:50:33 if S if they decide they don't want to be bound by
09:50:36 these bylaws, then what do you do as a CRA board?
09:50:39 Do you want to still accept them as your advisory
09:50:41 Or do you want to choose someone else?
09:50:43 The other thing we need some clarification on,
09:50:46 Mr. Chairman, is what do we do with these two
09:50:48 organizations that have already chosen membership?
09:50:50 They are not going to be bringing anyone before you
09:50:52 because they have already had their election.
09:50:55 You want to -- it has to be addressed in these
09:50:57 policies as well and the decision has to be made at
09:51:00 some point, do you want to accept the existing slate
09:51:02 the next time they go up for election?
09:51:04 Do you want to be involved in the process?
09:51:06 We need to have clarification on that as well.
09:51:08 >>MARY MULHERN: But right now they are operating sort
09:51:10 of like a neighborhood association with their own
09:51:13 Can you kind of compare it to that?
09:51:19 But they are making some decisions, recommendations,
09:51:24 >>> They are making recommendations, not decisions.
09:51:27 They are coming with recommendations.
09:51:28 You make the decision.
09:51:29 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think we have a great wish on
09:51:34 council to, you know, create other advisory
09:51:37 committees, do we?
09:51:40 >>SAL TERRITO: I think the bylaws are recognition of
09:51:42 that, that you have nine CRA areas, you have two Ybor
09:51:46 City and two downtowns.
09:51:47 In effect you have seven CRA advisory bodies.
09:51:50 Two of them have been active for a very long time.
09:51:54 Five are coming into existence now.
09:51:56 How do you address the realities of having two
09:51:58 existing ones and five new ones? These policies try
09:52:01 to address that.
09:52:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
09:52:04 Well, maybe if you work with those existing ones and
09:52:06 explain to them that we want to be consistent with the
09:52:08 other new ones, and, you know, we like the work they
09:52:12 are doing, but we need to be consistent.
09:52:15 And if we can't have that kind of consistency, then
09:52:18 maybe we do need another advisory board.
09:52:20 And I think we certainly have the motivation.
09:52:25 >>SAL TERRITO: What we are doing now is not if we
09:52:30 follow the policies.
09:52:30 What we are dealing with is how the people on the
09:52:34 advisory boards are chosen.
09:52:36 Not what policy they follow.
09:52:38 They are bound by these policies the same manner as
09:52:40 the other ones would be bound by them.
09:52:43 We are trying to say we have two existing
09:52:44 >>MARY MULHERN: The policy outlines how they are
09:52:48 >>> Correct.
09:52:49 Those two are carved out for that purpose, because
09:52:52 they are already in existence.
09:52:53 If you want something other than that obviously you
09:52:54 have the authority and the authority to do that.
09:52:57 >>> They are already in existence but they are going
09:52:59 to be changing.
09:53:01 So as they change, maybe as they have any kind of
09:53:05 turnover they should follow our --
09:53:07 >>> they are going to be following.
09:53:08 As soon as you adopt these policies they are bound by
09:53:10 these policies.
09:53:11 If for some reason they don't want to follow these
09:53:13 policies you at some point have to make a decision
09:53:16 what you want to do about that.
09:53:17 You can't take members off the YCDC because they are
09:53:20 an independent organization as well as your advisory
09:53:23 So that's where the conflict is coming in, there is an
09:53:26 independent body that's been acting out there,
09:53:27 irrespective of having a CRA.
09:53:29 They have been acting out there for many years doing
09:53:32 what they think is important for Ybor City.
09:53:34 So it's kind of like having a company out there, you
09:53:37 have chosen to represent, yet at the same time you
09:53:39 want to choose the membership on the Board of
09:53:41 That's where the conflict is coming in with what you
09:53:43 want to do and what's in existence.
09:53:46 And we are trying to mesh these two and it's very
09:53:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said they have been acting out
09:53:53 there, and I wonder if they have been acting out --
09:53:56 [ Laughter ]
09:53:58 I'm just kidding.
09:54:00 If you could, mark, from Ed on this issue, and
09:54:06 specifically, my only concern -- and I have no
09:54:08 knowledge whatsoever, because I'm sort of in a vacuum
09:54:14 on this.
09:54:15 But I just want to make sure -- do you want to start?
09:54:19 -- I just want to make sure that your organization
09:54:22 that you worked with for years, YCDC, that it's
09:54:26 inclusive enough, that somebody can walk in the door,
09:54:32 a new residents of Ybor City, a new business person in
09:54:35 Ybor City, whatever interest they might have, that
09:54:37 they can walk into YCDC and get, you know, and get
09:54:40 involved and be included, and show an interest, and at
09:54:47 some point, you know, be eligible to, you know,
09:54:54 possibly be nominated and then ultimately to be,
09:54:59 quote, ratified by us.
09:55:01 And I have some concerns, you know, about that, not
09:55:04 necessarily aimed at Ybor or aimed at East Tampa, but
09:55:07 I just want to make sure that that's the process,
09:55:11 because I think that's really the most important thing
09:55:13 as we are creating these advisory bodies.
09:55:16 That somebody can -- because if they want to show that
09:55:20 community interest and spirit, that's the kind of
09:55:22 person we want to be able to just walk in the door and
09:55:24 rise up through the ranks, however that is, and
09:55:27 ultimately get ratified to be on the committee.
09:55:40 Vince: What I passed out is the membership of YCDC.
09:55:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe you anticipated this
09:55:50 >>VINCE PARDO: Our chairperson is in the audience and
09:55:53 if the issue came up was going to speak to it herself
09:55:55 but I'll try to cover this.
09:56:00 We had two organizations in Ybor City.
09:56:02 We had an Ybor coalition which was kind of a
09:56:04 grassroots primarily residents and some business
09:56:07 owners, and we have had the YCDC which has been in
09:56:09 existence, formed in 1988, exactly to give
09:56:14 recommendations to the city on CRA issues.
09:56:17 And the agenda has kind of merged over the years.
09:56:21 I came here in '99 from Hillsborough County
09:56:23 government, in fact two years later we did a merger.
09:56:28 And since that time, if you think about the House of
09:56:33 Representatives, basically, the developers and the
09:56:36 property owners, we have the YCDC in, fact, if there
09:56:39 was a takeover so to speak, it was a takeover by the
09:56:42 coalition but they use the name and the 501(c)3 status
09:56:48 of YCDC, and this is in the changed over time, that we
09:56:54 have a bylaws review coming up very shortly, but we
09:56:58 identify every stakeholder group in Ybor City from
09:57:01 residents to the retail to bar owners, professional
09:57:05 We added multi-use complex when Centro Ybor came in.
09:57:12 We want it large because we wanted some expertise.
09:57:15 We had a professional engineer who has been invaluable
09:57:18 in noise ordinance.
09:57:18 >> But these are categories?
09:57:20 >>> These are categories established in the bylaws.
09:57:23 There is an annual process.
09:57:24 Bylaws of YCDC which can be changed very simply to the
09:57:28 kind of thing that mark is talking about.
09:57:31 And Veronica, our chair, has been briefed and has seen
09:57:36 a draft of this.
09:57:38 But it is an annual election currently of the entire
09:57:41 board that's up for election.
09:57:43 There are no term limits that are established.
09:57:47 But these are things that can be worked out with
09:57:49 bylaws to comply with the policy that mark has
09:57:52 I wanted to show you this because this has been long
09:57:55 standing, it has been a tweaked situation that we have
09:57:58 We even had voting ex-officio members which are by
09:58:03 virtue of their office automatically that office, that
09:58:09 organization, has representation on the board.
09:58:13 We have two neighborhood organizations, the presidents
09:58:15 of both of those have seats, the Ybor museum society,
09:58:20 HCC, Barrio Latino, which you see here.
09:58:24 So we have identified stakeholder groups, businesses,
09:58:30 owners of property, residents, as well as
09:58:32 organizations that everybody part of this community
09:58:34 for a number of years, and with the hopes of having a
09:58:38 community round table that they may not be 100%
09:58:43 unanimous vote all the time but usually thankfully is,
09:58:46 that I can say this community makes this
09:58:49 recommendation to you.
09:58:49 And whether I'm telling you that or the chairman is
09:58:52 telling you that it comes with a lot of weight as
09:58:55 opposed to every one of these organizations coming to
09:58:56 you independently and obviously making it a little
09:58:59 more difficult to make policy decisions on that basis.
09:59:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And we are talking about seven
09:59:06 And this looks like 37 members.
09:59:08 >>> 41.
09:59:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that the intent, to stick with
09:59:16 this large group and then just ask us to bless the
09:59:19 larger group, because we have the discretion.
09:59:21 >>> Mark and I have been going back and forth on that.
09:59:30 This body -- and again I don't speak for them -- they
09:59:34 took a vote when discussions were coming about, that
09:59:36 they didn't see how 7 appointees could represent all
09:59:39 these stakeholder groups, that we have been
09:59:45 functioning, we have agreements around the table,
09:59:48 worked them out and go forward with that.
09:59:50 But they preferred to stay as intact an organization
09:59:53 and in fact this policy because of YCDC initially was
09:59:56 tweaked, suggested 7 but could be more, that kind of
10:00:01 My personal feeling is that you have less people
10:00:08 making decisions, make the recommendations I bring to
10:00:11 you or they bring to you, well, there isn't a retail
10:00:14 person there so I am not buying into this
10:00:16 recommendation of this budget this year.
10:00:18 We have across the board open, let's say our meetings
10:00:22 are public, what you don't see here is a
10:00:27 beautification committee, these committees are open --
10:00:30 membership of these committees is open to anyone as
10:00:32 you mentioned.
10:00:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a pretty tough act to
10:00:46 >>> Ed Johnson, manager for East Tampa redevelopment.
10:00:52 Similar to what has taken place in Ybor over the
10:00:55 years, the East Tampa revitalization partnership isn't
10:01:00 as old, we are just starting in our fifth year.
10:01:03 The organization is very representative of the
10:01:05 There are 13 registered neighborhood associations
10:01:08 within the 7.5 square miles of East Tampa.
10:01:11 All 13 of those neighborhood associations are part of
10:01:14 the partnership.
10:01:17 Like Vince's group, we have seven subcommittees.
10:01:20 They are working on issues like land use, aesthetics
10:01:24 and beautification, housing issues, economic
10:01:27 development, so like Ybor, those subcommittees are
10:01:32 also open to anyone from the community.
10:01:35 The election that just took place in East Tampa
10:01:37 electing the new board, that was after four and a half
10:01:42 The existing -- or the preexisting board members were
10:01:45 there for four and a half years.
10:01:47 So there is some continuity of leadership.
10:01:51 Several of those members that decided not to run again
10:01:54 are still part of some of those subcommittees.
10:01:57 So the knowledge is still there.
10:01:59 We haven't lost any of the knowledge base in East
10:02:02 >> Do you have enough to sort of converse from Ybor,
10:02:07 in Ybor I would worry you don't have enough
10:02:09 residential input.
10:02:10 In East Tampa -- do you have enough business input?
10:02:13 >> We are starting to see more of that.
10:02:15 In the earlier days it was strictly community driven
10:02:17 because that's how the organization was put together.
10:02:20 But we are starting to see a little more of the
10:02:24 business, folks coming out to the meetings, the
10:02:27 meeting Tuesday night there were at least a handful of
10:02:29 businesses that came, that got recognized.
10:02:33 We are starting to see that more and more so.
10:02:35 >> Thank you.
10:02:40 On the flip side of that Ybor City had more business
10:02:42 than residential and East Tampa had more residential
10:02:45 than businesses.
10:02:45 So that's part of why.
10:02:49 We need to move.
10:02:49 I will say, what I am more supportive again, you heard
10:02:52 what I say, as we move forward.
10:02:56 Overall these recommendations, I'm pretty satisfied
10:02:59 with them, with a little tweaking here and there, and
10:03:03 I'm not opposed to YCDC or East Tampa continue to
10:03:07 elect officers with the caveat that they develop their
10:03:10 own slate, and that whoever the Nominating Committee
10:03:14 and they provide before they vote upon it.
10:03:16 And take a look at them and if there are any concerns
10:03:20 then we'll address it up front as opposed to on the
10:03:23 rear end.
10:03:24 But once the community elects somebody, how can you go
10:03:27 in and say, you know -- I mean, that's pretty
10:03:30 >>> Good suggestion.
10:03:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do it up front.
10:03:34 That's just where I am.
10:03:35 And I am not opposed to as we move forward and the
10:03:39 other organizations to look at that as well.
10:03:42 I'm not opposed to that.
10:03:43 I think, though, right now because we don't have
10:03:47 things in place for them, or they don't have anything
10:03:49 in place, it makes it a little more difficult.
10:03:52 And I would suggest that as we move forward, mark,
10:03:56 that all of these organizations will follow the
10:03:59 policies as outlined by this board.
10:04:01 I want to make it very clear that no group, no group,
10:04:06 is exempt from the guidelines and policies that have
10:04:10 been outlined by this particular board.
10:04:12 And let me be very clear.
10:04:19 After all, we are dealing with taxpayers dollars here.
10:04:22 And we are by Florida statute the legal body that has
10:04:26 jurisdiction over there.
10:04:29 With that, do the board members want to give more
10:04:33 direction to Mr. Huey in terms of what we see in these
10:04:37 >>CHAIRMAN: When will it be coming back to us?
10:04:39 >>MARK HUEY: My goal is to get it back to you
10:04:42 I have gotten your input.
10:04:44 At the same time that I distributed the policy to you,
10:04:46 I distributed to all of the presidents of the advisory
10:04:50 I will now be getting their input and meeting with
10:04:55 them because I do think you need to hear their input
10:04:57 as well.
10:04:58 I will do my best to gather that up and redraft this
10:05:01 to what I hope will be a final draft for your
10:05:04 consideration in November.
10:05:05 That is my goal.
10:05:06 >>GWEN MILLER: When you go to the different
10:05:09 organizations Reverend Scott said you will have that
10:05:15 presented to them?
10:05:16 >>> Yes, I will.
10:05:17 I will try in a new draft, I will tray to do another
10:05:19 draft very quickly in the next few days, that is my
10:05:23 effort to integrate your comments.
10:05:27 I will circulate it to you.
10:05:29 Please, any matters relating to this that you have
10:05:31 concerns or questions, everyone they weren't spoken to
10:05:34 today, I want to be in a good position in November to
10:05:37 approve this.
10:05:40 I think this is your fifth hour working on this policy
10:05:43 and I thank you for it.
10:05:44 Because I think it's one of your very most important
10:05:46 policies as a board.
10:05:47 And you put a lot of time into it.
10:05:49 And I'm hoping we are close enough now that we can
10:05:51 bring it in in November.
10:05:54 >>CHAIRMAN: We need to. We have been on this a long
10:05:57 >>> We have.
10:05:58 >>MARY MULHERN: You may normally do this, but when you
10:06:02 come back with the final document, invite those
10:06:05 presidents of the CRA so they are all here.
10:06:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, I could suggest and
10:06:11 maybe make a motion to see if there's any support on
10:06:14 it, on this length of term that we talked about a
10:06:18 little while ago, maybe the compromise could be you
10:06:22 have two years, and then you could be eligible for one
10:06:27 more term of two years.
10:06:29 So, in other words, you have got to prove yourself,
10:06:32 you know, to everybody involved, that you would
10:06:37 deserve the extra two years, but at the same time that
10:06:40 could sort of solve some of these issues that I raised
10:06:43 earlier about continuity, you know, and really getting
10:06:47 your feet on the ground after two years, and then the
10:06:50 next two years you might be more productive.
10:06:52 But, anyway, I just feel like there's very few boards
10:06:57 that I have been involved in where you really after
10:07:00 one or two years, you are totally up to speed and
10:07:02 Usually it takes a year or two to figure it all out.
10:07:06 And then the next two years you might be up to being
10:07:11 vice chairman, chairman, officer, and really being
10:07:13 more productive.
10:07:14 So I don't know if council is amenable to that
10:07:17 suggestion, but I'll just do that in the form of a
10:07:21 motion to suggest that we add that as just a
10:07:25 possibility of a second term, a maximum of two terms
10:07:29 of two years each.
10:07:31 That's a motion.
10:07:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not against the motion,
10:07:36 Mr. Chairman, but I would like to clarify a few
10:07:38 I don't know what the pool of individuals are that are
10:07:40 willing to serve.
10:07:41 I don't know.
10:07:42 It's hard enough to get individuals to run for elected
10:07:45 So what I'm saying is I'm not agreeing with honorable
10:07:48 council member Dingfelder, but I would like to get
10:07:50 more information on it before I cast a vote Aye or
10:07:54 I don't know what these pools are.
10:07:56 Maybe in today's society where you have both in the
10:07:59 household working everyone if you are retired you get
10:08:02 a part-time job because you can't make it, I would
10:08:04 like to know what the pool is of individual resources
10:08:06 that have to contribute to these boards before I can
10:08:10 cast your vote.
10:08:11 I understand when we first started talking about two
10:08:14 years in speed I thought he was talking about me
10:08:19 coming back and learning these things but then I
10:08:21 realize he was talking about a different board, and
10:08:23 who your term for council wouldn't be that bad.
10:08:25 Public would get two shots at it.
10:08:28 What I'm saying, in all honesty, leave the little
10:08:31 joking aside, I would like to know more about the
10:08:34 amount of individuals that will be willing to serve.
10:08:36 As you well know, and some of these boards that we
10:08:39 have had the last three or four months, that we have
10:08:41 advertised for, guess what, we had to readvertise
10:08:44 because we only have one applicant.
10:08:46 And there's a lot of individuals in the city that fit
10:08:49 that criteria butter they are not willing to serve.
10:08:53 I would like to know if I can get a grassroots feeling
10:08:55 of what's going on in the communities, in these
10:08:57 different CRAs so I can make a somewhat intelligent
10:09:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Charlie, maybe that's a better
10:09:05 Maybe if mark just takes that idea to the community
10:09:07 and says how do you feel about one 2-year term or the
10:09:10 possibility of a second 2-year term and get that
10:09:15 community feedback.
10:09:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought it was a four-year term.
10:09:20 Or at least staggering terms starting out with two
10:09:22 years and then four years.
10:09:24 Did I read that wrong?
10:09:26 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, there would be some initial board
10:09:28 members who would serve for four.
10:09:30 That's contemplating the initial start-up of the
10:09:32 So you are having to set those initial terms so you
10:09:35 don't get a rollover of everyone at once.
10:09:45 There were seven members. Three would serve for two
10:09:45 years, two would serve for three years and two would
10:09:51 serve for four years. So you would have a rotation,
10:09:52 but after that everyone would be on a two-year cycle
10:09:52 is what's contemplated here.
10:09:54 >> A two-year max.
10:09:56 >>> A two-year max.
10:09:58 So your suggestion is -- they would consider another
10:10:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would disagree with that.
10:10:03 I think four years.
10:10:04 I think two years, you're right, absolutely two years,
10:10:08 I think you need a little more time.
10:10:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you go a two-year term with the
10:10:17 possibility of an additional two-year renewal. It's
10:10:19 not mandatory.
10:10:24 Mark, why don't you take that opportunity, and give us
10:10:27 the community's feedback.
10:10:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, let's move.
10:10:31 Thank you very much.
10:10:32 We move to our next item on the agenda.
10:10:47 >>MARK HUEY: This is a follow-up to last month.
10:10:58 Last month for discussion.
10:11:07 Again there are a number of other items to discuss and
10:11:10 you may without more board representation not want to
10:11:13 take action.
10:11:13 And I respect that.
10:11:15 But, again, I had promised that we would discuss this
10:11:19 again at this board meeting after its first
10:11:23 The board has directed, provided direction to myself,
10:11:28 and the board chair, to come up with an approach to
10:11:30 the community meetings.
10:11:32 And we did do that and presented this handout at our
10:11:36 last meeting.
10:11:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is us going out into the
10:11:41 >> into the community, yes.
10:11:43 So this is the approach that we outlined.
10:11:56 >> Well, it's a short month.
10:11:58 We are in recess two weeks.
10:11:59 And I suggested you may not want to have one in July.
10:12:03 You need to highlight that again.
10:12:04 >>> I did not adjust that but I remember you saying
10:12:07 This is the exact same policy that came out.
10:12:10 In fact you remember your observation.
10:12:13 Yes, what we could do that is, say, June, if you
10:12:16 wanted to continue to do it four times a year.
10:12:19 We could shift it.
10:12:21 >> I think the big issue was the quorum that we
10:12:25 discussed last time.
10:12:26 Again, I still hold that we need a quorum, if we are
10:12:31 going to tell the community we are coming out we need
10:12:33 at least a quorum to show up with one person.
10:12:35 A good example of that will be the east community,
10:12:40 canceled the last two, because only one person was
10:12:46 Yes, councilman Dingfelder.
10:12:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think there's a difference
10:12:51 between the tour and these meetings.
10:12:54 And I don't want to get confused about them because I
10:13:00 didn't attend some of the tours.
10:13:03 I didn't feel the need to. But the community meetings
10:13:05 to actually meet the folks who are out there doing
10:13:07 this good work.
10:13:12 I will definitely attend and I'm sure some of the
10:13:14 other council members will.
10:13:16 But under purpose, the board at these community
10:13:19 meetings will not conduct official business at these
10:13:23 I'm okay with that.
10:13:24 But then it says nor discuss nor attempt to set
10:13:27 I'm okay that we wouldn't attempt to set policy
10:13:30 because we are not going to be voting at these
10:13:32 But I thought the whole point is to discuss policies.
10:13:36 I mean, it seems that's why you are out there to
10:13:40 discuss important issues.
10:13:46 Under purpose I wouldn't have a big problem with that
10:13:51 It's all sunshine so we can be out there the four of
10:13:53 us, five of us, six of us, can be out there discussing
10:13:56 policy and I think that's what we should be doing.
10:13:58 But not voting.
10:14:00 Not taking action.
10:14:01 Not voting.
10:14:02 I think when we vote, we should be here.
10:14:14 >>> I think the reason, if you go down to recording,
10:14:17 there's only going to be an audio recording.
10:14:19 >> Written minutes which is all that's required by
10:14:22 >>> Again, are you comfortable under those
10:14:24 circumstances of discussing a policy matter that might
10:14:30 come before you as a board?
10:14:33 As I recall, Sal -- I'm trying to remember how we got
10:14:37 to this particular item.
10:14:38 But I thought it related to that.
10:14:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's a little bit overkill.
10:14:45 >>SAL TERRITO: If it's a sunshine meeting and you are
10:14:48 having minutes taking you can discuss anything, you
10:14:53 just can't take an official position.
10:14:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because it's not an official
10:14:57 meeting of this body.
10:14:58 That's fine.
10:14:59 But discussion, otherwise we are just going to sit
10:15:02 there, and people stand at the podium and talk to us
10:15:04 and we wouldn't have any opportunity for discourse.
10:15:07 That would be kind of silly.
10:15:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I will concur, so we can move,
10:15:13 concur we can discuss anything, we just won't set
10:15:15 policy, any policy, any vote taking will take place
10:15:19 So we can discuss and talk how about that?
10:15:22 So then we are comfortable with this.
10:15:26 I will entertain a motion.
10:15:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Receive that and strike the word
10:15:32 >> Second.
10:15:32 >> All in favor let it be known by Aye.
10:15:36 So moved.
10:15:37 You have it down.
10:15:41 >>MARK HUEY: Any recommendation of the board from the
10:15:43 first community meeting?
10:15:44 We'll set one up for January, try to target, I think.
10:15:47 Do you have any preference or would you like to us
10:15:49 make a recommendation?
10:15:50 >> I'll suggest you make a recommendation to us that,
10:15:53 okay, make a recommendation for our next meeting.
10:15:57 That's fine.
10:15:59 Make sure you adjust the language there about the
10:16:03 discussion, though.
10:16:03 >>> Yes, I will.
10:16:05 I will.
10:16:06 And I will redistribute it.
10:16:08 This is -- I'll note it as an approved policy really
10:16:16 of the board.
10:16:20 >> Strike "discuss."
10:16:23 >>MARK HUEY: Next we have item 5, update on the strand
10:16:27 Sal is going to go through that for you.
10:16:30 >>SAL TERRITO: There's not much of an update.
10:16:33 As you know, the supreme court took an unusual step in
10:16:35 that they revised their original opinion to address
10:16:38 one of the issues that they had, was whether bond that
10:16:44 had been only validated were the ones that were
10:16:46 acceptable and going forward.
10:16:47 When they made the decision they made a prospective.
10:16:50 Anything that's happened in the past is going to be
10:16:52 acceptable under the strand decision.
10:16:54 But things that happened in the past, and how is that
10:16:57 going to be defined?
10:16:59 They said bonds that were validated which is going
10:17:01 through a court procedure there. Was a concern in the
10:17:03 market because there were a lot of bonds that were not
10:17:05 validated that were issued.
10:17:06 And the bondholders on the assumption that these were
10:17:09 good bonds.
10:17:10 So they clarified that position.
10:17:12 But they did not help us in any way on dealing with
10:17:15 the fact of whether we are going to have to have an
10:17:19 election, who the election would cover.
10:17:21 On Tuesday they had oral argument on a rehearing on
10:17:23 the entire case.
10:17:25 The arguments revolved around trying to narrow the
10:17:27 decision down to the case they had before them,
10:17:30 because it wasn't a CRA case.
10:17:32 It wasn't a case during school board issues, it was a
10:17:36 case dealing with using kids but in a non-CRA context.
10:17:39 So they are trying to get the court to say, okay in,
10:17:42 this particular instance if you try to use tax
10:17:44 increment financing without a CRA it's not proper.
10:17:47 And they are trying to convince them to do that
10:17:50 because in January there were two CRA cases coming
10:17:52 before the supreme court, and the hope is that they'll
10:17:54 say, fine, we'll defer that until January, because we
10:17:57 never had any arguments on this issue.
10:18:00 They went far beyond what they were asked to do and
10:18:02 there was nobody arguing why they thought that might
10:18:05 be a good idea.
10:18:06 So if they were to come back and say, okay, we want to
10:18:09 narrowly give this particular case that issue, there
10:18:12 may be some flexibility that we have to go forward,
10:18:15 some of the things we have been trying to do.
10:18:16 >> Any indication when they will get clarified?
10:18:22 >>> The courts never give you that indication.
10:18:25 I assume it will be a fairly quick decision and from
10:18:27 the questions that were being asked by the justices,
10:18:30 there may be some leeway.
10:18:33 They were asking the right questions, at least.
10:18:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did the amicus -- were they allowed
10:18:42 to argue?
10:18:43 >> The only thing I know is former justice Grimes
10:18:45 argued the case.
10:18:46 I'm not sure if anybody else got the chance to argue.
10:18:48 Normally what they do when you have an amicus or
10:18:51 friend of the court brief, they take those comments
10:18:53 into consideration, but you are not given an
10:18:55 opportunity to speak.
10:19:01 >> Keep your fingers crossed.
10:19:03 Huge implications for our redevelopment effort.
10:19:06 >> Item 6.
10:19:09 >>> Item 6.
10:19:11 This was alluded to earlier by the chairman.
10:19:14 We were asked to schedule on a monthly basis tours of
10:19:18 our redevelopment areas.
10:19:19 We conducted one in August.
10:19:23 With two members participating.
10:19:24 Since then we have had to cancel two because of a lack
10:19:27 of interest in participation.
10:19:30 We have another one scheduled for downtown in the
10:19:33 Channel District for November 13th.
10:19:36 And I am just wanting to get direction from the board
10:19:42 if maybe the idea of doing tours is not a priority for
10:19:44 the board at this point for various reasons.
10:19:48 It takes a lot of effort on the part of the affected
10:19:53 staff to get ready for these.
10:19:54 And if it's not going to be a productive use of your
10:19:56 time, then maybe we shouldn't be planning these.
10:20:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:20:02 I can't speak for everyone.
10:20:04 But for myself, I have been touring all the CRAs for
10:20:09 67 years, almost.
10:20:10 And I'm not the smartest or the sharpest knife in the
10:20:13 drawer, but what I'm saying is it's not for a lack of
10:20:16 interest that I don't go or others don't go, it's that
10:20:18 you do have scheduling conflicts.
10:20:21 You have different things, and you have to set a
10:20:29 Come the latter part of November, early part of
10:20:31 December, I won't be here after 11:30 in the morning.
10:20:35 And I knew that going in when I ran for office.
10:20:37 And things have changed in this council as far as
10:20:40 setting dates for City Council and CRAs.
10:20:42 We never had these things before.
10:20:44 Next week, City Council meeting going to start early
10:20:49 and going to end very, very late.
10:20:51 And I'm looking at these changes and realizing that I
10:20:54 don't fit into the change.
10:20:56 But since I'm one of 7 I haven't said anything.
10:20:58 But I realize these things are coming up.
10:21:01 And it ain't for lack of interest that I don't go.
10:21:03 I just can't make it.
10:21:10 >>MARK HUEY: What I might suggest if that's reflective
10:21:13 of everyone's sentiment, we certainly, newer board
10:21:17 members made an effort.
10:21:18 I know Mary is not here but I appreciate she had taken
10:21:20 a lot of effort to do tours on her own of the area.
10:21:24 And certainly, when there is something we think is so
10:21:28 significant, like in East Tampa, the strategic plan is
10:21:31 getting ready to come forward, it may be appropriate
10:21:33 as we get near to that, that you might consider doing
10:21:37 a tour.
10:21:37 The same in Central Park as we begin to bring that
10:21:40 strategic action plan forward.
10:21:41 But if it's your pleasure, that's what I might
10:21:45 suggest, is that we save touring for matters of
10:21:50 strategic --
10:21:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think we can get a feel from the
10:21:53 different council members and just check with them,
10:21:55 let them know that.
10:21:57 >>> We are always available to tour anyone who is
10:22:01 Thank you for that direction.
10:22:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we go to item 7 we'll take
10:22:18 comments from persons, any concerns or issues that you
10:22:24 may have.
10:22:25 Any members from the public?
10:22:29 >>> Good morning.
10:22:38 I'm Angela Best and I am the new chairperson for the
10:22:42 East Tampa community partnership and it's been a busy
10:22:45 time and looking forward to doing the things that I
10:22:49 know the community says that we need to do.
10:22:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:23:01 >>> Good morning.
10:23:02 My name is Leila Young-Green, I have been listening to
10:23:09 the discussion about the proposed policy, and of
10:23:12 course we have been looking for awhile, and we did get
10:23:17 a copy of the proposal a few days ago like mark said.
10:23:22 One of the comments that I just want to -- of course
10:23:27 the board has not met all committees or all groups has
10:23:31 not met, and I could only refer to the past comments
10:23:35 from the previous policy.
10:23:38 But I took some time to go into the Florida statute
10:23:50 163 and in doing that I find that in that, at least a
10:23:55 dozen times is there a reference to neighborhood
10:23:59 participation, community representation, community
10:24:03 participation in the process, including holistic
10:24:09 community participation in the process at least a
10:24:13 dozen times.
10:24:14 I did not look to see how many times the CRA agency
10:24:16 was mentioned, and I should probably go back and do
10:24:20 But as you discuss this policy I wanted to put that
10:24:25 forward, that the attorney says that you have the
10:24:30 entire authority in determining who the community
10:24:34 board is and how it operates.
10:24:36 I'm not sure that with that number of times, talking
10:24:40 about involvement, that this board can tell the
10:24:48 community exactly how it's happening.
10:24:50 I have a discussion.
10:24:53 One of the comments that I am going to make now,
10:24:55 although we have several others, is that two of the
10:25:06 CRAs as recognized now have been in existence for
10:25:10 The only difference is that they have put together a
10:25:14 bylaw, or bylaws.
10:25:17 If we look at Tampa Heights, and I notice in mark's
10:25:22 reference to you, he talked about who is charging
10:25:26 The connection was made to the civic association.
10:25:31 Our civic association, if there is some connection,
10:25:35 has been in existence longer than these other boards
10:25:38 that you have been referring to.
10:25:41 So, therefore, the committees in our areas have three
10:25:49 people on our board, not because they are on the board
10:25:51 but because they are community people who are
10:25:54 entrusted in all of Tampa Heights and the CRA area is
10:25:56 in Tampa Heights.
10:26:00 It also has the president of the two other
10:26:02 associations that are directly affected by this.
10:26:07 It has downtown partnership representatives, it has
10:26:09 the Stetson University, it has Bush Ross.
10:26:21 I think we need to recognize those who have been there
10:26:23 longer, is the reason for the exception.
10:26:29 There are some other comments I'm sure that's going to
10:26:31 come forward as you bring these back to our
10:26:33 (Bell sounds).
10:26:34 There are some that have come out before that's in
10:26:37 your record already.
10:26:38 I just wanted to make those comments.
10:26:40 Thank you.
10:26:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you need to address the issue
10:26:45 about this board having total oversight, I think
10:26:48 Florida statute does give this board that oversight.
10:26:50 >>> Yes.
10:26:51 And I don't think they are trying to control how the
10:26:53 board operates internally.
10:26:55 What we are trying to do is set up some guidelines.
10:26:57 CRA body determines who they are going to have as
10:27:00 their representatives.
10:27:02 And I think they are going to be open to that.
10:27:04 But, at the same time, they are setting down some
10:27:06 policy, they want to make sure -- you know you set it
10:27:10 sunshine law, public records law, so a lot of these
10:27:12 deal with those issues.
10:27:13 There is an ethics policy they want as well.
10:27:15 I don't think they are trying to tell you what
10:27:17 decisions to come up with, what information that you
10:27:20 want to provide.
10:27:21 They are just saying that we need a structure, and the
10:27:23 board is saying the structure that we are going to be
10:27:25 looking for, from our advisory bodies.
10:27:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Also I think you need to make it clear
10:27:32 the Florida statute, the CRA, because it involves tax,
10:27:37 TIF dollars, that that falls under the purview of this
10:27:40 agency as well.
10:27:40 >>> That's correct.
10:27:44 >> According to Florida statute.
10:27:47 >>> Correct.
10:27:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:27:50 Anyone else?
10:27:53 No one else, okay.
10:27:56 I handed to council members or to the board -- okay,
10:28:00 anyone else want to speak?
10:28:02 If you are coming around let me know because I was
10:28:04 going to move to the next item.
10:28:05 >>> I apologize.
10:28:06 Good morning.
10:28:07 Veronica, chairperson of YCDC.
10:28:11 I would like to address a couple of the comments that
10:28:12 were made in terms of composition of the board and the
10:28:15 YCDC board.
10:28:16 I had actually been on the board for five years, and
10:28:19 chairperson the last year, and as Mr. Miranda was
10:28:24 talking about, getting people to volunteer on the
10:28:27 board is very difficult.
10:28:29 In terms of the term limits and the pool of resources.
10:28:33 And I want you to be able to appreciate, we currently
10:28:35 have approximately four vacancies, and approximately
10:28:39 30% of our board is residents of Ybor City.
10:28:44 And I know that was addressed, that you would like to
10:28:47 see more residents.
10:28:48 But seven of our board members are residents of Ybor.
10:28:52 And in terms of the term limits and the pool
10:28:55 resources, it is very difficult to get people to
10:28:58 volunteer and actively participate in the board.
10:29:01 And three years ago when we did restructure the board,
10:29:07 we had several discussions on YCDC to make sure it was
10:29:10 properly represented.
10:29:11 And I did want to just bring that up to you.
10:29:13 Thank you.
10:29:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:29:23 I had several meetings with East Tampa president, as
10:29:26 well as YCDC, and Drew Park, a number of issues that
10:29:31 were raised in my discussion, I will pass this out.
10:29:38 There was an independent audit, financial statement,
10:29:41 monthly consultant expenditures, and those items, and
10:29:45 board attorney, term limits, all those issues were
10:29:50 brought by the several persons.
10:29:53 And I think who is working with Drew Park on their
10:29:58 issues of concerns.
10:29:58 I think it was stated to me of input so he's working
10:30:03 now with them.
10:30:06 But I have raised the issue, and I was going to share
10:30:09 today, and I also said to them, I will allow the
10:30:11 opportunity to address the issue but nobody did.
10:30:14 Nobody came forth and raised them.
10:30:17 So I told them I would do it.
10:30:18 And this meeting they came to me in my office, here is
10:30:21 our issues, our concerns, and I said, okay, I will
10:30:24 allow for to you address these at our board meeting,
10:30:27 and they weren't raised today.
10:30:28 So I am handing out to you what was given to me in
10:30:31 that meeting as far as your information.
10:30:33 So those issues were raised.
10:30:35 Again, they raised the issue about the audit, and Mr.
10:30:38 Huey and I had a conversation relative to that, and he
10:30:41 assured me the that it's always an independent audit.
10:30:44 So, mark, you may want to address that now.
10:30:46 >>MARK HUEY: The CRA, as part of the city annual
10:30:53 I think most of the board members are aware of that.
10:30:57 Again, I do not know -- what you have before you are
10:31:01 very summary statements.
10:31:02 And you can just go through them quickly.
10:31:05 I don't really understand the detail behind.
10:31:09 I haven't talked to the people who brought this
10:31:12 Monthly financial statements, I know you as a board
10:31:16 received very detailed quarterly financial statements
10:31:18 that are available on our web site since the YCDC --
10:31:24 did they receive monthly financial statements?
10:31:27 We'll fix that.
10:31:28 We'll get that.
10:31:30 The quarterly statements we produce, we'll produce
10:31:35 The details, annual agency budget, that's what you are
10:31:39 approving today, on an annual basis and the financial
10:31:43 reports track against that budget.
10:31:45 Consultants expenditures, I'm not sure what that
10:31:47 means, but if I could understand that, we would be
10:31:50 glad to address that.
10:31:52 Advisory board attorney, this is under a category of
10:31:57 I think what we are planning to do, once you approve
10:32:01 this advisory policy, there will be a whole lot of
10:32:04 implementation steps.
10:32:05 One of them is we will be meeting with all board
10:32:09 members currently to explain to them the policy, and
10:32:12 our attorney will be a part of those meetings.
10:32:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would suggest, since this
10:32:19 particular item came from YCDC and some of the items
10:32:22 came from the other two groups and you may during your
10:32:25 meetings with them raise those as issues, and have
10:32:27 some discussion, okay?
10:32:29 >>> Maybe Veronica can help with that as the board
10:32:32 president to address these.
10:32:33 So we'll do that.
10:32:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here again, I'm keeping my word, and
10:32:38 that is they came to me and said these are some
10:32:41 concerns and issues, we would like to have addressed.
10:32:44 I said to them I will make sure they are addressed in
10:32:46 this meeting, I will give you the opportunity to do
10:32:48 that, I will give you the opportunity to come forward
10:32:49 to raise them.
10:32:53 All right.
10:32:54 We now move to item -- do we need to vote on these
10:33:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to at least have
10:33:04 discussion independently.
10:33:05 We probably should vote on them separately.
10:33:07 >>SAL TERRITO: You can do it either way.
10:33:09 I think it's the board's direction how you want to do
10:33:12 You can do them as a consent item or do them
10:33:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:33:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, let me just say that
10:33:22 due to the fact that the magnificent four, the ones
10:33:28 that are here now, it's going to take a unanimous vote
10:33:30 on all of these.
10:33:31 So just put that on the front burner.
10:33:34 I am not saying I am going to be against anything.
10:33:36 I'm just saying for those that are here it will
10:33:38 require a unanimous vote because there's only four.
10:33:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't need but four.
10:33:42 >>> We have four?
10:33:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Any concerns.
10:33:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just have a few questions.
10:33:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Let Mr. Dingfelder go to the ones he
10:33:58 has questions on and then we can vote on all of them.
10:34:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Magnificent five, I should say.
10:34:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have issues or concerns why don't
10:34:12 you highlight them?
10:34:12 >> On item 8, the Channelside CRA, and maybe -- I
10:34:20 don't know if you discussed this at all as related to
10:34:23 item 2, which was the arts consultant, maybe that item
10:34:30 was deferred, or deleted.
10:34:33 >>> Deleted, yes.
10:34:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
10:34:37 Item 8 only speaks to $40,000 for arts and economic
10:34:41 development initiative.
10:34:43 I recall last year, you talked about having an arts
10:34:48 consultant that by themselves was going to be more
10:34:52 money than $40,000.
10:34:53 So what's playing out?
10:34:55 >>> Yes.
10:34:56 If you will go back to the page just before that page,
10:34:59 and would be page 25, I guess.
10:35:05 And that shows last year's budget as well.
10:35:07 Do you have that page?
10:35:09 >> This year's budget.
10:35:11 That's all we printed.
10:35:13 >>> In the budget book that we distributed to you.
10:35:16 But at any rate, last year we budgeted $40,000.
10:35:19 At the time we budgeted it, we represented that we
10:35:23 would use it for an arts consultant project, and we
10:35:26 thought we would have some money left over to do some
10:35:29 follow-up marketing, branding like we have done in
10:35:32 Ybor City.
10:35:34 What actually transpired during the course of the year
10:35:37 is we have contracted with an arts consultant, and
10:35:39 their correct is going to exceed the 40 weeks set
10:35:42 aside for last year.
10:35:43 So we are budgeting 40 this year.
10:35:47 The total for the consultant, arts consultant
10:35:52 >> Actually, in negotiations very close to $40
10:35:56 >> So the 40 here we would anticipate using with the
10:35:59 follow-up we talked about last year.
10:36:01 >> So we carried over last year's 40?
10:36:04 >>> Yes.
10:36:04 We have the 40 being applied to the current contract
10:36:06 and then this new 40 will be used as follow-up for
10:36:09 that study.
10:36:09 >> Ms. Saul-Sena indicated a concern about process.
10:36:16 It seemed like it was partially addressed on item 2,
10:36:19 which was deleted.
10:36:19 >>> The reason it got deleted, I spoke with her and
10:36:23 she no longer has concerns that she wants the board to
10:36:26 get involved.
10:36:27 >> All right.
10:36:27 She's going to hear you say that on T.
10:36:30 >>> Yes.
10:36:30 If anything is wrong about what I represented, but I
10:36:33 did speak with her.
10:36:34 She had a chance to meet the consultant that we have
10:36:37 on board, and likes the direction it's going.
10:36:42 So she just wants to move on.
10:36:43 >> A couple other items.
10:36:45 On item 10 which is Drew Park CRA.
10:36:52 Under neighborhood infrastructure, one of the things I
10:36:55 noticed in Drew Park, and during my tour last year,
10:37:04 was the sidewalks.
10:37:05 And I thought, you know, when you start adding
10:37:09 sidewalks especially in some of these neighborhoods
10:37:11 that really need them, it does so much, you know, and
10:37:15 it's an infrastructure improvement that people can
10:37:19 say, there's my city at work.
10:37:22 Like Nick Nuccio, we are going to stand on Charlie
10:37:25 Miranda, you know.
10:37:26 But anyway, but in all seriousness, we have $150,000
10:37:31 on the first item, sidewalk, streetlighting,
10:37:34 landscaping, exterior beautification.
10:37:36 I think that's fantastic.
10:37:37 Then we go down to the bottom, $628,000, and talks
10:37:43 about neighborhood improvement programs, anti-and it
10:37:46 seems a little vague.
10:37:48 It's not hard infrastructure.
10:37:52 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, that's correct.
10:37:54 That's the difference between the two.
10:37:57 >> And I need a little more explanation and
10:37:59 justification on why we wouldn't want to shift more
10:38:03 money into that hard infrastructure where people can
10:38:06 see continued improvements as opposed to tell me about
10:38:09 what this bottom item is, neighborhood improvement for
10:38:13 >>> And let me just again just remind you, the budget
10:38:19 like all the budgets have been approved by the
10:38:21 So first thing you should know is their support of the
10:38:25 This part of the budget called neighborhood
10:38:27 improvement programs which speaks to adult use
10:38:30 compliance, beautification, clean-up project, code
10:38:33 enforcement, those services of the city that the Drew
10:38:37 Park community would like to see enhanced came out of
10:38:40 the strategic action plan process.
10:38:42 So what you're seeing, the plan to be implemented
10:38:46 there are additional services and programs, not unlike
10:38:49 what we did in East Tampa, where we created the clean
10:38:52 team, where we created the environmental detective,
10:38:57 things that are important to additional city services
10:38:59 for neighborhood redevelopment.
10:39:02 Those programs are being developed as we speak.
10:39:04 The first program that Jeanette has that she's working
10:39:08 on is with the Police Department on the adult use
10:39:12 compliance program, which was a very important one.
10:39:14 So that's the first one, and we are working on a
10:39:18 specific program and cost of that program with the
10:39:22 police department now.
10:39:23 So what we can do is sort of update you as we go
10:39:25 along, as these programs start to come together, and
10:39:29 we'll do that and inform you.
10:39:31 But does that answer your question?
10:39:32 So equally important to redevelopment as are the
10:39:36 physical improvements of sidewalks, to get these
10:39:39 additional services into the neighborhood.
10:39:41 >> So will we be contracting -- will the CRA be
10:39:46 contracting most of this $600,000 back to the city?
10:39:50 >>> Yes.
10:39:50 >> Or will it we be hiring private groups to do it
10:39:54 like we did with the S-group or downtown, Ybor?
10:39:59 >>> Good point.
10:40:00 Sometimes we do contract out.
10:40:01 In this case, I believe I can say in all cases this
10:40:05 will be contracting with the city.
10:40:10 This will be something that will actually come back to
10:40:12 you as an amendment to the service agreement in the
10:40:17 Once these numbers are more flushed out program by
10:40:19 program, we'll amend the service agreement, because
10:40:22 that's how these funds actually flow back to the city.
10:40:25 Right now, in the case of Drew Park service agreement,
10:40:28 the $628,000 isn't in there yet, because we don't have
10:40:33 the details worked out with the various departments.
10:40:36 But we will, and we will come back to you with an
10:40:38 That's how you will next touch it.
10:40:45 >> This is one of the reasons it's important to have
10:40:47 that mixed meeting with the neighborhood, you know,
10:40:50 because I hear what you are saying.
10:40:53 They voted on it.
10:40:54 They support it.
10:40:55 But I would like to have that dialogue when we go out
10:40:57 to doctor Drew Park and have our mixed meeting with
10:41:00 them and discuss the policy issues.
10:41:01 Because I'm okay withdrew park, it's early in its
10:41:07 And so I'm okay with it early on.
10:41:10 But I think from what I've heard from some folks in
10:41:13 Drew Park, they want to see those tangible
10:41:16 improvements, they want to see those sidewalks and
10:41:18 those curbs and those stormwater improvements,
10:41:22 et cetera, et cetera.
10:41:23 And I know on the engineering you are starting to look
10:41:26 at some of those issues.
10:41:27 >>> And again I just remind you, because that's why
10:41:30 the strategic action plans are so important.
10:41:32 And they are community based, because wherever there's
10:41:35 an option plan in place, remember, there's multiple
10:41:38 year budgets in place in those plans.
10:41:40 So these budgets are designed to be conforming in
10:41:45 material respects with those community-based five-year
10:41:49 So what you're seeing really is just in this year, an
10:41:53 implementation. Basic parameters that were set up in
10:41:56 that action plan.
10:41:57 >> Okay.
10:41:58 Do you want me to continue, Mr. Chairman?
10:42:02 On item 11 -- it's a very relevant item.
10:42:14 Actually related to Ybor and the East Tampa CRAs.
10:42:18 Which board voted on these budgets, the old board, or
10:42:23 the new board?
10:42:24 >>MARK HUEY: This budget in East Tampa is a product of
10:42:27 Mr. Kinsey's leadership and his board.
10:42:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
10:42:33 So I'm just wondering, because of the timing of it, it
10:42:39 concerns me a little bit.
10:42:42 And maybe if Madam Chairwoman is still here from East
10:42:47 Tampa, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would just love to
10:42:49 hear the fact that the new board and the new chair is
10:42:53 comfortable with this budget.
10:42:57 Because it's a budget that you're going to have to
10:42:59 live with and work with over the next year.
10:43:02 So if I could, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important.
10:43:08 >>> Good morning.
10:43:11 If I had a preference I would prefer having the new
10:43:13 board at least have an opportunity to review, because
10:43:17 we did have a lot of discussion as an old board
10:43:20 member, and I think it would be a good courtesy for us
10:43:24 to know what we are going into.
10:43:25 >> And that's the reason I asked the question.
10:43:28 It might come back where you guys are fine it with.
10:43:30 >>> Sure.
10:43:31 >> But because you had this recent transition and the
10:43:34 old board was in place for four years, you know, I
10:43:38 think it's only fair.
10:43:39 Now, there is no urgency, I know, because last year we
10:43:43 never got around to improving the budgets until like
10:43:46 November or December or something.
10:43:48 So I think we delayed it until your next meeting, you
10:43:51 had a chance to bang it around a little bit and then
10:43:54 mark can bring it back to us at our next meeting and
10:43:57 we can ratify it then.
10:43:58 I think I would be more comfortable with that.
10:44:00 >>> Thank you.
10:44:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:44:04 Let me speak on two items.
10:44:05 I think we spoke about Drew Park with sidewalks.
10:44:08 We discriminate against a lot of people who have
10:44:11 ditches, who will never have a sidewalk.
10:44:14 So we talk about helping the public, and in the same
10:44:17 tone, in the same breath, you are not going to get
10:44:21 'em, folks.
10:44:22 Would be lying to you if I was to tell you you are
10:44:25 going to get a sidewalk if you have a ditch in front
10:44:28 of your house or a business.
10:44:30 It's not going to happen.
10:44:31 Second thing I heard in this community a lot of times
10:44:32 you build something, you want a sidewalk.
10:44:35 Well, the requirements to meet the right-of-way
10:44:38 requirements to build the sidewalk are not met.
10:44:41 So then they tell you, well we are going to put a
10:44:44 sidewalk on your property.
10:44:45 The problem with that is that that's a taking of a
10:44:48 property, in my view.
10:44:50 You cannot put a sidewalk on private property.
10:44:53 It must be on the city right-of-way.
10:44:55 So what we are telling the public is we are getting
10:44:57 them really confused and really mixed up because they
10:45:00 are saying, oh, we are going to pass this, we have
10:45:02 some money to build the sidewalk, in the CRA area or
10:45:05 in the city.
10:45:07 Doesn't happen because before you can build the
10:45:09 sidewalk, you must take care of that ditch, you must
10:45:13 do that in Drew Park, which has a great majority of
10:45:15 the people that work there and live there, have
10:45:18 ditches, and you cannot accommodate the sidewalk.
10:45:21 So only a chosen few, I don't know how they are
10:45:25 chosen, they get the sidewalk.
10:45:27 It's not that we don't want to do it.
10:45:29 So we can't do it.
10:45:30 And I would like to be up front with the public not
10:45:33 only there but throughout the whole city, that we
10:45:35 don't have a format to lay down sidewalks.
10:45:39 Some individuals says I want a sidewalk.
10:45:41 There's a request taken.
10:45:42 It's processed a year or two later.
10:45:45 Thank God they get what they need.
10:45:46 But we must have a system somewhere, where these
10:45:50 allocation of funds are done, and if some part of the
10:45:53 city or some part of the CRA gets a sidewalk, what
10:45:57 about the others?
10:45:58 They don't get anything.
10:45:59 Because they have a ditch.
10:46:01 It's time that we address these things.
10:46:03 And I know there has been some money received from the
10:46:05 legislature, a million dollars or so for sewer and
10:46:09 stormwater improvement.
10:46:11 That's only a tip in the bucket.
10:46:13 And that we must address these things correlated with
10:46:18 what amount of moneys we have set forth in the budget
10:46:20 for a year or two in advance, so that if you can't get
10:46:23 a sidewalk, let's at least put the culvert in and fix
10:46:28 up your property or ditch so somewhere in the future
10:46:32 you can get a sidewalk.
10:46:33 And these things are not true to fact.
10:46:35 But as a matter of speaking, also, Mr. Dingfelder said
10:46:38 the right thing about old board and the new board, and
10:46:42 approving the budget.
10:46:43 It's the same thing here.
10:46:45 >> That's right.
10:46:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I mean I like the budget, but you
10:46:49 know what?
10:46:49 I have to agree with the system we have.
10:46:51 We can always make changes to the budget.
10:46:54 But those that did it have the experience of at least
10:46:57 doing it, they are they are right or wrong I can't
10:47:01 say, but the process we have I think is the best one
10:47:04 where they make the input, spend the amount of time
10:47:07 necessary to make sure that all the T's and I's
10:47:13 are there and we get the best product that we can out
10:47:16 of those that are there for some time and have the
10:47:18 experience in doing it.
10:47:19 When we come in, certainly as you see the resolution
10:47:22 changing the budget, almost on a weekly or monthly
10:47:27 There's nothing wrong with that.
10:47:28 But I think that the concrete and the distribution of
10:47:30 funds should be done by those that have been there and
10:47:33 are leaving just like happened in the city and in the
10:47:35 county and every other government that I know.
10:47:37 So I think the plan that we have works.
10:47:42 I think the frustration of those that come in, because
10:47:45 sometimes we bear the same frustration.
10:47:47 So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
10:47:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just follow up on that.
10:47:52 And let me just say to the president of East Tampa,
10:47:55 thank you for serving.
10:47:56 And my only comment would be is what you just said,
10:47:59 and I'm not going to highlight, and that is the
10:48:02 process in place, even in government.
10:48:03 I mean, even Congress, the president.
10:48:07 Going out, coming in.
10:48:08 You have to live with that budget for that year.
10:48:09 And keep in mind, it's going to happen the same way
10:48:12 when they go out, they are going to have a budget and
10:48:14 the next person coming in, they are going to live with
10:48:16 that budget for at least a year.
10:48:17 It doesn't mean you can't go back and make some
10:48:21 amendments and that sort of thing.
10:48:23 That's a very valid point.
10:48:26 >>CHAIRMAN: I would like to move items 7 through 14.
10:48:28 >> Second.
10:48:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:48:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
10:48:42 I guess I wanted to hear from the Ybor president as
10:48:45 well to see if she had her druthers.
10:48:50 In terms of taking it back.
10:48:53 We have already heard from East Tampa.
10:48:55 But -- Mrs. Switech?
10:49:09 >>> We have not had elections.
10:49:11 We postponed those to last month.
10:49:13 >> So you are in a slightly different posture.
10:49:17 Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I can't support
10:49:19 the motion.
10:49:20 The motion as it's bundled.
10:49:23 I can support all these budgets but out of deference
10:49:26 to East Tampa and out of deference to the chair, who
10:49:28 has spoken to us, I can't support that.
10:49:33 If the maker of the motion wants to excise the East
10:49:36 Tampa budget I'll support all the other budgets with
10:49:39 great enthusiasm and I would like to defer the East
10:49:42 Tampa budget for the one month so we can get -- that's
10:49:50 why I can't support the motion.
10:49:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me suggest we extract out for
10:49:55 separate vote East Tampa and, what, Ybor City?
10:49:59 We'll just take that out for separate vote.
10:50:04 Just one question on Drew Park.
10:50:06 Just observation.
10:50:08 You only have 75,000 for affordable housing initiative
10:50:12 in the budget, in Drew Park, in Drew Park.
10:50:15 And look at that next time around, on improving that.
10:50:19 And then the issue that Mr. Miranda raised about the
10:50:29 >>SAL TERRITO: I think we have a motion and second on
10:50:30 the floor.
10:50:31 If you want to change that you have to --
10:50:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Change what?
10:50:35 >> A motion and second on the floor and you have to
10:50:37 ask the person if ho made the motion if he or she is
10:50:40 willing to --
10:50:42 >>GWEN MILLER: That's me.
10:50:44 Which one do you want to take up?
10:50:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are just going to vote on East
10:50:49 Tampa separately.
10:50:51 >>GWEN MILLER: I make that motion.
10:50:52 I'll move that we move item 7, including 11 through
10:50:57 >> Second.
10:51:00 (Motion carried).
10:51:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
10:51:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Now move item 11.
10:51:09 >> Second.
10:51:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I only have one question.
10:51:12 First item on the beautification, about the corridors
10:51:15 and all of that.
10:51:16 Does that include the -- I know you have another area,
10:51:18 the other ponds and other area.
10:51:20 But does it include the pond on 34th street?
10:51:27 I like the picture you have up there but it's been
10:51:29 there a long time.
10:51:33 >>> You are correct, Mr. Chairman.
10:51:35 The beautification major corridors, this is money
10:51:38 being set aside for design and engineering for 22nd
10:51:43 street, 29th and 34th streets.
10:51:45 The ponds are covered under the capital improvement
10:51:50 area, where we have dollars set aside.
10:51:53 Those are for the additional dollars that were put
10:51:57 into the contract to do three demonstration --
10:52:01 34th street at Fairoaks, also the Martin Luther
10:52:04 King, and also the one at 22nd.
10:52:08 Middle school.
10:52:09 So those are being covered as capital improvement
10:52:14 >> I saw that the on the retention pond,
10:52:16 beautification, 700,000 set aside for. That but it
10:52:19 talks about the second pond.
10:52:23 So it does not include the one on 34th street.
10:52:26 >>> 34th was funded out of '05 and 06 and 07
10:52:31 The money was already there for the project.
10:52:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's '04, 05, 0, 08, when are we
10:52:42 going to get it done?
10:52:43 >>> They were given the order to proceed two weeks
10:52:45 ago, they are on-site and they are going to be
10:52:47 starting with the actual construction of that
10:52:50 construction project by the end of the month.
10:52:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then Ms. Best, you understand what
10:52:55 council is doing now?
10:52:56 It does not mean you cannot go back and review the
10:52:59 budget and have budget amendments.
10:53:01 I want to recognize.
10:53:05 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
10:53:09 Voting for East Tampa.
10:53:10 Just East Tampa.
10:53:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for purposes of sending it
10:53:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no.
10:53:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to move on here.
10:53:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I move the resolution 15.
10:53:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on that.
10:53:36 I don't know who drafted this or whatever.
10:53:37 But are there any changes from last year?
10:53:45 It's hard for me to compare this year to last year
10:53:52 On the contract between the CRA and the city.
10:53:54 >>SAL TERRITO: The major difference is we gave you, I
10:53:58 think, eight different contracts.
10:54:00 Last year they all carried the same areas.
10:54:02 We combined them all into one document to make it
10:54:06 We also included East Tampa as a separate item because
10:54:08 that was the one that has a slight difference in it
10:54:10 from the other one.
10:54:11 So it's the same that you have been getting.
10:54:13 In one document rather than eight documents.
10:54:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by councilwoman Miller,
10:54:23 All right.
10:54:23 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
10:54:26 So moved.
10:54:27 All right.
10:54:28 The last item is the East Tampa strategic action plan
10:54:31 It's our last item.
10:54:33 And then we'll probably meet our deadline, okay?
10:54:38 >> MARK HUEY: I turn the meeting over to Keith ranger,
10:54:44 the lead consultant on our strategic action plan that
10:54:47 is underway, has been underway for about six months in
10:54:49 East Tampa.
10:54:50 And he has a PowerPoint presentation that he's going
10:54:53 to take you through to update you on the progress and
10:54:58 some of their preliminary work.
10:55:04 To bring you up to date.
10:55:08 >>> Good morning.
10:55:10 Keith Grimmager, Line Director for URS Corporation.
10:55:13 Thank you for giving us the opportunity.
10:55:17 I think we need to bring up the PowerPoint.
10:55:21 There we go.
10:55:22 Thank you very much.
10:55:25 I have a lot of information to get through here so
10:55:27 I'll try to move as quickly as possible.
10:55:33 We'll walk you through today the process that is under
10:55:35 review, the market analysis, community needs survey
10:55:39 that's under way.
10:55:41 Future land use recommendation, what has taken place
10:55:45 on 22nd street, and the private sector interviews that
10:55:49 we did, and then walk you through our next steps.
10:55:52 Very quickly here.
10:55:54 We began this process late last year, end November,
10:55:59 and basically been gathering information to get the
10:56:02 plan for what has taken place in East Tampa, and the
10:56:06 community redevelopment plan that was in place.
10:56:08 With that we've done a variety of meetings with the
10:56:11 stakeholders from the partnership group, and we have
10:56:15 updated the new Executive Committee.
10:56:17 The subcommittees, we have had a couple of community
10:56:20 workshops, as I mentioned we talked to the private
10:56:22 sector about East Tampa in particular as well and I'll
10:56:25 walk you through some of that.
10:56:26 We have done monthly progress updates with mark and
10:56:29 his staff.
10:56:32 Ed, we meat on a regular basis and his staff.
10:56:34 We have done some infrastructure analysis,
10:56:37 operating -- bring some of that information to you.
10:56:39 We have talked about some of financial review both
10:56:42 from a market study, community needs, system analysis
10:56:47 and funding opportunities.
10:56:48 And we also began to identify some development
10:56:51 patterns that we'll review with you and talk about
10:56:55 some of our recommendations as we go through the
10:56:59 The previous board we know was done with you all back
10:57:03 in July and brought you up to date.
10:57:06 We are going to review the status of some of the major
10:57:09 We are basically halfway through this process.
10:57:12 And ultimately we are going to bring some
10:57:13 recommendations to you that we'll talk about
10:57:16 infrastructures and zoning, development opportunities,
10:57:19 schedule, and the TIF allocations.
10:57:23 Some of the land use changes are already in process.
10:57:28 One of the things that we'll be talking about very
10:57:30 quickly here is some of the infrastructure
10:57:33 When we go through the analysis of the infrastructure
10:57:36 we look at stormwater, water resources, sidewalks,
10:57:40 lighting, parks, transportation, code enforcement,
10:57:44 power and communications, trying to understand the
10:57:46 state of the infrastructure within the community.
10:57:50 What you see before you is a graphic that represents
10:57:53 Hillsborough Avenue.
10:57:54 Hillsborough Avenue right now is seven lanes, traffic
10:58:00 section, and what we are going to be recommending is
10:58:03 as we look forward to look at the intersection
10:58:06 There's no more right-of-way to expand the road so
10:58:09 what we can do is work on intersection improvements
10:58:12 and try to replace that center suicide lane as it's
10:58:17 often called, to look at intersections and landscaping
10:58:20 and left turn lanes to begin an area of refuge, very
10:58:28 much like down Kennedy Boulevard.
10:58:32 We have also done a very quick look at the market
10:58:34 analysis and five year projections, understand how the
10:58:38 population and East Tampa is moving forward.
10:58:40 It's outgrowing both the city and the county.
10:58:45 The demand for housing, for-sale housing will
10:58:49 increase, and quite honestly during the past five
10:58:53 years, from 2001 to 2006 there's been over 200% growth
10:58:59 in housing in East Tampa and that's a good sign.
10:59:04 The market I have for rental units is 98% saturated,
10:59:11 pretty much full, but this represents about 25% of
10:59:14 lower rates than what is to support new construction
10:59:19 so there's a lot of rental property there but it's
10:59:21 below the standards.
10:59:22 As new projects come on, we'll be looking to upgrade
10:59:26 Office market, there's about 60 to 100,000 square feet
10:59:32 of office space, over the next five years, having an
10:59:35 It's up 11% just from the past year in East Tampa,
10:59:39 from 2006, 2007.
10:59:42 But the average rate is about 20% below county
10:59:47 So lots of opportunity there.
10:59:49 It's growing.
10:59:50 And the rates are rising but it's still below the
10:59:53 county averages.
10:59:55 There would be a demand for new retail between 70 to
10:59:58 90,000 square feet.
11:00:00 The vacancy rate is very low, about 5%.
11:00:03 But again here, the rental rates are below the county
11:00:07 And the development growth and absorption in the
11:00:10 industry remain solid over the past few years.
11:00:15 That's the market update.
11:00:16 The community needs survey.
11:00:18 We are going through this with the CDC and University
11:00:20 of South Florida.
11:00:21 And working this.
11:00:24 The additional funding from the children's board.
11:00:26 It's going to be a resident driven assessment, to
11:00:29 understand the decision making.
11:00:31 Focus will be on social service, education, economic
11:00:35 This is going to be an important opportunity for us to
11:00:37 get feedback.
11:00:38 It was started in July.
11:00:40 We hope to be complete with that in March and
11:00:45 complementing the overall study.
11:00:46 This will be in conjunction with the social compacts
11:00:51 done city-wide, and that is due by the end of this
11:00:54 year so we'll have a lot of good survey information to
11:00:56 help us understand the economics.
11:01:04 This is a redevelopment strategy we are beginning to
11:01:07 What you see is a variety of areas that we have looked
11:01:08 at and recognized, where -- largely where development
11:01:13 is now taking place.
11:01:16 And one of our strategic plans is to continue to
11:01:19 assist those development areas and keep that ball
11:01:22 rolling, so to speak, the areas in green are areas
11:01:24 that we see that are areas of interest, where activity
11:01:28 is currently taking place, the black circles represent
11:01:32 major gateways, that come into the community.
11:01:34 Those on the east are actually city gateways, not only
11:01:38 CRA district gateways.
11:01:40 Then a variety of corridor redevelopments both from a
11:01:43 mixed use, a residential corridor, and industrial
11:01:48 Largely, what we took to the community is to have them
11:01:51 fully understand what land use is all about.
11:01:54 And basically, what you see in this diagram on the
11:01:57 bottom of the page here, from left to right, we go
11:02:01 from the rural to the suburban, to urban transitional,
11:02:07 urban space and urban core.
11:02:11 East Tampa lies from that center page to the right.
11:02:13 East Tampa is on the urban fridge.
11:02:15 These are how land use policies are brought on board
11:02:17 and this is what this tries to implement, is the
11:02:20 development process by which land is developed.
11:02:24 So on the next slide, began to describe to them how
11:02:29 this land use differs from zoning.
11:02:31 People tend to not completely understand that.
11:02:33 And as you can see, land use is more of a policy,
11:02:36 where zoning is a regulation.
11:02:37 Land use is long-term, zoning is more short term.
11:02:41 It's general in nature from a land use standpoint.
11:02:45 Zoning is very specific.
11:02:46 And it's zoning implements and the biggest portion
11:02:51 here is land use is a state policy.
11:02:54 Zoning is a local policy.
11:02:57 Process and time constraints than we go through are
11:03:01 So how does this come in to play from a redevelopment
11:03:05 You can see the smallest circles really get into the
11:03:08 land use and zoning but those are part of the bigger
11:03:10 picture with incentives, and infrastructure
11:03:13 improvements that bring redevelopment to a community.
11:03:16 So as you go through this, these are all the things
11:03:18 that come in to play to try to bring redevelopment to
11:03:21 the table, and in essence grow that TIF.
11:03:26 So this is our existing land use plan, in East Tampa,
11:03:29 as you can see.
11:03:30 As ed mentioned earlier it's huge.
11:03:34 Over 7 square miles.
11:03:37 It can be 8 to 9% of the city's entire population was
11:03:41 in this region.
11:03:42 So with that, the land use has been adopted.
11:03:46 Needs some updating.
11:03:47 And what we do here is you can see largely it's the
11:03:52 corridor along Hillsborough Avenue, and some major
11:03:57 In fact go back, the red, it goes to some of the blue,
11:04:00 and what we are proposing here is going from a heavy
11:04:04 commercial to a UMU 60.
11:04:08 That's urban mixed use.
11:04:10 Now, the point to recognize here is that this is a
11:04:14 more inclusive land use.
11:04:17 Ware not eliminating any of the existing uses that
11:04:19 take place under the heavy commercial, but going to an
11:04:23 urban mixed use, we actually add residential to that
11:04:27 Same category still exists.
11:04:29 We are adding residential.
11:04:30 And what this does as a long-term basis of what land
11:04:34 use is, it opens up a variety of opportunities to the
11:04:37 development industry to look at different land uses.
11:04:40 And this again relates back to the strategic plan in
11:04:44 the sense that you can see where those nodes that we
11:04:48 talked about earlier come into play and those are the
11:04:50 areas that we are focusing on for land use.
11:04:56 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm looking at the two maps.
11:04:58 The existing land use and then the proposed.
11:05:00 And I don't know if I'm reading it wrong.
11:05:03 The big red circles, are those --
11:05:10 >>> Unfortunately the printout, if you can follow the
11:05:13 If we can get back to the screen I'll show you the
11:05:15 The printout unfortunately prints the last piece of
11:05:18 the PowerPoint.
11:05:19 So what you have here, --
11:05:23 >> Oh, we don't have that.
11:05:24 >>> Yes.
11:05:24 What you have in your booklet, and this is confusing
11:05:27 as well when explaining this to the community.
11:05:29 This is the existing future land use.
11:05:32 And what we are proposing here is the proposed future
11:05:35 land use.
11:05:36 You see the difference up along the top of the sheet
11:05:39 there is largely the blue change.
11:05:43 >> Right.
11:05:44 Our problems problem is beef circles on top of that
11:05:47 >>> Your package represents this and it's a printout
11:05:50 issue with PowerPoint.
11:05:51 >> I'm glad to see that because I couldn't see.
11:05:53 >>> Here, if you can look at this, and this, are the
11:06:07 Now the red circles show where land use changes are
11:06:10 going to be recommended.
11:06:11 Orange ones are where land use are currently active
11:06:14 but those are areas that we have already identified.
11:06:17 So with that, after we have gone through this, our
11:06:21 next step is that we made these recommendations, we
11:06:26 worked with the land use community at-large, the
11:06:29 city's Planning Commission, and this will move forward
11:06:33 as the city staff will process this as far as the
11:06:35 overall community comprehensive plan update.
11:06:39 That's why we contained of move to the forefront on
11:06:41 our process here.
11:06:42 Planning Commission will be under review.
11:06:44 And then it will come back to you as City Council to
11:06:47 make -- these recommendations and then will be
11:06:52 submitted to the Department of Community Affairs for
11:06:54 states for adoption hopefully in mid 2008.
11:06:56 Very quickly, that was the land use recommendation in
11:07:00 the process we are going through, basically just to
11:07:03 coincide with the city's comprehensive plan update.
11:07:08 22nd street is an important issue.
11:07:10 And what we have identified here is how we are
11:07:14 strategically looking at 22nd street, and the
11:07:17 improvements that are going forward, and this
11:07:22 community to see some action there.
11:07:26 As I walk you through this, I want you to understand
11:07:29 that we are looking at this, variety of alternatives,
11:07:31 and we don't necessarily have the answer yet, but we
11:07:34 also want you to understand the issues at hand.
11:07:36 As you can see, that little red area consists of about
11:07:41 49 different properties with 45 different ownerships.
11:07:46 It's about 7 acres.
11:07:47 The land use right now, as you see the red along the
11:07:51 street corridor, is actually heavy commercial, the
11:07:54 yellow right behind it is residential.
11:07:57 And from a zoning standpoint is commercial intensive,
11:08:01 with RS 16 which is the number of units per acre that
11:08:05 you can deferral on that.
11:08:07 As we go forward, we take a look at this and say, if
11:08:17 you want to redevelop this, land use and zoning
11:08:21 changes, you have to have street closures and some
11:08:23 private market.
11:08:30 There are some constraints as you go into the next
11:08:33 There are constraints that deal with this.
11:08:35 Largely, it's the 49 parcels and 45 different owners.
11:08:40 It's very time consuming.
11:08:42 Probably anywhere between 10 to $20 million in value.
11:08:47 We assume that there would be some holdouts, and don't
11:08:50 know if the market interest is there.
11:08:54 It would reduce the availability of the TIF within the
11:08:57 overall CRA, and public infrastructure and economic
11:09:02 development assistance, neighborhood public
11:09:04 improvement program, these would all fall wayside or
11:09:07 at least be diminished if we tried to move forward
11:09:09 with that particular plan.
11:09:10 So with that, we looked at another strategy.
11:09:13 What if we would said, what if it becomes residential?
11:09:16 Right now, we have Belmont Heights project right
11:09:19 across the street, been very successful.
11:09:21 This is on that edge.
11:09:22 This is an opportunity maybe just to continue the
11:09:24 residential development along here.
11:09:28 The opportunity with that is the area primarily
11:09:32 residential, it requires only 18 parcels to assemble,
11:09:35 and it could be less costly and less time consuming.
11:09:38 That's one alternative.
11:09:39 Another strategy would be to as we look at providing
11:09:43 the public infrastructure, and right now there are
11:09:46 some upgrades happening on 22nd Avenue, we are working
11:09:49 with the traffic consultant and seeing how does that
11:09:55 bring an opportunity to make some improvement?
11:09:57 Just along the street grade with transportation
11:09:59 improvements, sidewalk improvements, lighting, what
11:10:02 are those aspects and how does that help us?
11:10:05 The next one would be -- go ahead.
11:10:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:10:10 So existing, when we look at this map where you have
11:10:13 got the most recent one with the residential option,
11:10:18 it's currently mostly commercial, heavy industrial?
11:10:23 >>> Yes, ma'am.
11:10:24 Heavy commercial.
11:10:24 >> Heavy commercial, okay.
11:10:26 My question is, as opposed to just looking at this as
11:10:30 residential, why aren't when looking at it as retail,
11:10:34 kind of small business, creating a neighborhood, you
11:10:38 know, maybe mixed use with residential and retail?
11:10:43 Because that seems to me that's what's missing in
11:10:45 these communities, is there's no corner stores, no
11:10:52 >>> Right.
11:10:53 One of the things we looked at in going through this
11:10:55 process, and those commercial businesses that are
11:10:58 currently there right now, they are so to speak
11:11:03 grandfathered in, on how they were developed, to
11:11:05 redevelop that today with the stormwater requirements,
11:11:10 parking requirements, it would consume more land than
11:11:13 what the individual properties actually can hold.
11:11:17 And so there's real issues with that.
11:11:19 So you would really have to probably take on the whole
11:11:23 block which means the residential portion.
11:11:26 And let me get back to this side here.
11:11:31 The yellow on the backside is residential.
11:11:32 You would have to absorb that property as well and
11:11:36 change the land use.
11:11:39 So the development standards today for parking and
11:11:43 stormwater, in particular, really don't make these
11:11:47 frontage parcels, when this was originally -- the land
11:11:51 use was adopted it was only those parcels that were
11:11:54 immediately adjacent to the roadway.
11:11:55 And those were old residential, not that they were
11:11:59 converted to commercial, and the commercial
11:12:00 development went in.
11:12:02 Today's standards, there's not enough depth and width
11:12:06 in those properties to make today's standards of
11:12:08 commercial development applicable.
11:12:10 So you have to buy the properties, and that's again
11:12:15 why we go from 45 parcels to 18 parcels if we keep
11:12:18 this residential.
11:12:19 Again, that's just two different scenarios.
11:12:23 Nd and I understand your question.
11:12:25 And as we go through these other scenarios, if I can
11:12:28 get up to where we were, the infrastructure
11:12:31 improvement was the street and such, and then the
11:12:33 third one would be the possibility of facade grant
11:12:39 Take those existing businesses and just kind of clean
11:12:42 them up.
11:12:44 Gussy them up a bit.
11:12:45 Look at the facade program that would come into play.
11:12:48 And then lastly would be to whether or not we just
11:12:53 wait for the market to turn.
11:12:54 Market to turn may be some time.
11:12:57 Concern we have here is that there is a lot of
11:13:00 community interest in this corridor, which we
11:13:04 But the timing may be wrong.
11:13:06 And -- yes, ma'am.
11:13:10 >> It's interesting to me because the housing, it's
11:13:12 not a great tame for more residential.
11:13:14 And this makes so much sense to me, this facade
11:13:17 It would cost the least.
11:13:19 It would be -- you know, you don't really need any
11:13:22 land use change if that's what is there already.
11:13:26 I think what we need is to support the good log
11:13:30 businesses, clean it up, make it attractive, and then
11:13:33 the economic development happens if people want to buy
11:13:38 into that area.
11:13:39 Just a more organic way to do it than like, you know,
11:13:42 of course it's hard to buy the whole block of lots and
11:13:45 turn it into something brand new.
11:13:48 But if we have already got some --
11:13:51 >>> that's why 2 and 3 go hand in hand.
11:13:54 We are trying to understand what the improvements on
11:13:55 the corridor are going to be, and how does that impact
11:13:59 those businesses?
11:14:01 One of the things that we have found to our other
11:14:05 involvement with CRAs, when we loot look at this,
11:14:08 the property lines and the right-of-way are pretty
11:14:11 invisible when you get out there.
11:14:13 So how businesses are utilizing the public
11:14:15 right-of-way for additional parking for their space,
11:14:19 are their dumpster location or any of those kind of
11:14:22 things, will be flushed out through this process.
11:14:24 So we understand where the true property line lies and
11:14:28 how that is being utilized with either a sidewalk, a
11:14:31 lighting and landscaping and other issues that are
11:14:33 part of that right-of-way infrastructure.
11:14:35 So you bring up a very good point.
11:14:38 That's why we are looking at all different scenarios
11:14:46 Did you have a question?
11:14:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As one part of the -- one of these
11:14:51 strategies the possibility that the city could buy,
11:14:56 you know, one of these lots and turn it into a
11:15:02 communal parking area and the possibility that we
11:15:04 could then waive parking requirements for some of
11:15:06 these future existing or future businesses?
11:15:10 >>> No doubt.
11:15:11 Those are all actions as property comes available, and
11:15:16 strategically look at some parking, and one of the
11:15:18 things that the city is going through right now under
11:15:21 its chapter 27 rules that we are working with is
11:15:25 having remote parking within greater distances.
11:15:31 Previously it was like 75 feet to 100 feet.
11:15:33 We are talking now with the possibility of it being
11:15:36 about 1,000 feet or 5-minute walk.
11:15:39 So you're right.
11:15:40 Those are all options that we will continue to look at
11:15:46 Again, strategic focus on 22nd street with the
11:15:49 improvement that is are going on right now.
11:15:51 So what other variety of options.
11:15:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm thinking about in Ybor City,
11:15:55 you have got all that parking that runs parallel with
11:15:58 7th Avenue, behind the businesses.
11:16:02 But it's city parking, some nominal, you know,
11:16:10 cleaners and that kind of thing but at the same time
11:16:12 it serves everybody so that way each of those
11:16:15 individual old businesses an buildings have their own
11:16:18 >> And again, as we are looking at the community
11:16:22 holistically and seeing where those market trends are,
11:16:25 that we see that I think housing in East Tampa by
11:16:30 for-sale in the past five years has gone up 200%.
11:16:33 I know the housing market in general is down.
11:16:35 But that urban fringe area has been serving very well.
11:16:41 Housing still goes there.
11:16:43 The rental rates are 98% full.
11:16:46 There's some opportunity there.
11:16:47 So, you know, what we read in the newspaper and what
11:16:51 we understand about market condition, this is looking
11:16:53 at this very specifically.
11:16:55 This area in particular.
11:16:56 So that's why we thought we need to look at all those
11:17:00 options to understand what the opportunities are
11:17:02 And mixture of something is probably going to be the
11:17:05 best answer.
11:17:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I like this option because it's
11:17:11 development of the neighborhood within a neighborhood.
11:17:14 You're not starting with -- you're working with what
11:17:17 they have, and with people that are there.
11:17:20 >>> Absolutely.
11:17:20 And we understand that as well.
11:17:22 If we can get back to the slide show.
11:17:25 One of the issues that we wanted to talk about is at
11:17:31 the bottom of this one page here, we bring up a note
11:17:36 to understand that, you know, as we have gone through
11:17:39 our study, as I mentioned, 22nd street and make may
11:17:47 not be the near-term investment right now.
11:17:49 We may have to wait a little while and look at the
11:17:51 other redevelopment opportunities that take place in
11:17:54 the overall CRA.
11:17:55 And as I remind the community when we go to it that
11:18:00 the TIF is not a spending budget, it's an investment
11:18:04 So as we grow the other portions of the CRA, to add to
11:18:10 that TIF and bring those dollar amounts up, this may
11:18:13 be a more strategic investment later on as the vote
11:18:21 that needs to take place.
11:18:22 I know everyone is anxious to see something happen
11:18:24 right away.
11:18:25 Marketing is fickle.
11:18:26 You have to find the right timing for that.
11:18:28 But keep going here.
11:18:29 I apologize as we are going through this.
11:18:33 One of the things that we did is we went through and
11:18:35 met with about a dozen private sector developers and
11:18:40 asked them, you know, how did they feel about East
11:18:43 And are they currently there?
11:18:45 Are they interested in moving forward?
11:18:52 We got a variety of responses.
11:18:54 A lot of people identified strength.
11:18:57 The social compact study will be very important to
11:18:59 understand true economics of East Tampa.
11:19:03 There's no doubt its location is on that urban fringe.
11:19:07 It's sitting between two major employment bases, USF
11:19:11 and downtown.
11:19:12 So there's good opportunities there.
11:19:15 You know, the connections that take place with the
11:19:19 Crosstown is the light rail corridor has three
11:19:24 identified stops in East Tampa as that comes on board.
11:19:27 So long-term is very positive opportunity there.
11:19:30 And right now you have a community that relies largely
11:19:34 on public transit.
11:19:35 So this may be a good opportunity for us, a pilot
11:19:38 program or testing of that first transit.
11:19:41 On the other hand, some of the weaknesses.
11:19:45 There's concerns about increased density as it comes
11:19:48 into there.
11:19:49 The level of roadways along some of the major
11:19:52 corridors will continue to need upgrading so there are
11:19:56 infrastructure issues there.
11:19:57 The general appearance of the major roadways and
11:20:02 throughout are concerning to the development
11:20:06 And then one of the bigger issues is, East Tampa is
11:20:10 made up of literally thousands of small parcels, large
11:20:14 parcel of congregation for development is an issue and
11:20:20 takes time, as we just showed on that 22nd street
11:20:23 scenario, 45 owners, to get any kind of acreage
11:20:28 together for development as the new standards would
11:20:29 require is a time consuming process.
11:20:33 So as we go forward, the talks are underway, we are
11:20:38 finishing the community survey, we are finalizing
11:20:41 infrastructure review to understand all of the aspects
11:20:43 of this.
11:20:44 We are looking at some incentives and what it would
11:20:47 take to increase redevelopment there.
11:20:51 We will develop the strategic plan in a draft form,
11:20:53 and will also then look at how the TIF supports this
11:20:56 plan and vice versa, how the plan supports the TIF.
11:21:02 From the time standpoint we would very much, as mark
11:21:05 talked about earlier, would like to take you on a tour
11:21:08 to understand the vision that we see, and granted we
11:21:11 have to walk you through it, but we see the areas that
11:21:13 we think we can approach more readily, on a short
11:21:19 term, first year, five year, and then long-term,
11:21:22 understanding that.
11:21:23 The Chamber of Commerce is going to give you a tour
11:21:26 next month to understand basically the same
11:21:28 opportunities as well.
11:21:30 We will bring a draft plan to you shortly after the
11:21:33 first of the year for you to review, and we will also
11:21:35 take that to the community at large.
11:21:41 Based on that, we'll take recommendations.
11:21:43 And I hope to finalize this in March or April with a
11:21:49 community workshop that basically shows them the
11:21:52 effort that we and the community have put forth, and
11:21:54 then deliver that to you for approval in April.
11:21:59 But that is our process.
11:22:01 Lastly, I guess, Ed mentioned to me, said, what do we
11:22:05 need from CRA board?
11:22:07 And obviously ourselves and the staff, your support,
11:22:15 your understanding.
11:22:15 What we are trying to do here in the larger sense is
11:22:19 really bring forth a smart growth plan, a plan that
11:22:25 incorporates the ideas of sustainability, and what
11:22:28 that means is that because of East Tampa's location
11:22:32 near this urban fringe is that as projects come before
11:22:36 you, densities should be increased.
11:22:40 And not just because of the infrastructure that's
11:22:42 already in place and the improvements that we are
11:22:44 looking to make here, but we want to keep the city as
11:22:48 its core for right now and this edge to continue to
11:22:51 support that.
11:22:52 So as these land use changes, and the other
11:22:57 redevelopment opportunities move forward, the
11:23:01 opportunity to be very smart about how we are going to
11:23:03 support the continued growth of not only this
11:23:06 community but the state as a whole brings forth, and
11:23:09 how we implement that.
11:23:11 So if you have any questions, I would be glad to
11:23:14 answer them for you.
11:23:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any more questions?
11:23:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a quick comment on this
11:23:20 proposed tour, Mr. Johnson took me on a tour about
11:23:24 three years or so, and I would definitely love to go
11:23:27 on -- I know a lot of things are exciting and
11:23:31 I would love to go on another tour.
11:23:33 I don't know, if we don't do a group tour I'll do an
11:23:35 individual tour.
11:23:36 But if we can pull off a group tour in East Tampa I
11:23:39 would prefer that.
11:23:41 >>> One of the things that's interest being East Tampa
11:23:43 being as large as it is, 7 square miles, there's a lot
11:23:46 going on there.
11:23:49 There's hundreds and millions of dollars of private
11:23:52 sector and public sector money invested, either in
11:23:55 road improvements, new schools, park, several new
11:23:58 apartments and residential developments happening.
11:24:00 It's just that it's so big, it's hard.
11:24:03 So walking through those, or driving through those,
11:24:06 seeing those, and how do we work with those catalysts
11:24:09 to continue to expand the redevelopment opportunities
11:24:11 is one of the major focuses of our plan.
11:24:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Grimmager
11:24:20 is up there, I am going to embarrass him but he's very
11:24:22 involved, probably the chair of the dragon boat
11:24:25 committee for our community.
11:24:28 And -- looking like a dragon.
11:24:30 >>> That's what happens when you go down under.
11:24:33 >> But they went down to Australia and they brought
11:24:35 back, and bringing back the international dragon boat
11:24:39 races, in what year?
11:24:41 >>> 2011.
11:24:43 15 nations to Tampa.
11:24:44 >> And we really appreciate your efforts on that as
11:24:46 well as this, of course.
11:24:48 But I just wanted to mention that and thank you and
11:24:50 your team for doing that.
11:24:51 >>> Thank you, John, appreciate it.
11:24:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I was just going to say to John I have
11:24:57 done the tour with ed and I have had three tours of
11:24:59 East Tampa.
11:25:00 So I am going to wait a little bit.
11:25:04 But if you have got something new to show me I'm ready
11:25:06 to go.
11:25:07 And I read in the paper that they are supposed to
11:25:13 bring $25 million?
11:25:15 >>> Yes, ma'am.
11:25:16 >> People coming from all over the world for it?
11:25:19 >>> Yes.
11:25:19 This is the world championship.
11:25:20 So we just came back, as John mentioned, from Sydney,
11:25:24 There were 22 nations represented down there.
11:25:28 The IDBS, international dragon boat federation, really
11:25:31 likes Tampa's strategic global location to be able to
11:25:34 attract south American and middle American countries
11:25:38 here as well.
11:25:38 So that's what they do.
11:25:41 We didn't come up with that.
11:25:43 So we are going to be busy the next few years.
11:25:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much for the
11:25:49 I want to thank the board members for being here
11:25:53 Very productive meeting.
11:25:54 And Mr. Huey and his staff for being here.
11:25:57 Very good presentation.
11:25:59 Are there any other questions?
11:26:01 Receive and file.
11:26:02 >> Receive and file the documents.
11:26:04 >> Second.
11:26:05 (Motion carried).
11:26:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other business?
11:26:10 If not we stand adjourned.
11:26:12 Thank you.
11:26:12 (CRA meeting adjourned)